Dear Editor,
Edward B. Foley’s article, “Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election: An Exercise in Election Risk Assessment and Management” was published almost a year and a half ago, on August 31, 2019 (51 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 309). It may have inspired the strategy and narratives of the Democrats to a considerable degree in the 2020 presidential election, an election that was called for V.P. Biden by the Associated Press and the US media in general, but an election that is still ongoing and bitterly contested.
This “Exercise in Election Risk Assessment and Management” is a day-by-day narrated account along with much scholarly legal commentary of events of the crisis, the imbroglio following the night of the election. The article/scenario is much too long to summarize here, but (in 2019) the author theorized that on election night (2020) Republicans would appear to be the winners until later on in the count (he didn’t say how much later) when mail-in votes would favor Democrats.
Professor of Law at Ohio State University Edward Foley studied literature at Yale and Law at Columbia before clerking for two Democrat judges. He is a staunch Democrat who believes that President Trump is a dishonest and dangerous individual to say the least: a President who, as represented in this scenario, seeks to remain in office even though he fairly loses the 2020 presidential election. The author/screenwriter also presumed that there was a shift in the allegiance of voters taking place from Republican to Democrat, specifically in the so-called “battleground” and “swing states,” that he assumed would be disputed during the presidential election of 2020.
In the conclusion of his scenario/exercise, Prof. Foley writes: “The key premise of this article is that it would not take an extraordinary calamity, like a foreign cyberattack, for there to be conditions enabling partisans to dispute the result. Instead, a dispute engulfing Congress could arise from a situation as routine as the kind of ‘blue shift’ described at the outset.” That is to say a situation that involves an overwhelming number of mail-in ballots that are counted “later,” following the night of the election. Interestingly, he does not refer to the election being called for anyone during the night.
There is no other mention of the media except for the author explaining that the Associated Press (AP) and other media are reluctant to call the election for Senator Warren because there was a miscalling of an election in the past and Trump had ridiculed the media for doing so. We know, now (of course) that Fox News – the only News outlet where there was some support for the Republicans – was the first to call the state of Arizona for V.P. Biden. CNN and the others refrained from following Fox News in calling Arizona for V.P. Biden until long after Fox News had done so. Did Prof. Foley’s published scenario play any role in influencing Fox’s truly strange, unexpected calling of the state of Arizona for V.P. Biden when it did?
The real (2020) ongoing election imbroglio appears to be a combination of the professor’s so-called “routine situation” and of the “extraordinary calamity” he refers to as a “cyberattack.” Indeed, President Trump and a number of other Republicans are alleging that there were cyber intrusion and interference in the voting process.
To examine Prof. Foley’s scenario, a day-to-day accounting of events ending with the inauguration of Senator Warren as President on January 20, 2021, is to grasp the abysmal chasm that divides Democrats such as Prof. Foley and his partisans from Republicans such as President Trump and most of his supporters. To study this screenplay, published more than a year before the 2020 election, is to gauge the almost impossible prospect of reconciliation and bipartisanship that is required in order to pull that nation back from the edge of the dismal precipice on which it stands.
The enmity of this learned man of letters and of the Law towards the President of his country is almost impossible to fathom; it is not glaring in the scenario; it emanates from the assumptions and presumptions of the author. While it is instructive in many ways, it can also muck up the mind of uncritical, uninformed readers. Hopefully, the professor does not inject his blindness and his stealthy-soft-sweet poison into the minds of his students. But judging from some of his tweets (no longer accessible online) Prof. Foley’s folly is ongoing: he does not appear to have learned much since he wrote this article.
The author’s mistrust of his President may account for much of the blindness of his insight and the shakiness of his premises in this scenario-article that may have inspired the strategies and narratives of many of his fellow partisan Democrats at the highest level of his party. The premises of his scenario are fallacious; they are faulty: there has been no noted movement of voter allegiance from Republican to Democrat in the US during the Trump presidency to date. To the contrary, the movement has been in the other direction: from Democrat to Republican, witness all of the gains of Republicans in the 2020 election thus far.
Prof. Foley’s uses the term “blue shift” to designate the relatively new phenomenon of an increase in mail-in ballots and their counting; this term obfuscates; it muddles the waters and may have served to (intentionally) confuse the issues while advancing a strategy, a road map in the form of a scenario that may have assisted his fellow Democrats in their efforts, their strategy to flood, choke and overwhelm the counting system (Cloward-Piven strategy) in order to defeat the Republicans. At this juncture, it seems that the efforts of the Democrats are aimed at convincing enough Republican senators (enough RINOs) to join with them on January 6, 2021, to determine who will be inaugurated on January 20, 2021. But the few weeks that remain in this imbroglio is a long time; we shall see what transpires.
Prof. Foley explains that “it is truly irresponsible that Congress has not attempted to eliminate – in advance of the 2020 election – the ambiguities that plague the Electoral Count Act … .” That may well be the case, but unfortunately for Prof. Foley and (maybe) fortunately for President Trump, that Act is precisely the legal instrument that may allow for the scuttling of the ongoing imbroglio: a real and very dangerous impasse. In his article, Prof. Foley also represents Justice Stephen Bryer in step with the Democrats and with the position taken by “Acting President Nancy Pelosi” particularly (P. 346-348).
Cutting through the long narrative of representation and legal jargon in Prof. Foley’s scenario, it is obvious that the recent passing of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and her replacement on the Court by the Trump-nominated and (now) Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett are the events that throw a massive monkey wrench in the author’s plot where he presumes and writes of Chief Justice Roberts “not wanting to involve the Supreme Court” in the matter (P. 347).
Indeed, now, it does not matter if Chief Justice Roberts wishes to involve the Supreme Court in this very real and grave constitutional matter. If the other Conservative Justices on the Court decide to hear the case, hopefully with Justice Clarence Thomas in the lead, Chief Justice Roberts will have no choice; he will have to get involved. And, hopefully, it will not matter how he votes. But chances are he may soon have to agree with President Trump and concede that judges are not apolitical.
In the vast forest that is our life, a great old and exceptional tree of liberty is being cut down by a confederacy of dunces, plutocrats and crooks. Instead of decrying its destruction, its spoliation; instead of rallying for its protection; for its preservation; the fourth estate in the USA is either silent or cheering on its demise; encouraging the spoliators: the vile agents of its destruction. How unfortunate!
Gérard M. Hunt
Dear Editor,
Prior to the United Nations’ rejection of the Kingdom Charter in 1955 via UN Resolution 945X, the Netherlands’ first attempt to decolonize the Netherlands Antilles was initially rejected in 1951. According to Steven Hillebrink, a Dutch national, who presented his Doctoral Thesis entitled “Political Decolonization and Self-Determination: A Case of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba” to the University of Leiden in 2007, the Netherlands introduced the “Interimregelingen” (Interim Orders) in 1951 which “listed the areas of government for which the Netherlands remained responsible” and “established the principle that the Netherlands Antilles … were autonomous in all other affairs.”
Shortly thereafter, the Netherlands decided to cease the transmission of information regarding the Netherlands Antilles, as prescribed under Article 73e of the UN Charter, without giving prior notice to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (Hillebrink, p. 201). The Netherlands was under the false impression that the Interim Order of 1951 had granted the Netherlands Antilles a full measure of self-governance and a right to self-determination. “It soon became clear to the Dutch delegation that a majority among the non-administering (UN) members of the Committee (African, Asian, Latin American states) were not at all inclined to accept cessation of transmission of information.” (Hillebrink, p. 203)
The aforementioned African, Asian, and Latin American UN member states feared that the “autonomy” given to the Netherlands Antilles under the Interim Orders of 1951 was only temporary rather than permanent. According to Hillebrink, they also “considered the autonomy of the Dutch Caribbean territories insufficient to be termed a full measure of self-government.” (p. 205) Bear in mind that due to the 1947 Indonesian massacres committed by the Netherlands, “the Netherlands had gained a bad reputation among the non-administering states because of its attitude in the Indonesian conflict.” (Hillebrink, p. 203)
The Plenary of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) rejected the Interim Orders of 1951 by a vote of 33 to 13 with 8 abstentions. In 1953, the Plenary of UNGA decided that the Netherlands should continue to report on the decolonization of the Netherlands Antilles via UN Resolution 747 (VIII). The UNGA declared to the Netherlands, via UN Resolution 747 VIII, that they were to continue negotiations with the Netherlands Antilles in order that “a new status will be attained by the Netherlands Antilles … representing a full measure of self-government in fulfillment of the objectives set forth in Chapter XI of the Charter.” A year later, the Netherlands returned to the UNGA with the Kingdom Charter and that too was rejected.
Pro Soualiga Foundation
I would like to express my shame that an extremely expensive force is being “appointed” for a few months during a pandemic, in a small country where more than 60,000 food parcels have been distributed, where people are fed daily through charity and private organizations. where people are still without water and where children, partly due to the dire poverty, have fallen behind because many cannot participate in online lessons.
We live in a country where this government places most of the blame on the increasing positively tested people on the population, and that while you as a government are still unable to trace people.
What a disgraceful government you are all, especially because many of the ministers still allow themselves to be photographed without masks while you are imposing this on the community. You are acting irresponsibly.
Josef Martina
Curaçao
My name is Joel Reiph and I read the article that was published in The Daily Herald in November 2020. That article gave me the courage to write my story to you.
In 2017 I was convicted of an armed robbery and I paid my debt to society and was released in 2020. Upon my release in 2020 I was back in society and unfortunately I was associating myself with friends I had before and these friends were already being investigated by detectives and the prosecutor for robberies that I could not have been involved in because I was just released out of prison.
Unknowingly, the phone of my friends were tapped and conversations I had with them were being monitored together with my past and misinterpreted conversations. The prosecutor decided to abuse its power and lump me in the arrest of my friends, of the robberies that I could have never been involved in because of my release from prison at that time.
Based on the phone tap the prosecutor used conversations such as, “Bro you got your clothes ready?” and for instance, “the place open” and “I going to check you later” to place me under arrest, but even though that is already a terrible situation, what is even more terrible is that I have been incarcerated from March 3, 2020 until the present based solely on these conversations and a search of my home that produced absolutely nothing. Even more terrible is the fact that I have been put in solitary confinement since September 2020 without any provocation to be in solitary confinement.
Since my incarceration in March 2020 I have been questioned by detectives and prosecutor only once, so in eight months without any evidence that would prove my guilt whatsoever, I have been behind bars.
It’s very convenient for the prosecutor to look at my past and use that to punish me even though there is no credible evidence, and this is a prime example of the abuse of power that the prosecutor is using. The prosecutor is trying all different scenarios to come out with a win of this case and is not interested in the truth. The prosecutor is using their power to mislead and exaggerate the facts, in fact the lack of facts, to unlawfully incarcerate me.
During my incarceration my girlfriend has brought my son of less than a month into this world. Because of the above abuse of power, I am unable to produce and take care of my family. Knowing that my girlfriend was pregnant at my first release I had decided to change my life to provide for my family, but the prosecutor used my past against me.
I know I have made stupid mistakes in the past, but I was young and foolish. I am 24 years old now and I would like the opportunity to make a better life for me and my family, but the prosecutor is not allowing me that opportunity.
An example of this is the current Qredit opportunity that is currently going on for the citizens of St. Maarten. If it was not for the abuse of power of the prosecutor, I could have participated in such an opportunity which could have changed my life completely.
I hope my story has given you another example of how the prosecutor abuses its power, and that the Parliament of St. Maarten continues to look into and be critical of the Criminal Procedure Code and ultimately lessens the power of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of St. Maarten.
Joel Reiph
Dear Editor,
Hugo de Jonge as Dutch Health Minister needs to review the way responsible care is delivered by his civil servants from the ZVK (Care Insurance Office) on St. Eustatius and Bonaire. As a recent patient in need of support from these offices, I was treated with a lack of empathy, flexibility and communication skills.
Diagnosed with acute appendicitis, I was faced by a life or death situation. The St. Eustatius hospital – with immediate consent of my Dutch insurance company – swiftly organised an air ambulance bound for Bonaire and an urgent medical operation.
When it came to my return to St. Eustatius, it was suggested to me by several knowledgeable people on St. Eustatius and Bonaire to contact ZVK. It was a reasonable proposition. The ZVK operates two direct medical flights per week between the two islands and as a Dutch pensioner, resident and taxpayer, I thought it would not be unreasonable to ask for this service paid for by taxpayers’ money. Furthermore, I was prepared to pay for a seat on one of their sizeable planes.
Previous non-ZVK patients were granted this favor. Why not me?
“No!” came back the email from a dispassionate officer inside the ZVK Kralendijk office. This bleeped response was not accompanied by any explanation or sensitivity for my situation.
I then turned to the crisis management “adviser” on Statia whose typical civil service advice was to ignore my crisis and deflect the problem higher up the chain to the Ministerial Czarina for the ZVK on Statia.
And now the crunch: “I am not involved with individual cases,” this unfeeling and dismissive Dutch Mandarin informed me.
So much for responsible care! Instead of a two hour flight to recuperate at home on the Historical Gem, I was obliged to spend a painful two week journey back via Curaçao and St. Maarten with all the inconvenience of infrequent flights, COVID tests, hotel and restaurant bills not to mention eventual quarantine.
Given that Hugo de Jonge is a Christian Democrat, I am tempted to exclaim: Jesus wept! However, a choppy meteorology discounted a walking back to Statia on water.
This is not the first time that the ZVK has been criticised for lack of responsible care and false economy. Over the years, the ZVK has squandered many millions on delaying the return of many Statia patients treated in Colombia and other medical destinations – if only to save a few nickels on cheaper flight tickets. Some patients have nearly expired before repatriation.
My lesson for ZVK and its Minister de Jonge is to rely on personnel who are prepared to listen, care and respond accordingly. The skies of Statia are punctured by parachuted administrators from the mainland whose talents, experience and qualifications are rarely pre-checked even at the highest levels.
As a Dutch taxpayer, I expect the State to work at the service of the individual and not the reverse. I shall take this matter further since it displays a complete lack of flexibility, communication skills and more importantly responsible care.
Chris Russell
