Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.
Sun Tzu, Art of War
Everything was for tomorrow, but tomorrow never came. The present was only a bridge and on this bridge they are still groaning, as the world groans, and not one idiot ever thinks of blowing up the bridge.
Henry Miller, Tropic of Capricorn
I was wrong! Blow the bridge! Blow the fucking bridge!
Tugg Speedman, Tropic Thunder
Hello again GME Gang! It’s been a while since I last ranted at you, but I know we’ve been in some very good hands here at WSB with all the great DD folks have posted over the past few weeks. So no need for CPT Hubbard to go for 11 again on the Thumbscroll Dial (until today, that is). I’ve enjoyed a lot of these posts very much, so thank you on behalf of myself and the attention-deficient Rocket Children for continuing to deliver that 100% Chaff-Free GME-grade Wheat at such a feverish clip.
Now, I am going to get to Hong Kong’s Lamest Outlaw and his disconcertingly vacant eyes here shortly. But first I want to take you on a journey back to Christmas Eve, in the year of our lord 2020—a heady time in all our lives. We were all so young and innocent then, weren’t we? Fresh off the run up to 22. Blissfully oblivious that we were living in the last moments where the question What is The War of 1812? was the only acceptable Jeopardy question for the answer: The Last Time the Goddamn U.S. Capitol Was Stormed. This was also before we all became irresponsibly overleveraged in Cathie Wood’s Ornamental Gourds ETF. It was a wondrous, confusing time.
But before we get too off topic, let’s all hop in my 1985 DeLorean (purchased with proceeds from my Jan 15 calls – thanks RC!), fire up the ol’ Flux Capacitor, and get that shit to 88 because something happened that evening that is Worth Pondering—particularly in light of recent events. And just as a friendly reminder: even though you’re going back in time in a DeLorean, no one here has to deviate funds away from GME shares to Save the Clock Tower and you are under no obligation to fulfill a scenario where you wind up making out with your Mom (unless your Mom is Cathie Wood like mine—in which case maybe just some quick over-the-clothes stuff).
On the Subject of How It Once ‘Twas The Night Before Christmas
So what in the holy fuck happened on the night before Christmas, Captain? Well, while all you Gentiles were sleeping soundly after lying to your children about benign home intruders and before gorging yourself on the teat of late-stage capitalism, me and the rest of the Chosen People were up late eating Chinese food and thinking about tendies (self-hating Jew Joke! Ba-zing!). But then: when out on the electric twitter machine there arose such a clatter, I sprang to my phone to see what was the matter. And what to my wondering eyes did appear, a mysterious tweet from a Rich-Ass Viking who had a lot of fucking interesting things to say about this whole GME situation that’s what.
This tweet, buried as a reply to a tweet sent by Mr. Rod Alzmann (@RodAlzmann or u/Uberkikz11), simply said: “Merry Christmas. Shhh.” But it included this screen shot:
[**Image Deleted Due to the Mods - check the link below where someone transcribed it - I'll try to add later**]
Now, this tweet to Rod, sent late at night and likely after a strong Mead or three, was very promptly deleted. But your intrepid cub reporter saw this here tweet that night with his own two eyes—seeing as I am a degenerate GME addict and devoted follower of Mr. Rod Alzmann (Hi Rod!). And I took screenshots, of course, like any responsible records custodian might. And so did the dude who wrote a somewhat-overlooked WSB post on this, which included the most pertinent text of the message if you are having trouble reading it here:
https://www.reddit.com/wallstreetbets/comments/kk0omp/christmas_miracle_gamergate_2020_gme_shorts/
Now, what are we to make of this? At the time, I thought it was very interesting. But I did not give it too much attention seeing as how the internet is overcrowded with anonymous weirdos claiming to know more than they do about all sorts of subjects (and now I feel your judging eyes…). Also, there was some very good commentary in that WSB post from some sharp folks about the screenshot author’s questionable use of the shorthand PE/IB—given that private equity and investment banks wouldn’t apparently be involved in a behind-the-scenes transaction with the short funds like what was being discussed there (don’t ask me, I just string together silly words here). But maybe you poke around his Twitter a bit and see for yourself.
Still, plausibility assessments based on preferred nomenclature aside, it seemed to me that some version of that conversation had to be taking place behind the scenes in a situation like this—given the batshit insane short interest, the funds supposedly involved, and the rapid rise in SP coinciding with RC’s share accumulation, December 21st amended 13D filing, and new status as a GME Insider and Board member (just love saying all that in a row, don’t you?).
So the Viking’s screenshot tweet, and the very likely possibility that shorts are in so deep that they’re attempting to negotiate peace with large shareholders behind the scenes, stuck in my tiny little baby brain as a pretty plausible set of scenarios. And from the look of it, it seems like some funds were at least willing to discuss offering these shorts a Golden Bridge away from Certain Fucking Destruction on the open market. And if the words on the screenshot are at all aligned with reality, these short funds have no good options.
Yet it seems like they are still playing hardball to negotiate the carat on this generous bridge offer they’re getting. Why? Maybe they’ve been getting high on their own supply for so long and they don’t know how to see this situation for what it is. Who knows? Maybe there is no Ryan Cohen and we’re all living in a simulation. But if the recent low-rent anti-GME articles and market manipulation efforts we’re seeing are any indication, these overleveraged short fuckers seem to think they’re going to be able to spin out of this hold and drive the SP back down to even smaller peanuts than it’s at now by sheer force of will (and some deployment of well-honed tricks of the trade amirite?) to emerge unscathed. Or even victorious? I dunno—it’s their delusional fantasy sequence.
But do you know what this scenario reminds me of? And this is just coming to me so please bear with me as I’m not showing this to my editor before we print (I haven’t seen this movie in ages – don’t know what made me think of this!). Fuck it, I’m just gonna start riffing here. The shorts trying to thread this needle, against all odds and logic and common sense, reminds me of that hilarious scene in Dumb and Dumber where haplessly delusional Jim Carrey thinks he has a chance with Mary Samsonite Swanson. But the scene is funny because he really doesn’t. Have any chance. At all.
Now, I know this is a 1990s movie originally released on VHS that we haven’t seen it or even seen it referenced in ages. But now that you’re thinking of it again after all this time, doesn’t it remind you of this too? I know, I get it: You’d have to have fucking peanuts for brains for it not to.
(https://twitter.com/ryancohen/status/1350877969816956934?s=20)
On the Subject of the Continued Internet Bumbling of Mr. Justin Dopierala
Now that screenshot came to mind this past week when something kind of weird happened while we were all enjoying our quick rocket ship ride. And yes, we are briefly going to talk again about Seeking Alpha’s second finest pro-GME author (always been more of a Dmitriy man myself) and recurring CPT Hubbard character, Justin Dopierala (and no, Angela, I do not want to have like 10,000 of his babies).
Last Thursday, after we were all virtually high-fiving one another and counting our future Lambos, Mr. Justin Dopierala, head of Domo Capital and longstanding uber-bull GME shareholder and author at Seeking Alpha (last seen arguing pithily with our own Rod Alzmann about the conservative nature of Rod’s holiday earnings projections. Hi again Rod!), made it known that he sold all of Domo Capital’s 500,000 shares for around $42.50—at the very top of the run up last Thursday morning.
Now, Domo Capital’s business decisions are none of my goddamn business. And there are plenty of market opportunities right now. Shit, I hear there is even a new Cathie Wood Gourd ETF coming online soon that people are really excited about and that I’m sure Justin’s clients would find intriguing. But Domo’s decision to sell seemed curious given a few things: (1) on Wednesday, when the rocket is mid-flight, he got a twitter follow from Gabe Plotkin, head of Melvin Capital, which he promptly tweeted about with a “get a load of this fuckin’ guy” vibe (oh the sweet, intoxicating arrogance of tendie victory, I too love it so); (2) he had also tweeted that day comparing GME’s rise to Apron’s short squeeze that lasted 4 days—where he also stressed to his followers that Apron had a much lower SI than GME; and (3) he then promptly deleted all of these tweets and almost everything else GME-related on Thursday after apparently introducing 500,000 shares of liquidity into the height of a stressed market up and through the Thursday reversal and down into his own personal tendie town.
Now, after seeing all this, I mouthed off a bit to Justin on the electric twitter machine because that’s kind of my thing. And if you are familiar with my prior ramblings, you know that he and I go way back. In response, Justin talked a bit of shit about your intrepid cub reporter here in a comment on Dimitry Kozin’s October 21, 2020 article about a possible sony revenue share deal or something, the comment section of which has become the preferred SA water cooler over there. (And I can’t link that because Thems The Rulez). And Justin hurt my little feelings a bit with his very sharp denial. And by all means have at it over there to check out his comment about why he sold if you give a shit. That is if Justin hasn’t deleted it yet. Free country and all.
But to summarize, on the subject of treacherous coordination with Melvin Capital, Justin said he would not could not in a boat and he would not could not with a goat. And I for one believe him. And do you know why? Because even though Justin seems like a very smart guy in some ways, he’s also a well-known internet bumbler who blurts out things to his internet friends that a person with better self-control would keep to themselves. And so I do not think he is capable of pulling that off or keeping a secret like that. Also: he said he didn’t so I am more than willing to give someone the benefit of any doubt in that area and you should too. I think we keep Hanlon’s razor firmly in mind here about never attributing to malice that which is explained by stupidity. That is unless, of course, you’re Andrew Left and you’re actually trying to convince people that you didn’t realize there was a US presidential inauguration planned for the same time you announced your Super Important TeeVee Yammerfest ‘21 about GME not being a good candidate for an imminent short squeeze no way no how not if my name isn’t Andrew Left short seller expert extraordinaire and Hong Kong’s Most Misunderstood Ethically-Minded Businessman. You can ascribe the fuck out of malice to that one.
No, even though I really have no idea, I think the most likely thing that happened there was that Gabe Plotkin, Master of the Universe, Head of Melvin Capital, and Acolyte of Perennial Most Ethical Business Man MVP candidate, Steven Cohen—got into Justin’s head when Plotkin followed him on twitter during the 57% (at one point 94%) day last Wednesday and then Justin got a bit chippy about it.
And this is the real reason I’m bringing this up.
Because I honestly care very little about the Nervous Investing Habits of the Wisconsin hedge fund voted most likely to prompt a Mr. Roboto reference. No: I think that Gabe Plotkin sent a message with that follow. Without even ever having to say it directly. And I think that after GME’s huge run and getting a little overexcited while working the twitter machine, Justin maybe had a chance to relax with a warm glass of milk that night and reflect on that message. Which I believe was: I’m watching you, motherfucker. And the only reason I’m paying any attention to some shitstain Wisconsin pseudo-fund on a day like today when I am getting my ass fucking torched is because I want you to know that if this GME shit blows up on me, I’m going to fuck your ass up. I will remember the name Domo Capital forevermore. And when you least expect me, I’ll be there. Now: your move, motherfucker.
And once I realized what might have happened there, that made me feel kinda bad for Justin if he felt that way. Definitely a puss move because fuck you Plotkin I drink your fucking milkshake, right? But bad because that’s a mean message for a business colleague to send, Gabriel. Shame on you if that's how you roll like a big New York bully and scaring our poor Justin like that. And if you just wanted to follow him to shoot the shit or swap listicles and Star Wars Prequel memes with a respected contemporary—even in the very midst of getting fucking annihilated while short GME—well Justin has a totally different account for that and he’s not allowed to access it during work hours.
On The Likelihood That The Most Heavily Shorted Stock in History Is Not Being Subject to Continued Market Manipulation When A Steve Cohen Acolyte Is Losing His Fucking Shirt
Have you heard about Steve Fucking Cohen? The guy who looks like he’s tip top of the list of the premier Hollywood casting agency’s rolodex for Saddest Dipshit Still At the Strip Club After Everyone Else Has Already Gone Home? I’m sorry, that’s mean and my mother told me to always be kind to the truly hideous looking because they’re probably still beautiful on the inside (spoiler alert: he’s not!).
Get a load of this guy:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-02/why-sac-capitals-steven-cohen-isnt-in-jail
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2020-09-02/controversial-hedge-fund-billionaire-steven-cohen-takes-on-hollywood
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/steven-a-cohen-among-the-million-dollar-donors-to-trump-inauguration-2017-04-19
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/steve-cohen-trump
https://nypost.com/2015/06/17/billionaire-steve-cohen-bros-out-with-guy-fieri/
Are you back? I’ve missed you. That was scary, wasn’t it? But allow me to TL/DR all that for you who decided to avoid all that unpleasantness: the dude just has all this bad luck and keeps finding himself into these really awkward situations where someone could potentially question his commitment to ethical business and life practices as well as adherence to the laws of the United States and it’s just not fair and nothing’s fair and Nice Guy Steve Cohen Is The Victim Here So Just Stop Right There Mister I See What You’re Doing. He's also bros with Guy Fieri. Cool.
But why am I talking about a guy who would so clearly pass Billy Madison’s Final Question about Business Ethics without even breaking a sweat?
Because Steve Cohen once had a young Ace Protegee that he loved very much. With the name of an Archangel, so tender and pure. And one day this young man decided he wanted to Prove Himself and Leave Steve’s Nest. And thus was born Melvin Capital, seeded financially by Steve Cohen but named after famed Crooner Melvin H. Tormé, which Gabe’s esteemed mentor Steve would play in his office, over and over, all those years ago.
Now let’s fast forward a bit because I’m boring myself with all that fucking Cohen reading (the bad Cohen—don’t you dare get anyone confused here). As I was saying: Gabe Plotkin, head of Melvin Capital, has by all accounts gotten himself into a bit of a pickle here being so deeply short GME. Lots of people have analyzed and overanalyzed it, and I’m not going to do it again here; that dead horse is well and truly beaten. But to bottom line it: we’re all just staring down what is essentially an unprecedented math problem that will, at some point, resolve itself. And if it revolves itself in favor of the Good Guys, then the Bad Guys will lose a Fuck-ton of Money. That’s your money block quote, WSJ, so fuck off and stop calling me.
Now: picture yourself as a Steve Cohen acolyte that just bought a $44M Miami Compound and who cannot stop talking about how co-owning the Charlotte Hornets is worth it just for the courtsides alone bro once basketball is a thing again and so what if Michael Jordan keeps calling him Gary it’s close enough. Are you feeling the most financially secure that you have ever felt in your young rich life right about now? Or might you be a wee bit worried that you’ve pursued an investment thesis so reckless, so irrationally and intentionally destructive of equity, that even Melvin H. Tormé himself must be rolling in his fucking grave that you would ever dare put at risk your ability to continue being Michael Jordan’s Gary?
And so here is when I again link my good buddy Jim Cramer’s Great Unveiling of the Tactics Deployed by Short Sellers hoping to change the narrative and construct a “new truth” to suppress the SP in the face of, oh, let’s just say: a very promising turnaround story in a high-growth industry by an e-Commerce Canadian Genius who does not fuck around and who knows what he’s fucking doing and aims to sell more and better video games experiences to crackhead video gamers and there’s a million things he wants to do but just you wait, just you wait.
Is this plot that hard to follow?
And I’ll also say this: I know fuck-all about monitoring order flows or how funds continue to create synthetic shares to short shit into oblivion. But I’m just stepping back and thinking of the broader narrative and tactics on this. Spit-balling here again—bear with me. Now, if you were massively short a security while paying out your ass in borrowing fees for the privilege of entering the most crowded short trade in the market and you’re now opposite a massive business turnaround story, Ryan Cohen, numerous institutions, funds, retail whales, Norwegian HNW Freemason Consortiums, and the energy behind the Finest Rocket Children Ever to Grace Planet Fucking Earth—and you’re taking it in the ass week after week here—Do you then play this straight? Do you set aside all of these illegal and deceptive short tactics Jim Cramer candidly outlines in that video even though they’re impossible to enforce and are in fact not enforced? That Jim basically says you’d be professionally negligent if you were short and didn’t do this shit because fuck it whosgonnastopyou? And now you fucked up and that steamroller is barreling down upon you and there are all these things you could theoretically do try to get yourself out of this jam if you were That Kind of Person? Do you set this all aside and, at least in Jim’s view, tie one hand behind your precious ethical back? On the most heavily shorted stock off all time where you are bleeding Real Life Big-Boy Money? Just buying and selling you know, just a job, honest living, nothing much to it, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, can't get too carried away with it.
Or is it something a little bit fucking different than that?
I don’t know. I’m not in the industry myself. And I would never accuse anyone of doing anything so clearly contrary to the values upon which their professional career as Master of the Universe was built. So Gabe: chill. Don’t follow me or something on twitter man, since for all I know that’s Plotkinese for I Hope You Don’t Mind Sleeping With This Severed Horse Head in Your Bed Motherfucker. It’s just money, dude. You seem pretty well taken care of. But man would I be sweating if I were short right now staring down the barrel of your new neighbor Ryan Cohen’s whims and patience and polite Canadian manners and ambiguous emojis that we all lose our shit for. I mean, fuck man: are you ok? Don’t forget to exercise and eat well during all this. Maybe switch to green tea or something. And remember: you’ll always—always—be Michael Jordan’s Gary.
But here is where we return to our good friend Andrew Left from Citron Research.
Do you remember the excitement you felt this past weekend? I’ve never seen WSB so jacked. People were coming out hot on Tuesday—an uptick day! The new phone book’s here! The new phone book's here! What luck to be free of Gary’s tomfoolery for one fine day. And then GME spiked right away—reaching a high of over $45 that morning.
But then something happened. We all know what it was. But here is where any SEC lookie-loos need to close those Pornhub links and pay closer attention. Because in the moments before the Citron tweet that morning about Andy’s upcoming BuzzFeed Listicle call on Why GME is Scary Investment GRRRR, total short shares available dropped from 1.2M to 0. And a $300K put bet was placed on a weekly with a strike price well over 10% out of the money at the very moment that GME’s price was accelerating rapidly. (H/t u/FatAspirations). That’s some WSB-level shit right there.
And yet they pull it off! GME immediately shoots down nearly 30% intraday, and eventually climbing abck up above 10%, making us all feel a little weird and like ungrateful millennial brats for feeling so shitty about a 10% day. But we all know what fucking happened, now don’t we?
So what can we say about ol’ Andy? Now, many of you know Andy as the dumbshit who shorted TSLA until he was ground into little bits of dumb dumb dust and made to look ever so foolish over and over again until he finally cried drunk uncle and flipped to being long TSLA and now he’s cool to you or whatever. Or you might know him as the guy who puts out really shoddy research that often, by pure happenstance, drives a new narrative to control the orderflow and SP on a WSB-beloved security like PLTR? You know the guy I’m talking about. Once in hot pursuit by Hong Kong fuzz, an International Man of Obviousness with a face that says: why yes, I will have another vodka tonic thankyouverymuch. That’s him.
Well, just like future call-back candidate for the role of Frightened Inmate #2, Mr. Steve Cohen, Andy is also but a Caveman—frightened and confused by your modern concepts of “ethics” and “rules.” No! No!—He’s a straight shooter! Devoted to rooting out obvious frauds, like Lukin Coffee and TSLA (Do not fuck with Elon or my Hot Mom’s ETF, Andy). And like the aspirations of Antoine Bugle Boy when he entered the blue jeans market, Andy saw an overcrowded short trade here based on an overly simplistic and obsolete short thesis about GME and said: “Me Too!” And as this thing is ripping to the stratosphere, Andy starts ringing his dumb dumb twitter bell and saying hear ye, hear ye—Inauguration Day and time it shall be for all my Big Brain thoughts about GME!
Nothing weird about that. No sir.
So Andy Citron or whatever the fuck his name is will be putting out some dumbshit video or something today in what seems to be a pretty clear attempt to scare my poor Rocket Children and get those pesky computers to high frequency this shit to drive the SP down to more acceptable loss levels (cause let’s be honest: they’re still taking a fucking bath here) for Mel Tormé’s namesake hedgefund and all the other cretins that are dug into short position here. And they’re gonna try to scare ya’ with the color red! And they know that no one here likes the color red.
But do see what’s going on here and who we’re dealing with. This really ain’t rocket science, Rocket Children. The dude actually tried to claim he forgot about the Inauguration. In 2021. He has not been in a coma, to the best of my knowledge. But you do look a little bleary eyed, Andy. Must have been all that staying up super late working on those last few bullet points to fill out the powerpoint on that GME listicle of yours, eh sport?
Conclusion: On the Subject of Patience and The Arc of The Universe Bending Toward Ryan Fucking Cohen
In my youth there was a period of time where I went out on boats that would drop crates into the waters of the Arctic. Bundled inside them were raw pieces of meat. In the coming days the boats would head back out to the frigid seas, hook the floats bobbing upon the waters, and pull the crates up. Packed inside would be many crabs. They were so delicious & made a good price at market. The difference between the crate that was empty and the create full of bounty was a mystery even the great physicist Erwin Schrödinger pondered at much length.
But the hearty fishermen of my youth already knew the answer long ago. Why did the trap fill up? Time. In time, all traps fill. In time, all things pondered shall be revealed.
--The Fucking Viking, That’s Who
Now look, you all know I have a soft spot for Ryan Cohen. Hell, we all do. He’s a good dude. And the man has played this flawlessly so far. He really has. The fact that we are all sitting here with Ryan Cohen having successfully negotiated three seats on the Board—a bloodless coup as my man Rod Alzmann says—here in January? It’s amazing. His vision for GME is dialed-the-fuck in and extremely exciting. This misunderstood business is on the threshold of an exciting turnaround with Ryan Cohen at the helm. And though I was very much looking forward to the potential repercussions of a vote being called at the annual meeting and what that might mean for the short-term share price, this result is infinitely better. Whatever their motivations, that Board and George Sherman saw the writing on the wall here and accepted the Golden Bridge that Ryan offered them. And Ryan Cohen has done everything he’s set out to do here. And he’s clearly been having fun while doing it. Read up on the guy at some point if you haven’t–there’s lots of good DD out there on him, obviously. And while you’re reading and thinking about Ryan Cohen, think also about guys like Steve Cohen (no fucking relation) and Gabe Plotkin and Andy Left and how lucky we are that we get to roll with RC against that motley crew of fuckwads.
And do you know what? I’m guessing that RC, and maybe even the funds being discussed in that screenshot, have been very patient with Mr. Plotkin et al in recent weeks. You don’t go around bankrupting hedge funds willy nilly, you know--bad form and all that old chap. People tend to remember that. And guys like Steve Cohen and Gabe Plotkin seem like they play for keeps. So now you try to build them a Golden Bridge to cross—maybe not their preferred route of travel, but could be worse and all that, right guys? But for whatever reason it seems like the natural instinct here on the short side is fight over flight. And these short FUD tactics are getting increasingly ridiculous to help slow down the inevitable march toward the detonator right next to that bridge. So relax everyone! And let’s not fool ourselves: All those Masters of the Universes are well aware of the math problem they’re all facing here and they must have a vague grasp of the odds that this goes off in one direction over the other. And what that could mean for the size of their money pits and how many sports teams they can buy this year. Shit, I assume Steve Cohen is counseling his young acolyte about how many sads he himself felt deep down in his man heart on that fateful day in 2008 when he lost $250M on a short when Volkswagon squeezed to infinity—a sadness that he will continue to draw on when his agent finally finds him a role that calls for it.
But my point is: the longs here can afford to be patient and let this play out. When this thing moves, the Viking’s Schrödinger crabs will only be in one pot. And I’m guessing that pot is the one being held by the guy who is actually in total control here: Ryan Goddamn Cohen.
So enjoy the show today. If you’re anything like me, you’re feeling relaxed after gorging yourself on lucky space peanuts all week.(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/10022/lucky-peanuts/)
And though these silly wabbits with their cumbersome FUD efforts can get a bit tiresome, I’m still very much enjoying this GME show at this point and almost do not want it to end—what with all these Sorkin-esque twists and turns and my Cohen Tweet Decorder Ring getting all this sweet action.
But just remember who Ryan Cohen is, what he cares about, and what, so far, he has told us he intends to do here. And then you might realize, as I have, that Ryan Cohen has had the Gray’s Sports Almanac here all along. This story has already been written. He’s already won. And Melvin Capital’s Schrödinger-ass crabs are dead as fuck. The only question now is: what causes that Golden Bridge to blow? I, for one, am content to wait on RC while counting my good fortune that I can continue to accumulate until whatever happens here happens. So pass the rocket peanuts.
It’s just money after all. Right Gabe?
TL/DR: Psst: a Mysterious Viking once told me about behind-the-scenes Golden Bridge negotiations that are likely taking place that give shorts no chance but the shorts seem to think they’re saying there’s a chance but there really is no chance; Gabe Plotkin, Steve Cohen and Andy Left are misunderstood Straight Shooters who probably answer typical interview questions about their own perceived weaknesses by saying “Sometimes I just care too much about doing the right thing”; and Ryan Cohen is the Goddamn Man so we can all relax and not worry so much about all this dumb short FUD bullshit, ok? OK. 🚀🚀🚀
**If you construe any of the above as investment advice without doing your own DD or at least Googling Ryan Cohen then you are a fucking idiot and may God have mercy on your soul. You too, Andy.

Previous Post Here
Rock the vote! Power to the people! Get out and vote. Every vote counts. And the beat goes on. And on. And on. And on. And we buy it. Hook. Line. And sinker. Don't we? But, we live in a democracy! Yep. Sure do. We vote and then they do whatever they have planned. Seriously. Guantanamo Bay? Still there. Rich getting richer? Still happening. Gain of function testing on viruses? Still happening. Nafta? Who actually voted? No. One. Big bank bailouts? No choice. Get it? The illusion of choice is all it takes to pacify the masses. That's it. Our votes are the placebo effect.
Do some of us notice? Yes. A few. For all the good that does us. So why are they able to get away with it? Surely at some point we would have noticed. Well we did notice, and they adjusted, and we're still living with the consequences. When did we notice?
The Vietnam War.
All the pictures of body bags and all the reports of the horrors of war were too much. We questioned why? The answer wasn't good enough. An economic system. Sure they tried to convince us back then that it was because human rights and liberty. Ok. Then we fast forward to present day and we trade with Vietnam. But nobody says, HEY! AREN'T THEY EVIL COMMUNISTS! No. One. Why? Because those in charge learned. All the images of war changed. Now we only see video game targets on screen. Now we only hear of all the amazing technology making war so advanced! War has become a Walt Disney production. Sanitized for the masses.
How did they do it? How? Simple. They know in advance what stimulus will have the greatest effect on us, and what effect that stimulus will be. How? Simulations. And it's been going on for a very long time.

Simulations and Scenarios

In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” read the memo. “Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to: • Ted Cruz. • Donald Trump. • Ben Carson. We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."

Oh. Ok. So Crooked Hillary's team wanted to pump up Trump. Let me say that again, Pump Up Trump (sounds like a new sex toy, doesn't it? I'll get my people to call your people and lets make this happen. It'll be huge and people will love getting screwed by it!). And then it gets worse.

“Just like everybody, I thought this was a Bush against a Clinton, that’s all it was going to be,” said former Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle. “When I saw the first set of debates, I would turn them on in an entertainment mode to see what Donald’s going to say today. It was funny." Source Here

Trump is funny. Ha. Ha. Ha. Let's get in some of that new Reality TV show called The Political Apprentice. Right.
So is Trump a part of something nefarious? Or is he fighting the Deep State? But what if the answer is more complicated than that? What if all the peices are moved, including President's, on purpose, and with a plan?
Crazy? Surely that's just plain nonsense and there's no way that could happen, right?
Well, let me show you some additional things before the Internet of Things is in everything and we can't do anything.

They Pick, You Vote, Don't Matter. They Already Know.

What? Preposterous you say? Let's travel back to JFK and the People Machine.

Consider the strange trajectory of the Simulmatics Corporation, founded in New York City in 1959. (Simulmatics, a mash-up of ‘simulation’ and ‘automatic’, meant then what ‘artificial intelligence (AI)’ means now.) Its controversial work included simulating elections — just like that allegedly ‘pioneered’ by the now-defunct UK firm Cambridge Analytica on behalf of UK Brexit campaigners in 2015 and during Donald Trump’s US presidential election campaign in 2016. Journalists accused Trump’s fixers of using a “weaponized AI propaganda machine” capable of “nearly impenetrable voter manipulation”. New? Hardly. Simulmatics invented that in 1959. They called it the People Machine. As an American historian with an interest in politics, law and technology, I came across the story of the Simulmatics Corporation five years ago when researching an article about the polling industry. Polling was, and remains, in disarray. Now, it’s being supplanted by data science: why bother telephoning someone to ask her opinion when you can find out by tracking her online? Wondering where this began took me to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, to the unpublished papers of political scientist Ithiel de Sola Pool. Simulmatics, hired first by the US Democratic Party’s National Committee in 1959 and then by the John F. Kennedy campaign in 1960, pioneered the use of computer simulation, pattern detection and prediction in American political campaigning. The company gathered opinion-poll data from the archives of pollsters George Gallup and Elmo Roper to create a model of the US electorate.

Lasswell, whose research on communication purported to explain how ideas get into people’s heads: in short, who says what, in which channel, to whom, with what effect? During the Second World War, Lasswell studied the Nazis’ use of propaganda and psychological warfare. When those terms became unpalatable after the war ended, the field got a new name — mass-communications research. Same wine, new bottle. Like Silicon Valley itself, Simulmatics was an artefact of the cold war. It was an age obsessed with prediction, as historian Jenny Andersson showed in her brilliant 2018 book, The Future of the World. At MIT, Pool also proposed and headed Project ComCom (short for Communist Communications), funded by the US Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). Its aim, in modern terms, was to try to detect Russian hacking — “to know how leaks, rumors, and intentional disclosures spread” as Pool described it.

Isn't that odd? Computers making predictions back in 1960. Computers analyzing human behavior in order to predict human behaviours and control the election outcome. And the scientist who it all started with came from MIT. And we wonder how all that Jeffrey Epstein money was spent.

The press called Simulmatics scientists the “What-If Men”, because their work — programming an IBM 704 — was based on endless what-if simulations. The IBM 704 was billed as the first mass-produced computer capable of doing complex mathematics. Today, this kind of work is much vaunted and lavishly funded. The 2018 Encyclopedia of Database Systems describes ‘what-if analysis’ as “a data-intensive simulation”. It refers to it as “a relatively recent discipline”. Not so. Buoyed by the buzz of Kennedy’s election, Simulmatics began an advertising blitz. Its 1961 initial stock offering set out how the company would turn prediction into profit — by gathering massive data, constructing mathematical models of behavioural processes, and using them to simulate “probable group behaviour”.

Do you really think these What-If Men are done and gone, set out to pasture like the cattle they manipulate? Really? Seriously. No. Obviously not. Or there wouldn't be such a fuss about Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. Same Crap. Different Flies. Only know there are more flies and the crap pile is bigger.

In 1963, on behalf of the Kennedy administration, Simulmatics simulated the entire economy of Venezuela, with an eye to halting the advance of socialism and communism. A larger project to undertake such work throughout Latin America, mostly designed by Pool and known as Project Camelot (Project Camelot, where have I heard that before?), became so controversial that the next president, Lyndon B. Johnson, dismantled it (sure he did). After 1965, Simulmatics conducted psychological research in Vietnam as part of a bigger project to use computers to predict revolutions. Much of this work built on earlier research by Lasswell and Pool, identifying and counting keywords, such as ‘nationalism’, in foreign-language newspapers that might indicate the likelihood of coups. Such topic-spotting is the precursor to Google Trends. Before his early death in 1984, Pool was also a key force behind the founding of the most direct descendant of Simulmatics, the MIT Media Lab. Pool’s work underlies the rules — or lack of them — that prevail on the Internet. Pool also founded the study of “social networks” (a term he coined); without it, there would be no Facebook. Pool’s experiences with student unrest at MIT — and especially with the protests against Simulmatics — informed his views on technological change and ethics. Look forward. Never look back. Source Here

Unrest and protest at MIT against Simulmatics. I guess you could call it Rage Against the Machine. Maybe we should ask Jeffery Epstein if that's a good name? He did invest a lot of money into the MIT Media lab, after all. Surely he has an opinion on it. Too bad he killed himself. Snicker.
Look forward. Never back. That sounds suspiciously like a No Regrets policy, doesn't it? The ends justify the means. Let's hurry up and get those vaccines out. We can test for them along the way. It's all good.

Decades before Facebook and Google and Cambridge Analytica and every app on your phone, Simulmatics’ founders thought of it all: they had the idea that, if they could collect enough data about enough people and write enough good code, everything, one day, might be predicted—every human mind simulated and then directed by targeted messages as unerring as missiles. For its first mission, Simulmatics aimed to win the White House back for the Democratic Party. The University of California political theorist Eugene Burdick had worked for Greenfield in 1956, but decided not to join Simulmatics. Instead, he wrote a novel about it. In “The 480,” a political thriller published in 1964, a barely disguised “Simulations Enterprises” meddles with a U.S. Presidential election. “This may or may not result in evil,” Burdick warned. “Certainly it will result in the end of politics as Americans have known it.” That same year, in “Simulacron-3,” a science-fiction novel set in the year 2034, specialists in the field of “simulectronics” build a People Machine—“a total environment simulator”—only to discover that they themselves don’t exist and are, instead, merely the ethereal, Escherian inventions of yet another People Machine. After that, Simulmatics lived on in fiction and film, an anonymous avatar. In 1973, the German filmmaker Rainer Werner Fassbinder adapted “Simulacron-3” into “World on a Wire,” a forerunner of the 1999 film “The Matrix,” in which all of humanity lives in a simulation, trapped, deluded, and dehumanized.

The Matrix? A people machine. A Total Environment Simulator. Yikes. That sounds extremely far fetched, doesn't it. Trapped. Deluded. And. Drumroll please. Dehumanized.

In 1967 and 1968, at home, Simulmatics attempted to build a race-riot-prediction machine. In 1969, after antiwar demonstrators called Pool a war criminal, the People Machine crashed; in 1970, the company filed for bankruptcy. (Most of its records were destroyed; I stumbled across what remains, in Pool’s papers, at M.I.T.) Source Here

A race riot machine that apparently failed? And look what happened nine months ago? Coincidence? Foreign power information warfare? AI training wheels? Kinda scary, ain't it? And guess what? We're not done yet.

Ithiel de Sola Pool

So the Simulmatics Corporation was responsible for this;

Sept 17, 2020 • In 1960, media reports of dark forces behind John F Kennedy’s winning presidential campaign caused what Jill Lepore calls a “national hullabaloo”. America’s new leader, it was widely reported, had clinched the victory with the help of a “secret weapon”: a super computer that crunched troves of data to profile voters, allowing Kennedy to better target his political messaging before the polls opened.

And now let's look deeper at somebody who worked at the Simulmatics Corporation, Ithiel de Sola Pool.

For all of Simulmatics’ efforts at automating prediction, it is company executive Ithiel de Sola Pool, an MIT academic with a focus on social networks, who in Lepore’s telling proves to be the most accurate prediction machine — foreseeing the “data-mad and near-totalitarian twenty-first century” that he was instrumental in helping to create. “In the coming atomised society, the information the citizen gets will arise from his own specific concerns,” he wrote in 1968, predicting a communications revolution, “customised news feeds” and the dismantling of party politics for a “politics of self, every citizen a party of one”. Source Here

That's extremely prescient. Did he predict the future or make it? What came first, the chicken or the egg? Don't matter. Don't care. Not at all. Because the end result is the same,
So what more can we find out about de Sola Pool? How about the fact that he studied Nazis and Communists? Heck, he studied totalitarianist speeches to figure out how words could carry power and influence. Over us. Overload us.
But how unethical was Pool? Well, the guy who risked everything to bring us the Pentagon Papers (the papers that proved the Gulf of Tomkins incident was a false flag) thought this: Daniel Ellsberg would later say of Pool, “I thought of him as the most corrupt social scientist I had ever met, without question.”
Not cool. Definitely. Not. Cool. Because if you naively believe that Pool’s research isn't being used by the Technocrats today, then more power to you. Believe what you want. Or should I say, believe what they want.
And who are "they"? They are the Rockefeller's and Rothschilds, the Technocrats, the World Economic Forum, the Bilderberg Group, CIA, NSA, and the Council on Foreign Relations.
Speaking of which.

At that point in his (Pool’s) career, he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, advising several countries around the world. Pool felt that the world was underestimating the importance of communications and technical change. Source Here

Oops. Pool was a member of the CFR advising several countries around the world. Ok. Next step.

2004 • The transformation of the United States into a power able and willing to take a leading role in world affairs was not achieved solely through policy changes in Washington, DC, let alone simply by changes in the structure of world power. This chapter examines the vital role of the CFR in transforming American public opinion from ‘isolationist’ to ‘globalist’ as an important aspect of America’s rise to globalism. In this regard, the Council focused its energies to undermine and marginalise isolationism while promoting its own internationalist views as the best means to achieve the American national interest. Source Here

So if a bunch of unelected officials are officially changing policy, why do you vote? Rock the vote? Don't make me laugh. More like Don't Rock the Boat.
They started running simulations back in the sixties. Remember, Nixon was the odds on favorite to win. Kennedy was a long shot. And then, Kennedy was the President. Nixon probably wasn't happy. After all, he was part of the power structure. He went to Bohemian Grove. And then he had the rug pulled out from underneath him. And what did he end of calling Bohemian Grove attendees? A bunch of fags. Oops. Who pissed in his cornflakes?
They run simulations. Then they have different scenarios that dictate policy. Then they use the CFR, the WEF, the Rockefeller Group, and other NGO'S to adapt and shape future policy decisions to steer society. Heck. They probably even use the Mickey Mouse Club at this point.

November 21, 1971 • Of the first 82 names on a list prepared to help President Kennedy staff his State Department, 63 were Council members. Kennedy once com plained, “I'd like to have some new faces here, but all I get is the same old names.” Source Here

So a "People Machine" helped get JFK "elected" and his State Department list was mostly comprised of Council members. It's starting to look more and more like our heads of state are manipulated just like us, doesn't it? Let's jump back into the Pool one more time.

In 1965, he wrote "The Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Computer," an essay about a computer-simulated international crisis. Later, his interest in quantitative analysis and communications would contribute to computer models to study human behavior.

Computer Models aren't Playboy Centerfolds

It doesn't matter who gets voted in. They may think they're in charge. They may go along. Or they may think they're making changes. But, I guarantee you the changes they make are the changes those behind the scenes want. Even if our leaders know it or not.
No way! Thats crazy! Insane! Ok. Sure. But remember this, in a world of insanity, a sane man is always perceived as being insane. So let's dive into the DEEP END OF THE POOL and see what we can find.

October 2, 2019 • With AI, the models suddenly become more realistic. “One of the things that has changed is an acceptance that you really can model humans,” says F. LeRon Shults, director of the Center for Modeling Social Systems at the University of Agder in Norway. “Our agents are cognitively complex. They are simulated people with genders, ages and personalities. They can get married, have children, get divorced. They can get a job or get fired, they can join groups, they can die. They can have religious beliefs. They’re social in the way humans are. They interact with each other in social networks. They learn from each other, react to each other and to the environment as a whole.”

Hold on. Agent's are cognitively complex? That's scary, isn't it? And this is a very strange situation we find ourselves in, isn't it? Agents. Simulations. Viruses. Sentinels. Didn't they try and block out the sun? Ahem. Bill Gates. And I've read that originally the script didn't have humanity as batteries, but instead used humans as their RAM. In other words, we we're used for our brains ability to think. More on this in an upcoming post. Just think about it for now.

Final Thoughts

The what if men and the people machine. They model society and we see what they want us to see. Kind of like the model in the Matrix wearing the red dress. We're too busy looking for danger everywhere but where we should look. And that's a mistake. This is why we can't dismiss anything. We have to question everything.
In the previous post I said that it was called the Sentinel World Simulation. I found the article. I made a mistake. It's called the Sentient World Simulation. Words matter. Always. But I still don't think my mistake alters what's going on. We are being steered by an unseen group. And this is why China + Russia + USA are heading towards a cliff. He who controls AI controls humanity. But who controls who?
More soon.

I've noticed a common recurrence with people on Dream's side, a little bit on this subreddit, but mainly- the people on the fence.
They don't know what to believe, who to believe, how to fact check the information because the truth is: they do not really understand the specific mathematics that has gone into this situation. And that's okay, because there's a much easier method of fact-checking, which only requires a basic understanding of English (and patience) to read this post. Feel free to correct me at any point in this post.
​
As a redditor with 700 followers for a dreamsmp newspaper (sorry for annoying y'all btw), I think that it's time I properly contribute to the subreddit with a standard test: CRAAP.
It stands for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose.
Currency: When was the information posted or published. The more recent it is, the better. People may also ask where the information is posted. It should also be considered if the information would be impacted by the latest findings or if it can be found from older sources as well. Also, if the source includes links, the links should be working. If it's a website, you should check for its domain, and also if the link reroutes you to the same website or a site that is related to the first website.
Relevance: When looking at the source, the topic should be related to the information presented in the source. The comprehension level should also be at an appropriate level for its audience, not being too rudimentary or advanced.
Authority: In order to trust a piece of information, you should at the very least have the author's credentials. When looking into a work, you should also consider the publishers and the sponsors. The author's credentials are important because this can help the readers know if the author is qualified to write on the topic as well as if they might be influenced to write in a different way than they normally would. 'There should be a contact information of the publisher or author'-Wikipedia on the definition of CRAAP literacy test. Author citations are very important for the trust to form between readers and writers.
Accuracy: The trustworthiness of a source would vary heavily based on spelling, grammatical, and typographical errors. Research papers have a standard to be free of these errors, and newspapers have that as a standard too. The language used has to be unbiased and free of emotions if it is being used for fact retrieval. It should also be verifiable from another source or common knowledge. Evidence should support the information presented, and it can come in the terms of findings, observations, or field notes.
Purpose: Is the source here to inform, teach, sell, entertain, aid in research, have an impact on self-gain? The intentions should be clear. In order to determine the source's purpose, one must first ask if it is fact, opinion, or propaganda, and if it has a political, personal, religious, or ideological bias.
​
I will be applying both of the tests in layman's terms to Geosquare's video and Dream's response. I will be honest: I am 95% convinced that Dream did cheat due to the overwhelming evidence from everywhere else other than that one guy he's hired. Billions of simulations, refuting work that is given by STEM workers from Switzerland to Columbia to a post on 4 Chan which could put 80% of essays to shame, statistics and speedrunning majorly agreeing that Dream cheated, or at the very least, the 19-page paper was 'hot garbage'. That's at least 5 different sources that shouldn't have anything to gain, and they don't relate to each other all that well, but they came to the same conclusion. unfortunately, after years in Math Olympiad with a teacher who loves having the minority right, I am slightly doubtful of Dream truly cheating, but I really hate how he handled the situation. Also, I'm a firm believer in following the same CRAAP test in the reviewing of both videos, so if my bias shows, let me know immediately.
​
Geosquare's video(+29 page report):
C- Uploaded on 12 December 2020. General consensus is that the mods have been working on the paper and video for 2 months. Geo and the mods team are answering DMs about the situation, as I could see from a few reddit posts on here from at most a day ago. The latest findings like the run simulations, blogs from Columbia experts, Swiss mathematician student (Spelling errors, but due to the Swiss student admitting that his English could be unbearable, it is understandable), comments made by u/mfb- (sorry to tag you here), Mojang game developer (twitter: Xilefan https://twitter.com/Xilefian/status/1338523642364366853 ) and general consensus by subreddits statistics and speedrunning support this 'slightly outdated' claim. Updates have also happened in terms of tweets by the mods, rectifying miscommunications about the mod files.
R- I would say that Geosquare's video is entirely on the topic all of the time. The 29-page paper that came with it also explained a lot of things. I'd say that Geoquare's video is much clearer than Dream's in the way that he speaks without emotions affecting him and only presenting evidence.
A- I would not say that 'speedrun mods' are properly qualified for the statistics, but due to Dream not wanting them to hire a 3rd party statistician, they did do the best they can. Half a point is given because they did give their credentials as well as how they can be contacted. They are not sponsored due to the law around sponsorships and their general lack of a product/service to market, in fact, they are making absolutely no money for the 2 months that they did put into the video. (It's not entirely 2 months, rather, minutes to hours of work every few days, but even then it is a lot.)
A- There is only one source semi refuting the claims, stating that the mods have gotten the math wrong, and even then it could still be high enough of a number to prove that Dream has cheated. I would like to reiterate the support for the mods in all sorts of different communities:

1. subreddits statistics and speedrunning, (refuting the poorly done paper)
2. 4 chan people who actually cared about the situation, (explaining the maths once more)
3. simulations by the people on this very subreddit [I've seen at least 3 different people posting about it with similar results] (experimenting using simulations)
4. STEM workers who wouldn't hate on Dream without a reason, (further refuting the paper)
5. Speedrun mods of bedrock, (expressing why this speedrun drama is important)
6. Multiple YouTubers who have their own fans, who probably didn't have a single content that related to Dream until the drama (providing reasons on why Dream would cheat)

P- I would say that this source is here to inform us of the mods decision to not verify Dream's speedrun. I would say that it serves to teach us that no matter how large your online personality is, nothing will be slipped past the mods. The mods shouldn't have an issue with Dream if he is to be nice as we all believe.
​
Dream's video(+19 page report):
C- Uploaded on 23 December. The information here is used to disprove old sources. The website, Photoexcitation, has been under a lot of scrutiny, and posts on this subreddit would probably explain to you why this website made in 2020 is such a shady choice.
R- Whilst watching Dream's response video and reading the comments, I saw a 2.1k likes comment (at the time of viewing) which said something like: I have ADHD and the way Dream made this video was very distracting to me. I think that this says something about the video. There is a general consensus that less than 50% of Dream's video was using logos to articulate his point. Instead, most of it was pathos mixed with some ethos. (Logos = logic, Ethos = authority, Pathos = emotions. These are 3 argument methods used to appeal to the human mind) Normally, this would be okay. Pathos is an extremely powerful tool to persuade a human person. However, since the topic at hand is entirely based on logos, not the morals or ethics of a situation, this is irrelevant in terms of research and the only purpose it has is to convince people that he did not cheat, even though the evidence does not align with what he wants his audience to believe. I would say that 70-80% of the video was him going on about opinions since he did only bring up 2 new equations in the entire 24-minute video.
A- Dream would be given 1/3 of a point for authority. An astrophysicist from Harvard wouldn't be as good as a statistician, he would still be more qualified than your average teenager or even adult. Maths is notoriously known for being a hated subject after all. However, we do not know if the anonymous guy, who we do not even have an online name to refer to, did graduate from Harvard with the degree, had the degree at all, or if Dream is just making him up. The fact that Photoexcitation is a .com website, a Wix one, a one that was just created in 2020 does not give it good looks at all. This is why when I see a comment which looks like it was made by a Dream stan, it's made by someone who created their account in 2020. It applies to both YouTube and Reddit. Besides, photoexcitation and astrophysicist focus on planetary science. Their jobs aren't mainly statistics, even though they would use it quite regularly. It is just odd that Dream didn't hire a statistician, and even odder since he backtracked on what he said to the mods that by hiring a 3rd party person, it would be biased.
A- I would say that there is no actual 'qualified' person who agrees with Dream. I would say not even the unknown astrophysicist's findings say that Dream's run is just luck. 1 in 100 million is still a 0.000001% chance, which is still really low but has less astronomical odds than 1 in 7.5 trillion or 1 in 34 quintillions. The only people who agree with him are small YouTubers who are not qualified/presenting any qualification to determine if the math is right or wrong, and comments who are persuaded by Dream's speaking skills and his popularity.
P- This source is to inform us that Dream did not cheat, although there is a slight complication in terms of publishing and sponsorships. Dream is the one to publicise the information, not the unnamed guy who was paid $50 for a 19-page report (where it should have been $1600 for a 3 paged report). I would say that they would have a higher incentive to cheat due to the cash presented.
​
Anyway, I hope that you guys tolerated this post. Please, if I missed out on anything critical, feel free to insult me in the comments.

Hi All—
Preface. So: I had originally planned on making this first post about jurisdiction and a general overview about the way courts work, but I’ve changed my mind and anonymity makes me impervious to all demands for accountability. That said, I’ve changed my mind for two reasons: (1) the Supreme Court issued a really interesting decision yesterday and I want to talk about as it’s rather timely (being about permissible Covid restrictions); and (2) I’m really sympathetic to the views expressed in this thread, in which various readers flagged my post last week as one of the potentially not-quite-relevant-enough entries, which is largely my own fault—for what it’s worth, my working plan, which I didn’t articulate enough, is more to use interesting legal issues to flag interesting SSC-ish issues, i.e., the focus is going to be a lot less on “here is how the law works…” and more on “look at the legal rules and hey, don’t they raise all sorts of interesting philosophical issues?” (Scott’s review of David Friedman’s Legal Systems Very Different from Ours is a fairly good example of the general approach I intend to take, as is the whole field of “law and economics,” in which Friedman’s very involved.) And I think this post is a good enough way to highlight that. Without further ado:
SCOTUS Decision. Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case called Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew Cuomo (“Diocese v. Cuomo”). (Link to the decision here.) The opinion follows a decision by a “lower” court, the Second Circuit, which came out a few weeks ago and reaches the opposite conclusion [fn 1]. (You can read that decision by searching “20-3590” in the bar on this page.) The title of the case is actually a little misleading, because the case ultimately concerns lawsuits filed by both the diocese and Agudath Israel, an orthodox Jewish organization who messed up their appeal for various procedural reasons, which is the primary reason they’re not named in the caption. The two appeals concern New York States’ management of the Covid-19 pandemic, and in particular an executive order issued by Cuomo on October 4 that directed the New York State Department of Health to identify yellow, orange, and red “zones” in New York based on the severity of Covid outbreaks and to impose correspondingly severe restrictions on gatherings and activity within each zone. The appellants—i.e., Agudath and the Diocese—each challenged the executive order as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (more on this clause in a moment), arguing that they each have places of worship among the affected zones—notably Brooklyn and Queens—and that the restrictions, which have had the effect of canceling or else limiting capacity at various religious services, ultimately burden their members more than the general public. The appellants are seeking an injunction against enforcement of the order; an injunction is just what you’d think it is from meeting that term in deontological ethics (or rule utilitarianism)—an absolute prohibition.
So that the actual issues here sense-make I’m going to do a super quick overview of basic religious rights before jumping in.
Religious Rights Generally (& “Standards of Review”). Among other things, the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” For obvious reasons, the first clause here is called the “Establishment Clause,” and the second the “Free Exercise Clause.” They do diametrically opposite things: the establishment clause prohibits the government from promoting (i.e., showing a preference) for one religion over another, or (sort of, long story) for any religion over “non-religion,” at least where the government doesn’t have a good reason for doing so. It’s the constitutional provision that prohibits, e.g., teacher-led prayer and bible readings in public schools, posting the ten commandments in courtrooms and public schools, prohibiting the teaching of evolution, and certain tax exemptions for religious organizations. (More on the italicized word in a moment.) The free exercise clause, meanwhile, prohibits the government from discriminating against religious “beliefs” and “actions”—to be contrasted with religious ~institutions~, which are the primary subject of the establishment clause—at least where it doesn’t have a good reason for doing so. It’s the provision that prohibits the government from, e.g., denying someone employment benefits because they refuse to work on the Sabbath or—more to the point—making it a crime to pray etc.
Now—and this is a slight simplification, but only a slight one—the government is allowed to both promote and/or discriminate against religion if one of two conditions are met. (Both are sufficient conditions for the government being allowed to do whatever it is it wants to do—i.e., it only has to be proven that the government has met one condition for the law to be constitutional (at least as far as these provisions are concerned) [fn: 2].
First, if the law the government using to promote or discriminate is a “law of general applicability.” What "general applicability" means is (a) the law only “incidentally” benefits religion (in the establishment context) or burdens it (in the free exercise context); and (b) wasn’t passed with the intent to “target” religious institutions and/or acts/beliefs. Note that (a) is this consequentialist-like rule, focusing on effects, and (b) is a thought-crimey deontological injunction applied to the legislature (or the executive issuing an order) regardless of the law’s ultimate consequences. (What this ultimately means in the establishment context is that the law must have a “secular purpose” and its “primary effect” is not to “advance” a particular religion (or to “inhibit” one religion to another’s benefit, which effectively amounts to the same thing.)
An illustrative example here, for both contexts, is tax breaks: if the government gives tax breaks to non-profits whilst excluding religious non-profits from those tax breaks, it’s likely impermissibly discriminated against religion and violated the free exercise clause; meanwhile, if it gives tax breaks to religious organizations without giving them to secular non-profits, it’s likely impermissibly promoted religion and violated the establishment clause. But, if the government just passes the law giving tax breaks to non-profits, and some religious organizations just so happen to be (“incidentally”) included, the law is likely a-okay so long as it doesn’t fail a test called “rational basis” review, which effectively means that so long as the government’s “end” (i.e., goal) is “legitimate” (i.e., is something government ought care about, e.g., public health) and the “means” it chose to go about pursuing that end are “rationally related” to that end. (Importantly, the “rationally related” test for “means” doesn’t care at all if the government’s actions are hugely over- and/or under-inclusive.)
Second, even if the law isn’t one of general applicability—either because it was intended to target religions or just has such a hugely disproportionate effect on them regardless of intent that the court can basically just infer it was effectively meant to benefit/burden religion—the law will still be constitutional (at least if it doesn’t violate random other provisions) if the government can show it has a really, really damn good reason for targeting religion directly. The test here is called “strict scrutiny” review and requires the government show it has a “compelling” interest (i.e., end), which is way higher than a “legitimate” interest, and that its means are “narrowly tailored” to that end (i.e., the law is not remotely over- or under-inclusive and that there are no “less restrictive alternatives” (i.e., better ways to achieve the same goal)). Strict scrutiny is often called “fatal in fact” because once things gets to this stage 99 times out of 100 the government can’t prove one of either the compelling or narrowly tailored bits. I actually can’t think of any laws in the religious context, under either clause, that have ever passed strict scrutiny, which is to say that as far as I know every time a court has determined that the law “targeted” religion it struck that law down at this second step. (nb. I could certainly be wrong about this and vaguely recall a case on the question of whether a law saying vouchers can’t be used for religious schools was okay, and I think it might have been okay even though the law drew strict scrutiny. Can’t find it, maybe another lawyer-reader here can help me out. The classic example of passing strict scrutiny, in a totally different context, is affirmative action programs, which have been upheld even though they expressly target race, a "suspect classification.")
Back to Diocese v. Cuomo. All that out of the way, back to the actual opinion. Basically, what the Supreme Court does in issue a temporary injunction against enforcement of Cuomo’s executive order until the hearing on the merits of the permanent order can be held. In this case, as in a lot of cases for injunctive relief, the temporary injunction’s likely more or less the whole ball game given the issue may well be “moot”—i.e., no longer an active issue—by the time the glacially slow-moving federal system actually gets to the hearing on the permanent order, and because the harm of having the order enforced (or the harm in not having it enforced) will obviously accrue in the meantime. Basically, to get this “temporary” injunction the Diocese/Agudath (the “plaintiffs” or “appellants”) had to demonstrate (1) that they would suffer “irreparable injury” while waiting on the hearing for the permanent injunction, which is sort of a bullshit inquiry, and, more to the point (2) “a likelihood of success on the merits,” i.e., that they’re likely to win the hearing. The Second Circuit held that (2) wasn’t met (and consequently didn’t grant the temp injunction) and SCOTUS disagreed, saying it was met, and granted the injunction (thereby “reversing” the Second Circuit).
In essence, the disagreement between the two courts reduces to the issue we met above: the government’s argued its order is one of general applicability (i.e., a “neutral” law that only incidentally burdens religious practice), and therefore only draws rational basis review, which the government is likely to win, while the appellants have argued it specifically targets religion, therefore draws strict scrutiny, and therefore is very likely to be found unconstitutional (under the free exercise clause) at the hearing on the permanent order precisely because strict scrutiny is more-or-less “fatal in fact.” The Second Circuit found the executive order was a neutral law and would likely be upheld under the rational basis review neural laws get; SCOTUS held it wasn’t a neutral law and would therefore likely be struck down under the strict scrutiny review non-neutral laws get. Why the disagreement?
Well: under the executive order, churches and synagogues are treated ~worse~ than “essential” (secular) businesses (e.g., grocery stores) but actually significantly better than non-essential (secular) businesses (e.g., lectures/concerts). (How exactly it does this is a wee-bit confusing and technical, but you can skim the opinion at the link above; take my word on it for now.) The dispute therefore reduces to whether the relevant comparator for the churches/synagogues is the essential businesses or the non-essential ones. If it’s the former, then it looks like maybe churches/synagogues are being purposefully discriminated against (leading to strict scrutiny), while if it’s the latter then it looks like the churches/synagogues should sit down, shut up, and be grateful.
(Funny enough, you might actually notice that, framed a little differently, these same questions actually raise an establishment clause issue in the reverse direction: if the relevant comparator is non-essential businesses, and churches are being treated better than those businesses, then that looks like a potential establishment clause violation; the various decisions don’t mention this because that’s not the legal challenge that was brought/judges are sticklers for procedure, but it does illustrate how much of a tightrope walk it is to pass laws that affect religions, even indirectly.)
New York itself obviously maintained that the relevant comparator is non-essential businesses, and the Second Circuit agreed. But the majority of SCOTUS said the relevant comparator in essential businesses. Why?
Supreme Court Opinion [Justice Gorsuch (conservative)] [fn: 3]:
"[T]he Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too. So, at least according to the Governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience? …
In a red zone, for example, a church or synagogue must adhere to a 10-person attendance cap, while a grocery store, pet store, or big-box store down the street does not face the same restriction. In an orange zone, the discrimination against religion is even starker: Essential businesses and many non-essential businesses are subject to no attendance caps at all…. The State argues that it has not impermissibly discriminated against religion because some secular businesses such as movie theaters must remain closed and are thus treated less favorably than houses of worship… it does not suffice for a State to point out that, as compared to houses of worship, some secular businesses are subject to similarly severe or even more severe restrictions…Once a State creates a favored class of businesses, as New York has done in this case, the State must justify why houses of worship are excluded from that favored class."
Contrariwise, here’s the Second Circuit on some of the relevant evidence:
"While it is true that the challenged order burdens the Appellants’ religious practices, the order is not “substantially underinclusive” given its greater or equal impact on schools, restaurants, and comparable secular public gatherings…Before the District Courts, the State also explained why gatherings at certain large commercial stores deemed essential are not meaningfully comparable to religious gatherings. Unlike shopping at large stores, an in person religious service or ceremony necessarily involves a community of adherents arriving and leaving at the same time and interacting and praying together over an extended period of time. The State provided unrebutted evidence that this type of purposeful interaction poses a higher risk of transmission of the coronavirus; the District Courts so found."
And the Supreme Court dissents [Justices Sotamayer and Breyer (libs)] (i.e., on the same side as the Second Circuit):
"After receiving evidence and hearing witness testimony, the District Court in the Diocese’s case found that New York’s regulations were “crafted based on science and for epidemiological purposes.” It wrote that they treated “religious gatherings . . . more favorably than similar gatherings” with comparable risks, such as “public lectures, concerts or theatrical performances.” The court also recognized the Diocese’s argument that the regulations treated religious gatherings less favorably than what the State has called “essential businesses,” including, for example, grocery stores and banks. But the court found these essential businesses to be distinguishable from religious services and declined to “second guess the State’s judgment about what should qualify as an essential business.”…New York applies “[s]imilar or more severe restrictions . . . to comparable secular gatherings, including lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances, where large groups of people gather in close proximity for extended periods of time.” Likewise, New York “treats more leniently only dissimilar activities, such as operating grocery stores, banks, and laundromats, in which people neither congregate in large groups nor remain in close proximity for extended periods.” That should be enough to decide this case.
The Diocese attempts to…[win]…by disputing New York’s conclusion that attending religious services poses greater risks than, for instance, shopping at big box stores. But the District Court rejected that argument as unsupported by the factual record. Undeterred, JUSTICE GORSUCH offers up his own examples of secular activities he thinks might pose similar risks as religious gatherings, but which are treated more leniently under New York’s rules (e.g., going to the liquor store or getting a bike repaired). But JUSTICE GORSUCH does not even try to square his examples with the conditions medical experts tell us facilitate the spread of COVID–19: large groups of people gathering, speaking, and singing in close proximity indoors for extended periods of time. Unlike religious services, which “have every one of th[ose] risk factors,” bike repair shops and liquor stores generally do not feature customers gathering inside to sing and speak together for an hour or more at a time.”
Anyway, so that’s that. Onward to some commentary.
The Constitution as a “Suicide Pact” & “Democratic Failure.” Gorsuch begins his opinion with the phrase “Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis.” This is a really strange sentence coming from a conservative justice; it ties into a long history around the question of whether the constitution is a “suicide pact,” which was a huge conversation post-9/11. Back then, in the face of widespread detentions of Muslim Americans, increased surveillance, ethnic profiling, and kaleidoscopic violations of due process, conservatives were strongly arguing the other side of it. Notwithstanding three exceptions in three related rulings re: Guantanamo Bay, (Rasul v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) the Rehnquist and Roberts’ courts’ attitude throughout all of those post 9/11 measures was one of straight-up acquiescence and of deference to the executive branch. Rehnquist (the conservative former chief justice) wrote a whole book on how “judicial inquiry, with its restrictive rules of evidence, orientation towards resolution of factual disputes in individual cases, and long delays, is ill-suited to determine an issue such as ‘military necessity’ [during times of emergency, i.e., during the war on terror].”
The motivating idea here, and in conservative circles more generally, was that the constitution and rule of law need to be nowhere near as binding in times of emergency (as against periods of normalcy) lest the whole republic go under because we were wed to some deontological injunction like “free speech good.” (Lincoln: “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?”) The position then was typically presented as a really utilitarian argument. (For what it’s worth I think it’s a hugely flawed act-utilitarian one that focuses only on first-order consequences, and maybe I’ll followup on this in the comments.)
The gist of that quasi-utilitarian argument was: (1) that security must always—even in periods of normalcy—be balanced (or ‘traded off’) against liberty; (2) that in times of emergency this tradeoff is generally a necessary one; and (3) that in times of emergency security should trade at a high premium, because constitutional democracies provide agreeable places for terrorist groups to transmit messages, grow, and plot their plots, and many basic rights and civil liberties impede the executive from stopping these plots and providing sufficient security, however defined. Stated formally, the contention is that there exists something like a Pareto frontier bounding security and liberty, such that at the frontier neither security nor liberty can be increased without decreasing the other, like so:
https://preview.redd.it/dvmttxr6dt161.png?width=944&format=png&auto=webp&s=a73d833375aae52e056b46699bad37155b26ea33
And the liberal response, post-9/11 was that in that model the issue of distribution of benefits and burdens is entirely absent: it presents a democracy as a single entity, trading off its liberty for its security and vice versa, but—the argument goes—that’s too holistic a picture. When we talk of balancing liberties against security, we need to pay attention to the fact that derogations in liberty will affect some citizens more than others. Here’s Jeremy Waldron: “We must always ask whose security is being traded off against whose liberty…[the worry is that] majorities will externalize the costs of security onto ethnic minorities, aliens, or noncitizens, in effect taking the latter groups’ liberties for public use and without just compensation.”
In any event, it’s strange to see this conversation shifting in light of covid, and I’m curious to hear if how everyone thinks these emergency rationales ought apply across the domestic (pandemic) and military (9/11) contexts. Consistently? Inconsistently?
(Fun little side-bar on in this footnote [fn: 4].)
Finding the Right Comparator. As discussed above, the SCOTUS decision ultimately reduces to a question of the relevant comparator, which is sort of a factual question, but one which the value-preferences of the judges obviously hugely dictates. Got lots of thoughts here I’ll likely add later, but just want to flag this commentary. (Is this the sort of question there’s a meaningfully right answer to? i.e., Is there a way to bridge the gap between the two sides that doesn’t include the words “Aumann’s agreement theorem”?)
Mistake & Conflict Theory. In a dissenting opinion the Chief Justice—Roberts—does the judicial equivalent of putting Gorsuch on blast; quoting Gorsuch, he writes: The background here is that Roberts has been really trying to hold the court together in a time when it’s really struggling with its perceived legitimacy. (Typically in a wholly disingenuous way, imho.)
Ya’ll might also remember the late Justice Antonin Scalia, beloved by all in states with ≥ 2 right angle borders; Scalia really kicked off a new norm of justices—typically the conservative justices—accusing their (typically liberal) colleagues of bad faith, and the net effect is that quasi-open hostility, or what we might call conflict theory, has really picked up in the judiciary, which of course sets the standard for lawyers across the country. And law has been a resolutely mistake-theory field forever. (Opposing counsels never lie, even when they clearly goddamn do; they simply make good faith mistakes about the law.) I’m really torn on these developments. On the one hand, these mistake-norms have developed in response to the common law (i.e., adversarial) system, and to some extent are obviously necessary for it to function correctly, and on the other hand (1) increasing polarization etc., and (2) these mistake norms so often lead to sheer insanity. “Respectfully, your honor, I believe you may be mistaken about your lawful ability to refuse to set bail on this disabled, single, African-American mother who stole a pack of diapers for her children” vs. the obvious “Respectfully, your honor, those black robes should come with a white hood.”
Regardless, we obviously have to keep “respectfully,” the indispensable adverb of a lawyer about to say something disrespectful. Curious to hear everyone’s thoughts here.
Largely Irrelevant Thoughts on Religious Arbitration. This is near-totally irrelevant, just something that’s been on my mind a lot recently. Instead of going to court, parties can often opt (in a contract) to resolve whatever disputes they have via arbitration, and to have that arbitration be binding (i.e., to be enforced by courts/ the coercive power of the state generally). And, funny enough, you can actually opt into arbitration where the arbitrators will apply a totally different set of rules than, you know, actual laws. A big subset of this is religious arbitration in the orthodox Jewish community, and the end result is that the rest of us sometimes find ourselves enforcing judgements—via democratically-sanctioned state-led coercion—that we find (or ought to find) morally and politically repugnant. Again, torn on this—volenti non fit injuria vs. how secure the right of exit in this communities (i.e., from being quasi-forced into this arbitration) actually is. My gut feeling is this is different in kind, not just degree, than (say) a church calling the police of ex-communicated trespassers or some such, which I personally have no problems with and think of as a logical extension of the freedom of association. Jacob T. Levy provides a really neat conceptual framework for thinking about these things in his book Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom, particularly the chapter on “pure” and “congruence” approaches to freedom of association. Gist of those ideas here. Thoughts?
I’ll likely add some more random little paragraphs on various other related things over the next few days. Will add them all under this sentence, if anyone thinks they’d like to check back.
​
FOOTNOTES
------------------------------------------
fn 1: Typically, in the federal system, there’s a trial or hearing at a trial court, called a district court, then the losing party near-always has an automatic right to appeal the district court’s decision up to a (“Circuit”) Court of Appeal (e.g., the Second Circuit, which covers NY, Connecticut, and Vermont) where (typically) three judges will determine if the trial court misapplied the law, i.e., those there judges just look at whether the district court applied the law to the facts correctly whilst “deferring” to the trial court on what those facts actually were (unless the district court made a “clear error” on the facts, i.e., really messed up and forgot to read something).
After that, the party that loses in the Court of Appeals can then appeal up to SCOTUS (via a process called a “petition for a writ of certiorari”), but don’t have a right to have SCOTUS review the case and SCOTUS will consequently tell them to get lost well over 95% of the time as it typically only takes cases of “supreme national importance” or where various Courts of Appeal have handed down inconsistent interpretations of a law in a way that’s creating major issues. This is a bit of an incomplete picture—among other things, the party that loses at the Court of Appeals can ask more judges from that Circuit to take a second look “en banc” before going up to SCOTUS, which it may or may not do. The appellate process if you begin in state court is a lot more confusing.
Also, relatedly: typically, parties in civil actions can get into a federal court if they have a constitutional or federal claim (under something called federal question jurisdiction) or if the plaintiffs and defendants are from different states (under something called diversity jurisdiction), but both of those are hugely confusing fields of law that don’t permit of easy summary. Suffice it to say this case involved claims made based on constitutional rights and so federal courts have jurisdiction.
fn 2: The “burden” of proving the first bit, that the law isn’t one of neutral applicability, is on the plaintiffs (i.e., not the government; the people suing them), but if the plaintiffs can prove that much the burden “shifts” to the government at the second step to prove it has a really good reason for burdening/benefiting religion. This burden-shifting is the way rational basis and strict scrutiny review work is very-nearly all contexts, for example, when the standards are applied to racist/sexist laws (equal protection), or applied in a field knows as “substantive due process” laws (e.g., sex-orientation discrimination (Obergfell) and all sorts of other “privacy” rights), or in most--but not all--free-speech cases.
fn: 3: Supreme Court cases typically have a “majority” opinion, which is the ~winning~ decision that sets out the “holding” (i.e., the new rule or an application of an old rule to whatever new circumstances), and then, often, a dissenting opinion that says that holding is wrong for various reasons and thinks the court should have reached the opposite conclusion. But, of course, because this is law nothing is ever that simple.
As relevant here, there can be multiple dissents, and there’s also something called concurrences, which are basically “I come out the same way as the majority but for different reasons.” This case actually doesn’t have a majority opinion, it has a “per curiam” opinion, which I’m not going to explain b/c it functions exactly the same as a majority opinion in these circumstances. (If you do extra research on per curiam opinions and try to understand why this case has a per curiam opinion and not a majority one, I promise you will end up wrong and hugely befuddled because this is a strange sort of per curiam opinion that isn’t really a real per curiam opinion but is called one for procedural reasons). This decision also has multiple concurrences (i.e., on the same side as that per curiam opinion), including the excerpt from Gorsuch I quote above as just the court’s “opinion” and one from Kavanaugh, as well as multiple dissents (the ones I quote from Sotamayer, Breyer, and Roberts below that). None of this is important, I just promised in the last post I’d never be actively misleading, so here I am being not actively misleading.
fn: 4: Both liberty and security are notoriously difficult concepts to define, and while talk of ‘balance’ certainly has connotations of quantity and precision the question of whether security and liberty can truly be properly ‘balanced’ is a fairly contentious one in legal literature. Here’s Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule (who argue in line with Gorsuch here, but in the post-9/11 context): “Official policies, whether instituted during an emergency or not, can intrude more (or less) on some margins while intruding less (or more) on others. At Time T the government policy for airport security is to search passengers who fit a given ethnic and religious profile. At Time T+I the policy changes to random searches; the new policy, let us say, imposes a cost (at least in an expected sense) on a greater number of people but reduces the stigma of being searched. Here it is senseless to ask whether liberty has been increased or decreased; instead it has been redistributed, by imposing a smaller deprivation more widely.” (For what it’s worth, Vermeule’s now nine-tenths of a fascist, so there’s that.)

EDIT: This post is in an article format with pictures and graphs here
I can't be silent anymore. In 2018, out of 1076 abortions in Poland, 1 was because of rape, 25 because it was dangerous for the woman's life and 1050 because of an unhealthy fetus. It means that PIS just totally banned abortion in Poland
Too few Europeans are aware of the depth of this crisis. The current Polish government is destroying the country from inside-out with its nepotism, religious zeal, communistic tactics, social programs and funding verge organizations (or trolls). It breaks every single law, making unconstitutional laws since 2015 and destroying the court of law. How Poland is pushing EU into crisis - rise of populism. The video is 2 years old and now it's worst
PIS staffed every single judicial court with its own people (ending the impartiality of judges). The very aggressive social 500+ program increased the job inactivity of Poles to 48% (48% of 15+ Polish citizens are NEET. Unemployment is at 5-6%). The Job vacancies in Poland are at the lowest level in EU. The corruption and nepotism is rampant, more than 1000 family members and friends are in public companies or in different Ministries. Polish PIS high ranking politicians are also making money together with pimps and mafia (see scandals down there). They are also giving millions of euros from public money to the Catholic Church. They are paying trolls to spew hate on Facebook, via Whatsapp and on the web. Some of them are hiding and not prosecuting pedophiles in the Catholic Church. Poland has almost the lowest innovation in EU. In 15 indexes tracking freedom and democracy in Europe Poland went from an average position of 12 out of 28 in 2010 to 23 out of 28 in 2019. I mean, not to diminish Trump’s “awesomeness” but imagine if the WHOLE republican party in the US was Trump-like. Shady deals, family in the govt, creating discord, staffing courts with their own judges. I’m just mortified.
For further reading I recommend: Sadurski, Wojciech. "Poland's Constitutional Breakdown", Oxford University Press, 2019.
Acronyms and main characters:

• PIS- current govt, Law and Justice, a fringe party with populist programs. Majority in Parliament. President is also from PIS. Opposition has the Senate.
• J. Kaczynski, PIS leader, Twin brother of the dead Polish president
• Z. Ziobro, General Prosecutor and Minister of Justice. PIS
• A. Duda, President. PIS
• M. Banas, Head of the Supreme Audit office. PIS
• M. Morawiecki, Prime minister. PIS
• T. Rydzyk Catholic priest, founder of the conservative Radio Maryja station and tv TRWAM
• J. Kurski, chairman of the Polish national state broadcaster TVP. PIS
• M. Kuchcinski, ex-Marshal of the lower house. PIS
• B. Szydlo, ex-prime minister. PIS

PiS changes electoral rules in an unconstitutional move. Presidential "elections" 2020 are the Biggest legal blunder of the year

Poland Is Showing the World How Not to Run a Pandemic Election. The upcoming Polish election is shaping up to be a farce. Washington should learn from Warsaw’s mistakes before November.
Why Poland’s “ghost election” sends a warning about its democracy
Wikipedia about this blunder

• Pis doesn't want to declare a constitutional state of emergence or state of natural disaster because it would postpone the elections. So they declared a state of epidemic that doesn't allow to limit the freedom of movement or other liberties Ombudsman opinion
• At first, PiS decided to hold the presidential elections on 10 May despite the public outcry at holding elections at the height of a pandemic. The adoption of generalised voting by post by the Polish parliament, about one month before the planned elections, violates several constitutional standards. It breaches a prohibition on making changes to the electoral law less than six months before an election and a ban on hiding new laws under the guise of amendments to an existing draft.
• Then PiS has excluded a key institution from the process of preparing the elections: the National Electoral Commission (PKW), which can no longer print the voting cards. On the 17th of April president Andrzej Duda signed a bill depriving the PKW of the powers to organise elections
• So in a particularly Kafkaesque twist, the ministry appointed J. Sasin, one of the MP, to organize the elections and he printed 30M ballots before the special election legislation was even signed into law. For months there was a ballot hunt to know where the ballots are stored. 70 million zloty bill for Poland’s abandoned presidential election
• At 02:26 am on 23 April, every Polish mayor and city council president received an anonymous, unsigned e-mail from Polish Post saying that they were required to deliver the private data of 30 million Polish citizens including their PESEL (national identification number), date of birth, address, and other private data in a .txt file format lacking any passwords or security. But local governments, which hold that data, are refusing to hand it over, arguing that the postal service has no legal right to get the files.
• On 29 April 2020, 11 days before the planned election date, election candidate Żółtek presented a copy of an "unlawful" electoral ballot at a press conference. It had NO securities to prevent counterfeit copies (reminder: As of 2 May 2020, Polish law did not authorise Poczta Polska to organise postal voting nor printing of ballots) . Poczta Polska notified the Internal Security Agency about the leak. But how to prove something that shouldn't exist? So many trolls just printed the copy and put it in mailboxes and on the street Picture of police trying to see if this is a copy or not of an illegal ballot
• 4 days before the election, “Simply put, in a democratic country, the government decided — consciously — not to organise the election of the head of state.” Collapse of Polish democracy “What happened with this agreement is truly unprecedented: the presidential election in Poland was not postponed, it was just cancelled,”. As the leaders reached their agreement, no constitutional institution was involved in the process, including the electoral commission, the president, the Sejm and the Supreme Court – the latter was meant to cancel the election according to the letter of the document. However, the two politicians could be certain that their agreement, although un-constitutional, would prove effective because of the complete take-over of the Supreme Court by the Law and Justice nominees since the beginning of May following the expiry of the term of the former President of the Supreme Court Małgorzata Gersdorf. Still, it is highly unusual for the leaders of political parties to openly state what the Supreme Court would decide. Source
• 3 days before the election, the National Electoral Commission (PKW) - controlled by PIS since a month- declared that the election would not be able to take place on 10 May 2020 because there were no candidates???!!! Source So the candidates will need to ONCE again collect 100k signatures to be eligible to be candidates.
• On 3 June 2020, the Marshal of the Sejm ordered the first round of the election to be held on 28 June 2020.
• And now the cherry on top. Elections on 28 june 2020 are UNCONSTITUTIONAL why? art 128.2 of the constitution: "The election of the President of the Republic shall be ordered by the Marshal of the Sejm to be held on a day no sooner than 100 days and no later than 75 days before expiry of the term of office of the serving President of the Republic, and in the event of the office of President of the Republic falling vacant - no later than the 14th day thereafter(...)". June 28 was 70 days before the expiry. So the next election must be announced within 14 days after the office of president is vacated. So the Speaker of the Sejm can announce new elections AT THE EARLIEST after 6th of August. source
• The whipped cream on top of the cherry? These elections are not free, not secret and not for everyone. They are not free because the electoral commission is controlled by PIS, they are not secret because if you vote via post you need to sign the ballot with your name + the attached envelope is see-trough. 14 sins of ballot elections Voter suppression: Old, pregnant and people with kids on their arms can vote first Part 2/5

Destruction of the rule of law.

Some of the passages below are taken from this pdf
No member state in the history of the EU has ever gone as far in subjugating its courts to executive control as the current Polish government. The Polish case has become a test whether it is possible to create a Soviet-style justice system in an EU member state; a system where the control of courts, prosecutors and judges lies with the executive and a single party.
Across Europe, national courts recognise the judgements of courts in other member states, whether these involve commercial law, the European arrest warrant or child custody. Judges must assume that courts across the EU operate according to common values and principles set out in the European Union Treaty and in its Charter of Fundamental Rights. Once judges across the EU have reason to doubt whether courts in any member state provide effective judicial protection, the legal order on which the EU rests collapses.
Freedom house - How PIS captured Poland’s Courts

Constitutional Tribunal changes

It all began with the constitutional crisis four years ago. Constitutional crisis and the destruction of the rule of law In 2015, parliament changed the law on the Constitutional Tribunal, which rules on the constitutionality of legislation. The changes allowed them to annul the nominations of three judges made by the previous parliament and appoint their own. It shortened the terms of the tribunal's president and vice-president from nine to three years. The tribunal ruled the move unconstitutional in an open rebellion, but the dispute remains unresolved. Julia Przylebska - was illegally named the president of the Tribunal court by the president. And now Kaczynski, the PM have meetings at her house. Nice separation of power
There's too much to describe. For further info please visit the link. It is an amazing summary of the whole ordeal. timeline

Supreme Court changes

The European Commission, the EU's executive arm, said one of the most controversial reforms was to do with the Supreme court, which, among other duties, is responsible for confirming election results. The idea was to lower the age of retirement for Supreme Court justices from 70 to 65, but allow the Polish president to grant a five-year extension to whomever they deemed worthy. In 2019, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) — the EU's highest court —ruled this was illegal, after an interim decision ordered 20 already-sacked judges be reinstated. Of course, PIS chose 2 new Constitutional judges, A politician Pawlowicz with communistic past and Piotrowicz, also a politician and a prosecutor that was an active communist during the 80 that prosecuted Solidarnosc. Both of them are above 65 years old.

Ordinary court judges

There were also moves to try a similar tactic in the general court system for judges and public prosecutors, lowering the age of retirement for women to 60 and for men to 65, down from the current 67. Under the reforms the justice minister, who is appointed by the ruling party, would have the power to extend a judge's term. The laws were somewhat adjusted after pressure from the European Commission, but in November 2019 the ECJ shot down these laws, too, citing gender discrimination and political influence over the judiciary.

Disciplinary measures for judges

Another PiS addition allowed judges to be investigated and sanctioned for their court rulings. The disciplinary hearings and procedures were to be carried out by judges selected via parliament. These reforms were criticized by the European Commission because "judges are not insulated from political control and thus judicial independence is violated." The commission brought legal action against Poland on this matter in October 2019.

National Council of the judiciary takeover

In 2017 PiS remodeled the National Council of the Judiciary, which selects candidates for appointment as judges by the President of the Republic. This allowed it, in the short term, to control appointments to the Supreme Court – including to a newly created Disciplinary Chamber, which hears disciplinary cases against judges, and to a new Extraordinary Appeals Chamber, which adjudicates on electoral issues. Over time PiS’ take-over of the National Judicial Council allows it to reshape the entirety of the judiciary. Fifteen of the 25 members of the National Council of the Judiciary were previously elected by judges themselves, as is common practice across Europe for such bodies. These fifteen judges are now elected by the majority in the Sejm, the lower chamber of the Polish parliament. The other ten members of the National Council of the Judiciary are: four members from the Sejm itself (all four members of PiS), two members from the Senate, one representative of the President of the Republic, the Minister of Justice, the president of the Supreme Court and the president of the Supreme Administrative Court. In total 23 of the 25 positions are directly appointed by political authorities.
After the election of the new KRS, a publication of the list with the names of judges declaring their support for specific candidates was refused. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that those names must be disclosed. However, the Chancellery of the Sejm has yet to carry out the NSA’s ruling. The Constitutional Tribunal (TK) and the President of the Personal Data Protection Office have been roped into guarding the secret. KRS destruction

Muzzle bill

The muzzle bill passed Dec 2019, victimize judges questioning the legitimacy of the government’s legal appointments, saying it is unlawful to “show hostility to other authorities of the Republic of Poland and its constitutional organs or to critisize the basic principles of the Republic of Poland.”The bill also delegalise the preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). The bill also allows to fire judges ( which is unconstitutional according to the Constitution). In average Ziobro dismissed a judge every day and a half from its position of president of court source

One of the worse Covid19 laws in EU.

Trampling Fundamental freedoms using a single ordnance and Critiquing the President will land you a year in jail. report.
In the latest special Covid19 law (already 4th lol) PIS smuggled an article straight from a communistic playbook about prosecuting people that critique the president. The sentence can be up to a year. They also smuggled a harsher law for abortions. Can someone tell me HOW it is related to Covid19? source
More Ruleoflaw

Political scandals

Illegal presidential pardon

Illegal presidential pardon for CBA chief Kaminski In 2013, Law and Justice (PiS) MP Mariusz Kamiński – who served as head of the anti-corruption agency from 2006 and 2009 – was found guilty of overstepping his powers. He was sentenced to three years in prison and was banned from holding public office for ten years. Polish President Andrzej Duda pardoned Kamiński even though he was still appealing his sentence at the time. The case against Kamiński was then discontinued. A supreme court judge said that the president interfered in the legal process because Kamiński was proven neither innocent nor guilty when he was pardoned, making a future ruling redundant. The judge said that the president can pardon someone after any final appeal has been heard “because then he is not interfering with the judiciary”.

Merging the General Prosecutor with the political Minister of Justice

The general prosecutor role was merged with the minister of justice Ziobro. source. This handed Ziobro and his subordinates greatly expanded power to politically interfere with rank-and-file prosecutors, their decisions, and their freedoms of speech and association. Poland Is Purging Its Prosecutors
200+ public prosecutors that are loyal to the Minister of Justice Ziobro (from PIS) All of them got promotions (or someone from their family) or pay raises. another list

Destroying the military

The creation of a territorial defense unit- a civilian army led by the ministry of defense to control “the situation inside Poland”. In addition, there was a purge of generals. and killing multibillion deals with France. About 37 generals and 47 colonels left. Why? Because they had to answer to a 27-year old assistant to the Defense Minister, former pharmacy assistant without a university degree. The Rzeczpospolita daily newspaper reported that Misiewicz was given a top communications job with PGZ ( largest defense consortiums in Central Europe) that pays $12,500 a month, huge sum in a country where the average pre-tax wage is about $1,150 a month. source
PIS decides to overhaul 40-years old t-72 instead of investing in German tanks. Not enough ammunition, uniforms NVG and other gadget went to the above unit,
In 2015, the Defence minister Macierewicz raided the Nato center in Warsaw at 1am to take control of documents and place their man at the helm

The ministry of Justice is funding trolls to destroy judges

Ziobro-Piebiak paid Troll scandal The Onet news portal published a report alleging that Deputy Justice Minister Łukasz Piebiak “arranged and controlled” an online campaign against Judge Krystian Markiewicz, the head of Iustitia, a judicial organization critical of the government’s efforts to restructure the judicial system, as well as against other inconvenient judges. According to the Onet report, Piebiak operated and financed an online campaign by a woman called Emilia who allegedly sent over 2,000 letters and emails about Markiewicz to other judges as well as to pro-government right-wing media. The messages contained fabricated, semi-confirmed and gossipy details of the judge’s personal life. According to Onet, Emilia obtained Markiewicz’s personal address from Piebiak so she could send him one of the letters.

Taking over the state media

State media was taken over by PIS and is using mass propaganda and here Not only they are a propaganda tube but they also offend polish citizens ie – translation: defenders of pedophiles and alimonies-takers are the ones against judiciary reforms. They call every peaceful protest as a coup
The same can be said about the GUS – general statistical bureau. It is controlled by PIS and it is known to “change” metrics so every Inflation or unemployment metrics can’t be trusted.

LBGT-free zones and Xenophobia.

Fear against refugees and calls for xenophobia. A leaked draft of a new Polish migration policy discriminates against Muslims, ranks foreigners according to ethnicity and breaches human rights
My article Why the Polish government is against LGBT?
PIS is supporting LGBT free zones where a thrid of Poland is declared as LGBT-free. During the presidential elections in 2020 Gay “ideology” is worse than communism, says Duda - PIS president.

Destroying education and HealthCare.

PIS cancels the in vitro program Polish government program that covered most of the in vitro costs was immediately cut by the Law and Justice Party when it came to power in late 2015, even though Poland has one of the lowest birth rates in the EU. Catholic Church opposition to IVF is widely seen as one factor in the Polish government's decision.
PIS also increased the minimum wage at the beginning of 2020. It created a weird paradox where a teacher and a starting MD is earning less than the minimal wage because they get paid from public money and the minimal wage change is for the private sector. And PIS wants to ban sex ed by labeling teachers as gay activists and pedophiles. Critics say Poland’s governing Law and Justice Party is wrecking the education system for political gain — and students are suffering.

Environment?

Destruction of the oldest European forest in Poland by Minister of Environment Szyszko The Bialowieza Forest is a UNESCO World Heritage site that sprawls across the border between Poland and Belarus, occupying almost 580 square miles of woodland and providing home to rare European wood bison among others. At least 10,000 trees are thought to have been felled in Białowieża, since the Polish environment minister, Jan Szyzko tripled logging limits there in 2016. The EU’s highest court has ruled that Poland’s logging in the Unesco-protected Białowieża forest is illegal, potentially opening the door to multi-million euro fines.
“Our (water) resources are comparable to those of Egypt,” it said in the report bearing the ominous title: “Poland, European Desert”

Nepotism and colleagues in state-owned companies

PIS won the elections by wanting to fight nepotism. The most famous was “24yo Misiewicz, a former pharmacy assistant without a university degree was in the defense industry under Macierewicz. The apparent favoritism has raised ethics concerns in a party that won office promising to fight corruption.” source There is even a webpage listing more than 1000 cases of nepotism under PIS Pisiewicze
Latest data show 162M PLN to 84 PIS oligarchs and Colleagues

Illegal budget for 2017

The 2017 budget "was adopted" not in the Sejm assembly hall, but in a smaller room where the so-called parliamentary session was held immediately as a follow-up to the meeting of the parliamentary causus of PIS, where no reliable counting of vates was possible, and with many allegations taht the opposition MPs were not allowed in. [Constitutional Democracy in Crisis?, Oxfoord, 2018, p.268]

Ex-communists in PIS ranks. And PIS is very anti-left and anti-PRL.

They are accusing the opposition – PO - to consist mostly of ex-communists or communistic party members or collaborators. The issue is that most members of PO fought against the communism and spent months/years in prison in the ’80. On the other hand, the PIS party members scarcely fought for polish liberty and some of its party members are former communistic party members or communistic prosecutors like Piotrowicz! Some Polish TC judge are also ex-PRL members. Here is a list in polish of all current PIS party members who served as PRL members during the communistic era. So, PIS is fighting against itself. Another list with 20 names of ex-party members now in PIS

Funding the Catholic church with public money

PIS is very Pro-Catholic, most of their voters are devout Catholics. So it is no surprise that PIS is funding religious orgs from public money. Since Law and Justice came to power in 2015, Father Rydzyk’s businesses have received at least $55 million in subsidies from at least 10 ministries and state companies. His Radio Maryja station, which reaches millions and is often the sole source of information for many older voters in rural Poland, offers a daily diet of horror stories about a world without faith, where gay people control the political agenda, universities are corrupted by “neo-Marxists,” and the Roman Catholic Church is under mortal threat. Rydzyk Embroiled in Corruption Allegations
Hiding Pedophilia. Map of 259 victims of catholic pedophilia. When a documentary was released before recent local elections revealing devastating examples of how priests sexually abused children and how church officials covered it up, many in PIS saw it not as evidence of an institution that lost its way, but one that needed to be defended. Piotrowicz, the above communist prosecutor, dismissed in 2001 a case against a priest accused of raping six girls.
Polish PIS president Duda pardons a paedophile that raped his own daughter. He makes the pardon a week before elections

Smolensk commission

The so-called assassination of Kaczynski's twin president brother in Smolensk created 90M PLN of costs. PIS created a "cult" around his death and even created a special commission that would prove it was an assassination. Kaczynski was using it on every occasion Don't wipe your treacherous mugs with .... Ofc they didn’t prove anything and they buried the topic. Every 10th of every month for 3 years, PIS party leader Kaczynski was making a "show" commemorating his dead twin brother. He was using the police to secure his demonstration even if he has no lawful power (he is neither a president, neither the prime minister). New law expanding police surveillance and the police is getting raises after raises to keep them happy. The commemorations, the commission and the damages (paid only to the politicians’ families, not to the crew) amounted to 91M PLN.

The welfare revolution

PIS is also very pro-family. The party is giving away 500zl per month for every kid. In short, it has “bought” the elections. The polish economy is unable to sustain such an endeavor roots of populism. And it costs the economy 80B PLN between 2016 and 2019. The best part? Rate of births is negative for the last couple of years and inflation is still growing. According to the PIS Stats bureau it is 3.5% and growing. However, many journalists made their own baskets of normal good and services and the inflation is closer to 10%. Additionally there is a growing debt that PIS tries to hide by shifting some debt into other Funds. One of them is the “Solidarity fund” that is not counted in the overall polish GDP, that is to support people with disabilities will pay for the 13th and 14th pension of people 65+.

Funding propaganda and trolls

Computational Propaganda in Poland: Russian troll factories
PIS bought the Pegasus spyware to spy on its citizens In September 2018, private broadcaster TVN24 reported that Poland’s state audit body, NIK, was questioning an outlay of over 33 million zloty (€7.6 million euro) by the Justice Fund, a government fund to help victims of crime. According to TVN, the money went toward the purchase of a “new system to spy on telephones and computers, the most expensive system in the history of Polish secret services.” Reports that the covertly purchased system could be Pegasus — a top-performing spyware that is impossible to track — surfaced last week.
Polish troll farms promoting Duda and Kaczynski

Funding public TV stations

Polish public TV stations should be impartial and public. Not favoring any party nor government and give the same screen time to every party equally. Unfortunately, there was a purge of journalists the moment PIS won the election and the propaganda is stalin-like. Look at this graph how it changed. Polish TVP is the mouthpiece of the govt. In 2020 PIS voted to give an additional 2B pln per year for 5 years to public tv.
Public Main TV making fun of US ambassador by reading the tweet with a derogatory accent

Scandals

PIS has hundreds of scandals that each would destroy a modern government. They defrauded billions of PLN over the years, put 1000’s of family members in different state-owned companies. Below are listed the main sexual and financial scandals.

1. Sex hotel of the head of the Audit office Marian Banaś , a Law and Justice (PiS) politician and recently appointed chief of Poland’s Supreme Audit Office has been heavily embroiled in a corruption scandal, another to hit the ruling party just weeks before the country votes in a parliamentary election. Mr Banaś served as finance minister from June to August this year, and is a key figure in the party. Mr Banaś concealed his possession of a tenement house in Krakow from his financial disclosures. This property was then revealed to have deep running connections with a local, criminally-run escort agency. He claimed that the house was given to him by an old friend whom he met in the Home Army, which he then renovated. In his disclosures, he claimed he would sell the house, which never happened. Banaś claims that this was due to the buyer’s inability to get a loan. Investigations have further revealed that Mr Banaś agreed to rent the property for 5000 zloty a month, 10,000 zloty lower than its estimated market value, according to Gazeta Wyborcza. Just as the scandal could not apparently get any worse for Mr Banaś, further investigation by journalist Bertold Kittel revealed criminal links. When Mr Kittel entered the property he found at the reception an infamous Krakow criminal known as one of the brothers K – Wiesław or Janusz, who control escort agencies in the region. While still under investigation, there have been suggestions of contact between the two.
2. "Alleged" Pedophila and Sex trafficking scandal of House speaker Wirtualna Polska learned the contents of the message of CBA officer Wojciech J. to the prosecutor's office about the failure of the head of the CBA, Ernest Bejda. In the background is a lost record with a recording of one of the leading PiS politicians who should have sex with a minor Ukrainian girl lost. His name falls on the document. In the message, Wojciech J. refers to several reports that he was the head of the office in connection with the "unauthorized access to his armored cabinet during his absence" submitted. From this vault, a record should be lost in escort agencies from the Podkarpacie region. One of the leading PiS politicians should have sex with a young Ukrainian in the recording. The statement signed by lawyer Beata Bosak-Kruczek mentions the name of Sejm spokesman Marek Kuchciński.
3. Health minister Szumowski alleged to have bought £1m of PPE from ski instructor friend during pandemic. And givng away £65m grants to companies run by brother public anger has exploded after Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza reported that Szumowski bought masks with fake certificates from a skiing instructor who is friends with his businessman brother, Marcin. Poland’s Health Ministry reportedly spent five million zloty (£1m) on 120,000 FFP-2 type face masks and 20,000 surgical masks that were later found not to meet safety standards, Politico says. The company that sold the masks was registered on the 30 of March and won the govt. contract on the same day. Critics have also questioned Szumowski’s previous dealings in government. Polish news network tvn24 reports that while serving as deputy science minister in 2016-17, he gave 300 million zloty (£60m) in grants from Poland’s National Centre for Research and Development (NCBR) to OncoArendi Therapeutics, a research company run by his brother. Another company in which Szumowski was a shareholder, Life Science Innovation (LSI), was reportedly given a 24 million zloty (£5m) NCBR grant just days after he took up the ministerial post.
4. Same Health minister Szumowski bought 1.2 thousand ventilators for PLN 200 million from a company owned by an arms dealer, not a single device was delivered

contd.