Sam Bradley, County Commission candidate

How will voters regard county commission candidate Sam Bradley, who left a high-powered academic post after a university committee’s report accused him of consistent misconduct? 

 

Bradley seeks the Democratic nomination for District 4. Republicans here have sometimes used vicious and misleading ads against progressive candidates. Won’t they have fun with a host of news stories about alleged sex, lies, and drunkenness?

Bradley says, "I have never been accused of sexual harassment or anything like that.” The January 2013 Texas Tech University report said, “Graduate Student 2 . . . said she was in a vulnerable place which Sam Bradley knew about and took advantage of. She felt she had to respond to him because she was in his class. He told her that he wanted to have a physical, sexual relationship with her, that he was going to leave his wife, and that he wanted to marry her. . . . that he sent her sexually suggestive emails about her body and what he wanted to do with her. . . . He had kissed her in his office once. This had been going on for several months. GS-2 said it made her sick, and she wanted it to stop.” 

 

Bradley denies misconduct, and says GS-2 initiated the sex-related communications.

The report concluded Bradley “engaged in inappropriate relationships” that violated policy, and “engaged in generally unprofessional behavior on numerous occasions that was embarrassing to Texas Tech.” Investigators interviewed at least 20 witnesses and reviewed many documents. 

 

Bradley says the witnesses weren’t under oath, and that some hated him. That seems likely. His then-wife shared with GS-2’s husband some of the inappropriate communications, and he went ballistic. Witnesses also said Bradley was inappropriately close with a male student (“B”), and that when B broke up with his girlfriend, Bradley started seeing her. One source told me B was on “a vendetta” against Bradley. (Bradley denies going out with B’s ex.)

Bradley says that he forced Texas Tech to pay him good money to leave – and that he didn’t yet know about the written report, which he calls “a very good hit job.” He says if he’d known, he’d have refused TTU’s offer and fought. But that won’t stop opposition leaflets from quoting freely from it.

“[A]lmost every individual interviewed had concerns about other unprofessional behavior [by] Bradley. . . . [T]here were numerous references to his getting drunk with students, getting drunk at conferences and requiring students to drive him . . . and look after him when he was drunk.” “Every faculty member interviewed [said] said “Bradley’s relationships with students, even if not necessarily a conflict of interest, were much too familiar and unprofessional.”

It’s too bad. Bradley is a sharp and able progressive who speaks well. (There’s a notable dissonance between his advocacy of “me-too” accusers generally and the allegations regarding his conduct.) 

 

I’m less concerned about the report about than about how it’s used, how the voters view it and how Bradley handles it. If he files on March 10^th, then wins the Democratic primary, maybe he can survive the General Election. 

 

When I asked him about this stuff on radio, I got bluster and legal arguments, with no visible contrition or concern for how his conduct affected students he mentored. That was disappointing. On the telephone, Friday, he was more thoughtful. He denies misconduct, but says he should have immediately rejected GS-2’s personal communications.

The election could be interesting.

                                                     -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 23 February 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's site.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM, Las Cruces Community Radio, and is also available on KRWG's website.]

[My initial, abortive effort at writing this column I'd have titled "A Tale of Two Sinners," because getting plunged into the sordid details of the TTU Report, and talking to Mr. Bradly about it, kept reminding me of recent conversations with a friend who was involved in sort of a sex scandal, and kind of dropped from sight.  That friend has picked up the pieces of his life.  His wife, particularly deserves great credit. But he has learned from what happened, knows himself a little better because of it, and can express remorse.  Mr. Bradley is mostly at pains to attack the reliability of the report, or argue details here and there, or establish that he's in general a good guy with a strong character.  I hope he is.  
Bradley attacks the veracity of the report.  I wasn't there.  He certainly had some admirers and supporters.  But it's hard to read that report and not feel that he did things he ought to regret. (As have all of us, to varying degrees!)  For example, although the administrators at TTU (who'd apparently regarded him as a star, with one saying he'd initially accepted Bradley's explanations) seem to have concluded that with GS-2 (whom everyone agreed was a troubled, "fragile" young woman), Bradley denies he initiated anything and says he regrets responding to her instead of telling her "I don't think you meant to send this to me."  Reading her statements on it, it's clear that she participated, from some mix of feeling flattered and knowing he was a big professor in the department, and that she regrets the harm that she and Bradley did to her fiance, then husband.  And feels ashamed.  Bradley sounds as if he's in denial.  Bottom line, even accepting his version of events, it's hard to imagine that most folks wouldn't feel some contrition for the way his conduct affected GS-2 and her fiance/husband; and, yeah, he was a man in authority.  My instinct, certainly, is that he hasn't come to terms with that inside.]

Because many who voted for Donald Trump love our country and the ideals of freedom that made thirteen colonies revolt, I can’t help but try to articulate the danger Donald Trump poses to what we all love.

He sounded great on radio recently, smoothly mocking Democrats by complimenting them on creating the impeachment case “from nothing.” You’d never realize that the non-partisan General Accounting Office investigation had concluded that Trump’s Ukraine fiasco broke the law. Trump spoke persuasively of his “perfect” conversation with the Ukrainian President – although his own people immediately tried to hide the phone call’s summary to protect him. The call was part of a months-long effort to force Ukraine to announce a baseless “investigation” of Trump’s then-major political opponent. 

I admit I’ve never liked Trump. But even if a president stood for policies I liked, and values I embraced, I hope I’d reject him or her wholeheartedly if s/he were endangering our judiciary, our Separation of Powers, our Bill of Rights protections, and so much of our government, including the State Department and FBI. 

Trump says only lily-livered Democrats criticize him. But John Bolton, his hand-picked National Security Advisor, ridiculed the Ukraine episode as “that drug deal,” refused to participate, and says Trump is lying about it. General John Kelley, who provided adult supervision to the inexperienced Trump, says he believes Bolton.

The impeachment witnesses were respected, long-time diplomats (including highly-decorated war veteran Vindaman), plus Trump’s own Ambassador Sondland. Sondland contributed big bucks to get Trump into the White House.

U.S. Senator Mitt Romney was a Republican presidential candidate. And is deeply religious. He broke ranks and voted to impeach, on one count, explaining that Trump’s deeply repugnant conduct forced him to.

This week Trump sacked several witnesses, and threatened more. For testifying under oath before Congress. Probably truthfully, since contemporaneous documents supported their testimony and lying could have meant prison. Meanwhile Trump improperly denied investigators access to witnesses and documents.

Trump not only sacked folks for telling the truth, but interfered with the sentencing of his pal Roger Stone. Federal prosecutors recommended 7-9 years, Trump screamed, and the Department of Justice slunk back into court to suggest lighter sentences – as the four prosecutors resigned from the case. Even Nixon recognized that such conduct was completely wrong.

Trump does things U.S. leaders have never done. Things Putin, Stalin, Hitler, and Franco were infamous for. Things that directly contradict our rights as U.S. citizens.

We have freedom of speech. Our courts are independent of the Executive Branch. Most states prohibit sacking someone for whistle-blowing or trial testimony. Absent national security issues or disloyalty, we WANT people to speak out candidly, and testify truthfully. Dictators or corrupt city bosses interfere to get a crooked crony off, or misuse the law to punish people who criticize them. That ain’t the U.S. as our founders conceived it. John Peter Zenger must be barfing in his grave.

Attorney-General William Barr, once a principled conservative lawyer, has licked Trump’s boots throughout. Trump congratulated Barr for recommending a lighter sentence for Stone. Friday Barr announced that Trump’s improper and bullying tweets are making it impossible for Barr to do his job. 

I share the skepticism about established politicians. Much is wrong with our system. I too have wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the federal machinery. But now we all need to face the fact that Trump is a dangerous con man.

                                                            – 30 --

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 16 February 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's site.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM, Las Cruces Community Radio, and is also available on KRWG's website.]

[A friend who gently chides me for such things points out that to some degree Trump is not a departure from previous presidents but a somewhat grotesque exaggeration of faults many of them had in common.  He writes:

Your point is well taken:  Our current president is remarkably bold in his contempt for the rest of us.  Yet, he is just a brazen example of our history. . . . Trump is a total insult to honesty, decency and compassion.  He's only the latest in a long line of similar souls.  His predecessors just had better manners."

Certainly I didn't mean to say no president ever did more modest versions of what Trump does, or that none took some very wrong actions but were smart enough to avoid the prying eyes of journalists or reformers.  But my point is, that we mostly [with sad exceptions around the Palmer Raids, the 1932 Bonus Army, the post-WWII Red Scare, and the reaction to the civil rights / antiwar movement in my own time] have tried to respect our civil liberties and Bill of Rights.  Nixon was a smart lawyer who knew the rules, and though he secretly broke some, he would not have openly done what Trump does. My friend -- or Trump's friends -- might argue that there's something healthy and welcome about the very openness of Trump's lawbreaking.  He did try to hide the Ukraine extortion, but mostly he doesn't limit himself to quietly whispering to Barr that Roger Stone is a pal who was helping Trump's cause, he bleats like a stuck pig on Twitter and berates his enemies and those of his friends who let laws and civil liberties stand in the way of attacking those enemies.  That's not an unreasonable argument.  Yet when blatant intimidation of witnesses, manipulation of justice, and abuse of legal processes to punish those who speak out become accepted norms, I think maybe we lose something, even if the dictatorial process is less hypocritical.]

Thoughts on New Mexico's Emergency Firearms Protection Order Act

New Mexico’s proposed Emergency Firearm Protection Act, raises some tough questions and some easy ones.

Easy is whether or not the 2^nd Amendment prohibits it. Nope. From 1789-2008, the U.S. Supreme Court read that amendment as not protecting individual (non-militia-related) gun ownership. When the Supreme Court (wrongly, I’d say, but it’s done) created an individual right, striking down an extremely strict prohibition on guns in Washington, D.C., the Court made clear that the right was not unrestricted. The Court stated that restrictions based on mental health or felonies, or on the types of weapons involved, would still stand. 

 

Does the 4^th Amendment prohibit it? Tougher call. Do the procedures allowing at least a temporary state taking of property comport with due process requirements made applicable to states by the 14^th Amendment? The ACLU opposed Rhode Island’s 2018 measure, until the legislature tightened the standard for granting a petition, created penalties for providing false evidence of a threat, allowed only law enforcement to file petitions, required concrete evidence, and granted the right to legal counsel in hearings.

 

Tougher still are several value judgments that balance the rights of frightened family members against the rights of a gun owner they believe is dangerous to self or others.

As introduced, EFPA allowed “family” to petition the court to remove guns, and defined “family” to include ex-wives, former in-laws, and persons the gun-owner has had a child or an intimate relationship with. Opponents said that definition invited frivolous, even perjurious accusations. Proponents pointed to the laws against perjury. Opponents countered by asking how often perjury laws really get enforced in such situations. 

 

An amendment watered down the senate bill so that only police officers could petition – as in Rhode Island. But male-dominated law-enforcement agencies have too often shortchanged women who complained that their male companions were dangerous. Further, what should a battered spouse or ex-spouse, reasonably fearing for her or his life, do in rural New Mexico, given that sheriffs around the state have said they’ll refuse to enforce the law? We could add a provision allowing battered spouses to sue sheriffs to make them do their jobs; but who in that position is likely to sue? 

 

Ironically, by refusing to apply state law, the sheriffs (who misread constitutional law) may force the Legislature to strengthen EFPA in ways that gun enthusiasts (quite reasonably) don’t like!

As written, the bill allows an initial order to issue ex parte, with no advance notice to the respondent. Then the court sets a hearing within 15 days, and the respondent (but not the petitioner) could ask for a postponement. I’d say the respondent should also be able to move for an expedited hearing. If s/he wants the gun(s) back, and has a good case that there’s no unusual danger, s/he should be allowed to make that case and recover the property, sooner rather than later. 

 

So how do we protect against real threats without trampling the rights of responsible and mentally sound gun owners?

I wish each side listened more to the other. We can and should prevent some tragedies by enacting some form of this bill; but due process is essential to democracy. 

 

I hope gun owners, those who know guns best, will participate in refining the bill, not just shout, “I love my gun!” – and that proponents of the law won’t assume everyone who raises a civil liberties question is an NRA member. 
            --  30 -- 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 9 February 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org) and will be available also on KRWG's website.]

[I started this column before the Senate amended and passed the bill.  I haven't read the full revised version yet.  Here's an Albuquerque Journal editorial of today's date.]

[Make no mistake: I do favor the bill, as well-refined as possible with all rights and interests in mind.  I feel sorry for folks who see every effort to protect against gun violence as part of a plot to confiscate everyone's weapons.  Other gun enthusiasts point out that improvements in diagnosing and treating mental illnesses are important.  I thoroughly agree -- and agree that we need the long-unopened Triage Center here; but that should NOT be an excuse for complete inaction with regard to gun safety and appropriate legislation.  It's like telling me I shouldn't repair my car's steering because I also have a flat tire -- or, more, like trying to help an old friend who's drunkenness and cocaine addiction have cost him job, family, and health -- and he's an ex-athlete who's now obese, lonely, and depressed.  He could benefit from getting back in the gym, from talking with a shrink, from finding some job, and from finding new friends and a lover.  Would you tell him, say, not to bother with the gym because the job and lover are more important, when going to the gym could improve his energy level, his appearance, and his self-image -- and his prospects, and might even bring him into contact with potential new friends or a lover?   Life is complex, and sometimes a problem we probably can't truly solve can be treated by a combination of steps, none the total answer but all of them contributing.]
[So long as they're constitutional, too, some provisions in the bill as to which people disagree can always be tried, then amended or deleted as experience teaches us.]

 

Why We'll Celebrate Giovanni Day

Sunday we visited La Cueva, where Giovanni Maria Agostini (“el Ermitario”) lived 150 years ago.

Giovanni apparently was born to Italian nobles, studied for the priesthood, did not take vows, and spent many years walking through Europe and the Americas. He arrived in New Mexico at 62, after walking with the wagon train of Eugenio Romero (related to J. Paul Taylor, soon to be 100) and lived on a hill (now called Hermit’s Peak) northwest of Las Vegas. 

 

He came to Mesilla to consult lawyer Albert Fountain, then took up residence in La Cueva, up near Dripping Springs. The Barela family (forebears of Mesilla’s current mayor) warned him it was dangerous. He promised to light a fire each Friday evening to let them know he was all right. On Friday, 17 April, 1869, there was no fire. Antonio Garcia, who used to transport sick people to La Cueva so Giovanni could heal them with local herbs, led a group to investigate, and found Giovanni dead, with a knife in his back. His murder, like Fountain’s, went unsolved.

My ears luxuriated in the silence of the hermit’s cave, a healing silence in which, for the first few minutes, the din we take for granted in our daily lives reverberated in my head, expanding to fill the silent cave, then dissipating. As the silence took possession of me, I contemplated Giovanni and wished that each year we would celebrate 17 April.

“As a day of silence? A day of meditation?” my wife asked. Sure. A day of quiet. A day for reflecting on the vastness and beauty of our earth; on the many diverse paths that formed us and brought us here. On God or chance or karma. On whatever led that huge rock to settle exactly there, as many of us seem to have settled in Doña Ana County, New Mexico. 
 

A day to appreciate Giovanni’s contemplative nature, piety, healing, and love of our natural world. 

 

A day to honor the wondrous beauty that surrounds us here, however we choose to do so. A day to share that wonder, without carping that this one doesn’t believe everything I believe, or that that one supports political figures anathema to me. A day when we don’t divide ourselves by concerns that our neighbor doesn’t share our religious or spiritual beliefs, ethnicity, skin color, or sexual identity. A day to share our gratitude for what we have, without arguing about Who or what has given it to us.

Even if I believe you are poisoning our Earth and killing off species, and you believe I am killing nascent lives that will turn into children if all goes well – if whosever house was on fire, would we not form a bucket line? If our boat were sinking, would we not all shut up and bail? Well, our boat is sinking in a cesspool of selfishness, greed, lies, and ideological fervor. Let’s bail.

I suspect that’s what Giovanni would want us to do, so let’s pause each April 17^th to celebrate Giovanni, who loved our mountains, lived and healed where we walk, and is embedded in local history. He preached Catholic sermons, but belongs to all of us.

We have plenty of passionate rallies and marches are about protesting each other. Let’s share Giovanni Day, celebrating our mountains and land and culture and silences. Together. Who knows, we might learn to like each other.

                                                          – 30 --

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 2 February 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air Wednesday and Saturdya on KRWG and Thursday afternoon on KTAL, 101.5 FM Las Cruces Community Radio, and is available on the KRWG website.]

[I plan at least to go up to La Cueva as early as I can on 17 April, which I think is on a Friday.  Spend a little longer up there.  Maybe beforehand remind a few others it's Giovanni Day.  Or el dia del ermitario.  Imagine having the patience to spend so long in the cave, mostly alone.  Few of us these days can bear being alone even for a few hours!  Aside from the spiritual dimension, I suspect one MUST develop a little self-knowledge and some amount of inner peace by doing so.] 

Republican Senators Choose Donald Trump Over the U.S. Constitution

There’s a rule at trials: when one side’s lawyers have improperly lost evidence, hidden evidence, or refused to show the jury evidence in their control, the judge may order jurors to assume that evidence is bad for the side controlling and withholding it. It’s a life rule, too: if the warm chocolate-chip cookies are disappearing, and your kid is hiding his hands behind his back, don’t you infer something?

So why shouldn’t Donald Trump’s unprecedented, across-the-board stonewalling of legitimate Congressional inquiry raise questions in everyone’s minds?

Simple: Republicans don’t want us to know the facts about Donald Trump’s allegedly impeachable conduct. 

 

Not only are Republicans refusing to call material witnesses (even John Bolton, who, as an ambitious Republican with dreams of political office, can’t be all that dangerous), but they’ve imposed strict new rules on reporters to hinder the free flow of information from senators to us. Normally, credentialed press have free run of most areas in the Senate; they’re now restricted to a specific area, and reporters are forbidden to walk along with a senator, continuing a conversation, even if the senator is willingly participating. 

 

The House heard some devastating witnesses to Trump’s misconduct. Most were patriotic career foreign service folks, not politicians. Plus Trump’s own Gordon Sondland, scared into telling the truth.

Some important things have happened since the House investigation. Notably, the nonpartisan General Accounting Office concluded, after careful investigation, that Trump’s political hold-up of funds approved by Congress broke a 1974 law enacted by Congress over Richard Nixon’s veto. And Bolton is now available – a Trump appointee who mocked the Ukraine extortion plot as “that drug deal,” refusing to participate.

Republicans mumble that the House did its investigation and reached its conclusions, so there’s no need for further witnesses. They toss out the red herring of subpoenaing Joe and Hunter Biden, who have no firsthand knowledge about Trump’s actions or motives. The truth is simple: the facts are inconvenient. 

 

There’s a reasonable argument that Democrats are wasting Senate time. Not because these aren’t “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but because Republicans have strong political motives not to consider the evidence and convict. 

 

Federalist Paper 65 says, “The most conspicuous characters [deciding impeachment trials] will be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and . . . can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality.” They foresaw Mitch McConnell, but hoped that when our country needed them, politicians might put conscience above politics – as McConnell fears some might.

What would a fair trial look like? Republicans would acknowledge the actual evidence, and consider its weight. They’d hear more witnesses, because Trump’s lawyers deny the facts. Most importantly, both parties would forego political speeches to discuss the real issue: when a president violates the law by holding up, for political reasons, Congressionally-mandated aid to a beleaguered ally, is that misconduct sufficiently important that we should impeach, or at least censure him?

The allegations against Trump are more serious than those made against Clinton, and perhaps even those against Nixon. You could argue about the relative seriousness of burglary vs. extortion; both Nixon’s burglary and Trump’s effort to use Ukraine to tip domestic political scales were antidemocratic; and the Ukraine aid concerned national security. 

 

Whitewashing Trump whites out our Constitution. It tells future presidents they need not follow the law or provide Congress information. Is that what we want?

                                                         - 30 -

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 26 January 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website on KRWG's website.  A spoken version, also available on KRWG's website, will air during the week on KRWG and KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org).] 

[Val Demings for President!?]

[A stray question, sparked by looking back at the extremely political Clinton impeachment: Is anyone thinking censure? Nixon's impeachment was pretty bipartisan, once the courts forced Nixon to divulge evidence, and many from all parties were genuinely shocked; but here, the Senate simply may not bother to try to obtain the evidence; Clinton's was much more political, and his offense -- perjuring himself about his sex life, in a legal case manufactured to embarrass him -- was a minor crime.  Ultimately the Senate censured him for perjury.  
On Trump, while if I had a vote I would almost certainly vote for impeachment, I think censure ought to be in the discussion.  His conduct is far more serious than Clinton's, and far more the kind of abuse of power the Constitution mean to cover.  I think it's fair for his political allies to question whether or not it warrants removal from office.  Why hasn't Romney or someone suggested censure? 
I suspect I know why: Democrats are committed to impeachment, but some feel that way because they can't divorce this issue from all his other dangerous bad conduct.  Republicans insist on whitewashing him, because he wants that and they're scared of him.  On both sides, few are examining simply the "high crimes and misdemeanors" alleged by the House, keeping political concerns and other alleged crimes to the side.  
My point is that while I think Trump's conduct warrants impeachment, I KNOW that it can't be good for our democracy to let this misconduct stand without even a reproach from the U.S. Senate.  It's a terrible precedent.  I also suspect that for some Senators facing close elections, floating that possibility might sound good to some of the all-important Independents.
However, maybe they will indeed reach this idea further down the road, after determining key evidentiary issues such as whether or not to call more witnesses and whether or not to demand more documents  -- then sifting whatever further evidence appears.]

[By the way, new information, including a videotape of Trump at a "big donors only" dinner, not only confirm that he knows Lev Parnas ( a central figure in Trump's lawyer's Ukraine dealings, now under criminal indictment) but confirms the accuracy of Parnas's statement about the occasion.]

Don't think this would sell so many cigars today!

Further Thoughts on Guardianship Issues

Doris and Rio Hamilton allege that after they consulted lawyer CaraLyn Banks, she proceeded – without telling them – to have Ms. Hamilton declared mentally incompetent and Advocate Services (AS) appointed to take over her life and make all her decisions, including banning her son, Rio, from the house they own together.

Kise and Larry Davis would understand the Hamiltons’ situation. A well-meaning acquaintance of Kise reported her deteriorating cognitive abilities. Soon AS controlled her life, vilifying her beloved stepson, Larry. Banks was appointed “Kise’s” lawyer. Even after the court ordered Kise be transferred to California, near Larry, AS and Banks battled for another year, costing the family another year of agency fees – PLUS both Larry’s legal fees spent trying to free his stepmother, and Banks’s fees for opposing on Kise’s behalf, what Kise and Larry wanted. 

While I’m sure that AS must do some good, families and friends of some AS “clients” say they don’t like or trust AS.  Professionals who know the guardianship scene here have expressed similar feelings; and there’s a surprisingly strong dislike of Banks among lawyers who’ve opposed her in these matters.  One lawyer with firsthand experience with AS said he'd like to see AS shut down, although there's a shortage of  such businesses here.  Others have expressed the belief that judges are "in on it."  However, I’ve seen no basis for believing judges are involved in any dishonesty. Nor can I say anyone’s committed crimes. 

The Hamiltons say Banks and AS “have demonstrated a pattern of exploitation of the elderly.” Lawyer Raul Carrillo told a reporter that in the Davis case, the fight to keep Kise in Cruces was “because of the vested interest of [AS].”

Banks says AS is one of three firms she uses, more or less in rotation, that “all three do a good job,” and that complaints from families are no more frequent with AS than with others in the field. 

 

We all eventually need help. The need grows as we age, often living far from family, some of us without friends or family to provide that help. Too, not all families are benign, honest, and competent enough to provide care. 

 

But even where intervention is initially necessary and helpful, do AS and Banks fight to maintain their roles beyond when they’re really needed? They say they’re looking out for the “client’s” needs, but it seems a disturbing pattern. The owner of another agency, though she wouldn’t comment on AS, said that her company did everything possible to turn over control quickly to family or friends, as long as someone competent and honest was willing to take on the responsibility. That makes sense, both emotionally and financially. AS’s default mode seems to be to fight for their turf, above all; and some claim that’s particularly so when real property is involved.

The handyman who called for help with Kise offered to withdraw the petition once he met her stepson Larry, saying the move to California made sense. In the Goldberg case, the well-meaning friend who called Banks regretted it, and was appalled by how AS conducted its business. Doris Hamilton’s guardian ad litem, David Lutz, has stipulated to Rio being named his mother’s guardian. But that hasn’t happened. Maybe AS likes collecting fees or knows something we don’t.

I’m sure these folks started with great intentions and do some good; but even “professionals,” don’t always know what’s right.

                                                - 30 -

[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 19 January 202, in the Las Cruces Sun-News ("Guardianship Matters Aren't Easy But Can We Do Better"), as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version, also on KRWG's website, will air during the week on both KRWG and KTAL, 101.5 FM (Las Cruces Community Radio,)]

Larry and Kise Davis - credit AARP

[Some of these matters have been written about extensively, including a long article in the national AARP magazine in October 2018 ["What Happens When Guardianship Gets Contentious?"]), as well as in the Sun-News and the Albuquerque Journal (in March 2018 by Colleen Heild) and two on the Davises, "Stepson Mom Was Miserable in Secure Facility" and   "You Saved my Life - Woman Thriving after Ordeal ".  I've also written a couple of relevant columns, one ("Why New Mexico Is Improving Its Guardianship Laws") specifically about the pleasure of lunching with Kise and Larry Davis and his wife (having briefly represented Larry in that case as his lawyer) when she was finally "out of jail" and on her way to California.  The other was more general  ("Someday You'll Be a Person in Need of Assistance").   If you want to read more, you can google "Kise Davis" or search her name or "Advocate Services" on the newspapers' websites.

[This was a tough column to write.  Many people discussed their experiences at length, and a couple of the lawyers even alleged that different judges here are "in it" with Advocate Services and Ms. Banks.  (As mentioned above, I do not agree.)  For obvious reasons, they didn't want their names used.  Others allege criminal conduct. While I don't want to allege things of which I'm not certain, the fact that so many lawyers and others feel the deck is stacked against them has independent significance, in my view.   I respect the judges involved.  They may have an understandable sympathy with people doing the difficult work of  caring for folks whose minds have softened, particularly professionals.  Similarly I mention the lawyers' complaints about Banks not to allege misconduct based on that but because in my fairly long legal career, most lawyers we dealt with we came away respecting us as adversaries, or mixing that respect with acknowledgment of their shortcomings; but it was extremely rare to feel the kind of bitterness that several local lawyers express concerning cases with Banks.  That's unfortunate, whatever the explanation may be.  More often, I see  (and believe in) a certain collegial approach, more cooperative where that's appropriate, with as little acrimony as possible -- even with camaraderie except when duty to clients requires lawyers to say negative things about each other that are warranted by fact.

I did speak with Ms. Banks briefly regarding this opinion column. I asked about the Hamilton case, but she said Ms. Hamilton had been her client (despite the Hamiltons' denial of that) and that people, including Rio, had brought Mrs. Hamilton to her office more than once over a couple of years.  I did ask her why, with regard to Kise Davis, she and Advocate Services had fought so long after the Judge ordered Kise transferred to California.  She said that was only because the house took a long time to sell.  That startled me.  My memory was otherwise, and I checked with someone more intimately involved in the case during its last year.  It certainly seems that if the problem was a delay in selling the house, Ms. Banks or Advocate Services could have articulated that, without arguing that moving to California was too expensive for Kise or that Larry was losing his own cognitive abilities -- and without the necessity for a whole new set of lawyers, with a whole new set of fees, to enforce the judge's order.]

[NOTE 21January: This was not a formal comment on the column, but was a response from a mutual friend of mine and Ms. Hamilton's, with her perspective.  Another friend had sent her the column, noting that Ms. Hamilton had been bright and lively and smiling at the NAACP MLK breakfast Monday morning, and our mutual friend wrote:

Here are some other details that you may not know; 

Dorris Hamilton had to get "PERMISSION" from her "guardian", Advocate Services to attend yesterday's MLK Breakfast. She had to ask Advocate Services to purchase a ticket for her because she doesn't have access to her own money. 

But, for years, and even until August of 2019, Dorris Hamilton attended these events independently. And because Dorris Hamilton has such a kind heart; each year, she purchased a batch of tickets and gave them to students and to others who were less fortunate; those who couldn't afford the ticket price themselves. But Dorris Hamilton couldn't purchase tickets for others this year because SHE NO LONGER HAS ACCESS TO HER OWN MONEY!

To see such a generous and loving person be relegated to asking for permission (from a for-profit agency, no-less) to do things that she has done routinely for years, is sickening. To add insult to the injury; after the event, she had to be returned to her "cage" as if she is nothing more than a prisoner on work-release. Meanwhile, her house sits empty and her son is paying to live somewhere else. He cannot live in his own house, because the "guardian" won't allow it. This is UNACCEPTABLE! And, as many others have pointed out, this is not an isolated incident, rather, this is a pattern. 

I am grateful for the community support, and pray that Dorris Hamilton and her son will be freed from these predators sooner than later!

[In shortening the column for radio, and altering for listeners rather than readers, I ended it:
"I’m sure these folks started with great intentions and do some good; but even “professionals,” don’t always know what’s right. Maybe sometimes our expertise gets in the way of seeing clearly into human hearts."
Despite my grave doubts about some of what these folks do, my own more limited experience with folks whose minds are slipping into the fog has convinced me that dealing with them can be challenging.  However, that doesn't excuse anything and everything."]


[An emailed comment on the newspaper column read, in part:

"Thanks for the discussion of a characteristic of our legal system that has made me wary for decades.  My dad (a 6th grade graduate of the Baltimore City Schools) repeatedly said to avoid dealing with those that profited from others' misery.  As a consequence he avoided doctors, lawyers, cops and bankers like the plague.  From his vantage point in the "19teens" in the Baltimore slums, that was his conclusion.  Your column presents the quagmire that can quickly result from placing trust in our commercial or legal system.

Over the years I modified my "inherited views".  My life crossed paths with all the "forbidden folks" on my dad's list.  Since my paths crossed these folks paths in a social setting, I saw them to be humans trapped in the same nonsense as the rest of us.  This probably why societies tend to degenerate over time to where an implosion or explosion wrecks the whole system.  When this happens a lot of folks get damaged also.  So we muddle on.  Not sure what I would do to fix it.  Sort of like draining a swamp full of alligators.

Thanks for the thought provoking presentation!!]

Las Cruces Municipal Debtors Prison?

We elected Joy Goldbaum Presiding Municipal Court Judge because she promised to focus the court on productive solutions – not on being a modern debtors' prison, as too many such courts in the U.S. become. 

 

Municipal Court handles “minor” crimes, mostly violations of city ordinances. Because many defendants are poor, mentally challenged, homeless, and/or vets suffering PTSD, many don't show up for court, or can't pay their fines. Unless they're allowed (and able) to work off the fine, a warrant and a penalty are added to the fine, making it even harder to pay. Too often a defendant who's committed some minor offense ends up in jail – for which the City pays the County $100 per night per prisoner. Raw deal both for citizen and for us taxpayers.

Our Municipal Court has made very limited use of jail alternatives. There's incarceration or probation, and little chance for treatment or other services that could address the actual problems. Everyone benefits if folks convicted of minor code infractions do community service. Only City Codes, the Animal Shelter, and El Caldito are approved for community service.

Judge Goldbaum wants to approve more local non-profits for community service. That would help someone who's really strapped and who may not easily be able to utilize the existing options. Any 501(c)(3) can qualify; and although the City probably has legitimate liability concerns, a wider field of choices would be helpful. The Hub, the bicycle repair center at Cruces Creatives, might be a good one: centrally located, useful work, and a carless “convict” might learn to build her or himself a bicycle. 

I'm told the City paid the County $1.2 million for detained Municipal Court prisoners last year. That's an obscene amount. If all that money went to the Detention Center (as opposed to transportation or other expenses), at $100 per night, that'd be 12,000 days in jail, collectively. 

 

Decreasing that figure and minimizing the emotional, financial, and physical toll on folks who are jailed for being poor or disorganized is Judge Goldbaum's top priority, and should be our City's. It'll take creativity and hard work by Goldbaum and the second judge. That second judge often staffs the afternoon when the Court is open for walk-ins; and although afternoons are sometimes slow, being available when a defendant (which could be any of us) can make it could mean avoiding spending several hundred bucks to keep that defendant in jail after a no-show generates a warrant. Clearly, it's important. Work commitments and/or transportation problems prevent some people from reaching court at the scheduled time.

Oddly, the City hasn't announced the process for appointing that second judge. The last time the position was open, the appointment process moved quickly. The second judge position is important to fill soon. Case loads are rising, and the first judge has a host of budgetary and administrative tasks. LCPD is filing more DWIs, which are relatively complex cases, in Municipal Court rather than Magistrate Court. The delay means defendants, attorneys, and city personnel could be waiting around in court too much.

It takes little time or thought to ship someone to jail. It takes much more effort to discern which defendants should be steered toward a solution that doesn’t involve incarceration – and to fashion such solutions to actually work. These are exactly the kinds of improvements many have called for, and we elected Judge Goldbaum to make for our community.

                                                 -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 12 January 2020, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on both KRWG and KTAL, 101.5 FM (Que Tal -- Las Cruces Community Radio) and should be available also on the KRWG site.] 

[By the way, I discussed the related issue of jail diversion in this column from last July.]

[A friend emailed me first thing this morning:
  "Sort of a rude awakening to look for Goodman and get Lynched instead!!!"
Turns out the Sun-News had spared people the unpleasantness of looking at my picture this morning, but Randy's column on the minimum wage was prominently displayed.  I keep hoping Randy will be a guest on our radio show, "Speak Up, Las Cruces!" Wednesday mornings 8-10 a.m. on KTAL, 101.5 FM, but Randy and Phil Van Veen also do an Internet Radio show at exactly the same time.]