In a world where workplace diversity sessions increasingly resemble Maoist struggle sessions, Chloé Valdary’s Theory of Enchantment seminars seek to bring people together using popular culture to explore our common humanity and generate empathy rather than division.
The 28-year-old Valdary started a group to combat anti-semitism as an undergraduate at the University of New Oreans, and after a fellowship at the Wall Street Journal opinion page, she created Theory of Enchantment as an alternative to the antiracist programs of Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, which she believes deepen the very resentments they seek to alleviate. Her program employs materials as varied as Disney’s Lion King, music from Kendrick Lamar, and writings by James Baldwin and Cheryl Strayed.
Valdary spoke to Reason about how her life experiences inform Theory of Enchantment, why the demand for her program is growing, and why she’s optimistic about the future of race relations and individualism.
Photo Credits: Tsering Dorjee, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons; Panchen Lama Struggle Session, Unknown author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons; Claudio Schwarz on Unsplash; Koshu Kunii on Unsplash; Philip Strong on Unsplash; Holly Andres on cherylstrayed.com; Rob Croes / Anefo, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons; Batiste Safont, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Photo by Roger Cosby on Unsplash; John Marshall Mantel/ZUMA Press/Newscom; https://www.uno.edu/uc; Photo by Brother Swagler on Unsplash; Photo by Clark Van Der Beken on Unsplash; Photo by Nelson Ndongala on Unsplash; Photo by Duncan Shaffer on Unsplash; Photo by Ryoji Iwata on Unsplash: Photo by Alicia Steels on Unsplash; Cheryl Strayed Photo by Joni Kabana; Theory of Enchantment on Facebook; Patience Photo by Caleb Gregory on Unsplash; Photo by Seven Shooter on Unsplash; Photo by Teemu Paananen on Unsplash
Music Credits: Never Looking Back—Instrumental Version, by VESHZA on Artist.io
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2WOJkTh
via IFTTT
Watch: Dramatic Footage Reveals 1,000 Migrants Under Texas Bridge
The crisis at the southern border continues to worsen as the Biden administration underestimates the true nature of what is happening. The decision to suspend Trump-era border policies has allowed illegal aliens to flood the country.
Stunning drone footage captured over the weekend shows 1,000 migrants are currently under Anzalduas Bridge in Mission, Texas, being held by US Border Patrol agents.
“This is the largest group of migrants we’ve ever seen being held by Border Patrol under Anzalduas Bridge in Mission, TX. Looks like it could be up to 1,000 people. We can only get a look at the area with our drone. There’s a popular Rio Grande crossing area nearby,” tweeted Fox News’ Bill Melugin.
NEW: This is the largest group of migrants we’ve ever seen being held by Border Patrol under Anzalduas Bridge in Mission, TX. Looks like it could be up to 1,000 people. We can only get a look at the area with our drone. There’s a popular Rio Grande crossing area nearby. @FoxNewspic.twitter.com/AsAygsO966
What’s mindboggling is that Biden administration border policies are allowing thousands upon thousands of migrants to enter the country that has the risk of spreading COVID-19 infections, or worse, spread the Delta variant within the border.
During a Fox News interview Sunday, former Trump administration adviser Stephen Miller said Biden’s decision to suspend former President Trump’s border policies is a mistake due to the risks of migrants spreading the virus.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Merrick Garland on Thursday threatened legal action against Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to cancel a new executive order limiting transportation of illegal aliens arrested at the border for fear of transmitting the virus.
“The order violates federal law in numerous respects, and Texas cannot lawfully enforce the executive order against any federal official or private parties working with the United States,” Garland told the Republican governor in a letter.
Border Patrol agents are apprehending record amounts of illegal immigrants daily along the southern border. Texas has some of the most active illegal border crossings.
Republicans have frequently criticized Biden’s rollback of Trump-era policies for the crisis on the border that mainstream media chooses to ignore.
In a world where workplace diversity sessions increasingly resemble Maoist struggle sessions, Chloé Valdary’s Theory of Enchantment seminars seek to bring people together using popular culture to explore our common humanity and generate empathy rather than division.
The 28-year-old Valdary started a group to combat anti-semitism as an undergraduate at the University of New Oreans, and after a fellowship at the Wall Street Journal opinion page, she created Theory of Enchantment as an alternative to the antiracist programs of Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, which she believes deepen the very resentments they seek to alleviate. Her program employs materials as varied as Disney’s Lion King, music from Kendrick Lamar, and writings by James Baldwin and Cheryl Strayed.
Valdary spoke to Reason about how her life experiences inform Theory of Enchantment, why the demand for her program is growing, and why she’s optimistic about the future of race relations and individualism.
Photo Credits: Tsering Dorjee, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons; Panchen Lama Struggle Session, Unknown author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons; Claudio Schwarz on Unsplash; Koshu Kunii on Unsplash; Philip Strong on Unsplash; Holly Andres on cherylstrayed.com; Rob Croes / Anefo, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons; Batiste Safont, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Photo by Roger Cosby on Unsplash; John Marshall Mantel/ZUMA Press/Newscom; https://www.uno.edu/uc; Photo by Brother Swagler on Unsplash; Photo by Clark Van Der Beken on Unsplash; Photo by Nelson Ndongala on Unsplash; Photo by Duncan Shaffer on Unsplash; Photo by Ryoji Iwata on Unsplash: Photo by Alicia Steels on Unsplash; Cheryl Strayed Photo by Joni Kabana; Theory of Enchantment on Facebook; Patience Photo by Caleb Gregory on Unsplash; Photo by Seven Shooter on Unsplash; Photo by Teemu Paananen on Unsplash
Music Credits: Never Looking Back—Instrumental Version, by VESHZA on Artist.io
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2WOJkTh
via IFTTT
Of all the states in the country, California has the most jobs in the video game industry, with more than 200,000 people either employed directly by game companies or working in supporting services. Washington state is second, with close to 50,000 jobs. Games contribute billions to the economies of both states.
So it would be profoundly stupid and self-destructive for California and Washington to make it harder for their residents to buy computers where they can play such games. Yet Dell just stopped the shipment of certain Alienware gaming PCs to California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington because of certain California Energy Commission regulations.
The California regulations aren’t quite as oppressive or wide-reaching as some news stories might make them appear, but they’re still pretty dumb. They have unintentionally created an incentive to use more power—the opposite of their intended effect—and they highlight some of the problems you see when a state isn’t not creating or importing enough energy to serve its citizens.
Here’s what’s happening: The California Energy Commission has implemented standards that strive to reduce the amount of energy computer systems use while idle or sleeping. In 2016, the state determined that computers and monitors account for 3 percent of residential energy and 7 percent of commercial energy use. That may not seem like a lot, but nevertheless the California has mandated new tech standards to reduce consumption. The other states involved have agreements to align themselves with California’s standards.
These rules are being phased in slowly over five years. On July 1, the standards for desktop computers came into effect. These regulations limit how much energy a machine can use while idling or sleeping, not during overall use. The computers that Dell stopped shipping to these states aren’t in compliance.
Other computers, however, are in compliance. Under these regulations, the amount of power consumption budget your PC is permitted is based on how expandable your system is. The more you are able to upgrade your computer—through graphics cards, additional storage or memory, etc.—the more energy you’re allowed to consume.
There is a certain logic to this: More powerful computers typically need more electricity to operate. But since the smaller, simpler computers hit their energy consumption limits more easily than expanded computers do, the rules are actually encouraging people to get bigger computers that consume more electricity.
Jason Langevin of the computer tech YouTube channel JayzTwoCents posted a helpful explainer making it clear to hardcore gamers that their fancy home-built rigs are not in any danger. Or at least they aren’t at the moment. What happens when these regulations fail to reduce energy consumption? Will they start targeting other computer components that in time, actually will attempt to restrict how powerful the PCs may be that Californians are permitted to purchase? (Langevin also goes on a bit of a rant about how much work it took for him to find the details—the California Energy Commission’s outdated website gave him a 404 error when he tried to view the relevant regulations. The Register has a link embedded to a PDF download, which was the only way I was able to read through the regs myself.)
So the good-ish news is that the regulations don’t ban gaming PCs, and thus aren’t as impactful as they might have seemed at first. But unless the state starts getting really serious about building more power capacity we’re likely to see stricter computer regulations down the line. And how serious is California about building power capacity Gov. Gavin Newsom just declared an emergency because the heat and drought are putting so much pressure on the state’s energy grid, and his declaration fails to use the word “nuclear” even once.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ieSLDH
via IFTTT
Of all the states in the country, California has the most jobs in the video game industry, with more than 200,000 people either employed directly by game companies or working in supporting services. Washington state is second, with close to 50,000 jobs. Games contribute billions to the economies of both states.
So it would be profoundly stupid and self-destructive for California and Washington to make it harder for their residents to buy computers where they can play such games. Yet Dell just stopped the shipment of certain Alienware gaming PCs to California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington because of certain California Energy Commission regulations.
The California regulations aren’t quite as oppressive or wide-reaching as some news stories might make them appear, but they’re still pretty dumb. They have unintentionally created an incentive to use more power—the opposite of their intended effect—and they highlight some of the problems you see when a state isn’t not creating or importing enough energy to serve its citizens.
Here’s what’s happening: The California Energy Commission has implemented standards that strive to reduce the amount of energy computer systems use while idle or sleeping. In 2016, the state determined that computers and monitors account for 3 percent of residential energy and 7 percent of commercial energy use. That may not seem like a lot, but nevertheless the California has mandated new tech standards to reduce consumption. The other states involved have agreements to align themselves with California’s standards.
These rules are being phased in slowly over five years. On July 1, the standards for desktop computers came into effect. These regulations limit how much energy a machine can use while idling or sleeping, not during overall use. The computers that Dell stopped shipping to these states aren’t in compliance.
Other computers, however, are in compliance. Under these regulations, the amount of power consumption budget your PC is permitted is based on how expandable your system is. The more you are able to upgrade your computer—through graphics cards, additional storage or memory, etc.—the more energy you’re allowed to consume.
There is a certain logic to this: More powerful computers typically need more electricity to operate. But since the smaller, simpler computers hit their energy consumption limits more easily than expanded computers do, the rules are actually encouraging people to get bigger computers that consume more electricity.
Jason Langevin of the computer tech YouTube channel JayzTwoCents posted a helpful explainer making it clear to hardcore gamers that their fancy home-built rigs are not in any danger. Or at least they aren’t at the moment. What happens when these regulations fail to reduce energy consumption? Will they start targeting other computer components that in time, actually will attempt to restrict how powerful the PCs may be that Californians are permitted to purchase? (Langevin also goes on a bit of a rant about how much work it took for him to find the details—the California Energy Commission’s outdated website gave him a 404 error when he tried to view the relevant regulations. The Register has a link embedded to a PDF download, which was the only way I was able to read through the regs myself.)
So the good-ish news is that the regulations don’t ban gaming PCs, and thus aren’t as impactful as they might have seemed at first. But unless the state starts getting really serious about building more power capacity we’re likely to see stricter computer regulations down the line. And how serious is California about building power capacity Gov. Gavin Newsom just declared an emergency because the heat and drought are putting so much pressure on the state’s energy grid, and his declaration fails to use the word “nuclear” even once.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ieSLDH
via IFTTT
A new Congressional report into the origins of COVID-19 points to “unusual” activity at the Wuhan National Biosafety Lab involving air disinfection and hazardous waste systems, prior to the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.
The report by Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, obtained by Fox News, highlights how the lab in Wuhan requested bids for ‘major renovations’ to air safety and waste treatment systems in the facilities, just two years after they became operational.
The report notes that “Such a significant renovation so soon after the facility began operation appears unusual,” and that it “raise[s] questions about how well these systems were functioning in the months prior to the outbreak of COVID-19.”
The report notes that it is unknown if any renovation work was ever carried out.
The findings will be presented in Congress this week where the Republicans will make the case that “the preponderance of evidence suggests SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a Wuhan Institute of Virology laboratory.”
Republicans will also present further evidence that the virus was genetically manipulated in the lab, according to the report.
The Republicans have built a case around a timeline that indicates the virus escaped the lab “sometime prior to September 12, 2019.”
At this time there is a record of activity such as the WIV’s viral sequence database disappearing from the internet, and the institute ramping up security.
The report notes that after lab workers became sick in November 2019 Major General Chen Wei, an expert in biology and chemical weapon defenses, took control of the Wuhan Institute’s biosafety level-4 lab.
The report suggests that this shows the Communist government “was concerned about the activity happening there as news of the virus was spreading.”
“If she took control in 2019, it would mean the CCP knew about the virus earlier, and that the outbreak began earlier,” the report states.
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here. Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Also, we urgently need your financial support here.
“It’s Over, It’s All Over” – The Death Of China’s Bitcoin Mining Industry
For much of the past decade, the energy-intensive mining infrastructure that made bitcoin possible resided deep inside China’s hinterlands, close to cheap if heavily polluting sources of energy, where millions of bitcoin mining machines would crank out trillions in computations every second to solve the mathematical problems that power the Proof of Work token, and which generate generous rewards for the miners.
All of this changed this year, however, when the double whammy of an ESG-inspired blowback against the miners’ high electricity consumption coupled with China’s attack on digital currencies that compete with its own digital yuan, meant an unprecedented crackdown on the local bitcoin mining industry, resulting in countless mainland bitcoin miners shutting down and in many cases moving to more hospitable (and cleaner energy) venues such as Texas and Florida.
What follows is a fascinating story documenting the rise and stunning fall of China’s bitcoin mining industry, and one company in particular, as told by Caixin.
For the past year and a half, the loud whirring of tens of thousands of high-power computers filled a cavernous warehouse round-the-clock, making a stark contrast with the hushed forests of the Ngawa Tibetan and Qiang autonomous prefecture in Southwest China’s Sichuan province. This computational arsenal belonged to a crypto mining farm, a facility crammed wall-to-wall with specialized computers dedicated to solving the complex math problems that keep the network running, and earning new Bitcoin along the way.
“That’s the sound of cash coming in,” said Ye Lang (pseudonym), the 40-year-old manager of the two-floor facility in the prefecture’s Heishui county.
At the peak of the facility’s Bitcoin mining operations, Ye was in charge of 80 employees and a total of 80,000 mining machines, with the entire project estimated to be earning more than 90 million yuan ($14 million) during the peak six months when Sichuan’s rivers are glutted and electricity is especially cheap.
But this all came to an end at 9 p.m. on June 19, as a clean-up notice jointly issued a day before by the Sichuan government demanded the closure of Ye’s facility, along with 25 other cryptocurrency mining projects in the province
The shutdown notice followed a May 21 meeting of the State Council’s Financial Stability and Development Committee, a top-level economic and financial policymaking body chaired by Vice Premier Liu He, which specifically stated (link in Chinese) that the country will “crack down on Bitcoin mining and trading,” citing the financial risks involved (it wasn’t clear just what these risks were and why they were suddenly an issue after years when Beijing was all too happy to allow its domestic miners to make millions by keeping the bitcoin ecosystem operational).
Ye had to terminate all operations: One by one, the facility’s 2,000 giant fans stopped rumbling, and the computers stopped whirring.
“It’s over, it’s all over,” he mumbled.
Ye decided to jump on the Bitcoin mining bandwagon in 2018 when he closed down the majority of his internet café business, mortgaged his apartment in Anqing, Anhui province, borrowed money from relatives and left his wife and daughters to move to Sichuan. The province was until recently China’s second-largest Bitcoin mining region after Xinjiang, thanks to its rich, cheap hydropower.
He got a lucky break in November 2019 when he was introduced to Liu Weimin (pseudonym), a well-connected Sichuan businessman, who had just negotiated a deal with a state-owned hydropower plant to build a crypto farm in Heishui county, around 300 kilometers from provincial capital Chengdu. Ye was appointed manager of the facility.
“I watched this center being built brick by brick,” Ye said.
The fact that the electricity for crypto mining in Sichuan came from clean hydropower meant that many thought the province would be a safe haven for Bitcoin miners. As pressure on local governments to cut carbon emissions mounts, projects were successfully shuttered in some other provincial-level regions — such as Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia — where the mining was chiefly fueled by coal. The fact that the Sichuan crackdown was about to hit, confirms what everyone has known: the “justification” for cracking down bitcoin miners, the cold shoulder on bitcoin by social luminaries (such as Elon Musk) and the use of the ESG bullshit excuse that crypto is “dirty” have always been merely a socially-acceptable smoke screen for a regulatory crackdown on cryptos when they become too big.
Also, the Sichuan government appeared to be positive toward the business. In July 2019 it decided to set up demonstration zones that welcomed energy-intensive industries to help consume hydropower during the summer and autumn months that would otherwise be wasted.
As of April, China was still home to 46% of the world’s Bitcoin mining activity, with the U.S. coming in second place with 16.8%, according to data gathered by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.
But everything has changed since the May government meeting, which came after global speculation boosted the Bitcoin price to an all-time high of nearly $65,000 per token in mid-April.
” target=”_blank”>QKL123, the global average hash rate of Bitcoin, which is the total combined power being used to mine the cryptocurrency and process transactions, dropped 48% from its historic peak on May 13 by June 21, the day after the Sichuan government-mandated closures.
Despite the government’s hardline approach, Ye is determined to carry on: “This industry is extremely volatile. High emotions and stress are involved, but that’s also its appeal. Companies are banned from mining Bitcoin, but individuals aren’t,” Ye said, adding that he plans to turn around his operation by purchasing old equipment and downsizing.
Liu, the owner of the shuttered farm that Ye managed, is also devising a Plan B, unfazed by the dent the government’s put in his wallet.
The 40-year-old became a yuan billionaire due to his early investments in Bitcoin. In Sichuan alone, Liu owned more than 10 Bitcoin mining farms, which industry insiders estimated accounted for one-eighth of the total electricity consumed by all Bitcoin mines in the province.
During peak seasons, Liu said his farms could mine 70 to 80 Bitcoins every day. About 900 Bitcoins are issued each day globally, according to an industry information platform. The price of Bitcoin is highly volatile, and was sitting at just over $38,500 per token on July 26, up more than 250% from a year earlier but down over 40% from its April peak.
Liu got a first taste of the potential of crypto mining in 2016, when his friend from college showed him a Bitcoin mining machine. Already more than 2 million yuan in debt from a failed farming business, he bought 10 mining machines with 10,000 yuan and installed them at a facility run by a startup incubator in Mianyang, Sichuan.
With the electricity fee fully subsidized by the incubator, Liu was able to earn nearly 200 yuan in profit every day running the computers. He added another 50 computers shortly, only to get kicked out by the incubator on New Year’s Day in 2017 because it could no longer stand the bills the operation had racked up.
Liu then decided he’d – literally – go big or go home. In early 2017, he started with just over 200 mining machines before accumulating around 10,000 machines in September that year. Shortly after repaying all his debts, Liu decided to adjust his business model and not mine his own Bitcoin — instead, he set up large-scale mining farms for others and helped them manage their machines.
“Mining farms are somewhat like conventional crop farms. No matter how the Bitcoin market changes, the mining process remains. Opening such facilities is a relatively stable investment, and I can generally break even in a year,” Liu told Caixin.
Thanks to the Sichuan government’s mining-friendly policies back then, Liu’s business continued to flourish for the past three years. He quickly made a name for himself, and was a frequent guest at government events and meetings, where he was recognized as one of many model energy consumers who had helped lift locals out of poverty.
But everything went just as fast as it came.
The first explicit warning came in late February (link in Chinese), when authorities in Inner Mongolia proposed banning new crypto mining projects and shut down the entire industry by the end of April as part of a plan to meet the central government’s greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Soon enough, Qinghai, Xinjiang and Yunnan followed suit.
The clampdown eventually reached clean energy Sichuan, with authorities ordering the shutdown of all crypto mines — including all of the ones under Liu’s management — before June 20.
Thankfully, Liu had the foresight to diversify his investments early on in 2019, putting money in various health care, real estate, gaming and entertainment businesses. Following the government’s May 21 crackdown announcement, he arranged teams of employees to scout for new venues in North America and Kazakhstan. In mid-June, his company bought an oilfield in Canada that could potentially provide fuel for his Bitcoin mining business.
In fact, some fossil fuel-rich states in the US are now welcoming crypto operations that can use up stranded natural gas produced by oil companies. In May, Shenzhen-based firm Bit Mining Ltd. signed a $26 million deal to build a crypto mining center in Texas, which is quickly becoming the new cryptocurrency capital thanks to its relatively cheap energy and favorable laws backed by its pro-crypto governor, Greg Abbot.
The California “Safe at Home Confidential Address Program” provides for special forwarding addresses for people who swear that they are “attempting to escape from actual or threatened domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or elder or dependent adult abuse,” and need to “establish new names or addresses in order to prevent their assailants or probable assailants from finding them” (and possibly provide some corroborating evidence).
And Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 367.3, just enacted in 2019, adds to that:
A protected person who is a party in a civil proceeding may proceed using a pseudonym, either John Doe, Jane Doe, or Doe, for the true name of the protected person and may exclude or redact from all pleadings and documents filed in the action other identifying characteristics of the protected person.
Such litigants must confidentially inform the other parties and the court of their true identity, but the identity may not appear in the court records. No showing is required of any specific reason for pseudonymity, beyond the person’s participation in the Safe at Home program.
Does this mean that a person, just by joining the Safe at Home program, may also retroactively reopen his past cases, and then get them sealed or pseudonymized? Several recent federal decisions, all apparently involving one litigant (a self-described “avid blogger on record sealing expungement, and First Amendment issues”), deal with the subject.
[1.] The cases make clear that § 367.3 isn’t binding federal courts: A federal court “is bound by Ninth Circuit precedent regarding public access to court records rather than the California Code of Civil Procedure.” “California’s Government Code and Code of Civil Procedure inform the Court’s exercise of [its] power [to determine whether to make information in the record confidential], but they do not bind the Court because they provide procedural protections in dealing with California’s state government and for litigants in California state courts.” (One court seemed open to the possibility that § 367.3 might apply to cases involving California substantive law, but didn’t reach the issue because the case involved only federal law and Nevada law.)
[2.] Even federal courts seem willing to use their discretion to redact street addresses and e-mail addresses of people covered by § 367.3. See here and here.
[3.] But when it comes to pseudonymization, the record is mixed. For instance, from Chaker-Delnero v. Nevada Federal Credit Union, decided Wednesday by Magistrate Judge Elayna Youchah (D. Nev.):
The Ninth Circuit held that “the identity of the parties in any action, civil or criminal, should not be concealed except in an unusual case, where there is a need for a cloak of anonymity.” When determining whether pseudonymity is necessary, the Court will balance the need to protect a person from injury or harassment against the presumption that the identity of parties is public information. However, Plaintiff fails to explain how redacting information contained within public filings in this case, available throughout this dispute that began in 2006, will protect him from some current or future harm or harassment. Plaintiff has not introduced any additional evidence that he is currently a victim of harassment.
The public’s common law right of access extends to the true names of the parties involved in litigation. Under Third Circuit law, litigants may proceed anonymously in exceptional cases where a reasonable fear of severe harm exists. To make that determination, courts consider a lengthy, non-exhaustive list of factors. Most importantly, sealing Mr. Del Nero’s identity will not shield him from further harassment, and leaving his name on the public docket will not subject him to additional harassment. The people who have targeted Mr. Del Nero know who he is, and their harassment has nothing to do with his involvement in this case. Thus, considering the unique facts of this case, the Court will not permit Mr. Del Nero to use a pseudonym in this matter.
Del Nero v. Allstate Ins. Co., decided in June by Judge Philip Gutierrez (C.D. Cal.), takes the same view, and adds this about the plaintiff’s attempt to seal the entire case based on the supposed identifying information in the record: “The Court has reviewed the record and Plaintiff’s address does not appear anywhere. Although the twenty-one-year-old complaint mentions the name of the city that Plaintiff lived in at the time, Plaintiff has not shown that the Safe At Home program protects the name of the city he lived in over twenty years ago.”
On the other hand, Doe v. Collectco, Inc., decided Tuesday by Magistrate Judge Daniel Albregts (D. Nev.), rejected the request to “seal the entire record” but allowed pseudonymization:
Here, the Court finds good reason to redact Plaintiff’s address and email and replace his name with “John Doe.” Plaintiff has provided evidence of his participation in the Safe at Home Program, of a threat, and of his connection with a criminal event. And through his motions, Plaintiff seeks to follow the recommendations of the Safe at Home Program, asking—in the alternative to sealing—for the Court to replace his name with “John Doe” and redact his addresses. The Court finds the Southern District of California’s approach to Plaintiffs’ similar requests persuasive ….
And in Doe v. Winn & Sims, decided in June by Judge Marilyn Huff (S.D. Cal.), the court likewise rejected the “request to seal the entire record” but allowed pseudonymization:
That being said, sufficient cause supports Plaintiff’s supplemental request to redact his name from the docket and allow him to proceed under the pseudonym “John Doe.” The Ninth Circuit allows parties to proceed anonymously when the party’s “need for anonymity” to avoid physical injury outweighs the “prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” That is the case here. Additionally, redacting Plaintiff’s name from the record would not prejudice any party because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action over fifteen years ago. Further, the public’s interest in this case primarily centers around the underlying nature of the action, a class action against a debt collection service, not Plaintiff’s identity.
The nature of this particular litigant’s case-specific justification for pseudonymization—which federal courts require, given that they aren’t bound by the automatic pseudonymization required by the California statute—is hard to piece together, since some of his motions to seal and many of the exhibits accompanying them are themselves sealed. The best I could see from the documents that haven’t been sealed is that “Plaintiff states that he enrolled in the program because he escaped two near death experiences and received several threats.”
[4.] What about in California court? There, § 367.3 does apply, but the record there too is mixed. The same litigant apparently got the San Diego Superior Court to pseudonymize a lawsuit against him by Scott McMillan—as it happens, a lawsuit that indirectly stems in part from an attempt to get McMillan to remove a case mentioning the litigant from a caselaw repository that McMillan operates. The litigant has moved to do the same as to the appeal of that lawsuit (that motion is pending). Likewise, in a case involving an entirely different litigant (B.M.M. v. Baca, Contra Costa County), there was at least a tentative decision allowing pseudonymity on the strength of § 367.3, though there was also another traditional basis for pseudonymity present—plaintiff was alleged to be a sexual assault victim:
Although this action was filled prior to the enactment of CCP §367.3, Plaintiff qualifies as a “protected person” entitled to use a pseudonym since he is an active participant in an address confidentiality program under Gov. Code §6205. In order to comply with the requirements of CCP §367.3, however, Plaintiff shall file and serve “a confidential information form for this purpose that includes the protected person’s name and other identifying characteristics being excluded or redacted.” CCP §367.3(b)(1). The Court will keep the confidential information form confidential as required by that section of the Code.
Even if Plaintiff did not qualify for the protections of this statute, he still would be entitled to the use of a pseudonym given the sensitive, personal nature of the claims made in this suit since they involve allegations of sexual assault. The Court finds that any prejudice to Defendant from the use of the pseudonym is slight. California courts have frequently recognized the appropriateness of the use of a pseudonym in such circumstances.
On the other hand, in another case involving another litigant (Danon v. Johnson, Los Angeles County), there was at least a tentative decision concluding that § 367.3 wouldn’t ordinarily call for retroactive pseudonymization; the court took the view that such requests remain subject to the standard California sealing rules, Cal. R. Ct. 2.550 & 2.551:
Defendant identifies an overriding interest in Plaintiff’s safety or confidentiality that overcomes the right of public access to the records in this proceeding. In support that a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced without sealing, Defendant attests to being a victim of sexual crimes by the Plaintiff; that Plaintiff has threatened to track and kill Defendant; and that the public would have access to sensitive details of actions committed against her as a matter of public record. The foregoing supports an interest in Plaintiff’s safety or confidentiality that Code of Civil Procedure section 367.3 supports is an overriding interest, by providing that participants are entitled to proceed pseudonymously.
However, in this case, the court does not find that a substantial probability exists the overriding interest will be prejudiced without redaction and supporting sealing the record. Defendant requests retroactive redaction of Defendant’s name and address from numerous documents in this action over the course of approximately eighteen months. “[T]here is no justification for sealing records that contain only facts already known or available to the public.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 898.)
Prior to Defendant’s first motion to redact documents, the parties proceeded for over thirteen months, both sides filing documents without anonymity…. As a practical matter, Defendant’s identity has been publicly available in this action for a significant time, as well as in the other action.
Next, the court notes that the primary purpose of the Safe at Home program is to provide a means for the victim to keep a new residence address confidential; and the Defendant has not brought facts to the court’s attention that a new residential address used by Defendant has been disclosed in the filings. These facts undermine Defendant’s argument that Defendant’s interest in safety and confidentiality under the Safe at Home program would be prejudiced if the record is not sealed or redacted, as the information disclosing the Defendant’s identity have been public for at least this time, and there is no showing that a new residential address has been disclosed. (Cf. Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 600 (unsealed documents filed before obtaining order to seal inconsistent with intent to enforce rights to obtain sealed records).)
And, returning to the litigant in the federal cases I began with, the California Court of Appeal in April rejected (without detailed explanation) a § 367.3 motion to pseudonymize the litigation in Chaker v. Superior Court.
[5.] And the cases I outline above help show, I think, the value of having people litigate under their own name. Among many other reasons,
Knowing a party’s name can help writers who cover court cases (like me) see if a lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of litigation, and show readers any patterns that might emerge.
It can help us figure out whether one of the parties had been found to be a vexatious litigant.
It can help us figure out whether one of the parties had been adjudicated to have done things that may suggest that he’s not trustworthy.
And open court records can help courts and opposing parties as well. For instance, in Chaker v. Superior Court, the court apparently searched for past filings by the petitioner to verify certain statements in the petition; that would have been at least much harder if those past filings had been pseudonymized. (It’s possible for a court to keep its files indexed not just by the party’s public identified name, but also by the otherwise sealed actual name, to facilitate such searches by judicial system insiders; but I’m not sure that courts generally do that, and it would be especially difficult if the search requires reviewing files from multiple courts.) Likewise, opposing parties may search for past filings by a party and see whether any are related to the current case, and whether such filings make any admissions or arguments that may be relevant to this case.
The general First Amendment rule, and the general rule under California common law principles, is that parties to lawsuits aren’t pseudonymized unless there’s a real factual basis to justify the pseudonymity (with the substantial exception of cases involving minors):
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require plaintiffs to disclose their names in the instrument they file to commence a lawsuit. Public access to this information is more than a customary procedural formality; First Amendment guarantees are implicated when a court decides to restrict public scrutiny of judicial proceedings.
I’m therefore inclined to say that being in the Safe At Home program shouldn’t by itself be a categorical exception from this rule, and that there should at least be a specific showing of exactly how including the protected party’s name in a court filing—especially in an old case, but even in a new one—would actually create a material risk of harm to the party. In any event, I’m writing a law review article about pseudonymous litigation for an upcoming symposium, and I hope to consider such matters in more detail there.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3A5wuhB
via IFTTT
The California “Safe at Home Confidential Address Program” provides for special forwarding addresses for people who swear that they are “attempting to escape from actual or threatened domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or elder or dependent adult abuse,” and need to “establish new names or addresses in order to prevent their assailants or probable assailants from finding them” (and possibly provide some corroborating evidence).
And Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 367.3, just enacted in 2019, adds to that:
A protected person who is a party in a civil proceeding may proceed using a pseudonym, either John Doe, Jane Doe, or Doe, for the true name of the protected person and may exclude or redact from all pleadings and documents filed in the action other identifying characteristics of the protected person.
Such litigants must confidentially inform the other parties and the court of their true identity, but the identity may not appear in the court records. No showing is required of any specific reason for pseudonymity, beyond the person’s participation in the Safe at Home program.
Does this mean that a person, just by joining the Safe at Home program, may also retroactively reopen his past cases, and then get them sealed or pseudonymized? Several recent federal decisions, all apparently involving one litigant (a self-described “avid blogger on record sealing expungement, and First Amendment issues”), deal with the subject.
[1.] The cases make clear that § 367.3 isn’t binding federal courts: A federal court “is bound by Ninth Circuit precedent regarding public access to court records rather than the California Code of Civil Procedure.” “California’s Government Code and Code of Civil Procedure inform the Court’s exercise of [its] power [to determine whether to make information in the record confidential], but they do not bind the Court because they provide procedural protections in dealing with California’s state government and for litigants in California state courts.” (One court seemed open to the possibility that § 367.3 might apply to cases involving California substantive law, but didn’t reach the issue because the case involved only federal law and Nevada law.)
[2.] Even federal courts seem willing to use their discretion to redact street addresses and e-mail addresses of people covered by § 367.3. See here and here.
[3.] But when it comes to pseudonymization, the record is mixed. For instance, from Chaker-Delnero v. Nevada Federal Credit Union, decided Wednesday by Magistrate Judge Elayna Youchah (D. Nev.):
The Ninth Circuit held that “the identity of the parties in any action, civil or criminal, should not be concealed except in an unusual case, where there is a need for a cloak of anonymity.” When determining whether pseudonymity is necessary, the Court will balance the need to protect a person from injury or harassment against the presumption that the identity of parties is public information. However, Plaintiff fails to explain how redacting information contained within public filings in this case, available throughout this dispute that began in 2006, will protect him from some current or future harm or harassment. Plaintiff has not introduced any additional evidence that he is currently a victim of harassment.
The public’s common law right of access extends to the true names of the parties involved in litigation. Under Third Circuit law, litigants may proceed anonymously in exceptional cases where a reasonable fear of severe harm exists. To make that determination, courts consider a lengthy, non-exhaustive list of factors. Most importantly, sealing Mr. Del Nero’s identity will not shield him from further harassment, and leaving his name on the public docket will not subject him to additional harassment. The people who have targeted Mr. Del Nero know who he is, and their harassment has nothing to do with his involvement in this case. Thus, considering the unique facts of this case, the Court will not permit Mr. Del Nero to use a pseudonym in this matter.
Del Nero v. Allstate Ins. Co., decided in June by Judge Philip Gutierrez (C.D. Cal.), takes the same view, and adds this about the plaintiff’s attempt to seal the entire case based on the supposed identifying information in the record: “The Court has reviewed the record and Plaintiff’s address does not appear anywhere. Although the twenty-one-year-old complaint mentions the name of the city that Plaintiff lived in at the time, Plaintiff has not shown that the Safe At Home program protects the name of the city he lived in over twenty years ago.”
On the other hand, Doe v. Collectco, Inc., decided Tuesday by Magistrate Judge Daniel Albregts (D. Nev.), rejected the request to “seal the entire record” but allowed pseudonymization:
Here, the Court finds good reason to redact Plaintiff’s address and email and replace his name with “John Doe.” Plaintiff has provided evidence of his participation in the Safe at Home Program, of a threat, and of his connection with a criminal event. And through his motions, Plaintiff seeks to follow the recommendations of the Safe at Home Program, asking—in the alternative to sealing—for the Court to replace his name with “John Doe” and redact his addresses. The Court finds the Southern District of California’s approach to Plaintiffs’ similar requests persuasive ….
And in Doe v. Winn & Sims, decided in June by Judge Marilyn Huff (S.D. Cal.), the court likewise rejected the “request to seal the entire record” but allowed pseudonymization:
That being said, sufficient cause supports Plaintiff’s supplemental request to redact his name from the docket and allow him to proceed under the pseudonym “John Doe.” The Ninth Circuit allows parties to proceed anonymously when the party’s “need for anonymity” to avoid physical injury outweighs the “prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s interest in knowing the party’s identity.” That is the case here. Additionally, redacting Plaintiff’s name from the record would not prejudice any party because Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action over fifteen years ago. Further, the public’s interest in this case primarily centers around the underlying nature of the action, a class action against a debt collection service, not Plaintiff’s identity.
The nature of this particular litigant’s case-specific justification for pseudonymization—which federal courts require, given that they aren’t bound by the automatic pseudonymization required by the California statute—is hard to piece together, since some of his motions to seal and many of the exhibits accompanying them are themselves sealed. The best I could see from the documents that haven’t been sealed is that “Plaintiff states that he enrolled in the program because he escaped two near death experiences and received several threats.”
[4.] What about in California court? There, § 367.3 does apply, but the record there too is mixed. The same litigant apparently got the San Diego Superior Court to pseudonymize a lawsuit against him by Scott McMillan—as it happens, a lawsuit that indirectly stems in part from an attempt to get McMillan to remove a case mentioning the litigant from a caselaw repository that McMillan operates. The litigant has moved to do the same as to the appeal of that lawsuit (that motion is pending). Likewise, in a case involving an entirely different litigant (B.M.M. v. Baca, Contra Costa County), there was at least a tentative decision allowing pseudonymity on the strength of § 367.3, though there was also another traditional basis for pseudonymity present—plaintiff was alleged to be a sexual assault victim:
Although this action was filled prior to the enactment of CCP §367.3, Plaintiff qualifies as a “protected person” entitled to use a pseudonym since he is an active participant in an address confidentiality program under Gov. Code §6205. In order to comply with the requirements of CCP §367.3, however, Plaintiff shall file and serve “a confidential information form for this purpose that includes the protected person’s name and other identifying characteristics being excluded or redacted.” CCP §367.3(b)(1). The Court will keep the confidential information form confidential as required by that section of the Code.
Even if Plaintiff did not qualify for the protections of this statute, he still would be entitled to the use of a pseudonym given the sensitive, personal nature of the claims made in this suit since they involve allegations of sexual assault. The Court finds that any prejudice to Defendant from the use of the pseudonym is slight. California courts have frequently recognized the appropriateness of the use of a pseudonym in such circumstances.
On the other hand, in another case involving another litigant (Danon v. Johnson, Los Angeles County), there was at least a tentative decision concluding that § 367.3 wouldn’t ordinarily call for retroactive pseudonymization; the court took the view that such requests remain subject to the standard California sealing rules, Cal. R. Ct. 2.550 & 2.551:
Defendant identifies an overriding interest in Plaintiff’s safety or confidentiality that overcomes the right of public access to the records in this proceeding. In support that a substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced without sealing, Defendant attests to being a victim of sexual crimes by the Plaintiff; that Plaintiff has threatened to track and kill Defendant; and that the public would have access to sensitive details of actions committed against her as a matter of public record. The foregoing supports an interest in Plaintiff’s safety or confidentiality that Code of Civil Procedure section 367.3 supports is an overriding interest, by providing that participants are entitled to proceed pseudonymously.
However, in this case, the court does not find that a substantial probability exists the overriding interest will be prejudiced without redaction and supporting sealing the record. Defendant requests retroactive redaction of Defendant’s name and address from numerous documents in this action over the course of approximately eighteen months. “[T]here is no justification for sealing records that contain only facts already known or available to the public.” (H.B. Fuller Co. v. Doe (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 879, 898.)
Prior to Defendant’s first motion to redact documents, the parties proceeded for over thirteen months, both sides filing documents without anonymity…. As a practical matter, Defendant’s identity has been publicly available in this action for a significant time, as well as in the other action.
Next, the court notes that the primary purpose of the Safe at Home program is to provide a means for the victim to keep a new residence address confidential; and the Defendant has not brought facts to the court’s attention that a new residential address used by Defendant has been disclosed in the filings. These facts undermine Defendant’s argument that Defendant’s interest in safety and confidentiality under the Safe at Home program would be prejudiced if the record is not sealed or redacted, as the information disclosing the Defendant’s identity have been public for at least this time, and there is no showing that a new residential address has been disclosed. (Cf. Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 588, 600 (unsealed documents filed before obtaining order to seal inconsistent with intent to enforce rights to obtain sealed records).)
And, returning to the litigant in the federal cases I began with, the California Court of Appeal in April rejected (without detailed explanation) a § 367.3 motion to pseudonymize the litigation in Chaker v. Superior Court.
[5.] And the cases I outline above help show, I think, the value of having people litigate under their own name. Among many other reasons,
Knowing a party’s name can help writers who cover court cases (like me) see if a lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of litigation, and show readers any patterns that might emerge.
It can help us figure out whether one of the parties had been found to be a vexatious litigant.
It can help us figure out whether one of the parties had been adjudicated to have done things that may suggest that he’s not trustworthy.
And open court records can help courts and opposing parties as well. For instance, in Chaker v. Superior Court, the court apparently searched for past filings by the petitioner to verify certain statements in the petition; that would have been at least much harder if those past filings had been pseudonymized. (It’s possible for a court to keep its files indexed not just by the party’s public identified name, but also by the otherwise sealed actual name, to facilitate such searches by judicial system insiders; but I’m not sure that courts generally do that, and it would be especially difficult if the search requires reviewing files from multiple courts.) Likewise, opposing parties may search for past filings by a party and see whether any are related to the current case, and whether such filings make any admissions or arguments that may be relevant to this case.
The general First Amendment rule, and the general rule under California common law principles, is that parties to lawsuits aren’t pseudonymized unless there’s a real factual basis to justify the pseudonymity (with the substantial exception of cases involving minors):
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require plaintiffs to disclose their names in the instrument they file to commence a lawsuit. Public access to this information is more than a customary procedural formality; First Amendment guarantees are implicated when a court decides to restrict public scrutiny of judicial proceedings.
I’m therefore inclined to say that being in the Safe At Home program shouldn’t by itself be a categorical exception from this rule, and that there should at least be a specific showing of exactly how including the protected party’s name in a court filing—especially in an old case, but even in a new one—would actually create a material risk of harm to the party. In any event, I’m writing a law review article about pseudonymous litigation for an upcoming symposium, and I hope to consider such matters in more detail there.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3A5wuhB
via IFTTT
A few years ago, Paul Wallace penned an article entitled: “GDP Is A Grossly Defective Product.” The recent release of the Q2-2020 report reminded me of it as the media fawned over the 7.6% print.
“Yet despite its theoretical appeal, GDP is, in practice, a fallible measure. It is increasingly becoming one that could be described as a grossly defective product.
While seemingly strong at the headline, the recent report leaves much to be desired when looking below the surface.
Estimates Missed By A Mile
The headline print of 6.35% was one of the most robust rates of “annualized” growth since the early 1980s. However, there are two significant takeaways from this data. First, while the growth rate is impressive, it is $5 trillion in Government spending during the recession that boosted growth. (Chart below is current through Q2 and estimated through Q4)
Secondly, the growth rate is substantially weaker than earlier estimates of more than 13% and a full percentage point lower than the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow forecast of 7.6%. It also likely represents the peak of the economic recovery. (This is a topic we will address more next week.)
Over the next two quarters, the rates of economic growth will continue to weaken. Such will be due to the massive amounts of direct stimulus fading from the system.
By late 2022 the economic growth rate will likely set a new lower growth trend below 2%. Such will be weaker than the growth trends before the past two “real” economic recessions.
As is always the case, economists and analysts are always overly optimistic in their assessments. But, while being overly optimistic is undoubtedly a media preference, it leads to potential misallocations of capital by investors.
Yields Had It Right After All
As discussed in April, when estimates were for 13% GDP growth, bond yields signaled a peak of economic growth. To wit:
“As shown, the correlation between rates and the economic composite suggests current expectations of economic expansion are overly optimistic. At current rates, economic growth will likely very quickly return to sub-2% growth by 2022.”
Since then, yields have continued to drop, along with the yield curve flattening. Historically, yields are a strong predictor of economic growth and inflation. However, as stated previously, disinflation is more likely than accelerating inflation.
“With the base effects now exhausted, the cyclical, structural, and monetary considerations suggest inflation will decline by year-end. Thus, the ‘inflationary psychosis’ gripping the bond market already reversed as the realization of slower economic growth occurs.”
Of course, such is problematic for the Federal Reserve. The current program of $120 billion a month in monetary injections only maintains economic growth. But, unfortunately, those monetary interventions are not translating into “economic activity” either directly or indirectly.
“Each time the Fed has engaged in QE programs, the banks ‘hoard’ those reserves as the ‘risk/reward’ of loaning money into the economy is not justified. For example, in early 2020, as the economy was ‘shut down’ due to the COVID pandemic, companies tapped credit lines at their banks to ensure sufficient capitalization. After that initial surge in lending activity, banks reversed back into a more ‘protectionary’ mode.”
QE programs have NOT been effective at creating organic economic growth. However, they were effective at boosting asset prices and providing an illusory wealth effect.
The Fed faces a challenge in trying to “taper” asset purchases. While there is more robust economic growth, a bubbling housing market, and falling unemployment, can they remove the economic “life support?” Some alternative measures suggest such may not be the case.
Alternative Measures Of Economic Growth
While mainstream economists suggest the economy is booming based on the more mainstream economic data, other data suggests such may not be the case.
It is important to note that America’s economic performance peaked in the late 1990s. Thus, the erosion in crucial economic indicators such as the rate of economic growth, productivity growth, job growth, and investment began well before the Great Recession.
A look at labor force participation, the proportion of Americans in the productive workforce peaked in 1997.
With fewer working-age men and women in the workforce, per-capita income continues to decline. Not surprisingly, median real household income remains muted well below the actual cost of living, with incomes stagnating across the bottom 80% of income earners.
Moreover, stagnating income and limited job prospects have disproportionately affected lower-income and lower-skilled Americans, leading to household inequality.
Lastly, the U.S. lacks an economic strategy, especially at the federal and Governmental levels. The implicit strategy remains trusting the Federal Reserve to solve our problems through monetary policy. However, the rise in wealth inequality has fostered demands to transform the U.S. into a “socialistic” economy.
Neither strategy has ever solved the problems of those with the least who were promised the most.
Conclusion
As noted, the Federal Reserve is trapped. The Federal Reserve needs more substantial economic growth to justify raising interest rates. After all, the reason the Fed tightens monetary policy is to SLOW economic growth to mitigate the potential of surging inflationary pressures. The problem currently is that the Fed is discussing raising interest rates in an environment of weakening economic growth and disinflationary headwinds.
Currently, employment and wage growth remain weak, 1-in-3 Americans are on Government subsidies, and the majority of American’s are living paycheck-to-paycheck. Such is why Central Banks, globally, are aggressively monetizing debt to keep growth from stalling out. However, many analysts and economists have currently increased the odds of the Fed hiking rates by next year. The belief is that economic growth can continue to accelerate despite the tighter monetary policy.
Most of the analysis overlooks the level of economic growth at the beginning of interest rate hikes. The Federal Reserve uses monetary policy tools to slow economic growth and ease inflationary pressures by tightening monetary supply. For the last decade, the Federal Reserve has flooded the financial system to boost asset prices in hopes of spurring economic growth and inflation.
As stated, outside of inflated asset prices, there is little evidence of real economic growth as witnessed by an average annual GDP growth rate of just 1.1%.
While the mainstream media may indeed tout the “greatest economic growth rate in decades,” the pervasive weakness below the headlines will continue to erode projections.
The problem for investors is the inflation of assets prices far beyond what the actual economy can generate in terms of future revenue and earnings growth.
The re-alignment between overly bullish expectations and a “Grossly Defective Product” will likely be more painful than most expect.
