Chicago girl jailed over shirt worn in court.

[E4 No More]

I thought that removing a person's rights is exactly what a judge is suppose to be doing.

Judges are to interpret the law; not create it. The latter is the responsibility of the legislative branch. If the states want to amend the constitution giving them the authority to suspend the rights of free speech in the courtroom, then that is what should be done as long as they clearly define what is and is not appropriate.

But the court''s ultimate responsibility is to uphold the rights of the accused; not stomp on them. And in this case it wasn't even the accused who got stomped on. The judge should have just ordered her to leave.

[leroy]

Jewell:_________

Sorry to hear that you aint laughing about this. Remember, you can’t change things if you don’t start somewhere. I join your opinion that there are lots of things wrong, and that it is right to be concerned about them. I would recommend starting with the big ones first. This First Amendment thing has already been settled with regard to the public square. Remember, the courtroom aint the public square. Sorry to hear that you have excused yourself from the running.

Kind regards,

Leroy

[Guest SUNTZU]

Originally Posted by SUNTZU

All I know is that if you wear that shirt then you'll learn that gavel tastes like .

There, fixed it.

J.

Maintaining decorum in the courtroom might be considered "in furtherance of justice". She was in the courtroom, she was connected. Now if the judge looked out the window and saw her walking down the street, that'd be a whorse of a different color...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Oh, there's no argument from me as to being more to the story.

The girl, being 19 and all, more then likely got a bit sassy with the judge, too.

But, there is no law about giving a judge a bit of tongue.

If a cop locked someone up for nothing more then a differencing of opinion,dress, etc, there would be all hell to pay.

We do not allow our officers to do that and a judge should be no different.

Now, don't get me wrong here. It's only common sense to be 'proper' while in court (or in the presence of an officer) but there is certainly no law that say's you have to.

Probably something like the law of diminishing returns.

[MCSCOTT]

Judges are to interpret the law; not create it. The latter is the responsibility of the legislative branch. If the states want to amend the constitution giving them the authority to suspend the rights of free speech in the courtroom, then that is what should be done as long as they clearly define what is and is not appropriate.

But the court''s ultimate responsibility is to uphold the rights of the accused; not stomp on them. And in this case it wasn't even the accused who got stomped on. The judge should have just ordered her to leave.

You're pretty well dead on, my comment was a partial attempt at humor. I also have to agree that in this case if the only issue was the shirt then no jail time should have been handed out, the girl should have simply been asked to leave if the judge doesn't allow that type of shirt in her courtroom. This is where the fact comes in to play that there has to be more to this story. I would have to think the girl was asked to leave starting out, especially since she wasn't the accused. If she then chose to argue with the judge and refused to leave, that is when jail time should be issued for contempt.

[Guest Caveman]

To all who have opined on this issue:______________

It has been a delightful read for me. Thank you all for the great entertainment and a smattering of real insight.

I have a proposal:

I propose that we select a "champion" -- a real radical libertarian -- who is utterly fearless and willing to go to the bitter end to put into the forefront this heinous injustice of judicial narcissism, raw exercise of judicial power, and abridgement of the First Amendment. That person needs to be someone from this forum; a person we all know and trust; who will accurately, coherently, and artfully report the results of that testing of the limits of judicial authority. They also need to have some extra time on their hands because as I remember, contempt of court aint a bailable offense. This person needs to be argumentative in the extreme so he (...or she...) can sufficiently agitate the judge to get an adequate test of the jurist's forbearance. He (...or she...) can travel to the nearest court (...preferably a Federal one...) and try the presiding judge with overbearing and impudent disregard for the office and person of the court; then gage the results (...if any---my guess is that there will be some…).

I am honored to be the first to be willing to contribute up to $10.00 smackaroos American to the TGO Benevolence Fund for Jailed Members. Having said all this, I open the floor to take nominations for this fearless individual who stands among us within the TGO Community.

Now, all we need to do is to tally the results and appoint a Treasurer to distribute the collected monies.

Waiting to contribute and excited to hear who the champion will be.

(...By the way, I have excused myself from this competition. "If nominated, I will not run; if drafted, I will not serve!!...).

Kind regards (...with money in hand...)

Radical Libertarian,

Leroy

I officially nominate SUNTZU and will match your donation of 10 smackers.

[Guest Jamie]

You may make a joke of this, leroy, but let me ask this.

If the court can remove one's 1st Amendment rights regarding a word on a shirt, then what's stopping the court from removing your other rights as he sees fit?

Lets say you,leroy, forget to remove your hat that says "John Deer" and the judge finds this offensive being a Cat fan-boy. He then imprisons you and tells you, you may no longer own firearms.

He has then unjustifiably removed your 1st amendment rights and your 2nd.

Is that a-ok, too?

Or is it only ok in THIS case because the girl look like a 'skank'?

Are your rights more important then a 'skank's' rights?

Kind regards

One who believes in the Constitution

strickj

Strick, what part of this aren't you grasping? The constitution allows for your 1st and 2nd amendment rights to be suspended while you're in a court room. It does not allow the judge to just permanently remove your constitutional rights without reason.

Sorry, but no one has any right that is absolute, or inviolate. There are times, places, and situations where any and all of them may need to be, or are, suspended or revoked.

That's just how it is, and has to be. Otherwise the legal system wouldn't work at all.

J.

[E4 No More]

Jewell:_________

Sorry to hear that you aint laughing about this. Remember, you can’t change things if you don’t start somewhere. I join your opinion that there are lots of things wrong, and that it is right to be concerned about them. I would recommend starting with the big ones first. This First Amendment thing has already been settled with regard to the public square. Remember, the courtroom aint the public square. Sorry to hear that you have excused yourself from the running.

Kind regards,

Leroy

I've seen my fair share of corrupt courts in two states, Leroy, and I don't find them humorous at all. It's part of the reason that I left the police department. I state my opinion and experiences in this and other forums to provoke thought from those experiences, but I am fully aware that I am powerless to change things. It would take numbers far greater than me alone to affect change, and that's what those in power, (judges in this case), rely upon. The whole system has degenerated into a legal system; not a justice system. By pissing-off a few at a time the courts do not have to worry about large numbers in outrage: therefore, they maintain power.

[leroy]

.... The whole system has degenerated into a legal system; not a justice system. By pissing-off a few at a time the courts do not have to worry about large numbers in outrage: therefore, they maintain power....

Excellent point. Dont disagree. There is a big difference between a "legal system" and a "justice system", that is, in fact, just.

Kind regards,

Leroy

Edited May 7, 2010 by leroy
spelling and grammar!!!

[E4 No More]

Strick, what part of this aren't you grasping? The constitution allows for your 1st and 2nd amendment rights to be suspended while you're in a court room. It does not allow the judge to just permanently remove your constitutional rights without reason.

Sorry, but no one has any right that is absolute, or inviolate. There are times, places, and situations where any and all of them may need to be, or are, suspended or revoked.

That's just how it is, and has to be. Otherwise the legal system wouldn't work at all.

J.

I disagree. Authority in this country comes from the people in the form of The Constitution of The United States. Nowhere does it say "except in a court of law" in that document. Or have I gone blind? Just because the courts have seized that authority, and the other branches have allowed them to do so, does not mean that it is legal. It's the way things are rather than the way they are supposed to be.

[strickj]

Strick, what part of this aren't you grasping? The constitution allows for your 1st and 2nd amendment rights to be suspended while you're in a court room. It does not allow the judge to just permanently remove your constitutional rights without reason.

Sorry, but no one has any right that is absolute, or inviolate. There are times, places, and situations where any and all of them may need to be, or are, suspended or revoked.

That's just how it is, and has to be. Otherwise the legal system wouldn't work at all.

J.

This came up earlier in the thread.

I asked who ever it was that said it to please point out to me when courts have exemptions from the Constitution.

Nobody answered.

So, care to point that out for me, please.

[mikegideon]

Looks like this might see its day in court. IMHO, the T-shirt was false advertising as well

Jennifer LaPenta To File Lawsuit After Being Jailed For T-Shirt - cbs2chicago.com

[ftncityfatboy]

its like my granddaddy used to say " women control 2/3 the money in this country and all the p***y", doesn't seem fair does it?

[strickj]

Interesting...

The hand-written order issued by the judge said LaPenta was in "direct criminal contempt" for "displaying herself in the front row wearing a shirt displaying obscene wording, and having been questioned regarding her apparel offering no excuse as to her displaying its content in open court."

Rozenberg ordered LaPenta handcuffed without giving her the opportunity to reverse her shirt or exit the courtroom, LaPenta reported.

[strickj]

its like my granddaddy used to say " women control 23 the money in this country and all the p***y", doesn't seem fair does it?

What's really unfair is the other 1/3 is spent on trying to get *****

[Guest Jamie]

This came up earlier in the thread.

I asked who ever it was that said it to please point out to me when courts have exemptions from the Constitution.

Nobody answered.

So, care to point that out for me, please.

Every place that it mentions "due process of law", effectively.

The constitution outlines certain limits to what the law and courts can do, and certain things they can't, but it doesn't cover everything that would be considered part of Due Process. It does allow for a person's rights, property, etc. to be taken from them, however.

J.

[MCSCOTT]

Interesting...

Interesting indeed. That being the case, even though I believe the judge should have the ability to maintain order, I can't say that I agree with the punishment in this situation. Constitution or not, with this information at hand, this is obviously a case of a judge that was personally offended, and abused her power even if she doesn't view it as such.

[mikegideon]

Interesting...

We're still only hearing one side. The good news is that both sides will be heard when it goes to court. After reading more though, it's a strong possibility that the judge was abusive. That, or skankolicious is kwik's young lesbian sister.

[ftncityfatboy]

technically this could fall under the 1st amendment right to free speech.....however, it is a known fact that you should show respect to a judge and his courtroom. would you wear that shirt to church? come on, show some respect......and FWIW, just looking at her makes me say she can keep her p***y and make all the decisions she want's, I'm just say'n

[The Average Joe]

I have no sympathy for the skank. What kind of person 1) wears that kinda crap in public and 2) would walk into a courtroom with it on. That's just plain dumb.

I can't believe this thread has lasted this long, but am going to have to agree with Garrufa.

They'll do the same thing if you don't take off your hat....nuff said.

[Guest Jamie]

Rozenberg ordered LaPenta handcuffed without giving her the opportunity to reverse her shirt or exit the courtroom, LaPenta reported.

Still only getting one side of the story, it seems...

J.

[Guest Caveman]

Interesting...

Having read this IMO the judge was out of line for jailing her. She should have been asked to leave the court. I feel this is ridiculous.

[strickj]

Still only getting one side of the story, it seems...

J.

The first quote was not the girls story but what the order stated.

I doubt we'll ever hear the judges side.

[Guest Jamie]

The first quote was not the girls story but what the order stated.

I doubt we'll ever hear the judges side.

Concerning whether or not she was given the opportunity to leave, we're only hearing the girl's side.

Given the fact she had no business being there at all, and was in the front row wearing something she already admitted was inappropriate, I think it's a safe bet she got an attitude when the judge questioned her, and that's what got her smacked, as much as anything.

J.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

We're still only hearing one side. The good news is that both sides will be heard when it goes to court. After reading more though, it's a strong possibility that the judge was abusive. That, or skankolicious is kwik's young lesbian sister.

skankolicious

Some people don't know how to behave in public. She may have taken the heat off some scrawny guy in lockup, though.