Rendered from the court's authenticated repository
Searchable full text
1,852 characters extracted
—
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
EX PARTE MATTHEWSANDRINGHAM,
Respondent.
In relation to No. RSC-CV-3388
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Following the service of the complaint on the defendant in case No. RSC-CV-3388,
Defendant in that matter stated that he “[does not] care.” Respondent here then requested that
sanctions be applied to the defendant on the basis of his “willingness to openly obstruct this
proceeding.”
The court explained that this request was wholly inappropriate, as the defendant has a
right to reply and deny or affirm, or to not reply. A sanction ought not to be assessed for the
utilization of a right guaranteed to that person. While reprimanding the respondent, he began to
type. The court instructed Respondent not to interrupt, yet the responded interrupted anyways.
An order to show cause was issued, and a response was made by the respondent.
The response argues, inter alia, that the respondent was only making a defense of
himself. No sanction, contempt, or other allegation was levied or assessed against the respondent
at the time. Even if there was, after hearing a specific instruction not to interrupt, it can be
reasonably assumed that a defense could be provided at a later time in line with the due process
rights of the respondent. In any case, while the court must provide the opportunity to make a
defense to an allegation, the respondent is only entitled to make that defense at the time and in
the manner which the court dictates.
Following the response, and considering the same, Respondent is found in contempt with
respect to his conduct contrary to the court’s instructions. A fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000)
is assessed, to be paid on or before the 9th of August, 2024.
Done: August 6, 2024 SO ORDERED:
At Palmer, Ridgeway
_______________________________
Hon. notsfeelings
Superior Court Judge
1
Document record
File size
75.3 KB
Uploaded
Aug 4, 2024 12:00 PM
Filed
Aug 4, 2024 12:00 PM
Filing code
COMPLAINT
Uploaded by
MatthewSandringham
Notes
Ruling_RSC-CV-3388_1657-080724.pdf — archived from the Trello docket (https://trello.com/c/Zgj7mlVF)
