Honoring Allan Brotsky National Lawyers Quild Bay Area Chapter
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
National Lawyers Quild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Testimonial Dinner 1991 Honoring Allan Brotsky National Lawyers Quild Bay Area Chapter Executive Board Members Linda Fullerton, President Stan Zaks, Vice President Barrie Becker, Student Vice President Emily Graham, Co-Treasurer Andy Krakoff, Co-Treasurer Steve Collier Dan Feinberg Bob Feinglass Cindi Fox Terry Koch Hillary Kramer Rachel Lederman Toby Lieberman Celia McGumness Bob Meola Tom Meyer Christopher Miller Ann Noel Antonio Salazar-Hobson Steve Sherman Bobbie Stein John True Terri Waller School Representatives Erica Etelson, Book Hall Law School Steve Greenwood, San Francisco Law School David Hershey-Webb, Golden Gate University Chet Hewitt, New College School of Law Cindi Mishkin, University of San Francisco Beth Morrow, Hastings College of Law Peter Omarzu, New College School of Law Brett Reid Parker, University of San Francisco Theresa Swanick, Golden Gate University Quild Staff Lora Dierker, Membership Coordinator Riva Enteen, Demonstrations Coordinator Cover photo by Susan Ehmer I would like to congratulate you on honoring Allan Brotsky. He was my teacher, and an inspiring one he was! His classroom delivery had the smoothness of fine wine, and a hidden punch. It's been ten years and the memory lingers. - Nancy M* Doctor ✓ Allan Brotsky and Who Owns Port Chicago John Fleming, 21, a student, was arrested late Wednesday afternoon as he placed a Bible and a sign citing the articles of the Nuremburg war crimes trials against the windshield of a truck- load of napalm bombs whose path he’d just blocked. He is among 32 anti-war demonstra tors arrested since early Monday morning for attempting to stop delivery of napalm and other explosives to the Naval Weapons Station just outside the town of Port Chicago [Port Chicago Defendants1 Statement: August, 1966]. n August, 1966, the United States was busy dropping bombs on a small Third World country which it had branded as an aggressor (sound familiar?). The country was NorthI Vietnam and the bombs were napalm. Outraged by thatwar and the use of napalm bombs, protestors held vigils and demonstra tions at the North Contra Costa County Naval Base of Port Chicago (the same base at which Brian Wilson lost his legs 20 years later). Thirty-two people were arrested for placing themselves in front of trucks bringing napalm onto the Port Chicago Naval Base for shipment to Vietnam. Protestors sat on the road and in the two entrance gates to the Port Chicago base. Those sitting in the entrance gates were arrested by military police and charged with trespassing on a federal reservation (the Port Chicago Naval Base). Peter Franck, a young lawyer who had just three years earlier begun practicing law in Berkeley, was coordinating a legal defense organization made up of Guild attorneys called ‘The Council for Justice.” Funded by a Santa Barbara millionaire concerned that the young civil rights and anti-war protestors of the time were not getting adequate legal representation, and guided by Francis Heisler, a World War II pacifist and conscientious objec tors* lawyer originally from Chicago, The Council for Justice had taken on the j ob of providing legal counsel in a broad range of anti war, civil rights and civil liberties cases for the activists of the Bay Area; its representation extended as far as Cesar Chavez and his (then) new farmworker movement in Delano. The case of the Port Chicago demonstrators who were accused of trespassing on a federal reserve was to be tried in federal court, which “upped the ante”, in terms of potential penalties and the seriousness of the trial. Knowing this, Franck went to the ex perienced and highly regarded Guild attorney Allan Brotsky and asked him to handle the federal case. After looking into the case, Brotsky agreed to take it. His assessment was that it would have to go to jury trial. He had one condition, which was that Franck try the case with him. What Allan knew was that I had been so busy organizing and coordinating that I had had little experience in the courtroom. Not admitting that I was scared of trial, I told him that I was much too busy to take on a jury trial and that he should handle the case himself. Allan, in his stubborn way, single-mindedly insisted that there was only one way he would take on the case, and that was with my help. I knew, and he knew I knew, that he thought that it was time for me to get out from behind the coordination desk and into the trenches of actual movement trial work. This was the best and most generous type of mentoring of the next generation. The teaching had only begun. The case went to trial before United States District Court Judge Lloyd Burke on January 11th, 1967. Burke was a crusty Nixon appointee who had neither sympathy nor patience with anti-war demonstrators. After some preliminary motions, a jury was seated and the government asked the defense to stipulate to a number of routine matters. The stipulations would speed the trial and avoid boring the jury. Among the proposed stipulations was that the U.S. government owned the land on which the Port Chicago Naval Base sat. Since the offense was trespassing on a federal reserve, a key element of the prosecution was that the land in question belonged to the federal government. Brotsky, being ornery (I thought) and not liking the government much, said we should refuse to stipulate. I thought this was silly and would simply waste time, but bowed to Allan's greater experience. The government opened its case with an expert on title to the land. In his tenacious fashion, Brotsky started questioning the government witness. Taking him through entire documents, Brotsky insisted on knowing how the federal government had acquired the land. The expert testified that it was through the equivalent of federal eminent domain. Where were the eminent domain documents? The expert did not know. Where were the references in the records to the particular tract of land on which the defendants had been arrested? Well, they could only find reference to one of the two tracts. The other was not actually referred to in the documents that he had. It turned out that the federal government had never properly acquired the land at the section of the Port Chicago Base on which some of our clients had been arrested. There had therefore been no trespass, and Judge Burke was forced to dismiss all charges against those defendants. Throughout this process, Allan exhibited the combina tion of good humor, seriousness, devotion to his clients and distrust of the government which are his hallmark and the hallmark of all good people's lawyers. He also exhibited a generosity of sharing his experience and a commitment to teaching and passing it on which one young lawyer never forgot. Allan's argument to the jury, on our clients' peaceful and Nuremburg intent, was so powerful that Judge Burke stopped him in the hall two days later and complimented him on it. Inciden tally, it led to a hung jury (ten to two for acquittal) and the subsequent dismissal of all charges by the U.S. Attorney's Office. Allan Brotsky, a lawyer, a teacher, and a role model for all of us. by Peter Franck FIRST YEAR TRIUMPHS: Allan Brotsky By Cindy Ossias The following article was originally written for The Caveat. the student newspaper of Golden Gate University School of Law, in 1980. t was a dark and stormy Monday. I slid into a seat in the back of the room hoping to be overlooked. Not only had I not briefed Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court of Los I Angeles County, I hadn’t even glanced at it. I’d had a good weekend. A1 Brotsky leaned against the lectern, his full head of white hair renewing my awe of older men. If I were male, I’d want to look just like him when I grew up. He called for plaintiffs counsel to rise. “Would Melvin Belli and Bella Abzug please stand? “And Deborah Halvonik and William Kunstler?” Attorneys for the defense joined them. With the timing of George Bums and the gentleness of Kwang Kai Chang, Professor Brotsky began leading them through their paces. “Melvin, whom do you represent?” I kept an ear open while I suffered with my hangover. (Too many boilermakers...) “I represent a California resident and employee of the California General Electric Company who was injured when a pressure tank exploded, and who was further injured by a fall in the hospital.” What a mouthful, I thought, the right side of my head pounding. Would I ever be able to speak in sentences that long? And not forget the first few words by the time I reach the end? “Bella, do you agree with your colleague?” At that, I noticed an audible intake of breath from my own colleagues. “Yes, I do.” The woman on my left leaned over and whispered, “Bella told us she was representing Buckeye Boiler. I’m glad she changed her mind.” I opened one eye slowly — the one on the opposite side of the throbbing — and attempted to follow the proceeding more closely. “What did your client tell you he wanted from this lawsuit?” “Money...” answered Bella emphatically. Carefully, with empathy for the plight of the fourth-week first-year student, the professor said, “We in the legal community refer to money as 'compen sation for damages or injuries/ You’re doing just fine, though. Let’s go on.” The throbbing began to subside as I tuned in to the finer techniques of pedagogy practiced by this distinguished gentleman in the charcoal gray suit.