And judging by the writings and beliefs of those of his ilk, society owes them the same amount of volutary respect that they pay society, which is to say "none".
Now, go on and play "Dueling Banjos" with the rest of your toothless, America hating friends.
You are saying the court has not obligation to explain "diddly" (btw, that's a legal term with which I am not familiar), but others say the court does have such an obligation.
You should do the reading...
See the final paragraph I wrote in post #110
If it's obvious he is a crackpot, then why bother with the process of testing his mental capacity in a formal way? If the man's argument had no merit, the judge could have warned him not to waste the court's time, and that other such "crackpot" behavior in his court would be answered with a charge of contempt.
BTW, I have all my teeth, and in fact I have my wisdom teeth too.
If you can't respond to a discussion in a civilized manner sans the pedantic insinuations that I am some kind of toothless rebel hick, then please don't bother. It is you who should move along.