Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog

An Open Letter to my Fellow Lawyers.

 

https://claimsandissues.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-my-fellow-lawyers

PERKINS COIE LLP v. U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE Memorandum Opinion, May 2, 2025.

https://claimsandissues.substack.com/p/perkins-coie-llp-v-us-dept-of-justice

Private Projects, Public Money.

https://claimsandissues.substack.com/p/the-skinny-budget-calling-names-different

Perkins Coie v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Memorandum Opinion, May 2, 2025

Perkins Coie Memorandum Opinion May 2, 2025.  (Author Photo)

"No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit," thus beginning the first sentence of an opinion that spans 102 pages.  Most of the 102 pages of this opinion consists of the regime's arguments and contentions.

      As you might expect, there is a lot in this opinion.  Together, we will explore the most significant of many significant issues as the week goes on starting Monday.  I wanted to get the opinion to you as soon as I could today, and not just showing it to you, then telling you to read it for yourself and leaving without any suggestions to hopefully contribute to your own reading of it.  Download Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Dept of Justice Memo. Opinion Doc. 185 filed May 2 2025 (D.D.C. No. 25.716.(BAH)).

      A good place to start I think is how the regime responded to this lawsuit.  They responded pretty much the same way they do everything, which is by blaming other people.  For example, in this case Perkins Coie alleged several different First Amendment Free Speech claims; the regime had issued an executive order requiring all agencies of the federal government basically to shun any dealings with Perkins Coie  --including to bar its lawyers from access to federal buildings, which naturally includes federal courthouses--because of the firm's representation of the regime's political opponents.

      The Court rejected the regime's approach.  (The Court refers throughout this opinion to "the government," meaning the regime.)  "The government's attempt to reframe this case as about governmental speech is subterfuge."  (Memorandum Opinion at p. 35.)

      "The claims that the government seeks to dismiss in this lawsuit challenge the use of governmental power, not governmental speech."  (Id., p. 35.)  "Put another way, plaintiff [Perkins Coie LLP] does not challenge 'what the current Administration thinks about Plaintiff,' Gov't's Mem. at 13, but rather what the current Administration seeks to do to plaintiff based on that thinking."  (Id., p. 36) (emphasis by the Court.)

      As you likely already know, the Court denied the regime's motion to dismiss and granted Perkins Coie's motion for summary judgment for "declaratory and permanent injunctive relief on Counts II through IX of the Amended Complaint."  (Id., p. 102.)

To be continued ....

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

A NATIONAL LAW DAY REPORT: STIPULATING SECRECY OVER "ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR."

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is the person who was kidnapped in a parking lot in Maryland and spirited off to El Salvador.  There he continues to stay in a prison run by the Salvadoran regime and paid for by the current U.S. regime with your taxes.  Right or wrong, Abrego Garcia's continued stay in El Salvador's most notorious prison is paid for by your tax money.

The U.S. regime says that it was an "administrative error" that led to Mr. Abrego Garcia's being shuffled off to the one place to which he could not be deported, namely El Salvador.  A federal immigration judge had previously entered an order that Abrego Garcia should not be sent to El Salvador because his life is in danger there.

In El Salvador he stays, to this day.

There is now a Stipulated Secrecy Order in that case.  It was entered on April 21, 2025.  Download Abrego Garcia v. Noem Stipulated Protective Order Doc. No. 95 filed April 21 2025 (D. Md. Case No. 8.25.cv.00951.PX).

Time will tell how much, if anything, is made available to public access to the Court file.  Why was he sent to El Salvador?  Who made that decision?  Why is he still there?

To say again, time will tell how much and whether anything will be made available to the public as this federal case proceeds in federal Court, which is also paid for by your taxes.

General questions of public access to Court files are examined in the context of secrecy in Settlements in Bad Faith Cases in 1 DENNIS J. WALL, LITIGATION AND PREVENTION OF INSURER BAD FAITH § 3:107 (Thomson Reuters West 3d Edition, 2025 Supplements in process) (regarding Third-Party cases) and in 2 id. § 9:28 (regarding First-Party cases).  Particular issues of secrecy relating to Insurer Bad Faith cases are discussed in Volume 1, id., §§ 3:107.50-3:107.100 (addressing Third-Party Bad Faith litigation) and in Volume 2, id., §§ 9:28.50-9:28.100 (concerning First-Party Bad Faith lawsuits).

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

James Uthmeier The Unelected Florida Attorney General.

(Author Photo of the inside book cover)

Jones Day was so famous that a book was written about that huge law firm, SERVANTS OF THE DAMNED, by David Enrich.

One James Uthmeier worked at Jones Day before he took a job advising the Commerce Secretary in the first iteration of the current regime.  (The Secretary of Commerce at the time was a client of Jones Day.)  He is mentioned briefly on page 241 of the book.

As described in the book, one of the things that made Jones Day famous enough to get their own book was writing threatening letters.

James Uthmeier left the Commerce Department and at some point became the Chief of Staff to the Governor of Florida.  When the Florida Attorney General resigned, the governor appointed Mr. Uthmeier to the post.

A relatively recent appointment, Uthmeier has made headlines with at least one letter.  For example, he wrote a letter to the Mayor of Orlando threatening to remove the Mayor from office if Orlando did not follow the immigration laws, among other things.

In context, the Florida governor has already removed two elected officials from public office, both Democrats.  One, the State Attorney who is headquartered in Orlando, ran and won re-election after she was removed from the office.  Mr. Uthmeier has recently made comments about her, but so far apparently only verbal comments and not in writing.

Back to the Mayor of Orlando and the threat to remove him from office if Orlando did not enforce the immigration laws.  The Mayor wrote back immediately after receiving the letter from General Uthmeier to inform Uthmeier that, in essence, Orlando is following all the laws including the immigration laws.

Not content with the Mayor having the last word apparently, Mr. Uthmeier gave a TV interview following the Mayor's letter, and he said that his letter worked and then pretty much repeated as the Mayor had said, that Orlando was following the law.

It would have been interesting to see if the Florida Attorney General would have actually sought the removal of the Mayor of Orlando from office.  But by what authority, General, by what authority?  Perhaps we will never know, but in the meantime, there is the State Attorney who might be removed from office ....

It is Good Friday.  Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

Good Faith or Bad Faith: Your Choice.

We are moving into an era that represents a rejection of the defense establishment, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, the environmental protection establishment, and on and on.  There are ways to improve the cast and the script in good faith, if you will, and there are also ways to rewrite the story in bad faith.  The choice is ours, not theirs.

As was said in a different but related context:

We are moving into an era that represents a rejection of the public health establishment.  Change is coming, but not all change is good change.  We need to have honest discussions about what went right and wrong with a focus on learning how to do better next time, not rewriting what happened.[1]

[1] Katelyn Jetelina and Kristen Panthagani, HHS Picks, the House Subcommittee Report, and Pandemic Revisionism, Your Local Epidemiologist (Substack Newsletter, Dec. 4, 2024), https://substack.com/@yourlocalepidemiologist/p-152518123.

Issues like this are discussed in § 18C:16, The Man-Made Catastrophe From Taking Medicare Away From Those That Rely on the Program, 2 CATASTROPHE CLAIMS / INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR NATURAL AND MAN-MADE DISASTERS (Thomson Reuters November 2024 Edition, 2025 Supplements in process).

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

Work Requirements to Impose on Medicaid Recipients ARE BACK!

Work requirements are popular in some quarters to impose on disabled people, the elderly, and children who receive Medicaid.  This is a repeat of an earlier time.

As of July 1, 2023 there was actually still one state with work requirements for Medicaid recipients, Georgia:

            The first Trump administration approved work requirements in 13 states.  Only Georgia's program, which started on July 1, 2023, is in effect.  A Medicaid work requirement launched in Arkansas was halted by a court order in 2019.[1]

Like a bad movie, we apparently have to do this again.  Stay tuned.

[1] Andy Miller, Renuka Rayasam and Sam Whitehead, Democratic Senators Ask Watchdog Agency to Investigate Georgia's Medicaid Work Rule, KFF Health News (online Dec. 18, 2024), https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/georgia-medicaid-word-requirement-democrats-gao-investigate/.

 

Case law on these issues is set out in § 18D:16, Volume 2 of CATASTROPHE CLAIMS / INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR NATURAL AND MAN-MADE DISASTERS (Thomson Reuters November 2024 Edition, 2025 Supplements in process).

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

THE DOCTRINE OF NANNY NANNY BOO POO.

 

Mahmoud Khalil v. William P. Joyce, Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss or Transfer the Case, Doc. 31, page 1, filed March 12, 2025 (SDNY No. 25 Civ. 1935 (JMF)).  (Author Photo)

Mahmoud Khalil was taken into custody allegedly by unknown, unidentified plain-clothes agents of the Department of Human Services.  That was in New York City.

From the City, Khalil was apparently taken to New Jersey, where the plane he was put on may have refueled.  From there he was taken to Louisiana.

When he was taken, he left behind his wife in New York City who sued to have him returned to her.  She was 8 months pregnant at the time Khalil was taken away.

She sued for habeas corpus.  That is one of the few Latin phrases that remain in the law.  (Some people might think it is Sharia law.  It is not.  It is Latin.)  In practice, it means "return the body that you have taken."

The only reason we can see what is being done in this case is that it is a habeas proceeding in a civil case.  If it were in Immigration Court, it would usually be sealed.  The District Judge in this civil case ordered the case to be unsealed even though the case involves immigration laws.

A "deliver the body" or habeas petition is usually directed to the regime that is responsible for taking someone out of circulation.  In this case, Khalil was disappeared at 8:30 PM on a Saturday night by large men who refused to identify themselves.

The regime's response to Khalil's demand to return him to New York City was to say that the federal Court there has no jurisdiction.  They said that only the Court where he is being held has jurisdiction, or perhaps the Court where he was held at the time the habeas petition was filed has jurisdiction.  But certainly not the Court in New York City which is where he was taken from, of course, they say.  Download Mahmoud Khalil v. William Joyce Rs' Memo to Dismiss or Transfer Doc. 31 filed March 12 2025 (S.D.N.Y. No. 25 Civ. 1935 (JMF)).      Download Mahmoud Khalil v. William Joyce Rs' Opp. Memo to Return MK to SDNY Doc. 47 filed March 14 2025 (S.D.N.Y. No. 25 Civ. 1935 (JMF)).   Parenthetically, in the Southern District of New York the case has been assigned to Judge Jesse Furman.

Mahmoud Khalil v. William P. Joyce, Opposition Memo to Motion to Compel Khalil's Return to SDNY, Doc. 47, p. 1, filed March 14, 2025.  (Author Photo)

So, if you follow the reasoning, they are saying that only the Court in the place where they took him has jurisdiction, whether that is the Court in New Jersey or the Court in Louisiana.  If Khalil's habeas case is transferred to Louisiana, then by their reasoning if they transfer him first to say, Florida, before the habeas case is transferred to Louisiana, then they can say that Khalil's case will be in the wrong place and the Court will not have jurisdiction there, either.  They can probably keep moving him around the country on expensive airplane flights.

This is fundamentally unfair.  It is unjust.  It is un-American.  It certainly was all these things before January, 2025.

It is still unfair, unjust, and un-American now.

They haven't gone into this, for obvious reasons, but it seems that there must be an exception to the Doctrine whenever the regime deliberately robs the Court of jurisdiction by moving their prisoner to whatever jurisdiction they think is more receptive to their activity.  If there is not, there ought to be. 

Otherwise we will have nothing in our empty lives but the Doctrine of Nanny Nanny Boo Poo.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

In Court, Facts and Law Matter. They still determine the outcome.

HAPPY ST. PATRICK'S DAY ANYWAY!

Perhaps ahead of the times, Florida sued without legally sufficient supporting facts or law to challenge "the constitutionality of the federal government's use of private accreditation agencies as part of its process to approve postsecondary institutions within the meaning of the Higher Education Act [HEA.}"  Florida v. Cardona, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 23-cv-61188-JB, 2024 WL 4370879, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2024), app. docketed, No. 24-13814 (11th Cir. Nov. 20, 2024).  The Court granted a motion to dismiss Florida's taxpayer-funded lawsuit, saying:  

            There is no precedent for striking down an act of Congress on the grounds that it violates the Spending Clause when the funds at issue are not given to a state or local government entity. Indeed, every case cited by either party involves a challenge to a statute or regulatory scheme that provided federal funds to a state or local government entity.¹⁰ Here, it is undisputed that the State is not receiving the funds.

Florida v. Cardona, 2024 WL 4370879, at *10 (emphasis by the Court) & n.10.  The District Court concluded:

The State, of course, is not without recourse. It can seek to change the law in Congress, provide its own funding to students attending its schools, or compete in the marketplace without the use of federal funds, just to list a few examples. But this Court is only empowered to look at the facts as they are plead, not rhetorical conclusions, and then apply the law as it exists, not as the State would like it to be. By those lights, what the State presented, at least in this Complaint, cannot stand.

Florida v. Cardona, 2024 WL 4370879, at *18.

Case law on these issues is discussed in § 18A:1, Volume 2 of CATASTROPHE CLAIMS / INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR NATURAL AND MAN-MADE DISASTERS (Thomson Reuters November 2024 Edition, 2025 Supplements in process).

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

 

Judge Chutkan's Order Denying States' TRO Request Shows The Way.

No, she did not rule that it is okay for the Valley Boys to play with your Personally Identifiable Information in the government's computers.

Click on this Author Photo, Docusigned Declaration dated February 10, 2025, filed in  New Mexico v. Musk, Emergency Motion for TRO filed by State of New Mexico on Feb. 14, 2025, Doc. No. 6, Ex. 11 (D.D.C. No. 25-cv-429 (TSC)). 

Fourteen States represented by their Attorneys General sued to keep Mr. Musk's interns from sharing your Personally Identifiable Information and accessing the federal government's computers.  Their lawsuit is still pending.  It asks a federal court for an injunction and to declare the computers off limits.  Download New Mexico v. Musk Complaint Doc. No. 2 filed Feb. 14 2025 (D..D.C. No. 25.cv.429 (TSC)).

The Attorneys Generals' Offices include a lot of truly talented people.  They convinced the judge of most of their case when they requested a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), which is a special injunction intended to immediately preserve the status quo while the judge decides how to rule in the end.  However, they failed to prove something crucial to their case, something they had to know is crucial from the beginning:  irreparable harm if the Fourteen States did not get an injunction, at this time, a TRO.

The Fourteen Offices of the Fourteen State Attorneys General have access to all the agencies of their States.  They knew going in that they would need to show irreparable harm to their clients, the Fourteen States.

Fourteen Attorneys General Offices.  Whether or not they were asked before, every one of them must be asked to scour their  own State's agencies for someone to be able to offer a Declaration or Affidavit on personal knowledge about the harmful effect of the Silicon Valley Boys from accessing computer networks at federal agencies.

By my count, and I probably missed one or two, their complaint identified 16 federal agencies that the Silicon Sillies accessed, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Of these three that particularly stand out, the complaint contains the most allegations about the CFPB, and even then there is no showing of irreparable harm.  (A few details about the CFPB are alleged in Paragraphs 146-148 on page 34 of the Complaint that the 14 States filed on Valentine's Day, 2025, but nothing to evidence irreparable harm to the 14 States as a result of the interns rummaging about in the CFPB computer systems.)

Instead, the Complaint of Fourteen States refers a lot to newspaper reports about national security matters and potential effects on the States.

Not a word about CMS and its effects on any programs of the Fourteen States, even before the computer meddling began.  The Complaint did allege that this agency is responsible for Medicare and Medicaid programs.  Not a word about how interference with CMS's computers has affected Medicare and Medicaid programs administered by the States, the AGs' clients in this case.  Medicaid in particular depends on the States; witness the continuing brouhaha over the refusal of a handful of States to expand the Medicaid programs in their States.

On the other hand, there were a couple of further allegations about the effect of the computer takeover on the CDC.  The Complaint alleges that the computer takeover must have affected the Fourteen States, without any proof or plausible allegations of actual harm, even though we are still in the midst of a Pandemic and people are still dying, including people that rely on public health programs administered by the States.

The Request for a TRO parrots the Fourteen States' Complaint.

The Fourteen States' Attorneys General Offices did file eleven (11) Declarations with their Request for a TRO.  I have reviewed them all.  The persons who testified in the Declarations did not testify to any actual harm to the programs of any of the States.

It is worth noting something that the judge and her law clerks would have seen.  One of these Declarations was submitted to the Court Docusigned by Mr. Wayne Propst of New Mexico.  The title of his Declaration is "DECLARATION OF [NAME]," with the "[NAME]" highlighted in yellow, apparently waiting in vain to be filled in.  The document is dated four (4) days before it was filed in the Court File.  That's enough time to proof it and fill in the missing name, at the very least.  See New Mexico v. Musk, Emergency Motion for TRO filed by State of New Mexico on Feb. 14, 2025, Doc. No. 6, Ex. 11 (D.D.C. No. 25-cv-429 (TSC)).  Or so the judge and her law clerks would have seen it.

Record evidence in sworn Declarations and Affidavits of irreparable injury to these Fourteen States.  That is what the judge looked for and did not find.

That's what she based her whole ruling on.  She wrote plainly:

          The court’s analysis here begins and ends with irreparable harm, “a threshold requirement in granting temporary injunctive relief.”

 Order at page 5.  Download New Mexico v. Musk Memorandum Opinion and Order Doc. No. 29 filed Feb. 18 2025 (D..D.C. No. 25.cv.429 (TSC)).

Perhaps this case would benefit from adding some individuals as plaintiffs.  That could be an improvement but it would be an improvement only if they file Declarations and Affidavits documenting their irreparable injury.

Documenting irreparable injury.  That's what the judge said was missing here:

When litigants have identified specific individuals or programs imminently targeted by Defendants, courts have issued appropriately tailored TROs.

Order at page 7 (emphasis added).  Those who have eyes to see with, let them see.  I have added boldfacing and italics to help in that effort.

We should soon see Declarations and Affidavits in the Court File documenting irreparable injury to the programs of these 14 States, and perhaps to specific individuals who will be added as plaintiffs in this case.  It is to be hoped.

Note to the Fourteen Attorneys General Offices:  If however you do not have the evidence, don't file the motion until the evidence develops.  It is undoubtedly true that there has been tremendous pressure to stop the bleeding right now, so to speak.  But the greater objective is to stop the Code Red Boys including Big Balls from seeing and sharing your citizens' Personally Identifiable Information.

In the meantime, the press has got it wrong again.  Here's another ruling by a judge that the press just doesn't understand.  Perhaps experienced and knowledgeable journalists would have known that Judge Chutkan's ruling was not an endorsement of Silicon Valley Arrogance.

Nor was her ruling an affirmation of the Re-Code Gang, the misbehaving children who escaped from computerland and were released inside the computers of federal agencies.  That these male misfits are coding is ironic because in their Silicon Valley culture, they look down on coding as beneath them, as clerical, as the only work they will allow females to do in their Valley.

Experienced and knowledgeable journalists have been let go or taken early retirement with a deservedly profitable pay package.  In either case, they are no longer around.

And it shows.

So, back to the case of the 14 States and their attempt to take computer access back from the Valley Boys.  Either the 14 AGs will file another request for a Temporary Restraining Order or they will file a motion for a Preliminary Injunction, but either way they must get the evidence that the judge said she needs:

          Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight. In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority. Accordingly, it cannot issue a TRO, especially one as wide-ranging as Plaintiffs request, without clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to these Plaintiffs. The current record does not meet that standard.

Order at page 9 (emphasis added).  Once again, still it must be said now, as was said thousands of years ago:  "Those who have eyes to see with, let them see."

Hindsight is 20-20, but I think it is clear what happened here.  It is clear even to a person like me who has had difficulty keeping up with all the recent events in D.C., as I suspect you have as well.  It seemed sudden, as a result, that this case surprisingly posted an "L" in the Won-Lost Column of the Good Guys here.  It is clear that the people who put their names on the Complaint in this case think of themselves as among the Good Guys.

Judge Chutkan's Order of February 18, 2025 shows the way to an eventual "W."  Lawyers, go that way for the sake of the nation, for the sake of your Fourteen States, and last and least, for your own sakes.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

An Open Letter to Judge Dale E. Ho and his Law Clerks

Seal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Re:  United States v. Eric Adams, Case No. 1:24-cr-0556-DEH, Southern District of New York.

The Court has for consideration the Nolle Prosequi, or "motion seeking dismissal without prejudice of the charges in this case, with leave of the Court, pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."  U.S. v. Adams, Nolle Prosequi [hereinafter "the Motion"], Doc. No. 122, filed Feb. 14, 2025 (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 24 Cr. 556 (DEH)) (emphasis added).

The Motion is based on assertions and not on facts.  For that reason alone, the Motion does not comply with the rule it invokes, Federal Rule of  Criminal Procedure 48(a).  See United States v. Jovanovic, Cr. Action No. 25-15 (BAH), 2025 WL 266551, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 22, 2025) (Howell, J.).

Here, the Motion before the Court is bereft of facts.  On its face, it is expressly based not on the perceived observations and knowledge of any lawyer who signed the Motion, but it is expressly based instead on something that "[t]he Acting Deputy Attorney General has determined," or has "concluded," or has "reached that conclusion," or has "also concluded."

Since there are no facts presented to guide this Court in its decision whether to grant leave as this unsworn Motion requests, and since the Defendant's attorneys (understandably) agree with the Motion, this Court and its Law Clerks responsible for considering the proper disposition of this Motion may benefit from this Open Letter, which this Court and all of its Law Clerks are of course free to consult or reject.

As noted, there are no facts provided to this Court by or with this Motion.  PACER does not reveal that any Declarations, Affidavits, or documentary evidence was filed along with this Motion.

And for good reason it seems.  It is public knowledge that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York raised the issue, based on her own personal knowledge as she expressed in her letter,  that this Motion is based on a rejection of ample evidence to support the grand jury's indictment in the first place.  For your ease of reference, I am able to make Ms. Sassoon's February 12 letter available here:    Download Danielle-sassoon-02.12.25 letter-to-ag 

U.S. Attorney Sassoon's letter also raised the issue that the principal if not only motivation behind the filing of the Motion is, quoting the separate resignation letter of Assistant United States Attorney Hagan Scotten, "to induce an elected official to support [the current Government's] policy objectives."   Download Hagan-scotten-resignation 02.14.25 EM letter.

Prosecutorial discretion is not unlimited.  See United States v. Ammidown, 497 F. 2d 615, 620 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (suggesting that a prosecutor's decision to request dismissal of a criminal prosecution under Criminal Rule 48(a) might require a statement of governmental reasons and "underlying factual basis" supporting the government's decision).

It has been held, rather, that the District Court's role in the face of a Criminal Rule 48(a) Motion is to examine the record to insure that the efforts to end the criminal prosecution in the case before the Court, are not "'tainted with impropriety.'"  United States v. Flynn, 507 F. Supp. 3d 116, 130 (D.D.C. 2020), quoting and applying Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 30, 98 S. Ct. 81 (1977).

In Flynn, .District Judge Sullivan collected cases decided under Criminal Rule 48(a), concluding with a look at the reason why the Rule was enacted in the first place:

In addition, as indicated by the history of Rule 48(a), the corrupt dismissal of politically well-connected individuals would also constitute an abuse of discretion.

United States v. Flynn, 507 F. Supp. 3d at 130-31.

Case law under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) does not seem to support an unsupported dismissal of criminal charges in this case without an examination of a full record on this issue.  However, the published cases decided under Rule 48(a) do seem to support the development of a full record on this issue.  A full record on this issue would include, for example, the production to the Court (for in camera inspection if necessary) of all correspondence and other communications passing between any official of the current federal government, on the one hand, and Mr. Adams and his counsel on the other hand, concerning the issues set out in the pending Motion, in the February 12, 2025 letter of U.S. Attorney Danielle R. Sassoon, and in the February 14, 2025 EMail letter of  Assistant U.S. Attorney Hagan Scotten.

Please consider or reject this Open Letter in your consideration of the pending materials.  It is appropriate to raise one additional matter here, which it might not have been quite as appropriate if I were making an appearance in this case in your Court.  Please also consider the effect on the Nation of your decision.

 

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

"Without observance of procedure required by law": As seen by the Reviewers.

Bank Building.  (Author Photo)

The law, continued:  "without observance of procedure required by law[.]"

This is Paragraph (D) of 5 USCA § 706(2) in Scope of review.  Like Paragraph (C) of the same Scope, it is featured in almost every claim, every lawsuit, levelled against the conduct of the people who currently control the federal government, or think they do.

That is because almost every claim and every lawsuit involves action taken by agencies of the current federal government which was taken without observing notice-and-comment requirements for Rules changes, or providing 30 days notice to Congress with substantive reasons for terminating the jobs of certain officials, and so on.

The actions taken by the "Office of Personnel Management (OPM)," which still is called by the same name even though apparently it is not the same place at all, are a good example.  Those actions feature trying to downgrade federal employees' civil servant status to at-will employees, meaning that these workers could now be fired at will if OPM was successful in this quest.

OPM's actions have triggered claims surrounding OPM's failure to follow notice-and-comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act because OPM's actions have changed existing regulations providing civil service protections.  OPM's actions also have been charged with other infirmities including ignoring protections written by Congress into the Civil Service Reform Act, but our focus here is exclusively on the example of what OPM did "without observance of procedure required by law," not on whether OPM ignored the law or tried to rewrite the law that, in this case, was written by Congress.

Next I wish to focus on the judges, their decisions, and the people in the current federal government.  Some have asked the question of what will happen if the current federal government ignores any one or all  of these decisions.

Possible answers to these and related questions appear in my article on Substack.   You can access my newsletter there for free.

Thank you.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

Observing Lincoln's Birthday by seeing what the judges have seen in the past 23 days WITH BREAKING NEWS!

Colorized photo of Abraham Lincoln taken November, 1863.

(M. Price?  Alexander Gardner.  Public Domain; Wikimedia Commons)

Beginning with the law, continued:  "Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity." 

Judges have the power to hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions that the judges find to be proven by the evidence before them to be "contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity."  The power to do this is given to them by Congress in the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA.

 

The Inspectors General.  You have undoubtedly heard about the firing of some 18 Inspectors General whose job it was to keep an eye on the legality of their agencies' conduct.  Now they are gone and they do not keep an eye on things.   On the same afternoon of the same day that this post was published, I learned that on this date several or all of the Inspectors General filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  Although I have not had time to review their complaint, it appears that they are alleging that the law required 30 day notice to Congress that they were going to be fired and that this did not happen, among other failures to comply with the law.

As additional information comes to light, and after I complete my review of the Court File on PACER, I will add a Postscript concerning this new lawsuit as necessary. 

In the meantime, one person is often lumped in with the IGs by the Press, and that is the head of the Office of Special Counsel, but he is neither an Inspector General or a Special Counsel like Jack Smith was.  His name is Hampton Dellinger.

Briefly, the Office of Special Counsel exists to protect whistleblowers by enforcing the laws protecting them, and to enforce the Hatch Act by pointing out prohibited political activity by federal employees, and, finally, to resolve complaints from veterans who claim discrimination after they are discharged from military service to the United States.  (You can see at a glance why he was dismissed, I think.)

According to the law setting up the Office of Special Counsel, the "Special Counsel may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."  Apparently the EMail sent only last Friday from the White House's Director of "the Presidential Personnel Office" (who gave them any authority in the matter?) did not recite any of these reasons, even if it could have.

The EMail only said, basically, "You're fired," reminiscent of a line once written for entertainment in a TV show called The Apprentice.

On Monday of this week, Hampton Dellinger filed a lawsuit challenging his purported firing.  U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson entered a Temporary Restraining Order barring the firing until she can decide the issue at a full hearing.  It is noteworthy that before Judge Jackson ruled, she asked the government lawyer, one Madeline McMahon, if the government would pause the firing until Judge Jackson could sort things out.  Ms. McMahon told the judge that she did not have the government's authority to do that.

Mr. Dellinger's case presents a greater issue than his own independence, as important as that is.  His case holds up the belief central to all the actions of the people who are currently in charge of the United States, or think that they are.  Their core belief is that they can do anything they want with the Executive Branch in their pocket.  In their minds, there is no Congress and no Supreme Court and nothing else.  Only them.  It is fair to say that this is their theory of Unitary Executive in action.

The courts may decide in individual cases whether a given agency action is unlawful and should be set aside because, perhaps among other things, it is "contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity."  With our own eyes and ears, you and I have seen and heard enough by now to decide that this action is action against the Constitution.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter.  I published an earlier article on this subject on Substack on Lincoln's Birthday before the news came out of the new lawsuit filed by the Inspectors General.

A brief review of the scope of judicial review: The beginning.

The Administrative Procedures Act

(Author Photo)

So much has happened in the past 3 weeks that it's tough for you and me to keep track of it all.  Even narrowing down our search to the actions of federal agencies may not help very much.

All of this makes it well worth our while to consider the scope of judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.  That is the law that governs the actions of federal agencies.  It has been invoked to great effect in the past 4 years, for example.  What can courts do now, in short, with agency actions and refusals to act?

It is also well worth our while to take things one at a time under the present circumstances.  In the face of so many things to look at, let's look at these things one at a time here.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court of competent jurisdiction can "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed."

For example, a federal judge has ordered the United States Treasury Department to restrict access to its computer records.  Download New York and 19 States v. Donald J. Trump Order filed Feb. 8 2025 Doc. No. 6 (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1.25-cv-01144-JAV).  This decision came in a case in the Southern District of New York, but the ruling is similar to much the same rulings in other cases such as in the District of Massachusetts.

It is unclear whether that agency will comply.  In the event it does not comply, there is an issue whether, under the Administrative Procedure Act,  the judge can compel the agency to comply and no longer to "unlawfully withhold" that agency action, i.e., to refuse to restrict access to its computer records.

Of course, there are will be other issues in that event, including the federal courts' powers of contempt.  The federal courts' powers of contempt include the power of holding a defendant in criminal contempt, possibly sending him or her to jail if they refuse to comply with a federal court's orders.  But that is not our focus here, not at this time.  Our focus now and here is on the Administrative Procedure Act authority for a federal court to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed."

In the same case, the same federal judge has also ruled that all copies of all records taken by private individuals should be destroyed immediately.  There is a question, at least under this law, whether this federal judge has jurisdiction in this case over the private individuals in question.

Parenthetically, if federal courts do not have jurisdiction over those private individuals in any case, your guess is as good as mine where our records end up.

This the beginning of our investigation into the scope of judicial review authorized under the Administrative Procedure Act.  This investigation was inspired by an excellent summary of many such issues by Michael Hiltzik in his recent column, These Are the Legal Obstacles That Could Stop Trump's Assault on Government in its Tracks, LOS ANGELES TIMES (online Feb. 6, 2025) ($).

To be continued in the next installment of "A Review of Judicial Review."

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter.  I also published an article on this subject on Substack on February 10, 2025.

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war ...."

A previous version of this article was published on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, January 20, 2025, on Substack.

Gettysburg National Cemetery.  (Author Photo)

We can long endure.

Fear has not helped me find my way very often.  I have gotten lost in the woods and I have panicked.  I did not know where I was let alone how I would get to where I was going.

When I panic, I cannot find solutions.  When I am really, totally overwhelmed, I just want to shut down.  That is an extreme form of panic for me, but it has happened to me more times than I think I care to recall.

I am also temperamentally allergic to problems without solutions.  A problem without a solution would give me hives.

However, I have learned through bitter experience to wait.  Then, after a pause to get control of my fears, that is when I begin to search for ways out of a fix.  Then I am not quite as scared that I am in a fix as I was when I began, and I can concentrate on finding a way or ways out of it.

Once I get control of my emotions, I can do more than simply react.  I can "proact," meaning be proactive.  I can find ways of dealing with a situation that has caused me panic at the moment; often those ways make the situation better than it was before the problem that caused me anxiety.  But I cannot be proactive while I am consumed by fear of what has happened and what still might happen, and I have yet to see anyone who can.

This is my experience as an individual.  I'll bet that it is similar to yours.

The national experience has not yet been seen.  But so far as I can see it, the foundation remains the same both for the individual and for the nation:   the belief that good will happen yet.

It takes time for the fear to pass.  This has been my own experience surrounding traumatic events in my life.  Sometimes it takes an hour.  Sometimes more.  But the fear passes, or more accurately, the control that fear has over me passes.  After so many times when I have experienced panic passing away, I have come to believe that it will.

Whether the nation will share this belief will depend on the nation's experience.  National experience, over time, and on many occasions.  Eight score and two years ago, President Lincoln described "a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Now as then, I think it is important to recognize that we are in a great civil war, "testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."

Today is a fitting day to begin to answer that question and meet that test.  Today is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.  The Day started out as a holiday to remember Dr. King's birthday, as I recall.  Somewhere along the line, I do not know when exactly, Dr. King's Day also became a "National Day of Service."  It seems appropriate to rededicate ourselves to the propositions that leaders like President Lincoln and Dr. King stood for.

Today is a good day, then, to begin to answer the question of whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter. 

 

IN CASE YOU THINK IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED.

In case you were thinking about lawyers and filing recusal motions in pending cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, here are some names and titles and addresses where you can share your views.  In particular, if you think that it is a lawyer's duty to a client to represent the best interests of the client, perhaps you also think that if your client is the United States that a recusal motion might be in order before any more time goes by.

          If you think that, say so.

          If you do not think so, continue to say and do nothing.  It is not my task to persuade you, but consider this.

          The recent behavior of Justice Alito and also of Justice Thomas leads many people to reasonably question their impartiality.  This is the first and overall reason for them to recuse themselves in pending cases under the federal recusal statute.  28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a).

          Both of these gentlemen have involved their wives in their refusals to recuse themselves.  But the federal statute says that they shall "also" recuse when they each know that he (in this case, they are both "he's") "his spouse ... has ... any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome[.]"  28 U.S.C.A. § 455 (b)(4).  In my eyes, both of these gentlemen's statements are admissions that their respective spouses have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome in cases pending before them.

          Time is urgent.  The Supreme Court is going to issue its opinion in the immunity case and other insurrection-related cases any day now.  Obviously, it would be better to have a recusal motion filed before any opinions are issued.

          Since the lawyers for the United States have not filed a recusal motion, the people of the United States who reasonably question the impartiality of Justice Alito or Justice Thomas as judges in pending cases should make themselves heard.  I have been EMailing and writing just that and I urge you to contact these lawyers as well.  All it takes is to tell them that the recent behavior of Justices Alito and Thomas lead people to reasonably question their impartiality and that as lawyers with the United States for a client, these lawyers have an obligation to represent the best interests of their client and file a recusal motion now:

1. In the case of Trump v. United States, the immunity case:

Jack L. Smith, Esquire, Special Counsel; et al.

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, D.C.  20530-0001

[email protected]

2. In the case of Fischer v. United States, one of the insurrection cases:

Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Esquire, Solicitor General; et al.

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C.  20530-0001

[email protected]

3. Everyone else:

J.P. Cooney, Esquire, Deputy Special Counsel

Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, D.C.  20530-0001

[email protected]

This lawyer has been involved in many cases involving issues of integrity and he is a former Chief of the integrity section of the U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C.

 

 

Matthew M. Graves, Esquire

U.S. Attorney for D.C.

Denise Cheung, Chief of the Criminal Division,

     U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C.

[email protected]

Liz Aloi, Esquire, Chief of the Public Corruption and

          Civil Rights Section, U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C.

The mailing address for everyone at the U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C. is:

U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C.

601 D Street, NW

Washington, DC  20579

Finally, the name and mailing address of the current Solicitor General of the United States.  She clerked for Merrick Garland when he was a judge:

Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Esquire, Solicitor General

Office of the Solicitor General

950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, DC  20530-0001

Please read the disclaimer.  The contents of this blog article, exclusive of names and titles and addresses,  © 2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

 

 

"BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT": O.J. SIMPSON vs. MICHAEL COHEN AT TRIAL.

The Election Corruption Trial in NYC this past week has been so historic that I am going to indulge "the blogger's privilege" (kind of like the Chair's privilege or the host's privilege, if you're familiar) and write about it here for a brief change of pace.

    Some of Michael Cohen's trial testimony may prove unbelievable to the jury, but not for the reasons you may have heard.  His testimony raises two issues in my mind.  The first issue is the degree of Michael Cohen's credibility as a witness in this trial.  The second question is the effect of Michael Cohen's testimony on reaching a verdict.

          Much ado has been made about, well, one telephone call on I believe it was October 24, 2016.  On the transcript, the big brouhaha sure doesn't seem like much more than one telephone call and the witness handled it well on cross-examination last Thursday.  On the air, cable media freaked out, and in print, columnists wrote like they needed oxygen.  The emotions brought out by Todd Blanche's cross-examination of Michael Cohen over one telephone call seemingly erupted and captured the attention of columnists and cable media.

          They do not seem to have been reading the trial transcripts.  Kudos to the New York State Court System for posting them so that anyone with online access can read them, and a big thanks to the Washington Post for making them truly accessible and even searchable.  I have been reading the daily trial transcripts on the Washington Post website, and I have read all of Michael Cohen's testimony.

          Michael Cohen comes across mostly as unbelievable in the transcripts.  I did not think this would be my reaction, but after reading the transcripts, it is.

          The prosecution understandably rehearsed his witness testimony with Mr. Cohen, but in his case the preparation must have been very extensive, so much so that he actually testified that he remembered just about every phone call, every text, and every EMail that he sent or received over the course of years, so long as the Assistant D.A. asked him about it.  Nobody remembers those things from years ago, and some of us do not even remember what we said or wrote last week.  So Mr. Cohen's recollection of them all is incredible, unbelievable, unconvincing from reading the trial transcript.  It is true that Todd Blanche's cross-examination was long and tedious.  It was so meandering it became infuriating many times.  But perhaps a long cross-examination of Michael Cohen was appropriate here, given the long recitation of calls, texts, and EMails during the Prosecution's direct examination of Cohen.

          That said, Michael Cohen's testimony was credible in corroborating other witnesses and documentary evidence on important points.  He corroborated the plan directed by the defendant to pay witnesses to keep quiet at a critical point in the 2016 presidential election, and then to lie about it in order to cover it up, not just in their records but also in what they said about it publicly.

          The talking heads and opinion artists had a different reaction to all that of course.  Their big takeaway at first was they were impressed that Michael Cohen handled himself well because he did not erupt, forgetting that this jury has seen Michael Cohen only when he took the witness stand in this trial.  They had nothing to compare his performance with, unlike the pundits who were impressed by his controlled demeanor.

          Until the one phone call of October 24th.  Then their hormones apparently woke up.  They responded now with emotion to the words and gestures during Todd Blanche's cross-examination and Michael Cohen's spoken words about one telephone call.  That changed their opinions from "good job, Prosecution" in presenting your case, to "How is the D.A. going to overcome this October 24th telephone call?"

          The difference in reactions between my reading the trial transcript, and people who heard and saw the cross over one telephone call, struck me.  We live in a time when people no longer think as much as they once might have, instead they go with their gut reactions, their emotions, much more than they ever did in the past.  The O.J. Trial is a good example here, I think.  Everyone "knew" that O.J. was a murderer, or at least that was the prevailing opinion on the matter.  Until.  Until everyone could see that O.J. could not get his hand into a glove years later, at trial.  Then they acquitted him.

          That brings me to the second question I have, which is the effect of Michael Cohen's testimony on reaching a verdict in this case.

          Emotions generally seem to rule in reaching important decisions more often than reasons and thinking do.  I think that explains the difference in reactions in the O.J. Simpson Trial.  I think that also explains the difference in reactions to Michael Cohen's trial testimony this past week.

          I am not saying that there will be the same result in the Election Corruption Trial in NYC as there was in O.J.'s Trial.  If the results did end up being the same, though, it would not surprise me.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved. 

 

THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO EXPORT LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS.

The State of Louisiana, along with other States where the oil and gas industry holds enormous power, has sued the United States Government which has limited or even refused to issue permits to export Liquefied Natural Gas.

          Louisiana and the other liquefied natural gas-producing States have sued to assert their God-given right to export LNG or liquefied natural gas.  Their lawsuit is Louisiana v. Biden (W.D. La. No. 2:24-cv-00406).  The complaint is too long and not important enough to link here.

          A review of the Public Access to (Federal) Courts Electronic Records or "PACER," reveals what the popular press has not yet reported:  The Judge assigned to the case in the Western District of Louisiana is the Hon. James D. Cain Jr.  He was appointed as a federal judge during the American Holocaust in 2019.  Lawsuits like this one are usually filed in one-judge divisions of federal courts in Texas, but this one has been filed in Louisiana.  You see, when a federal lawsuit is filed in a division with one judge in it, the chances are 100% that you know what judge will be assigned to your case.  They get to pick their own judge.

           The interesting and unanswered, so-far-unasked question is how so many judges appointed during the American Holocaust got assignments to one-judge divisions.  Perhaps journalists and the news media in general can ask that question, and perhaps they can get answers.  I will list some below that can perhaps get answers.

           Oh, and a review of the website of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana reveals that only one of its Divisions, the Lake Charles Division as it happens, has only one judge:  Judge Cain.  All the other Divisions have an active sitting judge and a Senior Judge available, except Lake Charles, which has only Judge Cain.  Truly no coincidence, when you want to file a lawsuit to assert your God-given right to export liquefied natural gas but the United States is standing in the way, for now.

           For more on the American Holocaust and how its effects are still with us every day, see UNELECTED TEXAS JUDGES, THE AMERICAN HOLOCAUST, AND MINORITY RULE, published on Insurance Claims and Issues Blog on March 9, 2024.

          So, no coincidence that Judge James D. Cain Jr. was assigned to this LNG exportation lawsuit.  Moreover, Judge Cain has his own track record of ruling against the United States in similar cases.

I am now going to mention the names of people and outlets who have the capacity to answer these questions if they want to.  If I left a tweet on X-which-used-to-be-Twitter, I guess they might find a tweet but so would the trolls most likely and I do not want that.  I do not know whether these people will pay attention to blogs like this one, but I am going to try.  Maybe they will seek out their names since they are in a business where their name recognition is so important to them.

        I am not completely sure of how to bring this article to their attention, so I am going to mention their names here in the body of this article as well as in the metadata accompanying it.  Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you, Susanne Craig, David Barstow, Russ Buettner, Andrew Weissmann, Will Bunch, Scott Maxwell, Jackie Calmes, LZ Granderson, Karen Tumulty, Julie K. Brown, David Dayen, New York Times, Washington Post, American Prospect, Guardian, Philadelphia Inquirer, Jamie Raskin, Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Talking Points Memo, ProPublica, Miami Herald, Sun-Sentinel, Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern, Jackie Calmes, Robin Abcarian, Los Angeles Times, and Slate.

          Thank you in advance, one and all.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved. 

"IT'S THE DICTA, STUPID."*

*With apologies again to Mr. James Carville, who famously said during one of the successful Clinton campaigns, "It's the economy, stupid."

 

Dicta is a word that lawyers use to describe the opinions of judges that go beyond what they need to say to decide the case that confronts them.  To paraphrase Black's Law Dictionary, a standard text for many lawyers, dicta are opinions of judges concerning matters which are not necessarily involved in nor essential to determine the case presently before the court.

          In the course of enticing all justices to agree that a candidate of a certain persuasion should remain on all ballots, 5 judges went beyond that case to declare how and why candidates in future cases should not remain on the ballot (which most legal scholars say is self-evident from the Fourteenth Amendment and which did not need to be rewritten).

          When the U.S. Supreme Court took this case, they limited their review to whether they should affirm or reverse the Supreme Court of Colorado.  The Colorado Supreme Court, you will recall, had held that the Fourteenth Amendment barred this particular candidate in this particular case from the Republican primary ballot in Colorado.

          That is what the U.S. Supreme Court said that they would review.  That narrow question.  Of course, as lawyers know, the question of affirmance or reversal on the facts of the particular case is everything that a reviewing court can ever determine without issuing an advisory opinion.

          Here is what the 9 said they ruled on together.  You may or may not agree with it, but you can certainly read it for yourself.  They don't want you to read it for yourself, you know.  Every good trial lawyer, and any lawyer or person for that matter, knows that when they don't want you to look at something, you should look at it.  Read this for yourself:

          A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits former President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential nomination of the Republican Party in this year's election, from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado secretary of state to exclude the former President from the Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.

* * *

Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.

Trump v. Anderson, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2024 WL 899207, at *1 (U.S. March 4, 2024).

          The U.S. Supreme Court was previously pretty consistent in stating the view that it is or was limited under Article III of the Constitution to the existence of a controversy, and that, unlike State Supreme Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts lacked the power to issue advisory opinions.

          Based on preexisting precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court is accordingly prohibited by the Constitution from issuing an advisory opinion on what action Congress should take to enforce Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates.  So there were very strong grounds before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in this case that it would be limited to deciding whether the Supreme Court of Colorado was right or wrong in this particular case.  Period.  End of report.

          Instead, the joint opinion of the 5 rewrote the Fourteenth Amendment to the satisfaction of the 5.  But this is not how all 9 think about the issue they decided, and it is certainly not the view of the other 4 who decided the narrow question of whether this particular candidate in this particular case would remain on the ballot.

          So the command of the 5 to Congress on how to implement Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates is dicta.

          That is what it is.  Meaning no offense but stating it clearly:  "It's the dicta, stupid."

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2024 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

NO ARGUING LAW, NO PROVEN FACTS: THE GEORGE SANTOS CASE.

The criminal case of United States v. George Santos has taken a turn that resembles his public persona.  His attorney has filed a Response to two motions to identify the sureties who have co-signed Mr. Santos's $500,000.00 bond.  Mr. Santos's attorney, as expected, opposes both motions, one of  which was filed on behalf of the New York Times and the other one of which was filed on behalf of ABC News and a number of other news organizations.  Download United States v. Santos Response of George Santos. Doc. No. 17 filed 06.05.23 (E.D.N.Y. Cr. Case No. 23-CR-197)

          In the Response, Mr. Santos does not argue the actual law and does not prove the facts of his Response.

          On the law, the Santos Response argues that the standard for sealing documents that supposedly applies in the Third Circuit, should apply in this case pending within the Second Circuit.  According to the Response, the parties seeking to overcome secrecy must prove a compelling interest and offer a narrowly tailored means to secrecy.  This is not the law, not in the Second Circuit and not in the Third Circuit, either.

          The burden everywhere is on the party asking for the secrecy to prove that secrecy serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.  The Santos Response turns the burden of proof on its head, removing his burden to prove secrecy and trying to shift the burden over to the parties seeking disclosure, which of course is the opposite of the law in every federal Circuit, in the Second Circuit ignored in the Santos Response,  as well as in the Third Circuit.

           (Parenthetically, the Santos Response argues for some reason that settlement agreements in civil cases are not sealed under Third Circuit case law.  Third Circuit law is to the contrary, and has been to the contrary for almost 40 years, but the  Response does not address it:  Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav's Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assoc's, 800 F.2d 339, 343-44 (3d Cir. 1986) (holding that "the court's approval of a settlement or action on a motion are matters for which the public has a right to know about and evaluate.").)

          Even applying the test prevailing in the Third Circuit, then, the result is compelling that sureties on a bond for the release of a Member of the United States Congress on criminal charges is 'a matter for which the public has a right to know about and evaluate.'   In its own Order in this case Setting Conditions of Release and Appearance Bond, this Court previously required that the co-signing sureties identify themselves on the bond.   Download United States v. Santos Order Setting Conditions of Release and Appearance Bond filed 05.10.23 (E.D.N.Y. Cr. Case No. 23-CR-197) ( "cosigned by the financially responsible sureties identified on this bond").  The only way to know that the sureties are "financially responsible" is for the Court to accept that as proven, the sureties having been "identified on the bond."  Since the Court must approve the sureties as "financially responsible" for the $500,000.00 bond which they co-signed on behalf of the Member of Congress in this criminal case, this is a matter about which the public has a right to know and evaluate and the identities of the sureties are crucial to this evaluation.

.         The Santos Response also fails to meet its burden to prove the facts which are put forward to support it.  In the Response, Mr. Santos contends that his sureties would be harassed and perhaps even hurt if their identities were revealed to the public.  As factual "support," Mr. Santos attached one (1) hidden report of one (1) labelled threat supposedly called in to the Capital Police Department; we do not know if these representations are true, because Mr. Santos has hidden the report from us and requested that it be sealed, no further explanation given beyond his asking that it be sealed from public view.

          In the end, Mr. Santos's argument is that the two sureties that co-signed his bond (a third pulled out of co-signing it, he says), which again is a $500,000.00 bond in a criminal case against a Member of Congress, should not be made known to the public.

          Resolution of this matter seems simple enough:  The Magistrate Judge should order the sureties' identities to be disclosed to the public in this peculiar case. 

Postscript of Wednesday, June 7, 2023:

After this article was written, and on the same day, U.S. Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields ordered disclosure of the identity of the sureties who co-signed the bond in this criminal proceeding against a Member of Congress.  However, the Order is under seal and so is the Bond along with the identity of the sureties, at least until Friday, June 9, 2023.  That is the deadline set by the Magistrate Judge for any appeal from this Order to the U.S. District Judge.

    While as noted the Order of June 6, 2023 is sealed, the docket entry for this Order is open to the public.  Here is the text of  the docket entry for this sealed Order in United States v. Santos, Order entered by Shields, USMJ, filed June 6, 2023 (E.D.N.Y. Cr. Case No. 23-Cr-197):

ORDER: For the reasons contained in the attached Order, the motions to unseal the identities of the Suretors who signed the Bond for Defendant's pretrial release, filed herein at Docket Entries 13 and 14 , are granted. To allow Defendant to appeal this ruling to the District Court, the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain the attached decision and all previously sealed documents, including the Bond, under seal. Any appeal of this Order must be filed by noon on Friday, June 9, 2023. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shields on 6/6/2023. (GO) (Entered: 06/06/2023)

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2023 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT, FLORIDA INSURER LAWS, AND BAD FAITH.

This article once again continues the report of changes to Florida insurers' laws in 2022, and again in 2023.

Beyond restricting first-party bad faith actions against property insurers in Florida, the 2022 Florida Legislature also restricted many other claims for relief against property insurers.  Before the provision commented on and republished here yesterday was enacted by the Florida Legislature, for example, the Florida courts had consistently applied the "confession of judgment doctrine" to hold insurance carriers of all kinds liable for their insureds' attorney's fees when:

1. The carrier denied its insured benefits to which the insured was entitled under the policy at issue;
2. The carrier's denial has forced the insured to file suit against the carrier, and
3. The carrier changes position and pays the claim before a judgment has been entered in the insured's favor.[1]

             It was carefully pointed out by a Florida appellate court when its decision was published on November 9, 2022 that "[n]othing in section 627.428(1) or anywhere in the insurance code prevents the entry of a confessed judgment."^[2]  Now it does.

            The barrier to a confessed judgment, or to application of the confession of judgment doctrine if you will, is clear from the quoted change that the Legislature made to Section 624.1551 with regard to property insurers in December of that same year.   From and after the amendment's effective date of December 16, 2022, "any claim for extracontractual damages under s. 624.155(1)(b)," i.e., under the main provisions of the Florida Bad Faith Statute, would depend on proof of "an adverse adjudication by a court of law," among other things, in order to file the action against "the property insurer[.]"[3] 

           In sum to this point, the Florida Legislature enacted changes to Florida's law of bad faith which are likely to be repeated in other jurisdictions.  One is that property insurers have been singled out for a "carveout" from bad faith liability.  In Florida in 2022, the carveout was made by the Legislature in the Florida Statutes.  There does not at first blush appear to be any reason to limit similar restrictions to statutory bad faith actions.  Such restrictions would seem to be readily adaptable to common law bad faith actions.

          Another change enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2022 that is  likely to be replicated and changed again, is the idea of limiting the carveout to just property insurers.  Other insurance carriers, liability carriers and other first-party carriers among the rest, may insist on their own special exemptions from exposure to extracontractual damages of any and all kinds, arguing that such carveouts from liability should not be limited to property insurers alone.  "Beyond the borders of Florida, the appeal of these sorts of statutory changes may be irresistible to property insurers in other jurisdictions.  Beyond geography, the appeal of changes like those made for property insurers by the 2022 Florida Legislature may be irresistible to many other insurers which issue other lines of insurance."[4]

The Confession of Judgment Doctrine and the changes made by the 2022 and 2023 Florida Legislatures to the Law of Insurer Bad Faith, are all discussed in detail in 2 DENNIS J. WALL, LITIGATION AND PREVENTION OF INSURER BAD FAITH § 11:17, Fairly or Reasonably Debatable Claims (West Publishing Co., 3d Edition with 2023 Supplements in process).

[1]The confession of judgment doctrine applied by the Florida courts is well-summarized by the Court in Allstate Fire & Cas. Co. v. Castro, 351 So. 3d 127, 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022).   The Castro case involved a claim for uninsured (UM) motorist policy limits.

          In another case, a different appellate court held that it was the legal equivalent of a confession of judgment when a homeowner's insurer paid an appraisal award.  Therefore, the court held in that case, the homeowner's carrier's insureds were entitled to attorney's fees under Section 627.428; they prevailed in an action against their insurance carrier, even though the carrier paid the award before judgment could be entered in favor of the insured.  Bryant v. GeoVera Spec. Ins. Co., 271 So. 3d 1013, 1018-20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).  As can be seen from the quotation of Section 624.1551 in the text, it would appear that from and after December 16, 2022,  "the payment of an appraisal award does not constitute an adverse adjudication under this section."

[2] Allstate Fire & Casualty v. Castro, 351 So. 3d at 133.

[3] Fla. Stat. § 624.1551, as amended by 2022 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2022-271, § 2 (S.B. 2-A) (West), effective December 16, 2022.

[4] Wall, Consumers Had No Voice, 45 Ins. Litig. Rptr. at 90.  "The resulting situations are foreseeable, perhaps, but they have not yet taken place.  If and when they do, this article will serve as advance notice, and as a warning."  Id.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2023 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

SUNSHINE LAWS IN FLORIDA (NOT EXACTLY FULL TRANSPARENCY, BUT ...).

This is Sunshine Week!  It's a celebration of transparency laws across the United States.  Here are some of the Sunshine Laws in Florida:

• Florida's Open Meetings Laws, Fla. Stat. §§ 286.011, et seq.
• Florida's Sunshine Laws, Fla. Stat. §§ 119.01, et seq.

    This one is a little misleading if you are not familiar with how Sunshine Laws work, including Florida's.  The Florida statutes offer some 600 exemptions where records are not open to the Sunshine.  These exemptions include when the State acquires land, for example.  Land values are sealed until the State makes a conditional decision to buy the land.  When that happens, the exemption expires.  Then the public has 30 days to check out the transaction -- except of course that the values of the land estimated by the State and the sellers are not public until after the State has already agreed to make the purchase, putting the public in the position of putting the brakes on the land deal f they can do it within 30 days -- and of course less time if they don't know about it for awhile. 

• Florida's Sunshine in Litigation Act, Fla. Stat. § 69.081.

Most if not all States and jurisdictions in the U.S. have exemptions from transparency, not just Florida.  But Florida has as its current Attorney General a person who gratuitously vows whenever Sunshine Week rolls around, as it has again this year, to safeguard transparency under the Florida laws.  General Ashley Moody, what transparent public purpose is served in your evaluation when the State acquires land in the dark, the public is in the dark, and the records about the value of the land in that transaction are private until the land is "conditionally" purchased even though it is the public's money that is used for the purchase?   Thank you.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2023 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved. 

 

 

HUMP DAY IN SUNSHINE WEEK, ALL OVER AMERICA! FLORIDA TOO!

Wednesday of Sunshine Week is a bit of a potpourri.  This recognizes the fact that Sunshine Week is celebrated all over the United States.  For example, here is a YouTube production assembled by The National Archives about Freedom of Information Act requests: 

National Archives Sunshine Week Celebration: Making Access Happen: FOIA at the National Archives.

What could be more timely than the National Archives commenting during Sunshine Week which as I understand it is also celebrated in Mar-A-SomethingOrOther?

On Tuesday, our sister blog published an article about the Fox and Dominion Voting Systems case:  Tuesdays With More Sunshine Week!  And Ashley Moody!  Specifically, the article referenced a pleading filed in that case by Fox on Friday, March 10, 2023.  It is titled, Fox Defendants' Application for Continued Sealing of Summary Judgment Materials, and you can read it here:  Download Fox Defendants' Application for Continued Sealing of Summary Judgment Materials filed 03.10.23 in US Dominion Inc. v. Fox News Netwk. LLC (Del. Super. Ct. No. N21C-03-257 EMD .CONSOLIDATED).

See what you think.   This is the argument in a nutshell, and it goes to the heart of Dominion's defamation case against Fox:  "For a media company like Fox, proprietary newsgathering processes are the kind of competitive business information that justifies maintaining the seal."  This includes sealing "concrete details" of "how editorial decisions are made," "how reporters source their stories," and how Fox conducts its "fact-checks."  (Id., at 12.)  "Prematurely disclosing these other details on Fox's internal and proprietary journalistic processes may allow competitors to appropriate these processes for their own competitive advantage, to Fox's detriment, and may chill future newsgathering activity."  (Id., at 14.)

Convinced?  

Maybe this will change your mind, when you consider that Fox deserves "extra protection" from the Court "[i]n a high-profile case like this".  (Id., at 18.)

Speaking of Fox and yesterday's article, recall Ashley Moody.  If you do not watch Fox regularly, you might not know that Ms. Moody is the current Attorney General of the State of Florida.  You would not be likely to learn that fact from other TV outlets, because she rarely if ever appears anywhere except on Fox shows. She regularly issues a press release at this time of year that she "vows" to "safeguard" Sunshine Laws in Florida.

So, in the spirit of transparency in this Sunshine Week that Ms. Moody has "vowed" to "safeguard," after all, what does the Attorney General of the State of Florida get from Fox, and what does Fox get from the Attorney General of the State of Florida?

  

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2023 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

"NO ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR YOU!" ONLY PROPERTY INSURERS NEED APPLY.

 

A Courtroom.  (Pacific Standard)

The risk of paying an insured's  attorney's fees in the event the insured  prevails in litigation with an insurer is one of the factors that insurers must take into account.  This is something that comes to an insurer's attention first at the stage when the carrier decides whether it will deny coverage.  At that stage, the calculus includes the insurer's best guess whether the fact, timing, or context of denying an insured's claim is likely to lead to litigation.

          Once in litigation, most if not all insurers will continue the calculus by estimating the likelihood that its insured  may prevail.  The threat of paying its insured's attorney's fees is a continuing factor in making the insurance carrier's decision whether to affirm or deny coverage, whether that decision is made before or after litigation with the insured has begun.  The threat of paying an insured's attorney's fees cannot be underestimated. 

          In 2022, the statute which previously authorized a prevailing insured to recover its  attorney's fees in litigation caused by its insurer, was changed exclusively for the sole benefit of property insurers. Since the change, policyholders that win their case cannot recover their attorney's fees from a property insurer even if their property insurer was the one that caused the fees to be incurred.   However,  other insurance companies remain subject to the risk.  See Fla. Stat. § 627.428.

          The property insurers were also protected by changes to the Surplus Lines Statute governing Attorney's Fees.  In a mirror image of Section 627.428 applicable to all insurers generally, before 2022 insureds prevailing in litigation caused by their surplus lines insurers could recover their attorney's fees incurred in defending or prosecuting the litigation.  That changed in 2022, as well, but once again  only with respect to property insurers.  Other surplus lines insurance companies remain subject to the risk.  See Fla. Stat. § 626.9373.

Thomson Reuters is publishing the author's forthcoming article, Consumers Had No Voice:  Changes to Property Insurers' Laws in Florida, in the next edition of Insurance Litigation Reporter.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2023 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

THE VOTER VIGILANTES OF MARICOPA COUNTY, FEDERAL LAW & JUDGE: UPDATE.

 

The recent developments in an Arizona federal case surrounding the Voter Vigilantes of Maricopa County are confused and confusing by the mainstream media.  So I went out to the case docket on PACER (Public Access to [Federal] Court Electronic Records).  Here is what I found to be the case.

When last we left the story on Friday, October 28th, a federal judge had entered an order refusing to enjoin the Voter Vigilantes from  voter intimidation.  He said that he could not see how the First Amendment (right of intimidation?) could be reconciled with such an injunction, so he denied the injunction.

That was on October 28th.  Since then, the plaintiffs, augmented by the League of Women Voters, wrote an order together with the defendants reconciling the First Amendment with such an injunction.  Download Arizona Alliance for Ret. Am's v. Clear Elect's USA DE 51 Temporary Restraining Order (Stipulated and Contested) filed Nov. 1 2022 (D. Ariz. No. 2.22.cv.01823.MTL)  The federal judge signed the parties' stipulated Temporary Restraining Order on November 2, 2022 and, apparently emboldened by the parties' ability to write an order, he went further and ordered injunctive relief requested by the plaintiffs to which the defendants had not apparently agreed.

In the stipulated part of the Temporary Restraining Order, the defendants agreed not to carry guns to drop boxes in Maricopa County; to stay away from drop boxes the same 75 feet that Arizona law requires them to stay away from polling places; post a statement on their existing website and social media and on any new social media account they make, that directly contradicts everything they have been writing about drop boxes in Arizona; and other things. 

In the unstipulated part of the Temporary Restraining Order, this federal judge restrained the defendants from doxing any individuals (meaning enjoining them from publishing the names and contact information and such) who wanted to drop off their ballots.  Over the defendants' apparent opposition, this federal judge also enjoined the defendants from saying false things about Arizona voting law "through the close of voting on Election Day 2022."  Download Arizona Alliance for Ret. Am's v. Clear Elect's USA DE 51 Temporary Restraining Order (Stipulated and Contested) filed Nov. 1 2022 (D. Ariz. No. 2.22.cv.01823.MTL)

So, those are some of the things that have actually happened since last Friday, October 28, 2022 in the case of the Voter Vigilantes of Maricopa County.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

ANOTHER GRIEVANCE BOY JUDGE. THIS TIME, MARICOPA COUNTY VOTING VIGILANTES.

(Image by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona)

Judge Aileen Cannon of the Southern District of Florida has found notoriety with her recent rulings.

Another judge appointed by the Grievance Boy has been assigned to another case that is significant to the United States of America.  Judge Michael Liburdi has been assigned to rule on the request for a preliminary injunction filed against any continued voter intimidation by Maricopa County, AZ vigilantes.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Arizona Alliance of Retired Americans, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

The assignment is stated on the PACER [Public Access to (Federal) Court Electronic Docket] as "random."  A different judge, Judge John J. Tuchi, was assigned when the case was filed on October 24.  Judge Tuchi was appointed by President Obama.  However, Judge Liburdi has now replaced Judge Tuchi. 

Judge Liburdi set a hearing on the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction against voter intimidation, for 1:00 PM (Arizona time) on Wednesday, October 26, 2022.  The case number is 2:22-cv-01823-MTL.

Perhaps we will learn then whether this judge will enjoin voter intimidation in Maricopa County, Arizona, or not.  Stay tuned.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

P.S. to "MEET THE JUDGES WHO RESTORED THE REPUBLIC FOR NOW."

United States Supreme Court (AP / Jacquelyn Martin)

If (some say when) they ask for an emergency blockade of the Eleventh Circuit's decision to allow the United States to continue to investigate criminal violations involving the confidential documents found under a Court-authorized search warrant to investigate criminal violations, and also that part of the Eleventh Circuit's decision to allow the United States to continue to evaluate the damage done to our national security, then it might be worth knowing who the U.S. Supreme Court Justice is who handles emergency applications for a stay of Eleventh Circuit Orders:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Think they'll ask for an emergency blockade of the Eleventh Circuit's decision?

Please read the disclaimer.  © 2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

MEET THE JUDGES WHO RESTORED THE REPUBLIC FOR NOW.

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Atlanta, Georgia (Image Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Website)

On September 21, 2022, a federal appellate court ruled that while its appeal is pending, the United States can use the classified materials it confiscated from the beach resort in South Florida under an authorized search warrant, to investigate whatever crimes may have been committed and to review whatever damage was done to national security.  They also ruled that the United States does not have to submit the classified documents to a special master to review in the meantime.

With their unanimous order, they restored the Republic, at least for now.  Meet the Judges.

JUDGE ROBIN S.  ROSENBAUM is the senior judge among the three judges on this panel.  She has been on the Eleventh Circuit since 2014.  Having turned 56 this year, she is also the oldest of the three judges on this panel.  Judge Rosenbaum is familiar with the inner workings of most of the parties in this case, having worked as a Trial Attorney in the Department of Justice, as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida, as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of Florida, and as a U.S. District Judge in the Southern District of Florida.

A graduate of the University of Miami Law School, she was nominated by President Obama and she was confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit by a vote of 91 to 0.

JUDGE BRITT GRANT was a Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court before she went to the Eleventh Circuit in 2018.  A graduate of Stanford Law School, Judge Grant was confirmed by a vote of 52-46.  She is 44 years old and a Republican by party.

JUDGE ANDREW L. BRASHER rounds out this panel of three Judges.  Judge Brasher turned 41 this year and has been on the Eleventh Circuit since June 2020.  Previously he was appointed a U.S. District Judge in Alabama where he served for about a year before going to the Eleventh Circuit.  A graduate of Harvard Law School, he too is a Republican by party.

Contrary to Mainstream Media and Alternate Media headlines, this decision did not resolve the appeal in favor of the United States, although that is the likely outcome after this ruling.  Also, this panel which decided the motion (called a "motions panel") may not be the same panel of Judges who will decide the entire appeal.  So it's on with the appeal and let's win there!

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

Asking "By What Right" Challenges Their Right to Hold Office. Ever.

(One of the last photographs taken of Abraham Lincoln)

New Mexico and its citizens and its State Courts have all shown the way to challenge the right of insurrectionists to hold -- and run for -- office:  Ask courts to declare by what right those people hold -- or seek -- office under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.  (In litigation, to ask "by what right" usually means pleading the writ of quo warranto or something similar.)

As you may already know, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment was written to bar people engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States to ever hold office.  Then, it meant former Confederates.

Now, it means office holders (and office seekers) even though they did not engage in violence so long as the proof in court shows that they did engage in insurrection, as in the case of Download State of New Mexico ex rel. White v. Griffin Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and Judgment filed Sept. 6 2022 (N.M. Dist. Ct. 1st Dist. Santa Fe County No. D-101-CV-2022-00473).

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2022 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.