Claims And Issues

HALLELUJAH!

He is RISEN!

 

NOBODY IS COMING TO SAVE US TODAY.  BUT TOMORROW, YES!

Nobody is coming to save us today.

          Not Mueller.

          Not Congress.

          Not the Supreme Court.

          And unfortunately not journalists or the news media they serve.  See "ALL OF THE INTERESTING PEOPLE HAVE LEFT," published here March 27, 2024.

          But ... Tomorrow Someone Is Coming!  He will help us save ourselves!  Without Him, we can do nothing; with Him, we can do this.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

OF ALL THE THINGS WE CAN CHOOSE TO FEAR ....

 State and Federal incentives to settle in dangerous places have allowed people in the United States to live dangerously with taxpayer money ...

... giving them cheap flood insurance if they reside in a flood zone, for instance, or offering subsidized or regulated home insurance policies even when they live in a wildfire area or near an eroding beach.  Ending such practices could allow homeowners to evaluate climate risks more clearly, potentially hastening moves to safer places.

          But flooding, heat waves and fires may lead to dramatic impacts in all Americans' lives.  "It's going to hit every single person," one scientist tells the author.  "No one escapes."

Jon Gertner, America is on Fire, Says One Climate Writer.  Should You Flee?, NEW YORK TIMES online March 22, 2024 (reviewing Abrahm Lustgarten, On The Move:  The Overheating Earth and the Uprooting of America (2024).

          Another person, the Sustainability Director for the City of Ann Arbor in Michigan, answered the author's question of whether her region feared climate change most, or people coming in:  "The people coming in, without a doubt."

          There is so much to fear in life and in the future, but let's do much, much better than being most afraid of each other.

The effects of claims from recent Catastrophes in various places across the world are the subject of § 2:13 by Dennis J. Wall in his co-authored book, CATASTROPHE CLAIMS / INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR NATURAL AND MAN-MADE DISASTERS (Thomson Reuters Nov. 2023).

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

JUDGES OF THE AMERICAN APOCALYPSE.

     It may be true that we live in a world filled with interesting questions.  One of the more interesting questions is an unanswered question, one which may not have even been asked yet.  So far as I know, this question has not generally been asked yet:

How is it that so many federal judges who were appointed during the American Apocalypse, got assignments to one-judge divisions? 

Perhaps journalists and the news media in general can ask that question, and perhaps they can get answers.  I will list some below that can perhaps get answers.

            For more on the American Apocalypse and how its effects are still with us every day, see, for example, the articles  UNELECTED TEXAS JUDGES, THE AMERICAN APOCALYPSE, AND MINORITY RULE, published here on March 9, 2024., and JUDGES ASSIGNED TO ONE-JUDGE COURTS DURING THE AMERICAN APOCALYPSE, published here on March 26, 2024.

          I am now going to mention the names of people and outlets who have the capacity to get answers to these questions if they want to.  If I left a tweet on X-which-used-to-be-Twitter, I guess they might find a tweet but so would the trolls most likely and I do not want that.  I do not know whether these people will pay attention to blogs like this one, but I am going to try.  Maybe they will seek out their names since they are in a business where their name recognition is so important to them.

        I am still not completely sure of how to bring this article to their attention, so I am going to mention their names here in the body of this article as well as in the metadata accompanying it.  Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you, Susanne Craig, David Barstow, Russ Buettner, Andrew Weissmann, Will Bunch, Scott Maxwell, Jackie Calmes, LZ Granderson, Karen Tumulty, Julie K. Brown, David Dayen, New York Times, Washington Post, American Prospect, Guardian, Philadelphia Inquirer, Jamie Raskin, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Talking Points Memo, ProPublica, Miami Herald, Sun-Sentinel, Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern, Slate, Linda Greenhouse, Lisa Rubin, and American Prospect.

          Thank you in advance, one and all.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved. 

"ALL OF THE INTERESTING PEOPLE HAVE LEFT."

Many journalists who were good at their jobs retired or were let go.

          It was not for nothing that the money they were paid was well-deserved, but expensive for the investors who took over journalism to make a profit for themselves.

          The people who left took their experience and their street-smarts with them.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

JUDGES ASSIGNED TO ONE-JUDGE COURTS DURING THE AMERICAN APOCALYPSE.

           The interesting and unanswered, so-far-unasked question is how so many judges appointed during the American Apocalypse got assignments to one-judge divisions.  Perhaps journalists and the news media in general can ask that question, and perhaps they can get answers.  I will list some below that can perhaps get answers.

            For more on the American Holocaust and how its effects are still with us every day, see, for example, the article  UNELECTED TEXAS JUDGES, THE AMERICAN APOCALYPSE, AND MINORITY RULE, published here on March 9, 2024.

          I am now going to mention the names of people and outlets who have the capacity to get answers to these questions if they want to.  If I left a tweet on X-which-used-to-be-Twitter, I guess they might find a tweet but so would the trolls most likely and I do not want that.  I do not know whether these people will pay attention to blogs like this one, but I am going to try.  Maybe they will seek out their names since they are in a business where their name recognition is so important to them.

        I am still not completely sure of how to bring this article to their attention, so I am going to mention their names here in the body of this article as well as in the metadata accompanying it.  Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you, Susanne Craig, David Barstow, Russ Buettner, Rachel Maddow, Andrew Weissmann, Will Bunch, Scott Maxwell, Jackie Calmes, LZ Granderson, Karen Tumulty, Julie K. Brown, David Dayen, New York Times, Washington Post, American Prospect, Guardian, Philadelphia Inquirer, Jamie Raskin, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Talking Points Memo, ProPublica, Miami Herald, Sun-Sentinel, Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern, Slate, Linda Greenhouse, Lisa Rubin, and American Prospect.

          Thank you in advance, one and all.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved. 

APPEAL BONDS, JOURNALISTS, AND THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR.

Journalists have erroneously reported that lenders did not want real estate as collateral for their loans on the Judgment Debtor's appeal bonds, because they "don't like" real estate.  They insist on liquid collateral, so the story goes.

          Horse puckey.

          The lenders approached by the Judgment Debtor for his latest appeal bond, only to be turned down, did not reject the Judgment Debtor's possible collateral because it was real estate.  They rejected the real estate as collateral because the real estate is encumbered already.  That means that in the event that the appeal was adverse to the Judgment Debtor such that the Judgment Debtor will have to pay the Judgment after all, then the Lender would have to stand in line behind all the other creditors who have preexisting rights on the Judgment Debtor's real property.

          The lenders refused to take on the appeal bond because the real property did not really give them collateral for the loan, not because for some reason they "dislike" real estate.

          This false story apparently comes straight from the Judgment Debtor's lawyers, who told the Court in their filing that the Judgment Debtor could not pay for an appeal bond because, given this particular Judgment Debtor's real estate holdings that are mortgaged up the wazoo (a legal term), no-one would lend him money so they must not like real estate.

          This incredibly goofy story ended up in the news media.

          And in 2024, that's the way it is. 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

STAND UP TO THEM, "FOR GOD'S SAKE."

"For God's sake."  One of President Joe Biden's favorite phrases.

Enough already with these meshugana lawsuits they file mostly in Texas and Louisiana, so that federal judges in a few jurisdictions in those places can make decisions for the whole nation, while the rest of us are supposed to accept this behavior in silence.   Time to turn around this ridiculous continuing American Apocalypse.  See, e.g, the articles published here on March 23, 2024 and on March 9, 2024.

           File lawsuits proactively in venues of your choice.

          There is a rule of law that is pretty universal among judges.  The case that is filed first is the case that has jurisdiction.  Those are the cases of record, you might say; cases that are filed in the same court on the same issues even get put together with the case that is filed first.

          The other cases filed afterward have to stand in line, wherever they may be; basically, they stop if they are not the case first filed.

          File first.  File actions for declaratory relief.  These are actions when you ask a court to "declare" what your rights or duties are, in other words, to "declare" your "relief."

          For your subject choose what your "intelligence" tells you they are going to challenge. 

          You think you don't have "intelligence?"  Then read the papers, listen to Cable, and watch social media.  You'll find out what they are going to challenge.

          Beat them to the punch once you find out.  File first, and in a court of your own choosing.  Stop playing catch-up.  Get ahead of the game.

          Some good words of advice, Merrick.  Listen good, DOJ.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO EXPORT LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS.

The State of Louisiana, along with other States where the oil and gas industry holds enormous power, has sued the United States Government which has limited or even refused to issue permits to export Liquefied Natural Gas.

          Louisiana and the other liquefied natural gas-producing States have sued to assert their God-given right to export LNG or liquefied natural gas.  Their lawsuit is Louisiana v. Biden (W.D. La. No. 2:24-cv-00406).  The complaint is too long and not important enough to link here.

          A review of the Public Access to (Federal) Courts Electronic Records or "PACER," reveals what the popular press has not yet reported:  The Judge assigned to the case in the Western District of Louisiana is the Hon. James D. Cain Jr.  He was appointed during the American Holocaust in 2019.  Lawsuits like this one are usually filed in one-judge divisions of federal courts in Texas, but this one has been filed in Louisiana.  You see, when a federal lawsuit is filed in a division with one judge in it, the chances are 100% that you know what judge will be assigned to your case.  They get to pick their own judge.

           The interesting and unanswered, so-far-unasked question is how so many judges appointed during the American Holocaust got assignments to one-judge divisions.  Perhaps journalists and the news media in general can ask that question, and perhaps they can get answers.  I will list some below that can perhaps get answers.

           Oh, and a review of the website of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana reveals that only one of its Divisions, the Lake Charles Division as it happens, has only one judge:  Judge Cain.  All the other Divisions have an active sitting judge and a Senior Judge available, except Lake Charles, which has only Judge Cain.  Truly no coincidence, when you want to file a lawsuit to assert your God-given right to export liquefied natural gas but the United States is standing in the way, for now.

           For more on the American Holocaust and how its effects are still with us every day, see UNELECTED TEXAS JUDGES, THE AMERICAN HOLOCAUST, AND MINORITY RULE, published here on March 9, 2024.

          So, no coincidence that Judge James D. Cain Jr. was assigned to this LNG exportation lawsuit.  Moreover, Judge Cain has his own track record of ruling against the United States in similar cases.

I am now going to mention the names of people and outlets who have the capacity to answer these questions if they want to.  If I left a tweet on X-which-used-to-be-Twitter, I guess they might find a tweet but so would the trolls most likely and I do not want that.  I do not know whether these people will pay attention to blogs like this one, but I am going to try.  Maybe they will seek out their names since they are in a business where their name recognition is so important to them.

        I am not completely sure of how to bring this article to their attention, so I am going to mention their names here in the body of this article as well as in the metadata accompanying it.  Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you, Susanne Craig, David Barstow, Russ Buettner, Rachel Maddow, Andrew Weissmann, Will Bunch, Scott Maxwell, Jackie Calmes, LZ Granderson, Karen Tumulty, Julie K. Brown, David Dayen, New York Times, Washington Post, American Prospect, Guardian, Philadelphia Inquirer, Jamie Raskin, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Talking Points Memo, ProPublica, Miami Herald, Sun-Sentinel, and American Prospect.

          Thank you in advance, one and all.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  

OKAY, MIKE. WHO'S GONNA PICK BIBI UP AT THE AIRPORT?

Mike Johnson, current speaker of the house, reportedly issued a personal invitation to Bibi Netanyahu to speak in the U.S.   Bibi, as many know, is currently the prime minister of Israel despite an almost complete lack of public support.

          He and Mike have that in common.

          The Senate is supposed to issue its own invitation if Bibi is supposed to address Congress, but I haven't heard that anyone who is authorized to issue Senate invitations to speak, has issued an invitation to Bibi to speak yet.

          President Biden hasn't invited Bibi here, so Bibi can't be making a State Visit.

          All that being so, Mike's invitation to Bibi to drop by was and remains a personal invitation.  If you or I had a relative or somebody coming to visit us, we would have to go and pick them up at the airport probably.  So, Mike, who's going to pick Bibi up at the airport?

          And while we're at it, I question allowing more guns to come into the country, plus whatever security guards Bibi can get to protect him while he's here are probably suspicious characters, don't you think?  So why should these people be allowed into this country with guns?

          And who other than the American Taxpayer is footing the bill for Mike's invitation?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

"THE WORLD TURNED UPSIDE DOWN."

That was the name of the tune that the British Army ordered its bands to play when they surrendered to the Americans and the French at Yorktown at the end of the American Revolution.  The bands played "The World Turned Upside Down" as the British surrendered and left their former colonies.

          This week, the United States Supreme Court declined to interrupt a Texas State law that would allow Texas police officers to arrest and deport migrants.  The United States Constitution gives the exclusive authority to the United States Government over such things, but the Supreme Court declined to enforce the Constitution in this instance where Texas is concerned.

          The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals – of all people – jumped in immediately and stopped the Texas State immigration law in its tracks, at least for so long as it takes to decide this case (which should be about 5 seconds).  The Fifth Circuit is famous for not enforcing the United States Constitution itself, so it comes as a real surprise, a shock, even, to have the Fifth Circuit jump in and stop the Texas denigration law this way.

          Just when you least expect it, something good happens, at least for so long as it takes them to decide this case.  Somewhere a band is playing, "The World Turned Upside Down."

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MERRICK: JUDGES HAVE NO POWER BEYOND THEIR COURT. ACT LIKE IT.

Federal judges have no authority to issue injunctions against anybody outside their court.  Injunctions – orders to stop doing what you're doing – are only authorized for the people before the court, not against everyone everywhere.

          So-called national injunctions are orders that supposedly coerce conduct across the nation.  They are not authorized by the United States Constitution or by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

          So-called universal injunctions are orders that supposedly apply to everybody wherever we may be found.  They, too, are unauthorized.

          So, act like it Merrick.  Stop submitting to unjust laws and unauthorized orders – even if you're afraid of the Gang of One-Half Dozen Texas Judges, for example.  Put the issue to the test, or get off the pot.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

**BREAKING NEWS!** CAMPAIGNING ON TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2024!

BREAKING NEWS!!!! SHEILA DeCICCIO IS ELECTED THE NEXT MAYOR OF WINTER PARK, FLORIDA!

 

Here is a photo of two campaigners who helped in a very small way to make it happen:

Phil Anderson, current Mayor of Winter Park on the right, waving signs with unidentified man on Tuesday, March 19, 2024.

 

APPEAL BONDS DEPENDING ON WHETHER SOMEONE WILL LEND THE MONEY?

"Breaking news" today is that a defendant finds it "impossible" to post the amount of an appeal bond that ordinary people would have to post, if they want to appeal.  His lawyers say that no-one will loan him the money.  So, his lawyers argue, he should be required to post only a smaller bond, one for which he can presumably find a lender to loan him the money.

          How is this any different from anyone else who has to post a bond and they can't find someone to loan them the money to do so?  The "rule" in this person's case should apply across the board to everyone, don't you agree?

          BTW:  The irony.  This person was held liable for fraud, got hit with big damages and big fines, and now says that he should post a lower bond.  The irony:  Be held liable for fraud and so be allowed to post a lower appeal bond because no-one believes that you will pay them back if they give you the money.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

CORPORATE SPACE FAILURES, PRIVATE LUNAR DISASTERS. MERCENARY SATELLITES, TOO?

Private corporations have made lots of money from space failures and lunar disasters.  Yet they are very successful in their relations with the news media.  If you listen to or read reporting that comes from national news sources, you would think the opposite of the truth:  You would think that these space failures are successes and that these lunar disasters are someone else's responsibility, namely, your country's.

          Just wanted to alert you once again to the latest corporate space failure reported in our local press here in Central Florida.  This time it apparently took them three tries to get a rocket off the ground.  This time the local reporting went a little deeper and revealed that the rocket lifted off with 23 of the private corporation's satellites.

          This is the same private corporation that I understand has withdrawn or limited the use of its satellites by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, apparently lest the Ukrainians further display the vincibility (as opposed to invincibility) of the Russians.   I understand that some people in Congress are calling for an investigation of allegations that the private company has now made its satellites available for use by the Russian Armed Forces.

          From failure to Moscow.  There are stories here, but they are not necessarily the same as the stories being reported to us.

This is a post-postscript or a second postscript to an article published here on March 3, 2024, "WE" ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CORPORATE SPACE FAILURES.  I published a postscript that same day, P.S. THE "US" IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS LUNAR DISASTER.  So this is the second postscript or a post-postscript.  I will probably keep publishing articles on this point until the cows come home.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

HAPPY ST. PATRICK'S DAY!

HAPPY ST. PATRICK'S DAY!

Top o' the mornin' to ya, everyone!

TRY CONNECTICUT SOLUTION TO PUBLIC RECORDS DENIALS, BEFORE INVOLVING COURTS.

Reportedly, Connecticut has a procedure for people who request public records to appeal denials, redactions, and estimated exorbitant costs for production of the records.  The appeal goes to a special commission that has the authority to make rulings on the requests and to enforce its rulings.  People who can appeal include journalists as well as regular people.

          In other States and jurisdictions, there apparently is no such commission.   Records requests meet with delays and denials and the like, because all U.S. jurisdictions have one thing in common in this regard:  They are underfunded.

          Outside of Connecticut, it seems, the only place to "appeal" such denials, redactions, and abusively high cost estimates, is the local Court.  The dockets of judges are often clogged with lawsuits that would otherwise not be necessary if there were an appeals procedure in place..

          On the other hand, the experience of records requesters who are forced to go to Court is that once Courts are involved, they report "first-class service" in getting the records they requested.

          At the end of this Sunshine Week, it is worth the while of people who do not have access to the Connecticut solution, to work to make it the law in their own States and localities as well.  Our local judges will thank you for no longer having to add these lawsuits to their dockets.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

DELAYING AND DENYING PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS COSTS YOUR TAX MONEY.

Public records requests are routinely delayed or denied.  When they are, information that belongs to the public under State law is denied.

          More than that, your tax money pays the legal bills.

          Remember that at the end of this Sunshine Week.  Paying legal bills for delaying and denying records requests for information that is public under State law is not an abstraction, it is a hard and bitter truth.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

ONE MILLION DEATHS LATER, AND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES IGNORE THE CRISIS.

There have reportedly been over 1,000,000 (One Million) people who died from COVID since the Pandemic officially began in 2020.

          The person who was in charge of responding to the pandemic then is running for president again.  No-one asks him or the sitting President who opposes him, about the pandemic crisis or how it was handled.  In fact, the former-president-who-is-a-candidate-again starts the clock 5 years ago by asking, "Are you better off than you were 5 years ago?"  As if One Million people fell down our memory hole.

          They are certainly not the center of the candidates' attention or ours, and not the center of attention for the news media when they write about who is going to be the next leader of the Free World as we used to call it.    You should pardon the expression, but there is something sick about that.

          "Agenda setting elite political journalists might want to cover this as an issue – maybe, if it's not too much to ask, with one-eighth or so the careful devotion to how Biden's supporters are reacting to him using an antiquated word [illegal] to refer to undocumented immigrants."  Rick Perlstein, Social Distortion, THE AMERICAN PROSPECT MAGAZINE, March 13, 2024.

          We are coming to the end of Sunshine Week.  It's the right time to ask questions and to remember which candidate responded to the pandemic crisis by pushing bleach, bright lights, and hydroxychloroquine.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

SUNSHINE WEEK IS COMING TO AN END ... LONG LIVE SUNSHINE!

          Do not give up on transparency.

          Let the ones who covet doing things in secret act in secret.  We will be there to shine light.  And we will win.

          We do not accept their mugging of the light.  We do not approve.  And we are not resigned.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

JOURNALISTS: DON'T YOU GET TIRED OF BEING USED?

The Hur report said that President Biden lost his memory.  It said that he couldn't even remember what day his son died.  Now we have the transcript.  Mr. Hur actually congratulated the President on having a photographic memory.    As for the date that the President's son died, the President not only remembered, he prefaced saying the date with, "Oh, God ...."  That lends credibility with a jury, which any honest trial lawyer knows.

          It turns out that the report was false and the transcript was true.  The news media says that it is shocked!  Shocked!

          Just a few years ago the same people, or at least the same kind of people, said that the Mueller report exonerated the Occupant of the Oval Office at the time.  Then we got the report.  Mr. Mueller actually wrote that the Occupant had participated in criminal activity but that Mueller would not charge a sitting president, following Department of Justice policy.

          It turns out that the press conference was false and the report was true.  The news media said that it was shocked!  Shocked!

          Journalists, don't you get tired of being used?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WELL, SHUT MY MOUTH!  LEGISLATORS, CORPORATIONS,  AND AN UNTOLD STORY.

I recently uncovered a story of how corporations ask legislators to agree to keep quiet about giving the corporations tax breaks until the breaks become law.

          The corporations are apparently concerned that if there is publicity before they get their tax breaks, then the legislators might become unreliable and pay more attention to the people they represent than to the corporations that want the tax breaks.  So the corporations ask the legislators to agree not to speak about their proposed tax breaks until the law actually takes effect.  They have the legislators sign what are called "nondisclosure agreements," meaning of course that the legislators as the ones signing these agreements will not disclose whatever the agreements are about.

          The corporations' incentive to keep this quiet is pretty clear.  What could be the legislators' incentive to make these agreements, do you think?

          I have not gotten very far, but what my reading and research tells me already is that this is an interesting story.

          It has real-life implications.  Here in Florida, it was the law for generations that if an insurance company wrongly forced people to sue it in order to get the benefits of their insurance policies, that those insurance companies would have to pay the attorney's fees of the people they forced to file the lawsuit.  This was the rule, this is the way things were, until 2022.

          On May 26, 2022, in the midst of a Florida homeowner's insurance crisis when some people could not get insurance and others who had claims could not get their claims paid,  the Florida Legislature wrote a statute that exempted the homeowner's insurance companies from this rule.  By March 24, 2023, the Florida Legislature threw the rule out completely; now, every insurance company in Florida can deny claims under their policies even if in doing that, they force people to sue them to get their insurance benefits under their contracts – and the insurance companies won't have to pay the legal fees of the people they force into hiring lawyers to file these lawsuits -- and who win.  I wrote about this in my books.

          It was not general knowledge at the time that the legislators were making these laws.  The changes became known when they became law.

          Were there "nondisclosure agreements" at work here?  We do not know, or at least I certainly do not know, and I do not know of any way that anyone other than the insurance companies and the legislators would know one way or the other, as things stand right now.

          But suppose instead of not knowing, we knew that there were no nondisclosure agreements and that our legislators here in Florida were representing their constituents rather than the corporations?  Banning agreements by which legislators agree—with anyone --  not to tell their constituents what is going on with legislation would be a good first step.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

HEARSAY.

Katie Britt is infamously a U.S. Senator, among other things.  In her own words, she describes herself as a housewife.  She has been the subject of much reporting for her performance in trying to rebut President Joe Biden's State of the Union message last week. 

          I want to look at just one part of her performance, when she told a story of a person who, as she told the story, she herself had spoken with.  Ms. Britt said that the victim told her that she, the victim, had been put into sex trafficking by cartels when she was 12 years old.  Ms. Britt at least implied that the victim was an undocumented immigrant.

          Contacted by CNN, the victim herself corrected the story in an appearance of her own on television:  While it was true that she was involved in sex trafficking, it was not at the border and immigration policies had nothing to do with it;  she was repeatedly raped in the brothel where she worked.  The attacks upon her did not happen in the United States; they happened in Mexico.  They did not happen during President Biden's administration; they happened during George W. Bush's administration.

          I have not seen my question addressed in all the reporting since:  Did Katie Britt contact the victim of her story before she told her story?  Ms. Britt says that the victim herself told her this story.  If she did, I wonder why the victim herself would say, as she does,  that using her story for politics was "unfair" if she had been contacted in advance about using her story for politics.  So the likelihood seems to me to be that, at the least,  Katie Britt did not confirm any of this with the victim but that CNN contacted the victim to confirm any of this.

          There seems to be a moral here, and it is this:  It is always a best practice to engage your brain before you engage your mouth.  Here, that would have meant verifying the story before telling it – such as by contacting the purported victim, unless you intend to lie,  and asking her if all the details they told you to say are accurate.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

SINCE WHEN IS NEGOTIATING DRUG PRICES LIKE EVICTION? OR CENSORSHIP?

Bristol Myers Squibb is a very profitable drug company.  It is one of the "Big Pharma."  In 2023, it reported some $45,000,000,000.00 or $45 Billion in revenue.  Much of that money came from people on Medicare who needed drugs.  Bristol Myers Squibb did not need to negotiate its prices before now.

          Under the Inflation Reduction Act, it and the other drug manufacturers have to negotiate the prices they charge Medicare, pay a tax if they insist on charging Medicare what they want to charge Medicare, or withdraw from Medicare entirely.

          Reportedly, one of its lawyers argued to a judge recently that the judge should strike the law down because, he said, paying a tax if the drug manufacturers insist on charging Medicare what they want to charge Medicare, is like eviction.

          The same lawyer also reportedly argued for Bristol Myers Squibb that the law does or may violate the drug manufacturers' "First Amendment rights."

          Eviction?  Censorship?  Is $45 Billion not enough?  Is there ever enough for these people?  Well, when I read these comments, I thought how ludicrous they are.  I wish that I had been in the courtroom.  I would have laughed and laughed.

          The ideas either that negotiating drug prices is like eviction or that negotiating drug prices is censorship, are so silly that they are laughable. 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

 

"IT'S THE DICTA, STUPID."*

*With apologies again to Mr. James Carville, who famously said during one of the successful Clinton campaigns, "It's the economy, stupid."

Dicta is a word that lawyers use to describe the opinions of judges that go beyond what they need to say to decide the case that confronts them.  To paraphrase Black's Law Dictionary, a standard text for many lawyers, dicta are opinions of judges concerning matters which are not necessarily involved in nor essential to determine the case presently before the court.

          In the course of enticing all justices to agree that a candidate of a certain persuasion should remain on all ballots, 5 judges went beyond that case to declare how and why candidates in future cases should not remain on the ballot (which most legal scholars say is self-evident from the Fourteenth Amendment and which did not need to be rewritten).

          When the U.S. Supreme Court took this case, they limited their review to whether they should affirm or reverse the Supreme Court of Colorado.  The Colorado Supreme Court, you will recall, had held that the Fourteenth Amendment barred this particular candidate in this particular case from the Republican primary ballot in Colorado.

          That is what the U.S. Supreme Court said that they would review.  That narrow question.  Of course, as lawyers know, the question of affirmance or reversal on the facts of the particular case is everything that a reviewing court can ever determine without issuing an advisory opinion.

          Here is what the 9 said they ruled on together.  You may or may not agree with it, but you can certainly read it for yourself.  They don't want you to read it for yourself, you know.  Every good trial lawyer, and any lawyer or person for that matter, knows that when they don't want you to look at something, you should look at it.  Read this for yourself:

          A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year's election, from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado secretary of state to exclude the former President from the Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.

* * *

Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.

Trump v. Anderson, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2024 WL 899207, at *1 (U.S. March 4, 2024).

          The U.S. Supreme Court was previously pretty consistent in stating the view that it is or was limited under Article III of the Constitution to the existence of a controversy, and that, unlike State Supreme Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts lacked the power to issue advisory opinions.

          Based on preexisting precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court is accordingly prohibited by the Constitution from issuing an advisory opinion on what action Congress should take to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.  So there were very strong grounds before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in this case that it would be limited to deciding whether the Supreme Court of Colorado was right or wrong in this particular case.  Period.  End of report.

          Instead, the joint opinion of the 5 rewrote the Fourteenth Amendment to the satisfaction of the 5.  But this is not how all 9 think about the issue they decided, and it is certainly not the view of the other 4 who decided the narrow question of whether this particular candidate in this particular case would remain on the ballot.

          So the command of the 5 to Congress on how to implement Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates is dicta.

          That is what it is.  Meaning no offense but stating it clearly:  "It's the dicta, stupid."

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

UNELECTED TEXAS JUDGES, THE AMERICAN APOCALYPSE, AND MINORITY RULE.

A judge in Texas ruled that another federal policy must stop.   A rule adopted by the National Labor Relations Board would have treated corporations as "joint employers" when they control workers' pay, scheduling, and supervision, even if the workers are employed at say a franchise of McDonald's.

          The employers with control filed a lawsuit against the rule in Texas.  Not for the first time, a federal judge appointed during the American Apocalypse which began for most Americans on January 20, 2017 and ended on January 20, 2021, ruled in favor of the well-funded employers. 

          I say "not for the first time."  This ruling continues a string of decisions by unelected judges ruling for the minority of wealthy people in the United States who own or operate businesses.  In this case, for example, the rule was reportedly opposed once again by the Chamber of Commerce.  These decisions have been common for the last three years, coming mostly from judges in Texas, and most of them coming from unelected judges who were appointed between January 20, 2017 and January 20, 2021.

          For most Americans, the American Apocalypse began and ended on those dates.  For anyone who has anything to do with the federal courts these days, it is still going on.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

VACCINES ARE NOT POLITICAL. THEY ARE NECESSARY.

I attended a Post-Polio Support Group earlier this week.  Another person, who has Post-Polio Syndrome, mentioned that a candidate for president in America said that same day that he, the candidate,  would end mandatory vaccinations if he became president again.

          People who suffered from polio during their earlier years are keenly aware of the importance of vaccines.  If they too had been able to receive vaccines against polio, they might never have suffered so much.  So to them, this kind of remark is unforgivable.

          Yet the discussion about the remark was stopped.  Someone said it was "political" to object to this kind of remark.  I understand.  It is often better not to be controversial than to challenge.  Groups last longer without controversies than they do with challenges and, as a general rule, that's certain.

          But suppose a candidate says in the future that they will make fire escapes and sprinklers optional for landlords.  They will say perhaps that the cost of installing fire escapes or sprinklers is too great to require.  They will not require landlords to include them or not include them, but will leave it up to the landlords to make their own choice.

          I do not think that it would be political to oppose such remarks.  I think that it is self-evident that remarks of that kind  threaten the health and safety of other people for no good reason, regardless of whether or not a vocal cohort thirsts to hear them.  Some remarks are unworthy of being said in a civilized society.  Period.

          And so I think that the remark of making vaccines optional is consistent with insisting that there is no pandemic so that so far over 1 Million people have died.  That is not a political remark.  It is life-threatening.  No-one has the right to needlessly threaten my life or yours particularly for their own selfish benefit.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

LEST WE FORGET TO ASK: WHO PAID THE $1,031,788.33 BOND?

One month ago today, on February 7, 2024, U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks's February 6, 2024 Order was filed, approving the payment of a  $1,031,788.33 bond into the Registry of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  [Redacted, Unreconstructed] Plaintiff v. Hillary Clinton, Marc Elias, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, James Comey, and the United States of America, et al., Order Granting Unopposed Motion for Stay of Final Order and to Approve Bond To be Paid to Registry of Court, DE 309, filed Feb. 7, 2024 (S.D. Fla. No. 2:22-14102).

Click to Download Redacted Unreconstructed P v. [Lots of Ds Order Granting Unopposed M.Stay and Approve Bond to be Paid to Registry of Ct. DE 309 filed Feb. 6 2023 (S.D. Fla. Case No. 2.2022-14102).

         The payment of $1,031,788.33 into the Court Registry took the place of the appellants having to file a supersedeas bond to protect payment.  The Redacted, Unreconstructed Plaintiff and his lead lawyer in the case, Alina Habba and her law firm, Habba Madaio & Associates – lawyers who would also be his lawyers in other cases including the recently concluded and well-known litigation which Judge Kaplan presided over  --  appealed their joint and several liability to pay sanctions of $937,989.39 for filing this frivolous litigation in which they sued many, many defendants.  [Redacted, Unreconstructed] Plaintiff v. Hillary Clinton, Marc Elias, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, James Comey, and the United States of America, et al., Order Granting Joint Motion for Sanctions, DE 302, filed Jan. 19, 2023 (S.D. Fla. No. 2:22-14102).  

         PACER, the electronic docket allowing Public Access to (Federal) Court Electronic Records, does not show when the bond amount was filed or who filed it.  There is a lot of speculation in the press and on cable television, podcasts, and radio asking how the same Redacted, Unreconstructed party will be able to fund his appeals, several of which he has already filed.  Those are good questions.  You would think the payment of another Million Dollars (actually, more) would be added to the pot.  The payment of another Million Dollars+ to appeal hasn't even been discussed so far as I can find, let alone the fact that this appeal involves sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

          Yet the Sanctions Order filed January 19, 2023 seems to be forgotten already, and the Order Approving over $1Million to be Paid Into the Court Registry entered a month ago does not even enter the equation, yet it presents an identical question:  How did the Redacted, Unreconstructed party pay it, in other words, where did he get the money?  These are good questions as well.

         I am going to mention the names of people and outlets who have the capacity to answer these questions if they want to.  If I left a tweet on X-which-used-to-be-Twitter, I guess they might find a tweet but so would the trolls most likely and I do not want that.  I do not know whether these people will pay attention to blogs like this one, but I am going to try.  Maybe they will seek out their names since they are in a business where their name recognition is so important to them.

        I am not completely sure of how to bring this article to their attention, so I am going to mention their names here in the body of this article as well as in the metadata accompanying it.  Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you, Susanne Craig, David Barstow, Russ Buettner, Rachel Maddow, Andrew Weissmann, Will Bunch, Scott Maxwell, Jackie Calmes, LZ Granderson, Karen Tumulty, Julie K. Brown, David Dayen, New York Times, Washington Post, American Prospect, Guardian, Philadelphia Inquirer, Jamie Raskin, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Talking Points Memo, ProPublica, Miami Herald, Sun-Sentinel, and American Prospect.

          Thank you in advance, one and all.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

         The payment of $1,031,788.33 into the Court Registry took the place of the appellants having to file a supersedeas bond to protect payment.  The Redacted, Unreconstructed Plaintiff and his lead lawyer in the case, Alina Habba and her law firm, Habba Madaio & Associates – lawyers who would also be his lawyers in other cases including the recently concluded and well-known litigation which Judge Kaplan presided over  --  appealed their joint and several liability to pay sanctions of $937,989.39 for filing this frivolous litigation in which they sued many, many defendants.  [Redacted, Unreconstructed] Plaintiff v. Hillary Clinton, Marc Elias, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, James Comey, and the United States of America, et al., Order Granting Joint Motion for Sanctions, DE 302, filed Jan. 19, 2023 (S.D. Fla. No. 2:22-14102).  

         PACER, the electronic docket allowing Public Access to (Federal) Court Electronic Records, does not show when the bond amount was filed or who filed it.  There is a lot of speculation in the press and on cable television, podcasts, and radio asking how the same Redacted, Unreconstructed party will be able to fund his appeals, several of which he has already filed.  Those are good questions.  You would think the payment of another Million Dollars (actually, more) would be added to the pot.  The payment of another Million Dollars+ to appeal hasn't even been discussed so far as I can find, let alone the fact that this appeal involves sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

          Yet the Sanctions Order filed January 19, 2023 seems to be forgotten already, and the Order Approving over $1Million to be Paid Into the Court Registry entered a month ago does not even enter the equation, yet it presents an identical question:  How did the Redacted, Unreconstructed party pay it, in other words, where did he get the money?  These are good questions as well.

         I am going to mention the names of people and outlets who have the capacity to answer these questions if they want to.  If I left a tweet on X-which-used-to-be-Twitter, I guess they might find a tweet but so would the trolls most likely and I do not want that.  I do not know whether these people will pay attention to blogs like this one, but I am going to try.  Maybe they will seek out their names since they are in a business where their name recognition is so important to them.

        I am not completely sure of how to bring this article to their attention, so I am going to mention their names here in the body of this article as well as in the metadata accompanying it.  Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you, Susanne Craig, David Barstow, Russ Buettner, Rachel Maddow, Andrew Weissmann, Will Bunch, Scott Maxwell, Jackie Calmes, LZ Granderson, Karen Tumulty, Julie K. Brown, David Dayen, New York Times, Washington Post, American Prospect, Guardian, Philadelphia Inquirer, Jamie Raskin, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Talking Points Memo, ProPublica, Miami Herald, Sun-Sentinel, and American Prospect.

          Thank you in advance, one and all.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

CHURCHILL, CHAMBERLAIN, AND THE STORM GATHERING IN THE U.S. NOW.

Winston Churchill was famously a voice in the wilderness warning about Hitler.

          The newspapers and radios which were the media of his day heaped praise on Neville Chamberlain and not on him.  The newspapers and radios applauded Neville Chamberlain for continuously attempting to compromise with Hitler.  Until it was too late and World War Two came.

          The current situation in the United States is not the same as the situation that faced Winston Churchill.  It is not too late.  It is still possible to affect the outcome.

          That brings me to the decision released on Monday of this week in the Fourteenth Amendment case.  The best legal minds of the day said that the justices would apply the Fourteenth Amendment as it was written.

          The result was unanimous but the "reasoning" on offer was anything but.  Five turned on 4 after the 4 attempted to compromise for a unanimous result of not enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment as it was written.  The 5 outvoted the 4 and wrote their own amendment, still while not enforcing the Fourteenth as it was written.

          It is clear, or it ought to be clear, that this decision was not the product of the best legal minds of the day.  If it was not the result of legal minds, it was the result of political minds and raw power, not reasoning.  5 did not prevail by the strength of their reasoning, which is the only way that the decisions of judges are legitimate in a free society.  5 simply outvoted 4 after the 4 compromised for unanimity.

          The best legal minds of the day are clearly not on the U.S. Supreme Court.

           At this point,  only foolish people expect a different result from them.  To rephrase Ben Franklin, the future is ours, if we can keep it.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

BRAND NEW INVENTIONS. SAME OLD PROBLEMS.

I have read about a new satellite that will "sniff out" methane emissions and alert everyone to areas of pollution on the planet.

          Technology continually gives us new machines and new ways to deal with our problems.

          What we need now is a new machine to "sniff out" people who are courageous enough to block the pollution.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.