{"id":9884,"date":"2008-09-05T09:27:25","date_gmt":"2008-09-05T14:27:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/?p=9884"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:21","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:21","slug":"whiny-family-man-wants-to-be-family-court-judge-and-to-copyright-the-slogan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2008\/09\/05\/whiny-family-man-wants-to-be-family-court-judge-and-to-copyright-the-slogan\/","title":{"rendered":"whiny “family man” wants to be Family Court judge — and to copyright the slogan"},"content":{"rendered":"

L<\/em><\/strong>awyer Kurt Mausert<\/a> wants to be Family Court judge in Saratoga County, New York. Since his campaign website<\/a> went up on April 1st<\/em>, containing the standard copyright notice “All contents \u00a9 2008” in its footer, the masthead has featured this rather uninspiring slogan:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Although most family men really hate whining kids, and he is a father of four (ages 8 to 26), Mausert is loudly and plaintively complaining that his opponent — incumbent judge Courtenay W. Hall<\/a> — has “stolen” his Family Man slogan and violated the copyright held on it by the Mausert election Committee. See “Saratoga County Family Court candidates battle over slogan<\/a>” (Schenectady Daily Gazette<\/em>, Sept. 5, 2008; update<\/a>); “Whose line is it, anyway?<\/a>” (TU Local Politics<\/em> weblog, Sept. 2, 2008). A few months ago, Mausert also complained that leaders of the Independent Party treated him unfairly by not interviewing Mausert before choosing to endorse Judge Hall. The candidates are fighting for the Independence Party endorsement in a primary election on Tuesday. They will both be on the November ballot, Hall as a Republican and Mausert as a Democrat (See The Saratogian<\/em><\/a>). [You can find a Campaign Update<\/em> at the end of this post, describing Judge Hall’s victory in the November election and related topics.]<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> According to Mausert’s campaign manager, attorney RIchard Moran, all of Mausert’s campaign literature has included the Family Man slogan, but when Judge Hall sent out his first flier about a week ago he also claimed to be a “Family Man for Family Court.” Moran told the Gazette<\/em>:<\/p>\n

“Even if we hadn’t taken the care to post our copyright notice, it is simply unfair for one candidate to swipe another’s popular and well used slogan.”<\/p>\n

Judge Hall had no comment, but his campaign manager Jeffrey Bagnoli told the Gazette<\/em>:<\/p>\n

“The allegations in that press release are patently untrue. Judge Hall used the slogan ‘A family man for Family Court’ 10 years ago, when he ran for the office for the first time.”<\/p>\n

According to the Gazette<\/em><\/a>:<\/p>\n

A press release issued by the Mausert campaign about the accusations includes the question, “Is Courtenay Hall a Thief?,” which Bagnoli said is defamatory. Mausert said the question does not defame the judge, though.<\/em><\/p>\n

“It’s not defamatory, it’s a question,” Mausert said. “I’m asking the question, ‘Do the people think my slogan was stolen?'”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Bagnoli says the charge violates the judicial code of ethics. Mausert responded that the press release merely asks a question and is therefore not defamatory. In the print edition of the Schenectady Gazette, Kurt is quoted saying:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> “You have two tall, thin, bald white guys running for the same office. If you met me five weeks ago and then received his literature today with the same message on it, it’s going to be confusing.”<\/p>\n

more<\/strong><\/em> (3 PM): The Glens Falls Post Star<\/em> has more coverage with revealing quotations,”Candidate claims opponent stole his slogan<\/a>” (by Drew Kerr, Sept. 4, 2008):<\/p>\n

“The Web site has a copyright on it, but Mausert said he has no intentions of pursuing a legal case against Hall. Instead, he said the incident speaks more to Hall\u2019s character.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>” ‘Forget about any man-made law,’ Mausert said this week. ‘This is about integrity. People\u2019s words and phrases are just as much their possession as an automobile.’<\/em><\/p>\n

“. . . ‘For him to come out a week and a half before the primary with the same thing, it\u2019s bound to cause confusion,” Mausert said. “I have to think this is deliberate.’<\/p>\n

Calling Mausert\u2019s allegations ‘over the top’ and ‘smear campaigning’, Hall’s campaign manager Jeffrey Bagnoli, responded that “It\u2019s preposterous to think that because he puts the slogan up on a Web site that he thinks he owns it.” According to the Post Star<\/em>, “Bagnoli also said Mausert should ‘give a lot more credit to voters in Saratoga County’ who should be able to differentiate the two.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, over at Court-o-rama<\/em><\/a>, Anne Skove suggests sending the two candidates to mediation, and notes how important it is to see the way judicial candidates handle conflict. She adds, “Usually we bemoan the fact that the public knows too little about the candidates. In this case voters may have learned just enough.”<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/a> update<\/strong><\/em> (September 14, 2008): Judicial Candidate Kurt Mausert left comments here at f\/k\/a<\/em><\/a> on September 11th (and often thereafter), as well as at Prof. Randazzo’s Legal Satyricon<\/em> weblog<\/a>, and Legal Blog Watch<\/em><\/a>, defending his accusations against Judge Hall. Although tempted to respond point by point, I’ll let the reader decide for himself or herself whether it’s important for a judicial candidate to do legal research before leveling accusations at an opponent claiming a violation of law; whether his charges are persuasive that using the “Family Man” slogan means Judge Hall lacks integrity, and that voters are likely to somehow confuse the two candidates because they are focusing on the (totally pedestrian) slogan, rather than the issues; and whether calling<\/span> suggesting that your opponent is a thief and Prof. Randazazzo “arrogant” and a “haughty snob” suggests appropriate judicial temperament — or just desperation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a> Kurt Mausert appears to have many fine qualities, and is making proposals<\/a> for improving Family Court with which I, as a former Law Guardian and mediator, agree (e.g<\/em>., having a website that helps explain how the court works and what to expect as parties; and using mediation to resolve disputes). It’s too bad — especially since his website tells us “Kurt has trained in the martial arts (Kempo) and works out regularly at Global Fitness in Saratoga Springs” — that he has come out swinging with such wimpy accusations. Two points that seem especially worth mentioning before we close:<\/p>\n