Possible Blogger Account Hack

I think my Blogger account has been hacked.

On my Blogger homepage there's usually a Reading List displaying the latest posts from the blogs I follow.

About an hour ago, instead of seeing other bloggers' activities, I now have a list of Indonesian gambling sites.

I filed a complaint to Google, which runs Blogger, along with initiating a password change.

I'm not tech savvy enough to determine whether reading any of my blogs will cause any virus or malware to be transferred, but I thought I'd transmit this warning.

I hope to get this resolved soon.

Please accept my apologies.

The Reluctant Juror and the Case of the Banished Baristas

(Image from:  Obvious State--Paris Noir)

The Backstory:

This isn't the first time I received a summons for jury duty.  The previous occasion was about eight years ago, when I first started working for WA State Emergency Management Division.  I was in the middle of my training, so my boss at the time wrote the Pierce County Court asking that I be excused.

Fast forward eight years.  My current boss happened to walk in to the Alert and Warning Center (A&WC) when I was busy...

(Image from:  FStoppers--Beautiful Film Noir Inspired Portraits)

...and informed me it was department policy that we all fulfill our civic duties.  So there was no exemptions for me this time.

My wife on the other hand, loves jury duty.  She was actually disappointed she didn't get to sit-in on a trial during her stint... 

(Image from:  Picture Correct--How to Use a Snoot for Portrait Lighting)

...and was wishing she could join me on this case. Unfortunately, the Pierce County Court System wouldn't allow for substitutions.

So every morning for nearly a week-and-a-half, I would kiss my wife good bye, go to a gym near downtown Tacoma for a quick workout...

(Image from: TV Tropes--Noir City)

 ...and then make my way to the courthouse for the trial, which I'll refer to as:

The Case of the Banished Baristas

(Image from:  Pix Good--Femme Fatale Fashion Trend)

Our jury was composed of myself, six other guys and five women (one woman was an alternate, who was dismissed prior to deliberations).  When we weren't listening to testimony, we were cooped-up in the courthouse's smallest Jury Deliberation Room.

Here's the best summary I could come up with for this convoluted case:

Two plaintiffs, I'll unimaginatively call "Barista A" and "Barista B," were suing The Owner of The Cafe for sexual harassment and being wrongfully fired back in 2013.

I'll start with Barista A...

She was seeking monetary compensation for the pain & suffering she endured for her unjust termination.  She already won a case against The Owner for sexual harassment and was awarded compensation for lost tips & wages.

During her stay at The Cafe, she was constantly harassed by her ex-boyfriend.  According to Barista A, The Owner promised her he'd be able to protect her from The Ex.  However, the harassment continued, even when Barista A complained to The Manager--who just so happened to be The Ex's mom.  After about a week of constant texting, The Ex appeared to have been promoted, while Barista A got fired.

Now here's where the plot thickens...

It didn't seem like The Owner was doing much to contain the toxic relationship between Barista A and The Ex.  That's because The Owner--who was married--was having an affair with Barista B.  This all started back in 2011.  However, by 2013, The Owner was leaning on Barista B to have a threesome with him and his wife.  While Barista B entered into this relationship knowing The Owner was married, she drew the line at being the third wheel in a threesome.  When she flat-out told the Owner "no!" she found herself unemployed.

The Owner (aka the defendant) had a predictably different version of this story...

Barista A was previously employed at The Cafe--twice.

She was fired the first time for mouthing-off to another female employee.  But eventually, The Owner hired her back.  Her second round of employment lasted until she whipped-up a batch of weed brownies and was handing them out/selling them to employees and customers.  Both The Owner and The Manager complained that Barista A was often late, called-in sick, or didn't show up at all for work.

Now Barista A said she was fired by The Manager every time she broke up with The Ex for cheating on her.  Sometime between her second and third round of employment she hooked-up with another guy and got pregnant, later giving birth to a baby girl.  So her daughter was often sick.

By this time, The Ex was working at The Cafe, and The Owner decided to give Barista A yet another chance--despite the fact that her and The Ex got along like a mongoose and a cobra.

As for Barista B:  The Manager complained she often came to work hung over, was uncooperative and all-round poor performer.  The Manager often complained to The Owner about Barista B, while Barista B complained to The Owner about what a so-and-so The Manager was.  The Manager told both of them (separately of course) to "work it out with (The Manager/Barista B)."

The Manager also complained that as time wore on, Barista B became more confrontational.  Finally she had enough and fired Barista B.

Throughout the trial, The Owner's lawyer continued to point out that his affair with Barista B was a consensual relationship, so therefore, no sexual harassment was committed.

Jury Deliberations:

(Image from:  Movie Diva--Bright Rock)

After hearing all this, we were issued a set of Court Instructions.  We were to determine:

Did The Owner sexually harass Barista B?  If so, how much should Barista B be awarded for lost tips & wages?  How much should Barista B be compensated for pain & suffering?

And:  How much should Barista A be compensated for pain & suffering?  (Remember, she already won her case and was due to receive an award for lost tips & wages).

We spent nearly the entire day deliberating.  Unlike a criminal case, which requires a unanimous vote to reach a verdict, for a civil case like this, we only needed 10 jurors to agree.

When it came to determining whether or not The Owner sexually harassed Barista B, the initial vote was: No-1 to Yes--11 votes.  But once it was explained to the no voter, that despite the consensual origins of the affair, The Owner kept pestering Barista B for a threesome, it became sexual harassment.  Even more so after she was fired.

Now Barista B's attorney thought she deserved nearly $63 Grand, which included an alleged $5/hour pay raise for a total of 104 weeks.

One of the jurors re-read the instructions and reminded us that any monetary damages were assessed from the day Barista B was fired until the first day of the trial.  This totaled 87 weeks--not quite the 104 weeks the Barista's attorney was asking for.

Another juror pointed out that Barista B was making a mere $10/hour, at tad over minimum wage here in WA State (currently $9.47/hr), which didn't add up to $63 Grand.

The question of "how big were her tips?" came up and became a topic of a lengthy debate.  We all noted, especially The Owner's attorney, that Barista B stated--under oath--that she only claimed 10% of her tips on her 1040 Tax Form.

The only physical evidence we had to go on were provided by the Baristas' attorney in the form of the hard copies of text messages from the Baristas' phones.  We didn't have any pay statements, W2s, bank statements, tax forms.

The Owner's attorney provided--nadda.  The only written performance reviews of the two Baristas were written by The Manager--over a year after they were fired--and these documents weren't included in the evidence package.  According to both The Manager and The Owner, they were in the process of establishing written procedures for performance reviews and complaints.  Nor did we see any of the racy selfies The Owner exchanged with Barista B, that the attorney claimed was initiated by Barista B.

So based on what we had--and didn't have--we came up with a lost tips & wages figure of just over $24 Grand.

As for pain & suffering:  Zilch.

We all felt Barista B willingly entered into the affair with The Owner and that she knew what she was getting in to.  It was curious that neither The Owner, nor Barista B fessed-up to starting the affair.  The story they told, during their separate testimonies, went something like this:  "We met at a bar, had too much to drink, then ended up in a hotel room..."

Now for Barista A, half the jury felt differently.  Myself and five others felt she was aware she was entering a hostile work environment, because she knew ahead of time that The Ex was already working there.  We felt she should have stayed away from the place, like Superman avoids Kryptonite.  One juror was of the opinion that most of harassing text messages were sent by The Ex when they were away from work, so it was a personal issue.  Others asked why didn't she block his number, change hers, get a restraining order, etc.  Another juror read some of Barista A's not-so-pleasant responses out loud.

But the other six jurors felt The Owner broke his promise of shielding her from any harassment by The Ex.  One of the in-favor-for jurors wondered how long did she endure this, because of Barista A's and The Ex's toxic relationship predated her third round of employment at The Cafe.

For this, our foreman came up with a great idea:  She pointed to one text message, where Barista A clearly states to The Manager "...this is harassment..."  Then, a week later, Barista A was fired.  So based on our foreman's recommendation we voted, unanimously, that based on the timespan between messages, Barista A was subjected to seven days of on-the-job harassment.

The question then became, how much do we award her?

Besides the six of us who still felt Barista A should get zip, just like Barista B; figures ranged from a mere $70 to over $42 Grand.

At some point during the deliberation, I blurted out a suggestion for $100/day.  After another round of debating, four "no voters" agreed, some even said "against my better judgement," to change their vote from $0 to $700. Me and another guy kept our votes at $0.  But to be honest, if my vote was needed to reach this verdict in a timely manner, I would have changed it to $700.

The Verdict:

(Image from:  12 Angry Men)

Once the attorneys for the plaintiffs and the defended arrived, we filed into the courtroom and Judge Chushcoff read the verdict.

Normally in TV/movie courtroom dramas, the bad guy/gal is found guilty and hauled away amid applause.  In our case, both attorneys and the Baristas remained impassive, while The Owner didn't show up at all.

Another thing you don't see in the courtroom dramas:  After the verdict is reached, both attorneys have an opportunity to ask the jury questions, and even poll the jury.

(So reader take note:  If you find yourself on jury duty, you may be asked to explain and defend your verdict, even if you didn't agree with your fellow jurors).

Judge Chushcoff again thanked us profusely for our service as jurors, and as we filed out of the courtroom the Baristas were outside thanking each of us.

My fellow jurors and I felt we reached a fair verdict.  Everyone contributed some insight into the case.  The Owner didn't get away scott-free, but the Baristas didn't "cash in" either.  We thought we reached a decision without hurting a fellow juror's feelings, and we could all go home and finally get a good night's sleep...

(Image from:  Camberwell Studios--Film Noir Lighting)

The Reluctant Juror

(Image from Someecards)

I must admit I was dreading jury duty.  I received the summons in the mail last month and I thought of it only as a great inconvenience.  While my supervisor would have to fill-in for me for the first three days, and my daily workout routine would be disrupted for the entire two-week stint.

Fortunately, Pierce County does an excellent job of accommodating jurors and making them feel appreciated.

Normally, jurors would call-in the night before to find out if the group they're assigned to has been called.  Because of my rotating shift, I was instructed to show up whether my group was called, or not, and be placed on the day-to-day schedule.

Showtime for the very first day of jury duty is usually 0800 hours (8 AM). 

How-e-ver:  Since I wanted to take advantage of the jury duty free parking, I learned it was best to arrive before 0730 hours.

(Image from:  Tinley Park Public Library--not the Tacoma, WA Courthouse)

Once I got through the Courthouse Security, the first official step in this hurry-up-and-wait process was to report to the Jury Assembly Room.  Here, I was treated to instructional video--and then had to wait some more--with over 100 other would-be jurors.

The good news about all the waiting throughout this is I was able to get a lot of reading done--like finishing four books and starting a fifth one.

(Image:  Link to site defunct)

Names were then drawn at random, in groups of up to 30, or so, to begin the Jury Selection Process.

Of course, I was called right away, along with my "gym-rat" friend, Andrea, whom I hadn't seen in years.  Once we were lined-up as if we were in a military processing station, we proceeded up to Judge Chushcoff's Courtroom. 

Here, we were introduced to the judge, his assistants, the plaintiffs and their attorney, along with the defendant and his attorney.  Judge Chushcoff briefed us on the generalities of the case, a civil lawsuit, and then the jury selection began.

This consisted of the plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys asking various questions to the group at large, in order to weed out anyone with strong biases.  One woman said it was against her religious beliefs to judge anyone, while one man had strong feelings against awarding money for "pain & suffering."

Lo-and-behold, my name was called to be one of the 13 jurors (one would be an alternate).  Andrea wasn't selected, so I'm not sure what her fate was.  Afterwards, we "lucky 13" were sworn-in and then adjourned to the Jury Deliberation Room, where the Judge's Assistant briefed us on what was to come.

This took the entire first day.  Though it all, Judge Chushcoff and his assistant "Winnie" continued with the trend of accommodating us and making us feel appreciated--minus being consigned to the smallest deliberation room in the Pierce County Courthouse.

The trial itself took a week to resolve.  Judge Chushcoff was sick one day, a witness couldn't make it on another day, and normally trials aren't conducted on Fridays, so the courthouse staff can catch up on paperwork. 

The details of the trial I'll save for a later post.  However, there's a couple of observations I'd like to make.

A real trial, or at least this particular one, wasn't like any of the courtroom dramas I've seen on TV, or in the movies.

(Image from:  Perry Mason TV Series Wiki)

First of all the atmosphere was very pleasant.  No one shouted.  There was no melodrama, or verbal confrontations.  Objections were made in a conversational manner, so much so, that a couple of my fellow jurors had trouble hearing what was being said.

In other words, no "you can't handle the truth" outbursts...

(Image from:  A Few Good Men)

Courtroom dramas also edit out a lot of mundane issues, especially when the jury is excused and has to wait in the Deliberation Room, while the attorneys and the judge discuss some legal point-of-order in private.  So there was a lot of back-and-forth during each session--several times each day.

After a week of listening to testimony and viewing evidence, my fellow jurors and I spent most of the day deliberating and then delivered our verdict.

In the end, I have to say my feelings towards jury duty have changed.  My stint as a juror was a pleasant experience; so much so, that we shared contact information with each other and hope to get together socially someday.  After we rendered our verdict, Judge Chushcoff, again expressed his appreciation for our attendance.

Attending jury duty gave me a first-hand look of--and greater appreciation for--our judicial process.

On Jury Duty

(Image from:  12 Angry Men)

Today will be my first day on jury duty.

So I'll be off-line for the rest of this week, and possibly next week, depending on how the court schedule and jury selection turn out.

Best wishes to all of you during these final days of January 2015!

Desktop Wallpaper for Miniature Backdrops

(Image from WallpaperUp)

Yesterday I spent nearly four hours looking at pictures on Wallpaper Up. It's certainly easy for any writer to get distracted while "doing research" on the internet.

But I swear this wasn't the case--for the most part.

I've been on a quest for exotic miniature backdrops to add to my meagre collection, which can be seen here and here. Most of the stuff I found, like Ez Scenes are more suited for model railroading, depicting 1950s American and Europe than the "...galaxy far, far away."

After a couple of hours of fruitless trolling, I was about to give up in despair. Then I stumbled across Wallpaper Up. The site is actually designed to provide desktop wallpaper for computer screens. But that didn't stop me from spending an additional two hours downloading and printing various images to use as backdrops for upcoming chapters of Breakout from Bongolaan.

I focused my search on: Planets in Science Fiction, Futuristic Cityscapes, Futuristic Landscapes and was just taking my first peek at Battle Scenes and Star Wars, before calling it a night.

Of the 50 images I downloaded, I printed nine pieces of wallpaper art on standard 8" x 11" cardstock, that I felt would be large enough for close-up shots. There's at least two dozen photos and on-line artwork I'd like to enlarge and paste on 20" x 30" poster boards.

"I'd like to..." being the operative phrase. To accomplish this, I'll have to take these to a print or photography shop. I may trim this list down, once I get over the sticker shock of the cost per page.

In the meantime, it's back to trolling through Wallpaper Up for more images, like this...

The Studio's "Legal Entanglements"

(Image from: Lawyers by Sygnin on Deviant Art)

Despite my best efforts to the contrary, I managed to steer the "USS Stern Rake Studio" into legal tepid water.  The tempurature isn't "hot," at least not yet, anyway.  After a ten-month hiatus, due to attending a popular fiction course, amicable divorce and subsequent move into a new home, I finally got around to checking my YouTube account. 

To my surprise, I discovered GoDigital filed a copyright dispute against seven, out of twenty-one of my movies.  I never heard of these folks, let alone have any dealings with them--until now.  In response, I challenged their claim, because, I thought, I only used license-free music that I purchased from other sources.

Within hours of hitting send, the folks at YouTube sided with GoDigital and replied to my challenge:

All content owners have reviewed your video and confirmed their claims to some or all of its content.

Okay, so now what do I do?

No action is required on your part. Your video is still available worldwide. In some cases ads may appear next to your video.

Well, that's nice to know, but what does this mean about my movies' status?

Please note that the video's status can change, if the policies chosen by the content owners change. You may want to check back periodically to see if you have new options available to you.

While it doesn't sound like I'll be fined or sued, the following titles may one day be used as on-line billboards for GoDigital, or stricken from YouTube's roster:  Duel of the Demigods; Mayhem in Makassar Strait, Parts 4-6; Preparing for Battle at Enfilade 09; Impending Fury and my very first show, The Road to Eggmuehl.

Oh well.  At least three good things came out of all this:  I discovered Sygnin's work, joined Deviant Art and posted the link on to this site...