https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZZSkwC4xqs
He just got kicked out of the court room a second time.
He's defending himself without access to counsel.
Everyone, judge included, are doing a horrible job trying to control him.
This is ridiculous and I honestly have no idea what's gonna happen.
Here's the Rekieta Law link if you want commentary. Warning, they're not kind to Sovereign Citizen doctrine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDaBGRdBEJk
Thanks for the heads up. This is pretty mind blowing.
I actually wonder if it'll pan out that badly for him. The optics of him holding up the OBJECT sign and her refusing to acknowledge it are very "I Can't Breathe". He looks like a confused angry black man trying to navigate an oppressive, nationalistic, intrinsically white process. Who knows, maybe it'll sway a juror? Only takes one.
The jury currently isn't in the court room. We haven't even gotten to trial, really.
They are doing a damn good job of letting him control the court room, and it'd be knee-slappingly hilarious if he wasn't an obvious murderer.
Lol these government whack jobs still testing for COVID. 😂
Edit: fucking amazing. Brooks is making a damn compelling clown world argument that he should be given extra time to prepare cuz he tested positive for the 'vid and doesn't want to put anyone at risk. Cites a detective flunkey sitting behind the prosecuting attorney who was out multiple days with the 'vid. This is quality TV.
He's actually showcasing just how the Covid hysteria can fuck up the court system and the entire thing should just be disregarded because it obstructs justice.
I doubt he realizes what he's doing though, so I can't exactly root for him despite me agreeing with the potential results of his trolling.
The pro-se/pro-per argument was also highly interesting. Apparently lawyers are extremely sensitive about these terms in a way that I can only compare to how doctors behave about vaccines or flouride.
They can't just answer directly what the difference is and why one term might be preferred over the other. If you do a simple search for these terms their answer will boil down to "so and so [group_pejorative] think there is a difference but they are the same thing".
Huh? Since when are lawyers--notorious for knife fighting over definitions of trivial words--so blase about this sort of question? It appears they have been programmed to emotionally react rather than engage on this issue...