Behind The Scene with Hector Montalvo
  • Behind the scene
  • Up coming show
  • DOR/Child Support info
  • Family court/209A
  • Judge Mary Manzi
  • Blog
  • Links

Contempt

3/25/2010

0 Comments

 
In Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S.  829, 98 S.Ct. 1535, 56 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), the Supreme Court invalidated a Virginia statute which made it a crime to divulge information regarding proceedings before a state judicial review commission authorized to hear complaints of judges' alleged misconduct.  The Court concluded that neither preventing injury to the reputations of judges nor maintaining the institutional integrity of the judiciary constituted sufficiently compelling state interests to justify the infringement upon First Amendment rights.  435 U.S. at 841.  The Court further found that any risk posed by the disclosure of information did not constitute a clear and present danger to justify a curtailment of the First Amendment's guarantees.  Id. at 845.  The Supreme Court stated that "'the substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished'." Id., quoting Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192 (1941) (publication of "warnings" as to how judges should decide pending cases insufficient to justify contempt convictions) .  See New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 91 S.Ct. 2140, 29 L.Ed.2d 822 (1971) (rejecting prior restraint on publication of "Pentagon Papers").

__._,_.___
0 Comments

The US Supreme Court is on my side

3/25/2010

1 Comment

 
LANDMARK COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. VIRGINIA, 435 U. S. 829 (1978)

"Although

Page 435 U. S. 839

it is assumed that judges will ignore the public clamor or media reports and editorials in reaching their decisions, and, by tradition, will not respond to public commentary, the law gives "[j]udges as persons, or courts as institutions . . . no greater immunity from criticism than other persons or institutions." Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 314 U. S. 289 (1941) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).

The operations of the courts and the judicial conduct of judges are matters of utmost public concern.

"A responsible press has always been regarded as the handmaiden of effective judicial administration. . . . Its function in this regard is documented by an impressive record of service over several centuries. The press does not simply publish information about trials, but guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive public scrutiny and criticism."

"The Commonwealth concedes that, "[w]ithout question, the First Amendment seeks to protect the freedom of the press

Page 435 U. S. 840

to report and to criticize judicial conduct," Brief for Appellee 17, but it argues that such protection does not extend to the publication of information "which by Constitutional mandate is to be confidential." Ibid. Our recent decision in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, supra, is relied upon to support this interpretation of the scope of the freedom of speech and press guarantees. As we read Cox, it does not provide the answer to the question now confronting us. Our holding there was that a civil action against a television station for breach of privacy could not be maintained consistently with the First Amendment when the station had broadcast only information which was already in the public domain.

"At the very least, the First and Fourteenth Amendments will not allow exposing the press to liability for truthfully publishing information released to the public in official court records."
420 U.S. at 420 U. S. 496."

1 Comment

Please order your clerks to do there jobs

3/12/2010

1 Comment

 

Hector Montalvo tells Judge order your clerks to do there job, Listen to how files are missing. Listen to how I

1 Comment

Here\'s what others are saying

3/9/2010

0 Comments

 
http://massachusetts-election-2010.com/category/state-representatives/15th-essex-state-representatives/
0 Comments

Check out Massachusetts Election 2010

3/9/2010

0 Comments

 
http://massachusetts-election-2010.com/2010/03/02/pacs-own-creem-rudnick-is-clean/
0 Comments

    Behind the Scene with Hector Montalvo

    Blog on letters I have sent to work on solving some of the issues 

    Archives

    November 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories

    All
    2009 Vawa
    Can I Film Paula
    Case Law
    Chief Justice Mulligan
    Chief Justice Paula Carey
    Chief Paula Carey
    Child Support
    Commission On Judicial Conduct
    Court Charged With Corruption
    Dor Stop This
    Dv Against Men
    Father Proves Court Tapes Were Altered
    Judge Amy Blake
    Judge Stahlin
    Letter To Sjc
    Missing Files In Probate
    Paula Are You Reading
    Pro-Se Coordinator
    Review Of Contempt Order
    Sen Baddour
    State House Meeting On 2-11-10
    Thank You Dor
    They Work For Us
    What Is Paula Hiding
    Will Paula Resign

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.