I learned of Magistate Catt as a good Samaritan amicus filer in a case that is shocking to the conscious.
I learned of Magistate Catt as a good Samaritan amicus filer in a case that is shocking to the conscious. A moving party went to the magistrate Catt to silence her indigent father from Maine, whom she hasn't seen in some 20 years, on x; apparently to silence him because he became popular as a conservative speaker-sometimes seen in the international press. None of the speech was unprotected, just to the effect that he lost a daughter due to the culture wars, and another post where he just comments he learned he was a grandfather. No names,images,locations, etc given. Without some associated tort or other criteria defined in the state's long arm statute, a court in Colorado doesn't have personal jurisdiction over a person in Maine. Traditionally, the moving party would have to try the cause in a competent court of jurisdiction in which he is domiciled (Maine). The moving party entitled to any relief per reason of the captive audience (she could just stop listening to her (even blocking) dad especially since she plead it caused her to go into a catatonic state to trigger the emotional distress provision from the UN) ; the old adage "if it hurts don't do it"), and thus the moving party had a remedy without the issuance of an injunction which was to avert her eyes. Additionally, the US First Amendment rejects the heckler's veto. There were some 40 pages in the heavily cited amicus which the Magistrate ignored, and was doing her own thing contrary to clearly established law both of Colorado and the United States-making up analogies as she went along in the explanation of her rulings contrary to milestone rulings of the SCOTUS...which were briefed. More than that, the plaintiff's own attorney held up an exhibit of tweets that at the top was a tweet questioning the court's jurisdiction-and the attorney knew or should have known that she was prosecuting a meritless and frivolous claim contrary to the rules of professional ethics. It's the plaintiff's own exhibit, any attorney going forwards with this case should be disbarred for multiple violations of bar ethics. It's been some 6 months or more, and it seems the ethics complaints have been swept under the rug so the public isn't aware of the chicanery but for targeted marketing. You might as well call the office of attorney regulation overly protective of lawless judges whose politics bends a certain way, and is failing to protect the public from unscrupulous attorneys and magistrates.