Claims And Issues

MR. KELLY'S 8 LAWYERS vs. 3 PROSECUTORS: KELLY GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS.

Mr. R. Kelly was famously found guilty by the jury on all 9 counts, which break down into a gutsy, novel Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) count and 8 counts under the Mann Act addressing sexual relations with underage victims.

          Mr. Kelly was defended by 8 lawyers according to the docket on PACER (Public Access to [Federal] Court Electronic Records).  He was successfully prosecuted by three prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York.

          Each of the three prosecutors is a woman.  Each is a very accomplished, very successful criminal lawyer.

          They were led by ELIZABETH GEDDES, ESQUIRE.  Ms. GEDDES, a member of the U.S. Attorney's Office for 15 years, heads the Civil Rights Section of the Criminal Division at E.D.N.Y.  As is so clearly evidenced by this case, her specialty is the prosecution of racketeering and organized crime.

          Like each of the three prosecutors, Ms. GEDDES has a distinguished resume apart from her work at E.D.N.Y.  She is an adjunct at N.Y.U. in Clinical Law.

          NADIA SHIHATA, ESQUIRE has been with E.D.N.Y. for 10 years and has been the Chief of the Organized Crime and Gangs Section for nearly 2 and 1/2 years.  She graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 2003, where she was the Editor-in-Chief of the prestigious Law Review.  At Michigan Law, she also received the Order of the Coif, one of the higher honors any law student can receive.

         Ms. SHIHATA's distinguished resume does not stop there, however.    She got an L.L.M. from N.Y.U. in 2008.  She is an adjunct at Columbia Law.

         The third member of the prosecution trio is MARIA E. CRUZ MELENDEZ, ESQUIRE.  She is the Deputy Chief of the Civil Rights Section at E.D.N.Y.  She graduated from Harvard in 2001 and in an unusually positive mark of distinction for Notre Dame Law School, she is a 2006 graduate of Notre Dame Law.

         These accomplished lawyers are demonstrably competent and so they compare very favorably with the department of justice personnel who have appeared in past articles posted here.  The doj could not do better than making use of the talents of these three lawyers in every case they can handle for the United States.

         MERRICK GARLAND, let those who have eyes to see, let them see; let those who have ears to hear, let them hear.  Bring these people in to your depleted department and let them prosecute the January Sixers, and others.  That would be a terrific solution.  The results will speak for themselves.

         The results speak for themselves now.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

NO PAY, NO RECOUNT; SECRETLY FUNDED FRAUDITS ARE JAN6 CONTINUED.

AND FRAUDITS NEVER DIE.

We learned in the 2016 Presidential election that Wisconsin charges whoever demands a recount.  In fact, Wisconsin charges up-front as I recall; no pay, no recount.  In 2016 it was third-party candidate Jill Stein, remember?  She paid and got a recount.

          The Wisconsin recount was run openly.  In fact, it was run by the very same people who have the expertise to run an election in the first place.  By law, not only did the challenger have to pay for the privilege of a recount, there was a time-limit on the recount as well.

          How is it that individuals are demanding a recount in Wisconsin but no-one is talking about them paying for it as Wisconsin law demands? 

          And how is it that individuals are demanding a recount in Wisconsin but disguising it as a fraudit, so that they are able to have private individuals run it by counting the people's votes and handling the people's personally identifiable information (PII)?

          Finally, how is it that individuals are demanding a recount in Wisconsin but really demanding a fraudit that will go on forever, as fraudits do?

          Each of these questions applies to the demands for a recount in Pennsylvania and in parts of Texas and wherever else they are demanding fraudits.  Why are they not treated as what they are, which is recounts regulated by the law of the States?  Why are the individuals demanding them not being required to pay the States for them?  Why are the fraudits not term-limited instead of going on forever, as fraudits do?

          These are good questions.  There are other good questions as well, I am sure.  So far, we do not have any answers, let alone good answers.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

BY WHAT AUTHORITY, FRAUDITS?

(Manuel Balco Ceneta/Associated Press)

By what authority is there an audit in Texas or Pennsylvania or anywhere else at this point? Are there no state statutes to regulate the time and manner of reviewing election results?

          One of the first things I learned doing legal research is that elected officials and appointed agencies act with the authority provided to them by law.  They cannot do any more than what the law authorizes them to do.  Any challenge to their exercise of power begins with the fundamental question:  By what authority do they do this?

          That's a lawyer's way of framing the question, of course.  Other people may ask them:  Who do you think you are to do this?

          Either way, the question of their authority should be the starting point.  If the answer comes back that they have the authority, move on to the next issue.  But if the answer comes back that they do not have the authority, you may or may not continue your research but you have already won, as it were; you have answered the question.

          And they have already lost.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

EQUAL PROTECTION A U.S. VALUE, BUT NOT IN TEXAS FRAUDIT.

Reportedly the current governor of Texas is obeying The Former Guy and conducting a review of the voting in only 4 Texas counties, 3 of which voted for President Biden.  The review is a fraudit and it violates the Equal Protection Clause.

          Putting aside other questions about the Texas fraudit for a moment, the fraudit violates the Equal Protection Clause.  It singles out some counties from others, some voters and not others, some results and not other results.  It is a political power play by the temporarily strong against the currently weak.

          In the United States, we honor Equal Protection.  We do not ignore it, or disrespect it, or try to dismantle it.

          The Texas fraudit is more than a distraction from the worst loss at the polls in the history of U.S. presidential elections history.

          It is unconstitutional.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MERRICK GARLAND, ICE LITIGATION, COVID VACCINES: TALES FROM THE CRYPT ... Continued.

This post continues an article that began here on Wednesday, September 22, 2021.

When Messrs. Barr and TFG ran things, lawyers working at the doj had a clear choice whether to stay or go.  Some lawyers resigned rather than stay while the Messrs. were in charge of things.  To say again, every one of the Six stayed.  They clearly made their choice.  See AT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, EVERYTHING IS CHANGING, NOTHING IS NEW.

          Appealing a federal judge's order to provide vaccine to people in U.S. custody was one of their choices.  This is nothing new for the current department which is really making the same decisions, behaving in many of the same legal ways as before.  See MORE CYA FROM INCREDIBLE, "DISINGENUOUS" DOJ:  APPEALING JUDGE JACKSON'S ORDER.

          Here are the Six who participated in the choice to file a losing appeal arising out of ICE, prisoners in U.S. custody, and injustices.  They should be known for these decisions they did not need to make, and that good lawyers would have resisted:

          WILLIAM C. PEACHEY is listed on the Notice of Appeal in this case as Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, District Court Section.  He got his J.D. from University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville.

          JEFFREY S. ROBINS is the next lawyer listed on the notice.  His title is Deputy Director.  By the end of this year, he will be at the doj for 15 years.  A person well-familiar with Washington, he got his J.D. at the American University Washington College of Law in 2004.

          JAMES WALKER is next up.  Senior Litigation Counsel in the Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL), MR. WALKER (to his credit) spent a lot of useful time in the Orlando, Florida area.  He got his B.A. from Rollins College.  Like MR. ROBINS, the Deputy Director of the OIL, he graduated from the American University Washington College of Law.  MR. WALKER graduated in 2013.

          LINDSAY M. VICK is a Trial Attorney with the OIL.  She got a B.A. from George Mason and a law degree from Roger Williams University Law.

          MICHELLE RAMUS is also a Trial Attorney with the OIL.  She too is a person who is very familiar with Washington, having gotten her law degree from George Washington Law.  She received her J.D. recently, in 2018.

          ANNA L. DICHTER is last but not the least of the Six.  MS. DICHTER signed the Notice of Appeal attempting to reverse the judge's order to provide vaccine to people in ICE custody.  She got her law degree from Rutgers two years ago, in September 2019.  She joined the doj that same month.  She appears to be the lowest person on the totem pole of the Six, which may explain why she was the one picked to sign the notice of appeal in this case.

          In the end, what we are left with is a tale glaringly told of attorneys who stake much of their career advancement on their additions to their social media listings.  They also stake much of their career advancement on going along to get along, so to speak; for example, none of them was moved to leave the so-called justice department while Messrs. Barr and The Former Guy were in power.  To the contrary, it seems that something on the order of four of the Six joined the department while the Messrs. were operating it.

          To say again, BARR'S department 'ISN'T OVER, IT ISN'T EVEN PAST.'

          Impressions to the contrary are ill-informed.  In fact, it is plainly wrong to think that there is a new sheriff in town.  Beyond any reasonable doubt, the available evidence shows that MR. BARR's practices and competence are still on display.  There is nothing new here, just SOSOBS.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MORE TALES FROM THE CRYPT: ORDER PROVIDES ICE DETAINEES VACCINE, ....

.... BUT DEPARTMENT CLAIMING TO BE "JUSTICE" APPEALS TO REVERSE THE ORDER.

On June 23, 2021 a respected federal judge ruled that United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had to make COVID vaccinations available within 30 days detained immigrants in ICE custody who have chronic medical conditions, or disabilities, or are age 55 or older.  Download Fraihat v. U.S. ICE Doc. 318 Order Accepting Special Master's First Report and Recco June 23 2021 (C.D. Cal. No. 5.19.cv.01546.JGB.(SHKx))

          In this order, the federal judge only accepted the Special Master's First Report and Recommendations.  The Special Master is a retired judge.  Download Fraihat v. U.S. ICE Doc. 304 Special Master's First Report and Recco May 21 2021 (C.D. Cal. No. 5.19.cv.01546.JGB.(SHKx)).

          Here is what the Special Master recommended and what the federal judge accepted in his order to require ICE to:

1. Continue its efforts to work with the Special Master and Plaintiffs’ counsel to confirm that all subclass members have had a individualized and meaningful review to determine if release is warranted and to conduct redeterminations where necessary;
   2. Track the reasons for transfers of subclass members and provide that information to the Special Master and Plaintiffs’ counsel biweekly; and
   3. Make vaccinations available to all subclass members within 30 days of the order accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation.

          This is not exactly the stuff of an appeal that is likely to be successful.  Particularly orders entered after a Special Master's Report by a retired judge.  There is nothing onerous about this order at all.

         Think of this.  Would you appeal it?  Would you recommend that anyone appeal it?  Why would anyone appeal this order to make vaccines available during a pandemic to people who are in U.S. ICE custody?  This is a notice of appeal that simply did not have any reason behind it and every reason against it.  The decision to file a notice of appeal never needed to be made here.

          Except that the Special Master's Report and Recommendations may have been embarrassing to ICE.  It detailed ICE's behavior, which people still at ICE may not want to be made public.  One way to quash these findings is to appeal them and have the order accepting them reversed on appeal.

          Avoiding embarrassment however has never been a reason for taking an appeal.  Not a good reason anyway.  And certainly not a good reason for the federal government to take an appeal.

          Sixty-one (61) calendar days after the judge's order was entered accepting the Special Master's detailed report and recommendations, on August 23, 2021 the department of justice decided to file a notice of appeal.  Download Fraihat v. U.S. ICE Doc. 329 Notice of Appeal by U.S. ICE August 23 2021 (C.D. Cal. No. 5.19.cv.01546.JGB.(SHKx))

          That looks suspiciously like the last day of what would otherwise be a 60-day deadline to appeal.  August 23rd was a Monday, the first available working or business day that an appeal likely could have been filed.  Smells like the last minute to any lawyer who ever filed a notice of appeal in a situation like this or, for that matter, ever faced any unpleasant deadline.

          In any case, the United States appealed an order to make COVID vaccine available to immigrants in the custody of ICE during a pandemic.  And not to all immigrants during a pandemic, either, but to immigrants in the custody of ICE who are most at risk of catching and spreading COVID, immigrants in the custody of ICE who have chronic medical conditions, disabilities, or are age 55 and older.

          The Acting Assistant Attorney General, BRIAN M. BOYNTON of the doj Civil Division, has already been profiled in this space.  For example, MR. BOYNTON participated in earlier decisions to try to quash a subpoena for testimony on the former Education Secretary BETSY DeVOS.  See DOJ UNFATHOMABLE SECRECY:  WHY TRY TO SHIELD HER FROM TESTIFYING?

          This time the notice of appeal from an order to provide vaccine to immigrants at risk to COVID in ICE custody was also signed by no less than six (6) other doj attorneys.  All of the six are apparently employed in the doj Office of Immigration Litigation.

          Unlike other doj employees previously profiled here, none of the Six went to Harvard Law.  However, all of the Six shared a resume line with every other doj lawyer profiled here for past actions, such as attempting to derail the E. Jean Carroll litigation against The Former Guy:  Every one of them worked in Bill Barr's department of justice and every one of them worked during the regime of The Former Guy.

          This is clearly a pattern under MERRICK GARLAND, who holds the current title of attorney general.  See IN MERRICK GARLAND'S DEPARTMENT, PROTECTING "CAREER YOUNG ATTORNEYS" MEANS "CYA."

         

To be continued ....

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MR. DURHAM, RESIGN OR BE FIRED.

DEFUND DURHAM NOW.

Well, now the indictment is filed and public.  When I wrote about the John H. Durham matter on September 16th, the indictment had not yet happened.  You do not need to read the previous article to understand what I am writing in this one, but it can't hurt and it may help.  See TIME TO PULL PLUG AND DRAIN DURHAM'S DESTRUCTION, MERRICK & CONGRESS.  DEFUND DURHAM NOW.

          Mr. Durham's work is done now.  If he were still a United States Attorney he would have already submitted his resignation to the incoming new President.   With the title "Special Counsel" he should do the same thing and submit his resignation, which the President should accept.

          If that is not enough reason to resign, then Mr. Durham should be fired.

          The indictment he procured from a grand jury without the obstacle of any contradictory evidence is so incompetent that it is embarrassing to lawyers.  The Durham indictment goes on for 27 pages of hearsay and innuendo to result in the conclusion I and a lot of other people predicted last week, namely, it is based on a conversation in 2016 that Mr. Sussman had with Mr. Baker, who was then General Counsel of the FBI.

          Sussman went to see Baker to tell Baker that cybersecurity experts had detected "pinging" between The Former Guy's Organization and a bank in Russia and that they could not figure it out.  The indictment reports that Mr. Sussman affirmatively told Mr. Baker "that he was not acting on behalf of any client in conveying particular allegations" concerning The Former Guy.  Here is the indictment; please read it for yourself:  Download United States v. Sussman Doc. 1 Indictment 09.16.21 (D.C.D.C. No. 1.21.cr.00582.CRC)..

          The publicly available evidence was reviewed in last week's article, however, and the evidence is not nearly as clear-cut as Mr. Durham alleges.  Three years after the conversation, Mr. Baker's recollection is unclear whether Mr. Sussman said what the indictment says Sussman said to Baker.  The indictment is hilariously based on notes taken by a third person of a conversation which the third person had with Mr. Baker.  I say "hilariously," but this is serious stuff.  It is the use of federal power -- in this case, based on the poster child of hearsay -- against adversaries of The Former Guy; or should I say it is the continuing use of federal power to target adversaries of The Former Guy?

          Mr. Durham, resign or be fired.

          Merrick Garland, appoint someone else to continue the Durham 'investigation' if for some reason you think it is legally supportable.  Or drop the prosecution completely.

          Congress, defund Durham.  Now.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

TIME TO PULL PLUG AND DRAIN DURHAM'S DESTRUCTION, MERRICK & CONGRESS.

DEFUND DURHAM NOW.

Recall that one of the final acts of Bill Barr's tenure in the department of justice was to appoint John H. Durham to investigate whether Democratic lawyers and campaign workers erroneously tied the former guy's organization to a bank in Russia.

          "To date, there has been no publication that he has found any such evidence."  Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt and William K. Rashbaum, Special Counsel on Russia Said to be Seeking Charges Against Lawyer, NEW YORK TIMES, Thursday, September 16, 2021, at A17.

          To the contrary.  All the evidence revealed so far says that there is nothing to it.   If Mr. Durham has any hidden evidence, now would be a good time to show it to the grand jury; if he does not have any hidden evidence, now would be a good time for Mr. Durham to shut it down.

          Apparently undeterred by any lack of evidence, and wanting to show something for his expenses, Mr. Durham is reportedly planning to ask a grand jury to indict a lawyer, Michael Sussman.  Mr. Sussman met with the FBI's General Counsel before the former guy was made the Occupant of the Oval Office.

          The idea behind the indictment is that the lawyer lied to the FBI's General Counsel, James Baker, about whether he, the lawyer, was representing a client or not when he met with the General Counsel.  The lawyer, Mr. Sussman, met with the General Counsel to tell the FBI that there was cybersecurity information indicating that the former guy's organization and a Russian bank may have been "pinging" each other's computer servers.  Mr. Sussman told the General Counsel that the information came from a cybersecurity expert or experts.  Mr. Sussman's defense lawyers say that Mr. Sussman was representing a cybersecurity expert when he met with Mr. Baker of the FBI.

          Here is the evidence we know that Mr. Durham has turned up after all this time on the case.  Mr. Baker, the FBI General Counsel, testified under oath in 2018 that he did not remember the lawyer, Mr. Sussman, specifically saying that he was acting on behalf of a particular client when they met together.

          However, not to be shown up as investigators, Mr. Durham's team surfaced some "handwritten notes" written by an unidentified person who supposedly wrote down that Mr. Baker told him that Mr. Sussman said, or did not say, something about representing, or not representing, a client at the time Mr. Baker and Mr. Sussman met.

          This is not admissible; it is not even evidence.  But it doesn't have to be, if the goal is to destroy and not to convict.

          Mr. Durham is also reportedly deciding whether to bring "some sort of action" against Mr. Sussman's law firm, Perkins Coie.  The Perkins Coie firm has been a target of the former guy and his minions for years.  Expect more destruction if Mr. Durham is allowed to continue his campaign.

          In the meantime, Mr. Durham has been operating with the blessing but without any oversight of the current department of justice and the current attorney general, MERRICK GARLAND.  Mr. GARLAND of course "has the authority to overrule Mr. Durham but is said to have declined to" overrule him.  Charlie Savage, et al., NEW YORK TIMES, supra.

          Why is MERRICK GARLAND tolerating this sloppy performative destruction that characterizes Mr. Durham's "investigation"?  The task of the department of justice ought to be to surface evidence that is likely to lead to a criminal conviction.  Until now, perhaps until the advent of the regime of the former guy and of Mr. Barr's reign over the department of justice, the task of the department has never been to surface supposed hearsay for the purpose of destroying political opponents.

          Regardless if he thinks otherwise, MERRICK GARLAND does not come off appearing unbiased or even-handed by tolerating the destruction that Mr. Durham is causing.  MERRICK GARLAND's tolerance of destruction comes off as something much smaller.  Perhaps he should consider resigning if the job of attorney general is beyond his powers.

          Moreover, Mr. Durham's so-called investigation for destruction has not been paid for by the former guy, or by Mr. Barr, or in fact by Mr. Durham.  Federal taxpayers like you and me have paid and continue to pay for this humiliating display of incompetence.  It is past time to defund Durham.

          Defund Durham now.  Call upon your Members of Congress and Senators to act in defense of justice, when the department of justice will not, and tell them to defund Durham now.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THREE QUOTES FROM RABBI HILLEL.

I was reading the Introduction to the recently published book by Viktor E. Frankl, Yes to Life / In Spite of Everything.  The Introduction was written by Daniel Goleman, who notes that Dr. Frankl cited Rabbi Hillel from 2,000 years ago.  Here are three favorite quotes:

• "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"
• "If I am not for others, what am I?"
• "And if not now, when?"

These three quotes apparently came together in a single paragraph, one after another, but I have broken them out here so that each one may be seen perhaps a little more clearly.

Make this another good day!

Please read the disclaimer.  This blog article ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

PRESS, PUBLIC COURT ACCESS: CAN'T HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER.

Until recently, I thought of Freedom of the Press as a First Amendment right reserved to, well, the press.

          I included the press right of access to criminal trials in that category.  That's how I used to see a constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court protecting the Freedom of the Press to access criminal trials, for example.  I saw it as press freedom that is uniquely protected by the U.S. Constitution because, well, the press has to be free in order to have a chance to report regardless of whether things are good, or whether things are bad.

          Now I have had my eyes opened a little.  The Supreme Court may have been getting at this when they ruled a couple of decades ago that Freedom of the Press involves access to criminal trials:  Simply put, it may be that the First Amendment protects Freedom of the Press so that the press can help to protect the First Amendment presumption of public access to court proceedings (and to court files, too, for that matter).

          Emily Palmer is a reporter who reports on court proceedings.  Due to COVID-19, she can only rarely attend live court proceedings; at this time and for awhile before now, she has had to attend them via Zoom or its equivalent.  She reports that some information in the trials is lost in translation.

          She writes that she spends hours covering the trial alongside colleagues who help each other decipher what's happening on-screen "in a trial in which some evidence is never released to the public."  Even when things are not intentionally hidden, she writes, witnesses mumble and "read brusquely" from documents, "and most of the evidence from trial is rarely shared later with the public, making it both more difficult and more important for us to create a record of the proceedings in real time."  Emily Parker, Courtroom Reporting When You're Not Quite in Court, NEW YORK TIMES online Thursday, September 9, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/09/insider/court-reporting-pandemic-covid.html?searchResultPosition=1.

          Here's the rest of the story, as the saying goes:  Without press freedom, there may not actually be public access to court proceedings.  That is almost certainly why both things are protected by the First Amendment:  Freedom of the Press including the right to attend criminal trials, and the presumption that the public has the right to access court proceedings too.

Please see the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

CRUELTY FLOURISHES IN ANONYMITY. SO DOES DESTRUCTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Cruelty flourishes in anonymity.  Vindictiveness is easier in a lynch mob when a person acting alone would not want to have others single out an individual person's behavior.

          It is like that when judges practice issuing unsigned orders without bothering to write opinions let alone sign them.  We have had a rash of unexplained, unsigned orders of late, and two examples came in the same case.

          Many commentators have pointed out that hiding behind unsigned opinions is cowardly.  That is not the subject of this article, and we will say no more about that here.

          Many commentators also write that it is hypocritical for judges to rule in favor of outcomes they desire, without taking responsibility -- or credit or blame, as the case may be -- for the outcomes.  That too is not the subject of this article, and we will not mention it here again.

          The first of the two examples of the practice comes from Texas.  A panel of judges appointed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a trial judge not to hold a hearing.  The three people on the panel did not write an opinion, and did not sign their order.  They simply cancelled the hearing that another judge had ordered.

          The second of the two examples from the same case also comes from Texas.  Five of the justices on the U.S. supreme court let an infamous anti-abortion Texas law go into effect because there were doubts about the law's constitutionality.  This result was the opposite of what justices would do most of the time in such cases, even if the justices in question personally favored the constitutionally questionable State law.  In this case, though, the five did not even write an opinion, and they did not sign their order.

                                   (SarahBeth  Maney/NewYorkTimes)

          Yet we know who they are; that is not the point.  The Fifth Circuit panel in question was headed by Edith H. Jones, who has never stopped being a leader of her (minority) party.  She was joined by two others.  The Five supreme court members in question are named Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas.  So we know who they all are.

          But that is not the point.  The point is that they were supposed to behave as judges, and they did not.  They behaved as power brokers, wielding power for a minority view at that.  Perhaps that is why they stopped being judges and became power brokers.

          Both examples display that the core purpose of anonymity seems to have been a cloak for the elimination of previously recognized constitutional rights.

          In the Fifth Circuit example, the unsigned order eliminated Due Process by the expedient of cancelling a hearing; no-one has the opportunity to be heard when their hearing is cancelled.

 (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)

          In the supreme court example, the unsigned order eliminated the constitutionally recognized right of a woman to be free from government interference in the early stages of her decision whether to give birth.  I am personally in favor of life, but I am not in favor of vindicating life by eliminating other people's rights.

          The Epistle of James was a part of last Sunday's services in my Church.  James' Epistle is translated in different ways when he wrote about people acting like judges and preferring people with fine clothes over poor people in their churches.  One translation has it that people acting in that way were acting like judges, "and corrupt judges at that."  Another translation has it that people acting in that way were "judges with evil designs."  Jas. 2:4.  Both translations fit these examples.

          There is a proper place for short rulings by panels of judges that are not signed by the individual judges on the panel.  These are called "Per Curiam" decisions, meaning that they are decisions issued from the court as a whole.  They are reserved for decisions that are so clear that no opinion is  necessary and no individual signature is required.

          They were never meant to be issued when decisions are not clear.

          They were never intended as places to hide.

          To borrow a Biblical phrase that seems apt, they were never meant to disguise evil designs.

A version of this article was previously published on Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog on Wednesday, September 8, 2021.  Reprinted here with permission.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

EYES OF LAW MORONS OF TEXAS ARE STILL UPON US.

 

(Austin American-Statesman)

More on the law morons of Texas.

          To say again what has been said before, the people who wrote TX Senate Bill 8 -- or the organization which wrote it, like the American Legislative Executive Council known as "ALEC" -- do not know how to write legislation.  TX Senate Bill 8 reads like it was written by people who do not know either how to read or how to write.  Good luck to the judges who have to interpret this stuff, assuming they interpret it at all.

          In basic and simple terms, TX Senate Bill 8 authorizes anyone from anywhere to sue any Texas woman who may be asking advice about or having an abortion, or who may be doing anything anywhere in between asking advice, at the beginning, and having the procedure, at the end.  (Presumably the Texas statute would stop there, but it is not clear.)  It also authorizes anyone from anywhere to sue anyone from anywhere who "aids and abets" anything between advice and surgery (or maybe beyond, we'll see).

          One of the first observations to make about this Texas law, then, is that it is so broadly written there is no telling what it is supposed to cover, if it actually ends up covering anything.

          Further, TX Senate Bill 8 was written so broadly that it was clearly unconstitutional at the time it was written.  The time to declare the effects of this law is now.  Now, before the U.S. supreme court has time to act, probably next year.

          To make this statute constitutional, the U.S. supreme court will have to declare that under the United States Constitution it is constitutional to reach whatever abortion activities may be reached by this Texas statute.  That is clearly not the case now, and it will not be the case at any time before the U.S. supreme court acts to save the Texas statute.

           Now is the time to get a preferably Texas State Court to declare this Texas statute to be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.  The answer to the U.S. Constitutional question will come quicker, and will not go through the nominally Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

          As counter-intuitive as it seems, the chances that the Texas State Courts will obey the Constitutional law of the United States are greater than the chances that the so-called Federal Courts in Texas will.

          There is a huge benefit to having the Texas Courts decide the question of what this law means, if it means anything:  The Texas Courts may decide not only that TX Senate Bill 8 is unconstitutional but that it is unenforceable because it is void for vagueness, in short, that no-one can understand what it means.  People cannot conform their behavior to laws they cannot reasonably be expected to understand.

          If the Texas State Courts declare that TX Senate Bill 8 is void, no Federal Court can touch their decision, even if they also decide that it violates the Federal Constitution  -- not even the so-called supremes in Washington.  That's the law.

          In this case, then, Texas would have the last word at last.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THE EYES OF LAW MORONS OF TEXAS ARE UPON US.

HAPPY LABOR DAY!

The leader of the Texas House, or maybe it was the leader of the Texas Senate, said that we shouldn't call them racists.

          Be that as it may, the leader didn't say we couldn't call them jerks.  They're the law morons of Texas.

          The people -- or the organization, like American Legislative Exchange Council known as "ALEC" -- who wrote TX Senate Bill 8 do not know how to write legislation.  TX Senate Bill 8 reads like it was written with crayons, and maybe it was.  Good luck to the judges who have to interpret this stuff, assuming they interpret it at all.

          A thought occurs to me.  The White men who wrote this law associate with rich Republican Texas women.  (It was almost all if not only men who wrote this law.)  The men probably think that these female people they know represent all women.  Rich Republican Texas women will not likely be affected by this law, so the reporting goes, because they can just go out of state and get their abortion; they can afford it.  (Image via Austin American-Statesman)

          Well, maybe it's not that simple.  If an airline sells tickets to women who are leaving Texas to have an abortion, the law is written such that arguably the airlines are "abetting" abortion by selling the airplane tickets.

          If trains and buses and Ubers and Lyfts and whatever sell services and tickets to transport or arrange housing for any Texas women to go out of state to have an abortion, the law is written such that they too could arguably be "abetting" abortion.  A $10,000 bounty for suing each one comes to a tidy sum when you add it all up.

          Too clever by half, the law morons of Texas, the ones who wrote and voted for TX Senate Bill 8 in the first place, and the ones who still think it's a good idea.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THEY'RE NOT JUDGES, THEY'RE "REPUBLICANS." (That's One Name For Them.)

(New York Public Library Collection)

The U.S. supreme court ruled 5 to 4 that a Texas law overturning Federal law could go into effect without a fight.  The 5 did not give their names.  But we know who they are.  Three were appointed by the former regime.  They all call themselves Republicans.

(New York Public Library Collection)         
Three federal judges in Texas cancelled a hearing scheduled by another judge to hear all sides in a case.  The three federal judges did not want to hear from all sides, apparently.  They did not sign their names.  But we know who they are.  Two were appointed by the former regime.    All three call themselves Republicans. 

 (Pacific Standard)          A judge in Michigan gave some people access to Dominion Voting software.   (In a break from the apparent practice, he signed his name to the opinion he wrote.)  It is not clear how, but somehow, the Dominion Voting software ended up on the internet ready to hack. The judge in Michigan calls himself a Republican.

          There is a pattern here.  Present-day media have not written much about it, but there is a pattern here. 

          They're not judges, they're "Republicans."  (That's one name for them.)

          They're not like any Republicans I have ever known.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

D.C.'S GUN CONTROL LAWS SAVED THE REPUBLIC .... Cont'd.

Reflecting on a further insight into how the gun-control laws in the District of Columbia saved the Republic.  

          It was because of those laws that the insurrectionists did not bring guns on January 6th.  They did not bring guns because they couldn't.  Most of them flew into D.C.  They ran two grave risks, it seems to me.  The first is that the airlines would expose their guns and them to law enforcement authorities.  Insurrection over, even before it started.

    The second risk they faced if they flew into D.C. with guns is that the airlines would not let them fly.  Again, insurrection over.

    Imagine how many people they could have killed if only they had their guns with them on January 6th.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.    

BARRING PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC FILES HAS BAD CONSEQUENCES.

There is a good reason for the presumption of public access to public records including court files.  The consequences of preventing public access can be very bad, indeed.

         There have so far been no worse consequences than hiding the sex-trafficking and sex-abuse behavior of people like Jeffrey Epstein.  I just finished reading Perversion of Justice / The Jeffrey Epstein Story, by Julie K. Brown (2021).  Ms. Brown deserves tremendous credit for her outstanding dedication to journalism and, in the final analysis, to the truth itself.

The book is upsetting on several levels, not the least of which is the sealing of a great deal of the evidence of Jeffrey Epstein's behavior, so that the public could not see it and, in many instances, still are not allowed to see it.  As Ms. Brown writes:  "Judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement and prison officials contribute to the maelstrom by condoning the sealing and redaction of public records pertaining to Epstein's crimes on such a large scale....  This only sows mistrust and suspicion and undermines our justice system.  It's one thing to seal records to protect Epstein's victims; it's another to keep them secret to cover up crimes."  Julie K. Brown, Perversion of Justice 579-80 (2021).

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THE GUN-CONTROL LAWS IN D.C. SAVED US.

The gun-control laws in the District of Columbia saved the Republic.

          It was because of those laws that the insurrectionists did not bring guns on January 6th.  Oh, they brought weapons, all right:  hockey sticks, baseball bats, rebar, and chemical spray, among other things.  Just ask the police they attacked.

          But they did not dare risk bringing guns and ammunition into D.C.  If they were found with guns, it would be game over.  The police and other law enforcement authorities would have had no choice then but to round up the whole crew before they tried to overthrow the government and kill people.

          As it was, they killed people.  But they did not kill nearly as many people as they would have if they had brought guns.  The D.C. gun-control laws were so strict that the insurrectionists had to store arms in Virginia, outside the District.

          The gun-control laws of the District of Columbia saved our democracy.  If it had been left to the supreme court, there would not be any gun-control in Washington, D.C.  Remember how the supreme court gutted the previous D.C. gun-control ordinance?  If their way had stayed the way the gun-control law was in D.C., then the insurrectionists would have been clear to bring guns to their attempted coup.

          But they didn't, because they couldn't.  Enough of the gun-control laws of D.C. survived to save our lives.

          This time.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

BRING CLOSURE TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS.

The victims of Jeffrey Epstein deserve to have questions asked about his death.  This does not mean that he must have been murdered.  It means that questions about his death have not been asked, still need to be asked, and should be asked, including:

• Why was he left alone in his cell when he was on suicide watch?
• Why was he not watched, for that matter? Every person who is on suicide watch is supposed to be checked at least every 30 minutes.  Epstein's guards said they did not check on him for 3 hours.  Why not?
• Epstein had two guards. They both claim to have fallen asleep.  A forensic pathologist is a doctor who investigates deaths under these circumstances.  An expert forensic pathologist who specializes in unexplained prison deaths says that he has never had two people fall asleep at the same time who were keeping an eye on a supposed suicide risk.  Not in his entire career.  Not once.  What happened here?
• The surveillance videos of the area surrounding Epstein's cell, including the hallways, are corrupt and show no pictures. What happened to the surveillance videos?
• Bill Barr infamously said that the New York City jail where Epstein was incarcerated was not safe for him. That is the reason Barr gave for moving Epstein into a federal prison, where Epstein died.  What was the reason, really, that Epstein was moved?

There is a new government in town.  The department of justice has a second chance now.  It has a chance to be a Justice Department.  The FBI also has a second chance now.  Second chances are rare indeed, but they too have one.  The FBI can and should investigate now; it did not investigate before.

"The government has an obligation to investigate this part of the story, if for no other reason than to bring closure for all the women he abused."  Julie K. Brown, Perversion of Justice 566 (2021).

Please read the disclaimer.  This blog article ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

"THE CONSENSUS WAS" IGNORANT RE: AFGHAN COLLAPSE AND TALIBAN TAKEOVER.

The consensus was that the Afghan Security Forces and the Afghan Government would not collapse in 11 days.  This is what President Joe Biden said earlier in the afternoon on the day these words are written, Friday, August 20, 2021.

          Either this is true or it is not.  It cannot be both and it cannot be a little bit of each.  It is either all one, or all the other.

          But before we get to whether it is true or false, how is it an excuse for delayed response to the need to evacuate?

          I hesitated a long time before I wrote this column.  I do not want to give ammunition to those who seek to do harm to the Biden Administration.  The Biden Administration is a breath of fresh air after the former guy.  Before now, they have shown an ability to pull rabbits out of a hat, they have been so successful in my judgment.

          So what explains this apparent failure to get people out of harm's way?  We are not talking about 11 days.  We are talking about three, four, or five months.

                   

          Not acting during that time is only part of the problem.                         

• We have reports about the Department of State sending EMails to people in Afghanistan telling them to show up at the Kabul airport, but after these people risk life and limb to get to the airport passing through territory and checkpoints controlled by the Taliban, no-one is at the airport who will let them in and they are turned away.
•   Update And a Repeat:  President Biden told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News "that chaos was in fact always inevitable."   If this was known, why then was it not planned for?
• We have other reports of French and British military and police units rescuing their nationals by going out beyond the airport perimeter, finding the people, and successfully bringing them back to the airport to be evacuated. What is stopping the American military from doing the same thing?
•   Update:  The Pentagon reported that the United States military does not have the capacity to extract people from downtown Kabul like the French and the British.  This report may have been meant as a distraction for security purposes.  See the Update immediately below.
•   Update:  U.S. helicopters under the command of various agencies including the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency are operating like the French and the British to travel to downtown Kabul and to other parts of Afghanistan, piek up evacuees, and return to the Kabel airport for eventual evacuation.
• Worst of all, perhaps, we have reports of concerned private citizens in the U.S. contacting sources, raising money, and chartering aircraft to get their Afghan friends and former colleagues out of Afghanistan. Their conduct is inspirational, but why do they have to do it?
• Doesn't the U.S. Government know how to evacuate people?
• By rights, shouldn't it be the one to do them? What is "American exceptionalism" all about, if not that? 

If it is true that the consensus was that the Afghan Security Forces and the Afghan Government would not "collapse" so soon:  How was this the consensus view in the face of the facts? 

• FACT: The U.S.-built and U.S.-funded Afghan Government was incurably corrupt.  Few Afghans, and I mean very few, were willing to die for it.
• FACT: The U.S.-funded and U.S.-equipped Afghan Security Forces -- army, air force, and police -- were mostly unwilling to fight and die for the Afghan Government.  Some units were special.  In the end, they were nowhere near enough to stop the Taliban takeover.
• FACT: Reports are clear that there were rumors and hard evidence available that local officials and local commanders were cutting their own private deals with the Taliban.  The deals were that the Taliban would not kill them, and the local officials and commanders would not fight the Taliban.  With many rumors and a lot of hard evidence, why did the "consensus" fail to reflect them?  And why did the Administration fail to learn the truth?

If it is false that the consensus was that the Afghan Security Forces and the Afghan Government would not "collapse" so soon:  Why then would the U.S. Government be pretending otherwise?

          Why, indeed?

•   Update:  Unnamed "aides" of President Biden reportedly echo his view that Americans do not care about what is happening to people in the Taliban chaos of Afghanistan, so long as Americans are not the ones being injured and killed.  Well, of course they do.  They obviously do not know how to handle the current situation.  All they know is what they call "the bigger picture."  By that they mean the old, discredited failure of so-called "Centrists" who are more arrogant than competent, more failure than flexible.  If they were boxers -- a thought which makes many of them shudder -- they would be caught flat-footed.  They do not know how to get out of the way.

 

PHOTOS:    1.  Afghans with Afghan flag face Taliban fighters with guns in Kabul.  (Victor J. Blue / New York Times).

                    2.  (Jim Huyelbroek/New York Times).

Updated to reflect recent developments.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.    

"THE CONSENSUS WAS" IGNORANT RE: AFGHAN CORRUPTION AND TALIBAN TAKEOVER.

 

The consensus was that the Afghan Security Forces and the Afghan Government would not collapse in 11 days.  This is what President Joe Biden said earlier in the afternoon on the day these words are written, Friday, August 20, 2021.

          Either this is true or it is not.  It cannot be both and it cannot be a little bit of each.  It is either all one, or all the other.

          But before we get to whether it is true or false, how is it an excuse for delayed response to the need to evacuate?

          I hesitated a long time before I wrote this column.  I do not want to give ammunition to those who seek to do harm to the Biden Administration.  The Biden Administration is a breath of fresh air after the former guy.  Before now, they have shown an ability to pull rabbits out of a hat, they have been so successful in my judgment.

          So what explains this apparent failure to get people out of harm's way?  We are not talking about 11 days.  We are talking about three, four, or five months.

                   

 

          Not acting during that time is only part of the problem.                         

• We have reports about the Department of State sending EMails to people in Afghanistan telling them to show up at the Kabul airport, but after these people risk life and limb to get to the airport passing through territory and checkpoints controlled by the Taliban, no-one is at the airport who will let them in and they are turned away.
• We have other reports of French and British military and police units rescuing their nationals by going out beyond the airport perimeter, finding the people, and successfully bringing them back to the airport to be evacuated. What is stopping the American military from doing the same thing?
• Worst of all, perhaps, we have reports of concerned private citizens in the U.S. contacting sources, raising money, and chartering aircraft to get their Afghan friends and former colleagues out of Afghanistan. Their conduct is inspirational, but why do they have to do it?
• Doesn't the U.S. Government know how to evacuate people?
• By rights, shouldn't it be the one to do them? What is "American exceptionalism" all about, if not that? 

If it is true that the consensus was that the Afghan Security Forces and the Afghan Government would not "collapse" so soon:  How was this the consensus view in the face of the facts? 

• FACT: The U.S.-built and U.S.-funded Afghan Government was incurably corrupt.  Few Afghans, and I mean very few, were willing to die for it.
• FACT: The U.S.-funded and U.S.-equipped Afghan Security Forces -- army, air force, and police -- were mostly unwilling to fight and die for the Afghan Government.  Some units were special.  In the end, they were nowhere near enough to stop the Taliban takeover.
• FACT: Reports are clear that there were rumors and hard evidence available that local officials and local commanders were cutting their own private deals with the Taliban.  The deals were that the Taliban would not kill them, and the local officials and commanders would not fight the Taliban.  With many rumors and a lot of hard evidence, why did the "consensus" fail to reflect them?  And why did the Administration fail to learn the truth?

If it is false that the consensus was that the Afghan Security Forces and the Afghan Government would not "collapse" so soon:  Why then would the U.S. Government be pretending otherwise?

          Why, indeed?

 

PHOTOS:    1.  Afghans with Afghan flag face Taliban fighters with guns in Kabul.  (Victor J. Blue / New York Times).

                    2.  (Jim Huyelbroek/New York Times).

                    3.  Taliban taking a rest last year in Afghanistan.  (Jim Huybroek/New York Times).

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.    

"LET'S MAKE A DEAL" WITH THE TALIBAN.

Mike Pompeo and Mullah Barradar, leader of the Taliban who was released from jail in order to make an agreement with the Americans in 2020.  (Patrick Semansky/Associated Press)

This is Part 3 in a series of articles looking at the Afghanistan "collapse" which is not really a collapse.  It is a contract.

The former guy and secretary of state Mike Pompeo negotiated a deal with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar in 2020.

          This was the deal:  The Taliban would not kill Americans in Afghanistan and the Americans would withdraw from Afghanistan. 

          Unfortunately, very unfortunately, they famously excluded the Afghan Government (and its Security Forces) from their negotiations.  Being Afghans, the ones who were excluded made their own deals with the Taliban as a result.  The deals made by local officials of the Afghan Government, and local commanders of the army and the police, called for the Taliban not to kill them in exchange for withdrawing from power.

          So, they made little deals that mirrored the big deal with the Taliban.

          When the time came in early August of 2021, the little deals came due.  The Afghan Government officials and the Afghan army and police gave the Taliban the keys to their office buildings, equipment, and bases, and then they left power to the Taliban.  This came clear -- if it wasn't clear before -- with some remarkable reporting which is repeated here because it is so good:  See  Susannah George, Afghanistan's Military Collapse:  Illicit Deals and Mass Desertions, Washington Post online Sunday, August 15, 2021.

          That's the deal.  That's why the sudden "collapse" of Afghanistan is not a collapse at all.  It was planned last year.  It is not a collapse, it is a contract.

          The end of this Part 3 is once again the same as the end of Part 1 and the same as the end of Part 2:   The truth is different from what we were actually told.  Based on what we already know now, the difference determined the outcome.  There is more to come.

Please Read the Disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

AFGHANISTAN: BARACK OBAMA INHERITS THE WIND AND DOESN'T TELL ANYONE.

Taliban.  (Rahmat Gul/Associated Press)

Second of four parts.

When he became President, Barack Obama inherited the mess in Afghanistan that we discussed in Part One.

President Obama's administration was left with a dispirited rabble, more or less, instead of an ally.  So the Obama administration decided to up the ante, as it were.  They staged a so-called "surge" of added American soldiers, named after George W. Bush's surge in Iraq which was widely deemed to be successful there.

The Afghanistan surge did not work.  The Afghan Government and the Afghan "Security Forces" (army and air force, and police) were not much better at being able to defend themselves after the surge and the country was not as secure from the Taliban as the Obama people hoped.

Yet President Obama did not tell anyone.  No-one in the Obama administration said then what they say now, which is that the so-called Afghan "collapse" was inevitable and that there was never really any hope for a different outcome.

No-one in the Obama administration said so at the time.   There would be nearly another decade of death before the American involvement in Afghanistan finally came to an end.

President Obama and his administration knew that the Afghan Government was incurably corrupt, yet they did not say so at the time.  They certainly did not say then that the Afghan armed forces would surrender to the Taliban rather than fight the Taliban.  If they thought so then, they should have said so.

They did not say so.  But they knew that failure was inevitable.  They just didn't want it to happen on their watch.  That is why they left things to President Obama's successor.

The end of Part Two is thus the same as the end of Part One.  The truth is different from what we were actually told.  Based on what we already know now, the difference determined the outcome.  There is more to come.

Please Read the Disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

AFGHANISTAN: WHAT SEEMED TO BE A COLLAPSE WAS A CONTRACT.

Captured Armored Personnel Carrier in Kabul.  (Jim Huylebroek/New York Times)

Afghanistan has fallen.  Or at least the Taliban have retaken control of Afghanistan.  Lots of commentators particularly in the media write that it was inevitable for the past 20 years that this would happen as soon as the U.S. withdrew.  They say they knew it all along.

I don't recall them saying that at all during the last 20 years.  I could be wrong.  I do recall them saying some things but it wasn't that.

New reporting also begins to provide some details about the deals that the Taliban made with the former guy and his secretary of state Mike Pompeo in 2020.  The former guy was notorious for making deals.  The new reporting also begins to provide some information about the deals that the Taliban made after that with Afghan officials.  See  Susannah George, Afghanistan's Military Collapse:  Illicit Deals and Mass Desertions, Washington Post online Sunday, August 15, 2021; Susannah George and Ezzatullah Mehrdad, Hundreds of Afghan Forces Surrender in Kunduz as Taliban Consolidates Hold on Country's North, Washington post online, Wednesday, August 11, 2021.

Making deals is what the Afghans do and have done for a long time.  The Afghans were cut out of deals between the Taliban and those in control of the U.S. government in 2020, which left the Afghans on their own against the Taliban.

And left whatever happened next to the next U.S. president to clean up.

Immediately after the deals between the Taliban and the people in control of the U.S. government in 2020, Afghans began making their own deals with the Taliban to literally turn over the keys as soon as the Taliban showed up.

What seemed to be a collapse was a contract.

But more about the deals later.

This is the first of four parts, one for the time of each person who was elected President of the United States in the past 21 years.

George W. Bush.  Then Barack Obama, followed by the former guy, and finally Joe Biden.

First up, George W. Bush.

They told us then that they were not nation-building.  George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al.

For not the first time, the people in charge of the American Government lied to us.  We know now that they were nation-building.  The truth is that they were trying to build a democracy in Afghanistan that looked like the U.S.

The thing is, we knew that at the time.  Or at least that is what I recall was reported at the time.

I do not recall, however, it being reported at that time -- or at any other time during the past 20 years before now -- that the Afghanistan built by the U.S. would "collapse" once the U.S. withdrew.

Either the Bush people knew that Afghanistan would collapse as soon as the U.S. withdrew, or they knew that the regime they installed was incurably corrupt.  Either way, the Bush people didn't tell us those things.  They told us instead that their Afghanistan was coming together very nicely.

For its part, the media at the time reported that the regime in Afghanistan was incredibly corrupt.  I do not recall that they reported that the regime in Afghanistan would "collapse" the minute the last American left.

The truth is different.  Based on what we already know now, the difference determined the outcome.  There is more to come.

Please Read the Disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THIS DOES NOT HAVE TO BE OUR FUTURE.

Taking a quick break from the news in Afghanistan, I wrote a letter to the editor of The Washington Post last week and to my joy, they published it.  I wrote re all the world’s wildfires, the Dixie Fire in California being one big example.  The Washington Post did such a good job in the way they published and presented this issue that I don't think I can improve on it, so here is a link to the Washington Post:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/this-doesnt-have-to-be-our-future/2021/08/09/a7215d20-f6f8-11eb-a636-18cac59a98dc_story.html

Please read the disclaimer.  This blog post ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  

SCOTT MAXWELL, "OUR NATION TURNS ITS LONELY EYES TO YOU."

One of the joys of becoming a senior is not giving a hoot whether someone likes what you do as long as you like doing it (and it doesn't hurt anyone, of course).  Scott Maxwell's in-box at the Orlando Sentinel was full so my EMail to him came back to me.  There are two other ways that I can think of that I can try to contact him.  One is by blog post.  The other is by Twitter after this blog is posted.  I will try both.  First, my blog post, here.

Mr. Maxwell,

My wife and I read your columns.  We both enjoy your writing, and we both admire your work (most of the time, and more than enough to keep us admiring your work).

At her suggestion, I am embedding in this EMail an article I published on one of my blogs yesterday, Sunday, August 8.  It would be great if you could follow up on this story, for the sake of the children in Florida's public schools -- and for the sake of Florida taxpayers who have to foot the bills run up by the politicians in Tallahassee.

Thank you and stay well and safe.

Best,

Dennis Wall

_______________________________

AUGUST 08, 2021

MAKING YOU PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CHARTER SCHOOL:  FLORIDA COVID REPORT.

(Photo by Dr. Scott Kobner in an ER /Los Angeles Times)

You may not choose to send your children to an unvaccinated charter school in a pandemic.  But you will end up paying for it in Florida under a new "emergency" rule reportedly issued by the Florida State Board of Education on Friday, August 6.

The Board of Education's emergency rule in the Covid pandemic would not require any vaccinations or masks so as to protect the children, staff, and teachers in any Florida schools.  To the contrary, it will make Florida State money available to parents who want to move their children to private schools that do not require masks, out of public schools that require masks in the pandemic.

The average cost of private school tuition in Florida is reported to be $9,157 a year.  This may prove to be the most expensive rule ever adopted by Florida's Education Board. 

Some background.  Florida's current governor threatened to withhold Florida State money from school districts that require masks.  It seems a long time ago, but it seems he said that a week ago Friday.  Since then, he was apparently told that he might not actually have that authority, because this Friday, he switched to the "emergency" rule from the State Board of Education to use Florida State money.

Either way, he wants to use Floridians' money to pay for what truly looks like the coming loss of public education in Florida.

(Jae C. Heng / Associated Press)

Whatever happens, you can bet that the governor's children and the Board Members' children and their friends' children will not be hurt.  But you can also bet on the certainty that your wallet will be hurt, because this is a big opportunity for some politicians and their cronies to make a buck by privatizing your children's education even if you have to pay for it, and even if your children are hurt by it.

These people are not letting anything or anyone stand in the way of their making money.  Journalists would do well to explore the bank accounts of these people and their stock holdings, wherever the public has access to this information.  For that matter, Freedom of Information Act requests might cover this information even when it is not publicly accessible.

(Photo taken by Dr. Scott Kobner in an ER / Los Angeles Times)

If they are going to issue rules in our name with our money that are likely to hurt our kids, we have a right to know whether they are profiting from it.  It really is as simple as that.

-30 The End-

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THE CHILDREN ARE NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

(Mary Ataffer/Associated Press)

 

The children don't want to get sick.

          The children don't want to die.

          Few of the children, probably none of the children, are motivated by the hope of the governor's friends to make money with private schools.   The cronies, not the children, are making public school dangerous.  That does not motivate the children.

The children are not running for president.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MAKING YOU PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S CHARTER SCHOOL: FLORIDA COVID REPORT.

 

(Photo by Dr. Scott Kobner in an ER /Los Angeles Times)

You may not choose to send your children to an unvaccinated charter school in a pandemic.  But you will end up paying for it in Florida under a new "emergency" rule reportedly issued by the Florida State Board of Education on Friday, August 6.

The Board of Education's emergency rule in the Covid pandemic would not require any vaccinations or masks so as to protect the children, staff, and teachers in any Florida schools.  To the contrary, it will make Florida State money available to parents who want to move their children to private schools that do not require masks, out of public schools that require masks in the pandemic.

The average cost of private school tuition in Florida is reported to be $9,157 a year.  This may prove to be the most expensive rule ever adopted by Florida's Education Board. 

Some background.  Florida's current governor threatened to withhold Florida State money from school districts that require masks.  It seems a long time ago, but it seems he said that a week ago Friday.  Since then, he was apparently told that he might not actually have that authority, because this Friday, he switched to the "emergency" rule from the State Board of Education to use Florida State money.

Either way, he wants to use Floridians' money to pay for what truly looks like the coming loss of public education in Florida.

(Jae C. Heng / Associated Press)

Whatever happens, you can bet that the governor's children and the Board Members' children and their friends' children will not be hurt.  But you can also bet on the certainty that your wallet will be hurt, because this is a big opportunity for some politicians and their cronies to make a buck by privatizing your children's education even if you have to pay for it, and even if your children are hurt by it.

These people are not letting anything or anyone stand in the way of their making money.  Journalists would do well to explore the bank accounts of these people and their stock holdings, wherever the public has access to this information.  For that matter, Freedom of Information Act requests might cover this information even when it is not publicly accessible.

(Photo taken by Dr. Scott Kobner in an ER / Los Angeles Times)

If they are going to issue rules in our name with our money that are likely to hurt our kids, we have a right to know whether they are profiting from it.  It really is as simple as that.

Please read the disclaimer.   ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

"PASSING THE BUCK:" ARE THEY COMPETENT, INCOMPETENT, OR WHAT?

(Ted S. Warren/Associated Press)

The States have been charged by Congress with distributing quite a bit of federal money lately.  That means that our federal tax dollars, yours and mine, are in the hands of State officials.

          Are they competent, incompetent, or what?

          Most recently, it has come to light that out of $46 Billion in federal appropriations to assist renters and owners with rent payments, the States have distributed only $3 Billion of it.  It is not even their money, it is our money, and it comes to the States from the federal government.  So the States do not even have to worry that spending it will somehow make them, the States, poorer for the spending; it won't.

          Still the States are not spending the federal money.

          States have also been tasked with paying federal money in supplemental unemployment benefits to people who cannot find a job during a pandemic.  In this area, the States are sometimes clear in their intent at least to reject the federal money:  Some States reject having to spend the federal money because, well, they are not clear why since it is not their money.  It is our money, and it comes to the States from the federal government.

          Still the States are not spending the federal money.

          There are other programs in which the States are being given the duty by Congress to spend federal money, and the States are not doing their duty.  States are not spending the federal money appropriated for these programs.  This business of having the States distribute federal money -- meaning, again, federal taxpayer dollars from you and me -- is apparently a new way of "passing the buck" in Washington.

          Are they competent, incompetent, or what?

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

P.S. THE NEXT DAY, THEY WALKED THE WALK.

P.S.

The day after the "Walk the Walk" article was posted here, they walked the walk.

    The CDC issued a targeted moratorium against evicting the most vulnerable people who are renting their homes.  The article suggested exactly that.  In fairness, so did many other articles and many other people.

    The CDC put a 60-day term on its new moratorium.  60 days is long enough to allow States at least a further opportunity to get the $46 Billion out in federal aid money that the Congress appropriated to help renters and owners, tenants and landlords.

    Sixty days is also short enough, in a sense.  The Supreme Court is unlikely to be able to act against the new moratorium in that short timeframe.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WALK THE TALK. WALK THE WALK.

 

Covid Coffins.  (Associated Press)

This story began when Brett Kavanaugh and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 opinion that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did not have the authority to impose a moratorium on all evictions.  This ruling it must be noted came within one vote of an opposite decision, during a pandemic which makes it impossible to earn money to pay rent.

          It must also be noted that the legal issue before the Supreme Court was the CDC's authority to impose an eviction moratorium that would broadly prohibit all evictions across the board.

          The current administration has accepted this ruling as a limitation instead on its authority to declare a moratorium more narrowly, on any evictions at all.

          We did not know that, or at least I did not know that, until the moratorium expired.  However I and everyone else who knew anything about what I have said so far knew that the eviction moratorium was expiring July 31, 2021.

          The CDC reportedly looked for authority to declare a moratorium on evictions of the people who are most heavily impacted during the pandemic, and reportedly the CDC found no authority.  They just announced that.

          What if anything has this administration done between the time that Mr. Kavanaugh wrote his opinion for the Supreme Court, and the time that the eviction moratorium expired on July 31?  In terms of the eminently foreseeable mass evictions that would ensue without a moratorium, I mean.   We know that this administration has been very busy holding many, many meetings to talk with Republicans in what this administration calls a compromise on building roads.

          If they have been doing anything in terms of the risk of mass evictions, we do not know it.  We do know, however, that now this administration is rightly blaming the States for inaction in distributing federal funds to landlords so that the landlords do not evict their tenants who are behind on their rent.

          But we have known for months about the slowness of the States in distributing federal funds which were appropriated to rescue America, not only to prevent evictions but to address many other issues as well.  Looking at just the distribution of eviction prevention monies, we knew long before today that the States were dragging their feet, or to put it differently, taking their time.  So why is this news to this administration now?

          This administration came to power with the votes of many of the people who are facing the threat of eviction as a result of inaction.  And it's not a risk caused only by the inaction of States.  In a continuing pandemic, it's a deadly risk that's caused as well by the inaction of this administration.  They came to power talking the talk.

          Now they need to walk the talk.  Even better, they need to walk the walk.  If it's not too late already.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.