4 ms·

He probably should have got a lawyer when he was ordered to produce confidential materials. Instead, he tried to handle it himself. The moment he was faced wi

He probably should have got a lawyer when he was ordered to produce confidential materials. Instead, he tried to handle it himself. The moment he was faced with a contempt charge for not complying was the moment his personal liberty was at stake. That is the moment to get a lawyer and not try to represent yourself. Now he is in a world of hurt.

devmunchies 6y ago
its lawyers all the way down.
- m463 6y ago
  Well when you look at occupations of many politicians, it's lawyers all the way up too.
fennecfoxen 6y ago
I feel courts ought not to have their own power to punish people for contempt — certainly not in the US, anyway, where we go to great lengths to avoid giving power to tyrants. It's an unfortunate oversight in our Constitution. Consider, for instance, the unrelated case of Judge William H Coward, who ordered a man in contempt to write an apology to the court, post it on social media, and delete negative comments — running roughshod over what ought to have been his First Amendment rights: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article249893653.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/a...
- jldugger 6y ago
  > I feel courts ought not to have the own power to punish people for contempt How do you handle people not complying with a court order like handing over evidence, paying fines, etc.?
  - retrac 6y ago
    The common law offence of contempt in the US, Canada, UK, etc. is an old power, vague in scope, and without much in the way of the normal process. The objection is usually not to the concept of punishing itself, but to the judge being effectively witness, prosecutor, judge and jury combined. So create a statute that outlines such offences. Charge people if they break it. Put it through the normal trial process. At a very minimum, the judge alleging contempt should not be the judge to try the matter. It might be appropriate to leave a curtailed power of contempt, so that judges can act quickly when they hear someone has bought a paper shredder. But I really don't think it's appropriate that a single judge can decide to have someone imprisoned potentially indefinitely without a proper trial governed by the normal procedures.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      I don't think contempt charges are without oversight. They can be appealed. But they are enforced immediately because otherwise the court system would be very inefficient.
      - retrac 6y ago
        Yes, it's already partially codified in many places, and the courts use their internal procedures even where not. Still, in the USA for example, the Supreme Court has ruled that contempt is a privilege of the courts. It is not subject to such things as the right to trial by jury. A person can, in actual practice, end up in prison for decades without ever having been charged with a crime or having gone before a jury: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/12contempt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/12contempt.html I'm more familiar with it here in Canada, though it's my understanding the basic concept is the same in many US states still. It is the last vestige of true common law. Which is really quite an unusual situation. Authority is derived directly from the head of state through the judicial branch. While laws that the legislature has passed, like the constitution, do restrict the courts, they pretty much otherwise make it up as they go. In the sense of how the old common law system always worked. When the logging companies vs. environmental activist issue in British Columbia was very hot a couple decades ago, a whole stream of injunctions got issued and some case law had to be spun up real quick on people willfully and publicly defying injunctions. It was odd to read judges debating whether they should criminally sentence people for contempt in accordance to the Criminal Code's general sentencing provisions or not. After all, they don't have to, as statute doesn't require them to. In one case on appeal, the BC Supreme Court decided it would be very prudent to adopt that as the standard used, and so that's now precedent at least.
- cryptica 6y ago
  It sounds like a legal concept out of the middle ages... Like witchcraft. Given the state of things these days, it ought to be illegal not to show contempt for the legal system.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TomSwirly 6y ago
You say this with such glee, when in fact what's happening is that an innocent man is being punished for lawfully using the court system as it's supposed to be used.

devmunchies 6y ago

its lawyers all the way down.

m463 6y ago
Well when you look at occupations of many politicians, it's lawyers all the way up too.

fennecfoxen 6y ago

I feel courts ought not to have their own power to punish people for contempt — certainly not in the US, anyway, where we go to great lengths to avoid giving power to tyrants. It's an unfortunate oversight in our Constitution. Consider, for instance, the unrelated case of Judge William H Coward, who ordered a man in contempt to write an apology to the court, post it on social media, and delete negative comments — running roughshod over what ought to have been his First Amendment rights: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article249893653.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/a...

jldugger 6y ago
> I feel courts ought not to have the own power to punish people for contempt How do you handle people not complying with a court order like handing over evidence, paying fines, etc.?
- retrac 6y ago
  The common law offence of contempt in the US, Canada, UK, etc. is an old power, vague in scope, and without much in the way of the normal process. The objection is usually not to the concept of punishing itself, but to the judge being effectively witness, prosecutor, judge and jury combined. So create a statute that outlines such offences. Charge people if they break it. Put it through the normal trial process. At a very minimum, the judge alleging contempt should not be the judge to try the matter. It might be appropriate to leave a curtailed power of contempt, so that judges can act quickly when they hear someone has bought a paper shredder. But I really don't think it's appropriate that a single judge can decide to have someone imprisoned potentially indefinitely without a proper trial governed by the normal procedures.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    I don't think contempt charges are without oversight. They can be appealed. But they are enforced immediately because otherwise the court system would be very inefficient.
    - retrac 6y ago
      Yes, it's already partially codified in many places, and the courts use their internal procedures even where not. Still, in the USA for example, the Supreme Court has ruled that contempt is a privilege of the courts. It is not subject to such things as the right to trial by jury. A person can, in actual practice, end up in prison for decades without ever having been charged with a crime or having gone before a jury: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/12contempt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/12contempt.html I'm more familiar with it here in Canada, though it's my understanding the basic concept is the same in many US states still. It is the last vestige of true common law. Which is really quite an unusual situation. Authority is derived directly from the head of state through the judicial branch. While laws that the legislature has passed, like the constitution, do restrict the courts, they pretty much otherwise make it up as they go. In the sense of how the old common law system always worked. When the logging companies vs. environmental activist issue in British Columbia was very hot a couple decades ago, a whole stream of injunctions got issued and some case law had to be spun up real quick on people willfully and publicly defying injunctions. It was odd to read judges debating whether they should criminally sentence people for contempt in accordance to the Criminal Code's general sentencing provisions or not. After all, they don't have to, as statute doesn't require them to. In one case on appeal, the BC Supreme Court decided it would be very prudent to adopt that as the standard used, and so that's now precedent at least.
cryptica 6y ago
It sounds like a legal concept out of the middle ages... Like witchcraft. Given the state of things these days, it ought to be illegal not to show contempt for the legal system.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

TomSwirly 6y ago

You say this with such glee, when in fact what's happening is that an innocent man is being punished for lawfully using the court system as it's supposed to be used.