Reminds me of the judge that sentenced a guy to 6 months and when the judge asked him if he had anything to say, he replied "I can do that 6 months standing on my head" judge said "here's another 6 months to get you back on your feet"...lol
@@Look_What_You_Did Maybe I should've started my comment with reminds me of a 'story' about a judge. I really hate getting caught in a lie on the internet while being humorous.
I've never liked how we MUST treat judges with so much respect and deference. Even the lowest level of judges require us to bow down in front of them and treat them as the great arbiters of the legal world they see themselves as. Screw the first amendment, NOT WHEN in front of a *gasp* JUDGE! You can tell doctors, lawyers, politicians, cops to go F themselves but not a judge. RIDICULOUS!
@bocawilliams9200 agreed 100 percent there egos are through the roof over 500 days in jail for talking nonsense is too much who do you think you are the real judge is christ he deserved 10 days tops
Anything would make you look good after that. I had an open public interview for a job and the guy before me was yelling at the manager for some reason, so when it was my turn I made some jokes about it and got the job.
Judge Simpson is awesome lol. I wouldn't want to piss him off ever. The young man watching the whole thing on zoom was hilarious his reaction had me laughing.
@@BLOXKAFELLARECORDS They don't, that's true. But why have respect for a broken, corrupt justice system full of corrupt people? Why should anyone respect that judge, or any judge for that matter?
Reminds me of a defendant I saw in traffic court who when told he was charged with aggravated unlicensed operation yelled: “Listen judge, I didn’t aggravate nobody!”
Sounds like those new Orleans saints mafiasos, "I didn't hurt no body.." - Greg Williams, new Orleans saints defensive coordinator, who used the death of loved ones as "pass protection" sick f
I love Judge Simpson. It’s great to see a judge stand up for what is right and enforce consequences. You would think a defendant of this age would understand consequences at this point in his life but he probably goes through life and gets away with bullying everyone. If this new channel checks into his record, I would be willing to bet that he’s been arrested multiple times and barely got a slap on the wrist.
@@Razorokc He wasn't being put in jail for using words. He was being put in jail for disrespecting the Judge in his courtroom. You're expected to act a certain way in a courtroom or there are consequences. If you don't believe you should be compelled to act a certain way in court I suggest that you stay far away from courtrooms. Whether you agree or not, there are places where you are expected to act in accordance with rules set by other people. Following rules isn't your thing? Don't go to those places. But arguing that you should be able to say/do whatever you wish, whenever you wish, is not going to be decided in your favor. You aren't special.
@donmiller2908 The rule is that we have freedom of speech and can say, whatever we want in this country, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone and that judge does not own that building or that courtroom. He just works there that does not say why you can be put in jail for using your rite of freedom of speech. I'm not saying I agree with what the guy did. But you shouldn't be put in jail for it that goes against the freedom of speech in the constitution. And you don't owe anyone respect.No one is owed that just because you went to college.You got some degree doesn't mean that i'm forced to respect you.That's insanity that's a form of slavery. How can you go to jail 42 years for telling a judge to fuck off?That's insanity. That is a mockery of the constitution, and our right to speak up against the government. If you don't have to like it or agreed, but it's still facts.
@@Razorokc Supreme Court precedent has held that contemptuous conduct that disrupts court proceedings isn't protected speech and that courts aren't expected to suffer every insult and embarrassment put upon it. However, 558 days does seem a little excessive. Even if justified on the basis that every contemptuous act was a separate offense that could be punished with consecutive sentences, every contemptuous act was clearly part of a single ongoing course of conduct (i.e., the back and forth exchange). I'm sure this same jurisdiction has given less jail time for worse crimes.
@shanesteinmetz4563 I just don't see how it disrupted anything to me. The judge just seems like he has an ego and something he needs to prove. I mean, how small is his penis? Is what I think because putting him in Jail isn't going to change the way the man speaks. It's just a power play. It's actually worse than the man cussing, because he's upset. I'm not condoning his behavior but jail for 2 years. The judge seemed like a coward for doing that. If that was me the day I got out of jail for it, I'd find him and say it, right to his fucking face as loud as I could.
contempt of court is not protected speech under the first amendment Contempt of Court Benchbook - Fifth Edition Section 2.4 E. No First Amendment Protection for Contemptuous Speech “[D]isruptive, contemptuous behavior in a courtroom is not protected by the constitution.” People v Kammeraad, 307 Mich App 98, 149 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The defendant’s First Amendment rights were not violated by the trial court’s finding of contempt where his actions and remarks disturbed the administration of justice. Id. at 148-149 (noting that the defendant appeared at the sentencing hearing partially undressed, interrupted defense counsel, and when given the chance to make a statement, stated that he was “not the defendant” and that he believed the trial court had acted criminally). However, “‘[c]riticism of the courts within limits should not be discouraged and it is a proper exercise of the rights of free speech and press. Such criticism should not subject the critic to contempt proceedings unless it tends to impede or disturb the administration of justice.’” In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App 96, 101-102 (2003), quoting In re Gilliland, 284 Mich 604, 610-611 (1938). Courts must use a balancing test to determine whether speech is punishable by contempt. In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App at 102. When determining whether certain speech constitutes contempt, courts must “appraise the comment on a balance between the desirability of free discussion and the necessity for fair adjudication, free from interruption of its processes.” Pennekamp v Florida, 328 US 331, 336, 349-350 (1946) (weighing the danger to fair judicial administration against First Amendment protections and determining that two newspaper editorials criticizing the trial court did not present a clear and immediate danger to fair judicial administration). Nevertheless, where the trial court found a trial spectator in direct criminal contempt after the spectator refused to obey the trial court’s order to remove a shirt with politically protected speech on it, the Court of Appeals upheld the finding of criminal contempt. In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App at 111. The Court explained that even though the statement on the shirt was constitutionally protected speech, the “willful violation of the trial court’s order, regardless of its legal correctness, warranted the trial court’s finding of criminal contempt.” Id.
Because then people would be able to scream the entire time they're in court and nothing would get done, and it also goes to disrespect of the judiciary.
I remember this one. Lol that guy up after him was so shocked. I've never seen a guy with his jaw so close to the ground. He probably had a minor matter for the first time and was terrified and confused.
Sometimes they do. when defendants misbehave and get jail time tacked on as a consequence, judges sometimes reduce their time after they've stewed a bit, calm down and apologize to the judge.
Cruel and unusual punishment. How you gonna get a year and a half for some words in the heat of the moment, especially given the original charge. Sounds like a power trip to me.
This judge gets all the dumbest criminals... First the guy smoking a blunt and getting high in court, the guy who showed up for his driving while suspended charge while driving with no license, and this guy who got 2 years in jail over a misdemeanor charge for swearing...
E. No First Amendment Protection for Contemptuous Speech “[D]isruptive, contemptuous behavior in a courtroom is not protected by the constitution.” People v Kammeraad, 307 Mich App 98, 149 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The defendant’s First Amendment rights were not violated by the trial court’s finding of contempt where his actions and remarks disturbed the administration of justice. Id. at 148-149 (noting that the defendant appeared at the sentencing hearing partially undressed, interrupted defense counsel, and when given the chance to make a statement, stated that he was “not the defendant” and that he believed the trial court had acted criminally). However, “‘[c]riticism of the courts within limits should not be discouraged and it is a proper exercise of the rights of free speech and press. Such criticism should not subject the critic to contempt proceedings unless it tends to impede or disturb the administration of justice.’” In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App 96, 101-102 (2003), quoting In re Gilliland, 284 Mich 604, 610-611 (1938). Courts must use a balancing test to determine whether speech is punishable by contempt. In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App at 102. When determining whether certain speech constitutes contempt, courts must “appraise the comment on a balance between the desirability of free discussion and the necessity for fair adjudication, free from interruption of its processes.” Pennekamp v Florida, 328 US 331, 336, 349-350 (1946) (weighing the danger to fair judicial administration against First Amendment protections and determining that two newspaper editorials criticizing the trial court did not present a clear and immediate danger to fair judicial administration). Nevertheless, where the trial court found a trial spectator in direct criminal contempt after the spectator refused to obey the trial court’s order to remove a shirt with politically protected speech on it, the Court of Appeals upheld the finding of criminal contempt. In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App at 111. The Court explained that even though the statement on the shirt was constitutionally protected speech, the “willful violation of the trial court’s order, regardless of its legal correctness, warranted the trial court’s finding of criminal contempt.” Id.
I think it’s safe to say we all would have had the same reaction if you had to witness that right before you had to go for your case, 😂 the different stages of fear 😧😲😨
@@stuwest3653True. Normally, the defendant notifies the court they are willing to apologize, and then the judge rescinds the remaining sentence. This guy, though… I can see him being stubborn and staying in jail for at least a few days.
I loved the look on the second guys face hahahaha but I also think he was a bit worried about how judge Simpson was going to react after that hahahahaha
They did it on purpose to bring in more views and more sweaty, maiden-less “usual suspect” commenters. I’m sure they were disappointed when they watched the video
Haha the next defendant saw the dude before him getting a life sentence for trespassing. He was like uh-oh! That look ok the guy’s face was priceless lmao.
One man learned the hard way, one man learned the right way. Kudos to the judge and to the next man up for court who watched and learned and was respectful...
First Amendment doesn't give you the right to be a dumbass and disrupt the court. Do you even know what the first amendment says? You should probably actually read it for the first time ever. It prevents congress from making laws prohibiting the freedom of speech. It doesn't say anything about allowing criminals to mouth off to judges.
@@bocawilliams9200they don’t. It’s all undeserved. And if someone tries to tell you that the judge deserves respect just for being a judge, then that person is just as weak & pathetic as the judge they bow down to.
1st amendment. Case laws: Beck V Upland, Payne V Polly, Johnson V Campbell. I hope this man filed a Bivens claim since 1983’s don’t work against judges or comissioners.
People have been getting sentenced for contempt of court for their inappropriate speech in the courtroom every day for more than 2 centuries in our country. Stop pretending it's something new or unusual. It isn't.
@@DLCoates1 People have been getting sentenced for contempt of court for their inappropriate speech in the courtroom every day for more than 2 centuries in our country. Stop pretending it's something new or unusual. It isn't.
Could've paid a fine and got the entire trespassing charge removed from his record like it never happened. Instead, "let's turn this into a goddamned circus and spent some months behind bars like a fucking idiot!"
I love how we have a constitution that says we have freedom of speech. However, when we're talking to an official that is elected for the people we have to watch our mouths but you know we can talk. However, we want to the president. We could talk however we want to the police to the DAS but we can't have freedom of speech in the courtroom where the judge makes his own rules and laws which is ridiculous.
E. No First Amendment Protection for Contemptuous Speech “[D]isruptive, contemptuous behavior in a courtroom is not protected by the constitution.” People v Kammeraad, 307 Mich App 98, 149 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The defendant’s First Amendment rights were not violated by the trial court’s finding of contempt where his actions and remarks disturbed the administration of justice. Id. at 148-149 (noting that the defendant appeared at the sentencing hearing partially undressed, interrupted defense counsel, and when given the chance to make a statement, stated that he was “not the defendant” and that he believed the trial court had acted criminally). However, “‘[c]riticism of the courts within limits should not be discouraged and it is a proper exercise of the rights of free speech and press. Such criticism should not subject the critic to contempt proceedings unless it tends to impede or disturb the administration of justice.’” In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App 96, 101-102 (2003), quoting In re Gilliland, 284 Mich 604, 610-611 (1938). Courts must use a balancing test to determine whether speech is punishable by contempt. In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App at 102. When determining whether certain speech constitutes contempt, courts must “appraise the comment on a balance between the desirability of free discussion and the necessity for fair adjudication, free from interruption of its processes.” Pennekamp v Florida, 328 US 331, 336, 349-350 (1946) (weighing the danger to fair judicial administration against First Amendment protections and determining that two newspaper editorials criticizing the trial court did not present a clear and immediate danger to fair judicial administration). Nevertheless, where the trial court found a trial spectator in direct criminal contempt after the spectator refused to obey the trial court’s order to remove a shirt with politically protected speech on it, the Court of Appeals upheld the finding of criminal contempt. In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App at 111. The Court explained that even though the statement on the shirt was constitutionally protected speech, the “willful violation of the trial court’s order, regardless of its legal correctness, warranted the trial court’s finding of criminal contempt.” Id.
@@deedrole5296 so we're now the act police right? You have to act in a shortened way or be proper in a certain way because we deem it need to be. Just because one man finds it disruptive, it's everyday life in their life. So not only you controlling my speech. Now you're controlling my mannerisms and how I have to act because you deem it right. Where does it say that? What gives you the power to do this? An additional document? A rule that you gave yourself that we must follow? This trickles down to hate speech nowadays and it shouldn't matter where you're at, what you're doing, my rights or my rights at all times around me and with me no matter what you deem so.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. You cannot slander or libel someone, for example. The courtroom also has some restrictions. It's been this way since the founding of our country. It's not new or unusual.
@@deedrole5296 I see you spamming this everywhere. Judges made this interpretation of the law to serve themselves. It’s blatantly unconstitutional and them saying, ‘no it’s not because we are more important than everyone else’ is sickening. This is the same way they gave police qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture seizure and called political bribery free speech. They just make up all these reasons our rights can be suspended when our rulers want, and they do it without even writing laws. Then the bootlickers applaud it.
That is the law. They have discretionary powers.subject to review by a board. No board is going to overturn this. Ask your lawyer. The first rule of courtroom behavior is DON’T TICK OFF THE JUDGE.
ANOTHE Liberal heard from ! Who the hell do you think got himself into this mess, And then just Had to stir the pot. Not an iota of respect given, nor earned. "A man who cannot control his temper..." And here you are sticking up for him. Says alot about You. Well, shut yo mouth... ☆
Love that next kid who was like, yes your honor, anything you say your honor! 😂😂😂
😂😂
Right? At least that first guy was a good example of how not to behave in court, lol
lmaoooo
😂😂😂😂
Went full Carlton haha I would’ve did the same 😂
Reminds me of the judge that sentenced a guy to 6 months and when the judge asked him if he had anything to say, he replied "I can do that 6 months standing on my head" judge said "here's another 6 months to get you back on your feet"...lol
Haha! Good!😄
😂😂😂😂😂
Liar. In addition it is illegal. Judge can not change a sentence.
@@Look_What_You_Did How tf do you know the commenter is a liar?
@@Look_What_You_Did Maybe I should've started my comment with reminds me of a 'story' about a judge. I really hate getting caught in a lie on the internet while being humorous.
My man Keith is like "this is way better than netflix".
Keith was flabbergasted 😂. Sitting there with his mouth wide open in shock😂🤣😂
I've never liked how we MUST treat judges with so much respect and deference. Even the lowest level of judges require us to bow down in front of them and treat them as the great arbiters of the legal world they see themselves as. Screw the first amendment, NOT WHEN in front of a *gasp* JUDGE! You can tell doctors, lawyers, politicians, cops to go F themselves but not a judge. RIDICULOUS!
I Couldn’t believe my eyes 😲 I was baffled 😂
@@clutchesguyinmichigan What's good Keith? 😂
@bocawilliams9200 agreed 100 percent there egos are through the roof over 500 days in jail for talking nonsense is too much who do you think you are the real judge is christ he deserved 10 days tops
That's got to be a RECORD. That clown just got 558 days (over a year and a half)
The record is 14 years for contempt.
@@sargepent9815 comedy gold 😂
For something most people would be book and release lmao. What an idiot
And he won't learn a thing from it I bet.
And He Won’t Serve Half Of That 🤷🏾♂️
Rumor has it the guy is now up to 37 lifetime sentences and counting
🤣🤣🤣
Which guy?
Typical white guy
This is the Jerry Springer of court rooms.
Sad thing is that this is nothing, there are worse 😂
He's actually pretty boringly systematic, but it's only when fools like these try him that you see the video go viral.
@@Chickhunters what’s up with your profile pic looking like Indian government?
....I wouldn't go that far
The guy in the bottom left and his reaction should be a meme. 😂
1:00😅
@@Hexnilium 😲 The emoji guy 😂😂
@@clutchesguyinmichigan😮😮😮😮😮
@@clutchesguyinmichiganbro your profile pic 😂😂😂😂
Dude was baffled
That second young man, now that is how you act in court. Good work dude
@@frankmacleod2565 I don’t have nothing to prove, 😂 I enjoy a 🆓 Life 😲
@@clutchesguyinmichigan hahaha amazing
A quick learner indeed
Anything would make you look good after that. I had an open public interview for a job and the guy before me was yelling at the manager for some reason, so when it was my turn I made some jokes about it and got the job.
Yup, he’s a fast learner. He should do.
The next guy has my respect after seeing the other guys hearing because he say hi your honor "I don't want no smoke" 😅
Judge Simpson is awesome lol. I wouldn't want to piss him off ever.
The young man watching the whole thing on zoom was hilarious his reaction had me laughing.
I love judge Simpson. A tough no nonsense judge. 👨🏿⚖️
Damn straight. We need more men like him running our courts 👊🏻
If I ever run into him. I just want to hug him. He's so awesome.
Kid that was watching was not stupid. He was like hi your honor good morning how are you sir lol
You are not the top of the food chain when you step into a court of law. Thinking you are will get you devoured.
🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🎯💖
🖕🏿🖕🏿🖕🏿the court of law most are power hungry racist especially in the south.
No one F`s with judge Cedric.
Why he is no better then anyone else
Some people don't have any respect.
He should be a movie
@@BLOXKAFELLARECORDS They don't, that's true. But why have respect for a broken, corrupt justice system full of corrupt people? Why should anyone respect that judge, or any judge for that matter?
That judge is far worse than a joke.
"That's six 93's" 😂😂😂
dude needs to yell at his mama for naming him darrell jarrell! 😂😂😂
For a white boi to😂
I willing to bet he has two other brothers named Darrell
💀💀💀💀
Lmfao
Criminals aren’t known for their intelligence. 😂
💯👀💅🏾😂
Is intelligence required?
The smart ones don't get caught
The smart ones get elected to office.
@@TheWeekendMarinerNot that many smart ones out there.
Reminds me of a defendant I saw in traffic court who when told he was charged with aggravated unlicensed operation yelled: “Listen judge, I didn’t aggravate nobody!”
Facts 😂😂😂
Well that’s a double negative, so I guess he did do it.
Sounds like those new Orleans saints mafiasos, "I didn't hurt no body.." - Greg Williams, new Orleans saints defensive coordinator, who used the death of loved ones as "pass protection" sick f
😂🤣😅😆 why do I picture a drunk old school black man saying that.
@@Deadpool_64...... And here you come right on time sucking all of the humor out of the story. You a real duche aint you.
NEVER ARGUE WITH A JUDGE THAT IS WEARING RED .
😂😂😂😂😂
Or a black man who decided to put other black men behind bars.
That person wasn't raised correctly.
He's there to bloody you😂
never argue with a black man who's job is putting OTHER black men behind bars...
@@sampicanook
That next kid, whatever he is in court for, he is a good egg; lol good egg indeed.
Ok groupie.
He probably wanted to get away from his wife 😂😂
she is probably glad to be rid of him
🤣🤣🤣
Black males don't marry black women. They want to be with men in jail 🤣
To get with his husband 🤷🏾♂️.
To be around smelly balls, unhinged predators, crappy food, and to smell another’s man’s poop in close proximity? Is this what you all truly want? 😅
How does the judge keep getting cases like this? There was Cory Harris, the Sovereign citizen, and then this guy.
Because it’s Michigan 😂
If they bring back Robocop to Detroit the judge would have an easier job!
That was Judge Middleton
LibState
@@TheZombaslaya Nah Simpson had a college aged Sov Cit he forced to come to court cause of constantly over talking everyone.
Judge Simpson is one of my heroes . Dude has class , and doesn’t take any bullshit .
Pause at 0:08 the dude's reaction at the bottom left corner 💀😂 PRICELESS
I love Judge Simpson. It’s great to see a judge stand up for what is right and enforce consequences. You would think a defendant of this age would understand consequences at this point in his life but he probably goes through life and gets away with bullying everyone. If this new channel checks into his record, I would be willing to bet that he’s been arrested multiple times and barely got a slap on the wrist.
How is being put in jail for using words? Doing what is right? This goes against the constitution and freedom of speech.
@@Razorokc He wasn't being put in jail for using words. He was being put in jail for disrespecting the Judge in his courtroom. You're expected to act a certain way in a courtroom or there are consequences. If you don't believe you should be compelled to act a certain way in court I suggest that you stay far away from courtrooms. Whether you agree or not, there are places where you are expected to act in accordance with rules set by other people. Following rules isn't your thing? Don't go to those places. But arguing that you should be able to say/do whatever you wish, whenever you wish, is not going to be decided in your favor. You aren't special.
@donmiller2908 The rule is that we have freedom of speech and can say, whatever we want in this country, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone and that judge does not own that building or that courtroom. He just works there that does not say why you can be put in jail for using your rite of freedom of speech. I'm not saying I agree with what the guy did. But you shouldn't be put in jail for it that goes against the freedom of speech in the constitution. And you don't owe anyone respect.No one is owed that just because you went to college.You got some degree doesn't mean that i'm forced to respect you.That's insanity that's a form of slavery. How can you go to jail 42 years for telling a judge to fuck off?That's insanity. That is a mockery of the constitution, and our right to speak up against the government. If you don't have to like it or agreed, but it's still facts.
@@Razorokc Supreme Court precedent has held that contemptuous conduct that disrupts court proceedings isn't protected speech and that courts aren't expected to suffer every insult and embarrassment put upon it. However, 558 days does seem a little excessive. Even if justified on the basis that every contemptuous act was a separate offense that could be punished with consecutive sentences, every contemptuous act was clearly part of a single ongoing course of conduct (i.e., the back and forth exchange). I'm sure this same jurisdiction has given less jail time for worse crimes.
@shanesteinmetz4563 I just don't see how it disrupted anything to me. The judge just seems like he has an ego and something he needs to prove. I mean, how small is his penis? Is what I think because putting him in Jail isn't going to change the way the man speaks. It's just a power play. It's actually worse than the man cussing, because he's upset. I'm not condoning his behavior but jail for 2 years. The judge seemed like a coward for doing that. If that was me the day I got out of jail for it, I'd find him and say it, right to his fucking face as loud as I could.
This judge is fabulous. He gives respect and demands respect in return.
Troll got 558 days over something stupid
"Land of the free" What a joke 😂
@@Nayr747 It is if you obey the law.
@@Nayr747 not land of the free bud take the L🤣
@@landencarl5842 Yes that's my point... 🤦
@@Nayr747Land of the free? Where was I at when paying taxes became OPTIONAL lol.
Loving the young man’s expressive look!
Next guy adjusted expeditiously!😂
Bro started talking like your mom at the teacher parent meetings😂
The next dude didn’t want anything to do with that! lol 😂
I mean, why is it ok to say Fu to cops but not judge? just wondering, I respect everyone
That judge looked like he needed to be told to F off.
contempt of court is not protected speech under the first amendment
Contempt of Court Benchbook - Fifth Edition Section 2.4 E. No First Amendment Protection for Contemptuous Speech “[D]isruptive, contemptuous behavior in a courtroom is not protected by the constitution.” People v Kammeraad, 307 Mich App 98, 149 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The defendant’s First Amendment rights were not violated by the trial court’s finding of contempt where his actions and remarks disturbed the administration of justice. Id. at 148-149 (noting that the defendant appeared at the sentencing hearing partially undressed, interrupted defense counsel, and when given the chance to make a statement, stated that he was “not the defendant” and that he believed the trial court had acted criminally). However, “‘[c]riticism of the courts within limits should not be discouraged and it is a proper exercise of the rights of free speech and press. Such criticism should not subject the critic to contempt proceedings unless it tends to impede or disturb the administration of justice.’” In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App 96, 101-102 (2003), quoting In re Gilliland, 284 Mich 604, 610-611 (1938). Courts must use a balancing test to determine whether speech is punishable by contempt. In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App at 102. When determining whether certain speech constitutes contempt, courts must “appraise the comment on a balance between the desirability of free discussion and the necessity for fair adjudication, free from interruption of its processes.” Pennekamp v Florida, 328 US 331, 336, 349-350 (1946) (weighing the danger to fair judicial administration against First Amendment protections and determining that two newspaper editorials criticizing the trial court did not present a clear and immediate danger to fair judicial administration). Nevertheless, where the trial court found a trial spectator in direct criminal contempt after the spectator refused to obey the trial court’s order to remove a shirt with politically protected speech on it, the Court of Appeals upheld the finding of criminal contempt. In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App at 111. The Court explained that even though the statement on the shirt was constitutionally protected speech, the “willful violation of the trial court’s order, regardless of its legal correctness, warranted the trial court’s finding of criminal contempt.” Id.
Because judges are even more self entitled and egoistic than cops.
Because then people would be able to scream the entire time they're in court and nothing would get done, and it also goes to disrespect of the judiciary.
@@conwaysmith9167 that make sense
I thought working retail I have to deal with CRAZY PEOPLE…. But apparently they are everywhere
Reminds me of a Yosemite Sam cartoon where he kept losing money for swearing.
I must be old because I remember that, LOL.
💯😂💅🏾
I remember this one. Lol that guy up after him was so shocked. I've never seen a guy with his jaw so close to the ground. He probably had a minor matter for the first time and was terrified and confused.
1:12 why the heck should the judge rescind that jail time after such behavior.
Sometimes they do. when defendants misbehave and get jail time tacked on as a consequence, judges sometimes reduce their time after they've stewed a bit, calm down and apologize to the judge.
Because drug dealers get two years in some cities
2 years that's a lie they get more then that try 20 or 50 years.
Cruel and unusual punishment. How you gonna get a year and a half for some words in the heat of the moment, especially given the original charge.
Sounds like a power trip to me.
I agree, no way I would rescind if I was that Judge.
Straight to the point. Simple and direct. This kids going places
He had that coming 😂 you don't learn respect at home you get taught it in life.
I love how the guy on zoom, his draw drops to the floor. Like “I ain’t messing with this judge, Respect ✊ “
He sure showed that judge ...
Yep! How to be an idiot
From misdemeanor to 2 years of contempt time. Great job.
Except he was falsely arrested and the judge tried to railroad him. Fruit of the poisoned tree.
Shut up@@regulusstarseed1368
@@regulusstarseed1368 Doesn’t look like it the way he acted.
@@HebrewJerusalemPrince777 he was pissed off for being railroaded duh
Kith Jenkins is thinking, "I am NOT going to be that guy!"🤣🤣
Judge Is Something Else
He Ain't Playing No Games
😂🤣
You know we’ve all wanted to to say that to the judge when things don’t go away in court😂
But the dumbest person is smart enuff not to.
This Judge again????🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣..........Hello from South East Asia
FU JUDGE.... GIVE ME 93 DAYS
93 days x 6
@@williamelewis464FUx6
@@williamelewis464Ouch..
Ok
Tyranny
“Are you driving?” this video saved in my brain forever idc lmaooo imma be talking about this when I’m old😂
He looks like someone that would trespass. You know he was up to no good. 😂😂
This judge is very nice and fair too.
This judge gets all the dumbest criminals...
First the guy smoking a blunt and getting high in court, the guy who showed up for his driving while suspended charge while driving with no license, and this guy who got 2 years in jail over a misdemeanor charge for swearing...
Man's started with 93 days then upgraded to 558 days 😂😂😂😂
Kids face was priceless lmao.😂
My question is are my rights nullified because I'm the defendant?
E. No First Amendment Protection for Contemptuous Speech “[D]isruptive, contemptuous behavior in a courtroom is not protected by the constitution.” People v Kammeraad, 307 Mich App 98, 149 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The defendant’s First Amendment rights were not violated by the trial court’s finding of contempt where his actions and remarks disturbed the administration of justice. Id. at 148-149 (noting that the defendant appeared at the sentencing hearing partially undressed, interrupted defense counsel, and when given the chance to make a statement, stated that he was “not the defendant” and that he believed the trial court had acted criminally). However, “‘[c]riticism of the courts within limits should not be discouraged and it is a proper exercise of the rights of free speech and press. Such criticism should not subject the critic to contempt proceedings unless it tends to impede or disturb the administration of justice.’” In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App 96, 101-102 (2003), quoting In re Gilliland, 284 Mich 604, 610-611 (1938). Courts must use a balancing test to determine whether speech is punishable by contempt. In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App at 102. When determining whether certain speech constitutes contempt, courts must “appraise the comment on a balance between the desirability of free discussion and the necessity for fair adjudication, free from interruption of its processes.” Pennekamp v Florida, 328 US 331, 336, 349-350 (1946) (weighing the danger to fair judicial administration against First Amendment protections and determining that two newspaper editorials criticizing the trial court did not present a clear and immediate danger to fair judicial administration). Nevertheless, where the trial court found a trial spectator in direct criminal contempt after the spectator refused to obey the trial court’s order to remove a shirt with politically protected speech on it, the Court of Appeals upheld the finding of criminal contempt. In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App at 111. The Court explained that even though the statement on the shirt was constitutionally protected speech, the “willful violation of the trial court’s order, regardless of its legal correctness, warranted the trial court’s finding of criminal contempt.” Id.
@@deedrole5296 Thanks, saved me some trouble.
And anyone with an avatar like the OP does not care about peoples rights, anyway.
He went full Bender… never go full Bender!
6 - 93's 😂😅😊😢😅
I think it’s safe to say we all would have had the same reaction if you had to witness that right before you had to go for your case, 😂 the different stages of fear 😧😲😨
LOL your profile picture 😂😂
I love this judge. In a world of insanity he is a breath of thresh air.. God God bless him
"JUDGE GETS HURT FEE FEES AND ABUSES POWER"
Keith Jenkins facial expressions and opening statement are EPIC! 🤣
Look at Mr. Jenkins face though!!😅
Yeah he has that OH 💩 IM NEXT?!? look
You are fined 93 credits for violation of the verbal morality statute.
Man, this judge is getting all the people with winning personalities lol.
This judge deserves a raise, TV show, AND a SCOTUS nomination! 🤣😂
Lol why they still doing zoom calls with this judge, three times now 😂
Some people are just as stupid in court.
there is no way he will actually serve a year and a half in prison for simply insulting the judge that sentence will obviously be reduced
I want to know if judge made him do the whole time?
This just happened, so we’ll find out in over 500 days.
Doubtful but it depends on his attitude.
@@stuwest3653True. Normally, the defendant notifies the court they are willing to apologize, and then the judge rescinds the remaining sentence. This guy, though… I can see him being stubborn and staying in jail for at least a few days.
@@JBM425 You mean 500 plus days. 🤣
No. He just had a recent emergency hearing where the judge significantly lowered his sentence, but he's still doing time.
Keith straight up turned into that guy from _Firefly._
Keith: "Oh I get it. I'm good. Best thing for everyone. I'm right there with ya."
A year and a half in a prison cell because he couldn't control himself 😂
No it is because the judge has such an inflated ego and sense of entitlement that they think no one can tell them off
I loved the look on the second guys face hahahaha but I also think he was a bit worried about how judge Simpson was going to react after that hahahahaha
Y'all shouldn't have the black guy on the tagline because it has the impression that he was the Fella causing chaos😢
They did it on purpose to bring in more views and more sweaty, maiden-less “usual suspect” commenters. I’m sure they were disappointed when they watched the video
That was confusing to me and I got college
@@insurgentserpent Fr 😂
If the shoe fits...
That's the only way the racist will watch😂
Haha the next defendant saw the dude before him getting a life sentence for trespassing. He was like uh-oh! That look ok the guy’s face was priceless lmao.
Jenkins face during all that made me laugh.
His jaw dropped lol
One man learned the hard way, one man learned the right way. Kudos to the judge and to the next man up for court who watched and learned and was respectful...
Breakfast Club moment 😂😂😂.
I love the second dude -- he now knows to be respectful, and not to F wit da judge... 🤣
That attorney saw her phone and was like "Oh no, I do NOT get paid enough to defend that."
Not good for the judge at all. Very emotionallly driven decisions
Are you stupid or dumb? Which one?
We can't expect different from his kind, they're usually emotional.
@Kingdom_Truth And why do you feel the need to be racist for? You're nothing but dust. Your flesh is vanity, my foolish friend.
I hope you make him serve every day judge😂
This is becoming my favorite Judge 😂
next guy learned about respecting authority real fast. He was like no way am I gonna end up like that white boy. He made sure to be extra polite.
i think he kind of lucked out too because it was such a wild situation, there was really not much to do but laugh about it
I'm so glad we can now have a random guy soy facing on our court cases
So the 1st amendment doesn't matter? We just send people to prison for 3 years because they said a bad word?
First Amendment doesn't give you the right to be a dumbass and disrupt the court. Do you even know what the first amendment says? You should probably actually read it for the first time ever. It prevents congress from making laws prohibiting the freedom of speech. It doesn't say anything about allowing criminals to mouth off to judges.
@@bigdeuce66 What does that even mean? Disrupt the court? How does saying a bad word disrupt the court?
Black privilege trumps the Constitution.
@@AndrewGunner Try it, and find out.
I bet you will definitely lose a case if taken to court 😂
This is literally like that scene from the breakfast club 😂
As my late father used to say, "You can't fix stupid...".
And that judge is definitely just that if he doesn’t understand how the 1st amendment and free speech works.
The last thing you need, is the guy going before you pissing the judge off🤣
There's all kinds of things you need to know in this world but way up on the list is RESPECT THE JUDGE!!!
Why do they deserve such a high level of respect?
@@bocawilliams9200Because we are a culture of bootlickers.
@@strawpiglet Good point. I'm sick of it though!
It sounds like you can’t tell the difference between fear and respect.
@@bocawilliams9200they don’t. It’s all undeserved. And if someone tries to tell you that the judge deserves respect just for being a judge, then that person is just as weak & pathetic as the judge they bow down to.
Wrong judge to play F Around find out with , This man didn’t know Dropping F Bomb In Judge Simpson courtroom was going to cost him Six 93 days
Feels like this can't be constitutional to get so much time for swearing. Isn't there some first amendment protection?
1st amendment.
Case laws: Beck V Upland, Payne V Polly, Johnson V Campbell. I hope this man filed a Bivens claim since 1983’s don’t work against judges or comissioners.
People have been getting sentenced for contempt of court for their inappropriate speech in the courtroom every day for more than 2 centuries in our country. Stop pretending it's something new or unusual. It isn't.
@@DLCoates1 People have been getting sentenced for contempt of court for their inappropriate speech in the courtroom every day for more than 2 centuries in our country. Stop pretending it's something new or unusual. It isn't.
@@golden-63well some ppl didn’t know that. Settle down Skipper.
@@golden-63 Well then for 2 centuries, the constitution has been violated.
Judge Cedric Simpson, your honor are BASED! 😂👏🏻
Could've paid a fine and got the entire trespassing charge removed from his record like it never happened.
Instead, "let's turn this into a goddamned circus and spent some months behind bars like a fucking idiot!"
Why do people always mess with this judge guy lol❤😂🎉😢😮😅😊
I love how we have a constitution that says we have freedom of speech. However, when we're talking to an official that is elected for the people we have to watch our mouths but you know we can talk. However, we want to the president. We could talk however we want to the police to the DAS but we can't have freedom of speech in the courtroom where the judge makes his own rules and laws which is ridiculous.
E. No First Amendment Protection for Contemptuous Speech “[D]isruptive, contemptuous behavior in a courtroom is not protected by the constitution.” People v Kammeraad, 307 Mich App 98, 149 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The defendant’s First Amendment rights were not violated by the trial court’s finding of contempt where his actions and remarks disturbed the administration of justice. Id. at 148-149 (noting that the defendant appeared at the sentencing hearing partially undressed, interrupted defense counsel, and when given the chance to make a statement, stated that he was “not the defendant” and that he believed the trial court had acted criminally). However, “‘[c]riticism of the courts within limits should not be discouraged and it is a proper exercise of the rights of free speech and press. Such criticism should not subject the critic to contempt proceedings unless it tends to impede or disturb the administration of justice.’” In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App 96, 101-102 (2003), quoting In re Gilliland, 284 Mich 604, 610-611 (1938). Courts must use a balancing test to determine whether speech is punishable by contempt. In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App at 102. When determining whether certain speech constitutes contempt, courts must “appraise the comment on a balance between the desirability of free discussion and the necessity for fair adjudication, free from interruption of its processes.” Pennekamp v Florida, 328 US 331, 336, 349-350 (1946) (weighing the danger to fair judicial administration against First Amendment protections and determining that two newspaper editorials criticizing the trial court did not present a clear and immediate danger to fair judicial administration). Nevertheless, where the trial court found a trial spectator in direct criminal contempt after the spectator refused to obey the trial court’s order to remove a shirt with politically protected speech on it, the Court of Appeals upheld the finding of criminal contempt. In re Contempt of Dudzinski, 257 Mich App at 111. The Court explained that even though the statement on the shirt was constitutionally protected speech, the “willful violation of the trial court’s order, regardless of its legal correctness, warranted the trial court’s finding of criminal contempt.” Id.
@@deedrole5296 so we're now the act police right? You have to act in a shortened way or be proper in a certain way because we deem it need to be. Just because one man finds it disruptive, it's everyday life in their life. So not only you controlling my speech. Now you're controlling my mannerisms and how I have to act because you deem it right. Where does it say that? What gives you the power to do this? An additional document? A rule that you gave yourself that we must follow? This trickles down to hate speech nowadays and it shouldn't matter where you're at, what you're doing, my rights or my rights at all times around me and with me no matter what you deem so.
Freedom of speech is not absolute. You cannot slander or libel someone, for example. The courtroom also has some restrictions. It's been this way since the founding of our country. It's not new or unusual.
@@deedrole5296 I see you spamming this everywhere. Judges made this interpretation of the law to serve themselves. It’s blatantly unconstitutional and them saying, ‘no it’s not because we are more important than everyone else’ is sickening. This is the same way they gave police qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture seizure and called political bribery free speech. They just make up all these reasons our rights can be suspended when our rulers want, and they do it without even writing laws. Then the bootlickers applaud it.
my man jenkins was bamboozled AND flabbergasted
Well at least the judge knows how that man feels about him. And as punishment, we the people will pay for his room, food, and medical care.
I’m convinced the judge is a hometown hero!
I see him all the time on Court Cam
I love this judge! And I love how him and the next defendant laughed it off… that probably put him at ease.
Another judge enforcing his personal feelings.... instead of the law
Almost like they are corporate officers and not justices of the peace at all....
That is the law.
They have discretionary powers.subject to review by a board.
No board is going to overturn this.
Ask your lawyer. The first rule of courtroom behavior is
DON’T TICK OFF THE JUDGE.
This judge is abusing his power at this point. Got lost in the sauce.
ANOTHE Liberal heard from !
Who the hell do you think got himself into this mess, And then just Had to stir the pot. Not an iota of respect given, nor earned. "A man who cannot control his temper..."
And here you are sticking up for him.
Says alot about You.
Well, shut yo mouth... ☆
Do something about it then.
He's allowed to, he has black privilege.
Oh lord. U know he was terrified to go next after that😂😂😂
Judge Simpson needs his own show