NationStates Jolt Archive

Do not agree with this decision at all. How can a citizen of the United States be thrown in jail for 90 DAYS for telling someone to kiss thier ass? I mean are you KIDDING me? Just because someone is a Judge doesnt mean they are immune to having opinions expressed about them. As long as anything directed at the judge isnt violent nor disrupting the courtroom how the hell should this woman be thrown in jail for essentially expressing a nonviolent opinion? Judges arnt gods nor immune to critisicm. But apparently we throw people in prision for expressing unpopular opinions now these days. I mean people that commit actual real crimes serve less then 90 days in jail for thier actions but now NC taxpayers have to pay to house this woman for 90 extra days to massage the Judges ego? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_fe_st/odd_contempt_charge;_ylt=AlYrGMfZw0Ouxr_TBCne3qeek3QF

Yep, welcome to a free country.

Do not agree with this decision at all. How can a citizen of the United States be thrown in jail for 90 DAYS for telling someone to kiss thier ass? I mean are you KIDDING me? Just because someone is a Judge doesnt mean they are immune to having opinions expressed about them. As long as anything directed at the judge isnt violent nor disrupting the courtroom how the hell should this woman be thrown in jail for essentially expressing a nonviolent opinion? Judges arnt gods nor immune to critisicm. But apparently we throw people in prision for expressing unpopular opinions now these days. I mean people that commit actual real crimes serve less then 90 days in jail for thier actions but now NC taxpayers have to pay to house this woman for 90 extra days to massage the Judges ego? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_fe_st/odd_contempt_charge;_ylt=AlYrGMfZw0Ouxr_TBCne3qeek3QF

It's nothing to do with being punished for 'unpopular opinions', the idiot wrote the insult on a probation revocation order and asked for it to be taken to the judge. I don't know about the US, but contempt of court is a pretty serious offence over here, although 90 days does seem a little excessive.

It's nothing to do with being punished for 'unpopular opinions', the idiot wrote the insult on a probation revocation order and asked for it to be taken to the judge. I don't know about the US, but contempt of court is a pretty serious offence over here,

Agreed it is a serious offence. So lets apply it seriously shall we? Someone who jumps up on the desk mid trial and sticks his finger in his ears and starts jumping up and down and yelling LA LA LA the Judge is a poopy head LA LA LA is guilty of contempt for the reason that he is obstructing justice. The person is perfectly entitled to the opinion the Judge is a poopy head and insulting the judge should not be the basis for the contempt. Handing a Judge a nonviolent one sentence note with an opinion (even if it is an insult) is hardly an earthshattering event that shakes the foundation of the courts ability to dispence justice in a timely and reasonable fashion and CERTIANLY shouldnt involve jailing someone period. This is all about the Judges bruised ego.

It is an inappropriate way to proposition someone. If you want to have someone kiss your ass, the least you can do is take them to dinner and a movie, and then gauge their interest.

or pay them $50

It is an inappropriate way to proposition someone. If you want to have someone kiss your ass, the least you can do is take them to dinner and a movie, and then gauge their interest.

'Kiss my ass' isn't really an opinion. Besides, the crime is contempt of court. Sending a judge your probation revocation papers with 'Kiss my ass' written on them is quite clearly contemptuous.

Agreed it is a serious offence. So lets apply it seriously shall we? Someone who jumps up on the desk mid trial and sticks his finger in his ears and starts jumping up and down and yelling LA LA LA the Judge is a poopy head LA LA LA is guilty of contempt for the reason that he is obstructing justice. The person is perfectly entitled to the opinion the Judge is a poopy head and insulting the judge should not be the basis for the contempt. Handing a Judge a nonviolent one sentence note with an opinion (even if it is an insult) is hardly an earthshattering event that shakes the foundation of the courts ability to dispence justice in a timely and reasonable fashion and CERTIANLY shouldnt involve jailing someone period.

Many workplaces have a zero-tolerance policy regarding abuse of their staff: if you start insulting an employee in a shop or restaurant you'd expect to be asked to leave and possibly be banned from returning, no? As this obviously isn't an option for courts there has to be another way of punishing insulting behaviour.

Suppose you had your way and it was acceptable to send insults and abuse to a judge or jury who'd punished you without repecussions: don't you they'd be deluged with notes from all the people they'd ever sentenced? Why should they have to be insulted just for doing their job? And where would you draw the line? Would telling them they're a "heap of crap" be an actionable offence? How about telling them to "fuck off"? The sensible thing is to crack down on any and all insulting behaviour, especially when it's conducted on court papers.

lmfao thats hilarious damor

She should be punished but three months in jail...maybe a fine or something

'Kiss my ass' isn't really an opinion. Besides, the crime is contempt of court. Sending a judge your probation revocation papers with 'Kiss my ass' written on them is quite clearly contemptuous.

Zing!

I have no problem with this.

'Kiss my ass' isn't really an opinion. Besides, the crime is contempt of court. Sending a judge your probation revocation papers with 'Kiss my ass' written on them is quite clearly contemptuous.

Contempt of what exactly? What law is actually broken by the defendent that the Judge should have a right to enforce by imprisionment?*Other then an arbitrary Im a judge so you cant write notes to me disagreeing with me.

'Kiss my ass' isn't really an opinion. Besides, the crime is contempt of court. Sending a judge your probation revocation papers with 'Kiss my ass' written on them is quite clearly contemptuous.

I agree, but does she really need to be three months in jail for something that stupid? It's not really a real crime, a fine should have been fine.

I agree, but does she really need to be three months in jail for something that stupid? It's not really a real crime, a fine should have been fine.

If it wasn't really a real crime then no punishment would have been necessary at all. But contempt of court really is a real crime.

Agreed it is a serious offence. So lets apply it seriously shall we? Someone who jumps up on the desk mid trial and sticks his finger in his ears and starts jumping up and down and yelling LA LA LA the Judge is a poopy head LA LA LA is guilty of contempt for the reason that he is obstructing justice. The person is perfectly entitled to the opinion the Judge is a poopy head and insulting the judge should not be the basis for the contempt. Handing a Judge a nonviolent one sentence note with an opinion (even if it is an insult) is hardly an earthshattering event that shakes the foundation of the courts ability to dispence justice in a timely and reasonable fashion and CERTIANLY shouldnt involve jailing someone period. This is all about the Judges bruised ego.

Well, if she didn't want the judge to react, perhaps she should not have written it on an official document and insist the probation officer give it to the judge, which is NOT the normal procedure. That paper would never have gone back to the judge but for her arrogant insistence that she know what she thought of her -- in writing.

I guess this comes closest to there being a law against absolute fucking stupidity.

Contempt of what exactly? What law is actually broken by the defendent that the Judge should have a right to enforce by imprisionment?*Other then an arbitrary Im a judge so you cant write notes to me disagreeing with me.

Why are you having so much trouble with the difference between 'disagreeing' and 'sending insulting notes'? "Kiss my ass" isn't disagreement, it's contempt.

Many workplaces have a zero-tolerance policy regarding abuse of their staff: if you start insulting an employee in a shop or restaurant you'd expect to be asked to leave and possibly be banned from returning, no? As this obviously isn't an option for courts there has to be another way of punishing insulting behaviour.

Suppose you had your way and it was acceptable to send insults and abuse to a judge or jury who'd punished you without repecussions: don't you they'd be deluged with notes from all the people they'd ever sentenced? Why should they have to be insulted just for doing their job? And where would you draw the line? Would telling them they're a "heap of crap" be an actionable offence? How about telling them to "fuck off"? The sensible thing is to crack down on any and all insulting behaviour, especially when it's conducted on court papers.

You are not required as an American Citizen to have to make a Judges job pleasent and nice for him. You are entitled to your opinion and part of the judges JOB is to in fact protect that right not subjugate it. A reasonable and mature judge would have simply told the defendent that the court appreciated her opinion but that this was not the proper forum for it and if it continued then it would be construed as wasting the courts time and then a contempt charge would have been perfectly reasonable and we wouldnt be at this point. Its. All. About. The. Judges. Big. Assed. Ego.

what happened to freedom of speech?

Contempt of what exactly? What law is actually broken by the defendent that the Judge should have a right to enforce by imprisionment?*Other then an arbitrary Im a judge so you cant write notes to me disagreeing with me.

The judge was acting in her official capacity as an officer of the court.
The note was sent to her in contempt of the judge's official capacity of an officer of the court.
It was compounded by the idiocy of writing such on an official court document, and then insisting that it be sent to the judge.

If she told the bailiff, "You can tell that judge she can kiss my ass!" this would have had a whole different outcome, I'm sure.

Not hard to understand.

You don't have complete freedom of speech, anyhow. Yell fire in a theater and see what happens, and tell your D.I. to fuck off and die and see what happens. When you're in a position where you are in the legal custody of an official, if you mouth off, unpleasant things can happen. She wasn't beaten, or shot, or executed for it -- but she made so absolutely sure to be contemptuous that the judge is within her rights to hold her over 90 more days -- as an appeal court has already upheld.

If this goes any farther along the OMG I'M GONNA SUE line, I don't particularly see her winning her case. I could be wrong, but I don't see it.

Why are you having so much trouble with the difference between 'disagreeing' and 'sending insulting notes'? "Kiss my ass" isn't disagreement, it's contempt.

Kiss my ass could certianly be interpreted as meaning i disagree with you. Why are you having trouble seeing it can be interpreted that way? And are you also asserting that someone sending you a note that says "Kiss my ass" couldnt be defined as an insulting note?

what happened to freedom of speech?

With freedom comes responsibility. And "Kiss my ass" as a pure insult in court isn't exactly protected speech.

Contempt of what exactly? What law is actually broken by the defendent that the Judge should have a right to enforce by imprisionment?*Other then an arbitrary Im a judge so you cant write notes to me disagreeing with me.
Contempt of court, do try to keep up. And writing 'kiss my ass' on your probation revocation papers and making sure the judge reads them is not the same as disagreeing with the judge.
You are not required as an American Citizen to have to make a Judges job pleasent and nice for him. You are entitled to your opinion and part of the judges JOB is to in fact protect that right not subjugate it. A reasonable and mature judge would have simply told the defendent that the court appreciated her opinion but that this was not the proper forum for it and if it continued then it would be construed as wasting the courts time and then a contempt charge would have been perfectly reasonable and we wouldnt be at this point. Its. All. About. The. Judges. Big. Assed. Ego.

'Kiss my ass' is not an opinion. 'Kiss my ass' is an insult. Writing 'Kiss my ass' on your probation revocation papers and then telling the probation officer to give them to the judge isn't expressing an opinion. It's about the same as yelling 'Fuck you' at the judge after being found guilty.

If it wasn't really a real crime then no punishment would have been necessary at all. But contempt of court really is a real crime.

Ok, it is a real crime, but I don't think one should be imprisoned over it, a fine, maybe, but imprisonment is really a harsh punishment for a crime without serious consequences (like for instance: rape, murder, fraud, theft etc.) the only consequence was that the judge her feelings were hurt, while imo this law should mainly be used to assure that nobody can disturb a courtroom by constantly mooning the judge for instance.

The judge was acting in her official capacity as an officer of the court.
The note was sent to her in contempt of the judge's official capacity of an officer of the court.

Understood but irrelevant. The note didnt hinder the Judges official capacity so what is the basis of the contempt? Contempt isnt arbitrary it has to be based on something. A judge cant send the whole court audience to jail just because one person wont fess up to whos cell phone is ringing in his courtroom for example. There is no contempt of court unless there is some legal basis for the judges claim in the first place.



If she told the bailiff, "You can tell that judge she can kiss my ass!" this would have had a whole different outcome, I'm sure.

Why does the fact that its spoken or written change the nature of the crime?

Ok, it is a real crime, but I don't think one should be imprisoned over it, a fine, maybe, but imprisonment is really a harsh punishment for a crime without serious consequences (like for instance: rape, murder, fraud, theft etc.) the only consequence was that the judge her feelings were hurt, while imo this law should mainly be used to assure that nobody can disturb a courtroom by constantly mooning the judge for instance.

I believe the idea of harsh punishment for contempt of court is to prevent exactly that. To then be lenient on someone because they were expressing their contempt in written form totally defeats the purpose.

Ok, it is a real crime, but I don't think one should be imprisoned over it, a fine, maybe, but imprisonment is really a harsh punishment for a crime without serious consequences (like for instance: rape, murder, fraud, theft etc.) the only consequence was that the judge her feelings were hurt, while imo this law should mainly be used to assure that nobody can disturb a courtroom by constantly mooning the judge for instance.

Seriously, she pretty much made certain that it could not be ignored. In writing, and demanded it be returned to the judge. I hope the satisfaction of telling the judge off is worth three months extra imprisonment.

Understood but irrelevant. The note didnt hinder the Judges official capacity so what is the basis of the contempt? Contempt isnt arbitrary it has to be based on something. A judge cant send the whole court audience to jail just because one person wont fess up to whos cell phone is ringing in his courtroom for example. There is no contempt of court unless there is some legal basis for the judges claim in the first place.




Why does the fact that its spoken or written change the nature of the crime?

No, she can't. But this prisoner signed her name to a note that told the judge off. There's your basis.

If I send you a letter describing how I am going to murder your family, it's not laughed off, is it?

If she SAID IT to a bailiff, they probably would have ignored it. She made absolutely sure there was no mistake of who put it in writing, and demanded it be sent to the judge. She wanted a reaction and got it. Boo hoo if it wasn't the judge simply dissolving into tears because some criminal in a sea of criminals that she has to see every day thinks they are bad enough to tell a judge off.

i didn't know contempt of judge was a crime.

Well, now you know. And knowing's half the battle.

Understood but irrelevant. The note didnt hinder the Judges official capacity so what is the basis of the contempt? Contempt isnt arbitrary it has to be based on something. A judge cant send the whole court audience to jail just because one person wont fess up to whos cell phone is ringing in his courtroom for example. There is no contempt of court unless there is some legal basis for the judges claim in the first place.
A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Typically judges in common law systems have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems.
Under American jurisprudence, acts of contempt are divided into two types.
.......
"Indirect" contempt occurs outside the immediate presence of the court, and consists of disobedience of a court's prior order. Generally a party will be accused of indirect contempt by the party for whose benefit the order was entered. A person cited for indirect contempt is entitled to notice of the charge and an opportunity for hearing of the evidence of contempt, and to present evidence in rebuttal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court



Why does the fact that its spoken or written change the nature of the crime?

Exactly. If telling the judge to kiss your ass is contemptuous, then why should writing a note to that affect be any less contemptuous?

i didn't know contempt of judge was a crime.

I believe the idea of harsh punishment for contempt of court is to prevent exactly that. To then be lenient on someone because they were expressing their contempt in written form totally defeats the purpose.

But she didn't really disturb a court hearing, did she? Imo this is the purpose of the law, and while I agree she should be punished I think this was way to harsh.

Seriously, she pretty much made certain that it could not be ignored. In writing, and demanded it be returned to the judge. I hope the satisfaction of telling the judge off is worth three months extra imprisonment.

I doubt it. But I can't understand how she would be given 3 months (that's like a whole summer) because of something that trivial while more serious crimes sometimes get less punishment (I'm not arguing that they should be punished more, just that serious crimes are punished more seriously than trivial crimes)

Understood but irrelevant. The note didnt hinder the Judges official capacity so what is the basis of the contempt? Contempt isnt arbitrary it has to be based on something. How can insulting a judge in her official capacity possibly not contempt? Insult = show of contempt. And the system as a whole needs a measure of respect to work effectively; the same reason you can't go around insulting police officers. The whole court process is regulated by procedures, insulting judges is not a part of it. If you want to convey anything to the judge, (s)he'll ask for it, or you can have your lawyer convey it for you. That is the way it goes; follow procedures; if you don't you risk being in contempt.

Why does the fact that its spoken or written change the nature of the crime?Writing makes it more deliberate; which is compounded by making sure she gets the note.

Writing makes it more deliberate; which is compounded by making sure she gets the note.

Precisely.

I personally look at it this way. Judges are given their power by society. Therefore Judges=Society. Now when some imbecile tells the rest of us to kiss her ass what should be done with her? Some time in jail to think about following the rules would be sounds good doesn't it?

Three months strikes me as a little absurd for contempt of court.

i wonder if the judge read the note aloud hen she passed the sentence. i hope someone laughed.

Three months strikes me as a little absurd for contempt of court.

She can get out earlier for good behavior or if they need the room. I doubt she serves her full 90 days.

She can get out earlier for good behavior or if they need the room. I doubt she serves her full 90 days.

Actually it's 5 years for....something, larceny I think, + 90 days for contempt. So I'm sure she'll serve more than 90 days overall.

Actually it's 5 years for....something, larceny I think, + 90 days for contempt. So I'm sure she'll serve more than 90 days overall.

I think Marrakech probably meant she won't serve the full 90 days tacked on for contempt -- which is probably true.

Do not agree with this decision at all. How can a citizen of the United States be thrown in jail for 90 DAYS for telling someone to kiss thier ass? I mean are you KIDDING me? Just because someone is a Judge doesnt mean they are immune to having opinions expressed about them. As long as anything directed at the judge isnt violent nor disrupting the courtroom how the hell should this woman be thrown in jail for essentially expressing a nonviolent opinion? Judges arnt gods nor immune to critisicm. But apparently we throw people in prision for expressing unpopular opinions now these days. I mean people that commit actual real crimes serve less then 90 days in jail for thier actions but now NC taxpayers have to pay to house this woman for 90 extra days to massage the Judges ego? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_fe_st/odd_contempt_charge;_ylt=AlYrGMfZw0Ouxr_TBCne3qeek3QFInsulting the court/judge hearing your case is contempt, so while a judge as a person isn't immune to being insulted, they do have immunity in their official function as judge.

I agree, but does she really need to be three months in jail for something that stupid? It's not really a real crime, a fine should have been fine.

It's a direct challenge to the decorum of the court, and it's authority, as well as a snub to our society in general.

Of course, I wouldn't expect anything less from a criminal, which this person is.

I think Marrakech probably meant she won't serve the full 90 days tacked on for contempt -- which is probably true.
Which isn't even remotely the point.

Ha I'd give that guy 90 days in jail too if I was that judge...

as well as a snub to our society in general.

Of course, I wouldn't expect anything less from a criminal, which this person is.

In a country that proudly proclaims to be the land of the free, the notion of imprisioning anyone for snubing ANYTHING is antiethical. As long as the act isnt violent or disruptive are you kidding me???

Contempt of what exactly? What law is actually broken by the defendent that the Judge should have a right to enforce by imprisionment?*Other then an arbitrary Im a judge so you cant write notes to me disagreeing with me.

The thing is, a judge is trying to come to a decision about how the law applies to you. By sending the judge such a note you are saying that you don't care how the law applies to you, you'll do as you please.

If the judge recieved this note written on stationary as he was walking down the street, then yes, you'd be right that 3 months in jail is crazy.

My main problem with it is that contempt is an attitude, and you're supposed to be let out once your attitude improves. To say 3 months right off the bat sort of defeats the purpose. Besides being a waste of county/state resources.

I'd say the defendant has to stay in jail until they write a 5 page essay explaining why their behavior was wrong. If the defendant retains their "kiss my ass" attitude, fine. They can stay there as long as they want.

In a country that proudly proclaims to be the land of the free, the notion of imprisioning anyone for snubing ANYTHING is antiethical. As long as the act isnt violent or disruptive are you kidding me???

If you're at a bank and you give the teller a note that says "this is a stick up. Put the money in the bag," you're going to jail for bank robbery.

If you give a judge a note during court proceedings telling him to kick your ass, you're baisically telling him that you won't abide by the courts decision. Courts need the force of law. Courts are the force of law. If you won't follow it, you go to jail. That's just how justice works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court


Exactly. If telling the judge to kiss your ass is contemptuous, then why should writing a note to that affect be any less contemptuous?

Not for nothing Ifreann, but this is not a case of "indirect" contempt. Indirect contempt is willful refusal of a court order. Like let's say you park your car in my yard and the court orders you to remove it, failure to do so is contempt.

This is, in fact, a case of direct contempt, as the article said, because even though the criminal was, herself not in front of the judge directly issuing her contemptuous statement, by writing it on a form and having it sent to the judge she transfered it to her, creating direct contempt.

If she merely said to the bailiff "that judge can kiss my ass" that would have been entirely different

In a country that proudly proclaims to be the land of the free, the notion of imprisioning anyone for snubing ANYTHING is antiethical. As long as the act isnt violent or disruptive are you kidding me???And yet, alcohol and nudity are more heavily restricted than in Europe...

The notion of imprisoning someone for showing disrespect to a legal authority responsible for them isn't antithetical at all, unless you're aiming for an anarchist nightmare.

Insulting the court/judge hearing your case is contempt, so while a judge as a person isn't immune to being insulted, they do have immunity in their official function as judge.

The judge has legal immunity protecting the discharge of his official decisions in his official capacity. He doesnt have immunity against people having opinions about him nor does he have immunity against people speaking thier own opinions about him even if he is operating in an official capacity. We have the right to tell the President of the United States to "kiss my ass" without being thrown into jail, why does a Judge have a greater level of protection ? Im not argueing if it is an actual violation of law or not, im saying that even if it is, its rediculous and should be changed.

90 days jail for expressing frustration of a flawed legal system disgusting if they assulted the judge thats different

The notion of imprisoning someone for showing disrespect to a legal authority responsible for them isn't antithetical at all, unless you're aiming for an anarchist nightmare.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires its citizens to respect all authority. In fact it suggests that authority can sometimes go awry and to arm ourselves just in case.

Do not agree with this decision at all. How can a citizen of the United States be thrown in jail for 90 DAYS for telling someone to kiss thier ass? I mean are you KIDDING me? Just because someone is a Judge doesnt mean they are immune to having opinions expressed about them. As long as anything directed at the judge isnt violent nor disrupting the courtroom how the hell should this woman be thrown in jail for essentially expressing a nonviolent opinion? Judges arnt gods nor immune to critisicm. But apparently we throw people in prision for expressing unpopular opinions now these days. I mean people that commit actual real crimes serve less then 90 days in jail for thier actions but now NC taxpayers have to pay to house this woman for 90 extra days to massage the Judges ego? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_fe_st/odd_contempt_charge;_ylt=AlYrGMfZw0Ouxr_TBCne3qeek3QF

As others have already pointed out ad naseum, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech or judge's alleged immunity from criticism.

It is a simple case of contempt, noteworthy only because of (1) the severity of the punishment and (2) that the order of contempt and the punishment have already been upheld by the state court of appeal (as it explains in the article you cited).

As Kat has noted, the 90 days is a light penalty relative to this woman's stupidity. Unfortunately, the woman will remain stupid for life.

The judge has legal immunity protecting the discharge of his official decisions in his official capacity. He doesnt have immunity against people having opinions about him nor does he have immunity against people speaking thier own opinions about him even if he is operating in an official capacity. We have the right to tell the President of the United States to "kiss my ass" without being thrown into jail, why does a Judge have a greater level of protection ? Im not argueing if it is an actual violation of law or not, im saying that even if it is, its rediculous and should be changed.

You're willfully ignoring time and place. The person has every right to stand outside the court house with a sign that says, "Judge Whatshisname Can Kiss My Ass." You cannot, however, do that in court on a court document. Decorum is expected and the authority of the court is empowered to enforce that. Though 90 days seems excessive, it was probably assessed in relation to her already existent punishment-her parole was being revoked so there is no reason to believe that a court fine would be honored and she was already going to receive time so the time served for contempt would have to be inflated to have any meaning, if you're already serving several months what's an extra day? While I agree that 90 days does seem a bit much, it's hardly the outrage you're trying to make it out to be.

In a country that proudly proclaims to be the land of the free, the notion of imprisioning anyone for snubing ANYTHING is antiethical. As long as the act isnt violent or disruptive are you kidding me???
It's been a long time since America has even vaguely resembled a land of the free.
Not for nothing Ifreann, but this is not a case of "indirect" contempt. Indirect contempt is willful refusal of a court order. Like let's say you park your car in my yard and the court orders you to remove it, failure to do so is contempt.

This is, in fact, a case of direct contempt, as the article said, because even though the criminal was, herself not in front of the judge directly issuing her contemptuous statement, by writing it on a form and having it sent to the judge she transfered it to her, creating direct contempt.

If she merely said to the bailiff "that judge can kiss my ass" that would have been entirely different
That's why I'm the spammer and you're the.....law....talking guy.
And yet, alcohol and nudity are more heavily restricted than in Europe...
Really? Don't you have to be over 21 to get alcohol in most of America?

90 days jail for expressing frustration of a flawed legal system disgusting if they assulted the judge thats different

Was it expressing frustration at a flawed legal system, or being a dick to judge?

The judge has legal immunity protecting the discharge of his official decisions in his official capacity. He doesnt have immunity against people having opinions about him nor does he have immunity against people speaking thier own opinions about him even if he is operating in an official capacity. We have the right to tell the President of the United States to "kiss my ass" without being thrown into jail, why does a Judge have a greater level of protection ? Im not argueing if it is an actual violation of law or not, im saying that even if it is, its rediculous and should be changed.

Try yelling "kiss my ass" during a State of the Union speech and see if you don't get addressed by the authorities.

A court is an official government body conducting important business. It is not a free forum for gratuitous vulgarity and insults.

The judge has legal immunity protecting the discharge of his official decisions in his official capacity. Yes.
He doesnt have immunity against people having opinions about him Yes.
nor does he have immunity against people speaking thier own opinions about him even if he is operating in an official capacity. Wrong.
We have the right to tell the President of the United States to "kiss my ass" without being thrown into jail, why does a Judge have a greater level of protection ? Because the executive and judicial are two seperate branches? The president is not a judge, and specifically not your judge. Im not argueing if it is an actual violation of law or not, im saying that even if it is, its rediculous and should be changed.I know, and I'm arguing that it's not ridiculous.

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires its citizens to respect all authority. In fact it suggests that authority can sometimes go awry and to arm ourselves just in case.

you are not, in any way, required to respect authority. Nobody is telling you you have to respect authority.

You can have the greatest disrespect for authority. You just can't voice that disrespect for the court, its process, and its invested powers, which includes the judge who operates the court in its official capacity.

The court functioned with a formulated, regulated system. Disrupting that system is, directly or indirectly, an attempt to pevert the system of justice, and that's a crime.

Actually it's 5 years for....something, larceny I think, + 90 days for contempt. So I'm sure she'll serve more than 90 days overall.

I didn't read what she was sentenced for so that tells me she probably won't serve any of the 90 days tacked on.

Really? Don't you have to be over 21 to get alcohol in most of America?Yeah, with a few exceptions: Some counties can decide to be dry counties with no alcohol whatsoever.

Meh,...

Again from the, oh so reliable that I can't help being sarcastic, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court)


"Direct" contempt is that which occurs in the presence of the presiding judge (in facie curiae), and may be dealt with summarily: the judge notifies the offending party that he or she has acted in a manner which disrupts the tribunal and prejudices the administration of justice, and after giving the person the opportunity to respond, may impose the sanction immediately.

I think because of her correspondence is an official judicial matter. Then again, haven't heard the official statement from the judge as to why the correspondence is in contempt.

Oh, man, the story linked on that page is so much more interesting... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_fe_st/odd_ninja_bandit;_ylt=AnOK4NL9.BcUuWkbslHc0rsuQE4F)

'Kiss my ass' is not an opinion. 'Kiss my ass' is an insult. Writing 'Kiss my ass' on your probation revocation papers and then telling the probation officer to give them to the judge isn't expressing an opinion. It's about the same as yelling 'Fuck you' at the judge after being found guilty.

If I was going away for a long time, I'd be certain to tell the judge quite clearly to engage in anilingus on me. Except, I'd word it more like 'eat my sweaty asshole, fuckstain'.

Yeah, with a few exceptions: Some counties can decide to be dry counties with no alcohol whatsoever.
Yeah, I don't think anywhere in Europe is dry. I mean, even the Vatican has wine.
If I was going away for a long time, I'd be certain to tell the judge quite clearly to engage in anilingus on me. Except, I'd word it more like 'eat my sweaty asshole, fuckstain'.

Which would only lengthen your prison stay. Though I suppose 90 days might not make much of a difference.

Which is why he said:



:p

>.>

<.<

I am trying to figure out why the OP is outraged at this extra 90 days. For one it is tacked onto another sentence. Two she has been convicted and is in the sentencing stage of the process. While she is in custody and in that stage she mouths off and gets an additional 90 days. Sounds about right to me. I always figure that if one is in state custody and convicted their civil rights are severely curtailed. Freedom of speech is among many rights you give up while serving a sentence. Three if she was already in prison she can get extra time for behaving badly. Would the OP be equally outraged at that?

Really? Don't you have to be over 21 to get alcohol in most of America?

Which is why he said:

alcohol and nudity are more heavily restricted than in Europe

:p

Yep, welcome to a free country.

Please don't compare the rest of the country to South Carolina. As a New England boy, it gives me gas.

I am trying to figure out why the OP is outraged at this extra 90 days. For one it is tacked onto another sentence. Two she has been convicted and is in the sentencing stage of the process. While she is in custody and in that stage she mouths off and gets an additional 90 days. Sounds about right to me. I always figure that if one is in state custody and convicted their civil rights are severely curtailed. Freedom of speech is among many rights you give up while serving a sentence. Three if she was already in prison she can get extra time for behaving badly. Would the OP be equally outraged at that?

I object to people being thrown in jail for saying anything that isnt violent or threatening, fradulent or an intentional lie under oath.

I object to people being thrown in jail for saying anything that isnt violent or threatening, fradulent or an intentional lie under oath.

So you wouldn't mind if a courtroom was like the set of Jerry Springer / Ricky Lake? Or would you just fine the disresectful/noisy people?

I personally look at it this way. Judges are given their power by society. Therefore Judges=Society. Now when some imbecile tells the rest of us to kiss her ass what should be done with her? Some time in jail to think about following the rules would be sounds good doesn't it?

And are you really serious about that? I just wouldn't care and just ignore him or her, wouldn't it fall under free speech to be able to say "kiss my ass" to society?

well, that's nice. However most of us prefer our courtrooms not turn into a shouting match where the accused are yelling "LA LA LA LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU!" at the top of their lungs.

Neo i addressed that very issue a few pages/posts ago, please try to keep up ;)

"Someone who jumps up on the desk mid trial and sticks his finger in his ears and starts jumping up and down and yelling LA LA LA the Judge is a poopy head LA LA LA is guilty of contempt for the reason that he is obstructing justice. The person is perfectly entitled to the opinion the Judge is a poopy head and insulting the judge should not be the basis for the contempt. Handing a Judge a nonviolent one sentence note with an opinion (even if it is an insult) is hardly an earthshattering event that shakes the foundation of the courts ability to dispence justice in a timely and reasonable fashion and CERTIANLY shouldnt involve jailing someone period. This is all about the Judges bruised ego."

I object to people being thrown in jail for saying anything that isnt violent or threatening, fradulent or an intentional lie under oath.

well, that's nice. However most of us prefer our courtrooms not turn into a shouting match where the accused are yelling "LA LA LA LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU!" at the top of their lungs.

Neo i addressed that very issue a few pages/posts ago, please try to keep up ;)

No you didn't. You danced around the issue, gave a half assed answer, and hoped the rest of us wouldn't notice. So please answer the question, under the guise of freedom of speech, would you allow people to disrupt the function of the court in ways that were not threatening, violent, or fraudulant?

Ahh good, I see your edit, so are you now willing to retract your statement of:

I object to people being thrown in jail for saying anything that isnt violent or threatening, fradulent or an intentional lie under oath.

So that we can get to your ACTUAL position, without having you shift your position every 5 minutes?

No you didn't. You danced around the issue, gave a half assed answer, and hoped the rest of us wouldn't notice. So please answer the question, under the guise of freedom of speech, would you allow people to disrupt the function of the court in ways that were not threatening, violent, or fraudulant?

I assert a single sentence and unspoken note (nonviolent etc) doesnt qualify as a disruption of the court commesmerate with a jail term. Is that better? The judge could have read it in literally under a second, rolled his eyes heavenward, and put the sheet to the side in less then 1 second more, and carried on and Justice would not have been harmed delayed nor abrigated in any way shape or form.

And are you really serious about that? I just wouldn't care and just ignore him or her, wouldn't it fall under free speech to be able to say "kiss my ass" to society?
Once again, outside the courtroom you can tell the judge publicly to kiss your body part of choice. Inside is a different story.
Neo i addressed that very issue a few pages/posts ago, please try to keep up ;)

"Someone who jumps up on the desk mid trial and sticks his finger in his ears and starts jumping up and down and yelling LA LA LA the Judge is a poopy head LA LA LA is guilty of contempt for the reason that he is obstructing justice. The person is perfectly entitled to the opinion the Judge is a poopy head and insulting the judge should not be the basis for the contempt. Handing a Judge a nonviolent one sentence note with an opinion (even if it is an insult) is hardly an earthshattering event that shakes the foundation of the courts ability to dispence justice in a timely and reasonable fashion and CERTIANLY shouldnt involve jailing someone period. This is all about the Judges bruised ego."
It is disruptive, though. It wastes the judge and bailiff's time. If we make some sort of exception for the written word than the proceedings can become farcical while people pass notes like a 5th grade classroom with hormone injections and defendants make "Suck it Judge" paper dolls.

Which would only lengthen your prison stay. Though I suppose 90 days might not make much of a difference.

Exactly, if you're looking at 20 years anyways what's it matter if there's a few more months? At least you'll have a badass story to tell the boys as an icebreaker. And the warm fuzzy feeling you get from doing something that so many people can only fantasize about doing because even if they had the chance they'd puss out.

I assert a single sentence and unspoken note doesnt qualify as a disruption of the court commesmerate with a jail term. Is that better?

fine, so you agree that contempt should be a crime (despite your earlier nonsense about being able to say what we want). That's progress.

Now you're free to believe that this is not a sufficient "disruption", but you admit that causing a disruption is not constitutionally protected. Now, what constitutes a disruption is generally a subjective opinion. This judge elieved it was sufficient disruption to merit a charge of contempt, and the appeals court agreed.

You're free to disagree of course, but, well, they're the ones who count, your earlier winge about how it's "unconstitutional" not withstanding.

fine, so you agree that contempt should be a crime (despite your earlier nonsense about being able to say what we want). That's progress.


Huh? In the 4th post of this whole thread i wrote "Someone who jumps up on the desk mid trial and sticks his finger in his ears and starts jumping up and down and yelling LA LA LA the Judge is a poopy head LA LA LA is (guilty of contempt for the reason that he is obstructing justice.)"

So where exactly did your great wisdom sway my opinion? Writing a note experessing an opinion should not qualify as contempt nor do i think even if it did should it warrent arrest or imprisionment of any kind. If the person cant behave in the courtroom they should simply be removed or the baliff could be instructed not to pass any more notes or one of a million other reasonable alternatives and the problem is solved. NOT imprisioned. What is this the Gestapo?

And of COURSE the A.C.s agree with the sitting Judge because its in thier vested interest to do so. It would be like the Congress suddenly voting to give up thier own subpoena power. Of course they arnt going to take that huge power away from themselves and neither are any of the Judges.

90 days imprisonment? That's excessive. I'd consider disrespecting a judge to one of the more minor offences that can be considered contempt of court.

I believe this sentence undermines other sentences handed down for the more serious offences under contempt of court such as disobeying a court order or preventing a fair trial.

90 days imprisonment? That's excessive. I'd consider disrespecting a judge to one of the more minor offences that can be considered contempt of court.

I believe this sentence undermines other sentences handed down for the more serious offences under contempt of court such as disobeying a court order or preventing a fair trial.Judge = court in the sense of contempt of court, if I am not much mistaken. The judge is the court made flesh.

Do not agree with this decision at all. How can a citizen of the United States be thrown in jail for 90 DAYS for telling someone to kiss thier ass? I mean are you KIDDING me? Just because someone is a Judge doesnt mean they are immune to having opinions expressed about them. As long as anything directed at the judge isnt violent nor disrupting the courtroom how the hell should this woman be thrown in jail for essentially expressing a nonviolent opinion? Judges arnt gods nor immune to critisicm. But apparently we throw people in prision for expressing unpopular opinions now these days. I mean people that commit actual real crimes serve less then 90 days in jail for thier actions but now NC taxpayers have to pay to house this woman for 90 extra days to massage the Judges ego? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_fe_st/odd_contempt_charge;_ylt=AlYrGMfZw0Ouxr_TBCne3qeek3QF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

"A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Typically judges in common law systems have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

"A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior,

We have already been over this. How can you legislate respect?

Well, now you know. And knowing's half the battle.

G.I. Joe!





Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

And of COURSE the A.C.s agree with the sitting Judge because its in thier vested interest to do so. It would be like the Congress suddenly voting to give up thier own subpoena power. Of course they arnt going to take that huge power away from themselves and neither are any of the Judges.

Amazing, now not only is the judge someone who abuses his power because he has a bruised ego, but the appeals court judges are biased and ruling ot protect their own vested interests.

Amazing the strawmen you have to build to keep this "argument" afloat.

We have already been over this. How can you legislate respect?

We have already been over this. You can not legislate respect. You can only legislate act.

Nobody is required to respect the judge. They are required to not show disrespect. You can "go over this" as much as you like, won't magically make you right.

Amazing, now not only is the judge someone who abuses his power because he has a bruised ego, but the appeals court judges are biased and ruling ot protect their own vested interests.

Amazing the strawmen you have to build to keep this "argument" afloat.

My actual arguement is the Judge abused his power because he had a million other fair and reasonable alternatives to solve the problem and choose imprisioning someone for 90 days and costing the tax payers tens of thousands of dollars instead because his ego was bruised.

In the Land of the Sane, an Appellate Court would tell the Judge, hey look there are a million other better alternatives here,even though your technically within your rights maybe you should probably look into some other more rational solutions to this offence. Instead the Appellate court rules on a narrow aspect of the law and ultimatly just says Hey sorry guy, Judge is within his rights no matter how dumb it may seem and no matter how vindictive it may appear so suck on it". And the rest of us just have to sit there and suck up to the King on his Throne.

We have already been over this. How can you legislate respect?You legislate the showing. you're not allowed to show disrespect; what you do in the privacy of your own mind is fine. It's about behaviour, not thought.

We have already been over this. You can not legislate respect. You can only legislate act.

Nobody is required to respect the judge. They are required to not show disrespect. You can "go over this" as much as you like, won't magically make you right.

How would you define respect though? It seems a little too subjective to me.

How would you define respect though? It seems a little too subjective to me.The exact definition of respect will depend on the individual judge. Though that is largely irrelevant, seeing as there are probably few judges out there that will consider insulting them like that as within the limits of still showing respect.

How would you define respect though? It seems a little too subjective to me.

Of course, law is all about "subjective". What is the definition of a reasonable person? How would that reasonable person behave? What actions deviate from what a reasonable person would do?

Law is extremely subjective. That's why we have trials. That's why we have the judicial process.

The fact is, this entire thing is extremely simple. She was displeased with the judge, fine she has that right. SHe wished to make that displeasure known. She had ways to do so. Instead of choosing appropriate methods, she wrote her insult on official court documents, had those documents delivered by an officer of the court to the sitting judge. She used the time of two court officials, and official legal documents. She wasted the time and resources of the court in order to deliver a personal insult.

She showed manifest disrespect to an officer of the court, a sitting judge, and the proceedings themselves. She wasted the time of the court and risked the delay in the administration of justice.

That is contempt of court. And for that she deserves punishment.

My actual arguement is the Judge abused his power because he had a million other fair and reasonable alternatives to solve the problem and choose imprisioning someone for 90 days and costing the tax payers tens of thousands of dollars instead because his ego was bruised.

Then it's a poor argument. What this woman did was legally contempt of court. She committed the crime of contempt of court. The judge charged her with contempt of court.

Whether the judge did so to seek justice, or because his ego was bruised is irrelevant. This person committed contempt of court, so the judge had every legal right to pursue the matter. A judge can not "abuse his power" by doing what he had every legal right to do.

His motivation for using that power is irrelevant. He had the right to do so and he exercised it, therefore it can not be any abuse of power.

Of course, law is all about "subjective". What is the definition of a reasonable person? How would that reasonable person behave? What actions deviate from what a reasonable person would do?

Law is extremely subjective. That's why we have trials. That's why we have the judicial process.

The fact is, this entire thing is extremely simple. She was displeased with the judge, fine she has that right. SHe wished to make that displeasure known. She had ways to do so. Instead of choosing appropriate methods, she wrote her insult on official court documents, had those documents delivered by an officer of the court to the sitting judge. She used the time of two court officials, and official legal documents. She wasted the time and resources of the court in order to deliver a personal insult.

She showed manifest disrespect to an officer of the court, a sitting judge, and the proceedings themselves. She wasted the time of the court and risked the delay in the administration of justice.

That is contempt of court. And for that she deserves punishment.

I think that the man on the Clampham Omni-bus is a very poor way to define respect though. There are large portions of the UK that would consider someone 'looking at them funny' to be very disrespectful yet I wouldn't want judges holding people in contempt for giving them dirty looks.

My actual arguement is the Judge abused his power because he had a million other fair and reasonable alternatives to solve the problem and choose imprisioning someone for 90 days and costing the tax payers tens of thousands of dollars instead because his ego was bruised.

Actually this will cost the tax payers almost nothing, since, as has already been pointed out, the woman has already been sentenced to 5 year, so chances are she won't actually serve those 90 days at all.

I think that the man on the Clampham Omni-bus is a very poor way to define respect though. There are large portions of the UK that would consider someone 'looking at them funny' to be very disrespectful yet I wouldn't want judges holding people in contempt for giving them dirty looks.

well that's the thing. A judge can't just go "you're in contempt, 30 days ought to fix you!" A judge can only hold someone, without review, if that person is causing a disruption and only to the point that the disruption ceases.

If a judge sentences someone to a specific term of incarceration (90 days in this case) it is like any other crime, in which it must be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, with all applicable appeals, that it was, in fact, contempt. A judge can't just decide to lock someone up for 3 months for commiting a criminal act without due process of law.

We have rights, and the judge can't just circumvent them because he gets pissed off. Her guilt of the crime of contempt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and upheld on appeal.

Understood but irrelevant. The note didnt hinder the Judges official capacity so what is the basis of the contempt? Contempt isnt arbitrary it has to be based on something. A judge cant send the whole court audience to jail just because one person wont fess up to whos cell phone is ringing in his courtroom for example. There is no contempt of court unless there is some legal basis for the judges claim in the first place.




Why does the fact that its spoken or written change the nature of the crime?

It does not have to hinder the proceeding to be put in place (though that is the most common usage for sure)

In a country that proudly proclaims to be the land of the free, the notion of imprisioning anyone for snubing ANYTHING is antiethical. As long as the act isnt violent or disruptive are you kidding me???

Hardly. The freedom that the United States so proudly boasts of is one that is protected by institutions such as these courts. She defaced documents of the court, she wasted the time of the court, just to shove a immature insult at a judge. Violating the decorum of these courts undermines the authority of the institution, and its legitimacy. It is antithetical to nothing.

Violating the decorum of these courts undermines the authority of the institution, and its legitimacy.

Nonsence. If i send a note to George Bush and tell him to kiss my ass am i undermining the authority of the executive branch? Is it somehow challenging the legitimacy of the executive branch? I dont think so.

well that's the thing. A judge can't just go "you're in contempt, 30 days ought to fix you!" A judge can only hold someone, without review, if that person is causing a disruption and only to the point that the disruption ceases.

If a judge sentences someone to a specific term of incarceration (90 days in this case) it is like any other crime, in which it must be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, with all applicable appeals, that it was, in fact, contempt. A judge can't just decide to lock someone up for 3 months for commiting a criminal act without due process of law.

We have rights, and the judge can't just circumvent them because he gets pissed off. Her guilt of the crime of contempt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and upheld on appeal.

I understand this and in this case believe that he woman involved should do time for stupity if for nothing else.

My point was more to do with the several people who've quoted the definition of contempt and one of the acts the can be treated as contempt of court is disrespecting the judge. This is what I find to be too open to interpretation by an individual judge and I was hoping that you, as our resident expert on US law, would have a more exact definition.

It's all well and good saying that you'll receive due process and the appeals court may free you if your trial judge was being a little sensitive on the day they jailed you for 30 days but that won't give you the time back.

judges have extraordinary discretion as to what is permissible in their courtrooms.

Not as much as they would like to think.

A Judge’s ‘Inexplicable Madness’ Over a Cellphone

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/a-judges-inexplicable-madness-over-a-cellphone/

I understand this and in this case believe that he woman involved should do time for stupity if for nothing else.

My point was more to do with the several people who've quoted the definition of contempt and one of the acts the can be treated as contempt of court is disrespecting the judge. This is what I find to be too open to interpretation by an individual judge and I was hoping that you, as our resident expert on US law, would have a more exact definition.

Unfortunatly...there really isn't any. Judges have tremendous leeway on what is contempt and what isn't.

Tell you a story. A friend of mine from lawschool is an assistant US attorney here in Boston. In court one day, second chair, he wasn't even arguing, he was just sitting and taking notes. He had turned the ringer on his phone off, but forgot to silence it completely. He gets a call. It doesn't ring, that's fine, but someone leaves a voicemail. The phone beeps, once.

He is fined $2,000 for contempt of court.

judges have extraordinary discretion as to what is permissible in their courtrooms.

Nonsence. If i send a note to George Bush and tell him to kiss my ass am i undermining the authority of the executive branch? Is it somehow challenging the legitimacy of the executive branch? I dont think so.

The difference being, though, this isn't just a note that was sent to the judge. This was an official court document, necessary for carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the court. Furthermore, this individual is a convicted criminal, and part of and parcel of their conviction was their cooperation with the court.

I've always said they should have a mandatory 10 years in jail for resisting arrest.

Anyone that is stupid enough to fight or mouth off to police belongs in jail.

What does this have to do with the thread?

I've always said they should have a mandatory 10 years in jail for resisting arrest.

Anyone that is stupid enough to fight or mouth off to police belongs in jail.

Which isn't even remotely the point.

No, the point is that contempt of court brings consequences.
Please do keep up.

In a country that proudly proclaims to be the land of the free, the notion of imprisioning anyone for snubing ANYTHING is antiethical. As long as the act isnt violent or disruptive are you kidding me???

How very unfortunate for your world view that the law doesn't conform to your opinion, and that this law certainly is nothing new.

This is, in fact, a case of direct contempt, as the article said, because even though the criminal was, herself not in front of the judge directly issuing her contemptuous statement, by writing it on a form and having it sent to the judge she transfered it to her, creating direct contempt.

If she merely said to the bailiff "that judge can kiss my ass" that would have been entirely different

Whoa, where did I hear that before? :D

Upward, it has to do with idiots being punished. Anyone that is stupid enough to blame police or a judge for doing their job is someone who belongs in a correctional facility.

Do not agree with this decision at all. How can a citizen of the United States be thrown in jail for 90 DAYS for telling someone to kiss thier ass? I mean are you KIDDING me? Just because someone is a Judge doesnt mean they are immune to having opinions expressed about them. As long as anything directed at the judge isnt violent nor disrupting the courtroom how the hell should this woman be thrown in jail for essentially expressing a nonviolent opinion? Judges arnt gods nor immune to critisicm. But apparently we throw people in prision for expressing unpopular opinions now these days. I mean people that commit actual real crimes serve less then 90 days in jail for thier actions but now NC taxpayers have to pay to house this woman for 90 extra days to massage the Judges ego? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_fe_st/odd_contempt_charge;_ylt=AlYrGMfZw0Ouxr_TBCne3qeek3QF

I don't see any problem.

This is almost as retarded punishment and topic as the Topless Woman one.

It looks like the Common Law system makes judges little Hitl...erm...megalomaniac and the entire legal system will follow the trend.

Oh, man, the story linked on that page is so much more interesting... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_fe_st/odd_ninja_bandit;_ylt=AnOK4NL9.BcUuWkbslHc0rsuQE4F)

Kinda scary for me; some of my family lives on Staten Island.
This guy already was stabbed by a homeowner who surprised him.

I'm wondering why the families in the neighborhoods he preys on 1) haven't got better alarms and 2) don't get dogs. Even a yappy little dustmop is good enough to let you know there's an intruder in the house.

Kinda scary for me; some of my family lives on Staten Island.
This guy already was stabbed by a homeowner who surprised him.

I'm wondering why the families in the neighborhoods he preys on 1) haven't got better alarms and 2) don't get dogs. Even a yappy little dustmop is good enough to let you know there's an intruder in the house.

Maybe their alarms don't work.
And they might be allergic to dogs, or can't afford them(e.g. too much time, or not enough money for food).
But you make a good point despite my amazing and truely inspiring analysis.

I object to people being thrown in jail for saying anything that isnt violent or threatening, fradulent or an intentional lie under oath.

She was already in jail. Apparently, she wanted to be there longer, so she acted like a jerk after violating her parole, after committing a felony.

Sounds like the salt of the earth there.

Whoa, where did I hear that before? :D
There's an echo in the server
Oh, man, the story linked on that page is so much more interesting... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_fe_st/odd_ninja_bandit;_ylt=AnOK4NL9.BcUuWkbslHc0rsuQE4F)
Awesome! That totally deserves its own thread.
Whoa, where did I hear that before? :D
There's an echo in the server

G.I. Joe!





Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

I'm glad somebody caught it!

My actual arguement is the Judge abused his power because he had a million other fair and reasonable alternatives to solve the problem and choose imprisioning someone for 90 days and costing the tax payers tens of thousands of dollars instead because his ego was bruised.

In the Land of the Sane, an Appellate Court would tell the Judge, hey look there are a million other better alternatives here,even though your technically within your rights maybe you should probably look into some other more rational solutions to this offence. Instead the Appellate court rules on a narrow aspect of the law and ultimatly just says Hey sorry guy, Judge is within his rights no matter how dumb it may seem and no matter how vindictive it may appear so suck on it". And the rest of us just have to sit there and suck up to the King on his Throne.

Except, not.
Honestly, this is not a new application of the law. Why are you so invested in this? it's not as if you are you planning to break the law, then telling a judge to fuck off, and are worried that will add time to your sentence.

I think that the man on the Clampham Omni-bus is a very poor way to define respect though. There are large portions of the UK that would consider someone 'looking at them funny' to be very disrespectful yet I wouldn't want judges holding people in contempt for giving them dirty looks.

Was that what happened here?

Not as much as they would like to think.

A Judge’s ‘Inexplicable Madness’ Over a Cellphone

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/a-judges-inexplicable-madness-over-a-cellphone/

So then by using this article, you are in fact proving that if a judge abuses his power, he will be reprimanded or punished by authorities he answers to (that is, his peers) and that if he is within his legal rights, he will have his decision upheld.

Wonderful. We're all on the same page.

Was that what happened here?

No. I was looking at the law itself rather than the individual case.

As you would have seen if you'd read my next post.

So then by using this article, you are in fact proving that if a judge abuses his power, he will be reprimanded or punished by authorities he answers to (that is, his peers) and that if he is within his legal rights, he will have his decision upheld.

Wonderful. We're all on the same page.

I think its far more likely that Judges abuse thier power constantly and only a very tiny % of the time do they get called to account for their actions and here is a rare example of when they do.
That this even happened at all shows that Judges have potential to abuse thier powers so granting them broad discretion has its drawbacks.

Looks like the defendant was asking for more time in jail, and got it.

No. I was looking at the law itself rather than the individual case.

As you would have seen if you'd read my next post.

Sorry, haven't mastered time travel yet. Though the servers are wonky enough, I can only read them in the order they're posted.

Sorry, haven't mastered time travel yet. Though the servers are wonky enough, I can only read them in the order they're posted.

You don't need it,

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13349278&postcount=97

TA DA!!

Unfortunatly...there really isn't any. Judges have tremendous leeway on what is contempt and what isn't.

Tell you a story. A friend of mine from lawschool is an assistant US attorney here in Boston. In court one day, second chair, he wasn't even arguing, he was just sitting and taking notes. He had turned the ringer on his phone off, but forgot to silence it completely. He gets a call. It doesn't ring, that's fine, but someone leaves a voicemail. The phone beeps, once.

He is fined $2,000 for contempt of court.

judges have extraordinary discretion as to what is permissible in their courtrooms.

Would you consider that an abuse of power? I doubt you friend intended any disrespect or there was any disruption of court proceedings.

Nonsence. If i send a note to George Bush and tell him to kiss my ass am i undermining the authority of the executive branch? Is it somehow challenging the legitimacy of the executive branch? I dont think so.

Comparison error. The woman didn't send a note as you would send a letter. She wrote it on official court documents. Try writing it in a proposed bill or other official documents, and see if there's the reaction.

I think its far more likely that Judges abuse thier power constantly and only a very tiny % of the time do they get called to account for their actions and here is a rare example of when they do.
That this even happened at all shows that Judges have potential to abuse thier powers so granting them broad discretion has its drawbacks.

And why exactly do you think this?

You don't need it,

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13349278&postcount=97

TA DA!!

Yes of course, I always respond to things I haven't read yet.
Doesn't everyone?
I can hardly be held accountable for responding to your post simply because I was unaware of a later post.

But thanks for playing.

Comparison error. The woman didn't send a note as you would send a letter. She wrote it on official court documents. Try writing it in a proposed bill or other official documents, and see if there's the reaction.

So if the woman wrote it on a blank piece of paper or on the back of a Chinese Menu and sent it to the judge it would have been ok to you then?

Yes of course, I always respond to things I haven't read yet.
Doesn't everyone?
I can hardly be held accountable for responding to your post simply because I was unaware of a later post.

But thanks for playing.

You really can. Jumping to conclusions without reading the whole thread is no ones fault but your own.

Had you said that I was my fault for not being clear in my post then you would have had a point.

You really can. Jumping to conclusions without reading the whole thread is no ones fault but your own.

Had you said that I was my fault for not being clear in my post then you would have had a point.

Responding to a post you put in that required clarification -- yes, I can see how that would be my fault entirely.

I really MUST work on that time travel, so I can be there after you write a completely different post later, when I'm working my way through the thread from, oddly enough, beginning to end.

So if the woman wrote it on a blank piece of paper or on the back of a Chinese Menu and sent it to the judge it would have been ok to you then?

It doesn't matter to me. Your question is: Would it still be contemt of court?

Neo i addressed that very issue a few pages/posts ago, please try to keep up ;)

"Someone who jumps up on the desk mid trial and sticks his finger in his ears and starts jumping up and down and yelling LA LA LA the Judge is a poopy head LA LA LA is guilty of contempt for the reason that he is obstructing justice. The person is perfectly entitled to the opinion the Judge is a poopy head and insulting the judge should not be the basis for the contempt. Handing a Judge a nonviolent one sentence note with an opinion (even if it is an insult) is hardly an earthshattering event that shakes the foundation of the courts ability to dispence justice in a timely and reasonable fashion and CERTIANLY shouldnt involve jailing someone period. This is all about the Judges bruised ego."

"Kiss my ass" is not an opinion. She was telling the judge to engage in a physical, sexual and degrading act. That is much different than an opinion.

Responding to a post you put in that required clarification -- yes, I can see how that would be my fault entirely.

I really MUST work on that time travel, so I can be there after you write a completely different post later, when I'm working my way through the thread from, oddly enough, beginning to end.

What I think we have is a difference of attitude towards responding the posts on message boards. I believe it's good form to read all a persons posts in a thread before responding to them in case that person amends or clarifies their position 6 posts later.

What I think we have is a difference of attitude towards responding the posts on message boards. I believe it's good form to read all a persons posts in a thread before responding to them in case that person amends or clarifies their position 6 posts later.

But for the Mods i imagine they have to do alot of reading through threads, so you can't really expect them to track every thread and give exact answers, they are Mods to keep order.
So even if they have the attitude you describe, it's not possible for them to do so.
Merry Christmas for next year.

What I think we have is a difference of attitude towards responding the posts on message boards. I believe it's good form to read all a persons posts in a thread before responding to them in case that person amends or clarifies their position 6 posts later.

Forget it Jake, it's Katganistown ...

And are you really serious about that? I just wouldn't care and just ignore him or her, wouldn't it fall under free speech to be able to say "kiss my ass" to society?

When someone is incarcerated or on their way do not have the same civil rights as the rest of us. That is a simple fact.

What I think we have is a difference of attitude towards responding the posts on message boards. I believe it's good form to read all a persons posts in a thread before responding to them in case that person amends or clarifies their position 6 posts later.

This is NSG get over it.

Nice to see some NSG's resident freedom of speech haters are coming out of the wood work. :rolleyes:

Nice to see some NSG's resident freedom of speech haters are coming out of the wood work. :rolleyes:Do you make any non-baiting statements? :confused:

Nice to see some NSG's resident freedom of speech haters are coming out of the wood work. :rolleyes:

Considering this to be contempt of court == hating freedom of speech.

Wow, it makes so much sense. :rolleyes:

Nice to see some NSG's resident freedom of speech haters are coming out of the wood work. :rolleyes:

Most of us realize that freedom to speak your mind does not give you freedom to waste the courts time and resources.

Nice to see some NSG's resident freedom of speech haters are coming out of the wood work. :rolleyes:

Freedom of speech doesn't exist in all circumstances.

When someone is incarcerated or on their way do not have the same civil rights as the rest of us. That is a simple fact.

Everybody is subject to contempt of court charges. Neo Art gave the example above of an assistant attorney fined for contempt of court. It's not just the accused ...

Hey, who farted?

As the saying goes: Whoever spelled it dealt it.

Everybody is subject to contempt of court charges. Neo Art gave the example above of an assistant attorney fined for contempt of court. It's not just the accused ...

Yeah that is true and I should have figured that into what I was saying. However I would imagine there is less severe sentencing in someone that is not being incarcerated such as an attorney or someone testifying for a case. I would be interested to see the differences if any in sentencing for a single contempt of court charge.

Yeah that is true and I should have figured that into what I was saying. However I would imagine there is less severe sentencing in someone that is not being incarcerated such as an attorney or someone testifying for a case. I would be interested to see the differences if any in sentencing for a single contempt of court charge.

Well, contempt of court can be extremely serious, it's basically refusing to comply with an order given by the court and can include deliberate attempts to mislead the court or make a trial unfair. Insulting the judge or being silly in court is surely at the low end of the range.

In this case, the written comments smack of a lack of contrition from a person who admits to breaking their probation. I suspect that's the real reason for the 90-day sentence ... that or the judge's big fat ego of course!

I'm curious if ms. Law (hehe) was given an opportunity to apologize or retract, or if that's just forfeited by insulting someone in writing ...

I nearly got arrested for telling a cop to go suck on a lemon. But, since it was a figure of speech I still do not have a criminal record, though the cops do often stop by house after hours at my residence though that was before I got a pack of Vikings roaming in my front years. Which is way I can no longer leave my house and have to have my food flown in by catapult.:(

Do not agree with this decision at all. How can a citizen of the United States be thrown in jail for 90 DAYS for telling someone to kiss thier ass? I mean are you KIDDING me? Just because someone is a Judge doesnt mean they are immune to having opinions expressed about them. As long as anything directed at the judge isnt violent nor disrupting the courtroom how the hell should this woman be thrown in jail for essentially expressing a nonviolent opinion? Judges arnt gods nor immune to critisicm. But apparently we throw people in prision for expressing unpopular opinions now these days. I mean people that commit actual real crimes serve less then 90 days in jail for thier actions but now NC taxpayers have to pay to house this woman for 90 extra days to massage the Judges ego? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_fe_st/odd_contempt_charge;_ylt=AlYrGMfZw0Ouxr_TBCne3qeek3QF

I understand that we have freedom of speech. However, the dignity of the courtroom must be maintained. Swearing at a judge is about as disorderly as conduct can be. 90 days, at least in PA, is the limit that someone can be jailed for a summary offense. I bet this is pretty standard across the states.

I think a judge should give someone a warning to calm down and if they continue making such vile insults, that they should get tossed into the cooler. When a judge has the robe on he should be treated with the utmost of respect.

'Kiss my ass' isn't really an opinion. Besides, the crime is contempt of court. Sending a judge your probation revocation papers with 'Kiss my ass' written on them is quite clearly contemptuous.

I agree, I don't see why the punishment for such contempt should be jail time though.

I nearly got arrested for telling a cop to go suck on a lemon. But, since it was a figure of speech I still do not have a criminal record, though the cops do often stop by house after hours at my residence though that was before I got a pack of Vikings roaming in my front years. Which is way I can no longer leave my house and have to have my food flown in by catapult.:(

Wha? the first sentance i understand, but the things about vikings and catapults are confusing me.
Wouldn't the food be a bit squashed if it was fired from a catapult?

Do not agree with this decision at all. How can a citizen of the United States be thrown in jail for 90 DAYS for telling someone to kiss thier ass? I mean are you KIDDING me? Just because someone is a Judge doesnt mean they are immune to having opinions expressed about them. As long as anything directed at the judge isnt violent nor disrupting the courtroom how the hell should this woman be thrown in jail for essentially expressing a nonviolent opinion? Judges arnt gods nor immune to critisicm. But apparently we throw people in prision for expressing unpopular opinions now these days. I mean people that commit actual real crimes serve less then 90 days in jail for thier actions but now NC taxpayers have to pay to house this woman for 90 extra days to massage the Judges ego? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_fe_st/odd_contempt_charge;_ylt=AlYrGMfZw0Ouxr_TBCne3qeek3QF

In my opinion this "judge" is far more lenient than I, General Zod, your rightful leader, would be. If this woman had dared tell ME to "kiss her ass", not only would I NOT kiss this "ass" she speaks of, but I would immediately shoot her with my eye lasers for daring to commit such an abominable act of insolence.

But, then again, this "judge" is just a normal human being, and does not have the powers that your yellow sun gives ME here on planet Houston, so even if s/he WANTED to, s/he could not shoot any eye lasers at this defiant woman.

Do not agree with this decision at all. How can a citizen of the United States be thrown in jail for 90 DAYS for telling someone to kiss thier ass? I mean are you KIDDING me? Just because someone is a Judge doesnt mean they are immune to having opinions expressed about them. As long as anything directed at the judge isnt violent nor disrupting the courtroom how the hell should this woman be thrown in jail for essentially expressing a nonviolent opinion? Judges arnt gods nor immune to critisicm. But apparently we throw people in prision for expressing unpopular opinions now these days. I mean people that commit actual real crimes serve less then 90 days in jail for thier actions but now NC taxpayers have to pay to house this woman for 90 extra days to massage the Judges ego? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_fe_st/odd_contempt_charge;_ylt=AlYrGMfZw0Ouxr_TBCne3qeek3QF

Contempt of court.
Disorderly conduct.
Disturbing the peace.

90 days right there. It is a bit overboard, I'll admit.