Journal Archives

September 2007
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003

The Mailing List!

Enter your email to sign up!

 

Another Formal Complaint (short fiction)

Thursday Mar 31, 2005 - Link to Entry

Hey there,

Don't mean to be a pest I'm just not home much and I was told I should send a letter for records purposes, but anyway...I just discovered that I have some water damage in my unit. I'm on the 7th floor of 27GK and it appears that flooding is occurring through my ceiling and damaging the carpet as well.

I've spoken to the guy who lives above me and he doesn't know what the problem is. I think it may be his sink or dish washer has a broken pipe and is leaking through the floor.

Anyway could you just send someone out to take care of this. I'll be in San Diego for the week but you can reach me at 212.XXX.XXXX if you need to talk about the problem.

Thanks for your help and for what its worth, everything else here has been great.

Best,

J. L. Withans

A Formal Complaint (short fiction)

Wednesday Mar 30, 2005 - Link to Entry

To Whom it may concern,

I am the tenant on the 9th floor of Building 27GK at the corner of Palmer Dr. and Anista St. Though I find it hardly in my nature to write a letter of complaint I cannot tolerate these indiscretions any more. For months the 8th floor tenant of the 8th floor at the above mentioned residence has been practicing an electric cello between the hours of 2 and 5 am. I have discussed the matter with him articulating my great need for peace and quiet at those horrid hours and he has twice now promised to not pick up the instrument during sleeping hours.

I do not wish to involve the police and would hope that you could keep this complaint anonymous. While I very much enjoy live music and his playing is coming along quite rapidly, I need you, the landlord to discourage rehearsal at such hours otherwise I will have to move away citing paragraph 7 on page 4 of our lease agreement that states:

"Tenant will keep volume of music, social engagements, and other such loud events to a minimum between the hours of midnight and seven AM. Tenant can expect these rules to be adhered to by the building's co-inhabitors...Please file a formal complaint and if issue is not remedied tenant will be free to break from lease penalty free with 30 days notice."

I love my home here as the penthouse resident on the 9th floor of Building 27GK and would hate to leave. Consider this my formal complaint. I hope that you will be able remedy this situation in a timely fashion. All is well that ends well.

Sincerely,

Elias L. Thomas IV, CPA

Its time for my annual plug for the . . .

Tuesday Mar 29, 2005 - Link to Entry

Bulls?!? So I've been accused by many of cheering a bit too hard, a bit too often, and a bit too early for my boys of the Southside, The White Sox. And perhaps those accusations were right and just. But ne'er in my adult life have I ever been guilty of such a crime when it comes to the youngest franchise of my childhood home, The Chicago Bulls.

Somehow, someway, after trading away and letting go of some of the biggest names in current basketball (see Ron Artest, Elton Brand, Jay Williams), the 'Baby' Bulls are back and in a big way.

By the spring/summer of 1998 another championship seemed like an inevitability. Who could touch the Bulls dynasty? I remember passively listening to the finals on the radio whilst on Roadtrip '98 a couple months shy of my 18th birthday. We knew we'd win it was just a matter of how. Would it be a Kukoc buzzer beater, would it be a Kerr coffin corner three, or would it be the classic Jordan fade away 'J' ?

Now, 7 years later, the bulls are just a few wins shy of locking up their first winning season since their last championship and with it a trip to the playoffs. Now for this young group, and I do mean young (45 years of experience on a roster of 14 players, 3 on the average, with three of the players counting for 30 of those years), just reaching the playoffs and putting Chicago's drought to a very sudden end won't nearly be enough. This team believes its good enough to compete for the Eastern Crown.

Can these 'Baby' Bulls overcome a Shaq lead Miami squad? Doubtful, quite doubtful. But if they play their cards right and overcome a faltering Detroit to win their division outright (4 games back with 13 remaining, only 5 against winning teams and 1 of those is Detroit), they can avoid having a date with Miami until the Eastern Conference final. The Bulls are confident, and so am I, that they can play with any team in the East in a seven game series except those pesky Miami boys.

So as long as the Bulls are keeping the basketball season interesting the Sox will remain for the most part unmentioned here. Its been a long time since I heard, "And now the starting lineup for your WORLD CHAMPION Chicago BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSS!!!!" Now perhaps its only a year or two away.

Not Without my $15 - part IX - The Verdict

Monday Mar 28, 2005 - Link to Entry

Day 8 Deliberations and Verdict

Your verdict is in. You found for the defendant declaring that he was not negligent in his care for his patient. Here’s how our day of deliberations went:

After the long-winded closing statements came to, well, a close, the Judge began to give us our Jury instructions. While they were more complex than yours the general gist was the same. We were to now go to the jury room, select a presiding juror (foreperson), deliberate, and do so until we had come to a 9-3 “consensus” on each question. If we ever reached a consensus of NO to a question we were to stop there and buzz the court assistant with our verdict.

We headed to the jury room for the umpteenth time, but this time we were finally going to speak about the case, compare notes, and arrive at a fair verdict based on the evidences presented in court. The first order of business; selection of the foreperson.

Perhaps it was my earlier campaigning a few short weeks earlier, perhaps it was the fact that I had poured my guts out to the attorneys and had still ended up on the jury…I’m not really sure what factor lead to my quick and consensual nomination, but as you know I enjoy the spotlight and was more than happy to be the jury foreman. And so it was.

I started the deliberations by suggesting that we have an open forum discussion with those parties wishing to speak indicating such by a raise of the hand. I would then write down their names and call on them in the order they had presented their desire to speak. While this system in theory seemed flawless emotions were soon bursting and maintaining the rules of order proved a taller task than I had hoped.

Still a few questions remained. Were the inaccuracies in the Doctor’s records enough to constitute malpractice? Did the amount of medication he prescribed to his patient cause her harm? And were these behaviors or the behaviors of the doctor’s staff negligent? Oh and a technical question…The last question on the verdict sheet was unclear. The secretary (the woman recording the minutes on the jury) and I quickly wrote up a question to be posed to the judge for clarification on the question.

About 10 minutes later we were asked back into the courtroom and the judge read our question aloud. “Shall the % of fault that is not Dr. McGee and is not Crazy Complainee be assessed in the category of Crazy?”

His answer: “If you flip to the next page you will see the category other factors %. Does this answer your question?” Needless to say I was embarrassed beyond belief. In a room filed with people awaiting our verdict I was shown to be a little lacking in my Fore-duties. Potentially the most embarrassing moment of my life and there have been a lot.

We returned and arguments on both sides were aired. Reason did end up prevailing though and after about 5 hours of deliberation the jury arrived upon a verdict 9-3 in favor of the defendant. Though I spoke vocally against the majority citing his sloppy records and my fear that he could be dangerous to his other patients if he doesn’t take better care the rest of the jury felt that his actions did not constitute malpractice and that Crazy Complainee was at fault for her behaviors. They felt that a doctor can only do as well as his patient allows him/her to do and that she had severely violated that partnership.

Apparently you agree and I’m in the minority. Maybe I don’t like doctors…I wonder why…

We returned to the courtroom. It was my job to stand with the verdict pressed to my chest. I did so. The judge asked, “Have you reached a verdict.” And I said, “Yes we have, your honor…” Well actually that’s not true…I simply said. “We have.” The verdict was then taken to the court reporter who read it aloud. And just like that the doctor was off the hook, the plaintiff came up empty handed, and my prison sentence of jury duty was abruptly over.

A few weeks ago I got my check. $144.07. $15 a day plus one-way mileage. Not a bad day’s work, week’s work, half month’s work….

Not Without my $15 - your vote

Thursday Mar 24, 2005 - Link to Entry

You be the judge. Here are your jury instructions (they differ somewhat from ours which will be explained after your vote):

-The question being brought before you is: Was BadDoctor McGee, M.D. negligent in his care of Crazy Complainee?

-A vote yes means you feel that the burden of proof was fulfilled and that it is clear to you from the evidence presented here that Dr. McGee acted less than reasonably for a man of his education and in his position.

-A vote no means you feel Dr. McGee upheld the standards of his profession in the care of Ms. Complainee.

-REMEMBER!!! This is not a criminal case! You must decide simply if the burden of proof was satisfied. Basically if you feel the sides have tied then you must vote no, but if the balance has shifted slightly such that you’re leaning towards the plaintiff than you must vote yes.

Vote away. Results and the real Jury deliberations and verdict to follow.

Not Without my $15 part VII

Thursday Mar 17, 2005 - Link to Entry

Days 4 – 7 Experts

The rest of the trial was filled with outside expert opinions. The problem with expert witnesses is they are paid, and paid quite handsomely I’ll have you know. Also even if you find yourself buying what they’re selling the next witness, also a certified expert, will take the stand and under oath fully disagree with the previously stated opinion.

The witnesses all agreed on the following:
- Ms. Complainee was on a lot of medications.
- Ms. Complainee was at some fault for continuing to smoke and not taking the Add Back and Calcium that were prescribed.
- Documents showed that she had received medication at home and work, which is not standard practice.
- Lupron can lead to Osteoporosis.
- Complainee had received Lupron from McGee as well as other physicians after 2001.
- Using Lupron for more than 2 cycles of treatment was and still is a bit experimental taking into full account the strength of the medication.
- McGee had been given shots according to pharmaceutical records that did not appear in his records.

The witnesses disagreed on the following:
- Using a bone density test before commencing a new cycle of Lupron – One witness felt that it was not below the standard of care to not use a bone scan. He never uses them himself relying on Add Back on pap smears to control and monitor hormone level and health. The other witness felt that assessing bone density health is recommended and in not paying close attention to his patient’s bone health McGee caused the osteoporosis.
- The length of usage – One witness felt that it was not below the standard of care to use the drug for several treatments. After a period of time the bloodstream clears itself of the medication and heals from the side effects. The other witness felt that since the research data for treatment past the first cycle was inconclusive that McGee had over medicated his patient.
- McGee’s records – The witness for the defense articulated clearly that the purpose of records are to jog the physician’s memory and nothing more. A physician has no legal responsibility, nor is it below the standard of care, to record all Rx’s in his/her records (Rx = prescriptions). The witness for the plaintiff said that it is reckless and irresponsible to not have every shot clearly marked in medical records and that if shots were given that were not in the records McGee stood the chance of overmedicating.

So at the end of the day we were left with which witness we believed was more in touch with today’s standard of care. The witness for the defense was a flashy, young, friendly physician who planned to donate all of his expert witness testimony payment to charity. The plaintiff’s witness was an older, less shiny, less articulate man, but was the head of OB/GYN at several hospitals throughout his professional life. So is it a push?

Not Without my $15 part VI

Wednesday Mar 16, 2005 - Link to Entry

Day 3

Fresh off a glorious three-day (President’s Day) weekend it was back to the courtroom for more fun stories and “evidence.” It was now Complainee’s turn to take the stand and let us know why this suit was being brought.

At first she was a very impressive witness. She seemed to be a woman who had had a horrible run of luck with illness and injury and simply wanted to live a normal life but had become debilitated by her osteoporosis. She was quite likeable while being questioned by her attorney.

But trials don’t just let one attorney speak – And her façade couldn’t last forever. Once the Defense was up for questioning Complainee lost her cool. She went from articulate to rambling, from confident to shaken, from cool to angry.

She began contradicting herself at every turn. She changed her testimony from one moment to the next. She began spouting defensive rhetoric and saying repeatedly, “I don’t even know what that means,” in response to fairly straight forward inquiries. From her testimony we learned:

-Complainee was receiving Lupron at her home and at work. She was even allowed to walk out Dr. McGee’s office with a kit.
-Complainee couldn’t take the Add Back because it made her ill. She called Dr. McGee’s office to tell them this. Dr. McGee and his office staff said this call never took place. Due to his sloppy records this issue was never made clear one way or the other.
-Complainee had tons of other disorders and illnesses and was on tons of narcotics as a result.
-Complainee was an irritable patient who had seen over 26 doctors in an 8 year period.
-Complainee has been on disability for over 3 years although she has continued her education in the interim finishing her Bachelor’s degree and beginning Masters work.
-She understands fully that cigarette smoking contributes to her horrible bone health and yet she refuses to quit.
-She claims that in her last visit to Dr. McGee she had waited in the stirrups for over 90 minutes. When she was finally seen the Doctor supposedly said to his assistant, “Look, she has the uterus of an 82 year old woman.”

Basically Crazy Complainee painted herself as a very difficult patient who was hurt as a result of blind faith in her physicians. She said, “I just do what the Doctors tell me.” Yet she had failed to quit smoking and refused to take the Add Back even though the importance of doing so was fully explained and understood. It became clear through little rumblings made during the lunch hour that my co jurors were not thrilled with all of the contradictions and the games that were being played while she was on the stand.

I was really hurt by her controversial testimony. Why should I be pulled from my day to day life for a woman that was clearly morally reprehensible? Even if the Doctor was responsible for her illness through negligent practice would I be able to look beyond her shortcomings and not blame her? Would I ever see my $15?

Not Without my $15 part V

Tuesday Mar 15, 2005 - Link to Entry

The Trial Begins: Crazy Complainee vs. Bad Doctor McGee, MD.

To be honest I can’t remember a word of opening statements. I was tired, I was depressed, and I was easily distracted. Most of my attention was spent either fascinated with the court reporters short hand dictation machine and all of the strange codes she was creating or thinking of how humorous it was that I was on this jury and was being charged with the task of judging the matters being brought before me.

While the Plaintiff’s attorney spoke all I couldn’t help but think about how ridiculous he looked with his long flowing wavy silver hair. He resembled one of our nation’s founding fathers only he didn’t need the wig to pull off the look. Because of the unique image this hair created I was able to imagine him with a more 2005 appropriate hairdo. I thought he would probably look a lot more like a decent guy than a crazy car salesman.

While the Defendant’s attorney spoke it took almost fiber of my being to prevent myself from laughing out loud. He spoke with his larynx so far up his throat that he put Kermit the frog to shame. I almost wished he would break into, “Why are there so many songs about rainbows,” although he might have tried that lame Kenny Loggins version of that great Muppet tune.

How could they expect me to be focused? They were droning on and on and on and I didn’t even think I was going to be on the jury. I had clearly not come to grips with my new sentence as a juror and I probably wouldn’t for the remainder of the day at least until these robotic sharks stopped their yapping.

“The Plaintiff calls Dr. McGee to the stand.”

The Judge nodded as I breathed a big sigh of relief. The court assistant evidence lady person swore in Dr. McGee and he took the stand.

Dr. McGee was a small dark man. Originally from Africa he had a wonderful British English toned accent. He was small round glasses around his aging eyes and from his strong look you could feel his sense of pride and sadness for having this suit brought against him.

In a game of cat and mouse the Plaintiff really got Dr. McGee on what poker players like to call ‘Tilt.’ He was serving both as an eyewitness, as the defendant, and as an expert witness in the field of Obstetrics/Gynecology. The following points were made during his testimony:

- Dr. McGee is a very accomplished physician completely certified, respected in his field, and very up to date in his knowledge of women’s health.
- The Plaintiff, Crazy Complainee, was under the care of Dr. McGee from 1994-2001 for treatment of a disease called Endometriosis.
- Endometriosis is when cells from the uterine lining find there way to other parts of the body. It becomes very painful when a woman has her menstrual period as these cells wish to be shed but have no way to exit the body and will cause internal bleeding, scaring and clotting typically in the abdomen.
- Dr. McGee was fully aware of these facts: Complainee was a smoker who had had a stomach stapling and was on a multitude of medications before she came into his care. Lupron, the drug that he prescribed to treat her endometriosis, creates a premature menopausal state in women. Menopause has very negative effects on bone health. Therefore using Lupron could cause Osteoporosis.
- Complainee now suffers from osteoporosis.
- Dr. McGee believes that he was not below the standard of care in prescribing Lupron for a high risk patient like Complainee because he used what is called an Add Back, which is a hormone boost added back to prevent bone density loss.
- Dr. McGee’s records did not show several shots of Lupron that were received according to pharmaceutical records but he insisted that his records are for his review purposes only and so it did not matter how many details were recorded as Doctors are not in the business of record keeping.
- Smoking and stomach stapling are both major risk factors for causing osteoporosis.
- The standard of care according to the PDR (Physician’s Desk Reference) stated that if a physician uses Lurpon on a patient it is recommended that a bone density test be taken before a second course of treatment.
- Complainee had had over 5 courses of treatment with Dr. McGee.
- Dr. McGee had never taken a bone density test feeling Add Back more than compensated for potential damages caused by Lupron.

While there were thousands of other details and minutia I really can only laundry list so much of it here. Just know that these are the main points and a taste of his testimony.

After the day came to a close I stopped by work to plan out a new schedule for myself since it was clear I would be stuck on jury duty for quite some time. After that was all sorted I packed my bags and headed to Joshua Tree National Park with Miriam and Flat Stanley trying my best to put the trial out of my mind until the following week.

Not Without my $15 part IV

Monday Mar 14, 2005 - Link to Entry

DAY 2

After a series of conversations with work, my girlfriend, family, and friends, I seemed to feel I was going to be in the clear. First off if they closed the jury as was they wouldn't even get to my number. But if for some reason someone were dismissed, well then I'd probably be sent out right after them. I am clearly a milk cow.

This time I took the escalator. They have escalators throughout the building, fast ones. The escalators often saved time on using the elevator even if you were traveling 4 floors or more. The courthouse is really a strange building. You can enter from the street on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th floors depending on where you enter.

I arrived, refreshed, relaxed, and confident that I was about to spend my last moments in jury duty that morning. With a flat Stanley project still to be dealt with I planned to spend the afternoon on my computer preparing the files to be sent to Texas.

When we entered the courtroom we were directed to take the same seats as the previous day. For me that meant seat 15, one away from the jury box. The problem now was that people clearly had been dismissed, or at least didn’t show up, and as a result there were three vacant chairs within the jury box. I was asked to fill seat number 2.

The Judge then asked, “Are there any objections to the jury as it stands?”

I patiently waited for my dismissal.

The Plaintiff’s attorney responded, “None your honor.”

Well the defense is really the side that shouldn’t want me.

“We are also ready to proceed with the jury as it stands.”

You remember the shot in Jaws where the camera quickly tracks backwards while zooming in on Richard Dreyfuss as to keep him the same size in the frame but to make the background look as though the laws of physics had been thrown out the window and chaos had ensued? That occurred in my stomach. I was a cow for slaughter. I had become Juror #2

“We will dismiss for a lunch break momentarily. But before we do let me give a bit of instruction and overview. After lunch we will begin with the opening statements. We will open with the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff has what is called the ‘Burden of Proof.’ Now this is quite different from a criminal trial. On a criminal trial guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as in no traces of doubt remain. In a civil case, like this one, the Plaintiff just must prove that the suit being brought is more true than not true. A majority if you will. The Defense will then rebut with their opening statement. Then they will begin calling witnesses. After all witnesses have been called they will close with a final statement and the jury will be asked to deliberate to render a verdict. This will be the first time you will be allowed to discuss the case. Until then I ask that you do not speak a word of it to your friends, family, colleagues, and especially not your co-jurors. You are the judges in this case. You will decide based on the evidence presented in this courtroom and nowhere else. You are not to bring in outside opinions or information. You are simply to weigh what is brought before this court. We have provided a notebook to help you with this task. We will see you after lunch.”

Since that pretty much wraps up all of the interesting details of the pre-trial era the rest of this epic tale will be dedicated to the trial details. Near the end of the story I will post an online poll for you, the readers, to render your own verdict. I will then post the jury’s verdict.

I will try my best to convey the important details from the trial and to not be redundant. I wish that counsel had done a better job sticking to these details and not being redundant by repeating themselves and saying the same things in such a way that they re-communicated what had already been said before in a déjà vu like manner of repetition and redundancy. That sentence ruled!

To Be Continued . . .

Not Without my $15 part III

Thursday Mar 10, 2005 - Link to Entry

Part III...

A million seconds could have passed by and I wouldn't have noticed but one. I was frozen in thought. How would I answer these questions?

I became flooded with memories some vivid and tangible, moments I could taste, while others seemed distant and perhaps fictional, like a story a friend recalls for you and you nod your head although you have only the faintest recollection. I remembered the courtroom in 1985, or was it '84? I could see the Judge's face flushed and angry. I could hear him screaming at my mother. I could taste salt. Everything seemed so much larger than this quaint courtroom. I left my head and opened my ears again.

4 Jurors were dismissed for one reason or another. My name was called to fill in seat 15, one seat shy of the jury box. Though this scenario still allowed for me to steer clear of jury service, part of me longed to be in that box. After all I'd come too far to just sit in the front row.

The questioning began and I began a series of disclosures that felt like they didn't belong in a courtroom due to their palpable pain and passion and yet didn't belong in a psychiatrist's office as they lacked depth and substance. My response was something like the following:

"My name is Jeremy Round. I live in Hollywood, California. I am a sound editor, musician, and voice-over talent (I exaggerated a little bit just in case the right person was listening), My roommate works in talent management. My parents and a majority of people I consider family are in health care. My mother was an occupational therapist. My father is a Physician. I have never served on a jury before."

Judge McCraw then followed up, "Your mother was an occupational therapist. What exactly is that?"

I explained unimpressively, as I am not entirely sure

"I see. She was a therapist. She has retired?"

"No she is deceased your honor."

"Oh, I'm sorry. And your father, would his being a Doctor give an unfair advantage to the Defendant in this case?"

"Well I should clarify your honor. I don't talk to my father. In fact I stopped speaking with him over 10 years ago," I responded awkwardly.

"I see. Well would that create an unfair advantage for the Plaintiff in this case?"

"I don't think so."

"Is there anything else you'd like to disclose that is relevant to this case Juror #15?"

"Yeah. I'd like to mention that I was the victim of Civil Court corruption back in Chicago. My father was granted custody in the divorce only to have the case accepted for appeal after it was found that the judge on the case was accepting bribes and was indicted for doing so. Also I recently went after my father for back child support and settled outside of court. So I guess I'd just like to say that with all of the baggage I bring to this case I don't think I'd make an ideal juror." And then I looked over towards the attorneys and their clients and continued, "If I were sitting where you all are I wouldn't want someone like me on this jury."

"Well I am sorry to hear that you have had such a rough go of it. I do hope that my conduct can help to restore some of your faith in the civil court system. And I must ask, do you, taking all of your history into account, believe that you can be a fair and impartial juror?"

"If called to do so, I'll try my best."

Just minutes later we were dismissed for the day and told to return the following morning. Though I was completely outraged that I would be returning, my mind was else where. On my way out I could taste salt on my lips. Had I been crying? It wouldn't matter though, they wouldn't want someone like me on the jury.

Not Without my $15 part II

Wednesday Mar 9, 2005 - Link to Entry

And now part two in the epic serial tale, "Not Without my $15."

In the crammed elevator going to Courtroom 50 (Dept. 50) I began to joke with my new "friends." I place that label in quotes as I had only spent moments with these people on the sofas of the over crowded holding cage and knew very little of them other than that just like me they were tired, unhappy to be in captivity, and getting to be a bit slap happy.

Some might say my grasp on reality is a bit loose to begin with. I suppose I would agree with some in some ways some of the time. I would explain my reality just as different than those who I invite to share in it, firmly grasped, and deeper and more developed this moment than just a few ago. Realities aside, I was beginning to find every moment a bit comical. In my elevated state of humor I began a short lived elevator campaign. In the moments between floors 2 and 5, in the 30 feet or so traveled straight up, crammed into a corner and surrounded by strangers who were my allies against our collective captor, I began to rally for leadership. I declared to my peers, "If I’m on this jury, I want to be Jury Foreman." There was no way they’d want a guy like me.

We lined up outside Department 50. A rotund woman in a navy blue blazer stepped out. "Good morning jurors. I am going to take roll and in a moment you will step into the courtroom. Please fill in the seats in the gallery and wait." She called roll and we rolled into the court filling the seats as instructed.

The courtroom was smaller than I had expected. Inside was a court reporter, three attorneys, the plaintiff (the party bringing the claim), the defendant, the rotund court assistant as I previously mentioned and the court clerk. The clerk waited until we were seated and then announced, "The court announces the Honorable Judge McCraw Jr." In walked a robed but understated and jovial looking man. He took his place at the bench. He opened court.

"Ladies and Gentlemen. Welcome. Thank you so much for taking your responsibility seriously and for coming out this morning. In a moment we are going to begin the jury selection for this trial. We will call out 20 of your names and you are to take a seat in one of the chairs marked 1 through 20. I will then ask each of you a series of questions and then council will have a chance to question you as well. This process is called Voir Dire."
He went on to explain that it is very important that we are very honest and disclose anything that we think is relevant to this case and that though it is an inconvenience the trial should only last 10 days and that the jury system is the fundamental corner stone of the American System. While we had heard all of this before something about it being a Faulkner like run on sentence made it so much more convincing, or perhaps it was his mild kind manner that really sold me. Whatever it was I knew that I wasn’t going to lie to get out of duty. I still believed and really still believe now that I would not be the type of juror they would want.

20 names were called the first 14 of which got to sit in the juror box and the next 6 were seated in the front row of the gallery. My name went uncalled. Milk cow by default I thought. They would only need 14 of the 35 of us for slaughter, or service pending on how you look at it.

The next 5 hours were spent interviewing this group of 20. During this time we all got a good sense about what the case involved. It was clear that the plaintiff, one Ms. Crazy Complainee, was suing her physician, one Dr. BadDoctor McGee for some sort of gynecological mishap. The questions all centered around whether or not we had family in medicine, if we’d ever had experience with law suits, whether or not we’d had bad experiences with medicine, whether or not the Dr. would have a head start in the case because he is a physician, etc. And for those 5 hours I heard some of the most captivating stories, some of the most outrageous claims, some of the worst lying, and juror #13.

Oh juror #13 would provide us all with comic relief for quite sometime. At first it seemed like he was messing with the judge. His literate tongue was offset by the most stereotypical of nerdish tones. He quickly became the jury equivalent of American Idol’s William Hung.

These five questions were posed to each juror:
1. What’s your name?
2. Where do you live?
3. What do you do?
4. What does everyone in your household/family do?
5. Have you ever been on a jury before?

Juror #13 got stuck somewhere around question number 2. He began listing everywhere he had ever lived and the specific addresses of those homes. One such home was a mental institute he had recently visited for reasons of, "Extreme anxiety, paranoia, and potential personality disorder." He kept getting lost in laundry lists but the highlights of his Voir Dire came from when the attorneys asked if he could be fair. He raised his hand and slowly pushed his head forward like a nervous Kermit the Frog, "I cannot in good faith believe in the doctor. It is clear the doctor made a mistake if he is being sued." Needless to say Juror #13 wouldn’t last the day.

Not Without my $15 Part I

Tuesday Mar 8, 2005 - Link to Entry

The following is the first part in a short series entitled "Not Without my $15." This series will attempt to retell my experiences as a Juror for the Los Angeles Civil Court system. Before its stunning conclusion a vote will be held to determine the public's verdict on my mostly unbiased account of the trial. Then the jury's opinion will be unveiled for all to enjoy. Names, if used at all, will be changed as to prevent any reason for me to find myself ANYWHERE near a civil courtroom again. And now, "Now Without My $15, Part I":

It all began with a simple piece of mail. Its envelope reminded me of a sweepstakes mailing only in place of the usual, "You may have already won $1,000,000," was a bright red box with big block white lettering announcing to the world, "Jury Summons." I must admit that upon receiving this official government mailing I was filled with excitement and anticipation akin to receiving a letter from an old friend or a bat mitzvah invitation from the girl you like circa 1993. At the time of its mailing I was employed as a lowly assistant’s assistant, a runner, days spent running errands on the road. True it was a highly relevant job. The tasks of a runner keep the company afloat, but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t excited about a potential break from work.

I brought the envelope upstairs before opening it. Though I do not remember the specifics, the directions instructed for me to fill out a series of questions involving past convictions, and the like. I was then to call a hotline and officially register. The mechanical female voice on the other line gave me several options to defer my service. Having no idea that over a month later I would be stuck on a two-week trial I, at the time, made no attempt to avoid jury duty. The voice ended the call by instructing me to call back on Sunday February 13th to determine if I would have to go to the courthouse.

Several weeks passed. During this time I was promoted and no longer wished to miss work for any reason. But taped on my closet door right next to my calendar was the original summons and the call in information for the week of 2-13-05 reminding me of my potential impending doom (duty).

The big day arrived. I slowly dialed fearing the mechanic voice would instruct me to head to the courthouse early the next morning. I typed in my juror ID. "You do not need to report Monday, February 14th. Please call tomorrow after 5PM to see if you are needed for the next business day." While I was relieved I didn’t really want to have to play this game of chance all week, but what choice did I have?

Monday night (Valentine’s Day), the voice once again told me I wouldn’t be needed and to call back tomorrow. Two chances had come and gone and I had not been called for duty. Perhaps the whole week would slide by….perhaps.

Tuesday night when I called there was slight change. "Enter your Juror ID." I did so. And then a long pause. "Damn….," I thought as I went through my mind all of the calls I would have to make to cover for missing work. But then the same message I’d heard the previous two nights was played. "Please call tomorrow."

Wednesday night I was hosting a big poker game. Getting home from work a bit late I had to scramble to clean the apartment in preparation. The game went well and everyone had a great time. Exhausted, I collapsed into bed a few hours later then I like to get to sleep. I was sleeping like a baby when, "Honk, Honk, Honk, Honk, BEEEEEEEEP, BEEEEEEEP, BEEEEEEP…." A car alarm woke me up. "Damn….," I thought again but this time it was because I had forgotten to call in for service. "Here we go."

I dialed again. I slowly entered my now memorized Juror ID, 876451. A long pause but no mechanical voice this time, just a recording. "Please report to the courthouse at 7:30am. Please dress business casual. No sandals or flip-flops." Well at this point it was 2:30am and no one at work had any idea I wouldn’t be there the next day, so I set my alarm, the noise from the street died down, and I put my head to the pillow for my remaining hours of rest.

A few hours later I was at my temporary home, the Civil Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. I was shuffled in, a mere animal amongst hundreds of other livestock and cattle. I found myself thinking of myself as a cow and hoping to be used for milking instead of slaughter. Hmm, perhaps metaphors aren’t my thing.

Anyway, we were brought into a room and orientation began. A judge from the court told us all about the importance of jury duty. He asked us how many people had served before. A few folks raised their hands. He asked us how many people wanted to serve. I didn’t see any hands, but I was having trouble keeping my eyes open by this point in his speech. He closed in saying that approximately two thirds of us would be called for a process called voir dire (which if you translate the French literally means, To See to Speak, or to see what they’ll say). He said that about a third of those people would be selected to serve. So math fans that’s 2/9ths or a little less than a one in four chance of being selected. As a milk cow hopeful, I liked those odds.

And then we sat. And man was it boring. I was having the damnedest time staying awake. People were sleeping, talking on cell phones, doing crosswords, talking to their neighbors. Two gentlemen, one who looked strangely like Christopher Guest of "A Mighty Wind" fame, were arguing about gambling odds. I couldn’t tell if a fist fight or if a game of poker was about to break out, either way I was interested.

We were given a short morning break and I used the time to call into work and explain the situation. I told them I really didn’t think I would be selected and that I would call later in the day with more information.

The livestock then returned to the holding cage where the first group of jurors was called to Department 50. My goal was to be called early and then released so that I could get the hell out of there and get to work. Though my dreams and hopes rested solely in the hands of the juror selection process.

Towards the end of the list of 35 names or so was my own. My fate as a juror remained unclear but I knew my day wouldn’t involve daytime television, a fate worse than death. To me it seemed my plan was going smoothly after all what bonehead attorney who would want an opinionated victim of the court system on his or her jury.

Case Closed (almost)

Wednesday Mar 2, 2005 - Link to Entry

Deliberations begin tomorrow morning at 9am. If we are successful in coming to a verdict during the work day then you my faithful and patient readers can expect a full disclosure of all of my trial stories and memories soon there after. I may even attempt to present the case anew to those who care to read about it and then you can reach your verdict and see if it agrees with what our jury decided.

Nothing else to report since most of my energy and emotion has been dedicated to this trial and staying alive during its proceedings. Just know that I will be campaigning tomorrow to be the foreman of our great jury by bringing juice boxes and wearing a tie. Okay, I probably won’t really bring juice boxes and I’m more likely to wear my bright red Vermont T-shirt, but damn it, I’ll be campaigning.

I may not discuss these issues any further at this time. Motion to cease writing this entry, granted.