Isaac Laquedem

One of Donald Trump's upcoming trials commemorates Benjamin Harrison's "spectacularly corrupt administration"

Donald Trump will go to trial on March 4, 2024 in federal court in the District of Columbia on the charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election result.  Why March 4?  It's a Monday, and long trials often start on Mondays.  But Judge Tanya Chutkan, who chose the date, may have intended to make a sly historical reference.  Elected presidents are inaugurated on January 20 now, but before 1937 they were inaugurated on March 4.  March 4 is thus the anniversary of the inauguration of all the elected presidents from John Adams to Franklin Roosevelt in his first term (1933).  It was on March 4, 1889 that Benjamin Harrison (5'6", 160 pounds) was inaugurated.  Harrison's "spectacularly corrupt administration" (the words of historian Heather Cox Richardson) produced a collapse of the stock market and the Panic of 1893.

Celebrations of Benjamin Harrison are few and far between.  Judge Chutkan has figured out an appropriate commemoration, and Mr. Trump will get to play the leading part.

Fulton County's indictment of Donald Trump and friends, analyzed

            The 41-count indictment that a Fulton County grand jury handed down today is riveting in its narrative and notable in its detail.  Isaac has read it with great interest.  The grand jury’s accusations are not vague in time and place, nor are they more vague than necessary in describing the witnesses to the 161 numbered acts in furtherance of the election plot.  Those in Mr. Trump’s inner circle who are yet uncharged will read the indictment attentively to determine which of their friends are “Unindicted Conspirator One,” “Unindicted Conspirator Two,” and the other eighteen or so of the unnamed additional conspirators.

            All 19 defendants were charged with violating the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act.  This charge is particularly ironic, or perhaps poetically just, when applied to Rudolph Giuliani, as he came to fame in the 1980s for using the federal RICO Act to dismantle the core of the New York mafia; as a federal prosecutor he obtained indictments against a long list of the mob’s leaders and lieutenants, convicting most of them.

            The indictment has some Easter eggs within its bulk.  I’ve alluded to one, which is the game of guessing the identities of the unindicted conspirators.  Another is to examine who got indicted with whom.

            The indictment has 41 counts and names 19 defendants.  Every defendant was charged with violating the Georgia RICO Act.  No defendant, however, was charged with violating even half of the 41 counts, and no count except the RICO charge names more than 7 defendants.  Messrs. Trump and Giuliani lead the pack with 13 charges each, sharing in 7 of them.  The runner-up in the indictment list is more obscure; he is Ray Stallings Smith III, a lawyer at a small firm in Atlanta whose practice includes election law.  He faces 12 charges, including all 7 of the charges that name both Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani. 

            At the other end of the spectrum lie Jenna Ellis, Jeffrey Clark, and Mark Meadows, who face only one charge each in addition to the all-hands-on-deck RICO charge (Count 1). Ms. Smith’s [thank you, Kari Chisholm, for catching the error] Ellis's charge (Count 2), which she shares with attorneys Giuliani, Eastman, and Smith, is that she participated in inveigling members of the Georgia Senate to appoint impostor electors.  Mr. Clark’s charge (Count 22), which he faces alone, is that he criminally attempted to knowingly make the false statement that the Justice Department had ”identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia,” asking for permission from acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and acting deputy attorney general Richard Donoghue to send that message to Georgia’s governor, speaker of the house, and president of the senate.  Count 28 names only Mr. Trump and Mark Meadows and charges them with having unlawfully “solicited, requested, and importuned” Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to unlawfully alter the certified vote.

            So who did get indicted with whom?  (It sounds rather like high school gossip.)  Three of Georgia’s fake electors are among the indicted.  They are the only ones charged with Counts 8, 10, 12, and 14.  Two of them are the only ones charged with Counts 16 and 18.  Those six counts all relate to preparing and signing the false certifications.  They form a distinct group of charges and defendants. 

            A second group of defendants share Counts 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19.  They are Messrs. Trump, Giuliani, Eastman, Chesebro, Smith, and Cheeley, and those counts relate mainly to the attempts to file the false elector certifications. 

            A third group of defendants are Sidney Powell, Cathleen Latham, Scott Hall, and Misty Hampton, the only ones charged with Counts 33 to 38.  Those counts describe the efforts to obtain or break into the voting machines of Coffee County.  Ms. Powell was a visible advocate for Mr. Trump’s cause, but the indictment relegates her to a minor part in the Georgia portion of the broader conspiracy.  Based on the structure of the indictment, Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani were at its center, and Mr. Smith wasn't far from the core.  The skills of high school gossip tell us not who's going out with whom, but who's going down with whom.

Chief Justice John Roberts indirectly alludes to Ambrose Bierce, lexicographer

John Roberts wrote today's Supreme Court opinion in which a 6-member majority struck down the Biden administration's forgiveness of most of the student loan debt in the country.  Whatever the merits of the court's decision, the Chief Justice included this allusive gem in his opinion:

From a few narrowly delineated situations specified by Congress, the Secretary [of Education] has expanded forgiveness to nearly every borrower in the country.  The Secretary's plan has 'modified' the cited provisions only in the same sense that 'the French Revolution 'modified' the status of the French nobility' - it has abolished them and supplanted them with a new regime entirely.

The Chief Justice is quoting from Antonin Scalia's opinion in MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 512 US 128 (1994), which turned in part on the definition of "modify."  In that case Justice Scalia wrote, "It might be good English to say that the French Revolution 'modified' the status of the French nobility - but only because there is a figure of speech called understatement and a literary device known as sarcasm." 

Justice Scalia did not credit any earlier source for his bon mot.  I suspect he was inspired, perhaps unconsciously, by Ambrose Bierce's work "The Devil's Dictionary," in which he defined "abridge" as "to shorten," attributing this fictive mashup of a sentence from the Declaration of Independence to Oliver Cromwell as an example of "abridge" in use: 

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for people to abridge their king, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The Laquedem Plan to Relieve Our Supreme Court Justices from the High Cost of Vacations

The recent scandalous disclosures that Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Virginia vacation not only in their 40-foot motor home but on lavish trips financed by billionaire Harlan Crow that have included flights on Mr. Crow's private jet and cruises on his 161-foot yacht were followed by the equally scandalous revelations that Justice Samuel Alito did not report his 2008 trip by private jet as the guest of hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, to an Alaskan fishing resort where he stayed as the guest of real estate and mortgage servicing billionaire Robin Arkley.  The two stories brought to mind the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016 at a resort in Texas.  "Resort" is a loose term for the 30,000 acre Cibolo Creek Ranch, owned by multimillionaire John B. Poindexter.  (We can't have our justices selecting their friends only from the billionaire class.)  You can book rooms there for $500 to $1200/night, or you can come as the guest of Mr. Poindexter, as Justice Scalia did.  

It's apparent from the examples of Justices Thomas, Alito, and Scalia that the justices of our Supreme Court cannot stretch their salaries, currently $274,200/year, to cover the cost of vacations that befit their status as the nation's senior interpreters of the Constitution and the law.  It's also abhorrent that owners of large corporations with business before the Supreme Court can give the justices over-the-top vacations without the justices thinking it improper to accept the gifts.  Hence the Laquedem Plan to Relieve Our Supreme Court Justices from the High Cost of Vacations.

The LPTROSCJFTHCOV is ridiculously simple, because the mechanism to remove the taint of impropriety already exists.  It's GoFundMe.com.  Let's start a GoFundMe to raise money that the justices and their families can use to pay for their own vacations.   If a million Americans will give just $1/year each, then each justice can spend more than $1 million/year on luxury travel without having to beg for hospitality from their billionaire friends.  If Justice Thomas had $1 million to spend on his vacations, would he still hang out with Harlan Crow?  Or would he and Virginia Thomas buy a larger motor home and hire a driver?  Either way, he could escape his ethical morass.

We already provide public funds to presidential candidates.  Let's offer our Supreme Court a way to escape from the convivial clutches of the kakistocrats.

The Laquedem Plan to Improve Continuing Legal Education and Honor a Legal Leader

The Oregon State Bar requires active lawyers to take a certain amount of coursework, called "continuing legal education" or "CLE," to renew their licenses.  Members report their education every three years.  New members must take nine hours of courses on practical skills, including at least four hours on Oregon practice and procedure.  After their first reporting period, Oregon lawyers must take 45 hours of accredited CLE every three years, including at least five hours on ethics, one hour on mandatory reporting of child abuse and elder abuse, and one hour on mental health and substance abuse.  In alternate reporting periods, Oregon lawyers must also take at least three hours on programs accredited for "access to justice."  The Bar's rules define "Access to justice" education as activities that are "designed to educate attorneys to identify and eliminate from the legal profession, from the provision of legal services, and from the practice of law barriers to access to justice arising from biases against persons because of age, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender and gender identity or expression, geographic location, national origin, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, veteran status, immigration status, and socioeconomic status."

Recent news stories have given Isaac the idea that the Oregon State Bar should require providers of CLE to meld practical skills with access to justice, resulting in the Laquedem Plan to Improve Continuing Legal Education and Honor a Legal Leader.  Educators could teach lawyers how to organize luxurious hunting trips, expensive vacations, and cruises on private yachts, and then how to invite judges to be their guests.  Other material would cover how to establish political organizations under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code to funnel unreported money to a judge's spouse.  And somewhere in the mix would be how to ship rare wine across state lines to judicial incumbents.

The name of this hybrid CLE credit would honor one of its most ardent practitioners.  I suggest calling it "Access to Justice Thomas."

Sometimes "20 to 30" is a phrase that describes an age bracket . . .

And sometimes it's a complete sentence.

A PSU professor calls out the University of Oregon for turning Trumpist on the First Amendment

Maxine Bernstein reports in today's Oregonian that the University of Oregon banned Bruce Gilley, a Portland State University professor, from replying to a UO Twitter account for 60 days because of a comment that Professor Gilley made in reply to that account, which belongs to UO's Division of Equity and Inclusion.  He was one of three Twitter users that the Division's communications manager (now retired) blocked.

Professor Gilley sued.  He argues that UP violated his right to free speech and is asking for nominal damages of $17.91 (because the states ratified the First Amendment in 1791) and an acknowledgment that UO violated his First Amendment right of free speech.  (The university unblocked his account the day after he filed suit.)  A federal court heard argument on Professor Gilley's suit on Friday.

As the saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows.  UO turned to rising liberal icon Misha Isaak for its defense.  As reported by Ms. Bernstein, Mr. Isaak's defense of UO is mainly that the court should dismiss the suit because persons higher up in the university administration unblocked Professor Gilley when they learned that the Division had shut him out from commenting,  The administration has also reminded the Division of Equity and Inclusion that it cannot block speech based on the user's viewpoint.  I interpret Mr. Isaak's defense of UO as being mainly that because UO blocked his speech for only a short period, and because the UO official who blocked Professor Gilley didn't know about the First Amendment, the University didn't violate his constitutional rights in a big enough way to be worth the court's time.  Mr. Isaak also suggested that Professor Gilley "relished being canceled because it gives him a platform," a strange way to defend an apparent First Amendment violation.  But let's go back a few years to a similar story, still fresh in the minds of constitutional lawyers.

In 2017 President Trump blocked Twitter users with whom he disagreed from replying to tweets on his personal account.  Several of the blocked users sued, backed by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.  They argued that the president conducted official business on his Twitter account and that it was effectively a government-sponsored platform from which he could not bar users based on the content of their comments.  Those plaintiffs attracted support from an institute at Georgetown University which filed a brief on behalf of an all-star cast of professors of constitutional law, including Erwin Chemerinsky, Geoffrey Stone, and Laurence Tribe. 

In 2019 the federal court for the Second Circuit ruled unanimously in favor of the Twitter users and against President Trump, and minced no words:  "Accordingly, we hold that the President violated the First Amendment when he used [Twitter's] blocking function to exclude the Individual Plaintiffs because of their protected free speech." Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump, 928 F3d 226 (2019).  You can read the entire opinion here.

It's embarrassing for a public university with a law school to be caught out taking a page from Donald Trump's playbook and suppressing protected free speech because it doesn't like the speaker's message.  It's more embarrassing, or should be, when the part of the university doing the suppressing is the division that's devoted to providing room for all voices to be heard.  At the very least, the president of the university should take a few minutes to write a note of apology and acknowledge to Professor Gilley and the court that its Division of Equity and Inclusion messed up bigly.

An ode to Alex Jones's recent court losses

It was a solemn rite as e’er
Was seen by mortal man.
The celebrants, the people there,
Were all Republican.

Ed Rollins bent his grizzled head,
And Ari Fleischer too,
And one⁠—’twas Tucker, someone said,
Though no one clearly knew.

I saw the priest, white-robed and tall
Of strictly right-wing views
He was the pious man men call
To cast blessings on Fox News.

Ah, ’twas a high and holy rite
As anyone could swear.
“What does it mean?” I asked a wight
Who knelt apart in prayer.

“A mass for the repose,” he said,
“Of Alex Jones's ⁠—“What,
Is Alex Jones now dead?
’Tis sad, ’tis sad, God wot!”

“A mass”⁠—repeated he, and rose
To go and kneel among
The worshipers⁠—“for the repose
Of Alex Jones's tongue.”

-- Ambrose Bierce, brought up to date

Endorsements IV - A Clackamas County race and the Portland City Council

Isaac briefly diverts from the Rose City to look southward to Clackamas County and its most important race on the 2022 ballot, which is neither of the races for the county commission, but the campaign for county clerk, in which Catherine McMullen, a Multnomah County elections administrator, is challenging longtime incumbent Sherry Hall.  The most visible function of the county clerk is to supervise the county's elections.  Ms. Hall has racked up an impressive number of unforced election errors since she was first elected in 2002, amassing enough mistakes and bad conduct to fill a Willamette Week article in 2012.  In the ten years since then she's continued to fumble county elections, which WW helpfully compiled into another article this summer.  Voters in Clackamas County should give the office an upgrade that's long overdue, and replace Ms. Hall with Catherine McMullen.

One position on the Portland City Council is on next week's ballot.  Incumbent Jo Ann Hardesty and businessman Rene Gonzalez are in a runoff for a council seat.  Mr. Gonzalez has made street crime and homelessness centers of his campaign.  Commissioner Hardesty responds that she led the push to improve Portland Street Response, a non-police response to persons having crises of mental health, and has supported funding increases for permanent housing.  Underlying their debate is the City's interpretation of a Ninth Circuit case from 2018, Martin v, City of Boise, which some believe bars Portland from prohibiting the homeless from camping outdoors.

Before I turn to the Martin case, let's start with some data.  Since at least 2009 Multnomah County has conducted biennial censuses of homeless persons, though the census scheduled for 2021 was postponed to January 2022.  Homeless persons are counted in three categories: the unsheltered (people living outdoors, in tents, and in cars), people in shelters, and people in transitional housing.  From 2009 to 2019 the number of homeless persons counted in Multnomah County was fairly constant, ranging from 3801 in 2015 to 4655 in 2011.  The unsheltered population was also fairly constant, ranging between 1,591 in 2009 and 2,037 in 2019, with a typical number being about 1,800.

Something changed between 2019 and 2022, because the 2022 census found 5,228 homeless people in Multnomah County (up 30% from 2019), of whom 3,057 were unsheltered, living in tents or cars - up an astonishing 50% from 2019 and unique in the tri-county area.  (Over the same three-year period Clackamas County's count of the unsheltered fell from 371 to 327, a 9% drop, and Washington County's count of the unsheltered went from 232 to 227, essentially flat.) 

What has changed since 2019?  Isaac suggests these four factors, one of which is unique to Portland and another to Multnomah County.  The first is that in 2020 Oregon voters approved Measure 110, which decriminalized possession of many ordinary street drugs for personal use.  Measure 110 was billed as replacing drug policing with drug treatment.  The drug policing has stopped; the drug treatment has not started.  (Read what OPB said about Measure 110 last year.)  Consequently demand for street drugs has increased, and with it the customers' search for funds with which to buy drugs.  Glass repair shops and street-level retailers have become the involuntary funders.

Second is that even as Portland worked to get people off the street and into shelter, Multnomah County happily handed out tents and tarps to enable homeless persons to continue to live outside.  Last year Multnomah County distributed 6,550 tents to the homeless in the county, meaning mainly to people living on Portland streets and in Portland parks, which is somewhere between two and three tents for each unsheltered person in the county.

Third is that Portland took Martin v. City of Boise as barring the city from removing tents and prohibiting public camping unless the city could provide shelter to every unsheltered person in the city.  On this point I believe the city erred.  This short piece in the Harvard Law Review explains the ins and outs of the Martin decision in detail.  My take is that the decision prohibits cities from prosecuting the homeless for sleeping in public at night if shelter beds are available.  If not enough shelter beds are available on a particular night to accommodate all unsheltered persons in the city, then the city may not criminalize those who sleep without shelter.  It may, however, restrict sleeping and camping to designated areas; it may prohibit camping in other areas; it may continue to prosecute the unsheltered who take and dismantle cars.

That brings me to the fourth factor, and back to the city's election.  The fourth factor is that the city council and the Multnomah County district attorney have sent a clear message to the Police Bureau to stop enforcing minor laws, in particular property crimes.  Commissioner Hardesty led that message, both by securing a $15 million cut in the police budget and in pushing to cut another $18 million and 42 vacant police positions, a move that failed in 2020 and is one of the causes of downtown Portland's pandemic of broken windows.

The happy day when county prosecutors will revise their priorities must await the election of 2024.  Portland voters can take one small step toward refreshing the city by giving Rene Gonzalez the chance to argue his policies as a city councilor.

 

2022 Endorsements II: NO on Measure 113 (truant legislators), YES on Measure 114 (gun regulation)

Like Measure 111 (unfunded guaranteed health care), Measure 113 sounds like a good idea.  We pay legislators to be in Salem and legislate; shouldn't we eject legislators who play hooky from the Capitol? Measure 113 would amend the constitution to disqualify from reelection any legislator who, in a single legislative session, misses 10 or more days when the legislature is meeting without having received permission or an excuse.  The measure does not identify who grants permission or accepts the excuse.

The quirk behind Measure 113 is that the constitutional requirement for a quorum for the Oregon house and senate is not a simple majority (31 representatives, 16 senators) but two-thirds (40 representatives, 20 senators).  A party in the minority that holds at least 21 house seats or 11 senate seats may bring the chamber to a halt by not showing up.

In recent years the republicans have been the ones who haven't shown up; the Democrats last staged a walkout in 2001 to protect redistricting.  No one filed an argument in opposition.  The measure is nevertheless bad policy, both because it does not say who gets to grant permission - the presiding officer? The house or senate by majority vote? The majority or minority leader? - and because it takes from the voters the right to boot their representatives.  I don't favor walkouts, but I have seen legislators walk out not to avoid representing their constituents, but to carry out the wishes of their constituents.  The voters, not the legislature, should decide whether an absent legislator is ill, lazy, or zealous.

Measure 114 is a common-sense gun regulation measure that requires gun buyers to take a gun safety course before acquiring a weapon, prohibits most off-the-books transfers of firearms, and prohibits magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.  Until I see a plausible argument that (1) gun owners need less training than alcohol servers and boat owners, and (2) there is a genuine self-protection reason for Oregonians to be able to kill more than 10 people at a time, I'm willing to add regulations that may reduce exsanguination.  I vote YES on Measure 114.