Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

MonK:

Your point is well taken but I think these criticisms of Dean are exaggerated.

I did not and have not criticized Dean. I called a spade a spade.

Any of us, rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, would be more skeptical of the testimony of a homeless person.
[my emphasis]

Doug -- "probably" ? You know better than that. It is not a "probably" situation--! It is absolutely wrong. If you are appealing to an argument of "human frailty or the human condition" that is all fine and good as a mitigating circumstance by which to justify Dean's perspective--but it fails to justify the lack of logic in the argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

MonK:

Your point is well taken but I think these criticisms of Dean are exaggerated.

I did not and have not criticized Dean. I called a spade a spade.

Any of us, rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, would be more skeptical of the testimony of a homeless person.
[my emphasis]

Doug -- "probably" ? You know better than that. It is not a "probably" situation--! It is absolutely wrong. If you are appealing to an argument of "human frailty or the human condition" that is all fine and good as a mitigating circumstance by which to justify Dean's perspective--but it fails to justify the lack of logic in the argument.

Monk:

Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Monk:

Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug, correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Jim Fetzer indicated his desire

to not continue on this thread?

I don't see what is accomplished by beating up on Jim and Judyth any further.

Wouldn't it be better to allow the man to withdraw as gracefully as possible?

I think it a service to all to let this thread be hijacked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Monk:

Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Since you insist on using examples from the justice system to make your point, I will too. The fact that prejudices are part of the human experience is the reason that jury selection is an art form. As you know, if a potential juror were to reveal such prejudice, as understandable as it might be under his or her unique circumstances, such a potential juror will be dismissed or released from duty. They will be deemed unfit for jury service due to that prejudice. Are you inadvertantly making a judgment call as to the fitness of Dean as a "dispassionate" juror?

I'd like to move on as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Monk:

Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug, correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Jim Fetzer indicated his desire

to not continue on this thread?

I don't see what is accomplished by beating up on Jim and Judyth any further.

Wouldn't it be better to allow the man to withdraw as gracefully as possible?

I think it a service to all to let this thread be hijacked.

Cliff:

I was not aware of that. Jim posted three times yesterday and did not mention anything. The last thing I knew was that Jim stated that Judyth was going to answer the questions I and others raised.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Monk:

Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Since you insist on using examples from the justice system to make your point, I will too. The fact that prejudices are part of the human experience is the reason that jury selection is an art form. As you know, if a potential juror were to reveal such prejudice, as understandable as it might be under his or her unique circumstances, such a potential juror will be dismissed or released from duty. They will be deemed unfit for jury service due to that prejudice. Are you inadvertantly making a judgment call as to the fitness of Dean as a "dispassionate" juror?

I'd like to move on as well.

Monk:

It is not that simplistic. There are challenges for cause, which are not so broad, and preemptory challenges. What do you call a person with an I.Q. of 60, barely got into law school, finished at the bottom of their class, failed the bar exam 4 times before barely passing it? Answer: Your Honor.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Monk:

Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Since you insist on using examples from the justice system to make your point, I will too. The fact that prejudices are part of the human experience is the reason that jury selection is an art form. As you know, if a potential juror were to reveal such prejudice, as understandable as it might be under his or her unique circumstances, such a potential juror will be dismissed or released from duty. They will be deemed unfit for jury service due to that prejudice. Are you inadvertantly making a judgment call as to the fitness of Dean as a "dispassionate" juror?

I'd like to move on as well.

Monk:

It is not that simplistic. There are challenges for cause, which are not so broad, and preemptory challenges. What do you call a person with an I.Q. of 60, barely got into law school, finished at the bottom of their class, failed the bar exam 4 times before barely passing it? Answer: Your Honor.

Doug Weldon

Absurd. Oh, I get it: Lawyer jokes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say this Greg

If I was going through Jury selection on a Trial for lets say a Homeless man who killed another person I would make sure the Defense knew about my feelings and my past dealings with Homeless people so that the Homeless man would get a fair trial by having me not sit on the Jury

I believe everybody deserves a fair trial, and I would be man enough to make sure that I was not on the jury to sway another juror with my feelings about Homeless people

Im not trying to drag this on Greg, I just want you to know I have strong feelings about alot of things, getting a fair trial no matter who the accused is one of those things

Edited by Dean Hagerman
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say this Greg

If I was going through Jury selection on a Trial for lets say a Homeless man who killed another person I would make sure the Defense knew about my feelings and my past dealings with Homeless people so that the Homeless man would get a fair trial by having me not sit on the Jury

I believe everybody deserves a fair trial, and I would be man enough to make sure that I was not on the jury to sway anybody with my feelings about Homeless people

Im not trying to drag this on Greg, I just want you to know I have strong feelings about alot of things, getting a fair trial no matter who the accused is one of those things

Thanks Dean. I figured as much. You strike me as an honest guy. In such a circumstance you would disqualify yourself as a matter of self respect--so that justice would have the best chance to prevail.

I've often heard it said, "The best thing about being a cop is never having to make up a bogus excuse to get out of reporting for jury duty."

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to post
Share on other sites
Judyth wrote:

My kids were voted most popular, played with state champion-to-be football

team, and were valedictorians, their blushing single mother so thrilled.

I served in Bradenton as tutor, counselor to women, a state-trained child

abuse investigator, and made some rescues of children that could be made

into a movie, including a shotgun shoved against my chest, etc. .

Previously, I'd rescued, and caused to be rescued, dozens of starving

pregnant mares and got new laws passed in state of Texas against animal

abuse...and founded FBC Humane Society.

Bradenton is in Fort Bend County (FBC). The Fort Bend County website for community

services lists NO FBC HUMANE SOCIETY.

Jack

Jack,

Just a poorly constructed ramble .... she lived in Bradenton, Florida .... and in Stafford, Texas. Stafford is in

Fort Bend County, TX. And it looks like you are correct .... no FBC Humane Society listed.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Judyth wrote:

My kids were voted most popular, played with state champion-to-be football

team, and were valedictorians, their blushing single mother so thrilled.

I served in Bradenton as tutor, counselor to women, a state-trained child

abuse investigator, and made some rescues of children that could be made

into a movie, including a shotgun shoved against my chest, etc. .

Previously, I'd rescued, and caused to be rescued, dozens of starving

pregnant mares and got new laws passed in state of Texas against animal

abuse...and founded FBC Humane Society.

Bradenton is in Fort Bend County (FBC). The Fort Bend County website for community

services lists NO FBC HUMANE SOCIETY.

Jack

Jack,

Just a poorly constructed ramble .... she lived in Bradenton, Florida .... and in Stafford, Texas. Stafford is in

Fort Bend County, TX. And it looks like you are correct .... no FBC Humane Society listed.

Bests,

Barb :-)

About her time in Stafford, TX: she helped with the town's bicentennial memorial garden. She claims her name is on a monument there for her civic service.

Does anyone live near Stafford, TX and can go to the memorial garden and see if her name is on a monument there?

Kathy C

Link to post
Share on other sites
Judyth wrote:

My kids were voted most popular, played with state champion-to-be football

team, and were valedictorians, their blushing single mother so thrilled.

I served in Bradenton as tutor, counselor to women, a state-trained child

abuse investigator, and made some rescues of children that could be made

into a movie, including a shotgun shoved against my chest, etc. .

Previously, I'd rescued, and caused to be rescued, dozens of starving

pregnant mares and got new laws passed in state of Texas against animal

abuse...and founded FBC Humane Society.

Bradenton is in Fort Bend County (FBC). The Fort Bend County website for community

services lists NO FBC HUMANE SOCIETY.

Jack

Jack,

Just a poorly constructed ramble .... she lived in Bradenton, Florida .... and in Stafford, Texas. Stafford is in

Fort Bend County, TX. And it looks like you are correct .... no FBC Humane Society listed.

Bests,

Barb :-)

About her time in Stafford, TX: she helped with the town's bicentennial memorial garden. She claims her name is on a monument there for her civic service.

Does anyone live near Stafford, TX and can go to the memorial garden and see if her name is on a monument there?

Kathy C

She also claimed she was on the committee and that she designed the thing. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I promised I would not post in thread, but who knew back then what turns it would take?

Your point is well taken but I think these criticisms of Dean are exaggerated.

Really? I think they were admirably restrained. Particularly Lee's, given what I think he would have liked to have said.

Any of us, rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, would be more skeptical of the testimony of a homeless person.

Since you cannot possibly be that dumb, I have to assume you are playing defense attorney. This is not about his skepticism. It is about his characterizations.

And his latest claim that he would disqualify himself as a jurist in the trial of a homeless person in order that they receive a fair trial is risible given he has already admitted acting as judge, jury and executioner against a homeless person - who was inebriated I might add, and therefore unlikely to be able to defend himself against such a spineless attack.

A common jury instruction is that the jury can consider the demeanor of the witnesses and the manner in which they testify. This started with Jim criticizing that Dean was not impressed with the demeanor of watching Judyth. Jim attacked him and Dean then became defensive. He can judge things as he wishes and he would not be alone in his observations of Judyth or his skepticism of homeless people being the sole substantiation of points made by Judyth. Dean has been a valuable contributor and participant in the forum. I believe this is a diversion from the isues and we should move on.

No. He would not be alone. He stands firmly with John McAdams with whom I debated homelessness some years ago. One McAdams' Proclamation as I recall it, was that America rocks because mentally ill people are free to sleep in parks if they want.

Like most have a choice...

The problem with Jim's friends in relation to their support of Judyth is NOT their former homelessness. It is, in my opinion, a problem of empathy (or bias) arising out of the alleged shared experiences of having emails tampered with and being (again allegedly) hounded and harassed by one's own government.

I note that you and Dean want to move on. Isn't it a bitch when things get a bit tough and someone keeps wanting to drag you back and make you accountable for your own words?

Hey councilor, here's an idea. Why don't you do some public defending for Jack White and John Armstrong? There's a couple of threads were they surely could use such a sharp legal mind.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
I promised I would not post in thread, but who knew back then what turns it would take?
Your point is well taken but I think these criticisms of Dean are exaggerated.

Really? I think they were admirably restrained. Particularly Lee's, given what I think he would have liked to have said.

Any of us, rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, would be more skeptical of the testimony of a homeless person.

Since you cannot possibly be that dumb, I have to assume you are playing defense attorney. This is not about his skepticism. It is about his characterizations.

And his latest claim that he would disqualify himself as a jurist in the trial of a homeless person in order that they receive a fair trial is risible given he has already admitted acting as judge, jury and executioner against a homeless person - who was inebriated I might add, and therefore unlikely to be able to defend himself against such a spineless attack.

A common jury instruction is that the jury can consider the demeanor of the witnesses and the manner in which they testify. This started with Jim criticizing that Dean was not impressed with the demeanor of watching Judyth. Jim attacked him and Dean then became defensive. He can judge things as he wishes and he would not be alone in his observations of Judyth or his skepticism of homeless people being the sole substantiation of points made by Judyth. Dean has been a valuable contributor and participant in the forum. I believe this is a diversion from the isues and we should move on.

No. He would not be alone. He stands firmly with John McAdams with whom I debated homelessness some years ago. One McAdams' Proclamation as I recall it, was that America rocks because mentally ill people are free to sleep in parks if they want.

Like most have a choice...

The problem with Jim's friends in relation to their support of Judyth is NOT their former homelessness. It is, in my opinion, a problem of empathy (or bias) arising out of the alleged shared experiences of having emails tampered with and being (again allegedly) hounded and harassed by one's own government.

I note that you and Dean want to move on. Isn't it a bitch when things get a bit tough and someone keeps wanting to drag you back and make you accountable for your own words?

Hey councilor, here's an idea. Why don't you do some public defending for Jack White and John Armstrong? There's a couple of threads were they surely could use such a sharp legal mind.

Doug Weldon

John Armstrong and I need no defending. People who make accusations like this should read the book.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
I promised I would not post in thread, but who knew back then what turns it would take?

I'm glad you did. And yes, a WHOLE LOT of self restraint was employed. You made some other very cogent observations. Well done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...