When The Headlines Don't Tell the Real Story

By Craig

As you are undoubtedly aware, Steve Pappas, the unsuccessful candidate for 3rd District County Supervisor, lost his attempt to have the election results overturned and has paid his opponent Doreen Farr, close to half a million bucks in attorney's fees. Last week, both the News-Press and the Santa Maria Times had virtually the same headline: "Pappas Case Going to U.S. Supreme Court."

Not so fast. All Pappas has done is file a petition with the court asking that it review his case. The Supremes haven't agreed to hear his case and most likely won't be agreeing to consider it on the merits. Saying Pappas' case is going to the Supreme Court is a little like saying that someone who buys a lottery ticket is about to become a multi-millionaire. Actually, I like the ticket buyer's chances better.

From an article in the Daily Journal, a legal newspaper:

The Supreme Court does not exist to correct every flawed decision issued by a lower court. Even with the help of their law clerks, the nine justices could not possibly handle the enormous volume of cases generated if every aggrieved party could call upon the Court to review the merits of each controversy as a matter of right. Therefore, with very limited exceptions, Supreme Court jurisdiction can be invoked only by filing a petition for writ of certiorari (cert petition), which the Court can grant or deny at its discretion. When the Court denies cert, that is the end of the litigation road; the Court will not consider the case on its merits, and the lower-court decision will stand, rightly or wrongly.

To make matters more difficult, the odds of persuading the Supreme Court to grant cert have always been small, but they have decreased even further in the past two decades. The volume of cert petitions filed has increased while the numbers granted each term have declined. Between 1989 and 2009, the Court averaged 7,500 cert petitions each term, yet it granted an average of only 93. Those figures translate into a "grant rate" of only 1.2 percent.

In other words, there's about a 99% chance that Pappas' case won't be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, as a headline, that might not look too good.

Spending Sunday With The Sound of a Familiar Voice

By Craig

On Sunday afternoon before the gusty winds came, when the breeze was still gentle and the sun was out, I grabbed a beer and sat on my front porch. My house is only about 1,000 square feet in size so the front porch makes for a nice bonus room. It's the place where I go when I want the world to slow down.

On the TV in the living room the Dodgers game was on and I turned up the sound. Without the pictures I only had the voice of Vin Scully to inform me of what was going on on a brilliant afternoon in a ballpark 100 miles south of here. Listening to his voice transported me back to the early 1960s when my dad would come home after work and we would listen to that same voice call Dodgers games on the radio. We lived in a duplex near the Wilshire District in L.A. I was only 9 or 10 then. As I sat on the porch Sunday I was struck by the fact that some 50 years later, and long after both of my parents had departed this world, I was still listening to Vin broadcast the Dodgers, only this time in my own home instead of that of my parents. I'm amazed that someone who has met both Jackie Robinson and Clayton Kershaw is still going strong as the voice of the Dodgers.

Sunday afternoons tend to be quiet in my downtown neighborhood which is a mere three blocks from State Street. As I drank my beer on the porch while listening to Vin's voice and thinking back to my childhood in L.A., living forever suddenly seemed like a possibility. If every Sunday is like yesterday, it's going to be a good spring and summer.

Barry and Wendy Have a Date in Court

By Craig

In terms of attorney and client they seemed like a perfect match for each other. He is one of Santa Barbara's most powerful lawyers with a reputation for taking no prisoners when it comes to representing his clients. She is one of the wealthiest women in Santa Barbara if not the entire world with a reputation for taking no prisoners when it comes to having it her way. But now they're battling over money. Barry Cappello's lawsuit against a corporation and a trust controlled by News-Press owner Wendy McCaw appears headed to trial later this month.

The parties have a date in Santa Barbara Superior Court this coming Friday, April 5, for a readiness and settlement conference and if the case doesn't settle they will be back in court on April 23 for what is estimated to be a five day trial.

The dispute is over several hundred thousands of dollars that Cappello claims the McCaw entities owe his law firm. Cappello's bill to Amperpsand Publishing, the parent company of the Santa Barbara News-Press, for unpaid fees of $168,000 is actually one of the claims that is not going to trial but instead will be sent to arbitration. The trial will be over whether Barry's firm is entitled to unpaid fees racked up in representing the Stanford Farms Trust (which I assume is the entity that actually holds title to McCaw's personal residence) in a dispute with the Hope Ranch Association, for representing the Pescadero Point Trust in litigation over the construction of a swimming pool at a residence on the 17-Mile Drive in Carmel, and for representing Georgetown Aviation Associates, which I believe owns a private plane that McCaw uses for travel.

The fee agreements that are attached to Cappello's complaint show that he was charging between $600 and $750 an hour for work he personally did on these various matters. The time spent by less-experienced associate attorneys employed by Cappello's firm was billed out at $300 per hour. (By the way, isn't $300 an hour about the same a plumber would charge to come out to your house on Thanksgiving day?)

I'm a lawyer myself so, it should come as no surprise that I like to see lawyers get paid. I guess that might explain why, in my view at least, McCaw's excuses for not paying seem flimsier than a pair of Lululemon yoga pants.

Last month, Cappello tried to short circuit the trial process by making a motion for summary judgment. However, Judge Thomas Anderle denied the motion holding there were defects in the proof that Cappello offered to support the motion.

I'm betting Cappello will have cured those defects in his proof when it's time for trial. It will be interesting to see what McCaw's lawyer, David Millstein of San Francisco comes up with to counter that evidence. It may not be the trial of the century, but it will surely be the trial of this spring.

Don't Treat Me Differently, Just Equally

By Taryn

I have always dreamed since I was a little girl of having a fancy wedding.  My perfect wedding would be on a Santa Barbara beach, on a perfect summer's day, with my dad performing the ceremony, and my mom walking me down the aisle. And that this will be a step in me getting the "happily ever after" that I have always seen in Disney movies.  This may seem like a dream that could easily come true. However, there is one big problem.  I am gay, and I don't know if this dream of mine will ever come true.

The future of gay marriage is now in the hands of the Supreme Court.  The LGBTQ community has many wonderful straight allies.  I love seeing straight people put themselves in the shoes of others in order to protect human rights.  But, it is still hard knowing that not everyone in this world has the best interests of LGBTQ people at heart.  

I think that there is a misconception in our society that gay people want "special rights,” and that this should not be permitted.  The truth is that we just want to be treated like everybody else.  To those who say that being gay is a choice, I ask, why would I or anyone else choose a life that will be ridden with discrimination, bullying, inequality, and even the possibility of being the subject of a hate crime? Nobody would ever want these hurdles to be present in their life.  The fact that some people think and say these things really hurts.   Should the fact that somebody is gay mean that they're not worthy of having equal opportunities and rights?  Some people would say yes. The gay community is not asking to be treated differently; we just want to be treated equally. I don't think that being treated equally is too much to ask.

Sometimes putting a name with a face helps make understanding something different easier. Let me help you all out here. My name is Taryn (sometimes also known as TayTay, T, or Miss Daisy).  I am 17 years old.  I love writing and have big dreams of being very successful in the world of media and news.  I spend way too much time on the Internet, and watching "The Big Bang Theory.” My dad says that I race through life at 100 miles an hour and that I should slow down.  My mom thinks that I need to be more organized and need to clean up my room.  I also happen to be a lesbian.  I don't think that this is anything to be ashamed of.  It certainly makes my life more difficult sometimes, but I also think that it is one of many things that makes me unique.  Maybe my little introduction will help you all to identify and empathize with someone that you know, even if it's only through the Internet.  

I have dreams of having a wife, and maybe even a having family.  I also hope to have very successful career. I don't think that this is very uncommon, except maybe that I want a wife instead of a husband.  I just hope that other people can recognize that.  This Supreme Court case has real world consequences for me.  Either way the verdict goes there is no doubt that it will change my life.  I am extremely lucky to have great, supportive parents, that have accepted me for exactly who I am since the day that I was born.  I just hope that when the Supreme Court Justices are making their final decision that the will remember that I, along with a whole community of LGBTQ Americans, dream of having our fairy tale weddings, and "happily ever afters" too.

Everyone Should Be Permitted to Enjoy the Exquisite Pain of Marriage

By Craig

What I'm about to say is hardly original. (I've heard a number of variations of the following statement quite a bit over the past week.) But it so accurately describes my feelings on the subject that I'm going to say it anyway. I believe that gay couples have every right to be just as miserable as I've made my wives over the years.

Like many people out there, I haven't always felt that way. It's only in the past few years that I've come around to the point of view that same sex marriage ought to be allowed. But please, don't criticize me for being late to arrive to this party. Remember, no one is born with all of their wisdom at once. Wising up takes time and experience. Sometimes we have growth spurts and sometimes long periods of time go by with no apparent progress in the wisdom department.

I probably qualify as a serial monogamist. (I've been married three times in case you're keeping score.) I only wish that sometime earlier I might have run into one of those evangelical Christians who would have told me that marriage was only for procreation. If so, I might have stopped getting hitched years ago.

When it comes down to it, the arguments of those who oppose same sex marriage are pretty weak. I don't find, "This is the way it's always been," to be very persuasive. Neither is, "Well, if you are going to allow gays and lesbians to marry, what's to stop people from being married to more than one spouse at at time?" The answer to that is when the state starts allowing heterosexuals to be polygamists but doesn't allow gay people to do so, then you might have a point.

Having said all that, my prediction (based on reading various news accounts of the oral arguments) is that the outcomes of the two cases on same sex marriage that are pending before the Supreme Court are going to be somewhat disappointing to those of us who are hoping for an affirmation of equal rights for gays and lesbians. Rather than decide either of those cases on Constitutional equal protection grounds, the basis for the rulings will be much narrower. Proposition 8 will be struck down but there will probably be no sweeping declaration that same sex marriage must be adopted in all 50 states. The Defense of Marriage Act may very well be decided on the grounds of "Full Faith and Credit." That is, if a state says same sex couples can legally marry, then the federal government will have to respect that state's definition of marriage. But it will be the states who get to decide in the first instance who can enter into a valid marriage.

Yes, the law moves slowly and this particular Supreme Court seems to be in no hurry to move the ball down the court. It's probably another example of wisdom coming slowly and not all at once.