Uncategorized

“Objection!” echoed loudly across the courtroom as Texas Youth and Government judicial delegates debated the case of Dominico De Sole v. Ann Freedman in the Texas State Capitol during the 2022 Texas Youth and Government State Conference. The plaintiff, representing Dominico De Sole, is suing Ann Freedman for the selling of fraudulent artwork. The defense, representing Ann Freedman, is arguing that she was deceived and did not actively sell fraudulent paintings. To win this case, the plaintiff attorneys must meet the burden of proof, meaning Ann Freedman is found guilty of mail fraud, wire fraud, and racketeering activities, which can be found as a violation in 18 U.S. Code 1962 C, 18 U.S. Code 1341, and 18 U.S. Code 1343. 

The plaintiff calls three witnesses to the stand, including Dominico De Sole, James Martin, and David Anfam. Dominico De Sole, the buyer of an $8.3 million dollar Mark Rothko painting, sold to him by Ann Freedman, is called to the stand. This specific Rothko painting is part of a larger Rosales Collection in the Knoedler Gallery, of which all of the artwork sales have been made by Ann Freedman, who is the president of the Knoedler Gallery. Dominico De Sole testifies that the information provided by Ann Freedman about the details of the painting are false. In addition to Dominico’s testimony, an invoice to Jim Kelly, Dominico De Sole’s art dealer, is entered into evidence, to prove wire fraud. The plaintiff’s second witness, James Martin was hired to examine the Rothko painting. He testified that he could not confirm the painting to be authentic, raising concerns of inconsistencies within the artwork. The plaintiff’s third and final witness, David Anfam, through his testimony, is established as an art historian, art critic, and art curator, whose career focuses on the works of Mark Rothko. While he was never hired to examine or authenticate the artworks, his name was still used by the Knoedler Gallery to authenticate the artworks based on Anfam’s opinion that the artwork was “beautiful”.

Ann Freedman, Laili Nasar, and Stephan Polcari all are called by defense attorneys to the stand. Ann Freedman is defined as a non-expert on paintings which causes her to rely on other art experts to authenticate the artworks she sells at Knoedler Gallery. Due to this, she is a non-reliable source for authentication. She testifies that David Anfam had shown interest in writing an essay on the Rothko piece, implying the painting was in fact authentic. Laili Nasar, the project manager for the Mark Rothko Catalogue Raisonne, testifies that although she never formally authenticated the painting, Ann Freedman used her name to promote the sale of the painting. Finally, the defense’s last witness Stephan Polcari, testifies that he was asked to view and author essays about the works that were part of Ann Freedman’s collection. He diverges from previous witnesses, stating that he believes there are no inconsistencies within the painting. Through his testimony, he posed that the time period when these paintings were created does not guarantee documentation of authenticity, therefore there is no way for Ann Freedman to know whether the painting is authentic or not.

Both the plaintiff’s and defense’s testimonies from the witnesses provide the audience with a broad scope of evidence to consider whether Ann Freedman should be found guilty in violation of multiple U.S. codes. Although, the testimonies made by Dominico De Sole, James Martin, and David Anfam, in addition to stipulated facts agreed upon by both parties, demonstrate the incriminating actions of Ann Freedman. She ignored the concerns raised by James Martin, and disregarded respect when incorrectly using both David Anfam and Laili Nasar’s names. Moreover, the stipulated facts state, “Ann Freedman had a profit sharing agreement with Knoedler for 30% of the same.” It can be concluded that Ann Freedman’s motivation in selling fraudulent artworks was to receive a profit. The stipulated facts go on to state that, “Martin’s analysis agreed with the Dedalus conclusions and asserted that the canvas backs and pigments on the surface post-dated the attributed dates of the works by at least ten years and were inconsistent with the understanding that the paintings were made in the 1950s.” This clearly shows that Ann Freedman knew there were inconsistencies with the painting before she sold it to Dominico De Sole. 

Attorneys on the case this year at the state conference agree with this conclusion. When asked about the ruling of the case, attorney Sebastian Solitaire from First Baptist Christian Academy said, “After reading through the case countless times, I leaned more towards Ann Freedman being guilty rather than ignorant.” 

Considering the evidence presented and the characteristics of the case, I believe that Ann Freedman should be found guilty of violating 18 U.S. Code 1962 C, 18 U.S. Code 1341, and 18 U.S. Code 1343. 

Written by: Kristen Henderson

A Smelly Situation in the Ballroom 

By Margaret Chein, Episcopal School of Dallas

The Renaissance Austin Hotel is a beautiful hotel just north of downtown Austin. Upon walking through the sliding glass doors, guests enter a nine-story atrium with amazing skylights and great natural lighting. Today though, Junior Youth and Government (JYG) delegates found the smell more noticeable than the architecture. 

“It smells like a gas station bathroom,” said Dallas representative, Micah Frazier. His fellow Dallas representatives added that “it smells like puke” and “like somebody died.” As the first group to arrive, Dallas students noticed the smell of manure getting stronger as they descended to the basement ballroom, where a quickly expanding puddle was a dominant feature. Thankfully, delegates only spent about thirty minutes with the smelly flood and were moved upstairs to the Atrium, which was mostly smell-free. 

Missy Garcia, Interim State Director of JYG said the puddle, which is of an unknown origin, is coming from outside the hotel. The hotel “had a little bit of flooding in their back storage units and the downstairs Rio [ballroom],” said Garcia. “A grease line might be the culprit of the smell,” she added. A grease line is a pipe connecting a building to a city-run grease trap, a crucial device that keeps damaging fat out of the sewer system. A hotel employee confirmed a pipe burst in the recent freeze and is causing the problem. 

Both the smell and the water are slowly creeping into the hallway outside the downstairs committee rooms. The hotel has “shampooed, [vacuumed], and done all kinds of stuff,” Garcia assured. “[The flood] is more so in their back facility.” Though the water is “still flowing,” Garcia says the problem is “not impacting our conference at all.” House representative Emory Turner backed this up by saying she’s “become immune to the smell after a while.” 

Fortunately, JYG leaders collaborated with hotel staff to find alternative solutions to accommodate conference activities, and sessions were able to proceed on schedule with minimal disruption. Dinner tonight will be held in the ballroom adjacent to the flood site. 

By Analiese Wensmann

Bill #17 from Committee #4 proposed to allow teachers to carry concealed handguns at school to help prevent school shootings. There were many points to this bill and also many questions to help in deciding this bill’s fate, but in the end this bill was not passed, those for this bill were severely outvoted five to one.

There were multiple questions asked during the time that this bill was being debated, but there were only a couple that particularly stuck out. The main one that got the legislation to talk was “What stops a student from taking the ‘handgun’?” The legislation got to talking about this and it led to that the student would not know where the handgun would be due to it being concealed, this question did pass but it never left anyones minds about there being a chance the student could find it. Another question was “What prevents a teacher from acting out?” There were multiple answers to this question, the main answer was that they would put the teachers through more tests then a normal permit would need. The last main point that was brought up was, “How would this affect a students mental health?” They could not come to a definitive point, but the two that they argued about was that the students would not feel comfortable knowing that the staff of the school would be carrying around a handgun while they were defenseless, and the other was that not every staff member would be carrying this handgun only the teachers would be, this would be so that the students could feel comfortable around their counselors.

Yes, there were many points for this bill, and yes there were many people considering passing this bill. At the end of the day though, the bill ended up in the trash and at the back of everyone’s heads as they moved on to the next bill to discuss.

By Devan Hodges

Chloe Gaytan is a senior at Veterans Memorial High School in San Antonio, TX. This year is her first year at the youth and government competition. In her free time, she plays Volleyball and works out. She has sparked up an interest in government because the class is a requirement for seniors in the state of Texas. Because of her enjoyment in government, she was notified that there was a competitive government team. Once she joined, she immediately started to design her bill. She says “I am overly ecstatic to make new experiences and learn more about government.” Chloe is competing in the Legislative category.

Chloe is the daughter of Isa and Gilburt Gaytan and the sister of Nicholas Gaytan. In and out of school, she is known for her amazing and bubbly personality. She is known throughout the school and her community for having an ongoing positive attitude. Chloe is an A student. She is so intelligent that she just recently got a full tuition scholarship to the University of Incarnate Word in San Antonio, TX. Her astonishing work in academics paid off. Senior Lily Standridge from Veterans Memorial in San Antonio, TX, says “One word to describe Chloe is compassionate. I say this because she puts pride into everything she does.” Chloe is loved by everyone around her and knows how to put a smile on anyone’s face.

Chloe is a natural born leader. She is captain of the volleyball team at Veterans. She has been on varsity Volleyball since her sophomore year, and she was on junior varsity her freshman year. She has impressed her coaches and teammates tremendously with all the effort and dedication she puts into the sport. She also played in the SA Empire team and was captain. Chloe is very dedicated to volleyball and hopes to maybe play in college.
Chloe’s ultimate goal in life is to be a psychologist. She wants to go to school to get her doctorate in psychology. She wishes to finish her schooling to please herself and her parents. Her father is her role model because he dropped out of high school his freshman year to help support his family. She is inspired by him because despite the conditions her father went through, he still made it to where he is now and didn’t give up along the way. She aspires to be like him because when things get hard she wants to have the strength to keep going although things get in the way.

Chloe is here today to get a bill passed. Her bill is about public attorneys being overworked. She sees an issue and wants to fix it by essentially making everyone a “public attorney”, that way there is less stress put on public attorneys. She plans on doing this by having the lawyers work for the state. She believes that just because someone has more money then another doesn’t mean they should be able to get away with everything simply because they have more money to give a lawyer more motivation.

Chloe is a well-rounded student with integrity. She is adored by everyone around her and always has a loving smile on her face that can brighten up a room. She is destined to do great things because of her dedication and drive to have a successful life. Chloe’s personality is like a ray of sunshine in someone’s darkest days. She is a very responsible person overall and has the ability to lighten up everyone’s mood around her. The world is lucky to have Chloe Gaytan!

By Sophia Chau, LASA Delegation Austin District Conference

A core component of Democracy is elections. This year, two candidates are running for Attorney General at the Youth and Government (YAG) Austin District Conference: Catherine Masey of the Liberal Arts and Science Academy delegation, and Elif Painaik of the NYOS Charter School delegation. According to Masey, she is running on a platform of unity and outreach. According to Painaik, she is running on a platform of organization. If elected, the winning candidate will serve as Attorney General for next year’s conference.

Masey’s proposals include creating programs where YAG members would give presentations to younger students.

“Youth and Government participants [would] create and give presentations to younger students on the judicial process and things like that,” Masey said.

Painaik’s organization-based platform would include giving packets to judges on how to judge and optimizing the system for YAG registration and applications for financial aid. According to Painaik, expanding access to financial aid is crucial.

“I think it’s a shame, especially if a talented attorney or judge—or anyone—couldn’t participate just because of money,” Painaik said.

Voting took place during the conference’s lunch period, where a ballot box was set up that students could place their votes in. The results will be announced at the closing ceremony of the conference, which starts at 4:45 p.m.

Whoever wins, both candidates agree that YAG has given them valuable experience, and wish to continue its legacy.

“I love this program so much,” Painaik said, “and I think the better I can make it for myself and the leaders that come after me in this program, the better.”

Photo (left): A participant casts a vote during the lunch period of the 2021 Youth and Government Austin District Conference. This year, participants voted for one of two candidates running for Attorney General.

By Devan Hodges

A Bill for the Betterment of Campaign Finance

Today November 20, 2021 at the Youth and Government competition in Austin,TX, Senator Cooper Baldwin from Veterans Memorial High school in San Antonio Texas is proposing a very important bill. He is from the Austin Bexar County Delegation. Cooper Baldwin’s case is titled “A Bill for the Betterman of Campaign Finance.” It is about “initiating a small donor matching program in which individual contributions to federal campaigns can be matched” says Cooper. In other words he says, “The government will give a certain amount of money to a six to one ratio to that individual contribution, kicking it up to what could be a potential $1,400 dollar contribution from $200 dollars.” Cooper wants to pursue this bill because it allows for more average Americans to be able to be a part of the political process.

Cooper says “I have this legal standing because of the FEC (the Federal Election Commission). They are allowed to conduct an election”. When presenting this bill, Cooper Baldwin says his strategy is to “appeal to most of the Senators’ vision for Texas and for our country going forward.” His reasoning, he says, is because, “we know that we have huge influence, almost all of our influence (95% of it) is money in our political system from super PACS and corporations, and .9% of the money infused into federal politics is from individual contributions, which is a massive problem because it means massive corporations and super PACS are speaking for ordinary Americans.” Big money corporations have taken over the political influence which is an issue because politics are for the people, by the people. With big corporations, this is limiting the power of the people.

“This bill came up when New York City, New York came up with a system doing small donor matching programs for decades but on a federal and state basis, this is going to be a new program. It is borne out of the need to overcome the power of super PACS and big money interest in our politics” Cooper states. This is where he got the idea from. He is pushing for this but at a political and federal stance as his ending goal is to allow people to have more influence in politics. It is critical for this because political leaders are influencing the average American’s everyday life.

Cooper Baldwin’s bill is about changing the influence of big money in American politics. He wants to be able to have more Americans involved in politics because, as he states, 95% of all influence in politics comes from big money corporations. He is very passionate about this Bill because it allows for average Americans to regain their voice in today’s political climate. He got the idea from New York and Sacramento as they do small donor matching programs that donate a percentage of money from what a civilian donated. Presenting the bill today, Cooper has to appeal to the people he stands before and give reasoning behind his idea.

The Freedman Court Trial

By Abby McAdams

Ann Freedman, an art saleswoman, was accused of knowingly selling a fake painting to Dominico de Sole. The trial commenced with de Sole’s testimony against Freedman. De Sole had received a referral to Freedman from a fellow dealer in Arizona. He claimed he bought a painting from Freedman in 2005, then in 2011, his wife found evidence that the painting was a fake. He argued in court that Freedman had cheated him into buying an “authentic painting”. The next witness was then brought forth – David Anfam. Anfam is an art curator and historian who claimed his name was falsely credited to have authenticated Freedman’s works. He revealed that he did send a letter of recommendation supporting Freedman, but never directly stated that he authenticated her.

Finally, the last witness of testimony was called to the stand – Jamie Martin. Martin is an expert witness and forensic analyzer for art. He was asked by de Sole to authenticate his painting after his wife suspected it was fake, and Martin discovered it, in fact, was. Martin analyzed the pigments used in the painting and determined that it couldn’t be authentic. After the accusers took a seat, Ann Freedman claimed her innocence to the court. She admitted she sold the painting to Dominico but didn’t know they were fake. She then went on to claim she did not take Anfam’s quote out of context. The next witnesses were Stephen Polcari and Laili Nasv. Polcari claimed that the International Foundation for Art Research used his opinion to determine the authenticity of Freedman’s paintings. Nasr, manager for the National Gallery of Art, had her opinion used without permission by Freedman.

The conclusion of the trial ended with Freedman’s conviction. Freedman was proven fraudulent by the accusers to have knowingly sold fake art to Dominico, as in her defense speech, she was factually inconsistent. The closing statement of the accusers stated “she took opinions and made them expert authentication out of context”, and accused her of committing mail fraud.

By Adriana Quevedo

Should the heartbeat act be repealed? Bill 27 was introduced by Mona Rosas and most of the delegates leaned towards the passing of this bill. The author of the bill started the opening statement by stating the current policy of heartbeat act. The heartbeat act is the abortion law in Texas that states that 6 weeks after conceiving a woman cannot abort the fetus. Then the delegate stated how she wanted to change the policy back to the original abortion law. The original abortion law declares that 24 weeks after conception a woman cannot get an abortion.

The questioning period was made up of multiple pro stances. One delegate asked if the author believes a person who has passed has more autonomy than a woman who wants to abort her child. The author said yes. A similar question asked was “Do you agree that a fetus that isn’t born yet has more autonomy than the person carrying the child?” The author responded with “no”. The answers to these two similar questions show the reality of how the author views the heartbeat act and what the heartbeat act enforces. I went and asked for an interview from a pro and con perspective. The questions were the same, but as I was asking the questions I realized the difference between the peoples standpoints.

The first question I had asked was how does the heartbeat act apply to them and/or others that they know. The Pro perspective responded explaining that being young and in a progressive generation it is looked down upon by traditionalists to abort and that younger generations need to make a change. She also stated that she believes that due to the heartbeat act being in place women could try to self-harm to get rid of their child. Due to this act of self-harm the woman with the child could end up hurting herself and the child if they both survive. This delegate responded answering my next question which was what is a solution to the controversy on this topic. The last question I had asked was “Should Pro-Life centers be able to say no to giving treatment?” At the current moment pro-life facilities are able to refuse abort the fetus. The Pro perspective presented that the way that in professional environments or the way that schools don’t allow teachers to express their personal beliefs is the way that doctors should be when presented with a woman who wants to abort their child.

The Con’s perspective to how the heartbeat act apply to them and/or people around them was that the heartbeat act draws a line well because it allows people their own freedom while also recognizing that fetus’ have a heartbeat and therefore are seperate entities. The Con perspective responded very strongly that if someone around them wanted an abortion they would tell them that their family would adopt the child after the person births the child. That is how the delegate would act upon the situation themselves. The last question “Should Pro-Life centers be able to say no to giving treatment?” very simply and straightforward. The delegate responded saying if a doctor who had gone to school for that job got their license revoked for refusing to give a treatment due to personal beliefs that is a different problem. The delegate also stated that the doctor that went to school for eight years should be able to make that decision of giving the treatment should be their own.

Although the opinions of the delegates varied, Bill 27 passed due to the majority of the delegates approving it.

By Analiese Wensmann

Masks are something that everyone has to live with for however long COVID is going to be around, we don’t know how long we have to wear them either. That’s where people’s preferences come into play. People have gotten bored of just what they call ‘plain and simple’ surgical masks, so what they have done is switched to wearing and making reusable fabric masks that come in all kinds of patterns, colors, sizes, etc. A lot of people like different things, no one can like the same thing as everyone else, and although everyone may seem to just be wearing masks and there’s really nothing to it, there is always an idea behind what they have on.

Some people prefer surgical masks over fabric masks. Someone named LeeAnn Partin is one of those people. She prefers the surgical masks because they “are probably better because they can be recycled back into the environment”, she believes this because she thinks that they are “more convenient” and don’t really have a chance of harming the wildlife if you end up losing your mask or dropping it out of your car.

Although there are some people who prefer surgical masks, there are a lot more who like fabric masks. Sterling Johnson prefers “the more fabric ones because they just feel better and they’re more comfortable”, he believes this because he can just reuse the fabric masks instead of throwing away a mask everyday while being comfortable at the same time.

There could also be some psychological reasons behind wearing surgical masks over fabric masks or wearing fabric masks over surgical masks, perhaps it has something to do with someone’s personality. Sterling Johnson believes that “it does have something to say about someone’s personality, because whatever they might be wearing could resemble something in their life”. What he’s saying here is depending on what someone is wearing, be it different patterned masks, plain colored, or surgical masks could have something to do with how they present themselves as a person or showing something in their personality.