#I could see him as a high powered business attorney or litigator

[gojonanami]

everyone in my ask box got me thinking about lawyer!geto and I can’t stop thinking about him

[gadgetgirl71]

Amazon First Reads for May 2020

It’s that time yet again, to choose one of eight books that Amazon First Reads lets Amazon Prime Members download for free. I always look forward to the beginning of each month to see what is on offer.

This months books are:

Contemporary Fiction

If You Must Know by Jamie Beck  Pages: 362, Publication Date: 1 June 2020

Synopsis: Life turns upside down for two sisters in Wall Street Journal bestselling author Jamie Beck’s emotional novel about how secrets and differences can break—or bind—a family.

Sisters Amanda Foster and Erin Turner have little in common except the childhood bedroom they once shared and the certainty each feels that her way of life is best. Amanda follows the rules—at the school where she works; in her community; and as a picture-perfect daughter, wife, and mother-to-be. Erin follows her heart—in love and otherwise—living a bohemian lifestyle on a shoestring budget and honouring her late father’s memory with a passion for music and her fledgling bath-products business.

The sisters are content leading separate but happy lives in their hometown of Potomac Point until everything is upended by lies that force them to confront unsettling truths about their family, themselves, and each other. For sisters as different as these two, building trust doesn’t come easily—especially with one secret still between them—but it may be the only way to save their family.

Thriller

Don’t Make a Sound by T R Ragan, Pages: 285, Publication Date: 1 June 2020

Synopsis: Her own past could be a reporter’s biggest story in this twisting thriller about murder and family secrets by the New York Times bestselling author T.R. Ragan.

Plagued by traumatic childhood memories, crime reporter Sawyer Brooks still struggles to gain control of her rage, her paranoia, and her life. Now, after finally getting promoted at work, she is forced to return home and face her past.

River Rock is where she’d been abandoned by her two older sisters to suffer alone, and in silence, the unspeakable abuses of her family. It’s also where Sawyer’s best friend disappeared and two teenage girls were murdered. Three cold cases dead and buried with the rest of the town’s secrets.

When another girl is slain in a familiar grisly fashion, Sawyer is determined to put an end to the crimes. Pulled back into the horrors of her family history, Sawyer must reconcile with her estranged sisters, who both have shattering memories of their own. As Sawyer’s investigation leads to River Rock’s darkest corners, what will prove more dangerous—what she knows of the past or what she has yet to discover?

Biography

Gender Rebels by Anneka Harry, Pages: 277, Publication Date: 1 June 2020

Synopsis: Meet the unsung sheroes of history: the diverse, defiant and daring (wo)men who changed the rules, and their identities, to get sh*t done.

You’ll encounter Kit Cavanagh, the swaggering Irish dragoon who was the first woman to be buried in London with full military honours; marauding eighteenth-century pirates Mary Read and Anne Bonny, who collided on the high seas after swapping their petticoats for pantaloons; Ellen Craft, an escaped slave who masqueraded as a white master to spirit her husband-to-be to freedom; and Billy Tipton, the swinging jazz musician, who led a double life as an adult, taking five wives along the way. Then there are the women who still have to dress like men to live their best lives, like the inspirational football-lovers in Iran, who risk everything to take their place in the stands.

A call to action for the modern world, this book celebrates the #GenderRebels who paved the way for women everywhere to be soldiers and spies; kings and queens; firefighters, doctors, pilots; and a Swiss Army knife’s-worth more. These superbly spirited (wo)men all had one thing in common: they defied the rules to progress in a man’s world.

Book Club Fiction

Sorry I Missed You by Suzy Krause, Pages: 315, Publication Date: 1 June 2020

Synopsis: A poignant and heartwarming novel about friendship, ghosting, and searching for answers to life’s mysteries.

When Mackenzie, Sunna, and Maude move into a converted rental house, they are strangers with only one thing in common—important people in their lives have “ghosted” them. Mackenzie’s sister, Sunna’s best friend, and Maude’s fiancé—all gone with no explanation.

So when a mangled, near-indecipherable letter arrives in their shared mailbox—hinting at long-awaited answers—each tenant assumes it’s for her. The mismatched trio decides to stake out the coffee shop named in the letter—the only clue they have—and in the process, a bizarre kinship forms. But the more they learn about each other, the more questions (and suspicions) they begin to have. All the while, creepy sounds and strange happenings around the property suggest that the ghosts from their pasts might not be all that’s haunting them…

Will any of the housemates find the closure they are looking for? Or are some doors meant to remain closed?

Quirky, humorous, and utterly original, Sorry I Missed You is the perfect read for anyone who has ever felt haunted by their past (or by anything else).

Historical Fiction

Golden Poppies by Laila Ibrahim, Pages: 297, Publication Date: 1 June 2020

Synopsis: From the bestselling author of Yellow Crocus and Mustard Seed comes the empowering novel of two generations of American women connected by the past and fighting for a brighter future.

It’s 1894. Jordan Wallace and Sadie Wagner appear to have little in common. Jordan, a middle-aged black teacher, lives in segregated Chicago. Two thousand miles away, Sadie, the white wife of an ambitious German businessman, lives in more tolerant Oakland, California. But years ago, their families intertwined on a plantation in Virginia. There, Jordan’s and Sadie’s mothers developed a bond stronger than blood, despite the fact that one was enslaved and the other was the privileged daughter of the plantation’s owner.

With Jordan’s mother on her deathbed, Sadie leaves her disapproving husband to make the arduous train journey with her mother to Chicago. But the reunion between two families is soon fraught with personal and political challenges.

As the harsh realities of racial divides and the injustices of the Gilded Age conspire to hold them back, the women find they need each other more than ever. Their courage, their loyalty, and the ties that bind their families will be tested. Amid the tumult of a quickly changing nation, their destiny depends on what they’re willing to risk for liberation.

Legal Thriller

Legacy of Lies by Robert Bailey, Pages: 329, Publication Date: 1 June 2020

Synopsis: A small-town attorney takes on prejudice and corruption in this powerful legal thriller.

Small-town lawyer Bocephus Haynes comes home late one night to find District Attorney General Helen Lewis waiting for him. Her ex-husband has just been killed. She’s about to be arrested for his murder. And she wants Bo to represent her.

There’s a lot working against them. Just before his death, Helen’s ex-husband threatened to reveal a dark secret from her past. Bo has been in a tailspin since his wife’s death. What’s more, his whole life has been defined by a crime committed against his family, and he continues to face prejudice as the only African American litigator in Pulaski, Tennessee.

Bo’s back is against the wall, and Helen resigns herself to a dismal fate—but a stunning discovery throws everything into chaos. There’s a chance for justice, but to achieve it, the cost might be too much for Bo to bear.

Family Saga

A Decent Family by Rosa Ventrella, Pages: 251, Publication Date: 1 June 2020

Synopsis: For fans of Elena Ferrante’s Neapolitan series comes a captivating family saga focused on a willful young woman’s struggles against her oppressive small town by acclaimed Italian author Rosa Ventrella.

In old Bari, everyone knows Maria De Santis as “Malacarne,” the bad seed. Nicknamed for her dark features, volcanic temperament, and resistance to rules, the headstrong girl can only imagine the possibilities that lie outside her poverty-stricken neighborhood.

Growing up with her mother, two brothers, and a tyrannical father, Maria must abide. She does—amid the squalid life to which she was born, the cruelties of her small-minded neighbors, and violence in a constant threat of eruption. As she reconciles her need for escape with the allegiance she feels toward her family, Maria has her salvations: her secret friend, Michele, son of a rival family and every bit the outsider she is, and her passion for books, which may someday take her far, far away.

In this exquisitely rendered and sensory-rich novel, Rosa Ventrella explores the limits of loyalty, the redeeming power of friendship and love, and the fire in the soul of one woman who was born to break free.

Literary Fiction

A Man by Keiichiro Hirano, Pages: 295, Publication Date: 1 June 2020

Synopsis: A man follows another man’s trail of lies in a compelling psychological story about the search for identity, by Japan’s award-winning literary sensation Keiichiro Hirano in his first novel to be translated into English.

Akira Kido is a divorce attorney whose own marriage is in danger of being destroyed by emotional disconnect. With a midlife crisis looming, Kido’s life is upended by the reemergence of a former client, Rié Takemoto. She wants Kido to investigate a dead man—her recently deceased husband, Daisuké. Upon his death she discovered that he’d been living a lie. His name, his past, his entire identity belonged to someone else, a total stranger. The investigation draws Kido into two intriguing mysteries: finding out who Rié’s husband really was and discovering more about the man he pretended to be. Soon, with each new revelation, Kido will come to share the obsession with—and the lure of—erasing one life to create a new one.

In A Man, winner of Japan’s prestigious Yomiuri Prize for Literature, Keiichiro Hirano explores the search for identity, the ambiguity of memory, the legacies with which we live and die, and the reconciliation of who you hoped to be with who you’ve actually become.

***Which book will you choose? I can’t make up my mind between: “If You Must Know and Sorry I Missed You”. Let me know which book you think I should choose.***

[jjaywmac]

Sound familiar. August 2016.  “Over the age of 60.  Underlying health condition (heart problems. Pneumonia in the lungs.  ICU.  Insulator. Unexpectedly.”  That is exactly what happened to Steve 4 years ago.  Was it a virus before its time?  I will never know.  The doctors cured the pneumonia.  He died of heart failure.  It was fast.  Like today.  That should want you to stay home!  And keep your loved ones at home!  It does me.  I remember only too well.

SO, how do I start with a clean slate of this?  By introducing you to some books I think you may enjoy reading during this down time.

  SO, I am spending today, a (férié) in France (the day after Easter is always celebrated as a holiday) by staying inside and writing a lot.  Sorry.  But, I cannot stop thinking about what happened to him as I read the news and all of the descriptions of what to expect.  Plus, in my head, I am processing a Lot of new ideas that have come to me over the weekend.  My “clean slate”/ “eternal NOW” frame of mind is running wild with new ideas of how to spend this unusual time in Paris.  I have ideas for new books that excite me.  I have projects that need to be completed.  I have courses I want to take, places I want to walk, pictures I want to take, sites I want to develop.  There is never a dull moment around here.  My mind keeps me busy.

I want to spend time with my “new present”.  So here is a fresh look at something that means a lot to me. What??  I have in my safe keeping, several books that I want to bring to your attention in this new day!!! OK.  So a tad of past. Don’t worry.  I will try to make it interesting and worth your time.

It all started on September 20, 2011. I was (for 20 years) an Entertainment Attorney (and an Employment Law Litigator) in Los Angeles, California USA. In early September 2011, I was invited by the Writers Guild of America (WGA) to be the legal representative by on a panel for the members – an E-publishing Panel. The Panel sought to empower writers to create new opportunities for work in film, television, new media, and transmedia. Since WGA did not cover book publication regardless of format, it was thought that e-publishing could be a stepping stone towards potential work on Guild-covered adaptations. So, on September 20, I joined other Panel members Lee Goldberg (The Glades), Derek Haas (Wanted), and Alexandra Sokoloff (author, Book of Shadows, and Mark Coker (Smashwords) on a panel.   Our task was to discuss the latest ebook/self and indie-publishing developments. WOW, what a lineup! I got very excited.  Needless to say, it was a power-packed evening with the Writer Members and members doing most of the talking.  The evening flew by with everyone sharing information, questions, and answers.

The next day I said to my husband Steve Orlandella, “You need to write a book”. He said, “What? A book?  I have nothing to say.”   I laughed.  Steve ALWAYS had something to say.  So did I. I needed to write a book.  And, we did.

Steve wrote eight books before he died in 2016.  I have written seven (7) and am still writing every day. But, this post is about Steve and his books.

He had specific things he liked – history, cheesecake, sex, trivia, condiments (of every kind), Castle (TV show), the Titanic, and baseball.  Not necessarily in that order.  So, he wrote about things he liked.  Now, to be honest, he was not a great American writer.  He just wrote about topics he enjoyed.  I was glad to see him happy.  He loved working.  Retirement was not his cup of tea.  And, he loved writing.  He created two characters he liked.  And, he would spend all day creating their “banter”.  I would often hear his chuckling to himself.  That would be when he would come up with something he thought was particularly clever.  He started out with a collection of his writings on Facebook.  All of that was new at that time, and his posts were funny and interesting.  When it was published, he was thrilled.  He would read it over and over.  Amazed and proud of himself for actually publishing a book!

Next, he tackled baseball.  He was an Emmy-winning Live Sports producer for Hockey and Baseball.  9 seasons for the Dodgers.  Personal friend of Vin Scully.  He KNEW his baseball.  Then, he wrote “his masterpiece”, a wonderful book about the Titanic.  He poured his soul into this book.  His love, his heart, his skill, his all.  He could not believe it when he held that book in his hands.  He read and reread and reread it.

It was then that he thought that he had no more to write.  I did not want to see him depressed because he was happy when he had a book in progress.  So, I suggested he create a detective and do mysteries – novels.  After thinking about it a LONNNNNGGGGGG time, he came up with an idea.  He really loved the television show “Castle”.  He loved their “banter”.  He would create a sexy couple – an ex-baseball player (a private investigator – Vic Landell) and hot babe attorney/news anchor (The Redhead).  They would solve crimes in Sarasota, Florida (his favorite location in the world).  That was how it started.  It evolved from there.

So, I am going to introduce you to his books.  I am not presenting them in the order they were written.  I am doing this my way.  Novels, first.  I am suggesting you try them. they are light reading and enjoyable.  And,  I think the reader can experience the fun Steve was having with the dialogue and spending time with his characters.  He loved Tina Louis and Dusty Springfield.  Plus, he had some favorite News Anchors.  So, bear with him as he enjoys his “babes” with their high heels.  Short skirts and all.  Red hair, long legs.  A fun guy.  We laughed a lot.  And, I  miss him.  This post is dedicated to Steve Orlandella.  This one’s for him.  Now, the books – during this pandemic!

The first Vic Landell mystery was BURDEN OF PROOF. 

1) BURDEN OF PROOF is set in and around Sarasota Florida.  It is dedicated my sister, Patricia Jewell Prince, “My Sister-in-Law Patricia, Lover of Mysteries.”

Steve begins each mystery: What’s in a Name?  “My father was born Vito Anthony Orlandella, and he didn’t much care for his name. “Vito” was all right, and in fact, he named his principal business The Vito Fruit Company – although throughout Boston he was often referred to as “Vic.” No real problem with the benign Anthony, it was the last name he saw as problematic. His one foray into show business as a record producer was done under the name “Tony Vito.” I’m not certain, but I believe he thought that Orlandella was too long and clumsy for a billboard. He had another name ready but never got the chance to use it. A clever anagram made by dropping the first two and the last letters of his name. Add to that, the remnants of his first name. Thus, was born “Vic Landell.” When it came time to name my pitcher-turned-detective, the choice was an easy one. Call it homage to my father.”

Next, CAPITOL MURDER.

2) CAPITOL MURDER is dedicated to “Her Royal Blondness [HRB], Long may she Reign”. It is set in and around Washington, D.C.

“What’s in a Name? The heroine of this series is Marcia Glenn. The name is borrowed from my first childhood crush – a sixth-grade, blonde goddess. For two years I pined for her from, to paraphrase Hammerstein, ‘across a crowded schoolroom.’ My passion held in check only by the fact that she didn’t know I was alive. Her sights were set on another classmate, a surfer boy wannabe with flaxen air. Sure, just plunge a knife in my heart. The irony of all this is rooted in the fact that he seemed to have absolutely no interest in her. Funny the things you remember. How this preteen vixen has now morphed into a six-foot, Titian-tressed femme fatale is a story for another time.”

3) MARATHON MURDERS.

MARATHON MURDERS is dedicated to “Dash, Winner & Still Champion”, and located in Boston.

“What’s in a Name?  He was born on a farm in Maryland.  He served his country in the First World War and became ill with the Spanish flu and later contracted Tuberculosis – spending most of his time in the Army as a patient in a Washington Hospital.  As a result of his illness he could not live full-time with his wife and two daughters and the marriage fell apart.  He was a firm believer in the notion that you write about what you know.  And since he was an alcoholic, his two most famous characters were as well.  He devoted much of the rest of his life to unpopular causes.  He wore his country’s uniform again in the Second World War.  His reward?  After the war he was investigated by Congress and testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee about his own life but refused to cooperate with the committee.  As a result – he was blacklisted. He was sixty-six when lung cancer took his life.  In his obituary, The New York Times said of him, ‘the dean of the hard-boiled school of detective fiction.’  For any fan of mysteries his name is said with a smile.  For someone like me, who would love to be just a poor copy of the original, it is said with reverence.”

4) DANCE WITH DEATH.  (Steve’s Favorite – he wanted me to read him passages from this one when he was in the hospital)

DANCE WITH DEATH is dedicated “To my Second Parents Rose & Gerry”.  It is set in Los Angeles, California.

“What’s in a Name?  She was born Marcia Colleen Glenn – her first name from the Latin, meaning ‘dedicated to Mars.’  Mars is the red planet – there is your first clue.  It also means proud or warlike – that’s your second clue.  Her middle name was chosen by her father to emphasize the family’s Gaelic heritage.  By the age of five, her sister Katelyn was calling her ‘The Marce.’  To this day, if she likes you, call her Marce.  If she doesn’t much care for you, it’s Marcia.  If she flat hates your guts – it’s Ms. Glenn.  Fair warning, if you call her Marsha, brother, you are just asking for trouble.  When she was seventeen and turned from an ugly duckling into a beautiful swan, the boys in her high school started referring to her as ‘the looker.’  The lawyers at the firm where she did her internship called her ‘the stunner.’  That’s also what the crew at WWSB calls her – along with ‘the goddess.’  To the boys in Idaho Falls, she was ‘the long drink of water.’  When she knocked out a would-be assailant with one right hand, the name ‘slugger’ entered the lexicon.  There are others, like ‘supermodel’ and ‘deadeye.’  But if you’ve killed someone, she’s the ‘red menace.’  And finally, to her smitten boyfriend, she is occasionally ‘Titian’ -the shade of her glorious red hair.  She will also answer to ‘Irish,’ and for him only, ‘Honey,’ along with his favorite, ‘Baby.’  But, first and foremost she is always and forever – ‘the redhead.'”

5) MIDTOWN MAYHEM, dedicated “For the amazing Kris Jones”, and set in NYC. (He did not know this would be his last one.)

“What’s in a Name?  It was my high-school baseball coach who first hung the nickname on me. Of the nine pitchers on his staff, eight were right-handed. When asked who the starting pitcher against Syracuse would be, he replied, “Let’s send out the lefty.” The name stuck throughout college, the minors, and my first six years in the majors. It became problematic for me when I was traded to Philadelphia – for you see, they already had a “Lefty.” He was born Steven Norman Carlton. He made his debut with the Cardinals in 1965. He was a tall, imposing man blessed with a hard fastball and nasty slider. He was soon known as an intimidating and dominating pitcher. Following a protracted salary dispute, St. Louis Cardinals owner Gussie Busch ordered Carlton traded. Eventually, he was dealt to the Philadelphia Phillies before the ‘72 season for a pitcher named Rick Wise. In time, it would be recognized as one of the most lopsided deals in baseball history. Carlton hit his stride with the Phillies. How good was he? In 1972, the down-trodden Phils won a total of 59 games – 27 of them by Carlton. That won him his first of four Cy Young Awards. He finished with 322 wins and was a consensus first ballot Hall of Famer. The day before a start, the scoreboard in Veterans Stadium would list tomorrow’s starting pitcher – Lefty. Need more? There’s a statue of him in front of Citizens Bank Park. How was I supposed to compete with all that? I could not. Since Carlton is six-foot four and your humble servant is a paltry six-foot one the players started to refer to me as Little Lefty. The day my career ended, I went back to being plain old Lefty.”

6) CASINO KILLER (Steve was writing this one when he died.)

Forty-six pages are in the can. It was to be dedicated to “John & Gloria Cataldo, Once and Forever”.  It was to be set in and around Nice, France.

“What’s in a Name?  It is the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea in the southeast corner of France, beneath of the base of the French Alps. There is no official boundary, but it is usually considered to extend from the Italian border in the east to Saint-Tropez, Hyères, Toulon, or Cassis in the west. The area is a Department of the French Government – Alpes-Maritimes. There is nothing quite like it anywhere else in the world. As the French might refer to it – beau ravage – beautiful shoreline.  It began as a winter health resort for the British upper class at the end of the 18th century. With the arrival of the railway in the mid-19th century, it became the playground and vacation spot of British, Russian, and other aristocrats, including Queen Victoria. It was the English who coined the phrase, the French Riviera.  After World War II, the south of France became a popular tourist destination and convention site. The area went off the charts in the 1950s when a beautiful girl from Philadelphia moved into the Royal palace of the one and only principality. Millionaires and celebrities built homes there and routinely spent their summers.  The region has one more name. In 1887, a French author named Stéphen Liégeard published a book about the coastline. So taken was he by the color of the Mediterranean, he used the words Azure Coast in the title – in French that translates as Côte d’Azur.”

Steves first book is delightful – STEVESPEAK – 3 YEARS ON FACEBOOK.

STEVESPEAK is one of my favorites for spending time with him and getting to know him better. Plus, it is dedicated to me: “To Janet, The wind beneath my wings, And the power behind my throne.”

In his Prologue, he writes: “I’m not sure how I got on Facebook.  Most likely it was word of mouth.  Like many of you I started small, but as my list of friends grew, so did my activity.  A funny thing happened along the way, I found my voice.  Along with connecting with friends, I had the chance to be critical, historical, passionate, and I hope, funny. This book traces almost 3 years on Facebook, and is designed to give my fellow “Facebookers,” An idea of what other people are saying. For what it’s worth, you will learn some things about me. My love for baseball, my interest in “The Titanic,” my passion for my hometown, Boston.

“Stevespeak” was coined by my wife, who insists I have my own language.  Well that’s probably not true, but there are some words that are uniquely mine. For instance, only in my world is there a planet “Smecktar.”  Those pimples on your shoulder blades are “bacne,” and “Xerocracy” is government by photocopy. If something is dead, it’s “kersfuncken.” “Inuendo” is Italian for colonoscopy.

That said, there are some things you need to know in order to navigate your way through this book.  There are many references to something called “HRB.”  “HRB” is “Her Royal Blondness.”  That would be my wife.  She is an attorney and is sometimes referred to as the “blonde barrister.” Her maiden name is Janet Jewell.  Christine became Kris and is my sister. “Tori” and “Icto” are other names for our friend Victoria Lucas.  Tori’s sister is Lil, and sometimes, Liz. The “Knife” is Joe Klinger. “Fabulous 52” was the old Saturday night movie series on CBS in Los Angeles. I stole it, (I mean, researched it) and it became the “Fabulous 42.” Most of the rest is self-explanatory.”

Steve’s Masterpiece – TITANIC.

TITANIC was his lifetime achievement, the one he held close to his heart.  He dedicated it to his mother.  He wrote, “To my Mother Therese, The Real Historian in The Family.”

“In the fall of 1960, I was a ten-year-old, growing up in Los Angeles’ San Fernando Valley.  Even then I was sarcastic, opinionated, and well on my way to becoming obnoxious.  The phrase most often used was, ‘A little too smart for his own good.’  Perhaps.  Duplicit in all this were my parents who spoiled me rotten.  One of my numerous privileges was permission to stay up late on Saturday night…very late.

Toward the end of the 1950s, television in Los Angeles was in a state of flux.  The Country’s number three [now number two] market had seven stations, a wealth of airtime, and a dearth of programming.  The three network affiliates and the four independents turned to motion pictures to fill the void so much so that one station, Channel 9, ran the same movie every night for a week.  Hey, I love Jimmy Cagney, but how many times can you watch ‘Yankee Doodle Dandy’?  The stations also had the nasty habit of cutting the films to pieces, the classic case being Channel 7, the ABC affiliate who filled their 3:30-5pm slots by slicing and dicing 2-hour movies down to 67 minutes. They came close to cutting Ingrid Bergman out of ‘Casablanca.’  Channel 2, the CBS Affiliate, had no such problem.  [They had ‘Lucy’; they had ‘Jackie Gleason’.]  ‘The Fabulous 52’ was reserved for Saturday night at 11:30pm, and, since the only things that followed the movie were the National Anthem and a test pattern, they ran uncut.  The station held the rights to a package of relatively recent films from 20th Century Fox.

One Saturday afternoon, my dad announced, ‘Titanic is on tonight.’  I had no idea who or what was ‘Titanic’, but we gathered in the family room at 11:30.  For the next two hours, I sat transfixed, mesmerized by what we were seeing.  If you are scoring at home, it was the 1953 version with Barbara Stanwyck, Clifton Webb and a young Robert Wagner.  They had me.

In 1964, I came across a copy of A Night to Remember, Walter Lord’s seminal work on the events of April 14-15, 1912, and the following year, I saw the movie made [in England, 1958] from Lord’s book.  It was a film made by people who wanted to get it right.  This film was the game changer.

The Fox movie opens with a page of text proclaiming that all the facts in the film were taken right from the United States Senate and British Board of Trade Inquiries.  Really?  Even then, Fox knew how to ‘play fast and loose with the truth.’  As good as their movie was – and it was good, it paled before the Brit’s film.  Fifteen hundred people did not all stand together, sing ‘Nearer My God To Thee’, and meekly sink into the North Atlantic.  They fought and struggled until their last breath, trying not to freeze or drown in the unforgiving sea.  Madeleine Astor wasn’t an elegant matron.  She was in fact a pregnant teenager.  That was it.  ‘Game On!’

I absorbed every book I could find, any TV program I could watch, and every newspaper on microfilm, along with help from the Titanic Historical Society.  Add that to my natural affinity for ships, and an ‘obsession’ was born.  For some, it’s The Civil War; for others, it’s the Kennedy Assassination; for me, it is The Royal Mail Steamship Titanic.

Part of the obsession stems from the fact that no event in history is so loaded with conjecture, myths, and downright lies, some of which are ‘beauties.’  One example:  A young David Sarnoff [co-founder of RCA] became famous telling the world how he was the first to pick-up the Titanic’s distress call in the station on the roof of Wanamaker’s Department Store and how he remained at the key all Sunday night and well into the next day.  Great story?  Absolutely.  Truthful story?  Absolutely not.  Wanamaker’s was closed on Sunday, and even when the store was open, Sarnoff was the office manager.  Three other employees of The Marconi Company stood the watch.

Fox reloaded and fired again in 1997.  This time, they tried it with a seemingly unlimited budget and an amateur historian calling the shots.  Movie making?  Unmatched.  Story telling?  Not so much.  History?  Nonexistent.  There is a word for what you wind up with when you invent the leading characters.  Fiction.  Now, nobody loves Kate Winslet ‘in flagrante delicto’ more than I do, but the truth is better.  Thus, ”Jack Dawson’ and ‘Rose DeWitt’ join ‘Julia Sturges’ and ‘Lady Marjory Bellamy’ as mythical creatures on a real ship.

And, since you’re making stuff up, how about a little character assassination?  The 1997 film depicted First Officer William Murdoch taking but ultimately rejecting a bribe from make-believe villain ‘Caledon Hockley.’  Murdoch was also shown shooting two passengers dead after he presumed, they intended to storm one of the remaining lifeboats.  He then saluted Chief Officer Henry Wilde and committed suicide with a revolver.  None of this ever happened.  After the picture’s director [name withheld] refused to take out the bogus scenes, studio executives flew to Murdoch’s hometown to issue his relatives an apology.  As for the movie, if you are looking for an accurate depiction of events – keep looking.  Put another way, there was a ship called Titanic, and it sank.  After that, you’re on your own.

The Civil War is far and away the all-time champion of most books. [One of Titanic’s passengers wrote ‘The Truth about Chickamauga.’]  Second?  The runner-up is World War II.  Third?  The correct guess is the Titanic.  So, what is my mission statement?  What else?  Write yet another book.  Tell her story, once again.  This time come armed with all I know and have learned in the wake of Doctor Robert Ballard’s stunning discovery of the wreck in 1985.  I will attempt to detail what is correct and dispel, whenever possible, what is not.

I spent my career working in television, the first seven years producing TV News.  What did I learn?  I learned skepticism tinged with a bit of cynicism, and it has served me well.  So, I will do your bidding.  On your behalf, I will be skeptical, factual, analytical, and when required, cynical.  There is one thing I cannot be, dispassionate.  I will stipulate to a love of all ships – but Her most of all.  By now, you may be asking yourself, ‘Why so many pictures?’  I confess that, too, is the TV producer in me.  You always try to put a face with a story.  Plus, there is always the possibility that you can’t recognize Turbinia.

If I am standing at all, it is on the shoulders of some truly great authors.  I have read, re-read, and re-re-read their work over the years and have researched – borrowed – from them all.  To the best of my ability, everything in this book is true.  I believe in the concept that, if the Lord wanted us to remain silent, he wouldn’t have given us [brackets].  So, on occasion, you’ll see a comment from yours truly.  [I’ll be that most irritating of shipmates – the loud, opinionated one.]

The longest section of the book concerns the area around the Boat Deck between midnight and 2:20am.  If it seems long [it’s real time] and overly detailed, I apologize, but to me, this is the heart of the narrative.  Hundreds of little dramas played out on a sloping deck in the middle of a freezing ocean.  Loved ones were torn apart, and families were destroyed.  And with it came the sub-plots.  Some got in lifeboats, and some did not.  Some were allowed in the boats, and some were not.  All of this begs the question, why?  Regardless, these are their stories, and on their behalf, I make no apologies.  I have tried to keep the technological parts under control and not drown my readers in facts and figures.  But the brains and skill that created the Olympic-class liners are very much a part of this story.

Allow me just a couple of more thoughts before we proceed.  There is one sentence that is common to virtually every book written about the RMS Titanic.  ‘It had been a mild winter in the Arctic.’  It had, indeed.  Ice that had been forming since well before the dawn of man was now at last free.  Unfettered, it could leave Greenland and move into the Labrador Current and begin its journey south toward the shipping lanes.  The ice was no different than previous years, only this year, there would be more than usual, much more.  There were small pieces of ice, what sailors called ‘growlers.’  There were large sections known as ‘sheet ice,’ and larger still, ‘pack ice.’  In between were hundreds of what every seaman feared most, what the Norsemen referred to as ‘mountains of ice.’  Icebergs.

If you’re familiar with the advertising business, you probably know about the concepts of ‘marketing research’ and ‘brand recognition.’  Countless studies have been commissioned to find out what people can identify and what they like.  The results are often quite surprising.  For example, inquiries have determined that far more people [around the world] can recognize the ‘Cavallino Rampante’ [in English, ‘The Prancing Horse’ aka the ‘Ferrari’ logo] than can recognize ‘Shell’ or ‘Coca-Cola.’  Then there is my favorite.  For decades, focus groups, when asked to identify the most famous ship in the world, gave the traditional answer, ‘Noah’s Ark’.  No more.  The runaway number one is now ‘Titanic’.  That’s ‘brand recognition.’

There is no way to tell the whole story in this little book, yet I will do my best.  Call me crazy [you wouldn’t be the first] and maybe a little arrogant [see previous], but I feel it’s my duty to help set the record straight for fifteen hundred souls who went to a cold, watery grave that night.  Time to depart.  ‘All ashore that’s goin’ ashore!'”

THE GAME 

THE GAME is dedicated, “To My Father, for that rainy day at Fenway and A thousand games of ‘catch’”.  Steve was passionate about baseball.  He knew baseball in-and-out.  He was the expert’s expert. He would say, “I know what I like.”  Well, I’m here to tell you that he “liked”, [see also, “was passionate about”] the Red Sox, Boston, the Patriots, the Celtics, Lotus cars, Ferraris, meatballs, pasta of any kind, pundits, condiments, the Titanic, HRB, his family, and Vin Scully – not necessarily in that order.

He writes in THE GAME Foreword: “The History books tell us that the first professional baseball game was held on May 4, 1869, as the Cincinnati Red Stockings ‘eked’ out a 45-9 win. No doubt, the first baseball story was told on May 5, 1969.  No sport – not basketball, not football, not hockey – has the oral tradition of the national pastime. And, like any good oral tradition, it has been passed from generation to generation.  Baseball stories in one form or another are as much a part of our game as the infield fly and the rosin bag.  In this book, they come in all sizes and shapes – short stories, essays, expressions, rules, jokes, and slang, to name just a few.

The first ‘Baseball Balladeer’ in my life was one Vincent Edward Scully, known to three generations of fans as ‘Vin.’ For baseball-ignorant Southern Californians, he was a Godsend. Far more than their voice, he was their teacher.  At that point, the game that had been thousands of miles away was as close as your transistor radio or the ‘am’ in your car. He gave Los Angeles the who, what, when, where, and most importantly, the why. He studied at the foot of the master Red Barber and is acknowledged as the best in the business.  I know this how? He was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame 43 years ago! For nine years, I was lucky enough to be his producer. I called him ‘The Doctor’ for his PhD in baseball. Try explaining the balk rule to the man who taught you half of what you know about the game.

When I began covering the Angels, I got to know Emil Joseph ‘Buzzie’ Bavasi.  If you looked up ‘character’ in the dictionary, it would say, ‘see Buzzie.’  In the ‘40s, he was Branch Rickey’s top lieutenant and had a hand in breaking Baseball’s color line as well as dealing with Vero Beach in the acquisition of Dodgertown.  He became General Manager and earned a reputation as a shrewd and tough negotiator. Buzzie loved to tell the story about contract haggling with a certain player [still alive, so no names]. He had a fake contract with a very low salary created for the team’s best player.  He left it on his desk and excused himself for a moment, convinced that the player would take a peak. Needless to say, that when he returned, the negotiations ended quickly and in Buzzie’s favor.  He had been schooled in [and ultimately taught] the Branch Rickey way of playing the game [stressing fundamentals, nurturing talent, and the importance of a strong farm system]. In the years we worked together, I never once overheard a conversation when he wasn’t at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of a story or anecdote. He lived for baseball and lived to talk about it.

In 1985, I began working with Bob Starr. Bob, or as we called him, ‘Bobo’, was the broadcaster’s broadcaster. He could do play-by-play for anything – baseball, football, your kid’s hopscotch game, anything. Bobo was a graduate of the KMOX School of Broadcasting.  The famed St. Louis radio station produced Harry Caray, Jack and Joe Buck, Buddy Blattner, Joe Garagiola, and Bob Costas, among others. He had that smooth, Midwestern style, and on the air, you’d swear he was talking just to you.  I once shared a golf cart with him for a round – four hours well-spent looking for my ball [as usual] and listening.  He loved to tell stories, some on himself. While playing 18 holes on an off day, Bob had a heart attack.  Upon arrival at the hospital, the doctors asked if he were in pain. ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘in my backside.’ Mystified, the doctors went over the test results. A physical examination revealed that the patient still had his pants on.  The source of the pain was two Titleists in his back pocket.  How we miss Bobo.

The average baseball fan may not recognize the name Jack Lang, but every player knew him and loved it when he called.  Jack was for twenty years the executive secretary of The Baseball Writers of America, and if he telephoned you, it meant that you just won the Cy Young Award, the Most Valuable Player Award, the Rookie-of-the-Year, or had hit the ‘Baseball Lottery,’ induction into the Hall of Fame.  His vocation was sportswriter [a New York beat writer], and for forty years, he was one of the best.  I met Jack in 1987.  We had been hired by Victor Temkin to do sports licensing for MCA/Universal. It was there I discovered his sense of humor, his humanity, and his encyclopedic knowledge of the game.  We would speak on the phone almost every day for an hour.  Five minutes would be devoted to business, the remaining fifty-five given over to ‘talkin’ baseball.’  I firmly believe that I could have put the phone on speaker, turned on a tape recorder, left the room, and returned thirty minutes later to find another chapter for this book.  In 1997, we took a production crew to his home for an interview. It was the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson’s entry into the major leagues, and who better to discuss it than the man who covered it.  Jack lived in the little village of Ft. Salonga on the North Coast of Long Island, [Vin used to refer to him as ‘the Squire of Ft. Salonga’] in a modest house with an office on the side. The office contained a desk, two chairs, and enough baseball memorabilia to open a museum. [The whole place could have been shipped, as is, to Cooperstown.]

Buzzie, Bobo, and the Squire are gone, and, believe me, this book would have been easier to write if they were still here. We still have Vinnie [long may he reign].  If there is such a thing as a sub-dedication, this is for them. They and countless others had a hand in writing this book.  I have tried to fashion a work with something for everyone, from the hard-core fan to the young people just learning about the game. In so doing, I’ve run the gamut all the way from baseball history to baseball jokes. I hope you enjoy it and hope it adds to your love for ‘the game’.”

On amazon.com and smashwords.

Best, Jay

      A CLEAN SLATE – BEGINNINGS AND ENDINGS Sound familiar. August 2016.  "Over the age of 60.  Underlying health condition (heart problems. Pneumonia in the lungs. 

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Dial M for Murdoch: exhaustive account of the UK tabloids' criminality and the resulting coverup #5yrsago

Tom Watson and Martin Hickman's Dial M for Murdoch is a timely, informative, infuriating insider account of the News International phone-hacking scandal that has occupied the news-cycle, off and on, for several years now (and shows no sign of slowing down). Watson, a veteran Member of Parliament -- and frequent target of the Murdoch press and its hackers and snoops -- was an early and consistent voice of alarm over the scale and illegality of the Murdoch tabloids' investigative methods. He's uniquely well-situated to tell this story. His co-writer, Martin Hickman, is a veteran investigative reporter who covered the story for the Independent. They make a good pair, and the narrative is relatively smoothly told and, at times, is very powerfully written.

The Murdoch papers -- and other UK tabloids and papers -- wield tremendous influence in the halls of British power. Dial M traces the intimate connections between the press and senior ministers, elected officials, and -- crucially -- the police in the UK. As the flagship Murdoch tabloid, News of the World attained the highest circulation of any English-language paper, and seems to have led the world in illegal investigation techniques as well. The early inklings of the scope of the company's criminality were systematically understated by the press, underrated by the police, pooh-poohed by officials (from every party), and buried.

But the story wouldn't die. There were just too many victims, a sympathetic poster-child for everyone -- dead soldiers and their families, terrorist bombing victims, royals, the families of murdered children, and so on. It was impossible for Scotland Yard to maintain its "nothing to see here" posture, not with so many different stakeholders and so many upwellings of outrage. It didn't help that the most senior police officers on the case were doing various kinds of business with Murdoch, or retiring into cushy sinecures as high-paid columnists and consultants. Neither could the impotent Press Complaints Commission maintain the fiction that it had investigated, censured, and cleaned house.

Murdoch's many enemies were willing to bring the fight, risking their private lives, risking their personal fortunes. Vindictive Murdoch executives drew up enemies lists, ordered deep background checks on Parliamentarians and attorneys, sent high-powered lawyers to lean on witnesses, set private eyes to follow Murdoch's opponents in secret, or dispatched obvious PIs to watch them openly and intimidatingly. Watson and Hickman are exhaustive in documenting the slimy depths plumbed by Murdoch's high-placed lieutenants and their thugs in their efforts to maintain the years-long suppression of the investigation.

They were ultimately undone by their own arrogance. You can't defend yourself by throwing your accomplices under the bus forever. Eventually, some of the minions on whom you've pinned the blame will start whispering your secrets to others. Likewise, you can't pin the blame on your fancy lawyers, insisting that they investigated your operation and gave it a clean bill of health -- they won't sit still for it. You can't just hack everyone who accuses you of hacking.

Indeed, the scale and arrogance of the Murdoch companies' illegality was both their undoing, and is the major problem with Dial M for Murdoch. Despite the authors' valiant efforts to be both exhaustive and engrossing, sometimes the sheer litany of the names of the hacked, the officials who participated in the coverups, the bribes and corruption -- well, it gets a little repetitive. This is the banality of evil, 350 pages' worth. The fact that it's hard to keep it all straight when it's delivered in sequence, with the benefit of hindsight, tells you a lot about how this managed to slip off the front pages so many times over the years. The revelations can be so similar that it's hard to remember that this is actually a fresh outrage, not just a re-reporting of last week's lies and crimes.

My other problem with Dial M is its unwillingness to set out an explicit agenda in defense of a free press. For all that the tabloids have gotten away with murder for decades, Britain has one of the most censorious and litigant-friendly environments when it comes to press freedoms. This is the land of the "superinjunction," where corporate criminals can order the news of their misdeeds to be vanished into the memory hole. This is the land where spurious libel claims can be used to silence science writers like Simon Singh and Ben Goldacre, who document the (sometimes literally) murderous quackery of "alternative medicine" gurus. Britain has the unwelcome distinction of being the world's center for "libel tourism," a place where despots can come to punish journalists who reveal their misdeeds.

One consequence of the Murdoch scandal has been a renewal of the call for "press regulation," to rein in the tabloids. But what the tabloids did was already illegal -- it didn't just violate a "code of conduct," it violated the actual statutes on the actual lawbooks. The problem wasn't that they slipped through a legal loophole: the problem was that they had the cooperation of crooked prosecutors and cops, and the collusion of highly placed officials, both elected and appointed. The problem wasn't the absence of a law, it was the absence of legal enforcement.

For example, Dial M paints Max Mosley as something of a hero of the fight against Murdoch. Mosley, a wealthy celebrity who'd been libeled by the tabloids, refused to settle and refused to back off, and spent a fortune bankrolling much of the legal action against Murdoch. For this, he is justly lionized by the authors. But Mosley also proposes far-reaching Internet censorship rules, and advance notice and "arbitration" whenever the press publishes stories about public figures, and an opportunity for those figures to seek injunctions against publication. I kept waiting for the authors to point out that one risk of the Murdoch scandal is that Britain's moneyed and powerful will seize on the opportunity to reverse the trend toward libel reform and other free-speech rules, and to demand expansions to the already onerous censorship and libel regime the country labours under.

Instead, Watson and Hickman walk a fine line between praise and condemnation of the press, without ever articulating what a "good" press should do, or what regulation they favour. There are plenty of opportunities for this, too: after all, the Guardian's Nick Davies was a key investigator of the scandal, and the authors credit him with bringing Murdoch to heel, at real personal risk. I wanted them to explain how they would create a policy or precedent that would let Davies investigate Murdoch at full tilt, but not be so broadly defined as to legalize the investigative techniques used by the Murdoch press. Indeed, the book opens with a quote from Bob Woodward, who brought down a president by publishing illegally leaked confidential material -- what system would protect Woodward and not Andy Coulson?

The other "other shoe" that never dropped in Dial M was a critique of the way that our IT systems are designed to be such juicy and easy targets for scumbags and crooks. It goes without saying that there's no excuse for the Murdoch invasions. But what on Earth are all these rich and powerful people doing sending unencrypted emails? Why do ministers of the government use voicemail servers operated by big, dumb phone companies like Vodaphone, instead of privately maintained Asterix instances run by Parliament's IT department (who, presumably, couldn't be tricked into resetting a voicemail PIN merely by calling up and saying, "It's Bob in tech support, and I'm on the other line with the Home Secretary and she's forgotten her PIN, can you reset it for me, mate?"). How is it that lawyers and clients send cleartext documents to one another, and how is it that ministers and civil servants keep the nation's most important information on unencrypted hard drives? It's one thing for an individual celebrity (or the bereaved parents of a murdered child or a felled soldier) to lack the wherewithal to protect themselves, but when it comes to officials and their staff, it's both inexcusable and inexplicable. Maybe the Murdoch snoops would still have gotten something on them with long lenses and PIs who shadowed them from home to work. But the fact that a crew of creepy dolts were able to sit in their basements hacking thousands of important and official phones and computers at a time is not merely an indictment of their employers at the tabloids. It should be a wakeup call to the establishment to put its house in order, get some training, and use the decades-old technology (that comes stock on every GNU/Linux box) in their official dealings.

Leaving aside those omissions, Dial M is a fabulous and infuriating read. If you have been trying in vain to keep all the crooked dealings straight, here, at last, is the scorecard you've been looking for. It's the perfect background reading for the nightly news, and I can't wait for a sequel once this business has been resolved (however long that might take!).

Dial M for Murdoch

https://boingboing.net/2012/05/15/dial-m-for-murdoch-e.html

[duaneodavila]

A Healthy Media Diet For A Litigator: How You Spend Your Free Time Can Make You A Smarter, Better Litigator

Don’t kid yourself that professional development is limited to what you learn in the office.

As you recover from yesterday’s traditional solstice feast, this is a good time to take stock of your media diet. As with food, if you try to subsist on the equivalent of Twizzlers and French fries, it will eventually catch up with you. You won’t realize it right away, and quite possibly not until it’s too late, but it will gradually make you slower, dumber, and generally useless.

You will become particularly useless as a litigator, where two of the main job qualifications are quickly processing large amounts of information and coming up with novel solutions to a problem you haven’t seen before. Modern commercial litigators need to bring more than just the obvious solutions to the table.

The good news is that, with a little willpower, you can make a big improvement over time and become not just a better litigator, but a smarter one as well. But before you can take those steps, you need to first understand where and how you need to improve.

WHY IT MATTERS

While we increasingly live in a society where we tell the kid picked last for the kickball team that he can be an astronaut — ultimately feeding into our $10 billion self-help industry — we know that’s not actually true. People can work, improve, and practice, but people also have their own ceilings and rates of improvement.

This is true in any field. Sure, LeBron James has a rigorous training regimen, but so does every other player in the NBA. One of the unfair aspects of ability is that the advantages tend to aggressively compound. LeBron was already outclassing his contemporaries in high school, and he never gave up that lead. Maybe he intuitively grasps the physics of basketball better than others. Maybe, like many elite athletes, his body recovers faster than most. Maybe he has preternatural hand-eye coordination. Most likely it’s a combination of all three and much more. But the vast, vast majority of people could practice 10 times as much as LeBron and never approach him.

In fact, practice often only compounds the inequality. Being good at something tends to create a positive feedback loop. You pick something up, you’re good at it, it feels great to make quick improvement, people tell you how special you are, and you want to keep practicing. When you’re bad at something, you often just make yourself feel worse the more you practice and fail to make the improvement you expected. Plus, people have different levels of stamina, sleep needs, and caffeine tolerance, and even work ethic itself is probably heritable.

So as great as optimism is, without a dose of realism you’ll waste your time chasing, if not unachievable goals, then at least your goals in a counterproductive manner. Different people not only have different strengths and weaknesses, they have different areas in which they can improve more or less quickly.

WHERE YOU CAN IMPROVE

Luckily, you’re in a much better position being a lawyer than trying to make it in the NBA. But that doesn’t mean you should ignore the reality of your situation. Some lawyers like to joke about how law isn’t exactly rocket science, but even if that were true, litigation’s still a zero-sum competition. Even the dumbest child can easily learn the rules of Go, Chess, Monopoly, Settlers of Catan, Diplomacy, or whatever game you prefer as a metaphor. But if that dumb child plays a smart adult who is experienced with the game, they’re usually going to lose badly.

And while lawyering may not be rocket science, it’s still one of the most g-loaded professions. Whatever predictive powers and correlations general intelligence may or may not have, it’s at least a good description of many of the key skills of a litigator.

But you’re in luck once again. General intelligence is generally considered to consist of two parts: fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence.

Fluid intelligence is your ability to figure out an entirely novel situation. It’s how fast you pick up new things and how quickly you make connections. Fluid intelligence is your ability to decipher a new puzzle that someone puts in front of you when you’ve never seen anything like it before. It also peaks as early as the age of 20. And while there may be ways to improve your fluid intelligence, it’s hard. So whatever combination of genes, environment, or social conditioning lead to your current fluid intelligence, you’re probably for the most part stuck with what you have by the time you’re a practicing attorney.

Crystallized intelligence, on the other hand, is what you know, and your ability to apply what you already know to an otherwise novel situation. It’s your ability to look at a new puzzle that someone puts in front of you, but you remember that you once read a book about a similar puzzle, and then you use that memory to solve the new puzzle. Crystallized intelligence peaks as late as the age of 70.

Crystallized intelligence is, in other words, how you get smarter from learning things. It’s the legendary Boies memory. This still isn’t egalitarian — fluid intelligence is in a sense your ability to quickly add to your crystallized intelligence; memory itself is heritable, although highly teachable through certain secret Jesuit techniques — but it’s a start.

And most importantly, crystallized intelligence compounds as you add more and draw connections. Maybe someone puts a puzzle in front of you that you’ve never seen it before, but you remember reading a book about puzzle strategy once. Then you remember some magazine article you read once about puzzle tips. Then you remember a few puzzles you’ve done in the past that aren’t quite the new puzzle, but they have enough in common with it to give you a further boost. Separately, each of those memories may help a little bit, but combined they build on each other, and get you much closer to the puzzle’s solution.

 GET SMARTER

So you can get smarter. And better yet, you live in an age when you can access more knowledge, information, and analysis from your mobile telephone than you could absorb in a thousand lifetimes. The bad news is, so can everyone else you’re competing with. So spend your time wisely.

Luckily, as litigators, we already spend large portions of our day reading and writing, so that helps. It helps even more when dealing with the wide variety of commercial disputes my colleagues and I typically deal with; litigation being great because you learn all about a new business with each new case is a cliché, but it’s still often true. But if you just read legal briefs all day then go home and drink yourself to sleep while watching Survivor, you’re not getting a sufficiently well-balanced diet to help you build those mental connections.

I like to keep a healthy queue in Instapaper or Pocket, which I can then work through during downtime like commuting or walking. Then I fill it with whatever I come across that I find interesting, trying to cast a broad net. This does, and should, change periodically, but generally includes a variety of newspapers; a few blogs; some Twitter; and whatever else may be interesting. I also like to occasionally check the top few comments on popular news websites, especially ones that allow you to sort by most recommended. These days, they’re usually inane, but it’s interesting to see the consensus view a website’s reader’s may have on a particular topic.

It’s important to make time. Unless I’m truly swamped, I try to at least carve out time each day for Matt Levine’s newsletter, which usually gives a great analysis of the latest legal and financial news. RSS is still great and speeds everything up.

Everyone needs to find their own balance and what works for them. Someone who handles a lot of broker-dealer disputes probably wants to read more broker-dealer news than an antitrust specialist. But most important is simply gathering a large variety of thoughtful and well-informed opinions. You want to get a wide range to avoid a bubble, but reading the most popular comments on YouTube or Twitter isn’t going to do much good.

So now that the days are getting shorter and you’ve made your solstice resolutions, considering taking a moment to add one more. Perhaps the pickled herring won’t actually make you smarter, but better reading habits just might.

Matthew W. Schmidt has represented and counseled clients at all stages of litigation and in numerous matters including insider trading, fiduciary duty, antitrust law, and civil RICO. He is of counsel at the trial and investigations law firm Balestriere Fariello in New York, where he and his colleagues represent domestic and international clients in litigation, arbitration, appeals, and investigations. You can reach him by email at matthew.w.schmidt@balestrierefariello.com.

A Healthy Media Diet For A Litigator: How You Spend Your Free Time Can Make You A Smarter, Better Litigator republished via Above the Law

[blackkudos]

Fred Shuttlesworth

Frederick Lee "Fred" Shuttlesworth ( born Fred Lee Robinson, March 18, 1922 – October 5, 2011), was a U.S. civil rights activist who led the fight against segregation and other forms of racism as a minister in Birmingham, Alabama. He was a co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, initiated and was instrumental in the 1963 Birmingham Campaign, and continued to work against racism and for alleviation of the problems of the homeless in Cincinnati, Ohio, where he took up a pastorate in 1961. He returned to Birmingham after his retirement in 2007. He helped Martin Luther King Jr. during the Civil Rights Movement.

The Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport was named in his honor in 2008.

Early life

Born in Mount Meigs, Alabama, Shuttlesworth became pastor of the Bethel Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1953 and was Membership Chairman of the Alabama state chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1956, when the State of Alabama formally outlawed it from operating within the state. In May 1956 Shuttlesworth and Ed Gardner established the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights to take up the work formerly done by the NAACP.

The ACMHR raised almost all of its funds from local sources at mass meetings. It used both litigation and direct action to pursue its goals. When the authorities ignored the ACMHR's demand that the City hire black police officers, the organization sued. Similarly, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in December 1956 that bus segregation in Montgomery, Alabama, was unconstitutional, Shuttlesworth announced that the ACMHR would challenge segregation laws in Birmingham on December 26, 1956.

On December 25, 1956, unknown persons tried to kill Shuttlesworth by placing sixteen sticks of dynamite under his bedroom window. Shuttlesworth somehow escaped unhurt even though his house was heavily damaged. A police officer, who also belonged to the Ku Klux Klan, told Shuttlesworth as he came out of his home, "If I were you I'd get out of town as quick as I could". Shuttlesworth told him to tell the Klan that he was not leaving and "I wasn't raised to run."

Southern Christian Leadership Conference

In 1957 Shuttlesworth, along with Martin Luther King Jr., Ralph Abernathy from Montgomery, Joseph Lowery from Mobile, Alabama, T. J. Jemison from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Charles Kenzie Steele from Tallahassee, Florida, A. L. Davis from New Orleans, Louisiana, Bayard Rustin and Ella Baker founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The SCLC adopted a motto to underscore its commitment to nonviolence: "Not one hair of one head of one person should be harmed."

Shuttlesworth embraced that philosophy, even though his own personality was combative, headstrong and sometimes blunt-spoken to the point that he frequently antagonized his colleagues in the Civil Rights Movement as well as his opponents. He was not shy in asking King to take a more active role in leading the fight against segregation and warning that history would not look kindly on those who gave "flowery speeches" but did not act on them. He alienated some members of his congregation by devoting as much time as he did to the movement at the expense of weddings, funerals, and other ordinary church functions.

As a result, in 1961 Shuttlesworth moved to Cincinnati, Ohio, to take up the pastorage of the Revelation Baptist Church. He remained intensely involved in the Birmingham campaign after moving to Cincinnati, and frequently returned to help lead actions.

Shuttlesworth was apparently personally fearless, even though he was aware of the risks he ran. Other committed activists were scared off or mystified by his willingness to accept the risk of death. Shuttlesworth himself vowed to "kill segregation or be killed by it".

Murder attempts

When Shuttlesworth and his wife Ruby attempted to enroll their children in a previously all-white public school in Birmingham in 1957, a mob of Klansmen attacked them, with the police nowhere to be seen. His assailants included Bobby Frank Cherry, who six years later was involved in the 16th Street Baptist Church Bombing. The mob beat Shuttlesworth with chains and brass knuckles in the street while someone stabbed his wife. Shuttlesworth drove himself and his wife to the hospital where he told his kids to always forgive.

In 1958, Shuttlesworth survived another attempt on his life. A church member standing guard saw a bomb and quickly moved it to the street before it went off.

The Freedom Rides

Shuttlesworth participated in the sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in 1960 and took part in the organization and completion of the Freedom Rides in 1961.

Shuttlesworth originally warned that Alabama was extremely volatile when he was consulted before the Freedom Rides began. Shuttlesworth noted that he respected the courage of the activists proposing the Rides but that he felt other actions could be taken to accelerate the Civil Rights Movement that would be less dangerous. However, the planners of the Rides were undeterred and decided to continue preparing.

After it became certain that the Freedom Rides were to be carried out, Shuttlesworth worked with the Congress of Racial Equality to organize the Rides and became engaged with ensuring the success of the rides, especially during their stint in Alabama. Shuttlesworth mobilized some of his fellow clergy to assist the rides. After the Riders were badly beaten and nearly killed in Birmingham and Anniston during the Rides, he sent deacons to pick up the Riders from a hospital in Anniston. He himself had been brutalized earlier in the day and had faced down the threat of being thrown out of the hospital by the hospital superintendent. Shuttlesworth took in the Freedom Riders at the Bethel Baptist Church, allowing them to recuperate after the violence that had occurred earlier in the day.

The violence in Anniston and Birmingham almost led to a quick end to the Freedom Rides. However, the actions of supporters like Shuttlesworth gave James Farmer, the leader of C.O.R.E., which had originally organized the Freedom Rides, and other activists the courage to press forward. After the violence that occurred in Alabama but before the Freedom Riders could move on, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy gave Shuttlesworth his personal phone number in case the Freedom Riders needed federal support.

When Shuttlesworth prepared the Riders to leave Birmingham and they reached the Greyhound Terminal, the Riders found themselves stranded as no bus driver was willing to drive the controversial group into Mississippi. Shuttlesworth stuck with the Riders and called Kennedy. Prompted by Shuttlesworth, Kennedy tried to find a replacement bus driver. Unfortunately, his efforts eventually proved unsuccessful. The Riders then decided to take a plane to New Orleans (where they had planned on finishing the Rides) and were assisted by Shuttlesworth in getting to the airport and onto the plane.

Shuttlesworth’s commitment to the Freedom Rides was highlighted by Diane Nash, a student activist in the Nashville Student Movement and a major organizer of the later waves of Rides. Nash noted, "Fred was practically a legend. I think it was important – for me, definitely, and for a city of people who were carrying on a movement – for there to be somebody that really represented strength, and that’s certainly what Fred did. He would not back down, and you could count on it. He would not sell out, [and] you could count on that." The students involved in the Rides appreciated Shuttlesworth's commitment to the principles of the Freedom Rides – ending the segregationist laws of the Jim Crow South. Shuttlesworth's fervent passion for equality made him a role model to many of the Riders.

Project C

Shuttlesworth invited SCLC and King to come to Birmingham in 1963 to lead the campaign to desegregate it through mass demonstrations–what Shuttlesworth called "Project C", the "C" standing for "confrontation". While Shuttlesworth was willing to negotiate with political and business leaders for peaceful abandonment of segregation, he believed, with good reason, that they would not take any steps that they were not forced to take. He suspected their promises could not be trusted until they acted on them.

One of the 1963 demonstrations he led resulted in Shuttlesworth's being convicted of parading without a permit from the City Commission. On appeals the case reached the US Supreme Court. In its 1969 decision of Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, the Supreme Court reversed Shuttlesworth's conviction, determining that circumstances indicated that the parade permit was denied not to control traffic, as the state contended, but to censor ideas.

In 1963 Shuttlesworth was set on provoking a crisis that would force the authorities and business leaders to recalculate the cost of segregation. This occurred when James Bevel, SCLC's Director of Direct Action and Director of Nonviolent Education, initiated and organized the young students of the city to stand up for their rights. This plan was helped immeasurably by Eugene "Bull" Connor, the Commissioner of Public Safety and the most powerful public official in Birmingham, who used Klan groups to heighten violence against blacks in the city. Even as the business class was beginning to see the end of segregation, Connor was determined to maintain it. While Connor's direct police tactics intimidated black citizens of Birmingham, they also created a split between Connor and the business leaders. They resented both the damage Connor was doing to Birmingham's image around the world and his high-handed attitude toward them.

Similarly, while Connor may have benefited politically in the short run from Shuttlesworth's and Bevel's determined provocations, they also fit into Shuttleworth's long-term plans. The televised images of Connor's directing handlers of police dogs to attack young unarmed demonstrators and firefighters' using hoses to knock down children had a profound effect on American citizens' view of the civil rights struggle, and helped lead to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Shuttlesworth's activities were not limited to Birmingham. In 1964 he traveled to St. Augustine, Florida (which he often cited as the place where the civil rights struggle met with the most violent resistance), taking part in marches and widely publicized beach wade-ins.

In 1965 he was active in the Selma Voting Rights Movement, and its march from Selma to Montgomery which led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Shuttlesworth thus played a role in the efforts that led to the passage of the two great legislative accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement. In later years he took part in commemorative activities in Selma at the time of the anniversary of the famous march. And he returned to St. Augustine in 2004 to take part in a celebration of the fortieth anniversary of the St. Augustine movement there.

1966-2006: After the Voting Rights Act

Shuttlesworth organized the Greater New Light Baptist Church in 1966.

In 1978, Shuttlesworth was portrayed by Roger Robinson in the television miniseries King.

Shuttlesworth founded the "Shuttlesworth Housing Foundation" in 1988 to assist families who might otherwise be unable to buy their own homes.

In 1998 Shuttlesworth became an early signer and supporter of the Birmingham Pledge, a grassroots community commitment to combating racism and prejudice. It has since then been used for programs in all fifty states and in more than twenty countries.

On January 8, 2001, he was presented with the Presidential Citizens Medal by President Bill Clinton. Named President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in August 2004, he resigned later in the year, complaining that "deceit, mistrust and a lack of spiritual discipline and truth have eaten at the core of this once-hallowed organization".

In 2004, Shuttlesworth received the Award for Greatest Public Service Benefiting the Disadvantaged, an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards.

During the 2004 election that overturned a city charter provision that prohibited Cincinnati's City Council from adopting any gay-rights ordinance, Shuttlesworth voiced advertisements urging voters to reject the repeal, saying "The thing that I disagree with is when gay people ... equate civil rights, what we did in the '50s and '60s, with special rights ... I think what they propose is special rights. Sexual rights is not the same as civil rights and human rights."

Family

Although he was born Freddie Lee Robinson, Shuttlesworth took the name of his stepfather, William N. Shuttlesworth.

Shuttlesworth was married to Ruby Keeler Shuttlesworth, with whom he had four children: Patricia Shuttlesworth Massengill, Ruby Shuttlesworth Bester, Fred L. Shuttlesworth Jr., and Carolyn Shuttlesworth. The Shuttleworths divorced in 1970, and Ruby died the following year.

Shuttlesworth married Sephira Bailey in 2007.

After retirement

Prompted by the removal of a non-cancerous brain tumor in August of the previous year, he gave his final sermon in front of 300 people at the Greater New Light Baptist Church on March 19, 2006—the weekend of his 84th birthday. He and his second wife, Sephira, moved to downtown Birmingham where he was receiving medical treatment.

On July 16, 2008, the Birmingham, Alabama, Airport Authority approved changing the name of the Birmingham's airport in honor of Shuttlesworth. On October 27, 2008, the airport was officially changed to Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport.

On October 5, 2011, Shuttlesworth died at the age of 89 in his hometown of Birmingham, Alabama. The Birmingham Civil Rights Institute announced that it intends to include Shuttlesworth's burial site on the Civil Rights History Trail. By order of Alabama governor Robert Bentley, flags on state government buildings were to be lowered to half-staff until Shuttlesworth's interment.

He is buried in the Oak Hill Cemetery in Birmingham.

Wikipedia

[gracelowrie1]

Ten Favourite TV Romances

With the evenings getting colder and bleaker and Christmas fast approaching, tis the season to stay in, wrap presents, drink mulled wine, eat mince pies and binge watch TV. Those of you with a jam-packed social calendar need not read on, but if, like me, you spend most evenings snuggled at home and are craving a little romance, I have a few suggestions for you.

When I’m not working, writing or reading books, I watch quite a range of TV shows; mainly fictional drama series’ (not reality shows or soaps) featuring anything from detectives to zombies. Some of my favourites include: Breaking Bad, The Fall, Inspector Montalbano, Happy Valley, This Is Us, Vikings, The Walking Dead, Orphan Black, Fargo etc. all of which I’d recommend. However, most of these productions are not known for their romantic storylines, and since I write Women’s Fiction, and mainly Romance, I have come up with a list of ten favourite shows which do contain love stories that inspire me (please note that I’ve deliberately omitted Pride and Prejudice and Friends from the list for being too obvious).

Personally I am drawn to relationships with an unusual quirk to them, a sinister edge or a tragic undercurrent – traits that I try to bring to my own books – so if that appeals to you too, maybe you’ll find a show worth trying here. (They are listed alphabetically, because that was easier than trying to order them by preference):

Battlestar Galactica (2004)

There can’t be many female leads cooler than hotshot viper pilot Lieutenant Kara ‘Starbuck’ Thrace. In this American military sci-fi series set in space, life is tough and dangerous and Starbuck is both heroic and deeply flawed. The plot is gripping and although Starbuck and Apollo (Captain Lee Adama), her almost brother-in-law, are often too busy in conflict to acknowledge the deeply-rooted affection and sexual tension between them, it simmers deliciously throughout.

Firefly

Sadly this futuristic, space western was curtailed after just one season, but pressure from fans resulted in a feature film, Serenity, which helped tie up some of the loose ends. The banter and sexual tension between proud Captain Malcolm ‘Mal’ Reynolds and Inara, an equally proud, high-class escort, creates an interesting dynamic. But it is the touching relationship between Mal’s second-in-command, Zoe and her husband, their pilot, Hoban ‘Wash’ Washburne, which really stayed with me. Zoe is a seasoned fighter – a warrior woman – and the interaction between her and her adorably soppy husband, is both amusing and deeply romantic.

Fringe

A Science fiction series exploring parallel universes, this show shares similarities with The X-Files, but I found the developing relationship between Agent Olivia Dunham and Dr Bishop’s estranged son, Peter, more satisfying than that between Mulder and Scully. I have long been a fan of Joshua Jackson (who plays Peter) and I’m a sucker for a romance between two people who first meet in childhood and then reconnect years later as adults (see my first two novels Kindred Hearts and Safe With Me). Unfortunately I feel the plot lost its way a bit in the fifth and final series, but don’t let that put you off.

Luther

Though I’m not sure it technically counts as romance, a powerful attraction of some kind definitely brews between sexy Detective John Luther (Idris Elba) and supremely intelligent psychopathic murderer, Alice Morgan (Ruth Wilson). Alice manages to be both an arch-nemesis and a friend to Luther and while she makes no secret of her fondness for him, as a man of the law he struggles with who she is and what she does. It’s addictively fascinating and I really hope there is a series five to come.

Outlander

It’s no secret that I’m a huge fan of the books that this TV show is based on, and I would recommend that you read Diana Gabaldon’s epic written works before watching the dramatisation if you can (Outlander features in my Ten Favourite Book Romances list). That said, the production team have made an excellent job of condensing the books down into screen format – in my opinion the casting is brilliant, the acting is above average for TV and the minor changes and embellishments they have made to the story are definite improvements. I could gush about the actor who plays Jamie Fraser but I will refrain and let you check out Sam Heughan for yourself.

Sex and the City

There are several reasons to watch this show – the contrasting four main women and the enduring friendship between them; the amazing fashions; the funny dating stories etc., but for me it has to be the epic on-off relationship between Carrie Bradshaw and her ‘Mr Big’ (whom, incidently, is played by Chris Noth, the same actor who plays Peter Florrick in The Good Wife below). The saga is a long one (spanning six seasons and two feature films) with many ups and downs, but the magnetic pull between the two characters is undeniable.

The Good Wife

A courtroom drama full of litigation and American politics, this show is not heavy on romance, however, the subtle chemistry between the State’s Attorney’s wife – protagonist Alicia Florrick – and her lawyer boss and old college friend, Will Gardner, had me hooked. Despite her husband Peter’s public sex scandal and stint in prison, Alicia decides to stand by him, partly for the sake of her children. But she is a smart, independent, working mother, and he did betray her, while Will is giving her a second chance at a career of her own, when she needs it most. Alicia and Will try to ignore the attraction between them, but as a viewer you know it is there and I couldn’t help rooting for them to get together. If you do watch this for the romance, just be warned, you’re in for a shock in season five.

The OA

This supernatural/sci-fi series tells the story of a group of people who have been held prisoner for seven years, in glass cages underground, by a scientist who experiments on them. There is more to it than that, but I don’t want to give too much away for those who haven’t seen it. Prairie, the protagonist is one of these captives and over the years falls in love with Homer; the guy in the cell next to her. There is no overt ‘romance’ in this series (not in the first season anyway, I still have hopes for the second) but I’m fascinated by this idea of forming a relationship with someone while you are trapped together in very close quarters; sleeping next to each other every night, for several years – denied all privacy and freedom and unable to escape each other – and yet constantly, physically separated by a pane of glass. I think the tension and intensity of emotion created by eliminating the sense of touch between two people in love, holds potential for great romance.

True Blood

A must see for vampire fans this supernatural series is far grittier than The Vampire Diaries and rich with gore and dark humour. I found the chemistry between Sooky and Eric more interesting and convincing than the romance between Sooky and Bill, and again I preferred the earlier seasons to the latter ones, but overall worth a watch.

Victoria

The enduring love between Queen Victoria and Prince Albert is legendary and notable because historically royal marriages tended to be arranged purely for political convenience with no consideration given to love. This sumptuous period production dramatises both the romance and the conflict in the couple’s relationship and appeals all the more to me, for being based on real British history.

So, what’s your favourite TV romance? Drop me a line, I’d love to know.

[bountyofbeads]

In the Trump administration pay to play is valued over statesman ship, expertise and cooperation. SAD

Prosecutors flagged possible ties between Ukrainian gas tycoon and Giuliani associates

By Matt Zapotosky, Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Josh Dawsey | Published October 22 at 8:22 PM ET | Washington Post | Posted October 23, 2019 |

When two business associates of Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, were arrested this month on charges that they funneled foreign money into U.S. elections, federal prosecutors working on a different case in Chicago took note.

The investigators had previously come across the two men, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, as they pursued a long-standing case against a Ukrainian gas tycoon accused of bribery, according to two people familiar with the matter. They, like others interviewed regarding the case, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing litigation.

The Chicago prosecutors reached out to their counterparts in New York, where the foreign money charges had been brought, to offer assistance, the people said.

Parnas had been working as an interpreter for the lawyers of the tycoon, Dmytro Firtash, since late July. Chicago prosecutors suspect there might be a broader relationship among Firtash, Parnas and Fruman, the people familiar with the matter said.

The new focus on possible ties among the three men comes as the Ukrainian energy mogul has appeared to align himself with Trump and the president’s allies as he fights extradition to the United States.

This summer, Firtash — at Parnas’s recommendation — hired two conservative attorneys who are top defenders of the president.

Meanwhile, Parnas and Fruman, Soviet-born emigres with deep business ties in Ukraine, had been assisting Giuliani’s hunt for damaging information about Democrats in that country, an effort that is now the focus of the presidential impeachment inquiry.

The Ukrainian energy mogul is now facing questions about whether he has played a shadow role in that effort. The Firtash case has helped provide fodder for Giuliani’s theories through one known avenue: In September, Firtash’s Austrian lawyers filed in court an affidavit by a former Ukrainian prosecutor in which the prosecutor claimed he was fired because he was investigating then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden. Giuliani has since cited that document as evidence supporting his claims.

Attorneys for Firtash denied that the energy mogul has any kind of business relationship with Parnas and Fruman. And a member of his legal team said Firtash played “no role whatsoever” in Giuliani’s efforts, adding: “His whole focus has been on his legal case.”

Firtash, who federal prosecutors have alleged has ties to Russian organized crime, has remained a powerful figure in Ukraine despite living in exile in Austria. He denies ties to organized crime and any wrongdoing in the Chicago case.

In July, the tycoon changed legal teams, replacing longtime Democratic lawyer Lanny Davis with the husband-and-wife team of Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova, who appear frequently on Fox News to defend Trump and have served as informal advisers to Trump’s legal team, including Giuliani.

After taking on Firtash’s case, Toensing and diGenova secured a rare face-to-face meeting with Attorney General William P. Barr and other Justice Department officials to argue against the charges, three people familiar with the meeting said.

Barr declined to intercede, the people said.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said that the case “has the support of the department leadership,” adding: “We continue to work closely with the Austrian Ministry of Justice to extradite Mr. Firtash.”

Toensing declined to comment on the Barr meeting.

Spokesmen for the U.S. attorney’s offices in Chicago and Manhattan declined to comment on their investigations.

In a statement, a spokesman for Toensing and diGenova said that Firtash first met Parnas in June and that Firtash has “no business relationship” with either Parnas or Fruman. “No money has been paid to Mr. Parnas by Mr. Firtash beyond his work as a translator for the law firm,” the spokesman said.

In an interview last week, Giuliani called Firtash an “interesting” guy but said he never met him or worked on his behalf.

“I did sort of look at Firtash to see if he had any relevant information,” to assist his claims, Giuliani said. “As far as I can tell, he didn’t. I looked at maybe 20 of these oligarchs.”

He said he did not know whether Firtash had a relationship with Parnas and Fruman. “It’s none of my business,” Giuliani said.

Lawyers for Parnas and Fruman declined to comment.

FIGHTING EXTRADITION

Earlier this year, Giuliani expressed disdain for Firtash, asserting that the wealthy Ukrainian had ties to the Russian mob. At the time, Firtash was still represented by Davis, who was also acting a lawyer for Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen, making him a top target for Trump’s ire.

Davis is being paid by “this guy who’s considered to be one of the high-level Russian organized crime members or associates,” Giuliani told the Hill newspaper in March.

Firtash made his fortune through his ownership of a middleman company that sold natural gas from a Russian state-owned company to Ukraine’s state-owned natural gas supplier and from the Ukrainian company to consumers. The job required connections in both Kyiv and Moscow. He has also invested in a network of factories and other companies, adding to his power through his employment of thousands of Ukrainians.

In a 2017 court filing, U.S. federal prosecutors alleged that Firtash had ties to the “upper echelons” of Russian organized crime. The gas tycoon has been linked in a U.S. diplomatic cable to Semion Mogilevich, a Ukrainian indicted in Pennsylvania in 2003 on more than 40 counts of racketeering, fraud and money laundering and now living in Moscow.

The FBI has alleged that Mogilevich, nicknamed the “boss of bosses,” is also involved with “weapons trafficking, contract murders, extortion, drug trafficking, and prostitution on an international scale.”

In 2010, WikiLeaks published an internal U.S. diplomatic cable from years earlier in which then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William B. Taylor Jr. wrote that Firtash had “acknowledged ties” to Mogilevich in a private meeting. Taylor wrote that Firtash had denied breaking the law but said “he needed Mogilevich’s approval to get into business in the first place.”

A member of the Firtash legal team said Taylor’s description of the conversation is false.

Firtash has since insisted he has no ties to Russian organized crime, telling Time magazine in 2017 that he was never Mogilevich’s partner. “He’s Ukrainian. . . . Half the country knows him. So what?” Firtash said then. “Knowing him doesn’t mean answering for him.”

Firtash was charged in Chicago in 2013, accused of bribing Indian officials related to mining interests in that country. He was arrested in Austria the following year at the request of American officials, but released on $172 million bond and has been living in Vienna ever since while he has fought extradition.

In June, the Austrian Supreme Court ruled against Firtash, paving the way for his removal to the United States.

At that point, Firtash tried one last-ditch effort to forestall the long-delayed start of his U.S. trial.

That month, the energy mogul met Parnas in Vienna through a mutual Ukrainian friend, according to a person familiar with the episode. At the time, Firtash was considering switching lawyers and asked about Toensing and diGenova. Parnas vouched for the couple, whom he had met through Guiliani, and urged Firtash to hire them, the person said.

Toensing and diGenova, in turn, brought Parnas aboard as an interpreter the following month, according to Toensing, who said she was impressed by him his language skills and knowledge of the region.

On July 23, Davis, who had been registered as a foreign agent to represent Firtash, filed paperwork indicating that he was no longer working for the Ukrainian. In a statement, he said he had been replaced by Toensing and diGenova.

Unlike Davis, they have not registered with the Justice Department as foreign agents. A spokesman for diGenova and Toensing’s law firm said that their representation of Firtash falls under a part of the foreign agents law that specifically exempts legal services from the registration requirement.

In recent months, Firtash’s Austrian lawyers filed a court document criticizing the Justice Department in ways that echo Trump’s own attacks on the department, according to a person familiar with the sealed Austrian proceedings.

The attorneys argued that the case against Firtash was politically motivated because Andrew Weissmann, a lawyer working for then-special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, had offered to resolve Firtash’s case if he would implicate Trump and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort in Russian interference in the 2016 election.

In its response, the Justice Department noted the investigation into Firtash began more than a decade ago and that he was charged in 2013 — long before there was a special counsel’s office or Trump was even a presidential candidate — and thus could not be politically motivated, according to a person familiar with the matter. The department also disputed that Weissmann had told Firtash’s team he could have the case dropped, the person said.

In response, an Austrian court has now reopened Firtash’s case, putting his extradition on hold again.

BUSINESS AND POLITICS

In 2018, Parnas and Fruman began a steep ascent into an inner circle of Trump backers, dining at the White House with Trump and breakfasting in California with his son Donald Trump Jr. Giuliani regularly took the two men to official and unofficial events, including political gatherings, sporting events and the December 2018 funeral of former president George H.W. Bush.

The former New York mayor even invited the two men this year to an annual commemoration he organizes of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, people familiar with the event said, leaving Giuliani’s longtime colleagues in New York government scratching their heads.

At the same time, Parnas and Fruman began touting their close ties to Giuliani as they pursued their own business interests.

They also invoked Firtash’s name as they sought business for a new liquefied natural gas company that they had founded in 2018, according to two people familiar with the conversations.

At an energy conference in Houston in March, the two made a pitch to Ukrainian state oil and gas giant Naftogaz, approaching a top official at the company, Andrew Favorov, according to a colleague of Favorov.

During a series of meetings, Parnas and Fruman proposed selling gas to the company, said Dale W. Perry, a former Favorov partner whom the Ukrainian briefed shortly after the meetings.

Parnas and Fruman told Favorov that they hoped to see new leadership at Naftogaz soon that would be receptive to their proposal and the ouster of then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, whom they perceived as opposed to their plans. By May, she had been removed from her post on Trump’s orders.

In an interview, Perry said Parnas and Fruman’s grand plan included one other element that Favorov found puzzling at the time: They said Naftogaz should put aside financial disputes with Firtash, a decision that could provide a windfall of more than $1 billion for the tycoon.

“He was like, ‘The Firtash debt? Why are these guys talking about that?’ ” Perry said of Favorov. “He just couldn’t understand it.”

Favorov could not be reached for comment.

Meanwhile, Parnas and Fruman were also assisting Giuliani as he sought information in Ukraine to prove his claims that Democrats received help from Ukrainians during the 2016 election and that Biden had orchestrated the 2016 removal of a Ukrainian prosecutor because he was investigating the gas company Burisma, whose board included Biden’s son.

In fact, the international community was broadly in favor of removing the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, and the Burisma investigation was dormant at the time that Biden urged his removal.

But in January 2019, Parnas and Fruman helped connect Giuliani by Skype to Shokin, who alleged to the former New York mayor that his firing was connected to his Biden work. On Sept. 4, Shokin swore out a 12-page affidavit attesting to that same fact, a document Giuliani has waved on television as proof of his allegations.

According to the document, it was prepared “at the request of lawyers acting for Dmitry Firtash.”

Alice Crites, Paul Sonne, Jeanne Whalen and Carol D. Leonnig contributed to this report.

*********

New testimony undercuts Trump’s claim of no quid pro quo on Ukraine. How will Washington respond?

By Dan Balz | Published October 22 at 6:53 PM ET | Washington Post | Posted October 23, 2019 |

The closed-door testimony by the United States’ senior diplomat in Ukraine significantly changes the discussion about whether President Trump withheld military assistance to compel a foreign government to investigate one of his political rivals.

It is no longer a question of whether this happened. It is now a question of how the president explains it and how lawmakers — especially Republicans — choose to respond to it.

The lengthy prepared testimony by William B. Taylor Jr. to the House Intelligence Committee is painstakingly clear in its rendition of events. His account directly contradicts the president and asserts that military assistance was withheld for months as Trump was demanding an explicit statement from Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky confirming that he would launch investigations the president wanted.

Taylor’s prepared testimony documents with precision and clarity what he heard, saw, wrote and was asked to respond to over a period of weeks. In his telling, the squeeze on Ukraine, and Trump’s role in it, goes well beyond a single phone call July 25 between the U.S. president and Zelensky.

Trump’s long-standing characterization that there was no quid pro quo runs smack into evidence to the contrary. Characterizations now count for less than explanations. How does he explain what Taylor outlines, which is that Trump was directly linking military assistance to demands that the Ukraine president announce publicly his intention to start investigations into the 2016 campaign and former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden?

Republican lawmakers face a new calculus as they digest the contents of the Taylor testimony. They will have great difficulty denying that the suspension of the aid was being linked to an investigation of a political rival of the president. Will they conclude that what the president did was legitimate? Will they attempt to point in other directions? Will they argue that what Trump did wasn’t right but isn’t impeachable? There’s less room for equivocation about what happened today than there was before.

Taylor, who was newly reassigned to the embassy in Kyiv, describes events that took place over several months during the summer as he struggled to make sense of a dual-track diplomatic effort — one run through regular channels and another led by Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, whose efforts in Taylor’s view were detrimental to U.S. and Ukrainian interests.

Trump has called the July 25 phone call “perfect.” In that conversation, he asked for “a favor” from Zelensky and specifically mentioned 2016 and the Bidens. He has pointed to the rough transcript of the phone call to suggest there was nothing explicit enough in the exchange to warrant an impeachment inquiry, which he has regularly denounced and which he likened Tuesday to “a lynching.”

Taylor’s prepared testimony, however, dramatically undercuts the argument that there was no linkage. Taylor acknowledges that Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union and a central figure in the Ukraine matter, explicitly told Taylor that Trump said there was no quid pro quo. But Taylor’s version of events makes it clear that denying there was no quid pro quo doesn’t square with the facts.

At first, Taylor could not quite put the pieces together, but slowly they fell into place. Taylor, the senior diplomat in Ukraine and a former ambassador to that country, testified that until the president released the rough transcript of the July 25 telephone call with Zelensky, he had not been read into the contents of it.

What he eventually realized, but not until much later, was that the official policy of the United States — a policy of strong support for Ukraine in the face of Russian hostility and military threat — was “undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani.”

Taylor says he was told by another official that Trump had told Sondland he wasn’t asking for a quid pro quo. “But President Trump did insist that President [Zelensky] go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference,” according to the prepared testimony.

If that is how things played out, that is about as explicit as it can be. And it was shortly after that when Taylor told Sondland and Kurt Volker, who was special envoy for Ukraine, “I think it is crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Days later, the hold on the military aid was lifted.

If there is a contrary version of events, the president is now under pressure to present it. Taylor outlines phone calls, diplomatic cables, face-to-face meetings and text messages among a group of U.S. officials during the period when military aid had been suspended, though for no clear reason other than by order of the president.

The first response from the White House to Taylor’s testimony came in a statement by press secretary Stephanie Grisham. She characterized Tuesday’s developments as part of “a coordinated smear campaign from far-left lawmakers and radical unelected bureaucrats waging war on the Constitution.”

Ever since Trump released the rough transcript of the telephone call with Zelensky, the president’s position has been continuously weakened.

There was the whistleblower’s complaint that offered background that buttressed the transcript of the telephone call. Other witnesses, including Marie Yovanovitch, who was summarily removed as ambassador to Ukraine, and Fiona Hill, who had been the National Security Council’s top expert on Russia, have presented damning testimony about the two-track diplomatic efforts, Giuliani’s role and what became an internal war inside the administration over who should control Ukraine policy. Taylor’s testimony adds significantly to the chronology of events, and with the kind of documentation that will be difficult to refute.

Taylor will not be the last word in the investigation. Other witnesses will appear before the Intelligence Committee. The White House will have an opportunity to offer additional explanations or a counternarrative. The president’s allies will, too. But what was put into the record Tuesday, unless there is a powerful rebuttal that goes beyond simple denials, makes the debate of the words “quid pro quo” less relevant than the question of how lawmakers react to what happened.

*********

‘Alarming circumstances’: A distressed diplomat tells a tale of venal intrigue

By Greg Jaffe and Greg Miller | Published October 22 at 7:24 PM ET | Washington Post | Posted October 23, 2019 |

Ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. looked out over the front lines of Ukraine’s long war with Russian-backed separatists last July, taking in a damaged bridge and then, farther in the distance, an “armed and hostile” enemy.

Taylor had taken the job of acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine reluctantly, he said in congressional testimony Tuesday. His decision came only after assurances from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in late May that President Trump was committed to helping Kyiv hold off forces, armed and funded by Moscow, that had besieged the country for nearly five years.

Now it was July and Taylor was already doubting both his decision and his country’s intentions.

The Trump administration's official policy, which had bipartisan backing, was to support a young democracy “struggling to break free of its past” and battling Russian aggression. But it was becoming increasingly clear to Taylor that those noble intentions were being “fundamentally undermined by an irregular, informal channel of U.S. policy-making” in which Trump and a handful of allies were withholding desperately needed military aid in exchange for political favors that would benefit Trump’s reelection campaign.

The worrisome signs had been building for weeks. Taylor’s predecessor had been recalled from Kyiv under questionable circumstances. A few days before his visit to the front lines, Taylor had received a report from Washington that the $391 million in military aid was being held up until Ukraine’s new president committed to investigations that would help Trump.

Perhaps most troubling, the ambassador couldn’t get a readout of a call that had taken place one day earlier on July 25 between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That conversation would trigger an extraordinary whistleblower complaint as well as a House impeachment inquiry that would threaten Trump’s presidency.

Eventually, Taylor would be called back to Washington for day-long testimony before Congress in which he described his distress in an excoriating, 15-page opening statement.

But, on this day, standing on the front lines with the new and inexperienced Ukrainian president, Taylor was most worried about the betrayal of a desperate ally at the hands of an American president.

The 72-year-old ambassador gazed out at the guns and troops on the other side of the bridge. “Over 13,000 Ukrainians had been killed in the war,” he recalled thinking. “More Ukrainians would undoubtedly die without U.S. assistance.”

Taylor’s 50 years of service spanned some of America’s greatest successes as well as some of its most catastrophic blunders. He had graduated from the U.S. Military Academy and fought with the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam as an infantry officer. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he had done stints in Iraq and Afghanistan, during some of those wars’ darkest days, overseeing reconstruction aid.

In 2006, President George W. Bush tapped Taylor to serve as ambassador to Ukraine, a place he described as “special” to him and critical to the security of the United States and its European allies.

Taylor was retired from the State Department and working at the nonpartisan U.S. Institute for Peace when Pompeo asked him to rush to Ukraine to take the place of the recently departed ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, who Taylor said he thought had been “treated poorly, caught up in a web of political machinations both in Kyiv and Washington.”

Taylor, who feared that the problems that spurred Yovanovitch’s ouster were still present, sought out the advice of friends and colleagues. One former mentor told him, “If your country asks you to do something, you do it — if you can be effective.”

His wife, he recalled in testimony, urged him in “no uncertain terms” to turn down the appointment. Taylor also sought out the advice of Kurt Volker, who recently stepped down as the U.S. special representative for Ukraine amid the growing controversy over his role in withholding American aid.

“I’m still trying to navigate this new world,” Volker texted him this spring.

“I’m not sure that’s a world I want to set foot in,” Taylor replied.

What followed, according to Taylor’s testimony, was the agonized awakening of a diplomat who arrived certain that he was being put in place to deliver implacable American support, but gradually came to understand that the entire U.S. relationship was being subverted for the president’s political gain.

Taylor came to Kyiv so confident in his mandate that he brought hard copies of two documents: a congratulatory letter from Trump to Ukraine’s newly elected leader, in which Trump invited Zelensky to a meeting at the Oval Office, and a framed pledge by Pompeo that the United States would never recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

Within days, however, Taylor began to detect signs of an “irregular, informal” diplomatic channel competing with his own, and a secret agenda seeping into U.S. policy. Upon arrival, he wrote, he faced “a weird combination of encouraging, confusing, and ultimately alarming circumstances.”

Among the first clues was the resistance he encountered trying to deliver on Trump’s White House invite. Before he could even begin to discuss dates, Taylor said, two other diplomats informed him that Trump first “wanted to hear from Zelensky,” though it was not clear yet about what.

On June 27, Taylor got a fuller explanation from Gordon Sondland, a wealthy Trump donor who had been named U.S. ambassador to the European Union. In a phone call, Sondland told Taylor that the president wanted assurances that Zelensky would not stand in the way of “investigations.”

What that meant was left unsaid. But by then, there were other indications of Trump’s intent. Among them were odd statements by his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, that he was pursuing meetings with officials in Ukraine that he hoped would deliver politically valuable material to his client.

There were also disconcerting signs that those responsible for the “irregular channel” were seeking to hide their tracks. On June 28, Taylor was scheduled to join Sondland and others on a conference call with Zelensky. But before the call got underway, Sondland said that “he wanted to make sure no one was transcribing or monitoring as they added President Zelensky to the call.”

“I sensed something odd” about that request, Taylor wrote in his testimony.

Volker, an old friend of Taylor’s, also seemed to be pursuing aims at odds with the Trump administration’s official policy. In that same call — before Zelensky joined it — Volker said he would be meeting with the Ukrainian leader days later and planned to press him to commit to investigations that would “get to the bottom of things.”

Taylor was so troubled by the dissonant signals that he reported the conversation to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, putting his concerns in a memo that presumably now resides among the files at the State Department that Pompeo has not yet furnished to impeachment investigators.

In mid-July, Taylor began to assemble a fuller picture of the Ukraine intrigue.

On a video conference call with White House officials on July 18, Taylor heard the voice of someone out of the camera’s frame, an official from the Office of Management and Budget informing the group that she had been instructed not to allow any additional military aid to flow to Ukraine until further notice.

“I and others sat in astonishment,” Taylor said. “The Ukrainians were fighting the Russians and counted on not only the training and weapons, but also the assurance of U.S. support.” The OMB official offered no explanation for the sudden suspension of this aid, except to say that “the directive had come from the president to the chief of staff to OMB.”

“In an instant, I realized that one of the key pillars of our strong support for Ukraine was threatened,” Taylor testified. “The irregular policy channel was running contrary to the goals of longstanding U.S. policy.”

The cessation of aid appears to have caught the attention of Cabinet-level officials in ways that other developments — including the removal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine in May, and Giuliani’s public comments about Kyiv conspiracy theories — had not. The Pentagon swiftly produced an analysis showing that the military aid was effective and should continue. Pompeo, CIA Director Gina Haspel and national security adviser John Bolton sought a meeting with Trump to raise the issue, but delays and difficulties prevented that from happening until September.

Meanwhile, Taylor’s isolation in Kyiv prevented him from learning in real time about disturbing developments at the White House. It wasn’t until July 19 — in a call with Fiona Hill, the White House’s top adviser on Russia — that Taylor learned about a meeting nine days earlier in Washington at which Sondland told members of a Ukraine delegation that their existing anti-corruption work wasn’t enough. They needed to look back at cases regarded as closed, Sondland said.

Bolton and others saw Sondland’s line as a clear reference to Trump’s desire to have Ukrainian authorities dig up dirt on former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who had secured a lucrative position on the board of a Ukrainian gas company at a time when his father was overseeing Obama administration policy.

Trump was also determined that Zelensky pursue discredited conspiracy theories involving Democratic computer servers supposedly being hidden in Ukraine. Bolton halted the meeting on the spot, according to Taylor’s testimony, telling Hill to go “brief the lawyers” on what had happened and likening the proposed transaction to a “drug deal.”

In Kyiv, it fell to Taylor to decipher these puzzling developments for increasingly worried Ukrainian officials. Often, he had only partial answers, in part because officials in his own government were working to keep him in the dark. When he heard that Volker had met with Giuliani about Ukraine, Taylor tried to confront Volker, asking him if it were true, but “received no response.”

At other moments, Sondland and Volker laid out aspects of their scheme with surprising candor. On July 19 and 20, the two diplomats engaged Taylor in a series of encrypted texts and phone calls, saying that prospects of a Trump-Zelensky call were improving but that Zelensky had to convince Trump that he would “leave no stone unturned” regarding Trump’s sought-after probes.

Trump used his July 25 call with Zelensky to secure that very commitment, reminding the leader of Ukraine how much aid his country received from the United States before soliciting dirt on Biden and material that might help substantiate 2016 conspiracy claims with the line: “I would like you to do us a favor though.”

Again, the details were hidden from the country’s acting ambassador. “Strangely,” Taylor testified, “I received no readout of the call from the White House,” even though he was scheduled to meet with Zelensky the next day.

As the shadow policy in Washington became clearer to him, Taylor sought to raise alarms. In late August he met privately with Bolton in Kyiv and said he expressed “serious concern” about the conditions Trump was putting on military aid.

At Bolton’s urging, Taylor wrote a cable to Pompeo. It went unanswered.

Nearly a month later, Taylor was in Washington, laying out his story for Congress.

*********

[biofunmy]

$260 Million Opioid Settlement Reached at Last Minute With Big Drug Companies

The big pharmacy chains, including Rite Aid, CVS and Walmart, generally have undergone less scrutiny so far than the drug manufacturers and distributors. That may soon change. “We have powerful evidence that pharmacies were also implicated in this epidemic,” said Paul J. Hanly Jr, a lead lawyer for the local governments. “Those folks now have targets on their backs. Even so, we’re very interested in a global settlement, and we believe those companies are too — or they ought to be. ”

There are many more pharmaceutical industry defendants who were not in the first trial, including generic drug manufacturers, smaller drug distributors, and the other big pharmacy chains. But lawyers expressed hopes that Monday’s settlement could push other defendants to settle their cases as well, even on a broader, comprehensive basis.

One signature dispute between the state attorneys general and plaintiffs for cities, counties and tribes is about how settlement money will be disbursed and who will control the purse strings. One of the biggest criticisms of the Big Tobacco settlement some 20 years ago, which was brokered in large measure by state attorneys general, was that most of the money wound up in legislative funds to balance budgets and even fix pot holes. That is why local governments involved in the opioid litigation want to ensure they have better access to settlement money.

People close to the talks said that a model being discussed was to apportion the money into three buckets: one for the states, a second for the cities and counties, and the third and largest for a general opioid remediation fund for grants, supervised by a monitor who would possibly be appointed by the court.

On Monday morning, when expectations were high that a trial would indeed begin, a line to get into the courthouse began forming before 7 a.m. Many people said they were fans of the plaintiffs’ trial lawyer, Mark Lanier — known for his dramatic, even impish opening statements, replete with slides and props — and hoped to see his performance.

In the scrum following Judge Polster’s announcement that the trial would not go forward, Mr. Lanier was offering samples of the opening argument he would not be able to give, a thundering indictment of the opioid industry that he had spent months preparing. The warm-up alone included a 3,000-year-old Sumerian poppy jar; a first edition of Thomas De Quincey’s “Confessions of an English Opium-Eater”; and a reading from “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.” (As Dorothy falls asleep in the poppy fields: “If we leave her here she will die,” said the Lion. “The smell of the flowers is killing us all.”)

A defense lawyer walking by overheard him, gave an eye roll and said: “You ought to hear my opening. I throw glitter.”

Sahred From Source link Business

from WordPress http://bit.ly/31xgbbR via IFTTT

[evelynzumaya]

The following is my response to a post made by Simon Constable on his blog “His Fame Still Lives” . 

In 1923, Rudolph Valentino hired George Ullman as a business manager. One of Ullman's first orders of business was to fire Valentino's attorney, Arthur Butler Grahm. According to Ullman, Grahm was extorting Valentino by holding a secret, confidential file on Valentino as security he would receive a $27,000.00 payment for his services rendered. Grahm threatened to release the file to the public if he was not paid in full. 

When Ullman took over, he hired Max Steuer to represent Valentino and together they demanded Grahm surrender Valentino's confidential file. For a payment of $10,000.00, a deal was struck and the file was at last in Ullman's hands. The file contained what I believe are the documents presented by Constable in his post, as clippings, police reports and other documents referring to the arrest of Valentino on September 5th, 1916.

This arrest took place in a house of allegedly ill-repute owned by a Georgia Thym. Throughout the years the story of the arrest has been clouded in mystery and primarily because Valentino wanted it that way.  With the existing material available, biographers have reported a version of events which does not really vary much in detail. Valentino was there, arrested and taken in as a material witness. His bail was soon reduced and he was released with no charges filed. 

Coincidentally, just days prior to his arrest, Valentino delivered testimony in the high-profile divorce hearing of New York socialite, Blanca DeSaulles; a woman he was allegedly having an affair with and a woman he would later admit to having been the great love of his life. Blanca DeSaulles' husband, John Longer DeSaulles was a powerful businessman and it has been and still is believed that he orchestrated Valentino's arrest as an act of revenge. 

The file of documents Ullman took possession of about this entire incident was never revealed publicly and mention of that arrest was not a part of Valentino's official story. It would have surely killed his career and reputation and he could also have been deported back to Italy. 

I have reported how Ullman, later in his life, gave papers and artifacts from his years as Valentino's manager to Valentino memorabilia collector Bill Self. Now I wonder; was this confidential file among those papers?  When Bill Self passed on some years ago did this file fall into the hands of some behind-the-scenes collector? And how did Simon Constable come to have it now? And why does he feel it believable for him to lay out a poorly-constructed, convoluted narrative in which he portrays himself as some intrepid sleuth, discovering all of these documents one by one and all without mentioning the location of a single one? I do not believe Constable discovered these documents. I believe he somehow gained access to the confidential file which Ullman negotiated to gain possession of in 1923. 

The problem with this revelation by Constable is that he does not reveal the documents in their entirety and appears to instead post small excerpts and clips from but a few pages. Why did he not post the entire file so the questions remaining could be answered?

I formed my opinion that Constable did not discover these documents while reading the first few opening lines of his post as he claimed “someone” at the New York Public Library sent him to a “room in a building on the 7th floor” where he found all of this waiting for him. What building? Where? I have conducted years of searches in archives both in the US and in Italy and when I find a document I am excited to tell people where it is housed. It also is the only way to establish the authenticity of the discovery. Constable does no such thing. 

In failing to do so, he creates more questions than he attempts to answer and establishes no authentication for the discovery at all. Because of this, I question the provenance of the file which Constable alleges to have found himself. How plausible is it that this case file which was reportedly destroyed, or in the least well-hidden and by Valentino himself would be so easily found by Constable and in a room just somewhere in New York City.

I pose the following questions about Constable's alleged discovery:

Where is the location for the alleged archive of these documents? Are we, readers to believe  an archival discovery of such importance is housed in a “room in a building on the 7th floor” somewhere in New York?

Are these documents, alleged to be at this location, available to the public or were they only shown to Constable?

Are all of the documents Constable alleges to have discovered, including Valentino's case v. the publishing company which Constable reports to be some 30 pages long, the transcript of Valentino's testimony at a later hearing, the partial document he posted with a heading of “Appearances”, are these all housed in this same mysterious room on the 7th floor somewhere in New York?

How did Constable know to ask the librarian about the lawsuit Valentino filed v. the publishing company if he discovered this in the 7th floor mystery room after he spoke with the librarian?

Constable says he “hurried to the place” where he could access the Supreme Court Clerk's minutes. Where is this located?

How could someone at the New York Public Library know about the whereabouts of an attorney's files from 1916?

How did Constable come to the conclusion that because Valentino claimed he lived at the address where he was arrested, that there were no prostitutes there and he did not come there for sex? This is something he just interjects without a source cited.

Where are the articles 1-9, or “I – IX” which ��he references from the alleged Valentino testimony document but does not include in its entirety?

What is the document citation for the testimony of Valentino?

What is the document citation for the excerpt posted as “Appearances”.

Why did he not scan and share all the documents?

Why did Constable not share any of the testimony about the corset and the “laying of a trap”?

What is the citation of the first document posted?

Constable opens his post by saying that this incident in Valentino's life was, 'an occurrence so awful and unforgettable” and then fairly salivates throughout his sensational and self-serving article. This lack of sensitivity to the content of this file immediately establishes his reason for sharing the small bits of this story that he does. I found his tone cheapened the entire presentation. This was an event in Valentino's life he worked desperately to hide and I imagine Constable's post would not be a welcome read for Valentino.  Of course when documents are discovered, the history will change, but I allege this post by Constable was contrived to grant maximum importance to himself and not the material. It is my assessment that this was not a discovery but a revelation of a file of documents which Constable saw as his opportunity to grandstand; a file which was kept secret all these years out of respect for Valentino. 

I, of all people, appreciate the historical discovery but also realize the seriousness of bringing forth those skeletons in a subject's life. There have been other discoveries revealing the difficulties in Valentino's early years. It is now known he contracted a venereal disease from prostitutes as a teenager in Italy, as he himself admitted in a letter to a friend, and I presented evidence of a heavy contention between Valentino and his brother. With every discovery I shared the documents in their entirety as well as the location of the archive. Why would anyone do otherwise? But the disturbing dynamic evident in Constable's post, is his lack of citing the archival location, his failure to share the documents in their entirety nor what I feel is the story of their truthful provenance. 

Despite this, I found it curious that Constable, perhaps unwittingly, provides substantial evidence about two important points in the current history of Rudolph Valentino.

In the alleged document cited as the Publishing Company lawsuit, Valentino was accused of having illegal sexual intercourse with a married woman in the apartment where he was arrested.  Despite this accusation and his arrest, no charges were filed, his bail reduced and he walked away. As someone who has researched and studied Valentino for some two decades, I do not believe he engaged in extortion and I feel he was innocent as the testimony from Valentino, which Constable does share, confirms.

It is not out of his character to have enjoyed the company of prostitutes and even in the most recent publication by my husband Renato Floris, The True Rudolph Valentino by Baltasar Cue, Valentino's predilection for casual sex with many women is revealed.  But in no stretch of any imagination can it be believed that he was an evil blackmailer, setting the women he made love to up in vicious sting operations. I contend this arrest was a set up by John DeSaulles as the scorned husband still furious over Valentino's damning testimony. Constable believes that if DeSaulles was involved, his name would have appeared. Considering the power of DeSaulles in New York at the time, this is certainly not the case. Not at all. Valentino then filed a lawsuit to clear his name which I believe Ullman could logically have stopped at some point in 1923, no doubt seeing it could do more harm that good. I also wonder if the litigation filed by Valentino was a strategy to prevent being deported. 

In the small selections Constable shares from these documents, he does reveal the detailed reports of Valentino having sexual intercourse with women and his being accused of taking women to this apartment to have sex with them.  In revealing the allegations and details of Valentino's sexual intercourse with women at the location of the arrest, I believe Simon Constable has finally lowered the curtain on the Valentino was gay question. 

Secondly Constable has thoroughly debunked a statement made by Tracy Terhune about Valentino's financial situation in that time frame. Terhune claims that at that time Valentino did not have “two nickels to rub together”.  As Constable now reveals, Valentino reported in his lawsuit v. the publishing company, that his annual income from dancing was $12,500.00 a year, (x today's currency exchange rate of x 13 this would have been over $160,000.00.) Even if the lawyer was exaggerating this figure, this is far more than two nickels. Constable has proven Tracy Terhune wrong.

What is there to take away from Constable's post? I believe the only new information he shares is that Valentino sued the Star Company, Inc., Sun  Print & Publishers Assoc.  I think everyone familiar with the saga knows Valentino was there at this apartment and that something untoward took place. In his careful parsing of those documents he alleges to have in his possession, Constable has not contributed sufficient new details  to create much of a new scenario.

Constable pads his narrative with many articles found in his Google searching other cases which are similar. In this ploy he feigns authority on the subject but as it does not contribute to the actual documentation presented about Valentino's case, it only renders his article excruciatingly difficult to read. Constable says that sources are available on request? I am requesting that all of this file, every document he has access to, be available online with the location where they can be accessed publicly.

Has Constable now accomplished what Rudolph Valentino's crooked attorney Arthur Grahm threatened to do in releasing this file to the public? Grahm demanded a pay off to surrender the file in 1923 and this week it appears to have found its way into the hands of Simon Constable. In not sharing the entire file, Constable in my opinion is complicit with Grahm in that he is attempting to exploit Valentino's tragic arrest. This important file should have been presented in its entirety and with great respect and not utilized as some opportunity to write a cheesy and sensational narrative where Constable takes all the credit for the discovery. This is not the first time he has taken credit for other's discoveries. He has on at least two occasions attempted to take credit for my research. 

I call on him to post all of the documentation with its location as he claims he found this all in public archives. His failure to do so is his admittance that this blog post is by and large a piece of poorly written fiction. 

In closing I want to inform Simon Constable that Valentino was not a fake Italian nobleman.

As Valentino ancestry scholar Professor Aurelio Miccoli explained in our podcast episode on this; Valentino was entitled to use the title “dei marchesi”.  

[bharatiyamedia-blog]

Billionaire Harald McPike Wanted To Orbit Moon, But Ended Up In Court

http://tinyurl.com/y52yynkl McPike had bought not a seat but “an opportunity” to be part of a potential mission, said lawyers. Harald McPike had been to the North Pole. The South Pole. Climbed the tallest peak in Africa, the volcano that is the highest point on Earth and the mountain that’s not Everest but gives you a great view of its deadly face. What was left? He wanted to hit the moon with a tennis ball. So when the northern Virginia company Space Adventures told McPike he could get into lunar orbit for $150 million, the Bahamas-based, Austrian-born billionaire trader put down a $7 million deposit. Five years later, McPike has settled a lawsuit against entrepreneur Eric Anderson’s company after spending two years in litigation trying to get his deposit back. McPike’s not going around the moon. When any private traveler might do so is unclear. The lawsuit in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, shows how precarious the world of commercial space travel is, in which customers hoping for the ultimate exclusive vacation fund technological projects both uncertain and extremely expensive. In litigation, lawyers for the company said McPike had bought not a seat but “an opportunity” to be part of a potential mission. “It is an undeniable fact that the Russians have never sent a man around the Moon and that the U.S. had not done so in forty years,” they wrote in one filing. Space Adventures declined to comment for this story. In one court hearing, an attorney for the company said it is “not in the business of litigating, they’re in the business of getting people to space.” Unlike Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, Space Adventures is not trying to build its own tourist rockets. (Bezos owns The Washington Post.) The company contracts with the Russian government, which uses investments from tourists to modernize. NASA also buys seats on Russian rockets. But Anderson, the co-founder and chairman, is the first and only entrepreneur to successfully send tourists – seven of them – to the International Space Station. He set out to be the first to get them to the moon. Anderson has founded several other companies, with mixed success. Planetary Resources, an asteroid-mining project, floundered before being bought last year by a blockchain company. Planetary Power, which aimed to bring hybrid generators to places off the electric grid, folded. Former board members of Space Adventures – now part of a company called Zero-Gravity Holdings – have complained that Anderson kept investors in the dark. One shared with McPike emails airing concerns about lack of access to contracts and other information. In one 2013 email, highlighted by McPike, a Space Adventures attorney said he couldn’t provide the company’s contract with Russia for the “lunar voyage” because it did not yet exist. In court filings, Space Adventures went after McPike’s character, suggesting McPike was no naive adventurer but a gambler trying to weasel his way out of a binding contract. In the words of McPike’s own lawyers, they painted him as “a fashion model-chasing, tax-evading billionaire.” McPike acknowledged under questioning by Anderson’s attorneys that he had been kicked out of 20 to 50 casinos for card-counting at blackjack, which is how he made his first few hundred thousand dollars. He disputed assertions by Anderson’s attorneys that he had moved to the Bahamas to avoid taxes. In one court filing, Space Adventures called “cringe-worthy” McPike’s “record of personally conducting ‘casting calls’ for aspiring Eastern European models,” while promising it was not likely to come up at trial. McPike’s lawyers countered in their filings that Space Adventures spent an “embarrassing amount of time” focusing on his “irrelevant interactions with fashion models.” McPike himself thinks Space Adventures should be cringing. “I’m not embarrassed that I live in the Bahamas, that I counted cards when I was a young man, or for anything else,” he said in a statement. “I would be embarrassed if I ran a business that misled its customers and then tried to publicly humiliate them to distract from what’s really going on.” He filed a flurry of motions to keep his personal life out of the trial that nearly took place this spring. The relationship between McPike and Space Adventures didn’t start like this. In 2012, he contacted the company through its website and set up a meeting in the Bahamas. He signed up. They began talking logistics. “There was a proposal that he hit a tennis ball to the moon which was ridiculous and rejected, I think, immediately,” Space Adventures employee Andrew Mart said in one deposition. “But Mr. McPike is – is an avid tennis player and, so, I thought if it was possible, it would be interesting. . . . I believe we – we discussed some rocket propelled devices but anything that was flammable was – was a concern.” Peter Wirth, a fellow Bahamas-based financier, has traveled the world with McPike. His friend climbed Lhakpa Ri in the Himalayas with a knee injury, calmly huddled in a tent for 48 hours during an Arctic storm and slept on top of Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador. McPike and his ex-wife started the world’s “first traveling high school” so their son could see the world. (Tuition: $85,500 a year, though there are scholarships.) “He just wanted to go to into untested waters – it was always a dream of his,” Wirth said. “There’s not many places where no one has been before.” McPike met with representatives of the Russian space agency in southern Kazakhstan, where the rocket would launch. But he started having doubts and asked that he keep making multimillion-dollar payments only if certain targets were met. An attorney for Space Adventures said in court that McPike was “not the first space flight billionaire who’s thought of that.” But in space, he said, “You have to pay as you go, you don’t get your money back, and nothing is guaranteed.” The contract did say that if the Russians didn’t launch, McPike would get most of his money back – just not his initial deposit. McPike started questioning the terms of the agreement, especially after a 2014 Moscow Times article in which an official from Russian space agency Roscosmos expressed unawareness of the circumlunar project and disputed the agency’s involvement. “This was an incredibly tumultuous time within the Russian space industry,” Anderson said in a deposition. But, he said, he was confident that “we had the relationships.” McPike was unconvinced by Space Adventures’ reassurances, particularly because he had been told he could get to the moon in six to eight years. A diabetic in his 60s, he worried that if it took any longer, he wouldn’t be healthy enough for space travel. He stopped making payments, and Space Adventures canceled his contract. Starting in 2017, two high-priced legal teams fought over the deposit. “There’s $7 million at stake,” Judge T.S. Ellis pointed out in one hearing. “I don’t know about you all personally, but big-time lawyers, and you guys are, all of you, would not take long to rack up at least half of that amount or more. Now, Mr. McPike is alleged to be a billionaire, but he didn’t get there because he’s stupid. . . . People who care about making a lot of money typically don’t want to throw it away.” What the two sides ultimately decided is unclear. The settlement finalized in April is sealed; each side agreed to pay its own legal costs but would not comment further on whether money changed hands. Space Adventures is still pursuing its planned moon trip. On its website, the company promises that “if you chose to join this Circumlunar mission you will see the illuminated far side of the Moon, and then witness the amazing sight of the Earth rising above the surface of the Moon.”  (This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.) (function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.5&appId=213741912058651";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); Source link

[duaneodavila]

Matthew Whitaker Applied To Be A Judge With A Ridiculous Collection Of Nonsense And Football

Former Tight End Matt Whitaker

Back in 2010, Pretending Attorney General Matthew Whitaker attempted to snag himself an Iowa judgeship. Specifically, Whitaker was aiming for the Iowa Supreme Court, presumably so he could do his part in blocking marriage equality, which at the time had just been authorized by a unanimous Iowa high court opinion. He even waxes philosophic at the end of his application about how the Court has “wandered beyond its constitutional authority” and cites John Roberts lying about how judges are just umpires.

The real story here though isn’t that a right-wing operative wanted to crash a gay-friendly state court, but that his application is so laughably bad. It’s just a complete mess. The good people over at American Bridge have uncovered Whitaker’s application to be considered for the Iowa Supreme Court and… wow. If you wondered why career DOJ personnel are so concerned about Whitaker wielding any significant measure of power in his new quasi-job, this application will set you straight.

5. State the periods of your military service, if any, including active duty, reserves or other status. Give the date, branch of service, your rank or rating and your present status.

I did not have the honor of serving in the United States Military and it is one of the greatest regrets in my life.

Thank you for your lip service.

The purpose of this question is to offer a little bit of affirmative action for veterans — an “all else equal” accommodation for those who gave their service. This chud feels so deeply the entitlement of a mediocre man that he can’t even stomach the idea that a veteran might have an advantage in this job and just needs to spout off that he’s basically “service adjacent” because he enjoys the Expendables and bitching about black people expressing opinions about police brutality.

And I never get these “oh, I wanted to and I regret it” conservatives. Like, some people aren’t physically cut out for it, but when a Power 5 Conference Tight End says this stuff… No. You don’t regret it because if you cared enough you could have absolutely done it. You just wanted to go to law school more and that’s cool, but don’t come at us with this chickenhawkshit. While there are undocumented migrants and gay folks and trans Americans enlisting in the Armed Forces and getting hassled by this administration you now serve, no one should have any patience for this preening.

As one might imagine, the bulk of the application focuses on the applicant’s legal experience. It asks for a rundown of positions held and clerkship information before including the classic “any other relevant particulars.” Seasoned applicants know this is the catch-all for that very, very short spiel about how you served as a mediator a ton while working at your last firm and that gave you insight into the adjudication process that isn’t immediately clear from your résumé or something.

But, you know, it’s a question that requires actually accomplishing something “particularly relevant” to answer. So instead, Hoss decides to treat the poor bureaucrat reading these applications to a rambling eight-paragraph biography — written in the third person for some f**king reason — about everything that’s happened to him since birth. It’s the Tristram Shandy of Suck.

Unsurprisingly, the fact that he played football plays a starring role. FOUR of the eight paragraphs mention football. For example:

Matt received an athletic scholarship from Coach Hayden Fry and the University of Iowa. At Iowa, Matt played in 35 consecutive games during his Sophomore, Junior and Senior years, letting all 3 years he played. Matt was a three-time academic all-Big Ten selection and an academic all-American his senior year. Matt played in two-post season bowl games including the 1991 Rose Bowl.

Weird flex in a judicial application but whatever.

And it doesn’t stop! When asked how his appointment would “enhance the court,” he gets right into it again:

As you can see from my resume, I graduated from undergraduate at Iowa in three and one half years while playing on the Iowa football team. My senior season of football was my first full year of law school and I already had completed my first year of coursework toward my MBA. As recent (sic) as this fall, I was practicing law full time and also teaching a business law class for the University of Iowa in their Executive MBA program. I would bring this strong Iowa work ethic to the Court.

He taught one class? As someone who has lived in Iowa, I find the idea that an adjunct gig represents a “strong Iowa work ethic” offensive.

By the way, this cannot be overstated: MATT WHITAKER HAD ALREADY SERVED AS U.S. ATTORNEY AT THIS POINT. This application is the very definition of why less is more. Just say, “Greetings, state judicial nominating folks… I was appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to represent the United States of America in federal court and now I want this job,” and there’s almost no way he doesn’t get fast-tracked. Instead, he goes on this Desperado jag that only makes him sound like he has no facility for discussing the legal profession. When asked to describe the character of his legal experience…

Overall, the character of my legal experience is broad and diverse. I have represented government, business and individuals in both litigation and transactions. This broad and diverse experience would be a tremendous asset for me with the Court’s unique position in the legal system.

“Unique” is one way to describe the court’s role in the legal system. This wouldn’t be an impressive application to serve as a judicial intern, let alone a judge. And it just never stops. When asked to describe three significant matters, he threw in an RV dealership breach of contract action he’s handled that “settled confidentially.” It ultimately resulted in $26,000 in damages. That’s the big case Whitaker chose to include. Forget “Acting Attorney General” this guy sounds like he’s only an Acting Attorney.

Have you ever held public office other than judicial office? If so, give details, including the office involved, whether elected or appointed, and the length of your service, giving dates.

I was appointed United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa on June 14, 2004 and served until November 24, 2009.

That’s an acceptable answer. It’s exactly the approach he needed to take with this whole application. Is that the end of his answer? Absolutely not.

As members of the Commission may know, my two immediate predecessors as the appointed United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa currently serve as judges…

Dude, play a little hard to get. Is this, mercifully, the end of his answer? Oh dear reader, you know all too well it’s not:

Also, two of my former colleagues as United States Attorneys have been appointed to their respective state’s Supreme Courts…

Jon Favreau’s character from Swingers thinks leaving this message is uncomfortable. It’s actually astounding he never says, “You know who else played football? BYRON MOTHERF**KIN’ WHITE. Pick me! Pick me! Pick me!”

And now he purports to be the nation’s top law enforcement authority. He’s already counseling the White House on policy stances he picked up off the back of a cereal box somewhere along the line. It’s the new American Dream, folks. If you apply yourself to social climbing in enough of a cloying, often embarrassing way, there’s no limit to the jobs you can illegally occupy.

By the way, did you know Whitaker played football?

(Full application on the next page.)

Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.

[ellesheltonwalczak]

July Story: Primer

Primer is the working title. This is an except of a novel I have been working on. 

I couldn't wait to get out of the elevator and into my office.  The short distance in my heels to my office had already made my feet painful stubs. The day had not even started yet and the prospect of figuring out how to look sophisticated and lawyerly with a limp was upon me once again. 

"Any messages? 

"No" Helene replied, eyeing me as I turned toward my office. "Your feet hurt already?" 

Being in no mood to see the expression on her face, I continued to hobble to my office.  “We all can't be as practical as you," which was the very thing I loved and loathed about her.

I tore off my shoes, and sat greatfully behind my desk. Perusing over my calendar i noticed a 9:30 am appointment with Tennesen Beale blocked for an hour.

"Helene! Who is my 9:30 appointment?! A potential new client?!"

Showing more professionalism than her boss, Helene replied through the intercom. "No. He's opposing counsel on the Teague case. He called earlier this morning and asked if you had an immediate opening in your calendar. You did." 

How would he know I have the Teague case? I searched my mind and the week's past events frantically. Had I said something to someone, other than my husband, that I was assisting Ismey's father in bringing a wrongful death suit against William. Crap! was the only thing that came to mind. Had I said that out loud? I wasn't sure, because Helene was silent on the other end. 

"Let't me know when he gets here. But do not show him in right away. I'll let you know when I'm ready." I disconnected before she could answer.

"Crap!" I said again, knowingly out loud this time. I had less than fifteen minutes to figure out who Tennesen Beale was. I wasn't one to keep another attorney purposefully waiting. A lot of attorneys played that waiting game as an intimidation or power tactic. It worked on me when I was a young attorney. But now that I am sufficiently seasoned I found the device lacking in originality and creativity. 

I searched for my new adversary's name. There were no shortages of newspaper and legal articles about him and by him. 

I learned that Mr. Beale, aged sixty-two was a southern son, born and raised in Kentucky.  He has been married for 30 years, and is an alum of the University of Kentucky. Straight after school he ventured to the University of Virginia Law School, (clearly a real idiot I desperately joked to myself) and joined a southern law firm immediately after graduation. This was not his first foray into the personal injury world. It seems that thirty-five years later he was not too eager to leave it. 

The research then proceeded to taunt me with case after case of substantially high dollar verdicts. If I did not feel out of my league earlier, I did now. Looking to the sky I yelled: "Ismey, what in the hell have you gotten me into!" As if on cue, Helene's voice came through the intercom. 

"Mr. Beale is here to see you." 

Horrified. I responded as cooly as possible, "Of course. Just tell Mr. Beale I will be with him momentarily. Helene can you please assist me in my office for a minute." 

"Yes." she  said. That was another thing about Helene. She never gave slang injected responses. It was either, "Yes" or "No," not "Uhuh" or "Nah." I asked her about this once and she said it stemmed from her years as a court reporter. She said that even the most intelligent person appeared  stupid and inarticulate when using slang or abbreviations like "24/7.” These were her personal nails on a chalk board"

Helene looked confused when she entered the office.  "Will you please shut the door." I requested.  "Did you and Mr. Beale happen to hear what I said a moment ago? 

"Yes." said said in a rather bland tone. 

I could quickly feel desperation and despair descending upon my face. Clearly, sensing my anxiety, Helene said not quickly enough, " But Mr. Beale and I were discussing his arrival, therefore we could not make out most of it." Her use of the word "most" didn't help my feelings much.  Not wanting to know the part they did hear, I asked her to show Mr. Beale in. There was no sense in letting my embarrassment and fear take root.

I stood to greet the quintessentially Southern gentleman. He had all the trappings. Gray haired, beautifully tailored suit, crisp shirt, and a bright bow tie to top it off. What was it with southern men and their bow ties? Was this the uniform they were demanded to wear to show solidarity to the confederacy? This Mr. Beale clearly worked out, but not enough to hide the color of his successes' excesses of either scotch or whiskey. I guessed his bad beer days were long over.  Tennesen wreaked of money, success, and power with some congeniality mixed in. I must have lingered too long on my visual assessment because he took back his hand, smiled, and said: "You look good too." Immediately, i shot my gaze downward. Whew. I put my heels back on. 

Tennesen sat himself down and got right to business. "Carine, " he said in his down to earth homey southern drawl, "Can I call your Carine?" 

"Yes. May I call you Tennesen? 

"Well yes you can." He said with a grin. 

With authority he continued, "Now Carine I'll get to the point. First, you're out of your league. You're a family law attorney. You know nuthin about wrongful death litigation from what I can tell. Dead friend or not, you shouldn't be playin with Ismey’s family's money and emotions. Second. You're barkin up the wrong tree thinkin William killed Ismey. You're way off track."

I didn't know whether to like this Tennesen, or find him tedious and annoying. I have to admit I liked his directness. This was sorely lacking in my neck of the woods. But I hated when people wasted my time with their unsolicited advice that only stood to help their cause.  For years I've had countless opposing counsels tell me that I was barking up the wrong tree. I knew that over half the time, if I heard that, I was right focusing on that tree. If it happened to be the other times, at least one of the branches could still lead to where I was meant to climb.

"Carine," he continued "Look..." 

I interrupted. 

Years of experience had taught me it was important to let your advisary know at the outset you are never afraid to play nasty if they insisted the game progress in that way. And Tennesen's faux congeniality had just determined the rules. 

"Tennessean, I appreciate you stopping by." I said with a smile." I have to admit though, I've had opposing counsels who have been meaner, more intimidating, and down right ruder than you. Family law, as you are so obliviously unaware, is a blood sport. Both the parties and their attorneys play it with vigor." I rose.  

"Helene?”

"Yes?" 

Looking down at at intercom as if she were visibly trapped in it,  "Please compile a list with the full names, firm addresses, and the phone numbers for Mr. Grand, Ms. Mardel, and Mr. Rockford. Mr. Beale will be taking this list with him when he leaves here in a couple of minutes." 

"Yes. I'll have it ready."

I then looked at Tennesen who was grinning in amusement. 

"Tennesen. I'm going to help out here, because I've decided I like you." I said returning the grin. "The list I'm having Helene compile for you is a list of family law attorneys. They're well known for… pardon my french…for being real assholes. I think you need some intimidation and guilt training. Tell each one of them I referred you and why. They"ll treat you real nice." I decided to say in a southern drawl. "Then, come back here when you have a better technique. I don't spar with amateurs." 

Smiling and laughing harder than I thought his lungs could bear, Tennesen looked at me with what I could have sworn was admiration. Finally he managed to say, "I like you too Carine. I under estimated yuh." 

Yes. Helene was right. Slang does make intelligent men sound stupid. 

[democratsunited-blog]

Ad Astra consultant ready to close chapter in feud with Kansas Democratic Party - News - The Kansan - Newton, KS

https://uniteddemocrats.net/?p=6413

Ad Astra consultant ready to close chapter in feud with Kansas Democratic Party - News - The Kansan - Newton, KS

A political consultant whose yearlong feud with the Kansas Democratic Party foams with rancor and finger-pointing is working to settle a lawsuit she filed after being ousted from her executive seat.

Casey Yingling’s firm, Ad Astra Group, orchestrated Democrat James Thompson’s congressional race last year, and fallout over the campaign and a rejected request for $20,000 transfigured into a spike that divided the party. Ad Astra’s boisterous grievings earned disapproval from Democratic leadership, which the group characterizes as an establishment unwilling to share power with millennials.

When Thompson lost to Ron Estes in the 4th District special election, Yingling and associates publicly chided KDP decisions. Chairman John Gibson, in turn, accused Yingling of using her position as party secretary to funnel cash to her client.

After a high-profile vote by state committee members in September to extract Yingling from her post, she filed a lawsuit demanding to be reinstated. Her attorney, Tai Vokins, says his client is willing to compromise to settle the case and allow the party to focus on election season. A motion hearing is scheduled for next week.

“I think the reality is there were quite a few people who just don’t like her or her business partner, Levi Henry,” Vokins said. “She doesn’t want to take it lying down.”

Currently, no party rules restrict consultants or lobbyists from holding positions of power. A possible resolution to the case could involve the party allowing a vote to amend those rules.

That was a point of contention in an email exchange last year when Yingling offered to resign in exchange for Gibson calling for a rule change and asking four other executives to step down with her.

Three hours after Yingling suggested the resignations, Gibson sent an email to all 252 committee members, asking them to support a recall effort and accusing Yingling of self-enrichment, which she disputes. The party’s support for the Thompson campaign included a six-figure contribution and other efforts.

“Not only was Ms. Yingling not appreciative of the KDP’s support,” Gibson said, “she was uninterested in coordinating with our efforts. She did not want support or help from the Kansas Democratic Party. She only wanted money.”

Before the Thompson campaign, Ad Astra played a role in electing a handful of legislators and county-level officials. Chris Pumpelly, who would become an Ad Astra associate after the business formed in 2016, worked for Paul Davis on his 2014 gubernatorial run. This year, the group again has taken the reigns of the Thompson campaign as he seeks the party’s nomination for the same seat.

Republicans believe Ad Astra also is pulling the strings for Ron M. Estes, who is challenging Rep. Estes in the GOP primary. Ad Astra denies any involvement.

The Estes challenger donated to Thompson. The challenger’s wife, Ellen Estes, was a campaign manager for Jean Schodorf after she became a Democrat. Finance reports show Schodorf paid Yingling $5,000 for consulting work during her 2014 effort to unseat Kris Kobach as Kansas Secretary of State.

Mark Kahrs, a Republican National Committee representative from Wichita, said the Estes challenge is an example of the kind of dirty politics he associates with Ad Astra.

“There is no question Ron M. Estes is just a ploy to waste money,” Kahrs said.

Ad Astra represents the progressive-socialist wing of the Democratic party, he said, and has ignited a philosophical battle among Kansas Democrats.

“As a Republican, we hate to see it,” Kahrs said. “Just brings tears to my eyes.”

Three weeks before the April 2017 special election, Ad Astra asked KDP for $20,000 to pay for mailers in support of advanced ballots. An email exchange involving Yingling and various party leaders hinted at the animosity that would follow.

Discussion focused on whether the mailers were a worthwhile investment so late in the campaign. Chris Reeves, a national committeeman for the party, raised concerns about an executive office holder seeking party money without showing quotes from other vendors.

“I bring this up because, as you note, you do work for Ad Astra,” Reeves said. “I know there are others who’ve been unhappy with several members of the executive committee for perceived single-end bidding. While those campaigns didn’t receive KDP money or resources directly, as this does, I know some who have asked that have demanded an open bidding process.”

Within a few exchanges, there were complaints of “whiny, self important, sharpshooting questions” and condemnation of the tenor of the emails.

“The point here is that this is an opportunity for the KDP to invest in a significant and impactful way that has long-term benefits for Democrats,” Yingling said. “We are happy to provide transparency, but this is by no means out of the ordinary. This isn’t about a profit. It’s about electing a good Democrat to Congress.”

After losing the election, Yingling and Henry expressed contempt for the party on Twitter and elsewhere. Henry used www.savetheparty.org as a platform for questioning the party’s financial moves in advance of the vote to remove Yingling.

He complained that KDP tried to steal the party’s nomination in the 4th District from Thompson, favoring former Treasurer Dennis McKinney instead. Others in the party wondered if Henry was behind attempts to smear them personally.

KDP committee member Carri New secured a restraining order against Henry a day before the annual meeting, where 121 of 183 delegates voted to remove Yingling. At the meeting, KDP executive director Ethan Corson directed law enforcement to arrest Henry if she showed, according to court filings.

The goal, according to Ad Astra, was to prevent Henry from debating or voting on the matter. Corson told Henry he could vote from the parking lot only if he left immediately after casting his vote and agreed to sign a release waiving any claims.

“All of this was designed to smear young folks trying to have a seat at the table,” Henry said, “so that legacy leaders didn’t have to share power, bottom line.”

Henry said the protection order was unlawful. Because it was served after court closed on a Friday, he was unable to challenge it before the Saturday meeting. New said she filed the order at the advice of law enforcement.

Vokins said party leaders cast rules aside to ensure Yingling’s departure, ignoring bylaws that require a two-thirds majority of all committee members rather than just those in attendance. He also questioned whether the recall petition was valid because party leaders have refused to reveal who signed it.

“If Jesus Christ were the one they wanted to remove and Johnnie Cochran were his lawyer, they still would have removed him,” Vokins said.

After the meeting, Yingling requested a settlement, and KDP — represented by Topeka attorneys Pedro Irigonegaray and John Frieden — rejected her offers.

Corson pointed to the recall petition for explanation of why the party wanted her gone. The petition references her disparaging remarks on social media and concerns over threats of physical violence.

“The Kansas Democratic Party will not allow litigation to distract us from achieving our important mission in 2018: electing Democrats at all levels of government,” Corson said. “Now, more than ever, we must remain united and work together to elect Democrats that can and will make a positive difference for all Kansans.”

Read full story here

[thecreatorformula]

Payday lender lawyer Tim Muir faces reckoning – Kansas City Business Journal

Sitting in a prison cell that is his new home, Tim Muir potentially has years to contemplate everything that went wrong in his life and landed him in this position. But he’s not feeling guilty.

Muir thinks about being separated from his family. He still fumes about FBI agents storming into his Overland Park home wearing tactical gear, guns drawn, and arresting him in front of his children. It’s an emotional wound that remains raw years later.

But in a six-page letter he wrote in answer to questions from the Kansas City Business Journal, one sentiment not evident anywhere is regret. Muir believes he was wrongly convicted.

In October, a federal jury in New York convicted Muir for racketeering, wire fraud, money laundering and filing false Truth In Lending Act disclosures. The charges stemmed from his job as general counsel for a payday lending operation, which a jury determined used shell companies to give the appearance of Native American tribe ownership to circumvent state lending laws.

In reality, the operation — owned by Scott Tucker of Leawood — was run out of Overland Park. The operation generated $2 billion in profits and victimized 4.5 million consumers by charging interest rates ranging from 400 to 700 percent, according to prosecutors.

Muir and Tucker were tried and convicted together. Tucker was the flashy one, spending more than $100 million on luxury homes and cars, a Learjet, lavish travel and expenses for a professional racing team with six Ferraris.

By contrast, the low-key Muir played a relatively unknown character in the whole saga. He lived in a $300,000 house on a cul-de-sac not far from 119th Street and Roe Avenue in Overland Park. He coached his daughters’ sports teams. He helped raise money for charities ranging from a child abuse advocacy center to a scholarship fund for foster and adopted children to an organ donor program. A local lawyer who worked on fundraising with Muir said he was actively involved in the bar association and bar foundation, describing Muir as “a tremendous asset to the legal community and the local community in general.”

That’s a dramatically different picture of Muir than the one prosecutors painted: Muir filed false affidavits that claimed the tribes, not Tucker, were doing the lending. Muir orchestrated a sham merger to make it appear the tribes bought the business, and he even had two of Tucker’s corporate entities sue each other in an effort to confuse investigators and throw them off the trail. Prosecutors argued that Muir went too far in shielding the payday lending operations from law enforcement, making him culpable alongside Tucker.

Who is Tim Muir?

Muir, 46, moved to the Kansas City area with his parents at age 6, immigrating from Australia. He graduated from Shawnee Mission West High School in 1989.

Muir earned a biochemistry degree from the University of Kansas in 1998. He was intent on getting a law degree but couldn’t afford to go to law school right away. So he took a job as a manager at Godfather’s Pizza.

He later enrolled at Chicago Kent College of Law, with a focus on patent law. However, he had to leave Chicago Kent after only a year. His oldest brother, Patrick, suffered from a spinal disease that left him paralyzed, so Muir moved home to help care for him.

Muir eventually resumed law school at KU, commuting from Kansas City. He earned a law degree in 2004, at age 32.

He married Stephanie Tucker-Muir in 2007, and they have two daughters.

Seeing a payday

In 2006, two years out of law school and weighed down by student loans, Muir said an acquaintance recommended him to Tucker for a job as general counsel. Tucker already had several payday lending companies up and running. He drove exotic cars and flashed around cash, offering handsome wages for a new legal staff he was assembling.

“I was employed as general counsel for his company for about six months, and then subsequently started my own firm, becoming outside counsel,” Muir wrote to the Kansas City Business Journal. “There was no job description when I started. I joined a very large legal team that Scott had retained through the years.”

Muir estimated that more than 200 lawyers worked on Tucker’s legal matters through the years. Muir eventually took on the various tribal entities as clients, as well.

“The scope of my representation included business, litigation and regulatory matters,” he wrote. “I regularly interacted with tribal officers, attended board of director meetings and accompanied tribal leaders for government-to-government meetings, including with the New York Department of Financial Services, the Treasury Department and the chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.”

The scheme

Tucker set up agreements with Native American tribes, which prosecutors said involved having the tribes establish corporations on reservation grounds for payday loan businesses.

Russell Bradley of St. Joseph was treasurer for the Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas when Tucker reached out offering a business opportunity. Tribal officials asked Tucker why he was approaching them.

“It was mainly because they wanted to get around the activity of the states establishing more regulations to deal with the payday-loan-type businesses,” Bradley testified at Tucker’s and Muir’s trial.

Bradley said Tucker’s pitch amounted to giving the tribes something for nothing.

“We’d be guaranteed $20,000 a month, plus a percentage over $2 million in lending per month,” Bradley testified. “We would be the owners, and they would be the managers of the company; they’d put up the money, and they would make us a regular check every month.”

Aside from on paper, Bradley said the tribe had little to do with the business. The documents signed by the tribe showed it had no obligation to invest money or pay the operation’s expenses, except for maintenance of a business office on the reservation. The business office — a computer set up in the tribal attorney’s office — was used to funnel financial reports. No one in the tribe was trained on how to use the system.

The loans started coming in as soon as the deal closed. Loan terms were confusing, helping generate excessive fees. Borrowers were told they would pay a $90 finance charge on a $300 loan. Then $75 would come out of each paycheck, leading victims to believe they were on track to pay off the loan. However, those $75 debits actually were renewal fees and not principal payments that would cover the debt in the alloted time. Prosecutors said the scheme’s multipart payment plan, if allowed to go to fruition, would result in a $300 loan costing $975.

In a Netflix documentary series titled “Dirty Money,” one victim, a truck driver named Walter Archer, talked about his experience borrowing $500 from one of Tucker’s companies. Archer said it was infuriating to find out those were renewal fees — and none of the principal had been paid.

“If I was in the same room with Scott Tucker, I would tell him there are millions of people you probably put into a position where, at least temporarily, they were homeless, or they did without electricity, or their water and sewer or garbage was turned off, or maybe they did without food for a little while so the kids could eat,” Archer said in the documentary. “Your greed put them in a very bad position, and you need to stand up and take accountability for what you’ve done and publicly apologize.”

The debate

Muir argues that borrowers knew the terms. He said the agreement was an industry standard used by more than 100 lenders. Customers received multiple emails describing the payment structure and how it worked, stating that if they took no action the loan would be renewed without the principal paid.

Muir also argued that the operation was up and running when he went to work for Tucker in 2006. He professes that he simply followed the lead of other attorneys before him and operated in good faith that his actions met the legal standard.

“All of my clients, and myself, believed whole heartedly in the legality of their business model,” Muir wrote to the Business Journal. “Whether through litigation, direct consultation with state and federal regulatory agencies or engaging congressional leaders in the legislative process, we never shied away from a debate regarding the lawfulness of tribal online lending.”

But prosecutors liken that argument to someone driving 80 miles an hour down a neighborhood street and, when stopped, arguing that others drove that fast, too. The prosecution convinced a jury that Muir was fully aware of the New York usury statute and that Muir’s job was to maintain the lie that these loans originated from Native American tribes and not Tucker.

“Lawyers paid by Tucker and supervised by Muir drafted bogus resolutions that they directed the tribes to pass to make it seem like the tribes owned part of Tucker’s business,” prosecutors said in the trial’s opening statements. “They filed false affidavits lying to the courts across the country, claiming that the tribes, not Tucker, were doing the lending.”

Employees in Overland Park were told to lie about where the company was located. The company went so far as to provide them with weather reports for the areas where the tribes were located, in case customers made small talk during phone calls.

“What the jury heard in a case like this is that (Muir) had an oath,” said Charlie Harris Jr., a partner at Seyferth Blumenthal & Harris and a disciplinary hearing officer for the Missouri Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. “He knew he had an oath and responsibility to represent the truth to the court for each of the entities that he set up. The jury took a look at this case and said these are no more than sham corporations. The management of these companies were not strictly within the confines of the tribes. In fact, it’s pretty clear that the jury’s reaction was, not only did the tribes have little to no management powers, but he knew they’d have little to no management powers when he set up these corporations, and they were set up solely for the interest of making money.”

Tucker, who allegedly netted more than $1 billion, was sentenced to 16 years and eight months in prison.

Muir received about $10 million for his role in the payday operation, according to sentencing documents. He was sentenced to seven years in prison, starting his time on Feb. 27. Muir has filed an appeal.

Muir ended his letter to the Kansas City Business Journal with a simple statement: “Last, I have one thing to say: Prison sucks.”

Source Article

The post Payday lender lawyer Tim Muir faces reckoning – Kansas City Business Journal appeared first on Information That You Need To Apply For Apartments In Shawnee.

Read More At: http://www.thecreatorformula.com/payday-lender-lawyer-tim-muir-faces-reckoning-kansas-city-business-journal/

[newssplashy]

Opinion: As wrongly imprisoned men went free, predators pounced

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — The state of North Carolina paid $750,000 to Henry McCollum in 2015 to compensate him for the 30 years that he, an innocent man, spent on death row.

Seven months later, he was broke. McCollum, who is intellectually disabled, then began borrowing money at 38 percent interest. He kept his financial plight hidden from friends and supporters from his death row years.

But last fall, he briefly and wearily opened up when he was handed documents showing he owed $130,000 on $65,000 in recent loans.

“Sometimes I feel like I shouldn’t be out here,” he said.

McCollum and his half brother, Leon Brown, who is also intellectually disabled, were demonized and convicted in one of the state’s most notorious rape and murder cases. Their decades in prison and their disabilities would have made for a difficult return to society under the best circumstances.

What happened to them after their release proved even more problematic. As exonerees, they emerged with big dollar signs on their backs. Most states compensate the wrongfully imprisoned in amounts that can reach millions of dollars, and exonerees can also win settlements from police agencies — awards that can attract predators.

McCollum, 54, and Brown, 50, proved virtually helpless as hundreds of thousands of dollars of state compensation were siphoned off by their supposed protectors: a sister back home; a lawyer from Orlando, Florida; a self-proclaimed advocate from Atlanta, and her so-called business partner, a college instructor from Brooklyn, according to documents and interviews by The Marshall Project.

By the time a federal judge intervened in the spring of 2017, no trust had been set up for the brothers and money intended for their care had been spent on predatory loans, exorbitant legal fees, multiple cars, women’s jewelry and children’s toys.

Jeffrey Deskovic, an exoneree who established a foundation to help the wrongfully convicted, said he had advised about 60 other exonerees on how to manage compensation and the unwanted attention it brings. The experiences of McCollum and Brown are extreme, he said, but the underlying dynamics are common.

“All were hit up for money by family and friends or were targets of scammers,” Deskovic said.

The brothers’ tragic story began decades earlier. Schools had identified Henry McCollum and Leon Brown as mentally challenged: McCollum read at a second-grade level when he dropped out of high school; his younger brother could barely read or write.

In 1983, the body of 11-year-old Sabrina Buie was found in a soybean field in Red Springs. The killer had jammed her underwear down her throat with a stick.

A schoolgirl’s rumor prompted detectives to interrogate the brothers, then 19 and 15, who confessed to the crime.

Both soon recanted, saying they were coerced, but to no avail. They became two more convictions for District Attorney Joe Freeman Britt, listed as the deadliest prosecutor in the Guinness Book of World Records.

A jury sentenced both to be executed, and Brown, at 16, became the youngest person on death row. After the state Supreme Court ordered separate retrials, McCollum returned to death row and Brown was sentenced to life in prison with the label of child rapist.

Then, in 2014, the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission announced that new DNA testing of a cigarette butt found at the crime scene matched the DNA of Roscoe Artis, who had lived next door.

While the brothers were in jail awaiting trial, Artis raped and strangled an 18-year-old woman 1 mile from where Sabrina Buie was killed. Britt tried and convicted Artis for that crime before he put McCollum and Brown on trial. Police investigated Artis as a suspect in Sabrina’s murder, but never told defense lawyers.

In September 2014, a judge declared McCollum and Brown innocent, sending a packed courtroom into pandemonium.

The brothers knew the wrongs done to convict them. It’s less clear they understand the wrongs they have suffered since their exonerations.

— Drafting a Deal

Nobody was more elated by the exonerations than Ken Rose, McCollum’s lawyer. Rose had been visiting his client on death row for 20 years: “Every time I saw him, he’d say, ‘I don’t belong here, I’m innocent, when can I go home?'”

Before the brothers could qualify for the maximum $750,000 in state reparations, Rose needed to obtain an official pardon from the governor.

In the meantime, the brothers went home to the care of Geraldine Brown, Brown’s sister and McCollum’s half sister. In the 30 years the men were in prison, Geraldine Brown had visited Leon Brown once; she never went to see McCollum.

She had no job or car, and relied on funds raised by Rose’s nonprofit law center for rent and utilities. Sometimes social workers took the men shopping. They said they learned that if they entrusted the sister with cash, the bills went unpaid.

Months passed with no pardon and no compensation. A cousin mentioned the brothers’ plight to Kimberly Weekes, an Atlanta woman who said she was an advocate who worked on voter registration, food drives and recycling campaigns.

After speaking with Geraldine Brown, Weekes contacted an instructor at Metropolitan College in New York whom she said was her business partner. Weekes and the partner, Deborah Pointer, then drafted a contract for “advocacy and civil rights.” The brothers would owe Pointer & Weekes Inc. a cut of any reparation: 10 percent of loans, 5 percent of state compensation and 1 percent of lawsuit settlements.

Geraldine Brown signed and Weekes began searching for a lawyer to take over the case.

Rose soon received a fax from Geraldine Brown saying that he should step aside and that Weekes represented the family “in all or any of the Civil/Litigation.”

Rose viewed the fax as nonsense. But he didn’t view the women as cranks: “I think they were very serious in taking whatever they could from my clients.”

— Taking a Big Cut

On Feb. 27, Geraldine Brown and her brothers finalized a contract with Patrick Megaro, a lawyer based in Orlando, Florida, to take over from Rose and other lawyers suing police. Leon Brown signed with an “X.” The contract specified that the family owed Megaro 33 percent of awards, even if they fired him. Legal experts said the contingency clause probably violated state bar rules.

Weekes and Pointer secured money for the brothers — and for themselves — from a firm that lends to plaintiffs in anticipation of a settlement or jury award.

Megaro approved two $100,000 loans, one for each brother, with an annual interest rate of 41.6 percent and a $5,000 fee wrapped into the principal. The loan documents show that Megaro authorized the payment of $20,000 to Pointer and Weekes.

Megaro sent a letter to Rose and the legal team suing police, demanding their files and stating that he alone represented the brothers. The coup stunned the lawyers, but they could see no way to challenge the contract.

After her $10,000 payout arrived, Weekes made one trip to North Carolina. She said she helped the family with shopping and found a nicer rental home. Pointer never met the brothers. She set up a Facebook page and a change.org petition, and had her students at Metropolitan College call the governor’s office to demand a pardon.

In June 2015, the governor pardoned the men. A publicist for Pointer and Weekes touted them as “the two female power execs” behind the men’s freedom.

In September 2015, an administrative law judge approved the $750,000 payouts to each brother. Leon Brown did not attend the hearing. He had been admitted to a psychiatric facility, his seventh since his release.

Brown had had psychotic breaks in prison, which were now getting worse. His sister could not get him to take his antipsychotic medications. She said he had talked about being raped by inmates and tied to his bunk by guards. He worried that God wouldn’t forgive him. He rocked in place and refused to eat or drink for days.

The day before the administrative hearing, Megaro requested that Geraldine Brown be named Leon Brown’s guardian, despite her inability to manage his mental illness or her own finances. Creditors have filed at least 16 liens against her; she has been evicted three times. Nevertheless, the guardianship was granted.

In October, North Carolina wrote Megaro a check for $1.5 million, half intended for each client, tax-free. Megaro took more than one-third of each brother’s compensation, according to Leon Brown’s court files and McCollum. Payment on the high-interest loan took another $110,000. Each brother was left with less than half of his award.

Megaro declined to discuss his fees, the loans, the payments to the advocates or making Geraldine Brown guardian.

In an April 2017 interview, he denied taking advantage of his clients.

“I like these guys,” Megaro said. “They are nice people, even if they are mentally disabled. It doesn’t matter.”

— ‘Frivolous Spending’

Rose, who worked pro bono on the pardons, had planned to protect the brothers’ money in trusts that guaranteed fixed payments for life, about $3,000 a month each, based on the $750,000 awards.

That has been the practice in North Carolina: Exonerees keep their entire compensation. Lawyers are typically paid by taking a cut of settlements with the police.

For his part, Megaro did not set up trusts, even after admitting in court that his clients needed protection from “fraudsters and frivolous spending.” After taking his cut, Megaro distributed the remainder to McCollum and began sending money to Geraldine Brown, as Leon’s guardian.

McCollum was soon broke and borrowing with Megaro’s approval. He would not discuss where the money went.

His brother’s finances, supervised by the court, have more of a paper trail. Although guardians can legally spend money only on their wards, Geraldine Brown bought women’s jewelry and shoes, diapers and toys.

Motor vehicle records show she also acquired a Dodge van, a 2010 Mustang, a 2004 BMW and a 1995 Lexus.

The court ultimately stripped her of the guardianship and cut off access to her brother’s money.

At a hearing, Geraldine Brown admitted she had also asked McCollum for thousands of dollars and had taken out a $25,000 high-interest loan in Leon Brown’s name, also with Megaro’s approval.

The judge found her in contempt of court and ordered her jailed.

“Why you would take advantage of a poor soul like that, I do not know,” the judge said.

Geraldine Brown replied: “I’m sorry you feel that way.”

She conceded in an interview that she should have never been made guardian. When it comes to lawyers, loans and contracts, Brown said: “I’m incompetent too. I’m not going to stand here and lie.”

Last spring, Megaro filed court papers saying he had reached a settlement with Red Springs police. Each client would be awarded $500,000.

Judge Terrence Boyle of U.S. District Court announced he would not approve any settlement before determining whether McCollum was competent to sign the contract with Megaro. Boyle appointed a guardian to investigate.

The guardian discovered the predatory loans. He learned Megaro had not set up a trust or estimated his clients’ future medical needs. After Megaro’s fees and loan payments, McCollum would net $178,000 and Leon Brown $308,000 from the police settlement.

At the next hearing, Megaro angered the judge by repeatedly refusing to reveal his fees for the earlier state compensation.

He insisted that McCollum was competent to hire his own lawyer.

Boyle zeroed in on this claim when Rose took the stand: “Is it your impression that the same vulnerability that subjected him to a false confession and 31 years of death row imprisonment is now operating on his claims for recovery, that he’s subject to manipulation and control?”

Rose responded: “There’s no question in my mind, your honor, that’s true.”

At the next hearing, Boyle declared that the brothers were incompetent and that their contracts with Megaro were void.

The judge said he would approve the police settlement, $500,000 for each brother, and would determine Megaro’s fees. Court-appointed guardians would put the money in trust and the brothers would not be obliged to repay their loans out of the settlement.

Megaro agreed to the terms but the case is far from over. The State Bureau of Investigation and the Robeson County Sheriff’s Office still face lawsuits.

McCollum lives in Virginia with his fiancé. On Monday, a judge there appointed a guardian to protect McCollum’s finances and recover any misappropriated money.

Leon Brown lives in a North Carolina group home, where his sister visits regularly and sometimes takes him home on weekends. In a phone call, Brown said he didn’t belong in a group home. “A judge put me here,” he said. “I want my freedom.”

As for Pointer and Weekes, they said they were still owed $75,000 from the state compensation and may sue Megaro. Asked if she had any regrets, Pointer said she was offended by the question.

“We came into this with pure hearts to help two brothers who had suffered,” she said.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

JOSEPH NEFF © 2018 The New York Times

source https://www.newssplashy.com/2018/04/opinion-as-wrongly-imprisoned-men-went_8.html