What's up with the judge constantly saying "I don't know what that means"? Feels like as much manoeuvring as she's doing. Does he really not know what these things mean... or is he kind of overriding and railroading what she's attempting?
Why won't he answer the "are you a neutral judge" question? He'd answer any other little clarifying questions, but certain ones he dodges. Do you think that's just normal human irritation, or is he being strategic with stuff like that?
only watched the first half so far...
Replies (3)
Because in the practice of law words have specific meanings and he’s skipping the step where he’s supposed to pretend she’s asking a reasonable question and rightly assuming “Neutral Judge” is a term of art in her head and not lowercase ‘neutral judge’ that would be used in a different context because, in this context, he is obviously a neutral because that’s what judges are so she must be meaning capital N J Neutral Judge which is not a thing beyond the normal meeting of neutral which is redundant when put before the word judge. Setting aside all the comments that will inevitably follow to impugn the judiciary, there is no such thing as a non-neutral judge.
In other words, he’s skipping the fake part of the conversation and getting right to the point.
If she asks a bunch of questions, and has filed a bunch of stuff, and they always say "we don't know what these things mean", what's her recourse? does she have to take those "confusing" things to a higher court, and are they compelled to hear it, or can they just tell her to get lost?
"you can only plead X or Y (not Z)". how is this different than "you can only plead X" (like, say, "guilty")? what's the difference between not accepting her "equity" plea and not accepting someone else's "not guilty" plea?
she's asking questions in a technical situation, but her questions aren't well formed. does the judge know what the word "neutral" means? of course. does this term have a legal definition in the current context? no.
her behavior in the second appearance could easily have ended in contempt of court. if you're careful you can see the court trying to help her out:
"This is not a money case involving two parties in a contract. This is a criminal case where there are traffic offenses that have been alleged against you"
which the defendant attempts to reframe:
"Your honor, I know you and I both know that while this purports to be a a criminal matter, it is actually a commercial in nature, right?"
before accusing the court:
"And your honor, do you have a financial interest in this matter?"
the whole thing was pretty painful to watch, because the defendant is largely ignorant of how much fire they're playing with, and the court is being more accommodating than necessary
