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
I don’t have all night.
Do you want to know the statutory basis for the power of the court to hold you in contempt or is whining about it more important?
“if you will”
First, I don’t work for you. I would never work for you. Because you’re what’s known in the business as “a pain in the ass”.
Second, if I do tell you what the statutory authority for contempt is, will you finally and permanently shut up your selfish bitching and spamming about it here?
Because is you will?
I’ll tell you again.
Bill, I’ll pay you $50 to post on this blog the statutory basis for imprisoning a pro se litigant for pursuing a lawsuit other than a crime like perjury, threatening a witness or a juror, bribery, threatening a judge etc. none of which I was even accused of. I was held for over 4 months by the USMS in the District of Colorado but I got an FOIA letter from DOJ yesterday saying that the U.S. Attorney in Colorado has no record of me.
kaysieverding@aol.com
still waiting for that statutory basis bill. My email is kaysieverding@aol.com
Bill
Since you remember thinking that you stated a statutory basis for imprisoning me for pursuing a civil lawsuit in federal court without an associated criminal case, why don’t you state it now? Was it in Title 18?… Title 28?
Title 42?
Yes. I did. About four months ago. That you could not understand it or imposed selective memory is par for the course. And I only did it then because I was already sick of your repetitive self-absorbed tripe even then.
Bill
You write “What is “Because I have already previously cited the statutory authority for holding you in contempt of court, you self-absorbed nitwit?”
No I didn’t see that–what is the statutory authority you are referring to?
None of the documents had a statutory authority listed.
Probably I would have had a better experience in court if I had had a lawyer. I tried to get William Hibbard in Steamboat Springs to represent me but he said he was concerned about retaliation against his law firm if he did. I put that in my complaint as filed and I sent it to him with a check and he wrote back:
I did have a chance to read through the voluminous pleadings while I was up at the cabin. Interesting theories especially against the ABA and the Colorado Bar
Association.
I put a copy of that letter in PACER
Case 1:05-cv-01283-RMU Document 30 Filed 09/23/2005 Page 27 of 35
kay,
What is “Because I have already previously cited the statutory authority for holding you in contempt of court, you self-absorbed nitwit?”
I’ll take “Even Idiots Can Use the Internet” for $500, Alex.
So since Bil thinks he is so smart why doesn’t he come up with a statutory basis that would have allowed me to be imprisoned based on Mr. Wallish’s official description?
First Amendment protections do not depend on the speaker’s “financial ability to engage in public discussion.” …Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove
that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest… The First Amendment prohibits Congress from fining
or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for engaging in political speech…. Content-based prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal penalties,
have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
“The First Amendment does not protect speech and assembly only to the extent it can be characterized as political. “Great secular causes, with small ones, are guarded. The grievances for redress of which the right of petition was insured, and with it the right of assembly, are not solely religious or political ones. And the rights of free speech and a free press are
not confined to any field of human interest.” MINE WORKERS V.ILLINOIS BAR ASSN.,389U.S.217(1967)
“[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” The Constitution demands that content-based
restrictions on speech be presumed invalid, R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 382 (1992), and that the Government bears the burden of showing their constitutionality. Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 322 F.3d 240
Gyges,
Boxers are good dogs. I love that he’s most often barking at the trampoline. That is soooooo like a politician. “Why these Washington insiders!” Boing! “They just want to steal your money!” Boing! “But I’m different!” Boing! “Woof!”
Again, kay, just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something.
Do you know why there is a truism that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client?
Because even for a professional, self-representation is a bad idea. You are too close to the subject matter to handle it dispassionately and objectively. Unless it’s something simple like a parking ticket? Even if you’re an expert in the type of litigation at bar? You are best served hiring an attorney to do the work. Why? As the injured party, your professional judgment is compromised by your personal involvement.
For laymen? Add that to the fact that you simply aren’t competent as a general rule to conduct complex litigation. You lack both the training and the experience necessary to do so. The training and experience that would perhaps allow you to avoid situations where you are held in contempt of court.
I know, it’ll be a perfect fit, once I add a cat and yakety sax…
Yes, I based the value of my lawsuit on research on other cases. I also added up my economic damages and, since there were four of us, on personal damages allowed in Colorado.
And I was entitled to a jury trial, which was stolen from me by witness intimidation, deprivation of rights under color of law and extortion. Which the USMS implemented by detaining me without a bail hearing or a criminal charge. Which the Denver deputy marshal, Stephen D. Wallish, already stated that they did because I had a suit in the state court and a suit in the District of Columbia. He said that under penalty of perjury.
What’s that you say? You like the trampoline angle, but something barking while on a trampoline would be even more relevant to the discussion of an idiotic comment by Sen. Graham?
Gyges,
Lindey’s home movies? Who knew he hung out with Brits?
President George Washington signed the law that made self representation a right. The Supreme Court wrote that it is a constitutional right.
“This Court’s past recognition of the right of self-representation, the federal court authority holding the right to be of constitutional dimension,and the state constitutions pointing to the right’s fundamental nature form a consensus not easily ignored.” Faretta v. California 422U.S.806(1975 )
My cause is not lost. I am filing again against DOJ under the Privacy Act including a claim for unauthorized possession of my First Amendment records, which is the subject of this blog. I have statutory tolling under 5 USC 552a g (5) because of DOJ misrepresentations.
Here are two U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment quotes for you:
“Nor does the text of the First Amendment speak in terms of successful petitioning — it speaks simply of “the right of the people … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Even unsuccessful but reasonably based suits advance some First Amendment interests. Like successful suits, unsuccessful suits allow the “`public airing of disputed facts,’ ” Bill Johnson’s, supra, at 743 (quoting Balmer, Sham Litigation and the Antitrust Law, 29 Buffalo L. Rev. 39, 60 (1980)), and raise matters of public concern. They also promote the evolution of the law by supporting the development of legal theories that may not gain acceptance the first time around….Finally, while baseless suits can be seen as analogous to false statements, that analogy does not directly extend to suits that are unsuccessful but reasonably based. For even if a suit could be seen as a kind of provable statement, the fact that it loses does not mean it is false. At most it means the plaintiff did not meet its burden of proving its truth. That does not mean the defendant has proved — or could prove — the contrary.” BE&K Construction Co. v. National Labor Relations Board 536 U.S. 516 (2002)
“But we cannot endorse the proposition that a lawsuit, as such, is an evil. Over the course of centuries, our society has settled upon civil litigation as a means for redressing grievances, resolving disputes, and vindicating rights when other means fail. There is no cause for consternation when a person who believes in good faith and on the basis of accurate information regarding his legal rights that he has suffered a legally cognizable injury turns to the courts for a remedy: “we cannot accept the notion that it is always better for a person to suffer a wrong silently than to redress it by legal action.” Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S., at 376. That our citizens have access to their civil courts is not an evil to be regretted; rather,it is an attribute of our system of justice in which we ought to take pride.” Zauderer v. Office Disciplinary Counsel, Supreme Court Ohio 105 S. Ct.2265, 471U.S.626
You figured? Well you’re not a legal expert by your own admission, kay. And look how well you figuring worked out for you in court.
I saw a brain surgeon on TV once. I can read a medical text book. That does not mean I am competent to conduct brain surgery on myself.
Hey look, this is relevant: