By Jeff Smith WHAT COULD BE lower than the legal profession? Cheap shot, and not to be taken seriously: legal issues are only as low as the people who deal with them. But seriously, I try to stay away from legalistic issues as column fodder, because they almost invariably involve the losing side of a legal battle trying to get even in the court of public opinion. I have not the time, the resources nor the inclination to be judge, jury, defense attorney, private dick, stenographer and secretary and character witness or alibi for somebody I don't know from an anonymous voice on the other end of a phone line. Still, I get sucked into these things from time to time because the callers sound so sincere and long-suffering, and the circumstances read like a Kafka novel. Which is why I wound up splitting a cheese tostada with carne seca the other day with this guy from Marana. He figures he's taken a screwing from the court system, among other grievances, and would like me to help clear his good name and give him at least the satisfaction of getting his side of the story on the record. He's going to be somewhat disappointed. Not that I don't sympathize, or trust much of what he told me. But I spoke to the other side of the dispute and they sound simpatico as well, and worthy of a measure of trust. I'd drop the whole mess--wishing I'd never touched it--except that it serves as a cautionary tale for each and every one of us. The deal is this: This guy we'll call Bob knows this gal we'll call Ann from the time she's a teenager. Their folks are friends and he calls or drops by to visit now and then. He's a geek, she's a princess; nothing really happens but she gets weary pretty quick of hearing from him. They grow up and every few years he calls her, sometimes politely chastising her for seeming less than charitable in her attitudes. Both come from fundamentalist Christian backgrounds, and when she divorces her first husband, he is critical of her. She doesn't want to hear this and tells her second husband so. Second husband--we'll call him Joe--tells Bob to quit bugging them. Then Bob runs across a kid who needs counseling. He takes the kid to this crisis center where, mirabile dictu, Joe works. There's Joe behind the desk when Bob brings the kid in, and Joe is not happy to see Bob. He says please go away. Bob says this kid needs help but you and me got to get this personal bidness straightened out first. Joe says go, Bob says no and it goes downhill, loudly, from there. Anyway Joe calls the law and Bob leaves, but Joe and Ann get a restraining order against Bob. This order tells Bob he's not to go to Ann and Joe's house, nor either of their places of work, and he's not to talk to or telephone them. If it went no further than this, we'd still have a First Amendment issue, but it doesn't stay this simple. Bob goes to the headquarters of the outfit Joe works for, and wants to talk about stuff like how come Joe won't talk over their personal problems, and what's going to become of the troubled kid, if he (Bob) can't go to this crisis center to get help for him (the kid). Next thing Bob knows, the law is after him for violating the restraining order. What order? says Bob. The one the process server (LeRoy) gave you on (date). He never, says Bob. Did so, says LeRoy. And so on. Bob represents himself in court. The judge believes the process server who, Bob says, is a liar. The judge says Bob is guilty of criminal trespass, a misdemeanor, for refusing to leave the crisis center when asked, and for violating of the restraining order. He gets a year's probation for the first and two years probation for the second. Then, in a subsequent phone conversation with the process server, Bob calls LeRoy an asshole and now he's got another charge against him. SO LET THAT BE A LESSON TO YOU! You can't just call somebody an asshole and tell him you're going "toe-to-toe" with him and get away with it. Oh yeah, Bob used that toe-to-toe image, and LeRoy inferred it to mean a physical threat. Legally you can't do that. Of course you should be able to. You should be able to call an asshole an asshole, or even a non-asshole an asshole, under the First Amendment, and you should be able to tell the asshole (or non-asshole, as the case may be) that the two of you are going to go "toe-to-toe" on this. It's just a colorful, metaphoric way of communicating. When I tell someone in print or in person I'm going to rip off his head and shit in his neck, I don't mean it literally, I mean it literarily. But in this crazy, mixed-up, lawyer-infested world you can get in deep shit for saying stuff like that. You'd think that with the First Amendment guaranteeing your right to free speech and free assembly, you could telephone or drop in and chat with anybody you pleased, whenever and wherever. You'd be wrong. The courts routinely grant restraining orders of this sort, when people say they're being harassed. Not necessarily threatened, mind you, just bothered. It's a gray area. Whatever happened to the days of simple, direct justice? When Bob could go toe-to-toe with LeRoy and eventually the truth would emerge from their colloquy? How come Bob can't call Ann--it wasn't a daily, weekly, even a monthly or yearly matter, after all--and if Ann got tired of it, she'd just tell Bob not to call anymore? And if Bob still wanted to talk to her or to Joe, then he could try, and they could hang up on him or change their number, and Bob could drop by Joe's office and talk it over... ...and if Joe got completely fed up and Bob wouldn't quit yelling and leave, well then Joe could rip off Bob's head and shit in his neck? Literarily. To quote King--Rodney, not M.L. Jr.--"Can't we all get along?"

Home | Currents | City Week | Music | Review | Cinema | Back Page | Forums | Search

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth