Me: Your honor will notice that when the court convicted my client of DUI in 2001 it suspended his 30 day sentence, suspended his license for a year and ordered him into VASAP (which he had to do in order to get a restricted license). The court also kept him under supervision for 12 months. He failed out of VASAP and had his license revoked. Then in 2003 DMV refused to renew his license and he came back before this court. He shouldn't have - it should have been a private matter between him VASAP and DMV. The 12 months of continued court involvement through supervision had already passed and the court's ability to amend the sentence (and add longer court supervision) ended 21 days after he was sentenced. He's now flunked out of VASAP again and they have asked this court to show cause him. The court didn't have jurisdiction to send him back and therefore it doesn't have jurisdiction today."

Judge: "The Supreme Court tells me that as long as he hasn't completed VASAP I retain jurisdiction."

Me: "There's case law on that?"

Judge: "No, I called the Supreme Court's researchers and they told me." [ed. note: I didn't know the Supreme Court did this and let me tell you how thrilled I am to find out that some part of that august body may be directing judges as to what the law means in a way that I can't access or advise my clients about]

Judge: "And, didn't DMV send your client back to the court?"

Client: "Yes."

Me: "The DMV is not a source to be relied upon for interpretation of the law."

Judge: "Well, if the sources are the Supreme Court , me, and DMV I think it's pretty safe to assume I have jurisdiction. I take it you're going to disagree with me?"

Me: "Yes."

Prosecutor: "Great, we've got a test case! Why don't you find him guilty, sentence him and give him a PR bond so that we can argue this indepth in the court above?"