41st District Update

Yesterday, incumbent Jim Dillard endorsed challenger David Marsden over Michael Golden to fill his seat. 

Given that this has been planned for over a year, the Washington Post just ignored it and Mike Shear kept the story on his blog, not in the paper.  The Washington Times bit, and did a story.

We think Golden got himself into more trouble then he needed to with this quote:

" When pressed, Mr. Golden would not say whether he would vote to repeal the tax package if he were elected."

How can a candidate not have a position on the #1 issue of the year?!

The Dillard endorsement isn't enough for us to consider changing this to a "Leans Democratic", but that quote is.  It's October, Mr. Golden, and it is a simple question. 

Comments

[Bwana]

41st residents have gotten quite a number of Golden mailings of late, and I am amused by Golden's repeated contention that Marsden "cut gang funding".

Shoot, I didn't know either Fairfax County or the Commonwealth of Virginia was funding any gangs at all!

Now I think I know what he meant to say, but I think he needs someone new to edit his mailings...

When this happens, I also hope they will end Golden's annoying practice of offering footnotes to support a contention he makes rather than providing a copy of the source.

When I attempted to check some of his footnote citations, I realized they were all Washington Post articles and as they were all over two weeks old one had to pay to see them...and frankly voters should not have to pay money to see if candidates are telling the truth!

Just my $.02

[Bill Kuster]

Am I missing something? What elected office do either hold that would allow them to increase or cut gang funding?

[hmmm...]

Marsden cut funding for Fairfax County's anti-gang programs by 50% during his brief stint as Acting Director of Juvenile Justice.

Marsden cut funding for Fairfax County's anti-gang programs by 50% during his brief stint as Acting Director of Juvenile Justice.

Posted by: hmmm... |

Oh come on the republican commision cut the funding, Marsden could'nt have had the power to cut his own funding.
What classes has Golden taught that makes him and educator?
What business has Golden run?
When did Golden argue infront of the Supreme court?

[hmmm...]

More liberal lies.

Marsden exercised his authority to cut anti-gang funding. Check his campaign site for his own claim that he had that authority.

Golden taught a class at Georgetown law school.

Golden ran a painting business and now serves as a director on the board of one of Virginia's biggest non-profit adoption agencies.

Golden never said he argued in front of the S.Ct. (You know you are desperate when you have to lie about what Golden says to call him a liar.) He said he represented clients before the S.Ct., which he has on numerous occasions.

Now back to the Libcave, where you can make excuses for Marsden's funding cuts for anti-gang programs and his support for a gas tax increase...

[Not Connie Kincheloe]

For us law neophytes, what is the difference between arguing in front of the S.Ct. and repreenting clients before the supreme court?

[Not Connie Kincheloe]

pardon me...that should be "representing" clients before the Supreme Court...

[hmmm...]

Not Connie,

The short answer is that an attorney can represent a client before the S.Ct. without orally arguing the case. In fact, only a small fraction of attorneys who represent clients before the S.Ct. get to argue orally before the court (a rare honor).

Here are some examples:

The S.Ct. can resolve a case without oral argument (either by denying certiorari or through a few other technical methods), solely on the briefs written by the attorneys, so there is no oral argument.

When an amicus weighs in on a S.Ct. case, which is frequent, they rarely get an opportunity to participate in the argument. Usually, they just get to submit briefs written by the attorneys representing the amicus.

Most parties in a case before the Supreme Court have more than one attorney on the case. Only one gets to argue, but the others are involved in the representation (by writing the briefs, researching, holding moot courts for the arguing attorney, etc.).

[Ken Cuccinelli]

Is that "flyer stealing" Bill Kuster? Hey Bill, is it a violation of the Voting Rights Act to intentionally go about stealing political literature in order to suppress voter turnout (or for any other reason)? What's the statute of limitations on that offense?
Just curious.

By your logic, "hmmm...," I could file a meaningless petition after losing my lame appeal of right at the Circuit Court level and then claim that I had "represented" clients before the United States Supreme Court because my cert was denied. That's weak. Almost every criminal defense attorney could then claim they "represented" clients before the Supreme Court.

[Not Connie Kincheloe]

Hmmmmm...

Thank you for the clarification...but Mr. Golden's website says Mr. Golden "regularly represents clients before state and federal courts of appeals, including the United States Supreme Court." Given that you seem knowledgable about this professional standing, to your knowledge does he argue in front of these other benches?

[TMU]

You got that right -- I'm the fourth name on a cert petition filed fifteen years ago. Cert denied. Think I'll add it to my resume. Golden's last attack mailing was pretty sad -- you could almost smell the flop sweat.

[TMU]

Oh, and I'd love a citation for the class that Golden taught at Georgetown Law. You know, something actually verifiable.

[Not John Roberts]

So if I am to understand correctly,

"Educator" means being a TA at Georgetown for 1 class.

"Regularly represents clients before state and federal courts of appeals, including the United States Supreme Court" really means helping his boss write 1 amicus brief for a client.

"Small Business Owner", means a Summer Job painting houses,

"Tax Relief Now" means Holding the Line on Property Taxes, and not repealing Warner's bi-partisan increase, while rehashing the same old line of getting Fairfax it's fair share.

No wonder his mail hasn't quite focused on his record of accomplishment.

[hmmm...]

G'town law. UVA finance. TJHSS&T. Latham & Watkins. Do you have a clue?

Represented clients before numerous courts of appeals, including the U.S. S.Ct. (not just 1 cert petition, but don't let the facts get in the way of your nonsense). Argued and won published cases in U.S. Courts of Appeals. Clerked for a U.S. Court of Appeals judge.

Golden's resume is 100% rock solid.

Marsden:

"A record of juvenile justice accomplishment" means he cut anti-gang funding by 50%.

"Put down gangs" means the number of gangs increased from 2 to 84 under his watch.

"Reducing property taxes by diversifying the tax base" means increasing the gas tax and creating a county income tax in Fairfax County.

Watching Golden pound Marsden on the issues is going to be fun. You guys keep talking about the resumes.

[Simon]

Golden was a VCAP boy – how is it that he is already retreating from his “the tax package was bad and evil and darn right not nice” attitude? In all seriousness, can he lose this race? Is he trying to garner support from people outside the anti tax fold?

[S Pi]

Golden works for Latham, which is a good firm. After being there as many years as he has, however, I would have expected him to be on more published opinions. His litigation resume is thin, as a LexisNexis search seems to indicate. He was second man down in an of counsel position in a Delaware Chancery Court case, Orman v. Cullman, 794 A.2d 5 (Del. Ch. 2002). His client was a cigar manufacturer. This is like a trial court for corporations in Delaware where judges make the calls without juries. Of counsel is normal here since not everyone wants to have to take the Delaware bar. His side lost in a motion to dismiss. He was also the second man down in a Florida state court of appeals case, Am. Online, Inc. v. Pasieka, 870 So. 2d 170 (Fla. App. 2004). There his client was appealing. He lost. The final case is Made in the United States Found., Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 11 Fed. Appx. 163 (4th Cir. 2001). This was an “unreported” Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case that was affirmed without opinion for the reasons stated by the lower court. He was the second man. He won, but not through any work of his.

Please let me know if I missed any cases. He works for a big firm that has big clients. He has done OK, but not great. Not having a published federal circuit case that I could find is pretty weak coming out of Latham, though.

[hmmm...]

It's more a reflection of your poor research skills than his thin resume. Of course, I doubt you ever worked at Latham--probably just another liberal lie. No litigation attorney refers to attorneys on briefs as "the second man."

Search S.Ct. briefs and U.S. Ct. of Appeals decisions again and you might find what you are looking for. Although any Latham lawyer worth his salt would have found it by now... ;)

[S Pi]

Never said I worked at Latham. Look up the cases, you'll see he was NOT the first name on any of the briefs. You're the Golden booster; what are the cites of his other cases?

[TMU]

Still waiting for his Georgetown "teaching" record. Or his Supreme Court representation. Either will do.

hmmm...

What is Golden's message.. I assume you work for him, and was wondering how a couple pics with Tom Davis can change his no Tax pledge? How can Golden take a no Tax pledge, and fund my kids public education? How can Golden take a no Tax pledge and give me and my neighbors better roads to drive on?

And as Not Larry said It's October why cant give your neighbors a straight answer on repeling the tax package ?

[hmmm...]

You libs can do your own opposition research--I'm too expensive for you. ;)

Hmm must be working for Bulova

[TMU]

Hey, just because Skippy Golden's resume is a bit thinner than he'd like to make out . . . I've got to go, I've got to appear before the Supreme Court. (Of course, I'm just going to stand in front of the building, but I figure that lets me put it on my resume, right?)

[Not John Roberts]

If Michael is such a great Latham man, how come so few of his collegues have supported him in this election financially? It must be because they are jealous because it seems that Michael get's all the important cases at Latham.