#U.S. Bankruptcy Court

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Three years after receiving a $700 million pandemic-era lifeline from the federal government, the struggling freight trucking company Yellow is filing for bankruptcy.

After monthslong negotiations between Yellow’s management and the Teamsters union broke down, the company shut its operations late last month, and said on Sunday that it was seeking bankruptcy protection so it could wind down its business in an “orderly” way.

“It is with profound disappointment that Yellow announces that it is closing after nearly 100 years in business,” the company’s chief executive, Darren Hawkins, said in a statement. Yellow filed a so-called Chapter 11 petition in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

The downfall of the 99-year-old company will lead to the loss of about 30,000 jobs and could have ripple effects across the nation’s supply chains. It also underscores the risks associated with government bailouts that are awarded during moments of economic panic.

Yellow, which formerly went by the name YRC Worldwide, received the $700 million loan during the summer of 2020 as the pandemic was paralyzing the U.S. economy. The loan was awarded as part of the $2.2 trillion pandemic-relief legislation that Congress passed that year, and Yellow received it on the grounds that its business was critical to national security because it shipped supplies to military bases. Government watchdogs have scrutinized the loan because of the company’s financial turmoil and close ties to the Trump administration, which awarded the loan.

Since then, Yellow changed its name and embarked on a restructuring plan to help revive its flagging business by consolidating its regional networks of trucking services under one brand. As of the end of March, Yellow’s outstanding debt was $1.5 billion, including about $730 million that it owed to the federal government. Yellow has paid approximately $66 million in interest on the loan, but it has repaid just $230 of the principal owed on the loan, which comes due next year.

The fate of the loan is not yet clear. The federal government assumed a 30% equity stake in Yellow in exchange for the loan. It could end up assuming or trying to sell off much of the company’s fleet of trucks and terminals. Yellow aims to sell “all or substantially all” of its assets, according to court documents. Mr. Hawkins said the company intended to pay back the government loan “in full.”

The White House declined to comment.

Yellow estimated that it has more than 100,000 creditors and more than $1 billion in liabilities, per court documents. Some of its largest unsecured creditors include Amazon, with a claim of more than $2 million, and Home Depot, which is owed nearly $1.7 million.

Yellow is the third-largest small-freight trucking company in a part of the industry known as “less than truckload” shipping. The industry has been under pressure over the last year from rising interest rates and higher fuel costs, while customers have been reluctant to accept higher prices.

Those forces collided with an ugly labor fight this year between Yellow and the Teamsters union over wages and other benefits. Those talks collapsed last month and union officials soon after warned workers that the company was shutting down.

After its bankruptcy filing, company officials placed much of the blame on the union, saying its members caused “irreparable harm” by halting its restructuring plan. Yellow employed about 23,000 union employees.

“We faced nine months of union intransigence, bullying and deliberately destructive tactics,” Mr. Hawkins said. The Teamsters union “was able to halt our business plan, literally driving our company out of business, despite every effort to work with them,” he added.

In late June, the company filed a lawsuit against the union, asserting it had caused more than $137 million in damages by blocking the restructuring plan.

The Teamsters union said that Yellow’s executives unjustly blamed the union for the demise of the company, which had been “plagued with financial trouble for nearly two decades,” officials said in a statement.

“Teamster families sacrificed billions of dollars in wages, benefits and retirement security to rescue Yellow,” said Sean O’Brien, the union’s general president. “The company blew through a $700 million government bailout.” Calling Yellow’s top executives “dysfunctional” and “greedy,” he blamed them for failing to “take responsibility for squandering all that cash.”

The bankruptcy could create temporary disruptions for companies that relied on Yellow and might prompt more consolidation in the industry. It could also lead to temporarily higher prices as businesses find new carriers for their freight.

“Those inflationary prices will certainly hurt the shippers and hurt the consumer to a certain extent,” said Tom Nightingale, chief executive of AFS Logistics, who suggested that prices would probably normalize within a few months.

In late July, Yellow began permanently laying off workers and ceased most of its operations in the United States and Canada, according to court documents. Yellow has retained a “core group” of about 1,650 employees to maintain limited operations and provide administrative work as it winds down. Yellow said it expected to pay about $3.4 million per week in employee wages to operate during bankruptcy, which “may decrease over time.” None of the remaining employees are union members, the company said.

The company also sought the authority to pay an estimated $22 million in compensation and benefit costs for current and former employees, including roughly $8.7 million in unpaid wages as of the date of filing.

Yellow had readily accessible funds of about $39 million when it filed for bankruptcy, which it said would be insufficient to cover its wind-down efforts, and it expected to receive special financing to help support the sale process and payment of wages.

Jack Atkins, a transportation analyst at the financial services firm Stephens, said that Yellow’s troubles had been mounting for years. In the wake of the financial crisis, Yellow engaged in a spree of acquisitions that it failed to successfully integrate, Mr. Atkins said. The demands of repaying that debt made it difficult for Yellow to reinvest in the company, allowing rivals to become more profitable.

“Yellow was struggling to keep its head above water and survive,” Mr. Atkins said. “It was harder and harder to be profitable enough to support the wage increases they needed.”

David P. Leibowitz, a Chicago bankruptcy lawyer who represents several trucking companies, said Yellow had found itself in a “perfect storm, and they have not managed that perfect storm very well.”

The company’s financial problems fueled concerns. It lost more than $100 million in 2019 and was being sued by the Justice Department over claims that it defrauded the federal government during a seven-year period. Last year it agreed to pay $6.85 million to settle the lawsuit.

Congressional oversight committees have scrutinized the company’s relationships with the Trump administration. President Donald J. Trump tapped Mr. Hawkins to serve on a coronavirus economic task force, and Yellow had financial backing from Apollo Global Management, a private equity firm with close ties to Trump administration officials.

Democrats on the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis wrote in a report last year that top Trump administration officials had awarded Yellow the money over the objections of career officials at the Defense Department. The report noted that Yellow had been in close touch with Trump administration officials throughout the loan process and had discussed how the company employed Teamsters as its drivers.

In December 2020, Steven T. Mnuchin, then the Treasury secretary, defended the loan, arguing that had the company been shuttered, thousands of jobs would have been at risk and the military’s supply chain could have been disrupted. He predicted that the federal government would eventually turn a profit from the deal.

“Yellow had longstanding financial problems before the pandemic, was not essential to national security and thus should never have received a $700 million taxpayer bailout from the Treasury Department,” Representative French Hill, Republican of Arkansas and a member of the Congressional Oversight Commission, said in a statement. “Years of poor financial management at Yellow has resulted in hard-working people losing their jobs.”

[carriesthewind]

Oh dear.

So as some of you may know, I love to point and laugh at bad legal arguments. And as fun as legal dumpster fires are when they are made by people who aren’t lawyers but think this whole “law” thing seems pretty simple, it’s even funnier when an actual, barred attorney is the person dumping gallons of kerosene into the dumpster.

And oh boy folks, do I have a fun ride for y’all today. Come with me on this journey, as we watch a lawyer climb into the dumpster and deliberately pour kerosene all over himself, while a judge holds a match over his head.

The court listener link is here, for those who want to grab a few bowls of popcorn and read along.

For those of you who don’t enjoy reading legal briefs for cases you aren’t involved with on your day off (I can’t relate), I will go through the highlights here. I will screenshot and/or paraphrase the relevant portion of the briefs, and include a brief explainer of what’s going on (and why it’s very bad, but also extremely funny). (Also, I’m not going to repeat this throughout the whole write-up, so for the record: any statements I make about how the law or legal system works is referring exclusively to the U.S. (And since this is a federal case, we are even more specifically looking at U.S. federal law.) Also, I don’t know how you could construe any of this to be legal advice, but just in case: none of this is, is intended to be, or should be taken as, legal advice.)

First, let’s get just a quick background on the case, to help us follow along. In brief, this is a civil tort suit for personal injury based on defendant’s (alleged) negligence. The plaintiff is suing the defendant (an airline), because he says that he was injured when a flight attendant struck his knee with a metal cart, and the airline was negligent in letting this happen. The airline filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that there is an international treaty that imposes a time bar for when these kind of cases can be brought against an airline, and the plaintiff filed this case too many years after the incident.

The fun begins when the plaintiff’s attorney filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (So far, a good and normal thing to do.) The opposition argues that the claim is not time-barred because 1) the time bar was tolled by the defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings (that is, the timer for the time limitation was paused when the defendant was in bankruptcy, and started again afterwords), and 2) the treaty’s time limit doesn’t apply to this case because the case was filed in state court before the state statute of limitations expired, and the state court has concurrent jurisdiction over this kind of case.

I’m struggling a bit to succinctly explain the second reason, and there’s a reason for that.

You see, the whole opposition reads a bit…oddly.

This is how the opposition begins its argument, and it’s…weird. The basic principle is...mostly correct here, but the actual standard is that when reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (which is what the defendant filed) the court must draw all reasonable factual inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. But even then, you don’t just put that standard in your opposition. You cite to a case that lays out the standard.

Because that’s how courts and the law work. The courts don’t operate just based on vibes. They follow statutory law (laws made by legislature) and case law (the decisions made by courts interpreting what those laws mean). You don't just submit a filing saying, "here's what the law is," without citing some authority to demonstrate that the law is what you say (or are arguing) it is.

Again, this isn’t wrong (although I'm not sure what it means by new arguments?), but it’s weird! And part of the reason it’s weird is that it is irrelevant to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant filed a motion stating that based on the facts in the complaint, the plaintiff has not stated a claim based on which relief can be granted, because the complaint is time barred by a treaty. There is no reason for this language to be in the opposition. It’s almost like they just asked a chatbot what the legal standards are for a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim, and just copied the answer into their brief without bother to double-check it.

The opposition then cites a bunch of cases which it claims support its position. We will skip them for now, as the defendant will respond to those citations in its reply brief.

The last thing in the brief is the signature of the lawyer who submitted the brief affirming that everything in the brief is true and correct. An extremely normal - required, even! - thing to do. This will surely not cause any problems for him later.

The next relevant filing is the defendant’s reply brief. Again, the existence of a reply brief in response to an opposition is extremely normal. The contents of this brief are…less so.

Beg pardon?

Just to be clear, this is not normal. It is normal to argue that the plaintiff’s cases are not relevant, or they aren’t applicable to this case, or you disagree with the interpretations, or whatever. It is not normal for the cases to appear to not exist.

Some highlights from the brief:

Quick lesson in how to read U.S. case citations! The italicized (or underlined) part at the beginning is the name of the case. If it is a trial court case, the plaintiff is listed first and the defendant second; if the case has been appealed, the person who lost at the lower court level (the petitioner/appellant) will be listed first, and the person who won at the lower level (the respondent/appellee) will be listed second. There are extremely specific rules about which words in these names are abbreviated, and how they are abbreviated. Next, you list the volume number and name of the reporter (the place where the case is published), again abbreviated according to very specific rules, then the page number that the case starts on. If you are citing a case for a specific quote or proposition, you then put a comma after the beginning page number, and list the page number(s) on which the quote or language you are relying on is located (this is called a “pincite”). Finally, you put in parenthesis the name of the court (if needed)(and again, abbreviated according to extremely specific rules) and the year the case was decided.

So the plaintiff’s response cited to Zicherman, which they said was a case from 2008 that was decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the defendant was not able to find such a case. They were able to find a case with the same name (the same petitioner and respondent), but that case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996, and the lower court cases associated with that case weren’t in the 11th circuit either. (The United States Reports is the only official reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court, and only includes SCOTUS decisions, so it’s not necessary to include the name of the court before the year it was decided.)

Just to be clear. The defendant’s brief is saying: the plaintiff cited and extensively quoted from these cases, and neither the cases nor the quotations appear to exist. These “cases” were not ancillary citations in the plaintiff’s brief. They were the authority it relied upon to make its arguments.

This is as close a lawyer can come, at this point in the proceedings, to saying, “opposing counsel made up a bunch of fake cases to lie to the court and pretend the law is something different than it is.”

That, “Putting aside that here is no page 598 in Kaiser Steel,” is delightfully petty lawyer speak for, “you are wrong on every possible thing there is to be wrong about.”

By page 5, the defendant has resorted to just listing all of the (apparently) made up cases in a footnote:

(skipping the citations to support this proposition)

This is where I return to my struggle to explain the opposition’s second reason why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. I struggled to explain the argument, because they failed to explain why the argument they were making (that plaintiffs can bring lawsuits against airlines in state court, and the state court have specific statutes of limitations for general negligence claims) was relevant to the question of whether the plaintiff’s specific claim against the airline was time barred by the treaty. Because 1) this case is in federal court, not state court, and 2) federal law - including treaties - preempts state law. Again, it’s almost like plaintiff’s attorney just typed a question about the time bar into a chatbot or something, and the machine, which wasn’t able to reason or actually analyze the issues, saw a question about the time to bring a lawsuit and just wrote up an answer about the statute of limitations.

We also end with a nice little lawyerly version of “you fucked up and we are going to destroy you.” The relief requested in the defendant’s original motion to dismiss was:

In their reply to the opposition, however:

“The circumstances” in this case, being the apparent fabrication of entire cases. Because courts tend to take that pretty seriously.

And the court took it seriously indeed. The defendant’s reply was docketed on March 15th of this year. On April 11th:

AKA: you have one week (an extremely prompt time frame for federal court) to prove to me that you didn’t just make up these cases.

On April 12th, the plaintiff’s attorney requests more time because he’s on vacation:

The judge grants the motion, but adds in another case that he forgot to include in his first order.

On April 25th, the plaintiff’s attorney files the following:

(And he lists the cases, with one exception, which he says is an unpublished decision.)

But he says of all of the cases except two, that the opinions…

Which is…nonsense?

First of all: if you cited a case, you had to get it from somewhere. Even unpublished opinions, if you are citing them in a brief, you are citing them because you pulled them off of westlaw or whatever. Which means you have access to the case and can annex it for the court. (There are even formal rules for how you cite unpublished opinions! And those rules include citing to where you pulled the damn case from!)

Secondly: remember that long digression I went into about how to read case citations? Remember that bit about how you include the name of the reporter (the place the case was published)? Yes, cases are published. They are printed in physical books, and they are published online in databases (e.g. lexis or westlaw). If the specific online database you are looking in does not have the case, you look somewhere else. If you have a judge telling you to get them a copy of the case Or Else, you track down a physical copy of the reporter if you need to and scan the damn thing yourself. You - literally - can’t just not have a copy of the case! (Especially published federal circuit court opinions, which multiple of these cases are! Those aren’t hard to find!)

And what kind of “online database” doesn’t include the entire opinion anyway? I’ve literally never heard of a case research database that only included partial opinions, because that wouldn’t be useful.

Maybe if we look at the attached annexed copies of the cases, that might give us some answers.

...

My friends, these things are just bizarre. With two exceptions, they aren’t submitted in any sort of conventional format. Even if you’ve never seen a legal opinion before, I think you can see the difference if you just glance through the filings. They are located at Docket entry #29 on Court Listener (April 25, 2023). Compare Attachments 6 and 8 (the real cases submitted in conventional format) to the other cases. Turning to the contents of the cases:

In the first one, the factual background is that a passenger sued an airline, then the airline filed a motion to dismiss (on grounds unrelated to the treaty's time bar), then the airline went into bankruptcy, then the airline won the motion to dismiss, then the passenger appealed. And the court is now considering that appeal. But then the opinion starts talking about how the passenger was in arbitration, and it seems to be treating the passenger like he is the one who filed for bankruptcy? It’s hallucinatory, even before you get to the legal arguments. The “Court of Appeals” is making a ruling overruling the district court’s dismissal based on the time bar, but according to the factual background, the case wasn’t dismissed based on the time bar, but on entirely other grounds? Was there some other proceeding where the claim was dismissed as time barred, and it’s just not mentioned in the factual background? How? Why? What is happening? Also it says Congress enacted the treaty? But, no? That’s…that’s not how treaties work? I mean, Congress did ratify the treaty? But they didn’t unilaterally make it!

In the second case, there’s an extended discussion of which treaty applies to the appellants claims, which is bizarre because there are two relevant treaties, and one replaced the other before the conduct at issue, so only the new treaty applies? There isn’t any discussion of the issue beyond that basic principle, so there is no reason there should be multiple paragraphs in the opinion explaining it over and over? Also, it keeps referring to the appellant as the plaintiff, for some reason? And it includes this absolutely hallucinatory sentence:

…the only part this that makes sense is that the argument is without merit. I’m not going to discuss the actual merits of the legal arguments in the opinion, because they are so bizarre and disjointed that even trying to describe them would require a Pepe Silvia-sized conspiracy board. Like the previous case, both the facts and the legal posture of the case change constantly, with seemingly no rhyme or reason.

The third one…oh boy. First, large portions of the “opinion” are individual paragraphs with quotations around the whole paragraph. What’s happening there? As far as the content of the opinion itself - I can’t. I mean that, I literally can’t. What is being discussed seems to change from paragraph to paragraph, much of it contradicting. It makes the first case seem linear and rational by comparison. The court finds it doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over the defendant so dismisses the case based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction? But also the defendant hasn’t contested jurisdiction? And also the court does hold that it has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the defendant? And then it denies the motion to dismiss the case? Also, at one point it cites itself?

…also, even if this was a real case, it doesn’t stand for the propositions the plaintiff cited it for in their opposition? I’m not going to go into the weeds (honestly it’s so hallucinatory I’m not sure I could if I tried), but, for example, the plaintiff’s reply brief states that the court held “that the plaintiff was not required to bring their claim in federal court.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a federal court, and there is no discussion of any filings in state courts. The closest the “opinion” comes is with the statement, “Therefore, Petersen’s argument that the state courts of Washington have concurrent jurisdiction is unavailing.” (This statement appears to be completely disconnected from anything before or after it, so I am unsure what it is supposed to mean.)

Moving on, case number four is allegedly a decision by the Court of Appeals of Texas. It includes the following line:

Honestly, the plaintiff’s attorney best defense at this point is that he wasn’t intentionally trying to mislead the court, because if he was doing this on purpose, he would have edited the cases to make them slightly more believable. (Context in case you’ve lost track: these documents are supposed to be copies of the opinions he is citing. The screenshoted line makes it clear that what he is actually citing is, at best, someone else’s summary of an "opinion". It would be like if a teacher asked a student to photocopy a chapter of a book and bring it into class, and instead the student brought in a copy of the cliffs notes summary of that chapter. Except that the book doesn’t even exist.)

The actual contents of the “opinion” are, as is now standard, absolutely bonkers. First, the court decides that it doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over Delta because “Delta did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits of conducting business in Texas.” This was despite the fact that the factual background already included that the appellant (sorry, the plaintiff, according to the “opinion”) flew on a Delta flight originating in Texas. Like, this is just wrong? It’s not even hallucinatory nonsense, it’s just facially incorrect legal analysis. Then the court starts discussing the treaty’s time bar, for some reason? Then it goes back to talking about personal jurisdiction, but now the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the appellate court agrees with the trial court that it does have personal jurisdiction, even though this is the plaintiff’s appeal from the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and the court already ruled it didn’t have personal jurisdiction? And even though on page 1, the plaintiff was injured during a flight from Texas to California, now on page 7 she was injured on a flight from Shanghai to Texas? Also the trial court has gone back in time (again) to grant the motion to dismiss that it previously denied?

Also, I’ve been trying to avoid pointing out the wonky text of these submissions, but:

Everything ok there?

Case number five is similar enough to number four that it’s not worth repeating myself.

Thank god, cases six and eight, as noted above, are real cases, so I’m going to skip them. The defendant alleges that the cases do not stand for the propositions the plaintiff cited them for, and I’m going to assume that is true, given the rest of this nonsense.

Case number seven looks legitimate on the surface. But neither the defendant nor I could find the case through any legitimate search mechanisms. The defendant looked up the purported docket numbers on PACER and found completely different cases; I was able to find a case with the name “Miller v. United Airlines, Inc.,” but it was for a different Ms. Miller, it was a California state case (not a Second Circuit federal case), it was decided on a different year, and the substance of the case was entirely different from the alleged opinion filed with the court.

On top of that, this might be the most morally reprehensible fake citation of them all? Because it is about the crash of United Airlines Flight 585, a real plane crash. Everyone on board - 25 people in total - was killed. 

The individual cited in this fake court case was not one of them.

I cannot imagine conducting myself in such a way where I would have to explain to a judge that I made up a fake case exploiting a real tragedy because I couldn’t be bothered to do actual legal research.

Now, I know you all have figured out what’s going on by now. And I want you to know that if your instincts are saying, “it seems like the lawyer should have just fallen on his sword and confessed that he relied on ChatGPT to write his original brief, rather than digging himself further into this hole”? Your instincts are absolutely correct.

Because obviously, the court was having none of this b.s. On May 4th, the court issued an order, beginning with the following sentence:

That is one of the worst possible opening sentences you can see in an order by the court in a situation like this. The only thing worse is when judges start quoting classic literature. If I was Mr. Peter LoDuca, counsel for the plaintiff, I would already be shitting my pants.

“I gave you an opportunity to either clear things up or come clean. Now I’m going to give you an opportunity to show why I should only come down on you like a pile of brinks, instead of a whole building.”

We are getting dangerously close to “quoting classic lit” territory here.

If I learned that the judge in my case called up the clerk of a circuit court just to confirm how full of shit I was, I would leave the legal profession forever. Also, the judge is now also putting quotes around “opinion.” When judges start getting openly sarcastic in their briefs, that means very very bad things are about to happen to someone.

So I’m guessing the delay between this filing and the court order was because the judge’s clerk was tasked with running down every single one of the additional fake citations included in the "opinions", just to make this sure this order (and the upcoming pile of bricks) are as thorough as possible.

If you are following along with Dracula Daily, the vibe here is roughly the same as the May 19th entry where Dracula demands Jonathan Harker write and pre-date letters stating he has left the castle and is on the way home.

Also, hey, what’s that footnote?

Wait, what?

Folks, it appears we may have notary fraud, on top of everything else! Anybody have bingo?

So on May 25, one day before the deadline, Mr. LoDuca filed his response. And oh boy, I hope ya’ll are ready for this.

Hey, what’s the name of that other attorney, “Steven Schwartz”? Where have I seen that name before…

...I ran out of room for images on this post. So I'm going to have to leave this as an accidental cliffhanger. Part 2 to follow once I refresh my tea.

[eretzyisrael]

by Amelie Botbol

Pretoria serves as a “crucial base of operations” for Islamic terror groups, according to a soon-to-be released report by the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy.

The report’s publication comes in the wake of the International Court of Justice’s latest ruling against Israel’s military offensive in Rafah, in a case brought before the court by South Africa.

On Friday, the court ruled by 13 to 2 that the Jewish state must “immediately halt its military offensive, and any other action in the Rafah Governorate, which may inflict on the Palestinian group in Gaza conditions of life that could bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

“The ICJ’s ruling is a stark reminder that South Africa has become a hub for extremist activities across the African continent,” said ISGAP Executive Director Charles Asher Small. 

“South Africa embraces antisemitic ideologies, supports state-sponsored terror, maintains close ties with and acts on behalf of Iran, Qatar and Hamas,” he added. 

According to ISGAP’s report, Pretoria serves as a “crucial base of operations for Islamic terror groups, facilitating connections with networks throughout Africa.”

The report states that “despite long-standing U.S. sanctions, international Islamist entities with terror links continue to operate freely within South Africa, evading global scrutiny.” 

It argues that the “Financial Action Task Force (FATF) [which leads global action to tackle money laundering, terrorist and proliferation financing] noted South Africa’s failure to effectively identify, investigate, or prosecute terrorist financiers, revealing critical gaps in its anti-terrorism financing measures.”

Addressing Pretoria’s governing party, the report claims that “the African National Congress (ANC) maintains close relationships with Qatar, Iran and terror groups like Hamas.”

The report also highlights “the possibility that Iran funded South Africa’s ANC party in exchange for favorable outcomes in ICJ cases, especially since the ANC’s sudden financial stabilization in early January 2024, after years teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, remains shrouded in mystery and devoid of any detailed explanation.”

According to Small, “South Africa has become a leading voice for terror. By bringing this case against Israel and in favor of Hamas, South Africa further positions itself as a bad actor on the global stage.”

The time has come for the international community “to recognize and address South Africa’s alarming connections with terror-supporting states and entities,” he added.

ISGAP is an international organization that works on mapping, decoding and combatting contemporary antisemitism. 

Earlier this year, Small told JNS that the South African government was acting in complete opposition with South Africa’s freedom charter and  Nelson Mandela’s vision of democracy by embracing the Iranian revolutionary regime, Qatar and Hamas.

“For the ANC and the South African government of 2024, which inherited the work of Nelson Mandela, Oliver Tambo and Walter Sisulu among others who sacrificed their lives for social democracy, to be in bed with Hamas, the Iranian revolutionary regime and the Qatari Muslim Brotherhood regime is an affront to the South African people,” he said. 

“For Pretoria’s ruling party, the corrupt party of 2024, to be in bed with the disciples of true apartheid, true Nazism and true racism, to invite Hamas after they committed a racist massacre based on the ideology of Nazism and Fascism of Europe, is an affront to what the ANC is supposed to represent,” he added. 

[ausetkmt]

At President Trump's rally in Tampa last week, a familiar face made it back in the national news. Maurice Symonette, also known as Michael the Black Man, was front and center in a crowd hurling invective at CNN reporter Jim Acosta, waving a "Blacks for Trump" sign.

Symonette has been a regular at Trump rallies all over Florida and as far away as Arizona. Just last month, he popped up at the U.S. border to appear in a video with disgraced sheriff-turned-pardoned-Senate-candidate Joe Arpaio.

All that national exposure raises an obvious question: Who is paying the bills for Symonette, a former member of Miami's murderous Yahweh ben Yahweh cult, to represent "Blacks for Trump" at Trump rallies? 

Since Blacks for Trump isn't a registered political organization with the Florida Division of Elections or the Federal Election Commission, there are no public records of any donations funding the group's operations.

It seems unlikely Symonette is fronting the cash for his travel himself because he filed for bankruptcy this past May. In federal court records, he reports that he's unemployed, generates no income, and has $0 in the bank. He also says four banks have staked claims on $2.9 million worth of property around Dade County. 

So how is he getting to Arizona and Tampa to stand behind Trump on national TV?  Reached on his cell phone, Symonette declined to discuss his group's financing. "You guys are horrible racists," he said. "You are lawbreakers and you're mean... God is going to punish you horribly."

Throughout the '80s, Symonette — then known as Maurice Woodside — was a devoted follower of Yahweh ben Yahweh, a charismatic preacher who wore white robes and called himself the Messiah.

Federal prosecutors later accused Yahweh, whose real name was Hulon Mitchell Jr., of ordering his followers to murder at least 14 people, including random white vagrants who were massacred as an initiation rite.

Symonette was charged in federal court along with Mitchell and 15 other followers in 1990; while the cult's leader was later convicted of 14 charges of murder conspiracy and served nearly two decades in prison, Symonette and six other cult members were acquitted.

In the decades since, Symonette has been charged with crimes including grand theft auto, carrying a weapon onto an airplane, and threatening a police officer, but has never been convicted. (He does have a pending case on a municipal ordinance charge in Hollywood after police showed up to a really loud party he threw.)

Since Trump's election, Symonette has carved out an unlikely new niche as one of President Trump's most visible African-American supporters. He has a knack for getting prime placement directly behind Trump and has handed out hundreds of his "Blacks for Trump" signs.

They advertise his website, which is full of conspiracy theories about Cherokees running the U.S. banking system. (Really.)

Symonette was even featured at a Miami Trump rally that prosecutors later alleged had been funded by Russian nationals looking to disrupt the election.

Symonette filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on May 16, listing Washington Mutual, Homecomings Financial, HSBC Bank, and Indymac Bank as his creditors; each institution laid claim to one of four houses. Three are in North Miami-Dade County, and one is near Kendall.

In court docs, his only listed assets are clothing, watches, various household items, and a pool table. He does say that his live-in girlfriend, whom he doesn't identify by name, provides him with $2,000 per month.

Could that money from his significant other cover Blacks for Trump's various trips around the country to support the president on TV? Symonette wouldn't discuss that with a New Times reporter. 

Instead, he spoke at length about his belief that the banking system is corrupt. He added that "Trump being the president is the greatest blessing we have ever had."

In his bankruptcy case, he's repeated those allegations about the banking system being crooked to Judge Laurel M. Isicoff. He's also repeatedly sought to change hearings that overlapped with Trump events. Symonette suggested the scheduling conflicts are a sinister plot to keep him away from the spotlight at Trump rallies.

"Creditors know that I have a rally in Arizona on July 25 and deliberately set the hearing on that date to cause me and my musical band to miss the performance and the rally with the bus we rented," he wrote in a motion filed the same morning as the Phoenix rally. "The creditors overheard that at the house we are disputing... and set that hearing on the same date just to harm me."

That motion was denied, as was another he filed on July 30, just before Trump's Tampa rally. "As founder of Blacks for Trump, (I) have rented vans to go to Trump's rally. We need to make the country aware how the banks (FOREIGNERS FROM THE EAST) are illegally taking WHITE AND BLACK PEOPLE'S houses away."

Maurice Symonette's story is baffling, to put it mildly. Symonette, who also goes by the name Michael the Black Man, somehow went from being part of the murderous Yahweh ben Yahweh cult to getting acquitted of murder charges himself to being a staple at Donald Trump's presidential rallies all over the country. Even among the rogue's gallery of rodeo clowns and Bond villains who make up Trump's core cadre of supporters, Symonette might legitimately be the weirdest person hovering around Trumpworld

.

After Michael the Black Man turned up at a Tampa-area Trump rally last week and led anti-press chants, it's worth taking note of all the bizarre places he's materialized since becoming a prominent Trump supporter:

1. At the original October 2016 Trump rally where he first popped up on TV:

Conservative Twitter is abuzz this afternoon with a trending hashtag: #BlacksForTrump. The spark is clear: Thousands have retweeted photos from Trump's rally in Lakeland, Florida, this afternoon showing a small group standing directly behind the Donald while enthusiastically waving "Blacks for Trump" signs. "Blacks are for Trump and the left can't stand it," writes @LawlessPirate, with another pic of the sign-waving man wearing a shirt reading "Trump & Republicans Are Not Racist." So who is this new face of Trump's elusive black support? He's none other than Michael the Black Man, also known as Maurice Woodside or Michael Symonette, who has made waves in Miami in recent years with protests against the Democratic Party and rallies for the GOP. He's also a former member of the murderous Yahweh ben Yahweh cult, which was led by the charismatic preacher Hulon Mitchell Jr., who was charged by the feds in 1990 with conspiracy in killings that included a gruesome beheading in the Everglades. Michael, along with 15 other Yahweh followers, was charged for allegedly conspiring in two murders; his brother, who was also in the cult, told jurors that Michael had helped beat one man who was later killed and stuck a sharpened stick into another man's eyeball. But jurors found Michael (and six other Yahweh followers) innocent. They sent Mitchell away for 20 years in the federal pen. In the years that followed, Michael changed his last name to Symonette, made a career as a musician, started a radio station in Miami, and then reinvented himself as Michael the Black Man, an anti-gay, anti-liberal preacher with a golden instinct for getting on TV at GOP events. He's planned events with Rick Santorum and gotten cable news play for bashing Obama. Since 1997, he's been charged with grand theft auto, carrying a weapon onto an airplane and threatening a police officer, but never convicted in any of those cases. 

2. At a Trump rally in Bayfront Park in Miami just before the election: 3. At a rally allegedly organized with the help of Russian agents:

A federal grand jury filed charges against 13 Russian nationals [in February 2018] for allegedly stealing identities, wiring money overseas, and staging a small series of flash mobs to help tip the 2016 election in Donald Trump's favor. It's unclear whether the social media campaign had any actual impact on voting, but the FBI alleges Russian money indeed affected one small group of Miamians who unknowingly used Russian cash to pay for supplies for an unnamed rally the September before the presidential election. There still seem to be online traces of that Moscow-funded rally. Only one publicized, pro-Trump rally appears to have taken place in the Miami area — #LatinosConTrump in Doral at 1 p.m. September 11, 2016. The event was pitched as an "anti-media" protest outside the town's Univision offices. The national group Latinos With Trump created flyers for the rally and noted that virtually all of Miami's most prominent pro-Trump groups — Cubans 4 Trump, Hispanas for Trump, Latinas for Trump, and the official Miami Trump Volunteers — would attend.

4. At a 2017 Trump rally in Phoenix, per the Washington Post:

And so it was Tuesday night before a crowd of Trump supporters in Phoenix who had come to watch another show. There was the president, whipping up the wildly cheering crowd, and then there was Michael the Black Man, chanting just beyond Trump’s right shoulder in that trademark T-shirt. The presence of Michael — variously known as Michael Symonette, Maurice Woodside and Mikael Israel — has inspired not only trending Twitter hashtags but a great deal of curiosity and Google searches. Internet sleuths find the man’s bizarre URL, an easily accessible gateway to his strange and checkered past. The radical fringe activist from Miami once belonged to a violent black supremacist religious cult, and he runs a handful of amateur, unintelligible conspiracy websites. He has called Barack Obama “The Beast” and Hillary Clinton a Ku Klux Klan member. Oprah Winfrey, he says, is the devil. Most curiously, in the 1990s, he was charged, then acquitted, with conspiracy to commit two murders.

5. With noted racist Sheriff Joe Arpaio at the U.S.-Mexico border just last week:

Via our sister paper Phoenix New Times:

Former sheriff Joe Arpaio filmed a video at the U.S.-Mexico border with a former Florida cult member who goes by the name Michael the Black Man. In the video posted on Thursday, Michael has his arm around Arpaio as the ousted former sheriff promotes his improbable race for Arizona's open Senate seat during a visit to the border fence in Naco, Arizona. Michael was a follower of the Yahweh ben Yahweh cult, a black-supremacist religious sect in Florida. In 1990, the feds charged Michael and over a dozen fellow cult members with conspiracy related to brutal murders in Florida. Alongside Arpaio and Michael in the video is an independent Senate candidate in Massachusetts, Shiva Ayyadurai, who shared the live video on Twitter. Born in India, Ayyadurai is a scientist and MIT graduate who claims that he invented email. He began his Senate campaign as a Republican before switching to run as an independent. Ayyadurai’s campaign uses the slogan, “Defeat #FakeIndian Elizabeth Warren,” as a derogatory jab at his Democratic opponent. “First of all, I’m from Massachusetts, so of course I’m supporting this great guy,” Arpaio says of Ayyadurai in the video. “He’s gonna win.” Michael says, “We’re at the border right here, between Arizona and Mexico.” He turns to Arpaio to ask if he has anything to say to the camera. The aging former sheriff brings up his law enforcement background. “It’s great to see the border again; I haven’t seen it in a while,” Arpaio says. 

If you've got any info on who's paying Symonette's travel bills to Trump rallies, email [email protected] or [email protected]

For a second, Donald Trump seemed to be backing off his vitriolic attacks on the free press. After five journalists were massacred at the Annapolis Capital Gazette, Trump briefly toned down his slurs. He even invited New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzburger to the White House to clear the air. But it didn't last.

Trump quickly returned to his Stalinist, enemies-of-the-people label for journalists and then lied about his meeting with Sulzburger to insist that truthful reporting is "fake news." Those insults have a real effect, and that fact was never frighteningly clearer than at Trump's rally last night in Tampa, where an unhinged-looking mob screamed insults and waved middle fingers at journalists, particularly CNN's chief White House correspondent, Jim Acosta.

The scene left many political watchers deeply shaken, including Acosta:

Just a sample of the sad scene we faced at the Trump rally in Tampa. I’m very worried that the hostility whipped up by Trump and some in conservative media will result in somebody getting hurt. We should not treat our fellow Americans this way. The press is not the enemy. pic.twitter.com/IhSRw5Ui3R— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) August 1, 2018

But most national press watchers didn't notice who was right at the center of that mob hurling invective at Acosta and his colleagues: Yep, it was Michael the Black Man, AKA Maurice Symonette, a former member of Miami's murderous Yahweh ben Yawheh cult who once faced charges of conspiring in the group's murders.

That's him with his instantly recognizable "Blacks for Trump" sign:

.@Acosta is trying to do a stand-up at #trumptampa and the crowd is booing and chanting “CNN sucks” behind him. pic.twitter.com/XiULajB1Li— Emily L. Mahoney (@mahoneysthename) July 31, 2018

Symonette has been a mainstay at Florida Trump rallies and over the past year has popped up at other Trump-linked events around the nation. Just last week, he flew to Arizona to film a video at the border with disgraced former sheriff Joe Arpaio. Trump's staff regularly gives Symonette front-and-center seats where he waves his black-and-white sign on national television.

Here's some background on Symonette from New Times' earlier reporting on him:

He's also a former member of the murderous Yahweh ben Yahweh cult, which was led by the charismatic preacher Hulon Mitchell Jr., who was charged by the feds in 1990 with conspiracy in killings that included a gruesome beheading in the Everglades. Michael, along with 15 other Yahweh followers, was charged for allegedly conspiring in two murders; his brother, who was also in the cult, told jurors that Michael had helped beat one man who was later killed and stuck a sharpened stick into another man's eyeball. But jurors found Michael (and six other Yahweh followers) innocent. They sent Mitchell away for 20 years in the federal pen. In the years that followed, he changed his last name to Symonette, made a career as a musician, started a radio station in Miami and then re-invented himself as Michael the Black Man, an anti-gay, anti-liberal preacher with a golden instinct for getting on TV at GOP events. He's planned events with Rick Santorum and gotten cable news play for bashing Obama. Since 1997, he's been charged with grand theft auto, carrying a weapon onto an airplane and threatening a police officer, but never convicted in any of those cases. 

In other words, he's exactly the kind of guy you might not want to drive into a blind rage at journalists who are just trying to do their jobs. Yet there he was in Tampa, right in the middle of the crowd screaming at Acosta — who, incidentally, took time to talk to the crowds who were so angry with him:

After each live shot, @Acosta would walk down and politely talk to the people who just heckled him. He talked to one group for at least 15 minutes. pic.twitter.com/J26nlxfD6k— Christopher Heath (@CHeathWFTV) August 1, 2018

There are two safe bets on this topic going forward: Trump won't stop throwing insults at the media, and wherever the president is whipping up that anger, Michael the Black Man will probably be there with his signs, happily taking the bait.

[allthegeopolitics]

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has asked a U.S. judge to convert his bankruptcy into a Chapter 7 liquidation, a move that would kick-start the selling off of his assets, including his stake in Free Speech Systems, the parent company of Infowars, in an effort to pay off the Sandy Hook settlement. Jones is on the hook for a massive US$1.5-billion legal settlement owed to the families of Sandy Hook victims after they sued him for defamation. Jones claimed for years on his Infowars website that the 2o12 Sandy Hook school shooting, which killed 20 students and six staff members, was pulled off by crisis actors as part of a plot to seize Americans’ guns. Jones has since acknowledged that the massacre was real. Two years after courts in Texas and Connecticut found Jones liable for defamation and emotional distress, the families of Sandy Hook victims still have not seen a single cent of the settlement they’re owed. Jones filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy shortly after the settlements were awarded, which allowed him to retain control of his assets while working to restructure his debt.

Continue Reading

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Bed Bath & Beyond is closing all stores in Canada according to a court filing on Friday.

This comes only two days after the U.S. division announced that they'd raised enough money to avert bankruptcy.

According to the court filing posted on the website of consultancy firm Alvarez & Marsal, it states that "The Bed Bath & Beyond Group has been in financial difficulty for the past several years, suffering significant net losses since 2018."

The filing goes on to note that despite efforts to improve financial performance, the pandemic and the current economic downturn disrupted operations and put them in a financial strain.

Bed Bath & Beyond Canada is apparently not profitable on a standalone basis, and is not able to pay off their debts.

The company will be liquidating all 54 Bed Bath & Beyond stores in Canada and terminating its 387 full-time and 1,038 part-time employees.

Its sister store buybuy BABY Canada will also be ceasing operations.

Continue Reading.

Tagging: @politicsofcanada

[cheekedupwhiteboy]

After about four years, the average credit score declines by about 0.3%. This negative effect is stronger for the Online Access treatment. During the same time window, the average credit score drops by nearly 1% for online gambling, or close to three times the decline we observe for overall access to sports gambling. These results suggest that online access is heavily driving financial stress caused by LSG [...] Three to four years after the legalization of online sports gambling, we observe that the likelihood of bankruptcy filing increases by as much as 25-30% when compared to pre-treatment levels. [...] Overall, we find that the legalization of sports gambling decreased consumer financial health. These results seem to be particularly pronounced when states legalize online betting, suggesting that the ease of access to gambling increases the problems associated with it. Moreover, we find that young men, particularly those in low-income counties, are most affected.

[strictlyfavorites]

Quit trashing Obama's accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him. Here is a list of his impressive accomplishments:

1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.

2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.

6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.

9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.

14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.

15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

26. First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.

27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

29. First President to go on multiple "global apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours.

30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).

36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences."

37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

[snickers-the-fluffy-boi]

Abusive Sexual Contact

Advocating Overthrow of Government

Aggravated Assault/Battery

Aggravated Identity Theft

Aggravated Sexual Abuse

Aiming a Laser Pointer at an Aircraft

Airplane Hijacking

Anti-racketeering

Antitrust

Armed Robbery

Arson

Assassination

Assault with a Deadly Weapon

Assaulting or Killing Federal Officer

Assisting or Instigating Escape

Attempt to commit Murder/Manslaughter

Bank Burglary

Bankruptcy Fraud/Embezzlement

Bank Larceny

Bank Robbery

Blackmail

Bombing Matters

Bond Default

Breaking and/or Entering Carrier Facilities

Bribery Crimes

Certification of Checks (Fraud)

Child Abuse

Child Exploitation

Child Pornography

Civil Action to Restrain Harassment of a Victim or Witness

Coercion

Commodities Price Fixing

Computer Crime

Concealing Escaped Prisoner

Concealing Person from Arrest

Concealment of Assets

Conspiracy (in matters under FBI jurisdiction)

Conspiracy to Impede or Injure an Officer

Contempt of Court

Continuing Criminal Enterprise

Conveying False Information

Copyright Matters

Counterfeiting

Counterintelligence Crimes

Credit/Debit Card Fraud

Crime Aboard Aircraft

Crimes on Government Reservations

Crimes on Indian Reservations

Criminal Contempt of Court

Criminal Forfeiture

Criminal Infringement of a Copyright

Cyber Crimes

Damage to Religious Property

Delivery to Consignee

Demands Against the U.S.

Destruction of Aircraft or Motor Vehicles Used in Foreign Commerce

Destruction of an Energy Facility

Destruction of Property to Prevent Seizure

Destruction of Records in Federal Investigations and Bankruptcy

Destruction of Corporate Audit Records

Destruction of Veterans’ Memorials

Detention of Armed Vessel

Disclosure of Confidential Information

Domestic Security

Domestic Terrorism

Domestic Violence

Drive-by Shooting

Drug Abuse Violations

Drug Smuggling

Drug Trafficking

DUI/DWI on Federal Property

Economic Espionage

Election Law Crimes

Embezzlement

Embezzlement Against Estate

Entering Train to Commit Crime

Enlistment to Serve Against the U.S.

Environmental Scheme Crimes

Escaping Custody/Escaped Federal Prisoners

Examiner Performing Other Services

Exportation of Drugs

Extortion

Failure to Appear on Felony Offense

Failure to Pay Legal Child Support Obligations

False Bail

False Pretenses

False Statements Relating to Health Care Matters

Falsely Claiming Citizenship

False Declarations before Grand Jury or Court

False Entries in Records of Interstate Carriers

False Information and Hoaxes

False Statement to Obtain Unemployment Compensation

Federal Aviation Act

Federal Civil Rights Violations (hate crimes, police misconduct)

Female Genital Mutilation

Financial Transactions with Foreign Government

First Degree Murder

Flight to Avoid Prosecution or Giving Testimony

Forced Labor

Forcible Rape

Forgery

Fraud Activity in Connection with Electronic Mail

Fraud Against the Government

Genocide

Hacking Crimes

Harboring Terrorists

Harming Animals Used in Law Enforcement

Hate Crime Acts

Homicide

Hostage Taking

Identity Theft

Illegal Possession of Firearms

Immigration Offenses

Impersonator Making Arrest or Search

Importation of Drugs

Influencing Juror by Writing

Injuring Officer

Insider Trading Crimes

Insurance Fraud

Interference with the Operation of a Satellite

International Parental Kidnapping

International Terrorism

Interstate Domestic Violence

Interstate Violation of Protection Order

Larceny

Lobbying with Appropriated Moneys

Mailing Threatening Communications

Major Fraud Against the U.S.

Manslaughter

Medical/Health Care Fraud

Missile Systems Designed to Destroy Aircraft

Misuse of Passport

Misuse of Visas, Permits, or Other Documents

Molestation

Money Laundering

Motor Vehicle Theft

Murder by a Federal Prisoner

Murder Committed During Drug-related Drive-by shooting

Murder Committed in Federal Government Facility

Narcotics Violations

Obstructing Examination of Financial Institution

Obstruction of Court Orders

Obstruction of Federal audit

Obstruction of Justice

Obstruction of Criminal Investigations

Officer Failing to Make Reports

Partial Birth Abortion

Penalties for Neglect or Refusal to Answer Subpoena

Peonage

Perjury

Picketing or Parading

Pirating

Possession by Restricted Persons

Possession of False Papers to Defraud the U.S.

Possession of Narcotics

Possession of Child Pornography

Private Correspondence with Foreign Government

Probation Violation

Product Tampering

Prohibition of Illegal Gambling Businesses

Prostitution

Protection of Foreign Officials

Public Corruption Crimes

Racketeering

Radiological Dispersal Devices

Ransom Money

Rape

Receiving the Proceeds of Extortion

Recording or Listening to Grand or Petit Juries While Deliberating

Reentry of an Alien Removed on National Security Grounds

Registration of Certain Organizations

Reproduction of Citizenship Papers

Resistance to Extradition Agent

Rescue of Seized Property

Retaliating Against a Federal Judge by False Claim or Slander of Title

Retaliating Against a Witness, Victim, or an Informant

Robbery

Robberies and Burglaries Involving Controlled Substances

Sabotage

Sale of Citizenship Papers

Sale of Stolen Vehicles

Searches Without Warrant

Second Degree Murder

Serial Murders

Sexual Abuse

Sexual Abuse of a Minor

Sexual Assault

Sexual Battery

Sexual Conduct with a Minor

Sexual Exploitation

Sex Trafficking

Shoplifting

Smuggling

Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence

Stalking (In Violation of Restraining Order)

Stolen Property; Buying, Receiving, or Possessing

Subornation of Perjury

Suits Against Government Officials

Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or Informant

Tampering with Consumer Products

Tampering with Vessels

Theft of Trade Secrets

Torture

Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods or Services

Transmission of Wagering Information (Gambling)

Transportation into State Prohibiting Sale

Transportation of Slaves from U.S.

Transportation of Stolen Vehicles

Transportation of Terrorists

Trespassing

Treason

Unauthorized Removal of Classified Documents

Use of Fire or Explosives to Destroy Property

Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Vandalism

Video Voyeurism

Violation of Prohibitions Governing Atomic Weapons

Violence at International airports

Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Activity

Willful Wrecking of a Train Resulting in Death

Wire Fraud

That’s the list of all of my crimes

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

May 24th, 2022 was awards day at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. Fourth grader Mayah Zamora won three of them – in math, robotics, and for making the honor roll. Not long after the ceremony, an 18 year-old walked into the school with an AR-15 style Daniel Defense rifle and started shooting.

Nineteen children and two teachers were killed. Zamora was airlifted to the hospital and has had more than sixty surgeries in the year since. Zamora's mom, Christina, says her daughter had been a fearless child before the shooting.

"Mayah shows a fear of this world that she had never shown before," she says. "Someone unexpectedly knocking on the door is a scary trigger for her."

Last year, the Zamoras became the second family to file a lawsuit against law enforcement, the school district, the gun store, and the maker of the weapon, Georgia-based Daniel Defense.

Federal law protects the firearms industry from lawsuits if their products are misused. But the law has exceptions, and the lawsuits allege that Daniel Defense can be held liable for what happened because of how they market their products.

"We need to speak up, for our daughter, for our family, for children in the future, maybe this will make a change," Christina Zamora says. "Nineteen children died. They were massacred. By an 18-year old boy. There's something wrong there."

In 2005, Congress granted broad immunity to gun manufacturers. But some legal experts believe exceptions allow gunmakers to be held partially responsible for these mass shootings if they deceptively marketed their products in violation of the law.

Georgia State University Law Professor Timothy Lytton, an expert on health and safety regulation, says Daniel Defense is notorious for its provocative marketing.

The lawsuits argue that the company violated federal trade law by unfairly marketing its products to civilians as tools for offensive, military-style operations.

"And they also allege that the placement of this AR-15 style weapon in video games allowed young men in particular to fantasize about use of this weapon in a way that would simulate the kind of violence that we saw in Uvalde," Lytton says.

After the Sandy Hook school shooting, some families of the victims made a similar argument in the Connecticut courts against the gunmaker Remington, which was in bankruptcy. And while the families won a seventy-three million dollar payment, it didn't create a sea change.

"It's not like a manufacturer came to the table and said, 'We admit liability here for the carelessness of our marketing practices.' This was a bankruptcy in which bankruptcy creditors paid out in order to get the company back into business," Lytton says.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case on appeal. So while gun control supporters cheered the settlement, the litigation left many legal questions unresolved. One big question is whether violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act even apply to the exceptions allowed under that sweeping immunity law. As a result, the Uvalde lawsuits against Daniel Defense could be the biggest test yet of the extent of the firearms industry's liability protections.

The cases have been filed in federal court in Texas, with the help of Everytown Law, an arm of the group Everytown for Gun Safety.

Daniel Defense didn't respond to an interview request, but has called the lawsuit politically-motivated and legally unfounded.

Mark Oliva is managing director of public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms industry.

"Trying to sue a firearm manufacturer for the crimes committed by a remote third party would be the same thing as trying to sue Ford and Annhauser Bush for the deaths caused by drunk driving," Oliva says.

Even if the Uvalde cases clears the stringent immunity law and are allowed a trial, the courts would still have to consider another set of thorny questions, like whether the company's marketing is protected by the first amendment.

But Lytton says whatever happens, these liability cases put more focus on gunmakers.

"You only need one or two lawsuits to win to transform the whole industry," Lytton says. "If it got planted in Connecticut, and it flowers in Uvalde, that might be enough. And if it never takes root there, it's likely to pop up in Chicago. Or California."

Some states are passing laws that would make it easier to file these suits against gunmakers, but Oliva says the industry is pushing back.

"Are we going to bend to the idea that we're going to suffer death by a thousand cuts? I think your answer to that is we're challenging the law in New York. We're challenging the law in New Jersey. We're challenging the law in Delaware," Oliva says.

Back in Texas, the Zamoras want to make Wednesday's anniversary as normal a day as they can. Right now, they're focused on their daughter's recovery.

But they hope accountability will come, too.

[kaiyonohime]

Update in the Sherry Tenney case!

If you don't know who the scam artist Sherry Tenney is, here is my pinned post about her.

[The Bureau of Consumer Protection is writing to update you concerning the consumer complaint you filed against Tenney’s Fiber Farm, LLC (the “Company”) and the above-referenced litigation.

As you may know, Sherry Tenney has filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania under Case Number 1:23-bk-02752-HWV.

If you have not done so already, you may wish to file a proof of claim form in the bankruptcy. A proof of claim form may be filed either electronically or as a paper document. The Bankruptcy Court has set a deadline of February 12, 2024 for creditors to file proofs of claim. To assist you in that matter, we have enclosed a blank proof of claim form for you to complete and submit to the bankruptcy court.

Please send the completed proof of claim form to:

Sylvia H. Rambo US Courthouse U.S. Bankruptcy Court 1501 N. 6th St. Harrisburg, PA 17102

Please be advised, our office cannot offer you legal advice. You should consult with a private attorney to ensure that your rights are preserved in the bankruptcy proceedings.

Very truly yours,

Mia Paone Consumer Protection Agent]

If Sherry Tenney owes you money, please file immediately!

Sherry Tenney's next court date is February 1st, 2024. So she could be trying to get ahead of a verdict. I have a feeling, given everything that's come out in discovery, that the judge is going to throw the book at her. She also owes nearly $80k in legal fees at this point, and with no income and no job, she's probably stiffing her lawyer too.

And, as always, a trapped wolf can still bite, so please avoid her at all costs. She is still bragging about being armed and dangerous.

[dertaglichedan]

Tupperware files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after 78 years as it lifts the lid on where it went wrong

Tupperware, the iconic American brand known the world over for its plastic food containers, officially filed for bankruptcy protection in Delaware.

The 78-year-old company has been battling for years to revive its fortunes amid debts of more than $700 million.

Its sales slumped in recent years as the company struggled to place more of its products in retail stores and online sales platforms.

The company said in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing that consumers shifting away from direct sales, which make up the vast majority of its sales more than a quarter-century after the first Tupperware parties, has hit the storied business hard.

'Nearly everyone now knows what Tupperware is, but fewer people know where to find it,' Tupperware Chief Restructuring Officer Brian Fox wrote in a court filing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. 

[tieflingkisser]

Judge: Police dog attack didn’t violate woman’s rights

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — A “horrendous” police dog attack that severely wounded a pregnant Indianapolis woman did not violate her constitutional rights because she wasn’t the dog’s intended target, a federal judge has ruled. U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt found last week that while Mara Mancini suffered “horrendous injuries” in the July 2015 attack, she was an “unintended bystander” and no force was intentionally directed at her, so there was no violation of her Fourth Amendment rights, The Indianapolis Star reported . Mancini was seven months pregnant when she heard a commotion outside and stepped onto her front porch to investigate. A police dog pursuing a male suspect in her neighborhood attacked Mancini, tearing chunks of flesh from her arm and thigh, she told the newspaper.

[...]

Little said surgeons have told his client that the nerve damage to her arm, which has severely impaired its function, is irreparable. He said Mancini will likely have to declare bankruptcy to pay her medical bills without the police department or the city being held responsible for the incident or her damages. Mancini underwent multiple surgeries for her injuries and took painkillers that caused her son to be born with a narcotics addiction that he had to be weaned off over several weeks in neonatal intensive care, according to her suit.

[talkstothemoonandstars]

Alex Jones must pay $1.1 billion of Sandy Hook damages despite bankruptcy - court

NEW YORK (Reuters) -Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones cannot use his personal bankruptcy to escape paying at least $1.1 billion in defamation damages stemming from his repeated lies about the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, a U.S. bankruptcy judge ruled Thursday.

Bankruptcy can be used to wipe out debts and legal judgments, but not if they result from "willful or malicious injury" caused by the debtor, according to a decision by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez in Houston, Texas.

Courts in Connecticut and Texas have already ruled that Jones intentionally defamed relatives of school children killed in the mass shooting, and they have ordered Jones to pay $1.5 billion in damages.

Lopez ruled that more than $1.1 billion of those verdicts, awarded for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, cannot be wiped away in bankruptcy. But he ruled that other parts of the verdicts, including $324 million in attorneys' fees that were awarded as punitive damages in the Connecticut case, could possibly be discharged.

[steelbluehome]

"Actor Stan . . . does a bang-up job capturing Trump’s verbal cadence and tics, his hand gestures and his smirk, which seemed a lot less obvious in the 1970s and ’80s than they are now."

The Toronto Star (click for article)

‘The Apprentice’: A terrific portrait of the man who made Donald Trump a ‘killer’

Peter Howell

May 20, 2024

The Apprentice

3.5 stars (out of 4)

Starring Sebastian Stan, Jeremy Strong, Maria Bakalova and Martin Donovan. Written by Gabriel Sherman. Directed by Ali Abbasi. Premiering at the Cannes Film Festival. 120 minutes.

“Attack, attack, attack!”

That’s the first rule of success laid down by Roy Cohn, the ruthless New York lawyer who takes a young Donald Trump under his wing in Ali Abassi’s terrific “The Apprentice,” one of two Canadian films that made its world-premiere Monday at the Cannes Film Festival. (The other is David Cronenberg’s “The Shrouds.”)

Cohn’s other two rules for winning are “admit nothing, deny everything” and “claim victory and never admit defeat,” slogans that will resonate for decades to come.

The year is 1973. Listening very closely to Cohn’s cocky mantra is future U.S. president Trump (Sebastian Stan), who is 27 and hungry. He’s trying to establish himself as a player in New York real estate so he can get out from under the shadow of his controlling father, business tycoon Fred Trump (Martin Donovan).

Cohn (Jeremy Strong), who looks like a rattlesnake in a suit, is holding court with his henchmen in New York’s ritzy Le Club, which Trump has just joined. He’s introduced to Trump as the lawyer “who got the Rosenbergs the chair,” a reference to the notorious 1953 spy trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

This is music to Trump’s ears; the U.S. Justice Department is accusing him of racial discrimination in his housing rental deals and he needs a take-no-prisoners attorney to fight back. Cohn and Trump become fast allies in what Strong has described in interviews as “a love story.”

So begins a film, and a close relationship that continued until Cohn’s death in 1986, which answers a lot of questions about how Trump became the showboating power seeker he’s known as today. He was the eager pupil of a man who believed, to quote yet another of Cohn’s sayings: “You have to be willing to do anything to anyone to win.”

“The Apprentice” marks the second bid for the Palme d’Or by Iranian-Danish filmmaker Abbasi, who in 2022 debuted in the main Cannes competition with the crime thriller “Holy Spider.”

Actor Stan, best known for playing a brainwashed assassin in the Marvel movie “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” does a bang-up job capturing Trump’s verbal cadence and tics, his hand gestures and his smirk, which seemed a lot less obvious in the 1970s and ’80s than they are now.

His new film, a Canada/Ireland/Denmark co-production shot in Ontario, opens with bold 1970s-style credits and music, and a disclaimer that not everything that follows is based on strict fact. 

The film seems at first to be impressed by Trump and maybe even sympathetic toward him. Mention is made of a New York Times profile that admiringly compares Trump’s tousled hair to that of Robert Redford’s.

Trump has to put up with a lot of verbal abuse from his father, who scorns his son’s plans to build a luxury hotel — which we’ll later know as the landmark Trump Tower — in a dodgy neighbourhood in downtown Manhattan, at a time when New York is on the verge of bankruptcy. 

The tendency is to root for a guy like that, and to cheer him on he meets and aggressively woos his future wife, Ivana (Maria Bakalova of “Borat 2”), a successful model who demands a $100,000 payment before she’ll marry a man she rightly suspects is not to be trusted. 

Cohn, on the other hand, refuses to take money from Trump, saying he values him more as “a friend” — and it’s clear he means the kind of friends that Don Corleone has in “The Godfather.”

It doesn’t take long for Trump’s true colours to emerge as his Faustian deal with Cohn deepens. He begins referring to people as either “killers” or “losers,” and he bullies New York civic leaders to cut him sweetheart tax deals to bankroll his building binge. 

As his confidence builds, so does his swagger and he begins pulling away from Cohn, a closeted gay man who has contracted AIDS (although he denies it), which will ultimately kill him.

Trump also tires of Ivana, cruelly casting her aside following brutal sex that looks anything but consensual on her part.

How much “The Apprentice” is based on strict historical facts is hard to verify.

But none of it is hard to believe — especially a scene near the end where Trump takes credit for the three rules of success quoted above and which he attributes not to Cohn but rather to his own “natural ability.”

[plethoraworldatlas]

A small mountain community in the Peruvian Andes has won a victory that could echo across Latin America.

In a historic ruling, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has charged the Peruvian government with violating its people’s right to a healthy environment by allowing a century-old metal smelter to contaminate the community of La Oroya. In its scathing decision, the Court found that the government “was aware of these high levels of contamination” yet chose not to take appropriate actions to prevent it, “nor to provide care for persons who had acquired diseases” caused by the pollution.

La Oroya is perched over 12,000 feet high in the Andes along the banks of the River Mantaro – a river so polluted with lead and arsenic that one local called it “a dead river.” Huge swaths of the surrounding mountains have been cleaved for mining, and pollution from the smelter has killed much of the area’s vegetation. Yet generations of locals still live here, fighting to maintain their homes and health.

Residents of La Oroya, Peru, photographed in 2008 near the the smelter complex that has made the city one of the most polluted places on earth. (Ernesto Benavides / AFP via Getty)

Since the smelter began operating in 1922, the people of La Oroya have been exposed to extreme levels of lead and other harmful contaminants, including arsenic, cadmium, and sulfur dioxide. At one point, 99% of children under 6 years old in La Oroya tested had lead levels known to cause severe health harms. Many residents suffer from developmental and behavioral disorders, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory illness, and cancer, among many other health issues.

Peruvian researchers and La Oroya locals who tried to disseminate information about the smelter’s toxic impacts were harassed and intimidated. In the absence of government action, the Latin America-based environmental legal group the Inter-American Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), with the support of Earthjustice, began advocating for the people of La Oroya. In 2006, AIDA and Earthjustice, together with other groups, filed a petition against the Peruvian government at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. AIDA and APRODEH, a Peruvian human rights organization, represented families from La Oroya in the proceedings.

In the 15 years it took the complaint to get before the Court, the Peruvian government repeatedly gave the smelter’s owner, Doe Run Peru (a subsidiary of the U.S.-based Renco Group, Inc), free leave to emit massive levels of air pollution that frequently went well beyond Peruvian regulations and World Health Organization standards for air quality. Since the government sold the plant in 1997, Doe Run Peru was given special exemptions from complying with environmental laws until it could install much needed technology to control pollution. Later, despite the company repeatedly failing to install these controls, the government granted extension after extension allowing the company to continue operating and polluting.

Doe Run Peru eventually declared bankruptcy and creditors later sold the smelter to its local workers in La Oroya – potentially transferring its environmental liability onto the people it had poisoned.