as far as if one could be objective enough to weigh on someone’s fall suit - history, yours, theirs and the city’s, should have no bearing, except if it relates to the suit. how many times has the city been sued surrounding this location (is there an issue of negligence?); how often has the accuser been in court suing various entities (is there an issue with fraud)

in this situation it should be relatively an easy answer, but then again, everything is relative

glad you’re back on set

I can completely understand your frustration with the jury system and having practiced law and tried several cases over the years, I can say that juries without a doubt are usually far more intelligent and wise than the lawyers and even some of the judges who are involved in cases today. I always found it extraordinary how perceptive juries are and I feel that if we want to improve the system, we will go back to a rougher sort of neighborhood system, with rules and respect. The biggest mistake of our jury system is patronization whereby lawyers and judges pretend they are superior simply because they know an esoteric form of language. Things need to be simplified and sped up and left to the true common wisdom of people.

I know you are a hockey fan and as an old player myself, I heard a story recently that I thought you would get a kick out of. It’s about old Eddie “Clear the Track, Here Comes” Shack, a wild winger from the old Maple Leafs and Bruins. Apparently, one day after a game, Gerry Cheevers of the Bruins asked Shack if he read the article about him after the game the night before in the Boston Herald. Shack said, “No, Cheesy, actually, I can’t read.” Cheevers, said: “What? How far did you get in school?” Shack said: “Third grade.” Cheevers said: “How’d you get out of third grade?” Shack said: “Easy. I lent the teacher my car.”

Take care,

Dave