Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Criticizing Federal Judges Question

  1. #1
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    Finally waded into the TSA ruling thread and it raised a question. I decided not to interject it their; needless tangent.

    I'm pretty sure it was in the Western District; either Seattle or Tacoma. In the late 70's, 80's or possibly the early 90's, there was a federal judge who through the book at someone for criticizing him in some way. I thought it was Boldt, but am having trouble finding any details. Boldt died in 1984 and Lord knows there was a lot of criticism on the tribal fishing decision of 1974. I'm inclined to think this was someone else.

    I know Google is my friend, but there's a ton of hits. I'm hoping that someone recalls this and can add a few details to narrow it down. Ultimately I want to find out the USC that would allow someone to be jailed for expressing their first amendment rights.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    I don't remember this incident but I guess it would depend on whether or not the judge was criticized in his courtroom or in a public type manner, like news or something. I could see some judges considering that to be contempt.

    Here is a link on the federal contempt.

    http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia...le9/39mcrm.htm
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    I don't remember this incident but I guess it would depend on whether or not the judge was criticized in his courtroom or in a public type manner, like news or something. I could see some judges considering that to be contempt.

    Here is a link on the federal contempt.

    http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia...le9/39mcrm.htm
    In the courtroom I agree, in the press or public forum, no way.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    They do consider indirect contempt anything that can be construed as contempt but heard by a third party. They would have to show that the actions of the person directly interfered with the court proceedings however.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    They do consider indirect contempt anything that can be construed as contempt but heard by a third party. They would have to show that the actions of the person directly interfered with the court proceedings however.
    Soafter the case was closed,criticism would hardly qualify. But if it was criticism of a ruling on a question while the case was still being tried, then it would qualify? When did judges become unquestionable about their actions. Even the President does nothave that kind of protection.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    They do consider indirect contempt anything that can be construed as contempt but heard by a third party. They would have to show that the actions of the person directly interfered with the court proceedings however.
    Soafter the case was closed,criticism would hardly qualify. But if it was criticism of a ruling on a question while the case was still being tried, then it would qualify? When did judges become unquestionable about their actions. Even the President does nothave that kind of protection.
    I agree Bear. The way the code is written it is pretty specific on the elements required and the difference between indirect and direct contempt. I have a problem with the indirect contempt unless it truly disrupted court proceedings which in my opinion would be almost impossible to do.

    If it was criticism on anything in an ongoing trial and it was done in the courtroom there still has to be intent on the person charged with it. It just can't be because he disagreed and expressed criticism. I suspect there is more to this whole thing than just some guy criticizing a judge.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    384

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    They do consider indirect contempt anything that can be construed as contempt but heard by a third party. They would have to show that the actions of the person directly interfered with the court proceedings however.
    Soafter the case was closed,criticism would hardly qualify. But if it was criticism of a ruling on a question while the case was still being tried, then it would qualify? When did judges become unquestionable about their actions. Even the President does nothave that kind of protection.
    The judicial branch has often entered, at the least, questionable territory and granted themselves certain powers that again, might be 'questionable' at least.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    thewise1 wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    They do consider indirect contempt anything that can be construed as contempt but heard by a third party. They would have to show that the actions of the person directly interfered with the court proceedings however.
    Soafter the case was closed,criticism would hardly qualify. But if it was criticism of a ruling on a question while the case was still being tried, then it would qualify? When did judges become unquestionable about their actions. Even the President does nothave that kind of protection.
    The judicial branch has often entered, at the least, questionable territory and granted themselves certain powers that again, might be 'questionable' at least.
    Ain't that the ever lovin' truth!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •