Quatloos!

morrand wrote:On a related note, I'm almost positive that there is actual precedent for the idea that, while you have a right to represent yourself at trial, and while you have a right to the assistance of competent counsel, you can't demand both at the same time. Or, in other words, that it's no use to claim on appeal that your counsel was incompetent when you represented yourself. Although, if a Private Attorney General represented the strawman....

Correct. The right to assistance of counsel is the exact right you're waiving in order to represent yourself in the first place. What you can still do is to claim that the judge shouldn't have granted your demand to represent yourself in the first place. And just as defendants represented by counsel will very often throw up a hail-Mary ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim for habeas relief (even though it almost never works), self-represented defendants will very often make an inappropriate-grant-of-self-representation claim on appeal or habeas (even though it's probably even less likely to work).

Sovereign citizens seem to be a pretty consistent exception to that trend, though, probably because it pains them too much to argue that they're so obviously incompetent that the judge should have seen it.

There was actually a reported case in California back in 1985 in which someone sued himself. He lost but, as the court observed, thereby also won:
http://loweringthebar.net/case-law-hall ... odi-v-lodi

Is it just me or does this sound very VanPeltish?

notorial dissent wrote:As I recall, the scooter won.

No, the scooter's and the owner's suit was tossed out of court. The federal judge called the case a "...rambling, nonsensical, incoherent blotch on this court's docket."

No, he did not sue the scooter. This is one of those stories that has gotten twisted around backwards over the years. He sued several parties and added his scooter as a co-plaintiff. Please check out webhick's thread on page 3 of the moderator thread on the "Fact vs. Fiction" regarding the scooter's owner.

And believe me, any inanimate object owned by this person is a loser regardless of the circumstances.

If you sue yourself and the case is dismissed, don't you also win. In fact you will always win, but you will equally always lose. Or, is the plan to win by losing, or lose by winning? It just gets too confusing.

Anthony Williams' complaint:

Plaintiff asserts that the above named Defendant(s) have caused immeasurable harm to the Plaintiff by being mistaken as the Plaintiff and/or having cause for the Plaintiff to act as a surety for the Defendant(s) which has caused the Plaintiff to be subjected to unlawful and illegal search, seizures, detainments and arrests.Imagine that, folks: law enforcement actually thinks that he's him. Why, next they'll want to slap the cuffs on his wrists, instead of fictional legal wrists. They'll want his ass in jail instead of a fictional legal ass. Where will it end?

Actually, probably where it already has: in jail.

I recall a case I think I mentioned here about a Canadian idiot who pleaded guilty to some Freeman-type offense and was shocked that the judge actually sentenced him to jail. It was that other guy inside his body who'd pleaded guilty not him and he'd expected, somehow, that the other guy would serve the time while he'd walk away in their shared body. He actually won on appeal. The appeals court decided that he was too dense to have understood what a guilty plea meant so conviction quashed and he was granted a retrial.

I'm sure most of us are aware Anthony Williams is currently in the midst of his latest trial, before the same judge that slapped him with 20+ years of probation no less. I haven't been able to find a lick of news regarding the proceedings, especially interested in this one.

Dick Dastardly wrote:I'm sure most of us are aware Anthony Williams is currently in the midst of his latest trial, before the same judge that slapped him with 20+ years of probation no less. I haven't been able to find a lick of news regarding the proceedings, especially interested in this one.

JohnPCapitalist points out that Broward County doesn't report much from court proceedings. http://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... &start=425

There was a local reporter who had seemed to take a particular interest in reporting on his shenanigans, had hoped she would have been covering the story. Too bad this trial hadn't happened over the winter, would have been worth the trip for some sunshine and entertainment, too hot for me this time of year there.

Dick Dastardly wrote:I'm sure most of us are aware Anthony Williams is currently in the midst of his latest trial, before the same judge that slapped him with 20+ years of probation no less. I haven't been able to find a lick of news regarding the proceedings, especially interested in this one.

Gee, i wonder if there's a "and stay out of trouble" clause in the terms of probation.

I just learned, Carmel Cafiero, the local new reporter whom had previously done some nice reporting on Mr. Williams retired last summer. Unfortunate because she obviously shared a similar disdain for our sovrun idiot, judging by the lack of news, the current staff doesn't feel similarly compelled to report on Anthony's latest misadventures.

Posting of spam is strictly prohibited. Don't make me come down there!

FrankWef wrote:Advertisement deleted AndyK

Why does this account still show a rank? How many ads will he post before he's shown the door?

I logged on this morning hoping to get in some reading before work and all I got was nearly a dozen ads.by this ------- person (thanks AndyK for all you do)

We released the AndyKraken and the poster has consequently been dealt with in terms that cannot be shared under our family-friendly rules here.

Thank you to the mods for deleting the spam in these posts and in my experience it's quite rare on Q to see this.

Can't you as mods delete the actual posts not just the content? There are a number of postings on old threads which have now come up to the top of their boards as they show the latest posting as being today. In other boards I use, spam posts are immediately nuked on sight.

We tend to avoid deleting posts as opposed to content in order to reflect that there was a reason for the deleted material and to send a message to the poster who will realize why the post was deleted (rather than it disappearing in thin air without an visible reason). I know this means that a old thread may get resurrected but that is a minor irritant as opposed to having the same poster coming back and re-posting time and time again because he or she thinks that their post somehow failed.

Thank you to the mods for deleting the spam in these posts and in my experience it's quite rare on Q to see this.

Not sure why this would appear to be a rare occurrence to you. We typically delete advertising spam as soon as we see it or a report gets filed.