Sunday, December 16, 2018

John J. Gibbons Dies at 94 | Newsroom | Gibbons P.C.

Image result for john j gibbons
A true role model.  A great man, a great lawyer, a great judge, a great teacher.
John J. Gibbons Dies at 94 | Newsroom | Gibbons P.C.
Mr. Gibbons committed his 65-year career to protecting the rule of law in this country, a commitment that took root in the 1960s – when, as President of the New Jersey State Bar Association, he enlisted attorneys during the Newark Riots to help those unable to afford legal representation – and blossomed in the new century, with the historic Supreme Court of the United States decision in Rasul v. Bush among his most famous and impactful achievements. In 2004, Mr. Gibbons joined with two other former federal judges from New Jersey to file United States Supreme Court briefs opposing the detention, without judicial review, of the 660 men incarcerated at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base. Mr. Gibbons argued the case, and, in a historic decision, the Court decided in favor of the Guantánamo Bay detainees, demonstrating clear support for civil liberties and government transparency in the war on terrorism.
“The Judge played a lot of roles here at the firm that bears his name: role model, teacher, mentor, friend, and hero,” said Patrick C. Dunican Jr., Chairman and Managing Director of Gibbons P.C. “He was a quiet, soft-spoken legal rock star who walked among the giants in our profession and, in the process, became one of the biggest.”

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

China Assures Solution to Marine Pollution in the Bohai Sea : China : Business Times

China Assures Solution to Marine Pollution in the Bohai Sea : China : Business Times

China vowed that they will make the necessary actions to largely reduce the volume of pollutants caused by industries in the Bohai Sea. The water is one of the world's busiest and also one of the most polluted waterway. The Chinese government is lending extra effort in reversing the damage caused by industrialization to the Bohai Sea. 

The sea is along the cost of the industrial provinces of Liaoning, Hebei, and Shandong. Pollutants like sewage, heavy metals, plastic waste, and fertilizer have contaminated the waters. The Bohai Sea is the location of Major coal, iron ore, and crude oil ports situated in Dalian, Tianjin, Caofeidian, and Qinhuangdao. 

In 2011, an oil spill from a well owned by the U.S. firm ConocoPhillips took place in the body of water. China's Ministry of Ecology and Environment released a policy document promising that they will heighten their effort in ensuring that about 73 percent of Bohai coastal waters are fit for human contact before 2020. The document will also limit the available parts of the coastline for development. It will also restrict land reclamation and place relines to shoreline developments in the area. The Chinese government plans to establish...

Neal Katyal: IF AG refuses to indict Mueller must report criminal conduct to Congress

A must read thread by former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal lays out one view of  of Trump's legal jeopardy.
A situation this momentous and complex is hard to game out.
But IMO since we know a 2020-elected Democratic Attorney General has evidence sufficient to  indict, Democrats now hold a sword over Donald Trump.  Yesterday's Trumpian tantrum in the oval office over The Wall shows the threat of dangerous acts by the impulsive and angry President counsels prosecution as soon as reasonably possible. - gwc




Next NY Attorney General Letitia James: I Will Use ‘Every Area of the Law’ to Investigate Trump - The Daily Beast

I feel very comfortable with Tish James as a prosecutor.  A former public defender I trust her to be more measured than "anti-corruption crusaders" left, right, center. Zealots like Giuliani, Spitzer, Christie come to mind.   That' one of the reasons I supported her over Zephyr Teachout. - gwc
Next NY Attorney General Letitia James: I Will Use ‘Every Area of the Law’ to Investigate Trump - The Daily Beast: Letitia James plans to investigate president’s family business, foundation and more.

China vows to tackle marine pollution in Bohai Sea | Reuters

China vows to tackle marine pollution in Bohai Sea | Reuters:  
SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China has promised to take action to “significantly reduce” the volume of industrial wastewater flowing into the Bohai Sea, one of the world’s busiest and most polluted shipping routes, the environment ministry said on Tuesday.
China has been struggling to reverse the environmental damage done to the Bohai Sea, which stretches along the coast of the major heavy industrial provinces of Liaoning, Hebei and Shandong. Its waters have been contaminated by sewage, heavy metals, plastic waste and fertilizer run-off.
Served by major coal, iron ore and crude oil ports like Dalian, Tianjin, Caofeidian and Qinhuangdao, the Bohai Sea was also the location of a 2011 oil spill from a well operated by the U.S. firm ConocoPhillips.
The Ministry of Ecology and Environment said in a new policy document that it would take action to ensure that around 73 percent of Bohai coastal waters are fit for human contact by 2020. It did not say how much was fit for human contact now.
SPONSORED

Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Should Trump be above the law because of the statute of limitations? - Shugerman // Slate

Office of Legal Counsel wooden door sign

The President should be indicted and tried promptly for any criminal offense he may have committed whether before or after taking office.

Eighteen years ago the elite Justice department unit that advises the White House and the Department itself on matters of constitutional law - the Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion on the possible indictment and prosecution of a president.  The Constitution forbids it the OLC said because it would so directly interfere with the work of the entire executive branch as to be impermissible.

First, the OLC finds no support in the plain language of Article 1 of the Constitution which declares the powers of Congress:
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
The OLC argument makes two fatal errors.  First it entirely identifies the work of the executive branch with the person of the President.  The executive branch is not simply an arm of the President.  Its officers and employees have sworn to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States.

The OLC recognizes that Presidents can commit crimes before or after assuming the office.  Unable to assert that President should escape liability (see Article 1, above)  for criminal acts the OLC argues that a court could equitably toll (i.e. pause) the running of the relevant statute of limitations while (s)he held office.   In this Slate magazine essay Fordham legal historian Jed Shugerman demonstrates persuasively that the courts have no such power.

My concerns follow from Shugerman's conclusion that prosecution may not be "equitably" stayed.  Both defendants and prosecutors want to move prosecutions without delay.  Both have an interest in preservation of evidence and the availability of witnesses. Defendants' interest in liberty and the constitutional mandate of due process are expressed in many ways.  the Speedy Trial Act is one.  But the deeper problems are that a prosecution substantially delayed creates the risk of prejudice to the defense.  

Further being under the shadow of indictment itself substantially burdens a President's effectiveness.  We saw this during the impeachment scandal involving President Bill Clinton who had concealed a sexual liaison with a young intern.  The public interest in resolving allegations of Presidential criminality is for prompt resolution of the charges.

The solution I urge is that the President should be indicted and tried promptly for any criminal offense (s)he may have committed whether before or after taking office.- GWC

Should President Trump be above the law because of the statute of limitations?: Should a president be above the law because of the statute of limitations? 

by Jed Shugerman

Last week, prosecutors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleged in court filings that Donald Trump directed his former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, to make hush money payments that violated campaign finance laws. The prosecutors recommended serious prison time for Cohen, and commentators remarked widely that Trump could be facing his own indictment if he were not president, because the Department of Justice has a policy of not indicting a sitting president. But this news highlights a major problem with this policy: statutes of limitations. The intractability of that problem is a compelling argument for why prosecutors must be able to indict a sitting president. Otherwise, a president could escape prosecution for many felonies by running out the clock.
KEEP READING

Monday, December 10, 2018

Region, not party determined opposition or support of 1960's civil rights laws - Kevin Kruse

Region, not party determined opposition or support of 1960's civil rights laws - Kevin Kruse: In a  long Twitter thread  Princeton historian Kevin Kruse establishes that support or opposition to the 1960's civil rights laws was determined not by party but by region...

Chinese Court Says Apple Infringed on Qualcomm Patents - The New York Times

Image result for china intellectual property court
Americans have the idea that the Chinese have no respect for intellectual property, that by hook and crook they steal it, etc.  I don't know how much they steal - but I do know that patent infringement is something that companies do all the time.  It is a simple proposition:  the patent discloses how to do something.  You can copy it and defend on the grounds of invalidity, or you can work your way around it.

But what I do know is that the Chinese IP courts are growing increasingly competent, viz: 

Chinese Court Says Apple Infringed on Qualcomm Patents - The New York Times: The court’s decision, which bars Apple from selling seven iPhone models in China, is the latest turn in a broad legal battle between the companies.

A Chinese court said Apple infringed on two Qualcomm patents and must stop selling seven of its most popular smartphones in the country, Qualcomm said on Monday, the latest turn in a broad legal battle between the two big tech companies.
The court decision bars Apple from selling the iPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X in the country, Qualcomm said.
The ruling does not affect sales of Apple’s three newest iPhones, the iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max and iPhone XR. As of late Monday in China, Apple was still selling the iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 on its Chinese website as well. Apple said all models remain available for customers in China, as the ruling only involves models running older software it has now changed.
Qualcomm, which has long sold key communications chips to Apple but has been excluded from its latest models, has filed a series of patent suits against the smartphone giant in multiple countries. Those lawsuits came after Apple filed suit in early 2017 challenging Qualcomm’s practices in licensing its patents.

Sunday, December 9, 2018

Donald Trump is entitled to a fair and speedy trial.

photo of a jury
All citizens are now entitled to serve on a jury.  Amendment XIV (1868).

That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.
Art. 8, Virginia Constitution - Bill of Rights – June 1776

The Government’s Michael Cohen sentencing memorandum demonstrates that probable cause exists to indict Donald Trump for election-related crimes committed while he campaigned. It would be an abuse of prosecutorial discretion to fail to present such matters to a Grand Jury.  And the majority of an impartial Grand Jury would almost certainly vote to indict.  What then?

Trump is entitled to a fair and speedy trial.
The President should be indicted.  Now.

Embedded in the federal Constitution - Amendment VI - is a road map for a fair trial.  It was well settled.  The Amendment tracks the Virginia Commonwealth Constitution which preceded the Federal one.  In addition to the familiar rights of trial by a jury of one’s peers and assistance of counsel are the right to confront witnesses, and to have process to compel their appearance.  These elements have yielded the proseuctor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence [Brady v. Maryland (1963)] and the closely related right to a speedy trial. [Speedy Trial Act  of 1974].

These principles compel the indictment of a President.  Delay until after he leaves office could prejudice him and endanger the prosecution.  Potentially exculpatory witnesses may die, become ill, or flee the jurisdiction.  The fair trial principle also mandates disclosure to the defendant President of not only the damning but the mitigating aspects of evidence gathered by the Department of Justice.  Surely the equivocations, denials, and memory lapses of everyone the FBI and Justice Department lawyers are material defense lawyers will rightly demand.  Early indictment maximizes the chances for the fair trial to which Donald Trump is entitled.  Delay poses a great risk of prejudice to him.  Both Trump and the public are entitled to prompt indictment, regardless of when he matter is presented to a judge and petit jury for trial. - GWC

Saturday, December 8, 2018

The Constitution has no way to deal with the fact that Trump is implicated in a serious crime – ThinkProgress

The Constitution has no way to deal with the fact that Trump is implicated in a serious crime – ThinkProgress
by Ian Millhiser // Think Progress

Federal prosecutors filed a raft of court documents on Friday involving former Trump consiglieri Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort. The biggest revelation in these documents is that the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan now believes that Donald Trump himself committed criminal violations of the law.
The crucial words here are “acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1.” The same document identifies “Individual-1” as someone who Cohen used to work for and who “began an ultimately successful campaign for the President of the United States,” so there’s no question who this term refers to. And, if Trump directed Cohen to commit criminal activity, then Trump is also implicated in those crimes and subject to prosecution.
So that’s the good news for anyone hoping to see Trump perp-walked across their television screen some day. The bad news is that the likelihood that Trump will experience any consequences for his actions — even if there is ironclad proof that Trump committed very serious crimes — is close to zero so long as Trump occupies the White House.
Simply put, the framers of our Constitution had no idea how politics actually work. And that left us with a Constitution that offers no good remedies against a criminal president.

Friday, December 7, 2018

No Relief: William Barr Is as Bad as Jeff Sessions — if Not Worse | American Civil Liberties Union

No Relief: William Barr Is as Bad as Jeff Sessions — if Not Worse | American Civil Liberties Union:
by David Cole (ACLU and Georgetown Law School)

 Donald Trump’s nomination of William Barr to succeed Jeff Sessions as attorney general ought to raise alarm bells across the country. Barr is as bad as Sessions was on the full range of civil rights issues that fall with the Justice Department’s purview. And he’s a longstanding advocate of expansive executive power. 
It’s almost certainly the latter view that attracted President Trump, whose own power is likely to be called into question should the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election disclose wrongdoing at the top. But the Senate, who must confirm Barr, and the U.S. citizenry, who will have to live under him as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, should be aware of the full range of threats he poses to constitutional law, civil rights, and civil liberties. 
It’s worth reflecting on the Justice Department Barr would inherit.
Under Sessions’ leadership, it has become a force for injustice in virtually every important area of civil rights. Sessions was an aggressive defender of Trump’s cruel and inhuman family separation policy, the Muslim ban, and obstacles to asylum. He rolled back critical civil rights protections for LGBT persons. He opposed legislative efforts to reform the criminal justice system and directed federal prosecutors to file the harshest charges possible against criminal defendants, regardless of mitigating circumstances. He reversed the department’s position in voting rights cases, going from attacking to supporting voter suppression initiatives. And he sought to punish state and local governments that exercised their constitutional right to choose to leave federal immigration law enforcement to federal officials. Few attorney generals have done more to undermine the causes that the Justice Department is supposed to defend.
But Barr’s record, both in the Justice Department under George H.W. Bush and as a lawyer and lobbyist ever since, strongly suggests that we will see more of the same. If anything, Barr may be more effective at dismantling the department’s justice-serving mission than Sessions, because, unlike Sessions, he actually knows how the department works, having been deputy attorney general and attorney general from 1990-93. 
In a nutshell, Barr has, like Sessions, supported aggressive anti-immigrant policies, opposed criminal justice reform, lauded intrusive surveillance of Americans, said Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and supported denying civil rights protections to transgender individuals. During his time in public life, he has defended the Muslim ban, Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, and attacks on immigrant rights and free speech.
Here’s a quick rundown on all the ways William Barr should concern civil libertarians and the civil rights community.

Thursday, December 6, 2018

150 Minutes of Hell

https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2018/carr-fire-tornado/

The Carr Fire San Francisco Chronicle

https://projects.sfchronicle.com/2018/carr-fire-tornado/

Trump could’ve ruined Bush’s funeral. Bush didn’t let him. RickWilson // WAPO

Trump could’ve ruined Bush’s funeral. Bush didn’t let him.
by Rick Wilson// Washington Post
No one in attendance at Washington National Cathedral or watching on TV could have mistaken the difference between Trump’s caustic brand of nationalism and Bush’s patriotism: He flew more than 50 combat missions during World War II. He served when called, over and over. He was a man of deeds, not boasts.
His example wasn’t meant for Trump alone. As he was laid to rest, Bush reminded us that when the studio audience tires of the reality show, a better, kinder, more American style of leadership might one day return. That true patriotism, honor and devotion to family are models of a life well lived, in and after politics. George H.W. Bush’s lifetime of service was capped by one last selfless act, a final gift to the country he served so well. He knew exactly what he was doing by opting not to exclude Trump from his funeral; he controlled the uncontrollable.

Wednesday, December 5, 2018

How to oversee the Supreme Court post~Trump Ian Milhiser

https://thinkprogress.org/the-key-to-saving-us-from-gorsuch-and-kavanugh-lies-in-an-obscure-law-signed-by-george-h-w-bush-e591232bb7f0/

George H.W. Bush and the Quest for a Realistic Foreign Policy – Talking Points Memo

George H.W. Bush and the Quest for a Realistic Foreign Policy – Talking Points Memo
By John Judis December 4, 2018 6:57 pm 

George H.W. Bush’s death, like that of John McCain, has brought forth glowing tributes that are veiled critiques of our current president.  In response, some commentators on the left have pointed to Bush’s flaws and failures – from his rejection of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the Willie Horton ad in the 1988 campaign and from the Iran-Contra scandal (of which he was an unnamed conspirator) to his tacit acceptance of the Tiananmen Square massacre.  

I want to sidestep this debate to say something 80 percent positive about one aspect of Bush’s foreign policy that most clearly came to the fore in his dealings with Europe, the Soviet Union and the Middle East. Bush and his two top foreign policy advisors – Secretary of State James Baker and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft – were realists.   I don’t mean this in the academic sense. They didn’t believe that countries’ mode of government is irrelevant to their foreign relations. What they had was a realistic appraisal of what America could accomplish in foreign policy and of the kind of change other nations were willing to accept.  

Unlike many liberals and neo-conservatives, they didn’t believe that the United States could transform the world into liberal capitalist democracies. Managing the Cold War’s End: Bush and Baker deservedly get credit for negotiating with Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union for the reunification of Germany.  During these negotiations in February 1990, Baker promised not to expand NATO eastward. Baker told Gorbachev and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze that if they agreed to the reunification of Germany, “there will be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction or NATO’s forces one inch to the East,”  

NATO’s precipitous expansion, initiated under and championed by Bill Clinton and by a neo-conservative lobby led by a former Lockheed executive, planted the seeds for the revival of an older Russian nationalism and for our current conflict with Russia and Vladimir Putin.

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

Have We Lost Sight of the Promise of Public Schools? - The New York Times

Last night a group of District 2 Manhattan parents protested the Mayor's proposal to adopt a more flexible plan for admission to New York's specialized high schools.  Until now admission to the famous schools like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science has been based solely on the admissions test.  the Mayor's proposal is similar to the Texas 10% plan - top students in schools will be eligible.
The specialized schools are now largely Asian and white, with tiny numbers of Black and Latin students. 
Have We Lost Sight of the Promise of Public Schools? - The New York Times
by Nikole Hannah Jones
The arguments over the confirmation of the new secretary of education were about something bigger: which government institutions benefit which citizens.

East side parents denounce DeBlasio

https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/ny/2018/12/03/manhattan-parents-get-heated-over-shsat-proposal/