He Challenged Jurisdiction SEVEN Times... Judge Perkins LOSES IT And Threatens CONTEMPT!

Описание: Albert Hicks appeared in court representing himself and immediately launched into sovereign citizen rhetoric, challenging jurisdiction repeatedly, citing "Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3," demanding to know the judge's "congressional number," claiming tickets are "bills of attainder," insisting he's "common law," and refusing to follow basic courtroom decorum by keeping his hat on and drinking during the hearing. Judge Perkins, who has dealt with these arguments countless times, patiently denied every motion and tried to move the case forward—but Hicks wouldn't stop interrupting, talking over the judge, and making veiled threats about filing federal charges under "Title 18 Section 242." The breaking point came when Hicks accused the judge of "practicing law from the bench" and suggested he was only acting tough because he was "protected by the bench." Judge Perkins had enough and delivered one of the most powerful statements about authority: "This robe has nothing to do with me as a man. I'm running this show. I'm the same way 24 hours a day." When Hicks tried to demand "costs and fees" after his cases were dismissed due to missing officers, the judge cut him off: "I don't want to hear anything else you have to say." Hicks couldn't resist one final comment, and Judge Perkins delivered the ultimate threat: "Say one more word and that's contempt. 30 days." This case is a masterclass in judicial authority meeting sovereign citizen defiance, and why pushing a patient judge too far results in immediate consequences.

#judgeperkins #karen #courtroom #courtroomdrama #lawandorder #courtcase #detroit


DISCLAIMER
The content presented on Court Every Day is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or a substitute for professional legal counsel.
All legal analysis reflects our interpretation of publicly available records, statutes, and case law at the time of production, and may not reflect the most current legal developments.
Laws, regulations, and court procedures vary by jurisdiction, and the applicability of the legal concepts discussed herein will depend on the specific facts and governing law of each case.
Nothing in this program creates an attorney–client relationship, and viewers should consult a qualified attorney licensed in their jurisdiction for legal advice pertaining to their specific situation.

FAIR USE
This video contains copyrighted material for the purpose of commentary, criticism, education, and analysis.
All footage, images, and audio clips are used under the principles of Fair Use (Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act), which allows limited use of copyrighted content without permission from the copyright holder for purposes such as news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
This video is intended for educational and informational purposes only and does not aim to infringe upon any copyright.
All rights belong to their respective owners.

Our channel aims to shed light on the judicial process and the individuals responsible for delivering justice to the community. It's important to recognize that these professionals frequently interact with individuals experiencing significant distress. Our content is designed to highlight surprising, unique, thought-provoking legal cases, featuring unusual circumstances that may not be commonly seen.

The commentary and editing provided in our videos are in line with the principles of 'fair use' as outlined in section 107 of the United States copyright law. The modifications made to the original footage are strictly for the purpose of adding informative commentary and condensing the duration to facilitate a more accessible viewing experience, thereby enhancing public engagement. Please note that all individuals featured in the videos are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.