[Politech] Email saying "Judge, you f--ked up" lands Ohio man in hot water [fs]

From: Declan McCullagh (declan@private)
Date: Thu Apr 01 2004 - 12:02:14 PST

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "[Politech] Heather MacDonald lashes out at "privacy fanatics" opposed to TIA, CAPPS II [priv]"

    If anyone wishes to express their opinion about Americans' right to free 
    speech to U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley 
    (algenon_marbley@private), please let me know what happens as 
    a result. Of course you should not violate the law in the jurisdiction 
    in which you reside.
    
    It looks like this might be the web site of the fellow who sent the 
    illegal email message to Judge Marbley:
    http://www.columbusconsumer.com/Ricart%20Legal%20History.htm
    
    -Declan
    
    -------- Original Message --------
    Subject: email stating, "Judge, you fucked up" lands consumer in hot	water
    Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 14:33:33 -0500
    From: Paul Levy <plevy@private>
    To: <declan@private>
    
    
    
    Paul Alan Levy
    Public Citizen Litigation Group
    1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20009
    (202) 588-1000
    http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html
    
    >>> Mark Niquette <mniquette@private> 04/01/04 12:38PM >>>
    E-MAIL TO JUDGE
    EXPLETIVE LANDS CRITIC OF RULING IN COURT
    
    By Kevin Mayhood and Mark Niquette
    THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
    
    
    
    A Westerville man was ordered into federal court yesterday for
    e-mailing
    the f-word to a judge.
    It is disputed whether U.S. District Judge Algenon L. Marbley was
    within
    his rights to send a U.S. marshal to Robert Dalton's home with a
    written
    order demanding that he appear in court and whether Dalton could have
    been
    punished for his word.
    
    Civil libertarians say Dalton is covered by the right to free speech,
    but a
    federal judge said foul language -- in or out of court -- can be
    grounds
    for a contempt charge.
    
    Dalton, 41, sent a full-page e-mail on March 17 lambasting Marbley's
    handling of a class-action suit, but Marbley was concerned only with
    some
    of the first words: "You ------ up!''
    
    In court, Marbley said Dalton's other criticism was fine.
    
    "As an articulate man, you could have found another way to express
    yourself,'' Marbley told Dalton in court yesterday.
    
    Dalton then said he'd like to take back the curse word. "In retrospect,
    I
    could have used other creative words to express the strong sentiment I
    have.''
    
    That ended the matter. Marbley did not pursue a criminal contempt
    charge
    that carries up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine.
    
    Benson Wolman, former head of the ACLU in Ohio, praised Marbley as a
    top
    judge, but said he was wrong in this case.
    
    "To criticize, even in unacceptable language, I think cannot be
    punished
    under the First Amendment,'' Wolman said. Ordering a critic into court
    to
    explain his actions under the threat of punishment "can have a chilling
    
    effect on free speech.''
    
    U.S. District Court Judge Edmund A. Sargus discussed the case
    afterward.
    Dalton's use of the word in a message to a judge, the day after Dalton
    
    spoke in court about the class-action lawsuit, was analogous to Dalton
    
    swearing at someone in court, which many judges would call contempt, he
    said.
    
    Anyone who participates in a court proceeding is subject to the rules
    of
    contempt, whether in or out of court.
    
    Paul Levy, an attorney with Public Citizen, said the wording was
    "obviously
    bad judgment on Dalton's part.''
    
    "But judges shouldn't be making people pay for expressing themselves,
    even
    if it's in an offensive manner.''
    
    Dalton was criticizing the $21.8 million settlement of a class-action
    lawsuit involving nearly 123,000 customers of Ricart Properties and its
    
    used-car affiliate, Pay Days. Marbley approved the deal last month.
    
    Dalton was not a party to the lawsuit but is a longtime Ricart critic
    who
    runs a Web site that takes the auto dealer to task. In the e-mail, he
    said
    the settlement didn't pay victims enough and that many weren't even
    aware
    of it.
    
    "You were responsible for ensuring the fairness of the settlement,''
    Dalton
    told the judge. "I am unsure as to whether it was a lack of competence
    or
    your ego or a combination of both that resulted in thousands of
    citizens
    getting screwed.''
    
    Dalton's attorney, Eric E. Willison, had filed a brief arguing the
    e-mail
    was not contempt but Dalton venting his frustration. Dalton agreed to
    drop
    the matter because he thinks his overall message wasn't rejected and
    that
    it was better to not fight the case, Willison said.
    
    kmayhood@private
    
    mniquette@private
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    Politech mailing list
    Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 12:34:11 PST