Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Page 7
PERSPECTIVES (Column)
Letter-Writers Defend Girardi’s Screening of Video Many Deemed Offensive
By ROGER M. GRACE
Exception has been taken by a couple of letter-writers to my last column.
I commented negatively on an antic of attorney Thomas V. Girardi which appalled some of the members of the of the Italian American Lawyers Assn., of which he is president. At a meeting attended by justices of the California Supreme Court, he displayed a steamy video of his wife gyrating to rock, clad in a skimpy top and scanty bottom. The setting of the video was a smoke-filled party at which inhibitions were lacking.
The IALA event took place at the Biltmore Hotel. Those attending paid far less for their meals than it is conceivable that the Biltmore charged. Through last year, Girardi was the group’s benefactor, and also its monarch, with little put to votes at board meetings, I’m told.
Some, having benefitted from his largesse, worship the benevolent dictator. Others, mainly long-time members of Italian heritage, resent his commandeering of the bar group, converting it into the Tom Girardi Club.
Many look forward to a return to the group’s usual and beloved venue since July 20, 1977: Casa Italiana, a meeting hall on North Broadway, across the parking lot from St. Peter’s Italian Church. No meetings were held there last year.
Comes now Ronald S. Smith, a Beverly Hills attorney and frequent attendee at IALA events in recent years. Protesting the derogation here of Girardi, he declares:
“The 4½ minute video played to the Justices of the California State Supreme Court and to the other judicial guests and members of the Italian American Lawyers Association wasn’t one that I would have chosen and I agree that a good portion of the audience appeared uncomfortable viewing it. However, Tom Girardi was the host and everyone present knew that he had indeed personally subsidized all of the events held this year. As such, if he wished to create ‘a buzz’ by showing off the talents of his wife, then so be it.
“I enjoyed the various venues, entertainment, food and drink provided this year by ‘my pal’ Tom. I suspect that if put to a vote, he would be re-elected to serve another term as President.”
The traditional view of hospitality is that a host owes a duty to the guests—that is to say, he or she invites their presence and thereby incurs the responsibility of making them comfortable.
Smith has a contrary notion. He acknowledges that “a good portion of the audience appeared uncomfortable” in viewing the video Girardi screened. Yet, under his theory, guests owe a duty to the host: a duty to endure whatever discomfort or indignity the host may impose because, well, after all, the guests are accepting something of value from the provider. What he’s saying is that they are “bought.”
Ron Smith has never invited me to a party at his house. If he were to do so, I doubt that I would accept, given his peculiar concept of a host’s prerogatives.
Also defending Girardi is one Michael Millman. This is not the Michael Millman who is executive director of the California Appellate Project in San Francisco; it’s a West Los Angeles sole practitioner who, some years back, was suspended from law practice on a couple of occasions and incurred a public reproval. He writes (unedited):
I’ve been a longstanding member of the Italian-American Bar Association. Perhaps I’ve been a member 15 years or longer.
I’ve attended dozens of SUPREME COURT NIGHTS, at the Casa Italiana, slightly east of Chinatown.
I’ve listened to U.S. District Judge George Schiavelli introductions and the same recycled jokes. I’ve listening to Judge George tell the audience about the collapse of the legal system in California and the lack of funding.
Not all of the Supreme Court Justices attend. A very few.
They go around the room, they have a beverage, and they exchange holiday cheers. It is a very successful event.
However, I am shocked and surprised that you are not congratulating our good friend President Tom Girardi for his magnificent and outstanding Presidency where he held different events at different Venues. Yes, the Beach Boys, Kenny Rogers, and of course the Attorneys’ Orchestra.
It’s clear that you did not fully appreciate that Mr. Girardi was able to attract at least ten times the attendance at each of his sponsored, promoted and produced Events. Many more Judges. A great number of Attorneys.
At every Venue, he always accomplished outstanding attendance.
And, of course, the Judges were invited free of charge.
Now, at each of these Venues, there were outstanding hors d’oeuvres, and there were at least two or three open bars.
Everyone enjoyed themselves. Everyone.
I heard nothing but compliments.
Yes, he showed a four minute video of his wife doing a rock ’n roll type dance. It was interesting but not offensive.
It’s true; he awarded several Justices for their outstanding performance, and may have overlooked introducing the remaining Supreme Court Justices.
Remember, you didn’t attend.
Remember, the Chief Justice had to leave early.
Yet, what you don’t recall, is most of these Justices arrived early, had a beverage with Lawyers, and had probably at least one hour or longer to walk around the smaller cocktail room and get to exchange views with the attending Judges and, of course, Attorneys.
In my mind, Attorney Tom Girardi should have his “jersey/number” retired.
He all fully understand that the nominal fees that we paid for these Events were but a fraction of the true cost of producing the Events. He underwrote all these amazing Events. It was fun and well attended.
It was outstanding and terrific.
Again, I want you to remember all of the previous years and the different Events held in that small facility, slightly east of Chinatown. Very poor attendance. Very poor attendance.
Again, I need to congratulate him. He did an outstanding job.
That’s odd. Up until this year, I had been attending IALA meetings with my wife, Jo-Ann, fairly regularly—ever since 1988, in fact. Jo-Ann was president in 1996. I don’t recall ever encountering Millman. Well, maybe he’s just the quiet sort, easily missed.
I do understand that by largely subsidizing events, Girardi was able to attract sizable attendance at his 2011 meetings…though I would challenge Millman’s assertion that he drew at least 10 times the usual numbers. Last year’s president, Jack Denove, staged events that were major draws, as did other presidents.
The high attendance Girardi achieved was a coup for Girardi, but not the IALA. How could it be to the IALA’s benefit that there was a major turn-out at meetings where tickets were sold below cost and where any goodwill emanating from this generosity necessarily flowed not to the bar association, but to the group’s high-profile patron? That patron thrives on adoration and derives income from admirerers’ referrals.
It is preposterous to say that “everyone” attending the Dec. 6 Supreme Court Night enjoyed himself or herself. I’ve heard plenty of grumbling about it. While Millman proclaims Erika’s performance to have been “not offensive,” many would differ.
Millman refers to “Judge George” in the sentence immediately following mention of “Judge George Schiavelli.” But Schiavelli—now retired from the federal bench and in law practice and mediation—never bewailed the lack of funding of California courts while emceeing Supreme Court Night. “Judge George” apparently has reference to former Chief Justice Ronald George.
Casa Italiana is not a “small facility.” When the partition between two rooms is removed, it has a seating capacity of 400.
I e-mailed 25 persons who have served as IALA president or on its board. Not one indicated a familiarity with Millman.
One, who asked not to be identified, comments that the recent Supreme Court Night “was marked by one of the most awkward and inappropriate moments ever…[n]amely, a risqué music video featuring Tom’s wife.”
The person adds that the video was “[s]ort of random and out-of-place” and that there were “[d]efinitely some squirming Justices!”
COMEDY RELIEF—Recently entering the contest for district attorney was Deputy District Attorney Marcus Musante. Compared to him, Steve Ipsen is level-headed.
I sent him an e-mail asking that he assent to a release of his department disciplinary record, if any, and for a copy of his last three annual performance evaluations. (Chief Deputy Jackie Lacey and DDAs Alan Jackson, Mario Trujillo and Bobby Grace did so; DDAs Ipsen and Danette Meyers did not.)
Curiously, Musante’s response comes in an e-mail sent both to District Attorney Steve Cooley and to me.
Here it is:
General,
The first words you ever said to me were, “So, you gave your commencement speech? Let’s hear it.” I can still recite it at-will. I remember then mentioning that you and Hillary Rodham Clinton were the only people I knew of who gave their undergraduate speeches. You frowned and grumbled. Mr. [Curt] Livesay [then chief deputy] almost fell out his chair laughing.
I see the crisis. I really do. I call it a crisis not to lay blame or be an alarmist, but because that is what it needs to be called when the problems are bigger than the solutions. It’s the criminal justice system. As much yours as mine. There is nothing more important to the both of us than that system. Perhaps a shared consequence amongst the sons of law enforcement fathers.
For a long time you have gotten Los Angeles through, steadfastly and paternally. And we all still here and Los Angeles remains. I can’t imagine how challenging it must be to sit in your chair. Guess that is what makes a General, a General. I do thank you though.
But the courtroom has changed since you were in it. The street (victims and defendants) and the box (jurors) have changed. The crimes have changed. Achieving Justice has changed. People have changed down here on the battlefield. Trust me on this.
I also know that
all the same reasons that prevent my promotion (though I still object for the
record), prevent my electability (objection as well). I do have a lil crazy in
me and thus my moments are my moments. But it’s also crazy that’s needed to
know the crimes, victims, Defendants, jurors,
cops, defense attorneys and the jurors. Add on top of that the “Restructuring,”
and the criminal justice system in Los Angeles just got more crazy. Finally,
let’s not forget that the race for your chair, Solomon’s throne, is an absolute
cluster-f—k. A lil crazy plays here.
The People need to be voir dired in order for this verdict to even have a chance (whatever it may be). I know how to do this voir dire. And you may have to hear some things you don’t want to hear, but I would never intentionally disrespect my General. I wouldn’t do that as a Candidate, as a Deputy DA, as a man. But this isn’t an easy voir dire. And I too, “am not a politician.”
General, I’ve never lost a battle for you. Ever. And I never been in a war like this. But I know what I’m doing and I just ask for a lil bit of faith, from you, while I go get the People.
- Marcus Musante, Grade 2+
Mr. Editor-In-Chief,
Smart question. Lil intense but good to see the baby-boomers are well represented, as you are in position of Shepherd here as well. However, I know when the answer will be as important as the question and we aren’t there yet. So, humbly, I must respond, “not yet.”
And please let Mr. [Kenneth] Ofgang [MetNews staff writer] know that I’m not ducking him. Truth is, I start jury selection in 10 hours on a Life case where the Defendant, after pretending to offer his hand to shake as a peace offering, used a razor blade concealed in his fingers to slash my victim’s face and neck while he sat in his car. And I don’t play when it comes to that. That verdict is already mine.
woop, woop
It’s doubful that voters will seriously the candidacy of someone who admits he has “a lil crazy” in him and is unelectable.
Copyright 2012, Metropolitan News Company