You can lie to everyone except the person in the mirror.
You can lie to everyone except the person in the mirror.
“More than 90 percent of the hotels in the U.S. are franchised, and these owners say their business has been devastated by the coronavirus pandemic.”
A 2 trillion stimulus package was just passed and now states nationwide are erecting temporary hospitals while the already built structures are empty. The cost of making a temporary structure and then tearing it down when you can use existing structures and stimulate the hospitality industry all in one shot is staring you right in the face. While maybe I don’t understand the logistics of retrofitting a hotel into temporary hospitals like they did in WWII, it may be more costly, it seems that these hotel owners and the economy would benefit from using them. Wartime powers should allow these hotels to be used as hospitals and pay the hotel owners money to cover their losses while the pandemic is still going on. It’s a win win situation. Maybe the hotel owners don’t want their hotels infected but I’m sure it won’t be a problem after disinfection procedures. Or you can use the hotels for non-infectious diseases and put all patients with the infectious diseases at hospitals.
Reblogging a blog by John Elwood:
John Elwood briefly reviews Monday’s relists.
Wow. It’s been a longweek. As if the coronavirus weren’t enough all on its own, there’s fresh newsofother disasters. By which I mean parents everywhere realizing their wish they could spend more time with their familiesmight actually be coming true.
My forecast last week that “we’ll be seeing opinions in some of th[e relisted cases] soon” turned out to be correct. The Supreme Court summarily reversed in Davis v. United States, 19-5421, invalidating the unique rule of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit holding that factual error is categorically immune from plain error review. It took the court just two paragraphs of analysis to dispatch it. The court then GVR’d (granted, vacated and remanded) in two cases raising the same issue, Bazan v. United States, 19-6113, and Bazan v. United States, 19-6431. You aren’t having some quarantine-induced mental breakdown: Both cases involve the same defendant. Finally, the court denied review in Avery v. United States, 19-633,involving a similarly atextual rule. Section 2244(b)(1) of Title 28 creates a rule covering applications by state prisoners for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Yet six courts of appeals have interpreted the statute to cover applications filed not just by state prisoners under Section 2254, but also by federal prisoners under Section 2255, which the statute does not mention. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote an opinion respecting denial to emphasize that “the Government now disagrees with the rulings of the six Courts of Appeals that had previously decided the issue in the Government’s favor,” and essentially warned the Justice Department to start confessing error now, writing “[i]n a future case, I would grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split.”
There are three new relists this week, but the first two grow out of a single incident. There are a lot of moving parts in Brownback v. King, 19-546, and King v. Brownback, 19-718, so pay as much attention as your squalling children and blaring smoke detector permit. Douglas Brownback was an FBI special agent; Todd Allen was a detective with the Grand Rapids, Michigan, police department. Both worked for an FBI-directed fugitive task force. James King, who is of broadly the same height (within a five-inch range), build (“thin”) and age (within five years) as a known fugitive, had the misfortune to buy a soda from a particular gas station during the same two-hour period when the fugitive usually did so. Brownback and Allen, wearing plain clothes but with badges on lanyards, stopped King and had him put his hands on his head. They removed a pocketknife from his pocket, but when they also removed his wallet, King asked, “Are you mugging me?” and began running. What apparently followed was some tackling (of King), some biting (by King), and a whole lot of punching (by a bitten Allen). Michigan charged King with assault with intent to do great bodily harm, aggravated assault of a police officer and resisting arrest, but a jury acquitted him.
King then sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity allowing claimants to sue the federal government for “negligent or wrongful act[s] or omission[s]” if a private person would have been liable under those circumstances under state law. King also sued the federal government for constitutional violations on individual-capacity claims against the agents under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court entered judgment for the federal government on the FTCA claims because the actions were taken within the scope of the agents’ authority in good faith, denied the Section 1983 claims on the ground that the statute applies only to state officials and the FBI was running the show here (even for the state agents), and denied the Bivens claim on the merits on the ground that the police had not violated King’s constitutional rights.
King did not appeal his FTCA claims — only his Bivens and Section 1983 claims against the individual officers. The officers argued (through their government lawyers) that the claims were barred by the act’s “judgment bar,” which provides that “the judgment in an action under [the FTCA] shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” A majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit concluded that because King had not adequately pleaded all the elements of an FTCA claim in district court, that court never had jurisdiction over the claim, and, as a non-merits disposition, the district court’s decision did not trigger the judgment bar. The majority then concluded that the claim was properly brought under Bivens and not Section 1983 because the conduct was fairly attributable to the FBI and not the state of Michigan. The court also determined that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity under Bivens. Judge John Rogers (who apparently ties judge Jeffrey Sutton as the 6th Circuit’s most prolific judge) dissented on the grounds that the Bivens claims were precluded by the FTCA’s judgment bar.
Are you still here? I guess people really are hard-up for entertainment during the quarantine. In any event, the federal government sought review, and King filed a conditional cross-petition. The government argues that the final judgment in favor of the United States under the FTCA should bar the Bivens claims. King argues that Allen’s membership in a joint state-federal task force does not preclude him from acting “under color of state law” for purposes of being liable under Section 1983.
The third relist requires way less wind-up. Priscilla Daydee Valdez put an acquaintance in Mexico in touch with someone she knew in Tucson, Arizona, to buy ammunition. Valdez transferred money between the two and then traveled to the store, where her Tucson acquaintance bought 10,000 rounds of ammunition in a transaction I’m confident the clerk thought was completely above-board. They then drove to a spot near the Mexican border and left the car for a time, returning to an empty car after receiving a call that the car was “ready.” Valdez pleaded guilty to charges of attempting to export ammunition, which included a forfeiture count. Although the relevant firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924, provides only for forfeiture of ammunition used in a federal offense, other statutes, namely 21 U.S.C. §§ 853(a) and 2461(c), provide for the forfeiture of “any other property of the defendant” if, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant, the forfeitable property is unavailable. The district court ordered Valdez, who is indigent, to forfeit money of her own because the forfeitable ammunition had disappeared, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed.
Valdez seeks review, arguing that the government can require her to forfeit substitute property only if the original forfeitable property was also hers, and the ammunition here was not. If we have learned anything from the relists and opinions in Davisand Avery, and for that matter the relist in Brownback, it’s that the justices take the wording of provisions seriously. They’re undoubtedly taking a very close look at the forfeiture statutes here.
Manny’s blog opinion:
First of all, John sells himself short on the entertainment factor. A guy buying a soda, getting mugged by police/FBI task force, then running because he thought he was getting mugged, gets tackled and then biting the officers and the officers punching him repeatedly in the face is pretty entertaining. Then the obvious flaw in a judicial system that makes it so hard to hold people accountable for their actions is also pretty fun to read. Now if SCOTUSBLOG had gone the extra mile of re-enacting the situation, that would have been pretty amazing.
As for my opinion, that is of course of a guy sitting on his couch eating twinkies while watching law and order, which makes me expert on all things judicial, Valdez, who had her ammunition stolen, is going to lose her case. The property was hers until she personally hands it off. If I bought a TV for my friend and he gave me the money and it was stolen from my car as I entered the bodega to buy my twinkies, I would have to file the stolen items report, not my friend, even though he gave me the money to buy it. The TV is mine until I give it to him, or transfer the property personally, that of course, is just my opinion, in laymen twinkie terms. I can see Valdez losing this case but who knows, the law is weird.
Ever wonder why someone would do something as horrific as what Ol’ Harvey did and get away with it for such a long time? We’ve entered the third millennium of the calendar of the lord, if you believe in that, if not, then since one of the Ceasars decided to make his birth the beginning of time, either way that’s more than two thousand years minus the twenty or thirty thousand prior to that and we still have some bad hombres that feel that they can force, coerce, threaten or otherwise intimidate women into sex. Ol’ Harvey, with his sad heart condition, still feels that he did nothing wrong. That it was his right or, I don’t know, his authority maybe…. that women should cower, be at his beck and call, allow themselves to be taken advantage of, for his pleasure. The State of New York disagreed and sentenced Ol’ Harvey to 23 years of prison, where I am sure he will be in his own production of Harvey does Sing Sing, I wonder what tune he will be singing though (fill in your own song, I won’t even take a shot at it) which his lawyer said that at his age amounts to a life sentence. That of course doesn’t include the pending charges in Los Angeles, which I say, good for LA for not turning a blind eye to someone who would do that. Ol’ harvey didn’t really care what he did when he was doing it, ruining families and creating trauma, but now he’s sorry. My guess is that he is just sorry that he got caught, because prior to that he didn’t seem contrite at all. I do have one question, being that this behavior happened in two different states, where the hell are the Feds? Why haven’t they filed their own charges given that they aren’t bound by statute of limitations and these crimes are some of the most horrific that can be done to another person, where the hell are my tax dollars, if I paid taxes, going? I don’t know but at least NY and LA decided to take Ol’ Harvey’s deeds to task and good for them.
It was the boxing bully being bullied by the boxing savant. Wilder, the most feared man in boxing, was put on his back foot by the white Ali. That is the synopsis or the story line in a nutshell. A closer in depth look would paint a different picture. Fury was, I wouldn’t say scared, but aware of Wilder’s power, having faced him prior. Wilder, who seemed off, wasn’t his usual self, it almost seemed like he wasn’t sure of his game plan. When the opening bell rang, Fury charged like a bull seeing red and Wilder played the part of a novice matador, not moving and almost asking himself is Fury going to stop or is he going to run me over. You can tell that Fury wanted to make a statement, which was I’m not scared of you. You could also see that Fury wanted to play the inside game, where Wilder couldn’t extend that right arm, to limit Wilder’s max effectiveness. Fury wanted to keep the shots short and quick and then hold or get close. Well, it worked like a charm. Wilder did land some rights, but for some reason, either because Fury was keeping that left shoulder up or because he had to punch up and over that shoulder, they weren’t landing with the same velocity as with his other opponents. By the fourth round, Wilder suffering, what looked to be a punctured ear drum, seemed to be on shaky legs and chose to be on the ropes more, allowing the Gypsy King to take advantage of his own quick herky jerky movements and feints to create opening and land flush shots. At times both fighters were throwing awkward shots with what seemed closed eyes hoping to land, but when you fight people that size, most people close their eyes while reciting the hail Mary. In the end it was Tyson Fury that prevailed and reigned victor. Oddly, probably the last outcome anyone would have bet on. It was 50/50 with a Wilder KO or a Fury decision victory, then another draw, then a Fury KO. No offense to the UK killer, but with someone like Wilder in front of you, only a crazy Gypsy King would go on the attack like that. Congrats to Fury, a well deserved win. As for Wilder, I always said, the best always have one loss on their record, that shows he was tested. What will make him one of the best now is to take some time and reflect on what went wrong, come back smarter, don’t know if he could get any stronger, that would be insane power, and regain his belt and at the same time cement his legacy. He can do it.
I did notice, that Wilder’s left arm was a little injured prior to the fight. Swelling generally means an injury, even though he didn’t say it, it was noticeable. Maybe he injured that thumb? Or was that the other fight? Nevertheless, Wilder was not 100% and for a Tyson Fury you have to be. Last thing, not one single ladies boxing match, what’s up with that? They have to eat as well. Kinda tired of the ladies being treated as second class citizens in this sport. I’m sure one could have been made.
The debate was 2 hours but it felt like it was only 30 minutes. After the opening bell, I paused it, got my traditional boxing snacks, and went back to watching it. It was a battle royale. I heard some people on stage say that after this debate that the Demos wouldn’t be voting for any of them but I disagree. I think this is the opening salvo to what the general election is going to be like and to my surprise, the person that I thought would most likely wither in these types of harsh, in your face, toe to toe, mano a mano slug debates was the one that came out the clear victor. Sen. Warren was straight out of the ‘hood, you know the Senate ‘hood, but nevertheless, went straight gangster (more Ma Barker less Rick Ross) on her opponents and they seemed shell shocked. It was brutal. Don’t listen to anyone, while I expect this not be the norm, it’s good practice to what you will face with your opponent. So if you got rattled and couldn’t take the heat, as the old saying goes, it’s time to get out of the kitchen. The Demos actually showed something in this debate, more to the point, Elizabeth Warren showed something, her spine is made of that same stuff they build the Space shuttle with and the Demos needed to show that, they needed to show they have uumph or is it oomph, good debate. Good luck on Super Tuesday to all the candidates.
This type of debate only worked because it was unusual. If this becomes the norm, people would get tired of it quickly.
I received one of these fake census letters. I thought it was real and it didn’t mention any political messages that I recall. The problem with a fake census letter is that you don’t know who sent it and for it to state that it was from the Department of Commerce, it would be impossible for it to have a political message as it would violate the Hatch Act, a violation of federal law that would put someone in jail. My guess is that ICE mailed these letters in a scam to try and find illegal citizens. It wouldn’t be the first time that ICE would set up a sting to try and get information about citizens. I don’t know who got the letter but I’m Hispanic and it might be interesting to find out who else received the letter.