Hollywood is not the only industry peddling the story line that flesh-and-blood fathers are an optional accessory in today’s families. Plenty of academics from New York University sociologist Judith Stacey to Cornell psychologist Peggy Drexler also have been arguing that mothers can do just as well raising children with donor fathers as they can with real ones.

In her book, “Raising Boys Without _ Men,” for instance, Ms. Drexler claims & that “maverick moms,” including single women who rely on donor insemination, are just as successful raising boys as mothers who opt for the older model of marriage and motherhood. All that is needed for parental success, according to Ms. Drexler, is a “caring and supportive” model of mothering.

Until recently, there was one primary chal­lenge to the intellectually fashionable view that fathers are fungible. It came from scholarship showing that children did better—e.g., were much more likely to finish school, avoid teen pregnancy and stay out of prison—in intact, mar­ried families than in homes headed by a single parent, most of whom are women.

Yet scholars such as Ms. Drexler were able to retort that much of the research relies on a com­parison of middle-class married families with poor single mothers, so that differences in how children fare might be largely the result of socio­economic differences. In their view, middle-class women who have a decent income and a good education can do just as good a job as a middle-class married mother and father.

That view ran into some major trouble this month, with the release of the report, “My Name is Donor,” by the Commission on Parenthood’s Future (of which I am a member). The report is the first study to compare a large random sample of 485 young adults (18-45) con­ceived through donor insemination to 563 young adults conceived the old-fashioned way.

Significantly, the single women who chose to have a child by donor insemination were better-educated and slightly better off than the parents who had biological children together. So the study’s results cannot be dismissed on the grounds that affluent marrieds were being com­pared to poor single mothers.

The study, which was co-authored by Eliza­beth Marquardt, Norval Glenn and Karen Clark, paints a troubling portrait of the children con­ceived by single mothers who chose donor in­semination. Young adults with maverick moms and donor dads report a sense of confusion, loss and distress about their origins and identity, and about their inability to relate to their biological father and to his kin.

Seventy-one percent of the adult offspring of these single mothers agree that: “My sperm do­nor is half of who I am,” and 78% wonder “what my sperm donor’s family is like.” Half report that they “feel sad” when they see “friends with their biological fathers and mothers.” Donor offspring with single mothers also are much less likely toreport that they can rely on their family. Fifty-six percent of these offspring said they depend more on friends than on family, compared to just 29% of young adults born to two biological parents. The study’s findings echo recent commentary from young adults conceived through donor in semination. Writing in the Washington Post a few years ago, Katrina Clark reported that she envied friends who had both a mother and a father. “That was” when the emptiness came over me. I realized that I am, in a sense, a freak. I really, truly would never have a dad. I finally understood what it meant to be donor-conceived, and I ’”^         hated it.”

In the U.K., Tom Ellis recently decided to try to find his donor dad through a registry that attempts to connect children to their biological fathers. Without him, he told a reporter, “I will never feel whole.”

Such a sense of loss may help explain why the study found that adult offspring of single-mothers-by-choice were 177% more likely to report having had trouble with drugs and alcohol than children born to two biological  parents. Perhaps in part because they did not enjoy the love, discipline and example of a flesh-and-blood father, young adults conceived through donor insemination to a single mother were also 146% more likely to report having been “in trouble with the law” be­fore age 25.

So, despite the latest propaganda in favor of a father-optional future, this study suggests two stubborn truths: Children long to know and be known by their biological fathers, and they are much more likely to thrive when they have their own father in their lives.

On this Father’s Day, men who have managed to be good flesh-and-blood fathers to their chil­dren should take some satisfaction from the find­ings found in “My Daddy’s Name is Donor.” Even if the Big Screen portrays them as superfluous, in the real world, their kids are much more likely to turn out “all right” than kids who only know their daddy as Donor.

Mr. Wilcox is director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and a member of the Commission on Parenthood’s Future.

Without dissent, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a measure to repeal the existing laws that require civil suits to be filed within two years of a victim’s turning 18. For incidents that take place in the future, there will be no statute of limitations.

SB 1292 also opens a window for those who were abused in the past 35 years, giving them one year from the time the law takes effect to file suit, even if the time limit had previously run out.

But legislators agreed to extend the time allowed to file a suit only for cases based on a defendant’s “direct or intentional conduct.”

Sen. Amanda Aguirre, D-Yuma, who wrote the legislation, said it would give sex-abuse victims added time to go after both the perpetrator and anyone who knew of the abuse.

But she said it would leave the current time limits in place for lawsuits against churches or school districts for simply being negligent in supervising their employees. And she said it also would bar late-filed lawsuits, even if a victim could show that an organization or even a specific person had suspicions someone was a molester but failed to act.

The measure now goes to the full Senate.

Ron Johnson, who lobbies on behalf of the state’s three Catholic bishops, acknowledged that he has been working to limit the measure from its original scope. But Johnson said any limit is not to shield those responsible. Rather, he said, it would ensure that businesses, churches and schools would be able to buy insurance. Without some limit on litigation, Johnson said, no coverage would be available.

He isn’t the only one pushing for limits. Jack LaSota, who lobbies on behalf of the Arizona School Risk Retention Trust, said school districts that buy liability insurance through his organization want some assurances that the law won’t be changed so much that it would open the door to lawsuits filed after decades solely because someone who turned out to be a molester happened to be employed years ago.

Monday’s vote followed a plea from Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeau, who told lawmakers last week that he was the victim of abuse as a child. It’s important to provide a civil alternative to those who were abused but could not get justice in criminal proceedings, he said.

But Yuma County Attorney Jon Smith told legislators that it’s often difficult to get a conviction in these cases, unless there is a witness other than the victim, or the assailant confesses. Civil suits have a lower standard of proof, he said.

Jeff Dion, acting executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime, said: “Pedophiles don’t retire. Even when the victim waits 30 years to disclose the abuse, if the perpetrator is still alive, we find them at 70 or 80 years old, in walkers and wheelchairs, continuing to molest kids.”

Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services
February 23, 2010
Source: Arizona Daily Star

Prados, an ex-Marine, leaned forward in the jury box and asked in a let-me-get-this-straight tone of voice: “He’s brave enough to go out and get shot at by anyone but he couldn’t handle this?” he said of the locker-room taunting.

Fellow jury candidate Robert Avanesian, who had also unsuccessfully sought dismissal on financial hardship grounds, chimed in: “I think severe emotional distress is what is happening in Haiti. I don’t think you could have such severe emotional distress from that,” he said of the allegations in the deputy’s case.

The spontaneous outbursts of the reluctant jurors just as Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge James R. Dunn was about to swear them in emboldened others in the jury pool to express disdain for the case and concerns about their ability to be fair, and to ratchet up the pathos in their claims of facing economic ruin if forced to sit for the three-week trial.

In this time of double-digit unemployment and shrinking benefits for those who do have jobs, courts are finding it more difficult to seat juries for trials running more than a day or two. And in extreme cases, reluctance has escalated into rebellion, experts say.

After three days of mounting insurrection, lawyers for both the deputy and the sergeant waived their right to a jury trial and left the verdict up to Dunn.

“We can’t have a disgruntled jury,” said attorney Gregory W. Smith, who represents Deputy Robert Lyznick in the lawsuit against his former supervisor. He called the panel “scary” and too volatile for either side to trust.

Money woes inflicted by the recession have spurred more hardship claims, especially by those called for long cases, say jury consultants and courtroom administrators. More than a quarter of all qualified jurors were released on hardship grounds last year, according to court statistics. And judges say they have seen more people request such dismissals in the last year.

“There’s a lot of tension, a lot more stress people are dealing with these days,” said Gloria Gomez, director of juror services for the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

In Lyznick’s suit against the county, Dunn granted hardship dismissals for more than half of the 65 people sent to his courtroom. In a neighboring courtroom, where Judge Robert H. O’Brien was about to try an asbestos case, 66 of 107 prospective jurors were excused for financial difficulties before the individual questioning, or voir dire, got started.

“The economic situation has really put attorneys and judges in an awkward position of having to say to someone who is the sole wage earner in a family or someone who is self-employed and doesn’t get paid when they don’t work that they have to serve, and we have more and more of those,” said Jaine E. Fraser, a psychologist and jury consultant who sat in for the asbestos jury selection before the parties settled.

People on the margins of society tend to be more sympathetic with victims bringing suit, and excluding them on hardship grounds can disadvantage plaintiffs, Fraser said. But it’s also risky, she noted, to force people into jury service that will cut deeply into their paychecks.

With shrinking budgets, courts are under pressure to do more with less. Los Angeles County courthouses were summoning 55,000 people a week, at $15 a day each, until the economic crisis imposed more belt-tightening. The county is now making do with 45,000 summonses a week — only about half are even answered — compelling stricter scrutiny of those claiming financial, medical and child-care problems, Gomez said. The county has also tightened sanctions for repeat no-shows, imposing fines of as much as $1,500.

Fraser, who is based in Dallas, said jurors there have been more willing to serve since the city raised daily jury compensation from $6 to $40. California courts have been trying for years to get the daily stipend raised to $40, without success, Gomez said.

As he struggled with the mounting pleas for dismissal, Dunn alluded to pressures on the court “to be very diligent in reviewing excuses.”

High school teacher Sharon Friedman told the judge she had no savings and would lose 60% of her February pay. Substitute teacher Martine Tomczyk argued that she needed to be free to take work days when they surfaced. Freelance producer Robert Thatcher said he could lose contracts to competitors if he missed deadlines while on the jury.

As excuses were flying and Dunn struggled to maintain order, one of the few jurors who hadn’t sought dismissal interrupted the questioning to offer his take on the unusually passionate resistance.

“I think with what is going on in the country, there are a lot of angry people,” said retired Broadway actor Sammy Williams. “Money is such an issue and to give money to someone for results of a case, it’s really important that they’re getting it for a real reason, an important reason.”

The Los Angeles Times

by Carol J. Williams

February 15, 2010

Source: LATimes.com

As a consequence of her Dec. 30 ruling, the defendants in Crawford v. American Legion Ambulance Association, 08-cv-2338, will not have to pay more than $600 per hour when they depose the plaintiff’s medical expert, leaving the plaintiff to pick up the difference unless the expert agrees to lower his rate.

The expert, John Ratliff, an assistant professor of neurosurgery at Thomas Jefferson University Medical College in Philadelphia, charges $5,000 for the first hour of deposition and $2,000 for every hour thereafter.

His court appearances also come at a high price: $12,000 per day and rising to $15,000 when he has to go out of state, as in this case.

Plaintiff Vernon Crawford claims he was rear-ended by an ambulance in 2007, resulting in myelopathy and loss of spinal function. He was treated by Ratliff, consulted with him about the possibility of surgery and has designated him as a medical expert.

Lee Eckell, of Post & Schell in Princeton, N.J., who represents the defendants, American Legion Ambulance Association and ambulance driver Robyn Crispin, wants to depose Ratliff.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the party seeking discovery is the one who has to pay for the deposition. But Rule 26(b)(4)(C) requires discovery seekers to pay only a "reasonable fee for time spent."

Crawford’s attorney, David Heim, of Bochetto & Lentz in Philadelphia, moved on Aug. 21, asking for a ruling that Ratliff’s charges were reasonable in light of his qualifications and highly specialized expertise.

Heim’s certification described Ratliff as a "well respected author, lecturer and researcher" with 15 peer-reviewed publications to his credit and "subspecialty expertise in peripheral nerve disorders, as well as neurosurgical evaluation and treatment of nerve compression syndromes and peripheral nerve trauma, including complex reconstructive peripheral nerve surgery."

The fees to be paid Ratliff were from a schedule provided by Thomas Jefferson University’s Department of Neurosurgery, which said those rates had been paid in other cases, without reduction, stated Heim.

He also related his efforts to obtain other expert fee schedules for comparison by calling around to other area hospitals.

The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Temple University Hospital both informed him their neurosurgeons do not do expert witness work, while two other places, Hanehmann University Hospital and the Washington Brain and Spine Institute, said they would check but never got back to him, he wrote.

Cooper University Hospital, however, provided an expert fee schedule for David Clements, a board-certified orthopedic surgeon who does spinal surgery. Clements charges $8,500 for in-court testimony and up to $4,500 for a deposition, rates Heim argued are commensurate with Ratliff’s.

Eckell countered with 3rd Circuit precedent that set reasonable expert fees at $200 to $500 per hour, though none of the cases involved a neurosurgeon.

He also highlighted the disparity between Ratliff’s fees and those for two other plaintiffs’ medical experts, one who charged $1,500 for the entire deposition and the other $500 per hour.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Williams acknowledged that neurosurgery is a highly specialized area of practice and, thus, "a reasonable fee for a neurosurgeon may be well above a reasonable fee for other types of experts." She also called it surprising that neither side had provided information about deposition fees charged by a neurosurgeon with credentials similar to Ratliff’s.

She called "immensely instructive" a case from the District of Colorado she found through own research, Grady v. Jefferson County, 249 F.R.D. 657 (2008), which held that a neurosurgeon’s published fee of $2,000 per hour for deposition testimony was grossly excessive. The expert, Richard Spiro, chief of spine surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, was willing to reduce his fee to $1,000 per hour for the case, a prisoner’s civil-rights suit alleging inadequate medical care, where the two Colorado surgeons acting as defense experts were charging $450 per hour. The Grady court found a reasonable hourly rate for Spiro was no more than $600 per hour.

Williams chose that same amount, noting Spiro practiced in the same state as Ratliff and had equally impressive credentials.

To avoid having to pay Ratliff’s hefty court appearance fee, Heim had also requested permission to videotape Ratliff’s trial testimony right after the deposition.

He argued that the contrast between the court appearance charge and the $2,000 per-hour cost of obtaining canned trial testimony right after deposition qualified as "exceptional circumstances" under Rule 32(a)(3)(E).

Williams denied the request, finding it would result in immense prejudice to the defendants. They would have to jump right into trial questioning without the chance to review the deposition transcript or refer to it and would have less time to prepare for cross-examination, she pointed out.

Heim says the fee set by the court is more than the $250 to $350 per hour courts typically allow for medical expert testimony and more than the defense was initially willing to pay. He hopes Ratliff will agree to accept the $600 rate, since his client will have to pay any overage.

Eckell declines comment.

New Jersey Law Journal
by Mary Pat Gallagher
January 06, 2010
Source: Law.com

Tempe taxpayers could shell out more than $170,000 in the coming year from one lawsuit.

Of that amount, $150,000 will go to a California woman who tripped on a pothole and injured a knee during one of the biannual Festival of Arts shows. The case against the city was filed in 2004 and was settled out of court last week. The city also has been ordered to pay $21,138.39 in court costs and attorney fees for a company involved in the lawsuit.

Tatiana Orpinas was in town with her husband, Andres, a painter. He was showing his work during the festival in March 2003, as he had for years.

The now 60-year-old woman was walking on Mill Avenue, which was closed to traffic for the art show. She was among a bustling crowd about 10:30 a.m. in front of Mill Avenue Jewelers when she tripped in a pothole in a parking spot, according to court documents.

The hole was filled with temporary asphalt, but it wasn’t level with the ground. There was an about 2-inch-deep depression.

Orpinas fell, tearing cartilage in her knee and breaking an ankle. Orpinas had arthroscopic surgery but now needs a full knee replacement because the injuries exacerbated her arthritis.

“You know, this is the worst thing that has ever happened me,” Orpinas said by phone from her Glendale, Calif., home. “It’s affecting every single moment of my life. I never thought a fall like this could lead to what I have had to deal with. And what’s more, it could have been prevented.”

There was nothing to signify that the pavement was uneven, said Orpinas’ [Cantor Simon Law Group] attorney.

“When the city closes down those streets to vehicular traffic and uses streets as pedestrian thoroughfares, hundreds of thousands go on them,” Simon said. “There was no a-frame (sign) or anything. Unfortunately this could have been easily prevented.”

The settlement amount going to Orpinas was about half of what she had sought.

“We’re pleased, considering a knee replacement in California costs about $90,000, according to a life-care planner who did a projected cost,” Simon said.

Orpinas said the amount won’t cover all of her medical costs.

The lawsuit lasted about 2 1/2 years. Two other parties were named who might have shouldered the blame, but ultimately the burden fell to the city. They include Terra-Cal Construction which was the general contractor hired to do streetscape improvements, and Specialize Services, a subcontractor of Terra-Cal that did the actual work that created the pothole.

Maricopa County Superior Court ordered Tempe to pay for Terra-Cal’s attorney fees and court costs. The city is considering appealing that decision, according to city attorney Andrew Ching.

The City Council will review the Terra-Cal decision at its meeting Thursday night.

An army reservist arrested in April for holding seven undocumented immigrants at gunpoint is demanding $1 million from Maricopa County for wrongful arrest and incarceration.

Sgt. Patrick Haab, who spent four nights in jail before the Maricopa County attorney dismissed all charges, accused Sheriff Joe Arpaio and a deputy in a July 19 letter of violating Haab’s rights and threatened to sue if payment is not made within 60 days.

“Indeed, the arrest and incarceration were in themselves blatant violations of the law,” Haab’s lawyer, [The Cantor Simon Law Group Associate], wrote. “Law enforcement mistakenly believed that Sgt. Haab violated the law, when, in fact, he had not. “Arpaio said Thursday that Haab’s claim is frivolous.

“I stand by my deputies. They did the right thing,” he said. “I don’t want this to be settled. I want this case to go all the way to court … where we will be able to bring out all of the facts on (Haab).”

The arrest and subsequent release of Haab, 24, triggered a storm of protest on both sides of the immigration issue and has prompted a review by the U.S. Department of Justice to determine if Haab violated federal civil rights laws.

“It is not a race issue,” [The Cantor Simon Law Group Associate] said Thursday. “It wouldn’t have mattered if the Phoenix Suns jumped out of the bushes and threatened him.”

Haab has said he did not know the men were undocumented immigrants. He said he drew his pistol because he feared for his life when the men rushed out of the darkness at a desolate Interstate 8 rest stop, where Haab had stopped to relieve his dog.

Maricopa County sheriff’s deputies arrested Haab on seven counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. But County Attorney Andrew Thomas said Haab would not be prosecuted because of a state law that allows citizens to make an arrest when a felony has been committed.

According to Thomas, all seven of the immigrants were committing felonies: The smuggler in planning the operation and the six immigrants in “conspiring” to illegally cross the border.

Haab has described himself as an Iraq-war veteran and a decorated soldier who also served in Kosovo. He said the arrest interfered with his scheduled deployment to Afghanistan and damaged his reputation.

Thomas wants shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation on CBS and Law and Order on NBC to flash disclaimers, saying defendants are not automatically innocent if there is a lack of physical or forensic evidence.

“These shows are affecting jury preconceptions that are taken into jury deliberations,” Thomas said.

A survey of 102 prosecutors found 38 percent believe they’ve had at least one acquittal or hung jury when forensic evidence was unavailable to corroborate testimony. Prosecutors call it the “CSI Effect.”

But defense attorney David Michael Cantor said prosecutors always tell jurors that scientific evidence doesn’t lie.

“Now, they don’t want a lack of it to be perceived as reasonable doubt.”

The judge stared crossly at the defendant before him, a clean-cut young man found guilty of killing a young girl in a boating accident.

The young man was drunk when his boat ran over the girl’s jet ski.

“It’s the judgment of the court that the defendant be sentenced to 22 years in the Department of Corrections,” the judge said sternly.

The young man sobbed as a deputy cuffed him and led him from the courtroom on his way to prison. And video cameras caught every second of it.

It was a dramatization for an upcoming video about OUI, which stands for operating under the influence, the legal term for driving a boat while intoxicated.

But the actors are not really actors: They are judges and prosecutors and even a DUI defense attorney who once acted in TV commercials.

And the film’s producer, Lex Anderson, is justice of the peace for the Peoria Justice Court, where you will likely end up if you get an OUI ticket at Lake Pleasant.

Anderson has presided over 114 OUI cases in the past 12 months, nearly half of the 286 cases in Maricopa County over the past year.

Only the two counties on the Colorado River come close. In 2004, 101 boaters in La Paz County and 122 in Mohave County were tried on OUI charges.

Maricopa County sheriff’s deputies write four or five such tickets every summer weekend at Lake Pleasant. And with the July 4th holiday approaching, they estimate there’ll be as many as 3,000 boaters at Lake Pleasant, just one of the five county lakes that support motorized watercraft.

Who drives a boat drunk?

“It’s everybody,” says Capt. Don Schneidmiller of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. “It’s every economic level. We see people in little low-cost boats, high-end boats. It’s everybody.”

And that’s who Anderson wants to target. He wants to show how easily that extra beer can lead to serious injury or death.

“Nobody ever means for these things to happen,” Anderson said. “We just want to change some attitudes and let people know it can happen to you.”

This is the second educational film that Anderson has produced.

In 2003, he created a film about DUIs titled Crossing Deadly Lanes.

It has the requisite gory photos of fatal drunken-driving accidents.

It has interviews with victims’ families and prosecutors.

But more important, Anderson interviewed the drunken drivers in prison. And what’s most striking is that they are not hardened criminals but clean-cut citizens who never had a brush with the law until they got behind the wheel drunk and killed somebody.

They can’t believe it happened to them, and they express their remorse for the people they killed.

“There’s a lot of education out there that deals with the havoc you cause as a DUI driver, but I looked at — people by nature being somewhat selfish — what’s going to happen to me?” Anderson said.

This year, Anderson decided to do a film about OUI.

He hears the cases in his court, and he has also issued search warrants in a couple of high-profile boating deaths that were alcohol-related. Those cases are tried in Maricopa County Superior Court because they are felonies instead of misdemeanors.

“We want to show that bad things happen to good people when they get behind the wheel whether it’s a boat or a car,” Anderson said.

He obtained a $35,000 grant from the state and hired the production company Go Media, which directed and filmed the DUI film for free. In July, they will be shooting a simulated accident at Lake Pleasant involving a boat and jet ski.

The video should be completed in September and, like the DUI video, will be available to agencies in and out of the state.

“The intent of the video is to show what can happen with people who are under the influence,” said Jerry Porter, an associate presiding judge at Maricopa County Superior Court. Porter also plays the judge in the OUI video.

“You go out to the bar, you go out to the lake and you have a few drinks and you’re just having fun,” he said, “and the next thing you know you’ve killed somebody.”

The penalties for OUI are not as serious as for DUI.

You don’t lose a license on the first offense, although you can do jail time on the second or third and have your boat confiscated.

“To be honest, I’ve never seen a second or third offense,” said David Michael Cantor, an attorney who represents people charged with OUI and DUI.

But the potential for fatal accidents is very real.

Cantor said that many of his DUI clients claim that they are unlucky.

Cantor reminds them how quickly accidents happen with some of them fatal.

“Don’t sit here and tell me you’re unlucky,” he tells them. “You’re incredibly lucky because it’s one second away from seven to 21 years in prison.”

By the numbers

Watercraft accidents in Arizona in 2004:

• Deaths on waterways, 11.
• Alcohol-related deaths, 4.
• Reported watercraft accidents, 254.
• Alcohol-related accidents, 53.
• OUI arrests, 438.

Arizona Game and Fish Department

But when Verizon sold a similar cardboard “tab” ad to a competing firm, and gave it better placement in the book, the Law Offices of David Michael Cantor filed a breach of contract suit in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Cantor says Verizon violated a written contract, and he was upset that the tab sold to the other firm was placed in front of the “attorney” listing in the book. His ad was placed toward the front of all the listings.

He said Verizon offered him gifts to make up for the slight.

“They went with the adage of forgiveness rather than permission. That doesn’t work with a law firm,” Cantor said.

Karen Testa, a Verizon spokeswoman in Dallas, declined comment.

The case highlights the highly competitive advertising by Valley law firms seeking clients through television and radio commercials, and telephone-book ads.

“Like any other business, they’re trying to create some market share,” said Laurence Winer, of Arizona State’s School of Law.

“Often, it’s newer or less established attorneys trying to break into a market.”

Winer said attorney advertising is still controversial, even though it’s been commonplace for more than a decade.

“I think it serves a valuable function for the public at large,” he said.

Attorney advertising in Arizona was against legal ethics until the 1970s, when attorney Van O’Steen won a state Supreme Court case. The court found attorneys have a First Amendment right to advertise.

Cantor’s civil and criminal practices are among the largest in the southeast Valley. His firm employs 15 attorneys and he has handled a number of high-profile cases.

Cantor’s best-known clients have included Patrick Haab, an Army reservist who was arrested, but eventually not prosecuted, for holding seven undocumented immigrants at gunpoint in April; Valinda Jo Elliott, who ignited the “Chediski” fire to get help while lost in northeastern Arizona in 2002, but did not face charges; and Michael Gherman, who was sentenced to life in prison in the murder of two Wal-Mart security guards.

Cantor, who lives in Paradise Valley, said that although he filed the suit, he has not served it on Verizon to make it official. He said he hopes the suit will “speed up” negotiations.

“I think ultimately we will resolve it amicably,” he said.

His goal is to negotiate a discount as compensation for the perceived slight. The suit seeks damages of $100,104, plus interest and attorneys fees.

He discovered the problem in May when a salesman delivered a copy of the Greater Phoenix Yellow Pages to the firm’s office. Cantor said he was stunned when he flipped through the book and discovered Verizon sold another tab to another Phoenix personal-injury firm.

The other Law Firm’s tab was placed in front of the attorneys listing. The tab that protrudes from the book making it easy to find, reads “car accident attorneys.” Cantor’s ad at the beginning of the book has a tab that lists only his e-mail address and made no mention that he is an attorney. The other attorney pictured in the other ad, did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

Cantor’s full-page ad touts his criminal firm and his civil firm, The Cantor Simon Law Group.

“It’s invisible. It does nothing for us,” he said.

Cantor said he pays much more for a similar ad in Dex, Qwest’s Yellow Pages, but would not reveal the price. Qwest refused to reveal it, as well.

As Paul K Charlton, the US attorney for Arizona, prepared to announce that he was not going to file criminal charges in the catastrophic “Chediski” fire, Overgaard resident Steve Lillie entered the gymnasium toting a charred pine log.

“I had 12 acres I was building a resort on,” Lillie said, “and this is what’s left. … There’s no accountability. No remorse. Nothing.”

When Charlton took the microphone and said, “Our decision — my decision — is not to prosecute,” Lillie, 44, stood and hurled the burned log near the half-court line, where it crashed and broke in two. “And there’s my decision!” he yelled. “You want to take me? Go ahead. That’s my life right there.”

Lillie’s was the most radical reaction to news that no criminal charges will be brought against Valinda Jo Elliott, the stranded woman who set a signal fire that merged into the biggest fire in Arizona history.

Charlton told a crowd of about 300 at Mogollon High School that Elliott did not act with criminal intent and that there is no chance a jury would convict her of arson, given the facts. Charlton said investigators spent the past month interviewing witnesses, checking cellphone logs and following other leads to confirm every detail of the account.

If anything, Charlton said, the evidence supports defense claims that Elliott’s signal fire was necessary to alert rescuers and save her own life after being lost three days in the woods.

The decision infuriated White Mountain residents who were burned out by the last month’s “Rodeo-Chediski” fire, and Apaches concerned about unequal justice because charges were filed against a tribal member who set the Rodeo half of the blaze.

Tribe may arrest her

In Whiteriver, White Mountain Apache Tribal Chairman Dallas Massey Sr. said the tribe likely will issue an arrest warrant for Elliott, possibly as early as today.

“We have a number of violations here — arson, trespassing, not respecting a closure order and possibly violating some of our game and fish statutes,” Massey said. “Nothing that the U.S. Attorney decided to do has altered our aggressive pursuit of this matter.

“Even if they weren’t sure they would have gotten a conviction, it would have been a nice gesture to all affected to try.”

It was a sentiment shared by those who attended Charlton’s press conference.

As Lillie was handcuffed and hustled outside by Navajo County Sheriff’s deputies, most of the audience booed and yelled derisively. About half the crowd stormed out of the gym in protest, unwilling to hear Charlton’s explanation.

“You take him away, but you won’t do anything to this woman who ruined so many of our lives,” yelled Carla Emmert of Overgaard.

“This is just ridiculous,” agreed Dan Caivano of Heber, chiding the deputies who arrested Lillie for disorderly conduct. “Who’s going to follow any laws around here if you’re not doing anything to her?”

Elliott was not available for comment Thursday. She and attorney David Michael Cantor flew to New York City to appear today on CBS’ The Early Show, which airs at 7 a.m. on Channel 5 (KPHO), the station whose helicopter crew rescued her.

“When Miss Elliott started the fire, she did what any reasonable person would do after being stranded for three days with no food or water,” her attorney said. “She feels bad for people who lost their homes.”

In Heber, Charlton told the crowd that investigators had confirmed every detail in the misadventures of Elliott and her employer, Ransford Olmsted, who got lost while driving to Young on a business trip.

On June 18, he said, they took a series of wrong turns and wound up out of gas on backroads in a closed section of the Indian reservation.

After spending a night together in Olmsted’s truck, Elliott climbed Chediski Peak in hopes that she could get a signal on her cellphone to call for help. Wearing flip-flops and a tank top, she became lost while trying to return to the truck and spent a night alone, sleeping on a flat rock after being frightened by a bear. The next day, Elliott set a fire to attract a nearby news helicopter, which was in the area to cover the Rodeo fire, which had been set a day earlier.

When Elliott was rescued, Charlton said, she expressed concern about the signal blaze, and was told by the helicopter crew that it would be extinguished. Charlton then showed a photograph taken two hours after the fire was set, showing that it smoldered meekly in a sparsely forested area. “A reasonable person could have expected this fire to remain contained,” he said.

But it soon exploded and joined the Rodeo fire to burn more than 468,000 acres and destroy 491 structures. The blaze cost more than $43 million to fight and forced the evacuation of about 30,000 people.

Helen Grand of Pinecrest Estates, one of nearly 200 people who lost homes in the Overgaard subdivision, was critical of Charlton.

“He does nothing, she walks away scot-free and our insurance company won’t have anything to do with us,” Grand said. “Boy, life is just wonderful these days.”

Grand’s husband, Ray, said Elliott “should be brought up here by the police and have her nose stuck in every pile of ashes she’s responsible for.”

Elliott’s fate sparked intense political debate because Leonard Gregg, 29, an Apache firefighter from Cibecue, has been indicted for setting the Rodeo fire to get work. Gregg, who made a public apology, is in Maricopa County Jail.

Some Native Americans have speculated that race was a motivating factor behind Gregg’s arrest.

Debora Euler-Ajayi, Gregg’s attorney, said: “This decision allows the tribe to bear the full brunt of the fire without acknowledging their loss. It gives them an example of White man’s justice. I expect the tribal reaction to be very strong and very unhappy.”

Federal officials have denied racism charges.Charlton met with tribal officials as well as community leaders from the Heber-Show Low area on Thursday before making the public announcement. But his private sessions apparently did not calm the passions.

“I still can’t believe that they’re doing nothing about her and a member of my tribe is looking at 10 years and a $500,000 fine,” said Waynella Collelay, who was selling tacos and frybread in Whiteriver Thursday afternoon. Boss defends Elliott Olmsted, a New River businessman who took Elliott on the ill-fated trip, expressed sympathy for the fire victims. However, he defended Elliott and praised the government for dropping the case.

“They made the right decision because we were out there innocent and we were lost and facing our lives,” he said.

But some residents don’t see it that way. They complained bitterly that Elliott never expressed sorrow, and now appears to be capitalizing on her fame with a TV appearance.

Mell Epps, the fire chief in Heber-Overgaard, said many believe Elliott should be brought to trial so there is closure, but he disagrees.

“I think we have a majority of survivors here, and I think they’re going to rally and be just fine,” he said. “We took a hit. We got wounded, but not killed.”