Dad of fallen Marine refuses court order

[buddahj]

Washington – A father of a Marine killed in Iraq says he won't pay the legal fees of a protest group who picketed at his son's funeral in 2006 – at least not until he hears from the US Supreme Court on the matter.

 

[update from The Newsroom: Bill O'Reilly has offered to foot the bill.]

 

Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq, learned Friday that a federal appeals court is requiring him to pay more than $16,000 in legal fees to the Westboro Baptist Church, a Christian fundamentalist group that demonstrates during military funerals to gain attention for its antigovernment, antihomosexual message. The group rallied at Matthew Snyder’s funeral in March 2006 in Westminster, Md., chanting antigay slogans and carrying signs such as “Thank God for dead soldiers,” says Albert Snyder’s attorney, Sean Summers.

 

The group was protesting about 30 feet from the church’s main entrance, and Mr. Snyder had to enter through a separate entrance, Mr. Summers says.

 

Snyder subsequently sued the Westboro group for emotional distress and won a $5 million judgment. But on appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding in favor of protecting the protesters' free-speech rights. About three weeks ago, the Supreme Court agreed to take the case and is expected to hear it in the fall. (Last year, the high court had declined to take up the issue.) Meanwhile, the circuit court has ordered Snyder, a salesman, to pay the church’s court expenses.

 

Snyder, of York, Pa., told Fox News on Tuesday that he would not pay the Westboro Baptist Church "until I hear from the Supreme Court."

 

“It’s fair to say that they are not getting any Christmas cards from Mr. Snyder,” adds Summers, in a phone interview. “He obviously thinks they are despicable and doesn’t understand why they would target him.”

 

The Westboro group has been protesting at military members’ funerals for years. The church leader, Fred Phelps, preaches that American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality. (He was among those banned from Britain last year for fostering hatred or extremism.) The protests have nothing to do with the fallen service members' sexual orientation, and the church says its protests are held within a “lawful distance” of the funerals.

 

Ultimately, say some, the church protests are a matter of constitutionally protected free speech.

 

“I really don’t see that [the protest] was a violation of the First Amendment [principles]. It was a violation of decorum and good taste and all sorts of other things, but not a violation of the First Amendment,” says Charles Gittins, a civilian lawyer in Virginia.

 

But Summers argues that his client’s right to peaceful assembly and freedom of religion were infringed by the protests and that, unlike at a public park where people are free to express themselves, a funeral setting draws a “captive audience” that requires attendees to be in a particular location – they can’t simply walk away.

 

Westboro Baptist Church, which is based in Kansas, plans to protest in Florida on Wednesday, outside a funeral for a Marine killed in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan on March 22.

 

“Military funerals have become pagan orgies of idolatrous blasphemy, where they pray to the dunghill gods of Sodom and play taps to a fallen fool,” states a press release posted on the church’s website, announcing the rally at a memorial service for Lance Cpl. Justin Wilson. At the bottom of the press release are printed the words “Thank God for IEDs,” referring to the roadside bombs that have killed thousands of troops in both wars.

[bpwallace49]

If I had 16 grand lying around I would send it to the guy.

 

Despicable bastards . . . .

[BeeR]

Just when you think our society can't get any more asinine or revolting, if not outright insane....which this is and more, on a variety of levels.

 

First off, if someone can explain the logic (never mind how twisted) of him owing them money, I'm all ears. What the f for?? Gas money? Paint for the signs? Hankies to wipe the drool from their chins?

 

Second, when the F will people get that freedoms are not absolute. The First Amendment doesn't mean you can say whatever you want how, when, and wherever you want. They should be allowed to protest almost ANYWHERE ELSE. Not at the freaking funeral. A 5 yr old child could get that, yet our brilliant legal system doesn't? (And yet somehow I'm not surprised) What about the right of this guy to bury his son in peace? How are they not disturbing the peace, inciting to riot, something along those lines?

 

But OK.......if they can do that, I guess I could get up a group to protest right next to them with a stuffed life-size guy that says "Baptist Fundie" on his shirt and hanging from a noose, along with "the only good Fundie is a dead Fundie" while flipping them off and maybe scattering pics of homos drilling each other. Right? My right to free speech, correct? First Amendment, blah de f-ing blah. In fact.....I should be allowed to do that every Sunday just beyond the bounds of their church! Anyone up for a road trip?

 

I would so love to be on a jury for this.

 

I know these extremist inbreds aren't speaking for all Fundies per se, but still, they are to Christianity what guys like Nero and Caligula were to Rome.

Edited March 31, 2010 by BeeR

[buddahj]

But OK.......if they can do that, I guess I could get up a group to protest right next to them with a stuffed life-size guy that says "Baptist Fundie" on his shirt and hanging from a noose, along with "the only good Fundie is a dead Fundie" while flipping them off and maybe scattering pics of homos drilling each other. Right? My right to free speech, correct? First Amendment, blah de f-ing blah. In fact.....I should be allowed to do that every Sunday just beyond the bounds of their church! Anyone up for a road trip?

First off..."Hell Ya!!!"

Secondly, somehow I could see us getting arrested for doing that due to our f'ed up society.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

not a fan of OReilly but props are deserved for this ...

 

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/oreilly...03/30/id/354287

[darin3]

not a fan of OReilly but props are deserved for this ...

 

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/oreilly...03/30/id/354287

+1,000,000

[cliaz]

Second, when the F will people get that freedoms are not absolute. The First Amendment doesn't mean you can say whatever you want how, when, and wherever you want.

 

I'm becoming more and more a fan of BeeR....You pretty much summed it up perfectly

 

not a fan of OReilly but props are deserved for this ...

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/oreilly...03/30/id/354287

 

I hate O'Reily a little less now

 

 

+1,000,000

 

Just a reminder

[Delicious_bass]

How long before someone finally says "enough" and takes care of Phelps?

[Perchoutofwater]

I can't stand people like Phelps. They do nothing but give religion a bad name. Good for O'Really.

[Ursa Majoris]

Just when you think our society can't get any more asinine or revolting, if not outright insane....which this is and more, on a variety of levels.

 

First off, if someone can explain the logic (never mind how twisted) of him owing them money, I'm all ears. What the f for?? Gas money? Paint for the signs? Hankies to wipe the drool from their chins?

 

Second, when the F will people get that freedoms are not absolute. The First Amendment doesn't mean you can say whatever you want how, when, and wherever you want. They should be allowed to protest almost ANYWHERE ELSE. Not at the freaking funeral. A 5 yr old child could get that, yet our brilliant legal system doesn't? (And yet somehow I'm not surprised) What about the right of this guy to bury his son in peace? How are they not disturbing the peace, inciting to riot, something along those lines?

 

But OK.......if they can do that, I guess I could get up a group to protest right next to them with a stuffed life-size guy that says "Baptist Fundie" on his shirt and hanging from a noose, along with "the only good Fundie is a dead Fundie" while flipping them off and maybe scattering pics of homos drilling each other. Right? My right to free speech, correct? First Amendment, blah de f-ing blah. In fact.....I should be allowed to do that every Sunday just beyond the bounds of their church! Anyone up for a road trip?

 

I would so love to be on a jury for this.

 

I know these extremist inbreds aren't speaking for all Fundies per se, but still, they are to Christianity what guys like Nero and Caligula were to Rome.

You should read Caveman Nick's excellent pieces on rights over in the rights vs privileges thread. People like Phelps are the price we pay for the right to free speech.

[SEC=UGA]

I'm not usually one for condoning violence against a group of protesters, but these guys and the Klan really get my ire up. If I were on a jury where someone had taken a successful shot at these guys I'd probably have to vote for a not guilty verdict.

[Rebellab]

There is a group of Veteran motorcycle riders that I believe are called Patriot Guard. They go to these funerals and get permission from the family to stand directly in front of the protesters. They also then ride along side of the funeral procession on the way to the cemetery to help drown out the chants and hide the signs. I had a guy that was working for me when I was at the funeral home that went to a few of these. They do it no matter the weather.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Rebellab

[Caveman_Nick]

Just when you think our society can't get any more asinine or revolting, if not outright insane....which this is and more, on a variety of levels.

 

First off, if someone can explain the logic (never mind how twisted) of him owing them money, I'm all ears. What the f for?? Gas money? Paint for the signs? Hankies to wipe the drool from their chins?

 

Second, when the F will people get that freedoms are not absolute. The First Amendment doesn't mean you can say whatever you want how, when, and wherever you want. They should be allowed to protest almost ANYWHERE ELSE. Not at the freaking funeral. A 5 yr old child could get that, yet our brilliant legal system doesn't? (And yet somehow I'm not surprised) What about the right of this guy to bury his son in peace? How are they not disturbing the peace, inciting to riot, something along those lines?

 

But OK.......if they can do that, I guess I could get up a group to protest right next to them with a stuffed life-size guy that says "Baptist Fundie" on his shirt and hanging from a noose, along with "the only good Fundie is a dead Fundie" while flipping them off and maybe scattering pics of homos drilling each other. Right? My right to free speech, correct? First Amendment, blah de f-ing blah. In fact.....I should be allowed to do that every Sunday just beyond the bounds of their church! Anyone up for a road trip?

 

I would so love to be on a jury for this.

 

I know these extremist inbreds aren't speaking for all Fundies per se, but still, they are to Christianity what guys like Nero and Caligula were to Rome.

 

I can't stand these people. What they are doing violates one of the most basic (yet unwritten) rules that virtually every sane human knows by instinct. Let people grieve for their dead in peace.

 

Do I think this church should have been sued? Not my place to judge. I would not have sued. I can't imagine suing someone because they hurt my feelings in some way.

 

Is this kind of 'free speech' somehow akin to slander or libel (ie. not really free because it is directly harmful to someone else in some way)? Again, not a question I can answer, but maybe that is the point of the law suit.

 

I have the same kinds of problem with this situation that I do with the craziness that's going on up here regarding laws against bullying. A girl got teased badly and for a long period of time and also felt threatened physically. For her it got so bad that she took her own life.

 

My question to that situation: Does this situation demonstrate a necessity for new laws? Don't laws already exist for criminal harassment and for assault? Do we need a new subset of laws that is going to give government agents and school officials new found power over the lives of everyone's child?

 

There have always been bullies in the proverbial schoolyard. What happened in this case was tragic, but can we realistically expect "children" as a whole to change? Laws like this have the potential to turn the entire country upside down with endless cases of criminal prosecution against children during times when they are not under the watchful eyes of their parents. And let's not forget that under the law our kids must be sent to school (the only option for two working parents) or home schooled. This is a quagmire and a ticking time bomb.

 

Back to the Phelps...as much as I have a problem with their actions going against what should be a patently obvious social code, if they were frivolously dragged into court and that cost them thousands of dollars then the man that dragged them into court can be held liable for that money. At the end of the day if you choose to bring someone to a court system then you have to be prepared to live with the ruling of that system. And I am not so sure I disagree with this ruling as much as I hate the conduct that it protects.

[Ursa Majoris]

Back to the Phelps...as much as I have a problem with their actions going against what should be a patently obvious social code, if they were frivolously dragged into court and that cost them thousands of dollars then the man that dragged them into court can be held liable for that money. At the end of the day if you choose to bring someone to a court system then you have to be prepared to live with the ruling of that system. And I am not so sure I disagree with this ruling as much as I hate the conduct that it protects.

I doubt I would use the word "frivolously" but by and large, CN is on the money here. Anyone who is nibbling at the fringes of the First Amendment had better be prepared to lose.

[Caveman_Nick]

I doubt I would use the word "frivolously" but by and large, CN is on the money here. Anyone who is nibbling at the fringes of the First Amendment had better be prepared to lose.

 

I use the word "frivolously" because (in my limited understanding...IANAL of course) that is the circumstance under which the court would decide to stick one party with the legal costs of another party that they had files suit against. The Church would have counter sued for legal fees based on frivolity (or something like that).

[WaterMan]

Sometimes freedom of speech allows idiots to speak.

[Caveman_Nick]

Sometimes freedom of speech allows idiots to speak.

 

 

Thank you, My day is complete.

[westvirginia]

 

Thank you, My day is complete.

 

 

It's not often you get a whole damn tractor-trailer load of irony dropped on your head, is it?

[Furd]

Does anybody know if O'Reilly subscribes to the idea of the "loser pays" rule?

 

This is a loser pays rule in action. Its pretty simple in federal court appeals- the "loser" of the appeal pays costs to the "winner." In this case, I believe that just about the entire amount awarded was for printing costs.

[Caveman_Nick]

Does anybody know if O'Reilly subscribes to the idea of the "loser pays" rule?

 

This is a loser pays rule in action. Its pretty simple in federal court appeals- the "loser" of the appeal pays costs to the "winner." In this case, I believe that just about the entire amount awarded was for printing costs.

 

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it might have been a specific ruling by the judge.

[Furd]

First off, if someone can explain the logic (never mind how twisted) of him owing them money, I'm all ears. What the f for?? Gas money? Paint for the signs? Hankies to wipe the drool from their chins?

 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39:

 

Rule 39. Costs

(a) Against Whom Assessed.

The following rules apply unless the law provides or the court orders otherwise:

 

(1) if an appeal is dismissed, costs are taxed against the appellant, unless the parties agree otherwise;

 

(2) if a judgment is affirmed, costs are taxed against the appellant;

(3) if a judgment is reversed, costs are taxed against the appellee;

 

(4) if a judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, modified, or vacated, costs are taxed only as the court orders.

 

b Costs For and Against the United States.

Costs for or against the United States, its agency, or officer will be assessed under Rule 39(a) only if authorized by law.

 

© Costs of Copies.

Each court of appeals must, by local rule, fix the maximum rate for taxing the cost of producing necessary copies of a brief or appendix, or copies of records authorized by Rule 30(f). The rate must not exceed that generally charged for such work in the area where the clerk’s office is located and should encourage economical methods of copying.

 

(d) Bill of Costs: Objections; Insertion in Mandate.

(1) A party who wants costs taxed must—within 14 days after entry of judgment—file with the circuit clerk, with proof of service, an itemized and verified bill of costs.

 

(2) Objections must be filed within 10 days after service of the bill of costs, unless the court extends the time.

 

(3) The clerk must prepare and certify an itemized statement of costs for insertion in the mandate, but issuance of the mandate must not be delayed for taxing costs. If the mandate issues before costs are finally determined, the district clerk must—upon the circuit clerk’s request—add the statement of costs, or any amendment of it, to the mandate.

 

(e) Costs on Appeal Taxable in the District Court.

The following costs on appeal are taxable in the district court for the benefit of the party entitled to costs under this rule:

 

(1) the preparation and transmission of the record;

 

(2) the reporter’s transcript, if needed to determine the appeal;

 

(3) premiums paid for a supersedes bond or other bond to preserve rights pending appeal; and

 

(4) the fee for filing the notice of appeal.

[Furd]

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought it might have been a specific ruling by the judge.

 

 

My pleasure.

[Savage Beatings]

If it were my son's funeral that he was protesting, I would just calmly walk up to Phelps and strangle him until he was dead. What would I care about prison or even a death sentence after my son was killed and his funeral desecrated?

[Delicious_bass]

If it were my son's funeral that he was protesting, I would just calmly walk up to Phelps and strangle him until he was dead. What would I care about prison or even a death sentence after my son was killed and his funeral desecrated?

If it comes down to that, gimme a shout. I would be happy to choke out any of the other loonies that might try to jump in and pull you off of Phelps...