TNT Tours Klamath Falls, Oregon

Melodi McGee and Clyde Long were hopping mad when they left the courthouse on December 9, 2019. Case Dismissed!

Tulelakenews.com Todays News: January 17, 2020

UPDATE: Case #19CR45438 and 20CN000179 Dismissed out Interest of Justice without prejudice.

This is the United States of America and The First Amendment Free Press 5

Judge Osborn who upped the anti on the OR, cannot be the judge to hear the contempt charge, according to my legal research...

Behind me I could hear voices yelling and screaming.

"You can't take pictures of my house.
I didn't give you permission to do it".

Plus the Motion to have Judge Osborn disqualified and the Emergency Injunction to file, as well with the Appeals Court either by my attorney, or by me in Pro-Se.

Melodi McGee and Clyde Long both should have been charged with CONTEMPT OF COURT for all the lies and falsehoods they presented to the court under oath. Yet, Judge Osborn looked the other way with their lies and did absolutely nothing. Which will be in the Emergency Injunction being filed with the Appeals Court for the appeals court with case number 20CN00179 with a pre-trial set for Tuesday Jan 21, 2020 at 2:00 PM and the Trial set for Jan 22, 2020 has now been canceled and reason: Other.

And the following cases will be used for appeal to the Appeals Court:

1. United States of America v. Bernard E. Meyer et al., and Philip J. Hirschkop, Appellants, 462 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir. 1972)

Appellant, a member of the District of Columbia bar, was summarily convicted of criminal contempt1 by a District Court judge acting under Rule 42(a), Fed. R. Crim. P. 2 The contempt conviction resulted from a criminal trial in which appellant, as one of a number of counsel appointed by the court, represented defendants charged with burglary in the second degree and destruction of property. On this appeal, he asserts error in a number of respects, only one of which we find it necessary to resolve, namely, that he was entitled to have the contempt charge adjudicated at a full hearing before a judge other than the one who cited him. We hold that, in the circumstances revealed by this record, due process of law requires such a mode of proceeding.

In sum, we conclude that an alleged contempt which consists of an impugnation of the integrity and impartiality of the trial judge is sufficiently personal to invoke the Mayberry doctrine. Appellant is entitled to have the contempts charged against him adjudicated in a full hearing before a different judge. We hasten to add that, in reaching this result, we do not indicate a belief that the trial judge was motivated by a single purpose to convict and punish appellant, or that he was incapable of giving him fair treatment. It is enough to have concluded that the circumstances of this case do not give the appearance of judicial impartiality which, in order to protect both alleged contemnors and the integrity of the judiciary, must be equated with the substance of impartiality. "Justice," as Justice Frankfurter wrote in an oft-quoted passage in Offutt, "must satisfy the appearance of justice." The case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

It is so ordered.

TAMM, Circuit Judge (concurring):

I concur in the disposition made of this case. In doing so I distinguish this case upon a factual basis from our recent opinion in In re Brown, 147 U.S. App.D.C. 156, 454 F.2d 999 (1971). The obvious and pronounced differences between the circumstances resulting in our Brown opinion and the factors in the present case require me to distinguish our present case from that of Brown.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge (dissenting):

I do not agree with the majority's laborious effort to reconcile the Supreme Court's decisions and so I cannot concur in the conclusion it draws from its efforts. Finespun theories as to when and how a trial judge reacts to contemptuous courtroom conduct do not impress me.

We should hold, I think, that the trial judge involved here had full authority to act as he did in punishing the appellant for inexcusable and outrageous behavior in the courtroom. Therefore, being of the view that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, I dissent.
* * *

1
18 U.S.C. § 401 (1970) provides:
A court of the United States shall have the power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as-
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

2
(a) Summary Disposition. A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the judge certifies that he saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court. The order of contempt shall recite the facts and shall be signed by the judge and entered of record

720 F. 2d 1049 - United States v. E Lee

On this appeal the questions are whether an attorney who filed a motion for substitution of counsel with supporting documents committed criminal contempt of court in the presence of the court and whether the procedure by which he was found in contempt and sentenced was in error. Because we find that Mr. Lee did not commit contemptuous acts in the presence of the court, we hold that the district court improperly imposed punishment summarily. Mr. Lee's conviction is reversed.

During the arrest, arresting Officer Krueger made the comment several times on the way to the Klamath County Jail, "You know what, "No Contact" means now. Oh, you mean they can yell and scream at me and threaten me and I am suppose not to say a word in my defense to defend myself. You mean where it is OK for them to yell, scream and threaten me with the "No Contact" order. Where I was not the one that made contact that it was in fact them who made the contact with me while I was minding my own business. Where Judge Osborn gave them the power to do that and denied and dismissed both of the my Protective Orders that I was also denied a hearing by Judge Osborn for my Protective Orders.

Where Officer Krueger mentioned and asked why didn't I get a "No Contact" order. Good question why was I denied a "No Contact" order when Melodi McGee and Clyde Long are the ones abusing the system. Just like what occurred on Sunday Jan 13, 2020. Where Judge Osborn up the conditions on my Arrest and Release and added the location of Riverside Drive which is not where the orginal trespass occurred by giving Melodi McGee and added protection that in my opinion was not constitutional. Once again in my legal opinion but I guess we will see what the Court of Appeals has to say after the Injection and Motion to have Judge Osborn disqualified in the "No Contact" CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGE.

But I can be threaten with physical harm and yelled and screamed at, which can be heard and seen on the video that was taken of the event that I was arrested for and charged with CONTEMPT OF COURT.

Where the Agent Manager of Lake Park Tower Apartments at 203 Main Street Klamath Falls, Oregon has accused me of things I have not done, but in her state of mind thinks I have.
Shameful!

Continued here.