Submitted by Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
John Thompson spent 18 years in prison, 14 of them on death row, following convictions for attempted armed robbery and murder in separate incidents. A scant month before the scheduled execution, an investigator hired by Thompson’s lawyers made a startling discovery in the crime lab archives: a lab report which completely exonerated Thompson on the attempted robbery charge.The report contained results of a test conducted on blood left by the robber on the clothing of one of the victims. The robber had type B blood. Thompson’s is type O.
In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor has a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to the accused. The prosecutor in Thompson’s attempted robbery case deliberately withheld the test results from defense counsel. At his subsequent trial on the murder charge, Thompson understandably declined to testify so that the attempted robbery conviction could not be used for impeachment purposes.
In due course both convictions were overturned. A second trial on the murder charge produced a defense verdict after only 35 minutes of jury deliberation. Thompson thereupon sued Harry Connick, the New Orleans district attorney, under several theories, including a violation of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The jury awarded Thompson $1,000,000.00 for each year spent on death row, a total of $14,000,000.00. The verdict was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Thompson will never see a dime of his award. In a 5-4 decision announced on March 29th, the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas found the evidence of prosecutorial misconduct was insufficient to support a conclusion that the district attorney had been “deliberately indifferent” to his duty to insure that prosecutors in his office adhered to the requirements of the Brady rule.
Justice Thomas reaches his conclusion by framing the issue in a manner which admits of no alternative result. The sole question for the court, he says, is whether Section 1983 liability may be based upon “a single Brady violation.” Of course it can’t. The reason is that a district attorney cannot be held liable for the actions of his subordinates under the theory of respondeat superior. Instead, it was necessary for Thompson to establish a pattern of such violations in Connick’s office sufficient to permit a conclusion that Connick was deliberately indifferent to the need to adequately train his staff on the Brady requirements.
But Justice Thomas ignores substantial evidence in the record that Connick’s office was a virtual cesspool of prosecutorial misconduct. Indeed, at least four prosecutors were aware of the withheld evidence in Thompson’s armed robbery trial. The responsible prosecutor had actually confessed to a colleague that he had withheld the lab report. Connick had had a number of prior convictions reversed for Brady violations. Connick himself openly admitted to never having cracked a law book subsequent to becoming district attorney in 1974.
Justice Thomas finds this record unpersuasive because, as he notes, none of the previous Brady violations “involved failure to disclose blood evidence, a crime lab report, or physical or scientific evidence of any kind.” Accordingly, he concludes, Connick could not have been on notice of the need to train his staff concerning the specific violation in Thompson’s case. Besides, he continues, prosecutors are trained attorneys who can be expected to know and understand their obligations. I don’t know how many potential violations exist in the Brady universe, but presumably Justice Thomas would require that Connick’s prosecutors commit all of them before “deliberate indifference” might be inferred.
The decision in this case is not so much about law as it is about a public policy position intended to impose the most formidable barriers possible to pursuing a Section 1983 claim against a state agency. I prefer to call it the doctrine of prosecutorial impunity.
No, if that were the case then the judge could find someone in contempt for not giving him a BJ or not giving him their automobile when ordered.
The Courts are not supposed to “prosecute civil contempt in accordance with Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 42(b).”
Only criminal contempt can be prosecuted under Rule 42(b).
“Get that Chris Beall wrote ‘The absence of criminal information in this case is meaningless’ He didn’t even claim any evidence I committed a crime.”
Get that Beall was correct.
The absence of criminal information is meaningless because it’s not required to hold you for civil contempt using the mechanisms of criminal contempt – which is exactly how the Federal courts prosecute civil contempt in accordance with FRCP Rule 42(b). All that is required is that the judge state the nature of your contempt (improper filings after a decision had been rendered), sign the complaint and file it with the clerk. Which he did. And as a result you were arrested and jailed until you complied with his lawful order.
Seek the help of a mental health professional, Kay.
You’re delusional.
To quote, not lecture
“She filed motions for reconsideration in the District of Columbia cases 0501283, 0501672 and 0052122. She has also now filed, Your Honor—before the hearing I checked Pacer half an hour ago, and she has filed something called a motion for clarification as to the status of her actions….in D.C., in all three D.C. cases…we would ask the Court to in its issuance of a bench warrant in this matter”. 9/22/06 transcript Christopher P. Beall
“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” 9/22/06 transcript Judge Edward Nottingham.
To quote not lecture
“§ 1512 of Title 18 constitutes a broad prohibition against tampering with a witness, victim or informant. It proscribes conduct intended to illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in Federal proceedings or the communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers. It applies to proceedings before Congress, executive departments, and administrative agencies, and to civil and criminal judicial proceedings, including grand jury proceedings.” ).See U.S. Attorneys Manual 1730 Protection of Government Processes—”Official Proceeding” Requirement—18 U.S.C. § 1512” US Attorney Criminal Resource Manual
Well, well…
Sometimes illusions escape self deception…. Or is self deception an illusion….. Some hold reality on a very tenuous basis to behind with, some never had it, some lost it from trauma and others from recreational drug usage. Kay where do you fall?
The lawyer who requested my incarceration wrote:
“The absence of criminal information in this case is meaningless…the remedy that the Newspaper Defendants seek, coercive incarceration will end as soon as Mrs. Sieverding establishes compliance with this Court’s orders to withdraw the Kansas and D.C. cases…no statement of probable cause, under oath or otherwise, is required… The Court has made it clear to Mrs. Sieverding that she is required to terminate all litigation against all of the defendants, including the Newspaper defendants, when such litigation is filed pro se…Rule 65 has no bearing on this matter…the Anti-Injunction Act only prohibits a federal court from order a stay of a state court proceeding and neither the D.C. nor Kansas litigation is in state court … The Court’s instruction to Mrs. Sieverding to “dismiss’ or “withdraw” the D.C. and Kansas litigation necessarily included a prohibition against…filing motions or any other paper besides of notice of dismissal …she may effect her release from incarceration under such a contempt citation by actually “withdrawing” the Kansas and D.C. litigation.” 9/8/06 District of Colorado 02-1950 document 883 Christopher P. Beall
Get that Chris Beall wrote “The absence of criminal information in this case is meaningless” He didn’t even claim any evidence I committed a crime.
AY, one of the things that amazes me is the jaw-dropping level of hubris she displays. She comes to a legal blog and lectures lawyers and other legal experts on the law. Throwing up cites that have been copied and pasted does not translate to an understanding of the law. Chutzpah personified!
She reminds me of what Shakespeare wrote: “That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing….” (Macbeth; Act 5, Scene 5).
No, Anon Nurse, contempt is not a crime as defined by a judge.
Crimes are defined by Congress. See US Constitution Article II section 8 “The Congress shall have power to …. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations”.
Article III gives the courts only limited jurisdiction:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Crimes are listed in the U.S. Code. Title 18 is on the Cornell Legal Institute and links to the Congressional Notes. The House of Representatives also has them on-line. The Government Printing Office has the entire Code of Federal Regulations on-line and now offers all kinds of computer searches, instantly, on-line for free.
These are federal crimes
Title 18 PART I—CRIMES
CHAPTER 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS (§§ 1—27)
CHAPTER 2—AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES (§§ 31—40)
CHAPTER 3—ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISH, AND PLANTS (§§ 41—49)
CHAPTER 5—ARSON (§ 81)
CHAPTER 7—ASSAULT (§§ 111—119)
CHAPTER 9—BANKRUPTCY (§§ 151—158)
CHAPTER 10—BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS (§§ 175—178)
CHAPTER 11—BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (§§ 201—227)
CHAPTER 11A—CHILD SUPPORT (§ 228)
CHAPTER 11B—CHEMICAL WEAPONS (§§ 229—229F)
CHAPTER 12—CIVIL DISORDERS (§§ 231—233)
CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS (§§ 241—249)
CHAPTER 15—CLAIMS AND SERVICES IN MATTERS AFFECTING GOVERNMENT (§§ 281—293)
CHAPTER 17—COINS AND CURRENCY (§§ 331—337)
CHAPTER 17A—COMMON CARRIER OPERATION UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS (§§ 341—343)
CHAPTER 18—CONGRESSIONAL, CABINET, AND SUPREME COURT ASSASSINATION, KIDNAPPING, AND ASSAULT (§ 351)
CHAPTER 19—CONSPIRACY (§§ 371—373)
CHAPTER 21—CONTEMPTS (§§ 401—403)
CHAPTER 23—CONTRACTS (§§ 431—443)
CHAPTER 25—COUNTERFEITING AND FORGERY (§§ 470—514)
CHAPTER 26—CRIMINAL STREET GANGS (§ 521)
CHAPTER 27—CUSTOMS (§§ 541—555)
CHAPTER 29—ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES (§§ 591—612_to_617)
CHAPTER 31—EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT (§§ 641—669)
CHAPTER 33—EMBLEMS, INSIGNIA, AND NAMES (§§ 700—716)
CHAPTER 35—ESCAPE AND RESCUE (§§ 751—758)
CHAPTER 37—ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP (§§ 791—799)
CHAPTER 39—EXPLOSIVES AND OTHER DANGEROUS ARTICLES (§§ 831—837)
CHAPTER 40—IMPORTATION, MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION AND STORAGE OF EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS (§§ 841—848)
CHAPTER 41—EXTORTION AND THREATS (§§ 871—880)
CHAPTER 42—EXTORTIONATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS (§§ 891—896)
CHAPTER 43—FALSE PERSONATION (§§ 911—917)
CHAPTER 44—FIREARMS (§§ 921—931)
CHAPTER 45—FOREIGN RELATIONS (§§ 951—970)
CHAPTER 46—FORFEITURE (§§ 981—987)
CHAPTER 47—FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS (§§ 1001—1040)
CHAPTER 49—FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE (§§ 1071—1074)
CHAPTER 50—GAMBLING (§§ 1081—1084)
CHAPTER 50A—GENOCIDE (§§ 1091—1093)
CHAPTER 51—HOMICIDE (§§ 1111—1122)
CHAPTER 53—INDIANS (§§ 1151—1170)
CHAPTER 55—KIDNAPPING (§§ 1201—1204)
CHAPTER 57—LABOR (§§ 1231—1232)
CHAPTER 59—LIQUOR TRAFFIC (§§ 1261—1265)
CHAPTER 61—LOTTERIES (§§ 1301—1307)
CHAPTER 63—MAIL FRAUD AND OTHER FRAUD OFFENSES (§§ 1341—1351)
CHAPTER 65—MALICIOUS MISCHIEF (§§ 1361—1369)
CHAPTER 67—MILITARY AND NAVY (§§ 1381—1389)
[CHAPTER 68—REPEALED] (§ 1401_to_1407)
CHAPTER 69—NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP (§§ 1421—1429)
CHAPTER 71—OBSCENITY (§§ 1460—1470)
CHAPTER 73—OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (§§ 1501—1521)
CHAPTER 74—PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS (§ 1531)
CHAPTER 75—PASSPORTS AND VISAS (§§ 1541—1547)
CHAPTER 77—PEONAGE, SLAVERY, AND TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS (§§ 1581—1596)
CHAPTER 79—PERJURY (§§ 1621—1623)
CHAPTER 81—PIRACY AND PRIVATEERING (§§ 1651—1661)
CHAPTER 83—POSTAL SERVICE (§§ 1691—1738)
CHAPTER 84—PRESIDENTIAL AND PRESIDENTIAL STAFF ASSASSINATION, KIDNAPPING, AND ASSAULT (§§ 1751—1752)
CHAPTER 85—PRISON-MADE GOODS (§§ 1761—1762)
CHAPTER 87—PRISONS (§§ 1791—1793)
CHAPTER 88—PRIVACY (§ 1801)
CHAPTER 89—PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS (§ 1821)
CHAPTER 90—PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS (§§ 1831—1839)
CHAPTER 90A—PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN (§ 1841)
CHAPTER 91—PUBLIC LANDS (§§ 1851—1864)
CHAPTER 93—PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES (§§ 1901—1924)
CHAPTER 95—RACKETEERING (§§ 1951—1960)
CHAPTER 96—RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS (§§ 1961—1968)
CHAPTER 97—RAILROAD CARRIERS AND MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ON LAND, ON WATER, OR THROUGH THE AIR (§§ 1991—1993)
[CHAPTER 99—REPEALED] (§ 2031,_2032)
CHAPTER 101—RECORDS AND REPORTS (§§ 2071—2076)
CHAPTER 102—RIOTS (§§ 2101—2102)
CHAPTER 103—ROBBERY AND BURGLARY (§§ 2111—2119)
CHAPTER 105—SABOTAGE (§§ 2151—2157)
CHAPTER 107—SEAMEN AND STOWAWAYS (§§ 2191—2199)
CHAPTER 109—SEARCHES AND SEIZURES (§§ 2231—2237)
CHAPTER 109A—SEXUAL ABUSE (§§ 2241—2248)
CHAPTER 109B—SEX OFFENDER AND CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN REGISTRY (§ 2250)
CHAPTER 110—SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN (§§ 2251—2260A)
CHAPTER 110A—DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND STALKING (§§ 2261—2266)
CHAPTER 111—SHIPPING (§§ 2271—2285)
CHAPTER 111A—DESTRUCTION OF, OR INTERFERENCE WITH, VESSELS OR MARITIME FACILITIES (§§ 2290—2293)
CHAPTER 113—STOLEN PROPERTY (§§ 2311—2323)
CHAPTER 113A—TELEMARKETING FRAUD (§§ 2325—2327)
CHAPTER 113B—TERRORISM (§§ 2331—2339D)
CHAPTER 113C—TORTURE (§§ 2340—2340B)
CHAPTER 114—TRAFFICKING IN CONTRABAND CIGARETTES AND SMOKELESS TOBACCO (§§ 2341—2346)
CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES (§§ 2381—2391)
CHAPTER 117—TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND RELATED CRIMES (§§ 2421—2428)
CHAPTER 118—WAR CRIMES (§§ 2441—2442)
CHAPTER 119—WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (§§ 2510—2522)
CHAPTER 121—STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS (§§ 2701—2712)
CHAPTER 123—PROHIBITION ON RELEASE AND USE OF CERTAIN PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM STATE MOTOR VEHICLE RECORDS (§§ 2721—2725)
Well what more could be said about Kays inability to comprehend facts relevant to her or any case. If this is the way she talks in court then, I am surprised she is not still locked up….
Here is more evidence that you usually have to be rich in this country to get protection of the Rule of Law.
HARTMAN et al. v. MOORE, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), “a Bivens action against criminal investigators for inducing prosecution in retaliation for speech.”
“respondent William G. Moore, Jr., was the chief executive of Recognition Equipment Inc. (REI), which manufactured a multiline optical character reader for interpreting multiple lines of text. Although REI had received some $50 million from the United States Postal Service to develop this technology …. Notwithstanding very limited evidence linking Moore and REI to any
wrong-doing, an Assistant United States Attorney decided to bring criminal charges against them, and in 1988 the grand jury indicted Moore, REI, and REI’s vice president. At the close of the Government’s case, after six weeks of trial, however, the District Court concluded that there was a “complete lack of direct evidence” connecting the defendants to any of the criminal wrongdoing alleged,
and it granted the REI defendants’ motion for judgment of acquittal. United States v. Recognition Equip. Inc., 725 F. Supp. 587, 596 (DC 1989).
Moore then brought an action in the Northern District of Texas for civil liability under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971),[2]
against the prosecutor and the five postal inspectors who are petitioners here (a sixth having died). His complaint raised five causes of action, only one of which is
relevant here, the claim that the prosecutor and the inspectors had engineered his criminal prosecution in retaliation for criticism of the Postal Service, thus violating the First Amendment.”
Moore was able to pursue his claims because he owned a profitable business. If he was a regular joe, prosecuted for criticizing a local government official, then he would not have had a lawyer to help him out because a lawyer in federal court starts at $100 K.
Anon Nurse,
It appears that the same thing is being rehashed. Kay, does not have a clear understanding of what is going on either with her case or what she is doing. Sometimes ignorance is bliss other times it gets you thrown in jail. Case in being…
Buddha wrote:
“Contempt is a crime as defined by the judge. He lawfully told you do something, you didn’t do it, you got arrested and jailed.”
Seems pretty straightforward…
Kay,
As your friend has suggested get help. What you are posting is incoherent and out of context. It appears you have q grasp of the law similar to that of your reality, tenuous at best. Most judges would rather deal with an incompetent attorney than a pro se litigant, at least the attorney has the ability to recognize its errors. A pro se litigant not so much.
What part of “inherent power” don’t you understand, Kay? Aside from all of it.
Contempt is a crime as defined by the judge. He lawfully told you do something, you didn’t do it, you got arrested and jailed.
It’s THAT simple.
In support of my previous statement about widespread lack of access to a mechanism to enforce rights, according to a LA Times article dated 4/4/2011 “the Innocence Project listed more than 700 California cases in which state and federal courts identified prosecutorial misconduct in rulings from 1997 to 2009.”
Clear evidence of society’s general lack of “Access to Law” is shown in the news of people suing for being in jail for a crime they did not commit.
All the lawsuits you see in the press for that are for people who were in jail for 18 years or more — like John Thompson.
Have you ever ever seen a lawsuit for someone who was in jail for 2 years for a crime they didn’t commit?
If innocent people are convicted of serious crimes for which there is supposed to be a more rigorous procedure, and for which there are seldom plea bargains, then think of all the people who are convicted of larceny they didn’t commit, or possession of drugs they didn’t have, or harassment they didn’t do. But even though their lives were really screwed up, the perception is that a jury won’t give a huge award to someone who was innocent but convicted anyway because of prosecutorial misconduct unless the person was in jail for many many years. Therefore, they can’t get a lawyer to take their case on contingency because only a few well funded law-firms take cases on contingency and they only take cases on contingency if they think they will make millions as a percentage.
I don’t know where or when you practice law but in federal court, contempt is a crime to the extent it is defined as so by Congress. And the procedure by which contempt can be legally prosecuted in federal court is the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It’s that simple.
An attitude or a thought is not a crime.
The Marshals who create and enter Joint Automated Booking Systems Records don’t even have to be college graduates. The requirements for employment all relate to physical attributes.
Of course you have forgotten law. Because you are old and never practiced in federal court. And because law is a big subject and one that even lawyers study when they need to know something in particular.
Contempt has nothing to do with “polite”, Kay.
“Judge Nottingham did NOT certify that I committed contempt in his presence.”
Really? Because if he didn’t state the nature of your contempt (improper filings after a decision had been rendered), sign the complaint and file it with the clerk?
The Marshalls wouldn’t have picked you up.
It’s that simple.
You also don’t know what “presence” means either.
It doesn’t mean that he has to see you. All he has to see is evidence of an action of contempt within the case before him at bar, i.e. in his judicial presence NOT his physical presence. For example: if a lawyer violates a gag order by talking to a reporter in a bar or at a party where the judge is not physically there? They are still in contempt of court for violating the gag order.
“My perspective is that I am advancing liberty by promoting the cause of PRO SE rights, which I personally believe is the foundation of democracy.”
You weren’t jailed because you were a pro se litigant.
You were jailed because you failed to follow a lawful order of the court after you got caught forum shopping, moron. REAL lawyers wouldn’t just get jailed for contempt for doing that. They’d get disbarred.
You aren’t advancing a goddamn thing other that the twisted psychotic selfish rationale you are creating for yourself so you can deny that you, Kay, are the one who screwed yourself over, got yourself jailed for contempt and ruined any chance you might have had at an appeal.
You, Kay Sieverding, fucked yourself over by thinking you were smart enough and competent enough with the law to represent yourself.
No one else is to blame for your situation.
No one but you.
What you are doing it playing at being a lawyer and reinforcing your delusions.
“Statistically, sick people who learn about their physical illness have a better result than those who blindly rely on medical professionals. I believe that is the same for people with legal problems.”
That doesn’t mean non-medical professionals are competent to write their own prescriptions or perform surgery upon themselves.
As to Title 18? Arrogant much, Kay? I’ve read and forgotten more law than you’ll ever know. Contempt is treated as a crime because it’s an inherent power of the court, simpleton. It doesn’t need any other description at law other than the ones it already has.
You are incompetent when it comes to the law, Kay.
And you are crazy on top of it.
Seek the help of a psychiatric medical professional.
Then Kay,
Go to law school….. Then you might have a clue how things really work… but then again…your contempt might keep you from being admitted into a bar of any jurisdiction as it is what they call a “flagrant disregard” of a court order….I believe your case got dismissed because you failed to adhere to the courts order……
Presence of the court means some contact with your name on it…ie a court case….here you had sued in Colorado… It was dismissed… then you again filed successive suits involving the same basic parties and legal issue…. in other Jurisdictions…. a Show cause was scheduled by the court for this intentional violation of this courts order….the judge asked you to dismiss them….you refused….. since you were there he gave you room and board….you dismissed and he let you out….simple right?
I agree that a person can commit contempt in the presence of a court in all sorts of court hearings. I saw one where a woman in the audience was charged with that recently because she made loud sounds when the sentence of her friend was announced and then slammed the door so loud it broke.
As Judge Diane Wood explained:
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as- (1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; ….
“[s]section 401 recognizes two types of contempt: direct
and indirect. Direct contempt is contumacious conduct committed in the actual presence of the court, . . . and may be punished summarily. … Rule 42(b) recognizes the power of the court to take summary action against “a person who commits criminal contempin its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies.”
Judge Nottingham did NOT certify that I committed contempt in his presence.
On the way to the pre scheduled order to show cause hearing I went over this with my husband and when we got there we were exceedingly polite.
My perspective is that I am advancing liberty by promoting the cause of PRO SE rights, which I personally believe is the foundation of democracy. A former ABA president wrote Access to Courts is the Right from which all other rights flow and personally I believe that. I think it is better to have an honest lawyer than to be pro se but most people cannot hire a lawyer to represent them in federal court because it is so expensive. Others who do hire lawyers end up dropping out because of the expense. Others have lawyers who sell them out. My opinion is that the more that people know about law the better result they will get in court, whether they have a lawyer or not.
Statistically, sick people who learn about their physical illness have a better result than those who blindly rely on medical professionals. I believe that is the same for people with legal problems.
For instance, if he had known more about law, Joe Nacchio could have made sure that the papers for his expert witness were filed on time.
If you study Title 18, you will see that there isn’t a crime labeled “contempt”, they all have more descriptive names.
kay,
Once again, you don’t understand what you are reading.
Did you understand Rule 42(b)? No.
Did you think of reading the notes? No.
If you had? You’d should have realized that the changes make no difference to the way the rule has been historically applied.
“NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES – 2002 AMENDMENT
The language of Rule 42 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Criminal Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only, except as noted below.
[. . .}
Rule 42(b) has been amended to make it clear that a court may summarily punish a person for committing contempt in the court’s presence without regard to whether other rules, such as Rule 32 (sentencing procedures), might otherwise apply. See, e.g., United States v. Martin-Trigona , 759 F.2d 1017 (2d Cir. 1985). Further, Rule 42(b) has been amended to recognize the contempt powers of a court (other than a magistrate judge) and a magistrate judge.
NOTES OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RULES – 1987 AMENDMENT
The amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended.” [emphasis added]
You may think there is a difference, but there isn’t. If you were competent to understand Rule 42(b) on its face, you’d know that. All this means is that in Federal courts, they handle ALL contempt charges as criminal contempt.
If you don’t believe me and the letter of the law? Well than I again refer you to the 1995 edition of The Manual for Complex Litigation, which also states “Since there is no federal rule establishing a procedure for civil contempt, the court should follow the procedures of Fed. R. Crim. P.42 to the extent applicable.” Seems like I’m not the only properly trained person who reads 42(b) that way. The guys who literally wrote the book on complex litigation agree with me.
That your contempt happened in a civil proceeding is irrelevant. The reasoning behind this is that the contempt itself is a distinct criminal act whether it arises from civil or criminal proceedings. When you violated a lawful order of the judge, you broke the law. It was a crime. And it was a crime the judge has the power to order summary disposition over. All that is required to hold you in contempt and sanction you is that the contempt order must recite the facts, be signed by the judge, and be filed with the clerk.
Again, you think you’re a legal expert and the facts show you to be a fool.
As to happy?
I think I can speak for many of us that the only thing that will make us happy is if you quit pimping your personal problem (because no one here cares) and/or leave this place and never come back.
You’re an idiot when it comes to the law, kay.
And obviously a sick woman on top of it.
Seek the help of a mental health professional.