The Chan case is of particular interest today. Many well meaning people are upset by the media blitz concerning the separation of children from their mothers. The hue and cry was virtually zero up until the media found that the Trump Administration *****.
I am not arguing for any policy, except equal protection under the law. Equal protection of the law is a hallmark of America that the Political Elite from time to time ignore to foster political expediency.
The DEMAGOGUES have staked a position fueled by half truths and deception. People who resort to this type of tactic are a clear and present danger to democracy and follow the tenets of our enemies.
The Obama administration placed children in cages not because they were monsters or precursors of the Trump Administration – they were following the law. The law as written is indeed harsh, and was engaged by congress. Congress when it enacted the law thought it was acting in good faith and indeed most of the good people who address this charged political situation agreed. Only the hypocrites and demagogues have closed minds.
The law separating children from the parents accused by our society of committing crimes has its origins in parents patrie. It is cruel and unusual punishment to submit a child to prison because the parent has been charged with a crime. The harsh conditions of prison were deemed not appropriate for children, ergo children are relegated to the care of close relatives or government protected facilities. The law is generic and makes no exception for people illegally trying to enter the United States.
The ploy of seeking amnesty/Asylum is in most situations exactly that. Under Law Asylum is not an option, unless it is Mexico (i.e. the country of origin) that is threatening the life of the applicant. Indeed, you and I have had experience with Amnesty/asylum .
Chan, was an engineer by trade living in China. The Red Guard went on a government sponsored rampage and killed all of his family except his grandmother and he. He was shipped to a camp for retraining. When he returned he returned to his job as an Engineer; however, it was not long and the Red Guard became active again. This time they killed grandmother and Chan barely escaped with his life to Hong Kong.
For a finite period of time Chan resided in Hong Kong; however, with the Red Guard sentence of death it was not long before his life once again was in clear and imminent danger. The family arranged for Chan to obtain employment on a Ship (as a seaman) and to travel to the United States. When the Ship arrived in the US, Chan slipped over the side and began his new life. He sought employment in his engineering trade.
As the US takes a dim view ASIAN illegal entry, INS 7 years later seized Chan, he was arrested and charged with the crime of making an illegal entry into the United States. Chan was ordered deported but before this could occur the family arranged for him to come to Chicago. In Chicago the family made the rounds of the immigration bar in anticipation that Chan would be rounded up again. The Bar told the family that Chan was "dead meat" and would be going back to his DEATH in China via Hong Kong.
When Chan was arrested he was immediately prepared to be expelled from the US. I was retained and I filed a petition in the Administrative Court provided by INS. I asked for suspension of the deportation order based upon the fact that Chan’s life was forfeit the second that he arrived in the orient.
The ASA, and the Judge were amused by my petition. The judge ridiculed me by asking me if I knew something that he did not know. I informed him that indeed I did, but assured him that he also knew things I did not know. The Judge then asked me if there was a foreign relations problem with Britain that he had not heard of informing me that the last conflict we had was in 1812. Under the law to be entitled to HC or amnesty Chan would have to prove that the elements required were all in play NOW! The amnesty/protection would then be afforded Chan as they related to the country that he was going to be deported to! In other words – the fact that China would kill Chan on sight, he was not going to be deported to China – he was going to be deported to Hong Kong – Hong Kong was administered to by England. As we had no current problem with England and England was not a danger to Chan my plea was 180 degrees wrong. My petition was to be denied. CHAN WAS GUILTY OF A SERIOUS CRIME – i.e. entry into the United STates illegally – he could either be sentenced to jail or deported. The government chose to deport him. (I recall that Chan had married and had a young child – however, this issue was not raised or considered – Chan would have been separated from his child under our law. If Mrs. Chan was illegal both would have been separated = the child is a CITIZEN and cannot be removed without the consent of his parents. The family would be reunited when returned to the country of origin)
With hat in hand I asked for 24 hours to amend my petition. I read the statute word by word and was confronted with the proposition that Chan having been in the United STates and acting as good person was eligible to a hardship consideration. I presented a "hardship" petition. It was granted and Chan was given a priority admission to the United States from Toronto – Canada.
As you are aware, I was delighted and spraining my arm patting myself on the back when I realized that to get in Canada Chan needed PAPERS. I tried the Chinese– they invited Chan and me to the consulate to talk – I knew that Chan once in the consulate would be a prisoner, so I declined. The US government refused to grant me any considerations and in fact I was told: "If you don’t know what you are doing, you should not do it" I had on the surface no way to get into Canada. The smart ass ASA suggested that I sneak Chan into Canada.
I did not sneak Chan into Canada. As you recall I complied with Canadian Law and accomplished my goal. (I called the Canadian immigration and arranged for an exclusion hearing for Chan – the hearing was scheduled for late in the afternoon so that it had to be adjourned until the next day.) Mr. Chan was paroled into my custody and we went to the American consulate, picked up the papers required for the priority entry, returned to the Court, agreed to the exclusion and Chan was deported to the United States complete with the documents necessary to complete a priority LEGAL admission.
Chan has since become a citizen of the United States of America.
The pictures of caged children and the wild allegations of the demagogues are all political deceptions calculated to advance the political adventures of dishonorable members of the Political Elite and no friends of the proposed immigrants. The hate mongering and intolerance is deplorable and the concern for the immigrants is an oxymoron. If the demagogues had a scintilla of humanity in them, they would address the problem honestly and directly – however, they do not want to do so.
As an example, the demagogues could propose a bill in congress to exempt the immigration scenario from the parens patrie separation of children from their families! Watch – not one of these miscreants will join in proposing legislation or passing such legislation — it is easier and more profitable to continue their policy of deception and fraud.
Arch Scammer Winston Shrout’s defense team is just Full of tricks, getting the sentencing postponed again. A grand jury indicted him, the Oregon USDC tried him, a jury of his peers convicted him, and he has skillfully avoided sentencing for over a year.
Anna Reizinger, Pope of Cow Plop, your future is calling.
Jury Verdict as to Winston Shrout regarding Winston Shrout (1) Guilty on Count 1s-7s,8s-10s,11s-13s,14s-19s. (bp) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
Here are the most recent docket entries, showing an effort to get him declared mentally incompetent. He must be crazy to spread cow plop regarding paying debts and taxes with international bills of exchange and harvesting unwarranted tax refunds through the 1099-OID scam.
ORDER by Judge Robert E. Jones Granting 123 Third Motion to Continue Sentencing Hearing Date as to Winston Shrout (1) for the compelling reasons submitted in defense counsel’s materials. The Court advises there will be no further extensions for any reason. Sentencing is set for 5/17/2018 at 10:00AM in Portland Courtroom 10A before Judge Robert E. Jones. Sentencing set for 2/20/2018 at 11AM is STRICKEN. (bp) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
Unopposed Motion for Authorization to Travel by Defendant Winston Shrout. (Iniguez, Ruben) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
AMENDED ORDER by Judge Robert E. Jones Granting 127 Motion for Authorization as to Winston Shrout (1) to travel per request in the defendant’s motion and return before his scheduled sentencing on May 17, 2018. ORDER allowing Pretrial Services to return the defendant’s passport and defendant to return the passport within 72 hours of his return. (bp) Modified on 3/12/2018 regarding passport (bp). (Entered: 03/08/2018)
Motion For Leave To File Reply Memorandum In Support of Motion for Hearing To Determine Mental Competency Under Seal by Defendant Winston Shrout. (Iniguez, Ruben) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
ORDER by Judge Robert E. Jones Granting 136 Motion For Leave To File Reply Memorandum In Support of Motion for Hearing To Determine Mental Competency Under Seal as to Winston Shrout (1). (bp) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
Scheduling Order by Judge Robert E. Jones as to Winston Shrout. Oral Argument is set for 5/7/2018 at 11:00AM before Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland Courtroom 10A. (bp) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
Minutes of Proceedings: Granting 129 Motion for Hearing as to Winston Shrout (1). A hearing will be set after the expert witnesses are available for a hearing. Motion Hearing before Judge Robert E. Jones as to Winston Shrout held on 5/7/2018. Sentencing hearing set for 5/17/2018 at 10AM is STRICKEN and will be reset at a competency hearing. ORDER: The court is ordering a competency evaluation by Dr. Lopez at OHSU with a report due no later than 6/29/2018. A competency hearing will be set in July after the evaluation has been completed. ORDER: Defense counsel will submit an unredacted copy of Dr. Martin’s report to the Court. Stuart A. Wexler, Lee Langston present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Ruben L. Iniguez present as counsel for defendant(s). (Court Reporter Jill Jessup.) (bp) (Entered: 05/07/2018)
Crooked attorney Neil Garfield, ever concerned about public exposure to crooked or incompetent attorneys, writes to readers of his Living Lies blog:
Warning: Conduct your Due Diligence on ANY Attorney you Hire
by Neil Garfield Before you hire ANY attorney for a phone consultation, to conduct an analysis of your case, or retain them to represent you, please conduct your due diligence first. A simple google search with their name will usually suffice.
In fact, before you hire Neil Garfield for a consultation, case analysis, or other legal matter I suggest you conduct your due-diligence like you would when hiring any professional.
Always use caution if the Bar has publicly reprimanded an attorney.
JAX DAILY RECORD MONDAY, AUG. 1, 2016 12:00 PM EST
Supreme Court disciplines 32 attorneys
The Florida Supreme Court disciplined 32 attorneys — disbarring six, revoking the licenses of two, suspending 16 and publicly reprimanding eight.
Two attorneys were also placed on probation and another was ordered to pay restitution.
The attorneys are: […]
Neil Franklin Garfield, Parkland, to be publicly reprimanded. (Admitted to practice: 1977) In at least four instances, Garfield accepted money to represent clients and failed to follow through. In one case, Garfield did not perform the work and, when asked for a refund, denied knowing the client. In other cases, he failed to communicate, charged excessive fees, failed to return refunds upon request and failed to timely respond to Bar inquiries.
Frivolous Filings and Bogus Legal Theories
Neil Garfield’s frivolous filings and bogus legal theories have already cost at least one client, Zdislaw Maslanka, a wad of attorney fees in an utterly frivolous action to get his house free even though he remained current in his mortgage payments. As the docket entries below show, the Florida 4th District appellate panel affirmed the 17th Circuit’s dismissal of the case and ordered Maslanka to pay the attorney fees of the two mortgage creditors that he sued.
4D14-3015-Zdzislaw E. Maslanka v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Embrace Home Loans
Affirmed Per Curiam Affirmed
Order Granting Attorney FeesUnconditionally
ORDERED that the appellee Embrace Home Loans Inc.’s September 2, 2015 motion for attorney’s fees is granted. On remand, the trial court shall set the amount of the attorney’s fees to be awarded for this appellate case. If a motion for rehearing is filed in this court, then services rendered in connection with the filing of the motion, including, but not limited to, preparation of a responsive pleading, shall be taken into account in computing the amount of the fee
Order Granting Attorney FeesUnconditionally
ORDERED that the appellee Wells Fargo Home Mortgage’s September 3, 2015 motion for attorneys’ fees is granted. On remand, the trial court shall set the amount of the attorneys’ fees to be awarded for this appellate case. If a motion for rehearing is filed in this court, then services rendered in connection with the filing of the motion, including, but not limited to, preparation of a responsive pleading, shall be taken into account in computing the amount of the fee.
Last but not least, here is the text of an 8-page report that Neil Garfield charged Vincent Newman THOUSANDS of dollars for, advising a foreclosure defense and TILA rescission strategy. Newman obtained a pick-a-pay loan in 2010 to purchase a home, then defaulted. Garfield idiotically suggested mailing a notice of TILA rescission in 2016, and then suing to enforce it, without regard to the fact that the TILA statute of repose of 3 years for conditional rescission had already tolled, and the creditor had not violated TILA. Garfield thereby illustrated his delusional misunderstanding of conditional TILA rescission which the law allows only for non-purchase-money loans like refinances and HELOCS in which the creditor failed to give the borrower required disclosures of the right to cancel and the cost of the loan not more than $35 understated. No such TILA violation occurred in Newman’s case. Thus, Neil Garfield’s incompetent advice, had Newman heeded it, would have caused Newman expense and embarrassment through a frivolous, failing TILA rescission effort.
Dear Authors of Senseless (is there any other kind?) Gun Control Articles:
Why don’t our federal and state governments allow citizens to prevail in law suits against law enforcers for failing to protect the citizens?
First of all, governments claim sovereign immunity to lawsuits they don’t want to entertain. Courts have ruled that the First Amendment right to petition for redress does not require government to redress or even to read or listen to the petition.
Second, when two parties have a dispute, an intervenor on the scene has no way of determining who is right or wrong, or to what extent. The rules of evidence and of civil and appellate procedure allow the courts (judges and juries) to determine the facts and governing laws in any dispute. But many judicial activities are hopelessly crooked.
For supporting considerations read Criminal Law 2.0, 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski’s 2015 preface to the Georgetown Law Journal. He shows how flawed evidence gets through the holes in the criminal justice system, crooked prosecutors corrupt due process by manipulating grand juries and intimidating innocent defendants into pleading guilty, and police lie incessantly. Then he makes many suggestions for improving justice. He wouldn’t have done that but for the corruption and criminality of the criminal justice system actors. We simply cannot trust them
Now, then, why doesn’t government have the right to restrain the public from owning and possessing, and carrying dangerous arms (guns, knives, clubs, etc)?
First of all, the 2nd Amendment prohibits such restraint and acknowledges that militias require armed members and ONLY militias and armed individuals can repel tyrants, thugs, invaders, insurrectors, rapists, murderers, psychopaths, and sundry bad guys of any and all sorts.
Second, the people cannot trust Government to protect them from malicious treatment by foreign and domestic enemies; only fools think the law requires police to protect them. In fact, the people know that police don’t care who starts an armed dispute, for they will arrest both the non-government aggressor and the defender, and let the court sort it out. Law enforcers, of course, will not arrest government operative aggressors, and the citizen will just become a victim of that aggression unless he has sufficient arms to repel the aggressor and law enforcers.
You see the point here, right? NOTHING but the citizens’ arms and their indomitable will to use them stands between them and aggressors of all sorts. Any adult who has paid attention to news stories knows that many government operatives are just badged criminals intent upon abusing whomever they wish, without probable cause, often upon fabricated evidence.
I hope you will keep the foregoing realities in mind before penning further gun control advocacy pulp fiction.
Yes, crazy people can grab an AR15 sporting rifle, shoot up a school, and slaughter students and teachers while the FBI sleeps on complaints about the shooters and cops run for cover outside. You well know that gun control won’t solve that problem, for determined assailants can always find weapons for killing unsuspecting people.
But better arming and training for teachers and administrators, and better security procedures at schools, churches, and other public facilities can prevent such incidents. Crazed assailants usually duck and run when defenders start shooting back at them.
Yes, determined and clever aggressors can wear body armor or attack from long distances with bombs or sniper rifles. If they annoy government enough, government will go after them. But the people have no guarantee of it. That just means the citizenry and its militias need ever-more advanced weapons, technology, and means to track the aggressors to their source and eliminate them.
I predict that in due course Islamic Jihadis will perpetrate ever more devastating terrorist acts against the people of the USA. That means the Americanist citizenry must become ever more vigiliant, prepared, armed, and DANGEROUS to violent aggressors through its militias.
There is “no free lunch” when it comes to defending the homeland and its citizens against determined terrorists. I hate thinking of anybody becoming victim of them, but when terrorists come, I hope they come for you first. At least they’ll know that you don’t have any dangerous firearms to ward them off. And we’ll have lost an idiot who wants government to take away our automatic weapons and other means of defending ourselves, our families, our homes, and our communities.
The Florida Legislature prudently disagrees with the utterly stupid and Communist idea of banning assault weapons. Here’s a good reason: An AR15 is a semi-automatic rifle that can hold a 10, 15, 20, or 30-round magazine. That does not make it an assault rifle. An assault rifle like the M4 Carbine has a switch for selecting safe, semi-automatic, or either fully automatic (M4A1, see photo) or 3-round burst mode (M4). The automatic and burst modes are for target practice and and killing people, not game animals.
But more importantly, the individual responsible adult citizen has the constitutionally guaranteed right AND the DUTY as a local militia member to own and possess small arms as functional and effective as the best small arms the military provides to its soldiers. Dude. Yes. We should have fully automatic weapons suitable for slaughtering the enemy in a pitched or emergency battle, including individual or groups of thugs attempting or threatening to mug, rob, rape, pillage, or plunder.
Military service is not intended to pussify recruits into fearing dangerous firearms in the hands of responsible citizens. It is intended to turn recruits into disciplined combatants who can go into warrior mode and become intensely and lethally dangerous to a foreign or domestic enemy when the need arises.
Why does individual lethality become so important?
Because we, the people, cannot EVER depend upon Government’s military, sheriffs, or police to protect us from invasion, insurrection, or random criminal activity. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that police have no legal duty to protect people, not even under an injunction. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales.
The US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment provides this:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I don’t believe I have read a clearer, more concise provision in the Constitution than the 2nd Amendment. It acknowledges that the people must have combat weapons (arms) to function as soldiers in a militia, and that they must have those arms available at all times for defense of their persons, family, home, property, community, and other rights, including hunting, target practice, and drilling, maneuvering, and bivouacking with the militia. One armed citizen standing guard against rioters at the community entrance can constitute a militia.
People learn quickly in life how dangerous government can and does become through its laws, its armed investigators, its secret agents, its police and code enforcers, its courts and sheriffs, and its military. People intuitively know that the Constitution is just a piece of paper with no means of enforcing its provisions.
How then do those provisions get enforced? They get enforced through the collective will of an armed populace, most especially through the militia. The militia IS the local, militant force of the people of the several states.
Federal law provides for a militia in the form of the National Guard of the United States and separate National Guards of the several states. The President runs the US National Guard, and the Governors run their state National Guards. The Constitution requires Congress and the States to organize, arm, train, and provide leadership for the militia.
But what happens when the people and the governments operate at cross purposes, or when the government fails in its duty?
Only one force stands between the people and an abusive, tyrannical government, or individual tyrants in government: the local militia organized, armed, trained, and led by the local citizenry. In case you haven’t stopped to notice, governments have sneakily, nastily encroached on numerous constitutional rights, especially the right to keep and bear arms, and the people have done nothing about it because we have no organized militia. If this bothers you, get busy organizing and joining a local militia today. And POUND on your legislators to remove restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.
Take note that school teachers should demand for the schools or the local militia to arm and train them so that they can shoot and kill malefactors who threaten to hurt them or their wards.
Southern belle, structural engineer, and confessed liberal millennial, mother, and wife Anastasia Bernoulli blogged in favor of gun control. She attempted to use commonsense reasoning to engender disdain for public possession of assault rifles like the AR15, M16, or M4 carbine.
She began by explaining that as a former US Army soldier, she received training on and loved the accuracy and ease of use of the M4 carbine. Then she explained why she believes the American public has no need or use for such a weapon other than for killing lots of people fast, the very use to which several deranged militants have put the assault carbine.
She seems to think all such weapons should be locked inside an armory the way the military kept them when soldiers did anything but combat or weapons training. It goes without my saying, I suppose, that she also believes people with such weapons at hand should have no ammunition for them except during live fire at the shooting range or in sergeant-supervised combat. She flat-out believes that civilians with assault weapons could never successfully engage government troops with much more advanced and meaner weapons. She never experienced guerrilla war, I suppose.
That aside, Anastasia could quit her engineering job any day and switch to journalism. I like her writing style that much. And her liberal mind-set (inability to reason rationally regarding civilians possessing weapons of war) perfectly suit her move to such a career. Read her blog articles for yourself. I write my response to them below.
As much as I love the flow and style of your writing, I kept noticing logical fallacies in your arguments, particularly when you cite an analogy or example to support your point. I’ll cut to the chase here. Your idea has holes, but you could patch them up. Okay, now I’ll drone on…
Example of bad logic. You wrote that 18% of NYPD bullets miss the target and hit elsewhere, implying the bullets will hit innocent people, and if cops can’t shoot straight, then civilians certainly cannot shoot straight and will end up killing each other by accident.
“Dude. NO.” Every unarmed able person runs and hides when the shooting starts, leaving the shooter alone. Cops miss from adrenaline nerves, or from ducking and dodging while running for cover. But when the cops start shooting back, the bad guy’s aim goes bad, and he starts missing. If nobody shoots back, the bad guy just keeps killing. THERE you have the problem with your logic.
As for the effectiveness of a pistol, a person who knows the point-and-shoot technique fires accurately by pointing, without aiming. A 9mm can easily kill and maim at 50 yards, and most school shootings occur at much shorter distances indoors or in classrooms. That moots your rifle logic.
Schools should arm patrol guards with bullpup 5.56mm carbines like the Tavor with frangible rounds. They should arm teachers with compact 9mm pistols with frangible rounds- females can wear a bra or thigh holster to conceal it. And it will take only a couple of dead teen thugs to teach students not to try disarming the teacher, a lesson worth the grieving of parents who feel secretly glad to have lost their bad egg.
Genghis Kahn was said to have remarked that government doesn’t miss dead children because parents can make more of them in short order, but it sorely misses dead taxpayers and soldiers. I tend to agree. If allowed to thrive, bad eggs victimize many during their formative and adult years – society should nip them in the bud, along with the parents who produce and train them to iniquity. Besides, if you want to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs, right? How’s that for logic contretemps?
This brings me to the most glaring flaw in your “Dude. No.” gun control thesis. It ignores the salient reality that 25% of the nation’s population has an IQ barely higher than a bucket of rocks. That disease has no cure. Doesn’t everybody know that children inherit their stupidity or intelligence from their parents?
Use your engineering mind to evaluate the Gaussian distribution of IQ scores of racial groups. I found that roughly 22 million Negroes, 25 million non-white Hispanics, and 33 million Caucasians have IQ below 85, the minimum IQ one needs to graduate from a high school that administrators have not intentionally dumbed down to allow the stupid to pass.
That gives the USA 80 million people who have gravitated to crime and welfare abuse because they cannot compete for the better jobs or mates. They procreate without restraint, unlike their much smarter counterparts who, ironically, don’t seem to have the intelligence needed to procreate at a rate sufficient to sustain their gene groups.
Stupid people cause most street crime. Stupid children become miscreants in school because throwing them in with smarter students makes them feel frustrated and angry. Smarter students hate being around them, but have no choice.
Medicos administer Ritalin and other mind altering drugs to stablize children, but it can make them violent. Wherefore, school integration of the smart, the stupid, and excessive numbers from wildly alien cultures, has contributed to the craziness that leads to school shootings.
Pogo said it best: “We has found the enemy, and he is us.” America should not remain a breeding ground for intellectual maggots, and should not force children of extreme cultural and intellectual differences to interact with one another in an academic environment.
The abject absence of procreation controls, and incompetent immigration controls, have dramatically increased the percentage of irresponsible people in the population. Our schools hurry that process along by integrating the smart in with the stupid.
You know what that means – fecund children fuck, and procreate with, only those they meet in school or socially, and the smart seldom fraternize with the stupid outside of school. Thus, willy-nilly integration dumbs down the gene pool. But for schools, the stupid and the smart would never meet till after they have selected mates from their own gene groups.
Until America cures the foregoing problems, Americans should pack heat and keep an assault weapon handy at home in case things go really bad. That brings me to your apparent theory that only the government should control access to assault weapons.
Before I start, I ask that you keep the rabidly insane, mind-blowingly expensive military conflicts of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria in the background of your thoughts. The crazy-ass government put our citizens into centuries if not millennia of debt to send hundreds of thousands of our precious men and women into those actions to slaughter or become casualties. THAT INSANELY dangerous government wants to control OUR access to dangerous weapons.
Giving Government the benefit of the doubt (?!)… No matter what you wish, Government forces cannot go everywhere at once, and governments can and do go rogue, such as at Ruby Ridge, Waco, and recently in the Oregon Bundy land dispute.
No one can blame communities of people for arming themselves against such rogues. We can feel fortunate because we have not seen Nazi SS troopers invading our homes, bashing, raping, and looting. But European immigrants have witnessed it and their descendants comprise some of the staunchest advocates of gun freedoms. The news media has shown mobs of Negroes and Democrats intimidating, looting, and destroying. We trust that our government will stay essentially good and prevent or quash such public menaces, but nothing, absolutely NOTHING, guarantees it, and indeed, history exposes Government’s character as an evil empire.
Congress should organize, arm, and discipline the militia, and the state governments should provide its officers and training. The President commands only that part of the militia reserved to federal service. The National Guard constitutes the formal militias of the states under federal law, but the US military conscripted the National Guard for foreign conflicts like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, causing much trouble in the homes of the Guard members.
Theoretically a secondary state militia consists of all other able bodied people aged 17 to 64. I have not in my lifetime learned of any organization of a militia of such people by state or federal government. And frankly, having a state militia under total control of the President can easily run at cross purposes to the welfare of the people of the state, particularly when some branch of government becomes tyrannical. We have no choice but to presume that the states intend never to rely upon local militias, not even if reptilian people come running out of their holes in the earth to terrorize us.
But unless you have stinking thinking, you know that only the militias of the several states can enforce the US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. A populous, strong, responsible, and adequately armed militia keeps otherwise evil Government restrained on a short leash.
Until we see actual local militia organized under state leadership, and not under complete dominion of the federal government, we must surmise none does or will exist until a crisis has come and gone. In other words, the purported militia, the National Guard of each state, is nothing more than a federal government tool, so the people of a state cannot depend upon it to protect them from government tyranny.
It has become monumentally evident that governments OPPOSE any free militia because only a free militia can threaten government abuse of power. So, NOW constitutes the only viable time for a population to arm itself against invasion, insurrection, riot, mayhem, or the terrorism of Islamic Jihadists or government thugs disguised as law enforcers. Wherefore, our weaponry should suffice for that purpose. Otherwise why bother?
THAT shoots the biggest hole in your gun control theory. Yes your arguments soften our hearts, but your logic has an inescapable sourness to it, the faint but unmistakable stench of tyranny in the making through rank, namby-pamby negligence and lapse of the eternal vigilance necessary to responsible liberty.
By the way, let me address your argument that “we had weapons in the armory but we didn’t carry them around” on your military base. I’ll give you the main reason. In combat, you have a definite chain of command, operative, and in force. A sergeant has grilled, disciplined, and stood on the necks of his minions throughout boot camp and other training. And his commanding officer stands on him and all the troops through the chain of command, ensuring that they will follow orders or face severe discipline.
The command chain keeps subordinates under constant scrutiny and on a short leash, lengthening it only for soldiers of proven trustworthiness, and only for a given mission. But when soldiers go about their personal business unarmed, nobody stands by to scrutinize and control their behavior or pull them up short on that longer leash. This variety of leash length, so to speak, gives reasonable liberty and control to the organization and its members.
But take a look at the members, as young as 17 who might not have the intelligence to graduate from high school, depending on the branch of service and the crises of recruitment. Many, if not most, have lived under negligent to abusive parental supervision. The smarter ones would have gone to college if they could afford it. The military tries, but cannot, undo a lifetime of malingering, conniving, malfeasance, thuggery, wimpiness, pampering, or abuse at the hands of irresponsible parents.
That explains why a sergeant and a chain of command stand on the recruits 24/7 during basic training, and closely monitor them thereafter, hoping they will stand firm or advance bravely in the face of enemy fire, and officers stand ready to shoot any combat cowards. Government simply cannot trust its soldiers to behave according to orders, even after the rigors of basic training. Wherefore, it keeps combat weapons under lock and key except during weapons training or combat deployment.
The public has no chain of command upon which it can rely for highly trained, excellent leadership. Until a more selfless and enlightened ethos becomes the world pattern for living, the people must fend for themselves without good leaders or military-quality police to protect them and to prevent unauthorized access to their living quarters, business offices, training grounds, and streets. Furthermore, the citizenry have no reasonable assurance of freedom from abuse by the police and courts.
That might seem unfortunate to some, but liberty has its blessings to justify its curses. Many, I among them, believe that the legalized plunder that characterizes modern western governments has enslaved populaces through low productivity of the stupid and high debt and taxation on the productive. Corrupt government funds the miscreants and feckless of society, including corporate and foreign welfare recipients. That enslavement has taken on the hue of an evil force inimical to the welfare of intelligent and productive people. Only ONE force keeps that evil in check: the locked and loaded pistols, shotguns, rifles, and assault weapons of the more responsible elements in the populace, particularly when organized in militias with a will to use those weapons to suppress tyranny.
In summary, your Pollyanna misgivings about effectiveness of public possession of sniper, assault, and fully automatic machine guns against tyranny must bow to the history written in the blood of populations whom tyrants or poverty disarmed. So a few crazy bastards get their hands on assault rifles and take out a bevy of students or abortion clinic patients or night club revelers. In view of the history of tyranny, that loss constitutes a minuscule price to pay for the freedom to possess dangerous firearms and munitions. In time, government will find effective ways to keep crazy bastards from getting their hands on such weapons, without disarming responsible citizens.
So, Dude. Yes. Americans have good and sufficient historical reasons for acquiring assault weapons, training with them in local militias and at shooting ranges and sporting events, and keeping them stashed at home with a trove of ammo, easily owner-accessible, well-maintained, and ready for emergency use.
We never know when peace, good will, order, and public safety will go totally and quickly to shit. But we have examples: the slaughter at the October 2017 Las Vegas strip Harvest Music Festival slaught4er; the June 2016 Orlando Pulse night club slaughter; and the August 2014 rampaging Negro riots in Ferguson, MO. No National Guard militia attended those events. So, what advantage do they give us?
Let your engineering mind consider this: any reasonably well-trained combat marksman with a 9 mm Sig Sauer P320 pistol could have instantly terminated the recent slaughters at the schools, churches, movie theaters, and night club; and any combat marksman with an assault rifle could have terminated the slaughter at Las Vegas. I see no reason why school teachers could not receive training in combat marksmanship or become card-carrying, steely-eyed militia members with a “Fuck You – I Like Guns” attitude.
If recent episodes of mayhem worry you, start blogging about the need for state and county governments to form, train, and arm LOCAL militias for LOCAL use only, maintain local, fast-access militia armories, coordinate local militias with local police and sheriff deputies, and provide assault-weapon-armed, volunteer former US Marine/SpecOps citizens to patrol public assemblages that law enforcers simply cannot or will not accommodate.
I end my comments by pointing out the elephant in the room. Constitutional rights don’t belong to everyone in the USA. The 2nd Amendment applies only to people with a nexus to government such as those who might serve in a militia or back them up at home. Americans well-understand, and do not complain, that illegal aliens, felons, minor children, mental incompetents, and protection injunctees do not have the legal right to own or possess firearms under federal and state laws.
So, I construe your arguments as an exhortation to tighten the restrictions on the irresponsible, such as by stripping 2nd Amendment rights from users and addicts of mind-altering substances, habitues of vices that incline them to further criminal behavior, epileptics and others with bad motor control or seizures, mental defectives, people with IQ below 90, people who demonstrate profound irresponsibility like career welfare recipients, people with long arrest records, people with a history of bullying, threatening, intimidating, or unjustified violent behavior, people who taunt, tease, and tend to drive others crazy, and people with no firearms safety or marksmanship training. Maybe you can add other irresponsibles to the list.
To any who say, “Fuck You – I Like Guns” you might warn “Then behave responsibly, learn good manners, and DON’T make a nuisance of yourself, or else we’ll get the court to take your guns away from you and sell them at auction.”
Every southern belle knows that even angels lose their liberty when they cannot or will not behave responsibly.
See? You have a happy medium. You have no problem with bridled personal LIBERTY exercised RESPONSIBLY. Do you?
Anastasia, please forgive any confusion I caused by injecting to-be verbs or passive voice into my comments above. I don’t write for a living.
Storm Bradford of Loudon County, Virginia founded a litigation support company decades ago (see http://LawPartnerOnCall.com) to help attorneys win cases. As an adjunct to that activity, he founded Mortgage Fraud Examiners to aid attorneys for borrowers with mortgage problems. Bradford’s team examined every aspect of a loan transaction from inception to present time in order to discover who injured the borrower and how. THIS, according to Storm Bradford, was the ONLY way to beat foreclosure because it enabled the borrower to attack the injurious parties in court and win legal fees plus compensatory and punitive damages.
Around the same time, attorney Neil Garfield came out of retirement with a new and different business plan. He started delivering seminars across the land encouraging attorneys to take on broke mortgage foreclosure victims as clients, and charge them $500 to $1500 per month to drag out the foreclosure proceedings as long as possible, sometimes as much as 5 or 6 years. In that way, the attorneys could earn $20,000 to $50,000 per client and use only cookie-cutter / copy-machine pleadings without doing any real work other than leading the client by the hand into the inexorable jaws of foreclosure.
Those who learned first hand the value of Storm Bradford’s comprehensive mortgage examination from his web site http://MortgageFraudExaminers.com discovered that they could negotiate settlements with the injurious parties and never have to go through foreclosure. They looked at Storm Bradford as their “SAVIOR” because the examination report provided information that enabled them to stop the foreclosure and settle with the creditor.
“I’m NOT a home savior,” declared Bradford in an interview. “I just give the loan transaction the equivalent of an MRI [magnetic resonance imaging, Ed.], showing evidence of the injuries to the borrower, just as an MRI shows evidence of a brain tumor. A patient will need a competent surgeon to remove a brain tumor. A borrower might need a competent attorney to sue the servicer, creditor, lender, appraiser, mortgage broker, title company, or other party. But usually the borrower can negotiate a settlement because the injurious party wants to avoid the expense of losing in court.
“So, while borrowers might see me as a savior, actually, I just show them how they got injured in the loan transaction,” Bradford said, “and if artfully presented in court, that evidence is worth its weight in GOLD because it can win a judgment in favor of the borrower!”
These days, Neil Garfield still schemes to get clients for mortgage-related services that some consider worthless, and Storm Bradford still performs comprehensive mortgage examinations that give borrowers evidence of injuries, and their only possibility of prevailing in a dispute involving the foreclosure and related counter claims and cross claims. To many, Storm Bradford is both Hero and SAVIOR!
I have attached Winston Shrout’s jury verdict, guilty on 19 counts –
7 counts of making or producing a fictitious financial instrument
3 counts of presenting or passing a fictitious financial instrument
3 counts of mailing or shipping a fictitious financial instrument
6 counts of willful failure to file an income tax return (for years 2009 – 2014)
Patriot Myth Monger Winston Shrout will spend years in prison (and possibly die there) for practicing what he preached – bogus methods of obtaining undeserved money and of not paying taxes. He might have fared better by following David Myrland’s or Pete Hendrickson’s recommendations for avoiding payment of taxes one does not owe. See below Winston Shrout’s docket report as of today, from PACER.GOV.
If you have sat at the feet of a patriot myth monger, hanging on his every word, struggling to squeeze sense out of his preachments and absorb them into your being, pay heed to the fate of Winston Shrout. We don’t know its full impact on his life, and we certainly cannot envy it. He could have avoided the fate had he not tried to “Trick” the system by embracing mythological nonsense about the US Government and our status and obligations under the law.
If you have followed a patriot myth monger, seek competent legal counsel before you get into serious trouble.
Read James Damore’s employee memo (reproduced below) that started the uproar, and read Sundar Pichai’s idiotic response.
The memo called Google culture an echo chamber that suppresses honesty, and explained why women are biologically unable to do as well as men in tech jobs. Damore wrote this:
“I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. … We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism. … Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths. ”
I’d extend that to say women don’t fare as well as men in military combat, and men don’t manage a domestic environment as well as women. The genders have their built-in relative strengths and weaknesses.
I personally believe women should, during their fecund years, stay home and rear, nurture, educate, and train their husband’s children, and employ them in the family enterprise to teach them a good work ethic, and cooperation at reaching mutual goals, as well as to earn more family income.
If women actually did this instead of competing against men in the workplace, America would have stronger, more productive families and better government, men would earn enough from one paycheck for a good standard of living for the family without needing a second income, children would grow up to become more responsible citizens and workers, more couples would marry and stay married, and more married couples could enjoy their sunset years in affluence.
Political correctness of the type promoted by Sundar Pichai at Google, constitutes a grave danger to American society because it encourages people to ignore statistical reality about the differences between men and women, shaming them into silence on any related topic, lest discussion of relevant issues appear as harassment, intimidation, bias, and discrimination. It also encourages embrace of the myth that men and women are equal. Pichai is a damned fool for perpetuating such nonsense.
Let us all try to remember that throughout the million years of human habitation of this world, women have traded sexual favors to men in exchange for security. Natural selection has ensured that the players in this woman-concocted exchange survive better than the non-players. Today that exchange characterizes the way men and women present themselves to one another and to society, in and out of the workplace. The genders might have remained somewhat equal, but thanks to women, they have not, no matter what today’s delusional feminists wish.
Now for the diversity memo…
Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber
How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion
go/pc-considered-harmful James Damore – damore@
Feel free to comment (they aren’t disabled, the doc may just be overloaded). For longer form discussions see g/pc-harmful-discuss
Reply to public response and misrepresentation 1 TL;DR 2
Google’s biases 2
Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech 3
Personality differences 4 Men’s higher drive for status 5
Non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap 5
The harm of Google’s biases 6
Why we’re blind 7
Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.  Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.
At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.
Compassion for the weak
Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are due to injustices
Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently cooperative
Humans are inherently competitive
Change is good (unstable)
Change is dangerous (stable)
Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.
Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.
At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
They’re universal across human cultures
They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
The underlying traits are highly heritable
They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.
We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on , pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.
Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:
Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
Women on average are more cooperative
Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do.
This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education.
Women on average are more prone to anxiety.
Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
The male gender role is currently inflexible
Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.
Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race 
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination 
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology  that can irreparably harm Google.
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ  and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap . Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.
In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.
The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness , which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.
I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
My concrete suggestions are to:
As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Confront Google’s biases.
I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.
Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.
Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.
 This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.
 Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.
 Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.
 Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.
 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
 Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”
 Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.
 Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.
 “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”
 Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.
The word Democracy means MOB RULE, where the minority always loses at the hands of the majority and the majority generally suffers from ignorance, stupidity, and other forms of irresponsibility, and constitute the group least fit to govern a nation or lead its people. Democracies throughout history have devolved into anarchy, then dictatorship and tyranny. “Democratic” means “pertaining to MOB RULE, and it suggests an exceedingly BAD form of government, a democracy.
Bouvier’s 1856 law dictionary defines Democracy thusly:
“DEMOCRACY, government. That form of government in which the sovereign power is exercised by the people in a body, as was the practice in some of the states of Ancient Greece; the term representative democracy has been given to a republican government like that of the United States.”
Right. Some fools call the US government a representative democracy. That makes my point. Every student of history knows what happened to the democracy of ancient Greece. And people within US borders do not enjoy universal suffrage. Felons, aliens, children under 18, and those adjudged mentally incompetent may not register to vote or vote in any elections. So we do not have a democracy.
But Woodrow Wilson, in his WWI slogan “To keep the world safe for Democracy,” helped to destroy the historical meaning of democracy and popularize it as a perversion in disguise. Well, why not? He was a socialist Democrat university professor before becoming President.
This messing with the meaning of Democracy has caused well-educated people like YOU to develop muddled thinking on the subject of Republic and Democracy characterized by your introductory remarks in the subject article you authored. There in that title you presumed a fact not in evidence by casting our government as a democracy, a nature it does not and never did have.
The Constitution of the US (CUSA) and all the states characterize the corresponding governments as REPUBLICS, and the CUSA mandates this in Article IV Section 4:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
By contrast with a Democracy, a Republic preserves the integrity of the affairs or rights of RESPONSIBLE citizenry having nexus to government. It does this through responsibly separating the powers of government into branches, through balancing those powers to prevent any branches from subsuming the authority of other branches, and through limiting suffrage to responsible citizens.
The 1928 Army Training Manual on Citizenship, TM 2000-25 elaborates on page 88:
The “blessings” which the citizen enjoys under our form of government are secured through “liberty under law,” the enforcement of which is their only safeguard.
The purpose of our Government is to protect (not to provide) the property of its citizens; to guard his person (not to provide his subsistence) while he acquires the means of livelihood; to give every citizen equal opportunity in his chosen work and assure him of equal standing before the law.
Our Government is the most nearly perfect of all in securing individual rights and insuring the blessings of liberty. In no other nation is equal opportunity and equal protection assured, with such equal division of reward for labor and services rendered.
117. The American philosophy of government.-The American philosophy of government emphasizes that-
(1) Individual rights are sacred and it is necessary to establish a government in the protection of these rights.
(2) All the powers of government are derived from the people, who retain the supreme authority over all delegated powers of government.
(3) Individual rights are not permitted to be exercised in the contravention of the rights of society. Individual liberty is always bounded by social obligations.
(4) Government is exercised for the purpose of protecting the individual in his rights.
(5) Governmental powers are delegated to the National, State, or local authority, and are limited in their exercise by provisions of the constitution as interpreted and defined by the Supreme Court.
(6) All rights not thus delegated are recognized as the inviolable right of the individual citizen and can not be usurped by any governmental power.
(7) The Government of the United States is not a democracy but a Republic.
The training manual goes on to compare the Democracy to the Republic:
A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights,
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the ” standard form ” of government throughout the world.
Clearly, the USA and the Several States are REPUBLICS, not democracies.
To WHOM, then, does the CUSA refer with its numerous guarantees of rights to “the people?”
Axiomatically, the term “the people” in the US Constitution means RESPONSIBLE people who have a nexus to government. In the early days of our nation, only free white propertied men 21+ years of age could vote or hold public office. That restriction reasonably guaranteed responsible electors and government officers.
Since those early days, Democrats and other socialists have nearly destroyed the American republic by empowering ever more irresponsible people with undeserved and unwarranted suffrage under the myth that all men (and now women and children, welfare recipients, indigents, the abysmally stupid, and the utterly irresponsible) are created and stay equal, which, of course, they are not and do not.
Around a year ago I explained in some detail precisely why governments gutted petite and grand jury powers and destroyed the right of private prosecution of crimes. Read all about it here:
At the end of the Civil War, the white men running governments of the US and several States felt appalled at the notion that Legislatures had handed suffrage to ignorant, feckless Negroes, Mexicans, and non-tribal Amerindians. They knew that Negroes registered to vote could populate juries and prosecute crimes. So, they decided to strip powers away from associated quasi-government activities – petite and grand juries, and criminal prosecutions.
They reasoned that Americans could not trust Negroes to perform their jury/prosecution functions without using those functions as a platform to express hatred for Caucasians generally and against former overlords in particular. In other words, they believed no Negro jurors would indict or convict a fellow Negro. And we now have proof of the soundness of that concern – the mixed-race jury refused to convict Negro O.J. Simpson, so he runs free to gloat over getting away with his stabbing murders of his Caucasian ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her Caucasian boyfriend Ron Goldman.
Since the civil war era’s 15th Amendment guaranteeing that governments cannot deny suffrage on the basis of race, matters have worsened. The 19th Amendment prohibited denial of suffrage 0n the basis of sex (gender), so now WOMEN can vote and sit on juries. The 26th Amendment gave suffrage to CHILDREN age 18+. Most in those categories have little if any nexus to government or have more than a vague idea of what the Constitution provides or means. And everyone of any sense knows that a child’s brain has not fully developed till age 25, so it is plain crazy to let people under 25 enjoy full suffrage.
THAT, Mark Adams, explains the sorry state of our government. Legislatures have foolishly handed suffrage to irresponsible people, so NATURALLY we have panderers and irresponsibles running government. And, NATURALLY nobody of good sense will trust irresponsible electors to wield unfettered jury and prosecution powers.
Through the murk of unwarranted suffrage sabotaging the American republics, it becomes clear… Somehow America’s educators and parents have failed to imbue the people with an acute awareness that liberty comes ONLY at the cost of commensurate responsibility.
The solution, in order to restore jury powers and right of private prosecution, lies in first restoring sanity to our system of suffrage by eliminating irresponsibles from the electorate and the government by Constitutional amendment. The Amendment should require a minimum IQ and education, a high passing score on a comprehensive constitution competency test, financial self-sufficiency, and a history of demonstrable respect for law and the rights of others as prerequisites for swearing an oath to support the Constitution. Since one must swear that oath to register to vote or take government employment, those demonstrations of responsibility above will become a standard prerequisite for all who would enter the electorate or government service.
Meanwhile, please stop referring to our governments as democracies, lest you cause people like me to suffer a malevolent gas attack.
The author of these comments casts Rod Class as a delusional fool and criminal instead of as the freedom-fighting hero and law expert Rod Class sees smiling back at him in his bathroom mirror.
I cannot argue with the carping criticism and I appreciate the work that the author put into making his point that only a fool will pay any attention to legal theories coming from Rod Class.
Beyond doubt, Rod Class has demonstrated incompetence at managing some of his personal legal affairs. It seems axiomatic to conclude that the patriots who heed the legal theories of Rod Class do so at their peril.
Nevertheless, Rod at least tries to study and learn the law, and to stand up for his rights as he sees them, and he generally does it politely. Rod got charged with a crime after capitol police found a hidden weapons cache in his vehicle in a parking lot within the Capitol Zone. Rod pled guilty under intimidation from the prosecutor. His attorney recently won a favorable SCOTUS opinion that a defendant may challenge the constitutionality of the statute he has confessed to violating. Rod believed the 2nd Amendment guarantees his right to possess firearms even in the Capitol Zone.
But I agree with Rod, but I predict that the court will proclaim constitutional the law criminalizing possession of dangerous weapons in the Capitol Zone . For insight into why, read Dr. Edwin Vieira’s analysis of the 2nd Amendment and the people’s militia powers.
Gobekli Tepe is a civilization site over 10,000 years old in Turkey right smack between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, northern Mesopotamia. Later inferiors, strangely, buried it. Excavations started in 1995, and multiple sites exist in the area. I and others have commented on its civilizational significance.
According to my favorite book, Adam and Eve arrived 38,000 years ago as biologic uplifters of humanity. They settled in “the Garden of Eden” on a peninsula jutting out from the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea approximately due east of present day Cyprus, and since submerged due to tectonic plate shifts. As the story goes they defaulted in their mission and an impending invasion by Nodites (yes, the same tribe from which Cain took himself a wife after running off in consequence of slaying his brother Abel) required them to leave for the second garden. Gobekli Tepe is in the same general area, albeit a bit north.
While a lot has changed in terms of climate and tectonic plate shifts in the past 38,000 years, clearly a marvelously fertile valley lies immediately south of Gobekli Tepe. And it seems ideal as a Garden of Eden because it is surrounded by relatively inhospitable territory
The Tigris and Euphrates rivers make natural boundaries to keep hostiles at bay, and they approach within 50 miles of each other in southeast Turkey at Hantepe (Tigris) and Konacik (Euphrates) about 50 miles north and a little east of Gobekli Tepe, and in the area of Baghdad, Iraq. A very fertile area sits in eastern Syria, immediately 80 miles south of the northernmost approach of the two rivers to each other, and in numerous area in between. The star sits at Gobekli Tepe. If it took Adam and Eve a year go travel 100 miles from the first Garden of Eden to the Euphrates river, it would have taken several years to reach the area of Baghdad, so I imagine they ventured northeast another 60 or 80 miles to reach the site of the Second Garden site. Gobekli Tepe’s ruins seem to suggest the influence of superior beings like Adam and Eve and their progeny on the ancestry of those who created the civilization at Gobekli Tepe. I’m guessing the apple did not fall far from the tree. The line drawn in the image below shows the distance between the Tigris (right) and Euphrates (left) rivers. The white line running left to right at the bottom is the border between Turkey (north) and Syria (south). Based on the comments in The Urantia Book I’d guess the site of the second garden at the area south of Siverek because it is crisscrossed by numerous rivers, it is a fertile valley, and it has mountains to the east (to which former occupants of the valley fled).
When Adam elected to leave the first garden to the Nodites unopposed, he and his followers could not go west, for the Edenites had no boats suitable for such a marine adventure. They could not go north; the northern Nodites were already on the march toward Eden. They feared to go south; the hills of that region were infested with hostile tribes. The only way open was to the east, and so they journeyed eastward toward the then pleasant regions between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. And many of those who were left behind later journeyed eastward to join the Adamites in their new valley home.
Cain and Sansa were both born before the Adamic caravan had reached its destination between the rivers in Mesopotamia. Laotta, the mother of Sansa, perished at the birth of her daughter; Eve suffered much but survived, owing to superior strength. Eve took Sansa, the child of Laotta, to her bosom, and she was reared along with Cain. Sansa grew up to be a woman of great ability. She became the wife of Sargan, the chief of the northern blue races, and contributed to the advancement of the blue men of those times.
1. THE EDENITES ENTER MESOPOTAMIA
It required almost a full year for the caravan of Adam to reach the Euphrates River. Finding it in flood tide, they remained camped on the plains west of the stream almost six weeks before they made their way across to the land between the rivers which was to become the second garden.
When word had reached the dwellers in the land of the second garden that the king and high priest of the Garden of Eden was marching on them, they had fled in haste to the eastern mountains. Adam found all of the desired territory vacated when he arrived. And here in this new location Adam and his helpers set themselves to work to build new homes and establish a new center of culture and religion.
This site was known to Adam as one of the three original selections of the committee assigned to choose possible locations for the Garden proposed by Van and Amadon. The two rivers themselves were a good natural defense in those days, and a short way north of the second garden the Euphrates and Tigris came close together so that a defense wall extending fifty-six miles could be built for the protection of the territory to the south and between the rivers.
After getting settled in the new Eden, it became necessary to adopt crude methods of living; it seemed entirely true that the ground had been cursed. Nature was once again taking its course. Now were the Adamites compelled
About 10 years ago Winston Shrout blew into town and put on a somewhat secret, private seminar for far-edge, think-outside-the-box legal theorist movers and shakers in the Tampa Bay area. He taught them about the ultra-slick, arcane 1099-OID process of getting the IRS to pay scammers undeserved tax refunds. I had started calling the process a scam back then, and so the movers and shakers shunned me as they pulled in dupes and fools to whom they sold their 1099-OID service.
It took the IRS and DOJ a few years, but they finally started getting indictments and convictions against 1099-OID and other scammers who used very clever ways of cheating on the taxes. Incidentally, you should not take my expressed disdain for the scammers as an indication that I believe they actually owed any income tax because I don’t. However, the scammers used an utterly crooked way to get out of paying the tax AND of getting refunds of far more money than they would have deserved with a traditional tax return.
After tolerating years of the scammers’ bogus seminars to teach crooked methods and of preparing and filing fraudulent documents, the government got indictments and convictions of the infamous Timothy Turner (of the Restore America Plan scam) and Glen Unger, AKA Dr. Sam Kennedy. Today those scammers live in federal prisons, right where they belong.
And now Winston Shrout will soon join them because the government just won a conviction against him for his own brand of scams. See the articles below.
To all who hate the income tax: beware of preparing or filing false or fraudulent documents in an effort to avoid or evade income tax.
In a military conflict, combat and collateral damage, included that from bombs, rockets, IEDs, booby traps, rifles, pistols, and poison gas or water, kills or injures people. And NOBODY (arguably, not even children, especially those able to wield a weapon, because parents are responsible for them) are innocent.
So, let us take the point of collateral damage or slaughter of the arguably innocent. If that worries heads of state and their war theorists, then they shouldn’t wage war because collateral damage is unavoidable, and in fact it is often necessary in order to force an adversary to sue for peace.
Given that heads of state don’t intervene or stop the conflict at its outset by such overwhelming and irresistible force as to defeat combatants immediately, they are all in a measure responsible for collateral damage, and they should just shut up and stop whining about it.
Looking at the videos of the sick and dying from the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria, and comparing that to the clouds of smoke and ash from today’s high explosive bombing that killed people in the same area, I have to wonder if Trump is loony for wasting US money on his moralizing tomahawk missile attack on the Sha’irat Syria air base the other night. His attack proved nothing other than the inability to think straight and willingness to piss away taxpayer money in pique.
The USA needs to get its military out of the Mideast and Central Asia altogether, and precede any future interference with tactical nukes to take out the chief troublemakers.
And Americans should take note of the anti-American treachery of the Obama administration in funding and arming the Syrian rebels in a Qatar/Saudi conspiracy to force Assad to allow a Qatar gas pipeline to run through Syria. Obama might have intended the scheme to let Qatar gas compete against Russian gas in Europe, and as a consequence to collapse Russia’s economy as punishment for invading Ukraine and Georgia and snatching the Crimean peninsula. How is that in US interest? It isn’t. If Ukraine, Moldova, and other former Soviet possessions want protection, they should pay their share and join NATO.
Obama’s stupid scheme has cut loose 5 million Syrians, including many terrorists among them, not to mention countless Iraqis and Afghans, to migrate elsewhere as refugees to set up Islami states wherever they go. I personally do not welcome the Muslims and stupid among them into the USA, nor should anyone else of good sense.
1. One World Government
2. Population Control
3. Population experiments
4. Globalist connections- Ford, Gates, Buffet, Bilderberg, CIA, CFR
5. Worldwide influence – health, agriculture, banking, partnerships
I personally agree with 1, 2, 4, 5, and to a limited extent even 3. The richest people in the world ought to spend their time and money improving civilization.
Nationalism is the cause of all wars and the waste associated with them. Only a one-world “super” government can stop the wars.
Lots of countries are dramatically overpopulated, and some are overpopulated with stupid people.
Population experiments should include gene pool enrichment efforts.
And like-minded people of wealth ought to congregate and plan how to expend their resources and use their connections and influence to improve the world.
I consider it heroic to make such efforts, even though some might need better standards.
Researchers uncover clues to the Secret of Donald’s Amazing Power over Hillary
Washington. Sat. April 1 2017. “I’ll give it to you in two little words,” chief researcher Harvey Glumberg at the Inner Science Mysteries Foundation explained in a rare interview with the News Genesis Journal late Saturday evening.
“Evil Eye. That describes the secret power Donald J Trump had and still has over former Secretary of State and former presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.” he said.
Glumberg refused to elaborate, but this interviewer saw the researcher hiding a book on the Kabbalah beneath papers on his desk just prior to the interview. The Kabbalah is an esoteric tradition of ancient mystical knowledge that only the brightest Mekubbal scholars fully comprehend. So some of Glumberg’s knowledge of the Evil Eye powers, which few people possess, likely came from the Kabbalah.
Glumberg did admit, though, in both tone and secretive manner, that the Evil Eye is a force to be reckoned with, and people ought not to take it lightly upon becoming its target. Entire populations in some Mideastern and African regions fear the Evil Eye and frantically try to ward it off lest they become unwitting victims of it.
Suffice it to say, tales and superstitions about the “Evil Eye” predate written history. The Evil Eye is said to be the power to give someone a malevolent stare that inflicts misfortune and calamity on the target and his life. It can have only a temporary effect until the victim has “learned his lesson” or it can last a lifetime and be passed on to descendants who struggle and fail under misfortune after misfortune until they can find a healer, shaman, or other person of power to break the Evil Eye’s grip on the life of the person or family. Or, the powerful person who inflicted the Evil Eye on the victim can reverse it by the Glance of Grace.
Lord knows, Hillary did enough rotten things during her stint as Secretary of State and the Presidential campaign, not to mention all that time with Bill Clinton in the Governor’s house of Arkansas, and the White House, to deserve the Evil Eye. People still gossip about how she snuffed out the life of Vince Foster or stood idly by while watching someone else do it.
People close to Donald J Trump claim that he can make people buckle at the knees and faint just by giving them the Evil Eye while watching them on television. Insiders say they caught Presidential Candidate Trump practicing his Evil Eye skills by just gazing at the TV with eyes fully open, and then by giving a squint, somewhat like the Stink Eye. According to some insiders, Trump’s Evil Eye works on his victim anywhere in the world, simply by giving casting a malevolent stare at a photograph or video of the victim. One insider claimed Trump can look at the date and time on his one-of-a-kind chronograph wristwatch, and project the exact time and date that his Evil Eye will afflict its victim. The watch was a gift of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, a one-time Kabbalah acolyte.
Liberal Democrat pundits have worried that Trump will lose control of his strange powers, such as the obvious control he has over Hillary Clinton. “I believe that’s one of the reason so many women have rallied at speeches and marches in the streets against Trump,” Gonzago University alum Courtley Vanderfoot wrote on her blog. “He affects women just by his presence. All he has to do is look at them and they cannot help reacting in extreme ways.”
An unnamed former U.S. Defense Department official, speaking on the Q.T., said President Donald J. Trump is America’s secret weapon. When asked if the rumor about the President’s Evil Eye powers is true, he retorted “Have you notice how the price of Hamsa and Nazar anti-evil-eye charms has skyrocketed lately? Stores can’t keep them on the shelves. Democrats have bought all of them up.”
Jennifer Sandoval bought a Florida home with money she borrowed from Suntrust Bank and secured the debt with a mortgage. She later obtained a loan modification, and later defaulted on the loan. The creditor hired law firm Ronald R. Wolf & Associates to sue Sandoval for breach of contract and to foreclose the loan. Sandoval hired a lawyer who sent a Qualified Written Request letter to Suntrust, and Suntrust responded with a letter explaining the requirements for reinstatement. Wolf charged fees for the reinstatement to bring the loan current and dismiss the foreclosure. Sandoval sued Suntrust and Wolf in the Southern District of Florida US District Court for violating RESPA, FCCPA, and FDCPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act).
Suntrust filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim for which the court could grant relief. The court dismissed the case against Suntrust with prejudice, and then amended the dismissal. The reader should take note of three important factors in the issue:
Suntrust did not violate any of those laws in the manner Sandoval alleged; and
Most importantly, Sandoval had failed to allege in her compliant that she had given Suntrust the statutory and contractually required notice of grievance and opportunity to cure prior to suing Suntrust.
The court amended its dismissal order as follows (emphasis added):
“The Court’s January 19, 2017 Dismissal Order is AMENDED as follows: While the FDCPA and RESPA claims against SunTrust are dismissed with prejudice, the FCCPA against SunTrust is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to provide mandatory pre-suit notice to SunTrust of the alleged FCCPA violation and an opportunity to cure,prior to initiating a lawsuit against SunTrust that attempts to state a claim for a violation of the FCCPA. Because the dismissal of the FCCPA claim is without prejudice to Plaintiff attempting to comply with the requirements of the preceding paragraph, Defendant SunTrust’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b) [DE 69] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Thus it becomes clear that Sandoval has no more opportunity in this matter against Suntrust in federal court, and if she decides to sue Suntrust in state court for FCCPA violations, she must first send Suntrust a proper notice of grievance and give Suntrust an opportunity to cure, because her mortgage contract requires it.
Why You Should Always Read Your Contract
The mortgage and the note comprise a single legal contract even though they exist in separate documents. Sandoval’s failure to give notice and opportunity to cure constituted a breach of that contract, specifically of the second paragraph of section 20 of the uniform Form 3010: Florida Mortgage security instrument. The mortgage, in section 20, provides the following (red emphasis added):
“Neither Borrower nor Lender may commence, join, or be joined to any judicial action (as either an individual litigant or the member of a class) that arises from the other party’s actions pursuant to this Security Instrument or that alleges that the other party has breached any provision of, or any duty owed by reason of, this Security Instrument, until such Borrower or Lender has notified the other party (with such notice given in compliance with the requirements of Section 15) of such alleged breach and afforded the other party hereto a reasonable period after the giving of such notice to take corrective action. If Applicable Law provides a time period which must elapse before certain action can be taken, that time period will be deemed to be reasonable for purposes of this paragraph. The notice of acceleration and opportunity to cure given to Borrower pursuant to Section 22 and the notice of acceleration given to Borrower pursuant to Section 18 shall be deemed to satisfy the notice and opportunity to take corrective action provisions of this Section 20.”
The mortgage, in Section 22, imposes a similar obligation, in bold face type, on the creditor:
“Acceleration; Remedies. Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to acceleration following Borrower’s breach of any covenant or agreement in this Security Instrument (but not prior to acceleration under Section 18 unless Applicable Law provides otherwise). The notice shall specify: (a) the default; (b) the action required to cure the default; (c) a date, not less than 30 days from the date the notice is given to Borrower, by which the default must be cured; and (d) that failure to cure the default on or before the date specified in the notice may result in acceleration of the sums secured by this Security Instrument, foreclosure by judicial proceeding and sale of the Property. The notice shall further inform Borrower of the right to reinstate after acceleration and the right to assert in the foreclosure proceeding the non-existence of a default or any other defense of Borrower to acceleration and foreclosure. If the default is not cured on or before the date specified in the notice, Lender at its option may require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument without further demand and may foreclose this Security Instrument by judicial proceeding. Lender shall be entitled to collect all expenses incurred in pursuing the remedies provided in this Section 22, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of title evidence. “
Notice that section 20 refers to “Applicable Law.” That could refer to state law, or to federal (e.g., RESPA) law. The applicable federal law, RESPA, (at 12 USC 2605(e)) obligates the servicer to acknowledge receipt of a Qualified Written Request or answer it within 20 business days (about 4 weeks) , and to answer it within 60 business days (about 3 months). Regulation X in the Code of Federal Regulations requires the lender to acknowledge a notice of error (grievance) within 5 days (about 1 week) and correct the error within 30 days (about 6 weeks). Read 12 USC 2605 and the corresponding part of Regulation X in the Code of Federal Regulations 12 CFR 1024.35 in their entirety.
So in this case neither the borrower Jennifer Sandoval nor her attorney read or heeded the mortgage security instrument section 20. And even if they had, Sandoval did not allege in her complaint against Suntrust that she had sent the notice of grievance and given opportunity to cure in compliance with RESPA. And now not only has she lost in federal court, but also she will have to pay Suntrust’s (and her own) legal fees.
Mortgage Attack hopes other borrowers learn from Sandoval’s mistake.
Herrnstein and Murray predicted in their seminal 1994 book The Bell Curve, Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life that US society would evolve with little change in IQ differentials between Orientals (Asians), Caucasians (Whites), Chicanos (Hispanics), and Negroes (Blacks). And that has happened as they predicted, except that Asians have widened their gap from Whites. That means you should read this book (click the above link for the pdf), and HEED its soundly mathematics-based lessons.
As my favorite biodiversity pundit Steve Sailer pointed out 3 years ago, America has evolved toward a CASTE society, in keeping with The Bell Curve’s predictions, such that the more cognitive elite merged with the affluent (small wonder) and became ever more isolated from the cognitively disadvantaged (no surprise) who have ever less likelihood of escaping the mire of their condition. That might explain the relative inescapable, self-fulfilling sludge of ghetto and thug life in America’s inner cities and newly spawned ghetto suburbs and exurbs. And of course, there is NO WAY the powerful will yield their power to the utterly undeserving, cognitively inept masses. As I have repeatedly pointed out, fully 25% of the US population has IQ below 85 and are too stupid to graduate from high school, while another 15% is almost as irresponsible, owing to terrible parenting, low IQ, and low ambition to achieve in a lawful enterprise. Unlike the problem of low ambition and bad parenting, from which one can with effort escape through personal striving, no amount of striving will relieve a person of the affliction of innate stupidity.
In other words, All Men Are NOT Created Equal.
So, what do you expect an enlightened society in an advancing civilization to do about the population’s burgeoning ranks of stupid and irresponsible underachievers?
I have said that eventually, the elite must confess the condition of the stupid as interminable, proliferating, and deadly to civilization, and ACT intelligently and benignly to correct it. That means, in a nutshell, government must ultimately enact eugenics laws to outlaw procreation of stupid children (as a crime against humanity) and prevent unmarried people from procreating at all. Why? Because it goes without saying (and yet I’ll say it anyway) that insufficient parenting equals bad parenting and single parents gravitate toward poverty which means their children get insufficient education in how to become an upstanding, responsible adult because the single parent constitutes such a bad example simply by having no spouse to share in the child rearing experience. And in most cases, the single parent bears a serious grudge against the would-be spouse, and typically denigrates the opposite sex to the child in such a way as to poison the child’s thinking about loyalty of spouses and parents to one another. And NOTHING, absolutely nothing adversely influences a child more than the disloyalties of his adult associates.
One obvious fact should seem apparent without saying – that intelligence, as measurable by standardized IQ tests, is the primary, NUMBER ONE, factor of importance in individual socioeconomic achievement and in building an advanced civilization. As much as proponents of Black Lives Matter, La Raza, and other race promoting groups hate to admit it, the USA exists because smart WHITE propertied men made it so. They crafted the founding documents and organic laws of the nation, and met as state delegates to endorse the Declaration of Independence and Constitution after lengthy heated debates of the merits of nearly every single provision.
The founders and American leaders who followed in their steps acknowledged the contributions of white men to fulfillment of the American dream of what I call “Liberty for Responsible People.” Beginning in the 19th century, “Manifest Destiny” became the rallying cry for the US expansion to the west coast of the continent, an land acquisition effort that including the conquest or land purchase against England and Spain and Seminoles in Florida, France and England in Louisiana, Mexico in Texas, and Mexico in New Mexico, Arizona, and California, much other land north of those areas, against Britain in Oregon and Washington and other northern states, and against Britain in Hawaii and Russia in Alaska.
What is Manifest Destiny? It is the doctrine or belief that the expansion of the US throughout the American continents was both justified and inevitable, and it definitely challenges the notion that all men are created equal. Although ideally people in non-US areas should petition for statehood, foreign adversaries learned that they must either sell their claims to the USA or Americans, meaning the white race, would take it by conquest because it was their manifest destiny to have the land from coast to coast. Wikipedia says this about it: