Governor Forrest Anderson’s Leadership & Political Acumen -- Alec Hansen “In the Crucible of Change”

Montana Governor Forrest Anderson was perhaps the most experienced and qualified person ever to be elected as Governor of Montana. Having previously served as a county attorney, a member of the legislature, a Supreme Court Justice, and twelve years as Attorney General, Anderson roared to a large victory in 1968 over the Incumbent GOP Governor Tim Babcock. Though the progressive change period in Montana began a few years earlier, Anderson’s 1968 win catapulted progressive policy-making into the mainstream of Montana political and governmental affairs. He used his unique skills and leadership to craftily architect the reorganization of the executive branch which had been kept weak since statehood so that the peoples’ government would not be able to challenge corporations who so dominated Montana. Anderson, whose “Pay More, What For?” campaign slogan strongly separated him from Tim Babcock and the GOP on the sales tax issue, not only beat back the regressive sales tax in the 1968 election, but oversaw its demise at the polls in 1971, shaping politics in Montana for decades to come. Anderson also was a strong proponent of the concept of a new Montana Constitution and contributed strategically to its calling and passage. Anderson served only one term as Governor for health reasons, but made those four years a launch pad for progressive politics and government in Montana. In this film, Alec Hansen, Special Assistant to Governor Anderson, provides an insider’s perspective as he reflects on the unique way in which Governor Anderson got things done at this critical period “In the Crucible of Change.” Alec Hansen is best known in Montana political and governmental circles as the long-time chief of the Montana League of Cities and Towns, but he cut his teeth in public service with Governor Forrest Anderson. Alec was born in Butte in 1941, attended local schools graduating from Butte High in 1959. After several years working as a miner and warehouseman for the Anaconda Company in Butte, he attended UM and graduated in History and Political Science in 1966. He joined the U.S. Navy and served with amphibious forces in Vietnam. After discharge from the Navy in 1968, he worked as a news and sports reporter for The Montana Standard in Butte until in September of 1969 he joined Governor Anderson as a Special Assistant focused on press, communications and speech-writing. Alec has noted that drafts were turned into pure Forrest Anderson remarks by the man himself. He learned at the knee of “The Fox” for the rest of Anderson’s term and continued with Governor Tom Judge for two years before returning to Butte to work for the Anaconda Company as the Director of Communications for Montana operations. In 1978, after Anaconda was acquired by the Atlantic Richfield Company, Alec went to work in February for U.S. Senator Paul Hatfield in Washington D.C., leaving after Hatfield’s primary election loss in June 1978. He went back to work for Gov. Judge, remaining until the end of 1980. In 1981 Alec worked as a contract lobbyist and news and sports reporter for the Associated Press in Helena. In 1982, the Montana League of Cities and Towns hired him as Executive Director, a position he held until retirement in 2014. Alec and his wife Colleen, are the parents of two grown children, with one grandson.

Governor Tom Judge: Early Years - The Path to Becoming Montana's 18th Governor -- Sidney Armstrong, Larry Pettit & Kent Kleinkopf “In the Crucible of Change”

The dramatic period of progressive change in Montana that is documented "In the Crucible of Change" series really exploded with the election of Governors Forrest Anderson and Tom Judge. Anderson's single term saw the dispatching of the sales tax as an issue for a long period, the reorganization of the executive branch of state government and the revision of Montana's Constitution. As a former legislator, county attorney, Supreme Court justice, and Attorney General, Anderson brought unmatched experience to the governorship when elected. Tom Judge, although much younger (elected MT’s youngest governor at age 38 immediately following Anderson), also brought serious experience to the governorship: six years as a MT State Representative, two years as a MT State Senator, four years is Lieutenant Governor and significant business experience. The campaign and election of John F. Kennedy in 1960 spurred other young Americans to service, including Tom Judge. First elected in 1960, he rose rapidly through MT’s political-governmental hierarchy until he took over the governorship in time to implement many of the changes started in Governor Anderson’s term. But as a strong progressive leader in his own right, Governor Judge sponsored and implemented significant advancements of his own for Montana. Those accomplishments, however, are the subject of other films in this series. This film deals with Tom Judge’s early years – his rise to the governorship from when he returned home after college at Notre Dame and newspaper experience in Kentucky to his actual election in November 1972. That story is discussed in this episode by three major players in the effort, all directly involved in Tom Judge’s early years and path to the governorship: Sidney Armstrong, Larry Pettit and Kent Kleinkopf. Their recollections of the early Tom Judge and the period of his advancement to the governorship provide an insider’s perspective of the growth of this significant leader of the important period of progressive change documented “In the Crucible of Change.” Sidney Armstrong, President of Sidney Armstrong Consulting, serves on the board and as the Executive Director of the Greater Montana Foundation. Formerly Executive Director of the Montana Community Foundation (MCF), she has served on national committees and participated in national foundation initiatives. While at MCF, she worked extensively with MT Governors Racicot and Martz on the state charitable endowment tax credit and other endowed philanthropy issues. A member of MT Governor Thomas L. Judge’s staff in the 1970s, she was also part of Governor Brian Schweitzer’s 2004 Transition Team, continuing to serve as a volunteer advisor during his term. In the 1980s, Sidney also worked for the MT State AFL-CIO and the MT Democratic Party as well as working two sessions with the MT Senate as Assistant Secretary of the Senate and aide to the President. A Helena native, and great granddaughter of pioneer Montanans, Sidney has served on numerous nonprofit boards, and is currently a board member for the Montana History Foundation. Recently she served on the board of the Holter Museum of Art and was a Governor’s appointee to the Humanities Montana board. She is a graduate of the International School of Geneva, Switzerland and the University of Montana. Armstrong's Irish maternal immigrant great-grandparents, Thomas and Maria Cahill Cooney, came to Virginia City, MT in a covered wagon in 1865, looking for gold. Eventually, they settled on the banks of the Missouri River outside Helena as ranchers. She also has roots in Butte, MT, where her journalist father's family, both of whom were newspaper people, lived. Her father, Richard K. O’Malley, is also the author of a well-known book about Butte, Mile High, Mile Deep, recently re-published by Russell Chatham. She is the mother of four and the grandmother of eight. Dr. Lawrence K. Pettit (Larry Pettit) (b. 5/2/1937) has had a dual career in politics and higher education. In addition to being Montana’s first Commissioner of Higher Education (the subject of another film in this series); Pettit, of Lewistown, served as legislative assistant to U.S. Senators James E. Murray and Lee Metcalf, campaign manager, head of transition team and assistant to Montana Governor Thomas L. Judge; taught political science at The Pennsylvania State University (main campus), was chair of political science at Montana State University, Deputy Commissioner for Academic Programs at the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Chancellor of the University System of South Texas (since merged with Texas A&M University), President of Southern Illinois University, and President of Indiana University of Pennsylvania from where he retired in 2003. He has served as chair of the Commission on Leadership for the American Council on Education, president of the National Association of (University) System Heads, and on many national and state boards and commissions in higher education. Pettit is author of “If You Live by the Sword: Politics in the Making and Unmaking of a University President.” More about Pettit is found at http://www.lawrencekpettit.com… Kent Kleinkopf of Missoula is co-founder of a firm with a national scope of business that specializes in litigation consultation, expert vocational testimony, and employee assistance programs. His partner (and wife of 45 years) Kathy, is an expert witness in the 27 year old business. Kent received a BA in History/Education from the University of Idaho and an MA in Economics from the University of Utah. The Kleinkopfs moved to Helena, MT in 1971 where he was Assistant to the Commissioner of State Lands (later Governor) Ted Schwinden. In early 1972 Kent volunteered full time in Lt. Governor Tom Judge’s campaign for Governor, driving the Lt. Governor extensively throughout Montana. After Judge was elected governor, Kent briefly joined the staff of Governor Forrest Anderson, then in 1973 transitioned to Judge’s Governor’s Office staff, where he became Montana’s first “Citizens’ Advocate.” In that capacity he fielded requests for assistance from citizens with concerns and information regarding State Agencies. While on the Governor’s staff, Kent continued as a travel aide with the governor both in Montana and nationally. In 1977 Kent was appointed Director of the MT Department of Business Regulation. That role included responsibility as Superintendent of Banking and Chairman of the State Banking Board, where Kent presided over the chartering of many banks, savings and loans, and credit unions. In 1981 the Kleinkopfs moved to Missoula and went into the business they run today. Kent was appointed by Governor Brian Schweitzer to the Board of the Montana Historical Society in 2006, was reappointed and continues to serve. Kathy and Kent have a daughter and son-in-law in Missoula.

Legislative Legacy: Big Changes in Legislative Article of 1972 Constitution -- Jerry Loendorf, Arlyne Reichert & Rich Bechtel “In the Crucible of Change”

The fulcrum upon which were leveraged many of the dramatic progressive changes in Montana that are documented "In the Crucible of Change" series was the lead up to, preparation, writing and adoption of the 1972 Montana Constitution. As Montana citizens exhibited their concern over the dysfunctional state government in MT under its 1889 Constitution, one of the areas that stood out as needing serious change was the Montana Legislature. Meeting for only sixty calendar days every two years, the Legislature regularly tried to carry off the subterfuge of stopping the wall clock at 11:59 PM on the sixtieth day and placing a shroud over it so they could continue to conduct business as if it were still the 60th day. Lawyers hired by the Anaconda Company drafted most bills that legislators wanted to have introduced. Malapportionment, especially in the State Senate where each county had one Senator regardless of their population, created a situation where Petroleum County with 800 residents had one senator while neighboring Yellowstone County with 80,000 people also had one senator -- a 100-1 differential in representation. Reapportionment imposed by rulings of the US Supreme Court in the mid-1960s created great furor in rural Montana to go along with the previous dissatisfaction of the urban centers. Stories of Anaconda Company “thumbs up – thumbs down” control of the votes were prevalent. Committee meeting and votes were done behind closed doors and recorded votes were non-existent except for the nearly meaningless final tally. People were in the dark about the creation of laws that affected their daily lives. It was clear that change in the Legislature had to take the form of change in the Constitution and, because it was not likely that the Legislature would advance Constitutional amendments on the subject, a convention seemed the only remedy. Once that Convention was called and went to work, it became apparent that the Legislative Article provided both opportunity for change and danger that too dramatic a change might sink the whole new document. The activities of the Legislative Committee and the whole Convention when acting upon Legislative issues provides one of the more compelling stories of change. The story of the Legislative Article of the Montana Constitution is discussed in this episode by three major players who were directly involved in the effort: Jerry Loendorf, Arlyne Reichert and Rich Bechtel. Their recollections of the activities surrounding the entire Constitutional Convention and specifically the Legislative Article provide an insider’s perspective of the development of the entire Constitution and the Legislative portion which was of such a high degree of interest to the people of Montana during the important period of progressive change documented “In the Crucible of Change.” Jerry Loendorf, who served as Chair of the Legislative Committee at the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention, received a BA from Carroll College in 1961 and a JD from the University of Montana Law School in 1964. Upon graduation he served two years as a law clerk for the Montana Supreme Court after which he was for 34 years a partner in the law firm of Harrison, Loendorf & Posten, Duncan. In addition to being a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Jerry served on the Board of Labor Appeals from 2000 to 2004. He was designated a Montana Special Assistant Attorney General to represent the state in federal court on the challenge to the results of the ratification election of Montana's Constitution in 1972. Jerry served on the Carroll College Board of Directors in the late 1960s and then again as a member of the Board of Trustees of Carroll College from 2001 to 2009. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Rocky Mountain Development Council since 1970 and was on the board of the Helena YMCA from 1981 to 1987. He also served on the board of the Good Samaritan Ministries from 2009 to 2014. On the business side, Jerry was on the Board of Directors of Valley Bank to Helena from 1980 to 2005. He is a member of the American Bar Association, State Bar of Montana, the First Judicial District Bar Association, and the Montana Trial Lawyers Association. Carroll College awarded Jerry the Warren Nelson Award 1994 and the Insignias Award in 2007. At Carroll College, Jerry has funded the following three scholarship endowments: George C and Helen T Loendorf, Gary Turcott, and Fr. William Greytek. Arlyne Reichert, Great Falls Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and former State Legislator, was born in Buffalo, NY in 1926 and attended University of Buffalo in conjunction with Cadet Nurses Training during WWII. She married a Montanan in Great Falls in 1945 and was widowed in 1968. She is mother of five, grandmother of seven, great-grandmother of four. Arlyne was employed by McLaughlin Research Institute in Great Falls for 23 years, serving as Technical Editor of Transplantation Journal in 1967, retiring as Assistant Director in 1989. In addition to being a state legislator (1979 Session) and a delegate to the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention, she has filled many public roles, including Cascade County Study Commissioner (1974), MT Comprehensive Health Council, US Civil Rights Commission MT Advisory Committee, MT Capitol Restoration Committee, and Great Falls Public Library Trustee. Arlyne has engaged in many non-profit activities including League of Women Voters (State & Local Board Officer – from where her interest in the MT Constitutional change developed), Great Falls Public Radio Association (President & Founder), American Cancer Society (President Great Falls Chapter), Chair of MT Rhodes Scholarship Committee, and Council Member of the National Civic League. She also served a while as a Television Legislative Reporter. Arlyne has been recipient of numerous awards, the National Distinguished Citizens Award from the National Municipal League, two Women of Achievement Awards from Business & Professional Women, the Salute to Women Award by YWCA, Heritage Preservation Award from Cascade County Historical Society and the State of Montana, and the Heroes Award from Humanities Montana. She remains active, serving as Secretary-Treasurer of Preservation Cascade, Inc., and as Board Member of the McLaughlin Research Institute. Her current passion is applied to the preservation/saving of the historic 10th Street Bridge that crosses the Missouri River in Great Falls. Rich Bechtel of Helena was born in Napa, California in 1945 and grew up as an Air Force brat living in such places as Bitberg, Germany, Tripoli, Libya, and Sevilla, Spain. He graduated from Glasgow High School and the University of Montana. Rich was a graduate assistant for noted Montana History professor Professor K. Ross Toole, but dropped out of graduate school to pursue a real life in Montana politics and government. Rich has had a long, varied and colorful career in the public arena. He currently is the Director of the Office of Taxpayer Assistance & Public Outreach for MT’s Department of Revenue. He previously held two positions with the National Wildlife Federation in Washington, DC (Sr. Legislative Representative [1989-91] and Sr. Legislative Representative for Wildlife Policy [2004-2006]). While in Washington DC, he also was Assistant for Senator Lee Metcalf (D-MT), 1974-1976; Federal-State Coordinator for State of Montana, 1976-1989; Director of the Western Governors’ Association Washington Office, 1991-2000; and Director of Federal Affairs for Governor Kitzhaber of Oregon, 2001- 2003. Earlier in Montana Government, between 1971 and 1974, Rich was Research Analyst for MT Blue Ribbon Commission on Postsecondary Education, Legislative Consultant and Bill Drafter for MT Legislative Council, Research Analyst for the MT Constitutional Convention Commission where he provided original research on legislatures, as well as Researcher/Staff for the MT Constitutional Convention Legislative Committee, from where he drafted the various provisions of the Legislative Article and the majority and minority reports on behalf of the Committee members. Rich has represented Montana’s Governor on a trade and cultural mission to Republic of China and participated in US-German Acid Rain Committee sessions in Germany and with European Economic Community environmental officials in Belgium. He is married to Yvonne Seng (Ph.D.) - T’ai Chi apprentice; author and birder.

Present at the Creation: Montana Higher Education Reforms from 1972 Constitution -- Dr. Lawrence K. Pettit “In the Crucible of Change”

Prior to the passage of the 1972 Constitution, Montana’s higher education system was both controlled and victimized by Montana’s politics. Alternatingly, Governors or the Legislature tried to control and/or impose political ideology upon the management and teaching/content within the University System. Political favoritism and power-broking were the hallmark of the legislative appropriation process. Under the new Constitution, a newly empowered Board of Regents, and a new Commissioner of Higher Education managed the system and controlled the allocation of the legislative appropriations, but not without a major battle before the Montana Supreme Court. Dr. Lawrence K. Pettit (Larry Pettit) (b. 5/2/1937) was present at the creation of this newly structured higher education system as the first Commissioner of Higher Education in Montana after his appointment by the Board of Regents of the University System in 1973. Larry Pettit has had a dual career in politics and higher education. Pettit, of Lewistown, served as legislative assistant to U.S. Senators James E. Murray and Lee Metcalf, campaign manager, head of transition team and assistant to Montana Governor Thomas L. Judge, taught political science at The Pennsylvania State University (main campus), was chair of political science at Montana State University, Deputy Commissioner for Academic Programs at the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, Chancellor of the University System of South Texas (since merged with Texas A&M University), President of Southern Illinois University, and President of Indiana University of Pennsylvania from where he retired in 2003. He has served as chair of the Commission on Leadership for the American Council on Education, president of the National Association of (University) System Heads, and on many national and state boards and commissions in higher education. Pettit is author of “If You Live by the Sword: Politics in the Making and Unmaking of a University President.” More about Pettit is found at http://www.lawrencekpettit.com

Razor Thin Win: The 1972 Constitution Ballot, Campaign, Ratification & the Courts -- Mae Nan (Robinson) Ellingson & Mick McKeon “In the Crucible of Change”

Beyond the challenge of crafting a new state Constitution that empowered the people and modernized and opened up state and local government in Montana, the Constitutional Convention delegates, as they signed the final document, looked forward to the arduous task of getting it ratified by the electorate in a short ten week period between the end of the convention on March 24 and the ratification election of June 6, 1972. While all 100 delegates signed the draft Constitution, not all supported its adoption. But the planning about how to get it adopted went back to the actions of the Convention itself, which carefully crafted a ballot that kept “hot political issues” from potentially killing the entire document at the polls. As a result, three side issues were presented to the electorate on the ballot. People could vote for or against those side issues and still vote to ratify the entire document. Thus, the questions of legalizing gambling, having a unicameral legislature and retaining the death penalty were placed separately on the ballot (gambling passed, as did the retention of the death penalty, but the concept of a one-house legislature was defeated). Once the ballot structure was set, delegates who supported the new Constitution organized a grassroots, locally focused effort to secure ratification – thought hampered by a MT Supreme Court decision on April 28 that they could not expend $45,000 in public monies that they had set aside for voter education. They cobbled together about $10,000 of private money and did battle with the established political forces, led by the MT Farm Bureau, MT Stockgrowers’ Assn. and MT Contractors Assn., on the question of passage. Narrow passage of the main document led to an issue over certification and a Montana Supreme Court case challenging the ratification vote. After a 3-2 State Supreme Court victory, supporters of the Constitution then had to defend the election results again before the federal courts, also a successful effort. Montana finally had a new progressive State Constitution that empowered the people, but the path to it was not clear and simple and the win was razor thin. The story of that razor thin win is discussed in this chapter by the two youngest delegates to the 1972 Constitutional Convention, Mae Nan Ellingson of Missoula and Mick McKeon, then of Anaconda. Both recognized “Super Lawyers in their later professional practices were also significant players in the Constitutional Convention itself and actively participated in its campaign for ratification. As such, their recollections of the effort provide an insider’s perspective of the struggle to change Montana for the better through the creation and adoption of a new progressive state Constitution “In the Crucible of Change.” Mae Nan (Robinson) Ellingson was born Mae Nan Windham in Mineral Wells, TX and graduated from Mineral Wells High School in 1965 and Weatherford College in Weatherford, TX in 1967. Mae Nan was the youngest delegate at the 1972 Convention from Missoula. She moved to Missoula in 1967 and received her BA in Political Science with Honors from the University of MT in 1970. She was a young widow known by her late husband’s surname of Robinson while attending UM graduate school under the tutelage of noted Professor Ellis Waldron when he persuaded her to run for the Constitutional Convention. Coming in a surprising second in the delegate competition in Missoula County she was named one of the Convention’s “Ten Outstanding Constitutional Convention Delegates,” an impressive feat at such a young age. She was 24 at the time, the youngest person to serve at the ConCon, and one of 19 women out of 100 delegates. In the decade before the Convention, there were never more than three women Legislators in any session, usually one or two. She was a member of the American Association of University Women, a Pi Sigma Alpha political science honorary, and a Phi Alpha Theta historical honorary. At the Convention, she led proposals for the state's bill of rights, particularly related to equal rights for women. For years, Ellingson kept a copy of the preamble to the Constitution hanging in her office; while all the delegates had a chance to vote on the wording, she and delegate Bob Campbell are credited with the language in the preamble. During the convention, she had an opportunity that opened the door to her later career as an attorney. A convention delegate suggested to her that she should go to law school. Several offered to help, but at the time she couldn't go to school. Her mom had died in Texas, and she ended up with a younger brother and sister to raise in Missoula. She got a job teaching, but about a year later, intrigued with the idea of pursuing the law as a career, she called the man back to ask about the offer. Eventually another delegate, Dave Drum of Billings, sponsored her tuition at the UM School of Law. After receiving her JD with Honors (including the Law Review and Moot Court) from the UM Law School Ellingson worked for the Missoula city attorney's office for six years (1977-83), and she took on landmark projects. During her tenure, Missoula became the first city to issue open space bonds, a project that introduced her to Dorsey & Whitney. The city secured its first easement on Mount Sentinel, and it created the trail along the riverfront with a mix of playing fields and natural vegetation. She also helped develop a sign ordinance for the city of Missoula. She ended up working as bond counsel for Dorsey & Whitney, and she opened up the firm's full-fledged Missoula office after commuting a couple of years to its Great Falls office. She was a partner at Dorsey Whitney, working there from 1983 until her retirement in 2012. The area of law she practiced there is a narrow specialty - it requires knowledge of constitutional law, state and local government law, and a slice of federal tax law - but for Ellingson it meant working on great public projects – schools, sewer systems, libraries, swimming pools, ire trucks. At the state level, she helped form the Montana Municipal Insurance Authority, a pooled insurance group for cities. She's shaped MT’s tax increment law, and she was a fixture in the MT Legislature when they were debating equal rights. As a bond lawyer, though, Ellingson considers her most important work for the state to be setting up the Intercap Program that allowed local governments to borrow money from the state at a low interest rate. She has been a frequent speaker at the League of Cities and Towns, the Montana Association of Counties, and the Rural Water Users Association workshops on topics related to municipal finance, as well as workshops sponsored by the DNRC, the Water and Sewer Agencies Coordination Team, and the Montana State University Local Government Center. In 2002, she received an outstanding service award from the Montana Rural Water Users Association. In addition to being considered an expert on Montana state and constitutional law, local government law and local government finance, she is a frequent teacher at the National Association of Bond Lawyers (NABL) Fundamentals of Municipal Bond Law Seminar and the NABL Bond Attorney’s Workshop. For over 30 years Mae Nan has participated in the drafting of legislation in Montana for state and local finance matters. She has served on the Board of Directors of NABL, as Chairman of its Education Committee, was elected as an initial fellow in 1995 to the American College of Bond Counsel, and was recognized as a Super Lawyer in the Rocky Mountain West. Mae Nan was admitted to practice before the MT and US Supreme Courts, was named one of “America’s Leading Business Lawyers” by Chambers USA (Rank 1), a Mountain States Super Lawyer in 2007 and is listed in Best Lawyers in America; she is a member and former Board Member of NABL, a Fellow of the American College of Bond Counsel and a member of the Board of Visitors of the UM Law School. Mae Nan is also a philanthropist who serves on boards and applies her intelligence to many organizations, such as the Missoula Art Museum. [Much of this biography was drawn from a retirement story in the Missoulian and the Dorsey Whitney web site.] Mick McKeon, born in Anaconda in 1946, is a 4th generation Montanan whose family roots in this state go back to the 1870’s. In 1968 he graduated from Notre Dame with a BA in Communications and received a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of Montana Law School in 1971. Right after graduating from law school, Mick was persuaded by his father, longtime State Senator Luke McKeon, and his uncle, Phillips County Attorney Willis McKeon, to run for delegate to Montana’s Constitutional Convention and was elected to represent Deer Lodge, Philipsburg, Powell, and part of Missoula Counties. Along with a coalition of delegates from Butte and Anaconda, he fought through the new Constitution to eliminate the legal strangle hold, often called “the copper collar,” that corporate interests -- the Anaconda Company and its business & political allies -- had over state government for nearly 100 years. The New York Times called Montana’s Constitutional Convention a “prairie revolution.” After helping secure the ratification of the new Constitution, Mick began his practice of law in Anaconda where he engaged in general practice for nearly 20 years. Moving to Butte in 1991, Mick focused has practice in personal injury law, representing victims of negligence and corporate wrongdoing in both Montana district courts and federal court. As such, he participated in some of the largest cases in the history of the state. In 1992 he and his then law partner Rick Anderson obtained a federal court verdict of $11.5 million -- the largest verdict in MT for many years. Mick’s efforts on behalf of injured victims have been recognized by many legal organizations and societies. Recently, Mick was invited to become a member of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers - 600 of the top lawyers in the world. Rated as an American Super Lawyer, he has continuously been named one of the Best Lawyers in America, and an International Assn. of Trial Lawyers top 100 Trial Lawyer. In 2005, he was placed as one of Montana’s top 4 Plaintiff’s lawyers by Law Dragon. Mick is certified as a civil trial specialist by the National Board of Trial Advocacy and has the highest rating possible from Martindale-Hubble. Mick was awarded the Montana Trial Lawyers Public Service Award and provided pro bono assistance to needy clients for his entire career. Mick’s law practice, which he now shares with his son Michael, is limited to representing individuals who have been injured in accidents, concentrating on cases against insurance companies, corporations, medical providers and hospitals. Mick resides in Butte with his wife Carol, a Butte native. Mick, Carol, Michael and another son, Matthew, who graduated from Dartmouth College and was recently admitted to the Montana bar, enjoy as much of their time together in Butte and at their place on Flathead Lake.

Internet Service Providers Liability in Spain

The article focuses on the current situation of Spanish case law on ISP liability. It starts by presenting the more salient peculiarities of the Spanish transposition of the safe harbours laid down in the E-Commerce Directive. These peculiarities relate to the knowledge requirement of the hosting safe harbour, and to the safe harbour for information location tools. The article then provides an overview of the cases decided so far with regard to each of the safe harbours. Very few cases have dealt with the mere conduit and the caching safe harbours, though the latter was discussed in an interesting case involving Google’s cache. Most cases relate to hosting and linking safe harbours. With regard to hosting, the article focuses particularly on the two judgments handed down by the Supreme Court that hold an open interpretation of actual knowledge, an issue where courts had so far been split. Cases involving the linking safe harbour have mainly dealt with websites offering P2P download links. Accordingly, the article explores the legal actions brought against these sites, which for the moment have been unsuccessful. The new legislative initiative to fight against digital piracy – the Sustainable Economy Bill – is also analyzed. After the conclusion, the article provides an Annex listing the cases that have dealt with ISP liability in Spain since the safe harbours scheme was transposed into Spanish law.

GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits?

In two cases recently decided by two different senates of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), the following issue was raised: To what extent can the filming of sports events organized by someone else, on the one hand, and the photographing of someone else’s physical property, on the other hand, be legally controlled by the organizer of the sports event and the owner of the property respectively? In its “Hartplatzhelden.de” decision, the first senate of the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the act of filming sports events does not constitute an act of unfair competition as such, and hence is allowed even without the consent of the organizer of the sports event in question. However, the fifth senate, in its “Prussian gardens and parks” decision, held that photographing someone else’s property is subject to the consent of the owner of the grounds, provided the photographs are taken from a spot situated on the owner’s property. In spite of their different outcomes, the two cases do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, read together, they may well lead to an unwanted – and unjustified – extension of exclusive protection, thus creating a new “organizer’s” IP right.

Domain Name Transfer before Slovak and Czech Courts

In Europe, a disagreement persists in the courts about the possibility of plaintiffs to request a domain name transfer in domain name disputes. In the last ten years, Slovak and Czech courts also produced some jurisprudence on this issue. Interestingly, the BGH’s influential opinion in the shell.de decision, which denied domain name transfer as an available remedy under German law back in 2002, wasn’t initially followed. To the contrary, several Slovak and Czech decisions of lower courts allowed a domain name transfer using two different legal bases. This seemingly settled case law was rejected a few months ago by the globtour.cz decision of the Czech Supreme Court, which refused domain name transfers for the time being

Swiss Patent Jurisprudence 2012

The new Swiss Federal Patent Court, with nationwide first-instance jurisdiction over all civil patent matters, has been operating since 1 January 2012. This article reviews and contextualizes the most important patent cases the Swiss Federal Patent Court and the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. It concludes that the revamped Swiss patent litigation system has the potential of turning Switzerland into a competitive venue for the adjudication of patent matters in Europe.

Under One Umbrella: Problems of Internet Retransmissions of Broadcasts and Implications for New Audiovisual Content Services

The development of broadband Internet connections has fostered new audiovisual media services and opened new possibilities for accessing broadcasts. The Internet retransmission case of TVCatchup before the CJEU was the first case concerning new technologies in the light of Art. 3.1. of the Information Society Directive. On the other side of the Atlantic the Aereo case reached the U.S. Supreme Court and challenged the interpretation of public performance rights. In both cases the recipients of the services could receive broadcast programs in a way alternative to traditional broadcasting channels including terrestrial broadcasting or cable transmission. The Aereo case raised the debate on the possible impact of the interpretation of copyright law in the context of the development of new technologies, particularly cloud based services. It is interesting to see whether any similar problems occur in the EU. The „umbrella” in the title refers to Art. 8 WCT, which covers digital and Internet transmission and constitutes the backrgound for the EU and the U.S. legal solutions. The article argues that no international standard for qualification of the discussed services exists.

Iowa State Daily (March 28, 2012)

Contents5,000-meter dream comes trueGSB weighs removal of water bottlesHamilton addresses Middle East politicsReform enters Supreme Court

Rechtsmittel gegen Entscheide des juge d'appui bei der internationalen Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit der Schweiz

The author examines whether and by which means the decisions handed down by the State judge giving his support to the arbitral proceeding (juge d'appui) may be appealed. Every relevant Article in the PILA (Private International Law Act) is addressed and analyzed in this regard (Art. 179(2) and (3), Art. 180(3), Art. 183(2), Art. 184(3) and Art. 185) by reference to the present legal doctrine and case law. Concerning the stages of appeal, the view is held that by direct or analogous application of Art. 356(2) CPC (Civil Procedure Code) the juge d'appui has jurisdiction as the sole instance of the Canton to render decisions in support of the arbitral tribunal. On the federal level however, the parties shall have the right to appeal against these decisions by filing a civil law appeal before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, with the exception of most decisions given by juge d'appui within the meaning of Art. 180(3) PILA. As to this federal appeal, it is established that the case law of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court under the FTA (Act on the Federal Tribunal) indicates the Court's inclination to qualify both negative and positive decisions issued by the juge d'appui as final decisions in terms of Art. 90 FTA. In reference to the upcoming revision of the PILA's 12th Chapter the author concludes that the legislator might implement some clarifications in the current legal framework. It seems particularly advisable to ensure that all relevant Articles in the PILA regarding decisions of the juge d'appui explicitly reference to Art. 356(2) CPC. Moreover, the author is of the opinion that it would also be expedient to specify the

Swiss Patent Jurisprudence 2012

The new Swiss Federal Patent Court, with nationwide first-instance jurisdiction over all civil patent matters, has been operating since January 1, 2012. This article reviews and contextualizes the most important patent cases published in 2012 by the Swiss Federal Patent Court and the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. More specifically, the article covers cases on issues such as the evidentiary status of party expert opinions, the formal requirements for requests for injunctive relief, the infringement and non-obviousness tests employed by the Swiss Federal Patent Court, the use of reports and statements from technical judges in lieu of expert opinions, and the procedural devices for the pre-trial taking of evidence, in particular the new patent-specific device of precise description. The author suggests that designing the Federal Patent Court to include technically trained judges may lead to a more automatic adoption of the practices and case law of the European Patent Office. The article concludes that the revamped Swiss patent litigation system has the potential of turning Switzerland into a competitive venue for the adjudication of patent matters in Europe.

Beyond Racial Precedents: Loving v. Virginia as an Appropriate Legal Model and Strategy for Same-Sex Marriage Litigation

This thesis explores how LGBT marriage activists and lawyers have employed a racial interpretation of due process and equal protection in recent same-sex marriage litigation. Special attention is paid to the Supreme Court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia, the landmark case that declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. By exploring the use of racial precedent in same-sex marriage litigation and its treatment in state court cases, this thesis critiques the racial interpretation of due process and equal protection that became the basis for LGBT marriage briefs and litigation, and attempts to answer the question of whether a racial interpretation of due process and equal protection is an appropriate model for same-sex marriage litigation both constitutionally and strategically. The existing scholarly literature fails to explore how this issue has been treated in case briefs, which are very important elements in any legal proceeding. I will argue that through an analysis of recent state court briefs in Massachusetts and Connecticut, Loving acts as logical precedent for the legalization of same-sex marriage. I also find, more significantly, that although this racial interpretation of due process and equal protection represented by Loving can be seen as an appropriate model for same-sex marriage litigation constitutionally, questions remain about its strategic effectiveness, as LGBT lawyers have moved away from race in some arguments in these briefs. Indeed, a racial interpretation of Due Process and Equal Protection doctrine imposes certain limits on same-sex marriage litigation, of which we are warned by some Critical Race theorists, Latino Critical Legal theorists, and other scholars. In order to fully incorporate a discussion of race into the argument for legalizing same-sex marriage, the dangers posed by the black/white binary of race relations must first be overcome.

Perpetual Conflict or Compromise? The Cost of Domestic Legitimacy in the Realm of Women's Human Rights: A Case Study on the Right to an Abortion

With its turbulent and volatile legal evolution, the right to an abortion in the United States still remains a highly contested issue and has developed into one of the most divisive topics within modern legal discourse. By deconstructing the political underpinnings and legal rationale of the right to an abortion through a systematic case law analysis, I will demonstrate that this right has been incrementally destabilized. This instability embedded in abortion jurisprudence has been primarily produced by a combination of textual ambiguity in the case law and judicial ambivalence regarding this complex area of law. In addition, I argue that the use of the largely discredited substantive due process doctrine to ground this contentious right has also contributed to the lack of legal stability. I assert that when these elements culminate in the realm of reproductive privacy the right to terminate a pregnancy becomes increasingly unstable and contested.