Judge threatens me - Ohio - advice appreciated

Alexcabbie · Jul 21, 2010

Fear Not.

Dude, if you are righteous, then be bold as a lion.
If this judge keeps it up, and if it becomes evident that he is throwing his weight around to cover up wrongdoing by the Township government, then he may soon be asking for a protective order - from his cell-mate. I'd get him some "soap-on-a-rope" and tell him if he kept it up, he'd probably be glad he had got it. Meanwhile keep the recorder on and keep gathering your evidence, against both Hizzonner and the Township. I grew up in Huber Heights back when it was Wayne Township, and believe me, these Town Clowns are often worse than a homeowner's association.

eye95 · Jul 21, 2010

KBCraig said:
Under a "reasonable person" standard, it was quite clear that he intended to convey a threat, without actually issuing a threat.

A threat of what? Legal action? It is perfectly legal for someone to threaten to defend the honor of someone else they believe to have been defamed--especially considering that the someone was a legal professional.

Reasonable folks will not see the threat to be one of physical violence. "Defending honor" does not imply physical force. Unless he was holding a gun or some other weapon, or shaking a fist, this was decidedly NOT a threat of violence.

Seriously, I expect the first judge who heard the ex parte presentation probably doubled over once he was alone in his chambers.

Thundar · Jul 21, 2010

American Activism is based upon boxes, not courts

Dreamer said:
Lawyer up, carry a recorder, and be aware...

Good luck. Judges are a tighter-knit crowd than LEOs. I'm surprised you even got a hearing.

IF you can't get a restraining order, keep recording threats, and then take them all to the media.

Sometimes the Court of Public Opinion is our last resort...

No this is the land of these States United. We have four boxes to fight tyranny

The soap box,

the ballot box,

the jury box

and because we are Americans, the ammunition box.

Not advocating violence in this case, just reminding one and all that the 2nd A was not meant to preserve our right to go hunting.

KBCraig · Jul 21, 2010

eye95 said:
KBCraig said:

Under a "reasonable person" standard, it was quite clear that he intended to convey a threat, without actually issuing a threat.

Click to expand...

A threat of what? Legal action? It is perfectly legal for someone to threaten to defend the honor of someone else they believe to have been defamed--especially considering that the someone was a legal professional.

Reasonable folks will not see the threat to be one of physical violence. "Defending honor" does not imply physical force. Unless he was holding a gun or some other weapon, or shaking a fist, this was decidedly NOT a threat of violence.

Perhaps your world is different, but I've never once heard anyone threaten to "defend my wife's honor!" and mean they would take it to court. I've never once heard it used where the obvious intent was anything other than an ass-kicking.

Please note that the OP asked the judge multiple times what he meant. The judge could have said, "I'll sue your ass into the poorhouse for libel!", but he didn't. He just kept repeating, "I'll defend my wife's honor", leaving the implication of violence hanging out there.

GLOCK21GB · Jul 21, 2010

you should have asked him....hey, by the way...how do I taste ? Yer woman was extra good last night...... call his bluff.

Doug Huffman · Jul 22, 2010

Gunslinger said:
There also exists a defense for simple assault called "fighting words" under Common Law. These are a usage of slander so objectionable and [reprehensible] that the reasonable man would be excused in physically assaulting the speaker.

Well said and something we must all remember. That and some fundamental civility. I think the loss of civility is enabled by anonymity and the issue of anonymous threats.

Annotations said:
Traditionally, provocation had 2 essential requirements. State v. Williford, supra., at 113. The first reflected in sub. (1) (b), is subjective. The defendant must have acted in response to provocation. This necessitates an assessment of the particular defendant’s state of mind at the time of the killing. The 2nd requirement, reflected in sub. (1) (a), is objective. Only provocation sufficient to cause a reasonable person to lose self−control completely is legally adequate to mitigate the severity of the offense.
Sub. (2) clarifies that adequate provocation is an affirmative defense to first−degree intentional homicide. Although adequate provocation does not negate the intent to kill such that the burden of persuasion rests on the state by constitutional principles (Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, (1975), Wisconsin has chosen to place the burden of disproving this defensive matter on the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.
State v. Lee, 108 Wis. 2d 1 (1982). Since adequate provocation is not an affirmative defense to 2nd−degree intentional homicide, its effect is to mitigate ...

eye95 · Jul 22, 2010

Gunslinger said:
There also exists a defense for simple assault called "fighting words" under Common Law. These are a usage of slander so objectionable and reprehensive that the reasonable man would be excused in physically assaulting the speaker. Just my interpretation from the limited facts at hand.

This got me curious about "fighting words." So, I searched on case law for "fighting words." All I could find were decisions (most notably Chaplinsky) in which fighting words were determined not to be protected as Free Speech.

In reading the Wisconsin law on provocation, I could only see where verbal provocation would be a mitigating factor and not an excuse. In other words, assaulting or killing another because of fighting words would still result in conviction, just of a lesser crime and/or with a shorter sentence.

Could you point me to case law on using fighting words as a defense to simple assault? Not that I am planning on slapping anyone around.

Gunslinger · Jul 22, 2010

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

Good overall examination of "fighting words" as non-protected speech under the 1st Amendment. I was referring to Common Law, both British and American, where decisions mitigated or completely excused simple assault as provoked by these words. That is where the term originated, not in modern case law. Will see if I can find some of the old, Common Law, based cases. The words which are understood, by Common Law, to be prima facie slanderous are often considered fighting words, as well. The one remedy is civil suit; the other simple assault as the words are considered a form of assault in and of themselves and the physical assault would be kind of like a form of self defense. 20th Century cases all seem to revolve around the 1st Amendment as opposed to historic "permissions." When I get a chance, I'll look up old cases in my legal textbooks on Torts.

eye95 · Jul 22, 2010

I appreciate that. My only knowledge of "fighting words" as an excuse for assault comes from the days of Judge Wapner, back when The People's Court still focused more on the law than on the sexual predilections of the litigants. He would always say, "I don't care what he said to you; you can't hit him." Of course, The People's Court was a venue for civil disputes, and Wapner was probably exercising the wide latitude that small claims court judges do.

Judge threatens me - Ohio - advice appreciated

Alexcabbie

Regular Member

eye95

Well-known member

Thundar

Regular Member

KBCraig

Regular Member

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran

Doug Huffman

Banned

eye95

Well-known member

Gunslinger

Regular Member

eye95

Well-known member