Taliban Changes Ministry Of Women’s Affairs To Islamic ‘Morality Police’

Taliban Changes Ministry Of Women’s Affairs To Islamic ‘Morality Police’

So much for prior declarations heard among Western officials of a more “moderate” Taliban… On Friday Reuters has confirmed that what was formerly the “Ministry of Women’s Affairs” in Kabul has now been changed to “Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice” – according to a new sign that’s gone up over the ministry.

The full lengthy name of what formerly under the US-backed national government served to protect women’s rights is now the “Ministries of Prayer and Guidance and the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice,” Reuters reports.

Via Al Arabiya

It appears to be the reestablishment of the ‘morality police’ that the Taliban had in place prior to the 2001 invasion, which was tasked with ensuring strict enforcement of sharia law in all aspects of public life, including that women wear the burka, no alcohol is possessed or consumed, and that there’s a strict segregation of the sexes with the exception of family. 

The virtue and vice arm of the ministry was also responsible for carrying out punishments ranging from public flogging to executions. 

Reuters further notes that women had been for weeks attempting to enter the Women’s Affairs ministry building but that they were consistently turned away. According to further details:

  • The Taliban has said that women will not be allowed to work in government ministries alongside men.

  • Though the group said women in Afghanistan can continue with their university studies, classes must now be segregated and head coverings are mandatory. The Taliban has ordered secondary school classes for boys to resume on Saturday, but made no mention of the future of girls’ education in the notice, according to The Guardian.

Ironically this reestablishment of what’s essentially the Islamic moral police comes days after on Monday a United Nations donor conference in Geneva resulted in $1.2 billion in aid being pledged to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Absent so far has been aid from Washington, with the White House earlier saying this would be dependent on the Taliban’s behavior and actions. This hasn’t stopped Europe, however, form letting the aid flow – which the Taliban has promised to deliver to the people.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 16:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3Eum1iU Tyler Durden

Allegations in Complaint Against Real Agent Broadly Protected Against Libel Liability

From Williams v. Lazer, decided Thursday by the Nevada Supreme Court:

After respondent threatened to sue appellant over a text message that he perceived as defamatory, appellant filed a complaint with the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED), alleging that respondent acted unprofessionally and unethically in a real estate matter. Respondent filed the underlying tort complaint based on appellant’s NRED complaint.

Appellant, claiming that the anti-SLAPP statute and absolute litigation privilege protected her from liability, moved to dismiss…. [W]e conclude that appellant met the good faith standard under the anti-SLAPP framework because her statements were either opinions, were truthful, or were made without knowledge of their falsehood, as supported by her sworn affidavit. We further conclude that the absolute litigation privilege applies at the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis and that an NRED proceeding is quasi-judicial for purposes of the privilege….

Appellant Daphne Williams, an African-American woman, agreed to purchase a condominium that she was renting from the property owner. Respondent, Charles “Randy” Lazer, a licensed real estate professional, represented the seller in the sale, and Williams acted without an agent.

Williams and Lazer had communication problems during the transaction, and after delays in closing, Williams sent Lazer a text stating that she was contemplating filing a complaint with the NRED regarding what she perceived as Lazer’s racist, sexist, and unprofessional behavior. Lazer responded to the text by contacting NRED, the seller, Williams’s mortgage lender Bryan Jolly, an attorney, and another real estate professional to explain his perception of what occurred. Further, after the sale closed, Lazer sent a demand letter to Williams seeking several thousand dollars and an apology in exchange for not filing a tort action against her based on the text message she sent only to him.

Williams refused the demand and subsequently filed an NRED complaint, alleging that Lazer (1) “displayed unethical, unprofessional, racist and sexist behavior” during the transaction; (2) inappropriately shared confidential information with her about his personal relationship with the seller; (3) contacted the appraiser before the appraisal, which she believed was unethical based on a conversation she had with an NRED employee; (4) falsely claimed that Williams would not allow the seller’s movers to enter the condominium to remove the seller’s property and that Williams caused delays in closing; (5) failed to send her a fully executed copy of the signed purchase agreement; and (6) had the seller call Williams to encourage her to apologize to Lazer for her text message.

Lazer then filed the underlying complaint, alleging defamation, negligence, business disparagement, and intentional infliction of emotional distress….

[Williams’] statement that Lazer was racist, sexist, unprofessional, and unethical is a non-actionable opinion and that either her remaining factual statements are true or Lazer failed to provide evidence that Williams knew the statements were false when she made them….

In support of her anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss, Williams provided a sworn declaration in which she described various problems she encountered in purchasing the condominium and working with Lazer. She stated that Lazer was consistently rude and unprofessional and she had “no doubt in [her] mind” that had she not been an African-American woman, Lazer would have treated her with greater respect and professionalism. She further stated her belief that every statement in her NRED complaint was either true or her reasoned opinion based on her experience with Lazer.

Lazer concedes that Williams’s allegations of racism and sexism are opinions, and although he challenges her generalized statements that he acted unethically and unprofessionally, those statements were likewise opinion-based.

As we have previously observed, opinion statements are incapable of being false, as “‘there is no such thing as a false idea.'” In Abrams v. Sanson, we affirmed a district court order granting the defendant’s anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss, concluding that the challenged statements calling the attorney plaintiff unethical and criticizing her courtroom behavior and methods were expressions of the defendant’s personal views and thus opinions. We perceive no difference in Williams’s generalized statements here, especially in light of her sworn declaration affirming the statements as her own opinions based on her experience with Lazer. See also Stevens v. Tillman (7th Cir. 1988) (holding that neither general statements charging a person with being racist, unfair, or unjust, nor references to general discriminatory treatment, without more, constitute provably false assertions of fact); Overhill Farms, Inc. v. Lopez (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (“We agree that general statements charging a person with being racist, unfair, or unjust … constitute mere name calling and do not contain a provably false assertion of fact.”). As Williams’s opinion-based statements cannot be knowingly false, we conclude that she satisfied her burden as to these statements under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP framework.

Turning to the remaining statements, Williams’s declaration explained that she believed every statement she made was true as well as the basis for that belief, which, under these circumstances, is sufficient to show that her statements were truthful or made without knowledge of their falsehood. While Lazer provided several declarations that allege some of Williams’s statements are factually wrong, such declarations do not constitute contrary evidence to refute Williams’s affidavit because they do not allege, much less show, that Williams knew any of the statements were false when she made them.

For example, Williams stated that she believed Lazer’s preappraisal contact with the appraiser was unethical based on a conversation she had with an NRED employee who told her that a seller’s agent is not supposed to make such contact. Although Lazer provided a declaration stating that such contact is permissible, that does not mean that Williams did not have a subjective belief that it was impermissible at the time she filed her NRED complaint. Moreover, the parties’ declarations support that the gist of some of Williams’s remaining statements, including that Lazer did not provide her with a copy of the fully executed purchase agreement and that he falsely claimed that she refused to allow the seller to remove property from the condo, were true, and thus made in good faith. Accordingly, we conclude that Williams met her burden of showing that she made the remaining statements in good faith and thus satisfied her burden under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP framework….

Under the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis, Lazer had the burden of showing that his claims had at least minimal merit in order to proceed with the litigation…. [We] hold that the absolute litigation privilege applies at the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis because a plaintiff cannot show a probability of prevailing on his claim if a privilege applies to preclude the defendant’s liability….

[T]he absolute litigation privilege extends “to quasi-judicial proceedings before executive officers, boards, and commissions.” A proceeding is quasi-judicial for purposes of the absolute litigation privilege if it “(1) provide[s] the opportunity to present and rebut evidence and witness testimony, (2) require[s] that such evidence and testimony be presented upon oath or affirmation, and (3) allow[s] opposing parties to cross-examine, impeach, or otherwise confront a witness.”

We conclude that an NRED proceeding initiated by a complaint from a party in a real estate transaction is quasi-judicial because it meets the criteria outlined in Spencer…. In order for the absolute litigation privilege to apply to statements made in the context of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, “(1) a judicial proceeding must be contemplated in good faith and under serious consideration, and (2) the communication must be related to the litigation.” Thus, “the privilege applies to communications made by either an attorney or a nonattorney that are related to ongoing litigation or future litigation contemplated in good faith.”

We conclude that Williams filed her NRED complaint in good faith and in relation to litigation. Because Williams’s NRED complaint is a complaint in a quasi-judicial proceeding, the absolute litigation privilege applies and protects Williams’s NRED complaint. Because all of Lazer’s claims derive from the allegedly defamatory statements contained in Williams’s NRED complaint, which is protected by the absolute litigation privilege, we hold that he cannot show by prima facie evidence a probability of prevailing on his claims….

Williams’s statements either were opinions incapable of being knowingly false, were true, or were not knowingly false. Lazer’s declarations asserting that Williams’s statements were factually false are insufficient to show that she made the statements in bad faith because his declarations do not show that she knew the statements were false when she made them. The district court thus erred in determining that Williams did not meet her burden under the first prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis.

Further, statements made in an NRED complaint are subject to the absolute litigation privilege, as proceedings before the real estate commission are quasi-judicial, and whether the privilege applies to particular statements is relevant to the second prong of the anti-SLAPP analysis because a plaintiff cannot prevail on defamation-based claims and related torts if the privilege applies. Under the facts here, the absolute litigation privilege protects Williams’s NRED complaint because the complaint itself initiated a quasi-judicial proceeding. Accordingly, the district court erred in concluding that Lazer demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his defamation claims. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s order denying Williams’s anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss and remand with instructions that the district court grant the motion….

Congratulations to Marc Randazza and Alex Shepard, who represented Ms. Williams.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3CrppJu
via IFTTT

Court Seals Name of Party, Orders Public Access Advocacy Group Not to Mention the Name

From the Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus in Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest v. Chang, filed yesterday in the Hawaii Supreme Court:

Civil No. 05‑1‑863 has a “confidential” case designation, and thus nothing in the case (parties, judge, docket, filings) is publicly accessible. To understand whether a compelling reason existed for such comprehensive secrecy, Petitioner Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest (Law Center) asked the circuit court for public access to Civil No. 05‑1‑863.

Respondent Judge [Gary W.B. Chang] denied that request and then restrained the Law Center’s ability to discuss the case publicly under threat of sanctions for contempt….

In October 2020, the Judiciary provided the Law Center with a list of case numbers for civil cases flagged as “confidential” in the preceding 15 years. For cases flagged as “confidential”, the entire case file—including the docket and case name—is inaccessible to the public. In November 2020, the Law Center began requesting access to randomly selected “confidential” cases. To date, none of the cases that the Law Center challenged has met the constitutional standards for sealing the entire case file. Civil No. 05-1-863 was on the list of “confidential” cases provided to the Law Center in October 2020.

On June 29, 2021, the Law Center requested access to the case file in Civil No. 05‑1-863…. On July 29, a person purporting to be an out-of-state attorney representing the plaintiff contacted counsel for the Law Center to discuss the motion to unseal, revealing details about the parties and the nature of the allegations in the case. According to the circuit court’s subsequent orders, on August 4, the plaintiff … [filed a document with the court] requesting confidentiality for plaintiff’s identity.

On August 11, the circuit court held that the “Plaintiff showed good cause to maintain her identity sealed.” That decision ordered: “The above-entitled case shall be unsealed. However, individual documents that contain confidential or sensitive information, including the identity of the plaintiff, shall remain sealed and redacted copies of said documents will be made accessible to the public.”

The following day, on August 12, finding that the August 11 order “did not go far enough to satisfy the court’s intent to prevent the identities of the parties from disclosure,” the circuit court … granted the Law Center special access to the docket, but kept the docket sealed publicly and denied any other unsealing. The Law Center’s motion to unseal, however, had only requested access to the extent required by the constitutional standards for accessibility to court records for all members of the public. The Law Center has never requested special access to court records solely for itself in this case or any other. After the Court Administrator confirmed that the public would not have access to the docket, the Law Center declined to exercise the special access rights granted by Respondent Judge and thus has not seen the docket in Civil No. 05‑1‑863.

After granting the Law Center special access rights in the August 12 order, the circuit court then held:

In granting Petitioner leave to view the docket sheet herein, the court also prohibits Petitioner from disclosing, communicating, disseminating, publicizing, compromising or otherwise publishing the name or identity of any of the parties in the instant case. This Order shall apply to Petitioner and its agents, employees, associates, assignees, counsel, appointees, assistants, affiliates and any other person or entity operating in concert with, at the direction or request of, or with the knowledge of Petitioner. Any violation of this Order may be punishable by contempt of court….

The Law Center publishes on its website the filed motions and related documents and orders when it is involved in cases, including cases involving motions to unseal as a nonparty. As a result of the circuit court’s gag order and threat of contempt, the Law Center has not published anything about Civil No. 05‑1‑863….

[1.] The circuit court has hidden an entire case file from the public based on a secret rationale.

In the subsequently voided August 11 order, the circuit court’s only finding was conclusory: “Plaintiff showed good cause to maintain her identity sealed.” The August 12 order had no findings. As this Court has previously held, if a court overrides the presumptive right of public access to court records under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article 1, section 4 of the Hawai`i Constitution, the public deserves an explanation….

[2.] When individuals invoke the power and authority of the taxpayer-funded Judiciary by filing a lawsuit to resolve civil disputes, that process is public…. Accordingly, … numerous courts have held that docket sheets and complaints are protected by the constitutional right of public access.

The Judiciary’s “confidential” case designation, however, hides everything. No docket. No complaint. No explanation. The case disappears without any public accountability. Such expansive secrecy must be justified by harm to a compelling interest that cannot be protected through less restrictive means.

The circuit court, at best, only stated that the plaintiff’s identity needed to be protected. That conclusion does not articulate a compelling interest nor the irreparable harm to a compelling interest that must be avoided, so the public’s ability to suggest possible alternatives is limited. Nevertheless, redaction is an obviously less restrictive solution to protecting a plaintiff’s identity.

[3.] “Prior restraints are subject to strict scrutiny because of the peculiar dangers presented by such restraints.” … This Court has only previously addressed gag orders involving speech of litigants—an issue outlined by the Ninth Circuit in Levine v. United States District Court. The Ninth Circuit recognized, however, that the bar to justify prior restraint of nonparties is higher. As it concerns gag orders on nonparties, “[a]ny prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a ‘heavy presumption’ against its constitutional validity.” It is “one of the most extraordinary remedies known to our jurisprudence.” Few circumstances open the door to prior restraint of nonparties: “In order to be held lawful, respondents’ action, first, must fit within one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the prohibition against prior restraints ….” …

[4.] As described above, the U.S. Supreme Court requires that prior restraint of a nonparty fall within a handful of limited exceptions, such as obscenity or incitements to violence. There is no expansive prior restraint exception for privacy. E.g., Org. for Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419-20 (1971) (“Designating the conduct as an invasion of privacy, the apparent basis for the injunction here, is not sufficient to support an injunction against peaceful distribution of informational literature of the nature revealed by the record.”); In re Providence Journal Co., 820 F.2d 1342, 1350 (1st Cir. 1986) (“That publication would prove embarrassing or infringe Patriarca’s privacy rights is, however, an insufficient basis for issuing a prior restraint…. An individual’s right to protect his privacy from damage by private parties, although meriting great protection, is simply not of the same magnitude.”); Ass’n for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Los Angeles Times Commc’ns LLC, 239 Cal. App. 4th 808, 821-23 (2015) (privacy claims do not justify prior restraint); Mortg. Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Indus., Inc., 999 A.2d 184, 244 (N.H. 2010) (“Mortgage Specialists’ interests in protecting its privacy and reputation do not justify the extraordinary remedy of prior restraint.”). Similar to this case, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected privacy of a juvenile as a constitutional basis for enjoining a nonparty’s publication of the minor’s name and picture. Okla. Publ’g Co. v. Dist. Court, 430 U.S. 308, 308-12 (1977); accord WXYZ, Inc. v. Hand, 658 F.2d 420, 425-27 (6th Cir. 1981) (statute unconstitutional that prohibited publication of criminal defendant’s and victim’s name and details of the alleged conduct in sex offense cases).

Nothing about this case justifies prior restraint of the Law Center. The vague privacy concerns that seem to underlie the circuit court’s sealing are not sufficient to justify a gag order (or the comprehensive sealing). And there is an obvious less restrictive alternative to prior restraint: do not purport to give the Law Center special access to the docket—relief that it never sought nor used. The circuit court’s gag order should be lifted….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3AiqbrH
via IFTTT

From the Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus in Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest v. Chang, filed yesterday in the Hawaii Supreme Court:

Civil No. 05‑1‑863 has a “confidential” case designation, and thus nothing in the case (parties, judge, docket, filings) is publicly accessible. To understand whether a compelling reason existed for such comprehensive secrecy, Petitioner Civil Beat Law Center for the Public Interest (Law Center) asked the circuit court for public access to Civil No. 05‑1‑863.

Respondent Judge [Gary W.B. Chang] denied that request and then restrained the Law Center’s ability to discuss the case publicly under threat of sanctions for contempt….

In October 2020, the Judiciary provided the Law Center with a list of case numbers for civil cases flagged as “confidential” in the preceding 15 years. For cases flagged as “confidential”, the entire case file—including the docket and case name—is inaccessible to the public. In November 2020, the Law Center began requesting access to randomly selected “confidential” cases. To date, none of the cases that the Law Center challenged has met the constitutional standards for sealing the entire case file. Civil No. 05-1-863 was on the list of “confidential” cases provided to the Law Center in October 2020.

On June 29, 2021, the Law Center requested access to the case file in Civil No. 05‑1-863…. On July 29, a person purporting to be an out-of-state attorney representing the plaintiff contacted counsel for the Law Center to discuss the motion to unseal, revealing details about the parties and the nature of the allegations in the case. According to the circuit court’s subsequent orders, on August 4, the plaintiff … [filed a document with the court] requesting confidentiality for plaintiff’s identity.

On August 11, the circuit court held that the “Plaintiff showed good cause to maintain her identity sealed.” That decision ordered: “The above-entitled case shall be unsealed. However, individual documents that contain confidential or sensitive information, including the identity of the plaintiff, shall remain sealed and redacted copies of said documents will be made accessible to the public.”

The following day, on August 12, finding that the August 11 order “did not go far enough to satisfy the court’s intent to prevent the identities of the parties from disclosure,” the circuit court … granted the Law Center special access to the docket, but kept the docket sealed publicly and denied any other unsealing. The Law Center’s motion to unseal, however, had only requested access to the extent required by the constitutional standards for accessibility to court records for all members of the public. The Law Center has never requested special access to court records solely for itself in this case or any other. After the Court Administrator confirmed that the public would not have access to the docket, the Law Center declined to exercise the special access rights granted by Respondent Judge and thus has not seen the docket in Civil No. 05‑1‑863.

After granting the Law Center special access rights in the August 12 order, the circuit court then held:

In granting Petitioner leave to view the docket sheet herein, the court also prohibits Petitioner from disclosing, communicating, disseminating, publicizing, compromising or otherwise publishing the name or identity of any of the parties in the instant case. This Order shall apply to Petitioner and its agents, employees, associates, assignees, counsel, appointees, assistants, affiliates and any other person or entity operating in concert with, at the direction or request of, or with the knowledge of Petitioner. Any violation of this Order may be punishable by contempt of court….

The Law Center publishes on its website the filed motions and related documents and orders when it is involved in cases, including cases involving motions to unseal as a nonparty. As a result of the circuit court’s gag order and threat of contempt, the Law Center has not published anything about Civil No. 05‑1‑863….

[1.] The circuit court has hidden an entire case file from the public based on a secret rationale.

In the subsequently voided August 11 order, the circuit court’s only finding was conclusory: “Plaintiff showed good cause to maintain her identity sealed.” The August 12 order had no findings. As this Court has previously held, if a court overrides the presumptive right of public access to court records under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article 1, section 4 of the Hawai`i Constitution, the public deserves an explanation….

[2.] When individuals invoke the power and authority of the taxpayer-funded Judiciary by filing a lawsuit to resolve civil disputes, that process is public…. Accordingly, … numerous courts have held that docket sheets and complaints are protected by the constitutional right of public access.

The Judiciary’s “confidential” case designation, however, hides everything. No docket. No complaint. No explanation. The case disappears without any public accountability. Such expansive secrecy must be justified by harm to a compelling interest that cannot be protected through less restrictive means.

The circuit court, at best, only stated that the plaintiff’s identity needed to be protected. That conclusion does not articulate a compelling interest nor the irreparable harm to a compelling interest that must be avoided, so the public’s ability to suggest possible alternatives is limited. Nevertheless, redaction is an obviously less restrictive solution to protecting a plaintiff’s identity.

[3.] “Prior restraints are subject to strict scrutiny because of the peculiar dangers presented by such restraints.” … This Court has only previously addressed gag orders involving speech of litigants—an issue outlined by the Ninth Circuit in Levine v. United States District Court. The Ninth Circuit recognized, however, that the bar to justify prior restraint of nonparties is higher. As it concerns gag orders on nonparties, “[a]ny prior restraint on expression comes to this Court with a ‘heavy presumption’ against its constitutional validity.” It is “one of the most extraordinary remedies known to our jurisprudence.” Few circumstances open the door to prior restraint of nonparties: “In order to be held lawful, respondents’ action, first, must fit within one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the prohibition against prior restraints ….” …

[4.] As described above, the U.S. Supreme Court requires that prior restraint of a nonparty fall within a handful of limited exceptions, such as obscenity or incitements to violence. There is no expansive prior restraint exception for privacy. E.g., Org. for Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419-20 (1971) (“Designating the conduct as an invasion of privacy, the apparent basis for the injunction here, is not sufficient to support an injunction against peaceful distribution of informational literature of the nature revealed by the record.”); In re Providence Journal Co., 820 F.2d 1342, 1350 (1st Cir. 1986) (“That publication would prove embarrassing or infringe Patriarca’s privacy rights is, however, an insufficient basis for issuing a prior restraint…. An individual’s right to protect his privacy from damage by private parties, although meriting great protection, is simply not of the same magnitude.”); Ass’n for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Los Angeles Times Commc’ns LLC, 239 Cal. App. 4th 808, 821-23 (2015) (privacy claims do not justify prior restraint); Mortg. Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Indus., Inc., 999 A.2d 184, 244 (N.H. 2010) (“Mortgage Specialists’ interests in protecting its privacy and reputation do not justify the extraordinary remedy of prior restraint.”). Similar to this case, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected privacy of a juvenile as a constitutional basis for enjoining a nonparty’s publication of the minor’s name and picture. Okla. Publ’g Co. v. Dist. Court, 430 U.S. 308, 308-12 (1977); accord WXYZ, Inc. v. Hand, 658 F.2d 420, 425-27 (6th Cir. 1981) (statute unconstitutional that prohibited publication of criminal defendant’s and victim’s name and details of the alleged conduct in sex offense cases).

Nothing about this case justifies prior restraint of the Law Center. The vague privacy concerns that seem to underlie the circuit court’s sealing are not sufficient to justify a gag order (or the comprehensive sealing). And there is an obvious less restrictive alternative to prior restraint: do not purport to give the Law Center special access to the docket—relief that it never sought nor used. The circuit court’s gag order should be lifted….

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3AiqbrH
via IFTTT

DeSantis Office: Over Half Of Those Seeking Lifesaving COVID-19 Treatment In South Florida Fully Vaccinated

DeSantis Office: Over Half Of Those Seeking Lifesaving COVID-19 Treatment In South Florida Fully Vaccinated

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

A spokesperson for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s office said that more than half of those who are seeking monoclonal antibody treatment in the south of Florida are “fully vaccinated” individuals amid supply issues.

“More than half the patients getting the monoclonal antibody treatment in south Florida are fully vaccinated,” DeSantis spokeswoman Christina Pushaw wrote in response to a comment on Twitter that suggested that only unvaccinated people are the reason why there is a significant demand for monoclonal antibodies.

Florida, she wrote hours earlier, “is above average in vaccination rate” and that “more than half of the patients in south Florida getting monoclonal antibody treatment are vaccinated and have breakthrough infections. Vaccinated or unvaccinated – Denying treatment to Covid patients is wrong.”

Monoclonal antibodies are engineered immune system proteins that boost an immune response against an infection.

Earlier this week, the White House and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced plans to control the U.S. monoclonal antibody supply due to distribution issues. According to HHS’s website in a Sept. 13 update, the agency “will determine the weekly amount of mAb products each state and territory receives based on COVID-19 case burden and [monoclonal antibody treatment] utilization.”

A spokesperson for HHS told CNN that Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana are using 70 percent of the supply of the drug.

“Given this reality, we must work to ensure our supply of these life-saving therapies remains available for all states and territories, not just some,” the HHS spokesperson said, adding that a new system “will help maintain equitable distribution, both geographically and temporally, across the country … providing states and territories with consistent, fairly-distributed supply over the coming weeks.”

Before the change, states and hospitals could purchase the antibodies on their own without going through the federal government.

“More than 50 percent of the monoclonal antibodies that had been used in Florida were going to be reduced,” DeSantis said on Thursday, adding that “there’s going to be a huge disruption, and patients are going to suffer as a result of this.”

On Thursday, DeSantis’s office said the state would deal directly with GlaxoSmithKline, a maker of monoclonal antibody infusion treatments.

“The Biden administration and their allies in media have claimed that Florida is using too much monoclonal treatment because of a low vaccination rate,” Pushaw told The Epoch Times on Thursday, “and Biden has lashed out at Governor DeSantis for opposing the tyrannical federal vaccine mandate.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 15:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3EwslX1 Tyler Durden

How “Boring” Erin O’Toole Has Come Within A Hair’s Breadth Of Unseating “Entitled” Justin Trudeau

How “Boring” Erin O’Toole Has Come Within A Hair’s Breadth Of Unseating “Entitled” Justin Trudeau

Over the summer when he first called Monday’s snap election, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expected to trample the Conservative opposition, and possibly even cement the Liberals’ first majority government since the beginning of his reign.

Erin O’Toole

Trudeau had hoped that his handling of the pandemic might help him gain a political leg up. But one month later, the picture is looking very different. The polls are extremely close, and it’s possible that thea Conservatives might upset the Liberals. At the very least, it’s looking virtually certain that the Liberals will only manage to securie another minority government in coalition with the NDP and the greens, leaving them effectively right where they started, with the public frustrated over what would then prove to have been a monumental waste of time and resources, according to Bloomberg.

Source: the New Republic

As the campaign enters its last frantic weekend, there are many seats considered a “toss-up” by various pollsters, suggesting the election could go down to the wire.

Source: Bloomberg

Source: The New Republic

With Trudeau terrified of the election slipping away, he came out swinging on Thursday and Friday, attacking his main rival, Conservative leader Erin O’Toole. Trudeau has tried to pitch himself as the better leader on COVID issues, but O’Toole has generated unexpected levels of popularity by insisting that rapid testing is a preferable policy course to vaccine mandates, which Trudeau has implicitly backed.

O’Toole has also successfully slammed Trudeau as a hypocrite for calling an election in the middle of a pandemic.

“Mr. Trudeau called an election that’s costing us $600 million rather than keeping the Delta variant from spreading, rather than actually working together.”

Despite his recent success in the polls, O’Toole is still a political obscurity in the US. So, in an attempt to familiarize its readers with the potential next leader of Canada, Bloomberg has published a piece on O’Toole trying to explain his appeal to voters.

According to sources quoted in the report, one of O’Toole’s most formidable attributes is that he’s boring – unlike the flashy political scion whose boyish (and some might say, Fidel Castro-esque) looks have made him a darling of the international press (while enduring constant criticisms of being all surface and little substance), O’Toole is basically the anti-Trudeau. A stolid public servant who achieved his position via hard work, not via birthright.

O’Toole has used this rhetoric as an effective cudgel.

“Every Canadian has met a Justin Trudeau in their lives – privileged, entitled and always looking out for number one,” O’Toole said this week near Ottawa, summing up his campaign message. “He was looking out for number one when he called this expensive and unnecessary election in the middle of a pandemic. That’s not leadership, that’s self-interest. And it’s Justin Trudeau through and through.”

[…]

“The one big positive thing about Erin O’Toole is what you see is what you get, privately and publicly,” said Ashton Arsenault, vice president at Crestview Strategy in Ottawa. “There’s no difference between the two and I don’t think you can say that about everybody in the political universe.”

In six weeks, Trudeau’s lead has eroded from a 6 point lead to a statistical dead heat.

One of the most bizarre contrasts between O’Toole and Trudeau is their appearance. O’Toole is actually a year younger than the PM. But his thinning white hair give him the air of a dad, not a man-boy.

The suburbs around Canada’s biggest city, known by their area code, 905, are the main electoral battleground. It’s also O’Toole home turf. Although he was born in Montreal, O’Toole grew up near Toronto and has served as the member of parliament for Durham since 2012.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 15:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3EvBBux Tyler Durden

North Carolina Judges Strike Down Voter ID Law, Claiming It’s Racist

North Carolina Judges Strike Down Voter ID Law, Claiming It’s Racist

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Two North Carolina judges on Friday struck down a law that required identification to vote, alleging it “was enacted with the unconstitutional intent to discriminate against African American voters.”

North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore gavels in a session in Raleigh, N.C., on April 30, 2020. (Gerry Broome/AP Photo)

The law was enacted in violation of the Equal Protection Clause in North Carolina’s Constitution, the majority of the panel said. The clause says that nobody shall be denied equal protection of the laws nor shall anybody be subjected to discrimination by the state due to race.

Defendants, including North Carolina House Speaker Timothy Moore, failed to show that racial discrimination was not a substantial or motivating factor behind enactment of the law, Superior Court Judges Michael O’Foghludha and Vince Rozier Jr., both Democrats, wrote in a 102-page ruling permanently blocking the measure.

“Other, less restrictive voter ID laws would have sufficed to achieve the legitimate nonracial purposes of implementing the constitutional amendment requiring voter ID, deterring fraud, or enhancing voter confidence,” they said.

The law in question, Senate Bill 824, was enacted after a majority of voters in North Carolina approved it as a constitutional amendment in 2018. Before that, the Republican-controlled state legislature passed the bill and overrode a veto from North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat.

According to previous court rulings, plaintiffs challenging a law in the state must show that discrimination was a “motivating factor” in passing a law, the pair of judges said in their majority decision. That puts the burden on defendants to prove that the law “would have been enacted without this factor,” they added, quoting from a North Carolina Court of Appeals ruling from last year, Holmes v. Moore.

Jabari Holmes and five other voters in the state sued over the law on the same day the legislature overrode Cooper’s veto, noting that a previous voter identification requirement was invalidated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit because it was alleged to be intentionally racially discriminatory, in a decision upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The bill “unconstitutionally and unjustifiably burdens the right to vote of Plaintiffs and similarly situated registered, qualified North Carolina voters who lack acceptable photo ID when they go to the polls and are subject to a complex process to vote,” the group of voters said in their complaint.

Moore and other defendants charged that the suit should be dismissed because, they said, the law did not violate the state Constitution.

Judge Nathaniel Poovey, third judge on the panel, offered a dissenting opinion in which he highlighted how the law was approved by the voters of the state.

“Presenting some form of identification is a task we must perform quite frequently in everyday life. Adding more familiarity to the process of casting a vote increases the level of certainty in the electoral process. And doing so by requiring the presentation of photographic identification ensures each person offering to vote is who they proclaim to be, thereby increasing confidence in the outcome of each election,” Poovey, a Republican, said.

Voters are seen during the North Carolina primary elections at the Pullen Community Center in Raleigh, N.C., on March 15, 2016. (Sara D. Davis/Getty Images)

 

The evidence showed that “no registered voter in this State will be precluded from voting by the identification requirements in this law,” he added.

The Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which represents the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement that the ruling “Is a testament to the overwhelming evidence, including compelling stories of disenfranchisement from voters themselves, which highlighted how the state’s Republican-controlled legislature undeniably implemented this legislation to maintain its power by targeting voters of color.”

Sam Hayes, general counsel for Moore, the North Carolina House speaker, said in a statement that “Once again, liberal judges have defied the will of North Carolinians on election integrity.”

“This fight is far from over. We look forward to appealing this partisan ruling on behalf of the people of North Carolina,” he added.

Two other lawsuits against the bill are also being considered by courts. A federal suit brought by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is set to go on trial in January 2022; a separate suit brought on the state level by the association is awaiting a decision on appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 14:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3zoqrnA Tyler Durden

Biden Admin Starts Deporting Haitians From Under Texas Bridge, Fox Foils FAA Drone Ban

Biden Admin Starts Deporting Haitians From Under Texas Bridge, Fox Foils FAA Drone Ban

For a month and a half, we’ve been keeping an eye on the developments of thousands of migrants gathering under the Anzalduas Bridge in Mission, Texas. On Aug. 2, we first reported stunning drone footage from Fox News’ Bill Melugin, who captured 1,000 migrants under the bridge surrounded by US Border Patrol agents. Now the number of migrants has increased to more than 11,000, and the federal government imposed a no-fly zone for unmanned aircraft systems.

The Biden administration’s attempt to cover up the border disaster by blocking drones didn’t stop Melugin and his team who hitched a ride on a Texas Department of Public Safety’s helicopter to capture an aerial view of the migrant crisis, mostly Haitians, crossing the Mexico–US border with ease and gathering under the bridge as they wait to be processed by Border Patrol agents. 

Melugin took shocking videos of thousands of migrants not just crossing the border but gathered underneath the bridge, a testament to the Biden administration’s mishandling of the migration crisis. 

Melugin thanked the Texas Department of Public Safety for allowing his team to fly with them while the FAA grounded his drone. He said, “the true scope of the situation in Del Rio is seen best from the air,” adding the FAA has now “cleared us to fly our drone again after FOX submitted a waiver.”

On Saturday morning, the Texas Department of Public Safety released more footage from the bridge. 

Meanwhile, the Biden Administration fails to see the border crisis as they completely ignore the growing problem.  

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) requested the president to deploy National Guard along the southern border. He stated Friday that thousands of illegal immigrants, mainly from Haiti, are assembling under the bridge. 

“The Biden Administration must recognize this for what it is: A National Security Crisis. As such he must fully deploy the National Guard to the southern border to help our Border Patrol agents with more resources to control the situation.

“Recently, over 10,000 migrants have surged to the border in Del Rio. It is no coincidence this is happening as Democrats in Congress are moving to pass legislation that would grant immediate citizenship for up to 10 million illegal immigrants. This is a wakeup call to Democrats that their policies are putting American lives in danger and must be abandoned,” McCarthy said.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who traveled to the bridge on Thursday, called it “the most horrific thing I’ve ever seen.”

“There are right now, as we’re speaking, there are 10,503 people under that bridge. It is packed in as a mass of humanity,” Cruz said. “They take your breath away because it just goes on and on and on—infants, little children, people struggling enormously.”

Cruz criticized the Biden administration for the situation and called for deportation flights of the migrants.

“It’s a political decision that Joe Biden could end tonight by simply following the law and saying we’re going to send people back to Haiti, which is what federal immigration law requires,” Cruz said.

The Biden administration paused deportation flights to Haiti after a powerful earthquake devastated the country last month. There’s talk the administration may restart “widescale expulsion of Haitian migrants from a small Texas border city by putting them on flights to Haiti starting Sunday,” according to AP News. 

Biden’s rollback of Trump-era border policies has created an utter mess that mainstream leftist media chooses to ignore. 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 14:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3lvvUnS Tyler Durden

The Atlantic’s Franklin Foer Allegedly Identified As “Reporter-2” In The Sussmann Indictment

The Atlantic’s Franklin Foer Allegedly Identified As “Reporter-2” In The Sussmann Indictment

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

I have a column today in the Hill on the indictment of former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann by Special Counsel John Durham.

The indictment fills in a great number of gaps on one of the Russian collusion allegations pushed by the Clinton campaign: Alpha bank.

Sussman and others reportedly pushed the implausible claim that the Russian bank served as a conduit for communications between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

The indictment removes the identity of key actors like a “Tech Executive” who used his connections with an Internet company to help the Clinton campaign (and said he was promised a top cyber security position in the widely anticipated Clinton Administration).

One of those figures however may have been identified: “Reporter-2.”

 Atlantic staff writer Franklin Foer wrote an article for Slate that seems to track the account of the indictment and, as such, raises questions over his role as a conduit for the Clinton campaign’s effort to spread the false story.

The indictment discusses how Fusion GPS pushed for the publication of the story, telling Foer that it was “time to hurry” on the story:

“The Investigative Firm Employee’s email stated, ‘time to hurry’ suggesting that Reporter-2 should hurry to publish an article regarding the Russian Bank-1 allegations. In response, Reporter-2 emailed to the Investigative Firm Employee a draft article regarding the Russian Bank-1 allegations, along with the cover message: ‘Here’s the first 2500 words.’”

The indictment states Reporter-2 published the article “on or about the following day, October, 31, 2016.”

That is when Slate published a piece written by Foer headlined, “Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?”  The story then was pushed by the Clinton campaign.

Foer has not addressed this close coordination with Fusion, including the showing of an advanced copy of his article. He later stated the following in the Atlantic:

“Every article is an exercise in cost-benefit analysis; each act of publication entails a risk of getting it wrong, and sometimes events force journalists to assume greater risk than they would in other circumstances. Before I published the server story, I asked myself a fairly corny question: How would I sleep the next week if Donald Trump were elected president, knowing that I had sat on a potentially important piece of information? In the end, Trump was elected president, and I still slept badly.”

The cost behind this article is getting it wrong but relying too greatly on a biased source without independent research. Foer states that he was more concerned with missing a chance on the story only to have Trump elected. We have been discussing the rise of advocacy journalism and the rejection of objectivity in journalism schools.

In this case, Foer allegedly coordinated with investigators paid by the Clinton campaign to publish a story that had little or no basis.

Even the researchers quoted in the indictment objected that the theory was unsupported and could bring public ridicule. Yet, the campaign continued to push the story and Foer ran it after allegedly sending an advance copy of his article to Fusion.

The next question is who is the “Tech executive”?

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 13:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3zlYltn Tyler Durden

Goldman: “This Needs To Change Before A Larger Correction Can Occur”

Goldman: “This Needs To Change Before A Larger Correction Can Occur”

Last week, we published one Goldman trader’s top ten reasons why investors are especially bearish for the last two weeks of September, which he then countered with a list of his own reasons why there is little to be worried about. Judging by last week’s market moves which saw the S&P swoon lower and slide sharply on Friday’s opex, it appears that once again Goldman was wrong. So, one week later, Goldman flow trader Scott Rubner has doubled down with a thread focusing on market technicals, in which he lays out what in his view – “given new market structure dynamics” – needs to change “before a larger correction can occur.”

So without further ado, here is Rubner’s latest Tactical Flow of Funds market summary, which he summarizes as “Consensus is Bearish! But the market is currently positioned for it“, which however is news to Wall Street because as the latest Fund Manager Survey found,  equity protection is at the lowest level since Jan’18, a far cry from the financial media – and Goldman’s – repeated erronous claims that everyone is hedged for a crash.

With that in mind, here is Goldman’s Scott Rubner on why one should buy this dip:

I did a number of back-to-back zoom calls this week and sentiment was more bearish than I have seen in a very long time. The 10 biggest reasons for the bear case are highlighted below. This was my pushback on the calls this week, who have been calling for a 2H September correction.

Given new market structure dynamics, this needs to change before a larger correction can occur. September already logged a massive +$32B inflows M-T-D (basically a few trading days). Money continues to flow into the market if the dips are small, there is a competition for dip alpha.

1. Global Equities logged +$12.7B worth of weekly inflows during week 36. The magic money tree keeps flowing as retail bought the dip again this week. Week 36 saw inflows into all asset classes, yet again, stocks, bonds, and cash. Issuance paper was absorbed during this week.

Source: Goldman Sachs Investment Research Division, Cormac Conners, as of 9/10/21. Past performance is not indicative of future returns

2. Global Equities have logged a massive +$725B worth of inflows YTD or $1.1 Trillion worth of annualized inflows.

** These next two bullets are the most important lines of this whole email.

3. Passive inflows have logged +$606B (~84%) of inflows, while active funds +$120B (~16%) of inflows.

4. For the first time in history, US passive fund AUM has now fully exceeded active fund AUM.

5. USA Passive AUM = $4.636 Trillion (52% of assets) vs. $4.287 Trillion (48% of assets).

6. Global Passive AUM = $7.565 Trillion. This is the first time above > $7 Trillion.

7. Geographically, USA has seen (+$452B worth of inflows) or 63% of flows vs. ROW at 37%.

8. Tech stocks saw 11 straight weeks of inflows. Let’s simply call this 2021 dynamic = USA, Passive, large cap, tech. This is new. I haven’t seen anything like this in the past. It’s made it hard to tactically short the market, and broad indices grind bps higher.

9. Passively Allocated? Passive Inflows = “you give me money, I buy” vs. “you ask me money, I sell”. For the past 45 weeks you have not asked for any money and given me a massive +$921 Billion worth of dollars.

10. To summarize, the 10 points above:

  • If you allocate $1 into SPY, that means 6 cents into AAPL, 6 cents in MSFT, 4 cents into GOOG/L, 4 cents in AMZN, 2 cents into FB. That is 22 cents of every $1 into 5 stocks.
  • If you allocate $1 into QQQ, that means 11 cents into AAPL, 10 cents in MSFT, 8 cents into GOOG/L, 8 cents in AMZN, 4 cents into FB. That is 41 cents of every $1 into 5 stocks.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 09/18/2021 – 13:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3lGNNjP Tyler Durden