friday, may 19
another recycled trent picture...
---
also, no, the bold words have no special significance. i get bored reading paragraphs written in arial font, but i prefer the font at the moment which means i have to entertain my eyes somehow with random change of pace. does it bother you? i mean, i -could- stop...
---
gene graduates sunday and will then disappear back home to new jersey. i can't even comprehend what that will be like, so i'm ignoring it. bah. gene leaving. bwaah? bwaaah.
---
gunna see the virgin suicides tonight. for the first time i don't think i'll be weirded out by seeing a book i like on a screen - yey. :)
---
oh, i finished the telling of the nine inch nails concert, btw. it's here and very long and dull. i can't write well at the moment, so, um, sorry about these current posts. i'll try better soon.
---
let me plug the hunger site again.
---
ghod i talk too much. somebody thwappp mee. next update will probably be monday. with gene gone, i'm going to have a lot of time on my hands, and they can't all be filled with talkshows sending 3 year olds to bootcamp.
the first case was a criminal case. guy gets into car and tries to coast through a mass of people who just watched their basketball team win the championship for the first time in ten years, hits somebody and consequently run.
of course, he was claiming he had no idea he'd hit somebody... ok, i'm not into cars and don't even have a license, but really - you drive a tiny little white mazda miata, you are surrounded by drunk people, suddenly you stop, get out, and do NOT see a huuuuuge dent in your cars' hood when it's RAINING and must be obviously amassing water?
and instead of getting back into the car and waiting till the people cleared up, OR coasting slowly forward till you got off the street, you decided to BACK UP and drive THROUGH the mass of people to a small parking lot across the street?
and you THEN call 911 and leave the following message (we got to hear it, very exciting):
guy: "i wanted to report a lot of people being rioty and banging on my car"
911: thank you sir, please ca..
guy: "they are really rowdy. btw is anybody hurt.."
911: sir, please call the regular number at ----
guy: i mean i just wanted to report the damage.. have you gotten any other reports?
lots of cross-examination and objections and rephrasings of questions later, and hilarious movie-closings (the defending attorney's opener: "REASONABLE DOUBT. *bangs hand on table* reasonable doubt. ladies of the jury, i ask you to carefully consider those words. reasonable doubt.") we were sent out to deliberate [in a small room with video camera so the lawyers could watch outside and get a taste of how jurors work]
and we got stuck. so, so stuck. two ladies refused to consider continuous driving through a drunk crowd at 20 miles per hour at night, in rain as reckless, so that account was hung. hit and run? one of those ladies couldn't explain why, but stated that she had a funny feeling" about it all and therefore had to state not guilty, despite not being able to argue any of the evidence.
"a funny feeling." i sure would rest well knowing that a funny feeling is what makes up a jurors' mind and not actual evidence and testimonies. sigh.
---
the second case was a civil case, and the judge (irl he's a trial lawyer) was (please pardon the expression) a total hottie. of course, if you don't find Jurgen Prochnow in his handsome days (think 7th Sign) a hottie, then you would heavily disagree..
the case was Big Nasty Corporation against Small Family Business. SFB ordered computer parts from BNC. BNC ships parts, parts arrive, all happy. 4 months later, BNC receives vaguely worded order for new parts from SFB. BNC confirms order and asks SFB to make sure all is in order. BNC hears nothing from SFB, so they ship goods. Goods gets lost on the way. the dispute?
special business rules applied to the business in question - instead of the seller being in charge of the stuff after it is shipped, and having to reimburse if it gets lost, the rules say that the receiver places insurance - risk of loss. therefore, if you don't insure what you have ordered, you are shit out of luck.
SFB asked BNC to insure their goods on the first order, even though that's not the usual procedure. BNC complies. when SFB makes the second order, they ask BNC for the stuff "as per their usual agreement". BNC interprets the usual agreement to be "ship stuff with same rules and price as last time." SFB says they meant "ship stuff with same insurance." stuff gets lost. no insurance BNC wants to get paid. SFB says BNC fucked up. lock.
as much as i would have liked to, i believe SFB fucked up, and that's how i voted. yes, it would be nice to live in a world where every company triple-checks every order you make personally and takes the time to go through your entire file to figure out what you might mean by "our usual agreement", but in the real world... grow uppppp!
instead of writing "and we will need insurance like last time" the guy chose to get vague, and that fucked it up. not only that, but when BNC sent a confimating letter with an attatched bill where the word 'insurance' not once appeared, it was his responsibility to call BNC and say 'please fix this, we also wanted insurance" - he did not. two WEEKS later he mentions it briefly in a letter.
you fucked up, pal.
of course, a juror in his late 60's and an idealistic 20 year old chick fucked up what we thought was a clean cut case. the man started bringing up stories from when he owned a liquer store, and couldn't keep any facts straight. the chick based her decision on the fact that she thought the rule about insurance for the buyer sucked and should be changed (insert me yelling "stick to the facts, these ARE the rules that applied, regardless what you think -should- be the rules!"). hung, hung, hung.
once again the law students and their judge had to cut us off in the midst of arguing so we could give them pointers. it was hilarious.
"you.. yeah, you. when you open your case, don't hold your hands in fists the entire speech. it's too clinton."
"hi.. you walk around too much. your heels clicked the entire time.. you might want to think about that."
"your cross-examination of witness 3 was fine, but in the middle you made a big deal about the witness definition of a word... it was really annoying and unecessary."
anyhow. that, ladies and gentlement, concludes my day as a juror. wooo! :)