Month: April 2022

China In First Response To Bucha Killings Tells West “Avoid Unfounded Accusations”

China In First Response To Bucha Killings Tells West “Avoid Unfounded Accusations”

Multiple days following Kiev alleging mass killings of civilians committed by Russian forces in the Ukrainian town of Bucha which has been driving headlines in the West, China has weighed in for the first time, also as the EU and US ratchet sanctions on Moscow over what they say are clear war crimes.

China’s ambassador to the United Nations Ambassador Zhang Jun said on Tuesday that the reports and images coming out of Bucha are “very disturbing”, but stressed that any accusations against Russian forces must be independently verified and based firmly in facts.

China’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Zhang Jun. Source: Xinhua

“Attacks against civilians are unacceptable and should not occur,” the ambassador said. “The reports and images of civilian deaths in Bucha are deeply disturbing.”

But he added a key caveat while stopping short of condemning Moscow or Vladimir Putin, stressing that “circumstances and specific causes of the incident should be verified and established” and that “all sides should exercise restraint and avoid unfounded accusations.”

And Reuters reported further his words as follows:

Speaking at a Security Council meeting, Ambassador Zhang Jun repeated Beijing’s stance that sanctions are not effective in solving the Ukraine crisis but instead they accelerate the economic spillover. He also called the United States, NATO and the European Union to engage in a dialogue with Russia.

Chinese state-run media suggested what’s widely being referred to as the ‘Bucha massacre’ in which at least 300 civilians died is a manufactured event meant to paint Russia into a corner. “An editorial in Global Times, the nationalist tabloid affiliated with party mouthpiece People’s Daily, said the incident should not be used as a pretext for inflaming the situation,” SCMP notes.

Meanwhile the European Union has implied that Beijing is being tone deaf on the Ukraine issue, with EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell characterizing the latest EU summit with Xi Jinping as a “deaf dialogue”.

“China wanted to set aside our difference on Ukraine,” he said of last week’s virtual summit. “They didn’t want to talk about Ukraine. They didn’t want to talk about human rights and other issues, and instead focused on the positive things.”

China’s foreign ministry on Wednesday accused Washington of “fanning the flames” in Ukraine…

The clear allegation out of Brussels is that Beijing is showing little active interest in ending the war in Ukraine. Recently European leaders have been urging Beijing to intervene diplomatically to convince Putin to halt the invasion, which is now focused on securing Ukraine’s eastern regions.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/06/2022 – 10:10

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

D.A.’s Office Letter That Opposed Parole for Man Now Arrested in Connection with Sacramento Killings of Six

The Parole Board initially denied Smiley Allen Martin parole but then released him in February—he has now been arrested (as have his brother Dandrae Martin and Daviyonne Dawson) in connection with the shootings that killed six and wounded twelve. Note that the letter’s statement that the offense for which he was serving time was not “violent” simply reflects the definition of “violent felony” in a particular California sentencing enhancement statute, which generally doesn’t include assault; in ordinary language, of course, the crime was highly violent. Here’s the letter; the Sacramento Bee‘s Sam Stanton broke the story.

April 29, 2021
Non-Violent Parole Review Process
Board of Parole Hearings …

RE: Smiley Allen Martin CDC # AT8808 DOCKET # 17FE008296

Inmate Martin has, for his entire adult life, displayed a pattern of criminal behavior. While the current case on review may not be “violent” under the Penal Code, Inmate Martin’s criminal conduct is violent and lengthy. Inmate Martin has committed several felony violations and clearly has little regard for human life and the law, which can be shown by his conduct in his prior felony convictions of robbery, possession of a firearm and prior misdemeanor conviction of providing false information to a peace officer.

In January of 2013, just six months after his eighteenth birthday, Inmate Martin was contacted by law enforcement officers. Inmate Martin attempted to discard an assault rifle which he had concealed in his waistband under his clothing. The rifle had a pistol grip and the capacity to accept a detachable magazine in front of the pistol grip. Inmate Martin was also found to be in possession of two fully loaded twenty-five round magazines for the assault weapon. Inmate Martin admitted to transporting the assault weapon and large capacity magazines to potential buyers. Inmate Martin was sentenced to probation and county jail.

On November 25, 2013, just ten months after being placed on felony probation, Inmate Martin and three other suspects entered Walmart and asked a clerk in the electronics department to view a Samsung Galaxy Notebook which was secured in a theft-resistant glass case. As the clerk opened the case Inmate Martin physically pushed the clerk to one side and grabbed several Galaxy Notebooks, valued at approximately $2800, and fled from the store. Video surveillance captured the incident. During the investigation, law enforcement discovered additional robberies committed on November 29, 2013 and November 30, 2013, of similar electronics at other Walmart and Target stores. Witnesses positively identified Inmate Martin through surveillance photos at those subsequent robberies. Inmate Martin pled to the robbery and was sentenced to two years in state prison.

On November 29, 2016 Inmate Martin was contacted by law enforcement in a vehicle with three other passengers. When asked for his name he identified himself as Desean Dorsey and could not provide a birthdate. Officers informed Inmate Martin they were going to detain him until they could identify him. Inmate Martin pulled from their grasp and took off running. After a foot pursuit Inmate Martin was eventually incapacitated with a Taser and ultimately taken into custody. Officers were able to identify him and learned he was a parolee at large. One of the passengers of the vehicle Inmate Martin had been with was found to have an unregistered, loaded, handgun in her purse. Inmate Martin was charged with and ultimately pled to giving false information to a peace officer.

Less than six months later, Inmate Martin forcibly entered his girlfriend’s residence. He located her hiding in her bedroom closet and hit her repeatedly with a closed fist on the face, head, and body, causing visible injuries. He then dragged her out of the home by her hair to an awaiting car. After he put her in the car, he assaulted her with a belt. During the investigation information was gathered that the victim had been working as a prostitute and that Inmate Martin had been assisting and encouraging her to be a prostitute. Text messages and social media conversations revealed that he would tell her what kind of sex buyer she should date, how much money to charge, how to accept payment, and what forms of payment she should accept. Inmate Martin pled to two felony assault charges for a sentence of ten years state prison.

As shown by Inmate Martin’s pattern of conduct, he is an assaultive and non-compliant individual and has absolutely no regard for his victims who are left in the wake of numerous serious offenses. He has no respect for others, for law enforcement or for the law. If he is released early, he will continue to break the law.

As we are given 30 days to respond, and we are not provided with any disciplinary history or any other information aside from the one-page notice of parole review, I cannot comment on Inmate Martin’s prison conduct. However, from the records that are available it is clear that Inmate Martin should not be released as he poses a significant, unreasonable risk of safety to the community. Inmate Martin has demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot follow the laws, or conditions the court places on him. His history indicates that he will pursue his own personal agenda regardless of the consequences and regulatory restraints placed upon him. On behalf of the District Attorney’s Office, I ask that you deny his request for early release.

Respectfully,
Danielle Abildgaard
Deputy District Attorney
Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office

The post D.A.'s Office Letter That Opposed Parole for Man Now Arrested in Connection with Sacramento Killings of Six appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/WlNcC74
via IFTTT

D.A.’s Office Letter That Opposed Parole for Man Now Arrested in Connection with Sacramento Killings of Six

The Parole Board initially denied Smiley Allen Martin parole but then released him in February—he has now been arrested (as have his brother Dandrae Martin and Daviyonne Dawson) in connection with the shootings that killed six and wounded twelve. Note that the letter’s statement that the offense for which he was serving time was not “violent” simply reflects the definition of “violent felony” in a particular California sentencing enhancement statute, which generally doesn’t include assault; in ordinary language, of course, the crime was highly violent. Here’s the letter; the Sacramento Bee‘s Sam Stanton broke the story.

April 29, 2021
Non-Violent Parole Review Process
Board of Parole Hearings …

RE: Smiley Allen Martin CDC # AT8808 DOCKET # 17FE008296

Inmate Martin has, for his entire adult life, displayed a pattern of criminal behavior. While the current case on review may not be “violent” under the Penal Code, Inmate Martin’s criminal conduct is violent and lengthy. Inmate Martin has committed several felony violations and clearly has little regard for human life and the law, which can be shown by his conduct in his prior felony convictions of robbery, possession of a firearm and prior misdemeanor conviction of providing false information to a peace officer.

In January of 2013, just six months after his eighteenth birthday, Inmate Martin was contacted by law enforcement officers. Inmate Martin attempted to discard an assault rifle which he had concealed in his waistband under his clothing. The rifle had a pistol grip and the capacity to accept a detachable magazine in front of the pistol grip. Inmate Martin was also found to be in possession of two fully loaded twenty-five round magazines for the assault weapon. Inmate Martin admitted to transporting the assault weapon and large capacity magazines to potential buyers. Inmate Martin was sentenced to probation and county jail.

On November 25, 2013, just ten months after being placed on felony probation, Inmate Martin and three other suspects entered Walmart and asked a clerk in the electronics department to view a Samsung Galaxy Notebook which was secured in a theft-resistant glass case. As the clerk opened the case Inmate Martin physically pushed the clerk to one side and grabbed several Galaxy Notebooks, valued at approximately $2800, and fled from the store. Video surveillance captured the incident. During the investigation, law enforcement discovered additional robberies committed on November 29, 2013 and November 30, 2013, of similar electronics at other Walmart and Target stores. Witnesses positively identified Inmate Martin through surveillance photos at those subsequent robberies. Inmate Martin pled to the robbery and was sentenced to two years in state prison.

On November 29, 2016 Inmate Martin was contacted by law enforcement in a vehicle with three other passengers. When asked for his name he identified himself as Desean Dorsey and could not provide a birthdate. Officers informed Inmate Martin they were going to detain him until they could identify him. Inmate Martin pulled from their grasp and took off running. After a foot pursuit Inmate Martin was eventually incapacitated with a Taser and ultimately taken into custody. Officers were able to identify him and learned he was a parolee at large. One of the passengers of the vehicle Inmate Martin had been with was found to have an unregistered, loaded, handgun in her purse. Inmate Martin was charged with and ultimately pled to giving false information to a peace officer.

Less than six months later, Inmate Martin forcibly entered his girlfriend’s residence. He located her hiding in her bedroom closet and hit her repeatedly with a closed fist on the face, head, and body, causing visible injuries. He then dragged her out of the home by her hair to an awaiting car. After he put her in the car, he assaulted her with a belt. During the investigation information was gathered that the victim had been working as a prostitute and that Inmate Martin had been assisting and encouraging her to be a prostitute. Text messages and social media conversations revealed that he would tell her what kind of sex buyer she should date, how much money to charge, how to accept payment, and what forms of payment she should accept. Inmate Martin pled to two felony assault charges for a sentence of ten years state prison.

As shown by Inmate Martin’s pattern of conduct, he is an assaultive and non-compliant individual and has absolutely no regard for his victims who are left in the wake of numerous serious offenses. He has no respect for others, for law enforcement or for the law. If he is released early, he will continue to break the law.

As we are given 30 days to respond, and we are not provided with any disciplinary history or any other information aside from the one-page notice of parole review, I cannot comment on Inmate Martin’s prison conduct. However, from the records that are available it is clear that Inmate Martin should not be released as he poses a significant, unreasonable risk of safety to the community. Inmate Martin has demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot follow the laws, or conditions the court places on him. His history indicates that he will pursue his own personal agenda regardless of the consequences and regulatory restraints placed upon him. On behalf of the District Attorney’s Office, I ask that you deny his request for early release.

Respectfully,
Danielle Abildgaard
Deputy District Attorney
Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office

The post D.A.'s Office Letter That Opposed Parole for Man Now Arrested in Connection with Sacramento Killings of Six appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/WlNcC74
via IFTTT

Challenge to Prior Restraint on Critics of Police Officer Ends With a Whimper

From today’s Ohio Supreme Court opinion in M.R. v. Niesen:

A common pleas court issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) prohibiting Julie Niesen, Terhas White, and others from publishing the personal identifying information of Ryan Olthaus, a Cincinnati police officer. We are asked to decide whether a speech-restraining TRO is immediately appealable. But that issue must be left for another day because the TRO has expired and this appeal is moot….

Olthaus filed a civil complaint against Niesen, White, and several others in the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court. The complaint alleged that in the summer of 2020, Olthaus was providing security and crowd control for a public forum at a Cincinnati City Council committee meeting. At the meeting, a large crowd of citizens called for the city to defund the police. At one point Olthaus made the hand signal for “okay.” Some in the crowd interpreted this gesture as a symbol of white supremacy. Among them were Niesen and White, who quickly posted on social media calling Olthaus a white supremacist.

After Niesen, White, and others accused Olthaus of being a white supremacist, Olthaus sued them for defamation, false-light invasion of privacy, and other claims. Olthaus sought to proceed under a pseudonym and to file an affidavit under seal. (In State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Shanahan (2022), this court held that he could not proceed anonymously.) Olthaus also sought a TRO and a preliminary injunction compelling Niesen, White, and others to refrain from posting, and to remove, social-media posts referring to him as a white supremacist and restraining them from publishing his personal identifying information….

[The court issued] a TRO restraining Niesen, White, and another defendant from publicly disseminating Olthaus’s personal identifying information. [The timing for the order, and the extension, is important but I’ll quote it just in the body of the opinion. -EV] [Defendants appealed. -EV] The First District Court of Appeals, however, concluded that the TRO was not a final, appealable order. 2020-Ohio-4368, ¶ 13. Niesen and White appealed to this court, submitting that a court-imposed prior restraint on speech is immediately appealable, and this court accepted jurisdiction….

Niesen and White advance serious arguments that a TRO that acts as a prior restraint on speech should be immediately appealable. But before this court can address the merits of their appeal, we must be sure that there remains an “actual controvers[y].” If the controversy has come and gone, then this court must dismiss the case as moot.

The requirements for and scope of a TRO are governed by Civ.R. 65(A). That rule provides that a TRO shall expire by its terms within such time after entry, not to exceed fourteen days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so fixed the order, for good cause shown, is extended for one like period or unless the party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be extended for a longer period. The reasons for the extension shall be set forth in the order of extension.

The TRO in question was entered on July 24, 2020. The common pleas court did not issue an order to renew the TRO until August 13, 20 days after the TRO was first entered. But by that time the TRO had already expired, and under the plain terms of Civ.R. 65(A), the court lacked authority to extend the TRO. A TRO may only be extended “within the time so fixed” by the original TRO. (Emphasis added.) Id. The TRO did not include an expiration date, but its duration January Term, 2022 5 could not exceed 14 days from the entry. See id. Thus, the TRO expired on August 8, 2020. And even if one accepts the dubious premise that the trial court’s August 13 order somehow extended a TRO that had already expired, the extended TRO would have expired on August 27, 2020….. Because the TRO at issue is no longer in effect, the appeal of the TRO is moot.

None of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine save this appeal from dismissal. The closest any exception comes to being applicable is the one for issues that are capable of repetition yet evading review, but it too does not apply. An issue is capable of repetition yet evading review if “‘(1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again.'” The first element is easily satisfied, as it is the rarest of cases that can be fully litigated in a matter of weeks. The second element, however, has not been satisfied.

It is not enough for an issue to be capable of repetition between some parties; the issue must be capable of repetition between the “same” parties…. But it is beyond unlikely that this issue will repeat itself between these parties. The TRO has already expired and can no longer be renewed. See Civ.R. 65(A). And in Shanahan, this court determined that Olthaus may not proceed anonymously and must proceed under his proper name. So there is no real possibility that this controversy will reoccur: any further effort by Olthaus to prevent the defendants from identifying him would be futile.

It is our duty to only “decide actual controversies between parties legitimately affected by specific facts.” Because the TRO at issue has expired, this appeal no longer concerns an actual controversy. Accordingly, this court is duty bound to dismiss this appeal as moot….

My UCLA First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic filed an amicus brief in the case, which focused on the substantive unconstitutionality of the order and the need for immediate appellate view of such speech restrictions; many thanks to our excellent pro bono counsel Jeffrey M. Nye (Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson), and my fellow amici Profs. Jonathan Entin, David F. Forte, Andrew Geronimo, Raymond Ku, Stephen Lazarus, Kevin Francis O’Neill, Margaret Christine Tarkington, Aaron H. Caplan; the National Writers Union, the Society of Professional Journalists, the NewsGuild-CWA, Euclid Media Group. (I also orally argued on behalf of amici before the court.)

You can see the heart of the argument, and read the full brief here. The brief didn’t discuss mootness, largely because the Court of Appeals decision, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3034261682193483241, hadn’t mentioned anything about it; M.R. and his lawyers spent a lot of time and money defending the order, presumably on the assumption that it was indeed in effect; and the Ohio Supreme Court granted review of the order, rather than just dismissing the appeal as moot at the outset. We had therefore been hoping that the Ohio Supreme Court would likewise focus on the First Amendment issues (whether the substantive or procedural ones or both), but that turned out not to happen here.

For more on the pseudonymity/sealing side of the case (the Shanahan decision to which the court refers), see here. There, the Cincinnati Enquirer and I were intervenors, and Jeff Nye was my lawyer (and argued on my behalf before the court).

The post Challenge to Prior Restraint on Critics of Police Officer Ends With a Whimper appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/sSREVPv
via IFTTT

Oklahoma Votes To Criminalize Abortion


FPoPDitXoAEscaT

Oklahoma has passed a near-total ban on abortion. The bill will make abortion illegal at all stages of pregnancy, “except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency.” Not only that, but performing an elective abortion will become a felony crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $100,000 fine.

On Tuesday, the measure—Senate Bill 612—cleared the Oklahoma House by a vote of 70 to 14. It had already passed the state’s Senate last year, in a 38–9 vote.

The ban now heads to Oklahoma’s Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, who is expected to sign.

Rep. Jim Olsen (R–Roland), the author of the bill, said it cleared the House with no debate. “Nobody debated and nobody asked any questions. I was actually kind of shocked.”

Planned Parenthood Great Plains is already planning a legal challenge. “This ban is more in line with the traditional bans that have been blocked in the past,” Emily Wales, interim president and chief executive of the organization, told The New York Times. “So we are fairly confident that, as long as Roe remains the law of the land, there is a path to blocking this.”

The Oklahoma ban is out of step with recent trends in Republican-led abortion restrictions.

With the Supreme Court set to take up a Mississippi case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization) concerning a ban on abortion at 15 weeks pregnancy, some states—including Florida—have been passing or considering similar 15-week abortion bans, under the expectation that the Court may allow Mississippi’s law to stand (while still barring more restrictive laws). Others—buoyed by the success of Texas’ novel abortion restriction—have been attempting bans similar to that law, which tasks citizens with enforcement through civil lawsuits. A Texas-style law passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives in March, and copycat measures were also introduced in Missouri and Tennessee and passed in Idaho.

A new poll from the Wall Street Journal suggests 15-week bans may be favored by a majority of Americans, but total bans on abortion are not:

With lawmakers in several states pushing forward with bills that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, 48% of voters said they would strongly or somewhat favor such restrictions, with exemptions to protect the health of the mother, while 43% were in opposition.

At the same time, the survey found a majority of voters say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, underscoring the complicated views many Americans hold on the issue.

Similarly confused findings were present in a 2021 Marquette poll on the issue.

Recent research on the Texas ban found that its effect was limited by residents taking abortion pills they had obtained in the mail or traveling to nearby states—including Oklahoma—to get abortions.

“If allowed to take effect, S.B. 612 would be devastating for both Oklahomans and Texans who continue to seek care in Oklahoma,” said Tamya Cox-Touré, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, in a statement. “Nearly half of the patients Oklahoma providers are currently seeing are medical refugees from Texas. Now, Oklahomans could face a future where they would have no place left in their state to go to seek this basic health care.”

FREE MINDS

Panhandling is free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is challenging anti-panhandling laws in Iowa. “Laws like this that outlaw panhandling are unconstitutional because they wrongly block individuals’ free speech rights,” said ACLU of Iowa attorney Shefali Aurora. “Such ordinances are also ineffective because, by criminalizing poverty, all they do is drive people further into homelessness.”

FREE MARKETS

The Biden administration is considering yet another extension of its student loan repayment moratorium. The pause was put in place (allegedly) to help with financial hardships related to COVID-19. Now, more than two years into the pandemic, it’s still in place and set to be extended again, sources told Politico:

The White House plans to once again extend the moratorium on federal student loan payments through the end of August, according to multiple people familiar with the matter, including an administration official.

The announcement, expected on Wednesday, comes as the current pause on payments was set to expire May 1, potentially impacting more than 40 million Americans. The new August 31 extension, however, is considerably shorter than what many Democrats have been requesting. It also tees up another fight over the relief just months before the midterm elections.

FOLLOWUP

Florida has already spent around $700,000 defending its blatantly unconstitutional social media law in court. “And that’s even before the appeal is heard — meaning that it’s quite likely that Florida will set over a million dollars of taxpayer money on fire in an attempt to violate the 1st Amendment rights of internet websites,” writes Mike Masnick at Techdirt.

The measure was signed into law last May and bans large social media providers from deplatforming political candidates. Last summer, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida ruled that it violated the First Amendment. “The legislation compels providers to host speech that violates their standards—speech they otherwise would not host—and forbids providers from speaking as they otherwise would,” noted the judge in his decision.

“As states around the country continue to pass these kinds of laws, it makes me wonder at what point supposedly ‘small government’ elected officials who are ‘concerned about the budget’ will realize that wasting taxpayer funds on a quixotic attack on the 1st Amendment just isn’t worth it?” asks Masnick. “Or do they not care, since it’s not their money that’s being spent?”

QUICK HITS

• A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests a fourth dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine may produce only fleeting benefits.

• When will Democrats get serious about repealing pot prohibition?

• “A nonprofit association that promotes social responsibility among corporations has concluded in a new report that Meta’s planned expansion of strong encryption to its Messenger and Instagram services will do more good than harm for human rights,” reports The Washington Post.

• Rhode Island’s Senate held hearings yesterday on two bills to decriminalize prostitution.

• Atlanta is thwarting Airbnbs and other short-term rentals.

• A Missouri man will be freed from incarceration after being wrongly convicted of a 2003 murder and sentenced to life in prison.

• South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem’s administration denied a protest permit to people urging for more exceptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The state must now pay the group $37,503, after a judge found the state violated their First Amendment rights.

• Kentucky will now require more proof before involuntarily committing people for drug treatment.

The post Oklahoma Votes To Criminalize Abortion appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/wV9c2AE
via IFTTT

Nomura: “Shock Tightening” In Financial Conditions Is Allowing “Macro Truths” To Override Technicals

Nomura: “Shock Tightening” In Financial Conditions Is Allowing “Macro Truths” To Override Technicals

The recent rally in stocks is, macro-wise, incoherent with what has been happening in financial conditions. Specifically, the 1w change in TIPS 2s10s curve was just the largest impulse flattening since the US debt downgrade in Aug ’11 and Dec ’08, while the cumulative 3 wk move in 5Y TIPS yields is the largest since Aug ‘16…

…along with tighter FCI and higher Rate Vol…all while Equities iVol has collapsed…

But, as Nomura’s Charlie McElligott points out in a note this morning, this sudden “shock tightening” in Financial Conditions – as Real Yields are exploding higher (5Y TIPS Yields from -1.66 to current -0.59bps over the past 3 weeks!) – is allowing “macro truths” to finally override recent “bullish” mechanical flows in Equities.

Additionally, Brainard’s much more aggressive QT language is behind another large buyside grab in Credit downside (huge HYG Put Spread buying here and away, and Dealers nearing “Max Short Gamma vs Spot” territory (spot ref 127 vs 125/126 “max short” point…hence the sloppy trading). As traders know from prior episodes, QT is a spread-product widener, negative for MBS and seeping into Credit as FCI tightens, via the push from Fed ownership to the Private side and ensuing return of price-discovery, as there is now “less cash available to help absorb more collateral”. That has sparked the resumption of large demand here and away again for Credit downside hedges again seen in recent days…

As said “mechanical” Equities flows begin to dissipate following their 3 week impulse buy / short-cover, we are seeing a resumption is pretty substantial downside hedging from clients which in recent days has added significant “Negative $Delta” alongside resumption of large dynamic hedge “shorting” in futures in recent days (2nd largest “sell pressure” in our SPX futures trade imbalance monitor over the past 1m period seen yday).

McElligott concludes with a critical point that the aforementioned (and largely mechanical) flows are masking a lot of broken-ness out there.

Not to mention, still remarkably “stable Stocks” then allows the Fed to continue to “lean into” financial conditions and hawkish rhetoric – a concept which is at the fundamental core of my “Fed selling Calls” observation for months, which is limiting the market’s ability to break out of this same 4200 / 4650 range-trade.

Furthermore, the Nomura strategist points out that many of these observations are also why the fundamental / discretionary macro client side continues to fight any “chasing” of the rally, and instead, were power-selling / dynamically hedging in S&P futures all day, while again bidding Skew / Gamma / downside structures on Tuesday.

This grab for downside hedges – albeit a nascent move – has thus seen US Equities Index trading back into “Short Gamma vs Spot” territory again for Options Dealers in SPX / SPY, QQQ and IWM together for the first time in weeks – meaning that this down move is seeing corresponding “accelerant flow” from their hedges, selling into weakness now.

Specifically, as SpotGamma details, there is a dearth of downside protection, and a low level of implied volatility. If traders suddenly sought put protection, they would be doing so into a low/negative gamma market (4500-4600 “void”), and as they buy puts it foists negative deltas onto dealers books. To hedge, dealers may start shorting futures, which drives the market lower.

This starts a reflexive feedback loop of put buying ->dealer shorting->lower markets & more fear->more put buying.

Based on SPY, traders have drawn a clear line of bull/bear demarcation. Below you can see the sizeable interest of both puts and calls at 450, with predominately positive gamma/call positions above and put positions below.

In the gamma model below you can see that there is a steep slope lower to the gamma curve, which suggests accelerating velocity to the downside.

4400 is the first large initial support, and under there we have the new 4340 JPM put strike.

Again, below 4500 we are likely to have a volatile, negative gamma regime akin to what we saw in Feb/early March.

To the upside we’d view a recovery back above 4500 as critical for the bull case. Positive gamma market support however isn’t initiated until there is a move back to 4600.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/06/2022 – 09:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/hQNWJH3 Tyler Durden

Challenge to Prior Restraint on Critics of Police Officer Ends With a Whimper

From today’s Ohio Supreme Court opinion in M.R. v. Niesen:

A common pleas court issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) prohibiting Julie Niesen, Terhas White, and others from publishing the personal identifying information of Ryan Olthaus, a Cincinnati police officer. We are asked to decide whether a speech-restraining TRO is immediately appealable. But that issue must be left for another day because the TRO has expired and this appeal is moot….

Olthaus filed a civil complaint against Niesen, White, and several others in the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court. The complaint alleged that in the summer of 2020, Olthaus was providing security and crowd control for a public forum at a Cincinnati City Council committee meeting. At the meeting, a large crowd of citizens called for the city to defund the police. At one point Olthaus made the hand signal for “okay.” Some in the crowd interpreted this gesture as a symbol of white supremacy. Among them were Niesen and White, who quickly posted on social media calling Olthaus a white supremacist.

After Niesen, White, and others accused Olthaus of being a white supremacist, Olthaus sued them for defamation, false-light invasion of privacy, and other claims. Olthaus sought to proceed under a pseudonym and to file an affidavit under seal. (In State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Shanahan (2022), this court held that he could not proceed anonymously.) Olthaus also sought a TRO and a preliminary injunction compelling Niesen, White, and others to refrain from posting, and to remove, social-media posts referring to him as a white supremacist and restraining them from publishing his personal identifying information….

[The court issued] a TRO restraining Niesen, White, and another defendant from publicly disseminating Olthaus’s personal identifying information. [The timing for the order, and the extension, is important but I’ll quote it just in the body of the opinion. -EV] [Defendants appealed. -EV] The First District Court of Appeals, however, concluded that the TRO was not a final, appealable order. 2020-Ohio-4368, ¶ 13. Niesen and White appealed to this court, submitting that a court-imposed prior restraint on speech is immediately appealable, and this court accepted jurisdiction….

Niesen and White advance serious arguments that a TRO that acts as a prior restraint on speech should be immediately appealable. But before this court can address the merits of their appeal, we must be sure that there remains an “actual controvers[y].” If the controversy has come and gone, then this court must dismiss the case as moot.

The requirements for and scope of a TRO are governed by Civ.R. 65(A). That rule provides that a TRO shall expire by its terms within such time after entry, not to exceed fourteen days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so fixed the order, for good cause shown, is extended for one like period or unless the party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be extended for a longer period. The reasons for the extension shall be set forth in the order of extension.

The TRO in question was entered on July 24, 2020. The common pleas court did not issue an order to renew the TRO until August 13, 20 days after the TRO was first entered. But by that time the TRO had already expired, and under the plain terms of Civ.R. 65(A), the court lacked authority to extend the TRO. A TRO may only be extended “within the time so fixed” by the original TRO. (Emphasis added.) Id. The TRO did not include an expiration date, but its duration January Term, 2022 5 could not exceed 14 days from the entry. See id. Thus, the TRO expired on August 8, 2020. And even if one accepts the dubious premise that the trial court’s August 13 order somehow extended a TRO that had already expired, the extended TRO would have expired on August 27, 2020….. Because the TRO at issue is no longer in effect, the appeal of the TRO is moot.

None of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine save this appeal from dismissal. The closest any exception comes to being applicable is the one for issues that are capable of repetition yet evading review, but it too does not apply. An issue is capable of repetition yet evading review if “‘(1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again.'” The first element is easily satisfied, as it is the rarest of cases that can be fully litigated in a matter of weeks. The second element, however, has not been satisfied.

It is not enough for an issue to be capable of repetition between some parties; the issue must be capable of repetition between the “same” parties…. But it is beyond unlikely that this issue will repeat itself between these parties. The TRO has already expired and can no longer be renewed. See Civ.R. 65(A). And in Shanahan, this court determined that Olthaus may not proceed anonymously and must proceed under his proper name. So there is no real possibility that this controversy will reoccur: any further effort by Olthaus to prevent the defendants from identifying him would be futile.

It is our duty to only “decide actual controversies between parties legitimately affected by specific facts.” Because the TRO at issue has expired, this appeal no longer concerns an actual controversy. Accordingly, this court is duty bound to dismiss this appeal as moot….

My UCLA First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic filed an amicus brief in the case, which focused on the substantive unconstitutionality of the order and the need for immediate appellate view of such speech restrictions; many thanks to our excellent pro bono counsel Jeffrey M. Nye (Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson), and my fellow amici Profs. Jonathan Entin, David F. Forte, Andrew Geronimo, Raymond Ku, Stephen Lazarus, Kevin Francis O’Neill, Margaret Christine Tarkington, Aaron H. Caplan; the National Writers Union, the Society of Professional Journalists, the NewsGuild-CWA, Euclid Media Group. (I also orally argued on behalf of amici before the court.)

You can see the heart of the argument, and read the full brief here. The brief didn’t discuss mootness, largely because the Court of Appeals decision, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3034261682193483241, hadn’t mentioned anything about it; M.R. and his lawyers spent a lot of time and money defending the order, presumably on the assumption that it was indeed in effect; and the Ohio Supreme Court granted review of the order, rather than just dismissing the appeal as moot at the outset. We had therefore been hoping that the Ohio Supreme Court would likewise focus on the First Amendment issues (whether the substantive or procedural ones or both), but that turned out not to happen here.

For more on the pseudonymity/sealing side of the case (the Shanahan decision to which the court refers), see here. There, the Cincinnati Enquirer and I were intervenors, and Jeff Nye was my lawyer (and argued on my behalf before the court).

The post Challenge to Prior Restraint on Critics of Police Officer Ends With a Whimper appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/sSREVPv
via IFTTT

Rabobank: All Global(ization) Institutions Are Struggling To Define Their New Roles

Rabobank: All Global(ization) Institutions Are Struggling To Define Their New Roles

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Too much math, not enough polymath

We start, of course, with Ukraine. Despite talk of more G7 sanctions on Russia today, there is growing recognition that they cannot prevent Russia pivoting its fight towards eastern Ukraine, the West will instead need to supply far more, and far more powerful armaments than it has so far. In other words, escalation. Moreover, a far longer war than many had been hoping, which will have larger consequences for markets.

Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Peru, and Lebanon are all also seeing various states of instability, and the EU is to cut off billions of euros in funding to Hungary in response to the recent election victory of populist Orban, perhaps by the end of the year. The US is floating new permanent military bases in Romania, Poland, and the Baltics, even if there will not be permanent US troop deployments. To repeat, this is a long-run crisis.

Even EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell is now a hawk, stating to the European Parliament tonight that last week’s EU-China Summit: “…was not exactly a dialogue, maybe a dialogue of the deaf… we could not talk about Ukraine a lot, and we did not agree on anything else. China… didn’t want to talk about Ukraine,… human rights and other stuff and instead focus on positive things. The European side make clear that this… compartmentalisation isn’t feasible… for us Ukraine is the defining moment on whether we live in a world governed by rules or by force. We condemn Russian aggression against Ukraine and support this country’s sovereignty, democracy, not because we follow the US blindly, as sometimes China’s suggests, but because it is our position… China cannot pretend to be a responsible great power but close its eyes or cover its ears when it comes to a conflict that obviously makes it uncomfortable… because it knows very well who the aggressor is, although for political reasons, refuses to name them.”

On commodities, Wall Street is stepping back from metals trading, hardly a surprise given the volatility. There are also suggestions the EU could form a single entity to buy its gas to lower costs and prevent countries being played off against each other. Put that together with China’s plans for one national board to buy iron ore and it points to what has been flagged here before: more politicised, more national-security focused, more price-controlled or barter-based global commodity trade and trading. Where does that leave the global trading houses? And imagine if, as I doubt, we then move to a world of commodity-backed currencies.

Indeed, all global(ization) institutions are struggling to define their new roles. The US just stated it does not see Russia being kicked off the US Security Council(!) Yet that doesn’t mean the UNSC can function in a polarized world: we’ve been here before, both with the UN and its predecessor, the League of Nations. Likewise, who listens to the WHO? How about the WTO? Or the IMF? And, as sabres are rattling and hotdogs everywhere threaten to cost nearly as much as they did at the last in-person Davos, the WEF tweets: ‘Venus was once Earth-like, but climate change made it uninhabitable. #Space #ClimateChange’. Is this science or science fiction? One thing it isn’t is relevant for a realpolitik geopolitical world.

That isn’t a charge one can level US Trade Representative (USTR) Tai, who is misrepresented by Bloomberg as saying, ‘US Isn’t Seeking a ‘Divorce’ From China’. She said that; but also that she has given up on China ever shifting from its mercantilist model that damages the US; and she is going to push for policies to rebalance trade on US terms and rebuild its industrial base. Unstated was that the only logical ways to do so are more tariffs, industrial policy, and/or capital controls. So ignore the headline disingenuously implying that trade wars are over in an era of Cold War and hot war for the  algos that decide what stocks are worth. The opposite is true.

Central banks have little grasp of what is unfolding around them, from inequality to populism, inflation to war, and linked shifts in the financial architecture. It’s ironic given they were set up specifically to finance wars, and the industrial development to allow countries to win them. It’s hard to see how their roles will stay the same ahead: but they are trying hard to pretend that they will.

The RBA just gave a hint it might have to raise rates from 0.1% in the face of global inflation, booming Aussie commodity exports, and such ridiculous building approvals and house-price data that either the economy is on fire, or the credibility of the Australian Bureau of Statistics is in tatters. (And both can be true at once.) The Aussie 10-year yield now stands at 2.93%, up from 0.61% back in 2020, while 2s, nearer to the lifeblood of the Aussie economy, mortgage debt, is at 2.04%, again nearly all the way back to the 2018 levels prevailing before the RBA started to cut rates.

The PBOC might be under pressure to ease after China’s services PMI came in at 42.0 vs. the ridiculously optimistic 49.7 consensus. However, it is constrained by the US policy direction given it wants to keep CNY stable to keep inflation under control.

The Fed is yelling it is going to tighten: uber-dove Brainard not only backed hikes, but a rapid QT, so Fed balance sheet reduction. The US yield curve leaped higher on that news, US 2-year yields up 12bp from their intraday low, and another 3bp higher in Asia this morning to 2.56%, while 10s were up 18bp from their low, and were at 2.59% at time of writing. So, the curve disinverted – and yet the US 30-year fixed mortgage rate just went above 5% for the first time since 2011, which will hit housing and the economy hard. Indeed, the irony is just as the Fed has the policy bit between its teeth, the logistics industry that called higher inflation last year now says consumer demand is crumbling due to higher prices. In short, steepening won’t last long: but you won’t like the flattening.

As The Hill reminds us ‘Nobel economists were dead wrong on inflation: Don’t expect an apology’, and: “Last September, as the Build Back Better legislation was being considered in Congress, many members worried about the inflationary pressure of injecting an additional $2.4 trillion into the economy on top of the $4.1 trillion committed to the American Rescue Plan and the Cares Act. When it looked like the Democratic majority might include enough deficit hawks to scuttle the bill, Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz rounded up another 16 of the 36 living American Nobel Prize economists to declare, in an open letter, that whatever upward pressure on prices all this new money might bring there was no threat of inflation.”

Inflation hawks are now saying destroying final demand is the only way to deal with supply-side inflation that acts as de facto taxation. Notably, neither the Stiglitzians nor the hawks say structural supply-side inflation can only be addressed by the structural arguments of the USTR.

A few market strategists are now trying to pivot from central bank plumbing to geopolitical supply chains to explain what is going on. However, that territory is a far steeper (learning) curve than the ones they are used to, and most are sticking to their models – and exactly the same market calls. Equally, we don’t have polymath economists who understand realpolitik and war at central banks due to institutional inertia. Hence they will be guided wrongly.

Today’s Fed minutes are likely to confirm that view.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/06/2022 – 09:35

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

Oklahoma Votes To Criminalize Abortion


FPoPDitXoAEscaT

Oklahoma has passed a near-total ban on abortion. The bill will make abortion illegal at all stages of pregnancy, “except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency.” Not only that, but performing an elective abortion will become a felony crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $100,000 fine.

On Tuesday, the measure—Senate Bill 612—cleared the Oklahoma House by a vote of 70 to 14. It had already passed the state’s Senate last year, in a 38–9 vote.

The ban now heads to Oklahoma’s Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, who is expected to sign.

Rep. Jim Olsen (R–Roland), the author of the bill, said it cleared the House with no debate. “Nobody debated and nobody asked any questions. I was actually kind of shocked.”

Planned Parenthood Great Plains is already planning a legal challenge. “This ban is more in line with the traditional bans that have been blocked in the past,” Emily Wales, interim president and chief executive of the organization, told The New York Times. “So we are fairly confident that, as long as Roe remains the law of the land, there is a path to blocking this.”

The Oklahoma ban is out of step with recent trends in Republican-led abortion restrictions.

With the Supreme Court set to take up a Mississippi case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization) concerning a ban on abortion at 15 weeks pregnancy, some states—including Florida—have been passing or considering similar 15-week abortion bans, under the expectation that the Court may allow Mississippi’s law to stand (while still barring more restrictive laws). Others—buoyed by the success of Texas’ novel abortion restriction—have been attempting bans similar to that law, which tasks citizens with enforcement through civil lawsuits. A Texas-style law passed the Oklahoma House of Representatives in March, and copycat measures were also introduced in Missouri and Tennessee and passed in Idaho.

A new poll from the Wall Street Journal suggests 15-week bans may be favored by a majority of Americans, but total bans on abortion are not:

With lawmakers in several states pushing forward with bills that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, 48% of voters said they would strongly or somewhat favor such restrictions, with exemptions to protect the health of the mother, while 43% were in opposition.

At the same time, the survey found a majority of voters say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, underscoring the complicated views many Americans hold on the issue.

Similarly confused findings were present in a 2021 Marquette poll on the issue.

Recent research on the Texas ban found that its effect was limited by residents taking abortion pills they had obtained in the mail or traveling to nearby states—including Oklahoma—to get abortions.

“If allowed to take effect, S.B. 612 would be devastating for both Oklahomans and Texans who continue to seek care in Oklahoma,” said Tamya Cox-Touré, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, in a statement. “Nearly half of the patients Oklahoma providers are currently seeing are medical refugees from Texas. Now, Oklahomans could face a future where they would have no place left in their state to go to seek this basic health care.”

FREE MINDS

Panhandling is free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is challenging anti-panhandling laws in Iowa. “Laws like this that outlaw panhandling are unconstitutional because they wrongly block individuals’ free speech rights,” said ACLU of Iowa attorney Shefali Aurora. “Such ordinances are also ineffective because, by criminalizing poverty, all they do is drive people further into homelessness.”

FREE MARKETS

The Biden administration is considering yet another extension of its student loan repayment moratorium. The pause was put in place (allegedly) to help with financial hardships related to COVID-19. Now, more than two years into the pandemic, it’s still in place and set to be extended again, sources told Politico:

The White House plans to once again extend the moratorium on federal student loan payments through the end of August, according to multiple people familiar with the matter, including an administration official.

The announcement, expected on Wednesday, comes as the current pause on payments was set to expire May 1, potentially impacting more than 40 million Americans. The new August 31 extension, however, is considerably shorter than what many Democrats have been requesting. It also tees up another fight over the relief just months before the midterm elections.

FOLLOWUP

Florida has already spent around $700,000 defending its blatantly unconstitutional social media law in court. “And that’s even before the appeal is heard — meaning that it’s quite likely that Florida will set over a million dollars of taxpayer money on fire in an attempt to violate the 1st Amendment rights of internet websites,” writes Mike Masnick at Techdirt.

The measure was signed into law last May and bans large social media providers from deplatforming political candidates. Last summer, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida ruled that it violated the First Amendment. “The legislation compels providers to host speech that violates their standards—speech they otherwise would not host—and forbids providers from speaking as they otherwise would,” noted the judge in his decision.

“As states around the country continue to pass these kinds of laws, it makes me wonder at what point supposedly ‘small government’ elected officials who are ‘concerned about the budget’ will realize that wasting taxpayer funds on a quixotic attack on the 1st Amendment just isn’t worth it?” asks Masnick. “Or do they not care, since it’s not their money that’s being spent?”

QUICK HITS

• A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests a fourth dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine may produce only fleeting benefits.

• When will Democrats get serious about repealing pot prohibition?

• “A nonprofit association that promotes social responsibility among corporations has concluded in a new report that Meta’s planned expansion of strong encryption to its Messenger and Instagram services will do more good than harm for human rights,” reports The Washington Post.

• Rhode Island’s Senate held hearings yesterday on two bills to decriminalize prostitution.

• Atlanta is thwarting Airbnbs and other short-term rentals.

• A Missouri man will be freed from incarceration after being wrongly convicted of a 2003 murder and sentenced to life in prison.

• South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem’s administration denied a protest permit to people urging for more exceptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The state must now pay the group $37,503, after a judge found the state violated their First Amendment rights.

• Kentucky will now require more proof before involuntarily committing people for drug treatment.

The post Oklahoma Votes To Criminalize Abortion appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/wV9c2AE
via IFTTT

Sinema Reportedly Dashes Dems’ Hopes For Scaled-Back Version Of ‘Build Back Better’

Sinema Reportedly Dashes Dems’ Hopes For Scaled-Back Version Of ‘Build Back Better’

Despite the White House’s best efforts to revive a scaled-down version of President Biden’s domestic agenda centerpiece – known as ‘Build Back Better’ – it looks like the talks have been nipped in the bud. But instead of Joe Manchin pulling the plug, this time around, that honor belongs to Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema.

Axios reported last night that Sinema has told donors that it’s “unlikely” the BBB plan envisioned by the White House will come to fruition. That’s despite the fact that the Administration left an opening in its 2023 budget proposal to accommodate whatever deal Democrats managed to strike.

Previously, the word around Capitol Hill was that Congress would vote on a slimmed-down iteration of BBB before Memorial Day. Unfortunately for the Dems, the party would need the support of both Sinema and Manchin to push any package through the Senate.

Instead of BBB, Sinema reportedly told Axios that she’s focused on the $10 billion bipartisan COVID relief package (which is roughly half the size of the White House’s initial request).

To be clear, that deal would be paid for using unspent funds from the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package passed in March 2021.

But there’s a silver lining for Democrats: Sen. Manchin is reportedly telling climate activists that he’s open to raising taxes on corporations and wealthy Americans to pay for roughly $550 billion in new climate-related spending. He also reportedly wants to bolster America’s energy independence by approving more permits for offshore drilling and domestic pipelines.

 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 04/06/2022 – 09:19

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