search
top

Militia Crazy

The Sovereign Citizens are always the most entertaining:

Fast forward to December 15. The pre-trial hearing got off to a bad start when Cox refused to remove his trademark hat. Then a member of Cox’s militia entourage, Ken Thesing, announced that he was representing Cox, calling himself the militia leader’s “counsel before God.” Next, Cox attempted to serve the judge with a bundle of paperwork. “You’re now being treated as a criminal engaged in criminal activity, and you’re being served in that manner,” Cox told District Court Judge Patrick Hammers.

He’s the youngest, most clean cut guy I’ve noticed pulling this kind of stuff. Usually this kind of orneriness doesn’t set in until middle age. No word yet on whether the courtroom in question has a fringed flag, but they have already declared it an admiralty court.

10 Responses to “Militia Crazy”

  1. Paul Kanesky says:

    These people do NOT help the civil rights movement in our great country.
    Neutral fence sitters will identify this man with gun rights individuals (I hate that term but use it for clarification)
    Gun rights prople are really just Constitutional rights people.
    This man sets an example which is completely off base when it comes to normal citizens demanding the government live up to it’s obligations to abide by the Constitution.
    The people are sovereign, and do have representatives we elect, We just need to teach the representatives that they represent us, they do not rule us. We do this thru the ballot box, and have gotten lazy about our dutys as citizens. I do see that now changing and hope it continues to move in the right direction.
    Paul in Texas

  2. Guav says:

    Sebastian, why do you hate freedom?

  3. Sebastian hates freedom because the rays from the gold fringe on the admiralty flags make him hate it! That’s why!

    Seriously: I have yet to meet a person espousing these bizarre theories who has much of a grasp on American history. They often engage in creative cherry-picking, but that’s not the same thing.

  4. John A says:

    Not at all sure how to express myself about this.

    Basically, I suppose, I do not like extremists/zealots of ANY stripe.

  5. Dannytheman says:

    Isn’t this the time in the cartoon that the cookoo clock comes flying out doing its thing???

  6. dustydog says:

    Well, I don’t think a judge has the authority to order someone to remove his hat. Judges are unfettered bullies, and this country needs a fix (although not the antics and brazen crimes of these clowns).

    For example – my state has no law authorizing punishment for ‘contempt of court’, and the law in fact requires due process before punishing people.

  7. MicroBalrog says:

    Extremists and zealots?

    No, Sir. This man is not an extremist. *I* am an extremist. Murray Rothbard was an extremist. On the other hand, Howard Zinn was an extremist, and so was Lenin.

    But this man? He’s not an extremist. He’s just a nutcase idiot with vodooistic beliefs.

    Do not confuse the two.

  8. Ian Argent says:

    Contempt of court is a Common Law offense – which all of the states subsribe to except where they’ve overrideen it via statute law.

  9. We do have some eccentric individuals up here.

    I have mixed feelings. On one hand, Schaeffer Cox is involved in a leadership role with the 2nd Amendment Task Force up here. 2ATF has been effective in removing illegally posted “no guns” signs in Anchorage muni buildings and I believe that they’re involved (at least in a supportive fund raising role) in the current challenge to Univ of Alaska’s no guns on campus policy which is in direct violation of our state pre-emption statute.

    On the other hand, this “sovereign citizen” stuff doesn’t actually win many battles. He could have launched a sober, calculated legal assault on the “duty to inform” law or on his specific case, which may or may not have involved trumped up charges (the questions of fact seem undecided — that’s what a trial is for, right?). Additionally, he’s not squeaky clean; there are some domestic violence charges lingering in his recent past which got pled down to a misdemeanor (http://alaskapride.blogspot.com/2010/03/alaska-justice-schaeffer-cox-accepts.html).

    Still, given the strong libertarian streak that runs up here, he may get more mileage than usual, especially once you get outside the Anchorage city limits. So maybe he’s not alienating as many people as you might expect in another state with his antics.

    As a note, the Anchorage Press that you linked to is our local far-left progressive paper. The Anchorage Daily News is our center-left mainstream paper. The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner is a moderate paper with occasional left leanings. The Frontiersman is our mainstream center-right paper but it is much smaller than the ADN. Alaska Pride and the Anchorage Daily Planet (online only) tend more to the right of the political spectrum.

  10. Sigivald says:

    Dusty: What Ian said, plus… I suspect that there’d be such a statute tomorrow morning if it became “necessary”.

    “Contempt of Court” laws are what keep one of the lawyers from just playing Metallica at 100 decibels to prevent the Jury from hearing testimony, for instance – or everyone just shouting out over whatever they want, whenever they want.

    The whole “due process o law” thing only works when there’s order in the courtroom – and Contempt of Court is the process by which that’s enforced.

    (And on “due process”, well, that is the due process; Contempt jailing lasts only for the duration of “refusing to do what the Judge demands”. If there needed to be another trial before the punishment, you could Be Contemptuous of that, necessitating another trial, and just infinitely recurse without punishment or completed due process.

    The contemplation of that explains, itself, why there’s no trial for Contempt of Court.)

top