Comments on: Involuntary Servitude

By: relieve tinnitus

relieve tinnitus — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:08:18 +0000

I simply could not leave your site before suggesting that I extremely loved the standard info an individual provide for your guests? Is gonna be back frequently to check up on new posts

By: Essie Feldhacher

Essie Feldhacher — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:27:05 +0000

Somone said: Worse Things Than Jury Duty?

May I inquire, WHAT that would BE?! Six Root canals for uppers and another set for lowers, inflicted sans novocaine?

Actually, it probably depends on the luck of the draw on one’s ‘peers’ on the jury how good or bad it IS. Get one heavily peopled by…men…of the Uneducated-And-Damned-Proud-Of-It-Ilk, and a few sharp femmes, and you’ve got a mean mix of misogynistic undercurrents that can absolutely and totally derail ANYthing smacks of justice. Especially if the one being prosecuted is a bimbo who could clank -trip you around the ankle with a hooker’s type high-heeled shoe, beat ya to the ground, and her hardened wizened street-smart-system-wise face hidden behind a skirt flown up and we all know Da Guys are more Visually Stimulated than Da Wimmens, LOL.

OR…reverse the gender numbers, fill it with NOW attitudes, and see what you’ve got to persecute some normal decent dude who wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell with the Man-Haters. Voir Dire is how they can stack such ugly decks of people…. IMO they oughta herd juries in like sheep – what ya get is what goes past the gate. The FUNNIEST and dearest juror I ever watched was one who had Tourette Syndrome and was seated ANYway, and the more exciting things got, and the louder the attorneys became, the more this darling little girl about age 21 barked and howled like a demented hound-dawg.

Oops. Sorry. Bet the filter that controls these responses just upchucked my words that’ll never see the light of day as they’re enroute to be removed from the Bowels of the System, heh, heh.

By: Linda Brady Traynham

Linda Brady Traynham — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:04:34 +0000

Dear Mike: The ways of the filter are mysterious and your interesting thoughts just popped up. I have been restraining myself for quite some time about blasting the Democrats’ boast that they are “the best and brightest of the best and brightest,” another of the big lies they push constantly and one I find offensive in many ways. Attending Harvard or one of the seven sisters is far more likely to be a legacy or the result of political or financial clout, and certainly no guarantee of intelligence, achievement, or ethics. Teddy Kennedy’s scholastic career comes to mind easily. “Temporary” went to the big name school, but he was mocked as a yokel and dumb, leading us to suppose that only liberals can benefit from going to Yale, Harvard, or even the London School of Economics. I”ll put up an article on my experiences, the tenor of which was that what they were looking for was nice, docile jurors who would accept simplistic presentations and believe that they had only one duty: to vote guilty or not-guilty. Understand the issues? Ask for clarification or second opionions? Horrors, no! There was worse going on, as you shall see. Thanks for writing. Cordially, Linda

By: Linda Brady Traynham

Linda Brady Traynham — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:04:16 +0000

Dear (Mr.?) Phelps: Thanks for the info and advice, Very interesting. My little excursion was very informative, and I was horrified when Judgie-wudgie told me that my “peer” is defined as a citizen, at least 18, capable of reading and speaking some English, who has never been convicted of a felony, and is not under indictment. Both attorneys told us the general rule is “You talk, you walk!” Who knows how “random” the first list was? Who knows what determined the second, when I stayed 20th? I questioned the Judge about contempt and he says he almost never does it because it involves too much paperwork! Common law courts have their charms; our Texas Constitution is for an appointed or elected judge, the first six citizens who are willing to do it, and no lawyers allowed!

By: Phelps

Phelps — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:55:14 +0000

Is it contempt of court to wear the same thing throughout a trial? No. I wouldn't say that we see it often, but we see it regularly. Proper dress for jurors is much more relaxed than the attorneys (see My Cousin Vinnie). Generally, long pants and collars on men, pants or skirt for ladies, and keep your hoo-hoo-dilly and cha-chas covered. That's about it. Almost all judges allow bottled water in the jury box now, and most allow anything that's got a cap and isn't alcoholic. County Court at Law is all small beer stuff. Class A&B misdemeanors and civil stuff that falls between small claims court and state court (between $1,000 and maybe $100,000 at the top end.) I would be astonished to hear about a County Court at Law trial that lasted more than three days. BTW, honesty is always fine, but if the judge thinks that you are answering questions a certain way just to get off the jury, that is considered contempt in our Republic, and you might get hammered. The problem with contempt, too, is that you don't get a sentence. The judge just tosses you in the dock until he or she thinks you've had enough. It could be worse. We used to pick juries by sending the sheriff out to grab the first twelve poor souls walking by the courthouse that he saw. And we have AC now. 50 years ago, they held court without it, and the lawyers still weren't allowed to take off their jackets. Of course, they were allowed to smoke cigars and there were spittoons every five feet, but I'm not sure that's a plus in a room full of sweat soaked wool.

By: steverino

steverino — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:04:45 +0000

Oh—so glad you didn’t object to the “Madame”!!
Keep up the great stuff, OK?
Thanks!

By: steverino

steverino — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:01:47 +0000

I’ll bet you haven’t cussed on this site since God was a little girl!

By: Linda Brady Traynham

Linda Brady Traynham — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:08:40 +0000

Splendid ideas, James! A quick report on my antics in court. I got lucky with the random drawing and was 20th out of 24 to seat a jury of 6. I enlivened a dull, idle period in the hall and charmed the others so that they decreed unanimously that I should be Jury Foreman. I terrorized the DA and the Defense Attorney, and as we left the Judge shook my hand (as a special favor?) and told me with a twinkle that I’m a menace. I thanked him cheerfully. Best of all I wasn’t selected to determine if the fellow all shined up and looking like co-counsel is guilty of committing assault with bodily injury upon persons at present undisclosed on the night of December 14, 2008.

By: James the Wanderer

James the Wanderer — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:21:51 +0000

I think what you really want is to get on a GRAND jury – you know, the kind that gets to forage and explore? I think, with a little creativity, one could probably get a grand jury convened, perhaps, to look at a corrupt county official, to look at the ENTIRE county government – and maybe some of the state! True, no one wants the job of being janitor to a government – but what alternative do we have?
The judiciary won’t look unless two opponents can be found, and one persuaded to sue the other.
The executive won’t even look, in case its part of the corruption.
The legislative usually IS the corruption.
So a grand jury is about the only mechanism left to root out the corruption.
I wouldn’t want the job either – but God help them if I ever got it.
There sure would be a lot of changes around here – and little “status quo” left.
But I dream – all this will implode long before significant reforms could be implemented. Time to go buy some more gold and silver, for the rebuilding.
And maybe the next Constitution will actually have a “right to privacy” in it – nothing to do with just abortions, but a restriction to keep the Feds out of everyone’s business.

By: Linda Brady Traynham

Linda Brady Traynham — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:20:26 +0000

Bill, I love your idea, except if we had a professional juror class someone would find a way to taint it, don’t you think? I have always loved Robert Heinlein’s “Fair Witness,” who testified only to things he or she had obeserved personally. “What color is that house?” Answer: “White. On this side, which is North.”