Claims And Issues

Claims and Issues -- Author's Note: Commercial Advertising Not Authorized and Not Linked.

 

**Author's Note:  If you have reached this blog through a list that carries advertising, your computer may or may not be put at risk either through the list or through the advertising.  I do not accept or authorize any commercial advertising of any kind on any list or post.  Hyperlinks are offered here as a courtesy to my readers.  In this digital age, readers may have come to expect hyperlinks.  Rather than posting notices with each and every hyperlink that may be cited on this blog, please note this:  If you choose to use any of the hyperlinks offered here, be advised that these links to third-party sites offering online access are strictly under their exclusive control.  Placing commercial advertisements with or near any of my web log posts is prohibited.  Further, I do not recommend any products or services advertised with or near any of my posts or any list of my posts, nor do I accept any payments of any kind for any links displayed on this blog.** 

 

THE BATTLE AT THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. MONDAY, MAY 12, 2025.

To rephrase the words of a popular song from back in the day, 'The regime fought the law.  And the law won.'

Library of Congress.  (Library of Congress Website)

 

On Monday, May 12, 2025, they fought a Battle at the Library of Congress.  The regime planned that day to take over the U.S. Copyright Office housed in the Library of Congress.  But the Librarians were ready.

When the smoke from the fire and brimstone cleared away, the Evildoers from the regime had left the field of battle.  And the Librarians still held the Library.

This is probably not the end of the story.  In fact, it is almost certainly not the end; the regime doesn't ever seem to stop trying despite its repeated  failures.  But the Librarians will be ready for them if they come back. 

Will anyone else be ready?  Things are looking brighter on that front than they did in late January of 2025.  We have a long way to go.  Take the long view.

Celebrate successes along the way.  And remember the example set by the Librarians on Monday, May 12, 2025.

What follows is an article I previously published on Substack earlier this week.  I have continued to try to find further information on this event, including on what steps if any the regime is taking to avenge their humiliation.  I have nothing new to report.  The article that follows is based on the latest -- and only -- information available, so far as I can find it.

LIBRARIANS ROCK.

When you rile up a librarian, you better watch out if you know what's good for you.

I do not know what happened after the librarians kept the regime's agents from taking over the U.S. Copyright Office.

The agents showed up on Monday, May 12, 2025  at the Library of Congress which houses the U.S. Copyright Office.  The librarians stopped them from taking it over and called the cops.  Then the agents went away.

I have looked over the whole Internet but I have not been able to find out what if anything happened since Monday (and certainly something has, we just haven't heard about it, yet).

I have asked for information on social media and here on Substack, but so far crickets.

All I know for sure is that librarians did not allow agents of the regime to take over the U.S. Copyright Office in the Library of Congress on Monday.

The reports I have read identify the two agents of the regime as "Department of Justice officials."  Are you kidding me?  Do you not know who runs the Department of Justice now?  It's not the same Department of Justice that your mothers and fathers grew up with, you know.

Some reports have also mentioned Shira Perlmutter, the Director of the Copyright Office and Carla Hayden, the Librarian of Congress.  The reports had it that both were "fired" by the head of the regime.  I call BS.

I call BS because the head of the regime did not fire either person.  He could only say that he fired them; he never had the actual power.  Don't give it to him.

Relish instead the only facts we truly have, and they are good to know:  Librarians turned away agents of the regime when they tried to take over.

We need more librarians.  Or, at least we need more of the courage that inspired librarians displayed at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. on Monday.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

Librarians ROCK.

https://claimsandissues.substack.com/p/librarians-rock

Petitioning is Not as Lonely as it Was.

https://claimsandissues.substack.com/p/emily-feiner-and-more-many-more-profiles

To Be A Drum Major For Justice.

https://claimsandissues.substack.com/p/say-that-i-was-a-drum-major-for-justice

An Open Letter to my Fellow Lawyers.

https://claimsandissues.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-my-fellow-lawyers

PERKINS COIE LLP v. U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE Memorandum Opinion, May 2, 2025.

 

https://claimsandissues.substack.com/p/perkins-coie-llp-v-us-dept-of-justice

Private Projects, Public Money.

https://claimsandissues.substack.com/p/the-skinny-budget-calling-names-different

"Say That I Was A Drum Major For Justice."

https://claimsandissues.substack.com/p/say-that-i-was-a-drum-major-for-justice

What Did They Sell to the Regime?

What's in the Contracts between Big Law Firms and the regime?

(A Photo of Editing, by LexisNexis)

On Tuesday, April 29, 2025 twenty Attorneys General released a letter on behalf of the people living in their united States, titled "An Open Letter to the Legal Community Regarding President Trump's Attacks on Lawyers and Law Firms."  It referenced, in part, the fact that certain Big Law Firms have made arrangements we know nothing about except that these Big Lawyers have agreed to "provide free legal services" to the head of the regime.

We have not seen the contracts, the "deals" Big Law made to save their privileges and retainers.  They agreed to provide something called "free legal services" in exchange for being able to keep their income, well, coming.  The Attorneys General perhaps said it best when they demanded access to these "agreements":

The terms of these “deals” have never been fully disclosed and may themselves be subject to change at the whims of the President or his Administration. The public deserves to
know the terms of the agreements these law firms have reached.

Truer words were never spoke:  "The public deserves to know the terms of the agreements these law firms have reached."

The public has access to the letter of the Attorneys General.  We can read their letter for ourselves whenever we want.  Download 2025-0429_Open-Letter-to-Legal-Community-April-2025  

So why then can we not access the deals/agreements/contracts that this handful of Big Law Firms made with the regime?

What are they hiding?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

Pray for the Conclave.

They need a visit from the Holy Spirit.  We all do.

This prayer is published on page 233 of Robert Harris's book, CONCLAVE (2016).  I do not know who wrote it, but I like it and I think it is more than appropriate for the time and the occasion; it is written for them:

            Gracious God of majesty and awe,

            I seek Your protection,

            I look for Your healing.

            Poor troubled sinner that I am,

            I appeal to You, the fountain of all mercy.

            I cannot bear Your judgement

            But I trust in Your salvation ....

(Italics in original.)

Please read the disclaimer. This blog post ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

"Ethel, Who the Hell Are These People?"

 

Video of Tufts PhD student abduction.  Here is the web address for one site where you can view it: https://twitter.com/i/status/1904933137328570859.  

And here is CNN's web site for its video report on the abduction: https://twitter.com/i/status/1904933137328570859.

 

 

HOLY SPIRIT GUIDE THE CONCLAVE THAT IS TO COME.

Pope Francis has died but his influence has not.  Long live the Pope and may the Holy Spirit take up residence at the Conclave that is to come, for the duration of it.

This ancient prayer has been modified slightly to fit the situation:

Come Holy Ghost

Come Holy Ghost, Creator Blest,

and in our hearts take up Thy rest,

Come with Thy grace and heavenly aid,

To the Conclave which Thou hast made,

To fill the hearts which Thou hast made.

 

Inspire them with Your Truth as you inspired the Holy Father, Francis!

Amen.

I call BS on "devout Catholics" fake journalism.

Mother Theresa.  (Wikipedia)

So many reporters have been fired or quit their jobs that many of the ones who are left in journalism often don't know what they are talking about.

Perhaps vaguely aware that they do not know what they are reporting about, and certainly because at least in part they do not have enough time to speak or write their stories, they are tempted to use shorthand in their reports.  Shorthand as anyone knows is often wrong.

Add this all together and you have a lethal journalistic mix.

One of the overworked shorthand phrases is "devout Catholic."  Unfortunately for accurate story-telling, the people that the remaining journalists describe as "devout Catholics" are often anything but.  On Easter Sunday, I call BS on that.

I read that description used to refer to Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, some of whom have proven by their public conduct that they are anything but devout Catholics.

I read that description as recently as today about a man who met with Pope Francis.  That meeting alone apparently merited the man's description as a "devout Catholic."  Not hardly, pilgrim.  This man had already accused Catholic clergy of smuggling refugees into the U.S., as if bringing refugees to America was ever a wrong or bad thing to do -- before now, at any rate.

This same man acts like he is more Catholic than the Pope.  With the zeal of a recent convert, he even argues falsely that it is "Catholic doctrine" to withhold concern from the least of our neighbors after expending all of one's concern on those closest to him.

That is not "Catholic doctrine."  To say otherwise is disguised bigotry.  Whether the ones who say it are recently elected government officials travelling on the taxpayers' dime, or whether the ones who write it have public microphones of their own, it is bigotry disguised as in-the-know bluster.

What is "Catholic doctrine" is Christian doctrine shared by all Christians and by many people of all persuasions.  On this Easter Sunday, it is important to say and write the truth, which is that whatever we do for the least of our sisters and brothers, that we also do for our God.  That is what it means to be a "devout Catholic."

And I call BS on ever describing the opposite as being the real thing.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

 

WHAT's in the Big Law Contracts with the regime ...

A Good Friday 2025 P.S. to an article published here on April 16, 2025.

I am hearing vague reports, you probably are hearing them too, that some of the Big Law firms are beginning to regret their arrangements with the regime.  Specifically, some of them dispute what the regime is saying is covered by Big Law's contract to provide pro bono work to the head of the regime, work on things like tariffs and immigration.  

Personally, I have my doubts.  But even if any of this is true, seeing the documents would answer all questions including about the arrangements written in them about pro bono work.

I will have more to say in future articles about pro bono work, but it's enough to say this one thing again:  WHAT's in the contracts?

Why have we not seen the documents?

Contracts never say what people say they say; contracts only say what is written in them.

Free the contracts now!  Release them!

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

HERE NOW THE “WHAT.” With a little “When” at the end.

"Never Give Up" Sign, April 5, 2025, a National Day of Protest. (Author Photo)

 

We have heard and read about agreements between the regime and some Big Law Firms and some universities.  These agreements are of course contracts.

Some Big Law Firms for example have agreed to donate pro bono hours not to the regime as I have heard it, but donated instead to the leader of the regime personally.  He will decide how Big Lawyers spend their pro bono time. 

Where are their contracts?

Why have we not seen their contracts?  What’s in them?

As a lawyer who has read and given advice about many contracts, I know that what is written in them is what is in them, never what anybody says is in them.

So what is in them?

Only the contracts can tell.  Let’s see the contracts.  (I will have more to say about lawyers’ pro bono work in a later post.)

Parenthetically, it is important that at least one feature of these faceless agreements reported by the regime and by Big Law Firms and by the press is work for the regime’s master.  Lawyers have been leaving the Department of Justice in droves since the events of January 20 through the present day.  Big Lawyers are apparently their replacements because the people they are now working for can’t retain employees, including lawyers.

Universities for their part have reportedly agreed to allow the regime to proof their work, so to speak; the courses they offer and presumably the people who will teach them are all now controlled by the regime under these arrangements.  These too are clearly written contracts.

Where are they?  Where are the written contracts that you and I might see them and read them and know what all the things are to which these institutions of higher learning have committed their faculty and students?

To put it another way, what’s in these contracts exactly?

This may have nothing to do either with Big Law or with the universities, but I do not know yet for sure.  Here's another contract that needs to be produced to the people:  What is in the contract between the regime and El Salvador to hold prisoners sent there by the regime?

And now, in closing, for a brief “When” question:  When are the people who are supposed to ask these questions going to ask them?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

WHO ARE THEY? Call them by their names.

"Hands Off Our Civil Rights."  Sign on April 5, 2025, a National Day of Protest, in 95° Weather.  (Author Photo)

People are being taken from the streets and from their homes and I don’t know who’s taking them away.

The ones taking people away often refuse to identify themselves when asked.  They always seem to wear plain clothes.  Sometimes they also wear masks.

Who are they?  I for one do not know. 

I have not heard that anyone has challenged these people to show a badge or identification.  Sometimes they wear the word “Police” on their jackets, if they wear jackets.  Then they should also have a badge or ID on them, I should think.  If they really are “Police.”

All we hear and read is that they are “ICE agents,” or that they are “U.S. Marshals,” and the only evidence we have of either is their say-so.

We have video footage that can be scanned, at least we have some video footage of some of the abductions.  In some of the footage, we can see their faces.

I know only from television shows that it might be possible to identify people whose pictures appear in videos. 

Wouldn’t it be something if it turned out that they are from organized militias and not from ICE or the Marshals at all?

“Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How.”  Next up:  the What.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

Two PROFILES IN COURAGE 2025.

One wrote an EMail.  The other stood up to the ways of Private Equity.

 

Sunset in Greenland.  (Hannes Grobe/AWI; Wikimedia Commons)

COL. SUSANNAH MEYERS was until recently a Base Commander  in Greenland.  Usha Vance may know it as Pituffik; it used to be known as Thule Air Force Base.  That was the only place in Greenland that was safe for the recent, notorious visit by the regime’s Vice President.

Colonel Meyers wrote an EMail after Vance left saying that she did not know the current politics.  But she did know that the flags of the U.S., Canada, Denmark and Greenland would all fly together, representing all of the people that work at the Base.

She was removed from her command after she hit “Send” on her EMail saying that our flags will fly together.

 

Baltimore Social Security Administration Headquarters (Public Domain).

GREG PEARRE stood up to Private Equity.  One Scott Coulter very recently took over as the top tech officer at the Social Security Administration, on or around March 27, 2025.

It is unclear whether or when he actually worked in Silicon Valley, but he clearly learned it.  His background in tech came from employers like “DOGE” and from one of his recent companies, called Cowbird Capital.  He was previously with Blackstone and other hedge funds and “investment firms.”

It did not take Coulter long to move fast and break things, as they learn to do in Silicon Valley.  He ran into Pearre at the SSA when Pearre told Coulter that the regime’s plan to declare people dead in SSA’s computers was harmful and illegal.  The plan was reportedly cooked up by “DOGE” and the Department of Homeland Security.

The plan was that if people are declared dead in the SSA computers, that they would not only not receive Social Security if they ever did, but as another result going forward the people now declared “dead” would not be able to legally hold a job or hold a valid credit card and so on and on.

Greg Pearre was no slouch at the SSA; he must have been a direct threat to the Silicon Valley Boys because Pearre was in charge of hundreds of technology experts.  He knew what he was talking about when he told Coulter what it would do to people to declare them “dead” in the SSA computers; he also thought that the scheme was against the law.

That seems to have been Greg Pearre’s downfall.  On Thursday, April 10, 2025 – two days before this article is being written and two days after the regime announced the “dead” plan and less than two weeks after Mr. Coulter took over – unnamed “security guards” hustled Greg Pearre out of his SSA office.

Both Col. Meyers and Greg Pearre had to have known by the time they acted what the likelihood would be of what would or could happen to them.  “She’s going to have some things happen to her.”

They both acted anyway.  In their actions in the face of personal risk, they showed their courage.

Their personal risk includes their prospects of future employment, which for both of them is probably “iffy” at best, one being a career military officer and the other being a career civil servant.

Still they acted, knowing that at the best it would not be good for them personally, and at the worst they might be treated as badly as they were treated, as things turned out.  To say again, they acted anyway.   That is why they are both PROFILES IN COURAGE 2025.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

 

The People at the IRS were never what you thought.

Until now.

Tax returns are confidential by statute.  Only Congress can make exceptions to the law.  There are already so many exceptions to the law that it is unclear when and how some otherwise confidential information can be disclosed.  One thing is clear, however:  Only Congress has the power to enact exceptions to the law. 

The Secretary of the Treasury and the head of the Department of Homeland Security signed an agreement for the IRS, which falls under the jurisdiction of Treasury, to share information about taxpayers with DHS.  (They bypassed the Acting IRS Commissioner.)  Supposedly the agreement is limited for now to immigrants who paid taxes which, by the way, the IRS encouraged them to do so while promising to keep it all confidential.  The same promise they made to you and me.

No wonder they made those promises to us.  By the terms of 26 USCA § 7431, a taxpayer can sue for damages for any disclosure of "any return or return information" of that taxpayer.   Another statute, effective January 4, 2025, 26 USCA § 6103, provides for Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information.   While that statute has many exceptions, all of these things are confidential:  every taxpayer's identity, mailing address, taxpayer identifier number, and any data provided to the IRS to determine that person's tax liability.

I started out this article with an idea of another Profile in Courage 2025.  Perhaps I will still write that article about one or more of these people you are about to meet.  But the information about them is so sketchy that it is not necessarily clear to me that they have left or are leaving the IRS because of the confidentiality breakdown.

KATHLEEN WALTERS was the Chief Privacy Officer of the IRS when she left.  Per LinkedIn, she served in that post since October, 2022.  She seems to have worked at the IRS in one capacity or another pretty much since she left private practice with one of the larger law firms in the nation.  It is hard to pin down, frankly, but apparently she resigned rather than break the confidentiality law.

Walters "liked" a post on LinkedIn by SUSAN GREER.  Greer is not mentioned in current reporting over high-profile departures from the IRS, but she should be.  Her recent IRS departure is revealing.  She worked with IT and computer systems.  In that role, she was instrumental in the work of the IRS concerning the Advanced Child Tax Credit, the American Heroes Act, and "EIP."  I had to look up what "EIP" meant.  It meant stimulus checks to help individuals and businesses get through the COVID Pandemic with funds appropriated by Congress.

It is revealing that such a person, highly skilled in computer systems, should apparently be forced out by the Silicon Valley Boys.  Although they may move fast and break things and make a lot of money in the process, they certainly are not known for making such programs as the Advanced Child Tax Credit or the American Heroes Act or EIP possible.

Others who have left the IRS recently deserve our attention.  WILLIAM PAUL was Acting Chief Counsel from January to March, 2025.

The latest Acting IRS Commissioner also deserves attention.  She is the person that the heads of Treasury and DHS bypassed when they reached their agreement for the IRS to share information with DHS.  Her name is MELANIE KRAUSE.  She became the acting IRS Commissioner only at the end of February, 2025 and it is not clear that she will leave before the end of April, but she apparently agreed to a deal that will pay her through the end of September.

Parenthetically, I mentioned that Krause was the "latest" acting IRS Commissioner.  Her predecessor served in that capacity only between the end of January and the end of February, 2025.  Why he departed is unclear.

Finally, two other officials at IRS are apparently leaving or have left as well:  TERESA HUNTER, the Chief Financial Officer, and MIKE WETKLOW, the Chief Risk Officer.  It is unclear why they left the IRS.

We may learn more about all of these people and the IRS as time goes by.  In the meantime, we probably know enough to know right now that the people who left the IRS clearly refused to reveal what their job experience told them is confidential taxpayer information.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

See behind the curtain.

04.05.25 (Author Photo)

The timing of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to bless the regime's mass deportation is not a coincidence.  It is no coincidence that the largest protest in the recent history of the United States, perhaps ever, occurred on Saturday and this decision was released on Monday.

The Supreme Court moved so fast that there was not enough briefing because there was not enough time.

There was no time for argument by the lawyers, which is also unusual.

Then there are all the barriers that had to be removed substantively, along with the procedural obstacles.  I have personally never been faced with appealing a Temporary Restraining Order or TRO.  But I understand that while TROs are not usually appealable, that happened here.

The Court's decision did not say a word about returning any of the people who have already been deported; they did not address contempt, which the regime was and is clearly displaying in the lower courts, and they did not address the wartime Alien Enemies Act and the "emergency" declaration it depends on, and which was challenged by the people who filed this lawsuit in the first place.

The people who brought this lawsuit said clearly that they are not seeking release from confinement.  They accept their confinement.  Rather they are challenging an alleged abuse of rights.  (It would make no sense to challenge their confinement anyway, as in a habeas corpus or "deliver the body" petition, since their bodies are not here right now.)

As in the Maryland abduction case and other such cases, the people suing expressly said that they are not pursuing habeas corpus.   See DEJA VU, ALL OVER AGAIN posted on Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog on April 6, 2025.  The regime said it knew better than they did why they were suing.  The regime said that they actually were and always are suing for habeas corpus.  So did the Supreme Court majority.  (This almost certainly tells us how they will decide the Maryland case which is on appeal to the Supreme Court right now.  If they can keep their majority vote together.) 

It is no coincidence that the National Day of Protest was attended by millions of people on April 5, and that this decision was released on April 7.

I will leave the merits and demerits of this decision to others to address.  As for the future and continuing response to Supreme Court decisions like this one, I leave that to others as well for now.  But know this:  They are afraid of losing their power.  They are not comfortable with being challenged by so many people.  They see the end in sight, and they do not like it.

"Move fast and break things."  This is the famous mantra carried out of Silicon Valley.  We are all in Silicon Valley now.  To survive there, we need to see clearly.  They recognize that, in the end, we are more powerful than they are, and so should we.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

THE BALLAD OF CHUCK SCHUMER.

Here is the song, it's not long:

Download New Recording 3.m4a.2

 

Here are the lyrics, please don't gong:

THE BALLAD OF CHUCK SCHUMER.

Hang down your head, Chuck Schumer.

Hang down your head and cry.

Hang down your head, Chuck Schumer,

Poor boy, you got to resign.

Poor boy, you got to resign.

I met them in the Senate,

There I led the Dems,

Met them in the Senate,

Gave ten votes to them.

Hang down your head, Chuck Schumer.

Hang down your head and cry.

Hang down your head, Chuck Schumer,

Poor boy, you got to resign.

Poor boy, you got to resign.

By this time tomorrow,

Reckon where you'll be,

Down in the happy Hamptons,

Sippin' on a daiquiri.

Well now, boy,

Hang down your head, Schumer,

Hang down your head and cry.

Hang down your head, Chuck Schumer,

Poor boy, you got to resign,

Poor boy, you got to resign,

Poor boy, you got to resign.

 

DEMAND FOR A DEMAND IS NOT BAD FAITH IN SETTLEMENT.

The case of  Jimenez v. GEICO Secure Ins. Co., 730 F. Supp. 3d 1091 (Nev. 2024) resulted in the publication of a decision which seems to have been willfully misinterpreted in the literature or perhaps it simply was not read beyond the headnotes.  In Jimenez, a U.S. District Judge considered the decision in an earlier case,  Chowning v. Nationwide, which was decided by a magistrate judge in Nevada a year earlier.  The cite for the magistrate judge's decision is Chowning v. Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., No. 22-cv-00798-CDS-EJY, 2023 WL 2971435 (D. Nev. 2023) (USMJ).

 As the Jimenez Court wrote, “GEICO argues that I should follow Chowning, which held that a [statutory unfair claims settlement practices] claim was futile without a settlement demand from the injured party.”  Jimenez, 730 F. Supp. 3d at 1096.  But the Jimenez Court disagreed.  The district judge in that case did not find the decision by a magistrate judge in Chowning to be “controlling law”:

    The Supreme Court of Nevada has not decided the precise question of whether a settlement demand from the claimant is a prerequisite to an insurance bad faith claim. See Chowning, 2023 WL 2971435, at *6. Neither party cites controlling law on this point.

Jimenez, 730 F. Supp. 3d at 1095 (emphasis added).

Nevada law was involved in the Jimenez case and the Jimenez Court applied Nevada Supreme Court decisions which establish that a liability carrier generally cannot be held liable for its alleged bad faith in settlement regardless of whether there has been a settlement demand or not, if it “’has no opportunity to settle within policy limits .…'   Or, if settlement is possible beyond policy limits, … that the insured would be willing to contribute the excess amount.”  Jimenez, 730 F. Supp. 3d at 1095, quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 125 Nev. 300, 315, 212 P.3d 318, 328 (2009) (en banc) (emphasis added).

Applying the Nevada law of bad faith, as interpreted by the Nevada Supreme Court and followed in the Jimenez case, the policyholder’s complaint at issue failed in its claim of bad faith in settlement because it did not contain any allegation that the defendant carrier had “an opportunity to settle, either within policy limits or outside of policy limits with Jimenez’s contributions.”  Jimenez, 703 F. Supp. 3d at 1096.

Without an allegation that the defendant carrier had an opportunity to settle, both the common law claim of bad faith and the statutory claim of bad faith failed, and for that reason both of these claims were dismissed.   Jimenez, 730 F. Supp. 3d at 1096.

The Jimenez decision is thoughtful and researched.  Not once did the Jimenez Court write that a demand (or offer) is necessary to a viable claim of bad faith in settlement; what Nevada law requires is what all modern jurisdictions require, which is an opportunity for the liability carrier “to settle within policy limits or in excess of policy limits with contribution” from the bad-faith plaintiff.  Jimenez, 730 F. Supp. 3d at 1096.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

PROFILES IN COURAGE 2025: You. A work in progress.

(We The People Backdrop 1935)

          Courage comes dressed in many ways, whether we like it or not.  Sometimes it comes to us in sportswear, sometimes in formal wear, sometimes casual wear, and sometimes in ways we may not care to mention.

          Letters to the Editor may seem like an unlikely mannequin for courage.   Until you realize that if your name and location are published in a newspaper, the world can then find its way to your door.

          That's on top of the work involved in writing within a newspaper's word limits that sometimes seem downright miserly, not to mention meeting all of its other requirements.  Even after all that work, your LTE may not be published.  And whether or not it ends up being published, well, you write it anyway.

          Your local newspapers and magazines will have links.  There are good suggestions on writing LTEs to be found on the website of Third Act; you do not have to be an old fart like me to read their suggestions.

          Postcards are anonymous but if they're really going to be effective, you will probably have to write a lot of them.  You can join up with Postcards to Voters and Vote Forward (the latter also offers opportunities to write letters).

          I have sent many postcards in recent years to lots of States and localities for lots of elections and referendums.  I have written more postcards for Wisconsin Supreme Court elections in recent years than I ever dreamed of, including for the election in Wisconsin tomorrow.

          I am one individual, and I am not able to make a "donation" of Millions of Dollars.  Regardless of the outcome tomorrow, I am going to continue to write postcards supporting good candidates and favorable outcomes.  The ink, the stamps, the cards, and the Carpal Tunnel Syndrome are all worth it.

          Texting is probably what you would call the most "technological" of the ways that I along with many other people have input our opinions into the national townhall.  Like most people, I have found that texting can be a lot of fun after we get past the obscene text Replies.  I currently text through Field Team 6, and you can sign up to try texting through them if you like.

          (I didn't know until I got those text Replies that there are so many possible ways to perform individual, improbable sex acts.  They predicted in their way some of the messages I have read more recently.  I guess you could call them "X" rated.  I am amazed that some people spend the time to think these things up.)  

          It is sad but not a secret that we live in a visual time and place.  People tend to devote more attention to pictures during their busy schedules than to words.  Some people not only stop to pay attention when they see a picture, but they may not realize that a person or a thing or a fact exists until they see the picture or the video.

 

          This past weekend, for example, many people who were able to gather at Tesla dealerships have had their pictures taken, and not just this weekend but on many other days before.  They came together at Tesla dealerships because they wanted to announce their nonviolent opposition.  Nonviolent opposition to Tesla's White, Afrikaaner CEO, yes, and even more importantly to express their resistance to the sale and purchase of their country.  See the additional links offered by Tesla Takedown and 50501.

          They gathered despite threats to their freedom and perhaps to their safety from both heads of the regime.

          This coming Saturday, April 5, 2025, is a scheduled National Day of Protest.  To attend may carry some risk.  What and how great the risk may be, remains to be seen, but the regime heads' threats should be acknowledged even if they are not obeyed this time.  Read more at Hands Off and Indivisible.

          Letters to the Editor, postcarding, texting, Tesla, a National Day of Protest -- and dozens of other actions known and unknown, dramatic and everyday, unseen and viral.  Each in its different way, and collectively, these actions have shown and continue to show that You -- and that together, We -- are a PROFILE IN COURAGE 2025.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO LAWYERS AND THEIR BAR ASSOCIATIONS.

Re:  In Defense of the Rule of Law and the Independence of the Legal Profession.

As a lawyer, I am keenly interested in the Defense of the Rule of Law and the Independence of the Legal Profession.  I am sure that you are interested in these principles as well.

     The New York City Bar circulated a Joint Statement of Bar Associations subscribing to these principles on March 24, 2025: Download NYC BAR L 032425 .

      I did not find the names of my Bar Associations on it as a signatory.   The Joint Statement concludes with the information necessary to subscribe to it:

 Bar Associations interested in signing this statement should email efriedman[at]nycbar.org

      If like me, you find that your Bar Association did not become a Signatory to this Joint Statement in defense of our profession and its independence, forward them the Joint Statement or share this link with them, as you or they may prefer:  https://www.nycbar.org/press-releases/in-defense-of-the-rule-of-law-and-the-independence-of-the-legal-profession.

      For my part, I sent a letter to my Bar Associations today.  I asked them if they had signed the Joint Statement, copy enclosed/link embedded.  If they have not signed it, I asked them why they haven't.

      You do the same, my friend and colleague, for your sake and my sake, for the sake of the legal profession, and for the sake of our country.

Thank you.

 

Justice will not come from our natural disposition to avoid conflict. Not now. Not with these people.

(U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Magistrate Judge Program)

"Settle With The B*st*rds!"  It just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Justice does not come easily.  Dr. King famously said that the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice.  He never said it would be easy.

Some things must already be in place before justice can come.  Things like commitment to a set of moral values even as others do their best to lower those values, even destroy them.  And things like the courage it will take to stand against the forces that will deny justice to you and to anyone else for as long as it may be worth their while.

During my experience practicing law, "sue the b*st*rds" was a catch phrase.  For better or for worse, I never hear it said now.

News that the Paul Weiss law firm settled with the regime rather than contest one of the latest so-called executive orders has prompted me to write about this.  They could have "sued the b*st*rds" but they didn't.  This is a subject that has been on my mind.

The contrast with the Coie Perkins law firm is too great to hold my tongue any longer.   Coie Perkins actually did "sue the b*st*rds."

Paul Weiss has all the lawyers in the world.  I guess they decided in their wisdom, which is closer to their situation than mine, that money was too important to them to spend it to fight being made targets.

Coie Perkins has the second most lawyers in the world.  Paul Weiss has chosen to settle.  Coie Perkins has chosen to sue.

That spurred me to share my thoughts.  My thoughts on the subject may be incomplete as a result of these sudden developments, but they are certain.

Lawsuits are a poor way of advancing public policy.  That is mostly because, in my eyes, litigation exists to serve the litigants in our legal system.  Parties can settle whenever they want, for whatever they want.  Settlements benefit the parties, not the public, at least in the vast majority of civil cases.

It is only when lawsuits are taken to conclusion that they affect public policy, and even then public policy will depend on the conclusion that was reached in a given case.

All that is true in my experience.  To say again, lawsuits are a poor way of making policy.

But settlements are even worse.  Settlements hardly ever make policy.  For one thing, most settlements are kept secret.  Take a look at the reporting over the Paul Weiss settlement, for example.  The details so far have come out of the regime, not from Paul Weiss.

No settlement of this kind ever made things better for the American public.

No settlement like this ever vindicated a Constitutional principle.

And no settlement under circumstances like this, in which one party backed off their exercise of domination only because another party capitulated, ever was good for anyone except perhaps the one who dominated after all.

Never.

Ever.

So regardless of what else you may hear from other people, these are my thoughts.  Even if a lawsuit fails to accomplish anything, at least the parties and their lawyers tried.  Sometimes, though, they improve public policy including when a good defense is put up in the case.

Settlements, on the other hand, always fail to benefit the public in cases like this.  Sometimes they benefit one of the parties to the settlement.   Rarely they benefit all of the parties to the settlement.  But always these settlements fail to benefit the public.

Two final thoughts.  I am familiar with the choice between sue or settle.  The choice in a civil suit is different from what seems to be the current choice everywhere in addition to the choices in courts:  Withstand or submit.  Not for a long time have most people been forced to choose between such extremes, I think.

I think that most people alive today have not been forced to choose between such extremes, to withstand or to submit.  I am pretty confident, though, that our public choices have not been informed by money anywhere near as much as they are now.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

"Senator Schumer shold step aside as leader...."

“Senator Schumer should step aside as leader. Every Democrat in the Senate should call for him to do so, and begin making plans for new leadership immediately. Indivisible will be encouraging our groups and activists to talk to their Senators at town halls, community events, and office visits about the urgent need for a Minority Leader who’s up for the fight this moment demands. 

“Our democracy is in danger. The path ahead will be hard. Indivisibles are ready to do the work - it’s time for a Senate Democratic Leader who is too. ”

From the Indivisible Press Release of Saturday, March 15, 2025.

(The full press release is available on the Indivisible website at https://www.Indivisible.org.)

 Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

 

 

 

PROFILES IN COURAGE 2025: Elizabeth G. Oyer.

When I started this series, there were few stories.  Now there are so many it's getting hard to choose among them.  This is a good thing.  I welcome it.

(LexisNexis)

ELIZABETH OYER was a Pardon Attorney working for the Department of Justice.  She was called out of a meeting there recently to be told that she was fired.

Oyer had researched and then written a memorandum listing people whose gun rights should be restored.  They did not present a danger to society if their gun rights were restored.  Her "superior" told her to add Mel Gibson, the controversial actor to the list.  Her superior did not tell her a single thing related to justice or good conduct or the merits of Mel Gibson.

(Author Photo)

Elizabeth Oyer already knew of course that Gibson was denied a gun permit because Gibson pleaded no contest to a domestic violence charge.  He was convicted and sentenced to counseling, community service, and a fine plus probation.  Her superior informed Oyer of something she did not necessarily know.

Her superior told Oyer that Gibson and the Occupant have a "personal relationship."

That is the only reason Oyer was given to add Gibson to the list of people she would recommend to carry a gun now.  Oyer refused because she could not say what it was her job to say in such circumstances, namely that the individual in question no longer posed a danger to other people.  She was not given any reason or evidence otherwise.  She was just told to obey.

Elizabeth Oyer knew that she faced personal consequences from her decision and she went ahead anyway because she thought that her decision was the right thing to do regardless.  She knew that she would be fired but she persisted and in her case, it was a courageous thing to do.

ELIZABETH OYER is a Profile in Courage 2025.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

Space, the Failure Frontier.

(NASA photo. taken before January 20, 2025)

A SpaceX rocket blew up.  Falling rocket debris shut down air traffic and some of the airports in the path of the rocket debris.  An investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration began on or about January 17, 2025 into the SpaceX rocket's operation.

The head of SpaceX at the time (and still the head of SpaceX, so far as we know) demanded that the head of the FAA be fired.  That was before the rocket explosion, which the SpaceX head helpfully called a "rapid unscheduled disassembly."  The SpaceX head in question was (and is) Elon Musk.

The head of the FAA resigned.  He was replaced after January 20, 2025 with a Fox TV personality who among other credits on his resume was previously a cast member in another reality TV show.

As last week ended, another SpaceX rocket exploded.  This one exploded on takeoff from its launch pad in Texas but it spewed debris that shut down airports and flights in and around airports in Florida including here in Orlando.

Elon Musk was still in charge of SpaceX at the time, so far as we know.

Floridians were instructed that if their homes were struck by falling rocket debris, they should check their insurance to see if they are covered.

The FAA, still headed so far as we know by the TV-personality-turned-FAA-chief, automatically undertook a "mishap investigation" triggered by the latest rocket explosion.

It is unclear what the results might be, although it is probably not out of the question for them to investigate anyone else for anything else.

Yesterday, a SpaceX operation did not lift off from its launch pad at all.  This rocket would have carried human beings.  The launch was scrubbed, as they say at NASA, for the safety of the crew.

This mission was named "Crew-10."  It is supposed to help the two astronauts stranded on the International Space Station.

The two astronauts, it must be said, that this regime says were "abandoned" by the last president.

The latest SpaceX liftoff has been re-scheduled now, for Friday the Fourteenth.

Still no word of an investigation.

Stay tuned for the next one.

I started writing about the issues associated with private corporations taking over the U.S. space program in August of last year on Substack, "WE" ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CORPORATE SPACE FAILURES.  I wrote at the time that I would probably be writing about this issue until the cows come home.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

 

The Ten Who Did Not Come In From The Cold. Yet.

I recently wrote some thoughts here and later expanded on what I was thinking on Substack.  I would like to develop them here a little bit.

Ten Members of Congress voted against Representative Al Greene's protest in the House on Tuesday night.  Greene raised his cane, he is 77 years old, at the Old Guy, 78 years old, who was holding forth.  Representative Greene shouted in response to the claim of 'I have a mandate,' that no-one has a mandate to eliminate Medicaid.

The Ten Members of Congress I have in mind were each elected as Democrats.  That was the focus of my original thoughts, but give me some credit because my thoughts have expanded beyond that indisputable fact.

There are many people who act as though the institutions they have worked in, worked with, and frankly, in some cases, revered, have changed forever.  They will never be the same after the chaos inflicted on the people of the United States for some forty-seven days and counting.

The institutions will never be the same.  The people must expand their vision beyond the places they were in before, because reality has changed around them whether they like it or not, whether they know it or not.

They will never be the same.

I think that these Ten Members showed not so much treachery, perhaps, as their inability to see and hear with their eyes and ears what their minds told them could never happen, because what happened should never happen and the trauma is too much for them to bear if the current reality is recognized for what it is.

These are the Ten.  My original thoughts included that the best thing for them to do is to switch parties, or they should be primaried for trying to muzzle a fellow Democrat.

My thoughts now include the recognition, I think, that they themselves have not recognized.  Yet.  Now I think that their best option is to resign.  These Ten have no business pretending to be leaders at this time.  They obviously cannot see or hear clearly.

Ami Bera -- California;

Ed Case -- Hawaii;

Jim Costa -- California;

Laura Gillen -- New York;

Jim Himes -- Connecticut;

Chrissy Houlahan -- Pennsylvania;

Marcy Kaptur -- Ohio;

Jared Moskowitz -- Florida;

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez -- Washington, and

Tom Suozzi -- New York.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

Died Of Decorum.

This is a tale of two of the people's representatives who attended the performance Tuesday night at the House.

I did not watch it.  I heard about it.

I heard about Representative Al Greene's standing protest, of course.  His standing protest merited a quick exit because he shouted at the Old Guy who, not coincidentally, was performing that night.

Parenthetically, whenever I hear this Representative's name, I think of Al Green the singer.  I can't help it.  I don't think that Al Greene the representative sings.  Maybe he does.  But that's not what this is about, anyway.

Some people have commented since that Rep. Greene's protest violated their sense of "decorum."

That brings us to the second tale of two of the people's representatives who attended the Performance at the House this past Tuesday night.

Democrats sitting in attendance were apparently primed in advance to clap when the Old Guy mentioned things from the past that they liked.  He looked down at Elizabeth Warren, a United States Senator, and called her "Pocahontas."

I think that was poor decorum, to put it mildly.  If anyone else has said that it was poor decorum, I have not heard it.  But this is not about the Old Guy's lack of decorum, among all the other things.

Remember that I did not watch Tuesday night's Performance at the House, so I have to go by reports.  It is reported that Senator Elizabeth Warren smiled and continued clapping when she was called "Pocahontas" from the podium of the House by the President of the United States (no, not Vladimir Putin).

There are many reactions I can imagine, but standing there and smiling is not one I can respect.  I worked for her campaign when she ran for the nomination for president.  I respected her then.  Not now, not after her own performance at the House last Tuesday night.

In my eyes, her own performance that night has forfeit any claim to future leadership, ever again.  She is not the kind of person we need, far from it.  I hate to be the one to break this story to you, but she is definitely not coming to save us.

So this was a tale of two of the people's elected representatives who attended the Performance at the House on Tuesday night this week.  Of the two, Al Greene at least showed courage.  For both of the two, and for all the others who attended, I wonder, though:  Why were you even there?

Why did you attend?  Did you think that it was a good idea to hold little pre-printed signs that supposedly showed "resistance" to the country beyond the TV cameras?

Decorum. 

Jefferson Davis once famously said of the Confederate States of America that on its tombstone would be written 'Died of an ideal.'  The ideal he had in mind when he said that, parenthetically, was what we now call State's Rights.  Georgia apparently refused to integrate some of its militia into the CSA Army because Georgia insisted on its own independence at the expense of the Confederate States.

If the United States of America is on its way to its own tombstone, on its tombstone will be written 'Died of decorum.'

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

PROFILES IN COURAGE 2025: David Lebryk.

(Author Photo)

 

DAVID LEBRYK reached the highest non-political office in the U.S. Treasury Department, Fiscal Assistant Secretary, during his three decades at the Department.  In January, 2025 he was appointed the Acting Secretary for the Treasury Department until the incoming appointment was confirmed.

Lebryk denied unauthorized individuals access to the Treasury Department's payment systems.  Those systems are responsible for disbursing $6 Trillion a year in Social Security and Medicare payments, salaries, and tax refunds, among other things.

The "among other things" include  payments to government contractors.  (Full disclosure:  At least some of Elon Musk's companies happen to be government contractors.  I have not read any reports as yet identifying any of the "government contractors" who may be subsidized by the Treasury Department's payment systems.)

Mr. Lebryk resigned immediately after the incoming appointment was confirmed. 

He apparently never did allow the unauthorized access to the Treasury Department's payment systems before he left.

DAVID LEBRYK is a Profile in Courage 2025.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter.