4 ms·

It's interesting to me that the judge lets so much raw contempt show. I am more accustomed to judges presenting a dispassionate attitude; I always figured that

It's interesting to me that the judge lets so much raw contempt show. I am more accustomed to judges presenting a dispassionate attitude; I always figured that this was an important part of their role of making impartial rulings in an adversarial system. Would showing this much unmasked disgust towards one party leave a ruling more vulnerable to accusations of bias on appeal (presuming this can even be appealed)?

r00fus 14y ago
Perhaps he shows such contempt because he feels Prenda law is besmirching their profession, and the basis of law in general?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
cstross 14y ago
I suspect the turning point was the Prenda Law people turning up in court and taking the fifth. By refusing to testify on the basis of the right to avoid self-incrimination, they effectively admitted on the court record that they'd committed a crime. At which point, the judge can see the smoke, and though he may not be allowed to investigate the ignition source he can certainly point the DOJ in the general direction of the fire.
- SEMW 14y ago
  > By refusing to testify on the basis of the right to avoid self-incrimination, they effectively admitted on the court record that they'd committed a crime I'm not a US lawyer, or even from the US. But surely, if courts can draw adverse inferences from someone 'taking the fifth', that makes it a pretty pointless right, no? It's not much of a right to avoid self-incrimination if exercising it incriminates yourself. Can someone from the US clarify whether that's really how it's interpreted?
  - kolodny 14y ago
    I think this video explains the how and why of the fifth amendment (it's also something every American should watch): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc Video description: [A] law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. Although lawers mid-trial taking the fifth may be different.
    - silentmars 14y ago
      That's a little different. The message of that video: never talk to the police. The two cases being, 1. you are not under arrest, or 2. you are under arrest. If you are not under arrest you should just walk away or refuse any kind of engagement (except in a traffic stop which is a special case), and if you are under arrest then you have two explicit rights which you should always use - refuse to talk, and demand a lawyer be present. The situation is quite different in a trial. If you are summoned to appear in court, you must appear. If you are asked any questions, you must answer them (or assert fifth amendment rights explicitly in a refusal to answer, like the Prenda clowns did).
      - kolodny 14y ago
        Part of that video stressed the point that the fifth amendment's purpose is to protect the individual. Going "after" someone because they invoked that right is equivalent to opening an investigation because someone said something unpopular or controversial (first amendment). While by itself the fifth is a right of a person, taken into account the other legal maneuvers and stonewalling which the Prenda did, does imply foul play (putting it mildly).
  - jweese 14y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but I am from the US. The Judge's order includes the following footnote: "Even if their refusal was based on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the Court still may draw adverse inferences against them in this civil proceeding. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976)" The way I read it (again, not a lawyer) is that you can't convict someone based on their refusal to testify, but this isn't a criminal proceeding. In civil matters the rules are different.
justinlink 14y ago
They already argued he was biased, and lost. Source: http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.41.0.pdf http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.54... As for appeal, he set the monetary awards at a figure just below the cost of a successfully appeal. So they may appeal, but they will not reap any benefits. They can't appeal the fact that he's going to report them to the IRS CID and the feds.

r00fus 14y ago

Perhaps he shows such contempt because he feels Prenda law is besmirching their profession, and the basis of law in general?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

cstross 14y ago

I suspect the turning point was the Prenda Law people turning up in court and taking the fifth. By refusing to testify on the basis of the right to avoid self-incrimination, they effectively admitted on the court record that they'd committed a crime. At which point, the judge can see the smoke, and though he may not be allowed to investigate the ignition source he can certainly point the DOJ in the general direction of the fire.

SEMW 14y ago
> By refusing to testify on the basis of the right to avoid self-incrimination, they effectively admitted on the court record that they'd committed a crime I'm not a US lawyer, or even from the US. But surely, if courts can draw adverse inferences from someone 'taking the fifth', that makes it a pretty pointless right, no? It's not much of a right to avoid self-incrimination if exercising it incriminates yourself. Can someone from the US clarify whether that's really how it's interpreted?
- kolodny 14y ago
  I think this video explains the how and why of the fifth amendment (it's also something every American should watch): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc Video description: [A] law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police. Although lawers mid-trial taking the fifth may be different.
  - silentmars 14y ago
    That's a little different. The message of that video: never talk to the police. The two cases being, 1. you are not under arrest, or 2. you are under arrest. If you are not under arrest you should just walk away or refuse any kind of engagement (except in a traffic stop which is a special case), and if you are under arrest then you have two explicit rights which you should always use - refuse to talk, and demand a lawyer be present. The situation is quite different in a trial. If you are summoned to appear in court, you must appear. If you are asked any questions, you must answer them (or assert fifth amendment rights explicitly in a refusal to answer, like the Prenda clowns did).
    - kolodny 14y ago
      Part of that video stressed the point that the fifth amendment's purpose is to protect the individual. Going "after" someone because they invoked that right is equivalent to opening an investigation because someone said something unpopular or controversial (first amendment). While by itself the fifth is a right of a person, taken into account the other legal maneuvers and stonewalling which the Prenda did, does imply foul play (putting it mildly).
- jweese 14y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I am from the US. The Judge's order includes the following footnote: "Even if their refusal was based on the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the Court still may draw adverse inferences against them in this civil proceeding. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976)" The way I read it (again, not a lawyer) is that you can't convict someone based on their refusal to testify, but this isn't a criminal proceeding. In civil matters the rules are different.

justinlink 14y ago

They already argued he was biased, and lost. Source: http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.41.0.pdf http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.54... As for appeal, he set the monetary awards at a figure just below the cost of a successfully appeal. So they may appeal, but they will not reap any benefits. They can't appeal the fact that he's going to report them to the IRS CID and the feds.