There was no contempt Judge Cassidy is nuttier than Judge Stokes and Judge Saffold put- together... Another: .... Asshole with a Gavel...: (Excerpted from: An Asshole With a Gavel: Read the Document Detailing Abuse By Cleveland Judge Angela Stokes; Scene Magazine; Friday, October 18, 2013) See: google/url?sa=t&rct=j&q&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CFIQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclevescene%2Fscene-and-heard%2Farchives%2F2013%2F10%2F18%2Fan-asshole-with-a-gavel-read-the-document-detailing-abuse-by-cleveland-judge-angela-stokes&ei=6NtzUrPaBsO2sATuhIDgBQ&usg=AFQjCNHp8-9bM93czr8ipYCRGztTMy_EUw&bvm=bv.55819444%2Cd.cWc&cad=rja I was not snide or full of pride. **I dont speak gavel... mixed with attempts at brow- beating hissy-fits- in- blatant -violation of the Jud. Code of Conduct...** I speak peremptory- warning -as- is -required delivered in respectful tone and demeanor in comprehensible-English on the part of the Court that comports with and is consistent with the Jud. Code of Conduct... **(For example: Peremptory- warning Judge Cassidy: Sir I am speaking, if you interrupt me I will hold you in Direct Contempt of Court. Do you understand?)** Defendant Wylie: Yes Your Honor. Thank you. MOREOVER as the docket erroneously states I failed to follow Q&A Fact: Defendant Wylie: Good morning Your Honor. Judge Cassidy: Good morning. Q (Question)- Judge Cassidy: Would you like counsel sir? & A (Answer)- Defendant Wylie: No Your Honor, I think I am capable of handling this. FACT: This was the only Q&A posed by the court and as you can see, I had no problem with following the question and answerQ & A of the Court...as the Court purposefully. and erroneously asserts It goes on further for approx 3-4 minutes -without -the-slightest- minutia -of -direct -contempt -of -court- on Defendant Wylies part either on the face of the record nor did I exhibit or say anything contemptuous in any fashion to the Bailiff I wouldnt do so...! However, outside of Court, I am free to exercise my 1rst Amendment Rights to interject humor to convey and distill the essence of a bunch of cockamamie bullshit in short -order... Thus translated pragmatically in legal terms: Q&A is Fraud upon the Court in this instance, Fraud by the Court... an act of misrepresentation on the docket its self and because the Court has purposefully failed to serve me or note on the Courts docket journal further-- Fraud can be inferred.... Thus put plainly, the Docket is just one more example of an attempt at some- more of the Judges tyrannical-bullshit...and a further lame-attempt at concealment... The United States Supreme Court has declared that appellate courts have a “special responsibility” to review contempt convictions. Green v. United States (1958), 356 U.S. 165, 188, 78 S.Ct. 632, 645, 2 L.Ed.2d 672, 690-691. A criminal contempt conviction is a separate final judgment from which an immediate appeal may be taken regardless of the status of the underlying case. In re Christensen Eng. Co. (1904), 194 U.S. 458, 24 S.Ct. 729, 48 L.Ed. 1072. In direct contempt cases, however, the “the trial courts judgment or order of direct contempt must itself contain a complete and clear statement of the facts upon which the conviction is based.” State v. Treon, supra, at 242, 188 N.E.2d at 316, and contrary to the standard “abuse-of-discretion” standard of review, the guilt of a contemnor must be shown affirmatively in the record before a reviewing court may affirm, White v. Kiraly (Cuyahoga App.1975), Ohio App. LEXIS 6206; State v. Hershberger (1959), 83 Ohio Law Abs. 62, 63, 168 N.E.2d 13, 14 (“It has long been the rule that the guilt of a person convicted of contempt of court must affirmatively appear in the record”); Ex parte Woodworth (1893), 6 Ohio Dec N.P. 19, 21-22, 1893 WL 401; Massillon v. Litty (Nov. 17, 1982), Stark App. No. 5961, unreported, 1982 WL 5550 (judgment “must, at minimum, recite all the essential facts respecting which he asserts personal knowledge in his judgment entry”). Numerous summary contempt cases, primarily involving legal counsel, have been reversed for failure of the trial court to set forth the facts that constitute the accused contempt “fully, clearly, and specifically” in its judgment or order. Treon, supra; White v. Kiraly (Cuyahoga App.1975), 1975 Ohio App. LEXIS 6206 (“This court has consistently held that the failure to ‘enter a written order, setting forth fully, clearly, and specifically the facts out of which the contempt arose *** constitutes reversible error.’”); State v. Butler (Cuyahoga App.1976), 1976 Ohio App. LEXIS 7467 (clear duty of trial court to set forth the facts constituting direct contempt “fully, clearly, and specifically”); Cleveland Hts. v. Veasley (Cuyahoga App.1978), 1978 Ohio App. LEXIS 8434 (“The record is devoid of any reference to the contempt conviction except for the entry sentencing the appellant to ten days. It is impossible to determine the nature of the contempt charge against the appellant from the official papers and court records. The general rule in cases of direct contempt committed in the presence of the court is that the courts judgment or order of contempt must itself contain a complete and clear statement of the facts upon which the conviction is based. The guilt of a person accused of contempt must be shown affirmatively in the record.”); State v. Sindell (Lorain App.1978), 1978 Ohio App. LEXIS 8236 (“We cannot review this order. A direct contempt order must contain a clear and complete recital of the facts upon which the finding is based to allow an appellate court to judge its lawfulness.”); Washington v. Gregory (Feb. 19, 1985), Clinton App. No. CA84-06-022, unreported, 1985 WL 8179 (“An appellate court may not assume a lower courts finding of contempt was correct. Thus, when entering its finding of contempt, a trial court must [clearly and specifically] set forth in its written order the facts from which the contempt arose.”); State v. Moll (Jan. 10, 1992), Wood App. No. 91WD010, unreported, 1992 WL 2539 (“The guilt of a person accused of contempt must be shown affirmatively in the record before reviewing court may affirm. This is contrary to the usual rule on appeal.”); State v. Henderson (Nov. 23, 1993), Shelby App. No. 17-93-11, unreported, 1993 WL 484206 (“[A] reviewing court cannot affirm unless the guilt of the person accused of contempt is affirmatively shown in the record.”). See 154 A.L.R. 1227. Once again: Justice Bradley, It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way; namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of the Courts to be watchful for the Constitutional Rights of the Citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be Obsta Principiis. (1.) The power to punish summarily for contempt has been repeatedly criticized. (2.) There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.(3.) The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime... a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law.(4.) We review a finding of contempt under an abuse of discretion standard. An “abuse of discretion” connotes that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. (5.) Footnotes: (1.) Boyd v. United, 116 U.S. 616 at 635 (1885) (2.) Offut v.United States , 348 U.S. 11(1954) (3.) Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (4.) Warnock v. Pecos County, Texas., 88 F3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996) (5.) Celebrezze v. Gibbs (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 69, 573 N.E.2d 62, Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140.
Posted on: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:19:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015