Linda Greenhouse: On The "Free-Exercise of Religion" Clause

Words of Caution:
Now that the country’s justices and its religious politics are aligned, the question is how far the court will go, and with what consequences. A moment of truth is approaching
The Supreme Court Nears the Moment of Truth on Religion

The majority’s view of the Constitution’s free-exercise clause poses a threat to civil society.

New York Times 02.27.2020 

By Contributing Opinion Writer Linda Greenhouse

_________________________________________________________________

Here are some very brief extracts to get readers of this blog up on what Linda Greenhouse has written and why:

The Supreme Court has handed down a series of decisions instructing judges to accept almost any religious claim, no matter how preposterous, at face value and to put the government to an extremely tough test to justify any infringement on a “sincere” religious belief.

> In the Hobby Lobby case six years ago, the court gave dispositive legal weight to the claim by owners of two for-profit businesses that the legal requirement to include contraception coverage in their employee health plans would make them complicit in the sin of birth control.

“It is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.

> . . . there are plenty of cases like it, making claims that would have been dismissed out of hand not too many years ago and that now have to be taken seriously by those of us worried about the growing threat that an increasingly weaponized free-exercise clause poses to civil society, along with the statutes meant to extend its reach.

> On April 29, the last scheduled argument day of its current term, the court will hear two cases that are follow-ons to the Hobby Lobby decision. The cases challenge rules issued by the Trump administration to provide employers with not only an enhanced religious opt-out from the Affordable Care Act’s contraception requirement, but also with a generalized “moral exemption” for employers who object to covering birth control but who can’t claim a basis in religious doctrine for not following the law.

> On Monday, the justices accepted a closely watched case that has been at the top of religious conservatives’ Supreme Court wish list.

It challenges the City of Philadelphia’s termination of a contract with Catholic Social Services, one of the private agencies certified to find families to take in foster children. Objecting to same-sex marriage, the agency, which is affiliated with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, won’t place children with same-sex married couples.

It thus refuses to abide by the city’s Fair Practices Ordinance, which bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, among other characteristics.

> . . . In one major respect, the claim in this case, Fulton v. Philadelphia, resembles the claim in a case from Montana that the court heard last month.

In that case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, parents who want to use state scholarship vouchers to send their children to religious schools are claiming a violation of their religious rights because the voucher program was terminated by the Montana Supreme Court . . .

> In two other respects, however, this new case is even more portentous — or promising, depending on one’s view — than the others.

Five years after it ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has yet to fully address the objections of those who claim religious reasons for refusing to treat same-sex couples as equals.

> (The court failed to say anything meaningful two years ago in the case of the baker who wouldn’t bake a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage.)

> Other such cases are pending, including one from a florist who doesn’t want to arrange flowers for a same-sex wedding. . .

> Finally, the new case is especially important in offering the court a chance to do formally and in one sweep what the conservative justices have been trying to do more quietly case by case. . .

Now that the country’s justices and its religious politics are aligned, the question is how far the court will go, and with what consequences. A moment of truth is approaching. If we don’t want hate groups to have a seat in the prison chapel, the time to start drawing lines is now.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Boeing Wins $11M Judgment Against MDHI Over Apache AH-6i Rights



"Boeing has won an $11 million judgement against MD Helicopters Inc. (MDHI) over the rights to its AH-6i Light Attack Reconnaissance helicopter, with an arbitration panel ruling that the aerospace giant owns the intellectual property and right to produce the type, and that MDHI must stop interfering with Boeing’s attempts to do so."
Reference Source: https://www.verticalmag.com/news

The action was the latest in the two companies’ ongoing dispute into the legacy of a 2005 agreement, in which MDHI sold Boeing ownership of the underlying intellectual property needed to build the Mission Enhanced Little Bird (based on the MD 530F) – and the right to make and sell any aircraft derived from it.
The Mission Enhanced Little Bird (MELB), also known as the AH-6M, was created in the 1990s as a vehicle for U.S. Army Special Forces.
It enhanced the mission performance of the AH-6 Little Bird by adding components from the more powerful 600N to the MD 500 series airframe.

The panel was asked to resolve two primary issues:
1.  if Boeing has the right to make and sell the AH-6i Little Bird, and
2. whether Boeing must disclose all improvements it has made to the Mission Enhanced Little Bird (MELB) to MDHI.
> Finding in Boeing’s favor, the panel decided that the AH-6i was directly derived from the MELB.
> In addition to making MDHI pay Boeing’s $4.2 million arbitration costs (and its own $7.4 million costs), the arbitrators ordered the OEM to provide Boeing with all MELB tooling, one set of common tooling, and one set of tooling drawings by April 30.
> The arbitration panel also denied MDHI’s counterclaims for an order to force Boeing to share its improvements to the MELB, and for $9.36 million in damages to cover MDHI’s costs in developing substitute technology to compete in the marketplace.

The neighboring companies, who have facilities across the street from each other in Mesa, Arizona, share substantial history.
Boeing briefly owned the entity that ultimately became MDHI after merging with McDonnel Douglas in 1997, but decided to sell its commercial helicopter lines in 1999 to a Dutch holding company.

That helicopter company was then purchased by Patriarch Partners in 2005, and recapitalized as MDHI.

HISTORY: Around this time, Boeing and MDHI made the agreement that would allow Boeing to pitch the MELB for the U.S. Army’s Advanced Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) program, in exchange for $15 million, a $10 million loan, and the restructuring of previous debt.
However, the contract went to Bell, before the program was ultimately cancelled in 2008.
Despite the setback, Boeing worked on a new helicopter intended for sales to foreign governments – the AH-6i – and signed agreements with MDHI in 2010 and 2011 that would see the latter supply the airframes for the aircraft if Boeing secured orders.

• MDHI also continued to sell armed helicopters to military customers around the world, and unveiled the MD 540F in 2012, presenting it as a contender for the Army’s Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) competition.
• Boeing, which was submitting the AH-6i for the same competition, claimed that the MD 540F’s development violated the 2005 agreement because it was derived from the MELB.
• The issue went to arbitration, with the ruling going in MDHI’s favor – the manufacturer was entitled to make and sell the MD 540F because it wasn’t derived from the MELB.
• The ruling was a crucial win for MDHI, ensuring it could compete for future U.S. and foreign military contracts.

MDHI is to deliver next-generation weapons and mission management capabilities to its MD 530G Block II (BII) Scout Attack Helicopter. MD Helicopters Photo

However, the legacy of the 2005 agreement was soon felt again, after Boeing won a contract from the Saudi Arabian National Guard for 24 AH-6i helicopters in 2012. As part of the 2011 agreement between MDHI and Boeing, MDHI was to supply Boeing with the airframes for the aircraft, as well as other parts.

• After the last airframe was delivered in 2017, MDHI took Boeing back to court for missing payments on the airframes. Boeing filed counterclaims, and it was this that led to the recently-decided arbitration.
• In its claims, Boeing alleged that MDHI had been interfering in its ability to make and sell the AH-6i by telling the U.S. government and suppliers that it doesn’t have the right to do so. Boeing also said MDHI had failed its obligation, under the 2005 agreement, to provide written notice to its suppliers to tell them they could work with Boeing.
• Indeed, in September 2016, MDHI sued Aerometals, Inc., alleging that MDHI, not Boeing, owned the rights to the parts Aerometals was selling to Boeing.
• And in 2017, MDHI made a presentation to the U.S. Special Operations Command that included a slide that stated the 2005 agreement “did not provide Boeing the right to develop and field a new aircraft like the AH-6i” and that “MDHI will not allow Boeing unfettered access to our markets.”

In the aribitrators’ Findings of Fact, they wrote: “Boeing concluded that it needed ‘to crush’ MDHI if MDHI sought to enter its space and brainstormed possible strategies, from ‘mild’ to ‘wild,’ for doing so.”
In this latest legal battle, Boeing appears to have succeeded, winning all of its claims, while MDHI won none.
In addition to the tooling and arbitration costs, the panel ordered MDHI to comply with the 2005 agreement by sending all MELB suppliers a notice to inform them of Boeing’s rights with the type.
“While MDHI disagrees with, and is disappointed in, the decision of the arbitration panel, that decision is limited in scope,” an MDHI spokesperson said when Vertical requested comment on the case.
“MDHI continues to hold the Type Certificate and Type Design Data for its fleet, and will continue to develop, design, manufacture, market, sell and support the twin-engine MD 902 Explorer, the MD 530F Cayuse Warrior Light Scout Attack Helicopter, the new MD 530G Attack helicopter, and a single-engine commercial fleet that includes the MD 600N, MD 520N, MD 500E and MD 530F, as well as any further military and commercial aircraft variants.”

• The spokesperson added that MDHI will continue to compete with the AH-6i and the other aircraft in the military light helicopter market, particularly with the ongoing development of the MD 530G.
• As for Boeing, a company spokesperson said it “never doubted and remains confident in its right to manufacture, sell, and support the AH-6” helicopter. “We look forward to continuing to market and sell the product to customers interested in the capabilities of the AH-6,” they added.

An arbitration court has found that Boeing’s AH-6i is a direct derivative of the Mission Enhanced Little Bird. ( Boeing Photo )

Never-Saints & Latter-Day Sinners: "All-in-TheFamily Guys" + "Look-Alike Moms"

Everything-Mormon is probably more than we want-to-know and certainly more than we-need-to know. No one can dismiss them as bad actors - all the way from the top conservative Quorum of Elders to the fundamentalist cults - they're all getting caught in more ways than one that were hard to imagine. In Utah now, they want to "decriminalize" Polygamy. In Arizona now it's been a bizarre twist on family-values of every kind - from pay-for-adoptions by the Maricopa County Assessor to extremist cults and missing children.

On Thursday the latest episode took place at a courthouse here in Mesa, with roots in both Gilbert (one ex-husband lived right across the street from The Gilbert Temple) and Chandler that extended to Idaho and Utah. No one could make-these-things up

‘CULT’ MOM Lori Vallow lookalike niece lands in court, insists she KNOWS NOTHING about missing Idaho kids

by Ellen Killoran  Crime Online |                        

Lori Vallow’s niece appeared in court this week and refuted allegations that she knows where Vallow’s two missing children are . . .

INSERTS

> As ABC 15 reports, Vallow’s niece Melani Boudreaux Pawloswki appeared in court in Mesa, Arizona, for a child custody hearing as she fights for joint custody of her four children with ex-husband Brandon Boudreaux, who told police that someone had shot at him while he was driving in Arizona in October.

> According to AZCentral.com, the other vehicle involved in the alleged drive-by-shooting registered to Charles Vallow, who had died three months earlier when Lori’s brother Alex Cox shot him to death, claiming self-defense

The lawyers also denied that Boudreaux Pawloski, who is reportedly very close to Lori Vallow, has ties to any kind of extremist religious group."

Want to read more>>>> Go Here >  CRIME ONLINE 02.28.2020 

________________________________________________________________________________

Salt Lake Tribune

Utah Legislature votes to decriminalize polygamy

Utah Legislature votes to decriminalize polygamy ... adults to an infraction — an offense below some traffic tickets — essentially decriminalizing the practice.

18 hours ago

 

KUER 90.1

Decriminalizing Polygamy

To ensure statehood, Utah had to ban the practice of polygamy.

But the laws against plural marriage are rarely enforced here, and a bill passed by lawmakers ...

1 day ago

 

StarLink is FAR more important than 5G

How Governments Shut Down the Internet | WSJ

31,319 views

•Feb 27, 2020

Governments around the world are shutting down the internet, saying it's needed to prevent protests or cheating on exams. But critics say blocking expression and access to information violates human rights. Here’s how internet shutdowns work. Photo: NYUNT WIN/EPA/SHUTTERSTOCK More from the Wall Street Journal: Visit WSJ.com: http://www.wsj.com Visit the WSJ Video Center: https://wsj.com/video On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pg/wsj/videos/ On Twitter: https://twitter.com/WSJ On Snapchat: https://on.wsj.com/2ratjSM

How California Gave Consumers More Protection of Their Own Data

Consumer Privacy Act applies to any company that does business in California . . . other states are still grappling 

971 views Feb 27, 2020

Feb.27 -- In the wake of high-profile data breaches at some of the world’s biggest companies, lawmakers and regulators are starting to take seriously protections for consumers’ online privacy. The California Consumer Privacy Act, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, is the country’s first comprehensive law that gives users control over their own data - and it likely won’t be the last. Bloomberg Law’s Dan Stoller details what businesses need to know about California’s new law and analyzes what’s next in privacy regulations in state houses and on Capitol Hill.

How exactly does 5G work? | Upscaled

Basic questions, starting with cell networks and towers 

32,161 views

•Feb 25, 2020

The Economics of the Dutch East India Company

Once a Spanish colony, Holland took over the maritime trade-routes and a "free-wheeling" business culture that financed the voyages.

142,303 views

•Feb 27, 2020

Trillion dollar mega corporations are a very big deal these days there are about 2 or three that exists in the modern world and they are primarily tech companies that have achieved this status by capitalising on cutting edge modern technology, and probably a bit of optimistic speculation, but there is one corporation that has snaked its way through history and may have very well been the largest corporation in history. This was a company that laid the foundations for modern multinationals and created systems, procedures and expectations that we take for granted today. #economics #voc #videoessay

Turning Over Pay-Dirt Again: Breaking-Ground Ceremony For "Luxury Living" in Downtown Mesa @ The GRID

It was "a dream come true" for Jennifer Duff, District 4 Mesa City Councilmember (or so she said) in a 01:18 streaming video produced for the occasion by the City of Mesa. Developer Tony Wall pitched-in too, saying there were 297 units for 'Luxury Living." Hizzoner John Giles opened the short clip by saying "it's a great addition to the other development on the east side of the street," but couldn't say the name of the for-profit religion real estate development there.
Notice how quick-and-clipped the uploaded streaming video is - not the usual wide shots of assembled dignitaries and city officials
COVERING MESA: The GRID Ground-Breaking
The GRID breaks ground on a new $75-Million Mixed-Use Development in Downtown Mesa
32 Views 1 day ago

__________________________________________________________________________________
RELATED CONTENT ON THIS BLOG:

> "Bringing jobs into the community is a leap forward.” . . . real estate investors would like more from the Treasury in the next round of regulations.

In an interview, Quinn Palomino, chief executive at Virtua Partners a private equity group, said she hoped the government would mandate reporting on metrics such as the number of jobs and affordable housing units created in the zones.

“Everyone’s running to this industry,” including a lot of people without the background in real estate development, she said. “It’s pretty scary out there, some of the projects that are coming in.

Kind of, two guys in the back of a van, trying to get an Opportunity Zone project done.”

__________________________________________________________

FROM THE KRESGE FOUNDATION >

https://kresge.org/content/mission-money-markets-what-should-unite-opportunity-zones-backers-and-detractors

Mission, Money & Markets:

What should unite Opportunity Zones backers and detractors

September 4, 2019

Editor's note: A version of this blog post also ran on Impact Alpha here. 
By Aaron Seybert

" . . . Depending on your ideological, political, or economic interests, you can pick the facts and examples around Opportunity Zones that most confirm your bias and dismiss the critiques you disagree with . . ."

I believe anyone who cares about this legislation producing sustainable, positive impact in communities should be asking for mandatory disclosure.

Without the knowledge of where the money came from, who raised it, and where it went, how can we possibly hope to know if this incentive is helping or hurting on the whole?

We should absolutely support the best actors to show a path forward. However, we in philanthropy should just as forcefully demand mandatory reporting at every level and remain extremely sensitive to what we lend our name to.
We should fund advocacy organizations, investigative journalism, and think tanks to increase the reputation risk for policy makers and practitioners and insist this debate continues in the public eye.
In the absence of a fully transparent market, I will remain skeptical but engaged.  

_________________________________________________________________________

FAST-FORWARD TO OCTOBER 2019 >

Investors Are Zoning Out on Opportunity Zone Funds

by Justin Bartzsch  10 Oct 2019

LINK > Click or Tap Here

Fundraising for these real estate vehicles is lacklustre as the industry awaits final regulatory guidelines from the US Treasury

 

 

 

 

 

> 23 December 2019

OZONES > Rules. Regs + Guidelines To Close Out 2019

 

Final opportunity zone regulations have been released  Stakeholders interested in maximizing tax incentives must initiate an investment prior to the end of the year.from this blog

https://mesazona.blogspot.com/2019/12/irs-issues-final-regulations-on-ozones.html

21 December 2019IRS Issues Final Regulations on OZones + Qualified Opportunity Funds

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is reporting that its review of the final IRS regulations on Qualified Opportunity Funds concluded on December 17th. Yesterday Jimmy Atkinson writing in Opportunity Database announced that the long wait is over. 
IRS has issued final regulations on Qualified Opportunity Funds, nearly two years after the Opportunity Zone initiative was enacted into law as part of the 2017 Tax Cuts & Jobs Act.
________________________________________________________________________
There are a number of sticking points from the first two tranches of proposed regulations — many of which were discussed at the most recent IRS hearing on Qualified Opportunity Funds — that should be clarified in these final regs, including:

• Data collection and reporting, and what Treasury’s limits may be.
• Multi-asset fund exit options, and the discrepancies that exist between tax treatment at the different QOF, QOZB, and QOZBP levels.
• Whether the substantial improvement test can be conducted on an aggregate basis, as opposed to an asset-by-asset basis.
• The treatment of debt-financed distributions.
• The treatment of Section 1231 gains.
• The definition of vacant property.
• How to pair the Opportunity Zone tax incentive with real estate tax credits such as New Markets, Low Income Housing, Renewable Energy, and Historic.

READ MORE AT THE ABOVE LINK

Where Opportunity Zones stand, heading into 2019

The stage is set for Sean Parker’s pet project—now it’s time for the money to start rolling in

By Jeff Andrews Jan 3, 2019, 5:00pm EST

"When Trump’s tax overhaul became law a year ago, the real estate industry’s attention was focused on caps to the mortgage-interest deduction, plus state and local tax deductions—which the industry predicted would put the housing market in peril. (It didn’t.)

After the dust settled in the spring, the industry realized a hidden gem had been tucked away in the law: Opportunity Zones.

The brainchild of Silicon Valley financier Sean Parker,
Opportunity Zones allow investors to obtain massive tax advantages if they invest capital gains—money made on the sale of assets like a home, a business, or a piece of art—into “distressed” areas of the country where the post-financial crisis recovery passed by.
While the provision theoretically allows investors to put money into any type of project so long as it’s in a designated zone—a business, infrastructure, whatever—most observers believe it is especially attractive to real estate developers, partly because the largest tax benefits go to those who stay invested in the zone for at least 10 years.
Advocates for the program believe this could be a game-changing community development tool.
__________________
From Bloomberg News 

Will ‘Opportunity Zones’ Help the Rich, the Poor or Both?

By Noah Buhayar ‎January‎ ‎3‎, ‎2019‎ ‎10‎:‎00‎ ‎PM 

(Blogger Note: If this is one of your TLDR - Too Long Didn't Read - challenges, there's a 04:54 minute audio you can listen to at the underlined link above the article headline)

        

"Buried in the Republican tax overhaul that President Donald Trump signed into law in late 2017 are incentives for investors who fund businesses or develop real estate in new “opportunity zones.” Banks, private equity firms, insurance companies and wealthy individuals are now rushing to take advantage. . .

__________________