See other Pious Perverts Articles
Title: Judge Gone Wild!
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people ... -francis-arrested_N.htm?csp=34
Published: Apr 11, 2007
Author: Associated Press
Post Date: 2007-04-11 06:59:53 by Paul Revere
Keywords: None
Views: 730
Comments: 50
PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) — The founder of the Girls Gone Wild video empire was taken into custody by federal marshals early Tuesday to face a contempt of court citation after initially defying a federal judge. Joe Francis was booked into the Bay County Jail in Panama City, said Ruth Sasser, a spokeswoman for the sheriff's office. "His attorneys continue to work toward a settlement," Ronn Torossian, a Francis spokesman, said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press. Francis, 34, makes an estimated $29 million a year from videos of young women exposing their breasts and in other sexually provocative situations. He appeared Tuesday afternoon before federal Magistrate Larry A. Bodiford, who ordered him held without bail. Torossian said Francis would likely be held until at least Thursday, when he is scheduled to appear before U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak, the judge who issued the contempt citation. He drew the contempt citation during negotiations in a civil lawsuit brought by seven women who were underage when they were filmed by his company on Panama City Beach during spring break in 2003. My comments: A federal judge in a civil case in Florida ordered Girls Gone Wild owner Joe Francis held in jail for contempt for his refusal to settle the civil case. Are you kidding me?! A federal judge who orders a party to settle or face contempt charges? It is common for federal judges to put pressure on litigants to settle cases, especially cases the judge doesn't want to try. But the only duty a party has vis-a-vis settlement is to make a good faith effort. If a party doesn't want to settle, the remedy is TRIAL, not contempt for refusing to settle. This is yet another judge gone wild, a man who thinks he is the law.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Paul Revere (#0)
the judge is making his own rules. therefore it is he who is in contempt for our system of laws. and I think that's a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a video camera asking teen girls to flash their breasts. the judge should be tarred & feathered first then jailed until he successfully pays back all the salary he's ever been paid. the customers who pay so much money to watch these videos should not do so. and the girls who so easily bear their breasts in public are idiots. Perhaps they have themselves to blame for their own actions.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
There's no way to avoid "bearing" one's breasts, but it IS possible to avoid "baring" them in public. Here's a cartoon along these lines the author of the post may recognize: I will be ready when the authorities do away with the right to bare arms since I already wear long-sleeved shirts most of the time. The only problem I have with women baring their breasts in public is that often it is the ones you'd MOST like to keep them under wraps and covered up at ALL times who get the urge to do so.
The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, generally diffused through a community, are essential to the preservation of a free government. - Sam Houston
It seems he is being held on a contempt of court order, and not for refusing to settle some lawsuit. It could well be that the feds are involved because there were minor girls involved at the time--perhaps under the Missing and Exploited Children law.
thanks for correcting me on that 'bear' stuff.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
No, that has absolutely nothing to do with the case. The judge is involved because the girls hired a lawyer, sued Girls Gone Wild in civil court, and pursued the case. The judge didn't just "get involved." The civil case is pending in his court. The judge held the owner of GGW in contempt for failing to settle the case. That is an extreme measure, and not one any rational judge would use. It's the worst kind of judicial activism, the worst kind of abuse of judicial power.
Hey, that looks familiar!! What's up Sam I Am?
I think this lousy culture is to blame for a lot of it. I bet when these girls grow up the vast majority of them will be ashamed for falling so easily to peer pressure, and not having given more thought to their actions. They are playing into that "slut" "ho" mentality and disgracing girls in general.
There will always be young women who want to show off their chesticles. There will always be men who want to see them. Add booze and cameras, and you'll have GGW, even in Saudi Arabia. I consider this all part of the rampant hypocrisy that is American mores - the practices versus the stated mores. Our culture sexualizes girls from an early age, and now we have girls doing things at 13 they used to not do until they were 17, or 19, or 21. But this thread is about how bad judges use their power to punish even civil litigants with jail time for not doing what the judge wants. There is no animal on the face of this planet that is a bigger tyrant than a federal trial judge. They are petty tyrants, and almost all of them suck after a few years on the bench. Give them five years on the bench, and they can hardly commute with regular people.
My grandmother is probably turning over in her grave, she was so proper and placed great importance on the virtues of modesty, something we no longer hear much about. The concept of modesty has become downright old-fashioned and archaic, like something from the 1800s.
Really? Hmmm........maybe you should contacty the source and set them straight as to what the gentleman (?) is incarcerated for.
Meanwhile here in Eugene I chatted with a couple of topless women on the right bank bike path along the Willamette River yesterday. It was a warm day and as the season gets longer more women will doff their shirts and blouses in a perfectly legal way here. It doesn't raise many eyebrows here, unless you just moved here and are unfamiliar with local laws, or you hate this sort of display of secondary sexual characteristics in the first place.
I think you missed some of the story...it was below an ad or something... Here's the rest of the story from the same link: Lawyers for the women told Smoak that Francis became enraged during the settlement talks, shouting obscenities at the lawyers and threatening to "bury them." Smoak ordered Francis to settle the case or go to jail for his behavior. Negotiations continued with the help of a mediator, but broke down Thursday, and Smoak issued a contempt of court warrant. Francis initially refused to surrender and called Smoak "a judge gone wild." The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta refused to let him remain free pending an appeal. Jan Handzlik, Francis' Los Angeles-based attorney, said the court is considering another appeal. "If someone behaves badly in a civil case, you punish them with a monetary sanction. It is alien to the justice system to say to a person who is not willing to settle a civil case that they should go to jail. You take the case to trial," Handzlik said. Torossian told the AP that Francis "surrendered on his own 100%." But U.S. Marshals spokesman Dominic Guadagnoli said marshals were monitoring the airport and were tipped to Francis' arrival. "We were not aware that he would be flying in in the morning. He stepped off the jet, and he was immediately arrested," he said. "If he was coming to Panama City to turn himself in, he was a day late and a dollar short." Francis had said Thursday he would settle the case to avoid jail time. "I'll give up a billion dollars, but it will be under duress," he said, arguing that any money given would be voided in an appeal.
I don't need to contact the court or the source. I can read. Here's the story: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-04-10-francis-arrested_N.htm? csp=34 Lawyers for the women told Smoak that Francis became enraged during the settlement talks, shouting obscenities at the lawyers and threatening to "bury them." Smoak ordered Francis to settle the case or go to jail for his behavior.
I'm not the person confused. You are. Have you ever tried a federal court case? Have you ever even been in a federal court? Do you have any idea what a suit for damages is? Do you have any idea what the standard of conduct is for federal judges? Get a law degree, pass the bar, practice until you're skilled, get licensed to try cases before federal judges, try such cases and win them, and THEN get back to me with your explanation for what is happening in the court. You're misinformed, but like many who are misinformed, you trudge on, confident in your own ignorance.
For cryin out loud, get a grip on yourself......not there, silly boy. Get hold of your emotions. :) EDIT: I'm trying to make some sense out of what you posted. What you were squalling about was not what the article said......what part of the article you provided for us to read. Capiche? That was where the difficulty was--trying to figure out where you were coming from based on what you gave us.
I don't see what is confusing. You challenged me regarding what I had reported, and failed to accurately state what and why the court had ruled. This is a judge out of control. That's the point. Not girls showing their tatas, not exploitive and disgusting young entrepreneurs. This is about MONEY. This is about a judge helping one side in civil lawsuit, instead of being a judge. Here's how this should have been handled: The plaintiffs file a motion to compel GGW to attend a mediation in good faith, and they file a motion for sanctions to cover their costs of the lost settlement session, as well as the costs associated with the motion. The judge grants the motions, orders GGW to pay sanctions in the form of cash, paid immediately to the attorneys for the plaintiffs. The amount of the sanction is reasonable, and is based upon the actual costs associated with the delays and costs occasioned by the bad conduct of the GGW guy at the last session. The court can hold someone in contempt, but it is simply unheard of to hold someone in contempt and jail them until they settle. My best guess is the judge is helping someone on the plaintiff's team of lawyers.
The point is....he was NOT held in contempt for not settling; rather it was for his outrageous behaviour during sessions to settle the case. That was what was puzzling to me......you were yelling that it was because he refused to settle. How can you be forced to settle........that's like being forced to recall something. And so, in looking at the USA link trying to find other stories about this case I saw that there was more to the article than you posted. So I read the damned thing--and ta da! There it is....the bastard acted like a total asshole with/to/against 'officers of the court' with his threats and language, in which case I reckon it would be akin to saying it to the judge's face or some other such crap. On that note, I'm done......continue ranting if it makes you happy. Have a good evening on the board.
You are wrong. He was held in contempt for refusing to settle. If you have an order from the court that says otherwise, let's see it. He was held in contempt for his conduct, but the penalty of incarceration was specifically to require his compliance with the judge's order to settle. The only thing the GGW owner can do to get out is settle, and that is not right. A Court can find you in contempt and jail you until you agree to cure your contempt. It cannot order you to settle, however. This judge is a bad judge, probably a crooked judge. He did something outrageous and he should be removed from his position. But he won't be because our federal court system is a corruption, thanks to the appointments of Reagan, Bush and Bush. This particular judge has been on the bench barely a year, and he's a Bush appointment. He's a guy with a weak law background, from a mediocre law school. He's a Bush loyalist, and he's probably helping a friend or former business associate in this case.
That's how it was in Europe, many women took off their tops at the beach, and they had commercials on tv for soaps and other products where they'd show topless women, but it was never in a lacivious or sexual type of content, it was presented as natural and normal, sort of like breast-feeding, which is also not frowned upon in Europe, while some in this country freak out over breast- feeding in public. It all has to do with context and culture, personally I don't think naked breasts are a big deal, but in most parts of this country they are seen as purely sexual, and of course in GGW it's not presented as wholesome or natural but titallating (no pun intended!) and slutty.
When I see it here I sometimes muse about the big stink a sight like that produces in sexually anal retentive America. I absolutely adore the physical form off women, but one should not get hung up on breasts nor just the body. Without a woman's mind along with it, you get far less then half the package when you know a woman.
You are wrong. He was held in contempt for refusing to settle. If you have an order from the court that says otherwise, let's see it. He was held in contempt for his conduct, but the penalty of incarceration was specifically to require his compliance with the judge's order to settle. The only thing the GGW owner can do to get out is settle, and that is not right. A Court can find you in contempt and jail you until you agree to cure your contempt. It cannot order you to settle, however. EDIT: I forgot to comment cause I'm laughing too hard. *grin* I was thinking only to say, 'and he thinks I'm confused'........ Sorry......I really hadn't meant to comment further, but this was just too rich to not respond. IIRC, the USA story included something about mediating/negotiating a settlement in good faith--I do believe that means to put forth a genuine effort to come to terms of some sort. That doesn't mean to call them anything but white nor make threats of harm. Were you the whining lawyer? I have no doubt there are bad judges, but I guarantee there are a lot more bad lawyers! Just because one doesn't like-- but then, I suggest you get over it. If the judge is doing wrong, take it to a higher court. In this case where the defendant is alleged to have made millions, lots of millions, so bumping it up to a higher court should be no problem.
I see you're still struggling to understand the article and the case. Don't worry about it. I probably don't understand your field of expertise very well, either. Assuming you have one.
I read on Daily Kos that Joe Francis is being prosecuted in Nevada by a prosecutor involved in the U.S. Attorneys scandal.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
going topless is legal there? no wonder you like Eugene!
Re-read my post, son.
isn't that the truth? i've been to one nude beach--black's in La Jolla. we took a several mile walk to check it out (my friends and i were clothed). oh my, the bodies and the freaks. there was not a pretty sight (male or female) in sight. :P
Don't call me son, dipshit.
Never was there a more perfect time to say, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on".......sonny!
I'm not surprised. He's a target by the people who want to make sin a crime.
I'm not surprised you want to have sex with a horse, but I'm off limits to queers. Try that BAC guy. I understand he goes your way.
it doesn't matter how he behaved. the judge was abusing his power in this civil case.
Francis, 34, makes an estimated $29 million a year from videos of young women exposing their breasts and in other sexually provocative situations. In a world where sin is rewarded and do-gooders are punished how can one hope to see justice? Trust in God, and you will see eternal justice.
God is always good! You think using the legal system to punish this kind of sin would be justice?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
it doesn't matter how he behaved. the judge was abusing his power in this civil case. Thank you. The issue before the court is irrelevant to the concept of judicial restraint. Judges are like umpires. Their job is call balls and strikes. They can't jump out there and tell the coach of one team to WALK the next batter. They call balls and strikes, and the teams have to be able to rely on consistency, which is the bedrock of strictly construing the law. I am appalled at the actions of the judge in the GGW case, because it's nothing less than locking up the owner of a large company to force him to pay money to plaintiffs who probably don't have that great a case. Can you imagine if a judge did that to Halliburton? He would be facing impeachment. That ridiculous clown in Florida probate court - Larry Seidlin - set a new standard for judicial audacity, but this rookie federal judge is much more dangerous. The bar should be up in arms about this, but given the defendant, the bar will say diddly squat.
Here is a picture of the pimp that makes 29 million a YEAR filming girls with their tops off. How many of these girls ever see a check? My bet is very few. The Judge has a right to be pissed off at this low-life. God is always good! He was sent to jail for his behavior during the civil trial you nit-wit. This has nothing to do with a settlement. Yes, the Judge gave him a way out of going to jail by settling, he didn't have to do that, he was being kind to the a-hole pimp. Is it so hard for you to see kindness on the part of this Judge? He did nothing wrong at all and I applaud him for his decision. This punk was threatening these girls lawyers with being "burried", that is a pretty bad threat and I don't think many Judges would put up with that crap in their court rooms.
God is always good! No, you nitwit, you're wrong. It wasn't a trial. It was a mediation. Ever been to one? Ever conducted one? Do you know anything at all relevant to this topic? You're a perfect example of the illogic that consumes many people when they try to look at a case. The judge has a role, and that role is not to decide pretrial that GGW should pay a settlement. You are end oriented, like most idiots who don't have the slightest notion how a case is developed, tried, or judged.
You just have your religious panties in a bunch because Joe Francis never video taped you with your top off.
What did Francis actually do? I doubt it was something as vague as refusing to settle. He must have done something more to get this judge so pissed off. Then he evidently failed to appear. As for the girls getting paid, they don't. He just shows up at spring break parties and they fight to get on film. Really, really stupid.
Here's another picture of your girl friend you are defending over an honorable Judge doing the right thing under the law. Yeah, it is pretty obvious what kind of "industry" you work in. God is always good!
Comments (41 - 50) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIf a party doesn't want to settle, the remedy is TRIAL, not contempt for refusing to settle.
#2. To: Red Jones (#1)
the girls who so easily bear their breasts in public are idiots
#3. To: Paul Revere (#0)
#4. To: Sam Houston (#2)
#5. To: rowdee (#3)
It could well be that the feds are involved because there were minor girls involved at the time--perhaps under the Missing and Exploited Children law.
#6. To: Sam Houston (#2)
#7. To: Red Jones, Paul Revere (#1)
the customers who pay so much money to watch these videos should not do so. and the girls who so easily bear their breasts in public are idiots. Perhaps they have themselves to blame for their own actions.
#8. To: Red Jones (#1)
#9. To: Red Jones (#1)
#10. To: Paul Revere (#5)
The judge held the owner of GGW in contempt for failing to settle the case
#11. To: Diana (#9)
#12. To: Paul Revere, All (#0)
#13. To: rowdee (#10)
Really? Hmmm........maybe you should contacty the source and set them straight as to what the gentleman (?) is incarcerated for.
#14. To: rowdee (#12)
#15. To: Paul Revere (#14)
(Edited)
#16. To: rowdee (#15)
#17. To: Paul Revere (#16)
I don't see what is confusing. You challenged me regarding what I had reported, and failed to accurately state what and why the court had ruled.
#18. To: rowdee (#17)
(Edited)
#19. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
(Edited)
It doesn't raise many eyebrows here, unless you just moved here and are unfamiliar with local laws, or you hate this sort of display of secondary sexual characteristics in the first place.
#20. To: Diana (#19)
#21. To: Paul Revere (#18)
(Edited)
#22. To: rowdee (#21)
(Edited)
#23. To: Paul Revere (#22)
#24. To: Ferret Mike (#11)
#25. To: Paul Revere (#22)
#26. To: Sam Houston (#2)
The only problem I have with women baring their breasts in public is that often it is the ones you'd MOST like to keep them under wraps and covered up at ALL times who get the urge to do so.
#27. To: rowdee (#25)
(Edited)
Re-read my post, son.
#28. To: Paul Revere (#27)
#29. To: aristeides (#23)
I read on Daily Kos that Joe Francis is being prosecuted in Nevada by a prosecutor involved in the U.S. Attorneys scandal.
#30. To: rowdee (#28)
(Edited)
Never was there a more perfect time to say, "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on".......sonny!
#31. To: rowdee (#12)
"If someone behaves badly in a civil case, you punish them with a monetary sanction. It is alien to the justice system to say to a person who is not willing to settle a civil case that they should go to jail. You take the case to trial," Handzlik said.
#32. To: Paul Revere (#0)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#33. To: RickyJ (#32)
In a world where sin is rewarded and do-gooders are punished how can one hope to see justice?
#34. To: christine (#31)
"If someone behaves badly in a civil case, you punish them with a monetary sanction. It is alien to the justice system to say to a person who is not willing to settle a civil case that they should go to jail. You take the case to trial," Handzlik said.
#35. To: Paul Revere (#0)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#36. To: Paul Revere (#0)
Lawyers for the women told Smoak that Francis became enraged during the settlement talks, shouting obscenities at the lawyers and threatening to "bury them." Smoak ordered Francis to settle the case or go to jail for his behavior.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#37. To: RickyJ (#36)
(Edited)
He was sent to jail for his behavior during the civil trial you nit-wit.
#38. To: RickyJ (#35)
Here is a picture of the pimp that makes 29 million a YEAR filming girls with their tops off. How many of these girls ever see a check? My bet is very few. The Judge has a right to be pissed off at this low-life.
#39. To: Paul Revere (#0)
#40. To: Paul Revere (#37)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
.
.
.