Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 3:01am

  
  

  Not sure how it qualifies as "spam" under the "Can SPAM" Law to have secondary opinions sent to someone who will read them.
  
  This Judge should see the stuff I get delivered every day in my Spam box that I ignore.
  
  Maybe it's a problem with him ignoring certain things. Who knows. Maybe he needs a hug from his son who told him to go fuck a goat. It's anyone's guess at this point.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 3:04am

  
  

  Not the best move, but maybe his trying to test/try something out, after all, judges are supposed to unbiased and impartial. Just a thought...

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  OtherKevin, 26 May 2010 @ 3:52am

  
  

  Re:

  Agreed. But now that the judge has ruled him to be in contempt and was overturned (presumably on free speech grounds) he will have an easier time making an appeal based on judicial bias.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 3:08am

  
  

  I still think he wants a hug.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Chris in Utah (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 4:13am

  
  

  In the words of George Carlin..
  
  "Just keep kicking them in the nutz"
  
  Sometimes it does take something like this to wake people up. Otherwise is passed over. Words of wisdom folks, never take it lying down.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  trench0r (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 4:24am

  
  

  hmm

  don't you mean "lobby" a judge?

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Rob, 26 May 2010 @ 6:27am

  
  

  Re: hmm

  If the judge is elected, then a bribe^H^H^H^H^H contribution is perfectly okee-dokey. If not, you gotta incorporate first.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Krusty, 26 May 2010 @ 6:21am

  
  

  But still...

  trudeau should got to jail just because he's such a big PITA.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  WammerJammer (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 8:05am

  
  

  Funny

  Idiots abound!

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 8:31am

  
  

  I think it was overturned merely on procedural grounds in that the appeals court did not believe that the emails were actually interfering with the court in session. It could still be referred to the attorney general as a separate case.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 8:36am

  
  

  Mike, Esq. - You might want to rethink that headline. If you actually read the opinion, you'll see that the court doesn't reach any conclusions about whether Trudeau's conduct could constitute contempt (i.e. be illegal). The couirt just says that it wrong of the lower court judge to impose criminal contempt sanctions through summary disposition (i.e. without a prosecution, where there would be additional fact-finding, the defendant could present evidence, etc.)
  
  So you're right that it may not be a very good idea, but it also may be illegal.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2010 @ 2:52pm

  
  

  IANAL, but my understanding is that you do not have to do something illegal to be held in contempt of court, you only have to do something that the judge feels is disrespectful to lawful authority or else otherwise inappropriate for the courtroom and has given explicit warning about. One cannot be reasonably held in contempt of court for something that has already happened, only something that one is presently doing after already being explicitly warned that they will be held in contempt of court for doing so and have been given an opportunity to either discontinue or not repeat (so for example, the judge cannot immediately hold one in contempt of court for wearing a spiderman costume into the courtroom, for instance, but the judge can order that the person leave, change, and come back. Failing to comply could reasonably result in lawful contempt charges).

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  okwhen (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 6:03am

  
  

  Not Illegal To Ask Your Fans To Spam A Judge... Though, Still Not Particularly Smart

  The bias in this story is with the author Mr. Masnick. People have letter sent to judges on their behalf all the time and this is consider a common practice. Therefore how is this conceived as something taboo? Mr. Masnick research requires additional work and if he considers himself covering a story, only present the facts and save your ass hole and opinions for someone who cares. The judge’s bias is evident by having his decision overturned and the author Mr. Masnick opinion not fact falls by the way side as well. This is a great article if not for the non founded spin of the author.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Contemplationist, 27 May 2010 @ 11:33am

  
  

  Trudeau! hah

  I detest the FTC and its unlawful methods. However, if there's no one more deserving of all of its opprobrium than that slick fraud Kevin Trudeau. May he end up in jail

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Overtkill (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 11:51am

  
  

  Judges....

  Judges need love too. :)

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Boraxo (profile), 1 Jun 2010 @ 1:30pm

  
  

  Just put...

  ..."amicus brief" in the subject line.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  In Defense of Liberty, 13 Jun 2010 @ 10:40pm

  
  

  Just another example of a judge's ego taking predecent over justice. Its simply amazing that the courts find no problem with people trashing the flag or the country but are so easily offended themselves. If it wasnt so pathetic it would be funny. I hope this judge is voted out next time he is up for election or is brought up on charges himself. It is shameful that such people preside over our courts.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment