"Martha" on Netfilx: Revisiting Martha Stewart, the FBI, and James Comey's "Trophy"

 

This weekend I watched the Netflix documentary Martha. As an appellate lawyer and a civil libertarian it brought two crucial points to mind, the first being Martha Stewart's decision to end the appeal of her criminal conviction.  

Recall that after being wrongfully, in my humble opinion, convicted of “lying” to the FBI about her supposed insider trading, Ms Stewart initially filed an appeal.  This is hardly surprising given the fact that she was not convicted or even charged with insider trading.  In fact, she could not be charged because the evidence did not show that she traded on "insider" information.  Rather, Stewart was convicted of lying to the FBI when she truthfully said she had not engaged in insider trading.  If this seems nonsensical, remember that President Donald Trump was convicted of fraudulently failing to disclose payments to a mistress as a campaign contribution even though such payments do not fit the definition of a campaign contribution or expenditure, this last point illustrated by the failure of the Department of Justice to prosecute Mr. Trump on any campaign finance charges.

Though this appeal might have set useful precedent, Stewart courageously withdrew her appeal in order to put this incident behind her.  The FBI, of course, is not required by any law to tell the truth when it interviews someone, but is still very fond of claiming it has been "lied to" when it cannot bring any other charges.  Though Ms. Stewart's appeal did not proceed, this area is ripe for appellate review given the prosecutorial abuses of the Department of Justice and their cohorts at the FBI.

Which brings us to the second point, to wit, the role of our good friend James Comey in all this.  Ms. Stewart does not mince words when she notes how the sanctimonious Comey, then a Federal Prosecutor, decided to take down the first self-made female billionaire as what Stewart calls his "trophy."

This, of course, is the same James Comey who signed, under penalty of perjury, a FISA warrant application central to the entire Russia Hoax, a hoax which wasted millions and millions of dollars and countless hours in a vain attempt to prove a claim for which there was no evidence:  that Trump was a Russian Asset.  Indeed, following the report of Inspector General noting the errors and mischaracterizations in the FISA warrant application, Comey continued to defend his use of the "pee dossier" from Michael Steele as the basis for the FISA warrant application.

And so it is ironic that before James Comey did this to Donald Trump, he did it to Martha Stewart.  Comey was nonetheless later permitted to be named Director of our nation’s top Law enforcement agency, FBI, the era where the FBI was let by Comey seguing into the current era of political “lawfare" we have just lived through.

Martha, then, is a must-see because it shows us how Comey took down his first "trophy" before he later went after Trump. 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

New Case Law - 1) Probate Order Not Appealable and 2) Attorney Almost Sanctioned for Calling Opposing Counsel "The Civility Police" (Young v. Hartford)

 

Appealablility of probate order

The chief issue in Young v. Hartford (G064034, November 12, 2024) was the viability of the appeal itself.  The respondent made a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the appeal was not from a final judgment but from an "interlocutory order," i.e., an order which is not deemed directly "appealable."  Most orders, of course, may not be appealed directly but are reviewed by the appellate court upon review of the final judgment. In the context of a Probate Court proceeding, there is no final judgment per se but statutes provide that certain orders have sufficient "finality" to be appealable.

Writing for the Fourth District, Division Three, Justice Delaney explained the subject orders were, in fact, not appealable, as they involved "suspension" rather than "removal" of a probate trustee.  Specifically, Probate Code section section 15642 did not make such an order of "suspension" directly appealable:

This case presents a novel or nearly novel recurring question of appealability: Are orders suspending trustees and appointing interim trustees in probate court directly appealable? We publish this opinion to provide a clear answer: they are not. (Id., p. 2.)

The trial court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the entire appeal.

Request for sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal

Along with this motion, respondent also filed a motion for sanctions, arguing the appeal itself was "frivolous."  While the appellate court did not find the appeal itself frivolous, given the novelty of the legal issue, in reviewing the record teh court found letters from counsel for appellant to be troubling:

However, we are troubled by the tenor of defendants’ attorney’s correspondence with plaintiff’s attorney, which plaintiff has provided in connection with her motion for sanctions. The third of the four letters is particularly problematic. Defendants’ counsel Michael Leight wrote, “I am not sure why you think you are the civility police, but I want you to stop wasting my time complaining that I have hurt your feelings. [¶] If you would like ‘to go on record,’ you should ‘go on record’ some place else because I am not interested in your opinions about whether I am respectful or disrespectful. [¶] I will communicate with you in exactly the manner that I believe is appropriate, whether the communication is in a courtroom or otherwise.” Plaintiff’s filing does not give us the full context of these comments, but we struggle to conceive of a possible justification for them. (Id., p. 12.)

The appellate court noted that attorneys are required to be "civil" at all times and this language hardly personified such.  The Fourth District nonetheless denied the request for sanctions but noted this denial was made "this time," a clear warning against future incivility:

Defendants’ counsel’s letter appears to reflect a disturbing lack of interest in these principles, particularly in his belittling comments about the “civility police” and “hurt . . . feelings.” In combination with the two cases discussed above, it paints an unfortunate picture of defendants’ counsel’s approach to the practice of law, and transformed what otherwise would have been a straightforward denial of a sanctions motion, fit only for a footnote, into a close call consuming pages of this opinion. In other words, this letter served only to imperil counsel’s interests and those of his clients, rather than advancing them. This time, we decline to impose sanctions. (Id., p. 14; emphasis added.)

Follow me on LinkedIn  

"Gaslighting" - A Post-Election Update About PBS' Claimed "Four Point Lead" for Harris

The Media's Emperors Have No Clothes

In prior articles, we discussed "gaslighting" in the litigation context. However, given what occurred on Tuesday night, further discussion is warranted.

As an appellate lawyer, I know that one’s own credibility is of utmost importance.  During oral argument, a Justice may ask a question that relates to the record upon appeal, and either exaggerating or selectively quoting from the record can forever harm one's credibility before that court.  This not only undermines the lawyer but, more importantly, the client's case.

So it is worthwhile to point out some of the "gaslighting" occurring during this election cycle, and the loss of credibility that should result.  Gaslighting is defined as not just a false statement but one designed to mislead, and, in particular, to have the listener doubt a conclusion formed by their own common sense and experience.

First, note the supposed "four-point lead" for Vice-President Harris trumpeted by tax-payer-funded PBS.  This was so although perhaps the best pollsters of all, TippInsights.com, showed no such clear lead for Harris:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/harris-has-4-point-lead-over-trump-in-final-pbs-news-npr-marist-election-poll

Another popular "gaslighting" trope involved Trump’s incredibly popular Madison Square Garden rally, namely that criticism of the rally caused a political shift toward Vice-President Harris.  Here Fortune was among the guilty parties:

https://fortune.com/2024/11/02/election-odds-donald-trump-lead-kamala-harris-madison-square-garden-rally-electoral-votes/

A sillytrope not exactly borne out by the actual votes in the election, of course.

Add to this MSNBC's incredible claim that President Trump declared victory "before" he actually had won; this gaslighting was not doubt due to the fact that traditional media was holding out hope Harris was going to come from behind, no matter the mathematics:

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-declare-victory-early-harris-election-2024-rcna178400

Of course, the election had already been called by Fox News -- but had not yet been called by Comcast’s Trump-hating NBC.

Most humorous of all was Oprah Winfrey's claim that if Donald Trump won there would be "no more elections."  Was she lying to us or to herself or both?  Decide for yourself:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/oprah-winfraey-issues-ominous-warning-about-a-second-trump-presidency-at-harris-s-final-rally/ar-AA1tx4zH 

The silliness of this prediction is borne out by the fact that there are reports the Democrat Party's National Committee is already talking about tweaking its strategy in subsequent elections.  Which would be a waste of time if there were indeed no further elections.

A final example of "gaslighting" is the faux media outrage, designed to stoke even more outrage among Puerto Rican voters, over a tacky joke made at the Madison Square Garden rally.  But what really happened? President Trump won handily and the Republican Party flipped the Governor’s Office in Puerto Rico.

  
In other words, Puerto Rico elected a Republican Governor.  So the attempt at gaslighting by way of calling a comedian's “joke” a campaign “statement” — and thus trying to equate a comedian’s joke with a candidate’s views — didn't work nationally or even in Puerto Rico itself.

Which gives us some hope.

Follow me on LinkedIn  

New case law - Because cannabis is illegal under Federal law, County had no right to give Conditional Use Permit to grower (Crandall v. Santa Barbara)

In JCC Crandall LLC v. County of Santa Barbara (October 29, 2024) B333201, the Second District, Division Six, has declared that no matter what one may think, possession of cannabis remains illegal under Federal law and therefore cannot be "legal" under the laws of California or any other state:

Many Californians have high expectations that cannabis is legal in California. This is a reasonable assumption because Civil Code section 1550.5 says it is. We regret to inform that cannabis is illegal in California because federal law says so. (Id., p. 1.)

The specific context in which this statement was made involved a dispute over an existing half-mile-long easement previously used to transport legal agricultural products; however, the easement was now to be used by a cannabis grower, a different use of the easement to which the servient landowner objected.  Santa Barbara County nonetheless granted a CUP, or 

Conditional Use Permit, to the cannabis facility, even though this CUP required use of the disputed easement:

The county grants a conditional use permit (CUP) for the cultivation of cannabis. To issue a CUP, the county’s land use code requires a finding that the streets and highways are adequate for the proposed use. A private easement over a neighbor’s land is the only access to the land subject to the CUP. The owner of the servient tenement objects to the use of his land to transport cannabis. The servient owner petitions for a writ of administrative mandate challenging the county’s grant of the CUP. The trial court denies the petition. We reverse because under federal law cannabis is illegal in California and everywhere else in the United States. The servient tenant’s objection on this ground is sufficient to defeat the CUP. That the possession and cultivation of cannabis has the imprimatur of legality in California is beside the point. (Id., pp. 2-3; emphasis added but footnote omitted)

Crandall first discussed the objection by the landowner and its claim it must consent to the use of the easement for cannabis transport.  The Second District found that Business & Professions Code section 26051.5(a)(2), providing that a cannabis owner must show "consent" to use the property where the growing will take place, required such consent from the "landowner" of the easement used to transportation.  This section therefore was not limited to situations where the "landowner," the word used in the statute, is a landlord whose tenant is using the property for cannabis, the restrictive reading urged by the County.

The Second District also found that even if section 26051 did not require the "landowner" to give consent, the transportation of cannabis exceeded the scope of the easementm, granted for agricultural purposes, because it involved the transportation of an "illegal" substance.

Specifically, under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Federal law makes cannabis illegal in every state.  Therefore, in perhaps the most important portion of the opinion, the court explained there was no doubt the "product" to be transported via the easement was illegal:

It is often said that cannabis is legal in California. The statement is not true. Under federal law cannabis is illegal in every state and territory of the United States. (See Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. § 812 (c)(10); City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355, 377.) Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, provides in part, “The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” (Id., p. 5.)

Noting there is a difference between permission to transport a legal and  an illegal product, the appellate court stated the easement did not contemplate the transport of the product of illegal cannabis growing.  Consequently, it was a "taking" of the petitioner's land to require that it involuntarily provide an easement:

The scope of the easement does not include the illegal transport of cannabis. Civil Code section 1550.5, subdivision (b) cannot expand the scope of the easement to allow such use. A statute that authorizes the permanent physical invasion of the land of another is void as violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp. (1982) 458 U.S. 419, 426) (Id., p. 7.)

The judgment of the Hon. Jed Beebe, Judge Presiding, finding the CUP and the easement required to issue the CUP was properly granted, was therefore reversed.

Follow me on LinkedIn  

Legal Profession and Wages - is the value provided by lawyers properly compensated?

Lawyer Compensation

To many it may seem odd to ask if lawyers are sufficiently valued for the value they add or, put more simply, are fully compensated for their skill and hard work, especially in light of the length of time and expense it takes to become a lawyer.  Compared to service-industry workers, who are notoriously undervalued, it may seem odd to ask if someone who makes close to or even more than six figures is "valued."

The assumption underlying this question includes the costs, out-of-pocket and missed opportunities, occasioned by the route it takes to become licensed.  An ever more important assumption is the number of hours worked by lawyers -- often at the relentless insistence of their partners and corporate masters -- which results in an hourly wage far less than what people might assume lawyers earn.

Two recent articles brought this question to mind.  The first article notes that all workers are, on average, grossly underpaid in terms of salaries versus productivity.  While productivity has increased 170% since 1980, wages have only increased 40%.  (https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/)  As this article notes, before 1980 pay rose with productivity.  One obvious explanation is the unpopular and mich-vilified observation that there has been an excess of labor vis-a-vis demand for labor since the 1980s, tipping wage negotiations in favor of capital and against labor.

The second article notes that lawyers in certain specialized areas, such as mergers tax compliance, and private equity, are now demanding the same sort of compensation that investment bankers earn. (https://www.wsj.com/business/rock-star-law-firms-are-billing-up-to-2-500-per-hour-clients-are-indignant-61b248c2?page=1)

This begs the question as to why the"finance bros" with lesser licenses have earned so much more vis-a-vis a lawyer who defends their employer in Federal Court on an important issue.  The answer is that the perceived value provided by a Wall Street Trader is greater than that of a lawyer who works on the legal side of same the deal.

So we must ask: will this trend of increased billing rates continue and should it continue?  Or, put another way, would you advise your own children to enter the legal profession?  Your author's bias is clear, as I often tell young people to calculate the cost of the required undergraduate, graduate school, and bar-taking periods and compare that to a starting lawyer's salary, and, then, divide this salary by the number of hours worked.  

Every single young person who has done this calculation has come back to me with a look of horror on their face.

Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.

Follow me on LinkedIn 

From the Wall Street Journal - The disturbing trend of young men falling behind

An article from the Wall Street Journal entitled, "America’s Young Men Are Falling Even Further Behind"
(https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/young-american-men-lost-c1d799f7) examines the trend of young men in their 20s and 30s who have failed to launch.  Or, as the authors point out, have failed to achieve what in Spanish is called "encaminado."

Unfortunately, the article begins with an anecdotal story about parents who somehow permit their adult children to live at home and do next to nothing. These individual stories, of course, prove nothing, for the children would assuredly find something to do with their lives and a place to live on their own if their parents were, for example, suddenly kidnapped by aliens. 

But when the article leaves the example of specific children and delves into statistical and societal trends, it finds evidence of a shocking phenomenon, namely, that the percentage of men who are "NEETS" is much higher than it is for women:

Among noncaregivers who aren’t disabled, men are more likely to be neither employed, in school nor in workforce training, what economists refer to as NEET. Around 260,000 more 16- to 29-year-old men than women fell into this category as of the first half of 2024, according to think tank the Center for Economic and Policy Research, representing 8.6% of young men and 7.8% of young women. Rates are up for both groups since 2019, but down from a Covid high. 

As the article notes, a few years ago educators began warning us that fewer and fewer boys of high school age were applying for and planning to go to college.  The results from this trend are multi-faceted, but here is one result, the number of young men living at home vis a vis women:

Further, young men on average spend an additional one hour a day "alone" than do women:

The article does discuss how the "pandemic" (by which they mean the decision to close society in response to the pandemic) has played a role in delaying the maturation of young men.  Your author, however, prefers more prosaic explanations and notes the article fails to discuss the amount of time men, vis a vis women, spend online and, in particular, playing video games.