Friday, February 29, 2008

Gil Fried

Gil Fried, the attorney at the center of the Pat Lykos yarmulke exclusion debate graciously took time out of his schedule to post a comment in one of my articles regarding the event. I thought it was important enough for its own post. Here's what he wrote:

This is Gil Fried writing from Connecticut. I am a professor in New Haven, CT and still work as an expert witness. I have been contacted by the media several times in the past couple weeks about Pat Lycos. I do not know what she said or what she did not say about the incident I had with her in court (over two days of testifying).
However, I can testify under oath that she forced me to remove my Yalmukah before testifying in her court (either testify without it or be held in contempt and would not be able to testify). In my opinion she was very mean about it and tried to imply that I was wearing it for show (she sited a case from New England involving a former priest who became a lawyer and wanted to practice in court wearing his collar)even when I indicated that I wear my head covering every day.
I felt she was trying to exercise her authority over the court and that she felt she could do whatever she wanted. When I told her that she had not heard the end of the issue (becuase I was going to file a complaint or contact the media) I think she said something like "bring it on," which was very unprofessional.I have not thought about her for years.
However, I feel the truth has to come out. If she stated that she denied someone the right to testify with that person wearing their religious clothing then she is telling the truth and I would be glad (I never heard an appology from her). If she is saying that it never happened then I have numerous witnesses and a file of material available for anyone interesting in seeing what happened.It should be noted that instead of suing her in federal court I worked with some friends at the ADL to pass a law in Texas that made what she did against the law. Now a party has to raise the issue of potential conflict (not a judge), they have to show there will be injustice if the person wears the religious item, and that the request to have someone take off the religious item has to be undertaken in the least restrictive manner as possible.
Gil Fried

Thank you, very much, Mr. Fried for writing in on this incredibly important issue, and thank you for your work in changing the law.

So, Mr. Bernstein from the Chronicle, are you interested in the story now?

5 comments:

PeopleSuck said...

Does Mr. Fried know that in all of this is that Lykos continues, to this day, to deny that she has ever discriminated against anyone? In the HCCL debate just last week, she made some comment (which I'm pretty sure had nothing to do with the question asked) that she has never discriminated against anyone based on their race, gender or "congregation." Those there were quick enough to catch this back-handed mud-slinging at Kelly Siegler for the Lakewood comment made during capital jury selection. Lykos didn't say "religion," she said "congregation" in an effort to remind all about "the Lakewood incident." How dare she sit there and say that on television in front of a bunch of lawyers, when she clearly demanded a witness to violate his religious beliefs or suffer a punishment which could include jail time? This is why the Bar-- both sides-- do not trust Ms. Lykos. She NEVER acknowledges her errors, never really answers a question and, when confronted with these issues, becomes aggressive and makes personal attacks. This is why she is not a good leader, why (according to her evaluations at work) she needs to take "listening classes" and needs training on team-building. If this were an episode of Survivor, sounds like she would likely be the first voted off the island.

hcresident said...

I really thought we had voted Lykos off of the island about 14 years ago and again 8 years ago. I guess she is just the gift that keeps on giving, kind of like herpes. I just hope that Leitner doesn't try and throw her a life vest; he might get infected.

pro.victims said...

There was no helicopter to take her away from the island after she was voted off. Darn it.

Jim is only taking votes from Kelly which in turn only helps Lykos. The defense bar may not be the biggest fan of Kelly's, but I have yet to hear from one attorney, state or defense, who thinks that Lykos as DA would be anything less than a nightmare.

jigmeister said...

I just read Bernstein's article. Afraid he is right. Kelly get ready for a runoff. I think the emphasis on Lykos is the right one. Though many defense attorneys will vote for Jim, he won't make the runoff and they will switch to Kelly in April.

anonymous c said...

Just read it, too.

I agree with Jig. Kelly will win a run-off in April.

Still, with so many supposed "undecideds", it might yet swing her way on Tuesday.

With the concentrated tv ad push from Kelly that I’ve seen lately (Fox News is bombarded and Ron was right. It seems to me that Fox is THE place to reach Republicans likely to vote!) and the noticeable quiet from the Lykos side (no money?), she could still eek out a majority and make lots of ADAs (and others) breathe a lot easier!