Category: The Law

Posted on

SCOTUS Ruling

It’s interesting to me that the SCOTUS ruled against the OSHA Vaccine Mandate but upheld the CMS version.

From what I’ve read thus far, members of the court had concerns about the vague language used in the OSHA version. In the CMS version, it appears they upheld it based on who was providing the money. CMS appears mostly Medicare related and therefore is using public funds.

There’s a lot more to read and I’m waiting for text of the actual ruling.

I suspect that the vague language issue leaves open the possibility for the Biden Administration to tighten up the language and the try to re-implement the OSHA rule.

I also find myself wondering if the SCOTUS ruling opens an entirely different can of worms.

What about those employees who did not want to get the vaccination but who felt the had no choice. Do they now have legal standing to sue their employers? Can they invoke the Nuremberg Code and demand compensation? Will they be able to sue the Biden Administration?

They, by definition were being coerced/threatened into accepting a medical procedure against their will. That’s a pretty clear violation of Nuremberg.

There will be some slimy lawyer that says they don’t have a case because they could submit to weekly testing, wear a mask, maintain social distance, etc. That is more or less true although some companies were saying everyone had to be vaccinated because it was too much work to keep track of testing schedules and results.

It should be interesting to see how that plays out.

I’m waiting to see the rulings before rushing to judgement. However many of the initial news pieces don’t mention any constitutional infringement that the court was concerned about. That concerns me.

If the SCOTUS found nothing constitutionally wrong with the OSHA mandate, then we can be sure that a revised mandate will rear its ugly head once more. I worry that without a constitutional “Stake” to the heart this OSHA mandate will rise from the grave and introduce more chaos into the job market. Companies don’t want to hire if they’re unable to predict which way the wind is blowing.

Year One of Biden has been a study in unintended consequences.

It’s funny. I just realized I’ve seen this before.

I’ve worked for companies that while owned by the founder were profitable and produced good reliable products. Typically, the founder has a clear vision of what products are needed and sticks to that vision. A lot of the founders I’ve known were essentially good folks, but they tended to be plain spoken, to the point of being “mean”. They weren’t mean, they simply had little time or concern for hurt feelings.

I’ve observed what happens to a company when they go public and suddenly you’ve got a board of directors, a bunch of executives given their positions by the board regardless of qualifications, and a bunch of legal red tape designed to protect the investors.

What seems to happen is the company loses focus. You start having “design by committee,” instead of a clear vision of the products. There’s usually a substantial loss of quality and often the executives will take one successful product and modify it iteratively, bolting on a new button or changing the color. They’ll call it “new” and improved. But it’s the same machine or software just with different lipstick.

It’s not uncommon for the founder to quietly bail and then there’s a lot of churn in the executive wing. For employees that’ve been through this process once, they also start looking for the exits.

I’ve been in companies where the new management is so unfamiliar with product or the company that they start hemorrhaging money on things that don’t add value to the actual work being done on the product. (Custom woven carpets for premium office space in an Irvine high-rise come to mind.)

As the company goes further into the red more committees get formed to investigate why the company is showing a loss. The management starts flogging the employees and demanding longer hours, restricting vacations, and of course cheapening the medical plan for the employees. But the executive wing is still getting raises, going on vacations, and getting bonuses. They also have awesome medical coverage.

There’s a point where the brain drain from employees bailing to greener pastures reaches a tipping point. That’s when a high level “Cleaner” executive comes in. This person’s job is to ready the company for immediate sale. The company itself will be shut down and all the patents and intellectual property will be sold to competitors.

Think of it as organ harvesting in the corporate world. It happens all the time! If I was a betting man, Now that Jack Dorsey is out of Twitter, and Jeff Bezos is out of Amazon… We might see either or both cannibalized over the next 10 years. I’d bet that Twitter will go first.

The Biden Administration reminds me a lot of the corporate process. There’s a lack of focus. The administration is trying to address too many pet issues and not considering the consequences. Many of the issues are low level, but because they’re being treated with equal weight to every other issue, nothing is being done well.

Unfortunately, we’re all going to have to suffer through it. It is my sincere hope that America will learn the bitter lesson this time around and choose better candidates for the 2024 Presidential election.

I’m not holding my breath but I have a smidgen of hope nonetheless.

Posted on

I wouldn’t want to be Mark Meadows

In a predictable move. After all we all knew it was coming. The Jan 6th commission has referred Meadows to the DOJ for Contempt of congress.

It doesn’t matter where you come down on the whole Jan 6th inquiry, you have to admit this guy is between a rock and a hard place.

He had been cooperating with the commission but then apparently felt he had to stop because the information they were requesting was coming up against executive privilege issues that Trump retains.

Trump has filed a lawsuit to protect executive privilege. That puts Meadows in a bind. If he continues to cooperate with the Jan 6th commission providing all the requested information and then Trumps executive privilege is upheld. Meadows could find that he’s violated the law on that side.

On the other hand by defying the Subpoena he’s pissing off congress.

The NPR article makes reference to the text messages Meadows received, calling them “Explosive”. Meh, I’d call them circumstantial.

Yeah, if you wanted to infer that Trump was at the heart of the Jan 6th event at the capital you could read them as the smoking gun. But if, as Trump maintains, he wasn’t coordinating and directing the Jan 6th event at the capital, that he’d only told folks to go and protest…

Then the text messages are nothing more than people sending texts without thinking about parsing out the language so that it could pass future legal tests. In fact the messages could be read as simply, informational and requests that Trump speak to the crowds to calm them down.

With the exception of the one talking about needing “aggressive strategy” most of the other messages could be taken to say, “Hey, Trump needs to remind the crowd about the rule of law. Protests are fine as long as they do not result in violence, destruction, fires, or looting.”

In fact if Trump had said something to that effect from the steps of the capital surrounded by security and police establishing crowd control, he would have thoroughly embarrassed and humiliated Pelosi again.

That being said, Pelosi and her cronies would have pointed to Trump being a leader as proof that he was at the bottom of the event in the first place and congress would have gone all rabid about it too. Either way, we’d probably be in the same situation. That’s the problem when abject hatred taints your world view.

I’m not saying the Trump didn’t incite the crowd. To what extent, will be determined by the courts. I think it’s pretty clear that he had a hand in what happened. I think that it spiraled out of control, and once the monster of a mob is let loose it’s really tough to control what the monster does.

We as a nation knew what mobs looked like, we’d seen it in Portland and Seattle for months. Trump, and everyone else should have known better.

As an aside, I thought about going to DC.

I could have, and I certainly had the time to do it. My reason for not going was that I’d paid attention to the lessons of Portland and Seattle. My other reason was that it was all becoming too about Trump.

I was then, and still am angry, not about the election results, but about the dismissal of the various voting irregularities that were reported in states across the country.

There was, in my opinion, enough circumstantial evidence to warrant investigations and hearings about those irregularities. I wasn’t particularly interested in overturning the election, I am far more interested in making sure that such irregularities never happen again.

It’s my opinion, that “The Big Lie” could have been easily deflated if the Supreme Court had publicly and with due seriousness addressed the issues raised and then made recommendations based on their findings.

For four solid and interminable years our nation was subjected to investigation after investigation of what turned out to be largely circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Trump. Yep, there were some things that weren’t circumstantial, they were fact. Trump is supposed to answer for those things and the cases are winding their way through the legal system now.

I had expectation that on issues of voter fraud or irregularities, the same level of investigatory diligence would be applied. Hopefully not four long years worth, but at least some public display of diligence.

It frankly appeared that since folks got what they wanted in Biden, they were willing to ignore, and allow the courts to ignore, circumstantial evidence. Why was it okay to pursue circumstantial evidence on the one hand and ignore the same kind of evidence on the other? What it seemed was happening was that since Trump said it, it was inconsequential. He was just being a sore loser.

Yeah, did you expect anything less? Regardless, you have to take these allegations seriously, isn’t that the lesson Congress taught us over the preceding four years?

For me personally, the quick and apparently casual dismissals of concerns, is what made me angry.

I accepted that Biden was President, I didn’t think it was a good idea, but it was expected. Trump had caused a severe polarization in the electorate. In virtually every similar historic situation the response has always been the same. The electorate chooses the opposite pole.

Had I gone to DC, I would have been standing on the steps of The Supreme Court exercising my Constitutionally guaranteed right to demand redress. I’d have been holding a sign that simply said, “Justices, I respectfully ask you to do your job.”

I wouldn’t have entered or forced my way into any building. I’d have complied with law enforcement to move or remain in a particular area. I would never have threatened anyone, that’s just not appropriate. I’m a law abiding citizen, and you cannot demand investigations or that the law be upheld if you’re going to turn around and violate the law.

After Jan 6th, I was very glad I wasn’t in Washington that day.

See I’m a moron, I could see myself being invited into a building or following a crowd that appeared to be invited in and in total innocence, I’d have found myself in all kinds of trouble.

I’ve been to Washington DC once in my life. Most of the buildings were closed for the holidays, (we were there over a Christmas trip). But I got to walk around the monuments. I stood in front of The White House and was in awe. I stood in the Lincoln Memorial and I took the time to read the inscriptions. I walked the length of the reflecting pool and everywhere else we were allowed to walk. It was a magical and great experience. My only regret was that The Smithsonian wasn’t open. I’d have loved being lost there for as long as they’d have me.

As I was considering making the trip to Washington DC prior to the Jan 6th event. I was also planning to revisit those sites, and see the Vietnam Memorial.

Here’s the thing some people apparently have problems with.

I could have gone there, expressed my opinion by protesting, and then duty discharged, taken pride in being an American wandering the monuments and reading the words written by our forefathers.

I would have been super excited to go read with my own eyes, the actual Constitution of the United States. And yes, The Smithsonian would have had to ask me to leave at closing time.

So you see, after the Jan 6th event… I shuddered to think how my patriotism and innocence could have gotten me into a lot of trouble.

Perhaps it’s my belief in the law and The Constitution that makes me feel sorry for Meadows. He’s in a tough spot. Just because he worked for Trump doesn’t mean he’s inherently a bad person, nor does it mean he’s a good person. It just means that he in fact, worked for Trump.

If Meadows broke the law then he should suffer the consequences. Right now, I don’t think he’s breaking the law by restricting access to material he believes to be protected under executive privilege. He’s trying to honor the requirements of two laws that are in conflict. That’s a tough position to be in.

Meadows Attorney says it well;

“He has fully cooperated as to documents in his possession that are not privileged and has sought various means to provide other information while continuing to honor the former president’s privilege claims,” Terwillger said in a statement.

Until Trumps suit is decided, (a lower court ruled Trumps claim invalid and Trump unsurprisingly, is taking it to The Supreme Court,) Meadows is at an impasse. One that cannot be resolved until The Supreme Court makes its decision.

I think it’s unfair that Congress is dropping the hammer on Meadows when essentially he’s bound by law. Yes, Biden has said that executive privilege doesn’t apply. But is that legal? I ask honestly because there’s supposed to be a separation between the Executive and Legislative branches of the government. Isn’t the Supreme Court the arbiter of these issues?

I also feel for all the people who may have been caught up in the events of Jan 6th.

I could so easily see myself in their shoes. No, I wouldn’t have been climbing over walls, crawling through windows, or forcing doors open. But I wouldn’t have thought for an instant walking through an open door to The Capital Rotunda with guards standing on either side.

Hell, I’d have stayed in the roped areas and as long as I didn’t see or hear yelling or breaking glass I’d have been blithely ignorant that I was breaking the law. I would have been overjoyed to be standing in the rotunda looking at the pictures and art and feeling so privileged to be there in that place. If I was asked to leave, my response would have been, “Yes officer, which exit should I take?”

That’s one of the reasons that I think the whole congressional committee is wrong and that they’re being very heavy handed. Sure, there were people who clearly broke the law and they should suffer the consequences. But the Jan 6th committee has cast a very wide net, and I’m sure that many of the people they’ve terrorized, were people just like me.

Make no mistake, having Federal Marshalls banging on your door when you believe you’ve done nothing wrong would be a terrifying thing. Especially if the media reports labeled you as a white supremacist who was involved in an insurrection, or treason. Those are really serious charges! One of them, I believe, still carries the death penalty.

The Marshalls drag you off to prison. You and by extension, your family are labeled white supremacists, or terrorists, and there’s nothing you can do to defend your reputation or your family from the vengeance of the mob…

That would absolutely break me. Especially, given that I’d have had no malice, no guilt, and I’d have been sharing pictures of those hallowed halls describing my presence there as a joy and privilege.

Heavy handed justice often is not justice.

Posted on

I was looking for a new keyboard, but…

Maybe a month or two ago I ran across a nifty computer keyboard in some publication. At the time I thought, “It’s really nice, I like that it’s mechanical, It’s cool that you can order it with switches that are firm, medium, or light, which allow you to have a keyboard that is exactly what you want, but dang that’s really expensive,”

So I moved on to the next thing and forgot the manufacturers name. After all, the 8 year old keyboard I’ve got works just fine and I’m used to it.

Then yesterday, my reliable old keyboard started missing space bar presses and occasionally other keys as well. I considered the problem and admitted that it might be time for me to pony up the cash for a new one. I tried to go back and find the article in my Apple News History. I haven’t found the article I was looking for but did stumble across the Alec Baldwin, George Stephanopoulos interview where Baldwin tearfully claims he didn’t pull the trigger.

What a load of runny horse shit!

I was able to let the statement of the Armorer from the production “Someone must have put a live bullet in the gun,” go because that statement was so stupid it required no comment.

Had I commented at the time, I’d have said, “No Shit dumbass!“

But Alec Baldwin crying and saying he didn’t pull the trigger?

Oh hell no, I can’t let that one go.

The gun reportedly used in the crime, (Yes, it was a crime!) was a period specific Colt revolver or a replica of the venerable Colt revolver. This gun, as are most guns, is a purely mechanical machine. There are no batteries, no electronics, no circuitry, and no software.

Guns in general are relatively simple machines that exist in the real physical world and require real physical actions to operate. They can’t be hacked.

The person holding the gun is the power source and the directing intelligence.

As you can see from the diagram, (Thank you Nichols Ranch), There are approximately 24 components in a revolver. (24 in the diagram, there could be fewer in other models) The last two components in the diagram above are the Bullet and its shell.

Functionally, you could loose the grips and the logos, possibly the ejector rod and spring, and the cylinder cover, and still have a functional weapon. It would probably bruise your hand if you fired it without the grips but the weapon would still work as designed.

There is no magic here. This is simply an elegant mechanical system.

To fire the assembled weapon requires the following steps.

Open the cylinder cover
Put rounds (a bullet and its shell) in at least some of the chambers of the cylinder. In this case a maximum of six chambers can have rounds inserted.
Close the cylinder cover
Cock the hammer.
Take aim
Pull the trigger

Repeat the last three steps as necessary five more times, then start at step one.

Note there are three inherent safety mechanisms present.

If rounds are not loaded, the gun is not ready to fire
If the hammer isn’t cocked, the gun is not ready to fire.
If the trigger is not pulled, the gun will not fire, even if rounds are present and the hammer is cocked.

I’m not a gunsmith, but if I’m looking at the diagram correctly, it appears that the action of cocking the hammer is what causes the cylinder to rotate, moving the next round to firing position.

This mechanical simplicity is why the revolver and integrated shells & bullets revolutionized guns.

Prior to the revolver, the choice was a cap and ball pistol, which basically gave you one shot, then you had to spend a minute reloading before you could take a second shot (think about a cannon). That’s probably why everyone carried a sword with their pistol.

For close to 200 years, the revolver has been around, it’s well understood, reliable, and has undergone some evolution but not a whole lot.

There is a variation of the revolver where pulling the trigger also cocks the hammer.

This is why when handling a weapon you never put your finger on the trigger, and you never take anyone’s word for it, that the weapon is not loaded. You always check!

Even then if you need to pull the trigger (as in you’re checking proper function,) you always aim in a safe direction. You do not pull the trigger unless you are sure that no-one is downrange.

Given the simplicity of the revolver that Baldwin was probably using, for him to claim he didn’t pull the trigger is a bald faced lie. He may not remember pulling the trigger, but he sure as hell did.

The only other scenario that has a remote possibility is that he partially cocked the revolver when he pulled it from the holster. In that scenario though, it’s far more likely that he would have had the weapon fire the moment it cleared the holster.

I rather suspect that in that scenario Baldwin would have shot himself. I also suspect that the mechanism that rotates the cylinder would not have brought a round into correct firing position since the hammer wouldn’t have completed its travel.

That being said, if the weapon was worn or had been abused it’s a remote possibility.

However there wouldn’t have been enough of a delay for Baldwin to have brought the weapon to a firing position for the view of the camera. (They were rehearsing, the assumption is they were trying to frame a shot.)

No matter what. In this situation Alec Baldwin was the person holding the weapon. Baldwin was the person who violated gun safety protocols. Baldwin is the person who clearly still has no idea how guns work.

Ultimately, Alec Baldwin is the person who shot two people, one fatally. Alec Baldwin is therefore the responsible party and must answer for his negligence.

Update: I was just reading another article on Baldwin’s interview.

Baldwin said, “So, I take the gun and I start to cock the gun. I’m not going to pull the trigger,” he continued. “And I cock the gun, I go, ‘Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that?’ And then I let go of the hammer of the gun, and the gun goes off. I let go of the hammer of the gun – the gun goes off.“

Was the gun cocked Alec or was it not? In this type of gun if you’re holding the trigger down and you pull the hammer back then release it the gun will fire. You’d know that if you’d paid attention in any of the on-site gun training you’ve no doubt received during your many years of movie making where you were handling guns. You’re essentially describing that you “fanned” the hammer.

Stephanopoulos stated, “There are some who say you’re never supposed to point a gun on anyone on a set no matter what.”

Baldwin replied, “Unless the person is the cinematographer, who’s directing me at where to point the gun for her camera angle,” Baldwin replied. “I didn’t point the gun at her, and she said, ‘Hey, man, don’t point the gun at me.’ I pointed the gun in a direction she wanted.”

Is it me or does Baldwin’s reply sound like he was trying to blame the victim?

“Do you feel guilt?,” Stephanopoulos asked.

“No. No,” Baldwin said. “I feel that someone is responsible for what happened, and I can’t say who that is, but I know it’s not me.“

What a piece of Shit Alec Baldwin is!

He goes on to describe how he has dreams and emotional distress. Trying to paint himself as the victim.

Really? Alec Baldwin, you are filth! I cannot even describe how reading your responses has sickened me.

I hope the family, the members on set, and everyone in the production sues you into poverty. I hope the police, the district attorney, the judge, and a jury throw the book at you. I hope you end up doing hard labor in a prison in New Mexico for the rest of your miserable life.

It’s one thing to have this be an accident. It’s quite another for you to try to slime your way out of responsibility and essentially say, she was asking for it.

BTW… I still haven’t found that keyboard site!