First National Center

[ethansisson]

No, and that isn't what I said either. Yashouafar wasn't merely accused of crimes, he's plead guilty and is awaiting sentencing. In this case, yes, he should be stripped of his property rights. And the judge does have a duty to not leave this building in the hands of a guilty embezzler that is under more investigation by federal authorities.

Even felons can own property. Denying basic rights to criminals is cruel.

[OKCTalker]

This is one of those instances where the judge accepts an agreement between the two interested parties, but parties without standing (the public) cry foul. I don't believe that anyone has legal standing to challenge the ruling. Such is life inside and outside a courthouse.

Back to the real world. The building is back in the hands of Yashouafar who has no money and only a few days of freedom remaining before he is sentenced. No existing tenant will renew their lease under these circumstances, nor would a new tenant consider moving in. Devon will be completely gone next year. Revenue will continue to decline, only critical repairs will be made, and unpaid bills will be piling up. Nevertheless, an equity partner or new owner will be announced, and tell everyone that they will return First National to its glory days. Trust me. I promise. And everyone will, because no-one has any other choice. But unless significant changes are commenced quickly, the building may decline physically and/or economically to an irreversible point, and I don't think that we're very far away.

Could we then be looking at a 33-story building will all of the hallmarks of Stage Center? An historic and iconic part of Oklahoma City. Architecturally significant. A fantastic location. Too expensive to repair. Too symbolic to tear down. Too painful to leave standing. Another symbol of failure not unlike the Indian Cultural Center, but this one can be seen from almost anywhere in Oklahoma City.

At what point does OCURA (or another entity) assert eminent domain and take the property in order to preserve it? Does any public entity have the political capital to take the building at that point, pick a winner, and give it to someone who will restore the building, most likely with financial inducements? What would existing downtown building owners, potential "mystery tower" developers or taxpayers say about a deal like that, especially when downtown focus is directed towards a new convention center and C2S, and the the enormous cost of replacing the county jail is looming in the near future? Or is this even how this should play out?

When you put your anger at Yashouafar behind you, there are lots of interesting possibilities. "May we live in interesting times." We do.

[hoya]

No, and that isn't what I said either. Yashouafar wasn't merely accused of crimes, he's plead guilty and is awaiting sentencing. In this case, yes, he should be stripped of his property rights. And the judge does have a duty to not leave this building in the hands of a guilty embezzler that is under more investigation by federal authorities.

He really does not have that duty. And no, there's no basis in law for stripping him of the building. And there may be some form of plea agreement that keeps him from being a convicted felon.

[Steve]

Should we strip all property rights from people accused of crimes? Yashouafar has pled guilty, but he has not yet been sentenced. He isn't a convicted felon yet. Now, that day may be coming very soon, or he may have a plea agreement where he avoids a felony conviction. Judge Graves does not have any duty in this situation towards the well-being of the building.

The attorneys are officers of the court. They have a duty to be truthful with the judge. They can't stand up and argue "the check is in the mail" (which is basically what they did here) if they know it to be false. Now I know a lot of attorneys who draw a very fine line on what they "know". But Judge Graves gave them 5 days after Capmark had two or three agreed continuances on the matter, and he managed to come up with the money during that time. So clearly the attorneys representing old boy were not being untruthful.

Judges are supposed to be impartial. They aren't supposed to be looking for an excuse to hammer someone who isn't popular.

I don't like this outcome any more than you guys do. But it is what it is. If this was a guy struggling to keep his house, and the judge granted him 5 days to come up with the money after the bank demanded final payment, and he managed to come up with it, everyone would be happy. We just don't like this guy and we want our building back.

Um yeah, officers of the court, truthful, other words typed onto a keypad... no offense, but what truth are we to assume here? The truth when officers of the court signed an agreement that there would be no appeals, no fight, if Yashouafar couldn't pay by May 27, but when the final extension deadline came, he didn't have the money, so they insisted on having more time? The truth where they said they needed more time for the wire to arrive, but then had another source of funding when Monday hit? Help me here on what part of this process leaves us with faith in the integrity of the officers of the court.... I'm truly curious how this logic applies to this real life situation instead of some lofty ideals taught in law school....
So, now for a show of hands... how many people actually assume lawyers never lie?

[ljbab728]

Um yeah, officers of the court, truthful, other words typed onto a keypad... no offense, but what truth are we to assume here? The truth when officers of the court signed an agreement that there would be no appeals, no fight, if Yashouafar couldn't pay by May 27, but when the final extension deadline came, he didn't have the money, so they insisted on having more time? The truth where they said they needed more time for the wire to arrive, but then had another source of funding when Monday hit? Help me here on what part of this process leaves us with faith in the integrity of the officers of the court.... I'm truly curious how this logic applies to this real life situation instead of some lofty ideals taught in law school....
So, now for a show of hands... how many people actually assume lawyers never lie?

Well I hope you're not holding your breath waiting for a positive response, Steve. LOL

[bombermwc]

As a lawyer, if you weren't able to lie, how would you be able to defend those that are guilty? Like a politician, it's a skill required for the job. One can only hope that the truth prevails in those situations although i'm sure we can all come up with instances where the tactics of the lawyers won over what was right.

In this case, there's no legal way to remove custody of the building from him. The dispute is between the bank and him. When the bank decides they're done (and can't get any more of these smaller payments out of him), then they can start liqudating some assets. But just because someone is guilty, doesn't mean that you have any right to take away things that they own (unless they were obtained illegally).

As much as I would love to see that happen, and have the building turned over to someone, it begs more questions that it answers. Who takes it? The bank or a receivership? Does it get auctioned off then? Could we end up with someone even less scrupulous owning it after all the drama is over? If that were to be legal as an action, wouldn't it seem to push into his other properties (including his home) to make up the cash. And in that case, those that suffer because of his actions now include his family. And the other properties could also have issues. It's just a messy game that, while the knee-jerk is to say do it, really if it's thought through, isn't something we really want to have happen.

Now, bankruptcy with the building taken by the bank? Sure why not.

[hoya]

Um yeah, officers of the court, truthful, other words typed onto a keypad... no offense, but what truth are we to assume here? The truth when officers of the court signed an agreement that there would be no appeals, no fight, if Yashouafar couldn't pay by May 27, but when the final extension deadline came, he didn't have the money, so they insisted on having more time? The truth where they said they needed more time for the wire to arrive, but then had another source of funding when Monday hit? Help me here on what part of this process leaves us with faith in the integrity of the officers of the court.... I'm truly curious how this logic applies to this real life situation instead of some lofty ideals taught in law school....
So, now for a show of hands... how many people actually assume lawyers never lie?

Says the journalist, a profession known for upholding the highest values of truth and honor. No sensationalism at all. Are you truly curious how the logic applies to real life, or is this one of those creatively worded journalist questions where you say one thing but you're really looking over at the audience and winking?

People often try to simplify certain agreements, and then get upset when their perception of that simplified agreement is violated. But do we really have an issue here? Let's look at it, and if you're truly curious, you can see how these high and lofty law school ideals apply in the real world. Now I don't have whatever agreement was signed between the two parties here. But you say they agreed "no appeal, no fight" if they couldn't meet the May 27 deadline. Well, they haven't appealed anything, so we're good there. Do you have any proof that this has gone up to the Court of Appeals? Remember, in the law "appeal" has a very specific meaning. So did they fight? Well that's a term that's ambiguous as hell. They didn't go to trial, if that's what it means. They didn't force the judge into long drawn out hearings on the subject. Everybody agreed to give him more time. That doesn't sound like a fight to me. If I ask a girl out on a date, and we agree to go to the movies on Friday, and then on Thursday she calls and says "can we go Saturday instead?" and I say okay, no one lied. We had an agreement to go on Friday, and then it was changed.

The only thing that happened here was this guy asked the judge for 5 more days to get the money, the bank was sick of waiting, and the judge granted him 5 more days. Then he came up with the money, just like he said he would. Please, can you tell me where the attorneys lied here? I'm truly curious.

As a lawyer, if you weren't able to lie, how would you be able to defend those that are guilty? Like a politician, it's a skill required for the job.

Well I don't lie.

Say Bob is accused of drunk driving. Cops say Bob is pulled over driving the wrong way down a bike path. He breathes in the breathalyzer and blows a .42 (with .08 being the legal limit). Bob then tells the cops "whoa I'm sooooo wasted...." I can get up and say "My client is innocent, he wasn't drunk" without lying. Why? Because I wasn't there and didn't see any of it. When I talk to Bob he says "they're all lying I didn't do that", or he doesn't say anything about what happened at all. I don't have personal knowledge of the truth. Maybe the cops are lying.

Now, if I talk to Bob and he says "dude I was so drunk, I totally did it but I want to go to trial anyway", then I have to change what I say. Instead of saying "my client didn't do this", I've got to throw in some "the district attorney can't prove" and "they collected no evidence" and things like that. I can still say "he's innocent" because that's a term of law, and until the jury comes back and says guilty, he is innocent. Maybe it's a distinction that doesn't matter much to you, but it does to me.

[HangryHippo]

As a lawyer, if you weren't able to lie, how would you be able to defend those that are guilty? Like a politician, it's a skill required for the job. One can only hope that the truth prevails in those situations although i'm sure we can all come up with instances where the tactics of the lawyers won over what was right.

In this case, there's no legal way to remove custody of the building from him. The dispute is between the bank and him. When the bank decides they're done (and can't get any more of these smaller payments out of him), then they can start liqudating some assets. But just because someone is guilty, doesn't mean that you have any right to take away things that they own (unless they were obtained illegally).

As much as I would love to see that happen, and have the building turned over to someone, it begs more questions that it answers. Who takes it? The bank or a receivership? Does it get auctioned off then? Could we end up with someone even less scrupulous owning it after all the drama is over? If that were to be legal as an action, wouldn't it seem to push into his other properties (including his home) to make up the cash. And in that case, those that suffer because of his actions now include his family. And the other properties could also have issues. It's just a messy game that, while the knee-jerk is to say do it, really if it's thought through, isn't something we really want to have happen.

Now, bankruptcy with the building taken by the bank? Sure why not.

1) Calling lying a skill required for a job is despicable.
2) It may not be right to take away things someone owns just because they're guilty (which would be knee-jerk), but what if there's suspicion they're holding on to them through possibly illegal means? Seems like that might be the case here, but I guess we'll wait for investigations to wrap up.

[Rover]

Knowingly LYING to the courts is a serious offense. A defense lawyer presents facts in such a way as to best represent the legal rights of the defendant...a basic right in the US. That doesn't mean the lawyer can present to the court as FACT things that they KNOW to be untrue. If they do so they are unethical and worse...same as cheating doctors, car dealers, etc. To indicate that lying is a part of being a lawyer is in and of itself a distortion or gross misunderstanding of their jobs.

[ethansisson]

Most of the time a lawyer's knowledge of the specifics of a case are based on what their client and witnesses told them. Because they cannot typically know the truthfulness of what they have been told, they are not knowingly lying if they use their client's story as the basis for their arguments. So a lawyer can typically make false claims in court all day as long as he does not know them to be false. However, if a client has confided to the lawyer that he is guilty, the lawyer must change his approach to avoid actually telling lies. Instead of saying "my client didn't do this," he might say "my client is innocent." His client hasn't been convicted yet, so although technically the client isn't innocent, legally the client is.

So in this case, if Yashouafar told his lawyer the money was lost, his lawyer would not be doing anything unethical or illegal in reiterating that statement to the court, even if he suspects it isn't true.

[CaptDave]

This very reason is why I decided I could not be an attorney. It seems there is moral/ethical truth and then there is legal truth. The difference is when an attorney is defending a client in good faith based on what that client has told him. That is the gray area that I can understand their point. But if you know a person is guilty or lying, I personally could not stomach defending someone like that regardless of the idealized "everyone deserves a defense" statements you often hear in discussions such as this.

Did Yashouafar's attorney participate in a fraud upon the court? I doubt it, but I think he probably had to shower afterward.

[hoya]

And we wonder why people don't trust lawyers? Seems like semantics to me, contrived to help people sleep better and/or make more money. If you know someone is guilty, why do it? Also, why say things that you fully know won't be understood by the jury as such. In other words, a jury is simply going to assume that you are either 1) lying or 2) are sincere. No one is going to automatically assume that you are merely legally being truthful while actually lying.

I have had cases where my client told me such a crazy story that I didn't believe him at all. Most of the time I work those cases out without going to trial. But there have been times I've had to stand up and tell the jury something completely ridiculous. The sit there, cock their eyebrows, nod their heads politely, and then sentence my client to prison. "Sorry man, they didn't believe your 'that man in the videotaped confession wasn't me' defense." But most jurors understand that I have a job to do and that everyone is entitled to a proper defense.

This very reason is why I decided I could not be an attorney. It seems there is moral/ethical truth and then there is legal truth. The difference is when an attorney is defending a client in good faith based on what that client has told him. That is the gray area that I can understand their point. But if you know a person is guilty or lying, I personally could not stomach defending someone like that regardless of the idealized "everyone deserves a defense" statements you often hear in discussions such as this.

Did Yashouafar's attorney participate in a fraud upon the court? I doubt it, but I think he probably had to shower afterward.

If honest people are prevented from being attorneys, the only lawyers you'll have will be crooks.

Virtually every client I have ever had has lied to me about something. It might be "I didn't do this" or it might be "my mom is going to post my bond". It might be leaving out someone involved with the crime, it might be not telling me that they just got raped in their cell. "Oh I'm fine nothing happened". The threat of a jury trial keeps the other side more honest. Even if I strongly suspect my client is guilty, you must preserve the threat of jury trial because otherwise the DA just asks for the maximum punishment again and again and again.

Yashouafar's attorneys apparently said "our client has money coming to him right now". According to Steve, Yashouafar managed to then get the necessary money from somewhere else. So if I'm drinking, but tell someone that my girlfriend is giving me a ride home from the bar tonight, and then when she can't make it I call a cab, am I lying to that person? Or did plans fall through and I made other arrangements?

[CaptDave]

I completely understand hoyasooner. Part of me really wanted to go to law school a few years ago, but I could not get past this dilemma in my mind. I honestly did not think I would do a good job providing a defense to a client I believed was guilty. I tried to find a way to reconcile that conflict but I couldn't, so I dropped all consideration of going. Better then than after two or three years of law school then discovering I didn't want to be an attorney.

[HangryHippo]

And we wonder why people don't trust lawyers? Seems like semantics to me, contrived to help people sleep better and/or make more money. If you know someone is guilty, why do it? Also, why say things that you fully know won't be understood by the jury as such. In other words, a jury is simply going to assume that you are either 1) lying or 2) are sincere. No one is going to automatically assume that you are merely legally being truthful while actually lying.

This right here.

[HangryHippo]

I have had cases where my client told me such a crazy story that I didn't believe him at all. Most of the time I work those cases out without going to trial. But there have been times I've had to stand up and tell the jury something completely ridiculous. The sit there, cock their eyebrows, nod their heads politely, and then sentence my client to prison. "Sorry man, they didn't believe your 'that man in the videotaped confession wasn't me' defense." But most jurors understand that I have a job to do and that everyone is entitled to a proper defense.



If honest people are prevented from being attorneys, the only lawyers you'll have will be crooks.

Virtually every client I have ever had has lied to me about something. It might be "I didn't do this" or it might be "my mom is going to post my bond". It might be leaving out someone involved with the crime, it might be not telling me that they just got raped in their cell. "Oh I'm fine nothing happened". The threat of a jury trial keeps the other side more honest. Even if I strongly suspect my client is guilty, you must preserve the threat of jury trial because otherwise the DA just asks for the maximum punishment again and again and again.

Yashouafar's attorneys apparently said "our client has money coming to him right now". According to Steve, Yashouafar managed to then get the necessary money from somewhere else. So if I'm drinking, but tell someone that my girlfriend is giving me a ride home from the bar tonight, and then when she can't make it I call a cab, am I lying to that person? Or did plans fall through and I made other arrangements?

Yes, everyone is entitled to a proper defense, but not when the proper defense is lying. But perhaps that's just me being ethical? I don't understand what's so grey about this issue... I see your point about lawyers having to go off what they're told by clients, but if the client is lying, what's there to defend?

In regards to your last questions, I guess the answer depends. Were you lying?

[Steve]

Says the journalist, a profession known for upholding the highest values of truth and honor. No sensationalism at all. Are you truly curious how the logic applies to real life, or is this one of those creatively worded journalist questions where you say one thing but you're really looking over at the audience and winking?

People often try to simplify certain agreements, and then get upset when their perception of that simplified agreement is violated. But do we really have an issue here? Let's look at it, and if you're truly curious, you can see how these high and lofty law school ideals apply in the real world. Now I don't have whatever agreement was signed between the two parties here. But you say they agreed "no appeal, no fight" if they couldn't meet the May 27 deadline. Well, they haven't appealed anything, so we're good there. Do you have any proof that this has gone up to the Court of Appeals? Remember, in the law "appeal" has a very specific meaning. So did they fight? Well that's a term that's ambiguous as hell. They didn't go to trial, if that's what it means. They didn't force the judge into long drawn out hearings on the subject. Everybody agreed to give him more time. That doesn't sound like a fight to me. If I ask a girl out on a date, and we agree to go to the movies on Friday, and then on Thursday she calls and says "can we go Saturday instead?" and I say okay, no one lied. We had an agreement to go on Friday, and then it was changed.

The only thing that happened here was this guy asked the judge for 5 more days to get the money, the bank was sick of waiting, and the judge granted him 5 more days. Then he came up with the money, just like he said he would. Please, can you tell me where the attorneys lied here? I'm truly curious.



Well I don't lie.

Say Bob is accused of drunk driving. Cops say Bob is pulled over driving the wrong way down a bike path. He breathes in the breathalyzer and blows a .42 (with .08 being the legal limit). Bob then tells the cops "whoa I'm sooooo wasted...." I can get up and say "My client is innocent, he wasn't drunk" without lying. Why? Because I wasn't there and didn't see any of it. When I talk to Bob he says "they're all lying I didn't do that", or he doesn't say anything about what happened at all. I don't have personal knowledge of the truth. Maybe the cops are lying.

Now, if I talk to Bob and he says "dude I was so drunk, I totally did it but I want to go to trial anyway", then I have to change what I say. Instead of saying "my client didn't do this", I've got to throw in some "the district attorney can't prove" and "they collected no evidence" and things like that. I can still say "he's innocent" because that's a term of law, and until the jury comes back and says guilty, he is innocent. Maybe it's a distinction that doesn't matter much to you, but it does to me.

MY ONLY RESPONSE: I would never claim that journalists never lie. Some of the most despicable, dishonest, unethical people I've known in my life claimed to be journalists. Still bewildered by any suggestion that lawyers never lie (my experience is the opposite).

[Dubya61]

In regards to your last questions, I guess the answer depends. Were you lying?

A friend of mine used to say, "Hey, I didn't lie -- the truth changed."

[UnFrSaKn]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/william...7631831726496/





Better?

[hoya]

Yes, everyone is entitled to a proper defense, but not when the proper defense is lying. But perhaps that's just me being ethical? I don't understand what's so grey about this issue... I see your point about lawyers having to go off what they're told by clients, but if the client is lying, what's there to defend?

In regards to your last questions, I guess the answer depends. Were you lying?

How do I know? I don't unless I actually witnessed it. When you've cross examined enough cops, and had them lie to your face, you start to believe, maybe just a little bit, that maybe those drugs weren't your client's. Everyone deserves to have their story heard. If that story sucks, it ain't my fault.

MY ONLY RESPONSE: I would never claim that journalists never lie. Some of the most despicable, dishonest, unethical people I've known in my life claimed to be journalists. Still bewildered by any suggestion that lawyers never lie (my experience is the opposite).

We both work in industries where our colleagues aren't always the most trustworthy. What I am saying is that you've got no proof that the lawyers in this case where dishonest or unethical.

Oklahoma City at Night (October 15 2012) - a set on Flickr





Better?

Looks fantastic. Bright and shining and beautiful, like the ethics of a lawyer.

[Steve]

Um, never said they're dishonest or unethical. I'm questioning the idea of assuming lawyers are always honest and ethical.

[catch22]

New owners of First National Center in OKC has ties to a Los Angeles apparel company | NewsOK.com

Hopefully good news....? Maybe? Please?

[ABryant]

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.

[kevinpate]

Um, never said they're dishonest or unethical. I'm questioning the idea of assuming lawyers are always honest and ethical.

Without regard or comment on the case relating to 1st National, the simple truth is that not all attorneys are honest and ethical. Same be true for preachers, teachers, newsfolk, doctors, bankers, sales folk, carpenters, bricklayers, legal brothel workers, girl scouts and their leaders, campfire folk and their leaders, politicos and their staffs, boy scouts and their leaders, and puppy mill owners.

Any profession or occupation or hobby area that has humans at its core will have some great folk, some so-so folk, some downright iffy folk and some truly horrid folk.
Welcome to earth, and thanks for playing.

[Bellaboo]

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.

I think the new owners are just a front for Yashouafar. Just my gut feeling.

[HangryHippo]

New owners of First National Center in OKC has ties to a Los Angeles apparel company | NewsOK.com

Hopefully good news....? Maybe? Please?

Something tells me this is merely a placeholder for Yashouafar.