Need Genealogy Help?

Through my genealogy research I've gained a new friend who is a distant relation as well. My Cousin Louise and I share my maternal grandfather's great grandmother.  I've written about this ancestor before. Her name was Elizabeth Jane Petty and she lived in Memphis during the Civil War and following. She died in 1867 in a cholera or typhoid epidemic, as did two of her young daughters. However, two other daughters and one son survived her.  Elizabeth's oldest daughter, Lucy Roxana (Roxie), was my Grandfather Harrison's grandmother. Her youngest daughter, Samuella (Sammie) is my distant cousin Louise's ancestor. Late edit: Ancestry now has a button that you press that tells you the relationship of that person to you. It turns out Elizabeth Jane Petty is my 3rd great grandmother.  Who knew?

Today my cousin Louise and I traveled to Essex County, Virginia to try to find some records for ancestors from the late 1600's.  It is amazing to think that in 1620, the Pilgrims barely carved out an existence in Plymouth Colony, but by 1660 an English settlement was thriving on the Rappahannock River in Virginia.

The area was immediately dedicated to tobacco, but by 1750, the land was exhausted from it. So the relatives we were looking for lived there between 1660 and 1750, when the first great migration out of that area occurred. It is also amazing to contemplate that immediately after arriving in this new land, the English institituted laws that protected land ownership. People recorded deeds to land, settled disputes over boundaries, built churches, and passed land on to their children through wills. It was so cool to walk on land in the little town of Tappahannock and realize that our ancestors from over 300 years ago walked these same paths. We strolled down to the river and saw some men fishing. It was a beautiful day, not a cloud in the sky.

We met very nice people at the courthouse -- researchers and clerks, and had a lovely time. The bonus was that we had expert help from a most unexpected source!

Otis, the Courthouse Cat --
he'll help you find the right page, but it's up to you to read around him!

Here Otis inspects Louise's bag to make sure she isn't trying to take any of those big books out of the courthouse!
Well . . .perhaps he was just looking for treats.

Wherefore Art Thou, Emajean?

Wherefore Art Thou, Emajean?

A Friends of the Library Mystery

prior week 

The researcher looked around, hoping to see any kind of structure that would be evidence of people. In the far distance she saw a rectangular shape that might be a shed or even a barn. Squaring her shoulders she began trudging towards it.

The sun overhead was hot and she was grateful for the unfamiliar bonnet. It seemed to her that she had been crossing the fields for a very long time, but she had no time reference without her watch or computer. The tickle in her throat was becoming a roaring thirst, but every time she looked up to see how much farther, it seemed as if the structure was the same size in the distance.

She sank down in the field to rest for a minute. This is not fun anymore. I can’t figure out what has happened. Maybe I’ve gone crazy. Maybe this is a dream. She tried pinching her arm to wake up, but accomplished nothing. She closed her eyes and curled herself into a little ball, with her head down, and arms around her knees. She wasn’t sure how long she had sat there when she began hearing faint music.

The researcher jerked her head up and looked towards the structure. Now it was only about 100 meters away and she could see that it was, indeed a barn, and could hear music emanating from the half-open door. She stood up and began walking resolutely towards the barn. To her relief, she could actually approach it this time.

“Oh, that’s too bad, you’ve torn your stockings!” she heard a woman say. The researcher looked down at her legs and to her surprise, she was wearing a white nursing uniform. Indeed, the stocking on her left leg was torn. She looked up at the person who had commented, and asked, “where are we?” The short, dark-haired beauty laughed and said, “oh come on, Celia, we’re at Garm’s barn! You’ve been here lots of times!”

The researcher (whose name actually was Celia) figured she’d better play along. “Oh, yes . . . I’m just really hot and thirsty,” she offered as an excuse. “Well come on in to the Hard Times party!” the girl responded. “I have to say, though, you didn’t put on much of a costume!” Celia couldn’t help but giggle inside. In my real life this would be quite a costume! I hate the sight of blood! The giggle must have made her face relax into a smile because the other woman smiled at her. When she did her lips parted to reveal a blackened tooth.

MUFFED TARGET

Thanks to Thom who took over from Gattina, we can parade our ineptitude and stroke our humility!  Here's this week's Muffed Target!

I know this was in Halifax at the museum with an aquarium, but what else it was, I can't tell. I'm not even sure I was taking the photo at this point, but it's in my files, so it counts for my Muffed Target!

Supremely Stupid

I don't like the word stupid except when it is used in its literal sense.  For example, when author Laura Ingalls Wilder used it in The Long Winter, she was referring to the mental state her family was in when they were freezing, starving, and probably suffering from low degree carbon monoxide poisoning. They were slow of speech, slow of wit and slow of movement. So there, it fit.

But today I found myself yelling at the radio, "No! No! No! That is SO stupid!"

(I don't like yelling at the radio either because it never seems to change the people's minds on there!)

It was a local show that is nationally syndicated. I normally don't listen to it because it raises my blood pressure too much.  But, because today is the first Monday in October they were talking about the Supreme Court and as a lawyer, I am fascinated by the dignity of the Supreme Court and the way it has to maintain the delicate balance between the branches.  They were talking about what future Supreme Courts might look like. In this, they were debating the merits of having the Supreme Court lawyers come largely from the Ivy League, with many of them never having spent any real time in the trenches practicing law, but instead most coming from political or academic positions.

And then one person said, and another agreed, "I'd like to see a non-lawyer on the Supreme Court."

AAAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHH!

Any lawyer who has taken Constitutional Law (and I believe it is required in all law schools -- it certainly was in mine) understands that the ONLY reason the Supreme Court works at all is because the people confer upon it a respect for its decisions. The Court has NO power to make or execute the law (spare me the judicial activism arguments for the moment). Its job is to INTERPRET the law.

One cannot interpret the law without a deep understanding of the law. Not a "made-for-tv-talking heads-I know-more-than-you" understanding, but a real depth that one only gets through being trained in the law itself.

I think I know where their STUPID suggestion originates.  It goes back to lawyer advertising.  Prior to the 1980's, most State Bar Associations prohibited their members from advertising on radio or tv. One could put a discrete ad in a newspaper, or hang a shingle out in front of their office, but that was it. Part of the reasoning was that lawyers needed to maintain decorum and dignity in order for the general public to respect and uphold the law.

But once those advertising floodgates opened, lawyers did such embarrassing things to attract business that the entire profession became a laughing stock. How could anyone respect the law when the lawyers were trying to sell their images rather than their substance? Sure, for all the con-men ads there were dozens of lawyers who didn't advertise and who maintained the dignity of the profession. But who did the American public see?  People like the lawyers who flocked to Bhopal, India in the wake of that disaster. Or the circus that masqueraded as a trial of O.J. Simpson.

Long ago, when I clerked for Judge George M. Honts, III (the closest man to Atticus Finch I've ever met), he taught me that the reason the bench is raised in the courtroom is not because the JUDGE is more important, but because the JUDGE is the embodiment of the authority of the law in that setting and the LAW is what is being raised up. He redesigned his courtroom so that the jurors sat in front of him facing away from him. They had a clear view of the witnesses and the defendant. He told me he wasn't convinced that he could keep his facial expressions from giving away what he was thinking about the case, and he wanted an impartial jury to be just that.

He also told me that when he ascended to the bench, he had to stop being an usher in church. No one told him he had to stop, but as an usher, he had to pass the collection plates and he didn't want anyone ever thinking that they should put more money in the plate to impress the judge. He took his calling very seriously and he was the one who taught me the "appearance of impropriety is enough for the lawyer to bypass a case that otherwise looks like a good one to take." He was very big on "can you look at yourself in the mirror and say I did the right thing."

These people on the radio suggested someone like the hostess of the show or Sen Al Franken. Oh puh-leez. One of the deep regrets of my life is that I didn't get down to Lexington to see Judge Honts before he passed away, but I sure am glad he didn't live to hear THAT comment!

I think I'm going to go hide my head in shame now. My profession has sunk so low that former comedians turned senator (not much of a job change there) are seen as "scholars of the law" enough that they could ascend to the highest court in the land.

We've done this to ourselves.

Supremely Stupid

I don't like the word stupid except when it is used in its literal sense.  For example, when author Laura Ingalls Wilder used it in The Long Winter, she was referring to the mental state her family was in when they were freezing, starving, and probably suffering from low degree carbon monoxide poisoning. They were slow of speech, slow of wit and slow of movement. So it fits.

But today I found myself yelling at the radio, "No! No! No! That is SO stupid!"

(I don't like yelling at the radio either because it never seems to change the people's minds on there!)

It was a local show that is nationally syndicated. I normally don't listen to it because it raises my blood pressure too much.  But, because today is the first Monday in October they were talking about the Supreme Court and as a lawyer, I am fascinated by the dignity of the Supreme Court and the way it has to maintain the delicate balance between the branches.  They were talking about what future Supreme Courts might look like. In this, they were debating the merits of having the Supreme Court lawyers come largely from the Ivy League, with many of them never having spent any real time in the trenches practicing law, but instead most coming from political or academic positions.

And then one person said, and another agreed, "I'd like to see a non-lawyer on the Supreme Court."

AAAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHH!

Any lawyer who has taken Constitutional Law (and I believe it is required in all law schools -- it certainly was in mine) understands that the ONLY reason the Supreme Court works at all is because the people confer upon it a respect for its decisions. The Court has NO power to make or execute the law (spare me the judicial activism arguments for the moment). Its job is to INTERPRET the law.

One cannot interpret the law without a deep understanding of the law. Not a "made-for-tv-talking heads-I know-more-than-you" understanding, but a real depth that one only gets through being trained in the law itself.

I think I know where their STUPID suggestion originates.  It goes back to lawyer advertising.  Prior to the 1980's, most State Bar Associations prohibited their members from advertising on radio or tv. One could put a discrete ad in a newspaper, or hang a shingle out in front of their office, but that was it. Part of the reasoning was that lawyers needed to maintain decorum and dignity in order for the general public to respect and uphold the law.

But once those advertising floodgates opened, lawyers did such embarrassing things to attract business that the entire profession became a laughing stock. How could anyone respect the law when the lawyers were trying to sell their images rather than their substance? Sure, for all the con-men ads there were dozens of lawyers who didn't advertise and who maintained the dignity of the profession. But who did the American public see?  People like the lawyers who flocked to Bhopal, India in the wake of that disaster. Or the circus that masqueraded as a trial of O.J. Simpson.

Long ago, when I clerked for Judge George M. Honts, III (the closest man to Atticus Finch I've ever met), he taught me that the reason the bench is raised in the courtroom is not because the JUDGE is more important, but because the JUDGE is the embodiment of the authority of the law in that setting and the LAW is what is being raised up. He redesigned his courtroom so that the jurors sat in front of him facing away from him. They had a clear view of the witnesses and the defendant. He told me he wasn't convinced that he could keep his facial expressions from giving away what he was thinking about the case, and he wanted an impartial jury to be just that.

He also told me that when he ascended to the bench, he had to stop being an usher in church. No one told him he had to stop, but as an usher, he had to pass the collection plates and he didn't want anyone ever thinking that they should put more money in the plate to impress the judge. He took his calling very seriously and he was the one who taught me the "appearance of impropriety is enough for the lawyer to bypass a case that otherwise looks like a good one to take." He was very big on "can you look at yourself in the mirror and say I did the right thing."

These people on the radio suggested someone like the hostess of the show or Sen Al Franken. Oh puh-leez. One of the deep regrets of my life is that I didn't get down to Lexington to see Judge Honts before he passed away, but I sure am glad he didn't live to hear THAT comment!

I think I'm going to go hide my head in shame now. My profession has sunk so low that former comedians turned senator (not much of a job change there) are seen as "scholars of the law" enough that they could ascend to the highest court in the land.

We've done this to ourselves.

Supremely Stupid

I don't like the word stupid except when it is used in it's literal sense.  For example, when author Laura Ingalls Wilder used it in The Long Winter, she was referring to the mental state her family was in when they were freezing, starving, and probably suffering from low degree carbon monoxide poisoning. They were slow of speech, slow of wit and slow of movement. So it fits.

But today I found myself yelling at the radio, "No! No! No! That is SO stupid!"

(I don't like yelling at the radio either because it never seems to change the people's minds on there!)

It was a local show that is nationally syndicated. I normally don't listen to it because it raises my blood pressure too much.  But, because today is the first Monday in October they were talking about the Supreme Court and as a lawyer, I am fascinated by the dignity of the Supreme Court and the way it has to maintain the delicate balance between the branches.  They were talking about what future Supreme Courts might look like. In this, they were debating the merits of having the Supreme Court lawyers come largely from the Ivy League, with many of them never having spent any real time in the trenches practicing law, but instead most coming from political or academic positions.

And then one person said, and another agreed, "I'd like to see a non-lawyer on the Supreme Court."

AAAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHH!

Any lawyer who has taken Constitutional Law (and I believe it is required in all law schools -- it certainly was in mine) understands that the ONLY reason the Supreme Court works at all is because the people confer upon it a respect for its decisions. The Court has NO power to make or execute the law (spare me the judicial activism arguments for the moment). Its job is to INTERPRET the law.

One cannot interpret the law without a deep understanding of the law. Not a "made-for-tv-talking heads-I know-more-than-you" understanding, but a real depth that one only gets through being trained in the law itself.

I think I know where their STUPID suggestion originates.  It goes back to lawyer advertising.  Prior to the 1980's, most State Bar Associations prohibited their members from advertising on radio or tv. One could put a discrete ad in a newspaper, or hang a shingle out in front of their office, but that was it. Part of the reasoning was that lawyers needed to maintain decorum and dignity in order for the general public to respect and uphold the law.

But once those advertising floodgates opened, lawyers did such embarrassing things to attract business that the entire profession became a laughing stock. How could anyone respect the law when the lawyers were trying to sell their images rather than their substance? Sure, for all the con-men ads there were dozens of lawyers who didn't advertise and who maintained the dignity of the profession. But who did the American public see?  People like the lawyers who flocked to Bhopal, India in the wake of that disaster. Or the circus that masqueraded as a trial of O.J. Simpson.

Long ago, when I clerked for Judge George M. Honts, III (the closest man to Atticus Finch I've ever met), he taught me that the reason the bench is raised in the courtroom is not because the JUDGE is more important, but because the JUDGE is the embodiment of the authority of the law in that setting and the LAW is what is being raised up. He redesigned his courtroom so that the jurors sat in front of him facing away from him. They had a clear view of the witnesses and the defendant. He told me he wasn't convinced that he could keep his facial expressions from giving away what he was thinking about the case, and he wanted an impartial jury to be just that.

He also told me that when he ascended to the bench, he had to stop being an usher in church. No one told him he had to stop, but as an usher, he had to pass the collection plates and he didn't want anyone ever thinking that they should put more money in the plate to impress the judge. He took his calling very seriously and he was the one who taught me the "appearance of impropriety is enough for the lawyer to bypass a case that otherwise looks like a good one to take." He was very big on "can you look at yourself in the mirror and say I did the right thing."

These people on the radio suggested someone like the hostess of the show or Sen Al Franken. Oh puh-leez. One of the deep regrets of my life is that I didn't get down to Lexington to see Judge Honts before he passed away, but I sure am glad he didn't live to hear THAT comment!

I think I'm going to go hide my head in shame now. My profession has sunk so low that former comedians turned senator (not much of a job change there) are seen as "scholars of the law" enough that they could ascend to the highest court in the land.

We've done this to ourselves.

Microfiction Monday

Wow!  Susan at Stony River, author of this meme, says this is #51 -- which means nearly a year of microfiction!  Thank you Susan for hosting even when you feel like throwing in the towel in other parts of your life! You motivate and inspire us...

And my story:

Fly me away, she sighed.

No, not away, he replied.

I’ll take you to mum, he exclaimed!

Stop this pony ride RIGHT NOW, she flamed!