Why can't the judge
put him in jail permanently just for being Kevin Trudeau? That alone should be enough for a life sentence with no possibility of parole.
Pitchman fights to avoid jail for egging on supporters to spam judge
Controversial alternative medicine advocate Kevin Trudeau is fighting to stay out of jail after encouraging his supporters to spam a judge. Trudeau is embroiled in a long-running legal argument with US consumer watchdog the Federal Trade Commission over disputed claims the drugs and treatments that Trudeau pushes offer relief …
-
-
Monday 12th April 2010 18:05 GMT John Dougald McCallum
Contempt of Court
Criminal contempt of court actually hinders the operations of the court. Examples of criminal contempt include a failure to produce evidence when subpoenaed, or threats to the judge, jury, or lawyers. Someone who yells at the judge, for example, could find him or herself accused of contempt of court.
-
Monday 12th April 2010 18:14 GMT Anonymous Coward
Perverting the course of Justice?
In the UK harassment of a Judge with the intent to influence the verdict would get you into very hot water.
You would not only have harassment laws that Joe public could use but you would also fall foul of the contempt law (their relevance here being questioned at appeal) but you could also be charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice.
I think this guy is lucky he isn't trying this in the UK.
-
Monday 12th April 2010 18:16 GMT Graham Bartlett
"Contempt of court" only within court?
Can't see that one working. Otherwise, what would be the charge against a jury member standing outside the court and offering to sell a transcript of the entire jury's conversation? He's lucky to only get away with that, and not with a charge of harassing court employees.
-
Tuesday 13th April 2010 07:42 GMT corestore
How can that be allowed?
"This apology cut little ice with the judge, who held that Trudeau had acted in contempt of court and sentenced him to 30 days behind bars and a fine."
I know nothing of Trudeau or the case, but... how in God's name can that be allowed in a so-called justice system? That is effectively - no, literally - making the *victim* the judge, jury, and prosecution. How can that be legal/consitutional?
If the judge feels there has been a criminal contempt of court, let the facts be reported to the prosecuting authorities. They can then, if the evidence is sufficient, bring a prosecution before a DIFFERENT judge and jury!
The notion that, in this day and age, a judge can effectively say 'He's pissed me off - lock him up!' is abhorrent.
This topic is closed for new posts.
