Criticizing Federal Judges Question

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.

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_reading_room/usam/title9/39mcrm.htm

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_reading_room/usam/title9/39mcrm.htm

Click to expand...

In the courtroom I agree, in the press or public forum, no way.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

The judicial branch has often entered, at the least, questionable territory and granted themselves certain powers that again, might be 'questionable' at least.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

The judicial branch has often entered, at the least, questionable territory and granted themselves certain powers that again, might be 'questionable' at least.

Click to expand...

Ain't that the ever lovin' truth!