Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Saturday, May 12, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
How ironic. Justice Anthony Kennedy in a speech to Nevada lawyers and judges urges a return to civil discourse.
The U.S. Supreme Court itself started legal discourse on the slippery slope to indecent years ago.
In 1983, North Dakota attorney Robert J. Snyder was appointed to represent a criminal defendant in federal district court. A judge’s secretary wrote to Snyder about correcting some forms to pay for indigent defense work. Snyder took umbrage at the low rate of pay and the request to re-do the forms and wrote back, essentially telling her what she could do with the forms.
Judge Donald Lay, the chief judge of the Eighth Circuit, got involved, and Snyder was suspended from practicing in the circuit for unprofessional conduct. In those days, there were rules for lawyers who practiced before courts.
Snyder appealed and the Supreme Court sided with him, essentially holding that he had a constitutional free speech right to be a rude jerk.
WHERE BEING A RUDE JERK IS JUSTIFIABLE
PART ONE:
There are legal instances and situations where being a "rude jerk" towards the courts are justifiable. Although I was always respectful as a public servant towards the courts, as a private citizen, it was a whole different story.
Courts have a distinct problem accepting "pure evidence" from other than their own jurisdictions. The case was;
My first marriage originated in the state of Maryland in the 1970's. I was a U.S. Marine. I had been deployed overseas for nearly two years when I received a message from the International Red Cross that my child was born. It did not take a rocket scientist to figure out I was not the biological father of this child. However, by law, the Maryland family court determined the child born during the marriage was deemed to be a child of the marriage. Therefore, l had an obligated duty to provide adequate child support. I refused. This initiated a huge legal battle and standoff for the next several decades. Yes, I said decades.
During a short break between Mediterranean and Middle East deployments I was brought before the Family Court system in North Carolina on charges of non-support. I was deemed disrespectful to the court. No argument there. I was. However, I provided the court with deployment records that were certified true military documents that proved I could not be the biological father of the child in question. Even though the presiding Judge ended being sympathetic to my position, I was still ordered by the court to pay child support. The military garnished a good portion of my wages. I returned to overseas deployments and wound up in the Far East. At the conclusion of all these deployments, I was stationed in Hawaii. I filed for divorce in this state that would by law be valid in the state of Maryland.
PART TWO:
However, even though the Hawaii courts granted me a divorce, the Family Court there determined they did not have jurisdiction to rule on the paternity of the child, but did have jurisdiction to order me to pay child support. I was outraged, and once again, I was seen by the courts as a disruptive "rude jerk" of sorts. Again, the military garnished my wages to ensure I complied with the court's decision.
At the end of this enlistment contract I left military service. I moved to Nevada. I cut off the court ordered child support payments. Both the state of Maryland and Hawaii were now legally pursuing me in Nevada for contempt of their court orders.
Lawyers here in Nevada would not touch this case. I finally went to former Governor Bob Miller's office requesting assistance. The governor's office, after review of all my legal documents, provided me protection within the state of Nevada from both the courts in Maryland and Hawaii. I then sent letters to the appropriate Judges in both states daring them to come to Nevada and get me.
Was I a "rude jerk" for sending these letters that disrespected the courts? Most likely, yes. However, at this point I no longer cared.
The standoff would last for approximately the next twenty years. The Nevada Chapter of Equal Rights for Divorced Fathers and a female lawyer from Maryland came to my defense. In essence, they both gave me the legal recourses to decimate the legal findings of both the state courts of Maryland and Hawaii. Trust when I say they were not pleasant in their presentation of case evidence to the courts.
The court system deserved the disrespect that was given them. It was my right to show this contempt.
I know there are many men out there in legal circumstances that are as bad as, or even worse, than my prior situation. My advice is, be patient, be smart and be strategic. Once you have this entirely in place, don't be afraid to be a "rude jerk". You have a right to freedom of speech, just as the Supreme Court has determined.
Just out of curiosity, what happened to the child?
Was there ever a loving father present in the child's life, to give love and security, and teach how to treat others with caring, compassion and forgiveness?
"Peacelily"; I would say the following with certainty. If the grandmother or the uncle of the child had taken over guardianship of the child, this would have been very good for the child since both were very honorable people. However, the exact opposite would be true if custody of that same child remained in the mothers hands.