First National Center

[hoya]

You didn't answer my question.

You believe the judge should be held accountable for what may be a politically unpopular decision. My problem is that JUDGE BILL GRAVES did what virtually every other judge in the courthouse would have done. You present this as though granting someone a 5 day continuance is unusual. It is not. There are probably a hundred continuances or more granted in that building every single day (depending on which day, sometimes much more than that).

Granting the continuance is not what is unpopular. What IS unpopular is that Yashuoafar actually came up with the money. If Bill Graves had granted the continuance and then 5 days later, when no money was forthcoming, appointed a receiver, no one would have said anything.

[hoya]

To follow up:

You seem to place a lot of emphasis on the fact that at one point, Yashuoafar had signed an agreement not to contest the property going into receivership if he couldn't pay by a certain date. First of all, I'm not sure such an agreement is even enforceable. Even if it is, it becomes void once Capmark agrees to continue the proceedings to get more money. That was six months or more ago. Second, Capmark effectively waived any right to a speedy resolution on this issue as soon as they agreed to the initial continuance. They are hard pressed to make a believable argument to the judge that they will be unduly prejudiced by a continuance of less than a week when they previously agreed to continue it months at a time. "Oh judge, this extra 5 days is so terrible, please ignore that we've been in no hurry at all to resolve any of this".

Next, you've got to realize that actually appointing a receiver is a long and expensive process. The judge doesn't just snap his fingers and have it over with. This process would take several months and probably half a dozen more court appearances. When you tell the judge "hey give me a week and I can have this over and done with and resolved" and the judge will take it every time.

A 5 day continuance like this will almost always be granted as a matter of courtesy. Unless you're about to start a jury trial or a hearing that the judge has blocked out his entire day for, 5 days is nothing. It's the equivalent of asking the judge for a bathroom break in the middle of a trial. I once came back to a trial from lunch break, and maybe 15 minutes later asked the judge to take a short recess because I had to pee. He granted it without even blinking. This is the same type of thing. A 5 day continuance is a tiny delay next to the time needed to appoint a receiver, and doesn't give Yashuoafar any real advantage unless he is telling the truth and he really does have the money.

[Steve]

You didn't answer my question.

You believe the judge should be held accountable for what may be a politically unpopular decision. My problem is that JUDGE BILL GRAVES did what virtually every other judge in the courthouse would have done. You present this as though granting someone a 5 day continuance is unusual. It is not. There are probably a hundred continuances or more granted in that building every single day (depending on which day, sometimes much more than that).

Granting the continuance is not what is unpopular. What IS unpopular is that Yashuoafar actually came up with the money. If Bill Graves had granted the continuance and then 5 days later, when no money was forthcoming, appointed a receiver, no one would have said anything.

I believe it is up to each individual as to how they decide whether a judge should be re-elected. You are putting words in my mouth by saying I "believe the judge should be accountable for what may be a politically unpopular opinion." It is not for me to say how a person should vote. You say this ruling was within the norm. Without statistics, without proof, this is your opinion. And it's one worth hearing in this discussion. It is also your opinion as to what is or is not popular. That too, is a side worth hearing. I won't back down or apologize for bringing JUDGE BILL GRAVES' role in this to light. I will add, as an aside, that what I've been told by other attorneys is at odds with what you just posted in terms of timing, etc., on this particular case. Either way, you see it one way, and that's ok.
Both you and Doug have staged quite the debate on this discussion - I'd consider hiring either one of you as an attorney!

[Doug Loudenback]

Thank you, Steve. With a few stylistic changes (^^), I'd consider hiring you as my journalist.

I hope to see you at Pete's confab at Red Prime this afternoon.

[Midtowner]

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?

We're getting ready for a jury trial in a couple months with Judge Graves on a property damage claim. We've been set for pretrial several times over the last couple of years. Lots and lots of continuances due to the many scientific experts we're bringing in and getting depositions arranged. Not a whit of controversy over any continuance thus far. What you say is 100% true. Continuances, especially in civil cases are granted all the time, ESPECIALLY when not granting one would be unduly prejudicial to one side.

Here's one of those situations where I wonder not about the public's need to know, but about the press' ability to place this into context. The media might be there for the courtroom fireworks, but from experience, Judge Graves is a pretty laid back guy. A lot of the court's business takes place in his chambers. I'm guessing they don't reserve a seat for the media in those exchanges. The media is also not there to listen to the phone calls between attorneys or to review their correspondence. Again, lots of context is going to be lost for want of that information. These things are a lot like legislation. Once you get to the formal hearing setting, in many cases, there's so much context there that if you just sit through that hearing, you're only scratching the surface. When you choose to report on the performance of a public official with really so very little context, then are you doing the public a service or disservice?

Steve, especially here, you want the question the public debates to be whether Graves used sound judgment. Do you think you're properly equipping the public to debate this when you don't even know what the judge weighed in reaching his conclusion?

[hoya]

I believe it is up to each individual as to how they decide whether a judge should be re-elected. You are putting words in my mouth by saying I "believe the judge should be accountable for what may be a politically unpopular opinion." It is not for me to say how a person should vote. You say this ruling was within the norm. Without statistics, without proof, this is your opinion. And it's one worth hearing in this discussion. It is also your opinion as to what is or is not popular. That too, is a side worth hearing. I won't back down or apologize for bringing JUDGE BILL GRAVES' role in this to light. I will add, as an aside, that what I've been told by other attorneys is at odds with what you just posted in terms of timing, etc., on this particular case. Either way, you see it one way, and that's ok.
Both you and Doug have staged quite the debate on this discussion - I'd consider hiring either one of you as an attorney!

Well thank you.

To put this in context, Judge Graves is generally loved by attorneys because he's a nice old man. He's very friendly, and when I was a brand new lawyer terrified of being in court, he would always smile and joke around and put me at ease. Unless you go into his courtroom and act like a giant jerk, Judge Graves is going to grant your request for a continuance. When he did that here, he was acting no differently than he does in any other case. Isn't that what we want? For everyone to be equal under the law?

Not all judges are that nice. Vicki Robinson used to be mean as hell. But she was mean as hell to everybody, so it was still kind of fair.

Now sometimes, how a judge runs their docket will end up benefiting one party over another. If I have a case in front of a judge who throws a fit every time I request a continuance, I plan accordingly. In this case, Yashuoafar clearly gained from having that extra five days. But it's the normal system that Judge Graves has always used. He didn't do anything special for this guy in this case. Judge Hubbard used to give candy to people in her courtroom. So if someone comes in blaring the headline "Judge gives candy to convicted murderer" yeah that's true, but she gave candy to everybody. Presenting it in that way removes the context of the situation.

[Just the facts]

One thing is for sure - if Sam Presti was the judge FNC would be owned by a different person today. He seems to be a stickler for deadlines (as opposed to comalines, suggestionlines, xwarninglines, or wouldbenicetobedonebythisdatelines).

[Doug Loudenback]

Now, guys, be careful ... you are probably telling Steve more than he REALLY wants to know ... or, at least, acknowledge. He might actually wind up finding himself in the situation where he'd need to rethink, second-guess, HIMSELF. But, how can this be, because ...

[Steve]

Now, guys, be careful ... you are probably telling Steve more than he REALLY wants to know ... or, at least, acknowledge. He might actually wind up finding himself in the situation where he'd need to rethink, second-guess, HIMSELF. But, how can this be, because ...

Oh whatever Barrister.... what you're doing now is just a shot at me personally because this debate is ending up in a draw. Not gonna get upset at it, because you're just doing what's in your nature - delivering your closing argument.

[Doug Loudenback]

... this debate is ending up in a draw

So it is written by the Kwisatz.

[Steve]

Keep it up and I'll get my pocket lawyer after you.....

[Pete]

Steve has an update today, although nothing much has changed:

Ownership of First National Center, future, a mystery | NewsOK.com

[Spartan]

Wait, so what judge is deciding this case?

[OklahomaNick]

What a mess..
Why would any company want to move in there knowing all the things we know about the building and its unstable management.
I hope then plan on using a local broker IF they get the space up to par. Otherwise they won't even be able to pay their electric bill!

[Just the facts]

Let's just hope they don't pull a Skirvin and sell the whole place off at auction piece by piece.

http://newsok.com/skirvin-fixtures-a...rticle/2465017

The beleaguered Skirvin Plaza Hotel will be stripped of its elaborate furnishing and antiques in a May 24-25 absolute auction, its owner confirmed Monday.

...


The owner simply wants to liquidate and get out, officials said, adding that on Monday, yet another purchase contract was unraveling, one of many attempted over the last four years.

...

The liquidation includes six handmade Czechoslovakian leaded chandeliers, as well as numerous antique furnishings from the hotel's 250 rooms, restaurants and two grand ballrooms.

Also included will be some office equipment, two baby grand pianos and an award-winning 1901 grand piano, auctioneer Louis Dakil said.

Don't freak out - the story is from 1994.

[LuccaBrasi]

Foregive me if this was already mentioned and I missed it, but I hear the cousin of Yashuoafaris actually behind the new ownership.

[Bailey80]

Milbank CEO seeks probation in embezzlement case


OKLAHOMA CITY – One of Milbank Real Estate CEO Aaron Yashouafar’s attorneys has asked a judge in Las Vegas to sentence the First National Center owner to probation in an embezzlement case so that he can help shore up new financing for the downtown landmark.

Milbank CEO seeks probation in embezzlement case | The Journal Record

[BigD Misey]

Brilliant Pete.....MMMMMMuad'Dib!

[Pete]

Owner of First National Center in Oklahoma City seeks to avoid jail time

A judge in Las Vegas has been presented with character references that seek to portray Aaron Yashouafar, owner of First National Center in Oklahoma City, as an honest, ethical businessman as he pleads guilty to embezzlement.


Read more: Owner of First National Center in Oklahoma City seeks to avoid jail time | NewsOK.com

[Bellaboo]

Honest and ethical businessman.....................as he's plead guilty to embezzlement.

Nah.. this just doesn't go together.

[Pete]

The only people offering letters of support are on his payroll.

[kevinpate]

Almost reads as though, regarding FNB refi, they want him to be seen as too big to fail.
I vote nay.

[bluedogok]

Honest and ethical businessman.....................as he's plead guilty to embezzlement.

Nah.. this just doesn't go together.

A guilty plea doesn't always mean an admission of guilt.....
but in this case.....

[Rover]

A guilty plea doesn't always mean an admission of guilt.....
but in this case.....

Yes, but guilty plea plus convictions and a history of sleazy behavior...... If it walks like a duck...

[Pete]

How can you plead guilty without admitting guilt?

Pleading no contest is accepting the punishment without admission of guilt but that's not what he did here.