Bar Buzz
by Minnesota Lawyer Staff Reporter
Tanick’s daughter also has the write stuff
You wouldn’t think there would ever be a shortage of things to do in the nation’s capital, but in case you find yourself and that someone special in Washington, D.C., and out of ideas, the daughter of Minneapolis attorney Marshall Tanick has some suggestions for you.
Last year Lauren Tanick and her boyfriend, Boris Epshteyn, published “Where to Date in D.C.: One hundred places to eat and play in the Capital City,” a guide to more than 100 restaurants and hot spots around the Beltway — everything from Georgetown eateries to a dinner cruise on the Potomac. The book grew from a column the two wrote for their college paper at Georgetown University.
“It’s written in a ‘He said, she said’ style,” reports proud dad Marshall, himself a prolific writer whose credits include being a columnist for Minnesota Lawyer.
Tanick told Bar Buzz that the book has sold several hundred copies, mostly (understandably) in the D.C. area. He said that despite professional obligations (Epshteyn is a first-year associate at New York firm Milbank Tweed, while Lauren works in brand advertising at Google’s New York offices), the two would like to adapt the idea to other locales, such as Atlanta, St. Louis, and possibly even the Twin Cities.
The book, published in 2006, lists for $12.95 on Amazon.com.
It appears that Scott County District Court Judge Jerome Abrams will be the first judge in Minnesota to decide what a “theatrical performance” is under the law.
Several bars have begun offering theater nights where patrons are allowed to smoke, arguing that the statutory exception to the smoking ban for theatrical performances applies. In particular, Abrams is considering “The Unconstitutional Ban” presented at Bullseye Saloon in Elko-New Market. The state says the presentation is not “legitimate” theater.
Bar Buzz, having sat through several performances of “Oklahoma!,” feels qualified to decide what is legitimate theater, but doesn’t intend to do so. Somewhat surprisingly, there is a U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the definition of a theatrical production. In Schacht v. United States, the court said that a skit at an antiwar rally was a theatrical production. The justices perhaps also had seen a production of “Oklahoma!” when the Schacht court said, “It may be that the performances were crude and amateurish and perhaps unappealing, but the same thing can be said about many theatrical performances.”
But the state said in its reply brief that Schacht supports its position because the skit involved a script, a rehearsal, costumes and an audience — sufficient indicia of a theatrical performance to qualify under the law.
Perhaps that means that if we all refused to ever see “Oklahoma!” again, it could no longer be a theatrical performance.
O’Connor praises state’s judiciary — and John Grisham!
Lately it’s been difficult to talk about judicial elections without referring to “The Appeal,” the latest John Grisham legal thriller. Recently brought to the Humphrey Institute by the League of Women Voters and Minnesotans for Impartial Courts, former U. S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said she hadn’t read it, but intended to because Grisham “is on the right track” with his story about pernicious politics in the judicial-election process.
O’Connor is vehement on the topic of judicial independence. Minnesota has been blessed with a fine judiciary and should do what’s necessary to keep it that way, she said.
O’Connor was followed by a panel whose members exemplified the disparate points of view in the legal community concerning election reform in the post-White era. Justice G. Barry Anderson urged relatively expeditious action to create a retention/evaluation system and avoid the problems experienced in other states.
“I think the time to act is now. The problem with waiting is that there was a time when Texas wasn’t Texas and Wisconsin wasn’t Wisconsin,” he said. “If we wait much longer we’ll run out of time.”
But Hennepin County District Court Judge Charles Porter wasn’t so sure.
“The risk of wrong action is greater than that of action or inaction,” he said. “The District Court judges do not intend to stay on the sidelines.” Any judicial evaluation process that is enacted must be done properly and the judges will bring forward suggestions in the fall, he said. “We have the luxury of doing it once, and right.”
Changing the subject, O’Connor was asked if it was “acceptable in 2008 to have only one woman judge on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals?” Her reply? “No, of course not.”
Thomas to participate in U.N. meeting
The director of the Women’s Human Rights Program at The Advocates for Human Rights, Cheryl Thomas, was recently selected to be one of 15 experts from around the world to participate in a United Nations Expert Group Meeting on good practices in legislation on violence against women.
The meeting — which will take place in Vienna from May 26-28 — is being hosted by the U.N. Division for the Advancement of Women of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in collaboration with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The group will analyze different legislative approaches; assess lessons learned in regard to laws and legislative reforms on violence against women; and identify effective approaches and recommend future strategies for legislation in this area.
As part of her participation in the meeting, Thomas will prepare and discuss a paper on effective legislation on violence against women in the region of Eastern Europe, where The Advocates has worked for 15 years.
