That Went Well...

A mis-step by the prosecution results in a mistrial for Roger Clemens.  A Sept. 2 hearing will determine whether a new trial will keep the streets safe from disgraced former Major Leaguers.

Comments

[Sue]

They aren't prosecuting Cindy Anthony for perjury but they are prosecuting Roger Clemens. Not the same people doing both, but still. Something is wrong here. We're broke folks. Lets move on, shall we?

[Thomas Collins]

Looking forward to those JOMers who have done criminal litigation weighing in on this. My questions are: Even if it is concluded the mistrial ruling does not preclude retrial, how will a new jury ever be found that hasn't been exposed to evidence that Judge Walton deemed prejudicial beyond repair in this case? And if the answer is such a jury won't be found, how can any future trial be held purged of the taint?

[Charlie (Colorado)]

They aren't prosecuting Cindy Anthony for perjury but they are prosecuting Roger Clemens. Not the same people doing both, but still. Something is wrong here. We're broke folks. Lets move on, shall we?

The one thing Casey Anthony was convicted of was lying to police. I presume if it'd been under oath they'd have made those perjury charges.

[Jane]

Lets move on, shall we?

As long as we move on to Eric Holder, who lied to Congress, under oath recently. I want him tried and jailed.

TC,

I have no idea what that evidence is, and I actually pay attention. It's not that hard.

[Dave (in MA)]

Precedent suggests that they should just impeach the Rocket and then not bother to prosecute. If they do prosecute, further precedent would indicate that, if found guilty, he should be disbarred and given a morning AM talk show slot in Boston.

[Threadkiller]

Now I understand "precedent". Thanks Dave.

[Thomas Collins]

How about a Tri-City show, Dave(in MA)? Clemens in Houston, Finneran in Boston and Buddy Cianci in Providence.

[Mike Giles]

"Lets move on, shall we?"

"As long as we move on to Eric Holder, who lied to Congress, under oath recently. I want him tried and jailed.

TC,

I have no idea what that evidence is, and I actually pay attention. It's not that hard."

Sigh. No, no, no. Eric Holder is a Dimocrap he doesn't "lie", he simply makes "misstatements" under oath. Understand?

[Extraneus]

I think Janet would agree that Clemens should be censured.

[Thomas Collins]

Jane, by the time a new jury is empanelled, don't you think that most if not all potential jurors will have read or heard that Rep. Cummings, in the Clemens hearings, referred to an affidavit of Laura Pettite to the effect that her husband, Andy Pettite, had told her that Clemens told him that he had used HGH? Even if a juror doesn't get all of that, won't he or she have heard that Andy Pettite told his wife that Clemens had admitted using HGH?

In any event, see LUN for a short article on the double jeopardy issue.

[Ranger]

A little more on poll numbers via RCP today:

Iowa President
Mason-Dixon

Romney (R) 47

Obama (D) 44

Romney (R) +3.0

Iowa President
Mason-Dixon

Obama (D) 47

Bachmann (R) 46

Obama (D) +1.0

Obama only leads Bachmann in Iowa by 1%?

No wonder Obama is so tense and unhappy right now.

[peter]

That Judge's name sounds so familiar............Reggie Walton... Reggie Walton, where do I know that name from? lun

[daddy]

Ted Stevens sure could have used this Judge.

Can't recall how many times Judge Emmet Sullivan found gross misdeeds by the Prosecutorial team and simply let it slide after a supposedly stern verbal warnings.

[Jane]

Jane, by the time a new jury is empanelled, don't you think that most if not all potential jurors will have read or heard that Rep. Cummings, in the Clemens hearings, referred to an affidavit of Laura Pettite to the effect that her husband, Andy Pettite, had told her that Clemens told him that he had used HGH?

Sheesh TC, I guess I can't be on that jury now. Thanks a lot!

[Dino]

This kabuki was scripted from the get-go. Nobody really wants to prosecute the Rocket. Case closed. Next!

[Tom Maguire]

Jane, by the time a new jury is empanelled, don't you think that most if not all potential jurors will have read or heard that Rep. Cummings, in the Clemens hearings, referred to an affidavit of Laura Pettite to the effect that her husband, Andy Pettite, had told her that Clemens told him that he had used HGH?

Not if my wife is on the panel - "Who's Roger Clemens?" will be her first question.

Between Roger Rabbit and Laurie Petrie, I think we can count on most Americans giving this a miss. Which means the waste of time retrial will proceed.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Televised at 5, 6, and 11.

You left that out.

[Agent J. (formally known as "J"..]

Ranger - Dick Morris said last night on O'Riely that if, in any poll the President is under 50% then 85% of the undecided will vote for the the candidate not the President.

If my math is correct, then Romney would be + 10+/-.

Bachmann +/- 5..

[Agent J. (formally known as "J"..]

Should have been Bachmann +5+/-.

[MarkO]

Yes fans, I want to see Roger prosecuted and harshly. Not only did he foul a game I love by juicing up and pretending to be clean, he voluntarily waltzed into Congress and told such bald-face lies that he should be prosecuted simply for hubris. Double for his idiot lawyer.

Sadly, I note that the civil and criminal "justice" systems are worsened by the fact that lying goes unpunished, whoever it is--President on down. With no real enforcement of perjury, witnesses make up stories so wild, like Roger's, that even robust impeachment seems nearly useless.

Juries say, "Well, everyone lies."

If everyone lies, let's forego the oath.

As for Roger and his cheating ilk, shame will not subdue him. Jail might.

[Captain Hate]

Fat Roger is human garbage; you don't need a trial to determine that.

[Sue]

The one thing Casey Anthony was convicted of was lying to police. I presume if it'd been under oath they'd have made those perjury charges.

Cindy not Casey. Her mother perjured herself but the prosecution has decided not to pursue it.

[Threadkiller]

Sorry CH, I meant to post that last night.

First I would like to apologize to MarkO. I lied about using Google. I used the internet for the initial research years ago.

Several years ago a close friend and former employer of mine was telling me about the red light camera tickets his employees were getting in his delivery trucks. I was curious how a ticket for an individual could be addressed to a corporation. In other words, if a corporation cannot be the physical driver, how can it be accused of a moving violation?

Like other issues, when my mind is made up I cannot let it go. I kept pressing my friend on my feeling that he did not have to rat anyone out. He was not concerned because ultimately he would pass the information on to the enforcing agency and they would then ticket the driver my friend identified.

So I did some research. As it turned out (this is where Google came into play) I found out that the enforcing agency first sends out a “snitch ticket”. This is not a real ticket. There is no “Notice to appear” anywhere on it. It includes a picture of the driver, a picture of the intersection, and a picture of the license plate. The text of the “snitch tickets” says you have to give the name of the driver, if it was not you, in order to have the ticket dismissed. I found nothing in law to back up that claim. If you snitch the real ticket is then issued to the person you identified. If you don’t snitch they then send the real ticket to the registered owner.

In California a moving violation can only be issued to a person. So my first thought was to register my cars in a corporate name. This was not practical for many reasons. I then decided to register the car my wife drove the most in my name, and the car I drove the most in her name.

Three years later this preparedness worked to my benefit. A red light camera “snitch” ticket was mailed to me in April that had a photo of my wife driving. Despite the formalness of the letter, that demanded I rat out my wife, I saw no reason to do so. They used the registration information and ticketed the wrong person. Their loss.

The letter warned that I needed to respond to the enforcing agency within 14days. I did not. I then received the real ticket. A Notice to Appear with my name and drivers license number attached to a picture of my wife blazing thru a red light (she was on the cell phone too.)

I went to court on my appearance date, a Wednesday, and was told “sorry but we handle these tickets only on Thursdays between 11 and 2.” WHAT?!? It turns out they want you to go to a dedicated room at the courthouse and be interviewed by the officer that signs all the photo-tickets. I told the clerk that it does not say that anywhere on the “Notice to Appear” so why can’t I go see the judge?

Sorry, she said, that is just the policy. This set off a 2 hour commotion that went to most supervisors on the floor. I told them I had no intention of coming back and this was to be handled that day. “But sir, if you come back tomorrow you can see the officer and he will dismiss it.” Then a judge can do that today, I said.

“Sorry sir, but if you are claiming another person was driving then you cannot fight the ticket. Only the person who was driving can fight the ticket.” Here we go!! I asked the supervisor for the printed version of that policy and it turned out they did not have that available. I then gave her the analogy: “If I was arrested for robbing a bank and the video tape showed that a woman robbed the bank, would I have to identify the woman before I could get out of jail even though ‘I am a man’?” “Do I have to wait for her to come forward, because it is a crime she committed and until then I am not allowed to defend a charge against me?”

Into the back they went. After their huddle, the supervisor returned to tell me that a judge agreed to let me appear before her. Clutch the pearls!! The clerks did not have a clue how to enter my ticket into the computer because “nobody does it this way.”

I went into the courtroom and took a seat. I noticed that every clerk and supervisor I dealt with filed in and out of the courtroom and they all seemed to be in on some sort of collective joke. It occurred to me that, even though this was an arraignment and the ticket could be thrown out at this level, maybe they were going to take my not guilty plea and force it to trial. That would cost me the bail money while I waited.

When my name was called, I approached the stand with the photo ticket held high so as to make it obvious. The lead pesky supervisor came back and sat down with a giant smile on her face. Ugh. As her Honor read the charge against me I kept tapping the photo of my wife until the bailiff took notice of it. “How do you plea?” I said ”Not Guilty, and I believe this can be resolved today”

Her Honor, smiling, responded that she was sorry; this was not the place to fight the ticket. My not guilty plea only sends me to another court at a later date. Double ugh.

As I was composing my thoughts the bailiff, of all people, says “your Honor, this is clearly a female in the photo.” Now I get to smile! Her Honor is stumped as the bailiff walks it to her and she is compelled to look.

With a very straight and serious face she asked me if the person in the photo was my significant other. I told her that I had only come to court prepared to tell her Honor that the person in the photo was not I.

Case dismissed.

What it boiled down to, CH, was my acting on that hunch three years ago. In California, they have to ticket the driver for a moving violation, not the vehicle. I kept the vehicle out of my name.

They cannot force you to rat out anyone but you have to watch your words. I was not about to say I did not know the person in the photo.

There would be no mistrial if TK perjures himself. I would be toast.

[daddy]

Speaking of Judges,..

ADN reports this exchange happened yesterday during a confirmation hearing of a female Alaskan Justice to the Federal Bench in response to questions from Al Franken and Orin Hatch:

"Franken, the comedian who was elected to the Senate from Minnesota in 2008, asked Christen what she learned from her role in state litigation over the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Christen, one of four lawyers representing the state on its liability claims against Exxon, said she learned about working within a much larger legal team.

"My job was focused on compiling the most accurate record I could of the timeline of events, 24 hours before the grounding of the tanker and 24 hours after the grounding of the tanker," Christen said.

"Leading up to that, there was some drinking involved, was there?" Franken asked.

"Not by the litigation team," Christen quipped.

The friends and family of various judicial nominees who packed the hearing room burst out laughing.

"I'll do the jokes," said Franken.

"I kind of like hers better," Hatch chimed in."

link

[Captain Hate]

Like other issues, when my mind is made up I cannot let it go.

If that story wasn't so great, I'd think you made it up just to get the above line in.

Two other stories about traffic cams here in Ohio: One guy got a photo of his license plate and a demand for payment. He sent back a photo of the money. He subsequently received a photo of handcuffs and sent the fine in. The other story was covered in the local news about a guy who received a ticket even though his vehicle wasn't in the same state at the time of the offense. After a *lot* of mucking around it was determined that it was a license from a different state (I think they were vanity plates that didn't even look the same) but it still took a long time and effort to fight.

[Threadkiller]

I kept the vehicle out of my her name.

[Threadkiller]

Got to run. Glad you enjoyed it, CH!

[MarkO]

TK. Great work. Arguing with us here has sharpened your already awesome skills.

[Porchlight]

So this is pretty weird. After mentioning last night on the other thread that I'd never been summoned for jury duty, I found a summons in my mailbox this afternoon. Second notice! Somehow I'd missed this tiny little generic looking white postcard the first time.

So it says I can report online. Then what happens? I'm clueless, obviously.

[sbw]

My son did a grand jury term and found it an illuminating learning experience well worth having.

[Porchlight]

I definitely want to be on a jury, sbw. I'm weird that way I guess.

But I had to get a postponement because my husband will be out of town so much in the next couple of months. And they won't tell me the hours I'm needed during the day so I can make alternate plans. So, later in the fall I guess...

[PD]

So it says I can report online. Then what happens? I'm clueless, obviously.

We can trade stories. I got a summons a few weeks back for county court jury duty here. The process is:

* Send in a questionnaire. (I did mine online.) Without this, you cannot file for deferment or exemption (which I am not doing, but you have to submit it anyway).

* Thursday or Friday of the week before, call in to find out whether you need to report Monday morning. If not, you're done. I called today (actually, did this online, too) and my juror number is in the range.

* I have to call again Sunday evening for a second check. If my number is no longer in range, I'm done.

* Assuming I'm still in range, I have to report at the courthouse Monday morning. Then I will find out when I am assigned for a trial that week. If I'm not assigned, I'm done.

* Otherwise, report for the trial at the assigned time.

I called in earlier this week to talk to the clerk of court about a few things:

* The letter I got said most trials are a day or two. I asked whether there is an upper limit on amount of time that might need to be served. (My employer allows up to two weeks, after that it's unpaid leave, which would mean effectively that I'd be paying to be a juror.) She said, there's no upper limit, but "I don't have any two-week trials next week." I don't know how she knows that, but I was glad to hear it.

* The waiting area has wireless. But if I bring my laptop and get called for a trial that day, will I be required to surrender it into someone else's possession? She said, laptops, cell phones, etc. must be surrendered but they are placed in a secure room.

That's not good enough for me to surrender a laptop with a lot of business and personal information on it. How do I know some court employee isn't going to look though it? So I guess I'll be taking only my iPad.

Should I wear an "Impeach Maryann Sumi" shirt?

[Logo design]

This would be a good news if the trial goes well. Hopefully things would go as planned. Thanks for sharing this news with us.

[JM Hanes]

Courtesy of Which Founder Are You?:

Below follow the erstwhile Founding Avatars of our merry little band. I should probably just post the names of those who are not James Madison, but I'm quite sure there are a couple of errors and omissions in need of correction!

[JM Hanes]

John Rutledge
Also known as Holly!

We need you to turn you loose here at JOM, because you are the Founders' staunchest foe of anarchy! You even vetoed the SC Constitution because it fostered radical democracy. Do not discuss your dual citizenship with TK!

[JM Hanes]

Charles Pickney
The one-and-only, hit and run.

You and your brother Thomas might have been the second Prez if you hadn't run against each other and split the Pinckney vote.

[JM Hanes]

William Patterson
Boris, the ambivalent, I believe?

I feel confident that I can speak for JOM -- with the possible exception of Jane -- when I say that you're welcome to use a different set of test results from the Founders' Quiz. You're the only Founding Father who took notes at the Constitutional Convention.

[JM Hanes]

John Quincy Adams

Before we go any further, Danube of Thought, would you please resolve the current controversy over whether or not you are, in fact, a Founder?

In the meantime, we'll take this as evidence that you certainly had the makings of a Father.

[JM Hanes]

George Mason
Please welcome kave & Tonto!
I'm almost positive that I'm missing a third. Bueller?

You made so much cider, you had to ferment it in hogsheads, (copious quantities of which you shared with that other George who didn't need his teeth for it), while apparently making brandy from any fruit that hit the ground.

[JM Hanes]

Benjamin Franklin
And the kite strings go to Agent J and Thread Killer!

An unspecified number of JOM mud wrestlers appreciate the wisdom of your approach to debauchery -- older women are much to be preferred -- but they'd leave you on your ass in the dust if you ever told them why.

[JM Hanes]

Roger Sherman
Getting a little less lonely now, so the list has migrated to the netherend.

You'll be glad to hear that Thos. Jefferson testified that you were "a man who never said a foolish thing in his life.” Whether you'll be similarly pleased to know that you are the Founder of Ron "Hard Currency" Paul's dreams, I couldn't say, but we can all applaud your resistance to printing paper funny money whenever the mood strikes.

.
CathyF
(Another) Barbara
Ignatz
Barbara Lurking
RichatUF

[JM Hanes]

George Washington

Every empathetic soul at JOM will be glad to know that your teeth were not made of wood, but very expensive African ivory set in silver. Who says you have to go college to succeed or that a silver palate isn't just as valuable as a silver tongue?

Caro
Chubby
Ralph L
PD
Barbara
pagar
macphisto

[JM Hanes]

James Madison
First among us, of course, is: Tom Maguire who takes his rightful place above the salt.

That said, however, you're not just the Father of the Constitution, you know. You're "America's First Graduate Student," which means, I presume, that you also invented the first excuse for staying in school, instead of getting a job.

Sue
Captain Hate
CentralCal
Charlie (Colorado)
Clarice
DebinNC
DrJ
Extraneus
Jack is Back!
Jane
Janet
Lesley
Manual Transmission
MayBee
Mel
Ranger
Sara (Pal2Pal)
SBW
Tom Collins
Minimalist Peter
cindyk
DGS
scott
glasater
Porchlight
Rick Ballard
JimmyK
Frau
bgates
MoodyBlue
Danube of Thought
Jim Ryan
Uncle BigBad
daddy

And yours truly, JMH who is feeling more like Madison all the time:

[JM Hanes]

With profuse apologies to anyone who didn't survive translation. Moving folks around on spreadsheets is not my forte!

I will be happy to make amends in your own special post, if you let me know who you are.

[Frau Fußball]

Brava! Well spread, JMH, well spread.

[Clarice]

Excellent job, jmh..

[JM Hanes]

I just knew I had disappeared some of my Madisons!

Stephanie and henry are quintessential JOMers too,

You'll get a specially illustrated post once the extent of my errors is clear.

[Sara (Pal2Pal)]

Nicely done JMH!

[Caro]

What, no Jeffersons at all?

Brilliant, JMH. Thanks.

[daddy]

Marvelous JMH!

I'll drink a Sam Adam's to the Patriotic effort!

[Stephanie]

Thanks JMH!

Yea! You're back on my Scotch list. ;)

Or my Sam Adams list. I'm not terribly particular.

[JM Hanes]

Not a one, Caro!

[JM Hanes]

You won't regret it Stephanie -- especially when I'll clearly be buying and you'll be discovering that you get to drink my share as well as your own!

[narciso]

That was great, JM, it's too bad neither my phone or computer allows me to take the quiz

[Agent J. (formally known as "J"..]

Thanks JMH but how can we do what we have to do without Jefferson? Without Jefferson does that make Al Gore right..

[Janet]

Boy, was Charles Pickney homely or what!? Sorry Hit.

[JM Hanes]

Agent J:

Well, he was off galavanting around Paris when we wrote the Constitution too, so I think the State of the Ship here will do well enough, n'est ce pas no?

[Barbara]

JMH, that was excellent! I love the clever descriptions.

Thanks so much!

[Chubby]

JM H

thanks kiddo, that was a JOM tour de force!

even my [adorable] kitteh says "we is loves JM H!"

[JM Hanes]

narciso:

Just pick your favorite founder (hope you're not a Madison fan!), and I'll make it official in my Amendment Post.

[Jane]

jMH,

You should put that on a poster. How spectacular. Bravo!

[Thomas Collins]

JMH, you're the Bard of the Founders Questionnaire!

[Danube of Thought]

Wonderfully done, JMH. I was a Madison; I said J.Q. Adams as a joke, playing off Bachmann's "gaffe."

[Danube of Thought]

That Charles Pinckney was one strange-looking dude.

[Threadkiller]

Truly enjoyable JMH!

Holly, fear not. The War of Independence wiped out any dual allegiance you may have had.

[Janet]

That Charles Pinckney was one strange-looking dude.

Hahaha...& Roger Sherman..yikes! Probably had a great personality though....or was going for that ever popular "disgusted, hate the painter" look!

Thanks for the wonderful post JM Hanes!

[Threadkiller]

Oh, and don't forget, Obama took the FF test and came back with King George.

[Sue]

Thanks, JMH. That was really great.

What I would like to know is why men stuck their hands inside their coats for a picture? I really don't want to know what the hand is doing, though.

[Sue]

Are we sure Hit isn't a George Mason?

[glasater]

Wonderful JMH!!

Really appreciate the effort to put it all together.

[centralcal]

Very cool, JMH, especially with the photos and the brief bios!

I agree with Sue about the disappearing hand for photos - creepy.

[Captain Hate]

Well done, JMH.

The putting the hand away thinger might have been done out of consideration for the portrait painter to minimize the possibility of a hand awkwardly being out of scale.