Kimsey

United States v. Kimsey

Good Law
668 F.3d 691·2012 WL 386338·2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2449
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 8, 201210-16800California6,197 words

Opinion

Opinion

Berzon, J.

James Edward Kimsey (“Kimsey”) has in the past engaged in the unauthorized practice of law as well as other dishonest activities involving the legal system. Alluding to his recent exploits, the government characterized Kimsey as a charlatan. Whether that is so or not, our legal system does not punish people simply because they have been proven unscrupulous in the past and are continuing to engage in dubious activities. That is why “the government may not ... prove that the defendant is a bad person, simply to show that in all likelihood he acted criminally on the occasion at issue.” United States v. Martinez, 182 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.1999). Rather, the legal system punishes people for proven violations of specific laws.

In the ease before us, Kimsey was convicted of criminal contempt of court in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 402 . The contemptuous act for which the district judge convicted Kimsey, who is not a lawyer, was the “ghostwriting” of eight pleadings for a pro se litigant in a civil lawsuit. Section 402 provides that any person who willfully disobeys a “rule ... of any district court” shall be prosecuted for contempt if the contumacious act also constitutes “a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.