Denver Fenton Allen has a big old Donkey Dick

[Burnaby49]

At least that's what he told the judge in the lighthearted banter given in this court transcript. It started with Denver holding himself in contempt of court. When the judge wouldn't go along with it, being all caught up in the court protocol that he was the judge and he'd decide when old Denver was in contempt, this interchange took place.

The Court: Listen to me.

Mr. Allen: Fuck you.

The Court: Listen to me.

Mr. Allen: Go fuck yourself. I'm through here. Are y'all done?

The Court: I am finding you in contempt of court.

Mr. Allen: I don't care.

The Court: I know you don't. And I sentence you to twenty days for that. And if you say anything else, I'm going to add twenty days for anything you say.

Mr. Allen: Fuck you.

The Court: Forty day.

Mr. Allen: Fuck you again.

The Court: Sixty days.

Mr. Allen: Go fuck yourself.

The Court: A year.

Mr. Allen: Your mama.

The Court: Ten years.

Mr. Allen: Suck my dick.

Then Allen threatened to pulling out his big old donkey dick right there in court and things sort of went downhill after that.

https://imgur.com/a/skffp

This is a picture of Denver;



http://www.northwestgeorgianews.com/rom ... 18729.html

[fortinbras]

I'm sure he's eager to resume his Dale Carnegie classes.

[Pottapaug1938]

The porch lights are on, but ain't nobody home.

[The Observer]

The porch lights are on, but ain't nobody home.

After reading this, I agree with you:

He began listing which relatives he was going to kill and how, including chopping up Durham’s children. The judge, however, pointed out he had no children and then asked Allen if he was stupid when Allen said he would kill his grandchildren, too.

[The Observer]

What in particular identifies this lovable person as a sovrun? Please don't say because he is brain-dead - there are lots of brain-dead perps out there who have never embraced sovrunhood.

[Burnaby49]

What in particular identifies this lovable person as a sovrun? Please don't say because he is brain-dead - there are lots of brain-dead perps out there who have never embraced sovrunhood.

Absolutely nothing, I just liked the transcript. He was charged with making "terroristic threats and acts" but that could mean anything.

[notorial dissent]

I haven't seen anything quite that brain dead since the last fool I saw who repeatedly ran headfist in to a light pole while high on something.

This guy does look beat up so I'll have to go with came that way naturally.

I think the ALREADY in jail part, on "four felony counts of making terroristic threats and acts" probably qualifies him as sovcit, or at the very least mad bomber, he certainly looks the part, but down in GA I'll go with sovict just the same.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Mr. Allen: Go fuck yourself.

The Court: A year.

Mr. Allen: Your mama.

The Court: Ten years.

Mr. Allen: Suck my dick.

Then Allen threatened to pulling out his big old donkey dick right there in court and things sort of went downhill after that.

I have a suitable response for this situation should it re-occur:
"Bailiff - Taze his pee-pee!"

[Tuba Cain]

I don't know if anyone is a fan of the series "Rick and Morty" (one of my very, very favourite things on earth at the moment); but, the good folks who make that show have actually done a simple cartoon version of this exact dialogue.

Probably doesn't need to be said, but this is in no way shape or form safe for work (unless you happen to work with donkey dicks on a regular basis).

Enjoy!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc8uyJTDhjw


[edit: typo]

[Gregg]

Ten Years?

Wow...is that some kind of judicial hyperbole or did this mug just ring the bell for more time than some people get for second degree murder by just telling a Judge off?

Does he have to purge the contempt and do the dime before he goes to trial for whatever he was originally charged with?

More power to the Judge, but the real value of this case would be making Sov CIts and idiots in general watch a tape of it before they're allowed in the courtroom.

"go ahead punk, make my day"

[KickahaOta]

Ten Years?

Wow...is that some kind of judicial hyperbole or did this mug just ring the bell for more time than some people get for second degree murder by just telling a Judge off?

Does he have to purge the contempt and do the dime before he goes to trial for whatever he was originally charged with?

More power to the Judge, but the real value of this case would be making Sov CIts and idiots in general watch a tape of it before they're allowed in the courtroom.

I would not be remotely surprised if the judge wound up facing discipline. At the very least, yes, ten years is "judicial hyperbole".

There are two types of contempt, civil and criminal. Civil contempt is coercive; it's intended to get the contemnor to do something or stop doing something. The punishment can be open-ended (in other words, an indefinite jail stay), but "the keys are in the contemnor's pocket"; as soon as the contemnor does/stops doing the thing, then the contempt has been purged, and the punishment has to stop. Criminal contempt is punitive; it's intended to punish what's already been done. Since criminal contempt lacks the "you can stop the punishment by behaving" aspect, the punishments available are more sharply restricted by the due-process clause. And in particular, any "serious punishment" -- which means, among other things, imprisonment for more than a few months -- requires a separate criminal trial, with all the usual protections in place (right to counsel, right to a jury, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, etc.).

So a ten-year proclamation from the bench cannot possibly stand.

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. Consult your own lawyer before pissing off a judge. May cause drowsiness; alcohol may intensify this effect.)

[NYGman]

Not my field so I was curious...

http://illinoiscaselaw.com/contempt-of- ... m-penalty/

Not my work, but it looks like 10 years is possible, at least in Illinois.

Two Cases Helped Figure it Out

People v. Geiger

See People v. Geiger, 2015 IL App (3d) 130457 (04/17/2015).

Defendant, in this case, had already testified against two co-defendants in a double murder but refused to testify against the third guy.

Said he was pleading “the fifth”.

Later, in court he said he just forgot the details. I hate it when that happens with witnesses.

So, it was unclear why he suddenly refused to testify.

The reviewing court said 10 years for this “assault” on the judicial system was not grossly disproportionate to the nature of the contemptuous act when considered in light of defendant’s previous criminal history. Meaning, 10 years for refusing to testify sounded good to them.

Originally, the trial judge imposed a sentence of 20 years!

The Illinois Supreme Court reversed that in an earlier proceeding.

People v. Perez-Gonzalez

See People v. Perez-Gonzalez, 2014 IL App (2d) 120946 (06/26/2014).

Here, defendant plead guilty to murder and agreed to testify against his co-defendants.

His “deal” was that he would testify and in return his sentence for his part in the murder would be 20 years. He would plead for twenty and avoid a 15 year gun add-on.

But ….

Defendant refused to testify when the trial came.

He lost the “deal”. The 15 year gun add-on was put back on the table and he was given an additional 10 years for contempt of court for refusing to testify.

Total time for defendant jumped to 45 years. It started with 20 years from the original murder plea, plus 15 from the gun add-on, plus 10 for the contempt of court. Ouch!

His little dance with the court cost him 25 extra years.

In determining an appropriate sentence for criminal contempt, the appellate court explained that a trial judge should consider the following factors:

(1) the extent of the willful and deliberate defiance of the court’s order
(2) the seriousness of the consequences of the contumacious behavior
(3) the necessity of effectively terminating the defendant’s defiance as required by the public interest, and
(4) the importance of deterring such acts in the future.

The appellate court noted that this was a murder trial and the need for deterring others from willful contempt was great.

[KickahaOta]

Highlights from People v. Perez-Gonzales:

The respondent, Raul Perez-Gonzalez, was convicted of direct criminal contempt of court
and subsequently sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.

On November 11, 2011, the State filed its petition for adjudication of direct criminal
contempt. The petition stated that on October 28, 2011, the respondent “refused to testify
despite the Court’s order and persists in that refusal to testify.” The State noted in the petition
that there was no maximum penalty for contempt and that it would be pursuing a sentence in
excess of six months.

On February 22, 2012, the respondent waived his right to a jury trial and the parties entered
a written stipulation of evidence.

And from Geiger:

The State prosecuted Terrell D. Geiger for direct criminal contempt for his refusal to testify
against Javar Hollins during Hollins’ 2008 retrial for charges arising out of two drug-related
double homicides that occurred in March of 1999.

During a recess in Hollins’ second trial, the State formally charged Geiger with direct
criminal contempt and Geiger still refused to testify. Approximately six weeks after Hollins’
trial, Judge Erickson presided over Geiger’s criminal contempt proceedings. At the contempt
bench trial, defense counsel argued that defendant had a fifth amendment right to refuse to
testify. The court rejected this argument and found defendant guilty of direct criminal
contempt, set the matter for a sentencing hearing, and ordered a presentence investigation. At
the first sentencing hearing, the trial court noted that defendant seemed defiant when he
refused to testify and that defendant did not seem afraid of retaliation for his testimony. Based
on those factors and defendant’s criminal history, on July 20, 2009, the court imposed a
sentence of 20 years’ incarceration. The court ordered the sentence to be served consecutively
with a six-year sentence already being served by Geiger for an unrelated drug offense, People
v. Geiger, case No. 07-CF-385.

So neither Geiger nor Perez-Gonzales were cases of a judge simply pronouncing a large contempt sentence in the middle of another proceeding. They were cases of people refusing to testify, being formally charged with criminal contempt, proceeding to trial on that charge in a separate proceeding, waiving their right to a jury trial (perhaps rather foolishly), being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and being sentenced in the more-or-less-usual fashion.

[NYGman]

Agreed, I was just interested in the maximum possible, should have made that clear...

[Dezcad]

I would not be remotely surprised if the judge wound up facing discipline. At the very least, yes, ten years is "judicial hyperbole".

The judge was publicly admonished but not for the length of the contempt sentence. Judge Bryant Durham Jr. clearly went overboard in this hearing, just read the transcript of the hearing if you have any doubt. It is quite amazing.

At one point, Durham told Allen he “looked like a queer” and challenged him to masturbate in front of him in open court. He also threatened to lock up Allen for years.

There's much more in the transcript but it is very NSFW.