Pages

Wednesday, October 03, 2018

Truckin - like the doodah man once told me you got to play your hand sometime - the cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay em down [UPDATED]

The headline is from Grateful Dead's Truckin'

In a specific and timely context: "you got to play your hand," doesn't that mean that if you've the video you say you have you go to Dakota County Attorney Backstrom, because "sometime - the cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay em down?"

This is not about fairness to Ellison as much as it is about fairness to the public. As in do it now or don't bother doing it later.

"... ain't worth a dime if you don't lay em down ..."

Ms. Monahan and her attorney have to know that.

Musicians have that figured out without having any training in the law.

____________UPDATE___________
Perhaps that posted thought is too flippant. kstp.com posts the draft report concluding the allegation of a physical abuse is uncorroborated. Anybody who cares to read it can read it. It is worth reading to see that the Monahan anguish is real, but breakups of relationships can be messy, and more stressful to one than the other.

Nothing in the report seems to put Ellison at fault in any substantial way. Feelings Monahan reached are personal and conclusory. If no physical encounter happened then it is all emotion, and unfortunate but not Ellison's fault.

If Monahan's intent in any of this is to re-establish an ended relationship, it appears that train's left the station. If a revenge element is a motive, for what, and why should we be attracted to vengefulness, if it is at play?

The question for voters is not whether Ellison's breakup with Monahan is unfortunate, it is who would better handle the job of Attorney General, Ellison or Wardlow, and nothing but that. Ellison, while with Monahan and while breaking up handled a seat in Congress and a high post at DNC and gave a keynote speech at his party's national convention. It is unclear from vague web assertions whether Wardlow over the same time period handled anything of any consequence. With relation to capability to be Attorney General, or otherwise.

Nobody in the press has done a compare and contrast of the qualifications and actual experience of the two candidates. That would be worthwhile investigative journalism, and we await it in hope it happens. In effect, we are being asked to choose an Attorney General based on Ellison's handling Congressional staff and some past litigation experience, without knowing if Wardlow ever actually litigated a jury trial or managed a single staff person of any kind.

Ellison seems to have the record to run on while Wardlow has to build a record by going into verifiable detail of what, if anything relevant, he has in his resume to show any hint at being qualified to run the AG office. It is scary.

__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Ellison promises a degree of continuity in a well-run office, with past voting having shown the electorate feels that Swanson's continuity was vital. Wardlow threatens turmoil and a slash and burn threat to litigation staff, with favoritism toward a narrow segment of like-minded folks compatible with Wardlow's worldview. He can profess a respect for continuity, but can you believe it?

__________FURTHER UPDATE_________
There is a big question in all of this at this point, for me, and you have to read the Susan Ellingstad report linked to above in weighing it, that question being the possible ethical dimension of it - using "ethical" in its ordinary sense and not hairsplitting about "legal ethics":

Karen Monahan, and her son, doing as they are doing, did she find Doug Wardlow's boss for years as her attorney in her advancing publicity of a view of a situation; or did he find her, which might imply he, (possibly with Wardlow's blessing and possibly with more involvement from Wardlow), is using her with a political purpose.

That is, before any attorney client relationship developed to be privileged, did he seek out Monahan, or did she seek out him?



It is a question that might need to be fleshed out in further posting, but it is fundamental to an adult understanding of a relationship breaking up and hostile and hurt feelings being directed as they have been. So far, nobody has asked that question, but it is a basis of understanding that cannot be left swept under some rug. Monahan is being advised, yes, but with what motivations at play among her, Parker, and Wardlow; i.e., is there a commonality of action between two lawyers to arguably wrongly disadvantage a third?

In any attorney-client relationship it is the client, and only the client, that must call the shots, not the attorney either directly or indirectly. That is how the system is supposed to work and it is a situation where privilege, once the attorney-client relation has begun, imposes a barrier to inquiry.

Before that, however, who sought out whom? You tell me. I do not know and can only advance that question, as relevant to voter judgment.

One single, simple question. There has to be an answer.

____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
There is new coverage; HuffPo, here; The Intercept, here. Read each.

The Intercept notes early [links in original omitted]:

Monahan’s attorney, Andrew Parker, said his new client contacted him for representation a few days ago, not the other way around. In a phone call with The Intercept, he said that their association had nothing to do with his close relationship to Ellison’s opponent. “As I understand, she learned of me from her son, who worked for someone I know, and that’s how she ended up calling me,” Parker said. “She didn’t have representation before and was being inundated. I have dealt with the media and done other high-profile cases, and I also have an understanding of politics.”

Monahan has alleged that there is a video of the incident between her and Ellison, and her son has claimed that he has seen it. Ellison has insisted that no such video exists and has denied any such physical encounter.

Parker said that Monahan did not know of his long-standing relationship with Ellison’s opponent. “I can tell you for sure she did not — she didn’t know I had any relationship with Doug Wardlow nor did she have any contact with Wardlow, or the Wardlow campaign,” he said.

When asked if she was paying for his legal services, Parker said, “I don’t want to get into it, I don’t believe it’s a relevant question.”

Parker and Wardlow’s close relationship goes far back. Wardlow, who is 40, spent nearly half his legal career working at Parker’s previous law firm, Parker Rosen LLC.

Parker is also a conservative political commentator who has previously expressed strong support for Wardlow’s candidacy. Parker hosts a right-wing radio show and podcast on a Minnesota AM talk radio station. He advertises a link to his podcast on the front page of his law firm’s website.

Parker’s show included discussion of the allegations against Ellison as recently as September 30, in which he compared Monahan’s claims to those made against Kavanaugh.

In December 2017, Parker invited Wardlow on his show to talk about his attorney general candidacy. At that point in the race, it was all but certain that Wardlow would be the Republican nominee. On the show, Parker called Wardlow “a good friend of mine” and “an outstanding lawyer, one of the most creative lawyers that I have ever worked with.”

[...] “You make sure when you get to the ballot box in November that you take close watch of the attorney general race, and cast your vote on the Republican side of the ticket,” Parker told his audience.

[...] When asked if he had done any campaigning for Wardlow, Parker told The Intercept no. “To date, I have not. I may in the future, knowing a lot more about Keith Ellison than I did before,” he said, referring to new information provided by Monahan.

Monahan, Ellison’s former partner, had spent much of the last year hinting on social media of abuse by Ellison, and the existence of those potential allegations was well-known in Minnesota political circles. But Monahan’s allegations exploded into the national media in early August, when her son detailed his mother’s experience in a lengthy Facebook post. [...]

The Intercept after referencing the DFL's own launched investigation, continued:

Their investigation, which was conducted over the past several weeks, concluded that Monahan’s claims of physical abuse could not be substantiated because she refused to share the video footage. (Parker told The Intercept that while he disputes their conclusions, the investigation was conducted by “a very good law firm” and he would “never impugn them.” He added that he knows the investigating attorney, Susan Ellingstad, personally and likes her.)

[...] It was in response to the investigation that the public learned Monahan had retained the legal services of Parker. In tweeting her reactions to the report, she referred media requests to him.

revealed when this is all over. Let's continue to let things unfold….
For media request, please contact my attorney, Andrew Parker, 612-355-4100

— Karen Monahan (@KarenMonahan01) October 1, 2018

Parker told The Intercept that he has not seen the alleged video and does not know if anyone ever will.

“I don’t know if there would be such a circumstance where she would share it,” he said. “She is very uncomfortable with releasing it, she doesn’t think it’s a good idea to release it, in order to shift the national dialogue on the subject. You should not need the video.”

Parker said there was no difference between releasing a video publicly and showing it privately to a reporter or an investigator. “If you are a victim and you show it to anyone, that is a revictimization,” he said.

The questions of the Monahan son and whether he had Wardlow campaign contacts, who it was that tipped the son to tell Ms. Monahan to seek out Parker, and why, (i.e., what was said between mother and son before the quoted tweet), things of that kind were left hanging.

The above linked HuffPo item added:

She has hired Andrew Parker, a right-wing pundit and partner at the Minneapolis firm Parker Rosen, as her attorney and spokesman in matters related to the allegation against Ellison.

Parker previously employed Ellison’s opponent Doug Wardlow at his firm and defended Wardlow’s ability to separate his personal views from his legal practice in a Saturday article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Parker admitted to HuffPost that he supports Wardlow’s candidacy in a personal capacity but denied that Monahan had any contact with Wardlow’s campaign either directly or working through him.

“I never spoke to Doug Wardlow about my representation until he learned of it in the press,” Parker said.

In an interview with The Intercept in which he made similar denials, Parker declined to say whether he was charging Monahan for his services. Parker also provided two different reasons why he had not yet seen Monahan’s video in a radio interview Tuesday night. First he said he had not yet met her in person; then he said she did not bring it to their first meeting and has since been out of town.

Again, what was the son doing, who was he talking to, while direct contacts are disavowed, indirect third-party cutout people may have been involved. And, "'I never spoke to Doug Wardlow about my representation until he learned of it in the press,' Parker said," begs the question of conversations afterward, direct or indirect via intermediaries.

While some in the DFL may be keen to put distance between themselves and Kieth Ellison, I, as an independent who caucuses DFL and contributes to candidates but awaits seeing much more of a progressive swell in those ranks before drinking any Koolaid, have voted my early ballot already for Ellison, and would not change my vote with Wardlow the only viable alternative, given the great distaste I find for the man as a zealot who was too instrumental in killing "Tax the Rich" when it was feasible, but for Republican assassination of the concept and too tepid a DFL response to its death.

Any progressive not voting for Ellison, no matter what, is compromising higher long-term principles over things arising in a short-term relationship breakup. This is not a judgeship for life appointment situation, it is a vote by the electorate over a fixed short term in administrative office. Let opinions differ, the belief here is Wardlow is incompatible with principles about government duties owed to the disadvantaged in the State and nation, owed to Romney's 47% by the rest of us and owed primarily by the rich who are taxed too low and live too complacently. That 47% which Romney spoke of with disdain being a disdain Wardlow appears to share, and that is the bottom line here of why the vote went to Ellison and to lasting progressive ideals.

Beyond that, I have no sound reason whatsoever - none - to doubt Ellison when he says alleged things did not happen. He is right to stop there and not have any hostility toward Monahan, despite her career sabotage actions. They were at one point close. That is gone, but he sincerely is saying he still cares for her well-being. At a guess, a part of Monahan also cares for Ellison's well-being and explains at best the apparent vacillation she shows. Ellison's strongly expressing disapproval of any shunning of Monahan is also praiseworthy. He will make a fine Attorney General, once elected; likely as in Congress serving multiple terms.

I believe him.

Why not?

Surely feelings of Monahan matter and the wish is Ellison from the start had avoided the relationship, but he acted as he did while his policy principles are as sound and unimpeachable as they are.

If not true to Ellison's better vision for the nation, standing in concert with the ideas Bernie advanced, I would be untrue to core values important to me.

Surely a better posture might have been Swanson staying in a primary for retaining the AG seat after the Pelikan caucusing putsch, but she balked, and then failed in seeking to be governor - and add to that scenario Ellison staying in Congress accruing seniority; but things are as they exist not as they might have been.

With Parker's finger in things, I expect more mischief. Wardlow is his protege. Yet, again, for emphasis: it is for the client to call the shots, not the attorney. The attorney either conforms or drops the representation for substitution of counsel. And if Parker is in this with no fee, why is he in it at all beyond advancement of his protege's candidacy? Who is he? Aside from who he may say he is. I do not know. Do you?

___________UPDATE____________
Proper houskeeping, even if a bit cumulative, is to add cites/links as they are discovered.

PiPress, Dave Orrick, Oct. 2, title: Who’s investigating the Keith Ellison allegation? Dakota County might — but only if Minneapolis cops do first. This is from before current coverage reveals that the Mpls. law enforcement leadership has declined to investigate, claiming a conflict becaise Ellison's son is a city council member. That latter situation so far presents an impasse.

Orrick wrote:

According to Monahan’s attorney, she’s handling her allegations how she wants, not how others want.

“She doesn’t care about a public opinion, and she doesn’t care about a law enforcement investigation to throw Keith Ellison in jail,” said Andrew Parker, who said he began representing Monahan several days ago. “In addition to her own personal healing, she wants to shift the dialogue in this country. It is not restorative to the abuser or the abused to be shamed and victimized. And she does not want the message to be that women will only be believed if they don’t have a video.”

[...] Parker said he hasn’t specifically spoken to Monahan about filing a criminal complaint, but he did say this: “Karen Monahan welcomes and will fully cooperate in any investigation that is fair and impartial.”

A decade ago, Parker hired Wardlow to work at his law firm. Wardlow no longer works for Parker. Parker said he’s not being paid by Wardlow’s campaign but that he’s supports Wardlow.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Karin Housley, who is challenging incumbent Sen. Tina Smith, a Democrat, has called for the current attorney general, Democrat Lori Swanson, to investigate Monahan’s allegation. Whether that will happen was also unclear Tuesday.

The Housley statement is news; although it seems clear that if the Wardlow camp is critical of an outside firm's effort, a DFL official doing a parallel study would fuel similar output from Wardlow and handlers.

Parker's not yet said who is fueling the meter running, or whether he's calling his partisan involvement "pro bono." This situation is replete with cause to disbelieve multiple parties, but, bottom line, who'd be the more reliable AG; progressive Ellison, or Wardlow who has shown an intense anetehma toward "Tax the Rich" where, absent that, everybody else is handed grief in paying an unfairly high share while The Rich cruise. Wardlow's bias is disqualifying, in the view at this venue. End of story?