In the sentencing trial of al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, the Judge told jurors to avoid looking up words in the dictionary after a juror went on the Internet to look up the word “aggravating”.
The Judge previously denied the jury’s request for a dictionary.
Jurors can’t look up words? Why? Isn’t the whole point of a trial to find the truth? Do they not want the jury to understand things?
Hole In My Life by Jack Gantos
SUMMARY: Excellent book. Kept me wanting to find out what happened next.
Jack Gantos, the author, aspired to be a writer but felt he didn’t have anything to write about. Seeking adventure and money for college, he agrees to crew a boat carrying 2000 pounds of hash from Morroco to New York. He only finds out later that the guy who hired him was already arrested by the FBI, and the he was turned in. The after a long period at sea, they arrive in New York and set about selling the hash. He finds out only leter that he was followed from the time the boat sailed, and all while they are selling the hash. He is arrested, convicted, and is sentenced to Federal Prison for 6 months to 6 years. He only then begins to realize his dream on becoming a writer. It is a very interesting book, and enjoyable to read.
I was watching The People’s Court on TV, and they had a man and a woman who had an eBay transaction that went bad. She bought a dishwasher from the guy on eBay. When it arrived via UPS, it was damaged. But she (the buyer) had paid for insurance. UPS came out and inspected the dishwasher, and admitted that they damaged. There was a claim filed, and a check was sent back to the seller (the guy). The check was made out to the guy’s PayPal account name. He tried to cash it at his bank, and the bank wouldn’t cash it. He says he tried to get UPS to send another check. Meanwhile, she had the broken dishwasher on her porch for months. She says she sent the seller guy emails, but never got responses. It was too late to leave a negative feedback on eBay at this point. Frustrated, she bought some cheap items from the hosehead, just so she could leave some negative feedbacks for the guy with messages like Where is my check? Apparently her eBay account was suspended because she used the hosehead seller’s first name in one of the feedbacks. It was reinstated after about a week and a half, but her negative feedbacks were deleted.
Anyway, now they are the show. She is suing for what she paid for the dishwasher. The hosehead seller TOM is countersuing for defamation of character (the negative feedbacks). The above stuff all comes out, but then it comes out that the check from UPS had actually been cashed months earlier. Hosehead eBay seller Tom says that his wife had resubmitted the check, and then the bank cashed it. But he claims only to have found out about it that morning. Huh? Let’s get this straight…he is going on The People’s Court TV show and he only finds out from his wife that morning that she had cashed the check months earlier. The check that was at the center of the whole dispute? I would think she would know he was going on The People’s Court and why! He said on his way out that he had a tape recording of his call to UPS that morning regarding the check, and said the tape proved he didn’t know about it. But the tape was never played. I think the hosehead seller was trying to keep all of the money, and the call to UPS that morning was an effort to try and cover his butt.
Sellers like him make good sellers on eBay look bad!
I saw a 2 tone Citizen Eco-Drive Stiletto Watch in the shop on the cruise ship a couple weeks ago and loved it! I didn’t want to pay even the sale price of about $230. I found similar watches on ebay for much less. I really like the look of the gold tone Citizen Eco-Drive Stiletto Watch. The plain stainless steel model is okay too. I already have a 2-tone Seiko Kinetic watch. So the 2-tone Citizen Eco-Drive Stiletto Watch would probably be redundant. So I am currently trying to buy the gold tone model. I don’t wear jewelry, except my wedding ring and a watch. And I have always liked watches.
I was just reading about a family that is being told to move out of Black Jack, MO because the officials of Black Jack, MO doesn’t consider them a family. Olivia Shelltrack, Fondrey Loving aren’t married, but have been together for 13 years. They have two children of their own, and Fondrey Loving has a child from a previous relationship. The family bought a five bedroom home in Black Jack, MO. Apparently Black Jack, MO requires all homes to have an occupancy permit, but that they were denied one. They said they were told that because there are more than three people in their house, and not all are related by blood or marriage, they don’t meet Black Jack, MO’s definition of a family.
Norman McCourt (the mayor of Black Jack, MO), said at a city council meeting: “It’s overcrowding because it’s not a single family. It’s a single-family residence and they’re not a single family.”
The family has appealed to the city’s Board of Adjustment for an exemption, but were denied. The couple have gone to the ACLU.
A public hearing scheduled for Thursday. Black Jack, MO may soften the wording of its ordinance. The ACLU says if the ordinance isn’t changed, it will sue the city, arguing it is violating federal fair housing rules and the constitutional right to privacy.