Must Read: Yeah, what Jeffrey said!

To begin with, it’s disconcerting to see professional media persons who the public supposes to be sophisticated about such things, badly botch their internet taxonomy by labeling Perricone a “blogger” in their reporting. Do they not fact check these terms? I’m told Wikipedia is a popular TV journalist’s research tool. Let’s see what we find there.

A blog (a portmanteau of the term web log)[1] is a personal journal published on the World Wide Web consisting of discrete entries (“posts”) typically displayed in reverse chronological order so the most recent post appears first. Blogs are usually the work of a single individual, occasionally of a small group, and often are themed on a single subject. Blog can also be used as a verb, meaning to maintain or add content to a blog.

The emergence and growth of blogs in the late 1990s coincided with the advent of web publishing tools that facilitated the posting of content by non-technical users. (Previously a knowledge of such technologies as HTML and FTP had been required to publish content on the Web.)

Although not a must, most good quality blogs are interactive, allowing visitors to leave comments and even message each other via GUI widgets on the blogs and it is this interactivity that distinguishes them from other static websites. In that sense, blogging can be seen as a form of social networking. Indeed, bloggers do not only produce content to post on their blogs but also build social relations with their readers and other bloggers.

Perricone didn’t operate a blog which is essentially an online diary of what the author considers to be pertinent events and/or recommended reading, preferably with an open comments section for reader feedback. Perricone, instead, was a frequent commenter under articles which appeared on a newspaper website. Those are both means of sharing information on the internet but there are technical differences in terminology which one may expect one’s grandmother.. or possibly Garland Robinette.. to accidentally conflate now and again but when professional news persons do it, one figures they should know better and wonders if they aren’t doing it on purpose.

Why is this important? Well aside from the professional journalistic imperative to get facts correct, misuse of terms in this manner serves to indict by association the entire practice of blogging, social networking, or using the internet for anything beyond mere consumption purposes as a somehow malevolent activity. Lumping all independent use of social media into the same category as newspaper commenters is reductive and deceptive.

Continue reading at Library Chronicles

He comes from a “long line of corruptors”: Slabbed truth checks Sal Perricone’s assertions about grand jury target Fred Heebe.

The case: Kern v K-Mart
The Judge: Frederick JR Heebe
Lawyer for Kern: Former Heebe Law Clerk Kyle Shonekas and Claude Lightfoot
Lawyers for K-Mart: King Krebs Jurgans, Milling Benson Woodward and others
Key ruling: Docket #84, Plaintiff’s objection to impeachment video of Kern sustained. K-Mart claims video clearly shows plaintiff vastly overstated the extent of his injuries for an accident involving his 12 year old vehicle.
Trial result: Finds for defendant K-Mart, Plaintiff makes motions for New Trial

HEEBE, District Court Judge

Thus, in accordance with the facts of this case and the legal standards set by Louisiana and federal law, the Court makes the following findings. In considering the facts in a light favorable to K–Mart, the Court finds that reasonable men could differ as to whether K–Mart was negligent. However, in weighing the evidence, the Court finds that the great weight of the evidence supports a finding that K–Mart was negligent.

Accordingly, IT IS THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the motion of plaintiff, Arthur Kern, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff, Arthur Kern, for new trial be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED.

This ruling can not be appealed. Next up Judge Heebe recuses himself giving no reasons.

Before the court in the above-captioned matter are (1) Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Motion for New Trial, which is opposed by Plaintiff, and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Additional Expert Witness, which is opposed by Defendant. The Motions are before the court on briefs, without oral argument.

This matter was originally tried before a jury in Section “B” of this court during the week of January 10, 1991. Following a jury verdict in favor of Defendant, the presiding judge (Chief Judge Heebe) granted Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial, assigning extensive reasons. Judge Heebe then rescued himself from further consideration of the matter, and the case was transferred to this section. Continue reading “He comes from a “long line of corruptors”: Slabbed truth checks Sal Perricone’s assertions about grand jury target Fred Heebe.”