Ordinarily I'd channel all my sarcasm and bile into depoblog, but today my focus was redirected to my public comment submission to the CRCB regarding the 10-pitch change. The deadline is December 31st, so if you haven't officially spoken up on your opposition to the changes in Section 5.1 of the UFM, download the form, fill it out, send it in!

If anyone's looking for a muse to inspire their words, here's my comment submission:

"I oppose the current change as stated to 10 pitch in Section 5.1 of the UFM. First and foremost, this change impairs the readability of my work product by both counsel and the judiciary, primarily when presented in four-to-a-page condensed formatting.

"Additionally, the 10% increase in page capacity will necessitate a commensurate increase in court reporting fees, a rather unpopular concept during the age of tort reform in Texas. A rate hike prompted by this specious rule change serves no higher purpose for counsel, for parties, nor for court reporters.

"In its prior iteration, the UFM accomplished its intended purpose, to protect litigants from being gouged by a minority of court reporters who engaged in certain narrow questionable practices. The '9 or 10 pitch' debacle is simply a change for change's sake which strays far afield from that core intent."

I've also been pretty brazen about getting clients, friends, family and the hippie that sells the Houston Chronicle outside the donut shop to send in their thoughts. I can't imagine one single, solitary person is submitting slips in favor of the change, but it's my view that the [expletive deleted] bureaucrat(s) that caused this mess should be forced to read nay votes until they weep like Tammy Faye Baker.

"The future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower