NEWS: Pair Arrested After Telling Lawyer Jokes

Apparently two individuals were telling lawyer jokes while standing in line for the 1st District Court in Hempstead, New York. A lawyer overheard them and took offense, located a police officer and had them arrested for disorderly conduct. The article in the Times goes on to say that they were being "abusive and...causing a disturbance," but betrays itself by also stating that the joke(s) "got some giggles."




The two arrestees were apart of Americans for Legal Reform, supposedly a group that is adversarialin its quest for "greater access to courts for the public and to monitor how well courts serve the public." That right there suggests that they may have stepped over the line with regards to proper conduct. However, the articles only reference the use of jokes as the motivator for the arrest.

Lawyer jokes. Poor lawyer. I believe he used his knowledge of the legal system or his convoluted sense of his own position within the legal system to overstep his bounds. I mean, come on, arresting people for telling jokes is beyond absurd, its facist. There was no report of any physical altercation nor anything stated with regards to blatantly obscene/racist comments. This really disturbs me and I believe it's an example of not only how anal retentive our system is but also the continuing trend of blurring the lines that dictate our rights.

Related News Links:
www.latimes.com

Q. What do you call 100 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the sea?

A. A good start.

And so on, and so on, prima faeces, ipso facto, ad infinitum.

The link didn't work, so I here it is again:

www.newsday.com...


Do the words police state mean anything to you? This is scary sh*t.

The men are founders of Americans for Legal Reform, a group of outspoken advocates who use confrontational tactics to push for greater access to courts for the public and to monitor how well courts serve the public. One tactic is driving a truck around the Huntington area emblazoned with the slogan "Stop The Lawyer Disease." They said their rights to free speech were violated Monday.

But Dan Bagnuola, a spokesman for the Nassau courts, said the men were causing a stir and that their exercise of their First Amendment rights to free speech was impeding the rights of others at the court.

"They were being abusive and they were causing a disturbance," Bagnuola said. "They were making general comments to the people on line, referring to them as 'peasants,' and they were causing a disturbance. And they were asked on several occasions to act in an orderly manner, not to interfere with the operation of the court." [emphasis mine]

I think this part of the article really explains the situation. These guys were looking for trouble and they got it. They wanted publicity and they got it. What they won't get is any sympathy from me.


[edit on 05/1/12 by GradyPhilpott]

I'm stunned by this. Like Always just said - scary sh*t. How did the officer keep a straight face?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

These guys were looking for trouble and they got it. They wanted publicity and they got it. What they won't get is any sympathy from me.
[edit on 05/1/12 by GradyPhilpott]

What of the people laughing to encourage them....they were getting encouragement to continue......

"But while that rib and several others on barristers got some giggles from the crowd, the attorney standing in line about five people ahead wasn't laughing. " L.A. Times

Granted they may have been overly obnoxious, but that does not constitue an arrest....no body was harmed, only offended. Boo Hoo.

I don't sympathize with them but I am interested in the fact that, essentially, they were arrested for telling jokes. In an increasingly PC world, where doees the line get drawn?

Geez and I thought this was America! What happened to freedom of speech? They weren't "hurting" anyone physical and what's with a few good laughs every now and again..for crying out loud this country can sure use it!

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I think this part of the article really explains the situation. These guys were looking for trouble and they got it. They wanted publicity and they got it. What they won't get is any sympathy from me.

Q: What is the difference between a snake laying in the middle of the road and Grady laying in the middle of the road?

A: There were skid marks attempting to avoid hitting the snake.
.

OMG
Almost spit out my coffee

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

I think this part of the article really explains the situation. These guys were looking for trouble and they got it. They wanted publicity and they got it. What they won't get is any sympathy from me.

I don't always agree with what you say Grady but Im with you 100% on this one.

This must be right up there with telling bomb or terrorist jokes at the airport. NOT!!!!

This is just plain ridiculous and pushing the envelope to see who sucks it up.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

The men are founders of Americans for Legal Reform, a group of outspoken advocates who use confrontational tactics to push for greater access to courts for the public and to monitor how well courts serve the public. One tactic is driving a truck around the Huntington area emblazoned with the slogan "Stop The Lawyer Disease." They said their rights to free speech were violated Monday.

But Dan Bagnuola, a spokesman for the Nassau courts, said the men were causing a stir and that their exercise of their First Amendment rights to free speech was impeding the rights of others at the court.

"They were being abusive and they were causing a disturbance," Bagnuola said. "They were making general comments to the people on line, referring to them as 'peasants,' and they were causing a disturbance. And they were asked on several occasions to act in an orderly manner, not to interfere with the operation of the court." [emphasis mine]

I think this part of the article really explains the situation. These guys were looking for trouble and they got it. They wanted publicity and they got it. What they won't get is any sympathy from me.


[edit on 05/1/12 by GradyPhilpott]

So maybe if we replace the term "rabble rouser" with "protestor", change the cause they support from 'make justice for all, not just those with the expensive lawyers' to 'anti-GW' or 'pro-peace', and switch from telling jokes and making noise to throwing bottles, assaulting police officers, and burning/overturning cars, then it'd all be an acceptable practice and we could agree on condemning this abuse of the system?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

But Dan Bagnuola, a spokesman for the Nassau courts, said the men were causing a stir and that their exercise of their First Amendment rights to free speech was impeding the rights of others at the court.

Since when is standing in line expressing our first ammedment rights telling jokes illegal? The lawyer was out of line and he of all people should have known that. I am willing to bet they get off if this goes to trial.

The criminal lawyer i worked for one year wouldnt have minded this. In fact, i had to keep him straight laced in court. He was always telling jokes and so were the rest of them. They have a good sense of humor.
Of course, there's always the jackasses like this too. As with anything else.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

But Dan Bagnuola, a spokesman for the Nassau courts, said the men were causing a stir and that their exercise of their First Amendment rights to free speech was impeding the rights of others at the court.

"They were being abusive and they were causing a disturbance," Bagnuola said. "
they were asked on several occasions to act in an orderly manner, not to interfere with the operation of the court." [emphasis mine]

These guys were looking for trouble and they got it.[edit on 05/1/12 by GradyPhilpott]

Notice that there is no mention of precisely what rights of the people in line these two men violated. I find that extremely interesting. There is no right to not be offended; did a lawyer really not know this?

There is also a very legitimate question as to what constitutes an arrestable disturbance. Afterall, anything one says that causes any reaction what so ever could theoretically be called a disturbance. At the heart of the matter, any application of DTP laws to a situation where the disturbance was not violating the rights of others is unconstitutional.

Last but not least, looking for trouble isn't illegal. It's not always a very intelligent course of action, but last time I checked you can't arrest somebody for being an idiot. Do you have any idea what your taxes would be like if we locked up everyone who doesn't know when to bite his tongue?
There isn't any legal recourse against these men. There are basically 3 options 1. If it is consistent you can argue harrassment and get a restraining order. 2. You can do what your mother always told you when you were six and ignore them. 3. You can accept the fact that the law isn't on your side in this case, and you can assault them.

Good Points, Vagabond. An interesting note to add, I first ran across this article on page A25 in the L.A. Times. Not many people are going to notice this. The infringement on our rights by manipulation of legalese I fear will continue.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Good Points, Vagabond. An interesting note to add, I first ran across this article on page A25 in the L.A. Times. Not many people are going to notice this. The infringement on our rights by manipulation of legalese I fear will continue.

If you want to talk about manipulation of legalese you might want to check out my ATSNN report on the new york gang member being tried under anti-terrorism laws after the prosecution ADMITTED that he does not fall under the original intent of those laws.

The problem isn't always that people aren't wrong or that they even don't deserve what they got. The problem is that we have rule by law in this country and for some inexplicable reason that is being trashed. People no longer think with 100 years vision, precedents, examples, long term reactions and possibilities don't seem to matter. People want to take the expedient route today and just assume that there won't be fallout tomorrow. This has serious implications for our systems of government and justice. Where are we going, and what's this handbasket for?

Originally posted by The Vagabond
People want to take the expedient route today and just assume that there won't be fallout tomorrow. This has serious implications for our systems of government and justice. Where are we going, and what's this handbasket for?

I think that has to do with the sort attention spans of a society that has evolved into a barrage on the senses....people are being pulled many ways by consumerism, politics, religion, personal pursuits, entertainment, etc.(phew). I also think that it isn't necassarily an assumption that there won't be a fallout but a desire to deny or overlook the fallout - either way I see the implications you are speaking of - grim. People aren't just being dumbed down, there being made non-reactive and, for the most part, confused in a world that stymatizes indecision with a weakness provoking a quick agreement to anything that is presented in favor of looking weak, or dumb. Grim, however I see sparks of hope starting with some posts in this forum. Good Job ATS

Got this in the e-mail today:

Did you hear about the terrorists who hijacked an airplane full of
lawyers, and threatened to release one every hour unless their demands were met?


Oooh, maybe the e-mail police will come get me now....I'm all kinds of scared

ROTFLMAO

GradyPhilpott:
"They were making general comments to the people on line, referring to them as 'peasants,' and they were causing a disturbance. And they were asked on several occasions to act in an orderly manner, not to interfere with the operation of the court." [emphasis mine]

Thanks for the additional information. I still don't see how that justifies a criminal charge under these circumstances. Sounds like these fellows were being annoying, rude, and offensive.

Memory Schock:
"they're being made non-reactive and, for the most part, confused in a world that stygmatizes indecision with a weakness provoking a quick agreement to anything that is presented in favor of looking weak"

The message is that you'd better behave in a PC manner or we'll punish you. OTH, we don't know the whole story yet. These fellows had better make sure they get a jury trial or they will not have a SCIH.