Update no.1038

Update from the Sunland

No.1038

29.11.21 – 5.12.21

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

 

            To all,

 

            The follow-up news items:

-- The wheels of justice continue to turn and grind down the BIG LIE to oblivion and irrelevance. This week, Judge Linda Vivienne Parker of the United States District for the Southern Division of the Eastern District of Michigan ordered the hapless attorneys representing [the person who shall no longer be named] to pay US$175,000 in court cost of the defendants in a frivolous court case filed and pursued in Michigan—King v. Whitmer [USDC EDMI (SD) Civil Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW (2021)]. The marquee lawyers are Sidney Powell [1002, 1022], Lin Wood, and other lawyers who represented [the person who shall no longer be named] in furtherance of his BIG LIE regarding the 2020 election [982]. In her 25.August.2021 decision in the Whitmer case, Judge Parker’s opening paragraph of her 110-page ruling fairly well sets the stage of this sanction. Judge Parker stated, “This lawsuit [King v. Whitmer] represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process. It is one thing to take on the charge of vindicating rights associated with an allegedly fraudulent election. It is another to take on the charge of deceiving a federal court and the American people into believing that rights were infringed, without regard to whether any laws or rights were in fact violated. This is what happened here.” Her opinion and order goes into excruciating detail to excoriate the plaintiffs who were listed as Timothy King, Marian Ellen Sheridan, John Earl Haggard, Charles James Ritchard, James David Hooper, and Daren Wade Rubingh. I do not recognize any of the plaintiffs. I presume they are “concerned residents” of Michigan and consumers of the magic snake-oil elixir peddled by [the person who shall no longer be named]. I do not hold much interest in spending the time to research these folks. Judge Parker offers considerable criticism of the plaintiffs, but it was the attorneys representing the plaintiffs that were the focus of her judicial ire. Please forgive me, but the court’s conclusions are far too long for his forum, thus I must extract the salient public interest points. Judge Parker ordered, “the motions for sanctions filed by the State Defendants and City of Detroit are GRANTED.”

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys shall jointly and severally pay the fees and costs incurred by the State Defendants and the City of Detroit to defend this action.”

“Plaintiffs’ attorneys shall each complete at least twelve (12) hours of continuing legal education in the subjects of pleading standards (at least six hours total) and election law (at least six hours total) within six months of this decision.” (emphasis mine)

The plaintiff’s attorneys listed for sanction are:

(i)             Sidney Powell - Texas; 

(ii)           L. Lin Wood - Georgia; 

(iii)         Emily Newman - Virginia; 

(iv)          Julia Z. Haller - the District of Columbia, Maryland, New York and New Jersey; 

(v)           Brandon Johnson - the District of Columbia, New York, and Nevada; 

(vi)          Scott Hagerstrom - Michigan; 

(vii)        Howard Kleinhendler - New York and New Jersey; 

(viii)      Gregory Rohl - Michigan; and 

(ix)          Stefanie Lynn Junttila - Michigan.

I will note that Hagerstrom, Rohl, and Junttila are licensed in Michigan. They should have known better.

In my humble opinion, the sanctions against these attorneys are far too light. Presumably, they will equally share in the monetary order, roughly US19,500 each (hardly a tickle for wealthy attorneys). The order for continuing legal education seems the most stinging professionally. I am compelled to add here that the real culprit in this sordid affair has suffered no sanctions or professional smack down. [The person who shall no longer be named] continues to make other people suffer for his egocentricism and clinical unbridled narcissism. This despicable saga of the BIG LIE rumbles on, long from being concluded and rendered to the dustbin of history, and [the person who shall no longer be named] continues to enjoy his golf in the Florida sunshine.

 

This paragraph is a bit odd, so please hang with me.

The week’s documentary of note was the CNN Program “This is Life” with Lisa Ling, titled: “Intolerable: Sex Crimes in Military” (S8 Ep8), broadcast: 28.11.2021. One of the principal subjects in Ms. Ling’s report was Sergeant Harmony Allen who was brutally beaten and raped by Master Sergeant Richard Collins in 2000. The issue before the Court was statute of limitations for rape as stated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) affirmed the statute of limitations. The Supremes unanimously rejected the CAAFs analysis, which by default affirms the conviction of Allen’s attacker—United States v. Briggs [592 U. S. ____ (2020) Nos. 19–108 and 19–184].  Allen’s attacker was one of the respondent’s in the No.19-184 companion case. I offer this judicial detail only for thoroughness. In reading the Court’s opinion, I was struck by one phrase in one sentence written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito—one of the hardliner “strict constructionists” on the bench. “This Court has held that the Eighth Amendment incorporates ‘evolving standards of decency.’” {emphasis mine} I read and re-read those words, including the paragraph preceding and following the illuminated sentence. I could not believe I was reading those words coming from Alito. ‘Evolving’ is never a word the strict constructionist use. To them, the words written in the Constitution are rigid, inviolate, immovable, and solely as written by the meaning of the words in i.e., not evolving. To the strict constructionists, there is no evolution of meaning in the Constitution in 1787, except as amended. Then, as my readings of this decision mounted I began to see and feel nothing but unadulterated hypocrisy. The impression I am left with is rigidity suits them when it supports the their positions, and at least by the Briggs opinion, they embrace evolving standards when it suits their arguments. That said, the Briggs opinion is spot on correct in my novice view. Sergeant Allen finally received justice after her arduous and lengthy campaign, and her slime ball attacker finally got what he deserves—life in prison to contemplate the error of his ways.

 

On Friday, President Biden signed into law the latest continuing appropriations law—Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes [PL 117-070; H.R.6119; Senate: 69-28-0-3(0); House: 221-212-0-0(2); 135 Stat. xxx]. The new law ensures the federal government shall continue to operate for fiscal year 2022—another major hurdle successfully crossed. Looming just ahead, the debt limit and the Build Back Better Act still pending in the Senate. The journey continues.

 

A friend and frequent contributor to this humble forum sent along the following article:

“Armageddon and Other Problems”

by Amanda Taub

New York Times

Published: December 3, 2021

[The URL is moot in that it comes from a subscription site.]

The opinion article comes after the launch of the DART mission [1037] to test the momentum transfer hypothesis on a physical astronomical object the moonlet Dimorphos orbiting the larger asteroid Didymos. In her opinion, Ms. Taub stated, “In movies, ragtag individuals doin’ the right thing is enough to save the world. But in the real world, when the problems are global and the difficulties systemic, that’s just not enough.”

I have seen the subject movie—Armageddon. It is an entertaining hypothetical dramatization of a real theoretical problem, but a typical oversimplified Hollywood offering. Ms. Taub does offer some interesting observations for those who have or seek access to her article. The planned impact portion of the test is expected in late September 2022. It will take weeks and probably months to validate the results of the test. The DART test is less dramatic but more realistic than the movie’s chosen method of dealing with the very real potential problem of an asteroid impact on earth—a possible global extinction event.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1037:

“‘morning Cap-all received this side somethings I didn’t savvy SINES for one.

“Well done for having the family staying..your distances are considerably Greater than ours! But Covid has put something of a retarding motion on family visits and now another new Covid version..must go, I’m making bread!”

My reply:

I would not expect you or any of your countrymen to be aware of Sines v. Kessler. In fact, I could wager most Americans do not know about the case either, because they so drastically restrict their news sources, if they watch/listen to the news at all. Perhaps you may recall the precipitating rally and the torchlight parade in Charlottesville, Virginia, four years ago. Despite what the previous fellow proclaimed, there were not good people on both sides. Neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen are NOT good people.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a far greater constraint than the distances. Our youngest son and his family’s visit had been planned for March 2020. Oh well, these are the trials & tribulations of contemporary life. At least, we finally got it done; it was their first visit to our home in Fountain Hills.

 

Comment to the Blog:

“I don’t know that this country, or any, ever operated primarily on lofty ideals. People deal with what’s in front of them, sometimes influenced but seldom directly guided by ideals. It was ever thus.

“The DART ‘hit an asteroid’ project sounds distinctly like something from less-mature science fiction. Let’s hope we don’t encounter unforeseen consequences.

“‘What happened before the Big Bang?’ is as inexplicable as, ‘Who created God?’ Some answers just don’t come.

“Perhaps the Arbery and Charlottesville verdicts balance the unjust release of Kyle Rittenhouse. We must not elevate vigilantes and mobs.”

My response to the Blog:

As I considered my response to your contribution, I spent some time thinking about your opening sentence. First, I cannot and will not argue the point; I agree, we have never achieved the ideals that established this once grand republic. Yet, the more I read your words, it seems your statement requires a very narrow band filter to justify. Second, yes, you are absolutely correct, the American citizenry tend to be very now-oriented as you say, “what’s in front of them.” There are many other reasons for the phenomenon. Unfortunately, far too many are not willing to do the homework required to assess and understand the news. Third, Sir Winston’s words seem most appropriate “In Victory: Magnanimity.” The realization of that magnanimity seems to be best displayed by the Marshall Plan (first articulated on 5.June.1947 and codified by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948 (AKA Marshall Plan, or European Recovery Act) [PL 80-472; 62 Stat. 137; 3.April.1948]. Fourth, I tend to take a wider view of such things and a more optimistic rather than pessimistic view of American conduct toward the ideals established by our founding documents. I believe we still strive to achieve our ideals, but flawed men inevitably fail for myriad reasons. I give us credit for the attempt.

Yes, of course, you are spot on correct. Some answers are beyond our grasp or even our reach. That reality does not alter my imagination and curiosity.

Agreed, again, vigilantes and mobs are wrong, although I could quibble with you regarding the Rittenhouse verdict.

 . . . Round two:

“I’m not sure what a ‘narrow band filter’ is, and I wasn’t only referring to voters. Also, I seek to be neither optimistic nor pessimistic, but realistic. Hence, most of my views are based on history or sociology. People, in general, don’t seek to improve the world for everyone, whatever that means to them if they even think about it. They do their best for themselves, their families, and perhaps their communities. Also, why would people strive for ideals set by others? The Founders’ ideal world mainly benefited them. It strikes me as much less inclusive than my ideals.

“Kyle Rittenhouse went to Kenosha intending to carry out the function of law enforcement, and he had no authority to do that. How is he not a vigilante?”

 . . . my response to round two:

A narrow band filter is tuned to allow only a specific wavelength of light to pass through. In my usage context, it suggests a very narrow view of American founding ideals. I will not disagree with your pessimistic view of American voters. Certainly, there are far too many eligible voters who choose not to vote because of complacency, apathy, defiance, neglect, or any of myriad reasons they do not vote. There are many more who have fallen into the tribal trap of voting for a ‘D’ or a ‘R’ regardless of who the candidate is; tribalism is far more important to them than wise voting. There is another bunch who are very ill-informed on politics, current events, contemporary issues and such.

With respect, you do not get to decide what ideals we support or follow. Neither do I. We have been and, so far, remain a representative democracy. The best we can do is influence those around us to vote for our representatives who most closely align with our beliefs, ideals, opinions, et al.

“why would people strive for ideals set by others?” Well, the simple answer is, threads of common belief or commitment. If we do not agree that “all Men (generic) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness,” then I suppose there is no adhesive or binder to hold us together. Yes, we witness firsthand how destructive to the common good that individual freedom of choice can be when taken to the extreme. I acknowledge that I am perhaps naïve to the extreme in thinking that our common ideals do bind us together. I do believe history records a time when the vast majority of American citizens believed in and supported those founding ideals. I must acknowledge that era may well have passed, if it existed at all. Further, we may be witnessing the degeneration of the very fabric of this once grand republic, and the corrosion may well be irreparable. Time shall tell the tale.

I do not agree that Rittenhouse went to Kenosha with the intent of performing any law enforcement function. I believe the evidence indicates he intended to be a deterrent, not enforce any laws—just to defend property. I am not aware of any police force from our local sheriff to the FBI itself that are sized and staffed for destructive riots. They are staffed for what might be called statistically normative crime. Governors have the capability to mobilize their respective National Guard units, but such action takes time to achieve. To my knowledge of the evidence, Rittenhouse made no attempt to enforce the law, and was thus not a vigilante. I suspect the men who attacked Rittenhouse that night were more than they seem. They were rather rough characters who I suspect have far more right leaning beliefs. I saw no evidence they were associated with the BLM protest; they were just there that night.

 . . . Round three:

“Your discussion of ideals assumes that most people think about ideals and base decisions on them. How do you support that argument? I haven’t seen societal-level ideals in action to any great degree. (I have heard them in speeches, but that’s not action.) I don’t see how having ideals set by others is even having ideals.

“The function of protecting property from the unlawful (as perceived by Kyle Rittenhouse) belongs to the police. I haven’t studied the police crowd control in your suburb or in Kenosha, but in Columbus the police were equipped and staffed for that job, and they seriously overdid it this past summer. It turns out the protesters weren’t destructive, but the police were aggressive and some of them have been charged.

“I’m not even considering residences in more than one place. I understand that some van-dwellers are snowbirds, and I have the capacity for that other than financially. However, if I change locations, I would probably make it a permanent change. We shall see.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Wow! That is quite a statement. I think the difference between us on this particular topic is one of perspective. I tend to focus on the positive, while I feel you take a more pessimistic view. You call it pragmatic, but I suppose both of us are wrong in that such singular statements inevitably take a far too generalized viewpoint. Too many Americans are too complacent about their citizenship and too ill-educated and ill-informed to recognize their lack of understanding. They do not care about what this country stands for, and I tend to not care about them beyond the facts that they are American citizens by the providence of birth. I choose to focus on the positive, but I cannot deny the reality of those citizens who just do not care. They enjoy the benefits without considering the foundation of those benefits.

Re: “ideals set by others.” Well, I find affinity to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” I find wisdom and solidarity with those principles. I accept that some American citizens cannot cite those ideals or give a hoot about those principles . . . until someone tries to take away their rights as they perceive them. I read your words “even having ideals” as essentially every man for himself. There are no binders, no adhesive, no common ground. The only thing that matters is what matters to each of us individually and in isolation. To me, that is pessimism.

I am thankful that Columbus is staffed to deal with destructive riots. Most municipalities are not, e.g., Ferguson, Portland, Kenosha, heck even the U.S. Capitol. From my perspective, Columbus is the exception, not the norm. I am not aware of any consideration of unlawfulness by Rittenhouse. He made no attempt to enforce any law. He simply saw windows being broken and looting occurring, and he decided to do something. At least he did something. It seems to me the left is making Rittenhouse out to be more than he was, just as the right is inflating him in the opposite direction. Perhaps, a worthy topic of public debate might be, where does a citizen’s obligation to assist law enforcement in maintaining good order and the common good end? What is too far?

 . . . Round four:

“With reference to destruction during protests, it could be that those cities are over-equipped for crowd control. With the advent of cameras everywhere, we are seeing more and more police provocation. Either way, Kyle Rittenhouse was neither authorized nor trained to render assistance. 

“Beyond that, my mind comes back again and again to the Stanford Prison Experiment. Even with almost every variable controlled, people behaved in specific ways.”

 . . . my response to round four:

Another Wow! That was quite a jump in supposition. “Over-equipped” . . . sorry, I cannot make the connection. The implication is the police are responsible for the destruction during protests. Your statement that Rittenhouse was “neither authorized nor trained” means no one other than police meet that threshold. How did authority or training have anything to do with Rittenhouse defending himself against attackers? How did he misuse his firearm?

Pardon my ignorance but I do not see the applicability of the Stanford experiment.

 . . . Round five:

“The Columbus Police Department, like most, has an armory of military weapons to be used against protesters. Perhaps that's not the best approach.

“If the police need help to defend property, they have procedures for getting it. Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't involved in any of those. In fact, he lives in another state. He placed himself in harm's way for no responsible reason.

“The Stanford Prison Experiment has many lessons. One of them is that people carry out roles they are assigned, whether that's ‘prison guard’ or ‘police officer.’ I'm aware that you don't value psychology or sociology very much, and that you're continually puzzled by human behavior.”

 . . . my response to round five:

My friend, with respect, those weapons, as in other jurisdictions, are NOT “to be used against protesters.” They can and will be used against violent criminals. If protests are not violent, no need for weapons. I believe most police departments protect the constitutional rights of all citizens to assemble and to air their grievances in public protests. That said, I will also state that I believe that many, if not all, of the protests that turn violent or destructive are NOT transitioned from peaceful to violent by protesters, but by outside perpetrators with the intent to discredit the protests and/or take advantage of the cover a protest offers. The one thing I do not want to see is our police outgunned in a gunfight.

Agreed; Rittenhouse was not involved in any police action or plan. He acted on his own. It is my understanding that he had family in Kenosha, so he had personal reason beyond his sense of civic duty. I still struggle with the boundary between doing nothing and helping the police. No police department can be everywhere all of the time. They need help. I believe it is one of many obligations of citizenship to protect the common good. I want people to protest for their grievances, but I cannot condone violence or destruction of public or private property. I seek some kind of balance that does not leave the police isolated and alone.

“I'm aware that you don't value psychology or sociology very much, and that you're continually puzzled by human behavior.” I will simply say that you have seriously misjudged me.

 . . . Round six:

“Whatever the stated intent, those weapons are used against protesters.

“The police need not be ‘isolated and alone.’ In most cases, they don’t ask for help because the appearance of people looking like combat troops will aggravate, not alleviate, the protesters’ anger. That is a bit of very basic psychology.”

 . . . my response to round six:

If protesters become violent, damage property, or fail to comply with law enforcement directions, yes, they are, and rightly so. The duty of law enforcement is to protect the common good. If protesters threaten the common good, then law enforcement will use appropriate force to neutralize the threat. Protesting some grievances does not justify breaking the law.

Despite your poor assessment of my awareness or intellectual application, law enforcement is thrust into the position of defending the common good. They must be prepared for the worst-case scenario in any given incident. If they are not so prepared, they are more likely to be injured or killed, which will, by definition, escalate a specific incident. Prepared and protected officers are intended to neutralize any threat before the threatening behavior is realized. Police officers are not some source of sacrificial lambs to be used by protesters to demonstrate the degree of their anger.

 . . . Round seven:

“The ‘if’ in your first paragraph is very much an open question, especially in cases where law enforcement initiates the violence. I don’t understand your second paragraph. Are you claiming that the police are unable to ask for help, which then somehow necessitates the likes of Kyle Rittenhouse intervening on their own?”

 . . . my response to round seven:

I have not done a broad scale data and statistical analysis of protest-riots over the last few decades, so I have only my impressions and opinions. In my humble opinion and limited knowledge, the question of initiation depends upon definitions. For example, crossing an establish boundary, e.g., barricades or a police line, is a threat to public safety and usually involves violence. I can think of no instance where police “initiated” violence against peaceful protesters. In every instance I can think of there is a instigating action by protesters or imbedded perpetrators (e.g., an imbedded right-wing agitator who tosses a rock or brick at police). Large groups (protesters) are potentially mobs, and it does not take much to simulate violent conduct. If the protester restrained the agitator to enable prosecution, it would go a long way to dampen violence. Assaulting police for any reason is a felonious crime. A public protest is NOT license to commit any crimes—misdemeanor or felony.

I cannot see how you arrived at that assessment. Nonetheless, the answer is no, that is not what I intended to say or even imply. Police ask for help all of the time; it is usually through official channels. I am not aware in my lifetime of police publicly asking private citizens to take up arms to assist them in a law enforcement actions. The absence of a public, explicit, request by police for citizens to take up arms to protect property does not define vigilantism. By the same token, police abandoning neighborhoods or districts because they have insufficient appropriately prepared forces to deal with the violence is unacceptable. Further, one concerned citizen with a rifle cannot stand up to a determined mob. Rittenhouse did not violate the law; his attackers did, and they paid a very heavy price.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)