I am deeply concerned, not just as a Civil Rights advocate, and not just as as a constitutional and first amendment lawyer and as an election attorney in California, but simply as an American at the election campaign tactics I am seeing in this 2008 Presidential election by the Republican party. Even as criticism mounts from both Democrats and Republicans, the tactics being employed by the Republican Presidential candidates are destroying any semblance of truth and fairness in the election process and using discrimination to try to gain votes.

Now we are hearing of the latest tactic by John McCain, the very candidate who previously criticized this tactic in a previous election – robo calls. Robo calls are automated telephone calls that are negative attacks on the other candidate, only instead of airing these ads on television, they come by way of the telephone, usually when you are having dinner.

John McCain only days before he began using these robo calls, criticized the Democratic candidate for allegedly spending more money than any campaign in history on negative ads. Whether this claim is true or not in terms of money, it does not appear to be true in its inference that Obama is using a greater percentage of his ads on negative ads. That would be John McCain’s campaign.

In his latest tactic, John McCain has clearly crossed the line once again by using these automated calls to tell voters that Barack Obama allegedly voted against a bill that would give care to babies born alive after abortions, that Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington, that Obama places Hollywood above America, that he has worked closely with a terrorist, and that Obama lacks the judgment to lead the country.

Now add the inferences by the Republican party and/or their candidates, surrogates and the people introducing the candidates at rallies that the Democratic candidate is unpatriotic, has an arab sounding middle name, is a person to be scared of, or is a person who can’t be trusted, who has a hidden agenda, or who by virtue of an association with someone who did something when the candidate was eight years old, is a terrorist. Is it any wonder that a woman, at a rally like so many others for the Republicans where hate-filled shouts have been made in recent days, told John McCain she had read that Barack Obama was an Arab?

How, after all these years of improving race relations in this country, are these tactics and election advertisements being allowed to cause civil rights leaders and members of the public fear they are taking us back to times in this country that we thought were behind us? How can a candidate who claims he puts his country first make every attempt to divide this country? We all know that John McCain, who has a long and honorable past, is a better man than what we are seeing at his rallies or on one particular news station. Yet, we continue to see actions and comments at Republican rallies and now these robo calls that have now drawn the ire not just of civil rights activists but even the concern of other Republican Congressmen and Senators. Is it any wonder that Colin Powell, a Republican who served as Secretary of State, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Security Adviser under Republican Administrations has come out in support of Barack Obama and criticized the campaign tactics of John McCain, the latest of which is to infer that Obama’s policies are socialist.

In the last several elections, the focus of many of the most objectionable tactics were to pit religious voters against voters for whom religion was not an issue, based on perceived stances by one or the other candidate on religious issues. This type of insinuation has also been used this year against the democratic candidate, on the basis of an incorrect assumption by some and an intentional mischaracterization by others that since Obama was born in Kenya, he must be a Muslim.

More anger and consternation was brought to the surface this year with the strong showing by Hillary Clinton in the primaries and the selection of Sarah Palin as the vice presidential running mate of John McCain. With questions raised in particular toward Sarah Palin of whether she could be vice president and still be a good mother, women cried gender discrimination foul at the media.

Is it naive to ask why a candidate’s religion ever enter into the debate? If the candidate says he won’t let it interfere with his being fair and evenhanded, shouldn’t that be the end of it? Why should a candidate’s age be a problem if they are knowledgeable and not in bad health, if the Vice Presidential candidate is qualified as well? Why should a person’s gender ever be a problem? But to many voters, these aspects of a candidate are the most if not the only reason for how they will vote.

Perhaps we, as a nation, are forced to accept that at election time, some of people’s worst sides rise to the forefront in our election process, but shouldn’t we be better than that, and shouldn’t the persons we are asked to elect be better than that?

If the polls are any indication, this year we may just see a backlash against those who would make discriminatory inferences, and whose party would use false allegations as the basis for part of their campaigns. It may be naive, but it is hoped that based on a few comments made in the last few days by John McCain, before the election is over and with signs he is behind in the polls, John McCain will repudiate the statements made out of anger and fear by supporters at his rallies even more forcefully than in some earlier statements and again repeat that his supporters should be respectful of Barack Obama and his accomplishments. For at this time in our country’s history, our country can least afford to be torn apart by campaign strategies that have little to do with solving our country’s economic crisis.

If you have a civil rights or discrimination legal matter of any kind, we have the knowledge and resources to be your California Civil Rights Lawyers, and California Discrimination Attorneys. For this reason, be sure to hire a California law firm with civil rights lawyers who can represent you from Palm Springs, Malibu, Rancho Cucamonga, Orange County, San Luis Obispo, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach, Corona del Mar, Anaheim, Irvine, La Jolla, El Cajon, San Bernardino, Riverside, Santa Barbara, Temecula, Palm Desert, Yorba Linda, Carlsbad, San Diego, Costa Mesa, Westminster, and Murrieta, to Indian Wells and La Quinta.

If you have a civil rights, constitutional or discrimination legal matter of any kind, call the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson, or visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com  and learn how we can assist you. You can also call us to speak directly to Sebastian Gibson on the phone about your legal matter.

PUTTING CIVILITY BACK INTO LITIGATION

Our system of civil justice is an excellent one. However, as is often the case, the system is no better than those who run it. A well-designed automobile will not run very well if shoddy parts are used.

System Abuses

In our civil justice system, regrettably, many attorneys choose to abuse the system by filing frivolous motions and objections, being uncooperative, and requiring things to be done the hard way, rather than the easy way. Most attorneys are not seeking justice, they are seeking victory. Sanctions are difficult to obtain and thus, those who adhere to these “delay and abuse” tactics can benefit and prosper. Similarly, a gruff offensive attorney (close your eyes and see if you can imagine such) invites a lack of courtesy in return, which then creates a rapid downward spiral of behavior. Often times this anger and bitterness can cause a litigator to lose sight of the task at hand.

A potential solution to the problem of having to deal with our obnoxious “hide and seek” colleagues is alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures. Unfortunately, unless ordered by the court, many of these “delay and abuse” individuals do not desire to participate in ADR because it is contrary to their philosophical approach to litigation. However, for those who prefer a more civil approach to civil litigation, and those who follow court orders to participate in such, ADR can be extremely beneficial for the lawyers, clients, and judges.

Mediation

There are two types of ADR: mediation and arbitration. Mediation is simply a meeting in which both parties and counsel appear before a mediator who serves as a facilitator to try to resolve the dispute. Typically, at a mediation, there is a meeting between all the parties and counsel during which a brief overview of the case is presented and where some mediators will request the parties to state the strengths and weaknesses of their case. The group then breaks into separate groups, each consisting of party and counsel. The mediator then goes back and forth between the groups with dollar figures he has extracted from the various sides. Typically, the parties agree that the negotiations are confidential and that nothing said can be used as an admission in the litigation. The advantages of such a forum are significant.

In a smaller case, it is frequently not cost effective for either side to proceed with protracted litigation. Thus, a settlement will be a “win-win” situation in which both sides benefit, as much of the costs and delays of litigation are significantly reduced. Another significant advantage is that it gives the parties (or the insurance adjustor) and their attorneys to meet. Thus, the individuals involved become people and not simply claim numbers and files. Both sides have an opportunity to size up the credibility and presentation of the parties (and counsel) and an informal exchange of some information is usually obtained. This informal discovery can be extremely beneficial to both sides in evaluating the case. It also can reduce the cost of pre-trial discovery (exchange of information). Additionally, it is harder for some attorneys (and their clients) to pull off their offensive tactics in person. Many of us who would hang up on a phone solicitor would be less reluctant to slam our front door in the solicitor’s face.

Even if the case does not settle, the monetary gap usually narrows and the mediation may have been a catalyst to a resolution down the road. Also, learning that a case cannot be settled will save time during the litigation as the parties will focus on preparing for trial and not conducting settlement negotiations.

Binding Arbitration

Another type of ADR is binding arbitration. In Missouri, in a contract setting, it is important to remember that a “consent to arbitration” provision in a contract is not binding unless it is in 10-point capital letters, and contains the following language: THIS CONTRACT CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION PROVISION WHICH MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE PARTIES. See Section 435.460 RSMo. within the Missouri Uniformed Arbitration Act.

Again, binding arbitration can be an expeditious way to resolve a dispute. In a personal injury setting, it can be extremely beneficial on smaller cases. It also is appropriate in a complex case that a jury might struggle with understanding, or in a contract case in which “jury appeal” will not affect the amount of the judgment. Obviously, it is helpful for those who are petrified to be in front of a jury, but if one is of that bent, they probably should not be handling litigation.

Obviously, the arbitrator(s) wields tremendous power as his or her decision is binding and can only be set aside by the courts in extreme circumstances such as: 1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means; 2) there was evident partiality by an appointed arbitrator or corruption or misconduct which prejudiced the rights of any party; 3) the arbitrators exceeded their powers; or 4) the arbitrator refused to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefore, or refused to hear evidence material to the controversy. See Section 435.405 RSMo. for a listing of reasons for which an arbitration award can be vacated.

Selection or Mediator or Arbitrator

In both types of ADR, the selection of the mediator or arbitrator (a “neutral”) is critically important. It is advisable to check out the arbitrator’s background, track record, and connections with the other side. If the other side has used this individual repeatedly as an arbitrator they probably have been happy with his or her decisions and that may be cause for concern. A mediator should be someone who will carry weight with the clients and other side and will not simply be a messenger or number carrier. A retired judge or a highly respected litigator can be an excellent choice when someone involved needs some sense talked into them. Someone who is persuasive is usually more effective, in my view. Typically, the fees are shared equally but obviously this needs to be addressed at the outset and confirmed in writing.

ADR, just as the name implies, is an alternative way to resolve a dispute. In appropriate circumstances and with the appropriate parties, it can be an excellent and civil way to resolve a civil dispute and avoid some of the pitfalls of a system that is run by people.

December 18, 2008

As any civil or trial litigation attorney knows, whether he practices in Palm Springs or Palm Desert, CA, San Diego, California, Orange County, CA, La Jolla, Del Mar, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Corona del Mar, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Santa Ana, Irvine, Ventura, Anaheim, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Temecula, Riverside, San Bernardino, the Coachella Valley, La Quinta, Indio, Yucca Valley, or Joshua Tree, depositions can make or break a case. A good defense attorney can make even the calmest deponent nervous. And then there are some deponents who can drive a litigation lawyer nut.

Many times, clients want to know how to answer deposition questions.  First of all, I tell my clients to answer truthfully.  Then I advise clients not to watch how politicians answer questions.  This is what can happen if a client ignores that advice.

“You said to the policeman investigating the scene of the accident that you weren’t wearing a seat belt yet today you state that you were wearing one,” the defense attorney stated to my client.

My client smiled sweetly at the news commentator, just like Sarah Palin did to Charles Gibson in her first television interview.

“Would you care to explain this discrepancy?” the attorney asked. The attorney had introduced himself as Charles Johnson.

“Well, Charlie, I believe everyone should wear seat belts when they are in a car.

“Okay, but can you explain why you told the police officer at the scene that you weren’t wearing a seat belt?”

My client smiled sweetly again, giving the attorney her best impression of a political candidate.

“Charles, I believe in a woman’s choice, however I feel even more strongly about the sanctity of life.”

“You’re not going to answer the question, is that what you’re saying?” the attorney asked, looking over his own eyeglasses.

“Well, I really think that there are much bigger issues to discuss,” the client answered, putting the attorney on the defensive.

“Don’t you think it’s important for us to know if what you say now is different from what you said earlier?”

My client looked directly at the attorney. “Charlie, I believe what is important here is that your client ran a red light.”

“Lets move on to the fact that you claim you never had a back injury before this accident.. How do you reconcile that with your treatment for back pain prior to this accident?”

“Charlie, as you know, you can have a visit to a doctor without it being for an injury. I have to say this type of questioning borders on being sexist.”

“Did you or didn’t you have treatment for a back condition prior to this accident?” the attorney said, raising his voice.

“It’s not what you go to for a doctor, it’s what the doctor does for you, Charles, and when you realize that women are different from men, you’ll learn that women doctors do things differently than male doctors.”

“You’re refusing to answer my questions.”

“I’ve answered all of your questions,” my client said.

“No,” the attorney said. “All you’ve done is give me stock answers to the questions you want me to give and not answer the questions I’m asking.” The opposing attorney turned to me and realized I hadn’t made a single objection.

“Please, ask me your question, and I’ll be as honest as I can.”

“Is it true that this has been your third accident this year and that each time you’ve been rear ended.”

My client smiled and the attorney asking the questions knew he would not be getting an answer to this one that he could use.

“I believe that God has a plan for each of us and sometimes he tests our resolve.”

“That’s your answer?” the attorney asked. “You might as well be speaking in tongues right now.”

“God has a plan for all of us, Charles, even for you,” my client said.

“If it’s to drive us nuts, it’s working,” the attorney said. “I’ll give you one last chance to answer a question. Did you cause this accident?”

“Charles, what may be interpreted as a cause could sometimes be otherwise viewed as simply trying to avoid the, you know, impossibly difficult or, trying to prevent that kind of thing, then again, even when you are driving carefully, these accidents…and this could be viewed as one of those situations. Does that answer your question?”

Two hours later when the deposition had ended, the attorney was looking frazzled.

“How did I do?” my client asked me after the deposition was over.

I smiled sweetly like any good politician. “It’s not how well you did,” I said. “It’s how many psychiatric treatments that attorney is going to need before he is able to attempt another deposition.”

Note – Refusing to answer questions can lead to having a motion filed against the party who refuses to answer deposition questions, and an imposition of a fine against the deponent who abuses the discovery process in this way. Sadly, many deponents and attorneys abuse the deposition process when they think the other party’s attorney won’t take the time to file a motion to compel. An attempt to evade questions as a politician often does, or answering with stock answers instead of providing answers responsive to the questions is clearly improper. And politicians who answer questions in this manner are not setting a good example. On the other hand, some of Sarah Palin’s answers to questions put to her by Katie Couric, similar to this deponent’s last answer, were so incomprehensible it is hard to know how a judge might view answers such as hers if the attorney fails to follow up with additional questions.

Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com if you are involved in litigation in Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Indio, Riverside, San Diego, Orange County or anywhere in Southern California. We have the knowledge and resources to represent you as your California Litigation Lawyer and Palm Springs Litigation Attorney, or your civil litigation attorney or civil litigation defense lawyer in Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Indio, Coachella, Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree, Twentynine Palms, Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage, and throughout Southern California.

Winning a court battle in Los Angeles does not only depend on whether a case is good or bad. It also requires hard work from brilliant and experienced LA trial attorneys.

Trial attorneys are licensed practitioner of Law who are employed either by parties to a dispute to prepare and present a case for them. They represent people who are legally wronged or who have caused damage or injury to others. They are sometimes referred to as “tort or plaintiff attorneys.”

Los Angeles is a home to many lawyers whose expertise is abundant and knowledge undisputed on different areas of Law such as criminal, civil, labor, procedure, torts, real estate, insurance, banking, etc .

While a very small number of legal disputes are brought to court in Los Angeles, nonetheless, it is crucial that you go to court prepared and that you have the best trial lawyer on your side.

Before trial, legal counsels will try to settle first with the other party until a fair agreement has been entered into. This stage is called the settlement of cases, which occurs both in civil and criminal cases. A settlement may be in a form of monetary compensation. If no agreement has been arrived at, the lawsuit shall push through.

During trial, your attorney plays a significant role in the outcome of the decision. Los Angeles trial attorneys are there to counsel and advice you when it comes to your legal rights and obligations, what effective steps to take to prevent further damage and other legal options available for you.

Trial attorneys are responsible for several court undertakings such as motions, reviews, scheduling of orders and witness contacts. On court day, these attorneys are the ones who will meet with the judges, prepare scheduling orders and present case arguments.

Although all trial attorneys are licensed to represent their clients in court, not all of them specialize in trial work and know the areas that govern the conduct of the trial especially the procedural aspect of it. Moreover, you may want to know the area of specialty of an attorney before engaging their services.

Trial attorneys, just like doctors, have their own field of expertise. Some of them may engage only in arguing criminal cases while others in civil cases, some in criminal prosecution or criminal defense while others in civil prosecution or civil defense. Some work in big law firms while others work on their own. Hence, the selection of the best trial attorneys to represent you greatly depends on the kind of case or suit you are into.

Here are some helpful tips on engaging the services of a trial attorney:

• Hire an attorney who has an expertise on the case.

• Engage with an attorney with an extensive trial experience.

• In criminal cases, ask for all available options. If he/she can lower your sentence or lower the bond/bail, the better

• Attorney’s fees should never be the basis of hiring a legal counsel.

• Appoint an attorney who can best negotiate for you.

Never settle for anything less. Your choice of a LA trial attorney can make or break your case.

Our LA trial attorneys, vigorous yet full of compassion, are experts in handling case litigations involving personal injury, employment disputes, business law and social security. Visit our Los Angeles attorneys’ website to learn more about us.