Monday, April 25, 2011

Not So Strange Bedfellows

Franklin Graham is once again trying to gain the job as “Spiritual Advisor to the President.” He’s been pissed about not getting promoted to his daddy’s slot in that position ever since Obama was elected, so according to the newspaper he’s now throwing in his lot with “The Donald” (Trump).

In the interest of full disclosure, I have no use for Franklin Graham. He is, in my opinion, one of those slimy television preachers who’s in it for the money. The reality is he went into the family business and, like many who’ve been born into dynastic families his sense of entitlement is significantly higher than his forefathers (well, just one father in this instance) who understood the concepts of duty, responsibility and obligation to others.

Instead, Franklin was sorry a couple of years ago when he got caught taking not one but TWO significant salaries from nonprofit organizations which he oversaw.

But that’s already been discussed.

Having been out of the headlines for a while, and looking to pick up the national audience again, Graham, Jr. went on television to further the birther debate regarding the current president, showing not only an amazing ignorance about public record laws in states other than North Carolina but also how quickly he is willing to trade whatever limited credibility he’s got for a shot at mo’ money and prestige.

Talk about being vindictive because he didn’t get a promotion. Let’s hear it for Franklin’s model of Christianity!

While we’re on that particular topic, it’s interesting to note that he’s unwilling to take President Obama’s word that he (the president) is actually Christian, instead raising the specter of doubt about it.

As I recall from all those years in Sunday School, all that is required is an internal decision to become a Christian; there’s no litmus test (at least in the Southern Baptist tradition) to determine Christianity, although one would hope that one would see those outward manifestations in, say, one’s personal choices and business dealings.

This, of course, makes Donald Trump the ideal Christian candidate for our nation, with his three marriages and chain of casinos. Of course, there’s no alcohol or dancing in any of those establishments, so that’s entirely consistent with the Graham Industries philosophical bent.  Everything is packaged up nice and neatly, no internal inconsistencies here.

No decidedly un-Christian behavior, like taking two salaries from nonprofit organizations, totaling over $1.2 million while at the same time laying off dozens of employees from those organizations because revenues are down due to a crashing economy.

That's what Jesus would do, right?

I love it when Franklin Graham makes the front pages of the newspaper. He continues to pump out such bizarre stuff, and his own moral directives are so far from those of the mainstream that an endorsement by him is really not that helpful to a potential candidate (and, for the record, I don’t think that Trump is a legitimate candidate. He’s workin’ an angle that will put money into his pocket – something at which he is admittedly the master – but he will not waste any significant amount of his own money trying to become the President of the United States).

Franklin Graham is one of those pseudo-religious leaders that true Christians wish would crawl back under his rock and just shut the hell up, like the Quran burner down in Florida (whom I am intentionally not naming, so as to not give him any more publicity).

Franklin's pronouncements (like the one that Jesus second coming will be announced by cell phone, something that gives a whole new meaning to being in a “dead zone”) just make legitimately pious people shake their heads in dismay. He provides easy fodder for those who believe the entire organized religion industry is a scam.

The interesting thing here will be to see how much of that money that Franklin sucks in from those of limited means, intended to feed orphans overseas and do other charitable work in the name of religion, will be channeled instead to The Donald’s campaign coffers.

I’m betting that it’ll be significant, and that it’ll be so well hidden that most people will never know about it. After all, both Trump and Franklin Graham have the funds to hire the best attorneys available to hide their misdeeds so that appropriate governmental regulators will never find out about them.

We can only hope that some higher authority is watching and will eventually enter an appropriate verdict.

Note:

I previously wrote about Mr. Franklin Graham, and you can find that post at:

http://cornerat8th.blogspot.com/2009/10/salaries-of-not-for-profit-executives.html

For the article in the April 25, 2011 Charlotte Observer, go to:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/04/25/2247541/franklin-graham-talks-politics.html

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

The Defense of the Defense of Marriage Act

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (28 U.S.C. Section 1783C) continues to be a hot topic in our nation’s capital. For those not in the know, this is the federal law that defines a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It was passed in 1996 during the Clinton administration and is the basis of authority which allows states to not recognize marriages that were legitimized in other states unless they meet this requirement.

The constitutionality of this statute is being challenged in Federal Court through several suits, two of which have made their way to the US Supreme Court for a final verdict. The basis of the argument, as I understand it, is that the Constitution has what’s called the “full faith and credit clause”, which means that North Carolina has to recognize and honor laws passed in Arizona or New Jersey or Minnesota, whether they agree with them or not.

The Department of Justice, which is a part of the Executive Branch of our government and therefore under the direction of President Obama, initially defended the law because, in part, that’s what it’s always done.

The current administration tends to defend the actions of prior administrations in part to provide a continuity of laws. One of the things that keeps our country stable is the fact that the laws don’t change every time we get a new President or Congress.

At least not immediately although there seem to be attempts in the current Congress to challenge that assumption. That’s for another day’s discussion, though.

With regard to DOMA, last February the Attorney General (who’s head of the Department of Justice and reports directly to the President) announced that they would no longer be defending the constitutionality of the statute. Essentially, they would allow the cases to go forward to the Supreme Court without opposition.

That’s not as easy as you might think. Once a lawyer is in a case, they normally have to get permission from the Court to withdraw. That’s one reason we require the fee up front. Generally, the Court orders you to continue and figures you were just stupid for not getting those issues taken care of before you jumped into the case. Granted, government attorneys may get a bit of slack there since they can be thrust into things when they’d just as soon not be involved but I doubt it.

As might be imagined, this decision did not sit well with the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. After much foot stomping and whining about the duty to defend the laws as enacted by Congress, they decided to hire their own attorneys to take up the defense.

Here’s the rub, though – it’s all a scam from BOTH sides.

Yes, the Obama administration has stopped defending the statute, having determined that they believe it is unconstitutional. Let’s assume that the Supreme Court decided to let them out of the case. That’s still not as big a deal as you might think.

The important part here is the timing. Any lawyer will tell you that the work of a lawsuit happens LONG before you get to the courthouse. The real work – and the hours and effort – go into the research and writing the briefs that have to be filed. This is especially true at the Appellate level, where there are no witnesses or evidence to prepare or things like that. An appellate case looks solely at the record below and the legal arguments associated with it. Those judges never meet the litigants; they are looking at the record for mistakes.

It’s a lot like a wedding. All the effort is up front. The performance at the end is just the show for the public.

What’s this mean to DOMA? Prior to dropping the defense, all the work has been done. The research is contained on computers and in file cabinets in the Department of Justice, the briefs are already written (if not yet filed) and the work is finished. It’s all available to the Republicans and their attorneys to review, sign and file.

This has not stopped the wailing and gnashing of teeth, however, by Majority Leader Boehner and the other Republicans in the House of Representatives, who have chosen to hire some VERY high priced legal talent to come in and defend the case.

None of that is entirely unexpected, since the Republicans made keeping this law in place one of the foundational parts of their agenda. What’s offensive about it, though, is that they won’t tell the Democrats (even those on the appropriate committees who have a right to know) how much they’re paying their lawyer.

It’s not even clear that they know how much they’re spending.

"Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told The Huffington Post that the amount the U.S. government pays Clement will be determined by his “legal strategy.” He also said that they probably would not be releasing the engagement letter outlining the terms of the relationship with Clement.” (Huffington Post, April 19, 2011).

I understand hourly billing. It’s usually the fairest way to pay for legal services, since the client has an interest in not calling 15 times a day or insisting on numerous unnecessary appointments. Well, they can, but they get billed for it.

And I understand contingent fees – if the case is won, the lawyer gets a cut. Sometimes it’s the only way that a client can pursue their claim, since they simply don’t have the resources to pay an attorney hourly for their work.

But a fee to be determined by the “legal strategy”? And one where half the clients won’t tell the other half of the Board of Directors (i.e. other congress members on the same committee) what the contract says or let them look at it? Nor will they tell the shareholders (i.e. us taxpayers) how much it costs?

Talk about buying a pig in a poke!

So the whole affair is somewhat offensive to me, both as an attorney and as a taxpayer. While I personally think that the law is unconstitutional and just plain wrong, the way we get a decision about that is by taking it to our constitutionally empowered highest court. They are the decision makers because our founding fathers all agreed they would be the final decision maker, and in almost 222 years nobody has thought this was enough of a mistake to change it. The 9 black robes on the Supreme Court have the final say.

DOMA needs to be challenged in the Supreme Court. Even in an uber-conservative court such as we have now, I feel confident that it will be found to be unconstitutional. But without that challenge, the elimination of the statute will never be viewed by those who oppose it as legitimate.

In deference to the “birthers”, I’m not sure that will make a lot of difference, either, but it’s the best we’ve got. Some people would not be convinced, even when faced with unrefutable proof.

The Obama administration has significant fault here and is playing politics by deciding to stop defending the statute. The action is too little, too late. If they legitimately thought that the legislation was unconstitutional and should not have been defended, they should have made the announcement months earlier, before all the effort had been made (and the briefs written) to defend the action. An announcement in February of this year is simply playing politics and trying to get a bit of mileage out of a non-decision.

Conversely, the Republicans need to suck it up and deal with reality. They got a case handed to them on a silver platter and have hired what I suspect is significantly overpriced legal help to legitimize their whining later that they were brought into the matter too late to adequately defend the statute. They’ve not only been handed an easy appeal, they’ve been handed a “win” whether the case is successful or not. They are, in effect, buying an excuse (in the form of attorney fees) to use in the 2012 elections if a decision is made by then and the Supremes overrule the statute.

Lastly, and then I’ll release the soap box to the next speaker, every taxpayer ought to be outraged at the refusal to outline what hiring this outside counsel is going to cost. Our representatives need to remember that it is OUR money that they are spending and, absent an issue of national defense, we are entitled to “see the books.” That includes knowing how the lawyer they’ve hired is going to be compensated and how much we’re spending to defend a lawsuit.

It could just be that many constituents would feel that the law is simply not worth the money.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Another Addition to the Family

I really can’t say it was planned, nor was it a complete surprise. Like many other couples, we decided just to leave it up to fate and let the Universe decide for us.

We already had co-parenting duties with Yoko the Magnificent, and that seemed to be going OK. He had his first birthday on Saturday and we were at the stage many other parents find themselves – we’d forgotten the horrors of those first nights and reveled in the cuddling and playing and that sweet, freshly-washed smell they have.  Another might not be so bad.

So if fate chose to hand us a second, we were open to the idea. We weren’t exactly trying, but we weren’t being all that careful, either. We were registered on sites. We cruised newspaper ads and craigslist for possibilities.

Then last Saturday we received a call – a 10 week old boy from the Ukraine was available. All we had to do was go and meet him to make sure it was a good match. All of the sudden, it was happening.

We were adopting a second baby, this time from a foreign country.

Thus, a dark red French Bulldog puppy came to live in our house over the weekend.



It was a family affair – Martin and Yoko went along on the trip to pick him up as well, since everyone needed to get along and there could be decisions – there were three from which to choose and we wanted to make sure that everyone had a vote.

I’ve never had to pick a puppy from a litter before. There were 8 possibilities, including “Peanut”, who was about four months old and absolutely adorable. Only 3 were males, though, and we’d decided it would be best to keep to the “No Gurls” rule in the house.

In the past when I’ve acquired a furry child, there’ve been no choices involved. Either there was only one available (as with Yoko), or it was predetermined by someone else as to which child was coming home with me (as with Bull). The fact that I want to bring them all home to live with me is one of the reasons that I simply cannot go to the animal shelter, even when I had to work with that department in local government. I’d be torn up for weeks on end, knowing that my failure to bring a particular pet home probably resulted in something unspeakable happening.

I have no doubt that the puppies left behind will find good homes, though, and that they are loved and cared for by the people who have them now.

Although we’re not absolutely settled on the name, Chynko seems to be the leader. He had to have at least a temporary name, because he had to go to the Puppyatrician first thing on Monday for a wellness check, something he didn’t appreciate at all.  Apparently nobody likes to have their temperature taken "the baby way".

We were a bit worried, too, since he was all but comatose for the rest of the day after that. Apparently vaccinations take a lot out of you. That wore off about bedtime, though, when he perked up considerably and decided that the day was starting and he wanted to play.

The only downside so far, other than trying to re-puppyproof the house is that Yoko has not been especially thrilled to have a baby brother.

Who’da thunk that a Pug can turn into a green-eyed jealous monster? He is, to say the least, not sure that he’s happy with this creature who’s arrived.

His reaction the second morning as he came bouncing into the room like he normally does was, “He’s still HERE???”  It's as if a distant relative came to visit for Thanksgiving and was still in the guest room after the New Year had started.

We seem to be working toward an armed truce, if not out-and-out friendship. When you’ve been the only dog for a year, it’s not all that great to get a little brother – anyone who’s ever HAD a younger sibling knows that you’d really they just went back wherever they came sometimes, and what on earth were the parental units thinking when they didn’t realize they already had perfection in ME! (Sorry, Michael and Steven!)

So we’re blending our family and, as anyone who’s ever tried to do that knows, there are both tears and laughter. And I’m sure I’ll write about it more, although our goal is to keep from becoming “those” people who talk incessantly about the dogs.

But for right now, I have to go rescue my bedroom slippers.

First Walk -- or maybe it should be called a "Carry"

Thursday, April 7, 2011

A Work Related Injury

There is a condition which afflicts lawyers. Not the ones you might think like arrogance or verbosity or acid reflux – those are career requirements more than afflictions – but a medical condition that most of us experience at least occasionally during our careers.

It happens, usually in a courtroom or hearing of some type, when someone (usually your client) says something so unexpected and horrible that you are momentarily stunned into silence.

“Oh, was it important that I was tried for the murder of my first two wives?”
“No, I haven’t had a DUI in a long time – almost 3 months.”
“Well, yes, that is a picture of my new boyfriend in orange jail coveralls on Facebook. That shouldn’t have anything to do with my request for full custody.”

The condition is called a CLUNG, and is defined as a sudden rush of sh*t to the heart of an attorney, brought about by his client uttering just such a statement in open court, usually in front of a recorder.

I had one of these during a hearing recently, and it brought to mind the first time I experienced the condition about a quarter century ago.

I was a brand new baby lawyer working in western Oklahoma. My boss, Jerry, was a great mentor with laughing eyes, a keen legal mind and eyebrows like the Tasmanian Devil. We were involved in a custody case that, in retrospect I see was designed primarily to build scar tissue on my part.

Our client was the dad, in his mid-40’s. He had snagged his daughters, ages 3 and 5, from his “wife”, age 19 and dragged them from “Little Dixie” in southeastern Oklahoma across the state to where we were on I-40 in the western part of the state, and wanted an emergency custody order.

As with most cases involving any type of “emergency” order, he came to our office on a Friday afternoon. I was assigned to the case and began working with him.

The client, Frankie, was a relatively willing student who took direction well despite the fact that he smoked 3 packs of cigarettes in less than 2 hours so we had to keep taking breaks. Our hearing was scheduled for early the next week.

We arrived in a tiny courtroom, anticipating a brief hearing before the judge that would be finished in just a few minutes. We were met instead by a packed house – the mother had shown up with no lawyer and 40 assorted relatives who looked like the road crew from the movie “Deliverance.” With Jerry at my side (after all, I’d never been in a courtroom before other than as an assistant or observer), I put my client on the stand and began going through our drill with the questions designed to show how he was a stellar parent and that the mother was sadly lacking.

And it went like a dream. He had a new shirt from Montgomery Wards, clean jeans, was shaved and had a fresh haircut. He answered the questions just like I wanted, didn’t extemporize or try to make himself out to be anything other than a concerned parent.

My naïve puppy-lawyer brain thought, “This is great. I’ve chosen the perfect career. I can do this.”

Then, about halfway through my presentation, a voice from the gallery shrieked, “Tell the Judge about the dead baby in the back seat of your car, Frankie!”

It was then that I experienced my first ever Clung.

It feels a lot like that first big drop on a roller coaster, when you can’t catch your breath and your stomach is moving upward while, at the same time, anything below the stomach is moving downward through your system. Sometimes you have to concentrate hard to keep from wetting yourself while holding it all together – after all, I was wearing one of the only two suits I owned.

As might be imagined, this single statement caused a degree of mayhem in the courtroom. There was much murmuring of assent in the audience, but by far the most disruptive thing was Jerry, who was laughing so hard that he was seized by a coughing fit and FELL OFF HIS CHAIR ONTO THE FLOOR.

Being at the same point in my career now that he was then, I can say I understand it entirely and would probably do the same thing. While it’s no fun to experience, the schadenfreude of seeing this happen to someone else – especially a new lawyer who’s still puffed up with his own importance – is quite entertaining.

At the time I didn’t think it was especially supportive on Jerry’s part, though.  I hadn't yet learned that lawyers eat their young.

The Judge, retaining his composure, looked down from the bench and said, “I believe I’d like to hear about that, Frankie.”

I held onto the table and tried not to faint. Jerry continued to cough and laugh as he tried to regain his dignity.

As it turns out, Frankie neglected to mention that a couple of years earlier he and his wife hit desperate times and were living in their car with the oldest child and their newborn son. The son died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), the matter was investigated and it was found to be just an unfortunate natural death.

Had I known about that, I could have prepared for and dealt with it. Without adequate preparation, it was both devastating to the case and caused me to experience my first Clung.

The fallout? Judge Markum temporarily removed the children from both parents until Social Services could investigate further. As I recall, my client was living in a pretty seedy motel in town that probably wasn’t the most nurturing environment for small children. When faced with the fact that DSS would be involved and neither parent would have their daughters, the couple decided that things weren’t so bad between them and promptly reconciled their differences in the courthouse parking lot.

I went back to the office, with Jerry chuckling to himself the whole way.