digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Judge removed after jailing entire courtroom

telegraph.co.uk — A US judge has been removed from the bench for jailing 46 people after none of them admitted responsibility for a ringing mobile phone in his courtroom.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Tygell, on 11/29/2007, -20/+299You simply can't consider an iPhone to be JUST a mobile phone.

    If he had asked who's multimedia device was ringing, I woulda 'fessed up.
    • Maxamegalon2000, on 11/29/2007, -15/+32May I ask how you were able to attain an iPhone two years ago?
      • Identity4, on 11/29/2007, -5/+44he is L337
      • capiCrimm, on 11/29/2007, -2/+46the flux capacitor comes with the iphone, but AT&T made apple disable it.
      • latrosicarius, on 11/30/2007, -0/+33WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before.
        • MrBastian, on 11/30/2007, -2/+10I'm in!
        • bagboyrebel, on 11/30/2007, -0/+11push it to the limit.
        • DestroyFascism, on 11/30/2007, -6/+1Great! I can get that 911 shot I always wanted....from the roof of the bank as the floors exploded.....
        • pt4117, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2Didn't we already do that?
  • fant0m, on 11/29/2007, -66/+3I see what you did there.
    • brianbb98, on 11/29/2007, -6/+46and i see what you did there

      GOT DUGG DOWN MOTHA *****!!!!!
    • coasterswim, on 11/30/2007, -3/+4Who are you even replying to with that statement?
    • satx, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1What did he do there?
  • oreonblade, on 11/29/2007, -6/+329Guy 1: "What you in for?"
    Guy 2: "Robbery & assault, man...you?"
    Guy 1: "Some *****'s phone rang and I was blamed for it."
    • Dokument, on 11/29/2007, -3/+157Guy 2: *slowly backs away*
      • MiDri, on 11/29/2007, -0/+60Hardcore man, Hardcore.
        • Chompy, on 11/29/2007, -1/+4He told you he was!
        • MakinBacon, on 11/30/2007, -2/+18Guy 1: "Gum me"
          Guy 2: "What?"
          Guy 1: "I said gimme some gum. Now!"
          Guy 2: "Gum the man!"
    • dsuther2, on 11/29/2007, -2/+26"The judge released the defendants later that afternoon after the media began showing interest in the bizarre episode." Well, Digg got ahold of it. He's pretty ***** now.
      • Derrekito, on 11/29/2007, -1/+4phone numbers? say thank you to whoever removed this idiot.
        • moush, on 11/30/2007, -0/+5people need to learn to turn phones off, or at least not be ***** morons and just put them on silent / vibrate
  • mightydavefish, on 11/29/2007, -3/+198"In defending his actions, Mr Restaino told the commission he had been under stress in his personal life."
    Was it as stressful as being falsely arrested by some prick on a bench who can't be professional?
    Some of these judges seem to forget what their job is and instead consider themselves Kings of the Courtroom
    • unicronband, on 11/29/2007, -3/+62If justice is to truly be served, this judge will become Queen of the Cell Block.
    • Outdoor83, on 11/29/2007, -4/+35Yeah, what the hell? You don't go to jail if you pull a stunt like this? As only one cell phone went off, it's provable that everyone else in the room was innocent. They were imprisoned as provably innocent people.

      I'm willing to say that this is a bad seed, as I generally have respect for judges and many of their decisions seem perfectly reasonable. But this guy should definitely be in jail for this.
      • thecatcantalk, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Good point! It's logical, and proves that the judge either knowingly or with reckless disregard committed false arrest and kidnapping against 45 persons. The fact that the criminal scumbag is a judge, is a aggravating circumstance, not a mitigating circumstance. Yet he's not in custody awaiting trial and no charges have been filed, apparently. Why on earth not? If an ordinary citizen had kidnapped and imprisoned 45 people, you can be sure he'd be held without bail, awaiting his trial!
    • Cyber_Akuma, on 11/29/2007, -1/+37I have been noticing a lot of people using the "I have been stressed" excuse for describing why they snapped over something small, especially people in a position of power like a cop or a judge.

      Do they honestly think "I am stressed" will do anything? Their job is protecting people's lives and possibly being forced to end them, its NOT a job where they can do something crazy because they are "stressed".
      • DeadElephant, on 11/29/2007, -1/+13*TAZERED* "Sorry, my personal life has been stressful."
    • addiktion, on 11/30/2007, -0/+2I totally agree with you man, If your in such a high position and get paid the big bucks you SHOULD be able to handle the stress.
      • WillHutch5, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Does a city judge really get paid the "big bucks?" Has nothing to do with money. The guy is clearly unable to perform his job regardless of his salary.
    • iPee, on 11/30/2007, -0/+0king of the castle. king of the castle.
  • shortarabguy, on 11/29/2007, -25/+14In other news, A lawyer throws a tantrum because nobody would give him a lollipop.
    • ladiesopinion1, on 11/29/2007, -0/+9The judge threw a temper tantrum and through the everyone in that courtroom in jail..HMMMMM! I guess now the judge is in permanent time out! Good! Perhaps he should go to jail for impersonating a judge.
  • dcd722, on 11/29/2007, -37/+8doug.
  • andrewcsayer, on 11/29/2007, -5/+83What a dick
  • ryanlive, on 11/29/2007, -7/+65Great example of Judicial Tyranny.
    • mikesbaker, on 11/30/2007, -2/+7it only took 8 comments to get the bush reference - oh wait he is a democrat NT though thanks
    • latrosicarius, on 11/30/2007, -0/+5First of all, it's not "illegal" to have your phone ring, no matter what a judge says.

      Second, even if it was, read the 8th amendment, baby... that's what you're paid for.
      "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
  • BuckleButt, on 11/29/2007, -2/+148Wait, this happened in 2005 and only NOW he's removed?!
  • internetcoward, on 11/29/2007, -2/+40Sounds like an episode of Night Court.
    • BossKey, on 11/29/2007, -0/+9Or Monty Python
      "Bring in the next deaf end..."
    • knobtwiddler, on 11/29/2007, -7/+1whoa.. totally forgot about that show! berr neerp, booww woow woww chk a chka boww boww bowww.
    • nvisn, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1damn, Night Court went off the air in 92, it would have been a bag phone ringing.
  • digitallysick, on 11/29/2007, -12/+44Courts are stupid, if you show up in shorts, chew gum, or have a phone ring, they want to put you away forever. They are so worried over stupid stuff, rather than focusing on the issue at hand
    • jimmick, on 11/30/2007, -1/+3It depends how old and pedophillic the guy is.
      60 year old mincer in shorts would creep me out.
  • mooseontheloose, on 11/29/2007, -25/+0http://img1.fark.com/images/2001/topics/hero.gif
  • Richandler, on 11/29/2007, -12/+31Teachers should be removed who pull this same crap.
    • internetcoward, on 11/29/2007, -22/+6Phone's shouldn't be allowed in schools, who the hell are they going to talk to anyway, everyone they know is pretty much in school as well.
      • latrosicarius, on 11/30/2007, -3/+1Just use the payphones to call your parents so they can pick you up.

        ... but there's only 2 payphones in the whole school, and one of them had the phone ripped off

        Use it anyway!

        But can't I use one of the phones in the office?

        No! they are special! We have a fixed rate phone plan so we can make as many calls as we want per month without being charged extra, but we still won't let you use the office phone!
    • RizenBB, on 11/29/2007, -1/+37If you are referring to college (I'll assume not highschool because your personal rights generally don't apply there), then other people are PAYING to be in those classes, why would you want to listen to some assholes cellphone ring? turn that ***** off.
      • quiznos, on 11/29/2007, -0/+29One of my professors said the same thing, and later in the lecture his own cell rang. Now he's more lenient.
    • Chassit, on 11/29/2007, -2/+15Since when can teachers jail someone?
    • Flappity, on 11/29/2007, -7/+2At my old high school, if your cell phone rang, or they even saw it (turned off, even) they'd take it away, and your parents would have to go the principal to get it.. pretty stupid idea
    • xJudahx, on 11/30/2007, -1/+4I pay for my schooling, if you can't turn your phone off or stfu in class, don't come.
      • latrosicarius, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2turning it off in class is one thing. Having it taken away because it's "a tool for drug trafficking" is utter BS. That might have been a believable story back when teachers generally didn't have cell phones, but now its a standard communication tool.
        • moush, on 11/30/2007, -2/+1yea but school is for school, drop out if you want to chat
          • latrosicarius, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1No one is saying anything about chatting during class. The problem is not even allowing cell phones so students can call their parents after school to get picked up from sports, etc.
    • aduzik, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Hmm... my first thought was when my third grade teacher would make everyone stay in for recess -- with your head down on your desk, no less -- because some assclown/normal third grader made fart sounds when she wasn't looking and couldn't get anyone to confess.
    • pentalive, on 11/30/2007, -1/+0Then there is the video of the professor who calmly walks over to the student on the phone. He take the phone with a calm "may I see that please", then dashes it to the floor. Walks back to where he was standing and continues the lecture.
  • dashdingo, on 11/29/2007, -8/+26This happened near my area. I feel famous.
  • zdiddy85, on 11/29/2007, -3/+62Everything would of been fine if the ringtone hadn't been Rick Astley.
    • andrewry, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1I can't wait for someone to put that as their ringtone and yell "Rick Roll'd bitch!" whenever it rings.
  • yaryarhumphump, on 11/29/2007, -4/+9I hope there is punishment for him for this.... that is utterly retarded.
    • latrosicarius, on 11/30/2007, -6/+2You are just like the judge... trying to punish people for something that's not a criminal offense. He got fired. Unless he committed a criminal act, losing his job, and perhaps being banned from positions of legal authority should suffice.
      • 11oops, on 11/30/2007, -1/+3And here I thought false imprisonment WAS a crime? Silly me.
        • latrosicarius, on 12/01/2007, -0/+3No... it is unconstitutional to be falsely imprisoned, but it was not the judge himself who enforced the illegal sentence, therefore the judge cannot be personally convicted of false imprisonment.


          Instead, it was the legal establishment (of which the judge was merely an empowered host or representative) that actually decided upon and enforced the illegal sentence. Judges make wrong determinations all the time. It's not illegal. They can be overturned by higher judges at a later repeal, or by other judges at a later time. The original judge doesn't go to jail. What about the Supreme Court who originally ruled that Blacks could not be citizens? Today, this would be considered illegal discrimination.


          The same idea is the idea of a company. The owner and employees of the company are not "personally" held accountable for the misdeeds of the company, excepting for the cases where it can be shown that they actually are committing criminal offenses.


          Since making legal rulings are within the scope of a judge's scope of work, this incident could be considered a "mistake" of the legal system, not really a criminal action taken by an individual.
          • 11oops, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Excellent explanation -- thank you for the correction. The judge is still a jackass though.
      • yaryarhumphump, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1and be banned from positions of legal authority when that was your job is also a punishment....

        *hides the glue you've had enough*
        • latrosicarius, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Losing your current job doesn't mean you can't seek another similar position in the future. That's why I specifically mentioned being banned from obtaining similar positions. Use your head.
    • DemiRonin, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1I don't think benched means fired... he'll prolly be back in the courtroom in no time, probably doing super small time cases
  • mastreips, on 11/29/2007, -3/+37Just to clarify - this is a city judge in the US (Niagara, NY) - not a US Federal Judge (i.e. nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress). Big difference.
    • santogold, on 11/30/2007, -0/+6Indeed. If it had been a Bush appointed judge he would have sent them all to Camp X-ray.
  • Makisupa, on 11/29/2007, -12/+10You guys are ridiculous..."judicial tyranny" and "they want to put you away forever." The only people I've ever seen held in contempt are parties who refuse to turn over documents during discovery. This is a random incident and he was removed. Look at what the 4th circuit court of appeals just did - required police to return 8 grams of medical marijuana to a driver.
  • ndavisAA, on 11/29/2007, -6/+8Judge fired... People will probably sue and get a decent settlement out of it. Thank god the Judicial Branch of the government still works.
    • hobonetweaver, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2It's true, the judicial system does work MOST of the time. Though it occasionally involves crawling through buckets of *****, shelling out some money, and being white..
  • HubbertWins, on 11/29/2007, -5/+62There needs to be a judge like this in every movie theater in the country.
    • ricree, on 11/29/2007, -1/+35So when some jerk forgets to turn off their cellphone in theaters, you want to get sent to jail?
      • buckrogers1965, on 11/30/2007, -0/+19Yes, and jail the people who bring babies into movie theaters too.
        • diiii, on 11/30/2007, -6/+2Jail? Execute the people who bring babies into movie theaters....
        • MrBastian, on 11/30/2007, -0/+4nooo.. tase them!
        • pikpikcarrotmon, on 11/30/2007, -0/+4Don't execute the people who bring babies into theaters, that's just cruel.

          Execute the babies.
  • bbqsalad, on 11/29/2007, -9/+9I really hope he was jailed for that.
  • mrmacky, on 11/29/2007, -14/+8That judge kicks ass... I mean I would've sued his ass had he jailed me, but since it's /not/ me, I can proudly proclaim this judge to be in the hall of kick-ass judges.
    • screwfanboys1, on 11/30/2007, -3/+3LOL yea i don't know why everyones taking this so horribly, i think its hilarious
    • uziko, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1At first I was pissed but now that i think about that is some funny *****. He is a pretty kick ass judge. He's up there with Judge Larry of the anna nicole smith trial.
  • tomisina, on 11/29/2007, -5/+12the bailiff is equally guilty for carrying out ridiculous orders... if the judge told him to jail someone who sneezed would he do that too?
  • Cyber_Akuma, on 11/29/2007, -2/+22What happened to Innocent Until Proven Guilty? Its obvious 45 of those 46 were innocent.... and last I checked a cellphone ringer interrupting something was not a jailable offense...
    • Pake, on 11/29/2007, -1/+3No one pointed fingers, so 45 of them were assailants?
    • Darmichar, on 11/29/2007, -3/+2Guilt by association. You can't tell me that at least the 2 people sitting next to the ringing phone could have pointed it out.
      • yutt, on 11/30/2007, -2/+6...were they under legal obligation to do so? I highly doubt it. And regardless, that leave 43 innocent.

        It sound like you're defending the judge.

        That makes you an idiot.
    • unusualbob, on 11/30/2007, -1/+3Technically interrupting court proceedings can get you a contempt of court charge.
  • BossKey, on 11/29/2007, -6/+3Is one of those "activist judges" Bush keeps whining about?
  • drmangrum, on 11/29/2007, -4/+8So he justifies abuse of power with "being under stress in his personal life." What a crock.
    • natey90210, on 11/30/2007, -0/+0Somebody give this judge a tazer!
  • blindmelon1, on 11/29/2007, -13/+7I agree with the judge..

    Mobile phones are a pain in the ass, they should have stopped at the pager, I'll call whoever back in MY time, not yours....
    Bloody things ring all day....

  • MaxPowers2007, on 11/29/2007, -3/+21I hate the mentality of authority figures that if ONE person does something wrong, then the entire group gets punished.
    My freshmen dorm had this policy towards vandalism... If something was broken and the perpetrator did not get caught or come forward, we all had to pay a $50 fine.
    I understand that its designed to promote "self-policing" but the logic is flawed and responds to an unjust act (the original vandalism/cell phone ringing) with a larger injustice.
    This judge was a ***** idiot.
    • Pake, on 11/29/2007, -10/+4"My freshmen dorm had this policy towards vandalism... If something was broken and the perpetrator did not get caught or come forward, we all had to pay a $50 fine." Seems perfectly fine to me. When someone destroys your *****, don't you want them to pay for it? And when no one confesses, don't you want their group to pay for it since no one wants to point fingers?
  • uziko, on 11/29/2007, -1/+6"If anybody believes I'm kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going."
    This reminds me of some of my teachers in elementary school. This usually happens when there is an authority figure on a powertrip, who thinks that he is tough. Usually by making a statement like this you will get many of the students to chime in and agree with the authority figure which just fuels his power trip. In reality however he just lacking in enough intelligence to realize that you shouldn't punish people for not doing anything.
  • SchnellFowVay, on 11/29/2007, -5/+24Uhh, a judge can do pretty much whatever they want in their own courtroom.

    The judge sets the tone for their own courtrooms. Some judges only allow women to wear skirt-suits in their courtrooms. Others throw you in jail for chewing gum.
    It's a fundamental precept of the American Jurisprudence system that in order to maintain a calm, orderly, and rational setting to have an impartial trial, a judge is charged with keeping the order.
    Generally, the more important the court, the higher the standards of conduct. In criminal courts, or state/federal supreme Courts, judges want to give the court the utmost sense of austere, professional, rational, sensible decision-making. Allowing gum-chewing, cell phones, etc.. undermines the seriousness of the proceedings wherein someone's rights are at stake.
    As for this case, the judge overstepped his bounds because he didn't know WHOSE phone rang. I've heard of judges holding people in contempt for having a phone go off, and I've seen a judge confiscate a phone for it going off. Direct Civil Contempt is at THE JUDGE'S DISCRETION. As for the person above me who said it's the bailiff's fault . . . that's ridiculous. If he disobeys the judge, he gets arrested, loses his job, and is held in contempt also.
    • billizm, on 11/29/2007, -4/+9"As for the person above me who said it's the bailiff's fault . . . that's ridiculous. If he disobeys the judge, he gets arrested, loses his job, and is held in contempt also."

      Wow, that's the EXACT same excuse the nazi officers had. Many of which were sentence to death for war crimes, later.

      Not exactly apples to apples here, but its the same principle.
      • gmiley, on 11/30/2007, -1/+9Godwin's Law achievement unlocked! ;p
      • diiii, on 11/30/2007, -1/+6"I was just following orders" is never a justification for doing something wrong, but in this case I'd agree that the bailiff didn't have much choice, or anything to gain by refusing to make the arrests. Someone else would have, and he would have lost his job. It's not like he was being ordered to commit genocide.
      • karlhouser, on 11/30/2007, -1/+1I think what is most ridiculous is expecting Bailiffs to go around enforcing their own moral judgments in courtrooms.
        "Bailiff, arrest that man for contempt"
        "Y'know what? I don't think so."
        Maybe you are right. Maybe it wouldn't even be the bailiffs moral choice, but a clear cut case of right and wrong. How could we work that out? Well, we'd need some sort of court of law...
        The Bailiff wasn't just following orders. He was following the laws set down by the country he resides in.
        The Nazis were wrong. You're wrong.
        Not exactly apples to apples here, but its the same principle.
        • Glitchr, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1EVERY day we all enforce our moral judgments about the things we do at work. At least I do. If my employer asks me to do something wrong, I tell them no. It has already happened and I still work here. Every time that I have stood up and explained my values, I have been MORE appreciated. Luckily it has only happened a few times and most of the issues had to do with honesty. See, when employers see your positive core values and you are willing to fight, then THEY appreciate having someone honest protecting their interests too. They also see that you won't lie for them (or do their illegal assignment) and they stop asking you.

          Every job is different and how dependent you are on said job will affect your willingness to protest. Do what you can. I think the Nazi example is pretty dead on. The bailiff could have protested and he/she would look a helluva a lot better than the unemployed judge.

    • datastorageguy, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Well put. You must be new around here.
  • Zoshchenko, on 11/29/2007, -10/+4Send HIM to jail - with a big red target on his ass that says "shove it here!"
    • hobonetweaver, on 11/30/2007, -1/+2Honestly, that shouldn't happen to anybody.

      That's like sentencing someone to AIDS.
  • Homerr, on 11/29/2007, -9/+3GET OFF MAH LAWN!
  • ninefournine949, on 11/29/2007, -8/+2***** that judge. I'll go in to his court and have my buddy call me.

    "The roof is on fire! we don't need no water let the MOTHER ***** BURN, BURN MOTHER *****, BURN!"
    ahahaha
  • wisgator, on 11/29/2007, -9/+3Good judge. I hate retarded ass people that don't turn off their damn cellphones. It's nice to see some extremism for retardation.
    • w3torg, on 11/29/2007, -1/+3So what extremism does your comment deserve?
  • dgh1973, on 11/29/2007, -2/+29"Wait, this happened in 2005 and only NOW he's removed?!"

    You've obviously never done any work with or in the government. It takes them two weeks just to move a desktop computer in the next room 10 feet away.
  • zevgreen, on 11/29/2007, -3/+2CO.UK?? Guess that American "Liberal Media" didn't want to report this "judicial activism". LOL
  • Foenetik, on 11/29/2007, -1/+3power trip much?
  • curiousgrge, on 11/29/2007, -0/+3Maybe this judge and Roy Pearson should get together in a class action wrongful termination suit.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
  • w3torg, on 11/29/2007, -3/+6A judge cannot arrest everybody just because he doesn't know who's phone it was. The court officers should have known that and should face some form of discipline as well.
  • masonswolf, on 11/29/2007, -7/+2This story makes me so mad. We need to train bailiffs NOT to enforce orders like this. All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The sad fact is, this truly could happen almost anywhere, and if not for the media catching wind of this, he'd still have his bench.
  • tomis, on 11/29/2007, -0/+3Judges, Cops, Politicians, Teachers, the Military, seams the only people in the government who don't abuse their power in some way are fire fighters...
    • diiii, on 11/30/2007, -1/+3You think there aren't any fire fighters who abuse their job in some capacity?
  • saltmiser, on 11/29/2007, -4/+2I would have yelled "PISSY!!!!!"; heck I was going to jail anyway :P
  • eastwood24, on 11/30/2007, -0/+6I had a judge get worked up about a cell phone ringing, he threatened us and it was his bailiff. The guy was cool though and fessed up.
  • CaptainCyanide, on 11/30/2007, -5/+4***** judges, they're control freak assholes just like the police. Get over yourself, so what if somebody forgot to turn off their phone!
  • bobbknight, on 11/30/2007, -1/+6He has only been recommended for removal, by the time all the appeals processes are through he will have retired.
  • silentarcher, on 11/30/2007, -4/+4This just goes to show how badly our legal system needs to be overhauled. I really hope all those people sue that judge so he has to live in a cardboard box for the rest of his life. You can't take our rights away!
    • Glitchr, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Nope.. It shows that it works.

      If he was in the executive branch, it would have been covered up, he would be promoted and he would be profiting of the outcome of his decision.
  • screwfanboys1, on 11/30/2007, -5/+6This judge sounds ***** awesome
  • x4tkah, on 11/30/2007, -0/+4judge:officer please arrest all the people in the courtroom and then arrest yourself.
    • FaithclubDotNet, on 11/30/2007, -0/+1Officer: Ok, I'll arrest everyone including you, then I'll think about myself.
  • jlhoben, on 11/30/2007, -0/+3Autocrat. The way things are going, he'll be back in business soon.
  • JousterL, on 11/30/2007, -0/+0I can hear the judge's internal train of thought now...
    "...But it always worked in that night class my wife teaches!"
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.