Jeff Dickstein-- Contempt Charge?

[Dr. Caligari]

Some of the loony message boards are posting an e-mail, supposedly from Jeff Dickstein, claiming that he is being charged with contempt of court (and asking for money, of course). Does anyone know anything about this? None of the messages attaches a court order, although Dickstein refers to one. Apparently, this relates to the Hirmer case in federal court in Pensacola, FL. (We may have talked about Hirmer here, but if so, I don't recall.)

[LPC]

I checked the docket in the Hirmer criminal prosecution (N.D. Fla., No. 3:08-cr-00079-MCR-1), and the following order was entered on 10/14/2010, docket entry #1459:

ORDER as to CLAUDIA CONSTANCE HIRMER and MARK STEVEN HIRMER. Jeffrey Dickstein shall make full payment to the court reporter in the amount of $128.10 within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. Failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions. The clerk is directed to serve a copy of this order on Mr. Dickstein via his current email address and by regular U.S. Mail to his last known mailing address. Signed by District Judge M CASEY RODGERS on 10/14/2010. cc: Jeffrey A. Dickstein, 6515 S 93rd E Ave Apt H, Tulsa, OK 74133-1457 (jmd) (Entered: 10/15/2010)

That's it? $128.10? Dickstein is having trouble paying a court reporter $128.10?

Either he's not able to come up with the $128.10 or he's using the order as an excuse to beg for handouts. Either way, he's worse off than I thought.

[Dr. Caligari]

Pathetic.

[Demosthenes]

Subject: BENSON/HIRMER 16TH AMENDMENT UPDATE
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:47:40 -0500
From: Jeffrey A. Dickstein <mailto:jdla...@cox.net> <jdla...@cox.net>
Reply-To: Jeffrey A. Dickstein <mailto:jdla...@cox.net> <jdla...@cox.net>

Attached for your information is a copy of an order from the federal
district court in Florida seeking to hold me in contempt and put me in jail
for 6 months. This is the court in which the Hirmer criminal case was tried.

The trial has been reset for October 25, 2010 in Pensacola, Florida. I have
a court appointed attorney.

After trial I was forced to vacate my home/office for lack of funds. I filed
a motion to be relieved as the Hirmer's counsel, which motion was granted.
As you can see from the order of the Court, this is the premise for the
contempt; however, reading between the footnotes, I believe the real reason
the judge wants me in jail is for zealously representing tax protestors,
presenting the 16th Amendment issue, and having the guts to point out the
governmental conspiracy to deny the Hirmer's due process of law to present
the issue in court.

The indictment charged the Hirmers and others with fraud for presenting the
16th Amendment issue during peacefully conducted seminars at off-shore
conferences. An absolute defense to fraud is that the alleged fraudulent
representations are true. Just as in the Benson case, the government
objected to the facts establishing the truthfulness of the speech and the
Court did not allow the defense.

Having found Benson guilty of promoting an abusive tax shelter and the
Hirmer's guilty of criminal fruad, the attack has turned to the attorney,
me.

I have been living off of credit cards since the Hirmer trial. I have to
figure out how to get to Florida. My plan for handling the 6 months in jail
is to pack up my computer and some clothes in my car and leave that at my
son's house.

Let the games begin.

Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law
6515 S 93rd E Ave., Apt. H
Tulsa, OK 74133-1457
(918) 872-9735
jdla...@cox.net

[Dr. Caligari]

So is there an order regarding a contempt proceeding, or not?

[jg]

Perhaps this is the order?

http://groups.google.com/group/grandjur ... pdf?part=4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
In re: JEFFREY DICKSTEIN
Misc. Case No.: 3:10mc63/MCR/EMT
_______________________________/
NOTICE AND ORDER OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS

NOTE: the source of this document is not known to me; so it should be treated with care

[Dr. Caligari]

The document appears genuine-- and quite damning. And, contrary to Dickstein's whining, he is not being charged with contempt for defending his clients, but for abandoning them, to their prejudice.

[LPC]

The document appears genuine-- and quite damning. And, contrary to Dickstein's whining, he is not being charged with contempt for defending his clients, but for abandoning them, to their prejudice.

Yes, even more so the order entered today, 10/21:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
In re: JEFFREY DICKSTEIN Case No. 3:10mc63/MCR/EMT
__________________________/
O R D E R

This criminal contempt proceeding arises out of the conduct of Jeffrey Dickstein during a prior criminal action in which he served as defense counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 401(3); Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a). Pending before the court is Mr. Dickstein’s motion to dismiss the notice of criminal contempt proceedings (doc. 25), which the Government opposes (doc. 29), and his motion to strike surplusage (doc. 26) from the Notice and Order of Criminal Contempt Proceedings (doc. 1). The court has considered the arguments presented and DENIES both motions.

The Eleventh Circuit has identified three elements necessary for a finding of criminal contempt: (1) a lawful and reasonably specific order; (2) that was violated; and (3) that the violation was willful. Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1242 (11th Cir. 2007); United States v. Bernardine, 237 F.3d 1279, 1282 (11th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Baldwin, 770 F.2d 1550, 1557-58 (11th Cir. 1985) (“Criminal contempt is established when it is shown that the defendant is aware of a clear and definite court order and willfully disobeys the order.”). The government bears the burden to prove these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Bernardine, 237 F.3d at 1282. Whether the order was reasonably specific involves a factual inquiry considering the context in which the order was entered and the audience to which it was addressed. United States v. Straub, 508 F.3d 1003, 1011 (11th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 40 (2008). “Willfulness means a deliberate or intended violation, as distinguished from an accidental, inadvertent, or negligent violation of an order.” Id. at 1012; see also Baldwin, 770 F.2d at 1558. “Under this standard of intent, behavior amounting to a reckless disregard for the administration of justice is sufficient to support a conviction when violative of a reasonably specific court order.” United States v. Burstyn, 878 F.2d 1322, 1324 (11th Cir. 1989) (noting that the requisite intent may be inferred when “a lawyer’s conduct discloses a reckless disregard for his professional duty”).

On August 18, 2010, the court filed a Notice and Order of Criminal Contempt Proceedings (“Notice”) against Dickstein, listing as grounds for the order his violation of this court’s oral admonition and a Standing Order and Notice to Retained Criminal Defense Attorneys in the case of United States v. Hirmer, et al., No. 3:08cr79 (N.D. Fla. ), in which Dickstein appeared as defense counsel. (Doc. 1) The Notice set forth the essential facts of the alleged criminal contempt, alleging Dickstein willfully violated court orders by withdrawing his representation of the Hirmers prior to sentencing due to their nonpayment of attorney’s fees, and the Notice clearly characterized this as a criminal contempt proceeding. The Notice set forth the time and place for the hearing, provided a reasonable time for the preparation of a defense, advised Dickstein of his right to counsel, and requested prosecution of the matter by the United States Attorney’s Office. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a). The hearing is scheduled for Monday, October 25, 2010.

Dickstein asserts he complied with all applicable rules by filing a motion to withdraw, and he argues that the charge is based on nothing more than an anticipatory refusal to obey because in fact the court granted his motion for reconsideration. Dickstein also argues that the Standing Order did not prohibit him from filing a motion to withdraw and that he had valid reasons for filing the motion aside from the mere fact of nonpayment, including personal financial difficulties and a conflict of interest, which he was required by the California Rules of Professional Conduct[1] to bring to the court’s attention.

Dickstein presents a selective view of the record. Considering the charges contained in the Notice and the record as a whole, the court concludes that questions of fact exist.

Determining whether the facts are sufficient to demonstrate a willful vilation of a reasonably specific order to establish criminal contempt is the raison d’être of the criminal contempt proceeding. At the hearing, Dickstein will be presumed innocent and will be free to present a defense at that time. See, e.g., Romero, 480 F.3d at 1243-45 (concluding the evidence presented was insufficient to support a finding that a reasonably specific order had been willfully violated); United States v. Brown, Nos. 403cr001 & 407cv085, 2008 WL 2811890, at *5-6 (S.D. Ga. 2008) (noting that good faith is often offered as a defense to the willfulness element but cautioning that “subtle nuances” to the defense exist). The validity of Dickstein’s defense to the criminal contempt charge involves questions of fact that will be resolved at the hearing; it is not a basis for dismissal at this stage.

Furthermore, Dickstein states no defect in the Notice warranting dismissal. Criminal contempt need not be charged by indictment. See United States v. Cohn, 586 F.3d 844, 849 (11th Cir. 2009). Instead, a notice of criminal contempt initiates the proceedings, and the notice need only state the time and place of the trial, allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense, and state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt and describing it as such. Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a); see also Romero, 480 F.3d at 1242-43. The Notice in this case (doc. 1) complies with these requirements.

Dickstein also moves to strike surplusage from paragraph seven and footnote four of the notice of criminal contempt proceedings, citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d). Paragraph seven outlines the fact that, although Dickstein complained of nonpayment by the Hirmers, he was responsible for spending thousands dollars of their money before trial pursuing an interlocutory mandamus action in the Eleventh Circuit and a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on an issue that was both frivolous and plainly preserved for appeal.

Footnote four provides further background information, illustrating Dickstein’s notice of the
frivolous nature of the Sixteenth Amendment issue and further illustrating his attitude toward this court while pursuing the issue (he accused this court of committing a felony by not permitting his clients to testify regarding their views of the Sixteenth Amendment). The
footnote also refers to other orders in which Dickstein’s conduct has been sanctioned.
Rule 7(d) provides that “pon the defendant’s motion, the court may strike surplusage from the indictment or information.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d). A notice of criminal contempt proceedings, however, does not fall within this rule. Rule 7(a) states that “an offense (other than criminal contempt) must be prosecuted by an indictment.” Fed. R.Crim. P. 7(a)(1); see also Cohn, 586 F.3d at 849. Thus, the motion is not well taken.

Additionally, the court concludes that the information is not inappropriate surplusage. Although the information in paragraph seven and footnote four does not state a charge of
contempt, it provides useful background information illustrating Dickstein’s frivolous use
of the compensation he did receive, his attitude before this court, and his knowledge of
conduct which courts expect of him in general. Thus, paragraph seven and footnote four,
while not the basis for the contempt charge, serve to provide Dickstein with full notice of
all potentially relevant factors.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Order of Criminal Contempt (doc. 25) is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion to Strike Surplusage from Notice and Order of Criminal Contempt Proceedings (doc. 26) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED on this 21st day of October, 2010.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Footnote:

[1] Dickstein is licensed to practice law by the State of California. By local rule, he is also bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar as a member of the bar of this district. N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 11.1(E)(1).

[notorial dissent]

So our Dickie bird may soon end up a jail bird???

[wserra]

Here is the original Order to Show Cause to punish Dickstein for contempt.

There are times when the only appropriate comment is "What an asshole".

BTW, remember how Dickstein represented Bill Benson in the govt's successful proceeding to enjoin a couple of years back? Well, the postscript to that case is a short minute order from earlier this month:

Counsel for Defendant [Dickstein] was advised and he has failed to remove a document as noted in the Clerk’s Notice of Exhibit Disposal filed on 07/21/10 [200]. Therefore, the Clerk of Court is given permission to destroy Defendant’s document number [69].

Document [69] is "The Law that Never Was".

[LPC]

Here is the original Order to Show Cause to punish Dickstein for contempt.

The "surplusage" which Dickstein moved to strike is paragraph 7 and its footnote 4, and you can see why when you read them:

7. On January 4, 2009, before trial, Dickstein filed a motion to dismiss two counts of the indictment on grounds that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified by the states and thus is unconstitutional. (Doc. 305). Following this court’s denial of the motion, Dickstein sought a writ of mandamus from the Eleventh Circuit. After the writ was denied by the Eleventh Circuit, Dickstein sought certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, which was also denied. The court notes the following in connection with Dickstein’s pursuit of this challenge:

a. Dickstein’s attorney time records reveal that he accrued approximately $55,000 in attorney’s fees pursuing this defense, a defense which could have been on direct appeal. (See doc. 1207.)

b. In 1987, the Eleventh Circuit characterized a challenge to the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment as “frivolous.” See Pollard v. Commissioner, IRS, 816 F.2d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1987).

c. Dickstein has been admonished previously for pursuing this frivolous claim. See United States v. Benson, 561 F.3d 718, 723 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting an earlier case denying Dickstein’s client’s criminal appeal noting that “one would think this repeated rejection of Benson's Sixteenth Amendment argument would put the matter to rest”); United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir. 1991) (noting that Dickstein’s client’s Sixteenth Amendment constitutionality challenge was already “beyond review”); United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) (noting that Dickstein’s arguments disregard “uniform contrary authority”), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991).[Footnote 4]

[Footnote 4] On February 4, 2010, in response to a motion in limine from the government 4 to exclude tax defier evidence, Dickstein advised the court of a “commission of a felony by the members of the prosecution team” in conspiring to prevent his clients from testifying and presenting a defense regarding their view that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. (Doc. 788). Dickstein went on to note that “the failure of the Court to remain neutral under the facts and circumstances of this case could only lead to the conclusion that the Court is part of the conspiracy to prevent the Hirmers from presenting testimony and defense on the merits of the issues,” going so far as to suggest that by granting the government’s motion in limine and preventing the Hirmers from testifying to their views on the 16th Amendment at trial the undersigned would be complicit in the felony. (Doc. 788.)

The court notes that Dickstein has previously been sanctioned in federal courts of the Ninth and Tenth Circuits. In 1986, Dickstein’s pro hac vice admission to the District of Alaska was revoked after local counsel refused to assume responsibility for Dickstein’s pleadings. See Donnell v. United States, No. A84-416 Civil (D.Alaska Jan. 16, 1986) (unpublished), as discussed in United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 623 n.2 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991). The following year, in 1987, Dickstein represented a defendant in a five-day trial then withdrew as counsel before sentencing. Despite repeated violations and warnings from the court, Dickstein was not held in contempt during the trial. After the trial and at the overnment’s behest, the court held a hearing to determine whether to revoke Dickstein’s pro hac vice admission. The court revoked his status and formally censured him for his behavior during trial and his failure to appear at the sanction hearing. The Ninth Circuit upheld the penalty. See United States v. Summet, 862 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1988). Based on his behavior in Summet, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Dickstein’s application for pro hac vice admission. After the denial, Dickstein remained in the courtroom and continued to disrupt proceedings over the court’s admonishments until he was eventually ejected by the United States Marshal. See Nutter v. United States, No. CV-88-17-PMB (D.Nev. Jan. 21, 1988) (unpublished), as discussed in United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 623 n.2 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991). In 1989, while Dickstein was representing a tax protestor, his initial filings in the district court included an 84 page motion to dismiss “lavishly larded with citations to the Declaration of Independence, colonial history and a plethora of nineteenth century Supreme Court cases.” See Collins, 920 F.2d at 623. The district court characterized Dickstein’s motions as evincing “a tactic of obfuscation and waste” and ordered Dickstein to show cause why his pro hac vice admission should not be revoked. Id. Dickstein responded by restating his legal arguments and demanding the judge’s recusal. The court revoked his admission and removed him from the case, and the circuit court upheld the removal. See id. In 1995, the Tenth Circuit upheld the revocation of Dickstein’s pro hac vice admission by the district court. After a mistrial and without a hearing, the district court revoked admission because of conduct “unprofessional and obstructive of the judicial process” including informing the jury it was not compelled to follow the law given by the court and smiling and shaking his head at adverse rulings. See United States v. Holland, No. 94-5234, 1995 WL 539589, at *1 (10th Cir. Sept. 11, 1995). In 1996, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas revoked Dickstein’s pro hac vice admission because Dickstein omitted his previously revoked admissions and formal censure from his application affidavit. The court, after a hearing before the magistrate judge and a government motion requesting revocation, found that “Dickstein's omissions and misstatements in his affidavit and his responses to the magistrate judge were materially misleading” and that the court would not have granted admission with knowledge of the prior sanctions. See United States v. Howell, 936 F. Supp. 767, 774 (D. Kan. 1996).

It looks as though the Hirmers were simply a means by which Dickstein could take another shot at riding his 16th Amendment hobby-horse to the Supreme Court and, when that failed and the money ran out, so did Dickstein.

[Joey Smith]

One who facilitates scammers or makes them seem legitimate are simply scammers themselves.

Dickhead is a leach who should have never have been admitted to the Bar, and should have been disbarred years ago. Now, it seems like that fitting end to his career is about to pass as the Bar Associations do not take lightly referrals from U.S. District Judges.

[LPC]

Guilty.

Today's docket entry:

10/25/2010 34 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge M CASEY RODGERS:Bench Trial held on 10/25/2010. Testimony heard and evidence entered. Court finds defendant guilty of contempt and imposes a sentence of 90 days custody. Dft allowed to remain at liberty pending disposition by 11th Circuit. Order to follow. Gvt & Dft Exhibits placed in clerk's secured storage (envelope). (Court Reporter Gwen Kesinger.) (Attachments: # 1 Gvt Exhibit List, # 2 Dft Exhibit List) (sps) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

[grixit]

10/25/2010 34 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge M CASEY RODGERS:Bench Trial held on 10/25/2010. Testimony heard and evidence entered. Court finds defendant guilty of contempt and imposes a sentence of 90 days custody. Dft allowed to remain at liberty pending disposition by 11th Circuit. Order to follow. Gvt & Dft Exhibits placed in clerk's secured storage (envelope). (Court Reporter Gwen Kesinger.) (Attachments: # 1 Gvt Exhibit List, # 2 Dft Exhibit List) (sps) (Entered: 10/26/2010)

Victory!

[LPC]

Now, it seems like that fitting end to his career is about to pass as the Bar Associations do not take lightly referrals from U.S. District Judges.

Given that Dickhead^H^H^H^Hstein has been convicted, and has a history of complying with court rulings, I think that anything less than a suspension would be a miracle.

But look at Stilley's history. He made a much bigger ass of himself, and for a lot longer, before he was disbarred.

[Famspear]

Bob Hurt has posted this message, which he allegedly received from Dickstein:

I hate to ask since you have been so generous in the past.

The judge in Florida issued a contempt citation against me in the Hirmer criminal case, and then found me guilty and sentenced me to 90 days. I am currently out pending appeal.

Although not the stated reason for the contempt, in reality it is because I raised the 16th Amendment issue and then filed a document charging the government with a conspiracy to cover up the issue and denying my clients the right to present the issue to the jury.

The judge also filed a complaint against me with the State Bar of California.

I have applied for over 200 legal and non-legal jobs and have been turned down for all of them.over qualified and too old.

I have completely maxed out my credit cards. One is in default, and the other will go into default in two days.

My telephone/internet bill is past due and I do not have money for rent or electricity.

I need $1,500 to make if [sic] for another month.

Can you help me?

Thank you,

Jeffrey A. Dickstein
Attorney at Law
6515 S 93rd E Ave., Apt. H
Tulsa, OK 74133-1457
(918) 872-9735
jdla...@cox.net

http://groups.google.com/group/lawmen/b ... e1724b2c24

[Joey Smith]

Maybe you shouldn't have wasted your career protecting scam artists?

[Famspear]

Jeffrey Dickstein allegedly wrote:

......Although not the stated reason for the contempt, in reality it is because I raised the 16th Amendment issue and then filed a document charging the government with a conspiracy to cover up the issue and denying my clients the right to present the issue to the jury.

Yeah, well, at this point in your career it's difficult for us to feel sorry for you Jeff, for continuing to spout this nonsense.

I have applied for over 200 legal and non-legal jobs and have been turned down for all of them.over qualified and too old.

Maybe you should have thought about the possibility of this eventuality more carefully over the many years you have apparently been frittering your life away, sir. Self-destruction, Dickstein is thy name.

I have completely maxed out my credit cards. One is in default, and the other will go into default in two days.

My telephone/internet bill is past due and I do not have money for rent or electricity.

I need $1,500 to make if [sic] for another month.

I rest my case.

[notorial dissent]

I just can't imagine why any law firm would not jupt at the opportunity to hire dear old Jeffy, I'm sure that at least one of them needs someone to fold paper and stuff envelopes, but maybe it is the honesty and integrity parts that are getting in the way, suppose!!!!!!!!!!!

[LPC]

Jeffrey Dickstein allegedly wrote:

......Although not the stated reason for the contempt, in reality it is because I raised the 16th Amendment issue and then filed a document charging the government with a conspiracy to cover up the issue and denying my clients the right to present the issue to the jury.

Yeah, well, at this point in your career it's difficult for us to feel sorry for you Jeff, for continuing to spout this nonsense.

In my mind, it's worse than that. He didn't just waste his own time and money (and society's judicial resources) spouting nonsense in a frivolous interlocutory appeal, he wasted the money of his clients, who were in real trouble and needed a real defense.

And that's why I have no sympathy for him. He gave his own delusions greater priority than the needs of his clients, and then left them stranded. His clients may have been dirtbags, but he was the bigger dirtbag because he abused them.

For doctors and lawyers, the primary principal is that we should first do no harm. Dickstein did harm, and he did it wantonly.