The constitution does not grant the right to defendants to ramble on endlessly on unrelated topics. I get it, you watched some youtube videos where the judge let them ramble and think it must be required. You shouldn’t believe everything you see on youtube. It’s entertainment, not facts. Sometimes it’s both, but not often.
You’re arguments just don’t hold any water. After covid nearly every court and jail has the capacity to do trial by video. Yet you think the very few who don’t make it so the majority must spend hours on a 15 minute procedure. You somehow think the prosecution doesn’t bring all the identification evidence to trail normally? It’s all in the file. The judge simply needs to turn the page. Does that add minutes to the procedure, maybe, but not hours.
I am not defending thier courtroom behavior, I am pointing out that their are systems in place to keep the impact of their behaviour to a minimum, just because of thier egos, judges generally don’t choose to use those systems. It’s not an either or situation. Both parties can be the cause of the issue.
They don’t need the defendant to do anything to confirm they are who they are supposed to be. Where do you get this? The prosecution can provide fingerprint evidence, ID from the file, not the person… judge can ask once “are you …”. If the answer is not yes or no, he can warn them that the prosecutions evidence will be dnough if they don’t answer. And if yhey still don’t, just accept that evidrnce and move on. 5 minutes tops.
If they keep interrupting, move them to a room where they join by video and are muted when it isn’t thier turn to speak. This “can” be done. But the judges I have knowledge don’t tend to choose efficiency.
Yeah, this is true of anyone making life changes based on the advice of youtubers. Most people are just trying to take control of thier life from all the constraints society and capitalism puts on them to extract as much gdp from them as possible. If thier lives were stable and fullfilling, they wouldn’t feel the need to listen to the youtubbers.
Of course not all sovcits are the same. But I have heard the real ones are no fan of these youtube wannabe sovcits. That said. Sounds like they are playing on the judges egos. There is a default answer to all of those initial questions if the person refuses to answer with y/n or guilty/not… The judge doesn’t have to lets it last for hours. But from my and others I knows experience with judges and jury duty, judges seem to be more than happy to waste time telling people how they should be respected and such. I am sure not all judges are like that of course. But they seem to be hell bent to establish thier power over people. Even at conferences outside the courthouse. The job doesn’t seem to attract a humble bunch.
It did say suspended license. My understanding is that to claim sovcit you can’t ever have a license. But that might be specific to my state. We have some of the real sovcits. They were sovcits before the internet existed. Very very few of them left though.
Yes but… they could just hand them the sitation and let them go at the arraingment. They don’t have to spend tax payer money and keep them in jail. They do that part out of spite.
There is always a need for dumb labor. I may not be good at it… yet…
As an IBS sufferer, I’m here to tell you, it ain’t free.
And this is why the civil court system is just plain broken. Despite the astronomical cost of taking this upsurd stance in court, it is worth it. Thier needs to be damages assesed for the absurdity of the logic used to force something to cost more court time than it should get.
I disagree about that last part. There clearly are people winning today. They are a small %, but they also have an outsized influence. So they actively work against the change. And it is easier for them to be semi organized because there are many less of them to organize.
Wait untill they find out what AI does with their material…
I’ll bet a ways back there was an article about how 5 figure incomes weren’t what they used to be.
It is spreading for a reason though. There certainly is a difference between raping an 8 year old and a 16 year old. And medically it is defined as “sexual interest in prepubescent children.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19327034/ People have started slinging the term even at guys dating 20 something year old women just because they are 50 or 60. In short, the term has been made into a dog whistle and used were it doesn’t apply because it carries more negative connotations than terms like statutory rape, sexual assualt of a minor, sex trafficking.
Frankly, I think the term has been cheapened by this misuse. Now when people here someone is a pedo, instead of immediate revulsion, they have to ask, “what kind of pedo”. It shouldn’t be that way. All of the phrases should be bad enough that we don’t need to exaggerate. So it is more the acceptance that statutory rape is ok that is the source of the problem.
That said, the motives for this talking head to say what she said are purely political. Her words aren’t worth spit.
And seems like the school officials who are mandatory reports, and didn’t report it could be charged to. I’m not 100% sure this falls under mandatory reporter laws, but feels like it might.
Anyone who claims people are horrible parents for downvoting thier opinion on reddit is… “probably” a horrible parent. Could just be having a bad day or something. But the odds lean pretty far over given the detailed opinions expressed.
I’m flabbergasted that the school wouldn’t let her call her parents. I don’t see how they have the right to do that without parental permission, not matter the reason why. But that supports violence. She tried what she was taught to do. The adults in the building failed. So she stood up for herself.
Would that be CSAM? Seems pretty serious if it was any 13 year old girl period.
Sure I did. But a judge doesn’t have to hold a person in contempt if there is no value to it. So that line didn’t matter. Judges have an upsurd amount of latitude on what and how they do things.