Monthly Archives: September 2012

50 Years of Executive Orders 1962-2012—the IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY’s usurpation of Legislative power began long before Obama

The background to Executive Order 13603 apparently stretches back a full 60 years to President Harry S. Truman’s attempt to take over the U.S. Steel Industry—back then Presidents were not allowed to seize private property without due process of law, and there was no Secretary of Homeland Security at all….

Well, Jerry Hodge of Claremont, California set me right and I have to temper what I wrote earlier: many of the executive orders which seem most oppressive are actually almost as old as I am, which is to say a suitable subject for archaeological research….  Turns out that the list of Legislative Decrees promulgated as Executive Orders that I published just a few hours ago does not belong exclusively to OBAMA at all, the oldest listed goes back to John F. Kennedy…

This brings up a very important point—just ten years earlier than the earliest executive order listed here, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, decided June 2, 1952: 06-02-1952 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v Sawyer 343 US 579 72 SCt 363 SCOTUS May-June 1952, see also 05-03-1952 Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company by John W Davis et al

Anyhow, in 1952, the Supreme Court say that Legislation was still the province of Congress….what happened?  Well, first Earl Warren and then Warren Burger spent the next twenty years bolstering the power of the Executive Branch AND the Judicial Branch OVER the legislative, for one thing…

More from “The Mad Jewess” (rapidly becoming one of my favorite fellow, or I suppose I should say “sister” bloggers in the world):

Obama Has Signed Dictatorial & Tyrannical Executive Orders. He MUST Be Stopped.

De : Jerry Hodge
À : ‘Charles Lincoln’
Envoyé le : Dimanche 30 septembre 2012 14h48
Objet : RE: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, by Barack Hussein Obama

Weren’t these orders issued by Kennedy or other Presidents?

How’d you know that?  By the NUMBER?  I’m very impressed and will correct my own post shortly—-thank you very much!  How have you been recently?  It’s STILL government by decree or dictatorship, no matter WHO entered the orders, but, Thank you for setting the record straight….  Anyhow—I appreciate the feedback…. And am always happy to acknowledge I was wrong and leaped to a conclusion without looking first….
Exec. Order No. 10990, 27 FR 1065
Executive Order 10990
February 2, 1962
WHEREAS section 33(c) of the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 784), declared it to be the purpose of the Congress to reduce the number of accidents and injuries among Government officers and employees, encourage safe practices, eliminate work hazards and health risks, and reduce compensable injuries; and
WHEREAS section 35 of that Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. 785), further disclosed the interest of the Congress in the promotion of safety in Federal agencies and establishments; and
WHEREAS the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, as amended and as modified by Reorganization Plan No. 19 of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directs the heads of Government departments and agencies to develop, support, and foster organized safety promotion, and to keep such records of injuries and accidents to persons covered by the Act, and to make such statistical and other reports upon such forms as the Secretary of Labor may prescribe; and
WHEREAS the preponderance of accidents involving employees in the Federal service occur in field operations, the heads of executive departments and agencies, and through them, their supervisory staffs, including regional and field staffs, must exert leadership in the establishment of a sound accident prevention program at both the national and regional level; and
WHEREAS representatives of Federal employees should share a similar concern for the establishment of such programs; and
WHEREAS the President is authorized by the Act to establish by Executive order a safety council composed of representatives of Government departments and agencies to serve as an advisory body to the Secretary of Labor in furtherance of the safety program carried out by the Secretary pursuant to section 33 of the Act and to undertake such other measures as he deems proper to prevent injuries and accidents to persons covered by the Act:
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by section 33(c) of the Act and as President of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
SECTION 1. Establishment of Council. There is hereby established in the Department of Labor the Federal Safety Council, hereinafter referred to as the Council. The Council shall be composed of a Chairman, to be designated by the Secretary of Labor, and one qualified representative of each of the several executive departments and agencies and of the municipal government of the District of Columbia (hereinafter referred to as members). The heads of the departments and agencies and the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia shall designate the members representing them, respectively, and may also designate suitable alternate members. The Secretary of Labor may, as he deems appropriate, appoint representatives of national or international unions, having Federal employees as members, to serve as consultants to the various committees established by the Council. The Chairman, members, alternate members, and consultants shall serve, as such, without compensation from the United States.
SEC. 2. Purpose and functions of Council. The Council shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of Labor in matters relating to the safety of civilian employees of the Federal government and the municipal government of the District of Columbia and the furtherance of the safety program carried out by the Secretary pursuant to section 33 of the Act. It shall advise the Secretary of Labor with respect to the development and maintenance of adequate and effective safety organizations and programs in the several departments and agencies of the Federal government and the municipal government of the District of Columbia and with respect to criteria, standards, and procedures designed to eliminate work hazards and health risks and to prevent injuries and accidents in Federal employment.
SEC. 3. Council affiliates, committees, and officers. The Council shall include as an integral part of its organizational structure and operations such affiliates, hereafter established by the Council or now existing, in such manner and to such extent as it deems necessary properly and efficiently to perform its functions. The Council shall establish such committees, and may choose such officers (other than its chairman), as it finds necessary for carrying out its functions.
SEC. 4. Regulations. The Secretary of Labor shall prescribe appropriate regulations governing the activities and functions of the Council.
SEC. 5. Administrative and budgetary arrangements. The Secretary of Labor shall make available necessary office space and furnish the Council necessary equipment, supplies, and staff services.
SEC. 6. Continuity. The Federal Safety Council established by this order shall be deemed to constitute a continuation of the Federal Safety Council heretofore existing under the provisions of Executive Order No. 10194 of December 19, 1950.
SEC. 7. RevocationExecutive Order No. 10194 of December 19, 1950, is hereby superseded.

THE WHITE HOUSE,February 2, 1962.

Obama Has Signed Dictatorial & Tyrannical Executive Orders. He MUST Be Stopped

30SundaySep 2012

I received this list in my email last night.  What is it going to take to stop the madness?  This is anti-American.  A President is not supposed to rule by executive orders.  He is supposed to protect us from enemies; foreign and domestic.  But, he is the enemy that is foreign and also a domestic enemy.  

We never hear about this massive abuse of power on Faux News, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc.  

Why were executive orders that GWB signed not ok and this is OK? Where are the ‘classical’ Libertarians?  Seems they are missing in action. Ditto fake Conservatives who think that God is ‘blessing’ America. 

LOOK at the list, dammit.  STOP arguing with me and look at your freedoms diminishing, daily.  A poster that used to come here saw ‘nothing nefarious’ with this abuse of power, below.. She had to be insane.  And worse:  she was a Jew. Imagine a psycho-moonbat Jew being FOR executive orders…


  • Executive Order 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
  • Executive Order 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
  • Executive Order 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
  • Executive Order 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
  • Executive Order 11001 allows the government to take over all health education and welfare functions.
  • Executive Order 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
  • Executive Order 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
  • Executive Order 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations.
  • Executive Order 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.
  • Executive Order 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issues over a fifteen-year period.
  • Executive Order 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
  • Executive Order 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute Industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
  • Executive Order 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when the president declares a state of emergency, Congress cannot review the action for six months.


Please Feel Free To LINK

Another (this time English) Scandal about a teacher in love with a student—the essence of Freedom is to be left alone, to be able to go and leave where you aren’t happy and go somewhere else, and, honestly Megan Stammers and Jeremy Forrest were NOT threats to public safety or security—they just wanted to be happy….

HEADLINE: FUGITIVE LOVERS MEGAN STAMMERS & JEREMY FORREST ARRESTED IN BORDEAUX—the history of Abelard & Heloise repeated 1000 years later…..

Nothing in the Anglo-American world is sillier or more sadly symptomatic of our congenital stupidity and hypocrisy as a society than the periodic hand-wringing that occurs when a teacher (male or female) is found in love or ((((worse, the very horror of it all!!!)))  I shutter even to imagine such a thing….I faint away….then wake up) have sex with a student…..

Nothing is stupider, in any event, than our hypocrisy when it comes to sex as exemplified in Lewinsky & Clinton…. and similar idiotic episodes….

The relationship of a good student and his or her teacher can be very close and intimate, and this is NATURAL and not an evil thing…. yet from Blanche Dubois in Streetcar Named Desire people are condemned and lives are ruined by nosy (I’d say extremely JEALOUS) people who just can’t let a good thing like REAL LOVE flourish and grow—or really bad relationships work their course and teach people a lesson—NO, the State and the police have to get involved and PROTECT the people—Damn them all (the State and the Police), instead of damning people’s naturally free will and quest for happiness…. “IS happiness such a common thing that you have to squelch it whenever you see it?”

Whenever such a news story arises I literally get sick at my stomach.   We live in a society PERMEATED by sexual advertising and the comercialisation of sex a la puissance treize….. So Why are we so shocked when the advertising combines with adolescent hormones and normal adult lust and longing for youth and configures into a great conflagration of love—the most beautiful thing in the world… Don’t we all learn from our pastors, preachers and rectors that “Sex is the filthiest most disgusting thing in the world, so you must ONLY share it with someone you love?” 

The latest story to catch MY attention just ended in the tragedy of a 15 year old girl running away with her 30 year old Mathematics teacher (what a nerdy girl she must be, right?) and then getting caught in Bordeaux thanks to a European Arrest Warrant—this teaches us how much regionalization enhances Freedom—it used to be you only had to make it “to the county line” to escape from the law—now you have to … what, go from England to Russia or Morocco if you want to get away from English Prudes and Priggs?   The nearest thing I’ve found on-line to my point of view was published by a lady who identifies her blog with the Chariot of Boadicea, Queen of the Iceni in East Anglia, whom I’ve identified previously on this blog as one of the earliest reasons why I went into archaeology in the first place….

Boadicea’s Chariot

Hic Leges Icenorum Observantur
  To Sir, with love!

To Sir, with love!

Does anybody else out there think that a veritable mountain is being constructed from the remains of a scattered molehill with regards to a particular elopement, details of which seem to be dominating all sectors of the British media?

While I accept that Ms Stammer is under age, being a few months short of her 16th birthday, and thus needing of protection, I cannot help questioning whether she really would be damaged by the relationship were it allowed to be continued without the interference of those people whom Chief Whips should avoid calling plebs.

For all his foolish naivitee, Mr Forrest does genuinely appear to be in love with the girl. There does not seem to be any question of grooming or other more sinister motives. This incident aside, he appears to be a pleasant, educated, intelligent and respectable chap. Megan’s father described him as a ‘good bloke’.

Megan herself seems to be a well balanced teenager from a good family. There are no overt signs of troubling behaviour. Apart from her age, she does not come across as a particularly vulnerable individual. She seemed entirely complicit and the relationship has clearly been going on for a long while. It would appear that their elopement was prompted by the sudden interest shown, by those who must not be called plebs. (Of course they screwed that up too.) Had the relationship been tolerated, it might well have fizzled out of its own accord, or quietly simmered away until such time as society was willing to be less judgmental. Other cultures around the world would not find the disparities in ages to be unusual.

Does anybody really feel that her life (his life is bound to be considered irrelevant) will be better if the pair are caught and he is sent to jail for abduction and statutory rape and whatever else Rupert Murdoch, sorry I mean the police decide to charge him with. It is also worth asking, is the expense of tracking them down really justified?

If I ruled the world, I would advise them to come back of their own accord, without charges being pressed. I would put them in different schools and allow them to have telephone contact but all physical contact must be in the presence of a chaperon, until she came of age.

I submit that just because an act happens to be in breach of the law, it does not mean it is wrong.

One blogger likes this.
  • rebecca2000
  1. September 26, 2012 at 8:45 am | #1

    Can somebody please insert the Lulu song. My internet connection is slower than a striking slug in the dead of winter. Thank you.

  2. Soutie
    September 26, 2012 at 8:50 am | #2

    Howzit sipu, you back in the Mother City?

    Having two daughters and perhaps a slightly more conservative view (old fashioned perhaps) to family life than some, I’d shoot anyone who left the country with one of my 15 year olds.

    Yes, I’d track him down, (and if I couldn’t, I’d pay others to) this in my view is completely unacceptable and I’m afraid when people start thinking that for 30 year old men to ‘elope’ with 15 year olds is anywhere approaching normal behaviour the world will be in a sorry state.

    There, got that off my chest ;)

  3. September 26, 2012 at 9:11 am | #3

    Hi Soutie, yup, I have been back here for a few weeks.

    While I understand your perspective, it does not answer the question about what is best for your daughter. Were she to be involved in a relationship, similar to that of Ms Stammers and Mr Forrest, it might do you a power of good to shoot him, but would it do her any good?

    If a river is going to flood your town, you don’t try and stop it completely by damming the flow, because the dam could break and wreak even more damage. Rather, you build levees and dykes to guide the water along a less hazardous path. I suggest a similar strategy would be better applied in dealing with this type of relationship. Over reaction by protective parents and/or the law, usually backfires.

    It always strikes me as bizarre that so few people learn from the Romeo and Juliet parable.

  4. September 26, 2012 at 9:32 am | #4

    Sipu, interesting perspectives from you and Soutie. I would guess this relationship (she and the teacher) is fuelled by passionate nights rather than a love of poetry and I guess to this is why the law seeks to protect a vulnerable girl from – in this case – an experienced maths teacher, though I doubt whether in this case he really knows what 2 + 2 come to. I take on board everything you say and can agree in part; I do think the media attention is unhelpful here. You make good advice in your comment no.3.

    I would say it is reasonable for her parents to expect some confirmatory news from their daughter but so much media attention has probably dashed that hope as any attempted signal may well lead to the discovery of their location.

  5. September 26, 2012 at 10:06 am | #5

    Sipu; I have to disagree and invoke the laws and conventions of my profession. There are, of course, too many rules and common sense is often indistinguishable from the insanity of the rule book. But teachers are in loco parentis; this is what we are told before we ever set foot in the classroom, and this sort of carry on is in breach of all that.

  6. Soutie
    September 26, 2012 at 10:43 am | #6

    Sipu :

    While I understand your perspective, it does not answer the question about what is best for your daughter…..

    It always strikes me as bizarre that so few people learn from the Romeo and Juliet parable.

    Ja well, I know what’s not best, flitting off with a married man, who I assume is now unemployed and perhaps unemployable is certainly not best. Do they even have any money? Perhaps he’s filled her mind with so much drivel that they’re going to do a Bonnie and Clyde!

    Is this Forrest divorced or separated?

    Was Romeo married?

  7. Boadicea
    September 26, 2012 at 2:08 pm | #7

    I had to go and find out about this story. In my mind, this post is somewhat similar to Sheona’s post “How young is too young?’.

    I know all about the laws and conventions (Claire) and the emotions and natural reactions of parents (Soutie) – but I have to say that arbitrary age limits do not take account of the differences in the way individuals mature.

    I recall my grand-daughter’s birthday party, where my son-in-law had to seek the protection of my daughter and me from one of her friends – an incredibly knowing and predatory nine year old… I have no doubt that the press, the law and everyone else would have been quite horrified when she, as I see it inevitably, got involved with an older male. Her mother, who I met, obviously had no idea what her daughter was like and the poor guy who got caught up with her would have been slaughtered by mother, press, public and police alike…

    Then there were my fourteen year old students who tried to get me to accept a drink from their 30+ year old ‘boy-friends’ in a local pub. They were bright, vivacious young girls – and all I could do was point them in the direction of the local Marie Stopes Clinic. I knew I couldn’t stop them ‘dating’ older men – the least I could do was make sure that they didn’t suffer the ultimate penalty for what they were doing… I got a fair amount of criticism from some teachers, who asked me how I’d feel if someone gave my daughters that advice. I asserted that I’d be delighted for someone, anyone, to provide my daughters with sound advice if they felt they couldn’t talk to me.

    And then, I remember my 29 year old female co-teacher who, having married some six months earlier, eloped with one of her 17 year old male students.

    Life is messy – because individuals are individuals. It would all be so easy if the Little nine-year-old Lolita and my students had not matured so early – or had had parents who guided them better.

    Of course, it would have been better had my 29 year old friend and Mr Forrest controlled themselves – but life isn’t like that. And no one seems to ask how the 17 year old, that my friend eloped with, or Megan Stammers behaved…

    Don’t get me wrong. I do think that people, male or female. in positions of authority, like teachers, should understand and be sufficiently mature, not to abuse their positions. But, I also acknowledge that there are two sides to every story .

  8. September 26, 2012 at 2:24 pm | #8

    Thank you Boadicea for such a balanced and experienced view. I know a girl, now about 23, who when she was 15 was extremely precocious and had boyfriends well into their 20s, which shocked many of her friends and their parents more so. Her own, single-parent mother realised that she had no hope of preventing such behaviour and so rather than fight it she accepted it, thus allowing the girl to trust her. The daughter has turned out rather well albeit with some quite scary edges. She is as bright as anything with a sharp tongue. She dumped her long time boyfriend and now dates men closer to her in age.

  9. September 26, 2012 at 2:58 pm | #9

    The deal is, that the man was a teacher at the girl’s school. Relationships are therefore a no-no. Full. Stop.

  10. Janus
    September 26, 2012 at 3:03 pm | #10

    Four daughters. At fifteen absolutley sure they knew their own minds about everything. Would I have ‘allowed’ them to go off with a teacher? No. Would they have gone? Possibly. Which other laws should I have ‘allowed’ them to break?

  11. September 26, 2012 at 3:10 pm | #11

    Hi Claire, I fully accept and understand the conventions and rules by which you must do your job. In no way am I encouraging this sort of behaviour, but by the same token nor do I believe that everything in life is absolute. In attempting to protect the girl, there is a real danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is no way that anybody can guarantee that by separating her from this man, she will turn out to be any happier and better balanced than if she had been allowed to continue the relationship with considered, sympathetic advice and guidance. Of course the teacher should have stopped it at the first sign, but people, even mature adults, do not always behave rationally when it comes to affairs of the heart. I am sure we all know of and have maybe even experienced situations where apparently happily married adults have been prepared to walk away from their spouses based on a moment of realisation or belief that somebody else loves them. And it can be just that, a single moment that is a switch. It takes considerable self-control and possible sacrifice to prevent it from going any further even requiring changing jobs and relocating. But if it is not nipped in the bud, the damage can be great and no amount of reason can undo it. Love does not do reason. These two have made a huge commitment to each other. I doubt it can be undone without tremendous hurt. In attempting to resolve the problem, it is not the letter of the law that should take precedence but its spirit and that is to the best for as many people as possible,

    Regardless of how one feels about the teacher, he too is a human being and if we are going to care about others, we should care about him as well. He should not be written off because of what he has done. He is foolish and weak, but he is not evil. (I assume that based on what we have been told so far.)

    In my opinion. the police should stay out of it and should leave it to the respective families to deal with. The families care about the people. The police only care about statistics and their record.

  12. September 26, 2012 at 3:37 pm | #12

    When push comes to shove primal feelings will overpower the law every time.

    BTW am I allowed back as a blogger ?

  13. September 26, 2012 at 4:01 pm | #13

    Hi Bravo, I think I understand how your history and background have influenced your views with regards to the law. You have had to uphold it for most of your working life, or so I believe, and so you hold it with more sanctity than I do. For me the law is a tool to help society thrive, it is not and should not be an end in and of itself. The law is often wrong and that is why laws are often changed. In an evolving society where the rules governing propriety and personal freedoms are becoming increasingly blurred, many laws are unquestionably anachronistic and inappropriate. Add to that the fact that there are grey areas and mitigating circumstances and it becomes clear that the letter of the law is not inviolate.

    I am not saying that teachers should be allowed to date their pupils. The school and the authorities should do what they can to prevent such a thing happening. But they did not stop it in this case. It happened, so now they have to deal with it. Forcing the pair back to Britain, throwing him in jail and attaching a Sexual Offenders Order on him, and ensuring he never works as a teacher again, all of which I suspect will happen, will achieve very little that is positive and a great deal that is negative, not least of which will be immense damage to the girl and her relationship with her parents, her school and the police. Her loyalty is to the teacher and likely to remain that way, especially when he is arrested and punished. Unless she realises of her own accord, what a mistake she has made, no amount of police intervention is going to make her change her mind.

    Just because she is 15 and he is her teacher it does not mean that the relationship can not work out well.

  14. September 26, 2012 at 4:06 pm | #14

    PapaG, I agree the self-serving nature of the media is pretty appalling. The Daily Telegraph has become every bit as trashy as most other red tops. Sky News is Murdoch at his worst.

  15. September 26, 2012 at 4:07 pm | #15

    Hi Jazz, welcome back.

  16. September 26, 2012 at 6:12 pm | #16

    The part I see as really wrong is that he is her teacher and in a position of trust.
    As for running off with an older man I feel that the age limit is rather silly. She is 15 now, but if she was 16 then it is okay? is sex/love whatever down to age? I know some people who are not mature enough at 30 to have a relationship or sex.

    The other thing that makes me smile in all these cases are the photos in the press. It started with a photo of a very mature looking 15 year old, then a slightly less mature one in school uniform and in today’s Telegraph one of her when she was about 12/13. Is this just to make people aware that she is a minor; what next one of her as a baby to build up hatred against the teacher?

    Now if it was my daughter then like Soutie I would track him down and convert his dangly bits into Christmas baubles.

  17. christinaosborne
    September 26, 2012 at 6:17 pm | #17

    1. He was in loco parentis
    2. Married and only a year ago, therefore an adulterer.
    3. Removed a minor from the country without written permission of the parents.
    4. Statutory rape
    5. Previously contributed to the moral delinquency of a minor.

    How many more offences are you willing to overlook?

    Also it strikes me that the girl is at best precocious and at worst a tart, pictured with dyed hair and plastered with slap, hardly the product of a good home!

    I have no objection to the age difference alone. When I was 16 and a half I embarked on a two year affair with a single 32 year old airline pilot! After two years I refused his offer of marriage, left him and went off to University! I rather think in retrospect my parents felt sorry for him. The more uncharitable probably think he had a lucky escape! I found him immature and intellectually unchallenging but I rather liked the sports car he left with me whilst he was flying (Which I drove without a license)

    I do agree that the media hunt is likely to be more damaging than anything else and I feel particularly sorry for the abandoned wife, excessively humiliating for her. I suggest she drags all his possessions into the garden and sets fire to them in public. I would! (Actually I set them alight in the car park but that’s another story!)

    Had they had any sense at all they would have allowed the affair to discretely go along for another year and then, subsequent to his leaving his wife and her leaving that school, set up together and all would have been satisfied legally. Don’t have the sense of a frozen pea between them. I have no time for such stupidity and as such they deserve everything that will be thrown at them.

  18. September 26, 2012 at 7:56 pm | #18

    Ha CO, I am glad that we don’t see eye to eye on everything. I think that I would really enjoy getting drunk with you and arguing the night away, agreeing on some things disagreeing on others, but maintaining a healthy sense of humour throughout.

    I don’t know what it is about me, but I just don’t understand the need to punish people for punishment’s sake. The purpose of punishment must be to stop them from repeating the crime, but if re-offending is not likely to be an issue, then what is the point? I understand the principle of Voltaire’s ‘pour encourager les autre’ but I have never been convinced of the moral rectitude of such a position. Were this man acting deliberately with an ulterior motive such as grooming the girl in order to sell her sexual services, then yes, punishment might well work to dissuade him from repeating. Incarceration would of course prevent him physically from repeating and that I understand. But to punish a person because you are cross with him seems silly.

    You have listed a number of crimes and misdemeanours (to use the Yank expression) that can be summed up in one phrase. The chap screwed up. He is not evil. He did not plan this. Of course I am assuming a great deal here, but when he met and married his wife, one has to believe that he did not know that he would soon meet and fall in love with a girl half his age. When he entered the teaching profession, I can readily believe that he would have had no idea that he might at some point jeopardise his entire career by abusing the trust placed in him as a teacher. Does anybody really believe that if he ‘gets away this time’ he is likely to re-offend?

    What society should seek from this is for the girl to grow up into a happy and well-adjusted woman. Ideally the teacher will revert to a life where he can contribute to society as a maths teacher which is something I suspect Britain needs. What society actually seeks is that the couple gets holed-up in an adobe house in the bad-lands of Mexico with a posse of gun-happy vigilantes rapidly advancing.

  19. September 26, 2012 at 8:41 pm | #19

    Hi Rick, yes, he did wrong. He was in a position of trust, not just as far as the girl was concerned, but the parents, his colleagues, other pupils and society generally. But this was not anticipated. It was not deliberate. I am sure that we have all had infatuations and that we can all agree that infatuations are not renowned for any rational actions associated with them.

    You are right about the press. While I understand that some people can be bought or have low morals, what baffles me is that intelligent, people who profess to be honourable would allow themselves to be associated with newspapers that publish such crap. Boris Johnson for example apparently has aspirations of becoming Prime Minister. How can he continue to write for the DT, a newspaper that has become a lurid rag like all the other tabloids? Really, I do despair about western society. People have become so unpleasant.

    Forgive me a moment of righteous indignation. :)

  20. September 26, 2012 at 9:07 pm | #20

    Ah, yes, Sipu.

    “People have become so unpleasant.”

    I think this is the crux of the matter. I agree with the fact that a teacher is in a position of responsibility, but then the profession as a whole is given no respect whatsoever. There may be good reasons for this, but then neither are the police, politicians, doctors or nurses, they are all subject to the same criticisms, as are parents when they stray.

    So, yes, I agree with much of what you say, we really cannot have it both ways, and I don’t see how punishing the teacher with prison is going to help anyone, including the girl. Press involvement has made this situation much worse than it need be, and that sadly is not going to help resolve this sad situation

  21. September 26, 2012 at 9:34 pm | #21

    Arra, you can join Christine and me in our alcohol-fueled discussions.

  22. September 26, 2012 at 9:38 pm | #22

    It’s not the law, Sipu, it’s bleedin’ obvious why there are non-fraternisation rules between teachers and their pupils. The one is in a position of authority over the other. Positions of authority can be abused. Whether or not that is the case in this particular instance is beside the point – let it go and you open the door for it to happen – quoting this instance as precedent. Similar rules, of course, apply in all institutions where one person is placed in a position of authority over others particularly where minors are concerned.

    Saying, ‘he didn’t mean it,’ patting him on the head and letting him walk away is symptomatic of the decline in moral responsibility evident over the last few decades. If the guy in question lacks the moral fibre to conduct himself in an honourable manner, and the way we expect someone in a position of such responsibility to behave and the character to see what is wrong in his actions, then he deserves everything he gets. In spades.

    Like Soutie, were it my daughter, I would be in France right now…

  23. September 26, 2012 at 9:38 pm | #23

    :) Sipu.

    Just kindly pour me another drink!

  24. September 26, 2012 at 9:49 pm | #24

    Bravo, over the years I have come to like and respect you though I certainly do not always agree with you. This is a case in point. I think your rigidity is not a characteristic to which anyone should aspire. I certainly do not expect the parents to give up on their daughter, but nor do I believe that hunting down the teacher for retribution would serve any purpose. That seems to be a strategy that you Soutie and Rick would all wish to pursue. Your daughters would not love you for it.

  25. September 26, 2012 at 9:52 pm | #25

    Oh Bravo, yes in the world in which you and I grew up, your view is quite right, and even today the majority of teachers are still dedicated responsible professionals, but the school were aware of the problem and did not take any action. Teachers are reviled by pupils, society and parents alike. They are paid peanuts and reviled, but yet they are still expected to behave like angels.

    And this is as usual widely reported by the press, and on blogsites. Of course he is going to lose his job, but it could and indeed should have been handled differently.

    As a mother of two daughters, I appreciate your viewpoint, but things change, and children grow up earlier, as others have said.

  26. September 26, 2012 at 10:49 pm | #26

    Sipu, sorry but I do not feel we should hunt down the teacher for retribution. We do not know the entire story as to why the girl went off with him, if she had an affair then fine, though teachers should know better. My last comments were if it had been my daughter, not because of the affair but that they had run off.

    It appears form the press (if you can believe them) that his marriage wasn’t that great, but what made the girl go off, surely not just “love” there must have been something missing at home.

    If she had a really happy home life then it would just be an affair or infatuation, but if something was amiss then she would be more susceptible to leaving

  27. September 27, 2012 at 12:03 am | #27

    Soutie, Araminta et al – is it then your view that it is OK for one in a position of authority to abuse that authority?

    Is it also your view that someone who does abuse their authority should not be subject to some sanction?

    Is it also your view that because the majority of people in a particular profession are professional enough to adhere to the standards of conduct expected of them it is OK to excuse any who are not?

    Is it also your view that others who might not be so professional and hard-working might not take the view, ‘well, he got a way with it…?’

    I suggest that failure to require that all adhere to the standards expected of them goes a long way to explain the decline in moral standards that is so often remarked upon in these pages.

    On top of any strictly moral argument. He is someone in a position of trust and He. Broke. The. Law.

  28. September 27, 2012 at 12:54 am | #28

    I am highly surprised and greatly saddened by the misguided laissez faire attitude of some Charioteers.

    This guy is an untrustworthy, contract-breaking paedophile who has abducted a minor. Never mind the morality of the matter or the slavering of the journos, this immature plonker has broken the law, as Bravo correctly reminds us.

    The girl cannot be blamed, for whatever she has done to attract the prat, she legally remains a child. Most blokes have had at least one chance encounter with the overblown hormones of a precocious young female, but almost all have had the sense to either ignore the temptation, or to say, “No!”.

    Cut his goolies off. :grin:

  29. September 27, 2012 at 4:18 am | #29

    Bearsy: I will kindly disagree with your assessment. Cut his goolies off and then hang him, draw him, and quarter him!

  30. Soutie
    September 27, 2012 at 6:37 am | #30

    bravo22c :

    Soutie, Araminta et al – is it then your view that it is OK for one in a position of authority to abuse that authority?

    Howzit Bravo, I’ve made my view absolutely clear (see comment #2) You must be confusing me with somebody else :(

  31. September 27, 2012 at 7:36 am | #31

    Sorry Rick if I misunderstood you.

    I find it extremely ironic that all those suggesting a bit of vigilantism or simply extreme punishment are in fact responding to their own intense emotions, the very crime they are accusing Mr Forrest of being guilty. Come to Cape Town and join your like-minded comrades in a spot of necklacing. I am sure you will enjoy yourselves.

  32. September 27, 2012 at 7:36 am | #32

    Soutie, senior moment. I did, of course, mean the estimable Sipu

  33. Janus
    September 27, 2012 at 7:50 am | #33

    CO and Bearsy:
    “1. He was in loco parentis
    2. Married and only a year ago, therefore an adulterer.
    3. Removed a minor from the country without written permission of the parents.
    4. Statutory rape
    5. Previously contributed to the moral delinquency of a minor.

    How many more offences are you willing to overlook?”

    Exactly. If my daughter were involved I’d be ready with the pruning hook

  34. christinaosborne
    September 27, 2012 at 7:53 am | #34

    That’s it then folks.
    The majority go for hanging,drawing and quartering!
    When you think about it idiocy and thinking below the waist ought to be a capital crime really

  35. September 27, 2012 at 8:14 am | #35

    Probably my final comment on the subject. I note that the French police are not looking for the couple since the age of consent in France is 15. It really just shows the arbitrariness of man-made laws.

  36. Janus
    September 27, 2012 at 8:23 am | #36

    PS the idea that we should respect the man’s feelings is more than risible. And in the homogenous EU there is a country where minors can roam at will, encouraged by a pervert.

  37. September 27, 2012 at 9:21 am | #37

    Mmm. Behave self-indulgently and irresponsibly. OK. Betray a trust. OK. Apply sanctions for self-indulgent and irresponsible behaviour and betrayal of trust. Not OK.


  38. September 27, 2012 at 9:31 am | #38

    PS. Article 227-27 of the French penal code prohibits sexual relations with minors over age 15 (aged 15, 16 or 17) ” 1° where they are committed by a legitimate, natural or adoptive ascendant or by any other person having authority over the victim; 2° where they are committed by a person abusing the authority conferred by his functions.”

    ‘…any other person having authority over them…’

  39. September 27, 2012 at 9:33 am | #39

    Bravo, I credited you with more intelligence. Read what I have written

  40. September 27, 2012 at 10:37 am | #40


    Regarding your comment #28.

    In English Law he is not a paedophile as the girl in question has, I presume, reached puberty. He is not guilty of rape, but he is guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse. The two are very different.

    He is most certainly guilty of professional misconduct and he had a duty of care to the girl. He most certainly will lose his job and it is unlikely he will be allowed to teach again, and he may well go to prison.

  41. September 27, 2012 at 11:03 am | #41

    Sorry Araminta, but you are wrong. Not that it matters in the larger scheme of things, but …

    Pre-pubescence is not (to most authorities) a necessary prerequisite – the term paedophilia usually encompasses attraction for both pre- and recently-developed minors. If you want to play with words, the teacher is probably more accurately described as a hebephiliac, but that is a term that is rarely used.

    Legally, intercourse with a minor is defined as statutory rape, although I didn’t describe him as a rapist in my earlier comment, just as a kiddie-fiddler, but using a big word rather than staying with the vernacular.

    I apologise for terminating my comment with my favourite Mel Smith quotation, but that’s just me, I’m afraid. :-)

  42. September 27, 2012 at 11:29 am | #42


    There is no precise definition of the term paedophilia in English Law. It is covered by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The activity is either rape or sexual assault of a child under thirteen years of age:

  43. September 27, 2012 at 11:37 am | #43

    Oops, I seem to be having problems with WordPress this morning.

    Similarly “statuary rape” does not exist as such here either. It is seems to be age dependent as well.

  44. September 27, 2012 at 12:49 pm | #44

    Well, Araminta, you’re right that statuary rape doesn’t exist, but statutory rape certainly does, in many countries. I will admit that I was mixing up Australian and UK law in the terms I used, but both appear to agree the definition –

    “The term “statutory rape” generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called “child molestation”, is typically treated as a more serious crime”

    Although I find that there are specific terms for specific acts in your neck of the woods, they all come under the generic (‘blanket’, ‘portmanteau’) term of statutory rape.

    But arguing about nomenclature and jurisdictional niceties is ultimately nugatory. The man’s a waste of oxygen, gets his jollies with females under the age of consent who are half his age and within his care, and deserves no sympathy from anyone.

    Time for bed for Bears.

  45. sheona
    September 27, 2012 at 1:39 pm | #45

    Sipu, it appears that you can stop worrying about “the expense of tracking them down”. The French police are not looking for the couple since the teacher has committed no crime under French law. The British police cannot go wandering round the continent looking for them, so that’s that until the girl decides to contact her parents.

  46. September 27, 2012 at 1:54 pm | #46

    Yes thanks, I saw that Sheona

  47. sheona
    September 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm | #47

    But the newest headline, Sipu, now suggests that the French police will sort of look for the pair, as will the Spanish police when they can spare the time from thumping demonstrators. It’s the European Arrest Warrant that’s sprung into action

  48. Janus
    September 27, 2012 at 3:18 pm | #48

    Sipu :

    Bravo, I credited you with more intelligence. Read what I have written.

    Back to your usual ad hominem stance, I see. Totally unacceptable

  49. September 27, 2012 at 3:53 pm | #49

    sheona, you must have missed my No 38 about Article 227-27 of the French penal code…

  50. sheona
    September 27, 2012 at 5:06 pm | #50

    I read your #38, bravo, but the French police are sticking to “abduction of a minor”.

  51. September 27, 2012 at 9:29 pm | #51

    Bother, Bearsy re your #44. I seem to be having a problem with spelling as well!

    I am not aware that he has done this before so perhaps “jollies with females under the age of consent ” is again somewhat inaccurate.

    Strictly speaking, there is an assumption but it only an assumption that this is a sexual relationship between the two.

  52. sheona
    September 27, 2012 at 9:49 pm | #52

    Araminta, this is why the arrest warrant is for “abduction of a minor”, since at the moment there is no proof of a sexual relationship.

  53. September 27, 2012 at 9:51 pm | #53

    Precisely, Sheona.

  54. September 27, 2012 at 10:05 pm | #54

    As indeed there is no proof of statutory rape or paedophilia yet!  (you’re asking for PROOF?  You’re just not keeping up with the times, are you????  What kind of old fashioned fool are you, anyhow?)

  55. September 27, 2012 at 10:51 pm | #55

    christinaosborne :

    That’s it then folks.
    The majority go for hanging,drawing and quartering!

    I have really enjoyed reading all of the contributions by my fellow Charioteers.

    I must admit that I am very much of the hanging, drawing and quartering persuasion myself in this case. Provided, of course, that the teacher has had a fair trial first and that hanging, drawing and quartering are available punishments upon conviction.

    There has to be a trial because he has clearly committed an offence or two. That’s what trials are all about. The law is one thing but sometimes the facts of a case, tested in a proof by trial, allow the possibility that breach of a particular law can be forgiven or, at least, condoned.

    Bring Mr Forrest to trial, not by the media or the blogosphere but in a formal setting. If he persuades a judge and/or jury of his case, let him walk free, hand in hand with his beloved. If not, punish him, not to discourage anybody else, but simply because that’s the way it should be in a civil society.

    Obviously, nobody should make up their mind about the man until all the facts have been adduced in open court. I have to say, however, that I would have to disqualify myself as a member of any prospective jury on one ground alone.

    I try not to ever make my mind up about anything at all without possession of as many facts as possible but, if he has chosen to tattoo himself in the manner alleged and then display it on Twitter, I would find it very difficult to have an open mind about his motives. I could be wrong.

  56. sheona
    September 27, 2012 at 11:00 pm | #56

    As a matter of interest, JM, if the couple managed to stay abroad undetected until the girl reached her sixteenth birthday, would that nullify any of the charges against him?

  57. Janus
    September 28, 2012 at 7:30 am | #57

    Sgeon, I await JM. view, but I don’t think that would be like crossing a state line- yah boo, etc!

  58. Four-eyed English Genius
    September 28, 2012 at 3:57 pm | #58

    We read abut all of this while in Madeira. It does seem to me that the teacher was a bit of a naughty boy, and if anyone had tried this with my daughter when she was fifteen, i think I might have indulged in a few underhand front row tricks on the guy. Even if the law was stupid, which I do not think it is in this case, then presumably, it would be alright if I were to punch a Green politician in the face if he came calling at my door, given how much they are trtying to destroy the world.

    BTW, he has just been nicked and she has been placed into protection in France.


Executive Order 13603 is the most sinister and systematically laid out plan for the infraction of the FIFTH AMENDMENT and the Constitution in general that I have ever dreamed or imagined in my worst and most paranoid nightmares.   Read it in all its gory glory:  03-16-2012 Executive Order 13603 National Defense Resources Preparedness.

Of course, on closer examination, this Executive Order was all authorized by Congress EARLY in the Obama administration, on September 30, 2009, when too much significant anti-Obama attention (including, sadly, my own) was focused on the U.S. District Courtroom of David O. Carter in Santa Ana, California, and the antics of Orly Taitz & the Birthers.  Here is what Congress stated as its policy back then:  50 APP USC War & National Defense § 2062 Declaration of policy,  see especially, Title 50 USC Appendix § 2072 Hoarding of designated scarce materials.

If you don’t have the patience to read it until you’re as panicked as I am, you might enjoy this video produced by “the Mad Jewess”, a fantastic blogger whom I cannot recommend highly enough (OK, so she stole Orly’s true identity, so what?)  also see another “Mad Jew” at

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT IS DEAD!  All Obama has to do is to declare a national emergency—which he could and might do, I suppose, if he lost the election…. you know?  Even though Romney probably agreed in advance to support this new abolition of due process in the takings of private property for public purposes without either just compensation or due process of law….

One peculiarity of the law, as set forth below, is the broad sweeping power delegated to the Secretary for Homeland Security to designate all the property and resources to be confiscated.  The Whole Country is now the property of the Executive Branch.  The DHS is now the “Commissar” for the Nation as a Whole—yes, we really ARE living in Soviet America now—I just hope they don’t promote Tzar of Tzars Cass Sunstein to be Secretary of Homeland Security during Obama’s second term…

I don’t know how I missed it, six months ago, but I did.  But I have warning for a long time, “Politics as usual” is nothing but a distraction, a decoy, a diversion.  The election process itself is just a ruse to keep your mind occupied.  Orly Taitz and the Birthers have been dancing around trying to keep the attention of the most conservative Americans focused on the question of his birthplace, but the real question is what has become of OUR birthplace, but this is exactly the cover Obama needed.  First he signed the National Defense Authorization Act last year.  

But less than three months later, six months and two weeks ago now, way back on March 16, 2012, when I was distracted because Facebook was taking my account down (saying that I was threatening to organize or incite violence) and the California Secretary of State was rejecting my application to be on the ballot to run for senate after locking my supporters out of the registrar’s office in Central California Counties (Tulare & Fresno in particular): The Enemy arrived at the Gates in the form of EXECUTIVE ORDER 13603 proves it.  But it was all in the plans three years ago, from September 30, 2009 onwards: § 2071 Priority in contracts and orders (Title 50 Appendix, War & National Defense United States Code Annotated)

My advice: Be Afraid, be VERY Afraid—but try, even in so being, to think along the lines of “Oh Beautiful, for Patriot’s Dreams that sees beyond the years”.   Somehow, someway, Obama needs to be removed by someone less precisely like Obama’s paler twin than Mitt Romney.

Even for the most conscientious of us, the News & Electoral Process are just catastrophically effective distractions and decoys: the Dictatorship of the Proletarian as already begun and now there is no such thing as Private Property in America Anymore—you should be afraid, you should be VERY afraid…..we are there folks: the Brave New World has begun!  And it began by steps so stealthy that we did not see them, even those of us who COULD and SHOULD have seen them….  Who will join me in seeking a declaratory judgment that this Executive Order threatens an unconstitutional abridgment of the Fifth Amendment?

The full text is reproduced here below:

Exec. Order No. 1360377 FR 166512012 WL 952815(Pres.)
Executive Order 13603 (FR = Federal Register, WL = Westlaw)
National Defense Resources Preparedness
March 16, 2012
*16651 By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 101. Purpose. This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the “Act”).
Sec. 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness. The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.
Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:
(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;
(b) assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;
(c) be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;
(d) improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and
(e) foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.
Sec. 104. Implementation. (a) The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(1) advise the President on issues of national defense resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order;
The President
*16652 (2) provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this order, developed in consultation with such agencies; and
(3) report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.
(c) The Defense Production Act Committee, described in section 701 of this order, shall:
(1) in a manner consistent with section 2(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2062(b), advise the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy on the effective use of the authorities under the Act; and
(2) prepare and coordinate an annual report to the Congress pursuant to section 722(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(d).
(d) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other agencies, shall:
(1) analyze potential effects of national emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national emergencies; and
(2) perform industry analyses to assess capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense, and develop policy recommendations to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet national defense program needs.
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.
*16653 (c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) y16653of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.
(d) If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.
(e) The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b). This finding shall be submitted for the President’s approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.
Sec. 202. Determinations. Except as provided in section 201(e) of this order, the authority delegated by section 201 of this order may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense:
(a) by the Secretary of Defense with respect to military production and construction, military assistance to foreign nations, military use of civil transportation, stockpiles managed by the Department of Defense, space, and directly related activities;
(b) by the Secretary of Energy with respect to energy production and construction, distribution and use, and directly related activities; and
(c) by the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to all other national defense programs, including civil defense and continuity of Government.
Sec. 203. Maximizing Domestic Energy Supplies. The authorities of the President under section 101(c)(1)-(2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(1)-(2), are delegated to the Secretary of Commerce, with the exception that the authority to make findings that materials (including equipment), services, and facilities are critical and essential, as described in section 101(c)(2)(A) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(c)(2)(A), is delegated to the Secretary of Energy.
Sec. 204. Chemical and Biological Warfare. The authority of the President conferred by section 104(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2074(b), is delegated to the Secretary of Defense. This authority may not be further delegated by the Secretary.
Sec. 301. Loan Guarantees. (a) To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, as defined in section 801(h) of this order, is authorized pursuant to section 301 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, to guarantee loans by private institutions.
(b) Each guaranteeing agency is designated and authorized to: (1) act as fiscal agent in the making of its own guarantee contracts and in otherwise carrying out the purposes of section 301 of the Act; and (2) contract with any Federal Reserve Bank to assist the agency in serving as fiscal agent.
*16654 (c) Terms and conditions of guarantees under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The guaranteeing agency is authorized, following such consultation, to prescribe: (1) either specifically or by maximum limits or otherwise, rates of interest, guarantee and commitment fees, and other charges which may be made in connection with such guarantee contracts; and (2) regulations governing the forms and procedures (which shall be uniform to the extent practicable) to be utilized in connection therewith.
Sec. 302. Loans. To reduce current or projected shortfalls of resources, critical technology items, or materials essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2092, to make loans thereunder. Terms and conditions of loans under this authority shall be determined in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.
Sec. 303. Additional Authorities. (a) To create, maintain, protect, expand, or restore domestic industrial base capabilities essential for the national defense, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, to make provision for purchases of, or commitments to purchase, an industrial resource or a critical technology item for Government use or resale, and to make provision for the development of production capabilities, and for the increased use of emerging technologies in security program applications, and to enable rapid transition of emerging technologies.
(b) Materials acquired under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, that exceed the needs of the programs under the Act may be transferred to the National Defense Stockpile, if, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, such transfers are in the public interest.
Sec. 304. Subsidy Payments. To ensure the supply of raw or nonprocessed materials from high-cost sources, or to ensure maximum production or supply in any area at stable prices of any materials in light of a temporary increase in transportation cost, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(c), to make subsidy payments, after consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of OMB.
Sec. 305. Determinations and Findings. (a) Pursuant to budget authority provided by an appropriations act in advance for credit assistance under section 301 or 302 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 20912092, and consistent with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended (FCRA), 2 U.S.C. 661 et seq., the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority to make the determinations set forth in sections 301(a)(2) and 302(b)(2) of the Act, in consultation with the Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order; provided, that such determinations shall be made after due consideration of the provisions of OMB Circular A-129 and the credit subsidy score for the relevant loan or loan guarantee as approved by OMB pursuant to FCRA.
(b) Other than any determination by the President under section 303(a)(7)(b) of the Act, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority to make the required determinations, judgments, certifications, findings, and notifications defined under section 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093, in consultation with the Secretary making the required determination under section 202 of this order.
Sec. 306. Strategic and Critical Materials. The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Secretary of Defense as the National Defense Stockpile Manager, are each delegated the authority of the President under section 303(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. *16655 2093(a)(1)(B), to encourage the exploration, development, and mining of strategic and critical materials and other materials.
Sec. 307. Substitutes. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(g) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(g), to make provision for the development of substitutes for strategic and critical materials, critical components, critical technology items, and other resources to aid the national defense.
Sec. 308. Government-Owned Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to:
(a) procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government-owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons;
(b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 209120922093; and
(c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.
Sec. 309. Defense Production Act Fund. The Secretary of Defense is designated the Defense Production Act Fund Manager, in accordance with section 304(f) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2094(f), and shall carry out the duties specified in section 304 of the Act, in consultation with the agency heads having approved, and appropriated funds for, projects under title III of the Act.
Sec. 310. Critical Items. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(b)(1) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(b)(1), to take appropriate action to ensure that critical components, critical technology items, essential materials, and industrial resources are available from reliable sources when needed to meet defense requirements during peacetime, graduated mobilization, and national emergency. Appropriate action may include restricting contract solicitations to reliable sources, restricting contract solicitations to domestic sources (pursuant to statutory authority), stockpiling critical components, and developing substitutes for critical components or critical technology items.
Sec. 311. Strengthening Domestic Capability. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 107(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2077(a), to utilize the authority of title III of the Act or any other provision of law to provide appropriate incentives to develop, maintain, modernize, restore, and expand the productive capacities of domestic sources for critical components, critical technology items, materials, and industrial resources essential for the execution of the national security strategy of the United States.
Sec. 312. Modernization of Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense, in accordance with section 108(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b), may utilize the authority of title III of the Act to guarantee the purchase or lease of advance manufacturing equipment, and any related services with respect to any such equipment for purposes of the Act. In considering title III projects, the head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense shall provide a strong preference for proposals submitted by a small business supplier or subcontractor in accordance with section 108(b)(2) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2078(b)(2).
Sec. 401. Delegations. The authority of the President under sections 708(c) and (d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(c)(d), is delegated to the heads of agencies otherwise delegated authority under this order. The status of the use of such delegations shall be furnished to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Sec. 402. Advisory Committees. The authority of the President under section 708(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(d), and delegated in section 401 of this order (relating to establishment of advisory committees) shall be exercised only after consultation with, and in accordance with, guidelines and procedures established by the Administrator of General Services.
Sec. 403. Regulations. The Secretary of Homeland Security, after approval of the Attorney General, and after consultation by the Attorney General with the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, shall promulgate rules pursuant to section 708(e) of the Act,50 U.S.C. App. 2158(e), incorporating standards and procedures by which voluntary agreements and plans of action may be developed and carried out. Such rules may be adopted by other agencies to fulfill the rulemaking requirement of section 708(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2158(e).
Sec. 501. National Defense Executive Reserve. (a) In accordance with section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), there is established in the executive branch a National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) composed of persons of recognized expertise from various segments of the private sector and from Government (except full-time Federal employees) for training for employment in executive positions in the Federal Government in the event of a national defense emergency.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue necessary guidance for the NDER program, including appropriate guidance for establishment, recruitment, training, monitoring, and activation of NDER units and shall be responsible for the overall coordination of the NDER program. The authority of the President under section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), to determine periods of national defense emergency is delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(c) The head of any agency may implement section 501(a) of this order with respect to NDER operations in such agency.
(d) The head of each agency with an NDER unit may exercise the authority under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153, to employ civilian personnel when activating all or a part of its NDER unit. The exercise of this authority shall be subject to the provisions of sections 501(e) and (f) of this order and shall not be redelegated.
(e) The head of an agency may activate an NDER unit, in whole or in part, upon the written determination of the Secretary of Homeland Security that an emergency affecting the national defense exists and that the activation of the unit is necessary to carry out the emergency program functions of the agency.
(f) Prior to activating the NDER unit, the head of the agency shall notify, in writing, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism of the impending activation.
Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b)(c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.
Sec. 601. Secretary of Labor. (a) The Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other agencies, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, shall:
(1) collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense;
(2) upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services;
(3) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order, consult with that agency with respect to: (i) the effect of contemplated actions on labor demand and utilization; (ii) the relation of labor demand to materials and facilities requirements; and (iii) such other matters as will assist in making the exercise of priority and allocations functions consistent with effective utilization and distribution of labor;
(4) upon request from the head of an agency with authority under this order: (i) formulate plans, programs, and policies for meeting the labor requirements of actions to be taken for national defense purposes; and (ii) estimate training needs to help address national defense requirements and promote necessary and appropriate training programs; and
(5) develop and implement an effective labor-management relations policy to support the activities and programs under this order, with the cooperation of other agencies as deemed appropriate by the Secretary of Labor, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the National Mediation Board, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
(b) All agencies shall cooperate with the Secretary of Labor, upon request, for the purposes of this section, to the extent permitted by law.
Sec. 701. The Defense Production Act Committee. (a) The Defense Production Act Committee (Committee) shall be composed of the following members, in accordance with section 722(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(b):
(1) The Secretary of State;
(2) The Secretary of the Treasury;
(3) The Secretary of Defense;
(4) The Attorney General;
(5) The Secretary of the Interior;
(6) The Secretary of Agriculture;
(7) The Secretary of Commerce;
(8) The Secretary of Labor;
(9) The Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(10) The Secretary of Transportation;
(11) The Secretary of Energy;
(12) The Secretary of Homeland Security;
(13) The Director of National Intelligence;
(14) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency;
(15) The Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers;
(16) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and
(17) The Administrator of General Services.
*16658 (b) The Director of OMB and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall be invited to participate in all Committee meetings and activities in an advisory role. The Chairperson, as designated by the President pursuant to section 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171, may invite the heads of other agencies or offices to participate in Committee meetings and activities in an advisory role, as appropriate.
Sec. 702. Offsets. The Secretary of Commerce shall prepare and submit to the Congress the annual report required by section 723 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2172, in consultation with the Secretaries of State, the Treasury, Defense, and Labor, the United States Trade Representative, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of other agencies as appropriate. The heads of agencies shall provide the Secretary of Commerce with such information as may be necessary for the effective performance of this function.
Sec. 801. Definitions. In addition to the definitions in section 702 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2152, the following definitions apply throughout this order:
(a) “Civil transportation” includes movement of persons and property by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services, equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair facilities. “Civil transportation” also shall include direction, control, and coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership. “Civil transportation” shall not include transportation owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, use of petroleum and gas pipelines, and coal slurry pipelines used only to supply energy production facilities directly.
(b) “Energy” means all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of coal, coke, coal chemicals, coal liquification, and coal gasification), solar, wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy, and the production, conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of these forms of energy.
(c) “Farm equipment” means equipment, machinery, and repair parts manufactured for use on farms in connection with the production or preparation for market use of food resources.
(d) “Fertilizer” means any product or combination of products that contain one or more of the elements nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium for use as a plant nutrient.
(e) “Food resources” means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed, or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in vendible form for human or animal consumption. “Food resources” also means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton, hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.
(f) “Food resource facilities” means plants, machinery, vehicles (including on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribution, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer (excluding transportation thereof).
(g) “Functions” include powers, duties, authority, responsibilities, and discretion.
*16659 (h) “Head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense” means the heads of the Departments of State, Justice, the Interior, and Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the General Services Administration, and all other agencies with authority delegated under section 201 of this order.
(i) “Health resources” means drugs, biological products, medical devices, materials, facilities, health supplies, services and equipment required to diagnose, mitigate or prevent the impairment of, improve, treat, cure, or restore the physical or mental health conditions of the population.
(j) “National defense” means programs for military and energy production or construction, military or critical infrastructure assistance to any foreign nation, homeland security, stockpiling, space, and any directly related activity. Such term includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq., and critical infrastructure protection and restoration.
(k) “Offsets” means compensation practices required as a condition of purchase in either government-to-government or commercial sales of defense articles and/or defense services as defined by the Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq., and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 22 C.F.R. 120.1130.17.
(l) “Special priorities assistance” means action by resource departments to assist with expediting deliveries, placing rated orders, locating suppliers, resolving production or delivery conflicts between various rated orders, addressing problems that arise in the fulfillment of a rated order or other action authorized by a delegated agency, and determining the validity of rated orders.
(m) “Strategic and critical materials” means materials (including energy) that (1) would be needed to supply the military, industrial, and essential civilian needs of the United States during a national emergency, and (2) are not found or produced in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet such need and are vulnerable to the termination or reduction of the availability of the material.
(n) “Water resources” means all usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, that can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements, except “water resources” does not include usable water that qualifies as “food resources.”
Sec. 802. General. (a) Except as otherwise provided in section 802(c) of this order, the authorities vested in the President by title VII of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2151 et seq., are delegated to the head of each agency in carrying out the delegated authorities under the Act and this order, by the Secretary of Labor in carrying out part VI of this order, and by the Secretary of the Treasury in exercising the functions assigned in Executive Order 11858, as amended.
(b) The authorities that may be exercised and performed pursuant to section 802(a) of this order shall include:
(1) the power to redelegate authorities, and to authorize the successive redelegation of authorities to agencies, officers, and employees of the Government; and
(2) the power of subpoena under section 705 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2155, with respect to (i) authorities delegated in parts II, III, and section 702 of this order, and (ii) the functions assigned to the Secretary of the Treasury in Executive Order 11858, as amended, provided that the subpoena power referenced in subsections (i) and (ii) shall be utilized only after the scope and purpose of the investigation, inspection, or inquiry to which the subpoena relates have been defined either by the appropriate officer identified in section 802(a) of this order or by such other person or persons as the officer shall designate.
*16660 (c) Excluded from the authorities delegated by section 802(a) of this order are authorities delegated by parts IV and V of this order, authorities in section 721 and 722 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 21702171, and the authority with respect to fixing compensation under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153.
Sec. 803. Authority. (a) Executive Order 12919 of June 3, 1994, and sections 401(3)-(4) of Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988, are revoked. All other previously issued orders, regulations, rulings, certificates, directives, and other actions relating to any function affected by this order shall remain in effect except as they are inconsistent with this order or are subsequently amended or revoked under proper authority. Nothing in this order shall affect the validity or force of anything done under previous delegations or other assignment of authority under the Act.
(b) Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 11858 of May 7, 1975, as amended, except as provided in section 802 of this order.
(c) Nothing in this order shall affect the authorities assigned under Executive Order 12472 of April 3, 1984, as amended.
Sec. 804. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE,March 16, 2012.

Exec. Order No. 1360377 FR 166512012 WL 952815(Pres.)

Obama Signed Exec Order, 13603 Into Law?

Obama Signed Exec Order, 13603 Into Law?.   This really is the end, folks—there is no such thing as private property ANYMORE.   The Dictatorship of the Proletariat has arrived—Barack Obama owns you down to your golf cart, your DOG FOOD and CAT FOOD.

Did you know that intelligence and achievement are irrelevant to education? So the “Old Fifth” Circuit held in 1967…

12-04-1967 – Stell v Board of Public Ed for City of Savannah and Chatham County – 387 F2d 486 (Old Fifth Circuit 1967)

The Power of Judges to Make Subjective Evaluations is Corrupt and Evil! (We cannot repeat it Sufficiently—Judges should NOT be the Gatekeepers of the Courthouses—All of the People’s Complaints should be allowed a fair trial, and a fair hanging if necessary)

I am just not a great fan of Chief Justice John Roberts at all—there are certainly more than a few comparisons to be made between Roberts’ and Warren’s elitism… the certainty that the Judges of the Land know more and can make wiser choices than “ordinary people.”

Chief Justice Roberts has in seven years done more to close the doors to the Federal Courts than all the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court had ever done to open those doors before.   The Federal Courts are effectively “off limits” now as arenae for the genuinely, freely adversarial or dialectic investigation and discovery of truth.  And where the Federal Courts go, the State Courts follow like sheep close after….

It may sound like something “only a lawyer” would care about but Warren and Roberts careers have focused on making the entire civil practice in Federal Court turn on ONE RULE, namely, Rule 12(b)(6) “the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim upon which Relief can be Granted.”  This one single rule is now “the gatekeeper” to the Federal Courthouse doors, and the “keymaster” is the idiosyncratic (or possibly corrupt) Federal Judge who is rewarded by the “judicial statistics” system for keeping his docket numbers “low” (i.e. Federal Judges are rewarded for their ability to minimize the number of cases and motions pending at any one time—12(b)(6) works WONDERS for cleaning the docket for 99% of the cases that come before Federal District Courts.

Again, while it may seem like a rather obscure point of law to call it a national crisis, the Motion to Dismiss has basically become “the whole game” for all but the wealthiest and most powerful litigants in Federal Court—and the reasons for dismissal are now intentionally unclear—with vast subjective discretion given into the hands of unelected (and logically, morally, and politically quite unelectable—because they are so far removed from “the ordinary citizen”) elite law-review type and model judges.

Earl Warren and John Roberts, in their construction and application of Rule 12(b)(6), align on the progressive empowerment of the subjective, almost unreviewable, control given to Judges over which complaints will be allowed or not.  Under Earl Warren, the Supreme Court gave the Judges the power to decide whether “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”  From the standpoint of the Seventh Amendment, of course, this holding itself was an OUTRAGE.  Under the Common Law and the Constitution, ONLY juries should have any right to decide what facts are “proven” or not and whether a party is entitled to relief.  Still, in characteristic fashion, the Warren Court was applauded for setting such a high standard for dismissal of claims.  But the precedent was set: JUDGES not Juries, make the decision about whether a complaint alleges “sufficient” facts to warrant the trial which the Seventh Amendment guarantees.  That language “beyond reasonable doubt” was first enunciated in Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, decided on November 18 in 1957.  11-18-1957 Conley v Gibson – 355 US 41 78 SCt 99 (1957).  

Exactly Fifty years later, John Roberts, in the first major decision concerning the rules of civil procedure under his “Chiefship” found that an anti-trust complaint drafted by one of the top Plaintiffs’ Anti-Trust firms in New York City alleged insufficient facts to be “plausible.”  That was “Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544; 127 S. Ct. 1955; 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (May 21, 2007)  05-21-2007 – Bell Atlantic Corp v Twombly – 550 US 544 (2007).  

I think that the original sin was to allow JUDGES to prejudicially decide Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.

For this reason, Conley v Gibson, in its time, functioned in a manner just as subversive to the Constitution as Bell Atlantic v. Twombly.   In 1957, the Supreme Court approved a subjective test, albeit a very LIBERAL test (difficult to flunk, like High School these days is for most student), to be applied ONLY by Judges before any fact-finding trial or even discovery—to act as gatekeepers allowing only “favored” cases to go forward.The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the final right to try ALL facts to a jury, which findings are hardly subject to judicial review.  Twombly, by contrast, is rather like Harvard College used to be before 1940—anyone can enroll and file papers but its almost impossible to pass through the first year.  Twombly gives Federal judges unfettered discretion to dismiss cases based on their subjective evaluation of “plausibility” but Article III judges were never intended (by the Constitution) to have the power to exclude ANY cases from consideration.

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Permits Federal Judges to PREJUDICIALLY evaluate the factual allegations of complaints and prevent cases from ever being HEARD by juries as is GUARANTEED under the Seventh Amendment.

After Twombly, Judges now are empowered to decide whether the facts are (1) sufficiently alleged, (2) whether they make a “plausible” story.  This means that when you allege conspiracy, for example, the Judge basically can deny you the right to investigate the facts so that you will NEVER be able to put your complaint to trial before a jury.  

So, if a group of homeowners, for example, were to allege that the State Courts, and County Sheriffs’ Departments and local Constabulary of any given state systematically discriminated against mortgagors in favor of mortgagees, no matter WHAT FACTS WERE PRESENTED you can be sure that the U.S. District Court would find “insufficient” factual allegations “incomprehensibly” woven together as an “outlandish and implausible conspiracy theory.”  

This has become the (de facto) mantra of the the U.S. District Courts today: no claim or complaint that defies the ruling government’s purposes, or the ruling BANKS’ purposes, will ever be allowed to go forward in court.  

HEAR YE, HEAR YE, All Patriotic Americans: The Federal Courts are corrupt, bought and paid for by the Banks.  The only way to take them back is to restore power to the juries selected from a population pool of literate, voting, responsible Americans—and abolition of the power of judges to refuse to “hear” cases without allowing fact-finding (aka “discovery”) and trial must be declared unconstitutional.
One ray of hope exists and it is but little explored: the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (locus of my first job in the law) has in essence formally accused C.J. Roberts and his brother and sister justices of “outcome determinative” corruption in two decisions last year entitled “Starr v. Baca“, saying that the decisions of the Supreme Court could only be understood as catering to certain specific governmentally favored interest groups or interests, including the interest in suppressing constitutional rights…. 07-25-2012 – Starr v Baca – 652 F3d 1202 (9th Circuit 2011) 
In Starr v. Baca, the Ninth Circuit Takes on the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and rationality decency SORT OF win…. but Judges STILL have unbridled power and ius vita necisque over the people’s complaints….The Ninth Circuit also engages in an interesting political exercise of “motive” analysis, and finds the Supreme Court GUILTY of outcome determinative prejudice and bias in favor of certain policies and against certain groups…. That Starr v. Baca has some staying power and was not merely a flash in the West Coast Judicial Pan was recently confirmed in another civil rights case out of Nevada: 05-04-2012 Henry A v Willden 678 F3d 991 (9th Circuit 2012)

CCXLI = 241 Months Since Hurricane Andrew hit Florida—Numerical Magic and the Mysteries of Time…

Yesterday, September 22, 2012, “the Good old Summer Time” of 2012 officially came to an end, but today is a Sunday, as was August 23, 1992.  Monday, August 24, 1992, was a very bad day for south Florida and a very strange first day of life for one Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln, IV, born on that very Sunday evening at about 8:30, at Saint Mary’s Hospital’s “the Birth Place” in West Palm Beach, Florida.  The windows were taped with Xs—oddly enough the Symbol on the flag of the State of Florida known as the Saint Andrew’s Cross, also the Battle Flag of the Confederate States of America.  Charlie was not actually “due” to arrive until September 6, 1992, but the stress and lowering atmospheric pressure apparently summoned him two weeks early—still in an ontogenic state recapitulating the last step of evolutionary phylogeny (his back was hairy as a little monkey, albeit very short and downey, but this hair fell off within a few days—still it was amazing to see that ontogeny really DOES recapitulate phylogeny, one of my grandfather’s favorite studies in college…).  

There are twelve months in every year and hence 120 months in every decade and last month Charlie turned 20, for a total of 240 months.  241 is a prime number of the “six” twin paired-prime series (just as twin primes “5” & “7” surround the number six, and “41” and “43” bracket forty-two, “239” and “241” surround two hundred forty, which is divisible into 6 x 40).  241 is also a “Proth prime” along with 13, 17, 41, 97, 113, 193.   My own ages 13, 17, and 41 years were key moments in my life, 97 in my late grandmother Helen’s life.  

In my son Charlie’s, at 97 months of age, when he was 8 years and one month old, I had returned to Harvard for my last attempt to pursue archaeology as a career (just prior to my nearly fatal excursion into Egypt).  During my 41st year (with Charlie at 113 months of age in March of 2002), Charlie, his mother Elena, and I were together for our last Equinox together in Cedar Park, Texas.  When Charlie was ALMOST 13 years old, in the summer of 2005, I met him (and failed to recognize him) on June 5 on the streets of Cedar Park after a two year judicially enforced separation ordered by Judge Michael Jergins of the 395th District Court in Williamson County.  We tried to get to know each other again but to prevent that from happening Elena Kourembana Lincoln and Edward B. Kurjack sent Charlie off to China for a month.  It was far enough so as to interrupt communication effectively.  

  When I was 193 months old, which is to say 16 and one month, in May of 1976, I went with some of  my favorite Tulane professors Munro Sterling Edmonson, Arthur Luna Welden, Ann & Donald Bradburn, and Harold & Emily Vokes, to Yucatán, Mexico for the first time as a student of Anthropology, Archaeology, and History, as part of the Colloquium on the Yucatán Peninsula, which was then one of Tulane’s most innovative multidisciplinary courses.