Sen. Lindsey Graham appeared to confirm this week one of the greatest fears for civil libertarians in the aftermath of the burning of the Qu’ran (Koran) by Rev. Terry Jones. With Muslims murdering innocent people as a protest to the book burning, Senator Graham has called for Congress to go hold people accountable for such acts. The message is clear and predictable: if someone’s exercise of free speech has caused problems, limit the free speech.
In the video above, Graham states “I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable.” He stresses “[f]ree speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Of course, neither he nor his colleagues ever bothered to declare war. Likewise, Obama did not even consult with Congress before going to war in Libya.
Fortunately, the Constitution still exists to bar such impulses against free speech. Notably, however, China is arresting people who are viewed as destabilizing the country with their art and ideas. Now some members of Congress want to join countries in a type of criminal blasphemy law — an idea that Obama appeared to accept in supporting a resolution under pressure from Arab allies on protecting religion from critics.
Free speech is designed to protect us against our own leaders — like Sen. Graham. It is not enjoyed at the whim of the U.S. Senate. And, by the way, the diaper genie is a “great idea.” Free speech is what defines us as a people.
Jonathan Turley
Tell the professor we want an edit function
@ Old Jim
So what is the point? I had problems writing my complaint because I didn’t call it First Amendment Retaliation, a term then not used very much. Halfway through my appeal I found the name of the tort and used it, although I was using employment cases as samples. I used the phrase First Amendment Retaliation when I refiled and the very next year the Supreme Court ruled in Hartman v. Moore and described my situation exactly.
“The lie that is most unforgettable is that you stated that you had never filed anything in this Judges court”
yes I can’t remember writing that and it makes no sense. Where is the quote? If you are going to quote people, make it accurate. Save the download as a pdf and use the word search.
What I said is that in my case before Nottingham he didn’t have any hearings before he dismissed my case and before he scheduled a contempt of court hearing, I had never met him.
I do wish that in my impatience to write and comment that I would remember to proofread. Too late now.
Back in a 70’s erich Berne, M.D. wrote a best selling psychology book called “The Games People Play.”Even though it was a popular non-fiction work, rather than a scientific treatice, it had many wonderful insights that helped me to see myself and the world around me with greater clarity. He identified various common “games” that many people use. What he made clear was that many people “playing” a given game, aren’t aware they are playing it, but derive emotional gratification from it.
One of the most common games he identified was “The Yes..
..But Game.” When I describe it many people here will recognize this as a game they have encountered in their own lives, which after the playing left them frustrated.
The YB game begins when someone, possibly a friend, acquaintance, or even someone commenting on a blog comes
to someone (perhaps you) with a “problem” and the implicit request that they would like advice on how to solve it. You (or perhaps someone like you) being a person of caring begin to offer solutions for the “problem,” Each and every solution offered is responded to with a variant of “Yes…but that won’t work because of……” Often, new facts will be added to the yes…but, which will seemingly show why your solution isn’t workable. The end result according to Berne (and me in my experience as a caring person) is that the solution giver(s) wind up frustrated and angry, but somewhat uncertain as to what this seemingly confused/needy individual was doing that pisses you (someone) off to the degree it does.
When you (someone) finally runs out of answers and then even becomes hostile to the person in need the game is over and the person in need feels satisfaction, in the sense that their problem was so insoluable that even the smartest (you…someone)people couldn’t provide help.
Berne emphacizes that the person initiating that game most times isn’t even aware consciously that they are doing it, but nevertheless feels somehow satisfied by the knowledge that those trying to help are unable to and so are lacking. This game has many variations but the results are the same. Berne advises that when faced with the game the best way to neutralize it is to tell the person “you’ve really got a problem there, I wish I could help you solve it, but I have no ideas for you.”
(that was a paraphrase.
Now on what this thread has become, I’m just saying…..
No Kay,
The lie that is most unforgettable is that you stated that you had never filed anything in this Judges court…and you states that Nottingham dismissed a case 2 years earlier…before you commenced the present action…. Can’t you see that your problems stem from the first action…if dismissed under the appropriate FRCP it is dismissed….
(b) Involuntary Dismissal; Effect.
If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it. Unless the dismissal order states otherwise, a dismissal under this subdivision (b) and any dismissal not under this rule — except one for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a party under Rule 19 — operates as an adjudication on the merits.
*************************
What part of this don’t you understand…even if you dismissed it..the court could condition it with sanctions it deems appropriate.. such as attorney fees…and lots of the…
Is the only statement that you consider a “lie” then that I told Judge Nottingham that I would dismiss the third party case if he let me out of jail?
Anything else or only that?
No, kay. I was both name calling – accurately I might add – and pointing out how utterly full of shit you are when it comes to the law. The activities are not mutually exclusive, parasite. Pardon me! Delusional parasite. I do love me some accuracy.
Boo….Don’t Drink and Blawg…Ok, Kay….How can I be more specific about you lying…You lied and you know it…so stop the gaming…Your credibility is shot…Ask anyone here….They may feel the same….I pointed out your lies to you…
Go for it, what is the worst you can say?
You call me a liar but you aren’t specific
What else, that I am a vexatious litigant in federal court– a term not defined in federal law but which it would be difficult to do without committing perjury unless you are simply referring to being stubborn about Access to Courts Rights and Rights to published procedure.
I hope you aren’t drinking… I went to the party but it was short…. maybe it is a bad idea to blog late at night.
Fool….If thats the worst you’ve been called based upon what you have said here…call yourself lucky…
No you were just name calling
kay,
I don’t work for you, parasite.
I was just pointing out how utterly full of shit you are when it comes to the law.
@ BIL
BIL are you able to point to published notice and comments supporting creation of a list of people who are not allowed to represent themselves in federal court and procedure for incarceration without a criminal charge of people such as myself who file documents in one federal court after being told by another federal court that they are on a list of people who are not allowed to file in other federal courts?
Or do you believe that that procedure can be implemented without prior public notice and opportunity for comment?
Do you believe that DOJ can incarcerate people without using published procedure?
None of which invalidates what I just said, foolish parasite.
UScourts web site right now publishes
§ 2071. Rule-making power generally
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and procedure prescribed under section 2072 of this title.
(b) Any rule prescribed by a court, other than the Supreme Court, under subsection (a) shall be prescribed only after giving appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment. Such rule shall take effect upon the date specified by the prescribing court and shall have such effect on pending proceedings as the prescribing court may order.
(c)(1) A rule of a district court prescribed under subsection (a) shall remain in effect unless modified or abrogated by the judicial council of the relevant circuit.
(2) Any other rule prescribed by a court other than the Supreme Court under subsection (a) shall remain in effect unless modified or abrogated by the Judicial Conference.
(d) Copies of rules prescribed under subsection (a) by a district court shall be furnished to the judicial council, and copies of all rules prescribed by a court other than the Supreme Court under subsection (a) shall be furnished to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and made available to the public. (e) If the prescribing court determines that there is an immediate need for a rule, such court may proceed under this section without public notice and opportunity for comment, but such court shall promptly thereafter afford such notice and opportunity for comment. (f) No rule may be prescribed by a district court other than under this section.
kay,
Once again proving you don’t know what you are talking about. If you had gone to law school and gotten the requisite training, you’d know that the “opinion somewhere” you are referring to is Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). It said that there is no general Federal common law, the key word being “general”, not that there was no Federal common law at all.
There are two basic categories of existent Federal common law:
1) areas where Congress has given the courts power to develop substantive law – like appropriate sanctions for contempt, and
2) areas where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests – like maintaining order and process in Federal courts.
Federal common law of these types exists to the point where Congress decides to repeal it or modify it by by legislation.
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943) further stated that there is a test for the validity of court created federal common law rule due to significantly important federal interest (like 18 U.S.C. § 401 establishes a significantly important Federal interest in maintaining order in the court and ensuring compliance with process).
That test is:
1) Is there a federal competence to create law in this area—i.e. would Congress be able to adopt a law in such an area?
2) If there is federal competence, should state or federal law govern?
3) If federal law governs, should courts borrow state law or create a new federal rule?
Under this test and in the absence of legislation to the contrary, the court defined parameters of judicial discretion in Chambers v. NASCO, Inc. in assigning appropriate sanctions for contempt in general has the hallmarks of Federal competence, appropriateness of forum as 18 U.S.C. § 401 is a statute governing Federal courts, and the third test is shown in that the courts opted to adopt various standards from state and Federal case law instead of creating a new rule as is their rightful and legal option in the absence of Congressional action to nullify this standing bit of permissible Federal common law.
In the U.S. Federal court, judges are bound by 28 USC section 401 and the Rules Enabling Act. U.S. prisoners are turned over to the authority of the Attorney General and the AG is bound by the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires published procedure and includes The Privacy Act.
There is an opinion somewhere to the effect that federal judges can’t see laws in the sky, that there is no federal common law. They can’t make decisions based on “Lect-Law”.
Kay,
You don’t even have to be an attorney to read this….now to understand the underlying issues….it might take a mind clearly you have lost yours….
But here…just for you…civil contempt…can be for actions directed towards a party…not just the court….were you still maligning the previous person that was the subject of the lawsuit that was dismissed….. Think long and hard before you answer….
Contempt of court is a court order which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court’s authority. Often referred to simply as “contempt,” such as a person “held in contempt,” it is the judge’s strongest power to impose sanctions for acts which disrupt the court’s normal process.
A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behaviour, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial. A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court. Judges in common law systems usually have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems. The client or person must be proven to be guilty before he/she will be punished.
In civil cases involving disputes between private citizens, the behaviour resulting in the ruling is often directed at one of the parties involved rather than at the court directly.
A person found in contempt of court is called a “contemnor.” To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt:
Existence of a lawful order
The contemnor’s knowledge of the order
The contemnor’s ability to comply
The contemnor’s failure to comply
I didn’t ask you to write a legal brief. Some anonymous bloggers who might not even be lawyers made legal comments and I discussed them.
Hopefully the Court will agree that the contempt powers of the court are limited to criminal contempt and that DOJ is bound by the Privacy Act exactly how it is written.
Sorry about your grandson.
Kay, I cannot believe you just asked BIL or one of us to write a legal brief for you. As was said earlier, that is not going to happen. BIL is right. You have magically transformed yourself from someone we were beginning to feel sorry for into a full-blown parasite. BIL is right on that point.
My dear, get a life. Drop it. You lost. The courts have told you what you can do with your case and you still persist. That is the very definition of a vexatious litigant. Keep it up and you not only will be further in the hole financially, you will get room and board at the crowbar hotel once again.
I am done. Pete said (above) that this was like watching a slow motion train wreck. It is a wreck of your own making. You need psychological help. Get it–there is absolutely nothing else anyone here can, or will, do for you. If you post more stuff about your non-existent “case,” you will be talking to yourself.
kay,
I’ll call you what you are, parasite. And spare me your “legal analysis”. It’s crap.