Cattleprod applied during sovereign trial

[Lambkin]

Irascible judge gives in to exasperation.
http://baltimorepostexaminer.com/maryla ... 2014/08/18

Nalley did not warn King in the moments before he ordered the officer to shock King, the transcript obtained by Baltimore Post-Examiner shows. The defendant was trying to cite a court case, and Nalley cut him off.

“Stop,” Nalley said, according to the transcript.

“… principles of common right and common reason are …” King said.

“Mr. Sheriff … ” Nalley said

“… null and void,” King continued.

“…do it,” Nalley ordered. “Use it.”

“(DEFENDANT SCREAMS).”

[JamesVincent]

I remember Nalley well, his incident with deflating a tire was major news in Md., guess it was slow that day. Funny, the article states that it was a spot he normally used. He should use it normally, it was his assigned spot, with his title on it. At the time he was the executive judge if memory serves. If you get past the articles pretty obvious and blatant race-baiting you see that the defendant was found to be a risk to the court, hence why he was wearing the bracelet to start with. He was transferred to Nalley's courtroom since, as a visiting judge, had the time to preside over jury selection. Defendant started into sov'run BS, wouldn't stop when asked and then ordered to, so instead of sending him to jail on contempt, he ended up getting an electric wake-up. I'm kinda torn on the whole thing. On one hand, it's hilarious, no denying it. Judge gets tired of trying to control a defendant's behavior in his court and wham, defendant no longer needs any instruction. On the other hand I am not familiar with the whole setup for the shock bracelets, never was in a court that used them or put myself in a situation where the court decided that it needed them for me. So if it is up to a judge's discretion on when to use or not to use then there was no issue. If there are only specified times when a judge is allowed it and he overstepped his authority then he needs to be investigated, like he was before with the tire incident.

[Famspear]

I must admit I've never heard of this method of behavior modification being used in a court of law.

I'm also embarrassed at the thought that this might conceivably have first developed as a practice in a state somewhere other than Texas. To me, it sounds like such a Texan way to get a contemnor's attention.



Seriously: I'm not convinced that this method of behavior modification is appropriate in the specific circumstances described in the article.

I don't feel sorry for the defendant, though.

[Lambkin]

Seriously: I'm not convinced that this method of behavior modification is appropriate in the specific circumstances described in the article.

Given recent events, Judge Nalley's best career move might involve a judicial election in Texas.

[JamesVincent]

Couple of things I will point out after looking around at this some more. Apparently the reason Nalley became involved was not just that he had more time to hear the case, the original judge transferred it to get the defendant out of her courtroom after the defendant apparently did the same thing to her. So apparently the defendant, who did have a lengthy background including an, I believe, armed robbery charge, not only pissed off one judge, he had already pissed off that judge's boss.

Second thing is every article I have seen, including the one for the Daily Record, seems to do nothing but quote and cite the Post-Examiner article. There is no other coverage that I have found, from at least 5 different papers that I looked at, that is not copy and paste of the article linked, which to me is disturbing. It is disturbing because it appears no one else actually wants to look into it, they just want to spread whatever it is the Post-Examiner says. The only real difference I have seen is that other papers tried to make it either more or less sensationalism then what the Post-Examiner did. They either took out the more race baiting parts or added in that Nalley had slashed multiple tires, which he didn't. However, every single agree (which would be hard not to since they quote from the transcript) that King was in the middle of questioning the judge's qualifications to hear the trial when he was told at least twice to discontinue. Oh, the articles try to say he was citing a court case but the defendant himself says he asked for:

“Superior Court GA 15 Certified Delegation of Authority Order.”

Which leads us too..... The Moors.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... =firefox-a

Pursuant to Article III, Section II of the United States Constitution Judicial Authority is vested in the Supreme Court or a lower court which has a “Certified Delegation of Authority Order”. For the record, on the record, and let the record show forward a copy of the Superior Court GA 15 certified Delegation of Authority Order confirmed by Congress as a lawful and formal Discovery.

So 100% Sov'run.

[Lambkin]

Couple of things I will point out after looking around at this some more. Apparently the reason Nalley became involved was not just that he had more time to hear the case, the original judge transferred it to get the defendant out of her courtroom after the defendant apparently did the same thing to her. So apparently the defendant, who did have a lengthy background including an, I believe, armed robbery charge, not only pissed off one judge, he had already pissed off that judge's boss.

Yep and the defendant may even have been sent to Nalley for the purpose of being "dealt with". I understand the impulse, but zapping a guy who is just talking out of turn seems a bit severe. I would expect the zapper to be a response to some kind of threat. After all, defendants are removed from courtrooms with some regularity, without resorting to corporal punishment.

Second thing is every article I have seen, including the one for the Daily Record, seems to do nothing but quote and cite the Post-Examiner article. There is no other coverage that I have found, from at least 5 different papers that I looked at, that is not copy and paste of the article linked, which to me is disturbing.

Good point.

[LightinDarkness]

So not only does he get tasered, he loses - and I would bet my entire retirement the loss has a lot to do with him using sov'run/moorish arguments:

King’s effort to defend himself did not succeed. The jury convicted King of three firearms offenses in connection with a November 2013 traffic stop by a Maryland State Police trooper in Waldorf.

[JamesVincent]

So not only does he get tasered, he loses - and I would bet my entire retirement the loss has a lot to do with him using sov'run/moorish arguments:

King’s effort to defend himself did not succeed. The jury convicted King of three firearms offenses in connection with a November 2013 traffic stop by a Maryland State Police trooper in Waldorf.

I would disagree, only in that he lost because a Maryland State Trooper found a loaded .380 in King's jacket. Kinda hard to beat an Ace like that. Sentencing however.....

[Fmotlgroupie]

I'm not by any means anti-taser but this seems like a bad, bad kind of event for everyone involved. Fortunately no innocent people were zapped, but of course that isn't an excuse.

I really don't know anything about these cuffs or how/why they are used, but my first thought is that I can't think of a situation where it wouldn't be better to secure a dangerous prisoner (cuffs etc. or a plexiglass dock) and thus prevent an incident, rather than giving him an opportunity to cause a problem and get an (avoidable) application of force.

Then again, we're pretty hippy-dippy up here in Canada so maybe my perspective is different than whoever invented this

[wserra]

Then again, we're pretty hippy-dippy up here in Canada so maybe my perspective is different than whoever invented this

I'm a cynical, wiseass New Yorker, and my perspective is exactly the same as yours. The judge responsible should be removed from the bench and shocked a few times.

[fortinbras]

I thought I had sent a message yesterday but it does not appear here.

Over the last twenty years or so, plenty of ugly stories in the US about the use of supposedly non-lethal electric shock weapons or "behavior minders" on suspects, courtroom defendants, prison inmates and the like. Evidently the manufacturers test their non-lethality on willing (or well-paid) employees - mostly men, adults and not too old or sickly or feeble to be prevented from working. Unfortunately that tends to ignore the very sort of people who wind up dead from those "non-lethal" devices. Latent heart disease, epilepsy, etc., (not to mention pregnancy, pacemakers, etc.) might be rare but sooner or later one of those rare conditions comes up against a shock device.

There was also, about 30 years ago, a scandal in some big city criminal case; the defendant had been tortured with shock devices into making a false confession (or at least one he recanted). The cops thought they were being clever not hitting him in a way that would leave bruises, but it turn out that the zapper left little burn marks - a lot of them, to prove the torture.

It turns out that history repeats, sort of:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/27 ... ied-video/

[Judge Roy Bean]

I'm a cynical, wiseass New Yorker, and my perspective is exactly the same as yours. The judge responsible should be removed from the bench and shocked a few times.

Ahem ... having been a promoter of the use of cattle prods, I cannot resist ... the aforementioned judge is a chicken. If you're going to employ a tool, at least have the guts to use it yourself and not make some deputy do it for you!

By the way, my understanding is that only prisoners who pose a physical threat or have demonstrated some kind of threatening behavior get the stun cuffs. They're too expensive to be routinely deployed on all prisoners.

[JamesVincent]

Ahem ... having been a promoter of the use of cattle prods, I cannot resist ... the aforementioned judge is a chicken. If you're going to employ a tool, at least have the guts to use it yourself and not make some deputy do it for you!

Judge, my understanding from looking at the different reports is that the judges themselves have no way to trigger the device, the only trigger is with the Deputy or Corrections officer in attendance. In fact one quote I saw from the Executive Judge said that there is no judiciary policy regarding the devices, it is nominally in the control of the Sheriff's department.

[AndyK]

As an ex-Maryland resident (before I relocated to the third-world country known as South Carolina), I seem to recall that the judges (state and local) must stand for re-election to their offices every so many years.

I may be totally mistaken (I'm old and my memory has all the retention of a sieve.). Also, this probably doesn't apply to Federal judges.

Since I didn't see which court was involved (federal or state/local) this entire post might be moot.

However, if the judge is required to stand for election, the Bar Association might not endorse him and he might lose his job.

[JamesVincent]

As an ex-Maryland resident (before I relocated to the third-world country known as South Carolina), I seem to recall that the judges (state and local) must stand for re-election to their offices every so many years.

I may be totally mistaken (I'm old and my memory has all the retention of a sieve.). Also, this probably doesn't apply to Federal judges.

Since I didn't see which court was involved (federal or state/local) this entire post might be moot.

However, if the judge is required to stand for election, the Bar Association might not endorse him and he might lose his job.

He is a Circuit Court judge in Charles County, a county court. Circuit Court judges are elected, however Nalley had retired and had come back as a visiting judge so not sure if he can be elected anyway. Only Federal Court, IIRC, is the one in downtown Baltimore, where I believe Wes said he worked at one point and I worked right down the street, on the other side of the Mitchell Courthouse.

[AndyK]

"Visiting Judges" in Maryland come in two flavors:

1 - A currently seated judge in another jurisdiction who is called in to assist with either overwhelming caseloads or mass recusals.

2 - An emeritus (retired) judge who becomes active to assist a jurisdiction for the same two, above, reasons.

As a visiting judge, he serves at the whim of the chief judge of the relevant court.

His latest actions (if, as reported, they are totally arbitrary and unjustified) may be the last straw turning thw whims against him.

On the other hand, if the press reports are gross sensationalism AND there was reasonable cause to stun the accused, the Judge might just end up with a "Please, don't ever do that again" and continue on the bench.

[GlimDropper]

Confirmation bias is a legitimate phenomena, I stipulate to that from the start.

There are a couple sovereign/freeman/conspiracy theory fans who's facebook pages I find cause to frequent. I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night so it isn't like I take them all at face value. However, a confluence of video capable cell phones and instant social networks brings to light a depressing regularity of instances of abuse of official power.

I have personalty never had what I would characterize as a "negative" interaction with a cop. I have paid some tickets I didn't feel were deserved but that's as close as I come to feeling oppressed. I am intentionally not posting links to stories of cops hitting/hurting/killing people they really didn't have to. I don't want to focus on any individual instance, that isn't my point.

Last week I needed to visit my local city hall to file some paperwork. Near the end of the month seems to be a busy time around here so the closest parking place I could find was deep into the lot. I was mildly astounded and kinda depressed to find myself walking past a city garage with a pair of newly acquired MRAP vehicles. I do keep up with the news, I had heard that the city was getting some but I have never heard a single account of a local police vehicle falling prey to an improvised explosive device. In fact, I can't think of a single reason this quiet little suburb could find a use for such a vehicle. But we have them now, why does the bitter cynic in my soul think someone will find a way to use them, warranted or not?

Unless anyone can provide evidence to the contrary The A-Hole in question deserved to be held in contempt and spend a little (more) time in lock up. He should not have been subjected to electric shock unless doing so eliminated a threat of even greater violence from him. Please do correct me if I'm wrong but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

The police are becoming more militarized and this is not a good thing. For as much of a potential threat "the terrorists" are to our way of life, suburban MRAPs and excessive militarization of our police are also a potential threat to our way of life.

[grixit]

Agreed, but we're moving off topic.

Still, disruption and stalling are a real issue. I think judges should be a bit faster to make defendants who behave like that continue by video.

[GlimDropper]

I acknowledge moving off topic and apologize for it.

To the topic at hand the judge had options short of violence to resolve the issue, he should be held accountable for not availing himself of them. And be held to an appropriate standard for not doing so.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Apparently the trial resumed in the original judge's court after jury selection.

The next day he was convicted on three weapons charges. Sentencing set for September 24.