« HERE WE GO…I KNEW IT WOULD COME TO THIS…..
REALLY WANT "CHANGE" IN DELAWARE POLITICS THIS ELECTION YEAR?
THAN ELECTING BILL LEE AS OUR NEXT GOVERNOR WOULD DO JUST THAT!
I know that he isn't in the race yet…but that decision is close to being made. It will all depend on those people who meet to discuss a candidate actually DO come up with the required bucks. A lot of good politicians are promised all kinds of support, but when the chips are down….their supporters fail to reach for their wallets.
We'll see what happens this week. Republican big shots are meeting, and if they actually commit to writing some checks–BILL LEE IS VERY LIKELY TO ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE AND GET INTO THE RACE FOR GOVERNOR.
HE THE ANSWER TO "CHANGE AND REFORM" IN DELAWARE. This "Change Theme is nationwide, but it each state it means something different.
Now obsiously, the voters will not be able to actually beat these people with opposing candidates…SO THE BEST THING WE CAN DO IS TO TAKE THEIR POWER AWAY. How do we do that? BY ELECTING A REALLY SMART, EXPERIENCED, PROVEN TALENTED REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR BY THE NAME OF BILL LEE. He is the perfect replacement for an ALAN LEVIN, who I believe would have been THE answer to reforming Delaware.
HOPEFULLY, YOU REMEMBER THAT BILL LEE WOULD HAVE DEFEATED RUTH ANN MINNER, IF HE HAD HAD JUST ABOUT A MONTH OR SO MORE IN THE LAST ELECTION. He was gaining every week.
from RUTH ANN MINNER (the definitive political hack-GED endowed-tow truck driver/owner) to THE HONORABLE JUDGE BILL LEE.
Talk about being poles about apart". Ruth Ann Minner was a complete embarassment to this State, to any State. She survived because she was the puppet of the Adams' crowd.
THE DEFINITIVE WAY SO DEFEAT THE POWER OF THE "ADAMS FAMILY IS TO ELECT A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR LIKE BILL LEE.
I spoke to Judge Lee over the weekend (yes, he did tell me how much he misses me not being on the radio). We talked as we have in the past.
AS A FORMER JUDGE….HE SEES THE NEED AND HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE THE CHANGES REQUIRED IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTME- INCLUDING THE COURTS THEMSELVES/ HE HAS LOTS TO SAY ABOUT PRISON REFORM, AND OUR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE, ETC.
Lets face it….JOHN CARNEY, as governor means "NO CHANGE AT ALL. That's a given. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT LITERALLY 95% OF THE PRESENT LEGISLATORS ARE IN FAVOR OF JOHN CARNEY? WHY? Because he would allow the same destructive power bosses to do the same destructive things; WITHOUT SINGLE BIT OF CHANGE OR REFORM.
JACK MARKELL is a good guy, and a lot BETTER than Carney—-but his link to the old guys, is just so entrenced with the Adams Gang, that the change would not be expansive enough.
BILL LEE IS OUR ONLY DELAWARE HOPE FOR SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AND REFORM— DO IT!
LOCALLY–change means a good, really good Replican Governor.
This entry was posted on March 4, 2008 at 10:11 am and is filed under Uncategorized.	You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
In my humble opinion Bill Lee is to the right of Attila the Hun….we sure as hell don't need that. If the Rs lose control of the House (good chance) Lee would be totally ineffectual.
On another note WTF has he done? Sentenced Tommy Capano? The villagae idiot could have done that….he's not qualified.
I'll stick w/Markell and the Jewish Mafia….people who are bright enough to run the state….and not into the ground either.
1. institute term limits (2 terms) for every office in the state.


1 Peter 4:1 Therefore, since Christ suffered in His body, arm yourselves with the same resolve, because anyone who has suffered in his body is done with sin.
So then, since Christ suffered physical pain, you must arm yourselves with the same attitude he had, and be ready to suffer, too. For if you have suffered physically for Christ, you have finished with sin.
Therefore, since Christ suffered in His body, arm yourselves with the same resolve, because anyone who has suffered in his body is done with sin.
Christ suffered here on earth. Now you must be ready to suffer as he did, because suffering shows that you have stopped sinning.
Since Christ suffered physically, you too must strengthen yourselves with the same way of thinking that he had; because whoever suffers physically is no longer involved with sin.
For anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
Strong's Greek 3695: To make ready, arm, equip. From hoplon; to equip (middle voice and figuratively).
Strong's Greek 1771: From a compound of en and nous; thoughtfulness, i.e. Moral understanding.
Strong's Greek 3973: A primary verb; to stop, i.e. Restrain, quit, desist, come to an end.
(1) Forasmuch then . . .--Literally, a participial phrase: Christ, then, having suffered in (or, to) the flesh--i.e., so far as the flesh is concerned. The reference is to the words "killed in (or, to) the flesh" in 1Peter 3:18, to which the word "then" takes us back. It is difficult to decide about the right of the words "for us" to stand in the text. Tischendorf and Lachmann strike them out, and they are probably right in doing so. The authority for the reading "for you" is nearly as strong; but in fact neither is wanted here, as the point is not the atoning character of Christ's death, but the death itself.
Arm yourselves likewise with the same mind.--Or rather, with the same conception. It does not mean merely "put yourselves into the same disposition:" that is, "resolve to die with Him." Though the word which is here rendered "mind" may possibly bear the meaning "intent" assigned to it in Hebrews 4:12 (the only other place in the New Testament where it occurs), the more natural and common sense is that of conception, notion, view. Christ is therefore said to have been "armed" with a particular "conception" or "view," which He found to be sufficient shield in the day of suffering; and we are exhorted to try the same defensive armour. The "view" which Christ found so efficacious was the view He took of the "suffering" itself. What that view was is forthwith explained.
For he that hath suffered in the flesh . . .--Rather, that he that hath suffered to the flesh is at rest from, sin. This is the "view" which we are to take. The thought is probably derived from Romans 6:7. The death of the body puts a stop (at any rate, for the redeemed) to any further possibility of sin. Welcome, death! A slight difficulty is caused by the implied fact that Christ, too, in dying "ceased from sin." But the Greek word for "hath ceased" literally means hath been caused to rest, St. Peter using expressly (for the only time in the New Testament) that part of the verb which does not mean a voluntary cessation from what one was doing before, but a pause imposed from without. And that Christ looked upon His death as a boon of rest from sin (it does not say from sinning) is not only a true and impressive thought, but is fully justified by Romans 6:10, "He died unto sin," and even by His cry, "It is finished." Whatever harshness there is in the thought is much softened by the fact that St. Peter names it as the view we are to take, not directly as the view He took; so that it admits of some adjustment when applied to Him.
Verse 1. - Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh. St. Peter returns, after the digression of 1 Peter 3:19-22, to the great subject of Christ's example. The words "for us" are omitted in some ancient manuscripts; they express a great truth already dwelt upon in 1 Peter 2. and 3. Here the apostle is insisting upon the example of Christ, not on the atoning efficacy of his death. Arm yourselves likewise with the same mind. The word rendered "mind" (ἔννοια) is more exactly "thought" (comp. Hebrews 4:12, the only other place where it occurs in the New Testament); but it certainly has sometimes the force of "intention, resolve." The Christian must be like his Mustier; he must arm himself with the great thought, the holy resolve, which was in the mind of Christ - the thought that suffering borne in faith frees us from the power of sin, the resolve to suffer patiently according to the will of God. That thought, which can be made our own only by faith, is the Christian's shield; we are to arm ourselves with it against the assaults of the evil one (comp. Romans 13:12; 2 Corinthians 10:4; Ephesians 6:11). For he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin. The thought is that of Romans 6:6-11. Some translate the conjunction ὅτι, "that," and understand it as giving the content of the ἔννοια: "Arm yourselves with the thought that," etc.; but this does not give so good a sense, and would seem to require ταύτην rather than τὴν αὐτήν ( " this thought," rather than "the same thought." Some, again, understand this clause of Christ; but this seems a mistake. The apostle spoke first of the Master; now he turns to the disciple. Take, he says, for your amour the thoughts which filled the sacred heart of Christ - the thought that suffering in the flesh is not, as the world counts it, an unmixed evil, but often a deep blessing; for, or because, he that suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin. If, when we are called to suffer, we offer up our sufferings to Christ who suffered for us, and unite our sufferings with his by faith in him, then those sufferings, thus sanctified, destroy the power of sin, and make us cease from sin (comp. Romans 6:10).


Okay, we're all familiar with the phenomenal photographic decals and deliveries that prepared our hotrods alight.
Roaring glows hit across the body of the car, and the effects are stunning, right? Sure. But what did they do in the old days, pre the manufacture of adhesive emblazon idols?
Well, it was all done by the magic of colour! Anyone who has pictured a real inferno coat undertaking on a hot rod will have to agree the results are excellent and compute an individual identity to a vehicle.
Hot batons are meant to be hot, and igniting decorative skills oblige them swelter.
It's almost a given that those who buy hot rod will want to adapt them to some degree to reflect their temperaments , not to mention the essences of the cars themselves.
They're head-turners, they're' on fire '! There's a entire portrait situation with hot rod that is synonymous with a little bit of danger, a little bit of hard humanity machismo.
And how better to indicate the somewhat risque and rebellious position of your hot rod vehicle and your persona than by having infernos caressing your favorite beast's bodywork.
The range of ready-to-go decals and assigns these days is enormously extensive, with many of them utilizing photo-representation who are capable of display very realistic solutions.
And while these effects can make a car' dad' there's nothing quite so awe-inspiring as a sugared spark decorate job.
The process of blaze, depending on how detailed a flame aftermath is expected can be quite a laborious one.
It asks many sift stagecoaches of masking out the inferno molds and, even in the case of the most simple appearing artwork, reiterated strata of draw is a requirement to scattered onto the body.
People who buy hot rod, for the most component, are buying nightmares, they're buying an extension of the potent internal aspects of themselves, something that flies in the face of all that is humdrum and run-of-the-mill in the world.
A good quality flame paintwork job by a renowned hot rod draw creator is something you might have to save up for.
But don't sell your residence and your "cat-o-nine-tails" yet, you are able to have such segments done in stages without them gazing out of place or unfinished.
Think of your hotrod as a work of art in progress. Rome and all that? The good concepts take time.
A motorcycle helmet has a practical purposes. It acts as a refuge hindrance in cases where there head-pavement collisions and saves bugs from smashing against your teeth or ears.
Helmets can be bulky, heavy and annoying to wear. Nonetheless, you are able to make its own experience recreation by pimping your motorcycle helmet in your style with colors, graphics, and add-ons.
To match, she obtained a pink leather journeying coat and a pink helmet with a faux ponytail attached to the back.
Other addicts plays helmets in dynamic scopes of colorings and patterns. Some piece shiny rows or blown back flames while others establish pride in a college or neighbourhood athletics team.
The entries that can be incorporated into helmet designs are incessant, and each one can be as unique as the equestrian wearing it.
To show real vogue, many riders parallel their helmet intend to their motorcycle or razz clothes. Jackets, boots or people in the same colouring or boasting the same scheme as the helmet create a terminated ensemble.
Painting the helmet to accord motif ingredients on the bike is also a good way to bind vogue together.
A bike and rider that seem perfectly linked catch the eye. It is almost as if they are part of the same character. Since countless bikers feel like their motorcycle is a part of themselves, this is not a bad persona to create.
Bikers willing to go to extremes for distinct style extents often do more than deck out their motorcycle helmets.
They order custom motorcycle segments including handlebars, gas cisterns, wheels, and supplementaries.
Customizing proportions can be as simple as painting patterns on the metal mas and as complex as developing one-of-a-kind handlebars or footrests.
Some of the most customized bikes invited to attend neighbourhood, regional and national tournaments for form and creativity.
No matter how much age and natural resources you have to put into your bicycle, you can provide a regard that is unique to you.
You do not have to add custom welds to your bicycle. Start with a different motorcycle helmet and toil from there to initiate your biker wording over time.
Park your rigging in a flat, crooked spot and allow to cool. While your truck sits refrigerating, crack open a sudsy drink and open the other ingredients.
The most labor-intensive part of this recipe is the exhaust gear. Once your rig is cool, remove the factory deplete and down hose.
Toss the remains aside. Carefully follow the included instructions and organized the MBRP exhaust paraphernalium and down piping to your truck.
This free-flowing system grows strength and torque, decreases EGTs and gives a throaty rumble to your rig.
That will impeded the terrifying check engine lamp from diverting on eventually. Reinstalling the intake package according to Quadzilla's directions--stirring occasionally.
Once blended, the cold-air intake and the exhaust system rise together to words a free-breathing, power-producing machine.
Once the intake and weary have absolutely broiled, it makes simply a few minutes to install the tuner.
Choose your tune and located the desired constants. Now, papa open one last-place celebratory bottle of suds because you are done!
Step into your well-done rig and volley it up. Depending on how closely the recipe was followed, your horsepower and torque lists should look is oven deep-seateds than factory specs.


"Much of the improvement in antitrust policy over the past decade and a half has come not from the courts but from the enforcement agencies. If the courts abandon economic rigor, only those agencies can preserve the rationality of the law, and then only partially. Private plaintiffs and their lawyers have rather less interest in rational rules than they do in triple damages and contingency fees. Expert economic witnesses can be found to support any theory. Without firm judicial control, private actions make antitrust "policy" ad hoc, as trials become ad hominem. Much more could be said about the devastating unfairness and anticompetitive consequences of much private antitrust litigation, but that is outside the scope of this book. In antitrust, it is possible to think the European Community as has wisely not followed the american example but has instead centralized all enforcement in a single government agency" (The Antitrust Paradox, Epilogue p.439).
In brief, Bork accuses the US courts system of the state of theoretical confusion in which antitrust law was until the 1980s. And he says that agencies often promote better substantive standards (though they select those most advantageous to them) than courts who hear cases brought randomly by private parties with evolving business interests.
We surely can agree with Bork – as we have endlessly advocated on this blog – that with prospects of increased private enforcement in the EU it becomes compelling to (i) induce judges to delve more into economic analysis; (ii) require a very stringent system of judicial review.
I like to government agency, but for better protection of fundamental rights, I would prefer the European Commission to take the cases to a specialised(?) EU court.
Asimo, my reading is that in this § Bork complains of the dangerous role of private economic experts hired by the parties.
But on a more general level (in the rest of his book), Bork's book is a love declaration towards more economics in the system, incl. in the courts : "The reasons for the inadequate performance of the legal institutions that shape AT policy is a complex topic. No single institution is wholly responsible, but perhaps it can be said that the factor common to the performance of all of them was, and is, the absence of a rudimentary understanding of market economics. Few of the actors in the process, however, seemed to display any lackof self confidence in economic argument (p.409)".


text:
Category Archives: Everything Else
Identifying Dogs by Name: The Supreme Court's Unequal Treatment of Aldo and Franky
Posted on March 26, 2013 by Susan Simpson
This term, the Supreme Court handed down two opinions regarding whether a dog's sniff is constitutionally admissible evidence. Although the sample size is small, there is an apparent distinction between the two opinions with regards to how the Court has handled the identities of the narcotics dogs that were responsible for the underlying sniffs: dogs who sniff in a constitutional manner are named, while dogs who violate the Constitution with their sniffing are not.
In Harris v. Florida, the Supreme Court sided with the canine, finding that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to cross-examine a narcotics dog to assess its reliability. A dog's sniffing skills cannot be impugned on the basis of a few false positives — because, after all, drugs have great noses, so the doggy was probably just detecting trace amounts of the defendant's past crimes, or something. And in the 9-0 Harris opinion, the Court waits only until the second paragraph before naming case's the four-legged protagonist:
William Wheetley is a K–9 Officer in the Liberty County, Florida Sheriff's Office. On June 24, 2006, he was on a routine patrol with Aldo, a German shepherd trained to detect certain narcotics[.]
Good boy, Aldo.
But in the opinion handed down today, in Florida v. Jardines, the Court was much less pleased with the dog in question. That dog, the Court concludes, was prone to knocking people over; his sniffing was very impolite, too, and involved the dog running and "'tracking back and forth,' … 'back and forth, back and forth.'" (The dog's behavior was even contrasted, unfavorably, against the polite behavior of Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters.) In the end, the Court held that it constitutes a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment for the government to use nameless, hyperactive police dogs to investigate a home and its immediate surroundings.
In contrast, Justice Alito's dissenting opinion in Jardines adamantly disagreed with the majority, finding that the drug dog in Jardines was, in fact, a very good boy. In doing so, the dissent immediately identifies the dog in question:
According to the Court, however, the police officer in this case, Detective Bartelt, committed a trespass because he was accompanied during his otherwise lawful visit to the front door of respondent's house by his dog, Franky.
Justice Alito thereafter remains on a first-name basis with Franky throughout his dissent. Rather than referring to what "the dog" did, as does the majority opinion, Alito carefully notes that "Franky remained on respondent's property", "Franky approached the front door", "Franky was on the kind of leash that any dog owner might employ", and that Franky's handling officer "wait[ed] for Franky to find the strongest source of the odor".
Alito's personification (so to speak) of Jardines' drug dog is entirely absent from the majority's opinion. Scalia, writing for the majority, not only fails to name poor Franky, but in fact goes out of his way to constantly stress what a bad dog Franky was, noting that the dog had to be "on a six-foot leash, owing in part to the dog's 'wild' nature," as well as that the other detectives present at the drug bust were at risk of being "knocked over" by Franky's antics. Poor Franky.
Posted in Everything Else	| Tagged dog sniff, dogs, fourth amendment, harris, jardines	| 5 Replies
R v McCormick: The ADE651 on Trial
Posted on March 8, 2013 by Susan Simpson
James McCormick, the British businessman behind ATSC Ltd. and its phony bomb detectors, was finally brought to trial this week in London, facing charges of criminal fraud for his role in selling the ADE651. McCormick is only the first of six individuals who will be tried for their involvement with at least three different companies that have been involved in the distribution of fake bomb detectors. I have been following the activities of these companies for some years now, and although it is is depressing it took so long for these scams to be shut down, this will hopefully be the end of the ADE651, the GT200, the Alpha 6, and the XK9.
…this will hopefully be the end of the ADE651, the GT200, the Alpha 6, and the XK9.
The manufacturers of all four of those devices are among those currently facing charges that have been brought under the Fraud Act (2006). I hope, although I have not been able to confirm, that some of them will also face charges under the UK's Bribery Act (2010), as these devices appear to have been primarily sold through kickback schemes arranged with foreign officials who were aware of the device's inability to operate as advertised. Jim McCormick's devices, the ADE651 and its predecessors, were frequently sold to foreign government agencies in countries that included Iraq, Niger, Georgia, and Bahrain. Other devices, such as Gary Bolton's GT200, specialized in markets in Thailand, Kenya, and Mexico. At a price tag of up to $60,000 per a device, then, Bolton and McCormick had plenty of overhead to allow them to pay out a bribe to foreign officials, and still make a sizable profit.
The kickbacks do not appear to have been insubstantial, however. In Iraq, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) reported in the January 2011 Report to Congress that, of the $122 million spent by the Iraqi government on the ADE-651 devices, McCormick paid as much as $92 million of that back to Iraqi officials in bribes:
This quarter, Iraq's IGs continued to examine allegations of corruption within their ministries. SIGIR reported in October that an investigation into the MOI's purchase of ineffective bomb detectors from a British company was quashed by the invocation of Article 136(b)of the Iraqi Criminal Procedure Code, which allows for a minister to halt judicial inquiries into the activities of personnel working in that ministry. This quarter , the MOI IG announced his intention to conduct a joint investigation with British authorities into the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of these devices. According to the MOI IG, 75% of the value of the contract went to kickbacks received by GOI officials.
The harm caused by the ADE-651 has not been merely financial, however. The ADE-651 continued to be used by Iraqi forces for years after the scam was publicized, and in SIGIR's October 2010 report, it was noted that "many lives have been lost due to the wands' utter ineffectiveness."
In Thailand, where Global Technical's GT200 and Comstrac's Alpha 6 are more widely prevalent, deaths have also resulted when the devices failed to detect bombs that later exploded. The devices have also been used to carry out widespread human rights abuses, and hundreds of individuals have been imprisoned based on the devices' "detection" of their possession of unlawful substances. In Thailand, the fake bomb detectors were slightly cheaper than they were in Iraq, selling at up to $48,000 US dollars a piece — but the price paid for individuals devices varied widely among different Thai government agencies, with some agencies paying up to 150% more than others. (Corruption in Mexico would appear to be cheaper — GT200s bought by Mexican agencies appear to have been sold for around $20,000 each. In contrast, GT200s that were apparently sold to purchasers that were duped and not bribed, including a UN program, were sold for as little as $5,000 a piece.) In Thailand, there were also widely reported "procurement irregularities" associated with the acquisition of the GT200 and Alpha 6, which were bought by Thai military agencies using "special funds" with little to no political oversight.
Leaked cables from the U.S. Embassy in Thailand also noted the ineffectiveness of the GT200 devices, as well as the corruption surrounding their procurement:
Criticism of the GT200 came to a crescendo in Thailand in January when the British government banned export of the device after arresting an executive from the manufacturer of another bomb detection device on fraud charges. [Thai Prime Minister] Abhisit also ordered an investigation into the purchase of the GT200 by various state agencies, following Thai press reports that some agencies had paid more than twice as much for the units as others (note: the first Thai purchases of the GT200 occurred by the Thai Air Force in 2004, when Thaksin Shinawatra was PM). …
Thai human rights activists and their political allies, including Democrat Party deputy leader/MP Kraisak Choonhavan, have been raising the alarm about the GT200 for months, and had engaged us in mid-2009 to see if there were any way we could share US bad experience with such equipment. Kraisak's primary concern was that innocent civilians were being detained and in some cases charged with assisting insurgent efforts solely based on GT200 readings….
To most people, the GT200 appears to be a glorified dousing rod: it claims to detect explosives at long range, powered by static electricity from the user, without any more complicated sample analysis conducted. The bomb detection squad in Yala told us that they never thought it worked, but they were ordered to use it. The squad passed the GT200 to Emboff to hold; it looked and felt like a toy. In contrast, the GT200's defenders insist the device was effective when used by properly trained personnel. Failures of the device have been explained away as a byproduct of user error; operators were too tired, sick, fatigued, or otherwise impaired to operate the device properly.
At trial against McCormick, the prosecution provided evidence that McCormick's original inspiration for the ADE651 was not a bomb detector, but rather a gag gift that purported to locate lost golf balls:
The first device marketed by Mr McCormick, the ADE100, was not the result of extensive research and development but a relabelled golf ball finder on sale in the US for less than $US20, the court heard.
A brochure for the ball finder found at Mr McCormick's farmhouse home said: "Please don't ask us for the theory of its operation. We just know it works for most people when used properly. It's a great novelty item that you should have fun with."
The businessman bought 300 of the "golf-finders" in 2005 and 2006 and rebadged them as the ADE (advanced detection equipment) 100 with the claim that they could detect drugs and explosives, the court heard.
Mr Whittam said: "In reality, save for a different sticky label, the items are indistinguishable."
Although the Golfinder was not quite as sophisticated of an enterprise as its British bomb-detector variants were — and lacked the use of technical mumbo-jumbo terms such as "electromagnetic attraction" to explain how the device operated — the essential premise of the business was the same. The devices also looked strikingly similar:
ACTUALLY IT'S A DEVICE THAT HELPS YOU LOCATE YOUR GOLF BALLS. DON'T LAUGH! IT WORKS WHEN USED PROPERLY. ACTUALLY WE UNDERSTAND THE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES INVOLVED. MANY SKEPTICS AND DISBELIEVERS TO WHOM WE HAVE SHOWN IT TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT WORKS IF THE INSTRUCTIONS ARE FOLLOWED CLOSELY. …
IT IS NOT COMUPTER DRIVEN, CONTAINS NO CHIPS OR ELECTRONICS. IT USES YOUR NATIVE ENERGY TO ENERGIZE ITS ACTION. PLEASE DON'T ASK US FOR THE THEORY OF ITS OPERATION THAT'S OUR BUSINESS AND THE MAIN REASON WE HAVE NOT APPLIED FOR PATENTS WHICH WOULD EXPOSE THE TECHNOLOGY. WE JUST KNOW IT WORKS FOR MOST PEOPLE WHEN USED PROPERLY. IT'S ALSO A GREAT NOVELTY ITEM THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE FUN WITH ESPECIALLY FOR THE GOLFER WHO HAS "EVERYTHING"!
The manufacturer of the original Golfinder had other handy products for sale as well — such as its ground microwaving Microwave Units, which could be used either to defrost cemetery plots for easier digging or to nuke fire ant nests. The abilities of these fantastic machines, it would seem, are only limited by the creativity of their manufacturers.
…proving that McCormick originally bought his 'bomb detectors' from a company that sold 'golf ball detectors' … demonstrate[s] that McCormick was fully aware that his devices were completely incapable of operating as advertised.
In any event, proving that McCormick originally bought his 'bomb detectors' from a company that sold 'golf ball detectors' will provide a convenient way for the prosecutor to demonstrate that McCormick was fully aware that his devices were completely incapable of operating as advertised. McCormick's attorneys might try and raise the defense that McCormick was a fool rather than a charlatan, and that he genuinely bought into the hocus pocus of his own product, but that is going to be a hard sell. His devices were so ridiculous in their design that McCormick, who designed the ADE651 and arranged for its manufacture, could not have thought that they might actually work.
Unfortunately for McCormick, he will not be able to try to spin that to his advantage, by trying to claim that his devices were so absurd that there is no possibility that any of his customers genuinely believed the devices worked. Because McCormick was not charged with committing fraud, but rather with "[m]aking or supplying articles for use in fraud".
The UK probably brought charges relating to the use of fraudulent devices — rather than fraud through use of misrepresentations — because most of McCormick's customers seem to have been foreign officials who either received kickbacks from McCormick in exchange for arranging for procurement of the fake bomb detectors, or received some similar compensation for their role in the distribution of the devices. As such, McCormick's acts of fraud by misrepresentation may have been outside the jurisdiction of the Fraud Act (2006), at Section 15, concerning the Act's "Commencement and extent":
(2)Subject to subsection (3), sections 1 to 9 and 11 to 13 extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland only.
(3)Section 8, so far as it relates to the Armed Forces Act 2001 (c. 19), extends to any place to which that Act extends.
In the UK, then, the crime of fraud for misrepresentation applies only to domestic crimes, and does not have any extraterritorial reach. In contrast, per Section 15(3), in cases of fraud arising from "[p]ossession etc. of articles for use in frauds" or "[m]aking or supplying articles for use in frauds," criminal liability "extends to any place to which [the Armed Forces Act 2001] extends." The territorial force of the prohibition on possession or supplying of fraudulent devices would therefore extend to "where any body of the [UK] regular forces is on active service" — i.e., Iraq and Afghanistan.
So to the extent that McCormick's crimes occurred overseas, his sales to Iraq and Afghanistan were still unlawful under UK law.
Posted in Everything Else	| Tagged ADE651, atsc, GT200, mccormick	| 9 Replies
Thinking Like a Lawyer and the Inverted Scientific Method
In Michael's last post, he covered Brian Leiter's histrionic reaction to an e-mail that challenged Leiter's knowledge of what it means to "think like a lawyer," due to Leiter's lack of experience at actually being a lawyer. But, as has been noted elsewhere, nowhere in Leiter's response did he actually address the e-mail's subject: can a non-practicing law professor know how to "think like a lawyer?"
But before you can answer that, there's a more definitional question that needs to be resolved first: how does one "think like a lawyer," anyway? There is rarely a concrete definition provided for this phrase; it is usually given the Justice Stewart treatment, in that one simply knows it when they see it. What is the thought process, then, that evokes this description?
In my own experience as an attorney, I have often had clients accuse me of "thinking like a lawyer." Good-natured accusations, of course; after all, that's what they're paying me for. I was also once accused of "thinking like a lawyer" by a judge — but the judge, unlike my clients, did not intend it as a compliment. (More the opposite, really.) And I've gotten accused of "thinking like a lawyer" by other lawyers, too, albeit most often when I've come up with a legal theory that is too clever by half.
And from thinking back on my own experiences, and trying to identify the common thread in all of those incidents, the best definition I can come up with is this: to "think like a lawyer" is to engage in an inverted version scientific method. It is the art of identifying the plausible, and then portraying it as the logical. In short, people accuse you of "thinking like a lawyer" when you find a way to depict a given set of facts and law, in an accurate but deliberately emphasized fashion, so that the data compels a conclusion that has been pre-established by the lawyer.
It is an inversion of the scientific method, in that the data does not — and, I would argue, cannot — compel the conclusion. The conclusion is predefined, and the lawyer's job is to sift through the data and construct an explanation that results in the conclusion. But the steps followed in the scientific process are not all that different from the steps of the legal process, it is just that the legal method follows those steps in a slightly different order.
In defining the scientific method, Wikipedia provides the following methodological process:
Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis
Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Both the scientific method and the legal method begin at the same place, and Step 1 for both methods is the same: define the question. For the legal method, the starting point is, What is my client trying to achieve? What is the client's win condition? (Or, if you happen to be a law professor: what is a journal article conclusion that is likely to be published?)
But after the first step, the scientific and legal methods diverge sharply. Whereas the scientist proceeds to Step 2, the lawyer instead skips right ahead to Step 6: what are the possible results of the legal process that come the closest to achieving my client's objectives? There are almost always a few different legal outcomes that would satisfy at least some of the goals of the representation, although there are usually trade offs between them. Luckily for the lawyer, she is not hindered by the scientist's need for a single, unified result. The lawyer can have multiple possible results, and, at least if you are litigator, there isn't even a requirement that those results not be mutually exclusive results.
Once you have your result(s), the lawyer then goes back again, and moves on to Step 2. Although, for the lawyer, Step 2 is actually a two-parter: Step 2(a): gather and identify all the relevant facts, and Step 2(b): gather and identify all the relevant law. "Relevant" in this context means "could be useful," either for the lawyer or the lawyer's opponent. Trying to efficiently identify the most important factual and legal data is a skill in itself, but as a starting point, you need to establish the important factual matters that can be proven by admissible evidence, and then to determine the statutes and case law that will be directly relevant to the case.
And then it is on to Step 3 — and the point in the legal method where "thinking like a lawyer" really kicks in. In the legal method, the lawyer examines the relevant facts and the relevant laws, and identifies all the plausible methods by which the two can combined to achieve one or more of the results that was defined previously in Step 6.
Luckily for attorneys, law is not science; it is not defined by reference to a pre-existing reality, and it is not limited to formulations that are consistent with this pre-existing state. It only has to be consistent within itself. Which means there are lot of plausible ways that those facts and laws can be combined. The question for the lawyer, then, is what are the possible hypotheses that might be consistent with the relevant factual record? You are not looking at what did happen, you are looking for everything that could have happened. Then, taking the resulting class of possible hypotheses, you examine each of them in turn for their consistency with the results defined in Step 6.
And, also luckily for attorneys, "consistency" in this context is defined broadly. Oftentimes, a given statute can be both consistent and inconsistent with a desired result, depending on how you emphasize a word or two in its provisions. "Consistency" can also mean constructing a revisionist version of history — leaving aside what an actor's subjective motivations were, what are all of the plausible explanations for that actor's behavior given the post hoc data set you have established?
Then it is on to Step 4, which is creating experiments to test your arguments — or, as we call them in law school, hypotheticals. In short, you test the plausibility of your own explanations, by examining their consistency with existing case law, and by comparing the plausibility of your explanations against the plausibility of your opponent's, and trying to make sure your explanations are always the more plausible option. And, finally, we arrive at Step 5. For the scientist, Step 5 is analysis; for the lawyer, Step 5 is advocacy. The scientists examines the data they have acquired from Steps 2-4, and then determines how that data might contribute to our understanding of the world, and so arrives at Step 6. The lawyer does not need to bother with that part, because they've already established Step 6; to the lawyer, Step 5 involves demonstrating why your explanation of the data is more believable than everyone else's rival explanations.
And that, in a very large nutshell, is how I would describe the process of lawyering.
So, now that I've provided my own definition of what it means to "think like a lawyer," we return to the original question that so enraged Prof. Leiter: can a law professor who has never been a practicing attorney "think like a lawyer?"
Absolutely. The basic method of thinking like a lawyer is the same for both a law professor and a lawyer. The primary distinction is that the two have very different objectives, but the process they use is more or less the same.
The law professor is different from the lawyer in that — at least ideally — the law professor's motivation is to identify the most plausible construction of the data that supports a conclusion intriguing enough to be published, whereas the lawyer's motivation is to identify a plausible construction of the data that best supports their client's win conditions. In other words, because the law professor's Step 1 is less bound to the goal of achieving a specific real-world objective, the law professor has a lot more wiggle room on how to define the possible results at Step 6 of the legal method.
So Prof. Leiter was right in that the ability to "think like a lawyer" is not limited to practicing lawyers. Unfortunately for Prof. Leiter, he was not himself thinking like a lawyer when he chose to respond to the e-mailer's question by being a sesquipedalian bully, instead of by following the legal method and constructing an actual argument.
Posted in Everything Else	| 3 Replies
Why Won't Romney Explain His Tax Plan? Because the Romney Tax Plan is the Enactment of a VAT
Posted on October 16, 2012 by Susan Simpson
The contents of Romney's tax plan, like the contents of Romney's personal tax returns, have been a continuing enigma throughout Romney's election campaign. All the tax policy issue has taken a backseat to the tax returns issue, recently it has been the subject of renewed attention, from objections lodged by economists skeptical of the tax policy's soundness, to Obama operatives who, sensing blood in the water, have taken to ridiculing Romney's Lucy-with-the-football routine regarding the specifics of the tax plan.
These criticisms are fair. Although some economists do support Romney's claims in theory — noting that there are "possible" explanations that could result in Romney's tax plan actually working out — none have admitted to actually having had a chance to look at the details. But other economists have taken to pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. William Gale, the co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, has gotten publicity from both sides of the aisle for his own derision of Romney's tax plan, due to his attempt at debunking Romney's claim that his plan is revenue neutral. In attempting to evaluate 'the full Romney tax plan' — a tax plan "which, by the way, does not exist," Gale is quick to note — Gale and two other economists concluded that
a revenue-neutral plan that met five specific goals that Governor Romney had put forth (reducing income tax rates by 20 percent, repealing the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax, and capital income taxes for middle class households, and enhancing saving and investment) would cut taxes for households with income above $200,000, and—as a result of revenue-neutrality—would therefore necessarily have to raise taxes on taxpayers below $200,000.
Michael Graetz has also attacked Romney's claims that broadening the tax base would be sufficient to pay for his tax cuts:
"You can't get enough base-broadening to finance his rate reductions," says Michael Graetz, a Columbia Law School professor who was a top tax official in President George H.W. Bush's Treasury Department. "Romney says what he will do on tax cuts but he's not prepared to say what he would do on the hard stuff."
But Romney continues to be coy regarding any details of his tax plan, as he has been throughout the election. The only specific points that Romney has offered in defense of his plan's claim to revenue neutrality are that "[the] tax cuts would be paid for through a combination of reduced tax breaks and the economic growth his plans would generate." But these 'specifics' are really more like 'vague generalities.'
In that vein, a recent Fortune article examined where these two items could actually result in a revenue neutral tax plan:
The debate over the Romney fiscal plan has gotten stuck on the revenue side of the equation, namely, how the tax cut would impact the amount of money coming into the Treasury. The Romney campaign insists that the tax cut is what they call "revenue neutral," meaning that it would essentially pay for itself. There are only a few ways that this could be possible: 1) If taxes will ultimately be going up for certain tax payers through the elimination of deductions or 2) If the amount of economic growth generated by the tax cuts would increase revenue as more people start paying into the system or 3) A combination of both.
Fortune concluded that "[e]ven under the most generous economic assumptions, Mitt Romney's tax plan simply doesn't work." Although, in theory, increased economic growth and elimination of income tax deductions could offset — at least to some degree — the effect of the Romney tax cuts, Romney won't provide any of the supporting details that are necessary to bolster that conclusion. Namely, (1) Romney refuses to actually identify what deductions would actually be eliminated, and (2) Romney's reliance on "economic growth" to explain how his tax plan could pay for itself is maddeningly circular — it is self-justifying and impossible to evaluate in the absence of specifics.
But the Fortune article overlooks the third possible mechanism by which the Romney Tax Plan could actually be revenue neutral; through the implementation of a new, non-income based form of taxation.
In other words, the missing piece of the Romney Tax Plan puzzle is the VAT.
If the VAT is the secret ingredient of the Romney Tax Plan, it would explain why Romney has continued to insist that his tax plan really can lower the income tax rate across the board while also remaining revenue neutral, and why Romney has refrained from actually identifying which deductions he is going to axe in order to pay for his tax cuts. Because Romney knows that his plan doesn't actually need to get rid of deductions — the Romney tax cuts are not offset by increasing the proportion of household income that is subject to income tax, the Romney tax cuts are offset instead by another tax.
Romney has previously admitted, during the primary-era of the 2012 election cycle, that he was drawn to a VAT-style taxation system that, for reasons of political expediency, was layered onto the existing income tax system:
He notes that "my 59-point modest plan are immediate steps I'll take on Day One and that the steps I will take Day Two include moving toward a Simpson-Bowles-style lower tax rate, a broader base tax system. . . . People say, 'Well, let me see that plan.' It's like, 'That's going to take a lot more analysis and modeling than I have the capacity to do in the confines of a campaign.' But I will campaign for lower tax rates and a broader base of taxation."
What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like—I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions."
Since Mr. Romney mentioned a consumption tax, would he rule out a value-added tax?
He says he doesn't "like the idea" of layering a VAT onto the current income tax system. But he adds that, philosophically speaking, a VAT might work as a replacement for some part of the tax code, "particularly at the corporate level," as Paul Ryan proposed several years ago. What he doesn't do is rule a VAT out.
There is ample evidence out there that that the apparent voodoo employed by the Romney tax plan, in reaching the conclusion that the plan is revenue neutral, can in fact be explained by the plan's previously unmentioned inclusion of a VAT, or some other form of consumption tax. Romney's own policy documents frequently reference studies based on consumption taxes. See, for instance, the Romney Program for Economic Recovery, Growth, and Jobs — a policy plan which the Economist described as "like 'Fifty Shades of Grey' without the sex." Although the Romney Program for Economic Recovery does, indeed, splash out a lot of sensational language while remaining totally devoid of any substance, the documents isn't notable for the specific policy proposals it contains (because, well, there aren't any) but rather for the specific authority it relies upon in support of its disjointed claims of accelerated GDP growth and increased job creation.
True, the main text of the Program does not directly allude to a consumption tax, but it doesn't provide for any other sort of concrete policy proposals either — the document reads like a horoscope, or an ad for a pay-per-call psychic, explaining how Romney will "unlock[] the potential for innovation, investment, and initiative in America's dynamic economy" through the enactment of "four main economic pillars." One of those pillars is Tax Reform:
Reform The Nation's Tax Code To Increase Growth And Job Creation.
Reduce individual marginal income tax rates across-the-board by 20 percent, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. Reduce the corporate income tax rate – the highest in the world – to 25 percent.
Broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.
Romney then argues that enactment of this pillar will result in fantastic gains for the American economy, as "[a] significant body of economic research concludes that fundamental tax reform could increase real GDP growth over the next decade by 0.5 to 1 percentage point per year. Kevin Hassett and Alan Auerbach surveyed the literature and found that tax reform could increase output by between 5 and 10 percent." The article referenced is Hassett and Auerbach's survey, Toward Fundamental Tax Reform (2005), and the following excerpt from that article appears to be the source of the Program's projected numbers:
Based on results from a fairly large number of different models, the literature suggests that a wholesale switch to an ideal system might eventually increase economic output by between 5 and 10 percent, or perhaps a slightly wider range.
There are two glaring points to be made here. First, the studies that Romney is relying on for his projected GDP growth are based upon an assumption of a "wholesale switch" from the current tax system to an "ideal system" — but these studies almost uniformly conclude that such a "wholesale switch" would be politically impossible. Not to mention the fact that these projections require Romney to address the trillion dollar question of what the "ideal system" is — a question for which most of the authors he cites to have contradicting answers.
But the research Romney's Program uses to justify his projected numbers all have something in common. Although the survey explores a variety of differing and contradicting proposed tax reforms, almost all of the proposals include, to some degree, a consumption tax component — despite the fact Romney's own platform has never alleged that he too is proposing a tax plan containing a consumption tax.
From what we know of Romney's tax plan, however, there do appear to be a number of similarities with the VAT proposal set forth by Michael Graetz in chapter three of the Hassett and Auerbach survey, "A Fair and Balanced Tax System for the Twenty-first Century":
The Corporate Income Tax. Lower the corporate rate to 25 percent, and more closely align book and tax accounting. …
Enact a Value-Added Tax. To replace the revenues just lost, enact a value added tax at a 10–14 percent rate. … In order to keep the tax rate as low as possible, the VAT tax base should be broad, covering nearly all goods and services. A broad VAT tax base with a single tax rate would minimize its economic distortions, and limiting exemptions would simplify compliance and administration
Hmm. Lower the corporate tax rate to 25%, and then use a broadened tax base to offset to ensure that the tax reform is revenue neutral? Now where could I have possibly seen that before…
One key point where Graetz's plan and Romney's proposal apparently differ is that, for personal income taxes, Romney has proposed that we "[r]epeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)," while Graetz, in apparent contrast, has proposed that we
"[l]ower the [Alternative Minimum Tax] rate to 25 percent and repeal the regular income tax. Everybody seems to want to repeal the AMT; let's repeal the regular income tax instead. … Most of the special income-tax credits and allowances that now crowd the tax code and complicate tax forms would be repealed. But the deductions for charitable contributions, home-mortgage interest, and large medical expenses would be retained."
But on a second look, Romney's plan to repeal the AMT could in fact be equivalent to Graetz's suggestion that we replace the current tax system with a modified AMT. We know that Romney has stated he would keep his tax plan revenue neutral by eliminating deductions — but we also know that Romney has a snowball's chance in hell of touching the politically popular deductions for charitable giving, home-mortgage interest, and medical expenses. But if Romney's plan to "eliminate the AMT" involves cutting marginal income taxes 20% "across the board" while "reduc[ing] tax breaks" — then, well, it would look a lot like Graetz's plan.
Romney's plan also bares some resemblances to William Gale's discussion, at chapter two of the Hassett and Auerbach survey, of what a consumption tax ought to look like, even if Romney avoids specifically identifying the consumption tax component of his plan:
A well-designed consumption tax would (a) collect adequate revenues to cover expenditures over time and avoid reducing national saving through higher government deficits; (b) broaden the base to lessen interference in the economy; (c) tax already-existing capital—that is, concentrate any revenue relief on new saving or investment; and (d) treat interest income and expense in a consistent manner.
The irony is that Gale and Graetz have both gone on the record decrying Romney's tax plan as a sham, noting that the disclosed details of Romney's plan don't add up. But what Gale and Graetz may have failed to consider — and what Romney's justification for citing to Gale and Graetz's work as support for his tax policy — is Romney's plan only appears to be nonsensical because Romney is refusing to disclose the plan's linchpin component: a consumption tax that offsets the income tax cuts.
Further support for a consumption tax component to the Romney tax plan is also found in the Program's Appendix, where it references a study that
found that [tax] reform proposals would increase GDP by between 5 and 9 percent over the long run, using a dynamic economic simulation model. (Altig, David, Alan J. Auerbach, Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Kent A. Smetters, Jan Wallsier, "Simulating Fundamental Tax Reform in the U.S.," University of California, Berkeley, September 29, 1999).
The source of the Appendix's numbers seems to be from the following excerpt from that article:
We use our model to examine five fundamental tax reforms that span the major proposals currently under discussion. Each reform we consider replaces the federal personal and corporate income taxes in a revenue-neutral manner. The reforms are a proportional income tax, a proportional consumption tax, a flat tax, a flat tax with transition relief, and the X tax.
The proportional income tax applies a single tax rate to all labor and capital income, with no exemptions or deductions. The proportional consumption tax differs from the proportional income tax by permitting 100 percent expensing of new investment. One may think of it as being implemented via a wage tax at the household level plus a business cash-flow tax. The flat tax differs from the proportional consumption tax by including a standard deduction against wage income and by exempting implicit rental income accruing from the ownership of housing and consumer durables. The remaining two proposals modify the flat tax to address distributional concerns. The flat tax with transition relief aids existing asset holders by permitting continued depreciation of old capital (capital in existence at the commencement of the reform). The X tax aids lower-income taxpayers by substituting the flat tax's single-rate wage tax with a progressive wage tax. To recoup the lost revenue, its sets the business cash-flow tax rate equal to the highest tax rate applied to wage income. Alternatively, one can think of the X tax as a high rate flat tax with a progressive subsidy to wages.
The proportional income tax raises the long-run level of output by almost 5 percent… [and] [t]he proportional consumption tax raises long-run output by over 9 percent.
So, to recap: Romney's Program for Economic Recovery bases its exuberant claims regarding the effectiveness of Romney's tax plan on an article which looked at possible GDP benefits of five "fundamental tax reform" proposals — four of which involved a consumption tax component.
If Romney is claiming that his "fundamental tax reform" will result in rampant GDP growth, and Romney uses these studies to prove the alleged economic advantages of the Romney Tax Plan, then, it may be presumed, that Romney's tax plan is one of the proposed tax reforms that these studies examined. Because the tax plans considered by the studies were overwhelmingly based on the implementation of a consumption tax — and because Romney's tax plan does not appear to have any overarching similarities to the proportional income tax reform plan — Romney's tax plan contemplates the implementation of a consumption tax.
This conclusion is hard to avoid, at least without accusing Romney of being a liar. Either Romney's tax plan contains a consumption tax component — or else Romney has been deliberately relying upon irrelevant and unrelated studies as support for his fantastic claims about the economic benefits of his tax proposal.
Take your pick.
Posted in Everything Else	| Tagged consumption tax, romney, tax plan	| 2 Replies
Susan's Theory of the Secret Fifth Amendment in Kiobel, as explained via gchat
Posted on October 1, 2012 by Susan Simpson
I had a thought
The entire United States argument against extraterritorial application in this case is built around something like act-of-state doctrine.
Why don't we just apply act-of-state doctrine?
You could, and it should be part of it. But even Nigeria didn't actually make a law saying human rights abuses is totes okay.
And also "but the country said it was okay" is not a get out of jail free card once you start with the genocide stuff.
Well, wait.
Act of state is just the judgment of the legality of another nation's conduct, right?
Yes, but we're not (necessarily) judging another nation's conduct, for one — it's a Kirkpatrick situation. And second, I don't think the purposes of the act of state doctrine are supported if it's interpreted to require a court to go "whelp, it's not my place to say that another country shouldn't commit genocide."
Act of State = choice of law.
I'm saying that the United States' argument is built around an idea that seems roughly equivalent to act-of-state.
"HERE, ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS'
SUIT IS AGAINST PRIVATE CORPORATIONS ALLEGED TO
HAVE AIDED AND ABETTED HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF NIGERIA, ADJUDICATION OF THE SUIT WOULD NECESSARILY
ENTAIL A DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER THE NIGERIAN
GOVERNMENT OR ITS AGENTS HAVE TRANSGRESSED LIMITS IMPOSED
BY INTERNATIONAL LAW"
Ohhh, no I'd disagree with you. I have a half-written post on it, but I'd argue the U.S.'s position incorporates the international component of the 5th amendment.
Yeah, but that's foreign affairs stuff. Act of State requires a court to select the foreign sovereign's law for the court's rules of decision.
So it's kinda where jus cogens comes into play. Nigeria can't make a law saying "lol genocide is okay."
This is the definition I'm familiar with:
"This doctrine says that a nation is sovereign within its own borders, and its domestic actions may not be questioned in the courts of another nation."
I understand now
That's the one sentence version, but it doesn't mean that U.S. courts are categorically forbidden from questioning foreign countries' acts.
We're talking about two conceptions of the act-of-state doctrine.
Mine was the broader one.
Yours is the more limited Supreme Court version.
"As we said in Ricaud, "the act within its own boundaries of one sovereign State …
becomes … a rule of decision for the courts of this country." 246 U.S. at 310. Act of state
issues only arise when a court must decide–that is, when the outcome of the case turns upon–
the effect of official action by a foreign sovereign. When that question is not in the case,
neither is the act of state doctrine."
I agree with you, I think, as far as aiding and abetting cases go.
Maybe for different reasons, though.
I'm not saying that I think Kiobel actually implicates act of state.
I'm just saying that the U.S. position sounds much like act of state, such that there is no need to make new law if the U.S. is correct.
Yeah, agreed.
I think the U.S. is 100% right.
The U.S. thinks that there IS a need to make new law DESPITE the fact that we have act of state doctrine to solve the very problem that the U.S. uses to support the supposed need for new law.
Okay wait I'm misunderstanding, then. What new law does the US think is needed?
1) The U.S. believes that the Court should hold that the ATS does not apply extraterritorially in cases involving corporations.
2) It substantiates that position at least in part by invoking a notion that sounds just like act of state doctrine.
See the United States' distinction between "individual foreign perpetrators" and corporations
When found residing in the United States.
An individual foreigner abroad (that somehow still had sufficient US contacts) would be in the same place.
Maybe it would be more accurate to say that the U.S. is against ATS liability for the extraterritorial acts of corporations that do not have their principal place of business or headquarters here
Yeah, part of the equation is subsidy-to-parent jurisdictional veil piercing.
Maybe I was over-emphasizing the U.S.'s use of the word "individual."
This is why it's all a 5th Amendment Due Process issue. The reasonableness of the US's adjudicative jurisdiction here is both unconstitutional and in violation of international law.
My take was that individual humans can usually only really "be" in one spot at one time. Corporations are in many places at once. So a corporation's existence in the US is not dispositive, like a human's is.
An interesting argument, but the U.S. is making that argument as a matter of international law and foreign policy, not from a Fifth Amendment perspective, no?
Okay so maybe they don't specifically say it, but it's in there if you squint hard enough.
The "secret" Fifth Amendment argument?
The Fifth Amendment in Exile.
Basically, the ATS is open ended, and hands out causes of action for int'l law violations like candy (pretend all of this is true)
But the court, before exercising jurisdiction, still has to consider: Personal jurisdiction, exhaustion of remedies, forum non conveniens,
Act of State, international comity, choice of law, political question doctrine, foreign affairs/case-specific judicial deference, and in corporate cases, corporate/subsidy-parent veil piercing issues.
All of these doctrines have some Due Process consideration behind them. (Separation of powers for a lot of them, too, but due process is a biggie.)
Even if the text of the ATS creates an opening for these suits, it's just a grant of subject matter jurisdiction. All of the Due Process jurisdictional questions must be considered separately.
Like they would in any foreign-defendant case, but because of the subject matter, the judicial due process doctrines are firing on all cylinders.
So when you have a pirate residing in the U.S. being sued for torture and genocide he did abroad, and his home country says "fuck that bastard, you can sue him," and the U.S. political branches are going, "fuck that bastard, you can sue him," then the due process concerns evaporate.
I still don't think the United States is making that argument
But ok.
I think in section C they are getting at it,
even if they don't invoke the magic words of Due Process. But everything the US is counseling the court to consider is a doctrine that was invented either to serve due process, separation of powers, or both.
You should write a post
A quick post.
Maybe at lunch I'll play around with getting my other post to work in WP.
Or maybe I'll be uber-lazy and just copy and paste the chat.
Posted in Everything Else	| Tagged international law, kiobel	| 2 Replies
Fraud Charges (Finally!) Brought Against Gary Bolton, Jim McCormick, and Four Other UK Manufactures of Fake Bomb Detectors
Last week, the UK finally brought criminal charges against Jim McCormick, of ATSC, Ltd., for his role in the manufacturing and distribution of his worthless "bomb detectors." These devices — the ADE-651, ADE-650, and ADE-101 are the three 'products' identified in the charges — are composed of nothing more than an empty plastic casing with an antenna glued into one end, but they are sold to governments worldwide under the absurd promise that the devices can detect drugs, bombs, guns, and diamonds at miraculous distances.
Although in 2010 the UK finally banned the sale of these devices to Iraq and Afghanistan — where they were endangering the lives of UK service members — in the two years since that ban went into effect, sales of fake bomb detectors have continued unabated to other countries around the world, including Mexico and Thailand.
Still, even if the criminal charges against McCormick are long overdue, it is a promising sign that the UK is finally taking some sort of tangible action against these charlatans:
Avon and Somerset Police have confirmed that a 55-year-old man, who lives in Somerset, will face six charges under the Fraud Act (2006).
The decision to charge James McCormick from Langport, follows consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service's Central Fraud Division..
This charging decision follows a complex 30-month international investigation led by Avon and Somerset Police.
Mr McCormick will appear at the City of London Magistrates' Court, Queen Victoria Street, London tomorrow Thursday July 12 2012
He will face six charges:
1 James William McCormick, between 15 January 2007 and 12 July 2012, had in his possession or under his control an article for use in the course of or in connection with a fraud, namely an ADE 101 device. Contrary to section 6 Fraud Act 2006
2. James William McCormick, between 15 January 2007 and 12 July 2012, had in his possession or under his control an article for use in the course of or in connection with a fraud, namely an ADE 650 device. Contrary to section 6 Fraud Act 2006
3. James William McCormick, between 15 January 2007 and 12 July 2012, had in his possession or under his control and article for use in the course of or in connection with a fraud, namely an ADE 651 device. Contrary to section 6 Fraud Act 2006.
4. James William McCormick, between 15 January 2007 and 12 July 2012, made or adapted, supplied or offered to supply an article, namely an ADE 101 device, knowing that it was designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with, or intending it to be used to commit, or to assist in the commission of fraud. Contrary to section 7 Fraud Act 2006
The good news didn't even stop there — the day after the charges were announced against McCormick, the City of London police's Overseas Anti-Corruption Unit (OACU) followed suit, by finally bringing criminal charges against five other individuals who have long been active in the fake bomb detector trade:
Gary Bolton faces two counts contrary to sections 2 and 7 of the Fraud Act 2006, relating to a device called 'GT200', which it is alleged was dishonestly represented as capable of detecting explosives.
Samuel Tree, Joan Tree, and Simon Sherrard have each been charged with one count contrary to Section 7 of the Fraud Act 2006, involving an 'Alpha 6' substance detection device.
Anthony Williamson faces the same charge in relation to an 'XK9' device.
Simon Sherrard faces an additional count contrary to Section 6 of the Fraud Act 2006 for possession of an Alpha 6 substance detection device for use in a fraud.
On July 11 Avon and Somerset Constabulary charged James McCormick with three counts contrary to section 6 and three counts contrary to section 7 of the Fraud Act 2006, relating to three devices, known as 'ADE 101', 'ADE 650' and 'ADE 651'. He appears before City of London Magistrates on July 12.
Sadly, Carly Wickens, Bolton's girlfriend and owner of the shipping company which was used to transport the fake bomb detectors is not among those charged. But at their appearances before the magistrate last week all of the accused plead not guilty, save for Gary Bolton, who deferred a plea awaiting sight of prosecution files. It appears that further activity in the case will not take place until September.
Most of the charges against the six individuals were brought under Section 7 of the UK's Fraud Act (2006). That provision of the Act specifically prohibits "making or supplying articles for use in frauds":
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—
(a)knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or
(b)intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.
James McCormick was also charged under Section 6 of the Act, for "possession … of articles for use in frauds":
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he has in his possession or under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud.
Gary Bolton was the only defendant charges with actually committing fraud, pursuant to Section 2 of the Act, for fraud by false representation:
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
I do wonder if the bulk of the charges were brought under Articles 6 and 7 of the Fraud Act due to the nature of the particular distribution scheme used by the defendants. For the most part, it appears that the GT-200, the ADE-651, the Alpha 6, and all of the other bogus devices, were sold not to unwitting customers who had been scammed into believing that these useless products actually worked. Instead, the fake bomb detectors were primarily sold to foreign governments through special arrangements made with corrupt foreign officials. In most cases, it is likely the officials were well aware that the devices did not perform as advertised, but rather arranged for their governments to purchase the devices in exchange for multi-million dollar kickbacks.
This means, for example, that the $10,000,000 USD spent by Thailand on the GT-200 did not entirely go into Gary Bolton's pockets, although certainly many millions of it did. But the overhead for Bolton's business consisted largely of bribes and kickbacks as opposed to parts and inventory. The devices themselves cost pennies to manufacture — instead, it was the bribes paid by ATSC, Ltd. and Global Technical, LTD. that likely made up a significant portion of the companies' costs.
Which is likely why charges for fraudulent misrepresentation were not brought against most of the individuals involved in the fake bomb detector scams — because no fraud was committed, in most of their transactions. Both the sellers and the buyers of the ADE-651, the GT-200, and similar devices had full knowledge that what was being sold was a worthless piece of junk. Without the Fraud Act's "articles for use in fraud" provisions, the actions of these companies might not have been chargeable at all.
It is notable that Bolton, unlike the other defendants, was in fact charged with one count of fraud through misrepresentation, which could imply that some of his customers were in fact duped by him. It would be curious to see what the basis for that charge was.
But I also wonder why the only claims brought by the UK were charges for fraud and fraud-related crimes — why on earth are these individuals not also being charged for bribery? After all, the Overseas Anti-Corruption Unit is the division of the London police that brought charges against five of the defendants, and that division's primary responsibility is with regards to foreign bribery actions. So why is the OACU only bringing charges for fraud here? It certainly seems odd, but with the little amount of information released about the cases so far, it's impossible to say what the significance of it may be.
And, although I'm certainly glad to see any kind of charge brought in relation to the fraudulent bomb detector scams, it is disappointing that it took the UK authorities so long to take action against what would appear to be a very simple problem. The articles for us in fraud charges are an open-and-shut matter — there does not exist an even remotely plausible argument that these 'bomb detector' devices are any more effective than a chunk of scrap metal would be when it comes to detecting any sort of substance. And yet, up until the day before charges were brought against Gary Bolton, et al., these devices continued to be sold to and used by foreign governments — and thereby endangering the lives of both civilians and law enforcement officers.
It raises the inevitable question of whether the defendants still have some behind the scenes defenders within the UK government. Or, at the very least, whether the UK's reluctance to bring bribery charges is a result of the UK government's own culpability in assisting with the sale of the these devices.
This isn't simply a matter of the UK not caring about foreign deaths. These devices have frequently endangered the lives of UK nationals, as well as the citizens of UK allies, in overseas military operations. In particular, the Government of Iraq has spent upwards of $100 mil. on the devices, with much of that coming from U.S. funded foreign aid, and has been using the devices to "detect bombs" for years. In February 2011, the Iraqi government arrested Major General Jihad al-Jabiri, the general responsible for many of Iraq's purchases of fake bomb detectors (and who, not so coincidentally, received much of the bribe money that was kickbacked in return for said contracts), suggesting that perhaps Iraq would be moving away from use of the fake bomb detectors:
Investigation revealed that Jabiri recommended that Iraq sign five contracts to supply security forces with the detectors for between 23,548.37 pounds and 34,702.86 pounds each even though the real cost of the devices is no more than 61.97 pounds, the senior official said.
The first contract, valued at about 11 million pounds, was signed in January 2007 and will be the first case taken to court, the official said.
However, it does not appear that charges against al-Jabiri ever proceeded, while Iraq's use of the fake bomb detectors has not been discontinued.
One would think that U.S. military to Department of State would take more interest in this issue, given the cost in lives of both Iraqi and joint forces, as well as the gross waste of funds that originated from U.S. foreign aid payments. Especially given that the devices originate not from some largely lawless state where enforcement against the devices would be difficult, but rather originate from a long-term friend and military ally, the United Kingdom.
Meanwhile, the arrest of Bolton, McCormick, and the rest of their ilk won't be enough to end the harm they have caused worldwide. In Thailand, for instance, where the use of the GT-200 has been particularly prevalent, federal and state military and police forces remain unconcerned by the recent charges against the manufacturers, and continue to use the devices:
The army will not stop using the GT200 bomb detector despite doubts over the efficiency of a similar device, army chief Prayuth Chan-ocha says.
Gen Prayuth yesterday said the GT200 will continue to be used by the army in the far South.
He shrugged off the concerns raised in the report by the BBC's Newsnight programme on Thursday. On the programme, Avon and Somerset Police in the UK said a British man, Jim McCormick, 55, would face six charges including producing and supplying ADE 651 devices knowing they were ineffectively designed or adapted to detect bombs.
The only positive news is that other divisions of the Thai government have expressed interest in pursuing charges over the GT-200 on their own, even if the agencies directly responsible for their use will not:
The Department of Special Investigation will take legal action against the manufacturers and distributors of allegedly defective bomb detectors if state agencies that bought them decline to do so.
DSI director-general Tarit Pengdith said yesterday he would wait to see whether the agencies take action first.
If they fail to do so, his department would step in, as his investigators had gathered enough evidence.
He said the DSI would take both criminal and civil action against the manufacturer and distributors.
Here's to hoping that the prosecutions against the fake bomb detector squad are swift and successful.
Posted in Everything Else	| Tagged ade-651, fake bomb detectors, gary bolton, gt-200, GT200, jim mccormick	| 9 Replies
Zimmerman Open Thread – 7/16/12
This post is an open thread for all discussion on the Zimmerman case. Have at it.
Posted in Everything Else	| 387 Replies
Hi, I'm Susan. I'm a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and The View From LL2 is my place to talk about things that I am interested in.
To find out more about LL2, go here.
@NatlSecCnslrs @09lives09 Especially lawyers. 9 hours ago
@09lives09 @NatlSecCnslrs Catfish and everyone not playing a catfish is a coward. 9 hours ago
@NatlSecCnslrs I'mma play to win. 9 hours ago
I have so many feelings about The Circle. 9 hours ago
In fact, President Trump's strategy for the Senate trial appears to be pretending that he never asked President Zel… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 13 hours ago
Follow @theviewfromll2
Subscribe to the View From LL2!
Enter your email address and receive notifications of new View From LL2 posts by email.
Alien Tort Statute (22)
CivPro and Unsubstantive Law (9)
Copywrong (13)
Craft Projects and Other Non-Legal Things (6)
Literature and Poetry and Other Pretentious Ramblings (7)
Marriage and the Constitution (12)
Serial: Blogging About a Podcast (23)
Statehood and Sovereignty (13)
The Law of Nations (13)
The Law of the Sea (14)
The View From L2 (Science Fiction and the Law) (15)
Video Games and the Law (6)
What the Crime Scene Photographs Show
Can you reuse a stamp from a mailed letter that did not get postmarked?
Serial: A Comparison of Adnan's Cell Phone Records and the Witness Statements Provided by Adnan, Jay, Jenn, and Cathy
On Just Security – "Here's the Proof that Trump's 'No Quid Pro Quo' Call Never Happened"
On the Origins of Stormy Daniels' $130K Settlement Payment, and the Probability of the Disbursement Records Matching the Settlement Amount by Random Chance
The Russian Backdoor Overture: A Chart
International Law Notepad
ADE651
Alien Tort Statute
establishment clause
kiobel
salazar v. buono
Statehood and Sovereignty

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


On behalf of Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Aziz posted in Oil and Gas Accidents on Monday, March 12, 2012.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for pipeline explosions to occur after a resident has reported the smell of gas to the utility company and the company fails to properly respond. That is precisely what happened at a house in Austin, Texas earlier this year in January. In late November, the resident called the gas company, complaining of a gas smell. The company came to investigate, but said it could not make any repairs without a permit from the city. Six weeks later, the man's house exploded, killing him.
Had the gas company properly handled his complaint of a gas leak, his death could have been prevented. His family is now suing Texas Gas Service as a result. Read the rest of the story here.


Applicants who meet a vacancy requirement should submit an application to the Office of the City Clerk through the City's website. Alternatively, applicants may submit a paper application by mail or fax.
Applicants having submitted applications for which there are no vacancies and/or are unsuccessful will remain on file for consideration for a period of one year pending an opening on the requested authority, board, commission or committee.
Applicants will receive an e-mail confirmation upon receipt of application indicating a date of the Council meeting in which consideration of the application is scheduled to take place. The presence of the applicant at the Council Meeting is not required.
Council generally convenes in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on the first Monday of each month. Upon reconvening in open meeting, a motion is made by a Council Member regarding the approval of appointments to authorities, boards, commissions and committees.
Once an appointment decision is made by the Council, applicants are advised via e-mail or mail regarding their appointment term. The application of the successful applicant will then become public record for the duration of their term of office.


text:
Home Press Release Page 2
Bittrex Global Welcomes Centric As First-Ever TRC20 Token Listed On The Platform
CEO Of BTCS Explains How The Company Surpassed $1M In Crypto Assets
Importance Of Choosing The Right Crypto Company
Margin Trading And Lending On The Crypto Market
Meet Blockchain For Everyone, By John Hargrave
Crypto is finally hitting the mainstream publishing industry. Purchases of the new book BLOCKCHAIN FOR EVERYONE, by Sir John Hargrave, made exclusively on Hargrave's website blockchainforeveryone.com will be eligible for $25.00 in Dai cryptocurrency, courtesy of Hargrave's arrangement with Maker and Coinbase. "This cross-promotion may be the first of its kind...
RISE Aims To Take B2B Blockchain Space By Storm
2019 will be known as the enterprise-to-enterprise boom in the blockchain. B2B Blockchain companies will out-perform the market because they provide the tools that other businesses need in order to survive. 82 percent of Fortune 100 companies are researching how they can implement blockchain technology into their current business...
Better Safe Than Sorry: How High-profile Hacks Are Stimulating Insurance For Digital Assets
Insurance. It always seems expensive until its needed. In the token economy where even the most established players have suffered losses, we are constantly reminded of the threats to client funds through 3rd party hacks, insider collusion or key person risk. In 2019 alone, many well-recognized players have fallen victim...
Dubai Bets On Blockchain Announcing Major Partnership With Fantom
Dubai Bets On Blockchain Announcing Major Partnership With Fantom Left to Right: David Freuden (Fantom Foundation); Ashton Hettiarachi (Head of Innovation Lab - Fantom Foundation); Hisham Al Gurg (CEO - The Private Office); and Patrick Osman (Director - International Ventures - The Private Office) Last year, Dubai begin implementing a new...
Counos Coin Is Giving Away 16Mil Coins Plus A Chance To Enter A 100K USD Lottery
With the cryptocurrency market going back to green, interested parties are going back to the crypto business looking for the perfect tools to enter the field. With many platforms offering similar services, it's difficult for the crypto enthusiast to choose a platform that could cater all of their needs. Counos...
The Team Behind Xeonbit That Will Ensure Its Success
Xeonbit offers a unique platform in which the main goal is to provide a secure payment platform for users who wish to remain anonymous at all times. Unlike many other platforms, Xeonbit differs by allowing the possibility of tracing transactions while also protecting the information of both, the receiver...
How CryptoFollow Is Rising Up To The Challenges Of The Crypto Industry
There was a time, not long ago, when someone would have looked puzzled and asked you what you meant if you asked them to invest in cryptocurrencies. Crypto as we know it became a thing back circa 2008 when the entity known only as 'Satoshi Nakamoto' unveiled the concept...
How Cryptocurrencies Have Turned Out To Be An Escape For Financial Crisis
From 1929 To 2008: A World In Crisis The world's financial framework has become very fragile throughout the last years. The system is an infinitely complex web of national idiosyncrasies, governance rules, and interdependencies that have become its ultimate vulnerability. This situation caused the entire financial market to crash in...
Meet YellowBetter: A New Method To Learn New Languages
YellowBetter is a community created by representatives of different countries. People who want to meet in the virtual world to learn languages, exchange experiences and, most of all, learn about new cultures. Thanks to its innovative platform, YellowBetter allows users to decide how, where, when and more importantly, what...
Spectre.ai Launches New UI For Their Financial Trading Platform – And Offers CryptoCoin.News Readers An Exclusive $100 Bonus
Spectre.ai, the fastest growing broker-less and fraud-free financial trading platform, recently announced the release of a brand-new user interface for its revolutionary platform making online trading in crypto, forex and commodities simpler and more convenient than ever. After surpassing all options & CFDs providers as the number one destination online...
Love Trading? 5 BTC Up For Grabs
trade.io is giving away Bitcoin to lovers of crypto trading St. Valentine of trade.io is giving away Bitcoin in a competition that's sure to sweep you off your feet! For all those who are not so keen on the occasion, why not swap your love for crypto? So, what's the competition...
Project PAI Is Betting It Can Use Blockchain To Make AI Available To Everyone
Last week, almost 300M people tuned into the watch China Central Television's (CCTV) Network Spring Festival Gala. While the annual broadcast event featured its usual song, dance, and comedy performances, this year, viewers got a special surprise when some AI avatars showed up to host the show. These avatars were...
Crypto exchange trade.io has announced a partnership with payment processor Simplex, enabling clients to purchase a range of popular cryptocurrencies by credit or debit card. Initially, the solution will support the purchase of Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Litecoin (LTC), & Bitcoin Cash (BCH) with USD or EUR. Management of trade.io...
Small Business Experts Distill Knowledge Into One-Stop-Shop Business Advisory Platform For Entrepreneurs
Clarity leadership team combine expertise to launch the business advisory platform for small business worldwide. Having built and sold multiple award-winning companies, the four founding members are uniquely placed to deliver the Clarity vision. Having advised thousands of entrepreneurs across the world, they have a deep understanding of the...
Launching A Security Token Offering With ICO Malta
ICO Launch Malta has pioneered the security token offering sector, enabling clients to take their venture public with its robust security token offering platform. The company takes a client's existing asset, something that exists in the real world (such as startup equity, rental income, real estate, or gold bars),...
ARCHOS Unveils The Safe-T Touch
the first hardware wallet for crypto-assets embedding a secured services platform Paris – Tuesday, September 25th, 2018 – ARCHOS today announces the launch in January 2019 of its Safe-T Touch, the first secure hardware wallet with a touchscreen, featuring an Android interface and integrated services platform, for those who already hold...
CargoCoin & UGSA Strategic Partnership
CargoCoin (UK based) and UGSA (Dubai based) has entered in a strategic partnership to deliver the best customer experience in the shipping industry. CargoCoin will be providing free access to their shipping platform to USGA members in over 20 countries, while UGSA members will be exclusively using the CargoCoin...
Singapore-based Startup Aranium Adopts Blockchain In Private Equity Investing
Blockchain and cryptocurrencies are considered game-changers in the finance world despite Wall Street's caution. And when it comes to private equity (PE), an early innovator could enjoy first-mover advantage. Global private equity deals are valued at $150 trillion USD. But barriers and inefficiencies have prevented more people from participating in...
Alibabacoin Foundation Updates Their Multi-Crypto Wallet, Providing New Ways To Earn Free ABBC Coins
Alibabacoin Foundation has made improvements in their multi-crypto wallet and recently launched the upgraded version. The much-awaited updated version of the MC wallet is now available for download from Google Play store while the App Store version for iOS users will be available soon. By downloading the Multi Crypto...
Wild Asia, Tianya Announces Partnership With A Global Cultural Asset Trading Platform – INKubator
August 19, 2018 – INKubator, the highly anticipated Global Cultural Asset Trading Platform developed by blockchain powerhouse Ink, was officially unveiled to the world in an exclusive preview in Seoul, South Korea on August 17. Highlights of the revolutionary intellectual property (IP) asset trading portal was shared at the...
Turning A Crisis Into A Fresh Start Financially
8 Steps To Save Money On A Daily Basis
The Principles Of FIRE: Financial Independence And Retiring Early


The Key to Memorable "Really Living" Vacations? Fear and Suffering Sound counterintuitive? Perhaps. If the goal of a vacation is to eliminate all stress, then cocooning safely by the pool for hours on end with a cocktail and a book might be just the thing. But from an Art of Really Living standpoint, such vacations are like setting a torch to your most valuable commodity: time.
Do you want to go on unforgettable, time-stopping vacations that create an indelible stamp on your memory? There is one guaranteed way: design in some form of fear and suffering.
Sounds crazy? Counterintuitive? Consider this: think back to some of your most memorable vacations as a kid or even as an adult. Almost always the best and most primary memories have incidents of suffering involved that in the moment were a crisis or a struggle, but with the patina of time and under the golden gloss of memory have subsequently become the highlights of those stories you tell. The endless drives across the country with motion sickness. The time you left your sister at a gas station. Getting lost in a foreign city. The time your car overheated driving up the mountain pass. Getting arrested for skiing out of bounds.
This, then, is the key phrase, "the stories you tell." Narratives without trial and suffering essentially have no plot - and without a plot you don't have a story, and without a story, you won't create meaningful memories.
Need more evidence? Consider the "Monomyth" or "Heroes' Journey" first popularized by Joseph Cambell, which many would argue is the basis of any successful narrative. Think Star Wars, the Matrix, Avatar… virtually any blockbuster movie or novel follows this basic 11 step journey, and core to these narratives are trials, fear and crisis.
Here's a short video analyzing "The Matrix"
If we accept that the human brain is wired for stories, and that the heroes' journey is the archetype of the most basic narrative pre-wired in our brains, then it follows that any adventure - particularly on vacation - that follows this narrative is bound to be remembered. A lazy-on-a-beachchair-with-a-cocktail vacation might sound like the perfect idyll, but from the perspective that "life is short and actively getting shorter," such a vacation has no narrative. As such, it is time lost. Time wasted. A vacation you will forget.
So… how to design a truly memorable vacation? There is no direct prescription, but in a series of coming posts we will demonstrate through stories examples of "really living" vacations that slowed, expanded, or even created time.
Narrative One: An Adventure in Playa Del Carmen.
Her response, "sure - how far is it?"
We navigated bays and shallows, marched in each other's footprints, investigated tidal pools and peered into ritzy resorts full of pale-skinned sun worshipers.
As we progressed south, the beach became more rugged and the hotels disappeared. We had been walking for about an hour and a half when Kat started asking, "are we almost there?" I looked at the map. "I think so - maybe a couple more bays." This pattern was to repeat itself several times over the coming hours.
We were now away from any development but oddly the bays and estuaries were full of people - Mayan families with naked babies splashing in the shallows laughing, dozens of grills and campfires with blue smoke of delicious smelling grilled meats. The sun was dropping, and in the chiaroscuro light it felt like we had entered another world - one hidden from the lights of the resorts - of real people experiencing the simple joys of the sun and the sand and the waves, droplets in the air like diamonds from the splashing of the kids. At several turns we were offered food and greeted warmly, we these tall other-worldly strangers traversing their alter-world.
One more bay and rocky outcrop and then, there it was, the long stretch and brilliant lights of the Playa Del Carmen main beach. We were ecstatic. We took the first side street up and entered the pedestrian zone of cobbled streets, upscale restaurants with outdoor seating, and a diverse mix of incredible people watching.
When we returned to the hotel, (9 - return) we ran into our main sponsor. "How was your evening" he asked. "Great," we said simultaneously - "we walked to Playa for dinner."
"Walked??" He exclaimed, "Playa is 12 miles away - that must have taken…"
"5 hours - yes yes it was quite the adventure." The concierge, overhearing said, "Wait wait, you walked to Playa - in the dark?! It is very rocky near the north side…."


Ad from the November 7,1909 edition of the New-York Tribune for Aunt Jemima's Pancake Flour. Credit: Image by Davis Milling Company, via Wikimedia Commons.
Following the end of the Civil War, a Confederate general remembered pancakes a former slave made for him while he was stranded in her cabin. The fond memories led the general to connect the woman, Aunt Jemima, with a milling company in Chicago. Since the recipe for pancakes was only known amongst female slaves, the company paid Aunt Jemima--in gold--for her to supervise mass production of the pancake mix. It was a do-rags to riches story. And the story was an entirely constructed advertising campaign.
The actual history of Aunt Jemima's pancake mix began in 1889 when two speculators, Chris Rutt and Charles Underwood, bought a bankrupt flour mill. They invented the mixture in hopes of creating a demand for their flour. Initially, it was simply called "Self-Rising Pancake Flour" but as Maurice Manring, author of Slave in a Box: The Strange Career of Aunt Jemima, explains, Rutt decided to name the flour after attending a minstrel show. Old Aunt Jemima was originally a song that was sung by field slaves, then later adapted and performed thousands of times at minstrel shows. When Rutt saw Peter Baker dance and perform as Aunt Jemima wearing an apron, bandana, and blackface at one of these shows, he decided to name his flour mix after the woman featured in the song.
African Americans objected to the depiction of Aunt Jemima throughout the years, with the critique heightened during the Civil Rights Movement. During the 1960s, Quaker Oats altered Aunt Jemima's appearance, slimming her body, lightening her skin, and swapping her bandana for a headband. In 1989, Quaker Oats celebrated its 100th birthday and revised Aunt Jemima's image again, removing her hair accessories and presenting her as a working grandmother.
These revisions to Aunt Jemima don't necessarily mean the end to the mammy stereotype. In the recently published book, Dethroning the Deceitful Pork Chop: Rethinking African American Foodways from Slavery to Obama, associate professor of Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies at University of California, Davis, Kimberly Nettles-Barcelón, explores its modern manifestation. Her essay, The Sassy Black Cook and the Return of the Magical Negress: Popular Representations of Black Women's Food Work was inspired by a confluence of factors, including discussions with her students, the real life experiences of black female chefs, representations of black women in film, and the works of Patricia Hill Collins and other scholars.
So, Carla Hall, as a food personality, has entered into the world of celebrity chefs. She has built a brand--herself--that utilizes many racialized and gendered stereotypes of black women and food work: being happy and entertaining, providing sustenance that is emotional, spiritual, and nutritive to her charges, sustaining her cultural heritage through foodways, and doing the work for love--love trumps everything.
Such images, says Nettles-Barcelón, can be compelling but have real life implications for black female chefs who experience pressure to conform to a certain stereotype. Instead of succumbing to the pressure, Chef Tanya Holland opted to leave her cooking show, saying, "I was in the soul kitchen, so they wanted me to act sassy. I'm from suburbia, I'm educated, I have this plethora of experience. That wasn't the way I was going to act."
Another popular chef, Gillian Clark, believed race may have contributed to her reputation of having a hot temper, telling the Washington Post, "I'm led to ask, would you buy less pancakes if Aunt Jemima wasn't smiling on the box?" Clark says. "Is it because a black person that's doing the service industry [and] not smiling is offensive, because you feel that I'm not that much further from a slave? If I'm doing a domestic or a service job and I'm not smiling, is it triggering some impulse?"
This approach can be used to counter the dominant image associated with Aunt Jemima. While Nancy Green was in character telling stories and serving pancakes, a group of African American feminists were also at the Chicago World's Fair, speaking about their plight and existing racial tension. The inclusion of information like this is not only more accurate, it shifts the focus away from antiquated relics towards actual lived realities.