In Australia our "highest" court is the (surprise) High Court of Australia.
One decision that I found interesting is Regina v Corneloupe, which concerned the rights of government, specifically local Councils to make regulations to limit or control the activities of religious activists / protestors on public lands and roads. The Corneloup or Corneloupe brothers are pestilential public proselytisers and associates of one Forbes Morrison, another pestilential public proselytiser, and in my opinion a false prophet and heretic. ( Forbes disputes the authority of the Church of England, and the authority of the Catholic Church to determine doctrinal matters, which qualifies him as a heretic, in my opinion.)

In simple terms the High Court dismissed the Corneloupe's claims in entirety and confirmed the rights of government to regulate the activities of religious activists in public areas for which the governments have responsibility.
The High Court found that individuals may conduct private religious activities in public places,without interference from government, but this does not include making any unsolicited approach to any other member of the public.
As soon as a person makes an unsolicited approach to any other member of the public, displaying signs would qualify as an unsolicited approach as an example, then that person is no longer engaged in a private religious practice, but is conducting an activity that government can regulate to ensure the safety of the public.
Of course Forbes puts his own unique interpretation on the decision. You can YouTube search and find footage of the heretical wunderkind if you're bored.

So I can make a seperate thread if it's a normal court case?

Just PM wjessop directly about those.

Lol

I had jury duty today. I called in and was told that the case had been settled and that I was no longer needed.

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar21.html

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

classic example of why for 200 years Big Banks have been allowed to exist. terrible precedent, which may come to relevance when/if states try to challenge Dodd Frank eventually.

I'd love to do Jury duty & the most serious and lengthiest trial possible.
I'd use all my Diplomacy experience to try and get the Jury Foreman's position, and really try to perform the role responsibly.
The sheer bliss of being able to present the fire breathing MemSahib, Her Indoors with an unchallengeable reason ( though having been sired by the Devil himself, she'd still try) to flee to a protected sanctuary each day, to be able to blithely refuse to satisfy her innate curiousity as regards the trial and it's macabre details. How glorious to be able to tell her, "Regret to inform you I won't be home for dinner, staying in city hotel at government expense & dining well, regards mm, oh please put out bins and mow lawn" Thereby dodging her burnt offerings with impunity, throw domestic tasks her way, and after the trial concludes, enjoying minor status as the foreman of the Jury that decided a really high profile case that either acquitted some poor innocent but beautiful lady, or condemned her for a multitude of iniquitous criminal acts

Yep, I'm dreaming, a Sharon Stone type defendant, intelligent, provocative, a sexual predator, accused of multiple murders most foul....flashing Judge and Jury a sight of a well trimmed ***** at regular intervals. High profile lawyers arguing the case, media in full frenzy, Court surrounded by protestors and security personnel.....
Reality would probably be some smelly and ghastly meth head scumbag as a defendant, and a litany of discredible pathetically executed crimes....

Oh,or a young Jane Fonda / Cat Ballou type of young lady who fought evil men, Aquit I say, Not Guilty in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Or.. Guilty of the most persistent and iniquitous Heresies we find the defendants, Mujus and Crazy Anglican, then sit back and watch with glee as the poor blighters are sentenced by most learned Ecclesiastical Judges, one to be burnt at the stake, and the other to be Hung, drawn, entrails cut out and burnt, then quartered with head to go on pike outside local Cathedral. May God have mercy on their doomed souls.

Canadian not American courts, but this landmark case is perhaps one of the funniest reads you'll ever experience.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2013/2013oncj160/2013oncj160.html

"It has been said that, given enough time, ten thousand monkeys with typewriters[2] would probably eventually replicate the collected works of William Shakespeare.[3] Sadly, when human beings are let loose with computers and internet[4] access, their work product does not necessarily compare favourably to the aforementioned monkeys with typewriters.[5] "

Would you kindly give a brief summary of the case.
I'm rather lazy so will not look it up without more enticement

Standard Soverign Citizen fare. Guy gets (illegally) pulled over for a traffic violation that eventually lead to a resisting arrest and assault of an officer charge, and instead of arguing the merits of the case (which he would later be aquitted on), goes down the rabbit hole of lunacy that is concepts such as legal person-hood, contracts with the state, citizenship, etc.

"With that volume as his starting point, Mr. Duncan spent some time explaining to me that I had no jurisdiction to try him, that he was not a citizen of the province or the country, that he was not a person as defined by my definitions, that there was no contract between him and me to give me status to sit in judgment over him and so on."

During the actual traffic stop he attempted to charge the police money for his services in... being stopped for a traffic violation

"At some point in this interaction, Constable Eles said that Mr. Duncan pulled out a red binder and told Constable Eles that he would be giving him a fee schedule. He told the officers that they had no jurisdiction over him and accordingly had no authority to arrest him. "

He also attempted at one point to separate Matthew the administrator from Mr Duncan the person, because they are seperate legal entities presumably inside the same corporeal form.

Yea there was a guy who got arrested in Omaha for murder and he kept insisting that the state could not prosecute him because he was from the Independent Soveriegn Country of Iowa. He wanted to challenge that Iowa wasnt really a state and he was being unfairly held as a citizen of another country.

Ooh these people are everywhere and excluding the armed ones they're hilariously ineffective loonies. I wish I could find it but there was a video of a judge tripping one up with his own person vs legal entity vs caretaker bullshit.

I love how sovereign citizens don't understand that if they aren't US citizens and commit a crime they still can be arrested and tried as foreigners. However since the US doesn't recognize their countries, they will lack rights that other foreigners would have.

Also if they have rejected their US citizenship that they had from birth, then the IRS can go after them. :)

Just declare them "enemy combatants" and be done with it.

I think though the US showed restraint and only ended up making one "martyr" for the cause.

I've been on four juries and foreman of one, but I only remember three of the four right now. These were California municipal courts. The first one was a civil case of a widow suing a bunch of investors, all attorneys, who were trying to cheat her out of part of the money they owed her. We voted 11-1 for the widow (yay!) The second one was a criminal case. A young man had been accused of multiple crimes including assaulting a police officer, aggravated assault of a police officer, and two more charges. The jury voted unanimously to acquit because the incident occurred late one night when the young man was walking home through an open high school (public right-of-way goes through the school grounds of this school) and he stopped to pee in the bushes in the darkest part of the high school. It was stipulated that the nearest light was 300 feet away, and in fact, both sides agreed on every point of this story. Then from out of the darkness came a voice, "What are you doing?" and he said, "I'm peeing; leave me alone." He then tried to walk away when someone grabbed his backpack from behind, and he shrugged the strap back onto his shoulder. That was the action that he was being charged for--not public urination, which he might have been guilty of (but maybe not because he was not really in public in the pitch-black night behind some bushes). So this person, who never identified himself as a police officer and who was purposely not wearing any reflective patches or a metal badge, tackled him from behind, took him down, and ground his face into the side of the cement. There were some extremely bloody pictures of this young man in the police station. The officer's partner, who arrived later, said that he knew it was his partner on top of the young man because he saw his silhouette, proving that there was not enough light to know that this was a police officer. We voted 12-0 to acquit. My theory was the the police were throwing everything at him to taint his probably lawsuit against that officer and the force. The third time was a comedy of errors, but that's its own story. :-)

I hate the funny ones. There's nothing quite as embarrassing as being on the jury whilst desperately trying to hide a fit of the giggles.

I should also mention he was a member of the Michigan Militia also awaiting federal charges which he also claimed were invalid because he was a POW.

This got thrown out at trial. An acquaintance was sued for restraint of trade when he had the police arrest the man breaking into his home. He was the only one that had pressed charges against the burglar that had broken into almost every home on the block.