Comfort and Affliction

by Michael Frosolono

  When the judge left the room, Eric invited Joan to lunch.

  After the group placed orders at the Legal Restaurant across the street from the county courthouse, Joseph said, “We observed a farce this morning.”

  “Why don’t you expand on your statement, Joseph?” Cathy asked. “Surely you’re not talking about your mom?”

  “I’m referring to Whitfield’s defense attorney.”

  “I’d prefer for you to call him Mr. Whitfield,” Eric said.

  “Why? He’s obviously a crook,” Joseph said.

  “Civility becomes even more important when we’re talking about our opponents,” Eric replied.

  “We should try to be opponents without being enemies,” Cathy said.

  “A profound statement, Cathy,” Joseph said. “Did you come up with it on your own or did you read it somewhere?”

  “I read it in a magazine.” Cathy looked from Joseph to Eric. “Doesn’t seem to apply to the assholes who attacked us at Jean’s Cafe.”

  “Sometimes reason and civility escape the people involved in disagreements,” Eric admonished.

  “Another profound statement,” Joseph said. “Back to the issue at hand. I think Mr. Whitfield fits the category of enemy for Mr. Taliaferro.” Joseph’s eyes grew large at the size of the cheeseburger and fries the waitress placed before him. “I figure Miz Lizbeth and her family oppose the Whitfields?” He looked at Joan.

  “More like mortal enemies.”

  “From comments my grandfather has made,” Cathy said. “Mr. Whitfield isn’t exactly popular in black society.”

  “The Whitfield family,” Joan said, “by long tradition, believes they run this county. In fact, they’ve often had their way for decades, especially outside Vickery. You saw today how embedded they are in the county administration. What happened in court amounts to a shot across the bow of the Whitfield ship, putting them on notice that the legal system of this county must come into the 21st century.”

  “We can expect a broadside barrage this afternoon?”

  “Probably, unless Mr. Whitfield admits to what he’s done.”

  Eric recalled his secretary’s comment on Sheriff Brodman. “Is Sheriff Brodman part of the Whitfield family?”

  “No, although he has sought their support in getting elected.” Joan pursed her lips. “I’m not sure he’s in bed with the Whitfields.”

  Joseph asked, “The judge who resigned, the one originally scheduled to hear this case, is he a Whitfield?”

  “Definitely,” Joan said. “But by marriage, not by blood.”

  “Well, I read something the other day,” Joseph said through a mouthful of cheeseburger and French fries. “Blood is thicker than water, semen is thicker than blood, and money is thicker than semen.”

  Cathy shook her head. “Manners, Joseph, table manners.”

  “I didn’t have time to chew and swallow before I spoke, and I didn’t want the moment to pass.”

  “Well,” Cathy said, “you did manage to get your wisdom before us without showering us with your partially chewed food.”

  Joseph took a big swallow of Coke. “All clear. I’m ready to impart more wisdom without grossing out you guys.”

  “I like the water, blood, and semen summation,” Joan said. “Wish I could figure out how to use it in a story about this trial.”

  “You could quote me,” Joseph said.

  “Your mom and I are on good terms. I want to maintain the relationship.”

  The bailiff called the court back into session. Judge Prentice instructed Allison to call her next witness.”

  “We call Mr. Raymond Taliaferro.”

  After administration of the oath to Taliaferro, Alison instructed, “Please state your full name, address, and occupation.”

  “Raymond Wilson Taliaferro. I reside at 305 Lake Front Dr., on Lake Hartwell in unincorporated Alexander County outside of Vickery. I am a financial advisor and an investor.”

  “What type of investments?”

  “Stocks, bonds, companies, real estate.”

  “Why did you buy Parcel 17655-24 from the Marlow family?”

  “I and a group of investors intend to build an upscale housing development on the property, about two hundred homes, when we secure the proper zoning, sewage, and water commitments from the county.”

  “Is your target population for the development local?”

  “The minimum price for the homes will begin at approximately a half million dollars, which probably precludes many local residents from buying homes in the development.”

  “Using a common local term, you anticipate selling to outlanders?”

  “People from areas other than Alexander County form our primary target population.”

  “Are you aware that many local people object to what they derisively call outlanders purchasing prime property in this county, especially around Lake Hartwell?”

  “I’ve lived here full-time for ten years and many people apparently still consider me an outlander, which may be a reflection of a peculiar, even xenophobic, mindset. More importantly, under the U.S. Constitution, people may live anywhere they choose, if they can afford the purchase prices for their properties and the requisite taxes. In that sense, no one should be thought of as an outlander.”

  “You bought Parcel 17655-24 with your own funds?” Allison asked.

  “I did.”

  “The group of investors you mentioned, what would be their role?”

  “They will be partners in development of the subdivision.”

  “Are all of your partners outlanders?”

  “No, a major partner in the development is local: Mrs. Elizabeth Andrews, through the Vickery Bank and Trust.”

  “Did you secure legal help in purchasing this property and the contract with your investors?”

  “I did. You are our lawyer.”

  “After you purchased Parcel 17655-24, did you receive an offer to sell the property?”

  “Yes.”

  “Who made the offer?”

  “Mr. Ralph Whitfield.” Taliaferro pointed to Whitfield.

  “Where did this offer take place?”

  “In my office on November 12th of last year.”

  “How much did Mr. Whitfield offer you?”

  “Six hundred and fifty thousand dollars?”

  “Did he give you any justification for offering you a purchase price one hundred and fifty thousand dollars less than what you paid for the property?”

  “Mr. Whitfield told me he could keep my investors and me from ever securing the proper zoning variations or extension of the county water and sewage lines to the property.”

  Scott stood. “Objection, Your Honor.”

  “On what grounds?” Judge Prentice asked.

  “Hearsay, Your Honor, hearsay; and a malicious attempt to defame my client.”

  “Counselor Stevens, your response?”

  “My client’s statement cannot be hearsay because he participated in the conversation.”

  “Objection overruled. Mr. Scott. Based upon your experience to date in this trial, you should realize I do not put up with frivolous objections. You will have ample opportunity to attack Mr. Taliaferro’s testimony on cross and through your own witnesses. Counselor Stevens, you may proceed.”

  “Mr. Taliaferro, did Mr. Whitfield give you any reasons other than the threat you described as to why you should sell the property in question to him?”

  “He said the property belonged historically to his family, and no outlander should have it.”

  “Do you recall your response?”

  “Precisely. I offered to buy all of the Whitfield family property from him.”

  “And how did Mr. Whitfield respond?”

  “He told to me to ‘Go to hell,’ and left my office.”

  “Mr. Taliaferro, did you record your conversation with Mr. Whitfield?”

  “I did.”

  Scott again came to his feet. “Objection! Objection! Objection, Your Honor!”


  Judge Prentice, not bothering to hide his exasperation, asked, “On what grounds this time?”

  “Recording conversations violates Georgia law.”

  Before Allison could respond, Prentice cut her short. “Mr. Scott, I have great concerns about your competence and ability to represent your client.”

  “Why, Your Honor?”

  “You surely know Georgia law follows the one-party rule: If one participant agrees to record a conversation, no violation of law exists.” Judge Prentice paused for a moment. “If my memory serves me correctly, you can find the specific notations under Title 16, Chapter 11. Now, unless you have a more cogent response, take your seat.”

  Allison continued. “Mr. Taliaferro, why did you record your conversation with Mr. Whitfield?”

  “I don’t trust him.”

  “On what basis?”

  “His reputation precedes him.”

  Before Scott could object, Allison said, “Your Honor, we call your attention to our Exhibit E, the recording of the conversation on November 12th of last year between my client and Mr. Whitfield.”

  “So noted,” the judge said. “Do you intend to play the recording at this time?”

  “We reserve the right to play the recording at a later time.”

  “Do you have more questions for your witness?”

  “I’m almost through, Your Honor.” She asked Taliaferro, “What alerted you to Mr. Whitfield’s claim that he had purchased Parcel 17655-24 from you?”

  “When I returned from San Francisco, Mrs. Andrews and I went to look over the property. Chains had been erected to block the entrance from the road and a big sign stated the property was posted.”

  “What did you do next?”

  “I went to the sheriff’s office.”

  “What did Sheriff Brodman have to say?”

  “According to what he had heard, Mr. Whitfield now owned the property. The sheriff advised me find out whom the tax assessor listed as the owner of the property.”

  “You went to Mr. Lewis Whitfield’s office?”

  “I did.”

  “What did the tax assessor tell you?”

  “He showed me the property record form and the bill of sale indicating I had sold the property to Mr. Whitfield.”

  “Did you question Mr. Lewis Whitfield about what had happened?”

  “I did not. I had a good idea about his involvement in the fraudulent sale.”

  Prentice held up his hand to forestall Scott’s objection. “What did you do next?” Allison asked.

  “I went directly to your office to inform you of what had happened.”

  “Judge Prentice,” Allison said, “I have no further questions for Mr. Taliaferro at this time.”

  Scott and Whitfield engaged in conversation, almost as if they were arguing. Judge Prentice smiled, “Mr. Scott, if we may interrupt your conversation, do you wish to cross-examine this witness?”

  Scott flashed a fierce look before standing up. “I do, Your Honor.”

  “Get on with it.”

  “Mr. Taliaferro,” Scott asked, “are you a homosexual?”

  “Judge, I object,” Allison said. “My client’s sexual preferences have no relevance to this trial.”

  “Setting a pattern, I’m setting a pattern,” Scott countered.

  Judge Prentice looked at Taliaferro, who gave a slight nod of assent. “All right, Counselor,” the judge ruled, “the pattern had better have relevance.” He spoke to Taliaferro, “You may answer the question.”

  Taliaferro said, “Yes, I am a homosexual, a lifelong homosexual from birth. I have been in a committed single relationship for about fifteen years.”

  “Do you and your partner cohabitate here in Alexander County?”

  “No, our cohabitation, as you put it, takes place outside of this county.”

  “Why? Are you ashamed of the relationship?”

  “Not at all. Prior to this trial, we’ve maintained a degree of privacy in our relationship for business and political reasons.”

  “Your business?”

  “Yes.”

  “Then your partner has political affiliations?”

  “Yes.”

  “Where have your cohabitations taken place?”

  “In various cities outside of Georgia. We often spend weekends away from both of our homes.”

  “Such as San Francisco?”

  “Yes.”

  “In fact, weren’t you ostensibly in San Francisco with your partner during the period encompassed with the receipts in plaintiff Exhibit D?”

  “Yes, we were there during the period in question.”

  “In view of your close and meaningful relationship with your partner, have you ever lent him your credit card?”

  “No.”

  “Could you have let him use your credit card to give a false impression you were in San Francisco during the time you signed the bill of sale for the property you sold my client?”

  “I could have, but I most definitely did not.”

  “Do you have actual live witnesses, such as hotel clerks and waiters at restaurants to support your claim about being in San Francisco?”

  “Mr. Scott, my attorney has cautioned me to answer your questions as simply as possible. At the risk of her ire, I’m going against her advice in this instance.” Taliaferro waved off Allison. “If this court deems it necessary, we can go to the expense of bringing witnesses here from San Francisco. My partner and I are well known in certain parts of the city. Also, my partner is in the courtroom today and we can call him to the stand. However, you’re trying to circumvent the obvious.”

  “Well, you certainly did not give a simple answer. What do you mean by circumventing the obvious?”

  “Dr. Kushner’s expert opinion about the validity of my signatures on the various receipts, and the dated recording we have of the conversation between your client and me.”

  Judge Prentice spoke, “Mr. Scott, you have failed to establish any pattern meaningful to this trial. You’re obviously trying to obfuscate. Do you have any relevant questions for this witness?”

  “Not at this time, Your Honor.”

  “Ms. Stevens, do you have further witnesses?”

  “No, Your Honor. We reserve the right to play the recording, Exhibit E, if we or the court deem it necessary or desirable.”

  Judge Prentice took a deep breath. “Mr. Scott, do you wish to call any witnesses?”

  “No, Your Honor.”

  “Put me on the stand, I’m telling you, put me on the stand!” Whitfield said. “I want to testify!” Scott spoke in his client’s ear. Whitfield, red-faced, shouted, “I insist on testifying!”

  “You’re willing to testify in contradiction of your counsel’s advice?” Judge Prentice asked.

  “Sorry advice, and I won’t stand for it. I want to testify.”

  “Counselor Scott, is your client aware he’s opening himself to cross-examination, a process expected to be vigorous in the extreme?”

  “I no longer have any idea what’s in my client’s mind, Your Honor,” Scott said.

  “So be it,” the judge said. “Come forward, Mr. Whitfield, and be sworn in.”

  “Your Honor, I wish to be removed as counsel for Mr. Whitfield,” Scott said.

  “I think your client would be willing to testify without your representation, Mr. Scott. Even so, please continue to represent Mr. Whitfield to the best of your abilities. I don’t want to delay this trial.”

  “Damn right!” Whitfield said. “Let’s get on with this miscarriage of justice!”

  “Mr. Whitfield,” the judge said, “I am giving you one, and only one warning: Another such outburst and I will hold you in contempt. Take the witness stand, if you insist.”

  The bailiff administered the oath to Whitfield. Scott asked, “Please state your name, place of residence, and occupation.”

  “Ralph Alexander Whitfield. I live on Alexander Road. I am a farmer, livestock owner, and investor. I also am an el
ected official in this county, and have been for many years.”

  “What office do you hold?”

  “Like has already been said, I’m the chairman of the Alexander County Board of Commissioners.”

  “Let’s cut to the chase. Do you affirm Mr. Taliaferro sold you Parcel 17655-24 in good faith?”

  “I do.”

  “Do you testify the bill of sale, plaintiff’s Exhibit B, represents a true bill of sale and not a fraudulent document?”

  “Right.”

  “Did you ever make any threats to Mr. Taliaferro related to his securing the proper zoning for development of Parcel 17655-24 or extension of the county sewage and water services to the parcel?”

  “Of course not.”

  “Did Mr. Taliaferro give you any reason for accepting your low offer on the property?”

  “He said he faced some difficult financial problems and needed quick cash.”

  “I have no further questions for Mr. Whitfield.”

  “Your witness, Ms. Stevens,” the judge said.

  “Mr. Whitfield,” Allison asked, “other than the sales receipt, do you have any supporting evidence to support the validity of the sale?”

  “What do you mean, lady, by validity of the sale?”

  Judge Prentice cautioned Whitfield, “Perhaps you didn’t understand my previous warning. Please use court decorum. You have received your final warning.”

  Whitfield looked confused. Scott spoke up, “Ralph, the judge means you should use Counselor or Ms. when referring to the opposing lawyer.”

  “All right, then, Counselor Stevens. What’s with this validity of sale?”

  “Evidence presented before this court demonstrates Mr. Taliaferro’s signature on the alleged bill of sale was forged, and we haven’t yet played the recording of your conversation with my client. Do you have any other evidence to support what you’re claiming about the sale?”

  “My word, la—my word, counselor.”

  “Evidence other than your word, Mr. Whitfield?”

  “My word should be sufficient. I’m well known in this county as an upstanding citizen.”

  “Even so, do you have any other evidence?”

  “What kind of evidence?”

  “A cancelled check, a bank withdrawal slip, a purchase agreement, anything to support the validity of sale?”