Follow by Email

Thursday, April 19, 2012

The Oral Argument at the Connecticut Supreme Court and the Tragic Death of a Young Man which Generated the Legal Appeal before the Court

The argument itself was impressive.  All the justices were deeply engaged in the discussion of the issues.  Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, where Justice Thomas never asks a question, all seven of our justices asked questions of both lawyers.  And it was clear from their demeanors that they all were taking the case seriously.  After all, the outcome of this case could drastically change the way bars serve alcohol in Connecticut.  If the plaintiff gets the court to do away with the requirement of "visible" intoxication to win a Dram Shop case, then the only way a bar can try to protect itself is by either counting the number of drinks a patron has before cutting the drinker off, or requiring every customer to take a breathalyzer test before getting another drink.  As the defense lawyer, Elycia D. Solimene, pointed out in the post-argument discussion with the audience of law students and some lawyers, like me, who would want to go to a bar if there were that much checking up by the bartenders.  Ron Murphy, the lawyer for the estate of the man who was killed by the drunk driver, claimed that requiring bartenders to count drinks for each customer would not be a big deal.  Obviously, Attorney Murphy has never been in a dance club like the ones I go to three or four nights a week.  It's laughable to imagine the bartenders at Shrine at Foxwoods or even Up or on the Rocks in Hartford or Alchemy in New Haven or Sin City in Waterbury to go around counting drinks of hundreds of people.

The real policy question is this.  How is it possible for people to enjoy the benefits of drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, or owning guns or cars for that matter, all legal products, without causing an unacceptable level of carnage to non-drinkers, non-smokers, young black men in hoodies carrying Skittles and Arizona Ice Tea, and non-drinking drivers and passengers?  The question was not phrased in such broad terms yesterday at the oral argument in the tragic case of John A. O'Dell, Administrator vs. Kozee, et al., SC18551, but that IS an important underlying issue in these kinds of cases.

The tragic aspect of the case was embodied in the two middle-aged people sitting in front of me in the front row of the moot courtroom at U.Conn. law school in West Hartford.  They sat directly behind Ron Murhpy, their lawyer.  They are the parents of John O'Dell, the young man killed by the drunk driver.  As Ron explained after the argument, John O'Dell had been drinking with his friend, the drunk driver, at the bar.  They were in the bar from 7 p.m. until midnight.  After leaving the bar, John and his friend got in the friend's car and the friend plowed into the rear of a large truck.  John's body was thrown out of the car and into the oncoming lane.  Another truck ran over John's body.  The defense lawyer said that although she felt the bar had NO responsibility for the death, because there was NO evidence the driver was VISIBLY intoxicated, the autopsy photographs were the worst she'd ever seen.  The parents of the dead young man left the moot courtroom immediately following the argument so they did not have to listen to the frank discussion of the case.

In this kind of a case, most juries have a very hard time holding the bar liable.  This is because most people can't understand in the first place why the BAR can ever be held liable for the acts of the person who voluntarily drinks liquor at a bar.  That is precisely the reason that Connecticut courts decided a long time ago, as a matter of common law, that bars had NO liability for these cases because the LEGAL CAUSE of the tragedy was the drinker's decision to drink, not the bar's decision to sell the alcohol to the drinker.  The Connecticut legislature responded by enacting the Dram Shop Act, a very long time ago, to overcome the causation problem and impose a limited form of liability on bars as a kind of cost of doing business and providing a place for people to drink and get drunk.  Originally, the maximum damages recoverable under the act was $20,000.  That was raised to $250,000 a number of years ago.

In the John A. O'Dell case argued yesterday, Attorney Murphy told us after the argument that the jury awarded the estate $4 million in damages.  Juries are not told that the most an estate can recover is the statutory limit of $250,000 if they also find the bar liable.  The judge then reduces the award to $250,000.  In this case, the trial judge, Lois Tanzer, over the defense counsel's objection, made a pre-trial ruling that the plaintiff did NOT have to prove that the driver was VISIBLY intoxicated to win the case.  It would be enough, the court ruled, if the driver could be shown to have been served a drink by the bar when his blood alcohol level was over the legal limit of .08 for drunk driving under the criminal DUI statute.  On appeal by the bar, the Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the trial judge's ruling and held that visible intoxication must be shown under the statute, it was not shown by the evidence at trial, and therefore the judgment in favor of the plaintiff had to be set aside, reversed.  The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case since the legal issue is an important matter of public policy.

The Dram Shop death case which was my last trial before I retired was a very hard case to win.  It easily could have gone the other way.  Sitting through the oral argument of the subtleties of the Dram Shop law, and participating in the discussion afterwards, I remembered how hard I had to work, with my team of investigators, law clerks, legal colleagues, and secretaries to win my case for the family of Donna Amarant, especially her husband George who, like me, is a Wesleyan alumnus.  My case was so difficult, so fraught with danger along the way, difficult tactical and strategic decisions, that I framed the Jury Verdict Form in which the jury forewoman confirmed by her signature that the jury had found all the issues in favor of my client, the husband of the dececedent.  I also printed on a piece of paper in the framed verdict form a brief history of the case, recounting that the highest pre-trial settlement offer by the bar's insurance company was a measly $1,500 (that's right, only One Thousand dollars for a lovely, intelligent, woman who got killed by a drunken man whom the defense medical doctor testified probably had drunk the equivalent of a case of beer BEFORE he entered the bar and had a few more drinks before leaving and killing Donna Amarant).

I am fortunate to have been referred this case by John Shaw, who referred all his personal injury clients to me for trial.  My favorite cases were the hard ones, hard fought, with difficult factual and legal issues, and tough, experienced defense lawyers on the other side.  But I'm also delighted that now I can spend my time looking back on those experiences which enabled me to develop the tough emotional skin I now take advantage of to live the kind of life which makes me happy.  And I have a virtually unlimited reservoir of experiences to draw upon in my writing.

50 comments:

  1. Still think that Trayvon Martin was innocently walking down the sidewalk? Take a look at this picture...

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-case-exclusive-photo-shows-bloodied-back/story?id=16177849#.T5Fj679ST82

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Taking Out of Context Anonymous (April 20, 2012 at 6:26 a.m.),

      Yes, I do. You did not read, or absorb, the article which accompanied the photo. We don't know who took the photo or under what circumstances. It's odd that if Zimmerman suffered the injuries in the photo, he neither requested nor was given medical attention that night.

      Also, even if Trayvon caused those injuries to Zimmerman, which is not at all established, and certainly not by the photograph alone, we do not know if they were the result of defensive actions by Trayvon.

      Finally, the police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue Trayvon, yet Zimmerman disregarded that request. And that IS the fair meaning of what the dispatcher said.

      We will, I'm sure, learn a lot more about the forensic evidence once the trial begins.

      All best,

      An Open-Minded and Savvy Analyst of the Evidence

      Delete
  2. Wow. This blog is so censored. What gives ? Freedom!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Freedom Anonymous (April 20, 2012 at 6:54a.m.),

      I've already answered your question in another Comment replying to the same claim.

      The only censoring I do is of vile Comments about my wife and children, and Comments which are merely expressions of pure filth with no redeeming intellectual content.

      As I also said to that other Commenter, the First Amendment does not bind individuals, like me. It applies to governmental entities. That said, I let my readers express themselves freely here as long as there is some redeeming intellectual content to the Comments.

      All best,

      The Un-Censorious One

      Delete
  3. Dear Censor Bob- you should shut down your blog. Without the freedom to freely express on your blog it's just another dull media outlet. You should move to North Korea or China where you can pre-read people's mail and determine if you alone should allow its content to be read by others. The whole point of a blog is for people to comment as they can not do otherwise. You've taken that away, therefore your blog has lost any attraction whatsoever. In filtering people's comments you're dictating, based soley on your opinion, what should and should not be read. Not everyone sees red like you....commie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Nagging and Whining Anonymous (April 20, 2012 at 8:10 p.m.),

      Hey, if you don't like the blog, don't read it, dude. YOU may find it dull, but I've had almost 28,000 (that's right: twenty-eight THOUSAND) page views since I began the blog in mid-July, 2011; and these are from readers all over the world. The Google blog computers keep track of a LOT of information for me.

      I have no desire to move to North Korea or China, but be my guest. I for one would not miss your nagging and whining, although neither bothers me. Nag your socks off. Whine until you can't drink no more.

      You're right about one thing. I will NOT post Comments which vilify my wife or children or which are clearly intended merely to emotionally vomit a stream of sexual fantasies without any intellectually interesting Comment.

      All best,

      A Non-Nagging, Non-Whining Man

      Delete
  4. Why is your wife off limits? You seldom mention her in any detail. Please let us know why she moved out. Nobody believes the downsizing house story and you keep guard of the empty house. Big lawyer like you could afford a quality alarm system. What's the coverup ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Nosy Anonymous (April 20, 2012 at 10:03 a.m.),

      This is "Bobs blog." Get it? Not "Susie's blog."

      She moved to the new house to downsize. I AM the alarm system in the old one. Want to buy it? Cash only for you.

      All best,

      A Truth-telling Writer

      Delete
  5. You are somewhat mistaken. As a blogger and paralegal you must follow the first amendment. Also you should consider the second one. Bang bang Billy. That is not a threat and your name isn't Billy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Legally-Ignorant Anonymous (April 20, 2012 at 12:06 p.m.),

      Re-read the First Amendment even if you've ever read it. It only applies to governments, not bloggers and lawyers like me.

      As for the Second Amendment, what's your question, Bang Bang?

      All best,

      A Constitutionally-Sophisticated Man

      Delete
  6. Peeples need to chose life. In my country Drink is crime. Why not make it so?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Teetotaling Anonymous (April 20, 2012 at 1:12 p.m.),

      That was tried during Prohibition, in the 1930's in the U.S. It didn't stop people from getting alcohol.

      Same with the Drug War. It doesn't stop people from getting the drugs they want.

      But if you can convince Congress or the state legislatures to re-enact Prohibition, be my guest. But it won't happen.

      All best,

      An Only Occasional Beer Drinker

      Delete
  7. How often have you used drugs like marijuana, cocaine, poppers, whap, shroomies, gizzard tea, or Yukon butter crystals? When did you use the most?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Drug-Obsessed Anonymous (April 20, 2012 at 8:36 p.m.),

      Back in college, during my junior year, after overcoming a great resistance to trying any illegal drug, I did smoke marijuana on occasion. I've NEVER tried any other illegal drug. Now, on occasion, I drink a 12-ounce beer, but beer is a legal drug. I smoked cigarettes for a year in college, but then gave them up.

      That's my drug history. Sorry to disappoint you that I'm such a nerd when it comes to drugs.

      All best,

      A Quite Sober Citizen

      Delete
  8. Replies
    1. Dear Potshot Anonymous (April 21, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.),

      Please define "pot head," as soon as your drug-induced haze wears off.

      All best,

      A Clear-Headed Man who won't be a Potted Plant to No Hater

      Delete
  9. You asshole and cucold. Your wife is cheating on you fool. Even a pot head could see that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Only In Your Dreams Anonymous (April 21, 2012 at 9:03 a.m.),

      My wife is THE most beautiful, loyal person ever created by God, the gods and Goddesses, and Mother Nature.

      She ain't NEVAH' cheated on me, dopey. You ARE a pot-head, an alchie, and a druggie, so you just don't see anything. Wake up. Sober up, dude. Smell the roses and stop sniffin' the glue, yo'! Okay bro'?

      All best,

      One Lucky Husband

      Delete
  10. Your grew up in the 60s and went to college in the 70s and you don't know what a pot head is? It's what your daughter was in college and when she was pregnant with Little Dude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Illiterate Anonymous (April 21, 2012 at 10:26 a.m.),

      Can't you READ, dummy? It was my daughter-IN-LAW who had Little Dude, not my daughter.

      And I grew up in the 50's and went to college mostly in the late 60's. It's ALL in the blog, stupid. READ it for a change.

      I know I'm NOT a pot head but since you fantasy I am, I want to know how YOU think you define the term.

      All best,

      A Writer and Reader, who actually writes and READS, dude

      Delete
  11. Seems like Zimmerman is the man. The courts prove again to be on the side of the white man. As it should be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Injustice-phile Anonymous (April 21, 2012 at 10:32 a.m.),

      No, George Zimmerman is a now-quivering-in-his-boots little boy. The BIG GUN has been taken from his hands. The courts are on the side of Lady Justice, as it should be.

      All best,

      A Man who LOVES American Justice

      Delete
  12. Do you give head to your goddesses?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Head Query Anonymous (April 21, 2012 at 12:15 p.m.),

      Of course not, dummy. Like I told you, I don't touch any of the Goddesses. So how could I give them head? Tongue to genital contact is still touching. Got it now, dope?

      All best,

      The Old-Fashioned Gentleman with the Goddesses

      Delete
  13. Zimmerman will walk free. He will because he did no crime. He was attacked and shot. The truth will come out. Now let's focus on other more important topics. Start a new thread Bobby Darin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Sure-as-Shootin' Anonymous (April 21, 2012 at 4:17 p.m.),

      I wouldn't bet the ranch on that prediction. I suspect Zimmerman DID commit the crime of Murder 2. But, until all the forensic evidence comes out, and we hear the eyewitnesses and earwitnesses, it's really hard to tell the outcome.

      I HAVE started new threads, Annette Funicello. Read them, lady!

      All best,

      A Trayvon Martin Supporter

      Delete
  14. You have been warned. Govern yourself accordingly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Cassandra Anonymous (April 21, 2012 at 5:29 p.m.),

      Warned of what, my dear Cassandra?

      Govern myself according to what? How?

      I have no clue what you're thinking of. Please advise.

      All best,

      The Wondering Wanderer

      Delete
  15. Watch out old man. You may be losing it. See you round Govern yourself accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dear Threatening Anonymous (April 21, 2012 at 7:22 p.m.),

    Watch out for what?

    I'm not losing it, but you obviously are. Get a grip, dude.

    All best,

    A Very In-Touch Man

    ReplyDelete
  17. Replies
    1. Dear Bored Anonymous (April 23, 2012 at 3:44 a.m.),

      Are you sleepy because you didn't get enough rest last night? I see you posted your Comment at 3:44 a.m.

      Or do you find a serious post about an interesting oral argument boring?

      Are there other blog posts on the blog you find interesting? Let me know and maybe I'll write more of what you like to read.

      Please write again. And if it's fatigue, get some sleep.

      All best,

      An Inquiring Writer

      Delete
  18. Zimmerman a Freeman. Morgan Freeman still black. That's that cover of a newspaper in Aukland. Does that even make sense ? I believe Zimmerman should go free as the medical documents show the black kid attacked him. The lesson to learn is to respect your authority, state, federal, or neighborhood. Better that than risk a premature heart attack.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Incoherent, Assuming, and Obedient Anonymous (April 23, 2012 at 3:48 a.m.),

      Your first three "sentences" are incoherent. The first two are not sentences. But no, that doesn't make logical sense although there is a certain Retarded Man's Poetry about them.

      Who CARES what you believe about the executioner, George Zimmerman. You haven't seen any medical documents yet. Let's talk again once the arrest warrant affidavit is unsealed.

      That's the wrong lesson to learn, at least when it comes to the neighborhood. That's no political entity. There's no accountability. And Zimmerman was a vigilante, self-annointed/appointed, going far beyond what a Neighborhood Watcher is supposed to do.

      If the political entities are illegitimate, it's better to risk the heart attack than obey a kakistocrat.

      All best,

      The Writer of the BEST Writing on "Bobs blog"

      Delete
  19. You seem up early too. Wow 415 am. Up all night pining for Susie. How is she these days? Heard she's moved on and I know personally she has met with a divorce lawyer more than once. Better take down your pro illegal drug post. That won't look good. I'm sure one of your pay as you go goddesses will comfort you. Your life is ending.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Fatigued Anonymous (April 23, 2012 at 4:37 a.m.),

      It's probably best that none of us assume the time given on the blog for these Comments is accurate. I wrote my reply to "Yawn" at about 7:15 a.m. Now the only reason I thought fatigue, rather than boredom, might be a motivation for his or her Comment was the expressed Yawn.

      I got up about 6:30 a.m. today, actually. Nope, not pining for Susie. I sleep like a baby.

      You'll have to ask Susie how she's doing these days. She HAS moved to the new house and she can meet with whatever lawyer she wants to, but I very much doubt we'll ever get divorced. What's the point of that in our case?

      I'm neither pro nor anti drug illegal drug use. It's up to the individual what's best for him or her.

      I don't have any "pay as you go Goddesses." Interesting fantasy you have about the women who LOVE to dance with me and interact with me in other ways. Tell me more about what's on your mind about that.

      As far a your prediction, or observation, or threat, that my life is ending, as Mark Twain once said, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."

      All best,

      A Very Alive and Lively Man

      Delete
  20. Dear Mr. Bob- I find your overuse of CAPS do be annoying and inappropriate. They don't make any sense and add nothing to your dribble you call writing.

    -ANNNOYED BY CAPS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DEAR NON-CAPITAL IDEA PERSON (APRIL 23, 2012 AT 9:25 A.M.),

      IN MY USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS, I'M JUST FOLLOWING YOUR CAPITAL EXAMPLE. IT MAKES NO SENSE, GIVEN YOUR EXAMPLE, THAT IT MAKES NO SENSE TO YOU.

      AS FOR THE DRIBBLE YOU CONSIDER MY WRITING TO BE, IT'S my DRIBBLE AND I LOVE SUCH WRITING.

      CAN YOU please NOW stop it WITH THE capital letters, sir?

      ALL BEST,

      A VERY BIG EGO WHO WAS LAW-SCHOOLED IN OUR NATION'S CAPITOL

      Delete
  21. what's up with you censoring and filtering comments? As a librel left wing lawyer don't you believe in the first ammendment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Chihuahua Lover Anonymous (April 23, 2012 at 10:05 a.m.),

      Look, I've already answered this question several times. Now, you obviously haven't read the answer because you keep posting the same Comment asking me if I want to engage in a sexual three-some with you and your Chihuahua. Apart from the fact that I don't like Chihuahuas, you, or acts of bestiality, such questions by you violate the "Bobs blog" code of Free Speech. 'nuff said, Mr. Chihuahua Lover?

      All best,

      A Sexually Normal Man

      Delete
  22. Bob- you ever notice how idiotic and incomprehensive your replies are to people's comments? You make no fricken' sense. And why do you always have to bring some vulgar sexual comment into the picture? You're a small man (figuretively speaking of course but with you I assume I have to be specific).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Fricken Anonymous (April 24, 2012 at 9:43 a.m.),

      Actually, no. I haven't noticed what you say to be the case. In fact, ALL of my replies make perfect sense, are not idiotic, and certainly are not incomprensible (see how the word is spelled?), except to people like you who have nothing substantive to say. And I don't always make sexual comments in my replies.

      As for my size, literally or figuratively, you'll have to explain what you mean by "small." Yes, with any rational, intelligent, native speaker of English, "small" is a vague term, in the context in which you've used it, so you will have to be more specific.

      In the future, it would help my readers if you would express actual thoughts. Merely throwing words on a page doesn't a thought process reveal.

      All best,

      A Clear Thinker and Writer who's Amused by the Emptiness and Inaccuracy of Your Comment

      Delete
  23. Robert,
    I drop by your blog now and then to see what is going on and I have to say, with all sincerity, that I'm getting a little worried at the hostility aimed in your direction.

    I know you've been pretty liberal with details about your life including cell phone number, home address, information about your family. I'd hate to see some guys wing-nut come off completely and for you to be the target of that.

    Would you entertain a friendly suggestion to back off a bit and stop engaging the tin foil hat crowd? Some of them seem a little obsessed with you and the way you are living your life.

    s/ A wary bystander.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Concerned Anonymous (April 24, 2012 at 12:26 p.m.),

      You are one of the handful of intelligent, truly concerned people who write interesting, useful, and helpful Comments. And I DO appreciate your concern AND the risks I'm taking.

      Although I know all the philosophical problems with religious discourse, as a former philosophy major, as a member of my baptist church I believe that God got me up this morning, made my limbs move and my mind work. For that I am grateful and, to express my gratitude, I intend to continue enjoying the day which God has given me, and all of us still on earth. I don't know about tomorrow. Really.

      I believe God, the gods, or Mother Nature have a plan for me, and all of us. Mine includes living the life I now live. If some guy's wing-nut comes off completely and I am the target, and I am unable to deflect the flying nut, then that is the plan for me and the wing-nutted guy. I trust in such unhappy event the prosecutorial authorities of the state will do their job and imprison the guy for the rest of his life in The Big House in Somers, CT (Northern Correctional). In such event, that guy will be at risk of becoming some other inmate's bitch as a number of my new black friends have friends or relatives in the prison, they tend to like me, and, as they say, "word gets around about our bro' Bob Dutcher." Remember, we still live in a racist culture which imprisons black men at a much higher rate than would be the case were Lady Justice truly a Blind Goddess.

      I don't mean to make light of your sincere and heart-felt concern for me. But that is the way I see my place in this life of ours.

      May the blessings of God, the gods, or Mother Nature be with you and your family.

      All best and namaste,

      Bob, the man to whom God deals life one day at a time

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't worry about someone's wing nut coming off and going after Bob. He's really not worth it. He'll be arrested and put in jail or confined to the loony hospital in no time. As vile as Bob gets in his blog and out in public everyone knows he dealing with some serious mental issues so to get upset at him would be like getting upset at a down sydrome child or autistic person.

      Delete
    3. Dear Boring Anonymous (April 25, 2012 at 11:20 a.m.),

      These predictions have been made so many times, that I'll be arrested and jailed or involuntarily committed to the state hospital, that it's getting a bit old, don't you think? WHEN, pray tell, am I going to be arrested and for what alleged transgression? And WHEN and for what alleged "mental issues" am I going to be sent to hospital?

      Again, as I've told other not-so-intelligent Commenters, it's most helpful if you give your empty words some substance so we can determine for ourselves if your head is merely as empty as your vague words suggest. Please write again soon. I and my readers eagerly await the details.

      All best,

      A Man of Substance

      Delete
    4. It's pretty simple really.....you've been kicked out so many places and had the police called on you that you are obviously doing something that warrants these reactions by people. You've already been arrested once and threaten to be in other situations. It's quite logical that sooner or later it is going to catch to you as your rap sheet grows.

      -See You in the Police Blotter

      Delete
    5. Dear Not-Quite-Logical Anonymous (April 26, 2012 at 5:32 a.m.),

      It's really not quite as simple as a simpleton like you thinks. Having the police called on a person does NOT show that the call was warranted or, if an arrest follows, that the arrest was warranted. The KKK (Koji Komedy Klub) called the police, I was arrested, but the prosecutor asked me for permission to drop the criminal trespass charge and I agreed not to object. So that shows that I was NOT obviously doing something which warranted the reaction of the KKK who called the police. You see, people have their own agendas, and sometimes those agendas involve wanting the authorities to stop a man from doing what he has a perfect legal and moral right to do but which happens to "bother" or "annoy" the complainant.

      Now, you make another point which you incorrectly claim is a "logical" point. It does not follow logically that having once been arrested, it's more likely a person will be arrested again. That prediction is a matter of PROBABILITY, not logic, and in my case, it is NOT probable that I'll be arrested again. I may be, but so might you or anyone else. What studies or experiences do you have which justify your belief that it is probable that I will be arrested again, just because I was unjustifiably arrested once before?

      Were you BLOTTO (drunk) when you wrote this idiotic Comment? I'm concerned, truly, that you'll be arrested for public drunkenness if you keep living such a drunken lifestyle as the one which leads you to write stupid Comments such as this one of your. Get some help with your drinking problem, please. I'm concerned.

      All best,

      The Man who HOPES he won't See You in the Police Blotter

      Delete
  24. Bob- what's wrong, can't take some criticsm so you censor your blog? What a bunch of crap. Why don't you do everyone a favor and jump off the Portland Bridge?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear Bunch a' Crap Anonymous (April 24, 2012 at 1:04 p.m.),

    What do you mean, I "can't take some criticism so [I] censor [my] blog"? I just published your Comment, so full of venom, so painful, so HARD to TAKE. Hey, if I take YOUR crap, I can take ANYBODY'S crap. Capiche?

    As for your kind invitation to the edge of the Portland Bridge, let me know when you're going to jump. I'll be there, ready to follow your lead. Maybe. But I do promise to write about your free-fall.

    All best,

    The Man who promises to follow you right up to the Edge of the Bridge (but that's IT, dude)

    ReplyDelete