November 09, 2015
Hofstra University opens this week with a convocation dedicated to the study of Frank Sinatra. The week ends with a concert by his son, Frank Sinatra, Jr., whose musical talents, in some ways, are greater than that of his father's. Frank Sinatra, Jr. is many things, but he is not his father.
Many years ago, at the elder Sinatra's last New York concert at Radio City, we spent a backstage intermission sipping Diet Cokes with Frank, Jr. He was nice, he was real and, as we would come to find out, he was a loving son. Call us prejudiced, but the latter quality is primary in our books.
At the end of the intermission (Don Rickles had opened), we were shown back to our seats by the Radio City ushers. On the way out (another story for another day), we met Frank's famous father. He was, well, Sinatra, and played that role perfectly. When the concert began again, it was Frank Sinatra's stage alone.
As good as Sinatra was (and he was), age relentlessly finds us all. Terribly vain, Sinatra would not wear glasses on stage. Since this was pre-65" LED TVs in the bathroom, the lyrics of Sinatra's songs were displayed for him instead on 27" studio monitors at the foot of the Radio City stage. The problem? In order for the lyrics to be big enough for Sinatra to see without glasses, a line could only contain a part of a sentence. Well, like any singer, Sinatra sings in phrases, not parts of sentences. Consequently, at times he
would lose his place in the lyric.
Enter his son, who was fronting a stellar orchestra which could have made anyone sound good. Frank, Jr. lovingly and with the practiced aplomb of a master, moved the music around the man, keeping his spirits up and making him look good. It appeared that Sinatra, the son, a superb singer in his own right, had other qualities too, perhaps some that his own father had never had the time to learn.
We thank MondayMonday reader Andrew Bokar for bringing to our attention this Second Circuit case, Franklin v. McHugh, Docket No. 14-4066, 2015 WL 6602023 (2d Cir., Oct. 30, 2015). Plaintiff, a retired colonel, alleged that his military records needed correction, that he was entitled to a retroactive promotion and back pay. While the Eastern District court dismissed his complaint for jurisdictional reasons, that's not what this case is doing in MondayMonday this week.
After the judgment dismissing his case was docketed, as a military officer, plaintiff had 60 days in which to file a notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)(1)(B) of the Fed- eral Rules of Appellate Procedure. On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff's counsel did just that via the district court's CM/ECF electronic filing system. He uploaded the notice of appeal and related documents and paid the fee online (www.pay.gov) as well, the latter emailing him a receipt for