Chicago girl jailed over shirt worn in court.

[E4 No More]

I don't get off work until 5 so I have nothing better to do.

[MCSCOTT]

I don't get off work until 5 so I have nothing better to do.

X2

Haven't been able to argue too much in this thread though. Heck it seems me and mikegideon always end up arguing back and forth in these discussions. What he's posted today though is almost the same things I would post, so now I've got nothing much to contribute and am sitting here bored.

[Guest Caveman]

X2

Haven't been able to argue too much in this thread though. Heck it seems me and mikegideon always end up arguing back and forth in these discussions. What he's posted today though is almost the same things I would post, so now I've got nothing much to contribute and am sitting here bored.

We could always start another OC vs CC thread...

[Seaslug]

I don't get off work until 5 so I have nothing better to do.

Any other day this might be true, but today, you've got something special to do at 4:00...

(Note: This is not sexual innuendo. Caveman and his fiancée are closing on a house this afternoon. He and I only meet for sex on Tuesdays...)

Back on topic...umm...I pretty much said all I had to say back on page 1, so here's a synopsis: Skank = dumb. Judge = dumb. There. Hijack averted...

[MCSCOTT]

We could always start another OC vs CC thread...

[Guest Caveman]

Any other day this might be true, but today, you've got something special to do at 4:00...

(Note: This is not sexual innuendo. Caveman and his fiancée are closing on a house this afternoon. He and I only meet for sex on Tuesdays...)

Back on topic...umm...I pretty much said all I had to say back on page 1, so here's a synopsis: Skank = dumb. Judge = dumb. There. Hijack averted...

Well, now that everyone knows my business......anyone want to know anything about Seaslug???

As to not get yelled at by a mod; Now that this has made the news, is it possible the judge will make a statement at some point? It would be interesting to hear the other side of the story.

[kb4ns]

He and I only meet for sex on Tuesdays...)

[Mike.357]

right or wrong a judge owns their courtroom. By owns I mean they make the rules.

No matter what anyone thinks the judge is the boss inside those doors.

If you don't like it stay out. That's the choice.

That bimbo and her lawsuit are going no where.

I wonder how many times she has been knocked up?

Originally Posted by Seaslug

He and I only meet for sex on Tuesdays...)

I opened this thread and this is what I saw. Yikes, you talking about 70 below again?

[Mike.357]

oh you and Caveman are doing it. Post up some pics, LMAO

Congrats on the new cave Caveman.

When is the party?

[mikegideon]

right or wrong a judge owns their courtroom. By owns I mean they make the rules.

No matter what anyone thinks the judge is the boss inside those doors.

If you don't like it stay out. That's the choice.

That bimbo and her lawsuit are going no where.

I wonder how many times she has been knocked up?

I opened this thread and this is what I saw. Yikes, you talking about 70 below again?

She's gay. Would have had to be before she joined the diving community.

[Guest Jamie]

She's gay.

Which makes her tee shirt even more ridiculous, if you think about it.

J.

[DaveTN]

I’ve never seen a Judge throw someone in jail for the way they were dressed, but on several occasions I have seen them reschedule a hearing for another day. Of course it’s always been those in traffic court without an attorney. Your attorney would not let you disrespect the court in a criminal trial.

Free speech in a courtroom? You have got to be kidding. In a courtroom you will be told when to speak, when not to, and you may be told (and threatened with jail for contempt) things you can’t say.

[Mike.357]

Free speech in a courtroom? You have got to be kidding. In a courtroom you will be told when to speak, when not to, and you may be told (and threatened with jail for contempt) things you can’t say.

Dave we butt heads from time to time, but I can't +1 this comment enough.

JC does this expain it to you enough?

[leroy]

Folks, we have one nominaton to date on this proposal:

Originally Posted by leroy

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.

We also have one previous pilot test test of a court officer thanks to Ae-35 (...thanks for helping!!... Sorry to hear about the outcome, though. ...)

I once got 2 weeks in jail for calling my x-wife's lawyer "Fat Ass" !!! Didn't know she was the judge's favorite. That hind-end WAS over " Axe-handle" WIDE !!!!

Sometimes the truth hurts both ways! By way of endorsement; i believe that Ae's signature line is a ringing endorsement of his committment to the truth:

...Through this world I've stumbled, so many times betrayed. Trying to find an honest word, to the truth enslaved. ...

We need to decide if SUNTZU is our man or continue the nomination process. Alternatively, we could take the results of the Ae-35 pilot test.

Whadda ya think?!!

Kind regards,

Radical Libertarian,

Leroy

[Mark@Sea]

Well, heck, I'll kick in ten for SunTzu! Never let it be said I left a buddy in the lurch (although one time in Sicily I left one in a tattoo parlor....)

[strickj]

I’ve never seen a Judge throw someone in jail for the way they were dressed, but on several occasions I have seen them reschedule a hearing for another day. Of course it’s always been those in traffic court without an attorney. Your attorney would not let you disrespect the court in a criminal trial.

Free speech in a courtroom? You have got to be kidding. In a courtroom you will be told when to speak, when not to, and you may be told (and threatened with jail for contempt) things you can’t say.

If you're interruptive, causing a disturbance, or a ruckus, then fine. That would be impeding a judicial proceeding.

But a judge can not tell you what to say.

It is pretty clear on this.

There are no exceptions for courts or judges. NONE!

This is America. Not Nazi Germany. You can not be imprisoned over things you say.

That includes written word and even blasphemy towards the court.

The Constitution spells this out for us very clearly.

I find it very insulting that judges have taken this power. I find it even more insulting that people support this power.

Edited May 8, 2010 by strickj

[Guest Jamie]

But a judge can not tell you what to say.

The hell you say.

If something is hearsay, or otherwise inadmissible, or even irrelevant, the judge can and will tell you to shut it up. If you don't, he can and will throw your ass in the can.

There are no exceptions for courts or judges. NONE!

You can believe that or not, but I dare you to test it, 'cause I already know what the outcome will be. So do a lot of other folks.

J.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest 6.8 AR]

:bowrofl:When I get back home I'm going to print that post out

and frame it, Jamie

[Guest Jamie]

I'm glad you like it, 6.8, but it really wasn't anything special. Just me being me, and relating what I've seen and heard with my own eyes and ears.

The fact is, people can believe they have some sort of unquestionably inviolate right or the other if they like, but that won't make it so. There are always going to be exceptions and extenuating circumstances that suspend or over-ride those "rights", and that's just how it is.

And the U.S. constitution does allow for that. It has to, or else nothing concerning the law could or would work... which would make the whole constitution pointless from the get-go.

J.

[DaveTN]

There are no exceptions for courts or judges. NONE!

Certainly there are.

In criminal trials I have been instructed by the Judge that there are things I saw at crime scenes that I could not comment on during my testimony. I have also been told that while I could say I recognized the suspect that was fleeing the scene; I could not say I recognized him because I had arrested him for burglary.

I think Police Officers or anyone else should be able to say anything they like during testimony; but I would bet you would be one of the first here to disagree.

Judges pretty much do what they want. Life isn’t fair; make sure you don’t have to end up in front of one.

[kb4ns]

I could not say I recognized him because I had arrested him for burglary.

I think Police Officers or anyone else should be able to say anything they like during testimony

Hell no! There is too big a risk that we might portray the CRIMINAL in a bad light.

Life isn’t fair

In the words of Denis Leary, "Life sucks, get a f*&^ing helmet!"

[strickj]

I'm glad you like it, 6.8, but it really wasn't anything special. Just me being me, and relating what I've seen and heard with my own eyes and ears.

J.

A judge may give himself the right to tell you to shut up, but he does not have that right.

I challenge you to show me where it say's they do.

The fact is, people can believe they have some sort of unquestionably inviolate right or the other if they like, but that won't make it so. There are always going to be exceptions and extenuating circumstances that suspend or over-ride those "rights", and that's just how it is.

And the U.S. constitution does allow for that. It has to, or else nothing concerning the law could or would work... which would make the whole constitution pointless from the get-go.

Where does it give an allowance for that?

Where does it say that one person may pick and chose what part of the constitution to follow or rewrite?

If this is your argument and you feel it's right, then you also feel the same argument made by anti-gun people about the constitution is also right, right?

I think Police Officers or anyone else should be able to say anything they like during testimony; but I would bet you would be one of the first here to disagree.

Serious or joke?

You do know that I am always one of the few here that will always take the word of an officers before I will take the word of an habitual drug dealer accusing an officer of something in an attempt to get out of it.

Judges pretty much do what they want. Life isn’t fair; make sure you don’t have to end up in front of one.

That they do. It isn't right.

Everything our fathers did not want was one person with the power to do what they wanted.

One of the reasons our fathers left British rule.

[mikegideon]

Here's some stuff on contempt. It's totally the Judge's discretion.

Criminal Contempt of Court - Lawyers.com

[Guest Jamie]

A judge may give himself the right to tell you to shut up, but he does not have that right.

I challenge you to show me where it say's they do.

Where does it give an allowance for that?

Where does it say that one person may pick and chose what part of the constitution to follow or rewrite?

If this is your argument and you feel it's right, then you also feel the same argument made by anti-gun people about the constitution is also right, right?

It seems to me, that by your way of thinking, it's impossible to arrest anyone for any thing... Or to even punish them for any crime. After all, the constitution says that every person has the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

You take the view that the constitution is an Absolute document... meaning that it covers everything that can be done, or can not be done, with no exceptions.

I can tell you that if it did, it would be far longer than it is. It's only an outline... one that necessarily leaves some things, like due process of the law, to be worked out elsewhere. It doesn't give details to how court proceedings are to be conducted, nor what authority a judge does or does not have during those proceedings. It only lays out some of the basics, such as how many people should be on a jury, etc. The rest it leaves to the lawmakers... our elected legislators... to decide.

The law gives judges the right to control their courtrooms any way they see fit. And if enough people don't like that, the law can be changed so that there are more restrictions on those judges.

And that's just how it is.

J.

[Guest oldsmobile98]

I'm truthfully suprised that the tinfoil hat brigade hasn't jumped on this.

At your service, sir!

If she just wore it in there as a spectator, then jailing her was over the line. Asking her to remove it or asking her to leave would have done the job.

In order to judge accurately, we would really have to know the exact words that were said by both sides. If she backtalked the judge in front of the whole court, I find it hard to have much sympathy for her. But again, having the bailiff escort her out would have served the purpose without generating a possible suit...

We will see if the suit is filed. Frankly, I need to do some research on court proceedings.

Preserving civil rights is key. So too is preserving respect for the court.

--------

In To Kill A Mockingbird, a spectator speaks out of turn. The judge throws him out. I'd say that's disrespecting the court about as much as wearing that shirt but saying nothing.

Atticus sat down. Mr. Gilmer was making his way to the witness stand, but before he got there Mr. Link Deas rose from the audience and announced: "I just want the whole lot of you to know one thing right now. That boy's worked for me eight years an' I ain't had a speck o'trouble outa him. Not a speck."

"Shut your mouth, sir!" Judge Taylor was wide awake and roaring. He was also pink in the face. His speech was miraculously unimpaired by his cigar. "Link Deas," he yelled, "if you have anything you want to say you can say it under oath and at the proper time, but until then you get out of this room, you hear me? Get out of this room, sir, you hear me? I'll be d-----d if I'll listen to this case again!"

Judge Taylor looked daggers at Atticus, as if daring him to speak, but Atticus had ducked his head and was laughing into his lap. I remembered something he had said about Judge Taylor's ex cathedra remarks sometimes exceeding his duty, but that few lawyers ever did anything about them. I looked at Jem, but Jem shook his head. "It ain't like one of the jurymen got up and started talking," he said. "I think it'd be different then. Mr. Link was just disturbin' the peace or something."

Judge Taylor told the reporter to expunge anything he happened to have written down after Mr. Finch if you were a n-----r like me you'd be scared too, and told the jury to disregard the interruption. He looked suspiciously down the middle aisle and waited, I suppose, for Mr. Link Deas to effect total departure. Then he said, "Go ahead, Mr. Gilmer."

(from http://www.wssb.org/content/classrooms/tate/content/sophomores/stories/to_kill_a_mocking_bird/chapters/19.htm) Edited May 8, 2010 by oldsmobile98