Open your mouth and criticise a court, and you'd better watch out. Carl Eller got sent to jail for 60 days, not because the judge was mad at him for being drunk, or for beating up some police officers:
From our story: Judge Dan Mabley rejected a request to delay the sentence 24 hours to allow Eller to get his affairs in order, ordering him taken into custody immediately. In doing so, Mabley claimed that Eller had called the police and the court corrupt and biased. "I have to send a message that I do not find credible what he has asserted," Mabley said. "The best way I can do that is to take him into custody."
With all due respect, Judge Mabley might have sent that message by using his own First Amendment right to speak out against it. From the Star Tribune's report: Mabley said there was nothing wrong with Eller disputing the court's findings, but he said "misleading the public through your access to the media is another." He added, "Your main concern is the effect on your reputation."
E-mailer John wrote: "it appears that Judge Mabley actually proved Mr. Eller's very point about corruption. When a judge; who is charged with upholding the Constitution and preserving the rights conferred thereby; shamelessly violates a citizen's constitutional right to criticize the government by punishing the citizen through enhanced sentencing only because the Judge disagrees with the citizen's public comments then there can be no other description of government than 'corrupt.'"
What do you think? Did the judge step over the line? Is it appropriate to send a message through a sentence for behavior unrelated to the actual charge on the table? Or did Eller deserve it?
