Spooky Torts: The 2022 List Of Litigation Horrors

Spooky Torts: The 2022 List Of Litigation Horrors

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Here is my annual list of Halloween torts and crimes. Halloween of course remains a holiday seemingly designed for personal injury lawyers around the world and this year’s additions show why. Halloween has everything for a torts-filled holiday: battery, trespass, defamation, nuisance, product liability and more. Particularly with the recent tragedy in South Korea, our annual listing is not intended to belittle the serious losses that can occur on this and other holidays. However, my students and I often discuss the remarkably wide range of torts that comes with All Hallow’s Eve.

So, with no further ado, here is this year’s updated list of actual cases related to Halloween.

In October 2021, Danielle Thomas, former exotic dancer known as “Pole Assassin” (and the girlfriend of Texas special teams coach Jeff Banks), found herself embroiled in a Halloween tort after the monkey previously used in her act bit a wandering child at the house of horror she created for Halloween. Thomas considers the monkey Gia to be her “emotional support animal.”

Thomas goes all out for the holiday and converted her home into a house of horrors, including a maze. She said that the area with Gia was closed off and, as for petting, “no one is allowed to touch her!”  She publicly insisted “No one was viciously attack this a lie, a whole lie! She was not apart of any haunted house, the kid did not have permission to be on the other side of my property!” She even posted a walk-through video of the scene to show the steps that a child would have to take to get to the monkey.

She insists in the video that she knows all of the governing legal rules and shows the path in detail. It is not helpful on the defense side: it is not a long path and easy to see how a child might get lost. She later deleted her account (likely after her attorney regained consciousness).

The case raises an array of torts including animal liability, licensee liability, negligence, and attractive nuisance claims.

In 2022, we often added conversion to the usual torts where multiple versions of the new giant skeleton were stolen, including one particularly ham-handed effort in Austin, Texas caught on video tape:

* * *

In Berea, Ohio, the promoters of the 7 Floors of Hell haunted house at the Cuyahoga County Fairgrounds appreciate realism but one employee took it a bit too far. An actor brandished this real bowie knife as a prop while pretending to stab an 11-year-old boy’s foot. He then stabbed him.

The accident occurred when the actor, 22, approached the boy and stabbed at the ground as a scare tactic. He got too close and accidentally cut through the child’s shoe, piercing a toe.

The injury was not serious since the boy was treated at the scene and continued through the haunted house.

The case raises an interesting question of “respondeat superior” for the negligent acts by employees in the course of employment. The question is what is in the scope of employment.  The question is often whether an employee was on a “detour” or “frolic.”  A detour can be outside of an employer’s policies or guidelines but will be the basis for liability as sufficiently related to the employment.  A frolic is a more serious deviation where the employee is acting in his own capacity or for his own interests.

In this case, the actor was clearly within his scope of employment in trying to scare the visitors. However, he admitted that he bought the knife in his personal capacity and agreed it “was not a good idea” to use it at the haunted house, according to FOX 8. That still does not negate the negligence — both direct and vicarious liability. There was a failure to monitor employees and safeguard the scene. His negligence is also likely attributable to the employer. Finally, this would constitute battery as a reckless, though unintended, act.

* * *

In 2020, parents in Indiana were given a warning in a Facebook post that the Indiana State Police seized holiday edibles featuring packaging that resembles that of actual name brands — but with the word “medicated” printed on the wrapper along with cannabis symbols.

The packaging makes it easy for homeowners to confuse packages and give out drugged candy.  Indeed, last year, two children were given THC-infused gummies while trick-or-treating, according to police in Waterford, Conn.. Such candies include the main active ingredient linked to the psychedelic effects of cannabis – the plant from which marijuana is derived.

Even an accidental distribution of such infused candies would constitute child endangerment and be subject to both negligence and strict liability actions in torts.

* * *

I previously have written how the fear of razor blades in apples appears an urban legend. Well, give it enough time and someone will prove you wrong. That is the allegation of Waterbury, Connecticut police who say that Jason A. Racz, 37, put razor blades in candy bags of at least two trick-or-treaters. Racz’ razor defense may not be particularly convincing to the average juror. According to police, “Racz explained that the razor blades were accidentally spilled or put into the candy bowl he used to hand out candy from.” However, police noted that he “provided no explanation as to how the razor blades were handed out to the children along with the candy.”

The charge was brought soon after Halloween in 2019. Racz is now charged with risk of injury to a minor, reckless endangerment and interfering with a police officer. He could also be charged with battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but it is not clear if any children were injured.

*  *  *

Steven Novak, an artist from Dallas, Texas, believes that Halloween should be a bit more than a traditional plastic pumpkin and a smiling ghost.  Police were called to his home in Texas over a possible murder. They found a dummy impaled on a chainsaw with fake blood; another dummy hanging from his roof; a wheelbarrow full of fake dismembered body parts and other gory scenes.  Neighbors called the display too traumatizing.  Police responded by taking pictures for their families.

A tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress is likely to fail. There must be not just outrageous conduct but conduct intended to cause severe emotional distress. Courts regularly exclude injuries associated with the exercise of free speech or artistic expression . . . even when accompanied by buckets of fake blood.

*  *  *

The Dorney Park and Wildwater Kingdom in Pennsylvania tells customers that, if they come to their Halloween Haunt, “Fear is waiting for you.” In 2019, a new case was filed by Shannon Sacco and her daughter over injuries sustained from “unreasonable scaring.” They are seeking $150,000.

The Allentown Morning Call reported that “M.S.” went with friends to the amusement park and was immediately approached by costumed characters. She said that she told them that she did not want to be scared and backed away. A little further on into the park however a costumed employee allegedly ran up behind her and shouted loudly. The startled girl fell forward and suffered what were serious but unspecified injuries. She alleges ongoing medical issues and inability to return to fully functioning activities. The lawsuit also alleges that the park failed to inform Sacco or her daughter that they could buy a glow-in-the-dark “No Boo” necklace to ward off costumed employees. The obvious issue beyond the alleged negligence of the Park is the plaintiffs’ own conduct. Pennsylvania is a comparative negligence state so contributory negligence by the plaintiffs would not be a bar to recovery. See Pennsylvania General Assembly Statute §7102. However, it is a modified comparative negligence state so they must show that they are 50 percent or less at fault. If they are found 51 percent at fault, they are barred entirely from recovery. Even if they can recover, their damages are reduced by the percentage of their own fault in going to a park during a Halloween-themed event.

*  *  *

In 2019, there is a rare public petition to shutdown a haunted house that has been declared to be a “torture chamber.” The move to “shut down McKamey Manor” that has been signed by thousands who believe Russ McKamey, the owner of McKamey Manor, has made his house so scary that it constitutes torture, including an allegation of waterboarding of visitors. The haunted house requires participants to get a doctor’s note and sign a 40-page waiver before they enter. People are seeking the closure of the houses located in Summertown, Tennessee and Huntsville, Alabama. McKamey insists that it is just a “crazy haunted house” and stops well short of the legal-definition of torture. The question is whether consent vitiates any extreme frights or contacts.

He is also clear in both the waiver and the website that the house is an “extreme haunted attraction” for legal adults who “must be in GREAT HEALTH to participate.” Not only do people enter with full knowledge but there is no charge. McKamey owns five dogs and only requires a bag of dog food for entry. Presumably the food is cursed.

*  *  *

An earlier case was recently made public from an accident on October 15, 2011 in San Diego. Scott Griffin and friends went to the Haunted Trail in San Diego. The ticket warns of “high-impact scares” along a mile path with actors brandishing weapons and scary items. Griffen, 44, and his friends went on the trail and were going out of what they thought was an exit. Suddenly an actor jumped out as part of what the attraction called “the Carrie effect” of a last minute scare. While Griffen said that he tried to back away, the actor followed him with a running chain saw. He fell backwards and injured his wrists.

The 2013 lawsuit against the Haunted Hotel, Inc., in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, alleged negligence and assault. However, Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal granted a motion to dismiss based on assumption of the risk. She noted that Griffin “was still within the scare experience that he purchased.” After all, “Who would want to go to a haunted house that is not scary?”

Griffen then appealed and the attorney for the Haunted Hotel quoted Hunter S. Thompson: “Buy the ticket, take the ride.” Again, the court agreed. In upholding the lower court, Justice Gilbert Nares wrote, “Being chased within the physical confines of the Haunted Trail by a chain saw–carrying maniac is a fundamental part and inherent risk of this amusement. Griffin voluntarily paid money to experience it.”

*  *  *

In 2018, a case emerged in Madison, Tennessee from the Nashville Nightmare Haunted House.   James “Jay” Yochim and three of his pals went to the attraction composed of  four separate haunted houses, an escape room, carnival games and food vendors.  In the attraction, people are chased by characters with chainsaws and other weapons.  They were not surprised therefore when a man believed to be an employee in a Halloween costume handed Tawnya Greenfield a knife and told her to stab Yochim.  She did and thought it was all pretend until blood started to pour from Yochim’s arm. The knife was real and the man was heard apologizing “I didn’t know my knife was that sharp.”

It is not clear how even stabbing with a dull knife would be considered safe.

The attraction issued a statement:

“As we have continued to review the information, we believe that an employee was involved in some way, and he has been placed on leave until we can determine his involvement. We are going over all of our safety protocols with all of our staff again, as the safety and security of all of our patrons is always our main concern. We have not been contacted by the police, but we will cooperate fully with any official investigation.”

The next scary moment is likely to be in the form of a torts complaint.  Negligence against the company under respondeat superior is an obvious start. There is also a novel battery charge where he could claim that he was stabbed by trickery or deceit of a third person. There are also premises liability issues for invitees.  As for Greenfield, she claims to have lacked consent due to a misrepresentation.  She could be charged with negligence or a recklessness-based theory of battery, though that seems less likely.  Finally, there is an interesting possible claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress in being tricked or misled into stabbing an individual.

*  *  *

Last year, a 21-year-old man surnamed Cheung was killed by a moving coffin in a haunted house in Hong Kong’s Ocean Park.   The attraction is called “Buried Alive” and involves hopping into coffins for a downward slide into a dark and scary space. The ride promises to provide people with the “experience of being buried alive alone, before fighting their way out of their dark and eerie grave.” Cheung took a wrong turn and went backstage — only to be hit by one of the metal coffins.  The hit in the head killed Cheung who was found later in the haunted house.

While there is no word of a tort lawsuit (and tort actions are rarer in Hong Kong), the case is typical of Halloween torts involving haunted houses.  The decor often emphasizes spooky and dark environs which both encourage terror and torts among the participants.  In this case, an obvious claim could be made that it is negligence to allow such easy access to the operational area of the coffin ride — particularly in a dark space.  As a business invitee, Cheung would have a strong case in the United States.

*  *  *

A previous addition to the Spooky torts was the odd case of Assistant Prosecutor Chris White. White clearly does not like spiders, even fake ones. That much was clear given his response to finding fake spiders scattered around the West Virginia office for Halloween. White pulled a gun and threatened to shoot the fake spiders, explaining that he is “deathly afraid of spiders.” It appears that his arachnophobia (fear of spiders) was not matched by a hoplophobia (fear of firearms).

The other employees were reportedly shaken up and Logan County Prosecuting Attorney John Bennett later suspended White. Bennett said “He said they had spiders everyplace and he said he told them it wasn’t funny, and he couldn’t stand them, and he did indeed get a gun out. It had no clip in it, of course they wouldn’t know that, I wouldn’t either if I looked at it, to tell you the truth.” It is not clear how White thought threatening the decorative spiders would keep them at bay or whether he was trying to deter those who sought to deck out the office in a Halloween theme. He was not charged by his colleagues with a crime but was suspended for his conduct.

This is not our first interaction with White. He was the prosecutor in the controversial (and in my view groundless) prosecution of Jared Marcum, who was arrested after wearing a NRA tee shirt to school.

*  *  *

Another new case from the last year involves a murder. Donnie Cochenour Jr., 27, got a seasonal break (at least temporarily) on detecting his alleged murder of Rebecca J. Cade, 31. Cade’s body was left hanging on a fence and was mistaken by neighbors as a Halloween decoration. The “decoration” was found by a man walking his dog and reported by construction workers. A large rock was found with blood on it nearby. Donnie Cochenour Jr., 27, was later arrested and ordered held on $2 million bond after he pleaded not guilty to murder.

Cade apparently had known Cochenour since he was a child — a relationship going back 20 years. Cochenour reportedly admitted that they had a physical altercation in the field. Police found a blood trail that indicates that Cade was running from Cochenour and tried to climb the fence in an attempt to get away. She was found hanging from her sleeve and is believed to have died on the fence from blunt force trauma to the head and neck. Her body exhibited “defensive wounds.”

When police arrested Cochenour, they found blood on is clothing.

*  *  *

In 2015, federal and state governments were cracking down on cosmetic contact lenses to give people spooky eyes. Owners and operators of 10 Southern California businesses were criminally charged in federal court with illegally selling cosmetic contact lenses without prescriptions. Some of the products that were purchased in connection with this investigation were contaminated with dangerous pathogens that can cause eye injury, blindness and loss of the eye.

The products are likely to result in a slew of product liability actions.

*  *  *

Another 2015 case reflects that the scariest part of shopping for Halloween costumes or decorations may be the trip to the Party Store. Shanisha L. Saulsberry sued U.S. Toy Company, Inc. after she was injured shopping for Halloween costumes and a store rack fell on her. The jury awarded Saulsberry $7,216.00 for economic damages. She appealed the damages after evidence of her injuries were kept out of the trial by the court. However, the Missouri appellate court affirmed the ruling.

*  *  *

The case of Castiglione v. James F. Q., 115 A.D.3d 696, shows a classic Halloween tort. The lawsuit alleged that, on Halloween 2007, the defendant’s son threw an egg which hit the plaintiff’s daughter in the eye, causing her injuries. The plaintiff also brought criminal charges against the defendant’s son arising from this incident and the defendant’s son pleaded guilty to assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [2]). However, at his deposition, the defendant’s son denied throwing the egg which allegedly struck the plaintiff’s daughter.

Because of the age of the accused, the case turned on the youthful offender statute (CPL art 720) that provides special measures for persons found to be youthful offenders which provides “Except where specifically required or permitted by statute or upon specific authorization of the court, all official records and papers, whether on file with the court, a police agency or the division of criminal justice services, relating to a case involving a youth who has been adjudicated a youthful offender, are confidential and may not be made available to any person or public or private agency [with certain exceptions not relevant here]” (CPL 720.35 [2]). This covers both the physical documents constituting the official record and the information contained within those documents. Thus, in relation to the Halloween egging, the boy was protected from having to disclose information or answer questions regarding the facts underlying the adjudication

*  *  *

We discussed the perils of pranks and “jump frights,” particularly with people who do not necessarily consent. In the case of Christian Faith Benge, there appears to have been consent in visiting a haunted house. The sophomore from New Miami High School in Ohio died from a prior medical condition at the at Land of Illusion haunted house. She was halfway through the house with about 100 friends and family members when she collapsed.

She had an enlarged heart four times its normal size. She also was born with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, which prevents the lungs from developing normally. This added stress to the heart. In such a case, consent and comparative negligence issues effectively bar recovery in most cases. It is a terrible loss of a wonderful young lady. However, some fatalities do not always come with liability and this appears such a case. Source: Journal News

*  *  *

As discussed earlier, In Franklin County, Tennessee, children may want to avoid the house of Dale Bryant Farris, 65, this Halloween . . . or houses near him. Bryant was arrested after shooting a 15-year-old boy who was with kids toilet-papering their principal’s front yard. Bryant came out of his house a couple of houses down from the home of Principal Ken Bishop and allegedly fired at least two blasts — one hitting a 15-year-old boy in the right foot, inner left knee, right palm, right thigh and right side of his torso above the waistline.

Tennessee is a Castle Doctrine state and we have seen past cases like the notorious Tom Horn case in Texas where homeowners claimed the right to shoot intruders on the property of their neighbors. It is not clear if Bryant will argue that he was trying to stop intruders under the law, but it does not appear a good fit with the purpose or language of the law. Farris faces a charge of aggravated assault and another of reckless endangerment. He could also face civil liability from the boy’s family. This would include assault and battery. There is a privilege of both self-defense and defense of others. This privilege included reasonable mistaken self-defense or defense of others. This would not fit such a claim since he effectively pursued the boys by going to a neighbor’s property and there was no appearance of a threat or weapon since they were only armed with toilet paper.

The good news is that Farris can now discard the need for a costume. He can go as himself at Halloween . . . as soon as he is out of jail.

*  *  *

As shown below, Halloween nooses have a bad record at parties. In 2012, a club called Pink Punters had a decorative noose that it had used for a number of years that allowed party goers to take pictures as a hanging victim on Halloween. Of course, you guessed it. A 25-year old man was found hanging from the noose in an accidental self-lynching at the nightclub in England.

The case would appear easy to defend in light of the assumption of the risk and patent danger. The noose did not actually tighten around necks. Moreover, this is England where tort claims can be more challenging. In the United States, however, there would remain the question of a foreseeable accident in light of the fact that patrons are drinking heavily and drugs are often present at nightclubs. Since patrons are known to put their heads in the noose, the combination is intoxication and a noose is not a particularly good mix.

*  *  *

Grant v. Grant.

A potential criminal and tort case comes to us from Pennsylvania where, at a family Halloween bonfire, Janet Grant spotted a skunk and told her son Thomas Grant to fetch a shotgun and shoot it. When he returned, Janet Grant shined a flashlight on the animal while her son shot it. It was only then that they discovered that Thomas Grant had just shot his eight-year-old cousin in her black and white Halloween costume. What is amazing is that authorities say that they are considering possible animal gaming charges.

Fortunately, the little girl survived with a wound to the shoulder and abdomen.

The police in Beaver County have not brought charges and alcohol does not appear to have been a factor.

Putting aside the family connection (which presumably makes the likelihood of a lawsuit unlikely), there is a basis for both battery and negligence in such a wounding. With children in the area, the discharge of the firearm would seem pretty unreasonable even with the effort to illuminate “the animal.” Moreover, this would have to have been a pretty large skunk to be the size of an eight-year-old child.

Just for the record, the average weight of a standard spotted skunk in that area is a little over 1 pound. The biggest skunk is a hog-nosed skunk that can reach up to 18 pounds.

*  *  *

We also have a potential duel case out of Aiken, South Carolina from one year ago. A 10-year-old Aiken trick-or-treater pulled a gun on a woman who joked that she wanted take his candy on Halloween. Police found that his brother, also ten, had his own weapon.

The 28-year-old woman said that she merely joked with a group of 10 or so kids that she wanted their candy when the ten-year-old pulled out a 9 mm handgun and said “no you’re not.” While the magazine was not in the gun, he had a fully loaded magazine in his possession. His brother had the second gun. Both appear to have belonged to their grandfather.

The children were released to their parents and surprisingly there is no mention of charges against the grandfather. While the guns appear to have been taken without his permission, it shows great negligence in the handling and storage of the guns.

What would be interesting is a torts lawsuit by the woman for assault against the grandfather. The actions of third parties often cut off liability as a matter of proximate causation, though courts have held that you can be liable for creating circumstances where crimes or intentional torts are foreseeable. For example, a landlord was held liable in for crimes committed in his building in Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue. Here the grandfather’s negligence led to the use of the guns by these children. While a lawsuit is unlikely, it would certainly be an interesting — and not unwarranted — claim.

*  *  *

Tauton High School District

The Massachusetts case of Smith v. Taunton High School involves a Halloween prank gone bad. A teacher at Taunton High School asked a 15-year-old student to answer a knock on the classroom door. The boy was startled when he came face to face with a man in a mask and carrying what appeared to be a running chainsaw. The student fell back, tripped and fractured a kneecap. His family is now suing though the state cap on such lawsuits is $100,000.

Dussault said the family is preparing a lawsuit, but is exploring ways to avoid a trial and do better than the $100,000 cap when suing city employees. This could make for an interesting case, but would be better for the Plaintiffs as a bench versus a jury trial. Many jurors are likely to view this as simply an attempt at good fun by the teacher and an unforeseeable accident.

Source: CBS

*  *  *

In Florida, a woman has sued for defamation, harassment and emotional distress after her neighbor set up decorations that included an insane asylum sign that pointed to her yard and a fake tombstone with an inscription she viewed as a reference to her single status. It read, “At 48 she had no mate no date/ It’s no debate she looks 88.”

This could be a wonderful example of an opinion defense to defamation. As for emotional distress, I think the cause of the distress pre-dates Halloween.

*  *  *

Pieczonka v. Great America (2012)

A family is suing Great America for a tort in 2011 at Great Falls. Father Marian Pieczonka alleged in his complaint that his young daughter Natalie was at the park in Gurnee, Illinois for the Halloween-themed Fright Fest when a park employee dressed in costume jumped out of a port-a-potty and shot her with a squirt gun. He then reported chased the screaming girl until she fell and suffered injuries involving scrapes and bruises. The lawsuit alleges negligence in encouraging employees to chase patrons given the tripping hazards.

They are asking $30,000 in the one count complaint but could face assumption or comparative negligence questions, particularly in knowingly attending an event called “Fright Fest” where employees were known to jump out at patrons.

*  *  *

A lawsuit appears inevitable after a tragic accident in St. Louis where a 17-year-old girl is in a critical condition after she became tangled in a noose at a Halloween haunted house called Creepyworld. The girl was working as an actress at the attraction and was found unconscious. What is particularly chilling is that people appeared to have walked by her hanging in the house and thought she was a realistic prop.

Notably, the attraction had people walk through to check on the well-being of actors and she was discovered but not for some time after the accident. She is in critical condition. Creepyworld employs 100 people and can expect a negligence lawsuit.

*  *  *

Rabindranath v. Wallace (2010)

Peter Wallace, 24, was returning on a train with fellow Hiberinian soccer fans in England — many dressed in costumes (which the English call “fancy dress.”) One man was dressed as a sheep and Wallace thought it was funny to constantly flick his lighter near the cotton balls covering his body — until he burst into flames. Friends then made the matter worse by trying to douse the flames but throwing alcohol on the flaming man-sheep. Even worse, the victim Arjuna Rabindranath, 24, is an Aberdeen soccer fan. Rabindranath’s costume was composed of a white tracksuit and cotton wool.

Outcome: Wallace is the heir to a large farm estate and agreed to pay damages to the victim, who experienced extensive burns.

What is fascinating is the causation issue. Here, Wallace clearly caused the initial injury which was then made worse by the world’s most dim-witted rescue attempt in the use of alcohol to douse a fire. In the United States, the original tortfeasor is liable for such injuries caused by negligent rescues. Indeed, he is liable for injured rescuers. The rescuers can also be sued in most states. However, many areas of Europe have good Samaritan laws protecting such rescuers. Notably, Wallace had a previous football-related conviction which was dealt with by a fine. In this latest case, he agreed to pay 25,000 in compensation.

The case is obviously similar to one of our prior Halloween winners below: Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson

*  *  *

Perper v. Forum Novelties (2010)

Sherri Perper, 56, of Queens, New York has filed a personal injury lawsuit due to defective shoes allegedly acquired from Forum Novelties. The shoes were over-sized clown shoes that she was wearing as part of her Halloween costume in 2008. She tripped and fell.

She is reportedly claiming that the shoes were dangerous. While “open and obvious” is no longer an absolute defense in such products cases, such arguments may still be made to counter claims of defective products. In most jurisdictions, you must show that the product is more dangerous than the expectations of the ordinary consumer. It is hard to see how Perper could be surprised that it is a bit difficult to walk in over-sized shoes. Then there is the problem of assumption of the risk.

*  *  *

Dickson v. Hustonville Haunted House and Greg Walker (2009) Glenda Dickson, 51, broke four vertebrae in her back when she fell out of a second story window left open at the Hustonville Haunted House, owned by Greg Walker.

Dickson was in a room called “The Crying Lady in the Bed” when one of the actors came up behind the group and started screaming. Everyone jumped in fright and Dickson jumped back through an open window that was covered with a sheet — a remarkably negligent act by the haunted house operator. She landed on a fire escape and then fell down some stairs.

*  *  *

Maryland v. Janik (2009)

Sgt. Eric Janik, 37, went to a haunted house called the House of Screams with friends and when confronted by a character dressed as Leatherface with a chainsaw (sans the chain, of course), Janik pulled out his service weapon and pointed it at the man, who immediately dropped character, dropped the chainsaw, and ran like a bat out of Halloween Hell.

Outcome: Janik is charged with assault and reckless endangerment for his actions. Charges pending.

*  *  *

Patrick v. South Carolina (2009) Quentin Patrick, 22, an ex-convict in Sumter, South Carolina shot and killed a trick-or-treater T.J. Darrisaw who came to his home on Halloween — spraying nearly 30 rounds with an assault rifle from inside his home after hearing a knock on the door. T.J.’s 9-year- old brother, Ahmadre Darrisaw, and their father, Freddie Grinnell, were injured but were released after being treated at a hospital.

Patrick left his porch light on — a general signal for kids that the house was open for trick and treating. The boy’s mother and toddler sibling were in the car.

Patrick emptied the AK-47 — shooting at least 29 times through his front door, walls and windows after hearing the knock. He said that he had been previously robbed. That may be so, but it is unclear what an ex-con was doing with a gun, let alone an AK-47.

OUTCOME: Charges pending for murder.

*  *  *

Kentucky v. Watkins (2008)

As a Halloween prank, restaurant manager Joe Watkins of the Chicken Ranch in Paris, Kentucky thought it was funny to lie in a pool of blood on the floor. After seeing Watkins on the floor, the woman went screaming from the restaurant to report the murder. Watkins said that the prank was for another employee and that he tried to call the woman back on her cell phone.

OUTCOME: Under Kentucky law, a person can be charged with a false police report, even if he is not the one who filed it. The police charged Watkins for causing the woman to file the report — a highly questionable charge.

*  *  *

Mays v. Gretna Athletic Boosters␣95-717 (La.App. 5 Cir. 01/17/96)

“Defendant operated a haunted house at Mel Ott Playground in Gretna to raise money for athletic programs. The haunted house was constructed of 2×4s and black visqueen. There were numerous cubbyholes where “scary” exhibits were displayed. One booster club member was stationed at the entrance and one at the exit. Approximately eighteen people participated in the haunted house by working the exhibits inside. Near and along the entrance of the haunted house was a bathroom building constructed of cinder blocks. Black visqueen covered this wall.

Plaintiff and her daughter’s friend, about 10 years old, entered the haunted house on October 29, 1988. It was nighttime and was dark inside. Plaintiff testified someone jumped out and hollered, scaring the child into running. Plaintiff was also frightened and began to run. She ran directly into the visqueen-covered cinder block wall.

There was no lighting in that part of the haunted house. Plaintiff hit the wall face first and began bleeding profusely from her nose. She testified two surgeries were required to repair her nose.”

OUTCOME: In order to get the proper effect, haunted houses are dark and contain scary and/or shocking exhibits. Patrons in a Halloween haunted house are expected to be surprised, startled and scared by the exhibits but the operator does not have a duty to guard against patrons reacting in bizarre, frightened and unpredictable ways. Operators are duty bound to protect patrons only from unreasonably dangerous conditions, not from every conceivable danger.

As found by the Trial Court, defendant met this duty by constructing the haunted house with rooms of adequate size and providing adequate personnel and supervision for patrons entering the house. Defendant’s duty did not extend to protecting plaintiff from running in a dark room into a wall. Our review of the entire record herein does not reveal manifest error committed by the Trial Court or that the Trial Court’s decision was clearly wrong. Plaintiff has not shown the haunted house was unreasonably dangerous or that defendant’s actions were unreasonable. Thus, the Trial Court judgment must be affirmed.

*  *  *

Powell v. Jacor Communications␣

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

320 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.2003)

“On October 15, 1999, Powell visited a Halloween season haunted house in Lexington, Kentucky that was owned and operated by Jacor. She was allegedly hit in the head with an unidentified object by a person she claims was dressed as a ghost. Powell was knocked unconscious and injured. She contends that she suffered a concussion and was put on bed rest and given medications by emergency-room physicians. Powell further claims that she now suffers from several neuropsychological disorders as a result of the incident.”

OUTCOME: Reversed dismissal on the basis of tolling of statute of limitations.

*  *  *

Kansas City Light & Power Company v. Trimble

315 Mo. 32; 285 S.W. 455 (1926)

Excerpt: “A shapely pole to which, twenty-two feet from the ground is attached a non-insulated electric wire . . Upon a shapely pole were standard steps eighteen inches apart; about seventeen feet from the ground were telephone wires, and five feet above them was a non-insulated electric light wire. On Halloween, about nine o’clock, a bright fourteen-year-old boy and two companions met close to the pole, and some girls dressed as clowns came down the street. As they came near the boy, saying, “Who dares me to walk the wire?” began climbing the pole, using the steps, and ascended to the telephone cables, and thereupon his companions warned him about the live wire and told him to come down. He crawled upon the telephone cables to a distance of about ten feet from the pole, and when he reached that point a companion again warned him of the live wire over his head, and threatened to throw a rock at him and knock him off if he did not come down. Whereupon he turned about and crawled back to the pole, and there raised himself to a standing position, and then his foot slipped, and involuntarily he threw up his arm, his hand clutched the live wire, and he was shocked to death.”

OUTCOME:

Frankly, I am not sure why the pole was so “shapely” but the result was disappointing for the plaintiffs. Kansas City Light & Power Company v. Trimble: The court held that the appellate court extended the attractive nuisance doctrine beyond the court’s ruling decisions. The court held that appellate court’s opinion on the contributory negligence doctrine conflicted with the court’s ruling decisions. The court held that the administrator’s case should never have been submitted to the jury. The court quashed the appellate opinion.

“To my mind it is inconceivable that a bright, intelligent boy, doing well in school, past fourteen years of age and living in the city, would not understand and appreciate the fact that it would be dangerous to come in contact with an electric wire, and that he was undertaking a dangerous feat in climbing up the pole; but even if it may be said that men might differ on that proposition, still in this case he was warned of the wire and of the danger on account of the wire and that, too, before he had reached a situation where there was any occasion or necessity of clutching the wire to avoid a fall. Not only was he twice warned but he was repeatedly told and urged to come down.”

*  *  *

Purtell v. Mason␣ 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49064 (E.D. Ill. 2006)

“The Purtells filed the present lawsuit against Defendant Village of Bloomingdale Police Officer Bruce Mason after he requested that they remove certain Halloween tombstone “decorations” from their property. Evidence presented at trial revealed that the Purtells placed the tombstones referring to their neighbors in their front yard facing the street. The tombstones specifically referred to their neighbors, who saw the language on the tombstones. For instance, the tombstone that referred to the Purtells’ neighbor James Garbarz stated:

Here Lies Jimmy, The OlDe Towne IdioT MeAn As sin even withouT his Gin No LonGer Does He wear That sTupiD Old Grin . . . Oh no, noT where they’ve sent Him!

The tombstone referring to the Purtells’ neighbor Betty Garbarz read:

BeTTe wAsN’T ReADy, BuT here she Lies Ever since that night she DieD. 12 feet Deep in this trench . . . Still wasn’T Deep enough For that wenches Stench!

In addition, the Purtells placed a Halloween tombstone in their yard concerning their neighbor Diane Lesner stating:

Dyean was Known for Lying So She was fried. Now underneath these daises is where she goes crazy!!

Moreover, the jury heard testimony that Diane Lesner, James Garbarz, and Betty Garbarz were upset because their names appeared on the tombstones. Betty Garbarz testified that she was so upset by the language on the tombstones that she contacted the Village of Bloomingdale Police Department. She further testified that she never had any doubt that the “Bette” tombstone referred to her. After seeing the tombstones, she stated that she was ashamed and humiliated, but did not talk to Jeffrey Purtell about them because she was afraid of him.

Defense counsel also presented evidence that the neighbors thought the language on the tombstones constituted threats and that they were alarmed and disturbed by their names being on the tombstones. James Garbarz testified that he interpreted the “Jimmy” tombstone as a threat and told the police that he felt threatened by the tombstone. He also testified that he had concerns about his safety and what Jeffrey Purtell might do to him.”

OUTCOME: The court denied the homeowners’ post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to and motion for a new trial. Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to Officer Mason, a rational jury could conclude that the language on the tombstones constituted threats, that the neighbors were afraid of Jeffrey Purtell, and that they feared for their safety. As such the Court will not disturb the jury’s conclusion that the tombstones constituted fighting words — “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”

*  *  *

Goodwin v. Walmart

2001 Ark. App. LEXIS 78

“On October 12, 1993, Randall Goodwin went to a Wal-Mart store located on 6th Street in Fayetteville, Arkansas. He entered through the front door and walked toward the sporting goods department. In route, he turned down an aisle known as the seasonal aisle. At that time, it was stocked with items for Halloween. This aisle could be observed from the cash registers. Mr. Goodwin took only a few steps down the aisle when he allegedly stepped on a wig and fell, landing on his right hip. As a result of the fall, Mr. Goodwin suffered severe physical injury to his back, including a ruptured disk. Kelly Evans, an employee for appellee, was standing at the end of her check-out stand when Mr. Goodwin approached her and informed her that he had fallen on an item in the seasonal aisle. She stated that she “saw what he was talking about.”

OUTCOME: Judgment affirmed because the pleadings, depositions, and related summary judgment evidence did not show that there was any genuine issue of material fact as appellant customer did not establish a plastic bag containing the Halloween wig which allegedly caused him to slip and fall was on the floor as the result of appellee’s negligence or it had been on the floor for such a period of time that appellee knew or should have known about it.

*  *  *

Eversole v. Wasson␣ 80 Ill. App. 3d 94 (Ill. 1980)

Excerpt: “The following allegations of count I, directed against defendant Wasson, were incorporated in count II against the school district: (1) plaintiff was a student at Villa Grove High School which was controlled and administered by the defendant school district, (2) defendant Wasson was employed by the school district as a teacher at the high school, (3) on November 1, 1978, at approximately 12:30 p.m., Wasson was at the high school in his regular capacity as a teacher and plaintiff was attending a regularly scheduled class, (4) Wasson sought and received permission from another teacher to take plaintiff from that teacher’s class and talk to him in the hallway, (5) once in the hallway, Wasson accused plaintiff of being one of several students he believed had smashed Wasson’s Halloween pumpkin at Wasson’s home, (6) without provocation from plaintiff, Wasson berated plaintiff, called him vile names, and threatened him with physical violence while shaking his fist in plaintiff’s face which placed plaintiff in fear of bodily injury, (7) Wasson then struck plaintiff about the head and face with both an open hand and a closed fist and shook and shoved him violently, (8) as a result, plaintiff was bruised about the head, neck, and shoulders; experienced pain and suffering in his head, body, and limbs; and became emotionally distraught causing his school performance and participation to be adversely affected . . .”

OUTCOME: The court affirmed that portion of the lower court’s order that dismissed the count against the school district and reversed that portion of the lower court’s order that entered a judgment in bar of action as to this count. The court remanded the case to the lower court with directions to allow the student to replead his count against the school district.

*  *  *

Holman v. Illinois

47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 372 (1995)

“The Claimant was attending a Halloween party at the Illinois State Museum with her grandson on October 26, 1990. The party had been advertised locally in the newspaper and through flier advertisements. The advertisement requested that children be accompanied by an adult, to come in costume and to bring a flashlight. The museum had set up different display rooms to hand out candy to the children and give the appearance of a “haunted house.” The Claimant entered the Discovery Room with her grandson.

Under normal conditions the room is arranged with tables and low-seated benches for children to use in the museum’s regular displays. These tables and benches had been moved into the upper-right-hand corner of the Discovery Room next to the wall. In the middle of the room, there was a “slime pot” display where the children received the Halloween treat. The overhead fluorescent lights were turned off; however, the track lights on the left side of the room were turned on and dim. The track lights on the right side of the room near the tables and benches were not lit. The room was dark enough that the children’s flashlights could be clearly seen. There were approximately 40-50 people in the room at the time of the accident.

The Claimant entered the room with her grandson. They proceeded in the direction of the pot in the middle of the room to see what was going in the pot. Her grandson then ran around the pot to the right corner toward the wall. As the Claimant followed, she tripped over the corner of a bench stored in that section of the room. She fell, making contact with the left corner of the bench. She experienced great pain in her upper left arm. The staff helped her to her feet. Her father was called and she went to the emergency room. Claimant has testified that she did not see the low-seating bench because it was so dimly lit in the Discovery Room. The Claimant was treated at the emergency room, where she was diagnosed with a fracture of the proximal humeral head of her left arm as a result of the fall. Claimant returned home, but was unable to work for 12 to 13 weeks.”

OUTCOME: “The Claimant has met her burden of proof. She has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the State acted negligently in placing furnishings in a dimly-lit room where visitors could not know of their location. The State did not exercise its duty of reasonable care. For the foregoing reasons, the Claimant is granted an award of $20,000.”

*  *  *

Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson

771 F. Supp. 196 “Plaintiffs Susan and Frank Ferlito, husband and wife, attended a Halloween party in 1984 dressed as Mary (Mrs. Ferlito) and her little lamb (Mr. Ferlito). Mrs. Ferlito had constructed a lamb costume for her husband by gluing cotton batting manufactured by defendant Johnson & Johnson Products (“JJP”) to a suit of long underwear. She had also used defendant’s product to fashion a headpiece, complete with ears. The costume covered Mr. Ferlito from his head to his ankles, except for his face and hands, which were blackened with Halloween paint. At the party Mr. Ferlito attempted to light his cigarette by using a butane lighter. The flame passed close to his left arm, and the cotton batting on his left sleeve ignited. Plaintiffs sued defendant for injuries they suffered from burns which covered approximately one-third of Mr. Ferlito’s body.”

OUTCOME: Ferlito v. Johnson & Johnson: Plaintiffs repeatedly stated in their response brief that plaintiff Susan Ferlito testified that “she would never again use cotton batting to make a costume.” Plaintiffs’ Answer to Defendant JJP’s Motion for J.N.O.V., pp. 1, 3, 4, 5. However, a review of the trial transcript reveals that plaintiff Susan Ferlito never testified that she would never again use cotton batting to make a costume. More importantly, the transcript contains no statement by plaintiff Susan Ferlito that a flammability warning on defendant JJP’s product would have dissuaded her from using the cotton batting to construct the costume in the first place. At oral argument counsel for plaintiffs conceded that there was no testimony during the trial that either plaintiff Susan Ferlito or her husband, plaintiff Frank J. Ferlito, would  have acted any different if there had been a flammability warning on the product’s package. The absence of such testimony is fatal to plaintiffs’ case; for without it, plaintiffs have failed to prove proximate cause, one of the essential elements of their negligence claim.

In addition, both plaintiffs testified that they knew that cotton batting burns when it is exposed to flame. Susan Ferlito testified that she knew at the time she purchased the cotton batting that it would burn if exposed to an open flame. Frank Ferlito testified that he knew at the time he appeared at the Halloween party that cotton batting would burn if exposed to an open flame. His additional testimony that he would not have intentionally put a flame to the cotton batting shows that he recognized the risk of injury of which he claims JJP should have warned. Because both plaintiffs were already aware of the danger, a warning by JJP would have been superfluous. Therefore, a reasonable jury could not have found that JJP’s failure to provide a warning was a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries.

The evidence in this case clearly demonstrated that neither the use to which plaintiffs put JJP’s product nor the injuries arising from that use were foreseeable.

But in Trivino v. Jamesway Corporation, the following result:

The mother purchased cosmetic puffs and pajamas from the retailer. The mother glued the puffs onto the pajamas to create a costume for her child. While wearing the costume, the child leaned over the electric stove. The costume caught on fire, injuring the child. Plaintiffs brought a personal injury action against the retailer. The retailer filed a third party complaint against the manufacturer of the puffs, and the puff manufacturer filed a fourth party complaint against the manufacturer of the fibers used in the puffs. The retailer filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ cause of action for failure to warn. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the actions against the manufacturers. On appeal, the court modified the judgment, holding that the mother’s use of the puffs was not unforeseeable as a matter of law and was a question for the jury. The court held that because the puffs were not made of cotton, as thought by the mother, there were fact issues as to the puffs’ flammability and defendants’ duty to warn. The court held that there was no prejudice to the retailer in permitting plaintiffs to amend their bill of particulars.

OUTCOME: The court modified the trial court’s judgment to grant plaintiffs’ motion to amend their bill of particulars, deny the retailer’s motion for summary judgment, and reinstate the third party actions against the manufacturers.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 19:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/DtbxmET Tyler Durden

“Nothing But A Lie”: Beijing Responds To COVID Lab Leak Allegations, Blaming Them On “Anti-China Forces”

“Nothing But A Lie”: Beijing Responds To COVID Lab Leak Allegations, Blaming Them On “Anti-China Forces”

Just days after a Senate report was published outlining how the origins of Covid were more likely than not the result of a “research related incident”, Beijing has gone on the defensive, blaming the lab leak theory on “anti-China forces,” Bloomberg reported this weekend. 

Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said on Monday that the idea that Covid leaked from a lab in Wuhan is “nothing but a lie”. According to Bloomberg, Zhao also said that China has maintained a consistent position on the origins of the virus, seemingly alluding to the idea that the virus originated in a Wuhan wet market.

China “opposes all forms of political manipulation”, Zhao went on say, according to the report. 

Recall, just days ago, a Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions interim report from October 27, 2022 titled “An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID19 Pandemic” revealed that the origins of Covid were more likely based in a lab as part of a “research related incident” and not zoonotic. This report came weeks after Dr. Richard Ebright of Rutgers University posted a damning chronology of circumstantial evidence that seemed to back up the lab leak theory. 

The Senate report was the result of a “bipartisan Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee oversight effort into the origins of SARS-CoV-2”. It provided a lengthy analysis that reviewed “publicly available, open-source information to examine the two prevailing theories of origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus”.

Among other conclusions, the report notes: “Substantial evidence suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of a research-related incident associated with a laboratory in Wuhan, China,” the report states.

“A research-related incident is consistent with the early epidemiology showing rapid spread of the virus exclusively in Wuhan with the earliest calls for assistance being located in the same district as the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s (WIV) original campus in central Wuhan. The WIV is an epicenter of advanced coronavirus research, where researchers have collected samples of and experimented on high-risk coronaviruses.”

“While precedent of previous outbreaks of human infections from contact with animals favors the hypothesis that a natural zoonotic spillover is responsible for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 that resulted in the COVID-19 pandemic was most likely the result of a research-related incident.

In other words, all of us “conspiracy theorists” floating the idea of a lab leak just because of the totally coincidental fact that the virus showed up on a virology lab’s doorstep, have now been validated by the U.S. Senate.

In a section titled “Problems with the Natural Zoonotic Hypothesis”, the report says:

“Based on precedent and genomics, the most likely scenario for a zoonotic origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is that SARS-CoV-2 crossed over the species barrier from an intermediate host to humans. However, the available evidence is also consistent, perhaps more so, with a direct bat-to-human spillover. Both scenarios remain plausible and, in the absence of additional information, should be considered equally valid hypotheses.”

“However, nearly three years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, critical evidence that would prove that the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and resulting COVID-19 pandemic was caused by a natural zoonotic spillover is missing.”

“Such gaps include the failure to identify the original host reservoir, the failure to identify a candidate intermediate host species, and the lack of serological or epidemiological evidence showing transmission from animals to humans, among others outlined in this report,” the report states.

“As a result of these evidentiary gaps, it is hard to treat the natural zoonotic spillover theory as the presumptive origin of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Then, in the report’s conclusion, it states:

“Based on the analysis of the publicly available information, it appears reasonable to conclude that the COVID-19 pandemic was, more likely than not, the result of a research-related incident. New information, made publicly available and independently verifiable, could change this assessment. However, the hypothesis of a natural zoonotic origin no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt, or the presumption of accuracy.

The report was signed off on by Richard Burr, United States Senator and Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 18:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/H7ZAubN Tyler Durden

TuSimple Fires Co-founder As CEO Amid Federal Probes, Board Inquiry

TuSimple Fires Co-founder As CEO Amid Federal Probes, Board Inquiry

By Alan Adler if FreightWaves

TuSimple Holdings on Monday fired co-founder Xiaodi Hou as chairman, CEO and chief technology officer amid federal probes and an internal investigation of the company’s dealings with China.

An ongoing investigation led by the audit committee of the TuSimple board of directors  determined a change at the top was necessary, TuSimple said in a statement. Hou also was removed as a member of the government security committee.   

The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that the FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) are investigating TuSimple over the exchange of its U.S. intellectual property with a China-backed company started by Hou’s co-founder, Mo Chen.

TuSimple shares crater

The news led to a sharp sell-off of TuSimple stock (NASDAQ:TSP), which already was down 83% this year. Shares traded at midday Monday at $3.35, down $2.96 or 46.91%. 

CFIUS investigated TuSimple before the company went public in April 2021. It found no wrongdoing. But two board members backed by China technology conglomerate Sina Corp. left the TuSimple board after the probe concluded. TuSimple also agreed to limited federal oversight of its business as part of the settlement. 

Sina divested part of its 20% stake at the time TuSimple went public.

Yumer becomes interim CEO and president

Ersin Yumer, executive vice president of operations, will serve as interim CEO and president while Russell Reynolds Associates conducts an executive search. Lead independent director Brad Buss will be TuSimple’s chairman. The board is seeking to add new independent members following the departure of the two Sina-related board members.

“Transparency, good judgment and accountability are critical values to our Company,” Buss said. “We take these values extremely seriously.”

Coincidentally, Hou said almost the same thing in a Sept. 15 Q&A with Morgan Stanley analyst Ravi Shankar during the investment firm’s 10th annual Laguna Conference.

“We are very honest with ourselves and to the world,” Hou said. “That sets us apart as a unique company.”

In an email to employees, Buss wrote: “And we also know that the technology we’ve developed at TuSimple works. We have proven it through the world’s first driver-out autonomous freight test runs, and we are on the path to commercialization. Now, we have to continue to make the hard decisions necessary to keep TuSimple moving on its trajectory toward long-term success and long-term stability.

Yumer, who joined TuSimple from rival Aurora Technology, rose quickly through the technology ranks since joining the company 15 months ago. Like Hou, he has a Ph.D. focused on engineering and product development.

Yumer’s rise coincided with the departure earlier this year of CEO Cheng Lu and CFO Pat Dillon, who led TuSimple to public trading via an initial public offering.

“It’s not uncommon for a CFO to leave shortly after their CEO,” Yumer told FreightWaves in a recent interview. “Our perspective is that it’s not uncommon with companies that come from being a startup and then transition into being a public company. That transition changes what the focus is for the folks that have actually brought the company there.”

TuSimple named Ersin Yumer as interim CEO and president of the autonomous trucking developer after firing co-founder Xiaodi Hou as CEO, chairman and chief technology officer

Hou lashes out

In a linkedIn post Monday, Hou lashed out at the board, complaining that it fired him without cause.

“Unfortunately, the Board’s processes and conclusions have been questionable at best,” Hou wrote. “As the facts come to light, I am confident that my decisions as CEO and Chairman, and our vision for TuSimple, will be vindicated. I want to be clear that I fundamentally deny any suggestions of wrongdoing.

“I have been completely transparent in both my professional and personal life and I fully cooperated with the Board because I have nothing to hide.”

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 18:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/ZwW5YkS Tyler Durden

Biden Lost Temper In Zelensky Phone Call: “Show A Little More Gratitude” 

Biden Lost Temper In Zelensky Phone Call: “Show A Little More Gratitude” 

Days after the Pentagon announced that total US military aid given to Ukraine so far has topped $18.5 billion, new reporting has revealed President Joe Biden briefly lost his temper in a phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky, after the latter kept pressing for more money and arms.

NBC has cited four officials familiar with a phone call which took place in June, who revealed for the first time on Monday, “Biden had barely finished telling Zelenskyy he’d just greenlighted another $1 billion in U.S. military assistance for Ukraine when Zelenskyy started listing all the additional help he needed and wasn’t getting.”

Image via Axios

At that point, “Biden lost his temper, the people familiar with the call said.” Not only has Washington handed Kyiv a record amount of military aid, but tens of more billions in humanitarian funding as well, as the country struggles to keep the lights on and keep civil services active amid mounting wartime debt as the Russian invasion continues. 

President Biden, reportedly showing his irritation, explained to Zelensky in that prior phone call, “The American people were being quite generous, and his administration and the U.S. military were working hard to help Ukraine, he said, raising his voice, and Zelenskyy could show a little more gratitude.”

The report followed by citing one source who said additionally that “Biden was direct with Zelensky” and reminded him that defense aid must be handled through the appropriate military channels. 

According to more from NBC, the two leaders’ communications have since improved

Administration officials said Biden and Zelenskyy’s relationship has only improved since the June phone call, after which Zelenskyy made a statement praising the U.S. for its generous assistance. But the clash reflects Biden’s early awareness that both congressional and public support for sending billions of dollars to Ukraine could begin to fade. That moment has arrived just as the president prepares to ask Congress to greenlight even more money for Ukraine.

Perhaps the two getting past those prior June tensions was the result of the White House continuing to essentially sign off on whatever Ukraine asks for. 

Last month, Zelensky boasted in a CBS “Face the Nation” interview that Washington is providing him with a whopping $1.5 billion per month for state coffers as the country piles up a large war-time deficit. 

“The United States gives us $1.5 billion every month to support our budget to fight” against Russia the Ukrainian leader explained, but pointed out there remains “a deficit of $5 billion in our budget.” Of course, in that interview he immediately pivoted to repeating Kyiv’s longtime complaint that it’s not enough – because it’s never enough, apparently.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 18:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/dyTzJsV Tyler Durden

Pelosi Attacker Charged With Assault, Attempted Kidnapping; Intended To “Kneecap” Nancy “If She Lied”

Pelosi Attacker Charged With Assault, Attempted Kidnapping; Intended To “Kneecap” Nancy “If She Lied”

The man who allegedly attacked the husband of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was charged Oct. 31 with assault and attempted kidnapping.

David DePape, 42, was charged with assaulting Paul Pelosi, 82 and attempting to kidnap Nancy Pelosi, 82.

DePape was charged in U.S. court in northern California three days after he allegedly broke into the Pelosi residence in San Francisco and attacked Paul Pelosi.

He faces up to 50 years in prison if convicted on both counts.

As The Epoch Times’ Zachary Stieber reports, San Francisco officers responded to a 911 call from Paul Pelosi in the early hours of Friday and witnessed, after the door was opened, DePape and Paul Pelosi each with a hand on the same hammer.

At 2:31 a.m., San Francisco Police Department (“SFPD”) Officer Colby Wilmes responded to the Pelosi residence, California and knocked on the front door.

When the door was opened, Pelosi and DEPAPE were both holding a hammer with one hand and DEPAPE had his other hand holding onto Pelosi’s forearm.

Pelosi greeted the officers.

The officers asked them what was going on.

DEPAPE responded that everything was good.

Officers then asked Pelosi and DEPAPE to drop the hammer.

Officers located zip ties in a bedroom in the home and inside of a backpack, they found a journal, a roll of tape, a hammer, a pair of gloves, and white rope.

Officers found signs that DePape broke into the home through the rear of the building.

A witness told officers that he saw a person wearing all black and carrying a large black bag walking near the Pelosi residence. Paul Pelosi, meanwhile, said that he was asleep when DePape entered the bedroom and said he wanted to talk to Nancy Pelosi. DePape said that he would wait, even after Paul Pelosi said his wife would not be home for several days.

Paul Pelosi called 911 from the bathroom.

According to dispatch audio, Paul Pelosi said that he was with a man he described as “a friend” and that the man was going to wait for his wife.

The dispatcher sent officers to the home after receiving the call.

DePape told officers hours after being detained that he intended to hold Nancy Pelosi hostage and that he would break her kneecaps if she did not tell the truth.

As the criminal complaint breaks down, in a Mirandized and recorded interview of DEPAPE by San Francisco Police Department Officers, DEPAPE provided the following information:

a.    DEPAPE stated that he was going to hold Nancy hostage and talk to her. If Nancy were to tell DEPAPE the “truth,” he would let her go, and if she “lied,” he was going to break “her kneecaps.”

DEPAPE was certain that Nancy would not have told the “truth.”

In the course of the interview, DEPAPE articulated he viewed Nancy as the “leader of the pack” of lies told by the Democratic Party.

DEPAPE also later explained that by breaking Nancy’s kneecaps, she would then have to be wheeled into Congress, which would show other Members of Congress there were consequences to actions.

DEPAPE also explained generally that he wanted to use Nancy to lure another individual to DEPAPE.

b.    DEPAPE stated that he broke into the house through a glass door, which was a difficult task that required the use of a hammer.

DEPAPE stated that Pelosi was in bed and appeared surprised by DEPAPE. DEPAPE told Pelosi to wake up. DEPAPE told Pelosi that he was looking for Nancy. Pelosi responded that she was not present. Pelosi asked how they could resolve the situation, and what DEPAPE wanted to do. DEPAPE stated he wanted to tie Pelosi up so that DEPAPE could go to sleep as he was tired from having had to carry a backpack to the Pelosi residence.

Around this time, according to DEPAPE, DEPAPE started taking out twist ties from his pocket so that he could restrain Pelosi. Pelosi moved towards another part of the house, but DEPAPE stopped him and together they went back into the bedroom.

c.    While talking with each other, Pelosi went into a bathroom, where Pelosi grabbed a phone to call 9-1-1.

DEPAPE stated he felt like Pelosi’s actions compelled him to respond.

d.    DEPAPE remembered thinking that there was no way the police were going to forget about the phone call.

DEPAPE explained that he did not leave after Pelosi’s call to 9-1-1 because, much like the American founding fathers with the British, he was fighting against tyranny without the option of surrender.

DEPAPE reiterated this sentiment elsewhere in the interview.

e.    DEPAPE stated that they went downstairs to the front door. The police arrived and knocked on the door, and Pelosi ran over and opened it. Pelosi grabbed onto DEPAPE’s hammer, which was in DEPAPE’s hand.

At this point in the interview, DEPAPE repeated that DEPAPE did not plan to surrender and that he would go “through” Pelosi.

f.    DEPAPE stated that he pulled the hammer away from Pelosi and swung the hammer towards Pelosi.

DEPAPE explained that Pelosi’s actions resulted in Pelosi “taking the punishment instead.”

DePape and Paul Pelosi were both taken to a hospital for treatment.

Paul Pelosi underwent surgery for a skull fracture and injuries to his hands, according to Nancy Pelosi’s office. Paul Pelosi’s condition “continues to improve,” Nancy Pelosi said in a statement over the weekend.

Local prosecutors have said they also plan to file a slew of felony charges against DePape, including  attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, burglary, and elder abuse.

As if that was not enough, a source with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told Fox News that DePape was an illegal immigrant and a “longtime” visa overstay, meaning he arrived in the United States by legal means but did not leave after his visa expired and was never repatriated. DePape was born in Canada and has resided within the U.S. for roughly 20 years.

So in summary, a Berkeley nudist and illegal-immigrant, with a pedophile ex-wife, leaves his BLM-adorned, LGBT-supporting home and attacks the Pelosi residence with the goal of getting the “truth” from the Speaker and “fighting against tyranny”.

What’s weird about that?

Read the full criminal complaint below:

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 17:46

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/qOkt4lf Tyler Durden

Leaked Docs Reveal Shocking Extent Of DHS “Disinfo” Collusion With Twitter, Facebook

Leaked Docs Reveal Shocking Extent Of DHS “Disinfo” Collusion With Twitter, Facebook

In August, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted on the Joe Rogan podcast that the FBI approached the company warning of “Russian propaganda” shortly before the Hunter Biden laptop story broke at the NY Post.

“Basically, the background here is the FBI, I think, basically came to us– some folks on our team and was like, ‘Hey, just so you know, like, you should be on high alert…  We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that, basically, there’s about to be some kind of dump of that’s similar to that. So just be vigilant,” Zuckerberg told Rogan.

Now, leaked documents provided to The Intercept reveal that government collusion with big tech goes much deeper.

The effort began in 2018, after former President Donald Trump signed the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act in the wake of several high-profile hacking incidents, forming a new wing of DHS devoted to protecting critical national infrastructure.

The Department of Homeland Security is quietly broadening its efforts to curb speech it considers dangerous, an investigation by The Intercept has found. Years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents — obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents — illustrate an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms.

The work, much of which remains unknown to the American public, came into clearer view earlier this year when DHS announced a new “Disinformation Governance Board”: a panel designed to police misinformation (false information spread unintentionally), disinformation (false information spread intentionally), and malinformation (factual information shared, typically out of context, with harmful intent) that allegedly threatens U.S. interests. While the board was widely ridiculed, immediately scaled back, and then shut down within a few months, other initiatives are underway as DHS pivots to monitoring social media now that its original mandate — the war on terror — has been wound down.

Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the U.S. government has used its power to try to shape online discourse. According to meeting minutes and other records appended to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, a Republican who is also running for Senate, discussions have ranged from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests for false or intentionally misleading information. -The Intercept

Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain,” said Microsoft exec and former DHS official Matt Masterson in a February text to Jen Easterly, a DHS director.

Then, in a March 2022 meeting, FBI official Laura Dehmlow warned that the ‘threat of subversive information on social media’ could undermine support for the US government – stressing “we need a media infrastructure that is held accountable.”

Twitter has denied the report, telling The Intercept: “We do not coordinate with other entities when making content moderation decisions, and we independently evaluate content in line with the Twitter Rules.”

Except…

More via The Intercept:

This apparatus had a dry run during the 2020 election, when CISA began working with other members of the U.S. intelligence community. Office of Intelligence and Analysis personnel attended “weekly teleconferences to coordinate Intelligence Community activities to counter election-related disinformation.” According to the IG report, meetings have continued to take place every two weeks since the elections.

Emails between DHS officials, Twitter, and the Center for Internet Security outline the process for such takedown requests during the period leading up to November 2020. Meeting notes show that the tech platforms would be called upon to “process reports and provide timely responses, to include the removal of reported misinformation from the platform where possible.” In practice, this often meant state election officials sent examples of potential forms of disinformation to CISA, which would then forward them on to social media companies for a response.

Under President Joe Biden, the shifting focus on disinformation has continued. In January 2021, CISA replaced the Countering Foreign Influence Task force with the “Misinformation, Disinformation and Malinformation” team, which was created “to promote more flexibility to focus on general MDM.” By now, the scope of the effort had expanded beyond disinformation produced by foreign governments to include domestic versions. The MDM team, according to one CISA official quoted in the IG report, “counters all types of disinformation, to be responsive to current events.”

What’s more, the DHS plans to accelerate their efforts.

According to a draft copy of DHS’s Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, DHS’s capstone report outlining the department’s strategy and priorities in the coming years, the department plans to target “inaccurate information” on a wide range of topics, including “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine.”

Why? Racism, apparently.

“The challenge is particularly acute in marginalized communities, which are often the targets of false or misleading information, such as false information on voting procedures targeting people of color,” reads the report.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 17:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/cQkCv8b Tyler Durden

Reported Federal Probes Reignite Concerns Over TuSimple’s China Dealings

Reported Federal Probes Reignite Concerns Over TuSimple’s China Dealings

By Alan Adler of FreightWaves

A report of multiple federal probes of autonomous trucking developer TuSimple Holdings is reawakening concerns of coziness with China that led the U.S. government to take limited oversight of the company in February.

The FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) are looking into TuSimple’s dealings with Hydron, a China-based company founded by TuSimple co-founder and former CEO and Executive Chairman Mo Chen, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.

Hydron plans to make hydrogen-powered autonomous trucks that TuSimple is looking into buying, the Journal reported. The government wants to know whether and how much of San Diego-based TuSimple’s intellectual property was shared with Hydron.

The revelations come as TuSimple seeks a possible sale or spinoff of its Chinese business. A split would help mollify CFIUS concerns about technology transfer between the U.S. and China businesses. TuSimple is expected to update those plans when it reports third-quarter earnings after markets close on Tuesday.

Surprise succession

A surprise succession in March elevated co-founder Xiaodi Hou to CEO and chairman. That followed the conclusion of an earlier CFIUS probe. Two Chinese directors with ties to China’s technology giant Sina Corp. left the TuSimple board when their terms expired. Chen stepped down as TuSimple executive chairman at the time and launched Hydron in June.

Meanwhile, TuSimple is focusing on its commercialization plans for autonomous trucking. Autonomous veteran and engineer Ersin Yumer is one of founder Xiodai Hou’s top leaders as executive vice president of operations.

“One might [ask], ‘What is this tech guy doing in operations?’” Yumer asked FreightWaves rhetorically in a recent interview. 

“After you run your tech to a place where you know you can work the redundancy, the next stage is commercialization. Nobody in the industry is addressing the big elephant in the room.”  

Yumer came to TuSimple from rival Aurora Innovation, which is pursuing both ride-hailing autonomous cars and commercial trucking. He was an engineering director at Uber’s Autonomous Technology Group, which Aurora acquired in an all-stock transaction in December 2020. 

Before that, Yumer led perception machine learning at Argo AI, which announced last week it is shutting down. He has a doctorate from Carnegie Mellon University, a hotbed of autonomy.

Ersin Yumer, executive vice president of operations at TuSimple, moved up the ranks quickly after joining the company from rival Aurora Innovation 15 months ago. 

Rising through changes

At TuSimple, Yumer initially ran the machine learning and later the algorithms teams before becoming executive vice president of operations. As many of the public faces of TuSimple — CEO Cheng Lu, CFO Pat Dillon and Chief Legal and Administrative Officer Jim Mullen among them — left the stage following Hou taking over as chairman and CEO, Yumer gained influence.

“When you look at it from the outside and just look at the shallow tip of the iceberg you say, ‘Oh my God, all of these folks are leaving. What’s happening?’” Yumer said. “But it’s not uncommon for a CFO to leave shortly after their CEO.”

The departures and his rise exemplify a transition from a startup going public to one defining its reason for existence. Even being first to remove the driver from a Class 8 truck is just a demonstration of what’s possible. TuSimple has done it 10 times.

Highway mishap spawns legal actions

Instead of routinely issuing news releases about operational milestones as some of its competitors do, TuSimple keeps its head down. Or tries to. 

In December 2021, TuSimple celebrated its first successful driverless pilot. The test covered an 80-mile nighttime journey west on Interstate 10 from Tucson, Arizona, to Phoenix. 

Less than five months later, a Navistar International LT upfit with TuSimple’s Class 4 autonomous system responded to an old computer command when a safety driver activated the autonomous system. The truck jerked to the left across a lane of I-10 traffic near Tucson, striking a concrete median as a safety driver tried to wrest control of the truck.

TuSimple temporarily grounded its fleet of nearly 100 trucks and conducted an internal investigation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration came calling. Both have open investigations, but neither has asked TuSimple for any changes, Yumer said.

Critics of autonomous technology gained oxygen from extensive media coverage about the April 6 incident. A lawsuit accusing TuSimple of misrepresenting its technology readiness awaits action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Separately, a raft of plaintiffs attorneys face a Monday deadline to find a lead plaintiff to front investors who lost more than $100,000 in TuSimple Holdings,. The company went public in April 2021 at an $8.5 billion valuation.

TuSimple’s financial runway

Such legal distractions, common to many young companies that have seen their stock values plummet over the last year. TuSimple shares are down 83% this year. 

Analysts expect a Q3 loss of 58 cents a share. Revenues from supervised autonomous freight hauling are projected at $2.32 million, up 29.6% from a year ago.

Yumer is proud TuSimple took the more arduous route to public listing through a traditional initial public offering instead of taking the shortcut offered by merging with a special purpose acquisition company. 

“The analysts we interact with believe in the steps we are taking in terms of where we are pushing the industry,” Yumer said.

Five of eight firms that cover TuSimple recommend a buy and three a hold on the stock, according to TipRanks. The average share price target is $14.42, a 128% upside to Friday’s closing price of $6.31.

$1 billion on the books

With about $1 billion on its books at the end of the second quarter and a burn rate of $300 million to $400 million a year, TuSimple has at least three years of runway without raising new capital. TuSimple is in line for a cash infusion in the China operations are spun off, .

“In the ultra-fast growth period, we were basically pushed by the capital to grow faster than we needed to,” Hou told Morgan Stanley’s 10th annual Laguna Conference Sept.15. “Now is the time to assess the team and find the true believers in autonomy.”

TuSimple is growing its headcount strategically. But Hou indicated he is weeding out a “small faction of people who joined the company because they felt this is an upswinging company. ‘We just do nothing and enjoy all of the glory coming down from it.’ That time is gone.”

The latest iteration of TuSimple’s autonomous upfit Navistar International LT on display at the American Trucking Associations Management Conference and Exhibition earlier this month in San Diego

Autonomous cash crunch

Several autonomous SPACs are financially struggling. 

  • Embark Trucks had to conduct a 1:20 reverse stock split to get its shares above the $1 price required to keep its seat on the Nasdaq. 
  • Aurora, which wiped $1 billion in non-cash goodwill from its books because of a decline in its market capitalization below the value of its assets, considered selling itself to a larger technology company like Apple or Microsoft, according to a leaked memo written by CEO Chris Urmson.
  • Plus abandoned plans for a SPAC when its sponsor, Hennessy Capital, bailed. It is pushing a governed version of its Level 4 autonomy that operates like an advanced driver assistance system, also known as Level 2 autonomy.

Privately held Kodiak Robotics recently borrowed $30 million to shore up its finances.

Operational vs. maintenance cost

For autonomous trucking to have a chance as a viable business, the supply industry must keep up with the computer technology that drives autonomy, Hou said. 

“Redundancy is the backbone. The operational cost is now zero. But when you’re operating a redundant system, there’s always something you have to maintain,” he said. “And if you can’t maintain your maintenance costs to a low-enough number, you are never going to commercialize that system.”

Preferred mapping technology

TuSimple remains committed to creating high-definition maps for its Autonomous Freight Network, trucks to follow, though it is slowing down now that it has mapped more than 11,200 miles. Kodiak uses a “light mapping” on the premise that little changes from mile to mile on an interstate.

“HD mapping is one of the backbones of safety,” Yumer said. “If you have the map and if you know it [like] the back of your hand, you are going to be safer.”

What happens when something changes, such as a pop-up construction zone or an emergency lane event with law enforcement and pedestrians present?

“We have collaborative mapping ensuring that any of our trucks at any given time, traveling on a piece of the map that has been mapped before, is actively collecting data from that area while it’s in its operational mode. And that’s correlating that with the HD map and pushing that data in real time to the cloud,” Yumer said.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 17:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/rnH2jRT Tyler Durden

Biden Blasts ‘Big Oil’ For “War Profiteering”, Urges Congressional ‘Windfall Tax’

Biden Blasts ‘Big Oil’ For “War Profiteering”, Urges Congressional ‘Windfall Tax’

Update (1655ET): President Biden confirmed expectations in his brief address, stating that he is seeking to impose higher taxes on oil firms who do not boost their US production and refining capacity.

It’s time for these companies to stop war profiteering, meet their responsibilities in this country and give the American people a break and still do very well,” Biden said during a brief speech at the White House.

“If they don’t, they’re going to pay a higher tax on their excess profits and face other restrictions. My team will work with Congress to look at these options that are available to us and others,” Biden added.

Bloomberg’s Javier Blas comments on the circularity of oil politics…

Note the final sentence of the 2006 Report on the US Windfall tax policy of the 1980s:

“In the long-run, such a tax is a tax on capital; it reduces the rate of return, thus reducing the supply of capital to the oil industry.”

In other words, a windfall tax failed in the 80s and will just drive prices higher in the long-run.

Additionally, The American Exploration & Production Council said a windfall tax would probably backfire, and the U.S. government should provide permits for pipelines and support U.S. production.

But then again, why would Biden care about the long-run?

*  *  *

The closer we get to the midterms, the louder the desperate cries of “it wasn’t my fault” come from The White House as practically every indicator signals a dramatic loss of confidence (even among faithful Democrats) in the Biden admin’s policies.

The loudest, simplest, and most palatable for his base is to blame “Big Oil” profiteering (oh and the ‘Putin Price Hike’) for the surge in gas prices since the president was elected.

The week after Chevron and Exxon announced their earnings seems like perfect timing to energize the base again against the fossil fuel industry (while demanding they pump more).

However, as we have noted too many times to remember, the problem is not a lack of crude oil but a lack of refining capacity

Bear in mind that pump prices are lower than one would expect historically based on crude and wholesale gasoline…

It’s been a theme as prices soared:

And we have discussed in detail what a crock of shit that claim is:

And there’s a way to solve it:

And this is not the way…

But we don’t expect any of that anytime soon…

And he’s already drained the Strategic Midterm Reserve to a record low level of days supply…

The Associated Press is reporting that Biden will raise the possibility of imposing a windfall tax (which would be DOA even among his own party). Now where have we seen that before?

Watch Live below (due to start at 1630ET): President Biden responds to reports over recent days of major oil companies making record-setting profits even as they refuse to help lower prices at the pump for the American people.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 16:58

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/82v3ZkO Tyler Durden

Johnstone: Advocating World War Three Is Just Mainstream Punditry Now

Johnstone: Advocating World War Three Is Just Mainstream Punditry Now

Authored by Caitline Johnstone,

Mainstream punditry in the latter half of 2022 is rife with op-eds arguing that the US needs to vastly increase military spending because a world war is about to erupt, and they always frame it as though this would be something that happens to the US, as though its own actions would have nothing to do with it. As though it would not be the direct result of the US-centralized empire continually accelerating towards that horrific event while refusing every possible diplomatic off-ramp due to its inability to relinquish its goal of total unipolar planetary domination.

The latest example of this trend is an article titled “Could America Win a New World War? — What It Would Take to Defeat Both China and Russia” published by Foreign Affairs, a magazine that is owned and operated by the supremely influential think tank Council on Foreign Relations.

“The United States and its allies must plan for how to simultaneously win wars in Asia and Europe, as unpalatable as the prospect may seem,” writes the article’s author Thomas G Mahnken, adding that in some ways “the United States and its allies will have an advantage in any simultaneous war” in those two continents.

But Mahnken doesn’t claim a world war against Russia and China would be a walk in the park; he also argues that in order to win such a war the US will need to — you guessed it — drastically increase its military spending.

“The United States clearly needs to increase its defense manufacturing capacity and speed,” Mahnken writes. “In the short term, that involves adding shifts to existing factories. With more time, it involves expanding factories and opening new production lines. To do both, Congress will have to act now to allocate more money to increase manufacturing.”

But exploding US weapons spending is still inadequate, Mahnken argues, saying that “the United States should work with its allies to increase their military production and the size of their weapons and munitions stockpiles” as well.

Mahnken says this world war could be sparked “if China initiated a military operation to take Taiwan, forcing the United States and its allies to respond,” as though there would be no other options on the table besides launching into nuclear age World War Three to defend an island next to the Chinese mainland that calls itself the Republic of China. He writes that “Moscow, meanwhile, could decide that with the United States bogged down in the western Pacific, it could get away with invading more of Europe,” demonstrating the bizarre Schrödinger’s cat western propaganda paradox that Putin is always simultaneously (A) getting destroyed and humiliated in Ukraine and (B) on the cusp of waging hot war with NATO.

Again, this is just the latest in an increasingly common genre of mainstream western punditry.

In “The skeptics are wrong: The U.S. can confront both China and Russia,” The Washington Post’s Josh Rogin wags his finger at Democrats who think aggressions against Russia should be prioritized and Republicans who think that military and financial attention should be devoted to China, arguing porque no los dos?

In “Could The U.S. Military Fight Russia And China At The Same Time?“, 19FortyFive’s Robert Farley answers in the affirmative, writing that “the immense fighting power of the US armed forces would not be inordinately strained by the need to wage war in both theaters” and concluding that “the United States can fight both Russia and China at once… for a while, and with the help of some friends.”

In “Can the US Take on China, Iran and Russia All at Once?” Bloomberg’s Hal Brands answers that it would be very difficult and recommends escalating in Ukraine and Taiwan and selling Israel more advanced weaponry to get a step ahead of Russia, China and Iran respectively.

In “International Relations Theory Suggests Great-Power War Is Coming,” the Atlantic Council’s Matthew Kroenig writes for Foreign Policy that a global democracies-versus-autocracies showdown is coming “with the United States and its status quo-oriented democratic allies in NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia on one side and the revisionist autocracies of China, Russia, and Iran on the other,” and that aspiring foreign policy experts should adjust their expectations accordingly.

When they’re not arguing that World War Three is coming and we must all prepare to fight it and win, they’re arguing that a global conflict is already upon us and we must begin acting like it, as in last month’s New Yorker piece “What if We’re Already Fighting the Third World War with Russia?

These Beltway swamp monster pontifications are directed not just at the general public but at government policymakers and strategists as well, and it should disturb us all that their audiences are being encouraged to view a global conflict of unspeakable horror like it’s some kind of natural disaster that people don’t have any control over.

Every measure should be taken to avoid a world war in the nuclear age. If it looks like that’s where we’re headed, the answer is not to ramp up weapons production and create entire industries dedicated to making it happen, the answer is diplomacy, de-escalation and detente. These pundits frame the rise of a multipolar world as something that must inevitably be accompanied by an explosion of violence and human suffering, when in reality we’d only wind up there as a result of decisions that were made by thinking human beings on both sides.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There’s no omnipotent deity decreeing from on high that we must live in a world where governments brandish armageddon weapons at each other and humanity must either submit to Washington or resign itself to cataclysmic violence of planetary consequence. We could just have a world where the peoples of all nations get along with each other and work together toward the common good rather than working to dominate and subjugate each other.

As Jeffrey Sachs recently put it, “The single biggest mistake of president Biden was to say ‘the greatest struggle of the world is between democracies and autocracies’. The real struggle of the world is to live together and overcome our common crises of environment and inequality.”

We could have a world where our energy and resources go toward increasing human thriving and learning to collaborate with this fragile biosphere we evolved in. Where all our scientific innovation is directed toward making this planet a better place to live instead of channeling it into getting rich and finding new ways to explode human bodies. Where our old models of competition and exploitation give way to systems of collaboration and care. Where poverty, toil and misery gradually move from accepted norms of human existence to dimly remembered historical record.

Instead we’re getting a world where we’re being hammered harder and harder with propaganda encouraging us to accept global conflict as an unavoidable reality, where politicians who voice even the mildest support for diplomacy are shouted down and demonized until they bow to the gods of war, where nuclear brinkmanship is framed as safety and de-escalation is branded as reckless endangerment.

We don’t have to submit to this. We don’t have to keep sleepwalking into dystopia and armageddon to the beat of manipulative sociopaths. There are a whole lot more of us than there are of them, and we’ve got a whole lot more at stake here than they do.

We can have a healthy world. We’ve just got to want it badly enough. They work so hard to manufacture our consent because, ultimately, they absolutely do require it.

*  *  *

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, buying an issue of my monthly zine, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. All works co-authored with my American husband Tim Foley.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Liked it? Take a second to support Caitlin Johnstone on Patreon!

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 16:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/1GNfRdy Tyler Durden

Gold Is The Solution For Financial Crises…

Gold Is The Solution For Financial Crises…

Via SchiffGold.com,

Most people have a sense of history that goes back about two weeks. This is especially true in the world of investing and finance. As a result, people have a hard time seeing the big picture. For instance, a lot of people think the current inflation crisis was only due to the Fed failing to respond fast enough. As Peter Schiff pointed out, this inflation was in fact decades in the making.

And as James Anthony pointed out, the current inflation problem along with all of the big economic crises that occurred in the 20th and 21st centuries have one commonality — progressive government coupled with monetary policies run by the Federal Reserve.

These government-created crises include the Great Depression, Great Inflation I, the 2008 financial crisis and the unfolding Great Inflation II. Anthony concludes that they were all “caused and perpetuated by hyperactive Progressive government. In the past crises, holding gold would have conserved savings and provided added returns.”

The following was originally published by the Mises Wire. The opinions expressed are the author’s and don’t necessarily reflect those of Peter Schiff or SchiffGold.

The Great Depression came about when the Progressives’ newly-spawned Fed, having first greatly increased the quantity of money throughout World War I, again increased the quantity of money throughout the 1920s, by 62 percent (for details on figures, see table below). There was considerable innovation-driven growth already, but this new money created out of thin air created an unsustainable boom.

Progressive regulation of utilities, which at the time were high-tech and high-growth, sparked a stock market crash. Projects failed, businesses failed, and banks failed, ruining borrowers. Both parties‘ politicians then blocked product prices and wages from being decreased in sync, which had been done throughout the remarkably-similar 1839-1843 crisis deflation and had allowed workers to keep working and investors to keep earning returns. Investors saw that the Progressive, newly-hyperactive government could eliminate their returns or confiscate their returns, so investors rationally held back on new projects. Tragically for individuals, the Progressive government controlled the price of gold and started treating it as illegal for unlicensed individuals to hold gold.

Great Inflation I came about when the Fed increased the quantity of money in the 1960s and 1970s by 176 percent. Starting in the 1970s, both parties’ politicians significantly blocked corresponding increases in prices and wages. Investors again saw that the Progressive government could eliminate their returns, so investors rationally flocked to savings-conserving assets, including gold from 1975 on, once conservatives in government again started honoring it as legal for unlicensed individuals to hold gold. Sadly, Progressives in government meanwhile started treating the inflation-driven increases in the dollar prices of gold not as holdings of constitutional money or as conserved savings but instead as taxable capital gains.

The Financial Crisis occurred when the Fed increased the quantity of money from 1995 to 2007 by 128 percent. The Progressive government also leaned on its financial cronies to lend mortgages to crony voters who were at serious risk of default and then bailed out almost all of its financial cronies. The initial increase in consumer prices was echoed and outpaced by the increase in the price of gold.

Great Inflation II has been started by unprecedented increases in the quantity of money by 303 percent, of which the portion that has come only recently, in the time of covid, has been 120 percent. Stock prices first were inflated and now have begun to decrease. Consumer prices have started to increase. (Consumer prices change quickly for quickly-processed products but as a whole don’t become stable for 8 to 16 years or more; so if the average is 12 years and the fastest changes come in the middle, then after the money-quantity changes, the most substantial consumer price changes would turn up in 6 years.) The price of gold has so far only decreased.

These crises’ superficial differences mask these crises’ deeper commonality.

Each crisis is caused by a boom during which the quantity of government money is greatly increased, followed by a bust during which governments further disrupt workers, customers, and investors from healing themselves. Throughout the boom and bust, governments treat taxpayers and money-holders as a common resource—like land owned in common by everyone, which gets overgrazed and depleted. Various groups in government each grab as many resources as they can until the taxpayers and money-holders are depleted in resources and need significant time to rebuild. Although the Fed enables these depletions and has a fiduciary duty to not be the enabler, the root cause is always the politicians’ choices to borrow on the backs of taxpayers and to spend and regulate to favor business cronies and activist cronies.

The table below summarizes these crises’ booms in the quantity of money, the resulting busts in the prices of consumer products and stocks, and the resulting changes in the price of gold.

Chart Notes

1 The money quantity TMS2, often referred to as TMS, for the USA.

2 Murray Rothbard’s calculation.

3 Author’s calculation by Griggs and Murphy method.

4 Consumer-price index for urban consumers in the USA, as listed on InflationData.com.

5 Widely-used index of 500 leading large-cap USA equities, covering approximately 80 percent of available market capitalization, as listed on macrotrends.net.

6 Gold bullion price in USA dollars, as listed on macrotrends.net, deselecting “inflation-adjusted.”

7 Holding of gold by unlicensed individuals was treated as illegal from 5/33 through 12/74.

LESSONS

The boom money-quantity increases of the Great Depression, Great Inflation I, and the Financial Crisis were fractions of the boom money-quantity increase in Great Inflation II so far: only 0.20x, 0.58x, and 0.42x as much.

The consumer-price decreases of the Great Depression would be drowned out by today’s modern monetary-theory Fed. The consumer-price increases of the Great Inflation I and the Financial Crisis were sizable fractions of the money-price increases: 1.11x and 0.23x. The consumer-price increase of Great Inflation II so far has been a much smaller fraction of the money-price increase: only 0.08x.

The gold-price increases of the Great Depression, Great Inflation I, and the Financial Crisis were multiples of the money-quantity increases: 1.1x. 4.8x, and 1.2x. The gold-price increase of the Great Inflation II so far has been a negative fraction of the money-quantity increase: -0.1x. All in all, gold’s downside potential is small and gold’s upside potential is very large.

Stocks are ownership of the world’s productive assets, which makes them the source of the values of all other assets. Over sufficiently long time periods, even periods that include crises, stocks are unmatched as investments. Gold is a store of existing value. Over sufficiently-short time periods of crisis, gold protects existing value from being rapidly destroyed by government assaults on productive actions. Gold is for crises.

From now until the Fed makes a lasting slowdown of its enabling of government spending, or puts an end to its enabling, gold looks like an obvious buy, and worth holding as Great Inflation II unfolds.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 10/31/2022 – 16:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Auvb36m Tyler Durden