New Magic Kool-Ade Words: "You Can Call Me Friend"

[The Observer]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
MERVIN NOLT ZIMMERMAN, ET AL.

Release Date: APRIL 19, 2011

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MEMORANDUM

April 19, 2011

Bartle, C.J.

The United States filed suit against defendants Mervin Nolt Zimmerman and Mildred Zimmerman, husband and wife, and the M&M Family Trust to reduce to judgment assessments of federal income taxes and to foreclose federal tax liens. Before the court is the motion of the United States for default judgment under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

I.

The United States filed suit against the defendants in November 2009. The complaint seeks to reduce to judgment assessments of federal income taxes that the Secretary of the Treasury made against Mervin Nolt Zimmerman for the years 1996 through 1999 and 2003 through 2005. The total amount assessed against Mervin Zimmerman for all seven years, including taxes, statutory additions, interest, and penalties, is $ 481,117.19 as of October 31, 2009. The complaint also seeks to reduce to judgment assessments of federal income taxes the Secretary of the Treasury made against the M&M Family Trust for the years 1998 and 1999. The M&M Family Trust owed $ 60,287.15 on these assessments as of October 31, 2009.

Finally, the complaint asks the court to foreclose federal tax liens that arose on property and rights to property belonging to Mervin Zimmerman and the M&M Family Trust as a result of the assessments. The complaint alleges that these liens attached to a farm at 492 East Farmersville Road, New Holland, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania where the Zimmermans live. According to the complaint, the Zimmermans sold the farm to Linda Glick on August 12, 1991 for $ 1.00. Mrs. Glick allegedly sold the farm to the M&M Family Trust on the same day for "200 Units of Beneficial Interest in the M&M Family Trust," a trust in which Mervin Zimmerman is a trustee. The United States alleges that the M&M Family Trust holds title to the Farmersville Road property as an alter ego or nominee of the Mervin and Mildred Zimmerman. 1

On behalf of the United States, the Clerk entered defaults against all defendants in January 2010 after each defendant failed to file a timely answer. The defendants retained counsel, the parties agreed to set aside the entry of default, and the defendants answered.

On August 19, 2010, the United States filed a motion to compel a response to interrogatories and requests for the production of documents that defendants failed to answer. The court granted the motion to compel and ordered defendants to respond to the government's discovery requests by August 30.

Defendants responded to the discovery requests by the court-ordered deadline. In their interrogatory responses, the defendants identified several entities and individuals as having information that may support the affirmative defenses set forth in their answers. Specifically, the defendants identified Farmersville Crane, LLC ("Farmersville Crane") as an entity for which Mervin Zimmerman works and identified Edwin Zimmerman as an individual with relevant knowledge. Defendants' interrogatory responses stated that Edwin Zimmerman lives at the same address as Mervin and Mildred Zimmerman.

Based on this information, the United States caused subpoenas for the production of documents and for deposition testimony to issue to Farmersville Crane and to two Edwin Zimmermans that live at the defendants' address. 2 The United States also caused a subpoena to issue to the WEMER Family Trust, an entity on whose accounts defendant Mervin Zimmerman had check-writing authority. Finally, due to the paucity of useful information in the defendants' interrogatory responses, the United States issued a second set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents to the defendants and noticed depositions for each of the three defendants.

None of the third parties produced documents in response to the government's subpoenas, and it elected to take these parties' depositions without their documents. On December 8, 2010, an unidentified man appeared at an IRS facility in Lancaster, Pennsylvania for the deposition of the WEMER Family Trust. The man refused to identify himself but said that counsel for the United States could call him "friend." The man left without testifying but did leave a handwritten "NOTICE" that reads:

For the record I am here in the matter of the name
EDWIN ZIMMERMAN there is a mistake I have never been
properly noticed Where is the meeting of the minds
I want to settle this matter honorably I trust you
can settle the matter

The United States made a record of the events at this deposition by placing the building security guard under oath and having the guard describe the exchange he had witnessed between the unidentified man and counsel for the United States.

The next day, December 9, 2010, the same anonymous individual appeared for the deposition of Edwin H. Zimmerman. He once again refused to testify, but he did read a statement on the record that substantially mirrors the content of the "NOTICE" he had provided at the previous day's deposition. Later in the afternoon of December 9, defendant Mervin Zimmerman appeared without his attorney for the deposition of Farmersville Crane. Mervin Zimmerman stated repeatedly that he was only present for "the matter of the name," and when asked if he was present to testify on behalf of Farmersville Crane, he answered, "Apparently not." The only "testimony" Mervin Zimmerman would give was this:

For the record, I'm here for the matter of the name
Mervin Zimmerman. There is a mistake. I have never
been properly noticed. Where is the meeting of the
minds? I want to settle this matter honorably. I
trust you can settle the matter.

The defendants failed timely to answer the United States' second set of discovery requests, and on December 13, 2010, the United States moved to compel responses to these requests. It explained that it needed the requested documents and interrogatory responses by December 16 because depositions of the defendants were scheduled to begin on that date. Since defendants had failed to make any response to the discovery requests, the court summarily granted the motion on December 14, 2010. It ordered defendants to answer the interrogatories and produce the requested documents to the United States by 12:00 p.m. on December 16.

On December 16, defendants Mervin and Mildred Zimmerman appeared for Mildred Zimmerman's deposition without their attorney. As they entered the IRS facility, they were required to present photo identification to the building security guard. The United States began by asking Mildred Zimmerman for her name. She responded, "You can call me friend." When asked the next question, she responded, "For the record, in the matter of Mildred Zimmerman, there appears to be a mistake. I have never been properly noticed. Where is the meeting of the minds so I can deal with the matter honorably?" Mildred Zimmerman then stated that she had nothing else to say.

Mervin Zimmerman then offered to read the statement he would otherwise have read at his deposition and the deposition of M&M Family Trust, both scheduled for the following day, December 17. He then proceeded to read the same statement Mildred Zimmerman had just read, replacing the name "Mildred Zimmerman" with "Mervin Zimmerman." The Zimmermans both confirmed that they did not bring any documents to the deposition and that they would not respond to the government's discovery requests. Having confirmed they would say no more, the Zimmermans left and the United States once again placed the building security guard under oath. The security guard testified that the two people who spoke to counsel for the United States moments before had been Mervin and Mildred Zimmerman and that they brought only one thin envelope apiece to the deposition.

On December 22, 2010, the defendants' attorney, Jonathan Altman, Esquire moved to withdraw his appearance. Mr. Altman stated that the defendants had unexpectedly terminated his services on December 15, the day before Mildred Zimmerman's deposition. Shortly thereafter, the court received two pieces of correspondence from the Zimmermans. Each is a note that has been written by hand onto the court's order of December 14, 2010. The first reads:

For the record,

In the matter of the name MERVIN ZIMMERMAN There appears
to be a mistake

I have never been properly noticed, Where is the meeting
of the minds,

So that I can deal with The matter honorably.

The second letter is substantially identical but includes the name Mildred Zimmerman in capital letters in place of Mervin Zimmerman.

Between December 22 and December 29, 2010, the United States filed three motions. First, the United States asked the court to enter sanctions, including judgment, against the defendants under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure due to their continuing failure to participate in discovery. The United States filed a second motion requesting in the alternative an order to compel the defendants to appear and participate in a deposition. Finally, the United States sought to have the court hold in contempt Farmersville Crane, WEMER Family Trust, and the two Edwin Zimmermans for failing to testify or produce documents in response to the government's subpoenas.

On January 13, 2011, the court once again ordered the defendants to respond to the government's discovery requests, which had also been the subject of the December 14 order. The court further ordered Mervin and Mildred Zimmerman and a representative of the M&M Family Trust to appear and "participate cooperatively" in the taking of their depositions on February 17, 2011. The court entered a separate order requiring Farmersville Crane, WEMER Family Trust, and both Edwin Zimmermans to appear before the court and show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the subpoenas issued at the request of the United States.

At the show cause hearing on February 15, 2011, one of the Edwin Zimmermans appeared and admitted receiving the United States' subpoena. When asked by the court to explain his failure to comply, Edwin Zimmerman repeatedly stated only that the court could call him "friend," that there was a mistake in this matter, that he had not received proper notice, and he wanted "to deal with this matter honorably." Despite Edwin Zimmerman's obstinance and refusal to purge his contempt, the United States stated it was not necessary to incarcerate him because the documents at issue were of unknown value and were requested primarily to ensure that the defenses asserted in the answer to the complaint lacked merit. Defendant Mervin Zimmerman was present in the gallery for the show cause hearing. 3 As the hearing concluded, the court admonished those present that serious consequences would attach to the defendants' continued refusal to participate in discovery.

Two days after the show cause hearing, the Zimmermans appeared at the IRS office in Lancaster, Pennsylvania to be deposed as required by the court's January 13 order. The Zimmermans would not be seated and refused to testify. Mervin Zimmerman insisted repeatedly that he was "just here for the matter of the name." When asked by the United States to be seated and be deposed, Mervin Zimmerman stated, "Well, just going to make the statement, as I'm here for the matter for the name Mervin Nolt Zimmerman. You can call me friend, and where is the proper notice so I can deal with this matter honorably." Mervin and Mildred Zimmerman confirmed that they had nothing further to say and brought no documents with them. Mervin Zimmerman acknowledged that he was appearing on behalf of M&M Family Trust. Counsel for the United States explained to the Zimmermans that they were required by a court order to appear and participate in the depositions, but the Zimmermans said nothing further. Counsel for the United States suspended the depositions.

The motion of the United States under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for default judgment against Mervin and Mildred Zimmerman and M&M Family Trust followed. No defendant filed an opposition to this motion, but the court did receive by mail a "Notice" from one of the defendants. The "Notice" was enclosed with the copy of the motion for default judgment that counsel for the United States served on Mervin Zimmerman. The "Notice" reads:

Date: Mar. 11, 2011

To: Judge: Harvey Bartle III

Notice

In the matter of UNITED STATES V. MERVIN ZIMMERMAN,
There is a mistake. You can call me friend I have
important first-hand Testimony to help you settle
the matter honourably.

When can we meet so I can provide you with this evidence?

Thank you, Friend

492 East Farmersville Rd
New Holland, PA 17557
717-314-1058

II.

The court is empowered to sanction parties that refuse to participate in discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). The court is specifically authorized to enter default judgment against a party based on that party's failure to participate or cooperate in the discovery process. Id. at 37(b)(2)(A)(vi). Entry of default judgment is "the most severe" sanction a court can impose for discovery misconduct and is appropriate only where a party demonstrates "flagrant bad faith." Nat'l Hockey League v. Met. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643 (1976). In deciding whether entry of default judgment is an appropriate sanction we consider the six factors enumerated by our Court of Appeals in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. 747 F.2d 863, 868-70 (3d Cir. 1984). These factors are:

(1) the extent of the party's personal responsibility;
(2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the
failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to
discovery; (3) a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether
the conduct of the party or the attorney was willful
or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of sanctions
other than dismissal, which entails an analysis of
alternative sanctions; and (6) the meritoriousness
of the claim or defense.

Id. at 868 (emphases in original); see Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 980 F.2d 912, 921 (3d Cir. 1992). No single factor is dispositive, every factor need not be present, and "there is no 'magic formula'" for balancing these six factors. Briscoe v. Klaus, 538 F.3d 252, 263 (3d Cir. 2008).

Each of the Poulis factors supports entry of default judgment against the defendants. Mervin and Mildred Zimmerman are personally responsible for frustrating the discovery efforts of the United States. They appeared without counsel on their own behalf and on the behalf of M&M Family Trust at two separately scheduled depositions without counsel and refused to testify. One of those depositions was held pursuant to this court's order. Further, the Zimmermans personally responded to the court's December 14, 2010 order and the motion of the United States for entry of default judgment by writing meaningless missives to the court. The Zimmermans disregarded two court orders requiring them to produce responses to the United States' interrogatories and requests for the production of documents.

Moreover, the court does not consider it a coincidence that Farmersville Crane, WEMER Family Trust, and one of the Edwin Zimmermans engaged in the same contumacious behavior as the defendants. Edwin Zimmerman, on behalf of himself and the WEMER Family Trust, refused to testify or produce documents in response to the government's subpoena. Defendant Mervin Zimmerman engaged in nearly identical conduct when subpoenaed to testify and produce documents in his individual capacity and on behalf of M&M Family Trust and Farmersville Crane. The record reflects that Edwin Zimmerman lives at the same address as Mervin Zimmerman, engaged in the same behavior as defendants, and attempted to justify his contumacious conduct with the same language that defendants Mervin and Mildred Zimmerman recited at their depositions. The court finds that defendants coordinated with a third party, Edwin Zimmerman, to frustrate the discovery process. Thus, the defendants Mervin and Mildred Zimmerman are personally responsible not only for their own failure to respond to discovery requests but for engineering non-compliance by another with subpoenas issued on behalf of the United States. See Hoxworth, 980 F.2d at 920.

The defendants' conduct has caused significant prejudice to the United States in litigating this matter. Counsel for the United States been required to travel from Washington D.C. to Lancaster, Pennsylvania on multiple occasions in a futile effort to depose the defendants and their related third parties. Since December 2010, the United States has been required to file two motions to compel discovery responses from the defendants. When the United States attempted to pursue discovery through third-party subpoenas, the defendants conspired with others to stymie those efforts. The United States had no alternative but to bring a motion for contempt.

The defendants have demonstrated a distinct pattern of dilatory and contemptuous conduct. Even while defendants were represented, the United States obtained answers to its first set of discovery requests only by bringing a motion to compel. Thereafter, while proceeding pro se, the defendants have failed to respond to the United States' discovery requests despite two separate court orders requiring compliance and a verbal admonition by the court at the show cause hearing. Moreover, the defendants refused to participate in their depositions despite a court order requiring them to do so. Defendants' conduct represents a concerted effort to obstruct these proceedings. See Coastal Mart, Inc. v. Johnson Auto Repair, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 30, 34-35 (E.D. Pa. 2000). In sum, the behavior of the defendants in this case was clearly willful, motivated by obvious bad faith, and with the clear intent to frustrate the judicial process. See United States v. Hempfling, Case No. 05-594, 2008 WL 703809, at *8-*9 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2008).

The United States' claims in this case appear meritorious. A claim is meritorious in this context when the allegations in the complaint would support recovery if proven at trial. Poulis, 747 F.2d at 869-70. We are not required to consider the merit of the defendants' affirmative defenses or to balance the merit of defenses against the merit of the plaintiff's claims. Hoxworth, 980 F.2d at 922.

In Counts I and II of the complaint, the United States alleges that the Secretary of the Treasury assessed federal income taxes against Mervin Zimmerman and the M&M Family Trust. These assessments are presumptively valid and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the assessment is invalid or incorrect. Francisco v. United States, 267 F.3d 303, 319 (3d Cir. 2001). Count III of the complaint asks the court to foreclose federal tax liens. An assessment of federal income taxes automatically causes a lien to arise on the property and rights to property of the assessed taxpayer. 26 U.S.C. section 6321-22; see United States v. Green, 201 F.3d 251, 253 (3d Cir. 2000). The United States alleges that the M&M Family Trust is a nominee or alter ego of Mervin and Mildred Zimmerman. If proven, the United States could obtain court approval to sell property held in the name of M&M Family Trust to satisfy Mervin Zimmerman's unpaid federal tax liability. See 12 Pa. Cons. Stat. 5104; Drye v. United States, 528 U.S. 49, 58-59 (1999); Green, 201 F.3d at 251.

Finally, entry of default judgment is the only appropriate sanction for defendants' contumacious conduct given the disregard all three defendants have shown for this court's orders and the discovery process. A lesser consequence would not appropriately redress defendants' flagrant misbehavior. See Hempfling, 2008 WL 703809 at *9. A lighter repercussion would reward defendants for their contempt and would encourage others to flout this court's orders. See Nat'l Hockey League, 427 U.S. at 643.

Accordingly, we will grant the United States' motion and enter default judgment against the defendants.

FOOTNOTES:

/1/ Mildred Zimmerman is named as a defendant because she may hold an interest in the real property at issue.

/2/ Unsure of which of the two Edwin Zimmermans was the one with the relevant information, the United States caused subpoenas to issue to both.

/3/ The court was not made aware of Mervin Zimmerman's presence during the hearing. The documents submitted with the motion for entry of default judgment explain that counsel for the United States observed defendant Mervin Zimmerman present in the courtroom.

[Pottapaug1938]

From the web site www.sing365.com:

Whenever I call you "Friend", I begin to think I understand
Anywhere we are, you and I have always been, ever and ever
I see myself within your eyes, and that's all I need to show me why
Everything I do always takes me home to you, ever and ever
'N now I know my life has given me more than memories, day by day, we can see
In every moment there's a reason to carry on
Chorus:
Sweet love's showin' us a heavenly light, never seen such a beautiful sight
See love glowin' on us every night, I know forever we'll be doin' it
chorus... right
Whenever I call you "Friend", I believe I've come to understand
Everywhere we are, you and I were meant to be, forever and ever
I think about the times to come, knowin' I will be the lucky one
And ever our love will last, I always want to call you "Friend"
chorus
(Instrumental break)
An' now I know my life has given me more than memories, day by day
We can see, in every moment there's a reason to carry on
chorus repeats 2x - doin' it, doin' it
Sweet love (repeats out)...
(You're the glowin' light in my life, source of pride in my life)
(Everything I do takes me back to you, whenever I call you friend...

[Judge Roy Bean]

The Zimmermans may have been drinking this Koolaid:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WethePeople_Shareholders/

It appears to belong to one "Patrick Devine" and he's been promoting gibberish for some time.

[silversopp]

Yikes! These guys are dangerously close to the magic words. The correct words being, of course, "You Can Call Me Al"

Let's hope that they don't uncover the secret of the Roly Poly Little Bat-Faced Girl spell!

[Assessor]

The Zimmermans may have been drinking this Koolaid:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WethePeople_Shareholders/

It appears to belong to one "Patrick Devine" and he's been promoting gibberish for some time.

-------------------------------

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WethePeop ... ssage/3009

The State Treasurer will have my State Bank Notes in their hands in the Morning
then they have to put the request to the Federal Reserve Office in Des Moines to
Print up the Lawful money should have Friday I hope but Monday at the Latest.
4.98 million in real value dollars. This is better than the casinos.
All our funds in this country are in our State account, they never were at the
U. S. Treasury, per the law they cannot be there we are State Citizens first.
Start with several Items you need , a new car, a new house, some operating
money, etc. You need to understand what you are doing first, when you understand
the rest that I have been talking about, then you can worry about how much is in
the account.
Every state has a Federal Reserve Office in the State Capital, it is there to
print up the Real Money when we exchange our assets with the Certificate of Live
Birth Bank Note.

This was posted by Devine on 4/13, so he should have nearly 5 million by now...in "Real Money". Unless, of course, he is completely delusional.

This entire episode seemed highly bizarre until I looked at JRB's link.
And this confirms what JRB wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WethePeop ... ssage/2927

If in court:

Judge: "STATE vs JOHN DOE"

Friend: Good morning your honor, The name is JOHN DOE and I am appearing as a
Friend of the court to provide first hand knowledge and testimony to help
settle the matter honorably, may I [proceed]?

Judge: Are you JOHN DOE?

Friend: The name is JOHN DOE,I use that name.

Judge: What is your name!?

Friend: I answer to Friend, you can call me Friend.
(remain silent from this point on until you hear the call for "Friend".)
.........(snip).........
****************************************************
There is no controversy in this you are appearing as a witness to testify that
"There has been a mistake, you do not own the name you just use it"
*******************************************************
Never say that It's not me, that is a dishonor, just say you use it.

This is really just a variation of the sovereign "straw man" capitalised name 'strategy'. Devine seems pretty deep into the Redemptionist stuff.
I wonder how this theory would hold up if a defendant was issued a subpoena/court order/summons made out to "Friend who uses the name John Doe"? That would seem to resolve the "mistake".

[notorial dissent]

Looks rather to me like someone interested in racking up some serious contempt citations, and I would say at a guess that they didn't use the "magic words" quite right as they obviously lost. I think the judge was a whole lot more patient than was warranted under the circumstances, and should have arranged guest accommodations for all concerned for having wasted the court's time and patience.

Definitely looks like an offshoot of the redemption honor/dishonor scam with a bit of religious nonsense thrown in to add to the general silliness of the whole thing.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm guessing that this particular variety of kool-aid came about because someone learned about the concept of "friend of the court/amicus curiae", and decided that it would be good for sovruns to hold themselves out, to courts, as "friends" eager to get to the bottom of a particular controversy.

[Nikki]

"Friend" fails to realize (amongst thousands of other things) that -- absent a formal or acceptable common law name change -- he remains (in the eyes of the judicial system) either Friend FKA John Doe OR John Doe AKA Friend.

Another point, which has occurred on the record in many instances, goes something like:

Court: Calling the case of the State vs John Doe.
Friend: I am here to speak for John Doe.
Court: Are you John Doe?
Friend: You can call me Friend.
Court: Are you an attorney admitted to the bar of this state?
Friend: I am a counselor at common law.
Court: Defendant has failed to appear. Judgement for the state. Next case, please.
Friend: what happened ???????

[LPC]

Two days after the show cause hearing, the Zimmermans appeared at the IRS office in Lancaster, Pennsylvania to be deposed as required by the court's January 13 order. The Zimmermans would not be seated and refused to testify. Mervin Zimmerman insisted repeatedly that he was "just here for the matter of the name." When asked by the United States to be seated and be deposed, Mervin Zimmerman stated, "Well, just going to make the statement, as I'm here for the matter for the name Mervin Nolt Zimmerman. You can call me friend, and where is the proper notice so I can deal with this matter honorably." Mervin and Mildred Zimmerman confirmed that they had nothing further to say and brought no documents with them.

Is there some sort of annual contest to see who can come up with the most meaningless and annoying gibberish?

Sort of like the annual Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, but without the intentional humor.

[grixit]

Is there some sort of annual contest to see who can come up with the most meaningless and annoying gibberish?

Sort of like the annual Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest, but without the intentional humor.

It may be foolish to try this in the same venue that has Webhick, but here goes.

It was a dark and stormy night when the notice in error arrived from some flunky of that cabal of masonic fascists who work for the dark commie overlord (who won't release his real birth certificate because it would reveal him to be a shape shifting lizard) to entagle sovereign non citizen american nationals in the web of their zionist conspiracy and steal the results of their God given right to trade their labor for some equivalent valuable consideration by various strategems including the false labels of "wages", "income", "employee" and "taxpayer", and the many bogus declarations of "frivolous" by the black robed lawyer-captains (who have therefor forfeited their bonds and violated the oaths they refuse to confirm but it's ok they will all be arrested any day now) in their admiralty ships with the cooperation of British Accredited Registry (BAR) esquires who "represent" victims by tricking them into placing themselves under improper jurisdiction, but the next day an interested third party intervenor (who considerately gave all participants permission to be referred to as "Friend") went to the court to offer relevant information concerning the name involved and receive clarification and proper notice so that the perpetrators might realize that the masquerade was exposed and they had no power or authority and they could do nothing but bow as the victorious free white christians left and went outside to stand on the land.

[fortinbras]

I agree that the judge can give this stunt a very short shrift.

"You can call me 'friend'" - Everyone will be calling you 'jailbird' if you don't identify yourself in the next ten seconds.
... and so forth.

This is disruptive behavior and the judge is within his right to hand out contempt penalties to people who try to present arguments without identifying themselves, pretending to be lawyers, and generally not giving straight-forward answers to simple questions.

[LaVidaRoja]

Or, if the party refuses to identify himself, could not the judge order a mental competency hearing? IF the party is not competent, should he not be placed in a facility where he will not harm himself. and have a conservator of the estate appointed? I doubt that the public guardian would engage in these tactics.

[Thule]

Nikki posted a funny story a few years back, where Paul-John:Hansen picked the wrong judge to play the name-game with.

13. Prosecutor says; “Paul J Hansen.”
14. Judge says; Do you acknowledge sir that you are Paul J Hansen?
15. Paul says; “I am not here as a legal entity, I am here as a living man on the Land.”
16. Judge says; “Paul J Hansen failed to appear, warrant issued for his arrest”.

(The above conversation as line 1 to 16 lasted only one minute.)

c. Sheriff then arrested Paul, had Paul’s hands tightly hand-cuffed behind Paul’s back, and then took Paul to jail until bond was received and Paul was then released at 1:30 p.m. Paul was hand cuffs from 9:35 to 11: 30.

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=4029&p=62195&

[Thule]

Of course, the judge might skip the niceties;

Heads or tails, friendo.

[Famspear]

Of course, the judge might skip the niceties;

Heads or tails, friendo.

Yikes!



Definitely a great actor -- and that was a scary character, fur shure!

[Judge Roy Bean]

Or, if the party refuses to identify himself, could not the judge order a mental competency hearing? IF the party is not competent, should he not be placed in a facility where he will not harm himself. and have a conservator of the estate appointed? I doubt that the public guardian would engage in these tactics.

Competency determinations are rather expensive. And unlike a few Van Pelts, most of these people are little more than deliberately ignorant players in a farcical game.

A few hours or days in a cell for contempt where they have to deal with an actual jail population and often surly, under-paid jail staff will cure most of the ignorance rather quickly.

'Round here the cattle prod does wonders to raise the acuity level of such dimwits.

[fortinbras]

Found a case where a defendant who kept avoiding identifying herself unambiguously was sentenced for contempt. City of Perrysburg v. Fair (Ohio App Dec. 15, 1986) unpublished by on WestLaw and Lexis.