Haberman v. Rhoad, No. 2006 DR 007754 SC (Fla. Cir. Ct., Family Div. Sarasota County injunction issued Sept. 7, 2006).

Status: Injunction modified to specify web sites covered (Jan. 29, 2008).

Kristen Rhoad, who accuses her ex-husband Phil Haberman of abuse and of falsifying his military record, posted several statements about him on her blog, rhoadwarrior.blogspot.com (no longer active), and several other web sites and some newspapers have posted and published similar materials regarding Haberman’s alleged exaggerations of his military experience. Haberman filed a complaint alleging that the statements on Rhoad’s blog and elsewhere were cyberstalking under Florida law, and constituted domestic violence. The judge agreed, and issued a standard injunction barring Rhoad from contacting Haberman or committing any violence against him, and also ordered a psychiatric evaluation of Rhoad. In a section of the form labeled “other provisions regarding contact,” the judge handwrote into injunction the order that Rhoad to “remove, or cause to remove, all blogs, e-mails or other web-based communications to [Haberman] or third parties that refer to [Haberman], and which are posted, or caused to be posted, by [Rhoad].” Rhoad filed a motion to dissolve the injunction on jurisdictional grounds, but the motion was denied. Nevertheless, Rhoad continued to update her site, and was no effort to enforce the order against other sites. In January 2007, the judge ordered Rhoad to appear on charges of civil contempt. Although she faxed two requests for an adjournment, the hearing was held and a warrant was issued for her arrest. This led the blog to be removed. In January 2008, the court modified the order at Haberman’s request to name the specific web sites involved, which he said was necessary to have the content removed.

Links and Court Documents:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/haberman-v-rhoad

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/story/6760022p-6629130c.html

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/spot/archive.asp?postID=3994

http://sarasota.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A112941

http://sarasota.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A114918

In re Grand Jury Proceedings; Joshua Wolf, No. 06-90064 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2006)
Status: After being jailed for 226 days for contempt, blogger was released after agreeing to post material on his web site

A protest on July 8, 2005 in San Francisco tied to a meeting of world leaders in Scotland, turned violent, with a police officer assaulted and suffering a fractured skull. There was also an alleged “potential attempted arson” of a San Francisco city police car. Since the police car had been purchased with federal funds, a federal grand jury began investigating whether a federal crime had been committed. During the course of its investigation, federal law enforcement learned that videoblogger and freelance journalist Joshua Wolf had videotaped portions of the protest, and posted portions of his footage on his website and sold a video clip to Indymedia, NBC, and television stations KTVU and KRON. On Feb. 1, 2006, Wolf was served with a grand jury subpoena ordering him to appear before the grand jury with all his footage. Wolf refused, and on Aug. 1, 2006, the District Court for the Northern District of California ordered that he be held in civil contempt and jailed for his refusal to produce the footage that had not already been shown. Wolf appealed the district court’s contempt order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the contempt order on Sept. 8, 2006. Wolf v. U.S., No. 06-16403, 2006 WL 2631398 (9th Cir. Sept. 8, 2006) (O’Scannlain, Graber, Clifton, JJ.). On April 3, 2007, Wolf was released after he agreed to post the video online, thus making it available to prosecutors, as long as he was not required to testify before the grand jury.

Links and Court Documents:
Court documents available at http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Hot_Topics/Reporters_Privilege/Wolf/Wolf.htm

Trummel v. Mitchell, No. ______ (Wash. Super. Ct., King County 2002).

Status: Contempt citation reversed

Paul Trummel was sent to jail in February 2002, after he refused to comply with the judge’s order to remove from his website (http://www.contracabal.net) the names and addresses of the administrators of the low-income senior citizens’ residence in Seattle where he had lived ("Council House"). He ended up spending 111 days in jail.
He was released in June 2002 after Judge Doerty revised the order to prohibit Trummel from coming withing 500 feet of Council House.
The Washington intermediate appeals court upheld the order of contempt, but the Washington Supreme Court reversed. Trummel v. Mitchell, 131 P.3d 305 (Wash. March 30, 2006).

Trummel still faces six charges for violating Judge Doerty’s order and failing to appear in court, and there is a warrant for his arrest. His whereabouts are unknown, even to his attorney, but he is apparently reachable by e-mail and was still updating his websites in early April 2006.

Links and Court Documents:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3659307/

http://www.politechbot.com/2006/04/04/washington-supreme-court/

CRIMINAL CASE: Ohio v. Baumgartner, No. CR-05-470184-A (Ohio C.P. Ct., Cuyahoga County indictment Aug. 30, 2005)
Ohio v. DuBois, No. CR-05-470184-B (Ohio C.P. Ct., Cuyahoga County indictment Aug. 30, 2005)
Status: Baumgartner is appealing her conviction; Charges against DuBois dismissed pursuant to plea bargain.

Elsebeth Baumgartner of Oak Harbor, Ohio and Bryan DuBois of Sandusky, Ohio allegedly used their site www.erievoices.com to libel and harass retired Cuyahoga County Judge Richard Markus, who had presided over a libel lawsuit against Baumgartner that ended with a $175,000 verdict against Baumgartner.

During the trial in this case, on criminal charges of intimidation and harassment for the web site postings and other activities, Baumgartner moved to have trial judge Shirley Strickland Saffold removed from the case. Although Saffold refused to recuse herself, Baumgartner continued to argue for recusal. Saffold eventually ordered her jailed for contempt. Baumgartner then presented a note from her doctor that she was not competent to stand trial, and Saffold ordered her admitted to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation.

In March 2006 DuBois pleaded guilty to separate charges against him in Ottowa County. As part of the plea bargain, the Cuyahoga County charges were dismissed and DuBois agreed to testify against Baumgartner in her trial.

On June 1, 2006, Baumgartner was again found in contempt and jailed; she was released on Oct. 5. On Oct. 31, 2006, Baumgartner was found guilty of 27 counts of contempt of court, and on Nov. 15 she was found guilty of 15 felony counts of intimidation and retaliation. On Nov. 28, 2006, Baumgartner was fined $2,700 and sentenced to 120 days in jail for the contempt counts, which she is appealing; on Dec. 18, 2006, she was sentenced to eight years in prison for the intimidation and retaliation counts, with the sentence stayed pending appeal. But her bond was revoked in 2008, after Baumgartner filed yet another lawsuit in violation of the conditions of her appeal bond. Baumgartner appealed the bond revocation, but the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed (Baumgartner v. Duffey, 2009-Ohio-1218, 2009 WL 792230 (slip opinion)).

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/state-v-baumgartner
http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060328/NEWS01/603280303
http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=14346&sid=38099&bw= (video)
http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050927/NEWS01/509270301/1002
http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051214/NEWS01/512140306/1002
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/060206BaumgartnerJailed.html
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0603/20060329_Wed_Greg1.mp3 (audio)
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/100506ReleasedFromJail.html
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061031/NEWS02/610310359
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/116367081364530.xml&coll=2
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061129/NEWS02/611290323/-1/NEWS
http://www.sanduskyregister.com/articles/2008/05/10/front/754929.txt

Moore v. O'Bannon, No. _____ (Miss. Cir. Ct., Hines County filed March 2006
Status: Unknown

Jackson, Miss. minister Rev. Ronald K. Moore and his wife sued Valerie O'Bannon, a Jackson native now living in Minnesota, over a web site (which no longer exists) that she launched in January 2006 which claims that she and Moore had a five-month affair. In February, Moore won an order from a Mississippi Chancery Court judge ordering O'Bannon to take down the site, and tried to have her jailed for contempt when she did not do so. But the Chancery judge held that the matter belonged in Circuit Court, and Moore filed suit in that court shortly thereafter.

Links and Court Documents:
http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/archive.php?ac=t&forumid=4052&date=06-20-2006&t=754127-1

In Re: Anderson, Nos. 2004-295,192-GA; 2004-295,193-CA; and 2006-307, 599-CZ (Mich. Probate Ct., Oakland County.
Status: Gag order rescinded

A probate judge presiding over a long-running dispute between Diane Anderson and her brother David Anderson over care of their elderly mother ordered Diane Anderson to take down a web site she was maintaining (www.davidcarlandersonandelderabuse.com), where she commented on the proceedings. Szymanski said that he issued in order in frustration over Anderson’s behavior in court. “She is not willing to accept rulings and she continues to argue,” he told the Detroit Free Press. “I warned her four or five times.”
After Anderson refused to remove the site, Judge David Szymanski ordered her immediately jailed at a morning hearing on Dec. 8, 2008.
After she was held for about an hour, she was returned to Judge Szymanski’s court.
She again refused to remove the site, and was jailed again for another three hours before she was released, pending a hearing on Dec. 11.
On Dec. 10, the site disappeared.
At the Dec. 11 hearing, Judge Szymanski rescinded his order, and said that Anderson could continue posting on her site.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200881210119
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200881211066