Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 2787101" data-attributes="member: 13624">I&#039;m humbled.&nbsp; That&#039;s the first time anybody&#039;s ever awarded me the entire internet.&nbsp; I would have settled for a glass of iced tea.&nbsp; <img src="/images/smilies/smile.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" data-shortname=":)" />&quot;Jail&quot; needs to have context.&nbsp; As a criminal matter: would I jail a private citizen for having a belief, or for expressing it, even loudly?&nbsp; Absolutely not, and I&#039;d volunteer for the defense if that happened.As applied to a public official who refuses to serve her constituents?&nbsp; There appears to be a relevant statute that orders her to do so; under that law--to which she voluntarily subjected herself by running for elected office--it would appear that she has willfully shirked her (voluntarily assumed) public duty, so prosecution seems appropriate.As applied to any person in a civil (not criminal; I&#039;d be happy to discuss the distinction) court, contempt is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.&nbsp; The key to that matter is that the defendant &quot;holds the keys to the cell.&quot;&nbsp; She can walk out any time she wants by purging her contempt; that is, she will be freed by complying with the Court&#039;s order.&nbsp; In this case, she has chosen to defy the Court.&nbsp; Doing so, she commits indirect civil contempt; if she appears tomorrow and tells the judge &quot;no,&quot; she will be committing direct civil contempt.The High Court&#039;s ruling is clear, and under our system of laws, there is no doubt about her duty as a public official.&nbsp; If she wants to be a judge, let her run as such.&nbsp; A clerk&#039;s job, though, is not to judge; it&#039;s to say &quot;yes, this was properly filed, and here is your proof.&quot;Here in Oklahoma, I&#039;ve filed all sorts of things.&nbsp; In some cases, I&#039;ve had to append the title myself: &quot;Letter From the Respondent.&quot;&nbsp; The letter wasn&#039;t even mailed to the Court; it was mailed to us (the opposing party), but it was relevant, so we went to the Clerk&#039;s office and filed it.&nbsp; The Clerk (by and through an assistant) duly stamped it (and several copies) and entered it into the file.*&nbsp; That&#039;s their job, and I appreciate them for it.&nbsp; We&#039;ve never discussed the relevant merits of the claim asserted, but we&#039;ve often talked of our weekend activities, what our kids are doing, etc.&nbsp; We&#039;ve a wonderful understanding: their job is to receive papers--regardless of the text thereon--and to pass them on to the Judge, who will rule upon the law presented.&nbsp; In return, I make it a special point to be kind and polite to them (which isn&#039;t exactly true: I try to be kind and polite to everybody, but I&#039;ll admit that I make a special effort in the courthouse; that said, they&#039;ve never been anything less to me, and I thank them for it).Ms. Davis is trying to create a civil rights case.&nbsp; I get that; I appreciate that others have done so (Rosa Parks being an excellent example), and even some on behalf of the 2nd Amendment (Heller and McDonald come to mind).&nbsp; In this instance, though, there&#039;s a distinction: she&#039;s a public official, refusing to perform the functions of her public office, as defined by law.&nbsp; Nobody is presuming to say she can&#039;t believe as she wishes; she&#039;s simply being told she can&#039;t choose to define the law according to her own interpretation in defiance of a higher court.You&#039;re referring, of course, to what ended as Loving v. Virginia.&nbsp; The very thought of &quot;them darkies&quot; getting involved with us &quot;good white folk&quot; was positively scandalous at the time; today, not so much.&nbsp; I&#039;ve good friends to whom said case applies, and I smile every time their daughter calls me &quot;Uncle Dave;&quot; hugs are just that much the better.Were a private business to say &quot;go away,&quot; I&#039;d treat them to dinner anywhere they wanted to go.&nbsp; But if a government clerk said &quot;we won&#039;t serve you,&quot; I&#039;d be in the Clerk&#039;s office filing a suit that would rival the 1960&#039;s space program in a half-hour flat.Note the difference: private actors vs. government officials.&nbsp; Refusing patrons is one thing; refusing you constituents (who pay your salary, by force of law) is another.*&nbsp; It was an adoption case, which means it&#039;s not a public matter; you&#039;ll just have to take my word for it that happened.&nbsp; Sorry &#039;bout that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 2787101, member: 13624"] I'm humbled. That's the first time anybody's ever awarded me the entire internet. I would have settled for a glass of iced tea. :) "Jail" needs to have context. As a criminal matter: would I jail a private citizen for having a belief, or for expressing it, even loudly? Absolutely not, and I'd volunteer for the defense if that happened. As applied to a public official who refuses to serve her constituents? There appears to be a relevant statute that orders her to do so; under that law--to which she voluntarily subjected herself by running for elected office--it would appear that she has willfully shirked her (voluntarily assumed) public duty, so prosecution seems appropriate. As applied to any person in a [I]civil[/I] (not criminal; I'd be happy to discuss the distinction) court, contempt is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. The key to that matter is that the defendant "holds the keys to the cell." She can walk out any time she wants by purging her contempt; that is, she will be freed by complying with the Court's order. In this case, she has chosen to defy the Court. Doing so, she commits indirect civil contempt; if she appears tomorrow and tells the judge "no," she will be committing direct civil contempt. The High Court's ruling is clear, and under our system of laws, there is no doubt about her duty [I]as a public official[/I]. If she wants to be a judge, let her run as such. A clerk's job, though, is not to judge; it's to say "yes, this was properly filed, and here is your proof." Here in Oklahoma, I've filed all sorts of things. In some cases, I've had to append the title myself: "Letter From the Respondent." The letter wasn't even mailed to the Court; it was mailed to us (the opposing party), but it was relevant, so we went to the Clerk's office and filed it. The Clerk (by and through an assistant) duly stamped it (and several copies) and entered it into the file.* That's their job, and I appreciate them for it. We've never discussed the relevant merits of the claim asserted, but we've often talked of our weekend activities, what our kids are doing, etc. We've a wonderful understanding: their job is to receive papers--regardless of the text thereon--and to pass them on to the Judge, who will rule upon the law presented. In return, I make it a special point to be kind and polite to them (which isn't exactly true: I try to be kind and polite to everybody, but I'll admit that I make a special effort in the courthouse; that said, they've never been anything less to me, and I thank them for it). Ms. Davis is trying to create a civil rights case. I get that; I appreciate that others have done so (Rosa Parks being an excellent example), and even some on behalf of the 2nd Amendment (Heller and McDonald come to mind). In this instance, though, there's a distinction: she's a [I]public official[/I], refusing to perform the functions of her [I]public office[/I], as defined by law. Nobody is presuming to say she can't believe as she wishes; she's simply being told she can't choose to define the law according to her own interpretation in defiance of a higher court. You're referring, of course, to what ended as [I]Loving v. Virginia[/I]. The very thought of "them darkies" getting involved with us "good white folk" was positively scandalous at the time; today, not so much. I've good friends to whom said case applies, and I smile every time their daughter calls me "Uncle Dave;" hugs are just that much the better. Were a private business to say "go away," I'd treat them to dinner anywhere they wanted to go. But if a government clerk said "we won't serve you," I'd be in the Clerk's office filing a suit that would rival the 1960's space program in a half-hour flat. Note the difference: private actors vs. government officials. Refusing patrons is one thing; refusing you constituents (who pay your salary, by force of law) is another. * It was an adoption case, which means it's not a public matter; you'll just have to take my word for it that happened. Sorry 'bout that. [/QUOTE]

Verification