It's rulings like this that give a "Majority case ruling" a precedence over constitutional law.
Much like the Federal Reserve Act, they can't show you the law that forces you to pay taxes, but they will show you many cases that were unconstitutionally won to say: "If you don't pay them; these cases say you will get in trouble."
It's not right!:
Ex-husband gets choice of jail or a Facebook apology
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... 53221786/1
That touched off a battle that resulted in a Hamilton County judge ordering Byron jailed for his Facebook rant — or, to avoid the jail sentence, to post on his page an apology to his wife and all of his Facebook friends, something free-speech experts found troubling.
"The idea that a court can say, 'I order you not to post something or to post something' seems to me to be a First Amendment issue," said free-speech expert Jack Greiner, who also is The Cincinnati Enquirer's lawyer.
Hanni Fakhoury, a staff lawyer with the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the rulings are unique and "raise quite a few" free-speech issues.
"There haven't been a lot of cases that have dealt with this particular issue," he said.
The court-ordered Facebook apology by Mark Byron:
Mark and Elizabeth Byron had a son in July 2010, but their marriage soon became troubled. She accused him of verbally abusing her, threatening her with his fist and threatening to "end" her life.
While Mark Byron, who has done freelance photography for The Enquirer, was exonerated of criminal allegations, a civil protective order was issued instructing him to stay away from his wife.
Mark Byron also argued that the same court prevented him from seeing his son. In a Nov. 23, 2011, Facebook posting, he blasted the situation and the judicial system he believed wronged him.
"… if you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband's life and take your son's father away from him completely — all you need to do is say that you're scared of your husband or domestic partner… , " he wrote on Facebook.
Elizabeth Byron learned of the post — even though her husband had blocked her from viewing his page — and thought it violated a previous protective order that prevented Mark Byron from doing anything to cause his wife "to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance, or bodily injury."
The judge and magistrate in the case say Ohio judicial rules prevent them from commenting on a pending case.
Elizabeth Byron couldn't be reached and her lawyer, Joel Moskowitz, declined to make her available for comment. A second lawyer who said he represents Elizabeth Byron also would not make her available.
Domestic Relations Magistrate Paul Meyers found Mark Byron in contempt and ordered him jailed for 60 days beginning March 19 — or to post for 30 days on his Facebook page an apology to his wife, written by Meyers, if he wanted to avoid jail. He also had to pay her $1,156 in back child support and her lawyers' fees.
"In a million years, I didn't think he'd be found in contempt," said Elizabeth "Becky" Ford, Mark Byron's lawyer. "He did nothing but vent. She didn't like what he had to say. That's what this boils down to."
Particularly troubling for Greiner and Fakhoury was Meyers' do-it-or-go-to-jail option for Mark Byron to post the apology.
"I didn't think I had an option," said Mark Byron, who has been posting the apology on Facebook for a week.
"The court's order to compel speech is as much a violation of the First Amendment" as suppressing free speech, Greiner said.
The case is next in court March 19.
THE LETTER OF APOLOGY:
I would like to apologize to my wife, Elizabeth Byron, for the comments regarding her and our son ... which were posted on my Facebook wall on or about November 23, 2011. I hereby acknowledge that two judicial officials in the Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court have heard evidence and determined that I committed an act of domestic violence against Elizabeth on January 17, 2011. While that determination is currently being appealed, it has not been overturned by the appellate court. As a result of that determination, I was granted supervised parenting time with (my son) on a twice weekly basis. The reason I saw (my son) only one time during the four month period which ended about the time of my Facebook posting was because I chose to see him on only that single occasion during that period. I hereby apologize to Elizabeth for casting her in an unfavorable light by suggesting that she withheld (my son) from me or that she in any manner prevented me from seeing (my son) during that period. That decision was mine and mine alone. I further apologize to all my Facebook Friends for attempting to mislead them into thinking that Elizabeth was in any manner preventing me from spending time with (my son), which caused several of my Facebook Friends to respond with angry, venomous, and inflammatory comments of their own.
This is a case of segregated speech, the judge ordered him to speak in order to free himself, only in a manner that is non offensive. however it was this same right to "speech" that got him into trouble?
That doesn't make sense.
*View my post history under former usernames: JetXVII, Epicfailure, Slamgunshark*
DJ Jesus died for your Spins!
The, "Get out of jail if you apologize," line isn't uncommon. Courts use it all the time in cases of direct contempt, where the contemnor is usually given a chance to apologize for whatever action caused the charge. An act of contempt is simply showing disrespect for the judge - someone who may be very disrespectful to you, but you have little recourse. It's confusing in this case because he was cleared of abuse charges, so the restraint should have been lifted.
The man's mistake was not countersuing for defamation. That, along with a few other public charges (alcoholism, drug use, abuse, infidelity, etc all as part of lawyer-issued court documents), would have changed her attitude real quick. There are always dirty secrets an ex-wife doesn't want public.
Always be on the offense in cases like this. It takes a show of legal force to get an ex-wife to shut up.
e6722maj wrote:fuck the law, i'll say what i want, when i want, where i want. fuck 'em
That is "their" attitude towards us, so I have no issue reciprocating it. Suck my balls, judge.
-Bob Motherfucking Ross
If the mans ex was Blocked from his facebook, she obviously had a friend feeding her info.
so on her own initiative she caused herself to "to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance, or bodily injury." in my opinion.
FAMILY COURTS have a bad rep, lots of vids on corruption YT
- Related topics
- Last post
- 8 yrs jail for lobsters in plastic vs banksters walking free
by Evildweeb » Fri Dec 27, 2013 10:59 am
- 3 Replies
- 438 Views
- Last post by Ishumble
Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:21 pm
- 8 yrs jail for lobsters in plastic vs banksters walking free