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."
Apparently everyone is afraid that spamming Slashdot would be a Contempt of CowboyNeal.
First, this is a great thing, spammers should be punished, and whatever you think of our Legal system, it it was it is. Second, Spamming in general should be a crime!
There Can Be Only One...
Because people I've never met annoy the judge?
Harassment sounds more like it.
Lots of times "spam" represents an attack, DDS, harassment, unsolicited advertising etc. These are a problem, and people rightly want this controlled.
But if I ask all my friends to send emails, and thousands of individuals all reply, I would think that is more like speech, a la "free speech". Nothing in TFA says the emails were threatening or trying to harm the judge.
In a free society, shouldn't people be allowed to buy snake oil if they choose to.
No, you shouldn't be free to defraud people out of their money. The only reason he is getting people to pay for whatever he is selling is through fraudulent claims.
Maybe he shouldn't have been an idiot and incited people to do this act? This seems to be a pretty clear cut and easily defended example of contempt.
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.
The judge isn't going after Trudeau, your ire needs to be directed to the prosecutor. It is their job to push the case forward. This judge is upset because
he urged his fans and followers to spam a judge.
and this is clearly Contempt of Court.
Contempt of court is a court order which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority. Often referred to simply as "contempt", such as a person "held in contempt", it is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts which disrupt the court's normal process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court
they aren't choosing to buy snake oil. they're choosing to buy a product they think will benefit them, which in fact will in no way benefit them in the means advertised by the manufacturer of that product. a lot of scammy stuff is legal (publisher's clearinghouse) but this guy seems to go way over the line with the deception including overpriced books that are at best full of untruths and at worst medically dangerous.
I remember that guy, from TV-Shop, many years ago. When I was young and impressionable (read: stupid).
I bought a set of 8 tapes, called Mega-Memory. Kevin gave a few smart "initial pointers" on how you could memorise things really quickly by using the "peg system", associating an item or a "doing" with something (an item) etc, or a situation. And he used catchy sentences like this:
"Everyone remembers faces, right, but names? Oh - I remember his name, but what's his face like? (Everyone in the audience laughs and agrees)" And goes on by telling us we can remember anything by using his mega-mind system. Which is utterly bullshit, because once you get to advanced formulas, actual stories etc. you won't remember squat anyway, not anything extra with his system. With his system, you may improve to remember 20 SIMPLE items instead of ...say 10...
He's well known for scams like this, take some 10% truth things (which most people agree too, and understand immediately) to sell something thats a complete lie - based on that 10% of truth (which you got for free, in the infomercial in the first place).
It's like people who win because they tell HALF-truths, because everyone understands the first part, the second part must also be true? Right? Wrong! Thats how people like him scams millions across the world.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
The difference is that this was not a publicly available email adress. Trudeau gave out the judges email to his followers and encouraged them to contact the judge. The judge does have a publicly listed phone number available for those that wish to contact him.
That's great, but how does that apply to this case? He was clearly inciting people to do this to be disruptive of the court. That's a pretty clear-cut and easily defended charge of contempt. Your abstract and vague claims have little bearing on the actual matter at hand.
But if I ask all my friends to send emails, and thousands of individuals all reply, I would think that is more like speech, a la "free speech". Nothing in TFA says the emails were threatening or trying to harm the judge
Free speech guarantees you the opportunity to say what you wish, but it does not let you force the audience to listen. The content of what you say is protected, but the manner in which you say it is not. If you are choosing your delivery method in a manner specifically to harass others, you are not eligible for free speech protections.
Your rights only go so far as they do not impinge on the rights of others...you cannot force people to listen to you.
What if you were on trial and asked your friends to fill the presiding judge's mailbox or worse, congregate and protest in front of his house. The message isn't being restricted, just this very targeted delivery.
It's not free speech in a public forum, and the public doesn't have a right to address the court, at least not without going through certain channels. They need to be able to file an amicus brief under the rules of the jurisdiction if they want to speak to the judge on the issue the court is deciding. But the judge doesn't have to listen; courts aren't democratic. If you want to overturn a court democratically, you're supposed to do it through the legislature.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
This sounds more like a care of civil disobedience and protest. As long as he didn't encourage people to threaten the judge, I don't see anything wrong here. If your filters can't handle this, sounds like a personal problem. How many times have you heard something like, "Let your voice be heard. Contact your local Representative, Senator, etc.?"
One never knows when one might need a rotten tomato... - King's Quest IV: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow
Exactly. If all of the consumers of his product were fully-informed that they were buying snake oil and then still wanted to buy the product, then yes I would agree that they shouldn't be prevented from doing so. But as you state, the consumers of his products are being LIED TO about the efficacy of the products he sells.
OK. Why is the state, and it's publicly funded prosecutor going after Trudeau.
If one were going to actually inflict harm upon another, why would they give them a heads up with a threat? You'd think they'd just do it. Ever notice in horror films that the guy who says "I'm gonna kill you" is always the one being killed. You'd almost think that a threat is an indication someone's not going to commit a crime. "Excuse me sir, I'm going to rob your convenient store at 11pm"...wtf?!?
When you do it through non-public channels with the intent of disrupting a court preceding? This wasn't him asking a bunch of people to file amicus curiae to the court or asking them to write letters to their senators or congressman through official channels. He gave out the private email address of the judge and told a bunch of people to flood it with spam. If you can't see the difference, then there's not much I can do.
So basically your claim is despite this being a completely legitimate use of the rule that it should be completely thrown out because a judge could hypothetically use it to punish someone he doesn't like? I'm sorry, but that seems completely asinine.
For using fraudulent claims to peddle products.
The difference is that this was not a publicly available email adress.
So? Was he ordered not to disclose the address? I've been a party to lawsuits before and received private e-mail addresses of the Judge and attorneys. I've never been asked nor ordered not to disclose those addresses.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Just to play devil's advocate to some of the comments thus far... I wonder how people would differentiate this from political lobbying. This guy had a court case pending before the judge, and asked his followers to write the judge in hopes that it will sway the judge's impartial decision-making. Large special interest organizations ask their followers to write Congressmen, in hopes that it will sway the legislator's impartial decision-making.
What's the difference between lobbying a government's judicial branch, as opposed to lobbying the legislative branch? I'm not necessarily saying that there ISN'T an enormous difference between these two things... I'm just curious what kind of answers I'd get by posing the question.
OK. Then why is the same state selling lottery tickets to old laddies, and people on welfare, knowing full well there is a greater chance of getting hit by an asteroid, then making a million from the powerball?
And if you can't stay on topic, neither can we.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Last time I checked the states who run lotteries publicly publish the odds of winning both on the tickets themselves and through their websites. Now if the state was hiding the odds or attempting to make people think that the odds were better than they actually are, then you'd have a point.
I'm sorry, schmucks like Kevin Trudeau need to be in jail for the same reason you put violent offenders in jail.
To protect the public from their predatory behavior.
And make no mistake, that's all Kevin Trudeau is about. You cut off one avenue of exploitation for him, he simply rolls over into another. And another. And another.
Until they physically stop this jackass, he'll continue preying on gullible people via any and every means possible.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
OK. So the next time my favorite politician says that he is going to make it all better, and that the only thing i have to do is give him my vote, can we get the state to sue her/him when it does not work out.
When are people going to be held accountable for their own bad decisions. People are adults
When are people going to be held accountable for their own bad decisions. People are adults
People are held accountable for their own bad decisions as long as they made those decisions without being defrauded by the other party.
Isn't that a tautology itself?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I guess it comes down to the definition of "contempt of court" and what that entails. If you ask me - it's simply ridiculous. But, i guess fences exist for a reason. Keeping the cows out = order in the universe.
L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
To use the literal case of "snake oil"-- There is nothing illegal about selling snake oil, in and of itself (unless it were to be a dangerous product.) The legal issue is that a snake oil salesman implies that it "performs" some feat (implied warranty for a particular purpose). If the snake oil salesman truly believes that it works, but it can be proven that it does not, he has misrepresented the product. If the snake oil salesman knows it doesn't work, and claims that it does, then he is committing fraud. If a person choose to use this product and did not gain the advertised result, then most people would at least agree they are entitled to a refund or, maybe even damages that resulted due to use. In the case of Mr. Trudeau, it is alleged that his claims are false. Because customers are buying his book "for the purpose of implementing his 'treatments'" the book carries an implied warranty that the content of the text is fit for a particular purpose. If you bought the plans to assemble a boom-box from parts at Radio Shack, and were told that the plans worked, and you followed them properly and it did not produce a boom-box, you could claim that the product did not meet its implied warranty duties. If customers were buying his book for entertainment, not any particular purpose, all the book would need to have is "words" in some narrative format. If he said "I am selling an international anthology of alternative medical practices for historical, literary, or critical purposes" [and it's not my fault if you try them, and should they work, good for you] or "I am selling an international anthology of medical research that is the sole opinion of the individual authors" then it would be a different case. However, someone would have to first make a successful claim that the treatment does not work, or that harm was done by not using an alternative treatment, or harm was directly done by the product (which addresses another issue of strict liability.) In this case, the government is making such a claim, right or wrong. If he was not selling the book, but made it freely available, it would be a pure free-speech issue, which is a much more open to interpretation than fraud or misrepresentation in a transaction.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
How does a weasel like Kevin Trudeau gets fans by continually scamming people?
There is no such thing as a "private" email address when your mailserver accepts mail from the world for the address.
Trudo is a blowhard fraud AND a spammer. That's probably why the judge got pissed. See:
http://www.skepdic.com/trudeau.html
"The New York state Consumer Protection Board warns those who follow Kevin Trudeau's advice to call a toll-free number for information that Trudeau is selling their name and contact information to telemarketers and junk mailers."
and...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau#2010:_Arrest_and_imprisonment_for_criminal_contempt_of_court
http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0323064.shtm
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/01/trudeau.shtm
Sounds like he deserves whatever he gets...
All the folks on here saying "wha? But he just asked people to e-mail support, that's not spam!" are entirely missing the point.
You are not allowed to approach the Judge, or ask anyone else to approach the Judge, outside of court and certain other specially-sanctioned venues. It's called ex parte , and is only appropriate in very specific circumstances, because - duh - that's likely to be unfair. That's the basis for the contempt charge.
Now, if it had been a friend or two that e-mailed the judge, he might have just warned them off with a "that's not appropriate." But when enough people e-mail to fill his Inbox, it's quite clearly an attempt to influence the judge, and that's not OK .
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
See my comments were moderated to oblivion. Slashdot for all its egalitarian lip-service is succumbing to trolls with mod-points. When you are forced to not discuss wider issues that relate to the story is censorship. If those mods had any semblance of bullshit that is censorship they would have just not modded the comments. Troll? Hah, I know I'm not: 2+2=5 does not make it so.
Shh.
Criminal contempt charges require that the offense occur in the courtroom (in front of the judge, prosecutor, etc), or that they must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (just like any other criminal charge). In this case, the second rule would apply.
That said, generally speaking the last thing you want to do is annoy a judge. Within his/her courtroom, the judge pretty much is the law. If you think the judge is doing something inappropriate, you obey it and use it as grounds for appeal if you lose. The reason is not just the threat of contempt, but because annoying the judge means they'll make it harder for you to win. Not just in this case, but in every other case you have before them.
On the flip side, being respectful to the judge can help you out considerably. My one and only time in a courtroom as a defendant (for a traffic offense) I won my case pro se by doing just that - dressed reasonably nicely, addressed him as "Your Honor", and explaining exactly what had happened.
IANAL, but my mother was for decades, and she was always very clear that it never helps to annoy the judge no matter how justified you may think you are.
I am officially gone from
There must be limits on the powers of the judiciary. No judge should have the power to jail anyone for contempt except those who are appearing before the court. If you are in the audience, all the judge should be able to do is throw you out of the court room or file a complaint of disturbing the peace with the local police. To suggest that you can be jailed for sending email is ludicrous.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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).
You really don't think that an "annoyingly-high volume email campaign" can be legitimately viewed as harassment?
What's your e-mail address again?
no such thing as a "private" driveway when your driveway accepts traffic from public/open roadways.
The defendant would be getting the same punishment if he told hundreds of people to drive around the judge's house 24/7 honking and pulling into his driveway and flashing lights, etc. /caranalogy
Anyone can file an amicus curiae brief if they have something to say regarding a trial. That is the proper channel of communications. If I had a bunch of people protest outside a judge's house, or send tons of snail mail, that would also likely be judged as contempt. That's not how we conduct law in America. And before you scream 'free speech,' remember, the content of your speech is protected, not the delivery method. Free speech does not give you the right to force your speech on others. This is what Kevin the previously convicted felon did when he told his followers to fill the judge's personal email with unsolicited comments on a pending case. He tried to force his views on the judge, not the court, and therefore the judge is perfectly within the law to rule contempt.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Deserving Contempt isn't a valid (well, legal) reason for anything. Showing Contempt can get you put in the slammer.
1. How does getting a lot of email 'disrupt a court proceeding'? Specifically, ~300 emails.
2. Define private email. What if the judge's email was a gmail account? What if it was anything but a mail server he, himself, hosted?
3. The actual issue was on his federal computer, so it was his federal government email. Does that change your mind?
4. His email, or at least one with his name on it, is on the Illinois US District Court website.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/ktla-pitchman-sentenced-to-prison,0,5512411.story
Now, I think Trudeau got nice bit of karma from this biting him in the ass, but I don't think it was legal.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
When I was serving jury duty a couple of weeks ago, it didn't seem to bother the judge that her clerk was chewing gum throughout the proceedings, or stapling, or printing documents, or any number of other disruptive activities.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
I agree, how is a whole bunch of real people sending emails in any way related to spam.
Wikipedia defines spam as "the abuse of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately."
As far as I can tell, these messages were not "bulk," or "indiscriminate."
Furthermore, the people sending them were hardly "abusing" the system.
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
TV pitchman Kevin Trudeau was sentenced to 30 days in jail...
This alone made me smile
The guy is a serious asshat.
Promotes scientology too.
Technoli
The brouhaha began in February, when TV pitchman Kevin Trudeau urged his radio and web followers to deluge U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman with e-mail so he would side with him in a civil lawsuit pending before the Chicago judge.
Where I live I am pretty sure this would be criminal harassment. Not to mention blackmail.
I think this guy is lucky he has ONLY been charged with contempt of court. If he really did what is described, I think he could be looking at several years in Federal prison (trying to influence a judge in a Federal trial) and at least a year in State prison (harassment).
To me, if it was public information then the judge would be wrong. The supporters would have every right to ceaslessly use the judge's publicly listed contact information. It crosses the line when the dude starts giving out private information and uses it to hareass the judge. It's in a way a lesser degree of giving out the judge's street adress and encouraging people to go to the judge's house.
I didn't see anything about the address being his private one in TFA.
I did see some bullshit though.
"The court, at that point, was under attack,"
The court was no more under attack than if they'd received a sack of ink and paper letters.
So each time we see "Contact your congressmen" here on slashdot means some sort of harassment?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Please allow me to elaborate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau
Just because you're a convicted criminal making money by selling snake-oil, doesn't mean everything you do is wrong. That said, he was basically trying to win a court case via popularity contest instead of through the legal process. There was no reason to ask supporters to do this. There was no expected benefit. If he wanted their testimony he should have introduced them as witnesses, which would open them up to be cross-examined.
Instead, he gave one-sided testimony directly to the judge, bypassing discovery rules, with no possibility for the prosecution to cross-examine. I'm surprised this isn't a mistrial.
And regardless of what happened in this case, he should serve his time in a furnace.
Your rights only go so far as they do not impinge on the rights of others...you cannot force people to listen to you.
Then perhaps the judge needs to learn how to setup mail filters instead of whining about people he doesn't want emailing him.
no.. he didn't whine. he convicted the idiot with contempt of court as he deserved.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
The most bizarre part of it is that he had supporters.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
You are bidding on an xbox 360 box. This box does not contain an xbox 360. It will not play your xbox 360 games. It is a box that you may purchase if you wish to increase the resale value of your xbox 360 by including complete packaging...
Whining about censorship when censorship isn't the debate means you lost the argument. It's a bit like racism.
You forgot to finish your sentence.
Regardless whether Trudeau is an Asshat or not, he has the right to free speech, and unsolicited mail is harrassment[sic], and harassment of a court official in the course of performing his court duties is.... contempt of court. Q.E.D.
Or maybe you don't think harassment is ever contempt of court? Try swearing at the sitting judge at your next trial.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
And no one is forcing the judge to read his emails. No one is stopping the judge from setting up a filter.
Look at it this way: If they had all sent in letters through the post office, would this have been considered illegal?
It's been a long standing fact that crime does not require a physical presence. If harassing someone over the phone with incessant calls can be a criminal offense, shouldn't the same hold true for email, another form of communication?
The Constitution specifically protects the right to petition your government. It does not specify any restrictions. It doesn't exempt the judiciary. Don't want to be petitioned? Easily taken care of, resign from government.
Doing this sort of thing might be rude, but it's not illegal. Being part of the government means that you don't have the same standing as a member of the general public with respect to shielding yourself from contact.
And a contempt citation/jail is certainly an abuse of power by this judge. But it is an indication of how members of the judiciary view themselves, as above reproach. They are unelected, they serve for life. This contempt citation should be overturned because the judge has no authority to cite anyone for behavior not done in his courtroom, or in violation of one of his orders.
Frankly, I think the whole concept of contempt of court, as being able to be absolutely applied by one person with absolute authority is something that should be outlawed. No one should be able to be sentenced to jail without due process of being charged, tried by jury, and convicted.
Corporatism != Free Market
Maybe, but I browse at minus one so I see lots of popularity modding. Slashdot has deteriorated from even five years ago.
Shh.
It's like people who win because they tell HALF-truths, because everyone understands the first part, the second part must also be true? Right? Wrong! Thats how people like him scams millions across the world.
This is how a lot of con-men operate in this world. Take a little money and make a good return for you, then when they ask for more, suddenly they're gone. It's also one of the best methods used for interrogation. You get a person to trust you a little and suddenly they say things they wouldn't normally in that situation. All it takes is a little trust to turn someone into a complete fool.
It could be said that a fool and his money are soon parted, but really it can happen to anyone given the right circumstances.
His biggest mistake was, when confronted by the judge about the emails, when he simply replied: "Bazinga!"
Nerd Rock In Progress
There actually is a system known as the peg-link system, which is mostly a mnemonic technique. I'm not sure if your actually aware of this or think it's total bs based on your double quotes around peg. There is some merit to the system itself, particularly associating phonetic sounds with an item and generating a bizarre image to reinforce memory. Ultimately though, the link-peg system is really only good for establishing a stronger memory on a list of items, with little regard to ones comprehension of what that list might mean. The amount of information involved in this method, would probably amount to a wikipedia article and not much more. As for its effectiveness, I was able to use it to memorize 50-100 items, but usually setting up the mnemonic visualizations is more trouble than its worth.
He's lucky it was only Contempt of Court and just 30 days. This could have been considered threatening a judge, attempting to extort a judge, bullying a judge, attacking the court etc. Criminal charges could certainly have been levied against the idiot. You do not orchestrate an "attack" on a judge, especially one that is hearing your own case. Severe punishments are attached to such things simply to keep the impartiality intact (don't bother whining about that to me). The law upholds the integrity of the court and violating that integrity carries severe punishments.
No, this guy got off easy.
I am a Constitutionalist, and those claiming it was a violation of the Constitution have not read it. Grievances, petitions, etc. are allowed to be given to the GOVERNING body, not the judicial. The judicial branch is tasked with deciding based on the given laws. It is not to be swayed nor influenced by public opinion. The decisions are to be made based on the law and the evidence, period. The US is a Republic based on law. It is not (contrary to common belief) a Democracy based on the whims of the mob. Judges decide if you violated the law. They do not make law. Public petitions to sway decision have no legal place in the courts. Public petitions are for the Legislative branch.
This isolation of the judicial was designed to shield it from politics and the whims of special interests and the public. If the public didn't like a ruling or law, then it was their responsibility to petition the legislature to change the law. That is what the legislature is for. Judges are not there to change the law. Judges can only rule for the plaintiff or the defendant with only one possible third option, declare a law unconstitutional. That's it. The Constitution laid it out that way to preserve justice and keep it safe from the mob.
This idiot was attempting to usurp justice and bully the judge into deciding not based upon law and evidence but by public opinion and intimidation. If he feels the judge's decision was wrong, the law gives him the right to appeal that decision.
If they had all sent in letters through the post office, would this have been considered illegal?
Uh, yeah! It would still be illegal. If you're involved in a case before a judge or jury, you're not allowed to try and influence the judge or jury outside of court. The judge shouldn't set up filters to block e-mails from people involved in his cases, though, as there are legitimate communications that need to be made (scheduling, for example).
I thought this was common sense. How is this controversial?
Except you aren't standing in the street with a megaphone, you're just a stupid mime.
The same technology that enables a bunch of idiots to spam you also allows you to ignore them. Nothing "extra" or "special" is required.
All you have to do is close the drapes and you don't have to see the idiot mime.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Since when is an annoyingly-high volume email campaign illegal?
In America? Since before the constitution was ratified, back in the 1800's.
In fact both the 5th and 14th amendments further limit ex parte laws from what Britain used at the time.
Clearly those laws were in place before those amendments were written.
It was 1868 for the 14th, you can look up the rest yourself, but guaranteed it has been illegal since at least 1868.
explain in your own words what you think blackmail is.
Generally you cannot contact nor encourage anyone to contact the judge in a case, especially privately. A judge should remain neutral. Sending a bunch of letters to the court (via the court's public mail address) may be perfectly fine. Sending messages to the judge privately is never okay especially when you are to appear in front of said judge. Kevin Trudeau obtained the judge's private email address and encouraged his followers to spam the judge.
If it's not clear here is the distinction: Protesting on the street in front of a court is fine. Protesting on the street in front of the judge's house is not fine.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
they aren't choosing to buy snake oil. they're choosing to buy a product they think will benefit them, which in fact will in no way benefit them in the means advertised by the manufacturer of that product. a lot of scammy stuff is legal (publisher's clearinghouse) but this guy seems to go way over the line with the deception including overpriced books that are at best full of untruths and at worst medically dangerous.
Whaaa? isn't this where the saying "buying snakeoil" came from - people who use to sell snakeoil claiming it cured everything?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil ..and apparently still cures everything.
Wait! Whats a sig?
That gives me an idea.
I'm going to sell a book of "Lottery Secrets THEY don't want you to know."
Wait...
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Yes but they don't give their home address or personal email address when they ask you to contact a representative. We use proper channels. As mentioned above there are proper channels to contact a judge and comment on a case. Personal email is not it.
For instance, what if Slashdot asked you to call them while at home. Would that be okay? The answer seems evident to me, it's over the line.
Obtaining money or property by threat to a victim's property or loved ones, intimidation, or false claim of a right (such as pretending to be an IRS agent). It is a felony in all states, except that a direct threat to harm the victim is usually treated as the crime of robbery. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing, damaging information to family, friends or the public.
But snake oil does work, that's why they move so quietly!
It could be said that a fool and his money are soon parted, but really it can happen to anyone given the right circumstances.
Which is to say, we're all fools.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
no such thing as a "private" driveway when your driveway accepts traffic from public/open roadways.
gates (analogy: whitelist)
FGD 135
Anyone can file an amicus curiae brief
Not true.
And before you scream 'free speech,' remember, the content of your speech is protected, not the delivery method.
Wrong. "You can say what you like, but only to this wall" - still got free speech?
The problem is that the world is changing - everyone now feels entitled to an opinion and by jimminy they're going to tell you it. However, there's no actual process for letting the public in general interact with the courts and so you get a mess like this.
Not helped by the other change which is the erosion of free speech, encouraged by people like you, who will happily castrate it with the "only the right to say what you want, not when you want or where you want" mantra.
FGD 135
It does not seem like an act of contempt of court but more like spamming through third person