• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Courtroom Antics & Trial Oddities

'Catman' murderer trial halted after defendant repeatedly answers judge with meows​

Nicolas Gil Pereg, who is accused of killing two relatives in Argentina, was removed from court after making the cat noise over 50 times

ByNatalia Penza 27 October 2021 • 11:37am

An alleged double murderer was removed from a courtroom after answering questions from the judge by repeating ‘Meow, meow.’
Nicolas Gil Pereg, dubbed the Catman or Hombre Gato in Argentina where he is charged with killing his mother and aunt, was taken down to cells after imitating the animal noise more than 50 times at the start of his jury trial in the city of Mendoza.

Full Story:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...edly-answers-judge/?utm_content=telegraph&utm
 
Yithian said:

'Catman' murderer trial halted after defendant repeatedly answers judge with meows​

Nicolas Gil Pereg, who is accused of killing two relatives in Argentina, was removed from court after making the cat noise over 50 times ...
Click to expand...
Legitimate bat cat-shit craziness, or angling for an insanity plea? You decide! ... :thought:
 
EnolaGaia said:
This genius insisted on serving as his own attorney, even after the judge's warnings that it wasn't a good idea. He then took the stand to testify on his own behalf, only to confess under oath to two additional felonies more serious than the ones he was already being tried for.

FULL STORY: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...adden/65-a40af9c2-9809-4adb-aaec-7e36ad12b308
Click to expand...

Another Capitol Rioter,this one turns out to be Judas.

Last week, the FBI arrested James Beeks, 49, of Orlando, Florida, for his alleged role in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

According to prosecutors, Beeks is affiliated with the Oath Keepers. A US Justice Department report explains that the Feds were able to track down Beeks is because he's currently starring as Judas in a touring production of Jesus Christ Superstar. From CNN:

In court today, Beeks apparently asserted his "divine" authority and, as such, the US laws don't apply to him.

"That's all gobbledygook," Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the DC District Court said. "Mr. Beeks, you should be quiet unless spoken to."
Beeks' outbursts parroted the Sovereign Citizen movement — a belief that government institutions are fraudulent and thus followers do not have to abide by them — though Beeks told Howell the term 'Sovereign Citizen' was an "insult" and an "oxymoron." […]
"A defendant who rejects the jurisdiction of the court…rejects the rule of law," Howell said, "is typically not released pre-trial," though the judge eventually released Beeks on GPS monitoring when he finally agreed — after speaking privately with his lawyer — to cooperate.
Click to expand...

https://boingboing.net/2021/11/29/c...erstar-asserts-divine-authority-to-judge.html
 
ramonmercado said:
Another Capitol Rioter,this one turns out to be Judas.

Last week, the FBI arrested James Beeks, 49, of Orlando, Florida, for his alleged role in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

According to prosecutors, Beeks is affiliated with the Oath Keepers. A US Justice Department report explains that the Feds were able to track down Beeks is because he's currently starring as Judas in a touring production of Jesus Christ Superstar. From CNN:

In court today, Beeks apparently asserted his "divine" authority and, as such, the US laws don't apply to him.



https://boingboing.net/2021/11/29/c...erstar-asserts-divine-authority-to-judge.html
Click to expand...
I realise this may be a tad controversial, but we have no control over where we are born. Does that mean we are automatically required to accept the authority of overlords who rule that piece of turf? Just askin'.
 
Cochise said:
I realise this may be a tad controversial, but we have no control over where we are born. Does that mean we are automatically required to accept the authority of overlords who rule that piece of turf? Just askin'.
Click to expand...

It's not automatically accepting authority in this case, he's charged with crimes committed during a riot and has been brought before a court constituted under U.S. Federal Law. In the UK you can also refuse to recognise the authority of the Criminal Courts, that opinion plus £2 will get you an espresso.
 
Cochise said:
I realise this may be a tad controversial, but we have no control over where we are born. Does that mean we are automatically required to accept the authority of overlords who rule that piece of turf? Just askin'.
Click to expand...

The (radical) alternative is to claim no newborn is a valid citizen of the national entity and hence all newborns are subject to immediate deportation.
 
EnolaGaia said:
The (radical) alternative is to claim no newborn is a valid citizen of the national entity and hence all newborns are subject to immediate deportation.
Click to expand...
What I'm asking, if you like, is where is the consent? It's only a philosophical question, I grant you,
 
In the legal context 'consent' is considered valid only with regard to 'competent' individuals. By default, newborns and infants are treated as 'incompetent' to enact legal / legally-binding actions or decisions, and hence their affairs must be managed by a presumptively competent representative. Again by default, the automatic representative authority lies with the parent(s). Otherwise, a non-parent guardian or conservator has to be appointed.

My point is that under most modern legal systems the newborn has no privilege of choice. Legal authority is imposed over his / her person and affairs until such time as the law provides for ascribing competence to make choices and then accommodating his / her choice(s).
 
Everybody choosing themselves which laws to follow. It's one of those "It's a good idea but doesn't work in real life" things.
Though we could perhaps bring back the concept of the lawless.
 
Xanatic* said:
Everybody choosing themselves which laws to follow. It's one of those "It's a good idea but doesn't work in real life" things.
Though we could perhaps bring back the concept of the lawless.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes I know. Y'all are missing the point - a truly useless philosophical point, I grant you - which is under what concept of law, which allegedly relies on assent - you can be signed up at birth to a set of laws you may totally disagree with.
 
Cochise said:
... under what concept of law, which allegedly relies on assent - you can be signed up at birth to a set of laws you may totally disagree with.
Click to expand...

As far as established secular legal systems are concerned, I believe the answer is "All of them."

The 'secular' qualification was added to accommodate the possibility that a non-secular (most probably religious) doctrine may be recognized as overriding secular law in certain circumstances.

The only example (and probably a poor one at that ... ) that comes to mind is the designation of a young child as the reincarnation of a holy man / lama in certain Buddhist traditions.

I don't know whether there's any place where the religious doctrine overrides secular law and vests authority over the child in the religious institutions rather than the parents. Then again, I don't recall any stories of such designation / veneration beginning until the designated child is already some years of age.

Even if this alleged example could be enacted at or near birth, I suppose one could reasonably argue it's simply swapping the child's subordination from one regulatory system to another.
 
EnolaGaia said:
Even if this alleged example could be enacted at or near birth, I suppose one could reasonably argue it's simply swapping the child's subordination from one regulatory system to another.
Click to expand...
You are probably right there.

I wasn't making a specifically religious point. although of course systems of law and religion have traditionally been bound together, even in the USA. Not much recognition of, say Sioux laws and beliefs in US law which is clearly based on nonconformist Christian beliefs. .

I'm rather surprised at the reaction. It seems to me many people have laws/belief systems imposed on them from birth but against their will and possibly their interests.

One thinks of the Aborigines in Australia, who are born into a system wholly ignorant of the way their ancestors have lived, and yet compelled to live by those imposed laws. Or for that matter Irish Catholics at least up to the 1960's (in NI)

As I said it is a purely philosophical point because how else could it practically be? Heinlein wrote about people who lived by their own rules but not in any context that would be achievable in the real world.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me there's a trade-off intrinsic to this situation. Human children are relatively helpless for years. Ensuring their survival requires the consistent attention and care of multiple adults. Ensuring this support network requires maintaining a stable sociocultural network. Ensuring the stability of that network requires rules (hence laws).

In other words, the existence of a regularized / regulated social milieu is necessary for newborns to have much chance of making it to maturity (and hence continuing the cyclical renewal ad infinitum).

Subjugation or subordination to the rules of the relevant sociocultural environment represents the admission price for care and survival. Imposing this state of affairs from the time of birth maximizes stability in the structures the adults will eventually leave to the younger ones, because it fosters the sense that the immediate sociocultural norms and responsibilities are 'right' and deserving of adherence.
 
Agreed. But in that there is no concept of whether the imposed system is 'right'. Now, I don't pretend to know what 'right' is . But to go back to my Aborigine example, I'd be hesitant to say the current system in Australia is more right than the Aborigine system. The Aborigines seem to have maintained that difficult continent in a viable state for millennia, whereas Europeans have done devastating damage to the environment in a mere 200 years.
 
I didn't claim rules and laws were 'right' in any sense. I said a stable set of rules that may be the only ones to which the newborn is ever exposed fosters a sense of 'rightness'. Any protocol that is the sole one you know can be (mis?-)interpreted as the way things must be.
 
Cochise: If your philosphical question is "Are people being made to follow a set of rules and laws to which they have never given individual consent?" then the philosophical answer is "Yeah."
 
Xanatic* said:
Cochise: If your philosphical question is "Are people being made to follow a set of rules and laws to which they have never given individual consent?" then the philosophical answer is "Yeah."
Click to expand...
Yep. That's what I was thinking.

Edit: Sorry, properly awake now. What was behind my comments was to point out that the various deluded people who claim some sort of natural justice or born again freedom are not in fact deluded in that basic belief. Where they are possibly deluded is in thinking there is any practical alternative. In other words, a certain amount of injustice and indeed dictatorship is built in to even the most democratic system and kicking against it is not in itself a sign of lunacy.
 
Last edited:
Cochise said:
... What was behind my comments was to point out that the various deluded people who claim some sort of natural justice or born again freedom are not in fact deluded in that basic belief. Where they are possibly deluded is in thinking there is any practical alternative. In other words, a certain amount of injustice and indeed dictatorship is built in to even the most democratic system and kicking against it is not in itself a sign of lunacy.
Click to expand...

In a way I think this last posting is over-generalized in the sense it veers away from the context in which you framed your original query - i.e., birth and childhood. These impose constraints on how much freedom can be practically afforded the young.

A utopian(?) social milieu with maximal individual 'freedom' or 'independence' makes for stimulating rhetoric, but individual humans aren't universally and always equipped to deal with shouldering the responsibilities these concepts entail. Like it or not, humans don't emerge 'out of the box' fully capable of operating as standalone actors and decision makers.

It takes some years for a newborn to mature to the point he / she grasps the issues involved in making one's way in the world, and it takes even longer to develop capabilities for undertaking any independent lifestyle (be it slavish repetition of one's native traditions or something entirely different).

It's not until this capacity for independent living is attained that the individual can reasonably enact personal decisions regarding the path(s) along which he / she wishes to sustain him- / herself.

In the mean time ... Some measure of a priori structure is required to provide an environment in which the child can develop in these ways (though admittedly not all children manage to adequately develop ... ). Once they're equipped to steer their own lives they should be free to navigate as they wish.

The structure within which they spent their earliest years provides a reference point from which to chart their courses. Some simply orbit and re-embody the original structures; others head off into the unknown.

It's been my observation that the individuals I've known well who've been most responsibly independent are the ones who grew up in difficult or even oppressive circumstances. By the time they were entitled to steer their own lives they knew from experience what they did and didn't want (would or wouldn't tolerate; etc.). In this sense of initially seeding the individual's preferences and aspirations, even the most troublesome structures and constraints provide a basis for being surmounted.
 
Man who ‘assaulted Chris Whitty’ wears dressing gown for court appearance from bed
One of the men accused of assaulting Chris Whitty appeared for a court hearing in a dressing gown – because he has Covid-19.

Hughes, who lost his job as an estate agent after his employer saw the footage, admitted common assault in July and was handed an eight-week jail term suspended for two years. Chew has denied common assault and obstructing police so was due to appear in court today for a trial hearing over video link.

But the coughing defendant, wearing little more than a bathrobe, was apparently too unwell to continue with the hearing.

Daniel O’Donoghue, prosecuting, questioned the veracity of the documents confirming his positive test results but the trial was postponed.

Before the hearing began this afternoon, Chew’s solicitor told the court he was withdrawing from the case because he is ‘professionally embarrassed’.

Chew demanded the chief medical officer should be forced to attend court but was informed otherwise by Judge Goldspring.

The defendant said: ‘The law is that I have the right for him to come. I want Chris Whitty there.’

But the judge responded ‘I suspect I know a bit [more] about the law than you do’, explaining that Professor Whitty does not legally have to attend court as the facts have been agreed between the prosecution and defence, meaning there is no reason for the defence to cross-examine him.

Chew added: ‘I feel like I’m innocent. I’m answering an assault charge which I don’t think I’ve done.’

He asked the judge ‘are you saying corona is not real now?’ and ‘I feel like what you’re doing now is victimising me…you’re calling me a liar’.

Judge Goldspring said: ‘Your cavalier approach to the severity of these proceedings is breath-taking.’

Chew interjected: ‘What does cavalier mean.’
Click to expand...

https://metro.co.uk/2021/12/21/man-...ssault-wear-drowsing-gown-for-court-15807456/
 
Woof justice.

A barrister's barking dog forced a temporary pause in a remote hearing at the Court of Appeal, in what was one of the last video-link cases at the court before a return to physical hearings.

The three-judge court has been hearing cases remotely since April 2020 in response to the threat posed to the public health by Covid-19. Last week however, the appellate court decided physical hearings at the Criminal Courts of Justice would resume when it emerged the Government was on the brink of ending many of the pandemic restrictions.

Unfortunately, the move did not come soon enough for the dog-owning lawyer who was appealing both the conviction and prison term imposed on his client in a criminal case.

As the barrister was explaining to the three judges of the court why he believed the trial judge had erred when he refused his client’s change of plea from guilty to not guilty, the sound of a dog repeatedly barking could be heard over the remote link.

The lawyer had paused temporarily and, when the yapping ceased, resumed his submission before being again stopped in his tracks moments later when the dog began its barking once again. The presiding judge then intervened and said the court would rise while the barrister “dealt with the matter”.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40792008.html
 
Not So Happy Birthday Suit.

A Kentucky man has been awarded $450,000 (£345,314) after his company threw him a surprise birthday party despite his warnings that it would trigger stress and anxiety.

The plaintiff, Kevin Berling, claims that the unwanted 2019 birthday party at Gravity Diagnostics caused him a series of panic attacks. Mr Berling's lawsuit alleged that the company discriminated against him based on a disability. The company has denied any wrongdoing.

According to the lawsuit filed in Kentucky's Kenton County, Mr Berling - who suffers from anxiety disorders - had asked his manager to not celebrate his birthday at work as it normally does for its employees, as it could potentially result in a panic attack and would bring back uncomfortable childhood memories. Despite Mr Berling's request, the company, which conducts Covid-19 tests, threw him a surprise party in August 2019, triggering a panic attack. He quickly left the party and finished his lunch in his car.

The lawsuit notes that Mr Berling was "confronted and criticised" at a meeting the following day, where he was accused of "stealing his co-workers joy" and "being a little girl". The tense meeting prompted a second panic attack, after which the company sent him home for the remainder of 8 August and 9 August.

On 11 August, Gravity Diagnostics fired him, citing concerns about workplace safety. His lawsuit alleged that the company discriminated against him because of a disability and unfairly retaliated against him for asking that his request be accommodated.

After a two day trial at the end of March, the jury awarded him $450,000, including $300,000 for emotional distress and $150,000 in lost wages. ...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61141421
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top