We'll Always Have Paris

While Paris Hilton was crying on her way to jail, I was knee deep in a stinky swamp fishing for Bass ... jail is a relative term. So it seems is conservatism:

CQ: Pardon me for injecting a little conservative thought into all of this, but I have very little sympathy for Ms. Hilton. She has had all of the advantages possible in society, and has shown herself contemptuous to any sense of responsibility. The screaming and crying jag in court only came after she had thrown away her chances to get lenient treatment by lying and evading responsibility for her actions.

Since when does class envy equate to conservative thought? What should guide here is the law. And the simple fact is that thousands of other individuals engage in behavior similar, if not identical to Hiltons and they do not end up in jail for a day, let alone forty-five. I'm not a Hilton fan by any means but mentioning conservatism as a rationale for coming down on her is dumb.

Then there's this from Jules, who has a solid round up of links:

I may be a heartless bastard, and a tabloid vulture to boot. But like the lefties like to say about murderers, rapists, etc., society made her what she is. High society, in her case.

More bullshit. What's that old Gay joke ... My Mother made me a Gay! Oh, neat, if I buy her the wool can she make me one, too? Point being, this young woman is an adult. While popular culture may enable certain behaviors, it does not "cause" them. Were that true, every child of wealth would be living in the cultural wasteland peopled by the likes of Paris Hilton. Clearly that isn't the case.

Yesterday's swamp was full of slime, bugs, frogs, birds, snakes and bass ... and it was a hell of a lot cleaner and far more beautiful to look at than the one called Paris.

Comments

[fatsacca]

Free Paris

No Justice
No Piece

[Daniel DiRito]

See a satirical tongue-in-cheek graphic titled “The Big-Attitudes” which updates the Biblical Beatitudes to fit the Paris Hilton fiasco…here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com/2007/06/paris_hilton_the_bigattitudes.php

[docweasel]

Ok then, I believe this:
Paris makes her living taking advantage of the fact she is famous for being famous. She makes most of her monies from a TV show that celebrates her vacuity and ignorance, and for merely showing up at openings and parties, because young people want to be where rich and famous people are.

Unfortunately for her, it cuts both ways. Her sentence was perfectly legal. There are hundreds of variations on sentencing, so spare me the 'not fair sentence' crap. Some people get probation, some 30 days, some a year, it varies by the judge. So her sentencing is irrelevant: its a legal sentence, debate how harsh it was if you will, but going by the letter or the law, its legal.

Next, her first release. That was legal too. Its happened before, its happened a lot, we just don't hear about it because the person involved isn't famous. Paris has built up a huge public interest in her daily doings, and in this case, it hurt her. What the public saw as lenient is probably a daily occurance, the jails are crowded, non-violent offenders are let out on house arrest or merely probation of suspended sentence. And what the judge did next is perfectly legal: he enforced his original order.

Listen, getting mixed up in the law machine can be brutal. They come and take you from your house and deliver you to jail. Everything that has happened to Paris is within the bounds of U.S. Justice, and worse and better has happened to people in her same position.

I see nothing wrong with making examples of high profile cases. In a probation breaking case, there is no trial, no guilt or innocence. Its up to the judge's discretion, based on his findings from many sources. He's a judge, that's our system of justice, and if he deems she deserves what she got, that's the end of the story. Her lawyers can appeal to Hamen if they like, but in my understanding, its Judge Sauer's discretion that matters.

Yes, I think she got the full sentence because she's famous. Is that completely fair? Maybe or maybe not. Its subjective. Is it legal? Absofrigginlutely.

Furthermore, I think its just. Drunk driving is no joke. Its not even what some liberals call a 'victimless' crime like drug possession (although I don't buy that either). You can't flout the law and flaunt your wealth and privelege and keep getting away with the. The bottom line is, we live in a society where we entrust matter of justice and law to individual, called Judges, and in cases of guilt or innocence there are appeals and other means and devices for checks and balances. But once you are 'in the system' you are under the direction and discretion of your assigned judge. They make examples of non-famous people too. That's what incarceration does, besides taking the guilty person off the street. It serves as an object lesson to the rest of us not to drink and drive or we might go to jail. Many millions of little useless spoiled sluts in training who adore Paris will take note.

This judge did nothing unethical or illegal. Nothing to see here, move along.

[daveinboca]

The Sheriff is an avid Scientologist who has a history of pampering celebs—including giving Mel Gibson a uniform and special “Reserve” status—perhaps to pursue his “religion’s” Hollyweird agenda.

Whoever said Hollyweird is “a Sargasso of the Imagination” [Nathaniel West?] could not have foreseen how deep into the Tar Pits of the Soul this LA Basin of squalid hype and nepotism has oozed. Hilton is a symptom of a city gone terribly wrong.

[BobInStamford]

Laura Bush got drunk and killed her boyfriend and didn't even get a ticket. This really isn't a big deal.

[Ted Kennedy]

"This really isn't a big deal."

I'm with Bob on this one.

[docweasel]

Report: Laura Bush in 1963 Car Wreck
By JIM VERTUNO, Associated Press Writer

"Neither driver was drinking, the police report said."

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3910b26e685a.htm

I like how liberal commentators keep trying to equate this with apples and oranges like Scooter Libby or Laura Bush. Paris violated her probation. Basically, the judge can sentence her to any thing he deems fit. That's why he's a judge. Some people get less, some get more. Paris has spent her short life trying to draw attention to herself. Sometimes, that's not a good thing, as she's finding out.

[wardmd]

Let us remember, people, that she's behind bars NOT for her DUI conviction, she is behind bars for VIOLATING her PROBATION...

SHE is responsible for her current situation (both with respect to the original DUI itself, but, more importantly, for VIOLATING the terms of her probation).

Perhaps all you "it's not fair" morons would do yourselves (and the rest of us) a BIG service by actually READING the history on this case (People of the State of Calif. v. Paris Hilton - September 26, 2006): http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ent/cahilton92606cmp.html

"Paris Hilton's original DUI charges alleging that on September 27, 2006 she was driving while under the influence, and while "under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug. In January 2007 she subsequently pleaded no contest to reckless driving charges stemming from the incident. A judge sentenced her to 3 years of probation, mandatory attendance at an alcohol education program, and fines of $1,500.

On May 4, 2007, a judge sentenced Hilton to 45 days in jail for violating the terms of her probation. According to prosecutors, she failed to enroll in an alcohol education course by mid-April 2007 [she was to enroll by February 12], and was stopped for two more traffic violations, including driving with a suspended license."

Honestly, people, are you suggesting that it's "unfair" for a judge to expect someone (anyone) to actually abide by the terms of their probation? What the heck makes Paris Hilton (or any other "celebrity") think that THEY are exempt from fulfilling the terms THEY agreed to?

Was is REALLY that much to ask (the original probation)? I'm pretty sure the $1,500.00 fine was not an issue. So, it really boils down to the "mandatory attendance at an alcohol education program" and the 3 years of probation.

Has anyone asked (or received) her rationale in NOT attending the "mandatory" program?

Has anyone asked (or received) her rationale for driving when she KNOWS that her license was suspended?

SHE doesn't think that SHE is "special" and that the rules don't apply to HER?

Big F'ing deal! SHE agreed to the terms of the probation, and SHE violated them. SHE, therefore, and SHE ALONE, is responsible for her current situation.

Oh, and as to Sheriff Baca's decision that her "medical condition" could not be treated in custody, I've got TWO points:

1) The judge (Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer), when sentencing Paris Hilton (on May 4th) for her probation violation, made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that "she will not be allowed any work release, furloughs, use of an alternative jail or electronic monitoring in lieu of jail".

2) HOW is it that Sheriff Baca "couldn't" handle her "medical condition" BEFORE the judge ordered her back into custody, but NOW, somehow, he CAN?

It seems to me that he COULD (all along), he just elected to disregard the Judge's orders (just like Paris Hilton did). I can support giving Sheriff Baca a 45 day suspension (without pay) - the same number of days that Paris Hilton was/is to serve - perhaps they BOTH will come to understand the seriousness of their actions.

As as to the comparisons (docweasel),
I'd rather compare the sentences for perjury of President Clinton and "Scooter" Libby. President Clinton lied about a MATERIAL MATTER of the case (Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit) - and served NO jail time - versus "Scooter" Libby (for which there was [IS] no "underlying crime" - It was Richard Armitage [Colin Powell's right hand man] who "outted" Valerie Plame's identity [and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald KNEW it, but proceded on his "witch hunt"], AND she was NOT "covert") - who was sentenced to 30 months behind bars.

You want to talk about "fair"?

[stormy]

Paris is burning - just another alcoholic recidivist repeatedly getting behind the wheel - NC is full of illegal aliens doing just the same thing. BTW - wasn't it Ted Kennedy driving drunk & killing the girlfriend?

[BobInStamford]

Here's a REAL recidivist:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/cheney_doc.html

Btw, Laura is looking crazier every time they drag her out in front of the cameras. That mime makeup isn't helping either.

Good luck with the SURGE, patriots!! It's WORKING!!!!

[Phoenix]

Every time you get in front of a camera, they have to use wide-angle, and you still flab outside the frame.

And of course you know all about mime make-up as you use it when you do your comment-pud-pullin'. You don't really want to think it's you being so gotdang nasty.... Except for the wicked smiley face you paint on.

hahahahahahaha ..... PULL Bob, PULL that pud...

[BobInStamford]

How classy. Kind of like naming your kid "Pierce". Must be the top single mother in the whole trailer park.

[Phoenix]

Oh piffle. Pierce isn't old enough to be a mother. That's a family name. Don't you know we likes a little class in the park. I noticed your trailer sagging in the middle. That where you do yer surging, Bob? Speaking of names... Robert, Robbie, Rob, Bob.... common. Common. Everyday common. Now I see where you came by your inability to engage in original thought.

You have got to be one serious pervert. You are never more lucid and straight than when I say something sexually nasty to you. You are such a dead giveaway it's a howl. Oh...except when you respond to me I bet you don't get a fun surge. Shucks and darn it. :]

[KendraWilder]

Posted by: docweasel | Saturday, June 09, 2007 at 02:33 PM:

"Yes, I think she got the full sentence because she's famous."

Fame had little, if anything, to do with her sentencing, IMHO. It was her supercilious arrogance that did her in.

Can you imagine being ordered to appear before a judge for a hearing about willful parole violations, and showing up 15 minutes late while sashaying in with a toss of the hair and head in disdain at the inconvenience?

And then, when the Sheriff lets her out early, and the Judge demands that she show up in court again so he can consider the ramifications of the Sheriff's decision....then Paris haughtily decides that the inconvenience is just too much, so she'll "phone in" her appearance at that hearing.

Which angers the Judge and compounds his impatience with her continuous reckless disregard of any of societies laws and rules, so he calls up the Sheriff and orders him to be personally responsible for Miss Arrogance's appearance in court.

But the Sheriff has to wait for Miss Vanity and her makeup artist to finish making her pretty, and for the little miss to say her long goodbyes to her family in just another arrogant gesture of how trifling this jurist's orders are in her important world of elites, so she's certainly not going to hurry the process....

She got exactly what she deserved for her supreme arrogance. And at age 26, she was long overdue for a "reality check". And apparently it's working, when one considers the public statement she released after returning to jail.

Either that, or she realizes that she pushed the envelope too far, and was in jeopardy of losing career opportunities as a pariah.

[BobInStamford]

Family name? What a proud bunch of rednecks you must be. I'll look for you and your inbred offspring on Jerry Springer.

[seekeronos]

What Paris (along with any other DUI convict) needs is 30 days in a pillory or a set of stocks.

[Phoenix]

Great idea, Seek. The only problem with that is Roberto in Stamford and his ilk could not resist the urge to stroll nonchalantly by in order to cop a feel. That's just too nasty.

[templar knight]

I don't know, Phoenix, even though Paris is flat-chested, and her figure is slightly boyish, HairyBob and his ilk(of queers) aren't turned on by the female of the species, but by male gorillas, assorted apes, and other hairy types. They take messin' with Sasquatch to a new level. Disgusting.

[BigAl]

Sorry, but some of the comments here are sadly nothing more than vintage schadenfreude. Paris may be a brat, but you can find brats everywhere - even the kids of some of the above bloggers. To say that everything is A-OK because justice is somehow served, ignores a judge who deliberates in anger and the same judge indulging in a procedural peeing contest with his sheriff. Not to mention the jail's inability to provide correct security for an inmate subjected to a perfect storm of media hysteria and we'll see if jailhouse pictures of her show up in the tabloids or YouTube. Lighten up, gang, your kid could be next.

[Phoenix]

I refuse to mock her because my son went through it - almost the same thing Hilton did. His BAC was .075 both times he was stopped in eight days, and he spent one night in jail. Then he was caught driving without a license as he and a buddy test-drove his jacked-up Blazer. The cops nailed him and that was three years ago in Colorado. We paid all the fines, he went to rehab and did community service for Colorado, but the papers got screwed up. Now he's going through five months of rehab through VASAP, done more community service, and Colorado won't let him loose. Latest answer to a letter to the judge: He wants my son to appear before him in person. We're in Virginia. It's enough to make you scream. He'll end up with a license that allows him to drive to work - for a year, I think. Then it's probation, and of course, he'll have to pay high-risk insurance to the tune of about 3K a year. Plus, he'll still have to answer to Colorado. What.the.hell.

[seekeronos]

"Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him."

I dunno, but the financial costs aside (which in many cases these days are handled by the parents, and not the youthful offenders)... a state-sponsored beat-down or other form of public humiliation (stocks/pillories etc.) would go much further than bogging down the court system with the aftermath of a DUI case.

Or (shocker) how about permitting parents to discipline thier kids like some of us can remember our parents tanning our hides when we stepped grossly out of line?

I still remember Dad bringing out the old pistol belt (web belt issued to WW2-Vietnam era soldiers) when one of us kids *really* did something stupid. That kinda put the damper on me repeating those kinds of mistakes, too.

Phoenix: for Paris and/or other females, we could set up a gated area to keep out the goosers and the losers like BiS. Although I'm sure that his nasty, hairy keister might be locked up in a set of stocks for some reason.

[nowingker]

I dunno, it doesn't sound like your son is much deserving of too much sympathy, what's he doing driving under the influence a second time in a week, and then he compounds that by driving AGAIN with a suspended license, what do you want the cops to do, look into his eyes and see that he's 'really' a nice kid?

Paris Hilton flouted the law on multiple ocassions and she got what was coming to her.

Beating children with a belt is wrong and counterproductive, always.

[seekeronos]

"Beating children with a belt is wrong and counterproductive, always."

I disagree in part: it is not "beating" them, but rather disciplining them - within set limits - to make them know that certain bounds should not be crossed.

Why else do we have a generation of kids who have been fed up to their gills with all of this "well, we don't want to hurt their self-esteem/self-image" psycho-babble who have no fear of God, no respect for authority, and indeed, no sense of discipline to keep them from doing things like gunning down a school, or getting multiple DUIs and/or killing others as a result of their DUI?

Is it not the same lack of respect for society's laws that results in people wantonly defecating on US flags, engaging in mob violence against police officers, and other such disturbing acts?

I believe that if those kids had been properly belted when they did something of sufficient greivousness to warrant it, they would be much less likely to engage in acts of stupidity.

I must stress that corporal discipline like this though, is warranted only for particularly severe violations. In our family, it was a given that the belt came out for lying, talking back to an adult (sassing), or things like stealing or cheating.

Now I will agree with you that just beating on a kid for the slightest little thing is overdoing it; "beating" them just for its own sake is of course, very wrong.

I'm talking about the judicious use of spankings as the case warrants it.

[templar knight]

I certainly would never condone beating a child, winkie. But my mom and dad got my full attention whenever the belt came out, and I have used it a time or two myself, but have to confess a "keen switch" had the best effect on two of my three kids. The oldest(21) just hardly ever had to have a spanking, period.

[nowingker]

Sorry, guys, whatever you think of me, I've never been arrested or charged with any crime or involved in any lying/cheating/fraud scandals of any kind and I was spanked about 3 times my entire life with a hand not a belt all before I was 7 years old. It is NOT necessary to use force in order to raise a child that can function successfully or know right from wrong or grow up to aspire to more than their own reality series.

As far as DUI, I was stopped once for speeding after having had several drinks, the officer basically told me he 'could' take me in for drunk driving [I likely would not have passed a breathalizer, probably would have passed field test], but he didn't. I was a couple of miles from my house and he let me go w/the ticket. That was ALL it took, I realized that I had been putting my life, achievements and career at risk because it was too inconvenient to get a ride, take a cab or take public transportation. I have never gotten in a car after more than 2 drinks since then and I never will. I learned my lesson. If I had gotten several subsequent speeding tickets, an actual DUI and then had been found again driving with a suspended license I wouldn't have deserved any sympathy for repeating the same mistake over and over again.

[templar knight]

When you have raised three kids get back with me on that, winkie. It may not have been necessary for you, just like it wasn't for my oldest son, but you will find that all children are different, some are just plain "hard headed", and they have to be made to see the light. That's my job as their dad, to raise decent kids, to make sure they are able and willing to make a living and be good citizens and neighbors, and to instill a civic pride in them. Besides a few other things. Like I say, get back with me at a later date before you start offering advice on something you know nothing about.

[Phoenix]

Nowinger,

I am far from making excuses for my son. The irony of it gets to me, though. He was designated driver, quit drinking two hours before he drove a bunch of drunk kids home....and he drank water which he says helps get the alcohol out and helps with the dehydration of a hangover. Anyway, .075 is hardly drunk. The cops in Durango didn't like his jacked-up Blazer and when they saw at 2 A.M. on a back street, they had him for driving without a license. I think that's the night he spent in jail and he had not been drinking at all.

What I am so damned frustrated about is the system. There is so much incompetence and wasted effort that people wonder if they'll ever get out of it. I have no problem with my son doing jail time, paying fines, going to rehab and doing the community service - that was good for him. But he has to do it all over again because some papers got screwed up between here and Durango. It really is a nightmare. I'm kind of with Seek on this - humiliate them publically and be done with it. Rehab is good and so is picking up trash along the highway. But be done with it! (I did talk to a woman who lived in Durango.....actually she worked for the courthouse, and she was honest. She said I was not the first frustrated parent, that Durango enjoys making money by stopping the college kids and that the court was so poorly run that it was ridiculous.)

I got beat with an Army belt. Webbed. oy.....I had bruises plenty of times. And I never once talked back to either parent. Military - we were not allowed to open our mouths.

I whapped both my kids for the same reason - tone of voice backtalk. They only did it once each - about the age of 14 for my son and my daughter, 17. My son was tougher and I spanked him a couple of times until he turned around just before a spanking and said, "I'm not going to cry." I never spanked him again unless it was a whap to get his attention. Daughter, never but that one time and we were face-to-face on the stairs. She'd done the backtalk going up the stairs and the next thing I knew, I was standing a step below her looking her right in the eye. I surprised myself with how fast I went after her, and realized I had nothing to say so slapped her hip really hard, jerked my chin at her and went back to flopped on the couch.

As TK says - it depends on the kid. Oh, and this little nugget of truth - No one will make you madder than your own kids.

[wardmd]

Phoenix,

While I sympathize with the screw-up you seems to have experienced with Colorado, I cannot muster any sympathy for you or your son.

Your story seems to imply that he WAS drinking (up to 2 hours before he drove, and when we was pulled over, his blood alcohol level was 0.075). The DESIGNATED DRIVER is not the one who stops drinking first, it's the one who DOESN'T DRINK AT ALL that night! What's so fricking hard to understand about that?

And, 0.08 IS the legal limit (at least here in the Liberal mecca of California).

As for physical discipline, there is a BIG difference between a SPANKING and a BEATING.

Sometimes, slapping a child's hand or a few swats on the buttocks IS APPROPRIATE (especially in response to REPEATED bad behaviour). I will agree that BEATING your child (or an adult, for that matter) is ALMOST ALWAYS WRONG.

I say ALMOST, because there ARE times when beating the crap out of someone who attacks me, or my family IS ALSO an appropriate response (even if that "someone" is a child).

With respect to spoiled brats like Paris Hilton, all I can say is: Now I know why some animals EAT their young!

[seekeronos]

Let us then agree then for the sake of arguement:

Spanking = good when needed, hit hard enough to get their attention, but not leave a mark. Should generally be a discipline of last resort, and if done with a frequency bounded by discretion in the earlier years, it should not be necessary by the teen years. I was a hard-headed kid, and got spanked semi-regularly until I was around 10 years old, maybe desrving a whapping I got when I was 13 or 14. After that, verbal talkin' to's and groundings and the ever dreaded restrictions from this or that privilege (mostly driving after I got my license) did the trick.

Beating = wrong, trespasses into the area of assault & battery, unless it is a matter of self-defense much like Ward mentioned above. My dad was not exactly an easy going fella, (he had done a tour of duty as an Army drill instructor, do the math...) but he was also fair... and even though that web belt stung like a so-and-so, he never lost control or went after me in a violent temper.

[Phoenix]

I'll repeat myself: I have a problem with the court system. My son deserves punishment, but it needs to be reasonable and it should not take three years to get it straight. What do you puritans want me to say? That he should be thrown in jail for two years for each 'almost' DUI? I don't excuse what he did, but it was hardly criminal behavior, and he has paid an extremely high price because of court incompetence. Now. I can only hope that you who did not read my second comment on this find yourself in my shoes one day. I can guarantee one thing: Your anger against your kid will fester while your rage against the system increases exponentially.

Some fucked-up judge wants my son to fly to Colorado to appear before him? He's done everything CO asked of him, and they messed up the paperwork. Months and months of rehab and two sets of community service and plenty of fines and someone can't seem to get it straight? My ass.

[nowingker]

Phoenix,

If all it is is a paperwork problem why didn't you get a lawyer to straighten it out for you, seems hard to believe that someone would have to do two sets of punishments/rehab/community service all based on a paperwork issue that can be proven to be a mistake?

[nowingker]

PS, nothing wrong with 'spanking' but to me, being 'hit' with a belt that leaves bruises isn't 'spanking' but a beating and wrong.

I have a stupid question, is it illegal to drive w/ANY alchol in your system? I thought the point of having a legal limit on blood alcohol was that at or above, its a crime, drunk driving/DUI and if below, it would be legal, no crime?

I'm all for rehab if a person really has a substance abuse problem and wants to change, but we've moved where 'rehab' is another way of passing the buck, every celebrity who does/says something stupid/illegal goes to 'rehab' and we have court ordered rehab, if your son was under the legal limit, drinking water and so forth it doesn't sound like he has a drinking problem...sure, rehab is better than jail for a drug/alcohol offense, but its really another bandaid on the problem. Rehab only works if you want it to, and not everyone who gets busted for a substance related crime needs rehab. In my opinion.

[templar knight]

winkie, don't really want to continue on this subject much longer, but usually, not every time, but most of the time, the line that deliniates spanking and beating is crossed when the parent is guilty of substance abuse, i.e. for the most part alcohol. The loss of judgment caused by that particular drug(alcohol) has resulted in much evil, and children of people who abuse alcohol and drugs are much more likely to be beaten. I literally hate the stuff.

As for your question, it is legal in Texas to drive with a very small amount of alcohol in your system. Very small amount. One drink will just about do it.

[seekeronos]

The idea of a minimum 0.08 BAC (in most states, this is one of those Federal "you better play along with us or we yank your highway funding" measures) pretty much means if you have a drink or two in you, you can't legally drive.

I suppose it is possible that you could have half a beer and still legally drive with a BAC of 0.04 -- or that allows for some margin of error in the equipment.

In Japan, registering ANY alcohol (a BAC of 0.0001 or more) is enough to get you some time in the pokey. "Unten yopparai" (DUI) is a pretty serious offense there.

[Phoenix]

Good question about is it legal to drive with any alcohol in your system. The problem is that states do not honor other states punishments. My son went to the social services rehab program - as ordered by Colorado, and he spent three months several nights a week sitting with druggies and losers - most of whom couldn't stay with the program - and then he did community service. One of the counselors screwed up and sent incomplete papers to Colorado. Colorado was slow and didn't respond for months until we contacted them. Duh. The papers weren't right. Back to social services and to the head of the board. That went on and on, but for some reason, they still couldn't find the right papers. The counselor has since been fired for gross incompetence. He did the community service and sent that off but CO said he needed more, and they still didn't have the right papers. Time passed and out of desperation, my son got into VASAP (drug, alcohol rehab - very serious stuff) and he's still in it after five months. The program lasts six months and he cleaned up trash on the highway with his 'probation' officer driving out to check on him each time. Meantime, my ex writes up a formal, nice letter to judge and explains things and plainly asks: What do we do now? The judge writes back that he wants to see Parker. !!! He'll get a license here for driving to and from work, he'll be on probation, and he'll have to buy high-risk insurance. But he'll still have a warrant (I guess from the judge's demand that Parker show up in his court) and that sucks. Yes, we will probably have to get a lawyer unless his probabtion officer from VASAP can handle it. VASAP tried to get the records from social services and spoke with the head honcho who explained everything, so VASAP knows the kid has done double duty. It's nuts. I feel like calling the judge in Colorado and asking if it'd be okay to FedEx one of my son's nuts.

Here's a twisted irony- I am not a rule maker. I gave my kids two rules: Don't drink and drive (or ride with anyone who has been drinking) and be kind. That is it. Everything else was an expectation of respect and typical of most nice kids, they wanted to keep my respect and never abused it. My son has always been super careful about drinking and has left his vehicle at bars a few times to get a ride home when he thinks he's had too much. My rule wasn't wasted, but it didn't serve him well in CO. It's a college town and they make a bunch of money on DUIs. They didn't like my son because his Blazer was outfitted for the Jeep Jamborees at Moab, and the heighth of his vehicle was a quarter of an inch below legal limit. The cops hated it. They were on the hunt for him. He should have been smarter, but if he'd been like me, he'd still be in jail. I talked with the cops on all three ocassions, and they all said he was extremely polite and cooperative. He was scared to death spending the night in jail. Now he gets to spend time with heroin and crack addicts getting 'straight'. He's never done drugs in his life. The cost is too much - financially and emotionally. If he was a habitual drunk, it'd be another thing. Judges....too bad they're all too human. Vengeful asses.

[Phoenix]

My mother was dangerous around cocktail hour and one time when I was seven, she beat the tar out of me with my father's Army belt. She left bruises on my legs, and I remember the next day was Brownie day. I put on my uniform that I loved, and it so happened our class had to sing on stage for something and I was happy as a clam to get to show off my uniform. My mother saw the bruises that morning and made me wear pants under my uniform so no one would question the bruises. I remember crying about the pants - not the bruises. I took those for granted and don't recall noticing them. I also remember crying at the singing performance and some teacher being real nice to me about me having to wear the pants. I have no clue if she suspected anything. I do recall my teacher letting me sit in her lap as she read to us from her rocker. I'll never forget the feeling of how nice she was that day.

[Phoenix]

oh ugh... I just had a flashback. I did notice the bruises shortly after the beating because one was bleeding. I ran to my mother - as if she wasn't the one who'd beat me - and cried because it hurt so bad. How sad for a little kid to seek comfort from their abuser?

UGH. No more stories about beatings. I need to go lie down with a pillow over my head.

[nowingker]

You need to get a lawyer involved ASAP, it is astonishing what a letter from a lawyer licensed to practice in the state can get that any amount of phone calls and letters from private citizens fails to accomplished.

[BobInStamford]

Sounds like your son inherited the drunk gene. He should consider taking the bus.

[seekeronos]

"...it is astonishing what a letter from a lawyer licensed to practice in the state can get that any amount of phone calls and letters from private citizens fails to accomplished."

Kinda sad that things are just that way, that we need a licensed, "professional" class of "intellectual elites" to make sure that the "i's" get dotted and the "t's" get crossed.

On a side note, it sounds like that judge is quite the pinhead - if he can't take the time to at least see that Parker has made an effort to rectify his wrongs and work with the system, that judge should be recalled. Not sure how CO deals with its judges (either appointment or by election), but I'd bet his sense of justice is tinged with a little green (that is, his position is tied to the amount of revenue he brings in with convictions).

[nowingker]

Not really, you don't get medical advice from your neighbor or have an auto mechanic design a building; you are putting yourself at an automatic disadvantage if you try to tackle a serious legal problem like your kid having to serve his sentence twice without a lawyer.

if your point was its sad that a regular citizen can no longer navigate the legal system on his/her own because of the myriad of rules and regulations and 'gotcha' arcane legal loopholes, then I agree. But, its the system that WE made it. It didn't get that way on its own.

[seekeronos]

"if your point was its sad that a regular citizen can no longer navigate the legal system on his/her own because of the myriad of rules and regulations and 'gotcha' arcane legal loopholes, then I agree."

That was my exact meaning. Unfortunately, you are also right in that the system is a creature of our own making.

[Phoenix]

Good points. All was fine with the Virginia VASAP because Parker was just starting out from square one after years of hassling with CO. This last letter from the judge has upped the ante into the realm where we will need a lawyer. If Parker doesn't go see the judge, no doubt they will issue a warrant for him. That completely screws him up. How many times in his life will he have to answer the question: "Do you have any outstanding warrants?" Whatever the problem is, it has to be fixed. We have no clue why the judge pulled this stunt. What compounds the lawyer thing is the judge may become even more obdurate and demanding. We have no idea how getting a letter from a lawyer might piss off the judge. Plus, someone will have to go with him because he'd be arrested if he drove himself - no frigging license.

It is damn sad a regular citizen can't negotiate something like this without a lawyer. It irks me to death to have to hire someone after all this crap. Maybe Parker could get one of his Colorado buddies to hire a Mexican to go in and say, "I'm Parker." I'm sure the judge would let him off.

[Jesse]

You people are kind of sick, trying to find connections with a drunk individuals actions and the people who made this country great before the great hand of conservative power plunged us into a war we dont need.