Thursday, April 27, 2017

Nondisclosing President subject to old tax rates for duration of tenure

The President and any Presidential Appointees shall remain subject to old tax rates in the event of tax reform otherwise favorable to him or them during his or their entire tenure, including any second term; or 8 years, whichever longer.  This suspension of benefit shall apply to each President and/or Appointee who has not fully disclosed his financial assets or other matters relevant to his income and tax calculations to the confirming body as of the date of swearing-in.

Public trust: does not require finding of illegality. Financial disclosure to reveal conflicts of interest and others who serve the public trust is relevant as background, and what to watch for, not just whether it creates an illegality or not. Payback: Where might payback be expected from a high poobah lender, for lending to a high poobah debtor, now with their high poobah debtor(s) in high places.  The watchers are interested.


As this disclosure matter has been of note since the campaign of the present President, who promised at that time to disclose his tax returns, it is not inequitable to require this provision to be retroactive for this provision. The President may apply for a waiver of this suspension in case the dog ate the returns.


Sunday, April 2, 2017

Presidential Lemon Law. Magnuson Moss Warranty Act extends to elected or appointed officials

Update upon the emissary-hood of Jerry Kushner to Iraq, where he has no restriction against furthering his own and his family's financial interest, against his exploiting contacts made there that can be useful for the family rather than the US, and all on taxpayer dime.  This negligent act of an elected official in allowing such appearance and even act (see subsequent facts) to enrich self and family shall violate the Implied Warranties of Fitnes for a Particular Purpose: that the president, for example, shall govern in all respects in the interest of the US, and no underling has the privilege to self-enrich. The president is liable for setting others up to do that. 


Bring the UCC to the president.
Lemon Law of the UCC Applies to Elections.
New UCC:  Universal Competency Contract.

Issue:  Shall implied warranties apply to the election process. If so, may an elected official sell himself or herself to the public, as is currently done, but also be required to warrant that he has the qualifications (list) and expertise (list experience) to carry out the functions of the government position he seeks.  Each jurisdiction shall prepare a job description laying out what the official is expected to do.  This may include financial limits on what the taxpayer will foot for perks. .

Response:  Yes.  Elected officials bring with them the same kinds of warranties * as apply to any other sale. 

* Implied Warranties of Merchantability, Fitness for purpose, Express Warranties, see 
1,  In the event of an election of Lemon, as evidenced by disarray, failure to move forward on significant matters requiring cooperaiton with other branches of government, inconsistency in communications, the  Magnuson-Moss elected official residential exception shall apply. Groundwork has been laid, see http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/18/1601358/-If-only-there-was-a-National-Presidential-Lemon-Law

2.  Further evidence of a Lemon in Office shall be the sending of relatives to accompany officials on international visits while unsworn to the United States, not subject to vetting and confirmation in any position and not accountable.

This raises the issue of a person using the opportunity to meet the Oligarchs, meet the oil magnates abroad, survey real estate development opportunities, on the taxpayer's dime and to further his own family's financial empire, not the interests of the US. Committee Discussion, Conclusion.

  • Warranty protections about cars that turn out to be lemons when they hit the road, shall apply to citizen protections about elections that produce officials that implode-explode simultaneously when hit the governance road. Both lemons.
  • Any person who voted in the election in question, whether for or against that candidate-now-official, shall have standing to so sue, 
    • As on grounds that the Office itself is being violated where, for example, the official sends substitute persons to do official business, who by association with another official, carries the stature of speaking for the US, where that person has not sworn allegiance to the nation first and foremost.
    • Communications surrogates shall be personally liable for any misrepresentation made; similarly, the elected official shall be personally liable for what the surrogate says.   
The warranty period shall be four years or the duration of the office-holder's holding, whichever is sooner.  However, during the first six months, the case may be proven by a preponderance of the evidence standard, including admission of hearsay with reasonable indicia of reliability. After six months, the case shall be proven by clear and convincing evidence and hearsay admited with substantial indicia of reliability.

3.  Remedies: Three  R's -- repair, replace, recuse
  • Repair. A three-month repair period shall be allowed if action is brought in the first six months.  Note that this Act applies to both elected and appointed officials.
  • Replace. Mere replacement by a Vice President shall not suffice absent a 60% vote in House and 60% vote in Senate.  Where a Vice President has also set his own personal views as the standard for others ** the vote shall be by 65%.Recuse. Where a lesser office is at stake, such as a malfeasant agency or cabinet head, for example, commitment to recusals may suffice, again with the same 60% vote in each of House and Senate.
4.   Votes:  Simple majority, if the nuclear option is effectuated for Supreme Court nominees.  The votes needed for officials being Magnusoned shall mirror those needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice..

Further Committee Notes
Discussion
  • Note that politics is now a commercial venture, with a product image to be sold (ads! ads!), customers to be persuaded to buy, and vast profits to be made by backers and admakers. 
  • Standards of commerce for this sales venture shall apply, including current limits on speech (nothing substantially misleading, exploitive). See commercial speech.
  • Where a candidate demonstrates that his contributors (all to be disclosed) have contributed less than $5,000 per corporation or other non-blooded entity;  and $10,000 per individual; that candidate can engage in robust political speech, very free-wheeling.
    • Accordingly, disclosure is encouraged (see Citizen's United
  • The contract description of the office shall include, where specific listings are lacking, that of the Office itself, and the role of the Office.
    • That is, the official is not elected to serve a political party or set of supporters, but all the constituency defined as people in the boundaries of the nation, or state, or county, etc.
  • The merchantability warranty in the political context shall not define or treat the candidate-official as "fungible." 
    • That is, it shall be no defense that this particular candidate-official is of "fair average quality."  Fair average is a non-starter defense.
      • It shall also be no defense that this official is fit for the ordinary purpose of officials in the position.  Voters are told that this person is special, especially suited, will do wonders, and this shall stick.
      • It shall also be no defense that the official said, while a candidate, what he would do and is now just doing it, therefore it is approved.  
        •   Nuts.. Those matters of goals are all subject to later scrutiny depending on the time, place and manner of execution, including whether there is a reasonable factual basis for the official's choices in time, place, manner, and even whether to continue to support the action once he becomes clued by advisors with a clue..
  • This Act may be known as the Presidential Lemon Law.
  • Training wheels:  Any official shall enjoy his training wheels (here, The Two Evil Stevies, Bannon and Miller) in private, but shall demonstrate the ability to think on his own without them contradicting him later. This training wheel analogy applies to other spokespersona. Evidence of inability to operate without training wheels may be proven by the frequency of later fixes made to what the official says.
  • Media:  In order for the multilateral nation to be served by the Office (see above: the official does not represent only the partisan base once elected), reasonable representation of all major and minor news-based outlets shall be offered a seat at all formal briefings. 
    • Outlets: In case of short-seating, seats shall be dispensed first to those small outlets with reasonable indicia of reliability in terms of fact-based reporting -- there we go again, imposing that pesky indicia of reliability -- or substantial readership  (this blog, for example, will not hold its quirky breath to be invited to a gaggle, because the purpose of this is self-convulsion and for adult conversation with myself to clarify my own thinking, no ads or publicity outlets sought, not even on Facebook, and so on)
      • Prohibition on dirty tricks.  
        • Seats for reporters from opposing outlets, however, shall also have no dirty tricks attached to their attendance:  such as sawing off the front legs by 3" so the reporter has to keep hitching up and otherwise squirm throughout; or else whoopee cushions concealed strategically, even operated remotely.
          • High fives to NYT, LA Times, Politico CNN.  
          • Importance of legislation:  A Lemon Law legislative coup in support of Sour Grapes,. enacted while Trump is pre-imPeachment and in his counting house counting his phobias. Also appropriately highlighting why law and equity, joined in our courts some 90 years ago, should be separated out again. The nation's reliance on what is in a law or not as the sole measure of justice fails us.


**  If sezzee:  What I believe and want as a superior being, by gender and ethnicity and smoothness,
with my own pipeline to the Deity, what I therefore define in my own fact-free zone is good for you.




Thursday, February 23, 2017

Rehearing to counter nondisclosure. An act to prevent benefit from nondisclosure.

Rehearing to counter purposeful withholding of disclosure.
The anti-Stonewall law. The Pruitt law. Remove the benefit of nondisclosure.

1.  Intent:  This Act is intended to counter the benefits of nondisclosure, and so expedite receipt of legally permissible disclosure (no protective order or statutory overt prohibition) in a complete and timely way, in the spirit of the acknowledgement of need for disclosure. This Act allocates the risk of nondisclosure properly on the one failing to disclose, a matter vital to democracy. See Opinion: Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission, see coverage http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission; see also  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/disclosure-may-be-real-legacy-of-citizens-united-case.html

2.  Appointments, elections. Recourse.  There shall be a rehearing, [for further discussion, even re-election; but the logistics of that are beyond this topic] at the option of the opponents of the appointee, where nondisclosure taint is found, and in the absence of further accommodation between the nondiscloser and the requesting group (recusals, etc.).

  • This rehearing shall be scheduled at the option of the opponents of the tainted appointee, whose refusal to disclose prevented material information from dissemination.  
  • Tainted circumstances shall include but not be limited to those matters listed below 
  • Each side shall exert best efforts to find accommodation to recalibrate without full rehearing by obtaining criteria for recusals, for example.,

3.  Examples of taint supporting the recourse of a rehearing, See Citizens United, recognition of need for disclosure, https://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/10/18/11527/citizens-united-decision-and-why-it-matters.

Taint shall be presumed where purposeful withholding of information occurs: For example,

a. Pertinent disclosure has been requested of those seeking office or appointment to an office;
b. The disclosure was not provided in reasonable time, or partial, or provided not at all;
c. The disclosured remained within the power and control of the electee-appointee to produce or ti direct to produce (no protective order, for example),

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

If ACA is repealed, need Caretakers' Non Exploitation Act for sustained productivity. Family care.

Caretakers' Non-Exploitation Act.
Part of Family Care.
 Recognition and Enhancement of Caretaker Autonomy

The Affordable Care Act now provides for funding to follow the disabled child-adult as to where needed services are provided. It is not location-based, so that the person has to be in another setting to get the services. See Medicaid at https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/hcbs/authorities/1915-k/index.html Keep it up. Whether the child-adult should be at home, or living in another setting, is a separate matter.  For those choosing at-home, family care, it is economically wise to enable it. Funding for services follows the child-adult either way.

Add to the reasons to continue ACA type funding for services in the home:  The balance of the caregiver, the ability to shift off and participate more in the larger world for some, getting a job for part of the time for others.  A good thing. Choices.  Do I have your attention, caretakers?  Go to Community First Choice, example, at https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/hcbs/authorities/1915-k/index.html 

  • The area of government providing public option, single payer, guaranteed basic income, vouchers, how to make private sector housing and services fiduciary and not profit-based, all to be discussed.  Here, however, value the caregiver.  That will benefit the caregivee.

And then what?  There will be a time when private or public residences will be the only recourse for the child-adult, with no family guardians left, no extended family around, etc. And everybody getting more geezer every day. The issue is not new, see Wall Street Journal : Parents Devoted to a Disabled Adult Child Confront Old Age 2004.  The disabled do not belong in warehouses, any more than our elderly do. How to address both?

If someone could figure a way to rein in profiteers so that they are fiduciaries in dealing with family matters, including education, mobility, as well as health, we'd be more enthusiastic about the private sector replacing government.  Right now, I go government for a public option and single payer for all family-sustenance-education-mobility matters. So there.




Immigration issues not strict liability; equity, ethics matter. Unconstitutional to deprive persons of good faith defenses absent exigency. Constitutional protections apply.

Strict liability treatment, for immigration violations that present no immediate exigent circumstances as to public safety, are unconstitutional.  There is presumed validity to laws only where to enforce them benefits the national interest, public safety.  Get the stats on consequences.

A..   Committee notes for pending meeting to shape legislation on the applicability of strict liability to immigration offenses:

a. Strict liability, where a civil or criminal matter may be adjudicated based on acts alone, and not the mind or intent or equities behind it, shall not apply to immigration matters.

b. Strict liability shall continue to apply for matters like parking offenses, statutory rape, ministerial matters, see list above as a start

c. Strict liability shall not apply to matters where interpretation of policy and vacillation of such, and balancing of equities arise to balance application of law, and where (in particular) retroactive application broadly shocks the conscience because of reliance on a tolerant status quo, and changes in circumstances:  Retroactive or not, investigate whether the immigration matter
was condoned over time, whether the accuser has clean hands, whether there was undue delay prejudicing the accused, and so on.

B.  Committee recommended reading: Good Faith Defenses: Reshaping Strict Liability Crimes, at
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2482&context=clr

Strict Liability, see https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability


C. Immigration issues involve two basic areas of justice, one civil, and one criminal. Trials are available for either, see local and federal statutes.

Civil. If the case is seen as civil, there are two steps.  Find the violation of a strict liability, negligent or worse act, identify who did it; then, make the injured party whole again, think damages, money, specific acts to make up.

Criminal.  If the case is seen as criminal, there are also two steps. Find the violation of a criminal statute and identify who did it, and punish the offender according to the code provided, within whatever discretion is left to a judge or jury.

D. Now: Cases can be a matter of proof as to not only the act done, and the fact of its violating something; but also sentencing, the consequence. Some categories, however, allow for a stop at the finding of the person who violated something; and the penalty or consequence thereafter is automatic for a variety of reasons. This is "strict liability." Don't ask about the mindset of the actor, the why's and equities, the context.  Boom. Off with the hand, or whatever.

E.  Strict Liability Applied to Immigration. That is the issue stirring up hornet's nests in President Trump's immigration rules that find somebody here without papers, and can nip them off on low threshhold grounds (so far) of some involvement in the criminal or civil justice system (do I have that right?), including but not limited to convictions, infractions.

Issue: Should those violations of law be dealt with in a strict liability context, guilt assumed upon the doing of the act regardless of mindset or reason; and with virtually fixed penalties imposed; unless the case is demonstrably a matter of immediate public safety fast action; or such egregious violation of public policy in listed areas.  Implementation:  Should those violations be dealt with with no opportunity for defense, hearing, virtually no "due process" even though liberty is being constrained, and more.  Explore.

A.  Context. There are permitted strict liability areas. These include
  • Cases with demonstrated need for immediate societal protection, include sale or distribution of impure foods, contamination, where the mindset of the actor is not dispositive; the impact on the public is. Find the act and affix the penalty. Done. Did you do it or did you not.
    • The need for immediate action does not mean a trial tomorrow: but the area of balancing equity and defenses in a consequences phase is truncated.  
    • The need for this reduction of due process is provided by proofs; statistics, facts in setting up the categoty.The actor is irrefutably assumed to have acted at least negligently where impure substances, foods are sold.
  • Cases that otherwise protect the public: Did you do it or did you not.
    • Where laws might otherwise be applied without the uniformity required by justice; try to remove possibility of favoring one person, kind of person, race, etc;  uniform application of a law is needed, without juries varying.
    • Possession of narcotics? Is this to protect the public? Probably, but either way, it is a listed one, its own category of strict liability and one subject to varying analyses as to what is narcotic, circumstances (medical?), see http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law/strict-liability.
    • Sale of alcohol to a minor -- this comes under a common sense exploitation-profiteering idea
    • Statutory rape -- similar common sense exploitation, victimization idea, with age of consent being another issue
    • Traffic offenses - Infractions not even considered a criminal matter, and dealt with expeditiously, pay your fine by mail or computer, for example, but most always with the opportunity to come and contest the ticket.
  • Deprivation of liberty and not just payment of money triggers due process issues,  is usually not involved except to hold someone until trial, if need is proven, which is to be expeditious, etc.
    • Cases in some jurisdictions, however, get fed up and affix a deprivation of liberty penalty to more types, with convictions -- say, three offenses (Three Strikes Laws) and you go to jail regardless of their egregious nature or not. These are under attack on Constitutional grounds in some places. Not the issue here.
    • Usually strict liability offenses are dealt with by damage, cease and desists, etc. Generally speaking, and not the issue here.
  • Deprivation of liberty. Triggering of due process. What categories of immigrants meet the standard of immediate need to protect public safety, imposed a fixed penalty. Those here only two years might fit, too late to get protection: Those who committed crimes, ok. Others? How long to put in pens? 
    • Does the Constitution allow this entire population to be walled off from defenses in equity?
B.  So what to do?
  • Dictatorships -- Impose penalties for acts arbitrarily chosen to maintain the dictatorship, without possibility of defenses changing the result. Justice equals fixed punishment for an act.  
  • Democracies -- Adjudicate civil and criminal acts with careful regard to balance of law and equity, so that the democracy itself is sustainable, and Justice can result from that balance, not automatic penalties. 
    • Some areas may well meet constitutional requirements for strict liability; those to be argued and presented for adjudication before the law is implemented.
  • How does immigration fit into these categories, with its long term nature, its umbrella covering all the varying grounds for justifying the act in whole or part (asylum, other reasons requiring investigation and Congress fails to fund, act).
  • Where Congress fails to act, at what point is a human being justified in self-help, and do equitable defenses remain when he does.



Friday, January 20, 2017

Theft of Consent: An Impeachable Offense, With Protections and Extensions

Impeachable Offense:  Misrepresentations as Theft of Voter Consent

Update January 2016; issue raised 2008,

Fifteen minutes left.
Swearing-in. Here, theft of consent.
False statements, fake news.

RF  hacks, makes contacts.
But investigations halt
If Prez tweets it so.

Political speech
Does not excuse lies, hidden
Puppet-meistering.
Welcome to the barn.
(Gag). Swamp moved to insiders.
Protect voting, Trump.


December 2013 amendments.  

Theft of consent * shall be defined as any act by any elected official intended to conceal, distort, misstate facts reasonably needed for voters or legislators to approve, condone, or consent to legislative actions or legislative proposals or implementation of such.  Where the reasonably foreseeable consequences of proposed legislation depend on the uncontrollable acts of third parties,  such that their choices of action can substantially alter the anticipated result or impact, such shall be given great weight in the determination of "intent."  Theft of consent, shall be deemed to be within the Constitutional time, place and manner exceptions to First Amendment rights.; and, at such time as political speech is deemed to be consonant with commercial speech (the sale of a candidate or party position, etc.) the restriction of theft of consent shall be deemed to be within Constitutional requirements of truth in labeling.


Notwithstanding the foregoing, in cases substantially involving national defense, foreign policy, or other bipartisan interest matters reasonably requiring that degree of secrecy needed to find facts and advance and negotiate positions, such issues shall be rebuttably presumed to be properly processed through the FISA Court. The value of secrecy and confidentiality in some matters, definitions difficult, is recognized but shall not be non-reviewable, this being a true bipartisan Gordion Knot.

Any elected official Committee Chair who, or whose Committee member(s), leaks secret information whether or not garnered through that Committee's activities, and intended to affect voter understanding of the issues in a partisan way, such as by releasing partial transcripts or other records not completely revealed, shall be removed from his or her position as Committee Chair.


Theft of consent shall also apply to any state or federal member of either senate or house of representatives, who engages in material misrepresentation by website or other communications with constituents, the content of legislation under discussion, for purposes of persuading constituents against it and without presenting a full counterproposal; or for purposes of fostering conduct disrupting communications at town halls held by either party, or other gatherings on the issue. 

Theft of consent shall be an impeachable offense, or cause for removal for office, such proceedings to be conducted on an expedited basis, subject to the requirement that third party actions affecting consequences shall inure to the benefit of the charged official beyond whose purview the third party acted.

Any impeachment or removal action commenced pursuant to this section may be suspended by the official's later revelation, restatement, apology or other disclosure of facts.

This specific section provides for the right to impeach, for theft of consent, as a civil, not criminal remedy, such that a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to prove an element of the case; and punitive damages may be assessed in addition to any actual damages, acknowledging that actual damages are difficult to calculate. This difficulty shall not preclude punitive damages.

This section shall not preclude further legislation providing for theft of consent to be a criminal offense as well. A criminal action brought first in time and which fails to establish guilt by the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, shall in no way preclude a later civil action.

.......................
* Theft of consent:
See PoseJuxta, Glossary, Theft of Consent. Glossary here; see also PoseJuxta, Corpus Meus, Law of Inviolability;

Friday, January 6, 2017

Motion to Postpone or Deny Inauguration when substantial national security issues arise as to the president-elect.

Where substantial national security concerns arise within 30 days of the Inauguration, and the President-Elect fails to demonstrate that he will put the interests of the nation ahead of his drive to win on an issue, regardless of facts, the Inauguration shall be postponed as a matter of law upon recommendation of the CIA.  The CIA shall be represented for this purpose by two votes of iits three highest ranking executive officers. Evidence of drive to win shall include behaviors in line with 48 Rules of Power, see Studying Wars - Against Facts, among other sources to be deemed relevant by the Court hearing the issue.

Postponement shall not exceed 15 days after the president elect releases his federal tax returns for three years, in order to demonstrate that he has no personal financial stake in denying the security concern.

During the 15 days, any Senator or Representative shall have the power and right to file a further Motion to Delay or Deny Inauguration directly to the Supreme Court, upon good cause shown by the Federal Tax Returns and/or additional corroborative intelligence as to mutual back-scratching of the President Elect and a foreign power referenced in the national security concern.

In the interim, the outgoing Vice President shall serve in lieu of the du jour President, who shall be permitted to vacate the White House and resume his life.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Fake News Laws. Journalists shall report no story without its corroboration

An Act for Labels:  News Products Accountability

A.  Definitions

1.  Honest News (Label as HN) .  Only those reporters who engage in Honest News shall be called journalists.  A journalist, therefore, shall be defined as one who reports a story  a) with the corroboration included with the story;  b) with intent to inform; and c) with vetting of the truth qualities of the "corroboration".  A journalist shall be accountable for the quality of the vetting.
  • Opinion is not news.  No disembodied opinion, offered to the winds and competing with other such waftings and without clear presentation of total facts considered by the opiner, shall be presented as News, in a news show, or other talk show which purports to deal in news items but is really partisan or fake or, as in the morning, just entertainment for the bucks. 
  • Opinion is point of view and shall in turn be reported with the underlying facts relied upon by the opiner simultaneously.  Competing opinions are not news.  Absent corroboration, presentation of underlying facts, competing opinions (talkinnot to be disseminated by any media.
  • Polls: not news unless the full panoply of information is given as to specific questions asked, population targeted, whether landline or cell included, educational and internet-access background of targeted group (see PN, below), is set forth.
2.  Fake News (Label as FN).   Those reporters who engage in Fake News shall be called fiddle-slingers.  A fiddle-slinger shall be defined as one who reports a story  a) without the corroboration included with the story (if any corroboration there is);  b)  and with intent to deceive. A fiddle-slinger shall be accountable for the truth-quality of the fakery.
  • Deception shall be defined as presentation of a corroboration-weak story spun to suit an agenda other than the balanced presentation of the various truths thereof.
  • Deception rides the non-news-related wave of entertainment-amygdala excitement ratings and related profits.
  • Deception is a clanging gong or tinkling cymbal without accountability for sifting truth from falsehood as part of the story.

3.  Partisan news (Label as PN). Those reporters who engage virtually exclusively in flaring partisan fare shall be called thought-robots. A thought-robot shall be defined as any talking head (with or without nice legs) or political surrogate in a square on TV or sitting on a panel, or with a keyboard or pen, who reports, elaborates, denies, promotes, distracts about a story with intent to promote, to push ideology sacred and secular; or parrot the editor as to such.  A thought-robot shall be accountable for the truth-quality of the robotery.
  • Ideology-pushing shall be defined as the process of presenting 
    • a) usually fake non-corroboration, or  
    • b) such corroboration as there may be presented by emotion-laden words or so selectively included or excluded as to boggle the mind of those with any vetting in their blood, 
      • who by then have tuned out, leaving only the amygdala-stimulated to believe, believe. Whew. 
4. Trompe News (Label as TN).  Those reporters who engage with news events with a transparent sense of humor shall be called trompeters and may engage in parody, and fakery, but without intent to deceive. Anybody watching SNL, for example, knows satire, and silly is going on. Such written and acted dramatics and other forms of having fun with things, even with intent to persuade, shall be done with impunity. The label TN for all fake news engaged in for diversion, not deception, whether or not making money from ads shall be labeled as TN and may continue. A trompeter shall be accountable for the truth-quality of the trompery such that any in it shall be deemed to be a springboard to further trompery.

B.  Law

Whereas,  Since News is not to be sold like falsies, a titillation without the t__; or, like a Trump with out the T, all presentations that purport to be news or ride a wave of news shall be labelled as set forth above and accountable.

What news is not.  News is not someone's opinion. Anyone's opinion. Put it on the Opinion Pages. I do not want to know what you think until I know what exactly you have considered, and what your foundational ideology may be.

The world is a china shop.  Keep the bull out.

C. Violation.

Penalties for violation:  Four fingers of each hand shall be taped together for a period of one year for the first violation event found, two years if two such violations are found within 6 months, and upon the third such violation found,  The statute of limitations shall be 4 years from the date of this legislation backwards and forwards.  Upon the fourth such violation, one such taped hand shall be taped to the ankle.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Condonation as no defense to impeachment or other sanction; evidence relevant prior to oath

Politics. To wait and see is not to condone.












 Behavior of elected officials: Mis-demeanors, ,ethics, overt acts, treason even in omissions, an aggregate possible. When must the bell be rung, and so avoid condoning the acts.*


Re:  Matters of elections and the behavior of elected officials, whether before, during, and after, actually taking office.  Constitution, Article II section 4.

I.    Summary: Behavior of elected officials shall remain relevant prior to oath-taking and through one year of elected office. There shall be no presumption that the behavior was known and condoned, therefore irrelevant to impeachment or other sanction later.
II.  Notice required.
III. Proposed Law.
.................................................................................................

I.  Summary.  Actions of an official before, during the period before taking office, and after, shall remain relevant for purposes of impeachment or other sanction, beginning with the declaration of candidacy, through election and oath of office, and for a period of one year after taking the oath of such office.

That is, there shall be no defense of condonation as to any presumed permission for acts or omissions of the official until one year has passed from the oath-taking. See condone.

The voters or others may seek to hold the official accountable in future, as for example, impeachment or other sanction for matters giving the appearance of impropriety even in the aggregate, that could be included in "misdemeanor" behavior for example, see mis-demeanor a matter less than Crime, FN These could include, as matters may develop:
a) using public office for private gain,
b) self-dealing,
c) conflicts of interest,
d) patterns of intimidation and shaming with the effect of undermining constitutional rights of assoiation and speech;
e) failure to expose and explore cyber-theft or other factors suggesting influence on the official's decision-making, and by identified foreign powers, such disregard of cyber-inasions clearly giving aid to that enemy. Treason? Notify, notify.

Such seekers shall not be deemed to have in effect 'slept on their rights' by not taking action sooner, before the oath.  Noone shall be estopped from raising those issues later just because some information was out there prior to an oath of office. No approval to be established merely because an oath proceeded as scheduled. Public policy supports prudence in such actions. Similarly, the official shall not be deemed to have relied on the inaction for the given period, for purposes of enabling continuance of it. 
.....................................................................................

II. Notice of concerns in a format similar to "please be advised that" must be given with formality to the elected official within 6 months of the oath-taking, so that specific behaviors are of record as dicey, and relevant in the future.

Presidential power:  see https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag1_user.html#art2_sec1cl1
Statutory construction and Clarification/ Extrapolation.
.........................................................................................

III.  Proposed Law

A.  There shall be no defense of condonation based on prior dissemination of information suggesting or establishing that an official had engaged in acts constituting probable impeachable offenses whether before taking office, or while in it. This provision recognizes a continuum of accountability.
  • Where an official has acted or omitted to act in ways giving rise to impeachment or other sanction against him, those behaviors shall not be considered as excused, or conditionally forgiven, or even approved, merely because of the later timing of actions for impeachment or other sanction. waived , for that official for use at the time impeachment or other sanction is sought. 
B.  Constitution;  

Specifically, this exclusion of a condonation defense is applicable to issues whether raised in legal o equitable proceedings, of  
a) Treason
b) Bribery, 
c) other high Crimes and 
d) Misdemeanors, see FN 1, definition, discussion.


C.  Delays as serving public policy.

1. The delays permitted by exclusion of a condonation defense in impeachment and other corrective actions, whether legal or equitable, serve the public interest, as well as the interest of the members of Congress who may be involved:   See Roles and Duties of a Member of Congress: Brief Overview, at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33686.pdf.:  To fail to allow delays fosters instead the political and electoral activities over and above constituent service and education, and such is against public policy:
"The duties carried out by a Member of Congress are understood to include representation, legislation, and constituent service and education, as well as political and electoral activities [emphasis supplied]." 
2. Accordingly, a decision to postpone any action, and to, in effect, wait and see if the behavior self-corrects, or fades away with proofs of such, shall not be deemed to be laches, a sleeping on one's rights. See https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/estate-elder/b/estate-elder-blog/archive/2012/01/26/doctrine-of-laches-means-you-are-quot-out-of-time-quot.aspx  

Knowledge of acts of an individual seeking or in office, and failure of authorities or individuals to bring legal or other corrective on any ground at the time, shall not bar any future action or provide a defense. Delay can be a welcome strategy to counter voter amygdala imbalance caused by precipitous conclusions and opinions spewed to them without facts.  Wait for the facts. 
  • Failure to warn?  Such delay may, however, constitute an actionable failure to warn, as that idea may morph from torts and products to elections, where pivotal information is purposefully kept from the voting public until it is indeed too late for them to change their votes -- the partisan politician has already been bought, no return. See failure to warn, and issues, at http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2551&context=facpub
  • Further policy considerations:  
    • Unlike applicability of condonation in other areas of human life, such as the family arena of marriage and divorce in some states, see http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/condonation, the approval of delay before taking action serves public policy in the political realm. 
    • Delay of legal action in politics allows time for issues to ripen, and for voter education and debate. It encourages exposure and vetting of issues without haste
3.  Notice of concerns required.  Acts and omissions of public officials: evidence is actionable from date of candidacy to six months after oath, as patterns may be set earlier.
  • Ambush is not an option.  Anyone or any group with concerns must notify the official in writing or other preserved means, dated. 
    • The identity of individuals need not be disclosed in the notice, lest retributions or tweets issue from the official.  This area to be fleshed out.
      • The objective is to give notice with sufficient particularity as to discourage the behavior. Issues of exploitation of voters, the weaponizing of partisan interests, and neglect of the nation's interest in favor of personal gain, may be adequate grounds for mis-demeanors, for example. 
        • Or not. Notify, notify.  Notice of disagreement with the course of action.
        • Official acts are not condoned just because action is not taken at the time. 
        • What is undue delay? Waiting after 6 months from taking the oath. Lookbacks:  to date of candidacy, to see pattern.
Accordingly, the slate is not wiped clean with the oath of office.  Acts and patterns that may be found actionable may predate the oath, and to the time of declaration of candidacy for the office. See mis-demeanor at FN 1. Misdemeanors in aggregate. Consider: misdemeanor impeachment offense, a classification less than "crime". An aggregate of such mis-demeanors constitute by weight an example of "high" misdemeanors, if such is required.
.............................................................................................................................................
FN 1.  Misdemeanor Statutory construction. Start with these ideas;

Article II Section 4.  The Committee points out that impeachment concepts of high crimes are one thing, in the list of prohibited behaviors. Misdemeanors are another. 

A.  The wording:  See "Treason, Bribery, high Crimes and Misdemeanors."  
  • The high applies to the next word, the Crimes.  There is no high in front of Misdemeanors. Only Crimes gets a descriptive high. 
  • Accordingly, no high misdemeanors need be proven. 
  • Whether the "high" applies to both crimes and misdemeanors is a stretch too often assumed.  If 'high' is indeed to be taken as attached (a discretionary, subjective reach), the use of the diminutive controlling word misdemeanor in the first place instead of 'crime', suggests that the mis simply means very.  Very wrong, see below. A matter intended to be lesser than a crime at all.
B.  Now: What is a misdemeanor. See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=misdemeanor.  An "indictable" offense, from 15th C. "wrong" or Middle English "demenure"  Misdemeanor:  Mis-demean-or, or our. Demeanor. This term has changed in meaning since its inclusion in the Constitution in the 18th century.  Add the Mis- to Demeanor, and the result still results.

1.  'Mis'.  This means bad, or wrong, see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mis-.  The derivations are from multiple languages, and include ideas of fail to hit, as fail to hit a mark; divergent, astray. "Unfavorable" came in the 14th-16th Centuries. See site.  The "mis" is not a criminal matter, thus a milder set of actions are the subject of approbrium than those statutorily prescribed, is that so?

2. Demean.   In English, the evolution of meaning came from ideas of how to conduct, manage oneself,  A verb.
  • In the late 15th Century, demean was used in Middle English to mean "handle, manage, conduct." 
  • In the early 14th Century, demean meant to behave in a particular way.
  • In the 11th Century, in Old French demener, the term meant "to guide, conduct, to live, dwell"
    • The root was 'de' for completely, and to 'mener' to lead or direct; 
      • Both derived from the Latin minari, to project, jut, threaten (as a herder of animals would in getting the job done) and with its ideas of menace, a forcing;  or the Late Latin, to drive, as to drive as a herd of animals. Drive those sheep.
3.  De-mean-our or or.  Add suffixes such as demeanour, demeanor.  And you have a noun.
..........................................................
*  Znamensky Monastery, Moscow, near Romanov estate, near Old English Court

Monday, December 5, 2016

Amendment. President prohibited from use of public position for private gain, as are current civil service employees.

Amend 5 CFR 2635.  President as Employee for Ethics Purposes.
Prohibited Outside Activities for Personal Gain.
No use of public office for private gain.


The United States Code, Code of Federal Regulations 5 CFR 2635.801, shall be amended to include the President and Vice President as employees, as well as public officials, for purposes of obeying all laws and regulations prohibiting use of public office for private gain. This amendment shall prevent them from going off on frolics of their own, on company time, for their personal benefit, or with the appearance of such. The job shall be defined as 24/7 for each of them, such that prohibited activities shall not be undertaken under the ruse of vacation or other "time off."

I. ,  Revision:  "For purposes including subparts B and C of this part, the definition of employee shall include the President or Vice President.
  • For laypeople, all the subparts this and that is confusing. It appeared that the P and VP were already covered. Not so, say the experts who expound for a living. The P and VP are footloose and fancy free. So: whatever combination of statutes works to get this done, shallow start here:
II.  Current  5 CFR 2635.801, Overview.  Area to be revised indicated in boldface and italics. Paragraphing formatted differently from overall source; indenting to show source follows Cornell Law.

 5 CFR 2635.801, Overview.
(a) This subpart contains provisions relating to outside employment, outside activities and personal financial obligations of employees * that are in addition to the principles and standards set forth in other subparts of this part. Several of these provisions apply to uncompensated as well as to compensated outside activities.
* INSERTED HERE: Employee as referenced in this entire section 2635 links to https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.102
[Employee] means any officer or employee of an agency, including a special Government employee. It includes officers but not enlisted members of the uniformed services. It includes employees of a State or local government or other organization who are serving on detail to an agency, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3371,et seq. For purposes other than subparts B and C of this part, it does not include the President or Vice President. Status as an employee is unaffected by pay or leave status or, in the case of a special Government employee, by the fact that the individual does not perform official duties on a given day.
5 CFR § 2635.102, Definitions at (h)  

  • PROPOSED REVISION:  FOR PURPOSES SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING SUBPARTS B AND C OF THIS PART, IT [THE DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE] SHALL INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT. 

(Continuing)
(b) An employee * (see definition above) who wishes to engage in outside employment or other outside activities must comply with all relevant provisions of this subpart, including, when applicable:
(1) The prohibition on outside employment or any other outside activity that conflicts with the employee's * (see definition above) official duties;
(2) Any agency-specific requirement for prior approval of outside employment or activities;
(3) The limitations on receipt of outside earned income by certain Presidential appointees and other noncareer employees;
(4) The limitations on paid and unpaid service as an expert witness;
(5) The limitations on participation in professional organizations;
(6) The limitations on paid and unpaid teaching, speaking, and writing; and
(7) The limitations on fundraising activities.
(c) Outside employment and other outside activities of an employee * (see definition above at each reference herein) must also comply with applicable provisions set forth in other subparts of this part and in supplemental agency regulations. These include the principle that an employee shall endeavor to avoid actions creating an appearance of violating any of the ethical standards in this part and the prohibition against use of official position for an employee's private gain or for the private gain of any person with whom he has employment or business relations or is otherwise affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity. 
(d) In addition to the provisions of this and other subparts of this part, an employee * (see definition above) who wishes to engage in outside employment or other outside activities must comply with applicable statutes and regulations. Relevant provisions of law, many of which are listed in subpart I of this part, may include:
(2) 18 U.S.C. 201(c), which prohibits a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, from seeking, accepting, or agreeing to receive or accept anything of value for or because of any official act;
(3) 18 U.S.C. 203(a), which prohibits an employee * (see definition above) from seeking, accepting, or agreeing to receive or accept compensation for any representational services, rendered personally or by another, in relation to any particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest, before any department, agency, or other specified entity. This statute contains several exceptions, as well as standards for special Government employees that limit the scope of the restriction;
(4) 18 U.S.C. 205, which prohibits an employee, * (see definition above) whether or not for compensation, from acting as agent or attorney for anyone in a claim against the United States or from acting as agent or attorney for anyone, before any department, agency, or other specified entity, in any particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. It also prohibits receipt of any gratuity, or any share of or interest in a claim against the United States, in consideration for assisting in the prosecution of such claim. This statute contains several exceptions, as well as standards for special Government employees that limit the scope of the restrictions;
(5) 18 U.S.C. 209, which prohibits an employee,* (see definition above) other than a special Government employee, from receiving any salary or any contribution to or supplementation of salary from any source other than the United States as compensation for services as a Government employee. The statute contains several exceptions that limit its applicability;
(6) The Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution, article I, section 9, clause 8, which prohibits anyone holding an office of profit or trust under the United States from accepting any gift, office, title or emolument, including salary or compensation, from any foreign government except as authorized by Congress. In addition, 18 U.S.C. 219 generally prohibits any public official from being or acting as an agent of a foreign principal, including a foreign government, corporation or person, if the employee * (see definition above) would be required to register as a foreign agent under 22 U.S.C. 611 et seq.;
(7) The Hatch Act Reform Amendments, 5 U.S.C. 7321 through 7326, which govern the political activities of executive branch employees; and
(8) The limitations on outside employment, 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978), which prohibit a covered noncareer employee's (* see definition above) receipt of compensation for specified activities and provide that he shall not allow his name to be used by any firm or other entity which provides professional services involving a fiduciary relationship. Implementing regulations are contained in §§ 2636.305 through 2636.307 of this chapter.
(1) 18 U.S.C. 201(b), which prohibits a public official from seeking, accepting or agreeing to receive or accept anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act or for being induced to take or omit to take any action in violation of his official duty;