Claims And Issues

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.

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. 

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.

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

Can you see who they are and what they are doing?

In the end, it's individuals who make the decisions that make the difference.  

(Image via Wikimedia Commons)

Things are not normal.  Sarcastic comments will not do any good.  Realize who they are and what they are doing.  

Realize too who you are.  Your will is yours.

An opportunity hides in the recent and continuing EMails to federal employees that they are no longer employed.  These EMails are mostly directed to probationary employees and each of these EMails reportedly says that the employee is being fired for "poor performance" and because they are not a good fit with the federal workforce.

The people who wrote, approved, and sent these EMails did not have to add "poor performance" even from their point of view.  Their view is that they have the authority to fire at-will employees for any reason or no reason at all, so the received wisdom goes even among lawyers.  (That is why at-will employees are called at-will employees, meaning that they are employees who work at the will of their employer.)

However, the people behind these EMails are so arrogant that they went beyond 'not a good fit' and added what they almost certainly did not have to add by claiming "poor performance" as well.

The people behind these EMails want to perpetrate a myth, that they are pursuing efficiency by firing you.  It is not true.

It is also not true that the employees forced to receive these EMails actually turned in "poor performance;" many employees in fact were given superior performance ratings before they were let go by the faceless EMail People.

Think of where the EMail Creatures are coming from.  They are willing to ruin your life, to inflict harm on you who receive their impersonal EMails, in order to perpetrate their myth of "efficiency."  (But not in person.)

For the sake of a lie.

The reported reaction of people who have received these EMails so far has been to dispute their contents, and even to make appointments to see Labor Lawyers.   "They can't fire me like that" summarizes the prevailing reported reaction so far.

Look as well at what they have done to you, where we are, and where we are going with them in charge.  This applies to most if not all of the things that they have done, are doing, and are likely to do next.

If you are going to see a lawyer anyway because you received one of the EMails, take that opportunity to ask your lawyer the question of whether each and any of the individuals in fact responsible for these EMails, might be liable in law for what they have done.

If you received one of these "poor performance so you're fired" EMails, if things are not changed, it will surely be hard for you to get another job.  But beyond that, if you have been falsely fired for "poor performance" then the people, again, who authorized, wrote, and sent such EMails in fact defamed you.  If their EMail falsely accused you of "poor performance" in your job, then in fact it is a lie.  That is not the same question unfortunately as whether in law it means personal liability for those responsible for it.  Ask your lawyer.

The EMail you received may not have identified who sent it.  That would not be terribly surprising, but it would be consistent.  I cannot say whether your jurisdiction allows for early discovery and I cannot tell you whether you have a good case.   Your lawyer should be able to tell you, besides telling you what your chances are of making a good claim against organizations and individuals in your situation, if you can obtain immediate discovery of who sent the EMail, who cleared it, and who authorized it.

 It is a question worth the asking.  Individual liability to pay money, meaning the possibility of adding individual defendants in a lawsuit to pay damages should you successfully pursue them to judgment, seems to me to always be far more likely to make them stop their harmful behavior than would any award against the United States Treasury (or what there is left of it by the time you get a judgment, if you ever do).

None of this may work for you, of course.  The pain of the present is real.  It exists every day today, but it does not decide the future.  It is certainly possible that these EMails have taken your career away if things are not changed.  It is also at least equally possible, however, to change things.  It is also possible to make these EMails become the true story of how the people responsible for them lied to fire you.  Prospective future employers will know the true story then.  

In a larger sense, the only way to stop the Valley Boys and their Billionaire Bosses is to realize who they are and what they do, and to realize who you are.  Individuals determine outcomes:  With or without words, act with conviction and purpose, act positively and persevere.

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 Judge Dale E. Ho and his Law Clerks.

This isue is so urgent and so important that I am publishing this article on all my platforms, on Substack and on my blogs, in an effort to reach the attention of Judge Ho and his Law Clerks.

 

An Open Letter to Judge Dale E. Ho and his Law Clerks

Seal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

 

Re:  United States v. Eric Adams, Case No. 1:24-cr-0556-DEH, Southern District of New York.

The Court has for consideration the Nolle Prosequi, or "motion seeking dismissal without prejudice of the charges in this case, with leave of the Court, pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."  U.S. v. Adams, Nolle Prosequi [hereinafter "the Motion"], Doc. No. 122, filed Feb. 14, 2025 (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 24 Cr. 556 (DEH)) (emphasis added).

The Motion is based on assertions and not on facts.  For that reason alone, the Motion does not comply with the rule it invokes, Federal Rule of  Criminal Procedure 48(a).  See United States v. Jovanovic, Cr. Action No. 25-15 (BAH), 2025 WL 266551, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 22, 2025) (Howell, J.).

Here, the Motion before the Court is bereft of facts.  On its face, it is expressly based not on the perceived observations and knowledge of any lawyer who signed the Motion, but it is expressly based instead on something that "[t]he Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined," or has "concluded," or has "reached that conclusion," or has "also concluded."

Since there are no facts presented to guide this Court in its decision whether to grant leave as this unsworn Motion requests, and since the Defendant's attorneys (understandably) agree with the Motion, this Court and its Law Clerks responsible for considering the proper disposition of this Motion may benefit from this Open Letter, which this Court and all of its Law Clerks are of course free to consult or reject.

As noted, there are no facts provided to this Court by or with this Motion.  PACER does not reveal that any Declarations, Affidavits, or documentary evidence was filed along with this Motion.

And for good reason it seems.  It is public knowledge that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York raised the issue, based on her own personal knowledge as she expressed in her letter,  that this Motion is based on a rejection of ample evidence to support the grand jury's indictment in the first place.  For your ease of reference, I am able to make Ms. Sassoon's February 12 letter available here:    Download Danielle-sassoon-02.12.25 letter-to-ag 

U.S. Attorney Sassoon's letter also raised the issue that the principal if not only motivation behind the filing of the Motion is, quoting the separate resignation letter of Assistant United States Attorney Hagan Scotten, "to induce an elected official to support [the current Government's] policy objectives."   Download Hagan-scotten-resignation 02.14.25 EM letter.

Prosecutorial discretion is not unlimited.  See United States v. Ammidown, 497 F. 2d 615, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (suggesting that a prosecutor's decision to request dismissal of a criminal prosecution under Criminal Rule 48(a) might require a statement of governmental reasons and "underlying factual basis" supporting the government's decision).

It has been held, rather, that the District Court's role in the face of a Criminal Rule 48(a) Motion is to examine the record to insure that the efforts to end the criminal prosecution in the case before the Court, are not "'tainted with impropriety.'"  United States v. Flynn, 507 F. Supp. 3d 116, 130 (D.D.C. 2020), quoting and applying Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 30, 98 S. Ct. 81 (1977).

In Flynn, District Judge Sullivan collected cases decided under Criminal Rule 48(a), concluding with a look at the reason why the Rule was enacted in the first place:

In addition, as indicated by the history of Rule 48(a), the corrupt dismissal of politically well-connected individuals would also constitute an abuse of discretion.

United States v. Flynn, 507 F. Supp. 3d at 130-31.

Case law under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) does not seem to support an unsupported dismissal of criminal charges in this case without an examination of a full record on this issue.  However, the published cases decided under Rule 48(a) do seem to support the development of a full record on this issue.  A full record on this issue would include, for example, the production to the Court (for in camera inspection if necessary) of all correspondence and other communications passing between any official of the current federal government, on the one hand, and Mr. Adams and his counsel on the other hand, concerning the issues set out in the pending Motion, in the February 12, 2025 letter of U.S. Attorney Danielle R. Sassoon, and in the February 14, 2025 EMail letter of  Assistant U.S. Attorney Hagan Scotten.

Please consider or reject this Open Letter in your consideration of the pending materials.  It is appropriate to raise one additional matter here, which it might not have been quite as appropriate if I were making an appearance in this case in your Court.  Please also consider the effect on the Nation of your decision.

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. 

 

Seal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

 

Re:  United States v. Eric Adams, Case No. 1:24-cr-0556-DEH, Southern District of New York.

The Court has for consideration the Nolle Prosequi, or "motion seeking dismissal without prejudice of the charges in this case, with leave of the Court, pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."  U.S. v. Adams, Nolle Prosequi [hereinafter "the Motion"], Doc. No. 122, filed Feb. 14, 2025 (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 24 Cr. 556 (DEH)) (emphasis added).

The Motion is based on assertions and not on facts.  For that reason alone, the Motion does not comply with the rule it invokes, Federal Rule of  Criminal Procedure 48(a).  See United States v. Jovanovic, Cr. Action No. 25-15 (BAH), 2025 WL 266551, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 22, 2025) (Howell, J.).

Here, the Motion before the Court is bereft of facts.  On its face, it is expressly based not on the perceived observations and knowledge of any lawyer who signed the Motion, but it is expressly based instead on something that "[t]he Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined," or has "concluded," or has "reached that conclusion," or has "also concluded."

Since there are no facts presented to guide this Court in its decision whether to grant leave as this unsworn Motion requests, and since the Defendant's attorneys (understandably) agree with the Motion, this Court and its Law Clerks responsible for considering the proper disposition of this Motion may benefit from this Open Letter, which this Court and all of its Law Clerks are of course free to consult or reject.

As noted, there are no facts provided to this Court by or with this Motion.  PACER does not reveal that any Declarations, Affidavits, or documentary evidence was filed along with this Motion.

And for good reason it seems.  It is public knowledge that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York raised the issue, based on her own personal knowledge as she expressed in her letter,  that this Motion is based on a rejection of ample evidence to support the grand jury's indictment in the first place.  For your ease of reference, I am able to make Ms. Sassoon's February 12 letter available here:    Download Danielle-sassoon-02.12.25 letter-to-ag 

U.S. Attorney Sassoon's letter also raised the issue that the principal if not only motivation behind the filing of the Motion is, quoting the separate resignation letter of Assistant United States Attorney Hagan Scotten, "to induce an elected official to support [the current Government's] policy objectives."   Download Hagan-scotten-resignation 02.14.25 EM letter.

Prosecutorial discretion is not unlimited.  See United States v. Ammidown, 497 F. 2d 615, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (suggesting that a prosecutor's decision to request dismissal of a criminal prosecution under Criminal Rule 48(a) might require a statement of governmental reasons and "underlying factual basis" supporting the government's decision).

It has been held, rather, that the District Court's role in the face of a Criminal Rule 48(a) Motion is to examine the record to insure that the efforts to end the criminal prosecution in the case before the Court, are not "'tainted with impropriety.'"  United States v. Flynn, 507 F. Supp. 3d 116, 130 (D.D.C. 2020), quoting and applying Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 30, 98 S. Ct. 81 (1977).

In Flynn, District Judge Sullivan collected cases decided under Criminal Rule 48(a), concluding with a look at the reason why the Rule was enacted in the first place:

In addition, as indicated by the history of Rule 48(a), the corrupt dismissal of politically well-connected individuals would also constitute an abuse of discretion.

United States v. Flynn, 507 F. Supp. 3d at 130-31.

Case law under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) does not seem to support an unsupported dismissal of criminal charges in this case without an examination of a full record on this issue.  However, the published cases decided under Rule 48(a) do seem to support the development of a full record on this issue.  A full record on this issue would include, for example, the production to the Court (for in camera inspection if necessary) of all correspondence and other communications passing between any official of the current federal government, on the one hand, and Mr. Adams and his counsel on the other hand, concerning the issues set out in the pending Motion, in the February 12, 2025 letter of U.S. Attorney Danielle R. Sassoon, and in the February 14, 2025 EMail letter of  Assistant U.S. Attorney Hagan Scotten.

Please consider or reject this Open Letter in your consideration of the pending materials.  It is appropriate to raise one additional matter here, which it might not have been quite as appropriate if I were making an appearance in this case in your Court.  Please also consider the effect on the Nation of your decision.

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. 

Yesterday was the 25th Day of This. Today we begin the 26th. What comes next is up to us.

I published this article previously on Substack where it has gotten a lot of attention.  I would like to publish it here for you as well.  Together we can get through all of this.  Together may the coming weeks be better for all of us because, in the end, no-one else came to save us but we came to save ourselves.

Constitution Backdrop published by the U.S. Government in 1935.

We have come to the end of a week of looking at the actions that current federal agencies have taken in the last 25 days. Now I wish to focus on the judges, their decisions, and the people in the current federal government. Some have asked the question of what will happen if the current federal government ignores any one or all of these decisions.

One of the earliest roles in my own practice of law was as a defense attorney. I did that for many years. As a defense lawyer, I early on developed the habit of preparing to defend all likely eventualities including the worst possible case. I will not claim that I was perfect at predicting the possibilities, but I learned always to prepare for them.

So for me, the question is not whether these people will refuse to obey Court Orders, the question is what to do when they disobey a Court Order.

It hasn't happened, so far as I know as of this writing. But it may be about to happen. Frankly, it is unclear what response might be made in actual cases, although there are many possibilities. What responses might actually be made is left, as it must be, to the judges and the lawyers who are handling those claims and cases. What follows is my best attempt to highlight at least some of the possibilities before any of them become reality.

It may be a problem for a federal judge in Rhode Island, say, to enforce his Orders against agency officials who are located in Washington, D.C.

One possible response might be to direct the judicial response to officials of the offending federal agency who are located in the District in which the federal judge sits, and so are subject to the given judge's jurisdiction and, frankly, the judge's ability to call upon the U.S. Marshals to bring the official to the judge's Court. That is one possibility.

Another possible remedy might include the lawyers who stand in the judge's courtroom arguing for actions that are unconstitutional, against the law, or ignore the law. In the situation we are imagining, those lawyers have lost the argument. Their client has disobeyed Court Orders. Lawyers have an ethical obligation to be zealous in their advocacy, but it is unethical for lawyers to counsel their clients to refuse to comply with clearly established law. Noncompliance with clearly established law seems to be the case in most if not all of these situations in the past 25 days. You might even say that it seems to be a feature of those cases, not a bug.

It would also seem, then, to be well-taken for those lawyers to have to explain their conduct. After all, they are the ones who presented the arguments in favor of ignoring clearly established law in at least some of the cases. I have never initiated or argued a contempt proceeding for anyone to Show Cause why they should not be held in contempt, but I have seen judges take that step. This might be the occasion for a Show Cause proceeding or proceedings, now.

Judges are not the only ones who can call wayward lawyers to account. There is certainly room for Bar Associations to consider the conduct of some of their members here. I have served on a Grievance Committee and we encountered conduct far less noteworthy than some of the government lawyers’ conduct that has been on display in the past 25 days. The truth of it is instead that there is a seeming vacuum where Bar Associations should be, but are not. Perhaps not as yet.

In addition to Ethical Rules, lawyers are bound by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 which basically means that lawyers are liable to sanctions if they file or pursue claims or defenses that are basically frivolous or made in bad faith. They may also be subject to State anti-SLAPP or anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation laws, although as I say these laws are State laws and their application to lawyers in federal litigation may or may not be problematical, I just don't know. (Anti-SLAPP laws are a protection in many States against being sued in meritless lawsuits for no other reason than causing you to have to spend your money on defense fees and costs.)

I am advocating for Due Process. An Inquisition is not a good response to a coup in my judgment. I would not deny Due Process even to those who would deny Due Process to everyone else.

Even the current government lawyers.

As I understand it, many of the current government lawyers were not employed by the federal government until some three weeks ago, and there are not very many professional practicing lawyers left in the Department of Justice or in U.S. Attorneys' Offices at the time that these words are written.

But even the current government lawyers are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard as to why they are conducting themselves as they are. That is the point of one possible remedy for a federal government and the lawyers it retains to defy Court Orders.

Thanks for reading Claims and Issues! I first published this article on Substack on Valentine's Day 2025. 

P.S. on Saturday, February 15, 2025:

Here are two letters I want to make available to you to read.  One is the letter that U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon sent to the current Attorney General, Pamela Bondi, before Ms. Sassoon resigned.  Download Danielle-sassoon-02.12.25 letter-to-ag  Ms. Sassoon sent this letter before she resigned because she would not file a motion to dismiss the pending indictment against the N.Y.C. Mayor.  A motion has since been filed, asking for "leave of  Court" to dismiss the charges.  The judge should review this eight-page letter before taking any action.  Some say that this letter is written like a pleading, ready to be filed in court.  The judge would benefit from a reading of this letter in any event.  We as a country benefit from Ms. Sassoon's courage and integrity.

The other letter I am making available for you to read immediately is the enormously well-written resignation EMail letter of Haagen Scotten, Assistant U.S. Attorney, which he sent to one of the lawyers that lost the criminal case against his client in New York State Supreme Court, since promoted to Acting Assistant Attorney General of the United States.  Download Hagan-scotten-resignation 02.14.25 EM letter.

A small part of Mr. Scotten's one-page EMail letter is worth reproducing here in full, in which he addressed the justification that dismissal of the charges against the N.Y.C. Mayor without prejudice means that the charges can be refiled if the Mayor does not support the current federal government's "policy objectives":

But any assistant U.S. attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials in this way.  If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion.  But it was never going to be me.

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. 

 

On Abraham Lincoln's Birthday in 2025.

Abraham Lincoln's law office in Springfield, Illinois was on the floor above the local courtroom.  His office had a secret entrance, a trap door in the floor of his office which was the ceiling of the courtroom.

I learned of this secret entrance when I visited Springfield and saw it.  I cannot imagine that Lincoln used the entrance often.  Judges and juries would not think highly of a lawyer who entered the courtroom by dropping from the ceiling.  Springfield in Lincoln's time was a small town, not a small city.  Word spread fast.  Honorable reputations mattered.

I think that Lincoln reserved use of the trap door for emergencies which were clearly emergencies.   For example, one recorded use of it came when several people shouted death threats at a friend of Lincoln's in the courtroom.  Lincoln swung down through the secret entrance, landed on his feet, and announced to everyone listening that they would have to go through him if they wanted to harm his friend, the story goes.  And no-one harmed his friend.

This was a quality of character that Abraham Lincoln displayed as President, for example, when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.  He did not sign an order to round up all the Confederates who, after all, had publicly vowed to overthrow the United States with enslavement.  Rather, he issued the Proclamation to make positive thoughts real, as a war measure to win the war and to do good at the same time by emancipating enslaved people held by the Confederates.

On February 12 this year, we should recall many things that Lincoln said and did.  These things stand out among the rest in our own times.

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. 

Tell it to the Judge: A Postscript.

Judge Coughenour reportedly asked this question at Thursday's Hearing on the executive order to rewrite the Fourteenth Amendment:

Where were the lawyers when this order was written?

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. 

Convicted. Adjudicated Felon. Forever More.

(Wikimedia Commons)

There are many reported reactions to the Sentencing Hearing that took place on Friday, January 10, 2025 in New York State Supreme Court.  Here are two things to remember in the middle of it all.

          First is his criminal conviction.   He was sentenced by a Court.  That will never be taken away no matter how many words are spoken or written about it.  He is a convicted felon.

          Second, it was important to him.  This is at least one metric of value in such a case:  What's important to the other person?

          I learned this in negotiations.  I am not the world's best negotiator and I make no claim to being one.

          But I learned that well.  One of the ways to measure the value of an action or an event or an object, is to look at how important it is to the other person.

          In this case, there are many ways in which he showed that it is very important to him.  We should believe what we see with our own eyes, not what anyone says about it.

          He contested being sentenced, i.e., convicted in the trial court.

          He asked 3 appellate courts to stop it.

          Here's a kind of judicial scorecard if you will:  8 judges said "nothing doing," 4 voted his way and he appointed 2 of those, they owe their jobs to him.  This is not the kind of record anyone wants, including him, obviously.

          Summary:  He is going to be the first and only person convicted of a felony ever to take the oath that he will to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States when sworn in as President of the United States.  That hurts him.  No-one wants to stand out that way.  Him included.  The humiliation of it all is dampened but not drowned with words.  Ask anyone in a penitentiary if that is so.

          The high value he put on not being convicted, which is really what the sentencing hearing was all about,  is clear from the way he fought not to be sentenced.  It is also clear that he saw it that way, namely that it is his criminal conviction.  It was so important to him that he fought it all the way including asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule before it even arguably had jurisdiction to rule.  (And which it may not have had, but their lack of jurisdiction in this matter is moot,  now that they declined to stay the sentencing.)

          We all know about the many, many cases he has been involved in.  Most of them have been resolved by a settlement.  For some people, reaching settlements is the ultimate goal in litigation in most cases, if not in every case.   In this case, this is not a settlement.  This is not something to get out of by paying money or at least saying that he would pay money, by making some deal.

          This is an adjudication by a Court.

          And in this case, an adjudication by a Court in a criminal case.

          Perhaps for the first time in his life he has been convicted of his crimes.

          When all is said and done (and we are guaranteed that we are going to continue to hear all about it from him), this is not an ideal end to his criminal cases.  But this has never been an ideal world.  The world has never been an ideal place and especially in the present age, it is not.  This is instead the best possible outcome that could be obtained.

          The best possible outcome in an imperfect world. 

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. 

Endless Summer Tag.jpg (Broward Tag and Title)

You can tell a lot from specialty license tags.

Florida allows people to pay extra money to put specialty license tags (or, in most other States, license plates) on their cars.

As a Floridian, I have often thought that this practice must drive other States crazy.  How can anyone outside of Florida identify a Florida license tag they might have never seen before?  This must drive police in other States crazy, in particular.

You can tell a lot from specialty license tags that people pay for in Florida.  The most popular specialty tag is titled “Endless Summer.”  A photo of it is pictured at the top of this article.

Other specialty tags are being removed by the State because they have not met the threshold superimposed by the Florida Legislature in 2020 on the pre-existing requirements for specialty tags.  (To many this will seem reminiscent of the requirements imposed on amending the Florida Constitution by raising the threshold from over 50% of the voters, to over 60% of the voters after citizens’ initiatives passed the 50%+1 threshold and became law.)

Permit me a brief aside at this point, if you will, regarding a “mandate.”  The incoming administration does not have one.  Maybe they can learn from the Florida Legislature:  If you can’t meet a mandate, change it.  Make it easier for your side to meet and harder if not impossible for others to meet.

Florida is about to abandon these specialty license plates, among others, according to recent press reports, such as Florida Axes Boy Scout Specialty License Plate, Other Low-Selling Ones, by Richard Tribou, published in THE ORLANDO SENTINEL (Dec. 6, 2024):

• Gone are Keep Kids Drugs Free.
• Florida is no longer A State of Vision.

And:

• Special Olympics. Yes, the sale of Florida license tags is too selective now to include the Special Olympics, include being an appropriately descriptive  word here.

We are re-entering the era of Endless Summer, it would appear, and we are leaving behind the Drug-Free, State of Vision, with Special Olympics in it.

I remember the movie Endless Summer.   It was released in I believe 1966.  I think I saw it.  Predicting the present day, perhaps, the writers did not produce much of a plot.  It was just one surfing adventure after another, one more beach, always more sand, and not too much that was really worth remembering or commemorating.

But that is not the Endless Vision that I see today.  I see people who welcome the Light.

People who bring Light to others.

People who donate clothes and food because other people need clothes and food.

That’s what Christmas is all about, you know.  That’s what the Holidays cherished by many people are all about, cherished by religious people and by people who may not be called “religious” at all (certainly not in the contemporary use of that word to disguise cruelty and make excuses for greed).

So you can learn a lot from which specialty license plates people will buy to put on their cars, and which things politicians will select for their own peculiar form of regulations.

In the end, only one thing matters.  It’s not a specialty license take for a car.  And it’s certainly not a politician.

It’s you.  And it’s me.  How we treat others as we live is what matters.

Merry Christmas!  However you celebrate the Holidays, best wishes of Happy Holidays to you and yours.

A version of this article was published on Substack. 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

Election Day 2024

It’s a joy!

Voting Booths Flags.  (Common Ground Project.jpg)

 

I can vote today because others made it possible.

Make it possible for others to vote tomorrow.

Vote today.

It’s a right.  It’s a duty.  It’s a privilege.  It’s a joy!

 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 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 would you do with $2Trillion?

Seamus waiting for the election. (Author Photo)

It is reported by reliable sources that Mr. Elon Musk has declared that if he gets the power to do it, he will cut $2Trillion from the economy.

It is also reported by reliable sources that Mr. Musk’s fortune is about $20Trillion.

I cannot imagine doing whatever it took to accumulate $20Trillion.  I can imagine what I would do if I had that much money at my disposal.  Instead of taking 10% of that amount out of the economy, I would spend that 10% of my fortune on people who need it. 

If I did that, I wouldn’t have to worry about taking $2Trillion out of the economy and it would free up about $2Trillion from the U.S. budget.  I understand that the entire amount of Federal spending apart from dedicated budgets of say the Defense Department and such, totals $1.7Trillion which of course is even less than the $2Trillion.

What do you think you would do with your $2Trillion?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

Elon Musk And The Law: The Philadelphia Story, 2024.

If you ask for a Preliminary Injunction, you’re not asking for money or for jail time.  You’re asking a judge to tell him to stop.

Court of Common Pleas.  This one happens to be in Alleghany County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  (Wikimedia Commons) 

It is a federal crime punishable by a fine of $10,000.00 or five years in prison, or both, for a person to “knowingly or willfully pay or offer to pay “either for registration to vote or for voting[.]”  The statute is found at 52 U.S.C.A. § 10307(c).  The statute is enforceable by the Attorney General of the United States who may file a civil action for an injunction to stop the perpetrator from pursuing his scheme.  That statute is found at 52 U.S.C.A. § 10308(d).

What Congress did here is allow for the option of civil, not criminal sanctions or penalties or jail time, so that the law could be worked out without a defendant being asked to pay money or serve time in prison.

Elon Musk and his Political Action Committee, which he calls America PAC, is notoriously offering $1 Million in a daily giveaway to registered voters in selected “swing states” including Pennsylvania.  Applicants reportedly must sign a Musk “petition” or pledge to ‘support’ the First and Second Amendments to the United States Constitution.  Mr. Musk and his PAC have announced that the winners of their daily giveaway are selected at random.

The U.S. Department of Justice sent Mr. Musk a strongly worded letter to stop.  Musk and his PAC have not stopped.  They have continued.  They have given away some $9 Million as of Monday, October 28, 2024; in particular, nearly half of that amount has been given to Pennsylvania voters.

Apparently tired of waiting for the United States Attorney General to act even by asking for a civil injunction under the federal statutes, the District Attorney of Philadelphia, Larry Krasner, has reportedly filed a civil lawsuit under Pennsylvania law in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia.

I have not seen the complaint.  I have only read reports.  But based on my own experience, I draw a couple of conclusions.  The reporting describes the D.A.’s lawsuit as a civil case.  That means to me that the D.A. is not asking to send Elon Musk to prison here.  That is because you cannot ask for jail time in a civil case.

I also draw from the reporting that the D.A. is requesting a Preliminary Injunction.  If you ask for a Preliminary Injunction, you are not asking for money or for jail time.  You are asking a judge to tell the defendant to stop.

Now, the D.A. may or may not be asking for damages in addition to asking for a Preliminary Injunction, but that hasn’t been reported.  A Hearing has been set by the Court for Friday, November 1, 2024, presumably on the D.A.’s request for a Preliminary Injunction.  We should know more then.  Hopefully, someone will attend who has been in a courtroom before, someone other than the judge and the lawyers, someone who can give us a better idea of what’s going on.

The Philadelphia D.A. has reportedly raised three grounds for an injunction to bar the Musk giveaway.  Mr. Musk and his PAC will of course have the opportunity to defend themselves, in Court.

These are reportedly the legal theories behind asking a judge for an injunction to stop Mr. Musk’s unique Daily-Million-Dollar-Giveaway, at least in Pennsylvania:

1. The Philadelphia D.A.’s complaint reportedly alleges that the Musk giveaway is in reality a lottery. In Pennsylvania, only the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, i.e., the State, can run a lottery and then only for the benefit of Pennsylvania’s senior citizens (and not, for example, for the benefit of a senior citizen of Florida).
2. The D.A.’s complaint also reportedly alleges violations of Pennsylvania’s consumer protection laws.
3. Finally, it is reported that the D.A.’s complaint challenges the fairness of the Musk giveaway in the first place. In fact, the complaint contains the allegation that the giveaway is not random and that it is in fact false.  For example, the complaint reportedly points out that so far, Pennsylvania winners of Musk’s $1Million are only people who have shown up at rallies for Musk’s chosen candidate.

I have some questions, questions that have arisen in the brief time since I learned about the filing of this lawsuit.  Before asking them, I want my readers to know that these questions are based on my own experiences and beliefs about the role of the law.  In my eyes, it is the job of prosecutors to enforce the law while it is the job of judges to decide the law.  The prosecutor must always have probable cause for what she or he does in office, of course, but from everything I know, in this particular case I think that there is probable cause to file a civil case to ask a judge to tell the defendant to stop.

And so I ask:  Why endure Merrick Garland a moment longer in the office of Attorney General of the United States?  Why wait once again for Merrick Garland to act to enforce the law?

Didn’t we already wait long enough for him to do something about the 2020 Election Frauds, waiting until it now seems it may all be too little, too late especially but not just if the Roberts court has its say?  Waiting so long that the waiting itself caused or contributed to the debacle.  So why should we wait any longer now?

Why, indeed, Mr. Garland?  You are no longer a judge, you know.  You do not get to decide what the law should be any more.  Since 2021, you are supposed to act to enforce it, and that’s a different job entirely – which you have not done.  The District Attorney of Philadelphia is doing it. 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Issues?  Check out my Substack newsletter. 

NEXT TIME.

It will happen again.

Four people were shot to death in a school in Georgia.  Two are reportedly students; two are reportedly teachers.  None of them returned home.

          Other people were injured because they were also shot in the school in Georgia.  They are in the hospital.  They are not in school today.

          Next time a person with a rifle and ammunition may murder people from a hotel window in Las Vegas, Nevada.

          Next time a person with an assault rifle and ammunition may murder scores of children and their teachers in an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

          Or in Newtown, Massachusetts.

          Next time, a person with an automatic rifle and ammunition may murder lots of people at the Mall of the Americas.

          Or at a mall near you.

          Or in a movie theater.

          Or in your church or in your synagogue.

          But no-one should pretend to be surprised when it happens again.  It will happen again.

          Something else may not happen, though.  It may be that nothing will be done to stop it from happening the next time, nothing by those who alone have the power to stop it.

          There may be marches and protests after the next time.  Perhaps even after this time.  The marches and protests may even draw the attention of a nation, as they did in the wake of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

          There may be overwhelming support among the people for something to be done, for the next time not to happen next time or ever.  There is overwhelming popular support for that now.

          But it is not enough.  We know that it is not enough because it keeps happening.

          I have no doubt that Almighty God hears the prayers of the people.  But God works through people and the people have not yet stopped this.

          It will happen again.

          Unless.

          Unless justice rolls down the mountainside like a mighty river, to borrow an image from the Prophet Amos.  Unless the people refuse any longer to accept their representatives’ excuses or, heaven forbid, the emptiness of ‘thoughts and prayers.’

          Unless the people demand that gun dealers and manufacturers stop selling their automatic rifles and ammunition to children, or to psychopaths, or to cartels in this country or in foreign places.

          Unless the Second Amendment is respected as something more than a shroud for the bodies of infants mutilated by gunfire.

          Unless these shadows are altered, it will happen again.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Check out my Substack newsletter.

"IS THERE A DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE?"

This is a good question.  It was asked so often at public meetings that it became a joke starting in Vaudeville days.  It's not a joke any more.

          There was at least one doctor in the house, at the rally that Saturday.  Reporting identifies him by name, a surgeon taking pictures with his cellphone.  Apparently the former president was taken away before the doctor could see him.

          When Gabby Gifford and President Reagan were shot, they were both taken to the hospital.  So was the former president on Saturday, according to reporting.  But the reports are confusing and incomplete.  One report has it that he was "taken to a local hospital from the rally site."  His spokesperson says that he was "being checked out at a local medical facility."  What an odd way to describe a hospital, by the way, "medical facility."

          All of these statements are incomplete because they do not tell us the name of the hospital where he was taken.  Seems like we should know.  When President Reagan was shot, he had been put into the presidential limousine where a Secret Service agent ordered the limo driver to proceed to the hospital.  We know the name of the hospital, of course.  It's not a state secret or a secret of any kind, and it should not be a secret. 

It's published right on the website of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library:  George Washington Hospital.

          So a good question is a simple one:     What is the name of the hospital where he was taken?

           Here's another:  Who treated him, whether at the hospital or at the rally?  Seems like we should know.  The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library has a long list of everyone who was around when the President was shot, including the names and workplaces of the doctors who treated him.

          As a rally, this was of course a gathering.  It was in Butler, Pennsylvania.  A permit is required to hold a public gathering.  The permit would require the presence and show the identity of Paramedics on scene.  The permit here would have been issued either by Butler Township or by Butler County.  Pull the permit and see what it tells you.

          Then there is the question that so far as I know has been raised by only one person, Ruth Ben-Ghiat.  She wondered about it in the course of taking a look at authoritarian playbooks including attempted assassinations, so she did not dwell on it but she is the only one I know who asked the question.   Why did the same Secret Service agents who had surrounded him, protecting him with their bodies as shields from any bullets that might still be fired, allow him to stop and stand  not once but twice on the way to the SUV, and the second time "expose his face, arm, and hand to the cameras and crowd, and deliver the fist pump and 'fight, fight, fight' message that created an iconic image."  Or as she herself framed it, "Why the Secret Service allowed him to do these things, in violation of any conceivable security protocols for such moments, is another story."

          Now would be a good time to get the answer:   Why did the Secret Service violate any conceivable security protocols for such moments?

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

UNITY WITHOUT FREEDOM IS NOT UNITY. IT IS SERVITUDE.

As some Democrats tear their party apart after finally realizing that the President who announced for re-election months ago is an old guy, but who said nothing at the time or at any time until now, the MAGAts are meeting in Milwaukee.

          They have adopted a platform which took out the words reflecting that they want to prohibit abortion.  That would not be a good sell, apparently, so they adopted a new platform instead.  The new platform is sly instead of blunt.

          It is anything but unifying, so far as that goes.

          Their new platform leaves it to each State to decide if a human embryo is a human person.  There does not appear to be any limitation.  As far as the new platform language goes, any State is free to rule what the Convention delegates have been saying, which is that every embryo is a person regardless of whether the embryo ever becomes a baby or is born or, well, anything other than just an embryo which is enough to be a person according to this.

          Their new platform would slyly make every embryo a  "person" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Never mind that every Court that has ever ruled on this question has ruled that it is not so.  Never mind that every time they try to introduce this as legislation in the U.S. Congress, it either gets voted down or it goes nowhere.

          Now they have a platform.  And a person to appoint new judges and new Members of Congress, they think.

          This is not unity.  This is a sleazy backdoor, back-alley mugging that pretends to be American, but only pretends.

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

THEY DIDN'T CHANT FOR UNITY. THEY CHANTED "FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT."

On Saturday before the Convention started on Monday, he was on a stage and was shot.  Surrounded by agents, he rose up in front of an American flag and reportedly said, "Fight!"  A day after he was shot, he insisted on "unity."

          On Monday the first night of their Convention, they understandably recited the Pledge of Allegiance.  This was ordinary, it seemed.  But they were led in their Pledge by a person who attacked the Capitol on January 6.  Four people died as a consequence of that attack.

          On the first night, the delegates chanted "fight, fight, fight."

          On the first night, the delegates did not chant "unity, unity, unity."

          We need more than words.  Especially when the words seem to be nothing more than a cover.  As the saying goes, walk the walk, don't just talk the talk.

          Stop trying to be the only ones allowed to speak violence.

          Start trying to join everyone else in America condemning violence and speaking acceptance.

          The whole world is watching.  We are all waiting to see if your "unity" is fake news again.

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

IT'S NOT RUBIO! IT'S NOT AILEEN CANNON! IT'S J.D. VANCE!

Tonight is not just some isolated incident.

          The central premise of the MAGA campaign is projection, that the President of the United States is an authoritarian fascist who must be impeached, that the Speaker of the House from the opposing party must be attacked and if she is not home then her husband must be attacked, that migrants are bugs who must be stomped on, and all the rest.  That rhetoric has led directly to political violence too many times to count.

          Time to dial it back and speak like a man, J.D.

          Time to act like a human being again.  You can do it.

          Disagree with everyone else, J.D., all you want, but don't disagree with this:  As Lincoln said, there can never be an appeal from the ballot to the bullet.

          So tone it down, J.D.  We all do our part, however small.  Now do yours.

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

WHAT THE COUNTRY NEEDS NOW ....

What the nation needs at this time is the answer of Faith:  Stay calm and believe.

          What the country is likely to get this week is anything but.  Anticipate four nights of angry cries for "Bloody Murder."

          Violence is much more likely to be on display just as it was during the American Apocalypse between January 20, 2017 and January 19, 2021.

          We can count on that. 

          Even as we count on ourselves and, far more than that, count on God (whether or not we call God Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or Whatever).  "Nobody's gonna break my Faith."

GO FORWARD!

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

'"SO IT'S ON TO CHICAGO, AND LET'S WIN THERE!"

Senator Robert F. Kennedy said that on June 5, 1968.  Right after he said that, he left the stage in a hotel in Los Angeles and walked through the kitchen.  He was murdered there.

          President Joe Biden is not Senator Robert F. Kennedy.  Judging by the frenzy surrounding Joe Biden's candidacy for re-election, that is his great sin in the eyes of many people, that he is not Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

          Full disclosure:  I am not now and never have been a big fan of Joe Biden as a candidate.  He is not my first choice to run for President.

          But he is an adequate candidate.  And he is a very good President.

          If as appears likely he stays in the race, consider the likely results.

          If he wins and dies in office, Vice President Kamala Harris would replace him automatically.  She is capable and we as a country can certainly make it  through four years with her as President.

          Or President Biden might win and become incapacitated while he is in office over the next four years.  That is why we have a 25th Amendment, and if he were removed because of incapacitation at any point during that time, once again Kamala Harris would become President Harris.

          Or President Biden might win and become too sick to serve for some of the next four years.  Everyone even his current critics concedes that Joe Biden loves this country, so if the 25th Amendment was not invoked then we can expect that he would step aside and once again, we would have President Harris.  (This scenario keeps repeating because that is why the Constitution requires a Vice President, someone to step into the office when the President no longer can.)

          If the other guy wins the Presidential election in 2024 (although if he won the popular vote this would be the first time in his career that he won the popular vote for anything), then the game is over.

          Likely, it will be over for many years if not forever.

          Given the likely outcomes of Joe Biden remaining in the 2024 Presidential election, my choice is Joe Biden.

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