Sunday, February 21, 2010



Must not email judges?

We read:
"A federal judge sentenced Kevin Trudeau to 30 days in jail on Wednesday after scolding the TV pitchman for inciting his fans to flood the judge’s e-mail with testimonials in his favor. Trudeau has long battled federal regulators over his marketing of alternative “cures” for obesity, memory loss, disease and financial ruin. U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman chastised Trudeau last week when he learned the pitchman had urged buyers of his books to write to the judge’s e-mail address with letters of support. Gettleman saw it as a threat to his safety.”

Source

An email is a threat to your safety? Sounds like the judge is either paranoid or pathologically insecure.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a Republican to me.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a Republican to me.

Get new ears.

Judge Robert Gettleman is a Clinton appointee.

Anonymous said...

It's called, harassment!

Bobby said...

Trudeau is a charlatan and a liar, a friend of mine bought his book about "cures" and the book did not have a single cure but advocacy about vitamins and other BS like that. He deserves jail time, the man is a con artist. Besides, every defendant knows he has to respect the judge, I mean come on, his own attorney could have told him that.

Anonymous said...

Some people will go to great lengths simply to get attention.

Anonymous said...

1:14 sounds like a lunatic to me

Anonymous said...

Besides, every defendant knows he has to respect the judge, I mean come on, his own attorney could have told him that.

Trudeau was prohibited from having "ex parte" communications. Citizens availing themselves of their first amendment rights as well as seeking redress from the government is protected speech.

(Thank goodness.)

There is a good analysis of this case found here:
http://tinyurl.com/ylyrllp

It gives some reasons as to why the judge was wrong, why the appeals court issued a stay on the order and why the order should be vacated.

Anonymous said...

harrassment like that should be legal

Anonymous said...

Can the judge be charged with contempt for making trudeau appear in court like that with out any good reason? Or maybe filing a false police report or something.


If the judge knew that trudeau did nto threaten him, and he caused a subpoena to be delivered on that pretense?

Doesn't it seem like this judge should be in jail for a bit longer than 30 days.

Anonymous said...

The judge should be allowed to give a legal opinion even if it is wrong. The question is whether the judge lied intentionally.

If someone is subpoenad and there was not enough evidence to make the subpoena, is it legal to ignore the subpoena?

Anonymous said...

Suppose the conditions justifying a subpeona are any of {A,B,C,D,E}, and nothing else.

Suppose the judge believes this statement, " The conditions justifying a subpoena are any of {A,B,C,D,E,F}."

And further suppose that the judge believes that only F occurred.

So the judge knew that none of {A,B,C,D,E} occurred and requested the subpoena anyway, so the judge has broken the law.

But at the same time the judge believed that "F deserves a subponea" so he was not aware he was breaking the law.

Ignorance of the law is an excuse?

Bobby said...

Does Trudeau not realize the power of a judge? Does he not know that attorneys have been sent to jail for contempt in court? Did Trudeau really think that annoying the judge with e-mails from strangers was going to win him any sympathy?

Trudeau reminds me of Paris Hilton, before she went to jail, she didn't take the law seriously, she would drive drunk and her attorneys would reduce the charges to a fine. Well, eventually the judge got tired of giving her breaks and she did like a week in jail, and now Paris doesn't drive drunk anymore.

Anonymous said...

Does Trudeau not realize the power of a judge?

Apparently he believes that power is constrained by laws.

What a novel concept.

Does he not know that attorneys have been sent to jail for contempt in court?

Where is the contempt of court? That is the issue here. Trudeau did not break any court order.

Did Trudeau really think that annoying the judge with e-mails from strangers was going to win him any sympathy?

If you read what was said, Trudeau asked his clients and customers to email the judge and the FTC emails of support for Trudeau.

How is that a crime? Is non threatening speech now a crime? How is the free speech of one person the responsibility of another person?

Trudeau reminds me of Paris Hilton, before she went to jail, she didn't take the law seriously, she would drive drunk and her attorneys would reduce the charges to a fine.

Are you really trying to compare the actions of a person who is breaking the law while exercising the privilege of driving with the Constitutionally protected right of free speech?

Anonymous said...

Trudeau was a charismatic figure who, from the late 1960s until the mid-1980s, dominated the Canadian political scene and aroused passionate reactions.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line here is, that judges have "far too much" power! They should be punished every time they play God.

Bobby said...

I don't know whether Trudeau broke the law or not, the judge obviously knows and if his decision was wrong then Trudeau's attorney will appeal it.

"If you read what was said, Trudeau asked his clients and customers to email the judge and the FTC emails of support for Trudeau."

---Yeah, I read that. Did his attorney advised that? I don't know about you, but if I was facing trial I would trust my attorney who knows the law and the court system before telling millions of my friends to annoy the judge by flooding him with e-mails.

How would you feel if you came to work and suddenly there's 5,000 e-mails waiting for you? Can you imagine the time it's going to take to separate the garbage from essential e-mails? Seriously, would anyone else here do their bets to annoy the judge that holds their fate?

Anonymous said...

I don't know whether Trudeau broke the law or not, the judge obviously knows and if his decision was wrong then Trudeau's attorney will appeal it.

Which is why the Court of Appeals put a stay on the order. Or did you miss that part?

---Yeah, I read that. Did his attorney advised that? I don't know about you, but if I was facing trial I would trust my attorney who knows the law and the court system before telling millions of my friends to annoy the judge by flooding him with e-mails.

There you go again. The people that mailed the judge were exercising their right of free speech. Your hatred of Trudeau has blinded you to the fact that you can't jail a person for the speech of another.

How would you feel if you came to work and suddenly there's 5,000 e-mails waiting for you?

I don't know and neither does the judge.

Can you imagine the time it's going to take to separate the garbage from essential e-mails?

We don't have to "imagine" anything. We KNOW how long it took. According to the transcript of the hearing, the judge said that he had received "hundreds" of emails (not thousands as you would like to believe.) At the 10 o'clock hearing, the judge said that he was getting emails. (He even said at the time that his email box had "hundreds" of emails in it.) By the 1 o'clock hearing, a technical team has sorted all of the emails, put them in a different folder, and installed a working filter. Obviously numbers and facts elude you, so that means that the amount of time that it took to resolve the judge's issue of not wanting to see what people said was less than 3 hours.

Seriously, would anyone else here do their bets to annoy the judge that holds their fate?

Why would anyone want to avail themselves of free speech? Is that really what you are asking? Why would citizens of this country want to avail themselves of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution?

You haven't answered he key point to this whole thing. How is Trudeau responsible for the free speech of others?

This is not a case of inciting violence or threatening a judge. The judge even says that he wasn't threatened. So how do you want to hold a third party criminally responsible for the protected free speech of other people?

We both know how. You disagree with what the emails said, so you don't think they should have been sent.

Once again, you believe only in free speech with which you agree.