Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Only About 5,900 Doses Of Ebola Vaccine Are Still On Hand, And In Stock In DRC…
November 15, 2018

With almost 29,000 people vaccinated there — we are beginning to see the limits of the “investigational” vaccine production runs, at Merck. It is my experienced conjecture (of over two decades) — but conjecture, just the same — that FDA approval will come very quickly, and full-on commercial volume runs will begin immediately. . . if the available stockpile dips below 1,500 doses.

The latest Situation Report, on the bottom of page 7, from WHO:

. . . .As of 10 November 2018, 424 new contacts were vaccinated in 13 rings in affected health zones, bringing the cumulative number of people vaccinated to 28,727. Two new vaccination teams were trained in Butembo, with support from Médecins Sans Frontières, and vaccination teams were supervised in Beni, Vuhovi, Mutwanga, Kalunguta and Kyondo. The current stock of vaccine in Beni is 5,870 doses. . . .

Now you know — onward.



Merck’s Rolling “Breakthrough” FDA Submission — Its Ebola Vaccine — Is Now Underway (Approval In Early 2019 Likely).
November 14, 2018

First, lots of the multi-year backstory here — or just search “Ebola vaccine” in the search box, here.

We have followed this since early 2014, very closely. And now (overnight) we learn that Kenilworth has submitted an approval packet to US FDA staffers.

This all ought to go very quickly — for all the reasons we mentioned — and that is decidedly good news. However (less sanguinely), it now looks like the current Ebola outbreak in DRC (the most lethal in that country’s history — back to 1976) will last a minimum of another six months, due primarily to lost contact tracings. That, in turn, offers a real potential for the need to vaccinate NOT just “rings of contacts” — but an entire urban population, in an 800,000-plus population city like Beni.

So. . . Merck may need to scale up — and scale up rapidly (likely in Durham, NC), after the nearly certain FDA approval arrives. Now you know. Onward.


[U: Video, Come Monday!] The Government Must Answer The TRO Motion, In East Bay Sanctuary v. Trump In Under Two Days…
November 13, 2018

. . .and then the plaintiffs, including the ACLU, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant and Innovation Law Lab, will have an opportunity to reply by this Friday. Expect then that one Donald “Dotard” Trump will be eviscerated, in prose, and in perpetuity — in the able court’s written recorded orders (yet again!), no less.

UPDATE @ 2 PM CST — 11.14.18: I forgot to mention that this is one of only a handful of trial level federal courts participating (on an experimental basis) with video feeds of the proceedings. And so, I will stream it all, right here — come Monday. Prepare to see a particularly bad version of “Apprentice Lawyers for 45” — and do pop the popcorn. His team will be pinned, right out of the gate. [End updated portion.]

The full on argument will be heard on Monday — on the “rocket docket“. Excellent. Bring it on — this was just entered a few hours ago, in San Francisco’s federal District courthouse:

. . . .SCHEDULING ORDER re [8] MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, Innovation Law Lab, Central American Resource Center, Al Otro Lado. Responses due by 11/15/2018.

Replies due by 11/16/2018. Motion Hearing set for 11/19/2018 at 9:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 9, 19th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar.

Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on November 13, 2018. . . .

Now you know — wow. . . this is light-speed law practice. And. . . I (for one) love it.


Parker Is Performing Flawlessly; Withstanding 2,500 Degrees Fahrenheit At Perihelion…
November 13, 2018

It was within 15 million miles of the sun on that pass — and all went perfectly (23 more passes to go!):

Now you know. Onward, and thank you, Professor Parker.


We Were Just First Generation Irish (And Hungarian) Immigrants, Then: Armistice Day, 100 Years On…
November 12, 2018

It has been one full century now, this morning — when at the stroke of noon, the shelling and shooting ceased.

It was the end of the “war, to end all wars. . .” [Though it didn’t (even remotely) turn out that way.] But WW I was now. . . over, and my grandfather, at right — just a first generation immigrant then, with only an eighth grade formal education — was to board a ship, and return home from France. Home, to the Rockies — of the West.

Mother Ireland, in County Cork, was no longer home. These United States were. . . home. Yes we were. . . immigrants. That is our legacy.

This Veterans Day, I whole-heartedly thank all who served our nation, and have passed on.

Each and every one of the enlisted deserve our honor, our gratitude and our enduring respect. And we must remember that most of those who died, for America, in each of the “great wars”, was first or second generation — at best.

So, it is also incumbent on each of us as voters — as stewards, if you will — of these lives, to think clearly before we commit our troops — sons and daughters, brothers, sisters and cousins — to a cause that is in truth no more than a political stunt — our troops are sleeping 20 to a tent, in Southern California, Arizona and Texas, of all places (getting no combat pay, despite being “deployed” — away, from the comfort of a base) — with no air conditioning, little running water — and being asked to “guard” a border no one is seriously threatening. Some two months from now, “huddled masses, yearning to breathe free air. . .” will arrive there — and seek entirely lawful asylum. That is all.

And so, today, we should all keep in mind what a then 20 year-old soldier had scribbled in pencil, and left in his mess kit, shortly before his own death — in the trenches of World War I France — three years before the Armistice ended that killing:

When you see millions of the mouth-less dead
Across your dreams in pale battalions go,

Say not soft things as other men have said,

That you’ll remember. For you need not do so.

Give them not praise. For, deaf, how should they know

It is not curses heaped on each gashed head?
Nor tears. Their blind eyes see not your tears flow.

Nor honour. It is easy to be dead.

Say only this, ‘They are dead.’ Then add thereto,

‘Yet many a better one has died before.’

Then, scanning all the o’ercrowded mass, should you

Perceive one face that you loved heretofore,

It is a spook. None wears the face you knew.

Great death has made all his for evermore.Charles Hamilton Sorley (1915)

For his part, my grandfather returned strong, hale and whole, from the “great war” — to live on. . . to see another seven decades of peace and prosperity — to work in the mines, marry the love of his life, run a mountain Post Office, see his fine children grow into late middle age, and adore all of his many, many grandchildren (and by the time of his own peaceful passing, to have held and adored with crinkled Irish eyes, at least a handful of his now many, many great-grandchildren). Not so, this other Charles (as quoted above). And so — I do give honor, respect and gratitude to those who fell, in the causes of our nation. I just ask that we all be very careful about which causes we choose, henceforth.

Do go to truly love one another. I do so, with a call for all of us (in the EU and the US) to be more open: to open our borders, to peoples fleeing oppression. . . . That is freedom’s. . . beacon for all. Pax tecum. . . .


[U] ACLU’s Federal Court Hearing Set For Tuesday, In San Francisco (On Assignment), On Trump’s Unlawful Southern Border Asylum Ban Attempts
November 11, 2018

As we indicated (on Friday) the ACLU would, the suit has now been filed in Northern California’s federal District court — for among other things, a nationwide halt to the implementation of any purported asylum ban, at the southern border. [A motion for a TRO has also been filed, under seal, at this point (and an earlier version of the post and graphic, relying on the PACER feed, had Magistrate Judge Ryu out of Oakland, assigned preliminarily). RESIST!]

This East Bay Sanctuary suit will likely soon prevent the application of Trump’s latest lunacy — in violation of international law applicable to the US (since at least 1967), and 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) — as to vulnerable refugees, now slowly walking toward the Rio Grande River. It will be at least six weeks before they arrive, and even so, we as a nation should be clear about our treaty and statutory obligations, to each of them. They are entirely free to cross at any point, and promptly claim for asylum anywhere inside the interior of the United States. [Perhaps we ought to organize an “underground railway” of sorts (21st Century edition), to get them to Chicago or San Francisco — two cities more likely to help them make their asylum claims, rather than jail them.] More on that last notion — in a future post.

We will note in passing, contrary to 45’s boldly false assertions — in adopting this latest measure, the vast majority of asylum seekers who are apprehended upon their arrival and then released into the United States’ interior after passing their credible fear interviews do in fact show up for their immigration court hearings. According to data from our own US Department of Justice (even while under the thumb of Trump, in the full year 2017), 89% of asylum seekers appeared for their hearings. It is simply false to suggest that most of the asylees have been gaming our systems, as Trump incessantly bloviates. From the complaint then:

. . . .As part of our nation’s commitment to the protection of people fleeing persecution, federal law specifically guarantees that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States,” at a designated port of entry or not, is entitled to apply for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). Consistent with its international obligations [primarily the 1951 UN Convention], Congress was specific and clear: Entering without inspection is not a basis to categorically deny asylum to refugees. . . .

[As of November 9, 2018, Trump seeks to] bar people from obtaining asylum if they enter the United States somewhere along the southern border other than a designated port of arrival — in direct violation of Congress’s clear command that manner of entry cannot constitute a categorical asylum bar. In addition, the Acting Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated the rule without the required procedural steps and without good cause for immediately putting the rule into effect. . . .

Now you know. I do wonder whether there are enough people of good will (via the Catholic charities chaired by Father Phleger in Chicago for example), willing to help — willing to welcome them for even one night, into thier homes, and then transport and move migrants north and east, from the banks of the Rio Grande, toward San Antonio, then Nashville, then Chicago (or San Francisco even), and on to Philly, New York and/or Boston. What are. . . the odds? Let me know. . . .


[Updated] About The Continued Lawfulness Of “Seeking Asylum” — Despite Big Cheeto’s Unlawful Proclamation.
November 9, 2018

UPDATED @ 11.11.2018: Much more of the applicable law — and principles of analysis, for applying it — may now be found here. That’s our discussion of the latest TRO action, on it all, in Oakland San Francisco. [End, updated portion.]

Okay — let’s quickly unpack this. Normally, I’d wait for the ACLU to file suit for a TRO (and we do expect that, shortly — maybe even by this afternoon, in California’s federal courts), before reporting on it — but this one requires prompt, if not completely polished, analysis. [I’ll clean it up, later today.]

The US president (acting alone) simply hasn’t the power, under the framework of international law (all as codfied into US law, by Congressional action), to do what he claims to do this morning, by simple proclamation (and interim rules at DoJ and DHS). He just. doesn’t. The very bare minimum — to change the practice here — is an explicit Act of Congress, since this is a treaty-level obligation.

The 1951 UN Convention specifically requires individualized “credible fear” hearings (at Article 25; see also Article 1 definition of “Refugee”). Any scheme that declares an asylum seeker from a “geography” ineligible. . . violates that Convention, and the provisions of US law which codify it. Only an Act of Congress (after signing by the President) may change that — something the Congress hasn’t formally done.

Since the entire migrant “caravan” is now “outside the country of nationality” of each migrant, it is no longer unlawful, under US law, for each and every migrant to present ANYWHERE inside the US, and demand an asylum hearing. It simply cannot be unlawful. The Supreme Court has never held that arriving at a US checkpoint is required. And the Convention allows the migrant to appear in Chicago, New York or LA offices of ICE or DHS and make the asylum claim entirely LAWFULLY (Articles 31 and 33).

We are duty bound then to hold a credible fear interview and hearing. We cannot deport or detain, absent a showing of criminality, while we make this determination — the migrant is to be released into the interior (under Article 31). This is the definition of Refugee which the US adopted in 1967:

. . . .[A “Refugee” is any person with a] well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. . . .

Don’t let this sham-administration tell you otherwise. Go now, to protect your fellow humans — documented or not so.


WINNER! DACA II TRO / Preliminary Injunction Upheld In The Ninth Circuit. On, To The Supremes…
November 8, 2018

Here is last week’s installment on this topic, for ready reference. And an earlier one, on the merits. [There are dozens; search “DACA”, in upper left.]

So, now it’s on to the Supremes, which will take it up on this record — which spells near-certain death to Trump’s chances of overturning the nationwide injunction, in my estimation. His people would do better to start over, creating a new written record of some more plausible grounds for his actions. Here’s a bit — and the full 99 page PDF Ninth Circuit opinion, just entered and published, in San Francisco:

. . . .It is no hyperbole to say that Dulce Garcia embodies the American dream. Born into poverty, Garcia and her parents shared a San Diego house with other families to save money on rent; she was even homeless for a time as a child. But she studied hard and excelled academically in high school.

When her family could not afford to send her to the top university where she had been accepted, Garcia enrolled in a local community college and ultimately put herself through a four-year university, where she again excelled while working full-time as a legal assistant. She then was awarded a scholarship that, together with her mother’s life savings, enabled her to fulfill her longstanding dream of attending and graduating from law school. Today, Garcia maintains a thriving legal practice in San Diego, where she represents members of underserved communities in civil, criminal, and immigration proceedings.

On the surface, Dulce Garcia appears no different from any other productive — indeed, inspiring — young American. But one thing sets her apart. Garcia’s parents brought her to this country in violation of United States immigration laws when she was four years old. Though the United States of America is the only home she has ever known, Dulce Garcia is an undocumented immigrant.

Recognizing the cruelty and wastefulness of deporting productive young people to countries with which they have no ties, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a policy in 2012 that would provide some relief to individuals like Garcia, while allowing our communities to continue to benefit from their contributions. Known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, the program allows those noncitizens who unwittingly entered the United States as children, who have clean criminal records, and who meet various educational or military service requirements to apply for two-year renewable periods of deferred action — a revocable decision by the government not to deport an otherwise removable person from the country. . . .

The government may not simultaneously both assert that its actions are legally compelled, based on its interpretation of the law, and avoid review of that assertion by the judicial branch, whose “province and duty” it is “to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). The government’s decision to rescind DACA is subject to judicial review. And, upon review, we conclude that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the rescission of DACA — at least as justified on this record — is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of preliminary injunctive relief. . . .

Um. . . ya’ ought-ta’ start ova’, 45. Jes’ sayin’. . .


Echoing Many Of My Themes, At Least 18 Cities Have Filed An Amicus Brief Against Trump’s Unlawful Proposed Unlicensed Detention “Rules”
November 8, 2018

And again, I am in the ACLU’s debt, for my comments to the proposed rulemaking — and the fine amici clearly are as well. They have put a lot more meat on the bones of the arguments, though — citing each of the cities’ long experience protecting kids in LICENSED care facilities.

Without additional ado, here is a bit of the 30 page PDF of the well-reasoned overnight brief, in Flores:

. . . .Many amici, like the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, the City of New York and the City and County of San Francisco all prosecute violations of child welfare laws and health and safety codes in their respective jurisdictions. Cases are routinely referred to these offices for prosecution by the State of California’s and the State of New York’s licensing agencies. And in addition to enforcing state laws, some amici have local ordinances requiring state-licensed facilities to abide by local fire, building, and other safety codes that ensure the safety not only of the children, but also of the staff and first responders.

For example, Chicago’s and Los Angeles’s municipal codes subject state-licensed child care institutions to additional oversight, inspections, and penalties beyond those provided for by the State of Illinois and State of California, respectively. See Chicago Mun. Code § 4-76-010 et seq.; Los Angeles Mun. Code §, These state licensing schemes and local laws reflect amici’s interests in ensuring protection for immigrant children – protections that will not necessarily exist for children housed in federally-“licensed” facilities. . . .

This notion, that 45 can just malevolently “make unlawful sh!t up” — as he goes along — must end, especially when (as here) the safety of children hangs in the balance. Onward — enraged.


The “Tangerine Mussolini,” In Full Delusion Mode, This Morning: In Close 2018 Races, He Was The Kiss Of Death.
November 7, 2018

H/T to Karoli, at C&L — just watch — three minutes of pure unhinged 45 lunacy:


. . . .Benito Mussolini: “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. . . .”

In stark contrast, then: VERY proud of Colorado’s choice for Governor; saddened that the NRA pushed Blackburn across the line, in Tennessee. Can’t win ’em all, I guess. . . .

Onward. Overall, it was a great night, in many many places — and especially, for Lauren Underwood — my grrrrrl!