Spamming a Judge Is Contempt of Court 280
eldavojohn writes "TV pitchman Kevin Trudeau was sentenced to 30 days in jail because he urged his fans and followers to spam a judge. Apparently the judge (who was deluged with emails) decided that this was an act of contempt of court on the court's 'virtual presence' since nothing happened while the court was in session in regards to Trudeau's courtroom behavior. US Marshals are now trudging through those emails to decide if any are threatening."
Well it's certainly something (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I dunno if the convoluted reasoning for making it contempt of court is justified, but it's spamming, so it should be discouraged at least.
The fact that its Kevin Trudeau isn't making me all that sympathetic, either.
When are massive numbers of emails simply speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of times "spam" represents an attack, DDS, harassment, unsolicited advertising etc. These are a problem, and people rightly want this controlled.
But if I ask all my friends to send emails, and thousands of individuals all reply, I would think that is more like speech, a la "free speech". Nothing in TFA says the emails were threatening or trying to harm the judge.
Re:When are massive numbers of emails simply speec (Score:5, Insightful)
But if I ask all my friends to send emails, and thousands of individuals all reply, I would think that is more like speech, a la "free speech". Nothing in TFA says the emails were threatening or trying to harm the judge
Free speech guarantees you the opportunity to say what you wish, but it does not let you force the audience to listen. The content of what you say is protected, but the manner in which you say it is not. If you are choosing your delivery method in a manner specifically to harass others, you are not eligible for free speech protections.
Your rights only go so far as they do not impinge on the rights of others...you cannot force people to listen to you.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:When are massive numbers of emails simply speec (Score:4, Insightful)
What if you were on trial and asked your friends to fill the presiding judge's mailbox or worse, congregate and protest in front of his house. The message isn't being restricted, just this very targeted delivery.
Also, the judge has no duty to listen (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not free speech in a public forum, and the public doesn't have a right to address the court, at least not without going through certain channels. They need to be able to file an amicus brief under the rules of the jurisdiction if they want to speak to the judge on the issue the court is deciding. But the judge doesn't have to listen; courts aren't democratic. If you want to overturn a court democratically, you're supposed to do it through the legislature.
Ex-parte Communication (Score:5, Informative)
My understanding of contempt of court, which wikipedia confirms is that the following have to be shown
* Existence of a lawful order
* The contemnor's knowledge of the order
* The contemnor's ability to comply
* The contemnor's failure to comply
The lawful order can be a specific order by the judge, or an existing rule or law concerning the operation of the court. There is such a rule in place - except in limited circumstances, discussing the case with the judge outside of the official proceedings of the court is not allowed. This is to prevent biasing the judge, putting forth arguments to which the other side cannot respond, and limiting opportunities for bribery or blackmail. The judge can be punished if he allows any of this sort of communication to occur, and repeated attempts to contact the judge outside of court have resulted in contempt of court rulings in the past. Furthermore, inciting someone to break the rules of the court can absolutely land you contempt charges yourself.
The second criteria is where I think there may be problems. Lawyers are assumed to know the rules of court and can be issued contempt charges without warning. However, it is not generally assumed that the defendant does, and it is customary to warn them and only charge them with contempt if they continue. If the judge can't prove that that Trudeau was aware that this action was breaking a rule of the court, then it may likely be overturned in appeal (which is being heard right now).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree, how is a whole bunch of real people sending emails in any way related to spam.
Wikipedia defines spam as "the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately."
As far as I can tell, these messages were not "bulk," or "indiscriminate."
Furthermore, the people sending them were hardly "abusing" the system.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that this was not a publicly available email adress.
So? Was he ordered not to disclose the address? I've been a party to lawsuits before and received private e-mail addresses of the Judge and attorneys. I've never been asked nor ordered not to disclose those addresses.
Re:When are massive numbers of emails simply speec (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone can file an amicus curiae brief if they have something to say regarding a trial. That is the proper channel of communications. If I had a bunch of people protest outside a judge's house, or send tons of snail mail, that would also likely be judged as contempt. That's not how we conduct law in America. And before you scream 'free speech,' remember, the content of your speech is protected, not the delivery method. Free speech does not give you the right to force your speech on others. This is what Kevin the previously convicted felon did when he told his followers to fill the judge's personal email with unsolicited comments on a pending case. He tried to force his views on the judge, not the court, and therefore the judge is perfectly within the law to rule contempt.
TV pitchman? (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, Kevin Trudeau [wikipedia.org] has another title which no one mentions when he goes on the air: Convicted felon. In fact he was barred by the FTC in 2004 of promoting products on TV ever again. That's why he's now an "author" because he can't sell products. His books however had raised warnings from multiple consumer protection agencies. Most noting that his book Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About contains no actual cures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While interesting, past criminal history actually has no direct bearing as to guilt. It can affect someone's credibility if they're called as a witness, but if, for instance, a defendant never takes the stand, their past criminal history cannot be put to a jury.
And I've been on a jury where I found out after we'd convicted the defendant that he had a long criminal history that the prosecution had never mentioned during the trial. Believe me, if he could have told us, he would have.
Kevin Trudeau is a mass-illusionist and a scammer. (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember that guy, from TV-Shop, many years ago. When I was young and impressionable (read: stupid).
I bought a set of 8 tapes, called Mega-Memory. Kevin gave a few smart "initial pointers" on how you could memorise things really quickly by using the "peg system", associating an item or a "doing" with something (an item) etc, or a situation. And he used catchy sentences like this:
"Everyone remembers faces, right, but names? Oh - I remember his name, but what's his face like? (Everyone in the audience laughs and agrees)" And goes on by telling us we can remember anything by using his mega-mind system. Which is utterly bullshit, because once you get to advanced formulas, actual stories etc. you won't remember squat anyway, not anything extra with his system. With his system, you may improve to remember 20 SIMPLE items instead of ...say 10...
He's well known for scams like this, take some 10% truth things (which most people agree too, and understand immediately) to sell something thats a complete lie - based on that 10% of truth (which you got for free, in the infomercial in the first place).
It's like people who win because they tell HALF-truths, because everyone understands the first part, the second part must also be true? Right? Wrong! Thats how people like him scams millions across the world.
Doesn't sound like there is any CoC here. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many times have you heard something like, "Let your voice be heard. Contact your local Representative, Senator, etc.?"
But such campaigns such as that is using an official channel to voice your complaints. Kevin Trudeau gave out the private email of the judge and was telling people to spam it. Do you see the difference now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless of that, would he have been put in contempt had all of those people mailed a letter? Simply doing so on the basis that it's email is a bit ridiculous.
If he had asked them to mail a letter to the court through an official channel, probably not. In this case he was having people spam the judge through a private email address.
Scam-meister goes to jail? Whoda thunk it? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry, schmucks like Kevin Trudeau need to be in jail for the same reason you put violent offenders in jail.
To protect the public from their predatory behavior.
And make no mistake, that's all Kevin Trudeau is about. You cut off one avenue of exploitation for him, he simply rolls over into another. And another. And another.
Until they physically stop this jackass, he'll continue preying on gullible people via any and every means possible.
Probably because of his background (Score:2)
Trudo is a blowhard fraud AND a spammer. That's probably why the judge got pissed. See:
http://www.skepdic.com/trudeau.html [skepdic.com]
"The New York state Consumer Protection Board warns those who follow Kevin Trudeau's advice to call a toll-free number for information that Trudeau is selling their name and contact information to telemarketers and junk mailers."
and...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau#2010:_Arrest_and_imprisonment_for_criminal_contempt_of_court [wikipedia.org]
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0323064.shtm [ftc.gov]
http:// [ftc.gov]
Why it's contempt (Score:5, Insightful)
All the folks on here saying "wha? But he just asked people to e-mail support, that's not spam!" are entirely missing the point.
You are not allowed to approach the Judge, or ask anyone else to approach the Judge, outside of court and certain other specially-sanctioned venues. It's called ex parte [thefreedictionary.com], and is only appropriate in very specific circumstances, because - duh - that's likely to be unfair. That's the basis for the contempt charge.
Now, if it had been a friend or two that e-mailed the judge, he might have just warned them off with a "that's not appropriate." But when enough people e-mail to fill his Inbox, it's quite clearly an attempt to influence the judge, and that's not OK .
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now, if it had been a friend or two that e-mailed the judge, he might have just warned them off with a "that's not appropriate." But when enough people e-mail to fill his Inbox, it's quite clearly an attempt to influence the judge, and that's not OK .
Well, maybe judges need to be sequestered away from society like juries if they're so easily influenced.
Re:Why it's contempt (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, if it had been a friend or two that e-mailed the judge, he might have just warned them off with a "that's not appropriate." But when enough people e-mail to fill his Inbox, it's quite clearly an attempt to influence the judge, and that's not OK .
Well, maybe judges need to be sequestered away from society like juries if they're so easily influenced.
It's not that a judge is easily influenced, it's that he cannot prove to the other party that he was not influenced.
The judiciary has absolute power now? (Score:2)
There must be limits on the powers of the judiciary. No judge should have the power to jail anyone for contempt except those who are appearing before the court. If you are in the audience, all the judge should be able to do is throw you out of the court room or file a complaint of disturbing the peace with the local police. To suggest that
The judge is in contempt of the Constitution (Score:3, Interesting)
The Constitution specifically protects the right to petition your government. It does not specify any restrictions. It doesn't exempt the judiciary. Don't want to be petitioned? Easily taken care of, resign from government.
Doing this sort of thing might be rude, but it's not illegal. Being part of the government means that you don't have the same standing as a member of the general public with respect to shielding yourself from contact.
And a contempt citation/jail is certainly an abuse of power by this judge. But it is an indication of how members of the judiciary view themselves, as above reproach. They are unelected, they serve for life. This contempt citation should be overturned because the judge has no authority to cite anyone for behavior not done in his courtroom, or in violation of one of his orders.
Frankly, I think the whole concept of contempt of court, as being able to be absolutely applied by one person with absolute authority is something that should be outlawed. No one should be able to be sentenced to jail without due process of being charged, tried by jury, and convicted.
Constituional lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this guy got off easy.
I am a Constitutionalist, and those claiming it was a violation of the Constitution have not read it. Grievances, petitions, etc. are allowed to be given to the GOVERNING body, not the judicial. The judicial branch is tasked with deciding based on the given laws. It is not to be swayed nor influenced by public opinion. The decisions are to be made based on the law and the evidence, period. The US is a Republic based on law. It is not (contrary to common belief) a Democracy based on the whims of the mob. Judges decide if you violated the law. They do not make law. Public petitions to sway decision have no legal place in the courts. Public petitions are for the Legislative branch.
This isolation of the judicial was designed to shield it from politics and the whims of special interests and the public. If the public didn't like a ruling or law, then it was their responsibility to petition the legislature to change the law. That is what the legislature is for. Judges are not there to change the law. Judges can only rule for the plaintiff or the defendant with only one possible third option, declare a law unconstitutional. That's it. The Constitution laid it out that way to preserve justice and keep it safe from the mob.
This idiot was attempting to usurp justice and bully the judge into deciding not based upon law and evidence but by public opinion and intimidation. If he feels the judge's decision was wrong, the law gives him the right to appeal that decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't make me post the form at you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To: Your Honor
From: Istanbul Gregor
Subject: why to make her wishes your rod weren't yors?
So I shouldn't be forwarding these types of things to a judge?
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Would it have been contempt of court if he'd asked his supporters to send written letters to the judges office urging the judge to side with him?
Re:Awesome! (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe. Contempt of court is up to the judge and used for anything that disrupts a trial. People should remember that in the American legal system the judge is king and not to be f'd with. You'll get your trial, but don't pretend for a second you're the one in charge.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How did freezing the judge's Blackberry disrupt the trial? Does he preside over the trial from a remote location by phone? Can he not preside over a trial without email on his phone? Has he no other computer in his chambers?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Questions you should ask the appeals court. Again, there is a process in place. But a judge can order contempt of court and the law officers must obey. There's no way around that. You can cry foul but remember that you're crying foul to the people who make decisions on what is contempt and what is not. All this "yes but he was wrong!" nonsense doesn't change anything. If you think that you're gonna come out unscathed in a battle with the court because you were "right", well you got a lot to learn. They lite
Re:Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, Spamming in general should be a crime!
I hate spam as much as the next guy but why should something that is easily remedied with technology be a concern of government? I'm also not convinced that talking people into sending e-mails to a Judge should qualify as spam in the classical sense. When I think of spam I think of UCE -- unsolicited commercial e-mail.
What's next, will it be called spam if some activist/interest group convinces it's members to flood their Congress-critters in-boxes with messages?
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, if anything it's a DDOS on port 25 or something.
Re: (Score:2)
What's next, will it be called spam if some activist/interest group convinces it's members to flood their Congress-critters in-boxes with messages?
Unlikely as that is using an official means of contacting those people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it was his home email, I can see it being harassment or some such thing, but if it was an official email address, it's nothing more than "contacting the judge through official channels to show support."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, that's where the problem is. The courts aren't supposed to operate based on public opinion or popularity. They are a check and balance on the legislature, which DOES operate based on public opinion and popularity.
You are supposed to have some legal standing in a case before you can file an amicus brief, and that isn't simply emailed to the judge, it goes to the clerk so it can be properly routed to all partic
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I have always been a proponent of an expense based solution, whereby it should cost 10 cents to send an email by making every message a legal account-to-account transaction, with the recipient able to waive the fee upon reading.
An interesting idea, but have you thought it through? What would be the payment mechanism? Would would collect the money, and what would it be used for?
More importantly, how long would it be before it was simply bypassed?
Re: (Score:2)
I have always been a proponent of an expense based solution, whereby it should cost 10 cents to send an email by making every message a legal account-to-account transaction, with the recipient able to waive the fee upon reading.
An interesting idea, but have you thought it through? What would be the payment mechanism? Would would collect the money, and what would it be used for? More importantly, how long would it be before it was simply bypassed?
No, I haven't thought it through. I envision the payment mechanism as the email itself - requiring a fundamental rework of SMTP for example, and essentially an electronic money transfer to the recipient's account (ISP links email address to specified account at user's bank of choice) which must be validated prior to acceptance of the message. I don't know what would be technically involved - I'm not a computer guy, but given that 90% of all email is spam, the overhead to validate and process transactions
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Botnet herders would make a killing by sending spam through hacked email accounts to their own addresses.
Plus there's loads of other boxes on the form that can be ticked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't make me tap the form.
It's not a new or practical idea.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, couldn't help myself.
Your post advocates a
(X) technical (_) legislative (X) market-based (_) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
(_) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find th
Re: (Score:2)
"why should something that is easily remedied with technology be a concern of government?"
Easily remedied with techology? You're kidding right? If spam can be "easily remedied with technology" then why hasn't it been eradicated already?
Re: (Score:2)
If spam can be "easily remedied with technology" then why hasn't it been eradicated already?
Because there still are quite a lot of people out there using less-than-well protected E-Mail services/software?
Re: (Score:2)
balances AND checks.
Only matter if the branches have an interest in checking each other. As they are fully in 'scratch each other's back mode' I don't think the checks matter much.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding of Spam, as it is generally used, is that it is mass email from a single organization (even if it is routed through multiple email accounts by internet bots) that is unsol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This was a case where someone who had an internet following, asked them all to send an email to the judge.
Right, harass the judge... good idea...
Is it spam if a local radio DJ gets all of his/her listeners to send email to the local Congressman about something being discussed in Congress?
No, because as an elected official in a democracy, the congressman is supposed to represent the people of his district. It's part of his job to listen to their opinions. Contrast this with a judge, who is supposed to rule based on the law and is supposed to not give a flying frak what people think about it. There's absolutely positively no valid reason at all whatsoever why you should be writing to a judge about an ongoing court case to voice your opinion. Flooding
Meaningless tautology? (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't that a tautology [wiktionary.org] itself?
Re:I'm going to jail (Score:5, Informative)
Did you miss the part where he was encouraging them to do so? This is no different than being liable for inciting others to do any sort of crime.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was going for first post, what makes you think I read the summary?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The difference is all in the intent. His intent wasn't as innocent as you are attempting to make it seem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm going to jail (Score:5, Informative)
True, but since when is it possible for something that happens outside of court to be considered contempt?
Quite some time now?
So if I am walking down the street and say something to a judge that's walking the other way, he can find me in contempt?
No.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this guy is innocent of everything, but I can't see how he's guilty of contempt...
Because he gave out the private email of the judge and told a bunch of people to flood it with emails in hopes of getting the judge to rule in his favor.
Re:I'm going to jail (Score:4, Insightful)
The brouhaha began in February, when TV pitchman Kevin Trudeau urged his radio and web followers to deluge U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman with e-mail so he would side with him in a civil lawsuit pending before the Chicago judge.
The difference here is that it's an email campaign intended to subvert the judicial process. That seems to fit the confines of contempt: "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"
In other words, it's not directed at the judge personally, it's directed at the judge in his official capacity as arbiter of the case.
Re: (Score:2)
sounds like it was his 'business' address. hence, it was a component of the office. 'guys, keep dialing the courtroom phone numbers so no business calls can get through' would be a similar case of deliberate interference of court business.
Now, 'hey guys, email the judge so he knows what we think' is different from 'hey guys, email the judge repeatedly so that the system goes down'. One is intent to disrupt courtroom activity, the other is an attempt in influence (or intimidate?) the court. I'm thinking the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever you do, never suggest that people write to their senators or congressmen! Certainly the system needs reform when requesting people petition the legal system on your behalf is somehow a crime.
That's kind of analogous, but not quite. The actions of a judge are not (or should not be) subjected to popular opinion. So while the emails were intended in the same way as emailing a member of congress, the intended effect is quite different-- basically attempting to directly influence the judge's decision which is not to be subject to undue influence.
Re:Incited what crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you do it through non-public channels with the intent of disrupting a court preceding? This wasn't him asking a bunch of people to file amicus curiae to the court or asking them to write letters to their senators or congressman through official channels. He gave out the private email address of the judge and told a bunch of people to flood it with spam. If you can't see the difference, then there's not much I can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Incited what crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
no such thing as a "private" driveway when your driveway accepts traffic from public/open roadways.
The defendant would be getting the same punishment if he told hundreds of people to drive around the judge's house 24/7 honking and pulling into his driveway and flashing lights, etc. /caranalogy
Re: (Score:2)
1. How does getting a lot of email 'disrupt a court proceeding'? Specifically, ~300 emails.
2. Define private email. What if the judge's email was a gmail account? What if it was anything but a mail server he, himself, hosted?
3. The actual issue was on his federal computer, so it was his federal government email. Does that change your mind?
4. His email, or at least one with his name on it, is on the Illinois US District Court website.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/ktla-pitchman-sentenced-to-prison,0 [chicagotribune.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't see anything about the address being his private one in TFA.
I did see some bullshit though.
"The court, at that point, was under attack,"
The court was no more under attack than if they'd received a sack of ink and paper letters.
Re:Incited what crime? (Score:5, Funny)
You really don't think that an "annoyingly-high volume email campaign" can be legitimately viewed as harassment?
What's your e-mail address again?
Re: (Score:2)
The brouhaha began in February, when TV pitchman Kevin Trudeau urged his radio and web followers to deluge U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman with e-mail so he would side with him in a civil lawsuit pending before the Chicago judge.
Where I live I am pretty sure this would be criminal harassment. Not to mention blackmail.
I think this guy is lucky he has ONLY been charged with contempt of court. If he really did what is described, I think he could be looking at several years in Federal prison (trying to influence a judge in a Federal trial) and at least a year in State prison (harassment).
Re: (Score:2)
And when was contacting a judge to voice displeasure about their actions *outside the court room* via electronic mail illegal?
When it's done so with the intent to disrupt court activities by spamming a private email address?
Even if the defendant encouraged it, that's the defendants right as protected under the first amendment, something a *federal* judge should be protecting.
Bullshit. Free speech doesn't give you the right to incite people to harass others.
Re: (Score:2)
Would it have been different if he'd asked his supporters to mail letters to the judges office urging the judge to side with him?
Re: (Score:2)
When it's done so with the intent to disrupt court activities by spamming a private email address?
Wait, which is it. Either this was his personal email address in which case I can't see how any amount of spam would disrupt is work activities or its an account provided by his employer in which case it is disingenuous to call it "personal."
Re: (Score:2)
So encouraging people to use their freedom of speech is now a crime?
No, but harassing a judge is. If you've got something to say in an ongoing trial, you need to file an amicus curiae brief with the court, so that what you have to say goes through official channels and is recorded in court. If you were to picket in front of a judge's house, or send tons of snail mail, you would be held in contempt as well.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech means. The content of your speech is protected, not the delivery method. "Free speech" does not give yo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me be clear: getting a bunch of people to send emails to someone is no different than littering their yard with fliers. It is harassment, not free speech. But even if it were, you can not influence an ongoing trial by communicating with a judge outside of the courtroom. In case you missed it the first time, that is what an amicus curiae brief is for. The difference being, an amicus brief is official and public, an email, letter, flier, or conversation outside the court is not. Do you not understand why
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference being, an amicus brief is official and public, an email, letter, flier, or conversation outside the court is not. Do you not understand why one is permitted and the other is not?
If electronic communication with a judge via email is not an official channel and not permitted, perhaps technical measures to enforce said policy should be in place, no? Otherwise, it comes down to "Whhhaaaaa, they're not supposed to do that".
Does it? Because it sure looks like it comes down to "You're going to jail for being a dick, Kevin" to me. That seems to be a pretty decent enforcement mechanism and a far cry from "Whhaaaa, they're not supposed to do that." It seems more like, "Bitch, sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up," to me. Extra jail time. Now THAT is just the bitch-slap this sociopath needs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So encouraging people to use their freedom of speech is now a crime?
The rule is don't mess with a Federal Judge. If you don't believe me, ask a a lawyer, you might even get the answer for free.
Re:I'm going to jail (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to harass others with your speech. Freedom is much more complicated than "You aren't the boss of me and I'll do whatever I want!"
See my sig:
Re:I'm going to jail (Score:5, Insightful)
Because people I've never met annoy the judge?
If you incited them to, then yeah. Courts don't look too kindly on people harassing court officials. This guy deserves a dumbass award.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Testimony without cross-examination (Score:5, Insightful)
Please allow me to elaborate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau [wikipedia.org]
Just because you're a convicted criminal making money by selling snake-oil, doesn't mean everything you do is wrong. That said, he was basically trying to win a court case via popularity contest instead of through the legal process. There was no reason to ask supporters to do this. There was no expected benefit. If he wanted their testimony he should have introduced them as witnesses, which would open them up to be cross-examined.
Instead, he gave one-sided testimony directly to the judge, bypassing discovery rules, with no possibility for the prosecution to cross-examine. I'm surprised this isn't a mistrial.
And regardless of what happened in this case, he should serve his time in a furnace.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In a free society, shouldn't people be allowed to buy snake oil if they choose to.
No, you shouldn't be free to defraud people out of their money. The only reason he is getting people to pay for whatever he is selling is through fraudulent claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If all of the consumers of his product were fully-informed that they were buying snake oil and then still wanted to buy the product, then yes I would agree that they shouldn't be prevented from doing so. But as you state, the consumers of his products are being LIED TO about the efficacy of the products he sells.
Re:Why is the judge going after Trudeau (Score:4, Interesting)
Last time I checked the states who run lotteries publicly publish the odds of winning both on the tickets themselves and through their websites. Now if the state was hiding the odds or attempting to make people think that the odds were better than they actually are, then you'd have a point.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The judge isn't going after Trudeau, your ire needs to be directed to the prosecutor. It is their job to push the case forward. This judge is upset because
he urged his fans and followers to spam a judge.
and this is clearly Contempt of Court.
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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
For using fraudulent claims to peddle products.
Re: (Score:2)
When are people going to be held accountable for their own bad decisions. People are adults
People are held accountable for their own bad decisions as long as they made those decisions without being defrauded by the other party.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oooh boy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe he shouldn't have been an idiot and incited people to do this act? This seems to be a pretty clear cut and easily defended example of contempt.
Re:Oooh boy. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's great, but how does that apply to this case? He was clearly inciting people to do this to be disruptive of the court. That's a pretty clear-cut and easily defended charge of contempt. Your abstract and vague claims have little bearing on the actual matter at hand.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically your claim is despite this being a completely legitimate use of the rule that it should be completely thrown out because a judge could hypothetically use it to punish someone he doesn't like? I'm sorry, but that seems completely asinine.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And if you can't stay on topic, neither can we.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Criminal contempt charges require that the offense occur in the courtroom (in front of the judge, prosecutor, etc), or that they must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (just like any other criminal charge). In this case, the second rule would apply.
That said, generally speaking the last thing you want to do is annoy a judge. Within his/her courtroom, the judge pretty much is the law. If you think the judge is doing something inappropriate, you obey it and use it as grounds for appeal if you lose. The reas
Re: (Score:2)
One is using an official public channel while Kevin Trudeau was having people spam the judge through a private email account.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I think the main difference is that judges are supposed to follow the law as its written and not sway to public sentiment.
If that were true then there would be no place for amicus curiae.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I think the main difference is that judges are supposed to follow the law as its written and not sway to public sentiment
If that were true then there would be no place for amicus curiae.
From the Wiki article on Amicus Curiae:
is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court", that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision whether to admit the information lies with the discretion of the court.
Please note that "to inform the judge of public opinion" is NOT listed in the above quotation.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be like telling all your friends to deliver unsolicited messages to my house. There's no intent to deliver any message, there's only the intent to "paper" my yard.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This was not 'lobbying the judicial branch.' I fact, there is no such thing. The judicial branch does not write the laws, you can not and should not lobby them to change anything. They can't. If you have something to say about an ongoing trial, file an amicus curiae brief. That is the only lawful channel for a third party to influence a trial.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This was not 'lobbying the judicial branch.' I fact, there is no such thing. The judicial branch does not write the laws, you can not and should not lobby them to change anything. They can't. If you have something to say about an ongoing trial, file an amicus curiae brief. That is the only lawful channel for a third party to influence a trial.
Then why does the first amendment not specify that it doesn't apply to the judiciary?
If the people who wrote it meant that they would have said that.
No one in the Federal government is supposed to be above the Constitution. Not even our Imperial Judiciary. Frankly, things in this country (including the legal system) started to go to hell when people started looking to the courts to make law instead of legislators. This greatly increased the power of judges and politicized them. The unelected branch of g
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, your question does not make sense.
The first ammendment applies to everyone. But it does not give you the right to attempt to influence a judge regarding an ongoing trial outside of the proper channel of the amicus curiae brief. If you want input on a trial, you must go to court, not the judge. The reason for this is obvious: nobody should be able to influence a judge off the record.
The first ammendment only protects the contents of speech, not the method. You may not use harassing methods of spee
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The courts cannot write law. They can interpret law, and in particular they can decide that a superior form of law (like the US Constitution) overrides particular laws of another form (like state statutes). To say otherwise is to make the Constitution essentially meaningless, as there's nobody to enforce its primacy.
That being said, the Supreme Court doesn't always do the right thing, and anybody who studies their decisions is likely to have a list of bad ones. Trying to be fairly non-controversial, I