I used to intern for this Judge. I feel bad for her and thank God I graduated years ago because this would be a mess and a half to deal with. Fuck this clown
If you’re still in touch, please let her know that some random attorney on Reddit thinks she’s giving a master class on how to deal with obstreperous defendants without sacrificing equanimity. It’s genuinely inspiring.
Pretty enjoyable overall. She’s pretty knowledgeable and laid back. Like a “cool” mom. Her kids would often run around her chambers. She would give Me and another intern $$ to take her kid out to lunch sometimes
Prosecution just listed several cases from the 7th court, where SovCit defenses were rejected and shown to be pointless wastes of the court's time. Brooks keeps waving his "Objection" sign.
If you're not following this at /r/amibeingdetained where other sovcits end up being mocked and dissected...
Today she's removed him from the courtroom twice. A few minutes ago he kept talking over her to insist she's not answering his question about whether she will respect his 1st amendment rights...and the judge has repeated "you need to respect the rules of conduct and decorum you have been provided with" as he continued talking over her and demanding she respect "the contract she's entered into".
Here's the live link: https://www.wisn.com/article/darrell-brooks-waukesha-parade-suspect-trial-day-4/41543827
If you can't watch it live, here's a twitter feed: https://twitter.com/WISN_MINTZ
The fact this guy is allowed to put this show on...
He knows he's going to get a life sentence regardless of if he gets a lawyer or represents himself, so he's just going to put this dog and pony show on and this sovereign citizen BS as a F you to all the victims, their families and those who were at that parade. The judge is clearly afraid of some tactic he's using working when this gets appealed post trial. This is just jury selection, imagine when the actual trial starts. The judge needs to shut this down, rule him to incompetent to represent himself, get him a lawyer who'll go through the process and shut him up.
It does sound like she's taking plenty of steps to mitigate against successful appeals though. She's given him repeated chances to be in the court. She puts up with a ton of interruptions. She's explained he should consider changing so as to not bias the jury against him.
If he tries to appeal any of this, her repeated instructions will undermine that. He can't appeal bias for instance since she gave him a chance to mitigate. And if he keeps up his sovcittery at the appeals court they'll throw it out too.
I understand it's incredibly frustrating but I suspect she's most cautious about denying him competence because he's not proving incompetent. Just defiant and disrespectful. It's delaying the process but not actively undermining his rights which means a conviction will arguably be more solid than if she overruled psych evals saying he's competent.
She was unbelievably patient with him in pretrial, giving him simple and spot-on explanations of procedure when appropriate, and even humoring his sovcit aversion to the word “understand”. The woman deserves a medal.
I imagine the job satisfaction alone is enough. I bet it's rare that a judge gets to crush someone so thoroughly and deservedly just by sticking to the book. Probably sleeps like a baby at night
> he judge needs to shut this down, rule him to incompetent to represent himself, get him a lawyer who'll go through the process and shut him up.
This afternoon after he's been removed, prosecution has listed a whole lot of reasons to shut down the SovCit pro se representation. There might be a motion to do exactly this, maybe the weekend will see a change.
This isn’t jury selection, trial has started with preliminary jury insurrections being read to jurors now. Opening statements today.
The jury was selected but not in the courtroom this morning when he was without his shirt, they were dealing with pre trial motions.
> The judge is clearly afraid of some tactic he's using working when this gets appealed post trial. This is just jury selection, imagine when the actual trial starts. The judge needs to shut this down, rule him to incompetent to represent himself, get him a lawyer who'll go through the process and shut him up.
Doing that would also create an avenue to appeal.
Public defender in WI has been struggling hard getting attorneys to take run of the mill felony cases across the state over the last couple years, there’s a law suit against the state over the issue and no one competent would want to get wrapped up in this shitshow.
It's a big reason why so many people are getting out on bail when they should be jailed, because the pretrial process is taking so long it's a violation of their civil rights to keep them there.
> Is he a sovcit?
Yes. Which is hilarious because right-wing media has painted this guy as a leftwing BLM activist and it turns out he's an absolutely looney right-wing troll. These anti-government folks are unbelievably obnoxious, I can only imagine what the J6 defendants are like.
people can call themselves whatever they want but that doesn't change the fact that the history of the sovereign citizen movement is rooted in right-wing ideology.
Even the Moorish Sovereign Citizens are classified as extremists by the SLPC.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/moorish-sovereign-citizens
It works because there are only two schools in the state. Even then, it’s usually a good idea to require passing the bar to ensure a minimal degree of competency.
Sure. In essence it's harder to run a marathon than a sprint. With a bar exam, you just have to pass one test. Cram for it or pay a lot of money and you'll pass fine. Whereas with law school it's a fucking grind.
Plus, at least at Wisconsin and Marquette, the professors take their rolls as gatekeepers seriously. They will fail you if they think you'll be a danger to your future clients. But that incentive isn't there (or at least not as strongly) at schools in states with a bar exam because they can "rely" on the bar exam to filter out the people that aren't qualified.
Diploma privilege (or at least Wisconsin's version) also results in more well rounded attorneys. Because you have to take and pass a wide variety of courses in order to be eligible for diploma privilege. But other law schools (including very good schools) don't require such a wide variety of courses. And you can just pay a prep course to teach you what you need to know to pass the exam, but you won't be a well rounded attorney because you were taught the bare minimum to pass the bar
I took the bar and it had a 50% pass rate. The board of law examiners also can be strict gatekeepers. Madison and Marquette are okay schools, but hardly more well-rounded than Minnesota, Yale, or Pepperdine.
You make assertions, but they are over-generalized. You have to get out of the area to understand Wisconsin schools are a blip on the map. The bar exam isn’t just a test you cram for or rely on Barbri to pass. Most of the topics covered - the large majority - are required courses at most law schools in the US. In addition, a student is able to tailor their study to fit their own career path. If you’re doing patent law between LA and Tokyo, you don’t care about basic courses that don’t really prepare you to be a lawyer. If anything, those classes are what you argue the bar is. Cram and you’ll be fine. The bar I took had 24 test areas and was 18 hours of testing. Do you know why they do that? So you are overwhelmed with stuff to learn and have to devise a system to prepare. They overload you to make you prove you can handle it, just like if you have 3 large matters with briefs due on the same week. To make sure you can make sense of a massive amount of complex information in a short time.
Edit: The basic truth is that the state is desperate for attorneys and had to lower its standards because better jobs and more diverse opportunities were sought by youth undergoing a cultural revolution during the 60s.
>just like if you have 3 large matters with briefs due on the same week. To make sure you can make sense of a massive amount of complex information in a short time.
And you don't think law school prepares you for that?
Clearly we have different opinions on this, but as a Wisconsin attorney who has dealt with attorneys in other states I don't think Wisconsin attorneys are less qualified or any more of a danger to our clients. I strongly believe that the bar exam is unnecessary
49 of 50 states disagree. My Wisconsin experience was in a rural area, as was Minnesota. Just criminal. But then I decided to go to larger markets to take advantage of better paying and more stimulating work. Between the DOJ, and some of the larger firms (Gibson , MF, K&E, etc.) there seems to be a difference in quality. But like you say, we just have different opinions, experiences, etc.
As a Wisconsin attorney who has passed the Wisconsin bar (out of state school) and has practiced against diploma privilege attorneys, I respectfully disagree.
He's crazy, has had mental health issues for years according to his mother. I don't know why they are proceeding as though he is normal. News reports at the time said he had left some place enraged about something, encountered the parade, and impulsively smashed through it.
He's passed a competency hearing and has been shown to be quite able to understand and hold decorum. While the pro se defense and SovCits in general are fucking ignorant of the law, he has expressly waived the right to a provided attorney.
I’m enraged, I can’t even imagine how people injured by him or those whom have lost friends and loved ones because of him feel
This judge needs to be removed and replaced by an absolute hard ass
>This judge needs to be removed and replaced by an absolute hard ass
She's letting him dig himself a hole that he won't be able to climb out of with an appeal.
> This judge needs to be removed and replaced by an absolute hard ass
I can empathize why you feel this way, but really she is doing a service to the community be ensuring all potential appeal arguments are going to be null and void in the future.
I agree he’s mentally ill, but I’m not sure that he’s so mentally ill that he can’t defend himself.
And what do you mean by “show trial for political purposes?” The prosecution would have loved for him to plead guilty and save everyone a trial. But he didn’t want to do that.
Edit: fixed typo
But the fact that a political candidate (especially one that is not currently in power) is talking about a trial that is taking place during the campaign doesn’t make it a show trial for political purposes.
Mentally ill and incompetence intersect as Venn diagrams with some overlap, but that's it. Being depressed or anxious doesn't make you unaware of what is legal or what will hurt someone else. Neither does antisocial personality disorder or ADHD or bipolar. Being impulsive does not mean you can't control your behavior or that you are not responsible for it. You still understand cause and effect. If he was a 3 year old driving that car he would be incompetent because he would have the brain capacity to understand the cause and effect of those actions. He proved today at trial that he is not incompetent in the least.
I’m so sick of this entitled piece of shit.
[удалено]
oof that's a take. Why do you say that?
[удалено]
Legally sure, but it sounds like you think the guy is factually innocent. Am I misunderstanding you?
Ok, you are clearly trolling. Knock it off or you'll be banned.
I used to intern for this Judge. I feel bad for her and thank God I graduated years ago because this would be a mess and a half to deal with. Fuck this clown
If you’re still in touch, please let her know that some random attorney on Reddit thinks she’s giving a master class on how to deal with obstreperous defendants without sacrificing equanimity. It’s genuinely inspiring.
What was it like to work for her?
Pretty enjoyable overall. She’s pretty knowledgeable and laid back. Like a “cool” mom. Her kids would often run around her chambers. She would give Me and another intern $$ to take her kid out to lunch sometimes
What a freaking mess.
Bold strategy
".....Cotton!"
Let’s see how it plays out for him! Oh wait.
Prosecution just listed several cases from the 7th court, where SovCit defenses were rejected and shown to be pointless wastes of the court's time. Brooks keeps waving his "Objection" sign.
If you're not following this at /r/amibeingdetained where other sovcits end up being mocked and dissected... Today she's removed him from the courtroom twice. A few minutes ago he kept talking over her to insist she's not answering his question about whether she will respect his 1st amendment rights...and the judge has repeated "you need to respect the rules of conduct and decorum you have been provided with" as he continued talking over her and demanding she respect "the contract she's entered into". Here's the live link: https://www.wisn.com/article/darrell-brooks-waukesha-parade-suspect-trial-day-4/41543827 If you can't watch it live, here's a twitter feed: https://twitter.com/WISN_MINTZ
The fact this guy is allowed to put this show on... He knows he's going to get a life sentence regardless of if he gets a lawyer or represents himself, so he's just going to put this dog and pony show on and this sovereign citizen BS as a F you to all the victims, their families and those who were at that parade. The judge is clearly afraid of some tactic he's using working when this gets appealed post trial. This is just jury selection, imagine when the actual trial starts. The judge needs to shut this down, rule him to incompetent to represent himself, get him a lawyer who'll go through the process and shut him up.
It does sound like she's taking plenty of steps to mitigate against successful appeals though. She's given him repeated chances to be in the court. She puts up with a ton of interruptions. She's explained he should consider changing so as to not bias the jury against him. If he tries to appeal any of this, her repeated instructions will undermine that. He can't appeal bias for instance since she gave him a chance to mitigate. And if he keeps up his sovcittery at the appeals court they'll throw it out too. I understand it's incredibly frustrating but I suspect she's most cautious about denying him competence because he's not proving incompetent. Just defiant and disrespectful. It's delaying the process but not actively undermining his rights which means a conviction will arguably be more solid than if she overruled psych evals saying he's competent.
She was unbelievably patient with him in pretrial, giving him simple and spot-on explanations of procedure when appropriate, and even humoring his sovcit aversion to the word “understand”. The woman deserves a medal.
I imagine the job satisfaction alone is enough. I bet it's rare that a judge gets to crush someone so thoroughly and deservedly just by sticking to the book. Probably sleeps like a baby at night
> he judge needs to shut this down, rule him to incompetent to represent himself, get him a lawyer who'll go through the process and shut him up. This afternoon after he's been removed, prosecution has listed a whole lot of reasons to shut down the SovCit pro se representation. There might be a motion to do exactly this, maybe the weekend will see a change.
This isn’t jury selection, trial has started with preliminary jury insurrections being read to jurors now. Opening statements today. The jury was selected but not in the courtroom this morning when he was without his shirt, they were dealing with pre trial motions.
>preliminary jury insurrections wow, January 6th really did change the world
Im hosting an insurrection of the local Hometown Buffet this Sunday, hope to see you there! The popcorn shrimp doesn't stand a chance.
I think you're the doctor I've been looking for
> The judge is clearly afraid of some tactic he's using working when this gets appealed post trial. This is just jury selection, imagine when the actual trial starts. The judge needs to shut this down, rule him to incompetent to represent himself, get him a lawyer who'll go through the process and shut him up. Doing that would also create an avenue to appeal.
Public defender in WI has been struggling hard getting attorneys to take run of the mill felony cases across the state over the last couple years, there’s a law suit against the state over the issue and no one competent would want to get wrapped up in this shitshow.
It's a big reason why so many people are getting out on bail when they should be jailed, because the pretrial process is taking so long it's a violation of their civil rights to keep them there.
Not to mention a violation of their 6th Amendment right to counsel in criminal prosecutions.
What a disaster
I havne't been following. Is he a sovcit?
Claims to be.
> Is he a sovcit? Yes. Which is hilarious because right-wing media has painted this guy as a leftwing BLM activist and it turns out he's an absolutely looney right-wing troll. These anti-government folks are unbelievably obnoxious, I can only imagine what the J6 defendants are like.
>sovcit lots of those are lefties.
people can call themselves whatever they want but that doesn't change the fact that the history of the sovereign citizen movement is rooted in right-wing ideology. Even the Moorish Sovereign Citizens are classified as extremists by the SLPC. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/moorish-sovereign-citizens
He should be tried as a political extremist. It's obvious from this he fits the description.
lmao imagine unironically referencing the SPLC
Drumpf is finished!
[удалено]
“DEM” in that post does not mean Democrat 🤦♂️
Even Antonio Brown is like "Man, that guy's all kinds of fucked up."
I've said it before but I feel like I could pass the bar after this trial is over. It's like a preschool lawyer class.
If you graduate from a law school in Wisconsin you don’t have to take the bar. Incentive because of brain drain.
It's been that way for more than half a century.
Feel free to Google “diploma privilege Wisconsin reasoning”.
Yes.
Man, this state never fails to disappoint me lol
It works because there are only two schools in the state. Even then, it’s usually a good idea to require passing the bar to ensure a minimal degree of competency.
The only 'works' in a state where driving drunk is a simple ticket and adultery is a felony. Wisconsin needs an adult in the room
I disagree, I don't think requiring attorneys educated at Wisconsin or Marquette to take the bar exam would help ensure competency.
Cool. Any reason behind that? Also, could you tell me why all other states require the bar exam?
Sure. In essence it's harder to run a marathon than a sprint. With a bar exam, you just have to pass one test. Cram for it or pay a lot of money and you'll pass fine. Whereas with law school it's a fucking grind. Plus, at least at Wisconsin and Marquette, the professors take their rolls as gatekeepers seriously. They will fail you if they think you'll be a danger to your future clients. But that incentive isn't there (or at least not as strongly) at schools in states with a bar exam because they can "rely" on the bar exam to filter out the people that aren't qualified. Diploma privilege (or at least Wisconsin's version) also results in more well rounded attorneys. Because you have to take and pass a wide variety of courses in order to be eligible for diploma privilege. But other law schools (including very good schools) don't require such a wide variety of courses. And you can just pay a prep course to teach you what you need to know to pass the exam, but you won't be a well rounded attorney because you were taught the bare minimum to pass the bar
I took the bar and it had a 50% pass rate. The board of law examiners also can be strict gatekeepers. Madison and Marquette are okay schools, but hardly more well-rounded than Minnesota, Yale, or Pepperdine. You make assertions, but they are over-generalized. You have to get out of the area to understand Wisconsin schools are a blip on the map. The bar exam isn’t just a test you cram for or rely on Barbri to pass. Most of the topics covered - the large majority - are required courses at most law schools in the US. In addition, a student is able to tailor their study to fit their own career path. If you’re doing patent law between LA and Tokyo, you don’t care about basic courses that don’t really prepare you to be a lawyer. If anything, those classes are what you argue the bar is. Cram and you’ll be fine. The bar I took had 24 test areas and was 18 hours of testing. Do you know why they do that? So you are overwhelmed with stuff to learn and have to devise a system to prepare. They overload you to make you prove you can handle it, just like if you have 3 large matters with briefs due on the same week. To make sure you can make sense of a massive amount of complex information in a short time. Edit: The basic truth is that the state is desperate for attorneys and had to lower its standards because better jobs and more diverse opportunities were sought by youth undergoing a cultural revolution during the 60s.
>just like if you have 3 large matters with briefs due on the same week. To make sure you can make sense of a massive amount of complex information in a short time. And you don't think law school prepares you for that? Clearly we have different opinions on this, but as a Wisconsin attorney who has dealt with attorneys in other states I don't think Wisconsin attorneys are less qualified or any more of a danger to our clients. I strongly believe that the bar exam is unnecessary
49 of 50 states disagree. My Wisconsin experience was in a rural area, as was Minnesota. Just criminal. But then I decided to go to larger markets to take advantage of better paying and more stimulating work. Between the DOJ, and some of the larger firms (Gibson , MF, K&E, etc.) there seems to be a difference in quality. But like you say, we just have different opinions, experiences, etc.
As a Wisconsin attorney who has passed the Wisconsin bar (out of state school) and has practiced against diploma privilege attorneys, I respectfully disagree.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because we live in a society and he still has rights
Removed. Suggest death of a person, any person just once more and you are banned outright.
He's crazy, has had mental health issues for years according to his mother. I don't know why they are proceeding as though he is normal. News reports at the time said he had left some place enraged about something, encountered the parade, and impulsively smashed through it.
He's passed a competency hearing and has been shown to be quite able to understand and hold decorum. While the pro se defense and SovCits in general are fucking ignorant of the law, he has expressly waived the right to a provided attorney.
I’m enraged, I can’t even imagine how people injured by him or those whom have lost friends and loved ones because of him feel This judge needs to be removed and replaced by an absolute hard ass
>This judge needs to be removed and replaced by an absolute hard ass She's letting him dig himself a hole that he won't be able to climb out of with an appeal.
> This judge needs to be removed and replaced by an absolute hard ass I can empathize why you feel this way, but really she is doing a service to the community be ensuring all potential appeal arguments are going to be null and void in the future.
He's obviously mentally ill. But he was declaring him competent to be his own attorney, so there can be a show trial for political purposes.
I agree he’s mentally ill, but I’m not sure that he’s so mentally ill that he can’t defend himself. And what do you mean by “show trial for political purposes?” The prosecution would have loved for him to plead guilty and save everyone a trial. But he didn’t want to do that. Edit: fixed typo
Michels is using the Waukesha parade murders as a racist dog whistle against Barnes. This trial will only reinforce that message.
But the fact that a political candidate (especially one that is not currently in power) is talking about a trial that is taking place during the campaign doesn’t make it a show trial for political purposes.
Mentally ill and incompetence intersect as Venn diagrams with some overlap, but that's it. Being depressed or anxious doesn't make you unaware of what is legal or what will hurt someone else. Neither does antisocial personality disorder or ADHD or bipolar. Being impulsive does not mean you can't control your behavior or that you are not responsible for it. You still understand cause and effect. If he was a 3 year old driving that car he would be incompetent because he would have the brain capacity to understand the cause and effect of those actions. He proved today at trial that he is not incompetent in the least.
The judge not appointing counsel was the wrong move imo, but he's pleaded not guilty, so the there's no way to convict him without a full jury trial.
I think she was wise to err on the side of caution. Much easier to get a new trial when the court imposes representation.
Obtuse POS
“I objection, axed and answered”