Bill Cosby’s Friends Jump the Sinking Ship

_DSC4179 - Version 2Hollywood’s silence over the Bill Cosby rape allegations is hypocrisy at its finest. The celebrity personalities who are usually the first to voice their condemnation, whether asked or not, are either eerily quiet or entirely dismissive of the charges of over thirty mature women. It is scandalous to hear Hollywood feminists like Whoopi Goldberg and Phylicia Rashad suggest that Cosby’s victims are conspiring to destroy his legacy. It is classic victim-blaming. But worst of all, where is Oprah Winfrey, the queen of scandal?

But the tide is slowly turning against Bill Cosby as his supporters and defenders, silent and otherwise, are jumping ship, including Whoopi Goldberg who just this week resiled from her audacious support of Cosby, under pressure from her employer, the ABC Television network.

John and Jane Doe Public are also taking steps to take Cosby down a notch or two from the revered position he has held for decades.

The non-profit organization “Promoting Awareness Victim Empowerment”, a support group for sexual assault victims, has launched a campaign to revoke Bill Cosby’s Presidential Medal of Freedom, with an online petition on the White House’s “We the People” page. If they obtain 100,000 signatures by August 7, 2015 the White House is obliged to review and respond to the petition.

Central State University, a black college in Wilberforce, Ohio have covered up Cosby’s name on the university building named for him and his wife Camille, the Camille O. and William H. Cosby Mass Communications Centre. College officials have said they will decide whether to rename the building in the next few months.

In Orlando, Florida Walt Disney World has removed a statue of Bill Cosby that was erected at Disney’s Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Hall of Fame Plaza.

In Cosby’s hometown of Philadelphia a public mural, painted in 2008 celebrating Father’s Day, with Bill Cosby between South African leader Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, is now scheduled for removal.

Back in Hollywood, black civil rights leaders have asked the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce to remove Cosby’s star from their Walk of Fame, while industry insiders recognized his tarnished reputation months ago and cancelled a proposed new sitcom on NBC. Network TV Land removed their reruns of the 1980s-era “The Cosby Show” and Netflix cancelled a scheduled comedy special. Several other smaller networks, with an African-American focus, have also jumped ship.

Perhaps the biggest blow to Bill Cosby’s deny-deny strategy was the release this week of a videotape from a court proceeding in 2005 where Cosby drugged and allegedly sexually assaulted a female victim who sued him in civil court. In the video Cosby admits, under oath, that he plied his victim with quaaludes hoping for a sexual encounter.

Mr. Cosby settled the 2005 case for an unknown sum of money, which is the only way he can be punished for his criminal behaviour, since the United States has archaic limitation laws which provide that after a certain period of time an offender cannot be charged with a criminal offence. Canada does not have those restrictive laws.

For example, in Nevada, the locale of several of the current assault allegations, unless a victim files a written report within four years no criminal charges can be brought.

While reformers have lobbied for years to change the limitation laws, California celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred says that legislatures are very reluctant to do so and face powerful interest groups that lobby against it, including shockingly, Catholic clergy organizations.

While civil lawsuits can also face problems related to delay, my wish is that Bill Cosby face the music in civil court as soon as possible so that his victims can be compensated and exonerated where they have been called liars.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Fashion Stylists Say Female Lawyers Lack Pizazz

DSC00507 (2)It was a beautiful day in Vancouver, hot and sunny, and with a little time to spare that day I decided to attend the swearing in ceremony of a newly appointed Court of Appeal judge, taking place at the Courthouse across the street from my office.

As I approached the courtroom I observed a sea of black-suited lawyers and slipped into one of the last remaining seats. As we waited for the proceedings to commence I noticed how many women lawyers were in attendance, more than usual, since the new judge was a well-respected female lower court judge.

Looking around I suddenly felt so out of place. I was wearing a mauve leather swing skirt, a very feminine pink and mauve blouse, and mauve three inch stiletto heels, in stark contrast to my female colleagues who were outfitted in boring black suits, mostly made of polyester, and sensible shoes that resembled oxfords.

After the ceremony an invitation was extended to join the Chief Justice for refreshments. Normally I wouldn’t hesitate to join the fun, but that day I declined, not wanting to “stand out” in the crowd. (That statement may be hard to believe, but true!)

That brings me to a controversial article in a California legal newsletter, The Marin Lawyer, written by fashion stylists Jill Sperber, also a lawyer, and Susan Pereczek, directed at lawyers in Marin County, an affluent area north of San Francisco that boasts the fifth highest income per capita in the United States at over $90,000 per annum.

In their article titled “Beyond Black: Revising the Lawyer Dress Code for Women” the stylists opine that “female lawyers in Marin are not winning their cases in the Style Department”, a statement that has elicited critical cries of blatant sexism.

As part of their investigation Ms. Sperber and Ms. Pereczek spent two mornings at the Marin County Courthouse where in their roles as “fashion police” they saw:

“mostly non-descript black pants (we counted a few skirts) with button downs or blouses in white or muted tones. Some didn’t bother with jackets. Few wore accessories.”

On the list of fashion faux pas they identified a lawyer wearing a burgundy velvet blazer on a spring day, and another in a tight knit striped miniskirt with a mismatched stripe blazer over a neon blouse, and teetering mules. It’s not a pretty picture!

Among their fashion “dos and don’ts” they suggest is a move away from black suits to a more colourful palette. They also urge female lawyers to use accessories to brighten up and polish their professional look.

A light-hearted article with good advice…what’s wrong with that?

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Is US Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling a Threat to Democracy?

BarristerToday’s gay marriage decision from the United States Supreme Court has the potential to create an even greater divide between America’s already polarized electorate.

In a 5/4 decision, the Court invented a new civil right under the banner of equal protection and due process of the law pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, by ruling that individual States cannot ban same-sex marriage.

The decision is neither unexpected nor surprising, however the chasm between the slim majority and the minority opinions is startling.

Mr. Justice Scalia characterizes the decision as a threat to American democracy and decries a system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected patrician lawyers, who are strikingly unrepresentative of the people they serve. He notes the Court’s judges all have law degrees from Yale or Harvard, four of the nine are from New York, eight grew up in either east or west coast states, with only one judge from the large expanse between the two coasts, and not a single south-westerner.

He continues his provocative opinion by musing that the majority’s discovery of a new fundamental right in the Fourteenth Amendment has curiously been overlooked by some of the brightest legal minds in America, referring to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, and other brilliant jurists of the past.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in a separate dissent, writes that the majority has not just ignored America’s entire history and traditions but actively repudiates it. He laments that the Court’s imposition of its “reasoned judgment”, devoid of legal principles, or as Justice Scalia observes “lacking even a thin veneer of law”, is actually a lost opportunity for the gay and lesbian community who can no longer obtain true acceptance from their neighbours, “just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs”. Here the Chief Justice is acknowledging that only thirteen states now ban same-sex marriage.

Chief Justice Roberts rejects the majority’s view that Americans who did nothing more than uphold their understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman should be criticized for their alleged disparagement and disrespect of gays and lesbians. He describes the Court’s denouncement of citizens who uphold a Biblical view of marriage as a gratuitous assault on their character:

“It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted.”

Mr. Justice Alito pursues a similar theme writing that the new law will be used to vilify those unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy, noting that the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment to African-Americans and women, an analogy that he fears will be exploited by those who wish to stamp out any vestige of dissent.

Justice Alito predicts the majority’s imposition of its views on America facilitates the marginalization of traditional Americans who may fall victim to the harsh treatment once afforded gays and lesbians. He says:

“…some may think that turn-about is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.”

Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas sees the majority decision as a threat to religious liberty, as does the Chief Justice who remarks that the “good and decent people who oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith and their freedom to exercise religion is, unlike the right imagined by the majority, actually spelled out in the Constitution.”

Justice Clarence states that the decision on same-sex marriage should have been left to the political process, as the Constitution requires, and had that happened the religious implications would have been considered. He identifies the potential of a ruinous assault on religious freedom.

The chasm between members of the Court is no more apparent than in Justice Scalia’s mockery of the majority’s finding that the marriage bond creates “other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality”, to which he replies “Really? Whoever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms?…The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

While there is much to celebrate in the gay and lesbian community, there is a silent majority who are disappointed, even angry, that their rights under the democratic process have been trampled by five elite lawyers.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

No Gender Bias in Family Courts Says Irish Academic

GEO CASUALA key finding in a new report on gender bias in family courts declares there is no indication of gender bias in contested cases about where a child should live.

The May 2015 report authored by Dr Maebh Harding, from the University of Warwick and
Dr Annika Newnham of the University of Reading is based on a document analysis of a retrospective of 197 case files from five county courts in England and Wales over a six month period in 2011. Of the 197 cases, 23 were custody disputes between a parent and another relative, usually a grandparent.

In the “two parent cases”, fathers initiated 70% of the applications, whereas only 30% of the cases started with an application by a mother.

The most common type of court application was for an order to allow contact or access, making up 41% of their sample. Fathers brought 96% of all access applications. The majority of these applications were made in order to initiate or restart contact.

Applications which sought a sole residence order made up 43% of the sample. Similar numbers of applications for sole residence were made by fathers (32) and mothers (30) but their reasons for going to court differed.

Joint custody and joint residence applications amounted to only 7%.

Notably, in 2011 there was no presumption in the British law that the involvement of a non-resident parent would further a child’s welfare. In 2014 this presumption was added to the governing statute, the Children Act 1989.

In my view, the analysis of the data in the report suffers from the absence of real-life experience in the family law trenches. Let me give you some examples:

1. The authors discovered that in 51% of cases the father had been cut off from contact with the child and that in almost half of the parent cases (86 out of 174) mothers had made allegations of domestic violence against fathers. However, in only 45 of the 86 cases was their sufficient evidence of family violence.

The report reads “Court investigations into the truth of domestic violence allegations were rare and took place in only 21 of the 86 cases in which allegations of domestic violence were made.

Where fact-findings were held, few ended in a clear determination on the alleged facts. Instead, the question of domestic violence tended to be reconceptualised as being primarily about reducing the risk to the child and facilitating as much contact as was possible in the circumstances.”

In other words, even unproven domestic violence was used to minimize a father’s role in parenting.


2. The authors found that many of the cases took two years to resolve but expressed little concern about the delay saying:

“Time taken in the court process should not always be viewed as unnecessary delay. Cases need time to build trust between the parties and reach a workable child-centred conclusion ensuring contact was safe.”


3. The authors opine that going to court did not amplify or entrench the conflict between the parties finding that the vast majority of cases were resolved by consent orders. Only 25 of the 174 parent cases ended in a contested final hearing.


Perhaps if academics conferred with family law lawyers when analyzing court data they would gain insight into the dynamics between feuding parents; understand the nuances and strategies employed by parents who seek to discount or eliminate the other parent; understand that children need both parents in their lives; and resist the attraction of the “primary parent” philosophy that is no longer relevant in today’s world.


Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Not Male or Female, But Bi-Gender

DSC00275_1As medical experts dig deeper into the world of sexual orientation and gender identity, their research expands this field of knowledge in ways that are nothing less than bizarre. Case in point is the work of Dr. Vilayanur Ramachandran, Director of the Centre for Brain and Cognition at the University of California, San Diego, who claims to have discovered a new gender which is neither male nor female, but bi-gender.

The condition identified by Dr. Ramachandran, called “alternating gender incongruity” or AGI, occurs when people involuntarily switch between male and female. Individuals with AGI experience phantom breasts or genitalia of the opposite sex, according to the highly respected neuroscientist.

His study considered 32 people who registered on an online bi-gender forum, 11 women and 21 men. One-third of the group said their gender switching was predictable; a majority switched weekly while 14 others said they switched once or more daily.

Dr. Ramachandran said that his findings to date indicate that between the extremes of male and female is a “spectrum of a poorly understood and poorly studied group of ambiguously defined sexual identities that are very much part of the human condition.”

He did, however, caution that his results are suggestive, but not conclusive of his theory, and that he still needs to rule out multiple personality disorder or role-playing by his research subjects and ascertain whether there are biological indicators present, such as fluctuating hormone levels.

His research also revealed that those with AGI had a tendency to ambidexterity and bipolar disorder. Nonetheless, while admitting that more work is required, scientists are pushing for a new category of transgender or neuropsychiatric condition.

Ryan Wigley, age 22, also known as Ria Wigley, describes to The Mirror, a British publication, what it feels like to be bi-gender:

”It hit me that I was two genders, it’s so confusing…

“I have to guess which I’ll be the next morning to plan my day. I try to work out how I feel the night before.

“If I feel more feminine I’ll have a shower and set my alarm earlier so I have time to get ready.

“If I feel like a girl several days in a row, the upkeep is hard. I need to shave my face, chest and legs every day, wash my hair and keep my make-up in place.

“I feel like I prefer to be female but I’m much more relaxed in what I look like when I feel like a man.”

Ryan/Ria has an understanding girlfriend who accommodates his dual gender identity. Speaking of confusion, I can only imagine how baffled his acquaintances, friends and workmate are!

The medical exploration of strange phenomenon is nothing new for Dr. Ramachandran who earlier investigated “synaesthesia”, a condition affecting millions, where one’s senses are intermingled; people can taste words, hear colours and feel sounds.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Judge Orders State of California to Pay for Inmate’s Sex-Change

DSC00258_1Mule Creek State Prison just outside of Sacramento in Ione, California houses over 3,000 men and is the only California penal institution designated a “sensitive needs yards” facility.

What that means is that prisoners who are at risk for gang retaliation, are former police officers or correctional officers, or are susceptible to victimization, such as sex offenders or gay prisoners, are housed here. Famous Mule Creek inmates include Charles Manson and Tex Watson of Helter-Skelter notoriety, Lyle Melendez, serving life without parole, who with his brother Eric murdered their parents, and Geronimo Pratt, former Black Panther.

Recently, however, Mule Creek Prison has captured media attention because of inmate Michelle-Lael Norsworthy’s successful application to have the State of California pay for her sex-change operation. United States District Judge Jon Tigar ruled that denying medical treatment to Michelle was unconstitutional.

In the court hearing Norsworthy deposed that she is “a woman trapped in a man’s body” and that “[her spirit] is imprisoned in a way that causes excruciating pain and frustration to a point that therapy and other remedies are the only way to relieve that agony” The “psychological and emotional pain” and “frustration and agony” she experiences mean that she is “unable to complete [her] existence or complete who [she is].”

She deposed that at times, the anxiety caused by her gender dysphoria causes symptoms such as sleeplessness, cold sweats, hypervigilance, panic attacks, and mood swings.

Michelle entered Mule Creek Prison in 1987 as Jeffrey Bryan Norsworthy, serving a life sentence for second degree murder. By 1990 he was living as Michelle with support from the California Department of Corrections in the form of counselling, mental health treatment, and hormone therapy to feminize her male features.

Diagnosed with gender dysphoria, Judge Tigar noted that Michelle is the
first California inmate to obtain an order to have the state pay for her sex-change. Recently a Massachuset’s inmate was granted the same order, but on appeal the order was overturned. An appeal to the United States Supreme Court is pending.

State officials are contemplating appealing the order made by Judge Tigar and have identified practical problems that will arise if the surgery proceeds. They say that returning Michelle to a male prison population could put her at risk for assault or rape. On the other hand, she may also be in danger in a female facility, or pose a danger to female inmates because of her history of domestic violence.

Correctional authorities are also concerned that the costs of sex-change surgery, estimated to be $100,000, will severely impact the prison’s budget, particularly if additional inmates seek similar orders in the future. The State’s cost estimate has been criticized as an exaggeration by transgender support workers.

The floodgates argument is difficult to assess as statistics on the transgender population in the United States are hard to come by.

Gary Gates, a demographer at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law’s Williams Institute, who studies sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, is responsible for one of the most frequently cited estimates of the transgender population — 700,000, about 0.3 percent of U.S. adults, an estimate that remains controversial.

As transexuals, transgenders, and cross-dressers feel more accepted and become comfortable in disclosing their sexual orientation, data-collection and public policy will advance in this area.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Canadian Couple Sue Georgia Sperm Bank for Misrepresentation

DSC00507 (2)An Ontario couple were over-the-moon with delight when their first child was born. Angela Collins and Margaret Elizabeth Hanson of Port Hope Ontario had purchased sperm from Xytex Corp. in Atlanta, who touted the sperm donor as an overachiever with a 160 IQ, working on his PhD in Neuroscience Engineering.

The couple received their donor’s photo which showed an attractive man, only later did they learn the photo had been photoshopped.

Seven years after the birth of their son, Xytex inadvertently released the name of the anonymous donor to Ms. Collins and Ms. Hanson. That was when they discovered their child’s father was schizophrenic ex-convict, James Christian Aggeles, a college drop-out who had fathered 20 other children through the services of Xytex.

The couple’s lawsuit reveals that if they had known the truth about the donor’s background and medical history they would have declined. Their lawyer, Nancy Hersh, said the couple love their child but want to ensure they have the funds to properly evaluate and care for him if he is diagnosed as schizophrenic. Ms. Hersh is representing 15 other mothers in the same situation as the Ontario couple.

Collins and Hanson say they have suffered emotional and financial damages and are suing for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and unfair business practices.

According to John Hopkins Medical School, research data shows that schizophrenia affects about 1% of Americans. If a parent has schizophrenia, there is a 10% chance their child will be similarly afflicted.

Canadian couples are forced to use offshore sperm banks as Canada has only one national sperm bank, Toronto’s Institute for Reproductive Medicine, and they have only 51 active donors. Two small clinics in Quebec have several donors but only operate locally.

It is reported that there is a need for donor sperm for more than 5,500 inseminations per year in Canada, 3,000 of those for lesbian couples.

Spokesperson, Wendy Kramer, for the American non-profit “Donor Sibling Registry” says there is little regulation or oversight in the sperm bank industry allowing donors to get away with saying whatever they want about their personal and medical histories.

With the number of women requiring donors, it surely is time for proper protocols to be legislated to protect vulnerable women, eager to have a child.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang