» Does Vulgar E-Mail to Judges Violate Prohibition on Filings?
The Legal Intelligencer, June 10, 1999
By Tom Schoenberg, American Lawyer Media
On Feb. 10, the entire Washington, D.C. judiciary received an e-mail about a colleague.
The message was filled with vulgarities and aimed at Superior Court Judge John Bayly Jr. It attacked Bayly's credibility and impartiality as a judge and mocked his religious beliefs. The end of the message revealed the author-- Jonathan Rees, a 43-year-old D.C. resident with a long history of litigation in the city's courts.
At the time, Bayly was presiding over Rees' divorce case, which had been going on for eight years. A week after the e-mail, Bayly ordered that Rees show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating a previous judge's 1992 order prohibiting him additional filings in the divorce matter without judicial approval.
But late last month, in a hearing before Superior Court Judge Michael Rankin, the U.S. attorney's office recommended against prosecuting Rees for the contempt charge, arguing that he did not receive sufficient warning that his actions violated then Superior Court Judge Ricardo Urbina's 1992 order.
Judge Rankin agreed.
"I'm inclined to accept the advice and recommendations that this matter be discharged on the theory that due process would require that the defendant have notice that specifically this type of e-mailing is coming within the gamut of Judge Urbina's order, " Rankin said at the May 27 show-cause hearing.
Urbina's order stated that Rees' "failure to seek leave of the Court before filing papers or in any way transmitting them to the D.C. Superior Court or any clerk of any division within the court, will be treated as contempt of court."
At the hearing, Rankin suggested that Rees' electronic communications with the court may indeed have violated Urbina's order.
"This is revolting stuff here, " Rankin said. "This is pretty revolting, and I don't want anything more of it."
The judge then said he would leave it up to the U.S. attorney's office and Rees' lawyer to draft a proposed order dismissing Bayly's show-cause order. That order is expected to be filed this week.
But the battle may not be over.
At the hearing, Rankin said any order will put Rees on notice that any further e-mails to D.C. judges would be grounds for contempt. Also at the hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney James Boasberg said: "This court and the U.S. attorney's office will pursue charges against him if Rees engages in this kind of conduct again."
But Rees' attorney says that prohibiting his client from communicating with the judiciary would infringe on Rees' First Amendment right to free speech.
"In my view, if an order prevents Rees from sending e-mail correspondence not related to the case at issue then the court is overstepping its bounds, " says Ferguson Evans, a partner at D.C.'s Garrow Evans and Rees' court- appointed attorney.
By Tom Schoenberg, American Lawyer Media
On Feb. 10, the entire Washington, D.C. judiciary received an e-mail about a colleague.
The message was filled with vulgarities and aimed at Superior Court Judge John Bayly Jr. It attacked Bayly's credibility and impartiality as a judge and mocked his religious beliefs. The end of the message revealed the author-- Jonathan Rees, a 43-year-old D.C. resident with a long history of litigation in the city's courts.
At the time, Bayly was presiding over Rees' divorce case, which had been going on for eight years. A week after the e-mail, Bayly ordered that Rees show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating a previous judge's 1992 order prohibiting him additional filings in the divorce matter without judicial approval.
But late last month, in a hearing before Superior Court Judge Michael Rankin, the U.S. attorney's office recommended against prosecuting Rees for the contempt charge, arguing that he did not receive sufficient warning that his actions violated then Superior Court Judge Ricardo Urbina's 1992 order.
Judge Rankin agreed.
"I'm inclined to accept the advice and recommendations that this matter be discharged on the theory that due process would require that the defendant have notice that specifically this type of e-mailing is coming within the gamut of Judge Urbina's order, " Rankin said at the May 27 show-cause hearing.
Urbina's order stated that Rees' "failure to seek leave of the Court before filing papers or in any way transmitting them to the D.C. Superior Court or any clerk of any division within the court, will be treated as contempt of court."
At the hearing, Rankin suggested that Rees' electronic communications with the court may indeed have violated Urbina's order.
"This is revolting stuff here, " Rankin said. "This is pretty revolting, and I don't want anything more of it."
The judge then said he would leave it up to the U.S. attorney's office and Rees' lawyer to draft a proposed order dismissing Bayly's show-cause order. That order is expected to be filed this week.
But the battle may not be over.
At the hearing, Rankin said any order will put Rees on notice that any further e-mails to D.C. judges would be grounds for contempt. Also at the hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney James Boasberg said: "This court and the U.S. attorney's office will pursue charges against him if Rees engages in this kind of conduct again."
But Rees' attorney says that prohibiting his client from communicating with the judiciary would infringe on Rees' First Amendment right to free speech.
"In my view, if an order prevents Rees from sending e-mail correspondence not related to the case at issue then the court is overstepping its bounds, " says Ferguson Evans, a partner at D.C.'s Garrow Evans and Rees' court- appointed attorney.
posted at 5:41 PM
<< Home