Heh. You gotta understand that the Parking Violations Bureau has a long history of corruption from its top ranks to its bottom that is only rivaled (maybe) by the Elevator Inspectors. Bribery, theft, incompetence, lack of due process, you name it. About the only illegal thing they don’t do is the one thing New Yorkers want them to do, which is tow cars with diplo plates.
Even the most mild-mannered of New Yorkers has been known to utter an obscenity or two when the name comes up.
The answer is Yes Its 100% freedom of speech. He had a right to say it and no one should stopped him from saying it.
The judge was also in his authority to slap a contempt of court charge on him. Basically a judge can do that, and what he said was contempt of court. The ticket was a legal document from the court. What he wrote there was contempteous of that document so he got what he deserved.
Hey, freedom of speech doesnt mean you can say what you want without consequences. You want to say something controversial, pay for it. Nothing is free, not even your rights. He had a right to say Bulls**t and the judge had the right to say “face!” The judge didnt stop him from sayin it, he just made him pay for it.
some folks keep talking about ‘writing on the ticket’. it should be pointed out that he wrote the message on his check to pay the fine.
It would appear that the person processing the $$ forwarded it up to their boss who then kicked it upstairs.
just guessing here, but it may have been the person processing the check was offended and complained to her boss. Keeping in mind that bosses have to deal w/specific complaints about abuse etc.
playing devils advocate here, I don’t think that as a condition of employment, employees of the court should be expected to ‘put up with’ any and all verbal abuse the public wishes to dish out. Certainly if you were to yell obscenities in a restaurant, the restaurant can eject you. And, in some cases you may even be charged w/disorderly conduct (depending on the amount of havoc created).
Yes, we understand that people can/will be upset when dealing with official crap, but, as Kimstu points out, that doesn’t mean that it’s ‘ok’ to vent on the schmuk at the bottom of the ladder.
That being said, I think a charge of contempt is going overboard. On the other hand, I don’t think that the lowly schmuck opening the envelopes really needs to have to deal w/everyone’s personal gripes about the system, either. (no, they are not paid to put up with it. they’re paid to perform a service, opening checks, receipting same etc. No one deserves to be berated or sworn at while simply performing their job duties. IMHO. )
But.
I’ve been to Howell. I totally understand how it happened.
What, in your understanding, are the elements of the crime of contempt?
Did you not read my posts above?
Criminal contempt of court does not arise from merely feeling contempt towards the court. It requires a specific act. In my jurisdiction, Virginia Code § 18.2-456 details the circumstances under which a court may summarily find contempt. They include misbehavior in the presence of the court that obstructs or interrupts the administration of justice, violence or threats of violence to a judge or officer of the court, or to a juror, witness or other party, and disobedience of an officer of the court, juror, witness or other person to any lawful process, judgment, decree or order of the court.
What’s also punishable is:
A check delivered to the clerk of the courts, and intended to pay a fine before trial, can be construed as being “addressed to, or published of” the judge. Several posters have already expressed surprise that the judge even saw the check, which he surely would not on an ordinary basis. The language mau have been “vile” but it certainly was not intended for the judge.
Of course, this analysis is based on Virginia law; I have no idea how Michigan defines criminal or summary contempt.
So you tell me, X~Slayer: how does Michigan define contempt, and how does this conduct fit that definition?
edited to close bold tag - UB
The question is not whether it is in good taste or whether it is low class. The question is whether it should be considered protected speech and I do not have the slightest doubt that it should. That person is expressing his opinion about the city government in a way which is not disruptive in any way. That is exactly what the constitution was written for.
Perhaps this is the type of rule that caused the contempt charge. His profanity apparently disturbed the clerk to such a degree that he/she felt it necessary to not process the check and complain to superiors. As a result, the ‘administration of justice’ was interrupted.
I wish that you wouldn’t stop. Not to get over dramatic here, but this is how personal liberties are eroded. People stop fighting for them.
Also, pay no heed to the folks that are chiding you for doing this.
I forget which Kurt Vonnegut story it is but basically there is a court of apologies. If you feel someone owes you an apology you can go to court for one. If the court rules in your favor the defendant must apologize. If they do not apologize they are put to death. In the story many people chose death.
Binarydrone since when is it OK to take out your frustration on the worker bees who never did a darn thing to you? They’re just doing a job, a job that needs to be done, they don’t make the decisions, they don’t write the tickets, but they deserve to be the target of your profanity? ‘personal liberties’ have nothing to do with it, it’s about being a decent human being.
Writing these profanities is not nice, it won’t change a thing, and cmkeller should stop.
OK, stop writing obscenities in the memo line and write “for sexual gratification services” instead.
I disagree strongly.
The words are not directed at the worker bees, they are an expression of the opinion that the ticket was unfair.One cannot write an essay on the memo line of a check and the words written convey very concisely that opinion. The expression is not directed at anyone in particular but is an expression that the authority who imposed the penalty did wrong. That is exactly what the constitution was meant to protect. And saying “it won’t change a thing” is the wrong thing to say. When you feel there is an abuse of authority the right thing to do is speak up.
In Washington DC the corruption and abuse in the giving of parking tickets is public and notorious and has been documented many times on TV and press. People have a right to speak up against this kind of abuse.
And if your sensibilities are so delicate that it causes you major distress to see a couple of words in writing then you should not be working for the city except, maybe, in a mental hospital, as a patient.
Nobody seemed too bothered by this when I brought it up before:
Should a city depend on its citizens committing crimes in order to make budget?
Somehow I have a hard time imagining Madison et al having anything like this case in mind when they drafted the constitution. 
The worker bees are the only people fortunate enough to read them.
Since when is a check (a form of payment) supposed to be a vehicle for your opinion? Write a letter.
The right thing to do is speak up to the people who are abusing the authority. Not to just lash out at the most convenient person around. Do you have the right to yell at the clerk in person, just because someone else abused their authority? Where in the OP, or in cmkeller’s post did anyone say that there was an abuse of authority? The fellow in the OP backed his car into someone else and got a ticket for ‘improper backing’, sounds reasonable to me.
This is not “speaking up” against abuse, it is a pathetic little jab at the person unlucky enough to process your check. You want to speak up, write a letter to one of the corrupt people, I can assure you it isn’t the person reading your check
A person should not be subjected to abuse, no matter how minor YOU consider it, just for doing a stupid administrative job. If you think the bureau is corrupt, take it up with the people who cause it to be that way, not the lowest people on the totem pole. You attack them because they’re the easiest ones to hit.
Cheesesteak, you have it exactly backwards. Political speech is protected except when there is a compelling reason to regulate it, not the other way around. You may not disrupt court proceedings but the reasons you give (some people prefer not to see it or hear it, etc) do not even come close to being a fraction of what may be considered necessary to curb it. And, in any case, the man was not accused of offending the poor bees sensibilities. He was accused of contempt of court and that is utter bullshit. As has been said, you can have all the contempt you want for the government so long as you do not disrupt their functioning which he did not do.
Okay, how can the court have a case? Isn’t the memo line of a check a note from the writer of the check to himself?
While I admire your sense of decorum and sentiment that anger should be directed appropriately, I think in this case it is misguided.
See, this is the thing, interpreting writing “Bogus Fcking ticket, suck on it" in the memo line of a check as directing anger at the poor worker bee is a bit of a stretch. I suppose that if I wrote "Fck you, whoever is processing this” in that area that you might make that argument, but in general it is pretty darn clear what was intended.
Also, the fact that the Government as represented by the judge is restricting what a citizen is allowed to write is a little chilling. That being said, the fact that citizens (such as yourself) are not alarmed by this is even more frightnening.
Contempt of court charges are considered legitimate restrictors of free speech. Whether or not this really rises up to Contempt levels, it’s definitely a stretch. If this guy walked in to the office to pay in person and raised a ruckus, yelling and screaming, and so forth, Contempt charges might not seem unreasonable at all. The question is whether or not the speech he engaged in was disturbing enough to warrent the charge, not whether the charge itself violates the Constitution.
All legal issues aside, it’s still a mean and inappropriate thing to do to the staffers. You may want to attack the Gov’t, but it’s the people who have to read your venom.
I never understood the argument of “I only work here, I am only doing my job”. If your job is screwing me, then screw you. If I am an iraki soldier and your job as an American soldier is to shoot at me am I supposed to roll over? i don’t think so. Am I supposed to ask to talk with your supervisor? I don’t think so.What I do is shoot back.
When I go to the Home Depot and complain of bad service I do not admit the excuse “I only work here”. No, to me you are the Home Depot right now and if you can’t resolve the issue go and get someone who can and as long as you do not do that and I am dealing with you then you are the representative of the Home Depot and you will hear what I have to say.
If the system has screwed me by giving me a ticket I do not deserve, then every person in the government is screwing me. To say “I just cash the checks” is disingenuous. From the cop who gave the ticket to the judge who upheld it to the people who take the money, they are alll screwing you and you have the right to express that opinion so long as you are not disruptive or threatening.
And anyone who is anguished by having read such words briefly seriously needs to consider getting a life and the serious problems that come with it rather than being concerned with minor bullshit. My expert opinion on the matter is that the judge is an asshole. 