guess she didn't like the jail accommodations?

Ty. 😊

22:45 "which she needed" 100%. It's like a kid who you never punish for bad behaviour...they never learn. This time she learned BIG TIME. They probably (friends and family) let her ramble on with the sovcit BS for months/years and it finally bit her in the rear and she got a wake up call.

thx!!!

Did you find judge simpsons outcome on Carter vs Kelly re: stalking charge ?

Middleton isn't just hard on them, he also shows them the easy way out of their trouble. This is the third time he converts sovcits, never seen anyone else accomplish that.

​@@InTaco7I've seen Judge Simpson do a pretty good job of straightening them out.

Well said

Muddle headed wannabees. You are charitable.

🤣🤣🤣

She learned the saying: "It's one thing to call on the devil, it's another thing to see him coming."

Something something fraud, menace, and duress

That PA aka Sheldon Cooper

Some people love a night in jail , some more , but we won't dwell....

Oh, I think it is! 👀😑 it’s all the fun of a time out and lost luggage during a blackout in the middle of a muggy summer day all rolled into one!

I heard you get cake, and fizzy pop....

Apparently you missed the time in Court and the offer she was given. Thanks for playing. 😊

@@Minister_General

@@Minister_General If you were responding to my comment, then your use of the argumentum in terrorem fallacy was erroneous. That fallacy would only apply if I was claiming that the threat of jail was used to convince the SovCit defendant that the court had jurisdiction. That's not why jail was imposed in this case. Jail was used to punish the SovCit for her contempt of court.

@@Minister_General No, Outshined was correct. Personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a criminal case is established by the Court exercising power over a defendant. This is normally done by arrest and/or service of a complaint or citation. Also, it's not the court's job to explain jurisdiction to a defendant. That's what lawyers are for, and the defendant was offered a free lawyer.

​@@Minister_GeneralThis is why people need a lawyer. It's one thing for a judge to explain jurisdiction to a pro se litigant, but it's something completely different when it's explained over and over again and she's being argumentative, reading from a stupid script. It's a waste of time and resources, and the world doesn't revolve around this "elderly" woman because she doesn't like the laws that everyone must adhere to. The court gave her a sweet deal, and she spit it right back in Middleton's face. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

@@Minister_General Sorry, but that's just word salad. In criminal cases, personal jurisdiction is established by the exercise of the court's power over the defendant. Subject matter jurisdiction is established by statute. Territorial jurisdiction is established by facts showing that the defendant was within the jurisdictional boundaries of the court. Jurisdiction isn't "perfected." And there are no "bonds" that judges monetize. That's pure fantasy.

​@Minister_General I will never understand why people like you choose to run their mouths about things they know nothing about. It's not the judges obligation to explain to her what jurisdiction means. If she doesn't know then she should get an attorney. She's just trying to pull her stupid Sovereign crap and it backfired in her face. Perhaps if people like you didn't abuse elderly people by telling them stuff like this then she wouldn't have had to spend the night in jail.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings. The loony is strong with this one so I'm quite confident she wont be able to stop herself from screwing this up.

❤❤YES ❤ YES ❤ YES❤❤ HE IS AMAZING. Judge Middleton, does not put up with that nonsense 😂😂😂

I guess sitting in a jail surrounded by people who still respect the judge who put them there would be a shock for most people.

Absolutely! That night in jail was an act of compassion: "You want to play with fire? Here's a little bit of fire to see what it feels like" One night in jail taught her that a year in prison would be hell. I have no doubt Judge Middleton did that, primarily, for that reason: to teach her a lesson for her own good.

I think her son is the one filling her head with BS

Especially considering the fact that she just said that the reason the prosecutor offered to drop the felony charge is because he knew she was right. You can't give these people an inch because they think that means they want and it just reinforces their stupid beliefs

As soon as she’s reunited with her nitwit son I’m sure she will go straight back to her sovereign citizen shenanigans.

I think the memory of her large cellmate looming over her in the middle of the night might help keep the nonsense out of her head jar.

Except that would require insight and reflection. Not two strong points for Sov Cits.

Judge M. Obviously believes in giving people the maximum benefit and he.sleeps really well at night.

Should’ve pulled the plea deal. She ’won’ and will be back in all her ‘stupidry’. And she’ll share with her fellow SovIdiots and gloat over it. I love Judge M being nice, but she could’ve been an example for other SovIdiots.

@@Minister_General It's not about people or about an idea. It's about what the law is. And SovCits are demonstrably wrong on what the law is.

​@@Minister_General🤡

@@Minister_General Oh, I love it when people I debate have to resort to ad hominem attacks! It means they know they have no legitimate argument. Yes, law is an idea (a set of ideas, actually), but that doesn't change the fact that SovCit beliefs about law are demonstrably wrong. EDIT: I was amused to see that you wrote the following to another poster below: "Your entire argument is discounted because you can't refrain from engaging in ad-hominem attacks! Surprise!" 🤣🤣🤣 Pot, meet kettle!

@@Minister_General I notice you failed to admit your hypocrisy with regard to ad hominem attacks. And calling my writing "incoherent" in an incoherently-written sentence is amusingly ironic. EDIT: Thank you for modifying your post so it's coherent. It's still wrong, of course, but it's at least coherent now.

@@Minister_General It's not for asking questions. It's for not following the law. Like having a license, insurance, following court orders, resisting arrest, etc. Every time they plea these people down to nothing and let their stupidity continue, they go right back out and commit the same crime because they haven't been taught the lesson. If you actually started giving them the max fine or jail sentence I bet they'd change their behaviour hella quick.

​@@stephwiller9089He's trolling. He created his profile a week ago 🤡

@@Claudia-lq3ns Yeah, it's probably a sock-puppet account for one of the usual SovCit trolls we get here.

@@Minister_General KZfaq hid the more detailed reply I wanted to post. No, I don't actually believe you're a troll. But I do suspect you're not using your main account. And to whom are you referring when you write "we"?

@@davidwilliams5407 LMAO!! That was great, dude. Thanks for the chuckle 😃

​@@Minister_Generalthat sentence has more types of brackets than it does understandable clauses, care to clarify?

@@Minister_General I also found your comment unclear. Are you claiming that SovCit beliefs are the basis of our legal system?

@@Minister_General yeah, I'm out, not taking punctuation criticism from somebody who can't spell "your". 🤣

@@Minister_General And therefore? Maybe some people want there to be some deeper truth behind it, but it's a fact that modern legal systems and national sovereignty are created by proclamation, validated by recognition from other self-declared sovereign entities, and enforced by threats or commission of violence to preserve themselves. Underneath _that_ is the consent, express or implied, of the people who empower the system to preserve itself. There is no grand conspiracy, the truth is that it's just that banal. Countries have power because they have armies, and because people want money. Against that backdrop, it's more than a little comical for individuals to claim _they_ can be sovereign too, when in fact they have none of the authority necessary to enforce that claim. Doubly so if they draw on pseudo-history (_cough_ did somebody say Roman?) and disingenous wordplay to borrow validity from _real_ enforceable legal systems. Nobody's questioning SovCits' right to govern themselves, but where they believe they can do so unless they _harm_ an individual, identifiable person, the vast majority of people believe that intangible harms caused by refusal to cooperate with society, or by negligence that _threatens_ those around them even if no harm comes to pass, can and should be punished.

😂😂😂 Ma Barker!

Ma Barker?!?!? Bonnie of Bonnie & Clyde?!?!?

I almost referenced "ma barker" or the "weather underground"...

@@shotforshot5983 another good possibility! Fun just to imagine.

Might make some officers second-guess why they even bother stopping people who pull this crap, let alone enduring the verbal abuse, if not also the phony liens and lawsuits they risk from sovcits.

Yup

She spent the last 24 hours thinking about what 2 years of confinement would be like. Glad she took the deal.

Not sure how great she is sleeping in jail but hey who knows 🤷🏻‍♀️😂

@Minister Generalwhat?

​@@christiewright1457 Swoosh.

It’s also entirely possible that the charge was dropped as part of the plea deal, as asserted. Your big “gotcha” moment sounds as delusional as this sov-tard’s pseudo law and conspiracy babble.

They're compelled to do it to assuage trauma, hurt feelings, or defend a sense of fear and anger. The endorphin release is palpable for them. Also I think a lot of them have BPD.

As a 65 y/o female.. I agree. This could be early signs of an illness or dementia. It could be just feeling like she needs control of something. It's hard to say. Either way,, she learned something important from this,, hopefully. You don't know what you don't know. Get someone who does know to help. I would've hoped by her age she'd learned that,, which is why I think it could be medical. Who knows???😂😂

Perhaps her son?

@@Minister_General I'm a retired paralegal.. You are correct. Upon passing the bar you are not capable of practicing law.. unlike medical school where you actually have to treat patients.. when you pass the bar you're just starting to learn what you're doing. Frighteningly that's why so many end up in the PDs office.

​@@bethotoole6569yep. The bar tests your ability to know and analyze the law in a manner consistent with a first year attorney.

Exactly! I think this whenever a defendant claims to be indigent but has a killer coke or meth habit. Are they indigent because of the habit or do they simply not want to spend their fun money on a lawyer? 😂

It's possible for an indigent person to have someone else post the bond and yet remain indigent.

Yes, and give them a really scary cellmate so the message isn't missed!

All part of the sovcit thing.

@@Minister_General The issue of how to deal with the disruptive behavior of SovCit defendants is indeed being discussed. Many continuing legal education seminars for judges and attorneys now discuss SovCit fallacies and how to deal with their disruptive behavior in court.

@@Minister_General Since I do not know what you mean by a "true sovereign," I cannot answer that question.

@@Minister_General Well, under that definition, we never see "true sovereigns" in courts because they don't exist. Every person (or, if you prefer, every man or woman) within the territorial boundaries of the United States is equally subject to the laws of the United States, the state within which they are present, and the local jurisdictions in which they are present (with rare exceptions such as persons granted diplomatic immunity by the United States).

💯

They do have to stop dropping felonies and send them to jail. She needs to be held accountable for her actions. I know they are busy but that shouldn’t matter. She will continue this nonsense and never learn anything.

@@Minister_General You caught me. Inappropriate pronouns. ;)

​@@YorkDLanceIgnore him. We're trolling 🤡

@@Claudia-lq3ns LOL I know. But I love to troll a troll. And my best weapon is playing dumb and being sweet. Works every time. :)

What happened? Reality raised it's ugly head and battered the sovtard ideology out of her soul.

wish my flat earther ex husband could learn this lesson

@@Minister_General, really? Lol! No, they are completely incompotent. I have a sister who used to teach law and who is a clerk of courts. She has run-ins with these hammerheads all the time. And guess what? They lose in court every single time because they have no idea what they are talking about.

@@Minister_General, odd, but I did spell it "incompetent" but autocorrect changed (meaning at some point I did spell it incorrectly). However, if that is all you have, it's pathetic. You fail to address my point that these sovcidiots fail in court because they are clueless as to what the law really says. As if they suddenly discovered something that thousands of judges, law professors, attorneys, and law students have missed for over 200 years, all without having been to law school! But, hey, they did listen to some equally stupid youtuber who knows nothing about law.

@@Minister_General Regardless of his grammatical error, Greg is correct when he states that SovCit arguments always lose in court. They are based on misunderstandings of law as well as false beliefs about history.

​@@Minister_GeneralAnd you're such an expert with your 1-week-old profile 🤡

@@Minister_General No, it's not. Do you even know what those Latin phrases you throw about so pretentiously mean?

@@Minister_General No, but it does prove personal jurisdiction.

@@Minister_General I don't understand why you put so much emphasis on etymology. Word meanings charge over time. Personal jurisdiction, under current American law, means exactly what I said it means in another post in which we are discussing this topic. Personal jurisdiction in current American criminal law means that a court has exercised its power over a defendant (or that a defendant has submitted to the power of the court). A court exercises power over a defendant by making an arrest or formal accusation which is served upon the defendant in the form of a complaint, citation, etc. This is all that is required for personal jurisdiction in American criminal law.