Welcome to McArgy's Power Pub & Lounge!

[twips182]

I just found your post on jury duty Ron. It amazes and comforts me somewhat that even with all the high tech and changes to our modern world that if we get in trouble no matter the evidence etc ..Our fate still resides with a group of regular people not only arguing the law but wrestling with their own morals at the same time. It also makes me very curious. I wonder about things that effect their decisions. Did they dislike the Judge? Did they like the DA? Were they upset that they had been called to jury duty? Did they recently have a life experience that colors their judgement of the case? I'm sorry the list goes on and on but it's incredible that so many things that really don't have actual legal impact on a case can effect me going to prison or not. Please don't misunderstand me. I like the idea that a group of my peers has the final say regardless of the law. I like this idea because I think it acts as a shield against power beyond our control.

I wonder about lawyers. No other group of people have so much power in our society. They are the defense, the prosecution and the judge. Most politicians are lawyers as well so they get to write the laws they themselves use. Have you ever read some of our laws? You have to be a lawyer to understand most of it. I don't think it should be that way. No one group should have that much power and the laws should be written so that any citizen can understand what they say without assistance. If any of you are lawyers I apologize if I have offended..My statements were not meant as a personnel attack.. Just observations.

*Carefully puts soapbox back under the stairs*

[Ronald Dukarski]

No way ,Twips! Drag that sucker out. We need more people involved in how our society works. For an over view of my recent experience, we as group, thought the judge was nice. He seemed impartial, and truly interested in justice. None of us really thought much of either lawyer. The D.A. seemed unprepared. Unless he just had too much going on elsewhere, or was given this case last minute, he tried to show this guy was not nice, not that he was guilty. And the defence attorney offered very little defence at all. Supposedly, relying on the fact that the defendant IS innocent until PROVEN guilty. The law SAYS that, but being human, we, as humans for whatever reason, seem to want to assess blame. After the trial was over, and the verdict in, the judge invited the jury to stay after. THEN, he allowed us a Q&A period giving info we were not allowed before or during trial. Surprisingly, the extra info probably wouldn't have made much difference. And we all had questions to ask. Now, this was my first, and I hope only trial. It weighed heavily on me and I could see vaguely, how it seemed to the other jurors. I'm not sure any one was completely impartial. That's really hard. Most tried to be, except two women who were of an older generation who would have sent this guy to the gallows no matter what had actually happened. Because even if she were beating him to death with a bat, "a man should never strike a lady." And as far as the law goes, my daughter tells me most of the laws ARE constructed to be understood by masses, however there is such a disconnect from their group, the legal system, and the common man that they are unaware that the legal language they use is not understood by most people. They understand the subtle nuances of the words and phrasing because they use it all the time, we don't. Kind of reminds me of Sheldon on Big Bang Theory who thinks everyone should understand him because he does. Well, I guess that's enough to now, my stream of consciousness just ran dry. But I like the idea of a soap box being handy. If ANYBODY wants to use it, it's just under the steps here. Pull it out and jump on it. We'll be glad to listen.

[ArgyrosfeniX]

I agree that sometimes the lawyers are problematic.

During my wife's divorce / custody battle for my step-daughter, the guardian ad litem lied on the stand against my wife and we found out that his testimony was swayed by his parent's custody battles. We reported him to the local legal oversight people, but they wrote back stating that they didn't find any evidence of impropriety. They did inform us that often lawyers won't serve again in a case where they have been reported - of their own accord. Thankfully, we haven't had to worry about it since then, but we still lost some possibility of increased custody due to that. Worst part is the Ex is not a good person and has been putting my step-daughter through hell.

Some day, things will get better. But today is not that day...

[Ronald Dukarski]

Yeah, Argy, people being people, that can happen. Sometimes even they themselves aren't aware of it. My current wife, before we met, had a simular experience. As a single mother, not receiving child support was not in a position to pay for an extended stay in the hospital for her 7 year old daughter went to the state for assistance( her ex did not have court ordered insurance on her ) . When friend of the court went after the ex for back child support, his attorney pointed out that the daughter was covered by the state. What was not pointed out was that the state only covered medical, not financial assistance. The judge ordered all, repeat all back child support be forgiven. Even the seven years preceding the hospitalization. It also turns out the judge had been the ex's attorney at the divorce. He should have recused himself but didn't . On appeal the judge said he had been impartial and that he felt the ruling could stand. It did. So the wife was out $41,000 she thought she was due. Sucks to be caught in the legal system some times.

[Ronald Dukarski]

I really didn't know where to put this, so here it is. Just had a conversation with my daughter, who is giving a presentation tomorrow on copyrights and patent application for 3-D printing. Maybe I'm not up to date on scientific accomplishments of late, but I had no idea! Medical science has been 3-D printing living tissue since 2010. Specifically blood vessels. And now are working on printing kidney tissue and other organs. I've been so blind-sided by this. Maybe I've misunderstood, has anyone heard of these developments?

[ArgyrosfeniX]

[Ronald Dukarski]

Have read articles on 3-D printing, have seen demos, was not aware living tissue was possible! Can't see how tissue could be laid down fast enough to avoid degradation. Mind blowing! If printing could be done fast enough or if multiple tissues could be kept in stasis, how far are we from creating a host body for life transfer? Or personality insertion? Interesting/scary stuff.

[MarciaA]

Good day at work today! YAY! Ready for a nice glass of wine so set me up fella's!

[ArgyrosfeniX]

[Ronald Dukarski]

Hi everybody, just got back from the grandson' s first little league game. They won 12-7 . This is the first time in four years I've sat in the stands. It was really weird not coaching. He was drafted by a different team and I felt strange coaching against him, so I decided not to coach at all. Ironically the team I coached last year was their first opponent. And they won, yay! He had two hits scored twice and stole two bases. Love that kid. So set 'em up Argy, here's to little league !

P.s. maybe later some of you early readers can meet me in the backroom and feed me some spoilers on the Gerent book... Promise I won't tell anyone.