Gonzalo Barr

I think it was Coco Chanel who single-handedly showed the world that simplicity is elegance.  Simplicity is even more crucial to getting a message across, to communicating efficiently, a fact that is lost on people who “relocate” when they could “move” and “inquire” when they could just “ask.”

Simplicity is no different in the naming of things.  Local weathermen who suffer from an acute case of jargon-envy say, “convection,” when what they really mean is “rain.”  I suppose listening to high-falooting words like that takes some of the sting out of paying the cable bill.

Officials in Webster, Massachusetts forgot this lesson about the importance of simplicity and paid for it recently with embarrassment.  Years ago, they decided to make signs with the original name of a nearby lake.  The name they decided to use was the indigenous one and went like this (take a deep breath) — “Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg.”  And the cause of embarrassment was the recent discovery that the signs the city had made for Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg were misspelled in, not one, but two places.  The incorrect signs were written with an O at letter 20 in place of a U and an H at letter 38 instead of an N.

No one knows the cost of correcting these misspelled signs, but it may not matter because everyone refers to the lake, simply, as Lake Webster.

Source:  Paul Thompson, “Wrong spelling on signs for Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg,” Mail Online (Apr. 22, 2009)(accessed Apr. 27, 2009)

In a recession, doing it yourself (DIY) is one way to beat the high cost of construction.  So in the spirit of overcoming these economically difficult times, here’s a primer on the ultimate DIY project — starting your own country.

(1)  Get some land and occupy it.  You really need some land or at least a solid structure affixed to the earth.  Countries can’t be virtual or metaphysical or ethereal.  It helps tremendously if the land is unoccupied and unclaimed.  Also make certain it is undefended.  If you occupy land belonging to someone else chances are they will find out about it and boot you off.  Even if the land belongs to no one that does not mean you’re in the clear.

Sometime in the twentieth century, two Europeans thought they could start their own country on an island in the Pacific that had been formed by ocean currents.  The newly-formed island did not belong to anyone legally nor did anyone occupy it.  It was ripe for the taking.  So the two men sailed to the island and claimed it.  They declared the island a country.

The rest of the story arrives to us as hearsay:  One day, the two Europeans, no doubt enjoying the fruits of independence and sovereignty, spotted a flotilla of kayaks with nearby islanders paddling in their direction.  The islanders took the island by force and declared it part of their domain, never mind who got there first.  The two Europeans were never seen or heard from again, but we are told that they tasted like chicken.

(2)  Once you find unclaimed land that you can legally occupy, populate it.  Don’t just plant a flag, no matter how cool the flag may be.  (See more on flags below.)  German tourists wake before the sun rises, drape towels over the best chaises longues at resorts all over the world, then go back to sleep, secure in the knowledge that most people are too polite to remove the towels.  Land is different, as we have seen with the case of our two intrepid Europeans in the Pacific.  If you’re going to claim land, you had better go armed and ready to rumble.

(3) Form a government.  This is the fun part of building your own country.  You get to give yourself and your best friends great titles like Prince of Percocet or Grand Duke of Demerol.  (If I were you, I would name my country after something that denotes relaxation to help draw tourists.)  This is also where you get to design your flag and print your money and stamps.  You don’t need anything special to make a flag.  Panama’s flag was designed by a woman in New York who had nothing to do with the isthmus, using materials she bought at Macy’s for a few dollars.  Most flags are rectangular, but yours doesn’t have to be.  Nepal’s flag is made of two pennants.  Nepal’s flag has to be the coolest flag on the planet, which is an achievement considering that the country is so far above sea level it is almost not on the planet at all.  A unique shape will help your flag stand out from the rest.

Forming a government also requires you to draft and sign high-sounding documents — a constitution, laws, and decrees.   Do not give into the temptation to copy some other country’s docs.  What works in one place will not necessarily work someplace else.  Founding documents must be tailored made.  Of course, no one said you can’t borrow an idea or two.  Another word of advice:  Keep it simple.  The more articles you put in your constitution, the more likely you will have to redraft the whole document in a few years.  Give your document room to grow through jurisprudence,  but we are getting ahead of ourselves here.

This is also your chance to invent unique customs and practices to make your country stand out and the world a richer, more diverse place, as occurred here –

(4) Be nice.  According to the 1933 Montevideo Convention, your government must be able to interact with other governments.  No one knows what this means, but it sounds good.

(5)  Be recognized.  You’re not a real country under international law if no one recognizes you as one.  If no one hears that tree fall, it didn’t really fall.  The Principality of Sealand is an example.

(6) Join up.  There are many organizations your new country can join to puff up its bona fides.  There’s the United Nations, of course.  The UN is rife with departments and agencies that have kept the talentless, lazy, and corrupt fully employed for decades.  But there are also organizations that are dedicated to specific and laudable goals.  Once you join, be visible and active.  Nikita Khrushchev became a household name when he famously banged the heel of his shoe against a table to disrupt a diplomatic meeting.  Fortunately, today you don’t have to go to such extremes.  Showing a little nipple will suffice.

(7) Be serious.  You can’t call yourself a country.   Joel and Donna Brinkle “seceded” from the United States and claimed to be sovereign nations.  Arguing that they were now independent countries, they stopped paying income tax.  They also printed their own money, by hand, from “The Land of Brinkle,” and used it to put a deposit on a $700,000 house.  Although the Land of Brinkle had no military, the couple filed liens against anyone they did not like.  Having a lien filed against your property by some joker thinking he is an independent country is not nice.  I don’t care where you come from.

Another flawed attempt at establishing personal sovereignty was made recently by Scott Allan Witmer, who was arrested for driving under the influence.  In his defense, he claimed that he was sovereign and therefore the government could not arrest him.

“They think I’m nuts. They locked me up for it,” said Witmer, wearing a green prison jumpsuit. “I know what’s going on here.”

Witmer said he was challenging the traffic stop that led to his arrest and said he believes in certain laws, not all of them.

“Don’t all our souls live within ourselves?  Isn’t this where you really live?” Witmer asked, pointing to his body.

The judge hearing Witmer’s case reset his bail and ordered that he not be released from prison until drug, alcohol and psychological evaluations were completed.

So there you have it — DIY country.  Never let it be said that this nerdy blog about books, reading, and writing doesn’t occasionally offer useful and practical advice, as well.

For the rest of us who are not thinking about starting our own countries, remember that today, April 15, is tax day in the US.  We have until midnight to mail our income tax forms.

Photo: sand bar, Gonzalo Barr; Sources: Joshua Keating, “How to Start Your Own Country in Four Easy Steps,” Foreign Policy (posted February 2008), loweringthebar blog, film clip from “Bananas,” (1971), written by Mickey Rose and Woody Allen, directed by Allen, YouTube, Sarah Cassi, “Northampton man defends himself on drunken-driving charge,” Northhampton County News (Mar. 12, 2009)

Writing is a dog’s life, but the only one worth living.
–Gustave Flaubert

Writing is a lonely job.
– Isaac Asimov

Writing is a lonely job.
– Stephen King

Writing is a lonely process.
– Manil Suri

There’s a writing self which is not quite your ordinary social self and which you don’t really have access to except at the moment when you’re writing, and certainly in my view, I think of that as my best self.  […]  To be able to be that person feels good; it feels better than anything else.
–Salman Rushdie

Sources: Gustave Flaubert quote from goodreads (accessed Jan. 27, 2009), Isaac Asimov quote from goodreads (accessed Jan. 27, 2009), Stephen King quote from the USF Writing Community Server (accessed Jan. 27, 2009), Manil Suri quote from Ziya Us Salam, “Writing is a lonely process” The Hindu (Jan. 20, 2008), Salman Rushdie quote from Patricia Cohen, “Now He’s Only Hunted by Cameras,” The New York Times (May 25, 2008)

A woman in Australia says that she met a man at the Jet Cafe in Elizabeth City and that they exchanged a few words.  Even though the encounter was brief, the woman says that she felt a “connection” to the man she described as six feet tall, dark-haired, with green-eyes and a beautiful smile.  In that brief time, the woman also noticed that the guy was wearing jeans, a white shirt, and that a dinner jacket was hanging over the back of his chair.  The guy was at the cafe typing on a laptop.

According to the woman, whose name is Heidi Clarke, she met this guy after the waiter got their orders mixed up.  The mix-up led to their exchanging a few words.  That was when she felt that “connection.”

Then it was over.  The guy left the cafe and forgot his dinner jacket, which she took with her.

The next day, she went back to the cafe and gave a slip of paper with her name and number to the waiter, in case the guy came back for his dinner jacket.

A friend of hers suggested that if she really wanted to find this guy, she needed to be more proactive.  So Clarke posted a video of herself on YouTube and started a website imaginatively entitled, “The ‘Mystery Man’ in the Jacket.”  The website has several pictures of Clarke posing with the jacket, and information on how to contact her.  Here’s one of the pictures –

That’s Clarke and that’s the jacket.

Now, you’re probably thinking this is one more brazen attempt to grab fifteen minutes worth of fame.  You may even think she made the whole thing up — the guy, the encounter, and that she rented the dinner jacket.  Her video clip too is kind of creepy to watch, if you can get past one of the fringginly ugliest accents I have ever heard.

Maybe that’s her problem.  Here’s an attractive young woman whose dates all end the same way, with guys running for the door the minute she opens her mouth to utter a word.  All it takes is one vowel.  Forget Man in a Dinner Jacket, she needs Henry Higgins.

Clarke claims that this is all legit, that it really happened and that she did feel that “connection,” maybe it wasn’t a tingly feeling running up the leg, but it was a true connection just the same –

“It was just something about that chemistry that we had that it felt right,” Miss Clarke said. “I do not normally put myself out there like this.

“I am hopeful but in the end, if it is not meant to be, it is not meant to be. I am a bit of a romantic. Life is a bit too short to be fearful of things.”

She said the best case scenario would be that the pair go out on “a few old-fashioned dates”.

“There is no obligation for him if he just wants his jacket back,” she said. “I am not a stalker. I am a bit shy.”

Photo:  Heidi Clarke with dinner jacket, from her website; Sources: Caroline Marcus, “A lost jacket and a stolen heart,” Sydney Morning Herald (Jan. 18, 2009) [GB Note:  the date is not a typo.  It is January 18 in Australia, even if it is still January 17 here.]

Previously, I posted about an 89-year-old woman who kept a kid’s football after it had landed in her yard many times. The woman was tired of telling the kid not to kick or throw the ball into her yard. When the woman would not return the ball, the kid’s parents called the police and a police officer arrested the woman for petty theft. The offense carried a maximum sentence of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Since then, perhaps as a result of all the negative publicity, the prosecutor decided not to pursue the case against the 89-year-old woman, whose name is Edna Jester, and the charges were dropped. You’d think that would be the end of it, right? Except that if it had been the end, I wouldn’t be posting about it again.

So let’s try this, before I tell you what happened next — try to guess the outcome. What do you think happened? –

(A) The kid’s parents and the kid apologized to Jester, presenting her with a batch of homemade chocolate chip cookies over Christmas

(B) the kid, being remorseful, offered to mow Jester’s yard for the rest of the year

(C) the parties are in court.

OK, that was an easy one. Next time, I’ll give you a real brain teaser. Of course, they’re in court. Where else would they be?

Edna Jester filed a lawsuit against the parents in which she claimed that she suffered emotional distress because footballs and other playthings belonging to the kid landed in her yard.  Given that she was arrested and deprived of her liberty for several hours at least, I’m sure she also included a count in her complaint for false imprisonment, but that is not being reported.  The parents have dismissed the lawsuit as “silly” and stated that they cannot afford a lawyer.

One word of advice to the parents — take the suit seriously and look under the sofa cushions for all the loose change you can find but, by all means, retain a lawyer.  And one more thing — teach your child some manners.

Source: “Woman, 89, who kept boy’s football, sues parents” cincinnati.com (Jan. 1, 2009)(story no longer available)

Theaters, libraries, churches, concerts, driving on the Interstate or a main road or residential street, backing out of a parking space, pulling into a parking space, in line at the supermarket, paying the cashier, at a bank teller window, in a bathroom stall, before a urinal, in a physician’s consult, sitting in a dentist’s chair (yes, let me repeat that one — sitting in a dentist’s chair)…all these situations have one thing in common.

I’ll give you time to think of the answer.  Meanwhile, here’s some thinking music –

Did you figure it out?They are all situations in which you should not use your cell phone because doing so is a menace to the safety of others or because it is rude and inconsiderate to do so.

You may have already noticed that there are people in this world who can’t resist the cell phone.  They can’t turn it off for fear of missing that life-changing call.  And once it rings, they must answer it, no matter what they’re doing –

Recently I posted a clip about a library ninja who silences a cell phone user by breaking his neck.  One month before that, I posted about a government bureaucrat in the UK who thinks that allowing people to use cell phones in public libraries is one way to make the libraries more people-friendly.  The ninja librarian is fictitious; the government bureaucrat, alas, is not.  In his bureaucratic mind, the ultimate goal of a public library is to increase the number of people who use it, “use” being defined broadly by activities other than reading and looking up books.  A quiet, well-lighted place that fosters contemplation isn’t enough for people like that, which is why he would like to introduce coffee shops, video games, and permit the use of cell phones.

The fact is that public libraries, at least in this part of the world, have all but ceased being a place for quiet reading and studying and morphed into “community centers” and day-care centers.  About the only place you can find a “quiet library” is in a commercial, like this one –

In the real world, they have all but disappeared.There is nothing wrong with cell phones per se  They’re appliances, like dishwashers, cars, stereos.  It is people who use them inappropriately who are the problem.  More specifically, it is the lack of common courtesy, if not common sense, in some people that makes it necessary for some institutions to produce videos like this one –

The underlying message of the video producers is, “Just because you’re smart enough to be admitted to this university, doesn’t mean you have any common sense.”For those people, we need clear and simple (very simple) rules that are applied equally and with no exceptions.  The library (from the Latin word for “book,” incidentally) is a place to read.  Most people cannot read when someone nearby is carrying on a conversation, whether on a cell phone or not.  Which is why libraries are quiet zones.  Noise renders a library unusable for the very purpose it was created in the first place.  When will people get this little fact straight?

A person who yacks on his cell phone in a theater, library, church, while driving or at any time in the long list of other situations I mentioned, is an obliviot.  He deserves whatever happens to him –

So enough already!

In Kurosawa’s classic film, Rashomon, a murder takes place. At first, we are told the story by one witness, then another, and another, and finally, by the ghost of the victim. Each character relates the same events from a different perspective, until it is clear that no one knows what really happened.

Evidence is a subject that is usually taught in the first year of law school.  Professors of evidence early in the course make a great deal about the fact that eyewitnesses are not infallible and can be unreliable. Eyewitness testimony may be colored by bias, prejudice, or the decay of memory, even when the witness has no stake in the verdict. Reginald Rose’s 12 Angry Men is still, in my opinion, the most powerful of all courtroom dramas. In it, a man is killed and there are several witnesses, one who claims to see the murder, another who claims to hear the murderer scream, “I’ll kill you.”  At the beginning, the jurors vote eleven to one to convict.  One juror holds out and argues the case for the defendant or, more precisely, against the reliability of the evidence.  By the end of the play (and the movie adapted from the play), he convinces the others and they vote twelve to zero that the defendant was not guilty.

In English, there is a saying. It goes like this: “There are two sides to every story.” The saying comes from the Bible so I’m sure it exists in other languages.  It means that no matter how compelling a story may sound at first, one should reserve judgment until we hear the other side.

All this is a long way toward introducing the subject of this post but it is a route worth taking.  One month ago, I posted about a letter written by Houston attorney Jeff Murphrey to Dallas attorney Dale Markland. In his letter, Murphrey claimed that Markland had acted unreasonably when he refused to reschedule a deposition after Hurricane Ike struck Houston and caused serious damage to Murphrey’s house.  The letter was notable because it was ironic, sarcastic, and yes, it was funny too.  The way I summarized it in the post was this –

Scheduling a deposition is usually simple. Attorneys, through their offices, agree on a time and place that is convenient to everyone. In this case, according to Murphrey, a deposition had been scheduled. Then a hurricane hit Houston and devastated Murphrey’s house. Murphrey asked Markland to reschedule the deposition, but Markland refused, then added a bunch of conditions, like travel expenses and attorneys fees. He even threatened to take the matter before the judge. (Not a good idea.)

So Murphrey wrote Markland a letter in which he was very, very sorry. Really. He was. And he filed it with the court in Harris County (Houston), Texas, where the lawsuit is being heard.

Murphrey’s letter is also here.

Filing correspondence among counsel in the official record of the court, when that correspondence is not meant to be evidence, is a practice that is frowned upon by federal courts in the US and perhaps by some state courts as well. Whether it is accepted practice in Houston, I can’t say.

What I can say is that anything you file with the court becomes a public record.  The letter was also faxed to every attorney on the case, as is the practice.  What is not widely known and may never be known is how that letter made its way to a law blog and from there went viral.

Recently, I received an email from Dale Markland asking me to link to his statement about the incident that is the subject of the letter.  Remember, all we have heard about the incident is through Murphrey’s letter or, if you prefer, “according to Murphrey.”  Remember also, that Markland was the attorney that Murphrey addressed in his letter.  Until now, we had not heard his side.

I think fair play requires me and every one else who quoted and linked to Murphrey’s letter to quote and link to Markland’s statement.  There is no such thing as “equal time” in the blogosphere, but we can try to approach something like “equal exposure.”  Even if there isn’t, strictly speaking, a legal duty to post the statement, I believe it is the right thing to do. And I welcome the opportunity to do it.

So here goes:  this is from Dale Markland’s statement in response to Jeff Murphrey’s letter.  This first block quote is the introduction entitled, “What this section of our website relates to” –

On September 26, 2008, a Houston attorney, Jeff Murphrey, sent a letter to me (Dale Markland) related to his cancellation of a deposition in an on-going lawsuit that he and I were involved in. Someone sent that letter to internet blog sites and distributed it through mass emailings such that basically the entire world has had a chance to read Mr. Murphrey’s letter, and apparently many have. Some individuals who have read that letter (and only that letter), have apparently drawn some conclusions about my actions and those of our law firm in this situation. This is my statement regarding the events and the contents of the letter. I thought my “jurors”—those on blog sites and mass emailing sites—might want to hear some of the detailed facts about the events rather than relying solely on the one and one-half page September 26 letter from Mr. Murphrey. I thought that lawyers particularly would feel it unjust that anonymous bloggers would attempt to destroy the reputation of a fellow lawyer (myself) that has been built through almost 35 years of practice and built to such a degree that I have received an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell Legal Directory every year for well over a quarter of a century—particularly when bloggers based their attempt to destroy my reputation solely on what they read in a one and one-half page emotional letter that included some allegations, but virtually nothing in the way of relevant facts. The lessons to be learned from this situation are of extreme significance to the legal profession and indeed, to the entire society in which we live.

The following block quote is from another section of Markland’s statement, entitled ”Synopsis of My Responsive statement” –

* The hurricane in the Houston area occurred on September 12/13;
* Mr. Murphrey cancelled the deposition on September 23 when I was already on my way to Fort Wayne, Indiana for the deposition;
* I first got notice of this cancellation by cell phone message while in Chicago O’Hare Airport rushing to catch my connecting flight to Fort Wayne;
* The voice mail message I received in Chicago stated that Mr. Murphrey cancelled the deposition because he had meetings with contractors and city officials related to hurricane damage. It stated nothing about the horrors Mr. Murphrey addresses in his September 26 letter.
* Our firm’s attorneys attempted to gain Mr. Murphrey’s agreement that our client be recompensed for the unnecessary attorney’s fees and travel expenses entailed in my needlessly going to Fort Wayne. This is appropriate and professional behavior for attorneys who are representing their clients properly under the Texas State Bar Disciplinary Rules and The Texas Lawyers Creed. It is also, in my experience, not abnormal behavior for an attorney properly representing his client. If I had been in Mr. Murphrey’s shoes, I would have paid for the fees and expenses out of my firm’s pocket.
* Mr. Murphrey agreed to pay the travel expenses but declined to pay the attorney’s fees for the useless trip to Fort Wayne.
* It was not my fault or the fault of the client who pays my fees and expenses that Mr. Murphrey did not cancel the deposition until I was on my way to Fort Wayne.
* If Mr. Murphrey had simply picked up the telephone and called me, or had sent me an email or letter sometime between the hurricane on September 12/13 and when I left for Fort Wayne on September 23, I would have gladly agreed to re-set the deposition he had noticed. Then my client would not have been stuck with the fees and expenses of my useless trip to Fort Wayne.
* The first I knew of Mr. Murphrey’s story of horrors regarding his home damage was when I received his September 26 letter—after he cancelled the deposition, after I had made the useless trip to Fort Wayne, after I had appropriately determined whether Mr. Murphrey or his client would pay for the needless fees and expenses and after he had declined to pay my client for the fees.
* I am very sympathetic to Mr. Murphrey and his home situation, but it is not my client’s fault that Mr. Murphrey failed to cancel the deposition before I left, and the client should not bear this significant financial burden. My duty under Texas law is to uphold the interest of my client and that is what I have attempted to do.
* I implore those reading to also read the entirety of this lengthy statement. If you read nothing else, please read the last section entitled “The Lessons to be Learned…”

The rest of the statement is quite long and detailed so I will not quote it entirely, but I will block quote the last section, which is entitled, “The Lessons to be Learned” –

* Be careful what you put in letters, particularly in letters that may eventually be disseminated beyond those who were the intended recipients;
* The importance of trial by jury and the rights entailed in that system of jury trial cannot be overstated. My “jurors”—those out on the blogs and on the email internet spaces—decided they would render a judgment on an individual and his law firm when they had an incomplete picture of the events and had at their disposal only a letter that includes emotional appeals and allegations as the basis of the verdict those “jurors” gave me. In this case, I was found to be guilty with no counsel to represent me, no evidence presented, and no cross-examination allowed. I was not even allowed to make a statement. I did not even know they were talking about me until several days after the poison was spread. I am now left to defend myself on my own website which many thousands who have read the poison will unlikely read.
* I guess some might say it was just a funny letter. One might say: “I was just having fun when I disseminated it on the internet.” Your cute joke has had very large ramifications relative to me and every person in our small law firm. To those of you who reached judgments about me and particularly to those who spread their poison to others, I have spent almost 35 years in the practice of law obtaining and retaining a high reputation. To a great extent the fortunes of our law firm and everyone who works for the firm are dependent upon that reputation for their livelihoods. To attempt to destroy that reputation and harm the small law firm involved and all who are in it, is despicable, odious and evil.
* The horrid nature of such a way of thinking and acting—making hateful judgments about people you do not even know, without any substantial basis, and without ever hearing their side of the events, and then passing on those hateful and libelous judgments to thousands of others to harm such people—cannot be tolerated in a free and just society. In this situation, lawyers on internet sites engaged in trial of the accused by mob rule without providing the accused counsel, without requiring evidence, without allowing cross-examination, and without allowing the accused to even testify! Lawyers did this! I say to you anonymous defamers and to you who express your hate to me that I have done nothing wrong. I hold my head high for the protection I have attempted to provide my client. I am very proud that I do not, like you, take poison pen in hand and harm the reputation of those I do not even know.
* All of those who participated in the widespread dissemination of the September 26 letter, and particularly those internet users who felt they had to smear my name and the name of my law firm through their libelous comments to others, and all of those who sent hateful emails to me should be ashamed of themselves. Those who are attorneys should seek other callings. Their attitudes will not foster the cause of justice.

Markland’s statement in its entirety is here.

Murphrey’s letter stands on its own.  And now, so does Markland’s statement. I hope he was exaggerating when he wrote some comments in the last section that I quoted here.  And I disagree with him when he lumps together in one sentence bloggers, like myself, who merely posted the letter because it was of interest, with persons who went much further in their comments or who sent him hateful emails. There is no reason or explanation or excuse for anyone to libel or disparage another, just as there is no excuse for anyone to send hateful emails.  None.

Before I leave you with the wrong impression, Markland did email me to request that I post his statement.  I promised him that I would do so.  Since then, we have exchanged more emails.  All have been cordial.  He simply wanted his side told.  And I thought posting his statement was the right thing to do.  I hope other bloggers will follow suit.

Who is right?  Who is wrong?  What really happened?  Only Murphrey and Markland know and, from what we can see, their versions differ, as happened in Rashomon or 12 Angry Men or most any time you ask two people to relate the same events, which is the point to the story that appears in the Bible too.

One law blogger suggested that Markland or Murphrey pick up the phone and resolve their differences amicably.  That’s not a bad idea.

Image: satellite view of Hurricane Ike, Sept. 13, 2008 Z1925, esl.lsu.edu; Source: Dale Markland, “Hurricane Letter Statement” (undated), marklandandhanley.com

When I was a child, my friend and I played ball in the yard of his parents’ house. The house was on a corner and the yard was unfenced, so the ball sometimes went into the street or into a neighbors’ yard. Nine times out of ten, my friend or I recovered the ball without incident. One neighbor, though, an old woman who lived by herself, went raving mad each time the ball landed in her yard or the sidewalk in front of her house. She came out in her nightgown and waved her fist in the air.

Nothing happened, of course. Looking back, I realize the woman was drunk. Some people assuage their loneliness that way.

Flash forward to 2008. Children still play ball. And occasionally, the ball lands in a neighbor’s yard. Except that now, the neighbor, an 89-year-old woman who was tired of having balls land in her yard, came out of her house, took the ball, and kept it. Except that now, Kelly Tanis of Blue Ash, Ohio, the mother of one of the children, called the police. Except that now, the police officer who arrived on the scene, arrested the 89-year-old woman and charged her with petty theft. That offense carries a maximum sentence of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Had anyone written this as a short story in 1968, it would have been received as satire or black humor. Today, it is news.

More here. (story no longer available)

Yesterday, a friend emailed me complaining that with work and her other interests, she has little time for anything else.  “Have you ever felt there aren’t enough hours in the day?” she wrote.

At one time or another, all productive people wish the day were 31 hours long or 48 hours long.  It’s good to be busy.

There’s a saying in English about having nothing to do.  The saying goes like this:  “Idle hands are the devil’s tools.”  The moral is obvious.  If you have nothing to do, chances are you’ll get yourself in trouble. Which is how we arrive to the subject of our post today.

Nebraska state senator, Ernie Chambers, of Omaha has a lot of free time on his hands, so much that not only has he done a couple of stupid things (hell, who hasn’t?), but he has done them in front of the entire world.  First, they were recorded in local court records.  Then they caught the attention of the Omaha press.  Now, the story is posted on Drudge, a website that is viewed daily by millions.  Poor Mr. Chambers.

Like everything in life, the gravity of doing something stupid is a matter of degree.  There are little stupid things, like putting the milk carton in the cupboard instead of the refrigerator.  There are bigger stupid things, like calling your boss an ass (he may well be an ass, but the more prudent course is to keep that to yourself).  There are even bigger stupid things like detonating your marriage of twenty years into a million tiny pieces by getting drunk at the office Christmas party and making it with your secretary.  Most of us live anonymous and relatively private lives.  Only a few people ever hear of the stupid things we do and, in any case, they soon forget.  We should be thankful for that.

Not Mr. Chambers.  Oh, no.  When he sets out to do something stupid, he wants the whole world to find out.

Now we have.

In 1997, Mr. Chambers sued God (also known as “The Almighty”) and petitioned an Omaha court to issue a permanent injunction to prevent God from committing acts of violence, such as earthquakes and tornadoes.  An injunction is not really a lawsuit.  It is an action in equity.  You have to show the court that you are about to suffer some great and immediate damage if the defendant does what you are trying to stop him from doing.  Courts don’t like to issue injunctions because doing so usually limits some of the defendant’s rights, so you have to make a compelling case.  For that reason, most injunctions are limited. It’s extremely hard to get a court to issue a permanent injunction, as in forever, which in God’s case, means a long, long time.

Although it is not stated in the news report, the court must have also noted that God is not a natural person or a legal person or even a thing on this planet, and therefore cannot be sued.  He does not “exist” in the sense that you need to bring Him into court to testify.  I mean, let’s be honest here.  Chambers argued that the court should nonetheless take judicial notice that God exists, given that there were signs all over the court house that read, “In God We Trust.”  In case you don’t know, “In God We Trust” is the official motto of the United States.  You can find it in government buildings and you can read it printed or stamped on our currency.  I have never seen anyone pull out a dollar bill and point to it as the kind of ah-ha! proof that God exists, but Mr. Chambers has the time on his hands to cook up arguments like that one.

Unimpressed, the court dismissed the action.  Undeterred, Mr. Chambers sued again and made the same allegations, to wit:  that God was about to do something really bad and the court should enjoin Him pronto.

This second time, the judge noted that Mr. Chambers had not served the defendant adequately.  Before a legal action can proceed, you have to give the defendant notice.  There’s a procedure for that.  It usually means hiring a process server (don’t waste your time and money getting the sheriff) and having him serve the papers on the defendant.  Those papers include the complaint or petition and a cover sheet with instructions.  The court noted that Mr. Chambers had not served God with any papers.  He hadn’t even tried.  And so, the court dismissed the case.  No service.  No case.  (Mr. Chambers could have argued that God, being omniscient, did not need any notice of the action.  He should have seen it coming.  But, never mind.)

I don’t know about you, but I would think long and hard before suing The Almighty.  See, “almighty” does not mean “kind of” strong.  It does not mean “more strong than Zeus and Hera over there.”  “Almighty” means “all mighty.”  It means sue me and I’ll fix you good.  I know it does.  It’s in the Bible somewhere.  And God did exactly that.

The proof?  Well, Mr. Chambers is famous now, isn’t he?

Who says God does not have a sense of humor?

Photo:  Gonzalo Barr; Source:  Christopher Burbach, “Chambers’ suit against God thrown out,” Omaha World Herald (Oct 15, 2008)(story no longer available), drudgereport

Houston attorney Jeff Murphrey represents one of the parties in a lawsuit and Dallas attorney Dale Markland represents another.  Murphrey is the author of the letter that I link to below.  The letter was addressed to Markland.

In US practice, the parties to a lawsuit can take depositions before going to trial.  Unlike the inquisitorial system used in civil law countries, in common law countries like the US, evidence-gathering is done by the parties through their attorneys.  Depositions are interrogations conducted by the attorneys of a witness.  The witness is under oath.  The transcript of the testimony can be introduced into evidence at trial.  Sometimes, a videographer records the witness on video tape.  That too can be shown in court at trial.

Scheduling a deposition is usually simple.  Attorneys, through their offices, agree on a time and place that is convenient to everyone.  In this case, according to Murphrey, a deposition had been scheduled.  Then a hurricane hit Houston and devastated Murphrey’s house.  Murphrey asked Markland to reschedule the deposition, but Markland refused, then added a bunch of conditions, like travel expenses and attorneys fees.  He even threatened to take the matter before the judge.  (Not a good idea.)

So Murphrey wrote Markland a letter in which he was very, very sorry.  Really.  He was.  And he filed it with the court in Harris County (Houston), Texas, where the lawsuit is being heard.

click-here-to-read-the-letter.pdf

Source:  lowering the bar blog