AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Possibly better than tootsie rolls, illustrated screenplays are tasty little nuggets of cinematic flavor in a convenient pdf wrapper. Download and read your favorite movie in a quarter of the time it takes to watch it. And you can grab quotes and images.

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:36 am

Ralph Nader on Why He Might Run in 2008, the Iraq War & the New Documentary "An Unreasonable Man"
by DemocracyNow!
FEBRUARY 5, 2007



Consumer advocate and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader says he will decide later this year whether to run for president in 2008. Today he also looks back at his childhood and his new book, "Seventeen Traditions." In addition, film director Henriette Mantel joins us to talk about "An Unreasonable Man." [includes rush transcript]

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: Following one of the bloodiest weekends of the Iraq War, the Senate is set to begin debate today on a nonbinding resolution criticizing President Bush’s decision to send in more U.S. troops. Meanwhile this weekend, Democratic activists gathered at the Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C., for the annual Democratic National Committee winter meeting. The two-day event featured speeches and presentations by all the Democratic presidential contenders. It was the first showcase for the candidates who are already beginning to run for their party’s nomination in what’s set to become the longest primary campaign in history.

In a moment, we’ll take a look at a new documentary about a different kind of presidential candidate. The documentary has just been released. It’s called An Unreasonable Man. It’s about the longtime consumer advocate, lawyer, author and two-time presidential candidate, Ralph Nader. He is also the author of a new book about his own life titled The Seventeen Traditions. Ralph Nader joins us today from Washington, D.C. We welcome you to Democracy Now!

RALPH NADER: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph, before we talk about the movie and your book, I wanted to ask you about the latest news, the devastating numbers of deaths in Iraq — I think it’s a thousand believed over the last week killed — and about today’s debate on the nonbinding resolution around war.

RALPH NADER: Well, the nonbinding resolution is really a very tepid tiptoe, which will serve the purpose of getting Congress off the hook in the following weeks and months, saying, well, they did what they could do. There’s got to be much more aggressive moves by Congress, maybe reflected in Congressman Jim McGovern’s bill, which will deal with the appropriations process and protect the soldiers, as they withdraw. If we don’t withdraw on a timetable, our military and corporate occupation of Iraq, including the oil industry, the bottom will never fall out of the insurgency. In the process of withdrawing, we develop what can be called the Iraq reconciliation plan that Dal Lamagna and CODEPINK initiated with members of the Iraqi Parliament, tribal leaders and victims of torture in Amman last year. The Iraqi hierarchy is still in place. I mean, the place is in chaos in terms of explosions, but the tribal leaders, the religious leaders, the political leaders still command the kind of cohesive authority in the three distinct groups that could provide for a reconciliation plan with international peacekeepers for an interim period, while we continue hiring Iraqis for reconstruction of their devastated homeland, compliments of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of Russ Feingold saying he is going to vote against the nonbinding resolution, because he doesn’t believe that it will lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq?

RALPH NADER: Well, I think he’s correct. And George W. Bush has in effect said it’s not going to affect him at all. This is outraging Republican Senator Specter from Pennsylvania. So there are other currents on Capitol Hill that may flow from this, but this is basically an escape resolution from congressional responsibility over the White House for this war.

AMY GOODMAN: Are you planning to run for president again?

RALPH NADER: Too early to say. I think we need more voices and choices. I think the speech by former Senator Mike Gravel indicates there’s going to be a wider debate in the primaries of the Democratic Party, along with Congressman Dennis Kucinich. There are lots of people in this country urging Bill Moyers to run in the Democratic primary. He would certainly give it more depth. And I hope more independent candidates and third-party candidates run. We’ve got to break this two-party elected dictatorship that’s being measured by how much money it raises.

AMY GOODMAN: You said on Wolf Blitzer’s show yesterday that if Hillary Rodham Clinton got the Democratic nomination, you would consider running?

RALPH NADER: Well, there would be more need for a broader spectrum of views by more candidates. I don’t think she has the fortitude to stand up to corporate power, whether it’s ripping off Washington by corporations or the bloated military budget or corporate crime, fraud and abuse. It has a lot of roots right in her backyard, in Wall Street, Spitzer prosecution land. I don’t think she has it. And she has this increasingly distasteful habit of pandering and flattering in her public appearances. And she panders to special interest groups that need to be given the straight truth, and she flatters people in her audience. And I think that is a sign that she thinks she’s a frontrunner and she can play cautious.

AMY GOODMAN: So if she were to win the Democratic nomination and the other candidates were to concede and drop out of the race, would you run?

RALPH NADER: Well, there would be more important need to run, but I haven’t decided. And I won’t decide until later this year.

AMY GOODMAN: What would determine it for you?

RALPH NADER: Well, that factor, one, and whether we can get enough petitioners to get on the streets to overcome the likely harassing lawsuits and attrition by the Democratic Party in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. But, basically, you can’t run a campaign like this unless you get a lot of young people who are contacting you all over the country and who want a new politics in America and who want to develop the skills for future campaigns in their own right. That’s really what we’re looking for now.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go right now to the clip of the documentary that’s just come out about Ralph Nader. And when we come back from break, we’ll be joined not only by Ralph Nader, but by one of the producers of the film. It’s called An Unreasonable Man.

TODD GITLIN: One is always right, one is prefabricated in purity. This is Ralph Nader’s understanding of the world.

ERIC ALTERMAN: The man needs to go away. I think he needs to live in a different country. He’s done enough damage to this one. Let him damage somebody else’s now.

MARK GREEN: In the late ’60s and early ’70s, Ralph would be in national polls as one of the most famous admired Americans.

HENRIETTE MANTEL: People would write to him thinking that he could solve their problem. I think Ralph got more mail than The Beatles.

JOE TOM EASLEY: Ralph had decided to do six or eight teams attacking different agencies.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION MAN: Members of the press have referred to you as "Nader’s Raiders."

JOE TOM EASLEY: We were going to make the country what it ought to be by working and pressing the system to work.

DAVID BOLLIER: He had built a legislative record as a private citizen that would have been the envy of any modern president.

JIM MUSSELMAN: Imagine if you got in a car and the airbag said "Ralph Nader," or if the seat belt said "Nader," or you look at the air and it’s cleaner and it says "Nader" on it. If people would see that on a day-to-day basis, they’d understand the effect that this guy has had on their daily life.

ERIC ALTERMAN: Thank you, Ralph, for the Iraq War. Thank you, Ralph, for the tax cuts. Thank you, Ralph, for the destruction of the environment. Thank you, Ralph, for the destruction of the Constitution.

RALPH NADER: I do think that Al Gore cost me the election.

GENE KARPINSKI: That I used to work for that guy. I was so proud of all that, and now, every time I — you know, what’s that crazy guy up to?

RALPH NADER: Maybe if we started talking about civic globalization instead of corporate globalization, the world would move forward.

We don’t have a government of, by and for the people. We have a government of the Exxons, by the General Motors, for the Duponts.

PHIL DONAHUE: They killed him for saying that there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties. And then the Democrats spent the next four years proving that he was right.

JIMMY CARTER: Ralph, go back to examining the rear end of automobiles.

PAT BUCHANAN: I think our democracy is a fraud. It’s a consumer fraud.

JAMES RIDGEWAY: He actually believes in the legal system, and he believes in the marketplace. He believes in all these really American things, and he’s trashed for it.

RALPH NADER: When I was 10, my father said, "Well, Ralph, what did you learn in school today? Did you learn how to believe or did you learn how to think?"

JOE TOM EASLEY: I wouldn’t want this to hurt his legacy.

RALPH NADER: I don’t care about my personal legacy.

AMY GOODMAN: Excerpt of An Unreasonable Man. When we come back from break, the director of the film, Henriette Mantel, and Ralph Nader. Stay with us.


AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to the co-director of An Unreasonable Man, Henriette Mantel. Ralph Nader still in studio with us in Washington, D.C. Henriette, why did you decide to do this film?

HENRIETTE MANTEL: We just — Steve and myself — wanted to inform people who Ralph is and what happened. I was kind of sick of all the stories going around without people being informed, as to the way the story came down, to who Ralph was all through the ’60s and ’70s and who he still is.

AMY GOODMAN: And talk about how you researched this film, and talk about the different views that you bring out — for example, Eric Alterman.

HENRIETTE MANTEL: Well, this film originally became what it is, because we started on a sitcom idea. We’re both comedy writers. And Steve had a development deal. And we had discussed this over the years — Ralph’s story — and we started to write it as a sitcom, but the more we interviewed people, everybody that had worked around Ralph for years and years, the more it just became obvious that we had to tell the story in documentary form, especially after 2000.

AMY GOODMAN: And the different reactions you got from people you were interviewing?

HENRIETTE MANTEL: Well, we would have loved to get more reactions of people that were, you know, adamantly spreading rumors about Ralph and everything else, but Eric Alterman and Todd Gitlin, my hat’s off to them, because they would go on camera and voice their opinion opposing Ralph. A lot of people would not go on camera. They just wouldn’t. Like, they would talk, you know, to us, but then when we turned on the camera, "Oh, I’m not going to be on camera."

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, your reaction to the film?

RALPH NADER: Well, I react functionally to it. I think it’s a very compressed and adroit film over 40 years of activity, which really takes a lot of talent to get in there and keep people’s attention. And it’s going to inform tens of millions of younger people, certainly under 40 years. And I hope it will stimulate some of them, and some of the people who watch it in their teen years and their twenties, to say, "You know, we can improve this country and the world. What are we waiting for? Let’s stop rationalizing our own futility and get to work."

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader came to prominence in the early '60s, when he began to take on powerful corporations and work with local activists on their campaigns. Let's go to another clip of the film, An Unreasonable Man.

JIM MUSSELMAN: Once I got everybody going forward on an issue, Ralph would come in and give a speech to really empower them more and say, "You guys aren’t alone here."

DAVID BOLLIER: When the community of Poletown in Detroit was going to be condemned so that General Motors could build a new Cadillac plant there, Ralph provided direct assistance for them to physically resist the bulldozers.

JIM MUSSELMAN: In Van Nuys, there were a lot of children coming down with leukemia in a neighborhood, and a General Motors plant was there, and they put benzene in the paint, which was causing cancer and leukemia. We got them to change the way that they manufactured the paint.

AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt of An Unreasonable Man. Ralph Nader, can you expand on that, on the early activism and your work around GM, how you started the PIRGs and your organizations?

RALPH NADER: Well, those are the days when the antiwar movement, women’s rights, civil rights movements, provided a backdrop for what we were doing. I mean, they made us look rather modest. And we were working in the environmental, worker, consumer areas. And the Congress opened its doors to hearings. There were members of Congress who actually went to Washington to represent people for a change. And Lyndon Johnson, even Nixon, were willing to sign many of those basic bills, like OSHA and EPA and auto safety, Product Safety Commission legislation.

And, obviously, after time, we realized that there needs to be thousands of young activists, so we formed these teams, not only on federal agencies to expose them and push them to higher heights of performance for folks, like the Food and Drug Administration or the Department of Agriculture. We also went out into the field, and we started student public interest research groups based on student referendums at colleges and putting $4, $5, $6 check-offs on their tuition bill to support these nonprofit groups, which would be run by an elected student board of directors. So you have NYPIRG now in New York City and the rest of the state. You have MASSPIRG — PIRG standing for "public interest research group" — in Massachusetts. There are about 20 of them all over the country. And over the years, they really generate a lot of civic leaders who are now working in their communities — some of them are elected to office — to strengthen our democratic society.

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, at the same time that An Unreasonable Man has been released, you have a new small book out called The Seventeen Traditions, which is different from the other books that you have written. It’s very much about your family life, how you grew up in Winsted, Connecticut. Can you talk about what the 17 traditions are?

RALPH NADER: Well, there are 17 ways my mother and father raised their four children — two girls and two boys — in this factory town crossed by two rivers and highlighted by a wonderful lake in northwest Connecticut. And I call them "traditions," because I would like to encourage other families to look into their own wisdom and insight and experience in their generation line — say, grandparents and great aunts and uncles and parents — because if those traditions are lost, they’re lost forever, and they’re not transferred to young people who often are adrift in periods of change. So, we have the tradition of learning, was the first one in the book. My mother said you have to learn to listen, and if you learn to listen, then you’ll listen and learn, something I wish George Bush was raised to do. We have a tradition of history. They would always immerse us in history at the dinner table, and we’d have books about history. So, we have stamp collections to teach us geography.

Then there are traditions of charity, traditions of business. My father had a restaurant, where they said for a nickel you got a cup of coffee and 10 minutes of politics. So it was a big restaurant with a lot of politics from the workers in the textile mills, of the jurors on the lunch break from the courtroom, and salespeople and doctors and carpenters, you name it.

Traditions like the tradition of scarcity; they never overloaded us with things so we wouldn’t appreciate them. There was a tradition of simple enjoyments, not commercial enjoyments today, like a $100 Nintendo toy. We had bicycles. We had puzzles. We had hiking in the woods and the fields, etc.

There were tradition of civics. We watched our parents, while they took us to the town meetings and the courtroom. But we watched them active in the community and absorbed that kind of family value. Civic values, they saw, were family values. And so, there were these kinds of traditions of health, for example, and teaching us to take care of ourselves. These are the traditions that raised us.

The other day, watching George W. Bush, it occurred to me that if mother raised George W. Bush, we wouldn’t be in the Iraq War at the present time.

AMY GOODMAN: Both your parents were born in Lebanon?


AMY GOODMAN: And you went back to Lebanon with your brothers and sisters when you were little? Your mother took you there for about a year?

RALPH NADER: Yes. I was about three and a half.

AMY GOODMAN: And how does that influence your worldview today?

RALPH NADER: Well, obviously, it gave us a bigger arc of concern and interest in the world. I mean, we went to the ancient ruins in Baalbek in Lebanon. We obviously were immersed in the culture there. We learned the language. We learned the lore of our background, our great great grandparents. You know, there was an oral tradition there. We learned how to ride donkeys, too.

AMY GOODMAN: The bombing of Lebanon this past summer and the Iraq War, what does your being an Arab American — how do you feel that informs your view?

RALPH NADER: Well, you don’t have to be an Arab American. You just have to be interested in understanding historical precedence. For example, Iran’s prime minister was overthrown by our country in 1953. The U.S. government under Reagan encouraged and supplied Saddam Hussein with the materials to invade Iran and slice it off for — part of it off for Iraq. We have labeled Iran an axis of evil. That has a tremendous impact, especially since we did it to Iraq and invaded them next door, has a tremendous impact on a proud Persian history. I mean, there was a time when they were the dominant force in the world, and they remember those things. And they feel humiliated.

George W. Bush came to the presidency. I think he had been abroad once or twice. He didn’t know anything about world history. And he was proud of saying he didn’t read newspapers. He was proud of his ignorance. And we’re paying the price for that. It’s not just his obsession. It’s not just his messianic militarism. It’s his profound ignorance.

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, your father used to ask you, "What did you learn in school today?"

RALPH NADER: Yeah. One day I went home and in the backyard, and he said, "Ralph, what did you learn in school today? Did you learn how to believe, or did you learn how to think?"

Another event I remember in the backyard — a beautiful spring day, my parents were there with my siblings — and my mother said, "How much is a dozen eggs?" We knew all the prices, because we were restaurateurs’ children. And so, she said, "How much is a bushel of apples? How much is a pound of butter?" And then she stopped and she looked up, and she said, "Nice cool breeze, isn’t it? How much is that? What’s that sunshine worth? Look at those birds. Hear those birds singing those beautiful songs. What price should we put on that?" That really at an early age taught me that there are certain things that should be never for sale. And that’s, in our democracy, elections should never be for sale. Politicians should never be for sale. Teachers should never be for sale.

So, from those 17 traditions, I developed a linkage with the civic advocacy and things that I wrote and spoke about as an adult. And I think that people are very interested in this book, because it’s personal, it has good stories about life in New England at that time, which will resonate with parents and children in terms of their own recollections. I think people have to recollect more. They have to rebuild the solidarity of their family line in a period of great tumult and change, when they think that everything is out of control around their lives, their jobs and their children.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Ralph Nader, as you were taught to question, I want to go back to the documentary, An Unreasonable Man. This was at the time when you were being shut out of the presidential debates, and it was also the time of your mega-rallies of thousands, of more than 10,000 people. It begins by talking about how the press virtually ignored your Madison Square Garden rally, which drew some 20,000 people in 2000.

JASON KAFOURY: I expected us to be on the front page of The New York Times. And we had a story, but it was buried, you know, 20 pages in. No other political person, Bush or Gore, hadn’t gotten 20,000 people to pay money to hear them speak all campaign. Ralph was the only guy doing it. And yet the establishment media froze us out.

THERESA AMATO: And the kind of coverage that we did get was all about the horse race: How are you going to affect Al Gore? From the very beginning months of the campaign, we knew in 2000 and in 2004 we would have to try to get into the presidential debates.

PHIL DONAHUE: Ralph Nader could visit every city and town in this nation personally and not reach 10 percent of the people who watch the debates.

AMY GOODMAN: Yes, that last speaker, Phil Donahue, and that is from An Unreasonable Man. Henriette Mantel is the co-director, writer and producer — executive producer of An Unreasonable Man. You also were Ralph’s office manager, and you’re in this film.

HENRIETTE MANTEL: Right. Yeah. The reason I’m in the film, though, is because we were practicing trying to use the camera, and then it ended up that I had said a few things. Yes. But I was his office manager. That was my first job in the real world, I guess, when I was 21.

AMY GOODMAN: And what was that like?

HENRIETTE MANTEL: It was interesting, because it was 1979 when Three Mile Island blew up, and so it was very, very, very busy there. And that’s a part of the movie that, in fact, will be on the DVD extra. So many parts, stories that we had to tell — the original version of the movie was three-and-a-half hours, and we had to get it down to about two hours, so that it could be in theaters. And the No Nukes years are a story that we told that will be on the DVD extras.

AMY GOODMAN: You’re a well-known comedian now, Henriette. Why take the time out to do this?

HENRIETTE MANTEL: Because other comedians were yelling at me about Ralph, and I got sick of them. No, I just wanted to inform people as to who the Ralph I knew and why he did what he did and what he had done in the '60s and ’70s, because it felt like so many people just knew Ralph from 2000, and all these, you know, myths and rumors that weren't true about Ralph. So I just wanted to tell a story. I actually — you know, they can decide whatever they want to decide after they see the movie. I just want them to be informed as to what the story is.

RALPH NADER: And I think they saw some of the political bigotry against third-party candidates and how shallow the analysis of people like Eric Alterman were. You don’t measure the impact of one candidate against another after Election Day. It’s the dynamics in the weeks and months before. Pushing Gore more to the left to criticize big corporations actually got Gore far more votes than whatever, quote, "I took from him." Look at that, "I took from him," like a third-party candidate is a second-class citizen, when in the 19th century it was third parties — anti-slavery, women’s right to vote, labor, farmer — that provided the new ideas for the great social justice movements that finally one of the major parties or the other adopted. Now, that’s another benefit of the film.

I think Henriette and Steve should really be gratified, Amy, by the reviews. The reviews have almost been uniformly positive: New Yorker, New York Magazine, New York Times, Village Voice, L.A. Times. It opened in New York on 31st January, and I hope more people see it, and I hope more films are done on many leading activists in our past, like Saul Alinsky and Chavez and others, because we need to put these models, these activities in front of younger people who get very demoralized and give up too early in their lives from changing the country and world for the better.

AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, I wanted to go back to the campaign of 2008 and campaign finance issues, because now the presidential campaign of 2008 — we have just entered 2007 — is in full swing. What does that mean for campaign finance and public financing of campaigns?

RALPH NADER: It’s going to blow it through the roof. I mean, where it is considered incredible that George W. Bush from his corporate buddies raised $140 million in '04, now the press is talking about Hillary and McCain and Giuliani raising $200 million, $300 million. If Mayor Bloomberg gets in the race — and let me tell you, they're talking about it in his circles — he’ll spend half-a-billion dollars from his own fortune, which means that the press not only deals largely with the horse race instead of the substantive issues and the records of the candidates, it deals with like a bar graph. You know, how much did Hillary raise this last week compared to McCain? It’s so rancid. It’s so disrespectful of the voters in this country. We’ve got to urge the press to wake up to its own responsibilities here and cover the substance, the necessities of the American people, the access to the electoral process by candidates, the participation of voters during the campaign in auditoriums around the country.

AMY GOODMAN: Hillary Clinton has pulled out of public financing?

RALPH NADER: Oh, yeah. All the majors are going to pull out. It’s not enough for them.

AMY GOODMAN: And your thoughts on Barack Obama?

RALPH NADER: Well, he’s got more to prove. He’s sprouting a lot of antennas of caution and concern, because when you’re a viable candidate, as he is, they don’t become bolder, they become more cautious. He’s certainly got the intellectual capacity. He was a community organizer among the poor in Chicago. He actually worked with NYPIRG for a short time in New York. But whether he has those personality and characters — characteristics that provide the definition of a real leader, speaking truth to power and really taking those solutions in our country off the shelf and putting them to work, even though the auto companies and the drug and oil companies may squeal and squawk, that is yet to be determined. But he’s got an opportunity to determine it.

AMY GOODMAN: John Edwards taking on the issue of poverty in this country and healthcare?

RALPH NADER: Yeah, very good. Very good, taking on — you know, he’s not just talking about the middle class, which Clinton and Gore always did and ignored tens of millions of poor Americans, not to mention people in the middle class falling into that category these days, as more and more people are pauperized. But he’s got a problem of fortitude, too, on some issues. He’s not that good on some foreign policy issues, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Iraq War, he was late on. He’s got to raise the whole corporate crime fraud and abuse and the bloated military budget and the misallocation of priorities to a much higher level in his addresses.

AMY GOODMAN: Now that you have said you could run against Hillary Rodham Clinton if she gets the nomination, have her people approached you in the last 24 hours?

RALPH NADER: Oh, no. No. I mean, she’s very aloof. And when it comes to me, there’s probably even a hyperbole of aloof. She wouldn’t debate Jonathan Tasini in the New York run. He got 17 percent of the vote with no money in the primary against her. She wouldn’t debate her own Republican opponent more than once, I think, and very reluctantly. She wouldn’t debate Howie Hawkins. She wouldn’t let him on the debate, the Green Party out of Syracuse, a wonderful community organizer and a person who would have broadened the debate. She is not an example of democratic campaigning. She is a big business example of cash register campaigning.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you, Ralph Nader, for joining us from Washington, D.C. — we’ll say "possible" presidential candidate in 2008 — and Henriette Mantel, comedian, co-director and producer with Steve Skrovan of this new film called An Unreasonable Man. She also played Alice in The Brady Bunch: The Movie. Thanks, both. Ralph Nader’s book is called The Seventeen Traditions.
Site Admin
Posts: 31759
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:57 am


by League of Conservation Voters
7/27/15 ...



Gene joined LCV in April 2006 after serving for more than a dozen years as a member of the LCV and LCVEF Boards of Directors and the LCV Political Committee. Under Gene’s leadership, LCV has played a lead role in the environmental community’s efforts to pass clean energy and climate policies. Additionally, LCV’s electoral budget has more than tripled since 2006. Prior to joining LCV, Gene worked for 21 years as the Executive Director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG), the national lobbying office for state PIRGs across the country, where he led many national environmental issue campaigns. He has served on a number of national boards, including America Votes, Earth Share, the Partnership Project, the Beldon Fund, and the National Association for Public Interest Law. Gene is a graduate of Brown University and Georgetown University Law Center.
Site Admin
Posts: 31759
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:32 pm

Environmentalists’ campaign spending on midterms to see huge jump this year
By Juliet Eilperin
September 5, 2014



The League of Conservation Voters will spend $25 million in campaign funding this election season, a fivefold increase over what the group devoted to the last midterm elections, LCV President Gene Karpinski said in an interview.

The spending will be largely devoted to key Senate races but also will go to a handful of gubernatorial and state legislative contests. The increased funding reflects the growing role of environmentalists as political money players. Climate activist and billionaire Tom Steyer has already spent $22 million on federal and state candidates this election cycle and plans to devote at least $26 million more. Steyer is a major LCV funder.

“We are poised to make, by far, the biggest investment we’ve ever made in elections,” Karpinski said in an interview, adding that the group’s efforts are “making climate change part of the conversation” in races across the country.

The group has ramped up its spending in recent years, rising from $5 million in 2010 to $15 million in 2012. It also has joined with another major environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund PAC, to run the GiveGreen program, which has raised or contributed $4 million so far this election cycle to individual federal candidates.

The Environmental Defense Action Fund, which has traditionally only given money directly to candidates, has already spent more than $1 million in federal and state races in Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan and New York this year.

FTI Consulting senior director Matt Dempsey, whose clients include several fossil-fuel industry interests, questioned whether green groups would be able to sway voters.

“Anti-fossil fuel groups, no matter how much money they spend, face an uphill battle at the ballot box because they simply cannot explain to the public how they plan to meet energy needs without fossil fuels, both now and in the future,” Dempsey wrote in an e-mail.

Dempsey noted that several of the Senate Democrats up for reelection, including Mark Begich (Alaska), Kay Hagan (N.C.) and Mary Landrieu (La.), support the Keystone XL pipeline, which most national environmental groups oppose. LCV is backing Begich and Hagan, as well as Mark Udall (Colo), who describes himself as “a champion of Colorado’s natural gas industry”; the three incumbents support mandatory federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.

Environmentalists’ deeper involvement in both state and federal campaigns represents, to a large extent, a recognition that legislation curbing greenhouse gas emissions on a broad scale will remain out of reach for years without a major political shift in Washington and state capitals.

Elizabeth Thompson, Environmental Defense Action Fund’s president, said in a statement that her organization is “making a major investment to build a bipartisan movement for environmental progress. . . . It won’t be easy or quick, but we’re convinced that solving the biggest challenges will require both parties at the table. Our goal is to show both sides that good climate policy is smart politics.”

The races LCV is targeting — including Senate contests in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire and North Carolina, as well as the Maine gubernatorial race, where it is opposing Gov. Paul LePage’s (R) reelection, and state legislative races in Oregon and Washington — all involve significant contrasts between the two candidates on climate change and other signature environmental issues.

It has endorsed just four Republicans this cycle — Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) and three state legislators, all of whom faced primaries. It also intervened in two Democratic primaries, successfully backing Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii) and Maine state Sen. Emily Cain, who is trying to succeed Rep. Michael H. Michaud (D).

The issue of climate change has come up in several of these races, such as when former senator Scott Brown (R-Mass.), who is challenging Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), responded to a question of whether “the theory of man-made climate change has been scientifically proven” during a GOP primary debate by saying, “Uh, no.”

Brown spokeswoman Elizabeth Guyton said in a statement that he “believes that the climate is changing by a combination of natural and man-made causes.”

Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action Committee — which is giving money not only to environmental organizations but also to labor, abortion rights, veterans and Latino groups — “will be a seven-figure supporter of our work in 2014,” Karpinski said. The committee has donated $650,000 to LCV’s super PAC this election cycle, which was spent on various races including Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey’s special election.

“There’s not a day that goes by that someone on our team doesn’t talk to someone on the Steyer team,” Karpinski said.

NextGen Climate Action spokesman Bobby Whithorne wrote in an e-mail that his group is canvassing with LCV “in several states and supporting their efforts on the ground in numerous races. We look forward to working together over the next eight weeks to bring climate change to the ballot box.”

The spike in spending by environmental activists has sparked a response from groups aligned with industry and the GOP. The conservative group American Commitment has run ads in Colorado and Iowa questioning Steyer’s support for Democratic Senate candidates, and groups such as American Crossroads, Americans For Prosperity and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have run ads on the Keystone pipeline and energy in that state. Groups affiliated with the libertarian billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch have provided financial support for the opponents of all of the Senate candidates LCV is backing, a fact it has highlighted in five separate ads in four states.

Some of the ads LCV has run so far, such as those attacking Iowa GOP Senate candidate Joni Ernst, address policies on education as much as the environment. Dan Weiss, LCV’s senior vice president for campaigns, said the group highlighted Ernst’s support for eliminating the Education Department and Environmental Protection Agency because “we want to make it clear to Iowans that she doesn’t share their priorities.”

While the ads have been the most visible sign of green groups’ spending, LCV will devote many of its resources to grass-roots efforts. Weiss said the group will have 2,000 people working in 19 offices and will contact 750,000 voters who typically don’t vote in off-year elections in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire and North Carolina.

Juliet Eilperin is The Washington Post's White House bureau chief, covering domestic and foreign policy as well as the culture of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. She is the author of two books—one on sharks, and another on Congress, not to be confused with each other—and has worked for the Post since 1998.
Site Admin
Posts: 31759
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 9:40 pm


Tom Steyer
by Wikipedia



Tom Steyer
Born Thomas Fahr Steyer
June 27, 1957 (age 58)
New York City, New York U.S.
Alma mater Yale University
Stanford University
Net worth IncreaseUS$1.6 billion
(March 2014)[1]
Political party Democratic
Spouse(s) Kathryn Ann Taylor
Children 4
Website Official website

Thomas Fahr "Tom" Steyer (born June 27, 1957) is an American hedge fund manager, philanthropist, and environmentalist.[2]

Steyer is the founder and former Co-Senior Managing Partner of Farallon Capital Management, LLC and the co-founder of the OneCalifornia Bank, an Oakland-based community development bank.[2] Steyer is responsible for funding the creation of the TomKat Center for Sustainable Energy at Stanford University, part of the Precourt Institute of Energy.[3] Since 1986, he has been a partner and member of the Executive Committee at Hellman & Friedman, a San Francisco-based $8 billion private equity firm. Farallon Capital Management, LLC, manages $20 billion in capital for institutions and high-net-worth individuals. The firm’s institutional investors are primarily college endowments and foundations.[2][4]

In 2010, Steyer and his wife signed the Giving Pledge to donate half their fortune to charity.[5] Steyer is on the board of Next Generation, a non-profit that intends to tackle children's issues and the environment.[6][7] He serves on the Board of Trustees at Stanford University[8] and is active in political campaign fundraising.

Early life and education

Steyer was born in New York City in 1957. His mother, Marnie (née Fahr), was a teacher of remedial reading at the Brooklyn House of Detention, and his father, Roy Henry Steyer, was a partner in the New York law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell.[9][10] His mother was Episcopalian and his father Jewish (a member of the Reform Jewish Congregation Emanu-El of New York).[11]

1950s: MK-Ultra

The outrages perpetrated by Ewen Cameron became the most notorious aspect of the postwar Anglo-American mind-control program. Cameron had trained at the Royal Mental Hospital in Glasgow, under eugenicist Sir David Henderson, and founded the Canadian branch of his friend John R. Rees's World Federation for Mental Health. In the various member countries and subdivisions, these channels of British intelligence operations are known as the national, provincial, or state Mental Health Associations. Cameron was also elected president of the Canadian, American, and world psychiatric associations. He became famous after the CIA was sued by some survivors of his work—because the CIA had financed the tortures. Cameron would drug his victims to sleep for weeks on end, waking them daily only to administer violent electric shocks to the brain. He used the British Page-Russell electroconvulsive method, an initial one-second shock, then five to nine additional shocks, administered while the patient was in seizure. But he increased the normal voltage and the number of sequences from one to two or three times per day. Patients lost all or part of their memories, and some lost the ability to control their bodily functions and to speak. At least one patient was reduced almost to a vegetable; then Cameron had the cognitive centers of her brain surgically cut apart, while keeping her alive. Some subjects were deposited permanently in institutions for the hopelessly insane. For the CIA, Cameron tested the South American poison called curare, which kills a victim while simulating natural heart failure. But Cameron claims to have used it only in non-lethal doses to further immobilize his subjects while they were kept in sensory deprivation tortures for as long as 65 days. Then they would be given lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) for “programmable” hallucinations. When the subject was sufficiently devastated, Cameron and his assistant, a veteran of the British Royal Signals Corps, would begin “Psychic Driving”: Through a loudspeaker hidden under the pillow, or through unremovable earphones, they would play a tape over and over again to burn certain phrases into what was left of the victim's memory. The CIA was found to have financed these horrors, as well as ghastly experiments in other locations, using a front called the Society for the Study of Human Ecology. (The society gave a grant for a study of the effects of circumcision on young Turkish boys, the grantees to be in Istanbul, studying five to seven year olds and their problems with their genitals. It is claimed that this was intended to give a cover to the CIA front as a real academic organization.)

The question of sponsorship

But the authorship of this enterprise cannot reasonably be assigned to the CIA, per se. Even before we review other agencies' direct involvement, we must understand that the CIA chief during MK-Ultra, Allen Dulles, was thoroughly attached to British Empire geopolitical aims. Introduced to British spies by his uncle Robert Lansing, Woodrow Wilson's secretary of state, Dulles had had a strong personal identification since childhood with the British Secret Intelligence Service. The Dulles family's upper class-status in America began when ancestor William Dulles arrived in South Carolina from India. With a fortune made in India by providing financial and security services for the British East India Company army, he bought a slave plantation which the family held through the American Civil War. The family's mental life was always that of the British Empire and its American colonial subordinates. Allen Dulles's main corporate activity was as a director of the J. Henry Schroder banking company in London, a prime instrument in Montagu Norman's nazification of Germany. As partners in the Sullivan and Cromwell firm, Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles represented the Rockefeller-Harriman-Warburg combination, I.G. Farben, and virtually every other Nazi corporate organization that danced on London's marionette strings. It was disclosed that for MK-Ultra, particularly for the experimental use and distribution of LSD, the CIA operated through another front, the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation. But the geometry of the “front” really worked the other way around. The Macy Foundation represented the British psychological warfare executive, as extended into U.S. and related institutions. In the midst of launching MK-Ultra, during 1954-55, the Macy Foundation's medical director Frank Fremont-Smith was president of British General Rees's World Federation of Mental Health. Under Rees as the director, the two together “made a journey to a number of countries in Asia and Africa to establish contacts and seek ways in which the organization may extend its activities in those regions.” Through official military and intelligence conferences over which it presided, and through various informal and secret operations, the Macy Foundation directed the spread of LSD by U.S. agencies during the 1950s. The Macy Foundation's chief LSD executive, Harold Abramson, was a psychiatric researcher at Columbia University and at the eugenics center in Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York. It was Abramson who first “turned on” Frank Fremont-Smith. Abramson also gave LSD for the first time to British anthropologist Gregory Bateson, sometime husband of Margaret Mead. Then in 1959, Bateson gave LSD to Beat poet Alan Ginsburg at Stanford University, under controlled experimental conditions. Following this, Dr. Leo Hollister at Stanford gave LSD to mental patient turned author Ken Kesey and others, and thus it was said to have spread “out of the CIA's realm.”

-- British Psychiatry: From Eugenics to Assassination, by Anton Chaitkin

He attended the Buckley School, Philips Exeter Academy and graduated from Yale University summa cum laude in economics and political science and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He was captain of the Yale soccer team. Steyer received his MBA from Stanford Business School, where he was an Arjay Miller Scholar.[12]


Early career

Prior to joining Hellman & Friedman, Steyer worked at Goldman Sachs from 1983-85 as an associate in the risk arbitrage department under Robert Rubin. He began his professional career at Morgan Stanley in 1979.[2]

Farallon Capital Management

Steyer founded Farallon Capital Management, LLC in January 1986.[13] Farallon employs approximately 165 people in eight offices globally and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.[14] Farallon is considered a pioneer in the practice of “absolute return” investing, a strategy that aims to produce a positive absolute return regardless of the directions of financial markets.[2] To that end, Farallon makes credit investments, value investments, merger arbitrage, real estate-related investments and direct investments. It also invests in public and private debt and equity securities, and direct investments in private companies and real estate.[15]

Steyer announced in October 2012 that he would be stepping down from his position at Farallon in order to focus on political activism, in particular on advocating for alternative energy.[16] He cited his desire to focus on giving back "full time" and to revolve his life around service. In an interview he said, "I've tried to organize a business voice for what I call advanced energy....I think I'm going to be focused on how to, is there a way to move the needle in some way having to do with thought or policy. And I don't know what shape that's going to take.”[17]

Investments in coal projects

Steyer decided to dispose of his carbon-polluting investments in 2012, although critics say he didn't dispose of them fast enough. Steyer sold his ownership stake in Farallon, but still owns an investment, although his aides said he no longer earns profits. Some of the coal mines and coal power plants they invested in will continue to operate for as much as 30 years. For example, Farallon made tens of millions of dollars from developing the Maules Creek coal mine in Australia, which is opposed by environmentalists. [18][19][20]

Kilowatt Financial, LLC

In 2015, the Washington Free Beacon reported that documents filed with secretaries of state in California and Texas named Steyer as a manager of Kilowatt Financial LLC.[21]


Giving Pledge

In August 2010, Steyer and his wife, Kat Taylor, joined Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and 37 other American billionaires in pledging to give away at least half their fortunes during their lifetime.[22] Business people “are pretty widely mistrusted and seen as overwhelmingly self-interested,” Steyer said. “The point is that business people are not just laboring for themselves. They have bigger responsibilities and belong to a wider community.”[23]

Community development

Steyer and his wife founded OneCalifornia Bank, now known as One PacificCoast Bank, a community development bank.[24] The bank functions as a regulated financial institution, insured and for-profit just like other banks, but provides commercial banking services to underserved Bay Area businesses, nonprofits and individuals. Steyer and Taylor put up $22.5 million to start the bank and create the One PacificCoast Foundation to engage in charitable and educational activities, provide lending support, investments and other services for disadvantaged communities and community service organizations in California. Steyer and Taylor maintain mission focus and control of the bank, but take no economic benefit or repayment from their investment as they donated 100% of their economic interest in One PacificCoast Bank to One PacificCoast Foundation.[25][26] In August 2010, the University of San Francisco awarded OneCalifornia Bank and Foundation the 2010 University of San Francisco California Prize for Service and the Common Good.[27]

TomKat Ranch

The couple created the TomKat Ranch in Pescadero, California. The ranch's philanthropic endeavors include underwriting healthy food programs and co-producing an independent film, La Mission, starring Benjamin Bratt, about San Francisco's Mission neighborhood.[28]


Steyer and Taylor also helped found OneRoof, a social business designed to bring technology to rural India. Over the past four years OneRoof has opened computer centers to connect poor residents of India with the information revolution.[29]


In 2008, Steyer and Taylor gave $41 million to create the TomKat Center for Sustainable Energy at Stanford University. The center focuses on the development of affordable renewable energy technologies and promotion of public policies that make renewable energy more accessible. Projects include the creation of lighter, less toxic, and more durable batteries and an analysis of the current power grid’s ability to support future renewable energy technologies.[3][30]

Political activism

Steyer is a leading Democratic activist and fundraiser. In 1983, he worked on the Walter Mondale for President campaign.[24] He raised money for Bill Bradley in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. An early supporter of Hillary Clinton for President, Steyer became one of Barack Obama’s most prolific fundraisers. Steyer served as a delegate to the Democratic National Conventions in 2004 and 2008, and has been a member of the Hamilton Project since 2005.[2] Steyer, one of the backers of Greener Capital, has been accused of reaping benefits from the anti-oil policies of the Obama administration.[31][32] In January 2013, rumors briefly arose that Steyer might be named as a replacement for Energy Secretary Steven Chu.[33] Asked whether he would accept such an appointment, Steyer said yes.[34]

Steyer is seen as an adversary to some of the political activities of the Koch brothers.[35][36]

Steyer is involved with the Democracy Alliance, a network of progressive donors whose membership in the group requires them to donate at least $200,000 a year to recommended organizations.[37][38]

Steyer co-chairs a group called Risky Business that raises awareness of the projected economic impact of climate change.[39]

No on Prop 23

Steyer donated $2.5 million and pledged to contribute $2.5 million more to the No on Prop. 23 campaign, the measure on the November 2010 ballot concerning California's environmental legislation, AB32. Steyer joined former Secretary of State and Republican George Shultz, to co-chair the No on Prop. 23 campaign.[40][41]

Steyer was reportedly "peeved" that out-of-state activists were backing a California measure, and was convinced that passage would hurt California's environment and economy. Steyer described "stepping up" and donating $5 million - the largest sum donated - and driving to people's homes to campaign.

Steyer's political emergence was a success and the proposition was defeated.[42]

DNC speech

Steyer gave a speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention. He commented that the election was “a choice about whether to go backward or forward. And that choice is especially stark when it comes to energy.” Steyer said that Romney would take no action to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels; rather, he said he would increase it. Steyer went on to support Obama's policies, which he described as investments to "make us energy independent and create thousands of jobs.”[43]

Prop 39

Steyer was the leading sponsor of Proposition 39 on the 2012 ballot in California. Its purpose was to close a loophole that allowed multi-state corporations to pay taxes out of state, mandating that they pay in California. Steyer contributed $21.9 million, saying that he could wait no longer for the change.[44][45]

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said that the level of giving was unprecedented: "We’ve seen companies giving that much, and unions and PACs that have a lot at stake giving $10, $20 million in an election, but you didn’t see that so much for individual donors.”[44] While supporters of Steyer's effort said it would “help break the partisan gridlock in Sacramento,” critics objected that “the increasing involvement of rich individuals perverts the original intent of the initiatives.[44] The passage of Prop 39 was described as “a $1 billion corporate tax increase that somehow slipped under the radar” and a huge political story that somehow went unnoticed. It was noted that the backers' strategy was to eliminate political opposition before it could materialize. Tom Steyer added $30 million into the Yes on Proposition 39 campaign, warning opponents that “it would be impossible to wage an opposition campaign on the cheap.”[46][47]

2013 Virginia gubernatorial election

Steyer supported the campaign of Democrat Terry McAuliffe in the 2013 Virginia Gubernatorial race through his NextGen Climate Action political committee. This support consisted primarily of releasing ads meant to portray McAuliffe's rival, Ken Cuccinelli, as extreme on environmental issues, and in Get out the vote efforts.[48]

2014 political influence

In 2014, Steyer committed to funding political campaigns in at least seven states to influence climate change policy through his PAC, NextGEN Climate.[49] In June, Steyer said he planned to get involved in California legislature to affect climate change policy by targeting three to four races in each house of the Legislature.[50] In the summer, he founded a political action committee in Florida, leading a major investment in the Gubernatorial race. Steyer cited Florida's pivotal role in the 2016 presidential election and its geographic position, which makes it highly vulnerable to climate change, as reasons for his focus on the state. [51]

However, though spending $57 million of his personal fortune, he and his organization were largely unsuccessful, as of the seven Senate and governors’ candidates NextGEN Climate supported, only three won their races.[52]

Personal life

In August 1986, he married Kathryn Ann Taylor. She is a graduate of Harvard College and earned a J.D./M.B.A. from Stanford University. The Rev. Richard Thayer, a Presbyterian minister, and Rabbi Charles Familant performed the ceremony.[9] Steyer and his wife have four children.[42] His wife is on the President's Council for the United Religions Initiative whose purpose is to "promote enduring, daily interfaith cooperation, to end religiously motivated violence, and to create cultures of peace, justice and healing for the Earth and all living beings."[53]

Tom is the brother of attorney, author, and Stanford University professor Jim Steyer. [54]


• 1. "The World's Billionaires - Thomas Steyer" Forbes. March 2013.
• 2. Lashinsky, Adam (September 17, 2008). "California's hedge fund king". Fortune. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
• 3. Ritch, Emma. "Stanford launches $100M energy research institute". Cleantech Group. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
• 4.[dead link]
• 5. "40 billionaires pledge to give away half of wealth". MSNBC. Retrieved 2010-08-05.
• 6. Strom, Stephanie (September 15, 2011). "Hedge Fund Chief Takes Major Role in Philanthropy". The New York Times.
• 7. "Thomas F. Steyer profile". Next Generation. Retrieved 2013-10-30.
• 8. "University Governance". Stanford University. Retrieved 2012-02-12.
• 9. New York Times: "Kathryn Taylor Weds T.F. Steyer" August 17, 1986
• 10. World Who's who in Commerce and Industry. Marquis-Who's Who. 1968. p. 1327.
• 11. New York Times: "Paid Notice: Deaths STEYER, ROY H."New York Times, June 26, 1997
• 12. "The World's Billionaires". Forbes. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
• 13. Farallon Capital Management, L.L.C. "Farallon Capital Management".
• 14. Farallon Capital Management, L.L.C. "Farallon Capital Management".
• 15. Farallon Capital Management, L.L.C. "Strategies".
• 16. Celarier, Michelle (23 October 2012). "Hedgie Steyer hanging it up". NY Post.
• 17. Henderson, Peter. "INTERVIEW-Billionaire Steyer sees clean energy in his future". Reuters.
• 18. Aims of Donor Are Shadowed by Past in Coal by MICHAEL BARBARO and CORAL DAVENPORT, The New York Times, JULY 4, 2014
• 19. Tom Steyer’s slow, and ongoing, conversion from fossil-fuels investor to climate activist, by Carol D. Leonnig, Tom Hamburger and Rosalind S. Helderman, Washington Post, June 9, 2014
• 20. From black to green: U.S. billionaire's 'Road to Damascus' by Richard Valdmanis, Fergus Jensen and Sonali Paul, Reuters, May 13, 2014
• 21. "Tom Steyer Listed as Manager of Green Energy Investment Firm". Washington Free Beacon. Retrieved 10 July 2015.
• 22. ... QD9HCRI7G1[dead link]
• 23. "Buffett, Gates persuade 38 billionaires to donate half of wealth". The Joplin Globe. AP. 2010-08-04. Retrieved 2013-10-30.
• 24.[dead link]
• 25. Sharma-Sindhar, Priyanka. "Oakland Fund Gets the Governor's Attention". The Oakbook. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
• 26. Stuhldreher, Anne (2009-04-08). "Traditional lending goes mainstream". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
• 27. "University of San Francisco Announces 2010 Recipient of Statewide Prize". PR Newswire. Retrieved 2013-10-30.
• 28. Trevenon, Stacy. "Film brings 'brown pride' to Pescadero". Half Moon Bay Review. Retrieved 2010-09-10.
• 29. ... les&ptid=9[dead link]
• 30. "Stanford starts new, $100 million energy institute". Greenbang. Retrieved 2010-07-23.
• 31. "The One Percent Gets Its Turn". Washington Free Beacon.
• 32. "OP-ED: Billionaire bullies - - San Mateo Daily Journal".
• 33. Sink, Justin (8 January 2013). "Obama looks to fill out Cabinet". The Hill.
• 34. Calvey, Mark (16 January 2013). "San Francisco's Tom Steyer reacts to rumors he'll be named U.S. Energy Secretary". Biz Journal.
• 35. ... rties.html
• 36. POLITICO. "Obama targets GHG cuts with eye on politics, Paris – Saudis tell oil market prices could be low for a while – Ernst, Braley tussle over EPA – Hagel: Emerging Arctic resources present ‘potential threat". POLITICO.
• 37. Gold, Matea (April 12, 2015). "Wealthy donors on left launch new plan to wrest back control in the states". Washington Post. Retrieved 20 April 2015.
• 38. Vogel, Kenneth; Restuccia, Andre (April 13, 2015). "Tom Steyer stars as liberal donors gather". Politico. Retrieved 20 April 2015.
• 39. Template:Cie news
• 40. Maviglio, Steven. "No on Prop 23 Campaign Gets Big Backing from Major Democratic Donor, Releases Report on Valero's $9 Billion Export of California Energy Dollars". The California Majority Report. Retrieved 2010-07-26.
• 41. Nagourney, Adam. "California Braces for Showdown on Emissions". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-07-26.
• 42. Dolan, Kerry (21 September 2011). "Tom Steyer: Hedge Fund Billionaire's Foray Into Politics". Forbes.
• 43. "Tom Steyer DNC speech (text)". Politico. September 5, 2012.
• 44. Onishi, Norimitsu (16 October 2012). "California Ballot Initiatives, Born in Populism, Now Come From Billionaires". The New York Times.
• 45. Henderson, Peter (October 24, 2012). "INTERVIEW-Billionaire Steyer sees clean energy in his future". Reuters.
• 46. "Timm Herdt: And then, the opposition blinked". Contra Costa Times. December 25, 2012.
• 47. STEYER, THOMAS FAHR (TOM) contributions to ballot measure committees that supported or opposed ballot measures in elections in California 2012, ... CA&y=2012#[{1|gro=f-eid
• 48. Meola, Olympia (9 August 2013). "Out-of-state funds pouring into Virginia race for governor". The Richmond Times Dispatch.
• 49. Gold, Matea. "Billionaire Tom Steyer will use clout and cash to boost Democrats, environment, in key races". The Washington Post. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
• 50. Metha, Seema. "Billionaire Steyer looking at spending on legislative races". LA Times. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
• 51. Caputo, Marc. "Billionaire climate-change supporter pledges to spend big to beat Florida Gov. Rick Scott". The Miami Herald. Retrieved 5 August 2014.
• 52. Davenport, Coral, "Meager Returns for the Democrats’ Biggest Donor, New York Times, 6 November 2014
• 53. United Religions Initiative: Kat Taylor retrieved march 30, 2013
• 54.
Site Admin
Posts: 31759
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 10:11 pm


Bill Maher Gives $1 Million To Obama-Supporting Super PAC
By Max J. Rosenthal
The Huffington Post |




WASHINGTON -- Stephen Colbert may not support the idea of super PACs, but fellow political satirist Bill Maher is buying into the system -- literally.

During a performance of his comedy special "CrazyStupidPolitics" Thursday night, Maher announced a gift of $1 million to Priorities USA Action, an Obama-supporting super PAC. While he mocked the group's clunky name, saying it was "named by Borat," his publicist said that Maher was deadly serious about the donation and believed a second term for Obama was “worth a million dollars."

GOP Super PACs like Restore Our Future, which supports Mitt Romney, have allowed major donors to pump massive sums into the Republican presidential primary. President Obama was a long-time critic of the groups, but the threat of their fundraising power prompted a controversial change of heart earlier this month.

With presidential approval, Democratic super PACs are gearing up for the fall, but lag behind their Republican counterparts. In addition to Maher, other big names like Steven Spielberg have made sizeable donations to Priorities USA. Still, according to ABC, the group received only $59,000 in donations in January.

Priorities USA Action did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Huffington Post.
Site Admin
Posts: 31759
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:53 pm


Michael L. Charney, M.D.



Michael L. Charney, M.D.
Co-Founder and Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Climate Action Network (MCAN)
Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Conventions
Publisher, the Cambridge Climate Calendar

Michael L. Charney is a psychiatrist, political activist, organizer and uncertified environmentalist, working to grow the climate protection movement in Massachusetts. Betting on the "Civil Society" solution - citizen action for greenhouse emissions reductions – Charney co-founded and co-chairs the Massachusetts Climate Action Network (MCAN). The purpose of this group is to incite environmental learning and activism in metro-Boston and beyond. As part of this effort Dr. Charney publishes the e-weekly Cambridge Climate Calendar (CCC) [since May 2000] (To write for subscription to the e-weekly Calendar, click here; for more information on the 'Climate Calendar,' click here). In addition, in order to promote the construction of green, high performance buildings Dr. Charney co-founded and co-chairs the Green Building Coalition for green building incentive legislation in Massachusetts.

MCAN now has autonomous climate groups in 15 Massachusetts cities and towns, and representation from MassPIRG, Clean Water Action and Mass Energy. It sponsors lectures and conferences on climate change and solutions, and speaker training . It supports and critiques legislation, provides testimony at regulatory hearings, works for fuel efficient transportation, protests SUV’s, and helps network and stimulate diverse climate activism at the local and state level.


Dr. Charney’s activism began as a draft exempt student opposing the Vietnam War, graduating Yale College in 1968. As a Nader Raider for occupational safety and health, Charney drafted a "Health Bill of Rights for Workers" (UAW newletter, 1970), which contributed to the writing and passage of OSHA. Smitten by the 1970 National Student Strike, he founded and coordinated the 100 member O.M. Collective which wrote The Organizer’s Manual (Bantam Books 1971), an all-purpose and anti-war grassroots organizing text. In 1971 he started the New Haven Occupational Health Project to assist Southern Connecticut AFL-CIO in using OSHA.

Dr Charney evaded political controversy for the next decade, graduating Yale Medical School (1972), completing internship at Cambridge Hospital (1973), adult and child psychiatry residency training at Massachusetts Mental Health Center (1978), and the Boston Psychoanalytic Institute (1982). He opened private practice in 1978. In the early 1980’s he again juggled his career, joining Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility and initiating a variety of nuclear freeze advocacy projects. In 1984, with two 64K Kaypro II computers between them, law professor Richard Daynard of Northeastern and Dr. Charney devised a farfetched and long to be scoffed stratagem, the Tobacco Products Liability Project to stimulate and organize a tobacco plaintiffs’ bar, medical experts and victims, to pursue personal injury, third party and class action law suits against the tobacco industry as a public health intervention.


In 1990 through 1994, in response to epidemic youth violence, Dr Charney created The Games Project/Chess Makes Kids Smart! training five hundred youth workers, college students, teachers, librarians and volunteers to teach chess to Boston kids. The Project established 60 neighborhood chess programs, distributed 3000 chess sets and enlisted architects locally and nationally to design and construct giant chess sets. For the 1992 American Institute of Architects convention, the Boston Society of Architects and the Games Project made and mounted the Giant Boston Architectural Chess Set shaped as old versus new landmark Boston buildings. Dr Charney then ran a two-week outdoor Chess Festival on Copley Square in Boston’s Back Bay. (Architecture, 11/92, photo).

During the mid 1990’s Dr Charney closed his practice and retooled in psychopharmacology and medicine for in-patient psychiatric employment. This led to several years work and travel between Alaska, Vermont and Massachusetts. For several months in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta he reported for The Tundra Drums newspaper, and while in Bethel gained a transforming appreciation for life’s struggle between vast earth and vaster sky. On resettling in Boston and resuming private practice, he began earnest environmental and climate self-education with a necessarily quixotic intent for climate activism. He first learned of global warming in 1988, but for years avoided and mulled depressed by it, a threat too pervasive to contemplate, a problem so massive, vested, complex and subtle, how could it be solved given the difficulty banishing mere cigarettes?

In 1998 upon reading The Heat is On, he contacted Ross Gelbspan across the Charles and Muddy Rivers in Brookline, and enlisted as apprentice to Ross’s ad hoc policy group which drafted the "World Energy Modernization Plan" (River Street Design, 12 pp, 1998).

Interestingly, far-off international debate, US Senatorial resistance, Kyoto weakness and daunting IPCC research, left a large empty niche at the bottom. The 1999 Tufts Climate Initiative conference, "Climate Change and Civil Society" featured I.C.L.E.I.’s Cities for Climate Protection campaign. It showed how to put climate action in citizen hands.

Charney began publishing the Cambridge Climate Calendar, and reconstituted a lapsed environmental group as Cambridge Climate Action (CCA). It then prodded creation of a taskforce to draft a climate action plan. In May 2000, CCA sponsored "Climate Protection: What You & U.S. Cities Can Do." Marc Breslow and Charney began Massachusetts Climate Action Network. In a related initiative Dr Charney drew attention to New York State’s new Green Building Tax Credit Act, and with the Boston Society of Architect’s Committee on the Environment, the Green Roundtable and others founded the Green Building Coalition which combines the Environmental League of Massachusetts, the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, architects and MCAN together in support of green building incentive legislation.

As the 21st century unfolded, 9/11, Enron, and the Iraq and Afgan Wars highlighted, for those who would see, the further danger and liability of the U.S. oil addiction beyond the more readily ignored crisis of global warming. With Washington distracted and Bush/Cheney attacking the environment and promoting nuclear and fossil fuels, grassroots, outside the beltway efforts like MCAN, and state climate policy initiatives became, if only by comparison, the most promising arenas for climate hope.

Yet the national nightmares, the need for defensive enviro-policy action, and our market economy’s indecent descent, derailed many enviro and climate initiatives, including among many more ambitious, the MA Green Building Tax Credit effort. Yet our New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers in a rare and estimable display of leadership and courage, promulgated a farsighted joint regional climate protection plan and goal (see Climate Change Action Plan - August 2001) calling for eventual deep GHG emissions reductions

But a succession of Massachusetts Republican governors sat on the state’s own draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) necessary to begin addressing necessary regional goals. Massachusetts’ Climate Action Plan was finally released in May 2004.

During this time Charney continued the Calendar and, with Breslow continued to build MCAN membership, hosting annual grassroots climate protection conferences at Tufts, and establishing a consumer presence in the oversight of the state’s annual 110+ million dollars of energy efficiency monies from a surcharge on electricity ratepayers.

In November of 2002, a week after that fall’s MCAN conference, the Democratic National Committee selected Boston to host their 2004 National Convention. Inspired by the suggestion of a colleague, Charney drafted and circulated a proposal to green the upcoming Democratic convention. He drew together a group of Massachusetts enviro leaders who, in short order, founded the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Conventions (CERC) to do just that and then some.

Charney now chairs the CERC Steering Committee Chair and manages the website while Dan Ruben is Executive Director and carries the major responsibility for the organization. CERC has direct working relationships now with both Democratic and Republican host committees in Boston and New York, and with the Democratic National Convention Committee here in Boston.

CERC is promoting best environmental practices in a number of areas , including the use of green building and demolition recycling practices for the Fleet Center’s stage, carbon offsets and wind power credits sufficient to make one or both conventions “climate neutral,” food waste rescue and composting from some of the major dinners and receptions, green hotel and event planning innovations, and together with Boston officials promotion of anti-idling compliance by tour bus and delivery drivers during July’s four day event.

If successful, CERC would raise national awareness that many excellent, economical practices already exist to help American businesses progress toward environmental sustainability and climate protection.

The Climate Calendar, MCAN, the green building legislative coalition, and CERC all share the same grassroots, civil society strategy. That is, to address climate and environmental challenges from the bottom up, starting in your own living room with phone, phonebook and paper – now phone, broadband and computer - raising consciousness, growing people power, fostering synergies and alliances, to move furniture by pulling the rug.
Site Admin
Posts: 31759
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:13 am


Class Action Law Pioneer Dies at 58
December 15, 2003



Beverly Cooper Moore Jr., a major leader in the movement for class action suits known for his honesty and integrity, died on Nov. 24 of a blood clot to the brain. He was 58.

Moore, who graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School (HLS) in 1970, began his work with the class action movement—encouraging individuals with similar claims to sue together—while working for consumer advocate Ralph Nader’s Corporate Accountability Group.

“The loss of Beverly Moore Jr. will be felt by many Americans who would never come close to...the character and honesty that defined him,” Nader said in a eulogy that he e-mailed to The Crimson.

Mark J. Green, an HLS classmate who also worked for Nader, said that Moore embodied the passion necessary to mobilize the class action movement.

“Though his efforts in the 1970s were considered ‘far out,’ they have ripened into the core of the current corporate accountability movement,” Green said.

Moore’s focus on class action suits continued even after he left Nader’s office, when he became editor and publisher of “Class Action Reports,” a legal periodical, in 1974 and started his own law firm in 1979.

“Beverly was extraordinarily aware of the power class action suits held to carry out justice, and he was dedicated to make them serve that end,” said Arthur Bryant, executive director of the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Foundation.

Family and friends say they will remember Moore for his integrity.

Robert C. Fellmeth, another of Moore’s friends from his HLS days, said that Moore was both an honest person and an honest lawyer, who stood by the parties he represented—consumers, children, the future, the environment and minorities.

“He was part of the old school,” Fellmeth said. “Beverly was totally incorruptible. He cared not about money, but about justice.”

Moore passed the ultimate test of integrity time and time again, Fellmeth said, refusing large offers of money to settle his lawsuits and instead insisting on winning them.

His passion for his cause, coupled with his brilliance, made him a very effective lawyer, according to colleagues.

Green described Moore as uniquely intelligent, with a penchant for soaking up knowledge and also for creativity.

“I remember times when he would knock off hundreds of pages of texts that were densely progressive and visionary,” he said. “When you’re a guy with a name like Beverly, you’ve got to be good.”

Moore’s published works include The Closed Enterprise System, which he co-authored in 1972 with Green and law school friend Bruce J. Wasserstein. He also wrote articles in law publications such as the “Legal Times” and the “Yale Law Journal.”

In addition to his professional abilities, Moore, a southerner with a deep drawl, “was a real character with a good sense of humor,” Fellmeth said.

Moore grew up in Greensboro, N.C., and graduated from the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill in 1967.

Moore is survived by his wife, Deanna Isley Moore, daughter Caroline Hargrove Moore Rodier, daughter Alice Cooper Mitchell Moore, mother Irene Mitchell Moore, and sister Irene Warren Moore Miller.

A memorial service was held Friday at the Monaco Hotel in Washington, D.C.

—Staff writer Nicole B. Urken can be reached at


One Nader Raider, Beverly C. Moore, Jr., told the author [Justin Martin, Nader: Crusader, Spoiler, Icon] "We always thought he was having sex with Joan Claybrook. But we never had any evidence whatsoever."


4 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev., No. 2 (Spring 1969)

Beverly C. Moore, Jr.

Beverly C. Moore, Jr.

Beverly C. Moore, Jr.


Mark J. Green, Beverly C. Moore, Jr., and Bruce Wasserstein, The Closed Enterprise System: Ralph Nader's Study
Group on Antitrust Enforcement (New York: Grossman Publishers, 1972), pp. 254-256.
Site Admin
Posts: 31759
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:29 am

Richard G. Aird, et al., Beverly C. Moore, Jr., et al., appellants/cross-appellees, Landon G. Dowdey, Appellee, v. Ford Motor Company, Appellee/cross-appellant, 86 F.3d 216 (D.C. Cir. 1996)



U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 86 F.3d 216 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

Argued April 12, 1996. Decided June 4, 1996. Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc Denied July 9, 1996. *As Amended Aug. 12, 1996

[318 U.S.App.D.C. 143] Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 81cv01998).

Beverly C. Moore, Jr., Washington, DC, and John E. Price, Springfield, MO, argued the causes and filed the briefs for appellants/cross-appellees.

Carl R. Schenker, Jr., Washington, DC, argued the cause for appellee/cross-appellant Ford Motor Company with whom William T. Coleman, Jr., Richard C. Warmer and John Beisner were on the briefs.

Marya C. Young, Binghampton, NY, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellee Landon G. Dowdey.

[318 U.S.App.D.C. 144] Before: SILBERMAN, WILLIAMS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge:

The first time this case came to us, it held out the promise of hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for a nationwide class of millions of plaintiffs. Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 807 F.2d 1000 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 915, 107 S. Ct. 3188, 96 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1987). The second time, not even one plaintiff remained to prosecute the appeal. Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 945 F.2d 1188 (D.C. Cir. 1991). The case now arrives in this court a third time, more than four years after we put an end to litigation of the merits, with only the lawyers left to argue over costs and sanctions. Unfortunately, after 15 years of litigation, we cannot end the case here, but must remand one final issue to the district court. While we affirm the district court's order assessing as costs the prevailing party's share of the special master's fees, we reverse the court's decision absolving one of the plaintiffs' counsel from joint and several liability for any costs, and we remand the case for the court to reconsider the special master's recommendation that sanctions be imposed on plaintiffs' counsel.

In its earliest incarnation, this case was a class action breach of warranty suit against Ford Motor Co. filed on behalf of owners of Ford vehicles. Plaintiffs, who brought the suit pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty--Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act (Magnuson-Moss Act), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 et seq., alleged a disconcerting tendency for the automatic transmissions to slip from "park" into "reverse". The district court ultimately denied class certification and dismissed the claims of the individual plaintiffs, determinations that became final when this court dismissed plaintiffs' appeal.

The district court also issued several orders in response to the parties' motions regarding costs and sanctions.1 Defendant Ford and two distinct groups of plaintiffs' counsel have appealed and cross-appealed the district court's resolution of those issues; a third member of the plaintiffs' legal team, while satisfied with the orders, appears here as both appellee and cross-appellee. To explain how this unusual alignment of parties came about, we set forth the events leading up to the plaintiffs' defeat on the merits.

Beverly C. Moore, Jr. acted as lead plaintiffs' counsel from the outset. Moore, who apparently had academic interest and practical experience in both class action litigation in general and the Magnuson-Moss Act in particular, put together a counsel team whose membership over the course of the litigation included both individual lawyers and large firms. One of the original members of the team was Landon G. Dowdey, a member of the District of Columbia bar and long-time trial lawyer. While other team members, including Moore, undertook labor-intensive aspects of the case such as motions relating to the Magnuson-Moss Act, discovery, and class certification, Dowdey's role was limited to advising Moore on other areas of strategy and local practice in which Dowdey was particularly knowledgeable. A few months after plaintiffs successfully moved for class certification, Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 106 F.R.D. 378 (D.D.C. 1985), attorneys associated with the firm of Woolsey, Fisher, Whiteaker & McDonald (collectively known to the parties as "Missouri counsel"), who had experience in litigating "park-to-reverse" cases against Ford, joined the plaintiffs' team and were assigned primary responsibility for handling discovery.

In September 1985, two months after Missouri counsel had entered the case, the district court appointed a special master to oversee discovery and a few other procedural matters. The order of reference provided that " [a]ll compensation and expenses in connection with this Order shall be paid 50% by plaintiffs and 50% by defendants." In the [318 U.S.App.D.C. 145] spring of 1986, the special master established a schedule for discovery.

Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs suffered two major reversals. First, in August 1986, the firm with which Missouri counsel were associated suffered a "major schism" and lost one-third of its attorneys. The resulting turmoil, coming just when the pace of discovery was accelerating under the master's schedule, compromised Missouri counsel's ability to handle discovery as contemplated in their agreement with Moore. Moore attempted to enlist other firms as co-counsel to take up the slack, but his search was hampered by a second setback. In December 1986, this court vacated the class certification, Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 807 F.2d 1000 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 915, 107 S. Ct. 3188, 96 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1987), making the case much less attractive to potential plaintiffs' counsel.

In the meantime, the plaintiffs' responses to Ford's interrogatories came due, and the plaintiffs failed to respond at all to many of the interrogatories. Ford moved to compel responses. The special master, while expressing sympathy for counsel's difficulties, concluded that it was too late for them to obtain an extension of time to respond. Accordingly, on December 11, 1986, the special master granted Ford's motion to compel and ordered the plaintiffs to respond to specified interrogatories by January 9, 1987.

After the plaintiffs responded to the interrogatories, Ford again moved to compel discovery, maintaining that the responses were inadequate. Ford also requested that the special master impose discovery sanctions. The plaintiffs responded that the detailed and technical interrogatories were "extraordinarily prolix," a contention with which the special master again showed some sympathy. The special master also found, however, that the "plaintiffs' responses to these interrogatories manifest an almost studied refusal to be specific. Many of plaintiffs' answers improperly substitute general pleading-type allegations for the detailed, fact-specific explicitness which the discovery process requires." The special master therefore concluded that the plaintiffs had not complied with the December 11 order compelling discovery, and issued an order on May 5, 1987, compelling further interrogatory responses. The special master deferred consideration of Ford's request for sanctions, however, until after the plaintiffs had an opportunity to supply satisfactory responses to the interrogatories. On Ford's motion for reconsideration, the special master again decided, on May 28, 1987, that the plaintiffs had violated the December 11 order and directed the plaintiffs to supplement their responses by June 4, 1987.

On July 9, 1987, the special master took up the sanctions question that he had deferred in May. Ford sought only its expenses relating to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the December 11 order and did not request sanctions for any alleged deficiencies in the plaintiffs' supplemental responses to the May orders. The special master, amplifying upon his earlier findings, concluded that the plaintiffs had violated the December 11 order and that the violation was unjustified. Noting that the entire plaintiffs' counsel team--Moore, Dowdey, and Missouri counsel--bore responsibility for the inadequate discovery responses, the special master concluded that there was no principled way to single out any one of them for punishment and held each of them jointly and severally liable for sanctions. Turning to the measure of sanctions, the special master decided that the expenses caused by the plaintiffs' noncompliance with the December 11 order were fairly measured by Ford's costs in obtaining the two May orders requiring the plaintiffs to supplement their deficient responses. He ordered the parties to confer and determine a reasonable award, but it appears that an amount was never fixed. Following a series of events not fully reflected in the record, the plaintiffs appealed the July 9 sanction order to the district court.

Throughout this period, relations among the plaintiffs' counsel deteriorated. Moore and Dowdey began to disagree over strategy, and the disagreements became heated and personal. In February 1987, after the plaintiffs had filed the deficient interrogatory responses pursuant to the December 11 order compelling discovery, Dowdey moved to have his name removed from some of the documents because he did not "want his name associated with procedures in this case of which he did not, and does not, approve." On October 30, 1987, Dowdey moved to withdraw as class counsel, and the district court [318 U.S.App.D.C. 146] granted his motion in December 1987. In the spring of the following year, Dowdey also moved for reconsideration of the July 9 sanction order, requesting that the special master relieve him of liability because he was not responsible for the deficient discovery responses. The special master held that motion in abeyance and never ruled on it.

The case lumbered on until 1990, when Ford (having defeated the class recertification motion) prevailed in the district court on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of the individual plaintiffs. Ford then filed a bill of costs, of which more than 70% ($24,947.77) represented the fees that it had paid to the special master pursuant to the order of reference. On May 10, 1994, the district court addressed both the bill of costs and plaintiffs' appeal of the special master's July 9 sanctions order. The court described the discovery sanctions issue as "moot" in light of the termination of the litigation and declined to pursue the issue further. It also concluded that the master's fees were properly taxed as costs, for which the plaintiffs' counsel personally were liable by the terms of their retainer agreements. However, because of the "limited involvement" of Missouri counsel, the court declined to tax costs against them.

Ford, Dowdey, and Moore each moved for reconsideration. By order of May 10, 1995, the district court adhered to its decision not to pursue the issue of discovery sanctions. The court believed that the special master had not finally concluded that the plaintiffs had violated the December 11 order because he had given them a final opportunity to supplement their responses after the May orders. The court also reaffirmed the amount of taxable costs, including the special master's fees. As to Missouri counsel, however, the court reversed its earlier ruling and ruled that their role in preparing a statistical database to be used in class certification warranted holding them jointly and severally liable for costs. Conversely, the court relieved Dowdey of responsibility, noting that he had withdrawn as counsel in 1987 and that his involvement in discovery was minimal.

These appeals and cross-appeals challenge the May 10, 1995 order on reconsideration. First, Moore and Missouri counsel, as appellants, contend that the special master's fees should not have been taxed as costs. Second, they contend that in any event Dowdey should have been held jointly and severally liable for whatever costs were properly taxed. Third, Missouri counsel alone maintain that they should have been relieved of liability for costs, as the district court originally ordered. Finally, Ford, as cross-appellant, contends that the district court erred in not assessing monetary discovery sanctions on the plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to the special master's July 9 order.

When Ford filed its bill of costs in 1990 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), the rule provided that "costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs."2 28 U.S.C.App. (1988). Appellants contend that master's fees do not qualify as "costs" within the meaning of Rule 54(d). Unanimous authority, however, including two decisions from this court, is against them. Walutes v. Morrissette, 11 Fed.R.Serv.2d (Callaghan) 1201, 1202 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (per curiam); Dyker Bldg. Co. v. United States, 182 F.2d 85, 89 (D.C. Cir. 1950); National Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Mullen, 828 F.2d 536, 546 (9th Cir. 1987); Gary W. v. Louisiana, 601 F.2d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 1979); Southern Agency Co. v. LaSalle Cas. Co., 393 F.2d 907, 915 (8th Cir. 1968); Trout v. Ball, 705 F. Supp. 705, 707-08 (D.D.C. 1989); see also 9A Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2608 (1995). Appellants contend that these authorities cannot be considered good law after the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 107 S. Ct. 2494, 96 L. Ed. 2d 385 (1987), which they maintain holds that the only "costs" that can be awarded under Rule 54(d) are those explicitly listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920.3 Because master's [318 U.S.App.D.C. 147] fees are not among the costs enumerated ins 1920, appellants contend that Crawford Fitting prohibits district courts from ever taxing them as costs.

We need not address appellants' Rule 54(d) contentions because the district court properly approved Ford's request for reimbursement of special master's fees under Rule 53(a). Crawford Fitting makes clear not only that costs not enumerated in § 1920 may be taxed if there is a contractual or an express statutory source of authority to do so, id. at 439, 107 S. Ct. at 2496; accord West Va. Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 86-87, 111 S. Ct. 1138, 1140-41, 113 L. Ed. 2d 68 (1991), but also leaves Rule 53(a) unscathed. Rule 53 vests the district court with authority to allocate master's fees in favor of the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2071(a) (1994). Under Rule 53(a), " [t]he compensation to be allowed to a master shall be fixed by the court, and shall be charged upon such of the parties ... as the court may direct." As this permissive language suggests, the district court enjoys broad discretion to allocate the master's fees as it thinks best under the circumstances of the case. Apponi v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., 809 F.2d 1210, 1220 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 820, 108 S. Ct. 77, 98 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1987); Morgan v. Kerrigan, 530 F.2d 401, 427 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 935, 96 S. Ct. 2648, 49 L. Ed. 2d 386 (1976); see also Dyker Bldg. Co., 182 F.2d at 89.

While in some cases the costs might best be divided among the parties,4 or charged at least to some extent against the party that created the need for reference to the master,5 the district court has the authority in appropriate cases to tax the master's fees as costs against the losing party.6 We therefore agree with the only other court to consider the matter in light of Crawford Fitting, under Rule 53(a) the court "may direct" that liability for master's fees await the outcome of the case. Fulton Fed., 143 F.R.D. at 294-96. Thus, once the district court exercised its discretion under Rule 53(a), Ford's share of the special master's costs was properly treated as taxable costs.

Appellants separately challenge the district court's assessment of master's fees against them on the ground that the assessment conflicted with the order of reference, which specified that the fees would be "paid 50% by plaintiffs and 50% by defendant," and did not expressly provide that the prevailing party could subsequently recover its share as costs. The order of reference, however, does not purport to allocate responsibility for special master's fees for all time, even after the prevailing party has been identified at the end of the case. See Order of Reference Memorandum, Civ. A. No. 81-1998-JLG (May 10, 1994), at 5 (citing Trout v. Ball, 705 F. Supp. 705, 707 (D.D.C. 1989)). The better practice might well be for the district court to advise the parties in advance that it plans to tax master's fees as costs, either specifically in the order of reference, see, e.g., Fulton Fed., 143 F.R.D. at 296, or generally by local rule, see, e.g., Calloway v. Marvel Entertainment Grp., 111 F.R.D. 637, 652 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), vacated in part on other grounds, 854 F.2d 1452 (2d Cir. 1988), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Grp., 493 U.S. 120, 110 [318 U.S.App.D.C. 148] S. Ct. 456, 107 L. Ed. 2d 438 (1989).7 Nevertheless, the district court did not abuse its discretion here by failing to give such advance notice, as evidenced by the apparently widespread practice of treating such fees as taxable costs.

Moore's further contention that he would not have consented to the reference of the case to a special master had he known that he and his co-counsel would be held liable for Ford's share if they lost the case misses the mark. Moore reads the Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d) (2), to guarantee prevailing consumers--but not manufacturers like Ford--recovery of costs, including master's fees. How this feature of the Act could affect Moore's willingness to have the case referred is left unexplained. Whatever the precise contours of the argument, however, it mistakes the nature of the court's power to refer discovery matters to a master: reference does not require the parties' consent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e) (4). Particularly when the parties are embroiled in repeated, fact-intensive discovery disputes, a district court may find it most efficient to impose on the parties, at their own expense and without their consent, a discovery master. The court's ability to manage its docket and enforce the discovery rules in such a case may depend greatly on its power to allocate the costs of reference as it deems appropriate. Cf. Ex parte Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 314-15, 40 S. Ct. 543, 547-48, 64 L. Ed. 919 (1920). While the rules do not endorse the routine reference of matters to masters, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(b), it is nonetheless clear that masters can enhance a district court's ability pursuant to Rule 1 to "secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of suits before it, provided that the court has the discretion to tailor the terms of reference to the circumstances of each case.

For these reasons we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by taxing the master's fees against the plaintiffs' counsel.

The question remains who among the plaintiffs' counsel should have borne the costs. Initially, we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in holding Missouri counsel liable for costs. Moore's retainer agreements with the individual class members provided that counsel would pay the costs of litigation, and Missouri counsel, aware of those agreements, joined the case as co-counsel. Moreover, Moore and Missouri counsel entered into an agreement regarding fees and costs, which provided that Missouri counsel would reimburse Moore for one-half of the costs and expenses of the case.

Missouri counsel nonetheless contend that their role in the case was so limited that it was an abuse of discretion to hold them jointly and severally liable for costs. If there were ever a case in which such an argument could be sustained, this is not it. Missouri counsel have been counsel of record in this matter since 1985. They assumed responsibility for managing discovery, one of the most crucial and labor-intensive aspects of this mammoth case. The district court could properly find significant Missouri counsel's efforts in compiling a database of park-to-reverse incidents involving Ford vehicles. Their inability to discharge their discovery responsibilities may have contributed to the plaintiffs' ultimate defeat, and regardless of whether the crippling "schism" at their law firm was their fault, it was not the fault of anyone else involved in this litigation.

Missouri counsel fault the district court's reliance on the database on the grounds that most of the work was done by paralegals and secretaries at their law firm. Again, it is difficult to understand what this proves, for if Missouri counsel are not responsible for the work done by their own employees, they have not explained who else in the case is. Finally, Missouri counsel compare their position to Dowdey's, contending that if Dowdey is not required to pay costs given his limited involvement in the case, neither should they. Because we conclude that Dowdey should not have been let off the hook either, this argument evaporates.

Unlike Missouri counsel, Dowdey had the foresight to withdraw as early as 1987. He maintains that because he was not counsel in the case when Ford became the prevailing party, and in fact left because he foresaw that Moore's tactics would lead to [318 U.S.App.D.C. 149] defeat, he cannot be saddled with costs that are contingent on Ford's victory. The district court agreed with this analysis, and also credited Dowdey's account of his minimal role in the litigation. Accepting the facts found by the district court, we nonetheless conclude that the court erred in not imposing joint and several liability on Dowdey.

Dowdey, unlike Missouri counsel, was counsel of record from the outset. He was on the brief in the first appeal to this court, when class certification was vacated. By the time he withdrew, the plaintiffs' case was in disarray on the eve of the crucial class recertification motion, with discovery sanctions outstanding and a counsel team that the special master suggested was incapable of handling a case of this magnitude and complexity. In fairness to his colleagues, it cannot be said the case was lost entirely after Dowdey left; this defeat was a team effort that was well underway by the time Dowdey withdrew.

Nor does Dowdey's limited role in discovery matters alter the situation. First, during the crucial months at the end of 1986 and the beginning of 1987, it appears that none of the plaintiffs' counsel were actually accomplishing much by way of responding to discovery. Thus, it is difficult to understand how Dowdey's inactivity distinguishes him from his erstwhile co-counsel. The special master acknowledged as much in holding all counsel liable for discovery sanctions. Second, and more important, the costs assessed by the district court reflected the litigation as a whole, not just discovery. By the time Moore tried to enlist Dowdey's assistance with discovery in 1987, the case had been active for the better part of a decade, including a trip to the circuit court and back. Throughout this period, Dowdey was part of the counsel team and presumably carried out the responsibilities that were apportioned to him, however limited those responsibilities might have been. Finally, if it is true that Dowdey did virtually nothing during the six years in which he was counsel of record, that is hardly to his credit. We cannot put it any better than did the special master:

Those attorneys who did not participate in preparation of these responses and papers have not shown that they had a reasonable basis to believe that plaintiffs' discovery obligations were or could be adequately discharged by those to whom the baton was apparently passed. These attorneys knew, or were required to know, that plaintiffs were not providing discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for even if they were no longer responsible for the discovery phase of this case, they must still supervise and remain aware of all aspects of the instant case. There is no evidence that these attorneys discharged that obligation. The record supports, if it does not compel, the conclusion that these attorneys permitted, or acquiesced in and thereby "condoned," serious discovery abuse extending over many months.

(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Rather than simply insisting that his name be removed from offending pleadings, Dowdey had an obligation to the court and to his clients to see that the case was properly litigated. Cf. D.C.Code of Professional Responsibility DR 2-107(A) (3)8 (1991 edition); id. DR 6-101(A).9 While it appears that Dowdey attempted in vain to persuade Moore and other members of the counsel team to take a more responsible course of action, the fact remains that he had cast his lot with them and must accept his share of the consequences of defeat.10

That said, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court in ruling that Dowdey was not responsible for the costs that were incurred by Ford after Dowdey withdrew [318 U.S.App.D.C. 150] from the case. Dowdey is jointly and severally responsible only for the costs incurred while he was counsel of record, as a member of the plaintiffs' counsel team. Unlike Missouri counsel, who agreed to contribute to those costs incurred before they joined the case, Dowdey entered into no agreement to pay for costs wholly unrelated to his duties and responsibilities as counsel.

Finally, on the question of discovery sanctions, the district court rebuffed Ford's request to assess monetary sanctions against the plaintiffs' counsel because, as the court read the special master's reports, the special master had not "finally" determined that the plaintiffs had violated a discovery order. It is true that even after the May orders, the special master gave the plaintiffs another chance to supplement their deficient discovery responses and never decided whether the supplemental responses were independently sanctionable. However, it is equally clear that the special master found that the plaintiffs violated the December 11 discovery order and that Ford was entitled to recover the expenses it incurred as a result of that violation.

To review the chronology briefly, the plaintiffs initially failed to respond at all to many of Ford's interrogatories. On Ford's motion, the special master entered the December 11 order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a), ordering the plaintiffs to respond. The responses were inadequate. By again failing to file adequate responses in a timely fashion, the plaintiffs violated the December 11 order. That forced Ford to go back to the special master on May 5 and May 28 and obtain two more orders compelling supplemental responses. As the special master recognized, even if the supplemental responses produced in response to the May orders ultimately did satisfy the plaintiffs' discovery duties, Ford still deserved to be compensated for its costs in forcing the plaintiffs to make those supplemental responses. Consequently, the fact that the master gave the plaintiffs another chance to furnish adequate responses before imposing the litigation sanctions available under Rule 37(b) (2) (A-D) does not affect the plaintiffs' liability for monetary sanctions for the original violation of the December 11 order.

The July 9 order shows that this is how the special master understood the situation. " [D]isposition turns on whether plaintiffs have shown that failure to comply with the first [December 11] Rule 37 order was substantially justified.... Further discovery responses filed after entry of the second [May 5] Rule 37 order are relevant only insofar as those responses bear on claims advanced to justify noncompliance with the initial order." After rejecting the plaintiffs' purported justifications, the special master concluded:

Defendant has limited its application to the expenses reasonably attributable to the relief it obtained by orders entered on May 5 and 28, 1987. That is a conservative and fully fair measure of the "reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure" to comply with the December 11 order. The parties will be directed to confer concerning the amount of a reasonable award and, if agreement cannot be reached, to propose a schedule for evidentiary submissions addressed to remaining issues.

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) (2)) (other citations omitted). In an accompanying order, the special master concluded that Missouri counsel, Moore, and Dowdey were each jointly and severally liable to defendant for its reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees and compensation and expenses paid under the order of reference, caused by plaintiffs' failure to comply with the order of December 11, 1986 and reasonably attributable to the relief defendant obtained by orders entered May 5 and May 28, 1987.

Given these findings, the district court erroneously declined to pursue the sanctions issue.

Ford contends that the only task for the district court on remand is to calculate the amount of the sanction. The special master's May 5 order, which the plaintiffs did not appeal, found that the plaintiffs had violated [318 U.S.App.D.C. 151] the December 11 order. Ford maintains that the plaintiffs therefore waived their challenge to the special master's finding that they were liable for a violation. We disagree. While the May 5 order did find a violation, it expressly reserved decision on whether to impose sanctions. Once the master decided to impose sanctions on July 9--although he never fixed an amount--the plaintiffs did seek district court review. We decline to hold that the plaintiffs waived an issue by failing to take what amounts to an interlocutory appeal. Thus, on remand, the plaintiffs' counsel may assert their claim that they never violated the December 11 order.

Loathe as we are to revisit upon the district court a case that it once described as a "trial court's nightmare of a litigation monster," Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 130 F.R.D. 260, 277 (D.D.C. 1990), one piece of it remains to be addressed: Ford's request for discovery sanctions for the plaintiffs' violation of the special master's December 11, 1986, discovery order. On remand the district court does not necessarily have to review in detail each of the interrogatories and responses, but may evaluate Ford's counsel's challenge in light of the special master's findings as well as any submissions that the court may order by either parties' counsel indexing or otherwise identifying material interrogatories and responses. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(e) (" [T]he court shall accept the master's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous."). Any sanction thereafter imposed, of course, cannot duplicate recovery of a portion of the special master's fees that Ford has already recovered as taxable costs.

Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the district court's order declining to reach the sanctions issue and remand for a reevaluation; we otherwise affirm the order taxing as costs Ford's share of the special master's fees except insofar as the order excused counsel Landon Dowdey from joint and several liability with his co-counsel for costs incurred while he was counsel of record.

Circuit Judge Henderson did not participate in the order for rehearing in banc

Order Concerning Costs, Civ. A. No. 81-1998-JLG (Apr. 25, 1995); Memorandum, id. (Mar. 10, 1995); id. (May 10, 1994)

We do not consider Rule 54(d) as amended in 1993. Rule 54(d) (1) & (2) (1993)

Section 1920 provides:

A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following:

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;

(2) Fees of the court reporter for all or any part of the stenographic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case;

(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;

(4) Fees for exemplification and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case;

(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;

(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title.

A bill of costs shall be filed in the case and, upon allowance, included in the judgment or decree.

28 U.S.C. § 1920 (1994).

See, e.g., United States v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 901 F.2d 772, 775 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Cline, 388 F.2d 294, 296 (4th Cir. 1968)

See, e.g., Johnson Fare Box Co. v. National Rejectors, Inc., 269 F.2d 348, 351 (8th Cir. 1959); National Ass'n of Radiation Survivors v. Turnage, 115 F.R.D. 543, 562 (N.D. Cal. 1987)

See, e.g., K-2 Ski Co. v. Head Ski Co., 506 F.2d 471, 476-77 (9th Cir. 1974); Fulton Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. American Ins. Co., 143 F.R.D. 292, 295-96 (N.D. Ga. 1991)

Unlike the local rule cited in Calloway, District of Columbia District Court local rules do not specify whether master's fees are to be taxed. Cf. D.D.C. R. 210, 214

DR 2-107(A) (2) provides: "A lawyer shall not divide a fee for legal services with another lawyer who is not a partner in or associate of his law firm or law office, unless ... [t]he division is made in proportion to the services performed and responsibility assumed by each."

DR 6-101(A) provides: "A lawyer shall not ... [h]andle a legal matter which he knows or should know that he is not competent to handle, without associating with him a lawyer who is competent to handle it [nor] [n]eglect a legal matter entrusted to him."

Dowdey, Moore, and Missouri counsel entered into a settlement agreement of a collateral interpleader action in February 1990. Dowdey contends that in this settlement the other members of the team agreed to indemnify him for costs that might be assessed against him in the instant litigation. We express no opinion on the legal effect of the settlement, nor should our opinion be read to prevent Dowdey from attempting to enforce his understanding of it
Site Admin
Posts: 31759
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:30 am

41 F.2d 1217
291 U.S.App.D.C. 300




Nos. 21865, 24398, 24415 and 24428.

United States Court of Appeals,

District of Columbia Circuit.
Aug. 9, 1991.

[291 U.S.App.D.C. 301] On Motion for Attorney's Lien.

Before BUCKLEY and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges, and MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.


Beverly C. Moore, Jr., who was hired by Landon G. Dowdey, lead counsel for Democratic Central Committee ("DCC"), as an attorney to perform several tasks in the above entitled consolidated cases, moves the court to grant him "an attorney's lien, on funds in the possession of the court against DCC counsel Landon G. Dowdey ..." in the amount of $20,708, plus interest.

A. Background Facts

Mr. Moore asserts several separate bases for his claim to a lien and the amount thereof. Moore rendered legal services in preparing a "fee application" for Dowdey in the DCC consolidated cases. Moore and Dowdey entered into a written contract whereby Dowdey agreed to pay Moore $15,707.86 for legal services performed by Moore in the DCC case within 10 days of "Dowdey's receipt of any fee award proceeds" in that case. A subsequent Settlement Agreement between Dowdey and Moore in a separate interpleader action, not related to the DCC case, modified the prior attorney's fee contract between Dowdey and Moore, in consideration for monetary concessions made by Moore to Dowdey in cases unrelated to DCC. All the foregoing resulted in a total "amount to be paid to Moore by Dowdey [of] $20,708.00" from attorney's fees Dowdey would receive for his services in the DCC cases.

Upon the foregoing factual allegations Moore contends, in view of Dowdey's contractual obligation to pay him $20,708, that any payments for attorney's fees to which Dowdey becomes entitled in the DCC cases should "be subject to Moore's attorney lien and should by Order of this Court be paid [291 U.S.App.D.C. 302] [by the Trust Company] directly to Moore and not to Dowdey." Motion 5.

B. Jurisdiction

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact (the "Compact") defines this court's jurisdiction as follows:

Jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the ... United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ... to review orders of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission as provided by section 17, article XII, title II, of the Washington metropolitan area transit regulation compact....

D.C.Code § 1-1415 (1967), Pub.L. No. 86-794, § 6, 74 Stat. 1031, 1051 (1960) (emphasis added). The Compact vests in this court jurisdiction to enforce an appropriate attorney's lien in the present case based upon our continuing jurisdiction over the DCC case as reserved in the court's order of February 26, 19901 approving the Compromise Agreement, the court's inherent equitable powers to enforce its own order granting attorney's fees, and the common fund or benefit exception to the American Rule which allows a court to award fees and expenses to the prevailing party from a fund recovered through his efforts that benefit the class. See, e.g., Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1943, 36 L.Ed.2d 702 (1973).

C. The Attorney's Lien

The existence and effect of an attorney's lien is governed by the law of the place in which the contract between the attorney and the client is to be performed. 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law § 351, at 354 (1980). Chief Judge Aubrey Robinson in Martens v. Hadley Memorial Hospital, 753 F.Supp. 371, 372 (D.D.C.1990), pointed out that "While there is no D.C. statute setting out an attorney's lien, D.C. case law has long recognized the validity of an attorneys' charging lien in proceeds obtained through judgment and recovery where the client and the attorney understood that the attorney would be paid out of the case's proceeds." (Emphasis added).

Moore's contractual claim does not satisfy the District of Columbia or common-law requirements for an attorney's lien. In fact, an attorney's lien is not an appropriate remedy for Moore to seek for his alleged claim. Attorney's liens are asserted by counsel against the client. Moore is not seeking a lien on his client's funds; rather, he wishes the court to assert a lien against Dowdey, who associated him to do some legal work in the case.

Furthermore, Moore, as an associate counsel, has no agreement with the client, DCC, providing that his fee would be paid from the judgment. An associate counsel can only obtain an attorney's lien if the client authorizes or ratifies his employment by the principal attorney and the client agreed to have his associate's fee paid from the judgment. Hahn v. Oregon Physicians' Service, 786 F.2d 1353, 1355 (9th Cir.1985) (An attorney associated with lead counsel has no right to a lien against the ultimate recovery in the absence of an independent contract between him and the clients.). There is no such agreement here between Moore and DCC. See also Snyder v. Smith, 132 Neb. 504, 272 N.W. 401, 402 (1937); Smith v. Wright, 153 Mo.App. 719, 134 S.W. 683 (1911); Harwood v. La Grange, 137 N.Y. 538, 32 N.E. 1000 (1893); Miller v. Miller, 83 S.D. 227, 157 N.W.2d 537, 541-42 (1968) (A valid contract for attorney's fees, express or implied, between attorney and client is necessary for the existence of an attorney's lien.); People ex rel. Stephens v. Holten, 304 Ill. 394, 136 N.E. 738, 740 (1922) (An attorney's lien for fees must be based upon some contract with the client in order to subject the results of an action to a lien.); Goodwin Film & Camera Co. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 222 F. 249, 250 (1915) ("Where an [291 U.S.App.D.C. 303] attorney employs associate counsel on his own account, such associate counsel has no lien on the results of the action."). In sum, in order to assert a valid attorney's charging lien, there must be an agreement between client and counsel, either express or implied, that the attorney's fee would be paid from any recovery in the case.2 7A C.J.S. Attorney & Client § 361, at 721; 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law § 324, at 337. This principle applies equally to lead counsel and associate counsel.

Further, the contract upon which Moore bases his lien claim provides that his attorney's fees were to be paid to Moore "out of any attorney fee award ... that Dowdey ultimately receives for his work in [the bus fare overcharge case]." July 14, 1989 Contract, 1. Thus, under their contract, upon which Moore relies, he has no claim to his fee against the Security Trust Company or any of the moneys in the custody of the court in the DCC case.

In fact, it would be inappropriate for this court to attempt to resolve the controversy between these attorneys in light of the manner in which the Compromise Agreement deals with the attorney's fees incurred and to be awarded in this case. The Compromise Agreement, approved by the parties, provides that "Landon G. Dowdey ... agrees to indemnify and hold D.C. Transit and the restitutionary fund harmless from liability for any and all claims for attorneys' fees and expenses of any person arising out of the cases covered by this Compromise Agreement." Compromise Agreement at p 5.2(a). This provision intended that associate counsels' fees would be paid from the attorney's fees awarded to Landon G. Dowdey and Gilbert Hahn, attorneys-in-fact for petitioners. It provides that the court will not be involved in attorney's fee controversies between Dowdey and Hahn and their respective associate counsel. As a result, the court should not now be in the business of resolving individual attorney's fee claims against either Dowdey or Hahn. To illustrate, Moore's individual fee application of April 28, 1989 became moot as a direct result of the Court's order of August 6, 1989, which approved the portion of the settlement agreement regarding attorneys' fees. Thus, it would be inappropriate to now attempt to resolve Moore's individual attorney's fee claim through his application for an attorney's lien.


Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, upon consideration of Moore's Motion for Attorney's Lien, Dowdey's Opposition to the Motion and Moore's Reply to Dowdey's Opposition, the Motion is denied.

Order accordingly.

The Court's Order Approving Settlement and Establishing Riders' Fund provides:

ORDERED, that the Court retains jurisdiction of all matters in all subject cases until further order of the Court, and specifically retains jurisdiction to resolve any and all disputes arising under or relating to this settlement and with respect to all subject litigations.

February 26, 1990, Order 4.

Continental Casualty Co. v. Kelly, 106 F.2d 841, 844 (D.C.Cir.1939), cited by Moore is distinguishable from this case in that the attorney claiming the lien had a contingent fee contract with the client
Site Admin
Posts: 31759
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: AN unREASONABLE MAN, directed by Henriette Mantel

Postby admin » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:42 am

James S. Turner, Esq.
By Raquel
October 7, 2007 ... urner-esq/



James S. Turner, Esq. is the chair of Citizens for Health, a national nonprofit consumer advocacy group working to broaden health care options, create an integrative health system based on wellness, and advance the freedom to make health choices. One of the original Nader’s Raiders and long-time advocate of informed choice for safe food, drugs and other consumer products, he has authored two best-selling books, The Chemical Feast: The Nader Report on Food Protection at the Food and Drug Administration and Making Your Own Baby Food. As a partner in the Washington D.C. law firm of Swankin & Turner (organized in 1973), Jim represents businesses as well as individuals and consumer groups in a wide variety of regulatory matters concerning food, drug, health, environmental and product-safety matters. He has appeared before and/or advised the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission and Federal Trade Commission, as well as the Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health. He has served as Special Counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Food, Nutrition, and Health, and to the Senate Government Operations Subcommittee on Government Research. Jim helped organize the successful campaign to lobby Congress for passage of the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 and lead the legal team that in 1996 persuaded the FDA to reclassify acupuncture needles as safe and effective for legal U.S. importation and distribution. He is a graduate of the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University (1969), holds a B.A. in history and political science from Ohio State University College of Arts and Sciences (1962) and served as a gunnery and nuclear weapons handling officer on ships in the U.S. Navy from 1962 to 1966.
Site Admin
Posts: 31759
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am


Return to Illustrated Screenplays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest