Are Rahsaan and Chris the Names of Terrorists?:

The Chris Roberts item is now going viral.  Chris, for those of you whose internet access has been down for the past few days (mine went down for a few hours yesterday, but the cable company came around and fixed it; was some sort of pedestal box by the driveway a few houses down the street), is a security expert who was removed from a United Air Lines flight by the FBI for tweeting about a potential flaw in the airline security system.   He was en route to give a talk about airline security vulnerabilities.

Turns out that the FBI has, as of this posting, yet to produce the search warrant that was predicate to their seizing his laptop and other equipment.

It's gone viral, so I have little to add regarding the Constitutional and Due Process issues.   The stupidity of UAL and the FBI speaks for itself, and does not need any further expounding.

My comment: 

"Given Mr. Roberts' claims regarding manipulating aircraft systems, we've decided it's in the best interest of our customers and crew members that he not be allowed to fly United,' airline spokesman Rahsaan Johnson told The Associated Press. "

I note that the name Rahsaan, which, contrary to some websites that will not be linked to this posting, is of Arabic origin and not from the Hebrew.  It suggests some Muslim influence.  Mr. Johnson has more inside connections to UAL than Chris Roberts.

Would placing Rahsaan Johnson on the No-Fly List be any less rational than placing Chris Roberts on it?

More Profitable than it Appears

Yesterday's Tax Court opinion in the case of Potter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo  2014-18, is rather instructive:

"In December 2006 IRS special agents engaged in an undercover investigation of Potter's Pub, posing as buyers interested in acquiring the business. Petitioner assured the agents that Potter's Pub was much more profitable than it appeared. He explained that he deposited in the corporate account only enough of the business revenues to cover its expenses and that he wired the balance of its revenues to his personal bank account in Florida. These wire transfers were structured in amounts less than $10,000 to avoid reporting obligations by the bank to the IRS.  In reality, petitioner told the agents, Potter's Pub grossed more than $1 million annually and he took home between $ 400,000 and $520,000 each year. Petitioner showed the agents clandestine sales ledgers for 2003 and 2004 that supported the gross receipts he claimed, acknowledging that it might have been unwise to maintain documentary evidence of his skimming."

Understand that this is the civil side of John M. Potter's tax problems with the IRS; he already had been sentenced to 18 months for tax fraud in a plea bargain to avoid trial.

First of all, he violated the law.  And he got caught.

Secondly, he lived a high lifestyle with two vacation homes, all while reporting minimal income.  Had he only skimmed five or ten thousand a month and reported all of the remaining income, then his lifestyle would likely not have raised any particular suspicion.

Thirdly, he left an electronic trail with the wiring of funds.  If he were dealing solely in cash and kept it all in cash in his cookie jar or under his mattress, it would have been somewhat more difficult to trace.

And, of course, his big downfall was falling for the IRS special agents' ruse as prospective purchasers of the business.

Pigs get fat, but hogs get slaughtered.

Arab Neighborhood is Going to the Dogs

Shuafat is a neighborhood in the Municipality of Jerusalem. The population of Shuafat is Arab. As such, it is an accepted cultural norm in Shuafat to physically attack Jews who come into their neighborhood. Even if those Jews happen to work for the electric power utility, or the Jerusalem municipality. While the residents of Shuafat unabashedly detest anything Jewish, the nevertheless do feel a strong sense of entitlement to the services of the State of Israel and the Jerusalem municipality.

Packs of wild dogs have, of late, converged upon Shuafat. The Shuafat residents now complain that the Jerusalem Veterinary Service does not provide adequate protection to their neighborhood.

But, as the JVS so appropriately notes, they cannot be expected to send their people into Shuafat without adequate protection from the Shuafat Arabs who habitually attack employees of the Holy City of Jerusalem.

If you want service, then you need to ensure the safety of the providers of such service!


This, by the way, is yet another reason to love dogs!

License Tag gets Tagged

As reported here and here, Avrohom Eliezer Friedman's stolen car was returned to him as a result of a curious Florida police officer, whose interest was piqued when he saw "GMAIL" on the car's license tag. The officer, whose name has not yet come to my attention, punched in the tag alphametrics, found that the car was stolen, and made the arrest. The car was returned to Avrohom, and the car thief presumably was taken into custody.

Nice work, Florida Cop!!!

But look at the license tag in the pictures. It is a Florida Specialty License Plate. Not just any Florida Specialty License Plate, but a Florida Police Benevolent Association license plate, complete with the Florida PBA logo.

I am not, have never been, and have no plans to be in the car stealing business. Nevertheless, it would seem to me that when one is not in compliance with the law, the last thing one should strive to be is interesting to a law enforcement officer. Simple common sense must inescapably conclude that a car with PBA tags is inherently interesting to a law enforcement officer. Therefore, if I were in the car stealing business, I would make it a point to NOT steal cars with PBA tags on them.

My friends and acquaintances in the law enforcement field tell me that many a perp has been collared because some bored cop got curious and checked something out.

Privacy for Dummies

The case is captioned "People v. Kent," but a good alternative caption would be "Privacy for Dummies."

James D. Kent, then a Professor of Public Administration at an college in Dutchess County, New York [the judicial panel did not specifically name the college, but those of us who can put two and two together can easily figure out that it is Marist College], was convicted on various child pornography charges. The Appellate Division upheld his conviction.

Reading the facts of the case, Kent stored approximately 30,000 images of naked or nearly-naked young girls, age range approximately 8 - 9 years, in orderly folders and subfolders on the hard drive of the office computer. He complained to the College's info tech people when the computer malfunctioned, the college info techie found the stored images on the hard drive, and the matter was reported to the police.

In addition to the issues regarding the probative value of the forensic methods used by the police, Kent also claimed on appeal that his privacy rights were violated.

The Appellate Division wasn't caving in to such whining. The computer was Marist College's, not Kent's. He had no expectation of privacy on his employer's computer. And Kent seems to have forgotten that it was he who invited Marist College to take a look at his office computer.

The porno pervert is in the can until at least next August [New York State Inmate ID Number 09R3078]. I don't know which is more appalling, the guy's fascination with prepubescent females or his abject stupidity.

As for Marist College, it now has a very effective (if unofficial) policy against using College computers for pornographic purposes. The old maxim "Punish one, educate a thousand" (yes, I know that its origin is Mao) can ring very true. And in this case, it wasn't even Marist College that got stuck with administering the punishment!

Semper Paratus or Faulty Mental Apparatus?

News item: "Coast Guard allows toxic chemical use on Gulf oil"

"The U.S. Coast Guard has routinely approved BP requests to use thousands of gallons of toxic chemical a day to break up oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico despite a federal directive that the chemicals be used only rarely on surface waters, congressional investigators said Saturday after examining BP and government documents."


As I recall, it was less than two months ago that the Coasties were holding the hawsers on the oil skimmer ships because of various Jones Act and OSHA technicalities. Why couldn't they come through with the emergency waivers then, when waivers were really needed?

Match from Hell, but Made in Heaven

I note, with interest, the case of Williams v. Williams, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32119, N.Y.L.J., 4/7/2010, p. 36 (No. 07 Civ. 119, S.D.N.Y., 31 March 2010).

Notwithstanding that the primary plaintiff and the primary defendant share a common surname, they apparently are unrelated.

The plaintiffs are students and alumni of the City College of New York, and the defendants are officials or employees of said college and/or its parent institution, the City University of New York.

Seems that a one or more groups of CCNY students decided to honor two former CCNY students, to wit, terrorist Guillermo Morales and terrorist/cop-killer Assata Shakur (formerly known as JoAnne Chesimard), each of whom escaped the authorities and now lives in Cuba. One such group received permission from the College to use a room for their organization. The room was (dis)graced by a sign reading "Guillermo Morales/Assata Shakur Community and Student Center" some time in 1990. The room was (and continues to be) used by various far, far left organizations.

[N.B. Neither the two aforementioned oxygen-wasting lowlifes, nor their sycophants, admirers or acolytes, will be further glorified by any links in this posting. No need to boost their Google search counts any more than necessary.].

The 12 December 2006 issue of the New York Daily News featured an article, and a companion editorial, which criticized CCNY and CUNY for sanctioning "a shrine to killers." The sign was removed, and the students now sue for infringement of their Constitutional rights. In defense, CCNY and CUNY claim qualified immunity in removing the sign.

Judge Thomas Griesa denied CCNY/CUNY's motion to dismiss. As the Judge explained it, "There is surely a serious question as to whether the students had a Constitutional right to name the Community Center after two criminals and to place a sign announcing this name above the door, thereby in effect commemorating such criminals. However, the court does not believe the case should be decided on motion. There are issues that deserve a trial, both as to plaintiffs' First Amendment claims and defendants' qualified immunity defense."

The added stress upon the judicial resources not withstanding, Judge Griesa has, in my own humble opinion, called this one correctly. While the students and their organizations are lowly scums, and their efforts to commemorate killers, anarchists and terrorists are most reprehensible, the College is hardly any better for tolerating that plaque above the door to the room for over 16 years. And while I am all for student free expression, I question whether similar leeway would have been accorded by the College to, say, a group of extremist Jewish students who put up a plaque for the Rabbi Meir Kahane Community Center, or a group of extremist Italian students who name their den after John Gotti Sr. or some other mafia don.

Let the two sides duke it out in court! They deserve one another!

My only concern is that CCNY/CUNY might capitulate to pay the students a settlement to end the litigation. But if that happens, I am sure that the New York Daily News and other publications will not hesitate to further embarrass CCNY.

Lynne's (not so) Little Liars

.

"I don't object to Gladstone always having the ace of trumps up his sleeve, but merely to his belief that the Almighty put it there."

--- Attributed to British MP Henry Labouchere.




As reported here, here, here and here, a New York City schoolteacher now stands charged with forgery and criminal possession of a forged instrument, in connection with her alleged falsification of an excuse to take sick leave time off from work. The potential maximum jail time is 7 years.

It is very likely that someone has it in for this hapless schoolteacher. In many respects it just isn't fair. I'd say that I sympathize with this schoolteacher, except that I, too, am biased against her.

The schoolteacher in question is Brenna Stewart, who is the daughter of traitor, terrorist collaborator and former attorney Lynne F. Stewart. Brenna is also admitted to practice law.

According to the allegations, Brenna used a fake doctor's note purporting to document that she suffered from a contagious disease in order to substantiate her sick leave request. The physician who wrote the note was not licensed to practice in New York, but is licensed in Florida. This physician is Zenobia Brown, who is Brenna's sister (and Lynne Stewart's daughter). Brenna also submitted a purported doctor's note from a nonexistent physician.

Brenna is also accused of altering a copy of a relative's death certificate in order to substantiate funeral leave.

The leave was used by Brenna to attend mom's trial and sentencing.


As an attorney who (A) is married to a physician; (B) has approved sick leave requests from government bureaucrat subordinates; and (C) has occasionally given broad interpretation to the applicability of sick leave when managing his own personal attendance/absence from work, I shall make the following observations, in no particular order:

A. On one hand, if you take away all of the baggage carried by Lynne Stewart and her family, this then becomes a petty picayune penny-ass case. Can't the prosecutors find something else to do on their time and the public tax dollars? Why can't they just boot Brenna from her position as a teacher (removal proceedings reportedly have been initiated)?

B. On the other hand, a criminal conviction on some of the more serious charges would likely result in Brenna's disbarment as an attorney. Maybe the prosecutors ought to go for it!

C. If Brenna Stewart is taking sick leave, or annual leave, or any other kind of leave from her job, then that means she is not teaching the kids, which is not such a bad thing.

D. And while we're on the subject of Brenna's fitness (or lack thereof) to practice law, what about Brenna's sister Zenobia's fitness to practice medicine? In all of my 20+ years of marriage to a physician, I have yet to even ask my wife to document a nonexistent illness, contagious or otherwise. Because I know what her answer would be.

E. In most governmental offices, a bureaucrat can generally go out sick for a day or two without having to document any illness or medical situation. Why did Brenna have to document the sick leave in the first place? It usually is the chronic abusers of sick leave who are called upon to substantiate their need for sick leave, not the ordinary working bureaucrats.

F. As Charlie Halpin, my Personnel & Labor Relations professor, used to frequently tell us, employees come in to work when they are sick, and stay home when they are well. Charlie acknowledged to us that this was more than a little bit of a facetious and hyperbolic statement, but it does have more than a grain of truth in it. These so-called "mental health days" are frequently a wise use of sick leave for employer and employee alike. I myself functioned better overall when I could take a day off from work once in a while, and I noticed this phenomenon in some of the people I supervised. An employee who crosses the line from boredom to demoralization is not very productive, and his or her production is error-prone and quality-deficient. A "mental health day" now and then can work wonders.

G. Lynne Stewart's tendencies towards duplicity and falsehood seem to have been acquired by her two daughters. Is this genetics or environment?

H. To be sure, Brenna's mere attendance at her mother's trial and sentencing was, in and of itself, an appropriate and admirable act. Being there to give moral support to one's parents does not necessarily amount to condonation of their misdeeds. But Brenna should have been able to figure out, in short order, that the venue she was attending would be the subject of national and international attention in the news media. My father has frequently said to me (even as late as a few months ago) that if one is going to do wrong, one should at least do it right. Applying this maxim to Brenna, people who play sick should at least act sick, and not place themselves into positions where their alleged illness is likely to be questioned! What was Brenna doing in a crowded courtroom if she really had a contagious disease? Did she think that her presence in the courtroom when she was playing sick would actually go unnoticed by the folks back at school?



And so, to paraphrase Henry Labouchere, I do not object to Brenna Stewart taking loose liberties with her sick leave, but merely to her belief that her profligate use of the sick leave privilege should be beyond all question and account.