Law & Law Enforcement

What a Surprise. SCOTUS Agrees That the Left’s 14th Amendment Fantasy To Rig the 2024 Election Is the Cynical, Anti-Democratic Ploy That It Is.

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Reports on the oral argument before the Supreme Court indicate that the Justices’ questioning was harshly critical of the ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court under scrutiny. That was the declaration that former President Trump’s conduct after the election in 2020 made him ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment section barring those who engaged in an insurrection from running for office.

It wasn’t just the solid conservatives (above) who doubted the Colorado ruling; even two-thirds of the so-called liberal bloc of the Court seemed unimpressed by the Colorado decision banning Trump from the ballot, which by extension makes the Supreme Court’s decision applicable to Maine as well as any other Trump-fearing states that are inclined to try the same tactic. Every Justice except the pathetic Sonia Sotamayor expressed skepticism at the Colorado argument and appeared to be more sympathetic with Trump’s lawyer’s positions.

Continue reading →

Normalizing Theft

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

Since we began the day with a dead canary in the mine of democracy, here’s another. That video shows a thief rampaging through an Apple Store in Emeryville, north of Oakland (where Woke Kindergarten romps). Nobody tries to stop him. Nobody even appears alarmed by him. He escapes by running right by a police car.

Continue reading →

Now THIS Is an Unethical Judge!

/ Jack Marshall / 22 Comments

How do people this unethical…and dumb…get to be judges? I don’t understand this story at all.

Sidney Southerland is a party in a child custody case before Family Court in the Bronx, and was surprised one day to receive a personal message on 3Fun, “the leading app for sexually free singles.”

The message was from the presiding judge in her case.

“GM,” the woman wrote in a message just before 8 a.m. on January 24 (“GM” is texting slang for good morning), “Am Cynthia. How are you?” The sender’s profile photo showed a woman wearing black heels and a black negligee, sitting cross-legged on a couch.

A stunned Southerland read the woman’s profile, which stated, “We are a full swap couple in an ethical non-monogamous dynamic looking to have some hot sexy fun with other full swap couples and single ladies.” It continued, “We love thick girls just as much as we love petite girls! At the end of the day it’s all about personality. Guys at the most should be stocky and I the female, prefer males to be somewhat endowed.”

It was her Family Court judge, Cynthia Lopez, and she had sure picked the wrong target for a pick-up. 

Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Month: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

“It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity…We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, rejecting former President Donald Trump’s bonkers claim that Presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts committed while in office.

The ruling is here.

Seldom has any court appeal in a high profile case had a more obvious and virtually assured resolution. The ethics alarms analysis of this issue was discussed in “Ethics Zugzwang In Trump’s Immunity Appeal,” and in this subsequent post. I hope it’s unnecessary to say that I agree with the D.C. Circuit’s ruling.

I wonder if Trump considered that if he won the appeal, President Biden could order that he and his MAGA supporters could be summarily shot as “clear and present dangers to democracy.” He could order the execution of the Republican contingent in the House, too, to forestall an impeachment.

What a great theory.

It was unethical for Trump and his lawyers to make the argument. If I had been his attorney—and before all the dust settles, Trump might eventually have to retain lawyers as inexperienced in litigation I am, and maybe even me—I would have withdrawn before I’d file such an irresponsible appeal.

There is Hope! Part 2, The Vindication of Waylon Bailey

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

Waylon Bailey, the social media-user who was arrested by a Wuhan virus totalitarian idiot for making a joke and initially denied justice by a U.S. District Judge who doesn’t know the law, finally was awarded $205,000 in compensatory and punitive damages by a federal jury. It’s not enough, not even close, and the publicity the episode has received (virtually none) underlines that point.

These are the kinds of cases juries should address with $83 million in damages (just picking a number out of the air, there) to make the next Gestapo-inclined officer who considers punishing a citizen for exercising his constitutional rights think twice, or even three times. At least, however, Waylon Bailey was vindicated by our lately maladjusted justice system.

There is hope.

Continue reading →

There is Hope! Part 1, Introduction: the Vindication of Waylon Bailey

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Several things make this particular story necessary this morning. Most of all, it’s an ethics story with a happy ending. I’ve been hearing from several EA readers of late (and a lapsed, much missed commenter who had dropped out) who tell me that they the blog too depressing. So do I, which I suppose means that I need to perk up my tone and perspective a bit. I am generally able to muster enthusiasm and optimism, but I know that’s a bias that sometimes makes me naive. It’s sometimes difficult for me to distinguish between my reaction to some ethics tale that is objectively disturbing and the emotional hangover various crises I been wading through almost non-stop since early in 2020. I promise to do better.

Continue reading →

Add Two Unethical and Irresponsible Progressive Policies Together And This Is the Result

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Great—even a dyed-in-the-wool conservative gadfly like Ian Miles Chong is adopting coded woke-speak now. Those aren’t migrants, kicking and beating on NYC police. They are illegal immigrants.Darwin Andres Gomez Izquiel, 19, Kelvin Servat Arocha, 19, Juarez Wilson, 21, Yorman Reveron, 24, and Jhoan Boada, 22, were chased down, arrested, and charged with assault. They they were released without bail, because, as we know, the criminal justice system is racist letting criminal go while depending on an honor system to get them before a judge or jury is the sensitive policy. Illegal immigrants have demonstrated that they have no respect for our laws, and ny attacking cops, these illegals have demonstrated that they have no intention of being law abiding citizens. Writes fire-breathing conservative columnist Athena Thorne in response to that video:

“In New York City, Biden and Mayorkas’s legacy plays out daily. Asylum scammers continue to romp around the Big, Rotten Apple, merrily shoplifting businesses into oblivion, burning down buildings with their off-brand lithium-ion batteries, and mowing down New Yorkers with their e-bikes and uninsured vehicles in hit-and-run incidents. Lawlessness breeds lawlessness. And we taxpayers have the privilege of bankrolling all of it.

At the beginning of her column, she describes the video as “Trump’s latest campaign ad.”

It’s hard for me to see how she’s wrong. When people vote for the almost incredibly flawed Donald Trump, they are voting against scenes like what we see above.

Ethics Quiz: Hating Satan

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Michael Cassidy, the former Mississippi candidate for Congress who destroyed the Christmas seasonal display put up by Satanists at the Iowa State Capitol building , was ultimately charged not just with criminal mischief, which is a misdemeanor and what such vandalism would usually draw as an offense, but felony third-degree criminal mischief. The enhanced charge was justified, according to the prosecutor, because the act was committed “in violation of individual rights” under Iowa’s hate crime statute.

The statue Cassidy attacked was of Baphomet, who isn’t exactly Satan but close enough for horseshoes, or goatshoes. The ancient pagan deity is used as a symbolic trademark by the Satanic Temple, a largely satirical pro-atheism and anti-religion organization. He’s a little like Mickey Mouse is to Disney. Understandably, however, serious Christians regard using Ol’ Baphy’s image to “celebrate” the Christian holiday of Christmas as blasphemy, which it is, because that’s how the Satanic Temple rolls. It think blasphemy is a joke. To that group, all religion is a joke.

Michael Cassidy is one of millions who don’t get it.

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…

Should a hateful act against a statue that mocks Christianity be treated as a hate crime?

“Evidence shows the defendant made statements to law enforcement and the public indicating he destroyed the property because of the victim’s religion,” triggering the violation of individual rights enhancement, said Lynn Hicks, a spokesman for the Polk County Attorney’s Office.

Wow, an entire office of assholes! The man committed a crime and an act of civil disobedience, protesting what he views as the absurdity of the state having to give a supposed Satanic organization equal representation with other religions in a holiday display. I have no idea what is gained by over-charging and taking the apparent position that it’s illegal to hate the personification of evil. Some legal commentators have climbed into the high weeds about whether atheism or Satanism are legitimate religions; the same weeds are available for debates over Pastafarians (The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) and Scientologists. It’s an unnecessary issue here.

Hate crimes are thought crimes and, at Ethics Alarms, unethical to charge whatever they involve. Michael Cassidy should be allowed to hate Satan, Baphomet, their followers real or satirical, those who mock Christianity and Christmas and anyone or anything else he chooses, as long as he doesn’t also destroy property.

I, for example, hate grandstanding prosecutors.

“Indictment: The McMartin Trial,” An Ethics Movie That Seems Disturbingly Relevant Today

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

How I missed the 1995 HBO film “Indictment: the McMartin Trial” for almost 30 years, I don’t know, but I did. The Oliver Stone produced legal drama about the insane events surrounding what turned out to be the start of a nation-wide freak-out over supposed Satan worship and widespread child abuse at day-care centers is unusually accurate for a docudrama. For this reason it is also infuriating. How could this have happened even once?

In August of 1983, the mother of a 2-year-old boy phoned the Manhattan Beach (California) Police Dept. claiming that her son had been sexually abused at the family-run McMartin Pre-School. That accusation prompted a series of sensational and inflammatory reports from an unscrupulous broadcast journalist (or “journalist,” for short) at WABC-TV. It also prompted the police to contact other parents with children at the school to ask if their children had been molested. Those children were, in turn, interviewed by a crusading social worker named Kee MacFarlane, who used controversial techniques to persuade the young children that they had seen and experienced terrible things, escalating from sexual abuse to having to witness ritual rapes and human sacrifices. (This was one of the seminal cases in the psychiatry profession’s “implanted memories” scandal.)

Continue reading →

Ethics Hero: EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas [Corrected]

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

Well this was certainly refreshing and unexpected!

Donald Trump-knockoff billionaire Mark Cuban stated in gratuitous tweet that he has “never hired anyone based exclusively on race, gender, religion,” but that “race and gender can be part of the equation” because he believes “diversity is a competitive advantage.”

What virtue-signaling claptrap! What does that last part even mean? Does Harvard consider that its acceptance of diversity as a substitute for genuine credentials and ability has given the university a “competitive advantage” as it competes for the best students, faculty and donors? Yesterday, in addition to having it revealed that its top DEI officer is a DEI hire herself who rose to predominance with the assistance of bogus scholarship, a wealthy donor who last year gave the university $300,000,000 dollars announced that he was through. “Will America’s elite university get back to their roots of educating American children – young adults – to be the future leaders of our country or are they going to maintain being lost in the wilderness of microaggressions [and]a DEI agenda that seems to have no real endgame…?” Ken Griffin asked in response to being asked if he could be lured back as a donor. Continue reading →