Slashdot Mirror


Spamming a Judge Is Contempt of Court

eldavojohn writes "TV pitchman Kevin Trudeau was sentenced to 30 days in jail because he urged his fans and followers to spam a judge. Apparently the judge (who was deluged with emails) decided that this was an act of contempt of court on the court's 'virtual presence' since nothing happened while the court was in session in regards to Trudeau's courtroom behavior. US Marshals are now trudging through those emails to decide if any are threatening."

5 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I'm going to jail by HarrySquatter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did you miss the part where he was encouraging them to do so? This is no different than being liable for inciting others to do any sort of crime.

  2. TV pitchman? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unfortunately, Kevin Trudeau has another title which no one mentions when he goes on the air: Convicted felon. In fact he was barred by the FTC in 2004 of promoting products on TV ever again. That's why he's now an "author" because he can't sell products. His books however had raised warnings from multiple consumer protection agencies. Most noting that his book Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About contains no actual cures.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  3. Re:I'm going to jail by HarrySquatter · · Score: 4, Informative

    True, but since when is it possible for something that happens outside of court to be considered contempt?

    Quite some time now?

    So if I am walking down the street and say something to a judge that's walking the other way, he can find me in contempt?

    No.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this guy is innocent of everything, but I can't see how he's guilty of contempt...

    Because he gave out the private email of the judge and told a bunch of people to flood it with emails in hopes of getting the judge to rule in his favor.

  4. Ex-parte Communication by pavon · · Score: 5, Informative

    My understanding of contempt of court, which wikipedia confirms is that the following have to be shown
    * Existence of a lawful order
    * The contemnor's knowledge of the order
    * The contemnor's ability to comply
    * The contemnor's failure to comply

    The lawful order can be a specific order by the judge, or an existing rule or law concerning the operation of the court. There is such a rule in place - except in limited circumstances, discussing the case with the judge outside of the official proceedings of the court is not allowed. This is to prevent biasing the judge, putting forth arguments to which the other side cannot respond, and limiting opportunities for bribery or blackmail. The judge can be punished if he allows any of this sort of communication to occur, and repeated attempts to contact the judge outside of court have resulted in contempt of court rulings in the past. Furthermore, inciting someone to break the rules of the court can absolutely land you contempt charges yourself.

    The second criteria is where I think there may be problems. Lawyers are assumed to know the rules of court and can be issued contempt charges without warning. However, it is not generally assumed that the defendant does, and it is customary to warn them and only charge them with contempt if they continue. If the judge can't prove that that Trudeau was aware that this action was breaking a rule of the court, then it may likely be overturned in appeal (which is being heard right now).

  5. Re:Awesome! by e2d2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Maybe. Contempt of court is up to the judge and used for anything that disrupts a trial. People should remember that in the American legal system the judge is king and not to be f'd with. You'll get your trial, but don't pretend for a second you're the one in charge.