You are currently browsing the daily archive for September 1, 2011.

From Peter Martin’s office:

An Open Letter to the Arcata City Council
From: Peter E. Martin, A Law Corporation, Attorney for Marc Delany
Re: Public Records Act Request
Date: August 31, 2011

Dear Council members:

Recently, Marc Delany submitted a public records act request to the City in which he sought the total amount of fees paid to every attorney hired by the City over the past few years.  The City refused to provide the information relating to fees paid to private attorneys, claiming it was subject to the attorney-client privilege.  The cases cited by the city in support of its position actually stand for the opposite proposition, that is, that the amount of attorney’s fees paid is not privileged under California law. Information about fees is privileged only if it would disclose tactics or strategy.  A request for a total does not disclose tactics or strategy.

Marc Delany encourages each and every council member to conduct the city’s business in and open, transparent manner consistent with this country’s highest ideals, as does Arcata Local Ordinance 1339.

The purpose of the public records act is to let the public know what its public servants are doing.  Mr. Delany believes that the City has mismanaged its litigation and has incurred tens of thousands in unnecessary fees.  The City can prove him wrong, if he is, by releasing the total amount of fees paid.  The City is acting like it has something to hide.

This is to give the City one last opportunity to obey the law before Mr. Delany files suit to obtain these records.

Do the right thing,

Peter Martin

I’m not saying I’m certain that there aren’t mitigating factors in the mental stability of the defendant.  But we passed laws which protect rape victims from certain defenses.  Obviously accepting a mitigation defense based upon “unwanted sexual advances” allegedly made by the victim is to basically justify the killing of a homosexual.  Period.  We would not accept such a defense from a woman facing unwanted sexual advances from a man, no matter what her sexual preference and no matter how boorish the advances.

Seven jurors were willing to go there.

The abuse from his father should be admissible.  Other factors about his mental stability.  But the victims sexual advances, real or imagined, should not be deemed relevant to any mitigation defense.  My opinion.

Just before the three-year statute of limitations runs on some of their activities, several big banks are being sued by the Federal House Financing Agency.  I wish the Justice Department would get involved, because some of these people should be facing criminal charges, but I’ll take what I can get.

Of course there will be screaming about how this will jeopardize the recovery and all, as there have been over the Justice Department suit against the ATT merger.  But hey, a multi-billion dollar judgment would be good for the deficit, right?  Isn’t that the paramount concern these days?

I just found an old article by Joshua Green of the Washington Monthly wherein he tried to make the case.  And no, we’re not talking about his early years pumping for the New Deal on behalf of the Actors Guild (and later pumping HUAC with names of his fellow Guild activists).  Did you know that Reagan was a peacenik and saved Social Security?


September 2011
« Aug   Oct »