#The de Facto Rule | Mistakes | Case Rejected

[xtruss]

Houston, Texas: Where Asylum Cases Come To Die! Some Immigration Lawyers Relish A Challenge

— By Dan Halpern | April 14, 2024 | 1843 Magazine

So this is what I want you to say: that you fear you would be killed.” It was early March and Laure Dachelet, a lawyer based in Houston, Texas, was preparing a client who was about to present his asylum case before a judge. “I mean, they threatened to kill you several times. They put a bomb in front of your house. So the intention to kill you was pretty clear. You need to say so.”

The client, a 30-year-old man called Farid, nodded gently. It had been a long wait to get to this point. Farid had fled Afghanistan in 2014 and, after a perilous three-year journey to America that took him through a dozen countries, applied for asylum in 2017; he had yet to see a judge, seven years later. Until 2014 he had worked as a translator for the British Army and the Afghan national police at a military base outside Lashkar Gah, in Helmand province. Driving home one night, after his last day at work, he was stopped by Taliban forces.

“The Taliban beat me and then let me go,” was how Farid had initially described the incident. With Dachelet’s prodding, a longer narrative emerged. The Taliban had accused him of working with the enemy. Farid insisted that he was coming back from a doctor’s appointment. They beat him and interrogated him, but Farid stuck to his story and finally they let him go. Days later the Taliban found proof that he had worked with the British. They told Farid’s father that they would kill his son when they found him, then they bombed Farid’s home.

The Taliban Found Proof That Farid Had Worked With The British. They Told His Father That They Would Kill His Son When They Found Him, Then They Bombed Farid’s Home

Dachelet, who had previously been a judge in the French family courts, explained that the judge would try to suss out whether Farid was telling the truth. She would evaluate his demeanour, watch for whether he answered or avoided questions, check whether his story was consistent with his written declaration and documents. That was always the danger for an asylum-seeker: an applicant could have all the boxes ticked, but a judge was free to decide he was lying. The more detailed your story, the more likely a judge is to believe it. But asylum lawyers need to weigh up carefully how much information their clients provide. The more they offer, the greater the possibility that under examination they will confuse or misremember events.

Farid mentioned that before they took him to be interrogated, the Taliban had covered his face with a scarf. Why had they done that, asked Dachelet?

“In Islam, in the religion, if your clothes are bloody, you cannot pray on that day, you will need to change your clothes,” said Farid. “So they didn’t want to get blood on their—”

Dachelet interrupted. “Why were you bleeding?”

“Oh, because they hit me with the back of the gun.”

“OK, this is why we need to be more detailed,” said Dachelet. “You need to say, one of them hit me in the face with the butt of the AK-47 and I started bleeding. You talk about the scarf, and the blood, and we don’t really make the connection. I know your story, you know your story. Let’s pretend the judge and the attorney for the government don’t know your story.”

She asked Farid what date he arrived in America. He thought about it before replying: “2017. August, or September.”

“July,” Dachelet said.

“July? I don’t think it was July,” Farid said.

“July is what we said on your declaration,” Dachelet said.

This mistake was concerning. A judge is on the lookout for inconsistencies in an applicant’s story – the de facto rule is that three mistakes like this can be grounds for rejection. One judge may have some sympathy for the argument that no one can remember every date and detail of their life story perfectly accurately; another may have none.

In this case, Farid’s mistake might have resulted from his confusion over how dates are formatted in America – with the month before the day – which is different from how other countries do it. But it’s exactly the kind of thing some judges could use to deny his claim. He would need to stick to July.

Dachelet explained that, in order to grant asylum, the judge would need to be convinced that Farid was likely to face persecution if he returned home. “What makes you think you might be in danger if you went home?” she asked. “This all happened ten years ago, don’t you think they’ll have just forgotten about it?

A Judge Is On The Lookout For Inconsistencies In An Applicant’s Story – The de Facto Rule Is That Three Mistakes Like This Can Be Grounds For Rejection

“When the Taliban took over, they announced that they were forgiving all the people, wherever you worked…[They said] we are forgiving them, they can come, they come and be peaceful,” Farid said. “A lot of people went back. Most of them disappeared.”

Farid’s case seemed undeniable. He had a terrible story, a credible fear that he would be persecuted if he were deported, both for who he was and what he had done; he had documents proving what he said was true. He had been in the country for seven years, working long hours as a truck driver, a lawful contributor to society, if not yet a full member of it. But Houston is where asylum cases come to die.

Nationally, immigration courts grant asylum in about four out of ten cases. Houston’s courts, in common with those in Charlotte, Atlanta, Kansas City and a few other places, grant asylum in one out of ten. San Francisco’s courts, by contrast, approve seven out of ten asylum claims, while New York’s courts approve six out of ten.

These disparities can be partly explained by the fact that different kinds of migrants tend to settle in different cities. More Central Americans, for instance, come to Texas; more Asians come to California. Their cases for asylum tend to be very different.

Whether or not a case is successful can also depend on the judge. A national study of disparities in asylum adjudications found, for example, that Colombian applicants who brought their cases in Miami were granted asylum by one judge in 88% of cases, whereas another – in the same building – granted it only 5% of the time.

On the one hand Farid was unlucky. According to his lawyers, the judge who would be presiding over his case had previously rejected nine out of ten asylum applications (although the huge majority of her cases had come from Central America and Mexico, whose citizens have very low rates of successful applications across the court systems).

On the other hand, he was lucky that his case had been taken on by a law firm with an impressive record in asylum cases. Dachelet works for Political Asylum Lawyers, which was founded in 2020 by Brian Manning (above), a former asylum officer. It is unusual among immigration law firms: although most take on asylum cases, very few are dedicated to them. Manning told me that out of the 39 cases the firm has seen to conclusion over the past two years, only eight have resulted in deportation.

Manning grew up in Oklahoma and came from a background much like everyone he knew: white, Christian and conservative. He played high-school football and went to church on Sundays. Most of his contemporaries stayed in their home state. But in his third year at university, Manning spent a semester in St Petersburg, Russia, and felt the world open up. He finished law school, got married and joined the foreign service, working in Croatia, Bulgaria and Chile. He and his wife adopted two boys from the Democratic Republic of Congo. Although the couple loved living abroad, they wanted to raise their children in America, near their families. Early in 2017, as Donald Trump took office, they returned home.

Asylum-Seekers Typically Have No More Than An Hour To Convince An Asylum Officer That They Face A Significant Risk Of Persecution If They Return Home

Manning yearned for a career where he was “actually helping people and doing a good thing”. In Bulgaria, he had visited a camp for Syrian refugees, which had given him the idea to specialise in asylum law. He got a job as an asylum officer, working for the immigration service in Houston. He spent his days conducting “credible fear” interviews: one of the first steps in the asylum process. Asylum-seekers typically have no more than an hour to convince an asylum officer that they face a significant risk of persecution if they return home. If they pass, they can apply for asylum. If they fail, they have a right to appeal against the decision before a judge.

It was a tough job. “You’re hearing stories all day about torture and terrible things happening to people,” he said, “and you either think that they’re lying to you, which is frustrating, or you believe it, and you’re like, this is how this person had to live? This is what this person had to go through? My God.” Asylum officers typically burnt out around a year and a half in, Manning said, many of them suffering from a sort of secondary ptsd.

Most of the people he interviewed were from Central America, and described terrible poverty and violence: “You won’t join my gang? We’re going to kill you. You can’t pay my extortion fee for your shop? We’re going to kill you.” But as tragic as their stories were, most of the applicants were unlikely to satisfy the authorities handling their claims. People seeking asylum in America must demonstrate that they have suffered or were likely to suffer persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group.

During the two years he worked as an asylum officer, Manning was depressed by the quality of asylum lawyers he met, most of whom, he said, were lousy, lazy and ineffective. Not that he encountered them that often. Asylum hearings are civil not criminal proceedings, so the government is not required to provide a lawyer, and few applicants can afford one. Sometimes asylum-seekers were helped by lawyers from non-profit organisations, who were generally excellent, said Manning, although there weren’t enough of them.

It was this feeling – that there were deserving applicants who were being let down by the system – that drove him to start his own firm. Manning felt that his experience playing for the other side, so to speak, could help his clients navigate a system of Byzantine complexity. He reckons that specialising in asylum law makes it easier to stay on top of the frequent changes to the law, something that a firm with a wider range of immigration issues might find challenging.

One piece of advice he gives his clients is knowing when it’s OK to admit you’ve lied. Because you can apply for asylum only once you are in America, and can’t get a visa to ask for asylum, many refugees claim they are coming for a holiday, even though they fully intend to overstay their tourist visa. “This kind of lie is not held against you at an asylum hearing,” Manning said. “But it is a problem if you say at your asylum interview that you’ve never lied in connection with a us immigration matter.” That is, you can lie to get here, but not lie about having lied. This is a favourite technique, he said, of asylum officers looking for excuses to reject applicants.

Manning Shares His Tips On Social Media, Including TikTok And Instagram. He’s Doing It To Attract Business, But Also To Help Those Who Can’t Afford His Services

Manning shares his tips on social media, including TikTok and Instagram. He’s doing it to attract business, but also to help those who can’t afford his services. The videos are professionally made, with choppy, attention-grabbing edits. “What if I told you you can pretty much win your asylum case before you ever set foot in the asylum office for your interview?” he says in one video, which takes viewers through creating an “asylum roadmap”. Most asylum officers are overworked and stressed, said Manning. They appreciate being presented with a package containing all the necessary information and legal reasoning: a written narrative, evidence to support it, and a description of the political conditions in the applicant’s homeland. It works, says Manning, “because you’ve done much of their work for them”.

Farad’s hearing took place on a Monday morning. He had the dates right this time, told his story clearly, and addressed the questions from the government lawyer directly and honestly. But there’s no such thing as an open-and-shut case, especially in asylum law. “I still get nervous, I’m certainly emotionally invested,” Manning said. “That’s natural for anyone working with these kinds of high stakes, or working with so much trauma. Did I cover everything I need to cover? Did I prepare enough for any surprises? I’ll go over it and over it.”

The hearing lasted just under an hour. “I’m inclined to grant the application,” the judge told Farid. The lawyer for the government said they would not appeal. It seemed done and dusted. Except it wasn’t, quite. Farid’s biometric information (including his fingerprints and photographs) were missing from the government’s file. Somehow, in the seven years he had been waiting, they had been misplaced. The judge couldn’t grant asylum until Farid made an appointment to have his biometric information recorded again. To get an appointment, he was told, he would have to wait only another few months. ■

— Dan Halpern is a Feature Writer ✍️ For 1843 Magazine | Illustrations: James Wilson | Images: Getty, Reuters

[dark-and-twisty-01]

Aircraft Crashes: accidents or murder?

The past nine decades, various fatal air crashes have spawned conspiracy theories that linger as haunting historical mysteries. Five cases produced official verdicts of criminal activity, but no suspects were ever indicted. The remainder are listed as accidents, but nagging doubts remain. These cases include:

July 4, 1923 Actor-pilot Beverly “B.H” DeLay and passenger R.I short (president of the Essandee Corporation) died while performing aerial acrobatics at Venice Beach, California. Time Magazine reported that half-inch bolts in the wings of DeLay’s aircraft had been switched with smaller bolts, causing the wings to collapse during flight. Gunshots of unknown origin had also been fired at DeLay days earlier, during a performance in Santa Monica. Journalists linked the crash to bitter litigation between DeLay and C.E Frey, a rival who claimed ownership of an airstrip purchased by DeLay in 1919. Several Frey employees were jailed for sabotaging that airfield, but no one was indicted for DeLay’s murder.

October 10, 1933 A United Airlines Boeing 247 aircraft travelling from Cleveland to Chicago crashed near Chesterton, Indiana, killing all seven persons aboard. Witnesses reported hearing a mid-air explosion at 9:15pm and watching the plane plummet into flames from 1,000 feet. Investigators from North-western University and Chicago FBI office concluded that a bomb had detonated in the plane’s baggage compartment, but no suspects were ever identified.

March 29, 1959 Barthelemy Boganda, first prime minister of the Central African Republic (C.A.R) and presumed to win election as president when France released control of his nation in 1960, died with all others aboard when his plane crashed 99 miles west of Bangui. No cause of the crash was officially determined, but suspicion of sabotage persists. On May 7, 1959, the Paris weekly L’Express reported discovery of explosive residue in the plane’s wreckage whereupon the French high commissioner banned sale of that issue in the C.A.R. In 1997 author Brian Titley suggested that Boganda’s wife, Michelle Jourdan, may have killed hi to avert divorce and collect a large insurance policy.

November 16, 1959 National Airlines Flight 967 vanished over the Gulf of Mexico with 42 persons aboard while en route from Tampa, Florida, to New Orleans. The final radar contact with Flight 967 was recorded at 12:46 am. Searchers found scattered wreckage with corpses near that point, but most of the aircraft was never recovered. Suspicion focused on passenger William Taylor, who boarded the plane with a ticket issued to ex-convict Robert Vernon Spears. Authorities surmised that Spears had tricked Taylor, a friend from prison, into boarding the plane with a bomb, thus permitting Spears to collect on a life insurance policy purchased in his name. Police later arrested Spears in Phoenix, driving a car registered to Taylor, but he subsequently vanished and was never charged with any crime pertaining to the crash.

September 18, 1961 Dag Hammarskjold, second secretary-general of the United Nations, died with 15 others when his plane crashed near Ndola, Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), during a diplomatic tour of the strife-torn Congo. Security was tight during the tour, including use of a decoy aircraft, and Hammarskjold’s pilot filed no flight plans on the trip. Officially, the crash resulted from a pilot’s error in approaching Ndola’s airfield at the wrong altitude after nightfall. Many observers suspected a bomb or rocket attack. In August 1998, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, chairman of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, announced that recently uncovered letters implicated South African intelligence officers, Britain’s MI5, and the American CIA in Hammarskjold’s death. One letter claimed that a bomb in the plane’s wheel bay was set to explode on landing. In July 2005, Norwegian major general Bjorn Egge told the newspaper Aftenposten that an apparent bullet hole in Hammarskjold’s forehead was air brushed out of photos later published showing his corpse.

October 16, 1972 House majority leader Thomas Hale Boggs, Sr., was campaigning for Representative Nick Begich when their airplane vanished during a flight from Anchorage to Juneau, Alaska. Also aboard were pilot Don Jonz and Begich aide Russell Brown. The plane was never found. Begich won November’s election with a 56-percent margin, but his presumed death left GOP rival Don Young running unopposed in a special election to fill Begich’s vacant seat in Congress. Some conspiracy theorists link the disappearance to Bogg’s outspoken criticism of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover (who died in May 1972), but Begich’s children blamed President Richard Nixon, claiming that the crash was staged in a vain attempt to thwart congressional investigation of the unfolding Watergate scandal.

August 1, 1981 Brigadier General Omar Torrijos Herrera, “Supreme Chief of Government” for Panama since 1968, died with several others when his plane exploded in mid air during a storm. Slipshod radio coverage delayed the report of his plane’s disappearance for nearly a day, and several more days elapsed before soldiers found the wreckage. Florencio Flores succeeded Torrijos as commander of Panama’s National Guard and de facto ruler of the country.

October 19, 1986 Samora Moises Machel, president of Mozambique and leading critic of South Africa’s racist apartheid system, died with all board when his plane crashed near Mbuzini, in South Africa’s Lebombo Mountains. At the time, Machel was returning home from an international conference in Zambia. The Margo Commission, an investigate panel including representatives from several nations, blamed the crash on pilot error, a verdict flatly rejected by the governments of Mozambique and the Soviet Union Russian members of the commission filed a minority report claiming that Machel’s plane was lured off-course by a decoy radio beacon, set up by South African intelligence officers. Machel’s widow, Graca, remains convinced that was murdered. In 1998 she married then-South African president Nelson Mandela.

 August 17, 1989 General Muhammad Ziaul-Haq, ruler of Pakistan since he overthrew predecessor Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977, died with several other generals and U.S. ambassador Arnold Raphel when their plane crashed shortly after take off from Bahawalpur, Pakistan. Witnesses reported a smooth lift off, followed by erratic flying and a steep nosedive. FBI agents called the crash accidental, but persistent conspiracy theories blame a wide range of suspects, including the CIA, Russia’s KGB, Israel’s Mossad, India’s RAW Intelligence agency, Afghan communists, ad Shi’ite Muslim separatists.

April 6, 1994 Unknown snipers shot down a government aircraft at Rwanda’s Kigali airport, killing Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, President Cyprien Ntaryamira of Burundi, and all others aboard. The resultant political chaos led to full-scale genocide in Rwanda, where ruling Hutu tribesmen slaughtered rival Tutsis, and sparked civil war in Burundi.

July 19, 1994 Alas Chiricanas Flight 901 exploded while en route from Colon, Panama, to Panama City, killing all 21 persons aboard. Authorities found evidence of a bomb, blaming the crime on terrorists. Suspicion focused on Jamal Lya, the only passenger who corpse remained unclaimed after the bombing. Soon afterward, an unknown spokesperson for a group calling itself Ansar Allah (“Followers of God”) claimed credit for the attack, but investigators could find no other trace of the organization.

July 17, 1996 Trans World Airlines flight 800 left New York’s JFK Airport, bound for Paris, at 10:19pm Twelve minutes later it exploded in mid-air, killing all 230 persons aboard and littering the ocean with wreckage offshore from East Moriches, New York. Despite initial speculation of a terrorist attack, the National Transportation Safety Board issued a final report in August 2000, blaming the explosion on a presumed electrical short circuit that ignited fumes in the aircraft’s centre wing fuel tank. Meanwhile, multiple eyewitnesses on land reported seeing “a streak of light” rising from sea level toward the airliner before it exploded. Initial examination of the wreckage revealed apparent residue from three different explosive compounds, PETN, RDX, and nitro-glycerine but authorities claimed to find no evidence of impact from a rocket or missile. Some conspiracy theorists maintain that Flight 800 was shot down by terrorists, while others suggest a disastrous mistake during an offshore U.S. Navy training exercise involving surface-to-air missiles. The case is officially closed.

October 25, 2002 Minnesota senator Paul Wellstone died with seven others, including his wife and three children, when his aircraft crashed near Eveleth, Minnesota. Wellstone was near the end of his campaign for a third Senate term, his death coming 11 days before the scheduled balloting. Initial reports blamed icing of the aircraft's wing, but that suggestion was later rejected. Federal investigators finally named pilot error as the “likely” cause of the crash, claiming that deceased First Officer Michael Guess was “below average” in proficiency. In fact, Guess had been fired from two previous flying jobs for incompetence. Jim Fetzer, a philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth, published a book in 2004, blaming Wellstone’s death on unnamed members of President George W. Bush’s administration.

 July 30, 2005 Dr. John Garang De Mabior, vice president of Sudan and former head of the rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Army, died when his helicopter crashed in southern Sudan. Circumstances of the crash remain unclear, and Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni blamed “external factors” for the incident. Foreign observers note that Garang’s death helped bring an end to Sudan’s long-running civil war.

[revel80r]

On the turning of Scyther88

I met my best friend when I was five years old. at the Akron Chinese Christian Church. On this blog, I call him Scyther88. Scyther, myself, and another guy, let’s call him ‘Mango’, have been the three musketeers for most of my childhood. We’d only see each other on sundays, and sometimes a friday, or saturday here or there, because our families all lived in different areas of Akron and we went to different schools during the week. But oh, the bliss of those sundays together with those two idiots. At church on sundays, we hung out together, we got in trouble together, bullied and picked on other smaller kids together, and all the joys of 90′s boyhood ...together. We definitely had our different personalities too. Mango was the oldest (by 8 days). He was always domineering, manipulative, and was kind of our de-facto “leader” of the little gang. Scyther was always the lancer to Mango’s alpha. He always challenged him, had more of a streak of irony and sarcasm than Mango. He was cool. And then there’s me. I was younger than both of them by about a year. I was the little 3rd fiddle. I just played loyal and loved being with these two guys... complicit in all our stupid sins as a bunch of kids.

We got really, crazy into Pokemon, and bonded over it. To this day, Scyther’s email, gamername, username on most platforms has always been “Scyther88″ or some form of it. Mango’s moved on from his “Jolteon88″ or whatever it was. I was an ‘89 baby so I’m not even cool. Now I’m just reVelstΛr. I remember I was the first to get pokemon cards. Mango and I were at some Chinese church camp, and we both got one card each, he got a machop and I got a charmander. Later, a couple weeks later, I got the old blue Pokemon card starter deck. And I became the cool boy. Mango and Scyther both got rival (and better) decks pretty soon afterwards and the 90′s head fever of pokemon collecting materialism had bitten us, and our parent’s wallets hard. We fought, we argued over rules and technicalities, (the best that 4th graders could anyway), etc. But we were buddies and knew that. Even though we didn’t go to the same schools in Akron, we’d go to each other’s birthday parties, play N64 together, etc. It was the good ol’ days. The best and worst part of it was, the Chinese church met in this very large mega-church building in Akron. Very extensive facilities. And us boys had the inside of the church fully explored and mapped out. We knew the place very well. So on sunday we knew there would be the inevitable time our parents had finished socializing and decided it was time to go home, and do other things. And so, purposefully, to milk every sweet moment of pokemon-card battling that we possibly could, we would hide in nooks, crannies, upper rooms, balconies, anywhere we could find and hide in, to hide away from our parents so we could spend more precious moments pokemon-carding away. Our parents had to send out search parties and scour the buildings for us little brats. hahaa. We’re guilty of many white hairs on one of the assistant pastors. 

Reality hits hard. Mango’s family moved away to Asia at the end of 5th grade, and we would not see each other for a very long time. Scyther’s life hit a very rough patch when his dad’s brother passed away. Scyther’s father got angry and blamed Jesus for the passing of his brother. He full turned away from the faith, and forbid Scyther’s mother and Scyther from going to church anymore. I was young and not aware of such heavy things. but I did remember my two best friends no longer being at church, and I was suddenly a lone little guppy in the church youth group. The youngest, least mature, and most annoying, by many grade levels, to the rest of the church youth group.

I saw Mango once, in 8th or 9th grade when his family stopped by Akron for a visit, and the next time I saw him was in college.

Scyther and his mother would occasionally come to church over the years. Scyther’s father was vehemently against God, but Scyther’s mother was all the stronger in the faith in Jesus. And so they’d sneak to church whenever she can over the years to come. And blessings for me, my friendship with Scyther was intact and I got to have a middle school and high school life with my best friend from time to time, talking to him about video games, stupid jokes, girls, and all other kinds of bad things.

Scyther and I even went on a mission trip together in 2006 to Beijing, China.

In the fall of 2007, all three of us idiot musketeers went to the Ohio $tate University as freshman, Mango, Scyther, and my darned self.

I got in contact with Mango the weeks before commencement, and hung out with him the first day on campus. We both got involved with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and that ended up being our primary community on campus for the next 4-5 years (or on my case, [one of my] primary communities). Scyther and Mango were no longer buddies, no longer close. Mango’s become a popular, social kid. Scyther and I are outcast, and fringe people. I was not aware of this at the time, but Scyther had a very rough middle school and high school life, being rejected and picked on by his white peers, because he is one of only two or three Asians in his entire schools. White people. Y’all messed up. Need to get help. I was not aware, that this messed up my best friend on the inside, as he has a cynical, vengeful, vindictive streak hidden that I either missed or chose to ignore. He became ambitious and focused. So that, one day he will be at the top of the heap, looking down on everyone else who was cruel and had mistreated him in the past. And Scyther will know who had one in the end. That was his plan anyway.

Scyther was driven, ambitious, and disliked people. Mango was popular, responsible, and worked around people. I was a desperate loser junkie who would give up anything to be with people or video-games. 

Guess which one of us dropped out of Ohio State, heheh.

And so Scyther did not like InterVarsity after attending one time, and picked up on the community’s unfortunate clique-y tendencies. decided he was not going to put up with that bovine stool, and chose to attend a Korean church instead. Meanwhile Mango and I became career InterVarsity attenders, becoming leaders in different chapters of IV. Mango got a lot farther along than I did, in leadership and socially, and so it went on.

I am kind of sad to admit that I picked up on signs that Scyther had given up on Jesus very late. He had stopped attending his Korean church, and I simply assumed it was because of the busyness of his schedule, as I had missed many church sessions, although that may have more to do with irresponsibility, though like many college students, I liked to chalk that up to “busyness”. And being roommates with Scyther, we would have bitter arguments from time to time. One time I got so angry, I threatened to murder him, and the dorm manager had to have me stay at a friend’s place overnight that time because of the difficulties in our dorm room. After a year of college I began to realize that Scyther no longer believed or followed Jesus. I was not even aware of my own shallowness and the brokenness in my own pursuit of Jesus, but all I knew was I felt InterVarsity was doing the right thing to me, and I seemingly couldn’t do anything to convince stubborn old Scyther to come back to either InterVarsity or church.

In Scyther’s mind, he realized that being in college, he could do whatever he wanted and was no longer forced to go to church by his mother. He could make his own choices now. And so he decided to not go. And his pains from his past, cynicism and disdain for people, including Christians, took over, and he lost faith in people, community, and Christ. He admitted to himself in not believing or seeing proof of God’s existence. and became atheist.

During all of this, Scyther’s mother remained the strong, strong prayer warrior Christian she has always been. Praying every day for the salvation of her family, urgently imploring God to bring Scyther back to faith. She prayed, and prayed, and prayed.

For many years after that, we had an understanding that InterVarsity and Jesus were just me and my ‘God thing’. but Scyther saw no evidenc, proof, or need for him. There was no way to work around his buttheadedness. Plus, Scyther’s got lots of crap on me, my deepest darkest secret, etc. So it’s not like I’ve been a particularly good, effective, or pure example of a Christian to him. And that was that. There was not much of a productive conversation beyond that.

Scyther graduated from Ohio $tate, and got into grad school in a virology PhD program at Cornell University, while I got academically dismissed, and dropped into crippling depression... Mango graduated and went on to teaching or something like that. There was a drop of contact for awhile.

Over the years from 2011-2016 Scyther and I would skype and hangout online from time to time. sometimes more frequently, chatting and playing vieogames together online every night. Other times we’d go through months of hiatuses from online contact. I visited him at Cornell University in Ithaca. That was a special night as by the grace of the Lord, I got a chance to talk with Scyther about why I believed in God, why I believed in Jesus, and how experienced him. A deeper conversation than the typical StarCraft and World of WarCraft talk we had. In the end, Scyther still saw no evidence, proof, or need for God and I had to just agree to disagree... It’s good. I love him. I love this guy. He is my best friend. He was there with me through much of my shit and depression. Especially that worst period in 2013. 

This year in 2016, I took a very, very long hiatus from video games and much social media. Worked through some of the toughest semesters I had at Capital University, which God has provided for me after scraping and mopping up my mistakes through sweat, blood, and tears at Columbus State Community College... And so 2016 was a banner year for me. Most excellent. I got to go on not one, but two missions trips, one to Mozambique, and one to Taiwan. and after all that crazy goodness, I was brought into church staffship, and finished college in december, finally earning that accursed, elusive piece of paper...

Meanwhile, Scyther was told to wrap up his research, do a dissertation and defense, and finish his graduate school studies. And he did so. And now we all tease him and call him Dr. Scyther. What should have been a joyful, celebratory time, became a disappointment for Scyther, as life after attaining doctorhood was no different from life before. He did not feel any redemption, release, or beams of purpose. Only the emptiness. And so, with his emotions crashing. Scyther realized the truth of life is meaningless. There is no rhyme, or reason. Why spend so much effort building, only for someone else to enjoy the fruits of his labor? What was worth it? We all die and go to the same place, and life is meaningless. He spiraled into depression and decided to kill himself. and with the many years of laboratory experience, he knew exactly what he needed to do to kill himself. He planned it out, wrote apology letters to his mother, wrote one for me, and only found that..... he could not do it. The fear is too much. He is afraid of pain, and confronted with the fact that he did not know what happens to him after he does it. And so, THANK GOD, my best friend Scyther did not kill himself. During this time I was completely unaware that my Scyther was going through so much... Lesson and word of advice... check on your friends, keep in contact with them, ever after you sign off or swear off from social media.. check on your friends. Because honestly, depression and suicidal resolve can come quite swiftly....

Scyther did not kill himself. Thank God he chickened out. One thought reached out to him, The Timothy Keller book he bought out of curiosity on a whim a while ago: “The Reason for God” It is an apologetics book laying out philosophical, experiential, theological arguments fro the experience of God. Very good. Scyther read through it.

One day, in November of 2016, after a conversation with his mother, Scyther felt truth in his mind, that maybe, just maaaybe, God really is real. And that very night he had a terrifying demonic nightmare, as if he was being dragged down to hell itself. Sleep paralysis, the sciences call it. A couple nights later he had another sleep paralysis attack, this time seeing an angry face. He looked it up online and discovered sleep paralysis. And happening so suddenly and coincidally with his openness to the existence of God, a higher being..... He called me and asked about it. Being intrigued, I opened up a little about my own demonic experiences, and assured him that the name of Jesus has power. Jesus has power. Pray, invoke the name of Jesus, and the enemy will flee in every direction from you... We talked for a little while, I mentioned being at the church I was at, and how I was going to a big conference called One Thing in Kansas City that december.

A couple days later, my cell phone broke and I had to switch phones, missing a couple texts and calls in the process; several of these texts were from Scyther, inquiring about this conference, One Thing, and whether IHOP-KC was a cult.

By the time I got in contact with him a couple days after that, Scyther had already figured out the answers to his questions himself. And he was thinking about going. When I talked to him again, Scyther simply told me, unflinchingly, that “God is real. God is totally real. Acts chapter 9. That is all I can say, man.” I really was on the verge of tears, hearing my childhood and best friend, of 22+ years say to me over the phone that God is real, after he had abandoned the Lord and lived as an atheist for about a decade.

And just last month, in December, Scyther joined me and my church going to IHOP’s One Thing conference. It was a beautiful thing to see. His heart was being opened and his character was already different. He had a passion and a zeal for the Lord that I have not seen before. It was amazing. His heart was being opened, and he was being softened to people. My best friend, who in the past hated pretty much every single human being except for his 5-6 friends and family... is now an open, sociable, empathetic heart. I cannot make this up. Jesus is sooooo good and I am so thankful. God’s even opened up Scyther’s mind to the possibilities of prophecy, healing, and miraculous prayer. Things that were strongholds to Scyther’s mind and heart were being unlocked and opened and it is a beautiful, beautiful, redemptive thing to see.

Nowadays, Scyther comes to my church in Columbus, and we are growing, Scyther is growing so, so fast, we are all growing towards the Lord, we are growing together.

I cannot be happier with life.

[khalilhumam]

Most Taiwanese unfazed by former president's fearmongering on war with China

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/most-taiwanese-unfazed-by-former-presidents-fearmongering-on-war-with-china/

Most Taiwanese unfazed by former president's fearmongering on war with China

In mainland China, however, his ominous words made for a good pro-unification slogan

Former Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou claimed the current administration is pushing Taiwan to the brink of war. Screen capture from United Daily News / Youtube.

Amid China's current military drills in the Taiwan strait, a speech by former Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou blaming the current administration for the PRC's hostility received praise in the mainland — but not so much in Taiwan. Speaking at a conference in Taipei on August 10, Ma, who is a member of the opposition party Kuomingtang (KMT), claimed Taiwan's military capabilities are no match for China's, as well as questioned the United States’ commitment to come help in the case of full aggression. According to him, once China launches a military operation against Taiwan, “the first battle will be the last.” Ma's ominous words reverberated among the mainland's commentariat and social media, with state-supported China Central Television (CCTV) appearing to endorse his view. Meanwhile, a telephone poll conducted by the Taiwan Public Opinion Foundation on August 17 and 18 found that 58 percent of respondents disagreed with Ma's views and were “not worried about the outbreak of a war between China and Taiwan.” Since the beginning of August, China has stepped up its live-fire military drills in the South and East China sea, partly in response to the visit of US Health Secretary Alex Azar to Taiwan. Azar is the most senior official to visit the island in decades, and his presence there has been condemned by Beijing. Taiwanese Twitter user Otto Huang said that in his speech, Ma ended up providing China with a “propaganda slogan”:

馬英九 提供給 央視 武統台灣的「口號」https://t.co/uiPPT4UhNP pic.twitter.com/CB4XUfbsXq — Otto Huang (@OttoHuang120) August 19, 2020

Ma Ying-jeou provides CCTV with a propaganda slogan for unification with Taiwan by force.

Pro-Taiwanese independence groups protested outside the KMT’s headquarters on August 13, demanding the party revoke Ma’s membership:

We cannot accept Ma’s talk of capitulation — and that coming from a former president, who is now a propagandist for China and coerces the Taiwanese to surrender to China without a fight.

But Ma has since doubled-down on his views. On August 22, at another conference, he delivered a second speech, again accusing Tsai of rejecting the 1992 Consensus and criticizing the island's deepening ties the US. He added:

If Beijing were to use force against Taiwan as a way to push Washington to make concessions, Taiwan would turn from a chess piece to an “abandoned son” and ultimately a sacrifice.

Once again state and party-affiliated outlets in the mainland gave prominence to Ma’s address. Taiwan has been a de-facto self-ruling state since 1949, when the KMT, then-ruling party of the Republic of China (ROC), was defeated in the Chinese Civil War and established itself on the island. In 1992, at a time when cross-strait relations had warmed up, Taipei met with Beijing and jointly announced that both countries agreed that they constituted “one China,” in what has since become known as the 1992 Consensus. What that consensus actually means has been up for dispute since then. The KMT was voted out of power in 2016, with Tsai Ing-wen of the Democratic Progressive Party, a traditional advocate of Taiwanese independence, emerging victorious by a large margin. In January 2019, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced that China's interpretation of the “1992 Consensus” was that of “One Country, Two Systems,” a principle applied to the governance of Hong Kong and Macau. Tsai immediately rejected this interpretation. In January 2020, she was re-elected president of Taiwan with over 57 percent of the vote.

Other reactions

Despite the spread of propaganda citing views from Ma's speeches, there have been a few mainland netizens expressing suspicion of his sincerity. For example, one popular response to a Global Times’ thread on Weibo said:

八年叶未促成中国统一，有何面目大言不惭，五十步笑百步而已，还真是从未见过如此厚颜无耻之人！

Ma was in power for 8 years without enhancing unification and now he has the gut to speak like this. He is no different from Tsai. I have not seen such a shameless person yet.

On another Weibo thread by People’s Daily columnist Xia Ke Dao, a commenter said:

马孃孃的不独不统不武，核心也是以拖待变，岛内主动追求统一的人士日渐凋零

Ma keeps talking about status quo – no independence, no unification, no military operations, it is all about foot-dragging. Less and less people are pursuing unification now.

Meanwhile, reactions in Taiwan have been more direct. Taiwan's Presidential Office spokesman Alex Huang condemned Ma’s speeches:

In the face of China’s oppression, the nation should not relinquish its sovereignty, democracy or freedom, but rise up against an autocracy by uniting its people in soliciting international support.

And YC Jou, a popular Taiwanese cultural critic, argued on a widely-shared Facebook post that Ma and other speakers at the conference fail to understand Taiwan's current sentiment on the unification issue:

他們最嚴重的錯誤，就是他們不了解台灣人民的決心。他們和中共一起恐嚇台灣人民這麼多年，他們不知道台灣人民已經受夠了。 更且台灣人民看到香港的情況。不反抗的結果，就是連反抗的機會都沒有。台灣人民的覺悟之��不是他們這種人能夠想像的。

Their most serious mistake is that they don’t understand Taiwanese people’s determination. They have been threatening Taiwanese people for so many years and they don’t know that we have had enough of that. Now that Taiwanese people have seen what happened to Hong Kong, we know that if we don’t resist now, we will lose our chance to resist. The awakening of Taiwanese people is beyond their imagination.

< p class='gv-rss-footer'>Written by Oiwan Lam

[deniscollins]

Samsung’s Leader at Risk of More Prison Time After Court Rules Against Him

Samsung is a family-run conglomerate. What would you do if you were Samsung’s Vice Chairman and learned that you could ensure government support for the company if you provided about $7 million to buy the daughter of South Korea’s president 3 horses and for her training: (1) make the payment, (2) reject the opportunity? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision.

South Korea’s top court handed down a ruling on Thursday that could result in more prison time for Samsung’s de facto leader, who was freed last year after being jailed for bribing the country’s since-impeached president.

The Supreme Court ruled that an appeals court had underestimated the value of the bribes that Lee Jae-yong, Samsung’s vice chairman, also known as J.Y. Lee, had provided to former President Park Geun-hye and a friend of Ms. Park’s. Mr. Lee was released from prison in February of last year on the basis of the appeals court’s ruling.

The ruling Thursday spells trouble for Mr. Lee and Samsung, a pillar of South Korea’s economy and one of the world’s largest technology companies, because it raises the possibility that he will be imprisoned again. The Supreme Court sent Mr. Lee’s case back to a lower court for retrial.

In August 2017, a Seoul district court sentenced Mr. Lee to five years in prison for offering 8.6 billion won, or $7 million, in bribes to Ms. Park and to Choi Soon-sil, a longtime friend of the president who was central to the bribery scandal that drove Ms. Park from office and led to her imprisonment.

But the appeals court, in finding that the bribes had totaled just 3.6 billion won, reduced Mr. Lee’s prison term to two and a half years and suspended the sentence, setting the stage for the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday.

The appeals court must rule on Mr. Lee’s case again, and it will be required to honor the Supreme Court’s opinion unless it is presented with a compelling new evidence in favor of Mr. Lee.

On Thursday, Samsung expressed deep regret over the episode and vowed to “avoid a recurrence of past mistakes.” Mr. Lee essentially leads the company because its chairman, Mr. Lee’s father, Lee Kun-hee, is seriously ill.

The decision will cast a further cloud over a business empire that is essential to the South Korean economy. Samsung Electronics, its gadget-manufacturing and chip-making arm, accounts for nearly one-fifth of South Korea’s exports.

The sprawling, family-run conglomerate — known in Korean as a chaebol — runs businesses in hospitality, financial services, industrial products and many other areas.

Samsung Electronics faces challenges on a number of fronts. A slowing global economy and a mature smartphone market have reduced demand for its products and the components that go inside them.

It also faces growing competition from Chinese smartphone brands, which have been improving the quality of their products and expanding into the rest of the world. The company’s operating profit for the three months that ended in June fell by more than half compared with a year earlier.

Samsung also faces uncertainties related to South Korea’s souring relations with Japan, which are rooted in disputes over the two countries’ painful history and are now playing out in a bitter trade conflict.

Samsung relies on Japanese companies for chemicals that are essential to making microchips, and Japanese officials this summer began requiring South Korean companies to jump through more regulatory hoops to purchase them.

Still, it is not clear whether Samsung needs Mr. Lee to navigate its problems.

The company has argued that Mr. Lee sets the long-term direction of the businesses he is involved with, and that his guidance is needed in difficult times. But experts have said that Samsung has a deep bench of experienced executives who can fill in.

While Mr. Lee was first facing trial, Samsung Electronics ably recovered from a scandal in which some of its Galaxy Note 7 smartphones were found to be prone to catching fire.

The court’s ruling is the latest aftershock from the corruption scandal that rocked South Korea in 2016 and 2017, consuming Ms. Park’s presidency and leading to her ouster and imprisonment.

The case exposed corrupt ties between powerful South Korean politicians and Samsung, as well as other major conglomerates. Prosecutors said Mr. Lee had bribed Ms. Park and her friend, Ms. Choi, to obtain the government’s support for moves that were meant to tighten his control over the Samsung conglomerate.

At the height of the scandal, hundreds of thousands of people rallied in central Seoul every weekend to demand that Ms. Park be removed from office.

The National Assembly impeached her on charges of bribery and abuse of presidential power in December 2016; the Constitutional Court upheld the lawmakers’ decision in March 2017, making Ms. Park the first South Korean leader to be removed from officethrough parliamentary impeachment.

Last August, Ms. Park was sentenced to 25 years in prison and Ms. Choi to 20 years.

Also on Thursday, the Supreme Court sent Ms. Park’s case back to a lower court for retrial, citing a procedural mistake. It said the lower court should have ruled on bribery charges separately from other criminal charges.

The retrial could increase Ms. Park’s already lengthy prison term. Ms. Choi will also be retried, as the Supreme Court struck down part of the lower-court ruling.

“Today’s ruling adds to Samsung’s trouble, coming at a time when Samsung has already been hit hard by a trade war between the United States and China and South Korea’s trade spat with Japan,” said Chung Sun-sup, editor of Chaebul.com, a website that specializes in monitoring South Korea’s family-run conglomerates. “But the earlier ruling by the appellate court had been severely criticized by the people as a prime example of the South Korean judiciary soft-glove treatment of chaebol.”

In its ruling last year, the appellate court said that Mr. Lee sought favor from Ms. Park by providing 3.6 billion won to finance the training of Ms. Choi’s equestrian daughter. But in its ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court said that other support Samsung provided for the daughter, including three thoroughbred horses it purchased for her training, should also be considered bribes, thus raising the total amount to 8.6 billion won. All the money was embezzled from Samsung, prosecutors say.

The amount of bribery and embezzlement is crucial in Mr. Lee’s case.

If he is convicted of embezzling more than 5 billion won from Samsung for bribery, he could face at least five years in prison. A prison term of more than three years cannot be suspended.

But the sentencing guideline has not always applied to chaebol chiefs, as judges often cited their contributions to the economy and the impact their imprisonment could have on chaebol and the economy as exceptional reasons for reducing their prison terms and suspending them — a problem President Moon Jae-in called attention to in his election campaign. Mr. Lee’s father — Lee Kun-hee, the son of Samsung’s founder and the conglomerate’s chairman — was twice convicted of bribery and other corruption charges but never spent a day in jail, creating an image of Samsung as untouchable.

“Today’s ruling was not the worst-case scenario for Samsung,” said Kang Jong-min, a chaebol expert at the civic group Solidarity for Economic Reform in Seoul. “There still is a possibility that Lee Jae-yong could eventually walk free with a suspended sentence.”