An album of 126 photos from the recent Judge Kaye Tertzag Tribute and Award Dinner can be found on the sidebar of this site, and/or by directly following this link.
Included are shots of many of the over 225 friends and family of Kaye Tertzag who attended, as well as Purple Sport Coat recipient Judge James Rashid, as well as many of the evening's speakers.
Thanks to all who worked so hard to make this event happen and to all who attended and made this a very special evening.
On March 1, 2010, the Detroit Legal News ran a very nice article about the February 25, 2010 Judge Kaye Tertzag Tribute and Award Dinner. The whole issue can be found here, and the article starts on the front page and continues on page 3.
Here are a few quotes from the piece, written by John Minnis:
"Nary a dry eye could be found at the inaugural Kaye Tertzag Tribute Dinner held Thursday night, Feb. 25, at the Park Place Banquet Hall in Dearborn."
“It is a tribute to see so many from all walks of life,” (Event Committee member Michael) Butler addressed the crowd. “Plaintiff and defense attorneys sitting down with one another. We could sure use someone like Kaye in Lansing or Washington right now.”
“I heard and read a lot of stories about Kaye,” (Keynote speaker Norm)Tucker said. “I think I see what made him special. He savored and cared for everything he loved in life.”
“I was very concerned about my emotional stability tonight,” (Award recipient, the Honorable James) Rashid said, his voice cracking after donning the purple jacket. “I have been blessed in my career but never has any award touched my heart like this one. That you could even suggest that I could ever rise to his level.”
"She (Kaye's daughter Kara) then offered a Sambuca toast to 'Chach,' a tradition she started at her father’s memorial service. 'Dad is with us tonight in many ways,' she said."
Nice clip. Throwing around the phrase "tort reform" to get an emotional response trivializes the serious issues involved. Let's try some serious thinking for a change.
Michigan State Senator Mike Bishop, Republican (and proud of it) is term limited and needs to find new employment starting in 2011. He has chosen to run for Michigan Attorney General. Of course, he must first win the primary, but he is already looking to see how he stacks up against the probable Democratic opposition. (Alert to readers: Mike Bishop is not one e of my favorite people).
A recent Facebook post on his "fan" page is entitled: "Another Poll, Another Win for Bishop; Beats Multi-Millionare Trial Lawyer's Son". (Someone in the Bishop camp needs to learn how to use spellcheck.) The story refers to how Senator Bishop "won" a poll against Ricky Bernstein, Democrat, son of attorney Sam Bernstein (you may have seen some of his adverts). (Alert to readers: I do not work for Sam Bernstein). I don't know when the poll was taken, but Bish's post is dated February 17, 2010, and Ricky is not declaring his candidacy until March 1.
By the way, Mr. Bishop gets 33 percent of the vote in the poll, while Mr. Bernstein totals 31 percent. Impressive performance, Mr. Bishop.
I think I could re-title Mike Bishop's self-effacing post in a manner a little more in keeping with the truth than this quote from the post: "This is the third poll in a row showing Bishop as a clear winner in the November General Election." (Really? I know I am a mere Social Science Major, but 33 v 31 does not seem like much of a clear win to me.) The new title:
"LEGALLY BLIND ADVOCATE FOR THE DISABLED IN STATISTICAL DEAD HEAT WITH TERM-LIMITED, CAREER POLITICIAN, SEEKING TO CONTINUE FEEDING AT THE PUBLIC TROUGH."
IN CARRINGTON V WEST SIDE CONCRETE, THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS QUESTIONS THE SUPREME COURT'S OPINION IN FULTZ V UNION-COMMERCE ASSOCIATES (ARE YOU LISTENING?)
On February 9, 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its unpublished opinion in the case of Carrington v West Side Concrete No. 289075. This case represents a direct assault on the Michigan Supreme Court's opinion in the case of Fultz v Union Commerce Associates 470 Mich 460 (2004).
I have always had problems with the Fultz case, and I don't think I am alone in this regard. I have tried, long and hard, on several occasions to condense the opinion down to a form that understandable to the common citizen. This is as close as I have come:
If I enter into a contract with someone to do a job, and to do that job in a careful manner, that contract eliminates any responsibility I have to other people if I do the job carelessly. (Simple, isn't it?)
Please see my previous post, Fultz Off.
The Michigan Supreme Court has followed that reasoning since, and has slapped down any Court of Appeals panel that has dared hold otherwise. See Banaszak v Northwest Airlines, 477 Mich 895 (2006). In that case the defendant was working on some open holes called "wellways" which it was required by contract to cover when during off work hours. The defendant had used a flimsy cover which gave way when the plaintiff walked on it, causing her to fall in the hole and injure herself. The Supreme Court held that since the contract for the job called for the defendant to cover the holes, and the hole was covered, however inadequately, the plaintiff had no case against the defendant. You see, she was not party to the contract. The defendant did not owe a duty to her, as a third party, to do the contracted work in careful manner.
The Court of Appeals had held otherwise in Banascak,and that opinion was overturned by the Supremes.
This sounds just flat out stupid to me, and I think it did to the Carrington Court, which basically said, Fultz may be your opinion, Supreme Court, and we are compelled to follow it and kick out the plaintiff, but we are not persuaded by the "logic" of Fultz and we basically ask you to look at this issue again.
The Carrington Court did find a Michigan Federal Court's reasoning persuasive on this subject of contractor's liability. Quoting from the opinion of Judge Kennedy in the case of Davis v Venture One Construction 683 N.W. 2d 570 (2009): “A contract between two parties does not determine those parties’ obligations with respect to the rest of the world. Contractual duties do not limit separately existing common law tort duties."
Well said. Let's hope the Michigan Supreme Court looks at Fultz Court's work, and, like the Kay Kyser, the Dean of the College of Musical Knowledge often said:
"That's right. You're wrong."
The first Judge Kaye Tertzag Tribute and Award Dinner took place on Thursday, February 25, 2010, at Park Place Banquet Center in Dearborn.
The event committee depended entirely on word of mouth and email notices to advertize the dinner. An optimistic prediction of attendance was 175. We had 230 attend. It was a magical and emotional evening. Norm Tucker was the keynote speaker and presented the first Purple Sportcoat to Judge James Rashid. The spirit of Kaye Tertzag filled the very large room.
A more detailed article along with photos from the event will appear on this site shortly. A reporter from the Detroit Legal News covered the dinner and that article will also be posted here.
The Tribute and Award Dinner will become an annual event, and those wanting updated information can follow us on Facebook by joining the Judge Kaye Tertzag Tribute Dinner Group.
Brevity is, indeed, the soul of wit.
About the time of the Sotomayor Supreme Court confirmation hearings, I published a post called: How Does a Michigan Textualist Define Judicial Activism? In that post I advanced an opinion (among others) that was judicial restraint and what was judicial activism generally depended almost exclusively on whether judges of one's political persuasion made up the majority of a particular reviewing court. I did not believe this to be a spectacularly original opinion.
The post was written on July 29, 2009. Early on February 5, 2010, I received the following comment, set forth here in its totality:
"I could not disagree more with your conceptualization of activism and restraint. I find it odd, but not telling, that I have never heard a conservative make such a claim, though often hear it from more liberal-minded folk. But it always comes off as a last-ditch effort to argue that all judicial philosophies are on par, and thereby take a relatively moderate stance, when in reality there is no effective label for the jurisprudence exercised by what is largely considered the "activist" wing of the Court. You can always tell the losing side when it offers stalemate. But at the end of the day, is not some guiding principle is necessary? And though you will inevitably retort with something as trite as "Even Scalia writes opinions in which he discards the textualism he champions," you simply cannot shake the fact that 98% of his decisions do track his textualist philosophy; that, in any event, any admittedly rare misstep on his part is no indictment of the philosophy itself; nor the frighteningly pathetic fact that I know with 99% certainty how a Marshall (Thurgood) or Brennan would decide a case without reading past the facts. The oath is to a document. With all due respect, I find your view on this fatally short-sighted, and without a doubt skewed by the myopic lens of politics. It would be a pleasure to discuss this further, so please do not hesitate to email me."
This comment had come from one JR, from a Virginia.edu domain.
Within one hour I posted the following reply, again in its entirety:
"Ouch, the skewed by politics comment hurts. If you look at my site you will find that I have a whole category on the evils of partisan politics. There is indeed much in what you say, and I agree about the necessity of guiding principles. I still believe (and I may have missed something, as this site is an off hours hobby and I have to run to court) that activism is a label used by the losing side, liberal or conservative. Textualism, in my opinion, has been used as a convenient label, and one that carries the obvious appearance of legitimacy, to mask, at least in Michigan, a results oriented legal philosophy. I am more conservative than liberal, if tags must be applied, and I am currently wrestling with the practical results of the Citizens United case, which may be a correct decision. Anyway, happy to discuss this further. Got to run to my paying job. Thanks JR. Be well."
As I am still not sure how this comment feature works, I posted the reply and then sent it on to JR as a personal email message. I have not heard from JR, even though JR promised a dialog on the issue. I operate on the assumption that if you don't reply to an email in two weeks, you are unlikely to respond at all.
When I first read JR's message and saw its domain, I flattered myself that it might have come from a University of Virginia Law School Prof. But, remembering my own law school days, and reviewing the rather cocksure tone, and the "I'd love to discuss this with you (if you dare)" sign-off, I tend to think that JR is a U of V law student. This opinion is bolstered by the fact that I have haven't heard back. Probably moved on to tell someone else how smart he/she is.
By the way, JR, if you have never heard conservatives apply the activism/restraint labels in the way I have suggested, you have not read Michigan Supreme Court opinions by the Engler Four.
In closing, I hope JR is going somewhere warm for the Winter Break, and best of luck on this semester's Con Law final.
I saw the movie Invictus with my two daughters a couple of weeks ago and I really liked it. I am a pushover for sports movies like this, as a rule. But I was particularly taken with Nelson Mandela, as portrayed by Morgan Freeman. Now, I am not so sure how accurate the movie was with regard to all of his actions as President of South Africa, but his efforts to bring together the white, former ruling minority with the newly empowered black majority, were very impressive. He was not a newly elected Democrat trying to reach out to former Republican administration. He represented a truly persecuted class of citizens that was now in power, now in a position to take revenge on its former tormentors. Yet, Mandela realized that the real future of the country lay in cooperation and working together. This from a man who spent 27 years as a prisoner of the previous regime.
Not exactly many parallels to Michigan partisan politics, I am afraid. Democrats and Republicans can never work together, because the philosophical differences between them are really important, not something petty like apartheid. And so, progress in Michigan be damned.
I think Invictus should be mandatory viewing for all of our legislators, judges, and executive personnel. They might learn something, or they might be embarrassed.
By the way, the Invictus of the title refers to a poem Mr. Mandela often read while in prison, and which served as a source of strength and perseverance for him. It is by the English poet William Ernest Henley and was written in 1875. The title means "Unconquered". Here is the text.
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
An interesting feature of Google and/or Typepad is that a blog owner (me) can see what search terms a user (you, for instance) employs when that user finds your site from a Google search. I saw that someone clicked on this site based on a search for "michael butler florida attorney". How my site comes up third out of 58,000 hits for such an inquiry is beyond my understanding, but there it is.
However, my attention sure was drawn to the number one hit on the Google Chart, which was this story about a successful lawsuit by the Florida city of Hallandale Beach against blogger Mike Butler (Yikes.)
That woke me up on an otherwise lazy, snowy winter evening. After making sure that it was, in fact, another Mike Butler involved--it was, I was interested to find that the city sued Mr. Butler merely because he had asked for some records under the Florida equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act. Rather than merely refuse the request, and let Mr. Butler sue the city for the records, the city sued him, more or less, for asking. The court ruled against Mr. Butler, and though he wasn't assessed any damages (that's nice), he is $1450 poorer in legal fees.
I am certainly glad that legal reformers have left the Justice system open for such suits as this one. Maybe Justice Kennedy, author of the recent Citizens United v FEC case, might want to take a look at the chilling effects of this kind of litigation on the First Amendment.
As one of my heroes, the late Judge Kaye Tertzag, might say "Great country, America". But, as goofy as this suit sounds, it could be worse. As another friend of mine, attorney Tom Loeb might say, "It could be worse. It could have really happened to me".
Best of luck, Mike Butler. Signed, Mike Butler
This is a nice, and very short video showing a time lapse of the Ambassador Bridge from 1954-2009.
With the endless debates, international, state, local, public and private issues, delays, lawsuits and money issues, will we ever see a second bridge across the Detroit River.
Don't know, but, this is nice to look at for now.
I am starting new category today, on the recent US Supreme Court decision in the case of Citizens United v FEC. The link is to the entire 183 page opinion. I haven't read all of it yet, though I have gone through the syllabus and several commentaries and opinion pieces written about the case-as well as any number of editorial cartoons.
It is a very important case, obviously. I think the decision may be correct, though I am not willing to be quoted on that yet. It does give me cause for concern that most people that like the opinion are people with whom I disagree on most issues. On the other hand, some of those opinions I general respect have not joined the knee-jerk reaction condemning the decision. Not that they don't think it will cause problems in a practical sense, but, that decision may be correct legally. I mean, I do have concern about those who are happy to accept the advantages of the corporate form, such as immunity from personal liability, but are not willing to consider the broad implications of treating a corporation as a distinct legal entity.
Not that I don't think that the influx of corporate money will not affect the electoral process. Anyone who thinks it won't is naive. In fact, it appears that Justice Kennedy, who authored the Citizens United opinion had previously voiced concerns about the affect of campaign contributions on the perceived fairness of the legal system. That is for a later post.
For now I will leave you with an ad from a campaign for parish (which means county, for those of you outside Louisiana) Coroner, for God's sake. For further information about that particular election and the "glass houses, throwing stones" aspect of the attacking candidate, see this article fromLowering the Bar, a great blog which is featured on a "widget" on the sidebar of this site.
Anyway, with the new influx of corporate money, we probably be seeing many more attack ads like this. One consolation is that they will probably have better production values.
Sarah Palin won't go away, but, won't get smart, either. She scares me like no other politician I have ever heard, and that takes in quite a Rogue's Gallery. Her recent folksy comment at a Tea Party was particularly annoying--though I heard a commentary say he thought it was her best line of the day. Let's be honest, how much competition could there have been.
Elayne Boosler, comic genius posted a nice little riposte on her Facebook page:
"TRUE: Sarah Palin speaking at Teabaggers Convention: "How's that hopey changey thing workin' out for ya?" Great Sarah. How's that dopey grumpy shoppy blamey roguey quitty cheatty non-answery not-knowy non-readingy non celibatey not electedy thing working out for YOU?"
If Palin is ever elected President, I can see her withdrawing support for Israel because she just found out, while reading her Bible, that the Jews killed Jesus. I wish that was a joke.
Some of the ads I come across in this category appear so bad, that I have to do some research to see if the companies really exist. In the case of Vern Fonk and Lincoln-yes; in the case of Great Bridge-no. Actually Great Bridge is the only put-on in this category.
Pacific Way Insurance Company does exist, though I am not so sure I would like to be one of its policyholders. As the ads show, the company seems to have an inherent distrust of all claimants. And if you are a person with a damaged home, or someone who needs treatment after an auto accident, you might like to have the company to which you paid your premium dollars, look at you as a customer first and not as andidiots, felons or psychopaths, at best, or scam artists (as usual).