Posted on 07/24/2016 2:43:14 PM PDT by lowbridge
An attorney was removed from court and taken into custody after a judge declared her in contempt for refusing to take off a Black Lives Matter pin.
Youngstown Municipal Court Judge Robert Milich said Attorney Andrea Burton was in contempt of court for refusing to remove the pin in his courtroom as instructed. Burton was sentenced to five days in jail, but she has been released on a stay while an appeal is underway.
Burton will stay out of jail during the appeals process as long as she obeys Milich’s order not to wear items that make a political statement in court. If she loses her appeal, she will have to serve the five days in jail.
Milich said his opinions have nothing to do with his decision.
“A judge doesn’t support either side,” he said. “A judge is objective and tries to make sure everyone has an opportunity to have a fair hearing, and it was a situation where it was just in violation of the law,” he said.
The Youngstown branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) said its legal counsel is monitoring the case closely as it may violate Burton’s civil rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at wishtv.com ...
Black attorney white Judge. I wonder how this is going to end up?
Should have kept her confined through the appeal process then make her serve the 5 days. But it’s one law for us and another for our masters.
This group should not exist or whites should have their own.
90 days picking up highway trash in a jumpsuit plus disbarment
The US still has Colored People?
In fairness, I wonder how far this extends? Can a police officer wear a mourning band, or if in plain clothes, a National Law Enforcement Officer Memorial Fund thin blue line pin? If it involved a foreign national, would anything that depicts an American flag have to be covered up or otherwise disallowed?
What about spectators? Do they have wear attire that is completely lacking in logo so as not to be construed as attempting to sway the jury?
I know from experience that lawyers have complained that there were too many officers present at a trial against a cop killer. The judge just made sure there was a balance of family for the killer and the family/blue family of the deceased.
To be clear, I still believe the BLM is a militant separatist group with a terrorist streak a mile wide.
She wants to wear a pin in court about a big fat like just to keep the big fat lie going.
I wish he’d give her 5 years.
A Judge is king in his/her courtroom. Do what they say or end up in the pokey for a while.
I know from my own experience that a judge has absolute authority in his courtroom. If he orders an attorney to remove a pin or any other thing he thinks might be prejudicial then she better obey.
Judge could have given her 90 days for contempt if he wanted to.
But the law doesn’t apply to specially-privileged individuals.
She might belong to several, "specially-privileged" groups.
I remember a lawyer showing up for court without socks, wearing Topsiders. The judge sent him home to put on socks.
WTF IS THAT
She should be given an additional 10 days for that stupid bow tie.
The lawyer supports Black Leftists Murder!
it may violate Burton’s civil rights...,..Doesn’t everything if you are Democrat/Marxist/Socialist?
Does she know Pat from SNL?
Which law? Why don't judges cite the law?
(Or, I suppose that the journalists could just not be reporting or asking those questions.)
The judge said his ruling is based on Supreme Court case law in which a judge can prohibit symbolic political expression in courtrooms, even if it’s not disruptive.
Ah, so not actually a law.
And, apparently, it also implies that political speech is exempted from the prohibition on laws constraining speech — well, I guess that's been explicitly said by the supreme court before. (Link:We admit that, in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.
[…] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
)
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.