Homonazis in the UK

Clown World just got even clownier:

A police force has been accused of heavy handedness after a teenage girl with autism was detained by seven cops after ‘saying a female officer looked like her nana, who is a lesbian’. The 16-year-old, who also suffers from scoliosis, had been driven to her home in Leeds, West Yorkshire, by officers after midnight when she allegedly made the comment. She was later dragged away screaming in the early hours of Monday morning over the ‘homophobic public order offence’.

It’s rapidly becoming abundantly clear why every civilized society for thousands of years didn’t tolerate sexual deviants of any kind.

DISCUSS ON SG


The Inevitable End of Arbitration

In light of the absurd and shamelessly illegal actions by JAMS and a few of its more dishonest arbitrators that we’ve witnessed in recent years, to say nothing of its shameless bias towards corporations, it’s good to see that the UK courts have declared that JAMS awards are contrary to public policy and cannot be enforced in the UK. I very much doubt it will be the last jurisdiction to do so.

A UK-domiciled consumer lost about £613,000 in his cryptocurrency trading account, which was governed by terms of service that referred disputes to JAMS arbitration, with the merits to be decided pursuant to California law and the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act. The arbitrator held the cryptocurrency trading platform was not liable. The English Commercial Court held that enforcement of the JAMS award would be contrary to UK public policy, which meant that recognition and enforcement “may be refused”. The court found no “fresh circumstances”, and enforcement was refused.

In Payward Inc, Payward Ventures Inc and Payward Ltd v Chechetkin [2023] EWHC 1780 (Comm), the English Commercial Court refused to enforce a California-seated arbitration award, on the basis that enforcement would contravene UK public policy as embodied in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015) and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA).

  • Mr Chechetkin was a “consumer” for the purposes of the CRA 2015. Mr Chechetkin was a lawyer acting on his own behalf with no intention to resell cryptocurrencies as a business. He did not work in crypto or fintech and had indicated that he had no experience of cryptocurrency trading when he opened his Kraken account.
  • The Commercial Court was not bound by the decisions of the JAMS arbitrator. The Commercial Court was not bound by the decisions of the JAMS arbitrator and should not necessarily be obliged to enforce an award that is contrary to UK public policy merely because the arbitrator’s decision had indicated otherwise.
  • Enforcement of the arbitral award would be contrary to public policy under the CRA 2015 and FSMA. The CRA 2015 applies where a consumer contract has a close connection with the UK and requires the court to consider whether a term is fair even if none of the parties have raised it as an issue. The Payward terms were found to have a close connection with the UK because: both Mr Chechetkin and Payward Ltd were domiciled in England, and the services were paid for in sterling using English bank accounts.
  • In addition, the Commercial Court held that a reasonable consumer would not have agreed to California-seated arbitration, under JAMS and subject to the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act, as this brought with it significant disadvantages regarding the application of English law (including the CRA 2015 and FSMA). Nevertheless, the arbitrator took no account of English law, meaning that enforcement would be contrary to UK public policy. The Commercial Court also found that enforcement would stifle Mr Chechetkin’s claim under FSMA in circumstances where he had at least a prima facie claim. This would be contrary to public policy since contracts concluded in contravention of the general prohibition in section 19 of FSMA should be unenforceable and the customer should be entitled to recover his money.
English Commercial Court Refuses Recognition and Enforcement of California-Seated Arbitration Award on Grounds of Public Policy, 7 August 2023

The literal lawlessness of JAMS, and its abject refusal to require its own arbitrators to follow its own rules, is going to destroy both the arbitration system as well as the ridiculous unilateral dynamic contracts that permit technology companies to literally change the rules on their customers and employees alike, and to shamelessly abuse them without any legal consequences.

The legal system is bad enough as it is, but the arbitration system is even more corrupt. It’s good that at least one legal system is openly establishing the legal irrelevance of the latter.

DISCUSS ON SG


He Even Lost His Name

Jack Nicklaus’s bid to reclaim his own name from (((a former business partner))) was rejected by (((a Florida judge))).

In a recent federal court decision, Jack Nicklaus suffered a setback in his attempt to regain control of his name and likeness owned by former partner Howard Milstein. On Aug. 1, Judge Robin Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida ruled that due to a prior decision against Nicklaus by the New York County Supreme Court on the exact same property in question in Nicklaus Companies, LLC v. GBI Investors Inc., he lacked the ability to grant Nicklaus any control of the property in question.

I neither know nor care much about the travails of a rich golfer who lost control of his own name in pursuit of even more riches. But it’s a reminder that if something looks too good to be true, it probably is, and that if there is wording in the contract permitting the other party to a) take full control or b) not pay, the other party will usually find a way to make that happen.

DISCUSS ON SG


Banana Republic USA

When the leading opposition candidate is repeatedly charged with made-up crimes, you know a country has neither the rule of law or a legitimate democracy.

Former President Donald Trump’s legal woes deepened after he was hit with federal criminal charges linked to his attempts to cling to power after losing the 2020 election. Trump is facing four counts including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and obstruct the electoral count for trying to overturn the 2020 election. The 45-page indictment says he was ‘determined to remain in power’ despite ‘having lost.’

Special Counsel Jack Smith said in a televised public statement following the release of the indictment that the attack on the Capitol was ‘fueled by lies’ made by Trump ‘targeted at obstructing the bedrock function of the U.S. government – the nation’s process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election.’ He pledged that his office will conduct a ‘speedy’ trial.

The former president has been summoned to appear before U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan – an Obama appointee – on Thursday in Washington, D.C. There are also six unnamed alleged co-conspirators according to the indictment.

Trump and his co-conspirators ‘used knowingly false claims of election fraud’ to try to ‘subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes’ for Joe Biden, according to the indictment.

So, the Establishment committed electoral fraud in order to put a fake President into office, then criminalized anyone pointing out that they did what they observably did.

Sounds legit.

The absurd thing is the fact that the only thing the USA really had going for it vis-a-vis the challenges posed by China and Russia was the perception of it holding the moral high ground with regards to “freedom and democracy”. But the perceived moral high ground has now gone the way of its European majority and its industrial capacity.

Enjoy the show. It’s unusual to have the chance to witness a global empire in the process of collapsing.

DISCUSS ON SG


We Have a Deal

Some guy of whom I’ve never heard before, who apparently appeared in some television shows I’ve never watched, is forbidding everyone who doesn’t celebrate child abuse from watching him do whatever it is he does.

Michael Imperioli is among many actors in Hollywood speaking out against the Supreme Court, with the “Sopranos” star making a statement against the group’s ruling in favor of a Christian web designer who sought legal protection to discriminate against same-sex marriages due to her religious beliefs.

Imperioli shared a screenshot of a news story about the ruling on Instagram, with the headline “Supreme Court protects web designer who won’t do gay wedding websites,” along with a caption railing against the decision.

“I’ve decided to forbid bigots and homophobes from watching ‘The Sopranos,’ ‘The White Lotus,’ ‘Goodfellas’ or any movie or TV show I’ve been in,” Imperioli wrote Saturday morning. “Thank you Supreme Court for allowing me to discriminate and exclude those who I don’t agree with and am opposed to. USA! USA!”

Sounds great! I love the smell of Freedom of Association in the afternoon. And I can’t help but wonder, in the aftermath of the Bud Light, Target, and Disney debacles, how many producers and directors are going to be eager to hire actors and actresses who have antagonized the greater part of the entertainment market?

DISCUSS ON SG


The End of Affirmative Action

The Supreme Court rules college admissions cannot take race into account:

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the affirmative action admission policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina are unconstitutional.

The ruling is a massive blow to decades-old efforts to boost enrollment of minorities at American universities through policies that took into account applicants’ race.

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion, which all five of his fellow conservative justices joined in.

Conservatives will celebrate this as a great legal victory, and perhaps it is. But the reality is that the damage has already been done, as university educations and the lifelong debt they entail are best avoided by everyone of any color.

However, if the ruling can be successfully applied to an employment context, that could be significant indeed.

DISCUSS ON SG


Why “Posterity” Matters

Six years ago, I debated Col. Tom Kratman on the topic of what the word “posterity” means in the context of the U.S. Constitution, specifically, the preamble which declares to whom the Constitution and the Bill of Rights applies.

I was correct, of course, to point out that posterity meant only the American Revolutionaries and their descendants, which is why the rights protected by the U.S. Constitution do not apply to many U.S. residents and even citizens. If you are not a direct descendant of an American Revolutionary, then the Constitution does not apply to you, no matter what the U.S. Supreme Court might claim.

The importance of correct interpretation of historical legal terms can be seen in the recent protest by the Global Times against sovereign U.S. States passing laws against foreign entities buying up their land.

CNN reported on Monday that “a growing number of states are considering or have passed measures this legislative term to ban ‘foreign adversaries’ and foreign entities – specifically China – from buying farmland.” These bills could violate the US Constitution, and also fuel an atmosphere of racism and anti-China sentiment.

Against the backdrop of increasingly strong anti-China sentiment in the US, it seems the “land purchase ban” is an inevitable product. Regarding the “land purchase ban,” several US-China relations experts interviewed by CNN warned against knee-jerk responses and called for lawmakers to act on evidence, not suspicion. There are certainly some rational people in the US who can see that this approach violates the US Constitution. However, in the current political atmosphere in the US, all anti-China actions are politically correct domestically, those who are willing to come out and speak up are the minority and their voices are often ignored.

The Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and united States. Posterity does not include immigrants, descendants of immigrants, invaders, conquerors, tourists, students, Americans born in Portugal, or anyone else who happens to subsequently reside in the same geographic location, or share the same civic ideals, as the original We the People.

Nor does it include sovereign foreign governments.

But as you can see, once the definition of “posterity” is expanded past its true and proper meaning, there is no reason it cannot be further expanded into a universal principle. Which, of course, is complete nonsense, and thereby demonstrates the practical impossibility of every other interpretation.

DISCUSS ON SG


The End of He Said – She Said

Donald Trump is found guilty of sexual abuse, injury, and defamation in a civil trial:

A jury has found that Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll.

The panel of six men and three women also found that Trump injured advice columnist Carroll in a Manhattan Bergdorf Goodman dressing room and defamed her when he called her a liar, ordering the former President to pay $5million in damages.

But they ruled after just three hours of deliberation that the evidence did not show that the former president had raped her.

Clown World is getting clownier and clownier by the day. But Trump can hardly complain. This is what happens when you chicken out at the Rubicon. It’s clearly been declared open season on him and he’s going to be found guilty of anything anyone can dream up and put before a jury of those who hate him.

The imaginary dialogue is risible. When people are retroactively writing their own lines, they can never resist making themselves sound smart, cool, and quippy.

She told the jury that she was on her way out of Bergdorf Goodman when she saw Trump coming in. ‘Hey you’re that advice columnist’, he told her. She fired back: ‘Hey you’re that real estate guy’.

The $2.7 million for defamation is particularly ridiculous. If I was able to collect $2.7 million from everyone who falsely called me a liar and worse, I’d be a billionaire.

DISCUSS ON SG


End No-Fault Divorce

Ending no-fault divorce would be a very, very big winner for Republicans if they are smart enough to fully embrace the issue:

Now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, Republicans are already looking ahead to their next moral crusades, and it sure looks like they’ve found one in… divorce. A new report from Media Matters for America shows a rising trend of right-wing influencers and Republican leaders and politicians, including U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance, advocating for the end of no-fault divorce—a policy that allows people to end a marriage without being required to prove wrongdoing by their partner, including adultery, abuse, or desertion.

No-fault divorce, which was first enacted in California in 1969, has always been a feminist issue. It’s allowed domestic abuse victims to leave a bad marriage without onerous barriers, and it certainly empowers women and all people to escape legally binding situations with someone they don’t love. One would think no-fault divorce is a no-brainer—a completely non-controversial issue decided half a century ago.

But Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe very clearly opened the door for further rights, particularly around marriage, to be reversed. “We have a duty to correct the error established in those precedents,” he wrote, while specifically calling the Griswold v. Connecticut (1965, birth control), Lawrence v. Texas (2003, same-sex intimacy), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015, same-sex marriage) decisions “demonstrably erroneous.” And already, the Texas Republican Party—the same people currently suing the Biden administration for the right to let pregnant people die—includes a proposal “to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws and support covenant marriage and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six months after the date of filing for divorce” in its 2022 party platform.

Ironically, marriage is one of the only contracts into which one can enter without being held liable to the terms of the agreement. Using an Internet site is literally more contractually binding, which only underlies the absolute absurdity of the legality of divorces that allow one party to unilaterally break the contract for no reason and without any penalties.

The fact that the feminist media is already worried about this possible development demonstrates how effective a wedge issue it would be for Republicans.

DISCUSS ON SG


Blocking the Bowdlerizers

An English playwright who is already experiencing requests for revisions by SJWs plans to protect his work from his literary heirs in his will:

Martin McDonagh has revealed he may use his will to ensure there are no Roald Dahl-style posthumous edits to his work.

The acclaimed playwright, 53, told how some theatre companies have refused to put on productions of his plays because he refused language changes to make the performances more ‘palatable’. The filmmaker, who wrote and directed The Banshees of Inisherin, described the practice of writers being asked to change what they have written for sensitivity-related reasons ‘problematic’.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Martin said: ‘That’s why I’ve got to make sure in my will, the wording of that is very, very specific too. A theatre has got every right not to put a play on. The major problem is that they ask you or another writer to change it to make it more palatable to them or what they think their audience is.’

The playwright’s words come after it emerged that Roald Dahl’s beloved children’s books are being rewritten by sensitivity gurus to remove language they deem offensive. Publisher Puffin hired sensitivity readers to rewrite chunks of the author’s text to make sure the books ‘can continue to be enjoyed by all today’, resulting in extensive changes across Dahl’s work.

It’s a good idea. My initial thought is to include a codicil stating that if the heirs sell any of the rights associated with the work or publish the work with any posthumous edits, the work immediately reverts to the public domain.

Obviously, this requires some careful thinking and precise language, as one does not want to harm an honest literary heir like Christopher Tolkien who did a remarkable job preserving and even extending his father’s literary legacy. But no self-respecting author wants to see what is happening to the work of Road Dahl and other deceased authors happen to his work.

DISCUSS ON SG