Loretta Lynn was being consistent in criticizing sexism, but not being a feminist--ONLY if we agree she was a racist and a fascist

First, please read this heartfelt, intelligent essay from Amanda Marcotte in Salon.com regarding the passing of Loretta Lynn at the ripe old age of 90.

I must admit I had no idea the often odious neoliberal (and staunch anti-Bernie Sanders booster; just do a word search for her name with Sanders--SMH) Amanda Marcotte grew up in rural Texas. Marcotte's defense of Loretta Lynn is, however, astute for what it says, but is still profoundly troubling in a way which shows why Marcotte was so against the Bernie Sanders movement. And it has to do with race, and racial justice for our nation.  For Marcotte, she merely sees the gender issues, and doesn't want to face the intersection of race and gender in American society.  It is why the minimum wage raise or trade treaties were, for Marcotte, never as important as political issues as abortion, even though fighting for higher minimum wages and fighting back against the corporate oligarchy would have disproportionately positive effects for women of color, and women of all skin colors in lower paying jobs.

Anyway, what Marcotte misses in her analysis of Lynn's political-cultural views is what Irami Osei-Frimpong​ fully understands, which is the bargain too many white married women make with patriarchy because, in various ways, the patriarchy benefits them. This is how or why married white women too often side with their race over their gender, as that privilege they get as white women is a main part of that bargain with patriarchy. This point completely eludes Marcotte as she otherwise attempts to explain why Loretta Lynn was against sexism, but was not a feminist. To miss this, though, is to miss the essence of why that is not a contradiction.*

The key line in Marcotte's essay is when she describes the ultimate point of Lynn's anti-sexism songs, which was women should, first, be "just resigned to it," meaning sexism. Then, in the same sentence (!), Marcotte explains Lynn, as with other Red State married white women, was also "profoundly skeptical of feminist claims that change is possible."  However, that is not really skepticism, nor hardened cynicism. If one understands what Irami is saying, when a married white "conservative" woman says she is "profoundly skeptical of feminist claims that change is possible," it is, instead, a fearful recognition of losing the privilege white married women receive in a racially stratified society--which they don't want to lose.  

So, sorry, Loretta Lynn fans. Lynn was not walking a tightrope between fighting sexism, while merely avoiding the label of feminism. Loretta Lynn was a walking, talking, singing racist and fascist who was telling white women, in particular, she understood their pain from Bubba, but that is still better than racial justice. 

I make no comment on Lynn's music, as I am not a fan of most C&W.  I am good with Hank Williams and Patsy Cline, but it falls pretty fast for me from there.  

* Michelle Wolf, the great comic, understands this, too. See here.  Though this book shows it is much worse than Wolf says, but Wolf gets really, really close.

What we are learning this year and what must be done

This has been some year, and we are still not done yet. First, we learned that the people who are truly holding the morality card on the abortion issue are not the Fetus Cult, but those who recognize that pregnancy is a very profound women's health issue, and why pregnant women must be the priority over the fetus they are carrying. Second, we learned this week that the essence of the conservative position on immigration is one of racial hatred and especially cruelty. 

Fascist Republican jerks, Ron DeSantis and Gregg Abbott, assumed, in sending undocumented people, including those seeking asylum from nations suffering under economic sanctions our nation has enacted, to Martha's Vineyard in New England, that these "libs" would be as hateful and cruel as the conservatives who hate immigrants. If you saw the DeSantis press conference, at some point, you observed the tittering cruelty of his wife and others on the platform behind him, and, if you knew American history, would note echoes from the 1960s, when the southern state "welfare" policies were to do the same to poor black people, i.e. sending them north to let the Yankees deal with "them." But what did we learn this week? The people on Martha's Vineyard, after getting over the shock of people suddenly showing up at their doorsteps, stepped up and have been providing material and emotional support to these desperate people. So-called "libs" across the nation have been donating to the local church there to help these people as well. 

I really think we are well past the time when our society, starting with broadcast media, begins to openly shun, delegitimize, and root out people who call themselves right wing and even "conservative." To rephrase what William Buckley and Brent Bozell, Sr. wrote in their defense of Joseph McCarthy, at page 333 of their book, McCarthy & His Enemies (1954): "Some day, the patience of America may at last be exhausted, and we will strike out against (Conservatives). Not because they are treacherous...but because...we will conclude 'that they are mistaken in their predictions, false in their analyses, wrong in their advice, and through the results of their actions injurious to the interests of the nation. That is a reason enough to strive to free the conduct of the country's affairs from the influence of them and their works.'" Except, Buckley and Bozell were talking not of "conservatives," but "liberals." 

A major part of Buckley/Bozell's defense of the Red Scare and McCarthyism was to ensure we would not only delegitimize aggressive labor union leaders, and assorted "Reds," but also ensure there would never be another New Deal. The Red Scare political strategists and warriors came first for the New Deal internationalists, who sought detente in the first years after WWII, and were treated as if they were all traitors (not all were innocent of the charge, but most were). Then, the project was to ensure no socialist or communist was part of any major corporate owned media conversation so that the liberals became the "left." Then, even after McCarthy's censure in the Senate (for daring to go after the military as Communist tinged, the way the modern right wingers say the military has gone "woke"), the project was to continue to ensure no socialist or communist was ever part of the conversation, but began to turn "liberal" into not only a sign of weakness, but an ideology designed to take "your" money to give to those "undeserving." And it is how we got to the point where Michael Dukakis, the Democratic Party's technocratic, and only culturally liberal (not a New Dealer in economics by a long shot) nominee for president in 1988, was treated as if he was foreign to American "values." 

If you ever want to understand how "liberal" became a dirty word in American politics, the Buckley/Bozell project and the Cold War should supply the answer. But, again, this has been a learning year for many Americans. Your right wing, racist aunts, uncles, parents, grandparents, and friends need to be confronted for their cruelty, their racism, their sexism, their ignorance, and told they are no longer entitled to be part of the political discourse. We don't need their opinions, even when they may be reasonable, because others who are not cruel, racist, sexist, and ignorant may have positions such as (a) don't spend too much taxpayer money; (b) maintain a strong military presence or police; and (c) the importance of religion in our lives as we search for meaningful relationships and communities.

Again, it is now past time to recognize that voting for most Republicans as a general proposition--I, too, have a single exception where I am voting Republican this year, believe it or not--is to undermine America's best values, and they are no longer fit for being part of a civilized discourse. They should be treated as traitors and shunned until they renounce their delusions, recognize their views have been injurious to our nation, and have been wrong in their advice for what ails our communities, our nation, and our planet. When we treat the modern Republican Party as anything other than an organization designed to undermine our way of life, we are undermining ourselves. Again, you want to tell us we shouldn't spend too much taxpayer money on various programs, for the common defense or welfare, to quote our Constitution? Fine. You want to tell us we need to maintain a strong military or police force? Fine. You want to tell us about the importance of religion in our lives? Fine. But, first make sure you are no longer supporting the Republican Party as an institution, renounce Trump, and his minion political figures running for office this year, and begin, and I mean, begin to prove your loyalty to what has truly made America great.

Barbara Ehrenreich has left the building

I do not know if I am prepared to live in a world without Barbara Ehrenreich's insight and scholarship. Ehrenreich, much like Gore Vidal, was a paradigm shatterer. See her NYT obit here and LAT obit here.

I tell a personal story of my meeting Ehrenreich twenty years ago, and her kindness--but with a still strange to me ending.

In or about June 2002, I met Ehrenreich through my uncle, then president-elect of the American Library Association. We met in Atlanta, Georgia at the annual ALA Convention, where my uncle had invited her to speak. I had been a major fan of her work since the 1980s, when I read Hearts of Men and thereafter read nearly anything and everything she published, from articles to books. It was strange, but for awhile, Time magazine had her as a columnist, which always struck me as amazing. It was Ehrenreich who coined the phrase "Professional Managerial Class" in the late 1970s, but she was far more hopeful about that intellectual work class in the original essay she co-wrote with her then-husband.  Catherine Liu has nailed what has happened to that class since the 1990s especially, and why PMC is a phrase of utter derision among a certain segment of the economic left in our era. 

Anyway, of all the people I met along the way who tried to help me reach a publisher, Ehrenreich was, ironically, the most helpful--along with the late, great Kevin Starr, dean of California historians. While Starr was almost a second editor, reading the manuscript as it was being written after the first third was completed, Ehrenreich gave me names of at least three different agents to contact with her recommendation from her for me to them. She really wanted to help me get to a publisher.  As each agent gave me a thumbs down (two of the three agents had ties to the Kennedys, and were fearful of being involved in the publication of the novel), she provided another name. We had mostly email communication, but a couple of oral conversations along the way.

I eventually found a local SoCal publisher through a friend who, only after his top editor loved the book, decided to take on the book for publication. I informed her of this development and she said she was so happy. She said, too, she would be happy to provide a blurb for the book. As the time for publication in May 2003 grew closer, he and I stopped hearing back from Ehrenreich for a blurb, and then finally, she informed my publisher--not me personally--it would not be forthcoming. She never provided a reason, despite my publisher directly asking. I have always believed it was because of her concern about that sub-plot, as I can't think of any other reason not to have endorsed the book--especially after she was so helpful to me.

The reason I say this is that, while she had been so excited about the overall manuscript, she was initially concerned over a sub-plot involving the split in the largely white feminist movement over RFK's presidency. She asked me point-blank while we were still in Atlanta at the ALA Convention, "Why have Gloria Steinem and Pat Schroeder become Republicans who endorse Reagan in 1972?" I said, first, Reagan was still pro-choice in 1972 (he had signed the nation's most liberal abortion law in 1967 as California governor), and the Republican response to an RFK presidency was to push for a libertarian minded politics in the white suburbs where the working class had become more middle class, ironically, as a result of New Deal policies now beginning to fade in the nation's consciousness.  

I then said to Ehrenreich there is a major difference between, say, her, Ellen Willis, and Ruth Rosen, who stayed with RFK in the alternative timeline, and Steinem and Schroeder. I said it has to do with what drove their respective feminisms. Steinem and Schroeder were essentially political and economic conservatives who became radicalized by bad personal (but still systemically) sexist treatment, and their feminism was primarily one for personal autonomy and dignity (for those who don't know, Schroeder was in the insurance industry before getting into politics, and was decidedly an economic conservative in those days--much like, ahem, Hillary Clinton). Whereas, Ehrenreich's and Willis' feminism was part of a larger economic and political left perspective that of course involves personal autonomy and dignity, but recognizes how capitalist oriented society devalues women's labor as a class, and how racism and class issues affect white women and women of color differently.  

I distinctly recall Ehrenreich winced, but then said, "Hmmm.....I can see that."  I then said to her, "If we look at what happened in the presidential election of 2000, we saw how you and Ellen Willis were for Nader, while Steinem and sadly Katha Pollitt of The Nation were tearing into any men who supported Nader as sexist."  Ehrenreich nodded, and said she definitely remembered how awful a time that was for her with various women friends, including especially Steinem and Pollitt (I would add, in this context, that Steinem's conduct particularly with respect to Bernie Sanders' two presidential campaigns bore out my analysis.  See here for one of the most egregious comments she made during Sanders' first presidential campaign. Also, who can forget Steinem's CIA association as a younger woman, and her later dating Henry War Criminal Kissinger, who, like Keith Richards, seems to live forever?). 

I go into this because, in the original hardcover book's acknowledgements section, I specifically spoke of her help. Had I known she would not endorse the book after all, I would not have included it, and in fact I removed it from the paperback edition. The last thing I wanted to do was embarrass her, as I continue to consider her one of the greatest commentators of the past nearly fifty years.  I never friended her on FB, I admit, but I did communicate with her when she had a blog in the latter part of this century's first decade. She was always kind and respectful to and with me.  Ehrenreich was, overall, a kind and warm person in my own dealings with her, and I never heard from anyone who knew her she was anything other than kind and warm.

I would say, Rest In Peace, Barbara. However, Barbara was a confirmed atheist, and saw religion as something we should all overcome as part of a developing human communion. My respect for her remains profound, and so, I simply say, I will miss her insight and wisdom, and offer my deepest condolences to her family, loved ones, and personal friends.

New Mexico's oil gush provides a once in a lifetime opportunity for true structural reforms

With the biggest revenue increase from fossil fuels (due to the price gouging from the oligopolistic oil companies), and already sitting on Land Grant Funds of nearly $25 billion with a "rainy day" fund overfunded in the billions (far more than most States), the State of New Mexico has a once in a lifetime chance to spend public monies wisely, and with an eye to a humane, sustainable future:

1. Early childhood education in a public setting for every pre-K child in NM (no neoliberal or right wing solution of giving public monies to private secular or religious oriented pre-K places as that is a boondoggle for the wealthy and theocratic);

2. Affordable public housing that avoids past US high rise "projects" errors, and does it more like Germany, France, and Great Britain, with a New Mexican adobe twist;

3. Medical service provider increases, with aggressive pay raises for public health people, meaning regular and specialist docs, mental health therapists, and nurses so those professionals from other states come here (on top of swelling the ranks of nursing and medical school programs in our state schools). Also, use these monies to provide a premium rate of payment to the Medicaid reimbursement rate to help doctors who are treating or want to treat more Medicaid patients. The reimbursement rates are nationally too low, but especially so in New Mexico;

4. $1,000 a year for every New Mexican over 18, which will be part of what brings in docs, therapists, nurses, etc.--sorta like Alaska;

5. Infrastructure, starting with completing broadband access for the remaining 30% of rural people who live in nearly 70% of the rest of the state; 

6. Promote tech and film industries, not so much by giving money away to already wealthy SoCal movie producers, but instead for internal investment for the many creative people we already have in our State; and

7. Jump start solar and wind development and UBI money set aside to begin to transition the 2.6* of people in the fossil fuel industry, giving them first rights to renewable energy and infrastructure jobs. If we don't take care of fossil fuel workers FIRST, we are properly exposed as elitist environmentalists.  And if we don't make this movement into renewable energy, we are doubly foolish as a species and parents and grandparents to our children and grandchildren. It should go without further argument the fossil fuel industry is killing the planet, and us. We need to use this short term money to transition to renewable energy. It's not only for us now, but for our children and our planet. 

*See the link, particularly page 3, and footnote 3 for the methodology. 

Our State can do all of this at the same time. What is needed are Democratic Party and progressive minded people with vision to articulate, promote, and then implement this set of programs.

It would be a disaster if the majority of voters in our State fall for what will be the Republican solution, which are simply tax breaks and tax giveaways to business with no significant targeting for diversifying New Mexico's economy. There is no vision in such policies, and we would end up wasting this moment--with dire climate consequences.

My off the cuff legal analysis regarding legal and ethical issues surrounding Alex Jones' lawyers inadvertently disclosing confidential information from Jones' cellphone

When I saw the initial jury award against Alex Jones of just over $4 million, I thought, well, this was a cautious jury. Then, I read it was only for compensatory damages (medical/psychotherapy expenses, moving expenses, pain and suffering, emotional distress) and there would be a punitive damages phase of the trial. I then said to myself, "Hmmm....I wonder if they'll go ten times the compensatory in the punitive damages award." Well, well, well. They did. Based upon punitive damages law from the US Supreme Court, I would not count on the total amount of damages award to stick, though many view the decisions as allowing punitive damages of up to ten times the compensatory damages awarded.

What I am writing about here is about the "inadvertent disclosure of Jones' cellphone texts" issue. I still find Jones' lawyers' conduct baffling regarding their office's mistaken disclosure of what appear to be all texts from Jones' cellphone. First, Jones' lawyers refusal to disclose the texts until the trial was underway (July 22, 2022), when it is clear there should have been a disclosure months ago (meaning informing the plaintiffs' lawyers the texts could be downloaded) is, in my opinion, a major ethical violation--which will have multiple consequences against Jones' lawyers from a state bar office. But, the truly baffling part for me came reading Jones' lawyers' Emergency Motion filed August 4, 2022:

The Emergency Motion

Per Jones' lawyers in the Emergency Motion, filed on August 4, 2022, the morning after the compensatory damages verdict, Jones' lawyers received an email dated July 22, 2022 at 11:24 pm (!) from the plaintiffs' lawyers stating Jones' disclosure of the cellphone texts included what Jones' lawyers had themselves marked as "confidential" information. Jones' lawyers emailed back the next morning, just after 6 am, saying to disregard that production of documents and a new production, minus the confidential files, would be forthcoming. The motion discloses no further communication on the topic, which I find weird for both sides and discloses no further evidence a second corrected production was in fact produced. 

I know if that was me or any firm I worked for, and I was on Jones' side, we'd have been in court that same morning or no later than the next morning alerting to the court to the situation--and demanding the Court order that plaintiffs' counsel return and destroy their own copies of any confidential documents.

Jones' lawyers are misreading Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule (193.3(d)), which states a motion should be brought within ten days after the disclosure. They argued in the emergency motion they brought this to the court's attention the day after the plaintiffs' lawyers disclosed this to the world in cross-examining Jones. However, that is not what the Rule states. The Rule states the motion must be brought to the court ten days "after the producing party discovers such production was made..." which was July 22, 2022 or maybe after midnight or the early morning of July 23, 2022. The motion is dated August 4, 2022, which is beyond the ten days deadline.  

This is where it looks as if Jones has a legal malpractice case against his lawyers  (though we will see below why such a case is not at all a slam dunk against Jones' lawyers). Worse for Jones' lawyers, the language regarding the ten days deadline is an outer limit, so that they really should have brought this to the court's attention that morning of July 23 or no later than July 24, as they were in trial. Being in trial is a major factor when weighing circumstances of what constituted prompt action.

What is even more troubling is the Emergency Motion does not say whether Jones' lawyers provided the alternative production to the plaintiffs' lawyers. Under the Court's 2021 Discovery Order (which the lawyers for both sides prepare and the court approves with minimal changes) for this case, that was part of Jones' lawyers duty in such a situation--especially as this came during plaintiffs' trial presentation.

Plaintiffs' lawyers may also have behaved unethically:

What I have not yet seen discussed is the plaintiffs' lawyers ethics also appear to have been below where they should have been. The 2021 Court Order for discovery rules in the case states that if there is any dispute over whether confidential documents are in fact confidential, a party contesting the confidentiality must seek a decision from the court---and the disclosing party's designation of confidentiality "will remain in full force and effect" until the judge's ruling on the issue of whether the documents remain confidential.  That means, until there is a court ruling on whether particular documents disclosed are in fact confidential, the Order says the confidential designation remains valid and in force.

The plaintiffs' lawyers' failure (refusal?) to reply to Jones' lawyers' early July 23 email as to whether they would disregard the inadvertent production and wait for the second and allegedly proper production is deeply troublesome from an ethics standpoint. Regardless of whether the Court Order covered this situation, and there is an argument it didn't, as maybe the plaintiffs' lawyers were not opening or using the confidential information, and Jones' lawyers had the burden to produce the second iteration of the cellphone text production, there remains a more general ethical obligation at stake here when evaluating the plaintiffs' lawyers' conduct. 

If I was the plaintiffs' lawyer, or my firm was, and we had received such confidential information, I would have had us bring the issue to the judge that very morning, and begin with the fact the production was clearly one that was prepared over weeks and maybe a couple of months or more, so that the lateness of the production should require at least a one or two day delay in the proceedings to sort out the documentation. I would also have said there was strong reason to challenge the "confidential" designation of the cellphone texts, whether some, most, or all of the texts. I would have considered asking the court to consider a request for a default judgment for this egregious violation of discovery rules in not alerting the plaintiffs' lawyers of this information when the circumstances show Jones' lawyers knew for weeks and maybe months of the cellphone texts being retrievable and never said a word to plaintiffs' lawyers or the court. A default judgment would leave the jury only deciding damages, and I could foresee a major sum being awarded just by how badly the case was already going against Jones and his lack of credibility or true contrition.

The lost "Perry Mason" moment is not enough to justify Plaintiffs' lawyers conduct:

Yes, moving the court on July 23 or July 24, 2022 would have likely destroyed "the Perry Mason moment," as Jones said. However, there is plenty of case law over seven decades against gamesmanship overriding justice in complying with civil discovery processes.  

Also, practically speaking, the trove of cellphone texts, even if fully known before trial, would have allowed the plaintiffs' lawyers to expose Jones' lying ways. For example, the singular fact the texts contain Jones' admission of his net worth being based upon upwards of $800,000 a day (!!) income from his show and merchandise sales exposes the lie Jones has continued to tell the world about his being nearly bankrupt. That obvious lie also raises a host of questions of how Jones has spent his money since the lawsuits began, as there are laws in nearly every state against disposing of assets, liquid or otherwise, when one is being sued for major money. See this. 

 I would also add the plaintiffs' lawyers were APPARENTLY smart enough at the trial to not to have appeared to use the privileged information, though an investigation may reveal they opened files marked attorney client privilege after being told the disclosure had been in error--and reading those communications may have informed their strategies during the last days of the trial. Further, who knows yet if the economic worth information was in an attorney client communication or in a text to someone else?

Was Jones telling the truth he didn't know his texts were retrieved? Not likely, but....

Jones himself may have been telling the truth in court--yes, this is ironic considering how I feel about Jones*--that his lawyers may have never alerted him they were able to able to retrieve his texts from his cellphone, so that his deposition testimony earlier in the case was merely a mistake, not a lie. A person does not commit perjury if one is merely mistaken. One must tell a conscious lie to be convicted for perjury. However, perjury can be established by circumstances and even overcoming Jones' subjective statement that he believed his statement to be true. 

While Jones seemed to me genuinely surprised that his phone texts were able to have been downloaded, Jones' lawyers knew the true facts--and they had a duty under general discovery rules and the Court's 2021 Discovery Order to promptly correct the record on something that major, i.e. the downloading of the cellphone texts.  

Nonetheless, I must say I have to believe Jones' lawyer told Jones the truth, and it is one more lie from Jones. If they didn't, then that raises separate ethical issues owed to Jones, not merely the court and opposing counsel. 

Jones' malpractice case against his lawyers is not a slam dunk:

There is definitely a potential (and I mean only potential) malpractice case which Jones may file against his lawyers. The malpractice case will mainly focus on the inadvertent disclosure of confidential information and whether that was actually why this jury held against him and awarded the damages awards they did. 

However, the malpractice case is not the slam dunk I am seeing too many assume. I think an argument may be made--how persuasive I don't know--that the jury already had plenty of reasons for its verdicts before and separately from the "Perry Mason" moment, so the plaintiffs' lawyers alleged use of inadvertently disclosed documents in cross-examining Jones is not necessarily prejudicial error--and merely a harmless error--so that the verdicts could likely be upheld on appeal (though again, under at least my view regarding punitive damages and the 14th Amendment right to due process, I can see an appellate court or possibly the trial court significantly reducing the punitive damages verdict). 

Such a finding of harmless error upholding the verdict findings could well undermine most of Jones' malpractice case against his lawyers because Jones must not only prove the lawyers were negligent in making the inadvertent disclosure. Jones must also prove a connection between the error and jury's verdicts. It remains a fact known to lawyers who litigate and try malpractice cases against any professional, lawyer, doctor, that many a malpractice case fails in the element of establishing a connection between the negligent conduct and the damages that occurred thereafter.

If Jones' lawyers establish in emails, texts, oral conversations, or otherwise, they told Jones about the cellphone texts being retrieved weeks or months ago, this could undermine the heart of Jones' case. If so, there is a reasonable possibility Jones' potential malpractice claim against his lawyers could be rejected because of what courts refer to as "unclean hands" or his own bad faith.  See, for example, a case with high factual relevance to parts of this situation, Blain v. Doctors' Co. (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 1048. In California, the "unclean hands" doctrine applies both as a legal and equitable defense, so that the defense applies against a legal malpractice case, as was the case in Blain. However, it remains unclear to me whether or not Texas creates a limiting distinction between the two types of defenses. In New Mexico, the "unclean hands" applies only to equitable actions, and not legal actions such as a legal malpractice case--though I would say New Mexico law is not as settled as it should be one way or the other.  Nonetheless, if I was Jones or Jones' lawyers, I'd want to know the law in Texas on that issue at some point. :) 

But, wait! The "crime-fraud" exception to the attorney-client privilege may well apply to many of the texts in any event, which could further undermine Jones' potential legal malpractice case, and likely lead to an appellate court upholding the two damages awards against Jones.

Plaintiffs' lawyers, and those lawyers representing plaintiffs in the other cases, have a strong incentive to have a court find almost every text to NOT be "confidential," including Jones' communications with Jones' lawyers under the "crime-fraud" exception to the attorney-client privilege. For example, if the confidential communications are where Jones admitted his true economic worth, the attorney-client privilege may not exist anyway to that extent, because Jones was committing perjury, and, just as bad, his lawyers were suborning perjury or a fraud on the court. 

A major exception to the attorney client privilege is the "crime-fraud" exception, so that a lawyer involved with a continuing crime or fraud with the client negates whatever attorney-client privilege otherwise exists. See: Texas Rules of Evidence Rule 503(d) (crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege). A finding the documents were not confidential could also undermine or cause Jones' malpractice claim against his lawyers to fail because there would only be a disclosure of non-confidential information--or the remaining confidential communications were not materially significant to have affected the outcome of the trial. Again, there was more than arguably plenty of reason before the dramatic cross-examination for a jury to have hit Jones hard with both compensatory and punitive damages. And if there is a court reduction in the verdict, it ironically lessens the prejudice under the circumstances. 

Conclusions: This disclosure is just the start of the fallout from the inadvertent disclosures of Jones' cellphone texts:

In short, this is a real mess from a position of law and ethics rules, including to what extent Jones' lawyers will have legal malpractice insurance coverage, which I don't think most of my very few blog readers would want to know about right now. LOL

For now, I would say the trial judge was correct at this point in denying Jones' emergency motion, which included Jones' request for a mistrial. However, this issue is not going away even in this now concluded set of damage awards. We can expect to learn more information (1) surrounding the circumstances regarding this inadvertent disclosure of Jones' cellphone texts, (2) about the law of waiver and ethical duties for both sets of lawyers, and (3) as to the extent the documents marked confidential are truly to be deemed confidential. 

I expect we will begin to learn more information when Jones' lawyers move for a new trial. What regular folks often do not know is lawyers move for a new trial not merely to contest the verdict, but to preserve certain objections to ensure the record is the best it may reasonably be for appeals. 

Finally, I am betting there will be a State Bar investigation of both sides' lawyers for ethical violations.

* In a child custody battle with his wife some years ago Jones lost (the jury ruled he would no longer have primary custody, and his ex wife could now decide where the children live), he allowed his lawyer to argue in court Jones was merely a performance artist who people should not take seriously.  Then, outside court, he would deny it.  I do not have any sense Jones cares about truth, and sees spewing false or unverified information as a commodity to make money.  More's the pity for those who fall for his nonsense.

I finally found "My Brilliant Friend" miniseries on HBO/HBO-Max streaming

Several years ago, I offered Elena Ferrente's "My Brilliant Friend" to The Daughter. I said, this is a grittier Jane Austen, which is no put-down of Austen at all. The novel shows how dangerous it is to be a woman in a world where men can physically control or abuse you, how intense and passionate a platonic friendship among women can be, and how important it is for women to stick up for each other (but too often don't) in that man's world. The Daughter demurred, respectfully, I felt. 

For me personally, I had tried reading "My Brilliant Friend" to walk the walk. However, it was just too tough for my night reading. I respect Ferrente's powerful and insightful prose, but I need some comfort in my night reading. Right now, I'm reading Edna Ferber's "The Ice Palace," from 1958, which is a family saga set in Alaska from the post-Gold Rush of the 1890s to the cusp of statehood (Alaska became a state a year after this book was released). The novel is very progressive despite its white people orientation, and conscious of white supremacist hypocrisies among even progressive minded people. Ferber wrote novels adapted to famous films, such as "Giant," "Showboat," and other lesser known but better novels, such as "So Big," an early work. I am finding this work to be very enjoyable and enlightening to read. 

Anyway I never knew there was an HBO series for "My Brilliant Friend." It was released in 2018. Now, post-Roe reversal, The Daughter found the series on HBO Max. She binged it, and then said, Dad, you MUST watch. I said, Okay, I will try it. I am about half way through season 1. I must say it is outstanding on every level, cultural, political, and economic. The series captures the first book's sensibility, and I do note Ferrente (a pen name, as her real name was exposed several years ago) is a co-screen writer. In this post-Roe reversal world, I highly recommend "My Brilliant Friend." If you don't have HBO Max, then find a way to buy or rent the series. I have no doubt it gets even better.

Oh, and the Max Richter score is beautifully rendered.

The current Supreme Court majority is an existential threat to the Republic

Now that the Supreme Court has gotten the attention of the more "moderate" Democratic Party supporters, this is perhaps a good time to alert you more explosions from the US Supreme Court are coming in the next few days:

1. The Federalist Society's 20 plus year project to redraft the Constitution to fit anti-Federalist philosophies will be revealed in the upcoming decision on the ability of the EPA to regulate climate change issues. The language in the upcoming decision will reflect Gorsuch's and Kavanaugh's hatred of the New Deal and undermine activist administrative state jurisprudence that goes back to Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), and before that Alexander Hamilton's administrative law development in the first Treasury Department under George Washington. The anti-Federalist project also undermines and in fact goes against Madison's Federalist Paper no. 10, where Madison said the federal government's regulation of various economic interests "forms the principal task of modern legislation." See here from a blog post I wrote in January 2022 and here is another blog post I wrote from the time Trump nominated The Handmaiden to the US Supreme Court in the fall of 2020.

2. The Supreme Court is going to blow a big hole in protecting younger children from having to hear organized teacher or administrator led public prayer in school. Remember, we have always maintained the private right to say a prayer to oneself in school, or even organize a group of co-schoolmates in prayer at the playground or before a class starts. The idea behind the "school prayer" decision from the early 1960s was to end sectarian (one religion) organized prayer led by teachers or administrators. The upcoming decision involving a football coach who, after games, would gather players (they were "free" not to go, but...you know) at the fifty yard line to say prayers, will open the door to teachers "voluntarily" leading prayers. In smaller areas of our nation, one religion will be the only game in town.

Promoting an anti-Federalist philosophy at odds with the US Constitution's Framers, starting with hamstringing economic regulation, has been the true goal of the misnamed "Federalist Society," a right wing law group which Trump and McConnell directly consulted with to provide court nominees. Abortion, religion, and guns have been the Trojan horses to get a certain part of the working classes and rural folks to go along. The sad part to me is this has long been understood, but the way the Democratic Party functions is to fall defensively down the rabbit hole of culture wars, not even shout back when the majority of Americans agree with the so-called "culturally liberal" positions on the topics--and worse, ignoring the economic ramifications of these right wing judicial philosophies that strike at the heart of the US Constitution on behalf of those who would instead exult and promote private corporate power.

I have said this for awhile now: The US Supreme Court, as it is functioning, is an existential threat to the Republic.  

I would also add it may be a good time for more people to read early to mid 20th Century Yale Law School professor, Fred Rodell's Nine Men: A Political History of the US Supreme Court from 1790 to 1955 (1955). The book's only true fault is Rodell suffers from a Dunning School interpretation of the post-Civil War era, but even that does not mar Rodell's overall recognition that the US Supreme Court, for most of its existence, has politically functioned on behalf of economic and political elites, and, how, even when it breaks from its usual cultural conservatism into what seems to be cultural liberalism (most of which occurred after Rodell's book was published in 1955), the Supreme Court remains elitist, not radical in any true sense. That was, interestingly enough, then Harvard Law School professor Derrick Bell's point in evaluating Brown v. Board of Education (1954) in his remarkable essay that formed the basis for what was then properly called "critical race theory."  

Finally, Congress may finally have to start reining in the US Supreme Court by passing legislation with a proviso that says neither the US Supreme Court nor any federal court will have jurisdiction to hear cases involving the legislation. That, and expanding the number of justice on the US Supreme Court. Both are proper under Article III of the US Constitution, and past Congresses, mostly in the 19th Century, have exercised both powers.