Judge Assaults PD for not waiving client's 6th Amdmt rights

libertyjam

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
2,901
Again in Fla., even more blatant than the truancy case. Vid @ link


http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/06/03/judge-waive-speedy-trial-ill-beat-ass/

[h=1]Judge: Waive Speedy Trial, or I’ll “Beat Your Ass”[/h] [h=2]by ChrisJune 3, 2014 [/h] If you’ve ever had a public defender in a criminal case, you probably plead guilty for fear of getting beaten in a trial. Yesterday in Brevard County, Florida however, a public defender got beaten at arraignment, literally. Judge John Murphy is accused of punching veteran public defender Andrew Weinstock in the face repeatedly, after the two exchanged words in the court room. Murphy reportedly wanted Weinstock’s client to waive his right to a speedy trial, and when he refused, the judge said “If I had a rock I’d throw it at you” and then invited him outside of the courtroom to “beat [his] ass”.


The dialogue in the court room was captured on video (below). In the video you can see Weinstock exit the court room, reportedly thinking it was just to talk. Once they got off camera, without saying a word, the judge reportedly grabbed him by the collar and began punching him in the head. You can hear the sounds of scuffle on the court room video. Two deputies broke up the melee, after which Judge Murphy returned to the bench and began hearing other cases. “I will catch my breath eventually,” Murphy said. “Man, I’m an old man.”


No arrests were made, no charges were filed, but the public defenders office said they will be reporting the incident to the Bar association. See the video below, then I’d like to riff on this a bit more…


I’m glad this happened, and it’s not because public defenders are scum who sell out their clients and deserve to get hit. They are, and they do, but that’s not the point. The point is, human beings cannot be trusted with the power that the court system is trusted with.

The constitutional right to a speedy trial outlined in the US Constitution’s sixth amendment serves an important purpose, or at least, it’s supposed to. The limitless resources of the State can be, and are, used to drag out criminal cases in such a fashion as to deplete the resources of a defendant. In many if not most criminal cases, the defendant is coerced to waive this right from the start, but it is not usually this pronounced. Your attorney will often tell you to waive it because if you don’t, it will piss off the judge and the prosecutor because it makes their lives more difficult, and that could influence a judge’s ruling on some matter, or any effort made at a plea deal.


What happened yesterday in Brevard County is a less nuanced version of exactly the same thing. Sure, you have a right to a speedy trial, but if you exercise it, the State will do violence to you. In fact, being punched in the face a couple of times, is far less violence than the threat of being locked in a cage for months or even years, or having your property taken. I’ve had numerous criminal cases over the course of my lifetime, some more deserved than others, and in every single one of them, even the cases I beat, I would rather have been punched in the face a few times, than to even go through the court proceedings.


There were no charges filed against the judge, reportedly because the public defender didn’t wish to pursue any. Try to imagine if anybody else had punched any other officer of the court. At the very least, they would be held in contempt. There is absolutely no doubt that there would have been an arrest and charges if any private person engaged in even the verbal abuse pictured in that video, much more so if it came to physical violence. It would make little difference if the victim of the assault sought not to pursue the matter, the court would charge the assailant with at a minimum, contempt and disorderly conduct. But, since it’s a judge, it’s no big deal, apparently.
-more-
 
No arrests were made, no charges were filed, [...]

"Just Us."

Try to imagine if anybody else had punched any other officer of the court. At the very least, they would be held in contempt. There is absolutely no doubt that there would have been an arrest and charges if any private person engaged in even the verbal abuse pictured in that video, much more so if it came to physical violence. It would make little difference if the victim of the assault sought not to pursue the matter, the court would charge the assailant with at a minimum, contempt and disorderly conduct. But, since it’s a judge, it’s no big deal, apparently.

"Just Them."
 
What does this have to do with Constitutionalism?
The constitutional right to a speedy trial outlined in the US Constitution’s sixth amendment serves an important purpose, or at least, it’s supposed to. The limitless resources of the State can be, and are, used to drag out criminal cases in such a fashion as to deplete the resources of a defendant. In many if not most criminal cases, the defendant is coerced to waive this right from the start, but it is not usually this pronounced. Your attorney will often tell you to waive it because if you don’t, it will piss off the judge and the prosecutor because it makes their lives more difficult, and that could influence a judge’s ruling on some matter, or any effort made at a plea deal.
C'mon, read teh article, ya Mexican American wannabe! :P :D
 
Last edited:
Judges get paid to be in a courtroom every day.

Big corporations can afford to send lawyers to a court room every day.

The average man can not afford to take time off work to spend in court every day.

Every effort is made to remove the protections of the constitution because it gives Govt more and more power to abuse citizens. This is not Justice. This is "Just-Us". You will give Govt every opportunity to hold you accountable for the pettiest of things, but your ability to defend yourself is either deprived, or comes at tremendous cost.

There can be no Fair Trial in any system that ignores the limitations placed upon that system. At the rate they are going, they will end up authorizing torture in court just to get a Guilty plea. The people that allow this shit to happen are validating an invalid system, which can only make things even worse.
 
What does this have to do with Constitutionalism?

No kidding. HB does that though. On pretty much anything he finds sad. "Oh, my big fish just ate my little fish? Constitutionalism fail." I just roll my eyes and shake my head. What else can you do with such?
 
C'mon, read teh article, ya Mexican American wannabe! :P :D

So a judge ignoring the Constitution is a failure of the Constitution? Seems more like it's a failure of the Judge to honor his Oath.

g88c9c08b.jpg
 
I'm pretty sure this is fake.

What's with the constant flow of people into seats without prompting? Deputies stand there while the judge and PD disappear to go fight? No way. NO ONE reacts to what happened, least of all the defendant himself. I call bs on this story. I refuse to believe this country is that far gone yet.
 
Last edited:
Seriously though, if "ignoring the Constitution" is considered a "constitutionalism fail" then every example of statism in the world should be called "anarchy fail."
 
Seriously though, if "ignoring the Constitution" is considered a "constitutionalism fail" then every example of statism in the world should be called "anarchy fail."

This is precisely why - as an anarchist myself - I have never been very fond of what I will here call the "Spoonerist" critique of Constitutionalism shared by so many of my fellow anarchists. (By "'Spoonerist' critique," I should be taken as referring specifically and solely to Lysander Spooner's famous and oft-quoted line from The Constitution of No Authority: "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." I should NOT be taken as addressing any of Spooner's many other cogent and excellent criticisms of the US Constitution.)

The Constitution of the United States of America ... the Communist Manifesto ... Murray Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" ... each of these could be sourced as the "foundational" document or (statement of) principles for a society. But the "Spoonerist" critique could be applied with equal force to any of them, should the members of such a society fail (for whatever reason) to adequately implement or maintain the application of the doctrines embodied in the relevant document or (statement of) principles.

A stateless society based upon the Non-Aggression Principle could "devolve" into a statist society in which the state routinely violates the NAP - and the "Spoonerist" critique could then be invoked against the NAP (e.g., the NAP was "powerless to prevent" the devolution into statism). But I would reject such a critique of the NAP, because no (statement of) principles or document can be expected to implement or enforce itself. Thus, in order to be consistent, I must also reject such a critique when it is applied to Constitutionalism as well - and for the same reason.

IOW: The "Spoonerist" critique of Constitutionalism "proves too much." As Glen has properly noted, it is a blade that cuts both ways ...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top