Bayou Renaissance Man

I note that violent street crime, shoplifting, etc. are rapidly increasing in Britain, just as much as they are in the USA.

Shoreham-by-Sea is at the forefront of a retail theft epidemic gripping Britain, as shoplifting soars to a record high.

The number of reported cases in England and Wales hit 430,104 last year, according to the Office for National Statistics, the highest since records began in 2003.

Outside Westminster, the district of Adur that is home to Shoreham-by-Sea had the joint-highest rate relative to the population, at 22 offences for every 1,000 people. 

Neighbouring Worthing, and Mansfield further afield in Nottinghamshire, shared the unwanted crown.

Sussex Police meanwhile had the second lowest solved rate for shoplifting at 10pc, ranking only behind the Metropolitan Police. 

In Shoreham Central and Beach, 97.6pc of reported shoplifting incidents were unsolved, Telegraph analysis shows.

Many businesses all across the country will know these issues all too well. As theft rates have soared, rates of those being solved have plummeted.

Only one in seven incidents of shoplifting in England and Wales were solved last year, according to Home Office figures. The figure has halved since comparable records were first published in 2016 and is now at its lowest. 

It is not just shoplifting that is on the rise. Robberies of businesses have also risen to the highest level since 2005. 

A creaking justice system, large cuts to policing and prisons on the verge of having to turn guilty people away have laid the foundations for this crisis. 

The cost of living, rising levels of addiction and organised criminals seizing the opportunity to steal with impunity have made it worse. 

. . .

It comes as thousands of prisoners will be released early in September to relieve overcrowding.

Britain’s prisons are believed to be just weeks away from running out of space, a situation that Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood blamed on the previous government and said had left left her with “no choice” but to take action.

As a result, some offenders will be released after serving only 40pc of their sentence rather than half. Exemptions will be made for sexual and serious violent offenders.

The alternative would risk “looters running amok, smashing in windows, robbing shops”, Mahmoud said. However, this is not far from what British retailers say they are already seeing.

There's much more at the link.  It's worth reading, to tick the boxes about what Britain is seeing that we're also seeing in many parts of this country.  They're very similar - including the increasing violence of criminals.

There is, of course, another factor besides those named - one the news media dare not name, in either country, for fear of being labeled racists or bigots or whatever.  That is that both countries are dealing with a massive influx of illegal or quasi-legal aliens or "migrants".  Street crime and shoplifting is increasingly being committed by that group, sometimes almost to the exclusion of other groups.  I worked with law enforcement for decades, and maintain my contacts with them.  Almost everyone with whom I speak in that demographic tells me that it's a migrant problem - but they're not allowed to say so.  It's a firing offence if they do.  It's a politically incorrect "third rail" that they dare not touch.

I'd like to see some properly collected, collated and analyzed statistics dealing with that . . . but we can forget about that as long as left-wing progressive local, state and national governments and bureaucracy prevent them from being gathered.

Peter

President Biden's performance at yesterday's debate was pitiful;  a shambling wreck of a re-election bid that must have given great aid and comfort to this country's enemies.  After all, if you were President Xi of China, or President Putin of Russia, or Kim Seriously-Ill of North Korea, how could you not be encouraged to realize that the current President of the USA was supposed to be the person holding you in check?

I can only presume that the Democratic Party, knowing his health to be so poor as to preclude re-election, has been frantically looking for any way to remove President Biden from the election ticket, and possibly from his current office as well.  After seeing that debate, I don't see how a 25th Amendment motion to remove President Biden from office can be resisted, on either side of the political aisle.  Biden's handlers almost literally threw him to the political wolves last night.  (I've been saying for years that the way they've been manipulating him is nothing less than elder abuse.  Last night's exhibition simply made that even more clear.)

The question is, who might take his place in the Oval Office, and on the ticket in November?  None of the usual suspects appear capable of attracting enough positive attention and support to succeed.  Kamala Harris?  Hillary Clinton?  Michelle Obama?  They all have their partisan supporters, but they've also attracted so much vituperation, disgust and dislike that I can't see them as viable candidates.  So . . . if not them . . . who?

Wouldn't it be fun if the Democratic Party chose Stormy Daniels to run against former President Trump?  Bring on those debates, boys!

Peter

Yesterday we saw headlines like these about a Supreme Court ruling.  Click the links to read the articles.

They sound alarming to those of us who view Big Brother with intense suspicion, and see the courts as avoiding their constitutional responsibilities by failing to rein in said brother when necessary.  However, as worded, they are not true.  The Supreme Court made no such decision and no such ruling.  What really happened was rather simpler (although, to my mind, still not satisfactory):

In a 6-3 decision, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue - as opposed to tossing the case on merit - just like the vast majority of election fraud cases which didn't make it past lower courts.

There's more at the link.

We may dislike it when a court decision goes in favor of the progressive left, and cheer when the opposite happens - but we're allowing our partisan likes and fears to color our understanding of the truth.  To claim that the Supreme Court yesterday allowed federal government censorship of social media is simply not true.  The fact that SCOTUS' decision allows a questionable relationship between government and social media to continue in certain forms unless and until plaintiffs with standing to sue take up the matter does not mean that it's legal, and does not mean that any illegal acts committed until a ruling is given can't be prosecuted.

That's why we have courts.  That's why we try to implement the rule of law, rather than partisan political perspectives, in our society.  The courts are supposed to prevent excesses, stop legal violations, and punish those that occur.  If they acted in an arbitrary, opinionated way instead of within the framework of the rule of law, the courts themselves would be untrustworthy - as partisan as the legislative branch of government, in fact.  We've seen in recent weeks how some of our courts appear to be precisely that, in cases against former President Trump in New York.  Even liberal/progressive judicial authorities have joined the chorus of disapproval and anger against such visibly partisan proceedings, and are calling for them to be overturned.  The outrage, the bias, is so blatant that I hope and trust the New York courts will be stopped in their tracks - but that has to happen through the legal system, not because those with one political viewpoint "win" over those with another.  If we stopped those cases by employing legally questionable tactics, just like those who "won" them, we'd be as guilty as they are of corrupting the law to serve partisanship.

I don't like yesterday's decision.  I don't like anything that gives the executive branch of government any form of censorship or control over news and social media.  I hope any and all such things will be systematically dealt with in future.  However, that will only happen if those who do have standing to challenge them, raise such a challenge.  Instead of moaning because partisan political perspectives (look at the political views of the challengers yesterday) were not able to impose their viewpoint on those of a different perspective, why don't we encourage the judicial (and, if necessary, the legislative) branches of government to clarify the laws and standards involved, so that loopholes are blocked and those with standing to intervene are defined more clearly?

When any side tries to manipulate, obfuscate or adumbrate the law for partisan advantage, we all stand in danger.  Let's not allow our own passions to lead us astray.

True dat.

Peter

Well, here's a conundrum if ever I heard one.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday heard arguments over whether car insurance should pay out benefits to a woman who caught a sexually transmitted disease from a policyholder in his insured vehicle.

. . .

"Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the court finds that consensual sexual relations inside a car do not constitute a 'use' of the automobile within the meaning of the subject policy," the judge wrote in his decision. 

But M.O. and Brauner appealed to the Eighth Circuit to have the district court's decision reversed. The couple contends that the language of Brauner's insurance policy is so broad as to justify M.O.'s bodily injury claim ... Attorneys for GEICO disagree ... A three-judge panel consisting of U.S. Circuit Judges Steven Colloton, Michael Melloy and Raymond Gruender heard these arguments in court on Wednesday.

The judges questioned M.O.'s attorney, David Mayer, on whether his client's argument would make GEICO responsible for every unwanted pregnancy that might have occurred in an automobile.

"I don't believe that's a cause of action but that's a good question," Mayer responded.

. . .

... by quibbling over the meaning of what is an "appropriate" use of a car, Beck told the judges, "you are turning what is an automobile policy into a general liability policy without restriction."

There's more at the link.

If one takes the plaintiff's view to its logical conclusion, if a woman becomes pregnant after sex in a car, doesn't that make the car insurer liable for any and all medical costs incurred by the child during its entire life?  After all, none of those costs would have been incurred if pregnancy had not occurred.  Does that mean the insurer can insist that the woman must have an abortion, so as to avoid those costs?

Simple basic common sense should surely dictate that the insurer is not liable.  However, this is the USA, where litigation has long since lost all sense of balance and reasonableness.  Who knows how it'll turn out?

What's next?  A clause in insurance policies stating that no teenagers should ever be allowed to use the vehicle - or even get into it - except under the policyholder's direct and immediate supervision, for fear of the carnage that might result?

Peter

I note that President Trump has just been found guilty of posing an existential threat to the progressive left of American politics.  That's all yesterday's verdict amounted to.  A more rigged, biased, unfair trial I've never seen before - and I've seen some in the Third World that would curdle your whey.  This wasn't just a kangaroo court - it was the rule of menagerie law, a bunch of monkeys screaming themselves hoarse and flinging dung in all directions.  The entire American justice system is diminished by it.  One can only hope that appellate courts - and, if necessary, the Supreme Court - will undo the damage Judge Merchan has done . . . but they'll never remove its stain from our judicial record.

Tucker Carlson put it in a nutshell.

If President Trump is incarcerated, I think there will be an attempt to "do unto him" as was done unto Jeffrey Epstein.  The left simply dare not permit him to win re-election, because they know all of their sins of the past election and all the damage they've done to America since then will be visited upon their heads, and then some.  He is too dangerous to them for them to allow him to be re-elected.

If President Trump does die behind bars, or is otherwise assassinated . . . all hell may break loose.  Brace yourselves - and pray for his safety and security.

Peter

This car chase video made me laugh.  Considering the punishment taken by the pickup being pursued, from both its driver and the police chasing it, it might as well be a video advertisement for the toughness of the truck!

I'm glad they took that driver off the road, but I daresay he'll be back . . . more's the pity.

Peter

The partisan political nature of the prosecution of President Trump on so many charges, in so many venues, is beyond any doubt whatsoever.  That's made clear by the preliminary instructions to the jury in New York.

To find Trump guilty of felony-level falsification of business documents, the jury must unanimously find that Trump falsified the documents in order to commit or conceal a separate crime. But the jurors do not all have to agree on what that separate crime was, Justice Juan Merchan ruled.

. . .

In other words: If some jurors believe that Trump falsified business documents solely to cover up a tax crime, while others believe that he falsified business documents solely to cover up an election crime, the jury can still convict Trump on the felony-level falsifying-documents charges, despite disagreeing on the predicate crimes.

There's more at the link.

This is beyond belief.  It demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever the complete and utter disregard for the law that we see in Judge Merchan's courtroom.  Consider:

• In order to be convicted, one must be found guilty of a specific crime.
• The jury instruction above tells jurors that they don't have to agree on what specific crime was committed.  In other words, President Trump might not be convicted of a specific crime at all (because that would require a jury verdict to that effect).
• However, despite there being no specific conviction, the jury will be allowed to find President Trump guilty of falsifying documents in order to conceal a specific crime.
• But . . . if no specific crime was committed (and, in the absence of a jury ruling to that effect, that will be the legal reality) then how can President Trump be convicted of falsifying documents to conceal a crime?  If the act is not specified, and no conviction is handed down, then in legal terms he is not guilty of any crime, and therefore there is no crime to conceal.

This is so bizarre it defies belief.  Any half-way competent lawyer can see that in a heartbeat.

The judge's conduct is well summed up by former Professor Alan Dershowitz:

“This judge has committed more reversible errors in the one day I was in the courtroom than I’ve seen in years and years of practicing law. It’s just an outrage,” Dershowitz stated.

I think that if President Trump is convicted by this kangaroo court under such pretexts, it will virtually guarantee his victory in the November 2024 elections . . . if his enemies allow him to live that long.  If he's incarcerated on such flimsy grounds, one can only assume that it's to create the conditions under which he might suffer a terminal "accident" or "assault" in prison, to finally remove any possibility of his winning re-election.  Frankly, I wouldn't put that past his political enemies.  Their desperation to derail his campaign is beyond clear.

As always, I note that I am not a fan of President Trump, and I'd prefer a more balanced candidate in November.  However, that's beside the point.  Whatever one's views of President Trump, the fact that he's being treated like this by our so-called impartial, balanced judicial system is cause for the deepest concern.

Peter

It turns out that re-scheduling marijuana to a lower drug classification has left the trucking industry with a big problem and few options to solve it.

The trucking industry is raising concerns about President Joe Biden downgrading marijuana to a lower level of drug classification — especially how the move could threaten highway safety.

The American Trucking Associations’ and Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association’s questions about reclassifying cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug include how it would affect carriers’ ability to test drivers for the substance.

“Absent an explicit allowance for continued employer marijuana testing of safety-sensitive workers, this change may have considerable negative consequences for highway safety and safety-sensitive industries,” the ATA said in a letter to three federal department heads.

There's more at the link.

It really is a big problem.  Marijuana can affect one's reflexes, concentration, etc. just as badly as alcohol, particularly when it comes to synthetic marijuana or a high-strength varietal.  Cops I speak to tell me it's already a very large problem in big cities, where the majority of drug users are to be found, and even in smaller towns it's making its presence felt.

I don't know how they're going to handle testing and disciplinary requirements.  If marijuana is officially no longer considered as dangerous, can drivers be fired for using it?  They (or their lawyers) could argue that if using it is not against the law, the drivers cannot be punished for using it.  And how does one measure the actual level of intoxication?  The alcohol content of blood can be measured, providing an objective result that can be used in court if necessary, but I'm not aware of any similar measurement that can quantify the "level of marijuana" one's smoked or eaten.

It's all very well to "liberalize" marijuana legislation to cater to society's changing views on its use, but if it adds (or makes worse) more danger on the roads, that's anything but OK.  It's yet another worry when one's behind the wheel . . .

Peter

A few years ago I wrote an article titled "The FBI can no longer be trusted in any way, shape or form".  Given the latest news about the shenanigans of the General Services Administration, I'm thinking that warning should be applied to the entire federal bureaucracy, not just the FBI or the Justice Department.  Second City Cop reports:

So the feebs brought along props, used them in "evidence" photographs, then leaked the photos to the media. Laughable. And now it turns out that all those boxes of "classified" documents were:

• actually in the possession of the General Services Administration;
• packed by the GSA;
• delivered to Trump by the GSA;
• who then "tipped off" the feebs about supposed "classified" info.

. . . 

Even a third-world banana republic is more competent framing people that this outfit.

There's more at the link, including a link to another article providing further details.

I hope there will one day be an in-depth investigation into any and every government employee, department, agency and entity involved in the ongoing quasi-legal persecution of President Trump, with condign punishment meted out to everyone responsible for such shenanigans.  That's unlikely to happen under a Democratic Party administration, but there's always a chance that might change - one way or another.

Peter

Friend of the blog Lawdog has written an emotive and (I think) very important article titled "Meditations On Duty".  Here are a few excerpts.

Every day we are bombarded with news articles about District Attorneys campaigning for “No bail requirements”, “Reduced sentencing”, “Alternate sentencing”, all of which appears — in some cases outrighted stated — to give felons and habitual criminals a leg up.

We are continually shown footage of riots in major cities and at universities where the rioters arsonists, and violent thugs are treated with kid gloves.

Just or otherwise, there is a very definite perception that District Attorneys would much rather throw the book at someone with no previous criminal history, while the felons and violent thugs get deals.

On the other paw, for a man to be even hinted at any variety of sexual offence, whether it be harassment or outright rape, is to be guilty until proven innocent.

And to certain parts of the howling Internet mobs you can never be innocent — and they will make it a crusade to destroy your life.

. . .

I find myself in a position that I’ve never been in before. All of my life I have known that if people needed to be helped, I should help them — I’ve literally been a Boy Scout. All of my adult life I have known that if there is gun-fire, I will run to that sound and protect people.

I … don’t know anymore.

It’s already started. If Rita isn’t with me, I will not stop to help a female stranger, or children. I will call local law enforcement and have them sent there, but without Rita being present I will not offer aid on my own. That goes double if there are children involved.

And that mortifies me, but the risk of having my life destroyed with false allegations is not worth it.

For the first time in my life I do not know what I will do if gunfire erupts in a public place where I am.

If a spree shooter attacks a public place where I am, or am near — I will get family and friends to safety, but after that I literally do not know.

Do I run to the sound of gunfire and solve the problem? I’ve already been the victim of wrongful prosecution once, do I risk that again? Do I take a chance going up against a protected class, and earning the “mostly peaceful” wrath of the howling mob, and a legacy media that lives for stirring up rioters?

There's more at the link.  Go read the whole thing.  It's worth your time.

Remember, too, that Lawdog is a retired officer of the law.  He's spent a career fighting crime and criminals.  If he, in his position, is no longer certain that he can engage evildoers without being tarred with their brush by a politically correct or "woke" justice system, how much more so should we, private citizens, be worried about the same reality?  We can't claim prior and extensive experience in dealing with crime to justify our intervening to help its victims.  We don't have the "protection", in the eyes of the law, that Lawdog has.

Today, we have to accept that in very large parts of these United States the justice system has been warped and twisted along "woke" lines, so that it today protects the politically correct cause du jour and its adherents.  If one doesn't belong to that group, one is almost automatically at greater risk from the authorities, irrespective of the facts of the situation.  Over the past few years I've written a number of articles about this conundrum.  In case you missed any of them, I'll link them below.  I highly recommend that you take time to read them and think about them, because the situations they describe might confront you at any time in this crazy world we live in.

In particular, note the problems involved in trying to remain anonymous if you live in a "woke" judicial environment, and don't want to be connected to otherwise legitimate acts of self-defense.  The first article in the list above addresses that issue.  Also, I've said before that a revolver is no longer the optimum choice as a personal defense weapon, because it holds too few rounds to deal with a mob or gang situation.  That remains true:  but there's a countervailing argument that unlike a semi-automatic pistol, a revolver doesn't spit out cartridge cases all over the scene, which can later be analyzed.  There's something to be said for that if you're in a hostile, unreasonable, biased prosecutorial environment.  To make up for the limited number of rounds in a revolver, carry one chambered for the biggest, most powerful cartridge one can control in rapid, aimed fire.  Hitting harder is seldom a bad idea in defensive shooting.

Suffice it to say that in a prosecutorial environment that's as (or more) likely to punish the good guy as the bad, discretion is our watchword.  If, despite that, we choose to intervene, we'd better do so with our eyes wide open as to what trouble that may bring down on our heads.  We should have a good lawyer on speed dial, and refuse to say anything unless and until he/she is with us and has had an opportunity to brief us.  Furthermore, we should minimize the ease with which rogue prosecutors and shyster lawyers can go after us.  This does not include tampering with evidence (which is a crime in itself), but simply observing due caution and discretion is never a bad thing.  Our defense attorneys will thank us for that.

Finally, no matter why or how we've intervened, don't speak to police or anyone else after such an incident unless and until our lawyer(s) has/have interviewed us and briefed us about what may, or should not, be said.  It's too easy to talk ourselves into a jail cell!  Here's a law professor's view of that, and Massad Ayoob's limited corollary to that perspective.  Both are worth watching in full.

Food for thought.

Peter

I'm sure many of my readers will be familiar with the (in)famous exchange of letters in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram, 1971.  Those who aren't will find the details at the link.  (Profanity alert:  lawyers aren't always polite!)

I was reminded of that well-known case by this tweet yesterday, largely by the inclusion of a word that I've censored (given that this is a family-friendly blog, most of the time).  Clickit to biggit.

I wonder if they'd also assert an equal IP right to the entire slogan, including the censored word?  That would make just about as much sense!  It's also like the computer games company that tried to trademark the expression "space marines" (despite its having been in use since the 1930's), or the comic publishers that trademarked the term "superhero".

Suffice it to say that I think the LA Police Foundation deserves the mockery.

Peter

I can get behind President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador whole-heartedly.  We recently discussed his crackdown on narco and gang violence in his country, leading to his re-election with an overwhelming majority of the vote.

His next step?

The 'unapologetic dictator' and 43rd President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele launched an anti-corruption investigation into the entire executive branch of his government. Just like Anil Kapoor-starrer Bollywood movie 'Nayak', the businessman turned politician ordered every single official to gather in an assembly, where he announced the decision to inquire them for bribery. The move is seen as a strike against graft back home in the Central American nation.

The video of Bukele asking the Attorney General to investigate the entire executive branch including the cabinet members for corruption has gone viral online. The faces of the officials sitting and gathered at the assembly could tell that they were shocked and taken aback by the move.

There's more at the link.  You'll find a video recording of President Bukele making his announcement here.

I love it!  It would be marvelous if we could do the same thing in Washington D.C., not to mention every one of our fifty State capitals.  The only problem would be to find enough uncorrupted investigators to do the work!

Peter

I've written extensively about the Catholic Church's clergy sex abuse scandal in these pages.  As regular readers will know, the way it was mishandled led me to withdraw from that Church's ministry.  Today's discussion will discuss the latest development in that scandal.  A word of warning:  I remain Christian, and will provide a believer's perspective on the issue.  If you're not Christian and/or not a person of faith, you might prefer to skip this article.

A report from New York illustrates the core of the Catholic Church's problem, which is with us still, and will be unless and until the hierarchy of the Church returns to its joint and several roots and remakes itself in Christ's image, instead of the world's.

On Tuesday, [the New York State] Appellate court’s First Department reversed a ruling dismissing Chubb insurance’s assertion that its policies did not cover child sexual abuse claims that church leaders enabled and covered up for decades... Chubb insured the Archdiocese of New York, which serves 2.5 million Catholics, and its affiliated parishes and schools between 1956 and 2003.

. . .

The appellate court’s decision affirms Chubb’s position that it shouldn’t have to defend the Archdiocese if the organization “had knowledge of its employees’ conduct or propensities,” the company said in a statement.

“The Archdiocese must now disclose what it knew and when it knew about child abuse perpetrated by priests and employees,” the company contended. “That disclosure is critical to determining whether the [Archdiocese of New York’s] knowledge and cover-up precludes coverage.” 

The Archdiocese called the ruling “disappointing” and “wrongly decided,” claiming, “If allowed to stand, the decision will permit insurance companies to evade the contractual obligations of the policies they issued.”

There's more at the link.

The last paragraph cited above illustrates the core of the problem.  The Archdiocese of New York is not responding to the news as a body of faith, as the Body of Christ on Earth.  It's responding as a business organization, just another corporate entity talking to the courts and other corporate entities on their terms.

This is not what the Church is called to be.  It's definitely not Biblical, it's not Godly, and it ignores the calling of Christ for His church to be His bride.

There are those who'll say that of course the Church must respond to corporate issues in a corporate way;  that to do otherwise would be nonsensical.  However, think about it.  Did Christ ever tell His apostles to establish a corporation?  Hire lawyers and managers and administrators, and actually use ordained ministers of faith in those occupations, rather than as messengers of the Gospel?  What's the priority here?

Bob Mumford, a Pentecostal evangelist, once defined secular humanism as "what you get when the world evangelizes the church".  That was a prophetic definition, IMHO, and we see its results in far too many Christian churches today.  They are run as businesses rather than houses of faith;  secular corporations rather than guardians and beacons and emissaries of Christ's truth.  Christ told us to "preach the Gospel to all nations" - not erect corporate entities that would administer the secular possessions of the Church while, effectively, relegating her Divine mission to second place (if that).

That's also what gave rise to the Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal in the first place.  Seminaries were allowed to become secular in focus, concentrating on psychology, sociology, anthropology and other approaches to human life instead of inculcating the transformational, transcendental calling of Christ to his followers in their students.  Worse, the seminaries were staffed by those who shared that perspective, including many who were morally degenerate.  Anyone not sharing it was either not appointed to the staff, or removed as quickly as possible.  Furthermore, students were selected for the seminary according to their conformity with secular perspectives and liberal/progressive "spirituality", and again, those who did not demonstrate this were quickly removed.

For a thorough discussion of those issues, see the book "Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church" by Michael S. Rose, published in 2002.

The book documents everything that I've said about seminaries, and goes into a lot more detail.  It might as well be sub-titled "How Satan Subverted Future Priests", because that was the net effect of such policies on so many students for the priesthood.  I suppose we'll never know how many potentially holy, faithful and apostolic priests we lost thanks to those policies.  I'm betting it was a bunch, and then some.  Even worse, American bishops did nothing to stop this corruption.  It was their responsibility under Canon Law:  indeed, even when the seminary/ies in question were run by religious orders, and nominally not under local episcopal control, the local bishop could have suspended the sacramental faculties of professors, reported the matter to Rome and demanded action, and taken other steps to ensure orthodoxy of teaching.  As far as I'm aware, none did.  I would not like to stand in their shoes at their Judgement . . .

(It's with considerable pleasure that I recently read complaints from some liberal and progressive sources that most priests being ordained today are orthodox in their faith and loyal to the traditional spiritual and theological teaching of the Church.  I hope they're right.  If so, I guess it's the Holy Spirit restoring the church and her clergy to what they should be.)

So, the secular approach to the world epitomized in the Church's seminaries carried over to (and may even have originated in) the Church's administration.  Almost every bishop and his deputies (the Vicars General and Chancellors of dioceses, and other positions) were focused on the Church as a business, as a corporate entity, rather than the Church as the living body of believers.  They spent their time in meetings, writing memoranda, allowing accountants and lawyers to "help them" to conform the Church's structure and administration to "good business practices" - without considering their real and primary calling.  That calling became subordinated to their jobs . . . and that's why things went so appallingly wrong with the Church and some of her clergy.

We see precisely that approach reflected in the Archdiocese of New York's statement after the New York appeal court's ruling:

“If allowed to stand, the decision will permit insurance companies to evade the contractual obligations of the policies they issued.”

Not one word about whether or not the Archdiocese knew about any of the claims over which it's being sued.  It did, and we know it did, because that's come out in innumerable reports over the more than two decades that this scandal has been in the public eye.  Chubb is absolutely correct to try to avoid the costs of those claims, as the appeals court has just ruled.  Its insurance policy/ies contained a liability clause:  in so many words, if its clients knew about a potentially harmful or dangerous situation before the incident(s) occurred, and did nothing to prevent or avoid it, their insurance cover was/is forfeited.  That's a stock-standard clause in any and every liability insurance policy I've ever read.  (I might add that I hold a Master's degree in business, and was a manager and company director before I was ordained a priest, so I know what I'm talking about.)

That's also demonstrated in the public reactions of the Catholic Church in America when the clergy sex abuse scandal broke.  They instantly went into a defensive huddle and called in lawyers, psychologists, public relations specialists, and a host of other secular disciplines to help craft a defensive strategy.  Few if any bishops publicly accepted responsibility for the catastrophe, and those that did . . . well, let's say I doubt that all of them meant it whole-heartedly.  Considering the "inside information" that many priests heard at the time, that was not the impression we gained at all.  Indeed, the national programs implemented to "resolve" the issue reflected that insincerity.  Not a single one of the measures proposed and enforced did anything to deal with the roots of the problem.  Instead, they had the effect of making priests feel that their own bishops considered them to be the source of the problem, and that they were seen as guilty until proven innocent!  I've discussed in depth my reactions to the bishops' measures in an earlier article, so I won't repeat them here.

So now we have the Archdiocese of New York protesting because its former insurer is insisting on enforcing the liability clause(s) in its contracts.  As far as I'm concerned, the Archdiocese appears to be trying to force Chubb to pay for its debts and liabilities, despite the Church having failed to keep its side of the bargain.   To me, that's not only legally wrong, but morally as well.  We know the Archdiocese knew more about these scandals than it ever admitted, until it was forced to acknowledge at least some part of that knowledge in previous court proceedings - yet even now, it's trying to avoid acknowledging that reality by simply refusing to talk about it.  Honesty?  Moral uprightness?  Acknowledging sin?  Where are those Gospel realities in the arguments of the lawyers for the Archdiocese?  Non-existent.

As far as I'm concerned, if the Archdiocese of New York is forced to declare bankruptcy and sell off its physical assets, that might even be a blessing.  Perhaps then the Archdiocese and its priests could get back to living and preaching the Gospel, in season and out of season, rather than focusing on banks and lawyers and accountants and insurance policies more than they focus on the mission God has given them.

Peter

From Sundance at The Last Refuge:

There's far too much "meat on the bone" for me to quote a lot of excerpts from it and expect them to make sense.  Nevertheless, this is critically important reading if you want to understand how the Department of Justice is abusing the legal system of the United States to fraudulently target a politician.  It makes for horrendous reading.

If you want to sum up the critical point of the article, it's this:

The raid on Mar-a-Lago was a retrieval effort where the DOJ/FBI were looking for evidence of their misconduct that Donald Trump may have taken with him after his time in office.

. . .

The special counsel was looking for documents held by Donald Trump that touched on declassification and/or pertained to John Durham and Crossfire Hurricane.   They were looking for documentary evidence against them that Trump may have held (he did and likely still does).

. . .

Mary McCord, Andrew Weissmann and Norm Eisen are using “national security” as a tool to subvert and control the judicial branch while railroading President Trump.

There's much more at the link.  I strongly suggest that it's worth reading it all.

This is why I've said before, and I'll say again here, that I don't expect a free and fair election this November.  The Democratic Party and the Deep State appear bound and determined to remove former President Trump's name from the ballot through criminal conviction, any way they have to;  and if he does run, they want to blacken his name as a "convicted criminal" to such an extent that at least some of his supporters won't vote for him.  Frankly, I agree with some observers who predict that President Trump may be assassinated by his opponents, rather than allow him to take office again.  They hate and fear him that much.

I might add that I'm not a member of President Trump's fan club.  I have serious doubts over his fitness to fill another term as President;  his age is definitely a factor, as is his brash outspokenness.  However, those factors don't prevent me from recognizing that he is, indeed, being railroaded by the misuse of our criminal justice system.  That's deadly dangerous to our republic.  If the powers that be can do that to President Trump, and get away with it, then what's to stop future powers that be doing it to anyone and everyone else they don't like?

Peter

It seems the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF for short) is bound and determined to put every single firearms transfer through a formal registration process, whether justifiable or not.

The ATF’s background check rule redefines the word “sale” so that private sellers who receive services or barter in exchange for a gun are required to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

. . .

... pages 26-27 of the rule equates “pecuniary gain” with “profit,” opening the door for the ATF to redefine the word “sale” so as to require a NICS check when a private seller is “bartering” over a gun.

Beginning with the last paragraph on Page 26 and reading into the first paragraph of page 27, the reader sees clearly that the ATF is defining the terms:  “Defining these terms to include any method of payment for a firearm would clarify that persons cannot avoid the licensing requirement by, for instance, bartering or providing or receiving services in exchange for firearms with the predominant intent to earn pecuniary gain even where no money is exchanged.”

Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb commented on the ATF rule, saying, “This is a continuation of the Biden war on guns. It is another attempt to get around Congress to make new laws without congressional approval.”

There's more at the link.

Never in previous American history has such registration been necessary.  I entirely agree with Mr. Gottlieb:  the ATF is trying to effectively make a new law, which is the prerogative of Congress alone, by arbitrarily redrafting its regulations under existing law to such an extent that they actually change that law.  This is unconstitutional, to say the least:  yet, under the Biden administration, such bureaucratic shenanigans have become routine.  One hopes the Supreme Court will eventually get around to striking down this latest example of ATF overreach.

Nevertheless, the bureaucrats can't close every door.  I note, for example, that to give someone a firearm one has already owned for some time as a gift (where no money or other compensation, in cash or in kind, changes hands) is still entirely legal, and does not require a background check.  I would imagine that if Joe Bloggs gives John Smith such a gun as a gift one month, and John Smith gives Joe Bloggs such a gun at a suitably later date (so that there's no obvious link between the gifts), that would still be arguably outside the new regulations.  Furthermore, if one does not receive any "pecuniary gain" for a firearm by selling it (in other words, for less than one paid for it), I would imagine that would be a suitable defense against any charge under these regulations (assuming, of course, that one did not do so regularly, thereby "conducting a business" in the trade in firearms according to the bureaucratic definition).  In the old days, that used to be more-or-less loosely defined as selling more than five firearms per year.  Now, who knows?  The regulations have not yet been tested in actual court cases.  I imagine that can't be far away.

There's also the question of "swap meets", which have been conducted for some time.  A group of friends might get together and swap firearms with each other, so that two people might swap identical models of (say) Glock pistols, each ending up with a gun that was not registered in their name.  Doing that once would still leave a traceable chain, in that a rigorous investigator might uncover links between the two individuals, and be able to follow them;  but if a gun has been swapped several times between different people on different occasions, it becomes very hard to trace everyone who's owned it since its original owner bought it.  I suspect that will be declared illegal under the new regulation, in that the ATF will probably argue that receiving an identical gun in exchange for one's own constitutes "pecuniary gain" (even if that can't be measured in dollars and cents, because no money or other "trade goods" has changed hands).

Older regulations are likely to cause some problems, and raise legal questions.  For example, it used to be entirely legal (according to the ATF's own official instructions interpreting the law, which many of us have saved in downloads and screen shots) to buy a firearm to give as a gift to someone else, and put oneself down on the ATF's Form 4473 as the actual owner or purchaser of that firearm.  Yes, they said that in black and white, and it was in effect for years.  That advice is no longer to be found on the ATF's Web page - but it has never been formally withdrawn.  I suspect it will be an interesting moment in court (if the agency chooses to pursue the issue) when the accused points out something like this:

"I did something that was entirely legal under a previous ATF interpretation of the law, but am now charged with a crime for doing exactly the same thing under a later ATF interpretation.  The underlying law has not changed - only the official interpretation and regulation.  It makes no sense for conduct under the same, unchanged law to be legal one day, and illegal the next.  That is nothing more or less than an arbitrary bureaucratic decision.  It is not a change in the law."

I'm sure we'll see and hear a great deal more about this in future.  Meanwhile, if it's important to you to own a firearm or firearms that have not been officially linked to your name through a background check, you have only a very short time available (before the new regulations are implemented) in which to buy it/them from a private seller without going through the official background check process.

Peter

I (and many other independent observers) have been complaining that crime's getting worse - much worse.  Liberal and progressive commenters, on the other hand, are insisting that it's getting better.  Their view may be typified by this article, which I'm posting just as an example.

Homicides Are Plummeting in American Cities

Nationwide, homicides dropped around 20% in 133 cities from the beginning of the year through the end of March compared with the same period in 2023, according to crime-data analyst Jeff Asher, who tabulated statistics from police departments across the country.

. . .

The declines so far in 2024, on top of last year’s drop, mirror the steep declines in homicides of the late 1990s.

“There’s just a ton of places that you can point to that are showing widespread, very positive trends,” said Asher, co-founder of criminal justice consulting firm AH Datalytics. “Nationally, you’re seeing a very similar situation to what you saw in the mid-to-late ’90s. But it’s potentially even larger in terms of the percentages and numbers of the drops.” 

There's more at the link.

Sounds great, doesn't it?  Well . . . until one looks at the reality behind the numbers, that is.

The Collapse in Law Enforcement: As Arrest Rates Plummet, People Have Been Less Willing to Report Crime

The American news media has been working overtime to convince people that violent crime is dramatically falling.

. . .

But, there is a big problem with using the FBI Uniform Crime Report data on crimes reported to police because victims don’t report most crimes ... More importantly, the number of crimes reported to police falls as the arrest rate declines. If people don’t think the police will solve their cases, they are less likely to report them to the police ... This divergence arises for several reasons. In 2021, 37% of police departments stopped reporting crime data to the FBI (including large departments for Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York), and others are underreporting crimes. But also because of the dramatic decline in arrest rates.

Figure 1, presented at the top of this post, illustrates the dramatic drop in arrest rates for violent crimes reported to the police. If you compare the last five years before COVID-19 to 2022, the arrest rate for violent crime across all cities fell by 20%. But for cities with over one million people, it fell by 54%. The drops in arrest rates by type of violent crime ranged from 15% to 27% for all cities and from 38% to 58% for cities with more than one million people ... Comparing the five years from 2015-2019 to the arrest rate in 2022 shows a drop of 33% for all cities and a 63% decline for cities with more than a million people ... only 14.6% of violent crimes result in an arrest ... only 8.4% of all violent crimes resulted in an arrest. For property crimes, the numbers are even worse. With 31.8% of property crimes reported to police and only 11.9% of those reported crimes resulting in an arrest, that means that only 3.8% of all property crimes result in an arrest. For large cities with over a million people, only 1.4% of all property crimes result in an arrest.

Again, more at the link.  Plenty of statistics are provided in graphic form to illustrate the problem.

As to why people are reluctant to report crimes, the answer's obvious.  Left-wing District Attorneys and public prosecutors are minimizing prosecutions, reducing charges, eliminating cash bail, and generally making life as easy as possible for the criminals, rather than the cops.  It's not unusual in a big city to see criminals commit multiple crimes a day, because every time they're arrested, they're out on the street again within a couple of hours.  Here's one example.

Given that reality, store security often doesn't report shoplifting, because the penalties have been reduced to no more than a slap on the wrist.  Police don't bother arresting offenders that they know will be out on the street within hours, or at most a day or two, after being charged.  Citizens don't bother reporting crimes that they know won't be dealt with by police.  All that makes criminals bolder, and boosts the chances that they'll graduate from low-level, non-violent crime to more aggressive offenses.  They develop an attitude of invincibility ("The cops can't touch me!"), and proceed to test it on more and more serious crimes.  I've heard them boast about it in jail (that used to be my job, remember?).  

The same applies even to homicides.  There are plenty of them that are never reported as such.  I know cops who are quite blatant about it.  To paraphrase one of them:  "Look, I find a body on a street in the hood. Nobody saw anything, nobody heard anything, and if I try to pin anything down, everyone who lives there will get aggressive.  That leads to the precinct boss coming down on me for causing a fuss, and him having to send cops he can't spare to sort it out, and do all that extra report writing and explaining to his bosses.  I just can't win.  So, I call it in as a body I found, without mentioning anything suspicious.  The coroner comes and collects it, and I go on my way.  The coroner won't make a fuss, even if he finds a gun or knife wound.  He's got too much work as it is, and he knows most of those cases are never solved.  Result is, it'll just be filed as another random fatality - anything simple and believable to enter into the books.  I recall one case where a cop and the coroner agreed that a gunshot killing would be entered as an overdose.  Nothing criminal was reported, they both had minimal paperwork, and the precinct was happy because our statistics still looked good.  What, you think someone might dig up the body five years later to check?  Doesn't happen."

Murders involving someone with a family who cares, or someone of influence, will be investigated.  The rest?  There'll be a token effort, but it won't get very far, because detectives can't get very far with such investigations in big cities.  They each have too many cases to start with, and that means their attention is spread so thin that it won't be enough to resolve many of them.  What's more, many poorer families (and those who may not speak English very well, if at all) regard the police as their enemy.  Why would they report a murder of one of their family members when it means they have to deal with the enemy?  Even worse, if a gang is involved, it'll deal harshly with any family that implicates it or its members.  Simpler to just bury their dead, mourn as a family, then move on.  Again, I speak from experience, having dealt with rather a lot of such people.

If anyone tells you crime rates are down and big cities are safer, you know at once that they're either misinformed or lying.  Don't believe them.

Peter

It's hard to feel much sympathy for the deceased in this faked crime.

Rasshauud Scott, 22, was seen on surveillance footage late Jan. 27 running up to a couple filling up their car at a Chevron gas station in Houston, Texas, according to court documents shared by Fox News Digital.

After seemingly robbing the pair of a purse and wallet, he turned and ran — before an alarmed witness pulled out a gun and shot him in the head, killing him, the affidavit notes.

However, a series of messages later showed that Scott wasn’t even really robbing the couple — with his widow, Sade Beverly, telling cops it “was a set up” as part of an ongoing crime ring, the docs said.

His alleged accomplice, William Winfrey, 30, told Scott the fatal robbery would be the “usual gas pump s–t,” telling him to “make all that s–t look real,” according to the affidavit.

In a police interview, one of the pretend victims “confirmed that the robbery was in fact a set-up, and the purpose of the scheme is to obtain a U-visa,” the affidavit said.

That refers to “U Nonimmigrant Status,” which is granted to victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to authorities investigating or prosecuting suspects.

Police then realized there was a “pattern” of similar reported robberies — and that the victims “had applied for, or been granted U-visas due to their status as victims of these crimes,” the affidavit said.

Winfrey was arrested Wednesday and charged with murder in connection with Scottt’s death. He was denied bond Monday.

There's more at the link.

I've learned to assume that at least one in five of the people I see around me every day in north Texas are armed.  It used to be less, but now that Texas is a constitutional carry state (i.e. not requiring a permit to carry a gun), it could well be more.  People are fed up with criminals trying to make an easy buck off locals;  and they're ready, willing and able to do something about it.  Texas grand juries, too, have frequently proved to be less than sympathetic to deceased criminals, often no-true-billing those who shot them even when strictly speaking, they didn't have sufficient legal grounds to do so.  (See this recent case, also in Houston, for an example.)

Congratulations and thanks to the bystander who shot the criminal.  He obviously feared getting into trouble for his actions, because he initially fled, but he later handed himself over to police and was exonerated of any offense.  Scott's partner in crime, however, now stands accused of murder, because he was part of a crime that resulted in a death.  That's entirely as it should be, IMHO.  The late Mr. Scott thought he could get away with the same fake crime, repeatedly.  He learned better - or, rather, his surviving family and friends learned better.  It's a pity he no longer has that opportunity, but that's his own fault.

Peter

The gang violence currently convulsing Haiti is no accident.  It's the result of deliberate efforts by politicians to use the gangs for their own purposes - until the gangs decided they could do the same for themselves, without needing the politicians.

A 1990s embargo was imposed after the military overthrew President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The embargo and the international isolation devastated the country’s small middle class, said Michael Deibert, author of “Notes From the Last Testament: The Struggle for Haiti,” and “Haiti Will Not Perish: A Recent History.”

After a U.S.-backed U.N. force pushed out the coup's leaders in 1994, a World Bank-sponsored structural adjustment led to the importation of rice from the U.S. and devastated rural agricultural society, Deibert said.

Boys without work flooded into Port-au-Prince and joined gangs. Politicians started using them as a cheap armed wing. Aristide, a priest-turned-politician, gained notoriety for using gangsters.

In December 2001, police official Guy Philippe attacked the National Palace in an attempted coup and Aristide called on the gangsters to rise from the slums, Deibert said.

“It wasn’t the police defending their government’s Palais Nacional,” remembered Deibert, who was there. “It was thousands of armed civilians.”

“Now, you have these different politicians that have been collaborating with these gangs for years, and ... it blew up in their face,” he continued.

How did weak foreign intervention hurt Haiti?

Many of the gangs retreated in the face of MINUSTAH, a U.N. force established in 2004.

Rene Preval, the only democratically elected president to win and complete two terms in a country notorious for political upheaval, took a hard line on the gangs, giving them the choice to “disarm or be killed,” said Robert Fatton, professor of government and foreign affairs at the University of Virginia.

After his presidency, subsequent leaders were at best easy on the gangs and at worst tied to them, he said.

Fatton said every key actor in Haitian society had their gangs, noting that the current situation isn't unique, but that it has deteriorated at a faster pace.

“For the last the three years, the gangs started to gain autonomy. And now they are a power unto themselves,” he said, likening them to a “mini-Mafia state.”

“The autonomy of the gangs has reached a critical point. It is why they are capable now of imposing certain conditions on the government itself," Fatton said.

"Those who created the gangs created a monster. And now the monster may not be totally in charge, but it has the capacity to block any kind of solution,” he said.

There's more at the link.

Why is this reminiscent - and perhaps prescient - of the situation in Chicago, where youth gangs have been running amok for years?  Here are a few headlines from the past decade:

28 Arrested In Mob Attacks On Mag Mile, Red Line

As Chicago magazine pointed out more than a decade ago:  "In some parts of Chicago, violent street gangs and pols quietly trade money and favors for mutual gain. The thugs flourish, the elected officials thrive—and you lose."

A few months before last February’s citywide elections, Hal Baskin’s phone started ringing. And ringing. Most of the callers were candidates for Chicago City Council, seeking the kind of help Baskin was uniquely qualified to provide.

Baskin isn’t a slick campaign strategist. He’s a former gang leader and, for several decades, a community activist who now operates a neighborhood center that aims to keep kids off the streets ... In all, he says, he helped broker meetings between roughly 30 politicians (ten sitting aldermen and 20 candidates for City Council) and at least six gang representatives.

. . .

At some of the meetings, the politicians arrived with campaign materials and occasionally with aides. The sessions were organized much like corporate-style job fairs. The gang representatives conducted hourlong interviews, one after the other, talking to as many as five candidates in a single evening. Like supplicants, the politicians came into the room alone and sat before the gang representatives, who sat behind a long table. “One candidate said, ‘I feel like I’m in the hot seat,’” recalls Baskin. “And they were.”

The former chieftains, several of them ex-convicts, represented some of the most notorious gangs on the South and West Sides, including the Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples, Black Disciples, Cobras, Black P Stones, and Black Gangsters. Before the election, the gangs agreed to set aside decades-old rivalries and bloody vendettas to operate as a unified political force, which they called Black United Voters of Chicago. “They realized that if they came together, they could get the politicians to come to them,” explains Baskin.

. . .

But in the end, as with most things political in Chicago, it all came down to one question, says Davis, the community activist who helped Baskin with some of the meetings. He recalls that the gang representatives asked, “What can you give me?” The politicians, most eager to please, replied, “What do you want?”

Again, more at the link.

And what's the result of all this?  The gangs flourish, street crime is rampant, and the police are effectively not allowed to do their job through being defunded, restricted and vilified by politicians and "community activists".  Examples:

Admittedly, Chicago's gang problem has not deteriorated to the same extent as Haiti's:  but it hasn't been solved, either.  That's partly because in years past, it was largely confined to a few inner-city suburbs where gangs effectively operated in a "safe haven" - police didn't go there unless they had to.  Now, the gang culture and violence that's permeated those areas is spilling over into the central business district and other areas, and the police have been so hamstrung by budget cuts and official sanctions that they simply can't control it.

Will Chicago become like Haiti?  Hopefully not, because the authorities will crack down before that occurs:  but given the evidence of the past decade or two, and political collusion with criminal gangs as described above, it's certainly not impossible.

Nor is Chicago alone.  Look at youth mobs and gang violence in other large US cities, particularly where "imported" gangs from South America have set up new bases after flooding across our southern border, thanks to the Biden administration's policies.  There are headlines about them on an almost daily basis in New York City and elsewhere.  Note, too, that many of Haiti's gangsters have made the same journey, bringing with them the same attitudes and ruthlessness they displayed there.

Haiti is not yet a predictive model for the USA . . . but it might become one for some of our inner-city ghettoes and adjacent areas, unless our politicians wake up and do something about it.  Trouble is, too many of those politicians are behaving like Haiti's, and viewing gangs as a resource to exploit.  That way lies chaos and anarchy.

Peter

I refer to Seismic High Mass Ammunition, which offers very-heavy-for-caliber rounds in 12ga. shotgun slugs and 9mm. cartridges.  Their slogan appears to be "Heavier Hits Harder".

I've often been asked by readers and other acquaintances what I think of ammunition for which better-than-standard and/or super-high performance is claimed.  There's the Glaser Safety Slug, the infamous (and discredited) RBCD Performance Plus ammunition, the impressively named R.I.P. rounds from G2, and a host of others.  Seismic joins a long line of companies who've claimed that their ammunition is significantly better than the norm for one reason or another.

Unfortunately, all of its predecessors have failed a simple acid test.  There are people out there - not just police, who are often budget-constrained, but special forces units, private security firms contracting to governments, and so on - who literally depend for their lives upon the performance of their weapons and ammunition.  It's not just the organizations, either:  it's their individual members, most of whom earn enough to buy whatever extra gear they want, and who aren't about to waste their own money on something that's all hat and no cattle.  To the best of my knowledge, none of these units and their individual members carry any of these "specialty" rounds, because they don't perform better than standard defensive ammunition when push comes to shove.  If they did, such purchasers would be all over them.  The fact that they're not tells its own story.

Some of these ammo manufacturers have made vague claims about "As used by special forces", or something like that:  but if you press them, to pin down exactly which special forces they're talking about, they evade the issue by saying that they're contractually forbidden from identifying them.  Yeah, right.  You can rest assured that operators "on the ground" would be talking about it to their buddies if they found some hot new technology that really worked.  The almost complete absence of such chatter says it all.

If you want to take guesswork out of the equation, the solution is simple.  Buy ammunition that's been tested and approved, and is currently issued, by major law enforcement agencies and/or major security organizations.  They know what they're doing, and they trust the lives of their members to the ammunition they buy.  That's not a bad litmus test for the rest of us, and is why I carry rounds like Federal's HST or Hornady's Critical Duty in my defensive handguns.  If I have to go to court over a defensive shooting, no lawyer will be able to allege that I bought super-enhanced-lethality ammo because I wanted to "blow away" his client.  No, I'll have used rounds that any police agency might use.  That will be a perfectly adequate defense against such claims.

Peter