Patterico's Pontifications

8/14/2005

Xrlq Calls a Lie a Lie

Filed under: Blogging Matters,Morons,Scum — Patterico @ 10:35 pm



Xrlq has been banned at Reason’s Hit and Run blog, for the offense of calling an apparent lie . . . . a lie.

UPDATE: Commenter nk suggests that perhaps the attorney Xrlq criticized was just unbelievably clueless. It seems unlikely, especially given his background . . . but you never know.

5 Responses to “Xrlq Calls a Lie a Lie”

  1. I read xlrq’s post. I am not sure that I would call an attorney who confuses civil contempt with indirect criminal contempt a liar. I have been on the defending end (abatement of nuisance within a certain time) and the city attorneys and the judge also were not clear on the concept. I researched the issue and found that the line had been blurred in appellate court cases — mainly in dealing with “dead-beat dads”. In the end it was cheaper to pay a flat “criminal” fine to vindicate the dignity of the court than to be subject to a daily penalty for each day of non-performance. There is also a limitation to the criminal penalties which can be imposed when no right to trial by jury is granted ($500.)which is much lower than accumulated civil penalties.

    nk (f58916)

  2. NK, I’ll grant you that there are some situations where the line between criminal and civil contempt may be a fine one, particularly where monetary penalties are involved. Miller’s case, however, is not one of them. Here, the difference could scarcely be clearer. One kind of contempt has little Judy Miller being sent to her room without dinner and grounded for six weeks, while the other has her being told to go to her room and stay there until she’s ready to behave herself – and then whining to all her friends that she’s “really” been grounded for six weeks because she’s never going to behave, and it’s going to take six weeks before her parents give up trying to get her to.

    I’ll also grant, albeit grudgingly, that there are practicing attorneys who are clueless enough to mix up civil and criminal contempt more generally. Given McMenamin’s extensive media / First Amendment background, however, along with the fact that this particular misstatement just “happens” to strengthen the argument he was making in his essay, I find it highly unlikely he is among them.

    Xrlq (6c76c4)

  3. Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

    –Napoleon

    It’s always best to clarify these disagreements before going public. You never know who is reading these comments.

    Paul Deignan (95ed80)

  4. I am not on Ms. Miller’s side on this. She had the best lawyers available and her case went all the way to Supreme Court (althought it denied cert). You do not tell a federal prosecutor, a grand jury and a judge to “take a hike” without consequences. I have nothing against xlrq and my comment was not a criticism of him. If I were suggesting anything, it was that it may have been badly phrased outrage at the state of contempt law, opportunistic “spin”, even “cluelessness”, but not necessarily a wilful lie.

    nk (7116f7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2026 secs.