By Rob Holbert Managing Editor

Well, it seems our long metropolitan nightmare might actually be over since David Thomas finally got the boot from the school board he so richly deserved.

Impeachment. It’s an ugly word. It basically means, “Gee, you’re really so horrible and dishonest we can’t possibly wait until the election cycle comes back around to vote you out. We gotta get you gone right now!” And that’s about right for Thomas. He was horrible and dishonest. Truly.

But we must all admit it’s going to be a much more boring place to live without David Thomas to kick around anymore. It’s been one incredible faux pas after another, and the impeachment trial coverage was priceless. I can hardly wait for the inevitable appeal.

What’s that? You don’t think David Thomas and his legal mouthpiece Donald Briskman will appeal the impeachment? Maybe you’re right, but judging from Thomas’ dead-eyed expression after the verdict, I’d guess he’s going to struggle all the way down.

Of course, this isn’t the end of Thomas’ time in courtrooms, anyway. He’s still got some criminal charges to deal with surrounding all his glug-glug, vvrrrooom-vrooommm, thump-thump antics.

So, being the helpful guy I am, I’d like to dissect the failed Thomas impeachment defense and where things went wrong. It might help David and Donald to avoid future embarrassment, and it also may be instructional for generations of law students who will surely study this defense as an exercise in what not to do.

Let’s look at the major flaws in Thomas’ defense:

• Blaming the secretaries. Yes, Thomas’ lone called witness in his defense was deputy school superintendent Samantha Ingram, who tried to claim none of this would have happened if secretaries had simply followed set procedures. While blaming underlings for misdeeds is a tried and true method enjoying much popularity these days (See George Bush and Don Singleterm), trying to claim secretaries could have somehow stopped the arrogant and despotic Thomas was a laugher.

Frankly, it makes me wonder what kind of rocks Ingram must have in her head to come into court and suggest such things. At a time when David Thomas was busy trying to knock off their boss Harold Dodge, it’s doubtful too many school system secretaries were going to stick their necks out to keep DT from his bounty of moonpies.

• Suggesting David Thomas only threw all those beads, moonpies and stuffed animals in order to keep kids off the Internet. Yes, Briskman actually managed to make this point while keeping a straight face and without having Judge Charlie Graddick put him in a headlock.

Apparently Briskman tried to make some vague point that the DA’s office doesn’t want little black children on MLK Avenue benefiting from Mardi Gras and David Thomas’ largess.

“Would the DA’s office rather have them watching MTV, playing loud music in their cars or pulling up filth on the Internet?” Briskman was reported to have asked.

While one could easily debate the logic of suggesting that standing out on the side of the road watching thousands of intoxicated adults catch trinkets thrown by drunk maskers and public officials is somehow morally superior to playing loud music, watching MTV or checking out Persiankitty.com on the Internet, we’ll leave that matter to the philosophers. The most ludicrous part of Briskman’s supremely ludicrous rhetorical question is the tacit suggestion that David Thomas wasted 9,000 bucks on throws in order to help the kids. The old “He Did It For The Little Children Defense.” I’m sure that’s exactly what DT was thinking as he was perusing the inventory at Mardi Gras Annex.

Can’t you just imagine what we were supposed to believe Thomas was thinking? “Hmmmmm, I wonder if a 15-year-old boy would rather catch a stuffed parrot or surf the Web for porn? Would he rather scramble around for a nanner moonpie or listen to Three 6 Mafia in his car? I better just buy it all, the kids are just too darned important to worry about money!”

Actually, Mr. Briskman, given Thomas’ history, it’s probably safer to assume he’d much rather have the kids inside pulling up filth on the Internet during Mardi Gras than standing around on the streets where they’re likely to be hit by his Land Rover. Don’t cha think?

• Presenting “The Check.” This was perhaps the defense’s worst moment. Confronted with the fact that DT double-dipped the school system and The National School Board Association for his trip to Las Vegas, the defense presented a carbon copy of a check Thomas had obviously ripped from his checkbook that morning as some sort of “proof” he’d tried to pay the school system back. Naturally Thomas’ check got lost – probably one of those darn secretaries again – and he forgot to look and see if it ever went through.

Stupid? Yes. But it got worse when the prosecution easily showed the submitted check was 450 numbers off from the checks Thomas was writing at that time, and that he only had about $50 in his account at the time. I’m sure the prosecutors had to fight back the urge to shout “Snap!” after they shot down that idiotic gambit.

It is fun to imagine the cold sweat trickling down Briskman’s spine when he heard DT’s account was tapped out. Briskman might want to get a cashier’s check for his legal services when all of this is over. Then again, given the goofy nature of the defense, fifty bucks might more than cover what it was worth.

Thomas and Briskman still have more than a few days in court ahead of them, so maybe this will help keep them from repeating past mistakes. Farewell boys, and thanks for all the laughs.

Rob Holbert is Lagniappe managing editor. Contact him at rholbert@lagniappemobile.com.

Archives