Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit

Status
Not open for further replies.

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Silver Member
yes

C'mon now...you think that a potential juror who says he's 'no fan' of the defendant is gonna be selected for that jury?!


It has been done many times. You just get so many challenges. If somebody says something like that but that they will still vote based on the evidence sometimes that is what both attorneys roll with. Running out of challenges means that you get stuck with whomever's name gets called. That makes attorneys a little slow to object to everyone that isn't perfect.

Picking a jury doesn't go like you see on TV.

Hu
 

logical

Loose Rack
Silver Member
And this isn't a jury trial or even a trial at all.

Danny didn't just say he wasn't a fan of John, he's had several real or imaginary run-ins with him, called him everything but the devil incarnate and had decided the case after first inventing that there even was one. Mosconi is less biased than Danny.

Sent from the future.
 
Last edited:

Meucciplayer

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I accept the fact that people may have a problem with a "no video record" as it is. I also accept people's lack of trust that the record has ever been broken for that reason. But: If - and only if - the motivation of the other side isn't pure hatred or obviously one-sided personal stuff.

It is hilarious that people who constantly threaten and insult others for no reason other than that they disagree with their own point-of-view take it seriously that JS threw a piece of chalk "towards them". I always see stuff like that - the least stable people on the internet are the ones who act like rednecks or bullies on the street, constantly. But they can't take any of their own medicine, much less so than "normal" people.

That means IMHO that the main reason for this thread is very, very personal. It is a joke that DH always calls his reason for starting this and keeping it going to be "the integrity of straight pool" or such. If integrity really meant something to him, he would not act like someone who has never been taught how to interact socially in a civil manner.

I accept differing views on the matter brought forward by normal people like lfigueroa or Shooting Arts. You, however, should take care not to side with the stupid aspects of Danny's views - like the NDA and purely personal crap resulting in his spreading all kinds of conspiracy theories and made up arguments.

In the end, the "record" is so important to the world that it will make some side-note in dusty yearbooks of BCA or whoever. Certainly not worth 1000 posts here.
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It has been done many times. You just get so many challenges. If somebody says something like that but that they will still vote based on the evidence sometimes that is what both attorneys roll with. Running out of challenges means that you get stuck with whomever's name gets called. That makes attorneys a little slow to object to everyone that isn't perfect.

Picking a jury doesn't go like you see on TV.

Hu

'Stuck with' is a far cry from what you initially implied.
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I accept the fact that people may have a problem with a "no video record" as it is. I also accept people's lack of trust that the record has ever been broken for that reason. But: If - and only if - the motivation of the other side isn't pure hatred or obviously one-sided personal stuff.

It is hilarious that people who constantly threaten and insult others for no reason other than that they disagree with their own point-of-view take it seriously that JS threw a piece of chalk "towards them". I always see stuff like that - the least stable people on the internet are the ones who act like rednecks or bullies on the street, constantly. But they can't take any of their own medicine, much less so than "normal" people.

That means IMHO that the main reason for this thread is very, very personal. It is a joke that DH always calls his reason for starting this and keeping it going to be "the integrity of straight pool" or such. If integrity really meant something to him, he would not act like someone who has never been taught how to interact socially in a civil manner.

I accept differing views on the matter brought forward by normal people like lfigueroa or Shooting Arts. You, however, should take care not to side with the stupid aspects of Danny's views - like the NDA and purely personal crap resulting in his spreading all kinds of conspiracy theories and made up arguments.

In the end, the "record" is so important to the world that it will make some side-note in dusty yearbooks of BCA or whoever. Certainly not worth 1000 posts here.

You have been added to Charles Harriman's blocked poster list.
L
O
L
 

justadub

Rattling corners nightly
Silver Member
The lady who was the jury foreperson in the Roger Stone trial had made tons of social media posts stating she hated Trump and stuff about Stone being guilty before she ever became a juror.

He is asking for a retrial now.

He won't need it. The new leader of the judicial branch will pardon him, soon enough
:p
 

jimmyg

Mook! What's a Mook?
Silver Member
It has been done many times. You just get so many challenges. If somebody says something like that but that they will still vote based on the evidence sometimes that is what both attorneys roll with. Running out of challenges means that you get stuck with whomever's name gets called. That makes attorneys a little slow to object to everyone that isn't perfect.

Picking a jury doesn't go like you see on TV.

Hu

True story:

Several years ago, while living in NYC, I was subpoenaed for federal jury duty in downtown Brooklyn.

As any good citizen would do, I reported as instructed. When I arrived at the courthouse and checked in, I was directed to a very large courtroom filled with well over 50 potential jurors and given a 10 page questioner to fill out. The questioner contained questions relating to organized crime and various, well known, alleged members, and knowledge of this particular case. I quickly figured that this was a "mob" trial, and I didn't want any part of it. I intentionally left several questions asking about my knowledge of and possible association with any of the above BLANK.

Sure enough several jurors began to get called into the judges chambers...me included. Inside his chambers sat about 8 people, aside from the judge, including the federal prosecutors and defense attorneys. The first question the judge asked me was why I left the question about knowing any potential organized crime members, including family members, blank. I immediately told him that I had an Italian heritage and grew up very close to NY's, Little Italy, and that, in my neighborhood and my group of friends, having connections, whether real or not, with organized crime was considered a badge of honor. He seemed to understand but, to my dismay, he continued unfettered and surprisingly still asked whether I'd be able to sit on the jury and vote unbiasedly...I was a little younger and quicker on my feet back then and responded; "judge, I may have ingrained biases that are stronger than I realize, but I will certainly do my best".....no way did I want to be on a sequestered jury, of a possibly month long, "mob" trial. I'm pretty sure that the defense attorneys would have welcomed me with open arms.

Well, I finally "reached" the judge who, again, stated that "trying" is not good enough and that I would have to be unbiased..I repeated that "I cannot promise that and will do the best that I can." Not good enough, "juror dismissed".

Cannot recall what happened, or how long the trial took...but, I'm glad that I had no part of it. I think that I can vaguely recall the term "jury tampering". :eek:
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Silver Member
not really

'Stuck with' is a far cry from what you initially implied.


No, I didn't imply anything. The printed word rarely has tone. A few of you put tone in my post that wasn't there. john and I had a run in right here on AZB ages ago, maybe ten years or more. We came to a mutual understanding supposedly, after john felt the need to issue a public apology. I genuinely forgot about it for years. No big deal plus it was supposedly settled, was from my end.

john made it plain a few years ago that having to apologize for showing his ass was a big deal to him. I find it funny that I am a mountain in his world, he isn't even a grain of sand in mine except when something like this thread is running, then he might be a grain of sand.

I'm bucking for a thousand posts then I am going to unsubscribe from the thread. john should appreciate the boost. He is getting the attention he craves at least from a few people.

Hu
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Silver Member
jury duty

True story:

Several years ago, while living in NYC, I was subpoenaed for federal jury duty in downtown Brooklyn.

As any good citizen would do, I reported as instructed. When I arrived at the courthouse and checked in, I was directed to a very large courtroom filled with well over 50 potential jurors and given a 10 page questioner to fill out. The questioner contained questions relating to organized crime and various, well known, alleged members, and knowledge of this particular case. I quickly figured that this was a "mob" trial, and I didn't want any part of it. I intentionally left several questions asking about my knowledge of and possible association with any of the above BLANK.

Sure enough several jurors began to get called into the judges chambers...me included. Inside his chambers sat about 8 people, aside from the judge, including the federal prosecutors and defense attorneys. The first question the judge asked me was why I left the question about knowing any potential organized crime members, including family members, blank. I immediately told him that I had an Italian heritage and grew up very close to NY's, Little Italy, and that, in my neighborhood and my group of friends, having connections, whether real or not, with organized crime was considered a badge of honor. He seemed to understand but, to my dismay, he continued unfettered and surprisingly still asked whether I'd be able to sit on the jury and vote unbiasedly...I was a little younger and quicker on my feet back then and responded; "judge, I may have ingrained biases that are stronger than I realize, but I will certainly do my best".....no way did I want to be on a sequestered jury, of a possibly month long, "mob" trial. I'm pretty sure that the defense attorneys would have welcomed me with open arms.

Well, I finally "reached" the judge who, again, stated that "trying" is not good enough and that I would have to be unbiased..I repeated that "I cannot promise that and will do the best that I can." Not good enough, "juror dismissed".

Cannot recall what happened, or how long the trial took...but, I'm glad that I had no part of it. I think that I can vaguely recall the term "jury tampering". :eek:


I was called up for jury duty in federal court when I looked like my avatar. Twenty-some-odd cases that smacked of entrapment, they stretched one bottle of pills a long long way to bust friendly barmaids that tried to do a good deed. In all likelihood most didn't make a dime for the literally two or three pills they passed. There was a kidnapping trial in progress and a couple armed robbery trials coming up I wouldn't have minded sitting on. Young male with hair over my collar and a full beard was an automatic dismissal from the drug cases and not likely to sit on the other cases. I got three dollars a day and burned three times that much gas going to the courtroom. I also lost a week of foreman's pay and pissed off all my bosses missing a week of work when I was pushing a crew.

Thirteen months later, another call for jury duty, same court. They have to wait twelve months between call ups. The only time I shaved the dice. Called my city councilman and told him what happened the last time. Also told him I didn't mind serving on a jury but wasting a week and risking my job to sit on a pew for a week didn't make sense. That summons went away somehow.

The hints about what the case was about reminds me of one somebody I knew who was in a jury pool. Obviously about guns because that was the line of questioning: "Do you own guns?"

"Yes"

"Where do you keep them?"

"What do you mean? Some clarification needed before giving away more information about guns than he had to.

"Do you keep them in your house, in your vehicle, on your person?"

"Yes."

Their turn to ask for clarification. "Which of those places?"

"In my house, in my vehicle, on my person. Anywhere it is legal to have them and I feel like having one handy."

Our cars are extensions of our homes in my state and have the same rights. Also we are a "shall issue" state meaning the state has to show cause why not or issue a CCL.

The juror went home. He never knew exactly what the case was about but it seemed to be about the application of our Second Amendment rights.

I used to laugh when people asked how many guns I had. Might as well ask me how many hammers or screw drivers I had. I didn't know, didn't much care. I treated them like any other tool or piece of sporting equipment.

Hu
 

Baby Huey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
John's record run may end up being like Babe Ruth's called shot home run against the Cubs in the World Series. Part of baseball lore now pool lore..............
 

Dan Harriman

One of the best in 14.1
Silver Member
no record without proper verification

There is not even a new record of 626 untill their hung jury has decided what to do with an organization that makes a grandiose claim - but would rather sweep the proof under the rug. I guess they knew it would make quite a stir to not have to provide proof after attaching themselves with Mosconi's 526. I am not the guardian of adjudication here, i guess they saw an oppurtunity to try and steal Sport History record from Mosconi - and took it. I think they call em opportunist. I call em dead beats.
 

wrldpro

H.RUN 311/Diamond W.R.
Gold Member
Silver Member
Congratulations to John on setting the new record, way to go John!

Just what exact record did John set?
The highest exhibition run is 768 by ”Babe” Cranfield on a 9 ft. Table
Mosconi 526 on a 8ft table in an exhibition vs. An opponent.
I geuss maybe 626 with an edited video without the 1st 200 balls on the edited video on a doctored table by John Schmidt
 
Last edited:

WoodyMPW

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
New Record!

Six Twenty Six
 

Attachments

  • 626.JPG
    626.JPG
    52.7 KB · Views: 162
Last edited:

logical

Loose Rack
Silver Member
Just what exact record did John set?
The highest exhibition run is 768 by ”Babe” Cranfield on a 9 ft. Table
Mosconi 526 on a 8ft table in an exhibition vs. An opponent.
I geuss maybe 626 with an edited video without the 1st 200 balls on the edited video on a doctored table by John Schmidt
Both runs had unique circumstances. Mosconi only had an opponent until 150 at which point he won and the opponent became just another spectator if he even stuck around.

Say hi to Danny.

Sent from the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top