Rudy Giuliani, it appears, is claiming that only a Repulican can keep us safe from terror: He said: "If a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001... Never ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for (terrorists) to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!"
What a fraud.
9/11 happened on Bush's watch. His administration failed to observe the warning signs. He promoted Condi Rice who failed personally. So why should we feel safe with another Republican, especially one like Rudy, who played Bush's lap dog.
We should always recall that the hero Rudy ran away from the Trade Center. The heros that day were running in the opposite direction.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Halberstam
I ran into the great David Halbsertam once in journalism school and a few times after. In a short lecture, he told us how to write a book. Here is my account http://www.dackman.homestead.com/files/Halberstam.htm (reproduced below):
A Grunt, not a Star, Halberstam Reveals the Secret of His Success
By DAN ACKMAN
Pathfinding war correspondent and celebrated author David Halbertstam told Journalism School students on April 5 [2000] that he remains driven not by awards or glory, but by the "infantry work" of reporting and writing.
Halberstam, author of The PowersThat Be, The Fifties, The Breaks of the Game and 13 other books, attributed his success not to his innate ability, but to his doggedness, his curiosity, and to his willingness to follow his heart. "My success came more from being a grunt than it did from being a star," he told students in James Stewart's Narrative Writing class.
Coming out of college in the mid '50s, Halberstam said he wasn't a top student (though he did go to Harvard, referring to it first as a "school in Boston"), but he knew what he wanted, which was to be a journalist.
As a managing editor of The Crimson, he said he could have gotten a job (as a copy boy) on The New York Times or as a reporter for the Boston Globe. But he sensed that in the wake of Brown vs. The Board of Education, the big story would be about race and civil rights, so he went south. Halberstam took a job on a small newspaper in Mississippi, switching to a larger one in Tennessee about a year later.
This was the beginning of what he called his "12-year apprenticeship" the last six of which were with The Times, mostly as a foreign correspondent. Coming out of college, he says he knew he was good-- "I was quick," he said-- but serving those years in Tennessee made him better. "By the time I got to the Times, I was really ready to go," he said.
The Times sent him to the Congo and later to Vietnam, where he did the reporting which led to The Best and the Brightest, his classic book on the war, and to a fabled career as an author and in long-form magazine writing. He has alternated between books on politics and government and books on sports, most recently one about basketball star Michael Jordan.
His huge success in this field, Halberstam said, is based on his "passion to know." A good book starts with a question, he said. The Best and The Brightest, for instance, started with this one: if the officials in the Kennedy and Johnson administration were so smart and so capable, how did they lead the nation to a war that was such a disaster?
The key, he said, is to pick a question interesting enough to sustain the reporter for two or three years, one which will later sustain the reader as well. It is also critical to find a way to dramatize that question and to "go places where the cameras can't go."
He says he keeps a mental list of people to see, often starting with peripheral figures and circling in to the main subject or subjects. Along the way his knowledge deepens and his questions keep getting sharper. The last question at every interview is a always the same: "Who else should I see?"
Conducting two interviews per day, Halberstam compiles massive quantities of notes, which he later speaks into a tape recorder. He says his one luxury is that he pays someone else to transcribe the notes.
Halberstam said that early in life he probably suffered from a form of Attention Deficit Disorder which steered him away from other fields. He knew his destiny was to be a reporter, so "I knew I couldn't screw up." So far, he seems to have kept the screw-ups to a minimum, and he has been awarded with a two Pulitzer Prizes and roughly 18 honorary degrees. He has sold a fair number of books along the way.
But it's the life that sustains him: "And it has been a terrific life. Each book was a university. That's the best part of it, not the honorary degrees, growing as a person. I've been paid to learn for 45 years.... I find it thrilling."
A Grunt, not a Star, Halberstam Reveals the Secret of His Success
By DAN ACKMAN
Pathfinding war correspondent and celebrated author David Halbertstam told Journalism School students on April 5 [2000] that he remains driven not by awards or glory, but by the "infantry work" of reporting and writing.
Halberstam, author of The PowersThat Be, The Fifties, The Breaks of the Game and 13 other books, attributed his success not to his innate ability, but to his doggedness, his curiosity, and to his willingness to follow his heart. "My success came more from being a grunt than it did from being a star," he told students in James Stewart's Narrative Writing class.
Coming out of college in the mid '50s, Halberstam said he wasn't a top student (though he did go to Harvard, referring to it first as a "school in Boston"), but he knew what he wanted, which was to be a journalist.
As a managing editor of The Crimson, he said he could have gotten a job (as a copy boy) on The New York Times or as a reporter for the Boston Globe. But he sensed that in the wake of Brown vs. The Board of Education, the big story would be about race and civil rights, so he went south. Halberstam took a job on a small newspaper in Mississippi, switching to a larger one in Tennessee about a year later.
This was the beginning of what he called his "12-year apprenticeship" the last six of which were with The Times, mostly as a foreign correspondent. Coming out of college, he says he knew he was good-- "I was quick," he said-- but serving those years in Tennessee made him better. "By the time I got to the Times, I was really ready to go," he said.
The Times sent him to the Congo and later to Vietnam, where he did the reporting which led to The Best and the Brightest, his classic book on the war, and to a fabled career as an author and in long-form magazine writing. He has alternated between books on politics and government and books on sports, most recently one about basketball star Michael Jordan.
His huge success in this field, Halberstam said, is based on his "passion to know." A good book starts with a question, he said. The Best and The Brightest, for instance, started with this one: if the officials in the Kennedy and Johnson administration were so smart and so capable, how did they lead the nation to a war that was such a disaster?
The key, he said, is to pick a question interesting enough to sustain the reporter for two or three years, one which will later sustain the reader as well. It is also critical to find a way to dramatize that question and to "go places where the cameras can't go."
He says he keeps a mental list of people to see, often starting with peripheral figures and circling in to the main subject or subjects. Along the way his knowledge deepens and his questions keep getting sharper. The last question at every interview is a always the same: "Who else should I see?"
Conducting two interviews per day, Halberstam compiles massive quantities of notes, which he later speaks into a tape recorder. He says his one luxury is that he pays someone else to transcribe the notes.
Halberstam said that early in life he probably suffered from a form of Attention Deficit Disorder which steered him away from other fields. He knew his destiny was to be a reporter, so "I knew I couldn't screw up." So far, he seems to have kept the screw-ups to a minimum, and he has been awarded with a two Pulitzer Prizes and roughly 18 honorary degrees. He has sold a fair number of books along the way.
But it's the life that sustains him: "And it has been a terrific life. Each book was a university. That's the best part of it, not the honorary degrees, growing as a person. I've been paid to learn for 45 years.... I find it thrilling."
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sopranos, decline and fall
So far this season has been terrific. On the other hand there has been no progress toward my predicted ending. The last season has emphasized the demise of the Mafia: Junior's degeneration; the moronic violence of the NYC family; Christopher's mining his experience for showbiz; Tony's paranoia. But there has been almost nothing about Tony's nuclear family. This is odd because at the end of the day, the show has always been about Tony and his wife and kids.
As gangster, Tony is a survivor, mostly based on lock-- the rats who die just before they can testify, even of natural causes, like Ray, to say nothing of the ones they kill, like Pussy or Adriana. But I still think that amidst the decline and chaos, Tony will be felled by the failures of own household, specifically his idiot son AJ, though they have barely figures in the show at all this season-- so far.
As gangster, Tony is a survivor, mostly based on lock-- the rats who die just before they can testify, even of natural causes, like Ray, to say nothing of the ones they kill, like Pussy or Adriana. But I still think that amidst the decline and chaos, Tony will be felled by the failures of own household, specifically his idiot son AJ, though they have barely figures in the show at all this season-- so far.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
My prediction for the Sopranos
I predict the last season of the Sopranos will turn on Tony's relationship with A.J. Tony's insipid son will get himself in trouble either through his relationship with his new Hispanic girlfriend (who undoubtedly knows who A.J.'s father is and may seek to benefit from the connection) or by trying to trade on the family name to complete some criminal transaction of his own. Because he is weak and incompetent, A.J. will get caught. The feds will try to get A.J. to rat out Tony. A.J. will resist, but ultimately, Tony himself will tell A.J. to take the deal. This Tony will sacrifice himself for his family. This willingness to sacrifice, at the end of the day, is Tony's justification for all the crimes and violence that he has perpetrated. By going to jail for A,J., Tony will finally get out of the mob life that he has long ceased to enjoy. He will also prove to himself and others what he has always said: that he was doing it to provide for and protect his wife and kids all along.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Executive Privilege Primer
Executive privilege (also known as “deliberative process privilege” protects confidential pre-decisional communications such as recommendations, draft documents, proposals, suggestions, and other subjective documents which reflect the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency. The privilege is based on the notion that an assurance of confidentiality will promote “candid discussion between officials.” As the Supreme Court has stated, “The point is not to protect Government secrecy pure and simple.” DOI v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 9 (U.S. 2001). The deliberative process privilege shields only those communications designed to assist an agency policy-maker in arriving at a decision and which are actually related to the policy formulation process.
For a particular document or communication to be protected by the privilege, the agency must demonstrate that the document is both “predecisional” and “deliberative.” The document must be predecisional, that is, prepared in order to assist an agency policy-maker in arriving at a decision. Second, the document must be deliberative, that is, actually related to the process by which policies are formulated. The privilege does not cover procedures or implementation strategy or individual cases (including personnel decisions). It covers policy.
To demonstrate that a document is predecisional, an agency must: (i) pinpoint the specific decision to which the document correlates, (ii) establish that its author prepared the document for the purpose of assisting the agency official charged with making the agency decision, and (iii) verify that the document precedes, in temporal sequence, the decision to which it relates.
Documents that are purely factual are not protected by executive privilege. Mere instructions to subordinate officials as to the implementation of policy are not privileged either. Just because a document satisfies these requirements, however, it does not mean that the deliberative process privilege bars its disclosure. An agency may be required to disclose a document otherwise entitled to protection if the agency has chosen expressly to adopt or incorporate by reference a memorandum previously covered by the privilege in a final rule or opinion.
As with the attorney-client privilege, it is the burden of the party raising the deliberative process privilege to demonstrate its applicability. Finally, the deliberative process does not protect third-party documents submitted in connection with an agency decision, unless the third party is acting an agent of the government. The privilege is waived under certain circumstances if the documents have been disclosed to a third party that is not within the agency.
For a particular document or communication to be protected by the privilege, the agency must demonstrate that the document is both “predecisional” and “deliberative.” The document must be predecisional, that is, prepared in order to assist an agency policy-maker in arriving at a decision. Second, the document must be deliberative, that is, actually related to the process by which policies are formulated. The privilege does not cover procedures or implementation strategy or individual cases (including personnel decisions). It covers policy.
To demonstrate that a document is predecisional, an agency must: (i) pinpoint the specific decision to which the document correlates, (ii) establish that its author prepared the document for the purpose of assisting the agency official charged with making the agency decision, and (iii) verify that the document precedes, in temporal sequence, the decision to which it relates.
Documents that are purely factual are not protected by executive privilege. Mere instructions to subordinate officials as to the implementation of policy are not privileged either. Just because a document satisfies these requirements, however, it does not mean that the deliberative process privilege bars its disclosure. An agency may be required to disclose a document otherwise entitled to protection if the agency has chosen expressly to adopt or incorporate by reference a memorandum previously covered by the privilege in a final rule or opinion.
As with the attorney-client privilege, it is the burden of the party raising the deliberative process privilege to demonstrate its applicability. Finally, the deliberative process does not protect third-party documents submitted in connection with an agency decision, unless the third party is acting an agent of the government. The privilege is waived under certain circumstances if the documents have been disclosed to a third party that is not within the agency.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The Justice Department and the TLC
The emerging Justice Department scandal regarding the politicized firing of U.S. Attorneys is reminiscent of the Taxi & Limousine Commission, both in terms of Operation Refusal and the TLC's summary suspensions.
My class action lawsuit about a Giuliani's Operation Refusal-- suspending the licenses of cab drivers illegally based on phony, politicized charges (together with the attempt to revoke those licenses). This was obviously a big-deal for the cabbies, but a yawn for even the local beat reporters. This was despite the politicization of the agency and the corruption of the judges.
The cabbies had no real defense, and only the class action rules allowed them to sue after the fact. When the city was required to pay $7 million in damages, it got a little ink, but not much.
The lesson is that small injustices are very easy to hide.
Paul Krugman makes this point very well.
My class action lawsuit about a Giuliani's Operation Refusal-- suspending the licenses of cab drivers illegally based on phony, politicized charges (together with the attempt to revoke those licenses). This was obviously a big-deal for the cabbies, but a yawn for even the local beat reporters. This was despite the politicization of the agency and the corruption of the judges.
The cabbies had no real defense, and only the class action rules allowed them to sue after the fact. When the city was required to pay $7 million in damages, it got a little ink, but not much.
The lesson is that small injustices are very easy to hide.
Paul Krugman makes this point very well.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
My slogan for New Jersey
My Slogan for New Jersey
New Jersey: Gateway to America
May 7, 2006
New Jersey's Slogan Goes From New to Stale
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Associated Press
TRENTON, May 6 — New Jersey officials have said the new state slogan, "Come See for Yourself," would highlight the Garden State's true beauty.
It turns out, however, that at least one other state already had that idea.
State tourism officials said they canned the slogan after it failed to pass legal muster because some states, including West Virginia, have used it in the past.
"We are proceeding without the slogan," Karen Wolfe, a spokeswoman for the state's Commerce, Economic Growth and Tourism Commission, was quoted as saying in The Press of Atlantic City's Saturday issue. "We will revisit the next steps at the end of the year."
Former Gov. Richard J. Codey unveiled the slogan with great fanfare at a January news conference, just days before he left office.
Mr. Codey, who remains State Senate president, said at the time that the state's catchphrase "should hint at our true beauty."
The slogan was the top choice among 11,227 telephone and online votes cast by residents for five final entries in a statewide contest.
But at an annual tourism conference in Cape May County more than a week ago, the slogan was absent from state promotional materials.
Tourism officials say West Virginia used the phrase in some previous promotions, but now uses "West Virginia: Wild and Wonderful."
The slogan resulted from Mr. Codey's appeal in October for ideas after he rejected a marketing company's proposal for which the state paid about $250,000. He said that slogan, "New Jersey: We'll Win You Over," was negative and reminded him of his own self-deprecating pitch when he asked girls out on dates.
As I have lived in New Jersey for more than two years now, I feel I have the perfect state slogan: Gateway to America.
It’s catchy and happens to be true, as NJ is the a stronghold of immigrants, both now and historically, and is the state closest to Ellis Island. It is also is the state through which visitors to New York City must pass, more often than not, if they want to reach the American mainland.
New Jersey: Gateway to America
May 7, 2006
New Jersey's Slogan Goes From New to Stale
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The Associated Press
TRENTON, May 6 — New Jersey officials have said the new state slogan, "Come See for Yourself," would highlight the Garden State's true beauty.
It turns out, however, that at least one other state already had that idea.
State tourism officials said they canned the slogan after it failed to pass legal muster because some states, including West Virginia, have used it in the past.
"We are proceeding without the slogan," Karen Wolfe, a spokeswoman for the state's Commerce, Economic Growth and Tourism Commission, was quoted as saying in The Press of Atlantic City's Saturday issue. "We will revisit the next steps at the end of the year."
Former Gov. Richard J. Codey unveiled the slogan with great fanfare at a January news conference, just days before he left office.
Mr. Codey, who remains State Senate president, said at the time that the state's catchphrase "should hint at our true beauty."
The slogan was the top choice among 11,227 telephone and online votes cast by residents for five final entries in a statewide contest.
But at an annual tourism conference in Cape May County more than a week ago, the slogan was absent from state promotional materials.
Tourism officials say West Virginia used the phrase in some previous promotions, but now uses "West Virginia: Wild and Wonderful."
The slogan resulted from Mr. Codey's appeal in October for ideas after he rejected a marketing company's proposal for which the state paid about $250,000. He said that slogan, "New Jersey: We'll Win You Over," was negative and reminded him of his own self-deprecating pitch when he asked girls out on dates.
As I have lived in New Jersey for more than two years now, I feel I have the perfect state slogan: Gateway to America.
It’s catchy and happens to be true, as NJ is the a stronghold of immigrants, both now and historically, and is the state closest to Ellis Island. It is also is the state through which visitors to New York City must pass, more often than not, if they want to reach the American mainland.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Ackman quoted by Krugman...
... alas not by name...
NEW YORK TIMES
March 24, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Letter to the Secretary
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Dear John Snow, secretary of the Treasury:
I'm glad that you've started talking about income inequality, which in recent years has reached levels not seen since before World War II. But if you want to be credible on the subject, you need to make some changes in your approach.
First, you shouldn't claim, as you seemed to earlier this week, that there's anything meaningful about the decline in some measures of inequality between 2000 and 2003. Every economist realizes that, as The Washington Post put it, "much of the decline in inequality during that period reflected the popping of the stock market bubble," which led to a large but temporary fall in the incomes of the richest Americans.
We don't have detailed data for more recent years yet, but the available indicators suggest that after 2003, incomes at the top and the overall level of inequality came roaring back. That surge in inequality explains why, despite your best efforts to talk up the economic numbers, most Americans are unhappy with the Bush economy.
I find it helpful to illustrate what's going on with a hypothetical example: say 10 middle-class guys are sitting in a bar. Then the richest guy leaves, and Bill Gates walks in.
Because the richest guy in the bar is now much richer than before, the average income in the bar soars. But the income of the nine men who aren't Bill Gates hasn't increased, and no amount of repeating "But average income is up!" will convince them that they're better off.
Now think about what happened in 2004 (the figures for 2005 aren't in yet, but it was almost certainly more of the same). The economy grew reasonably fast in 2004, but most families saw little if any improvement in their financial situation.
Instead, a small fraction of the population got much, much richer. For example, Forbes tells us that the compensation of chief executives at the 500 largest corporations rose 54 percent in 2004. In effect, Bill Gates walked into the bar. Average income rose, but only because of rising incomes at the top.
Speaking of executive compensation, Mr. Snow, it hurts your credibility when you say, as you did in a recent interview, that soaring pay for top executives reflects their productivity and that we should "trust the marketplace." Executive pay isn't set in the marketplace; it's set by boards that the executives themselves appoint. And executives' pay often bears little relationship to their performance.
You yourself, as you must know, are often cited as an example. When you were appointed to your present job, Forbes pointed out that the performance of the company you had run, CSX, was "middling at best." Nonetheless, you were "by far the highest-paid chief in the industry."
[SEE: Snow's CSX Was An Also-Ran by Dan Ackman; SEE ALSO Daily Kos
And the business careers of other prominent members of the administration, including the president and vice president, seem to demonstrate the truth of the adage that it's not what you know, it's who you know. So my advice on the question of executive pay is: don't go there.
Finally, you should stop denying that the Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy. I know that administration number-crunchers have produced calculations purporting to show that the tax cuts were tilted toward the middle class. But using the right measure — the effect of the tax cuts on after-tax income — the bias toward the haves and have-mores is unmistakable.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, once the Bush tax cuts are fully phased in, they will raise the after-tax income of middle-income families by 2.3 percent. But they will raise the after-tax income of people like yourself, with incomes of more than $1 million, by 7.3 percent.
And those calculations don't take into account the indirect effects of tax cuts. If the tax cuts are made permanent, they'll eventually have to be offset by large spending cuts. In practical terms, that means cuts where the money is: in Social Security and Medicare benefits. Since middle-income Americans will feel the brunt of these cuts, yet received a relatively small tax break, they'll end up worse off. But the wealthy will be left considerably wealthier.
Of course, my suggestions about how to improve your credibility would force you to stop repeating administration talking points. But you're the secretary of the Treasury. Your job is to make economic policy, not to spout propaganda. Oh, wait.
NEW YORK TIMES
March 24, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Letter to the Secretary
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Dear John Snow, secretary of the Treasury:
I'm glad that you've started talking about income inequality, which in recent years has reached levels not seen since before World War II. But if you want to be credible on the subject, you need to make some changes in your approach.
First, you shouldn't claim, as you seemed to earlier this week, that there's anything meaningful about the decline in some measures of inequality between 2000 and 2003. Every economist realizes that, as The Washington Post put it, "much of the decline in inequality during that period reflected the popping of the stock market bubble," which led to a large but temporary fall in the incomes of the richest Americans.
We don't have detailed data for more recent years yet, but the available indicators suggest that after 2003, incomes at the top and the overall level of inequality came roaring back. That surge in inequality explains why, despite your best efforts to talk up the economic numbers, most Americans are unhappy with the Bush economy.
I find it helpful to illustrate what's going on with a hypothetical example: say 10 middle-class guys are sitting in a bar. Then the richest guy leaves, and Bill Gates walks in.
Because the richest guy in the bar is now much richer than before, the average income in the bar soars. But the income of the nine men who aren't Bill Gates hasn't increased, and no amount of repeating "But average income is up!" will convince them that they're better off.
Now think about what happened in 2004 (the figures for 2005 aren't in yet, but it was almost certainly more of the same). The economy grew reasonably fast in 2004, but most families saw little if any improvement in their financial situation.
Instead, a small fraction of the population got much, much richer. For example, Forbes tells us that the compensation of chief executives at the 500 largest corporations rose 54 percent in 2004. In effect, Bill Gates walked into the bar. Average income rose, but only because of rising incomes at the top.
Speaking of executive compensation, Mr. Snow, it hurts your credibility when you say, as you did in a recent interview, that soaring pay for top executives reflects their productivity and that we should "trust the marketplace." Executive pay isn't set in the marketplace; it's set by boards that the executives themselves appoint. And executives' pay often bears little relationship to their performance.
You yourself, as you must know, are often cited as an example. When you were appointed to your present job, Forbes pointed out that the performance of the company you had run, CSX, was "middling at best." Nonetheless, you were "by far the highest-paid chief in the industry."
[SEE: Snow's CSX Was An Also-Ran by Dan Ackman; SEE ALSO Daily Kos
And the business careers of other prominent members of the administration, including the president and vice president, seem to demonstrate the truth of the adage that it's not what you know, it's who you know. So my advice on the question of executive pay is: don't go there.
Finally, you should stop denying that the Bush tax cuts favor the wealthy. I know that administration number-crunchers have produced calculations purporting to show that the tax cuts were tilted toward the middle class. But using the right measure — the effect of the tax cuts on after-tax income — the bias toward the haves and have-mores is unmistakable.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, once the Bush tax cuts are fully phased in, they will raise the after-tax income of middle-income families by 2.3 percent. But they will raise the after-tax income of people like yourself, with incomes of more than $1 million, by 7.3 percent.
And those calculations don't take into account the indirect effects of tax cuts. If the tax cuts are made permanent, they'll eventually have to be offset by large spending cuts. In practical terms, that means cuts where the money is: in Social Security and Medicare benefits. Since middle-income Americans will feel the brunt of these cuts, yet received a relatively small tax break, they'll end up worse off. But the wealthy will be left considerably wealthier.
Of course, my suggestions about how to improve your credibility would force you to stop repeating administration talking points. But you're the secretary of the Treasury. Your job is to make economic policy, not to spout propaganda. Oh, wait.
Stung Cabbies Sting Back - Padberg v. McGrath-McKechnie
On March 6, 2006, on the eve of trial, the City of New York and its Taxi and Limousine Commission announced a settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by 500 cabbies concerning the TLC’s so-called “Operation Refusal.”
The cabbies alleged that the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, led by Rudolph Giuliani and its chairwoman Diane McGrath-McKechnie, suspended hack licenses unconstitutionally and revoked them illegally during the course of the TLC’s so-called “Operation Refusal,” the sting operation ordered by the mayor and the chairwoman in the wake of a highly publicized complaint by the actor Danny Glover.
The former mayor and the TLC pretended that cabbies whose licenses were suspended were acting out of “bigotry” or racial bias. Evidence unearthed during discovery proved that this claim was a con. The overwhelming majority of alleged service refusals – then and now – are based on destination and economics, not race. TLC officials, of course, were well aware of this fact.
The cabbies alleged that the revocation of their licenses violated city law, and that the policy was enacted illegally and in secret, without public notice or hearings of any kind. They also allege that McGrath-McKechnie pursued her scheme despite clear warnings that what she was doing is illegal.
The penalties were enforced by TLC judges, in the TLC’s own kangaroo court. That court was systemically biased against drivers, the cabbies allege. The judicial bias claim would have been the key issue for the jury, had the trial gone forward.
Of course, with the settlement, the trial will not go forward.
The settlement, though, is pretty good:
--Cabbies whose licenses were suspended will be paid $121.50 per day for the duration of their suspensions. About 500 cabbies were suspended and the average suspension lasted 62 days.
--Cabbies whose licenses were revoked will be paid an additional $26,000 each.
--The TLC will refund all fines paid during the course of Operation Refusal.
--The City will pay the cabbies attorneys’ fees and court costs.
The settlement received some press attention, both locally and nationally via the AP.
Here is a compendium of the coverage:
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Hacks pick up 7M in ride-bias battle
The city agreed yesterday to a $7 million settlement with more than 500 cabbies who charged their licenses were improperly suspended for refusing to pick up minority passengers.
A federal judge in Brooklyn had already ruled the policy of confiscating the hack licenses of medallion cab drivers without a hearing was unconstitutional.
After actor Danny Glover publicly complained in November 1999 that he had trouble hailing a cab because he's black, the NYPD launched a crackdown against drivers, using undercover cops trying to hail cabs.
"They threw out the Constitution so they could look good on a hot-button issue," said cabbies' lawyer Daniel Ackman.
Under the settlement, the city will pay drivers $121.50 for each day they were suspended and $26,000 to each driver whose license was revoked while the policy was in effect from November 1999 to April 2002.
"The settlement addresses an enforcement policy that was in place for a limited time nearly seven years ago," Taxi and Limousine Commission Chairman Matthew Daus said in a statement.
He noted that recent tests found a 97% driver-compliance rate in pickups.
John Marzulli
NEW YORK POST
'STUNG' HACKS WIN
By JEREMY OLSHAN
After letting the meters run for six years, the city yesterday agreed to settle a federal class-action lawsuit and pay 100 cabdrivers whose hack licenses were revoked during an aggressive sting operation.
The drivers were targeted as part of Operation Refusal, in which undercover agents posed as minority passengers trying to hail a cab.
Each driver will get $26,000 as part of the settlement.
The lawsuit accused the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission of removing their licenses without a hearing.
But that punishment is normally reserved only for a third offense. Another 500 drivers, whose licenses were suspended an average of 62 days, will receive $121.50 per day, making the total settlement worth $6.3 million.
Beginning in 1999, after actor Danny Glover complained about bias among cabbies, the penalty enforcement was changed to include instant revocation.
"A fair hearing was impossible, as the judges were hired, fired, and paid for by the TLC," said Daniel Ackman, attorney for the drivers.
Operation Refusal is still in effect, although the penalties are now fines for the first two offenses.
NEW YORK SUN
City To Settle Lawsuit Brought by Cab Drivers Caught in TLC Stings
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 7, 2006
The city will pay more than $6 million to settle a lawsuit brought by about 500 cab drivers who claim they were punished unfairly amid allegations they avoided black customers and refused fares.
Former and current cab drivers are represented in the class action lawsuit brought in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn yesterday. The settlement, which has yet to be filed with the court, comes six years after the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission expanded existing sting operations to identify drivers who were avoiding minority customers.
The legal complaint does not dispute that it is often difficult for black men to get a cab. It contends that the TLC courts stripped cab drivers of their constitutional rights.
"I would say there are some racial biases among cab drivers like there are among all people," the attorney representing the drivers, Daniel Ackman, told The New York Sun. "But they never proved anybody had a racial bias. They never attempted to prove it."
The cab drivers had their taxis impounded and their licenses pulled after they allegedly ignored black investigators posing as customers or refused to drive to specific destinations, the complaint accompanying the lawsuit states.
The power exercised by investigators who seized cabs and took licenses exceeded the penalties permitted by New York City law, the complaint states. And the courts of the Taxi and Limousine Commission were stacked against cab drivers, according to the complaint. The TLC legal department held sway over TLC-paid judges who ruled against cab drivers protesting their suspension, the complaint states.
Mr. Ackman estimates that only 15% of his clients were prosecuted in TLC courts after allegedly passing by a black investigator hailing a cab for a white investigator doing the same. The rest were prosecuted for other fare refusals.
The ongoing Taxi and Limousine Commission sting operation, called Operation Refusal, was expanded following a complaint by actor Danny Glover. Mr. Glover, who is black, filed a complaint in 1999 with the TLC, claiming he had difficulty in finding a ride in New York City. Mayor Giuliani, who is named as a defendant in the suit, lauded the operation, which promised at the time to cut down on the reputed racial biases of drivers.
A spokesman for the TLC, Allan Fromberg, declined to comment on the lawsuit except to convey a brief statement by current TLC Commissioner, Matthew Daus.
"The settlement addresses an enforcement policy that was in place for a limited time nearly seven years ago, and has no effect upon the TLC's successful refusal enforcement efforts which currently have 97% driver compliance," the statement said.
Neither Mr. Fromberg nor a spokeswoman for the New York City Law Department, Kate Ahlers, would discuss the terms or amount of the settlement.
Mr. Ackman said the agreement calls for about 100 drivers who had their licenses revoked to receive payments of $26,000. Those former drivers and another 400 would also receive $121.50 for each day their license was suspended before it was either revoked or returned. Mr. Ackman said the average suspension was 62 days.
The 26-year career of the lead plaintiff, John Padberg, ended quickly, over the course of three blocks in Queens. After noticing a woman hailing him from a full three blocks away, he passed a black man he hadn't noticed but who was signaling for a fare, Mr. Padberg told The New York Sun. After the woman identified herself as an investigator, he was forced to return home without his cab or license. He is now a limousine driver.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEW YORK TIMES
March 8, 2006
New York City to Pay Settlement to Taxi Drivers Accused of Bias
By THOMAS J. LUECK
CORRECTION APPENDED
A long legal fight over a city crackdown on cabdrivers, prompted by a black actor's 1999 complaint of racial bias, has ended in an agreement to pay about 500 cabbies whose licenses were suspended or revoked, lawyers on both sides of the case said yesterday.
Under the agreement, termed a "settlement in principle" by Paula Van Meter, a lawyer for the city, about $7 million from the city will go to the cabbies, who were penalized without having been granted hearings for showing bias toward passengers, refusing to take them to certain locations or other violations.
The cabbies were penalized by the Taxi and Limousine Commission from late 1999 through early 2002 under Operation Refusal, an enforcement tactic begun after the actor Danny Glover complained that five taxis had refused to stop for him because he is black. The accusation attracted national attention.
Operation Refusal remains in force, but a federal judge in Brooklyn ruled a year ago that the city had violated due process by suspending cabbies' hack licenses without first granting hearings. The settlement was reached on Monday in a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of drivers who claimed financial damages.
Dan Ackman, a lawyer for the cabbies, said former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani; the former Taxi and Limousine Commission chairwoman, Diane McGrath-McKechnie; and the commission's current chairman, Matthew W. Daus, were named as defendants, and were expected to testify at a trial that had been scheduled to begin next Monday.
"The settlement addresses an enforcement policy that was in place for a limited time nearly seven years ago," Mr. Daus said, adding that agreement had no effect upon the taxi commission's current enforcement efforts. The agency continues to use about 200 staff officers, posing as civilians, who hail taxis and check for illegal refusals.
Under the settlement, Mr. Ackman said, about 500 drivers will receive $121.50 apiece for each day their licenses were suspended. About 100 of those drivers, whose licenses were revoked after the suspensions, will each receive an additional $26,000, and can apply for new licenses, he said.
Correction: March 10, 2006, Friday An article on Wednesday about a settlement between New York City and about 500 cabdrivers whose licenses were suspended or revoked during a crackdown on racial bias and other violations misstated the timing of a judge's ruling that the city had violated the cabbies' rights. It was in 2002, not a year ago.
Associated Press
NYC to Settle Suit Filed by Cab Drivers
By ELIZABETH LeSURE , 03.06.2006, 11:52 PM
The AP Story was picked up by The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Newsday, The Philadelphia Daily News, The Houston Chronicle, The Seattle Post Intelligencer and other papers.
Hundreds of taxi drivers who were accused of discrimination and lost their driving privileges settled a class-action lawsuit against the city, their lawyer said Monday.
The cabbies' licenses were suspended or revoked as part of a crackdown on those who wouldn't pick up passengers because of their race, gender or other factors.
The city's effort began in November 1999 after "Lethal Weapon" actor Danny Glover filed a complaint with the Taxi & Limousine Commission because he was passed by several available taxis.
In the lawsuit, filed in 2000, attorney Dan Ackman argued that the drivers' licenses were seized and revoked without due process of the law and that the commission's taxi court was biased and unconstitutional.
A judge ruled in 2002 that the suspension policy was unconstitutional; additional allegations involving the taxi court and the revocation policy were set to go to trial on Monday before the settlement was reached, Ackman said.
The city's law department said it had "reached a settlement in principal" and was working to finalize the agreement. Ackman said the settlement must be approved by a federal judge.
Under the settlement, about 500 drivers each will get $121.50 for each day they were suspended, Ackman said. The suspensions averaged 62 days, he said.
About 100 drivers whose licenses were revoked after the suspensions will receive an additional $26,000 each and will be allowed to apply for new licenses, Ackman said.
The commission also will refund fines it collected from the drivers, he said.
Under the current Operation Refusal, drivers are issued summonses if they are accused of discrimination but are not penalized until after they appear in taxi court, the commission said.
"The settlement addresses an enforcement policy that was in place for a limited time nearly seven years ago and has no effect upon the TLC's successful refusal enforcement efforts," the commission's chairman, Matthew Daus, said in a statement.
1010 WINS Radio
Posted: Monday, 06 March 2006 10:27PM
NYC to Settle Cab Driver Discrimination Suit
NEW YORK (1010 WINS) -- The city has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of hundreds of taxi drivers whose licenses were suspended or revoked as part of a crackdown on those who wouldn't pick up passengers because of their race.
The cabbies were penalized as part of an anti-discrimination effort that began in November 1999 after "Lethal Weapon'' actor Danny Glover, who is black, filed a complaint with the Taxi & Limousine Commission because he was passed by several available taxis.
Under the settlement, about 500 drivers each will get $121.50 for each day they were suspended, said their lawyer, Dan Ackman. The suspensions averaged 62 days, he said.
About 100 drivers whose licenses were revoked after the suspensions will receive an additional $26,000 each and will be allowed to apply for new licenses, Ackman said.
The TLC also will refund fines it collected from the drivers, he said.
In the lawsuit, filed in 2000, Ackman argued that the drivers' licenses were seized and revoked without due process of the law and that the TLC's taxi court was biased and unconstitutional.
A judge ruled in 2002 that the suspension policy was unconstitutional; additional allegations involving taxi court and the revocation policy were set to go to trial on Monday before the settlement was reached, Ackman said.
The drivers were suspended as part of an enhanced version of a program called Operation Refusal. During the crackdown, the city automatically suspended the licenses of drivers who were accused of discrimination before they appeared in taxi court to answer the charges.
The crackdown was aimed at drivers who did not pick up passengers based on their race or gender or refused to go to certain locations, usually in poor minority neighborhoods or areas outside Manhattan.
The lead plaintiff in the case was John Padberg, who was driving down Queens Boulevard when he was hailed by two undercover inspectors, a white woman and a black man. Padberg picked up the white woman, and when she asked him why he hadn't stopped for the black man he told her she had hailed him first, Ackman said.
About 86 percent of those who were suspended during the crackdown pleaded guilty or were convicted of the allegations against them, he said. Padberg was convicted.
Under the current Operation Refusal, drivers are issued summonses if they are accused of discrimination but are not penalized until after they appear in taxi court, the TLC said.
"The settlement addresses an enforcement policy that was in place for a limited time nearly seven years ago and has no effect upon the TLC's successful refusal enforcement efforts, which currently have 97 percent driver compliance,'' TLC chairman Matthew Daus said in a statement.
The city's law department said it had "reached a settlement in principal'' and was working to resolve the outstanding legal details and finalize the agreement. Ackman said the settlement must be approved by a judge in federal court in Brooklyn.
Glover has appeared in several movies, including all four "Lethal Weapons,'' ``Grand Canyon'' and ``The Color Purple.''
WNYC Radio
NYC Settles With Taxi Drivers
WNYC Newsroom
NEW YORK, NY, March 07, 2006 — New York City has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit filed for hundreds of taxi drivers whose licenses were suspended or revoked in a crackdown on cabbies who wouldn't pick up passengers because of their race.
The drivers lost their jobs as part of an anti-discrimination effort that began in 19-99 after actor Danny Glover filed a complaint with the Taxi & Limousine Commission because several taxis refused to stop for him.
The drivers' attorney argued that the sweep didn't allow drivers to answer charges made against them, denying them due process of the law. Under the settlement, drivers will be paid damages and those whose licenses were revoked will be allowed to apply for new ones.
The cabbies alleged that the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, led by Rudolph Giuliani and its chairwoman Diane McGrath-McKechnie, suspended hack licenses unconstitutionally and revoked them illegally during the course of the TLC’s so-called “Operation Refusal,” the sting operation ordered by the mayor and the chairwoman in the wake of a highly publicized complaint by the actor Danny Glover.
The former mayor and the TLC pretended that cabbies whose licenses were suspended were acting out of “bigotry” or racial bias. Evidence unearthed during discovery proved that this claim was a con. The overwhelming majority of alleged service refusals – then and now – are based on destination and economics, not race. TLC officials, of course, were well aware of this fact.
The cabbies alleged that the revocation of their licenses violated city law, and that the policy was enacted illegally and in secret, without public notice or hearings of any kind. They also allege that McGrath-McKechnie pursued her scheme despite clear warnings that what she was doing is illegal.
The penalties were enforced by TLC judges, in the TLC’s own kangaroo court. That court was systemically biased against drivers, the cabbies allege. The judicial bias claim would have been the key issue for the jury, had the trial gone forward.
Of course, with the settlement, the trial will not go forward.
The settlement, though, is pretty good:
--Cabbies whose licenses were suspended will be paid $121.50 per day for the duration of their suspensions. About 500 cabbies were suspended and the average suspension lasted 62 days.
--Cabbies whose licenses were revoked will be paid an additional $26,000 each.
--The TLC will refund all fines paid during the course of Operation Refusal.
--The City will pay the cabbies attorneys’ fees and court costs.
The settlement received some press attention, both locally and nationally via the AP.
Here is a compendium of the coverage:
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Hacks pick up 7M in ride-bias battle
The city agreed yesterday to a $7 million settlement with more than 500 cabbies who charged their licenses were improperly suspended for refusing to pick up minority passengers.
A federal judge in Brooklyn had already ruled the policy of confiscating the hack licenses of medallion cab drivers without a hearing was unconstitutional.
After actor Danny Glover publicly complained in November 1999 that he had trouble hailing a cab because he's black, the NYPD launched a crackdown against drivers, using undercover cops trying to hail cabs.
"They threw out the Constitution so they could look good on a hot-button issue," said cabbies' lawyer Daniel Ackman.
Under the settlement, the city will pay drivers $121.50 for each day they were suspended and $26,000 to each driver whose license was revoked while the policy was in effect from November 1999 to April 2002.
"The settlement addresses an enforcement policy that was in place for a limited time nearly seven years ago," Taxi and Limousine Commission Chairman Matthew Daus said in a statement.
He noted that recent tests found a 97% driver-compliance rate in pickups.
John Marzulli
NEW YORK POST
'STUNG' HACKS WIN
By JEREMY OLSHAN
After letting the meters run for six years, the city yesterday agreed to settle a federal class-action lawsuit and pay 100 cabdrivers whose hack licenses were revoked during an aggressive sting operation.
The drivers were targeted as part of Operation Refusal, in which undercover agents posed as minority passengers trying to hail a cab.
Each driver will get $26,000 as part of the settlement.
The lawsuit accused the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission of removing their licenses without a hearing.
But that punishment is normally reserved only for a third offense. Another 500 drivers, whose licenses were suspended an average of 62 days, will receive $121.50 per day, making the total settlement worth $6.3 million.
Beginning in 1999, after actor Danny Glover complained about bias among cabbies, the penalty enforcement was changed to include instant revocation.
"A fair hearing was impossible, as the judges were hired, fired, and paid for by the TLC," said Daniel Ackman, attorney for the drivers.
Operation Refusal is still in effect, although the penalties are now fines for the first two offenses.
NEW YORK SUN
City To Settle Lawsuit Brought by Cab Drivers Caught in TLC Stings
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 7, 2006
The city will pay more than $6 million to settle a lawsuit brought by about 500 cab drivers who claim they were punished unfairly amid allegations they avoided black customers and refused fares.
Former and current cab drivers are represented in the class action lawsuit brought in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn yesterday. The settlement, which has yet to be filed with the court, comes six years after the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission expanded existing sting operations to identify drivers who were avoiding minority customers.
The legal complaint does not dispute that it is often difficult for black men to get a cab. It contends that the TLC courts stripped cab drivers of their constitutional rights.
"I would say there are some racial biases among cab drivers like there are among all people," the attorney representing the drivers, Daniel Ackman, told The New York Sun. "But they never proved anybody had a racial bias. They never attempted to prove it."
The cab drivers had their taxis impounded and their licenses pulled after they allegedly ignored black investigators posing as customers or refused to drive to specific destinations, the complaint accompanying the lawsuit states.
The power exercised by investigators who seized cabs and took licenses exceeded the penalties permitted by New York City law, the complaint states. And the courts of the Taxi and Limousine Commission were stacked against cab drivers, according to the complaint. The TLC legal department held sway over TLC-paid judges who ruled against cab drivers protesting their suspension, the complaint states.
Mr. Ackman estimates that only 15% of his clients were prosecuted in TLC courts after allegedly passing by a black investigator hailing a cab for a white investigator doing the same. The rest were prosecuted for other fare refusals.
The ongoing Taxi and Limousine Commission sting operation, called Operation Refusal, was expanded following a complaint by actor Danny Glover. Mr. Glover, who is black, filed a complaint in 1999 with the TLC, claiming he had difficulty in finding a ride in New York City. Mayor Giuliani, who is named as a defendant in the suit, lauded the operation, which promised at the time to cut down on the reputed racial biases of drivers.
A spokesman for the TLC, Allan Fromberg, declined to comment on the lawsuit except to convey a brief statement by current TLC Commissioner, Matthew Daus.
"The settlement addresses an enforcement policy that was in place for a limited time nearly seven years ago, and has no effect upon the TLC's successful refusal enforcement efforts which currently have 97% driver compliance," the statement said.
Neither Mr. Fromberg nor a spokeswoman for the New York City Law Department, Kate Ahlers, would discuss the terms or amount of the settlement.
Mr. Ackman said the agreement calls for about 100 drivers who had their licenses revoked to receive payments of $26,000. Those former drivers and another 400 would also receive $121.50 for each day their license was suspended before it was either revoked or returned. Mr. Ackman said the average suspension was 62 days.
The 26-year career of the lead plaintiff, John Padberg, ended quickly, over the course of three blocks in Queens. After noticing a woman hailing him from a full three blocks away, he passed a black man he hadn't noticed but who was signaling for a fare, Mr. Padberg told The New York Sun. After the woman identified herself as an investigator, he was forced to return home without his cab or license. He is now a limousine driver.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEW YORK TIMES
March 8, 2006
New York City to Pay Settlement to Taxi Drivers Accused of Bias
By THOMAS J. LUECK
CORRECTION APPENDED
A long legal fight over a city crackdown on cabdrivers, prompted by a black actor's 1999 complaint of racial bias, has ended in an agreement to pay about 500 cabbies whose licenses were suspended or revoked, lawyers on both sides of the case said yesterday.
Under the agreement, termed a "settlement in principle" by Paula Van Meter, a lawyer for the city, about $7 million from the city will go to the cabbies, who were penalized without having been granted hearings for showing bias toward passengers, refusing to take them to certain locations or other violations.
The cabbies were penalized by the Taxi and Limousine Commission from late 1999 through early 2002 under Operation Refusal, an enforcement tactic begun after the actor Danny Glover complained that five taxis had refused to stop for him because he is black. The accusation attracted national attention.
Operation Refusal remains in force, but a federal judge in Brooklyn ruled a year ago that the city had violated due process by suspending cabbies' hack licenses without first granting hearings. The settlement was reached on Monday in a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of drivers who claimed financial damages.
Dan Ackman, a lawyer for the cabbies, said former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani; the former Taxi and Limousine Commission chairwoman, Diane McGrath-McKechnie; and the commission's current chairman, Matthew W. Daus, were named as defendants, and were expected to testify at a trial that had been scheduled to begin next Monday.
"The settlement addresses an enforcement policy that was in place for a limited time nearly seven years ago," Mr. Daus said, adding that agreement had no effect upon the taxi commission's current enforcement efforts. The agency continues to use about 200 staff officers, posing as civilians, who hail taxis and check for illegal refusals.
Under the settlement, Mr. Ackman said, about 500 drivers will receive $121.50 apiece for each day their licenses were suspended. About 100 of those drivers, whose licenses were revoked after the suspensions, will each receive an additional $26,000, and can apply for new licenses, he said.
Correction: March 10, 2006, Friday An article on Wednesday about a settlement between New York City and about 500 cabdrivers whose licenses were suspended or revoked during a crackdown on racial bias and other violations misstated the timing of a judge's ruling that the city had violated the cabbies' rights. It was in 2002, not a year ago.
Associated Press
NYC to Settle Suit Filed by Cab Drivers
By ELIZABETH LeSURE , 03.06.2006, 11:52 PM
The AP Story was picked up by The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Newsday, The Philadelphia Daily News, The Houston Chronicle, The Seattle Post Intelligencer and other papers.
Hundreds of taxi drivers who were accused of discrimination and lost their driving privileges settled a class-action lawsuit against the city, their lawyer said Monday.
The cabbies' licenses were suspended or revoked as part of a crackdown on those who wouldn't pick up passengers because of their race, gender or other factors.
The city's effort began in November 1999 after "Lethal Weapon" actor Danny Glover filed a complaint with the Taxi & Limousine Commission because he was passed by several available taxis.
In the lawsuit, filed in 2000, attorney Dan Ackman argued that the drivers' licenses were seized and revoked without due process of the law and that the commission's taxi court was biased and unconstitutional.
A judge ruled in 2002 that the suspension policy was unconstitutional; additional allegations involving the taxi court and the revocation policy were set to go to trial on Monday before the settlement was reached, Ackman said.
The city's law department said it had "reached a settlement in principal" and was working to finalize the agreement. Ackman said the settlement must be approved by a federal judge.
Under the settlement, about 500 drivers each will get $121.50 for each day they were suspended, Ackman said. The suspensions averaged 62 days, he said.
About 100 drivers whose licenses were revoked after the suspensions will receive an additional $26,000 each and will be allowed to apply for new licenses, Ackman said.
The commission also will refund fines it collected from the drivers, he said.
Under the current Operation Refusal, drivers are issued summonses if they are accused of discrimination but are not penalized until after they appear in taxi court, the commission said.
"The settlement addresses an enforcement policy that was in place for a limited time nearly seven years ago and has no effect upon the TLC's successful refusal enforcement efforts," the commission's chairman, Matthew Daus, said in a statement.
1010 WINS Radio
Posted: Monday, 06 March 2006 10:27PM
NYC to Settle Cab Driver Discrimination Suit
NEW YORK (1010 WINS) -- The city has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of hundreds of taxi drivers whose licenses were suspended or revoked as part of a crackdown on those who wouldn't pick up passengers because of their race.
The cabbies were penalized as part of an anti-discrimination effort that began in November 1999 after "Lethal Weapon'' actor Danny Glover, who is black, filed a complaint with the Taxi & Limousine Commission because he was passed by several available taxis.
Under the settlement, about 500 drivers each will get $121.50 for each day they were suspended, said their lawyer, Dan Ackman. The suspensions averaged 62 days, he said.
About 100 drivers whose licenses were revoked after the suspensions will receive an additional $26,000 each and will be allowed to apply for new licenses, Ackman said.
The TLC also will refund fines it collected from the drivers, he said.
In the lawsuit, filed in 2000, Ackman argued that the drivers' licenses were seized and revoked without due process of the law and that the TLC's taxi court was biased and unconstitutional.
A judge ruled in 2002 that the suspension policy was unconstitutional; additional allegations involving taxi court and the revocation policy were set to go to trial on Monday before the settlement was reached, Ackman said.
The drivers were suspended as part of an enhanced version of a program called Operation Refusal. During the crackdown, the city automatically suspended the licenses of drivers who were accused of discrimination before they appeared in taxi court to answer the charges.
The crackdown was aimed at drivers who did not pick up passengers based on their race or gender or refused to go to certain locations, usually in poor minority neighborhoods or areas outside Manhattan.
The lead plaintiff in the case was John Padberg, who was driving down Queens Boulevard when he was hailed by two undercover inspectors, a white woman and a black man. Padberg picked up the white woman, and when she asked him why he hadn't stopped for the black man he told her she had hailed him first, Ackman said.
About 86 percent of those who were suspended during the crackdown pleaded guilty or were convicted of the allegations against them, he said. Padberg was convicted.
Under the current Operation Refusal, drivers are issued summonses if they are accused of discrimination but are not penalized until after they appear in taxi court, the TLC said.
"The settlement addresses an enforcement policy that was in place for a limited time nearly seven years ago and has no effect upon the TLC's successful refusal enforcement efforts, which currently have 97 percent driver compliance,'' TLC chairman Matthew Daus said in a statement.
The city's law department said it had "reached a settlement in principal'' and was working to resolve the outstanding legal details and finalize the agreement. Ackman said the settlement must be approved by a judge in federal court in Brooklyn.
Glover has appeared in several movies, including all four "Lethal Weapons,'' ``Grand Canyon'' and ``The Color Purple.''
WNYC Radio
NYC Settles With Taxi Drivers
WNYC Newsroom
NEW YORK, NY, March 07, 2006 — New York City has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit filed for hundreds of taxi drivers whose licenses were suspended or revoked in a crackdown on cabbies who wouldn't pick up passengers because of their race.
The drivers lost their jobs as part of an anti-discrimination effort that began in 19-99 after actor Danny Glover filed a complaint with the Taxi & Limousine Commission because several taxis refused to stop for him.
The drivers' attorney argued that the sweep didn't allow drivers to answer charges made against them, denying them due process of the law. Under the settlement, drivers will be paid damages and those whose licenses were revoked will be allowed to apply for new ones.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
From The New York Times - OP ED - 2/12/06
February 12, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
The Price of Justice
By DAN ACKMAN
OVER the past several decades, the scope and clout of the city's administrative law courts have swelled to the point where there are now at least 500 administrative law judges scattered among a dozen agencies.
While the judges hear very different kinds of cases, many of them face a conflict of interest: they are supposed to make independent judgments about the agencies that pay them. Last year, a ballot measure to bring order to these courts was approved by city voters. It's a good start, but more needs to be done.
The administrative courts generally operate under the radar for two reasons: they can't send people to prison and most of the individual cases before them, from tax assessment appeals to parking summonses and health code citations, involve relatively modest fines.
But the stakes add up. According to a 2003 report by the Charter Revision Commission, which proposed the ballot measure, the courts levy more than $600 million in fines and fees a year. More important, the administrative courts have the power to suspend and revoke licenses, which means they can close businesses and wreck livelihoods. For workers and businesses licensed by the city — street vendors, taxi drivers, restaurants, grocery stores and dry cleaners among others — the courts wield tremendous power.
As a journalist and lawyer who has written about and litigated against the Taxi and Limousine Commission, I can attest to the power of its administrative judges.
I can also state without reservation that the taxi drivers I have represented have little confidence in the fairness of the commission's court. This is in large measure because its judges are hired by the commission, and can be fired or have their hours reduced at any time. In short, their paychecks depend on the commission.
The Taxi and Limousine Commission is not alone. The judges at the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, for instance, also work directly for the agency.
Other administrative courts reside within larger agencies. The Environmental Control Board, for example, is part of the Department of Environmental Protection; the Parking Violations Bureau is overseen by the Department of Finance.
Regardless of the agency, the city's administrative judges have an incentive to serve their own interests, and not those of the public, for one glaring reason: they have no job security. They are not civil servants, have no term in office and no contractual rights. With few exceptions, they work on a part-time or per diem basis. When a judge's income depends on the goodwill of the prosecuting agency, it's too much to expect that he or she will hold the balance of justice clear and true.
The ballot measure that passed in November called on the city to impose its first "codes of professional conduct" on administrative judges. It's a good idea. But the measure gave little guidance as to what the code might include. And it said nothing about the way the judges are hired and how they are paid.
Spurred perhaps by the initiative, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said he intends to appoint an administrative justice coordinator to work with him, the agency heads and the city's chief administrative law judge to review the entire administrative court system. This effort could lead to genuine reform. The chief administrative law judge, as it happens, works for the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, a distinct agency. Judges in this court are hired for five-year terms, serve full time and hear cases only from outside their agency.
Because its judges serve for fixed terms and are not part of the city's regulatory apparatus, this court can rightly boast of its status as independent. As the court says on its Web site, the independence "of the decision maker from the prosecuting agency invites a higher level of confidence in the fairness of the adjudicative process."
This is an example that the city's other administrative courts, prompted by the mayor and renewed public concern, would do well to follow.
Dan Ackman is a lawyer.
Op-Ed Contributor
The Price of Justice
By DAN ACKMAN
OVER the past several decades, the scope and clout of the city's administrative law courts have swelled to the point where there are now at least 500 administrative law judges scattered among a dozen agencies.
While the judges hear very different kinds of cases, many of them face a conflict of interest: they are supposed to make independent judgments about the agencies that pay them. Last year, a ballot measure to bring order to these courts was approved by city voters. It's a good start, but more needs to be done.
The administrative courts generally operate under the radar for two reasons: they can't send people to prison and most of the individual cases before them, from tax assessment appeals to parking summonses and health code citations, involve relatively modest fines.
But the stakes add up. According to a 2003 report by the Charter Revision Commission, which proposed the ballot measure, the courts levy more than $600 million in fines and fees a year. More important, the administrative courts have the power to suspend and revoke licenses, which means they can close businesses and wreck livelihoods. For workers and businesses licensed by the city — street vendors, taxi drivers, restaurants, grocery stores and dry cleaners among others — the courts wield tremendous power.
As a journalist and lawyer who has written about and litigated against the Taxi and Limousine Commission, I can attest to the power of its administrative judges.
I can also state without reservation that the taxi drivers I have represented have little confidence in the fairness of the commission's court. This is in large measure because its judges are hired by the commission, and can be fired or have their hours reduced at any time. In short, their paychecks depend on the commission.
The Taxi and Limousine Commission is not alone. The judges at the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, for instance, also work directly for the agency.
Other administrative courts reside within larger agencies. The Environmental Control Board, for example, is part of the Department of Environmental Protection; the Parking Violations Bureau is overseen by the Department of Finance.
Regardless of the agency, the city's administrative judges have an incentive to serve their own interests, and not those of the public, for one glaring reason: they have no job security. They are not civil servants, have no term in office and no contractual rights. With few exceptions, they work on a part-time or per diem basis. When a judge's income depends on the goodwill of the prosecuting agency, it's too much to expect that he or she will hold the balance of justice clear and true.
The ballot measure that passed in November called on the city to impose its first "codes of professional conduct" on administrative judges. It's a good idea. But the measure gave little guidance as to what the code might include. And it said nothing about the way the judges are hired and how they are paid.
Spurred perhaps by the initiative, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said he intends to appoint an administrative justice coordinator to work with him, the agency heads and the city's chief administrative law judge to review the entire administrative court system. This effort could lead to genuine reform. The chief administrative law judge, as it happens, works for the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, a distinct agency. Judges in this court are hired for five-year terms, serve full time and hear cases only from outside their agency.
Because its judges serve for fixed terms and are not part of the city's regulatory apparatus, this court can rightly boast of its status as independent. As the court says on its Web site, the independence "of the decision maker from the prosecuting agency invites a higher level of confidence in the fairness of the adjudicative process."
This is an example that the city's other administrative courts, prompted by the mayor and renewed public concern, would do well to follow.
Dan Ackman is a lawyer.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
My First WSJ.com Law Column
This is my inaugural Wall Street Journal Online law column:
State Courts Seek Wiggle Room Around Decision in Kelo
By DAN ACKMAN
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
January 6, 2006
Rearview Mirror, a new feature on the Online Journal's law page1, looks at how judicial decisions from several months ago are playing out in courts and for businesses. If you have an idea for a Rearview Mirror feature, please email us at lawblog@wsj.com2, and please put Rearview Mirror in the subject line.
Last June, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Kelo v. New London, ruling that local governments could exercise their power of eminent domain even if the land taken ended up in private hands, it boded well for cities and developers. Soon after, though, perceptions of the ruling changed.
For starters, legislation to restrict local government powers was proposed in dozens of states, and was enacted in several. The legislative "backlash" led some municipalities to pull back on controversial projects. Perhaps more surprisingly, now a few state courts seem to be taking a skeptical look at the ruling, trying to figure out whether it meshes with state constitutions, statutes, and procedural rules.
Kelo involved a development project in New London, Conn., in which the city sought to use the power of eminent domain to force the sale of 15 modest homes. The land on which the homes sat was to be used to build a research facility for Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceutical company, as well as a nearby conference center, marina, and shopping mall, much of which would wind up in private hands. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, found the city's argument -- that the sale of the homes would aid economic development -- persuasive enough to satisfy the Fifth Amendment's "public use" requirement.
The case was one of the most publicized of the 2004-2005 term, and many pundits rose in protest. They rallied behind the charge leveled by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in a dissenting opinion, that the Court had abandoned a "long-held, basic limitation on government power" and mused that "all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner"—albeit for "just compensation," which the Constitution also requires.
Since the Kelo ruling, 38 states have proposed legislation designed to restrict the power of state and local governments to exercise rights of eminent domain for economic development purposes, according to Dana Berliner, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, a not-for-profit law firm that represented the homeowners in Kelo. Alabama, Delaware and Texas have enacted laws already. The Michigan legislature voted on an amendment to the state constitution, subject to popular approval in an election in November. "The focus has shifted to the states and that's where it should shift," says David Parkhurst, a lawyer for the National League of Cities, which generally backs the rights of local governments.
In one sense, this is nothing new. In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens noted that some states had long established stricter eminent domain guidelines, either as a matter of state constitutional law or statute.
While the legislation churns, there have been several court decisions that observers say suggest an unease over the broad power allowed states and cities by the Supreme Court.
On Dec. 16, the Mercer County, N.J. Superior Court rejected an attempt by the City of Trenton to expand a redevelopment area to include an area of what the city planners called "substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated" buildings. The county court didn't refer to Kelo and it didn't reject the thrust of the Kelo decision: that the state could use its authority of eminent domain in this manner. But the court decided that the city had failed to present "substantial credible evidence" that the property fell within New Jersey's statutory definition of an area in need of redevelopment: where buildings are sub-standard or unsafe or that the land is increasingly under-utilized.
Timothy Duggan, a partner with Stark & Stark, the New Jersey firm that represented the property owners, says the Kelo case loomed in the background. "State courts now understand their role in protecting property rights," Mr. Duggan says, adding that, given the unsettled statutory definition of blight, New Jersey courts in particular will be less likely to "rubber stamp" the conclusions of local planners.
New Jersey, the nation's most densely populated state with an active development community, has long been "a hotbed of private condemnations," according an Institute for Justice Report. Before the Trenton case, but in the wake of Kelo, two separate New Jersey state courts also rejected cities' plans to take property, citing each city's failure to present "substantial evidence" that the property needed redevelopment.
Several other state courts have reached similar conclusions, also without necessarily citing Kelo. In September, an Arizona trial court found that the use of eminent domain to transfer land to a retail shopping complex failed to satisfy the state's definition of "public use." Other judges have applied Kelo reluctantly. A Missouri Circuit Court judge, ruling for the city of St. Louis in an eminent domain case, compared the Kelo decision to the denial of reinforcements to the Alamo.
And more state court battles loom. One big eminent domain showdown will come in Ohio when that state's highest court hears arguments in the case of Norwood, Ohio, a Cincinnati suburb, where the town fathers want to take middle-class homes to make way for a store and office complex. A few local residents refused to sell to the developer so the city exercised its eminent domain authority, designating the area "blighted." The property owners lost in the lower court, a decision stayed by the Ohio Supreme Court pending appeal. In front of the Court, the residents' lawyers will argue that the "blighted" designation is a fraud and will ask the Court to decide whether Ohio law allows such a taking.
Dan Ackman is a lawyer and Senior Writer at the Institute for Judicial Studies, a think tank that examines the judiciary.
State Courts Seek Wiggle Room Around Decision in Kelo
By DAN ACKMAN
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE
January 6, 2006
Rearview Mirror, a new feature on the Online Journal's law page1, looks at how judicial decisions from several months ago are playing out in courts and for businesses. If you have an idea for a Rearview Mirror feature, please email us at lawblog@wsj.com2, and please put Rearview Mirror in the subject line.
Last June, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Kelo v. New London, ruling that local governments could exercise their power of eminent domain even if the land taken ended up in private hands, it boded well for cities and developers. Soon after, though, perceptions of the ruling changed.
For starters, legislation to restrict local government powers was proposed in dozens of states, and was enacted in several. The legislative "backlash" led some municipalities to pull back on controversial projects. Perhaps more surprisingly, now a few state courts seem to be taking a skeptical look at the ruling, trying to figure out whether it meshes with state constitutions, statutes, and procedural rules.
Kelo involved a development project in New London, Conn., in which the city sought to use the power of eminent domain to force the sale of 15 modest homes. The land on which the homes sat was to be used to build a research facility for Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceutical company, as well as a nearby conference center, marina, and shopping mall, much of which would wind up in private hands. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, found the city's argument -- that the sale of the homes would aid economic development -- persuasive enough to satisfy the Fifth Amendment's "public use" requirement.
The case was one of the most publicized of the 2004-2005 term, and many pundits rose in protest. They rallied behind the charge leveled by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in a dissenting opinion, that the Court had abandoned a "long-held, basic limitation on government power" and mused that "all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner"—albeit for "just compensation," which the Constitution also requires.
Since the Kelo ruling, 38 states have proposed legislation designed to restrict the power of state and local governments to exercise rights of eminent domain for economic development purposes, according to Dana Berliner, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, a not-for-profit law firm that represented the homeowners in Kelo. Alabama, Delaware and Texas have enacted laws already. The Michigan legislature voted on an amendment to the state constitution, subject to popular approval in an election in November. "The focus has shifted to the states and that's where it should shift," says David Parkhurst, a lawyer for the National League of Cities, which generally backs the rights of local governments.
In one sense, this is nothing new. In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens noted that some states had long established stricter eminent domain guidelines, either as a matter of state constitutional law or statute.
While the legislation churns, there have been several court decisions that observers say suggest an unease over the broad power allowed states and cities by the Supreme Court.
On Dec. 16, the Mercer County, N.J. Superior Court rejected an attempt by the City of Trenton to expand a redevelopment area to include an area of what the city planners called "substandard, unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated" buildings. The county court didn't refer to Kelo and it didn't reject the thrust of the Kelo decision: that the state could use its authority of eminent domain in this manner. But the court decided that the city had failed to present "substantial credible evidence" that the property fell within New Jersey's statutory definition of an area in need of redevelopment: where buildings are sub-standard or unsafe or that the land is increasingly under-utilized.
Timothy Duggan, a partner with Stark & Stark, the New Jersey firm that represented the property owners, says the Kelo case loomed in the background. "State courts now understand their role in protecting property rights," Mr. Duggan says, adding that, given the unsettled statutory definition of blight, New Jersey courts in particular will be less likely to "rubber stamp" the conclusions of local planners.
New Jersey, the nation's most densely populated state with an active development community, has long been "a hotbed of private condemnations," according an Institute for Justice Report. Before the Trenton case, but in the wake of Kelo, two separate New Jersey state courts also rejected cities' plans to take property, citing each city's failure to present "substantial evidence" that the property needed redevelopment.
Several other state courts have reached similar conclusions, also without necessarily citing Kelo. In September, an Arizona trial court found that the use of eminent domain to transfer land to a retail shopping complex failed to satisfy the state's definition of "public use." Other judges have applied Kelo reluctantly. A Missouri Circuit Court judge, ruling for the city of St. Louis in an eminent domain case, compared the Kelo decision to the denial of reinforcements to the Alamo.
And more state court battles loom. One big eminent domain showdown will come in Ohio when that state's highest court hears arguments in the case of Norwood, Ohio, a Cincinnati suburb, where the town fathers want to take middle-class homes to make way for a store and office complex. A few local residents refused to sell to the developer so the city exercised its eminent domain authority, designating the area "blighted." The property owners lost in the lower court, a decision stayed by the Ohio Supreme Court pending appeal. In front of the Court, the residents' lawyers will argue that the "blighted" designation is a fraud and will ask the Court to decide whether Ohio law allows such a taking.
Dan Ackman is a lawyer and Senior Writer at the Institute for Judicial Studies, a think tank that examines the judiciary.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
The TLC, George Bush, Lawyers and Loyalists
Here is my letter to Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science
at Yale Law School
Dear Prof. Ackerman:
I took your class at Columbia law in 1987 and read with great interest your piece this morning in Slate on the president’s secret domestic spy program [The Secrets They Keep]. I think your theme is universal as it put me in mind of my long-running litigation on behalf of NYC taxi driver against the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission, albeit on a smaller, local scale
In my case, the TLC reacted to publicity by movie star Danny Glover, who claimed that cabbies sometimes him service because he is black. While the city has long had laws and TLC regulations concerning service refusals, which included a specific penalty scheme for violating those laws, the TLC blatantly disregarded it. The agency proceeded to suspend taxi driver licenses without hearings. It then sought to revoke licenses, despite the law stating that the penalty for a first violation was a fine. (Revocation is allowed—but for a third offense.)
Rather than act publicly, the TLC acted in dark of night, never announcing the new penalty scheme, never seeking to amend the governing statute or even its own rules. The TLC was aided in this respect by its chairwoman Diane McGrath-McKechnie, a political appointee, and her hand-picked general counsel Matthew Daus. At a deposition, Daus testified about his loyalty: “My duty of loyalty, in my view, is to my client, which is Diane McKechnie.” Thus the chairwoman served her bosses politics (Mayor Giuliani was about to run for Senate against Hillary Clinton) and the lawyer served the chairwoman. The law and the Constitution were not served at all.
Reading your piece this morning, it was very familiar indeed.
All the best,
Dan Ackman
For background on the case
For briefs and other case files
at Yale Law School
Dear Prof. Ackerman:
I took your class at Columbia law in 1987 and read with great interest your piece this morning in Slate on the president’s secret domestic spy program [The Secrets They Keep]. I think your theme is universal as it put me in mind of my long-running litigation on behalf of NYC taxi driver against the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission, albeit on a smaller, local scale
In my case, the TLC reacted to publicity by movie star Danny Glover, who claimed that cabbies sometimes him service because he is black. While the city has long had laws and TLC regulations concerning service refusals, which included a specific penalty scheme for violating those laws, the TLC blatantly disregarded it. The agency proceeded to suspend taxi driver licenses without hearings. It then sought to revoke licenses, despite the law stating that the penalty for a first violation was a fine. (Revocation is allowed—but for a third offense.)
Rather than act publicly, the TLC acted in dark of night, never announcing the new penalty scheme, never seeking to amend the governing statute or even its own rules. The TLC was aided in this respect by its chairwoman Diane McGrath-McKechnie, a political appointee, and her hand-picked general counsel Matthew Daus. At a deposition, Daus testified about his loyalty: “My duty of loyalty, in my view, is to my client, which is Diane McKechnie.” Thus the chairwoman served her bosses politics (Mayor Giuliani was about to run for Senate against Hillary Clinton) and the lawyer served the chairwoman. The law and the Constitution were not served at all.
Reading your piece this morning, it was very familiar indeed.
All the best,
Dan Ackman
For background on the case
For briefs and other case files
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Revisiting the Fulton Fish Market Shrimp King
As the Fulton Fish Market finally decamps for the Bronx, it's time to revisit by 2000 article from the Times on Donald Julich, aka the Shrimp King, now retired.
New Yorkers & Co.:
The Big Man in Shrimp
By DAN ACKMAN
07/02/00
YEARS ago, Donald Julich Sr. was eating lunch at Sweets, the famous South Street restaurant, now defunct, when a man came up behind him and said, "Excuse me, I understand you're the shrimp king of the Fulton Fish Market, and I'd like to shake your hand." The voice was familiar, and when Mr. Julich looked up, so was the face. Burt Lancaster was smiling at him.
"I'm happy to shake your hand," Mr. Julich recalls saying. "But as far as I'm concerned, you're the king. I'm just a peasant."
A king he may not be, but Donald Julich does have a throne, albeit a modest one, and a crown. The crown is Crown Fish Inc., his seafood business at the Fulton Fish Market. His throne is a bar stool on the sidewalk on South Street where for 52 years this square-shaped man with a hawkish face has presided over Crown Fish, buying shrimp and shellfish by day and negotiating with customers by night.
The Fulton Fish Market dates from 1869, when the first permanent building was erected on South Street. While fish that used to come in by boat is now trucked and flown in, the buying and selling continues as it has for decades. Fish is displayed in the open air on stands and in boxes that spill onto the sidewalk. Buyers and sellers meet face to face, without a fax machine or Internet connection in sight.
Mr. Julich, 70, the big man in shrimp, has witnessed as much of the market's history as any man alive. With the city considering plans to move the market to Hunts Point, in the Bronx, it is a history that may be coming to an end. Mr. Julich, though, is less concerned with history — "Don't put me down as an adviser to Abe Lincoln" — than with his part in what the city estimates is a billion-dollar industry.
His employees arrive about midnight to display the shrimp in sidewalk stalls. Mr. Julich shows up about 4 a.m., when the buyers start arriving.
On one recent morning, he faced off with a customer named John Kim, who owns a fish store in Queens. They spent a half hour haggling over a box of lobster tails. Mr. Kim wanted to pay $17.25 per pound. Mr. Julich held his ground at $17.50.
"Go on, get out of here," Mr. Julich said in an accent that betrayed his Newark roots. "Come back tomorrow and you'll pay $18 and feel lucky to get it." When Mr. Kim left, he said, "Don't worry, he'll be back." Sure enough, he was, an hour later. He paid $17.50 and groused when Mr. Julich told him he had just one box left to sell him.
Mr. Julich and Mr. Kim both finished with the deal, Mr. Julich's son, Donald Jr., marked the box with a black crayon and alerted a journeyman, as they are called, who grabbed the box with a cargo hook and hauled it to the parked trucks. In a concession to modernity, some of the journeymen use forklifts, which whiz by at a frightening pace.
By dawn, buyers are gone back to their stores and restaurants and Mr. Julich and his men are cleaning up and making calls to make sure that they have fish to sell the next morning.
Mr. Julich's father, Fred, once a restaurateur, started the family in this day-for-night existence in 1946. The son joined a year later after graduating from high school. In 1955, he took over the company, and the next year, his brother, Richard, joined him after a stint in the Navy. They worked as partners until Richard retired in 1992. When Donald sells his last shrimp, Crown Fish will go to his son and nephews, David and Richard, who joined in their late teens and who are now in their mid-30's. Dynasties of this sort are the norm on South Street, where businesses tend to stay in families for three and even four generations.
From the beginning, the Julichs specialized in shrimp, which has become "the No. 1 seafood item in the world today," Mr. Julich said. It is also, pound for pound, one of the most expensive, an important consideration in a business where sales space is at a premium.
OVER the years, Mr. Julich has expanded the line to include oysters, clams, scallops and lobster tails. Crown Fish has never dealt in fish, though, and the company name remains a mystery. "Why he called it Crown Fish, I'll never know," Mr. Julich says. Asked how much shrimp he sells in a week, Mr. Julich says, "Ask the I.R.S." Mr. Julich doesn't look rich. But then maybe people who work in the dead of night surrounded by the smell of fresh fish rarely do.
Buying and selling small marine crustaceans may seem a simple thing, but it is not without complexity. The 15 to 20 varieties of shrimp Mr. Julich sells come not just from the southern United States but from a dozen countries in Central and South America, along with other types of shellfish from as far away as Australia. In addition to knowing from where to buy at a given time of year, Mr. Julich has to anticipate what size shrimp his customers may want.
One of the major changes on South Street is the emergence of Asians like John Kim as a buying force. Depending on which owner is doing the estimating, Koreans and Chinese make up 60 to 80 percent of the buyers. One thing hasn't changed: the market remains a man's world. Almost no women work there. "Would you want your girl to work with these animals, these gorillas?" he says.
Mr. Julich and his fellow merchants complain that margins have shrunk in recent years. Since 90 percent of his sales are on credit, it's crucial that he know his buyers and keep after them for payments. For that reason, he says he has many acquaintances in the business but just a few friends.
"If they're a friend and you have a problem, it's harder to fix it," he says.
While the Fulton market looks a lot as it always has, Mr. Julich has seen it, like other central markets, decline in importance in the industry. He says that more buyers buy direct from sellers at the piers, sidestepping the market. Mr. Julich acknowledges the change and doesn't begrudge it when the buyer is making a substantial order. But he shows some anger at dealers who sell mostly to wholesalers like him but will sell a single box of shrimp or a single bag of clams direct to a restaurant. "I know why they do it, but in the end they're hurting their own business," he says.
While the market may not be the hub it once was, Mr. Julich agrees with his friend Dan, a fellow merchant, who says that it still sets the tone for the whole country.
Dan would not give his last name. People at the market are circumspect, knowing as they do that nearly every writer who visits focuses on its supposed domination by the Mafia. Mr. Julich says he has never had a problem with organized crime and adds, as do most people interviewed there, that allegations of mob rule are way overblown.
"I've been here 50 years and I've gotten to know pretty much everybody," he says. At other times, though, he cautions, "Be careful what you say because people could get annoyed."
The city has announced it is considering moving the fish market to Hunts Point. To Mr. Julich, the move would be a disaster. "You can't have the market behind a locked gate where you need a badge to get in and out," he said. "Buyers have to be able to walk around and look at what they want. This is an open market." He concedes that conditions at the market are primitive, but insists that they are sanitary.
There used to be a half-dozen stalls specializing in shrimp at the Fulton Fish Market, Mr. Julich says. Now there are just two. Does that mean he is now the king, as Burt Lancaster said? "Well, Lancaster's dead, so maybe that moves me up a notch. But I'm still a peasant."
New Yorkers & Co.:
The Big Man in Shrimp
By DAN ACKMAN
07/02/00
YEARS ago, Donald Julich Sr. was eating lunch at Sweets, the famous South Street restaurant, now defunct, when a man came up behind him and said, "Excuse me, I understand you're the shrimp king of the Fulton Fish Market, and I'd like to shake your hand." The voice was familiar, and when Mr. Julich looked up, so was the face. Burt Lancaster was smiling at him.
"I'm happy to shake your hand," Mr. Julich recalls saying. "But as far as I'm concerned, you're the king. I'm just a peasant."
A king he may not be, but Donald Julich does have a throne, albeit a modest one, and a crown. The crown is Crown Fish Inc., his seafood business at the Fulton Fish Market. His throne is a bar stool on the sidewalk on South Street where for 52 years this square-shaped man with a hawkish face has presided over Crown Fish, buying shrimp and shellfish by day and negotiating with customers by night.
The Fulton Fish Market dates from 1869, when the first permanent building was erected on South Street. While fish that used to come in by boat is now trucked and flown in, the buying and selling continues as it has for decades. Fish is displayed in the open air on stands and in boxes that spill onto the sidewalk. Buyers and sellers meet face to face, without a fax machine or Internet connection in sight.
Mr. Julich, 70, the big man in shrimp, has witnessed as much of the market's history as any man alive. With the city considering plans to move the market to Hunts Point, in the Bronx, it is a history that may be coming to an end. Mr. Julich, though, is less concerned with history — "Don't put me down as an adviser to Abe Lincoln" — than with his part in what the city estimates is a billion-dollar industry.
His employees arrive about midnight to display the shrimp in sidewalk stalls. Mr. Julich shows up about 4 a.m., when the buyers start arriving.
On one recent morning, he faced off with a customer named John Kim, who owns a fish store in Queens. They spent a half hour haggling over a box of lobster tails. Mr. Kim wanted to pay $17.25 per pound. Mr. Julich held his ground at $17.50.
"Go on, get out of here," Mr. Julich said in an accent that betrayed his Newark roots. "Come back tomorrow and you'll pay $18 and feel lucky to get it." When Mr. Kim left, he said, "Don't worry, he'll be back." Sure enough, he was, an hour later. He paid $17.50 and groused when Mr. Julich told him he had just one box left to sell him.
Mr. Julich and Mr. Kim both finished with the deal, Mr. Julich's son, Donald Jr., marked the box with a black crayon and alerted a journeyman, as they are called, who grabbed the box with a cargo hook and hauled it to the parked trucks. In a concession to modernity, some of the journeymen use forklifts, which whiz by at a frightening pace.
By dawn, buyers are gone back to their stores and restaurants and Mr. Julich and his men are cleaning up and making calls to make sure that they have fish to sell the next morning.
Mr. Julich's father, Fred, once a restaurateur, started the family in this day-for-night existence in 1946. The son joined a year later after graduating from high school. In 1955, he took over the company, and the next year, his brother, Richard, joined him after a stint in the Navy. They worked as partners until Richard retired in 1992. When Donald sells his last shrimp, Crown Fish will go to his son and nephews, David and Richard, who joined in their late teens and who are now in their mid-30's. Dynasties of this sort are the norm on South Street, where businesses tend to stay in families for three and even four generations.
From the beginning, the Julichs specialized in shrimp, which has become "the No. 1 seafood item in the world today," Mr. Julich said. It is also, pound for pound, one of the most expensive, an important consideration in a business where sales space is at a premium.
OVER the years, Mr. Julich has expanded the line to include oysters, clams, scallops and lobster tails. Crown Fish has never dealt in fish, though, and the company name remains a mystery. "Why he called it Crown Fish, I'll never know," Mr. Julich says. Asked how much shrimp he sells in a week, Mr. Julich says, "Ask the I.R.S." Mr. Julich doesn't look rich. But then maybe people who work in the dead of night surrounded by the smell of fresh fish rarely do.
Buying and selling small marine crustaceans may seem a simple thing, but it is not without complexity. The 15 to 20 varieties of shrimp Mr. Julich sells come not just from the southern United States but from a dozen countries in Central and South America, along with other types of shellfish from as far away as Australia. In addition to knowing from where to buy at a given time of year, Mr. Julich has to anticipate what size shrimp his customers may want.
One of the major changes on South Street is the emergence of Asians like John Kim as a buying force. Depending on which owner is doing the estimating, Koreans and Chinese make up 60 to 80 percent of the buyers. One thing hasn't changed: the market remains a man's world. Almost no women work there. "Would you want your girl to work with these animals, these gorillas?" he says.
Mr. Julich and his fellow merchants complain that margins have shrunk in recent years. Since 90 percent of his sales are on credit, it's crucial that he know his buyers and keep after them for payments. For that reason, he says he has many acquaintances in the business but just a few friends.
"If they're a friend and you have a problem, it's harder to fix it," he says.
While the Fulton market looks a lot as it always has, Mr. Julich has seen it, like other central markets, decline in importance in the industry. He says that more buyers buy direct from sellers at the piers, sidestepping the market. Mr. Julich acknowledges the change and doesn't begrudge it when the buyer is making a substantial order. But he shows some anger at dealers who sell mostly to wholesalers like him but will sell a single box of shrimp or a single bag of clams direct to a restaurant. "I know why they do it, but in the end they're hurting their own business," he says.
While the market may not be the hub it once was, Mr. Julich agrees with his friend Dan, a fellow merchant, who says that it still sets the tone for the whole country.
Dan would not give his last name. People at the market are circumspect, knowing as they do that nearly every writer who visits focuses on its supposed domination by the Mafia. Mr. Julich says he has never had a problem with organized crime and adds, as do most people interviewed there, that allegations of mob rule are way overblown.
"I've been here 50 years and I've gotten to know pretty much everybody," he says. At other times, though, he cautions, "Be careful what you say because people could get annoyed."
The city has announced it is considering moving the fish market to Hunts Point. To Mr. Julich, the move would be a disaster. "You can't have the market behind a locked gate where you need a badge to get in and out," he said. "Buyers have to be able to walk around and look at what they want. This is an open market." He concedes that conditions at the market are primitive, but insists that they are sanitary.
There used to be a half-dozen stalls specializing in shrimp at the Fulton Fish Market, Mr. Julich says. Now there are just two. Does that mean he is now the king, as Burt Lancaster said? "Well, Lancaster's dead, so maybe that moves me up a notch. But I'm still a peasant."
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
One weekend can make you a millionaire-- seriously
Ninety minutes into a recent speech on his life and how he lives it, Robert Kiyosaki called a break. Except it wasn’t a break because Kiyosaki hates breaks. He asked his listeners to review with their neighbors what they had learned so far. Mitch, a big fan of Kiyosaki and Rich Dad books, said that for him, “The key for me is: Don’t say ‘can’t;’ say ‘can.’ I’ve heard it before, but I can’t hear it enough.” Which works because Kiyosaki can’t say it enough.
Kiyosaki is the fabulously successful author of Rich Dad, Poor Dad and a shopping bag full of sequels. His speech to Mitch and about 400 of his fellow members of the New York City Cashflow Club was a warm-up of sorts. Two days later, Kiyosaki would arrive at Manhattan’s Javits Center, where a crowd of nearly 50,000 would mass for the Learning Annex Real Estate Wealth Expo. There made headlines drawing a $1.5 million fee for a one-hour speech. But if Trump was the star of the show, Kiyosaki was the lollapalooza’s workhorse, appearing three times over the course of the weekend, the last time to introduce the Donald.
Kiyosaki has transcended real estate guru status. He has become an all-purpose dispenser of wisdom. In a nutshell that wisdom is: The rich are different because they think different. Folks like his “poor dad,” a school administrator, may work hard and earn a good salary, but are perennially broke. His “rich dad,” actually the father of a friend, was unschooled, but amassed enough real estate to become one of the richest men in Hawaii. Poor folks say, “I can’t afford it.” The rich decide what they want, tie it up, and then figure out how to pay for it.
This is the lesson he taught the members of the Cashflow Club—a group devoted to Kiyosaki’s Cashflow 101 board game, which he says will transform your mindset in just a few sessions. He preached the same sermon to a crowd of 5,000 at the Real Estate Wealth Expo, many of whom were hard core Kiyosaki fans as well They’d heard it before, but they loved hearing it again.
Entering the Real Estate Wealth Expo was like walking into the vortex of the real estate bubble and visiting the seeds of the bust at the same time. With Trump drawing the masses, Learning Annex CEO Bill Zanker fielded an undercard that included legendary success coach Tony Robbins, hypnotist and “master of persuasion” Marshall Sylver, and all manner of real estate expert. The experts covered diverse specialties, everything from buying real estate cheap at probate, to buying at real estate cheap at auctions, to buying real estate cheap and flipping it quick. Then there were generalists like Robert Shemin, whose seminar was entitled simply and directly, “How to Be a Millionaire Real Estate Investor,” though in fairness pretty much every speaker was teaching that one.
Downstairs was an overflow room, where the big stars appeared on big screens, and smaller rooms for lesser lights. These were flanked by nearly a hundred exhibitors selling real estate, financing, services and still more advice. Developers from sunny climes like Florida and Las Vegas pedaled pre-construction condos. The condos were easily financed and ripe for flipping, one developer told me, because they were priced below market and the market was sure to rise since fresh retirees were arriving daily and bidding it up. It turned out finding below-market real estate was easier than I thought as here it was looking for me.
The gurus explained that there is plenty of property everywhere available from “motivated sellers” at “below-market” prices. That the gurus were surrounded by thousands of motivated buyers, representing millions more who had already bid up property prices seemed not to register. A good guru stays on message. “We do not buy retail,” intoned Scott Scheel, a specialist in commercial properties. “Do you think Donald Trump, buys retail?” he asked, invoking the man himself.
The key was finding it soon and selling it fast, and that could be done by learning a few “secrets.” Some of the secrets were aired to the thousands in the Javits Center. But the good guru withholds just enough to sell pricy courses a few weeks hence. There, in the company of just a few hundred, the more secret secrets would come to light.
Scheel for instance offered a course valued at $10,476, and a bargain at that. But then he priced it well below market himself-- at $1497 to the first 200 to sign up. At first, there were few takers. But as he moved to the back of the room, braying his pitch, he was joined by a few, and then man, an unruly mob clamoring for the bonus available to those at the front of the line.
If Scheel and folks like Ron (“How to Quick Turn Real Estate in NY with No Money Credit or Risk”) LeGrand were infomercials for themselves, Kiyosaki mastered the soft sell. While he punctuated his speech with examples drawn from his various books and lessons from his board game, he didn’t scream it. Still, pupils were drawn to his exhibit booth, which did a brisk business in books and CDs by Kiyosaki and by advisors to Kiyosaki, as well as in the cash flow game, which was selling for $175.
Though it’s easy to denigrate self-help authors in general and the Learning Annex in particular, finding a dissatisfied customer at the expo was like looking for an atheist at a revival meeting. Part of the reason: despite the grandiose claims of the gurus, expectations of the acolytes are generally modest.
Fans—and they were everywhere—were vague about their desires, but certain they’d been met. Michael Bressler, who works “in commodities” said, “He’s probably the only person who puts it in a simple message,” and added, “I look at assets the way he looks at assets. He’s just amazing.” Marie Menerville, a real estate agent and investor, said simply, “All his books are very informative, very motivational.” Many fans said reading Kiyosaki and playing his board game did indeed spur them to take control of their financial lives.
Although his message goes beyond real estate, most of his wealth, he says, is from property. Given his propensity, it’s natural to ask him whether real estate prices are at bubble levels. “Absolutely,” he told me, going so far as to compare the U.S. today to Weimar Germany. But with a bust imminent, his wife Kim advised, it’s more important than ever to separate good real estate deals from the bad.
How to know the difference? One way is to read a book just written by his own real estate advisor, Ken McElroy, and published in the Rich Dad series, or he can listen to Kim, who spoke on “How to Spot a Good Deal from a Bad Deal.”
Though Kiyosaki seeks his counsel in-house, the ordinary gurus do seem to learn from each other. LeGrand cited the wisdom of Sylver. Probate specialist Mark Gonsalves referred repeatedly to Kiyosaki. Everyone involved cited the example of Trump and the word of Robbins to the effect that you must “take action” especially with regard to signing on for additional seminars.
Only Trump himself refused to play the game. Not to denigrate the speakers who came before him, but “it’s all about instinct,” Trump said. His instincts, for instance, led to “The Apprentice” and success after success. He also advised the aspirants to be nice to their bankers so they won’t screw you. But if they (or anyone) do screw you, “You screw them back ten times harder.” Do what you love, stay focused and never quit, he said. Finally, “Be lucky,” he advised. The crowd stood and cheered for the man who Kiyosaki called “the world’s rich dad.”
On the way out, one man who would be Trump bellowing into his cell phone, reviewing the billionaire bromides. The man paused to listen. Then he said: “Sure I’ve heard it before, but it’s good to hear it from another perspective.”
Kiyosaki is the fabulously successful author of Rich Dad, Poor Dad and a shopping bag full of sequels. His speech to Mitch and about 400 of his fellow members of the New York City Cashflow Club was a warm-up of sorts. Two days later, Kiyosaki would arrive at Manhattan’s Javits Center, where a crowd of nearly 50,000 would mass for the Learning Annex Real Estate Wealth Expo. There made headlines drawing a $1.5 million fee for a one-hour speech. But if Trump was the star of the show, Kiyosaki was the lollapalooza’s workhorse, appearing three times over the course of the weekend, the last time to introduce the Donald.
Kiyosaki has transcended real estate guru status. He has become an all-purpose dispenser of wisdom. In a nutshell that wisdom is: The rich are different because they think different. Folks like his “poor dad,” a school administrator, may work hard and earn a good salary, but are perennially broke. His “rich dad,” actually the father of a friend, was unschooled, but amassed enough real estate to become one of the richest men in Hawaii. Poor folks say, “I can’t afford it.” The rich decide what they want, tie it up, and then figure out how to pay for it.
This is the lesson he taught the members of the Cashflow Club—a group devoted to Kiyosaki’s Cashflow 101 board game, which he says will transform your mindset in just a few sessions. He preached the same sermon to a crowd of 5,000 at the Real Estate Wealth Expo, many of whom were hard core Kiyosaki fans as well They’d heard it before, but they loved hearing it again.
Entering the Real Estate Wealth Expo was like walking into the vortex of the real estate bubble and visiting the seeds of the bust at the same time. With Trump drawing the masses, Learning Annex CEO Bill Zanker fielded an undercard that included legendary success coach Tony Robbins, hypnotist and “master of persuasion” Marshall Sylver, and all manner of real estate expert. The experts covered diverse specialties, everything from buying real estate cheap at probate, to buying at real estate cheap at auctions, to buying real estate cheap and flipping it quick. Then there were generalists like Robert Shemin, whose seminar was entitled simply and directly, “How to Be a Millionaire Real Estate Investor,” though in fairness pretty much every speaker was teaching that one.
Downstairs was an overflow room, where the big stars appeared on big screens, and smaller rooms for lesser lights. These were flanked by nearly a hundred exhibitors selling real estate, financing, services and still more advice. Developers from sunny climes like Florida and Las Vegas pedaled pre-construction condos. The condos were easily financed and ripe for flipping, one developer told me, because they were priced below market and the market was sure to rise since fresh retirees were arriving daily and bidding it up. It turned out finding below-market real estate was easier than I thought as here it was looking for me.
The gurus explained that there is plenty of property everywhere available from “motivated sellers” at “below-market” prices. That the gurus were surrounded by thousands of motivated buyers, representing millions more who had already bid up property prices seemed not to register. A good guru stays on message. “We do not buy retail,” intoned Scott Scheel, a specialist in commercial properties. “Do you think Donald Trump, buys retail?” he asked, invoking the man himself.
The key was finding it soon and selling it fast, and that could be done by learning a few “secrets.” Some of the secrets were aired to the thousands in the Javits Center. But the good guru withholds just enough to sell pricy courses a few weeks hence. There, in the company of just a few hundred, the more secret secrets would come to light.
Scheel for instance offered a course valued at $10,476, and a bargain at that. But then he priced it well below market himself-- at $1497 to the first 200 to sign up. At first, there were few takers. But as he moved to the back of the room, braying his pitch, he was joined by a few, and then man, an unruly mob clamoring for the bonus available to those at the front of the line.
If Scheel and folks like Ron (“How to Quick Turn Real Estate in NY with No Money Credit or Risk”) LeGrand were infomercials for themselves, Kiyosaki mastered the soft sell. While he punctuated his speech with examples drawn from his various books and lessons from his board game, he didn’t scream it. Still, pupils were drawn to his exhibit booth, which did a brisk business in books and CDs by Kiyosaki and by advisors to Kiyosaki, as well as in the cash flow game, which was selling for $175.
Though it’s easy to denigrate self-help authors in general and the Learning Annex in particular, finding a dissatisfied customer at the expo was like looking for an atheist at a revival meeting. Part of the reason: despite the grandiose claims of the gurus, expectations of the acolytes are generally modest.
Fans—and they were everywhere—were vague about their desires, but certain they’d been met. Michael Bressler, who works “in commodities” said, “He’s probably the only person who puts it in a simple message,” and added, “I look at assets the way he looks at assets. He’s just amazing.” Marie Menerville, a real estate agent and investor, said simply, “All his books are very informative, very motivational.” Many fans said reading Kiyosaki and playing his board game did indeed spur them to take control of their financial lives.
Although his message goes beyond real estate, most of his wealth, he says, is from property. Given his propensity, it’s natural to ask him whether real estate prices are at bubble levels. “Absolutely,” he told me, going so far as to compare the U.S. today to Weimar Germany. But with a bust imminent, his wife Kim advised, it’s more important than ever to separate good real estate deals from the bad.
How to know the difference? One way is to read a book just written by his own real estate advisor, Ken McElroy, and published in the Rich Dad series, or he can listen to Kim, who spoke on “How to Spot a Good Deal from a Bad Deal.”
Though Kiyosaki seeks his counsel in-house, the ordinary gurus do seem to learn from each other. LeGrand cited the wisdom of Sylver. Probate specialist Mark Gonsalves referred repeatedly to Kiyosaki. Everyone involved cited the example of Trump and the word of Robbins to the effect that you must “take action” especially with regard to signing on for additional seminars.
Only Trump himself refused to play the game. Not to denigrate the speakers who came before him, but “it’s all about instinct,” Trump said. His instincts, for instance, led to “The Apprentice” and success after success. He also advised the aspirants to be nice to their bankers so they won’t screw you. But if they (or anyone) do screw you, “You screw them back ten times harder.” Do what you love, stay focused and never quit, he said. Finally, “Be lucky,” he advised. The crowd stood and cheered for the man who Kiyosaki called “the world’s rich dad.”
On the way out, one man who would be Trump bellowing into his cell phone, reviewing the billionaire bromides. The man paused to listen. Then he said: “Sure I’ve heard it before, but it’s good to hear it from another perspective.”
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Harriet Who?
Based on my piece in BreakingViews:
Harriet Miers’ pressured withdrawal of her nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court raises not one question of succession, but two.
Most immediately, there is the question of who President Bush will nominate to replace retiring justice Sandra Day O’Connor. If he nominates another woman, he can be accused of pandering and imposing a quota at the highest level of government—creating a de facto “woman’s seat” on the Supreme Court (or, more specifically, a Republican woman’s seat). If he appoints another marginally qualified loyalist, like Miers, it will raise serious questions of competence. If he appoints a red meat anti-choice conservative, he will provoke a fight with Democrats, and even a few Republicans, that social conservatives say they want, but which Bush has taken pains to avoid.
If that fight ensues, it will be bloody, and will test whether Bush really wants to work hard to please that part of his base—or if he just wants them handy at election time.
Perhaps more serious is the question of presidential succession. As Vice President Dick Cheney has sworn off his own presidential aspirations, there is no clear successor to the Republican presidential nomination. Bush has no one to hand the mantle of power. That means no one stands ready to advance his agenda, whatever it may be. That makes him more of a lame duck—and an earlier lame duck—than second term presidents are normally.
Bush has lost the fight over Social Security. The next big item on the domestic agenda is tax reform. Lowering taxes is easy politically. But tax reform, if revenue neutral, means winners and losers and tough choices. A president who botched Katrina and nominated Miers and whose senior advisers may be indicted any day, bogged down in Iraq, probably won’t have much political capital left to do any serious governing.
Harriet Miers’ pressured withdrawal of her nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court raises not one question of succession, but two.
Most immediately, there is the question of who President Bush will nominate to replace retiring justice Sandra Day O’Connor. If he nominates another woman, he can be accused of pandering and imposing a quota at the highest level of government—creating a de facto “woman’s seat” on the Supreme Court (or, more specifically, a Republican woman’s seat). If he appoints another marginally qualified loyalist, like Miers, it will raise serious questions of competence. If he appoints a red meat anti-choice conservative, he will provoke a fight with Democrats, and even a few Republicans, that social conservatives say they want, but which Bush has taken pains to avoid.
If that fight ensues, it will be bloody, and will test whether Bush really wants to work hard to please that part of his base—or if he just wants them handy at election time.
Perhaps more serious is the question of presidential succession. As Vice President Dick Cheney has sworn off his own presidential aspirations, there is no clear successor to the Republican presidential nomination. Bush has no one to hand the mantle of power. That means no one stands ready to advance his agenda, whatever it may be. That makes him more of a lame duck—and an earlier lame duck—than second term presidents are normally.
Bush has lost the fight over Social Security. The next big item on the domestic agenda is tax reform. Lowering taxes is easy politically. But tax reform, if revenue neutral, means winners and losers and tough choices. A president who botched Katrina and nominated Miers and whose senior advisers may be indicted any day, bogged down in Iraq, probably won’t have much political capital left to do any serious governing.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Selling of the New York Times
Let the Times be Google
A similar posting by me appeared in BreakingViews
Google, with a market value of $86bn may or may not be wildly overpriced. But the fact an upstart, selling nothing but access to information, is worth more than 20 times The New York Times Company, proud owner of the US paper of record, is a stunning fact. How can the Times get a piece of the Google magic?
Certainly it needs a boost as the company these days can’t satisfy anyone. Its quarterly earnings reported yesterday were down by 52% on higher payroll, printing and distribution coats. Editorially, it obsesses in scandals of its own making, such as Jayson Blair and, recently, the Judith Miller affair. Like all newspapers it suffers from competition from the web. The Times own web site is popular—21 million unique visitors in September-- but readers were irked when they were asked to pay for access to the newspaper’s columnists.
One would be hard pressed to say that Google is a superior portal to information than is the Times Company (which also owns other newspapers, and television and radio stations). But the Times, even more than Dow Jones or Gannett, has failed to monetize its information, and seems to have no solid plan to do so. Still in a late ‘90s era which glorified “eyeballs,” the Times has refused to charge online readers. Then it took a half-step by charging for its opinion columns.
What it should do is sell the daily paper online. Sure it will lose some readers, but if the Times is compelling, millions will pay. Then it should monetize yesterday’s papers, which no one normally pays for. It then should make the Times archive into a massive, searchable database. The database should be free, but indispensable. In other words it should be good enough that it can be funded by ads targeted to the search term: the same business that made Google rich.
Google says it wants to catalogue the world’s information. But it owns none of it. Surely the fact that the Times produces buckets of information should be worth something.
A similar posting by me appeared in BreakingViews
Google, with a market value of $86bn may or may not be wildly overpriced. But the fact an upstart, selling nothing but access to information, is worth more than 20 times The New York Times Company, proud owner of the US paper of record, is a stunning fact. How can the Times get a piece of the Google magic?
Certainly it needs a boost as the company these days can’t satisfy anyone. Its quarterly earnings reported yesterday were down by 52% on higher payroll, printing and distribution coats. Editorially, it obsesses in scandals of its own making, such as Jayson Blair and, recently, the Judith Miller affair. Like all newspapers it suffers from competition from the web. The Times own web site is popular—21 million unique visitors in September-- but readers were irked when they were asked to pay for access to the newspaper’s columnists.
One would be hard pressed to say that Google is a superior portal to information than is the Times Company (which also owns other newspapers, and television and radio stations). But the Times, even more than Dow Jones or Gannett, has failed to monetize its information, and seems to have no solid plan to do so. Still in a late ‘90s era which glorified “eyeballs,” the Times has refused to charge online readers. Then it took a half-step by charging for its opinion columns.
What it should do is sell the daily paper online. Sure it will lose some readers, but if the Times is compelling, millions will pay. Then it should monetize yesterday’s papers, which no one normally pays for. It then should make the Times archive into a massive, searchable database. The database should be free, but indispensable. In other words it should be good enough that it can be funded by ads targeted to the search term: the same business that made Google rich.
Google says it wants to catalogue the world’s information. But it owns none of it. Surely the fact that the Times produces buckets of information should be worth something.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Miller's Mess
The Judith Miller affair continues to spin. Miller's own first person account of her grand jury testimony actually makes her seem worse than we knew:
"Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes about this July 8 meeting, 'Former Hill staffer.'
My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a 'senior administration official.' When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a 'former Hill staffer.' I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill".
Here, Miller agrees not just to keep Libby's ID hidden, but to lie about that ID. This strikes me as a particularly egregious practice, worse than allowing him anonymity? Indeed, it emphasizes what I wrote in Forbes back in February: The idea of a journalist shield rule is to protect the anonymity of sources who fear retribution from the powerful, whether in government or business. Shielding the identity of a top government official who is using his anonymity to mislead play the press to his benefit turns the whole rationale on its head.
Here's how I put it in Forbes.com:
Expose The Press Players
Dan Ackman, 02.16.05, 9:12 AM ET
"Mr. Fitzgerald asked about a notation I made on the first page of my notes about this July 8 meeting, 'Former Hill staffer.'
My recollection, I told him, was that Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a 'senior administration official.' When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a 'former Hill staffer.' I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill".
Here, Miller agrees not just to keep Libby's ID hidden, but to lie about that ID. This strikes me as a particularly egregious practice, worse than allowing him anonymity? Indeed, it emphasizes what I wrote in Forbes back in February: The idea of a journalist shield rule is to protect the anonymity of sources who fear retribution from the powerful, whether in government or business. Shielding the identity of a top government official who is using his anonymity to mislead play the press to his benefit turns the whole rationale on its head.
Here's how I put it in Forbes.com:
Expose The Press Players
Dan Ackman, 02.16.05, 9:12 AM ET
News accounts of the appeals court decision in the Valerie Plame affair emphasize that reporters must testify to a grand jury or face jail. But that's not quite right. The court's ruling yesterday was really that anyone and everyone must testify to the grand jury, reporters being no exception.
Yesterday's ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds an earlier judgment that Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of the New York Times have an obligation to testify to the grand jury about who leaked Plame's identity as a CIA agent, which could be a federal crime. Both reporters fought to stop a subpoena from a special counsel appointed by the attorney general investigating the leaks. They cited a purported journalist's privilege, which they say is necessary to protect sources who spoke to them pursuant to an agreement that their names be kept out the papers. The court said there is no such privilege either under the first amendment or federal common law.
Whether there should ever be a journalist's privilege is an interesting question. As the court pointed out in its decision yesterday, many states have enacted so-called shield laws, which protect the relationship between a confidential source and a reporter. The court also noted that the federal government has no such statute, and it declined to create the privilege on its own....
The idea that reporters should be permitted to shield the identity of confidential sources even in the face of a valid grand jury subpoena is based on the belief that an evidentiary privilege (like the one a lawyer shares with his client) will encourage sources to reveal truths to journalists. The classic example would be a witness to a scandal who tells what he knows to a journalist, who then makes the scandal known, albeit without the name of his source who leaked the information. It's hard to believe that the remote possibility of a subpoena down the road from a grand jury--which itself operates in secret--will substantially chill the source-reporter relationship.
In any event, the Plame case is nothing like the prototype that might justify a privilege. In this case, the crime, if there was a crime, was the leak itself. The sources were not witnesses to scandal; they are the scandal. Those who exposed Wilson's wife in effect used the press to do their dirty work, not to cleanse it. Their goal, at least according to Wilson, was not to reveal truth, but to punish Wilson for his revelations.
As best as we can tell, they are not brave truth tellers, but craven score-settlers, and powerful government officials to boot. Wouldn't it serve even the press' interest--along with everyone else's--to expose these scoundrels rather than continue to help them hide?
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
That Dobson is such a cutie
He told me where the body was and where I could find the murder weapon. He explained the cause of death in detail, but, no, he did not admit killing the man....
From the New York Times, Oct. 12, 2005:
From the New York Times, Oct. 12, 2005:
Mr. Dobson said he talked to Mr. Rove on Oct. 1, two days before Mr. Bush announced his choice, and had been told that "Harriet Miers is an Evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life, that she has taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion, that she had been a member of the Texas Right to Life."
Mr. Dobson went on to say that he and Mr. Rove had not discussed cases that might come before the court and that "we did not discuss Roe v. Wade in any context." The Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade established a woman's right to have an abortion.
Ackman and the Cronies
Are journalists and even lawyers grromed to be liberal Democrats. More likely they start out that way. John Tierney sees it as a problem, one of self-selection or cronyism:
John Tierney writes in his October 11 NY Times Column:
October 11, 2005
Where Cronies Dwell
By JOHN TIERNEY
Journalists and legal scholars have been decrying "cronyism" and calling for "mainstream" values when picking a Supreme Court justice. But how do they go about picking the professors to train the next generation of journalists and lawyers?
David Horowitz, the conservative who is president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, analyzed the political affiliations of the faculty at 18 elite journalism and law schools. By checking all the party registrations he could find, he concluded that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 8 to 1 at the law schools, with the ratio ranging from 3 to 1 at Penn to 28 to 1 at Stanford.
Only one journalism school, the University of Kansas, had a preponderance of Republicans (by 10 to 8). At the rest of the schools, there was a 6-to-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans. The ratio was 4 to 1 at Northwestern and New York University, 13 to 1 at the University of Southern California, 15 to 1 at Columbia. Horowitz didn't find any Republicans at Berkeley.
Some academics argue that their political ideologies don't affect the way they teach, which to me is proof of how detached they've become from reality in their monocultures. This claim is especially dubious if you're training lawyers and journalists to deal with controversial public policies.
I realize, from experience at six newspapers, that most journalists try not to impose their prejudices on their work. When I did stories whose facts challenged liberal orthodoxies, editors were glad to run them. When liberal reporters wrote stories, they tried to present the conservative perspective.
The problem isn't so much the stories that appear as the ones that no one thinks to do. Journalists naturally tend to pursue questions that interest them. So when you have a press corps that's heavily Democratic - more than 80 percent, according to some surveys of Washington journalists - they tend to do stories that reflect Democrats' interests.
The following day, the Times published my letter to the editor:
From The New York Times, Oct. 12, 2005
To the Editor:
As a graduate of both law school and journalism school, I find it hard to argue with John Tierney's premise that law professors and especially journalism professors tend toward liberalism. But it's harder to argue that either profession favors liberals outside the academy.
Indeed, conservative lawyers, if they are a minority, have a much better shot at judgeships or high-level government positions since it's conservatives who are doing the appointing more often than not.
More broadly, if liberals are channeling their own most brilliant acolytes into law and journalism, that just leaves more space in business schools, banks and corporations for young conservatives. Thus, the conservatives wind up wielding greater power, lacking only vague cultural influence.
If conservatives had concocted this arrangement deliberately, they could have hardly done better for themselves.
Daniel L. Ackman
Jersey City, Oct. 11, 2005
John Tierney writes in his October 11 NY Times Column:
October 11, 2005
Where Cronies Dwell
By JOHN TIERNEY
Journalists and legal scholars have been decrying "cronyism" and calling for "mainstream" values when picking a Supreme Court justice. But how do they go about picking the professors to train the next generation of journalists and lawyers?
David Horowitz, the conservative who is president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, analyzed the political affiliations of the faculty at 18 elite journalism and law schools. By checking all the party registrations he could find, he concluded that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 8 to 1 at the law schools, with the ratio ranging from 3 to 1 at Penn to 28 to 1 at Stanford.
Only one journalism school, the University of Kansas, had a preponderance of Republicans (by 10 to 8). At the rest of the schools, there was a 6-to-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans. The ratio was 4 to 1 at Northwestern and New York University, 13 to 1 at the University of Southern California, 15 to 1 at Columbia. Horowitz didn't find any Republicans at Berkeley.
Some academics argue that their political ideologies don't affect the way they teach, which to me is proof of how detached they've become from reality in their monocultures. This claim is especially dubious if you're training lawyers and journalists to deal with controversial public policies.
I realize, from experience at six newspapers, that most journalists try not to impose their prejudices on their work. When I did stories whose facts challenged liberal orthodoxies, editors were glad to run them. When liberal reporters wrote stories, they tried to present the conservative perspective.
The problem isn't so much the stories that appear as the ones that no one thinks to do. Journalists naturally tend to pursue questions that interest them. So when you have a press corps that's heavily Democratic - more than 80 percent, according to some surveys of Washington journalists - they tend to do stories that reflect Democrats' interests.
The following day, the Times published my letter to the editor:
From The New York Times, Oct. 12, 2005
To the Editor:
As a graduate of both law school and journalism school, I find it hard to argue with John Tierney's premise that law professors and especially journalism professors tend toward liberalism. But it's harder to argue that either profession favors liberals outside the academy.
Indeed, conservative lawyers, if they are a minority, have a much better shot at judgeships or high-level government positions since it's conservatives who are doing the appointing more often than not.
More broadly, if liberals are channeling their own most brilliant acolytes into law and journalism, that just leaves more space in business schools, banks and corporations for young conservatives. Thus, the conservatives wind up wielding greater power, lacking only vague cultural influence.
If conservatives had concocted this arrangement deliberately, they could have hardly done better for themselves.
Daniel L. Ackman
Jersey City, Oct. 11, 2005
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Why Miers?
Not only has Harriet E. Miers never been a judge, she has barely been a litigator.
She must not have done very well in law school, because had she graduated with any kind of honors, we would have heard about it.
Then, according to the blog Is That Legal,, citing New Jersey lawyer Peter Goldberger:
Her record in the Texas state courts is equally limited.
The one defense to the cronyism charge is that President Bush and Miers are probably not all that close. You don't appoint good friends to be lottery commissioner. That's where you install friends of cousins' friends. That she was Bush's "personal lawyer," strikes me as inconsequential, too. Bush never had the kind of career, nor the inclinaion (that is an interest in doing things legally), that would lead him to forge strong ties to his lawyer.
Then there is the comparison with other non-judges to get the high court nod. These individual tended to be towering figures-- attorneys general, senators and so on.
Of recent justices who were never judges, all were either distinguished lawyers, holders of high office or top Justice Department lawyers. Here’s a list:
Owen Josephus Roberts: appointed by Hoover in 1930; was in private practice, but also had served in federal law enforcment as special counsel
Stanley Forman Reed: appointed by F. Roosevelt 1938; was U.S. solicitor general
Felix Frankfurter: appointed by F. Roosevelt in 1939; was a top tier law professor at Harvard
William Orville Douglas: appointed by F. Roosevelt in 1939; was SEC chairman
James Francis Byrnes: appointed by F. Roosevelt in 1941; was a U.S. Senator
Robert Houghwout Jackson: appointed by F. Roosevelt in 1941; was U.S. Attorney General
Harold Hitz Burton: appointed by Truman in 1949; was a U.S. Senator
Thomas Campbell Clark: appointed by Truman in 1953; was U.S. Attorney General
Earl Warren: appointed by Eisenhower in 1953; was Governor of California
Byron Raymond White: appointed by Kennedy in 1962; was Deputy U.S. Attorney General
Arthur Joseph Goldberg: appointed by Kennedy in 1962; was Secretary of Labor
Abe Fortas: appointed by Johnson in 1965; was in private practice and known as a first class Supreme Court advocate
Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.: appointed by Nixon in 1971; was in private practice, also president of the ABA
William Hubbs Rehnquist: appointed by Nixon in 1971: was Ass't U.S. Attorney General
Harriet Miers was a top manager of her law firm, but never a leading lawyer by any lights. To be sure, may Supreme Court justices become “great” or have greatness thrust upon them. They don’t necessarily start out that way. (And after all, what is a federal judge but a lawyer who knows a senator?) Still, unlike the future justices listed here, she has not been steeped in federal law or the type work in which federal judges must know.
She must not have done very well in law school, because had she graduated with any kind of honors, we would have heard about it.
Then, according to the blog Is That Legal,, citing New Jersey lawyer Peter Goldberger:
A quick WestLaw search suggests that Harriet Miers has never argued before the Supreme Court (nor has her name appeared on brief there), and she has argued three cases before the Fifth Circuit (with her name appearing as additional counsel on a handful of others) over the last 30 years -- two of them pro bono or by appointment of the court. Her argued cases are: Thanksgiving Tower Partners v. Arnos Thanksgiving Partners, 64 F.3d 227 (5th Cir. 1995) (commerical real estate dispute); Ware v. Schweiker, 651 F2d 408 (5th Cir. 1981) (volunteer pro bono counsel for Social Security disability applicant, through legal aid program); Popeko v US, 513 F.2d 771 (5th Cir. 1975) (sec 2255 appeal for federal prisoner, by appt of court).
Her record in the Texas state courts is equally limited.
The one defense to the cronyism charge is that President Bush and Miers are probably not all that close. You don't appoint good friends to be lottery commissioner. That's where you install friends of cousins' friends. That she was Bush's "personal lawyer," strikes me as inconsequential, too. Bush never had the kind of career, nor the inclinaion (that is an interest in doing things legally), that would lead him to forge strong ties to his lawyer.
Then there is the comparison with other non-judges to get the high court nod. These individual tended to be towering figures-- attorneys general, senators and so on.
Of recent justices who were never judges, all were either distinguished lawyers, holders of high office or top Justice Department lawyers. Here’s a list:
Owen Josephus Roberts: appointed by Hoover in 1930; was in private practice, but also had served in federal law enforcment as special counsel
Stanley Forman Reed: appointed by F. Roosevelt 1938; was U.S. solicitor general
Felix Frankfurter: appointed by F. Roosevelt in 1939; was a top tier law professor at Harvard
William Orville Douglas: appointed by F. Roosevelt in 1939; was SEC chairman
James Francis Byrnes: appointed by F. Roosevelt in 1941; was a U.S. Senator
Robert Houghwout Jackson: appointed by F. Roosevelt in 1941; was U.S. Attorney General
Harold Hitz Burton: appointed by Truman in 1949; was a U.S. Senator
Thomas Campbell Clark: appointed by Truman in 1953; was U.S. Attorney General
Earl Warren: appointed by Eisenhower in 1953; was Governor of California
Byron Raymond White: appointed by Kennedy in 1962; was Deputy U.S. Attorney General
Arthur Joseph Goldberg: appointed by Kennedy in 1962; was Secretary of Labor
Abe Fortas: appointed by Johnson in 1965; was in private practice and known as a first class Supreme Court advocate
Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.: appointed by Nixon in 1971; was in private practice, also president of the ABA
William Hubbs Rehnquist: appointed by Nixon in 1971: was Ass't U.S. Attorney General
Harriet Miers was a top manager of her law firm, but never a leading lawyer by any lights. To be sure, may Supreme Court justices become “great” or have greatness thrust upon them. They don’t necessarily start out that way. (And after all, what is a federal judge but a lawyer who knows a senator?) Still, unlike the future justices listed here, she has not been steeped in federal law or the type work in which federal judges must know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
