What's a "Hearing"?
These days there is no shortage of Law and Lawyer shows on TV, and some of them do a fair job of illuminating what a Trial is, but they don't do such a good job with "Hearings". That's a little bitty trial, where usually just one question, one issue (like a point of law) is listened to by a Judge, and he then decides how that question should be answered.

At the January 4th "hearing" in Pasadena, the state of New Mexico had made the accusation that "Keith L. Albert" failed to respond to requirements of the citation he received. Since everybody has me confused with Mr. Albert, I had to go to the hearing and handle his business. This is what New Mexico said:

The question before Judge Rorik, then, is: "Did Keith L. Albert fail to respond or pay a fine within the prescribed time limit?" See how simple? Judge can rule either "affirmative" or "negative" (yes or no). You and I are both aware of the correct answer, but we ain't judges. I showed the real judge the letter I had sent to the Court named on back of the New Mexico citation, along with a US Mail Delivery Confirmation slip. I also showed him the transcript of the call I got from that Red River Court Clerk. Had lots of other stuff I could have shown (my letters to which New Mexico did not respond in the prescribed time limit), but his Honor had seen enough, told his Clerk to put this matter off, and I should come back to Pasadena in 60 days.

In other words, the Judge did not issue a ruling, did not answer the question. Hearings are like that, sometimes. My second shot at a Hearing comes up on March 8th, at which time my driver's license could be revoked. I'll have to arrange for a ride home or something.

Here are some notes on Judges and Lawyers:
You who know something of my private/social life will recognize that I am acquainted with a bunch of Judges and Lawyers. I run around with some in both categories. My neighbors are mostly lawyers. Some of my best friends are, too. From all this, my opinion of lawyers is probably a lot higher than that held by the public at large. They are fine folks to know, socially...not so fun if you have a professional connection.

Judges, I would observe, are a really mixed bag. Most of them are pretty smart...even very smart...and as much fun as lawyers. Some, are not fun at all. In the judging profession there is always a problem with time...in getting the time in court spent efficiently, and leaving as soon as possible. Case loads are often hectic, and plenty of defendants and lawyers who come before the bench simply will not cooperate. Prime Rule before a judge is don't make her or him mad. She or he has the last word, even about what constitutes "cooperation", and if you don't follow the Prime Rule you're dead in the water...gonna pay through the nose and be forced into a professional connection to lawyers. Thus, whenever a Judge is having trouble answering a simple question, don't push him.

At the close of my hearing, the Judge, observing a stack of letters and mail tracking printouts I had in hand, made one aside which stuck with me. He said, in effect: "You're a smart man. Get on the Internet...obviously you can...and take care of this." The Judge's comment has lead to what you are seeing here.

Info as of January 17, 2005.