On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 10:32 PM, adam <adam () papsy net> wrote:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00754.htm
Did you actually read the link you pasted?
[...] and "criminal penalties may not be imposed on someone who has not
been
afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of such criminal
proceedings [...] protections include the right [..]
Then take a look at the actual rights being referenced. Most of which
would
be violated as a result.
In response to 0x41 "This is ONCE you are actually in front, of the
judge...remember, it may take some breaking of civil liberty, for this to
happen... "
No, you're absolutely right. That's the point here. Contempt is attached
to
the previous court order, there wouldn't be a new judge/new case for the
contempt charge alone. All of it is circumstantial anyway, especially due
to
how much power judges actually have (in both criminal AND civil
proceedings).
Its frightening how much power judges have, and how poorly they are
overseen. Confer: Judge James Ware, US 9th Circuit Court (this is not
a local judge in a hillbilly town).
Jeff