Category Archives: ethics

Alternatively

Posted on by
Reply

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has told the recalcitrant (because this is a more-or-less family blog) Maricopa County management folks to

comply with a state Senate subpoena and turn over its election routers to auditors or risk losing millions of dollars in state aid.

Specifically,

If MCBOS fails to resolve the violation within 30 days, the AGO, in accordance with state law, will notify the Arizona Treasurer to withhold state revenue from Maricopa County until MCBOS complies[.]

The withheld amount would run to $700 million, which amounts to roughly 23% of Maricopa’s 2020 budget.

It’s a nice step, but 30 more days? Maricopa’s managers have been ignoring the State Senate’s subpoena for some months already.

Alternatively, the AG or Governor could send the State Troopers in to execute the subpoena by seizing the routers and arresting any Maricopa County person who gets in the way of the execution.

A Letter Writer Points Out a Fact

Posted on by
Reply

Wayne Detring makes what should be a statement of the obvious in his Letter in The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters page.

Rule 3.1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits lawyers from bringing or defending a proceeding unless there is a basis in law or fact for doing so.

Granted, that’s not strictly binding on lawyers, but it is a strong statement of what’s not acceptable for lawyers to do.

Detring cited further:

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that by signing or submitting a pleading, an attorney certifies that it is not presented for any improper purpose, such as to “cause unnecessary delay.” Rule 11 also provides a process for sanctioning violators.

That Rule is binding on lawyers.  With that background, he continued:

President Biden (Mr Garland’s client) publicly stated he and his staff were “unable to find the legal authority” for the executive order despite checking multiple times. He also admitted he couldn’t in good faith defend the order. But, the president said, “by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give additional time” for him to enforce his illegal order.

And the case:

Ordinary practicing attorneys would be in grave danger of sanctions for filing a pleading knowingly unsupported by law or fact, and by admittedly filing the pleading for the purpose of delay. The US attorney general should be no exception. In fact, those in power should be held to a stricter standard.

However, the only facility for bringing AG Garland to justice under Rule 11 (or the ABA’s Rule 3.1) is the Progressive-Democrat-controlled Congress. Those worthies are unlikely to worry about the misbehaviors of one of their own (and neither have been Republicans in their turn).

Sadly, rather than stricter standards, our Government personages are held to lesser standards than the rest of us. Which puts it on the rest of us to rectify the matter ourselves in 2022 and 2024.

We’re So Special

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the attitude of Progressive-Democrats, as illustrated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA).

She held an expensive fundraiser last weekend while her constituents [were] still bound to COVID-19 regulations, which require, among other things, masks to be worn when people are in close proximity with each other.

The principals, from Pelosi to her bank book-opening attendees were maskless. Every single one of them.

On the other hand, the wait staff—every single one of them—had to wear the masks. Because they’re just hir’d he’p; they don’t matter so much.

Congressman Byron Donalds’ (R, FL) description is spot on and broadly inclusive:

They make all their rules for the American people but they don’t follow them. They tell the poor of America what needs to be done but they don’t actually do it themselves. So, they love having crystal on a table and getting jumbo lump crab and all that good stuff without masks, but when it comes to the American people, like let’s say in the city of New York, they are not allowed to go in a restaurant if they don’t present their vaccine card[.]

Because our Betters are Special.

A California Judge Has Spoken

Posted on by
Reply

Recall California Proposition 22, which exempted Uber Technologies Inc, Lyft Inc, and DoorDash Inc from a California state gig law that, in essence, requires businesses to reclassify their gig associates from independent contractors to employees. That proposition was passed overwhelmingly by the citizens of California.

A California state judge ruled last Friday that the proposition was unconstitutional and so unenforceable. His rationale:

Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch said in Friday’s ruling that Proposition 22 limits the state legislature’s authority and its ability to pass future legislation, which is unconstitutional.

The judge has ruled that the people are not allowed to limit the authority of their employee, of their government. Keep in mind that, although Roesch couched his ruling in terms of the State’s legislative branch, his own judiciary branch is a part of that government whose authority he’s protecting.

The California government (including Roesch, et al., mind you) is not subordinate to the citizens of California?

Here’s the preamble to the California State constitution, which according to Roesch has no meaning.

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

It used to be the People of California’s constitution, not the State judiciary’s.

Here’s Art II, Sect 1:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

Here’s Art II, Sect 10(a):

An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed from going into effect.

Unless a member of the State’s government, here a judge, demurs. Then the people’s decision is set aside. Because the People are no longer sovereign in California.

Hmm….

Some SIV Questions

Posted on by
Reply

A Just the News piece centered on plans to temporarily house 10,000 Afghan refugees at Ft. Bliss (assuming President Joe Biden (D) will deign move to help them escape in the first place) also had some information on how what requirements Afghanis must satisfy in order to be eligible for the Special Immigrant Visas that would allow them to enter the US.

  • worked with US military or through the Chief of Mission authority as translators or interpreters in Iraq or Afghanistan
  • provide a picture ID
  • proof of a US military background check
  • letter of recommendation
  • filing fee of $435
  • go through in-person interview at a US embassy or consulate

In the chaos of the collapse of Biden’s effort in Afghanistan—a chaos he’s said in plain terms that he knew would occur—and the parallel (!) collapse of Afghanistan, how will these Afghanis satisfy any of those criteria?

Where will they get the picture ID that having one of on their person puts them at immediate risk of butchery by Taliban thugs?

In what way will they prove the existence of a background check—especially in the face of the precipitous nature of Biden’s “retrograde?”

Where will they get those USD435—AFN37,500 and rising (as of 19 Aug) in the face of the Biden Retrograde?

At what US embassy or consulate will a prospective Afghani undergo his in-person interview?

What is Biden doing to reduce the already existing backlog of 10s of thousands of SIV applications already in his State Department’s pipeline?

What is Biden doing to streamline this cumbersome—even were all the pieces easily accessible—process?

It’s certainly critical that Afghan refugees be successfully sorted out from terrorists masquerading themselves as Afghan refugees before anyone is allowed into our nation, but it’s also clear that neither Biden nor anyone else in his Executive Branch (particularly his State and Defense Departments) are prepared to deal with this situation, or even are serious about catching up with their Afghan refugee crisis, much less their Afghanistan nation crisis.