Attorney refuses to remove Black Lives Matter pin, taken into custody

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.

“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.

I believe it is accurate to state that you believe this judge was out of line, so you trashed him for it. Your basis for that position is that the SCOTUS has ruled a judge doesn’t have the right to stop free speech in a courtroom. At least I believe that’s the angle you’re coming from.

The first sentence is correct: I believe he overstepped his authority. (Certainly what he cited is incorrect.)
The second is very incorrect: my position is that the courts, even the supreme court, sees itself to be free of the constraints of the Constitution. (The cited case law is precisely the USSC saying that the unconstrained prohibition of the first amendment on congress is, in fact, dependent on circumstances.)

Let me ask you this. When or if the SCOTUS rules that we don’t have the right to bear arms, and therefore can’t own them any longer, are you going to hop on threads trashing folks for objecting, or ignoring the law?

You've got it backwards, very backwards.
I believe the judiciary to be the most lawless of the branches, wrapping their pronouncements in the color of the law but not actually having the real basis therein.

A good example would be divorce courts, purely civil cases, wherein the value in controversy is greater than twenty dollars. The seventh amendment guarantees the right to jury trials in cases where the contested value is greater than twenty dollars, yet the divorce courts deny that right and operate w/o juries.

Will you trash judges that refuse to side with the SCOTUS?

I trash the SCOTUS fairly regularly — their rulings often show a high disregard for the Constitution.

Evidently you think that open support for BLM in a courtroom is so important, that you will trash judges or anyone else who objects to this terrorist group being heralded and honored by an officer of the court.

No, it's not about BLM. It's about this twisted appeal to authority that doesn't exist that judges throw around.
(Though, as I noted before, the mindset is wholly apparent in their using contempt of court to really mean contempt of the contemptible, unjust judges who use/call that appeal to authority "law".)

I could not disagree with you more on this matter.

Is that because you wholly misunderstand my point?

If a person was wearing a Free Republic pin, it would not be heralding a terrorist group. There is a difference, and you don’t seem to be able to grasp what is actually taking place here.

These are the same courts that would likely regard an anti-abortion pin as a mark of belonging to a terrorist group. (There was a government report a while back about Rightwing Extremism which listed things like pro-life, returning military, and "rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority".)

Again, it's not about BLM, it's about the implicit lies, namely: it's law because the Supreme Court said so.
(The underlying principle is actually a rejection of the authority of the Constitution: for if the law is whatever the supreme court says it is, then not all legislative power is in the Congress [see Art 1, Sec 1 of the Constitution] and the USSC is actually a sort of super legislature… one unbound by the constraints of the Constitution.)

This judge has his head glued on squarely IMO, and I think it is very unfortunate for someone to come here and trash him for doing the right thing.

He may have his head on squarely, but the real question is if it's full of things that just ain't true.
Jesus said that a servant is not greater than his master, nor a messenger than the one who sends him. The current mentality of law school is founded upon the contrary notion: that those commissioned by an authority are indeed greater than that which commissions them. To wit, that the Constitution means what the supreme court says it does, thereby elevating that court above the very authority from which it is commissioned.

I believe it is accurate to state that you believe this judge was out of line, so you trashed him for it.
Your basis for that position is that the SCOTUS has ruled a judge doesn’t have the right to stop free speech in a courtroom. At least I believe that’s the angle you’re coming from.

The first sentence is correct: I believe he overstepped his authority. (Certainly what he cited is incorrect.)

I do not agree that he oeverstopped his authority. That is idiotic. Can he or can't he stop a person from advocating for a terrorist group within his courtroom? Yes! End of that discussion.

While you may be correct about his citation, that is mute in that he certainly has that authority even if not covered by the citation (excuse) he used.

Here you are once again advocating for the person to be able to wear the BLM object in the courtroom. That is indefensible.

Of course you'll deny this and state that all you were really addressing was... "Blah blah blah blah blah...", but it all boils down to the same thing. You don't seem to think the judge had the autority to do what he did. Well, he did.

The second is very incorrect: my position is that the courts, even the supreme court, sees itself to be free of the constraints of the Constitution. (The cited case law is precisely the USSC saying that the unconstrained prohibition of the first amendment on congress is, in fact, dependent on circumstances.)Honestly, this gets to the point that it is absurdity on parade. It is reasoned for a judge to object to a person wearing something (inside his courtoom) that recognizes and heralds and shows support for a group that is assassinating police officers.

Congress? Really? Good grief.

I don't honestly care what reason this judge used. You do because you think the letter of the law is of prime importance. And in that you and the American Civil Liberties Union are in complete agreement. Anytime something comes up they don't like, they find a legal angle to object to justice or destroy our way of life. Here you are doing the same thing. This person's disrespect for the law and the courts was over the top, and the judge addressed it. Now you're acting as if he was the one who openly disrespected the court.

Now, perhaps he does need to used a better citation, but I am not going to deny his ruling based on that. The important issue here is not his citation. The important issue, is whether he had a right to do what he did or not. He did. He should be pointed to the proper citation and his ruling should stand.
Let me ask you this. When or if the SCOTUS rules that we don’t have the right to bear arms, and therefore can’t own them any longer, are you going to hop on threads trashing folks for objecting, or ignoring the law?

You've got it backwards, very backwards.

LOL, uh, NO!

I believe the judiciary to be the most lawless of the branches, wrapping their pronouncements in the color of the law but not actually having the real basis therein.

And so you are convinced that justice was not served by this judge. And in all honesty, you are proving why most folks don't trust attornies any farther than they can drop kick them.

I don't disagree on this point, but it is not a good argument for trashing what this judge did.

Will you trash judges that refuse to side with the SCOTUS?

I trash the SCOTUS fairly regularly — their rulings often show a high disregard for the Constitution.

No, it's not about BLM. It's about this twisted appeal to authority that doesn't exist that judges throw around.

An appeal to authority that doesn't exist? Once again you are back to saying the judge was acting improperly by taking action aginst the offending attorney. Wrong!

I have stated that you may be correct with regard to the citation, but you are also tossing out justice with the bath water. "Who is this judge to object to what this woman wants to do?"

Balderdash!.

(Though, as I noted before, the mindset is wholly apparent in their using contempt of court to really mean contempt of the contemptible, unjust judges who use/call that appeal to authority "law".)

I could not disagree with you more on this matter.

Is that because you wholly misunderstand my point?

It is because you wholly misunderstand reasoned logic. And in this you destroy what you seek to protect. You get all weak in the knees because this judge might have used the wrong citation, but could care less if a court is subject to becoming a place where terrorist organizations are heralded and promoted. The judge did the right thing, but you don't like that he couldn't justify it. The woman did the wrong thing, but you could care less about that. The destruction of the sanctity of the court is just fine with you as long as some judge can't stop what needs to be stopped. Should the court be a place where officers of the court promote Black Lives Matter, ISIS operations in the United States, criminal activity by our elected officials and the courts? Well sure, as long as some judge doesn't get to do something you view as abuse in his courtroom. Wow, the ACLU is strong with this one.

If a person was wearing a Free Republic pin, it would not be heralding a terrorist group. There is a difference, and you don’t seem to be able to grasp what is actually taking place here.

Snooze alert... Please provide evidence of terrorist activity by a mainstream Right Wing group. Thanks in advance. What we do have taking place in real time is assassinations of police officers by members of the Black Lives Matter group.

You are aware of this right?

Again, it's not about BLM, it's about the implicit lies, namely: it's law because the Supreme Court said so.

You poor thing. In this instance it most definitely was about advocacy for, reconition of, and approval of Black Lives Matter.

(The underlying principle is actually a rejection of the authority of the Constitution: for if the law is whatever the supreme court says it is, then not all legislative power is in the Congress [see Art 1, Sec 1 of the Constitution] and the USSC is actually a sort of super legislature… one unbound by the constraints of the Constitution.)

And a groundwell of sweat is going to sweep the nation and drown all our rights if a judge stops a terrorist advocate from advocating for that orgazation in his courtroom. Balderdash!

This judge has his head glued on squarely IMO, and I think it is very unfortunate for someone to come here and trash him for doing the right thing.

He may have his head on squarely, but the real question is if it's full of things that just ain't true.

Aww, you poor thing. The judge did something you don't like. He was right to do it. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Use the terms SCOTUS and Congress a few more times for good measure.

Jesus said that a servant is not greater than his master, nor a messenger than the one who sends him. The current mentality of law school is founded upon the contrary notion: that those commissioned by an authority are indeed greater than that which commissions them. To wit, that the Constitution means what the supreme court says it does, thereby elevating that court above the very authority from which it is commissioned.

Now you're using Jesus. There is no depths to the depravity of your misguided logic.Terrorists and their advocates have no right to openly advocate for their tactics in our courtrooms.

Do you believe that woman had the right to wear the pin showing support for Black Lives Matter in the courtroom?

> Do you believe that woman had the right to wear the pin showing support for Black Lives Matter in the courtroom?

Do you believe that you have the right to wear a pin showing support of returning military?
(According to the "Rightwing Extremism" document that's a clear flag.)

I am NOT advocating for BLM, I am stating that it is dangerous to liberty to let authority, under color of law, violate the proper bounds of that authority.

> Now you're using Jesus. There is no depths to the depravity of your misguided logic.Terrorists and their advocates have no right to openly advocate for their tactics in our courtrooms.

Where am I wrong?

The Constitution clearly establishes the Supreme Court. (Art 3)
The judge cited a USSC case as 'law',
claiming that there was an ability to restrict political speech.
The First Amendment clearly prohibits the Congress from passing a law "abridging the freedom of speech".
The Congress also puts out the JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE (Title 28)

If, therefore the cited 'law' being w/i Title 28 which is enacted on the authority of Congress, whose authority is limited in that it can pass no law respecting the freedom of speech, then how is it a valid exercise of authority? — IOW, how can an authority citing another authority opining on laws which another authority has no authority to make possibly be considered good jurisprudence?

>> He may have his head on squarely, but the real question is if it's full of things that just ain't true.
>
> Aww, you poor thing. The judge did something you don't like. He was right to do it. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Use the terms SCOTUS and Congress a few more times for good measure.

So then it would be A-OK for me to get a shave and a haircut, visit the local PX, put on a uniform, go into a military base and issue orders to the troops to secure our country's borders, right? (Art 4, Sec 4 says: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.)

It is because you wholly misunderstand reasoned logic.

No, I understand it.
I also understand that if the Constitution can be ignored when it is an inconvenience to us [politically, legally, etc] then it is useless to us when we become the inconvenience — it must be those times when it is adhered to most strictly.

> You don't seem to think the judge had the authority to do what he did. Well, he did.

He appealed to the USSC's authority, I've shown where that breaks down, so… prove it.
Show where the authority comes from.

> Do you believe that woman had the right to wear the pin showing support for Black Lives Matter in the courtroom?

Do you believe that you have the right to wear a pin showing support of returning military? (According to the "Rightwing Extremism" document that's a clear flag.)

Didn't answer me. The simple answer would have been yes or no. This isn't a complex issue. It's a very simple one.

Should a terrorist sympathizer be able to wear promotional materials supporting a terrorist organization as an officer of the court in a courtroom in the United States. So far, you've revealed your opinion is yes. In your eyes the terrorist sympathizer wasn't wrong, the judge was. You are really lost in space here.

I don't need to say more than that. You've had time to say what you wanted. You're still not able to grasp why this woman shouldn't be allowed to promote terrorism in a courtroom.

None the less, you're here to straighten me or anyone else out who reconizes what you're trying to do.

You're another Jimmy Carter, a well meaning dolt that hasn't a clue.

I am NOT advocating for BLM, I am stating that it is dangerous to liberty to let authority, under color of law, violate the proper bounds of that authority.

We just had six police officers gunned down on the streets of Dallas by members of the Black Lives Matter movement. So far the best you can muster is to try to get me to buy off on what a danger it would be to non-terrorist groups to hold a terrorist group and it's supporters responsible.

I suppose holding bank robbers responsible will now be seen as a threat to FReepers. Well, we walk into banks too you know...

You could use that arguement across the board on many issues. Should BLM be able to riot in Ferguson? Using your logic, why of course. Otherwise FReepers couldn't hold peaceful protests. You logic is absurd.

> Now you're using Jesus. There is no depths to the depravity of your misguided logic.Terrorists and their advocates have no right to openly advocate for their tactics in our courtrooms.

Where am I wrong?

You really don't know do you. LOL, this is just forehead smacking dumb on your part.

The Constitution clearly establishes the Supreme Court. (Art 3)
The judge cited a USSC case as 'law',
claiming that there was an ability to restrict political speech.
The First Amendment clearly prohibits the Congress from passing a law "abridging the freedom of speech".
The Congress also puts out the JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE (Title 28)

Somehow, in that thick head of yours you have come to believe that political expressions in a courtroom are important political rights we have to protect, because all could be harmed by if they were denied. Then by your logic, it would be perfectly fine for the attorney to break out a six by twelve foot sign to show to everyone and make statements of advocacy for BLM there. After all, the judge would have no right to stop it. It's protected! Bull stuff! If one thing is protected, then all things must be. A courtoom is not a place for this type of advocacy, and you're too childish to grasp it..
This is not a simple issue of a politcal nature. BLM shot five or six officers dead in Dallas several weeks ago. When that happened it went from a simple "iffy" advocacy group to a terrorist group.

This woman was wearing terrorist supportive materials in a court of law. You are really grasping at straws to trash this judge. I'm having none of it.

If, therefore the cited 'law' being w/i Title 28 which is enacted on the authority of Congress, whose authority is limited in that it can pass no law respecting the freedom of speech, then how is it a valid exercise of authority? — IOW, how can an authority citing another authority opining on laws which another authority has no authority to make possibly be considered good jurisprudence?

If you can't grasp this issue, you can't grasp this issue. Frankly I don't give a hoot. I'm just not going to let you spew this nonsense unopposed.

This was not a simple political activity. It was advocacy for a terrorist group. The judge was fully within his right as the top officer of the court, to hold that attorney in contempt. He asked her to remove the pin. She refused. He held her in contempt. Thank God there one judged out there that gets what you and a ton of others can't grasp. I am shocked to see that a person coming to this forum can't grasp this.

If she was on the street out front of the courthouse, fine. When she's in a courtroom, she's not in a political arena. Unless arguements before the court reasonably ask for defense of Black Lives Matter, and expression of support for that terrorist organization in the courtroom would be out of line, whether you can grasp it or not.

This is just plain nut-job commentary. You're welcome to it... Utter nonsense...

It is because you wholly misunderstand reasoned logic.

No, I understand it.

Nope. You haven't a single clue here.

I also understand that if the Constitution can be ignored when it is an inconvenience to us [politically, legally, etc] then it is useless to us when we become the inconvenience — it must be those times when it is adhered to most strictly.

This is not a simple issue of a political nature. Killing police officers is a crime, and those who do such things en mass are terrorists. You can't grasp the difference between a simple political statement and advocacy for cop killer terrorists. You can't grasp the difference between places where it is okay to protest and get your point across, and places where it is not allowed. None the less you want to straighten me out. LOL.

> You don't seem to think the judge had the authority to do what he did. Well, he did.

He appealed to the USSC's authority, I've shown where that breaks down, so… prove it.

Show where the authority comes from.

Where does a judge's authority come from? Yikes. Clueless to the bitter end.

The judge is the top authority in his courtroom. If you can't grasp that, I'm fine with it. Just don't try to blow smoke in my face and tell me you're got the law behind you. You don't.

A judge can tell you to go home and change if he wants. He can hold you in contempt for what you wear. He can hold you in contempt for outbursts. He can hold you in contempt if he feels you are denigration the courtroom and the legal profession by advocating for a group that is clearly a terrorist organization.

I metnioned before that you reminded me of the ACLU, and their destroy by any means possible mindset. You operate in the same manner and as they do, you claim to be taking the high road. No, you are taking the low road.

You are denying the judge's right to hold this woman in contempt for having the chutzpa to advocate for a terrorist organization in his courtroom. He's not going to set there and let someone wear supportive regalia for a terrorist organization just weeks after they assassinated five or six police officers in Dallas.If a judge did what you advocating all decorum would be lost in the courtroom. It would turn into a freaking circus where folks could do or say anything they want under protection. And if that happened, the jury system couldn't handle it. The judges couldn't handle it. And legal authority would simply break down.

There has to be limits in life. You are operating at a nine year old level, just like Obama does. As adults there are things we can't do. We can't simply say, "I have rights, and do as we please."

Grow up.

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.