|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Controversial gag order by Judge on Oprah Winfrey
Sun, 4 Jan 1998 By Business Writer Cliff Edwards.
The judge in the 'Oprah/Mad Cow' trial has imposed a highly unusual and controversial gag order on all parties. None of the attorneys, the defendants or plaintiffs or their representatives will be allowed to discuss the case until AFTER the jury verdict.
There will be a pre-trial conference this Tuesday, then opening arguments and jury selection begins Jan. 20th.
This trial will be the historic first constitutional test of the new 'food disparagement laws' that the food industry has introduced and lobbied into law in 13 states.
For information on the trial call the court in Amarillo, TX:
US District Court Judge Mary Lou Robinson
Case #2-96-CV208
#806-324-2352
For more information on the mad cow issue, food disparagement laws, and exactly what was said on the Oprah Show visit the PRWatch web site:
A Knight Ridder article by Aaron Epstein in the 12/31/97 Washington Post ('Ranchers' Beef With Oprah Winfrey, Guest Offers First Test of Food Defamation Law' pA12) says that the food industry is looking forward to a victory in the Oprah case and eager to use the laws in other states.
The Associated Press will apparently run a story on the trial Monday AM:
Jan. 5: CHICAGO -- Although no cases of "mad cow disease" have ever been documented in the United States, the question of whether an epidemic could strike is intriguing enough to be talk-show fodder. That's why Oprah Winfrey is expected to take the stand in a lawsuit brought against her by Texas cattlemen.
Posted Dec 15 2007 8:48PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Hi Mike,
Sounds like you may have lost at District Court level.(?) Did you appeal the trial judge's order/judgment?
No, I'd never read Judge Goff's letter but I sure like it! We homeowners need more judges like him!
You wrote:For the court to prevent you from posting your thoughts and opinions would seem to violate your First Amendment Rights. Lots of folks have picked up on that aspect of the trial judge's order. Seems the same way to them, too. We'll now see what the Colorado Appellate Court thinks about it.
And yes, it appears that most, if not all, CAI attorneys' favorite thing to do is to get as much money as they can, from whoever they can (usually the homeowner), as fast as they can. (sigh)
Thank you for your prayers for me and my family, Mike. I really, REALLY appreciate it. I'll be sure to keep you, and everyone else here on AHRC, updated on what's happening in my case.
What would we all do without AHRC !!
Jan Jackson
Colorado HOA News
Posted Dec 13 2007 7:30AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Jan Jackson
Florissant, Colorado |
| |
|
|
| |
It appears, unless and until these entities are recognized as the 'state created, state actors' that they clearly were and are, through the developer/municipal contractual 'corporate' partnership in which they were born and created for their own profits and benefits, and through the various statutes and 'Acts' since approximately '94 empowered with even far more 'governmental' power than the government itself and continue to ignore the U.S. and their federal and state constitutions in these actions, these 'travesties' of justice will continue.
Interesting this judge quoted Othello, rather than the state or federal constitutions, and granted even 'corporate personhood' rights above those of an actual U.S. citizen in this ruling.
Definitely must have been consulting the Communist Manifesto to have given these 'covenants' and credence, and most definitely as many Americans are becoming more fully aware, our unaccountable and independent judiciary and courts, and America itself at the present time from the discontent that is running rampant in this country at the present time as more and more civil rights are removed, has truly has lost it's way.
This entire concept and 'illegally instituted' form of government is a matter of public policy now at even the federal levels, so to have ruled thusly on the matter of both defamation (and my understanding has been that whether or not the allegations have merit or truth must be determined as a fact issue in any case prior to assessing any guilt). HOAs and what is occuring within them are the largest issues before the various state legislatures, and in session as I experienced even during 'switched' sessions the public hearings and citizen attendance spills out into the hallways.
Tyranny, again, appears is the Rule of Law rather than the Constitution. Couldn't disagree more with some of the conclusions of this member of Colorado's judiciary - in my opinion, since 'amendments' to these documents in order to so rule them as 'contracts' (ha) would need to be executed by all concerned parties, inherently the recordation of the signatories to those amendments would need to be done to make those amendments 'legal' in order to validate them, and fulfill sufficient notice and disclosure requirements for a change in these state created 'servitudes' which it appears is still being ruled under the illusion of 'voluntary' contracts in order to protect the state's interest.
In my opinion, another 'activist' rather than Constitution believing judge, it appears, nor any acknowledgment with respect to his oath of office in a great deal of the comments made in this ruling, and holdings. The 'facts' of how these entities came to be appears the largest omission, nor the civil rights abuses which these state created state actors continue to abridge and deny to the owners living within them.
Again, sad day for America.
Posted Dec 12 2007 4:52PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Linda Gehring
Phoenix, Arizona |
| |
|
|
| |
Jan:
We were in the same boat. We foolishly opted not to have a jury in a case we brought against our association in MA. This was a fatal error to our case.
Judges are notorious for siding with associations in these cases.
You may have seen Judge Egan Goff's letter to the California Law revision committee which highlighted this issue.
The following is an excerpt from that letter:
"If the directors write a rule governing the association and decide to accuse any owner, do you truly think they will not interpret a rule, even a vague one, in a way consistent with the owner's guilt? Or even to permit the owner to argue its vagueness? And if the directors decide the owner is guilty, who is to decide the issue of the penalty? The directors, of course. IS THIS BASIC JUSTICE? Clearly the directors are judges in their own punitive proceedings against any owner. This is exactly like having the State Prosecutor sit as judge at a criminal trial, Soviet style. Yet California courts appear to be heavily prone to enforce such decisions".
Your case is even worse. For the court to prevent you from posting your thoughts and opinions would seem to violate your First Amendment Rights. To be found liable for doing so is ridiculous.
I hope you find some recourse in the higher courts. Unfortunately, this is just what the association attorneys live for. Win or lose, they still get their fees.
I will be watching how your case proceeds, and praying for you and your family.
Mike Reardon
Falmouth, MA
Posted Dec 12 2007 3:42PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Michael Reardon
East Falmouth, Massachusetts |
| |
|
|
Return to 'TRIAL JUDGE'S ORDER:JANICE JACKSON vs [her Homeowners Association]' |
Submit a comment
|
|
|
|
