By dave

Aug 16, 2008 6:58 PM | Link to this

the judge extorted money from these people by putting them under duress all they had to is ask the judge if the contempt was civil let the judge pause if he said civil then they should have said what contract was broken the judge knows there is no contract there for the civil contempt would have been dropped if the judge said criminal then they should told the judge who has a claim against them and please show me the injured party since there is no injured party the contempt charge would have been droped next time some power tripping a hole tries this it's a nice way of saying F.U. and you go home free and clear

By dave

Aug 16, 2008 6:58 PM | Link to this

the judge extorted money from these people by putting them under duress all they had to is ask the judge if the contempt was civil let the judge pause if he said civil then they should have said what contract was broken the judge knows there is no contract there for the civil contempt would have been dropped if the judge said criminal then they should told the judge who has a claim against them and please show me the injured party since there is no injured party the contempt charge would have been droped next time some power tripping a hole tries this it's a nice way of saying F.U. and you go home free and clear

By dave

Aug 16, 2008 6:57 PM | Link to this

the judge extorted money from these people by putting them under duress all they had to is ask the judge if the contempt was civil let the judge pause if he said civil then they should have said what contract was broken the judge knows there is no contract there for the civil contempt would have been dropped if the judge said criminal then they should told the judge who has a claim against them and please show me the injured party since there is no injured party the contempt charge would have been droped next time some power tripping a hole tries this it's a nice way of saying F.U. and you go home free and clear

By sickntired

Jul 3, 2008 7:40 AM | Link to this

Joe, I think you missed the point here. It really isn't about money so much as it's about following the rules in court. Same as any other situation involving a fine. You do something wrong and get caught, you pay the price. That's the bottom line. I don't think that the court should take socio-economic status into a situation. These individuals blatantly disobeyed a rule in the courtroom and are being punished.

Would you have a sliding scale put into place where different violators of the same rule pay different fines based on their income? Does that sound fair to you?

This whole situation could have been avoided if these inconsiderate people had simply turned their phones off in a court of law. They shouldn't have to have been told. This is common sense.

By Joe

Jul 2, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this

I have a problem. Not with the penalty but with the choice. In other words if either man had been very poor he would be doing jail time for something that someone with money wouold get out off.

By Brian

Jul 2, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this

Based strictly on the story, it sounds to me like both men had reasonable explanations which should have been taken at face value and their apologies accepted. Judges are expected to use good judgment and not be petty or abusive of the authority that has been entrusted to them. It looks to me like Judge Sloan needs to be less confrontational.

By kANYE WEST

Jul 2, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED BECAUSE EVERY1 KNOWS IT WOULD DISRESPECT THE COURT

By jlove

Jul 2, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

I think this judge should be applauded for taking a stand against this cell phone and noise pollution that we all now have come be bombared with. NOW, if only we can get Judge Sloan to monitor the movie theaters where there is rampant abuse of cell phones, ringing, people answering and talking on them aloud during the movies, etc...and these dopes seem to think they have a constitutional right to keep a phone hanging off their butt 24/7 no matter what the setting! I say toss them to the lyons!!!

By Sickntired

Jul 2, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

I think I've seen it all. Those of you defending these illiterate morons for blatantly disobeying the rules are idiots. Bottom line is this: These individuals showed BLATANT disregard for the rules of the courtroom and BLATANT disrespect for the court. And all they got was a small fine. Then you all come on here, acting as though this fine might bankrupt the offenders. If they can afford their cell phones, and they can afford the small fine they were issued. Don't like the fine? Turn off the phone. They were told to in court. Just because they showed up late is no excuse. Way to go, judge. Keep up the good work.

By Sickntired

Jul 2, 2008 9:50 AM | Link to this

I think I've seen it all. Those of you defending these illiterate morons for blatantly disobeying the rules are idiots. Bottom line is this: These individuals showed BLATANT disregard for the rules of the courtroom and BLATANT disrespect for the court. And all they got was a small fine. Then you all come on here, acting as though this fine might bankrupt the offenders. If they can afford their cell phones, and they can afford the small fine they were issued. Don't like the fine? Turn off the phone. They were told to in court. Just because they showed up late is no excuse. Way to go, judge. Keep up the good work.