Feedback from the Issue of Thursday, November 20, 2008
I was a private investor in the movie, and I recall the description of the investment in the prospectus indicated rather clearly that I was investing in a movie, not a titty bar in Scottsdale ("Sylvia Nobel and the Case of the Missing Movie," Sarah Fenske, November 13).
It also indicated funds collected for the movie were to be kept in suitable bank accounts, until drawn upon for production expenses. I don't recall anything in the prospectus that allows the lawyer, working for the people who are producing and investing in the project, to divert the funds to a nightclub run by his brother. Whatever happened to fiduciary responsibility?
It also seems to me that a lawyer working on such a project has a higher ethical standard to meet to avoid conflicts of interest, especially when partnering with clients who are not legal experts. A lawyer has to represent the interests of his clients, not his own personal cash flow needs. Is that too much to ask?
If he had problems with Nobel, just walk away. He had nothing but his time, not his capital, in the movie. I don't care whether she is dramatic or not. That does not condone diverting the money for his own purposes.
Mark Briggs makes all the ugly-lawyer jokes I have ever heard in my life seem complimentary to lawyers. He is a disgrace to his profession, and really his greatest critics should be his fellow lawyers.
Marvin Musslewhite, Phoenix
One surprise after another: In these uncertain and trying times, one must learn to expect the unexpected. But still, Sarah Fenske's article "The Case of the Missing Movie" brought with it some jolting surprises.
How could a man, Mark Briggs — who couldn't come up with important and relevant financial records because he "kept forgetting them" (early onset Alzheimers?) or was so color-blind he couldn't figure out which folder his secretary had handed him — manage to associate himself with a fine and much respected firm such as Quarles and Brady? And what reputable lawyer would try to pass off unsigned, double-dated documents as legitimate?
Meanwhile, how could a [teacher], Chris LaMont, maintain a position at ASU, which is ceaselessly seeking to upgrade its faculty?
It goes to show that just when you think you've seen it all, you haven't.
Elizabeth Lewis, Phoenix
Tricky Dick-level paranoia: Your point about Captain Joel Fox of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is right on ("Arpaio's Watergate," The Bird, Stephen Lemons, November 13). It really is similar to the infamous [Watergate] burglary in that the, um, Committee to Re-Elect Joe Arpaio really didn't need to resort to a smear of Dan Saban in the last election, just as Richard Nixon's guys didn't need to break into the Watergate Hotel to beat George McGovern.
It really does show a level of paranoia not seen since the days of Tricky Dick. Not all that surprising, when you think about it, if you consider the vendettas that Joe's clowns have perpetrated over the years against real and perceived enemies.
I hope and pray that state Attorney General Terry Goddard does just as you suggest and puts Fox under the hot lights until he spills his guts on how all this came about. Maybe give him a plea bargain if he will "rat fuck" the people really behind this.
I doubt senile, old Arpaio — whose best use is atop a float during the Veterans Day parade — was behind it. (I'm not kidding, there he was right out there for everybody to see. Made me wonder why he's so disturbed about New Times' printing his address when he made himself vulnerable to the crowd on city streets?)
Who might the mastermind behind the Sheriff's Command Association scandal (as you say, SCA-gate) be? I think we can all make a good guess.
Luis Alvarez, Phoenix
Does Terry have the nerve?: Let's hope that Attorney General Terry Goddard has the nerve to go after "Mr." Joel Fox and the MCSO. We all know that Goddard's famous for not sticking his neck out. Hope springs eternal, though! Goddard could get the credit for bringing down old Joe when nobody else could.
Sandra Valerie, Phoenix
An early present for Goddard: Well, here it is, Goddard — a big, early Christmas present nice and wrapped for you! Let's see you do the right thing and prosecute this, as it should be. Don't say you can't because of a conflict of interest about an investigation that Arpaio doesn't even have jurisdiction to do in the first place ("King of Pain," The Bird, April 26, 2007).
David Saint, Phoenix
Good Liddy imitation: You mousey news types who just love to hide behind your desks and your First Amendments and your fat bellies have such a grand ol' time talkin' trash about everybody else. You even got your little boobs following you around chanting your praises and demanding that "something be done."
But you're a sidelines kinda guy. A storyteller. A witness. A puny, wanna-be-important attention whore who stays at work all night because it's just too depressing to go back to your rundown studio apartment and watch reruns of old cartoons while eating your last can of hash.
If only you had the guts or the brains, or even just the motivation, to get into the game, you probably wouldn't hate so much.
But you go right on choking on the bile of discontent. You go right on blaming everyone else for your pitiful life. People like you will never win a fight because you don't know how. You don't even have what it takes to learn.
You go right on publishing lies about me and other great Americans like Joe Arpaio. There is no punishment for you that could be worse than letting you live your rotten life.
G. Gordon, via the Internet
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE?
Why so angry, Lynn?: Why is it that New Times always goes against the will of the people when it comes to illegal immigration? We the people don't care whether Matthew Allen lies, or not, when it comes to the official complaints about racial profiling ("Mr. Disingenuous," The Bird, November 6). If racial profiling is what it takes to get the beaners out of America, then we're behind Allen and Sheriff Joe Arpaio all the way.
So, New Times, stop it already! We don't care if Mexican-Americans are discriminated against when the powers that be are getting rid of the filthy Mexicans among us. If legal brown people have to suffer, so be it. It's what they deserve because we all know that their parents or grandparents came here illegally, or they wouldn't be citizens in the first place.
Lynn Benson, Phoenix
Lying is his job: There seems to be an acceptable level of lying among public officials today. That is, if it serves their purposes, then it's okay.
In this case, the big lie that Matthew Allen is telling makes it look like he's doing his job. To put the brakes on Sheriff Joe Arpaio by stating that he's violating federal mandates by racially profiling would be killing the goose that laid the golden egg. ICE needs every Mexican it can get its hands on to stay in business.
Al Morales, Phoenix
Get the Weekly Newsletter
Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.