Re: Bob L - contempt

["Roland Moore" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Maybe he's figured the term loonies isn't just applied to Canadian Dollars?
Perhaps his legal mind has been tasked with something more significant, and
he his figured out something more entertaining to do on his lunch break
other than giving Jim a deadly dose of legal medicine? Maybe some bean
counter saw this all in a bad light? Maybe he has heard the murmurs of his
colleagues or even some in the industry? On the other hand, I saw a rattle
snake on the side of the road tonight. It had crawled there after being run
over by a car. It was still writhing when I shoved in into a bag and hauled
it off in the bed of my pick up. I'll wait until daybreak to reach in the
bag and cut off the rattles. Better to see that the snake is no longer a
menace in the light of day before trusting any body parts to such close
proximity to trouble. That caution might apply to courts and lawyers too?

"Jim Rojas" <jrojas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4736557E.4030508@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> This is odd. Sableman hasn't filed any motions in a couple of weeks now.
> He is either on vacation or finally emptied Brinks attorney enrichment
> fund. Sableman might be waiting until after the first of the new year,
> when they allocated the new budget.
>
> Jim Rojas
>
>
>
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >> So someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that
a
> >> default judgment along with preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining
> >> order had already been made, and I was further under the impression
that the
> >> contempt hearing was for Jim allegedly ignoring the preliminary
injunction.
> >>
> >> My knowledge of the law is very limited but I'm not sure how a civil
> >> contempt motion could be made, if a judgment of some sort hadn't
already
> >> been made against Jim.
> >
> > A default has been recorded against Jim, meaning that he is no longer
able
> > to argue the merits of the case against him.  All of the allegations
made
> > by Brink's are now considered to be true, because Jim didn't challenge
them
> > in the legally correct fashion at the appropriate time.
> >
> > However, that is not a default judgment.  Judgments are for specific
> > amounts of money.  There has to be a hearing where Brink's proves its
> > damages.  Jim can challenge the amount, if he likes.  Then, the court
> > issues a judgment against Jim, ordering him to pay a specific amount to
> > Brink's.
> >
> > Earlier in the case, Brink's obtained a temporary restraining order,
which
> > Jim did not oppose.  That required Jiim not to disclose Brink's trade
> > secrets, post their manuals, post unlock codes, and so on.  That TRO was
> > later converted into a preliminary injunction.  That is an order from
the
> > court not to do something.  It's called "preliminary" because there
hasn't
> > been a final judgment in the case, and theoretically, it could disappear
if
> > somehow Jim managed to win his case.
> >
> > Brink's felt Jim had violated that preliminary injunction, so it went
back
> > to court asking that Jim be held in "civil contempt" for violating the
> > court's order.  This has nothing to do with the final judgment; it's
about
> > whether he disobeyed a court order.
> >
> > Contempt comes in two flavors, criminal and civil.
> >
> > Criminal contempt's purpose is to vindicate the authority of the court.
> > It's a crime, and may be punished by a fine or by jail time.  Flip off
the
> > judge in court, and you'll get thrown in a jail cell.
> >
> > Civil contempt's purpose is to benefit one party in a civil case when
the
> > other party has disobeyed a court order.  The purpose of civil contempt
is
> > either to compensate a party for damages he has suffered due to
> > disobedience of the court order, or to coerce future compliance with the
> > order.
> >
> > Here, if Brink's wanted to be compensated, it would have to prove the
> > amount of damages it had suffered because Jim violated the preliminary
> > injunction, assuming he did so.  Probably the only damages Brink's could
> > prove would be the attorney's fees related to the contempt motion.  If
they
> > wanted to claim damages due to Jim allegedly disclosing lockout codes,
> > they'd have to prove the losses they had suffered as a result, not just
> > pull some number out of their ass.  Jim could challenge the amount, if
they
> > ever filed such a claim.
> >
> > That leaves coercive civil contempt, an enforcement system designed to
get
> > Jim to comply with the injunction in the future.  This could start as a
> > fine of $xxx per day until he complies.  However, this would require
proof
> > that Jim is continuing to violate the injunction (note:  we're not
arguing
> > about whether the injunction is justified, just whether Jim is obeying
what
> > is currently the order of the court) and how we can determine when he
has
> > complied with the injunction, so that the fines will stop.   Continued
> > disobedience of a court's order can be punished by jail time, but the
> > defendant holds the keys to his cell:  since the purpose is to obtain
> > compliance with the court's order, compliance gets him out of jail.
> >
> > The purpose of civil contempt is to compensate and coerce.  Once the
> > purpose turns into punishment, it becomes criminal contempt, and the
> > protections of the Constitution and the criminal law apply.
> >
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>