Claims And Issues

THE KILLER IN EL PASO IS NOT AN IMMIGRANT. Postscript 08.05.19.

The death count stands at twenty as I write these words. That is how many people were killed in El Paso yesterday.

The killer is not an immigrant.

He aimed at people who he thought look like immigrants. They weren’t immigrants either. But they got a sentence of death from him because they looked like immigrants.

Who was the dangerous one in El Paso yesterday?

 

Postscript of Monday, August 5, 2019:

“This Anglo man came here to kill Hispanics. I’m outraged and you should be, too. This entire nation should be outraged. In this day and age, with all the serious issues we face, we are still confronted with people who will kill one another for the sole reason of the color of their skin.”

Sheriff Richard Wiles of El Paso, Texas, quoted by Simon Romero, Manny Fernandez, and Michael Corkery in A Store That Connected Cultures, Until a Killer ‘Came Here For Us,’ NEW YORK TIMES, Monday, August 5, 2019, p. A1 (online here; the New York Times may charge for online access).

Download CI 08.05.19.

 

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

"OH, LOOK, A SQUIRREL!"

Small children are easily distracted. Adults relearn this by hanging around them, such as coaching or umpiring Little League games.

Adults generally grow out of distractions. But not always.

“You can fool some of the people all of the time. And you can fool all of the people some of the time. But you cannot fool all of the people all of the time,” Abraham Lincoln famously said.

This is true even though adults in modern times have something in their lives that comes between them and their squirrels, their distractions. The filter for adults is the corporate media. The corporate media is so loud and so relentless, it never stops and never seems to shut off. They broadcast squirrels shamelessly (so long as they make money from it, at least).

Even so, you can still fool some people all of the time of course, and you can still fool all of the people some of the time, it’s just easier now.

But you still cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Not now. Not ever.

Download CI 07.31.19.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

THINK ABOUT WHAT you’re GOING TO DO.

On January 20, 2017 the story was that the crowds were huge. That has been said so many times since then, despite all the photographs to the contrary, that some people believe it. The next day – one day later – the first Women’s March was attended in the United States by so many more people that it is reportedly the highest attendance at a protest in American history, ever. Not to mention the many people who marched in other nations.

In the Fall of 2018, the story was that Democrats would lose big. They were big losers, supposedly, and that mantra was repeated so many times that many people either believed it or feared it, or both. The Democrats cleaned their opponents’ clocks in the Midterms of 2018. They did it by running their races with boldness, grace, and courage. Their opponents pushed fear and lost.

My daughter attended a softball camp when she was younger. The coach was Lonnie Richardson. At the time, he was a coach of a college softball team and his sister was and is Dr. Dot Richardson, a softball Olympian and a true great of the sport. Lonnie Richardson said that when his sister is at bat “she’s not thinking of what the pitcher is going to do, she’s thinking of what she’s going to do.”

The moral of the story is really simple: Think about what you’re going to do.

Download CI 07.24.19.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

ANTI-CATHOLIC DISCRIMINATION AT THE BORDER?

The treatment of immigrants at the border is not completely understood but it is well-known to be bad. Many if not most of the immigrants are Catholic. Are they being discriminated against because they are Catholic?

Centuries ago this country gave shelter in some places to the “Know Nothing Party.” The Know Nothings hated immigrants and minorities, and just about anybody that was not white. They made some exceptions to their hatred of people who were not white, though.

They reserved a lot of their hatred in particular for Catholics.

It deserves asking again, then: Are the actions of the occupiers of the current federal government unjustly discriminating against immigrants because they are scared of Catholics?

The Know Nothings ride again. On the same hatreds.

Download CI 07.22.19.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

IT’S ALL IN THE WRIST. MAYBE IT’S IN ATTITUDE INSTEAD.

    A woman was born with polio. Let’s call her Dianne. (That’s her name.)
    She can still walk but it’s becoming more of a chore. She uses a motorized wheel chair a lot now.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

    Today Dianne went for an x-ray. Alone.
    She pulled into the parking lot by the front door. Luck or her guardian angel or both were with her. She found a space right near the front door which opened automatically.
    The x-ray office was down the hall near the back door to the building. The back door is not automatic.     Neither is the door to the x-ray office.
    Dianne waited by both doors until someone came through the back door. (It would have to be an able-bodied person, of course, since the back door does not open automatically.) Soon a woman entered the building through the back door. She had children in tow, one child holding each hand. Dianne asked her if she could ask a favor.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

    The woman said “Sure.” She may have had the back door in mind since a handicapped person in a wheelchair clearly cannot open it, and that’s what she had in front of her, namely, a handicapped person in a wheelchair. Although the back door had no sign on it one way or the other.
    However the favor that Dianne asked was instead to open the nearby door to the x-ray office. The woman said “Of course,” and she did.
    Dianne said to her then: “You see, you didn’t know when you woke up this morning that you were going to be an angel. But you were.”

    The children beamed to hear this truth be told about their mom.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 07.17.19.

THANK YOU, JOSH GOTTHEIMER.

The House passed a bill to re—fund Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) which would have contained some protections for the children at the border. The Senate passed its own bill first, however. Blessed both by Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer, the Senate bill contained no protections but a lot of money with conditions that could easily be broken when the money – taxpayer money, your money and my money -- is spent.
    Then the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was confronted by a group of Representatives who insisted on passing only the Senate bill when it came to the House for a vote. (Senator McConnell refused to take a vote in the Senate on the House bill.) The group is called “the Problem Solvers” caucus. Half of its members are Republicans, and half describe themselves as Democrats. One of their co-chairs is Rep. Josh Gottheimer from New Jersey.
    Speaker Pelosi decided that she had no leverage and caved on the bill which the House had already passed, in favor of the Senate bill which Rep. Gottheimer and his caucus insisted was the only bill they would vote for now.
    That is how the House of Representatives passed the Senate bill as the law of the land with no conditions restricting how the current federal government spends the ICE money, whether to build a wall, or build or destroy something else, their choice.
    Representative Gottheimer and his caucus are interesting stories. Mr. Gottheimer was first elected to Congress in 2016. He represents a district that had previously elected Republicans for more than 20 years. During his short time in the House, he has represented Republicans although he registers as a Democrat. “He has consistently voted against the party even on procedural motions, threatening to hand control over the House to the GOP.” Ryan Grim, The Democratic Counterrevolution Has a Self-Appointed Leader: Josh Gottheimer, THE INTERCEPT online May 8, 2019.
    During a hearing in April of the House Financial Services Committee, on which he currently serves, Mr. Gottheimer was careful to present the Wall Street side of how they actually do good for their customers. The Chair of the Committee, Rep. Maxine Waters, called the hearing “Holding Megabanks Accountable.” Representative Gottheimer’s idea of holding megabanks accountable was to ask Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase whether Dimon could talk about “the work that your firm has done in the small-business lending arena and how those loans are helping to facilitate small-business growth.” So, in Gottheimer’s mind, that is holding megabanks accountable.
    Mr. Gottheimer has voted with much the same view against holding Saudi Arabia to account for its activities in Yemen, activities in which thousands of innocent civilians – men, women, and children too – have lost their lives at the hands of the Saudis. Despite that, and despite the dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of Saudi Arabia’s monarchy, Mr. Gottheimer not only voted against the initial House resolution based on the War Powers Act to demand that the current federal government stop supporting the Saudi’s war in Yemen.  He actively worked against it, essentially declaring according to reports that a vote for the resolution would be a vote against Israel.  (I don't know how a vote for the resolution to stop U.S. assistance to Saudi war-making in Yemen could possibly be twisted into a vote against Israel, but I am not the one who said so in the first place.)  

    The resolution eventually was passed in both the House and the Senate (it was ultimately vetoed). However, Mr. Gottheimer’s opposition as a so-called Democrat was not welcome. “This is a thing that he’s doing consistently, helping to organize against progress,” as Elizabeth Beavers described Gottheimer’s conduct on the War Powers resolution. Ms. Beavers was Associate Policy Director of Indivisible at the time.
    Disappointing, perhaps, but Representative Gottheimer’s attempt to intervene in the House on behalf of Saudi Arabia should not have come as a surprise. Mr. Gottheimer is reportedly among the top 20 recipients of Saudi money who serve in Congress, whether Republican or Democrat. However, the top 20 includes many leaders and legislators who have been in Congress long before 2016, when Mr. Gottheimer arrived. “Nobody as junior as Gottheimer comes anywhere close.” Grim, The Self-Appointed Leader: Josh Gottheimer, supra.
    Josh Gottheimer’s New Jersey district changed hands when the federal government changed hands, in 2016. An official of Indivisible who supported him in that election, says “we just want him to meet us halfway and act like a normal Democrat who believes in the party.” Quoted in Grim, The Self-Appointed Leader: Josh Gottheimer, supra.

    Still waiting.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 07.15.19.

WHY IS CURRENT APPOINTEE BERMAN INDICTING EPSTEIN, RISKING TELLING TALES?

Geoffrey Berman is indicting Jeffrey Epstein in federal court in the Southern District of New York. There is no issue but that Epstein deserves the indictment. But why has Mr. Berman indicted Mr. Epstein?
Geoffrey S. Berman is the current appointee as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He was Rudy Giuliani’s law partner before he was appointed U.S. Attorney. See Alan Feuer, Trump May Nominate a Giuliani Law Partner as U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, NEW YORK TIMES online August 7, 2017 (New York Times may charge for online access).
Epstein apparently would have much to say about New York figures, if he talks.
So why has Berman been allowed to make that risk happen? Berman’s boss is Bill Barr. We all know who Bill Barr’s boss is.
I sense that not just current occupants of office are potentially in this picture, but I sense that Bill Clinton is also in this picture somewhere. And possibly Hillary Clinton too.
The stories Epstein could tell. If he talks.

Download CI 07.10.19.1.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

JULY 9 LAST DAY TO COMMENT ON "MIXED STATUS FAMILIES RULE."

Tomorrow at the close of day, Tuesday, July 9, 2019, the Comment period will end for HUD to accept Comments to the proposed Mixed Status Families rules changes.  The changes, proposed by Mr. Stephen Miller, are worth a look and so are the Comments.

Comments on proposed rules changes are easy to make.  Just go to regulations.gov and input the Docket Number or RIN (or both, in an abundance of caution).  That information is included in my own Comments, below, which I left on Monday, July 8, 2019.

July 8, 2019
BY POSTING TO FEDERAL eRULEMAKING PORTAL
IN WORD AND pdf

Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.
Regulations Division
Office of General Counsel
Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street SW, Room 10267
Washington, DC 20410-0500

Re: HUD Docket No. FR-6124-P-01. RIN 2501-AD89.

To the Department of Housing and Urban Development:

These Comments concern changes to Mixed Status Families Rules proposed by HUD. My Comments break down into a number of concrete areas, identified below.

    1. The origin of your proposed Rules changes is irrational. I understand that HUD’s
proposed Mixed Status Families Rules changes were not written or researched by HUD. They were written by a current employee of the White House, Mr. Stephen Miller, who has parenthetically not been appointed to any position in the federal government. Mr. Miller’s proposals were shown to HUD Secretary Benjamin Carson, who I understand did not like them but neither did he oppose them.
    The origin story of these changes exponentially increases the chances that a Court will find the changes irrational. As noted below, there are other reasons that your proposed changes are irrational. My first point is that, whether taken separately or together with the other reasons discussed below, a Court is more likely than not to hold that your proposed changes are irrational and even “contrived,” to borrow a word from Chief Justice Robert’s recent opinion on proposed rules changes to the United States Census.

    2. Millions of dollars will be lost to HUD if your proposed Rules changes are finalized
because undocumented immigrants are among the most reliable tenants HUD has. The current status of the law is that so long as one member of a family is a citizen of the United States, the family is entitled to HUD housing as I understand it. Your proposed Rules changes would stand the law on its head. Mr. Miller’s proposal would be to deny HUD housing to anyone in a family who is not a citizen or is an undocumented immigrant, leaving behind the person(s) in that family who are U.S. citizens, mostly children.
    “The primary cost would be the economic costs of moving.” HUD’s Regulatory Impact Analysis (“RIA”) of these proposed rules changes, Docket No. FR-6124-P-01, at 13 (April 15, 2019). HUD’s Regulatory Impact Analysis does not come out and say so, but the moving costs estimated by HUD at between $9,500,000 and $13,000,000 would be borne by the mixed families assuming that they could come up with that amount of money.
    A secondary but inevitable cost would be formal eviction. HUD would bear the costs of formal eviction. HUD estimates its costs for formally evicting families under the proposed Mixed Status Families rules as between $3,300,000 and $4,400,000, or between $3.3 Million and $4.4 Million. RIA, Docket No. FR-6124-P-01, at 4 and 15 (April 15, 2019).
    Any parent knows that most children will follow their evicted parents. As HUD’s own Regulatory Impact Analysis crudely put it, “Most ineligibles live in small households that could not easily separate.” RIA, Docket No. FR-6124-P-01, at 16 (April 15, 2019).
    That means that inevitably HUD will lose these people as tenants. Putting to one side the moral and ethical failures of such changes, the loss of these families as tenants would be an economic catastrophe.
    Undocumented immigrants are among the most reliable tenants that HUD has. They do not want to attract the attention that would come their way if they do not pay their rent on time. It would be irrational to evict them or otherwise force them to move out of the HUD housing on which they currently and faithfully pay rent. Their rent payments total millions of dollars, all of which would be lost to HUD and the federal taxpayer. This result is not rational. The proposed changes under consideration do not serve any other purpose which is itself either rational or desirable.

    3. Replacing these mixed immigration households that would be displaced if the Rules
changes are finalized would cost HUD millions of dollars excluding even lost rental monies. HUD would be required to pay full subsidies for each resident that would be left in a household in subsidized public housing. Under the law, the amount of subsidies is prorated according to the number of undocumented immigrants (no subsidy) vs. the number of legal residents (subsidized). If these proposed changes were made, the costs to HUD would then be in the millions of dollars because HUD would be paying direct subsidies calculated by each individual person that remains in HUD housing. There would be no prorating HUD’s payments then.
    HUD published its own “Summary of Transfers” Table to show the total estimated costs of replacing mixed status families currently receiving HUD housing assistance (subsidies), with households in which every single individual is eligible for HUD housing assistance, at $372 Million “annually” (without saying for how long these “annual” costs would continue) as a “Low Estimate,” and $437 Million “annual” costs as a “High Estimate.” In other words, in just the first year the costs of these proposed Rules changes are estimated by HUD to run between $372 Million and $437 Million. HUD RIA, Docket No. FR-6124-P-01, at 11 (April 15, 2019).
    No telling how many years such “annual” costs or any “annual” costs like them would continue if the proposed Mixed Status Families rules changes are finalized and adopted.
    And for what return on this expense? This too is another reason that the proposed Rules changes are irrational. They are almost certain to be found irrational by a Court as soon as they are challenged in litigation. Knowing that up front, so to speak, what reason can HUD give for pursuing these proposed changes and incurring these certain expenses?
    If there is a good reason, I have not heard it.

Conclusion

The fact that HUD did not write or research the proposed rules changes in question is an untreatable wound to the viability of the Mixed Status Families rules changes. The fact that these proposals were presented to HUD by political employee(s) without HUD’s involvement and without HUD’s intervention, but only with HUD’s acquiescence in their false presentation of “contrived” reasons for their adoption, is fatal to their implementation as law in the United States.
Further, finalization and adoption of these proposals will result in the loss of millions of dollars of rental payments to HUD with no offsetting benefits whatsoever.
    Finally, additional “annual” costs will accrue to HUD by HUD’s own best estimates over an unstated period of time, if these proposed Rules changes are finalized and adopted, somewhere between $372 Million and $437 Million a year.
    Whether these considerations are taken separately or together, they require HUD to withdraw the proposed Mixed Status Families rules changes or suffer certain judicial rulings striking them down as what they are, “contrived.”
    Instead, HUD itself has proposed alternatives. Some of them are rational. See RIA, Docket No. FR-6124-P-01, at 17, in paragraph titled, “Alternatives” (April 15, 2019). Consider them instead, even as you withdraw the current proposed rules changes.

    Thank you for your consideration.

Download HUD'S MIXED STATUS FAMILIES RULE COMMENTS.07.08.19.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

THIS IS HOW WE CELEBRATE THE FOURTH OF JULY NOW.

Really? Really.

Here is the full report of the Inspector General:   Download OIG-19-51-Jul19_.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

THEY ARE HIS PARTY ALSO. WHAT DIFFERENCE DO DEMOCRATS MAKE?

A majority of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives were very afraid of giving their potential re-election opponents something to say about them if they left town for July 4th without passing a bill to fund border control and ICE, that they voted for a bill to provide the money without any restrictions.

They voted for a bill that was already approved by the White House and by the Senate. It has no restrictions on how the current federal government spends the money. The White House and the Senate refused even to look at the House bill that had restrictions.

After voting for the Senate version, the House Democrats left town.

They voted like Republicans. What difference do Democrats make?

See Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Emily Cochrane, House Passes Senate Border Bill in a Startling Setback for Pelosi, New York Times, Friday, June 28, 2019, p. A1. Parenthetically, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was not startled, despite the headline on the linked article.  She almost certainly knew what was going to happen all week long.  So did Chuck Schumer as we know from an earlier article posted here this morning.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

CHUCK SCHUMER, IT'S NO RUMOR: YOU'VE GOT TO GO.

The idea was that the House would propose restrictions on the budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The non-negotiable restrictions would include limitations on spending to protect the children in ICE custody and the right of Members of Congress to check on ICE detentions without warning.

The Senate would then vote on its own budget bill for ICE. After that, the two versions would be reconciled and the non-negotiable restrictions on spending would be in the budget.

That did not happen. Instead, Chuck Schumer ("the Senator from Wall Street") once again voted like a Republican. Once again, he also urged the Democratic minority in the Senate to vote Republican.

What was also unmistakably on display this time was Chuck Schumer's new tactic. He acted opposite to what he promised the Democrats in the House. Once the Senate passed the Republican bill, the House had no more negotiating leverage. And the House capitulated. No restrictions on the budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to protect the children as in the House bill.

See Jennifer Haberkorn and Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Pelosi Takes a Hit as Congress Approves Border Crisis Money, Los Angeles Times online June 27, 2019.

Chuck Schumer, it's no rumor: You've got to go.

Keep looking behind you on his way out.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

COMMENTS ON OVERDRAFT RULE ARE DUE BY JULY 1.

I left the following Comments on the overdraft rule earlier today.  Comments are due by July 1.  The overdraft rule is being examined by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because the CFPB is required to review the rule by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.  Reviews and revisions of rules by the CFPB since 2017 have not been favorable to consumer financial protection.  If you want to leave Comments on the overdraft rule that advance consumer financial protection, your time grows short.  Go to www.regulations.gov, input “overdraft rule,” and click on “Comment Now!”  Comments do not have to be as long or as complicated as books or articles.  They can be short and to the point, which if I had it to do over again, I would make my own Comments even shorter and even more to the point.

Here are the Comments I left on the overdraft rule earlier today:

I would like to leave these comments on improving and strengthening the overdraft rule.

First, as I understand the present situation, banks may charge fees without getting a customer's prior approval whenever the customer overspends her or his account by using a paper check.  As it is currently written, the overdraft rule applies to most electronic transactions.  Paper checks may not be as prevalent as they once were, but prevalence of electronic transactions is no excuse for this inequity.  (This would be true in any case, but today it is especially true because electronic transactions are required by the very banks who benefit from the rule's failure to regulate transactions involving paper checks.)  This is unfair and unequal.  The overdraft rule should now be updated and strengthened by extending its application to the customer's use of a paper check.

Further, I understand that some banks still reorder debit transactions so that one tiny shortage in the customer's account becomes an automatic trigger of overdrafts and fees charged by the banks.  The banks that indulge themselves in this practice and that continue to inflict it upon their customers apparently rely on disclosure to their customers of what they do, usually in small inconspicuous type in a disclosure document.  Disclosure is no excuse for predatory practices.  Customers often have little or no choice of banking options in their communities.  This practice of reordering debit transactions, usually by processing them from the highest amount to the lowest amount, must be barred completely.  The overdraft rule should be updated and strengthened accordingly, with a complete prohibition on any practice of reordering debit transactions that has the result of charging the customer with overdraft and any other associated charges.

Thank you for your consideration.

Dennis Wall

Please Read the Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

Download CI and IBF 06.27.19.

PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM U.S.: WHO THOUGHT THEY WOULD HAVE TO, ...

 UNTIL NOW?

 

This may be a world in which children suffer, but we can lessen the number of suffering children.

 If you do not help with this, who will?

Albert Camus

 

In the name of the United States, children are being cared for by other children.  Although Border Patrol says they have the money in their budget, the  United States does not provide tooth brushes to the children it keeps in custody at a Border Patrol station in Texas.

The Border Patrol says that they have enough tooth paste too.  They already bought it out of their budget.  But the United States does not provide tooth paste to the children in custody, either.

The Border Patrol is indignant at the thought that it does not have enough soap to go around.  Despite some politicians who say otherwise, the people who actually work at the Border Patrol say that they have enough soap, thank you.  Yet the United States does not provide soap to the children.  See, e.g., Arturo Rubio and Caitlin Dickerson, Children Returned to Texas Shelter That Set Off An Outcry, New York Times, Wed., June 26, 2019, p. A1 (the New York Times may charge for online access).

This is evil.  And it is all in the name of the United States.

If you do not help in this effort to protect children in the custody of the United States, who will?

And did you ever once in your life in this country think that you would be needed to help protect children in the custody of the United States, until now?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 06.26.19.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY: "OUR ANSWER IS THE WORLD'S HOPE....

It is to rely on youth, not a time of life but a state of mind."

Hong Kong is relying on the world's hope. Youths are in the forefront of protests against new laws that would allow China to extradite people to be tried in China's courts controlled by the Communist Party.

The Hong Kong protests hold other lessons for the United States in 2019. They do not have a knight on a white horse. There is no single leader among the protestors this time. They have learned from past experiences. The last time a major protest erupted in Hong Kong, it had an identifiable, single leader. He was identified all right, by the government authorities and he was sentenced to prison for six years.

Returning to the main point, the protestors in Hong Kong are not waiting to be delivered from injustice. They do not expect anyone else to come and save them. They are all they have, and in their eyes that is their strength, not a weakness.

Organizers are announcing their activities and gatherings "through social media, word of mouth and secure messaging apps[.]" They absolutely believe in the importance of what they are doing. For the people of Hong Kong, the fight is existential. If China can deport them to China's prisons for activities frowned on by the ruling Party, they may never be heard from in the future. To say again, their fight is existential. See Mike Ives and Katherine Li, For Hong Kong's Youth, Marching is 'a Matter of Life and Death,' New York Times, Tues., June 18, 2019, p. A10 (there are no guarantees of quality hyperlinks or access to the New York Times which may charge for online access).

Those in the United States who have eyes to see with and ears to hear with, let them draw the lessons of Hong Kong. The people in Hong Kong today were in Tiananmen Square in 1989. In many cases, the protestors of Tiananmen literally moved south to Hong Kong to escape oppression. In their journey, they did not leave their courage behind.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 06.24.19.

SECRET EVIDENCE: IS AMERICA CHANNELING ITS INNER SAUDI ARABIA?

The United Nations just issued a report into the grotesque dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi Arabia. The Saudis say that they are putting the people who committed these atrocities on trial.

However, it is just that no-one knows who is being tried. Or where. Or on what charges.

The Saudi secrecy is so great that if "international observers" selected by the Saudis attend the trial they must not write or film anything.

The New York Times describes the Saudi secrecy this way:

    Although representatives of some foreign governments have been invited to attend the trial in Saudi Arabia, the report said, they have been required to commit to nondisclosure agreements, preventing them from reporting or commenting on the proceedings.

    “A shadowy presence of international observers cannot, although clearly meant to, lend credibility to eminently problematic proceedings,” the report said. It argued that the presence of foreign diplomats could make them complicit in the “miscarriage of justice.”

See David D. Kirkpatrick & Nick Cumming-Bruce, Report Reveals Chilling Details Behind Murder / Saudis Called Writer a 'Sacrificial Animal,' New York Times, Thursday, June 20, 2019, p. A1 (New York Times may charge for online access).

Federal Courts in the U.S. also operate with secrecy although perhaps not quite so easily as the Saudi courts if any. Nondisclosure agreements are very popular in the U.S. as well as in Saudi Arabia , particularly with the current U.S. Federal Government. See, e.g., Dennis J. Wall, § 2:19, Post-Claims Handling Practices Issues--The Presumption of Public Access vs. Stipulated Secrecy Orders, and §§ following including 2:19.50 - 2:24 inclusive, in CATASTROPHE CLAIMS: Insurance Coverage for Natural and Man-Made Disasters (May 2019).

Is the United States secretly channeling its inner Saudi Arabia?

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 06.23.19.2

 

WHO EXACTLY IS "A DEVOUT CATHOLIC" IN THE CORPORATE MEDIA?

The New York Times calls Ms. Carrie Lim, the "top leader" of Hong Kong, "a devout Catholic." She is also the person who called out the police who attacked the protestors recently.

She also famously said that the protestors were behaving like children. She was describing two million people. The entire population of Hong Kong is seven million. See Javier C. Hernandez, Christians Chip in and Drive Protests Against the Mainland, New York Times, Thursday, June 20, 2019, p. A12 (the New York Times may charge for online access).

The corporate media similarly describes six of the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court as devout Catholics. Four of them voted to take your healthcare away under the Affordable Care Act.

Calling out the police who attack people is not being a devout Catholic.

Neither is describing two million people as acting like children when they are showing how devoutly they oppose begin sent to mainland China for secret trials in courts controlled by the Communist Party.

And neither is voting to take away your healthcare.

Being a devout Catholic in 2019 involves none of these things. You shall know them by what they do, and not what they say. They may say that they are Catholics, but what they say about themselves certainly does not make them devout.

It is apparently beyond the capacity of the corporate media in 2019 to know enough to know that what a person says they are is not necessarily what they are.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 06.23.19.1

THAT’S NOT OPPO RESEARCH.

Oppo research (opposition research) has been given a bad name lately. The corporate media and some candidates for high office have equated oppo research with committing crimes.

It is not oppo research to steal emails from the party of your opponent (or to steal emails from your opponent for that matter, which hasn't happened yet). It’s a crime.

It is not oppo research to meet with foreign government agents to get dirt from them on your opponent. It’s a crime.

It is not oppo research to manipulate social media such as Fakebook to show your opponent in a false light. If that’s not a crime, it is a disgrace.

So before we believe what the corporate media and some candidates say in 2019 is opposition research, we ought to stop and think for ourselves.

Please Read the Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 06.19.19.

MUSIC IN MY SOUL.

This is a short article about a big subject.  The subject is music.

Or, rather, the subject is the differences among people in how they make or hear music.

Or both.

Music is important to some and not as important to others.

My wife for example lives for music.  She is often unstructured about other things, but she is a perfectionist when it comes to music.

Music is central to her life.

For me, writing is the important thing to do.  Music is not something at which I strive to excel.  Music for me is not something at which I even want to try to excel.

Music is a pastime for me.  For her, it is how you fill time in the best possible way.

For me, the focus is story.  For her, the focus is melody.

And as the saying goes, "If life be a melody, play on."

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

Download CI 06.17.19.

SPEAK, MR. BARR, SPEAK.

A guest article by John K. DiMugno, Esquire, a California attorney, legal educator, and the author or coauthor of multiple legal treatises and legal periodicals published by Thomson Reuters.

William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States, recently spoke at the American Law Institute’s Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. The ALI likely extended the invitation shortly after Mr. Barr’s confirmation when there was hope that he would play a role similar to that of the departed General Mattis and General McMaster and place guardrails on the President’s more authoritarian instincts. By the time of the Annual Meeting, those hopes had evaporated. Mr. Barr’s dissembling about the contents of the Mueller Report raised serious concerns about the Attorney General’s complicity in administration efforts to undermine the rule of law.

This Blog highlighted the incongruity between Mr. Barr’s conduct in office and the core mission of the ALI. Notably, Mr. Wall’s post made no attempt to silence Mr. Barr, a solution that would have satisfied the wishes of many in the ALI who were rightfully appalled by Mr. Barr’s transparent attempt to mislead the American public. But barring Mr. Barr from speaking would have entangled the ALI in partisan politics, something the organization scrupulously avoids for good reason. Staying above the political fray insulates the ALI’s Restatements of the Law against charges of political bias and broadens their influence on courts and legislatures around the country.

Mr. Wall’s proposed solution—letting Mr. Barr speak while contributing the ALI’s earnings from the speech to legal aid societies around the country—perfectly balanced those competing concerns. It had the salutary effect of simultaneously benefitting public interest groups that desperately need the money while drawing attention to questions about Mr. Barr’s integrity.

Mr. Barr’s penchant for making transparently misleading and often contradictory statements has left some wondering what he hopes to achieve other than aggrandize power and influence in the Trump administration. Sharon LaFraniere, Charlie Savage and Katie Benner, People Are Trying to Figure Out William Barr. He’s Busy Stockpiling Power, New York Times on line, June 9, 2019. 

He misled the American public about the contents of the Mueller Report knowing full well that when the report was released several weeks later his lies would be evident to everyone.

When Mr. Barr sought confirmation as Attorney General, he told the U.S. Senate that he had known Robert Mueller for years and did not believe that Mr. Mueller would engage in a “witch hunt.”  Yet, shortly before his confirmation hearings, he sent a memo to the Justice Department characterizing the obstruction of justice charges against the President as “asinine” and sent an e-mail stating he saw far less reason to scrutinize the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia than to investigate whether donations to Hillary Clinton’s family foundation had influenced her actions as secretary of state. Once he was confirmed, he enabled the President’s attempts to distract from the contents of the Mueller Report by opening an investigation of those who investigated him.

When Mr. Barr was seeking confirmation, he told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that he was willing to reconsider the Justice Department’s decision not to defend the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  But, when he became Attorney General, he put the resources of the Justice Department behind litigation in Texas federal district court seeking to invalidate the entire Affordable Care Act.

As the song goes, “There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.” Buffalo Springfield, For What It’s Worth.  I say let Mr. Barr speak. Listen closely to what he says and watch what he does. Only then will whatever is happening start to become clear.

Download John DiMugno 06 13 19 Blog Article for IC Also (2)

Please Read The Disclaimer.

NEW IMMIGRATION POLICIES ALSO EXPLOIT DOCTORS AND NURSES.

The first article I posted this week featured Dr. Danielle Ofri,  The Business of Health Care Depends on Exploiting Doctors and Nurses / One Resource Seems Infinite and Free:  The Professionalism of Caregivers, New York Times online Saturday, June 8, 2019 (The New York Times may charge for online access).

New immigration policies also exploit doctors and nurses.  The new immigration policies include armed agents following immigrants who face no criminal charges into examining rooms.  Even local police do not do that in most cases. 

Agents have also taken up residence in obstetrics wards keeping an eye on pregnant immigrants about to give birth.

They observe medical examinations and listen in on conversations.

One agent even stared at a 15-year old woman breast-feeding her child.  He had to be persuaded by a doctor to leave the room during that time.

Further, immigrants are presenting illnesses and medical conditions they did not have until they were detained, such as a pregnant woman who was exposed to chickenpox, and an 8-year old child who died of influenza and sepsis, all arising out of being in the custody of the current federal government.

For all these things, see Sheri Fink, Doctors Say Immigration Policies Endanger Migrant Health, New York Times, Monday, June 10, 2019, at A15 (again the New York Times may charge for online access).

How much pressure are caregivers expected to put up with?

It ought to be possible to provide medical care without imposing medically harmful practices.  In fact, the only practices that caregivers should be forced to follow are the practices that caregivers themselves find appropriate and necessary to give medical care to people that need it.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

"BUSINESS OF HEALTH CARE DEPENDS ON EXPLOITING DOCTORS AND NURSES."

I am going to turn today's column over to Dr. Danielle Ofri of New York City.  A physician at New York University, she also practices at Bellevue Hospital in New York.

She is a wonderful writer.  She wrote this in a recent op-ed piece for The New York Times about practicing medicine in 2019, putting words together in ways that cannot easily be improved upon:

    The health care system needs to be restructured to reflect the realities of patient care. From 1975 to 2010, the number of health care administrators increased 3,200 percent. There are now roughly 10 administrators for every doctor. If we converted even half of those salary lines to additional nurses and doctors, we might have enough clinical staff members to handle the work. Health care is about taking care of patients, not paperwork.

Danielle Ofri, The Business of Health Care Depends on Exploiting Doctors and Nurses / One Resource Seems Infinite and Free:  The Professionalism of Caregivers, New York Times online Saturday, June 8, 2019 (The New York Times may charge for online access).

Dr. Ofri put those words together in ways that cannot easily be improved upon.  No-one should try.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

ELAINE CHAO McCONNELL AND THE SHIPPING COMPANY FINANCED BY CHINA.

Elaine Chao has been married to Mitch McConnell, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, for 26 years.  Ms. Chao McConnell is the Transportation Secretary of the current Federal Government.

She has reportedly tried -- unsuccessfully, so far -- to slash the funding that shippers in the U.S. maritime industry receive through her Transportation Department.

Slashing funding provided through the Transportation Department to U.S. maritime shippers would hurt her family company's competitors.

It would not hurt her family's shipping company.  Her family's company is financed by China.

The story is bigger than an article posted on a blog, even this one.  See Michael Forsythe, Eric Lipton, Keith Bradsher and Sui-Lee Wee, A Cabinet Official, a Firm and a 'Bridge' to Beijing / Ethics Questions Focus on Chao's Close Ties to Her Family's Shipping Business, New York Times Monday, June 3, 2019, p. A1.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, now is the time to investigate this affair.  The American public deserves answers; we deserve to know the truth of the matter.  If press releases are ever enough, they are not enough now.

If Ms. Chao McConnell is innocent of these treacherous allegations, then there is no provable corruption there and that should end the matter, maybe even restore public confidence that the government of the United States acts in the best interests of the people of the United States.

I just telephoned the office of my own Member of Congress, Ms. Stephanie Murphy.  She is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.  As the House Committee that considers the current federal government's budget requests and proposed budget cuts, she is in a perfect position to investigate.

Have you contacted your Member of Congress?  The actions of Elaine Chao McConnell may or may not be impeachable as they say, but they call for an investigation into her administration of our tax dollars and where exactly she intends to spend them if not on the interests of the American people.  If her name is good, we have to do everything we can to clear her good name -- and the name of Mitch McConnell.  Do you think differently?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

GINIA BELLAFANTE CAN WRITE. THANK GOD FOR GINIA BELLAFANTE.

Ginia Bellafante can write.

And she writes about things that count.  See, e.g., Ginia Bellafante, Are We Fighting a War on Homelessness?  Or a War on the Homeless?, New York Times online Friday, May 31, 2019.

Thank God for Ginia Bellafante.  Read her stuff and give thanks for her.

 

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

 

WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW, can HURT YOU.

What you don't know can even kill you.

Candida auris is a fungus that thrives in hospitals and nursing homes.  It is resistant to drugs.  It clings to walls and bedsheets even after the hospital and nursing home staff think that the walls and bedsheets are clean.

Candida auris also kills people.  "The C.D.C. [federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] reports that nearly half the patients who contract C. auris die within 90 days."  Matt Richtel, New Rules Are Proposed to Battle Deadly Fungus, New York Times, Friday, May 24, 2019, p. A25 (emphasis added; the New York Times may charge for online access).

According to this newspaper article, New York state health officials have convened meetings with hospitals and nursing homes about potential new requirements to combat the deadly outbreak.

It would be good if federal and state officials were also convening meetings with hospitals and nursing homes to make people aware of the epidemic.  So far hospitals and nursing homes and others responsible for housing and treating patients are more concerned with harm to their reputations than with harm to their patients.  They tend to say nothing to inform their patients of the dangers of a fungus that is very difficult to control with available drugs, a fungus that within 90 days kills half of the people who came in contact with it.

As the reporter of this article observed, in a mild restatement of the problem from the patients' point of view:  "The spread of the germ in some hospitals and nursing homes has been cloaked in secrecy even as it can lead to devastating outcomes for individual patients and their families."    Matt Richtel, New Rules Are Proposed to Battle Deadly Fungus, New York Times, Friday, May 24, 2019, p. A25 (emphasis added; the New York Times may charge for online access).

Once again, as happens so often when things that can hurt people are kept from the public, secrecy benefits only those who want to pretend that bad things are not happening.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

FAKEBOOK.

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away called Fakebook, a company sold advertising and made millions broadcasting everyone's fake news and doctored photos all over the world along with cat pictures.

They even showed fake videos that were stolen from the real thing.

In the land of Fakebook, videos of Mark Zuckerberg showed him growing zits (again).

In Fakebook land, people the world over could see videos of Sheryl Sandberg not "leaning in," but, well, leaning out.

The only drawback to these fake videos was the same with each video:  They weren't true.  Actual film was changed, altered, cut up, and put back together to put on a show of their zits and their fake leanings.

But that was okay with Fakebook.  Even though they did not have fake news about Nancy Pelosi, they did have Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg.

That was enough in a land far, far away called Fakebook.  The ones who ran Fakebook lived very rich ever after.

See, e.g.,  Jim Waterson, Facebook Refuses to Delete Fake Pelosi Video Spread by Trump Supporters, The Guardian online Friday, May 24, 2019.

 

The End.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.  

SOMEBODY WANTS KREMLIN MOLE REVEALED. SOMEBODY WANTS TO KILL HIM.

We have learned over the last nearly two-and-a-half years that the United States had a mole in the Kremlin, telling the U.S. intelligence agencies a lot of what was going on.  There still is a U.S. mole in the Kremlin.

Putin wants to find out who the mole is.

William P. Barr may reveal who the Kremlin mole is.  Barr has been given authority to declassify everything the U.S. intelligence agencies have. 

Barr has reportedly asked for the identities of intelligence sources in Russia in particular.  See Paul Waldman, The Plum Line / Trump Extends His Corruption Into the Intelligence Agencies, Washington Post online Friday, May 24, 2019.

Revealing the Kremlin mole is part of the deal.

United States' intelligence agencies can smell it coming.  Barr's New Power Causes Concern Among Intelligence Agencies, PBS Newshour, Sunday, May 26, 2019.

What will they do about it?

 

What will you do about it?

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

P.S. IT'S ABOUT PREDATORY LENDERS, NOT MICHAEL COHEN.

This is a postscript to an article I wrote earlier this week, NYC TAXI MEDALLIONS:  THREE DAYS, THREE ARTICLES ... WADDABOUT MICHAEL COHEN? (Wed., May 22, 2019).  In that article I speculated that the reporter must know something about Michael Cohen and taxi medallions in New York City because he wrote hardly anything about Michael Cohen in three days of articles about selling, buying, and taking out loans to get taxi medallions in New York City.

The reporter's name is Brian M. Rosenthal.  In a later piece, he revealed that his reporting sprang from the FBI's raid on Michael Cohen's office and the many documents, cellphones, laptops, and other things and devices that were seized in the process.  See Brian M. Rosenthal, How We Investigated Taxi Medallions, New York Times, Wed., May 22, 2019, p. A2 (the New York Times may charge for online access).

The newspaper assigned five reporters to investigate Cohen's information that was seized by the FBI.  A sixth reporter, Mr. Rosenthal, took a look instead at the predatory loans that immigrants signed up for in order to buy taxi medallions in New York City.

In order to report this story, Rosenthal needed a database.  New York City "did not have reliable digital data on medallion sales, so I used paper records to build a database of all the 10,888 sales between 1995 and 2018," he writes.  (Obviously he had the help of the newspaper's financial and human resources in this expensive and time-consuming task.)   This gave him quick access to the financial records submitted by medallion buyers, which the city taxi commission "had never analyzed" as he did.

Brian Rosenthal's reporting revealed that NYC taxi medallions were purchased with the help of predatory lenders who had little if anything to fear from regulators.  As he put it himself, his stories "barely mentioned Mr. Cohen at all."  See Brian M. Rosenthal, How We Investigated Taxi Medallions, New York Times, Wed., May 22, 2019, p. A2 (to say again, the New York Times may charge for online access).

An example of reporting at its best.  Without Rosenthal's dogged insistence the story of predatory lending would never have become widely known.

Still, any stories about taxi medallions and New York City are incomplete without mentioning Michael Cohen's involvement.  I still think that this reporter knows something that we are not being told right now.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

NYC TAXI MEDALLIONS: THREE DAYS, THREE ARTICLES ... WADDABOUT MICHAEL COHEN?

The New York Times published three articles in three days about the taxi medallion 'industry' in New York City.  The first two articles published solid reporting describing how the City sold taxi medallions to immigrants who took out loans they could not afford in a business where regulators apparently looked the other way as a habit.  Only the first article mentioned the name of Michael Cohen, and then only in passing to mention that one of his partners was involved in a big way in the taxi medallion business.  See Brian M. Rosenthal, "They Were Conned":  How Reckless Loans Devastated a Generation of Taxi Drivers, New York Times online Sunday, May 19, 2019 (the New York Times may charge a subscription or other price for online access); Brian M. Rosenthal, Taxi Drivers Fell Prey While Top Officials Counted the Money, New York Times, Monday, May 20, 2019, p. A1 (the New York Times may charge for online access).

The third article, also published on the front page of The Times, told how many New York City and New York State officials announced within a day that they were looking into these possible irregularities.  The foremost of these officials, and the one reflected in the article as the most likely to succeed, is the New York State Attorney General.  For some of these other officials, it was a new sensation to investigate the selling and money-lending operations that surround taxi medallions in New York City.  See Brian M. Rosenthal, New York's Top Lawyer Begins Inquiry Into Reckless Taxi Loans, New York Times, Tuesday, May 21, 2019, p. A1 (to say again, the New York Times may charge for online access).

Yet for all his famous involvement with shady figures dealing with taxi medallions, Michael Cohen is conspicuous by his near-absence in this reporting. 

Hmm.  Brian Rosenthal, who wrote both articles, is too good a reporter to overlook something so obvious as mentioning Michael Cohen more than just in passing in an article or two or three about the business of buying and selling taxi medallions in New York City.

Does this reporter know something that we don't know?

I recall that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York was not thrilled with Mr. Cohen, to say the least, at Mr. Cohen's sentencing hearing last year.  In fact, they went so far as to imply at least, or even to say outright, that Michael Cohen was holding out on them about some of the criminal investigations they were conducting into affairs in New York City.

Hmm.  Watch this space as they say -- and watch for Mr. Rosenthal's future reporting on the NYC taxi medallion 'industry.'

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

BARR'S LAW IS TO AMERICAN LAW, AS BARR'S JUSTICE IS TO JUSTICE IN 2019.

Many people alive today remember the Vietnam-era saying and book title that went something like this:  "Military music is to music, as military justice is to justice."  It was so good, it feels right to bring it back in 2019, rephrased and refitted with this encore article for the occasion of William P. Barr's invitation to address the American Law Institute this week in Washington, D.C.

 

"The American Law Institute is the leading independent organization in the United States producing scholarly work to clarify, modernize, and otherwise improve the law."  That is how the American Law Institute or ALI for short, describes itself on its website's landing page, About ALI.

The ALI invited William P. Barr to speak at its Annual Meeting in 2019.  This week, Mr. Barr will address the membership of the ALI at the organization's Annual Dinner and Reception, at $125.00 apiece.

"By participating in the Institute's work, its distinguished members have the opportunity to influence the development of the law in both existing and emerging areas, to work with other eminent lawyers, judges, and academics, to give back to a profession to which they are deeply dedicated, and to contribute to the public good."

Anyone paying attention knows that William P. Barr has not distinguished himself by working to "improve the law" or by working "with other eminent lawyers, judges, and academics" or anyone else that you can name "to contribute to the public good."

Mr. Barr may be "deeply dedicated" but it is not to the legal profession.

The ALI did not ask its membership if William P. Barr should be invited to speak to us at our Annual Meeting.  Let alone to pay for the privilege for a price of $125.00 a head.

So a modest proposal here.  Since he's coming to speak, "leverage" William P. Barr's appearance at the ALI this week to generate a contribution to the public good:  As a member of the ALI, I call upon ALI leadership to donate the proceeds it makes from Mr. Barr's Annual Dinner appearance to at least one Legal Aid Society in each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.  In particular to Legal Aid in States along the U.S.-Mexico border where Barr's Department of Justice enables and perpetrates so many injustices. 

And if William P. Barr is charging for addressing the ALI, then the ALI leadership must donate an equivalent amount as well to Legal Aid.

They need the money.  William P. Barr does not.

This article is republished both on Claims and Issues Blog, https://claimsissues.typepad.com/, and on Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

MITCH McCONNELL SAYS 'JUST A COINCIDENCE' AFTER RUSSIAN SANCTIONS REMOVED.

In January, Senator Mitch McConnell voted to lift some Russian sanctions.  So did his fellow Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul.

Yesterday, an aluminum company announced a $200 Million investment in its proposed factory in Kentucky.  The $200 Million is coming from the same Russians that used to be restrained by those sanctions.

The sanctions would have prevented the investment.  But, as you know, the sanctions were lifted and the Russian money is heading to Kentucky.

'Just a coincidence,' says Mitch McConnell.

Sure.  Expect more Kentucky horse droppings before this is over.

Look beyond the press releases reprinted in for example Kenneth P. Vogel, Democrats Seek Review of $200 Million Russian Investment in Kentucky, New York Times, Friday, May 17, 2019, p. A10.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.