Boy Meets Blogger, Boy Disses Blogger, Boy Gets Blogged

In Response to Adam's Post:
Bellicose Bumpkin Unique Theory of Sovereign Liability

Dated 2/22/08

Dilemma: I make a comment on the above post, Adam doesn't publish it, then proceeds to comment on my comment that he didn't publish.

My first (unpublished) comment:

You write :“because there is no sympathy for a casino."

Actually you and some others I've met over the summer appear to have a depthless amount of sympathy, not to mention love, understanding and compassion, for casinos.

Next, there are differences between tribal courts and state courts or federal courts. Namely, if a case goes before a judge in our state (say in the matter of wrongful death), the case is put before a jury of one's peers. But in tribal court, where are one's peers? Where does one find peers in the microcosm of the sovereign casino world if one is not part of it.

BTW are you going to write any of your own blogs or just comment on those of others? Oh that's right - you have to support and defend - Section 22, Parts B, C and D.

Well, keep reachin' for that rainbow,
Gladys

After a few others comment on this post, Adam adds his own comment:

Gladys wrote several unflattering things (who would have
guessed it), but the one statement that actually even called out for addressing is the following”

“… there are differences between tribal courts and state or federal courts. Namely, if a case goes before a judge in our state (say in the matter of wrongful death), the case is put before a jury of one's peers. But in tribal court, where are one's peers? Where does one find peers in the microcosm of the sovereign casino world if one is not part of it?
“

Gladys needs to realize that the world continues to be a diverse place of individuals from, and living in worlds that she is not a part of—and they continue to have the right to exist. Take the first example of Louisiana. Bring a case there Gladys. Do you think that all law in the United States is the same…wrong!

For example—unlike that of any other state—Louisiana law derives from the Civil Code established by the French emperor in 1804. The resulting system of "civil law" in the state differs from the other 49 states' "common-law" traditions, meaning that the rulings in the French-influenced system come from direct interpretation of the law; rulings in the common-law system give greater authority to legal precedent.
If I am litigating in New York as a Massachusetts citizen, is the jury my “peers”? In Mississippi? In Puerto Rico?

So I guess differences in court systems and laws is not a basis to complain, since we have that already. Guess we can’t really complain that a jury is not our peers, since that happens every time you go to a different State, or country (if they have juries). I also assume that Indians are considered our peers, since last I looked, they were allowed to serve on juries in this Country.

So maybe I just don’t understand your point, or you are making one that I really hope is not your point.

Ok, so here I am... dissed on a comment without that comment even being fully published! Needless to say, I come to my own defense:

Ah oui, Adam! Gladys is tres familiar with le difference between la code Napoleon and English common law. There was a time when I had applied to Tulane and wanted to better understand the place where I could be living.

Anyway, my other comments were hardly unflattering. They were just truthful. BTW, don't you think you should actually LINK to my blog if you are going to blog about it????????

Well, back to the blog, I had anticipated this line of rebuttal from you. I'm not sure why you think I don't understand diversity. What is your basis for this claim other than the fact that I would not want to be tried in a sovereign Indian nation court?

I would also not like to be tried in military court, or a court in a hostile country.

Why??????????????

Because in any State or Federal court, it's still America. It IS diverse. The deck is not already stacked against me (excuse the pun.) If the land in Middleboro became casino country, virtually the Tribe's entire economy would be based on a casino owned and operated on sovereign soil. Claims against the casino could and in all likelihood would be seen as threats against the family business. This is why I used the word 'microcosm.' Can an outsider really have a fair shot at a fair trial in this environment of, by, and for the casino? It feels more like a corporation and less like a democracy. I think the channel five video bears this out.

But go ahead, I know you'll disagree with me and probably only print the parts of my comments that you wish to distort.

BTW, great job keeping up with section 22 D, seriously.

Luv,
Gladys

After the second comment didn't make it past the censors I sent another comment:

Adam Darling, why aren't you posting my comments?? Gladys

That - he published!