#Jeffrey Rosen

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Mark Sumner at Daily Kos:

Donald Trump is trying to use the Department of Justice as a weapon, claiming that, because of his conviction on 34 felony counts, he has “every right” to go after political opponents should he be elected in November. This isn’t new for Trump. In 2017, he pushed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to prosecute Hillary Clinton. Later, he drove Attorney General William Barr to investigate ludicrous claims against President Joe Biden, resulting in a series of embarrassing international trips to support a baseless conspiracy theory. 

Trump’s four years in office were all about politicizing the DOJ by breaking down the barriers intended to keep the department from being used as a cudgel by the White House. His desire to hurt his opponents isn’t new, but the threat he represents is infinitely greater than it was four years ago. The only thing that stood in Trump’s way during his four years in the White House was a kind of institutional momentum. Enough career officials remained in place that Trump faced strong pushback. Even Sessions, Barr, and acting Attorney General Jeffery Rosen had limits on where they would go for Trump. But that won’t be a problem if he returns to Washington.  Trump has already made it clear that he intends to purge the federal government of impartial career officials and replace them with Trump loyalists. Project 2025 is centered around destroying the DOJ's impartiality and turning it into an attack dog for Trump.

Even before Trump went to trial in New York, Republicans were lamenting the weaponization of the justice system. Those complaints were supercharged after Trump was convicted. As always seems to be the case, the GOP is accusing Democrats of something that it’s already doing. In this case, it’s not just deflection; It’s an excuse to vastly increase the level of politicization in the justice system. As The Washington Post reports, Republicans aren’t just crossing their fingers and hoping that Trump gets his hands on the DOJ a second time. They’re moving forward with an aggressive plan to blunt the effectiveness of the DOJ and target Trump’s enemies ahead of the election.

[...] Punishing entire states for refusing to let Trump escape prosecution has become a popular theme among Republicans. It’s unclear how such a plan would work, but Republicans are expected to attach defunding federal investigations into Trump to upcoming must-pass legislation.  Republicans are also expected to pass along more criminal referrals, like the ones targeting Hunter and James Biden on Wednesday, which allow Republicans to pretend they’ve found crimes by political opponents, then attack the DOJ for failing to follow up on their make-believe evidence.

[...] Trump spent four years knocking holes in that wall between the White House and the DOJ, and he’s been furthering that damage even while out of office. As bad as Barr, Sessions, and Rosen were as attorney generals—and they were awful—they won’t be a patch on what’s to come. The GOP isn’t waiting for Trump to carry out his quest for retribution. They're getting a head start by urging Republican attorney generals and Congress to use every tool they can find to attack Biden and Democrats ahead of the election. 

The GOP is weaponizing the DOJ and playing lawfare games to enact revenge on Donald Trump's opponents to aid and abet in his crime spree. If Trump gets elected again, what remains of the DOJ's impartialness will erode and become a fiefdom for Trump's lawlessness.

[badmovieihave]

Bad movie I have Deathtrap 1982

[minnesotafollower]

Other Comments on David Brooks’ Column  on “the Bad Guys”  

The New York Times’ on August 2 published a David Brooks’ column entitled, “What If We’re the Bad Guys Here?”[1] and on August 9 this blogger published his blog post about that column.[2] Now on August 12 the Times published the following comments by nine readers of that column.[3] Michael Hadjiargyrou (Centerport, N.Y.) “I am sick and tired of people like Mr. Brooks telling me that I am the…

[softiedancers]

TDA Las Vegas 2024 Best Dancer Predictions!

mini female

stella brinkerhoff

belle marie arauz

savannah jackson

mini male

chase lang

brody schaffer

jeffrey wu

junior female

skylar wong

finley ashfield

lilly anderson

junior male

matthew conway

grayson niemcsyk

lincoln russo

teen female

taylor morrison

kira chan

kylie kaminsky

teen male

logan asuncion

gabriel kleeman

zachary roy

senior female

hailey bills

izzy howard

keira redpath

beth anne mcgowan

senior male

hudson pletcher

caleb abea

drew rosen

alonzo dock

these were my initial thoughts based purely off 1 watch of their recompete solos! i’m so back and forth on mini female, junior female, and senior male. it’s such a toss up. i’ll rewatch the solos and make any changes before saturday!

[uboat53]

Cabinet Endorsements

One thing that's flown a bit below the radar in this election is that former cabinet members haven't been acting like they usually do. Normally, former cabinet members will automatically endorse their former boss for re-election, but Trump's have not been doing that.

This is of particular interest because, while we, the voters, get to see the President give speeches and the like, we don't actually work with him. Presumably a cabinet member is someone who agrees with the president and who the president trusts and who gets to work closely with the president, so their opinion of the president is an important benchmark.

With that in mind, let's take a look at the 44 former cabinet members of the Donald J. Trump administration and the 2 former cabinet members of the Joseph R. Biden administration. I'll put an (E) next to the ones that have endorsed their former boss, an (H) next to the ones who haven't yet, and an (R) next to the ones who have outright refused to do so.

Cabinet Members of the Donald J. Trump Administration (R) VP Mike Pence (H) Sec. State Rex Tillerson (H) Sec. State/CIA Director Mike Pompeo (E) Sec. Treasury Steven Mnuchin (R) Sec. Defense James Mattis (H) Sec. Defense Patrick Shanahan (nominated) (R) Sec. Defense Mark Esper (H) Sec. Defense Christopher Miller (acting) (H) AG Jeff Sessions (R) AG William Barr (H) AG Jeffrey Rosen (acting) (E) Sec. Interior Ryan Zinke (H) Sec. Interior David Bernhardt (H) Sec. Agriculture Sonny Perdue (E) Sec. Commerce Wilbur Ross (H) Sec. Labor Andrew Puzder (nominated) (H) Sec. Labor Alex Acosta (H) Sec. Labor Eugene Scalia (H) Sec. HHS Tom Price (H) Sec. HHS Alex Azar (H) Sec. HHS Pete Gaynor (E) Sec. HUD Ben Carson (H) Sec. Transporation Elaine Chao (H) Sec. Transportation Steven Bradbury (acting) (H) Sec. Energy Rick Perry (H) Sec. Energy Dan Brouillette (H) Sec. Education Besty DeVos (H) Sec. Education Mick Zais (acting) (H) Sec. VA David Shulkin (E) Sec. VA Ronny Jackson (nominated) (H) Sec. VA Robert Wilkie (R) Sec. HS John Kelly (H) Sec. HS Kirstjen Nielsen (H) Sec. HS Chad Wolf (nominated) (E) US Trade Rep. Robert Lighthizer (H) DNI Dan Coats (H) DNI John Ratcliffe (H) UN Ambassador Nikki Haley (H) OMB Directory Mick Mulvaney (E) OMB Director Russel Vought (H) CIA Director Gina Haspel (H) EPA Admin. Scott Pruitt (H) EPA Admin. Andrew Wheeler (H) SBA Admin. Linda McMahon (H) SBA Admin. Jovita Caranza

Cabinet Members of the Joseph R. Biden Administration (E) Sec. Labor Marty Walsh (E) OMB Director Neera Tanden (nominated) (H) Office of Science and Tech. Director Eric Lander

The first thing we notice, obviously, is that there are a whole lot more former Trump cabinet members. This is partially because Biden is still in office so his 23 current cabinet members are not counted (it'd be a huge surprise if they didn't endorse him and they probably wouldn't still be working for him if they didn't), but it's also because Trump had way above average turnover for cabinet officials, 19 in the first four years not including the 5 who resigned due to his handling of the 2020 election results (not included because Biden hasn't reached that point in his first term yet), while Biden has had far below average turnover, only 3 so far.

So a lot more people shuffling in and out of the Trump administration, but we also notice a ton more H's than E's there. Heck, there's almost as many R's among Trump's people as there are E's (5 to 7). Meanwhile, Biden's shooting 2 for 3 and the third one hasn't (at least not that I could find) ruled out endorsing him.

Keep in mind, endorsing the nominee of your party is pretty much the bare minimum that any party operative needs to do. Imagine if you applied for a job somewhere, the first question was "do you think this company should be in business", and you answered "no". You probably wouldn't be getting a job there. In other words, refusing to endorse has some big consequences for the people doing it, not just costing them a job in the potential next Republican presidency, but locking them out of the party entirely, and yet a good deal of the people who worked for Trump disliked working with him so much that they're doing it anyways.

As I said, this tends to fly below the radar because it's kind of a formulaic ritual; of course members of the President's party who are closely tied to him are going to endorse him for re-election! That's why you should pay attention now that most of the people who've worked with Trump aren't doing so. It says something, something big.

[my-deer-friend]

Jeffrey Rosen's The Pursuit of Happiness might just be the 21st century answer to Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. I'm only a little of the way in, but it's already one of the most insightful books I've read in a long time. Wow.

[p21blackandgold]

final tda vegas predictions 💃🪩🤩

MINI FEMALE

Winner: Stella Brinkerhoff

1st RU: Belle Marie Arauz

2nd RU: Savannah Jackson

MINI MALE

Winner: Chase Lang

1st RU: Brody Schaffer

2nd RU: Jeffrey Wu

JUNIOR FEMALE

Winner: Finley Ashfield

1st RU: Skylar Wong

2nd RU: Lilly Anderson

JUNIOR MALE

Winner: Lincoln Russo

1st RU: Matthew Conway

2nd RU: Grayson Niemcsyk

TEEN FEMALE

Winner: Taylor Morrison

1st RU: Kylie Kaminsky

2nd RU: Kira Chan

TEEN MALE

Winner: Logan Asuncion

1st RU: Gabriel Kleeman

2nd RU: Zachary Roy

SENIOR FEMALE

Winner: Keira Redpath

1st RU: Hailey Bills

2nd RU: Izzy Howard

3rd RU: Beth Anne McGowan

SENIOR MALE

Winner: Hudson Pletcher

1st RU: Caleb Abea

2nd RU: Drew Rosen

3rd RU: Alonzo Dock

i do not envy the judges at all lol, most of these could go to anyone in the top 3/4

[movies-to-add-to-your-tbw]

Title: Dorian Gray

Rating: R

Director: Oliver Parker

Cast: Ben Barnes, Colin Firth, Rebecca Hall, Emilia Fox, Ben Chaplin, Fiona Shaw, Caroline Goodall, Maryam d'Abo, Douglas Henshall, Rachel Hurd-Wood, Max Irons, John Hollingworth, Pip Torrens, Michael Culkin, Nathan Rosen, Jeffrey Lipman Sr, Jo Woodcock

Release year: 2009

Genres: thriller, fantasy, drama

Blurb: Seduced into the decadent world of Lord Henry Wotton, handsome young aristocrat Dorian Gray becomes obsessed with maintaining his youthful appearance, and commissions a special portrait that will weather the winds of time while he remains forever young. When his obsession spirals out of control, his desperate attempts to safeguard his secret turn his once-privileged life into a living hell.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

On the first day of the new Congress, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) delivered one of the nominating speeches for Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who was seeking the House Speakership. Jordan bemoaned a “government that has been weaponized” against the American people and called for greater accountability. The next day, during a second round of failed votes for McCarthy, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), the leader of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, voiced a similar sentiment but in opposing McCarthy: “Washington is broken… We have an administration that has contempt for the American people.” Though the two men were on different sides in this battle royal, they were united in hypocrisy, for each of these decriers of abusive power had been collaborators in Donald Trump’s public crusade to promote the lies about the 2020 election that led to the January 6 insurrectionist attack on the Capitol and in Trump’s devious plotting to overturn the election and upend American democracy.

Their roles in the House GOP’s crapshow illustrated a profound fact largely overlooked in this hullabaloo: The political chaos that brought the House of Representatives to a standstill was being perpetuated by a party that two years earlier had tried to sabotage the republic and had championed falsehoods and conspiracy theories that led to seditious violence in the very chamber where the Speakership fight was now occurring. Of the 222 Republicans currently in the House GOP caucus, 119 had on January 6, 2021, after the Trump-incited riot, affirmed the false charge of a stolen election by voting to block certification of Joe Biden’s victory. This group included most of the anti-McCarthy bloc, among them Reps. Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, and Ralph Norman, who in January 2021 texted then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows that Trump should consider “Marshall Law” to remain in office. And this group included McCarthy.

The GOP civil war in the House was being fought over whether to elevate an election denier who had helped spread the Big Lie that spurred violence to a position that is second in the line of presidential succession. Yet McCarthy’s participation in that assault on democracy was not an issue. For Republicans, it was a prerequisite.

Though most Republicans elected to the new Congress share culpability for January 6 and the failed effort to blow up the 2020 election, Perry and Jordan stand out for their significant participation in Trump’s anti-constitutional and arguably criminal caper.

The House January 6 committee’s report details Perry as a key conspirator in one of Trump’s plots to reverse the election. After the 2020 election was called, Perry was a prominent cheerleader of Trump’s fraudulent claim the election had been stolen from him. He was one of 27 Republican House members who signed a letter requesting that Trump “direct Attorney General Barr to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate irregularities in the 2020 election.” He attended a December 21 Oval Office meeting with at least 10 other congressional Republicans to discuss a strategy for objecting to the electoral college votes on January 6. And with 125 other House Republicans, he supported Texas’ lawsuit that called for throwing out the votes of Pennsylvania and three other states.

But Perry outdid other GOP election deniers with his behind-the-scenes scheming to corrupt the Justice Department.

In late December 2020, after Barr resigned (having told Trump privately and stated publicly there was no evidence of any significant electoral fraud), Trump relentlessly leaned on the Justice Department—mainly, Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and his deputy, Richard Donoghue—to affirm his baseless assertion that the election had been rigged. They resisted and repeatedly told Trump the allegations of fraud were untrue. Trump was not getting what he wanted from the department.

This is where Perry came in. He found a Justice Department official named Jeffrey Clark who was running the Environment and Natural Resources Division. Clark had nothing to do with investigating the allegations of election fraud, but he was willing to echo and legitimize Trump’s false charges. Perry introduced Clark to Trump, arranging a meeting between the two in the Oval Office on December 22. As the January 6 Committee noted, “Clark’s contact with President Trump violated both Justice Department and White House policies designed to prevent political pressure on the Department.”

Perry also sent numerous text messages to Meadows urging that Clark be promoted within the department, presumably to a position in which he could compel the Justice Department to assist Trump’s bid to retain power. In one message, Perry referred to the upcoming certification of the electoral vote and declared, “11 days to 1/6… We gotta get going!”

Though Rosen and Donoghue ordered Clark to have no further contact with Trump, Clark continued to meet with Trump and Perry. Perry also directly confronted the Justice Department about its refusal to back up Trump’s false allegations. He called Donoghue on December 27 and assailed the FBI and the department for not finding evidence of election fraud. He added that “Clark would do something about this.”

That night, Perry emailed Donoghue material alleging that election authorities in Pennsylvania had counted 200,000 or so more votes than had been cast—a claim that he and Trump raised publicly. No such thing had happened. Perry was spreading disinformation in an attempt to disenfranchise the voters of his own state.

Meanwhile, Clark—Perry’s man at the Justice Department—was pushing an underhanded plan to keep Trump in power. This included proposing to send a letter to the state legislature of Georgia—and those of other swing states—that falsely declared 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.” The letter recommended that the state legislature call a special session to evaluate potential election fraud. The draft of this letter referred to the fake electors that Trump and his campaign had organized.

When Rosen and Donoghue refused to sign this letter, Trump moved to boot Rosen and replace him with Clark. At a combative Oval Office meeting on January 3, Rosen, Donoghue, White House counsel Pat Cipollone and others strenuously opposed Clark’s appointment and told Trump it would lead to massive resignations at the department. Only then did Trump retreat on appointing Clark acting attorney general. This attempt to enlist the Justice Department for a coup was over.

The Trump-Clark scheme, in which Perry was a major plotter, was cited by the House January 6 committee in its final report as one basis for its criminal referral of Trump and others. And apparently Perry had some concerns for his own legal safety. According to the committee, after January 6, he reached out to White House staff and asked to receive a presidential pardon. (He did not receive one.)

In August, the FBI seized Perry’s cell phone, presumably as part of its investigation of the Trump-Clark operation. Perry claimed he was told he was not the subject of an investigation. The January 6 committee subpoenaed Perry, but he refused to show up for a deposition, and the committee subsequently referred him to the House Ethics Committee for sanction for failing to comply with the subpoena.

As for Jim Jordan, the January 6 committee declared he was “a significant player in President Trump’s efforts.” It noted:

"He participated in numerous post-election meetings in which senior White House officials, Rudolph Giuliani, and others, discussed strategies for challenging the election, chief among them claims that the election had been tainted by fraud. On January 2, 2021, Representative Jordan led a conference call in which he, President Trump, and other Members of Congress discussed strategies for delaying the January 6th joint session. During that call, the group also discussed issuing social media posts encouraging President Trump’s supporters to ‘march to the Capitol’ on the 6th."

The committee’s report points out that Jordan was in touch with Meadows and Trump in the days before the January 6 riot. On January 5, he texted Meadows that Vice President Mike Pence should “call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.” That is, Jordan was urging an unconstitutional action to achieve a Trump power-grab that would thwart the peaceful transfer of power.

On January 6, Jordan spoke with Trump at least twice, and, according to the committee, “he has provided inconsistent public statements about how many times they spoke and what they discussed.” He also spoke to Rudy Giuliani at least twice in the hours after the riot, as Giuliani continued to encourage members of Congress to block the certification of the election. In the following days, the committee noted, Jordan discussed with White House staffers the prospect of presidential pardons for members of Congress.

Like Perry, Jordan was subpoenaed by the January 6 committee and refused to cooperate, earning a referral to the House Ethics Committee—as did McCarthy. The committee wanted information from McCarthy regarding his conversations with Trump and Pence on and about January 6. He, too, would not cooperate.

As the McCarthy drama has played out, critical participants have been election deniers who not long ago sought to undermine democracy and whose actions led to the domestic terrorism of January 6. McCarthy’s foes, his defenders, and McCarthy himself all were part of the efforts to subvert the Constitution following Biden’s victory. Moreover, whatever happens with McCarthy, these enemies of democracy will end up with important positions in the House. Jordan is expected to become chair of the Judiciary Committee. Perry will likely remain chair of the House Freedom Caucus, which will continue as a band of extremists and plague whichever Republican becomes speaker. This absurd speakership fight is a reminder that Republicans who tried to annihilate the constitutional order and who bolstered conspiracy theories and lies that ignited violence have attained power and influence. The guilty have been rewarded.

[trmpt]

Jeffrey Rosen

“The allegations in the indictment of Donald Trump for conspiring to overturn the election of 2020 represent the American Founders’ nightmare. A key concern of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton was that demagogues would incite mobs and factions to defy the rule of law, overturn free and fair elections and undermine American democracy. “The only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1790. “When a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper…is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity,” Hamilton warned, “he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”’

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jill Filipovic:

Hi readers, and welcome to the first edition of an issue-by-issue breakdown of what a Trump presidency might mean for some of the most important issues in the US and abroad. It’s easy to toss around general warnings about how dangerous and dictatorial Trump might be, but it’s probably more useful to go issue by issue and assess what Trump and those likely to work for him have said, proposed, or promised.

I’m starting with what I think will be the most significant for the largest number of Americans, and what could truly create an unfixable problem that plunges the country into chaos: Executive power. Sounds boring! Is actually really important. And the Supreme Court’s decision to radically expand presidential immunity from criminal prosecution has made many of these executive power-grabs not only more possible, but more dangerous. This installment will focus specifically on what near-limitless executive power might mean for the Department of Justice. Subsequent ones will look at the Fed, the Federal Communications Commission, and other key agencies. The basic fact to understand about Trump’s planned executive power grab is that he will take what are typically nonpartisan and crucial agencies that work through many many presidencies and force them to do his bidding. This means he could make the Fed lower interest rates because it’s an election year or otherwise turn the short-term economic dial in his favor, even if that would essentially turn the US economy into a hellscape and make it so the US is no longer a steady, reliable economic force upon which much of the world’s financial stability depends. He could use the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to tank media outlets that challenge him or accurately report on him. He could use the Department of Justice (DOJ) to target his adversaries. And on and on.

[...]

What This Means for the Department of Justice

One of the agencies Trump and his team have their eye on is the DOJ. During Trump’s first term, the DOJ’s independence was a pervasive thorn in his side. The former president was under the impression that the Attorney General worked directly for him, and should imply carry out his orders and directives.

“You know, the saddest thing is that because I’m the president of the United States, I am not supposed to be involved with the Justice Department,” Trump told one radio interviewer. “I am not supposed to be involved with the F.B.I. I’m not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I’m very frustrated by it.” He regretted his decision to appoint several very right-wing attorneys general because even those men — proponents of broad executive power, and men very willing to do the president’s bidding — had some lines they wouldn’t cross. He was angry at Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself during the Mueller investigation and that Sessions wouldn’t use the DOJ to investigate Hillary Clinton; Trump eventually fired him. Trump was angrier still at Sessions’s replacement, Attorney General Bill Barr, for not going along with his claims that the 2020 election was rife with fraud and stolen out from under him. The tension between the two eventually became untenable, and Barr stepped down.

Not everyone at the DOJ stood up to Trump. One high-ranking DOJ employee, Jeff Clark, aided Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and found himself in legal hot water from DC to Georgia. Trump almost made Clark acting Attorney General after Jeffrey Rosen, who replaced Barr, also refused to go along with Trump’s plans to undermine the election results. Clark has a radical theory of executive power, arguing that the DOJ is simply not an independent agency — it should be under the control of the president. This is increasingly the view that the Trump team is adopting. The Heritage Foundation and other right-wing architects of Project 2025 — the closest thing we have to a Trump 2024 agenda — also insist that the DOJ needs “a top-to-bottom overhaul.” Part of that, Project 2025 says, requires the Trump administration to “prepare a plan to end immediately any policies, investigations, or cases that run contrary to law or Administration policies.” And they are clear that the DOJ needs to shift from an independent agency to one under Trump’s direct control”.

[...]

So what are Trump’s priorities for a DOJ he controls? And what are his allies promoting? Here’s a smattering of the publicly-stated proposals on the table:

Prosecute political opponents and those Trump believes have wronged him. In July, Trump reposted calls on TruthSocial for “televised military tribunals” and the imprisonment of a slew of his critics, from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris to Chuck Schumer to Nancy Pelosi to his own former vice president, Mike Pence, among many many others. This is far from the first time the former president has argued that those who oppose him should be behind bars. A DOJ under his authority is a DOJ that can be used to criminally target those he sees as a threat, or those from whom he simply wants retribution.

Execute more prisoners. Project 2025 is clear: It wants the DOJ to ramp up executions, and essentially clear out its Death Row — due process (or basic humanity) be damned.

Arrest and prosecute more civilians. Arrest and prosecute district attorneys who don’t comply. According to both Trump and Project 2025, many liberal cities and states have fallen down on their obligation to reduce crime. This doesn’t quite comport with the facts — crime is down nationally since its high point during Trump’s first term, and Republican-run cities tend to have higher crime rates than Democratic-run ones — but facts here are largely irrelevant inconveniences. And the Project 2025 plan isn’t just for the DOJ to step in and bigfoot local law enforcement; it’s to prosecute district attorneys and other local law enforcement officials if the Trump administration decides they aren’t doing enough to be tough on crime.

Deploy the military and the National Guard to hunt down undocumented immigrants. I’ll get into this more in the immigration installment of this series, but a plan articulated by both Project 2025 and Trump himself is to deploy the military, the National Guard, and even local militias to round up undocumented people for placement in internment camps and eventual deportation.

End all investigations into the administration itself. Should the president break the law, the DOJ will be told to look the other way. (And the Supreme Court has already given the president a green light to break the law with impunity).

End all policies that conflict with the administration’s priorities. The example Project 2025 uses for this? Criminal prosecutions of abortion clinic protesters who turn violent or otherwise break the law.

Go to bat for the president’s agenda no matter what. And face discipline for asking to be removed from a case or pushing back on what the administration wants.

End the work of the Civil Rights Division as we know it. Instead of doing what the Civil Rights Division long has — investigating and prosecuting civil rights violations — a Trump DOJ should, according to Project 2025, ensure that the Civil Rights Division spends “its first year under the next Administration using the full force of federal prosecutorial resources to investigate and prosecute all state and local governments, institutions of higher education, corporations, and any other private employers who are engaged in discrimination in violation of constitutional and legal requirements.” To translate that from right-wing-speak: The Civil Rights Division should not worry about civil rights violations, but should instead target governments, colleges, companies, and private employers who so much as talk about racial, gender, and other inequities, or seek to end those inequities in their spaces.

Stop focusing on voter suppression and start focusing on voter “fraud.” One of the Civil Rights Division’s tasks over the past several decades has been to investigate claims of voter suppression. There is a long history in the United States of Black voters in particular being prevented from casting ballots; the Civil Rights Acts of the late 1960s sought to remedy this ugly reality, and the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has since then paid at least some attention to it. Not under a Trump administration. Instead, efforts to make sure American citizens can vote will be redirected to specious claims of election fraud and interference — to make sure that Americans are voting the way Trump and his right-wing supporters want them to vote. Project 2025 recommends moving election-related cases and investigations away from the Civil Rights Division and to the Criminal Division — an effort to criminalize state officials who don’t toe the line, and to count fewer ballots.

Criminalize the abortion pill. I’ll have more on this in the abortion section of this series, but Trump and those around him are preparing to use the Victorian-era Comstock laws, which criminalized the mailing of “obscene” materials including contraceptive devices and information about abortion, to criminalize abortion pills.

Replace DOJ and FBI employees with Trump loyalists. Just… that.

To be clear: This is not a comprehensive list of all of the plans, proposals, and suggestions flying around. It is almost surely not a comprehensive list of what Trump will do once in office. But it is a list of the ideas that come up again and again, from both conservative advocacy groups with Trump’s ear and from the former president himself.

Jill Filipovic’s What Trump Means For series on the DOJ under Trump is a must-read.

[sunaleisocial]

Quantum simulator could help uncover materials for high-performance electronics

New Post has been published on https://sunalei.org/news/quantum-simulator-could-help-uncover-materials-for-high-performance-electronics/

Quantum simulator could help uncover materials for high-performance electronics

Quantum computers hold the promise to emulate complex materials, helping researchers better understand the physical properties that arise from interacting atoms and electrons. This may one day lead to the discovery or design of better semiconductors, insulators, or superconductors that could be used to make ever faster, more powerful, and more energy-efficient electronics.

But some phenomena that occur in materials can be challenging to mimic using quantum computers, leaving gaps in the problems that scientists have explored with quantum hardware.

To fill one of these gaps, MIT researchers developed a technique to generate synthetic electromagnetic fields on superconducting quantum processors. The team demonstrated the technique on a processor comprising 16 qubits.

By dynamically controlling how the 16 qubits in their processor are coupled to one another, the researchers were able to emulate how electrons move between atoms in the presence of an electromagnetic field. Moreover, the synthetic electromagnetic field is broadly adjustable, enabling scientists to explore a range of material properties.

Emulating electromagnetic fields is crucial to fully explore the properties of materials. In the future, this technique could shed light on key features of electronic systems, such as conductivity, polarization, and magnetization.

“Quantum computers are powerful tools for studying the physics of materials and other quantum mechanical systems. Our work enables us to simulate much more of the rich physics that has captivated materials scientists,” says Ilan Rosen, an MIT postdoc and lead author of a paper on the quantum simulator.

The senior author is William D. Oliver, the Henry Ellis Warren professor of electrical engineering and computer science and of physics, director of the Center for Quantum Engineering, leader of the Engineering Quantum Systems group, and associate director of the Research Laboratory of Electronics. Oliver and Rosen are joined by others in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and of Physics and at MIT Lincoln Laboratory. The research appears today in Nature Physics.

A quantum emulator

Companies like IBM and Google are striving to build large-scale digital quantum computers that hold the promise of outperforming their classical counterparts by running certain algorithms far more rapidly.

But that’s not all quantum computers can do. The dynamics of qubits and their couplings can also be carefully constructed to mimic the behavior of electrons as they move among atoms in solids.

“That leads to an obvious application, which is to use these superconducting quantum computers as emulators of materials,” says Jeffrey Grover, a research scientist at MIT and co-author on the paper.

Rather than trying to build large-scale digital quantum computers to solve extremely complex problems, researchers can use the qubits in smaller-scale quantum computers as analog devices to replicate a material system in a controlled environment.

“General-purpose digital quantum simulators hold tremendous promise, but they are still a long way off. Analog emulation is another approach that may yield useful results in the near-term, particularly for studying materials. It is a straightforward and powerful application of quantum hardware,” explains Rosen. “Using an analog quantum emulator, I can intentionally set a starting point and then watch what unfolds as a function of time.”

Despite their close similarity to materials, there are a few important ingredients in materials that can’t be easily reflected on quantum computing hardware. One such ingredient is a magnetic field.

In materials, electrons “live” in atomic orbitals. When two atoms are close to one another, their orbitals overlap and electrons can “hop” from one atom to another. In the presence of a magnetic field, that hopping behavior becomes more complex.

On a superconducting quantum computer, microwave photons hopping between qubits are used to mimic electrons hopping between atoms. But, because photons are not charged particles like electrons, the photons’ hopping behavior would remain the same in a physical magnetic field.

Since they can’t just turn on a magnetic field in their simulator, the MIT team employed a few tricks to synthesize the effects of one instead.

Tuning up the processor

The researchers adjusted how adjacent qubits in the processor were coupled to each other to create the same complex hopping behavior that electromagnetic fields cause in electrons.

To do that, they slightly changed the energy of each qubit by applying different microwave signals. Usually, researchers will set qubits to the same energy so that photons can hop from one to another. But for this technique, they dynamically varied the energy of each qubit to change how they communicate with each other.

By precisely modulating these energy levels, the researchers enabled photons to hop between qubits in the same complex manner that electrons hop between atoms in a magnetic field.

Plus, because they can finely tune the microwave signals, they can emulate a range of electromagnetic fields with different strengths and distributions.

The researchers undertook several rounds of experiments to determine what energy to set for each qubit, how strongly to modulate them, and the microwave frequency to use.

“The most challenging part was finding modulation settings for each qubit so that all 16 qubits work at once,” Rosen says.

Once they arrived at the right settings, they confirmed that the dynamics of the photons uphold several equations that form the foundation of electromagnetism. They also demonstrated the “Hall effect,” a conduction phenomenon that exists in the presence of an electromagnetic field.

These results show that their synthetic electromagnetic field behaves like the real thing.

Moving forward, they could use this technique to precisely study complex phenomena in condensed matter physics, such as phase transitions that occur when a material changes from a conductor to an insulator.

“A nice feature of our emulator is that we need only change the modulation amplitude or frequency to mimic a different material system. In this way, we can scan over many materials properties or model parameters without having to physically fabricate a new device each time.” says Oliver.

While this work was an initial demonstration of a synthetic electromagnetic field, it opens the door to many potential discoveries, Rosen says.

“The beauty of quantum computers is that we can look at exactly what is happening at every moment in time on every qubit, so we have all this information at our disposal. We are in a very exciting place for the future,” he adds.

This work is supported, in part, by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the U.S. Army Research Office, the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, NASA, and the National Science Foundation. 

[jcmarchi]

Quantum simulator could help uncover materials for high-performance electronics

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/quantum-simulator-could-help-uncover-materials-for-high-performance-electronics/

Quantum simulator could help uncover materials for high-performance electronics

Quantum computers hold the promise to emulate complex materials, helping researchers better understand the physical properties that arise from interacting atoms and electrons. This may one day lead to the discovery or design of better semiconductors, insulators, or superconductors that could be used to make ever faster, more powerful, and more energy-efficient electronics.

But some phenomena that occur in materials can be challenging to mimic using quantum computers, leaving gaps in the problems that scientists have explored with quantum hardware.

To fill one of these gaps, MIT researchers developed a technique to generate synthetic electromagnetic fields on superconducting quantum processors. The team demonstrated the technique on a processor comprising 16 qubits.

By dynamically controlling how the 16 qubits in their processor are coupled to one another, the researchers were able to emulate how electrons move between atoms in the presence of an electromagnetic field. Moreover, the synthetic electromagnetic field is broadly adjustable, enabling scientists to explore a range of material properties.

Emulating electromagnetic fields is crucial to fully explore the properties of materials. In the future, this technique could shed light on key features of electronic systems, such as conductivity, polarization, and magnetization.

“Quantum computers are powerful tools for studying the physics of materials and other quantum mechanical systems. Our work enables us to simulate much more of the rich physics that has captivated materials scientists,” says Ilan Rosen, an MIT postdoc and lead author of a paper on the quantum simulator.

The senior author is William D. Oliver, the Henry Ellis Warren professor of electrical engineering and computer science and of physics, director of the Center for Quantum Engineering, leader of the Engineering Quantum Systems group, and associate director of the Research Laboratory of Electronics. Oliver and Rosen are joined by others in the departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and of Physics and at MIT Lincoln Laboratory. The research appears today in Nature Physics.

A quantum emulator

Companies like IBM and Google are striving to build large-scale digital quantum computers that hold the promise of outperforming their classical counterparts by running certain algorithms far more rapidly.

But that’s not all quantum computers can do. The dynamics of qubits and their couplings can also be carefully constructed to mimic the behavior of electrons as they move among atoms in solids.

“That leads to an obvious application, which is to use these superconducting quantum computers as emulators of materials,” says Jeffrey Grover, a research scientist at MIT and co-author on the paper.

Rather than trying to build large-scale digital quantum computers to solve extremely complex problems, researchers can use the qubits in smaller-scale quantum computers as analog devices to replicate a material system in a controlled environment.

“General-purpose digital quantum simulators hold tremendous promise, but they are still a long way off. Analog emulation is another approach that may yield useful results in the near-term, particularly for studying materials. It is a straightforward and powerful application of quantum hardware,” explains Rosen. “Using an analog quantum emulator, I can intentionally set a starting point and then watch what unfolds as a function of time.”

Despite their close similarity to materials, there are a few important ingredients in materials that can’t be easily reflected on quantum computing hardware. One such ingredient is a magnetic field.

In materials, electrons “live” in atomic orbitals. When two atoms are close to one another, their orbitals overlap and electrons can “hop” from one atom to another. In the presence of a magnetic field, that hopping behavior becomes more complex.

On a superconducting quantum computer, microwave photons hopping between qubits are used to mimic electrons hopping between atoms. But, because photons are not charged particles like electrons, the photons’ hopping behavior would remain the same in a physical magnetic field.

Since they can’t just turn on a magnetic field in their simulator, the MIT team employed a few tricks to synthesize the effects of one instead.

Tuning up the processor

The researchers adjusted how adjacent qubits in the processor were coupled to each other to create the same complex hopping behavior that electromagnetic fields cause in electrons.

To do that, they slightly changed the energy of each qubit by applying different microwave signals. Usually, researchers will set qubits to the same energy so that photons can hop from one to another. But for this technique, they dynamically varied the energy of each qubit to change how they communicate with each other.

By precisely modulating these energy levels, the researchers enabled photons to hop between qubits in the same complex manner that electrons hop between atoms in a magnetic field.

Plus, because they can finely tune the microwave signals, they can emulate a range of electromagnetic fields with different strengths and distributions.

The researchers undertook several rounds of experiments to determine what energy to set for each qubit, how strongly to modulate them, and the microwave frequency to use.

“The most challenging part was finding modulation settings for each qubit so that all 16 qubits work at once,” Rosen says.

Once they arrived at the right settings, they confirmed that the dynamics of the photons uphold several equations that form the foundation of electromagnetism. They also demonstrated the “Hall effect,” a conduction phenomenon that exists in the presence of an electromagnetic field.

These results show that their synthetic electromagnetic field behaves like the real thing.

Moving forward, they could use this technique to precisely study complex phenomena in condensed matter physics, such as phase transitions that occur when a material changes from a conductor to an insulator.

“A nice feature of our emulator is that we need only change the modulation amplitude or frequency to mimic a different material system. In this way, we can scan over many materials properties or model parameters without having to physically fabricate a new device each time.” says Oliver.

While this work was an initial demonstration of a synthetic electromagnetic field, it opens the door to many potential discoveries, Rosen says.

“The beauty of quantum computers is that we can look at exactly what is happening at every moment in time on every qubit, so we have all this information at our disposal. We are in a very exciting place for the future,” he adds.

This work is supported, in part, by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the U.S. Army Research Office, the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, NASA, and the National Science Foundation. 

[delusionaldoxie2]

1. Trump Authors sealed indictment on Traitor Bill Barr 2. Military eliminates Bill Barr

https://inspectorjj.substack.com/p/1trump-authors-sealed-indictment?r=2iy48l Trump Authors Sealed Indictment on William Barr By Michael Baxter – February 24, 2021 41 27474 In a display of confidence that he will soon overturn the 2020 presidential election and return to power, Donald J. Trump, and Jeffrey Rosen, who served as acting AG in the final days of Trump’s presidency, has authored…

[vhawlalawream]

(Alex Lawrence)Friends And Lovers, vocals by Bobby O, lyrics by Alex Lawrence, produced by Jeffrey Scott Rosen

[dankusner]

Meta Directors Accused of Deleting Emails Discussing Cambridge Analytica, FTC Settlement

A motion to sanction two former Meta board members was unsealed by the Court of Chancery Oct. 3.

It alleges messages were destroyed in violation of a litigation hold.

The motion claims Sheryl Sandberg, Meta's former COO, and Jeffrey Zients, now the White House Chief of Staff, used personal email accounts to exchange information relevant to the Cambridge Analytica scandal and resulting FTC investigation that led to a $5 billion settlement.

Prickett, Jones & Elliott, Scott+Scott and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer are co-lead counsel for the shareholder plaintiffs that filed the motion.

The motion comes more than six years after public attention was drawn to Cambridge Analytica accessing millions of Facebook users' data and the first case in what's now a consolidated derivative action against Meta was filed in the Delaware court.

Despite Sandberg and Zients being notified of a litigation hold requiring them to preserve any documentation related to derivative cases in March 2018, responses to interrogatories in March of this year showed each had communicated about legal proceedings on personal accounts, the motion alleges, and had failed to preserve those messages.

The answers to those interrogatories allegedly showed Sandberg had been using a personal email account to communicate information potentially relevant to the case using a pseudonym.

It states Sandberg had a practice of deleting emails after 30 days, while Zients' personal account automatically deleted emails after six months during his tenure on Meta's board.

"Sandberg's email destruction was intentional," the motion states.

"Her interrogatory response makes no reference to an automatic deletion mechanism.

Instead, despite the legal hold and while this action was pending, Sandberg 'deleted emails from her Gmail account that are over 30 days old,' with Sandberg apparently deciding which emails to delete and which to keep."

Attorneys with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Potter Anderson & Corroon are representing Sandberg, Zients and the other individual defendants in the case and did not respond for comment.

The defense reportedly told plaintiffs' counsel it was unclear when Sandberg may have stopped deleting emails and that emails from Zients' account were "irretrievably lost."

The shareholders stated Meta's outside counsel unsuccessfully attempted to collect data from Zients' personal account in November 2018.

"Documents produced from other custodians in this case confirm Zients's personal account was the primary email address he used for Meta business," the motion stated.

The motion, first filed under seal on Sept. 25, asks the court to institute spoliation sanctions and grant curative relief, claiming the plaintiffs have been prejudiced by the loss of the former directors' emails.

It states any messages connected to the two personal accounts that have been shared in discovery were provided by other custodians.

"Here, plaintiffs have not only been prejudiced, but Sandberg and Zients were reckless or intentional in destroying documents," the motion states.

Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster denied the majority of Meta's motion to dismiss in May 2023, allowing the shareholders to move forward with claims related to how the company handled the Cambridge Analytica controversy and its aftermath.

Evidence – Spoliation – Sanctions

Where the defendant homeowners in a dispute over a renovation project removed and destroyed HVAC units that had been installed in their home, the defendants should not be sanctioned for spoliation of evidence, as their failure to preserve the HVAC units was at most negligent, resulting in minimal prejudice.

“In January 2017, Defendants hired FBN as the general contractor for a home renovation project (the ‘Project’).

In connection with the Project, FBN subcontracted with MacDougall to perform the HVAC and plumbing work.

MacDougall installed the HVAC system in 2018.

Thereafter, disputes arose between FBN and Defendants about the Project.

Ultimately, in June 2018, Defendants dismissed FBN from the Project.

“FBN sued Defendants for its fees for construction work performed. Defendants filed counterclaims, alleging defective work, including work related to the HVAC system. FBN filed a third-party complaint against MacDougall for indemnification and contribution. …

“In January 2021, in connection with a supplemental document production, Defendants produced a proposal prepared by their HVAC contractor Keyes Atlantic, Inc. (the ‘Keyes Proposal’). The Keyes Proposal indicated that the HVAC units were going to be removed, replaced, and disposed of. At no time, including after the production of the Keyes Proposal, did either FBN or MacDougall ask Defendants to preserve the HVAC units for further inspection. …

“Between February and April 2022, the HVAC units were removed and destroyed by A. Hohmann & Co., Inc. (‘Hohmann’), an HVAC contractor hired by Defendants. Defendants did not notify FBN and MacDougall prior to doing this work. …

“There is insufficient evidence here to establish that Defendants intentionally destroyed evidence.

Defendants repeatedly made clear that the parties could conduct inspections relevant to the litigation, and notified all parties that they intended to remove, replace, and destroy the HVAC units.

The burden then fell on FBN and/or MacDougall to request preservation or further inspection of the units, particularly where the question of whether the units were defective and possibly subject to xa manufacturer’s warranty was not clearly a part of the litigation.

“Moreover, FBN and MacDougall waited six years from the commencement of litigation to raise this issue and did not file this motion until the eve of trial, two years after the removal and destruction of the HVAC units. Accordingly, FBN and MacDougall have waived any right to claim improper spoliation. …

“Finally, even if the evidence were sufficient to support a conclusion that Defendants should have preserved the HVAC units, their failure to do so was at most negligent, and any prejudice to FBN and MacDougall is minimal. Defendants have not proposed calling a witness to testify about the condition of the HVAC units prior to their destruction since no one examined them before they were destroyed. Furthermore, as discussed at the hearing, the court will permit FBN and MacDougall to present evidence about the destruction of the units and the fact that no one examined them for possible product defects. …

“For the foregoing reasons, the Joint Motion for Sanctions Due To Spoliation is denied.”

FBN Construction Company, LLC v. Larson, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-113-24) (5 pages) (Kazanjian, J.) (Suffolk Superior Court) (Civil Action No. 1884CV3712-BLS1) (Sept. 27, 2024).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.

1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 1884CV3712-BLS1 FBN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC vs. JONATHAN D. LARSON MEGHAN M. LARSON MEGHAN M. LARSON, as TRUSTEE OF THE MEGHAN M. NEVILLE REVOCABLE TRUST u/d/t July 5, 2014 vs. MACDOUGALL PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL, LLC MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DUE TO SPOLIATION \

Plaintiff FBN Construction Company, LLC (“FBN”) and Third-Party Defendant MacDougall Plumbing and Mechanical, LLC (“MacDougall”) move for sanctions against Defendants Jonathan D. Larson, Meghan M. Larson, and Meghan M. Larson, as Trustee of the Meghan M. Neville Revocable Trust u/d/t July 5, 2014 (“Defendants”) for spoliation of evidence.

After careful consideration of the parties’ arguments, the motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

In January 2017, Defendants hired FBN as the general contractor for a home renovation project (the “Project”).

In connection with the Project, FBN subcontracted with MacDougall to perform the HVAC and plumbing work.

MacDougall installed the HVAC system in 2018.

Thereafter, disputes arose between FBN and Defendants about the Project.

Ultimately, in June 2018, Defendants dismissed FBN from the Project.

2

FBN sued Defendants for its fees for construction work performed. Defendants filed counterclaims, alleging defective work, including work related to the HVAC system.

FBN filed a third-party complaint against MacDougall for indemnification and contribution.

The manufacturer of the HVAC units at issue has never been made a part of this case.

In August 2019, Defendants’ counsel notified counsel for MacDougall and FBN in an email that:

[Defendants] are preparing to move forward with an initial scope of work on the HVAC system at their home.

In response to FBN’s request, we propose a site visit – for inspection concerning that work only – on September 27, or 30.

As previously stated, we will propose separate dates for inspection concerning other issues.

Representatives of FBN and MacDougall performed two inspections of Defendants’ home, including of the HVAC system, in October 2019.

At the time, Defendants’ counsel communicated to FBN’s and MacDougall’s counsel that they would allow them to conduct additional inspections “upon request.”

Neither FBN nor MacDougall ever asked for any more home inspections generally, or specifically of the HVAC units after the October inspections.

FBN and MacDougall claim that they could not adequately inspect the HVAC system in October 2019 because of the way it had been installed, and that Defendants were aware of these limitations.

In January 2021, in connection with a supplemental document production, Defendants produced a proposal prepared by their HVAC contractor Keyes Atlantic, Inc. (the “Keyes Proposal”).

The Keyes Proposal indicated that the HVAC units were going to be removed, replaced, and disposed of.

At no time, including after the production of the Keyes Proposal, did either FBN or MacDougall ask Defendants to preserve the HVAC units for further inspection.

Moreover, Jonathan Larson testified at his deposition 3 on March 15, 2021, that at least two of the HVAC units had to be replaced.

On May 21, 2021, at the continuation of Larson’s deposition, he stated that they expected to proceed with the proposed work “within the next two or three months.”

Between February and April 2022, the HVAC units were removed and destroyed by A. Hohmann & Co., Inc. (“Hohmann”), an HVAC contractor hired by Defendants.

Defendants did not notify FBN and MacDougall prior to doing this work.

At his deposition, Edmund Hohmann admitted that he had not documented the removal of the HVAC units by taking photographs, videos, or otherwise.

He also did not inspect the units for defects that might be covered by warranty.

DISCUSSION

Parties that “are actually involved in litigation (or know [or reasonably should know] that they will likely be involved) have a duty to preserve evidence for use by others who will also be involved in that litigation.”

Fletcher v. Dorchester Mut. Ins. Co., 437 Mass. 544, 549 (2002).

“A judge may impose sanctions for the spoliation of evidence if a party ‘negligently or intentionally loses or destroys evidence that the [party] knows or reasonably should know might be relevant to a possible action.’”

Zaleskas v. Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 97 Mass. App. Ct. 55, 75 (2020) (quoting Scott v. Garfield, 454 Mass. 790, 798 (2009)).

“The doctrine of spoliation ‘is based on the premise that a party who has negligently or intentionally lost or destroyed evidence known to be relevant for an upcoming legal proceeding should be held accountable for any unfair prejudice that results.’”

Westover v. Leiserv, Inc., 64 Mass. App. Ct. 109, 112–13 (2005) (quoting Keene v. Brigham and Women’s Hosp., Inc., 439 Mass. 223, 234 (2003)).

4

The party seeking sanctions for spoliation of evidence has the burden to produce evidence demonstrating that:

(1) the opposing party deliberately or negligently lost or destroyed the evidence;

(2) a reasonable person in the spoliator’s position would have been aware that the evidence was material to a litigation;

and (3) the loss or destruction of the evidence prejudiced the moving party.

Santiago v. Rich Products Corp., 92 Mass. App. Ct. 577, 581 (2017); Lou v. Otis Elevator Co., 2007 WL 4099281, at *2 (Mass. Super. 2007).

If the moving party meets its burden of establishing that there was spoliation of evidence, the court must then turn to the appropriate remedy. “

‘Massachusetts affords a greater range of remedies for spoliation than the majority of jurisdictions, which limit relief to permitting an adverse inference against the responsible party.’”

Scott, 554 Mass. at 798-99 (quoting Gath v. M/A-Com, Inc. 440 Mass. 482, 488 (2003)).

“As a general rule, a judge should impose the least severe sanctions necessary to remedy the prejudice to the nonspoliating part.” Keene, 439 Mass at 235.

There is insufficient evidence here to establish that Defendants intentionally destroyed evidence.

Defendants repeatedly made clear that the parties could conduct inspections relevant to the litigation, and notified all parties that they intended to remove, replace, and destroy the HVAC units.

The burden then fell on FBN and/or MacDougall to request preservation or further inspection of the units, particularly where the question of whether the units were defective and possibly subject to a manufacturer’s warranty was not clearly a part of the litigation.

Moreover, FBN and MacDougall waited six years from the commencement of litigation to raise this issue and did not file this motion until the eve of trial, two years after the removal and destruction of the HVAC units.

Accordingly, FBN and MacDougall have waived any right to claim improper spoliation.

See Kendall v. Hyannis Restorations Int’l Sales Inc., 60 Mass. 5 App. Ct. 1122, 2004 WL 513658, at *2 (2004) (Unpublished Decision) (in addition to lack of prejudice and bad faith, trial judge had discretion to deny motion to preclude evidence based on spoliation as untimely where defendants knew about claim based on allegation contained in complaint, but “waited until the brink of trial” to file motion).

Finally, even if the evidence were sufficient to support a conclusion that Defendants should have preserved the HVAC units, their failure to do so was at most negligent, and any prejudice to FBN and MacDougall is minimal.

Defendants have not proposed calling a witness to testify about the condition of the HVAC units prior to their destruction since no one examined them before they were destroyed.

Furthermore, as discussed at the hearing, the court will permit FBN and MacDougall to present evidence about the destruction of the units and the fact that no one examined them for possible product defects.

See Santiago, 92 Mass. App. Ct. at 582-84.1 ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the Joint Motion for Sanctions Due To Spoliation is DENIED. ___________ Hélène Kazanjian Justice of the Superior Court Date: September 27, 2024 1

The cases relied on by FBN and MacDougall involve substantially different facts than this case. See Gath, 440 Mass 481 (defendants agreed to preserve gate that allegedly struck plaintiff, but removed and replaced it without notice to plaintiff); Nally v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 405 Mass 191 (1989) (during testing of alleged defective door latch plaintiff’s expert destroyed latch, rendering himself sole witness with first-hand knowledge of its condition); Bolton v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth., 32 Mass. App. Ct. 654 (1992) (bus scrapped after defendant’s expert examined it despite plaintiff’s request to preserve it); MacLellan v. Shaw’s Supermarket, Inc., 2008 WL 2889921 (Mass. Sup. 2008) (disposal of scissor lift that collapsed and caused plaintiff’s injury despite notice of potential lawsuit).