Nigeria News Local news
Coronavirus: Osun govt bans public gatherings in mosques, churches others
9 months ago read comments by Jerrywright Ukwu
- The Osun government has ordered the closure of all public gathering in the state
- The ban will affect churches, mosques, night clubs and schools
- The ban takes effect from Friday, March 20 till further notice
The Osun government has ordered the closure of all public gathering including churches, mosques and schools in the state to avoid the spread of coronavirus.
The order was contained in a statement on Thursday, March 19 by the state governor, Gboyega Oyetola and sent to the media by his spokesman, Ismail Omipidan.
According to the statement, the ban takes effect from Friday, March 20 till further notice.
Governor Oyetola bans public gatherings in mosques, churches others amid coronavirus.
"As a responsible and responsive government that places premium on the well-being of its people, we will protect our citizens from potential and actual threats," part of the statement read.
The federal and many state governments have been taking precautionary actions, including shutting down public spaces to curb the dreaded coronavirus.
University of Ibadan asks students to immediately vacate campus amid coronavirus spread
The federal government recently shut down three international airports as part of its strategic measures to curb the spread of coronavirus across the country.
The airports are; Mallam Aminu Kano Airport, Kano; Akanu Ibiam Airport, Enugu; and the Port Harcourt Airport, Rivers.
PAY ATTENTION: Download our mobile app to enjoy the latest news update
Recently, the government gave a directive to airlines operating international and regional flights in the country to commence the implementation of the use of yellow card as a requirement for travel.
A letter from the office of the Nigeria Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) was distributed to the affected airlines after the directive came from the federal ministry of health.
Also, the government banned all travels outside the country by officials of ministries, departments, and agencies until further notice.
The move was announced by the secretary to the government of the federation, Boss Mustapha at the end of the inaugural meeting of the presidential task force for the control of the viral disease.
FG shuts down three Nigerian international airports to curb spread of coronavirus
The presidential task force also advised Nigerians to cancel all travels abroad especially to all high-risk countries.
Already, Nigeria has placed restrictions on travel to worst-hit countries as the world continued to battle the global pandemic.
In a related development, a Nigerian military hospital in the nation's capital, Abuja has been giving out free hand-sanitizers to residents.
The National Defence College clinic in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja has been handing out the sanitizers to people for free as many stores in the city hiked the prices of hand sanitizers and face masks in the last few weeks.
NAIJ.com (naija.ng) -> Legit.ng We have upgraded to serve you better
Сoronavirus: 6 outrageous lies about the disease | Legit TV
Osun StateFederal Government Of Nigeria
Pregnancy test Is danielle cohn pregnant


Updated 11 September 2003
When it comes to the events of September 11, 2001, there are two relevant concerns. One is the mental anguish of those survivors who are now experiencing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (P.T.S.D.) in any number of its myriad forms, and who at the same time are finding little or no relief from traditional medical and psychiatric therapies. For some of those individuals, a distinctly alternative view of P.T.S.D. -- and a simple therapy which may be of enormous benefit -- is perhaps relevant and could be beneficial in dealing with the trauma. The process is similar to one used with Vietnam veterans who are a part of a large group of survivors still suffering from the aftermath of that ill-fated war.
The second aspect of 9-11-2001 concerns the host of conspiracy theories which have already appeared on the scene. Such theories, if deemed viable, are likely to cause further anguish in the survivors, because many of these theories have challenged the Bush Administration's official party line of arch-enemy, Osama Bin Laden, being responsible for the events of September 11th -- along with every other dictator and government that the current administration doesn't particularly like (and for whatever reason).
It is noteworthy, for example, that according to a June 25, 2003 report by CNN.com plans were underway to kill Osama bin Laden prior to 9-11-2001. Predator drones had spotted him as many as three times, but the Bush Administration had not made any decisions on who should carry out the mission. One wonders, on the one hand, why Osama would have been out and about on the last days before the attack if he was in fact a key player in the planning of the attacks. On the other hand, why was the administration so slow in dealing with the issue? Was it because they couldn't decide who would run the mission -- the CIA or the Pentagon? That's it?
Another more serious theory includes the plausible Saudi and Pakistani connections [Time Magazine, September 8, 2003, page 36 and July 21, 2003, page 62], in which high ranking members of both governments knew that an attack was scheduled for 9-11-2001. Another rather scary scenario is inevitably revealed when the Timeline for the events of 9-11-2001 are examined in detail. A major concern is the extent to which high ranking members of the government and defense agencies were unavailable to take action just when the highjackings were first underway. See, for example, http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm.
The problems associated with quick and dirty analyses -- particularly those designed to allay fears no matter what the facts suggest -- are numerous. Shwa has a relatively exhaustive description of all the relevant facts and despite its apparent anti-Semitic slant, its report must be given a degree of credibility. While the entire scenario is indeed "stranger than fiction", the fact that the authors believe there was complicity on the part of the Israeli government is not in and of itself anti-Semitic. The Israeli government, for example, does not speak for all Jews -- and not necessarily even those living in Israel. A challenge to the Israeli government, then, is not necessarily anti-Semitic.
A second excellent website on the subject is the Information Clearing House, where Walter E. Davis, PhD presents complete and compelling evidence for complicity at the highest levels of the American government. Dr. Davis' argument is that the various reports by different committees and agencies are woefully inadequate. For example, "The report from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is believable unless you are seriously interested in the truth. Under more careful scientific scrutiny, it does not answer some very important questions." This should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with FEMA.
The Wall Street Journal [1], meanwhile, has noted that conspiracy theories are getting an in depth hearing in Germany and other countries. Andreas Von Bulow, for example, has as his thesis: "The U.S. government staged the Sept.11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington to justify wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is a tentative theory, he admits, based mostly on his doubt that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda terrorist group launched the attacks. 'That's simply something that is 99% false.'"
One might be tempted to ignore such theories on the basis that they are from some nut or crackpot out to make a name for himself -- and probably should be treated by a specialist in Psychoceramics (the study of crackpots). Mr. Bulow, however, is a former German cabinet minister, and his book was published by one of the "country's most prestigious publishing houses." Simultaneously, other German authors and broadcasters are making similar claims. As Mr. Bulow said, "If we are being asked to participate in a new world war that's going to last years, then I expect that the cause of [the Sept. 11 attacks] be explained in the minutest detail." [1]
One of the more incriminating and recent challenges concerning a Bush Administration complicity comes from Michael C. Ruppert ("from the wilderness.com") who goes far beyond the LIHOP ("Let It Happen On Purpose" suggestion) to the charge that the Vice President of the United State, Richard Cheney, orchestrated and controlled any possible response by the U.S. defensive agencies to the airplane hijackings -- even to the point of ensuring that plans were made ahead of time to prevent their being available to respond in sufficient time to make a difference. In effect, Ruppert's charge is that Dick Cheney (and supposedly others) aided and abetted the hijackers in their murderous plans. Mr. Ruppert is not alone in making such charges.
Such a discussion is obviously somewhat extreme. But in Mr. Ruppert's address to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco (August 31, 2004) -- and in his forthcoming book -- the investigative journalist makes an extremely credible and intelligible case. The complete address is included on his website, and is ABSOLUTELY MUST READING FOR ANYONE who thinks of themselves as moderately intelligent or responsible for avoiding being labeled "willfully ignorant". If you don't read this with an open mind, you really shouldn't be voting in the coming election. (And if you're a citizen of Tasmania, you probably shouldn't be voting in the American election either.)
Succinctly, Mr. Ruppert's argument comes down to this:
1) The world's oil reserves are now peaking, and hereafter we can expect to pay ever increasing prices for rapidly diminishing reserves. Furthermore, any country without access to oil is in for some serious economic dislocations and/or instability.
2) The Dominionism Neo-Conservatives in the Bush Administration --in their quest to ensure the United States, England, and Israel have access and control of oil and the pipelines between oil fields and the US Navy-controlled high seas -- staged the 9-11-2001 horror in order to justify invading and attacking both Iraq and Afghanistan (the latter which lies between the oil-rich Caspian Sea and those friendlier nations adjacent to the sea). Saudi Arabia, the obvious heavy in the selection of suicide terrorists was spared an invasion by virtue of the fact that they are already in Bush's camp. [There is also the possibility of an invasion of Iran shortly after the election if Bush wins. Kerry has already charged that Bush is delaying calling up yet more National Guard troops until after the election.]
3) Vice-President Dick Cheney staged and orchestrated military exercises which confused and distracted any possible response which might have prevented the hijacked airplanes from reaching their target, and furthermore was in Command Central in order to thwart any rational response to the hijackings.
4) The so-called 9-11 Commission was a joke in that testimonies were ignored and new timelines inserted to make the Commission's case for non-involvement by the Bush Administration officials. Furthermore the Commission was made up of the same neo-conservatives who were responsible for the disaster in the first place. At least one honest member resigned in protest at the Commission's proceedings.
Mr. Ruppert's thesis is thus in accord with Mr. Bulow, Dr. Davis, and so forth and so on. Much more to the point is the fact(s) that their charges, evidence, and logical analyses are much more credible than anyone in the Bush Administration or their supporters in the Congress and elsewhere have presented as an alternative.
What are we to make of this? First of all, we need to read the referenced websites and press reports. We might then make conclusions as to their credibility. In doing so, we also need to consider the ingredients of any case against an accused. These necessary prerequisites include means, opportunity, and motive. The means is pretty clear in that the U.S. government is enormously powerful and includes many members who are devilishly clever. As Joe Klein [2] has said in connection with the election and simultaneous libel against John Kerry, "There are all sorts of theories for Bush's recent success. The Republicans are brilliant and brazen demolition experts. The Democrats play hardball at the peewee-league level."
As for opportunity, there are numerous very willing and very enthusiastic individuals who are willing to go for the seventy virgins in the afterlife by martyring themselves in a blow against the allegedly Satanic U. S. Government. Again the resources of the United States seems more than sufficient to provide both means and opportunity.
If the means and opportunity are clear, then what is the motive? Greed, oil, money, status, and/or power just for the sake of power? Quite possibly, any or all of these is sufficient to motivate the individuals involved. But there is perhaps a more fundamental reason. It is not beyond belief that Ashcroft, Bush, Chency, [the ABCs of the Axes of Evil], Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al -- the neo-conservative Dominionists -- are acting for reasons that to them are entirely laudable and necessary. Each and everyone of them may see themselves as American patriots in the best sense of the word.
Is there a possible justification for the actions of the ranking members of the Bush Administration -- which at the very least, constitutes aiding and abeting terrorists to commit the horror of 9-11-2001? if a 'yes' sounds unbelievably crazy, bear with me for just a moment.
What might be construed as treasonable activity in the extreme by any reasoning individual may actually constitute deeds which were undertaken by people who genuinely believed they were doing the right thing. We're not even talking about greed and just getting rich -- which may be part of it (certainly Dick Cheney's forte). But greed is not the whole story. We're talking about a President of the United States, his closest advisors and high-ranking members of the government -- along with the cooperation of the governments of England and Israel -- taking an extreme course of action in order to preserve his (and their) countrys' future strength and prosperity.
The fact these individuals believe that the ends justifies the means -- no matter how horrific the means -- is simply their belief in Dominionism and the concept that they are somehow immune to the morals and ethics of lesser beings. They may not be particularly religious, but are more than willing to use religion as a tool in their personal quest. In a dog eat dog world, the Bushites come off sounding like just the thing many people in the United States and elsewhere want -- to be in the school yard with the toughest, meanest bully as your personal friend (or paid protector).
Mr. Ruppert's thesis, for example, -- that the world is facing the end of the oil age and the overriding concern is with ever diminishing oil supplies -- is that it behooves the biggest kid of the block -- i.e. the U.S.A. -- to step in and be sure it and its closest friends (i.e. England and Israel) have primary access to the black gold which fuels their economies. If this must be done by a force of arms, fine. If this involves the loss of thousands of lives, okay. Just as long as the U.S.A. can continue to fuel their Hummers and SUVs at a reasonable cost. And from a political viewpoint, doing what makes the voting citizenry happy -- even if that same citizenry would be horrified at the chosen means to an end. In this case, the launching of an invasion against any country which figures prominently into the oil equation is entirely justified. Iran, please take note.
A curious aside is that Mr. Ruppert's speech was to the Commonwealth Club -- a group composed of Elitists -- elitists in the strongest sense of the word. These are the powers that be. These are also the people -- as Michael Moore so cleverly reported in his movie, Fahrenheit 911 -- who President Bush thinks of as "his base". They represent the people who President Bush will always want to keep on his side, no matter what.
Now one might be tempted to think that these movers and shakers might be just a tad upset at the revelations Mr. Ruppert and others have foisted upon them. But then again, perhaps they don't care. They may even agree with the Bush-Cheney plan to invade whoever and whenever there is oil to be controlled and brought home. The Elitists, for example, may have no compunction about using American troops as just so much cannon-fodder in order to maintain their status. It's not like a member of the Elite need actually find themselves in harm's way by joining a fighting unit [just as President Bush has so dramatically the potential for avoiding any semblance of actual military service]. After all, it is very likely that the most important thing to any member of the true elite is to remain a member of the true elite. How better to do this than ignore Mr. Ruppert's claim that the basic problem is that our unlimited economic system is diametrically opposed to limited resources. As long as one has the money to pay for declining resources, there is no real problem.
The more fundamental moral and ethical difficulty is that the Bush Doctrine of taking whatever will make America stronger -- and at whatever cost to those "others" who are the taken from (not to mention the "others" of the U. S. military and its civilian contractors) -- is that it assumes that these "others" are different, somehow inferior, and more likely to be equated with the domestic animals one uses for work and sport. The Bush Doctrine supercedes any possibility of living a moral, ethical life and assumes that business being business, it's better to steal from the other guy than reduce one's own standard of living.
A basic question is that given the premise that the Bushites may have staged, aided and abetted the 9-11-2001 disastor, how many less-than-elite members of the American public (as well as anyone else who hopes to ride the US coattails to the Land of Oil) would be willing to overlook the means by which the end is being achieved.
To this end, a poll is being conducted, which will establish the relative merits of nine different responses to the details of this webpage. The 9 responses are detailed at Poll 911, and consist briefly of:
Not Convinced:
1) Denial: The idea of any complicity by the Bush Administration in the attacks of 9-11-2001 is unthinkable and ludicrous.
2) Qualified Denial: The idea of any complicity by the Bushites -- while being feasible in a Machiavellian atmosphere -- is still not acceptable as being the truth.
3) Jury Still Out: The idea of complicity is believable, but there is insufficient evidence (even after reading the above links with an open mind) to conclude that there was indeed conspiracy by high ranking American officials.
Preponderance of Evidence -- The evidence is sufficient to bring about a verdict against the Bushites on the basis of the preponderance of evidence (which may include circumstantial evidence). This leads to the following:
4) Comfortable: The Bushites actions were probably necessary and in that case acceptable in order to maintain the current standard of living in the USA and in nations friendly to the nation.
5) Quandary: It may be true, but there seems no way to do anything about it.
6) Activist: It may be true, and we need to first better understand what has happened, and then as necessary do something about it.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt -- The evidence is sufficient to bring about a verdict against the Bushites as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This leads to:
7) Elitist: Grow up! It's the way of the world, and as long as it benefits us, leave it be.
8) Bewildered: We may be convinced, but we still can't figure out what to do about it.
9) Anarchist: It's time to bring the perpetrators to justice and we're going to do everything we can to do just that!
Make your vote count! Go to and participate in Poll 911. It's just chance to vote without the specter of hanging chad, disenfranchisement, and so forth and so on.
In the interim, for those in the Quandary and Bewildered categories, there are the legal actions in progress. Ramsey Clark for example has allegedly launched an official indictment of Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Franks, Tenet, Bremer, et al. Separately, various 911 victims have filed RICO Case lawsuits, while others are lobbying for more answers and simultaneously passing on the filing claims for the Feinberg Fund. The New York Press, for example, reports that while 2,851 claims have been filed for relief -- which requires signing off on any future litigation against the government -- 125 claims remain outstanding. These people appear to want answers to what really happened before giving away their rights to take future actions against any possible wrongdoers.
These litigants would appear to have ample justification if only because of the serious failures on the part of the government to act. There is, for example, the report in the LA times alleging that "Rumsfeld and Bush Failed Us on Sept. 11". This is probably not a big surprise to many people.
It is likely that what happened on that horrific day will not be revealed for some time to come. But there should be at least an earnest attempt to delve into the evidence, keeping an open mind as to the culprits, and ultimately allowing the true circumstances and reality of what happened lead us to the bad guys (or gals) who actually perpetrated this attack upon the American Republic, liberty in general, and any and all foreign countries with access to oil. Every lead should be considered, every possibility investigated, and every reasonable alternative to the party line researched thoroughly.
Any such investigation must consider the timeline of 9-11-2001 events, and include complete candor by the Bush Administration. But as Time Magazine [3 February 2003] noted, "One panelist, Tim Roemer, a Democrat who just retired from Congress, complained in a statement he issued last month as a member of the House-Senate panel that the congressional probe suffered because such officials as Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, John Ashcroft and Condoleezza Rice 'were not questioned directly about issues related to the Sept. 11 attacks.' A Rumsfeld spokesman refused to 'speculate on what participation will be extended' to the commission."
The official 9/11 Probe was never encouraging, of course. $3 million had originally been allocated to the effort, while its chairman, Thomas Kean, was asking for $12 to $15 million. All of this, of course, is far less than the $50 million allocated for the space-shuttle catastrophe probe! [Time Magazine, March 10, 2003, page 16] And considering the political leanings of most of the members of the commission, there was never any real hope for anything of real substance to arise from the undertaking.
One example of the potentially hopeless nature of the 9-11 Commission's task is the satirical view of Truthout.org. Styled as the Transcript of Bush/Cheney Testimony Before 9/11 Commission, it provides a believable -- which is the scary part -- story of what might be happening at the highest level of government.
[Actually, the really scary part is General Norman Schwartzkopf's statement regarding forgiveness for the 9-11 perpetrators: "I believe that forgiving them is God's function. Our job is simply to arrange the meeting." This Neanderthal, grotesque view is similar to one used in the Albigensian Crusade -- or perhaps more accurately, the Albigensian Massacre. When asked about sparing the innocent and how to identify them, the Pope's emissary replied, "Kill them all; let God sort them out." So when the actual terrorists do arrive on your door step, assume they will be using the same logic and compassion that General Norman Black Head has used.
Any discussion of the fall-out of 9-11-2001 must include: 1) the deleterious and seriously negative effect on the exercise of Free Speech, 2) a Shredding of the Magna Carta and violations of the Constitution for the United States of America in terms of freedoms and rights being trampled upon by so-called security measures -- including the designation of Enemy Combatants for anyone considered a threat (political or otherwise), 3) the ominous establishment of A Shadow Government and 4) another conspiracy theory to get your attention: LIHOP!
It cannot be stated or emphasized too strongly that freedoms and rights given up in times of crisis seldom if ever return to their full strength after the crisis subsides. It is one thing to "circle the wagons" when danger threatens. It is quite another to never again resume the journey, and instead build structure upon structure at the site of the first attack, and thereafter expend all of one's energies in the simple maintenance of the structure (see the discussion on Entropy). I.e. it's okay to react to a threat, but not to become reactionary to the point of immobility.
"Those who give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, November 11, 1755.
Yet another theory -- which is gaining considerably backing and which has the potential for considerably more credibility -- is described in an essay by Michael Meacher, a member of the British Parliament and Environmental Minister from May 1997 until June 2003. This ranking member of the British government cannot be so easily dismissed as many might wish. His essay entitled "This War on Terrorism is Bogus" is included herein (as a separate webpage) in its entirety (and as received via e-mail on 9/6/03). It's worth taking the time to read! Meanwhile, for an American perspective, William Rivers Pitt, editor of truthout, has written his similar views in "I Believe." This is also a must read!
And while you're at it, keep in mind that Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political advisor made a special effort to ensure that the G.O.P. presidential convention for 2004 would be held in New York City in order "to capitalize on the memory of 9/11." Rove even made sure that the convention was held late in the political season in order for the kickoff of the President's campaign "to coincide with the two-year anniversary of the tragedy." [Time Magazine, May 5, 2003, page 35] Have these people no shame? [Based on the events of the intervening year between updates, obviously not.]
Of course, they may still represent a substantial majority. As of late 2003, they have managed to keep 7 of 10 Americans believing that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9-11 attacks, even though there has never been any proof of a link between the two. This understandably caused a reaction from the Washington Post in an article by Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane, entitled "Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds." One can only marvel at the willful ignorance of so many people.
Another extremely responsible and insightful observer is Stratfor.com. A world observer and think tank, with proven intelligence and analysis, Stratfor has developed a well-earned reputation for excellent work. Thus, it is perhaps sufficient, for the present, to leave the subject of 9-11-2001 with a Stratfor.com report which originated very quickly after the event. The report is included here in its entirety.
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
S T R A T F O R THE GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE COMPANY http://www.stratfor.com
11 September 2001; The Intelligence Failure; 1745 GMT, 010911
By George Friedman
As of this moment, what is clear is that a substantial number of civilian aircraft were hijacked this morning by pilots with sufficient ability to maneuver those multi-engine aircraft into collisions with major buildings. The flights originated at a number of airports. Each incident required the presence of at least one and probably more hijackers, each prepared to die in the attack.
Mounting an attack of this sort is not simple. In the case of the World Trade Center, the collapse of the towers indicates massive delayed explosions. This means either the planes were loaded with explosives or that massive explosive charges were planted in the buildings to go off later. This is supposition, but a secondary explosion is a necessary factor for explaining the collapse. [emphasis added]
This means many individuals had to be involved in the operation. There had to be a coordinated effort spanning several continents, timed to occur at roughly the same time. At best guess, dozens of people had to be involved. Messages had to flow, coded or otherwise. Yet no human intelligence sources appear to have been among or near the conspirators. No significant messages were intercepted or decoded.
For U.S. intelligence to have missed an operation of this magnitude indicates one of two things. First, the competence of U.S. intelligence is overrated or the willingness of policymakers to heed warnings has declined. In either case, the system is badly broken. Alternatively, the sophistication of terrorist counter-intelligence has improved to such an extent that the prior level of expertise bought to bear is simply no longer sufficient.
Whether we are facing a decline in U.S. intelligence capability or an increase in counter-intelligence blocking the United States, Sept. 11, 2001, will go down as one of the major intelligence failures in U.S. history.
George Friedman is the founder and chairman of STRATFOR.
Austin Office: 700 Lavaca, Suite 405, Austin, TX 78701; Phone: 512-744-4300; http://www.stratfor.com/media; Understand the globe, with intelligence.
Copyright 2001, Strategic Forecasting, LLC
Before leaving this incredible subject, it is worthwhile to take the incredibility into one higher level. Dean Radin, in the IONS Noetic Sciences Review [3] has discussed the possibility of a Global Consciousness, and one which can be evaluated in part by the use of Random Number Generators to take advantage of the quantum physics which describes a 'nonlocal entanglement'. In other words, populations as a whole or even nature itself may be influenced in mind-boggling ways by dramatic events in the world.
"One possibility is that the act of observation induces biases in the underlying probabilities of random events. The data also indicate that mind-matter interaction effects do not appear to be bound by the ordinary constraints of time and space." "It seems increasingly likely that ordered mind is somehow reflected in the physical world."
Bell curves are routinely developed by such things as Random Number Generators. "The mind-matter interaction hypothesis is formally tested by examining whether RNG outputs deviate from chance expectations from just before an event of widespread interest to a few hours afterwards (which ensures that the data examined fully cover the event of interest."
"Over a period of eight hours, starting about two hours before the first jet hit the World Trade Center tower, the bell curve became too 'flat' (hinting at the possibility of a grand premonition), and then rebounded to become too 'thin', somewhat analogous to how a physical bell acts when hit hard by a mallet. The magnitude of the bell curve's 'ring' on this day was larger than that observed on any other day in the four-year..." database.
Also…"On the evening of September 11, 2002 , the New York lottery drew the sequence 9-1-1 ." While this sequence had occurred five times in the previous 5,000 drawings (the chance probability of any given three number sequence being 1 in 1,000), this would not have implied anything, except it only occurred in New York, and not other lotteries. But the apparent affect of the preoccupation with the anniversary date… ?
"For a week before September 11, 2002 , the winds near New York City were calm, averaging about five miles per hour. On September 11 around 9 AM , the winds in the bay near Long Island suddenly shot up to over 45 miles per hour." In New York City as well as Dulles Airport near Washington, DC, "both locations experienced a sharp change in both barometric pressure and wind speed, starting around 9 AM on September 11, 2002 ." "There was no rain that day; just a clear blue sky and a wind that came out of nowhere."
For further reading, a conspiracy-oriented compilation of numerous articles on 9-11-2001 is available at: http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm.
[1] Ian Johnson, "Conspiracy Theories About Sept. 11 Get Hearing in Germany", The Wall Street Journal, September 29, 2003.
[2] Joe Klein, "All You Have to Do Is Believe," Time Magazine, September 20, 2004. [Considering the timing of this update, is this hot off the press or what!]
[3] Dean Radin, "For Whom the Bells Toll; A Question of Global Consciousness," IONS Noetic Sciences Review, #63, March-May 2003.
Privacy Redistricting A Case for Free Elections Counting
VotesBenjamin Franklin The (9) Supremes Justice, Order, and Law
State of the Union and/or The Perils of Democracy
Poll 9/11 and/or Do the Ends Justify the Means
Homeland InSecurity This War on Terrorism is Bogus
Free Speech and/or Preemptive Rule
Shredding the Magna Carta
Enemy Combatants A Shadow Government LIHOP
Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows Oil Wars Bush Wars
Free Speech The (9) Supremes The Halls of SCOTUS


US: Tesla sees profit mid-year
Tesla Motors has said it should be profitable by mid-2009 and that it has sold out of its Roadster model until early November.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk said in a newsletter the company would soon be sold out of all of its planned 2009 production of the US$109,000 battery-powered Roadster despite "some cancellations due to buyers experiencing personal financial difficulties."
Musk also said the privately held car maker expects to unveil its new four-door sedan, called the Model S, on 26 March, according to Reuters.
Musk also said the US Department of Energy had told Telsa it expects to disburse funds from the automaker's $350m loan application for the Model S within four to five months.
The loan should help the company start production in 2011 as planned, Musk wrote.
As a "gesture of gratitude for their early support" Roadster owners would get a $10,000 discount off the price of the Model S and automatically be first in line to buy one of the sedans.
Last month Tesla announced that it was working with Daimler on an electric version of the Smart minicar, the report added.
Tesla recently was reported to be in "late-stage" negotiations for an undisclosed site to build the Model S with an announcement expected soon.
Automotive Industry Mergers and Acquisitions Deals by Top Themes in Q1 2022 - Thematic Research
G8 Countries Hybrid and Electric Cars Market Summary, Competitive Analysis and Forecast, 2017-2026
G8 Countries Car Manufacturing Market Summary, Competitive Analysis and Forecast, 2017-2026
Top 5 Emerging Countries Hybrid and Electric Cars Market Summary, Competitive Analysis and Forecast, 2017-2026
North America (NAFTA) Hybrid and Electric Cars Market Summary, Competitive Analysis and Forecast, 2017-2026
Roadster Inc
Tesla LLC
Department of Energy, Odisha
Mercedes-Benz Group AG
Tesla Inc


Law Meta
Law Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for legal professionals, students, and others with experience or interest in law. It only takes a minute to sign up.
How can the US House of Representatives transition to be elected by proportional representation? Would editing "PL 2 USC 2c" work?
Here is context for my question: I am a student studying political science. I am researching policy that could be used to dismantle the stranglehold that the Democratic and Republican parties have on American elections. In some ways it seems that our national electoral system is engineered for the success of only these two parties. In recent years, some ideas have been floated to make third party campaigns more viable, such as ranked choice voting. However, maybe I think these ideas don't go far enough to dismantle the two-party system. Let's say I have one objective: Transition the United States House of Representatives to be elected by a system of proportional representation. This applies only to the US House, not the Senate, not state assemblies, not anything else. Just the House of Representatives.
(Here is my understanding of proportional representation, I would love more insight: Proportional representation is an electoral system used by democracies all around the world, but not by the United States. We use a "first-past-the-post" system to elect representatives. In proportional representation, everyone within a state would vote for a party, not a candidate. Let's say, in the state of Colorado, the Democratic Party gets 35% of the vote, the Republican Party gets 35%, the Libertarian Party gets 15%, and the Green Party gets 15%. Each of those parties would get a number of Colorado's US House seats proportional to their share of the vote. For example, the Libertarian Party would get 15% of the seats.)
So my objective is to transition the House of Representatives to a system of proportional representation. To my understanding, our "first-past-the-post" system is federally reinforced, since "PL 2 USC 2c" mandates that representatives be elected via single-member districts. As far as I know, as long as these single-member districts exist, we cannot have proportional representation.
What is "PL 2 USC 2c?" What does it mean? What does it legally mandate?
What is the legislative process for overturning or editing an article of public code like "PL 2 USC 2c?"
Can it be edited to let states choose how to elect their representatives, so that proportional representation can be implemented on a state-by-state basis?
Are there Constitutional obstacles to proportional representation and specifically to editing "PL 2 USC 2c" in this way?
Obviously, in practice, these proposals would be met with resistance from legislators, and accomplishing this would be a bureaucratic nightmare. I am not interested in hearing about those kinds of obstacles, I am simply wondering if this can be accomplished legally. Thank you all so much.
constitutional-law
us-constitution
Julian CooperJulian Cooper
I'm voting to close this question because it belongs on politics.stackexchange.com
– BlueDogRanch
Sep 7, 2020 at 20:39
Congress can change the laws almost as it wants. Only other laws and the constitution restrain it.
– Trish
@BlueDogRanch While the OP's long-range objectives appear to be political action, the question ultimately focuses on the legal and constitutional particulars of House membership, in particular the selection thereof.
– zibadawa timmy
What you describe is one method of doing proportional representation. It's not, for example, the method we use here in Ireland (PR-STV). The PR-STV system does not encode political parties as part of the process of election the way your method does.
– TRiG
One thing that's probably worth noting is that the current size of the House is set by federal legislation. From about 1920. The constitution would place an upper limit of about 10,000 members in the House at current population levels. A lot of the issue could in principle be resolved by simply increasing the size of the House. There's a lot of room between 435-ish and 10,000. Simply doubling the House size or thereabouts would probably do wonders for a lot of perceived problems, including the Electoral College.
In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress).
2 United States Code § 2c.
What is "PL 2 USC 2c?"
First of all, it is 2 U.S.C. § 2c, not "PL 2 USC 2c" which mixes two ways of citing to statutes PL for "Public Law" is used with a public law number to identify the Act of Congress by which a provision was enacted (and sometimes additional Public laws amend a statute). 2 U.S.C. § 2c means "Section "2c" of the Second Title of the United States Code" which is a codification of all public acts passed by Congress and still in force of general applicability.
What does it mean? What does it legally mandate?
2 U.S.C. § 2c mandates that for years after the effective date, when a state with two or more members of Congress draws Congressional Districts after a U.S. Census that it must do so into single member districts.
It does not mandate a "first past the post" voting system (also called a plurality vote system) and indeed, some states (e.g. Louisiana) have a system in which a winner in a Congressional district must receive a majority to win in the first round, and if that does not happen there will be a runoff between the top two finishers in the first round, and one state (Maine) has ranked choice voting in single member district Congressional races.
There is some dispute over whether systems like ranked choice voting count as proportional representation. They do not cause political parties to receive seats in proportion to the number of votes cast for them. But they do eliminate spoiler effects which strongly discourage the formation of third-parties in the U.S.
It can be changed by an ordinary law passed by majorities in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate in identical form and not vetoed, or vetoed and then overridden by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress within the time allowed by the U.S. Constitution.
Yes. Generally one says that one "amends" a statute, however, rather than "editing" it.
No. As long as proportional representative is only within the Congressional seats allocated to a particular state, there is no Constitutional obstacle. But, a national scale proportional representation system would pose constitutional issues.
2 U.S.C. 2c was enacted in order to end the previously common practice of having multi-member districts in which you could vote for as many candidates as there were seats available at large, with the highest X vote getters in the X member district winning. When people vote on party lines, that causes the party with majority support to get all of the seats in the multi-member district much as the plurality winner in a state in all but two U.S. states in Presidential elections gets 100% of the electoral college votes in a state.
But, the drafters of 2 U.S.C. 2c underestimated the potential for gerrymandering to circumvent the benefits of having single member districts.
edited Sep 8, 2020 at 17:08
ohwillekeohwilleke
Re But, the drafters of 2 U.S.C. 2c underestimated the potential for gerrymandering to circumvent the benefits of having single member districts. The drafters of 2 U.S.C. 2c forgot about a very important unwritten law, the Law of Unintended Consequences.
– David Hammen
Sep 8, 2020 at 4:08
So it sounds like, in the past, the US has already had multi-member districts, and if, at that time, states had chosen to use STV or similar, the US would have gotten proportional representation with no significant constitutional issues.
– James_pic
Note that several states effectively can't have multi-member districts under current law, since they only have one representative and the Constitution requires that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State" (14th amendment.) The size of the House of Representatives would have to be substantially increased to get multi-member districts in all states—which is something that Congress could in principle do.
– Michael Seifert
The ongoing attempt to switch the presidential election to a national popular majority vote (end running the intent of the electoral college by getting states with >50% of the EC votes to agree to assign their electors based on the national rather than in state results) would cover at least some of the same Constitutional issues that a national voted proportionally elected Congress would raise. A yes to the former wouldn't necessarily mean that the latter could go forward without problem; but if the former's ruled unconstitutional, I don't see any path for the latter without an Amendment.
– Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight
@DanIsFiddlingByFirelight I assumed OP meant proportional within each state's delegation (and that also seems to be what this answer is assuming,) not proportional across the entire country. The latter would almost certainly require an amendment to the Constitution.
– reirab
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
Law Stack Exchange is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for individualized advice from a qualified legal practitioner. Communications on Law Stack Exchange are not privileged communications and do not create an attorney-client relationship.
Does the House of Representatives need a full-House vote to authorize a subpoena during impeachment?
Are there any legal theories under which New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation state primary law could be upheld or struck down federally?
Is this scenario for Trump reversing the election legally sound?
Does a politician's promise to "overthrow" the current system and replace it with a "Socialist World" rise to treason?
Could a US state allow non-citizens to vote in presidential elections?
What triggers a contingent election?
If HR51 (admitting DC as a state excluding a "Capital" area for federal buildings) were passed, would the "Capital" be entitled to 3 electoral votes?
If a House member is barred from the House for not wearing a face mask, does that House member's constituents lose their representation in Congress?
Is voting in the House of Representatives automatically postponed if the Speaker of the House is unable to attend due to sickness?
What happens if no one gets 270 electoral votes in the U.S. presidential election and the Congress fails to elect a president and vice president?


60 second interview with Roger Gherson, Gherson Solicitors
In our 60 second interview series, Citywealth speaks to Roger Gherson, principal solicitor at Gherson Solicitors about the importance of the independent judiciary and achieving the impossible.
Tell me about your role.
I'm the principal solicitor of Gherson Solicitors, established in 1988. I established and run a practice, Gherson Solicitors, which specialises in UK immigration (including Tier 1, Tier 2, Investor, Entrepreneur and spouse visas, EU residency and all other aspects of immigration law) nationality, asylum, extradition, human rights, sanctions, Unexplained Wealth Orders and white collar crime. In addition, I'm a partner in Discreet Law, a practice that offers General Counsel advice to clients.
How has the private client industry changed?
As we deal largely with foreign clients, we see first hand the results of the harsher regulatory environment and the institutionalised xenophobia demonstrated by governments on both sides of the political spectrum for short-term political gain. The consequences of these policies will cost the economy dearly by deterring wealthy foreigners from moving to the UK and investing here. The latest proposal is a foreigner's tax on residential property. The uncertainty surrounding Brexit has until recently left many EU citizens in the dark about their future immigration status in the UK. This now seems to have finally been settled but the lack of planning and strategy by this government has been unconscionable. The rapidly changing Immigration Rules are a nightmare and have been criticised by both the judiciary and the Law Commission.
What lessons have you learnt?
The justice system still works at a time when the political system appears to be under strain and losing all credibility. The integrity and independence of the judiciary in this topsy-turvy world of fake news and political spin doctors is more important than ever to provide some form of stability.
Tell us about interesting client instructions.
I've been fortunate to be instructed on a number of very interesting cases in the UK and abroad. These have all involved intriguing characters and stories. Sadly, many of the most interesting cases I have handled must remain confidential. The firm's recent successes in the EU Court in defeating a number of sanctions imposed on individuals by the EU were particularly rewarding. I have also recently been instructed in the first Unexplained Wealth Order case, which has attracted a large amount of publicity.
What challenges do your clients face?
The pressures of moving to a new country, settling their children in schools and adjusting to life in a new and often unwelcoming environment remain. In addition, many of my clients face hostility from countries they have fled and the attendant pressures of attempting to resolve their status in the UK often whilst continuing to run major business operations.
What's the most rewarding aspect of your role?
Gaining the trust of my clients, living up to their high expectations and achieving the desired result, whatever it takes.
What's the best piece of advice you've received?
Take nothing for granted and don't accept the precept that 'it can't be done'. I work very closely with a top team of barristers and we have all collectively, over the years, dealt successfully with some very challenging matters. Some of the most satisfying cases are the cases that first seemed impossible.
What was the last book you've read?
The Battle of Bretton Woods: The book covers the famous 1941 conference at the Mount Washington Hotel. The negotiation changed the balance of power and the political landscape of the world and led to the liberalisation of the world's financial system. It's a fascinating account.
Where was the last place you travelled to for work or pleasure?
Sweden for pleasure over the December break. After London the countryside was a welcome respite with long walks and the occasional jog.
How do you relax after a long day?
The gym or a run. Dinner with whichever family member is around.


Earl "Trey" F. Sundmaker, III, Founder
Earl "Trey" F. Sundmaker, III is the founder and managing member of The Sundmaker Firm. Trey has over 17 years experience protecting creditor's rights and litigating commercial, products liability, medical malpractice, insurance defense, premises liability, motor vehicle accidents and general casualty cases. He has also handled over 10,000 Bankruptcy matters for financial institutions in Louisiana and Texas.
Licensed in all Louisiana & Texas Courts & Arkansas Federal Courts
Gregory J. Walsh, Partner
At The Sundmaker Firm, Greg Walsh's practice is generally focused on commercial litigation, with an emphasis on creditor's rights, secured transactions and foreclosures. He represents local and national financial institutions in consumer and business bankruptcy proceedings, and in associated adversary proceedings, in Louisiana and Mississippi. Greg also represents clients in foreclosure proceedings involving real and personal property; commercial loan transactions; life, health and disability insurance claims; and lease and contract disputes.
Licensed in all Louisiana & Mississippi Courts
Arthur S. Mann, III
Mr. Mann has focused his efforts under the general heading of business law with particular emphasis in the fields of creditors' rights, foreclosure law, and commercial litigation. He has also developed a significant portion of his practice in the areas of commercial loan transactions, asset-based lending negotiation and documentation, and creditors' rights in bankruptcy court proceedings throughout Louisiana. Other areas of his practice include corporate formation and governance; mergers, acquisitions and sales; and wills and estate administration.
Beverly Cahill, Partner
Ms. Cahill manages the firm's Dallas, Texas office. She has extensive experience in collections and loan workouts, general counsel work, commercial and post-judgment collections, consumer litigation, creditor's rights/bankruptcy, real estate litigation and trusts and estates. As a Texas native, Ms. Cahill is committed to her community as a civic leader and volunteer.
Licensed & has Experience in all Texas State & Federal Courts.
The Sundmaker Firm, L.L.C.
1027 Ninth Street • New Orleans, LA 70115
3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 600 • Dallas, TX 75204
321 S. Boston • Tulsa, OK 74103
All designs © Copyright 2020 Sundmaker Firm. Site by Deep Fried Advertising


November 2017 Volume XLVI • Number 10
Memorial Players Present A Christmas Carol
Cast member John Lisch with co-director Darren McGregor
"Bah, humbug!" and "God bless us, every one!"
Who does not recognize the exclamations made famous by Scrooge and Tiny Tim in Charles Dickens' beloved A Christmas Carol?
A Christmas Carol tells the story of Ebenezer Scrooge, an old miser who hates Christmas. Scrooge is visited by four ghosts, first his former business partner Jacob Marley, followed by the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come. Their visits transform Scrooge into a kinder, gentler man, with a genuine concern for the business of mankind.
Watch and enjoy his transformation in the Memorial Players' production of A Christmas Carol, opening in Bolton Hill Friday night, December 1.
Responding to the appalling living and working conditions of the urban poor, especially children, Dickens wrote his novella over the course of six weeks in the fall of 1843. Set squarely in the mid-nineteenth century London where it originated, Romulus Linney's adaptation preserves most of Dickens' language and text.
Directed by Darren McGregor and Rina Steinhauer and produced by Kristine Smets, the play, like the novella, is full of wit and satire, both vivid and immediate. Even though the play will transport the audience into the past, they will be reminded that the problems of homelessness, inadequate education, and incarceration are still ours. Nothing in Dickens is out of date.
The cast includes many well-known faces from Memorial Players' past musicals and dramas. Set design is by John Seeley, costumes by Tita Rutledge, props by Maggie Blanck, light and sound design by Daryl Beard, and poster by Lynne Menefee.
A Christmas Carol, like all Memorial Episcopal productions, is admission-free, but good-will donations are always welcome. Performances will be presented at Memorial Church, on the corner of Lafayette and Bolton streets.
Performance dates:
Friday, December 1, 7:30 pm
Saturday, December 2, 7:30 pm
Sunday, December 3, 3:30 pm
Sunday, December 10, 3:30 pm
Producer Kristine Smets and co-director Rina Steinhauer with Lisch at Festival on the Hill.
Pre-show receptions are held in several of Bolton Hill's beautiful Victorian residences before each show. They're a great way to donate to Memorial Players and to meet other members of the Memorial Players community. Attendees enjoy food and refreshments and receive a VIP card that guarantees a reserved seat near the front.
Click on the date to purchase tickets online for one of the receptions held at the following homes:
Friday, December 1: home of Paul Seaton and John Seeley, 217 Bolton Place. Co-hosted by Nirina Randrianarivelo. 5:30 to 7 pm (show starts at 7:30 pm).
Saturday, December 2: home of David Bielenberg and Greg Trimble, 1406 Bolton Street. Co-hosted by Melanie Alfano. 5:30 to 7 pm (show starts at 7:30 pm).
Sunday, December 3: home of Beth Frederick & Don Palmer, 1307 Bolton Street. Sponsored by MRIA's Social Action Task Force. 1 to 3 pm (show starts at 3:30 pm).
Friday, December 8: home of John McLucas, 1314 Bolton Street. Co-host by Lee Bowers. 5:30 to 7 pm (show starts at 7:30 pm).
Saturday, December 9: home of Michael Booth & Kristine Smets, 1308 Bolton Street. Co-hosted by Sallye Perrin. 5:30 to 7 pm (show starts at 7:30 pm).
No reception for the final matinee on Sunday, December 10, so just come to the 3:30 pm performance.
For more information, visit Memorial Players online here or call Paul Seaton, 410-615-4532. A Christmas Carol is presented by special arrangement with Dramatists Play Service, Inc., New York.
Tree Pit Project Makes Trees, Kids Happy
The Humble But Useful Silver Maple
Toilet Paper Drive and Bake Sale Score for Samaritan Community
Festival on the Hill Produces Fun and Funds
Leaf Collection Season Has Begun
MRIA Supports Neighborhood Charging Station for Electric Vehicles
Dwell on the Past to Make a Better Future
Demolition Complete at Madison Park North. What's Next?


Ameobi proud of Toon start
Rosicky defiant after goal row
Odemwingie keen to kick on
Odemwingie came in for criticism from fans after Nigeria's recent failure to qualify for the African Nations Cup. Albion head coach Roy Hodgson then hinted the player tried to blame injuries if he was struggling for form and left him out of the starting line-up for yesterday's game against Wolves at The Hawthorns. But Odemwingie came off the bench and scored a superb second goal in the Baggies' 2-0 win which moved them out of the bottom three of the Barclays Premier League. Odemwingie said: "I worry about the team a lot and he (Hodgson) has noticed that I am a sensitive person. "I do worry about the team and my performance. "I had to take in stuff that I didn't really like to hear this week from here and there. "But this situation has also taught me that sometimes you have to let things pass, just concentrate on your work and keep going." Odemwingie, Albion's top scorer with 15 goals last season, is hoping the derby win will kickstart his and the club's season. He said: "I could feel the importance of this game from the first day I arrived back from the national team, with the way the fans were talking about it. "I knew it was a big game so when I scored the goal I felt double joy. "We climbed up the table and it was an important three points and to get the first home victory of the season is great. Now we all want to kick on from here." Odemwingie added: "With the goal I didn't have time to think. It was like a training situation. I saw the goal and just relied on my instincts. "I'm glad it went in and we climbed up the table and I scored my goal, so everything is good." Wolves, in contrast, slipped further towards the relegation zone after a fifth successive defeat - their worst top-flight sequence for 27 years. Striker Kevin Doyle admitted next weekend's home clash with Swansea now falls into the 'must-win' bracket. He said: "You lose two games, three games, four games. When it is five games, it is a nightmare. "We probably deservedly got beat, to be honest. We had two chances in the game really. Other than that we huffed and puffed but didn't really look like scoring. "It is not ideal. We will have to play Swansea at home next week and win that one and that is the only way you can look at it." Doyle insisted his midweek sending-off for the Republic of Ireland, which ruled him out of the opening Euro 2012 play-off game with Estonia, did not weigh on his mind yesterday. He said: "It did not affect me. I was suspended anyway after the first tackle (booking)." Meanwhile, Albion midfielder Zoltan Gera is poised to make his comeback after summer ankle surgery in Tuesday's reserve clash with Arsenal. The Hungary international rejoined the Baggies for a second spell after his contract at Fulham ran out in June.