|
Rust Martialis posted:I was a witness in a hit-and-run some years ago. The accused appeared pro se, having announced he had fired his court-appointed lawyer for the second time and demanded a new lawyer. The judge was reading some document as the accused complained the lawyer was rude to him. On looking up, the judge interrupted him to say "take your hands out of your pockets when you address the court" to which the accused said "why?" and it was like the whole court froze as the judge said "because if you don't I'll find you in contempt and you can sit in a cell overnight". therefore you cannot complain about it! Main Paineframe posted:Somebody already addressed that: InsertPotPun posted:"usually no" includes the very video where the guy says "i don't give a gently caress" and the judge says, the very next sentence the judge says is "that's gonna cost you 30 days for contempt" again: i'm going by what's happening, and you jump into the middle to holler about what's supposed to be ok. i know that. thank you. edit: and i know personal annecdotes are not evidence, but i once was in court for a traffic fine and the guy in front of me got a ticket for driving a vehicle without windshield wipers in the rain. the judge asked the kid why he was driving his lamborghini without wipers, why he had purposefully removed the wipers, and the kid replied "the wipers ruin the lines". he had his fine reduced to a dollar and the court moved along InsertPotPun fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Mar 28, 2024 |
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:
Gah.. so this will de facto mean that we won’t have an execution of judgement until several years has passed. Which is also dependent on them not finding some bullshit technicality the first trial got wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:38
|
|
|
The courts aren't going to save us. We are going to have to rely on the good judgement of the American voters to prevent a fascist takeover of our government. Oh God we are hosed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:41
|
|
|
JunkDeluxe posted:Gah.. so this will de facto mean that we won’t have an execution of judgement until several years has passed. Which is also dependent on them not finding some bullshit technicality the first trial got wrong. There aren’t THAT many courts he can appeal to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:43
|
|
|
JunkDeluxe posted:Gah.. so this will de facto mean that we won’t have an execution of judgement until several years has passed. Which is also dependent on them not finding some bullshit technicality the first trial got wrong. Yes, that has been the reality of it from the very start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:43
|
|
|
To clarify: There are two types of contempt of court, which are civil and criminal. Civil contempt is the court saying "You have not complied with my order, and I will incentivize you to do." This covers journalists being held in jail for not revealing their sources, companies being fined $X per day until they stop polluting, etc. The purpose is persuasive. What a lot of these examples are talking about is punitive contempt, which the contemnor cannot purge by simply complying with the order. This is where you get fined $500 for having your hands in your pockets, etc. The purpose is not to persuade, but to punish a party for showing disrespect to the court. Now, if the contempt is in the "presence" of the court, the judge can just punish it summarily using their inherent power. But if the contempt is outside the presence of the court, there are due process requirements, sometimes including a separate trial by jury, before punishment can be imposed. But obviously in no case can you be punished for violating an order that the court didn't issue, as in Trump's attack on the judge's daughter. And of course there are first amendment issues, particularly pointed since it would involve a prior restraint on free speech, for a judge to order "You shall not criticize me for how I conduct this trial," as well as raising issues of the appearance of bias.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 21:48
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
Did you watch the whole video? He got one year as a result of the judge adding thirty days every time he swore at him, and then that was ultimately settled back down to 90 days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 22:03
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Did you watch the whole video? He got one year as a result of the judge adding thirty days every time he swore at him, and then that was ultimately settled back down to 90 days. The whole reason he was in that situation was because he had to be dragged to court because he was a no-show. It wasn't good judging to start adding on because he swore, though. Like I hate Trump but I'd rather encourage less of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 22:20
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:I was a witness in a hit-and-run some years ago. The accused appeared pro se, having announced he had fired his court-appointed lawyer for the second time and demanded a new lawyer. The judge was reading some document as the accused complained the lawyer was rude to him. On looking up, the judge interrupted him to say "take your hands out of your pockets when you address the court" to which the accused said "why?" and it was like the whole court froze as the judge said "because if you don't I'll find you in contempt and you can sit in a cell overnight". There was a judge in Chicago with a reputation for "no nonsense" aka throwing people in jail for contempt for being non-middle class white people https://wgntv.com/news/judge-jails-men-for-contempt-of-court-for-wearing-saggy-pants/
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 22:44
|
|
|
JunkDeluxe posted:Questions from someone who knows nothing about trials and such. An appeal will only consider issues of law. The appellate court cannot make determinations of facts. That's a job for the jury (or judge if a jury is waived). Issues of law might get certain findings of fact thrown out (for instance improperly gathered evidence, objections to questions retained in the record that the appellate court agrees were incorrectly decided at the trial level). But the mere presence of thrown out facts found by the lower court isn't enough to overturn a finding of liability/guilt. They need to have been substantial enough to have overturned the case were it tried with the "correct" finding made at the lower court level.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 23:11
|
|
|
Judge Juan Merchan is totally compromised, and should be removed from this TRUMP Non-Case immediately. His Daughter, Loren, is a Rabid Trump Hater, who has admitted to having conversations with her father about me, and yet he gagged me. She works for Crooked Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, and other Radical Leftists who Campaign on “Getting Trump,” and fundraise off the “Biden Indictments” - including this Witch Hunt, which her father “presides” over, a TOTAL Conflict - and attacking Biden’s Political Opponent through the Courts. Former D.A. Cy Vance refused to bring this case, as did all Federal Agencies, including “Elections.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 23:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If you do it in the courtroom, yes. If you make vaguely mean tweets on social media, absolutely loving not. Extraordinary circumstances (hundreds of death threats to every single court he goes to) should satisfy any common sense need to restrict his ability to direct his cult somewhat. They aren't just tweets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 23:45
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:Extraordinary circumstances (hundreds of death threats to every single court he goes to) should satisfy any common sense need to restrict his ability to direct his cult somewhat. They aren't just tweets. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 23:46
|
|
|
I thought we were supposed to be a country of law and order, doesn't seem like law and order when you let a cult leader direct his hordes to attack every court he goes to for all his crimes. But I guess when the courts are all very unserious about actually doing anything, what can you expect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 23:50
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:I thought we were supposed to be a country of law and order, doesn't seem like law and order when you let a cult leader direct his hordes to attack every court he goes to for all his crimes. They're serious if your net worth is sub 10 digits or possibly even sub 7-9 digits. Anything below that get hosed basically and expect to have the justice system come down on you full force if you do crimes
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 23:59
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:Extraordinary circumstances (hundreds of death threats to every single court he goes to) should satisfy any common sense need to restrict his ability to direct his cult somewhat. They aren't just tweets. us courts have a lot to lose from accepting stochastic terrorism as something they should act against. they'd rather suffer through trump's version of it so that they can continue to ignore it on the reg
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 00:08
|
|
|
Trump actually very carefully stays exactly within the bounds of the courts requirements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 00:11
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:I thought we were supposed to be a country of law and order, doesn't seem like law and order when you let a cult leader direct his hordes to attack every court he goes to for all his crimes. Law and order is for those "other people"
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 01:30
|
|
|
A judge had a defendant’s mother jailed for laughing in court https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/judge-throws-drunk-drivers-mom-in-jail-for-laughing-at-victims-family-in-court/
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 01:42
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:A judge had a defendant’s mother jailed for laughing in court Reading deeper, the reason wasn't just for 'laughing'. She was told to leave the courtroom just for laughing during the victim statement, along with another person. The other person left quietly, but she rushed through the doors, smashed them open and began to scream loudly and disrupted the courthouse. So she got contempt of court for that, and didn't even serve an entire day (because the judge was just wanting to teach her a lesson, the '92 days' she ordered was just a scare tactic that she immediately modified to time served). Hell, look at that, a poor person got their penalty almost entirely removed! Either way, these get attention because they aren't something that happens very often (and don't really go against Main Painframes point, as they happened during the trial itself).
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 01:53
|
|
|
A good defense attorney can radicalize you by just being honest about their job. I had cops show up on my doorstep for a bullshit weed charge three years and a week after they initially served the warrant. Simple misdemeanor. Well, statute of limitations on those where I live is 3 years. Open and shut, right? Well, I ask the defense attorney I got recommended, and he just straight up asked “How much justice can you afford?” What really boggles me is he had to write a letter and then have a meeting with the judge to clarify what the statute of limitations means—as if there’s not just a clear set of guidelines? Is this a justice system or a justice game of Calvinball? There was genuine back and forth between them over whether the SOL was started the day I got raided, or the day I was finally arrested on the warrant, three years and a week later. Like…isn’t that something you’d expect to be a clear, easily resolved rubric? What is there even to discuss? Anyway, 1200 bucks later, charges dismissed because SOL had expired. I just wonder how many poor people in my town have been hosed over because this judge apparently decides day to day what the actual loving statute of limitations means. None of this even includes how loving high handed and cold and ruthlessly arrogant every judge I’ve ever seen behaves. It’s a class of people, barring few exceptions, I have always met and immediately realized I wouldn’t spare an ounce of effort to lend any kind of aid to. Just thoroughly unpleasant, seemingly evil people, barring one who I met after he retired. Rest just gave me husk vibes. selec fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Mar 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 02:00
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:yeah but that's not how it's supposed to go!!! Did you even actually pay any attention to the video? For one thing, there is an extremely obvious jump cut between the word "gently caress" and the first mention of contempt. It's not just a visual effect, either - the guy in the blue shirt is standing in a different place after the jump cut than they were before it, so a bit of time passed during that. The judge did not actually hand down the contempt order directly after the guy said "I don't give a gently caress". You've been taken in by the editing. In any case, he most definitely did not get hit with contempt for saying a bad word. He got contempt for refusing to answer the judge's questions, declaring that he didn't need a lawyer, announcing that he didn't care what the judge said and had no intention of discussing whatever the judge wanted to discuss, and then making a big loving scene in the courtroom. The narrator makes it sound like the contempt charges are all about the profanity, but he's not getting hit for saying "gently caress", he's getting hit for saying "gently caress you" in response to the judge asking him if he's going to cooperate with court proceedings. And of course, the thing about 30 days for every use of the word "gently caress" was an exaggeration; in the end, that guy got 90 days for contempt, $5k bond, and a restraining order (protecting the person he'd been accused of domestic violence against). That last bit, of course, is an important detail - this was a criminal case involving direct physical violence of some sort, not just defrauding banks. If Trump stood up and went on an angry rant in the middle of the courtroom without being explicitly invited to, he'd get hauled off for contempt too. If he responded to the bond order by telling the judge to his face to gently caress off about bond, Trump would have gotten hauled off for contempt too. I just about guarantee it. Trump, for all his issues, is making a point of not doing that. He's letting his lawyer do the talking in the courtroom, as much as possible, and confining the angry ranting to Truth Social where he's not directly disrupting the courtroom. All of these examples of people getting contempt for disrupting the courtroom don't really have anything to do with Trump, who is carefully avoiding being directly disruptive while physically within sight of the judge. That is why he's not getting hit with contempt. Asproigerosis posted:Extraordinary circumstances (hundreds of death threats to every single court he goes to) should satisfy any common sense need to restrict his ability to direct his cult somewhat. They aren't just tweets. They are just tweets. They're tweets to a rather large fanbase with an above-average number of violent radicals, yes. However, US courts have long held that the First Amendment still applies to people who publicly broadcast heated messages to their large and fervent fanbases. Under standing Supreme Court jurisprudence, you need a lot more than "a person with a violent fanbase tweeted insults about a person he didn't like"
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 02:02
|
|
|
It's a bit like how that article acts like the lady was given jail for laughing, despite linking to another article where it is said that the specific reason she was given contempt was for making a violent scene in the courthouse instead of just leaving quietly like the other person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 02:07
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:the judge literally, out loud and in that video, says, out loud and in the video, "he just swore at the judge" and demands the guy apologize I mean, the reason /that/ doesn't happen to Trump, and did to that rear end in a top hat, is because Trump is a Coward and that jerk was actually "courage-of-conviction" bold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 03:02
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:well, thats a thing. Like, fraud is a crime. But it is also a tort. So far convicting Trump criminally has been too hard so all that has stuck has been civil complaints about his criminal activity (fraud and rape, or rather lying about rape and assault, respectively). But people still want criminal justice and they aren't wrong to want it. And they may yet have it. I don't know when or if the state will proceed, but I have no doubt that anything Letitia Jame's office has developed in the way of evidence has found its way to the NYAG's office in search of felony fraud charges
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 03:10
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I mean, the reason /that/ doesn't happen to Trump, and did to that rear end in a top hat, is because Trump is a Coward and that jerk was actually "courage-of-conviction" bold. Didn't Trump have to leave the NY courtroom at one point? I can't remember if he did of his own volition spontaneously or because he'd been threatened by the judge with contempt if he didn't restrain himself, but I remember him leaving in the middle of something
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 03:53
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:Didn't Trump have to leave the NY courtroom at one point? I can't remember if he did of his own volition spontaneously or because he'd been threatened by the judge with contempt if he didn't restrain himself, but I remember him leaving in the middle of something He’s had harrumphs and various levels of storming out, along with some little baby grumble-mumbles. In the E. Jean Carrol case, I forget which, he got pissed and walked out during a closing, I think that was the biggest outburst he’s actually done in court. Donny’s a little coward titty baby who only poo poo talks when he’s outside of the judge’s ability to directly control him. I’d say we should bring back lictors, but
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 04:02
|
|
|
selec posted:A good defense attorney can radicalize you by just being honest about their job. I had cops show up on my doorstep for a bullshit weed charge three years and a week after they initially served the warrant. Simple misdemeanor. Well, statute of limitations on those where I live is 3 years. Open and shut, right? There is justice, it is just paywalled by lawyers who get really upset when you point that out. Uglycat posted:I mean, the reason /that/ doesn't happen to Trump, and did to that rear end in a top hat, is because Trump is a Coward and that jerk was actually "courage-of-conviction" bold. So what I'm taking away from this is judges don't like it when you are disruptive, but don't really care much when you violate gag orders and fail to pay fines. The Bible fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Mar 29, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 05:07
|
|
|
The Bible posted:So what I'm taking away from this is judges don't like it when you are disruptive, but don't really care much when you violate gag orders and fail to pay fines. It depends. Do you mean "Does law and custom allow judges far more ability to unilaterally issue orders for in-courtroom behavior than for out-of-courtroom?" Well, yes. Or do you mean "Do judges personally care more about immediate disruptions to their ability to run the courtroom right this minute than they do about longer-duration problems that don't interrupt the trial?" I'm no mind reader, but bet plenty of them do, given how that's most professions. I'm not trying to put those words in your mouth, to be clear. It's just that I can't picture an answer to your question that doesn't account for one or both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 05:32
|
|
|
The Bible posted:There is justice, it is just paywalled by lawyers who get really upset when you point that out. Judges can basically do what they want in their court in the moment and it is only out of their court that things can be overturned or reduced by others. Gag orders have to be very narrowly constructed, and it doesn't seem like Trump has violated the new one... yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 05:41
|
|
|
Kchama posted:Judges can basically do what they want in their court in the moment and it is only out of their court that things can be overturned or reduced by others. Gag orders have to be very narrowly constructed, and it doesn't seem like Trump has violated the new one... yet. What about not paying fines?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 07:57
|
|
|
The Bible posted:What about not paying fines? Has he not paid some new fine? Last I checked he paid them all off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 10:37
|
|
|
Right, I’ve argued in here multiple times that the courts should be able to recognize the wider pattern of stochastic terrorism he’s engaged in and be held accountable for it but he’s found that weak spot where each courts vision seems to be just blind to its own little universe. So, you end up with this situation where he’s engaged repeatedly in attacking the judges and prosecutors families but that’s fine because no one is seemingly able to view the larger landscape. Trump 100% talks poo poo when you’re not there but the moment you look at him he’s all smiles and meekness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 13:10
|
|
|
The Bible posted:There is justice, it is just paywalled by lawyers who get really upset when you point that out. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 13:54
|
|
|
I mean, justice system only for the rich and powerful and all, but how likely is it that the lowering of Trump's bond is an attempt to fish for some of his sketchier money sources? At this point, all eyes are on his fundraising. So why not fish for some of the better hidden sources to reveal themselves? Total bullshit idea, likely, nut I usually leave the analysis to people who are better with words.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 13:56
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Right, I’ve argued in here multiple times that the courts should be able to recognize the wider pattern of stochastic terrorism he’s engaged in and be held accountable for it but he’s found that weak spot where each courts vision seems to be just blind to its own little universe. So, you end up with this situation where he’s engaged repeatedly in attacking the judges and prosecutors families but that’s fine because no one is seemingly able to view the larger landscape. It's not that the courts can't see what's going on, it's that they're constitutionally prohibited from doing anything about it. Stochastic terrorism has come in front of the Supreme Court before, and they've consistently ruled that incitement a lot more direct and organized than anything Trump is doing now is still protected by the First Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 14:09
|
|
|
SpeakSlow posted:I mean, justice system only for the rich and powerful and all, but how likely is it that the lowering of Trump's bond is an attempt to fish for some of his sketchier money sources? I doubt that the appeal court is in cahoots with investigators.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 14:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's not that the courts can't see what's going on, it's that they're constitutionally prohibited from doing anything about it. Stochastic terrorism has come in front of the Supreme Court before, and they've consistently ruled that incitement a lot more direct and organized than anything Trump is doing now is still protected by the First Amendment. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/29/politics/federal-judge-donald-trump-rebuke/index.html quote:US District Judge Reggie Walton spoke with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on “The Source” in the wake of Trump’s attacks on Judge Juan Merchan, which helped prompt the New York judge to issue a gag order on the former president earlier this week. It is unusual for federal judges to speak publicly, especially about specific political or legal situations. It almost sounds like he’s asking DOJ to indict Trump separately for this behavior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
Murgos posted:https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/29/politics/federal-judge-donald-trump-rebuke/index.html Indicting separately seems like a good idea because Judges that come down on Trump for *anything* seem to risk that being brought up as justification for an appeal. Take his consequences for calling for attacks on judges OUT of that courtroom in question and indict him separately. Love it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2024 19:06
|
|
