November 2, 2009
The Wyoming Supreme Court summarily affirmed a district court's order of summary judgment against two appellants after striking the appeals briefs "due to Appellant's repeated use of disrespectful language against the district court, this Court, and others." The brief cast aspersions at a federal district judge who presided over a federal case involving the appellants, "include[d] innuendo about the potential for bribing judges," and "criticize[d] the members of a particular religion." The court does not give any details:
While a curious onlooker may be interested in the exact nature of [the] criticisms and disrespectful language, this Court will not sully this order, or the Court's files, with the language used...Suffice it to say that [the] digressions were numerous and improper.
One of the appellants is an inactive member of the New Mexico Bar. The court sent the order to that bar "for whatever action it deems appropriate." (Mike Frisch)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Unsullied Order:
“Judges are supposed to be men [and women] of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy climate….” In re Little, 404 U.S. 553, 555 (1972).
I'm always suspicious of claims that words and ideas are so intollerable that they should be supressed. If a brief is to be struck and the merits of an appeal not addressed then the evidence justifying doing so should be put forward. And what is this sensitivity to sullying the files of the court? That's just a rediculous notion.
Posted by: FixedWing | Nov 2, 2009 11:34:19 AM
I've obtained and posted the briefs that the Wyoming Supreme Court doesn't want you to read. See the Nov. 3rd entry at http://knowyourcourts.com/News/news.htm
Frankly, it's not all that interesting and his diatribe about "Hebrew interests," `though innapropriate and unfounded for inclusion in an appellate brief, is his opinion, protected by the First Amendment.
Notwithstanding his poor writing style or the scathing invective, I think the court should have disposed of the case on the merits for the same reason that neo-Nazi skinheads are entitled to the same procedural due process safeguards as any of the rest of us, regardless of their offensive opinions and vitriol.
Posted by: Sean L. Harrington | Nov 4, 2009 11:27:43 AM
Imagine the frustration being a non attorney and realizing that the 11th amendment overturned the bill of rights in direct contrast to Chisholm v. Georgia. James Wilson, correct me if I'm wrong, wrote the Constitutional Article III. When he gave his opinion in Chisholm he didn't interpret it, he reiterates it. 2 days later congress took his decision, “citizens can” and replaced it with “citizens cannot.” How convenient. In my opinion, through the research I have done, and it didn’t take much, the 11th amendment insulated officials in office at the time of the revolutionary war who were being sued for war debts. Bankruptcy was brutal punishment, and the 11th amendment created all this immunity! How is that constitutional? Imagine how simple it would be to overturn the 11th amendment. This amendment was the first silent coup to reinstate the grievances in the declaration of independence back into the constitution placing the bill of rights and others under discretion, which is also protected by immunity.
Posted by: Pat | Mar 12, 2010 8:52:45 PM