full of life and still able to feel outrage over old farts who abuse their position of authority.

https://twitter.com/FreePenelope

And took it too far. Bit she gave him the rope he hung her with.

Hopefully he shortens her contempt sentence.

There still remains rules in society....

I'm of two minds about it but its justifiable at least

but if you like Singapore's approach...

I didn't read anything about her being caned. Next traffic ticket you get make your appearance and flip the judge off and say "fuck you" and see if that judge thinks 30 days is too much.

but not excessive for contempt of court.

You say fuck you to a judge in court, 30-days is a gift.

Some judges abuse their power and love to throw out contempt charges when they are the comtemptible ones.

This girl was not charged with beating, bullying or harming any one. Jail does not cure or ameliorate drug use and should be reserved for violent criminals. She was an addled 18 year old and he IS a mean old man, likely a repuke.

Why did he call her back in the first place? Offended by her adios... what an ass.

Read the OP more carefully, especially the quoted parts.

You hit the nail on the head. Not only was he merely crotchety bit he was "old and crotchety".

How dare that fucker be old.

See some of the Beyonce threads.

Old is value neutral

Three years ago my 28-year-old daughter died of an overdose of Xanax...the only thing found in her system. Was the judge an overbearing ass? Yep. But perhaps 30 days in jail will teach the young lady that there are better and safer ways to have fun...or deal with life.

I posted it so people would understand it is not an aspirin she was caught with, but a potential killer if abused.

I agree about the 30 days. If there is a chance, even a slight chance, that this will help get her straight - it could save her life. These drugs are a controlled substance for a reason. It's bad enough that some people die from these when they were legally acquired under a doctor's care, but even more lethal when not.

Xanax was prescribed for my daughter, but she didn't take it as directed.

Hope you like it.

I used to have an issue with pain meds that were prescribed to me by my doctor. I did start off taking them for chronic pain, but eventually it also became a stress reliever, anti-depressant and sleep aid. It was one mother of a crutch I used. This went on for 10 years and my doctor had the patience of a saint. Because I only increased my doses slightly every couple of months to keep up with the pain, he continued to prescribe them. Although it took me awhile, I was able to see I had a problem before it spun out of control and killed me. Been off them for about 5 years now. Since then I have a couple of times used them for extreme pain only, for just a day or two and I'm ok with that. As long as I stay away from any type of regular use, I'm ok.

I'm really sorry your daughter succumbed. It happens all too frequently.

when she was younger and living at home we could make her take her meds. Once she graduated from college, went to work full-time and bought a townhouse, there was not much we could do. She stopped taking her meds but suffered from panic attacks so a different doctor prescribed the Xanax, which worked fine when taken as prescribed....But like most people with bipolar disorder, she liked being manic...so she wouldn't take the Xanax daily. Her life was spiraling out of control when she died.... Next Friday would be her 32nd birthday.

I am so happy you were able to grab hold of that addiction and strangle it.

I'm sorry, it must have been awful for you. People with bipolar can be a real handful, the ones that I've known would take their meds and things would be ok for the most part but then decide they didn't need them anymore. Then getting them back on the meds is always a battle, especially if you aren't living in the same house. So I guess she's been gone for almost 4 years now? Do you have any other children or was she your only?

I kicked my habit but the reasons I took them have never been helped so sometimes I still struggle without them. I get chronic headaches and unless you have some condition or illness that can be easily found through tests, it's tricky to get to the bottom of why they occur. No one seems to know why I get them, not even a neurologist that specializes in headaches could get to the bottom of it. I suffer from depression but thankfully not the manic kind. I have tried several SSRI's but they do not really work for me. Sadly the only thing that made me feel happy were the pain meds. That lead my doctor to suspect I have an endorphin deficiency but treatment for that is either controversial at best, or simply not available to me.

Anyway I just wanted to again offer my condolences. I hope for her birthday that you can remember the good times. My best wishes for Friday.

you are very kind.

It was 3 years ago in Dec.

I have another daughter and a son.

Have you tried seeing a pain management specialist? Pain can really make one's life a misery. I am so sorry you have to carry that burden.

I hold the good memories close and they far out number the bad.

seen a pain specialist, mainly because when it comes to these phantom headaches which seem to have no obvious cause, a pain specialist is unlikely to want to deal with me - at least that's the impression I've been given. It's easy to fake a headache if you happen to be a drug seeker, even though that would not be my intent at all. However, short of giving me what I know works, probably not much they can do. Many good doctors are afraid to prescribe pain meds now what with the DEA breathing down their necks and quite frankly, I can't blame them for being wary. I have heard of some cases where the doctors weren't over prescribing and had never lost a patient due to overdose - and they still got in trouble. I wouldn't want to gamble with my medical license and freedom either if I was in their shoes.

She did not help her case at all by flipping the bird and mouthing off. Up to that point, she was in the right and the judge was on his way to being recused from the case for being arbitrary and capricious.

to "help her case"?

Maybe she was on drugs after all?

people, especially young people who have not yet developed into automatons, just have a natural reaction and show it, regardless of whether they have to "pay" for it later?

I believe that's one of the reasons most of the participants in demonstrations are young. They are not that afraid of the consequences as the more obedient, older types are. They will risk going to prison for taking a stand. I know, I know, have already been told here that such a thing is just "stupid".

Meet the automatons you dismiss so easily.

who may be approximately the same age as I am, but most are a lot younger, those in the background appear to be what I consider young people.

No, I didn't say that every older person is an automaton or unwilling to speak his or her mind. Sometimes that willingness even increases with advancing age. My father was an activist until his late eighties. But what is trumpeted here as wisdom and sense of reality, in stark contrast to the supposed "stupidity" of the 18-year-old Penelope, is often just cowardice that DOES increase in most people as they "adapt" and grow older. Understandable, yes, but let's not totally dismiss the fresh reactions of those who encounter false authority for the first time in places where they do not expect and/or rightfully don't respect it.

and I applaud them for supporting the protests of their kids and grandchildren.

I'm sure the latter won't take no shit from no judge either.

Good luck with that.

I think she learned her lesson though.

Was her mother in court? I couldn't hear her answer.

"especially young people who have not yet developed into automatons, just have a natural reaction and show it, regardless of whether they have to "pay" for it later?"

In other words, young people who want to be treated like adults, but not held to the same standards as adults...

"arbitrary and capricious" is answering the question, "what is your jewelry worth" with "Rick Ross" while giggling uncontrollably is "arbitrary and capricious".

Saying adios, caused the judge to double it?

That's arbitrary and capricious.

Insolence is not tolerated in any court in the land.

Since when?

Try acting like that in court sometime in front of your favorite liberal judge and see where it gets you.

Showing that the 1'st judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Which was my point to begin with. If she had stopped there, she would've walked when the case was presented to the 2nd judge. As it is, she is now free of the drug charges but held on the criminal contempt charges.

Did you notice any difference in how the defendant acted in the second hearing? No, had she made her second appearance with the same attitude and insolence as her first, the second judge would have probably given her more to giggle about. Had she been a repeat offender, she wouldn't have received the second chance.

Unfortunately it has been my personal experience that when you go before a judge in such matters, there is someone there to assist you to speak to the judge.

This is all done on video and it is hard to appreciate the seriousness of what is befalling you by just looking into a camera.

I wasn't aware of this practice but it certainly explains the two camera split view.

What a surreal experience it must be for a young person caught up in court proceedings for the first time, having to talk through a little video monitor to a strange old person in a black robe. After being locked up in a cell, deprived of your personal belongings, dressed up like a clown and all that.

if, say, she lived in a basement with no TV until the day before she was arrested..LOL, "strange old person in a black robe", FFS, it's an 18 year old..LOL

a fun experience. She broke the law ... everyone else there has to talk through a little video monitor to a judge, spend time in a locked cell and be dressed like a "clown" (although last I checked, clowns wear many colors, not just orange). The girl behind her had to wear that ghastly outfit too. Everyone who ends up in jail has to go through the same experience. It's not supposed to be pleasant, it should act as a deterrent.

And that "strange old person in a black robe" was the JUDGE who was deciding her bail and possible need for a PD. Not a good idea to be pissing that person off. Your obvious problem with old people is also noted.


I've never been before a judge, but even when I was eighteen I would never have conducted myself that way. As a matter of fact, I would have been too scared to act like she did. She didn't seem to take it seriously until the judge gave her something to take seriously and then she didn't like it, did she? Perfect of example of someone who needs "tough love". She probably never got that at home.

or, as stupid as she was acting, she may have declined counsel.

To be clear, the girl acted like a fool. I started out by saying she did not help her own case.

In all that we are in violent agreement.

But she's not the product of a law school, nor does she sit in judgment of anyone. The judge stepped over the line when he reacted to the "adios" by doubling her bail. That was an unwarranted overreaction. He acted like a petulant child unworthy of sitting on the bench.

What I was trying to get at was that this person was not PHYSICALLY in front of a judge, or so it seems by what I am watching. If I am wrong, please let me know. I think just talking into a camera isn't the same as actually being in a courtroom.

Her physical presence is required by law; trial in absentia is specifcally prohibited under the constitution.

In 1884, the United States Supreme Court held that

the legislature has deemed it essential to the protection of one whose life or liberty is involved in a prosecution for felony, that he shall be personally present at the trial, that is, at every stage of the trial when his substantial rights may be affected by the proceedings against him. If he be deprived of his life or liberty without being so present, such deprivation would be without that due process of law required by the Constitution. Hopt v. Utah 110 US 574, 28 L Ed 262, 4 S Ct 202 (1884).

A similar holding was announced by the Arizona Supreme Court in 2004 (based on Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure):

A voluntary waiver of the right to be present requires true freedom of choice. A trial court may infer that a defendant's absence from trial is voluntary and constitutes a waiver if a defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, the right to be present, and had received a warning that the proceeding would take place in their absence if they failed to appear. The courts indulge every reasonable presumption against the waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. State v. Whitley, 85 P.3d 116 (2004)

Although United States Congress codified this right by approving Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 1946 and amended the Rule in 1973, the right is not absolute.

Rule 43 provides that a defendant shall be present

at the arraignment,
at the time of the plea,
at every stage of the trial including the impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict and
at the imposition of sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_absentia

are in front of judges by computer screen and mic every single day. They are taken to a room with a table and a PC, their attorney is with them and a guard as well and the hearing proceeds.

Is there a difference here? I'm no attorney, but I have worked with prisoners and their attorneys and this is the procedure I have seen. Some jails have 2 or 3 days a week that are designated for seeing the judge... which means from a PC screen. Just wondering.

Utah gets away with a lot then. Hundreds of times a day I would guess.

Going straight to incarceration.

Judges are expensive.

Just think of all the money we could save.

But do go on with your bad self.

The arraignment process is simply a first step--it's not a trial, it's the process that sets the date for the trial. If you are looking at the judge, and the judge is looking at you, I don't see a thing wrong with doing the process by video. Neither do most sentient persons. A handcuffed van ride to a courthouse and a frog-march into a courtroom isn't going to make "justice" any "better."

It makes the process much safer for defendants who may well be innocent but who are hated by the public (accused child molesters and murderers, for example) and it makes it safer for courtroom personnel if you have some asshole in there who is determined to escape, and is intent upon stealing a weapon from a bailiff to shoot up the place.

There is no "downside" to this process. We don't use buggy whips any more, either.

It's only getting in the way of efficiency.

If it becomes too burdensome, we can just push it aside.

You have one of those real nice days, now....

There's a reason a judge refers to himself as "this court" while seated, and that's exactly what she was flipping off.

which you all completely ignore.

Address his point... At what time is it ok to do that?

read the OP. She fully cooperated to the best of her ability to understand what was going on. Only when the judge decided to deliberately upset her (watch his ugly face while he smirks and sniggers calling her back), she is shocked and outraged. Fully justified to make her feelings known. If the "court" acts like a jackass, they deserve no respect.

I hope she learned something- like you can't just be an asshole anywhere anytime you feel like it.

lame. can't you do better?

As opposed to sending her home in a limousine with a bag of money. Six of one, half a dozen of the other; both examples extremes, and both examples idiotic...

However, I've little doubt that you of course, will attempt to rationalize an idiotic statement.

how to get harder stuff?

1 or 2 days would have scared her, maybe.

30 days is just the judge settling a score.

The girl is obviously quite pretty, perhaps he takes it as a personal offense when she tries to be charming and friendly.

Given that he has no chance in hell to elicit even the faintest of smiles on her face once he is not in a position to exert power over her. Or so he may well believe. Could be an interesting topic for him to discuss with a psychoanalyst, perhaps.

Interesting long-distance diagnoses... much like "Doctor" Frist did.

Please proceed...

It just gets better. You do make me laugh at least

You think she's hot (not to mention young) so of course we should take her side against the (gasp) old and ugly judge.

Sorry, while I agree that 30 days was too much, the woman acted like a jerk on drugs.

but 68 is too old to be a judge, IMO. Where I live, judges retire when they reach retirement age, and I believe that is a good thing, even for themselves.

In addition, such an old fart - not necessarily but apparently in this case - is totally out of whack with what is going on in his field of work. Doesn't know what "bars" means, as in Xanax bars but deals with drug offenders daily? Come on, time to go home and watch reruns of "I dream of Jeannie".

If this was a handsome judge and an ugly defendant, or a handsome judge and a pretty defendant, or a male judge and a male defendant, a female judge and a female defendant, white/white, black/white; white/black; black/black and any other combination you want: if you say fuck you to a judge you serve time. Every time.

Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2013, 02:10 AM - Edit history (1)

that the situation may not have developed if there had not been this wide generational, cultural and possibly also personal attractivity gap.

I have been before two very different judges - one relatively young and apparently liberal minded, the other very similar to the one we are talking about: an old reactionary, self-delusional and arrogant. And yes, it makes a lot of difference. Not just in terms of the process, but also regarding the outcome.

You mus never have met old liberals or young conservatives. There are plenty of young conservatives who would have hung that girl, and many old liberals who would have defended her.

what were you watching? She didn't answer the questions posed by the court.."Rick Ross" is not an answer to the value of her jewelry, it is a smart assed response. The giggled throughout the hearing...If I'm the judge I'm going to wipe the giggling off her stupid face and so would every judge in every court room I've been in (many, many). She is only justified in answering questions posed by the court and conducting herself in an adult and serious manner. She completely deserved what she got. Notice how her demeanor changed before the second judge? No, she is not "Fully justified to make her feelings known.", the only thing she is justified to do in court is answer the questions posed and conduct herself in a manner suitable for the gravity of the situation. No, she learned a valuable lesson about decorum in a court setting. She went in a stupid, snarky, kid and came out enlightened.

I don't call giving the smart ass answer about the worth of her jewelry cooperating. She was giggling most of the way through, like she was not taking any of it seriously at all. It was like it was all a big joke to her. If I had been in her shoes, laughing would be my last reaction because frankly there is nothing funny about getting arrested.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe he's trying to do the girl a favor? She's already at such a young age getting arrested for script drug possession, she doesn't seem to fully grasp the trouble she's in - it's called tough love.

Flipping him off further displays how she does not understand how serious this was - but judging from the second video, she seems to have learned her lesson.

Anyone, I mean ANYONE, who flips off a judge in a court of law is going to be charged with contempt of court and see county jail time. She is no different.

I don't get the outrage