Tag: news

University Investigating Music Theory Journal for Issue It Published

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports:

UNT’s Journal of Schenkerian Studies is under investigation following calls from around the country for it to be shuttered and for one of its advisers, UNT music theory professor Timothy Jackson, to be fired. The journal’s sin? Following criticism by scholar Philip Ewell that 19th century music theorist Heinrich Schenker, whose influence on music theory is “hard to overstate,” was an “ardent racist and German nationalist,” the journal presented an edition including debate among scholars on racial issues and music theory.

The issue led a group of graduate students to write to UNT College of Music Dean John Richmond on July 29, expressing concerns about the journal and, in particular, Jackson’s involvement in the issue. The students called for the journal to be dissolved, Jackson investigated and potentially fired from his teaching position, an anonymous contributor to be unmasked, and the issue to be publicly condemned by the university….

The graduate students claimed that Jackson had used the journal “to promote racism” by defending the music theorist after Ewell wrote that Schenker’s “racist views infected his music theoretical arguments.” Jackson’s article, one of several defending the composer in the 2019 edition of the journal, contextualized Schenker and his changing views on race, which were partially due to the rise of Nazi Germany. (Schenker was Jewish; his wife was arrested by the Nazi regime and died in Theresienstadt concentration camp.)

On July 31, after receiving similar calls for investigation and punishment from a group of faculty members, Richmond announced “a formal investigation” into the journal.

“Students and faculty can challenge the journal’s assertions and criticize Schenker as much as they want, and the journal is free to resolve internal disputes as it pleases — and we’ll defend its right to do so,” said Lindsie Rank, author of FIRE’s [letter to the university]. “But UNT is violating core principles of academic and editorial freedom — and the First Amendment — by initiating an investigation into the journal. Rigorous debate and discussion, not administrative censorship, is how we find truth.”

FIRE’s letter to UNT President Neal Smatresk reminds him of the public institution’s unassailable responsibilities to uphold the First Amendment rights of its faculty and students, and demands the immediate cessation of the investigation into the journal. FIRE also reminds Smatresk that the freedom to publish is protected not only by the First Amendment, but also by UNT’s own policies. If any editors acted in contrast to the journal’s editorial structure or internal policies, the resolution must be handled internally within the journal to preserve its right to editorial independence, but the university may not step in without violating its First Amendment obligations.

Even without formal punishment, an investigation can chill expression in violation of the First Amendment. Recent months have seen an alarming spate of such investigations. Last week, Auburn University announced it is “considering options” on how to respond to a lecturer’s anti-police tweets. On July 14, Fordham University investigated and punished a student for holding a legally-obtained gun in an off-campus Instagram memorialization of the Tiananmen Square massacre. On July 7, FIRE called on UCLA to end its investigation of a professor for quoting Martin Luther King, Jr.’s use of a racial slur in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2DuztJ1
via IFTTT

81 Percent of Black Americans Want the Same Level, or More, of Police Presence: Gallup

defundpolicebklyn

As calls to defund and abolish the police grow around the country, a new poll by Gallup finds that a large majority—81 percent—of black Americans want the same or increased levels of police presence in their neighborhoods. Just 19 percent of black Americans said they want the police to spend less time in their neighborhoods, a figure that accords with earlier surveys finding that only 22 percent of black Americans want to get rid of police forces as we know then.

Gallup collected the data online between June 23 and July 6 from a representative sample of over 30,000 respondents who were sorted into one of four categories (black, white, Hispanic, and Asian). The survey also found that

Black Americans’ reported exposure to local police is slightly above the national average, with 32% saying they see the police often or very often in their neighborhood. This compares with 22% of White Americans and 21% of Asian Americans. Hispanic Americans’ experience is similar to that of Black Americans, with 28% often seeing police where they live.

Most other Black Americans (41%) say they sometimes see police in their area, matching the national average, while another 27% say they rarely or never see them.

Asians were the largest group preferring police spend less time in their areas. Fully 28 percent of Asian Americans wanted to see less of the police, double the national average. At the same time, 78 percent of Asian Americans were either very confident or somewhat confident that they would be treated with “courtesy and respect” when interacting with police. The corresponding figure for black Americans was just 61 percent.

An earlier Gallup survey found overwhelming support among all Americans for “major changes” (58 percent) and “minor changes” (36 percent) in the way police departments operate. Only 6 percent of respondents said no changes were needed. Among the most-popular reforms were punishing officers who abuse citizens and firing cops with multiple infractions. Fifty-six percent of respondents also favored eliminating police unions, which are widely seen as protecting bad apples from discipline and prosecution.

Ironically, the new survey on feelings toward law enforcement presence, part of the Gallup Center on Black Voices, suggests that if Black Lives Matters and other police abolitionists get their way, they will be thwarting the very group in whose name they are acting.

Related video: “Why Bad Cops Aren’t Punished: The Case Against Qualified Immunity.”

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

81 Percent of Black Americans Want the Same Level, or More, of Police Presence: Gallup

defundpolicebklyn

As calls to defund and abolish the police grow around the country, a new poll by Gallup finds that a large majority—81 percent—of black Americans want the same or increased levels of police presence in their neighborhoods. Just 19 percent of black Americans said they want the police to spend less time in their neighborhoods, a figure that accords with earlier surveys finding that only 22 percent of black Americans want to get rid of police forces as we know then.

Gallup collected the data online between June 23 and July 6 from a representative sample of over 30,000 respondents who were sorted into one of four categories (black, white, Hispanic, and Asian). The survey also found that

Black Americans’ reported exposure to local police is slightly above the national average, with 32% saying they see the police often or very often in their neighborhood. This compares with 22% of White Americans and 21% of Asian Americans. Hispanic Americans’ experience is similar to that of Black Americans, with 28% often seeing police where they live.

Most other Black Americans (41%) say they sometimes see police in their area, matching the national average, while another 27% say they rarely or never see them.

Asians were the largest group preferring police spend less time in their areas. Fully 28 percent of Asian Americans wanted to see less of the police, double the national average. At the same time, 78 percent of Asian Americans were either very confident or somewhat confident that they would be treated with “courtesy and respect” when interacting with police. The corresponding figure for black Americans was just 61 percent.

An earlier Gallup survey found overwhelming support among all Americans for “major changes” (58 percent) and “minor changes” (36 percent) in the way police departments operate. Only 6 percent of respondents said no changes were needed. Among the most-popular reforms were punishing officers who abuse citizens and firing cops with multiple infractions. Fifty-six percent of respondents also favored eliminating police unions, which are widely seen as protecting bad apples from discipline and prosecution.

Ironically, the new survey on feelings toward law enforcement presence, part of the Gallup Center on Black Voices, suggests that if Black Lives Matters and other police abolitionists get their way, they will be thwarting the very group in whose name they are acting.

Related video: “Why Bad Cops Aren’t Punished: The Case Against Qualified Immunity.”

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

Should This Juror Have Been Excused for Cause in a Child Rape Prosecution?

Tristan James Morales was convicted of raping his 8-year-old niece; he argued that one of the jurors was improperly biased, and should have been excused for cause (as the defense lawyer had argued). Here’s the Montana Supreme Court’s summary of the facts; do you think the juror should have been excused? The court split 4-3 on this, but you’ll need to check the opinion to see which side prevailed.

“On the first day of trial, prior to voir dire, the court distributed a questionnaire to prospective jurors asking whether they or anyone they knew had been a victim of sexual assault or whether they held strong beliefs that would make it difficult to serve as a juror in Morales’s case. The court then conducted individual in-chambers voir dire of sixteen prospective jurors based on their responses to the questionnaire. The court released seven of nine jurors Morales challenged for cause based on their experiences with or strong beliefs about sexual assault, one over the prosecution’s objection.

“When the questioning turned to prospective juror R.C., she revealed in chambers that her sister, foster children with whom she grew up, and a close friend all had been sexually abused as children. The District Court questioned R.C.:

[Q.] Okay. We all come to the courtroom with personal experiences and our background that shapes how we see the world, our issue here is can you take that information that you have with your friends and whatnot and set that aside and listen to the evidence as it comes in fairly and impartially and follow the instructions on the law that I give you?

[A.] I don’t think that I could.

[Q.] And could you elaborate on that, please?

[A.] Because I’ve seen the emotional damage that it caused later on through these things that — and between that and my religious belief that sexual relations are between a man and woman who have been lawfully married, it is hard for me to set those beliefs aside.

[Q.] Even if I instructed you on the law regarding the State’s burden of proof, Mr. Morales'[s] presumption of innocence, and the fact that Mr. Morales does not have to present any evidence in this case whatsoever, do you feel like your background and experience would cause you a problem?

[A.] Probably not, then.

[Q.] So you would follow my instructions?

[A.] I would follow your instructions, yes, although it would be difficult to set this aside.

[Q.] Okay.

[A.] It’s a hard place for me to be to try to—I’ve never been in that situation where I’ve had to separate those two beliefs.

[Q.] It’s not necessarily separating, you can’t forget everything you know, that’s the reality. The issue, ma’am, is—like I say, we all come to this with backgrounds and experiences; the issue is Mr. Morales is guaranteed a fair trial; that during this trial process, it’s the State that has the burden of proof, and that burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt; and because the State has the burden of proof, Mr. Morales doesn’t have to present any evidence whatsoever. Furthermore, you cannot draw any type of negative inference if he chooses not to present any evidence.

Furthermore, he also has a guaranteed constitutional right not to testify. I would instruct you specifically on his constitutional right to testify, it’s a right we all enjoy as citizens, but you can’t consider it in any way, and furthermore, you cannot let it enter into your jury deliberations in any way.

So that’s a synopsis of some of the law I would instruct you on in this case with regard to some of those issues; would you follow the law I give you?

[A.] (No verbal response.)

[Q.] And there’s no right or wrong answer here, what I and the parties are looking for is for you just to tell us the truth.

[A.] (No verbal response.)

“At this point, the prosecutor asked the court if she could elaborate and engaged R.C. in the following line of questioning:

[Q.] [Morales is] charged with something; right?

[A.] Right.

[Q.] We are not asking you to say that an act is okay, you are not setting aside your religious beliefs, the law is that it’s not okay, so what you need to decide is if he did it, he’s guilty, right, and so the State has to prove that to you.

[A.] Right.

[Q.] So do you understand that difference?

[A.] I do understand that difference.

[Q.] That we are not asking you to decide that conduct is okay.

[A.] Right.

[Q.] Can you fairly listen to the evidence and be impartial when you are deciding another person’s guilt?

[A.] I think that I could.

[Q.] You think that you could?

[A.] I think, I’m not—

[Q.] But can you—if the State fails to prove its case, you’re listening to our witnesses, and it doesn’t come together and we don’t prove it, can you find him not guilty?

[A.] Yeah, I guess you’re unable to prove—if all the facts are laid out and you are unable to prove without a doubt, then that’s what it is.

“Defense counsel then followed up:

[Q.] Do you like judging people?

[A.] Not particularly.

[Q.] Does your religious belief system suggest you not judge people?

[A.] Yes.

[Q.] Your personal experience with the group of people you’ve identified— your sister, the foster children and friends—does that make you feel pretty angry?

[A.] Not angry.

[Q.] Resentful?

[A.] Pained, is that the same thing—I don’t think that’s resentful.

[Q.] Do you feel a need to exercise out that pain?

[A.] No.

[Q.] If Mr. Morales says nothing, does nothing, do you expect him to defend himself?

[A.] I would expect his—you, as his representative, to defend him.

[Q.] And if we choose to sit quietly and say to the Court we choose not to put on a defense, will you hold that against him?

[A.] No, because they would be expected to prove their case.

[Q.] Would you anticipate that he—would you infer anything by him not putting on a case?

[A.] Yeah, I think so.

[Q.] What would you infer?

[A.] Probably guilt, because if you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing.

“Morales moved to strike R.C. for cause. The prosecutor asked R.C. whether she would be able to follow the court’s instructions and not infer guilt if Morales exercised his constitutional right to not testify. R.C. replied, ‘As a citizen, I would have to follow the law. Personal beliefs, I would have to set aside.’ The court addressed R.C.:

[Q.]… I want to come back to your job as a juror [] to listen to the evidence and make a decision on whether he’s guilty or not guilty, and that’s on the evidence presented in the courtroom only and the law as instructed by me. Now, I can tell you right now what I’m going to instruct you on if you serve as a juror, number one, they have the burden of proof.

[A.] Right.

[Q.] They have to prove the offense, every element of it beyond a reasonable doubt; two, if the State doesn’t meet their burden of proof, you must find him not guilty; three, the Defendant has absolutely no burden of proof, he may choose to rely on the State’s failure to prove their case; four, individually, he has a constitutional right guaranteed by the United States and Montana constitutions, something we all enjoy as citizens, not to testify; and furthermore, you cannot infer anything based on his decision not to testify, and you cannot let that enter into your jury deliberations in any way; can you follow the law that I give you?

[A.] Yes.

[Q.] And despite knowing former foster children and relatives and friends who have been sexually abused, can you put that aside and judge Mr. Morales based solely on the evidence in this courtroom and not let that personal bias or knowledge that you have impact Mr. Morales and the evidence you hear in this courtroom?

[A.] Yes.

[Q.] Are you certain?

[A.] Yes.

Read the opinion to see the court’s analysis.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30ynv9V
via IFTTT

Filling In The Gaps

Filling In The Gaps

Tyler Durden

Thu, 08/06/2020 – 12:25

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

I had the pleasure of speaking with Raoul Pal of RealVision a few weeks ago. The interview was recorded in mid July and it was an opportunity have a heart to heart discussion about the key big issues all of us face on some level or another.

We all find ourselves in a rapidly changing world with unprecedented circumstances and we are all trying to make sense of it knowing what we know, recognizing what we don’t know and keeping taps on the possibilities of what could happen.

RealVision just made the interview publicly available on their YouTube channel today and it turns out to be good timing.

From a market direction perspective one of the many issues we discussed was the open gap on $SPX, the February gap in the 3300 zone.

3 weeks later and here we are, $SPX filled that gap today:

I should note that the gap on $ES futures is still slightly higher, but hitting this gap today brings the S&P 500 within an earshot of all time highs, negative earnings growth be damned.

One can’t shake the feeling:

The overpowering force of central bank liquidity continues to dominate the action today. And whether hitting this gap will prove to have any relevance remains to be seen. There are still open gaps higher on other indices, such as the $NYSE which still remains below the June highs:

But also note the multitude of glaring open gaps on $NYSE below. Not all gaps fill or will fill for a long time, but the abundance of open gaps is one of the many technical issues that give pause about the eventual sustainability of this historic liquidity driven rally.

These markets remain a journey, an expensive journey as valuations and forward’s multiples continue to expand.

Are these valuations and multiple expansions justified? I invite you to have a listen to our discussion as Raoul and I try to dissect the big picture issues:

*  *  *

For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2F1wSqx Tyler Durden

China Helped Saudis Build Secret Nuclear Site For Extracting Yellowcake: WSJ

China Helped Saudis Build Secret Nuclear Site For Extracting Yellowcake: WSJ

Tyler Durden

Thu, 08/06/2020 – 12:04

When it comes to America’s allies in the Middle East, Washington has long “looked the other way” while they recklessly pursue questionable weapons technology. Think Pakistan’s nuclear program at a time when the Reagan administration prioritized fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, or Israel’s estimated 100 to possibly 200 undeclared nukes.

This has more recently been the case with Saudi Arabia, where the kingdom has long been rumored to pursue nukes to gain dominance over Shia rival Iran. And now this willful looking the other way on banned weapons is coming back to bite Washington hard.

“Saudi Arabia has constructed with Chinese help a facility for extracting uranium yellowcake from uranium ore, an advance in the oil-rich kingdom’s drive to master nuclear technology, according to Western officials with knowledge of the site,” The Wall Street Journal writes in a bombshell investigative report.

Al Ula in northwest Saudi Arabia, file image.

So this is where US foreign policy has arrived: no, there’s no yellowcake in Niger and never was, but we now have America’s global rival China helping our Sunni Wahhabi ‘ally’ construct a secret nuclear site while lying about it all along. Despite mounting evidence, the Saudi Energy Ministry issued a statement saying it “categorically denies” that it’s built an extraction facility.

However, there was this admission out of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman back in 2018: he said at the time “if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.”

The Saudis maintain they are only in pursuit of a peaceful nuclear program, which happens to be Iran’s same position as well.

The WSJ identified the location based on intelligence sources and unnamed Western officials as in a desert area outside al-Ula in northwest Saudi Arabia. “The facility, which hasn’t been publicly disclosed, is in a sparsely populated area in Saudi Arabia’s northwest and has raised concern among U.S. and allied officials that the kingdom’s nascent nuclear program is moving ahead and that Riyadh is keeping open the option of developing nuclear weapons,” WSJ continues.

Barrel filled with yellowcake uranium, file image via ABC.net.au

Currently it’s public knowledge that The China National Nuclear Corp. and the China Nuclear Engineering Group Corp., which signed memorandums of understanding with the Saudi government in 2017 for uranium exploration, are working closely with Riyadh.

The new reports suggest these are instrumental in assisting with the secret nuclear facility.

Given the US has invaded at least one Mideast country on false charges it had Yellowcake Uranium in its possession, it’ll be interesting to see if there’s even so much as a statement of public censure directed at Riyadh out of the administration. We won’t hold our breath, given it seems such condemnations are reserved only for the likes of Assad or Gaddafi or the Iranians. 

But now that China has apparently entered the mix, things could get sticky, even with Washington’s closes Gulf ally the Saudis.

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

The Open Trap Door Under Real Yields Rings Many Alarms

The Open Trap Door Under Real Yields Rings Many Alarms

Tyler Durden

Thu, 08/06/2020 – 11:45

By Laura Cooper, market strategist at Bloomberg

With no imminent end to collapsing real yields – which just hit a new record low -1.10%, the side effects of financial repression warn of stagflation, asset bubbles and policy impotence. Fresh lows for U.S. 10-year real yields this week show a trap door opened by growing economic angst, climbing inflation expectations and an indefinite pause in monetary policy.

The Fed’s explicit guidance that rates will stay near zero for the foreseeable future has markets pricing a hold until at least 2023, effectively killing price discovery.

When it comes to bond purchases, the central bank will likely have to skew buying to the longer-end to aid the recovery. That, combined with the search for yield, risks pushing yields on the entire U.S. curve below 1%, a threshold breached only briefly in March.

Not even the record-shattering supply announced on Wednesday is likely to lift yields, with insatiable appetite for safety and the seeds of debt monetization planted.

Meanwhile, inflation expectations have room to rise, with U.S. 10-year breakevens about 20bps shy of the 2020 peak. They could get a boost should questions ring louder over the Fed relaxing its inflation mandate, which has been in place since January 2012.

Fed Chairman Powell alluded to tweaking the price-stability mandate in the forthcoming policy review, while member Brainard coined the “opportunistic reflation” strategy to explicitly welcome an inflation overshoot. Such a stance would be a material departure for the Fed, given policy lags of at least one year.

Should markets believe the Fed will do what it takes for inflation to go beyond 2% in pursuit of full employment, then in theory 10-year U.S. real yields could tumble 40bps-50bps more from roughly -1.07% currently. That’s assuming nominal yields remain range-bound, and would be well below the estimated real neutral rate

That opens the door to risks such as stagflation — a more plausible scenario now given the unique combination of unprecedented monetary and fiscal stimulus; a deglobalization trend that’s creating supply constraints; and elevated unemployment that’s quashing hopefor a quick economic recovery.

The tumble in real yields is also amplifying the bifurcation between the real economy and financial assets. While market-based inflation measures ramp up, firms that lack pricing power and absent wage negotiations are keeping alive the risks of a deflationary spiral.

The Bank of Japan offers a cautionary tale on the pitfalls of revising inflation mandates, which it did in January 2013 to combat chronic deflation. A more than trebling of its balance sheet, negative rates, forward guidance and ETF purchases failed to spur price growth.

The Fed itself examined the Japan experience in a study earlier this year. Lessons include that the central bank faces the risk of getting caught in “never-ending monetary accommodation even when real economic activity is strong or when financial stability risks accumulate.”

To be sure, the widespread decline in real yields has been in place for decades and has been driven by structural factors such as a demographic-driven propensity to save and the integration of Chinese investors into global financial markets. Yet this time around, financial repression has taken over real yields and further declines would only amplify the many risks ahead.

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

NY AG Accuses NRA Of “Massive Fraud”, Seeks To “Dismantle” Guns-Rights Organization

NY AG Accuses NRA Of “Massive Fraud”, Seeks To “Dismantle” Guns-Rights Organization

Tyler Durden

Thu, 08/06/2020 – 11:44

Update (1140ET): James is starting off the hearing by detailing a state lawsuit against the NRA and seeking the dissolution of the pro-second amendment organization, one of several subjects she was expected to address today.

James alleges the the organization violated non-profit laws by diverting “millions of dollars away from the charitable mission of the organization for personal use by senior leadership,” who awarded contracts that benefited friends and family. That would be a slam-dunk if she were going after politicians. But at a non-profit, things are more blurry.

BBG published an update on the lawsuit almost immediately, suggesting that the financial news organization – owned by a former mayor of NYC – had the story under embargo ahead of time. Here’s a snippet from their reporting, which accuses NRA of “massive fraud”.

New York is seeking to dissolve the National Rifle Associationas the state attorney general accused the gun rights group and four senior officials of engaging in a massive fraud against donors.

A sprawling lawsuit filed Thursday in state court in Manhattan alleges the NRA diverted charitable donations for years to enrich the organization’s top executives in violation of laws governing nonprofits, New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. The state is also demanding millions of dollars in restitution and penalties.

The case may pose one of the biggest legal threats the NRA has faced since its founding in New York in 1871. The turmoil began with a power struggle last year between former NRA president Oliver North and longtime leader Wayne LaPierre, which led to allegations of self dealing. A subsequent state probe found wrongdoing blamed for more than $64 million in losses in the last three years alone, James said.

“The NRA’s influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets,” James, a Democrat, said in the statement. “The NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse.”

For those who aren’t familiar, this is the culmination of what Trump once called “an illegal investigation” by Cuomo and the AG, which stems from a power struggle that rocked the NRA last year.

The news sent shares of gun makers lower.

The NRA must “get its act together quickly, stop the internal fighting, & get back to GREATNESS – FAST!” Trump tweeted at the time.

We imagine he’ll be chiming in on Twitter about this new lawsuit any minute now.

* * *

New York Attorney General Letitia James is delivering a press briefing on Thursday where it’s widely suspected that she will share “bombshell” allegations about President Trump and his finances, after subpoenaing documents from Deutsche Bank.

In recent days, stories about DB scrutinizing Trump’s former banker, and the Manhattan AG subpoenaing the bank over records pertaining to Trump, have stoked suspicions that something “big” might be coming.

Will this briefing live up to the hype? We’re about to find out.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Pr24kS Tyler Durden

Should This Juror Have Been Excused for Cause in a Child Rape Prosecution?

Tristan James Morales was convicted of raping his 8-year-old niece; he argued that one of the jurors was improperly biased, and should have been excused for cause (as the defense lawyer had argued). Here’s the Montana Supreme Court’s summary of the facts; do you think the juror should have been excused? The court split 4-3 on this, but you’ll need to check the opinion to see which side prevailed.

“On the first day of trial, prior to voir dire, the court distributed a questionnaire to prospective jurors asking whether they or anyone they knew had been a victim of sexual assault or whether they held strong beliefs that would make it difficult to serve as a juror in Morales’s case. The court then conducted individual in-chambers voir dire of sixteen prospective jurors based on their responses to the questionnaire. The court released seven of nine jurors Morales challenged for cause based on their experiences with or strong beliefs about sexual assault, one over the prosecution’s objection.

“When the questioning turned to prospective juror R.C., she revealed in chambers that her sister, foster children with whom she grew up, and a close friend all had been sexually abused as children. The District Court questioned R.C.:

[Q.] Okay. We all come to the courtroom with personal experiences and our background that shapes how we see the world, our issue here is can you take that information that you have with your friends and whatnot and set that aside and listen to the evidence as it comes in fairly and impartially and follow the instructions on the law that I give you?

[A.] I don’t think that I could.

[Q.] And could you elaborate on that, please?

[A.] Because I’ve seen the emotional damage that it caused later on through these things that — and between that and my religious belief that sexual relations are between a man and woman who have been lawfully married, it is hard for me to set those beliefs aside.

[Q.] Even if I instructed you on the law regarding the State’s burden of proof, Mr. Morales'[s] presumption of innocence, and the fact that Mr. Morales does not have to present any evidence in this case whatsoever, do you feel like your background and experience would cause you a problem?

[A.] Probably not, then.

[Q.] So you would follow my instructions?

[A.] I would follow your instructions, yes, although it would be difficult to set this aside.

[Q.] Okay.

[A.] It’s a hard place for me to be to try to—I’ve never been in that situation where I’ve had to separate those two beliefs.

[Q.] It’s not necessarily separating, you can’t forget everything you know, that’s the reality. The issue, ma’am, is—like I say, we all come to this with backgrounds and experiences; the issue is Mr. Morales is guaranteed a fair trial; that during this trial process, it’s the State that has the burden of proof, and that burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt; and because the State has the burden of proof, Mr. Morales doesn’t have to present any evidence whatsoever. Furthermore, you cannot draw any type of negative inference if he chooses not to present any evidence.

Furthermore, he also has a guaranteed constitutional right not to testify. I would instruct you specifically on his constitutional right to testify, it’s a right we all enjoy as citizens, but you can’t consider it in any way, and furthermore, you cannot let it enter into your jury deliberations in any way.

So that’s a synopsis of some of the law I would instruct you on in this case with regard to some of those issues; would you follow the law I give you?

[A.] (No verbal response.)

[Q.] And there’s no right or wrong answer here, what I and the parties are looking for is for you just to tell us the truth.

[A.] (No verbal response.)

“At this point, the prosecutor asked the court if she could elaborate and engaged R.C. in the following line of questioning:

[Q.] [Morales is] charged with something; right?

[A.] Right.

[Q.] We are not asking you to say that an act is okay, you are not setting aside your religious beliefs, the law is that it’s not okay, so what you need to decide is if he did it, he’s guilty, right, and so the State has to prove that to you.

[A.] Right.

[Q.] So do you understand that difference?

[A.] I do understand that difference.

[Q.] That we are not asking you to decide that conduct is okay.

[A.] Right.

[Q.] Can you fairly listen to the evidence and be impartial when you are deciding another person’s guilt?

[A.] I think that I could.

[Q.] You think that you could?

[A.] I think, I’m not—

[Q.] But can you—if the State fails to prove its case, you’re listening to our witnesses, and it doesn’t come together and we don’t prove it, can you find him not guilty?

[A.] Yeah, I guess you’re unable to prove—if all the facts are laid out and you are unable to prove without a doubt, then that’s what it is.

“Defense counsel then followed up:

[Q.] Do you like judging people?

[A.] Not particularly.

[Q.] Does your religious belief system suggest you not judge people?

[A.] Yes.

[Q.] Your personal experience with the group of people you’ve identified— your sister, the foster children and friends—does that make you feel pretty angry?

[A.] Not angry.

[Q.] Resentful?

[A.] Pained, is that the same thing—I don’t think that’s resentful.

[Q.] Do you feel a need to exercise out that pain?

[A.] No.

[Q.] If Mr. Morales says nothing, does nothing, do you expect him to defend himself?

[A.] I would expect his—you, as his representative, to defend him.

[Q.] And if we choose to sit quietly and say to the Court we choose not to put on a defense, will you hold that against him?

[A.] No, because they would be expected to prove their case.

[Q.] Would you anticipate that he—would you infer anything by him not putting on a case?

[A.] Yeah, I think so.

[Q.] What would you infer?

[A.] Probably guilt, because if you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing.

“Morales moved to strike R.C. for cause. The prosecutor asked R.C. whether she would be able to follow the court’s instructions and not infer guilt if Morales exercised his constitutional right to not testify. R.C. replied, ‘As a citizen, I would have to follow the law. Personal beliefs, I would have to set aside.’ The court addressed R.C.:

[Q.]… I want to come back to your job as a juror [] to listen to the evidence and make a decision on whether he’s guilty or not guilty, and that’s on the evidence presented in the courtroom only and the law as instructed by me. Now, I can tell you right now what I’m going to instruct you on if you serve as a juror, number one, they have the burden of proof.

[A.] Right.

[Q.] They have to prove the offense, every element of it beyond a reasonable doubt; two, if the State doesn’t meet their burden of proof, you must find him not guilty; three, the Defendant has absolutely no burden of proof, he may choose to rely on the State’s failure to prove their case; four, individually, he has a constitutional right guaranteed by the United States and Montana constitutions, something we all enjoy as citizens, not to testify; and furthermore, you cannot infer anything based on his decision not to testify, and you cannot let that enter into your jury deliberations in any way; can you follow the law that I give you?

[A.] Yes.

[Q.] And despite knowing former foster children and relatives and friends who have been sexually abused, can you put that aside and judge Mr. Morales based solely on the evidence in this courtroom and not let that personal bias or knowledge that you have impact Mr. Morales and the evidence you hear in this courtroom?

[A.] Yes.

[Q.] Are you certain?

[A.] Yes.

Read the opinion to see the court’s analysis.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30ynv9V
via IFTTT

This second passport comes with free university tuition

I’ve written a lot in the past that there are two lifelong benefits that parents can provide their children, practically from birth.

The first is the gift of a foreign language. Every kid is going to learn his/her parents’ native tongue. 

But giving a child constant exposure to a foreign language from a very young age will help them develop an additional native fluency that will last a lifetime.

It makes an enormous difference. My own Spanish fluency, for example, is quite strong. But there’s no mistaking that I’m a gringo who learned the language later in life. 

My friend Jim Rogers understands this very well. So when he moved to Singapore several years ago, he hired a Chinese governess whose sole responsibility was to speak Mandarin Chinese to his kids. 

They grew up speaking Chinese (and English too), and they’ll have that native fluency for the rest of their lives. It’s a huge advantage for them.

Another gift you can give your child is a second citizenship.

A second citizenship and passport gives them the ultimate insurance policy. At any point in their lives, they will always have an alternative place to live, work, study, and invest outside of their home country. It opens all sorts of doors, opportunities, and Plan Bs.

If you’re thinking about having children, you might want to consider going overseas to any number of countries that grant citizenship to any child born in their territory.

The legal concept is known as jus soli, or ‘right of the soil’. And this includes most of the western hemisphere.

So if you give birth in Canada, the US, Mexico, and pretty much the entirety of Latin America (including Chile, Brazil, Panama, Ecuador, Argentina, etc.) your kid under most circumstances will automatically have citizenship in that country. 

And that’s a citizenship they’ll have for life.

Another way to obtain citizenship for your kids, of course, is through ancestry. 

Your ancestors may have already given you this gift without you even knowing; citizenship through ancestry allows you to claim citizenship if you have ancestors from a wide range of places like Italy, Ireland, Poland, Spain, or Greece.

But if you’re not part of the lucky bloodline club, there is another way to give the gift of a second citizenship to your whole family… even if your kids are already grown.

Simply buy it.

These are called ‘Citizenship-by-Investment’ programs. And for larger families looking to acquire a second passport, the country of Antigua and Barbuda offers an amazing deal.

(Technical point: despite the way it sounds, ‘Antigua and Barbuda’ is one country, not two. It consists of two primary islands which are named… wait for it… Antigua, and Barbuda.)

As we have discussed recently, countries that depend on tourism are in rough shape from Covid-19. And they need ways to boost their tax revenue.

So a few months ago, Antigua and Barbuda introduced a program where an entire family of six can purchase citizenship for just $150,000.

Technically this is really a ‘citizenship by donation’. You’re not making a traditional investment where you fund a business or buy stock, generate a return, and recoup your capital down the road.

In this case, your donation goes to the country’s “University of the West Indies Fund”.

One really convenient aspect about Antigua and Barbuda’s Citizenship by Investment program is that the legislation is quite lenient regarding family members.

Under the program’s official rules, you can include children up to the age of 28 (as long as they are enrolled in university). You can also include dependent parents as young as 58 years old. 

With fees included, it comes to about $168,000 for a typical family. That breaks down to just $28,000 per person, which is peanuts for a second passport.

One added benefit: Antigua and Barbuda’s Citizenship-by-Investment passport comes with one year of free tuition for a member of the family at the University of the West Indies. 

You might be surprised to find out that UWI has attracted some incredibly prominent minds. Notable alumni include 1992 Nobel Prize laureate Derek Walcott, and 23 current and former prime ministers from around the region.

UWI’s alumni website also lists 71 Rhodes scholars who graduated from the university. And UWI consistently beats many larger, more prominent schools in the Times Higher Education’s annual world university rankings.

So, overall this is a highly competitive Citizenship-by-Investment program. And if you have a large family, including dependent parents and adult children, it’s definitely worth considering.

[Members of Sovereign Man Total Access: remember, your Total Access membership makes you eligible to acquire this passport at an even bigger discount that can easily amount to $15,000 to $20,000 or more.]

Source

from Sovereign Man https://ift.tt/3klVUk0
via IFTTT