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
This is a blog about the First Amendment. I had a First Amendment right to pursue my lawsuits.
Would you think this would be different if I was Moslem and was pursuing a lawsuit related to the rights of Islam?
I didn’t put myself in jail. I didn’t point guns at myself.
I figured my lawsuit was worth over $10 Million, similar to the jury award to the Quigleys. I think I am the victim of felony criminal extortion.
Stupid is as stupid does, kay. I don’t have to proofread your slop for you any more than I have to (or would) represent you. You have a track record around here of quoting things completely out of context and without proper knowledge of the legally operative concepts behind the words. Even 1L’s and paralegals know not to represent themselves. Why? Because it’s generally known in the legal profession as a bad idea even for professionals. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something.
They also know that pimping their lost cause on someone else’s blog is merely selfish.
Because it is.
I’m going to say you’re an idiot with a self-inflicted injury who is using someone else’s blog to promote her vendetta.
Bil
If you think that I am so stupid, why don’t you look at my writings and find something I misquoted?
And why would it be “selfish” and “stupid” for me to defend my Constitutional rights?
Before Nottingham sent me to jail I never met him. He never held a single hearing. He never found that I misquoted a single law or case.
Sure I am bitter. Really really bitter. And really really angry.
Nottingham deprived my rights under color of law. He made statements that exactly fit the definition of Federal Witness Intimidation.
I’ve checked with the District of Columbia clerks. Two cases have not been dismissed – have not been dismissed at all, with or without prejudice …. Are the defendants suggesting that the plaintiff be jailed until she purges herself of contempt or are they suggesting that I give her an additional period of time to accomplish this dismissal? …. I now have access to the database in Kansas and the District of Columbia. And I will check out and make sure that you have dismissed all of those cases…. So you’ll stay out of jail if all of these cases are dismissed in time for me to vacate the hearing. Otherwise the next time you show up, you pack your toothbrush, because you’re going to jail.”
“She knows that she is not to pursue those lawsuits. And for her to suggest that I told her to dismiss those lawsuits, and that does not cover her appeals from those lawsuits is silly…she might dismiss everything before those marshals get to her…once she’s in custody she will not get out of custody until those are actually dismissed…She was told in unequivocal terms to dismiss both those lawsuits…What has to happen is those lawsuits have to be dead, lifeless…She is not to do anything to pursue them on appeal, motion for reconsideration or anything else …what has to happen is those lawsuits have to be dead, lifeless, and she is not to do anything to pursue them on appeal, motion for reconsideration, or anything else… she faces a real possibility of incarceration as she knows because it’s happened before”
Now are you going to say that those statements didn’t violate my First Amendment Rights? Or are you going to say that my First Amendment Rights aren’t important to you because you have “contempt” for me?
kay,
To be clear, you waste our time with your self-absorbed bullshit. You are every bit as bad as the trolls. No. Worse than the trolls. They are getting paid to advance a political agenda. You’re merely selfish and stupid.
My belief is that you did something stupid to piss him off one too many times, he ordered you to drop the pro se litigation because of your demonstrated incompetence and wasting of the court’s time, and then he held you in contempt when you ignored that direct order.
That and you’re bitter and like to bitch about it.
Bil you may have “contempt”for me and judges may have “contempt” for me too but that doesn’t give you a right to kidnap me and that doesn’t give a judge a right to order incarceration without published criminal procedure.
Furthermore, the jails are under the control of the AG not the courts. The courts don’t have any jails at all. And the AG is bound by the Administrative Procedure Act. And that says
“Except to the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof, a person may not in any manner be required to resort to, or be adversely affected by, a matter required to be published in the Federal Register and not so published. For the purpose of this paragraph, matter reasonably available to the class of persons affected thereby is deemed published in the Federal Register when incorporated by reference therein with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register.” 5 U.S.C. § 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
NO its not like farting in court. I didn’t fart in court.
Farting in court is covered by Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 42
(b) Summary Disposition.
Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the court (other than a magistrate judge) may summarily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies;
That didn’t happen. Nottingham didn’t even claim that it did. Rule 42 uses the word “criminal” to describe the judge hearing a fart. Furthermore, the USMS files annual reports and in their report for 2005 they stated that there was no disruption in any court in the entire U.S.A. What Nottingham objected to was what I filed in other courts. And you can look up my docket in the District of Colorado 02-cv-1950. Download it and save it as a pdf. Search for opinion and you will find that Judge Nottingham never wrote an “opinion” in my case.
My belief is that Nottingham was bribed to dismiss my case.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that a cause of action is a form of property. My belief is that Nottingham extorted me to get my property.
kay,
For me to care about your opinion – and there are quite a few regulars, lawyer and layman alike, whose opinions I do value – is something one earns. All you’ve earned is, wait for it . . . contempt. By your endless self-centered blathering about something every lawyer here knows you did to your own damn self though your arrogance that you were competent to represent yourself. As to dignified? I completely and utterly don’t care what you think of me.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property.
It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur.
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment)
The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.
I didn’t make the above up either. I copied it from the FBI’s web site.
Kay….
Let’s make this clear…did the judge call the case number? Was it the correct case number? Were the parties identified? Did the Judge “Sua Sponte” on his own motion….say for you to do something….did you do it? If so, you would not be here….if not…thats why you were held in contempt……. it is like farting in court…you hope you just don’t get caught….
These quotations from Federal Procedure Lawyer’s Edition I looked up and read in court before I was summarily imprisoned:
Access to Court is a constitutional guarantee. A federal suit is not barred merely because the holding in such a case may be res judicata.
The duty to comply with an injunction assumes the existence of a valid and operative order. And disobedience may subject the violator to contempt unless the order requires an irretrievable surrender of constitutional guarantees.
An injunction must describe in reasonable detail not by reference to the complaint or any other document the act or acts sought to be restrained. This requirement is to be strictly construed, if by reason of not complying with Rule 65(d)a ruling issued by the District Court is not an injunction. It places the defendant under no obligation. 47.30
The Anti injunction Act is controlled by federal law. The Act is to be strictly construed and may not be enlarged by loose statutory construction or whittled away by judicial improvisation.
The government cannot force the defendant to choose between two constitutional rights.
Contempt of court was how the Holocaust started. Jewish lawyers didn’t defend pro se rights. Then Jews were not allowed to be lawyers and because they didn’t defend pro se rights they had no rights in court at all. The courts ordered the Jews to sign over their property and if they didn’t they were found in civil contempt of court. That is why the German constitution does not recognize civil contempt and why the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights insists that nations cannot jail people for what is not recognized as a crime in international law.
Real dignified Bill
Do you disagree with Federal Procedure Lawyer’s Edition or are you going to say that only lawyers can read or quote that?
No Bil I did not “self inflict” my wound. It was inflicted by the USMS guards, probably the ones that were accompanying former judge Nottingham to brothels and strip clubs, and Judge Nottingham and the lawyers who conspired with him.
I had a right to sue. I had a cause of action recognized by the Supreme Court (after I sued)and I had a right to rely on the U.S. Code.
Your definition of a self inflicted wound negates the First Amendment. By definition, anyone who is harassed, tortured or imprisoned for their speech whether it is written or oral whether it is filed in court or passed out in flyers, made the speech themselves.
Do you think that only lawyers can quote the law and only lawyers have First Amendment rights in court?
blah blah blah
prattle prattle prattle
Furthermore in my case there was no motion for an injunction, no bond injunction, no injunction hearing and nothing complying with Rule 65(d). There is no law that allows any court to prohibit anyone from representing themselves whether it is a criminal or a civil action. Even people who are convicted of crimes of fraud can represent themselves in court. If their testimony is impeached, then they can still get witnesses and use documents as evidence. However, there was no motion to impeach my testimony. I verified every single sentence of every page under penalty of perjury and was not charged with perjury. There were no rule 11 motion hearings and no rule 11 c. 6 orders. There was no motion to show cause why I should not be subjected to a Rule 11 motion either.
kay,
Considering you got yourself thrown in jail for contempt, pardon me if I don’t just jump all over your legal analysis like it was manna from Heaven.
As AY points out and I’ve said before, your wound is self-inflicted. I for one am sick to the point of vomiting over your constant whining about it. The constant mischaracterizations, like it was free speech and not contempt that got you jailed and that contempt of court was how the Holocaust started, are kinda funny. Just not funny ha-ha.
Southern woman have an expression they use when dealing with someone like you. It sounds nice on the surface, just like a lot of that faux courtesy the South tries to pass off as gentility: “Well bless her heart!” If you speak the colloquial vernacular or notice that this phrase is often followed by all kinds of semi-polite invective or salacious gossip, then you know it’s just verbal longhand for “dumbass”.
Still had to do what was requested….Think of it like having a fight with a spouse and they are the chief wage earner… Do you pick a fight and then expect something…