#statutory demand

[lexlawuk]

Abusive Winding-up Petition Based on DIY Statutory Demands Restrained (Invenia v Hudson)

In the recent case of Invenia Technical Computing Corporation & Anor v Matthew Hudson [2024] EWHC 1302 (Ch), the High Court issued a landmark judgment that serves as a stark costs warning against the misuse of statutory demands and winding-up petitions. This case highlighted the severe consequences that can follow when a creditor takes a DIY approach and fails to seek appropriate legal advice…

[defective-titan]

Shitty that I kinda miss 2019-2021 era bc my ex made me so horrifically depressed I was actually Skinny for a hot minute.

[wizardysseus]

On Friday, the president signed yet another Executive Order, this time directly targeting funds allocated to libraries and museums nationwide. The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) is a federal agency that distributes fund approved by Congress to state libraries, as well as library, museum, and archival grant programs. IMLS is the only federal agency that provides funds to libraries. The Executive Order states that the functions of the IMLS have to be reduced to “statutory functions” and that in places that are not statutory, expenses must be cut as much as possible. [...] The department has seven days to report back, meaning that as soon as this Friday, March 21, 2025, public libraries–including school and academic libraries–as well as public museums could see their budgets demolished.

Actionable items from the article:

Sign the petition at EveryLibrary to stop Trump’s Executive Order seeking to gut the IMLS then share it with your networks.

Write a letter to each of your Senators and to your Representative at the federal level. You can find your Senators here and your Representative here. All you need to say in this letter is that you, a resident of their district, demand they speak up and defend the budget of IMLS. Include a short statement of where and how you value the library, as well as its importance in your community. This can be as short as “I use the library to find trusted sources of information, and every time I am in there, the public computers are being used by a variety of community members doing everything from applying for jobs to writing school papers. Cutting the funds for libraries will further harm those who lack stable internet, who cannot afford a home library, and who seek the opportunities to engage in programming, learning, enrichment, and entertainment in their own community. Public libraries help strengthen reading and critical thinking skills for all ages.” In those letters, consider noting that the return on investment on libraries is astronomical. You can use data from EveryLibrary.

Call the offices of each of your Senators and Representatives in Congress. Yes, they’ll be busy. Yes, the voice mails will be full. KEEP CALLING. Get your name on the record against IMLS cuts. Do this in addition to writing a letter. If making a call creates anxiety, use a tool like 5 Calls to create a script you can read when you reach a person or voice mail.

Though your state-level representatives will not have the power to impact what happens with IMLS, this is your time to reach out to each of your state representatives to emphasize the importance of your state’s public libraries. Note that in light of potential cuts from the federal government, you advocate for stronger laws protecting libraries and library workers, as well as stronger funding models for these institutions.

Show up at your next public library meeting, either in person at a board meeting or via an email or letter, and tell the library how much it means to you. In an era where information that is not written down and documented simply doesn’t exist, nothing is more crucial than having your name attached to some words about the importance of your public library. This does not need to be genius work–tell the library how you use their services and how much they mean to you as a taxpayer.

Tell everyone you know what is at stake. If you’ve not been speaking up for public institutions over the last several years, despite the red flags and warnings that have been building and building, it is not too late to begin now. EveryLibrary’s primer and petition is an excellent resource to give folks who may be unaware of what’s going on–or who want just the most important information.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Billionaire-proofing the internet

Picks and Shovels is a new, standalone technothriller starring Marty Hench, my two-fisted, hard-fighting, tech-scam-busting forensic accountant. You can pre-order it on my latest Kickstarter, which features a brilliant audiobook read by Wil Wheaton.

During the Napster wars, the record labels seriously pissed off millions of internet users when they sued over 19,000 music fans, mostly kids, but also grannies, old people, and dead people.

It's hard to overstate how badly the labels behaved. Like, there was the Swarthmore student who was the maintainer of a free/open source search engine that indexed files available in public sharepoints on the LAN. The labels sued him for millions and millions (the statutory damages for digital copyright infringement runs to $150,000 per file) and, when he begged for a settlement, said that they would accept his life's savings, but only if he changed majors and stopped studying Computer Science.

No, really.

What's more, none of the money the labels extracted from teenagers, grandparents (and the dead) went to artists. The labels just kept it all, while continuing to insist that they were doing all this because they wanted to "protect artists."

One thing everyone agreed on was how disgusted we all were with the labels. What we didn't agree on was what to do about it. A lot of us wanted to reform copyright – say, by creating a blanket license for internet music so that artists could get paid directly. This was the systemic approach.

Another group – call them the "individualists" – wanted a boycott. Just stop buying and listening to music from the major labels. Every dollar you spend with a label is being used to fund a campaign of legal terror. Merely enjoying popular music makes you part of the problem.

You can probably guess which group I was in. Leaving aside the futility of "voting with your wallet" (a rigged ballot that's always won by the people with the thickest wallet), I just thought this was bad tactics.

Here's what I would say when people told me we should all stop listening to popular music: "If members of your popular movement are not allowed to listen to popular music, your movement won't be very popular."

We weren't going to make political change by creating an impossible purity test ("Ew, you listen to music from a major label? God, what's wrong with you?"). I mean, for one thing, a lot of popular music is legitimately fantastic and makes peoples' lives better. Popular movements should strive to increase their members' joy, not demand their deprivation. Again, not merely because this is a nice thing to do for people, but also because it's good tactics to make participation in the thing you're trying to do as joyous as possible.

Which brings me to social media. The problem with social media is that the people we love and want to interact with are being held prisoner in walled gardens. The mechanism of their imprisonment is the "switching costs" of leaving. Our friends and communities are on bad social media networks because they love each other more than they hate Musk or Zuck. Leaving a social platform can cost you contact with family members in the country you emigrated from, a support group of people who share your rare disease, the customers or audience you rely on for your livelihood, or just the other parents organizing your kid's little league game.

Hypothetically, you could organize all these people to leave at once, go somewhere else, and re-establish all your social connections. Practically, the "collective action problem" of doing so is nearly insurmountable. This is what platform owners depend on – it's why they know they can enshittify their services without losing users. So long as the pain of using the service is lower than the pain of leaving it, the companies can turn the screws on users to make their lives worse in order to extract more profit from them. This is why Musk killed the block button and why Zuck fired all his moderators. Why bear the expense of doing something nice for users if they'll still stick around even if you cut a ton of headcount and/or expensive compute?

There's a way out of this, thankfully. When social media is federated, then you can leave a server without leaving your friends. Think of it as being similar to changing cell-phone companies. When you switch from Verizon to T-Mobile, you keep your number, you keep your address book and you keep your friends, who won't even know you switched networks unless you tell them:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/29/how-to-leave-dying-social-media-platforms/

There's no reason social media couldn't work this way. You should be able to leave Facebook or Twitter for Mastodon, Bluesky, or any other service and still talk with the people you left behind, provided they still want to talk with you:

https://www.eff.org/interoperablefacebook

That's how the Fediverse – which Mastodon is part of – works already. You can switch from one Mastodon server to another, and all the people you follow and who follow you will just move over to that new server. That means that if the person or company or group running your server goes sour, you aren't stuck making a choice between the people you love who connect to you on that server, and the pain of dealing with whatever bullshit the management is throwing off:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/23/semipermeable-membranes/#free-as-in-puppies

We could make that stronger! Data protection laws like the EU's GDPR and California's CCPA create a legal duty for online services to hand over your data on demand. Arguably, these laws already require your Mastodon server's management to give you the files you need to switch from one server to another, but that could be clarified. Handing these files over to users on demand is really straightforward – even a volunteer running a small server for a few friends will have no trouble living up to this obligation. It's literally just a minute's work for each user.

Another way to make this stronger is through governance. Many of the great services that defined the old, good internet were run by "benevolent dictators for life." This worked well, but failed so badly. Even if the dictator for life stayed benevolent, that didn't make them infallible. The problem of a dictatorship isn't just malice – it's also human frailty. For a service to remain good over long timescales, it needs accountable, responsive governance. That's why all the most successful BDFL services (like Wikipedia) transitioned to community-managed systems:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/10/bdfl/#high-on-your-own-supply

There, too, Mastodon shines. Mastodon's founder Eugen Rochko has just explicitly abjured his role as "ultimate decision-maker" and handed management over to a nonprofit:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/01/mastodon-becomes-nonprofit-to-make-sure-its-never-ruined-by-billionaire-ceo/

I love using Mastodon and I have a lot of hope for its future. I wish I was as happy with Bluesky, which was founded with the promise of federation, and which uses a clever naming scheme that makes it even harder for server owners to usurp your identity. But while Bluesky has added many, many technically impressive features, they haven't delivered on the long-promised federation:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/02/ulysses-pact/#tie-yourself-to-a-federated-mast

Bluesky sure seems like a lot of fun! They've pulled tens of millions of users over from other systems, and by all accounts, they've all having a great time. The problem is that without federation, all those users are vulnerable to bad decisions by management (perhaps under pressure from the company's investors) or by a change in management (perhaps instigated by investors if the current management refuses to institute extractive measures that are good for the investors but bad for the users). Federation is to social media what fire-exits are to nightclubs: a way for people to escape if the party turns deadly:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/12/14/fire-exits/#graceful-failure-modes

So what's the answer? Well, around Mastodon, you'll hear a refrain that reminds me a lot of the Napster wars: "People who are enjoying themselves on Bluesky are wrong to do so, because it's not federated and the only server you can use is run by a VC-backed for-profit. They should all leave that great party – there's no fire exits!"

This is the social media version of "To be in our movement, you have to stop listening to popular music." Sure, those people shouldn't be crammed into a nightclub that has no fire exits. But thankfully, there is an alternative to being the kind of scold who demands that people leave a great party, and being the kind of callous person who lets tens of millions of people continue to risk their lives by being stuck in a fire-trap.

We can install our own fire-exits in Bluesky.

Yesterday, an initiative called "Free Our Feeds" launched, with a set of goals for "billionaire-proofing" social media. One of those goals is to add the long-delayed federation to Bluesky. I'm one of the inaugural endorsers for this, because installing fire exits for Bluesky isn't just the right thing to do, it's also good tactics:

https://freeourfeeds.com/

Here's why: if a body independent of the Bluesky corporation implements its federation services, then we ensure that its fire exits are beyond the control of its VCs. That means that if they are ever tempted in future to brick up the fire-exits, they won't be able to. This isn't a hypothetical risk. When businesses start to enshittify their services, they fully commit themselves to blocking anything that makes it easy to leave those services.

That's why Apple went so hard after Beeper Plus, a service that enhanced iMessage's security by making conversations between Apple and Android users as private as chats that were confined to Apple users:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/07/blue-bubbles-for-all/#never-underestimate-the-determination-of-a-kid-who-is-time-rich-and-cash-poor

It's why Elon Musk periodically freaks out and suspends users who list their Mastodon userids in their Twitter bios:

https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/15/elon-musk-suspends-mastodon-twitter-account-over-elonjet-tracking/

And it's why Meta will suspend your account if you link to Pixelfed, a Fediverse-based alternative to Instagram:

https://www.404media.co/meta-is-blocking-links-to-decentralized-instagram-competitor-pixelfed/

Once upon a time, we had a solid way of overcoming the problem of lock-in. We'd reverse-engineer a proprietary system and make a free, open alternative. We've been hacking fire exits into walled gardens since the Usenet days, with the creation of the alt.* hierarchy:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/altinteroperabilityadversarial

When the corporate owners of Unix started getting all weird about source-code access and user-modifiability, we didn't insist that Unix users were bad people for sticking with a corporate OS. We reverse-engineered Unix and set all those users free:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Project

The answer to Microsoft's proprietary SMB network protocol wasn't a campaign to shame people for having SMB running on their LANs. It was reverse-engineering SMB and making SAMBA, which is now in every single device in your home and office, and it's gloriously free as in speech and free as in beer:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/07/samba-versus-smb-adversarial-interoperability-judo-network-effects

In the years since, a thicket of laws we colloquially call "IP" has grown up around services and products, and people have literally forgotten that there is an alternative to wheedling people to endure the pain of leaving a proprietary system for a free one. IP has put the imaginations of people who dream of a free internet in chains.

We can do better than begging people to leave a party they're enjoying; we can install our own fucking fire exits. Sure, maybe that means that a lot of those users will stay on the proprietary platform, but at least we'll have given them a way to leave if things go horribly wrong.

After all, there's no virtue in software freedom. The only thing worth caring about is human freedom. The only reason to value software freedom is if it sets humans free.

If I had my way, all those people enjoying themselves on Bluesky would come and enjoy themselves in the Fediverse. But I'm not a purist. If there's a way to use Bluesky without locking myself to the platform, I will join the party there in a hot second. And if there's a way to join the Bluesky party from the Fediverse, then goddamn I will party my ass off.

Check out my Kickstarter to pre-order copies of my next novel, Picks and Shovels!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/01/14/contesting-popularity/#everybody-samba

[tinfoil-jones]

The pursuit of knowledge is long and demanding but do you also wanna know what else is long and demanding? That right! My need for this man *point to jerk Ford* so here are more questions (I realized the lack of child jerk Ford and sea grunks and now my brain won't leave me alone)

1. Since jerk Ford is a jerk from birth and holds a grudge till the day he dies, how much of Crampelter life did he ruin? I wanna see little jerk Ford saying fuck you and little Stan's reaction

2. If Stan were to get grounded or get detention, how much longer till jerk Ford also gets grounded or gets detention? Or does he just break Stan out of them?

3. Has there been time where Stanley does something bad but people just assumed it's jerk Ford pretending to be Stan or that Stan was pressured into helping jerk Ford? I need to know who Filbrick blames for the missing golden chain in the lost legend comic

4. We're there like full-blown panic for the coast guard, the navy, the fishermen, the pirate, and the marine life? Because "oh God he's in the seas, HE'S IN THE SEAS"

(I will be back >:) muehehehehe)

(1)

In High School, people told Crampelter to leave Stanford Pines alone; that even though he wasn't as big as his brother, he still could and would hurt you in ways you never thought possible.

Crampelter did not listen.

After a week of no retribution from Jerk Ford, and Crampelter assumed that everyone must have been exaggerating, sure the guy was mouthy as hell but-

Wait.

Why is he telling everyone he f***ed Crampelters mom?

He's just bluffing, there's no way-

And then Crampelters mom goes to jail for statutory. And he never lives it down.

He had to move out of Glass Shard Beach after High School.

(2)

Believe it or not, in the AU Stan was a good student. Teachers realized early on that the only way to keep Jerk Ford somewhat behaved was to keep his twin with him, because he was the only person he wasn't a jerk to and could actually talk him down.

So Stanley got a lot of extra help and support from the school and even his parents for his learning needs to be met, so he and Jerk Ford could share as many classes as possible throughout their school years.

Obviously they didn't share every single class because they still had differing interests (Jerk Ford taking robotics while Stan was a theatre kid) and Jerk Ford was a Math and Science prodigy, but they were usually in the same core classes.

Jerk Ford was indefinitely banned from detention in his Freshman year because if he was in detention, you bet whoever the teacher or supervisor was wasn't going to be there.

(3)

Because of how catastrophically bad Jerk Ford was, nothing Stanley did in comparison could ever look that bad.

Stanley took the gold chain? That same week, he and Jerk Ford tried opening a lemonade stand only for the Sibling brothers to do the same thing and take all of their business (not that they got a lot because everyone in Glass Shard Beach stayed clear of Jerk Ford even at the tender age of twelve).

And what happens? Well, Jerk Ford said or did something because the Sibling brothers stand was shut down by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and also the f***ing FBI showed up; Ascot and Dickie had to wear ankle monitors all summer.

Stanley wouldn't let Jerk Ford take the fall for something he did, however, so he'd own up to it. He'd be punished like a normal kid, none of that 'hold an extra Stan sign' stuff.

(4)

When the expedition for the Stan O'War II began, Jerk Ford was mostly unknown at first. He'd been out of his dimension and believed to be dead for three decades.

At first.

At first.

[jtmportland]

I know this post is long, but it’s important to read to understand what’s going on. A lot of people are asking, “Why is Trump just out golfing while things are falling apart?” It’s simple: the emergency isn’t something he’s reacting to — it’s something he’s building.

Trump recently declared a national economic emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — granting himself sweeping authority over international trade by labeling foreign economic practices an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

But here’s the real play: by declaring a national emergency, Trump didn’t just respond to a crisis — he created one. And in doing so, he unlocked access to over 120 statutory powers scattered throughout federal law. Many of these powers have nothing to do with trade — and everything to do with expanding presidential authority inside the U.S.

What This Move Enables: Expanded Domestic Powers

1. Control of Domestic Communications

- 47 U.S.C. §606(c): Allows the president to take control of, shut down, or regulate wire and radio communications — including the internet, social media platforms, broadcast networks, and telecom infrastructure — in the name of national defense. Originally intended for wartime, this Cold War-era law remains on the books.

2. Asset Freezing and Financial Surveillance

- Under IEEPA and related laws, the president can freeze the assets and bank accounts of individuals or organizations accused of aiding foreign threats. These powers are vague and can be stretched to include domestic political groups, journalists, or activists — especially if they’re perceived as having foreign ties or influence.

3. Domestic Military Deployment

- Under the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255), the president can deploy active-duty U.S. military to enforce laws or suppress civil unrest within the country. In certain scenarios, this can be done without state governor consent — especially if the president claims state authorities are failing to uphold federal law.

4. Emergency Detention Powers (Non-Citizens)

- The Alien Enemies Act (50 U.S.C. §21) — a law dating back to 1798 — allows the president to detain or restrict the movement of non-citizens from nations deemed hostile. The criteria for “hostile” can be broad and undefined during a declared emergency.

5. Control of Energy and Transportation

- Under laws like 42 U.S.C. §6272 and others, the president can redirect or restrict domestic fuel production, electricity usage, or energy transportation. Additionally, 49 U.S.C. §40106(b) allows the president to limit, reroute, or suspend civil aviation, giving the executive branch near-total control over U.S. airspace in a crisis.

6. Suspension of Labor Regulations

- During a declared emergency, the president can waive federal labor regulations and override contract protections. This includes removing limits on hours, wages, and workplace safety for federal contractors and any industries deemed vital to national security.

7. National Security Letters & Warrantless Surveillance

- Emergency declarations expand the reach and use of National Security Letters (NSLs) — tools that let federal agencies demand financial, telecom, and internet records without a warrant. These also come with gag orders, preventing the recipient (e.g., Google or a bank) from disclosing that they’re under surveillance.

Why it Matters?

Even when legal domestic powers are limited, a national emergency lets the president:

- Frame the issue as a national security crisis, justifying aggressive action

- Bypass Congress and the courts by acting unilaterally

- Sway public opinion using fear, urgency, and patriotic rhetoric

Bottom Line

IEEPA is focused on foreign threats — but once the emergency is declared, the president taps into a hidden arsenal of domestic control powers. What began as a trade issue could quickly shift into civil liberties restrictions, mass surveillance, or even crackdowns under the legal shield of an “emergency.”

This isn’t just about tariffs. It’s about redefining the boundaries of executive power. Imagine if this economic crisis keeps getting worse — the amount of power he will gain.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Sarah Jones at Jason Easley at PoliticusUSA:

The Trump administration has been on an extortion bender. Trump’s White House has extorted free legal services from powerful law firms with threatening executive orders, and they have either stripped or threatened to strip research funding from universities under the pretense of fighting antisemitism on college campuses. One of the primary targets of the Trump administration has been Harvard. The Trump White House wants to control what is taught, who can be hired, and who can be admitted to the schools that they are targeting. On Monday, Harvard said no.

Alan M. Garber, the president of Harvard University, wrote in a published letter: Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to “maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.” It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard. I encourage you to read the letter to gain a fuller understanding of the unprecedented demands being made by the federal government to control the Harvard community. They include requirements to “audit” the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to “reduc[e] the power” of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue. Harvard didn’t cave to fear. They didn’t bend the knee and kiss Trump’s ring as so many others have. The university said no. We won’t surrender. We won’t allow Donald Trump to take us over.

This is how you respond to Donald Trump’s extortion games with colleges. Harvard University rightfully refused to bend to Trump’s BS demands.

See Also:

The Guardian: Harvard says it will not ‘yield’ to Trump demands over $9bn in funding cuts

HuffPost: Harvard Refuses To Give In To Trump Administration Demands

Daily Kos: Harvard risks billions as university stands up to Trump

[itsbansheebitch]

The Cody Ko Allegations: It was a CRIME

TW: Sexual violence

Cody Ko has been accused of committing statutory rape against Tana Mongeau. These allegations have been around for years, but he he, his friends, and his subreddit have repeatedly covered them up. I would recommend D'Angelo Wallace's video on the topic.

Not only has Tana's story stayed consistent, but also, she has a WITNESS. Gabbie Hanna saw what was happening and tried to stop Cody, but he continued anyway.

Gabbie has been seen on video telling the EXACT SAME STORY.

The idea that if you lose good will in the eyes of the public that it doesn't matter what happens to you... it's terrifying. People will do ANYTHING to demand a perfect victim.

It doesn't matter if you don't like Tana or Gabbie. IT WAS A CRIME

Cody's fans have taken two different approaches:

1, insulting Tana in pretty much anyway you can imagine/saying that if Tana is fine, then why should we care

2, demanding a response from Cody. Since Cody has been vigilant with his comment moderation, his fans have moved to his wife's channel to demand an answer.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Emily Yoffe

Published: Jan 20, 2025

Toward the end of the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s campaign released an unexpected ad, and one that was extremely politically effective. The tagline—“Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.”—could go down in history as one of the most effective campaign slogans ever devised.

The ad reinforced a promise Trump repeated at rally after rally as he toured the swing states: If returned to office, he would immediately take on the gender ideology the Biden administration had embraced. Namely, he would end policies such as allowing males on women’s sports teams and in women’s locker rooms, and the housing of male prisoners who identify as transwomen in federal prisons for female offenders.

President Trump has addressed all this and more in an expansive executive order he will sign tomorrow afternoon called “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

Here is what the order sets out:

The Executive Order establishes Government-wide the biological reality of two sexes and clearly defines male and female.

All radical gender ideology guidance, communication, policies, and forms are removed.

Agencies will cease pretending that men can be women and women can be men when enforcing laws that protect against sex discrimination.

“Woman” means an “adult human female.”

The Executive Order directs that Government identification like passports and personnel records will reflect biological reality and not self-assessed gender identity.

The Executive Order ends the practice of housing men in women’s prisons and taxpayer funded “transition” for male prisoners.

The Executive Order ends the forced recitation of “preferred pronouns” and protects Americans’ First Amendment and statutory rights to recognize the biological and binary nature of sex.

This includes protection in the workplace and in federal funded entities like schools.

Asked why Trump is making sex-based policy a day one priority of his administration, an incoming senior administration official said, “This really was a defining issue of the campaign. The president is going to be fulfilling the promises he made on the trail.” The executive order puts it more bluntly: “Radical gender ideology has devastated biological truth and women’s safety and opportunity.”

It is becoming something of a presidential tradition to begin a term with sweeping directives regarding “gender identity.” President Biden, on his first day in office, demanded the federal government “review all existing orders, regulations, guidance documents, policies, programs, or other agency actions” that could impinge on transgender rights. Language and rules about transgender identities became embedded in the vast federal bureaucracy.

Now, Trump has ordered a reversal of all this. In an exclusive briefing with The Free Press, two senior officials provided a summary of the executive order. “Women deserve protections, they deserve dignity, they deserve fairness, they deserve safety,” said a senior policy adviser explaining why the order explicitly embraces the necessity of special treatment for women. “And so this is going to help establish that in federal policy and in federal laws.”

In reading the order, it’s clear that lawsuits challenging the new directives will start stacking up quickly. The order, for example, asserts that “All radical gender ideology guidance, communication, policies, and forms are removed.” This is far from mere symbolism. United States passports—which since 2022 have allowed citizens to choose “X” as their gender—will revert to offering exclusively male and female options, with the proviso that what people select must “reflect biological reality and not self-assessed gender identity.”

The executive order also “ends the forced recitation of ‘preferred pronouns’ and protects Americans’ First Amendment and statutory rights to recognize the biological and binary nature of sex.” When asked about how this would affect public universities, which are bound by the First Amendment’s free speech protections, the senior policy adviser said the U.S. attorney general will enforce these rights. The adviser cited a 2022 federal court ruling to the effect that a Shawnee State University philosophy professor was deprived of his First Amendment rights by being forced to address a transgender student using that student’s chosen pronouns.

The task of the Trump administration now will be to promulgate rules implementing the order, which will affect people’s daily lives. It is inevitable that activist organizations will take these matters to court. The policy adviser said the administration is ready for litigation, predicting Trump will be “100 percent successful.”

It’s a fight the new administration seems to relish. Both officials said the executive order has the potential to broaden the president’s support. “Just take a look at the polling,” the senior official said. “The public is broadly in favor of the president’s and of the Republican Party’s stance on gender. That there are two biological sexes is something that the public is supportive of.”

The executive order does not address one of the most contentious areas of transgender activism: “gender-affirming care” for minors, meaning putting gender-distressed young people on a swift course to transition and lifetime medication. The Biden administration ardently supported such treatments, even as other Western nations began to restrict them, and dozens of U.S. states began to ban them.

The Biden administration sued Tennessee over its ban. That case resulted in a contentious oral argument at the Supreme Court in December, after which most observers felt the court would probably uphold Tennessee’s law.

Asked about why the new executive order does not deal with this, the senior official said, “This executive order is the first of many. I would expect that anything the president said he would do on the trail regarding these issues, he’s going to be fulfilling those promises.”

The order ends with a sweeping statement about the fundamental issue the White House believes is at stake in this order: ”Men and women are equal but have obvious sexual differences,” it reads. “If federal policies promote such an obvious falsehood that men can become women, the government will forfeit all credibility. The government must maintain a commitment to recognizing biological reality to maintain the trust of the American people.”

This order is one of nearly 200 executive actions the White House is rolling out today. Among them: orders to declare a national emergency at the border; end all DEI programs across the federal government; withdrawal from the Paris climate accord; and a return-to-office directive for federal workers.

==

Go ahead and try to explain how this is unreasonable.

[no-passaran]

[...] The International Olympic Committee, FIFA, UEFA, FIBA, and other sports organisations are complicit as they allow a continuous participation of the occupying apartheid regime in their events. Following a swift response and an instant suspension of Russia, it is now difficult for them to justify turning a blind eye to the Israeli government’s actions.

We must however take heart from history and support the liberation of Palestine as generations before us brought apartheid to an end in South Africa. That struggle took on all possible dimensions, with one of the earliest being suspension of sporting ties – which aided in peacefully isolating the South African regime, demonstrated a global rejection of apartheid and changed domestic perspectives in the country.

This act must now be extended to Israel – not only due to its practice of settler-colonialism, military occupation, ethnic cleansing, genocide, apartheid and illegal exploitation of natural resources on occupied territories – but also due to its brutal assault on cultural, academic and sporting life of the Palestinian society.

We thus urgently demand:

An immediate suspension of Israel from participation in all international sports until it fully complies with international law and sports regulations

For global and European sports governing bodies to immediately uphold their statutory obligations – especially their own rules on human rights and non-discrimination given Russian, South African and other precedents. This would include, inter alia, a ban on Israel competing at the 2024 Paris Olympics, UEFA’s European Championship and FIFA’s World Cup.

For a deeper analysis on the rationale to suspend Israel from international sports, please review this paper (also available in Spanish) that will be sent to sports organisations.

[lexlawuk]

Amanda Staveley fails to Set Aside Victor Restis' £3.5 Million Statutory Demand

British financier labels demand an ‘abuse of process’ that should be settled through arbitration. A recent ruling of the High Court has left Amanda Staveley, the co-owner of Newcastle United football club, facing payment of her substantial debt of nearly £3.5 million following a legal dispute with the Greek shipping tycoon Victor Restis. Victor had issued a statutory demand against Staveley,…

[palestinegenocide]

More than 300 Palestinian sports teams are calling to ban Israel from the Olympics over its genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

The Israeli offensive on Gaza has claimed the lives of 26,706 civilians, including 11,422 infants and children. Ninety percent of Palestinians are internally displaced and living in inhumane conditions with “no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel.” No functional hospitals. No mosques. No churches. No libraries. No schools. No universities. No bakeries. At this rate, the brutal Israeli regime will soon destroy every aspect of life in Gaza, including its sports.

Join the global campaign to peacefully disrupt the road to Paris 2024 calling on the IOC to #BanIsrael until it ends its crimes against Palestinians and recognizes our UN-stipulated rights.

Register your group to join the campaign

We thus urgently demand:

An immediate suspension of Israel from participation in all international sports until it fully complies with international law and sports regulations

For global and European sports governing bodies to immediately uphold their statutory obligations – especially their own rules on human rights and non-discrimination given Russian, South African and other precedents. This would include, inter alia, a ban on Israel competing at the 2024 Paris Olympics, FIFA World Cup, and UEFA’s EURO. 

For a deeper analysis on the rationale to suspend Israel from international sports, please review this paper (also available in Spanish) that will be sent to sports organisations.

Here’s what you can do.

1. Join the Global Day(s) of Action, March 15-17 

Ahead of the IOC executive board meeting in Lausanne Switzerland (March 19-21), take the call from Palestinian teams to your National Olympic Committee, International Sports Federations and Recognized Sports Federations. Organize protests, sit-ins, peaceful disruptions, or awareness raising events on Israeli attacks on Palestinian sports. Register your group for more information.

2. Olympics qualifiers and events

From now until the Olympic Games start in July, the road to Paris will be filled with opportunities to remind the IOC that there is no place in the Olympics for genocide perpetrators. Earlier this month, four runners took the #CeasefireNow message to the Olympic Trials Marathon in Florida, crossing the finish line with Palestinian flags. Find information on Olympic time trials and qualifiers (also here) or other Olympics-related events in your area. Register your group for more information.

3. Kick Israeli apartheid out of sports

Is your country a signatory to the International Convention Against Apartheid in Sports? If so, it has an obligation to “take all appropriate action to secure the expulsion of a country practising apartheid from international and regional sports bodies.” Register your group to learn what you can do.

4. Sign the petition to ban Israel from world sports

Join more than 70,000 people from all over the world who have signed the petition calling for banning Israel from international sport.

Add your signature here

Israel has killed Palestinian Olympic Football coach Hani Al Masdar, destroyed the Palestinian Olympic Committee offices, and turned sports facilities into shameful mass detention and torture centers.

We can’t sit back as the IOC allows Israel to use the Olympics to sportswash its genocide in Gaza and its apartheid regime against Palestinians everywhere. Support the call from Palestinian teams. 

Join the campaign to #BanIsrael from the Olympics and peacefully disrupt the road to the Paris 2024 games. 

[torillatavataan]

Finland seizes Russian state-owned property

Finland's National Enforcement Authority has begun seizing properties in Helsinki that belong to the Russian state. The agency operates under the remit of the Justice Ministry and is responsible for undertaking the state's statutory enforcement duties.

The seizure of the property is related to compensation claims made by the Ukrainian state-owned gas firm Naftogaz. Naftogaz has demanded more than five billion euros in compensation from Russia following the Kremlin's invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the firm's subsequent loss of gas reserves, pipelines, and warehouses in the Crimea region.

Full article by YLE

According to Helsingin Sanomat, 44 properties have been seized, most of them located in Helsinki. The seized properties include the Russian Centre of Science and Culture, an office building, four waterfront properties, and several limited liability housing shares.

According to Iltalehti, in Finland, Naftogaz are represented HPP Attorneys, pro bono.

"This is something that we feel is important and we want to play our part in helping Ukraine. We felt that this is a meaningful way for us to help."

Images via Iltalehti

[mariacallous]

We are witnessing a constitutional system on the brink. The crisis started on Saturday, when James E. Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, issued an order that could hardly have been clearer: he told the Trump Administration to halt the imminent deportation of immigrants alleged to be Venezuelan gang members.

“You shall inform your clients of this immediately, and that any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States—but those people need to be returned to the United States,” Boasberg instructed the Justice Department lawyer Drew Ensign over Zoom, a hearing called so hurriedly that the judge, away for the weekend without having packed his robes, apologized at the start for his informal dress.

“However that’s accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane . . . I leave to you,” Boasberg said. “But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.”

Federal judges are accustomed to being obeyed, but there is a new Administration in town, and it is dangerously and deliberately testing the limits of judicial power. As Boasberg was speaking, the planes were in the air; authorities had them continue on to El Salvador, which had agreed to jail the Venezuelans for a reported six million dollars.

“Oopsie . . . Too late,” the Salvadoran President, Nayib Bukele, posted on X the next morning, along with a laughing-tears emoji and a screenshot of a New York Post story about Boasberg’s order. Bukele was quickly retweeted by, among other Administration officials, Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday demanded the judge’s impeachment, calling him “a Radical Left Lunatic.” At which point the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, weighed in. “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts wrote in a rare public statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

There’s been talk for weeks now of an impending constitutional crisis. The term is imprecise, but there’s broad agreement that it covers the spectacle of a President outright refusing to comply with a court order. And here we are—although the Administration asserts otherwise. Now comes an uncomfortable question: Are courts—lacking, as Alexander Hamilton observed, “influence over either the sword or the purse”—capable of doing anything much in response?

J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump, the case before Boasberg, places the questions of judicial authority front and center. It also goes to the question of fundamental fairness. At issue is whether the government, invoking wartime powers at a moment when the country is not at war, can, on authorities’ bare assertion, with no judicial review, take individuals who have been convicted of no crime and deport them to serve hard time in the prisons of another country. The case, even before the possibility of defying court orders arose, encapsulated some of the most dangerous legal tendencies of the Trump Administration: a hyper-aggressive conception of Presidential power combined with an eagerness to stretch statutory language beyond any reasonable bounds.

Trump has been threatening for months to use the Alien Enemies Act, of 1798, to expel Venezuelans who the Administration says belong to the Tren de Aragua gang, without the bother of going through legal proceedings. The law has been invoked just three times—during the War of 1812 and the First and Second World Wars—and you don’t have to be a diehard textualist to understand that it doesn’t apply in the current circumstances: it applies only when “there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation” or “any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated,” again, “by any foreign nation.”

Given how far afield Trump’s actions stray from the law, it was no surprise that Boasberg was willing to grant a temporary restraining order Saturday to keep the status quo in place. What was shocking was the Trump Administration’s willingness to so flagrantly violate his order. The Georgetown University law professor Marty Lederman, a Justice Department official during Democratic Administrations, wrote that he couldn’t recall “any historical precedent where executive branch officials have embarked on such an audacious action to anticipatorily stymie the proper functioning of a federal court—let alone to do so in the midst of a judicial hearing.”

So Boasberg—this time in robes—summoned the lawyers to an emergency hearing on Monday, to find out what had happened. What ensued was one of the most extraordinary exchanges I’ve witnessed in years of covering the courts. Boasberg, displaying remarkable forbearance, asked basic, seemingly innocuous questions, only to be met with stonewalling from the Justice Department.

“How many planes departed the United States at any point on Saturday carrying any people being deported solely on the basis of the proclamation?” Boasberg asked.

“Those are operational issues, and I am not at liberty to provide or authorized to provide any information on how many flights left,” Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli responded. (The answer, from reporters tracking the flights, appears to be three.) “The information that I am authorized to provide is that no planes took off from the United States after the written order came through.”

Boasberg was incredulous that the department was refusing to provide the information—even to Boasberg himself, in private. “Why are you showing up today and not having answers to why you can’t even disclose it?” he asked. “Maybe those answers are classified. . . . Maybe those answers are not classified, but they shouldn’t be for the public. Fine also. But you are telling me . . . you can’t even tell me which of those applies?”

That was just the start. Kambli contended that the Administration hadn’t violated Boasberg’s oral instructions, because it was only bound by the written order issued shortly afterward, which did not specify that planes had to be turned around.

No self-respecting judge would stand for that. When the jury returns a guilty verdict and the judge instructs the marshals to take the defendant into custody, the marshals don’t tell him or her to put it in writing. The notion that the Justice Department didn’t have to comply with what Boasberg said was, as Boasberg put it, “a heck of a stretch.”

Kambli also argued that Boasberg’s authority over the planes disappeared once they left U.S. airspace—a particularly cynical position because, as Boasberg tartly noted, the Administration knew, when it chose to have the planes take off, that Boasberg had scheduled a hearing at the exact same time to determine the fate of the detainees onboard.

Boasberg ordered the Justice Department to provide more explanation for why it wouldn’t explain itself. “I will memorialize this in a written order, since apparently my oral orders don’t seem to carry much weight,” he noted. When, on Tuesday, the department balked again at providing such “sensitive information” while Boasberg’s order to halt the deportations is on appeal, Boasberg gave it another twenty-four hours to come up with answers, to be submitted under seal and directly to him.

Just before its latest refusal, the Justice Department made an extraordinary request: that the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit not only reverse Boasberg’s order but remove him from the case, because, it said, he had engaged in “highly unusual and improper procedures.” (I can confidently predict that this is not going to happen.)

The larger question of what powers Boasberg may have here is knotty, especially now that the detainees are imprisoned in a foreign country. “We will ask the judge to order the government to get these individuals back,” Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the A.C.L.U. and the lead attorney on the case, said after the hearing. “There’s a very serious question about whether a federal judge can ever order a foreign government to do something, and the answer is generally no, but here I think we’re in a very different situation.” El Salvador, he said, is acting less like a foreign sovereign than like “a private prison holding these individuals, and it appears that the U.S. is paying for it.” (The A.C.L.U.’s co-counsel in the case is the public-interest group Democracy Forward, where my daughter is a lawyer.)

But the Administration is clearly spoiling for a fight. (It picked an unlikely target. Boasberg, a Yale Law School housemate of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s, is a former homicide prosecutor and so well respected as a judge that he was tapped by the Chief Justice to serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.) “We’re not stopping,” Thomas Homan, Trump’s border czar, proclaimed ahead of Monday’s hearing. “I don’t care what the judges think.” Stephen Miller, a deputy White House chief of staff, tweeted at day’s end, “The President’s cabinet must be able to spend all their energies focused solely on delivering . . . for Americans—not spending untold hours trying to answer the insane edicts of radical rogue judges usurping core Article II powers. These judges are bulldozing our democracy.”

The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, appeared on Fox News on Monday evening to underscore the supposed dangers of Boasberg’s intervention: “If we live in a country where the will of the American people is subverted by a single judge in a single court, we no longer live in a democracy.” Let me fix that for her. If we live in a country where judges’ orders can be ignored by an Administration bent on amassing unchecked power, we no longer live in a democracy.

[titleleaf]

The disruptive effects of unpredictable embodiment were accompanied by a powerful cultural positioning of disabled people as eternal children or as old before their time. Employers routinely referred to disabled workers as ‘girls and boys’, whatever their age. Institutions such as asylums, hospitals and convalescence homes imposed rigid bedtimes and routines associated with the very young or the elderly. Campaigning organisations, largely led by non-disabled people until the 1980s, used images of children to fundraise for disabled adults, and found it hard to adjust to growing demands for choice, control and autonomy made by disabled people. Parents and other relatives also found it extremely hard to allow disabled family members the space to grow into adulthood, judging them unable to bear its burdens and therefore also excluded from its privileges. Fluctuating or insecure adult status was not simply a subjective experience or materially expressed in the design of mobility aids, as George Thomas had encountered. It was hardwired into statutory interventions, institutional practices, social attitudes and the campaigning methods of advocacy groups.

"Marriage, intimacy and adulthood in disabled people's lives and activism in twentieth-century Britain", Lucy Delap

[beardedmrbean]

Harvard University said it will not comply with demands issued by the Trump administration aimed at curtailing antisemitism on campus, resulting in the White House freezing billions in federal contracts and grants.

“No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” the Ivy League school’s president, Alan Garber, wrote in a statement Monday.

The Trump administration quickly shot back at the university’s refusal — announcing a freeze on $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts mere hours later.

“Harvard’s statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges – that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws,” President Trump’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism said in a statement to The Post.

“The disruption of learning that has plagued campuses in recent years is unacceptable. The harassment of Jewish students is intolerable. It is time for elite universities to take the problem seriously and commit to meaningful change if they wish to continue receiving taxpayer support.”

In March, the Trump administration warned it was looking at $256 million in federal contracts for the elite Cambridge, Mass. school, as well as $8.7 billion in additional “multi-year grant commitments,” claiming Harvard had failed to take meaningful action to root out antisemitism.

The Ivy League was ordered to implement multiple changes to maintain its “financial relationship with the federal government,” in a letter earlier this month from Trump’s newly formed antisemitism task force.

Some of them included reforming its student discipline policies, dismantling all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and stepping up its admissions screening of international students to “prevent admitting students hostile to the American values,” including “students supportive of terrorism or antisemitism.”

The prestigious university was also ordered to make admissions decisions based on merit alone and “cease all preferences based on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof.”

Garber called the administration’s demands “unprecedented,” and said the laundry list of required reforms “makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner.”

He further claimed the task force’s missive “goes beyond the power of the federal government … violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI.”

He added that it “threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge.”

Columbia University was given a similar set of demands last month from Trump’s task force, to which it largely agreed to adhere to avoid losing around $400 million in federal grants.

Among them, enforcing a ban on masks for protesters and crackdowns on anti-Israel demonstrators who break the law, including punishing those responsible for the violent takeover of Hamilton Hall in April 2024, during which dozens of masked rioters smashed their way into the academic building and barricaded themselves inside.

Columbia was given a month to comply, and hours before the deadline imposed by the task force expired, the Ivy League agreed to sweeping new policy changes, including new, stricter rules governing facial coverings and empowering campus cops to make arrests.

The school also committed to installing new leadership tasked with overseeing curricula for its Middle East, South Asian and African Studies department, as well as its Center for Palestine Studies, according to a memo from administrators.

However, days later, the school’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, was ousted by the prestigious school’s board of trustees after publicly agreeing to uphold the school’s mask ban but promising faculty she would not behind closed doors.