The U.K. Must Ban Pointy Knives, Says Church of England

Despite a host of legal restrictions on firearms and knives, not to mention a society that increasingly resembles a panopticon in the thoroughness of the surveillance to which it’s subjected, the U.K.’s crime rates remain stubbornly resistant to reduction. Last year, London’s murder rate briefly overtook that of New York City—a feat likely to be repeated as crime continues its decline in the U.S.—and the latest U.K. figures show an increase in violent crimes committed with both guns and knives.

So, do right-thinking Britons propose loosening the country’s tight rules regarding self-defense so that people can more easily deal with two-legged predators? Hell, no. Instead, they want to ban pointy knives. Yes, really—churchmen, physicians, judges, and lawmakers want to tightly restrict or completely outlaw the possession of knives with sharp ends.

The latest call for knife controls comes from the Church of England, the nation’s officially sponsored religious franchise.

“We the undersigned are professionals and community leaders from across the UK who call on Government to see the sale of pointed domestic kitchen knives as a thing of the past,” reads the not-a-parody open letter from the Diocese of Rochester, signed by church leaders, lawmakers, psychiatrists, academics, and the like. “Historically we needed a point on the end of our knife to pick up food because forks weren’t invented. Now we only need the point to open packets when we can’t be bothered to find the scissors.”

The September letter would be easier to laugh of if it weren’t signed by so many people who are in a position to turn it into law, widely reported as serious stuff indeed, and an echo of calls from elsewhere.

Just months ago, a Conservative member of Parliament made headlines when he took a different, but equally restrictive, approach to regulating sharp pieces of metal.

“Every knife sold in the UK should have a gps tracker fitted in the handle,” insisted Scott Mann. “It’s time we had a national database like we do with guns.”

Mann took a lot of ribbing for the proposal, and even admitted that it was “a bit of a shit idea.” But that’s just because he was a step ahead of the mob. If he’d stuck with grinding off the pointy bits, he would likely have been hailed as a model of responsible opinion.

After all, U.K. Judge Nic Madge used his retirement speech last year to call for blunting cooking paraphernalia. “Kitchens contain lethal knives which are potential murder weapons and only butchers and fishmongers need eight or 10 inch kitchen knives with points,” he said.

“We call on Government to see the sale of pointed domestic kitchen knives as a thing of the past,” agrees John Crichton, a prominent Scottish psychiatrist who uses his position as head of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland to advance his crusade against anything with a sharp tip. “We urge them to take urgent measures to promote the sale of safe kitchen knife designs and restrict those designs which have been used in so many acts of violence.”

The problem for Britons is that they’re uncomfortably discovering the same frustrating limits that Americans have encountered; laws don’t prevent people from doing illegal things, they just define the penalties when people are caught.

The U.K. has banned murder and assault, and it has imposed tight restrictions on the purchase and possession of many things that might be used as weapons. Yet crime stubbornly rises and falls—mostly rises these days, in the U.K.—without regard for what lawmakers put on the books.

The most recent British crime figures show a 3 percent increase in offenses involving firearms, despite restrictions that American gun controllers could only dream of imposing, and an 8 percent increase in offenses involving a knife or sharp instrument, to record levels. Excluding terrorist attacks, homicides are up again, on top of a 14 percent rise in 2018.

With guns already tightly bound in red tape, the responses have included many that would be familiar to Americans but applied to knives instead of firearms. Media outlets stage “stings” to show how easy it is to purchase something sharp, police agencies publish photos of lethal implements of destruction—or cease such publication out of fear of disturbing the delicate public—and politicians pledge extra resources to battle the crime “epidemic.” To shame naysayers into silence and ease the passage of legislation and approval of funding, children get marched in front of TV cameras to put forward comprehensive lists of new programs, powers, and restrictions that look an awful lot like they were pulled off a shelf and reprinted by adult activists.

And, of course, very responsible people call for yet more “common sense” controls. Why do you need an “assault weapon”—or a carving knife with a point?

This should be taken as a warning to Americans suffering from badgering fatigue and tempted to surrender in hopes that the busybodies will just, finally, shut up. There doesn’t seem to be an end—just an extension of the same tactics to new targets when the human situation inevitably proves impervious to perfection through the application of legislation. If their respective populations give in on the debates of the day, 20 years from now, Americans will be replicating the British debate over knives, and Britons will be probably be discussing the merits of restrictions on hammers and pointy sticks.

Knife control is supposed to be a joke—where control freaks take their next efforts when gun laws prove unenforceable and criminals decline to discontinue their efforts just because they’ve been rendered even more illegal. But British politicians took that joke and turned it into national policy. Now they want to double down on that policy because the bad guys still won’t play along.

So, laugh at the proposals to ban pointy kitchen knives and to require people to grind the tips off the ones they already own—they’re certainly ridiculous. But also take them as a demonstration that life can’t be perfected by legislation, and there’s no end point to the silliness if you insist on making the effort.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30UTFcK
via IFTTT

There Is A Lot Of Speculation That John Bolton Is The “Second Whistleblower”

There Is A Lot Of Speculation That John Bolton Is The “Second Whistleblower”

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

I knew that John Bolton was going to be trouble the moment President Trump hired him.  Nothing good was ever going to come from having John Bolton as National Security Advisor, and fortunately Trump rejected almost every major recommendation that Bolton made during his entire tenure.  If Trump had gone along with Bolton’s agenda, we would probably be at war right now. 

Being so close to the levers of power and being unable to move his agenda forward time after time was very frustrating for Bolton, and since he was fired by Trump he has been on a “revenge tour”.  But would Bolton go so far as to completely betray Trump by becoming the “second whistleblower” regarding the controversial phone call with the president of Ukraine?  There is now a lot of speculation among conservatives that this could be the case, and so far Bolton has not publicly denied being the “”second whistleblower”.  That doesn’t mean that Bolton is guilty, but if I was President Trump he would be the number one suspect on my list.

Let’s start with the facts as we have them at this hour.  It is being reported that a “second whistleblower” has come forward, and that he is being represented by the same legal team that is representing the “first whistleblower”.  The following comes from Breitbart

On Sunday’s broadcast of “This Week,” host George Stephanopoulos opened his show with a report proclaiming a second “whistleblower.”

Stephanopoulos said, “Good morning. Welcome to ‘This Week,’ a week of head-snapping developments. The first key witness testimony to Congress. the first release of text messages from administration officials confirming the pressure campaign or Ukraine outlined in the original whistleblower complaint. That public request from President Trump calling on China to investigate Joe Biden. A new request for documents from Vice President Pence. This morning more breaking news. ABC News has learned that the legal team representing the first whistle-blower is now representing a second whistleblower. Attorney Mark Zaid said he is a member of the intelligence community with firsthand information on some of the allegations at issue.”

The original whistleblower hired “a former Schumer and Hillary Clinton staffer” named Andrew Bakaj to represent him, and we also know that Bakaj has given money to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

Following the revelation of this “second whistleblower”, Bakaj confirmed on Twitter that his firm is now representing “multiple whistleblowers”.

So let’s summarize what we know so far.

-We know that the second whistleblower is a “he” according to attorney Mark Zaid.

-We know that the second whistleblower has at least some “firsthand knowledge” about the call with the president of Ukraine.

-We know that the second whistleblower has been a member of the intelligence community.

-We know that the second whistleblower is clearly not loyal to Trump.

John Bolton certainly fits that profile.

Can any of you think of another potential suspect?

Of course in Washington there are always more suspects, but it is interesting to note that Trump has apparently been very suspicious of Bolton for quite some time now

One veteran political consultant in Washington tells Cockburn that Trump is afraid Bolton is the mastermind behind all the damaging leaks on his secret dealings with the Ukrainians; the whistleblower’s Deep Throat, if you will. This, he believes, is why Trump’s cheerleader in the Senate, Lindsay Graham, keeps asking who was feeding the CIA whistleblower who came forward with details of a call between Trump and the Ukrainian president (in which Trump asked for dirt on the Democratic frontrunner, Joe Biden). Graham tweeted: ‘It is imperative we find out which White House official talked to the whistleblower and why. Why didn’t they lodge the complaint?’

And thanks to The Hill, we also know that John Bolton “opposed the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky” while he was still a member of the administration…

Former White House national security adviser John Bolton opposed the phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the center of an impeachment inquiry launched by House Democrats, NBC News reported Monday.

Three current and former administration officials told the network that Bolton was opposed to the call because he was concerned Trump wasn’t coordinating with advisers on what to say and might air personal grievances.

John Bolton could put all of this speculation to rest by simply denying that he is the second whistleblower, but he has not done that at this point.

Perhaps Bolton thought that he could make a name for himself by being the man that got Donald Trump out of the White House, and it does seem quite likely that Trump will be impeached by the House of Representatives, but Mitch McConnell is being quite clear about the fact that Trump will be protected by the Senate as long as he is the majority leader

The Senate majority leader released last week a brief video ad on Facebook, which prompts viewers to financially support his reelection campaign, and insisted that the pathway forward for impeachment proceedings to cease is with him maintaining leadership in a Republican-controlled chamber.

‘Nancy Pelosi is in the clutches of a left-wing mob,’ McConnell said in the ad. ‘They’ve finally convinced her to impeach the President. All of you know your Constitution. The way that impeachment stops is a Senate majority, with me as majority leader.’

As long as McConnell refuses to move from that stance, it will be almost impossible for pro-impeachment forces to get enough votes to convict Trump in the Senate, and that means that Trump will almost certainly remain in the Oval Office.

But the endless coverage of this impeachment process by the mainstream media will stir up hatred on the left like never before, and it is setting the stage for utter chaos when the Republicans in the U.S. Senate vote to protect Trump.

It doesn’t take a genius to see how all of this is going to play out.  But the mainstream media will continue to breathlessly cover this process 24 hours a day, and they will put relentless pressure on Republican senators in an all-out effort to get some of them to crack.

No matter how this drama plays out, this is going to be a very ugly chapter in our history, and our political system will never be the same again once it is over.


Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/07/2019 – 09:59

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30TRdTV Tyler Durden

U.S. Consents to a Turkish Invasion in Syria; Kurdish Forces Call It ‘A Stab in the Back’

The U.S. will pull back troops from northern Syria to make way for Turkey to take over, the White House announced on Sunday. “Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria,” said the White House statement, using awfully euphemistic language for what many are describing as a Turkish invasion undertaken with U.S. consent.

The U.S. military will neither support Turkey’s moves nor act against them.

Obviously, those who prefer an endless U.S military presence in the Middle East are upset by this. But even some non-interventionists, such as Justin Logan, have been critical of the Trump administration’s actions here, saying the sudden withdrawal fails to give Kurdish and other forces in Syria enough time to prepare to push back against Turkey.

In eight words: Trump is f**king over Kurdish allies in Syria,” tweeted Daniel Drezner.

The “safe zone” Turkey wants to set up “would effectively extend Turkey’s border 30 km into Syria,” explains Brett McGurk, a Stanford-based foreign affairs analyst.

The U.S. military has already withdrawn forces from Tel Abyad and Ras al Ain posts in the area, officials said. It’s not clear if the U.S. will withdraw troops from northern Syria entirely.

“Syria’s Kurds warned on Monday a Turkish military invasion would spark a major ISIL resurgence and vowed to battle Turkey’s military,” reports Al Jazeera. “The Kurdish-led [Syrian Democratic] force also denounced Washington for the pullout.”

Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) spokesman Kino Gabriel told al-Hadath TV:

There were assurances from the United States of America that it would not allow any Turkish military operations against the region. But the [US] statement today was a surprise and we can say that it is a stab in the back for the SDF.

Turkey is not only a NATO member, U.S. ally, and recipient of American aid and arms; it’s also a place where Trump has personal business. Many commentators have highlighted a Trump tweet from 2012 announcing the opening of Trump Towers Istanbul:

Here’s the White House statement:

McGurk objects that the U.S. “is not holding any ISIS detainees” itself. Captured ISIS fighters are being held by the SDF, “which Trump just served up to Turkey.”

Trump tweeted more about Syria this morning, in a typically confused mix of facts and garbled braggadocio.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), usually one of the biggest Trump sycophants in Congress, has called the move “a disaster in the making.” Graham tweeted this morning that “if this plan goes forward,” he will sponsor a “Senate resolution opposing and asking for reversal of this decision. Expect it will receive strong bipartisan support.”


FREE MINDS

Iraq has undergone days of protests, as “large crowds of mostly young Iraqis have poured onto the streets of Baghdad and other cities in an outburst of anger over chronic unemployment, corruption and poor public services, including access to water and electricity,” Al Jazeera reported on Saturday.

Along with tear gas, police have also fired water cannon, live rounds and rubber bullets to disperse the rallies, which began on Tuesday when thousands in Baghdad answered a call on social media.

The prime minister “imposed a near-total internet blackout” and a curfew that was lifted Saturday.

Al Jazeera notes: “At least 109 people have now been killed since the unrest began on Tuesday—and more than 6,000 people have been injured.”


FREE MARKETS

The Supreme Court is back in session today. On the upcoming docket: cases about whether gender identity is covered by laws against discriminating based on sexual orientation; a New York law preventing people from taking legally owned firearms to gun ranges out of the city; a Louisiana law requiring abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals; the Trump administration’s changes to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program; and Montana’s exclusion of religious schools from a state scholarship program.


QUICK HITS

  • “Increasingly, when Congress and state legislatures enact laws, they leave many of the details to administrative agencies,” notes Michael Van Beek at The Hill. “A law they enact often will include an enforcement catch-all, which says that anyone violating any rules created to enforce it is guilty of a crime. But because bureaucrats, not lawmakers, actually determine these rules, they are the ones who decide what is criminal conduct and what is not.”
  • Everything We Know About The Bizarre Case Of The Ukrainian ‘Orphan’ Who May Be An Adult Woman
  • Propaganda throwback:

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/339rNTB
via IFTTT

Rockets GM ‘Stands With Hong Kong’ — Until China Pulls Endorsements

Rockets GM ‘Stands With Hong Kong’ — Until China Pulls Endorsements

The general manager of the Houston Rockets, Daryl Morey, deleted a Friday tweet in support of the ongoing protests in Hong Kong after the team’s Chinese sponsor and a Chinese sportswear maker suspended work with the team

After Morey deleted his tweet, which read “Fight For Freedom Stand With Hong Kong,” he issued the following statement: 

I was merely voicing one thought, based on one interpretation on a complicated event. I have had a lot of opportunity since that tweet to hear and consider other perspectives,” adding “I have always appreciated the significant support our Chinese fans and sponsors have provided and I would hope that those who are upset will know that offending or misunderstanding them was not my intention.”

The NBA also chimed in on Monday, declining to support Morey’s freedom of expression – saying in a statement that they “recognize that the views expressed by the Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey have deeply offended many of our friends and fans in China, which is regrettable.

The sudden reversal and knee bending caught the attention of several politicians, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) who tweeted “in pursuit of big $$, the @nba is shamefully retreating.”

2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke even chimed in, tweeting “The only thing the NBA should be apologizing for is their blatant prioritization of profits over human rights. What an embarrassment.”  

CNBC discusses:


Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/07/2019 – 09:33

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MxJPZh Tyler Durden

U.S. Consents to a Turkish Invasion in Syria; Kurdish Forces Call It ‘A Stab in the Back’

The U.S. will pull back troops from northern Syria to make way for Turkey to take over, the White House announced on Sunday. “Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into Northern Syria,” said the White House statement, using awfully euphemistic language for what many are describing as a Turkish invasion undertaken with U.S. consent.

The U.S. military will neither support Turkey’s moves nor act against them.

Obviously, those who prefer an endless U.S military presence in the Middle East are upset by this. But even some non-interventionists, such as Justin Logan, have been critical of the Trump administration’s actions here, saying the sudden withdrawal fails to give Kurdish and other forces in Syria enough time to prepare to push back against Turkey.

In eight words: Trump is f**king over Kurdish allies in Syria,” tweeted Daniel Drezner.

The “safe zone” Turkey wants to set up “would effectively extend Turkey’s border 30 km into Syria,” explains Brett McGurk, a Stanford-based foreign affairs analyst.

The U.S. military has already withdrawn forces from Tel Abyad and Ras al Ain posts in the area, officials said. It’s not clear if the U.S. will withdraw troops from northern Syria entirely.

“Syria’s Kurds warned on Monday a Turkish military invasion would spark a major ISIL resurgence and vowed to battle Turkey’s military,” reports Al Jazeera. “The Kurdish-led [Syrian Democratic] force also denounced Washington for the pullout.”

Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) spokesman Kino Gabriel told al-Hadath TV:

There were assurances from the United States of America that it would not allow any Turkish military operations against the region. But the [US] statement today was a surprise and we can say that it is a stab in the back for the SDF.

Turkey is not only a NATO member, U.S. ally, and recipient of American aid and arms; it’s also a place where Trump has personal business. Many commentators have highlighted a Trump tweet from 2012 announcing the opening of Trump Towers Istanbul:

Here’s the White House statement:

McGurk objects that the U.S. “is not holding any ISIS detainees” itself. Captured ISIS fighters are being held by the SDF, “which Trump just served up to Turkey.”

Trump tweeted more about Syria this morning, in a typically confused mix of facts and garbled braggadocio.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), usually one of the biggest Trump sycophants in Congress, has called the move “a disaster in the making.” Graham tweeted this morning that “if this plan goes forward,” he will sponsor a “Senate resolution opposing and asking for reversal of this decision. Expect it will receive strong bipartisan support.”


FREE MINDS

Iraq has undergone days of protests, as “large crowds of mostly young Iraqis have poured onto the streets of Baghdad and other cities in an outburst of anger over chronic unemployment, corruption and poor public services, including access to water and electricity,” Al Jazeera reported on Saturday.

Along with tear gas, police have also fired water cannon, live rounds and rubber bullets to disperse the rallies, which began on Tuesday when thousands in Baghdad answered a call on social media.

The prime minister “imposed a near-total internet blackout” and a curfew that was lifted Saturday.

Al Jazeera notes: “At least 109 people have now been killed since the unrest began on Tuesday—and more than 6,000 people have been injured.”


FREE MARKETS

The Supreme Court is back in session today. On the upcoming docket: cases about whether gender identity is covered by laws against discriminating based on sexual orientation; a New York law preventing people from taking legally owned firearms to gun ranges out of the city; a Louisiana law requiring abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals; the Trump administration’s changes to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program; and Montana’s exclusion of religious schools from a state scholarship program.


QUICK HITS

  • “Increasingly, when Congress and state legislatures enact laws, they leave many of the details to administrative agencies,” notes Michael Van Beek at The Hill. “A law they enact often will include an enforcement catch-all, which says that anyone violating any rules created to enforce it is guilty of a crime. But because bureaucrats, not lawmakers, actually determine these rules, they are the ones who decide what is criminal conduct and what is not.”
  • Everything We Know About The Bizarre Case Of The Ukrainian ‘Orphan’ Who May Be An Adult Woman
  • Propaganda throwback:

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/339rNTB
via IFTTT

$130,000 Attorney Fee in Pomona College’s Denial of Due Process

From Doe v. Pomona College, decided Thursday:

A college student was successful in obtaining a writ overturning his college’s finding that he had engaged in sexual misconduct against another student.  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the court issuing the writ also awarded the student $130,000 in attorney fees….  The college challenges the fee award.  Concluding there was no abuse of discretion, we affirm….

L.A. Superior Court Judge Mary H. Strobel had held for Doe on the merits, because it concluded that Pomona College’s disciplinary hearings denied Doe due process:

The 2016 Policy, which supplied the procedural framework for the investigation and prosecution of Roe’s complaint, purported to provide the accused with two opportunities to indirectly pose questions to the complainant—namely, (1) the accused could ask the External Adjudicator to overturn the Title IX Coordinator’s finding and to outline further investigatory steps to be taken, including having the investigators pose further questions to the complainant, and (2) the accused could submit questions for the External Adjudicator to ask the complainant at the hearing.

Rather than allow Doe either opportunity, the External Adjudicator rejected Doe’s request to have the investigators pose additional questions to Roe as part of a continued investigation because it was “more appropriate[]” to question her “at [the] hearing,” but when Roe elected not to attend the hearing, faulted Doe for not submitting “questions in advance.”  The net result of the External Adjudicator’s rulings, [Judge Strobel] found, was to deny Doe any opportunity to question Roe “directly or indirectly” and thus to deny Doe a fair hearing.

The trial court went on to find that this denial was prejudicial.  Noting that the question of Roe’s consent turned chiefly on the credibility of the only two percipient witnesses to the incident, the court found it “entirely unclear whether the [External Adjudicator] would have made the same credibility determination had Roe been questioned,” especially in light of Roe’s inconsistent accounts of the parties’ sexual contact.

On appeal, the question was solely whether the $130,000 attorney fee award to Doe was within the trial court’s discretion, and the Court of Appeal (per Justice Brian Hoffstadt, joined by Justices Judith Ashmann-Gerst and Victoria M. Chavez), said it was:

As a general rule, parties in litigation pay their own attorney fees. Section 1021.5 is an exception to that rule. Derived from the judicially crafted “private attorney general doctrine,” section 1021.5 is aimed at encouraging litigants to pursue meritorious litigation vindicating important rights and benefitting a broad swath of citizens, and it achieves this aim by compensating successful litigants with an award of attorney fees.

To obtain attorney fees under section 1021.5, the moving party must establish that (1) it is “a successful party” in an “action,” (2) the action “has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest,” (3) the action has “conferred” “a significant benefit” “on the general public or a large class of persons,” and (4) an award of attorney fees is “appropriate” in light of “the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity against another public entity.” Because the College does not dispute that Doe is a “successful party” or that an award of fees is “appropriate” in light of the “necessity and financial burden of private enforcement,” our analysis is confined to asking whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Doe met the remaining two eligibility requirements.

Enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Doe’s action enforced an important right affecting the public interest.  Courts have “broadly interpreted the important right concept” to encompass constitutional rights as well as statutory rights that further “important” rather than “trivial or peripheral public policies.”

Doe’s action enforced two important rights.  First, it enforced the right to a fair hearing.  “[D]ue process undoubtedly is an important right affecting the public interest,” and is so critical that our Legislature and courts have required the administrative decisions of even private institutions to afford some modicum of due process.  (§ 1094.5, subds. (a) & (b) [courts may grant writ of administrative mandamus where a “final administrative … decision” was not the product of “a fair trial”]; Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221, 247-248; Doe v. Allee (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1061, fn. 30.)  Second, Doe’s action enforced the right to have “‘universit[ies] … comply with [their] own policies and procedures'” “‘[w]here student discipline is at issue.'”

Conferring significant benefit on a large class of persons

… The [trial] court had a reasonable basis for concluding that the action conferred a significant benefit because, as noted above, the action effectuated the constitutionally grounded and statutorily enforced right to a fair hearing in administrative proceedings. The court also had a reasonable basis for concluding that Doe’s action conferred this benefit upon a large class of persons—namely, the universe of the College’s students subject to the College’s misapplication of the 2016 Policy due to the College’s refusal to rectify such misapplication.

The College proffers two reasons why the trial court nevertheless abused its discretion in concluding that Doe’s action conferred a significant benefit upon a large class of persons.

First, the College asserts that Doe’s lawsuit did not allege  any intrinsic defects in the 2016 Policy and that the misapplication of that policy in Doe’s case arose from a “unique set of circumstances” unlikely to arise again (that is, the External Adjudicator’s misunderstanding of Doe’s right to ask the investigators to ask follow-up questions of Roe prior to the hearing combined with Roe’s last-minute failure to attend the hearing).  We reject this assertion.  Doe’s decision not to challenge the 2016 Policy itself is irrelevant because what deprived Doe of a fair hearing was not the policy but its implementation.  As noted above, a lawsuit that forces an entity to follow its own rules can confer a substantial benefit.

The trial court also had a reasonable basis for concluding that the denial of a fair hearing that happened to Doe would recur:  Although the particular circumstances leading to the denial in Doe’s case might not recur in exactly the same way, the College’s refusal to rectify that denial through its internal appeals process, even when the denial was specifically called to its attention, demonstrated an insensitivity to due process concerns that was likely to recur.  The College’s further assertion that the External Adjudicator and the Dean of Students will not make the same mistakes twice ignores that the reason they will not is because of Doe’s action….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2VmPVQc
via IFTTT

$130,000 Attorney Fee in Pomona College’s Denial of Due Process

From Doe v. Pomona College, decided Thursday:

A college student was successful in obtaining a writ overturning his college’s finding that he had engaged in sexual misconduct against another student.  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, the court issuing the writ also awarded the student $130,000 in attorney fees….  The college challenges the fee award.  Concluding there was no abuse of discretion, we affirm….

L.A. Superior Court Judge Mary H. Strobel had held for Doe on the merits, because it concluded that Pomona College’s disciplinary hearings denied Doe due process:

The 2016 Policy, which supplied the procedural framework for the investigation and prosecution of Roe’s complaint, purported to provide the accused with two opportunities to indirectly pose questions to the complainant—namely, (1) the accused could ask the External Adjudicator to overturn the Title IX Coordinator’s finding and to outline further investigatory steps to be taken, including having the investigators pose further questions to the complainant, and (2) the accused could submit questions for the External Adjudicator to ask the complainant at the hearing.

Rather than allow Doe either opportunity, the External Adjudicator rejected Doe’s request to have the investigators pose additional questions to Roe as part of a continued investigation because it was “more appropriate[]” to question her “at [the] hearing,” but when Roe elected not to attend the hearing, faulted Doe for not submitting “questions in advance.”  The net result of the External Adjudicator’s rulings, [Judge Strobel] found, was to deny Doe any opportunity to question Roe “directly or indirectly” and thus to deny Doe a fair hearing.

The trial court went on to find that this denial was prejudicial.  Noting that the question of Roe’s consent turned chiefly on the credibility of the only two percipient witnesses to the incident, the court found it “entirely unclear whether the [External Adjudicator] would have made the same credibility determination had Roe been questioned,” especially in light of Roe’s inconsistent accounts of the parties’ sexual contact.

On appeal, the question was solely whether the $130,000 attorney fee award to Doe was within the trial court’s discretion, and the Court of Appeal (per Justice Brian Hoffstadt, joined by Justices Judith Ashmann-Gerst and Victoria M. Chavez), said it was:

As a general rule, parties in litigation pay their own attorney fees. Section 1021.5 is an exception to that rule. Derived from the judicially crafted “private attorney general doctrine,” section 1021.5 is aimed at encouraging litigants to pursue meritorious litigation vindicating important rights and benefitting a broad swath of citizens, and it achieves this aim by compensating successful litigants with an award of attorney fees.

To obtain attorney fees under section 1021.5, the moving party must establish that (1) it is “a successful party” in an “action,” (2) the action “has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest,” (3) the action has “conferred” “a significant benefit” “on the general public or a large class of persons,” and (4) an award of attorney fees is “appropriate” in light of “the necessity and financial burden of private enforcement, or of enforcement by one public entity against another public entity.” Because the College does not dispute that Doe is a “successful party” or that an award of fees is “appropriate” in light of the “necessity and financial burden of private enforcement,” our analysis is confined to asking whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Doe met the remaining two eligibility requirements.

Enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Doe’s action enforced an important right affecting the public interest.  Courts have “broadly interpreted the important right concept” to encompass constitutional rights as well as statutory rights that further “important” rather than “trivial or peripheral public policies.”

Doe’s action enforced two important rights.  First, it enforced the right to a fair hearing.  “[D]ue process undoubtedly is an important right affecting the public interest,” and is so critical that our Legislature and courts have required the administrative decisions of even private institutions to afford some modicum of due process.  (§ 1094.5, subds. (a) & (b) [courts may grant writ of administrative mandamus where a “final administrative … decision” was not the product of “a fair trial”]; Doe v. University of Southern California (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 221, 247-248; Doe v. Allee (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1036, 1061, fn. 30.)  Second, Doe’s action enforced the right to have “‘universit[ies] … comply with [their] own policies and procedures'” “‘[w]here student discipline is at issue.'”

Conferring significant benefit on a large class of persons

… The [trial] court had a reasonable basis for concluding that the action conferred a significant benefit because, as noted above, the action effectuated the constitutionally grounded and statutorily enforced right to a fair hearing in administrative proceedings. The court also had a reasonable basis for concluding that Doe’s action conferred this benefit upon a large class of persons—namely, the universe of the College’s students subject to the College’s misapplication of the 2016 Policy due to the College’s refusal to rectify such misapplication.

The College proffers two reasons why the trial court nevertheless abused its discretion in concluding that Doe’s action conferred a significant benefit upon a large class of persons.

First, the College asserts that Doe’s lawsuit did not allege  any intrinsic defects in the 2016 Policy and that the misapplication of that policy in Doe’s case arose from a “unique set of circumstances” unlikely to arise again (that is, the External Adjudicator’s misunderstanding of Doe’s right to ask the investigators to ask follow-up questions of Roe prior to the hearing combined with Roe’s last-minute failure to attend the hearing).  We reject this assertion.  Doe’s decision not to challenge the 2016 Policy itself is irrelevant because what deprived Doe of a fair hearing was not the policy but its implementation.  As noted above, a lawsuit that forces an entity to follow its own rules can confer a substantial benefit.

The trial court also had a reasonable basis for concluding that the denial of a fair hearing that happened to Doe would recur:  Although the particular circumstances leading to the denial in Doe’s case might not recur in exactly the same way, the College’s refusal to rectify that denial through its internal appeals process, even when the denial was specifically called to its attention, demonstrated an insensitivity to due process concerns that was likely to recur.  The College’s further assertion that the External Adjudicator and the Dean of Students will not make the same mistakes twice ignores that the reason they will not is because of Doe’s action….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2VmPVQc
via IFTTT

Key Events This Week: Trade Talks And Central Banks

Key Events This Week: Trade Talks And Central Banks

Following a turbulent week for markets where stocks first tumbled then soared amid further signs of deteriorating growth which boost Fed cut expectations that led to a v-shaped recovery in US equities, the focus this week turns to the scheduled trade talks between the US and China and even more central bank speak.

As DB’s Jim Reid writes, it’s not a big week for data with US CPI (Thursday), PPI (Tuesday) and UoM consumer confidence (Friday) the highlights even if they will be seen as backward looking and less relevant to the current Fed debate. Comments from Fed Chair Powell and numerous other Fed officials will also be in focus, along with the FOMC minutes (Wednesday). Finally Brexit talks reach a crucial juncture with time ticking down.

On trade, Chinese Vice Premier Liu He is due to visit Washington for talks with meetings expected to take place on Thursday and Friday with the mood music in recent days seemingly more positive. However as Deutsche Bank reminds us, Bloomberg published a story last night that suggested that the Chinese are “increasingly reluctant to agree to a broad trade deal” and that the “range of topics they’re willing to discuss has narrowed considerably”. The same report also added that Vice Premier Liu He is likely to bring an offer that won’t include commitments on reforming Chinese industrial policy or government subsidies that have been the target of longstanding US complaints. So if the article is true the stakes have been raised ahead of these talks.

Looking at the coming Fedspeak, most attention will be placed on Fed Chair Powell who speaks tomorrow at a NABE meeting in Denver and then on Wednesday at a Fed Listens Event in Kansas. Comments are also due from Kashkari today, Evans and Kashkari on Tuesday, Mester and Bostic on Thursday and Kashkari, Rosengren and Kaplan on Friday. Also of note from the Fed will be the FOMC minutes from the September meeting due on Wednesday. As a reminder, the dot plot projections revealed sharp divisions within the Committee however the signals from the meeting still indicated a continued dovish bias. That being said, data since has mostly deteriorated.

Brexit will continue to take center stage headlines wise but it’s still doubtful we’ll know much more about the end game by the end of the week. The EU need the U.K. to improve their proposals to intensify the talks but such improvements would likely lose Mr Johnson’s Parliamentary ability to get any deal passed. So stalemate is the most likely. The most intriguing question for the next 12 days is how Mr Johnson intends to try to bypass the extension letter he’ll be legally forced to write by October 19th if he fails to get a deal. Interestingly the one opinion poll released over the weekend gave Mr Johnson and the Tories 38% of the vote and a lead of 15%. So if this is to be believed the hard line stance is seemingly paying off electorally. However it’ll be interesting to see if he gets the blame if the U.K. doesn’t leave by October 31st and losses support or whether he can continue to win enough of the “Parliament vs the people” argument to sweep up the leave vote while the remain vote is split.

The key global events this week are summarized in the table below, via Goldman:

A day by day calendar of the week’s events, courtesy of Deustche:

Monday

  • Data: Germany August factory orders; Euro-area Sentix investor confidence; US August consumer credit
  • Central Banks: Fed’s Kashkari speaks; Israel rate decision

Tuesday

  • Data: Japan August cash earnings, current account balance, trade balance; China September Caixin services and composite PMIs; Australia NAB business conditions, foreign reserves; UK Q2 unit labor costs; Germany August industrial production; France August trade balance, current account balance; US September PPI, NFIB small business optimism
  • Central Banks: Remarks from Fed’s Powell, Evans, Kashkari, BoE’s Carney, Tenreyro, Haldane, ECB’s Lane, Constancio, Norges Bank’s Olsen. Uganda rate decision
  • Politics: European Parliament holds confirmation hearings for its three incoming vice presidents
  • Other: New IMF Director Kristalina Georgieva speaks

Wednesday

  • Data: Japan preliminary September machine tool orders; France September industry sentiment; US MBA mortgage applications, August JOLTS, wholesale trade sales and inventories
  • Central Banks: Fed’s Powell and George speak; September FOMC meeting minutes; BoE Financial Policy Committee quarterly statement
  • Politics: The C40 climate summit starts in Copenhagen
  • Other: IMF World Economic Outlook analytic chapters published

Thursday

  • Data: Japan September PPI and core machine orders; Germany August trade balance and current account balance; France August industrial and manufacturing production; UK September RICS house price balance, August monthly GDP, industrial and manufacturing production, construction output, trade balance; US September CPI, hourly earnings, initial and continuing claims
  • Central Banks: Remarks from BoJ’s Amamiya, Fed’s Mester, Bostic; ECB Accounts of September Policy Meeting; Peru rate decision
  • Politics: Chinese Vice Premier Liu He visits Washington for trade talks with his US counterparts; EU Economic and Financial Affairs Council hold meetings in Luxembourg
  • Other: OPEC Oil Market Report released
  • Earnings: Delta Airlines, Walgreens Boots Alliance

Friday

  • Data: Germany September CPI; US preliminary October University of Michigan survey, September import and export price index
  • Central Banks: Remark’s from Fed’s Kashkari, Rosengren and Kaplan
  • Politics: Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meet for their second unofficial summit

* * *

Looking just at the US, the key economic data release this week is the CPI report on Thursday. In addition, minutes from the September FOMC meeting will be released on Wednesday. There are several scheduled speaking engagements from Fed officials this week, including by Chair Powell on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Monday, October 7

  • 10:20 AM Minneapolis Fed President Kashkari (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari will take part in a discussion about the Fed’s work on Native American reservations.

Tuesday, October 8

  • 06:00 AM NFIB small business optimism, September (consensus 102.5, last 103.1)
  • 08:30 AM PPI final demand, September (GS +0.1, consensus +0.1, last +0.1%); PPI ex-food and energy, September (GS +0.1%, consensus +0.2%, last +0.3%); PPI ex-food, energy, and trade, September (GS +0.1%, consensus +0.2%, last +0.4%): We estimate headline PPI rose 0.1% in September, reflecting fairly soft core prices and weaker energy prices. We expect a 0.1% increase in the core measure excluding food and energy, and also a 0.1% increase in the core measure excluding food, energy, and trade.
  • 1:35 PM Chicago Fed President Evans (FOMC voter) speaks: Chicago Fed President Charles Evans will speak in a moderated Q&A at the Chicago Rotary Club. Audience and media Q&A are expected.
  • 1:50 PM Fed Chair Powell (FOMC voter) speaks: Fed Chair Jerome Powell will speak at the annual meeting of the National Association for Business Economics in Denver.
  • 5:00 PM Minneapolis Fed President Kashkari (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari will take part in a townhall discussion at St. Cloud State University. Audience Q&A is expected.

Wednesday, October 9

  • 10:00 AM JOLTS Job Openings, August (consensus 7,265k, last 7,217k)
  • 10:00 AM Wholesale inventories, August final (consensus +0.4%, last +0.4%)
  • 10:30 AM Fed Chair Powell (FOMC voter) and Kansas City Fed President George (FOMC voter) speak: Fed Chair Jerome Powell and Kansas City Fed President Esther George will participate in a Fed Listens event at the Kansas City Fed.
  • 2:00 PM Minutes from the September 17-18 FOMC meeting: At its September meeting, the FOMC lowered the funds rate target to 1.75-2%, as widely expected. The statement was mostly unchanged and kept the “will act as appropriate” policy guidance, but the Summary of Economic Projections showed rising division among the Committee on the appropriate policy path. In the minutes, we will look for further discussion of the path of the policy rate and the growth and inflation outlook.

 Thursday, October 10

  • 08:30 AM CPI (mom), September (GS +0.02%, consensus +0.1%, last +0.1%); Core CPI (mom), September (GS +0.14%, consensus +0.2%, last +0.3%); CPI (yoy), September (GS +1.72%, consensus +1.8%, last +1.7%); Core CPI (yoy), September (GS +2.37%, consensus +2.4%, last +2.4%): We estimate a 0.14% increase in September core CPI (mom sa), which would leave the year-on-year rate unchanged at 2.4% on a rounded basis. Our monthly core inflation forecast reflects a 2-3bp boost from tariffs in the apparel and footwear, household furnishings, auto parts, and personal care categories. However, we nonetheless estimate a flat apparel reading due to offsetting downside from residual seasonality. We expect a decline in used car prices following brisk increases in the summer months, and we also note scope for a pause in medical services inflation following the three-year-high August increase (mom sa). On the positive side, we expect a rebound in education prices as higher campus labor costs flow through to tuitions. We estimate a 0.02% increase in headline CPI (mom sa), reflecting lower gasoline prices.
  • 08:30 AM Initial jobless claims, week ended October 5 (GS 220k, consensus 218k, last 219k); Continuing jobless claims, week ended September 28 (consensus 1,651k, last 1,651k): We estimate jobless claims increased by 1k to 220k in the week ended October 5, following a 4k increase in the prior week.
  • 5:30 PM Cleveland Fed President Mester (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester will speak at the Edward J. and Louise E. Mellen Executive Speaker Series at University Heights, Ohio. Prepared text and audience and media Q&A are expected.
  • 6:30 PM Atlanta Fed President Bostic (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic will participate in a conversation with Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. at a conference in Atlanta.

Friday, October 11

  • 08:00 AM Minneapolis Fed President Kashkari (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari will take part in a moderated Q&A on the US economy in New York. Audience Q&A is expected.
  • 08:30 AM Import price index, September (consensus -0.1%, last -0.5%)
  • 10:00 AM University of Michigan consumer sentiment, October preliminary (GS 93.7, consensus 92.0, last 93.2): We expect the University of Michigan consumer sentiment index rose by 0.5pt to 93.7 in the preliminary October reading, as the level appears low relative to other surveys and an improvement in the September UMich final print suggest upward momentum for sentiment at the end of the month.
  • 1:15 PM Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren (FOMC voter) speaks: Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren will speak at a symposium at the University of Wisconsin Madison. Prepared text is expected.
  • 3:00 PM Dallas Fed President Kaplan (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan will speak to the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco. Audience and media Q&A are expected.

Source: Deutsche Bank, Goldman, BofA


Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/07/2019 – 09:22

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2onxChp Tyler Durden

Trump Loses Fight To Keep Taxes Secret, Appeal Imminent

Trump Loses Fight To Keep Taxes Secret, Appeal Imminent

A month after the Manhattan district attorney subpoenaed President Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, for his personal and corporate returns dating to 2011, The New York Times reports that Judge Victor Marrero of Manhattan federal court has just rejected Trump’s legal team’s argument that sitting presidents are immune from criminal investigations.

This decision allows the Manhattan D.A.’s office to subpoena eight years of the president’s personal and corporate tax returns.

The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., has been investigating whether any New York State laws were broken when Mr. Trump and his company reimbursed the president’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, for payments he made in the run-up to the 2016 election to the pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels, who had said she had an affair with Mr. Trump.

Notably, this decision comes after reports  over the weekend that an IRS whistleblower had emerged, saying there were improprieties with Trump’s audit process.

A government whistleblower is alleging “inappropriate efforts to influence” the mandatory IRS audit program that’s checking the tax returns of President Trump and Vice President Pence.

The chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, Representative Richard Neal, D-Mass., says the panel on July 29 received “an unsolicited communication from a Federal employee setting forth credible allegations of ‘evidence of possible misconduct’ – specifically, potential ‘inappropriate efforts to influence’ the mandatory audit program.”

An appeal of the decision is expected, and as NYTimes notes, based on the previous temporary deal reached last month, Trump has until 1pm today to appeal the decision “to seek relief from the Second Circuit before Mazars discloses his confidential information.”


Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/07/2019 – 09:12

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2VjY33P Tyler Durden

Blain: “It’s All About Politics”

Blain: “It’s All About Politics”

Blain’s Morning Porridge, submitted by Bill Blain

“I’d rather play jazz. I hate rock and roll.”

Another challenging week in prospect for global markets….  But let’s move on from worrying about how dangerous bond yields look, why the glue holding the horns on the Unicorns seems to be coming unstuck, or fearing just how horrid the coming global recession is going to be.  Instead, let’s cut through the distractions, and figure out why things are so bad.

Friday’s US employment report was neither fish nor fowl – it looked a classic slower for longer new economy number; just enough new jobs to convince markets the expansion continues (slowly), while leaving the threat of recession firmly on the table. But the rest of last week’s data slew – including tumbling purchasing manager numbers (PMI) – were dismal, so the bias will remain towards recessionary threats.

Numbers from around the globe confirm the recession risk. Germany, China, and the rest confirm protectionism and talk of trade wars has done enough to dampen entrepreneurial animal spirits to swing the dial towards slowdown. Strip it down to the basics, and the global economy is slowing.

And… It’s largely due to crappy politics.

Someday economic historians will look back at this decade and wonder WTF early 21st politicians were thinking. But that’s the path of economic history; mistakes, ups and downs, and the occasional inspired decision or policy. At the moment we’re stuck in the “mistakes” part of the political cycle.

Whatever we see this week in terms of company news, oil shocks, or economic data, the most important stories will be about ongoing political instability.  Putin and Xi must be laughing their heads off. In their eyes the West looks hopelessly destabilised and tripping over political Gordian knots, squabbling among themselves and achieving nothing. While they bicker, nothing real is happening.  

And they will be right to be laughing.  Our elected leaders are making a terrible stramash of the whole leadership thing…

Look behind the headlines, and look for the opportunities Politics present.

UK: Here in the UK, the Brexit farce has made us a subject of global humiliation. We’ve seen the electorate’s faith in the basis of Parliamentary democracy profoundly challenged. It feels everything else in UK politics has become an irrelevant sideshow. Yet, it could all turn very quickly. Opinion polls suggest the Tories will walk a general election – I saw one paper quote a 15% lead over Labour.  Agree with Tory politics or not, but a strong empowered government with a substantial majority would be a massive plus; putting politics back on path.  An election would be a massive buy UK signal.

(Foreign readers might not understand the current UK political conundrum: the Government (which thinks it will win an election) can’t call an election, but the Opposition (which thinks it might lose) can.  So the SNP and Labour won’t allow an election. Therefore, we have no functional political leadership – just Boris doing his utmost to pretend.)

Although Boris’ latest plans for an Irish border that isn’t a border look a typical Heath Robinson lash-up sticky-backed plaster solution to an apparently intractable problem, it sounds and looks like many European politicians perceive it as a basis for potential compromise. The only – THE ONLY – Thing That Matters Now is getting a Brexit deal – even if it’s not ideal, pragmatists would agree the details can be sorted later. (I just know a French chum of mine is going to go ballistic at that, and will rant at me about how the deal must protect Europe from the UK arbitraging the union. Honestly Jean-Claude, we hadn’t even thought about it.. but now you mention it….)

Any sign of a Brexit solution would be another massive buy signal. (But I wonder.. it needs pragmatic compromise, but I suspect many of the UK Opposition and the European leadership would rather fail in order to dis Boris Johnson.)

USA: The US is a more difficult issue. Washington DC has spiraled into full-scale war over Ukraine-gate. Battle-lines have been drawn.  Republicans are obliged to support a President whose actions disgust the majority, versus a braying horde of Democrats virtue signalling their contempt of the President’s abuse of his office and power.  

Yet, Trump could still prove the likely winner.  He’s thrown enough mud at Biden that some of it has stuck.  The Democrats might score some cheap shots, but while he distracts them they aren’t winning the long-game, which requires a clearly united new policy for America.  (When Roosevelt was planning the New Deal, he wasn’t wasting time on petty political point scoring.)

The risk is Trump says/tweets/does/has done something profoundly stupid and enables impeachment.  Don’t completely discount it – nothing would really surprise me anymore.  Sure, it would be really messy, but it may put a more trade savvy administration in place (a clear market plus), and it opens up the potential for Warren to win the subsequent election (not so clear, as it would likely herald a new era of US political gridlock.)

Europe:  Let’s not forget the erstwhile democracies of Europe.  They really aren’t much better from a political perspective.  Tensions are bubbling away under the surface.  Closer integration remains a problem, the unresolved issues over banking union and fiscal policy/reform in a changing ECB are nor agreed, while immigration is a major issue that could yet trigger a populist backlash.  In many ways Brexit has been a challenge the EU has been able to unite around – but its paper-thin.  I had to laugh at a hapless Dutch MP lecturing the UK on Sunday night about how the EU’s prime concern over Brexit is to support Ireland and No Border, while telling us its all Boris’ fault. Really?

 I wonder if Ireland’s demand for no border will really trump the attractions of a Brexit compromise?  In such a call, I suspect Ireland could well find itself under that proverbial bus. In fact, I hope it happens – a compromise that benefits the UK and the majority of Europe is a far better outcome.  Ireland is not just a UK problem.  If Leo wants to play global statesman – his opportunity might well be coming. 

As I said… an interesting week in prospect with politics set to dominate.. unless we get a new no-see-em like something new in the Middle East, an escalation in Hong Kong or an unforeseen market wobble….

As Troy Tempest’s boss once said: “Anything is possible in the next 20 minutes…”!


Tyler Durden

Mon, 10/07/2019 – 09:01

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2VjBw78 Tyler Durden