That soul searching comes into play when you wonder, “is this honorable?” You know when it is, and when it isn’t.
I’m not talking about representing a client that you know is guilty — they deserve a defense. I’m not talking about representing a really evil client — because there might be an important legal issue in play.
I’m talking about when you do something truly disgusting.
That bar is pretty low. Despite the lawyer jokes, I have encountered few lawyers who have ever even approached that line.
If a law firm takes on the Nazi party as a client, in furtherance of some greater good, I do not look down on them. Nobody should. Represent a child pornographer? I can see plenty of justification there. There is almost no cause that doesn’t have some justification.
But, sometimes you gotta say “no.” Or, at least if you say “yes,” you must do so with class and dignity.
For example, if you represent a child molester, that is ok. You take it on from the point of “I may not condone what my client did, but he has a right to a defense.” But, if you put in your pleadings “the kid had it coming to him, he just looked so fucking sexy in that altar boy outfit,” well then… you are a dishonorable and filthy-taint-licking-piece-of-shit.
Ok, got that? That is the bar you need to step over. It doesn’t take strong leg muscles.
I’m sort of disappointed that I have to draw that distinction for anyone. But, I come to you with proof that this lesson is actually necessary.
Mayer Brown brings you this masterpiece— a lawsuit where they are trying remove a memorial for World War II “comfort women” from a public park. You see, it “offends” some of their clients. The cause itself is a bit slimy, but how they’re going about it qualifies them as “the least honorable law firm in the world.”
For those of you who do not know what the “comfort women” were — they were about 200,000 women (some say as many as 400,000) who were forced into working in whorehouses for Japanese soldiers during World War II. (source)
Many were abducted, and some were barely in their teens. “I was taken at the age of 11,” one former sex slave Kim Young-suk said.(source)
As you can imagine, these women were not terribly pleased with this treatment. And, wouldn’t you know it, but some of them are still all harping on the past.
The few surviving comfort women, all in their 80s and 90s, cry foul.
“I was walking along the side of the road when I was captured and taken away,” says Ok-Seon Yi.
It was 1942, and Japanese and Korean soldiers grabbed her and threw her in the back of a truck. Her family never knew what happened to her, she said, and gave her up for dead. She spent three years at a military brothel in China. She was 15.
She’s 87 now and lives in a home for survivors like her outside of Seoul. She’s tiny, with white hair, frail and quiet — until the subject turns to Japan.
She shakes her fist. “The Japanese government are thieves,” she says. “They’re trying to rewrite history.
“They have no right to take away my honor and dignity,” she adds.
She says she’s thankful for the memorials in the United States, and says America is the only country that can right the historic wrong. (source)
So in comes Mayer Brown to try and put and end to this outrage. Not the outrage of forcing a couple hundred thousand girls and women to suck the cocks of filthy imperial soldiers, mind you — but the atrocious conduct that happened in the City of Glendale, California. You see, the City of Glendale has done something awful — it put up a memorial to the “comfort women.”
“They were raped maybe 10 times a day. On weekends, as many as 40 to 50 times a day. The majority of them were teenagers,” says Phyllis Kim, who as part of Los Angeles’ Korean-American Forum helped bring the statue to Glendale. “There are victims who are still alive, and waiting for an apology.” (source)
This little statue does not sit well with… well, lets scratch our heads for a minute about that, shall we? Who are Mayer Brown’s “clients” in this lawsuit?
Two of the plaintiffs are Japanese-Americans who live in Glendale. The third plaintiff is an “organization” called “GAHT-US.”
Plaintiff GAHT-US Corporation (“GAHT-US”) is a non-profit public benefit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. The purpose of GAHT-US is to provide accurate and fact-based educational resources to the public in the U.S., including within California and Glendale, concerning the history of World War II and related events, with an emphasis on Japan’s role. (Complaint at Para. 7)
Well, if we look for GAHT-US (The “Global Alliance for Historical Truth”), what do we find? We find that it is a corporation that someone created on February 6, 2014. After 14 days of legal existence, this lawsuit was GAHT-US’s first act — well after slapping up a web page.
This “Global Alliance’s” address is 1223 Wilshire Boulevard #613. That’s a UPS Store.
Ok, so with that illustrious organization out of the way, lets look at the two people that they managed to get to stand up for this noble cause…
As a Glendale resident of Japanese heritage, [Michiko Shiota Gingery] believes the Public Monument presents an unfairly one-sided portrayal of the historical and political debate surrounding comfort women…” (Complaint at 2).
The other Plaintiff, Koichi Mera, had similar gripes. I do see their point. I mean, on one side you have all these women who were kept in sexual slavery and essentially gang raped for 4-5 years. But, where is the side of the poor Japanese soldiers who had to fuck them? What of them? Have you ever had to fuck a woman who was captive and crying? I mean, think of it? Those poor Japanese rapist soldiers. The fact that nobody thinks of the other side in this discussion is really distressing. Bravo, Mayer Brown, Bravo.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs are upset because the monument offends them. They “would like to use Glendale’s Central Park,” but they now avoid the park because they are offended by the Public Monument’s pointed expression of disapproval of Japan and the Japanese people.(Complaint at 2, 4)
Guess what? I bet the City of Glendale actually loves Japan and the Japanese People. Aside from the fact that they seem to have a disproportionately large number of scat porn enthusiasts (second only to Germany), and this little “comfort women” thing, the Japanese are a-ok by me. For fucks’ sake, they gave us Godzilla. After being the only country to ever get nuked into the stone age, they staggered around for about 18 months, and then they kicked the entire world’s ass at technology, amassing wealth and power on a level that it took 17 Italians to equal the productivity and innovation of one Japanese high school girl with a Hello Kitty purse.
But yes, we all have our blemishes — and government-organized mass rape is a pretty bad one.
So if the consequence of such a sick-as-fuck act is that there’s a bronze statue in the corner of some obscure park 10,000 miles from the nearest piece of Japanese territory, I think that’s pretty fair.
Ok, so their clients are offended and rich, (I presume the rich part). The complaint has at least some rational points. They seem frivolous, but not completely off the wall. One part of the complaint discusses how this memorial interferes with the foreign relations between the United States, Japan, and South Korea. (Complaint at 14). I’m not saying it is a supportable argument, as Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988) seems to dispense with the key point here. In that case, a D.C. ordinance sought to suppress speech that might chafe foreign powers. This is a little different, since it is private citizens trying to suppress governmental speech, but the core of the matter is the same — smooth foreign relations are not a sufficient justification to suppress speech.
The complaint also makes one rational argument –That the monument went in without the proper procedure being followed before the Glendale City Council. (Complaint at 16). I have to agree with this one (if it is true) — cities should not be engaging in ultra vires acts. And, the complaint could have made those arguments, stating that the complaint was brought reluctantly. Or, just lay off the victims, but make the dull legal points.
Instead, Mayer Brown put its name to gems like this:
During World War II and the decade leading up to it, an unknown number of women from Japan, Korea, China, and a number of nations in Southeast Asia, were recruited, employed, and/or otherwise acted as sexual partners for troops of the Japanese Empire in various parts of the Pacific Theater of war. These women are often referred to as comfort women, a loose translation of the Japanese word for prostitute. (Complaint at Para. 14) (emphasis added)
You know… “whores.” They just “acted as sexual partners.”
I mean, lets just call them what they really were, BATTLE SLUTS!!!
Right now, my face is figuratively bright red and in searing pain from the epic facepalming that I am imagining doing to myself.
The complaint reads like a who’s who of hypocritical trash. Yoshikazu Noda, the poor mayor of Higashiosaka, Glendale’s sister city is quoted as saying that the installation of the monument was “an extremely deplorable situation and the people of Higashiosaka are hurt at a decision made by [Glendale] city to install a comfort woman monument.” (Complaint at Para. 38).
Awwww… does it hurt, Noda? Can you describe the pain? Is it anything like being kidnapped, and then being raped repeatedly, every day, for four or five years? Does it hurt like that? Or just like when you step on a Lego brick in the middle of the night — because that, I tell you, absolutely fucking smarts.
The Plaintiffs want the monument removed and kept off of any and all public property in Glendale, and of course, they want money. (Complaint at 17).
I will give them some credit — at least the complaint did not call for all the remaining comfort women to be rounded up and shipped off to Manzanar.
Despite that small bit of tactful omission, I have never seen anything this dishonorable with a law firm’s name attached to it. I’ve seen dumber shit. I’ve seen more frivolous shit. I’ve seen more unethical shit. But, never seen anything this foul or shameful with a law firm’s name attached to it.
The silver lining in this? Mayer Brown’s abject stupidity and dishonorable behavior will bring their clients into complete disrepute (which they deeply deserve), and will educate more people than ever on the history of the “comfort women.” The “comfort women” have already won this battle – and they aren’t even really on the field.
Don’t let the bastards get you down, “Comfort Women”… Mayer Brown just made your critics into complete laughingstocks.
UPDATE: Looks like Popehat is pissed off about it too
I have written about many maddening lawsuits at Popehat. But I cannot remember a lawsuit that so immediately repulsed and enraged me. (source)
Boy am I glad I left this firm before this could tarnish me by association. What a crock.
Hmm, Meyer Brown has offices in Guangzhou, Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. I wonder how their Chinese clients would feel upon hearing that their mothers’ and grandmothers’ were “recruited” by the Imperial forces?
I would be Very interested in the outcome of this part og the situation. I assume that they have many large clients in China. Historically the reactions of the Chinese on this subject has been comparable to the reactions of Jews to German Nazis.
Awesome. Next up: The Holocaust Museum (as Ogden Nash said: “Why annoy Adolf? Can’t you take a joke?”) and Lincoln’s Birthday (Hey–the “peculiar institution” did a LOT more good than SOME people are willing to give it credit for….)
How do you spell “Streisand” in Japanese, anyway?
Waiting for Mayer’s affiliated scholar to write the apologia.
“Can you describe the pain? Is it anything like being kidnapped, and then being raped repeatedly, every day, for four or five years? Does it hurt like that” ENOUGH SAID. Thank you- I thoroughly enjoyed this.
“The complaint also makes one rational argument –That the monument went in without the proper procedure being followed before the Glendale City Council. (Complaint at 16). I have to agree with this one (if it is true) — cities should not be engaging in ultra vires acts.”
Actually, if you read paragraph 69 more carefully, the complaint merely states that the language used on the inscription differs from what was originally proposed to the Council. (Whether it differs *substantially* is not addressed.) Reading between the lines, it seems clear that the statue itself was duly approved. The complaint cites no authority for the idea that revisions to the inscription required Council approval.
Yeah, you are probably right. I was trying to make the piece not completely damning. I mean, there isn’t much to find in the complaint that deserves respect. I ask your forgiveness for not being critical enough. :)
Actually I read it a little too fast myself. The complaint does say that the original language never mentioned Japan at all. That gives the impression of being a substantial change.
Is there a private right of action for “things put in public parks in California that might technically not have been approved 100%, but were clearly approved in principle, by the city council”?
Not sure, but I know there’s a simple remedy for that: Petition the city council to approve the language anyway.
[…] sometimes must represent unpopular and even repugnant clients, but as Marc Rendazza capably and collorfully explains there is a line reputable lawyers should not cross. I agree with Marc’s assessment here, a […]
Thoroughly enjoyed this. I love this blog. Thank you and much respect.
[…] The large and respected law firm Mayer Brown has taken the ugly case of some Japanese-American clients who want the city of Glendale, California to remove a memorial to World War II “comfort women” from a public park. In doing so, and in the way it is proceeding, the firm has inspired harsh condemnation from two estimable legal commentators, both First Amendment champions: Marc Randazza, and Ken White. Their objections, which caused Randazza to call the firm “the least honorable law firm in the world,”and White to conclude, “This lawsuit is thoroughly contemptible. It should fail, and everyone involved should face severe social consequences.” Their argument, beside arguing that the lawsuit is frivolous, is best articulated by Randazza: […]
[…] week two past CLBR guests, Marc Randazza and Kevin White, took the law firm of Mayer Brown & Platt to task for filing the lawsuit to […]
Dang this is good commentary.
Those Korean women were kidnapped by Korean pimps and they were sold by their parents and many of the comfort stations were owned by the Korean pimps.
And how do you know this? Are you related to those pimps or are you Japanese posing as Korean?
And how do you know this? Are you somehow related to those pimps?
[…] that these women were, in fact, prostitutes. I mean really, why not just come out and call them BATTLE SLUTS. I have a question for Mayer Brown, and, in particular, those four attorneys who put their names […]