You weren't looking hard enough.absdes96 wrote: I have been looking for that pin-up of the eagle and the mouse for years. Thank You.
![Image](http://www.ussschenectadylst1185.org/media/LastGreatActOfDefiance-1.gif)
You weren't looking hard enough.absdes96 wrote: I have been looking for that pin-up of the eagle and the mouse for years. Thank You.
No...I don't believe it.LPC wrote:As someone I consider to be a friend once observed, I'm "prickly."
What you're describing is not criminal contempt but civil contempt.Imalawman wrote:But isn't a life sentence possible for some criminal contempt where its dependent on some future action. For instance, if an IRS summons is ignored the judge has the discretion to toss you in jail until you comply - are you saying, wes, that where a limit isn't specified, there is still some overarching constitutional limitation on how long the judge can let the person stay in jail?
To be entirely accurate, Steinert wasn't punished for failure to comply with a summons, but failure to comply with a District Court order enforcing the summons. And this was in a separate criminal action against Steinert and not within the same case that the Order originated in.Imalawman wrote:Not to disagree, well, yes, to disagree, but non-compliance with a summons can be criminal contempt in certain situations. see Steinert v. United States, 571 F.2d 1105. But it is rare, I admit. I guess my questions were essentially answered though in that just because a statute doesn't limit the incarceration limits, there are external limitations in place...which is what I suspected.
The prosecution of Steinert wasn't intended to be coercive but punitive.This recalcitrance resulted in an indictment returned on May 26, 1976 charging appellant with criminal contempt for failing to comply with the District Court's October 3, 1975 order. Appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced to 30 days imprisonment.
My only point was that a rejection of a civil summons can turn into a criminal contempt action. The non-compliance with the summons was the sina qua non of the subsequent criminal action. But thanks for the input, interesting stuff....in a get-a-life sort of wayDezcad wrote:To be entirely accurate, Steinert wasn't punished for failure to comply with a summons, but failure to comply with a District Court order enforcing the summons. And this was in a separate criminal action against Steinert and not within the same case that the Order originated in.Imalawman wrote:Not to disagree, well, yes, to disagree, but non-compliance with a summons can be criminal contempt in certain situations. see Steinert v. United States, 571 F.2d 1105. But it is rare, I admit. I guess my questions were essentially answered though in that just because a statute doesn't limit the incarceration limits, there are external limitations in place...which is what I suspected.
The prosecution of Steinert wasn't intended to be coercive but punitive.This recalcitrance resulted in an indictment returned on May 26, 1976 charging appellant with criminal contempt for failing to comply with the District Court's October 3, 1975 order. Appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced to 30 days imprisonment.
Before his sentencing, Sweet, of Bradenton, showed no remorse and offered no apology.
"I honestly believe that I had discovered that the (tax) system was based on systemic and institutional fraud," he said.
But Assistant U.S. Attorney Cherie L. Krigsman called him "an inveterate con man" and "someone who thought he was too smart and too good to obey the law."
Gee, sounds like Lee Harvey Lorne to me.Demosthenes wrote:Joe Sweet was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Before his sentencing, Sweet, of Bradenton, showed no remorse and offered no apology.
"I honestly believe that I had discovered that the (tax) system was based on systemic and institutional fraud," he said.
But Assistant U.S. Attorney Cherie L. Krigsman called him "an inveterate con man" and "someone who thought he was too smart and too good to obey the law."