Legal Research is EASY

The Constitution under Attack

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 27 Apr 2026 07:00:00 +0000

I gotta wonder what is going through the minds of the SCOTUS justices sometimes. I mean, Trump, Trump, Trump aside, it's amazing how they find the time to muck up the Constitution so much.

What? Muck up the Constitution?! What'd the SCOTUS do this time?!?

Back in 2021, police in Anaconda, Montana received a 911 call from William Trevor Case’s ex-girlfriend saying he was suicidal and might try “suicide by cop.”

Important to note: His EX girlfriend (whom I am sure only had his best interests in mind) called the police. Thing is, I've had ex-whatevers and they NEVER have my best interest in mind. Heck, tell me I'm wrong but are there any EX's out in people-land who aren't out to screw you the first chance they get?!?

Anyway, and moving on, officers arrived at Case's residence and start looking in windows but saw no immediate emergencies. Waiting another 40 minutes outside the house (during which time they called their supervisor to assess what, if any, risk they might have if they were to break down the door under the pretext of an emergency discussing whether or if Case might ambush them.

NOTE: they were seeking advice as to what risk/emergency THEY might have if they broke down the door - not whether there was any risk to Case. Yeah, so very altruistic they were.

Note also that in all that 40 minutes, they never tried to get a warrant to break down the door (which they could have) nor did they have probabe cause (because of the presumed emergency). Police eventually broke down the front door with rifles in hand and ballistic shields.

Confronting the defendant, Case emerged holding an object (believed to be a gun) and an officer shot him. Case was later convicted of assaulting an officer and challenged the admissibility of evidence, arguing the entry violated the Fourth Amendment.

So, let's recap:

Police are called saying defendant is going to shoot himself (can you say swatting?).
Police wait 40 minutes before entering.
Without probable cause (as is generally necessary under the 4th Amendment), police enter without a warrant (you know, because of emergency),
Police confront and shoot the defendant and arrest they guy they're supposed to be helping for assaulting a police officer.

Yeah, sounds like something police would do.

Anyway, Case loses at the trial and appellate levels. The SCOTUS also rules in favor of the State (of Montana) in Case v. Montana, No. 24-624. In their holding (written by Justice Kagan), the court held that police can enter a home wihout a warrant to render emergency aid if they have

"an objectively reasonable basis for believing someone inside is seriously inujured or facing serious harm."

The Court reasoned that probable cause is rooted in criminal investigations and ill-suited to non-investigatory welfare checks (which is total BS!). Because the officers reasonably believed Case might have shot himself or was in immediate danger, their entry was constitutionally valid.

A few problems stick out for me.

Before Case, the generally understood standard for police entering a person's home was that warrantless entry into a home usually required:

Probable cause
Exigent circumstances

After Case, in cases of "emergency aid" or "welfare checks," Police only need:

“Objectively reasonable belief” that someone is seriously injured or in danger. This is a significantly lower threshold than probable cause. Consequently, civil liberties groups argue the decision:

blurs the line between exigent circumstances and welfare checks
makes home entry easier to justify after the fact.

A few other problems I see is that why do courts seeminly ALWAYS (that's "always" as in every bloody time) give deference to police holding out a objective standard based on how a cop perceives a situation. Turns out, I'm not the only one thinking this as many legal scholars have raised exactly the concern. Critics argue the standard:

1. Allows post-hoc justification

If officers can articulate any reasonable emergency theory later, courts often accept it.

2. Encourages pretext

Police could enter homes under a “welfare check” theory even whether or not they suspect a crime is being committed.

3. Weakens the home’s constitutional protection

The Supreme Court historically called the home the “core of the Fourth Amendment.” Lowering the standard will definately erodes that.

4. Creates escalation risks

Situations like this one can become violent precisely because police enter. However, a bigger problem where critics point to is:

Someone falsely reports a suicide threat.
Police perform a welfare check.
Officers claim they believed someone inside was in danger.
Forced entry occurs without probable cause.

Because the standard is objective reasonableness, courts will often (that's "often" as in every bloody time) defer to what officers say they perceived at the time.

How might this play out? Picture it, an ex-girl or boyfriend or a Karen of a neighbor or a political opponent decides to swat someone they don't like and calls the police filing a fake report.

Police respond, break down the door and, later, claim to have seen a gun or some other weapon and charge everyone inside the house with crimes that are trumped up to ensure the police aren't later sued and lose their precious qualified immunity.

We didn't need Case for this to happen because it happens all the time.

Wait, what?! You're saying there are instances where people had someone file a false claim against them, police break down their door and then charge them with crimes that didn't happen or were trumped up?

1. Martin v. United States, No. 24-362 (2025)

Facts:

FBI agents conducted a pre-dawn raid on the wrong house in Atlanta.
They broke the door, threw a flashbang, and handcuffed the residents, including frightening a child.
Agents later realized they had the wrong address.

2. Janetka v. Dabe, 892 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1989)

Facts:

Police arrested a man and charged him with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.
At trial he was acquitted of the resisting arrest charge, the more serious charge.

Legal significance of this case is that the court allowed a malicious prosecution claim, noting that police sometimes add unsupported charges.

The court warned that allowing this practice would permit officers to add unsupported serious charges with impunity.

Why this matters: Courts recognize that officers sometimes add charges like resisting arrest or obstruction to justify an encounter.

3. Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958)

Facts:

Police broke into a home without properly announcing authority or purpose.
The defendant reacted by attempting to close the door.

Holding: The Supreme Court ruled the arrest unlawful because officers failed to follow required procedures before breaking in. The Court emphasized that the home has special constitutional protection.

6. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004)

The Supreme Court ruled that an arrest can be lawful even if the officer cited the wrong crime, as long as probable cause existed for some crime.

Why this matters: This rule allows officers to arrest someone for one reason and later justify it with a different offense.

The underlying situation here is that courts see that civil rights litigation frequently shows a pattern:

Police enter a home (sometimes the wrong house).
Residents react (confusion, refusal, self-defense).
Officers charge them with:
- resisting arrest
- obstruction
- assault on an officer
Charges are later dismissed, but the encounter is legally justified by the arrest.

Courts often analyze these cases under: 42 U.S.C. §1983 (civil rights lawsuits), Fourth Amendment unlawful search, and false arrest / malicious prosecution.

Under Case, however, much of these protections will be tossed in favor of a tyrannical police force who are legally able to

lie to people to get them to admit to things they didn't do,
arrest someone for one reason and later justify it with a different offense.

Probably the BIGGEST problem with all this (and what the SCOTUS blew past) is that police are, by their very nature, seemingly have a tyrannical streak and will ALWAYS (that's "always" as in every bloody time) look for reasons to break the law.

You read that right - break the law. Police do it all the time (not every time but a lot of the time).

In this case, what Case does is give police another bad reason to violate the Constitution and break down doors to private residences under the pretense of an emergency or welfare check.

I mean, do you really (that's "really" as in pull your collective heads out of your collective backsides and face reality) believe police will only kick down a door when they think there is an emergency?

Hells Bells, police will use Case to kick down doors with reckless abandon if it so pleases them. You know it, I know it and the police know it.

And the reason for this is because Police are like politicians - always looking for ways to muck up the Constitution. Police will always be looking for ways to arrest and terrorize people because, otherwise, what are they going to do with themselves? Get fat on donuts?!

Well, yes, police do (seemingly) have a donut fetish but the bottom line to all this is that cases like Case only do one thing: undermine the rights of we the people.

As long as courts continue to defer to what is reasonable to the police/government in every (that's "every" as in every bloody time) situation, the rights of we the people will continue to errode.

Regardless of whether you are Republican, Independent, or democrat, it behooves everyone the necessity to stand up against these blatant attacks on the Constitution and fight against cases like Case and their ilk.

Go Ahead and Speak Your Mind

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 07:00:00 +0000

Have you ever noticed how most people really don't like being told they suck or are bad at their jobs?

I've had not a few irate people scream at me (over the years), because I wouldn't provide legal advice to people researching their legal questions.

But that's not what I'm talking about.

Nope, I'm taking about members of the city council. I mean you'd think they way people scream at these guys (and gals) that they (the city councils of America) really don't have a clue about what they're doing!

And by their reactions, sometimes, I'm guessing they don't.

Take the case of Noah Petersen, who was arrested for criticizing his mayor and police department.

Seems Mr. Petersen had written letters to the city council because he was upset about something. After not getting a response, he decided to stand in front of his local city council and complain about how things were being done.

During the course of his monologue, Mr. Petersen stated that both the Mayor and the Chief of Police were "fascists"- which really didn't sit well with the Mayor who banged his gavel and, eventually, had Mr. Petersen arrested and removed from chambers.

The problem with all this is that the right to criticize the government is protected under our constitutional republic. Pursuant to the 1st Amendment of the United State Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This single amendment protects the core right of citizens to criticize government, officials, laws, and policies.

The two clauses that are especially important (as they relate to criticizing government or speech, in general) are:

Freedom of Speech
Protects verbal and expressive criticism of government actors and policies.
Right to Petition the Government
Protects complaints, protests, and demands for change — historically understood as the right to criticize authority without fear of punishment.

The SCOTUS has repeatedly said that criticism of government is at the heart of the First Amendment, not at its edges and has said so in not a few cases, including:

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
The Court held that public officials must tolerate harsh, inaccurate, and even offensive criticism, unless it is knowingly false and malicious.
→ This case exists specifically to protect criticism of government.
Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)
Speech that “stirs people to anger” or “invites dispute” is still protected.
→ Government cannot silence speech simply because it is upsetting.
City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)
The Court struck down a city ordinance banning verbal criticism of police officers.
→ The Court said “the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.”

Government officials try to get around the right to criticize government constantly, and the courts have been very clear—all such speech is protected. Following are real-world breakdown of the most common methods, what officials claim, and how courts respond.

1. “You’re being disrespectful / negative / offensive”

What officials say: “This meeting must remain respectful.”

What they really mean: Stop criticizing us.

Why it fails: The First Amendment does not protect only polite speech. In fact, criticism is often uncomfortable by nature.

Court response: City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987): The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.

Bottom line: “Disrespect” is not a constitutional category.

2. “You’re off topic”

What officials say: “Please limit comments to agenda items.”

How it’s abused: Supporters are allowed to wander; critics are shut down.

Why it fails: Agenda limits must be evenly applied. Selective enforcement = viewpoint discrimination.

Court response: Courts consistently hold that unequal enforcement of meeting rules violates the First Amendment.

Under Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995) the court held that viewpoint discrimination is an“egregious form of content discrimination.” The Court made it clear that once the government allows speech on a topic, it cannot favor one side of that topic. Thus, any uneven application of rules tied to perspective is unconstitutional.

Bottom line: Rules aren’t illegal — biased enforcement is.

3. “You’re causing a disruption”

What officials say: "You’re disrupting the meeting."

What disruption actually means (legally):

Physical obstruction
Refusing to yield the floor
Shouting so proceedings can’t continue

What it does not mean:

Saying things officials don’t like
Accusing them of corruption
Speaking passionately

Court response: Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)
Speech that provokes anger is protected.

Bottom line: Offense does not equal disruption.

4. “This is a limited public forum — we can control speech”

What officials say: “Public comment is a limited forum; we can restrict it.”

Why this fails: Limited public forums still require viewpoint neutrality.

Court response: In Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 41 F.4th 938 (D.C. Cir. 2023), the Court explicitly recognizes a First Amendment claim for selective enforcement based on viewpoint. Government violates the First Amendment when it enforces rules against one viewpoint but not another, even without bad motive. Consequently, selective enforcement of a law “in a viewpoint discriminatory way” states a First Amendment claim.

Bottom line: “Limited forum” is not a magic eraser.

5. “We’re just enforcing decorum”

What officials say: “We’re enforcing decorum rules.”

How courts see it: Decorum rules must be:

Narrow
Clear
Content-neutral
Applied equally

Why this fails in practice: “Decorum” is often undefined and used selectively.

Court response: Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973): Vague rules chill speech and are unconstitutional.

Bottom Line: Vague/undefined rules are unenforceable

6. “We’re protecting staff safety”

What officials say: “This speech makes people feel unsafe.”

Why it fails: Emotional discomfort ≠ legal threat.

Court response: Brandenburg v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 444 (1969): Only true threats or incitement to imminent violence are unprotected.

Bottom line: Feeling unsafe is not the same as being unsafe.

7. “You violated meeting policy”

What officials say: “Our policy doesn’t allow that kind of speech.”

Why it fails: City policies do not override the U.S. Constitution.

Court response: Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972): Local rules conflicting with constitutional rights are void.

8. “You can criticize us — just not here”

What officials say: “Take that outside.”

Why it fails: If public comment is allowed, criticism must be allowed too.

Court response: City of Madison Joint School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 429 U.S. 167 (1976): Silencing dissent at the only official forum for public input is unconstitutional.

Bottom Line: If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

So, what can you do about city council's violating your 1st amendment rights (to criticize them)?

Well, following are some practical, plain-English checklists citizens can use in real time at city council or board meetings to protect their First Amendment rights. They are written so an ordinary person can actually use them while standing at the podium or immediately afterward.

Before You Speak

Is there a public comment period?
→ If yes, it is at least a limited public forum.

Are other people allowed to speak?
→ If yes, the government cannot silence you based on viewpoint.

Are time limits posted or announced?
→ Time limits are legal if applied equally.

While You Are Speaking

Am I speaking on a matter of public concern?
→ Criticism of officials, policies, or spending is fully protected.

Am I following the same rules as others (time, order)?
→ If yes, you are protected even if officials dislike your message.

Am I being interrupted or cut off?
→ Ask yourself why:

Actual disruption (shouting, refusing to yield time)?
Or because the content is critical or uncomfortable?

If it’s the second one, that's a constitutional red flag.

Common Illegal Justifications (Red Flags)

🚩 “You’re being disrespectful”
🚩 “We don’t allow negative comments”
🚩 “You’re criticizing council members”
🚩 “You’re making people uncomfortable”
🚩 “This isn’t the place for that” (when others are allowed to speak)

None of these are valid legal reasons to stop protected speech.

If You Are Cut Off or Removed

Did others expressing a different viewpoint speak longer or more freely?
→ This suggests viewpoint discrimination.

Was the rule applied only to you?
→ Selective enforcement = unconstitutional.

Was the reason vague or emotional?
→ “Decorum” without definition is a legal weakness.

What to Say (Calm, On-the-Record)

If interrupted, you may calmly say:

“For the record, I am speaking on a matter of public concern and complying with all posted rules.”

Or:

“Please state the specific rule I am violating.”

These statements create a record without escalating conflict.

After the Meeting (If There Was a Violation)

Note the date, time, and exact words used
Save video or request the meeting recording
Identify witnesses
Request meeting minutes and written policies

Ask:

Was my speech stopped due to content or viewpoint?
Were rules enforced equally?

If yes, this may be a First Amendment violation (that's "may" as in there are no absolutes in law)

The bottom line to all this is if praise is allowed at City Council hearings but criticism is stopped, then the First Amendment has been violated.

Make a note of it.

You're Pulling Me Over, Why?!?

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 13 Apr 2026 07:00:00 +0000

In every place I've lived (four states and counting), California has, by far, the most police per mile of roadway. That said, I am often surprised to find cops popping up in the most unlikely places here in Utah - particularly when I'm driving a few miles over the speed limit.

That's right, I'm a scofflaw of sorts and have been known to break a few traffic laws. Thankfully, though, I have yet to be caught doing so (knock on wood). I got to thinking about this the other day (as I was flying down the highway) specifically about the various ways people can get pulled over.

So, how many reasons do you think there are that police can pull you over? Well, If you count actual, codified legal reasons, most states have 200–400 distinct traffic and vehicle code sections of which roughly 150–250 are enforceable as stop-justifying violations, like:

Speed-related (multiple sub-rules)
Lane positioning
Signaling timing
Equipment specs (color, brightness, placement)
Registration display rules
Driver conduct rules
Pedestrian/right-of-way interactions

Soooooo ballpark guesstimate: there are maybe about 200 legitimate statutory reasons a police officer could lawfully stop a vehicle in a typical U.S. state?

Now, if you count discretion-based or “catch-all” violations, the number of possible pull-overable violations dramatically increase the number. Nearly every state has vague statutes like:

“Careless driving”
“Unsafe operation”
“Failure to maintain lane”
“Driving at a speed not reasonable and prudent”
“Equipment not in safe working order”

and each of these can be triggered by dozens of observable behaviors. Sooooo, again, ballpark guesstimate: maybe another couple hundred more practical justifications.

Given all that and because the SCOTUS went and ruled in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) that any traffic violation, no matter how minor, gives police probable cause to stop a vehicle, we are all in danger of getting pulled over and for any of the 400-ish reasons government has come up with to separate we the people with our hard-earned cash.

Notwithstanding all that, and after extensive research into all things reasons police pull people over, I've come up with the top 10 reasons police pull people over (in all states). To wit:

1. Speeding

Driving above the posted speed limit is one of the most common reasons for being pulled over. Officers may also pull over drivers who are going too fast for the road conditions (e.g., in poor weather).

Speeding ends up as the #1 reason police pull people over because it sits at the intersection of law, safety, detectability, and enforcement practicality. No other traffic offense checks all those boxes as cleanly. Common penalties for speeding include:

Fines – Usually the first hit. The faster over the limit, the higher the fine.
Points on your license – Many places add demerit points; too many can lead to suspension.
Higher insurance rates – Even one ticket can bump your premiums for years.
Traffic school – Sometimes required, sometimes optional to reduce points.
License suspension or revocation – More likely for extreme speeding or repeat offenses.
Court appearance – Required in some cases, especially if the speed was very high.
Vehicle impoundment – In some jurisdictions for excessive or reckless speeding.
Criminal charges – If speeding is classified as reckless driving (e.g., 25–30+ mph over the limit).

As it relates to speeding, fines are typically based on how fast your are traveling and vary state by state. To that you can usually expect to pay:

First Offense (example speed ranges):

1–10 mph over limit: about $120–$130
11–15 mph over: about $150–$160
16–20 mph over: about $200–$210
21–25 mph over: about $270–$280
26–30 mph over: about $370–$380
31+ mph over: base $470–$480+

2. Running a Red Light or Stop Sign

Ignoring traffic signals or failing to stop at stop signs is dangerous and a frequent cause for police intervention.

Turns out running a red light or stop sign really is one of the most dangerous everyday driving behaviors, and the reason has less to do with speed alone and more to do with how crashes happen at intersections. When someone runs a red light or stop sign:

Vehicles are crossing at 90-degree angles,
There’s no shared direction of travel, and
There’s often no time to react.

Running a red light or stop sign is dangerous because it:

Creates unavoidable, perpendicular collisions
Removes reaction time from innocent drivers
Targets the weakest parts of vehicles
Endangers pedestrians and cyclists
Turns small timing errors into major crashes

Bottom line, running a red light is not just illegal — it’s one of the highest-risk choices a driver can make in everyday driving.

3. Improper Lane Changes or Failure to Signal

Not signaling before changing lanes or making turns can create confusion on the road and is a traffic violation that often leads to a stop.

Improper lane changes combine high crash risk, constant occurrence, and are easily enforceable—even though they don’t feel as dangerous as speeding or red-light running. Lane changes may not feel dramatic, but in real-world traffic safety and policing, they’re one of the most consequential everyday mistakes drivers make.

4. Tailgating (Following Too Closely)

When a driver follows another vehicle too closely, it’s considered unsafe and can lead to a ticket or a stop, especially in high-traffic areas.

Even though it often feels like a minor annoyance rather than a serious risk. The danger of tailgating comes from physics, human reaction time, and chain-reaction crashes, not just irritation.

While tailgating feels minor, from a safety standpoint, it’s one of the most mathematically unforgiving driving behaviors because it:

Eliminates reaction time
Makes collisions unavoidable
Causes chain-reaction crashes
Amplifies small mistakes
Turns ordinary braking into emergencies

5. Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

Officers will pull over vehicles that exhibit erratic driving behavior, such as swerving, slow or fast speeds, and inconsistent braking, which are often signs of impaired driving.

While DUI is often associated with drinking alcohol, DUI includes many more things and in many ways non-alcohol DUIs are just as dangerous—or more dangerous—because drivers often don’t realize they’re impaired.

DUI (Driving Under the Influence) generally means driving while impaired, not just drunk. Depending on the state, it may also be called:

DUI (Driving Under the Influence)
DWI (Driving While Intoxicated or Impaired)
OUI / OWI (Operating Under/While Intoxicated)

The common legal standard is: Impairment to the extent you cannot safely operate a vehicle. Alcohol is just one way that impairment happens.

Substances that can cause a DUI (besides alcohol) include:

A. Prescription medications

B. Over-the-counter (OTC) medications that cause sedation, blurred vision or reduced altertness.

C. Marijuana (THC). THC can slow reaction time, impair attention and tracting, and distort perception of time and distance.

D. Illegal drugs like Cocaine, Methamphetamine, heroin, MDM, and LSD.

E. Combined substances such as:

alcohol + marijuana
alcohol + prescription meds
multiple prescriptions together

F. Inhalants and household substances like nitrous oxide, solvents, or aerosols.

G. Non-substance impairment can also count. In some states, DUI laws also cover:

Extreme fatigue (sleep deprivation)
Certain medical episodes (if known and ignored)

6. Expired Tags or Registration

If your license plates are expired, officers may pull you over to check the registration and ensure the vehicle is properly insured.

While money is part of the system — expired tags are a pull-over offense mainly because of administrative control and accountability, not because it’s a high-profit enforcement tool. In fact, like DUI, expired-registration stops often cost more to enforce than they money they generate.

7. Broken or Non-Functional Lights

A malfunctioning brake light, headlight, or turn signal could result in a traffic stop. Police often look for vehicles that are unsafe or in violation of basic equipment regulations.

Police often issue fix-it tickets as a way to get drivers to keep cars safe (for other drivers). Fix-it tickets (sometimes called corrective action tickets) are minor traffic citations that don’t carry heavy fines or points, but instead require the driver to correct a violation and prove it to the court or DMV.

The good thing about fix-it tickets is that they are often cheaper and less burdensome than standard citations. For minor issues:

Drivers who can’t immediately pay a big fine can still comply
This avoids a cycle of escalating penalties for small infractions

8. Driving Without a Seatbelt

Failing to wear a seatbelt is a primary offense in many states. Officers often stop drivers and passengers if they notice they are not buckled in.

The thing is that seatbelt laws just feel like a money grab because seatbelt tickets are often low-cost fines and enforcement is easy — officers can issue a citation on sight.

However, the purpose of seatbelt laws is safety first, not money. Wearing a seatbelt reduces the risk of death in a crash by about 45%. Wearing seatbelts also reduce the risk of serious injury by about 50% and unbelted occupants can become projectiles, injuring passengers or first responders. In fact, before mandatory seatbelt laws, hospital and insurance data showed huge costs from preventable injuries.

9. Unusual or Erratic Driving Behavior

Sudden lane changes, inconsistent speeds, or driving in a way that suggests distraction or lack of control may prompt a police officer to pull you over for a safety check.

Years ago, the law office i worked represented a guy who was charged with driving erratically (essentially, he was weaving back and forth in his lane. At the time, we thought, as did the judge when we won, that the copy had lost his mind. Weaving back and forth in his lane? What's the harm in that?

Which is what I thought until I was driving on the 5 freeway in Orange County (California) one night out of Buena Park when I had this nutjob swerve right next to me, then over to the other side and back and forth.

If you don't know what's doing on, you're liable to swerve to get out of his way because you don't know if he's going to ram into you causing you then to swerve into the other lane causing a chain reaction.

Yeah, scary stuff this one is.

10. Failure to Yield to Pedestrians

Not stopping or yielding for pedestrians in crosswalks is a traffic violation that can lead to a stop, especially in areas with heavy foot traffic.

There are a whole lot of loonies in traffic land and many of them are pedestrians. However, drivers must always yield to pedestrians in crosswalks or where pedestrians have the right-of-way, regardless of who the pedestrian is.

So why is the law is absolute when it comes to pedestrians? Traffic laws are designed around predictability, not moral judgment because the system assumes everyone must follow the rules for safety. If exceptions were allowed, roads would become chaotic and deadly.

Consequently, if you see a pedestrian and you're driving, you gotta slow down - even if the pedestrian is being a jerk (staring at their phones instead of paying attention to cars around them).

Yep, there are a whole lot of reasons police are gunning for you. However, if you're able to keep your wits about you, you can avoid police and tickets and fines and other miserable things.

Word of the Month for April 2026: Food Fraud

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 07:00:00 +0000

Do you like to cook? Specifically, bake, grill, BBQ - essentially anything that takes food in it's raw form and converts it into a form that can be safely consumed by humans.

That's what I'm talking about. Food that you (a person) can eat. That's not to say that there isn't problems related to animal (dog, cat, horse, etc) food/products. It's just that this time round, we're looking at human food.

Imagine, if you will, you are prepping some chicken to grill and you realize you've run out of olive oil.

I hate when that happens.

So, you run over to the store to buy some extra virgin olive oil.

Just by chance, you look at the ingredients and see that it is EXTRA VIRGIN oil and made from olives from Italy - just what you were looking for.

But is it really? How would you know?!

What if you were to find out that the olive oil you had been using for the past decade wasn't was what you thought it was? What if the store passed off what they marketed as extra virgin olive oil was actually refined (and slightly used) motor oil with added flavoring?

Ick! Gross! Can you say lawsuit?!?

Before we get deep into all this, let's define what Food Fraud is.

For our purposes, FOOD FRAUD is the deliberate and intentional substitution, addition, tampering, or misrepresentation of food, ingredients, or packaging for economic gain. It also includes false or misleading statements about a product for financial advantage.

This can happen at any stage of the food supply chain — from farming to processing to retail — and can involve lowering quality, hiding defects, or selling one thing as another.

As it happens, there are two common categories related to Food Fraud, namely:

Economically Motivated Adulteration (EMA) — cutting costs by adding/substituting something cheaper.
Counterfeit/Mislabeling — passing off a product as higher quality, premium origin, or even an entirely different species.

As it turns out, there are 15 categories of Food Fraud:

Olive oil adulteration — Mixing extra virgin olive oil with cheaper vegetable oils like soybean or sunflower.
Honey dilution — Adding sugar syrup, corn syrup, or rice syrup to bulk up honey volume.
Fish mislabeling — Selling cheaper species (e.g., tilapia) as more expensive ones (e.g., red snapper).
Ground meat substitution — Mixing beef with pork, horse meat, or other animal proteins without disclosure.
Maple syrup fraud — Replacing maple syrup with colored, flavored corn syrup.
Wine mislabeling — Misstating grape variety, region, or vintage to command a higher price.
Organic labeling fraud — Selling conventionally grown produce as “organic” without certification.
Spice adulteration — Adding brick dust, lead chromate, or starch to bulk up turmeric, paprika, or saffron.
Milk watering — Diluting milk with water, sometimes adding melamine to fake protein content (China, 2008).
Juice mislabeling — Selling apple juice as “100% pomegranate” or “100% cranberry” with only flavorings and colorants.
Coffee blending fraud — Mixing high-grade Arabica with cheaper Robusta while selling it as 100% Arabica.
Caviar substitution — Selling dyed fish roe (e.g., lumpfish or paddlefish) as sturgeon caviar.
Parmesan cheese filler — Adding cellulose (wood pulp) or cheaper cheeses and still labeling as “100% Parmesan.”
Vanilla extract substitution — Using synthetic vanillin instead of real vanilla from beans without disclosure.
Shrimp mislabeling — Selling farmed shrimp as “wild-caught” or substituting smaller shrimp for premium-sized ones.

So, looking back on our example regarding the extra virgin olive oil, what would you want to happen if the company you bought your extra virgin olive oil sold you something other than what was labeled?

In 2017, prosecutors in Turin, Italy, investigated multiple brands (including Bertolli and Carapelli, owned by Deoleo at the time) for selling lower-grade oil as “extra virgin.”

Consequently, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States under Koller v. Deoleo USA, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-02400-RS (N.D. Cal., San Francisco) for two reason.

First, the statement "Imported from Italy” on Bertolli olive oils was misleading because much of the olive oil came from olives grown/pressed in countries other than Italy; Second, products labeled “Extra Virgin” wouldn’t remain extra-virgin through retail sale/best-by date due to clear bottles and handling (heat/light).

Have you ever noticed the bottles you buy olive oil in? "Higher quality" olive oil is sold in dark, glass bottles. Without going into the nitty gritty of things, olive oil sold in in plastic bottles tend to leach chemicals into the oil like Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), High-Density Polyethylene (HOPE), and bisphenol A (BPA).

So, just be careful with what you're buying.

Anyway, one thing led to another and all parties settled on August 9, 2018 for $7 million resulting in serious changes to labeling and how the oil was bottled.

Thing is, if you search around long enough, you can find LOTS of cases of Food Fraud.

Wait, there's more of this going on???

You bet there is (and I've broken some of it into the 15 different categories):

1. Olive Oil Adulteration

Deoleo USA (Bertolli/Carapelli) – Mislabeling “Imported from Italy” & selling oils that didn’t meet extra virgin standards: Koller v. Deoleo USA, Inc., 3:14-cv-02400 (N.D. Cal., 2018 settlement).
Operation Mamma Mia (Italy, 2019) – Carabinieri seized 2,000+ tons of oil falsely sold as Italian extra virgin; actually blended with low-grade oils from abroad.

2. Honey Dilution

2013 European Honeygate – Testing revealed honey from China diluted with rice syrup; seized in Germany & UK (EU anti-dumping measures evasion).
Sweet Harvest Foods v. United States, (Slip Op. 23-162 (Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 17, 2023) – U.S. Customs seized adulterated honey with corn syrup and undeclared antibiotics.

3. Fish Mislabeling

Oceana 2013 Study – 33% of U.S. seafood mislabeled; red snapper often substituted with tilapia or rockfish.
2019 Canadian Food Inspection Agency probe – 47% of fish tested in restaurants/grocery mislabeled, often swapping cheaper species.

4. Ground Meat Substitution

2013 EU Horsemeat Scandal – Beef products in UK/Ireland contained undeclared horse meat (Findus, Tesco).
2015 U.S. Federal Indictment – Company sold goat meat mixed with mutton/lamb without disclosure.

5. Maple Syrup Fraud

Maple Grove Farms Lawsuit (2016) – Class action alleged “maple” syrups were mostly corn syrup with artificial flavor.
Quebec, 2012 “Great Maple Syrup Heist” – 3,000 tons stolen from strategic reserve, replaced with inferior product.

6. Wine Mislabeling

2010 French “PineauGate” – 18 million bottles labeled as Pinot Noir were actually Merlot/Syrah; E.&J. Gallo unwittingly bought.
2018 Brunello di Montalcino Probe – Italian producers accused of blending non-Brunello grapes to boost volume.

7. Organic Labeling Fraud

2017 Missouri Grain Dealer Case – Randy Constant sold $140M in non-organic grain as “organic” (largest U.S. organic fraud case).
2010 Aurora Dairy Class Action – Allegations cows weren’t pastured per USDA organic rules; settled with labeling changes.

8. Spice Adulteration

Turmeric Recall – Found lead chromate contamination to enhance color.
2016 Indian Chili Powder Seizures – Brick powder and salt adulteration for weight and color.

9. Milk Watering

China Melamine Scandal (2008) – Melamine added to watered-down milk to fake protein content; 300,000 affected, 6 infant deaths.
2004 Milk Fraud – Diluted powdered milk sold in Kabul schools under aid contracts.

10. Juice Mislabeling

2010 POM Wonderful Lawsuit vs. Coca-Cola – “Pomegranate Blueberry” juice mostly apple & grape; SCOTUS ruled POM could sue under Lanham Act.
2014 FDA Warning to Apple & Eve – Mislabeling cranberry juice blends as “100% cranberry.”

11. Coffee Blending Fraud

2025 Brazil Investigation – Coffee contained corn, soybeans, wood; passed off as pure coffee.
Widespread fraud in the coffee industry – Arabica-Robusta blends sold as 100% Arabica in premium lines.

12. Caviar Substitution

Caviar Trafficking in Missouri – Paddlefish roe mislabeled as beluga caviar; Lacey Act violation.
Fake Caviar from Bulgaria and Romania – Dyed lumpfish roe sold as sturgeon caviar in upscale restaurants.

13. Parmesan Cheese Filler

2016 Castle Cheese Inc. (PA, USA) – FDA found wood pulp (cellulose) & cheaper cheeses in “100% Parmesan.”
2018 Italian Grana Padano Fraud – Producers mixed in non-approved cheeses to stretch supply.

14. Vanilla Extract Substitution

2019 U.S. Class Action vs. Blue Diamond – “Vanilla” almond milk flavored mostly with synthetic vanillin.
Is it vanilla or just vanilla flavoring? – Multiple ice cream brands labeled “vanilla” using artificial flavor only.

15. Shrimp Mislabeling

2014 Oceana Study – 30% of shrimp in U.S. mislabeled; farmed sold as “wild-caught.”
2018 CBC Marketplace – Found 47% of Canadian shrimp mislabeled, including species swaps.

Looking over all this you might say, yeah but that's all ancient history. Isn't there anything more recent or is that all there is? To which I'd reply, what kind of blogger do you think I am that I can't produce more recent events/happenings, like:

1. Feeding Our Future Pandemic Food Aid Fraud (2020–2025)

A Minnesota nonprofit, Feeding Our Future, orchestrated a massive fraud scheme by diverting over $250 million in federal funds intended for child nutrition during the COVID-19 pandemic. The organization submitted false claims for meals that were never served, leading to significant financial losses.

In September 2022, 47 individuals were federally charged, with the total indictments rising to 70 by late 2024. In June 2024, during the first trial, a juror was offered $120,000 to vote not guilty—the offer was rejected and reported and in March 2025, Founder Aimee Bock was convicted on all counts (fraud, bribery, wire fraud).

Consequently, Abdiaziz Shafii Farah received 28 years in prison and was ordered to pay nearly $48 million in restitution and Abdinasir Abshir pleaded guilty to wire fraud and witness tampering, forfeiting a Range Rover and agreeing to $2.3 million restitution.

The Feeding Our Future fraud scheme is formally documented in federal criminal cases filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Key cases include:

2. EU & Global Fraud Alerts (2025)

In May 2025, The European Commission's Alert and Cooperation Network (ACN) flagged multiple suspected food fraud issues, including:

Olive oil adulteration with other oils.
Artificial instead of natural vanilla in Austria.
Pork mislabeled as wild boar, forged documentation, extended expiry dates on frozen beef, unauthorized dyes in spices, and more.

The Global Food Fraud Index (FoodAkai) highlighted sharp surges in suspicious activity in:
- Nuts, dairy, cereals & bakery, fish & seafood, non-alcoholic beverages, and garlic—while fraud in coffee, honey, and olive oil saw declines.
The FAN 2024 Global Food Fraud Report showed:
- Main commodity targets: seafood, honey, dairy
- Leading fraud types: botanical origin fraud, animal origin fraud, and use of non-food substances (e.g., unauthorized dyes or preservatives).
FoodChain ID’s 2024 data revealed ~665 food fraud incidents, particularly affecting seafood, honey, and dairy.

3. FDA Honey Adulteration Investigations (2022–2023)

The FDA conducted investigations into imported honey products, identifying violations where honey contained undeclared added sweeteners. These actions aimed to prevent fraudulent honey from entering the U.S. market.

4. Olive Oil Enforcements: Operation OPSON (2023)

In late 2023, Europol, Spain, and Italy led Operation OPSON, dismantling a transnational olive oil counterfeiting ring:
- Seized 260,000 liters of oil labeled “extra virgin” but deemed unfit for consumption
- Arrested 11 individuals and confiscated cash and adulterated oil.

5. India Food Adulteration Convictions (2025)

In the first quarter of India’s 2025–26 fiscal year, the state of Rajasthan convicted 489 individuals for food adulteration—only 10 acquitted out of 499 cases.
- Between April–June 2025, officials tested 18,213 samples: 863 unsafe, 3,734 substandard, and 131 misbranded.

6. Rajasthan Food Adulteration Cases (2025)

In the first quarter of the financial year 2025–26, courts in Rajasthan convicted 489 individuals for food adulteration offenses, with only 10 acquitted. This highlights the ongoing issue of food fraud in India.

7. FDA Health Fraud Recalls (2020–2025)

The FDA issued recalls for various health fraud-related products, including dietary supplements and unapproved drugs, to protect consumers from potentially harmful or fraudulent products.

8. Honey Fraud Impacts (2024)

In late 2024, the World Beekeeping Awards suspended its honey category due to widespread adulteration:
- In recent competitions, 39–45% of honey entries were rejected due to suspected sugar syrup adulteration.
- The decision was driven by unreliable testing and insufficient regulatory response.

9. Mawa (Khoya) Adulteration in Hisar, India (2025)

Authorities in Hisar seized 8.5 quintals of adulterated mawa (khoya) stored in unsanitary conditions. The adulterated product was supplied to sweet shops, including Bikaner Sweets, and sold at inflated prices.

10. FDA Economically Motivated Adulteration (EMA) Research (2020–2025)

EMA includes adulteration, mislabeling, and substitution of lower-quality ingredients. This can involve seafood getting mislabeled as a more expensive product, spices getting mixed with other parts of a plant to bulk production, and juices being diluted with water to boost profit margins. The FDA conducted research to identify and prevent economically motivated adulteration (EMA) in food products. This includes detecting intentional substitutions or additions to food to deceive consumers and increase profits.

These cases illustrate the ongoing challenges and enforcement efforts related to food fraud in the United States and globally. This just goes to show that fraud isn't just a domestic issue - it's everywhere. Any time there is a chance to make money or take advantage, there will be someone who will step up and do so.

Sad that.

Ding Dong!

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 30 Mar 2026 06:30:00 +0000

Picture it. You've worked all day - exhausted you are - and you're just settling down for the evening when someone rings the doorbell. You get up to answer the door and no one is there.

You shut the door and just as you're about to get comfortable the bell rings again and again and again and...no one at the door.

I'm sorry to say but you've been ding door ditched.

Ding Dong Ditching, also known as "doorbell ditching" or "ring and run," is a prank that has been labeled as a rite of passage for many kids growing up.

The basic premise is simple: ring a neighbor's doorbell and then run away, leaving the homeowner confused or annoyed when they open the door to find no one there. It's often done for the thrill of the chase, the adrenaline rush, or simply to see the homeowner's puzzled reaction.

In most cases, Ding Dong Ditching is considered a minor nuisance rather than a serious criminal offense. However, there may be situations where it can cross the line into illegal territory, such as.

1. Trespassing: One of the primary legal concerns associated with Ding Dong Ditching is trespassing. If the prankster enters private property without permission, they could potentially be charged with trespassing, a criminal offense in most jurisdictions. However, merely ringing the doorbell and running away from the doorstep may not constitute trespassing, as the prankster typically does not remain on the property.

Real-World Example: In a small suburban community, a group of teenagers decided to engage in Ding Dong Ditching during Halloween. They rang a neighbor's doorbell, but before anyone answered, they dashed off the property and hid nearby. While their actions were undoubtedly a nuisance, they did not enter the property or cause any damage, resulting in no charges of trespassing.

2. Disturbing the Peace: Another legal consideration is whether Ding Dong Ditching can be considered disturbing the peace. If the constant ringing of a doorbell becomes disruptive and significantly disturbs the peace and quiet of a neighborhood, law enforcement may intervene and charge the pranksters.

Real-World Example: In a densely populated urban neighborhood, a group of teenagers repeatedly engaged in Ding Dong Ditching late at night, disturbing residents and causing annoyance. In this case, law enforcement was called, and the teenagers were warned about their behavior. If the disturbances had continued, they might have faced charges related to disturbing the peace.

3. Vandalism and Harassment: If a Ding Dong Ditching prank escalates to vandalism, harassment, or damage to property, the legal consequences can be much more severe. Actions that cause harm, fear, or damage to individuals or their property are taken more seriously by the law.

Real-World Example: A group of teenagers in a suburban neighborhood escalated their Ding Dong Ditching pranks by egging a neighbor's house and causing damage to the front yard. In this case, the prank went beyond a mere nuisance and resulted in criminal charges for vandalism and harassment.

4. Intent Matters: The intent behind Ding Dong Ditching is a crucial factor in determining its legality. If the prank is carried out with malicious intent, such as harassment or intimidation, it is more likely to lead to legal consequences.

Real-World Example: In a rural community, a group of teenagers targeted an elderly neighbor with Ding Dong Ditching pranks, deliberately trying to frighten her. In this situation, the intent to harass the neighbor led to legal action against the teenagers.

Anyway, say the ding dong ditching goes on for days, weeks, months and the pranksters never get caught whereas you get increasingly pissed off and the police don't do anything about it (because it's not their house so why should they care?).

Infuriating, isn't it?

This is pretty much what happened to Tony Arnold Bernstone, 58, who was arrested back in August 2025.

Seems a group of kids having a sleepover on Friday decided to doorbell-ditch nearby homes, including Bernstone's home. After the group rang the doorbell, Bernstone allegedly chased after them on a bicycle, eventually grabbing the victim by the shirt and yelling at him, while striking the child three times in the face and punching him in the stomach. Bernstone was consequently arrested for the alleged assault.

One and done situation? Yeah, I don't think so.

Back in March 2024 a man who was fed up with people ding-dong-ditching his home was charged with six counts of aggravated assault. Court documents state 71-year-old Michael Roberts, “walked out of his house onto the porch and began firing a gun (it was a paint-gun) at a car full of teenagers."

Aaaaaaand another homeowner goes to jail.

I mean, it galls me that these kids are allowed to get away with things. Yeah, I did it when I was a kid but years of retrospect and I'm seeing what a piece of horse manure I was.

Thing is these types of ding dong ditching scenarios happen (and have happened) a whole lot over the years, like:

Maine (July 2024) — Teen Shot in Leg

A group of teens played “ding‑dong‑ditch” at multiple homes in Harrison, Maine.
At the fourth house, the homeowner allegedly fired about 14 shots from a 9 mm at the fleeing group, hitting one teen in the leg.
He was arrested and charged with assault and reckless conduct with a firearm.

Florida (July 2025) — Attempted Vehicular Assault

In Naples, Florida, children riding scooters rang doorbells during a prank.
The homeowner allegedly chased them in his car and tried to run them over.
He was arrested and faces aggravated assault charges.

California (January 2020) — Car-Ramming Murders

A group of teens played ding‑dong‑ditch in Corona, CA.
Homeowner Anurag Chandra chased them, ramming their SUV at high speed in 40 mph zone.
Three teens were killed, and others were injured. Chandra was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted murder in April 2023.

Virginia (May 3, 2025) — Fatal Shooting During TikTok Prank

18‑year‑old Michael Bosworth Jr. and two friends were filming a TikTok ding‑dong‑ditch prank in Spotsylvania County, around 3 AM.
Homeowner Tyler Chase Butler allegedly believed a burglary was in progress and opened fire.
Bosworth was fatally shot, another teen was injured; Butler faces second‑degree murder, malicious wounding, and firearm counts.

Dean Taylor Case (San Rafael, CA – 2021)

Former SFPD officer Dean Taylor alleged pranksters had repeatedly rang his doorbell over multiple nights. On one occasion, he chased them in his vehicle, cornered an 11-year-old boy, grabbed him by the neck, forced him into his car, and threatened to “put a bullet in his head”
Taylor was arrested and charged with kidnapping, making criminal threats, false imprisonment, battery, and child endangerment. The case was pending criminal proceedings at latest reports.

Anurag Chandra Case (Corona, CA – 2020)

A group of teens played ding‑dong‑ditch near Chandra's home. After one exposed himself and rang the doorbell, Chandra chased their car at speeds up to 99 mph, ramming it off the road. Three 16-year-old boys were killed
Chandra was convicted in April 2023 of three counts of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted murder and subsequently sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Other Notable Incidents:

October 25, 2003 – Boca Raton, FL: A teen was shot in the back by a homeowner after knocking on a door and fleeing.
June 13, 2011 – Louisville, KY: A 12‑year‑old was shot in the back with a shotgun by Michael Bishop during a doorbell prank. The boy survived, and Bishop was later charged with attempted murder, receiving a later pardon.
January 1, 2016 – Oklahoma: A 14‑year‑old was shot in the back and arm during a ding‑dong‑ditch prank; he survived.

May 5, 2018 - A Queen Creek, AZ, Johnathan Larocque assaulted teens after they repeatedly rang his doorbell. Two juveniles were hospitalized—one transported for serious injuries. He was arrested on two counts of aggravated assault

These incidents illustrate a clear claimed pattern reflecting an escalation from repeated nuisance leading to criminal charges against the homeowner: Ring the doorbell run and get attacked — but the court treats the violent act of the homeowner as criminal, not a response excused by mental breakdown.

While in all of these instances, the homeowner was prosecuted, there are a few cases where the homeowners were justified attacking the prankster:

Exhibit A. Shooting of Ralph Yarl (Missouri, 2023)

Incident: 16-year-old Ralph Yarl mistakenly rang the doorbell of the wrong house in Kansas City. The homeowner, Andrew Lester, opened fire through the door, believing Yarl was attempting a break-in. Yarl was shot twice but survived.
Legal Outcome: Lester was charged with first-degree assault and armed criminal action, later pleaded guilty to second-degree assault, after a judge had ordered a mental health evaluation. He died before sentencing.
Legal relevance: The case centered on perceived imminent threat, not actual attack by the teen. Lester claimed fear and confusion, arguing the teen reaching for the door = burglary threat, triggering self-defense instinct.

Exhibit B. Cleveland Heights “Robbery Prank” (Ohio)

Incident: A group of teens, including a 17-year-old, disguised themselves in ski masks and staged a fake armed robbery on the prankster’s own mother, entering her driveway and demanding money at gunpoint—even though it was "just a prank."
Legal Outcome: The teens were arrested and charged, likely with aggravated robbery, false imprisonment, and assault.
Legal relevance: The victims (the homeowner/mother) had clear imminent threat, justifying any defensive measures—they were the direct target of the staged attack.

The question that goes through my mind after reading these summaries is why is it that the pranksters, who do the ding dong ditching, are never prosecuted?

There are several reasons why teenagers who do “ding dong ditch” pranks often aren’t prosecuted or face only minimal consequences, even though their actions can be annoying or disruptive, like:

1. Nature of the Offense — Typically Minor or Misdemeanor

Most “ding dong ditch” pranks fall under minor offenses like trespassing, disturbing the peace, or harassment, often classified as infractions or misdemeanors.
Law enforcement often prioritizes more serious crimes over these small pranks. That's "prioritizes" as it didn't happen to them so they don't care.
In many jurisdictions, first-time or youthful offenders might receive warnings rather than charges.

2. Lack of Clear Harm or Damage

Often, no property damage or physical injury occurs.
Courts and prosecutors require evidence of actual harm or significant disturbance to pursue charges.
Ringing a doorbell and running away is often seen as a juvenile mischief with little lasting damage.

3. Youth and Intent

Teenagers (especially under 18) are generally treated with more leniency under the juvenile justice system.
Prosecutors and judges may believe the youth lack criminal intent (mens rea) passing youthful indiscretion.
The goal is often rehabilitation rather than punishment.

4. Difficulty Identifying or Catching Perpetrators

Pranksters run away quickly, making identification and apprehension difficult.
Without clear suspects or eyewitnesses, pressing charges can be challenging.

5. Community and Parental Involvement Preferred

Law enforcement may prefer to involve parents, schools, or community programs for education and discipline rather than criminal prosecution.
Diversion programs or juvenile probation may be offered instead.

6. Discretion of Law Enforcement and Prosecutors

Officers and prosecutors use discretion based on severity, frequency, and context.
Repeated or escalated pranks that cause harm are more likely to lead to charges.
Single incidents are often handled informally.

So, say you are the target of a habitual prankster. What can you do? What I'd do is:

Document everything and install cameras to show who is doing what.
Show that you are experiencing a perceived imminent threat.
Show that harm is being done to your property.
File complaints with the police every day/night it happens.
If the police won't do anything to stop the harassment or the police habitually release the offending pranksters without so much as a slap on the wrist, file a complaint/lawsuit against the police.
Call your congressman and demand they stop going after Trump and create a bill increase penalties for harassing homeowners to:

$500 for a first offense;
$2,500 for a second and 200 hours community service for the perps and 24 hours jail for the parents;
$5,000 for each successive door dinging prank, 500 hours community service, 2 weeks jail time, a cattle prod up the arse, and 2 weeks jail time for the parents!

Well, maybe the cattle prod is a bit much but I'll bet jail time for parents would sure get some traction!

But It Still Smells OK

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 23 Mar 2026 07:00:00 +0000

The other day I was shuffling through my spice box and noticed that many of my spices were out of date.

Take for example my bottle of Smoked Paprika. I love it and use it all the time - though, apparently not ALL the time as I still had some in the bottle 2 years after I bought it. Thing is, I opened the bottle and it still smelled and tasted like Smoked Paprika.

So, I got to thinking what other spices do I have that are "out of date?" Turns out I had a number of items like my kosher salt and "fresh" ground pepper. OK, it's not so freshly ground anymore but it still tastes like pepper, which is good enough for me and the people I cook for.

This all got me thinking about all of these out of date stamps found on food, these days. If the products still taste/smell like what they're supposed to taste/smell like, then are the food companies wrong or what's the purpose of these dates, anyway.

For that matter, when did all these dates on food start?

Turns out, following concerns over foodborne illness in the 1930s, including cases linked to spoiled milk, reported mobsterAl Capone reportedly lobbied for expiration dates on dairy products.

As people shifted from buying at local farms to supermarkets after World War 2, manufacturers added closed-coded dates for retailers to manage inventory rotation.

Then in the 1970s widespread adoption of easy-to-read "sell-by" and "best-by" dates occurred, driven by consumers wanting to know when food was packaged.

These days, consumers can find the packaging of nearly every item labeled with dates. One might say sell-by while another might say best-by or use-by. Many consumers assume that all such dates are “expiration dates,” after which the food should be discarded.

And that might be so if these expiration dates were actually regulated by the federal government. The truth of the matter is that the Feds have nothing to do with any of these expiration dates.

Well, let me qualify that. Baby formula is the one major food product in the U.S. that must have a federally regulated expiration (“use by”) date.

For most of the 20th century, infant formula was regulated only under general food law—the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. That meant there were no formula-specific nutrient standards, no required testing for long-term nutrient stability, and no mandated “use by” dates tied to nutrition. In other words, formula was treated basically like any other processed food.

Then in the 1970s, the turning point came about involving a product made by Syntex Corporation. Their formula (marketed as “Neo-Mull-Soy”) had insufficient chloride. Infants who relied on their formula developed metabolic alkalosis, growth problems, and had serious health complications

Why this was a big deal was because babies were using it as their sole nutrition source and the the harm developed over time—not immediately like food poisoning. This exposed a regulatory gap: Food law protected against contamination—but not against nutritional inadequacy over time.

Congressional response: Infant Formula Act of 1980

In 1980, Congress responded by passing legislation under the authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the way of the Infant Formula Act of 1980. The issue wasn’t just what’s in the formula—it was how long it stays nutritionally valid because over time vitamins degrade, fats oxidize, and nutritional value can fall below safe thresholds.

So regulators required a scientifically supported “use by” date guaranteeing nutrition and safety up to that point. This is why formula dates are fundamentally different from normal food labels as they are legally enforceable nutrient guarantees, not quality estimates

Consequently, and currently, baby formula is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under:

21 U.S.C. § 350a (Infant Formula Act authority)
21 C.F.R. § 107.20 (specific regulations)

So, why are baby formula (food) regulated and adult food not? Well, infants are fully dependent (often 100% on formula) and are highly vulnerable to deficiencies.

By contrast, adults eat varied diets and can tolerate fluctuations in one food.

Maybe your asking yourself: OK, that's great but what about us Adults? Aren't we allowed to be protected, too? Well, if the federal government required all foods to:

Maintain full nutrient accuracy through a specific date
Back that with stability testing

it would probably result in massive compliance costs, shorter shelf lives of key food items, higher food prices, and increased food waste (well, more than we now have). So, Congress chose a targeted regulation model instead and left we the adults on our own.

So, knowing that we're on our own and that these expiration dates are not regulated, what do these dates actually mean?

“Sell-By” Date: This date is a message from the manufacturer to the retailer, not to you the consumer. "Sell-by is a business-to-business date" designation to ensure that stores rotate stock by pulling older products and replacing them. In general, sell-by dates build in a buffer of time—days, weeks, or months, depending on the type of food and the rate the manufacturer assumes the consumer will use it—for the food to make it home and be used. Food at or near the sell-by date is still perfectly fine to eat.

“Best By” Date: Unlike sell-by dates, consider "best by" and "best if used by" dates the manufacturer speaking to you, the consumer, about quality. This label refers to quality, not safety. The food may not taste as fresh after this date, but it’s still safe to eat.

“Use-By” Date: This one sounds the most serious and in some cases deserves the most attention, but even use-by dates are not a safety cutoff for most foods. This label is the last date recommended for the use of the product while at peak quality. In most cases, a one-week grace period applies if stored properly.

Expiration Date: People often use the term "expiration date" as a catch-all that can apply to any of the above types of dates. However, if the date passes during home storage, a product should still be safe and wholesome if handled properly until the time spoilage is evident. If a food has developed and odd odor, flavor, or texture due to naturally occurring spoilage bacteria, it should not be eaten.

So, knowing that most of these dates are merely suggestions, how can you know whether to toss or keep something in your refriderator or pantry? Following is a practical guide assuming proper storage:

Dairy

Milk: ~5–7 days after opening
- Trust your nose—sour smell = done
Yogurt: 1–3 weeks unopened; ~1 week opened
Sour cream: ~1–2 weeks after opening

Dairy spoils visibly/smell-wise—pretty reliable.

Meat & Fish (high risk)

Raw ground meat: 1–2 days
Raw steaks/chicken: 3–5 days
Fish: 1–2 days (very perishable)
Cooked meat: 3–4 days

If it smells off, feels slimy, or you’re unsure—don’t risk it.

Shelf-stable foods

Canned goods: 1–5+ years (if can isn’t bulging/rusted)
Pasta (dry): 1–2 years+
Cereal: 6–12 months (goes stale, not unsafe)

These rarely become dangerous—just lower quality.

Condiments

Mustard, ketchup: ~6 months opened (longer in fridge)
Olives (jarred): 1–2 weeks after opening
Pickled items: months (acid preserves them)

Oils & fats

Olive oil: ~6–12 months after opening
Other oils: similar

They go rancid, not “rotten”—smell like crayons/paint = toss.

Medications & vitamins

Prescription drugs: Dates matter more.
- Often still effective after, but potency can drop
- Some (like certain antibiotics, nitroglycerin) can degrade faster
Vitamins: Lose potency over time, not dangerous

With meds, it’s safer to respect the date.

When food is actually unsafe

Watch for:

Sour, rotten, or unusual smell
Slimy texture (especially meat)
Mold (exception: hard cheese—can cut around it)
Bulging cans (possible Botulism risk—serious)

I suspect the moral to all of this is to use your senses first and to know that when dealing with high rist foods (meat, fish, dairy), common sense in king.

Some rules of thumb might be: if fish smells fishy, it is and should probably not be eaten. Sour cream can go sour, and if the steak you bought 2 days ago smells funky, don't eat it.

Essentially: when it doubt, throw it out.

Why Is That Even A Law?

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 16 Mar 2026 06:30:00 +0000

The other day someone asked me how I come up with topics to blog about.

I'll admit that some topics are, well,...topical....but some just come out of left field and catch my attention.

Take, for example, this blog post.

See, the other day as I was perusing the Internet, I came upon a case from 2010.

In People v. Morales, 212 Cal.App.4th 583, 150 Cal.Rptr.3d 920 (Cal. App. 2013), a man impersonated a woman’s boyfriend and had sex with her while she was asleep.

Can you say RAPE?!

While the Court acknowledged the law was outdated and urged the Legislature to fix it, the California Court of Appeal ruled he could not be convicted of rape, because the law only criminalized impersonation of a husband, not a boyfriend.

Wait, what?!

Yeah. Up and until 2013, California Penal Code § 261 read:

Rape is defined as sexual intercourse with a person: who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, and accomplished under circumstances such as fraud—including where the victim submits under the belief that the person committing the act is the victim’s spouse.

Essentially, fraud-based rape required the victim to think she was having sex with her husband. Impersonating a boyfriend or fiancé did not qualify under § 261 at that time.

While that law was changed tout suite, it was not before the woman in question was attacked and the perp walked scot free.

Sad, that.

Sadder still is that there are GOBS of laws on the books that shouldn't be there but that cause more problems than they ever solved.

Take, for example, Oregon Revised Statutes § 538.430 which in 1925 read:

This statute granted the City of Medford exclusive rights to all remaining unappropriated water in the Big Butte Creek watershed, effectively reserving those waters for municipal use and withdrawing them from future appropriation by others.

Why this is a problem was because in Harrington v. Water Resources Department, 216 Or. App. 16, 171 P.3d 1001 (Or. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2007), Gary Harrington, a landowner near Medford, Oregon, was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in jail (along with fines) for constructing dams to collect large volumes of water in reservoirs on his property—water he claimed was simply "rainwater".

The court ruled his reservoirs intercepted flowing water or runoff, not mere rooftop collection, thus falling under the scope of the state’s regulated water sources.

I understand where the court is coming from but, and call it what you want, but can you imagine that you can be jailed and fined for collecting rainwater?

Sure glad I don't live in Oregon.

Thing is there are a number of situations where laws, though once thought was a good idea, became out of control monsters causing havoc and mayhem on a scale never imagined by their creators, such as:

Maine (Sunday car sales ban): Under Maine Revised Statutes Title 17, § 3203, selling any motor vehicle on Sundays is illegal—punishable by up to six months in jail, a $1,000 fine, and license revocation.
Alabama (five‑minute voting rule): Since 1961, under Alabama Code § 11‑46‑42, Alabama law mandates that voters must cast their vote within five minutes of entering the booth. Although originally intended to prevent delays, the rule historically targeted Black voters in the Jim Crow era.
Beacon, New York (pinball ban): Under the Beacon Municipal Code, the city has maintained an anti-pinball law dating back decades—originally enacted to curb gambling-related youth behavior. In 2009–2010, it was used to shut down a retro arcade museum, imposing fines of up to $1,000 per day.
Rhode Island (fake death notices & acting like governor): R.I. Gen. Laws § 11‑18‑3: Filing a false death notice to a newspaper remains a misdemeanor (penalty ~$100)—a bizarre statute rarely relevant today. § 11‑43‑7: Anyone “acting like the governor” (i.e. impersonating or exercising gubernatorial functions) faces life imprisonment. Clearly overkill for what was likely symbolic deterrence in the 1890s, it still sits on the books.
Missouri (state ban on enforcing federal gun laws): In 2024, Missouri passed a law (Missouri Revised Statutes §§ 1.410–1.485 (2021), known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act) declaring federal gun restrictions infringements - prohibiting state law enforcement from cooperating. It allowed private enforcement claims seeking $50,000 in liability per violation, discouraging officers from doing their federal duties. The law was ultimately struck down as unconstitutional—but only after damaging confusion and chilling enforcement efforts. Local commentators described it as “poorly written with unintended consequences,” citing risk to public safety and legal exposure for troopers.
D.C. (300-year-old Statute of Anne used against modern sports betting): A Delaware LLC used the British Statute of Anne (D.C. Code § 16–1702—a law over 300 years old) to sue major sports betting operators in D.C. under rules allowing third-party loss recovery exceeding $25 (half going to the city). This triggered legal chaos, prompting City Council to consider retroactive repeal to stabilize the industry. Modern legalized betting stands in direct conflict with the archaic statute, causing uncertainty and market disruption.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I suspect there are hundreds of laws on the books that are just waiting to cause mayhem to future litigants, like:

Ala. Code § 11-41-14: misdemeanor for failing to return a borrowed item after 60 days; $25 fine

R.I. Gen. Laws § 11‑6‑2 – Adultery: Every person who shall commit adultery shall be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500); and illicit sexual intercourse between any two (2) persons, where either of them is married, shall be deemed adultery in each.

Minnesota Statutes § 343.36: No person shall operate, run or participate in a contest, game, or other like activity, in which a pig, greased, oiled or otherwise, is released and wherein the object is the capture of the pig…” Violations are classified as a misdemeanor.

Under California Fish & Game Code § 6883, frogs used in frog‑jumping contests cannot be eaten or used for any purpose if they die during the event—they must be destroyed promptly and may not be consumed.

Idaho Code § 18‑5003: (1) Any person who willfully ingests the flesh or blood of a human being is guilty of cannibalism; (2) Affirmative defense: the act was taken under extreme life‑threatening conditions as the only apparent means of survival; (3) Penalty: imprisonment in state prison for up to 14 years.

Georgia Code § 39‑2‑17: Prohibits the sale, apprenticeship, or employment of minors under 12 years of age for performances such as rope or wire walking, begging, gymnastics, contortionism, circus riding, acrobatics, or clowning, as well as for any indecent, obscene, or immoral exhibition or practice. Violations are classified as misdemeanors.

Chapter 8.44 of the Carmel (California) Municipal Code, titled "Permits for Wearing Certain Shoes" prohibits wearing shoes with heels exceeding two inches in height and with a base of less than one square inch on public streets and sidewalks, unless the wearer obtains a permit from the City Clerk.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 49‑6‑1301(7) defines “gateway sexual activity” as sexual contact that could lead to non‑abstinent behavior—even actions like kissing or hand-holding.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 49‑6‑1304(b)(1) explicitly prohibits instruction that “promote, implicitly or explicitly, any gateway sexual activity” as part of the family life curriculum in schools.

Under Tenn. Code Ann § 49‑6‑1306(b)(1), a parent can sue instructors or outside organizations for promoting gateway sexual activity—with potential fines up to $500, actual damages, and attorney’s fees if they win ⁠—though these provisions exclude teachers directly employed by the school district.

Blasphemy Laws:

Massachusetts Statute General Laws, Chapter 272, Section 36 Prohibits the willful blasphemy or profanation of the Lord's Day.
Michigan Penal Code, Act 328 of 1931, Section 750.102: Criminalizes blasphemy, defined as the act of cursing or reviling God.
Title 19; Chapter 17; Pennsylvania Code § 17.5: States that an association name may not contain words that constitute blasphemy, profane cursing or swearing or that profane the Lord’s name.
South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 16, Section 16-17-520 makes it a misdemeanor to use "blasphemous, profane, or obscene language" at or near a place of religious worship, carrying penalties of a fine ($20–$100) or imprisonment for 30 days to one year. This law, which also prohibits disturbing religious meetings.

Wyoming Statutes, Title 6, Chapter 6, Section 1-29-106 prohibits the publication of blasphemous or indecent matter.

Now I'm not going to go around and spout blasphemy but that's me. Who am I go to off saying you can't say what you want?!

Thing is there's a whole lot of laws out there in legal land - and that's not necessarily a good thing. Consequently you might want to lawyer up before you go and violate something you didn't even know there was a law against it!

I'm just sayin.

Do You Know Why I Pulled You Over?

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 09 Mar 2026 07:00:00 +0000

The other day, I was riding along with a buddy on a bright and sunny supposedly winter day and wouldn't you know it we got pulled over.

Police strides up to the driver's side, buddy rolls down window, and the first thing police says is, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" which I thought was funny because, shouldn't the cop know why they pulled us over?

I mean, I would have said, "NO!" simply because I'd never want to admit anything to a cop. Turns out, after some digging I discovered a number of reasons why police ask why they pulled you over, like:

1. To See If You'll Admit to a Violation

When it comes to driving and traffic stops, there is no such thing as "Officer Friendly." So, if you say something like “Yeah, I was speeding,” that’s an admission. Admissions can strengthen the officer’s case if a citation is issued and you later decide to challenge it in court. As noted below, police often lie to people to collect information they can later use against them in court.

Under Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held that police misrepresentation of evidence during an interrogation did not automatically render a defendant’s confession inadmissible as a matter of constitutional law. In that case, police falsely told the suspect that his cousin had already confessed to the crime. The suspect then confessed. The Court ruled that the deception was relevant to voluntariness but did not by itself make the confession involuntary under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Moral to this is being funny is not something you want to do/be at/during a traffic stop. Let the cop talk. You just listen.

2. To Gauge Your Awareness

Police want to know whether you noticed your behavior (speeding, rolling a stop sign, broken light) or if you’re unaware of it, which can affect how they handle the stop.

In Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 129 S. Ct. 781, 172 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2009), the Supreme Court confirmed that after a lawful traffic stop, an officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the justification for the stop do not convert the encounter into something unreasonable, as long as they do not lengthen the detention beyond its purpose.

Yeah, like that never happens.

So a question like “Do you know why I stopped you?” — which is brief and designed to assess awareness — generally doesn’t turn a lawful stop into an unlawful seizure.

3. To Assess Honesty and Attitude

Your response helps the officer assess whether you’re being truthful, cooperative, evasive, or argumentative. This can influence whether you get a warning or a ticket (which, after sleeping on this, is total BS). Police lie and weasel all the time to get people to admit to crimes. In fact, as noted above police have a predisposition to lie to people.

In fact, a key tactic that police officers use is lying elicit confessions, or pressure to meet arrest quotas. Police also habitually fib because of their belief that "noble cause corruption" justifies bending rules for the "greater good," leading to issues like false confessions and wrongful convictions, with tactics including fabricating evidence or promising leniency, though these are obviously unethical.

4. To Check for Impairment or Distraction

Confused or inconsistent answers may indicate distraction, fatigue, or impairment (alcohol, drugs, or phone use). In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), the Supreme Court held that police cannot stop a motorist without at least reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct (e.g., unlicensed driver, unregistered vehicle). A random, arbitrary stop is unconstitutional.

However, once a stop is justified, courts apply the same Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion standard to evaluate whether an officer can detain and investigate further. In United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002), the SCOTUS held that once a stop is justified, courts apply the same Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion standard to evaluate whether an officer can detain and investigate further (such as asking, "Do you know why I pulled you over").

5. To Control the Conversation

It lets the officer start the interaction calmly while observing your speech, behavior, and demeanor for safety reasons.

Police control the conversation (or, at least, they want to think they do) during a traffic stop primarily to ensure their own safety, manage potential threats, and gather evidence efficiently. This tactic, often referred to as establishing "command presence" or "norming," allows officers to assess the driver's demeanor, identify inconsistencies in their story, and prevent the situation from escalating.

6. To See If You Noticed a Safety Issue

If the stop is for something like a broken taillight or expired tag, your awareness (or lack of it) helps the officer decide how to proceed. In United States v. Weaver, 9 F.4th 129 (2d Cir. 2021), the Second Circuit explicitly recognized that:

“Brief, casual questioning aimed at gauging risks or deescalating a situation” during a traffic stop may be justified as part of ordinary interactions that also serve officer safety. For example, “rapport-building questions” can help an officer assess coherence, agitation, impairment and other observable cues relevant to safety.

As such, asking "Do you know why I pulled you over" is still a viable questions used to help police fully assess the situation.

7. It’s a Standard Policing Technique

Many officers are trained to ask this question as part of routine traffic-stop procedures.

Courts treat questions like “Do you know why I pulled you over?” as reasonable police conduct because:

They are brief and non-coercive.
They help an officer assess awareness, behavior, or demeanor.
They fall within the scope of routine interaction during a lawful, limited detention.

I guess the moral to this story is....when a cop saunters up to the drivers side and pops THE question, just be cool. Maybe be clever (but not too clever) and say something like: Because it’s my lucky day?

Word of the Month for March 2026: Fake News

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:00:00 +0000

I know you've heard the term Fake News. It was Trump's rallying cry for several years and he says it whenever any news organization reports something he really (or marginally) doesn't like.

That's not what we're talking about here.

What I'm looking at here are those cases where the plaintiff (or defendant) is being castigated by the press notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff (or defendant) in a real case actually has a legitimate claim but the press is pushing the narrative against that of the defendant (or plaintiff).

So, let's dispense with pleasantries and define Fake News in this context.

FAKE NEWS constitutes a subset of intentionally or negligently disseminated pseudo-journalistic content, characterized by the deliberate fabrication, distortion, or strategic omission of verifiable empirical data, disseminated via digital or traditional media channels under the guise of legitimate reportage, with the intent or foreseeable consequence of influencing cognitive biases, socio-political perceptions, or behavioral responses within target populations, thereby undermining the epistemological integrity of information ecosystems and the democratic discourse reliant upon them.

Ummmmmm, sorry about that. My inner-journalist generator took over for a second. Let's try that again:

FAKE NEWS is false or misleading information presented as news, typically to influence public opinion, generate clicks, or cause confusion.

OK, that's better - a story used to generate or cause confusing information - sounds about right.

So, how might this apply in real life? Remember a few years ago, the media flipped out on a story about a bunch of kids and some Indians marching in D.C.?

In January 2019, Nick Sandmann, a Covington Catholic High School student, was filmed wearing a MAGA hat while standing face-to-face with Native American elder Nathan Phillips during the March for Life in Washington, D.C. A short video clip went viral, with media outlets and social media users accusing Sandmann of mocking or intimidating Phillips.

Later, fuller video footage showed that Sandmann was standing silently and that Phillips had approached Sandmann, while a different group (Black Hebrew Israelites) was yelling insults at the students.

Sandmann filed defamation lawsuits against major media outlets (CNN, Washington Post, NBC, etc.), claiming the coverage was "false and damaged his reputation." Several settlements were reached and Sandmann’s case became a key example in debates over media bias, viral outrage, and defamation.

See, that's what we're talking about. Instead of reporting the actual events, news media is going around reporting lies and misstatements - instead of what is actually happening.

Another example?

Recently, a Minnesota family, the Moedings, were sued by their neighbors, the Ramoses, over the location of their basketball hoop and the subsequent retrieval of balls that bounced into the Ramos' yard. The lawsuit, which included claims of trespass and a request for an injunction to prevent the hoop's use, was ultimately dismissed by a judge.

On first read (and media makes it look like), this sounds like a petty case where an older couple is trying to keep kids from using their (clearly) portable basketball hoop. However, this case had little to do with basketball as much as the Ramoses were trying to keep the kids from trespassing on their land.

See, the kids would play on their side of the property line but, as kids are wont to do, the ball would get away from them, bounce/roll to the Ramoses property and the kids would run across the property line trampling grass, flowers, whatever else is in their way to get their ball.

From a property owner standpoint, that would piss me off and if you know anything about getting old and how little things really annoy, it really rakes the nerves. Anyway, the court eventually dismissed the case leaving the Ramoses little recourse but to sit and fume.

While an easy remedy would be to have the Moedings install a net/fence behind the basketball hoop to keep the balls on their side of the property line - but that would be admitting fault.

Some other cases found in the annals of history include:

Richard Jewell - Atlanta Olympic Bombing (1996)
Plaintiff: Richard Jewell (security guard wrongly suspected).
Claim: Defamation against media outlets (NBC, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, CNN).
Media narrative: Initially pushed the FBI and law enforcement leaks implying Jewell was the bomber.
Reality: Jewell was innocent and later cleared, but the press framed him as seeking attention.
Outcome: Jewell settled with NBC and CNN; won undisclosed settlements.
Press alignment with defendant narrative: The FBI’s suspicion narrative was amplified despite thin evidence, harming Jewell’s life while media framed him as the villain.

Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College (2019)
Plaintiff: Gibson’s Bakery (family bakery in Ohio).
Claim: Defamation and tortious interference.
Media narrative: Many outlets leaned toward framing the bakery as racially discriminatory after an incident with Black students.
Reality: The students had shoplifted; evidence showed no racial discrimination.
Outcome: Jury awarded $44 million (later reduced to about $25 million) to Gibson’s Bakery.
Press alignment with defendant narrative: Several academic and progressive outlets pushed Oberlin’s framing that the bakery was targeting students based on race, despite facts supporting Gibson’s position.

Rolling Stone “A Rape on Campus” Defamation (2016)
Plaintiff: Nicole Eramo (UVA dean) and fraternity members.
Claim: Defamation over false rape allegations reported in Rolling Stone.
Media narrative: Rolling Stone and supporting outlets pushed the narrative of institutional coverup and fraternity violence.
Reality: The story was fabricated; no evidence supported the claims.
Outcome: Eramo won $3 million; fraternity settled for $1.65 million.
Press alignment with defendant narrative: Rolling Stone and sympathetic media initially defended the article despite growing evidence of its falsehood, framing plaintiffs as silencing victims.

Duke Lacrosse False Allegation (2006–2007)
Plaintiff: Three lacrosse players—Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans
Claim: Defamation of false rape allegations reported by CBS News.
Media narrative: In March 2006, Crystal Mangum, an exotic dancer hired to perform at a Duke University lacrosse team party, was raped by the three boys.
Reality: The story was fabricated and in December 2024, Mangum publicly admitted on a podcast that she had fabricated the rape allegations.
Outcome:

Prosecutor Mike Nifong aggressively pursued the case but withheld exculpatory DNA evidence.
On April 11, 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped all charges.
The team’s season was canceled.
Coach Mike Pressler was fired.
Nifong was later disbarred and convicted for misconduct.
The players sued Duke and the city, reaching settlements.
Mangum never faced charges for the false claims.
Nifong served a day in jail for contempt.

Press alignment with defendant narrative: The charges triggered intense media coverage and national outrage, with debates over race, class, and campus culture fueling the story.

I guess the moral to this story is: Take everything big media says with a grain of salt realizing that the press is in the game to make money.

...and, as it appears, the only way the Press can make money is to make-up stuff to stir up the blood of their victims (in this case, victim=anyone willing to listen).

Testify!

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 23 Feb 2026 08:00:00 +0000

I don't know if you know, but there are a whole lot of myths about what police can and can't (or shouldn't) do.

Take, for example these 10 (in no particular order) myths about police and their conduct with, around, or towards the general public:

MYTH 1: Police must always read you your Miranda rights when arresting you.
TRUTH: Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) are only required before questioning a suspect in custody. If you’re arrested but not interrogated, officers don’t have to read you your rights. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) clarified that Miranda applies to all custodial interrogations, including traffic stops IF they become custodial.

MYTH 2: You have to answer all police questions.
TRUTH: You have the right to remain silent. You can (and should) say, “I’m exercising my right to remain silent” and “I want a lawyer.” Under Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (2013), silence before being read Miranda rights can be used against you unless you explicitly invoke the right to remain silent. Whereas Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) notes that once a suspect asks for a lawyer, all questioning must stop until counsel is present.

MYTH 3: Police can’t lie to you.
TRUTH: They legally can lie during investigations or interrogations (e.g., “Your friend already confessed”). However, lying on official reports or under oath is a crime. Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969) held that police deception during interrogation does not automatically make a confession involuntary. Additionally, Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (1977) reinforced that voluntary stationhouse questioning, even if deceptive, doesn’t automatically require Miranda warnings.

MYTH 4: If you film the police, they can confiscate your phone or arrest you.
TRUTH: Recording police in public is protected under the First Amendment — as long as you don’t interfere with their duties. They can’t legally delete, seize, or demand your footage without a warrant (though some still do). Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) held that recording police in public is protected by the First Amendment and Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017) reaffirmed citizens’ right to record police performing public duties.

MYTH 5: Police are legally required to protect you from harm.
TRUTH: The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times (e.g., DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)) that police have no constitutional duty to protect individuals, only the public at large. Also, under Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) the court found that even with a restraining order, police are not constitutionally required to enforce protection.

MYTH 6: Police can offer you a deal to avoid charges.
TRUTH: Only prosecutors can make plea deals. Officers might suggest cooperation, but their “promises” aren’t legally binding. Under United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982), the court confirmed that prosecutorial discretion is broad but police cannot promise immunity or deals.

MYTH 7: You can’t sue police officers personally.
TRUTH: You can — but it’s very difficult due to qualified immunity, which protects officers from personal liability unless they violate “clearly established” rights. Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) Reinforced how broadly courts interpret qualified immunity in police conduct cases.

MYTH 8: Police can use deadly force whenever they feel threatened.
TRUTH: Deadly force can only be used when a reasonable officer believes there’s an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Excessive or retaliatory force violates the Fourth Amendment. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) clarified the standard for excessive force claims by pretrial detainees and Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) authorized high-speed chase interventions (e.g., PIT maneuvers) when the suspect poses a significant threat to public safety.

MYTH 9: Police can search your car just because they want to.
TRUTH: They generally need probable cause, your consent, or a warrant. Examples of probable cause: visible contraband, smell of drugs, or other evidence in plain sight. According to Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), police cannot enter a home without a warrant to make a routine felony arrest (absent exigent circumstances). Also Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) noted police may enter a home without a warrant to stop ongoing violence or render emergency aid.

MYTH 10: Resisting arrest is legal if the arrest is unlawful.
TRUTH: Almost all states make resisting arrest illegal, even if the arrest was unjustified. You must challenge it later in court, not during the arrest. United States v. Ferrone, 438 F.2d 381 (3d Cir. 1971) affirmed that resisting arrest is not justified, even if the arrest is unlawful.

If I may, and while we're on the subject of myths, I'd like to add another myth: police can lawfully arrest you if you flip them off or swear at them.

The reality is that courts have repeatedly held that verbally criticizing, cursing, or flipping off police officers is protected by the First Amendment, as long as you’re not making a true threat, inciting violence, or interfering with police duties.

While profanity or rude gestures alone are protected, you could be arrested if your behavior crosses certain lines, such as:

“Fighting words” – Words likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation (though this standard is rarely met).
True threats – Saying something like “I’ll kill you” or “I’m going to attack you.”
Obstruction / Interference – If your yelling physically interferes with police performing their duties.
Disorderly conduct – If your words are combined with aggressive actions that disturb the peace (not merely causing offense).

Even though it’s illegal, officers sometimes still arrest people anyway, often under vague charges like “disorderly conduct” or “resisting arrest.” While these charges often get dismissed later, the person still has to deal with handcuffs, court, and lawyer fees.

So, say you flipped a cop the bird and s/he arrested you. What can you do about it?

If you’re arrested or cited only because you used profanity, insulted, or flipped off a cop, you can typically sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that lets citizens sue government officials (like police officers) for violating constitutional rights.

You would be suing for:

Violation of your First Amendment rights — retaliation for protected speech; and
Violation of your Fourth Amendment rights — unlawful or retaliatory arrest without probable cause.

To win a § 1983 case for retaliatory arrest or unlawful arrest, you generally have to show:

You engaged in protected speech (swearing or flipping off is protected).
The officer took adverse action (e.g., arrest, detention, ticket).
The officer’s action was motivated by your speech — that is, they arrested you because of what you said or did.
There was no probable cause for the arrest (e.g., “disorderly conduct” was bogus).

So, do people actually win cases against the police if they are wrongfully arrested (particularly for swearing at a cop)?

Well, if you can prove that the you engaged in protected speech, the officer took adverse action, that the officer's actions were motivated by your speech and there was no probable cause for the arrest, qualified immunity (the doctrine shielding officers in many cases) often won’t apply — because the courts have long made clear that arresting someone for rude but protected speech is unconstitutional.

Following are several important and successful cases:

Duran v. City of Douglas, 904 F. 2d (9th Cir. 1990); Arizona
- Duran flipped off and cursed at a police officer.
- Officer stopped and arrested him for disorderly conduct.
- Court ruled the officer violated Duran’s rights and denied qualified immunity — the officer could be personally liable.
Swartz v. Insogna, 704 F. 3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2013); New York
- Swartz gave a cop the middle finger and was stopped.
- Court said the gesture was protected, and the officer could be sued for unlawful stop and retaliation.
Wood v. Eubanks, 459 F. Supp. 3d (6th Cir. 2020); Ohio
- Man cursed at police and was arrested for disorderly conduct.
- Court ruled swearing at police is protected speech, the arrest was unlawful, and the officers were not immune from being sued.
Thurairajah v. City of Fort Smith, 925 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 2019); Arkansas
- A driver yelled “F--- you!” out of his window at a state trooper.
- The trooper arrested him for disorderly conduct.
- Court said the arrest violated the First Amendment, and the officer could be personally sued.

So, let's say you sue for being arrested. What can you get out of it? Well, IF you win, you can typically get:

Compensatory damages — for emotional distress, lost wages, or costs of arrest.
Punitive damages — if the officer acted maliciously or recklessly.
Attorney’s fees — under § 1988, courts often make the government pay your legal costs.

Examples:

In some cases, plaintiffs have received $20,000–$75,000 settlements for wrongful arrest or retaliation based solely on swearing or gestures.
A few received six-figure awards when the arrest was aggressive or caused serious consequences (e.g., job loss, jail time, humiliation).

While this has a "alls well that ends well" warm and fuzzy feel to it, do you really want to go through the hassle of flipping off a cop (as comforting as that may feel, sometimes), THEN getting arrested, THEN filing a lawsuit in federal court only to THEN hope you win and THEN go after the individual cop who arrested you only to discover that said cop doesn't have a pot to piss in?

That's a whole lot of if's and there is no guarantees that you'll win anything other than maybe the inner satisfaction that you were right all along.

The core bottom line here is that lawsuits against police for merely swearing or making rude gestures tend to be unsuccessful unless accompanied by some deprivation of rights. While police departments risk financial payouts and judicial mandates, the payout is often not worth the hassle of litigation.

So maybe just keep those phallic symbols gloved and out of sight.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like the FDA?

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 16 Feb 2026 07:30:00 +0000

If there is one thing that really bugs me (these days) is how big and worthless government is. Take, for example the FDA (aka Food and Drug administration).

The FDA is a regulatory agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Historically, its job is/was to protect public health by ensuring that many products Americans use every day are safe, effective, and properly labeled.

Officially, the FDA regulates:

Prescription and over-the-counter drugs (human and veterinary).
Biologics (vaccines, blood products, gene therapies).
Medical devices (from pacemakers to tongue depressors).
Food safety (except most meat, poultry, and some egg products, which are regulated by USDA).
Cosmetics (ensuring products are safe and not mislabeled).
Tobacco products (authority granted in 2009).
Radiation-emitting products (like X-ray machines and microwaves).

The problem is that it's not doing a very good job of any of this.

When this is brought up, proponents of the FDA always point to the fact that they are underfunded and understaffed. The problem is that no matter how much more money is budgeted or how many more people are hired, they always say that.

In point of fact, for fiscal year 2025, the FDA's budget is/was a whopping $7.2 BILLION. If the IRS can hire tens of thousands of employees, bringing its total workforce to over 100,000, then certainly the FDA can loosen the purse strings and get a few dozen more employees on its payroll.

I'm just sayin.

So, who actually runs the FDA? Well,......

Congress created the FDA’s legal authority through statutes (mainly the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 and its amendments).

The President / Executive Branch appoints the FDA Commissioner (who leads the agency), with Senate confirmation.

Finally, Federal Courts can review FDA decisions if challenged (e.g., whether FDA exceeded its statutory authority, or if its actions were arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act).

So, in summary, the FDA is not independent; it’s an Executive Branch agency under HHS. Congress writes the laws that give FDA power. The President (through HHS) appoints its leadership and shapes its policy direction and Courts can step in if FDA overreaches.

Got all that?

So, what's the problem with the FDA? Mostly, the argument is that the FDA is too cozy with the industries it regulates and, consequently, fails to regulate food and drug safely. While RFK, Jr. is working to change all this, it's still business as usual.

Um, so why is this important?

Well, all this coziness can lead to public health risks like unsafe drugs or contaminated food. In fact, the FDA's response to food safety crises is often too slow, and concerns exist about the use of unsafe agricultural chemicals, food additives, and processing techniques.

So, wait, too slow? How does this play out in real life?

Peanut Corporation of America Salmonella Outbreak (2008–2009)

What happened: Salmonella-contaminated peanut products caused over 700 illnesses and at least 9 deaths across 46 states.
FDA'sCriticism: The FDA had been aware of previous contamination problems at the plant but failed to act aggressively before the outbreak spread. Critics said inspections were too infrequent and reactive rather than preventive.

Listeria in Cantaloupes (Jensen Farms, 2011)

What happened: A deadly listeria outbreak linked to cantaloupes sickened 147 people and killed 33 across 28 states.
FDA's Criticism: The FDA only ramped up produce-safety rules after this crisis, even though experts had long warned about weak oversight of fresh produce. Stronger standards didn’t come until the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was implemented later.

Spinach E. coli Outbreak (2006)

What happened: Bagged spinach contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 caused 199 illnesses and at least 3 deaths in 26 states.
Criticism: The FDA had known leafy greens were high-risk but hadn’t mandated stricter safety practices before the outbreak. Afterward, it issued only voluntary guidelines for leafy greens until FSMA gave it stronger authority years later.

Salmonella in Eggs (2010)

What happened: Half a billion eggs were recalled after Salmonella contamination at two Iowa farms, sickening more than 1,900 people.
Criticism: The FDA had finalized egg safety rules in 2009 but had not begun routine inspections before the outbreak occurred. The slow rollout left the public vulnerable.

Infant Formula Shortage & Cronobacter Contamination (Abbott, 2021–2022)

What happened: Abbott’s Michigan plant, a major U.S. producer of baby formula, was linked to Cronobacter contamination after several infants became ill and at least two died.
Criticism: A whistleblower had alerted the FDA months before the crisis, but the agency took four months to inspect and act on the complaint. By the time it shut down the plant, the U.S. faced a nationwide infant formula shortage.

2023–2025 Raw Milk Salmonella Outbreak Reporting Delay

Incident: From September 2023 to March 2024, at least 171 people across five states fell ill from a Salmonella outbreak linked to raw (unpasteurized) milk.
Criticism: The outbreak was not publicly reported until July 2025, long after illnesses occurred—raising concerns about delayed disclosure and its impact on consumer awareness and safety.

2024 Boar’s Head Listeriosis Outbreak (Listeria in Deli Meats)

Incident: A widespread listeria outbreak tied to Boar’s Head liverwurst and deli meats affected individuals between May and November 2024, resulting in 60 hospitalizations and 10 deaths. The implicated plant had documented 69 violations, including mold, insects, and unsanitary conditions.
Criticism: Experts and media questioned why regulatory authorities, including the FDA, allowed the plant to continue operations amid persistent safety failures.

2024 McDonald’s E. coli Outbreak (Contaminated Onions)

Incident: From September to October 2024, 104 confirmed E. coli O157:H7 cases (including one death) were linked to slivered onions on McDonald’s Quarter Pounders in 14 states.
Criticism: The FDA’s public warning only came October 22, over a month into the outbreak, and traceback investigations took time to isolate the source at supplier level—with criticism over delayed disclosure and slow root-cause identification.

Suspension of Food Emergency Response Network (FERN) Testing Program (2025)

Issue: In early 2025, the FDA temporarily suspended its FERN Proficiency Testing Program, a critical system ensuring lab readiness for detecting contaminants in dairy and other products.
Criticism: While the agency said safety tests continued at state and federal levels, experts expressed concern that suspending this program—without a clear timeline for resumption—undermines confidence in emergency response readiness.

Delaying Enforcement of Food Traceability Rule (FSMA Section 204)

Issue: The Food Traceability Rule—part of the Food Safety Modernization Act—had been in development for 14 years and was set to take effect in January 2026. In March 2025, the FDA announced a 30-month delay, pushing enforcement back significantly.
Criticism: This postponement delays critical traceability infrastructure meant to speed outbreak investigations and recalls, creating concern that potentially dangerous food items will remain more difficult to track when contamination occurs.

While some of these are active outbreaks and others are regulatory shifts or resource challenges, collectively they underscore a disturbing pattern - the FDA is unable to handle detecting, response, or preventing food (and other) safety threats.

So, how do you solve a problem like the FDA? I don't know - I just report the stuff.

Maybe, though, it's time to re-shuffle the deck and bring in some fresh talent. Oh, wait, didn't they do that back in November 2024?

It will certainly be interesting to see if the FDA can get it's act together now under new management.

Expecting a Beat Down?

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 09 Feb 2026 07:30:00 +0000

You know, most of the things I post are pretty non-personal (meaning they don't happen to me, so much). Today's post hit closer to home.

The other day I got a call from a guy I knew in a prior life. Seems Guy was walking down a street next to a park and got stopped by police. Seems buddy was wearing black pants, a black shirt, black...well, suffice it to say, he was in a black kind of mood in the middle of summer - aaaaaand which while incredibly stylish, it caught the attention of the local po po.

Apparently, and I'm spitballing here, the officer that stopped Guy didn't like his style of clothing (which really didn't match the season) and stopped him. When Guy was not forthcoming with personal information as fast as officer liked, officer arrested Guy and charged him with obstructing with a police investigation, resisting arrest, assault, and a bunch of other stuff.

On a side note, I find it particularly funny that people get charged with resisting arrest. I mean, who in blazes wants to be handcuffed and tossed in the back of a police car designed for people under 5 feet tall. OK, I do know some people who like to be handcuffed but I don't know anyone who would willingly be trussed up only to be tossed in the back of a patrol car.

It boggles my mind.

Anyway, fast forward a bits and Guy gets released, ALL charges are dropped and he's now filing a lawsuit against Officer for violating his civil rights under 42 USC § 1983.

So, I got to thinking what do people do to get targeted by police? I mean, wouldn't you want to know so you don't get stopped just because?

Turns out there are a number of factors that police are looking for, like:

1. Gang-Affiliated Colors or Symbols

Bright single-color outfits (e.g., all-red, all-blue, all-black in some cities)
Sports team gear linked to local gangs (e.g., LA Dodgers caps, Chicago Bulls jackets in certain neighborhoods)
Bandanas in specific colors tied to known gangs
Risk: In some regions, these colors are unofficial “flags” for gangs, and police may use them in gang injunction enforcement.

2. Bulky or Concealment-Heavy Clothing (Especially Off-Season)

Hoodies with the hood up on warm days
Puffy jackets in warm weather
Baggy cargo pants with oversized pockets
Risk: Can be interpreted as attempting to conceal weapons, drugs, or stolen items.

3. Face Coverings and Masks (Outside of Health Contexts)

Ski masks, balaclavas, or full face bandanas
Pulling a hoodie string tight over the face
Risk: May be treated as “masking” in preparation for theft or robbery.

4. Tactical, Military, or “Cop-Like” Gear

Tactical vests, camouflage pants, combat boots
Duty belts with empty holsters or MOLLE pouches
Risk: Can signal militia or armed group affiliation, which may prompt a stop.

5. “Suspicious” Layering

Wearing multiple shirts or jackets (common in shoplifting to conceal goods)
Heavy coats paired with shorts (temperature mismatch)
Risk: Seen as potentially hiding items or preparing for quick outfit changes.

6. Motorcycle Club Colors or Insignia

Leather vests with patches for known MCs (“1%” patches, skull insignias)
Large rocker patches identifying an MC and territory
Risk: Linked to outlaw biker groups under law enforcement surveillance.

7. Costumes or Disguises in Non-Holiday Contexts

Wigs, theatrical makeup, Halloween masks out of season
Risk: Interpreted as intent to conceal identity during a crime.

In summary,

Neutral colors & patterns — avoid solid bright red/blue in gang-heavy areas.
Dress season-appropriate — match clothing to the weather.
Avoid obvious gang/military insignia — unless you’re in a clearly legitimate setting.
Limit full face coverage — when not required for health or safety.
Blend with the environment — if others in the area are in casual wear, match the tone.

While they probably won't admit it, apart from clothing, there are several other factors police use to profile people.

Behavioral Profiles

Nervousness, avoiding eye contact, or suspicious movements (e.g., repeatedly looking around, hiding hands).
Loitering in unusual places or for long periods without apparent reason.
Trying to avoid police presence or walking away quickly.
Acting unusually at a gas station, like frequently changing vehicles or handling items suspiciously.

Appearance Profiles

Clothing associated with gangs or certain subcultures (e.g., colors, symbols).
Wearing baggy clothing or concealing items.
Unkempt appearance, which officers may associate with homelessness or drug use.
Age and gender stereotypes, e.g., young males are more frequently stopped.

Location-Based Profiles

Being in high-crime neighborhoods or “hot spots” known for drug activity or violence.
Presence at locations with a history of illegal activity, like certain gas stations or street corners.
Being in a vehicle that matches descriptions from recent crimes.

Vehicle Profiles

Vehicles reported stolen or involved in crimes.
Older models or cars with missing or altered license plates.
Vehicles frequently seen in high-crime areas.
Drivers exhibiting erratic driving behavior (speeding, swerving).

Known Associations

Individuals who have prior arrests or warrants.
Being with known suspects or associates.
Matching descriptions broadcasted via radio or alerts.

So, let's say you're wearing something that police don't like and you're about to be pulled over or otherwise harassed by the police. What can you do to minimize the damage coming your way?

1. Stay Calm and Composed

Take deep breaths, keep your voice steady and polite.
Avoid shouting, arguing, or aggressive gestures.

2. Follow Lawful Instructions

Comply with clear, lawful commands (e.g., show ID, put your hands where they can see).
Ask calmly if you don’t understand an order instead of resisting.

3. Keep Your Hands Visible

Place hands on the steering wheel or in plain sight.
Don’t make sudden movements or reach into pockets without saying so.

4. Avoid Physical Resistance

Resisting arrest or struggling increases the chance of force.
If you disagree with the arrest, contest it later legally.

5. Use Your Words to De-Escalate

Say things like “I’m trying to cooperate” or “Please don’t hurt me.”
Avoid profanity or insults.

6. Record the Encounter if Safe

Use your phone or a dash cam to document.
Let officers know you are recording if it’s safe to do so.

7. Know Your Rights but Stay Safe

You have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.
Exercising your rights calmly is better than physical confrontation.

8. Seek Witnesses

If others are nearby, ask them to watch and record.
Witnesses can deter excessive force.

Bottom line, when confronted by police, don’t try to fight back physically during the incident because billy clubs hurt. If you do get a beat down, make sure you get medical help ASAP and document everything. Finally, report any abuse to internal affairs and consider civil/federal legal action

Actually, you should probably consider litigation a foregone conclusion.

I'm just sayin.

Word of the Month for February 2026: AI

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 02 Feb 2026 07:30:00 +0000

OK, OK, so "AI" is not, per se, a word so much as it is an acronym for "Artificial Intelligence."

Great and with that out of the way, what is AI (or artificial intelligence)?

An overly complex definition of AI is: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a multidisciplinary domain within computer science and cognitive science that involves the design, development, and analysis of computational systems capable of performing tasks traditionally requiring human cognitive processes such as perception, reasoning, learning, decision-making, and natural language understanding. It encompasses the creation of algorithms and models that enable machines to acquire representations of their environment, generalize from data, adapt to new information, and exhibit goal-directed behavior under varying conditions of uncertainty. AI draws on subfields including machine learning, knowledge representation, heuristic search, and robotics, leveraging statistical methods, neural architectures, and symbolic reasoning to enable autonomous or semi-autonomous systems to optimize actions in complex, dynamic environments while adhering to constraints defined by computational, ethical, and social considerations.

Got all that?

In more simplistic terms, AI is basically a fancy robot brain that tries to fake being smart so you don’t have to be.

That better?

Essentially, Artificial Intelligence is like building a mechanical apprentice that learns by watching, listening, and practicing, just as a human would, so it can help us carry out tasks.

For example: Imagine teaching a child to sort laundry by colors: you show them examples, correct mistakes, and eventually, they learn to do it on their own. AI works similarly, but instead of a child, it’s a computer system that learns from examples, patterns, and feedback so it can make decisions, recognize speech, translate languages, or drive a car.

It’s not truly “thinking” like a human, but it mimics parts of human learning and decision-making to help us do things faster, more consistently, and often on a much larger scale.

Still unclear how it works in "real" life?

Say you're looking to write draft a professional resume for a sales professional (selling cars) and where you only have a few key skills that might be useful and you've worked at McDonald's slinging burgers for the last few years.

AI can crank a really nice one page resume, based on those parameters, for you. Of course, I'd suggest you take the time to make small edits - but it will look sharp.

Maybe the resume you submitted above landed you an interview in front of 21 people. While only 4 people asked you questions, you still need to send a thank-you letter to all 21 people. I've done this and it took me 4 days to make each one a little different but relatable using notes I took during the interview(s).

AI can crank out those 21 unique and professional letters just based on their titles alone and do it in under 2 minutes flat and make you look like a superstar.

Maybe you're a lawyer and you need help with your lawyer stuff. How might AI help you?

Streamlined Legal Research: AI can quickly analyze vast amounts of legal data, identify relevant precedents, and suggest potential arguments, saving lawyers significant time and effort.
Automated Contract Review: AI tools can scan contracts for key clauses, potential risks, and inconsistencies, accelerating the review process and improving accuracy.
Enhanced eDiscovery: AI can help manage and analyze large volumes of data during litigation, identifying relevant information more efficiently and reducing costs associated with discovery.
Improved Risk Assessment: AI-powered tools can analyze historical case data and predict potential outcomes, enabling lawyers to better advise clients and mitigate risks.
Drafting Legal Documents: AI can assist in drafting initial versions of motions, briefs, contracts, and other legal documents, saving time and improving consistency.

Heck, I used to consult for Anylaw.com where AI is a huge part of it. In fact, Anylaw.com uses AI to generate the holdings for each case searched.

Pretty slick!

Anyway, and as all of that looks great, a HUGE drawback with using AI (particularly in law) in the generation of legal documents is that AI tools, particularly generative AI, can sometimes produce inaccurate or fabricated information (hallucinations), requiring careful human review.

Wait, what?

Yeah. There are a plethora of examples where lawyers used artificial intelligence search engines to find cases or even write whole briefs only to find out later that the cases cited therein don't exist.

For example:

Say a lawyer uses an AI tool (like ChatGPT OR Microsoft Copilot OR Google Gemini OR Chatsonic OR Grok OR any AI legal assistant) to draft a legal document. The AI is asked:

“Provide cases supporting the argument that emotional distress damages are recoverable in breach of contract cases in Utah.”

The AI responds with:

“Yes, see Smith v. Jones, 456 P.3d 789 (Utah 2019), where the Utah Supreme Court held that emotional distress damages were recoverable in a breach of contract case.”

However:

Problem: Smith v. Jones does not exist. Well, it might exist somewhere but not with that citation or set of facts or holding or, even at all. In this example, the AI generated a citation that sounds real but is entirely fabricated (“hallucinated”), including a made-up volume, page number, and holding.
The AI pulled patterns from similar cases but created a false case to fit the prompt.
If the attorney includes this citation in a filed brief, Attorney could (and probably should) face serious court sanctions, reputational damage, and ethical violations under ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence) and Rule 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal).

Can you say oops?

Two real-world examples of attorneys using hallucinated cases from AI engines include Mata v. Avianca, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 2023) (aka the “ChatGPT Case”). I know I've already blogged about this case in an earlier post but it's fun to talk about this stuff and these guys were really reckless.

In this case, attorneys Steven A. Schwartz and Peter LoDuca of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman used ChatGPT to draft a brief in a personal injury case against Avianca Airlines.

The brief included six non-existent cases generated by ChatGPT, such as: Varghese v. China Southern Airlines, Martinez v. Delta Airlines, and Miller v. United Airlines.

The attorneys asked ChatGPT if the cases were real, and ChatGPT falsely assured them they were, even providing fabricated excerpts.

Thing is, had they just Shepardized the cases, they would have discovered the discrepancies and avoided the penalties of being sanctioned with a $5,000 fine and ordered to notify the real judges falsely cited in their brief

In the second REAL case of Park v. Kim (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2023) – (aka the "Second ChatGPT Sanction Case"), a lawyer in New York used ChatGPT to draft an opposition brief in a personal injury case.

The brief included false citations to non-existent cases. Opposing counsel flagged the citations as untraceable. The lawyer admitted to using ChatGPT without verifying the citations (i.e. he didn't Shepardize the cases).

In this second case, the court issued sanctions against the attorney and the lawyer was ordered to pay legal fees to opposing counsel and faced professional embarrassment (basically, he was laughed at all all future bar meetings).

Other cases where attorneys used A.I. to improperly draft legal documents (and were caught) include:

1) United States v. Hayes

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California (2005)
What happened: A defense lawyer submitted a motion containing a fictitious case and quotation that appeared to be AI-generated. The court ordered the attorney to pay $1,500 and circulated the ruling to local bars and judges.

2) Butler Snow Attorneys (Disqualification Order)

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Alabama (2025)
What happened: Three attorneys from Butler Snow submitted filings with fabricated AI-generated citations in defending Alabama prison officials. The judge found the conduct improper, disqualified the lawyers from the case, and referred the matter to the Alabama State Bar.

3) Indiana Hallucination Citations (Ramirez)

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana (2024-25)
What happened: In briefs for a case involving HoosierVac, an attorney filed multiple briefs with made-up AI-generated case citations. The magistrate judge recommended a $15,000 sanction and noted the lawyer failed to check the AI output.

4) Eastern District of Michigan — Sanctions for AI-Related Errors

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (2025)
What happened: Plaintiffs’ counsel included in their responsive briefs real case names with fake quotes or misleading parentheticals that appeared to result from AI hallucinations. The court found Rule 11 violations and imposed monetary sanctions to deter future AI misuse.

5) Sanction (Southern District of Indiana — $6,000 Fine)

Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana (2025)
What happened: A federal judge fined an attorney $6,000 for filing briefs that included citations to nonexistent cases generated by an AI tool, emphasizing that such “hallucination cites” must be verified by counsel.

6) In re Kheir (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2025)

What Happened: A bankruptcy court found plaintiff’s counsel used generative AI to “manufacture legal authority,” resulting in sanctions including fees, continuing legal ed., and referral to disciplinary counsel.

7) In re Marla C. Martin — U.S. Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ill. (2025)

A bankruptcy court found that counsel filed a brief containing fabricated case citations generated by AI (e.g., In re Montoya, In re Jager, etc.) in a Chapter 13 proceeding.
The attorney admitted he used ChatGPT for legal arguments and did not verify the generated citations. The court held this violated Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011 and sanctioned the lawyer and firm with a $5,500 fine and required attendance at an AI education session.

8) Ford v. James Koutoulas & Lgbcoin, Ltd., No. 2:25‑cv‑23896‑BPY, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234696 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 2, 2025)

What happened: In this federal case, the defendants’ summary judgment motion “contained several citations that the court and the plaintiffs suspected were GenAI hallucinations, where the court was unable to locate the cited authorities.”

In most of these cases, the attorneys faced stiff fines, humiliation at the hands of their peers and public, and some were referred to the State Bar for discipline.

What is key to note is that prior to 2023, there are no recorded instances where attorneys were caught improperly using AI.

Why?

Simply because the technology wasn't available until around 2023. Prior to late 2022, there was no generative AI (like ChatGPT) capable of producing case citations.

Earlier "AI" tools (like Westlaw's KeyCite or Lexis's Shepards) were search and analysis tools (meaning humans searched and analyzed when they got) - not generative drafting tools and neither KeyCite or Shepards produced hallucinated citations.

I suspect what happened is that law students and, subsequently, attorneys got lazy and stopped relying on their own efforts to draft legal documents expecting that computers would continue to be reliable and not churn out non-existant
citations.

Who knew people would program AI search engines to be deceitful (because algorithms are only as trustworthy as the people who programmed their parameters).

The bottom line to all this here is that as great and helpful and fast as AI is, it is not 100% accurate.

Consequently, AI should never replace basic legal research practices (including cite checking using Shepards or Key Cite) or remove the human element (i.e. personally editing your own work).

Oops, Wrong Door

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 26 Jan 2026 07:30:00 +0000

You know what bothers me these days? Well, at the moment it's police who don't really understand or care about the law. Particularly, the 4th amendment and/or 42 USC § 1983 and the rights we the people are owed under the law.

So how this came up was I was scrolling through Facebook and saw one (of many) videos of a police officer ripping open a partly open window (like what a bear in a national park might do when they smelled - and wanted to get at - food).

The thing is, if you do a quick scroll through Internet land, you'll see, quite literally, hundreds (if not thousands) of links and videos of raucous police doing all sorts of things in violation of the United States Constitution (of which they - allegedly - swore to protect). For example:

Atlanta, Georgia — Martin Family Wrong-House Raid (2017)

Date: October 18, 2017
Incident: FBI agents and local SWAT mistakenly raided the home of the Martin family, believing it to be a drug suspect’s residence. The family was detained at gunpoint for hours.
Legal Action: The family sued the FBI and local police under §1983 for Fourth Amendment violations (illegal search and seizure). The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court addressing sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled in Gonzalez v. United States, 579 U.S. 59 (2016), on FTCA immunity issues related to federal agents. The civil suit continued in lower courts, focusing on the wrongful search and damages claims.

Joliet, Illinois — Wrong Home Entry (2021)

Date: November 2021
Incident: Police executed a search warrant at the wrong address, detaining multiple family members (including children) for several hours while searching the home.
Legal Action: The family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Outcome: Pending or settled confidentially; the case raised awareness about the accuracy and verification processes for warrant execution.

Austin, Texas — Shields Family Wrong-House SWAT Raid (2023)

Date: August 2023
Incident: SWAT executed a no-knock raid on the Shields family home, which was the wrong address, using explosives and detaining occupants. Significant property damage and trauma ensued.
Legal Action: A federal civil rights lawsuit was filed alleging violations of Fourth Amendment rights, excessive force, and failure to verify the correct address.
Outcome: Lawsuit is ongoing, with motions to dismiss denied, allowing claims to proceed.

King County / Seattle, Washington — Gizachew Wondie False Warrant Case (2023)

Date: Incident circa 2018, settlement reached in 2023
Incident: Wondie was arrested based on a warrant supported by false statements from a detective. The warrant was invalid, leading to an unlawful arrest and detention.
Legal Action: Wondie filed a §1983 civil rights claim alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution based on fabricated evidence.
Outcome: King County agreed to settle for $225,000 to resolve the claim without admitting liability.

Berwyn Heights, Maryland — No-Knock Drug Raid on Mayor’s Home (2008)

Date: July 29, 2008
Incident: Police executed a no-knock warrant at the home of the mayor without sufficient verification, causing property damage and trauma.
Legal Action: The mayor filed civil claims alleging Fourth Amendment violations and sought damages for excessive force and destruction of property.
Outcome: Several officers were disciplined, and the city settled with the family for an undisclosed amount.

Other Notable Incidents:

March 13, 2020 — Louisville, Kentucky
No-knock raid that killed Breonna Taylor; civil claims and a $12M settlement for the family and federal criminal/civil proceedings followed.

May 25, 2020 — Minneapolis, Minnesota
Killing of George Floyd during an arrest; §1983 excessive-force claims, criminal prosecutions, and large civil settlement for the family.

January 28, 2019 — Pecan Park (Houston), Texas
Botched no-knock/paramilitary raid (Harding Street raid) that resulted in two civilian deaths and widespread criticism of HPD tactics.

April 2024 — Willard, North Carolina
Alleged mistaken SWAT raid on a mobile home — family filed federal suit claiming knock-and-announce/warrant problems and dangerous forced entry.

And these are just cases involving attacks on a home. Can you imagine the number of incidents involving police pulling people over for alleged crimes on the roads?!

Probably a blog for another time.

Bottom line, and call me paranoid but, best you can do is find a good lawyer before you have to find a good lawyer because, by the looks of things, it's not a matter of if police will try to bust down your door, but when.

It Might Be A Conspiracy Theory But We're Still Up 270 to Nil

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 19 Jan 2026 08:00:00 +0000

You know, there are things that are going on around the world that I just don't care about.

Vladimir Putin? Some guy in Russia doing things.

Flooding in North Carolina? Just a bunch of water with nowhere to go.

Deforestation in the Amazon rain forest? It's a "rain" forest. Plant more trees.

Smog in India and China? Send in the AQMD.

Gain of Function research relating to the coronavirus? Turns out, I'm starting to care about this one if, for no other reason, I really think those stupid white masks didn't do squat except to make my face all hot and sweaty.

In case you were wondering, Gain-of-function (or "GoF") research refers to scientific studies in which an organism—often a virus, bacterium, or other pathogen—is deliberately modified to enhance certain biological properties.

The “function” in question could be anything from infectivity, transmissibility, virulence (ability to cause disease), or resistance to treatments. Essentially, the research is aimed at giving the organism a new or stronger capability than it naturally possesses.

So, why is this so important?

Well, Gain-of-function research has become important—and controversial—because it sits at the intersection of science, public health, and global safety. Its significance comes from both its potential benefits and risks.

I know I'm starting to sound like a 3-year old here but so what and why is that important?

Well, GoF allows scientists to see how viruses or bacteria could naturally evolve. This is important because it helps in risk assessment, vaccine design, and pandemic preparedness.

OK, alright - but helping to prepare for a pandemic is a good thing, right?

Well, it would have been a good thing except for the fact that in the case of the Covid virus, it was the GoF that actually caused the whole pandemic. In fact, a recent report found that a lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is the most likely the origin of COVID-19.

Wait, what?!

So, here's how things happened in real time:

In 2002–2003, there was a SARS outbreak in China (SARS-CoV-1) with about 8,000 infected and about 800 deaths.

Then, in 2012, there was a MERS outbreak in Saudi Arabia (MERS-CoV) with about 2,500 infected and about 860 deaths.

Finally, in 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan, China, causing COVID-19 pandemic.

After SARS, researchers wanted to understand how corona viruses could mutate to infect humans. GoF experiments were initiated and involved modifying animal coronaviruses to see if they could infect human cells or transmit between animals.

And if you think Covid was transmitted by a bat, then you'd be right. However, the prevailing conspiracy theory as it relates to the COVID-19 virus was that it was intentionally released into the general population claims that the virus was either created or weaponized, often suggesting involvement by government or military actors—most notably, the Chinese government or military.

This theory alleges that release was deliberate, with motives ranging from population control, global disruption, to biological warfare.

You know, the thing with conspiracy theories is that when they are presented, there is no hard evidence to support them. Well, no evidence except that most all conspiracy theories in the last few years have been proved true like:

Mass Surveillance (NSA & Tech Companies)
- Claim: Governments were secretly collecting vast amounts of private data from ordinary citizens.
- Confirmed: Edward Snowden’s 2013–2014 revelations showed this was real, and reporting into the 2010s–2020s (e.g., PRISM, Section 702 of FISA) confirmed ongoing surveillance practices. Courts and Congress debated reforms through the 2010s and 2020s.
Big Tech Content Manipulation & Censorship
- Claim: Social media companies were coordinating with governments to suppress or flag certain content.
- Confirmed: The “Twitter Files” (2022–2023) and related disclosures showed platforms coordinated with U.S. government agencies to influence moderation policies, particularly on COVID-19 and election-related content.
Epstein & Elite Networks
- Claim: Jeffrey Epstein was connected to powerful political, business, and academic figures and was involved in sex trafficking.
- Confirmed: Epstein’s 2019 arrest and subsequent reporting showed years of abuse and connections to influential people. His death in custody fueled further speculation, but the trafficking ring itself was proven.
Wuhan Lab Leak Theory (COVID-19 Origin)
- Claim: COVID-19 may have originated from a laboratory accident in Wuhan, not solely from a wet market.
- Initially dismissed: Branded as a conspiracy in 2020.
- Later: By 2021–2023, U.S. intelligence agencies and multiple governments acknowledged the lab-leak hypothesis as a plausible scenario.
Government Involvement in UFO/UAP Programs
- Claim: The U.S. government was hiding evidence of unidentified aerial phenomena.
- Confirmed: In 2020–2021, the Pentagon released declassified videos and established the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). Congressional hearings (2022–2023) further confirmed military encounters with unexplained craft.
Pharmaceutical Industry Influence
- Claim: Big Pharma companies were influencing medical research and public messaging beyond normal lobbying.
- Confirmed: Opioid litigation (e.g., Purdue Pharma, Johnson & Johnson) revealed deliberate downplaying of addiction risks, with internal documents proving knowledge of harm while aggressively marketing opioids.

Cambridge Analytica & Facebook Data Harvesting (2016–2018)
- Claim: A private firm was secretly harvesting data from millions of Facebook users to manipulate elections.
- Confirmed: In 2018, whistleblowers and UK/US investigations revealed Cambridge Analytica harvested data from up to 87 million users without consent to build voter profiles. Facebook admitted failure to protect user data and paid billions in fines.
Boeing 737 MAX Cover-Up (2018–2020)
- Claim: Boeing and regulators downplayed safety problems with the 737 MAX after two crashes.
- Confirmed: Investigations showed Boeing concealed critical information about the MCAS flight control system, and the FAA provided lax oversight. Boeing later agreed to a $2.5 billion settlement with the DOJ in 2021.
Volkswagen Emissions Scandal (“Dieselgate”) (2015)
- Claim: Automakers were cheating emissions tests to appear environmentally compliant.
- Confirmed: The U.S. EPA revealed Volkswagen had installed “defeat devices” in millions of cars to trick emissions tests. Executives were charged, billions in fines were paid, and the company admitted to the scheme.
Hunter Biden Laptop Story Suppression (2020–2022)

Claim: Media and social platforms deliberately suppressed reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop, labeling it as “Russian disinformation.”
Confirmed: In 2022–2023, major outlets (e.g., NYT, WaPo, CBS) authenticated the laptop’s contents. The “Twitter Files” showed federal agencies flagged the story to social media platforms in 2020.

So, while it's a theory now, stick around and who knows what will come up in the next few years.

Anyway, here's where things get fun.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has faced extensive scrutiny regarding his role in the COVID-19 pandemic, especially the origins of the virus and allegations of criminal negligence.

In June 2024, Fauci testified before Congress and presented emails he sent early in the pandemic urging the reporting and investigation of valid concerns regarding a possible lab leak. He denied that these messages were an attempted cover-up, calling such allegations “preposterous.”

During his congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci made several statements about coronavirus research funding that have later been challenged and characterized by some as misleading or untruthful.

Fauci repeatedly stated that the NIH and NIAID did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. For example, in a 2021 Senate hearing, he said, “The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

However, documents later revealed by FOIA requests and confirmed by government officials contradicted this, showing that gain-of-function research was indeed funded at the Wuhan lab through grants approved by NIH/NIAID.

Fauci also testified that staff members working with him did not have conflicts of interest regarding the oversight of coronavirus research grants.

Later, he acknowledged that at least one senior advisor, Dr. David Morens, had a conflict of interest and was implicated in obstructing congressional investigations into NIH grants related to Wuhan research.

During hearings, Fauci admitted that some COVID-19 mitigation policies, like the “six feet apart” social distancing rule, were not strictly based on science but rather were arbitrary decisions that “just appeared.” This admission raised questions about the scientific rigor behind some public health guidance he promoted.

In short, Fauci’s key false or misleading claims during congressional testimony centered on denying NIH/NIAID funding of gain-of-function research at Wuhan, denying conflicts of interest among his staff, and downplaying the lab leak theory’s credibility despite evidence to the contrary.

OK, so what? Unless someone is in an orange jumpsuit, why does this even matter?

It all matters because even if no one individual is criminally liable for the pandemic, understanding the circumstances and ethics surrounding gain-of-function research is crucial to mitigating risks to global health, improving scientific practices, ensuring accountability, and protecting society from potentially catastrophic lab accidents (like what happened with the Coronavirus).

Essentially, if we are unable to "trust the science" or the people behind the science, then when the next pandemic happens, is anyone going to listen?

Word of the Month for January 2026: Holographic Case Law

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 05 Jan 2026 08:00:00 +0000

Given the speed that tech goes these days, this might seem a little behind the times but it's something that needs to be brought up again and again.

See, back in 2024 (yeah, a lifetime ago), I started using Chatgpt.

Then around early 2025, as I started cranking out a whole lot of legal research and blog content, I became acquainted with holographic cases which quickly became synonymous with how Chatgpt and other LLMs (i.e. Large Language Model) treated attorneys and case law.

Before we get into the meat of this blog, let's define what I mean by Holographic case law and why it happens.

HOLOGRAPHIC CASE LAW is/are fictitious legal cases generated by a large language model (LLM) that appear to be real, complete with

Case name
Citation / authority
Page numbers
Court jurisdiction

…but do not actually exist in any legal reporter or database.

So, picture it - you're researching a legal topic and you hop over to Chatgpt or Grok or Gemini or Claude or DeepSeek or Perplexity or any of the other few dozen LLMs in Internet-land, and you run a search on that legal topic. In the course of your searching you see references to several legal-esque cases.

Problem is that when you try to find those cases via the Internet or try to cite check the cases (like what any 1st year law student should have learned to do), you can't find those cases.

The reason you can't find the cases is because they don't exist.

Wait, doesn't exist?!

How or why is that even possible?!? Why might an LLM crank out a case that doesn't exist?

Funny thing, but I had that exact same question and I posed it to Chatgpt which responded with:

That’s a great question — and it’s one of the most important issues when using AI for legal research.

ChatGPT (and other LLMs) sometimes return cases that don’t exist because of the way large language models work:

Pattern Matching, Not Databases:
I don’t have a built-in legal case database. Instead, I was trained on lots of legal writing and I generate responses by predicting what looks like a plausible answer. If you ask for a case citation, I try to produce one that fits the pattern of a real case — correct reporter, volume, page — even if it’s made up.

Pressure to Be Helpful:
If you ask for “a case where X happened,” I try to fulfill that request. If I don’t have a known case in memory, I may invent one that sounds right rather than say “I don’t know,” especially if your prompt suggests that such a case must exist.

Legal Citations Are Predictable:
Because case citations follow a rigid format (e.g., Smith v. Jones, 123 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2020)), I can generate something that looks very convincing — even to experienced lawyers. But if you check the reporter, the case might not exist.

Contextual Merging (Hallucination):
Sometimes I blend real cases. For example, I might take facts from Case A and a holding from Case B and give it a citation that matches neither. This is not intentional — it’s a statistical artifact.

This problem is exactly what led to the high-profile Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023) case — where lawyers used ChatGPT to write a brief, it cited six fake cases, and the court sanctioned them.

✅ Best Practice When Using AI for Legal Research:

Treat all AI-supplied case names and citations as leads, not authorities.

Verify every case in a trusted source (Westlaw, Lexis, Fastcase, Casetext, etc.) before using it.

If you can’t find it in an official reporter or database, assume it doesn’t exist.

While it's nice that Chatgpt admits that it screwed up, what's problematic is that it does so so nonchalantly - as if it's just another day in the rain and it's not problem and that so what, I screwed up - what you gonna do about it?!?

And that's the rub, isn't it? It's not that you can sue an LLM for returning holographic case law - or can you? I mean, here you are against a deadline and you run a search in an LLM for a "Motion for Summary Judgement with 4 cases on point" and you submit the results to the court only to discover at your hearing for sanctions that the 4 cases on point don't exist (because they're holographic).

Yeah, you could have cite checked the cases before you submitted your motion but you were against a deadline and what self-respecting attorney actually cite checks their work, right?!?

As it turns out, existing lawsuits against AI companies focus primarily on copyright infringement, where authors, artists, and news organizations allege their protected works were used without a license to train the LLMs. These cases are distinct from those arising from "hallucinated" case law in legal filings.

Ultimately, the consensus in the legal community is that the onus remains entirely on the human attorney to verify AI-generated work before it is submitted to a court.

I mean, it's a novel idea (to sue an LLM instead of cite checking your work before filing with the court) given these days that no one wants to take responsibility to screwing up because it's always someone elses fault, right?

You know, as this is a new year and a time for new resolutions, maybe this might be one of your resolutions - to stop blaming Chatgpt for everything wrong with the world.

Yes?....No?....can I at least get an Amen?

Sounds More Like an Interrogation

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 29 Dec 2025 07:30:00 +0000

Have you ever had to go through the pain of a job interview? Me? I've done lots of them.

Among other things, what I got out of the interviewing experience was a long list of illegal questions potential employers ought not ask in an interview.

Why?

Most illegal questions focus around one thing - they don't relate to how a job is to be performed.

Samples of illegal questions include:

How old are you? Why illegal: Age discrimination is prohibited under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) if the applicant is 40 or older. Age should not factor into hiring decisions.
Are you married? Why illegal: Marital status is not relevant to job performance and may lead to discrimination based on marital or family status.
Is English your first language? Why illegal: Related to national origin discrimination.
Do you have any disabilities? Why illegal: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits asking about disabilities before a job offer is made.
Have you ever filed a Workers' Compensation claim? Why illegal: This could lead to discrimination against individuals who have been injured and violates ADA protections.
Have you ever been arrested? Why illegal: While convictions may be relevant, arrests without convictions should not be used in hiring decisions, as it can lead to racial discrimination claims.
Who do you live with? Why illegal: Could reveal marital status, family structure, or sexual orientation, which may lead to discrimination.
Do you drink or use drugs? Why illegal: Employers cannot ask about past substance abuse; they may only ask if you can perform job duties safely.

Recently, I had an interview for the position of library director of a public library. Yeah, I know - not legal. But over time, you realize that all library's have the same issues.

One question they asked (and it was couched in a way so try to make it less obtrusive saying "We ask everyone this question - like that makes it all better):

If we were to look at your social media content, would we find anything objectionable?

First, what does "objectionable" mean? What might be objectionable to one person might not be to another.

To the point of whether it is a legal question, or not, the question itself is not explicitly illegal under federal law. However, it is risky and can lead to illegal discrimination if used improperly.

So, how might this question about social media be be problematic?

While reviewing publicly available information is legal, asking about it during an interview could:

Pressure candidates to disclose personal information (which it did and, by their reactions, is what they were hoping for),
Create a chilling effect on lawful off-duty conduct (some states, like California and New York, protect lawful off-duty activities).

In addition, questions about social media usage could suggest implied off-duty conduct discrimination. In many states, it is illegal to discriminate against lawful off-duty conduct, such as political activity, social associations, or lifestyle choices that are not job-related.

Another reason questions about social media usage are problematic is because this type of question leads to potential for discrimination based on protected categories such as:

Age (ADEA)
National origin (Title VII)
Race or ethnicity (Title VII)
Religion (Title VII)
Sexual orientation or gender identity (Title VII, EEOC interpretations)
Disability (ADA)
Pregnancy (Pregnancy Discrimination Act)

Finally, if an employer later rejects the candidate, the candidate could argue the rejection was based on information discovered through social media about protected characteristics.

A better question they could have asked me might have been:

This role requires maintaining a professional image consistent with our code of conduct, including public-facing behavior and communication. Can you comply with this expectation?”

We expect employees to adhere to our social media policy regarding confidentiality and professionalism. Are you comfortable with this policy?

Other questions which are not in-and-of-themselves illegal but suggest an illegal motive thereby making them illegal questions include:

Can you work nights or weekends? Not illegal in itself if the job requires it. Becomes illegal if used to screen out candidates based on religious practices or caregiving responsibilities (religion, gender, family status). Example: Denying a candidate who observes a religious Sabbath without exploring whether accommodation violates Title VII.
Do you have reliable transportation? Not illegal in itself. Becomes illegal if used to screen out individuals based on disability (can’t drive due to medical reasons) or economic status.
What club or organizations to you belong to? Not illegal in itself. Becomes illegal if it seeks to uncover religious, political, or protected affiliations or if the information is used for discrimination.
Can you lift 50 pounds? Not illegal if it is a bona fide job requirement. Becomes illegal if asked without stating it is a job requirement and is used to screen out individuals with disabilities, violating the ADA.
What year did you graduate? Not illegal in itself. Becomes illegal if it is used to determine age, violating ADEA protections.
Have you ever been arrested? Not illegal to discuss convictions related to job duties. Becomes illegal because arrest records alone should not be used in employment decisions, leading to disparate impact on certain racial groups.
Are you planning on starting a family soon? Not illegal to ask about availability. Becomes illegal because it suggests gender/pregnancy discrimination under Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

So, why are these questions illegal? Essentially, the motive behind the question and how the information is used determines legality. Questions that can elicit information about protected categories (age, disability, gender, religion, national origin, etc.) and influence hiring decisions violate:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (race, color, religion, sex, national origin)
ADA (disability)
ADEA (age 40+)
Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Immigration Reform and Control Act (work authorization vs. citizenship)

Bottom line, if you aren't sure whether you should ask a question and are concerned that it might expose you to liability, your best bet would be to either run it past legal first or just not ask that question.

I'm just sayin.

On the Down-Low

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 22 Dec 2025 08:00:00 +0000

A few months back, I did a blog on insider trading at the Congressional level and I uncovered something suspicious.

The whole idea behind stopping Congressional "leaders" from conducting stock trades while in office is because they have access to non-public information on which they make their trades/money.

Case in point would be how Pelosi made her millions. With an annual salary of $174,000, Pelosi was still able to score a 54% increase in net worth in 2024 out performing the S&P 500's 25% gain during the same period!

I think, though, that Rep. Ilhan Oman might have Pelosi beat. In 2019, Ms. Oman's net worth was a NEGATIVE $45,000.

In a recent financial disclosure report for Rep. Ilhan Omar and her husband, Tim Mynett, it was shown that their joint net worth was valued between approximately $6 million and $30 million. This represents a significant increase, with some estimates citing a 3,500% surge from the previous year's filing for the relevant assets.

So, yeah, politicians are filthy liars if they say they are not engaging in insider trading or are otherwise dealing in some under the table shenanigans.

But this is not the point of this blog.

In 2012, Congress passed the Stock Act (i.e. the "Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012"). The Stock Act was passed to prevent insider trading by members of Congress and federal employees.

It required:

Lawmakers and many high-level executive officials to publicly post their financial disclosure reports online (in a searchable, downloadable database).
Post regular updates about stock trades and financial transactions.
Deliver greater transparency to help the public monitor potential conflicts of interest.

This would have been great but for the fact that in 2013 (little over a year after the Stock Act was signed into law), Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced Senate Bill ("SB") 716 during the 113th Congress (2013–2014). What SB 716 did was:

Eliminated the requirement that the financial disclosure forms of about 28,000 senior federal officials be posted online in a publicly searchable database.
Delayed, then repealed, the implementation of that online disclosure requirement.
Limited online disclosure to only the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, and candidates — not to staff or most executive branch employees.

Text summary from Congress.gov:

“S.716 modifies the STOCK Act by eliminating the requirement for the online posting of financial disclosure forms for executive branch employees and judicial officers, and for making those forms available to the public through an online searchable database.”

I mean, they say all this with such finesse like it's no big deal. Well, it's no big deal if you're a politician looking at having to be transparent with the people who elected you. For we the people who go to jail if we so much as not declare 50 cents to the IRS, it's a HUGE deal!

Essentially, SB 716 de-fanged the Stock Act's key provisions.

What is missing from this scenario is that Congress did all this backdoor legislation using a sneaky procedural rule called UNANIMOUS CONSENT ("UC").

UC refers to a procedural agreement that allows the House of Representatives or the Senate to expedite action by bypassing formal rules—as long as no member objects.

So, why might Congress use UC for seemingly insignificant measures. There are a few political and structural reasons:

Avoiding accountability:
UC avoids roll call votes. No one has to go on record, which shields members from criticism later.
Preserving Senate “efficiency”:
Leadership prefers UC to avoid days of floor debate — especially when the bill appears harmless.
Optics management:
Some controversial bills are rushed through UC when leadership wants to minimize media coverage or public awareness (as with S. 716).
Collegial courtesy:
Senators often grant UC as a favor to colleagues, even when the underlying issue might deserve deeper scrutiny.

So, on April 11, 2013, BOTH the House and Senate agreed to push this amendment to the Stock Act and get signed by POTUS Obama on the same day.

Do you realize how impossible it is to get a bill passed by both houses AND be signed by the POTUS on the SAME DAY?!?!?

I queried Chatgpt on the topic and it said:

I could not find a reliable source that gives a complete count of how many times in the last 50 years a bill was introduced, passed by both houses, and signed into law (by the POTUS (who, at the time, was obama) on the very same day. Such cases are very rare, and I found at least one example (S. 716 in 2013) but no comprehensive record.

I mean, Congress really, REALLY wanted this bill to pass without a hitch in the worst way - and I really wonder why?

While any Congressperson will tell you that SB 716 was a small and insignificant amendment, it had HUGE implications all because they were able to ram it through using the unanimous consent procedure.

The problem with the usage of UC is that it presents a number of problems. If nothing else, what’s “small” to Congress may be huge to citizens. Other issues to note when Congress employs UC include:

Your right to see what your representatives are doing (transparency laws),
How your taxes are spent (appropriations and relief bills),
Your rights and privacy (surveillance, judicial, or defense acts),
Or how government power is distributed (administrative and procedural changes).

After going through this, I got to wondering if there were other small/insignificant bills that were ramrodded through Congress like SB 716.

Turns out, there are/were, like:

So, why does any of this matter?

Well, by allowing technical details to pass by unopposed, democratic accountability is weakened when decisions are made without public record or discussion.

When UC is employed, public trust erodes when Congress passes self-serving or complex measures quietly.

Finally, transparency advocates (like OpenSecrets, Sunlight Foundation, and CRS analysts) have warned for years that UC is both a procedural convenience and a cloak of invisibility.

Of course, when looking at transparency and Congresses lack of any transparency, I hear the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi when describing the boondoggle of what was to become the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare):

"We have to pass the bill," she said, "so that you can find out what is in it."

If that isn't the gist of all things NON-transparent, nothing is.

Bottom line: as long as Congress is able (and willing) to ramrod any legislation with procedures like Unanimous Consent, there is no way we the people can trust that what they are doing is in anyone's best interest - except their own.

How Not to Give the Police a Reason to Arrest You While You're Out Driving Your Car

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:00:00 +0000

It's the holiday season, again, and you know what that means? That's right - another round of police trying to search your car whilst driving to grandma's house.

Seems every time I hop on the the Internet there's a slew more articles/videos of police doing everything they can to get in someone's car.

I gotta wonder why police do everything they can to get people to consent to a search and why people think consenting to a search at a traffic stop is a good thing?

So, picture it - you're driving along (to grandmothers house) and you get pulled over by highway patrol. Police approach and right off they ask if they can search your car. Without giving any legal advice here, what might you do to avoid giving consent to a search?

1. Clearly and Politely Say No to a Search

According to Egzon Hasi of White Law PLLC, many people believe police can search cars during traffic stops, but that’s only semi-true. Cops can only search vehicles during traffic stops when they establish probable cause.

However, if you don't want police to search your car, you must actually say you do not consent — silence can sometimes be taken as consent.

Example phrases you can calmly use:

“I do not consent to any searches.”
“No, officer, I do not agree to a search.”
“I do not give you permission to search my car.”

Keep your tone calm, non-aggressive, and respectful.

2. Do Not Physically Interfere

If the cop does get you out of our car or just reaches in through the open window to open the door themselves, don't (as in never) touch the officer, block them, or resist physically — that can escalate to arrest. Just state your refusal verbally and stay still with your hands visible.

3. Avoid Volunteering Information

According to Brendan Fernsten, managing partner at Barns & Fernsten, volunteering more information than what is legally required can inadvertently lead to self-incrimination. This could include providing information about your whereabouts, actions, or intentions–even if it seems innocuous, it can lead to further investigation and potential legal complications.

Example:

Officer says, "do you know how fast you were going?"

Officer says, "Do you know why I pulled you over?"

Officer says, "Where are you coming from?"

So,do not give extra details about where you’ve been or what’s in your car — keep answers short, provide only what is legally required: license, registration, proof of insurance, and know that small talk or nervous chatter can accidentally give officers a “reason” to escalate.

4. Clarify if You Are Free to Go

The Thiessen Law Firm notes that: once the purpose of the stop is complete — whether you’ve received a citation or just a warning — you are legally free to leave unless the officer has developed legitimate, reasonable suspicion of another crime.

You can politely ask: am I being detained, or am I free to go?” If they say you’re free to go, calmly leave. If they say you’re detained, you still have the right to refuse a search unless they have probable cause or a warrant.

5. Do Not Open the Door or Trunk Unless Required

Legal Zoom notes that the Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court has looked at several cases involving Fourth Amendment rights and warrantless searches. In most instances, the officer can conduct a search if they have probable cause to do so.

It is important to note that cars are generally excepted from the advance warrant requirement because of their mobile nature. This gives police license to conduct warrantless searches of cars - provided they can find probable cause (which is actually easy to do).

In Chimel v. California, 295 U.S. 752 (1969) the court held that police might search the person and all areas under a person's control or reach. This reasoning may be applied in the case of a trunk. It would be in control of the car's driver, and barring some unusual circumstance, within his or her reach. A trunk generally conceals its contents. So, an officer may look there if there is a belief that what he is searching for might be in the trunk.

Regrdless, while officers may casually say, “Pop the trunk” or “Open the glove box, ” if you do not want to consent: Politely say, “I do not consent to searches.” Only open compartments if required for documents (e.g., registration) — and do so slowly and carefully.

6. Remain Calm & Professional

Keep hands on the wheel where they can see them.
Avoid sudden movements.
Do not argue or insult the officer — anger can escalate the situation. This means don't start swearing at the police officer. Even IF they don't have probably cause to search your vehicle, they'll figure something out or make up a crime just to delay you from getting to grandmas house. I mean, have you never seen any YouTube videos where police make up stuff? Happens a lot and because people do stupid things to piss off a cop.
If pressured (“If you’ve got nothing to hide…”), just repeat: “I understand, but I do not consent to searches.”

7. Record the Encounter (If Legal in Your State)

Many states allow you to film police during traffic stops as long as you don’t interfere. In fact, the 10th circuit noted in Irizarry v. Yehia, No. 21-1247 (10th Cir. 2022) that “filming the police and other public officials as they perform their official duties acts as ‘a watchdog of government activity’” and is a constitutional right. So, go ahead and:

Use your phone dash-mount or voice recorder.
Calmly state: “For my safety and yours, I’m recording this interaction.”

8. Know Exceptions

Even if you refuse, police can sometimes still search if they have:

Probable cause (e.g., they smell marijuana, see contraband in plain view).
Exigent circumstances (they believe evidence will be destroyed or someone is in danger).
An arrest (they can search the car for weapons or evidence).

Now, I'm not an (or your) attorney but after careful research and examination of the laws of the land, it would behoove you, if you're ever pulled over, to:

Be polite.
Give short answers.
Clearly state you do not consent to a search of your vehicle.

and soon enough you'll be back on the road on your merry way to grandma's house (and not jail).

Word of the Month for December 2025: Constitutional Republic v. Democracy

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 07:30:00 +0000

Ever since the election in November 2024, I've been hearing the terms "Constitutional Republic" and "Democracy" getting batted around like beach balls at a Beach Boys concert.

What is bothersome is that because so many people of importance (self, or otherwise) have been mixing these terms, there is a risk that both or either of the terms will be as generalized and common as "statutes" and "code" (which are NOT the same thing).

Wait, generalized? What do you mean by that?

Well, certain formerly trademarked terms have, over the years, become so overused that they've become part of the public domain and are no longer protected under Trademark laws.

You've heard these terms but you may not know that what you are saying was once trademarked or otherwise important terms that have become more common over time. Some better known examples include:

See what I'm talking about? If nothing is done to ensure that terms like "Constitutional Republic" and "Democracy" maintain their distinctive meanings, then we the people will become no more unique than Jolly Old England (from which we split back in the 1700 's).

So, before we get too far into this, let's define each of these terms.

A Constitutional Republic is a form of government in which citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf, and the government's power is limited and defined by a written constitution.

This constitution establishes the fundamental principles and laws, protects individual rights, and outlines the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to prevent any one branch from gaining too much control.

Key features of a Constitutional Republic include:

Elected leaders (including the head of state, often a president) rather than hereditary rulers

A system of checks and balances to balance power and prevent tyranny, especially protecting minority rights from majority rule

Government authority derived from and limited by the constitution, ensuring rule of law applies equally to all citizens

Citizens participate indirectly by voting for representatives rather than directly on all laws, distinguishing it from a direct democracy

A Democracy is defined as: a system of government in which supreme power resides with the people, who exercise that power either directly or through elected representatives under a free and fair electoral system. The term literally means "rule by the people" (from Greek demos "people" and kratos "power"). Essentially, the majority rules. A person's individual rights are secondary to the majority rule.

Key characteristics of democracy include

Popular sovereignty: The people hold ultimate authority and govern themselves.

Political equality: Every citizen’s vote or voice has equal weight in decisions.

Participation: Citizens participate either by voting directly on laws (direct democracy) or by electing officials to represent them (representative democracy).

Rule of law and protection of individual rights: Democracies typically uphold laws that protect freedoms, equality before the law, and minority rights, preventing unchecked majority rule.

Mechanisms for accountability: Fair elections, freedom of speech, and peaceful transfer of power allow citizens to hold officials responsible.

The primary difference between the two is that a Constitutional Republic is governed by a foundational document (a Constitution) that limits government power to protect individual and minority rights. A pure democracy operates on the principle of majority rule with fewer inherent protections for the minority.

A key problem with mixing up or watering down the terms "Constitutional Republic" and "Democracy" can be problematic is because it obscures critical distinctions that affect how people understand government structure, individual rights, and the protection against majority tyranny.

A pure democracy centers on majority rule which can risk the tyranny of the majority where the majority may impose laws or policies detrimental to historical minorities or to people who don't want to do what the majority wants them to do.

"So what," you might say?

Even though we are a Constitutional Republic, there are a number of times when Majority Rule (i.e. Democracy) took over, over the years. For example: if you're old enough to remember, in the 1950's-60's, blacks and Mexicans were regarded as less than due to Majority Rule.

Railroad companies imported thousands of Chinese workers to build railroads networks that crisscrossed America and then exiled them to slums when the work was done or prohibited Chinese from immigrating to the U.S. due to Majority Rule.

While those of Japanese descent were carted off to internment camps after the attack on Pearl Harbor, I can't remember any internment camps for those of German descent when Hitler declared war on America - all thanks to Majority Rule.

So, "so, what"?! The "so what" is that if there is no distinction between "Constitutional Republic" and "Democracy," the vocal minority will overtake the will of the silent majority in no time, flat!

What is particularly annoying is that notwithstanding the important distinction between the two concepts, there are a number of modern politicians who seemingly disregard the importance of the difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy, such as:

Joe Biden (former POTUS)

“We have to defend democracy. That’s who we are as Americans.”
— Biden, Speech in Philadelphia, September 2022

“Democracy is on the ballot.”
— Biden, November 2, 2022, speech on threats to democracy

“Democracy is more than a form of government; it’s who we are.”
— Biden, Inaugural Address, January 20, 2021

Analysis: Biden consistently frames the United States as a democracy in identity and governance, emphasizing threats to “democracy” but not distinguishing it from the U.S. being a constitutional republic.

Kamala Harris (Former Vice President)

“We must defend our democracy, protect our democracy, and strengthen our democracy.”
— Harris, Speech in Selma, Alabama, March 5, 2023

“We are a democracy, and our democracy is strongest when everyone participates.”
— Harris, July 2022, National Urban League Conference

Analysis: Harris regularly equates America’s system with “democracy” in public speeches, using it to describe the system itself rather than acknowledging its republican constitutional structure.

Barack Obama (Former POTUS)

“Democracy does not work if people do not vote.”
— Obama, Speech at University of Illinois, September 7, 2018

“We are the only advanced democracy that deliberately discourages people from voting.”
— Obama, August 28, 2020, eulogy for John Lewis

“Our democracy is at stake.”
— Obama, various campaign speeches 2020–2022

Analysis: Obama frequently uses “democracy” as shorthand for the American system and for electoral participation, with no distinction from the structural identity as a constitutional republic.

Nancy Pelosi (Former Speaker of the House)

“We have to fight for our democracy.”
— Pelosi, January 6, 2022, Capitol Remembrance

“The sanctity of the vote is the foundation of our democracy.”
— Pelosi, July 2021, on voting rights legislation

Analysis: Pelosi consistently frames the U.S. system as “our democracy,” emphasizing voting as its foundation, without reference to constitutional republican principles.

Hillary Clinton (Former Secretary of State)

“Our democracy is under assault.”
— Clinton, October 2020 interview with The Atlantic

“We need to protect our democracy.”
— Clinton, various campaign appearances 2016–2020

Analysis: Clinton, like other modern Democrats, uses “democracy” to describe the American system, focusing on electoral participation without acknowledging the U.S. as a Constitutional Republic.

OK, OK, enough with the political rhetoric, what I want to know is how distinguishing between a Constitutional Republic and a Democracy actually helps the modern attorney and/or legal system under which we now operate.

As it happens, there are a number of reasons why it is important to distinguish between a Constitutional Republic and Democracy for the modern lawyer.

Lawyers Operate Under a Constitutional Framework, Not Pure Majority Rule

In a constitutional republic, laws, policies, and government actions must comply with the Constitution. So, even if a majority of voters or legislators support a law, if it violates constitutional rights (e.g., First Amendment, due process), lawyers can challenge it in court. This means lawyers can protect minority rights and individual liberties against majority preferences.

For example, even if 80% of voters passed a state law banning certain speech, lawyers can still challenge it as unconstitutional. In a pure democracy, that law would stand because it reflects the majority’s will.

Judicial Review Exists Because We Are a Constitutional Republic

Presently, lawyers have the ability and opportunity to argue constitutional challenges in federal and state courts (e.g., using the Supremacy Clause, the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment). Under a Constitutional Republic, courts have the authority to strike down laws that violate constitutional principles, regardless of how popular the law is.

If we were purely a democracy without constitutional limits, lawyers would have no basis to overturn laws simply because they violate individual rights.

Protection of Clients' Rights Against Government Overreach

Lawyers rely on constitutional protections to defend clients against unlawful government action. For example, in criminal cases, defense lawyers often use the 4th, 5th, 6th Amendments to challenge unlawful searches, coerced confessions, or unfair trials.

Civil rights lawyers use 1st and 14th Amendments to challenge discriminatory laws. These protections only exist because the Constitution is a higher law than that of the will of the majority.

Constitutional Limits Guide Legislative and Executive Actions

Lawyers advising government agencies, legislators, or executives must ensure policies conform to constitutional standards, not just public opinion.

For example, election laws must comply with Voting Rights Act and other constitutional protections. Also, criminal statutes must meet due process and equal protection standards.

Finally, in a constitutional republic, powers are divided between the federal and state governments as specified in the United States Constitution.

Lawyers use these principles to challenge federal overreach under the 10th Amendment, assert state sovereignty, and determine jurisdictional questions in litigation. In a pure democracy, there is no guaranteed distribution of powers between federal and state levels.

Bottom line is that lawyers function as our last line of defense defending the Constitutional order and our individual rights (like free speech, gun rights, voting rights) - which ONLY exist because we live in a Constitutional Republic.

That's the "so what"!

Two (2) Weeks

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 24 Nov 2025 08:00:00 +0000

Have you ever been fired?

So, picture it - you're cruising through your job, doing your thing aaaaaand you get called in to the bosses office (or HR)

where they tell you you are being terminated.

Consequently, you are ushered out the door without so much as a how do you do.

Which all seems odd. Why, you might ask? Well, why is it employers can terminate you and kick you to the curb THAT DAY (or even within seconds) but you the employee has to give 2 weeks notice before you leave?

I mean, it doesn't seem equitable that employers can do whatever they want but employees have to wait it out for 2 weeks at a place they hate.

Not equitable, at all.

I suspect it comes down to the fact that most states follow an at-will employment relationship. For our purposes, at-will employment relationship is on where employers can fire you at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all as long as it’s not illegal (e.g., not because of race, religion, retaliation, etc.).

Conversely, employees can quit at any time for any reason, or with no reason given without legal penalty (unless they have a contract that says otherwise).

Even under an at-will employment relationship, employers cannot terminate you for reasons that violate:

Federal or state discrimination laws (race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, pregnancy, etc.)
Retaliation laws (for reporting harassment, OSHA violations, whistleblowing, filing workers’ comp claims, taking protected medical/military leave, etc.)
Public policy (firing you for serving jury duty, voting, refusing to break the law).
Contracts (union agreements, executive contracts, or even implied promises in handbooks).

While at-will employment relationships exist in most states, there are exceptions to the rule:

Montana (the only true "not-at-will" state):
After a probationary period (usually 12 months unless a contract is in play), employees can only be terminated for "good cause" under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA).

California
Is an at-will state (under Cal. Labor Code § 2922). Recognizes implied contracts (i.e. handbooks and policies) that limit firing to "for cause." Courts are willing to enforce these implied agreements. Strong public-policy and whistleblower protections are also in play.

Arizona
At-will by statute (A.R.S. § 23-1501) but recognizes implied-in-fact contracts and public policy exceptions broadly.

Nevada
Similar to California - strong recognition of implied contracts and public policy exceptions. Even though at-will is the default, these Nevada laws carve out exceptions:

NRS 613.330 – Prohibits termination based on race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, or national origin (discrimination).
NRS 613.340 – Prohibits retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices or filing a complaint.
NRS 618.445 – Protects employees from retaliation for reporting workplace safety issues (OSHA).
NRS 281.370 – Protects public employees from political activity discrimination.

Massachusetts
Recognizes implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which can require payment of earned commissions/benefits even if employment ends. While there’s no single Massachusetts statute declaring “all employment is at-will,” several statutes limit at-will firing:

Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 151B → Prohibits discrimination (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, etc.).
Whistleblower Protection Act (Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 149, § 185) → Protects public employees from retaliation for reporting wrongdoing.
Wage Act (Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 149, §§ 148–150) wages, and can’t terminate to avoid payment.
Public Policy Exception (Case Law) → Employees can’t be fired for exercising a legally guaranteed right (jury duty, filing workers’ comp, refusing to commit a crime).

New Jersey
Recognizes a broad "public policy" exception (Pierce v. Ortho Phamaceutical, 84 N.J. 58, 417 A.2d 505 (1980)). Terminations that violate public interest may be wrongful.

Delaware
Good faith/fair dealing exceptions recognizes, particularly when employer terminates to avoid paying benefits. Delaware’s at-will presumption is limited by various statutes, including:

19 Del. C. § 711 (Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act) Prohibits termination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, genetic information, or national origin.
19 Del. C. § 1703 (Whistleblower Protection Act) Protects employees from retaliation for reporting violations of law.
19 Del. C. § 2365 (Workers’ Compensation Law) Prohibits retaliation for filing workers’ comp claims.
Public Employee Protections Certain public employees (teachers, police, firefighters) have statutory “for cause” protections, not at-will.

So, essentially, an at-will employment relationship says I can quit at any time and employers can terminate me at any time. So where does the 2 weeks thing come in?

The 2 weeks thing comes into play because, as unwritten rules go, giving 2 weeks notice gives the employer time to find a replacement or transition work, which avoids burning bridges. Also, employers are more likely to give good references if the employee leaves on good terms. Finally, some companies have formal policies requiring notice to receive certain benefits (like a PTO payout).

OK, great, but why is there no stigma against employers just drop kicking an employee? I'd say, it's because usually employers have more capital (i.e. money) and they know they have the upper hand.

I knew one friend of mine who got the boot and was tossed to the curb within mere minutes. They didn't even let him clear out his desk.

Why?

When an employer decides to terminate someone, they may want to act quickly (e.g., to protect trade secrets, avoid sabotage, or stop performance issues). Employers might kick someone out poste haste because paying someone for an extra two weeks when they aren’t needed could be expensive. An at-will employment relationship gives employers this discretion.

It all sounds so antiseptic but it doesn't take into account that pain-in-the bumpkis that is a result of being terminated without notice.

So, let's get down to brass tax. MUST an employee give notice before they quit?

Short answer, no.

There's no law saying you have to give notice before leaving. Of course, unless you have copious amounts of cash just laying around, there is a whole lot of articles on why leaving without notice is not such a good idea like:

Future References – If you want to use that job as a reference, leaving professionally may keep that door open.
Networking Reputation – Industries can be smaller than they look. Your old boss might know your future boss.
Transitioning Benefits – Some companies only pay out unused vacation/PTO if you give proper notice.
Avoiding Burning Bridges – If you ever need to come back (or work with them indirectly), a professional exit keeps it from being awkward.

The thing about networking and maintaining future references, I had an instance where a former employer had to ask permission if she could give a reference. I told her if she has to ask for "permission," don't bother - I'll find someone else.

As to burning brides, so what? Walking on eggshells all the time is no way to live. Besides, no employer is big enough to be able to interfere with a former employee's future employment without some consequences.

While at-will employment is prevalent in the majority of the United States, former employees have legal avenues to challenge unlawful interference with their future employment opportunities, such as:

1. Reeves v. Hanlon, 33 Cal.4th 1140, 94 P.3d 1082, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 289 (2004)

Summary: The California Supreme Court held that a former employer could be liable for tortious interference with an at-will employment relationship if the interference involved unlawful or unethical conduct, such as misappropriating confidential information or improperly soliciting clients. The court emphasized that while at-will employment is generally terminable by either party, interference with such relationships through wrongful means is actionable.

2. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 117 S.Ct. 843, 137 L.Ed.2d 124 (1997)

Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's anti-retaliation provisions apply to former employees. In this case, the former employer allegedly provided a negative reference to a prospective employer in retaliation for the employee's prior discrimination complaint. The Court held that such post-employment retaliation is prohibited under Title VII.

3. Pantchenko v. C.B. Dolge Co., 581 F.2d 1052 (2d Cir. 1978)

Summary: In this case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer's refusal to provide a reference and making disparaging statements about a former employee to prospective employers could constitute tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The court emphasized that such actions could harm the employee's ability to secure future employment.

4. Rutherford v. American Bank of Commerce, 565 F.2d 1162 (10th Cir. 1977)

Summary: The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a former employer's actions, including advising prospective employers that the employee had filed a Title VII sex discrimination suit, could constitute tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The court held that such actions could harm the employee's future employment prospects.

So, let's say you want to quit. What can you do to convey the message, ensuring that there is no room for doubt for what you are doing, AND you do it in a classy enough way so that everyone leaves with a warm a fuzzy feeling?)? Well, you can do what this guy did and everyone goes home feeling less funky.

So, whether you're a CEO with a huge golden parachute or a little guy (or gal) with no cash but a whole lot of moxie, know that you don't have to put up with an uppity employer and can just quit and leave whenever you want.

Old Dog, New Tricks

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 17 Nov 2025 07:30:00 +0000

The other day I was working with a Master Carpenter. What impressed me was how many tools he had in his shop. Some I could identify, others not so much.

As an omniscient law librarian, I have many tools at my disposal, too, and have used many legal databases in my time teaching and research law and legal things.

The problem with using legal databases like Westlaw or Lexis or Bloomberg Law or Fastcase, Anylaw.com, etc. is that you (as in the individual) have to come up with a search string(s) that you hope will dig up whatever it is you're looking for.

What is a search string?

While you can always run searches using natural language (like what most people do in Google), a search string typically uses more complex terminology. It's like it's own programming language and when you get into it, it really helps to narrow down your search results to the point where you can really dial into what it is you actually need.

Formally called Boolean search syntax, a Boolean search syntax uses terms and connectors to help narrow search results.

Boolean search connectors common to most all browsers and legal databases include:

And if all you're going to use is your common, everyday browsers, these will work great.

However, if you're ever going to step up and play with the big dogs, you're going to need to know how to develop a proper Boolean search syntax using one (if not all) of the more powerful legal databases.

My personal favorite legal database is Westlaw. Powerful, tons of features and, best of all, easy to teach and use. A bit on the pricey side if you're looking to get personal access, but it is hands-down the best resource when it comes to searching all things legal.

Back in the day, I was pretty good at developing my own search strings. When I got stumped, I'd waste not a second and call 1-800-Westlaw and speak with a Reference Attorneys (bunch of lawyers who ate, slept and lived Westlaw 24/7) to get help drafting a search query.

However, with the advent of Artificial Intelligence (aka AI), coming up with a search string is easier. So, let's say I searching in Westlaw for caselaw for/to:

Create a search string using terms and connectors seeking cases since 2015 where an amusement or theme park was held liable for injuries to guests

In this case, I used Chatgpt and retrieved the following result:

("amusement park" OR "theme park" OR "water park") /p (guest OR patron OR visitor OR invitee OR customer OR "paying customer")
AND (liab! OR "held liable" OR "found liable" OR "liable for" OR "judgment for plaintiff" OR "verdict for plaintiff") /s (injur! OR accident OR mishap OR death OR "wrongful death" OR harm OR "personal injury" OR "bodily injury" OR "catastrophic injury" OR "traumatic injury" OR "fall injury" OR "ride injury" OR "slip and fall")
AND (neglig! OR "duty of care" OR "breach of duty" OR "premises liability" OR "premises defect" OR "failure to warn" OR "inadequate security" OR "inadequate maintenance" OR "dangerous condition" OR "attractive nuisance") /p ("amusement park" OR "theme park" OR "water park") DA(aft 01-01-2005)

So, here we have a number of connectors like:

OR (give me A or B; more expansive)
AND(give me A and B (more restrictive)
/p (A within the same paragraph as B - expansive)
/s (A within the same sentence as B - bit more restrictive)
! (acts as an extender. So, Act! retrieves Act, Acts, Acting, Acted, Acted, Actor, Actress...)
( ) (keeps related concepts together)
" " (returns two or more words together in a certain sequence)
DA (refers to a date filter)

With a date filter of 2015-2025, we'll see things we are looking for. Or, at lease we can get to a starting point.

Lexis is another legal database. Not my favorite as it is a pain to teach and it is still has some clumsy elements.

Using the same criteria as above (create a complex search string using terms and connectors seeking cases since 2015 where an amusement or theme park was held liable for injuries to guests) and using Chatgpt, our search string looks like:

("amusement park" OR "theme park" OR "water park") w/15 (guest OR patron OR visitor) AND (liability OR "held liable" OR "found liable" OR "judgment for plaintiff") w/15 (injury OR injuries OR accident OR death OR "wrongful death" OR harm OR "personal injury") AND (negligence OR "duty of care" OR "premises liability" OR "attractive nuisance") AND NOT ("judgment for defendant" OR "defense verdict" OR reversed)

Again we have a number of connectors like:

AND (A and B - less restricted)
OR (A or B - more restricted)
AND NOT (A but don't include any results with B - even more restricted)
w/# (I want A within a certain number of words)
( ) (keep this cluster of terms together
" " (I want these words in just this order)

Also to note is that Chatgpt added some legal terms like "premises liability," "attractive nuisance," and "wrongful death" suggesting that it is trying to give additional suggestions as users conduct a search.

Note also that this search query isn't as long or complex as the one for Westlaw. That doesn't mean it's wrong or anything - it's just different and it's how Chatgpt interpreted what I was asking. Change the query, and I'd get another result.

The bottom line here is that AI had really changed how law people work. No longer do we have to hunt and peck around hoping to hit pay dirt. Now we have AI search engines which help to cut down the time that is used to take to get started.

Penny Pinchers, Unite!

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Tue, 11 Nov 2025 05:24:00 +0000

Once upon a time, I lived in the big sky country (i.e.Montana). Beautiful. Majestic. Lots of open road, hunting, fishing, camping - Montana has a little bit of everything when it comes to the great outdoors.

While I was living in Montana, a story came over the news wire about two guys who went out hunting deer. Seems they had collected deer tags from a couple dozen people in the town where they lived and had shot a whole lot of deer.

Turns out they shot more deer than they had tags so they buried the ones that didn't have tags under the ones that did hoping Fish and Game Wardens wouldn't be catch them.

Sensing something was wrong when a trailer full of deer drove by, Fish and Game actually did go through all the deer, found the un-tagged deer aaaaaand confiscated the who kit and caboodle.

So, why am I telling you about this? The other day as I was standing in line to buy a single bottle of soda and I had the priviledge of standing in line behind a, extreme couponer.

You know (or have heard) of the type.

They collect hundreds of coupons and dole them out when they buy stuff so that at the end they only have to pay pennies on hundreds of dollars of stuff.

Well, Couponer is going through all their coupons. Manager is getting upset. I mean, Couponer must have had three hundred coupons and Manager was checking each one careful enough that he started noticing something fishy.

Legitimate extreme couponers can sometimes get bills down to pennies, but only when:

The coupons are valid and stackable under store policy.
There are simultaneous sales and rebates.
The store accepts multiple coupons per transaction.

So, after Couponer has gone through a couple hundred coupons, Manager starts to notice that the dates on some of the coupons were off by a couple months.

I suspect Manager normally ignores such things to maintain good standing in the community but in the case of someone using hundreds of fake or misapplied coupons, that’s fraud - even if the register “takes” them at checkout.

In case you're wondering, coupon fraud is the intentional misuse, alteration, counterfeiting, or unauthorized reproduction of coupons—paper, digital, or mobile—in order to obtain goods or services for free or at a reduced price in a way that violates the coupon’s terms and conditions, store policy, or applicable law.

In other words, it’s using coupons deceptively to secure savings you’re not entitled to.

So, picture it: Couponer has gone through a couple hundred coupons and Manager sees that Couponer has included a couple dozen out of date coupons. Good faith or not, Manager points out the discrepancies, Couponer feigns ignorance, Manager voids the entire transaction and kicks Couponer out of the store aaaaaaand I finally got to buy my soda.

While I don't know if what Couponer did rose to the level of fraud, I guess the moral to the story is, if you think you're going to get away with something, best to have all your ducks in a row and not annoy the manager, the cashier, or the guy behind you who is just trying to buy a soda.

Word of the Month for November 2025: Social Engineering

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 03 Nov 2025 07:30:00 +0000

Have you ever gotten emails from people you've never met asking for information that you don't think you should give out?

Maybe a "friend" casually asks you for your user name/password to see what funny stuff you've posted on social media.

Maybe you're searching online at work when, out of the blue you get an email or text from someone you don't know about something like:

Subject: Urgent: Your Amazon account has been compromised!

Dear Customer,

We have detected suspicious activity on your Amazon account. To protect your information, please verify your account by clicking the link below:

[Link: Verify your account here: malicious-amazon-login.com] Failure to verify your account within 24 hours will result in account suspension.

You click the link, you computer screen starts to flicker and it shuts off....OR

Nothing happens but a few days later you discover that your username/passwords have been changed making it impossible to access any of the accounts stored in your account manager (you know, where you have been storing your usernames/passwords for the last few years), OR

You get a visit from IT/HR saying that email you clicked from someone you've never met or heard of released a virus into the computer network and it's going to cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix and, oh yeah, you're fired.

Ever happen to you? If this scenario has happened to you, you, my friend, have become a victim of social engineering.

I remember one time years before the word "social engineering" was even coined, I got a call from an official sounding guy. There were sounds of people talking in the background, typewriters going, secretaries taking dictation, and such.

Sounded legit.

Guy started in asking me questions like can I spell my name, where I lived, how old I was - that sort of thing. Then he asked for my social security number.

Just as I started to say the first number, something caught my attention and I'm like why do you need my SS#? He started saying something and I got the BS feeling in my gut and hung up.

Don't know what the BS feeling is? Essentially, it's if it looks like a duck and flies like a duck but smells like Bulls**t, it's probably not a duck.

Anyway, turns out social engineering happens to LOTS of people and organizations worldwide. In fact, globally, social engineering attacks (including phishing, impersonation, etc.) cost businesses approximately $4.8 billion in 2024—up from about $4.2 billion in 2023.

Wait, what?!

Before we get too deep into this, let's define what Social Engineering is:

Social engineering is a trick used to fool people into giving away private information or doing something they shouldn’t, usually by pretending to be someone they're not in order to gain the trust of their victim(s).

Social engineering manipulates or deceives people into divulging confidential information or performing actions that compromise security (either to the private individual or a corporation). It often relies on psychological manipulation - exploiting human emotions and instincts rather than technical vulnerabilities (like what you might expect from a computer hack).

The success of social engineering lies in the fact that humans are prone to error and therefore fall for manipulative tactics. According to a social engineering attacks survey, “Social engineering attacks are one of the insidious and pervasive threats that compromise the individual’s privacy and security. These malicious strategies exploit an individual’s tendency to trust digital resources...One of the primary causes of social engineering attacks is human error and emotional responses to factors such as greed, fear, empathy, and curiosity.”

Social engineering is often the gateway to technical breaches (e.g., phishing leads to ransomware), but it doesn’t always get the credit—or blame—it deserves. It's less flashy, more human, and harder to track. So, while attacks on computer systems get better press, using social engineering is often more readily employed as it is easier to exploit human weaknesses such as trust, a sense of safety, and the tendency to help others or seek the most convenient path than to go to all the trouble of hacking a computer network.

So, what are some of the more popular ways social engineering happens?

1. Phishing

Fake emails, texts, or messages that look legitimate but trick you into clicking links, downloading malware, or entering personal info.

Example: You get an email that looks like it’s from your bank, asking you to “verify your account.”

2. Vishing (Voice Phishing)

Phone calls where someone pretends to be from tech support, a bank, or government agency to get sensitive info.

Example: “This is Microsoft. We’ve detected a virus on your computer…”

3. Smishing (SMS Phishing)

Phishing via text messages. Usually includes a suspicious link or urgent message.

Example: “Your package is delayed. Click here to reschedule delivery.”

4. Pretexting

The attacker creates a fake identity or situation (a “pretext”) to get you to trust them and share info.

Example: Someone pretends to be HR asking for your Social Security number to “update your file.”

5. Impersonation

The attacker pretends to be someone you know or someone in authority (like a boss or IT support).

Example: A “CEO” emails asking you to urgently wire money for a business deal.

6. Baiting

Luring someone with a tempting offer—like free software, a USB drive, or music downloads—that actually contains malware.

Example: A USB drive labeled “Employee Salaries” left in a company parking lot.

7. Tailgating / Piggybacking

Physically following someone into a restricted area by pretending to be an employee or visitor.

Example: “Oops, I forgot my badge—mind holding the door?”

8. Quid Pro Quo

Offering a service or benefit in exchange for information.

Example: “I’ll fix your printer if you give me your login credentials.”

These methods all rely on exploiting human trust, fear, curiosity, or helpfulness—not just technology. That’s what makes social engineering so powerful and dangerous.

So, how might a social engineering attack play out in real life:

Scenario: "The IT Support Scam"

Target: An employee at a company
Attacker’s Goal: Gain login credentials to the company’s internal system

Pretext (The Setup)
The attacker calls the employee pretending to be from the company’s IT department.

"Hi, this is Mike from IT. We’re doing urgent maintenance on the login system, and I noticed your account has been flagged."
Creating Urgency and Trust
The attacker uses technical jargon and time pressure.

"If we don’t fix this now, your access could be locked and flagged for audit. I can help you reset it quickly."
Information Gathering
The attacker asks a few harmless-seeming questions to gather details:

"Can you confirm your username and the last four digits of your employee ID?"
Exploitation
Then comes the real request:

"Now I just need your current password to manually reset the system on our end. After that, I’ll send you a temporary one."
The Hook
The employee, stressed and believing they’re helping IT, provides the password.
Execution
The attacker immediately logs into the employee's account and accesses sensitive company data or plants malware.

What just happened? The attacker didn’t hack any system—they hacked human trust. That’s social engineering in real time: manipulating someone into voluntarily giving up secure information.

Have you ever had this happen to you? I'll bet it has but you didn't know it.

So, what can you do to protect yourself? Turns out there are a number of things you (or your company) can do to prevent (or, at least, delay the inevitable attack), like:

Recognize the warning signs

Unexpected phone calls. If you get a call you weren’t expecting, especially if the caller says they’re from a bank, insurance, or an IT company, chances are it’s a phishing attempt.
Suspicious email sender’s address. If something feels off about an email you got, always check the sender’s email address because it may be a spam email.
Unusual requests from someone that you may know. If your boss or a manager contacts you with urgent requests for money, credentials, documents, and other information when they've never done that before, it could be a phishing attempt. Always verify.
Urgent requests or demands. Phishing attempts have a sense of urgency to them, such as “pay now” or “act quickly,” all designed to make you feel pressured, distracted, and overwhelmed into acting NOW!
Unexpected links or attachments. Do not open attachments or click on links in emails you were not expecting. They could be malicious, and lead to dangerous sites.
Unusual layout and spelling. Incorrect grammar and spelling, strange sentence structure, and inconsistent formatting are strong indicators of a phishing attempt.
Generic greetings/signature. Greetings that don’t include your name, such as “Sir/Maam,” and signatures without contact information (or contact information that does not make sense) are strong indicators of a phishing email.
Offers that seem too good to be true. If an offer seems too good to be true, such as large amounts of money for seemingly useless information, it could be a phishing attempt.
Requests on social media from someone you don’t recognize. Be wary of messages from people or entities you don’t know.

Implement multi-factor authentication

Multi-factor authentication, specifically phishing-resistant MFA, is a security method that requires users to verify their identity using two or more different types of proof, like a password and a code sent to your phone. The requirement of two or three extra steps lowers the risk of a breach even if attackers already have your credentials.

Train employees on awareness

Regular organization-level training is important to ensure the safety of your employees and data. Employees should be informed about and be taught to use defensive measures such as multi-factor authentication, the importance of the use of strong passwords, and the use of firewalls.

Operate under the zero-trust mindset

Essentially, don't trust anyone. Always assume all incoming communications are social engineering attempts, and proceed with caution. Always be looking for clear evidence that the message is legitimate.

Avoid sharing personal information online

Monitor your social media profiles keeping them private and ONLY share access with people you know personally.

Like the old timey radio show The Shadow instilled in baby-boomers everywhere: Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

Who, indeed!?

Your best bet is to keep your personal information close to your vest and trust no one because everyone is out to get you (insert evil laugh, here).

What's good for thee is not for me

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Librarian) — Mon, 27 Oct 2025 07:00:00 +0000

You know what really bugs me (well, today, anyway)? It's these laws that are enforceable on "we" the people but "them" the politicians are immune.

I mean, the whole point of the Revolution of 1776 was, among other things, to provide representation in government by the people and for the people.

Instead, what we have are laws that stick it to we the people in favor of select corrupt politicians (and in my book, if you're going to use laws to your benefit and then not allow your constituents whom you are supposed to be representing the same courtesy - you are corrupt).

For example:

1. Campaign Finance & Bribery

Citizens:

Bribing or receiving money for official acts is a federal felony (18 U.S.C. § 201).
Private citizens have been convicted and imprisoned for giving or receiving even small bribes.

Politicians:

Many accept massive campaign donations or “Super PAC” support from those seeking favorable policy.
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) made it nearly impossible to prosecute large-scale political donations as bribery.
The McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016) Supreme Court decision drastically narrowed what counts as an “official act” — making bribery cases against politicians almost impossible to win.

Why immune: lobbying and campaign donations are protected as “speech”; bribery laws are narrowly interpreted to protect politicians but are broadly interpreted when prosecuting everyone else.

3. Tax Evasion and Financial Disclosure

Citizens:

IRS aggressively pursues underreporting, false deductions, and unreported income.
Thousands are prosecuted yearly for tax evasion.

Politicians:

Members of Congress and high officials rarely face IRS audits.
Some have failed to disclose millions in stock trades, rental income, or gifts without criminal consequence (usually resolved with a fine or “amended filing”).

Why immune: disclosure violations are civil; IRS rarely audits sitting members; ethics committees are political, not judicial.

4. Obstruction of Justice / Perjury

Citizens:

Lying to the FBI, Congress, or courts = felony under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
Many citizens and government employees have been prosecuted for false statements.

Politicians:

Members of Congress or executive officials frequently give misleading or false testimony under oath with no prosecution (e.g., high-profile hearings).
Enforcement is inconsistent and usually requires the DOJ to prosecute itself or its political allies.

Why immune: political pressure; DOJ discretion; speech or debate clause.

5. Insider Trading

Citizens:

Regular investors are routinely prosecuted by the SEC and DOJ for trading on material, nonpublic information (MNPI).
Penalties: prison (up to 20 years), civil fines, disgorgement of profits, and permanent bans from trading.

Politicians:

Members of Congress have received briefings with MNPI (e.g., COVID-19 briefings before market crashes).
Despite clear suspicious trades, no member has ever been convicted under the STOCK Act or Securities Exchange Act.

Why immune: difficult to prove “nonpublic” and “intent” elements; political pressure; Congress regulates itself.

It's to this last one that I base my claim because it seems that Congress (you know, the group(s) that is supposed to be representing we the people?) purposely makes laws that secretly include loopholes to help politicians evade prosecution.

As this all relates to Congressional insider trading, while politicians in the U.S. are not techically exempt from insider trading laws, because enforcement is extremely weak (and taking into account the many, MANY loopholes that politicians are aware of and take advantage of), prosecution is nearly impossible in practice.

Here’s a breakdown of why this happens.

The law technically applies to politicians. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 prohibit anyone (including members of Congress) from trading stocks based on material, nonpublic information (MNPI). However, for decades, it wasn’t clear whether information obtained through official government work counted as MNPI.

Well, it was clear to regular, every day people who could see what was going on but for whatever reason, politicians (who can't see past the end of their elongated noses) could never see any discrepancies.

The STOCK Act (2012) tried to fix this. After public outrage over reports that members of Congress were trading stocks based on information learned through their duties, Congress passed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act in 2012.

The Act explicitly affirmed that Members of Congress, their staff, and executive officials are subject to insider trading laws. It required disclosure of trades within 45 days and it prohibited the use of nonpublic information gained through official position for personal gain.

BUT...

Congress quietly weakened the Act in 2013 — removing the online disclosure database and softening transparency requirements (remember the part about the loopholes?). Consequently, enforcement was left to federal prosecutors and the SEC, who almost never (note the NEVER part) pursue these cases.

There have been a few notable cases where the DOJ investigate insider trading by Congressional "leaders," like:

Sen. Richard Burr (R–NC): As Senate Intelligence Chair, Burr received private briefings about the emerging coronavirus threat. Consequently, he sold major holdings days after those briefings and before markets collapsed.

Date of Trades: February 13, 2020 — just before the U.S. stock market crash caused by COVID-19 fears.
Value of Trades: Between $628,000 and $1.72 million in 33 separate transactions.

The DOJ investigated but declined to prosecute.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): In March 2020, Feinstein came under scrutiny for stock sales shortly before the market crashed due to COVID-19. Feinstein was one of them.

Date of Trades: January–February 2020, early in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Value of Trades: Estimated between $1.5 million and $6 million in Allogene Therapeutics stock (a biotech company).

The DOJ investigated but declined to prosecute (though Feinstein offered to pay a small civil fine - usually up to $50,000, (though the exact amount was not reported publicly).

Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA): accused of selling stocks shortly after attending a closed-door Senate Health Committee briefing on COVID-19 (January 24, 2020), during which public officials warned about the virus’s likely impact.

Date of Trades: January 31 – February 14, 2020 (more than two dozen additional transactions took place over these two weeks.
Value of Trades: Estimated total trades: 27 separate transactions, worth between $1.3 million and $3.1 million.

The DOJ investigated but declined to prosecute.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): In late January 2020, following a closed-door Senate briefing (led by Trump administration officials) about the emerging risks of COVID-19, Inhofe sold off significant stock holdings just before the market dropped sharply.

Date of Trade: January 27, 2020
Value of Trade: Roughly $395,000 to $850,000 worth of stocks in multiple companies, including Apple, PayPal, Brookfield Asset Management, etc.

The DOJ investigated by declined to prosecute.

Can you see the running theme, here?

More recently, several member of congress have continued to engaged in insider trading despite the increased scrutiny, such as:

Who: Rep Van Hoyle (D-Oregon)

What: In September 2025, she was "weeks or months" late in disclosing 217 stock trades by her husband, per her congressional financial disclosure.

How Much: The trades' combined value is giving between $45,215 and $3,355,000. Her office later said the specific combined value was about $500,000.

Who: Rep. Sheri Biggs (R-South Carolina)

What: Disclosed multiple trades made by her or her spouse in 2025, including stock sales and purchases.

How Much: The trades improperly disclosed total somewhere between $4.14 million and $13.62 million in value. Some individual transactions: buying and ETF (iShares Bitcoin Trust, "IBIT") in the $100,000-$250,000 range.

Who: Rep. Donald Norcross (D-New Jersey)

What: In September 2025, he filed a financial disclosure more than a year late under the STOCK Act for a stock sale.

How Much: The sale was for up to $50,000 of Toronto-Dominion Bank stock in a retirement account.

Who: Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pennsylvania)

What: An ethics panel found he violated the House code of Conduct in 2025 in relation to stock purchases by his wife after he allegedly learned confidential information about a plant staying open.

How Much: The profit from that transaction was $64,476.

Of course, there have been several proposed reforms to close the loopholes enjoyed by congressional "leaders."

Bipartisan “Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act” — would force members to place assets in a blind trust or divest.

Trust in Congress Act — similar goals, stronger penalties.

The

Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act - First introduced in 2023 by Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), the bill did not advance out of committee during the 118th Congress. The bill (S. 1498 in the 119th Congress) was reintroduced in the Senate on April 28, 2025, by Senator Hawley. Renamed the Honest Act, on July 30, 2025, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 8-7 to advance the bill. It aims to restore trust in government by prohibiting certain investments for elected officials. Its core provisions include:

Banning members of Congress and their spouses from holding, trading, or purchasing individual stocks.
Allowing investments in diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, or U.S. Treasury bonds.
Requiring lawmakers to divest from individual stocks within 180 days of the bill's enactment or within 180 days of taking office.
Applying the ban to future presidential administrations

What is particulary interesting about the Honest Act is that it does have some particularly sharp teeth in the way of penalties if/when Congressional "leaders" violate it, such as:

Daily fines: Fines of $1,000 or more per day that a violation continues.
Forfeiture of profits: Disgorgement of any profits made from prohibited investments.
Increased penalties: Higher fines for failing to make required disclosures under the STOCK Act.
Forfeiture of assets: The potential loss of assets or property involved in a violation.
Criminal penalties: Prison time and larger fines, as specified by criminal statutes

...Buuuuut none of these bills have passed - yet (as of 2025).

So, teeth or no, odds are none of these bills will pass committees or even make it to the desk of the POTUS to be signed.

The bottom line is this: Where countless ordinary citizens are prosecuted while no politician has ever faced charges for insider trading strongly suggests that the insider trading “rules” for Congress are weak and effectively unenforceable in practice on purpose.

Essentially, what's good for thee is not for me

The failure of government to police itself demonstrates systemic bias, structural loopholes, and political protection, rather than any lack of wrongdoing by the politicians themselves...and it's well past time to change all this.

So, let's hope Sen. Hawley has the cojones (and the Republicans can get out their own way long enough) to get the "Honest" Act passed into law.

Legal Research is EASY

The Constitution under Attack

Before Case, the generally understood standard for police entering a person's home was that warrantless entry into a home usually required:

After Case, in cases of "emergency aid" or "welfare checks," Police only need:

1. Allows post-hoc justification

2. Encourages pretext

3. Weakens the home’s constitutional protection

4. Creates escalation risks

1. Martin v. United States, No. 24-362 (2025)

2. Janetka v. Dabe, 892 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1989)

3. Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958)

6. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004)

The underlying situation here is that courts see that civil rights litigation frequently shows a pattern:

Go Ahead and Speak Your Mind

1. “You’re being disrespectful / negative / offensive”

2. “You’re off topic”

3. “You’re causing a disruption”

4. “This is a limited public forum — we can control speech”

5. “We’re just enforcing decorum”

6. “We’re protecting staff safety”

7. “You violated meeting policy”

8. “You can criticize us — just not here”

Before You Speak

While You Are Speaking

Common Illegal Justifications (Red Flags)

If You Are Cut Off or Removed

What to Say (Calm, On-the-Record)

After the Meeting (If There Was a Violation)

You're Pulling Me Over, Why?!?

1. Speeding

Speeding ends up as the #1 reason police pull people over because it sits at the intersection of law, safety, detectability, and enforcement practicality. No other traffic offense checks all those boxes as cleanly. Common penalties for speeding include:

As it relates to speeding, fines are typically based on how fast your are traveling and vary state by state. To that you can usually expect to pay:

First Offense (example speed ranges):

1–10 mph over limit: about $120–$130

11–15 mph over: about $150–$160

16–20 mph over: about $200–$210

21–25 mph over: about $270–$280

26–30 mph over: about $370–$380

31+ mph over: base $470–$480+

2. Running a Red Light or Stop Sign

Ignoring traffic signals or failing to stop at stop signs is dangerous and a frequent cause for police intervention.

Turns out running a red light or stop sign really is one of the most dangerous everyday driving behaviors, and the reason has less to do with speed alone and more to do with how crashes happen at intersections. When someone runs a red light or stop sign:

Vehicles are crossing at 90-degree angles,

There’s no shared direction of travel, and

There’s often no time to react.

3. Improper Lane Changes or Failure to Signal

4. Tailgating (Following Too Closely)

Even though it often feels like a minor annoyance rather than a serious risk. The danger of tailgating comes from physics, human reaction time, and chain-reaction crashes, not just irritation.

While tailgating feels minor, from a safety standpoint, it’s one of the most mathematically unforgiving driving behaviors because it:

5. Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

While DUI is often associated with drinking alcohol, DUI includes many more things and in many ways non-alcohol DUIs are just as dangerous—or more dangerous—because drivers often don’t realize they’re impaired.

Substances that can cause a DUI (besides alcohol) include:

A. Prescription medications

B. Over-the-counter (OTC) medications that cause sedation, blurred vision or reduced altertness.

C. Marijuana (THC). THC can slow reaction time, impair attention and tracting, and distort perception of time and distance.

D. Illegal drugs like Cocaine, Methamphetamine, heroin, MDM, and LSD.

E. Combined substances such as:

F. Inhalants and household substances like nitrous oxide, solvents, or aerosols.

G. Non-substance impairment can also count. In some states, DUI laws also cover:

6. Expired Tags or Registration

While money is part of the system — expired tags are a pull-over offense mainly because of administrative control and accountability, not because it’s a high-profit enforcement tool. In fact, like DUI, expired-registration stops often cost more to enforce than they money they generate.

7. Broken or Non-Functional Lights

The good thing about fix-it tickets is that they are often cheaper and less burdensome than standard citations. For minor issues:

8. Driving Without a Seatbelt

The thing is that seatbelt laws just feel like a money grab because seatbelt tickets are often low-cost fines and enforcement is easy — officers can issue a citation on sight.

9. Unusual or Erratic Driving Behavior

Years ago, the law office i worked represented a guy who was charged with driving erratically (essentially, he was weaving back and forth in his lane. At the time, we thought, as did the judge when we won, that the copy had lost his mind. Weaving back and forth in his lane? What's the harm in that?

Which is what I thought until I was driving on the 5 freeway in Orange County (California) one night out of Buena Park when I had this nutjob swerve right next to me, then over to the other side and back and forth.

If you don't know what's doing on, you're liable to swerve to get out of his way because you don't know if he's going to ram into you causing you then to swerve into the other lane causing a chain reaction.

Yeah, scary stuff this one is.

10. Failure to Yield to Pedestrians

Not stopping or yielding for pedestrians in crosswalks is a traffic violation that can lead to a stop, especially in areas with heavy foot traffic.

There are a whole lot of loonies in traffic land and many of them are pedestrians. However, drivers must always yield to pedestrians in crosswalks or where pedestrians have the right-of-way, regardless of who the pedestrian is.

So why is the law is absolute when it comes to pedestrians? Traffic laws are designed around predictability, not moral judgment because the system assumes everyone must follow the rules for safety. If exceptions were allowed, roads would become chaotic and deadly.

Consequently, if you see a pedestrian and you're driving, you gotta slow down - even if the pedestrian is being a jerk (staring at their phones instead of paying attention to cars around them).

Yep, there are a whole lot of reasons police are gunning for you. However, if you're able to keep your wits about you, you can avoid police and tickets and fines and other miserable things.

Word of the Month for April 2026: Food Fraud

1. Olive Oil Adulteration

2. Honey Dilution

3. Fish Mislabeling

Maine (Sunday car sales ban): Under Maine Revised Statutes Title 17, § 3203, selling any motor vehicle on Sundays is illegal—punishable by up to six months in jail, a $1,000 fine, and license revocation.