On Jan. 25th judge Edward T Burke said that Ademo had to spend the next 60 days at the Cheshire Co. Jail for the 40-second statement he made during my video arraignment. To show just how undeserved and excessive is this punishment, consider:
- for each second Ademo spoke Burke sentenced him to spend day and-a-half in a cage
- 129,600 – the number of seconds Ademo is caged for each second he shared his thoughts
Do 40sec = 5,184,000sec? Is that just? (60sec x 60min x 24hr x 60days)
Ademo wrote the letter below and asked that it be shared publicly. I transcribed it as it was written (adding only contact details to the bulleted-items). For a complete list of how you can help Ademo read #3 on this post.
As is clear, he is very appreciative for all the love and support he’s gotten for an action that definitely doesn’t warrant him being caged.
-Pete
To the best movement in the world,
First, I’d like to say THANK YOU! From the bottom of my heart every last one of you rock! With Pete’s insane arrest and with my crazy jail sentence – it has all been one hell of a ride.
People have partaken in call floods, operated websites, conducted media blitzes (to mainstream and social networks), created videos, wrote letters, changed profile pics and much much more. Again, thank you all.
Though from what I’m able to hear from inside Cheshire Co. Jail there are some questions about what to do now? As well as the occasional back and forth about what tactics to use? Before I get into what I’ve asked people to do, I want to make one point: WE’VE ALREADY DONE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART! (AND VERY WELL IMO)
To me, highlighting (and having it on video) the fact that a person can be assaulted, dragged from a room and caged for wearing a hat is the main focus. Yet, I was also caged for speaking out (and I’ll choose better words next time) against such action – which only reinforces that violence of the state. I’ve heard these videos have tens of thousands of views, made several blogs and even Yahoo news. Great job everyone – pat yourself on the back! You’ve made people more aware.
It’s a sad fact that sometimes (more times than not) civil disobedience leads to a cage (jail) and people we love are left to do the time. I’m well aware of this every time I engage the state and/or its agents. For me, the lessons learned by those videos and the inspiration they’ll bring to others (due to everyone’s hard work) is so much greater than the 60 days I’ll do in this cage.
If everyone wants to go back to their normal lives or other forms of activism for the rest of my sentence I’m ok with that. I promise I won’t be mad at you. Thanks to everyone who wrote letters, made donations to my commissary (Heika, M7 and George) and sent me books – I’ll get through this BS sentence with no problems. This is the life of an activist and my days are NOT lost here. I spend my time keeping a diary, writing letters and blog posts (for when I’m released), talking with jailers/inmates and taking visits from friends/family. I’ll be back before you know it!
Though I have asked a few activists to do some things for me, since I’m limited in here, and if you have time I’m sure they’d like some help:
- write/call Burke – ask him to reduce my sentence and try (I know it’s hard) to be more polite to him than I was [each Tue. Heika will hand-deliver all letters/emails sent to her to Burke: Heika Courser, 20 Forest St., Keene, NH 03431 or [email protected]]
- share the videos and post from Pete’s and my arrest [see http://www.copblock.org/freepete & http://www.copblock.org/freeademo]
- write or visit me [Adam Mueller, Cheshire County D.O.C., 825 Marlboro Road, Keene, NH 03431]
But the last thing I want is people fighting over what to do or feeling like you’ve failed because I’m still in jail. I expect and am prepared to be here for 60 days. In fact I’m proud to be here because I know I stood up for what’s right.
Your friend,
Ademo
I’d like to see Adam blogging from jail, because it parallels with some jailed dissidents have done in Egypt. I’m ready to transcribe.
I like the letter to Burke, idea. We just need to keep getting more and more creative and most of all *persevere*. NEVER give up!
http://georgedonnelly.com/libertarian/easy-get-discouraged
“If everyone wants to go back to their normal lives or other forms of activism for the rest of my sentence I’m ok with that. I promise I won’t be mad at you”
.Cool, I was worried for a second there that he would be mad at me.
Outraged,simply outraged. It’s time to tar and feather Burke.
This is the place where we all must come to.. There is more to Freedom than just the letters of the word. We were stripped of our Free rights and will as children and somehow coerced into placing our name in dishonor.
I have read your post here and notice that you speak as a man with knowledge of the truth.. So i wonder how they ever got you to contract with them or were able to pass a sentence. It would seem as if the judge is a Conflicting party.
Anyways… I would be happy to assist in any way. There is so much happening in the world in terms of Personal Regaining of Freedom and Restoration of The ORGANIC CONSTITUTION.
How about picketing the judge on a public sidewalk nearest to the Judge’s courtroom? If I didn’t live in the police state of California, I can assure any picketers that I would be out there with them. (Be careful what you put on the signs, that is, nothing that can be construed as threats of physical harm to anyone, etc.)
If they would have shut their mouth they would not be in jail. Have a little respect for the system. You may not agree with it but it’s what we have and it’s the same legal system that upholds your rights to write crap like this.
Right. Mike. Just shut your mouths or be arrested. That doesn’t sound like a system that upholds the right to freedom of speech. That is also an indication of a police state. I could say the same about you. If you would just shut your mouth, I wouldn’t tell you that what you write is “crap.”
Its because we have KEPT OUR MOUTHS SHUT about this F@##@ system that has allowed to get so Corrupt. We thought they were working for highest good.. now we know they were working with exploiters and raping us of our life blood. I am one who spends time learning the ways of this system so that I may share with my brothers and sisters a method to opt out. Once we no longer opt in, it will fall like all empires before it.
He was in a court. He got out of line and was went to jail for doing so. I don’t think he was a stupid person and anyone who has any brains knows that if you interfere with the court and disrespect it you can be dealt with. Your doing it directly in front of a judge. He has the authority to do what he did. You buddy should do his time and learn from his mistake.
No, the bailiffs were out of line. The judge wasn’t present, and even if he was, a “no-hat” policy is a stupid, nit-picking, worthless policy when wearing a hat doesn’t keep others from seeing what is going on in the court (Ayre would have removed his hat if someone behind him said, “please remove your hat, I can’t see,” but the bailiffs had to get heavy-handed by assaulting Ayre and waste taxpayer’s money on a prosecution). A little patience with Ayre would likely have resulted in Ayre’s hat-removal. The bailiff had no business assaulting Ayre by grabbing for his hat. Police and judges have nothing better to do than enforce their petty rules. Hey, I have been arrested for not showing my ID. I made a fool out of the police (and U.S. Attorney) for their illegal actions. I suspect, however, that you are too big of a coward to stand up for your constitutional rights or you think constitutional rights are too “petty” to assert (I think I may have heard you on Free Talk Live, and the hosts seem to agree with me about you). I do agree that Ayre was “stupid” for going limp because that will likely result (depending on the law in New Hampshire) in a conviction for “resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer.” I still admire people who have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for their rights, even if they make some mistakes along the way.
Sorry, I mean Eyre, not Ayre.
I agree with Mike.
And…maybe it’s time to get a job when you get out of jail. That way you won’t have to ask for money on a website. And maybe you’ll stay out of the court room so you won’t get jailed for being rude to the judge. All in all, jobs are good…hanging out at a jail and trying to antagonize a judge, bad.
Excuse me, correction…hanging out in a court room and trying to antagonize a judge, bad.
Eyre was hurting no one. He was minding his own business. He was exercising his First Amendment right to attend (most) court proceedings. The bailiff was the initial aggressor. I didn’t see Eyre antagonize a judge (or the bailiff) before the bailiff approached him.
I will agree with you (and Mike) though, that I don’t think Eyre is accomplishing anything by “going limp” or not just following the court procedures that actually protect his rights.
During police-citizen encounters, the police often antagonize the citizen to goad them into resisting, causing the citizen to go on the defensive when it should be the police officer on the defensive because he or she violated the Constitution. Too often the citizen turns an unlawful arrest into a lawful arrest by resisting. (In some states, passive resistance is generally not illegal. In California, passive resistance is illegal.)
Rudeness to a judge isn’t necessarily contempt, by the way. Judges, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, are supposed to have “thick skins.” So are the police. Police need to learn to control more with their mouth and less with physical force.
So, I partly agree with you and Mike.
@Dawn
I think your “get a job” comment is somewhat disingenuous and smarmy. I think what you are really saying is you think Pete should give up his activism and join the sheep herd. Because if he got a job, why should that prevent him from visiting friends who have a court date to support them? That’s what friends do, they support each other through bad times, being employed doesn’t change that. As has already been pointed out, he didn’t “challenge the judge”, as the judge wasn’t even there when he was ordered to remove his hat. Some of the other court cases are for filming police officers. As long as officers remain belligerent and continue to arrest people who are legally allowed to film them “getting a job” won’t mean a damn thing, Pete Eyre will still have court cases stemming from filming the police.
@Guy Fawkes
You know what bothers me, Guy, not so much that he doesn’t have a job, but that he’s taking up all this time from people who ARE trying to work and doing nonsense things just to get attention. I truly believe that everytime your group walks into a court room, you think, “Ok, what are we going to do today to get the judge’s attention and make his line of work difficult? What can we do, and everyone around me, make sure you have your little video cameras out so that we can make the court look like the bad guy!” EVERY job has it’s downfalls, there’s always going to be people in their jobs across the nation that don’t do their jobs as well as everyone else. I don’t think that Burke did anything wrong having Ademo arrested for contempt of court. I really believe, by looking at your little videos, that he was in contempt!
I think that there are some articles on your website that might warrant time and effort. But I certainly do not believe that what Pete and Ademo are doing is worth anything…geez, just take your hat off when you’re asked in a court room, and don’t swear and cause a huge scene.
I guess the job thing comes in play when you have to ask for money. THAT’s what bothers me. Even if you have a part time job, support yourself!
You guys are truly an inspiration and are real American heroes. In honor of you guys, listen to what I did the other day.
So last week I was in my local clerk of courts office (a public building!) and I noticed a sign that said, “please refrain from USING cell phones while in line.” Now I understand this request is out of respect for others in line and the office’s employees. So I decided to just hold my cell phone to my ear and not say a word. After a few minutes, one of the clerks asked me to get off the phone. I told her I was not USING the phone and kept the phone at my ear. (What if I had some gross ear deformation I was embarrassed about and wanted to cover my ear!!) She stated their policy was no cell phones while in line. I told them I did not sign that policy and I was not USING my cell phone, there are no victims!
The clerk continued to ask me politely to put the phone down but I refused. This is America! Where have our freedoms gone?! She said that I was being rude and another clerk stepped in and asked me to put the phone down. I politely refused and kept the phone at my ear. After a few more minutes of this, a court officer came in, pointed to the sign, and asked me to put the phone down. Again, I refused. He asked me over and over and I told him to go watch some youtube videos.
Finally he told me I had to leave. I told him I had business with the clerks office and remained in line. He then “ordered” me to leave. I kept the phone at my ear and ignored his request. He then assaulted me by attempting to escort me outside and I fell to the ground. I went limp just like you guys do and it took four officers assaulting me to carry me out.
I refused to identify myself and they put me in a cage. During my arraignment, I cursed at the judge and told him to watch youtube videos too. Finally, my mom came to the court and identified me for the judge (I am mildly retarded and still under her care). My next court date is next week.
I am so proud of myself. I am just like you guys. You are my heroes! Can I have some money for my defense fund?
@Dan
“I truly believe that everytime your group walks into a court room”
“I think that there are some articles on your website”
Sorry everyone if I inadvertently misrepresented myself; I’m not a member of the cop block crew, just another poster at this forum. FYI I do have a job, not that that really means anything regarding my opinions and values.
I don’t know what Ademo and Pete think when they walk into a courtroom, other than possibly “I’m not rich so I’m going to get a screwjob no matter what I do or say”, which is what a LOT of low income people think when they have to deal with the U.S. court system.
“Ademo arrested for contempt of court. I really believe, by looking at your little videos, that he was in contempt!”
I think if you read some of the arguments here, it’s not some much a feeling that the judge should have waved at Ademo and said “thank you for swearing at me”, but that the sentence passed out was unduly harsh. A fine or a few days in jail would have been enough for the Judge to make his point, he didn’t have to hand him a 60 day sentence.
As for asking for money, even if Ademo and Pete had jobs they couldn’t work from inside a jail cell. Setting up a defence fund isn’t that uncommon for low income people dealing with the justice system.
I worked full time for years, working 10 – 24 hours per day, often 7 days per week, and I took the time to learn the law. Whether a person has a job is a red herring, and has nothing to do with whether we should assert our rights. It takes lots of work to be an activist. It takes lots of pain and heartache to be an activist. It takes a lot of time to protect our rights. The activists who are fighting for you, do it so you don’t have to take time off from work because not everyone has the guts, time, or the “aptitude” to be an activist. What someone does on their own time is none of anybody else’s business. It’s none of my business, and I don’t condemn any of you for watching the Superbowl, playing baseball, or a game of hoops on your own time, so it seems a little smug to complain that an activist should get a job instead of, or in addition to, being an activist.
As for taking the time from others, it has been my experience that judges usually make a pro per sit it out until everyone else is done.
@Guy Fawkes
Sorry to clump you into the cop block crew…
I understand your opinion…
I have mine as well. And I just think they are barking up the wrong tree…or waisting valuable time.
And I don’t agree with asking for money…it makes me think of the tv evangelists and I think it’s wrong.
@Daniel
Great, that’s your opinion, I have mine. I think they should get a job and stop antagonizing the judge.
@Daniel
Having a job is irrelevant, I understand in your opinion. But I’m a taxpayer, and I think they are wasting the time of the court workers that I pay taxes for. Like I said, there are bigger issues, what they are fighting for and wasting state workers time about is irrelevant in the big picture.
I think the judge should stop being such a mental wimp, and grow some more skin. So should the bailiff. Police are supposed to be patient, and not make an arrest over every little slight to their power. A citizen has no such duty to to be patient in refraining from exercising their constitutional rights (such patience is usually a waiver of the right). A citizen has an absolute right to exercise their constitutional rights. If you don’t like it, blame the Supreme Court for ruling that if the police have no legal reason to detain you, you are free to go about your business. It’s called a “consensual encounter.”
Maybe every defendant, whether guilty or not, should just plead guilty, and stop wasting taxpayer’s money. But, we won’t have rights if we continue to let the courts run roughshod over our rights.
Dawn is blaming the victim. The bailiff should personally be liable for all costs because of his crime.
Dawn should be blaming the aggressive bailiff for starting the whole thing. I suspect if the bailiff had been patient the situation would have deescalated. If it didn’t, then the bailiff may have been deserving of support of everyone..
What happened to Eyre was about as bad as my 4 minute false arrest. I was arrested within 4 minutes from the time I videotaped the military police crossing the street until I was in handcuffs. My crime? Asking if I was being detained. Their answer to my question was “no” several times. So, I go about my business, and they arrest me even though I wasn’t being detained. Fortunately, I got it all on video. The government had no case.
The government doesn’t care if they waste your time. Sometimes, turnabout is fair play.
@Dawn’
So if a peace officer pays taxes aren’t they their own bosses or should they be tax exempt? I would say if he made more then you did he might have more say in what he does then you did. That whole I pay your salary crap doesn’t work.
@Daniel:
Why should cops and judges have to put up with people who just want to be an ass? At what point do they say enough is enough? Going into a court there is a set of rules. Take off your sunglasses, hat, turn off your phone and don’t interrupt the court. If you want to be there that’s great but no one should need to be the center of attention but the players in the court at their set time. It is the judges court. They are elected in most cases because of their prior life experience. Judges do have powers must people don’t have while in the court. That’s why they are put in that position.
An arrest can be made at anytime a there is reasonable suspicion there has been a violation of the law. A officer has discretion on making that arrest. Don’t whine because you violate a law and get arrested for it because it’s a pity law. Don’t violate the law and you will be ok. The law was made for some reason.
“Don’t violate the law and you will be ok. The law was made for some reason.”
Sure, there is a reason for every law ever passed. I think we all know why the Nazi’s passed a law requiring Jews to wear the star of David on their clothing. What about U.S. segregation laws, such as whites only drinking fountains and restaurants? Those laws were made for “some reason”, that being racism and hatred. I’m not saying the hat law is anywhere near that bad, but the whole unthinking attitude of “they must have passed “X” law for some reason therefore every law should be obeyed unthinkingly is very bad for democracy. GREAT for totalitarian states though, Russia’s government has relied on this mentality for years, even before communism and Stalin.
“A citizen has an absolute right to exercise their constitutional rights.”
@ Daniel. In your opinion, there are no limits to what Danny Defendant or Victor Victim’s friends and family may do in a courtroom? If Danny’s friends show up wearing t-shirts that say “snitches get stitches” and make comments about beating Wally Witness’s ass if he doesn’t stop lying, that’s protected speech? If they approach jurors and demand that Danny be acquitted, that’s OK? What about if Victor Victim’s family shows up wearing t-shirts with Victor’s picture and “JUSTICE FOR VICTOR” in giant font? Or if they approach jurors and demand a conviction? Are all those instances protected speech?
Mike,
Why should citizens put up with any constitutional violation then? We need to nip unconstitutional and/or unreasonable actions of the police and “rogue” judges in the bud. A good cop has patience and understanding, except in a serious emergency. A thug cop acts like the bailiff who grabbed Ayre’s cap.
It’s unadulterated bull that a person has to be guilty to be arrested. I was arrested one time for merely demanding a warrant. (Such a demand is perfectly justified under the law, see, for example, United States v. Prescott and United States v. Gasho, both 9th Cir. cases.) The case against me was so bad that a judge granted my petition for writ of habeas corpus, and ordered the lower court judge not to prosecute me, which is extremely rare. Not only that, the prosecutor appealed the grant of the habeas corpus, and the appellate court ruled in my favor in a published decision.
Another time, I was arrested for merely asking if I was being detained. The case was so weak that the U.S. Attorney dismissed the case against me and the case of everyone else who was arrested for “refusal to show ID.” (I was prepared to show ID or leave if the officers had said I was being detained, but they all said I wasn’t detained. I was arrested instead.)
In another case, the police lied so bad that I tore them up on cross-examination in a pro se jury trial, in which I was acquitted by the jury. A public defender told me my cross-examination was “brilliant.” Of course, the truth is in between. I did do a masterful job of cross-examination, but the cops also helped me by lying and hiding a witness that they didn’t disclose to me in discovery.
Arrests can only be legally made if there is “probable cause” a crime occurred. “Reasonable suspicion” is the basis for only a temporary detention. An arrest based on “reasonable suspicion” alone is illegal.
I never said there are no limits. For example, if Eyre refused to remove his hat when it was interfering with somebody behind him, then the bailiff had the right to tell him to remove his hat, and even arrest him. The bailiff, a hothead, escalated an easily controlled situation. When police act reasonably, its more likely the citizen will act more reasonably. (Cops say that all the time. “Well, if he didn’t act like a jerk, I wouldn’t have caved his head in.”)
I hate to tell “leasureclass” this but there are also limits to the repression of free speech, even in courtrooms. The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of a man who wore a T-shirt in court that said, “Fuck the Draft.” Until there is a jury present, prohibiting even a t-shirt that says “stop snitching” violates the First Amendment (be careful, however, because the courts are weakening not only the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, but even the First Amendment). Whenever I picket near a courthouse and my message might even just conceivably interfere with a jury trial, I ask the court clerk if there is a jury trial going on, and wait to picket until another day.
The “pro-snitches” T-shirt actually violates the law, and may not be harmless under the circumstances (e.g., a jury trial is going on and snitches are going to testify). Eyre did nothing wrong, other than ask to be left alone when he was injuring no one except the judge’s oversensitivities.
The judges and bailiffs in Eyre’s courthouse need some training on how to grow much thicker skin.
Whatever you say, Mike.
@ Daniel
This is “leasureclass [sic].”
You said that “there are also limits to the repression of free speech, even in courtrooms. The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of a man who wore a T-shirt in court that said, “Fuck the Draft.” Until there is a jury present, prohibiting even a t-shirt that says “stop snitching” violates the First Amendment.”
This is incorrect. Judges have inherent authority to prevent intimidating or otherwise disruptive behavior, and to control their courtroom, regardless of whether a jury is present or not. The courtroom is not a public forum. It is a forum for parties to have their cases decided. In order to facilitate that process, judges make rules to ensure that decorum is maintained and order is kept. One of these rules is that people many not wear hats in the courtroom. This is a fairly standard rule for professional or formal environments. Mr. Eyre chose to disobey the rule. Mr. Eyre will now have the opportunity to explain to a judge or jury why he should be exempt from basic rules of civil behavior.
Moreover, in the case you cite, Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), Cohen was not wearing a t-shirt in a courtroom that said “Fuck the draft.” Cohen had on a jacket in a courthouse hallway. When Cohen entered the courtroom, Cohen removed the jacket and folded it over his arm so that the message could not be read. After exiting the courtroom, Cohen put the jacket back on and was arrested. As such, I fail to see the relevance of Cohen; that was a different fact pattern and is inapposite to the instant case.
I would love to hear why, in your view, a jury must be present before a judge may take stops to prohibit witness intimidation. Moreover, I would love to hear why a “pro-snitch” shirt, which I didn’t even mention, would be illegal, while an anti-snitch shirt would be permissible.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.
@ Daniel
This is “Leisureclass.”
You said that “there are also limits to the repression of free speech, even in courtrooms. The Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of a man who wore a T-shirt in court that said, “Fuck the Draft. Until there is a jury present, prohibiting even a t-shirt that says “stop snitching” violates the First Amendment…””
You misread the case you are citing. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) did not involve someone wearing a T-shirt in the courtroom. Cohen wore a jacket that said “Fuck the draft” in a courthouse hallway. While Cohen was in the courtroom, Cohen took the jacket off and folded it over his arm so that the wording could not be read. It was only after leaving the courtroom and putting the jacket back on that Cohen was arrested. Id. at 19, n.3. Had Cohen worn the jacket in the courtroom, it is likely that the conviction would have been upheld, and that Cohen would have been held in contempt.
The power to hold someone in contempt flows from judges’ inherent authority to control the conduct of their courtroom and ensure the court conducts business in a dignified and efficient matter. See e.g. Garabedian v. Donald William, Inc., 106 NH 156, 157 (1965)(“[t]he inherent rulemaking authority of courts…to prescribe rules of practice and rules to regulate their proceedings ‘as justice may require’ has an ancient lineage supported by consistent custom, recognized by statute and enforced by numerous judicial precedents.”). A litigant is entitled to fair and dignified treatment. Although wearing a hat may not seem to matter to an observer, it matters a great deal to the person whose freedom, family, or property is at stake; few people would be satisfied if their homes were foreclosed upon in an atmosphere more akin to Fenway Park than to a professional meeting. To ensure that litigants receive this treatment, courts have established various rules, most of which are no different than are found in any formal or professional setting. This includes forbidding hats of non-religious nature, i.e. a Sikh would be permitted to wear a turban, but a Yankees fan may not wear a Yankees ball cap. These are permissible time, place, and manner restrictions, no different than an ordinance forbidding you from renting a sound truck and driving it through residential neighborhoods at 3:30 AM.
Moreover, with regards to Ademo, if a court may establish a dress code, it may certainly establish rules prohibiting profane and disruptive outbursts, and punish violators accordingly. Ademo’s motives are irrelevant; the only issue is whether his outburst disrupted the proceedings.
I am confused as to why you believe it is permissible to wear a shirt saying “stop snitches” or “snitches get stitches” in a courthouse unless a jury is present. Could you please elaborate? Also, could you please clarify why you believe anti-snitching shirts would be permissible, while shirts saying “justice for [the victim]” or “pro-snitching” shirts would be impermissible.?
“Leisureclass,”
Yes, there are limits to repression of free speech, even in a courtroom. I know, I was held in contempt once. The trial court judge said, “I don’t like your attitude.” I responded, “I don’t like your attitude either.” I was immediately held in contempt. I filed a pro se petition for common law writ of certiorari (and lost), so I appealed the loss pro se to the court of appeal, and it unanimously (3 justices) vacated my contempt conviction in an unpublished opinion. I did extensive research on contempt for that cert. and appeal. My theory is that my brief was better than most pro se briefs so the chief judge at the end of oral argument asked me, “How did you learn to write your brief?”. That research is how I know that the S.Ct. held that judges are supposed to have “thick skins” and not throw people in jail over every little perceived slight. (Again, beware because the law can be different in your particular state, and the S.Ct. can change it’s collective mind, or my memory could be less than refreshed, or I could be wrong.)
And, I never said a courtroom was a “public forum.” And, I agree it depends on where you are as to how much freedom of speech you have, and often the time of day. For example, you can’t use a bullhorn in the middle of the night when people are sleeping. You can’t shout fire (if there is no fire) in a theater, but you can go to a parking lot and shout, “I’m on fire, I’m looney.”
Yes, Cohen had a jacket, but whether it was a t-shirt or a jacket is irrelevant. Cohen was still allowed to wear a jacket in the courthouse that said “fuck the draft.” It’s like Ademo, he could probably get away with saying, “fuck the judge for throwing Eyre in jail,” if he had said it in the hallway, but in front of the judge, the contempt will probably stick. (Sixty days jail, however, is overkill by an oversensitive judge, whose power has gone to his head.)
As, I said, “be careful” because courts,” like “leisureclass,” are becoming more and more niggardly at honoring the Bill of Rights. There are other reasons too, such as “never base your decisions on what somebody says on a website,” and check it out first (e.g., as Leisurclass did on Cohen–good move). For example, in my Fourth Amendment case, a public defender actually told me I would lose, but I “fooled” him. If I had listened to him, I would have had to go to trial to win my case.
If a jury is present, then wearing a “stop snitching” or “snitch against your family and neighbors” t-shirt could be construed to be “jury tampering” if you wear it in a courthouse. If there is no jury present, there is no jury to tamper with. Whether the courts agree with me is another matter. I don’t picket near a courthouse when a jury is present as a protective measure, so I don’t have to file another common law cert. petition and (hopefully) win again and because I never trust the courts to do the right thing.
I have actually won four out of four extraordinary writs. The courts say, well the courts can be trusted. No they can’t. If the courts could be trusted, then I wouldn’t have had to file any extraordinary writs (well, maybe one, because judges can make mistakes). The courts would put a stop to corrupt prosecutors and police, if the courts were doing their job. The courts niggardly rule against the police when they are sued for violating civil rights, and they are more favorable to police in the rare instances when they are actually criminally prosecuted. The police are almost always treated better than an “ordinary” defendant would have been. An example is the Stacey Koon case, one of the cops who was convicted in the Rodney King beating. Of course, the S.Ct. reduced his sentence. It probably wouldn’t have even take the case if an “ordinary Joe” claimed his sentence was too long. In fact, courts often increase sentences if you lose on appeal.