A truly kickass woman, who not only spearheaded women's power on Wall Street, but paved the way for the end of discriminatory practices against women in the business community, died at age 80 on Saturday.
Her name? Muriel Siebert.
She had a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, back when women weren't even allowed on the elevator at the Union League Club. She was the first woman to become New York State Superintendent of Banking. She formed one of the first discount brokerage firms. She spent millions to help other women in business. She developed a curriculum for high school students to learn personal finance. She used a bit of her money to buy furs and learn to fly. Oh, and she made the Stock Exchange install a ladies' room on the seventh floor.
I remember when I had my job interview at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, and my soon-to-be mentor took me to lunch at the University Club. Women were't allowed to be members, and he had to take me to a special ladies' dining room for lunch. I couldn't even peek into the main dining room. By 1987, the University Club barriers came a-tumblin' down. But so many other, more insidious barriers remain, even today, against women attaining equality, prominence and power inside diehard male bastions of the business world.
Women in business, women in the professions, women in the arts and in the trades. We still tend not to climb to the same levels as men when it comes to money, position or clout. Still, we owe a huge thank you and a moment of celebratory silence in memory of a woman who put her energy, her time, and her money, where her heart was: Toward equalizing women as power-movers and money-makers and, for heaven's sake, as people.
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Monday, August 26, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
The Lean In/Have It All Debate -- And Hope
This is a long post, but it's about two topics I'm quite passionate about: The near-dearth of women in leadership positions, and the so-called 'have it all' work-life balance debate, which isn't as gender-oriented as many claim.
Although these two related issues are easily melded into one, they should remain discrete.
Over the past few weeks, Sheryl Sandberg's book, 'Lean In: Women, Work and The Will To Lead' (you must have a subtitle in non-fiction!) has caused a gargantuan media splash, and even a 'catfight' among some prominent women. And in the midst of the brouhaha, I see a confusing blend of 'leaning in' advice with (I'm grimacing) 'having it all' proclamations.
Stop the noise.
Ms. Sandberg's book (co-written with one of her fellow Harvard graduates, writer Nell Scovell), focuses on women at the top. It's about the hackneyed 'glass ceiling' and what we, as woman, can do within ourselves to break it. Ms. Sandberg does not disregard societal and corporate impediments to gender equality. She does not suggest that women are solely responsible for the scanty number of women in the 'C-Suites' and corner offices. Instead, she seeks to raise awareness about thoughts and actions -- even subconscious ones -- that can be altered by women themselves to start increasing our numbers at leadership levels.
Everyone knows the number of women leaders -- in business, politics, the professions, the trades, even the arts -- has flatlined, despite our 50/50 + numbers in colleges and graduate schools, and our oft-hailed academic superiority over the brawnier sex. Ms. Sandberg, who is the Chief Operating Officer at Facebook, is a staunch believer that women can work to improve their chances of becoming leaders if we are more self-aware of certain gender-based stereotypes, assumptions, internal behaviors, and societal expectations that hold us back. And then take action to change those biases in specified ways.
Absolutely. It's been said countless times before in recent decades. But NOT by a major corporate leader with a huge media platform, who also happens to be a woman. Finally. A prominent female COO with the brains, power and visibility to ignite the fire under an issue that should have been in the forefront of workers and management, instead of hidden on the back burner.
So why would Ms. Sandberg's book lead to so much back-biting and anger?
Because the issues of gender-leadership lag, and 'having it all' work-life balance, are being wrapped up together in one untidy, imbalanced package. Except Ms. Sandberg barely touches on the 'work-life balance.' Is that because she 'has it all?' I'll get to that in a minute.
A phony, media-touted 'catfight' has been fabricated -- where none actually exists -- between Ms. Sandberg and Anne-Marie Slaughter, who is a lawyer, Princeton professor and former senior State Department official. In July 2012, Ms. Slaughter wrote an article in The Atlantic entitled 'Why Women Still Can't Have It All,' which noted some of the major institutional obstacles to raising a family while working, including overwhelming travel commitments. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/ Some have latched on to Professor Slaughter's article as a rejection of the feminist working mom ideal, when, in fact, the article was written after Professor Slaughter faced a family crisis and turned down a promotion in order to handle it.
In fact, in a recent interview at Wharton, Professor Slaughter acknowledged the validity of Ms. Sandberg's exhortations, and reiterated that external change was also needed to ensure that both women and men need to pursue a proper balance, both within themselves and via organizational changes, as they attained leadership positions. Or as she put it: "[Women and men need to] own what we want and recognize that if we want both the power and dignity of a profession and the love of family -- however family is constructed -- that is entirely legitimate....[And then] have the courage to both talk about it and ask for change. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3181
Neither Ms. Sandberg nor Professor Slaughter ignore the need for systemic change, either, as stated beautifully by a Latina psychologist: "Companies and organizations [must] begin to implement major structural and policy changes designed to promote leadership among women." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/angelica-perezlitwin-phd/sheryl-sandbergs-lean-in_b_2901372.html
I can't omit to mention the searing essay written by former Lehman Brothers CFO Erin Callan, who mulls over her empty personal life during her hard-charging Lehman days: "I did have relationships - a spouse, friends and family - and none of them got the best version of me. They got what was left over." She ends her essay with a terrible lesson: If Lehman hadn't gone down in flames, she may never have discovered that she needed to learn to appreciate her life. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/is-there-life-after-work.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&
In the aftermath of Ms. Callan's essay, she has done some back-tracking, insisting she isn't sad at all. She says her essay was just a cautionary be-careful-what-you wish-for tale. A 'do what feels right, but think about it first' kind of piece. http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/15/17301962-former-lehman-cfo-erin-callan-dont-do-it-like-me?lite
That makes me raise my eyebrows a little. Her words in the essay, "I did not know how to value who I was versus what I did," and "I can't make up for lost time" are laced with incredible sorrow and regret. I think her interviewer, Ann Curry at NBC News, summarized Ms. Callan's current views better than Ms. Callan: "Just look before you lean."
Ms. Sandberg, who doesn't focus her 'Lean In' initiative on the 'work-life balance' at all, is not at odds with Ms. Slaughter. Or with Ms. Callan. Their credos are complementary: Internal initiative - if you want to 'go for it ' - plus institutional change will yield a new, more positive dynamic between work and personal life. For both women and men.
Honestly, I'm appalled by the reactions of Ms. Sandberg's critics -- mostly women -- who mistakenly combine Lean In's leadership self-help suggestions with the 'having it all' issue. Maureen Dowd lambasts Ms. Sandberg personally for 'having it all' and ipso facto unqualified to write about the gender leadership gap, denigrating Ms. Sandberg as a "PowerPoint Pied Piper in Prada ankle boots reigniting the women’s revolution." She snarks away with tart lines like: "[Sandberg] seems to think she can remedy social paradigms with a new kind of club — a combo gabfest, Oprah session and corporate pep talk. (Where’s the yoga?)" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/opinion/sunday/dowd-pompom-girl-for-feminism.html?_r=0
But... if the conversation is going to be about both leaning in and 'having it all,' because the gender leadership gap and work-life balance are inevitably connected? Well, maybe that's inevitable. Maybe my attempt to keep them discrete is artificial.
In which case, the perspective of a 'Millennial' professional woman -- the audience to whom Lean In is really addressed -- may have the greatest validity and poignancy yet. Valarie Kaur, a thirty-something activist-writer, acknowledges that 'leaning in' to careers requires female and male professionals, of all backgrounds, to 'lean on' others to perform household services. That systemic change is required, to revolutionize and innovate the workplace, in addition to personal ambition.
But, most important - and what gives me hope for the next generation of leaders, Ms. Kaur suggests that 'leaning toward' is what should really be the focus of this conversation. She writes that 'having it all' (i.e., having a fabulous career and a wonderful family life) was never part of the equation for her many many of her peers. She writes: "We never wanted to 'have it all' for ourselves. We wanted to have enough for everyone. And that is what we’re leaning toward." http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/15/lean-in-for-millennials-the-question-is-what-are-we-leaning-towards/
Ah. Hope. Now that's something we can all agree on.
I hope!
Addendum:
This article has been published in Huffington Post Women:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terri-weiss/lean-in-have-it-all-and-h_b_2904666.html
Although these two related issues are easily melded into one, they should remain discrete.
Over the past few weeks, Sheryl Sandberg's book, 'Lean In: Women, Work and The Will To Lead' (you must have a subtitle in non-fiction!) has caused a gargantuan media splash, and even a 'catfight' among some prominent women. And in the midst of the brouhaha, I see a confusing blend of 'leaning in' advice with (I'm grimacing) 'having it all' proclamations.
Stop the noise.
Ms. Sandberg's book (co-written with one of her fellow Harvard graduates, writer Nell Scovell), focuses on women at the top. It's about the hackneyed 'glass ceiling' and what we, as woman, can do within ourselves to break it. Ms. Sandberg does not disregard societal and corporate impediments to gender equality. She does not suggest that women are solely responsible for the scanty number of women in the 'C-Suites' and corner offices. Instead, she seeks to raise awareness about thoughts and actions -- even subconscious ones -- that can be altered by women themselves to start increasing our numbers at leadership levels.
Everyone knows the number of women leaders -- in business, politics, the professions, the trades, even the arts -- has flatlined, despite our 50/50 + numbers in colleges and graduate schools, and our oft-hailed academic superiority over the brawnier sex. Ms. Sandberg, who is the Chief Operating Officer at Facebook, is a staunch believer that women can work to improve their chances of becoming leaders if we are more self-aware of certain gender-based stereotypes, assumptions, internal behaviors, and societal expectations that hold us back. And then take action to change those biases in specified ways.
Absolutely. It's been said countless times before in recent decades. But NOT by a major corporate leader with a huge media platform, who also happens to be a woman. Finally. A prominent female COO with the brains, power and visibility to ignite the fire under an issue that should have been in the forefront of workers and management, instead of hidden on the back burner.
So why would Ms. Sandberg's book lead to so much back-biting and anger?
Because the issues of gender-leadership lag, and 'having it all' work-life balance, are being wrapped up together in one untidy, imbalanced package. Except Ms. Sandberg barely touches on the 'work-life balance.' Is that because she 'has it all?' I'll get to that in a minute.
A phony, media-touted 'catfight' has been fabricated -- where none actually exists -- between Ms. Sandberg and Anne-Marie Slaughter, who is a lawyer, Princeton professor and former senior State Department official. In July 2012, Ms. Slaughter wrote an article in The Atlantic entitled 'Why Women Still Can't Have It All,' which noted some of the major institutional obstacles to raising a family while working, including overwhelming travel commitments. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/ Some have latched on to Professor Slaughter's article as a rejection of the feminist working mom ideal, when, in fact, the article was written after Professor Slaughter faced a family crisis and turned down a promotion in order to handle it.
In fact, in a recent interview at Wharton, Professor Slaughter acknowledged the validity of Ms. Sandberg's exhortations, and reiterated that external change was also needed to ensure that both women and men need to pursue a proper balance, both within themselves and via organizational changes, as they attained leadership positions. Or as she put it: "[Women and men need to] own what we want and recognize that if we want both the power and dignity of a profession and the love of family -- however family is constructed -- that is entirely legitimate....[And then] have the courage to both talk about it and ask for change. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3181
Neither Ms. Sandberg nor Professor Slaughter ignore the need for systemic change, either, as stated beautifully by a Latina psychologist: "Companies and organizations [must] begin to implement major structural and policy changes designed to promote leadership among women." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/angelica-perezlitwin-phd/sheryl-sandbergs-lean-in_b_2901372.html
I can't omit to mention the searing essay written by former Lehman Brothers CFO Erin Callan, who mulls over her empty personal life during her hard-charging Lehman days: "I did have relationships - a spouse, friends and family - and none of them got the best version of me. They got what was left over." She ends her essay with a terrible lesson: If Lehman hadn't gone down in flames, she may never have discovered that she needed to learn to appreciate her life. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/is-there-life-after-work.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&
In the aftermath of Ms. Callan's essay, she has done some back-tracking, insisting she isn't sad at all. She says her essay was just a cautionary be-careful-what-you wish-for tale. A 'do what feels right, but think about it first' kind of piece. http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/15/17301962-former-lehman-cfo-erin-callan-dont-do-it-like-me?lite
That makes me raise my eyebrows a little. Her words in the essay, "I did not know how to value who I was versus what I did," and "I can't make up for lost time" are laced with incredible sorrow and regret. I think her interviewer, Ann Curry at NBC News, summarized Ms. Callan's current views better than Ms. Callan: "Just look before you lean."
Ms. Sandberg, who doesn't focus her 'Lean In' initiative on the 'work-life balance' at all, is not at odds with Ms. Slaughter. Or with Ms. Callan. Their credos are complementary: Internal initiative - if you want to 'go for it ' - plus institutional change will yield a new, more positive dynamic between work and personal life. For both women and men.
Honestly, I'm appalled by the reactions of Ms. Sandberg's critics -- mostly women -- who mistakenly combine Lean In's leadership self-help suggestions with the 'having it all' issue. Maureen Dowd lambasts Ms. Sandberg personally for 'having it all' and ipso facto unqualified to write about the gender leadership gap, denigrating Ms. Sandberg as a "PowerPoint Pied Piper in Prada ankle boots reigniting the women’s revolution." She snarks away with tart lines like: "[Sandberg] seems to think she can remedy social paradigms with a new kind of club — a combo gabfest, Oprah session and corporate pep talk. (Where’s the yoga?)" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/opinion/sunday/dowd-pompom-girl-for-feminism.html?_r=0
I find Ms. Dowd's insults patently offensive. (Ms. Dowd had to correct one of her comments, post-publication, for quoting something from 'Lean In' completely out of context to support her ridiculous thesis.) What an counter-productuve non-sequitur, by a journalist I used to respect, to an incredibly important conversation. Another reason I'm glad I cancelled my subscription to The New York Times.
Other critics similarly have blasted away at Ms. Sandberg's wealth and background, again confusing her leadership focus with lifestyle issues. For example, her book is referred to as a 'privileged manifesto' (e.g., http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/ae/book-reviews/lean-in-sheryl-sandbergs-privileged-manifesto-679615/). Even self-styled critics on Amazon lob these kinds of grenades at her, instead of leaning BACK in their armchairs to read what Ms. Sandberg actually wrote.
All these critics completely disregard the positive impact 'Lean In' is already having -- It's bringing the gender-leadership lag in issue back into the limelight. Okay Ms. Sandberg may have it all: Brains, money, looks, power, platform, position. But none of that dilutes the power of her message, and her insights ito how woman can help empower themselves.
But... if the conversation is going to be about both leaning in and 'having it all,' because the gender leadership gap and work-life balance are inevitably connected? Well, maybe that's inevitable. Maybe my attempt to keep them discrete is artificial.
In which case, the perspective of a 'Millennial' professional woman -- the audience to whom Lean In is really addressed -- may have the greatest validity and poignancy yet. Valarie Kaur, a thirty-something activist-writer, acknowledges that 'leaning in' to careers requires female and male professionals, of all backgrounds, to 'lean on' others to perform household services. That systemic change is required, to revolutionize and innovate the workplace, in addition to personal ambition.
But, most important - and what gives me hope for the next generation of leaders, Ms. Kaur suggests that 'leaning toward' is what should really be the focus of this conversation. She writes that 'having it all' (i.e., having a fabulous career and a wonderful family life) was never part of the equation for her many many of her peers. She writes: "We never wanted to 'have it all' for ourselves. We wanted to have enough for everyone. And that is what we’re leaning toward." http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/15/lean-in-for-millennials-the-question-is-what-are-we-leaning-towards/
Ah. Hope. Now that's something we can all agree on.
I hope!
Addendum:
This article has been published in Huffington Post Women:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terri-weiss/lean-in-have-it-all-and-h_b_2904666.html
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Yet Another Powerful Man Thinks With HIs...
Sex and powerful men.
It's a repeat topic on this blog because it's a constant issue in the real world. That potent - ha! - combination of power and alpha male, the possibility of taming it, the headiness of proximity to it.
Understandable on the part of women (or men) who find these characteristics irresistible. (Who wouldn't?) And equally so for the alpha male, who constantly believes he can get away with sexual gratification on the sly -- that is, until the media or some whistleblower is nipping at his heels, ready to expose him.
But seriously, won't these guys ever learn? How many of them will crash and burn, just from their inability to keep their pants on? My opinion: they'll never learn, and it'll happen as long as humans populate this planet.
General Petraeus is a true American hero. He's an awesome guy, no question about it. Squared-away, career military, four-star general, CENTCOM commander, director of the CIA, and totally respected in all circles of all political stripes. (You can check out his bio on Wiki -- I always thought it was kinda neat that he grew up in my neck of the woods, right here in the Hudson Valley.)
So why -WHY? - would a straight-shooter, high-roller, man who has everything risk it all for a beautiful, brilliant woman? Did he honestly think no one would EVER know? Did he think it wouldn't matter (like, not even to his now publicly humiliated, and fairly homely, but loyal, überadmirable wife?) if he compromised himself like this?
Or did he just think with his --? Well, you know. Yeah. He did.
And what about his partner? The other woman? Was she too intoxicated by his magnetism as the alpha male to consider the 'what if?' What if her husband found out? What if her two young kids were exposed to her extra-curricular activities? What was in it for her? Instant gratification, without regard for the consequences to herself, and to her family.
A powerful man is once again toppled by sex. Again.
It's a repeat topic on this blog because it's a constant issue in the real world. That potent - ha! - combination of power and alpha male, the possibility of taming it, the headiness of proximity to it.
Understandable on the part of women (or men) who find these characteristics irresistible. (Who wouldn't?) And equally so for the alpha male, who constantly believes he can get away with sexual gratification on the sly -- that is, until the media or some whistleblower is nipping at his heels, ready to expose him.
But seriously, won't these guys ever learn? How many of them will crash and burn, just from their inability to keep their pants on? My opinion: they'll never learn, and it'll happen as long as humans populate this planet.
General Petraeus is a true American hero. He's an awesome guy, no question about it. Squared-away, career military, four-star general, CENTCOM commander, director of the CIA, and totally respected in all circles of all political stripes. (You can check out his bio on Wiki -- I always thought it was kinda neat that he grew up in my neck of the woods, right here in the Hudson Valley.)
So why -WHY? - would a straight-shooter, high-roller, man who has everything risk it all for a beautiful, brilliant woman? Did he honestly think no one would EVER know? Did he think it wouldn't matter (like, not even to his now publicly humiliated, and fairly homely, but loyal, überadmirable wife?) if he compromised himself like this?
Or did he just think with his --? Well, you know. Yeah. He did.
And what about his partner? The other woman? Was she too intoxicated by his magnetism as the alpha male to consider the 'what if?' What if her husband found out? What if her two young kids were exposed to her extra-curricular activities? What was in it for her? Instant gratification, without regard for the consequences to herself, and to her family.
A powerful man is once again toppled by sex. Again.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Shaming the Divorce Bar in New Mexico- and Everywhere
The Huff Po often swipes the news from other media - usually with an uber-compelling, National Enquirer-type headline.
So when I saw a headline in Huff Po Divorce about a rogue lawyer caught on tape breaking and entering the home of his client's estranged husband, I figured it was the usual sensationalist, anti-lawyer nonsense. You know, where the questionable misdeeds of one crazy-bad guy are supposed to portray the theoretical reality of the rest of us members of the matrimonial bar. And because I've posted an occasional blog on Huff Po Divorce, and attracted the ire of lawyer-hating Internet surfers - I know from personal experience just how nasty lawyer-bashing can get on Huff Po Divorce.
But this time? OMG, the "target" lawyer managed to shame not only himself but the entire legal profession.
Despicable Lawyer Raymond Van Amam not only broke into and entered his client's estranged husband's home in a violent fashion, destroying and absconding with the personal property inside - INCLUDING the husband's personal legal papers!!- but embraced his female client in an uncomfortably intimate fashion for at least twenty seconds, after he insisted, "I want a hug, I need some relaxation!"
It made my skin crawl when I heard him murmur, "Shh shh shh shh shh, oh yeahhh, put it behind you, shh shh shh shh shh oh yeahhhhh." The client didn't seem to realize that his moves were absolutely improper.
Just wrong. I sincerely hope the New Mexico Bar does NOT allow Mr. Van Amam, who used to be president of the local bar association, to put any part of his disgusting conduct behind him. He was suspended from practice once before, for cocaine. For crying out loud, get rid of this man's law license!!
The Huff Po's story generated only six comments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/divorce-lawyer-break-in_n_1345334.html?ref=divorce
Versus the hundreds of comments generated in response to posts about Newt's infidelities and Susan Sarandon's divorce.
This is my comment (only the seventh comment in response to the story):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/divorce-lawyer-break-in_n_1345334.html?ref=divorce
All I can say to this is.. unbelievable.
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2534896.shtml?cat=519
So when I saw a headline in Huff Po Divorce about a rogue lawyer caught on tape breaking and entering the home of his client's estranged husband, I figured it was the usual sensationalist, anti-lawyer nonsense. You know, where the questionable misdeeds of one crazy-bad guy are supposed to portray the theoretical reality of the rest of us members of the matrimonial bar. And because I've posted an occasional blog on Huff Po Divorce, and attracted the ire of lawyer-hating Internet surfers - I know from personal experience just how nasty lawyer-bashing can get on Huff Po Divorce.
But this time? OMG, the "target" lawyer managed to shame not only himself but the entire legal profession.
Despicable Lawyer Raymond Van Amam not only broke into and entered his client's estranged husband's home in a violent fashion, destroying and absconding with the personal property inside - INCLUDING the husband's personal legal papers!!- but embraced his female client in an uncomfortably intimate fashion for at least twenty seconds, after he insisted, "I want a hug, I need some relaxation!"
It made my skin crawl when I heard him murmur, "Shh shh shh shh shh, oh yeahhh, put it behind you, shh shh shh shh shh oh yeahhhhh." The client didn't seem to realize that his moves were absolutely improper.
Just wrong. I sincerely hope the New Mexico Bar does NOT allow Mr. Van Amam, who used to be president of the local bar association, to put any part of his disgusting conduct behind him. He was suspended from practice once before, for cocaine. For crying out loud, get rid of this man's law license!!
The Huff Po's story generated only six comments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/divorce-lawyer-break-in_n_1345334.html?ref=divorce
Versus the hundreds of comments generated in response to posts about Newt's infidelities and Susan Sarandon's divorce.
This is my comment (only the seventh comment in response to the story):
This is amazing - this story generated only SIX comments????
As a member of the matrimonial bar, I find the misconduct of Mr. Van Amam an absolute disgrace. I can't fathom his being permitted to continue to practice law after such egregious behavior, captured on videotape for heaven's sake.
Breaking and entering, destroying and absconding with personal property -- and to top it off, asking his female client for "relaxation" and tightly embracing. (His sarcastic comments to the estranged husband are despicable too...)
Appalling misconduct. I shudder to think of the damage this guy could cause to tarnish our reputation even more - that is, if the world of Internet surfers cared about something other than the latest celebrity train wreck.
I guess I should be relieved no one's paying attention to this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/divorce-lawyer-break-in_n_1345334.html?ref=divorce
All I can say to this is.. unbelievable.
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2534896.shtml?cat=519
Friday, March 2, 2012
The Realm of Civil Discourse
Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, calling anyone, let alone a student with the temerity to testify in Congress, a "slut" and a "prostitute" for no reason whatsoever - other than your personal disagreement with the subject of the tesimony - goes beyond any semblance of public discourse.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the … _blog.html
I went to Georgetown Law, as well as to Georgetown for my undergraduate degree. We were always excited by politics on The Hill, a short trip downtown. A lot of students interned there - Republicans as well as Democrats.
Georgetown is a Jesuit institution. Jebbie priests are all over the campus (not so much at the law school) and many of the theology and philosophy required courses are taught by them - or were, back when I was there. While Jesuits are committed to excellence in education, as a Catholic institution, Georgetown has certain policies that are annoying or objectionable to many students, and lead to lively discourse among the students and professors.
Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh verbally assaulted Sandra Fluke, who is a third-year Georgetown Law student (she's in her final year, and is going to be looking for a job upon graduation thus spring unless she already landed one - Georgetown Law students are luckier than many) as a "slut" and a "prostitute" merely for testifying on the Hill, before a House Democratic committee (the Republican House committee said her request to testify had come in too late to allow her to testify about Georgetown's restrictive contraception insurance policies). (I wonder what he would have called her if she were a male student... )
I just called the alumnae office at the law school. They were extremely appreciative of my call, and said they are ensuring that this law student feels safe and supported. And they're protecting her from being bombarded with blasts from the outside as best they can.
They have assured me in the strongest possible terms - and this is consistent with my experience with Georgetown- that they, as an institution, are proud of all Georgetown students, professors and alums who engage in any form of public service.
Ms. Fluke is being trained to be an advocate. As she proceeds with her law career, there will undoubtedly be times when invectives will fly because of a position she's taken. Lord knows I heard enough of it as a matrimonial lawyer... In a sense, I suppose this is good training for what she may face in the future, in the courtroom or at the negotiating table. Because nobody, at least in my experience, ever attacked me at that level, in such insulting terms, even in the matrimonial field. So if she can handle Rush Limbaugh's garbage, she can handle anything.
But that really begs the question: why should she, or anyone else, have to handle this offensive verbal barrage at all?
I feel better having taken SOME action - a simple phone call, leaving my contact info - to express my support for this student.
But my outrage remains, and it seems the law school is equally outraged at the sexist verbal abuse that's been hurled at one of their students.
As should we all, regardless of our political leanings.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the … _blog.html
I went to Georgetown Law, as well as to Georgetown for my undergraduate degree. We were always excited by politics on The Hill, a short trip downtown. A lot of students interned there - Republicans as well as Democrats.
Georgetown is a Jesuit institution. Jebbie priests are all over the campus (not so much at the law school) and many of the theology and philosophy required courses are taught by them - or were, back when I was there. While Jesuits are committed to excellence in education, as a Catholic institution, Georgetown has certain policies that are annoying or objectionable to many students, and lead to lively discourse among the students and professors.
Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh verbally assaulted Sandra Fluke, who is a third-year Georgetown Law student (she's in her final year, and is going to be looking for a job upon graduation thus spring unless she already landed one - Georgetown Law students are luckier than many) as a "slut" and a "prostitute" merely for testifying on the Hill, before a House Democratic committee (the Republican House committee said her request to testify had come in too late to allow her to testify about Georgetown's restrictive contraception insurance policies). (I wonder what he would have called her if she were a male student... )
I just called the alumnae office at the law school. They were extremely appreciative of my call, and said they are ensuring that this law student feels safe and supported. And they're protecting her from being bombarded with blasts from the outside as best they can.
They have assured me in the strongest possible terms - and this is consistent with my experience with Georgetown- that they, as an institution, are proud of all Georgetown students, professors and alums who engage in any form of public service.
Ms. Fluke is being trained to be an advocate. As she proceeds with her law career, there will undoubtedly be times when invectives will fly because of a position she's taken. Lord knows I heard enough of it as a matrimonial lawyer... In a sense, I suppose this is good training for what she may face in the future, in the courtroom or at the negotiating table. Because nobody, at least in my experience, ever attacked me at that level, in such insulting terms, even in the matrimonial field. So if she can handle Rush Limbaugh's garbage, she can handle anything.
But that really begs the question: why should she, or anyone else, have to handle this offensive verbal barrage at all?
I feel better having taken SOME action - a simple phone call, leaving my contact info - to express my support for this student.
But my outrage remains, and it seems the law school is equally outraged at the sexist verbal abuse that's been hurled at one of their students.
As should we all, regardless of our political leanings.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Testosterone-Tanked Traders - A Rant
I've been distracted, working like a lunatic on revisions to Client Relations (I found an excellent writers' website by sheer happenstance - TheNextBigWriter.com - great bunch of writers there).
Along with being wrapped up in the Republican wrangling for the nomination (meltdown followed by meltdown), the near-daily debacles in Congress, the gut-churning insanity of the financial markets (up 150 points today, down 150 yesterday). And I'm not even mentioning the global stage....whew!
No wonder my poor blog is lonely!
But right now, I'm really frosted at all the pro-Occupy Wall Streeters who cheered - mostly from afar, not in downtown Manhattan - a bunch of purposeless people who trashed a private park for months. The "Occupy" people were protesting something (what, exactly?), without ever bothering to get permits. How hard would getting the proper permits have been? Seriously?
The protestors added to the woes of a strapped NYC budget by straining the overburdened sanitation workers and police department -- all for the sake of YouTube videos. While the secretaries, messengers, copy clerks, deli workers, shop owners - stepped over the trash and tried to ignore the media circus so they could get to work every day.
Their distant, armchair supporters across the country didn't have to deal with any of that.
Tsk, tsk, shame on me for having no mercy on the "unwashed poor." Wait, I'm paying NY taxes, among the highest in the nation - while the rest of the country dumps their "unwashed poor" on NY.
Wanna get a movement to counter the marginal but disproportionately powerful Tea Partyites? Have a simple, unifying purpose. Lobby for political influence. Organize to capture elections.
Maybe the 99% concept, which eventually resulted from the ogling media attention the Occupy people captured in the fall, will gain lasting traction in the political arena. Although I'm skeptical, given the lack of money, influence and celebrity (that's right, I said celebrity - Is Sarah Palin, on the opposite side of the spectrum - anything else?) support.
Where the hell are those enraptured, embrace-the-unwashed-poor, anti-Wall Street people now? Apart from maybe (finally?) realizing that their 401-ks suffer when Wall Street shudders, as it has been since last May?
They're certainly not paying attention to the latest wtf moment that lays out the searing issue that Occupy movement SHOULD have been about: Reversing -and strengthening - the regulation of our financial institutions and financial markets.
Sound dull? Uh-uh.
Even the pro-business commentators on CNBC yesterday were flabbergasted at the sworn testimony of former Senator and current MF Global CEO Jon Corzine before a Congressional committee. (Yeah, Congress was actually doing something - hard to believe, I know.) You see, at least $1.2 billion in customer funds has vanished - poof! - from MF Global, causing the company to go belly-up.
What happened to all the money? Congressional representatives asked him. They grilled him for hours.
"I simply do not know where the money is," he said. "I'm not in a position...to know." Huh? The CEO doesn't know and is in no position to know? Wait, isn't a CEO supposed to be, like, in charge of the whole company?
I'm thinking about all the farmers who hedged their risks against bad growing seasons, never suspecting that their funds were being gambled on European debt, and secreted away in the hinterlands. They've no doubt figured out what the "MF" in MF Global stands for.
So what happened to the pro-Occupy Wall Street people? This is EXACTLY what that movement should have been about: the wholesale, large-scale theft of billions of dollars by financial institutions, money managers, wheeler-dealers, and testosterone-tanked traders - all as a result of over a decade of deregulation and indifference by the SEC and CFTC. The prime reason for the widest income disparities (the 99% vs 1%) in the US since the pre-Depression Era.
A wtf moment for Corzine, but also for the anti-Wall Streeters who aren't paying attention now that the young bodies illegally camped out in Zucotti Park aren't posing for the cameras anymore.
There, I've sort of gotten this out of my system.
Along with being wrapped up in the Republican wrangling for the nomination (meltdown followed by meltdown), the near-daily debacles in Congress, the gut-churning insanity of the financial markets (up 150 points today, down 150 yesterday). And I'm not even mentioning the global stage....whew!
No wonder my poor blog is lonely!
But right now, I'm really frosted at all the pro-Occupy Wall Streeters who cheered - mostly from afar, not in downtown Manhattan - a bunch of purposeless people who trashed a private park for months. The "Occupy" people were protesting something (what, exactly?), without ever bothering to get permits. How hard would getting the proper permits have been? Seriously?
The protestors added to the woes of a strapped NYC budget by straining the overburdened sanitation workers and police department -- all for the sake of YouTube videos. While the secretaries, messengers, copy clerks, deli workers, shop owners - stepped over the trash and tried to ignore the media circus so they could get to work every day.
Their distant, armchair supporters across the country didn't have to deal with any of that.
Tsk, tsk, shame on me for having no mercy on the "unwashed poor." Wait, I'm paying NY taxes, among the highest in the nation - while the rest of the country dumps their "unwashed poor" on NY.
Wanna get a movement to counter the marginal but disproportionately powerful Tea Partyites? Have a simple, unifying purpose. Lobby for political influence. Organize to capture elections.
Maybe the 99% concept, which eventually resulted from the ogling media attention the Occupy people captured in the fall, will gain lasting traction in the political arena. Although I'm skeptical, given the lack of money, influence and celebrity (that's right, I said celebrity - Is Sarah Palin, on the opposite side of the spectrum - anything else?) support.
Where the hell are those enraptured, embrace-the-unwashed-poor, anti-Wall Street people now? Apart from maybe (finally?) realizing that their 401-ks suffer when Wall Street shudders, as it has been since last May?
They're certainly not paying attention to the latest wtf moment that lays out the searing issue that Occupy movement SHOULD have been about: Reversing -and strengthening - the regulation of our financial institutions and financial markets.
Sound dull? Uh-uh.
Even the pro-business commentators on CNBC yesterday were flabbergasted at the sworn testimony of former Senator and current MF Global CEO Jon Corzine before a Congressional committee. (Yeah, Congress was actually doing something - hard to believe, I know.) You see, at least $1.2 billion in customer funds has vanished - poof! - from MF Global, causing the company to go belly-up.
What happened to all the money? Congressional representatives asked him. They grilled him for hours.
"I simply do not know where the money is," he said. "I'm not in a position...to know." Huh? The CEO doesn't know and is in no position to know? Wait, isn't a CEO supposed to be, like, in charge of the whole company?
I'm thinking about all the farmers who hedged their risks against bad growing seasons, never suspecting that their funds were being gambled on European debt, and secreted away in the hinterlands. They've no doubt figured out what the "MF" in MF Global stands for.
So what happened to the pro-Occupy Wall Street people? This is EXACTLY what that movement should have been about: the wholesale, large-scale theft of billions of dollars by financial institutions, money managers, wheeler-dealers, and testosterone-tanked traders - all as a result of over a decade of deregulation and indifference by the SEC and CFTC. The prime reason for the widest income disparities (the 99% vs 1%) in the US since the pre-Depression Era.
A wtf moment for Corzine, but also for the anti-Wall Streeters who aren't paying attention now that the young bodies illegally camped out in Zucotti Park aren't posing for the cameras anymore.
There, I've sort of gotten this out of my system.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Setting Husbands Up For Supervised Visitation
There are a lot of angry dads in America who have lost temporary or permanent custody of their kids, and claim it was a setup. That the chips were stacked against them. Their voices are sometimes so loud, it sounds like "What, me paranoid? Is that what everyone's saying about me?"
But a recent scam in California was revealed in the LA Times, and then in the ABA Journal, that shows some of the dads may be right. At least, in Modesto, California.
Several bottom-feeder divorce lawyers, who represented divorcing wives, apparently hired a very shady private detective to set up their clients' husbands to make it harder for the husbands to win custody. The shady detective hired sexy, Vegas-y type women to date the husbands (the husband in the photo I saw was a plumpy dumpy guy), go out for drinks, and - bam!- the husbands would get arrested for drunk driving immediately after leaving the bar or restaurant, courtesy of the detective's contacts with the local police.
In the Plumpy Dumpy case, Mrs. Plumpy Dumpy was able to use the drunk driving incident to get an order restricting her husband to supervised visitation.
Now, it's not clear to me whether Mr. Plumpy Dumpy actually was driving drunk. He was certainly thinking with the wrong body part when he pursued the gorgeous blonde, whom he mistook for having a genuine interest in him. He actually believed her when "she told him he had large, strong hands" and "described his kisses as 'yummy.'" Sorry, but that sounds like hooker-speak to me.
It's also not clear if the divorce lawyers, or just their over-eager paralegal staff, made these dastardly (what a great adjective) arrangements. And I don't know if they will be hauled in front of their local grievance committee.
But that begs the question: did Mr. Plumpy-Dumpy deserve to lose unsupervised access to his kids for this? It was a set-up, for crying out loud. Depressed, lonely middle-aged plumy-dumpy goes for young brassy blonde with hot turn-on words. Duh. Plumpy-Dumpy was an easy mark.
Maybe we should flip the question around: Did the kids deserve to lose access to one of their parents because their parent was lured to a bar by a woman who had been paid by their mom's lawyers (via the detective's bank), and picked up by cops who had been tipped off by their mom's lawyers?
Mrs. Plumpy Dumpy claims she didn't want her husband to get arrested. Her lawyers profess ignorance about the entire matter.
So now, I wonder, who showed the worst judgment of all in this whole sordid mess?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dui-setup-20111017,0,7922829.story?page=1
ttp://www.abajournal.com/news/article/private_detective_accused_of_setting_up_divorcing_men_for_duis_with_help_of
Scams like this are yet another arrow in the quiver of lawyer haters.
But a recent scam in California was revealed in the LA Times, and then in the ABA Journal, that shows some of the dads may be right. At least, in Modesto, California.
Several bottom-feeder divorce lawyers, who represented divorcing wives, apparently hired a very shady private detective to set up their clients' husbands to make it harder for the husbands to win custody. The shady detective hired sexy, Vegas-y type women to date the husbands (the husband in the photo I saw was a plumpy dumpy guy), go out for drinks, and - bam!- the husbands would get arrested for drunk driving immediately after leaving the bar or restaurant, courtesy of the detective's contacts with the local police.
In the Plumpy Dumpy case, Mrs. Plumpy Dumpy was able to use the drunk driving incident to get an order restricting her husband to supervised visitation.
Now, it's not clear to me whether Mr. Plumpy Dumpy actually was driving drunk. He was certainly thinking with the wrong body part when he pursued the gorgeous blonde, whom he mistook for having a genuine interest in him. He actually believed her when "she told him he had large, strong hands" and "described his kisses as 'yummy.'" Sorry, but that sounds like hooker-speak to me.
It's also not clear if the divorce lawyers, or just their over-eager paralegal staff, made these dastardly (what a great adjective) arrangements. And I don't know if they will be hauled in front of their local grievance committee.
But that begs the question: did Mr. Plumpy-Dumpy deserve to lose unsupervised access to his kids for this? It was a set-up, for crying out loud. Depressed, lonely middle-aged plumy-dumpy goes for young brassy blonde with hot turn-on words. Duh. Plumpy-Dumpy was an easy mark.
Maybe we should flip the question around: Did the kids deserve to lose access to one of their parents because their parent was lured to a bar by a woman who had been paid by their mom's lawyers (via the detective's bank), and picked up by cops who had been tipped off by their mom's lawyers?
Mrs. Plumpy Dumpy claims she didn't want her husband to get arrested. Her lawyers profess ignorance about the entire matter.
So now, I wonder, who showed the worst judgment of all in this whole sordid mess?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dui-setup-20111017,0,7922829.story?page=1
ttp://www.abajournal.com/news/article/private_detective_accused_of_setting_up_divorcing_men_for_duis_with_help_of
Scams like this are yet another arrow in the quiver of lawyer haters.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The Voice of Sweet Reason
Many clients don't want to hear it. They want to be completely unreasonable, and they want their lawyers to agree with their unreasonable demands and expectations.
Recently, I had a consult who insisted that because her spouse had fooled around, and hadn't earned as much money as she had (maybe 25% less), he should forego his entire interest in the marital home, her much larger pension, and their joint bank accounts, leaving him with about 15% of the marital estate. She wanted me to agree that she could settle her case under these (ridiculous) terms. In fact, she insisted that I agree her proposal was appropriate. And when I didn't agree, she grew extremely angry with me.
Opposing counsel with uncontrollable clients making similar, or even more lopsided demands, are even worse. Because they can't be knocked out of your life with a simple, "Sorry, I'm sure you can find another lawyer who has another opinion, best of luck." No, the unreasonable PIA opposing lawyer and his/her unreasonable PIA client, with punishment as their primary goal, is going to engage in a war of attrition for months, maybe even years. And they don't care that they're wasting gargantuan amounts of money, energy, time, and public resources, even when they know -- at least an experienced (albeit sometimes utterly inept) adversary knows -- damn well what the bottom-line settlement or litigated result will look like.
That's why there's nothing more wonderful than a reasonable person on the other side, who can control the unreasonable demands of his/her client and cut to the chase.
Right now Republican politics is just like the unreasonable client who craves a lunatic lawyer who will accede to his/her preposterous positions and not yield to anything or anyone resembling sanity. A smart, highly articulate, credentialed and reasonable candidate doesn't stand a hope in hell of impressing the foam-at-the-mouth extremists who seem to be running that party from the outer banks of fringe conservatism. Hence Jon Huntsman's low low low poll numbers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jon-huntsman-the-reasonable-republican/2011/10/18/gIQAFAWTvL_story.html
Told ya I was a political junkie.
But this just goes to prove my point that politics is, indeed, a macro picture of interpersonal relationships, and that divorce lawyers and politicians have a LOT in common....
Recently, I had a consult who insisted that because her spouse had fooled around, and hadn't earned as much money as she had (maybe 25% less), he should forego his entire interest in the marital home, her much larger pension, and their joint bank accounts, leaving him with about 15% of the marital estate. She wanted me to agree that she could settle her case under these (ridiculous) terms. In fact, she insisted that I agree her proposal was appropriate. And when I didn't agree, she grew extremely angry with me.
Opposing counsel with uncontrollable clients making similar, or even more lopsided demands, are even worse. Because they can't be knocked out of your life with a simple, "Sorry, I'm sure you can find another lawyer who has another opinion, best of luck." No, the unreasonable PIA opposing lawyer and his/her unreasonable PIA client, with punishment as their primary goal, is going to engage in a war of attrition for months, maybe even years. And they don't care that they're wasting gargantuan amounts of money, energy, time, and public resources, even when they know -- at least an experienced (albeit sometimes utterly inept) adversary knows -- damn well what the bottom-line settlement or litigated result will look like.
That's why there's nothing more wonderful than a reasonable person on the other side, who can control the unreasonable demands of his/her client and cut to the chase.
Right now Republican politics is just like the unreasonable client who craves a lunatic lawyer who will accede to his/her preposterous positions and not yield to anything or anyone resembling sanity. A smart, highly articulate, credentialed and reasonable candidate doesn't stand a hope in hell of impressing the foam-at-the-mouth extremists who seem to be running that party from the outer banks of fringe conservatism. Hence Jon Huntsman's low low low poll numbers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jon-huntsman-the-reasonable-republican/2011/10/18/gIQAFAWTvL_story.html
Told ya I was a political junkie.
But this just goes to prove my point that politics is, indeed, a macro picture of interpersonal relationships, and that divorce lawyers and politicians have a LOT in common....
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Divorce Lawyers Are As Bad As Obama
A political junkie like me laughs when a presidential candidates' debate is scheduled to air on an obscure, upper-register cable channel, like say, oh, the Bloomberg Channel (#105 over here in NY). I'm not that easily dissuaded - I WILL watch it, even if I have to stream it.
Not going to be watching it in silence, though. I mean, how can you sit still when an intellectual heavyweight like Michelle Bachmann blames the country's decade-long economic woes solely on President Obama (okay okay, he's a Democrat so it MUST be all his fault); when the effervescent, blunt Ron Paul gets interrupted when he starts scolding Republicans as well as Democrats for poor legislation; and when model family man Newt Gingrich overlooks Reagan/Bush de-regulation and overspending, and stiflingly high Reagan/Bush tax and deficit increases-- NO! it's Obama's fault!
Thank God for Republican Party unity. Thank God for political ambition.
Anything to derail Obama's reelection chances is clearly fair game, even if it means re-writing history or ignoring what's best for the country now. And I thought the vitriol was high during the Clinton years. But I digress...
My favorite comment - seriously - of the evening came from Rick Santorum, who cited "the breakdown of the American family" as a primary cause of economy disparities in the US. I heard heckling in the background when he said that (the noise distracted many of the candidates, including my favorite - Michelle, of course). Maybe the heckler was a married guy. Or a single mom who's doing just fine, thank you.
But Rick Santorum is absolutely right, as study after study and just plain common sense has shown. Single-parent households struggle far more than intact families. Santorum unfortunately missed the opportunity to lambaste the group that everyone, on all sides of the political spectrum, loves to hate. Had he done so, maybe he would have propelled his poll numbers out of the single digits.
I'm talking about divorce lawyers. Naturally. We're the ones who enable a person to dump his/her spouse out on the street. We bicker over the amount of spousal and child support. We defend the deadbeats who fail to meet their financial obligations to their ex's. We file actions to decrease monthly payments because our clients can't -or won't - afford them. Best of all, we rape family assets for legal and expert fees. We're bad bad bad bad people. (The clients share no complicity in any of this, of course....Here is where I have to give a nod to Herman Cain's call for personal responsibility.)
So you see, the widening gap between rich and poor is really our fault. We're as bad as Obama. Worse.
Rick, you blew it, buddy. At least you were on the right track.
Not going to be watching it in silence, though. I mean, how can you sit still when an intellectual heavyweight like Michelle Bachmann blames the country's decade-long economic woes solely on President Obama (okay okay, he's a Democrat so it MUST be all his fault); when the effervescent, blunt Ron Paul gets interrupted when he starts scolding Republicans as well as Democrats for poor legislation; and when model family man Newt Gingrich overlooks Reagan/Bush de-regulation and overspending, and stiflingly high Reagan/Bush tax and deficit increases-- NO! it's Obama's fault!
Thank God for Republican Party unity. Thank God for political ambition.
Anything to derail Obama's reelection chances is clearly fair game, even if it means re-writing history or ignoring what's best for the country now. And I thought the vitriol was high during the Clinton years. But I digress...
My favorite comment - seriously - of the evening came from Rick Santorum, who cited "the breakdown of the American family" as a primary cause of economy disparities in the US. I heard heckling in the background when he said that (the noise distracted many of the candidates, including my favorite - Michelle, of course). Maybe the heckler was a married guy. Or a single mom who's doing just fine, thank you.
But Rick Santorum is absolutely right, as study after study and just plain common sense has shown. Single-parent households struggle far more than intact families. Santorum unfortunately missed the opportunity to lambaste the group that everyone, on all sides of the political spectrum, loves to hate. Had he done so, maybe he would have propelled his poll numbers out of the single digits.
I'm talking about divorce lawyers. Naturally. We're the ones who enable a person to dump his/her spouse out on the street. We bicker over the amount of spousal and child support. We defend the deadbeats who fail to meet their financial obligations to their ex's. We file actions to decrease monthly payments because our clients can't -or won't - afford them. Best of all, we rape family assets for legal and expert fees. We're bad bad bad bad people. (The clients share no complicity in any of this, of course....Here is where I have to give a nod to Herman Cain's call for personal responsibility.)
So you see, the widening gap between rich and poor is really our fault. We're as bad as Obama. Worse.
Rick, you blew it, buddy. At least you were on the right track.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Dissing the Judge Is Never A Good Idea
Two words: Joe Walsh.
Walsh, a Tea Party freshman Congressman, owes over $117,000 in alleged child support arrears, while stoking up the right-wing media over government spending, and calling out the President of the United States as a liar who is "in over [his] head."
He didn't bother to show up for his oft-adjourned child support hearing last week, because of his position as a Member of the House. (Not like he was actually doing something important in DC on the day of the hearing.) To which the Judge replied, “Well, he’s no different than anyone else.” The Judge's comment was actually consistent with the position taken by Walsh's, ummm, fourth(?) lawyer, that he's just like "any other average guy." You know, that average "Joe Sixpack" kind of guy who has trouble meeting his child support obligations.
Wait a minute.
Since when is the average American support obligor a deadbeat? And if it's so "average" (i.e. normal) to be a deadbeat dad, does that make it okay? (Note to Levi Johnston: Tea Party matron Sarah Palin won't mind if you skip paying child support to still-unwed Bristol.)
Child support orders can be onerous, and even downright nutty - Lord knows I've had a few of those issued against some of my clients. Sometimes they're far too meagre, I've had those, also. Sometimes judges actually do something about bizarre orders - although they usually don't. I've been on both sides of enforcement proceedings. Lord knows, they're an even bigger nightmare.
The thought of F-f-f-f-family Court makes my skin turn a nasty shade of green.
But in any event, you don't just ignore the damn court date.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLVjWkOfrsQ
Judge scolds Rep. Joe Walsh in child-support case with ex-wife - Chicago Sun-Times
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/174695-joe-walsh-just-your-average-regular-deadbeat-dad-kind-of-a-guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVPuWUZTYVQ
Walsh, a Tea Party freshman Congressman, owes over $117,000 in alleged child support arrears, while stoking up the right-wing media over government spending, and calling out the President of the United States as a liar who is "in over [his] head."
He didn't bother to show up for his oft-adjourned child support hearing last week, because of his position as a Member of the House. (Not like he was actually doing something important in DC on the day of the hearing.) To which the Judge replied, “Well, he’s no different than anyone else.” The Judge's comment was actually consistent with the position taken by Walsh's, ummm, fourth(?) lawyer, that he's just like "any other average guy." You know, that average "Joe Sixpack" kind of guy who has trouble meeting his child support obligations.
Wait a minute.
Since when is the average American support obligor a deadbeat? And if it's so "average" (i.e. normal) to be a deadbeat dad, does that make it okay? (Note to Levi Johnston: Tea Party matron Sarah Palin won't mind if you skip paying child support to still-unwed Bristol.)
Child support orders can be onerous, and even downright nutty - Lord knows I've had a few of those issued against some of my clients. Sometimes they're far too meagre, I've had those, also. Sometimes judges actually do something about bizarre orders - although they usually don't. I've been on both sides of enforcement proceedings. Lord knows, they're an even bigger nightmare.
The thought of F-f-f-f-family Court makes my skin turn a nasty shade of green.
But in any event, you don't just ignore the damn court date.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLVjWkOfrsQ
Judge scolds Rep. Joe Walsh in child-support case with ex-wife - Chicago Sun-Times
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/174695-joe-walsh-just-your-average-regular-deadbeat-dad-kind-of-a-guy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVPuWUZTYVQ
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Men Pay A Steep Price For Lust (Or Lack Thereof)
Everyone knows that men often think only with their ****s. Especially men who are powerful enough to believe their lewd actions won't have major repercussions on their marriages, their careers and their lives.
Obvious recent examples of over-sexed, self-destructive men:
*Bill Clinton, who demolished his presidential legacy and forever tarnished his reputation.
*Tiger Woods, whose escapades as a man-whore practically overshadowed his legendary (but now-fading) golf prowess, and drove him from the sport, sponsorships and, of course, his wife and kids.
*John Edwards, who ruined his political life and probably helped to loosen his wife's already-tenuous hold on life.
*DSK, who lost his IMF chairmanship and checked into Riker's Island for a few days.
*Elliott Weiner, who thought his own wiener was so photogenic that he lost his Congressional seat and handed it over to the House Republicans.
But maybe you didn't know that men also pay heavily for lacking a strong enough sexual appetite.
In France - yes, France where male ardor is a matter of national pride! - a 51-year-old man was recently socked with paying his ex-wife 8500 Euros for his lackluster performance in the bedroom. Not just for a few months, either, but for 21 years, which I think is a mighty long time for any self-respecting woman to wait for some serious attention. A little Viagra along the way could have saved the thin-blooded Jean-Louis B. a pile of money. It could have saved his marriage, too, since his failure to satisfy his wife was grounds for the divorce.
Damned if they do it (with someone else), damned if they don't do it (for a really really long time) with their wives. There's a lesson there, guys.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html
Obvious recent examples of over-sexed, self-destructive men:
*Bill Clinton, who demolished his presidential legacy and forever tarnished his reputation.
*Tiger Woods, whose escapades as a man-whore practically overshadowed his legendary (but now-fading) golf prowess, and drove him from the sport, sponsorships and, of course, his wife and kids.
*John Edwards, who ruined his political life and probably helped to loosen his wife's already-tenuous hold on life.
*DSK, who lost his IMF chairmanship and checked into Riker's Island for a few days.
*Elliott Weiner, who thought his own wiener was so photogenic that he lost his Congressional seat and handed it over to the House Republicans.
But maybe you didn't know that men also pay heavily for lacking a strong enough sexual appetite.
In France - yes, France where male ardor is a matter of national pride! - a 51-year-old man was recently socked with paying his ex-wife 8500 Euros for his lackluster performance in the bedroom. Not just for a few months, either, but for 21 years, which I think is a mighty long time for any self-respecting woman to wait for some serious attention. A little Viagra along the way could have saved the thin-blooded Jean-Louis B. a pile of money. It could have saved his marriage, too, since his failure to satisfy his wife was grounds for the divorce.
Damned if they do it (with someone else), damned if they don't do it (for a really really long time) with their wives. There's a lesson there, guys.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Bad Divorce Lawyers Are Running The Country
Nightmare divorce cases. Unlikely that anyone who's had the misfortune of enduring them can ever erase them from their memory banks.
The torturous negotiations that dragged on endlessly. The pain-in-the-butt lawyer who dug his or her heels in, who refused to answer telephone calls. Who sent letters in which every other word was in italics or in bold lettering or underlined. Who constantly badgered and bullied and postured and flailed around, instigating a fight when everyone else already agreed to the bottom line. The passive-aggressive or over-aggressive spouse on the other side.
Belligerence just to make a point and look "tough." Ridiculous demands that were made, knowing they were totally unacceptable, so the other side would look bad or be forced into a potential disadvantage. And then, even after getting everything they wanted, upping the ante yet again by insisting on more capitulation to things that were never discussed, or inventing new issues to be disputed.
What a colossal waste of time, energy and money. What enormous risks to, and tolls taken on, the physical, emotional and financial health of everyone involved.
Sounds like a micro-version of the current debt ceiling negotiations. Like a bunch of nitwit matrimonial lawyers dithering around, overwhelmed by multiple-trillion-dollar issues that they're treating like hyper-personal allocations of marital assets or parenting times. Cripes.
Every day for the past few weeks, escalating over the past few days, our political leaders in Washington (and the wannabes running for office) have been playing reckless games with the debt ceiling issue. Many of these people seem positively clueless about who are really the potential victims of their stupidity - not just the recipients of government checks, but everyone who has direct and indirect market exposure, i.e., just about everyone. American politicians with power and influence, who are either inept or damgerously indifferent to how underlying market and economic currents react to any ripples in our financial strength that emanate from their embarrassing political ditherings.
And they ARE embarrassing. Democracy at its worst, partisanship at its most divisive. The level of venom has attained heights not seen since the worst days of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Only this time there's a lot more at stake than the moral malfunctions of a randy middle-aged president and semen stains on the dress of a dim-witted intern.
I swear, the current debt ceiling impasse reminds me of some of the worst divorce cases I've seen. Same pointless posturing, same foolish risk-taking, same poor leadership, same insane brinksmanship - but with the entire country, no, the world economy - held hostage to these fools.
The torturous negotiations that dragged on endlessly. The pain-in-the-butt lawyer who dug his or her heels in, who refused to answer telephone calls. Who sent letters in which every other word was in italics or in bold lettering or underlined. Who constantly badgered and bullied and postured and flailed around, instigating a fight when everyone else already agreed to the bottom line. The passive-aggressive or over-aggressive spouse on the other side.
Belligerence just to make a point and look "tough." Ridiculous demands that were made, knowing they were totally unacceptable, so the other side would look bad or be forced into a potential disadvantage. And then, even after getting everything they wanted, upping the ante yet again by insisting on more capitulation to things that were never discussed, or inventing new issues to be disputed.
What a colossal waste of time, energy and money. What enormous risks to, and tolls taken on, the physical, emotional and financial health of everyone involved.
Sounds like a micro-version of the current debt ceiling negotiations. Like a bunch of nitwit matrimonial lawyers dithering around, overwhelmed by multiple-trillion-dollar issues that they're treating like hyper-personal allocations of marital assets or parenting times. Cripes.
Every day for the past few weeks, escalating over the past few days, our political leaders in Washington (and the wannabes running for office) have been playing reckless games with the debt ceiling issue. Many of these people seem positively clueless about who are really the potential victims of their stupidity - not just the recipients of government checks, but everyone who has direct and indirect market exposure, i.e., just about everyone. American politicians with power and influence, who are either inept or damgerously indifferent to how underlying market and economic currents react to any ripples in our financial strength that emanate from their embarrassing political ditherings.
And they ARE embarrassing. Democracy at its worst, partisanship at its most divisive. The level of venom has attained heights not seen since the worst days of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Only this time there's a lot more at stake than the moral malfunctions of a randy middle-aged president and semen stains on the dress of a dim-witted intern.
I swear, the current debt ceiling impasse reminds me of some of the worst divorce cases I've seen. Same pointless posturing, same foolish risk-taking, same poor leadership, same insane brinksmanship - but with the entire country, no, the world economy - held hostage to these fools.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Gotta Be Nuts to Marry a Politician
Right off the bat, all PC aside, it always seems to be the politician-husbands who get themselves embroiled in sordid scandals. You never hear about a woman pulling down her panties for a quickie behind the office, like Bill Clinton. Or soliciting a stranger for sex in an airport bathroom, like Larry Craig. Or flying to a foreign country to sleep with a "soulmate," like Mark Sanford. How about having a secret love child in her own house, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, or while her husband staves off death, a la John Edwards? Or forcing herself on a clueless hotel staffer, like DSK? Or Twittering naked crotch shots of herself to an Internet "friend" half her age, like Anthony Weiner?
Not saying women never screw around, not saying they can't subject their husbands and kids to immeasureable embarrassment. But how many woman politicians and business leaders engage in the kind of utter crap described above? I can't think of any. Too much common sense, maybe.
Except for those women who marry politicians or men who hint that politics their career goal. These women have no common sense whatsoever. Those women, to quote Jim Cramer, have got to be "NUTS, THEY'RE NUTS, THEY KNOW NOTHING!"
Given the abysmal track record of the political man, one would think that a woman would say, as her boyfriend asks for her hand on bended knee, "Yes, but only if you get out of politics/never go into politics." But they don't try to establish those conditions, from what I can tell. Instead, political wives encourage, or at least accept, their husbands' political ambitions. And then later, they quietly bury their growing unhappiness with the life they've chosen in alcohol and mysticism (e.g., Betty Ford and Pat Reagan).
I'm not even going to go near all the men who had "issues" long before politics was on their minds, and the women who foolishly thought they could cure their men of their problems...That's a whole other set of psychoses...
Can a political wife be truly surprised to be standing under the glare of the cameras a few years later (maybe not even that long), after her husband 'fesses up in public to unleashing his one-eyed monster on other women or men? No shocker there. See the HuffPo's list of the mortified women who "stand by their men" at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/politician-sex-scandals-w_n_872821.html#s288764&title=Bill_Clinton.
Marry a politician, you know damn well what you're getting into. Chances are, it'll ultimately be a lot less power and glamour, and a lot more squalid humiliation. Thank God for the women who don't bother to show up for the weepy press conferences. I suspect they knew the odds when they exchanged wedding rings.
Not saying women never screw around, not saying they can't subject their husbands and kids to immeasureable embarrassment. But how many woman politicians and business leaders engage in the kind of utter crap described above? I can't think of any. Too much common sense, maybe.
Except for those women who marry politicians or men who hint that politics their career goal. These women have no common sense whatsoever. Those women, to quote Jim Cramer, have got to be "NUTS, THEY'RE NUTS, THEY KNOW NOTHING!"
Given the abysmal track record of the political man, one would think that a woman would say, as her boyfriend asks for her hand on bended knee, "Yes, but only if you get out of politics/never go into politics." But they don't try to establish those conditions, from what I can tell. Instead, political wives encourage, or at least accept, their husbands' political ambitions. And then later, they quietly bury their growing unhappiness with the life they've chosen in alcohol and mysticism (e.g., Betty Ford and Pat Reagan).
I'm not even going to go near all the men who had "issues" long before politics was on their minds, and the women who foolishly thought they could cure their men of their problems...That's a whole other set of psychoses...
Can a political wife be truly surprised to be standing under the glare of the cameras a few years later (maybe not even that long), after her husband 'fesses up in public to unleashing his one-eyed monster on other women or men? No shocker there. See the HuffPo's list of the mortified women who "stand by their men" at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/politician-sex-scandals-w_n_872821.html#s288764&title=Bill_Clinton.
Marry a politician, you know damn well what you're getting into. Chances are, it'll ultimately be a lot less power and glamour, and a lot more squalid humiliation. Thank God for the women who don't bother to show up for the weepy press conferences. I suspect they knew the odds when they exchanged wedding rings.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Sex and Self-Destruction
What is it about powerful men and uncontrollable sex drives? Why do they go hand in hand, along with utter contempt for the law and for the personal havoc that results?
My friend Ali Leotta, sex crimes prosecutor, has also posted about DSK on her blog, Prime-Time Crime Review. Is it just a lawyer thing to be more fascinated by DSK's downfall than the latest celebrity sex scandals?
Here's Ali's extremely well-written article:
What’s His Defense?
By Allison Leotta on June 8th, 2011
Whether it’s a Kennedy cousin, a professional athlete, or the head of the International Monetary Fund, it’s always shocking when a wealthy celebrity is charged with rape. Could that man in the suit really have been that beast in the bedroom? Why would a millionaire risk trading his life of champagne and yachts for three hots and a cot? What will his defense be?
By now you’ve seen the footage of the head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, being led on a perp-walk by the NYPD. Until last this week, DSK was the French politician most likely to challenge Nicolas Sarkozy and become France’s next president. His reputation as a womanizer had also earned him the nickname of the “Great Seducer.” On May 18th, he was charged with sexually assaulting a maid at a posh Manhattan hotel, where he was staying in a $3000-a-night suite. According to news reports, the maid went into DSK’s suite to clean it; he allegedly emerged naked from the bathroom, grabbed her, forced her to perform oral sex on him, and tried to further assault her; she escaped, ran from the room, and reported the incident to her supervisor.
Since his arrest, we’ve heard a couple of different theories of his possible defense.
He’s got an alibi: Hehad checked out of the hotel and/or was lunching with his daughter when the alleged crime occurred, so he couldn’t have raped the maid. Gee, what a terrible mix-up this all must be.
The Vast Global Conspiracy: Sarkozy’s cronies set up Strauss-Kahn to eliminate him as a political rival. Dan Brown, start taking notes!
I doubt he’ll go with either of these two defenses. I was a federal prosecutor in D.C. for twelve years, specializing in sex crimes for the last eight. I’ve seen countless sex-assault cases, although admittedly few involving French diplomats. But this isn’t how such a case is typically defended.
An alibi defense is simply too risky (unless, of course, it’s true!). With credit card receipts, ever-present security cameras, and GPS cell phones, there are too many ways authorities could disprove a false alibi. And advancing an alibi squanders one of the few great advantages that a defendant has at trial – the prosecutor’s heavy burden of proof. Sure, technically the prosecutor still has to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt even if she can poke holes in the defendant’s alibi, but in practice the jury is likely to think they’re picking between two theories. If the defendant’s alibi is wrong, the prosecutor’s theory must be right.
As for the conspiracy theory – I’m a thriller-writer, but it’s too far-fetched for me. New Yorkers are a skeptical bunch. I don’t think they’ll buy a story where French politicians use the NYPD to carry out a grand conspiracy. If this were a set-up, it’s a risky one. Could the alleged victim maid hold up under the spotlight that all the media in the free world is about to shine on her – not to mention cross-examination by experienced defense attorney Benjamin Brafman? Michael Corleone did it much better with the dead girl in the Senator’s hotel bed.
Instead, I predict Strauss-Kahn will go with the usual defense that powerful men opt for:
Consent.
This has been the defense of choice since there have been sex scandals. It’s powerful because it often could be true – whether an alleged victim consented can be a blurry concept, and mistakes can be made. As a strategic choice, a consent defense takes advantage of two enormous challenges prosecutors face: (1) rape usually happens with no witnesses, aside from an often vulnerable victim, and (2) the government has the burden of proving every criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard in American law. This defense also plays into the biases and prejudices in our culture. Someone on the jury might see a woman who had sex with a wealthy man, and think she must have wanted it.
These days, DNA testing often proves that the sexual contact took place. That leaves a defendant unable to claim – for long – that he never had sexual relations with that woman. But who is to say that she didn’t consent – except, of course, for her? The consent defense sets up a he-said / she-said situation, which is difficult to overcome by a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
Not impossible to overcome, of course. Forensic evidence such as vaginal tearing might demonstrate that the sex was forcible. But that kind of evidence is quite rare, and it seems even less likely to exist here, where there may have only been oral contact. Prosecutors will look for other injuries on the maid and DSK consistent with a struggle. They’ll also search for any other corroborating evidence. Did she immediately call the police or family after the alleged assault? Did he flee the scene? Did anyone else see or hear anything during the encounter? Has he done this before? In the absence of such corroboration, a lot will ride on the victim’s sheer credibility – a heavy burden for any woman to carry.
Meanwhile, the defense team has no obligation to state DSK’s defense until after the results of the DNA testing come back. In fact, they don’t have to say anything until trial – or even during trial. Every defendant has the right to sit back and simply hold the prosecution to its burden. But if history is any guide, DSK’s attorneys will say this was just another case of the Great Seducer wielding his famous charm on a willing woman.
The prosecution will continue to work the case from every angle, searching for any evidence that goes to this question. The men and women of the NYPD and the Manhattan DA’s Office are excellent law enforcement authorities. If they believe the charges cannot be proved, they will dismiss them.
And if this really turns out to be a vast global conspiracy, it will launch a new generation of political thrillers.
****************************
I have commented on Ali's post as follows:
I'm so glad you weighed in on this one, Ali. I posted on my blog about DSK's various alibis, too, but as usual, I was far more unkind than you are! :<) Funny how this story disappeared from the headlines in the wake of the Ah-mold/Maria soap opera and, now, Rep. Weiner's teary sext-mess. Just one more powerful man in self-destruct mode because of an unbridled sex drive and utter disregard for the consequences of his actions (both legal and personal)... Sigh...
There has been a great deal of information dug up about the maid's immediate actions following the alleged (ahem) attack. Apparently, the shell-shocked maid, after being found cowering in a hallway right after DSK forced himself on her (allegedly, sorry), reported a consistent story to both hotel security and the NYPD. Versus DSK, who was far from consistent: he was dining with his daughter at the time; ummm, no, it was consensual (his defense only after his fingernails were scraped for DNA evidence, coincidentally).
And just in case anyone thought the Sofitel in Times Square was the only scene of sordid sex crimes, the elegant Pierre Hotel on Fifth Avenue was the scene of a sexual attack barely two weeks later, in a case so eerily similar that when I first saw the headlines, I thought the reporter was two weeks behind the DSK story. Turns out an elderly Egyptian businessman thought another maid was fair bait, too:
"The former chairman of one of Egypt's major banks has been arrested on charges of sexually abusing a maid at a Manhattan hotel, just weeks after the arrest of former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn on similar allegations. Mahmoud Abdel-Salam Omar - the 74-year-old former chairman of Egypt's Bank of Alexandria - allegedly groped and "gyrated" against the maid in room 1027 at The Pierre hotel on Fifth Avenue, a law-enforcement source said."
http://www.news.com.au/world/egyptian-banker-arrested-over-manhattan-hotel-maid-assault/story-e6frfkz0-1226066568076
My friend Ali Leotta, sex crimes prosecutor, has also posted about DSK on her blog, Prime-Time Crime Review. Is it just a lawyer thing to be more fascinated by DSK's downfall than the latest celebrity sex scandals?
Here's Ali's extremely well-written article:
What’s His Defense?
By Allison Leotta on June 8th, 2011
Whether it’s a Kennedy cousin, a professional athlete, or the head of the International Monetary Fund, it’s always shocking when a wealthy celebrity is charged with rape. Could that man in the suit really have been that beast in the bedroom? Why would a millionaire risk trading his life of champagne and yachts for three hots and a cot? What will his defense be?
By now you’ve seen the footage of the head of the IMF, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, being led on a perp-walk by the NYPD. Until last this week, DSK was the French politician most likely to challenge Nicolas Sarkozy and become France’s next president. His reputation as a womanizer had also earned him the nickname of the “Great Seducer.” On May 18th, he was charged with sexually assaulting a maid at a posh Manhattan hotel, where he was staying in a $3000-a-night suite. According to news reports, the maid went into DSK’s suite to clean it; he allegedly emerged naked from the bathroom, grabbed her, forced her to perform oral sex on him, and tried to further assault her; she escaped, ran from the room, and reported the incident to her supervisor.
Since his arrest, we’ve heard a couple of different theories of his possible defense.
He’s got an alibi: Hehad checked out of the hotel and/or was lunching with his daughter when the alleged crime occurred, so he couldn’t have raped the maid. Gee, what a terrible mix-up this all must be.
The Vast Global Conspiracy: Sarkozy’s cronies set up Strauss-Kahn to eliminate him as a political rival. Dan Brown, start taking notes!
I doubt he’ll go with either of these two defenses. I was a federal prosecutor in D.C. for twelve years, specializing in sex crimes for the last eight. I’ve seen countless sex-assault cases, although admittedly few involving French diplomats. But this isn’t how such a case is typically defended.
An alibi defense is simply too risky (unless, of course, it’s true!). With credit card receipts, ever-present security cameras, and GPS cell phones, there are too many ways authorities could disprove a false alibi. And advancing an alibi squanders one of the few great advantages that a defendant has at trial – the prosecutor’s heavy burden of proof. Sure, technically the prosecutor still has to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt even if she can poke holes in the defendant’s alibi, but in practice the jury is likely to think they’re picking between two theories. If the defendant’s alibi is wrong, the prosecutor’s theory must be right.
As for the conspiracy theory – I’m a thriller-writer, but it’s too far-fetched for me. New Yorkers are a skeptical bunch. I don’t think they’ll buy a story where French politicians use the NYPD to carry out a grand conspiracy. If this were a set-up, it’s a risky one. Could the alleged victim maid hold up under the spotlight that all the media in the free world is about to shine on her – not to mention cross-examination by experienced defense attorney Benjamin Brafman? Michael Corleone did it much better with the dead girl in the Senator’s hotel bed.
Instead, I predict Strauss-Kahn will go with the usual defense that powerful men opt for:
Consent.
This has been the defense of choice since there have been sex scandals. It’s powerful because it often could be true – whether an alleged victim consented can be a blurry concept, and mistakes can be made. As a strategic choice, a consent defense takes advantage of two enormous challenges prosecutors face: (1) rape usually happens with no witnesses, aside from an often vulnerable victim, and (2) the government has the burden of proving every criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard in American law. This defense also plays into the biases and prejudices in our culture. Someone on the jury might see a woman who had sex with a wealthy man, and think she must have wanted it.
These days, DNA testing often proves that the sexual contact took place. That leaves a defendant unable to claim – for long – that he never had sexual relations with that woman. But who is to say that she didn’t consent – except, of course, for her? The consent defense sets up a he-said / she-said situation, which is difficult to overcome by a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.
Not impossible to overcome, of course. Forensic evidence such as vaginal tearing might demonstrate that the sex was forcible. But that kind of evidence is quite rare, and it seems even less likely to exist here, where there may have only been oral contact. Prosecutors will look for other injuries on the maid and DSK consistent with a struggle. They’ll also search for any other corroborating evidence. Did she immediately call the police or family after the alleged assault? Did he flee the scene? Did anyone else see or hear anything during the encounter? Has he done this before? In the absence of such corroboration, a lot will ride on the victim’s sheer credibility – a heavy burden for any woman to carry.
Meanwhile, the defense team has no obligation to state DSK’s defense until after the results of the DNA testing come back. In fact, they don’t have to say anything until trial – or even during trial. Every defendant has the right to sit back and simply hold the prosecution to its burden. But if history is any guide, DSK’s attorneys will say this was just another case of the Great Seducer wielding his famous charm on a willing woman.
The prosecution will continue to work the case from every angle, searching for any evidence that goes to this question. The men and women of the NYPD and the Manhattan DA’s Office are excellent law enforcement authorities. If they believe the charges cannot be proved, they will dismiss them.
And if this really turns out to be a vast global conspiracy, it will launch a new generation of political thrillers.
****************************
I have commented on Ali's post as follows:
I'm so glad you weighed in on this one, Ali. I posted on my blog about DSK's various alibis, too, but as usual, I was far more unkind than you are! :<) Funny how this story disappeared from the headlines in the wake of the Ah-mold/Maria soap opera and, now, Rep. Weiner's teary sext-mess. Just one more powerful man in self-destruct mode because of an unbridled sex drive and utter disregard for the consequences of his actions (both legal and personal)... Sigh...
There has been a great deal of information dug up about the maid's immediate actions following the alleged (ahem) attack. Apparently, the shell-shocked maid, after being found cowering in a hallway right after DSK forced himself on her (allegedly, sorry), reported a consistent story to both hotel security and the NYPD. Versus DSK, who was far from consistent: he was dining with his daughter at the time; ummm, no, it was consensual (his defense only after his fingernails were scraped for DNA evidence, coincidentally).
And just in case anyone thought the Sofitel in Times Square was the only scene of sordid sex crimes, the elegant Pierre Hotel on Fifth Avenue was the scene of a sexual attack barely two weeks later, in a case so eerily similar that when I first saw the headlines, I thought the reporter was two weeks behind the DSK story. Turns out an elderly Egyptian businessman thought another maid was fair bait, too:
"The former chairman of one of Egypt's major banks has been arrested on charges of sexually abusing a maid at a Manhattan hotel, just weeks after the arrest of former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn on similar allegations. Mahmoud Abdel-Salam Omar - the 74-year-old former chairman of Egypt's Bank of Alexandria - allegedly groped and "gyrated" against the maid in room 1027 at The Pierre hotel on Fifth Avenue, a law-enforcement source said."
http://www.news.com.au/world/egyptian-banker-arrested-over-manhattan-hotel-maid-assault/story-e6frfkz0-1226066568076
Monday, May 23, 2011
Consensual? Is this a Joke?
Like my prior post says, I'm far more fascinated by the DSK crime scandal than Arnold's. Yeah, both are, at heart, the same old story of powerful teststerone-laden men who think they're invulnerable, until they are undone by sex - one too many attempts to lord it over seemingly defenseless objects of their lust. But DSK has all sorts of international, high-powered criminal/political/economic themes, including that perennial favorite of mine, conspiracy theories.
For anyone not in the know, DSK (the common nickname for Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a French Socialist Party leader and freshly-resigned head of the International Monetary Fund), is accused of having sexually assaulted an African maid in his elegant suite at the Times Square Sofitel, while he was in NYC to visit his daughter. The details are laid out here: http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/052211_dsk_maid/details-emerge-alleged-assault-by-dsk/
DSK was yanked out of his first-class seat on an Air France flight from JFK to Paris, right before it left the gate, within hours of the incident. He spent a few days in a solitary cell on Riker's Island before he was finally let out on bail. Not exactly the digs he's used to.
Anyway, initially, DSK's lawyers claimed he was innocent because he had already checked out of the hotel when the alleged assault took place. Okay, so he checked out of the hotel post-haste. But that's only because he was in a hurry to meet up with his daughter. There were witnesses who could attest to his whereabouts. Solid alibis. Um-hum.
Now his defense has changed: Any sex he had with the maid was consensual.
Why am I not buying into any of this?
The hotel keys, you know, those annoying computerized plastic cards, may hold the real answer...
"Police have said the maid knocked on Strauss-Kahn’s door and called out, used her master keycard to open the door, and left her work cart in the doorway, a typical safety practice in hotels. According to the police account, Strauss-Kahn emerged naked, tried to attack the maid, and then shut the hotel door when she tried to escape. The Times explains how the key card evidence may play out: “If the defense for Mr. Strauss-Kahn maintains that the encounter was consensual, its version will have to accommodate the unambiguous computer record of her leaving the door propped open," the story says. "It will also have to explain how and when she decided that sex with Mr. Strauss-Kahn was a better use of her time than changing the linens.”
IMF Chief May Claim Any Sex Was Consensual; Hotel Key Card Records Are Likely Evidence - News - ABA Journal
For anyone not in the know, DSK (the common nickname for Dominique Strauss-Kahn, a French Socialist Party leader and freshly-resigned head of the International Monetary Fund), is accused of having sexually assaulted an African maid in his elegant suite at the Times Square Sofitel, while he was in NYC to visit his daughter. The details are laid out here: http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/052211_dsk_maid/details-emerge-alleged-assault-by-dsk/
DSK was yanked out of his first-class seat on an Air France flight from JFK to Paris, right before it left the gate, within hours of the incident. He spent a few days in a solitary cell on Riker's Island before he was finally let out on bail. Not exactly the digs he's used to.
Anyway, initially, DSK's lawyers claimed he was innocent because he had already checked out of the hotel when the alleged assault took place. Okay, so he checked out of the hotel post-haste. But that's only because he was in a hurry to meet up with his daughter. There were witnesses who could attest to his whereabouts. Solid alibis. Um-hum.
Now his defense has changed: Any sex he had with the maid was consensual.
Why am I not buying into any of this?
The hotel keys, you know, those annoying computerized plastic cards, may hold the real answer...
"Police have said the maid knocked on Strauss-Kahn’s door and called out, used her master keycard to open the door, and left her work cart in the doorway, a typical safety practice in hotels. According to the police account, Strauss-Kahn emerged naked, tried to attack the maid, and then shut the hotel door when she tried to escape. The Times explains how the key card evidence may play out: “If the defense for Mr. Strauss-Kahn maintains that the encounter was consensual, its version will have to accommodate the unambiguous computer record of her leaving the door propped open," the story says. "It will also have to explain how and when she decided that sex with Mr. Strauss-Kahn was a better use of her time than changing the linens.”
IMF Chief May Claim Any Sex Was Consensual; Hotel Key Card Records Are Likely Evidence - News - ABA Journal
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Back in the Saddle Again - Almost
Can't believe it's the end of May already, and I'm not feeling too motivated. But hey, can you blame me?
I've been doing a lot of reading, and not really enjoying much of what I've read. Nonsensical plot points, unsympathetic protagonists who make me think, "So what?" and dumb dialogue-- All makes me nervous about Client Relations as I continue revisions. Paul Simon's new song, "Rewrite," from his latest album, is beginning to feel like my theme song: "I say, help me help me help me help me, Thank you!..."
HuffPo Divorce is rife, actually it's totally inundated, with Arnold and Maria posts. How much, seriously, is there to say? Rich movie star/former politician sleeps with maid, has illegitimate child living under the same roof as his family. Alienated wife has hired an LA lawyer 15 years out of law school, working at her dad's firm. Okay? Done. Move on.
The DSK scandal is far more sordid, but since he's not a movie star or a former body-building champ (just a super-powerful financial French guy), he draws less press. Except on CNBC and Bloomberg's of course. But since the market's down, no one's paying much attention.
Charlie Sheen's fifteen minutes (okay, four days) have come and gone. Can't say I miss him.
It hasn't been an awe-inspiring year so far. Which is why I need to immerse myself in writing again. Because sometimes (like, now) fiction is better than reality.
I've been doing a lot of reading, and not really enjoying much of what I've read. Nonsensical plot points, unsympathetic protagonists who make me think, "So what?" and dumb dialogue-- All makes me nervous about Client Relations as I continue revisions. Paul Simon's new song, "Rewrite," from his latest album, is beginning to feel like my theme song: "I say, help me help me help me help me, Thank you!..."
HuffPo Divorce is rife, actually it's totally inundated, with Arnold and Maria posts. How much, seriously, is there to say? Rich movie star/former politician sleeps with maid, has illegitimate child living under the same roof as his family. Alienated wife has hired an LA lawyer 15 years out of law school, working at her dad's firm. Okay? Done. Move on.
The DSK scandal is far more sordid, but since he's not a movie star or a former body-building champ (just a super-powerful financial French guy), he draws less press. Except on CNBC and Bloomberg's of course. But since the market's down, no one's paying much attention.
Charlie Sheen's fifteen minutes (okay, four days) have come and gone. Can't say I miss him.
It hasn't been an awe-inspiring year so far. Which is why I need to immerse myself in writing again. Because sometimes (like, now) fiction is better than reality.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Horny and Self-Righteous Lawyers
Another great attorney-client relations story that just happened in Iowa: An Iowa attorney turned himself into the local police on charges of assume to commit sexual abuse. After his client was sentenced to probation for driving under the influence, he served her four cocktails while they met in his office. I wonder if he serves booze to all his DUI clients, or whether he reserves it for special female clients.
Anyway, he must mix a hell of a drink, because the four drinks he served her made her so woozy that she can't recall everything that happened to her afterward,but she can remember sitting on his lap on the couch in his office at some later point, and a surveillance tape at her apartment shows her getting out of his car.
And, as is so often the fate of overly self-righteous law enforcement officials (think Elliot Spitzer), a Nevada prosecutor managed to get himself arrested for buying crack from a street dealer. This guy is a chief deputy DA who's been buying crack for his own recreational use for months from "Joe" the Dealer. Meanwhile, he counts among the people he's prosecuted the likes of Paris Hilton and Bruno Mars, and he had just been put on a Federal drug task force. Looks like his career's going to be headed in a different direction now. Maybe he'll get his own talk show, or land a spot as a commentator on Fox News.
http://www.amestrib.com/articles/2011/03/20/ames_tribune/news/doc4d858e0ec58a7286477838.txt http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/alcohol_allegedly_served_by_dui_lawyer_in_client_meeting_at_his_office/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email
http://www.lvrj.com/news/clark-county-prosecutor-arrested-on-drug-charges-118337184.html http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/deputy_da_who_prosecuted_paris_hilton_drug_case_is_arrested_on_crack_cocaine
Anyway, he must mix a hell of a drink, because the four drinks he served her made her so woozy that she can't recall everything that happened to her afterward,but she can remember sitting on his lap on the couch in his office at some later point, and a surveillance tape at her apartment shows her getting out of his car.
And, as is so often the fate of overly self-righteous law enforcement officials (think Elliot Spitzer), a Nevada prosecutor managed to get himself arrested for buying crack from a street dealer. This guy is a chief deputy DA who's been buying crack for his own recreational use for months from "Joe" the Dealer. Meanwhile, he counts among the people he's prosecuted the likes of Paris Hilton and Bruno Mars, and he had just been put on a Federal drug task force. Looks like his career's going to be headed in a different direction now. Maybe he'll get his own talk show, or land a spot as a commentator on Fox News.
http://www.amestrib.com/articles/2011/03/20/ames_tribune/news/doc4d858e0ec58a7286477838.txt http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/alcohol_allegedly_served_by_dui_lawyer_in_client_meeting_at_his_office/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email
http://www.lvrj.com/news/clark-county-prosecutor-arrested-on-drug-charges-118337184.html http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/deputy_da_who_prosecuted_paris_hilton_drug_case_is_arrested_on_crack_cocaine
Friday, March 4, 2011
The Client From Hell
Of course I mean Charlie Sheen, Mr. Tiger's Blood, the Adonis-DNA guy who has evolved way beyond any of us mere mortals...
Who the hell would want to represent this guy? His publicist had the smarts to walk away - far far away. But he still has legal representation. You can always count on somebody willing to be treated like a servant, let the client call the shots, all for the sake of getting a higher profile and some decent legal fees.
I'll leave the corporate guy alone, since he's dealing with fancy things like CBS contracts, and focus on the hapless divorce lawyer: A Class of 1982 Florida law school grad (not an Academy Fellow, what a surprise). Does this lawyer honestly expect to get Charlie in and out of divorce court without getting fired, grievanced, sued, or blasted in the press? Does he expect not to get shafted on his fees? He's either completely spineless, or completely desperate. Or he's willing to tase his client.
In any event, it's a lose-lose for the lawyer. For everybody. Not "win-ningggg," sorry, Charlie.
Charlie just plain doesn't SHUT UP. He's ubiquitous, too. Never mind the content or the style of his presentation. Unless you want to think about how a court will respond to his benevolent public statements about the mother of his two young children. Stuff like,"She's a traitor," "She's banished," and "She's going to live under a bridge somewhere."
Great. How to show you're willing to foment a healthy relationship between the kids (poor things, doomed to be forever screwed up, I fear) and what you hope will be the noncustodial parent. (Not like she's any great shakes, but, geez, Charlie, SHUT UP if you want to WIN.) No one cares that you're being "grandiose," at least no one who's going to be deciding your matrimonial case.
Whew. If Charlie were as "evolved" as he thinks he is, he'd know to sit back and let his drug-addict wife lose the case all by her lonesome. It could be done. Sure, he'd have to show what a good guy he is, by not having a porn star and a weed model taking care of his kids while they're busy taking turns servicing him. Just for starters. And---
Cripes, I could go on and on about what he should do, what he shouldn't do, to position himself in his divorce and custody case but why bother? He's not reading this, he could give a damn anyway, since he's above it all.
And the lunatic lawyer representing him? For God's sake, if you can't/won't shut the guy down, and control his conduct, well, brace yourself for the consequences. All of them. It won't be a pretty sight.
It's so frustrating, watching this case get lost so badly, by an uncontrollable client and a lawyer who can't/won't stem the bloodshed for whatever reason. On the other hand, what a relief I don't have to deal with this crap. What nitwit would, anyway?
Who the hell would want to represent this guy? His publicist had the smarts to walk away - far far away. But he still has legal representation. You can always count on somebody willing to be treated like a servant, let the client call the shots, all for the sake of getting a higher profile and some decent legal fees.
I'll leave the corporate guy alone, since he's dealing with fancy things like CBS contracts, and focus on the hapless divorce lawyer: A Class of 1982 Florida law school grad (not an Academy Fellow, what a surprise). Does this lawyer honestly expect to get Charlie in and out of divorce court without getting fired, grievanced, sued, or blasted in the press? Does he expect not to get shafted on his fees? He's either completely spineless, or completely desperate. Or he's willing to tase his client.
In any event, it's a lose-lose for the lawyer. For everybody. Not "win-ningggg," sorry, Charlie.
Charlie just plain doesn't SHUT UP. He's ubiquitous, too. Never mind the content or the style of his presentation. Unless you want to think about how a court will respond to his benevolent public statements about the mother of his two young children. Stuff like,"She's a traitor," "She's banished," and "She's going to live under a bridge somewhere."
Great. How to show you're willing to foment a healthy relationship between the kids (poor things, doomed to be forever screwed up, I fear) and what you hope will be the noncustodial parent. (Not like she's any great shakes, but, geez, Charlie, SHUT UP if you want to WIN.) No one cares that you're being "grandiose," at least no one who's going to be deciding your matrimonial case.
Whew. If Charlie were as "evolved" as he thinks he is, he'd know to sit back and let his drug-addict wife lose the case all by her lonesome. It could be done. Sure, he'd have to show what a good guy he is, by not having a porn star and a weed model taking care of his kids while they're busy taking turns servicing him. Just for starters. And---
Cripes, I could go on and on about what he should do, what he shouldn't do, to position himself in his divorce and custody case but why bother? He's not reading this, he could give a damn anyway, since he's above it all.
And the lunatic lawyer representing him? For God's sake, if you can't/won't shut the guy down, and control his conduct, well, brace yourself for the consequences. All of them. It won't be a pretty sight.
It's so frustrating, watching this case get lost so badly, by an uncontrollable client and a lawyer who can't/won't stem the bloodshed for whatever reason. On the other hand, what a relief I don't have to deal with this crap. What nitwit would, anyway?
Friday, February 11, 2011
A Family Lawyer Dies In A SWAT Gun Battle
A respected family lawyer in Virginia snapped under pressure. He holded up in his house and pointlessly battled a SWAT team for a few hours. His wife (who is also his law partner) has got to be reeling still from these events.
What happened to Mr. Ferris that would have made him act like a desperado? No one really knows. They found some beer and meds in his house, so maybe he was depressed. They found a picture of a sniper there, too, and - bizarre twist, given his legal practice area -he was also a licensed gun dealer. So maybe he was just a troubled guy, although local residents described him otherwise, and be was apparently very involved in his community.
Very tragic, seeing anyone throw away their life. At least he didn't kill his wife and kids...
I first read about this in the ABA Journal:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/highly_regarded_va._lawyer_killed_in_police_standoff
I couldn't find out much more, even after reading this:
UPDATE: Cause of death released for Ferris in Chesterfield shoot - WTOC, Savannah, Georgia, news, weather and sports |
What happened to Mr. Ferris that would have made him act like a desperado? No one really knows. They found some beer and meds in his house, so maybe he was depressed. They found a picture of a sniper there, too, and - bizarre twist, given his legal practice area -he was also a licensed gun dealer. So maybe he was just a troubled guy, although local residents described him otherwise, and be was apparently very involved in his community.
Very tragic, seeing anyone throw away their life. At least he didn't kill his wife and kids...
I first read about this in the ABA Journal:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/highly_regarded_va._lawyer_killed_in_police_standoff
I couldn't find out much more, even after reading this:
UPDATE: Cause of death released for Ferris in Chesterfield shoot - WTOC, Savannah, Georgia, news, weather and sports |
Sunday, January 23, 2011
I'm Cold, and Distracted...January Blues
Too many different things going on for me - I feel like I'm being tugged in so many different directions. And it's January, ugh.
So I'm thinking about the next post I should do for HuffPo. What topic, whether I should keep doing lists, those are my main issues. And what about this blog? I'm feeling like I'm inside a black hole - have I lost my way? Then there's Client Relations - I'm getting back into it, after holiday distractions, but it's hard when I know the next few weeks are going to be so demanding. I feel so discouraged. It's almost overwhelming, trying to keep up my energy.
January has been dreadful. Jim's car got nailed in a hit-and-run. My new wheelchair already has 'issues' that haven't been resolved. The basement flooded because the plumbing and septic needed repairs. My car battery died. Then the ABS had to be replaced. My computer blew -- same damn issue as the other two Sony VAIO notebooks I had-- NEVER BUY A SONY COMPUTER!!!! Stem cell trials are still a zillion years away. And its going to be minus twenty outside tomorrow. I know I'm leaving something else out, and it's not just the obscenely high NY property taxes due this week, or how fat I'm feel and that I don't even care right now.
Yeah, I know, bitch bitch bitch.
I figure with so much crap happening in January, I'm getting it all out of the way and the rest of the year is going to be great.
So I'm thinking about the next post I should do for HuffPo. What topic, whether I should keep doing lists, those are my main issues. And what about this blog? I'm feeling like I'm inside a black hole - have I lost my way? Then there's Client Relations - I'm getting back into it, after holiday distractions, but it's hard when I know the next few weeks are going to be so demanding. I feel so discouraged. It's almost overwhelming, trying to keep up my energy.
January has been dreadful. Jim's car got nailed in a hit-and-run. My new wheelchair already has 'issues' that haven't been resolved. The basement flooded because the plumbing and septic needed repairs. My car battery died. Then the ABS had to be replaced. My computer blew -- same damn issue as the other two Sony VAIO notebooks I had-- NEVER BUY A SONY COMPUTER!!!! Stem cell trials are still a zillion years away. And its going to be minus twenty outside tomorrow. I know I'm leaving something else out, and it's not just the obscenely high NY property taxes due this week, or how fat I'm feel and that I don't even care right now.
Yeah, I know, bitch bitch bitch.
I figure with so much crap happening in January, I'm getting it all out of the way and the rest of the year is going to be great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)