Posted on 12/15/2002 4:22:30 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
Man charged with contempt for obscene message on check
Writing what was really on his mind could end up buying a Howell man more trouble than he bargained for after he wrote obscene comments on a check used to pay a traffic ticket.
Eric Wilmoth, 26, has been charged with contempt of court by 53rd District Court Judge John Pikkarainen after Wilmoth wrote "Bulls- - - F- - - - - - ticket. Suck on it" on the memo line of a check he mailed to the court to pay a traffic fine.
Wilmoth will appear before Pikkarainen in Howell for a show-cause hearing at 10 a.m. on Monday. His attorney, Ron Plunkett of Brighton, said his client can't be held in contempt of court because it violates his First Amendment rights
"This is America. I think you can say that," Plunkett said. "Now it's a different thing when you do it in front of a judge."
Plunkett says Wilmoth hasn't acted disorderly in front of any judge or even been in the presence of one for this case before he was held in contempt. It's unknown how Pikkarainen discovered the check. His secretary said the judge wouldn't comment because the case is pending.
When checks to pay traffic fines are mailed to the Livingston County Courts, like the one Wilmoth sent, they can go through a number of different hands, including the 53rd District Court Administrator and the county clerk's office, according to Diane Livingston, chief deputy clerk for the 53rd District Court.
Any check drawing attention can be sent to the court administrator or the court's chief judge -- Pikkarainen. Whoever noticed Wilmoth's check probably didn't have a hard time seeing its controversial comments.
"He (Wilmoth) highlighted that with a yellow marker," Plunkett said.
Wilmoth apparently highlighted the comments to drive home the point he didn't think he should have been ticketed. According to Plunkett, Wilmoth accidentally backed into someone while trying to turn onto Grand River Avenue in Howell on Sept. 25.
No one was injured and alcohol was not involved in what Plunkett calls a minor accident. He also points out that Wilmoth has a clean driving record. That didn't stop a City of Howell Police Department officer from writing him a ticket for improper backing.
Wilmoth contested the ticket in October in an informal hearing before Livingston County Magistrate Brian Brown. Plunkett said Wilmoth acted calmly with Brown and the officer even though Brown ruled against him. He wrote the controversial check and mailed it on Oct. 18.
Six days later Pikkarainen signed an order to hold Wilmoth in contempt for "Improper use of language," according to court records. Wilmoth received notice of the charge in the mail a few days later.
Soon after he contacted Plunkett, along with other local attorneys, to see what he could do to defend himself. Plunkett, who is working this case for free, said Wilmoth is scared to death the judge will make an example of him and send him to jail.
"He regrets having written it," Plunkett said. "He'll apologize to the court. But at that time he was upset with the court."
Plunkett is not excusing Wilmoth's actions as acceptable for normal everyday interaction, pointing out he gets angry when his teenage son uses similar language.
However, he contends the First Amendment covers the comments because the check isn't a menacing or sexually suggestive (he point outs that the check doesn't elaborate on what "it" means) and it doesn't pose a threat to the public good, like yelling fire in a movie theater.
"Just because a lawyer might not say it or just because it can make us a little squeamish doesn't take it out of the First Amendment protection," Plunkett said.
Big Brothers and Sisters:
I do not usually write letters to the Powers That Be but they don’t often intrude upon my life. You have angered me and you are therefore being graced with one of my rare letters.
Firstoff: “It’s About Safety” is a lie. It’s about money, my money -- and your (government’s) insatiable appetite for more of it.
Second: Your green unmarked sedan police car is sneaky. Now I expect a cynical smile from you at this comment, my Big Brothers and Sisters. But please note that “sneaky” is not a wholesome law enforcement image.
Here is precisely why this traffic ticket is a sham:
1. Whether or not I wear a seat belt, or a motorcycle helmet, is none of your affair, period, no matter what or how many laws are passed. These are garbage laws intended only to generate revenues and they therefore do not deserve to be obeyed. All of this is intuitively obvious. And I don’t give a damn whether every person in this state but myself voted for the legislators that passed these laws. I am responsible for myself. You are not. End of subject.
2. A minority of my return trip to Seattle was accomplished at speeds of 80 miles per hour, along with the rest of the traffic. The point is not that “everybody does it”, the point is that on straight, level, dry road in a vehicle that has been well-maintained, 80 miles per hour is a safe speed. Now I know that laws must be specific in order to be enforceable, so my point here is weak. But I also know that when stopped for going 80 miles per hour, I was not driving unsafely. Mr. Policeman knew it, too.
Typically my Fuzz Buster saves me from this sort of situation but your sneaky green-car cop paced me. You don’t like my Fuzz Buster? Sue me.
If you have any question about any of the foregoing, write.
Well, the judge may have a point.
The defendant should have written, "This is a B------ F----- ticket! Suck on it [the BF ticket]!"
That would have been a proper use of language.
Other than the fact that the man was not in a court of law, did not commit an illegal act, and apparently has a prior USSC decision that favors his position, this judge is on very solid ground!
Bet there's a state law requiring the check to be deposited FIRST. Or, maybe they did try to deposit and the check got attention drawn to it by the old "insufficient funds" sort of thing.
We expect to see more on this later on.
Bill collectors for public agencies really should not be thin-skinned types!
Mulder....are you trying to steal my patented. copyrighted, super-fantastic renaming convention???? shame on you!!!
LEO==>REO
(Revenue Enhancement Officer)
He went in and paid the fine in person next day :o)
As to this ticket I believe the memo line on your personal check is to remind youself as to what the check was for. If I so desire to scribe it was to pay some "BS Friggin Ticket" then sobeit. It's my reminder, not the courts.
Stay Safe !
Unrelated to that, about ten years ago I showed up in court to contest a ticket. The State's Attorney who was "prosecuting" me was very helpful and understanding that it was a bureaucratic mistake, the judge wanted to make me pay extra court costs because I would not plead "no contest," so he could clear his docket and leave. The prosecutor suggested for me to have a continuance, and I wound up back in court 2 days after giving birth, as the judge would not set another date. The state verified that they had recieved a note from my insurance company, case closed
A few months later, the judge shot himself after he was found to have been recieving porn in his chambers. You never know what kind of nut job you may have to face in your quest for justice.
Best I could find is this one.
Paying the ticket was the same as appearing and pleading guilty.
Had he appeared voiced the same words he wrote on the check; he most certainly would have been held in contempt and probably fined.
And what do you say when the theater is on fire???
I love that part... clerical skills.
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.