That headline is an old joke....(phonetically it is sounded out at F u c...) you get the idea.
The Third District says inquiring about IF YOU SEE KAY under your breath in court is not criminal contempt. The opinion is here. Although the opinion actually says asking the court IF YOU SEE KAY does constitute direct criminal contempt, the court has to actually hear the word. If, as in the case at bar, the court is informed by some well meaning court personnel (snitch) as to what a defendant said, those facts do not constitute direct criminal contempt.
We say: balderdash. The use of the "F word" should be covered by the first amendment. Apparently one can say F-you to the Dolphins, the Marlins, or even (heaven forbid) the saintly Heat players, but saying it to someone wearing a robe constitutes direct criminal contempt. What a bunch of horse hockey. The next thing you know, judges will be holding jurors in contempt for tweeting during a trial. Whoops, that already happened to @BillyCorben.
Judging by the comments yesterday, one thing sells blog pages more than a Judge Hirsch post- a 007 controversy. A surprising number of readers believe the latest bond movie is the best bond movie. We take ours shaken, not stirred.
Bill Maher wants to know if, after their election defeats, the Republicans can evolve? He notes that it would be helpful for the GOP to first believe in evolution.
Great observation.
See You In Court.
When I was a judge, everyone toed the line. They bowed when approaching the court. They addressed me as your excellency. They dressed in formal wear. It was a glorious time to be a judge.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I question your case load, since you seem to have a lot of time on your hands to blog everyday.
ReplyDeleteRump, are you retired? I always figured you were an old-timer in his mid to late 60s.
I just read Buckley v. Valeo. HOLY MACKERAL Batman, but I can pay for political ads.
ReplyDeleteThey still do that in my court every day.
ReplyDeleteThat Jill Kelly has a BIG BIG RACK. Petreaus should have been taping that instead of that writer broad. Big TATAS always win in my book.
ReplyDeleteI am not retired nor am I old. I am just exceptionally efficient. I do more before 7 am than most people do all day.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the evolution thing cute? It is a shame we all can't be rosy pink Democrats, where all truth and righteousness resides.
ReplyDeleteI'm doing something at 7 am, but it's not blogging. I also do more of the same for the better part of the weekend.
ReplyDeleteStupid for Glick to do that. How is she as a judge?
ReplyDeleteNo the republicans will not rebound anytime time soon they're to self absorbed in there B.S. Cant wait to vote Rick (Snott's) ass out.We need a fast train, dammit(.)
ReplyDeleteNot a big 007 fan, how about Lincoln which comes out on the 16th. Tried to locate a limited release location, but apparently not in South Florida.
Alex Cross is a thinking man's movie go see it.
Last but not least, Rump;are you politically bashful about posting the piece on the JQC dissension with Palm Beach Judge Barry M. Cohen???
Rump - why no banner post about Judge Thomas' nomination...?
ReplyDeleteThe Associated Press
ReplyDeleteSARASOTA, Fla. -- A homeless man spent the night in a Southwest Florida jail after a police officer accused him of stealing by charging his cellphone at a public park.
An arrest report says that a Sarasota police sergeant spotted 28-year-old Darren Kersey charging his phone Sunday evening in a public picnic shelter at Gillespie Park. The sergeant told Kersey that the "theft of city utilities will not be tolerated during this bad economy" and then arrested him on a misdemeanor charge of theft of utilities.
Unable to pay the $500 bond, Kersey spent the night in jail. But the Sarasota Herald-Tribune ( http://bit.ly/W4frm0) reports that Kersey was released Monday morning after a judge threw the case out, saying the sergeant lacked the legal justification to make the arrest
Doesn't anybody read the case law on what constitutes Disorderly Conduct anymore? The speech of an individual has to be beyond that that would piss off a cop...It has to go so far as to incite action by those that heard the speech or incite actions that would, or could, constitute speech that would pose a threat to others, i.e. screaming the proverbial "fire in a crowded theater". It is not a statute that is designed to protect the fragile egos of officers or judges. It is probably the most misapplied statute on the books. There are times when the charge is appropriate but it must meet Constitutional muster. State and Judges take the time to learn and apply the statute properly.
ReplyDeleteDS,
ReplyDeleteThat happens more than we think. That is abuse of power at its worst, and that officer's interpretation of the law is very questionable. He is a zealot for sure.
BTW, I meant to insert "their" in my 7:34 post.
William Thomas appointed U.S. District Judge.
ReplyDeleteBritney Spears, If you Seek Amy.
ReplyDelete"The Constitution of the United States does not allow for the imposition of criminal sanctions for "making a scene."
ReplyDeleteFootnote in L.A.T. vs. State. sums it up best.
So a homeless man has a cell phone? Does he continually use public resources to charge it? and if he didn't spend the night in jail, where would he have been? Did he get a meal or two on taxpayer's dime? Not passing judment one way or another, just curious.
ReplyDeleteThat was not cool Stacy Glick, not cool at all.That was an abuse of power.
ReplyDeleteseriously rump this thing for us t prove we are not robots is very annoying.
ReplyDelete