Mentioning Case Law is Contemptable??

I was to appear for a jury trial for a seat belt violation on October 4, 2010 at 8:30 AM. I arrived 30 minutes early to ensure I was able to be in the right room of the court house.
Around 8:45 someone walked in the room I had been instructed to wait, along with a handful of other people. This woman asked for names, making marks for the others, I wasn’t on her “list” and she told me someone else would be in for me shortly. After waiting for another hour, I was called out of the court room and taken into the “Judge’s Chamber.” The man sitting behind the desk (never introduced himself as “Judge” or anything else) asked me if I was “guilty” or “not guilty” of my seat belt violation. I replied, “I’ve requested a jury trial.”
He asked once again, I again replied that I had requested a jury trial. He said, “I know, but were you or weren’t you wearing a seatbelt?” I replied that I was not, but that I had requested a jury trial.
He asked why I wanted a jury trial if I was guilty. I responded, “The officer has no standing -”
The judge then told me what the law (I corrected him with “statute”) was and that the officer had jurisdiction, which is the same as “standing.” I attempted to explain that in order to have “standing” one had to prove injury, he interrupted me and said that he “would not allow” me to argue standing or jurisdiction in his court. That was for him to decide, the jury would decide facts. I agreed not to mention the lack of standing; I still had relevant case law regarding the unconstitutionality of the law that I planned to present.
At 11:00 AM I was called into the larger court room for jury selection. After selecting the 6 members of the jury and the 1 alternate, the jury was sent to the deliberation room to await the start of the trial.
My trial began around 11:15 AM, (Judge Gerald Whitley presiding) the “plaintiff” Officer Skipper did not make an opening statement. I was asked if I had an opening remark, I stood and said, “The US Supreme Court has ruled – “ the judge interrupted, “I told you not to mention that during pre-trial.” I said, “sir, this is not related to what you told me about.”
“The US Supreme Court has ruled in Bennett v. Boggs ‘Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.’”
The judge asked the jury to leave the court room, after they left he said, “I told you not to mention ‘standing’ or ‘jurisdiction’ and you did it anyways.”
“Sir, the case I cited is not related to either.”
He then threatened me with contempt (multiple times) for citing case law and claimed I was ‘wasting the courts time.”
I replied that I was not wasting the courts time and that I was attempting to cite relevant case law. He again threatened me with contempt for mentioning case law and said the next time I mentioned law I would be arrested for contempt. “You will not mention law in my court room, only facts.”
“Court rulings are facts, sir”
He then said something to the affect of “I will decide what the law is.”
He then called the jury back into the court room and directed them to ignore my opening statement. Office Skipper was asked to take the stand and state the facts of the case.
Officer Skipper stated that on November 29, 2009 approximately 2:45 PM he witnessed me driving on highway 17 not wearing my seat belt, then pulled me over. When he approached my vehicle and informed me of my violation, I told him, “I practice civil disobedience, I do not believe any government has the authority to pass laws mandating what must be done for my personal safety.”
I was allowed to question Officer Skipper. “Other than the ticket, do you have any physical evidence or proof that I was not wearing my seat belt?”
“No,” he replied.
“And did you file a proper cause of action?”
“I don’t know what that is,” he replied.
I wanted to advise him that a “cause of action” was required for any case to have standing and that by not knowing what one was he was incompetent to testify, but having been threatened with arrest for mentioning anything relating to law, I rested my case.
The judge then gave the jury their instructions to decide the case based on the facts and “based on the law AS I GIVE IT TO YOU.”
The jury reached a verdict fairly quickly. I thought, “they now there is no evidence, that leaves ‘reasonable doubt’ – they must’ve decided I’m ‘not guilty’.” The clerk read the verdict “guilty.”The judge then made a condescending remark that while the case wasn’t long, it was important to both the state and the defendant. The jury was excused and I was ordered to pay $25, no added court costs.
I reluctantly paid the clerk, and left wondering how many other people has the judge threatened with contempt for mentioning law in a court.