Page 1 of 2
He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2025 1:36 pm
by Sue U
And he really should have.
Courts
Turns Out, You Shouldn’t Call The Judge A ‘F*cking C*nt’
He says he didn't mean for the judge to hear the insult, but she did. And she's not amused.
By Kathryn Rubino on October 14, 2025 5:32 pm
This tale of attorney discipline is one part tech failure and one part petty misogyny, and none of it is a good look.
A Michigan appeals court upheld the criminal contempt finding against attorney Marshall Tauber, decision available below, for comments he made at the close of a Zoom hearing.
Judge Yasmine I. Pole ruled against Tauber’s client, and at the close of the Zoom hearing he was heard saying: “Judge – – thank you. F****** c***.”
Yikes town! The trial court described the incident as follows:
While the Court is on the record with the Oakland County Jail still logged into the record, while the Court in its immediate sitting and view, [appellant] participated in willful disregard to the court’s authority by rendering a gender-based slur to the Court, the word which does not – – it does not fairly roll off my tongue as easily as it does [appellant’s] – – was, “f*** c.” That is, wow. Members of staff are also in the courtroom while [Tauber’s client], who the Court has gone back to review this video, appears himself to be in shock that the Court would be called such a thing.
According to Tauber, he believed he was no longer connected to the Zoom (he was attending the virtual hearing from his car, and the screen went black and he mistakenly thought he was disconnected). During the contempt hearing, Tauber’s attorney said he was “technologically inept,” and did not intend for anyone else to hear the slur. But the appeals court said just because this happened during a virtual hearing “does not preclude a finding that misconduct or insolent behavior by an attorney constitutes contempt.”
The appellate court also shot down the argument that Tauber’s action weren’t willful because they were uttered in frustration.
“But, the term ‘willful’ for purposes of criminal contempt does not require such an intention. Rather, the willful disregard consists of a statement that tends to impair the court’s authority or impedes its functioning.” The court continued, “Demeaning or belittling the trial court, particularly in front of a client, erodes the public’s confidence in the judicial system.”
Tauber told the ABA Journal he intends to appeal the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court:
“When your activities are in that gray area of the ether where the court controls when you’re off the so-called air, when are you out of the court?” Tauber says in an ABA Journal interview. “I thought I was out of the court when I said thank you, your honor.”
Tauber estimates that six to eight seconds elapsed between the time he thanked the judge and when he made the remarks.
“They weren’t directed at her, they weren’t intended to be insulting to her, they were just my thought at that moment,” he says. “And I didn’t think I was in the courtroom.”
That sure doesn’t read like the airtight defense he seems to think it is.
Source:
Above the Law
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2025 1:48 pm
by Big RR
I have seen judges take abuse in courtrooms that I would not let so easily pass; but this abuse usually comes from the defendant(s) and not the attorneys. I have known some attorneys who are real jerks, but this guy takes the cake.
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2025 4:41 pm
by BoSoxGal
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2025 5:44 pm
by liberty
I’m going to say something offensive now, just to test your objectivity. Genghis Khan was a genius. He was a mass murderer on par with Hitler and Stalin, at a time when killing people was not nearly as mechanized. He’s responsible for the deaths of millions. He was known to wipe out entire cities, killing every man, woman, child, and even animal, then piling all the heads into a single heap. But he was a military genius.
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2025 5:48 pm
by liberty
What penalty did he suffer for the contempt charge?
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2025 7:48 pm
by Sue U
liberty wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 5:48 pm
What penalty did he suffer for the contempt charge?
He was fined $7,500.
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2025 7:52 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
See the first sentence of the Appeals Court decision that Sue U included in the OP:
Appellant, Marshall Tauber, appeals as of right the order entered by Oakland Circuit Court
Judge Yasmine I. Poles that held him in criminal contempt and required him to . . .
Sorry. You'll have to make an effort.
As to the Khan, you didn't bother me (or anyone else in the least) with your innocuous (and irrelevant) post and comment about the military ability of old Mongo.
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2025 7:52 pm
by MajGenl.Meade
Sue U wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 7:48 pm
liberty wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 5:48 pm
What penalty did he suffer for the contempt charge?
He was fined $7,500.
Oh you spoilsport!
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2025 9:32 pm
by liberty
MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 7:52 pm
See the first sentence of the Appeals Court decision that Sue U included in the OP:
Appellant, Marshall Tauber, appeals as of right the order entered by Oakland Circuit Court
Judge Yasmine I. Poles that held him in criminal contempt and required him to . . .
Sorry. You'll have to make an effort.
As to the Khan, you didn't bother me (or anyone else in the least) with your innocuous (and irrelevant) post and comment about the military ability of old Mongo.
What if I were to change the words to say that Adolf Hitler was a political genius, an outstanding orator in German, and a mass murderer on par with Stalin and Genghis Khan?
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2025 10:34 pm
by Bicycle Bill
liberty wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 9:32 pm
MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 7:52 pm
See the first sentence of the Appeals Court decision that Sue U included in the OP:
Appellant, Marshall Tauber, appeals as of right the order entered by Oakland Circuit Court
Judge Yasmine I. Poles that held him in criminal contempt and required him to . . .
Sorry. You'll have to make an effort.
As to the Khan, you didn't bother me (or anyone else in the least) with your innocuous (and irrelevant) post and comment about the military ability of old Mongo.
What if I were to change the words to say that Adolf Hitler was a political genius, an outstanding orator in German, and a mass murderer on par with Stalin and Genghis Khan?
You forgot to remind us that Mussolini made the trains run on time, too.
There's an old Texas saying my fiancée taught me — "Fuck with the bull, and you'll get the horns." You want to keep waving a red flag at a bull? Go ahead, be my guest. Maybe he'll ignore you and you'll just end up looking foolish
(again); maybe he'll rise to your bait, and chase your ass around the pasture. But just in case it's the second option and Ol' Ferdinand gives you a new butthole — don't say you weren't warned.
-"BB"-
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2025 12:55 am
by MajGenl.Meade
I'm tempted to say "So go ahead; say it".
Instead, I will simply agree with your three statements, with perhaps a slight demur on his political "genius". And if you EVER say he was a military genius - well . . . I knew the Khan and Hitler was no Khan
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2025 1:21 am
by liberty
Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 10:34 pm
liberty wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 9:32 pm
MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 7:52 pm
See the first sentence of the Appeals Court decision that Sue U included in the OP:
Sorry. You'll have to make an effort.
As to the Khan, you didn't bother me (or anyone else in the least) with your innocuous (and irrelevant) post and comment about the military ability of old Mongo.
What if I were to change the words to say that Adolf Hitler was a political genius, an outstanding orator in German, and a mass murderer on par with Stalin and Genghis Khan?
You forgot to remind us that Mussolini made the trains run on time, too.
There's an old Texas saying my fiancée taught me — "Fuck with the bull, and you'll get the horns." You want to keep waving a red flag at a bull? Go ahead, be my guest. Maybe he'll ignore you and you'll just end up looking foolish
(again); maybe he'll rise to your bait, and chase your ass around the pasture. But just in case it's the second option and Ol' Ferdinand gives you a new butthole — don't say you weren't warned.
-"BB"-
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2025 1:28 am
by liberty
liberty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 1:21 am
Bicycle Bill wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 10:34 pm
liberty wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 9:32 pm
What if I were to change the words to say that Adolf Hitler was a political genius, an outstanding orator in German, and a mass murderer on par with Stalin and Genghis Khan?
You forgot to remind us that Mussolini made the trains run on time, too.
There's an old Texas saying my fiancée taught me — "Fuck with the bull, and you'll get the horns." You want to keep waving a red flag at a bull? Go ahead, be my guest. Maybe he'll ignore you and you'll just end up looking foolish
(again); maybe he'll rise to your bait, and chase your ass around the pasture. But just in case it's the second option and Ol' Ferdinand gives you a new butthole — don't say you weren't warned.
-"BB"-
Although propaganda can be true, it's still propaganda, and it doesn't represent the entirety of what I call objective truth, which the political left appears not to believe in. You only care about what fits your agenda. If a 1,000 people surround someone's home chanting slogans for hours at a time, is that intimidation, or is that just a protest?
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2025 12:06 pm
by ex-khobar Andy
lib's point - inasmuch as he has one - is that Genghis Khan was a military genius. I have not studied his military acumen, but it is perhaps true that he was, and I can acknowledge that. But simultaneously it is true that the man was an asshole and there is no real dichotomy in believing both. (And there was a piece, years ago, in the Guardian if memory serves which it often does not, that in the steppes something like 30% of the population can be shown to be genetically related to one man about 900 years ago. The likelihood is that that priapic man was our lad Genghis.) In the same way I can say that Trump is politically skilled (he got to be president twice despite having shown us many many times the depth his depravity and criminality) while remaining, IMHO, a total fucking idiot, exemplar of political corruption, and asshole.
BSG's point is the same. Somehow the GOP has convinced the world that antisemitism is a 'left' trait and Judaism's savior is Trump and his tribe. I don't like it but I have to admit their skill in pulling the wool over the world's eyes. The true hatred the right have for Judaism is evident from these 'secret' posts among themselves.
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2025 1:26 pm
by Big RR
Going from a discussion of courtroom decorum and contempt citations to Genghis Khan and Hitler in a few easy steps; Lib you are a pointless diversion"genius". But you are no Khan--either Genghis or the Ricardo Montelban one.
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2025 9:36 pm
by liberty
Sue U wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 7:48 pm
liberty wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 5:48 pm
What penalty did he suffer for the contempt charge?
He was fined $7,500.
I'm not knowledgeable about fines or penalties for contempt of court committed by lawyers, but that seems a little excessive. Is that abnormal?
The point I was trying to make about objectivity is that you guys assume the man is a prick. Well, the woman could be, for all you know. Just because she's a woman and a judge doesn't automatically mean she's anything special. Sure, she's a judge, but that doesn't make her morally superior.
Also, I think you guys are being hypocritical, that's another point having to do with objectivity. I think most every lawyer here has done the same thing at one time or another. I know there are judges that, you Sue, don't respect. I bet you've called them "prick" or "cunt" at some point. So, aren't you being hypocritical?
And another thing, why is the guy fighting it so hard? I mean, it's costing more money to fight it than it is just to pay the fine. It might be the principle of the thing. Does it hurt his career? Or maybe he's concerned that she will be biased toward any of his future clients. I don't know if the woman is vindictive or not, but I know some people are.
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2025 9:46 pm
by Scooter
Is the village idiot seriously accusing Sue of having called a judge "prick" or "cunt" IN OPEN COURT?????
Because unless he is claiming to have witnessed it personally, I'm sure his sense of honour and integrity will demand that he apologize IMMEDIATELY AND UNRESERVEDLY for such a blatant and grotesque slander.
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2025 12:44 am
by Sue U
liberty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 9:36 pm
Sue U wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 7:48 pm
liberty wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 5:48 pm
What penalty did he suffer for the contempt charge?
He was fined $7,500.
I'm not knowledgeable about fines or penalties for contempt of court committed by lawyers, but that seems a little excessive. Is that abnormal?
I have never been fined for contempt of court and don't know any lawyer who has been -- you'd hear about it if it happened, which is why this story made the legal news. (This is a criminal contempt charge, not civil; I'm not going to go into the distinction now, but it's important.) While $7,500 is certainly more than pocket change, I don't think it's excessive; it's intended to be big enough to drive home the point, so it's supposed to sting.
liberty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 9:36 pm
The point I was trying to make about objectivity is that you guys assume the man is a prick. Well, the woman could be, for all you know. Just because she's a woman and a judge doesn't automatically mean she's anything special. Sure, she's a judge, but that doesn't make her morally superior.
This has absolutely nothing to do with "moral superiority." She's a judge and solely by her position sits as the arbiter of law in the temple of justice; she needs nothing more to command the respect of counsel in her court. Her personal qualities are absolutely irrelevant to the sanctity of the court as an institution and the obligations of decorum before the tribunal. As an officer of the court, a lawyer must not denigrate or disrespect the court, let alone engage in derogatory name-calling, no matter what you think of the judge personally.
liberty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 9:36 pm
Also, I think you guys are being hypocritical, that's another point having to do with objectivity. I think most every lawyer here has done the same thing at one time or another. I know there are judges that, you Sue, don't respect. I bet you've called them "prick" or "cunt" at some point. So, aren't you being hypocritical?
I have never -- EVER -- called a judge a "prick" or a "cunt," not in or out of court. There are some judges who I think are not too bright, some who I think have a general bias in civil litigation as to parties or issues, and some who I have absolutely known to be racist and misogynist. But no matter what I think or who I was talking to I would never use a derogatory insult like that. First, judges just like everyone else have their faults and failings, but in my experience they have all tried to do what they understand to be justice. Their understanding may be different than -- or the same as --mine, but that's why we're in court in the first place, because there's a disagreement on what's right. Second, as a purely practical matter, you never know when something you've said is going to get back to the judge, and if you're a litigator you WILL be back in front of that judge at some point. The courthouse community is small, and everyone talks about everyone.
liberty wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 9:36 pm
And another thing, why is the guy fighting it so hard? I mean, it's costing more money to fight it than it is just to pay the fine. It might be the principle of the thing. Does it hurt his career? Or maybe he's concerned that she will be biased toward any of his future clients. I don't know if the woman is vindictive or not, but I know some people are.
Honestly, I think it's the wrong thing to do. The right thing would be to suck it up, pay the fine, and go see the judge privately in chambers to offer an abject and unreserved personal apology.
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2025 2:11 am
by liberty
I could be wrong; I don’t log everything. And when I do, I don’t always log it completely; sometimes I leave out dates and times, and sometimes even individuals. But anyway, I think I remember you saying once that Justice Clarence Thomas is an idiot, or something like that. Isn’t that disrespectful?
Re: He had the right to remain silent
Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2025 12:21 pm
by ex-khobar Andy
If she did ever call Thomas that, you're right, lib. That's very disrespectful - to idiots.