Edkins reads a verbatim reaction, that is absolutely furious about the show's lack of reality. "None of those people would be in the job because that is atrocious." Then on it goes, in a series of short, punchy scenes, with the cast working their way both through the clichés and towards a more truthful depiction of prison life. They use dance, card games, videos, question and answer sessions with the audience, monologues, script meetings, bright boiler suits and quiet moments to make their points.
This ruling is derived from the facet of copyright law that states that one author is incapable of infringing on the rights of a co-author. 11 But this does not mean that the Counter-claimants are completely out of luck. The trial court quotes this language from the Ashton-Tate decision:
Lawyers for Richard "Bigo" Barnett, the man photographed sitting in Nancy Pelosi's office with his boot on her desk and a stun gun clipped to his waist during the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, are asking for his release from jail as he awaits trial. The reason: in the note Barnett left for the congresswoman, he called her a "biatd" not a "bitch" as prosecutors claim. Barnett's lawyers argue that their client was attempting to write "biatch" and cited an online dictionary that said the word is sometimes used as a term of endearment. Therefore, they say, Barnett is actually a swell guy so could your honor see it in his heart to let our client go?
Barnett has had several verbal outbursts in court in previous hearings, and he made headlines after the Capitol riot for boasting about his interloping. During a March court appearance, he screamed at his attorney and the judge, forcing the largely procedural check-in to wrap up promptly with Barnett pulled off the conference line.
Barnett is charged with entering the restricted grounds of the Capitol while carrying a stun gun, aiding and abetting the disruption of the congressional session, and for theft of public property, after he allegedly took a letter from Pelosi's office. He has pleaded not guilty.
Parliaments and legislative bodies around the world impose certain rules and standards during debates. Tradition has evolved that there are words or phrases that are deemed inappropriate for use in the legislature whilst it is in session. In a Westminster system, this is called unparliamentary language and there are similar rules in other kinds of legislative systems. This includes, but is not limited to, the suggestion of dishonesty or the use of profanity. Most unacceptable is any insinuation that another member is dishonourable. So, for example, in the British House of Commons any direct reference to a member as lying is unacceptable. A conventional alternative, when necessary, is to complain of a "terminological inexactitude".
The Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, William Hay, gave a ruling in the chamber on 24 November 2009 on unparliamentary language. In essence rather than making judgements on the basis of particular words or phrases that have been ruled to be unparliamentary in the Assembly or elsewhere the Speaker said that he would judge members' remarks against standards of courtesy, good temper and moderation which he considered to be the standards of parliamentary debate. He went on to say that in making his judgement he would consider the nature of members' remarks and the context in which they were made. In 2013, Hay ruled that insinuation of MLAs being members of proscribed organizations was unparliamentary language.
This led to a lot of missed Facetime sessions. Notably, father did not tell mother that the iPad was on from 6:00-6:30pm, and at some other times the iPad would be off or Facetime disabled; mother only had that 30-minute window and did not even realize it. Mother had repeatedly contacted father about her missed Facetimes, and father gave the impression to the trial court that he was willfully ignorant of the issue.
Evidence at the trial of a complaint alleging disorderly conduct was sufficient to warrant a fact finder to conclude that the defendant's threats, yelling, and screaming in a court house corridor was conduct both "threatening" and tumultuous,"and was disorderly in violation of G. L. c. 272, s. 53. [727-731]
Evidence at the trial of a complaint for violation of G. L. c. 268, s. 13C, was not sufficient to demonstrate that the dafendant's disorderly conduct in a court house corridor disrupted any court "proceeding," and the defendant was entitled to a finding of not guilty. [731-732]
SOSMAN, J. Earl Sholley was convicted of threatening to commit a crime (G. L. c. 275, s. 2), being a disorderly person (G. L. c. 272, s. 53), and disrupting court proceedings (G. L. c. 268, s. 13C). The Appeals Court affirmed the conviction of threatening to commit a crime, but reversed the conviction of being a disorderly person (on the ground that the defendant's conduct did not come within the ambit of G. L. c. 272, s. 53) and the conviction of disrupting court proceedings (on the ground that there was no evidence that any particular proceeding had been disrupted). Commonwealth v. Sholley, 48 Mass. App. Ct. 495, 504 (2000). We granted the parties' applications for further appellate review. We affirm the convictions of threatening to commit a crime and being a disorderly person and reverse the conviction of disrupting court proceedings.
1. Facts. At the time of the incident giving rise to these convictions, Earl Sholley was active in an organization dedicated to "fathers' rights." This organization was critical of what it viewed as the court system's unfair treatment of fathers and husbands in domestic relations and domestic violence cases. Sholley and other members of the group had expressed their criticism by various methods, including demonstrations and leafletting in the vicinity of the Quincy Division of the District Court Department.
of the court's unfairness toward men. [Note 1] Sholley had attended the first day of the trial, but was not in the court room the next day when the jury returned a verdict of guilty and the judge sentenced Barrio to a term of incarceration.
After the proceedings had concluded, Sholley arrived and looked into the court room, located on the second floor of the court house. The court officer, Kirk Parks, came out to see what Sholley wanted. Sholley asked Court Officer Parks what had happened to the Barrio case, and Parks informed Sholley of the verdict and sentence. On hearing that Barrio had been sent to jail, Sholley began shouting and yelling in a manner that Parks described as "out of control." [Note 2] When Parks asked Sholley to keep his voice down, Sholley yelled even more loudly in a tone of voice that witnesses described as "screaming."
When Sholley's outburst started, Cahill was on the first floor of the court house handling bails and arraignments in the first session. She was at the door in front of the first session court room speaking with another attorney when she heard what she described as "a huge commotion upstairs." She had supervisory responsibility over other assistant district attorneys and, on hearing this "huge commotion," Cahill's assessment was that she "needed to go upstairs and make sure that everything was okay with the other [assistant district attorneys]." Accordingly, she broke off her discussion with the attorney and started up the stairway to the second floor.
Sholley was running down the stairs as Cahill was climbing up. When he encountered Cahill on the stairway, Sholley stopped, pointed his finger at Cahill's face, and yelled , "Watch out, Counselor." Cahill testified that Sholley was "[i]nches" from her at the time and that this remark was yelled "in an angry tone." Cahill recognized Sholley from his prior protest activities and knew that he had been at the court house the previous day to support Barrio. She testified that she was "extremely frightened" by Sholley's statement and gesture and that she continued up the stairs "to get away from him."
Meanwhile, others in the court house also responded to this commotion. When Sholley's yelling began, Parks saw people "peeking out" of offices and out of the other second-floor court room, apparently trying to see what was happening. On the first floor, various people came rapidly out of the first session court room and stopped to watch Sholley. Others came out of the first floor probation office.
Detective Barbara DiNatale, a police prosecutor, was going down the stairs when Sholley ran past her "screaming" about "war" and "bloodshed." She "pursue[d]" him outside. Three other police officers, who had been at the court house to testify in other proceedings, also responded and followed outside with Detective DiNatale and Court Officer Parks. [Note 4]
Once outside the court house, Sholley began passing out his group's literature. He approached a court employee who was outside on her break and insisted that she take the materials he was handing out.,,When she refused, he said, "Remember what happened in Oklahoma. This is a bomb ready to explode." The employee was frightened by Sholley's remark.
intended as a threat. Based on his belief that Barrio had been wrongly convicted and unjustly imprisoned a second time, Sholley was enraged at the court system when he encountered Cahill, the prosecutor who was, in Sholley's view, responsible for this ostensible miscarriage of justice. He was "yelling" and "screaming" in an angry tone of voice, he had just been crying out a prediction of "war" and "bloodshed," and he stood only inches from Cahill pointing his finger in her face. In that context, the advice to "[w]atch out" may be interpreted as an expression of an intention to harm Cahill. [Note 5] Cahill testified that is how she understood the remark, characterizing it as a warning that she should "watch (her] back." She also testified that she was "extremely frightened" as a result, and, given the context of the statement and the defendant's demeanor at the time, the jury could conclude that her fear was reasonable and justifiable. 2b1af7f3a8