ABA Journal

This is Franklin’s Mother I think that everyone is confused because mas reporters you should dig for the truth. If you check Franklin Jeffries File he was not going back forte evaluation . Danny Garland,atty in Knoxville filed a Contemp of Court against violation of other parties not giving Franklin’s visitation rights which is Parentinal Alination. An Easter week was Dale time with his daughter and he found out the Mother was in town and the Lawyer step father had taken her out of town to be with his family. This showed that the step father had more rights than the father. Dale would have won this court date. Reporters do you job do not take someone else’s word—even reading 6th circuit court’s records they have it wrong the reevaluation of case would have gone in Dale’s favor. Public Records check his file I have a copy of the Contemp of court against both the Mother and Lawyer step father. They think they are above the law.

By Charlotte Jeffries on 2012 08 28, 10:46 am CDT

“All you rappers with the killing lyrics better run better run, outside the States,
All you rappers with the killing lyrics better run better run, faster than the Feds!”

I think every rapper out there can now be convicted for rapping about killing someone or another.

Also, while we are at it, ever teenager who has texted “I’m gonna kill him/her” in frustration at some embarrassing info being leaked is also guilty.

And every parent out there because parents will have many points in their lives where they say “I’m gonna kill that kid!”

What the heck is our world coming to?  Now if only Google can figure out how to create the Thought Police we’ll be set - although now it is 28 years later than predicted…

By Uh oh! on 2012 08 28, 12:29 pm CDT

I didn’t see any judges name mentioned. It doesn’t state that he IS going to do anything, it asks a question, and presents an opinion. The stupid appeals court judges had better start respecting our constitutional rights. The justice system in the US is a cesspool of corruption, and an organized crime syndicate. The president is a fraud, and the Attorney general is a gun runner for Mexican drug cartels, and some guy goes to jail for having his first amendment rights violated by criminals. How Ironic.

By joebanana on 2012 08 28, 2:19 pm CDT

Guys (and gal?) - it has long been illegal to tell someone:  If you don’t do X, or do do Y, I am going to (do something illegal to harm you).  So nothing new about this.  Mind you, if you are in a bar and tell your neighbor that I’m going to kill that judge, that isn’t really a threat communicated to the judge.  And this guy had an attorney representing him, who no doubt harped on the fact that the defendant did not communicate directly with the judge, and took no steps to carry out the threat, and all the rest, along with arguing the law in motions and in jury instruction requests and so on.

And the jury convicted him.

I suppose it is prudent to hide behind a pseudomym if an attorney calls appeals court judges stupid, though.  I disagree on a policy basis as much as the next attorney with opinions, high or low, I think are wrong on the law, on policy, or both.  But not often do I think, at least at the appellate level, that the court majority is composed of stupid people.  A lot of them, I am pretty sure, are smarter than I am.  Just a bit misguided.

By Walt Fricke on 2012 08 28, 4:59 pm CDT

That’s my point Walt, these “threats” were pretty vague, presumptuous, and idle. For someone to find beyond a doubt that they were addressed to any particular individual is illogical. Maybe “stupid” was a poor choice of words (but appropriate) corrupt is more accurate. The problem we have in our judiciary is “implied immunity”. Judges can do whatever they want, and nobody will challenge them. Example: A lawsuit was filed against two judges in LA Ca. one of the judges grabbed the complaint and dismissed it. Judges are supposed to be paid by the state, LA county supplements that pay by $57,000/yr. the judges don’t disclose this when hearing cases involving the county. The county wins around 95%  of it’s cases. Google Richard Fine.

By joebanana on 2012 08 28, 6:54 pm CDT

Good point, No. 2.  This decision threatens to completely shut down hip hop, leaving skads of people with no musical talent high, if not dry.

By B. McLeod on 2012 08 29, 3:11 am CDT

There was an interesting article on this case on The Michigan Lawyer blog 2 days ago.  The judge who authored the unanimous opinion for the panel also wrote a separate dubitante opinion.  The article is available (with a link to both opinions) at http://michiganlawyerblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/word-of-the-day-dubitante/

By MichiganLawyer on 2012 08 29, 7:47 am CDT

Joebana: Let’s see, you have read news accounts of the case, while the jury heard the actual testimony and saw all the evidence from both sides, but your judgment is still better than theirs and their finding is illogical.  No doubt there are flaws in our judicial system, but “an organized crime syndicate”? Do you want to be taken seriously or to be lumpled in with the birthers and sovereign citizens?  Federal judges don’t have “implied immunity” they have express immunity.  They have lifetime appointments for the purpose of freeing them to make decisions that may be unpopular. State judges are a different story

By Action This Day on 2012 08 29, 8:01 am CDT

Thanks MichiganLawyer!  That was an interesting read and the first time I have heard of a dubitante opinion.  It is a little concerning to me to discover yet another federal criminal law that requires no mens rea.

By Atticus on 2012 08 29, 8:46 am CDT

There are so many people in jail in America than in any other country for matter that are not even crimes. Next we will take a mean look as a threat. A cockeyed defendant better shade his eyes or else. How far are we going as a society.

By Augustin Ayala on 2012 08 29, 9:20 am CDT

ASSAULT:  an attempt or threat, with unlawful force, to inflict bodily injury upon another

By cc on 2012 08 29, 9:34 am CDT

@#8
Isn’t that a brilliant idea, lifetime appointment, AND “express” immunity? Who has the power to grant immunity? Wait, don’t tell me…they gave themselves the power to be above the law. And I thought the law applied equally to all, now I realize that wouldn’t work. That would only lead to corruption. It’s good that they have the freedom to make unpopular decisions. That’s what America’s about, the freedom to make unpopular decisions. Since honor, integrity, and justice no longer apply in our courts, or our country for that matter, “they have become destructive to those ends”.

By joebanana on 2012 08 29, 9:56 am CDT

Excellent use by Judge Sutton of the exceedingly rare “dubitante” opinion, in which a judge writes the opinion of the court as required by binding precedent and then expresses his own, different view in a separate opinion.  (Some appellate judges write the opinion of the court “per curiam” and then dissent from the unsigned majority opinion.)  I have often wondered what I would do if I were a judge and were constrained to issue a ruling that conflicted with my own deeply held convictions, and this is the approach I think I would take.  It’s intellectually honest, it tells the losing party that the judge had to rule the way he did but is actually sympathetic to that party, and it is an excellent prophylactic against result-oriented jurisprudence.  I wish more judges would do this, especially on hot-button social issue cases.

By Anon 7 on 2012 08 29, 10:10 am CDT

I am almost a First Amendment absolutist when it comes to political (and religious) speech, and as a law clerk I actually drafted a published opinion on an issue very close to this one that resulted in the acquittal of the defendant, but I’m not as convinced as Judge Sutton that the threat standard should be subjective.  I think it’s enough that the defendant intend his (arguably political as well as threatening)  message to be communicated to the recipient, which the evidence supported here, but I don’t think the defendant has to subjectively believe the recipient will perceive it as a true threat or intend to carry it out.  The purpose of these statutes is to give confidence to public officials that they can carry out their duties without fear of retaliation.  It therefore seems to me that the harm to be avoided—intimidating officials from carrying out their duties—is best addressed by a standard that is measured by how the typical recipient would interpret the allegedly threatening communication, not by the idiosyncratic thoughts of the defendant.  A judge receiving a communication like this one has no idea whether the defendant meant to convey a true threat or carry it out, all he perceives is that his life has just been put in jeopardy.  I think the law can presume that a person intends the reasonable consequences of his actions.  The issue is a close one, however, and I respect Judge Sutton’s take on it as well.

By Anon 7 on 2012 08 29, 10:23 am CDT

Thats why they want more gun control. First stop free speech then stop you first from taking an appeal to the streets.

By the kat on 2012 08 29, 11:35 am CDT

“Daughter’s Love” by Franklin Delano Jeffries II

“This song’s for you, judge.
I’ve had enough of this abuse from you.
It has been goin’ on for 13 years.
I have been to war and killed a man.
I don’t care if I go to jail for 2,000 years.
’Cause this is my daughter we’re talkin’ about,
And when I come to court this better be the last time.
I’m not kidding at all, I’m making this video public.
’Cause if I have to kill a judge or a lawyer or a woman I don’t care.
’Cause this is my daughter we’re talking about.
I’m getting tired of abuse and the parent alienation.
You know its abuse.
I love you; daughters are the beautiful things in my life.
It keeps me going and keeps me alive everyday.
Take my child and I’ll take your life.
I’m not kidding, judge, you better listen to me.
I killed a man downrange in war.
I have nothing against you, but I’m tellin’ you this better be the last court date.
Because I’m gettin’ tired of missin’ out on my daughter’s love.
(And that’s the name of the song by the way “Daughter’s Love.”)
And I’m getting tired of you sickos
Thinking it’s the right thing for the children.
You think it’s the best interest of the child,
But look at my daughter from her mother’s abuse.
She’s mentally and physically abused her,
And I’m getting tired of this bull.
So I promise you, judge, I will kill a man.
This time better be the last time I end up in court
’Cause, damn, this world is getting tired.
When you don’t have your daughter to love on or have a big hug
’Cause she’s so mentally abused and psychologically gone.
She can’t even hold her own dad
Because her mom has abused [her] by parent alienation [ ].
And this s___ needs to stop because you’re gonna lose your job.
And I guarantee you, if you don’t stop, I’ll kill you.
’Cause I am gonna make a point either way you look at it somebody’s gotta pay,
And I’m telling you right now live on the Internet.
So put me in jail and make a big scene.
Everybody else needs to know the truth.
’Cause this s___’s been going on for 13 years and now my daughter’s screwed up
’Cause the judge and the lawyers need money.
They don’t really care about the best interest of the child.
So I’m gonna f___ somebody up, and I’m going back to war in my head.
So July the 14th is the last time I’m goin’ to court.
Believe that. Believe that, or I’ll come after you after court. Believe that.
I love my daughter.
Nobody’s going take her away from me.
’Cause I got four years left to make her into an adult.
I got four years left until she’s eighteen.
So stop this s___ because I’m getting tired of you,
And I don’t care if everybody sees this Internet site
Because it is the truth and it’s war.
Stop abusing the children and let ’em see their dads,
’Cause I love you, Allison.
I really do love you. I want to hold you and hug you, and I want the abuse to stop.
That’s why I started Traumatized Foundation.org. Traumatized Foundation.org.
Because of children being left behind, being abused by judges, the courts.
They’re being abused by lawyers.
The best interest ain’t of the child anymore.
The judges and the lawyers are abusing ’em.
Let’s get them out of office. Vote ’em out of office.
If fathers don’t have rights or women don’t have their rights or equal visitation,
Get their ass out of office.
’Cause you don’t deserve to be a judge and you don’t deserve to live.
You don’t deserve to live in my book.
And you’re gonna get some crazy guy like me after your ass.
And I hope I encourage other dads to go out there and put bombs in their goddamn cars.
Blow ’em up. Because it’s children we’re, children we’re talkin’ about.
I care about her.
And I’m willing to go to prison,
But somebody’s gonna listen to me,
Because this is a new war.
This ain’t Iraq or Afghanistan. This is goddamn America. This is my
goddamn daughter. There, I cussed. Don’t tell me I can’t f___in’ cuss.
Stupid f___in’ [Guitar crashes over in the background] BOOM!
There went your f___in’ car. I can shoot you. I can kill you. I can
f___ you. Be my friend. Do something right. Serve my daughter.
Yeah, look at that, that’s the evil. You better keep me on God’s side.
Do the right thing July 14th.”

seems to me like if you take issue with this result, your gripe is with the statute, not the judge’s ruling. could somebody please explain to me how this might possibly not run afoul of the statute?

By notalawyer on 2012 08 30, 11:17 am CDT