• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should people be locked up for criticizing judges?

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Grieving dad jailed for repeatedly criticizing court system

(WXYZ) — He lost a custody battle, then his son lost his life. He blames the court system. He voiced his strong opinions on social media and the next thing he knew he was locked in jail.

“He was so full of life,” said Deborah Vanderhagen of her grandson. “I am trying not to cry.”

On September 22 it will be the two-year anniversary of the day Deborah Vanderhagen’s grandson Killian lost his life. She believes her son Jonathan Vanderhagen is justified in feeling the court cost her grandson his life. He died in the custody of his mom after her son asked for sole custody.

“His lawyer said something is going to happen to this child. You need to get him away from the mother. There are too many red flags. And the judge said, oh that is in the past,” said Deborah Vanderhagen.

Apparently, the judge in this divorce case awarded custody to the mother, but the father and his attorney warned that there were "red flags" and suggested that she wasn't fit.

Then the child died, although investigators said there wasn't evidence to show that the mother was responsible for the death.

The police report filed after two-year-old Killian died shows he had a previous medical condition and investigators did not believe there was evidence Killian’s mother was responsible. His dad felt otherwise and repeatedly posted criticism of the judge who presided over his case and friend of the court on his Facebook Page.

The father started posting messages on his Facebook page criticizing the judge. The judge saw the posts and felt uncomfortable, although an investigation revealed that he never threatened any harm or violence. Yet, he was still locked up for "malicious use of telecommunications services."

Judge Rachel Rancilio saw the posts, many of which are publicly targeted at her. She apparently felt uncomfortable and possibly threatened. She did not hear the custody hearing, which was handled by a court referee.

The Macomb County Sheriff’s office responded and found he criticized what Judge Rachel Rancilio pinned on Pinterest as in his opinion inappropriate, posted videos saying he feels she and others responsible for Killian’s death, and blamed the court system for his loss.

The investigative report also says at no time did he threaten harm or violence.

Still he was charged with malicious use of telecommunications services and released on bond. Then he made more posts, such as one that reads, “Dada back to digging and you best believe I’m gonna dig up all the skeletons in this court’s closet.”

A judge ruled he violated his bond conditions. He now is in jail on half a million dollars bond.

His mom says she feels he simply was exercising his right to free speech.

“He just wants justice. He don’t want to kill anybody. He don’t want anybody physically hurt. He wants them to acknowledge what they’ve done and get justice,” said Deborah Vanderhagen.

A jury trial is scheduled for September 13.

I do find it interesting in a society where political speech and open criticism of public figures is often done against politicians in the Executive and Legislative Branches of government, yet a different standard is held regarding criticism of the Judicial Branch. For some reason, there's an expectation that judges should be treated with kit gloves, which is inconsistent with how members of Congress, the president, or others in positions of power are generally treated.

And what the heck is "malicious use of telecommunications services" supposed to mean? Sounds like the kind of charge one could use to lock up most of the media overnight, if one wished to interpret it that way. A clever politician could simply declare that he/she is "uncomfortable" and let the chips fall where they may. And it would be perfectly legal, thanks to the precedent set by Judge Rachel Rancilio.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
Grieving dad jailed for repeatedly criticizing court system



Apparently, the judge in this divorce case awarded custody to the mother, but the father and his attorney warned that there were "red flags" and suggested that she wasn't fit.

Then the child died, although investigators said there wasn't evidence to show that the mother was responsible for the death.



The father started posting messages on his Facebook page criticizing the judge. The judge saw the posts and felt uncomfortable, although an investigation revealed that he never threatened any harm or violence. Yet, he was still locked up for "malicious use of telecommunications services."





I do find it interesting in a society where political speech and open criticism of public figures is often done against politicians in the Executive and Legislative Branches of government, yet a different standard is held regarding criticism of the Judicial Branch. For some reason, there's an expectation that judges should be treated with kit gloves, which is inconsistent with how members of Congress, the president, or others in positions of power are generally treated.

And what the heck is "malicious use of telecommunications services" supposed to mean? Sounds like the kind of charge one could use to lock up most of the media overnight, if one wished to interpret it that way. A clever politician could simply declare that he/she is "uncomfortable" and let the chips fall where they may. And it would be perfectly legal, thanks to the precedent set by Judge Rachel Rancilio.


The courtroom should be orderly and respectful
Outside of the courtroom people are entitled to express their opinions

"malicious use of telecommunications services" is an odd phrase.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
This does appear to be an abuse of power.

'Malicious use of telecommunication serviices' was designed to deal with harassing or threatening phone calls. It has been extended to certain aspects of computer communication. Unless there were actual threats or the posts were on the *judge's* Facebook page, this doesn't seem to be a violation.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
The father started posting messages on his Facebook page criticizing the judge. The judge saw the posts and felt uncomfortable, although an investigation revealed that he never threatened any harm or violence. Yet, he was still locked up for "malicious use of telecommunications services."

Now this is bulls****

And what the heck is "malicious use of telecommunications services" supposed to mean?

Exactly.....

You see, this pisses me off and I'm not the dad...
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Grieving dad jailed for repeatedly criticizing court system



Apparently, the judge in this divorce case awarded custody to the mother, but the father and his attorney warned that there were "red flags" and suggested that she wasn't fit.

Then the child died, although investigators said there wasn't evidence to show that the mother was responsible for the death.



The father started posting messages on his Facebook page criticizing the judge. The judge saw the posts and felt uncomfortable, although an investigation revealed that he never threatened any harm or violence. Yet, he was still locked up for "malicious use of telecommunications services."





I do find it interesting in a society where political speech and open criticism of public figures is often done against politicians in the Executive and Legislative Branches of government, yet a different standard is held regarding criticism of the Judicial Branch. For some reason, there's an expectation that judges should be treated with kit gloves, which is inconsistent with how members of Congress, the president, or others in positions of power are generally treated.

And what the heck is "malicious use of telecommunications services" supposed to mean? Sounds like the kind of charge one could use to lock up most of the media overnight, if one wished to interpret it that way. A clever politician could simply declare that he/she is "uncomfortable" and let the chips fall where they may. And it would be perfectly legal, thanks to the precedent set by Judge Rachel Rancilio.
Was the case sealed? Did the posts reveal personal information such as the judge's address? If not then I 100% suspect this judge has gone above their authority and is impeachable. Judges have to be kept in check, and somebody has to be able to criticize them in case they take bribes or otherwise wield power improperly.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Was the case sealed? Did the posts reveal personal information such as the judge's address? If not then I 100% suspect this judge has gone above their authority and is impeachable. Judges have to be kept in check, and somebody has to be able to criticize them in case they take bribes or otherwise wield power improperly.

The investigation stated that he never threatened harm or violence, and I would think that if he posted the judge's address, that would be considered "threatening." But he did say he was going to "dig up the skeletons in the court's closet," but that could mean he was just calling for a legal investigation.

Of course, now the criticism against the judge is going to increase even more than before. By locking this guy up, they're making a martyr out of him and getting even more attention. If they just ignored it, it would have gone away on its own.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Judges should face prison time for abusing their power.
Michiganistan has perhaps the worst problem in the
country with "black robe syndrome", ie, abuse of power,
unaccountability, imperiousness, & incompetence.
The problem is that they police themselves.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Judges should face prison time for abusing their power.
Michiganistan has perhaps the worst problem in the
country with "black robe syndrome", ie, abuse of power,
unaccountability, imperiousness, & incompetence.
The problem is that they police themselves.

"Black robe syndrome." I remember an excerpt from Bugliosi's book Outrage, where he makes some comments about judges in general:


The American people have an understandably negative view of politicians, public opinion polls show, and an equally negative view of lawyers. Conventional logic would seem to dictate that since a judge is normally both a politician and a lawyer, judges would be perceived by the public as being lower than whale waste. But on the contrary, the mere investiture of a twenty-five-dollar black cotton robe elevates the denigrated lawyer-politician to a position of considerable honor and respect in our society, as if the garment itself miraculously imbues the person with qualities not previously possessed. . . .

It’s always a great relief and pleasure to walk into court and find a judge who has had trial experience, knows the law, is completely impartial, and hasn’t let his judgeship swell his head. There are, of course, many such admirable judges in this country, but regrettably they are decidedly in the minority.

For whatever reasons (undoubtedly the threat of being held in contempt of court ranks high), the great run of lawyers are intimidated by judges and continue to be outwardly respectful even when publicly humiliated by them. The lawyers’ complaints are made in private to each other and to their families. . . .

The judge’s obligation in a jury trial is to be totally impartial, the decision on guilt being the exclusive province of the jury. But time and time again a judge makes it very clear to the jury which side he prefers. This is a corruption and bastardization of our system of justice by the very people whom the law entrusts with the responsibility of ensuring that it works properly and equitably.

Unfortunately, jurors usually assume that whatever the judge says or does in court is correct and justified.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
"Black robe syndrome." I remember an excerpt from Bugliosi's book Outrage, where he makes some comments about judges in general:


The American people have an understandably negative view of politicians, public opinion polls show, and an equally negative view of lawyers. Conventional logic would seem to dictate that since a judge is normally both a politician and a lawyer, judges would be perceived by the public as being lower than whale waste. But on the contrary, the mere investiture of a twenty-five-dollar black cotton robe elevates the denigrated lawyer-politician to a position of considerable honor and respect in our society, as if the garment itself miraculously imbues the person with qualities not previously possessed. . . .

It’s always a great relief and pleasure to walk into court and find a judge who has had trial experience, knows the law, is completely impartial, and hasn’t let his judgeship swell his head. There are, of course, many such admirable judges in this country, but regrettably they are decidedly in the minority.

For whatever reasons (undoubtedly the threat of being held in contempt of court ranks high), the great run of lawyers are intimidated by judges and continue to be outwardly respectful even when publicly humiliated by them. The lawyers’ complaints are made in private to each other and to their families. . . .

The judge’s obligation in a jury trial is to be totally impartial, the decision on guilt being the exclusive province of the jury. But time and time again a judge makes it very clear to the jury which side he prefers. This is a corruption and bastardization of our system of justice by the very people whom the law entrusts with the responsibility of ensuring that it works properly and equitably.

Unfortunately, jurors usually assume that whatever the judge says or does in court is correct and justified.
I've been in front of many judges, both as plaintiff & defendant.
It's a crap shoot. You could get a prejudiced incompetent boob
(not the good kind of boob) or a fair & competent judge.
The system is best entirely avoided.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Perhaps someone other than this man should look into his case and if needed file a complaint with a higher court. No doubt it would have to be someone in the legal profession.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
We can't allow for it within the courtroom, but apart from it I think it's a matter of free speech. I predict a lengthy court battle over this, and ultimately a big fat settlement.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
Grieving dad jailed for repeatedly criticizing court system



Apparently, the judge in this divorce case awarded custody to the mother, but the father and his attorney warned that there were "red flags" and suggested that she wasn't fit.

Then the child died, although investigators said there wasn't evidence to show that the mother was responsible for the death.



The father started posting messages on his Facebook page criticizing the judge. The judge saw the posts and felt uncomfortable, although an investigation revealed that he never threatened any harm or violence. Yet, he was still locked up for "malicious use of telecommunications services."





I do find it interesting in a society where political speech and open criticism of public figures is often done against politicians in the Executive and Legislative Branches of government, yet a different standard is held regarding criticism of the Judicial Branch. For some reason, there's an expectation that judges should be treated with kit gloves, which is inconsistent with how members of Congress, the president, or others in positions of power are generally treated.

And what the heck is "malicious use of telecommunications services" supposed to mean? Sounds like the kind of charge one could use to lock up most of the media overnight, if one wished to interpret it that way. A clever politician could simply declare that he/she is "uncomfortable" and let the chips fall where they may. And it would be perfectly legal, thanks to the precedent set by Judge Rachel Rancilio.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You shall set up judges and law enforcement officials for yourself in all your cities that the Lord, your God, is giving you, for your tribes, and they shall judge the people [with] righteous judgment. You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show favoritism, and you shall not take a bribe, for bribery blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts just words. Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may live and possess the land the Lord, your God, is giving you. -Deuteronomy 16:18-20
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
I do find it interesting in a society where political speech and open criticism of public figures is often done against politicians in the Executive and Legislative Branches of government, yet a different standard is held regarding criticism of the Judicial Branch. For some reason, there's an expectation that judges should be treated with kit gloves, which is inconsistent with how members of Congress, the president, or others in positions of power are generally treated.

And what the heck is "malicious use of telecommunications services" supposed to mean? Sounds like the kind of charge one could use to lock up most of the media overnight, if one wished to interpret it that way. A clever politician could simply declare that he/she is "uncomfortable" and let the chips fall where they may. And it would be perfectly legal, thanks to the precedent set by Judge Rachel Rancilio.

He was allowed to criticize the Judge, he was brought in and reprimand and let go with warnings and requirements which he dismissed. Its the same as if a neighbor keeps yelling at you everyday you leave your home and return. You could call the police they would bring your neighbor in and give the neighbor warning and requirements. If you neighbor did it again your neighbor would end up in Jail for a period of time. Do find issue with this should your neighbor be allowed to persecute you every day as long as they don't do physical harm.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
We can't allow for it within the courtroom, but apart from it I think it's a matter of free speech. I predict a lengthy court battle over this, and ultimately a big fat settlement.
Exactly. Allowing public officials to have people indiscriminately jailed just for merely insulting them is probably the most dangerous precedent you can think of in a supposedly free society.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
He was allowed to criticize the Judge, he was brought in and reprimand and let go with warnings and requirements which he dismissed. Its the same as if a neighbor keeps yelling at you everyday you leave your home and return. You could call the police they would bring your neighbor in and give the neighbor warning and requirements. If you neighbor did it again your neighbor would end up in Jail for a period of time. Do find issue with this should your neighbor be allowed to persecute you every day as long as they don't do physical harm.

It's not really the same thing, since this isn't a case of a neighbor yelling at someone at their place of residence. It was a case of a person criticizing a public official on social media.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It seems to me his Honorable Judge Snowflake should be locked up for such a gross abuse of power.
 
Top