No, and that isn't what I said either. Yashouafar wasn't merely accused of crimes, he's plead guilty and is awaiting sentencing. In this case, yes, he should be stripped of his property rights. And the judge does have a duty to not leave this building in the hands of a guilty embezzler that is under more investigation by federal authorities.

Even felons can own property. Denying basic rights to criminals is cruel.

This is one of those instances where the judge accepts an agreement between the two interested parties, but parties without standing (the public) cry foul. I don't believe that anyone has legal standing to challenge the ruling. Such is life inside and outside a courthouse.

Back to the real world. The building is back in the hands of Yashouafar who has no money and only a few days of freedom remaining before he is sentenced. No existing tenant will renew their lease under these circumstances, nor would a new tenant consider moving in. Devon will be completely gone next year. Revenue will continue to decline, only critical repairs will be made, and unpaid bills will be piling up. Nevertheless, an equity partner or new owner will be announced, and tell everyone that they will return First National to its glory days. Trust me. I promise. And everyone will, because no-one has any other choice. But unless significant changes are commenced quickly, the building may decline physically and/or economically to an irreversible point, and I don't think that we're very far away.

Could we then be looking at a 33-story building will all of the hallmarks of Stage Center? An historic and iconic part of Oklahoma City. Architecturally significant. A fantastic location. Too expensive to repair. Too symbolic to tear down. Too painful to leave standing. Another symbol of failure not unlike the Indian Cultural Center, but this one can be seen from almost anywhere in Oklahoma City.

At what point does OCURA (or another entity) assert eminent domain and take the property in order to preserve it? Does any public entity have the political capital to take the building at that point, pick a winner, and give it to someone who will restore the building, most likely with financial inducements? What would existing downtown building owners, potential "mystery tower" developers or taxpayers say about a deal like that, especially when downtown focus is directed towards a new convention center and C2S, and the the enormous cost of replacing the county jail is looming in the near future? Or is this even how this should play out?

When you put your anger at Yashouafar behind you, there are lots of interesting possibilities. "May we live in interesting times." We do.

No, and that isn't what I said either. Yashouafar wasn't merely accused of crimes, he's plead guilty and is awaiting sentencing. In this case, yes, he should be stripped of his property rights. And the judge does have a duty to not leave this building in the hands of a guilty embezzler that is under more investigation by federal authorities.


He really does not have that duty. And no, there's no basis in law for stripping him of the building. And there may be some form of plea agreement that keeps him from being a convicted felon.

Should we strip all property rights from people accused of crimes? Yashouafar has pled guilty, but he has not yet been sentenced. He isn't a convicted felon yet. Now, that day may be coming very soon, or he may have a plea agreement where he avoids a felony conviction. Judge Graves does not have any duty in this situation towards the well-being of the building.

The attorneys are officers of the court. They have a duty to be truthful with the judge. They can't stand up and argue "the check is in the mail" (which is basically what they did here) if they know it to be false. Now I know a lot of attorneys who draw a very fine line on what they "know". But Judge Graves gave them 5 days after Capmark had two or three agreed continuances on the matter, and he managed to come up with the money during that time. So clearly the attorneys representing old boy were not being untruthful.

Judges are supposed to be impartial. They aren't supposed to be looking for an excuse to hammer someone who isn't popular.

I don't like this outcome any more than you guys do. But it is what it is. If this was a guy struggling to keep his house, and the judge granted him 5 days to come up with the money after the bank demanded final payment, and he managed to come up with it, everyone would be happy. We just don't like this guy and we want our building back.

Um yeah, officers of the court, truthful, other words typed onto a keypad... no offense, but what truth are we to assume here? The truth when officers of the court signed an agreement that there would be no appeals, no fight, if Yashouafar couldn't pay by May 27, but when the final extension deadline came, he didn't have the money, so they insisted on having more time? The truth where they said they needed more time for the wire to arrive, but then had another source of funding when Monday hit? Help me here on what part of this process leaves us with faith in the integrity of the officers of the court.... I'm truly curious how this logic applies to this real life situation instead of some lofty ideals taught in law school....
So, now for a show of hands... how many people actually assume lawyers never lie?

Um yeah, officers of the court, truthful, other words typed onto a keypad... no offense, but what truth are we to assume here? The truth when officers of the court signed an agreement that there would be no appeals, no fight, if Yashouafar couldn't pay by May 27, but when the final extension deadline came, he didn't have the money, so they insisted on having more time? The truth where they said they needed more time for the wire to arrive, but then had another source of funding when Monday hit? Help me here on what part of this process leaves us with faith in the integrity of the officers of the court.... I'm truly curious how this logic applies to this real life situation instead of some lofty ideals taught in law school....
So, now for a show of hands... how many people actually assume lawyers never lie?

Well I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for a positive response, Steve. LOL

As a lawyer, if you weren't able to lie, how would you be able to defend those that are guilty? Like a politician, it's a skill required for the job. One can only hope that the truth prevails in those situations although i'm sure we can all come up with instances where the tactics of the lawyers won over what was right.

In this case, there's no legal way to remove custody of the building from him. The dispute is between the bank and him. When the bank decides they're done (and can't get any more of these smaller payments out of him), then they can start liqudating some assets. But just because someone is guilty, doesn't mean that you have any right to take away things that they own (unless they were obtained illegally).

As much as I would love to see that happen, and have the building turned over to someone, it begs more questions that it answers. Who takes it? The bank or a receivership? Does it get auctioned off then? Could we end up with someone even less scrupulous owning it after all the drama is over? If that were to be legal as an action, wouldn't it seem to push into his other properties (including his home) to make up the cash. And in that case, those that suffer because of his actions now include his family. And the other properties could also have issues. It's just a messy game that, while the knee-jerk is to say do it, really if it's thought through, isn't something we really want to have happen.

Now, bankruptcy with the building taken by the bank? Sure why not.

Um yeah, officers of the court, truthful, other words typed onto a keypad... no offense, but what truth are we to assume here? The truth when officers of the court signed an agreement that there would be no appeals, no fight, if Yashouafar couldn't pay by May 27, but when the final extension deadline came, he didn't have the money, so they insisted on having more time? The truth where they said they needed more time for the wire to arrive, but then had another source of funding when Monday hit? Help me here on what part of this process leaves us with faith in the integrity of the officers of the court.... I'm truly curious how this logic applies to this real life situation instead of some lofty ideals taught in law school....
So, now for a show of hands... how many people actually assume lawyers never lie?

Says the journalist, a profession known for upholding the highest values of truth and honor. No sensationalism at all. ;) Are you truly curious how the logic applies to real life, or is this one of those creatively worded journalist questions where you say one thing but you're really looking over at the audience and winking?

People often try to simplify certain agreements, and then get upset when their perception of that simplified agreement is violated. But do we really have an issue here? Let's look at it, and if you're truly curious, you can see how these high and lofty law school ideals apply in the real world. Now I don't have whatever agreement was signed between the two parties here. But you say they agreed "no appeal, no fight" if they couldn't meet the May 27 deadline. Well, they haven't appealed anything, so we're good there. Do you have any proof that this has gone up to the Court of Appeals? Remember, in the law "appeal" has a very specific meaning. So did they fight? Well that's a term that's ambiguous as hell. They didn't go to trial, if that's what it means. They didn't force the judge into long drawn out hearings on the subject. Everybody agreed to give him more time. That doesn't sound like a fight to me. If I ask a girl out on a date, and we agree to go to the movies on Friday, and then on Thursday she calls and says "can we go Saturday instead?" and I say okay, no one lied. We had an agreement to go on Friday, and then it was changed.

The only thing that happened here was this guy asked the judge for 5 more days to get the money, the bank was sick of waiting, and the judge granted him 5 more days. Then he came up with the money, just like he said he would. Please, can you tell me where the attorneys lied here? I'm truly curious. ;)


As a lawyer, if you weren't able to lie, how would you be able to defend those that are guilty? Like a politician, it's a skill required for the job.

Well I don't lie.

Say Bob is accused of drunk driving. Cops say Bob is pulled over driving the wrong way down a bike path. He breathes in the breathalyzer and blows a .42 (with .08 being the legal limit). Bob then tells the cops "whoa I'm sooooo wasted...." I can get up and say "My client is innocent, he wasn't drunk" without lying. Why? Because I wasn't there and didn't see any of it. When I talk to Bob he says "they're all lying I didn't do that", or he doesn't say anything about what happened at all. I don't have personal knowledge of the truth. Maybe the cops are lying.

Now, if I talk to Bob and he says "dude I was so drunk, I totally did it but I want to go to trial anyway", then I have to change what I say. Instead of saying "my client didn't do this", I've got to throw in some "the district attorney can't prove" and "they collected no evidence" and things like that. I can still say "he's innocent" because that's a term of law, and until the jury comes back and says guilty, he is innocent. Maybe it's a distinction that doesn't matter much to you, but it does to me.

As a lawyer, if you weren't able to lie, how would you be able to defend those that are guilty? Like a politician, it's a skill required for the job. One can only hope that the truth prevails in those situations although i'm sure we can all come up with instances where the tactics of the lawyers won over what was right.

In this case, there's no legal way to remove custody of the building from him. The dispute is between the bank and him. When the bank decides they're done (and can't get any more of these smaller payments out of him), then they can start liqudating some assets. But just because someone is guilty, doesn't mean that you have any right to take away things that they own (unless they were obtained illegally).

As much as I would love to see that happen, and have the building turned over to someone, it begs more questions that it answers. Who takes it? The bank or a receivership? Does it get auctioned off then? Could we end up with someone even less scrupulous owning it after all the drama is over? If that were to be legal as an action, wouldn't it seem to push into his other properties (including his home) to make up the cash. And in that case, those that suffer because of his actions now include his family. And the other properties could also have issues. It's just a messy game that, while the knee-jerk is to say do it, really if it's thought through, isn't something we really want to have happen.

Now, bankruptcy with the building taken by the bank? Sure why not.

1) Calling lying a skill required for a job is despicable.
2) It may not be right to take away things someone owns just because they're guilty (which would be knee-jerk), but what if there's suspicion they're holding on to them through possibly illegal means? Seems like that might be the case here, but I guess we'll wait for investigations to wrap up.

Knowingly LYING to the courts is a serious offense. A defense lawyer presents facts in such a way as to best represent the legal rights of the defendant...a basic right in the US. That doesn't mean the lawyer can present to the court as FACT things that they KNOW to be untrue. If they do so they are unethical and worse...same as cheating doctors, car dealers, etc. To indicate that lying is a part of being a lawyer is in and of itself a distortion or gross misunderstanding of their jobs.

Most of the time a lawyer's knowledge of the specifics of a case are based on what their client and witnesses told them. Because they cannot typically know the truthfulness of what they have been told, they are not knowingly lying if they use their client's story as the basis for their arguments. So a lawyer can typically make false claims in court all day as long as he does not know them to be false. However, if a client has confided to the lawyer that he is guilty, the lawyer must change his approach to avoid actually telling lies. Instead of saying "my client didn't do this," he might say "my client is innocent." His client hasn't been convicted yet, so although technically the client isn't innocent, legally the client is.

So in this case, if Yashouafar told his lawyer the money was lost, his lawyer would not be doing anything unethical or illegal in reiterating that statement to the court, even if he suspects it isn't true.

This very reason is why I decided I could not be an attorney. It seems there is moral/ethical truth and then there is legal truth. The difference is when an attorney is defending a client in good faith based on what that client has told him. That is the gray area that I can understand their point. But if you know a person is guilty or lying, I personally could not stomach defending someone like that regardless of the idealized "everyone deserves a defense" statements you often hear in discussions such as this.

Did Yashouafar's attorney participate in a fraud upon the court? I doubt it, but I think he probably had to shower afterward.

And we wonder why people don't trust lawyers? Seems like semantics to me, contrived to help people sleep better and/or make more money. If you know someone is guilty, why do it? Also, why say things that you fully know won't be understood by the jury as such. In other words, a jury is simply going to assume that you are either 1) lying or 2) are sincere. No one is going to automatically assume that you are merely legally being truthful while actually lying.

I have had cases where my client told me such a crazy story that I didn't believe him at all. Most of the time I work those cases out without going to trial. But there have been times I've had to stand up and tell the jury something completely ridiculous. The sit there, cock their eyebrows, nod their heads politely, and then sentence my client to prison. "Sorry man, they didn't believe your 'that man in the videotaped confession wasn't me' defense." But most jurors understand that I have a job to do and that everyone is entitled to a proper defense.


This very reason is why I decided I could not be an attorney. It seems there is moral/ethical truth and then there is legal truth. The difference is when an attorney is defending a client in good faith based on what that client has told him. That is the gray area that I can understand their point. But if you know a person is guilty or lying, I personally could not stomach defending someone like that regardless of the idealized "everyone deserves a defense" statements you often hear in discussions such as this.

Did Yashouafar's attorney participate in a fraud upon the court? I doubt it, but I think he probably had to shower afterward.

If honest people are prevented from being attorneys, the only lawyers you'll have will be crooks.

Virtually every client I have ever had has lied to me about something. It might be "I didn't do this" or it might be "my mom is going to post my bond". It might be leaving out someone involved with the crime, it might be not telling me that they just got raped in their cell. "Oh I'm fine nothing happened". The threat of a jury trial keeps the other side more honest. Even if I strongly suspect my client is guilty, you must preserve the threat of jury trial because otherwise the DA just asks for the maximum punishment again and again and again.

Yashouafar's attorneys apparently said "our client has money coming to him right now". According to Steve, Yashouafar managed to then get the necessary money from somewhere else. So if I'm drinking, but tell someone that my girlfriend is giving me a ride home from the bar tonight, and then when she can't make it I call a cab, am I lying to that person? Or did plans fall through and I made other arrangements?

I completely understand hoyasooner. Part of me really wanted to go to law school a few years ago, but I could not get past this dilemma in my mind. I honestly did not think I would do a good job providing a defense to a client I believed was guilty. I tried to find a way to reconcile that conflict but I couldn't, so I dropped all consideration of going. Better then than after two or three years of law school then discovering I didn't want to be an attorney.

And we wonder why people don't trust lawyers? Seems like semantics to me, contrived to help people sleep better and/or make more money. If you know someone is guilty, why do it? Also, why say things that you fully know won't be understood by the jury as such. In other words, a jury is simply going to assume that you are either 1) lying or 2) are sincere. No one is going to automatically assume that you are merely legally being truthful while actually lying.

This right here.

I have had cases where my client told me such a crazy story that I didn't believe him at all. Most of the time I work those cases out without going to trial. But there have been times I've had to stand up and tell the jury something completely ridiculous. The sit there, cock their eyebrows, nod their heads politely, and then sentence my client to prison. "Sorry man, they didn't believe your 'that man in the videotaped confession wasn't me' defense." But most jurors understand that I have a job to do and that everyone is entitled to a proper defense.



If honest people are prevented from being attorneys, the only lawyers you'll have will be crooks.

Virtually every client I have ever had has lied to me about something. It might be "I didn't do this" or it might be "my mom is going to post my bond". It might be leaving out someone involved with the crime, it might be not telling me that they just got raped in their cell. "Oh I'm fine nothing happened". The threat of a jury trial keeps the other side more honest. Even if I strongly suspect my client is guilty, you must preserve the threat of jury trial because otherwise the DA just asks for the maximum punishment again and again and again.

Yashouafar's attorneys apparently said "our client has money coming to him right now". According to Steve, Yashouafar managed to then get the necessary money from somewhere else. So if I'm drinking, but tell someone that my girlfriend is giving me a ride home from the bar tonight, and then when she can't make it I call a cab, am I lying to that person? Or did plans fall through and I made other arrangements?

Yes, everyone is entitled to a proper defense, but not when the proper defense is lying. But perhaps that's just me being ethical? I don't understand what's so grey about this issue... I see your point about lawyers having to go off what they're told by clients, but if the client is lying, what's there to defend?

In regards to your last questions, I guess the answer depends. Were you lying?

Says the journalist, a profession known for upholding the highest values of truth and honor. No sensationalism at all. ;) Are you truly curious how the logic applies to real life, or is this one of those creatively worded journalist questions where you say one thing but you're really looking over at the audience and winking?

People often try to simplify certain agreements, and then get upset when their perception of that simplified agreement is violated. But do we really have an issue here? Let's look at it, and if you're truly curious, you can see how these high and lofty law school ideals apply in the real world. Now I don't have whatever agreement was signed between the two parties here. But you say they agreed "no appeal, no fight" if they couldn't meet the May 27 deadline. Well, they haven't appealed anything, so we're good there. Do you have any proof that this has gone up to the Court of Appeals? Remember, in the law "appeal" has a very specific meaning. So did they fight? Well that's a term that's ambiguous as hell. They didn't go to trial, if that's what it means. They didn't force the judge into long drawn out hearings on the subject. Everybody agreed to give him more time. That doesn't sound like a fight to me. If I ask a girl out on a date, and we agree to go to the movies on Friday, and then on Thursday she calls and says "can we go Saturday instead?" and I say okay, no one lied. We had an agreement to go on Friday, and then it was changed.

The only thing that happened here was this guy asked the judge for 5 more days to get the money, the bank was sick of waiting, and the judge granted him 5 more days. Then he came up with the money, just like he said he would. Please, can you tell me where the attorneys lied here? I'm truly curious. ;)



Well I don't lie.

Say Bob is accused of drunk driving. Cops say Bob is pulled over driving the wrong way down a bike path. He breathes in the breathalyzer and blows a .42 (with .08 being the legal limit). Bob then tells the cops "whoa I'm sooooo wasted...." I can get up and say "My client is innocent, he wasn't drunk" without lying. Why? Because I wasn't there and didn't see any of it. When I talk to Bob he says "they're all lying I didn't do that", or he doesn't say anything about what happened at all. I don't have personal knowledge of the truth. Maybe the cops are lying.

Now, if I talk to Bob and he says "dude I was so drunk, I totally did it but I want to go to trial anyway", then I have to change what I say. Instead of saying "my client didn't do this", I've got to throw in some "the district attorney can't prove" and "they collected no evidence" and things like that. I can still say "he's innocent" because that's a term of law, and until the jury comes back and says guilty, he is innocent. Maybe it's a distinction that doesn't matter much to you, but it does to me.

MY ONLY RESPONSE: I would never claim that journalists never lie. Some of the most despicable, dishonest, unethical people I've known in my life claimed to be journalists. Still bewildered by any suggestion that lawyers never lie (my experience is the opposite).

In regards to your last questions, I guess the answer depends. Were you lying?

A friend of mine used to say, "Hey, I didn't lie -- the truth changed."

http://www.flickr.com/photos/williamhider/sets/72157631831726496/

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8472/8114211867_cb029e33f7_b.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8187/8114211539_01dfa7fc91_b.jpg

Better?

Yes, everyone is entitled to a proper defense, but not when the proper defense is lying. But perhaps that's just me being ethical? I don't understand what's so grey about this issue... I see your point about lawyers having to go off what they're told by clients, but if the client is lying, what's there to defend?

In regards to your last questions, I guess the answer depends. Were you lying?

How do I know? I don't unless I actually witnessed it. When you've cross examined enough cops, and had them lie to your face, you start to believe, maybe just a little bit, that maybe those drugs weren't your client's. Everyone deserves to have their story heard. If that story sucks, it ain't my fault.


MY ONLY RESPONSE: I would never claim that journalists never lie. Some of the most despicable, dishonest, unethical people I've known in my life claimed to be journalists. Still bewildered by any suggestion that lawyers never lie (my experience is the opposite).

We both work in industries where our colleagues aren't always the most trustworthy. What I am saying is that you've got no proof that the lawyers in this case where dishonest or unethical.


Oklahoma City at Night (October 15 2012) - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/williamhider/sets/72157631831726496/)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8472/8114211867_cb029e33f7_b.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8187/8114211539_01dfa7fc91_b.jpg

Better?

Looks fantastic. Bright and shining and beautiful, like the ethics of a lawyer. ;)

Um, never said they're dishonest or unethical. I'm questioning the idea of assuming lawyers are always honest and ethical.

New owners of First National Center in OKC has ties to a Los Angeles apparel company | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/new-owners-of-first-national-center-in-okc-has-ties-to-a-los-angeles-apparel-company/article/3721441/?page=1)

Hopefully good news....? Maybe? Please?

Any new ownership is good news. For now I'll be optimistic and happy. Yashouafar set the bar so low that these guys would have to to be puppy killers to be worse.

Um, never said they're dishonest or unethical. I'm questioning the idea of assuming lawyers are always honest and ethical.

Without regard or comment on the case relating to 1st National, the simple truth is that not all attorneys are honest and ethical. Same be true for preachers, teachers, newsfolk, doctors, bankers, sales folk, carpenters, bricklayers, legal brothel workers, girl scouts and their leaders, campfire folk and their leaders, politicos and their staffs, boy scouts and their leaders, and puppy mill owners.

Any profession or occupation or hobby area that has humans at its core will have some great folk, some so-so folk, some downright iffy folk and some truly horrid folk.
Welcome to earth, and thanks for playing.

Any new ownership is good news. For now I'll be optimistic and happy. Yashouafar set the bar so low that these guys would have to to be puppy killers to be worse.

I think the new owners are just a front for Yashouafar. Just my gut feeling.

New owners of First National Center in OKC has ties to a Los Angeles apparel company | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/new-owners-of-first-national-center-in-okc-has-ties-to-a-los-angeles-apparel-company/article/3721441/?page=1)

Hopefully good news....? Maybe? Please?

Something tells me this is merely a placeholder for Yashouafar.

That's also my gut.

On lawyers - I are one. Every client has their version of truth. No ethical lawyer (and most of us are) will say something to a judge or jury that he knows is untrue - even if his client told it to him. But, one of the first things you learn is that there are three sides to every story - your client's, the opposition's and the truth. Good lawyers look for the truth and use it to resolve disputes. But everyone, not just clients of lawyers, can earnestly believe in something when it's not quite true because all of our perceptions are colored by emotion, history and our unconscious. So if a lawyer stands up and advocates for his client's position - it may be true to that client and unless the lawyer knows it's untrue, it's his duty to argue that way. That never excuses lying or knowingly advocating a falsity, but it explains why sometimes a lawyer will argue something and then find out afterwards it's not true.

I got a bad feeling when I saw the name of the new owner is Joshua "Paradise" Holdings" and the condos involved in the embezzlement case are the "Paradise" Spa Condominiums. Probably a coincidence, but it still feels wrong.

I got a bad feeling when I saw the name of the new owner is Joshua "Paradise" Holdings" and the condos involved in the embezzlement case are the "Paradise" Spa Condominiums. Probably a coincidence, but it still feels wrong.

The new owners are within the same group of people that Yashouafar is in.

Though we are digressing, these discussions about legal ethics are interesting to me. I have posed the same questions in the past to attorney friends who I knew to be ethical, good people - yes, they do exist in the legal field - and the answers have always been pretty much universal. An attorney's main responsibility is to the legal system itself. First, it is straight-up wrong/unethical for an attorney to knowingly lie on behalf of a client. In fact, they take an oath of office promising not to lie to the court, and can be sanctioned or even disbarred if they do. They also must presume their client is innocent and prosecute the case under that assumption unless they discover otherwise.

IF they find out otherwise (for instance if a client admits guilt or wrongdoing to them), they could then either drop the client and/or advise the client to get other counsel, OR they could advise their client to change their case to fit the circumstance; that is either changing their plea, or defending on other (usually procedural grounds). Attorneys are there first and foremost to make sure their client (yes, even a guilty one) gets due process under the law, which includes a fair and impartial hearing.

It might seem like the system is designed to protect the guilty, but the reality is it is there to protect all of us. Unless EVERYONE (even a slimeball) is allowed a fair hearing and the ability to make sure every I was dotted and every T was crossed - due process - the railroading of actual honest and guilt-free people could and would happen with regularity. The occasional bad guy getting away with something is the unfortunate price we pay to be protected by (and from) the best legal system in the world.

Unless EVERYONE (even a slimeball) is allowed a fair hearing and the ability to make sure every I was dotted and every T was crossed - due process - the railroading of actual honest and guilt-free people could and would happen with regularity. The occasional bad guy getting away with something is the unfortunate price we pay to be protected by (and from) the best legal system in the world.

Exactly. I always tell people I think it's a greater injustice for one innocent person to be falsely imprisoned than for one hundred criminals to go free. Obviously we wouldn't actually have a 100-to-1 ratio under any circumstances. It's just so vital for people to be able to have confidence to submit themselves to the justice system knowing that they will not suffer the consequences of something they didn't do.

So, $5.3 million for FNC.

Would that be considered a deal or a "steal"?

Any new ownership is good news. For now I'll be optimistic and happy. Yashouafar set the bar so low that these guys would have to to be puppy killers to be worse.

My money is on puppy killers.

So, $5.3 million for FNC.

Would that be considered a deal or a "steal"?

It definitely brings the economics into a better range for redevelopment. The problem is whose $5.3 million?? If that's all Yash wanted, why wouldn't he just take $5.3 million local bucks? That would have been an easy sell. It sounds to me like he robbed Peter to pay Paul.

Which is clever. I was wondering how Yash was going to drag this out into perpetuity. Now Yash may fall on his sword, but this new third party group (which is clearly tied to Yash) gets a whole new due process.

This is how we may not get an FNC solution for years still. I just pray the building is still standing, because we all know our spineless City Council and design review bodies won't deny a demo permit.

It's kind of weird that this thread about First National has evolved into a discourse on lawyers, if not judges ... more particularly, lawyer ethics and the role of judges in the scheme of things, particularly First National. This discussion covers a lot of territory. I'll offer my two cents since, even though retired, I am still a lawyer.

First, and the easiest to discuss, is the judge component ... what is the role of a judge, other than deciding, when continuances are requested? At least two models exist when lawyers from both sides request a continuance and the issue which distinguishes them is “who controls the docket?” First, in state district courts, most commonly if both lawyers request a continuance it will be routinely granted. I won't elaborate on the reasons that this is a good or bad procedural policy but will merely say, this is a predominant policy in my experience in state district courts. Second, some state district court judges more closely follow the federal model in which judges assert more if not complete control over their dockets and, more particularly, whether continuances will be granted. With Oklahoma County district court judges, one will find a mixture of both. In this case, District Judge Bill Graves is assigned the case, and he appears to fall in the 1st group which allows the litigants' lawyers to agreeably control uncontested continuances. Even if not agreeably continued, it is completely within the norm for an Oklahoma district judge to grant a continuance or a deferral or whatever name you'd want to call it to a later date.

In the First National discussion, as far as judicial procedure is concerned, nothing unusual happened in this case.

Second, about lawyers. Lawyers are obligated not to knowingly present false information to the court. If they do, they are subject to bar discipline including the possibility of disbarment. The OBA's general council's office, as well as the Oklahoma Supreme Court, have clearly proven themselves to uphold these general statements.

In the First National matter and from what I've read, I find nothing about either the Judge (Bill Graves) or the lawyers involved which should subject them to either group to further scrutiny. Journalists may see and spin and play it differently which is their right to do, but these are my views.

It's kind of weird that this thread about First National has evolved into a discourse on lawyers, if not judges ... more particularly, lawyer ethics and the role of judges in the scheme of things, particularly First National. This discussion covers a lot of territory. I'll offer my two cents since, even though retired, I am still a lawyer.

First, and the easiest to discuss, is the judge component ... what is the role of a judge, other than deciding, when continuances are requested? At least two models exist when lawyers from both sides request a continuance and the issue which distinguishes them is “who controls the docket?” First, in state district courts, most commonly if both lawyers request a continuance it will be routinely granted. I won't elaborate on the reasons that this is a good or bad procedural policy but will merely say, this is a predominant policy in my experience in state district courts. Second, some state district court judges more closely follow the federal model in which judges assert more if not complete control over their dockets and, more particularly, whether continuances will be granted. With Oklahoma County district court judges, one will find a mixture of both. In this case, District Judge Bill Graves is assigned the case, and he appears to fall in the 1st group which allows the litigants' lawyers to agreeably control uncontested continuances. Even if not agreeably continued, it is completely within the norm for an Oklahoma district judge to grant a continuance or a deferral or whatever name you'd want to call it to a later date.

In the First National discussion, as far as judicial procedure is concerned, nothing unusual happened in this case.

Second, about lawyers. Lawyers are obligated not to knowingly present false information to the court. If they do, they are subject to bar discipline including the possibility of disbarment. The OBA's general council's office, as well as the Oklahoma Supreme Court, have clearly proven themselves to uphold these general statements.

In the First National matter and from what I've read, I find nothing about either the Judge (Bill Graves) or the lawyers involved which should subject them to either group to further scrutiny. Journalists may see and spin and play it differently which is their right to do, but these are my views.

Bill Graves had the option of enforcing the receiver agreement when Capmark asked him to do so. He chose to give Yashouafar an additional five days. That's not spin. That's fact.

Bill Graves had the option of enforcing the receiver agreement when Capmark asked him to do so. He chose to give Yashouafar an additional five days. That's not spin. That's fact.
It is also a fact that he had the option NOT to. What Graves did do was what most other district judges in the county would predictably have done. So, yeah, to load up on Graves about the matter of procedure which might be and/or that was taken is/was spin, pure and simple. :dizzy: The call was his to make and it was made within the bounds of normalcy. That's fact. In my humble opinion, of course. :bow: If I become persuaded that I've mis-spoken about that by our forum's lawyer members and friends, of course, I'll make you a pie for Christmas. Chocolate ice box or pumpkin. Either one is to die for. :tiphat:

Meh. Using the phrase "load up" is itself spin, now isn't it? This is all a friendly debate between you and I. But you get to the heart of the matter by acknowledging that, yes, Bill Gtraves had "the option NOT to." Yes, indeed. We're not really arguing anything here. We both agree, the call was Judge Graves' to make. That's all I've said. And he is in an elected position that will be the call of Oklahoma County residents to make, right? That's what is wonderful about our government. There is accountability built into the system. The judge can make rulings at his discretion. The journalist can report those decisions and how they impact the residents who have to live with the judge's decisions. Then a debate can take place in the public square. And then the judge faces the consequences of his decisions, and the public debate, at the ballot box. And all is good.
Is there a chance you and I can enjoy that pumpkin pie either way?

Meh. Using the phrase "load up" is itself spin, now isn't it?
Only if my characterization that you were "loading up" was wrong. Here's exactly how your blog described the matter, insofar as Graves is concerned (emphasis and uppercase is yours, not mine):



So Yashouafar’s attorney shows up in the Oklahoma County courtroom of BILL GRAVES. And the attorney, sources tell me, informed JUDGE BILL GRAVES that the money wire they were awaiting had gotten “lost” and that they need more time to find it. JUDGE BILL GRAVES then extended the hearing – not to Friday – but to 11 a.m. Monday.
Sources say they are concerned Yashouafar may be using this delay to find another source of funding. But here’s the deal: the receivership hearing was already started, and this is a continuation of that hearing. JUDGE BILL GRAVES, sources tell me, has the discretion to call an end to this chapter of the First National story on Monday and have a receiver appointed, as previously agreed to by all sides of this dispute, to sell the property to a new owner. JUDGE BILL GRAVES also could decide to extend this story further and give an admitted felon the chance to find the money to retain control of a property considered one of the city’s most historic important landmarks.
Here’s a reminder of what’s at stake in the courtroom of JUDGE BILL GRAVES: [followed by photo inside 1st National's grand banking hall]

If using Graves' name 6 times in uppercase bold letters within a single span of 189 words isn't loading up and spinning, what would you call it?

Let's play-pretend and say that you, Steve Lackmeyer, were/are the judge and Bill Graves was the journalist. As such, in his widely-read blog, he writes:



So Yashouafar’s attorney shows up in the Oklahoma County courtroom of STEVE LACKMEYER. And the attorney, sources tell me, informed JUDGE STEVE LACKMEYER that the money wire they were awaiting had gotten “lost” and that they need more time to find it. JUDGE STEVE LACKMEYER then extended the hearing – not to Friday – but to 11 a.m. Monday.
Sources say they are concerned Yashouafar may be using this delay to find another source of funding. But here’s the deal: the receivership hearing was already started, and this is a continuation of that hearing. JUDGE STEVE LACKMEYER, sources tell me, has the discretion to call an end to this chapter of the First National story on Monday and have a receiver appointed, as previously agreed to by all sides of this dispute, to sell the property to a new owner. JUDGE STEVE LACKMEYER also could decide to extend this story further and give an admitted felon the chance to find the money to retain control of a property considered one of the city’s most historic important landmarks.
Here’s a reminder of what’s at stake in the courtroom of JUDGE STEVE LACKMEYER: [followed by photo inside 1st National's grand banking hall]

Reading this (remember, you are the judge), you scratch your head and wonder, "Huh? Why the emphasis on me and my name? Well, maybe he does the same thing for everyone else he mentions in his blog posts and meant nothing by it," you opine. Being a good reader and researcher, you look through some other of journalist Bill Graves' blog posts to see if he has singled out by name, and in repetitive and bold face font (and, particularly, six times within the span of 189 words), anyone else he has mentioned in his blog posts from time to time. You can't find any. What possible conclusions do you form, once it is clear to you that you have been treated differently THAN EVERYONE ELSE?


This is all a friendly debate between you and I.
^^ This is so.^^


But you get to the heart of the matter by acknowledging that, yes, Bill Gtraves had "the option NOT to." Yes, indeed. We're not really arguing anything here. We both agree, the call was Judge Graves' to make. That's all I've said.
Well, not exactly. There is "sayin'" and, then, there is "SAYIN' WITH A SPIN."


And he is in an elected position that will be the call of Oklahoma County residents to make, right?
Wrong. You make it sound as though Graves was elected to do the will of the people, which is not true. His job is to make legal decisions, both procedural and substantive, not legislative/representative decisions to carry out the will of the people.


That's what is wonderful about our government. There is accountability built into the system. The judge can make rulings at his discretion. The journalist can report those decisions and how they impact the residents who have to live with the judge's decisions. Then a debate can take place in the public square. And then the judge faces the consequences of his decisions, and the public debate, at the ballot box. And all is good.
This is all true, and our state court district judges are indeed elected. Sounds to me like you've given some thought, though, about the judge's re-election. That's your privilege.


Is there a chance you and I can enjoy that pumpkin pie either way?
Of course. But, if the truth be known, my chocolate ice box pie is truly the best. If you get lucky, I may still give you one. You may have to do some beggin', though.

Boldface: if I've practiced decisions that are deemed good legal judgments by those who put me into office, I'd have no problem with being highlighted like this. I never suggested Graves was elected to do the will of the people. I do suggest he was elected to make sound, legal decisions, and in this case, I have presented to readers what he did in light of agreements previously made by both sides, and what the outcome and impact are.
I boldfaced Graves' name because the fate of this landmark came down to his decision. I wanted readers to remember his name - if it was a good decision, and they like his decision, well then this is something he should be celebrating.
I think way too often journalists are lazy in not naming names. I named names. And I put them in boldface.
Get out the chocolate pie, my friend...

Six times in 189 words? I give up. You get 1 piece of pie, but just because I like you. For more, you will have to beg.

So what you're saying is that I boldfaced the name of Judge Bill Graves too many times when I wrote about Judge Bill Graves being the guy who ultimately decided whether Aaron Yashouafar retained control of First National Center... a decision in which Judge Bill Graves decided in favor of Aaron Yashouafar.
Sorry. My bad.

Not only bold face, but upper case, too many times, and that by doing that you were attempting to make some point other than reporting. Another possible thing I may be saying is to make the suggestion that STEVE LACKMEYER has a blind spot. Friend though he is of mine.

I was making a point! I wanted everyone to understand and remember that it was JUDGE BILL GRAVES who decided whether Aaron Yashouafar retained control of First National Center!
Everyone else reading this thread, fyi, is trying to understand why I'm even attempting to debate an extremely skilled and experienced attorney. (Answer: because it's fun)

So what shall we do because a judge made a call which you don't like but which he legitimately made ... get a posse, tar & feather 'em, and ride 'em out of town on a rail? It hadn't occurred to me that you might be an anarchist, or a vigilante, or something along those lines. Good grief. This reminds me that wearing firearms on one's belt or shoulder holster is now or about to be legal in Oklahoma.
And, besides that, where is Charles Bronson when ya need him? :fighting3 :fighting4 :omg:

So what shall we do because a judge made a call which you don't like but which he legitimately made ... get a posse, tar & feather 'em, and ride 'em out of town on a rail? It hadn't occurred to me that you might be an anarchist, or a vigilante, or something along those lines. Good grief. This reminds me that wearing firearms on one's belt or shoulder holster is now or about to be legal in Oklahoma.
And, besides that, where is Charles Bronson when ya need him? :fighting3 :fighting4 :omg:

Doug, trust me when I say this.... switch to decaf. They're making some really marvelous decaf coffees these days - tastes just like the real thing. I think anyone who gives an honest read of what I've written knows I've advocated no such thing. I've not even expressed an opinion in this conversation, or in my post, as to whether JUDGE BILL GRAVES made a good or bad decision.
Dang... you must be hell fire in court.

Aww shucks ... but it was like YOU said ... I, too, was just trying to make a point by overstatement. Did I succeed?

Aww shucks ... but it was like YOU said ... I, too, was just trying to make a point by overstatement. Did I succeed?

Chocolate pie. I like chocolate pie.

Steve, answer me this. Should judges take issues of public policy into account when they make legal decisions? Should a judge say "this person is not going to be a good steward of this piece of property, which while privately owned, has some historic significance to the people of this city?" Judge Graves has received a lot of criticism for refusing name changes to people who have had sex changes. He gave various religious and public policy reasons for doing so. Should he have done so here?

A continuance of less than one week is so commonplace in Oklahoma County that it would be remarkable if he didn't grant it. Civil cases in particular are known for dragging on forever. If a judge makes it a practice to give continuances in situations like this, should he do the complete opposite here? Should he take matters into his own hands at the earliest opportunity to force property out of someone's possession because of public policy reasons?

hoya, I think the public should be informed that JUDGE BILL GRAVES had the authority to enforce a previous agreement by both sides to allow for a receiver to be appointed under the conditions presented to him on the day Capmark sought to have a receiver appointed, and he instead agreed to a request by Yashouafar to have more time after he had received four extensions over several months already. I think the public should be informed that it was JUDGE BILL GRAVES who made the call on the status of First National Center, and then the public should be allowed to discuss and debate whether JUDGE BILL GRAVES practiced good judgement on this matter and they should be informed that he is in an elected office. I understand that the legal folks on this site have taken issue with me bringing this issue forward .... and I'm making no apologies for having done so.
These other issues that you and Doug have brought up are issues you and Doug are bringing up. Read everything I've written. It is no more, no less, than what I've posted above.
I will note that when Scott Carter with the Journal Record and I sought to get comments from JUDGE BILL GRAVES, to ask JUDGE BILL GRAVES questions about this matter, he had his clerk come out and say he had nothing to say to us.
Maybe when JUDGE BILL GRAVES is up for re-election, we'll be able to get his thoughts on this ruling at that time.

You didn't answer my question.

You believe the judge should be held accountable for what may be a politically unpopular decision. My problem is that JUDGE BILL GRAVES did what virtually every other judge in the courthouse would have done. You present this as though granting someone a 5 day continuance is unusual. It is not. There are probably a hundred continuances or more granted in that building every single day (depending on which day, sometimes much more than that).

Granting the continuance is not what is unpopular. What IS unpopular is that Yashuoafar actually came up with the money. If Bill Graves had granted the continuance and then 5 days later, when no money was forthcoming, appointed a receiver, no one would have said anything.

To follow up:

You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the fact that at one point, Yashuoafar had signed an agreement not to contest the property going into receivership if he couldn't pay by a certain date. First of all, I'm not sure such an agreement is even enforceable. Even if it is, it becomes void once Capmark agrees to continue the proceedings to get more money. That was six months or more ago. Second, Capmark effectively waived any right to a speedy resolution on this issue as soon as they agreed to the initial continuance. They are hard pressed to make a believable argument to the judge that they will be unduly prejudiced by a continuance of less than a week when they previously agreed to continue it months at a time. "Oh judge, this extra 5 days is so terrible, please ignore that we've been in no hurry at all to resolve any of this".

Next, you've got to realize that actually appointing a receiver is a long and expensive process. The judge doesn't just snap his fingers and have it over with. This process would take several months and probably half a dozen more court appearances. When you tell the judge "hey give me a week and I can have this over and done with and resolved" and the judge will take it every time.

A 5 day continuance like this will almost always be granted as a matter of courtesy. Unless you're about to start a jury trial or a hearing that the judge has blocked out his entire day for, 5 days is nothing. It's the equivalent of asking the judge for a bathroom break in the middle of a trial. I once came back to a trial from lunch break, and maybe 15 minutes later asked the judge to take a short recess because I had to pee. He granted it without even blinking. This is the same type of thing. A 5 day continuance is a tiny delay next to the time needed to appoint a receiver, and doesn't give Yashuoafar any real advantage unless he is telling the truth and he really does have the money.

You didn't answer my question.

You believe the judge should be held accountable for what may be a politically unpopular decision. My problem is that JUDGE BILL GRAVES did what virtually every other judge in the courthouse would have done. You present this as though granting someone a 5 day continuance is unusual. It is not. There are probably a hundred continuances or more granted in that building every single day (depending on which day, sometimes much more than that).

Granting the continuance is not what is unpopular. What IS unpopular is that Yashuoafar actually came up with the money. If Bill Graves had granted the continuance and then 5 days later, when no money was forthcoming, appointed a receiver, no one would have said anything.

I believe it is up to each individual as to how they decide whether a judge should be re-elected. You are putting words in my mouth by saying I "believe the judge should be accountable for what may be a politically unpopular opinion." It is not for me to say how a person should vote. You say this ruling was within the norm. Without statistics, without proof, this is your opinion. And it's one worth hearing in this discussion. It is also your opinion as to what is or is not popular. That too, is a side worth hearing. I won't back down or apologize for bringing JUDGE BILL GRAVES' role in this to light. I will add, as an aside, that what I've been told by other attorneys is at odds with what you just posted in terms of timing, etc., on this particular case. Either way, you see it one way, and that's ok.
Both you and Doug have staged quite the debate on this discussion - I'd consider hiring either one of you as an attorney!

Thank you, Steve. With a few stylistic changes (^^), I'd consider hiring you as my journalist. :Smiley127

I hope to see you at Pete's confab at Red Prime this afternoon (http://www.okctalk.com/announcements-help-desk/32255-okctalk-meetup-monday-oct-29-5-7pm-red-prime.html).

Steve, answer me this. Should judges take issues of public policy into account when they make legal decisions? Should a judge say "this person is not going to be a good steward of this piece of property, which while privately owned, has some historic significance to the people of this city?" Judge Graves has received a lot of criticism for refusing name changes to people who have had sex changes. He gave various religious and public policy reasons for doing so. Should he have done so here?

A continuance of less than one week is so commonplace in Oklahoma County that it would be remarkable if he didn't grant it. Civil cases in particular are known for dragging on forever. If a judge makes it a practice to give continuances in situations like this, should he do the complete opposite here? Should he take matters into his own hands at the earliest opportunity to force property out of someone's possession because of public policy reasons?

We're getting ready for a jury trial in a couple months with Judge Graves on a property damage claim. We've been set for pretrial several times over the last couple of years. Lots and lots of continuances due to the many scientific experts we're bringing in and getting depositions arranged. Not a whit of controversy over any continuance thus far. What you say is 100% true. Continuances, especially in civil cases are granted all the time, ESPECIALLY when not granting one would be unduly prejudicial to one side.

Here's one of those situations where I wonder not about the public's need to know, but about the press' ability to place this into context. The media might be there for the courtroom fireworks, but from experience, Judge Graves is a pretty laid back guy. A lot of the court's business takes place in his chambers. I'm guessing they don't reserve a seat for the media in those exchanges. The media is also not there to listen to the phone calls between attorneys or to review their correspondence. Again, lots of context is going to be lost for want of that information. These things are a lot like legislation. Once you get to the formal hearing setting, in many cases, there's so much context there that if you just sit through that hearing, you're only scratching the surface. When you choose to report on the performance of a public official with really so very little context, then are you doing the public a service or disservice?

Steve, especially here, you want the question the public debates to be whether Graves used sound judgment. Do you think you're properly equipping the public to debate this when you don't even know what the judge weighed in reaching his conclusion?

I believe it is up to each individual as to how they decide whether a judge should be re-elected. You are putting words in my mouth by saying I "believe the judge should be accountable for what may be a politically unpopular opinion." It is not for me to say how a person should vote. You say this ruling was within the norm. Without statistics, without proof, this is your opinion. And it's one worth hearing in this discussion. It is also your opinion as to what is or is not popular. That too, is a side worth hearing. I won't back down or apologize for bringing JUDGE BILL GRAVES' role in this to light. I will add, as an aside, that what I've been told by other attorneys is at odds with what you just posted in terms of timing, etc., on this particular case. Either way, you see it one way, and that's ok.
Both you and Doug have staged quite the debate on this discussion - I'd consider hiring either one of you as an attorney!

Well thank you.

To put this in context, Judge Graves is generally loved by attorneys because he's a nice old man. He's very friendly, and when I was a brand new lawyer terrified of being in court, he would always smile and joke around and put me at ease. Unless you go into his courtroom and act like a giant jerk, Judge Graves is going to grant your request for a continuance. When he did that here, he was acting no differently than he does in any other case. Isn't that what we want? For everyone to be equal under the law?

Not all judges are that nice. Vicki Robinson used to be mean as hell. But she was mean as hell to everybody, so it was still kind of fair.

Now sometimes, how a judge runs their docket will end up benefiting one party over another. If I have a case in front of a judge who throws a fit every time I request a continuance, I plan accordingly. In this case, Yashuoafar clearly gained from having that extra five days. But it's the normal system that Judge Graves has always used. He didn't do anything special for this guy in this case. Judge Hubbard used to give candy to people in her courtroom. So if someone comes in blaring the headline "Judge gives candy to convicted murderer" yeah that's true, but she gave candy to everybody. Presenting it in that way removes the context of the situation.

One thing is for sure - if Sam Presti was the judge FNC would be owned by a different person today. He seems to be a stickler for deadlines (as opposed to comalines, suggestionlines, xwarninglines, or wouldbenicetobedonebythisdatelines).

Now, guys, be careful ... you are probably telling Steve more than he REALLY wants to know ... or, at least, acknowledge. He might actually wind up finding himself in the situation where he'd need to rethink, second-guess, HIMSELF. But, how can this be, because ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8-eiBqri0U

Now, guys, be careful ... you are probably telling Steve more than he REALLY wants to know ... or, at least, acknowledge. He might actually wind up finding himself in the situation where he'd need to rethink, second-guess, HIMSELF. But, how can this be, because ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8-eiBqri0U

Oh whatever Barrister.... what you're doing now is just a shot at me personally because this debate is ending up in a draw. Not gonna get upset at it, because you're just doing what's in your nature - delivering your closing argument.
;)

... this debate is ending up in a draw
So it is written by the Kwisatz.