Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the tag “school”

Yes, From a Page: a Review

As most of you know, I am an enormous fan of the progressive rock (sometimes shorted to “prog”) band Yes (I have written more about the genre of progressive rock here and more about Yes here).  On October 25, 2019 Yes released the E.P. entitled From a Page.  This album was released in tandem in a box set with a re-release of the live album In the Present – Live from Lyon.  I will only be reviewing From a Page, which is comprised of previously unreleased studio songs.

Before I get into the meat of the review, here is the basic information for the album:

Track List:

  • To the Moment (Wakeman), 6:09
  • Words on a Page (Wakeman), 6:18
  • From the Turn of a Card (Wakeman), 3:24
  • The Gift of Love (Wakeman, Squire, Howe, David, White), 9:52



From 2002 – 2004 the “classic” Yes line up (Jon Anderson, Chris Squire, Alan White, Steve Howe, Rick Wakeman) toured extensively and successfully, but in 2005 the band inexplicably went on a hiatus.  Finally, in 2008, Yes reformed with Jon Anderson continuing as lead vocalist, but without Rick Wakeman on keyboards due a conflict with his prior commitments.  To replace Rick Wakeman, Yes hired on his son Oliver Wakeman to play keyboards, who is a very skilled keyboard player in his own right.  This quintet went ahead and scheduled the Close to the Edge and Back Tour.  Unfortunately, this tour was cancelled due to Jon Anderson suffering a severe asthma attack.  Controversially, Yes went forward without Jon Anderson and hired Youtube Yes cover singer sensation Benoit David to replace him.  This lineup of Yes toured consistently until its final tour in the spring of 2011 (see here and here and here and here and here).

In 2010/11 Yes felt its new lineup was sufficiently road tested to finally reenter the studio.  Yes then began the writing and recording of what was to become Fly From Here.  Over the course of these sessions, Yes – with the line up listed above – wrote and recorded several songs and pieces of music.  During the sessions for Fly From Here, Yes persuaded Trevor Horn to return and help produce the song “We Can Fly” which Horn, along with keyboardist Geoff Downes, wrote for Yes back when they joined the band for the recording of Drama in 1980, but never officially recorded or released (though did play live on the Drama tour).

As Yes recorded and arranged We Can Fly – which evolved from an approximately five minute long song into a twenty-three minute epic suite – Yes thought bringing Geoff Downes back into the fold to play keyboards on the song he originally brought to the band in 1980 would be a good idea.  Unfortunately for Oliver Wakeman, Trevor Horn’s influence grew and Geoff Downes eventually did more than just lay down some keyboard tracks on his old song.  As the recording of Fly From Here progressed, Oliver Wakeman found himself out of the band and Geoff Downes in as keyboardist.

Once Geoff Downes was a full member of Yes again, some of what Oliver Wakeman wrote and recorded with Yes for Fly From Here was shelved in favor of more material written and arranged by Trevor Horn and Downes.  Oliver Wakeman’s Yes material was returned to him and shelved for many years until the untimely death of Chris Squire (see here), which inspired Oliver Wakeman to take another look at it.  Oliver Wakeman then began working on the music as a personal project for his own enjoyment and memory of the band, but after musing about the music on Twitter, Yes (now constituted by Jon Davison, Billy Sherwood, Steve Howe, Alan White, and Geoff Downes (with Jay Schellen as a touring drummer)) expressed interest in revisiting these songs with Oliver Wakeman.  As the only remaining members of the lineup that wrote and recorded the songs, Steve Howe and Alan White approved their release as an official Yes album.

Oliver Wakeman took the lead in writing these songs (which is presumably why he was given them upon his departure), though one song was more of a group effort.  This release consists of the only studio recordings made by the Oliver Wakeman lineup of Yes, which, on that basis alone, makes it a really valuable and interesting release for any Yes fan.  It also makes one wonder “what if” this line up stayed together and what it could have accomplished.  I am grateful that, at the very least, we have this release to offer a window into this lineup and I am looking forward to what the current lineup of Yes can produce.  It is also worth noting that these recordings contain the bass playing and singing of Chris Squire.  This album may turn out to be the last album of finished studio recordings by Yes (aside from “unreleased” tracks or demos or studio sessions and the like that could be contained on archival releases) on which Squire performs and, for that reason alone, this collection of songs is valuable to any Yes fan.

Before I get into the songs, it should be noted that the song “From the Turn of a Card” was used on another album featuring Oliver Wakeman (Ravens & Lullabies with Gordon Giltrap) and “The Gift of Love” features elements written by Chris Squire later used on “The Game” (specifically the wordless vocals and the melody for the chorus which includes the title of the song) which was eventually recorded and released on the album Heaven & Earth (see here).

The Songs:

I wanted to wait on writing this review until after the euphoria of new Yes studio songs wore off of me.  My first reaction to the songs was very simple: joy.  Since I received the album, I think I have listened to it a thousand times and I have continued to enjoy it nearly as much each time.

As Oliver Wakeman is the primary composer, the music tends to be led by keyboards – indeed often piano – more than a typical collection of Yes music.  This approach is somewhat refreshing and offers an interesting take on what is otherwise a classic Yes sound.

The first song “To the Moment” is a rollicking song based around a crunching guitar lick.  The singing is melodic with really nice backing vocals over the chorus, which quickly becomes an earworm.  The keyboard features are classic progrock synth solos in a very (Rick) Wakeman-esque style.  The instrumental interlude is somewhat brief, but Steve Howe’s guitar soars.  Indeed, his playing is more adventurous, soaring, and melodic on this album than most of his playing on Fly From Here and Heaven & Earth.

“Words on a Page” could almost be the “And You And I” of the 2010s.  The melodies are strong and emotionally evocative, and Steve Howe’s steel guitar really brings out the emotion.  The music is piano based at first, but slowly builds into a traditional “big” Yes sound with memorable themes which build and recapitulate with different instruments.

“From the Turn of a Card” – in terms of the basic song – is nearly identical to the version release on Ravens & Lullabies.  On Ravens & Lullabies the song is, ironically, a lot more “prog rock” and sonically diverse and, in some ways, I like it better.  The version on From a Page is basically a piano solo with harmonized vocals.  O. Wakeman recorded entirely new piano parts for this song and used alternate takes of Benoit David’s vocals that he recorded on Ravens & Lullabies.  In fact, perhaps the most interesting part of this song is the register David sings in throughout.  While his range is certainly generally consistent with Jon Anderson on nearly every other Yes song he has ever sung, he sings in a significantly deeper (i.e.: lower) register on this song, far lower than nearly any other Yes song and/or singer in Yes history, and that offers a new and welcome sort of sound for Yes.

“The Gift of Love” is the traditional long Yes track for this album.  This song is a melodious multi-part song with its sections being introduced, modulated, and recapitulated throughout the song in the standard Yes way, often contrasted with countermelodies.  This song, I think, can fit into best of the Yes canon.

“The Gift of Love” hits almost all the right notes for a Yes fan.  In fact, these songs do, in many places, what I love most about Yes songs.  There is very little straight up chord playing.  Instead, in the classic Yes style, the bass, guitar, keyboard, and singing are often playing different melodic lines that all seem to somehow work together in harmony.  The depth and complexity of what one should expect from Yes is present in this music.

The playing on the album is excellent.  Wakeman’s playing is perhaps the best keyboard playing on a Yes album since the Keys to Ascension collection.  Steve Howe’s guitar soars throughout, especially his steel guitar, however his acoustic work is atypically understated.  The singing is top notch and the backup singing is strong.  In fact, David’s performance on this album is much better than on Fly From Here.  The bass playing bears Chris Squire’s signature style and sound, however I have to say that of all the great parts on this album, there are no real memorable basslines or bass parts.  The drumming is sound and a lot stronger than what Alan White can muster today, but aside form a handful of interesting and subtle moments (like toward the end of “The Gift of Love”), the drumming is unremarkable.  Finally, perhaps another criticism that could be leveled at this album is that there is no really rocking and/or high tempo song.  They do not really get much beyond the mid-tempo “To the Moment.”

Overall, this album is a fantastic Yes album and can easily stand with the Yes canon.  It bears all the hallmarks of the traditional Yes sound, while also bringing a fresh, rejuvenated, and joyful approach that, for the Yes fan, makes for a very satisfying album.  Profound thanks to Oliver Wakeman for writing most of this music, inspiring Yes to play and develop it, and motivating the release of it.

Finally, the album art is a traditional Roger Dean Yes album cover.  The cover is one of his better ones from the last few years, as it has some unique elements (e.g.: the ship).  The back cover is, more or less, an artistic sequel to the artwork he provided for In the Present.

Tennessee Passes Law Protecting Faith-Based Adoption/ Foster Care Agencies

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

Yesterday, the Tennessee General Assembly gave final passage to HB0836 (full text) which bars denial of licensing or funding for faith-based child placement agencies. The law protects agencies that refuse to participate in placing a child for foster care or adoption in violation of the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies. According to AP, Gov. Bill Lee’s Communications Director says that the governor will sign the bill.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Joe Arcieri Songs: The Other Side (El Horror De Dracula)

Joe Arcieri is a friend of mine who I worked with for many years during my ten years working for Acme Markets.  Joe, when not stocking milk or saving lives as a nurse, is an excellent guitar player.  I have had the privilege, from time to time, of (badly) plunking my bass guitar with Joe as he melts a face or two with a great solo.

As great musicians do, Joe has written some of his own songs and keeps a soundcloud site to post them.  When I have opportunity, I will post his music here as well.

Here is his composition called “The Other Side (El Horror De Dracula)” which you can find here.

Here are the links to the previously posted songs by Joe:

YesSource: Live in Baltimore, 8/7/17

Here are my latest uploads to YesSource, my Yes rarities youtube page (about which you can read here).  This post is another addition to my series of Yes music posts and a collection of all my Yes-related posts is here.  Yes, of course, is a, if not the, premier progressive rock band, and I am an enormous fan of it.

You can see all of my Yessource uploads here.

My latest YesSource uploads can be found here:

PA Superior Court Says QDRO’s Take Effect Upon Execution of Marital Agreement

Conway v. Conway v. City of Erie Police Relief and Pension Association, 209 A.3d 367 (PA Super. 2019)

Brief Summary of the Facts:

Michael Conway (“Husband”) and Julie Conway (“Wife”) were married on July 12, 1991 and separated in August 2007.  Husband was employed as a police officer and filed for divorce on July 28, 2009. The parties executed a Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) on Aug. 19, 2016, that directed the parties to prepare, execute, and file a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) to allow Wife to receive her marital share of Husband’s pension. At the time of the execution of the MSA, Husband’s pension plan stated, with regard to a QDRO, “a former spouse of a Participant shall be treated as the spouse or surviving spouse for all purposes under the Plan.” A divorce decree was entered on Aug. 22, 2016, that incorporated the MSA. On Aug. 23, 2016, the municipality for which Husband worked amended the pension plan to read “a former spouse of a Participant shall not be treated as the spouse or surviving spouse for any purposes under the Plan,” (emphasis added). Wife submitted the QDRO to the pension plan administrator on Aug. 29, 2016, which denied the QDRO on the basis that as it was filed after the Aug. 23, 2016 pension plan revision and is inconsistent with the same. Wife filed a Motion for Entry of QDRO, which was denied by the trial court, prompting Wife to appeal to Superior Court.


Did the trial court err by failing to enter the QDRO submitted by Wife to secure her post-divorce rights to Husband’s pension when the MSA and Divorce Decree were both filed/entered and in effect prior to the revision to the pension plan? Holding A QDRO is an order “which creates or recognizes the rights of an alternate payee to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable to a participant under [a pension] plan.” A QDRO merely implements the terms of a preexisting MSA and does not in itself create new rights or terms. In the instant matter, the MSA was entered and incorporated into a Divorce Decree before the pension plan was revised; therefore, as the QDRO only serves to recognize and implement settled rights, it is enforceable as the underlying MSA predates the pension plan revisions. The denial of the QDRO amounts to an unlawful ex post facto application of the revised pension plan. Based on the above, the court directed the QDRO to be entered.


The court also pointed out that the objective of the Divorce Code “is to effectuate economic justice” for the parties to a divorce. In the court’s estimation, to rule against Wife “would deny [her] the benefit she bargained for and would cause an unfair and severe injustice concerning the parties’ settlement of their existing rights” and would be “contrary to the goal of achieving economic justice.”

Originally published in the Pennsylvania Family Lawyer in Volume 41, Issue number 3 (Autumn 2019)

YesSource: Live in Boone, 8/5/17

Here are my latest uploads to YesSource, my Yes rarities youtube page (about which you can read here).  This post is another addition to my series of Yes music posts and a collection of all my Yes-related posts is here.  Yes, of course, is a, if not the, premier progressive rock band, and I am an enormous fan of it.

You can see all of my Yessource uploads here.

My latest YesSource uploads can be found here:

Court Refuses To Examine Parties’ Need For Jewish Religious Divorce

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In A.W. v. I.N., (Sup Ct Nassau Cty NY, Jan. 2, 2020), a New York state trial court held that the 1st Amendment precludes it from looking beyond a wife’s sworn statement that she has, to the best of her knowledge, removed all barriers to the Husband’s remarriage. NY Domestic Relations Law §253 requires such a statement from a plaintiff in a divorce action, and also provides that the court may not look into any religious or ecclesiastical issue.  In this case, the husband sought a stay in entering a final judgment of divorce because the wife refused to appear before an Orthodox Jewish religious court and accept a get (divorce document) from the husband.  According to an affidavit from a rabbi submitted by the husband, the husband is prevented from remarrying without the wife’s acceptance of a get.  The wife contends, on the other hand;

the parties were not married religiously nor was there any religious ceremony. Therefore … since there was no marriage according to Jewish Law, there is no religious divorce to be had. The Wife states that she refused the Husband’s offers for a religious wedding ceremony because she wanted to avoid any religious divorce rituals. The Wife argues that in any event, the Husband is not a practicing Orthodox Jew.

The court said in part:

It would be a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution for the Court to order the Wife to participate in a religious ritual when she did not agree to do so.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Finding Attorneys in Contempt for Clients’ Actions in Divorce Case

No one wants to be held in contempt of court, and attorneys do their best to try and keep their clients from being held in contempt, but there are times when an attorney can be held in contempt of court for what his client does or does not do.

No one wants to be held in contempt of court, and attorneys do their best to try and keep their clients from being held in contempt, but there are times when an attorney can be held in contempt of court for what his client does or does not do. The recent Pennsylvania Superior Court case of Farrell v. Farrell, No. 1424 WDA 2018 (Pa. Super), should serve as a cautionary tale for all attorneys to keep in mind when discerning how much involvement their clients should have in the drafting and serving of legal documents.

Farrell is a divorce matter that involved two represented parties, the husband and the wife. The husband initiated the divorce action against his wife who, for the first two years of the case, elected to proceed on a pro se basis. When it was time for the case to be advanced to a divorce master, the wife hired an attorney. In the months leading up to the divorce master’s hearing, the husband issued the wife informal discovery requests. The wife ignored the requests, which led to the husband issuing follow-up correspondence, to which, again, the wife provided no response. As a result, the husband filed a motion to compel the responses to the discovery requests. The trial court granted the motion, and gave the wife 20 days to comply with the discovery requests.

Instead of taking an active role in helping her client respond to the discovery requests, the wife’s attorney simply allowed her client to type up the responses herself, which the attorney then forwarded to the husband’s attorney, unedited. In her responses, the wife refused to disclose some information, declared some requests “N/A,” and leveled personal attacks upon the husband in others.

The wife’s pro se responses provoked the husband’s attorney to file a motion to compel, for sanctions and for attorney fees. The court scheduled a hearing on the husband’s motion three days after the responses were filed, as the master’s hearing was scheduled for four days after the responses were filed. As a response to the husband’s aforesaid motion, the wife’s attorney immediately filed her own motion to compel and for attorney fees.

At the motion hearing, the husband admitted that more documents were produced by the wife, but her responses were still inadequate. Furthermore, the wife’s attorney indicated that she had not prepared the discovery responses for the husband, but simply allowed her client to type up the responses where provided on her own. The court took note of when the wife filed her above-mentioned motion and found that it was filed for the sole purpose of trying to “equalize” the motion filed by the husband, and not for any actual legally cognizable purpose.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court dismissed the wife’s motion and granted the husband’s motion, ordering that the wife may not produce any documentation not already produced in support of her own case. The court also found the wife’s attorney to be in contempt, ordering her to pay the husband’s attorney fees. The wife’s attorney filed for reconsideration and appealed this ruling to the Superior Court.

The wife’s attorney argued in both her motion for reconsideration and the appeal that she cannot be personally found in contempt as she was never actually ordered to do anything (only her client was) regarding discovery. To this end, she maintained that no evidence was ever produced demonstrating that she, personally, had any court order directing her to do anything, therefore there is no evidence that she disregarded a court’s order. She further argued that there was no evidence belonging to the wife that she had in her possession that was requested to be produced; therefore, she did not personally withhold anything from being produced in discovery.

As an initial matter, the Superior Court first noted that the wife’s attorney cited to no authority for the proposition that she cannot personally be held in contempt for her client’s actions or inactions. As a result, under established case law, her arguments, on that issue, were deemed waived as unsupported by authority.

Regardless, the court cited to Pa.R.C.P. 4019(g)(1) which states that “the court on a subsequent motion for sanctions may, if the motion is granted, require the … attorney advising such conduct … to pay the moving party the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees …”

Based on Pa.R.C.P. 4019(g)(1), the court determined that the wife’s attorney’s decisions to allow the wife to personally produce deficient and attacking discovery responses without the attorney offering any input or edits, did not comply with the trial court’s order to compel, and her filing of what appears to be a retaliatory motion to compel are all adequate grounds to hold the wife’s attorney in contempt of court.

So, while it is rare, practitioners should always be cognizant of the fact that they could be held in contempt of court for the actions of their clients, even if they were not personally directed by the attorney and there is no order directing the attorney to do anything.

James W. Cushing is a senior associate at the Law Office of Faye Riva Cohen and is a research attorney for Legal Research Inc.

Originally published in The Legal Intelligencer on December 16, 2019 and can be found here.

Yessource: Live in Tokyo, 4/19/17 (ARW)

Here are my latest uploads to YesSource, my Yes rarities youtube page (about which you can read here).  This post is another addition to my series of Yes music posts and a collection of all my Yes-related posts is here.  Yes, of course, is a, if not the, premier progressive rock band, and I am an enormous fan of it.

You can see all of my Yessource uploads here.

My latest YesSource uploads can be found here:

Yessource: 4/19/7 Yes/ARW Rehearsals in Tokyo (with Hornal on bass)

Here are my latest uploads to YesSource, my Yes rarities youtube page (about which you can read here).  This post is another addition to my series of Yes music posts and a collection of all my Yes-related posts is here.  Yes, of course, is a, if not the, premier progressive rock band, and I am an enormous fan of it.

You can see all of my Yessource uploads here.

My latest YesSource uploads can be found here

Post Navigation