Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An Open Letter to Judge Boasberg
4-17-25 | butterdezillion

Posted on 04/17/2025 2:42:43 PM PDT by butterdezillion

Judge Boasberg has said he will pursue contempt charges for those who did not follow his unconstitutional verbal order to turn around a planeload of deportees en route to El Salvador. He wrote a long rant basically saying that even unlawful orders have to be obeyed until they are ruled to be unlawful. Here is my open letter to him (only published here but if somebody could help me get it to him I would appreciate the help):

An appeals court just issued an order forbidding you from eating, drinking, pooping, peeing, farting, burping, or breathing until you have in your hand written permission from them to do any individual instance of any of those actions. Are you guilty of contempt if you take a breath before that order can be heard by a higher-level appeals court and ruled unconstitutional?

Using your own logic, you would be - because even unlawful orders have to be obeyed until they are ruled to be unlawful. What your logic fails to consider is that the protection of the law goes both ways - both to insure that judges are able to have lawful orders obeyed AND to insure that judges are NOT able to control other people through unlawful orders - which is called “punishing through the process.” Your reasoning would allow a judge to order a plaintiff to commit suicide within the next 10 minutes and then punish him with imprisonment if he showed contempt for your unlawful order.

In what kind of nation does a judge have that kind of power, and what kind of judge would even claim to have that kind of power?

You, sir, are being charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for deliberately lying in court records regarding how you were “assigned” this case.

You are also being charged with reckless endangerment for ordering a plane in mid-flight to turn around when doing so without adequate fuel, arrangements, etc could have brought down the entire plane and any others on its new route.

You are also being charged with giving air control orders without a license.

You are enjoined from eating, drinking, peeing, pooping, coughing, burping, or breathing until you have written consent from the court to do any single instance of any of those actions.

Welcome to the hell of your own making.

Sincerely, Butterdezillion


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: areyouloggedin; boasberg; clownshow; contemptofcourt; hughandseries; impeachment; ninjafrogmen; nobodyaskedyou; removal; vanity; whatdoyousee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last
To: butterdezillion

Okay!! But youre gonna have to wait till she’s between Fox News Interviews or at the podium taking credit for local level FBI arrests in various States. Shes really busy as our new AG!!


21 posted on 04/17/2025 3:29:29 PM PDT by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

Yes, at some point the failure of judges to recuse when appropriate needs to be addressed. Until that is made a crime rather than just an ethics violation we need to work with charging the judges with actual crimes. I suspect that a lot of these judges’ “assignments” were NOT made according to law, and if they claim that they were it shouldn’t be too hard to hit them with perjury charges.

I think we have to fight fire with fire. The corruption within the political system means that we will never be able to turn things around until we get rid of some filthy Congress-critters as well as filthy judges. The arrests REALLY need to start coming soon. And arrests of the people funding all this crap. The ActBlue investigations need to crank out some arrests very soon as well.


22 posted on 04/17/2025 3:29:42 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rx

Thank you. I need some terrorist player cards like from the Saddam Hussein era.


23 posted on 04/17/2025 3:31:11 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I'll ask my friend. She's very shy, but I think that's due to her flatus emission problem.

She did authorize me to thank you for raising awareness of the FE issue, in general, and, more specifically, the possible legal entanglements that arise from the lawfare of rogue Trump-hating district judges.;-)

24 posted on 04/17/2025 3:32:53 PM PDT by RoosterRedux (A person who seeks the truth with a bias will never find it. He will only confirm his bias.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep

I hear your point. The guy who is acting US attorney for DC is a much more likely bet. He seems like he means business, and he would have jurisdiction as well.

Only trouble is we’d need to have any trial take place outside of DC. How could we get somebody outside of DC to have jurisdiction to bring charges against him? See, that is the other weapon they are using. The third-world sh!tholes in our country are always so willing to bring the rest of the country down to their level.


25 posted on 04/17/2025 3:34:52 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

lol. Give her my best.

There used to be a joke we told when I was a kid. All I can remember is the punchline: Catch that fart and paint it green. lol

What is really ironic is that this judge is claiming the right to do the very thing that he says the Trump administration did: force an unlawful result by using the time delays in the process. As long as a judge can force his illegal orders to be done before another court can stop him, he says he has to be able to do ANYTHING. That’s NOT what the rule of law means. And a judge who cheated to get assigned the case - in the wrong jurisdiction - needs to be punished for that as well.


26 posted on 04/17/2025 3:41:27 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

you have to fight fire with fire...

If every time a judge acts up, we(Bomdi, Pashel, or Trump) close our eyes... twirl our finger around and then POINT and plant our finger on the fanned-out pile or fraud reports on the desk. Pick that name out and publicly press charges against that democrat for fraud...

The next day, when a judge acts up, all 3 stand around the desk again, someone twirls their finger and does it again... It wont take too many more before the DEmocrats SCREAM at the judicial to stand down!!

Add that as a suggestion in your open letter!!


27 posted on 04/17/2025 3:42:56 PM PDT by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

When I was in the Air Force unlawful orders did not have to be obeyed


28 posted on 04/17/2025 3:43:51 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Yes, and if somebody outside of your chain of command (jurisdiction) ordered you to do somehing you’d be totally in line to tell them to take a flying leap as well - even if the order WAS lawful.

In this judge’s case it’s like somebody from a different branch of the military ordering you to do something unlawful, and then hitting you with a court-martial for disobeying a lawful order.

Totally crazy. This HAS to be slapped down IMMEDIATELY. Let these judges know they are neither God nor authorized to play one on TV. Most in this country can easily see what’s being done but we need somebody to do as Rush used to say, “Well, SOMEBODY’s got to say it!”


29 posted on 04/17/2025 3:59:58 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep

Yes, I agree that needs to happen.

The difficulty is that as far as I know the judiciary is given discretion to monitor their own “ethics” so when they play these filthy judicial tricks it is protected for the sake of an “independent judiciary”. The charges that need to be filed have to be crimes they are subject to just as normal citizens - at least until we come up with laws to replace the “ethics” rules. And the same thing holds true for those in court administration. We have laws saying that cases are to be assigned randomly but these incestuous people make a mockery of that. THEY NEED TO BE CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE PEOPLE OF RIGHTS, if nothing else. So that even the people sleeping together in the office know they are dead meat if they direct a case to a “preferred” judge.


30 posted on 04/17/2025 4:05:56 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I've been having a running conversation with Perplexity AI about this. Here is fragment from my latest continuation of the dialog.


Q: What happens if a district court judge finds a cabinet secretary in contempt of his orders, and his case is ultimately overturned by a higher court, and then the judge declares that even though the Supreme Court overturned his ruling, his ruling was in effect for a period of time and the contempt occurred during that period and is therefore still in force despite the case being overturned later?

If a district court judge finds a cabinet secretary (or other official) in contempt for violating a court order, and that order is later overturned by a higher court—including the Supreme Court—the legal effect of the contempt finding depends on whether the original order was merely voidable (issued with jurisdiction, but later found erroneous) or void ab initio (issued without jurisdiction from the start).

Key Principles

Practical Outcome

Conclusion

A district judge can assert that contempt occurred during the period his order was in effect, and this position is generally supported in federal law—if the judge had jurisdiction. If the higher court overturns the order on legal grounds but finds the judge had jurisdiction, the contempt finding may still be enforced. If the higher court finds the judge lacked jurisdiction, both the order and any contempt findings based on it are void and cannot be enforced.

Q: In the Boasberg case, didn't the supreme court find that Boasberg did not have jurisdiction? Wouldn't that mean that Boasberg's contempt order is void ab initio?

Yes, in the Boasberg case, the Supreme Court found that Judge Boasberg did not have jurisdiction to issue the order blocking the deportation flights. The Supreme Court vacated his temporary restraining order (TRO), holding that the case should have been brought in a different venue—specifically, that Texas, not Washington, D.C., had jurisdiction over the matter involving the Alien Enemies Act.

Legal Implications for the Contempt Order

Conclusion

Because the Supreme Court found that Judge Boasberg lacked jurisdiction, his order is void ab initio, and any contempt order based solely on violation of that order would also be void and unenforceable. Boasberg’s insistence that the government could still be held in contempt during the period before the Supreme Court’s ruling does not align with established law regarding orders issued without jurisdiction. The contempt order should not stand under these circumstances.

Q: Can Boasberg still pursue contempt charges despite the Supreme Court's ruling?

Yes, Judge Boasberg is actively pursuing contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials despite the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that he lacked jurisdiction over the underlying case. Boasberg’s position is that, under established legal doctrine, parties must obey court orders while they are in effect—even if those orders are later overturned or vacated—so long as the court was acting as a court and the order was not “void ab initio” for lack of jurisdiction.

What Boasberg Is Doing

Legal Context

What Happens Next

In summary:

Boasberg is continuing with contempt proceedings despite the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional ruling, arguing that his order was binding while in effect. However, the administration is contesting this, and the ultimate enforceability of any contempt finding will almost certainly be decided by higher courts, given the strong argument that a void order cannot be the basis for contempt.

Q: Which side is more likely to prevail on the merits?

Based on the facts and current legal landscape, the Trump administration is more likely to prevail on the merits if the contempt issue is reviewed by the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issue

Precedent and Legal Doctrine

Likely Outcome

Conclusion

The Trump administration is more likely to prevail on the merits, as the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional ruling undercuts the legal foundation for any contempt finding. If appealed, higher courts are likely to vacate any contempt sanctions on the grounds that the original order was void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction.

Q: If we are to presume that a smart judge like Boasberg already knows this, then why is he pursuing this anyway? Isn't Boasberg acting in defiance of the Supreme Court?

Judge Boasberg is proceeding with contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials despite the Supreme Court’s ruling that he lacked jurisdiction over the underlying case. This raises the question: If a judge as experienced as Boasberg knows the prevailing legal standard—that contempt cannot be enforced for violation of an order that is void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction—why is he continuing?

Boasberg’s Rationale

Boasberg’s own statements and rulings make clear that he is relying on the traditional doctrine that court orders must be obeyed while in effect, even if later vacated. He argues that willful defiance of a court order undermines the rule of law and that officials cannot simply ignore judicial directives and then claim immunity if the order is later overturned. He emphasizes that the administration was given ample opportunity to explain or rectify its actions and failed to do so.

Boasberg wrote:

“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely ‘annul the judgments of the courts of the United States’ would not just ‘destroy the rights acquired under those judgments’; it would make ‘a solemn mockery’ of ‘the constitution itself’”.

He also asserts that “a party who chooses to flout a court order before it is overturned by another court can still face penalties”.

Is Boasberg Acting in Defiance of the Supreme Court?

This is a matter of sharp legal and political dispute:

Why Is Boasberg Proceeding?

Conclusion

Boasberg is not simply acting in defiance of the Supreme Court, but rather staking out a legal position that the contempt power should apply to violations of court orders while they are in effect, unless the lack of jurisdiction is clear and fundamental. Whether this is correct will be determined by appellate courts. His actions are controversial and may ultimately be reversed, but they reflect a deliberate judicial philosophy rather than open defiance.

Q:

Judge Boasberg is not acting in open defiance of the Supreme Court, but rather following a legal doctrine that requires compliance with court orders while in effect.

Then what is the point of void ab initio? Isn't this the contempt trap that we discussed earlier? Isn't Boasberg simply substituting his own opinion for those of the Supreme Court? Isn't Boasberg exhibiting activist behavior by refusing to accept the Supreme Court's ruling on jurisdiction by insisting that the legal question is not fully settled in order to continue pursuing contempt charges against the Trump administration? Shouldn't he have had a reasonable expectation that he didn't have jurisdiction in the first place, and is ignoring that the likely outcome would be void ab initio just so he can continue to puruse contempt charges against the Trump administration?

You are correct that the void ab initio doctrine means an order issued without subject matter jurisdiction is treated as if it never existed—it cannot be the basis for contempt. If Judge Boasberg’s order was void from the outset due to lack of jurisdiction (as the Supreme Court determined), then pursuing contempt for violating that order is not supported by established legal doctrine.

Addressing Your Points

  1. Void ab initio and Contempt

    • The void ab initio doctrine, rooted in Marbury v. Madison and reaffirmed in numerous cases, holds that an order issued without jurisdiction is a “nullity and can be ignored and no one can be held in contempt for violating it”.

    • If Boasberg lacked jurisdiction, his order was void from the beginning, not merely voidable or erroneous.

  2. Is This a Contempt Trap?

    • Continuing to pursue contempt after the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional ruling does resemble what critics call a “contempt trap”: officials are punished for violating an order that, legally, never had effect.

    • Legal doctrine is clear: “if the order is void ab initio, the order cannot be the basis for a finding of contempt”.

  3. Judicial Activism or Substituting Judgment?

    • By insisting on contempt proceedings after the Supreme Court has determined he lacked jurisdiction, Boasberg is arguably substituting his own view of judicial authority for the Supreme Court’s clear ruling on jurisdiction.

    • This is a form of judicial overreach or activism, as it disregards the fundamental limits placed on district courts by higher courts and the Constitution.

  4. Reasonable Expectation of Jurisdiction

    • Given the Supreme Court’s prompt and unequivocal ruling that the D.C. court was the wrong forum, a judge of Boasberg’s experience should have anticipated the jurisdictional problem.

    • Persisting in contempt proceedings despite this is not consistent with the principle that void orders cannot be enforced or used as a basis for punishment.

Conclusion

Boasberg’s continued pursuit of contempt charges after the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional ruling is inconsistent with the void ab initio doctrine and established contempt law. If a court order is void for lack of jurisdiction, it cannot support a contempt finding—any such proceeding would be overturned on appeal. Continuing under these circumstances is not justifiable by settled legal doctrine and does reflect a departure from judicial norms, raising valid concerns about judicial overreach and the appearance of activism.

Q: Then why do you think Boasberg is doing it anyway?

Based on the search results, Judge Boasberg is pursuing contempt proceedings against the Trump administration primarily because he views compliance with judicial orders as a foundational principle of the rule of law, regardless of later appellate outcomes. His actions are motivated by a belief that allowing executive officials to disregard court orders—simply because they anticipate or later receive a higher court reversal—would set a dangerous precedent that undermines judicial authority and the separation of powers.

Boasberg’s Reasoning

Context and Criticism

Conclusion

Judge Boasberg is pursuing contempt because he believes that upholding the authority of judicial orders—even if later overturned—is essential to the rule of law and the balance of powers. He is acting on a principle that court orders must be obeyed while in effect, and that deliberate disobedience by executive officials cannot go unaddressed, regardless of subsequent appellate decisions. Whether this approach is ultimately upheld or reversed will be determined by higher courts, but Boasberg’s motivation is rooted in his interpretation of judicial duty and constitutional order—not personal defiance or disregard for the Supreme Court.

Q:

He found “probable cause” that the Trump administration acted with “deliberate or reckless disregard” for his order to halt deportations and to return planes carrying deportees

Wasn't it Boasberg who was acting reckless in issuing such an order in the first place? Wasn't Boasberg intruding on the domain of foreign affairs when the airplane was already in international airspace?

Judge Boasberg’s actions in issuing a restraining order against the Trump administration’s deportation flights and pursuing contempt charges have drawn sharp criticism—particularly regarding whether he acted recklessly or intruded on executive authority in foreign affairs.

Was Boasberg Reckless in Issuing the Order?

Did Boasberg Intrude on Foreign Affairs?

Conclusion

Boasberg’s actions can be reasonably criticized as reckless in the sense that he asserted jurisdiction and issued orders later found to be outside his authority, and he intervened in a sensitive area of foreign policy while the deportation flights were already underway or outside U.S. control. The Supreme Court’s ruling confirms that his court was not the proper venue, and the Justice Department’s objections regarding foreign affairs were well-founded. Pursuing contempt after a finding of no jurisdiction further raises questions about judicial overreach and the proper boundaries between the branches of government.

Q: Didn't the administration also say that Boasberg ordered the flights to be returned orally and it was never put into writing? Didn't they argue that orders from a judge are not executable until they are clearly in writing such that all parties are given the same understanding of the order?

Yes, the Trump administration did argue that Judge Boasberg’s order to return the deportation flights was given orally and not put into writing in a manner that was clear or executable. They maintained that judicial orders must be unambiguous and in writing so that all parties have the same understanding and ability to comply.

Key Points from the Search Results

Conclusion

The Trump administration did argue that Judge Boasberg’s order was not executable because it was initially oral and not clearly put into writing. They maintained that enforceable judicial orders must be unambiguous and written. Boasberg, however, insisted that both his oral and written orders were binding and that the administration’s failure to comply constituted contempt. This dispute over the form and clarity of judicial orders is central to the ongoing legal and constitutional conflict between the judge and the administration.

Q: Is Boasberg in the right by asserting "principles" about adhering to his orders while they were chronologically in effect despite expecting later supreme Court rulings that nullified his jurisdiction, or is he exhibiting activist behaviors by keeping this contempt charge going by any means necessary?

Judge Boasberg’s insistence that parties must comply with his orders while they are in effect—even when he could reasonably anticipate a Supreme Court reversal on jurisdiction—sits at the intersection of two competing judicial philosophies: the principle of judicial authority and the risk of judicial overreach.

Boasberg’s Position: Upholding Judicial Authority

Boasberg is relying on the long-standing doctrine that court orders must be obeyed while they are in effect, regardless of whether they are later overturned. This principle is intended to prevent chaos and ensure respect for the judiciary: if parties could ignore orders based on their own legal predictions, the rule of law would be undermined. Boasberg argues that “the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it”[1]. He also gave the administration multiple opportunities to “purge” the contempt by bringing back the deportees or providing explanations for their actions.

Critics’ View: Judicial Activism and Overreach

However, critics argue that Boasberg’s continued pursuit of contempt charges after the Supreme Court ruled he lacked jurisdiction is an example of judicial activism or overreach. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision made clear that the case did not belong before Boasberg and that his orders were issued without proper authority. Under the legal doctrine of void ab initio, an order issued without jurisdiction is considered void from the outset and cannot be the basis for a contempt finding. Persisting with contempt proceedings under these circumstances can be seen as “by any means necessary” behavior—substituting a judge’s own sense of principle over the clear limits set by higher courts.

The Legal and Institutional Tension

Conclusion

Boasberg is asserting a real and important judicial principle, but by persisting with contempt charges after the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional ruling, he is entering territory widely viewed as judicial overreach or activism.

His actions highlight a deep tension in the legal system: the need to enforce court orders versus the obligation to respect the boundaries of judicial power as defined by higher courts. Ultimately, higher courts are likely to side with the administration if the contempt finding is appealed, given the Supreme Court’s clear ruling on jurisdiction and the void ab initio doctrine.

Q: Has Boasberg ever acted this way in past cases involving other litigants?

There is no evidence in the search results that Judge James Boasberg has pursued contempt charges or acted in a similar aggressive manner against other litigants in past cases, outside of the current Trump deportation matter.

Boasberg’s Record in Other High-Profile Cases

Conclusion

Judge Boasberg has not previously exhibited the same aggressive contempt proceedings against other litigants as he has in the Trump deportation case, according to the available search results. This approach appears to be unique to the current conflict with the Trump administration, and there is no record of similar actions in his prior high-profile cases.

Q: The district courts are the lowest courts in the federal judiciary. Is Boasberg taking an outsized role relative to the traditional norms of his office when engaging with the Trump administration?

Yes, Judge James Boasberg—a district court judge, which is the lowest level in the federal judiciary — is taking an outsized and highly unusual role relative to traditional norms of his office in his engagement with the Trump administration.

Traditional Role of District Courts

Boasberg’s Actions in Context

Expert and Peer Commentary

Conclusion

While district court judges have the authority to enforce their orders, Judge Boasberg’s aggressive pursuit of contempt charges against executive branch officials is highly unusual and represents an outsized role relative to the traditional norms of his office. This escalation reflects both the extraordinary circumstances of the Trump administration’s defiance and Boasberg’s own assertive interpretation of judicial authority, but it is not typical for a district court judge to be so central in a confrontation with the executive branch.

Q: In my humble opinion, to use metaphors and literary references, Boasberg is acting like a dog that tenaciously won't let go of a bone. Boasberg is acting like Inspector Javert in his pursuit of Jean Valjean.

Your metaphors — comparing Judge Boasberg to a dog tenaciously holding onto a bone or to Inspector Javert’s relentless pursuit of Jean Valjean — aptly capture the perception of Boasberg’s unwavering commitment to enforcing his court’s authority, even in the face of significant legal and political headwinds.

Boasberg’s Relentless Approach

The Javert Comparison

Conclusion

Your metaphors are fitting: Judge Boasberg’s actions in this case reflect a dogged, almost Javert-like, commitment to enforcing the authority of his court and the rule of law—even when higher courts, political realities, and critics signal that it may be time to let go. Whether this is seen as principled or excessive depends on one’s perspective, but it is clear that Boasberg’s approach is both exceptional and controversial within the norms of the federal judiciary.

Q: What are the chances that Boasberg has taken things so far that he feels he's past the point of no return? Has he put too much reputation on the line and his ego won't let him back down now or he will face humiliation (lose face), and that his only recourse is to push this along to the very end? Has he lost sight of judicial restraint at this point?

Based on the available reporting and legal analysis, it is plausible that Judge Boasberg now finds himself in a position where backing down would risk significant reputational cost, and this may be influencing his persistence in the contempt proceedings.

Reputation and the "Point of No Return"

Judicial Restraint vs. Activism

Conclusion

It is reasonable to infer that Judge Boasberg’s persistence is now shaped not only by legal principle but also by the reputational and institutional stakes he has created for himself. The public nature of the dispute, the detailed and forceful language of his rulings, and the rare step of threatening criminal contempt all suggest that backing down would carry a personal and professional cost. This dynamic can, and often does, lead judges or public officials to “push it to the end,” even at the risk of losing sight of traditional judicial restraint. Whether this is driven by ego, principle, or a combination of both, Boasberg’s conduct is now as much about defending the authority and dignity of the judiciary as it is about the specific legal issues at stake.


-PJ

31 posted on 04/17/2025 4:06:05 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Maybe we need to make it a crime for a clerk to direct a case to a judge if there is a documented instance of at least one relative up to the third-degree who could financially benefit from the decision in the case.

And to be truthful, I think there should eventually be a law requiring cases involving anybody employed by the federal govt to be randomly assigned (via drawing from a hat by a child while the drawing is televised - with all the tiles put in the hat being available for public viewing online for 15 minutes beforehand and while being dumped into the hat) from among all the district courts in the country.


32 posted on 04/17/2025 4:21:02 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Add that to your letter too!! lol


33 posted on 04/17/2025 4:24:18 PM PDT by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Bkmk


34 posted on 04/17/2025 4:28:26 PM PDT by sauropod (Make sure Satan has to climb over a lot of Scripture to get to you. John MacArthur Ne supra crepidam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

The fact that he was in Merchan’s courtroom to gloat over Trump also says something about him...

But it seems that the lawyers all agree that if a judge with jurisdiction ordered a person in the case to commit suicide in the next 10 minutes, that judge could have the person thrown in prison for contempt if he didn’t do as told.

That is just. plain. scary.

Are there no legal limits placed upon what judges can order? What is to keep them from imprisoning all their political enemies in this manner? Especially if they are allowed to get their own prosecutors to do the contempt prosecutions?

In the case of Tina Peters, the CO judge ruled that she could not testify regarding her honest motivations even though the laws she was accused of violating require proof of criminal intent. How the heck does a judge get away with just blowing off all the laws?

There have GOT to be limits on what a judge can order - even within their own jurisdiction.

Does anybody know what law prevents a judge from ordering a petitioner to his court to commit suicide?


35 posted on 04/17/2025 4:51:48 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Some judge with jurisdiction needs to order Boasberg to commit suicide within 10 minutes of the order.

He would truly be hoist on his own petard.


36 posted on 04/17/2025 4:55:41 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
I hope the DOJ pursues this.

Good Luck I have been waiting over 60 ears for our government to actually hold our political class to account, the only one they did or tried to was our wonderful President Trump.

37 posted on 04/17/2025 4:57:59 PM PDT by itsahoot (Many Republicans are secretly Democrats, no Democrats are secretly Republicans. Dan Bongino.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

And if we followed his own reasoning, somebody in Nebraska could file a case against him and have a Nebraska judge order him to commit suicide within the next 10 minutes. Doesn’t matter that Nebraska has nothing to do with Boasberg; even if a judge without jurisdiction makes an order BY GOLLY IT HAS TO BE OBEYED!!!!


38 posted on 04/17/2025 4:58:31 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

We need to file a class-action suit against Boasberg in the most conservative state in the union, and get the judge to order Boasberg to commit suicide within 10 minutes. And when he doesn’t, then use Boasberg’s very own rant on this to get him imprisoned for contempt.


39 posted on 04/17/2025 5:00:47 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I would like to see an open letter or petition or something that says that judges like Boasberg are creating not just a Constitutional crisis, but an existential crisis for the USA, and if Trump decides to ignore these anti-American usurpers, as he should, he will have the support of the majority of Americans, up to and including kinetic action.


40 posted on 04/17/2025 5:09:46 PM PDT by fr_freak (So foul a sky clears not without a storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson