Replies

I am not defending the actions of this particular man. I dim my headlights and think others should too as a matter of courtesy to other drivers. I think the guy is going to a lot of trouble to prove his point, and coming up against the legal system will likely result in pain for himself and his family.

However, when you say he "began to abuse the system to further his own agenda" - aren't you indicting the entire idea of civil disobedience? Do you think civil rights activists in the 1960s were wrong to challenge the Jim Crow laws in the same manner?

If the judge can slap this guy down with the law - by answering his question of jurisdiction legally, then that's what he should do. The judge's action in this case appear to justify the defendent's beliefs and his rationale for being a "Divine Anarchist." Many ways of defining an anarchist exist. For example, it can mean that you think all laws should be abolished, or it can mean active resistance and terrorism against the state. But the most innocuous definition of an anarchist is a person who rejects all forms of coercive control and authority. The latter definition appears to fit with this story.

Let me take out the proverbial two-by-four and make this point again. I think the ex-cop was rightfully arrested for not dimming his beams and failing to produce his license. However, when the judge threatens the man by questioning his mental competence, the judge actually plays into the hand of the "divine anarchist" by applying coercive control and authority. The judge had alternatives to the mental health issue (like actually responding to the matter of jurisdiction in writing as prescribed by the law) but appears to be choosing the brutish and arguably unconstitutional method to give this man his comeuppance.

The judge had alternatives to the mental health issue (like actually responding to the matter of jurisdiction in writing as prescribed by the law)

You're assuming the judge failed to follow the law with respect to jurisdiction. If he did, it is up to the whackjob's defense attorney to raise this challenge--and he should. Has he? If he has not, that ought to be a clue of some kind.

Yes, I know. Someone above "proved" this nutball is being prosecuted unlawfully, and "proved" it by citing a SCOTUS case in isolation of its facts and other relevant cases. However, this is piss-poor legal research technique and won't move a law student's Constitutional Law grade from an "F" to a "D-" even at a piss-poor and marginal law school.