Have you notified the AATA Directors of your desire that they settle? Have you shared that with Mayor John Hieftje, who appointed all of the AATA Directors?

The real issue is whether it should be decided at all at taxpayers’ expense.

This litigation was fueled by anti-Israel and pro-Israel activists with the the ACLU and Ann Arbor Transportation Auhority acting as surrogates providing the legal services; the AATA’s legal representation is being financed by public funds.

I’ll bet 90% of the City of Ann Arbor taxpayers don’t give a hoot about how this case is decided – only the fact that there is the potential of hundreds of thousands of dollars in potential attorney fee and cost exposure payable with public monies. The AATA, additionally, retained a University of Michigan business professor as an expert at the rate of $250.00 per hour to opine on how such a proposed sign may impact public attitudes about the AATA.

At what point does the AATA invite the ACLU to sit down and try to work out a solution to this silly dispute?

Furthermore, Goldsmith has left open the door to dismissing Coleman’s suit on other grounds, writing “Regarding the other issues raised by Defendant’s motion to dismiss and not addressed in this Opinion (i.e., viewpoint discrimination and the as-applied vagueness challenge to the ‘persons or group of persons’ language), the Court will determine whether such issues remain to be adjudicated after it reviews the parties’ forthcoming supplemental briefs.” Opinion at p. 40. Goldsmith’s opinion is, by no means, a clear vindication of the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.

To my knowledge, no one expressed concern about whether Goldsmith is biased due to “his ties to various Jewish organizations”. His ties to Israel and pro-Israel advocacy groups are what raise concerns. Goldsmith’s 2010 federal Financial Disclosure Report (Section VII) indicates that he doesn’t own any US bonds but he does own Israel Bonds and they’re the only asset for which he did not declare a value. Furthermore, in his confirmation hearing it was revealed that Goldsmith and his wife sent their sixteen-year-old daughter to study in Israel. In the nominee’s questionnaire Goldsmith submitted to the judiciary committee, he discloses that he became Vice-President for Religious Affairs of B’nai B’rith Barristers in 2009. “Advocacy for Israel” is second on B’nai B’rith’s list of “Our Prime Issues”. B’nai B’rith has publicly “condemned” supporters of the international boycott of Israel, such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Furthermore, Goldsmith has been a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee since the 1990s, according to his nominee’s questionnaire.

Unless one has legal experience with Goldsmith on matters concerning Israel then you wouldn’t necessarily know whether he has integrity when it comes to litigation concerning Israel. The relevant standard for judicial bias is Canon 3C(1) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges says: “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be
questioned …”

I especially think that Vivienne’s advice is well-taken that the ad program realizes only a small amount of annual revenue and perhaps dropping it altogether would be sound public policy to avoid the costly situation that occurred here.

I am wondering what attempts at mediation may have been offered by the AATA that could have resolved this dispute early on.

Dave Cahill’s comment that rejection of the ad was “stupid” seems like a possibly apt characterization at this juncture given the costs to the AATA and ruling of the court. Wm. Treat’s comment that the impetus for posting the ad and the ferocious response in defending it likely results from two opposing groups vigorously arguing a “foreign policy” issue has some degree of merit as well; I am assuming that behind-the-scenes pressures upon the AATA board likely fueled the federal litigation and I know for a fact that the ACLU received angry correspondences from citizens over their decision to file this action.

It seems to be any ad could potentially offend someone who is a riding customer. A Mitt Romney ad could cause Democrats to stop riding the bus in protest. An ad promoting a church could cause atheists to get upset and so on, and so on…..

One thing that has not been discussed is how this court ruling will affect others who have had their proposed ads rejected; will they have the right to sue now?

Also, what about others who may submit ads like or even more offensive than Mr. Coleman’s? What about if the KKK or some other hate group wants to purchase ad space? Will the AATA have to post it on the buses to avoid possible legal action?

The citizens of Ann Arbor should encourage the AATA board to enter settlement negotiations with the ACLU so that public funds will shall be conserved.

Agreed. My take in this case was that you had two sides in this case that essentially wanted to argue over a foreign policy matter that had precious little to with the City of Ann Arbor, the AATA or its ridership.

Taxpayers are footing the legal bill over this nonsense and I have heard that it may run into hundreds of thousands of dollars before it is all said and done. Why didn’t the City Attorney Steve Postema have his office defend this?

An expensive lesson will have been learned before this fiasco is over.

Three points I would like to make:

(1) There were some who were questioning Judge Mark Goldsmith’s ability to decide this case fairly given his ties to various Jewish organizations. I knew Mark Goldsmith when I litigated against him when he practiced law at Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn and later practiced before him when he was an Oakland County Circuit Judge; he always had integrity and was a skilled jurist. The last thing he would want to do is make an erroneous decision in a case like this which would have the possibility to become a landmark ruling on the rights of citizens under the First Amendment.

(2)Earlier, David Askins had investigated pursuant to an issue I raised at how the defense of this case was being financed with respect to the two prominent law firms that were retained to defend the AATA. My understanding was that the legal bill for one of the firm’s first month of retention was almost $7,000 for the Maddin Hauser Wartell law firm that had been appointed by the AATA’s liability insurance carrier; the AATA’s insurance policy called for the AATA to pay a deductible of the first $50,000.00 in legal defense costs for that firm; I assume that the AATA had made a liability insurance claim was due to the monetary damage relief sought in Mr. Coleman’s complaint pleading. The AATA retained a second law firm that was local – my recollection it was Jerry Lax’s firm – to also defend the action. I would like to see someone obtain through FOIA or otherwise the the billing and payment history associated with this the defense of this case and so citizens can find out how much has been expended on this matter with public funds. I am also wondering what “funding pool” is paying for this – does it come out of the advertising budget of the AATA, the general budget of the AATA, the general fund of the City of Ann Arbor – or somewhere else.

(3) The AATA should try to negotiate a settlement with Mr. Coleman at this juncture as the only issue remaining to be decided at this court level is how big a legal victory will the ACLU be handed; the case is far from over at the District Court level and a serious of further hearings and expensive appeals could follow which could run into exponentially greater amounts of legal fees and costs being expended. I am reasonably certain that, given the federal civil rights statutes that are pled in the ACLU action, plaintiff’s costs and attorney fees will be sought as a remedy agaonst the AATA; this could run into six figures.

Thanks to Judge Goldsmith for his efforts and congratulations to the American Civil Liberties Union for successfully enforcing the First and Fourteenth Amendments.