Claims And Issues

CONFIDENTIALITY IN DISCOVERY NATIONAL WEBINAR!

Readers, here is a link to the Discovery Confidential! page of my website.  Thanks.--Dennis Wall

 Click here for the Mobile/Web Version

Discovery Confidentiality February 22, 2:00 p.m. ET–3:00 p.m. ET Pricing Private Attorney Members: $40 Legal Aid and Public Interest Members: $30 Nonmembers: $90 (if you have not yet been approved to attend NACA webinars, you must email training@consumeradvocates.org to be vetted to attend) Are you interested in learning the methodologies of stipulated protective orders  proposed by defendants’ counsel in every case, large and small? The focus will be on federal court cases, but many of the same principles apply to state court cases, too. The webinar will include a discussion of standards for obtaining protective orders that the parties are bound to follow. This webinar will also provide tips and strategies to improve the pre-discovery stipulated protective orders that judges are most likely to enter in your clients’ cases. In addition, the speakers will examine typical provisions used in actual litigation.  This webinar is useful for practitioners at every level, from those who handle  multi-district litigation to individual cases. What You Will Learn How to address negotiations over a stipulated protective order and how you can shape the best possible protections for your client What adversaries will likely propose in their pre-discovery umbrella and stipulated protective orders How to implement preemptive strategies, including judges’ model orders, local rules, and orders approved by the same judge or proposed by the same defendants in other cases Speakers Jody López-Jacobs is a consumer protection attorney based in Philadelphia.  Born in Lancaster, PA, Jody graduated magna cum laude from Temple University Beasley School of Law, where he served on the law review editorial board and won second place in an American Bar Association writing competition. After serving as a federal law clerk in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Jody joined the law firm Flitter Milz, PC, where he litigates individual and class actions involving repossessions, credit reporting, and financing fraud. Jody’s advocacy has resulted in millions of dollars in relief for consumers across the country. In 2021, Jody was named as one of Super Lawyers’ “Rising Stars.” Ariana Tadler is the founding partner of Tadler Law LLP, a WBENC-certified, women-owned boutique law firm that offers an array of litigation and legal counseling services. With more than twenty-seven years of experience advocating for consumers and investors against corporate fraud and abuse while litigating and managing securities, consumer and data breach class actions, and complex litigation, Ariana is considered one of the leading women litigators in the country. Ariana is regularly appointed by courts to leadership positions in large, complex federal, multi-district, and state coordinated proceedings because of her extensive experience managing complex litigation. Ariana is also recognized as one of the nation’s leading authorities on electronic discovery and pioneered the establishment of an e-Discovery Practice group within a plaintiffs’ firm structure more than fifteen years ago. Dennis Wall is an experienced litigator, mediator, and expert witness in Florida and federal trial and appellate courts. He is an AV- rated attorney and an elected member of the American Law Institute. He has personally litigated the issues addressed in this webinar. The author of four books, he is currently at work on a book about the presumption of public access to judicial and administrative records. He has dedicated a page on his website to resources on discovery confidentiality.   National Association of Consumer Advocates 1215 17th Street NW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202.452.1989 | Fax: 202.452.0099 Contact Us

THE CANADIAN TRUCKERS AREN'T TRUCKERS, AND THEY'RE NOT PROTESTING VACCINATION.

Ninety percent of the truck drivers in Canada are vaccinated.  That doesn't fit with the story of a protest by truck drivers in Canada against vaccination.

The Canada Teamsters Union is against the trucking takeover in Canada.  That doesn't fit with the story of a rampage by Canadian truck drivers.

The money that is funding this rampage is coming through a silent site that funded Kyle Rittenhouse, the young man who crossed state lines on a journey to Wisconsin where he shot people.  Why a funding site that funded Kyle Rittenhouse?  That doesn't fit with a story about Canadian truck drivers protesting vaccination.

And something else about the money that is paying for all this.  A chunk of the money is coming from a billionaire in Silicon Valley in the USA.  Why is a billionaire from Silicon Valley paying for anarchy in Canada?

After the past five years, it is astonishing how many people just accept what they're told when they're fed a story, and how few people ask questions.  This was never so true as now, so far as news reporters are concerned.  They feed stories all the time as if they are paid to write press releases.

Time to be skeptical if ever there was one.  To be skeptical does not mean not to believe in anything.  It means not to accept things at face value but instead to ask questions and require proof.

The story-tellers think that you don't have a brain in your head.  Prove them wrong.  Oh, and speaking of using your head.  After a while, turn off the Cable TV and the radio shock jocks.  End the loud propaganda that leaves you no time to think and enjoy the silence of truth inside your head instead.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WHY DID McCONNELL REBUKE RNC, TFG CENSURE? BECAUSE HE'S NEXT.

Senator Mitch McConnell, minority leader in the U.S. Senate, took the Republican National Committee to task for its censure of Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for investigating the January 6 insurrection.  The RNC's description of the 1/6 purge as "legitimate political discourse" is now infamous.  Not so infamous is the RNC's description of Cheney's and Kinzinger's participation in the 1/6 investigation as "persecution."

          Reports variously described Mr. McConnell's response to the RNC declaration as a rebuke, pushback, and rejection, among other things.  Moscow Mitch added in his own words that the 1/6 event was a violent insurrection and certainly not legitimate political discourse.

          Why did Mr. McConnell do this?  Why did he reject the RNC's declaration that stopped just this side of purging Cheney and Kinzinger in favor of a false narrative of 1/6?

          Because he's next.

          Parenthetically, who does it remind you of, to describe the behavior of people we saw on TV for ourselves with our own eyes on 1/6/21 as "legitimate political discourse"?  Who would even think of describing people as "legitimate" who smear poop over the walls and floors of the U.S. Capitol, who beat police officers with fire extinguishers and baseball bats, and other things?  Why, TFG of course.  And TFG has said some very nasty things about Mitch.

          So that's why Mitch did this:  Because he's next.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MERRICK GARLAND, PROFILE IN COURAGE?

Talking heads on cable television are talking about Merrick Garland as a Profile in Courage.  Let's take a quick look at that:  Is Merrick Garland a Profile in Courage?

          One thing to see is the fact that on or about December 14 of last year, Congress referred Mr. Mark Meadows to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution for his Contempt of Congress.  That's a long time.  Merrick Garland has not given any good reason for his delay, so far as I know.  I would speculate that perhaps it is because Meadows is a former Member of Congress.  There is some unwritten rule, a "norm," about not subpoenaing sitting Members of Congress and perhaps that extends to former Members of Congress as well.

          That could explain why there is still no prosecution in the case of Matt Gaetz, as he is currently a sitting Member of Congress.

          Except that it took 25 days between the time that Congress referred its previous prosecution for Contempt, against Steve Bannon, and the time that Merrick Garland's DOJ actually filed it.  And Steve Bannon, so far as I know, has never been in Congress so that shoots that theory to try to explain the Contemptuous foot-dragging, anyway.

          When DOJ filed the Contempt prosecution against Mr. Bannon, it requested trial in April.  That's 6 months after Congress' Contempt referral.  The judge on the case finally set the trial for July.

          There are so many other things to see, but only one further thing is necessary.  Merrick Garland has signed off on the DOJ's plea deals for light sentences for many of the January 6 perpetrators.  There have not been any prosecutions at all so far, of any of the January 6 planners.

          Merrick Garland may not be able to get the holdovers at the Department of Justice to pursue any of these criminal prosecutions.  Things may not be so merry for Merry Garland at the DOJ.  It is a possibility.

          But so far as we can see today, it is a certainty that Merrick Garland is not a Profile in Courage.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THEY FAILED.

With every new revelation the enormity of their failure increases.

          But this is not the story we hear reported.

          First we heard about one draft Executive Order, for example.  Then another.

          Now we hear about Memos, Memos, Memos suggesting to agencies and departments of the federal government to take over.

          All we get are laments about how close we came to losing democracy, outrage over admittedly despicable behavior.

          But as important as those things may be, they are not the real story.  The real story is that they failed.

          Completely.

          Totally.

          With every new revelation the enormity of their failure increases:  That is the story.  Hiding in plain sight, as they say.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

DROWNING THE LAW IN THE BATHTUB: THE DRAFT EXECUTIVE ORDER.

In the past week, we have explored the draft Executive Order (XO) of December 16, 2020 in this space.  Today we hear that there were at least two draft Executive Orders, the one we've seen dated December 16, 2020, and at least one more that we have not yet seen.

          A few things to mention about the draft XO dated December 16, 2020 before we pass on to other things and other draft orders.  Today we move from incompetence to deception, from things that actually happened to things that did not happen at all.

          One is the reference to an order issued by Judge Amy Totenberg in the Northern District of Georgia before the 2020 election.  Judge Totenberg actually threw out a request to ban the voting machines that were chosen by the Georgia State government to use in the 2020 election.

          After the 2020 election, not one but several recounts found the election in Georgia free of any significant fraud whatsoever in 2020.  

          Second, the draft XO declares that Coffee County, Georgia "refused to certify its result."  That is not true.  The Coffee County Board of Elections and Registration wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State on December 4, 2020 -- 12 days before this draft XO is dated, so it was certainly known when the order was drafted -- that "the Coffee County Board of Elections and Registration have voted to certify the votes cast in the election night report."  (Emphasis added.)

          The final thing worth mentioning at this time is the draft XO's similar flaw in its description of voting machines in Antrim County, Michigan.  Dominion Voting Systems has since filed its lawsuit for libel and slander, so I will not say much more about it here other than to point out that a Committee of the Michigan Legislature with a Republican Chair and a majority of Republican members issued a written report finding that the voting machines in Antrim County did not include any significant fraud.   And that they also sent a written request to the Michigan Attorney General to take action against those who falsely said that fraud was committed with the voting machines in Antrim County.

          Is there no end?  Apparently not, not with more draft "Executive Orders" still to see the light of day.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WHO IS "HER" AS IN "HER DUTIES" IN DRAFT XO?

In earlier articles, here and here, we explored other questions about the draft Executive Order dated December 16, 2020 to seize the voting machines that were used to elect President Biden, Download Draft Executive Order dated December 16 2020.   We looked at the question of why the draft XO is written for the Secretary of Defense but not the Attorney General, and why it is written for the National Guard but not the Army.  We learned that the answer is the same in both cases:

Because they wouldn't do it.

          But there are more questions, including today's question:  Who is the person who would be appointed Special Counsel with full resources "necessary to carry out her duties" after the voting machines were seized?  And why did they need a Special Counsel after they seized the voting machines?

          They may have needed to appoint a Special Counsel because the Attorney General wouldn't do it.

          So let's explore the appointment by this order of a Special Counsel with all the resources "necessary to carry out her duties[.]"  These people never used "her" or "she" meaning to be inclusive of everyone, and it is unlikely that they started on "December 16, 2020."  This crowd would not be likely to talk about "her" unless they had a woman already in mind.

          One of their lawyers at the time would have been a natural to fill the Special Counsel job this document would make.  At the time, one was Cleta Mitchell and another was Sidney Powell.

          Two weeks after the XO was written, Cleta Mitchell was on the January 2nd telephone call when the former guy called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to try to intimidate him and his Office to overturn the election in Georgia.  

          Sidney Powell was another lawyer they had available at the time.  Sidney Powell filed many lawsuits to overturn the election, and she is well-known now for losing every one of those lawsuits.  Also, she has been ordered to pay attorney's fees of the opposing party in at least one of those cases.

          Well, whoever it was going to be, this XO says that she would have all the resources at the disposal of the government still in power to do her duties as the Special Counsel of this XO.

          But that still leaves questions about the statutes they invoked, the district judge's order they kind of quoted, and the recount they did not come clean on....

To be continued ....  For a deeper dive into today's question, visit the article posted earlier today on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/insurance_claims_badfaith/2022/01/identifying-the-woman-their-xo-picked-for-special-counsel.html. 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

In earlier articles, here and here, we explored other questions about the draft Executive Order dated December 16, 2020 to seize the voting machines that were used to elect President Biden, Download Draft Executive Order dated December 16 2020.   We looked at the question of why the draft XO is written for the Secretary of Defense but not the Attorney General, and why it is written for the National Guard but not the Army.  We learned that the answer is the same in both cases:

Because they wouldn't do it.

          But there are more questions, including today's question:  Who is the person who would be appointed Special Counsel with full resources "necessary to carry out her duties" after the voting machines were seized?  And why did they need a Special Counsel after they seized the voting machines?

          They may have needed to appoint a Special Counsel because the Attorney General wouldn't do it.

          So let's explore the appointment by this order of a Special Counsel with all the resources "necessary to carry out her duties[.]"  These people never used "her" or "she" meaning to be inclusive of everyone, and it is unlikely that they started on "December 16, 2020."  This crowd would not be likely to talk about "her" unless they had a woman already in mind.

          One of their lawyers at the time would have been a natural to fill the Special Counsel job this document would make.  At the time, one was Cleta Mitchell and another was Sidney Powell.

          Two weeks after the XO was written, Cleta Mitchell was on the January 2nd telephone call when the former guy called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to try to intimidate him and his Office to overturn the election in Georgia.  

          Sidney Powell was another lawyer they had available at the time.  Sidney Powell filed many lawsuits to overturn the election, and she is well-known now for losing every one of those lawsuits.  Also, she has been ordered to pay attorney's fees of the opposing party in at least one of those cases.

          Well, whoever it was going to be, this XO says that she would have all the resources at the disposal of the government still in power to do her duties as the Special Counsel of this XO.

          But that still leaves questions about the statutes they invoked, the district judge's order they kind of quoted, and the recount they did not come clean on....

To be continued ....  For a deeper dive into today's question, visit the article posted earlier today on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/insurance_claims_badfaith/2022/01/identifying-the-woman-their-xo-picked-for-special-counsel.html. 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

In earlier articles, here and here, we explored other questions about the draft Executive Order dated December 16, 2020 to seize the voting machines that were used to elect President Biden, Download Draft Executive Order dated December 16 2020.   We looked at the question of why the draft XO is written for the Secretary of Defense but not the Attorney General, and why it is written for the National Guard but not the Army.  We learned that the answer is the same in both cases:

Because they wouldn't do it.

          But there are more questions, including today's question:  Who is the person who would be appointed Special Counsel with full resources "necessary to carry out her duties" after the voting machines were seized?  And why did they need a Special Counsel after they seized the voting machines?

          They may have needed to appoint a Special Counsel because the Attorney General wouldn't do it.

          So let's explore the appointment by this order of a Special Counsel with all the resources "necessary to carry out her duties[.]"  These people never used "her" or "she" meaning to be inclusive of everyone, and it is unlikely that they started on "December 16, 2020."  This crowd would not be likely to talk about "her" unless they had a woman already in mind.

          One of their lawyers at the time would have been a natural to fill the Special Counsel job this document would make.  At the time, one was Cleta Mitchell and another was Sidney Powell.

          Two weeks after the XO was written, Cleta Mitchell was on the January 2nd telephone call when the former guy called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to try to intimidate him and his Office to overturn the election in Georgia.  

          Sidney Powell was another lawyer they had available at the time.  Sidney Powell filed many lawsuits to overturn the election, and she is well-known now for losing every one of those lawsuits.  Also, she has been ordered to pay attorney's fees of the opposing party in at least one of those cases.

          Well, whoever it was going to be, this XO says that she would have all the resources at the disposal of the government still in power to do her duties as the Special Counsel of this XO.

          But that still leaves questions about the statutes they invoked, the district judge's order they kind of quoted, and the recount they did not come clean on....

To be continued ....  For a deeper dive into today's question, visit the article posted earlier today on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/insurance_claims_badfaith/2022/01/identifying-the-woman-their-xo-picked-for-special-counsel.html. 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MORE QUESTIONS ON THE DRAFT EXECUTIVE ORDER OF 12.16.20.

This continues after the biggest question in my mind about the draft Executive Order dated December 16, 2020, which is why the Secretary of Defense and not the Attorney General should be ordered to seize voting machines that were used to elect President Biden.  

          Another good question is why the Secretary of Defense would be directed to use the National Guard, and not the Army.  Why not the Army?  Download Draft Executive Order dated December 16 2020.

          Same answer as to why not the Attorney General:  Because they wouldn't do it.

          Recall the summer of 2020, specifically, the protests after the death of George Floyd.  The closest that active-duty soldiers got to the streets of Washington, D.C. was when the 82nd Airborne Division camped in the outskirts of D.C.  They refused to strong-arm the protestors in the streets of Washington, D.C., let alone use their weapons on their fellow countrymen.  Then the 82nd Airborne went back to their barracks.

          The Army just wouldn't do it.  Thus Barr and his boss TFG brought in the border guards and the prison guards from all over.  They came to downtown Washington instead.

         So, same answer as before:  The order is not directed to the Attorney General or to the Army because they could not depend on the Attorney General to order that the voting machines be seized, and they could not depend on the Army to do it.

          But there are more questions, including who is the person who would be appointed Special Counsel with full resources "necessary to carry out her duties"?

To be continued ....  For more of an "inside baseball" look at this problem, see today's post at Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/insurance_claims_badfaith/2022/01/more-questions-about-the-draft-xo-dated-december-16-2020.html. 

 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DRAFT EXECUTIVE ORDER DATED DECEMBER 16, 2020.

The most glaring takeaway from the draft Executive Order of December 16, 2020 to my mind is the assignment to the Secretary of Defense of seizing voting machines used to elect President Biden.  Download Draft Executive Order dated December 16 2020.

         Why the Secretary of Defense and not the Attorney General?  Why order the Secretary of Defense to seize voting machines and not not the Attorney General, who is more involved with elections than the Pentagon, after all?

           Because they did not think the Attorney General would do it.

          The Attorney General at the time -- remember that this document is dated "December 16, 2020" -- already showed that he was not inclined to seize voting machines, we now know.  The Secretary of Defense at the time was a protege of TFG, appointed as recently as November 2020.

          The goal was to seize voting machines, so the goal had to include picking someone who was likely to perpetrate the seizure of voting machines rather than oppose it.  This first question has a simple answer.  That's why the Attorney General was not included here.  He wouldn't be likely to go along with it.  Someone else had to be the choice to perpetrate the scheme.

          Really, in the end, simple as that.  But why mobilize the National Guard, and why not the Army?

To be continued .... For more of an "inside baseball" look at this problem, see today's post at Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog, https://insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com/insurance_claims_badfaith/2022/01/questions-raised-by-the-draft-executive-order-dated-december-16-2020.html.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

NEIL GORSUCH, THE ONCE AND FUTURE CHIEF JUSTICE?

Neil Gorsuch notoriously does not wear a mask at oral arguments, even though the Chief Justice reportedly asked him to.  And even though he knows that the person he sits next to at oral arguments, Justice Sonja Sotomayor, is seriously at COVID risk because she is a diabetic.

          This story tells on Neil Gorsuch, of course.  The biggest takeaway from it is that he's a lousy person.

          It's in his genes.  His mom was indicted for her contempt of Congress.

          But there's more to take away.  John Roberts, the person with the Chief Justice title, does not even have the authority to get Neil Gorsuch to wear a mask among his colleagues during a pandemic.

          Neil Gorsuch.  What a mensch.

          John Roberts, once the Chief Justice, but no more.

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

WE MUST PROTEST. BUT REMEMBER WE ARE NOT THE RESISTANCE.

We are the present becoming the future.

We must protest.  Each person in their own way, Dr. King said, but we must protest.  Racism, militarism, making and keeping people poor, and more, the evils of our world.  We must protest.

          Recently another observation has been spoken:  We must remember that we are not the resistance, we are the present becoming the future.  The cascade of legislation designed to make it harder and not easier to vote, those are acts of resistance.   Resistance to a present in which the people who vote will vote for people and things that are not necessarily like you.  The present in which people who vote will not necessarily vote to perpetuate your past privilege in the present, nor in the future.

          We must protest.  We must remember that even as we protest, we are not the resistance.  We are the present becoming the future.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

BISHOP TUTU'S TURBULENT FLIGHT.

Bishop Desmond Tutu was amazed how apartheid changed all of the people of South Africa, psychologically.

          He boarded an airplane in Johannesburg sometime shortly after apartheid ended.  When he boarded, he rejoiced at seeing that both pilots in the cockpit were Black.  How far we have come, he thought.

          The plane encountered extreme turbulence during the flight.  Bishop Tutu and other passengers thought that this might be the end.  At that moment, Tutu had an uninvited, unexpected thought:  There were no White men in the cockpit to handle this situation.

          As Bishop Tutu pointed out when he related this anecdote years later, the pilots got through the turbulence and the plane and all its passengers landed safely, or otherwise he would not be telling this story of course.

          Worth thinking about when we reflect on the years of the former regime.  During those years we were indoctrinated with lies that were told to keep the regime in power over us.  Lies like those are still being told.

          Worth thinking about.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MERRICK GARLAND IS BOB MUELLER ALL OVER AGAIN.

We were told for years that Bob Mueller and his Special Counsel team would save us.  Then we finally saw Bob Mueller ourselves when he testified on national television.  The Bob Mueller who testified in 2020 was not the Bob Mueller who we were told would save us.  This Bob Mueller did not save us, in any event.

    Now we are being told that Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice will save us.  Merrick Garland is Bob Mueller all over again.

    Both Merrick Garland and Bob Mueller built solid reputations for integrity over the years.

    Both were relentless in the past in their investigations of potential crimes and criminals, regardless of where the investigations led.

    Both grew into old age believing that, in the end, the Department of Justice stood for justice.

    Mueller issued a report that he could not prosecute certain potential criminals.

    Mueller also wrote in his report that even if he could prosecute all the potential criminals, they didn't commit crimes -- except that the facts he laid out in his report reflected that crimes had been committed.

    Garland gave a speech.  I predict that soon Garland will deliver reports as well.

    Garland did not and will not name names, nor give specifics about any potential crimes beyond those we saw for ourselves on TV, but he did give us a flurry of statistics more numerous than the snowflakes that have also paralyzed Washington, D.C. this week.

    Garland gave us lots of statistics about numbers associated with the people who actually did walk down to the Capitol on January 6, 2021.   He did not give us any statistics about numbers associated with the people who sent them there; no statistics about them, zero, zilch, nada.

    Garland and the DOJ are floating a suggestion that the prime movers of this coup did not commit crimes when they acted at any time including when they ultimately sent what some call their "foot soldiers" to the Capitol on 1/6.

    If that suggestion is believed, that makes it easier when the time comes for Garland and the DOJ to declare that they are not prosecuting crimes.  If there are no crimes to prosecute, in other words, that would explain why no criminals are being prosecuted.

    Personally, I intend to look at whether conduct being reported a year after the fact involves potential federal crimes.  I am not a criminal lawyer.  I invite others to look at the conduct that took place at least since the election results in November 2020, through at least January 6,, 2021 and not just at what took place on 1/6.  If we can highlight potential crimes, perhaps it will be more difficult for Garland and the DOJ to pretend that there weren't any crimes committed by people who have dinner and attend parties at the same places they do:  people who worked at the White House, people who worked at DOJ, people who worked at DOJ then and who still work at DOJ now, people in government generally.

    The failure of Garland and DOJ (which includes the U.S. Attorney for D.C. for present purposes) to move on crimes is related to their failure to prosecute contempt of Congress charges, or at least it is related to dragging their feet before time forces them to do something, anything at all.  It may be difficult for people at DOJ now and who worked at DOJ then, to prosecute contempt charges against people who also worked in government then or who they perhaps knew and socialized with at the time.

    In future articles, I intend to take a look at the pretty clear lack of stomach at Merrick Garland's DOJ for all of this.  I invite you to do the same.  Between us, we may be able to see at least some of this more clearly before we are finished.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WE ALREADY HAVE TRIAGE IN HOSPITALS. WE NEED A BETTER POLICY.

Triage is a word well-known to hospital Emergency Departments:  "In the emergency department 'triage' refers to the methods used to assess patients’ severity of injury or illness within a short time after their arrival, assign priorities, and transfer each patient to the appropriate place for treatment."  Modern Triage in the Emergency Department, a review published in the U.S. National Library of Medicine of how Emergency Departments across the world define "triage."

          According to another study published by the National Institutes of Health in the U.S. National Library of Medicine, many Emergency Departments (ED's) take the position that "Triage of critically ill patients that may limit individual patient and physician choices is justified when (1) the policy is aimed at achieving benefits for individual patients, the health care institution, or society and (2) the policy is announced in advance to notify the public."  Access it here.

          Triage is really often a choice between who lives, and who dies.   Triage is only practiced when emergency services are overwhelmed.  When Emergency Departments cannot treat everybody who shows up for treatment, ED's must choose who gets treatment and who doesn't get treatment.

          That choice is a fact known to ED's all over the world.  It is understandable that hospital Emergency Departments do not mention that fact in their descriptions of the triage they practice.

          Hospital Emergency Departments already practice triage, there is no doubt.  The prevailing policy at the present time in the United States seems to be First Come, First Served.  See the article posted here on December 30, 2021.    ED's in the U.S. practice triage by choosing to treat the first people that present themselves as patients.  Others who come later have to stand in the back of the treatment line, assuming they ever get in.

          As things stand at the dawn of this New Year, people who need immediate treatment may never get it in time.  If they did not need immediate treatment,  they probably would not have gone to the Emergency Department.  We have a catalogue of records from 2020 and 2021 to show the nation what this means in the pandemic.  It means that some of us who got all the vaccines, were boostered, and practiced all the measures recommended to fight Covid, still die from conditions unrelated to the pandemic because people who chose not to get vaccinated are taking up all the beds with Covid infections.

          Corporate media report that entire health systems are overwhelmed and that others are getting there in this country.  The media also report that hospitals, nurses, and doctors are overwhelmed because so many unvaccinated people are infected and assigned to beds in the hospitals, crowding out everyone else.

          However corporate media are not reporting the unpleasant fact that people who chose not to get vaccinated in a pandemic are becoming infected at such high rates that the triage procedure of First Come, First Served means that some people who desperately need treatment will be turned away, and others will die because the ED's choose First Come, First Served triage.

          So far, we have anecdotal reports to prove that this is happening.  A man in Alabama "died of a cardiac emergency in September after he was turned away from 43 hospitals in three states."  A man in Iowa was vaccinated, boostered, practiced social distancing and masking; in short, he followed all the best practices in the pandemic, but he had a very hard time finding any hospital that could treat his sepsis condition.

          The man from Iowa finally found a small hospital that would admit him, but it lacked all the resources needed to treat him.  He was finally admitted to a hospital with the necessary resources, but it took 15 days before they had the room to admit him.

          It was too late for him by then.   The man from Iowa died.

          Triage involves hard choices but that is what triage is all about:  Triage only applies when a health care system is overwhelmed and so hospitals, nurses, and doctors simply cannot treat everyone who needs treatment.

1. Overwhelmed.
2. The health care system cannot treat everyone who needs it.

These two things have to happen before hospitals reluctantly practice triage.

          I am loathe to suggest, even now, that anyone should be turned away from the medical treatment they need but some things are crystal clear:

• Hospitals are practicing triage already. By default, they are treating the patients who First Come, and who therefore become the patients who are First Served.
• Patients First Come for treatment because they are infected with Covid and the overwhelming majority of the infected became infected because they chose not to be vaccinated.
• People who need medical treatment are dying already because they did not receive the medical treatment they needed in time.

          These things are happening even though people are afraid of a word like triage.  Good public policy needs to get beyond fear.  If we are going to survive, we need to start thinking and talking about how we are going to survive and about how we want to look as a country after we do.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED IS NOT A GOOD HEALTH POLICY.

Hospital Emergency Departments are overwhelmed with patients in 2021.  Patients have been coming since 2020, or maybe it was late 2019, when the coronavirus pandemic began.

          Nurses and doctors stop practicing because there are too many patients for the care. 

          There are not enough hours in the day to treat everyone who needs treatment for Covid infection, let alone to treat everyone who needs treatment for anything else.

          If these things remain unaltered, "untreated" if you will, the patchwork of health care systems in this country will collapse from the sheer weight of so many patients who need care all at once in a pandemic.

          We can change this.  We can treat this.  We need to stop fearing this first, then change it and treat it.  We can, if we choose to.

          Here's to a Happier New Year in 2022!

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

ON CHRISTMAS AND TAKING THE LONG WAY HOME.

Feeling a bit depressed over the end of Christmas?  Me too.  It's natural but not forever.

          Christmas brought out a lot of the worst in people, after all.  Many people were concerned exclusively with their own small piece of the planet.  Reportedly, people kept their seats on public buses despite the fact that pregnant women and older riders were standing.  Other reports told of outright cruelty in a time of undeniable want and incontestable need.  Many people walked right past other people, homeless, starving, and unwashed in the streets, on the sidewalks, and in the train stations so often that it wasn't even news.        

          Christmas also brought out the best in people.  Kindness was everywhere and patience was abundant.   Then the decorations came down.  The lights were turned off and put away until next year.  Plants that were decorations or gifts were dug into the yard, the lucky ones that did not find their way into a garbage can.

          But Christmas itself was not put away until next year.  The ways of living that so many people joyfully experienced in the days and weeks leading up to Christmas need not vanish with the decorations, the lights, and the plants.   Acting with kindness independent of someone "earning" our kindness, and holding back in patience despite a provocation that we would have once convinced ourselves called for "letting someone have it" because they "deserved" it, or because we were "sharing our feelings" and so we felt we had a license to unload on the other, all good things do not have to come to an end on December 26th.  They do not end with Christmas Day.

          Here's to a Happy New Year this year, all year through!  Here's to a Happy New Year with Christmas every month of the coming year!

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

SMALL IS THE POWER OF CHRISTMAS

God came to the world small.  He came in a big way.  The Christ Child was small but the observation has been made about that Child, which is much the same observation that has been made about many a person, thing, or event that at first seems small in our eyes, that He was  mighty.

          We are at our best when we recognize the value of small.  Children, puppies, kittens, a gentle prayer, a budding leaf, a rose.  You think of some small things yourself, and add them to the list.  We all know the value of small even if we sometimes have to stop to think about it.

          That is the power of Christmas.  Small, like a newborn child.  More powerful than all the drones that ever flew, all the border guards that ever rode horseback, all the social media that was ever posted.

          Small is good.  Small is the power of Christmas.

          Merry Christmas!

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

YOU CANNOT BUY CHRISTMAS

Christmas cannot be earned and it cannot be bought.

          Christmas is a gift.  Gifts are given by those that give gifts.  The giver of a gift decides when, and how, and whether they give a gift, not the receiver of the gift.

          A gift is freely given, like Christmas itself.  Otherwise it is not a gift, it is a transaction.  To say again, Christmas cannot be bought.  It is not in the retail inventory.  It is not brought out to a shelf and sold in a shiny box on the 25th of December.

          Nor is Christmas a lay-away plan, where little by little a person puts down money on a product until eventually the purchase price is paid.  Christmas is available to all, without price, at all times.  Christmas is open to everyone to join in, even if a person chooses not to participate until the 24th of December, let's say.  Last-minute joy is still joy. 

          To say it another way, Christmas does not have a two-minute warning.  The Christ child comes whenever the Spirit wills and not just on the 25th of December.  Likewise, the gift of you is welcome any time.

          As Linus said, that is what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.

 Merry Christmas!

            

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

COMPASSION BROUGHT THE FIRST CHRISTMAS.

And every Christmas since.

Compassion stirred the dark night into the shining Christmas star that lit the way of shepherds and kings.

          Compassion brought the first Christmas.  Christians believe that God so loved the world that he sent his only Son on Christmas.  We can all believe, and hope that we too can show empathy and compassion, even if the most we can manage is a small part of the word.  For our part, all we have to do, each of us, is be compassionate toward others in our lives.

          The people we meet each day, the others in our lives, are only a small sliver of the unfinished work that is the world's population.  The job we face is not too hard for us to do.  Especially now, when we have so many examples of how compassion is worked out in every age since that first Christmas.

          By showing empathy with others, particularly when we show our compassion to others from whom we do not expect anything in return, we too stir the dark night into the shining Christmas star, a light that can light the ways of the world.

          Merry Christmas!

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

GIVING FOR CHRISTMAS

We have already begun to celebrate Christmas.  The stores were open for buying around Halloween.  Every year they give us more and more days to buy so that we can give.  And we accommodate.

          Four days from today we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.  But as I said, we have already begun to celebrate Christmas.  When Christ was born, God came to earth and gave His only Son to all humanity forever more:  That belief is at the center of Christianity.  That belief should take a central place in our celebration of Christmas, and not for Christians alone should this be central.

          The belief that God gave us all a gift is, again as I already said, central.  Giving to others puts the focus on others, not on our shopping lists.

          Buying gifts has been twisted into a morphed and morbid making of a buck.  It has become about us rather than about others, about how seemingly generous we are, and about what fine gifts we have on our list of purchases rather than about the people who will receive our gifts.

          Buying gifts is also not the only way to give a gift.  As people who have received gifts, we share the experience of receiving gifts which do not come with a price tag:  a child's embrace freely given and unearned, a mother's or father's compassionate understanding of our failings, a husband or a wife or anyone else cutting our meat at dinner time when we cannot and so making it possible for us to eat.

          We have been celebrating Christmas for the merchants for months.  We can show them one better.  We can celebrate Christmas today, and every day, all the days of the year.  Four days from now we honor the Birth of Christ, the greatest gift, a gift of love itself.  We can share that gift today, and every day, all the days of the year.

          Merry Christmas!

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

WHEN SEEING IS not BELIEVING.

When human beings see things, we tend to believe what we see.  That is one reason why eye-witness testimony is so valuable in court.

          Many of the things we see have changed, however.  The things we see now are largely videos produced by someone else, and broadcasts that are made to fit a television screen.

          Videos can be doctored and seemingly, they often are. 

          Broadcasts that are made to fit a television screen necessarily leave anything out that is not photographed by a camera.  This phenomenon is not limited to televisions.  It is familiar to anyone who has taken a picture that could not capture the complete scene of what was being photographed.

          Seeing may not be believing any more.  Or to put it another way, "Seeing is believing?"  Not so much.

          So why do many of us still say it is?

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

HERE'S THE OTHER THING. ASK THEM WHY.

When you hear stories that the Russians are simply defending themselves with 175,000 soldiers on the Ukraine border, ask them why.

          You don't have to tell them why this is ridiculous, you know.  They should shoulder their burden of proof and tell you why this is reality, if they can.

          When some people say that they are not getting the COVID-19 vaccines, ask them why.

          You aren't the one to tell people who aren't getting the vaccine why they should.  Not unless it makes you feel good to tell them what they already know.  They already know why they should.  They still think they shouldn't, even though they know why they should.

          So ask them why.

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

JUST SAY "PROVE IT."

  IT'S A LOST ART.

Some people get away with saying the most ridiculous things.  Make them prove it.

          Some people say that elections were stolen.  Instead of trying to prove to them that elections were not stolen, make them prove to you that the elections were stolen.

          Other people, maybe many of the same people come to think of it, say that Medicare and many other things they don't like is or are "socialist" or God forbid, "Communist," and that wealthy people will take care of the rest of us anyway.  (Are there any Communists left outside of China and Cuba?  That's probably rhetorical.)

          Just say this instead of trying to debate what is "socialist" and what good if any the wealthy people do:

          Prove it.

          It's a lost art.  It used to be a part of our culture.  Engrained deep within us.  Tell someone who says something to just "prove it."

          Let's bring that back.  Try it the next time you want to reply to one of these people.  Just say:

          Prove it.

          Among other things, you'll feel better about it all.

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

NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS: JABS IN PANDEMIC PROFIT-TAKING.

Nondisclosure agreements provide for secrecy.  One party has a secret, and the other party or parties agree to keep that secret.  We have become used to seeing nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs, as a part of financial transactions, deviant sexual demands made almost always by men, and settlements.

          Current reporting brings another set of demands for NDAs to our awareness:  Public Citizen just issued a report written by the research director with Public Citizen's Access to Medicines Group based on a review of "Pfizer's COVID-19 business practices," which reveals that among other things Pfizer contracts with sovereign nations responding to the coronavirus pandemic include NDAs that nothing will be said about these contracts with Pfizer "without Pfizer's prior written consent."  The Public Citizen findings were reported on by Adam Taylor in THE WASHINGTON POST online on October 19, 2021.

          Nondisclosure in profit-taking during a pandemic with taxpayer monies paying for the profits.  Keeping secrets seems essential to that business model, and NDAs in the pandemic are apparently as important as the anti-coronavirus drugs themselves.

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

LENDING IN A PANDEMIC: CREDIT RATINGS CLAWING MORE CONSUMER INFORMATION.

Credit ratings are increasingly demanding more information from consumers who escape their review, making it difficult for them to get financing.  These "credit invisible" consumers are either applying for money now, or may seek loans in the near future.

          The broadening of data collection from consumers is crucial and thanks to this very informative report in today's New York Times, consumers can see it coming:  "While the growing use of transaction data could be a boon to many borrowers, checking and debit accounts contain all sorts of revelatory information, and access to it must remain voluntary, advocates said. Lenders may be looking largely at the broad strokes of your cash flow now, but will they eventually glimpse at where you shop and what types of doctors you visit?"

          “'Credit invisibility is a problem, but some of the solutions or cures can be worse than the disease,'” said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. 'It’s a high-wire act to make sure this helps more than it hurts.'”

          Tara Siegel Bernard, No Credit Score?  No Problem.  Just Hand Over More of Your Data. NEW YORK TIMES, Tuesday, November 30, 2021, at B6.

Please read the disclaimer.  This blog article ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  No claim to quoted material from New York Times reporting.  All rights reserved.

Writing to a Prompt For My Writer's Club on November 22.

 

I wrote this piece to a prompt from a writing club that I belong to.  I call it writing to a prompt 58 years later in Florida on November 22nd.

 

Prompt:  "The small comforts of life."

This prompt has made my mind wander.  I have thought of turning the water faucet on and having water that a person can drink without coming down with something.  Or turning on the faucet for hot water and getting hot water.  (Who hasn't had the experience of turning on the hot water faucet and getting cold water?)

          I also thought about putting books on hold at the public library.  Recently I swore a vow that I would never put another book on hold.  The library was a half-hour away one way, I had to put a mask on in a pandemic to go inside the building, my glasses fogged up as they always do when I put a mask on, I can't see very well and I have this desire to breathe less often because then I won't fog up my glasses so much, etc., and the book was not worth it that time anyway.  I wished I knew how to pick up books at the bin or whatever where they put books out for patrons so that we don't have to go into the building, but I didn't know how to do that and I didn't see any receptacles where I went to pick up my book on hold.  That is how that hold began and it didn't end any better.  I still don't know how it works exactly.

          That sounds like I'm addressing a different prompt, more like "Things I take for granted in life."  Like many other people, without realizing it I have changed the question to a question I prefer to answer rather than answering the question that was asked.

          I would like to begin again.  Back to the prompt:  "The small comforts of life."  One of the small comforts of my life is the ability to put holds on books at the public library.  The process is dependable, the books become available, and I get to read them.

          My most recent hold was for the new book by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, "Peril."  The first 1/3 of the book was based on sources and focused on events that either I did not know before, or that I recognized from national reporting about the book and I said to myself, "oh, yeah, that's what they wrote about this person or this event."

          The last 2/3 of the book was focused on events that either I already knew about from other reporting or that I had already figured out from other reporting.  In other words, there was not much new there and not much that was news, either, for that matter.

          The sources for the last part of the book were not very revealing so far as I could see or read.  They did not say anything to Woodward or Costa, apparently, that was not already public.  (And if I knew about it, trust me, it had to be right out in the open.)

          Still one of the small comforts of my life is the ability to put holds on books at the public library.  This time, the book I put on hold generated a lot of interest so this particular hold lasted about a year (I exaggerate, but only slightly), but in the meantime I put two other books on hold and they became available within the week, so I was able to pick up all three of them at the same time.  I will be sure to let you know how the other two books go, but being able to pick them up and read them all is still one of the small comforts of my life, regardless of how reading them turns out in the end.

WISCONSIN JURY ACQUITTED VIGILANTE, NOW JUSTICE UNDER FEDERAL LAW.

(Gridview_imagefull/FDACS)

This article follows a prescient post here on Wednesday night, November 17, 2021,   As this article is written, it is Saturday, November 20, 2021 and as expected, the Wisconsin jury acquitted the chubby little terrorist who came from Illinois to commit deadly acts of self-defense with an assault rifle in Wisconsin.

          They let him go back to Illinois where he came from before he killed two people and tried to kill a third human being in Wisconsin.  Or perhaps they let him go to national headlines.  Who knows.

          Now that the Wisconsin jury has acquitted the little vigilante, he can still be tried in Federal Court.  To say again as was said before, back in the day when civil rights workers were routinely attacked and often killed, and their murderers were often acquitted by White juries especially in the South ("Them good old boys was singin' 'This'll be the day that I die, this'll be the day that I die'"), justice did not leave town.

          Rather, the Department of Justice stepped in for justice.  The defendants in those cases were charged in Federal Court with things like deprivation of civil rights because they murdered the person.  That is why 42 U.S. Code Section 1983 was written in the first place:  People were lynching other people and by killing them deprived them of their civil rights under Federal law.

          Section 1983 applies now.  People are killing other people and by killing them deprive them of their civil rights under Federal law now.  There will be more to come. 

          Justice is a vision, they say.  We can dream, can't we?

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

AFTER THE WISCONSIN JURY ACQUITS THE CHUBBY VIGILANTE, FEDERAL COURT.

As this article is written, it is early evening on November 17, 2021.  If the jury has acquitted the chubby little terrorist in Wisconsin, no news of it yet. But the indications are that it is just a matter of time before they let the little vigilante go back to Illinois where he came from before he killed two people and tried to kill a third human being in Wisconsin.

          After the Wisconsin jury acquits the little person, he can still be tried in Federal Court.  Back in the day when civil rights workers were routinely attacked and often killed ("Them good old boys was singin' 'This'll be the day that I die, this'll be the day that I die'"), and their murderers were often acquitted by White juries especially in the South, justice did not leave town.  Rather, the defendants were charged in Federal Court with things like deprivation of civil rights because they murdered the person.

          Justice is a vision, they say.  We can dream, can't we?

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

UNAUTHORIZED KILLING IN 2019. WHEN WAS THAT? WHO? WHY?

Newspapers report that bombing strikes in Syria were directed by a shadowy U.S. Special military unit in 2019.

          When was that?  2019.

          Who?  A shadowy U.S. Special military unit.

          Why?

          Say, wasn't The Former Guy the 'Commander in Chief' in 2019?

          Just askin'.

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

SELF-DEFENSE BY A VIGILANTE LOOKING FOR TROUBLE. SERIOUSLY?

Only a lawyer could argue with a straight face that a person who travelled over 20 miles from his home to a different State and a different City from where he lived, for the purpose of looking for trouble when he got there, committed self-defense when he killed two people and nearly killed a third one after he got there.

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