Stephen A. Smith goes off on Chad Johnson

[carpantherfan84]

FYI, What is not shown in the vid clip is the Judge telling Chad that he should "big up" his attorney for the nice job that he did.  then Chad turns, slaps him on the butt and says good job.  THE JUDGE TOLD HIM TO DO IT! 

 

 

food for thought....

[carpantherfan84]

this.

 

for the people claiming abuse of power...in a courtroom, the judge is the power. judges don't just uphold the law, they also help shape and create them.

nope, judges interpret the laws already created.  Sometimes precedents are set based off of the interpretations of previous judges but the law cant change based off a judges actions.  The Legislative branch creates laws.

 

But yes in the courtroom the judge is the power.

[La Pantera]

FYI, What is not shown in the vid clip is the Judge telling Chad that he should "big up" his attorney for the nice job that he did. then Chad turns, slaps him on the butt and says good job. THE JUDGE TOLD HIM TO DO IT!

food for thought....

I'm sure she meant slap him on his ass, instead of shaking his hand and telling him thank you.

[La Pantera]

Btw, what was he charged with? Contempt of court, correct?

[nosuchthingasapanther]

Btw, what was he charged with? Contempt of court, correct?

 

 

no, the judge threw out the deal that she originally accepted (and his attorney worked so hard to get him) and gave him jail time instead.

 

the original deal called for no jail time.

 

he's charged with probation violation.

[carpantherfan84]

I'm sure she meant slap him on his ass, instead of shaking his hand and telling him thank you.

That's beside the point.

 

She created an air of lightheartedness, where before Chad displayed none.  She behaved egotistically and showed a level of unfairness that doesn't belong in the courtroom.  She would have been better served by chastising the people laughing, because she seemed more concerned with the laughter as if she thought they might be laughing at her.    

[Floppin]

That's beside the point.

 

She created an air of lightheartedness, where before Chad displayed none.  She behaved egotistically and showed a level of unfairness that doesn't belong in the courtroom.  She would have been better served by chastising the people laughing, because she seemed more concerned with the laughter as if she thought they might be laughing at her.    

 

There's absolutely nothing unfair about it. The fact is that the retard violated his probation. They could have literally activated his entire sentence, but instead had originally opted to show leniency towards him. Teaching him a lesson or not, her intentions matter not, she still didn't give him the worst punishment that he could have gotten. The fact is that Chad violated the terms that he originally agreed to as a trade to keep himself out of prison. Some of you idiots don't understand the first thing about how court and court rooms work. 

[G spot]

The very same court room where people are sent away for life, families torn apart, deep dark secrets revealed and generally anyone who enters it will have their lives changed one way or another.  Take all that into consideration when you think that a locker room slap is appropriate.  Its up to the judge to uphold respect for the law in her court and yes humble some who dont understand the magnitude of court of law.  Anyone now entering her room should know who not to mess wit.

[La Pantera]

no, the judge threw out the deal that she originally accepted (and his attorney worked so hard to get him) and gave him jail time instead.

the original deal called for no jail time.

he's charged with probation violation.

Gotcha...

[carpantherfan84]

FYI, What is not shown in the vid clip is the Judge telling Chad that he should "big up" his attorney for the nice job that he did.  then Chad turns, slaps him on the butt and says good job.  THE JUDGE TOLD HIM TO DO IT! 

 

 

food for thought....

 

 

There's absolutely nothing unfair about it. The fact is that the retard violated his probation. They could have literally activated his entire sentence, but instead had originally opted to show leniency towards him. Teaching him a lesson or not, her intentions matter not, she still didn't give him the worst punishment that he could have gotten. The fact is that Chad violated the terms that he originally agreed to as a trade to keep himself out of prison. Some of you idiots don't understand the first thing about how court and court rooms work. 

 

I have been in my share of courtrooms myself.  And I am still trying to figure out how someone who claims to have committed sooo many crimes in life has thus far escaped things like the three strike rule.  But whatever. 

 

The judge told him to congratulate the lawyer, he did so.  Her bayliffs laughed at what he did.  So she, now feeling indignant decides that she wants to change her original ruling.  There are rules of ethics against changing a ruling.

 

 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b provides that "any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b. Although the decision to revise an interlocutory order falls within the court's discretion, see Anderson v. Deere & Co., 852 F.2d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 1988), "'once a court decides an issue it [generally] . . . may not be relitigated in subsequent proceedings in the same case.'" Wessel v. City of Albuquerque, 463 F.3d 1138, 1143 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Grigsby v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1215, 1218 (10th Cir. 2002)). The law of the case doctrine provides that "[w]hen a court enunciates a rule of law in the course of a given case, . . . the court [must] adhere to the rule throughout the proceedings." Major v. Benton, 647 F.2d 110, 112 (10th Cir. 1981).

Nonetheless, "nlike res judicata, the [law of the case doctrine] is not an inexorable command, and the court should apply the doctrine with good sense." Id. (quotations omitted). "Accordingly, the doctrine is subject to three exceptions: '(1) when the evidence in a subsequent trial is substantially different; (2) when controlling authority has subsequently made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues; or (3) when the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.'" Id. (quoting Grigsby, 294 F.3d at 1219 n.4). The Tenth Circuit has "read 'these exceptions narrowly, requiring district courts to apply the law of the case unless one of the exceptions specifically and unquestionably applies.'" Id. (quoting United States v. MonsisvaisServants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration is an "inappropriate vehicle[] to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion." Id. "Absent extraordinary circumstances, . . . the basis for the second motion must not have been available at the time the first motion was filed." Id.

[Floppin]

 

 

 

I have been in my share of courtrooms myself.  And I am still trying to figure out how someone who claims to have committed sooo many crimes in life has thus far escaped things like the three strike rule.  But whatever. 

 

The judge told him to congratulate the lawyer, he did so.  Her bayliffs laughed at what he did.  So she, now feeling indignant decides that she wants to change her original ruling.  There are rules of ethics against changing a ruling.

 

 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54( B) provides that "any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54( B). Although the decision to revise an interlocutory order falls within the court's discretion, see Anderson v. Deere & Co., 852 F.2d 1244, 1246 (10th Cir. 1988), "'once a court decides an issue it [generally] . . . may not be relitigated in subsequent proceedings in the same case.'" Wessel v. City of Albuquerque, 463 F.3d 1138, 1143 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting Grigsby v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1215, 1218 (10th Cir. 2002)). The law of the case doctrine provides that "[w]hen a court enunciates a rule of law in the course of a given case, . . . the court [must] adhere to the rule throughout the proceedings." Major v. Benton, 647 F.2d 110, 112 (10th Cir. 1981).

Nonetheless, "nlike res judicata, the [law of the case doctrine] is not an inexorable command, and the court should apply the doctrine with good sense." Id. (quotations omitted). "Accordingly, the doctrine is subject to three exceptions: '(1) when the evidence in a subsequent trial is substantially different; (2) when controlling authority has subsequently made a contrary decision of the law applicable to such issues; or (3) when the decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.'" Id. (quoting Grigsby, 294 F.3d at 1219 n.4). The Tenth Circuit has "read 'these exceptions narrowly, requiring district courts to apply the law of the case unless one of the exceptions specifically and unquestionably applies.'" Id. (quoting United States v. MonsisvaisServants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration is an "inappropriate vehicle[] to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion." Id. "Absent extraordinary circumstances, . . . the basis for the second motion must not have been available at the time the first motion was filed." Id.

 

First off, there's no three strike law in NC, this isn't Texas.

 

Secondly, her judgement had not been formally entered so she had the right to change it at any point during the proceedings. 

 

Thirdly, what he did, regardless of who laughed, was intentionally mocking of the request made by the judge. This point is very simple. 

[La Pantera]

I have been in my share of courtrooms myself. And I am still trying to figure out how someone who claims to have committed sooo many crimes in life has thus far escaped things like the three strike rule. But whatever.

Three strike rule only pertains to felonys. In states that recognize it.

BTW, What Chad was originally charged with was ,assault on a female. Which itself isn't a felony. But it is a level 3 misdemeanor.

[carpantherfan84]

 that wasn't about Chad

[Floppin]

I have been in my share of courtrooms myself. And I am still trying to figure out how someone who claims to have committed sooo many crimes in life has thus far escaped things like the three strike rule. But whatever.

Three strike rule only pertains to felonys. In states that recognize it.

BTW, What Chad was originally charged with was ,assault on a female. Which itself isn't a felony. But it is a level 3 misdemeanor.

He was talking about me with the three strike comment. I have three felony convictions, but there's no three strike rule in NC.