Posted on 03/18/2005 10:41:59 AM PST by My Favorite Headache
Greer gives order
Usual standard disclaimer: I am not by any means a legal eagle, not even a beagle. I am not a lawyer, and I am not giving anyone legal advice. I am certain that all lawyers out there will be amused by and/or contemptuous of anything I say about our legal system.
So, that said, I went out and looked at the Wikipedia and did some googling. My position is still that Judge Greer is in for a real ride.
First, here is the criminal contempt of Congress statute (there's also a civil version), 2 USC 192:
§ 192. Refusal of witness to testify or produce papersEvery person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.
The google search was quite interesting; Jay Cooke, of all people, it turns out (appropriately enough, if you think about it ;-) was involved in a case of contempt of Congress.
But I digress. The most relevant case appears to that of Postmaster MacCracken; here's a section from Jurney v MacCracken:
First. The main contention of MacCracken is that the so-called power to punish for contempt may never be exerted, in the case of a private citizen, solely qua punishment. The argument is that the power may by used by the legislative body merely as a means of removing an existing obstruction to the performance of its duties; that the power to punish ceases as soon as the obstruction has been removed, or its removal has become impossible; and hence that there is no power to punish a witness who, having been requested to produce papers, destroys them after service of the supoena. The contention rests upon a misconception of the limitations upon the power of the Houses of Congress to punish for contempt. It is true that the scope of the power is narrow. No act is so punish- [294 U.S. 125, 148] able unless it is of a nature to obstruct the performance of the duties of the Legislature. There may be lack of power, because, as in Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 , there was no legislative duty to be performed, or because, as in Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 , 37 S.Ct. 448, L.R.A. 1917F, 279, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 371, the act complained of is deemed not to be of a character to obstruct the legislative process. But, where the offending act was of a nature to obstruct the legislative process, the fact that the obstruction has since been removed, or that its removal has become impossible, is without legal significance.The power to punish a private citizen for a past and completed act was exerted by Congress as early as 1795;4 and since then it has been exercised on several occasions. 5 It was asserted, before the Revolution, by the colonial [294 U.S. 125, 149] assemblies, in imitation of the British House of Commons; and afterwards by the Continental Congress and by state legislative bodies. 6 In Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, decided in 1821, it was held that the House had power to punish a private citizen for an attempt to bribe a member. No case has been found in which an exertion of the power to punish for contempt has been successfully challenged on the ground that, before punishment, the offending act had been consummated or that the obstruction suffered was irremediable. The statements in the opinion in Marshall v. Gordon, supra, upon which MacCracken relies, must be read in the light of the particular facts. It was there recognized that the only jurisdictional test to be applied by the court is the character of the offense; and that the continuance of the obstruction, or the likelihood of its repetition, are considerations for the discretion of the legislators in meting out the punishment.
Here, we are concerned, not with an extension of congressional privilege, but with vindication of the estab- [294 U.S. 125, 150] lished and essential privilege of requiring the production of evidence. For this purpose, the power to punish for a past contempt is an appropriate means. 7 Compare Ex parte Nugent, Fed. Cas. No. 10,375; Stewart v. Blaine, 1 MacArthur (8 D.C.) 453. The apprehensions expressed from time to time in congressional debates, in opposition to particular exercises of the contempt power, concerned, not the power to punish, as such, but the broad, undefined privileges which it was believed might find sanction in that power. 8 The ground for such fears has since been effectively removed by the decisions of this Court which hold that assertions of congressional privilege are subject to judicial review, Kilbourn v. Thompson, supra; and that the power to punish for contempt may not be extended to slanderous attacks which present no immediate obstruction to legislative processes, Marshall v. Gordon, supra. [294 U.S. 125, 151] Second. The power of either House of Congress to punish for contempt was not impaired by the enactment in 1857 of the statute, Rev. St. 102 ( 2 USCA 192), making refusal to answer or to produce papers before either House, or one of its committees, a misdemeanor. Compare Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 , 49 S.Ct. 268. The statute was enacted, not because the power of the Houses to punish for a past contempt was doubted, but because imprisonment limited to the duration of the session was not considered sufficiently drastic a punishment for contumacious witnesses. 9 That the purpose of the statute was merely to supplement the power of contempt by providing for additional punishment was recognized in In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 671 , 672 S., 17 S.Ct. 677, 681: 'We grant that congress could not devest itself, or either of its houses, of the essential and inherent power to punish for contempt, in cases to which the power of either house properly extended; but because congress, by the act of 1857, sought to aid each of the houses in the discharge of its constitutional functions, it does not follow that any delegation of the power in each to punish for contempt was involved, and the statute is not open to objection on that account.' Punishment, purely as such, through contempt proceedings, legislative or judicial, is not precluded because punishment may also be inflicted for the same act as a statutory offense. Compare Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378, 382 , 39 S.Ct. 337, 11 A.L.R. 333.10 As was said in In re Chapman, supra, 'the same act may be an offense against one jurisdiction and also an offense against another; and indictable statutory offenses may be punished as such, while the offenders may likewise be sub- [294 U.S. 125, 152] jected to punishment for the same acts as contempts, the two being diverso intuitu, and capable of standing together.'
Third. MacCracken contends that he is not punishable for contempt, because the obstruction, if any, which he caused to legislative processes, had been entirely removed and its evil effects undone before the contempt proceedings were instituted. He points to the allegations in the petition for habeas corpus that he had surrendered all papers in his possession; that he was ready and willing to give any additional testimony which the committee might require; that he had secured the return of the papers taken from the files by Givven, with his permission; and that he was in no way responsible for the removal and destruction of the papers by Brittin. This contention goes to the question of guilt, not to that of the jurisdiction of the Senate. The contempt with which MacCracken is charged is 'the destruction and removal of certain papers.' Whether he is guilty, and whether he has so far purged himself of contempt that he does not now deserve punishment, are the questions which the Senate proposes to try. The respondent to the petition did not, by demurring, transfer to the court the decision of those questions. The sole function of the writ of habeas corpus is to have the court decide whether the Senate has jurisdiction to make the determination which it proposes. Compare Barry v. United States ex rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597 , 49 S.Ct. 452; Henry v. Henkel, 235 U.S. 219 , 35 S.Ct. 54; In re Gregory, 219 U.S. 210 , 31 S.Ct. 143.
Also of note I thought in the area of contempt powers are Kilbourn v Thompson, Anderson v Dunn (and perhaps Groppi v Leslie.)
However, there is also the issue of obstruction of justice under 18 USC 1505:
§ 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committeesWhoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
I think that would also be applicable. I imagine that there are more mopery and dopery statutes out there that could be applicable, but none really come to mind.
The Wikipedia lays out the process here.
C-SPAN had a small summary here.
There are also numerous cases from the 1950s and early 1960s that focus more on congressional hearings arising around HUAC, civil rights, and protest activities that hold forth on the power of Congress under contempt laws, but they are more focussed on limiting Congress's powers due to a lack of legislative purpose. That's an area that I am sure will come up -- whatever committee goes forward with contempt must be sure that its brief covers the area that Judge Greer is in danger of being cited: if not, then any case will fall apart.
Agreed.
I agree. My point is that there are a number of frustrated conservatives/Reps taking it out on the very people doing their best to guard life. Someone has to stand up for the Reps in the middle of all this as they are being hit from all sides.
I would also remind those that are targeting the Reps that the majority of the public apparently doesn't have a clue of the cicumstances and as consequence isn't on our side. The Reps know this and are STILL sticking their necks out because it's the right thing to do. They aren't grandstanding as many have claimed.
Meanwhile the other aisle is silent because they are on the side of the culture of death that views this case as the test to promote euthansia on a larger scale. They don't give a damn about Terri, only establishing precedents that suit their agenda. They are the ones that should be slammed hard as they are revealing who they really are in their silence. Apparently not one pro-Life memeber among them, even towards those out of the womb!
Apparently, no great loss.
I agree.
They NO RIGHT to say that!! Robert Latimer's daughter had become too big a burden to HIM. He put her in the cab of his truck, hooked up a hose to the exhaust pipe, piped the exhaust into the truck from which she could not escape and co2'd her to death. In other words, he suffocated her. He's right where he belongs. And the Euthanasia crowd out there crying what a travesty it was to the Latimer family, he might lose his farm, his daughter was in severe pain, blah, blah, blah. All I saw was pictures and videos of her laughing. She was far more disabled mentally than Terri.
IMO, You need to recover for another few decades. Your indoctrination has obviously been quite severe. Stay with Free Republic. This could help.
Well, thank you for all that work and research. Did you come away with any feeling that there could be repercussions for the judge who ruled in direct contradicition to the subpoena? (Of course, I have seen the language of the subpoena anywhere .. I sure would like to.) Many thanks, again. PRAYERS FOR TERRI!
He's pretending to be the dedicated, long-suffering husband and if he takes the money that's been offered to him, he'll be proven to be a lying, greedy SOB once and for all. A lot of people still believe in him. They won't if he takes that money. If he sticks it out and makes sure that Terri dies, he'll get her insurance money and he can maintain the farce that he did it because it was what she wanted.
Just because I listen to a description of Terri's brain damage in the level above the brain stem as so major as to allow no "conscious' functioning does not mean I am a Leftist. At least I don't throw around "You're Leftist. Your're anti life!" That is just another version of " Halliburton! Halliburton!"
If someone intended to murder their wife, but failed, so that she ended up in Terri's state, would justice be served if hearsay testimony was the only basis for pulling the tubes? Then, essentially, the state becomes complicit in the original crime.
If she was, SHE'S NOT PVS AND KILLING HER IS ILLEGAL. Further, it would suggest that if she got some therapy she would likely be able to state her wishes clearly and unambiguously.
Of course, that's precisely why it's necessary to ensure she's killed before any credible person can hear her speak up.
OMG she is responsive in my non medical opinion
I got question hey Mikey go away turn over the custory to her parents divorce her so you could marry your hussy
Next MRS Shrivo honey get away from Mikey you be next this guy is Scott Peterson
Over 10,000 signatures now on the Greer impeachment petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/ijg520/petition.html
Sorry, but your arguments (on this and previous threads)remind me of those posed by the Lefties. If I am wrong about this, then so be it. So far my "spidey sense" is still tingling. If I am wrong, I'll be pleased to admit it. Let's try an example. Do you believe in a broad or narrow interpretation of the US Constitution?
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.