First National Center

[Spartan]

That's also my gut.

[ChaseDweller]

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

[soonermike]

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

[Bellaboo]

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

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

[Urbanized]

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

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

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

[ethansisson]

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

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

[Skyline]

So, $5.3 million for FNC.

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

[Just the facts]

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

My money is on puppy killers.

[Spartan]

So, $5.3 million for FNC.

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

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

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

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

[Doug Loudenback]

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

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

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

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

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

[Steve]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Doug Loudenback]

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

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

[Steve]

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

[Doug Loudenback]

Meh. Using the phrase "load up" is itself spin, now isn't it?

Only if my characterization that you were "loading up" was wrong. Here's exactly how your blog described the matter, insofar as Graves is concerned (emphasis and uppercase is yours, not mine):

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

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

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

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

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

This is all a friendly debate between you and I.

^^ This is so.^^

But you get to the heart of the matter by acknowledging that, yes, Bill Gtraves had "the option NOT to." Yes, indeed. We're not really arguing anything here. We both agree, the call was Judge Graves' to make. That's all I've said.

Well, not exactly. There is "sayin'" and, then, there is "SAYIN' WITH A SPIN."

And he is in an elected position that will be the call of Oklahoma County residents to make, right?

Wrong. You make it sound as though Graves was elected to do the will of the people, which is not true. His job is to make legal decisions, both procedural and substantive, not legislative/representative decisions to carry out the will of the people.

That's what is wonderful about our government. There is accountability built into the system. The judge can make rulings at his discretion. The journalist can report those decisions and how they impact the residents who have to live with the judge's decisions. Then a debate can take place in the public square. And then the judge faces the consequences of his decisions, and the public debate, at the ballot box. And all is good.

This is all true, and our state court district judges are indeed elected. Sounds to me like you've given some thought, though, about the judge's re-election. That's your privilege.

Is there a chance you and I can enjoy that pumpkin pie either way?

Of course. But, if the truth be known, my chocolate ice box pie is truly the best. If you get lucky, I may still give you one. You may have to do some beggin', though.

[Steve]

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

[Doug Loudenback]

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

[Steve]

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

[Doug Loudenback]

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

[Steve]

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

[Doug Loudenback]

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

[Steve]

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

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

[Doug Loudenback]

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

[Steve]

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

Chocolate pie. I like chocolate pie.

[hoya]

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

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

[Steve]

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