Darrell Brooks is accused of driving into a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, last year. At the hearing’s conclusion, the judge vented her annoyance at what she called the accused killer’s “word games.”
Following Brooks’ request to represent himself, the hearing was called. Judge Jennifer Dorow of Waukesha County adjourned the hearing after setting Brooks a deadline to submit the required papers to have his public defense counsel removed from the case.
In the attack on Nov. 21, 2021, Brooks is accused of leaving dozens of people injured and six dead.
Dorow had her bailiff hand Brooks certain papers at a portion of the hearing that was captured on camera and uploaded to YouTube. She was being talked over by Brooks.
“Nope. Sir, I’m talking,” the judge said. “Listen Mr. Brooks. We are not; we are done here today.”
She replied, ”I cannot make a finding at the point that you have an understanding of what you’re charged with, the nature of these proceedings.”
“I am not going to get into a debate about whether you’re a sovereign citizen or not, or even whether you have any understanding of how the state is a plaintiff in this case.
“My sole reason for being here today is your motion through your attorneys to consider your request to represent yourself. You have demonstrated through this hearing that you don’t have a basic understanding of some of the things that are going on,” she stated.
She said her lack of ability to decide was due in part to “the word games that you are employing.”
She remarked, “You can roll your eyes all you want sir, I’m done.”
“This court’s in recess,” Dorow announced as he got up from the bench and left the room while Brooks continued to talk.
According to WITI-TV, Brooks stated earlier in the court that he did not “understand the nature and cause of the charges.”
“I simply want to represent myself to establish my sovereign citizen,” Brooks said to Dorow.
More on this story via The Western Journal:
During a second reading of the charges against, him, Brooks laughed.
Brooks said he did not understand how the state could be the plaintiff, asking “How could the state be the injured party?” CONTINUE READING…