Frank Mann - An Ethically Challenged Bigot

Editorial Commentary

Unscrupulous attorneys have long been the tantalizing subject of fictional stories about lawyers who would do anything they think they can get away with, to get ahead and generate fees for themselves at any cost, including a proverbial pound of flesh. When real life exposes one of these sorts of cretins, the insidiousness of their evil takes on both personal and socially repugnant dimensions. Such miscreants also expose incompetent if not corrupt governmental institutions around them. One such example is Frank E. Mann III, whose unethical background has already been the subject of an article on this site. That the Texas State Bar Association allows him to continue practicing law, implies that the Bar Association in Texas is either as incompetent or as corrupt an institution, and one that has failed to fulfill its duty to the people of Texas it is supposed to serve, as Frank Mann appears to be.

Cristan Williams

The inspiration for this missive about Mr. Frank Mann, is a telephone call he made to Cristan Williams, the beautiful, articulate, and highly representative, executive director of the Houston Transgender Center. Cristan Williams has been the force behind the facebook.com support page setup for Nikki Araguz. She has also been creating online videos containing her commentary about the ongoing proceedings, and she has appeared on television to discuss the issue of marriage legality for transsexual and intersex people. Since Texas law allows any party to a telephone conversation to record it, Cristan Williams recorded their conversation when Frank Mann telephoned her. She has also published the recording, with commentary, in a video on youtube.com. Frank Mann's ostensible purpose for telephoning Ms. Williams was to extend an Olive Branch (his own words). Such a telephone call surely implies that he has become aware that newspapers, television media, and the blogosphere, have all been exposing the negative truth about who he is, about his ongoing unethical activities, and the rest of his apparently incorrigible behavior. Based on the contents of his telephone call with Cristan Williams, Mr. Mann has the naive notion that smooth and friendly sounding talk might overcome the reprehensible nature of his actions and his associations. Frank Mann's actions have made it clear that he is a bigot, that he has neither ethics nor conscience, that he is part of the lawsuit against Nikki Araguz primarily in the interest of his own personal greed, and that he has the grandiose notion that his cruel and malicious lawsuit against Nikki Araguz will be the case of his career.

Frank E. Mann III

A brief review of Frank Mann's history might help provide some context for making judgments about his character. Frank Mann has twice been investigated by and sanctioned by the Texas State Bar Association. In both cases his license to practice law was suspended, once for a period of years, and further extended by periods of probation once the Bar Association allowed him to practice again. Nikki Araguz made the unfortunate and fateful mistake in 2002 of hiring Mr. Mann to represent her in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. During his representation of Nikki Araguz, she disclosed confidential information to him about her medical past and apparently even gave him a copy of her first birth certificate, all under attorney/client privilege. Heather Delgado, the ex-wife of Nikki's second husband Thomas, happened upon Frank Mann when she needed an attorney to represent her in a child custody dispute against Nikki and Thomas Araguz. It was both illegal and unethical for Frank Mann to represent Heather Delgado, or anyone else as an adversary to Nikki Araguz in a legal matter, but Frank Mann did so anyway. This is called a direct conflict of interest. In most states, Frank Mann would have been disbarred for doing so, but apparently not in Texas. Frank Mann used his knowledge of confidential information about Nikki Araguz to take advantage of and humiliate Nikki and Thomas Araguz during that dispute and depositions they gave during it. While Frank Mann was representing Heather Delgado against Nikki and Thomas Araguz in the child custody dispute, Nikki Araguz decided to run for mayor of Wharton, Texas. Frank Mann then sent a broadcast email to a large group of his friends and colleagues that contains information which violates the attorney/client privilege he owes Nikki Araguz. Mr. Mann's bigoted email poked fun at Nikki Araguz, exposed her medical past, and disclosed the possibility that she may not have been eligible to run for office because of a previous criminal conviction. Once again, in just about any state other than Texas, Frank Mann would have been disbarred for a stunt like that.

Long after Nikki Araguz should have known that Frank Mann had no business being involved in a lawsuit against her, the attorneys representing her filed a complaint with the Texas State Bar Association about Mr. Mann's behavior. At first the Texas State Bar Association dismissed the complaint. Only after Frank Mann, Nikki Araguz, Heeather Delgado, Simona Longoria, et al, became national news, did the Texas State Bar Assocation decide to take a closer look at the complaint against him. Frank Mann is currently under investigation by the Texas State Bar Association with regard to the numerous ethical violations listed above. However, Frank Mann continues to represent a party adverse to Nikki Araguz, in clear violation of ethical rules. In fact, the telephone call Frank Mann made to Cristan Wiliams is right at the edge of another ethical violation. An attorney is not allowed to engage in ex-parte (without the adverse attorney present) communication with an adverse party to a case. Although Cristan Williams isn't the actual adverse party, there are clear implications that Frank Mann intended to communicate his propaganda indirectly to Nikki Araguz through Cristan Williams. If not a direct ethical violation, Frank Mann's telephone call to Cristan Williams certainly seems to violate the spirit of the ethical rules he swore to uphold upon becoming an attorney.

With the foregoing review of Frank Mann's behavior as context, the contents of Frank Mann's conversation with Cristan Williams demonstrates just how much of an unprincipled hypocrite he is. There isn't any way to separate Mr. Mann's representation of someone in a case that disrespects the memory of the father of the boys he represents, from the implications such representation has about Frank Mann's own lack of character. Every time Frank Mann files a motion that mischaracterizes the marriage between Thomas Araguz and Nikki Araguz as same-sex, he isn't just taking an easy pot shot at Nikki Araguz, his actions dishonor Thomas Araguz and his sons as well. There isn't any way for Frank Mann to separate his greed from his involvement in the case either, since he and the other attorneys had an ethical duty to point out to Heather Delgado and Simona Longoria, that Thomas Araguz's boys would end up with about the same amount of money with or without the lawsuit, and by refraining to litigate such a matter, they would protect the memory of the boy's father and socially shield the boys from the bigoted Texas culture that surrounds them.

There isn't any way Mr. Mann can claim he is not a bigot when the core of his case requires him to argue before a court of law that somehow intersex and transsexual people should not be afforded constitutional equal protection and due process in their right to marry someone of the opposite genital sex, even if they may have some theoretical genetic similarity of sex chromosomes with their marrying partner. Such an imposition of law defies practicality and pragmatic common sense. It is a notion so preposterous that Texas has only now begun to understand that in so doing, it has actually legalized the very thing it purported to outlaw with the Littleton v. Prange ruling. What Littleton has legalized in Texas, is hundreds of transsexual and intersex people who have married partners of the same genital sex because the law there is based on the theoretical and presumed sex chromosomes of the marrying couple, without ever even testing them for verification. The resulting bureaucratic confusion at county offices which provide marriage licenses in Texas that has followed from such blind bigotry, threatens to deny the rights of intersex and transsexual people not just in Texas, but potentially throughout the United States. By serving as a plaintiff's attorney in a rapacious lawsuit whose purpose is to confirm such bigotry, Frank Mann demonstrates to the world by his actions, no matter what words he may use to provide an excuse for them, that he is a bigot. Mr. Mann's ego may be bolstered now by his involvement with such a case, but in a more enlightened future reading of the history he may be creating, he will be properly labeled as one of the bigots who made such institutionalized bigotry possible.

If Frank Mann were actually an honest, conscientious, or ethical person, he and the other attorneys representing Heather Delgado and Simona Longoria in the supposed interest of Trevor and Tyler Araguz, would never have filed such a lawsuit to begin with. It seems equally important to remember that without Frank Mann's violation of attorney/client privilege, Heather Delgado et al, may never have discovered the information about Nikki Araguz's medical history that fanned the flames of the child custody case and instigated the present probate case.  Frank Mann is one of three attorneys who knew full well that when it comes to most probate lawsuits, the only people who generally win are the attorneys. While their unscrupulous gains are purely financial, they will leave scorched earth behind them, and a broken family in their wakes. While Frank Mann got fake friendly on the telephone with Cristan Williams, explaining that Thomas Araguz's sons Trevor and Tyler would be attending private school in the hope that may help protect them from playground bullying, such efforts are naive recompense, a vain effort to bandage the gaping emotional wounds those two boys will likely battle for many years to come. In the same conversation, Frank Mann also noted that his potential involvement with Cristan Williams might last for years, without any acknowledgement of the benefits to the children that a settlement now might provide: for them, for Nikki Araguz, and potentially for thousands of intersex and transsexual people who could be directly impacted by a negative appeals court ruling in such a case. Shame on all three attorneys: Frank Mann, Edward Burwell, and Chad Ellis; for such blatant hypocrisy and greed. The pound of flesh they hope to excise from Nikki Araguz does not come without a drop of blood, but with copious quantities of it; from Thomas Araguz, from his sons Trevor and Tyler, from Nikki Araguz his chosen wife, and potentially from thousands of intersex and transsexual people everywhere, no matter how their chromosomes may be configured.

Upcoming Motion Hearing - August 16, 2010

Amidst the horrifically inaccurate and lurid newspaper and television reporting, a few new facts about upcoming events in the lawsuit have arisen.

Nikki Araguz

Defense attorneys for Nikki Araguz (left) have filed a Motion to Dismiss, apparently on the grounds that the plaintiffs have made claims upon which relief cannot be granted, a legal term of art. This is a normal and expected aspect of civil lawsuit proceedings. Although it does not seem likely that the judge will grant the defense motion, it is the duty of the defense attorneys to do so, and such a motion is a part of documenting the foundations of the defense case, one which seems likely to be considered by an appeals court in the future. As expected, Darrell Steidley, one of the attorneys for Nikki Araguz, has also filed a motion to have Simona Longoria removed from the lawsuit on the basis that she does not have standing to make a claim. The term standing means having the ability and the right to be party to a given lawsuit. Heather Delgado does have standing because she is the mother of the Thomas Araguz's sons, who are the actual party at interest in the probate lawsuit, but who cannot represent themselves or be parties to the lawsuit directly because they are minors. The defense motion  by attorneys for Nikki Araguz to dismiss the case is set for an oral hearing before the district court in Wharton, TX on Monday August 16, 2010. It seems likely that the court will also hear the defense motion on modification of the temporary restraining order, and begin consideration of other customary procedural matters. Altogether it seems likely that the judge will be asked to consider all these issues, and it appears that both sides have already filed their written motions and supporting briefs.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, Heather Delgado and Simona Longoria, have meanwhile reported their intention to file a motion for Summary Judgment by the court without a trial, within the next two weeks. However, given the nature of civil lawsuit procedure, they will likely need to wait at least until the defense has filed an official written answer to the plaintiffs' petition, and the plaintiffs' attorneys will need to wait until a reasonable amount of discovery has been completed, otherwise the attorneys for Nikki Araguz can defend against the summary judgment motion with the argument that they need more time to gather evidence that would support their defense claims. The written answer the defense will need to file after the court hears its Motion to Dismiss, is a necessary formality that usually consists primarily of paragraph by paragraph denials of the plaintiffs' petition/complaint. Among the evidence it seems likely the defense will want to gather are medical records and testimony regarding the surgery Nikki Araguz has received, and the intersex/hermaphroditic condition she was born with, called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

Among additional factual information that has been disclosed are that Thomas Araguz had apparently made an affidavit prior to his death containing the facts of his knowledge of Nikki Araguz, including Nikki's medical history and the potentially contentious nature of their marriage. The affidavit was apparently filed as an exhibit with the Motion to Dismiss the defense filed with the court on August 4, 2010. This means that, combined with the email messages Nikki and Thomas Araguz exchanged in October 2008 when Nikki was in Trinidad, Colorado have genital reconstruction surgery with Marci Bowers, MD, they seem to have ample evidence to establish that Thomas Araguz knew that Nikki Araguz was born with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), and although Nikki likely has an XY sex chromosome pair, the AIS condition meant that she could never function or reproduce as a male human being.

Another very important matter regarding the lawsuit does seem to have been informally settled by the parties regarding the various sums of money left to Nikki Araguz by Thomas Araguz. The plaintiffs are now agreeing with Nikki Araguz that a $60,000 retirement policy on which Thomas Araguz explicitly named Nikki Araguz the beneficiary and checked the "other" box regarding type of relationship does belong to Nikki Araguz and should not be contested as part of the lawsuit. However, the judge will probably need to sign off on this stipulation between the parties, since the judge had already frozen those and other funds as part of the previously entered temporary restraining order that prevents either party from accessing or spending any of the money the lawsuit is litigating over.

Nikki Araguz - media exploitation and personal revenge

One of the side effects of press and news media sensationalization of something like the civil lawsuits against Nikki Araguz by her late husband's the ex-wife, Heather Delgado, are the various forms of media exploitation that arise as a result. Such exploitation seems like the modern version of the puritanical era practice of locking someone in a pillory at the town square, to be the object of ridicule, harassment, and humiliation. Here are three examples.

a puritanical town square pillory

First of all, Nikki Araguz is being exploited by newspapers and television stations in Texas, who are reaping significant financial gain from writing, publishing, and broadcasting, sensationalized stories about the intimate and not always relevant details of Nikki Araguz's life. These are stories their producers apparently believe generate morbid curiosity among the largely bigoted and hostile viewing public within the culture that dominates much of Texas. The result is that they appear to believe that providing a sensationalized and lurid presentation of Nikki Araguz will increase their television ratings, sell more newspapers, or generate more visits to their web sites, all operated for profit from advertisers. What has also been noticeably absent from the television and newspaper sensationalization, is that the news media has refrained from reporting on the personal histories and background of Heather Deldago and Simona Longoria, who are the people suing Nikki Araguz on behalf of Thomas Araguz's two sons. Altogether, this seems like a quite corrupted approach to journalism.

The second form of exploitation has come from the creator of a college student video documentary about Nikki Araguz made about fifteen years ago. It is apparent that the author of the video was paid a significant sum of money by the Houston, TX Fox News television station for the exclusive rights to broadcast it. However, one can't help but notice that the video's author has not been identified, neither by Fox News in Houston, nor by Nikki Araguz and her attorneys, who must certainly know who created it. In addition, Fox News has committed the unethical act of showing only heavily edited, and self serving, excerpts from the video, overlaid with their own editorializing commentary and intercut with other video, to create the editorial slant they want to present their viewers.

In their television report, the Fox News representation of transsexualism is of her being "troubled", their term, and "confused", also their term, while the video itself presents an obviously happy, very young woman, even at nineteen or twenty years old, who claims she had not even been taking female hormones at that point, despite her significantly feminine physique and total lack of any secondary physical features that would be caused by testosterone. In fact, if in the future Nikki Araguz is able to present medical evidence that she was not taking female hormones at that time, that might serve as evidence she has a medical condition called partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS), implying there may be a clear physiological basis for her transsexual condition, causing some to reach the conclusion that she had both a transsexual medical condition and an intersex/hermaphroditic medical condition that impacted her youth. Parenthetically, women with total Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, are born with female genitalia, despite having an XY sex chromosome pair, because their bodies have no ability whatsoever to process testosterone, which is required during gestation in order for male genitalia to develop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

The potential that Nikki Araguz was born with AIS may provide a legal basis for making a claim to marriage legality that differs somewhat from the issues ruled upon in the Littleton v. Prange court case. Given this subtly significant aspect of that fifteen year old video, it seems likely that either or both parties to the probate/inheritance lawsuit will issue a subpoena to its creator, to produce it for use as evidence, which would also require him to serve as a witness to authenticate it for use as an exhibit and evidence if the case ever gets to trial. What has also gone unexamined by much of the press and media are the motivations behind someone selling such a video to a television station, which on a personal level means that person cares little about the feelings of Nikki Araguz, and doesn't care if Nikki Araguz, becomes the exploited victim of tabloid journalism, so long as the author makes a profit from it. Such a person is no friend of Nikki Araguz. Too bad that Nikki Araguz wasn't legally sophisticated enough at the time to require a written contract regarding the manner in which the author would be allowed to use the video of her in the future.

The third example of exploitation that has arisen, is the man Nikki Araguz apparently "ambushed" on a 1994 episode of the Jerry Springer Show. Once again all the newspapers and television stations have noticeably left that man's identity out of their news reports, despite the fact that his identity is surely publicly available and he can likely still be seen on television in re-runs of that episode of the Jerry Springer Show. Once again though, although Nikki didn't behave like a friend when she manipulated that man onto that television program without telling him about the disclosure she was going to make, the man she humiliated on the Jerry Springer Show has been able to turn the tables on her all these years later. That is quite a serious example of "what goes around comes around", and in this instance, it seems like Nikki's adversaries in the lawsuit against her are likely to use its implications about Nikki's character against her during the litigation as well.

Amazingly, at least from public appearances, Nikki Araguz seems to be holding up well emotionally, and except for displaying tangible grief about her late husband, she has handled intense public scrutiny with a significant level of detachment and maturity. The one asset Nikki Araguz undeniably has, is a team of attorneys with the desire, knowledge, tenacity, and apparently, the financial ability, to litigate this case on behalf of Nikki Araguz, no matter how long it takes, no matter how difficult the litigation, and no matter what the outcome.