This is an all Bilbo day.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
26
17
18
19
20Thursday, February 19, 2026
Wednesday, February 18, 2026
6624 - Show me the statute
Sometimes there's some good stuff on the internet...
1. He spent 18 years in administrative law and said citizens panic because they think every letter is an order. He wrote down one sentence: “Please provide the legal basis for this request, including the specific statute and clause that obligates my response.” That single line turns compliance into hesitation, because the burden flips back to them.
2. Offices survive on procedure, not speed. When asked for the statute and clause, the whole process halts until legality is verified. Most letters rely on habit, not law, so internal teams scramble through archives before answering, exposing how much of bureaucracy runs on assumption.
3. A family once got a “submit in 5 days” notice. They sent that sentence. The reply came 46 days later, and the demand vanished. Time pressure dissolved when legality had to be proven. The lawyer said it’s not rebellion, it’s precision — and systems freeze under it.
4. A small business faced a fine for missing “updated records.” Same method, same outcome. The agency paused penalties because no clause backed the demand. Inside offices, people fear signing off without a statute number; that fear is your shield.
5. His closing line stayed with me: bureaucracy eats those who rush, but it stalls before those who request proof. What slows the machine isn’t emotion, it’s paperwork logic you can trigger with one calm question.
Most citizens fear government letters — but the system collapses the moment you ask it to justify itself.
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
6623 - Property defense
This is a really long story. But once you get into it, you learn how to skip over the nonessential parts. It's basically how to protect your property from someone trying to prove you're too incompetent to manage your own affairs.
Monday, February 16, 2026
6622 - American Bar Association and tRUMP
This is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bar_Association .
2025 federal lawsuit and member targeting by the Trump administration
In 2025, the ABA, as well as some members of the organization, became targets of the Trump administration. On February 11, with tens of millions of dollars in its USAID and U.S. State Department funding frozen[18] by Executive Order 14169, issued on Trump's first day following re-election,[19] the ABA and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit which asserts that the administration's actions were arbitrary and a capricious violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.[18] The case, Global Health Council v. Trump, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and assigned to Judge Amir Ali. Two days later he issued a temporary restraining order, allowing some foreign assistance programs to resume.[19]
On February 14, Federal Trade Commission chair Andrew N. Ferguson ordered his roster of political appointees not to renew memberships in the ABA, hold any ABA position, or attend any ABA events.[20][21]
Following a February 25, 2025, memo revoking security clearances for the law firm that had assisted Special Counsel Jack Smith by the president, on February 28, Attorney General Pam Bondi sent a letter to the ABA saying that the diversity requirements of Standard 206 of the Standards of Rules and Procedure for Approval of Law Schools conflicts with Chief Justice John Roberts' 2023 decision that affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard,[22][23] and violates civil law,[22][21] while threatening to rescind ABA accreditation authority of U.S. law schools.[24]
The ABA released a statement on March 3, 2025, encouraging members to challenge Trump's actions that it perceives to undermine the courts and the legal profession, with more than 50 smaller bar associations joining the call for solidarity.[25][26] While the ABA strongly condemned the Trump administration's actions;[27] on March 25, Reuters reported that "President Donald Trump expanded his attacks on major U.S. law firms" in issuing his fourth executive order targeting a law firm in two months.[28]
On June 16, 2025, Susman Godfrey, an EO-targeted firm that subsequently prevailed in court,[7] filed a lawsuit on behalf of the ABA alleging that executive orders issued against law firms, and other actions, reflect a "law firm intimidation policy" of the Trump administration, which aims "to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers to refrain from challenging the President or his Administration in court, or from even speaking publicly in support of policies or causes that the President does not like."[29] The ABA issued a statement, in which President Bay said, "There has never been a more urgent time for the ABA to defend its members, our profession and the rule of law itself".[7] On August 11, 2025, the ABA adopted a resolution in opposition to White House efforts designed to punish "lawyers, law firms, or other organizations for representing or having represented any particular client or cause disfavored by the government."[30]
Sunday, February 15, 2026
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
