This page receives lots of "hits." We recommend that if you haven't done so, to read this section's introduction. This article is not legal advice. It pertains to civil contempt. While it gives some explanation of contempt of court, it does not apply to those who are seeking to hold others in contempt. Personal spite, revenge and hurt only feeds judicial corruption to abuse contempt powers.

This section is not for parties involved in Family Court. While contempt is general, the states have their own laws. This section mainly applies to contempt found by federal courts.

There are two different types of contempt of court. One is criminal contempt. The other is civil contempt. The attorneys and bankruptcy trustees who use contempt of court as a threat generally give their victims the impression that it is a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment.

Civil contempt is applied when court orders are disobeyed. Civil contempt is most commonly described as giving the person their own key. When they are willing to obey what the court wants, the cell is opened and the person walks out. Obeying the court's order before the Rule to Show Cause is heard by the court MAY render the Rule to Show Cause as moot or result in a sanction.

In many civil cases, judges use contempt of court to force people to obey orders, when they know their orders are void or outside the possibility of being obeyed.

For example, we have witnessed bankruptcy judges order people to give thousands of dollars to bankruptcy trustees for "costs of administration." Such costs represent money that the trustee will pocket under color of official right. Several months later, the trustee will file a Rule to Show Cause, which is essentially an order for contempt.

In the Ninth Circuit bankruptcy courts, an application for Rule to Show Cause is first filed. The court then enters an order on the application. If the order is favorable for the accused to show cause, a hearing is then scheduled.

In the Seventh Circuit bankruptcy courts, (at least in the Western Division), applications for Rule to Show Cause are not needed. Motions for Rule to Show Cause are filed and a hearing on the motion is then scheduled without first issuing a Rule to Show Cause.

In the 17th Judicial Circuit of Winnebago County, IL, it has been reported to us that a judge ordered $3,000.00 a month in child support when the man only earned approximately $2,000.00. When the court knows that orders are impossible to obey, contempt of court violates the purpose of justice, our civil and constitutional rights.

According to 11 USC, Rule 9020, bankruptcy Judges have no authority to punish for contempt of court. Understand this to say that bankruptcy judges can find one in contempt of court, but they have no authority to sentence people to jail for criminal contempt. There are no decisions by the courts of appeals concerning the authority of bankruptcy judges to punish for either civil or criminal contempt under the 1984 amendments.

Although federal rule provides that those charged with contempt in the bankruptcy court can oppose contempt orders to the federal district court, there are games played when the federal district courts receive opposition.

First, a bankruptcy court judge can find one in contempt. However, unless the order imposes fines or action otherwise, that order is not final and therefore, not appellable. Bankruptcy trustees use such orders to their advantage to paint the accused in the worst way -- "This court found the defendant in contempt."

Secondly, 11 USC Rule 9020, provides for objections to bankruptcy Judges orders for contempt to be filed within 10 days. If objections are filed within 10 days of service of the order, the district court conducts a de novo (anew, afresh), review pursuant to Rule 9033 and any order of contempt is entered by the district court on completion of the court's review of the bankruptcy judge's order. This is tricky ...

Objections are not objections. Rather, the federal district court will not accept objections to contempt orders unless it is filed as an appeal. That means that filing fees must be paid. It also means that under certain conditions, the accused must obtain a stay order.

Judges do continue proceedings on the issues involving contempt, and contempt proceedings also, unless defendants obtain a stay of proceedings pending appeal. At times, judges play games with contempt orders while appeals are pending because they know the orders did not sanction, order monetary or sentencing, and therefore, are not final, appealable orders. That provides them color of official right to continue proceedings on the basis of the finding for contempt, although the finding for contempt is not a final order.

Stay or contempt orders pending appeal must be obtained from the same judge that entered the contempt order -- an impossibility. Once denied, the order denying stay pending appeal can be appealed. However, now the party has two appeals pending, while the court continues to proceed and enforce contempt and all the issues it involves.

It appears to be a common practice for parties, including attorneys and judges, to threaten litigants with contempt before any orders are entered. We are not recommending that anyone take charges for contempt of court lightly. Our intent is to educate people to avoid the fear and trauma of threats for contempt of court, especially when threatened with contempt before judges have entered orders or made any decision.

A new development is taking place in the bankruptcy courts, and some state courts as well. Those filing notice of appeal to court orders find they are found in contempt of court shortly after filing notice of appeal. This mostly happens to pro se individuals. Judges effectively deprive people of appeals by jailing them on bogus contempt charges the moment they discover that a notice of appeal has been filed. This effectively keeps them from pursuing due process, because if you're behind bars, you can't prepare appeal briefs. It's a way of forcing obedience to unjust or void court orders and once you submit to the order, it might render the appeal moot.

Bankruptcy Judge Manual Barbosa has demonstrated entering orders to have people taken into custody by the U.S. Marshall before the ten days are exhausted. In two adversary cases, (02-07017 and 02-07018), Judge Barbosa entered orders for contempt on Thursday, and the order for custody on Monday, although the people filed their objection that Monday morning. To complicate matters more, when the men appeared in court to challenge the custody order, Judge Barbosa made them work things out with the trustee, with six U.S. Marshalls present. The trustee coerced them into a payment arrangement to give him money before their appeal was due to be filed on the threat that he would have the U.S. Marshall lock them up until they agreed to a payment arrangement. These were non-debtor parties.

Often, it is by individuals voluntarily agreeing to give money or settle issues that provides judges the privilege of entering orders approving settlements. If you make a commitment to give an amount of money, make sure you can keep that commitment before the judge approves it.

Think logically. If you are unable to turnover property ordered by the court, chances are you will be denied, or have revoked, the discharge of debts. The end will be the same if you submit to threats and make an agreement you cannot keep; that is, you will still be denied the discharge of debts. The difference is that if you are found in contempt of court for not keeping your word, the U.S. Trustee, Chapter 7 trustee, or bankruptcy judge can focus on the contempt to draw attention away from evidence of the use of threats, force and fear, to commit extortion under color of official right. If you cannot fulfill your payment committment, and without a discharge of debts, you will still have to pay your debts AND the trustee's compensation.

If you make an agreement to give money to the bankruptcy trustee in installments, and are unable to continue to make the total payments, there is likelihood that the trustee will deny or revoke your discharge of debts as he threatened to do to get you to agree to the payment arrangements. If this happens, you will not receive any money back that you already paid. It is demonstrated in such cases that the trustee will consume the payment(s) you did make, diverting it to his compensation and expenses. Therefore, give serious thought to what you are agreeing with before you agree with it.

There are orders entered by the courts that if disobeyed, leads into civil contempt. There are also orders given verbally by the courts that if disobeyed, leads to civil contempt with the parties carted away to jail until they agree to do what the court wants.

For instance, the court may enter order that you pay the other party within 5 days. If you do not, the process begins for you to show cause as to why you disobeyed the court's order.

The court may order you to testify of the burying place of your grandmother, (although she is not deceased). That's an answer you cannot possibly provide. The court finds you in contempt, has the baliff handcuff you and carted away to jail until you agree to tell the court where your grandmother is buried. You will need an attorney to develop and present a writ of habeaus before the court. That might take several days or several weeks. Hearing is held on the writ, and depending on the judge hearing it, you may or may not be released from jail.

Contempt, whether civil or criminal, does not provide public defenders, that is, free legal representation. Contempt defendants are not in jail for committing a crime. They are not deprived of liberty without due process of law, as the judiciary considers that contempt defendants received due process of law when they refused to obey the court's order.

You will want to consult with legal counsel, or if pro per or pro se, research the laws of your state if a state proceeding, or federal if a federal proceeding, to see if you have rights to a trial by jury at the hearing to show cause.

We do not know of any person requesting trial by jury in contempt proceedings in bankruptcy courts to be granted jury trial. Bankruptcy judges determine if matters are core or non-core. To their advantage, they find that matters are core to deprive litigants rights of trial by jury, and this includes contempt hearings.

Finally, we come to the reality of standing before a judge that has contempt powers. We know of cases where no notice of hearing was given before contempt was charged. We know of cases where parties requested trial by jury for their contempt trial, and were denied. We know of cases where people could not answer what was asked of them in court, and they were immediately handcuffed and carted off to jail.

What we know of these cases is that all parties were not represented by legal counsel. Judges place more pressure on pro se and pro per parties. In their mind, pro se and pro per parties are already demonstrating disrespect by appearing in court without an attorney. You are on your own. It's a way that judges convey, "So you think you can represent yourself? Let's see you do it from behind bars!"