Update no.1113

 Update from the Sunland

No.1113

8.5.23 – 14.5.23

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- Well, we did not have to wait long! The jury in the case of Carroll v. Trump [USDC NY SD case no. 20-cv-7311 (LAK)] [1112] reached a very swift verdict and found [the person who shall no longer be named] was liable for sexual assault (not rape) and defamation. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, no relation to Carroll’s attorney Roberta Ann ‘Robbie’ Kaplan that I am aware, took roughly 90 minutes to issue instructions to the jury before their deliberations. It took the jury, six men and three women, just under three hours to reach their verdict and agree on the damages. The jury determined that Tiny lied about the 1996 sexual assault—surprise, surprise! The jury levied a US$2M judgment against Tiny for the sexual assault plus an additional US$3M for the defamation. Tiny declared he did not know the woman, and he was going to appeal the ruling. One of Tiny’s myriad fallacious statements under oath during his deposition for this case and reported in last week’s Update [1112] was, “Historically, that’s true with stars. If you look over the last million years, that’s largely true, not always, unfortunately—or fortunately.” I should have stated explicitly the obvious, but I failed to do so. Hey, bozo, a history lesson . . . anatomical human beings have not existed and did not walk the earth until 50,000 years ago—not one million years. I would agree that rape has been a dreadful artifact of war throughout most of recorded human history. However, does the disgusting reality of human history entitle him to sexually assault women at will? Rape and sexual assault have been prohibited internationally since 12.August.1949, after the brutal ravages of the Nazis, Japanese, and the Red Army during World War II. Additionally, the jury’s decision in the Carroll case differentiated between penile and digital penetration (however so slight) as the difference between rape and sexual assault, but the consequences and results are the same. At the bottom line, [the person who shall no longer be named] was found liable for sexual assault and defamation. Regrettably, [the person who shall no longer be named] will escape having to register with the state as a sex offender because this trial and decision were a civil judgment rather than a criminal trial.

The standard of proof for his case was “a preponderance of the evidence,” or more likely than not; it was not “beyond a reasonable doubt” since it was not a criminal prosecution. From what I saw of the evidence presented against Trump by E. Jean Carroll easily attained that threshold. I will also add that the statute of limitations for rape in New York is seven years, clearly and admittedly expired in this case. I am compelled in the context of the Carroll trial to remind readers of Tiny’s infamous declaration on Saturday, 23.Janurary.2016, at Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's, like, incredible.” Let us not forget . . . even though we should.

Of course, [the person who shall no longer be named] spewed his rage on everyone after the verdict was rendered. For historical consistency, I probably should record and debunk his words in this forum; however, also, as usual, there is nothing of substance in anything he said . . . just uncontained juvenile outrage and outright falsehoods. Move along, folks. Nothing new here.

-- Federal criminal charges have been filed in New York against Representative George Santos (if that is his real name) [1094]. Charges were initially sealed and made public when he surrendered to authorities. Santos was arrested on Wednesday. He is charged with seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the House of Representatives. These are all federal felonious crimes. He has not been charged with the myriad false statements about his personal life that he made to the public. I trust that the prosecution process will convict him and send him to prison for a long time to contemplate the error of his ways.

 

Well, I wasted 70 precious minutes of life with induced nausea. I knew I should not, but I felt I had to hear and see what [the person who shall no longer be named] had to say and, more importantly, how he chose to say what he had to say. He is the current fBICP front-runner, after all. His believers love him and his worthless snake-oil elixir. Anyway, the Republican Presidential Town Hall moderated by Caitlin Collins was held at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire, and broadcast on Tuesday evening. CNN agreed to conditions dictated by [the person who shall no longer be named]. He wanted a friendly, supportive, non-confrontational audience; he got it. He acts like a king – above the law . . . when in fact he is far worse . . . a king from 700 years ago, not any modern-day monarch. Tiny has never acted presidential or as a servant of We, the People. We are left with the distillate that his supporters want a king or a dictator. They do not want democracy, compromise, debate, or negotiation. It would be great to just ignore him, but when he can conjure up a group of his believers who actually swallow his lies and tripe whole, we must take his candidacy with considerable attention and scrutiny. I ignored him seven years ago as a joke and a disgrace, but he was duly and constitutionally elected and became president. It could happen again if we do not vote. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich called the phenomenon Trumpian fascism, and Reich is spot on correct. We must resoundingly reject such attitudes.

 

A recent incident on a Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) of New York City train resulted in the death of Jordan Neely. He was reportedly harassing and threatening subway riders with claims that he was hungry and thirsty. He was confronted by another rider, Daniel Penny, and became combative and was placed in a choke hold by Penny in an attempt to subdue him. Several other riders assisted Penny. As a result, Penny was charged, arrested, and arraigned on a second-degree manslaughter charge.

A few thoughts about the case came to me. Public conduct is based on respect for others . . . their space, their safety, their peace, their freedom. Just because someone is homeless, hungry, thirsty, or suffering from any mental illness or condition does not give him the right to disrespect the rights of other citizens. Neely did not deserve to die for his transgression, and I do believe Penny went too far. He should have stopped as soon as Neely was subdued. The second-degree manslaughter charge seems appropriate to me. Penny went too far, and he should have known better.

The case has generated more than a little ranting and raving about vigilantism. Such protests are correct in general. The public is not charged with law enforcement responsibilities. On the flip side of this debate is the case of 28-year-old Catherine Susan ‘Kitty’ Genovese, who was stabbed to death on the street near her Queens, New York, home [13.3.1964]. An estimated 80 citizens witnessed her murder and did nothing, even refusing to assist law enforcement in finding her assailant. Law enforcement needs our help and support. They cannot do it all alone. Daniel Penny did the correct things. He just went too far. I will argue that protecting other citizens from individuals who transgress is not vigilantism; it is involved citizenry. 

 

The expiration of Title 42 and the immigration situation at the southern border have dominated the news for several weeks now. I have written my thoughts, opinions, and recommendations about immigration control for several decades. I have even recounted my experience of being one of those immigrants when I moved to and worked in Italy in 2002 [Updates 1 through 25]. I had a similar experience in 1993 through 1995 when I worked in England, but the Update did not exist back then. I have lived with immigration control systems that work.

When I applied for and received a work permit/visa for employment in England and in Italy, I had to have a specified job and company sponsorship to enter, remain, and work in those countries. I also had to register with the county/provincial government and maintain my residential address and employment status. I had evidence that local law enforcement in both countries routinely checked to ensure I was still employed at the location specified in my work permit and I was residing at the same place.

I have long argued that immigration reform is critical. It must be a defense in depth. I have no objection to a domineering obstacle to significantly increase the risk to unauthorized border crossings. No barrier is impenetrable or insurmountable. No security system is perfect. But, slowing down transgressors enables Border Patrol to have time to apprehend them. Such crossers should be expelled (deported) outright. They should not be able to claim asylum if they cross the border illegally, period, full stop. Any defense system must be a defense in depth, which means that states, counties, and cities are essential layers in that system just as they are in other countries. The federal government cannot do the job alone across a 2,000-mile border.

The reality is we need immigrants to keep the republic viable. We need employees. You can go through any city and see boundless held-wanted signs, and that is with an historically low unemployment rate. There are a wide variety who want to enter this country from simple tourists (temporary) to permanent immigrants seeking to reside, work, and become citizens. We need migrant work permit visas that enable seasonal or extended workers to enter this country, work in open positions, and cross the border as they wish. Such work permits should be tracked at the local level and maintained in a national database. We could also require monthly check-ins and such to ensure compliance. Failure to comply would be subject to deportation and temporary or permanent exclusion. At the bottom line for immigration status other than short-term tourist visas should be based on contributions to our society, i.e., immigrants must be contributors and not burdens. They pay taxes. They have benefits. We need their labor. Let us welcome them to make our nation better.

Refugees are a slightly different category. They are fleeing what is likely certain death, e.g., Jews escaping Nazi occupied Europe. In such cases, we must take a more generous approach to filtration. Regardless, there are limits to our magnanimity no matter how we cut it. We cannot serve as the sanctuary for the world. We cannot feed the world. We cannot remedy all wrongs and injustices. We simply do not have the capacity to be such an expansive refuge. We must regulate, restrict, and control the process, and it is not just a federal problem. The solution belongs to all of us. We are the people after all.

Lastly, both political parties are equally culpable. They both share in responsibility for the abysmal immigration control system. It is as if they each want a dysfunctional immigration control system so they can blame the other guys to score political points. The solution is up to us. We must elect representatives who will construct a worthy solution for us—We, the People. We are decades passed our need for a robust, functional, immigration control system. Let us get it done.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1112:

Comment to the Blog:

“E. Jean Carroll may be Chump’s undoing. She speaks well and her story is consistent. The Chump, on the other hand, sounds like a guilty party. Should he continue campaigning, his deposition will be played over and over through the primaries. Should he win nomination, those and more of his statements will fill the airwaves. That’s aside from any criminal convictions he may accumulate.”

My response to the Blog:

I have not seen or heard all the evidence against Tiny, but from what I have seen, I expect the jury to find him liable in the Carroll case. The jury should get their charge today [Tuesday]. The next question will be their judgment for punitive damages. Yes, Carroll does speak well, and her story has remained consistent or corroborated in part . . . unlike Tiny’s story. I believe her. Yes, indeed, he sounds guilty as hell. The coup de grâce from my perspective was that deposition video recording. I think he truly believes he has been anointed with the divine right of kings—he can take and do whatever he wants. He can do no wrong—by definition. I suspect and expect the Carroll jury is about to give him a brutal smack in the face and a rude awakening. Unfortunately, I cannot imagine the jury and court giving a sufficient punitive damages judgment to make him feel it. Regrettably, the consumers of his worthless snake-oil elixir do not care about civil or criminal convictions—they believe. Even if he is criminally convicted and imprisoned, his believers will still vote for him, and what does that say about them? We can only render them to oblivion by voting against them.

 

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)