“Sovereign citizen” arguments failed for the zillionth time this week, this time in New Zealand. The Otago Daily Times reported this week that a woman charged with assault refused to answer at first when her name was called in Queenstown District Court. Eventually she did speak up, saying, “That sounds like my name, your honour, but I’ll have to see that in writing.” Turned out it was the same name, and that person had the same birthdate. Coincidence? “If I write four plus four on a piece of paper, does that equal eight, your honour?” Well … yes? The judge told her that if she was not the defendant, he was going to issue a warrant for the defendant’s arrest. “That’s interesting,” she replied. “Good luck with that.” Two days later, unsurprisingly, she was back in court. “I’m not a vessel,” she insisted, for some reason. “I’m a living being on the land.” The judge interpreted that as a plea of “not guilty.”
Almost as clever was an argument made by lawyers in a Michigan case who were opposing a request for sanctions against Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, and other Trump “legal team” lawyers. Rule 11 sanctions can only be sought against a lawyer who signed a pleading, the brief argued, but Sidney Powell typed her name. “Typewritten name is not signature for purpose of Rule 11,” the brief states in a weirdly cryptic grammar, “and therefore senior partner of law firm which represented defendants and whose name was typed on pleadings but who did not personally sign them is not subject to Rule 11 sanctions.” But typewritten name is signature for purpose of Rule 11, as lawyer who have degree should know. Argument lose.
Is it possible to evade police even if your car won’t go more than 25 miles an hour without bursting into flame? Apparently.
Is it possible to get away with (allegedly) stealing over $200,000 in campaign funds even if you make almost no effort to hide the fact that you’re making all the purchases in your own name? Apparently not.
I was going to combine this one with yesterday’s post on the lawyer who was disbarred after being caught with his zipper down, but it didn’t quite fit. This lawyer wasn’t wearing pants at all, or anything else, for that matter, nor was his friend, nor did either one of them think to turn off the webcam during the virtual hearing in progress at the time. The encounter “went on for several minutes,” according to the report, as the judge repeatedly tried to alert the lawyer that he was on camera, to no avail. The acts were “a violation of public decency,” the judge announced, “and are aggravated by the fact they are being recorded nationally.” The local bar association (in Peru) agreed this was conducta reprochable, and said it would investigate.
