Attryant:
I guess I hadn’t noticed the thread at the time. I know it bugs the heck out of me, and I would have made the point then if I had.
Chaim Mattis Keller
You seem to have things backwards. When you go to a Home Depot and complain, you are the wronged person. You got a defective product or service and you are seeking remedy. Even then there is no call for any form of obscenities in the very onset unless they were maliciously interferring with the remedy.
When you are paying a traffic fine, you have admitted guilt to the traffic violation. You are the person who committed the wrong. Imagine if you go to the home depot about a defective product you bought and the complaint department clerk started cussing you out! You would ask for the manager and make sure the clerk got what he deserved. Thats what the contempt of court charge was about. The guy was in the wrong, he cussed out the wrong people and disrupted the process and so he got what he deserved.
An earlier post stated that the charge of contempt would be dismissed upon a written apology, which is perfectly fine and usually the normal conclusion to a contempt charge. If this yahoo objected to the traffic fine so passionately, he should have had the balls and the brains to challenge it in court rather than indescriminately blasting everyone in the system including those “who were just doing their jobs”.
The only issue I would have with this is who your audience is. If you have a complaint about the service, do go to the Customer Service desk, or get a manager. Don’t walk up to a guy sweeping the floor, and start yelling in his ear. That guy is not the problem (unless his sweeping is offensive) so why be nasty to him? In this ticket scenario, the admin is not the problem, the cop and judge are, express your disappointment to them.
>> If this yahoo objected to the traffic fine so passionately, he should have had the balls and the brains to challenge it in court rather than indescriminately blasting everyone in the system including those “who were just doing their jobs”.
I got an unfair ticket in DC some years ago. Something like $35 or $50. It was totally bogus and I spent several hundred dollars appealing it for nothing. The result was that I was pissed off for a long time and felt abused by a system which everybody knows was corrupt. If the same thing happened again I would not fight because it is not worth it to me. But I sure as hell don’t want the city infringing on my last resort which is my right to express what I think of them all. The are a bunch of incompetent and corrupt assholes and I am thinking a phrase like that would make a good background for my checks: “Washington DC government: incompetent and corrupt” I like that. 
Not to nitpick, but From the article cited in the OP
Seems to me that the judge is just being a booger (say, can I get charged with contempt for saying that?). It is one thing if in the courtroom the accused stated that the charge was BS, quite a different matter to state that on the memo line of a check.
Also, I think that it is BS that he should apologize. That seems like admitting that the contempt charge is valid.
I also think he should not apologise. But, again, sometimes you have to pick your battles. I still think the judge is an asshole. (Can I say that here or is that contempt?)
Don’t know whether it’s contempt, but you could be sued for this in an Australian court. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=149397
well, he couldve appealled. He could taken it to a higher court. The fact that he chose to capitulate and write the check means he lost the legal battle. he was being a sore loser and the judge called him on that.
Yes, it would be admitting the contempt charge was valid. He could hold that guy for up to a year in jail if the judge wanted to or until he apologized in writing. There would be no judicial appeal to a contempt charge. You deal with that “booger” judge or youre ass is in jail.
Seems to me there are two separate issues here:
-
Whether writing obscenities on the memo line of checks for traffic-court fines is protected speech, and
-
Whether it is a nasty and rude and no-class thing to do.
I think at least most of us here who disapprove of the practice nonetheless agree that you have a constitutional right to engage in it. But don’t kid yourself that you’re doing the Constitution any favors: there are plenty of things you can do to exercise your civil liberties that don’t involve being a vituperative jerk.
Just because something is constitutionally protected doesn’t mean you necessarily have a duty to do it. Anybody who is too well-mannered to scribble obscenities on checks should not start worrying that their restraint might somehow cause the “erosion of personal liberties”.
>> he was being a sore loser and the judge called him on that
I didn’t know being a sore loser was against the law. So now you can’t disagree with the government, huh?
It is protected speech. We all have the right to criticize the government. Mr. Wilmouth is not the most polite person on earth, but he has the right to express his opinion. The charges will be dropped and Judge Pikkarainen should be made to write “That was a bullst fking charge!” 500 times.
Well, Eric W. did write “suck on it”…
Are you deliberately trying to spread ignorance?
There is absolutely the right of appeal from a contempt charge.
I notice you haven’t responded to my earlier criticism of you, by the way.
- Rick
I do beg your pardon, that was an error but it wasnt deliberate. I apologize, I recalled a case that was struck down (on appeal).
I did not respond to your initial criticism because 2 posts down was a reply (by cheesesteak) that was similar to what I wouldve posted. I didnt want to be redundant.
Here are the Illinois rules for contempt:
http://www.19thcircuitcourt.state.il.us/rules/rules13.htm
I would say there there is ample language there to justify a contempt charge for writing fould language on a check but the second one at the top seems to be appropriate in this case.
of course, the case posted by the OP is in Michigan…
Just asking, but wouldn’t that qualify as obscenity?
Which would not be protected speech…
Would someone enlighten me on the finer aspects?