Showing posts with label US District Judge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US District Judge. Show all posts

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Federal Judge to Sheriff: You are Ordered To Take a Class on the US Constitution, Especially that Part on Free Speech

Here's a rare and fascinating story from Iowa.  A U.S. District Judge has ordered a local Sheriff to take a class on the first amendment after denying a concealed weapon permit to a local activist.  This is a remarkable story which I found at the Sioux City Journal website written by Russ Oechslin:

"U.S. District Court Judge Mark W. Bennett (pic, left) has ordered Osceola County Sheriff Douglas L. Weber to issue a gun permit to a resident and to complete a college-level course involving the First Amendment. Bennett’s written decision on Wednesday involves the case of Paul Dorr, (pic, right the caption is not mine) of Ocheyedan, who was denied a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Dorr and his son, Alexander, were denied gun permits after being engaged in extensive First Amendment activity -- protesting, passing out leaflets and writing letters to the editor -- the opinion notes.
'The court finds a tsunami, a maelstrom, an avalanche, of direct, uncontroverted evidence in Sheriff Weber’s own testimony to conclude beyond all doubt that he unquestionably violated the First Amendment rights of at least Paul Dorr,' Bennett wrote in his ruling.

Dorr said Wednesday that he was pleased 'justice is served. I get my permit back and the sheriff is being sent back to school. The harm done by Sheriff Weber against the 6th and 9th commandments has been made right.'

The elder Dorr had been issued a concealed weapons permit from the late 1990s to 2005. But his July 7, 2007, application for a permit was denied. His son’s was denied a year later, when he was 18 years old. Weber’s reason for disapproving the application was, 'concern from public. Don’t trust him.' The following year Weber also denied Alexander Dorr’s application for a permit and informed Paul Dorr that he would deny any further applications from him.

Weber testified that he had heard people refer to Paul as 'a whacko, delusional, a nut job, a spook, and narcissist,' Bennett’s decision noted. “Regardless of the adjective used to describe Paul, however, Sheriff Weber stated that Paul’s ‘lousy’ reputation was due to his political activities of writing letters to the editor and distributing fliers.' The ruling continued, 'Giving Sheriff Weber more deference than is due his elected status, the court finds that Sheriff Weber denied Paul’s application for a concealed weapons permit not because of the content of his First Amendment activity but because it was effective and agitated many members of the local community.' And, Bennett said, 'In denying Paul a concealed weapons permit, Sheriff Weber single-handedly hijacked the First Amendment and nullified its freedoms and protections. Ironically, Sheriff Weber, sworn to uphold the Constitution, in fact retaliated against a citizen of his county who used this important freedom of speech and association precisely in the manner envisioned by the founding members of our nation ...In doing so, this popularly elected Sheriff, who appears to be a fine man and an excellent law enforcement officer, in all other regards, blatantly caved in to public pressure and opinion and, in doing so, severely trampled the Constitution and Paul’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. This is a great reminder that the First Amendment protects the sole individual who may be a gadfly, kook, weirdo, nut job, whacko, and spook, with the same force of protection as folks with more majoritarian and popular views.'

Bennett required Weber take a class that must be a college-level course on the United States Constitution, 'including -- at least in part -- a discussion of the First Amendment.' And Bennet said, Weber must obtain approval from the court before participating in the class. Upon completion of the class, Weber must also file an affidavit with the clerk of court showing successful completion with a passing grade."

Friday, March 26, 2010

6 1/2 Years to Enter Judgment, C'mon Judge!

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is all over Chief Judge Henry Wingate (pic) for taking more than 6 1/2 years to perform the ministerial act of entering judgment in a jury verdict rendered in his courtroom in 2002.

Okay, this may sound like inside baseball for your non-attorneys, let me explain: a jury verdict and a judgment are not the same thing.  A judgment is an order entered by the Judge.  Judgment entries are ordered by Judges all the time in cases of all sorts of situations.  A jury verdict is not a judgement until the Judge records the verdict in a judgment entry.  This ministerial act of the court makes the verdict enforceable, and appealable.  Time frames begin to run after a verdict is "reduced" to judgment, conversely nothing happens when the court fails to record a verdict as a court order. 

It is axiomatic that a court "speaks through its docket" which means that the court by recording its decisions establishes the framework for the litigants to prosecute their claims, conduct their discovery and pursue their remedies.  A docket is a record maintained by the clerk of courts, that the court, the attorneys, the parties and others can refer to see what is going on in a case. Court dockets are mostly online and can be looked at in most courts 24/7 via your internet hook up.  The court that ignores the administrative functions leaves the litigants in limbo, which is what Judge Wingate did in the case of Jimmy Ford versus Brandon Technologies, according to the Clarion Ledger story.

The Fifth Circuit appellate panel noted that this is not the first time that Judge Wingate failed to take administrative acts that are expected of him as a U.S. District Court judge.  Whoa!  I can't say I've seen a recent U.S. Circuit Court panel as agitated at a U.S. District Court Judge as you see in this opinion.  You have got to wonder what has paralyzed Judge Wingate?  I, personally, know the feeling--a slight difference, Judge Wingate  has a well paid and fully staffed administrative office which the Court of Appeals was at pains to point out to him, so how did this happen and why does the appellate panel feel the need to point out that this failure on Judge Wingate's is part of a pattern? 

To Judge Wingate's credit he owned his responsibility for the failure.