Judge Fines Attorneys for Anti-Catholic Slurs, Orders Arrest of One
- Status
D
donsnow
Guest
Good morning, all,
Finally, justice is served.
God loves all of you, lurkers, too,
Don
R
Rascalking
Guest
Obviously I don’t agree with these abusrd and offensive statements, but is that all she is being arrested for? Is for making them?
J
jilly4ski
Guest
She is being arrested on contempt of court charges, as she failed to appear in court on Jan 4th to explain her document to the court.
R
Rascalking
Guest
Ok, thank you. That clears things up.
P
Publisher
Guest
Ahhh…so the arrest WAS NOT MADE on account of “anti-catholic slurs” but for contempt of court…puts a whole new twist to the title of this thread…which is less than truthful,from what I can determine…am I missing something?
L
LiveCatholic
Guest
Yeah, she’s a Nutt alright!
L
LiveCatholic
Guest
I’m sure the slurs had nothing to do with it.
Without the defendant’s ridiculously overblown bigotry, this would be non-news.
*
A more poignant question would be: WHAT originally started this? What is the source of the anti-Catholicism? Are these people radicals or just woke up on the wrong side of the bed?*
P
Publisher
Guest
Was she arrested/fined BECAUSE of the slurs OR because of the contempt of court charge?I’m sure the slurs had nothing to do with it.
Without the defendant’s ridiculously overblown bigotry, this would be non-news.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
If you read the article its really just the case of a crazy nut job making bizarre accusations against the court. The anti-Catholic stuff is really secondary.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
She made these slurs in a document she signed and filed with the court. She was called into court for her" unsupported and outrageous allegations of bigotry, deceit, conspiracy and scandalous statements against [the] court." She failed to appear to answer the court, and was then held in contempt.
L
LiveCatholic
Guest
If any of you are trying to search for the people involved, and wondering why they don’t exist on Google.com, its because the article cited screws up a bunch of their names.
Here is a Wall Street Journal blog’s version, with comments by Bill Donahue.
Apparently both women involved are Jewish (presumably since they are affiliated with Yehud-Monosson USA)… hm, its a relief to see that the ‘world-wide conspiracy nut’ category is becoming more equally represented between our two faiths.
P
Publisher
Guest
I understand she made the slurs…but the “catholic” content of the slurs was secondary…she was NOT arrested/fined BECAUSE the slurs were “anti-Catholic” as the title of the thread and article suggests…but because the “slurs” and failure to appear was “contempt of court”…not "contempt of Catholics.
I think honesty is the best policy when relaying news…especially new from a religious organization…don’t you?
C
choose_to_love
Guest
@publisher
If you call the court names, of whatever variety, you are risking contempt. And from what is described in the thread, the only reason for her “arrest” is to get her before the court, i.e., a bench warrant to get her there when she failed to appear on her own.
I guess I am not sure what point you are trying to make? That one should not get arrested for a “free speech” exercise? That one should not be arrested for making anti-Catholic statements?
If you call the court names, of whatever variety, you are risking contempt. And from what is described in the thread, the only reason for her “arrest” is to get her before the court, i.e., a bench warrant to get her there when she failed to appear on her own.
I guess I am not sure what point you are trying to make? That one should not get arrested for a “free speech” exercise? That one should not be arrested for making anti-Catholic statements?
J
jilly4ski
Guest
Indeed, the article is very bad and confusing. There was a thread when this happened with more correct information. The client was held in contempt, and both her and her lawyer were fined.(as the lawyer signed the doc and is therefore responsible for its content).If any of you are trying to search for the people involved, and wondering why they don’t exist on Google.com, its because the article cited screws up a bunch of their names.
Here is a Wall Street Journal blog’s version, with comments by Bill Donahue.
Apparently both women involved are Jewish (presumably since they are affiliated with Yehud-Monosson USA)… hm, its a relief to see that the ‘world-wide conspiracy nut’ category is becoming more equally represented between our two faiths.
P
Publisher
Guest
It was not the fact that the slurs were “anti-Catholic”…but that they were SLURS…the slurs could have been “anti-Muslim”…“anti-Methodist”…'anti-Anglican"…she was not arrested/fined BECAUSE she used “anti-Catholic” slurs…the subject of the slurs were incidental…the contempt which the slurs conveyed was the issue…and a failure to appear…
My point is…why try to put forth that “justice was served” because she was fined/arested because the content of the slurs was “Catholic”…that they were “Catholic” is incedental…the “headline” is not truthful…IMO…and as Christians…shouldn’t we be people of truth?
If we the “people of truth” who report the news does so in a “less than accurate and trutfhul” manner…so we not give cause for “scandal”? The headline was misleading…it in and of itself did not speak to truth.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
@publisher
but in the news subforum, the title of the original post has to be the title of the news article, over which the original poster had no control.
but in the news subforum, the title of the original post has to be the title of the news article, over which the original poster had no control.
L
LiveCatholic
Guest
Considering that the news site sponsoring the article wrote the attorney’s name as ‘Nutt’ rather than ‘Nett,’ I’m not so sure they’re concerned about the “literal truth” (i.e., the finest details) of the case.
To be proactive, you might want to inform the news site of the article’s many inaccuracies in the comment box below the article… but conveniently, you’ll have to make a donation first.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
And it is indeed a factually correct statement. They were fined for the statements they made, which happened to be anti-Catholic slurs against the Court, and the Judge. Now it is true that they could have been any kind of slurs, but they weren’t just any kind of slur, the document included anti-Catholic slurs.
J
JimG
Guest
When a lawyer puts language in a legal filing referring to the judge as “a popess” and “a secret Catholic Knight Witch Hunter,” and goes on to insert such language as this:
“The Catholic Church has millions of Jesuits working undercover around the country to fulfill the Church’s agenda,” and "…They give orders, pull the strings, and their puppets like Nancy Dreher jump like zombies,” you know there is going to be trouble.
What lawyer in his or her right mind would insert such things in a bankruptcy hearing, of all things? And the judge in the case is not even Catholic!
The case is not particularly important, and got little publicity. One has to wonder, though, how much publicity it would have garnered if the attorney had inserted similar language referring to Muslims, Methodists, or even atheists!
“The Catholic Church has millions of Jesuits working undercover around the country to fulfill the Church’s agenda,” and "…They give orders, pull the strings, and their puppets like Nancy Dreher jump like zombies,” you know there is going to be trouble.
What lawyer in his or her right mind would insert such things in a bankruptcy hearing, of all things? And the judge in the case is not even Catholic!
The case is not particularly important, and got little publicity. One has to wonder, though, how much publicity it would have garnered if the attorney had inserted similar language referring to Muslims, Methodists, or even atheists!
- Status