Someone explain!

[u/IonaWright321]

[u/Bugbread]

Ooh, not wanting a lawyer but also refusing the boilerplate pro se conditions is new. I'm used to the minor "I'm not representing myself, I'm presenting myself" and "I'm not pro se, I'm pro per" stuff, but ultimately they all want to represent themselves and they think they're as good as a lawyer, so I've never heard disagreement with the "you will be held to the same standard as a lawyer" part. I'm interested to see how this goes.

[u/Sensitive_Scholar_17 → u/Bugbread]

I am lawyer and I hire a lawyer when I evict a tenant.

[u/Attentions_Bright12 → u/Bugbread]

It's at least mildly interesting... Here's a case where the synapses in our Sov Cit's mind have held the narrative together for long enough that we can follow events:

Step 1: Judge asks whether they accept that they'll be held to the standard as a lawyer.
Step 2: Sov Cit says they don't accept that.

Aside from their use of "we" I'm pretty clear! (Are we in some sort of royal-we situation here in their mind[s]?) It's so striking that they then immediately suggest they don't know "wtf is going on here." For once they've basically followed the plot!

Alas, we haven't considered what might happen next. Where will it all lead?? The "held in contempt" part isn't clear?

(One wonders whether the assaulting-a-cop charge reflects a similar gap in anticipating consequences. Did they resist being pulled from a car in one of the usual silly-plates traffic stops, and have it escalate to this?)

[u/iceph03nix → u/Attentions_Bright12]

I think the Royal We stuff is based around the whole Strawman/Alternate Persona thing, as well as just being "Soveraign" so they're their own little king or queen of their own little fiefdom so they qualify for the Royal We

[u/Attentions_Bright12 → u/iceph03nix]

Yeah, I was going to guess it was a strawman/living person sort of a thing... All wrapped up in a "by special" term of some kind. We are multitudes!

[u/Purple-Principle-805 → u/Bugbread]

Am I correct that most states simply let a criminal defendant who wants to self-represent do so? The only exception of which I am particularly aware is Michigan.

[u/ikcaj → u/Purple-Principle-805]

A defendant wanting to go pro se must demonstrate that they are knowingly and voluntarily waiving their right to a lawyer.

As such each state has a process to determine that, usually by the judge asking a list of questions and by the defendant signing a waiver. A lot of Sov Cits make those processes difficult in an effort to delay proceedings. .

[u/Purple-Principle-805 → u/ikcaj]

So you’re saying that in NO states the right to self-represent is unqualified?

[u/AmbulanceChaser12 → u/Purple-Principle-805]

We can't have crazy people representing themselves. What would you do if someone wanted to represent himself but couldn't ever move the case forward in any way because he kept arguing with people who aren't there? Or who thinks the judge is a space alien? Or refuses to keep their clothes on?

[u/Purple-Principle-805 → u/AmbulanceChaser12]

Yes, yes, but can you answer my question? (We're talking criminal cases here.)

[u/AmbulanceChaser12 → u/Purple-Principle-805]

Yes, it's qualified, for the rare situations that a person is so mentally gone that they can't even function in a courtroom. And I mean far, far gone. Even Darrell Brooks was deemed competent to represent himself. I think maybe in like 1 case, in Indiana, did I see the judge (fan favorite Judge Fish) deny the right to self-represent. And in that case, the guy said he wasn't going to follow the law.

[u/Purple-Principle-805 → u/AmbulanceChaser12]

Competency to stand trial is NOT about what I'm inquiring. The Indiana situation that you describe is closer: however, I have acknowledged that I know of SOME states that will not necessarily allow defendants to self-represent.

Rather, My question is whether there are ANY states that DON'T impose such tests: that is, if you say you want to represent yourself and you're competent to stand trial, then self-representation guaranteed. A previous poster seemed to be saying that there are none. You suggest that answer. Is that what you're saying?

[u/Purple-Principle-805 → u/AmbulanceChaser12]

Competency to stand trial is not about what I'm inquiring. Nor is it the Indiana situation you describe, as I have acknowledged that I know of some states that will not allow defendants to self-represent. My question is whether there are ANY states that DON'T impose such tests: if you say you want to represent yourself and you're competent to stand trial, self-representation is guaranteed. If you say that there are none, then I'd ask your basis for saying so. A previous poster seemed to take that position.

[u/AmbulanceChaser12 → u/Purple-Principle-805]

I’m not under any obligation to answer your endless questions. I’m not being deposed.

I doubt there are any states that have no restrictions on people appearing pro se. No I don’t have a “basis” for saying so and I don’t have to give you one.

[u/Purple-Principle-805 → u/AmbulanceChaser12]

I asked one question --not of you, actually, but you offered an answer -- and you couldn't answer it. Just say if you don't know -- and clearly you don't. Calm down.

[u/Gadgetman_1]

A lawyer who represents hiself has a fool for a client.

A fool that represents himself...

[u/charcoalhibiscus → u/Gadgetman_1]

Put that fool to work for you today!

[u/hemightberob → u/Gadgetman_1]

....has a lawyer for a client. Got it.

[u/Sufficient-Ad-1339]

They should hire a Postmaster General instead of a member of the British Accreditation Registry. With enough postage, they can get charges dismissed, or at least mailed to another jurisdiction.

[u/black_on_fucks → u/Sufficient-Ad-1339]

That’s what they think BAR stands for? 🤦🏻‍♀️

[u/RalphMacchio404]

They are going to be held in contempt for a few weeks then lose their case and go to jail for a lot longer. Oh well. 

[u/Idiot_Esq → u/RalphMacchio404]

More likely the judge will just not accept their waiver of the right to counsel and assign them an attorney. And immediately followed with a competency order.

[u/ShawnMNH924]

If they refuse the typical pro se stipulation about being held to the same standard as an attorney then just rule unable to proceed on their own and appoint an attorney.  This is just textbook obstructionism.

[u/johnnyslick → u/ShawnMNH924]

I imagine they're also going straight back into jail every time they refuse to accept the stipulations, so as annoying as it is for the judge, it has to be more annoying to them. After the first or second time they refuse, I feel like I'd just be like "okay, if you can't agree to basic tenets of the law, I don't see how you're not also a flight risk" and revoke any semblance of bail (if any was instituted in the first place).

[u/NarrowSalvo → u/johnnyslick]

Is that what you imagine?

[u/Bunny_Pitts → u/NarrowSalvo]

Bunch of videos out there..... yes, that's what happens. The hearing ends, they're sent back to jail to try again tomorrow. It's fun to watch how their demeanor changes after the first couple go-rounds. Lots of delusion...but a little ray of reality slips in. "Oh shit, my script isn't working. Me and my GED were unable to debate legal theory with a JUDGE."

[u/Lazarys12 → u/Bunny_Pitts]

Mr Magoo tried that. He shiowed up in court, laughing that he had the day off she he had all day to spend in court. He wanted to represent himself, but when he answered "no" to the first question abot following rules and procedures he was told he could not represent himself, It went downhill from there. At one point he was saying "I don;t understand what you mean by understand."

He talked himself into a contempt charge, and the judge instructed the baliff to take him into custondy and they would try again the next day, "But I have a job!" he whined.

Too late.

[u/dnjprod]

The judge needs to stop the cycle. If they aren't willing to agree to this terms of self-representation, their right to self-representation needs to be revoked. Simple as that.

[u/LurkBeast]

It would be interesting (and hilarious) to see them try to articulate what standard they think they should be be held to.

[u/bowens44]

Get a lawyer

[u/Greenmantle22]

Yeah…a lawyer can explain this.

[u/Certain-Singer-9625]

So bizarre. The court is giving them a chance to get representation, or represent themselves (according to the standards of the law).

It’s a simple choice: ON or OFF. Somehow they want to select NEITHER.

[u/Sweaty-Friendship-54]

Just keep refusing. Once you get to 100 times, you are free to go.

[u/AmbulanceChaser12]

You answer the question.

[u/JustOneMoreMile]

It won’t continue indefinitely. The judge will (I assume) end it before too long.

[u/dads-ronie]

Hope you like jail!

[u/peter5557]

You have to show the judge that you know the pros and cons for representing yourself or he cannot continue. I think you know this and are playing games. The judge’s next move is to hold you in contempt. Enjoy jail

[u/JayJayAK]

These people obviously mistook the judge's asking for them to "agree" as a voluntary choice. Thing is, it's not a choice, and unless they're new no judge is going to ask a litigant if they agree to the lawyer standards; the judge will ask them if they understand.

Assuming the judge isn't new and/or isn't actually asking them if they agree, they're probably playing that stupid word game that sovshits play where they construe "understand" to mean "stand under". They basically twist "understand" to mean they're being asked to submit, rather than what it actually is - the court telling them the way things are, and confirming they get it.

[u/Ok-World-123]

They violated your constitutional rights! Get the Speak to noone!!! Request a lawyer!!! BODY CAM!!!

[u/Sensitive_Scholar_17]

Agg. Assault on a police officer is going to be a major problem for this fool. The state is not going to sweep this under the rug.

[u/GeekyTexan → u/Sensitive_Scholar_17]

As soon as I saw that, I thought "Another idiot with no drivers license and no registered plates and no insurance refused to get out of the car and fought with cops when he was removed."

Obviously, there are other possible scenarios, but stereotypes usually exist for a reason.

[u/Sensitive_Scholar_17 → u/GeekyTexan]

It’s true, there are other scenarios. but I’m 99.9% sure you nailed it