Claims And Issues

HIDING WITH THE LIGHTS OFF: DHS'S PROPOSED "PUBLIC CHARGE" RULES.

You have probably heard that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed a re-write of the laws governing who is a "public charge" and therefore an inadmissible alien who cannot be admitted to the United States.

            The proposed rules and the explanations offered by DHS are set out in 182 pages of single-spaced small print in 83 Federal Register 51114-511196 (Wed., Oct. 10, 2018).  You can also access the 182 pages of DHS's proposed changes here:  Download DHS Proposed Public Charge Rule.101018.

            DHS's stated purpose for all of its changes was "to provide clarity for the public and immigration officers[.]"  83 F.R. at 51134, second unnumbered paragraph under "V.  Discussion of Proposed Rule."  Parenthetically, although the DHS often referred to "proposed rule" in the singular, it proposed many changes that would affect several rules.

            The public and immigration officers are both unlikely to see the DHS's efforts as "clarity."

            For example, at one point the DHS proposes that absence of a statutorily required affidavit of support under a certain statute "conclusively establishes an alien's inadmissibility on public charge grounds."  83 F.R. at 51178.  An immediate problem is that the statute relied on by the DHS, 8 U.S.C.A. Section 1183a, does not require any affidavit of support.

            Rather, Section 1183a prescribes the things required to be in an affidavit of support when there is one.  That is very different, and heaven help the public and the immigration officers who search Section 1183a in vain for what is not there, namely, a statutory requirement for an affidavit of support. 

            After the DHS identifies this non-existent "conclusive presumption" in its heading number "1" under "Public Charge Inadmissibility Determinations," the DHS next says in effect "never mind," and announces secondly that "2" the determinations are based on the totality of the circumstances.

            Which is it?

            How is the public and how is an immigration officer to be expected to reconcile the DHS hierarchy of, first, a conclusive presumption based on a statutory requirement that doesn't exist and, second, in any case the totality of the circumstances?

           Good questions.  I think that in these proposed rules the DHS clearly expects too much from the public and expects too much from immigration officers processing immigrants standing in lines at the U.S. borders.

           A second example of how the DHS's proposed rules do not really shine a light on "clarity" but instead, if they do anything it is to turn out the lights, comes from its new proposed requirement that immigration officials are told to calculate the "Fifteen percent [15%] of Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG) Standard for Monetizable Benefits[.]"

           Seriously.  See 83 F.R. at 51164-51165.

           The proposed new additions are in the proposed subsection (b) of Section 212.21, titled "Public benefit."  In that new subsection, the DHS first proposes a calculation of what it calls "monetizable" benefits, by which it means benefits that can be readily calculated into money, more or less.  These things include cash assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and so-called "General Assistance." 

           But -- remember that the DHS wants the public and immigration officers to clearly understand that a "public charge" is a person who gets any public benefits at all -- the DHS wants to tell immigration officers to also calculate benefits which the DHS thinks cannot be readily calculated into money, but which it wants immigration officers to try to do according to formulas it proposes for such things as food stamps, housing vouchers, and rental assistance.

           Not done yet!  The DHS also wants immigration officers to apply this formula:

(2)  Any of one or more of the following non-monetizable benefits if received for more than 12 months in the aggregate within a 36 month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two non-monetizable benefits in one month counts as two months)[.]

Proposed 8 CFR § 212.21(b)(2), published in 83 F.R. at 51290.

          What does that even mean?

          And how is an immigration officer at the border expected to figure that out?

          Last but not least is this third example of snatching "clarity" from the laws of immigration, which appears in the DHS's proposed Section 212.21(b)(3):

          (3)  The receipt of a combination of monetizable benefits under paragraph (b)(1) of this section where the cumulative value of such benefits is equal to or less than 15 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for a household size of one within any period of 12 consecutive [sic; the missing word the DHS is still searching for is apparently the word "months"] based on the per-month FPG for the months during which the benefits are received, together with one or more non-monetizable benefits under paragraph (b)(2) of this section if such non-monetizable benefits are received for more than 9 months in the aggregate within a 36 month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two non-monetizable benefits in one month counts as two months)[.]

I do not know if this passage passes for "clarity" in the language of a federal bureaucrat, but after over 40 years as a lawyer I can say without hesitation that no other person, no jury, and no judge would ever confuse this with "clarity."

          In the end, if the purpose of these changes proposed by the DHS is to cover up an intent to stop immigrants from entering the U.S., then perhaps that purpose has been achieved here, however foreign and unlawful that purpose may be.

          But the DHS's stated purpose in proposing these changes is to achieve "clarity."  In that, the DHS clearly and totally fails.

 

Leave your Comments on the changes through the preferred submission Federal eRulemaking Portal:  www.regulations.gov.  The federal government has assigned the following numbers to these proposed rules changes to identify your Comments on these particular rules:  DHS Docket No. USCIS-2010-0012; RIN 1615-AA22.

 

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

THE other CLIMATE CHANGE REPORT AND ECONOMY GROWS WITH REMEDIES

It took me a long time to find a report released or at least reported Friday, November 23, 2018.  All the air in the room so to speak was taken up by another report, the one that the current administration released on that same day, the Friday after Thanksgiving, but that made it into the public consciousness big-time anyway.  That would be the Fourth National Climate Assessment.

    The other report I found was mentioned deep in one newspaper article, in the Washington Post Online.  The other report was released by  at about the same time as the Fourth National Climate Assessment.

    The other report is The Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report.  It was prepared by academics and scientists working in many agencies across the federal government.  It was released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.  The U.S. economy is specifically featured in it, along with ramifications for Canada and other nations in the same neighborhood as the U.S.  Download U.S. Global Research Program Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report.

    The result of all this work is heartening.  According to the report, the U.S. economy will continue to grow when remedies are put in place against the effects of climate change.  But not when the remedies are not put in place.  It's that easy to understand:

The report concludes that it appears possible to for economies to grow — at least in the United States, Mexico and Canada — without increasing overall emissions of greenhouse gases. That would be an important signal for the ability of the world to slow climate change over the course of the century. However, it does not mean any lessening of climate-change impacts within the United States. As long as global emissions continue, the risk of impacts here continue, because carbon dioxide circulates around the globe.

Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney, Major Trump Administration Climate Report Says Damage is "Intensifying Across the Country," Washington Post Online Friday, Nov. 23, 2018.

    So there you have it:  Why the reliance on coal and oil, America?  Relying on coal and oil doesn't help your economy or your budget.  So whose budgets are helped by you and I and the rest of America relying on coal and oil, then?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

"TELL ME WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?"

Protecting the southern border, Sunday, November 25, 2018.

(Sandy Huffaker/AFP/Getty Images)

Please Read The Disclaimer.

FAKE NEWS: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CLAIMED THEY NEEDED PROTECTION.

 Waiting For Them, Sunday, November 25, 2018.

(Sandy Huffaker/AFP/Getty Images)

The corporate media reported it as though it was true.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

BORDER PATROL TEAR GASSES CHILDREN ON SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2018.

                               

Border Patrol Tear Gasses Children on Sunday, November 25, 2018. (Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters).

How can you tell that this is the work of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection outfit, and not the U.S. Army?

          They both dress alike on the southern border.

          They both have orders on the southern border as well.  Orders up to and including shoot to kill it would seem.

          What will they display for us next?  Pictures of dead children?

On a cost-benefit level monetarily, is this where our money is going?

On a cost-benefit analysis of who we are as a people, is this what we are about now?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

BILLS COMING DUE: PRICES OF SEPARATING FAMILIES, ARMY'S "MINIMAL RISKS".

The first bills for two distinct but linked policy journeys of the current administration have just been announced.  The first bill for the cost of separating immigrant families is $80 Million.  That figure comes from the federal government itself.  See Caitlin Dickerson, The Price Tag of Immigrant Family Separations:  $80 Million and Rising, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 21, 2018, at A11 (New York Times may require a subscription to allow access).

    A similar figure of $72 Million has been placed on the cost of deploying the Army to the U.S. southern border, "so far," according to a Pentagon spokesperson.  That is apparently through December 15, 2018.  The Secretary of Defense admits that the costs can go higher beyond that date.  That is to be added to the separate expense of $138 Million for the National Guard so far.  The Army and National Guard face "minimal risks" because the border patrol itself says in a border intelligence analysis that its own agents -- armed individuals who the Army and National Guard, we are told, have been sent to "protect" -- face minimal risks themselves.  See, e.g., Ron Nixon, Helen Cooper, and Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Homeland Security Finds Risk to Border Agents is "Minimal", N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 21, 2018, at A10 (New York Times may require subscription to access); Robert Burns, Mattis Says He Has Extra Authority to Use Military on Border, AP, report by the Associated Press dated November 21, 2018.

    The totals so far of just these policy adventures: $290 Million at least through December 15, 2018.  Of course, that's only the money that's involved, not any other considerations.

    Where is the money coming from?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

E. coli RISING NUMBERS. FOOD INSPECTORS FALLING NUMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS?

The number of people poisoned by E. coli continues to rise.

The number of people hired to inspect food continues to fall.

Do you think that the people who send bogus travel and furniture charges to taxpayers can afford to pay their own taxes so that we can have food inspectors?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

"NOT HARDLY, PILGRIM."

It's not a surprise that corporate media is in it for the money to display advertising.  Display the truth?  Not so much.

We are not going to make many friends in corporate media by publishing this piece.  But it is a fact that printing advertising, not publishing truth, drives corporate media.

And it is a fact that although the people who currently hold the keys to government offices in Washington may be many things, they know how to manipulate the corporate media.  They do not depend on one propaganda outlet, namely, their in-house mouthpiece, Fox.  They count on the corporate media to re-broadcast every outrageous thing they say and do.

And the corporate media comply with that.  They sell newspaper, TV and radio advertising time because of those outrageous things.

Tell the truth?  Liberal media?

As the John Wayne character said in the movie, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance:

Not hardly, pilgrim.

AND WITH THAT,

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!  THIS YEAR GIVE THANKS BY GIVING.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

TAMPA BAY TIMES EDITORIAL:  "JUST VOTE NO (EXCEPT FOR AMENDMENT 4)."

Here is the Tampa Bay Times Editorial.  The editorial's description of the bundled, bungled Amendment 6 cannot be improved upon, so I am quoting it in full, here:

VICTIMS’ RIGHTS

Amendment 6. This measure would extend judges’ retirement ages, curb state agencies’ ability to interpret law, and add rights for crime victims — big issues that should not be jumbled into one proposal. This amendment would apply another state’s so-called Marsy’s Law to Florida. Kelsey Grammer’s heart-tugging ad in favor of Amendment 6 doesn’t address the reality in Florida and talks broadly about what happened in other states, which isn’t relevant. There is no need to amend the state Constitution to copy a California law, and victims already have rights in Florida. By allowing not just the accused to demand a speedy trial but also prosecutors and victims, the amendment would clog the courts with constitutional challenges, and it also could endanger fair trials and worthy appeals. For example, it would set limits of five years to complete state appeals in most capital cases. Keep in mind that 27 people have been freed from Florida’s death row after they were exonerated. The limits imposed by Marsy’s Law could have curbed those appeals and kept innocent people on death row. On Amendment 6, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting No.

Please Read The Disclaimer.

GEORGIA "EXACT MATCH" VOTER LAW:  HOW IS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL?

The Georgia "exact match" voter registration law at first seems to depend on Identification Numbers, but then it doesn't.

          Under the Georgia law, a "board of registration" is required to verify identity before any voter registration application will be accepted as valid.  There are two ways for the board of registration to verify identity:

          One is to compare Identification Card Numbers provided by the voter registration applicant "with the applicant's record on file with the [Georgia] Department of Driver Services or the federal Social Security Administration[.]"  Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-220.1(c)(1) (emphasis added).

          The way this is done is that "local county election officials take the information from the voter registration application" and input it into a Georgia-wide computer voter registration system called "Enet."  Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda, Inc. v. Kemp, Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, Doc. No. 33, filed November 2, 2018 (N.D. Ga. Case No. 1:18-CV-04727-ELR).

          Verify a person's identity by comparing what "local county election officials" input into a computer against what employees of the Department of Driver Services have input into a computer?  Or by comparing the local county election officials' input against what employees or hourly-wage contractors of the Social Security Administration have input?

          Seriously?

          Who has not been at the receiving end of a harmful mistake or some other painful failure by say a bank?

          Or by a credit card company?

          Or by a department store?

          Or by the Social Security Administration?  (Which is notorious for declaring people dead when they are still very much alive, but the others and many like them are certainly no more reliable than the government.)

          The other way that the board of registrars can by statute verify a voter registration applicant's identity is by "[t]he applicant providing sufficient evidence to the board of registrars to verify the applicant's identity[.]"  Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-220.1(c)(2) (emphasis again added).

          To say again, seriously?

          What does "providing sufficient evidence to the board of registrars" even mean?  It sounds like the ancient Courts of Equity in which the Chancellor would determine the measurement of a "foot" by measuring everything against the size of his own foot.  That led to substituting instead the standard measurement of a "foot" of 12 inches applicable to all.

          For a law to be constitutional, in basic and simple terms the statute must be a means to serve a legitimate purpose of the government enacting it, in a way which is either rational or compelling depending on the level of judicial scrutiny involved.  How is either subsection (1) or subsection (2) of the Georgia "exact match" voter registration law, both of which are quoted above, even rational?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved. 

GEORGIA "EXACT MATCH" VOTER LAW: HOW IS THIS EVEN RATIONAL?

The Georgia "exact match" voter registration law at first seems to depend on Identification Numbers, but then it doesn't.

          Under the Georgia law, a "board of registration" is required to verify identity before any voter registration application will be accepted as valid.  There are two ways for the board of registration to verify identity.

          One is to compare Identification Card Numbers provided by the voter registration applicant "with the applicant's record on file with the [Georgia] Department of Driver Services or the federal Social Security Administration[.]"  Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-220.1(c)(1) (emphasis added).

          The way this is done is that "local county election officials take the information from the voter registration application" and input it into a Georgia-wide computer voter registration system called "Enet."  Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda, Inc. v. Kemp, Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, Doc. No. 33, filed November 2, 2018 (N.D. Ga. Case No. 1:18-CV-04727-ELR). Download Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda Inc. v. Kemp Order Granting Preliminary Injunction Doc. No. 33 filed Nov. 2 2018 (N.D. Ga. Case No. 1.18.CV.04727.ELR)

          Verify a person's identity by comparing what "local county election officials" input into a computer against what employees of the Department of Driver Services have input into a computer?  Or by comparing the local county election officials' input against what employees or hourly-wage contractors of the Social Security Administration have input?

          Seriously?

          Who has not been at the receiving end of a harmful mistake or some other painful failure by say a bank?

          Or by a credit card company?

          Or by a department store?

          Or by the Social Security Administration?  (Which is notorious for declaring people dead when they are still very much alive, but the others and many like them are certainly no more reliable than the government.)

          The other way that the board of registrars can by statute verify a voter registration applicant's identity is by "[t]he applicant providing sufficient evidence to the board of registrars to verify the applicant's identity[.]"  Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-220.1(c)(2) (emphasis again added).

          To say again, seriously?

          What does "providing sufficient evidence to the board of registrars" even mean?  It sounds like the ancient Courts of Equity in which the Chancellor would determine the measurement of a "foot" by measuring everything against the size of his own foot.  That led to substituting instead the standard measurement of a "foot" of 12 inches applicable to all.

          For a law to be constitutional, in basic and simple terms the statute must be a means to serve a legitimate purpose of the government enacting it, in a way which is either rational or compelling depending on the level of judicial scrutiny involved.  How is either subsection (1) or subsection (2) of the Georgia "exact match" voter registration law, both of which are quoted above, even rational?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

FLORIDA AMENDMENTS 6 THROUGH 12: 19 FOR THE PRICE OF 6!

We are in the middle of early voting here in Florida.  It ends on Sunday, November 4th.  Election Day here is the same as in the rest of the country of course, November 6, 2018.

          However unlike the rest of the country we in Florida have been gifted with tricks, 19 bundled, bungled amendments in the clothes of 6 packages of so-called "amendments."  They were intended to be confusing.  That includes "Amendment 6," the so-called "Victim's Rights Amendment" which really is 3 amendments disguised as 1.

          They are explained in understandable terms in a brief PowerPoint I made and converted into a YouTube video for 11 minutes and 11 seconds, The Florida Constitution:  A Presentation of the Bundled Amendments on the Florida Ballot (October 2018), at https://youtu.be/Ma4Div0yXos. 

          Read all about these bungled amendments.  Then make your mind up if you vote in Florida whether you want to vote for any one of them, or against all of them.  Remember that if the 2017-2018 Constitution Revision Commission gets away with this bundling business, they will do it again next time.

          And remember this also:  If a single amendment is really good, they will come back with it next time.  You can count on that.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

FLORIDA BALLOT TRICKS. NOT TREATS, NO WAY.

We are in the middle of early voting here in Florida.  It ends on November 4th.  Election Day here is the same as in the rest of the country of course, November 6, 2018.

          However unlike the rest of the country we in Florida have been gifted with tricks, 19 bundled, bungled amendments in the clothes of 6 packages of so-called "amendments."  They were intended to be confusing.

          They are explained in understandable terms in a brief PowerPoint I made and converted into a YouTube video, The Florida Constitution:  A Presentation of the Bundled Amendments on the Florida Ballot (October 2018), at https://youtu.be/Ma4Div0yXos. 

          Read all about these bungled amendments.  Then make your mind up if you vote in Florida whether you want to vote for any one of them, or against all of them.  Remember that if the 2017-2018 Constitution Revision Commission gets away with this bundling business, they will do it again next time.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

THIS IS WHAT "WE ARE NOTRE DAME" MEANS.

   Notre Dame Hat and Stars of David in Pittsburgh, PA (Matt Rourke / Associated Press)

SHOW THE REPORTERS IN THE PRESS PEN.

Show the reporters in the press pen.

          There is a press pen at political rallies.  The cameras are on the speaker.

          We read stories later about what happens to the press in their rally pens.  Enthusiasts for the speaker turn and look at a reporter.  Some draw their thumbs across their throats in a gesture of slitting someone's throat.

          And the cameras are still on the speaker.

          When the institution began of putting the press into a pen, someone thought it was a good idea.

          Did the same one think that it was a good idea to fix the cameras only on the speaker?

          If a tree falls in the forest but there is no-one around to hear, did it make a sound?  The new question is:  If something happens to a reporter in the press pen but there is no camera around to record it, did it happen?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

"FEAR DOES NOT COME FROM GOD. FEAR'S ANTIDOTE IS FAITH."

If you are afraid of people like this poor person's child in a photograph that accompanies a newspaper column on Wednesday, October 24, 2018, then you are a very sad specimen indeed.

See photo of Honduran immigrant child (Johan Ordonez/AFP/Getty Images), photograph illustrating Dana Milbank, "All the Reasons the Migrant Caravan is Totally a National Emergency" (Washington Post Online, Wednesday, October 24, 2018).

Please Read The Disclaimer.  This blog post ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

WHY THE EMPTY SEATS? SHOW US THE MONEY!

Why do television cameras only show us the speaker's podium?  And why do the television cameras show us only the dozen or so people sitting behind the speaker?  (They are hand-picked to sit there you know.)

If the crowds attending the event were so impressive, they would show them.

If there are empty seats in the arena, they would not show them.

They do not show them.

 

Visit this informative PowerPoint converted into a concisely narrated YouTube video of 11 minutes and 11 seconds, The Florida Constitution:  A Presentation of the Bundled Amendments on the Florida Ballot.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, REVISION COMMISSION BUNGLED AMENDMENTS.

The sad and dispiriting story of how the Florida Constitution Revision Commission tried to game the amendment process with bungled amendments is told in this well-written column by John Romano, Some of These Florida Amendments Aren't Worth Your Time (Tampa Bay Times Online, posted October 18, 2018).   The title tells the tale especially about the bundled bungled amendments proposed by the CRC.

Particular insight into the facts behind the "Amendment 8" debacle (Amendment 8 was proposed by the CRC and taken off the ballot by the Supreme Court of Florida because it was too misleading) is in this excellent reporting by Jim Saunders, Supreme Court Details Clash Over Education Ballot Measure (WNDB FM 93.5 AM 1150, NewsDayontaBeach.com, posted October 18, 2018).

For more information visit this informative PowerPoint converted into a concisely narrated YouTube video of 11 minutes and 11 seconds, The Florida Constitution:  A Presentation of the Bundled Amendments on the Florida Ballot.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

FLORIDA, CONSTITUTION, REVISION COMMISSION BUNGLING, AND STAMINA: THE NOVEMBER BALLOT.

For behind-the-scenes exposure and a fresh look at things that you were never meant to know, read this Powerpoint presentation on the Bundled Amendments that are going to be on the Florida Ballot.  You can also watch and listen to the presentation uploaded as a video to YouTube!    https://youtu.be/Ma4Div0yXos.

P.S.

Oh, and I keep forgetting this part that is so important to many other YouTubers:  When you go to YouTube to view this video, please put a "like" on it!  Thank you.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

LENDER FORCE-PLACED INSURANCE LITIGATION AND THE FILED RATE DOCTRINE.

AND THE ISSUES IN FLORIDA.

Watch and learn from YouTube and the video of Lender Force-Placed Insurance Litigation and the Filed Rate Doctrine.

Fresh from presentation to the Florida Bar and updated.  Education and enjoyment at the same time, and all of it for free.  Enjoy your experience!

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

"SAY IT AIN'T SO, JOE!"

In the Fall of 1920, a grand jury in Chicago indicted eight of the Chicago White Sox for throwing the 1919 World Series.  They have ever since been known only by their collective nickname, the Black Sox.

See the Indictment and Bill of Particulars from the Grand Jury on a website maintained by a UMKC Professor of Law.

Joe Jackson, a Sox from South Carolina, was reportedly met on the courthouse steps by one or more young boys who said to their hero, "Say it ain't so, Joe!"

In the Fall of 2018, the U.S. Senate in Washington, D.C. approved a highly contested nomination to be a justice for life on the U.S. Supreme Court.  The nomination was contested only in part on the ground of the nominee's outlier doctrine.  The nomination was chiefly contested on the basis of his character, such as it may be.

Joe Manchin, a senator from West Virginia, was the only member of his party to vote in favor of this nominee, and the nomination barely passed.  So, like those little boys on the courthouse steps who addressed a hero, we can all address this person who is not so much a hero to anyone, "Say it ain't so, Joe!"

UPI.

And one more thing:  You clearly do not think that you can get on the ballot as a Republican.  But once you got on the ballot as a Democrat, you embraced the Republican agenda such as it is, and turned your back on the Democrats.  Have some courage, Joe.  If you must run for office, run as what you are and not as a Democrat.  Stop taking up someone else's rightful space on the ballot.  Once again, "Say it ain't so, Joe!"

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

JEFF FLAKE: NOT A BAD MAN. NOT A GOOD MAN, EITHER.

Say one thing and do another.  Call for an investigation and accept a sham.  Talk the talk but for whatever reason incapable of walking the walk.

                              Official portrait of Sen. Jeff Flake courtesy Office of Jeff Flake.

Jeff Flake:  Not a bad man.  Not a good man, either.  It is a good thing he is going away.  He will not be missed, but his missed opportunities will be mourned.

We need someone who grabs headlines because they actually have the courage to walk the walk after talking the talk.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, REMEMBER WHEN YOU SAID 2 TERMS IS ENOUGH?

                Senator Susan Collins portrayed by the Office of Senator Susan Collins.

You were right.

You said that when you first ran for the U.S. Senate in 1996.  That would mean that your 2 terms were up in 2008.

But you stayed around for another decade after that, so far.  It wasn't for the people's sake, that's certain.

                                                (Zach Gibson/ Getty Images)

Go back to Maine, Senator.  Time to keep that promise.  They have flags for background props there, too, you know.  Even without the props, people will certainly remember what you actually stood for. 

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

"HIT THE ROAD, JOE MANCHIN! DON'T COME BACK NO MORE!"

It was a dark and stormy night.  Joe of "the West Virginia Manchins" was stumbling along, trying to find his way to the ballot.

In the confusion of the darkness and the night, Joe went to the wrong house.  He was looking to get on the ballot, as I said, and he ended up at the Democratic house.

They let him in and helped him get on the ballot just as he hoped.  But if he had knocked on the door of the other house, they would not have even let him in, and they would not have let him get on the ballot.

Ever since, Joe has been on the ballot as a Democrat.  All because he went to the wrong house.  You see, Joe was really a Republican all along.  And so he voted for Brett Kavanaugh, like he had voted earlier for Neil Gorsuch, like he had voted earlier against the Sandy Hook families from Newtown, Connecticut, and all the rest.

So, with new words we turn to the immortal song and sing,

"Hit the Road Joe!  And don't you come back no more!"

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

KAVANAUGH, J.: WHY ARE WE SUPPOSED TO SUPPORT HIM, AGAIN, PLEASE?

                                                             (Andrew Harnik, Pool/Associated Press)

This is becoming important.  It's hard to understand, though.  So listen up and listen good, I guess.

He was accused of attempted rape.  He denied it.

So now, we are supposed to support him, and feel sorry for him, because he was accused?  Is that about right?

Why not?  It worked before, they say.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

KAVANAUGH, J.: “For what shall it profit a man ..."

 

                                                            (Andrew Harnik, Pool/Associated Press)

... if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

   (Mark 8:36 King James Version (KJV).

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

KAVANAUGH, J.: STILL WAITING FOR AN INVESTIGATION?

                                                            (Andrew Harnik, Pool/Associated Press)

They may have a right to rule if we let them.

But they have no right to call their rule the United States of America.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

KAVANAUGH, J.: IS THIS THE FACE OF JESUIT TRAINING?

                                                             (Andrew Harnik, Pool/Associated Press)

      JUDGE TRAINING?

    CHRISTIAN TRAINING?

    Take your pick, answer any of these questions.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

 

MOVE TO RECUSE OR NOTIFY E&O CARRIER?

If I represented any of the people and parties in any case with himself on the panel that Brett Kavanaugh, J., just called out for special treatment, I would never subject my client to his judgment voluntarily.

I would file a motion to recuse each and every time, not necessarily expecting it to be granted although God knows there is every good reason for it, but because that would be the only way I could try to protect my client.

And if I did not try to protect my client when I could have tried, then I would expect to notify my E&O carrier of potential malpractice otherwise.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

STRAIGHT FROM THE FLORIDA BAR, FREE WEBINAR, CLE, TUESDAY 09.25.18!

This third training in the Public Interest Law Section's (soon to be the Equal Justice Law Section) Consumer and Tenant Working Group’s 2018 Webinar Series, Lender Force - Placed Insurance Litigation is offered on Tuesday, September 25, 2018 from noon to 1:00 p.m. EST.  These webinars offer Florida Bar-approved CLE credits and are intended for consumer and tenant attorneys.  Here is the link to register:   https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6433230832791616514.

Did I mention that this webinar is free?

Thanks for your interest!

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.