Qualification for office
When I was growing up here, where Midland seems like Houston, one of the people that I knew was named, say, Jim. I've known him since he was born and thought that he was an idiot and nothing that he has done since has done anything other than confirm my youthful good judgment.
Jim fell victim to a predatory female, Carol, whom I've also known that long, and who was determined to marry a lawyer. On learning that I was going to go to UT law, she thought that I'd do but that had to be nixed for several reasons, not the least that I was seeing someone in Austin and whom I was seeing would have caused her heart palpitations. And my mother too but that's another story. And so Carol got her hooks into Jim and got Jim into law school. And then another one after he, er, left the first one under a cloud.
Jim became the DA of this judicial district some years ago. He got into a tussle with the commander of the drug task force, whom he sued for libel, and won, but not before they got, under discovery, his medical records and made him out to be a suicidal drunk.
He is no longer married to Carol, who entered his office at noon, and found his secretary on her back on his desk, being attended by Jim. I can't believe that he'd canoodle with a woman so stupid that she wouldn't lock the door to the office. Or so stupid that she'd deliberately leave it unlocked just to get him, but then I suppose he wouldn't see it that way.
Jim is now an assistant professor of criminology at one of the campuses of the University of Texas.
As some wag here noted, Don Corleone was a community organizer.
The Chosen One says that he has administrative experience. From running his campaign.
The only change we can believe in is the change in the meaning of a resumé.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Qualification for office.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.jessicaswell.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2230
15 Comments
To those of us who have spent much of our lives in local law and politics, it is obvious who you are writting about. And since we know exactly who you are with this blog, I ask, what in God's name was your motive was here?
To those of us who have spent much of our lives in local law and politics, it is obvious who you are writting about. And since we know exactly who you are with this blog, I ask, what in God's name was your motive was here?
Friends? No. Acquaintances of some years ago. And it's not a tell-all if I didn't mention names. If anonymous knows whom I mean, power to him. That was some years ago and the names are not any to conjure with--the last that one would think to drop.
I'm pointing up the vacuity of the Chosen One's c.v. All he's really done is look and sound pretty.
Also what does knowing who I am have to do with anything? What do the actual names of these people have to do with anything unless I made them up? And anonymous recalls the incident, proving that I didn't make them up.
And which lets me state again that the Chosen One just looks and sounds pretty. And that's it.
Would that be libel?
To so closely describe the college this man went to, the job he held and where. . . If the "former DA" of Midland sued the commander of the Drug Task Force, wouldn't that be public record that anybody could look up and find out exactly who you were talking about? And this "Jim is now an assistant professor of criminology at one of the campuses of the University of Texas." Oh, my.
Doesn't it worry you to spread ruin like this on a former friend?
It ain't libel if it's the truth.
Look it up.
"Libel per se describes statements, which are widely understood to be harmful to a person's reputation. For example, referring to an individual as an alcoholic or criminal, or any description, which would lower the reputation of that individual in the eyes of others. These words are harmful and libelous."
Also:
"Published material meeting three conditions: The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; The defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and, The material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander."
When you refer to your friend as an idiot and a suicidal drunk, describe his sex acts with a woman other than his wife, and make defamatory statements about his wife "predatory female" "got her hooks into him," etc., you have certainly fulfilled the qualifications of libel.
Libel is the act of actually lying about a person in order to hurt them .
If a person believes what they say about someone is true and then tells others of what they believe to be true ,as perhaps, a warning to others, that offense is called "Being Wrong " and is protected by the Constitution of the United States.
This is a great country as we do not prosecute others for "Being Wrong" or being a "Dumb Butt".
Before Ms.Grammerperson pounces, please forgive the plural in my previous first sentence.
Danke !
TEXAS
CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE
CHAPTER 73. LIBEL
§ 73.005. TRUTH A DEFENSE. The truth of the statement in
the publication on which an action for libel[0] is based is a defense
to the action.
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985.
However, you could go online to the current edition of Texas Monthly and figure this out pretty quickly.
I doubt if Jessica's Well will be hauled into court over this one. The pockets aren't all that deep.
However it was enlightening to the local legal and political communities to learn exactly who owns it.
Who owns what?
that's the problem with blogs. Anybody can say anything about whatever.. even if they get a "hat tip". I gues..
Who decides what can be said and by whom? You prefer your content filtered?
I'm confused. What is this, a tell-all about your friends? Where does Obama fit into this?