With the media’s focus on Rush Limbaugh last week, Ms. Allred comes back for her latest CYInterview to discuss why she believes Mr. Limbaugh should be held accountable for his actions.

You can read the highlights or listen to the entire CYInterview below. Featured columnist Jay Bildstein joins me for our latest round with Ms. Allred:

Listen to the entire Gloria Allred CYInterview:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

Aside from a potential prosecution, Ms. Allred tells us if she thinks Sandra Fluke could sue Mr. Limbaugh for slander:

“Well, I think that she and her attorneys if she has any, I’ll make a guess that she does, you know are assessing that. But certainly if it’s false and accuses her of that, I think that she has a strong argument that she has been slandered…She [Sandra Fluke] has not contacted me so I wouldn’t draw any conclusions about whether I would or would not take her case. Obviously if she contacted me I would respond to her and be happy to provide whatever advice she was seeking.”

As far as the possibility of Rush Limbaugh being prosecuted under the Florida Statue [see statute here] which makes defaming a woman by falsely and maliciously claiming she lacks chastity a misdemeanor, Gloria says this about her letter and the prosecutors:

“I know they’re certainly aware of it so I know they’re in receipt of it, I know that they’re in receipt of it, I know that they know there’s press interest in what their response is going to be and so we’ll see what their decision is.”

In response to the Drudge Report covering her in the feature headline, “Gloria Goes Wild,” Ms. Allred responds to the attention she has received from one of the most trafficked news platforms on the Internet:

“I know that obviously the Drudge Report is a very conservative leaning publication and so my, they have a way of knowing what might be of interest or kind of being in touch with what might be interest to their reader base, their viewer base and so my sense of it is they thought that, you know that this would be of interest to their readers. Frankly that’s the way I see it.

It doesn’t matter to me whether I’m a headline there or not, but it is of interest to me that they thought it was so newsworthy that they would headline it and let people know what’s happening and I’m happy for them to know what we have done as long as they understand what we really have done. I actually didn’t call for his arrest as they headline says. I called for an investigation and for them to consider prosecution, but anyway this is their extrapolation of that.”

You can find more information about Gloria Allred at http://www.amglaw.com and http://www.gloriaallred.com/

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com Chris is available for interviews to comment on anything featured on CYInterview.

You can follow Chris Yandek on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/chrisyandek

You can listen to the entire CYInterview or read the highlights below:

Listen to the entire Gloria Allred CYInterview:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

After a ruling last month declaring the banning of same gender marriage unconstitutional, Gloria takes us through the entire history of Proposition 8 and tells us what is ahead:

“It’s interesting because Prop 8 of course was the proposition passed by majority of people in California who voted and which once again banned same gender marriage in California. In other words, it prohibited marriage equality. And that came after we won a victory where we were able to strike down Prop 22 which was essentially the same language as Prop 8 and the court found that was unconstitutional in California to deny the right to marry to same gender couples. So that a result of our case, 18,000 couples were able to marry, but then Prop 8 was passed banning it and so then the second time the California Supreme Court, they upheld Prop 8 and so marriages stopped.

Then came the federal case challenging Prop 8 and that’s been winding its way through the courts, the lower court, Judge Walker found that it was unconstitutional under the United States Constitution, a denial of equal protection due process. That was appealed by the Prop 8 supporters, the proponents of Prop 8 to the ninth circuit United States Court of Appeals which just decided last week to affirm the lower court decision. In other words, to say that, ‘Yes. It is unconstitutional.’

And essentially what they said was it’s unconstitutional to pass an initiative like Prop 8, a proposition which takes away rights from a minority that had been afforded privilege previously which is what happened in California. Something like what happened in Colorado years ago where they were, took away, you know, where they took away from cities the right to prohibit discrimination against persons who were gay and lesbian.

In any event, the most recent thing is, there’s an interesting article in the LA Times today that now the Prop 8 supporters, proponents are considering asking the entire United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, that’s 11 judges to accept the rehearing of this case, en banc, as it’s called where, but it’s gonna take a majority of all the judges to decide that they want to rehear what the United States Court of Appeals did. They may decide they’re not gonna grant a rehearing. Then the next stop is to, for the Prop 8 supporters to seek the United States Supreme Court review of this matter which they may or may not accept, but probably will and that is where ultimately this case is going to be decided.”

With the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, what does Gloria Allred think about the Prop 8 case being heard by them?

“I was less optimistic before the ninth circuit ruled because I was worried about it going to the United States Supreme Court. However, the way the ninth circuit decision is crafted, written, it’s very, very narrow. It only really applies to California, doesn’t apply to all the other western states in the United States which ninth circuit decisions usually do apply to all the rest of the states. Technically it does apply, but it really only applies where there has been a right afforded and then that right was taken away. That only happened in California. If it would’ve happened in any of the other western states, it would apply. But it hasn’t happened anywhere else. So given that it will only apply in California, the justices of the United States Supreme Court may say, ‘Ok. Fine. We’ll let it stand for California.’”

Gloria says she is more concerned about women’s rights/equal rights than ever before:

“Yes. Especially with the current Republican debate about birth control and health plans that somehow they want kowtow to you know to those who would want to limit birth control access in terms of health plan coverage. They would not want to require employers as part of their health plan coverage to cover birth control, not pills or contraceptives. That’s really important not only for the obvious reasons that you know, so many women do use birth control. But also to prevent birth or that is contraception to conceive, but for another reason, which is about half of all the people who use birth control pills are using it for a different reason, a medical reason to treat cysts for example or other reproductive health issues that women have.

Nothing to do with trying to prevent getting pregnant and I spoke with a woman today who had that same problem and you know that, so a lot of Catholic employers do in fact hire people who are not Catholic and they should be able to have a health plan which covers birth control contraceptives. It’s not cheap. It may be cheap for their millionaire, multimillionaire Republicans who think that it’s cheap to buy birth control. But you know they’re a lot of poor people in this country or working poor who just can’t afford it and to deny them the health coverage for the contraceptives I just think is wrong.”

On the subject of women’s rights and equality, given the current composition of the United States Supreme Court, Gloria explains why it’s very important President Obama gets reelected:

“I think it’s very important. It’s very important because, of course, he will have the opportunity to appoint justices to any vacancies on the Supreme Court of which there may very well be some in the next term. He’s had an opportunity to appoint. He’s done a great job. Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, excellent choices. But you know, they’re gonna be more vacancies and this really can have a huge impact on the law. So yes, it’s important and I think there’s gonna be a stark contrast between President Obama and any one of the Republicans who ultimately is nominated.”

Last year, Ms. Allred participated in a CYInterview [see here] about civil rights, as well as the need to have compassion for people who do not have things many of us take for granted. The outspoken attorney agrees with my colleague Jay Bildstein’s proposal that our political leaders take a cut to their own salaries in order to lead by example during a time calling for collective sacrifice. She liked the idea of those salary cuts being made before making cuts that would impact the rest of us, particularly the impoverished and less fortunate:

“Well, I like that idea a lot. I think it’s a great concept…You see people who are elected following the money, the money that got them elected. They’re gonna be accountable to their special interest money that they have received and it’s the people who have donated to their campaign and what they represent and what they want. In a way they’re proxies. They should be a proxy for the people of the entire district or state that they represent, but instead they seem to be more interested in making sure that the flow of their campaign dollars continues and so they’ll vote the way that those who contribute pretty much want so that they can stay in office because once they’re in office, I think their main goal is just to stay in office or to seek higher office.”

Recently, pop music superstar Rihanna released two songs which she collaborated on with former boyfriend Chris Brown. Many will recall that Mr. Brown physically assaulted her in 2009, on the night of the Grammys. Gloria believes the pair should donate all the money made on this project to a battered woman’s shelter:

“It’s a unique situation where we have two people who are involved in a highly covered, high profile situation involving violence against Rihanna who was the victim now seeking to profit off of that coverage by doing something together. This is, it’s pretty, I think it’s horrible. I think they should donate all their profits to a battered woman’s shelter, which I doubt that they will do. In addition, I do think it sends a bad message and I’m concerned about her.

Maybe this is just professional singing, but you know, if they get back together, I don’t really see information that says that he’s completely changed, that he doesn’t have an anger management problem anymore. In fact to the contrary, given a very strong and belligerent email that he sent to people who criticize the Grammys for giving him a Grammy and you know was a very, very harsh email that he sent out. It sounds as though maybe he still has a lot more to do in terms of working on anger management issues. And we all remember her face full of bruises from him after that incident in question. And you know I’m concerned about her safety or about the safety of any other woman who might be in contact with him and who might be in an intimate relationship with him.”

When it comes to a woman returning to a man who has abused them in the past, Attorney Allred says it’s very common for the woman to go back and to suffer physical abuse again:

“It’s very common for them to go back and it’s very common to be abused all over again because nothing changes in his, you know, if he doesn’t get help and even then I’m not sure that it is really effective. He’s just gonna continue the cycle of violence which is essentially sweet talking her, giving her gifts and flowers and then ultimately taking control again and then battering her because he doesn’t like what she said or did and then you know, then begging her forgiveness and starting the cycle all over again. Nothing changes except that usually the battery gets more intense over time, more severe and more frequent.”

You can find more information about Gloria Allred at http://www.amglaw.com and http://www.gloriaallred.com/

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com Chris is available for interviews to comment on anything featured on CYInterview.

You can follow Chris Yandek on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/chrisyandek

Numerous commentators and followers of the trial believed it was a slam dunk that Ms. Anthony would be found guilty. Many individuals posting on the Internet and calling into various talk shows shared their anger and frustration with the jury’s verdict.

Lots of people still have questions about the case, as well as dealing with something of a lack of closure regarding three year old Caylee’s death. Former prosecutor Jeff Ashton works at giving answers in his new book, Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony.

Below are some of the highlights from Mr. Ashton’s CYInterview. We discuss many of the important events surrounding the trial. However, if you really want to learn about the multifaceted Casey Anthony trial and its aftermath, listen to the complete audio.

___________________________

Listen to the entire Jeff Ashton CYInterview:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

Attorney Jeff Ashton opens up by explaining that he hopes Imperfect Justice will be the closure for everyone who was not happy with the decision of the jury, in addition to providing answers to their questions:

“What I’m trying to say to people is, here’s everything we know about the case, here’s as much truth as I can give you. Here’s an understanding of how the system works and I think that they need to understand that to kind of not accept the result, but at least try to understand it as best as it can be understood and then to get some closure and move on with it, move on with their lives.

And you know, the amount of anger that I was seeing out there after the verdict concerned me ‘cause I mean you know, frustration and all those things are understandable, but the last thing I ever want to see is anybody do anything or respond angrily to a juror or to defense counsel or to the defendant or anything like that. So I’m hoping that this will give people a way of kind of closing on it and dealing with it and moving on.”

After Ms. Anthony was found not guilty, some people voiced hopes that something bad would happen to her, since they believed she was responsible for the death of Caylee. Recently, there were reports of death threats against her. Attorney Ashton says this type of reaction is alarming. He hopes people will move on and resolve to save other children’s lives.

“It’s alarming. It’s not something that I ever want to see come out of a criminal case. And you know, some people I think just at some point got to, they took it too personally, it became too personal. For a lot of people I think Caylee became personal. And that’s a real tribute to the memory of that little girl, but there’s a point where you have to say, well let’s step back from this. The system operated in a certain way, we don’t agree with it, but it’s time to just accept it and move on to find ways you know to protect the next Caylee.”

Why were many people so emotionally invested in a murder trial that had no direct impact on their lives? Jeff Ashton explains:

“I think it probably started out with the fact that the original report was that Caylee was missing. I think if on July the 16th the story had been Caylee Anthony found dead, this would have not been the kind of story it was. But I think the fact that she was missing captured the imagination of so many people in hopes that she would be found. That’s what everybody always thinks…You add that to the mother’s inexplicable attitude toward her disappearance, that the whole 31 days with doing nothing and not reporting it and that sort of adds to everyone’s sort of curiosity. They just want to know how is it possible for a mother to do this kind of thing.

So you put those together, it’s like, it’s the perfect combination, a perfect recipe for people to really get involved in the case. And I think that happened here. And of course you throw in you know, I refer to them as the infotainers who kind of used this case as a way of upping their ratings and inflaming passions and things like that.”

After the trial, one of the jurors spoke out and said the prosecution didn’t show them how Caylee died. Ashton stated in his book, ‘The jurors had to put the pieces together and apply some common sense to the notion of how people do and don’t act. This jury was not willing to do that, so in a sense we lost before we started.’ Jeff explains why the jury couldn’t put the pieces together and find Casey Anthony guilty, when it seemed everything was stacked against her.

“I’m not sure what the jury’s attitude or take was on Casey’s actions during that 31 days. You know, I don’t. To me, I think to most people, pretty persuasive of the fact that this wasn’t an accident. But the jury seemed to only want to look at medical evidence for proof of that issue and that I think was ultimately where why the verdict came out is because they were limiting that view on that issue only to medical evidence. And if we couldn’t prove to them medically how she died than they weren’t really willing to look at other evidence to make that determination and that’s what our case was based on.

It was based on the circumstances and the actions and the concept of common sense. I don’t know how the jury, if the jury actually felt it was reasonable that somebody would respond to an accidental drowning by you know putting duct tape over the face, wrapping them in a garbage bag and throwing them in the swamp. That seemed to me to be unreasonable, but perhaps the jury didn’t think so…I just can’t think of anything we could’ve said that would have gotten the jury to open their minds to the proof of these issues from a variety of sources. “

In his book, the Florida attorney provides a detailed view of Casey’s parents, George and Cindy. Former prosecutor Ashton describes Casey’s mother as someone who was in denial when it came to the actions of her daughter.

“I think Cindy really wanted in a sense, wanted to be lied to. You know, she wanted to accept whatever Casey was saying. I mean, you know, a normal person wouldn’t have gone for thirty days without seeing her granddaughter. You know it wouldn’t have taken a car that smelled like a dead body to get her moving, but that’s what it took for Cindy. Cindy would rather take whatever story Casey told her no matter how ridiculous it was and run with it rather than facing the truth.”

Ashton explains why he believes Caylee Anthony became less of the focal point during the trial as many in the media switched gears and focused on Casey Anthony and the murder charges she faced:

“That’s just a natural thing that happens in trials. It just is. I mean, as much as we as prosecutors try to keep the jury’s focus on the humanity of the individual, you know eventually the case just becomes about the defendant and you hope that whatever images o f the victim that you were able to get before the jury stays with them. We really hoped that Caylee and a concern for her and a concern for the truth about what happened to her would you know, make the journey want to put the work in to try to find the truth and just apparently we didn’t reach them on that level.”

There were a lot of questions during Casey Anthony’s trial regarding her defense attorney Jose Baez. There was discussion of some of his statements, that were defined as accusations and allegations without any concrete facts or evidence to back them up. Mr. Ashton says Mr. Baez was a good salesman with the jury and reviews the defense’s case.

“He’s a good salesman and I think that’s basically what a salesman does. You make, you put a shine on the car you’re trying to sell and hope that no one looks beneath the hood. And that’s very much what this defense was. It was shiny on the outside, but if you asked more than a couple of questions about it, it fell apart. I mean, the whole idea of you know somebody taking a body, a child that died by accident and hiding it from somebody you know on the surface sounds like oh maybe.

But then you go, wait a minute, how would you actually ever do that, you know. And why would you do that. Why would you think that you could do that…It’s that kind of like sound byte mentality, something that sounds good for a 30 second sound byte, but then when you actually subject it to analysis, it falls apart…This jury was sold and wanted to be sold.”

I asked Lawyer Ashton if he thought Ms. Anthony might end up having further legal troubles in her life. This was his prediction on her future:

“I think Casey’s probably bigger danger in her life is ending up on the wrong side of someone that she’s lied to. I think that would be, if I wanted to guess on how she’s gonna end up, it would be that she’s gonna lie to somebody and they’re not gonna take it very well and they’re not gonna go to the police. But yeah it’s hard to predict what will happen with someone else. I mean, really I can say for sure about Casey is that Casey will continue to lie to people. That’s the thing I’m sure about.”

Comparisons between the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony murder trials are inevitable. Jeff talks about the comparison:

“Both of them in their own way were heavily forensic scientific cases. I think they had very different challenges in that case than our case. And I had the pleasure of meeting Marcia Clark two weeks ago when I was out in L.A. and she actually told me which really surprised me that they didn’t expect to win that case. So I guess that’s a big difference is we really did. We thought we were doing good…

It’s also an interesting comparison between sort of the trial of the television century and the trial of the Internet century. And I think this case really showed how things have changed with the advent of the Internet. I mean, hundreds of thousands of people had the ability to know everything about this case from the Internet. Every single piece of information was right out there and I think that’s a huge difference in the way people address criminal cases.”

Mr. Ashton talked about meeting OJ Simpson prosecutor, Marcia Clark and compares the trials:

“I felt like we were having a meeting of the loser’s club. It was amazing though. It’s you know, the amazing is that the reasons why her case and my case were huge were so completely different. I mean, her case was huge because of the defendant because of his notoriety and who he was and our case was really huge because of the facts and what happened and who the victim was. So it was pretty interesting meeting her.”

In 1987, Jeff Ashton says he was an attorney in the first case in the United States where DNA evidence was used, in State of Florida vs. Tommy Lee Andrews. He said it might be the first trial in the world that used DNA evidence, but he’s not sure. Before the trial of Casey Anthony, then prosecutor Ashton had only had two trials with not guilty verdicts.

“That was in the state of Florida in 1987 in a case called State of Florida vs. Tommy Lee Andrews. It was the first one in the United States and interesting enough, it probably was the first one in the world. Though I’ve never gotten the exact date of it, there was a case in England that was around the same period of time. I think it was a week or so after. So it may be the first in the world, at least surely the first in the U.S.”

A fun fact for everyone out there, Jeff Ashton went to high school with actress Angela Bassett where they acted in a play together. Some will recall my CYInterview with Ms. Bassett back in 2008 [see here]. Ashton recalls the Hollywood veteran.

“Actually I don’t recall what it was we were in. I was a senior. She was a junior. I just recall her as a friend being a very, very nice person. She was a cheerleader, you know homecoming court. One of those people that everybody wanted to be around. But just being very unassuming, very nice. And when I started, she went off to Yale after college I knew that she would be successful. But every time I see her on TV or in the movies or on stage, I’m just proud. You know she’s just – ‘cause she came from very, very modest surroundings. I think she was raised by a single mom in a not great part of St. Petersburg [Florida]. So you know she really is a credit to the fact that with the right support you can overcome anything, but yeah, every time I see her I just smile.”

There were a lot of followers of the Casey Anthony trial who were concerned about any profiting off the death of Caylee. With the writing of his book, Mr. Ashton says he didn’t have many concerns:

“I know there are people that, most people I’ve talked to sort of are angry about the possibility of the defendant or the defense counsel profiting from them because they feel like they’re dancing on Caylee’s grave. I haven’t gotten a whole lot of hostility about my book. But you know if there are people out there that don’t like the fact that I’m telling the story and that people are profiting from it, I understand that, I respect their opinion. That’s their opinion. Publishers don’t print books for free and you know I could not have spent the last four months writing this book if I wasn’t making money for it. So I don’t apologize to people for it. Not at all.”

Finally, some states have proposed Caylee’s Law, which would make it a felony for a parent not to report a missing child after 24 hours. Jeff gives his thoughts on the law and his ideas on a better solution:

“The whole issue of the Caylee’s Law to criminalize, I’m not sure that that’s really that helpful. I mean, this incident is one that is so unusual. I just don’t know that it’s gonna to be a kinda law that’s going to be applied a lot and of course there are also some I think constitutional problems with it. I mean to require someone to report a missing child potentially if that person has done something criminal in relation to that, well that’s a violation of the Fifth Amendment. So there are all those issues.

I do like some laws that I’ve heard of that are being suggested about making it a felony to lie in reference to a missing child. That I think is potentially something that could be good for society to you know to make it a little bit more serious to lie about a missing child than it would be to lie about you know a drunk driving case or a check being stolen. So I think that’s probably a step in the right direction.”

You can purchase a copy and find more information about Jeff Ashton’s book Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony here.

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com

The video has gone viral. Outrage has been expressed in many quarters. There have been calls for the resignation of the Chancellor of UC Davis. Certainly, if we can believe our eyes, this sickening display and callous disregard for human beings demonstrating peacefully brings up a host of civil rights and legal questions, both of the criminal and civil variety.

To gain greater insight into the situation, we welcome back CYInterview regular Gloria Allred to give us some legal insight into what is shown on the video, in addition to what has been reported and the ramifications. CYInterview managing editor Chris Yandek joined us for this important discussion.

We recommend that you listen to this entire CYInterview to gain a more detailed understanding of the event which occurred at UC Davis. You can, of course, read the overview below:

Listen to the entire Gloria Allred CYInterview:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

Attorney Allred first gives us her thoughts on the matter:

“It’s just completely outrageous. A group of students who appear to be peaceful and seated and not posing any threat to anyone would be pepper sprayed by campus police. This is you know just not acceptable under any measure. There had to be other alternatives for dealing with them. There was no clashing or conflict present and you know I don’t see why that alternative had to be used.”

Focusing on the officer who appears to be pepper spraying the peaceful protestors, Ms. Allred believes it is possible there could be criminal charges brought against the officer, as well as being named in lawsuits.

“Well, there is potential to be investigated whether this is gonna, whether this would amount to a criminal battery, a violation of civil rights or not. I’m sure it is currently being investigated. Even the state legislature’s intending to have hearings as well…Pepper spray is harmful. It’s damaging. It’s painful and it’s just, there’s just no justification whatsoever for it. Yes. It has both potential criminal and civil possible consequences…It will not surprise me if there are civil cases and it won’t surprise me if there is a possible criminal case as well.”

I asked Attorney Allred if she would be interested in getting involved in this matter by representing any of the affected protesters. Gloria stated that she is always open to considering new cases:

“It depends. I mean, I would have to be asked by someone who was pepper sprayed to represent them and then I’d have to see what the facts were and then I would have to make a decision, but you know, my guess is that a lot of these alleged victims have definitely already lawyered up…I’m always open to that possibility.”

Finally, in focusing on protests in a broader context, be it Occupy Wall Street or other similar protests across the nation, Ms. Allred makes a compelling point, about some of the criticism that has been made regarding the physical appearance of some of the protestors, as well as the messages they are attempting to convey:

“It’s about trying to find solutions. They’re saying to the politicians, you gotta find solutions to this because we’re hurting. It’s as simple as that. So I think to criticize them and say well, they’re not washed, you know what, I know a lot of people who are not washed. There’s a very, very poor people who sometimes cannot afford you know, even a place of clean water, they’re sleeping in tents. To criticize them or you know, maybe they don’t have money to go get a haircut, maybe they don’t have money for a barber or go to a salon.

A lot of things that we take for granted that a lot of people who don’t have money, they don’t enjoy those same kinds of things. So I think what we should do is have a little more respect for the fact that they are still human beings. They’re trying to make a political point and I think we should be proud of them as they’re standing up to the system and saying there’s something wrong and there needs to be change. Because I think there does need to be change.”

You can reach me with your questions and comments at Jay@CYinterview.com

Through it all, Gatien battled legal problems. Most notably, perhaps, was a trial in which he was found not guilty of being aware drug use was taking place in his clubs yet and doing nothing about it. That case was brought against him by the federal government of the United States. Later on, Mr. Gatien was deported from the U.S.

Peter currently lives in Canada, the country of his birth. He had spent decades living in the United States of America. His life story is profiled in an upcoming documentary out this weekend, in theaters across the country, titled Limelight.

Listening to Peter Gatien’s entire CYInterview will help give the broadest understanding of his life story. You can find the link to the audio below, as well as excerpts of our conversation.

Listen to the entire Peter Gatien interview:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

Peter starts off by telling me he doesn’t dwell on what his life would’ve been like had he not faced any legal issues or been deported, for example:

“I don’t dwell on how it would’ve been different, whatever. I do feel strongly though had there not been this Giuliani campaign on quality of life, etc., etc. that Limelight or any nightclub as far as that goes, as long as you’re willing to put in the energy into it, you can last as many years as you’re driven to do…Every night has to be approached like it’s a Broadway production.”

As far as what he’s up to today, Mr. Gatien says he’s working on a TV series based on his life experiences:

“It takes place in the 90s, New York. It’s a New York story, nightlife story. I really feel that in a series based in the nightlife, you can really take on a lot of political issues, lot of gay, straight, racial issues, war on drug issues. I want to have like a Mayor like a Giuliani type thing where he really feels his world is holier-than thou and the nightlife world is basically staffed by degenerates and whatever and the nightclub world is in the end much more honorable than the political world.”

As far as his thoughts on America today, and if government and the media spend too much time focusing on personal matters compared to more serious issues, Peter responds by first noting that the judicial system in this country needs big reform:

“There’s a lot of things I love about America and I truly miss being there, but having said that, I think the judicial system in America is, needs serious reform. Prosecutors in America all want to be Giuliani some day and they have such wide discretion on who they indict and who they go after, whatever. Naturally if you go after a high profile target, i.e. me or Martha Stewart or whatever, the career making cases. The feds win 99 percent of the cases only because the system is so stacked in their favor…It’s a really frightening experience to have to go up against the U.S. Government. I think many other countries including Canada, the system’s not set up that way, the prosecutors don’t make the careers.”

Peter gives us a further reflection on America and where he thinks the country has gone:

“When I moved to the United States in the 70s and left in the 2000s, America is not the same country it was. I think it’s taken a really unfortunate turn to the right. I think everything from politics to whatever is so money dominated these days. And not only New York, the whole country’s gone through corporatization where I still have a lot of friends in New York. Most of them don’t live in Manhattan anymore. Very few people in the creative community can afford the real estate prices, the boom. It’s terrific for your money class, but I really believe New York has lost a lot of its soul in the last ten years and I personally think Giuliani almost single handedly destroyed the unique fabric that New York City was for so many years and New York’s no longer a destination spot.”

I wondered if Peter ever thought he could face legal exposure for other individuals doing drugs in his clubs. He says he never thought about it. He speaks about the case, in which he was acquitted of all charges:

“I never went to bed once thinking, ‘ Hey Peter! You better straighten out your act because you could end up in jail for a long time.’ The fact of the matter is, again, this is Rupert Murdoch and the NY Post and Fox News or whatever, I was acquitted in three hours ok, in Federal [Court]. The feds win 99 percent of the case and yes I had a terrific lawyer and I owe my freedom to him, but at the same token, as good as he is, the theory of the case was just total nonsense. It was never alleged that I profited in drugs or anything like that. It was alleged that I allowed it to go on, therefore I was guilty. And here’s the kicker, ok, and like people really don’t wrap their minds around this.

For all the ballyhoo that Giuliani cleaning up the city, whatever, whatever, ecstasy was not illegal in New York State until 1998. I was indicted in 1996, which means not one police officer of Giuliani’s, not one prosecutor of Giuliani’s ever prosecuted anybody for ecstasy in the period that I operated clubs…It was more illegal to light a cigarette in a nonsmoking section of a restaurant. You could get in more trouble than you would if you were caught by the cops with ecstasy…To expect that my clubs would be an oasis where no drug activity would be tolerated, meanwhile if you wanted drugs in New York City in the 90s, best place was Washington Square Park. I remember David Lee Roth leaving the Limelight one night. He couldn’t find any drugs, went to Washington Square Park and came back…It turned my life upside down and I was forever tainted as my clubs being these drug markets, etc., etc., which was complete horseshit.”

Looking back at his favorite memories, from celebrities to what he got the most gratification out of as one of New York’s biggest club owners, Mr. Gatien reflects:

“Having Mick Jagger’s 40th birthday party at my club when I’m a small town Canadian kid was very gratifying. But I got to tell you, the most gratifying thing to me was standing obscurely on the balcony watching 1500, 2000 people ear to ear smiles, arms going up in the air, you know, having the time of their life…I get gratification from people exchanging phone numbers at the end of the night and sort of snickering at yourself, you know, God, how many people am I responsible for getting laid tonight?…Shirley MacLaine’s 50th birthday party to William Burroughs party. So the 80s sort of had their thing and the 90s had their spectacular nights, but I got more gratification in the simplistic things than the hobnobbing with celebrities and that kind of stuff.”

Reviewing his successes, I pointed out to Peter that I believe his ability to bring a diverse group of people together – from all ethnic backgrounds, tastes and lifestyles – was the key to his success. By the end of the night as he confides to me, art gallery guys, rock n’ roll people, brokerage community individuals and gay people would be talking to each other and having a good night. Gatien didn’t limit the diversity of patrons who could end up in his clubs:

“Absolutely! In the end, your club can be gilded in gold, but it’s really the crowd that you draw that makes you an institution. Every detail was like really addressed from the font on the invite to the music to the art department…I didn’t have a staff of bleach blonde girls with 42 inch boobs or whatever. All of our staff came as much as possible from the creative community…We always had like two or three or four different dance floors in the same place…The crowd ended up entertaining each other…Today, I think the clubs are so focused on bottle service and the profile of a customer they go after is a Paris Hilton lookalike or a Kardashian lookalike where in our day and I sound like a grandfather here, but in our day you had a lot better chance of getting in the club as a person in sequins or a longhaired musician.”

Looking at the club scene today, with some establishments paying thousands of dollars in appearance fees to the likes of Snooki, Kim Kardashian or Paris Hilton, Peter explains the thinking behind that and agrees with my thoughts that it’s bad business and as he says, “crazy:”

“It’s actually crazy. It’s sort of immediate gratification and it’s, like listen, I use to tell my staff intrusively, we’re here for one reason only and that is to create culture ok?…With music, we were always well ahead of the curve as far as music. What fun is there in going to a place where you gotta pop for $600 or you’re a nobody, everybody looks the same. There’s really not a music driven night unless you’re hiring a $50,000 DJ. It’s disappointing or depressing however you want to say it.”

As far as what Peter Gatien wants people to take away from his story, the famous New York club owner from the 80s and 90s shares these thoughts:

“I’d like people to really understand how you know, how special era that was in New York City and how actually New York was probably the prime destination for incredibly fun nightlife in the 90s and the culture that we created in music, art, fashion, everything else that is so important to society. I think some of that is longed again or should happen again in America. “

The documentary Limelight comes to theaters September 23rd. You can find more information about the movie here.

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com

Listen to the entire Gloria Allred interview:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

Ms. Allred was in New York City last week filing a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Manhattan attorney Matthew Couloute Jr. against two women, Stacey Blitsch and Amanda Ryncarz.

Mr. Couloute Jr., the plaintiff, claims the defendants, Ms. Blitsch and Ms. Ryncarz – with whom it is claimed he had relationships during different periods in his life – posted comments on a website called liarscheatersrus.com. According to the media, he believes these comments are damaging his career.

Attorney Allred gives her thoughts on the case:

“We filed a motion asking that the lawsuit be dismissed and we believe that lawsuits of this kind, such as the one that Mr. Couloute filed should not be allowed. The public policy of this nation should be that women have the right to exercise their free speech and should not be silenced and afraid to speak out if they’ve have experiences with men who have lied to them or cheated on them. Unfortunately the courts in this country do not protect women against liars and cheaters and in fact the laws protect men who lie and cheat on their girlfriends.

Every state in this country has enacted laws typically called anti-heart bomb statutes which protect men when they tell lies to their lovers, even when these lies are fraudulent and even when they cause not only a broken heart, but financial ruin to women who believe these lies. ..It’s bad enough that male legislatures throughout the country have given blanket protection to men who lie and cheat, but lawsuits similar to this one seem to be designed to ensure that women are afraid to even warn each other.”

When looking at cases like this and the possibility that someone could become open to legal exposure, if they post something online, Allred says it is a case by case basis.

“The laws are always evolving, but I’m just dealing with the specific issue of what was said there and his lawsuit against them for torts, interference, perspective business relations…I can’t say all of the circumstances, all I can say is you know we go case by case and in this case we think we have strong arguments as to why this case should be dismissed.”

With the dance party event Ms. Allred held Monday to spread awareness for Chaz Bono, who is currently on Dancing with the Stars, Ms. Allred thinks it is ok for children to watch a transgender individual on the popular ABC program. As many will recall, I spoke with Ms. Allred recently about transgender discrimination and Chaz Bono in detail. [See interview here]

“I protested the fact that psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow and some others think that parents should not allow their children to watch Chaz Bono Dancing on the Stars tomorrow night and that is a concern to me. I think that parents should allow their children to watch it and it’s a great opportunity for a teaching moment to discuss what it means, why someone might want to transition from female to male as Chaz Bono has or male to female. “

Being that Two and a Half Men is back on TV this week and with Ashton Kutcher joining the cast, Ms. Allred comments on Charlie Sheen, the show’s former lead, and his recent apparent apology tour.

“Charlie Sheen seems to be on kind of an apology tour the last few days going on Jay Leno and going on Today Show and other shows. So he seems to be trying to get back in the good graces of the public and not appear as a person who’s completely out of control as he did before. I wish the best for him…He was anything but a good role model for his children in my opinion. He was pretty wild and that’s why he was interesting, but Charlie Sheen will survive. He’ll have other things, other opportunities. I don’t think we have to worry about Charlie Sheen.”

Recently, there was an article claiming Hillary Clinton is the most popular American political figure. Gloria Allred – who was an elected Hillary Clinton delegate when then Senator Clinton ran for President in 2008 – comments on our current Secretary of State. Attorney Allred does not believe Secretary Clinton will make a primary bid against President Obama, even though some media outlets bring up the idea.

“She’s done a great job as Secretary of State and she was very popular before and I think that she’s very deserving of our respect and our gratitude for all the hard work she’s doing…I don’t think she’s gonna challenge an incumbent President. I doubt it. Although you know, he’s very low in the popularity scale right now, but he can come back and we’ll see…I was an elected Hillary delegate to the Democratic National Convention. So I’m a big Hillary supporter, having said that, she’s made it clear she’s not going to run so I just think it’s, that would be hypothetical.”

You can find more information about Gloria Allred at http://www.amglaw.com and http://www.gloriaallred.com/

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com

Listen to the entire Gloria Allred interview:

Have trouble listening to the audio?
Listen here

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

Powerhouse attorney and CYInterview regular Gloria Allred has represented various transgender clients who have faced discrimination. She tells us in her latest CYInterview what she made of the negative comments aimed at Chaz:

“It’s really sad, but we have come a long way in terms of the battle to win equal rights and equal protection under the law for individuals who are transgender and obviously Chaz Bono is completely out of the closet about it, proud, unashamed, that’s the way he should be. His mom is very supportive and that’s the way a mom should be ‘cause that’s still her child. And those who are criticizing Chaz, I mean, really need to kind of look within themselves and realize that every human being is entitled to respect, every human being is entitled to dignity and every human being is entitled to the same opportunities and also to have the same responsibilities as anyone else.

In this case, Dancing with the Stars is an opportunity and it’s an opportunity that is afforded not to every person, but to some and it should be an opportunity that is not, that an individual can enjoy without being discriminated against, without being attacked. In a way it’s good for the show, but I think it just shows that we still have a long way to go in terms of educating people you know, because bigotry and ignorance is basically I think a lack of education, a lack of understanding. Sometimes people fear what they do not understand, what they do not know and I think knowledge is power and knowledge can help to end that fear and end the discrimination and the bigoted remarks as well…It’s a greater good and I hope Chaz can just have the courage to keep on and not let anything like this deter him.”

Focusing on ways to end discrimination and stereotypes about transgender people, Allred shares this:

“I’ve also had many employment cases which have been settled confidentiality where transgender individuals have been discriminated against by employers, sometimes large corporate employers, sometimes smaller employers and on and on. So yes, it’s a little understood minority and but again, talking about it is good because then we can listen to each other and I think for people to meet individuals who are transgender, the same way if they meet individuals who are gay and lesbian, they’ll find out they have the same wants and needs as anybody else in terms of the lives they lead and their hopes and dreams for the future.”

One of Chaz Bono’s fellow Dancing with the Stars cast members this year is Nancy Grace. Allred tells us her thoughts on her legal colleague doing the show. Gloria has appeared on Nancy’s show many times over the years. While Attorney Grace is heading to the ballroom dance floor, Ms. Allred says she doesn’t think she’ll ever be asked, but she does love to dance and would think about joining the ABC show if offered the chance.

“She’s [Nancy Grace] a multitalented individual and she’s gonna be out there on Dancing with the Stars and I’m very proud of her. It’s a huge opportunity for her and for anybody…For those who say, ‘Why should you have Nancy Grace on?’ I say, you know what? Nancy Grace is very entertaining…I tend to doubt it. I do love to dance. It’s just one of my very favorite things to do which I rarely do have a chance to do. So I don’t think that I’ll be asked, but if I ever am asked I would have to think about it at the time.”

The uber attorney follows up by saying she’d love to see her daughter, Lisa Bloom, do the show. Then Gloria caught me off guard when she suggested I do it. It’s ironic how life works. A few years back, during an interview, I suggested to my guest Kristi Yamaguchi that she do the show [interview here]. Now, here I am with one of the most famous attorney’s in the country and she’s saying I should do it. (Getting paid to be taught how to dance by a beautiful female dance instructor, where do I sign up?)

“I’d love to see my daughter on it, but she doesn’t seem to be very enthusiastic about that thought either. She certainly, but who knows? If she were asked, maybe she would do it. I don’t know. I have to say, my vote’s for Chris on it. How about you? Go for it.”

Finally, Gloria Allred will be heading to syndicated daytime television this month with We The People with Gloria Allred. She tells us about her new show airing in various markets across the United States:

“It’s a syndicated television show. I play a judge. I decide disputes before me and it’s gonna be very entertaining I hope. I’m tough, but I think I have a sense of humor as well and I try to get the just result and no one tells me how I have to decide. I make my own decision about how the case should be decided and who’s gonna prevail whether it’s gonna be the plaintiff or the defendant…You know I like to get to the truth Chris and I do a lot of questioning of people on the show and cross-examining them ‘because that’s the way to find out what the just results should be is to find out what really happened there and why people are standing there in my court…Just look for me in the black robe.”

We The People with Gloria Allred starts September 13th. Markets airing Gloria’s new TV show include KNBC in Los Angeles, WNBC in New York, WMAQ in Chicago, KXAS in Dallas, KNTV in San Francisco, KNSD in San Diego and WVIT in Hartford. Check your local listings.

You can find more information about Gloria Allred at http://www.amglaw.com and http://www.gloriaallred.com/

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com

Listen to the entire Gloria Allred interview:

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

Powerhouse attorney and CYInterview regular Gloria Allred is in a seeming minority of individuals who believed the jury made the right decision. One of the questions coming out of this trial is how do you prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. We welcome back Gloria, who just turned 70 this past weekend, to gain some of her insights.

“It is a very, very heavy burden to carry, which is why the prosecution gets the last word. That’s why they get to have a response to the defense. They get two shots, two bites at the apple because it’s a lot. You’re gonna deprive somebody not only of their liberty, but of their life potentially, you have to prove it with a lot of evidence and that’s not a burden that they were able to carry at least to persuade this jury and they don’t get a second chance.”

Though Ms. Anthony was acquitted of all murder charges, she was found guilty of lying to authorities. In asking Gloria why Casey lied to authorities, Allred states that Ms. Anthony is liar and there’s no denying that.

“Well, obviously she is a liar. That’s undisputed. She was a liar before this case. She was a liar during this case and she may very well be a liar after this case. No reason to think that she won’t be. There’s something really wrong with Casey Anthony and again as the defense said, ‘She’s a liar, that doesn’t mean she’s a murder.’ There’s something very, very wrong with her. That’s all I can say. Does that make her a murder? Obviously the jury didn’t think so.”

In wondering why many in America paid attention to this trial and why it became daily talk for people, Gloria gives a few reasons why this trial became a media circus.

“You have a young mother. Television is very interested in young women, especially a young woman being accused of killing her own child. That’s an unusual event and something that is definitely going to gather public attention. You’ve got a family here. You’ve got a single parent living with her parents until she left with the child and that’s a common situation. There are millions of young mothers living with their parents trying to raise young children and some of them go out and they party. So that is gonna to be something that obviously is also gonna be of interest to the public.”

There were numerous media outlets who predicted and believed that Casey Anthony would be found guilty of killing her daughter Caylee. At times it seemed some commentators were pro-prosecution and were trying to convince the public that Ms. Anthony was guilty. Allred points out that just because you speak out for the victim doesn’t mean a particular person on trial is responsible for killing them.

“People get very interested in the outcome. It’s a real life who done it with a lot of unanswered questions. The fact that there were so many unanswered questions, made it very interesting. On the other hand, there was kind of a dynamic, a lot of hosts siding with the prosecution and that made it very, very interesting as well. I mean, a lot of people want to position themselves in support of a child. Who doesn’t want to be supportive of a child and say, ‘Justice for Caylee.’ Of course. But that doesn’t mean the person who’s on trial is necessarily the one who is guilty of killing the little child, victim.”

An outspoken commentator believing Casey Anthony is guilty is former prosecutor and TV host Nancy Grace. After Ms Anthony was found not guilty, Ms. Grace said, “Somewhere out there the devil is dancing tonight.” I asked Attorney Allred for her thoughts on Nancy’s reaction.

“Well, Nancy Grace is a very experienced prosecutor and she has looked at every single piece of evidence in this case and she has her strong feelings. She comes from a prosecutorial point of view. So I know that Nancy is troubled by this verdict and mostly likely doesn’t think it’s definitely not the verdict if she were a juror that she would’ve selected and if she were a prosecutor, I’m sure she would’ve presented everything that she could.”

Gloria has come up with her own theory in regards to what might’ve happened to Caylee Anthony.

“I have a theory that, let’s put it this way, could’ve been an explanation of the prosecution could’ve thrown out, if in fact there was any basis for it, which would be maybe she was afraid because maybe she didn’t want her mother to know that maybe she should’ve of, that Casey should’ve been better in terms of watching the child and not letting an accident in the pool happen if in fact that happened. I don’t know if the child died that way. So to me that would’ve made more sense than she wanted to kill her own child because the child was getting old enough to speak and would expose her mother’s lies. That made no sense to me.”

In regards to being in the minority, believing the jury made the right decision in finding Casey Anthony not guilty, Allred says she doesn’t care whether she’s in the minority or majority opinion on any issue.

“I don’t care whether I’m in the minority or the majority. I’ve never cared about that. I think this is a case that could’ve gone either way…Frankly, I would’ve felt comfortable with either verdict.”

Ms. Allred provided some advice to Casey Anthony. She believes help and a support system are needed.

“This is a life changing experience for her and I’m sure it’s life changing that her child is no longer with her, but now it’s really life changing and I hope she gets a good support team around her because she’s gonna need it. I think she needs some very serious therapy and I hope she gets that as well. I don’t know what’s gonna happen with her and her family, but she needs to have very stable people around her on a continuing basis…But she definitely needs help.”

Though Ms. Anthony was not convicted of murder, she still faces a civil lawsuit for defamation. Zenaida Gonzalez claims Casey Anthony ruined her reputation because Ms. Anthony claimed Ms. Gonzalez played a part in Caylee going missing. Ms. Gonzalez has claimed she never met Casey or her deceased daughter. Allred speaks about the civil case pending against Casey

“She’s gonna have to prove not only that what was said was false, but that also she was damaged and what the damages were. Then of course you have to be able to collect from the defendant. This particular defendant has no money. Now she may get money from selling her story, but who knows what would be there at the end of the case as if and when she were able to be successful in winning her case. So we’ll have to see what happens.”

Over the weekend, Gloria Allred celebrated her 70th birthday. She summed up how she celebrated:

“I actually had a little party for my family and some lawyers in my law firm and some neighbors and a few friends and had a great time. I enjoyed it.”

Happy Birthday Gloria!

You can find more information about Gloria Allred at http://www.amglaw.com and http://www.gloriaallred.com/

You can email Chris Yandek at ChrisYandek@CYInterview.com

Listen to the entire Judge Alex interview:

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

“I’ve learned that I have incredible patience Chris. I’ve learned that I can tolerate all kinds of things that I never thought I’d be able to. Some of the things that people do to their family and friends is just, some of the things are outrageous. They have no problem coming on television and talking about it like it’s nothing. I had come from being a circuit judge in Miami where I handled all kinds of extremely serious and extremely tormenting cases with a lot of people suffering. So I pretty much thought I’d seen it all, but every day I go to work and I’m just surprised at what craziness people do.”

Judge Alex believes the role of a TV judge is to educate the viewers on the law. When preparing for cases featured on his show, Mr. Ferrer makes his rulings based on the state the filing came from. He says it takes a lot of research and preparation time and it’s one example of how his court TV show is different from others.

“One of the major roles is really to try to educate the public about the law and not every judge on television does that. That’s one of the things I’m proud of because I do my cases according to the law where the case originated. So I’ll tape eight to ten cases in one day and my first case will be New York law and the second case might be Florida and the third case might be Texas. So it’s an awful lot of work to get on the bench knowing what Texas law or California law is or New York law is case after case after case. But it’s worth it because I get to explain a lot of the litigants and to the viewers and people are fascinated by the law. Let’s face it, nobody out there, our viewers, our audience, most Americans in general do not learn about the law by hiring 300, 400 dollar an hour lawyers.

They learn it from myself and other TV judges who take the time to educate them on the law instead and unfortunately some of the other TV justices just kind of shoot from the hip and just do whatever they think is right, which is fine. But one, it doesn’t educate the viewers at all about the law. Two, I don’t think it’s that fair for the litigants because we bring the cases in from other states. If somebody filed their lawsuit in Tennessee, why should I just do whatever I think. I should be applying Tennessee law. So one of the things I think is a significant part of my role as a TV judge is to inform the public and educate them on the law at the same time as they’re being entertained, which is a great combination because they’re aren’t a lot of things in television that do that right now.”

Many of Judge Alex’s viewers have noticed his quick wit. He says it probably comes from his mother.

“I’d have to say my mother. She’s pretty quick witted. My son definitely got it from me. He’s pretty quick witted. I don’t know. I’ve always had a sense of humor from the time I was a young cop at the age of 19. In fact, when people ask me, what are your favorite cases? My favorite cases are the ones that make me laugh. I love to have humorous people in my courtroom. I love to have humorous cases, but I do have a variety…Every day is different. Every case is different. But that wit probably comes from mom I have to admit.”

In 2008, Alex was voted America’s Most Trustworthy Daytime Host of the year. The judge tells us he was also named the second most trustworthy person of all celebrities. He believes people can see he’s real and being himself. The recognition means a lot to him.

“Absolutely it did. I beat out Oprah and Ellen and Dr. Phil and Regis. That’s tremendous company to be in to be the named the most trustworthy daytime television host. I also was the named the second most trustworthy of all celebrities. I beat out politicians. I beat out sports figures. I beat out newscasters…I beat out Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Tom Hanks and Ron Howard. It was quite a feather in my cap. I was very proud of that…I think that people can see that I’m real. When I’m on my show, I’m being myself.”

Back in February of this year, the judge had YouTube sensation Antoine Dodson on his show to discuss an incident when Dodson was bullied. This past weekend, Mr. Dodson was arrested for several misdemeanors with media reports noting possession of marijuana, failure to appear on a traffic ticket charge and failure to have automobile insurance. Days ago, Antoine pleaded not guilty to all charges. Alex weighs in on what he makes of Mr. Dodson’s recent legal troubles, given the fact he was just on Judge Alex a few months ago.

“I really liked Antoine when I met him. He’s a very personable nice guy. I obviously didn’t know him before this, but my limited involvement with him, my interest in him was he had had a very serious incident as a child when he was bullied. He was bullied from the time he was in second grade until the time he graduated high school. At one point, the bullying got so bad that he actually attacked the bully with a knife and stabbed him. That’s how bad it was. He was only 12 at that age. So it was very topical for the show we did.

I did hear about his legal problems. Obviously, am I disappointed? Well, no. He’s not my son. He’s not my family. He’s just another marijuana possession case among the hundreds and thousands every day. Do I wish he hadn’t gotten arrested for that or wasn’t doing drugs? Absolutely. Absolutely. I think that it is something that’s not gonna help him down the road, but depending on the severity of his involvement, if he’s gonna have subsequent incidents or if he has priors, it may not affect him much, a one time incident. So I wish him the best. He’s a nice man.”

Last week, Judge Stephanie Sautner ruled in California that Lindsay Lohan violated her probation and sentenced her to serve 120 days in jail along with 480 hours in community service working at the Downtown Woman’s Center near Skid Row and at the LA Country Morgue, both in Los Angeles. Judge Alex believes Sautner’s ruling was perfect and that it is, perhaps, the wake-up call Ms. Lohan needs.

“I think the ruling from the judge was perfect. I think she needs to have some serious jail time. Not a weekend in jail. I think she’s 120 days. If that doesn’t wake her up, then you know, we’ll probably not gonna see her wake up in our lifetime. But yeah, I do believe that is the kind of change she needs. I don’t believe when I see her on television this week going, ‘Oh now I get it. Now I’m a changed person. Absolutely. I’m on the right track now.’ No. You’re trying to avoid jail. You got 120 days and you’re hoping that some appeals judge is gonna look and go, ‘Oh, she says she’s a changed woman.’

You know how many times I’ve heard that from people over the years from crack heads and burglars who always tell you the time that they finally see the lights of the jury’s eyes or see they’re going into a jail cell, ‘Oh, this time I really, really mean it. I’m a changed person.’ It’s a bunch of garbage. She needs to do 120 days like the judge ordered, which I think was perfect and the community service so she can see the consequences of her type of actions that people do end up dead. It’s not all fun and games.

You’re not invisible because you’re young. I think all of that will do her a world of good. If it doesn’t, it’s still just punishment for her not abiding by the law. She was on probation. That’s the court saying to you I’m gonna give you a chance to prove to me this was an aberration and you don’t behave improperly normally and she violated it, which shows that was an opportunity wasted. She should get the jail time and do it.”

With Judge Judy recently suffering a health scare, Judge Alex weighs in on the event that affected his fellow television judge, causing Ms. Sheindlin to stop taping her show that day.

“I heard about it after the fact. I was traveling for work so I didn’t hear too much about it. I heard about it after the fact. I’ve met Judy only on one occasion as she was a very lovely lady, although I’m sure a lot of people say they don’t believe that since they see her on television. But then again, I like to think that I’m a nice guy, but you don’t want to be in front of me as a judge either. I wish her the best. I hope it’s nothing serious. I understand that it was just an isolated incident. Hopefully it will not cause her any further problems.”

Finally, there has never been a judge on ABC’s Dancing with the Stars as a celebrity dance contestant. Judge Alex is a longtime watcher and big fan of the show. He’d love to be a celebrity dancer because he enjoys doing new things. Hopefully someone at ABC will hear this CYInterview and know that there’s a TV judge out there who wants to be the first gavel pounder to hit the ballroom’s dance floor.

“I would totally consider doing it. Not because I think I’d be good at it. I would consider doing it for a couple of reasons. One is, I love doing new things, which is what got me to where I am now. I was a cop until I didn’t want to be a cop anymore. I wanted to try law and I was a lawyer until I wanted to try being a judge and when the opportunity came around to do TV, I said, ‘Sure. Why not. I’ll try that.’ So if they ever called me and if you know anybody that can put in the calls for me, I would definitely try it because it’s something new and different and who knows. I might be good at it some day.

But, the main reason I would do it is it’s great publicity. At the end of the day, I’ve got a TV show that airs nationwide in over 90 percent of the markets in the country and that’s a lot of viewers who might tune in to watch it number one and number two it be reaching out to another audience. So I think it be fun. I watch it all the time. I’ve watched it since season two. Unfortunately I missed season one. I was watching it last night and my wife and I sit there and watch it ever night. So I’m a big fan of the show. I’d love to be on it.”

Photo used for this piece is credited to Twentieth Television.

Judge Alex’s show airs nationally. You can find out when it airs in your market and find out more about the judge at http://www.judgealex.com.

Listen to the entire 90 minute interview with Vincent Bugliosi:

Browse CYInterview.com while you listen – Click here

When it comes to Divinity of Doubt, Mr. Bugliosi believes his book will have an effect on people who read it and their perspective of religion will change.

“I do not believe any rational person can read this book without having some effect on how they feel about God and religion. I think anyone who reads this book is never again going to feel quite the same way about God and religion and that’s the precise reason why if someone is deeply religious and they accept God completely and Jesus and their religious belief gives them tremendous comfort and solace and strength, I’m telling you right now, I do not want them to read this book.”

In our last interview, Vincent said he was serious about prosecuting former President George W. Bush for war crimes. In an interesting discussion, Bugliosi gives us an opinion on what might happen if he were able to get an indictment against the former President. Vince believes the case would end up in front of the Supreme Court. Here are his thoughts on what could happen if it reaches the highest court in the United States:

“This is a very, very real thing. At the very moment we’re talking right now, although he may have gone to bed, there is a constitutional law professor who I’ve mentioned before. He submitted a 96 page document to me handling every conceivable legal argument that the defense could come up with if I get an indictment. Typically, I found many, many things that were defective, deficient. I sent it back to him. He’s had 12 students in his class helping him on this. I still have not gotten the final report from him.

He’s promised me that it will be coming in at the end of this month… I wish I could be more explicit, but this whole thing is very, very, very much still alive. It’s very alive. I’ve made progress. I haven’t gotten an exact commitment, but I can tell you and I don’t want anyone misinterpreting this, that it’s going to happen, but I’m just saying that this is very, very much alive. I am very encouraged. So please, I don’t want to ever hear that it’s coming back on the Internet that Bugliosi has a prosecutor and it’s gonna happen, but I’m telling you I’m making a lot of progress…It’s the most important to thing to me, more important than this book…

If something happens, you’re gonna read in the papers that there’s been an initiation of a criminal if something happens, initiation of a criminal investigation with grand jury suboena powers. I’m not aware of anything that they can do to stop the indictment. I’m not aware of anything within their legal arsenal. Normally after you get the indictment, there’s a motion to dismiss and it’s turned down and you go to trial.

This is not gonna end at that level. Ultimately it’s gonna end up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. The dean of a law school back East said, ‘Vince, if it goes to the Supreme Court, they won’t accept cert.’ Cert is certiorari. They’re not gonna accept it. They’re not gonna hear it. I said why? ‘They got too much hell over Bush v. Gore. I don’t think they’ll even accept it. In other words, a case will go to trial. I don’t agree on that.

I think they will take the case. I think they’ll take it under submission for months and they’ll issue the longest opinion in the history of the court. We already have four justices most likely against us. Two of them are absolute disgraces to the legal profession, [Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas, automatically against us. The other two probably will be against us too. I think we have four perhaps on our side, the swing vote may be [Anthony] Kennedy. I think the nation will be completely divided. I think Europe will be very, very much in favor of a prosecution.

Now you’re saying they’re going to look at it and say, ‘Well you, we just don’t like it.’ Well, they may say that, but fortunately still in the United States of America we’re still not yet in Nazi Germany, although there’s a lot of neo-Nazis out there. You can’t just throw a case out and say, ‘We don’t want this. No.’ It cannot be done. They have to come up with some legal argument. Even some cockamamie argument like they came up in Bush v. Gore, equal protection…What that argument is, I don’t know. I’m anticipating all types of arguments, but this is something that’s still very much alive. I’m not forgetting this.”

Earlier this month, former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura (see here) turned down our suggestion to debate Vincent Bugliosi about the Kennedy Assassination. This is what Ventura said to us when we brought up the idea, “I admire Vincent Bugliosi…Vince is getting older now and I don’t think Vince, having the last time I talked to him, I mean no offense by this, but I don’t think Vince is quite as sharp as he used to be and I would not want to embarrass him. I would not want to do anything to destroy his legacy.”

Vincent says he’d be willing to debate Jesse anywhere and does not think he’s slipped.

“When he came to the house, I said off camera I said, ‘Jesse, why don’t you and I have a debate on a college campus or anywhere else?’ He didn’t say yes or no to it. I said it to his son. He didn’t say yes or no. But I’d be very willing to debate Jesse anywhere. I do not want it in a situation where we’re limited by 15 minutes or a half hour. There’s no reason for having something like that. I just don’t want that. If we can have let’s say a two hour debate, possibly an hour debate, but I’d rather have a two hour debate on a college campus or anywhere else, so we can get into a fair amount of depth, I’d be happy to do that…

As far as me not being quite as sharp, I think again, sounds like I’m boastful, but I think I’m at the top of my game in this book I have right now, the Divinity of Doubt. I don’t think I can do a better job. I almost outdid myself. Many people have said, they’ve used that same word, you’re at the top of you’re game here. So I don’t think I’ve slipped.”

You can find out more information and purchase a copy of Divinity of Doubt: The God Question Clicking here