OT: What Really Happens in Court When You Use "Freeman" Defenses

[You Are Guilty]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NJ, at least for this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DSZR_KzNuM

A rather long excerpt of a trial for (among others) criminal assault on a police officer of a guy, (that may or may not be a regular poster on this site), who insists on defending himself using the typical "Freeman" ideas, eg, the court has no jurisdiction over crimes or that the original Constitution has to be provided in court.

Also a good primer on general courtroom/trial procedure for anyone brought up on Judge Judy and might be wondering how things work in the real world.

Hopefully, this will serve as a warning to anyone thinking of going down this path in the future.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

I did some work last summer on a case of tax evasion where def used a version of the freeman defense.

He's in prison now.

 

[justalayman]

If anybody is masochistic and wishes to review even more of the trial as well as the stop that initiated all of this, go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGgPjmsgedw&feature=relmfu

 

[TigerD]

That judge looked like he was most unhappy at the defendant's choice of approach.

DC

 

[CdwJava]

I had a yoyo do this sort of thing to me once upon a time ... unbelievable. Like we're going to read the stuff they hand us ... there are so many problems with doing that in the field - not the least of which is the officer's inability to evaluate it, legally.

And while I have not read all of Shapiro v. Thompson (cited by the poster of this video) it does not seem to be in any way applicable to a driver. It has to do with residency requirements for a welfare recipient. I am frequently stunned by the very narrow approach on cases held by these guys, and how they often parrot back cases without actually ever reading or completely comprehending them.