Posted on 05/23/2009 4:36:38 PM PDT by Tax Government
A federal judge has sent a Kansas man to prison for criticizing federal prosecutors, claiming that the man posed a threat of “continued criminal defamation of government counsel and witnesses.”
(Excerpt) Read more at judicialwatch.org ...
We’re next.....
Hmmmmm... he was under investigation, he acted like an idiot, and the Judge threw him into the can.
No harm, no foul.
Umm, isn’t defamation a civil offense, not a criminal offense? Isn’t the burden of proof on the prosecutor and not the defense? And how did they get the emails?
Sounds like corrupt politicians colluding with a corrupt judge to send a person off to jail.
This is so many kinds of wrong.
U.S. Magistrate Judge James O’Hara
I wonder what party he belongs to? Hmmmm...
By disagreeing with the prosecution? We do have adversarial process in the US.
/johnny
Seems like free speech to me. He wasn’t trying to contact jurors; he was blogging.
> Acted like an idiot, exactly how?
If you are free on bond waiting trial it is silly to conduct that trial in the courts of public opinion, rather than in the courts of law — which is where it belongs.
Blogging about how corrupt the police are, and writing emails to all-and-sundry about how unfair it all is, can’t possibly to your trial any good. It could prejudice the jury pool, for example.
So he’s in gaol awaiting trial, where he can do himself no further injury. For the judge, No Harm No Foul — good call, in fact.
Just shut up, sit down, and take it?
/johnny
/johnny
> So, after indictment and arraignment, your 1st Amendment rights are stripped from you, before judgment of the court?
No, but equally you aren’t supposed to engage in activities that undermine the process either. Which is what he was doing
> Just shut up, sit down, and take it?
In all likelihood that would be the best advice his lawyer would probably give him.
> And it’s not gaol, some romantic place with dripping water and rats, it’s a county jail, with pot pies and bologna sammiches on white bread. For speaking publicly.
Sounds like he should be quite comfortable, then, and with no complaints until he comes up for trial. If I were the judge he’d have the gaol with dripping water and rats.
What statute, state, or feral, requires that a person indicted keep his mouth shut if he feels he's being railroaded?
/johnny
Then I pray that you experience the "criminal justice" system for yourself, firsthand, as an innocent.
/johnny
Lawrence is in Northeastern Kansas, not Northwestern.
Judge Since 1999
Clinton
Another name in that mix = (Gary) Sibelius
> So ignoring your lawyer’s advice (mine would give the same) requires that a citizen be locked away from society?
> What statute, state, or feral, requires that a person indicted keep his mouth shut if he feels he’s being railroaded?
Recall that he wasn’t released on recognizance whilst awaiting trial. He was released at-large on bond. We do not know what the terms of that bond were, but they probably had something to do with behavior — they usually do, here.
That being so, it would not require a statute to put him away: if he’d violated the terms of his bond, that would be sufficient to have him remanded in custody to await trial. To give effect to that, all the judge would need do is cancel his bond — then off to gaol with him.
If he was truly being railroaded, the trial is the place for him (thru his lawyer) to point that out.
Just what issues do you have with the First Amendment? In America, we assume that it is our right to speak as we please.
Regarding lawyers, Americans hold them to as honest and believable as used car salesmen.
How many lawyer jokes are there?
An American knows the answer. Do you?
Is this NOT A REPUBLIC? Are we a nation of men instead of laws? Are our leaders not bound by law?
If so, I repudiate what this nation has become.
/johnny
Typo Alert!!
“Regarding lawyers, Americans hold them to as honest and believable as used car salesmen.”
Should be:
Regarding lawyers, Americans hold them to be as honest and believable as used car salesmen.
Is gaol a new word someone invented? Thats one of the reason I like freerepublic, people invent new words, new spellings, etc.
Who’s next to be charged for something like this?
> Then I pray that you experience the “criminal justice” system for yourself, firsthand, as an innocent.
I think you’ve bought into his story hook, line, and sinker — just like the writer intended for you to do. The story has been selective with its truth, and you’ve fallen for it.
He may or may not be innocent of selling stolen goods — his trial will determine that. His subsequent conduct has, at best, been ill-considered and more probably deliberately designed to undermine the system of Justice.
No sympathy from me.
There’s no First Amendment in your world, I guess. I’m glad there’s still one in mine.
Any prosecutorial system that can be “undermined” with critical words isn’t fit for a free society.
Don't speak up. When given the chance, make a man sign away his right to speak out loud.
You, and the witch hunters before you, disgust me.
Man ain't got no freedom that he don't sing out loud. Put him in gaol, or a hole in the ground, de Lord, he hears de singing.
My fervent prayer stands.
/johnny
You seem pre-disposed to punish.
/johnny
> Why is someone that wishes to punish the accused allowed to post on FR?
Because the accused has violated his bond that allowed him to remain at large? That ought to be a pretty good reason. Courts do it all the time, and it is good and right and just that they do.
> Before conviction?
Plenty of people are remanded in custody prior to trial. Particularly if they violate the terms of their bonds. This clearly happened because the judge cancelled his bond.
> Is this NOT A REPUBLIC?
> Are we a nation of men instead of laws? Are our leaders not bound by law?
Settle down and stop being a drama queen. Nobody knows the full story sufficiently for you to be working yourself into a lather.
> If so, I repudiate what this nation has become
You should probably do that for other reasons than this. You are, after all, being led by a man whose eligibility to be POTUS has never been properly established.
/johnny
Neg, sweetheart. I will cry out at injustice, or perceived injustice. Better that 100 guilty go free than one innocent get introduced to the 'system'.
/johnny
Bookmark
> Just what issues do you have with the First Amendment? In America, we assume that it is our right to speak as we please.
I have no issues with the First Amendment. You do have a right to speak as you please, but it isn’t an absolute right, as you know.
In this case the defendant did something that caused the Judge to cancel his bond. As a result he was remanded in custody to await his trial. Judges are allowed to do that, particularly when the terms of the bond have been breached.
We do not know what the terms of the bond were, but we can surmise that his activities did breach the bond. For example, the bond may have stipulated that he not blog or send e-mail concerning his case. Who knows? We don’t because the story doesn’t say.
You sound like some Welfare Mama shouting into the TV camera; if the Judge is out of line, the odds are the appellate courts will correct it.
Unless you have inside information, more than in the Lawyer's press release, you know nothing more than the rest of us.
> I am led by no man. Especially a government man. ;)
You are being led around by the nose by a journalist.
> Neg, sweetheart. I will cry out at injustice, or perceived injustice. Better that 100 guilty go free than one innocent get introduced to the ‘system’.
You will spend an inordinate amount of your time chasing red herrings, then. Because as you know, everybody who is “inside” is innocent. Just ask ‘em.
Be advised, federal judges regularly abuse discretion, because they can.
Most often, it is done for semi-political speech reasons, such as those who write books on how to evade income taxes, or against the relatives of someone who challenges or whistle-blows federal agencies. Legal gun dealers are also a big target.
There is nothing ethical in it whatsoever, and often those judges are “shopped” by federal prosecutors who know they will play ball.
In a case like this, usually the judge will at least give the defendant a warning, and if he persists, an injunction, because that turns it from an objective violation into subjective contempt of court.
Boy, those cops and prosecutors really suck. Just kidding. I actually think, if they are reading this, that they are the best. (at sucking)
You seem to be a supporter of Federal prosecutors in this matter, without knowing all the pertinent, specific facts.
In one post above, you stated or suggested this man was attempting to undermine the system of justice.
That being said, why wouldn't the Federal prosecutors, their investigators and others in the Federal government establish Obamas eligibility prior to an election? Was no federal background investigation conducted to clear this individual for office in the Federal government?
> No sympathy from me, either. Neither judgment that would condemn him to a cell during the trial and the time leading to trial.
Remand in custody isn’t “judgment” and it doesn’t “condemn”. It merely keeps the accused in one place where he can await his trial without offending. Happens all the time when the accused is a flight risk, or when the accused persistently violates the terms of his bond.
> You seem pre-disposed to punish.
Not at all. Innocent until proven guilty, and in criminal law that is to be beyond reasonable doubt.
As the trial hasn’t yet happened in this case, the man is presumed innocent and remanded in custody. Happens all the time.
Free speech be damned ! Just like in Missouri before the election - anyone trash talk about “The One” were threatened with prosecution for something like defamation.
> You seem to be a supporter of Federal prosecutors in this matter, without knowing all the pertinent, specific facts.
Let the pertinent specific facts be known, so the truth can be established. As matters stand right now, eligibility to be POTUS does not appear to have been properly established. If it has, then it is not seen to have been.
Whether that viewpoint synchronizes or not with Federal Prosecutors I cannot say.
> In one post above, you stated or suggested this man was attempting to undermine the system of justice.
Borne out by the fact that his bond was cancelled by the judge. Judges don’t do that lightly.
> That being said, why wouldn’t the Federal prosecutors, their investigators and others in the Federal government establish Obamas eligibility prior to an election?
Why indeed.
> Was no federal background investigation conducted to clear this individual for office in the Federal government?
Maybe, maybe not. If so, let’s see the outputs and put the matter to rest.
British spelling of "jail." Also the Gaelic word for "love." Make of that what you will.
Hmmmmm, nice to know you don’t mind someone being thrown in jail for using their first amendment rights. He had his right to an opinion, even if it ticked off the judicial employees.
He might have acted like an idiot, I certainly would have shut up. But as a person who enjoys what the constitution offers, I still don’t think jail is a good precident to set.
What’s next, talking about the police gets you in jail? Talking about OBAMA gets you in jail?
Boy, if that last one ever hit, you might want to rethink being around Free Republic.
Gaol. Are you from England?
You believe its “rational” to cower before your government?
Why indeed.
Well, that begs the question, if the government prosecutors cannot be trusted with such an obvious, immensely important task, that could literally change the course of history, why would anyone trust the Federal government or it's prosecutors on such minor issues such as this petty criminal prosecution?
No, gaol is the original word for jail in old England. Think dungeon.
Did I miss the part of the article that said when he got out on bond that a condition of that bond is that he was denied his constitutional rights?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.