Re: They Own the Courthouse

[charles mueller <cmueller@metrolink.net>]

          It wouldn't matter either way.  If Judge Jackson should act
  first--finding Microsoft guilty of contempt, fining it $1 billion per day,
  and clapping Bill Gates in irons--his lawyers will just go across the hall
  and get a 'stay' of that Jackson order, pending the disposition of the case
  by his superiors on the appellate court.  Nor does the civil/criminal
  distinction matter:  Same judges/courts handle both here.  Bottom line:
  Case dismissed, all Jackson orders set aside, Microsoft walks.  Bill's legal
  team gets a bonus check with lots of zeroes on the end, plus the John D.
  Rockefeller award--Robber Baron Protector of the Year citation and the
  'Monopoly Is Good' gold cup.
  
          
  
  
  At 08:08 PM 12/19/97 -0500, you wrote:
  ><snip>
  >
  >>        A likely scenario, then, goes something like this:  Even if Jackson
  >>is incensed enough at the flouting of his recent injunction to hold
  >>Microsoft in contempt, he  won't get a chance to do it or make it stick.
  >>The appeals court is almost certainly going to find the firm innocent of all
  >>charges, probably before the lower court has ruled on the contempt
  >>charge--which means those appellate judges will then set aside the
  >>underlying injunction.  No injunction, no contempt.  Case closed.
  >
  >
  > OK, but suppose the lower court does get the contempt charge through
  >first. Is contempt not a criminal charge?  Would the contempt charge then
  >go to criminal court and therefore be under a different set of judges than
  >the civil court anti-trust charges? Or are civil court contempt charges
  >themselves tried in civil court?
  >
  >
  >