IMG 0515

Jury Duty: Part II PLUS Hamilton Ticket/Evening with Blogger Auction

Dear Readers:

Today I deliver on my promise for the second half of my adventures in jury duty! You can read the first part here: 

Jury Duty: Part I

After being summarily rejected for the first trial based upon the fact I worked as a lawyer for the defendant corporation, and after taking a moment to apologize to one of the defendants for my bad behavior several years ago, I trotted out of the courtroom and headed down the stairs.

Back to the jury pen, and only a few minutes went by until I was called for my next opportunity to judge someone’s behavior – something I never do!

A smaller group than before was called, and as we took our seats in the hard, wooden pews, I happily observed I knew nobody!  Not the judge, not the lawyers, not the plaintiff, not the defendant’s representative (the defendant was the City of Salem and therefore too big to sit at counsel table).

Yay!  I had a shot! I am not throwing away my shot!

I answered plaintiff’s counsel’s questions dutifully, and when asked if I’d ever been in an accident in which someone was hurt, I divulged one of the most painful experiences of my life. 

I thought I did well!  Surely he would see that I could be fair and impartial, despite my possession of a law degree and incredibly fabulous shoes.

Next up was defense counsel, who started with me.

“DeeCamp?  Is it DeeCamp?”

I sighed.  This was starting to get old.

“No, it’s ‘DesCamp.’  The ‘s’ isn’t silent.”

“That’s an unusual name, isn’t it?” he asked.

“Yes…” I responded.  I knew where this was going.

“I knew a man named John DesCamp.”  Are you related to him?”

“Yes.”  

Succinct is my thing!  Except, as you can see, in my writing.

Unknown

The lawyer seemed nice enough but I couldn’t help note his suit was about three sizes too big for him.  I wondered if he had recently lost about 50 pounds and 6 inches.

“How are you related to him?”

I sighed again, this time with perceptible exasperation, and prepared to once again gather my things.  This was starting to remind me of the teammate selection process of my childhood, in which I was almost universally the last person called.

Don’t feel sorry for me.  I’m over it.

“He’s my father.”

“Well, I’ll be! I went to law school with your dad!  We wrote a paper together!  You tell him I said ‘hello!'”

“How nice for you,” I quipped.  “I’ll be sure to pass along the message.”

Any bets on whether I was selected for that case?

We broke for lunch and when we returned the lawyers named their chosen jurors.  Shockingly, I was not among those seated.

In more “Portland is a small town news,” one of the jurors they selected had a husband who works for the same company as the defendant corporation described in Jury Duty: Part I.

I really need to move one of these days.

The Hypocrisy of Voir Dire in the Modern Age

When you are sitting for voir dire in Multnomah County you are given a laminated document with eight questions on it.  What do you do, level of education, etc.  When asked by plaintiff’s counsel what I do for a living, I responded that I am a former attorney who now consults and writes.  

I had already prepared my response for the obvious next question (what do you consult upon and write about?) but it never came.  

That’s a shame, because I really wanted the chance to say:

My work exposes the dirty underbelly of the Divorce Industrial Complex and the Kingpin players within it, whom I refer to as DICKs. DICKs destroy their clients and their client’s families for love of the almighty dollar.  Surely you’ve heard of me?  I’m pretty famous, you know.  

My consulting work is aimed at bringing people together in their divorce negotiations and educating people about the system and how to work most efficiently within it.

‘What do I write,’ you ask me?  I write truth that angers those who hide behind the false cloak of zealous advocacy as they perpetrate a violent emotional and financial fraud upon their victims and the justice system.

Also, sometimes I write about sex, although I do not consult in this area.  Do you want to hear my analogy about sex in a marriage as compared to fecal etiquette?  

No?  OK, sorry.  Carry on!

Like I said, he didn’t ask. Defense counsel followed and he also didn’t ask.  He was too busy looking for a trace of my father’s appearance in my face, I guess, or trying to conjure up what that damn paper was all about.

From the Dad himself, in case you are interested:

The paper was about the dramatic change in the composition of the Oregon Legislature from approx 1954 (farmers/business people/ attorneys–lots of them) to 1974 (a rag tag assortment of teachers/ public employees/union members and “activists “). If you want to know why the legislature is a cesspool of greed, stupidity and economic retardation, there’s the answer.

Back to hypocrisy: Question #8 on the aforementioned laminated sheet goes something like this:

Can you promise to be impartial and to not make any investigations outside the courtroom?  

In other words, do you swear (because remember, you are under oath) not to poke around on the Internet and try to figure out the case based upon anything not introduced as evidence in the courtroom?

Everyone said they could, and one must hope they will.  So why are the attorneys allowed to make decisions on jurors based upon Internet research and not simply their responses during voir dire?

As the lawyers huddled over iPads at lunch and peeked into the online activity of the jury pool members, they engaged in the same activity they prohibit from jurors.  I know the admonition and pledge does not flow both ways, but 20+ years ago this type of juror investigation during voir dire was essentially impossible.  

I don’t like it. Why even have voir dire at all?  Why not just give the lawyers the names and let them do their research online?

Disappointed when once again I was turned down for a jury (although I certainly understand why in the first instance!), I trudged back to the jury pen.  

My pretty pink dress, selected especially for this day, was beginning to wrinkle.  It was obvious I’d spend the rest of my time on jury duty being rejected because of my education, legal background, writing, and devastating smile.

The woman in charge of the potential jurors excused most of us for the rest of the day and I headed up to the urgent care at my doctor’s office to see if they could take a look at my badly-burned hand, which still has not healed.

“Portland Clinic Urgent Care is Temporarily Closed,” said the sign.

Man, I just can’t catch a break.

HAMILTON AUCTION!

images

I have an extra ticket to Hamilton on July 1.  Orchestra, Row R, Seat 102.  While I am very sad my former seat partner cannot join me, I see this as an opportunity to raise some money for the victims of this weekend’s massacre in Orlando.

If you click on the following link, you can donate directly.  I’ve checked it out and I have no reason to believe this is not totally legitimate.

Support Victims of Pulse Shooting

All money raised in excess of the purchase price I paid will go directly to that GoFundMe campaign.  I will prove such donation, unlike Trump, by providing documentation of it via this blog.

If for any reason that campaign is deemed phony, the buyer can direct where his or her money will go but it must be to a charity supporting LGBTQ causes with a high rating on charitynavigator.org.

The auction includes dinner and drinks (sharing the costs, sorry!) and being exposed to the Eye of a Hurricane, me, for an entire evening in New York City.

Please share on your social media and with anyone you think is obsessed enough with Hamilton to agree to attend with me.  Several hours with yours truly is a high price to pay, and the ticket won’t be cheap, but you’ll be doing something to support the latest victims of our nation’s love affair with guns, blood, hatred, and madness.

To submit a bid, comment below.  Remember, this is a show with the original cast, some of whom are moving on soon, including Mr. Miranda himself.

Please do not contact me and ask me to give you this ticket or offer something you know isn’t close to market value.  

I’m a lovely and generous person, but I gave at the office and this is to raise money for a good cause.

desc_logo

This Post Has 5 Comments

  1. Robin DesCamp

    FYI everyone who has responded has decided to do it discreetly via email and not by commenting here. Probably a good idea. If you want to bid email me at robin@robindescamp.com. Thanks!

  2. Anonymous

    What is happening with your bar complaint? How long has that been going on? Are you ever going to write the series again? We are waiting!

    1. Robin DesCamp

      Samantha, despite being unemployed, apparently did not have time to complete her response by the June 3rd deadline. To use her own words, the deadline “snuck up on her” and she asked for “several more weeks” to respond. Clearly the goal is to drag this out as long as possible, which is neither here nor there for me. The bar acquiesced to this very busy woman’s demands and gave her an additional 17 days, moving the deadline to June 20th. At that point the bar will analyze her response (after running it through the “narcissistic liar/delusional” translation machine, and decide whether to a) dismiss the complaint for Bullshitus Wasteoftimeus, or b) kick it up to Disciplinary Counsel for further investigation and possible sanctions against me. Given that the only charge the bar asked me to respond to was the “contact with a represented party” charge, and given that she cannot prove that claim because it never happened, and given that her own documentation proves it never happened, I would be gobsmacked if the bar kicked it up to Disciplinary Counsel. Then again, I often find myself gobsmacked by the OSB. See: Diversion Agreement for a good example of the OSB doing something I think is utterly and completely wrong.

      Thank you for your question about the series. I get this all the time. I have made the decision to suspend the series while the litigation continues. There is no way I will allow her attorneys to redirect focus from the important issues onto me. No way. I feel so sad for this family, and I mean ALL OF THEM. I don’t think Samantha’s plan was to have the nastiest, longest, most expensive divorce possible and to have her children reject her. I don’t know her, but I know her ex-wife, and I don’t think she would have married someone like that. Samantha is not the last person to hire those lawyers and then act totally out of character and self-destruct while destroying her ex and kids at the same time. I have met dozens of unhappy former clients who tell me they were like lambs led to the slaughter and they went along with the tactics. Later they came to realize how horrible a mistake that was. I also know given her career background she absolutely must be highly intelligent. That’s the funny thing about cults: you think their members must be fucking idiots but often, they are highly intelligent but also highly susceptible because of that intelligence. Google for studies, I gotta get back to the blog!

  3. Anonymous

    I think you are giving her more credit than she deserves. Doesn’t this all piss you off? I would be enraged if someone accused me of doing something I didn’t and tried to get me in trouble with my licensing org. I gotta hand it to you for not using her name after the bar complaint and especially after she got the gay rights group involved. I would not do the same for anyone who was coming after me.

    So does your answer above mean we can expect the series to pick back up after the current legal actions are done? You were pretty vague!

    1. Robin DesCamp

      Hey, Anonymous, did you not read the blog today?
      I really appreciate the dialogue but my right hand is all sorts of messed up and I am resting it as much as possible this week. Want to see a picture? Anyway, for that reason I’ll keep my response to you as brief as possible given my tendency to overstate things:
      1. You may be right. I don’t know her. Then again, you may not be.
      2. I’m not sure if “pissed off” is the right term. After all, my license is inactive, I didn’t do anything wrong, and it was me who chose to craft such lengthly and highly-entertaining responses to the crazy complaints by Samantha and Basic Rights Oregon. I could have written a one-page response but I considered it the opportunity for a fun writing exercise and given how many people have asked for it by email I can tell you it is very popular and well-received. So should I be angry or grateful to her? Anger at how others treat me is an emotional reaction I have almost completely eliminated from my life, and one that used to be dominant. I am amused by her actions towards me. I am angered by her actions toward her family. There’s a difference.
      3. Will I continue the series after the litigation is over? Why, that’s a very good question! Here’s a question for you: will it ever be over?

Comments are closed.