ND Sol,

Exert from an article written by Sydney Hanlon, a judge at Dorchester District Court.

When there are no defense lawyers, we call the cases one at a time. If the prosecutor and probation make a case for bail or for detaining the prisoner until a probation violation hearing, I give the defendant a chance to speak, trying to explain something about his rights first.

''You don't have to say anything at all without a lawyer. But if you want to tell me something about yourself, about why you should not be held, such as who you live with or if you have a job or if you always come back to court or if there is a bail that you can make, I will hear whatever you want to say.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...elming_courts/

As a judge, can't he compel the lawyers to serve?

Some courts do have rules compelling mandatory representation of indigent defendants as a form of pro bono publico service. Federal courts in particular seem to have such rules, and some are not shy about appointing attorneys to criminal cases. Many attorneys do not become licensed in federal court bars to avoid such appointments. Some concerns are inability to adequately represent a defendant in a criminal case, when the attorney has never practiced in the area of criminal law; malpractice allegations if a conviction results; and a conflict between adequate representation of the criminal defendant and the attorney's normal caseload.

haha, just fly a little more and you can have leather too!

One judge for one day in his court when there were no lawyers on probable cause/bail hearings. The issue appears due to a pay issue with the State of Massachusetts. No trials have gone forward without the defendant having an attorney representing him.

You stated that some districts can't assign attorneys. That gives the impression that there are defendants in a number of jurisdictions that are not having attorneys represent them in their trials. That is not the case.

We don't have a caste system at our airport. The only special lane we have is reserved for selectee-screening passengers (once they'be been identified by the airline contracted-ticket reader), flight crews, airport employees, and passengers with strollers or other assistive devices. (Wheelchair passengers are escorted through the exit.) This isn't a perk. It's a practical solution to a very real problem. Doesn't make sense to have someone, usually a mom travelling alone with a kid in the stroller, one in the arm and two others tagging along, to have to wait in line any longer when we can expedite her into the checkpoint. This is something that the airlines have expressed to TSA as how they would like us to expedite certain people into the checkpoint. It's not our policy.

It makes no difference to me how the airlines want to queue the passengers. However, I think it's pretty arrogant that some folks believe they are entitled to special treatment or that they look down their noses at the average person. The screening process, however, is the Great Equalizer. I have found some of those "Ma and Pa Kettle" types to be very down-to-earth and pleasant whereas some of the Platinum card members, or whatever the hell you call yourselves, to be all show and no substance.

I find a great number of people who comment on these boards to be very reasonable and logical...including those with whom I've had disagreements. There are a couple of others, however, who are pretty full of themselves. Takes all kinds, I guess.

Bart, the same could be said of the TSA posters here. We just represent a cross-section of society; the same as you and your colleagues.

I don't look down on anybody, but when I spend so much time in airport security lines, I sure as hell prefer not to be stuck behind 20 people who reach the checkpoint and then fumble around for 5 minutes trying to find their IDs and BPs. Do I like the fact that the airlines grant me this small perk at a handful of airports because I give them so much of my business? You bet. BTW, I fly on my own dime. And I resent the attitude of some TSA personnel that they need to act as the "Great Equalizer[s]" and cut us "Platinum card members, or whatever the hell [we] call [our]selves" down to their own size.

I don't look down my nose at anyone, except, perhaps screeners. Their resentment manifests itself in odd ways. When you sound like someone championing the equality of a Soviet bread line, well, I just don't know what else to say.

I came through DFW a few days ago. For some reason, there was no priority line. It was a mess. There were a couple of hundred people in this vacation period who had no clue about what was expected of them or how to prepare for the magical moment of stepping through the screening apparatus. The TSA folk were overwhelmed and it was a complete zoo.

The lines were completely unmanaged. Some of the TSA folk were just staring into the distance while chaos went on all around.

At one point I realized that there were about 30 people queueing for one machine and there were 2 others just beyond. So I stepped around. Then people started to slide behind the table with the bins, and suddenly there were two lines for one machine. Result? People were trying to merge and getting separated from their belongings in the bins. A mess. My stuff went through the machine, then the TSA fellow put his arm up preventing me from joining it and from keeping it in view. I had a laptop and video beamer in two separate bins. $6,000.00 worth of business equipment - along with their cases holding my iPod and other goodies needed to make the 20 hour trip from ZRH to SFO palatable - to be picked over by anyone who might think it a good idea.

Now if there had been an "elite" line, I could have skipped this mess and gone through with experienced people. I do watch the "regular" lines while waiting my turn in the FC, PLAT line. It seems to me that the through-put is much slower.

No, I do not think I am better than anyone. I think that buying the upgrade should entitle me to better, quicker service than those who did not. I ride a taxi to and from the airport and pay for it. This entitles me to a quicker, more efficient service that those who take the 3 stop, you must be at the airport 3 hours in advance of your flight van services. I think of the "elite" line as a similar service for which I pay.

Finally, in response to a couple of comment made on the thread. Yes, some people do mistake their "status" for something than makes them important. Many, many more do not make that mistake. Some people who do not travel much also have bad attitudes.

Edited to add: On a percentage basis, it seems to me that tne TSA folk have the greatest representation of "bad attitude." This seems to be improving, but there's a way to go. For my part, each one I meet I meet as an individual and I have not yet had a confrontation even in the face of some provocation.

As to paying for upgrades with miles, stickers, whatever ... these things are currency. Miles are bought and sold and have intrinsic value. An upgrade on an international fare on AA now costs 50,000 miles PLUS $500.00.

So, yes, something of value is paid in order to get something of value.

I agree that there should be a separate line for "elite" and airline employees. This includes flight crews and gate agents. There is no reason for them to wait for half an hour to get through the WTMD.

Besides we know the drill quite well . We do not set off the WTMD. The line is the last remaining perk we frequent fliers have. At least we can still preboard to find a spot for our carry ons.

The contempt for screeners some folks in this forum have is pretty obvious. Of course, the bravado these folks tend to exhibit is pretty shallow. Consider this: picking on people who are doing their job doesn't require much intelligence or courage. Going against the grain of the reality of airport security screening is as productive as pissing against the wind. But some folks gain a measure of satisfaction by doing it nonetheless. You're not very impressive.

I will treat everyone who passes through my checkpoint with the utmost courtesy and respect. While I share my personal views in here, I maintain a professional decorum when I'm on the job. I don't get into philosophical discussions or debates and focus exclusively on getting you through the checkpoint as efficiently as possible while making sure you are properly cleared of carrying any prohibited items or weapons. Some folks are first class in name only, but I've encountered a great many people who are just plain classy.

Bart, as I have said before, I have a lot of respect for you. But please allow me to address your tirade piece by piece.

I have contempt only for bad screeners and supervisors who are on a power trip. For the most part, the ones that I come across (2-3 times a week) are pretty professional. I try not to confuse the inane TSA policies with the people whose job it is to carry them out.

I'm not sure why you say that. At the very least, it requires enough courage to say that you are going to register your protest (against the system and not necessariily against the person who is implementing it) even if it means that you are going to get on the super-secret TSA "hit list" and get the dreaded SSSS every time you fly. I have often taken the risk of missing my flight when I come across a TSA "barker" who insists that all pax remove their shoes.

Ever heard of Gandhi or Martin Luther King? Imagine if they had curled up and died just because they were afraid of "pissing against the wind."

Neither are you when you stoop to these broad attacks.

Good for you, and I mean no sarcasm.

Again, to repeat what I said in an earlier post, we are a cross-section of society. Your comment could apply equally well to TSA personnel.

Vasant,
I respect your response. I am, however, disappointed that you say nothing about the comments made by whirledtraveler and the other usual suspects who post such ridiculous characterizations against screeners without any other fellow traveler challenging their hyperbole. Is it an us against them scenario? Should it be? Do frequent flyers get a pass every time they post such comments whereas TSA screeners are scrutinized? A dumb comment is a dumb comment, and I won't hesitate to challenge someone on it, whether that person is a frequent flyer or a fellow TSA screener. I have lost my temper a couple of times mostly because I couldn't believe the intellectual dishonestly some in here show with their outrageous and idiotic characterizations. I expect better than that. I am disappointed in myself when I let my emotions get the better of me. But I'm willing to admit that I'm human and make mistakes.

I just can't stomach the holier-than-thous. Never could. "First Class Lane"? C'mon, ya gotta be kiddin' me.

Just arranging an introduction.

ND Sol,

The point I was making was that our criminal defense system allows those with the money to hire an attorney; whereas, those who are poor or working poor have to depend on the State to provide an attorney. In the case I cited, people had to go before a judge without an attorney - clearly 2nd class.
---
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec02/101993.asp exert -

In Wisconsin, a single person living on as little as $248 a month does not qualify for a state-funded public defender.....A Journal Sentinel investigation of more than 400 Milwaukee County cases in which people were denied a public defender showed that most defendants were poor by almost any other measure. Many represented themselves in court and quickly pleaded guilty, often after judges steered them to prosecutors.
---
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/ju...defe-j18.shtml exert -

...Defendants who had been arrested and were unable to post bail were detained for months in local jails, losing employment, belongings, and, in some cases, their families.

...A Montana bill, passed by the state legislature June 8, approved the creation of a statewide office to oversee public defense as of July 2006. The American Civil Liberties Union hailed the legislation, calling it a �national model for other states striving to remedy deficiencies� in public defense.
---
* yea to my new home State, Montana, for properly funding public defense! Also passed the most comprehensive State legislation oppossing the unPATRIOT act.

In criminal defense, everyone should have the same quality of defense, regardless of your ability to pay. Maybe our court rooms should be more like our emergency rooms? How about selecting an attorney and after the trail, paying based on the ability to pay with the State reimbursing for what a person cannot pay.