We at @GoodLawProject have a paralegal attending the case management hearing in the Tavistock's appeal in the Bell case on behalf of our trans defence fund. Occasional updates from them as the hearing progresses...
A slight sense of Mandy Rice Davies about these submissions (from both sides).
More from Jo Maugham
So, just before Christmas, Government what it called a "response" to this New York Times account of cronyism in pandemic spending.
And I said, when that "response" - which you can read here https://t.co/gLEJzuqoAx - was published that every single notional rebuttal by Government of a claim made by the New York Times was false, misleading or both.
And it's time for me to make good.
Here's the first "rebuttal" by Government to the New York Times' claim that: "The government handed out thousands of contracts to fight the virus, some of them in a secretive V.I.P. lane."
A number of points might be made.
(1) Government cannot say the NYT got it wrong. (2) the NAO found the VIP lane (later renamed the high-priority lane) "sat alongside" the normal lane. And I have shown elsewhere VIP contracts were handled by different teams all the way through.
(3) Although Govt says "offers of support raised by Opposition MPs were dealt with expeditiously" the NAO report does not record any referrals made by an Opposition MP leading to a contract - and the Government response telling does not say any did.
And I said, when that "response" - which you can read here https://t.co/gLEJzuqoAx - was published that every single notional rebuttal by Government of a claim made by the New York Times was false, misleading or both.
And it's time for me to make good.
Here's the first "rebuttal" by Government to the New York Times' claim that: "The government handed out thousands of contracts to fight the virus, some of them in a secretive V.I.P. lane."
A number of points might be made.
(1) Government cannot say the NYT got it wrong. (2) the NAO found the VIP lane (later renamed the high-priority lane) "sat alongside" the normal lane. And I have shown elsewhere VIP contracts were handled by different teams all the way through.
(3) Although Govt says "offers of support raised by Opposition MPs were dealt with expeditiously" the NAO report does not record any referrals made by an Opposition MP leading to a contract - and the Government response telling does not say any did.
If you want to know what happens to populations living in austerity who trade with the US on WTO terms, take a look at Tonga. THREAD
I visited Tonga in 1981 and it was, like so many other Pacific Island nations, slowly adjusting to Westernisation. The people ate mostly fish and vegetables. /1
Now it has rates of Type 2 diabetes of up to 40%, life expectancy has fallen by 10 years and well over half the population is obese. So what happened? (stats https://t.co/1XQHdqL8o8) /2
What happened was that the US discovered that Tonga was a great dumping ground for a cheap and locally unsaleable product known as a Turkey 'tail', essentially a gland of 40-45% fat. /3
They were fatty and, because cheap, attractive to a poor population. By 2007, in another Pacific Island nation, Samoa, 20 kilos per person were being sold every year. But it banned them for public health reasons. https://t.co/2f1N8tuMp6 /4
I visited Tonga in 1981 and it was, like so many other Pacific Island nations, slowly adjusting to Westernisation. The people ate mostly fish and vegetables. /1
Now it has rates of Type 2 diabetes of up to 40%, life expectancy has fallen by 10 years and well over half the population is obese. So what happened? (stats https://t.co/1XQHdqL8o8) /2
What happened was that the US discovered that Tonga was a great dumping ground for a cheap and locally unsaleable product known as a Turkey 'tail', essentially a gland of 40-45% fat. /3
They were fatty and, because cheap, attractive to a poor population. By 2007, in another Pacific Island nation, Samoa, 20 kilos per person were being sold every year. But it banned them for public health reasons. https://t.co/2f1N8tuMp6 /4
We need to talk about the 'expert' witness statement evidence led by Ms Bell in her successful case before the Tavistock. THREAD
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.
Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
You can see who gave evidence in her support from these extracts from the Tavistock's Skeleton Argument.
Helpful for you to bear in mind that her solicitor was a man called Paul Conrathe, who has a long association with the religious right in the US (I have talked about him a number of times but this is as good a starting point as any).
In this thread, I noted the lawyer acting against the Tavistock, Paul Conrathe, is using very similar arguments (those under 18 cannot consent at all; or cannot lawfully consent without x conditions) as he has run/is running in a number of cases challenging abortion rights. https://t.co/gJk4c9bUED
— Jo Maugham (@JolyonMaugham) June 21, 2020
I am not going to address here other criticisms that might be made of the form in which that evidence was given or the timing of its service before the court. I am just going to address, in alphabetical order, the individuals whose evidence Mr Conrathe led on Ms Bell's behalf.
The first witness, alphabetically, was Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Oxford, Michael Biggs.
Mr Biggs was exposed for posting transphobic statements online under a fake twitter handle: @MrHenryWimbush according to this report.
More from Law
Hot take: Courts might be able to review the legality of this impeachment, even under current political-question doctrine. Here’s why and how the issue might arise:
Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.
Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:
According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.
The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).
Honest Q: Some people argue in good faith that an impeachment trial after POTUS leaves office is unconstitutional. I think they\u2019re wrong. But let\u2019s say they\u2019re right, yet senate does it anyway. Does anyone seriously think SCOTUS reverses verdict (or even can)?
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) January 17, 2021
Suppose Senate convicts and disqualifies Trump from ever holding federal office. Trump files paperwork to run anyway, but state officials deny his application, citing his Senate impeachment judgment. Trump sues, arguing that the judgment is void.
Normally a legal dispute about a prospective candidates eligibility to run would certainly present a justiciable case or controversy. But are courts bound to accept the Senate impeachment judgment as valid? Maybe not. Here’s why:
According to Article I, “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” This is a small amount of judicial power vested in Congress. When trying impeachments, the Senate sits as a court.
The Senate’s judicial power includes the power to decide relevant legal questions that arise, such as what procedures are sufficient to constitute a “trial” w/in the Constitution’s meaning. Such legal determinations are conclusive, as SCOTUS held in Nixon v. United States (1993).
You May Also Like
Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
BREAKING: President Donald Trump has submitted his answers to questions from special counsel Robert Mueller
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 20, 2018
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
