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."
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.
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.
Because people I've never met annoy the judge?
If you incited them to, then yeah. Courts don't look too kindly on people harassing court officials. This guy deserves a dumbass award.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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.
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.
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!
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.
Second, Spamming in general should be a crime!
I hate spam as much as the next guy but why should something that is easily remedied with technology be a concern of government? I'm also not convinced that talking people into sending e-mails to a Judge should qualify as spam in the classical sense. When I think of spam I think of UCE -- unsolicited commercial e-mail.
What's next, will it be called spam if some activist/interest group convinces it's members to flood their Congress-critters in-boxes with messages?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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.
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
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.
The difference here is that it's an email campaign intended to subvert the judicial process. That seems to fit the confines of contempt: "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"
In other words, it's not directed at the judge personally, it's directed at the judge in his official capacity as arbiter of the case.
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
This was a case where someone who had an internet following, asked them all to send an email to the judge.
Right, harass the judge... good idea...
Is it spam if a local radio DJ gets all of his/her listeners to send email to the local Congressman about something being discussed in Congress?
No, because as an elected official in a democracy, the congressman is supposed to represent the people of his district. It's part of his job to listen to their opinions. Contrast this with a judge, who is supposed to rule based on the law and is supposed to not give a flying frak what people think about it. There's absolutely positively no valid reason at all whatsoever why you should be writing to a judge about an ongoing court case to voice your opinion. Flooding his mailbox with stuff he's obligated by oath and ethics to not take into account in his decision process is simply a form of harassment.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Would it have been contempt of court if he'd asked his supporters to send written letters to the judges office urging the judge to side with him?
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.
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.
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.
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to harass others with your speech. Freedom is much more complicated than "You aren't the boss of me and I'll do whatever I want!"
See my sig:
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton