Acme Law on Contempt

Bill Schmalfeldt seems to think that an American citizen can ignore a court order if he finds it unconstitutional and can also ignore a contempt citation that follows.BS_DJ20131028

This is, of course, thoroughly, totally, and utterly wrong. At least, the Supreme Court thinks so. In Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967), the Supreme Court held that

[p]etitioners could not bypass orderly judicial review of the temporary injunction before disobeying it.

In doing so it reaffirmed its earlier ruling in Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, a case from the 1920s. Simply put, the way to deal with a bad court order is to appeal it not to violate it.

The gag order against Roger Shuler is probably certainly unconstitutional. However, he has the obligation to obey it until it is overturned. The gag order issued against Aaron Walker last year was unconstitutional, and it was overturned when reviewed by a higher court, but he still had to obey it in the interim. Shuler did not obey, and the judge is enforcing his order.

Exit question: If Aaron Walker had answered one of Schmalfeldt’s many questions seeking comment on Brett Kimberlin while the gag order was in place and that had resulted in his being jailed, would the Cabin Boy have risen to Aaron Walker’s defense as he has for Shuler?

4 thoughts on “Acme Law on Contempt


  1. So far I haven’t seen a clear argument for the basis of other parts of the contempt charge being unconstitutional… Shuler repeatedly published documents that were under seal. Have you seen much discussion of this point?


    • I would like to see some more about publishing sealed documents myself. I don’t know where to begin to look


    • Publishing sealed documents? Who would be so unethical? Oh right, Schmalfeldt. I swear Schuler and Schmalfeldt are two peas in a pod. Both ignorant of the law, both contemptuous of the law, and both morons of the first degree.

Leave a Reply