Bad Craziness Libertarian Style - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

mplafleur · #31 01-07-2007, 11:36 PM

What really pisses me off is that these judges just ruined a mans life. Stanley was just exercising his right of free speech. Even the Supreme Court in Watt vs USA (1969) says that you have to distinguish real threats from constitutionaly protected free speech. A conditional threat is no threat. In this case, the statement "if they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want in my sights is L.B.J." did not constitute a threat. Why? Because it was conditional on something else happening.

Jim B. · #32 01-08-2007, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

The guy's far enough removed from a true fruitcake to actually run as a candidate for the Libertarian party. From what I read in the local papers, one of the judges he threatened was scared enough to be sleeping with a gun in his bed. (oops--forget where I was posting. May be normal for some people here??)

Sentence seems a little extreme to me. He didn't actually harm anyone. I'd classify him as a pretty run of the mill, standard gun nut. The sentence seems to be more of a statement about challenging the people in power and judges closing ranks rather than a reasonable response to the actual threat he poses.

I worked as a clerk to Superior Court for several Judges for many years, and believe me, if you are perceived as a personal threat to any of them,(Judicial officers) the wrath and fury of the law will be used to the maximum extent on you. Like Police, theirs is a closed world, and very different in many respects, and they can and will act VERY QUICKLY to circle the wagons against threats like that. They have VERY fast access to many resources in Government that other people do not. Plus, the Justice system is in many ways a matter of routes and structures, with which they are very familiar, and can be used to maximum effect. Plus, there is little practical equivalent recourse against them, if you thought there was wrongdoing on their part, other than a legal appeal.

Direct threats to Judges doesn't happen often, but when it does, such as the individual who happened to inadvertantly select a Judge's house to burglarize in San Francisco, there is a different and VERY stiff penalty meted out.

It is like threatening the very pillars of society. This guy is being made to pay for a very bad mistake, which was taking on a Judge. It may seem WAY out of proportion but I personally understand the dynamics here and am not a *bit* surprised.

mplafleur · #33 01-08-2007, 07:08 AM

And what was the threat actually? It wasn't even a direct threat.

Some fictional militia was supposed to issue a warrant. SO WHAT! That's not even a physical threat if carried out. I could issue a warrant as well. Big woop.

Jim B. · #34 01-08-2007, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mplafleur

And what was the threat actually? It wasn't even a direct threat.

Some fictional militia was supposed to issue a warrant. SO WHAT! That's not even a physical threat if carried out. I could issue a warrant as well. Big woop.

Believe me - with a Judge, all it takes is a nasty-ass LOOK across the Courtroom.

That *alone* will more than suffice to get you a hefty fine, or thrown into jail, right NOW, it's called contempt of court, and it's whatever the Judge thinks it is.

It's a different REALITY when you are dealing with a Judge and their world. (Police, prosecutors too by the way).

I'm not saying you have to LIKE it, (Or if I do either!) I am simply telling you that is how it IS

Like I said, I worked in this environment for 20 years, you'll just have to take my word on it. Probably I could tell you stuff I've seen you wouldn't even believe, but it's true (have you heard of the "screen test" for example?)

Jim B. · #35 01-08-2007, 08:44 AM

All right, here's one I remember well. (This judge had a new '84 500SEC AMG back then, which got me interested in them)

And he was standing outside the Judge's chambers and he said "Well, there was a PRELIMINARY HEARING, right? And that means he was PROBABLY GUILTY, right? And where there's SMOKE there's FIRE, right?"

Then the Judge, Prosecutor, Public Defender, and I howled with laughter.

Dee8go · #36 01-08-2007, 03:58 PM

Thanks a lot, Jim. Now you destroyed my faith in the impartiality of our judicial system. I thought it worked perfectly. . . . well, now I'm just not sure anymore. . . .

mgburg · #37 01-08-2007, 09:55 PM

A few years back, I was being sued by a hospital for some unpaid Workmans' Compensation (WC) bills that were for my wife.

Trouble was: When the original "case" was being settled, "ALL PARTIES" were asked to collect and submit "ALL BILLS AND CHARGES" for FINAL assessement and whatever "legal-sleeze" they use in those documents.

Another few months went by, the presiding "official" for the State WC Board finally issued the "final decree" and all checks and monies were paid out. My wife and her attorney (he was only allowed a 20% fee on the WC claim) signed an agreement that said the creditors couldn't come after us and we could not submit any more claims on this particular action. Guess what?

The hospital "found" a bill that they had "forgotten" in the amount of over $1,500.00. We headed for court.

Judge M listened to the hospital's collection-agency attorney go through the litany of charges and why I should pay.

Then Judge M asked me why I shouldn't be responsible. I was shaking so bad, my mouth went cotton and I just handed him all the paperwork (copious copies were made available for everyone.) of the signed-off agreements that had been done months before. I made a statement to the fact that, "If the hospital is allowed to bring up bills long after the fact that they were ordered to produce said bills in order to clear this action, then by all rights, my wife should be allowed to then bring further action on the same WC claim if she should experience any problems in the area of the original injury and have that action paid for from the original WC claim."

Judge M looked up, I took a deep breath, and he then dismissed the claim against me (Even though my wife was the WC party, I'm the one that ends up paying all the bills.).

End of story? Nope.

Same hospital and collection agency, bigger bill (something over $2,100.00). Different attorney. New Judge. Judge P.

I brought all the original documentation (and copies), let the attorney tell Judge P that I suck and that I'm a deadbeat, blah, blah, blah, puke...

Judge P asked me, "What's your story?" (I sensed a "black cloud" forming in the court room.)

I explained the WC case, the previous action that was dismissed by his learned peer down the hall (I started sensing some animosity between Judges M & P...) and before I could get out the signed papers that closed out the WC case, Judge P said, "You owe the money, judgement for the plaintif."

Gavel went down, I sucked wind and that was it. Judge P was up and off the bench and out the door before I could fully comprehend that the case was done and that I was "pooched."

I left the courtroom, headed over to the office of my wife's WC attorney, got right in and showed him the paperwork from the two cases. He spent one hour w/me going over the details and said he'd "handle it."

I never received a bill from my wife's attorney for his time that day. But, I never received a notice to pay the "judgement" on that second trial and to this day, the hospital hasn't tried sending another bill our way.

Lesson: I like Judge M WAY BETTER than Judge P.

Revenge? (Not really!) About a few months later (the start of the football season up here...), I received a letter from Judge P's office (official letterhead/envelope and all), requesting a "waiver" from my station, so he would be allowed to buy "distant" network signals for his satellite dish. Guess what? I handle those requests exclusively. I contacted him, got directions and permission (written) to go onto his property and perform signal strength measurements. For the purpose of getting a waiver, there was enough signal that he failed and I had to deny him his waiver request.

The best part? I went to his home, he invited me in, I sat down with him and explained everything in great detail. He was very understanding and he ended up thanking me for taking the time to perform the tests and explain it to him. Now, why didn't he act like that on the bench a few months before? Go figure. Must have been the last, dried-out doughnut in the Judges' Lounge that day or something.

The better than best part? Now, if I had to go before him anymore, I would be able to get the case moved to a different courtroom/judge because we had done "business" together and I wouldn't want to have any actions, on his part, appear to be inappropriate.

Final note: Judge P decided to retire just before this past December. So now, all his work is being handled by the other 4 Circuit Court Judges in the area.

Some people just get all the breaks - others have to work their butts off and get nothing in return. But, with a judge in the mix, you learn real fast, that a mouth can cook your goose faster than any hot water you may have on the stove. Judge P may have been a jerk, but somehow, I managed to get "around" whatever sense of logic he was working with. It took the "little people" to straighten out his screw-ups.

I'm just glad I kept my mouth shut, and remained civil, when it really mattered!

Botnst · #38 01-08-2007, 10:40 PM

Judges are the last remaining vestige of aristocracy in a democratically derived republic.

B