Columns

There has been a lot of research on the types of people who believe conspiracy theories, and their reasons for doing so. But there’s a wrinkle: My colleagues and I have found that there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.

(THE CONVERSATION) — There has been a lot of research on the types of people who believe conspiracy theories, and their reasons for doing so. But there’s a wrinkle: My colleagues and I have found that there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.

They are opportunists. These people share conspiracy theories to promote conflict, cause chaos, recruit and radicalize potential followers, make money, harass, or even just to get attention.

There are several types of this sort of conspiracy-spreader trying to influence you.

—————

Coaxing conspiracists – the extremists

In our chapter of a new book on extremism and conspiracies, my colleagues and I discuss evidence that certain extremist groups intentionally use conspiracy theories to entice adherents. They are looking for a so-called “gateway conspiracy” that will lure someone into talking to them, and then be vulnerable to radicalization. They try out multiple conspiracies to see what sticks.

Research shows that people with positive feelings for extremist groups are significantly more likely to knowingly share false content online. For instance, the disinformation-monitoring company Blackbird.AI tracked over 119 million COVID-19 conspiracy posts from May 2020, when activists were protesting pandemic restrictions and lockdowns in the United States. Of these, over 32 million tweets were identified as high on their manipulation index. Those posted by various extremist groups were particularly likely to carry markers of insincerity. For instance, one group, the Boogaloo Bois, generated over 610,000 tweets, of which 58% were intent on incitement and radicalization.

You can also just take the word of the extremists themselves. When the Boogaloo Bois militia group showed up at the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, for example, members stated they didn’t actually endorse the stolen election conspiracy, but were there to “mess with the federal government.” Aron McKillips, a Boogaloo member arrested in 2022 as part of an FBI sting, is another example of an opportunistic conspiracist. In his own words: “I don’t believe in anything. I’m only here for the violence.”

—————

Combative conspiracists – the disinformants

Governments love conspiracy theories. The classic example of this is the 1903 document known as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” in which Russia constructed an enduring myth about Jewish plans for world domination. More recently, China used artificial intelligence to construct a fake conspiracy theory about the August 2023 Maui wildfire.

Often the behavior of the conspiracists gives them away. Years later, Russia eventually confessed to lying about AIDS in the 1980s. But even before admitting to the campaign, its agents had forged documents to support the conspiracy. Forgeries aren’t created by accident. They knew they were lying.

As for other conspiracies it hawks, Russia is famous for taking both sides in any contentious issue, spreading lies online to foment conflict and polarization. People who actually believe in a conspiracy tend to stick to a side.
Meanwhile, Russians knowingly deploy what one analyst has called a “fire hose of falsehoods.”

Likewise, while Chinese officials were spreading conspiracies about American roots of the coronavirus in 2020, China’s National Health Commission was circulating internal reports tracing the source to a pangolin.

—————

Chaos conspiracists – the trolls

In general, research has found that individuals with what scholars call a high “need for chaos” are more likely to indiscriminately share conspiracies, regardless of belief. These are the everyday trolls who share false content for a variety of reasons, none of which are benevolent. Dark personalities and dark motives are prevalent.

For instance, in the wake of the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump, a false accusation arose online about the identity of the shooter and his motivations. The person who first posted this claim knew he was making up a name and stealing a photo. The intent was apparently to harass the Italian sports blogger whose photo was stolen. This fake conspiracy was seen over 300,000 times on the social platform X and picked up by multiple other conspiracists eager to fill the information gap about the assassination attempt.

—————

Commercial conspiracists – the profiteers

Often when I encounter a conspiracy theory I ask: “What does the sharer have to gain? Are they telling me this because they have an evidence-backed concern, or are they trying to sell me something?”

When researchers tracked down the 12 people primarily responsible for the vast majority of anti-vaccine conspiracies online, most of them had a financial investment in perpetuating these misleading narratives.

Some people who fall into this category might truly believe their conspiracy, but their first priority is finding a way to make money from it. For instance, conspiracist Alex Jones bragged that his fans would “buy anything.” Fox News and its on-air personality Tucker Carlson publicized lies about voter fraud in the 2020 election to keep viewers engaged, while behind-the-scenes communications revealed they did not endorse what they espoused.

Profit doesn’t just mean money. People can also profit from spreading conspiracies if it garners them influence or followers, or protects their reputation. Even social media companies are reluctant to combat conspiracies because they know they attract more clicks.

—————

Common conspiracists – the attention-getters

You don’t have to be a profiteer to like some attention. Plenty of regular people share content where they doubt the veracity, or know it is false.

These posts are common: Friends, family and acquaintances share the latest conspiracy theory with “could this be true?” queries or “seems close enough to the truth” taglines. Their accompanying comments show that sharers are, at minimum, unsure about the truthfulness of the content, but they share nonetheless. Many share without even reading past a headline. Still others, approximately 7% to 20% of social media users, share despite knowing the content is false. Why?

Some claim to be sharing to inform people “just in case” it is true. But this sort of “sound the alarm” reason actually isn’t that common.

Often, folks are just looking for attention or other personal benefit. They don’t want to miss out on a hot-topic conversation. They want the likes and shares. They want to “stir the pot.” Or they just like the message and want to signal to others that they share a common belief system.

For frequent sharers, it just becomes a habit.

—————

The dangers of spreading lies

Over time, the opportunists may end up convincing themselves. After all, they will eventually have to come to terms with why they are engaging in unethical and deceptive, if not destructive, behavior. They may have a rationale for why lying is good. Or they may convince themselves that they aren’t lying by claiming they thought the conspiracy was true all along.

It’s important to be cautious and not believe everything you read. These opportunists don’t even believe everything they write – and share. But they want you to. So be aware that the next time you share an unfounded conspiracy theory, online or offline, you could be helping an opportunist. They don’t buy it, so neither should you. Be aware before you share. Don’t be what these opportunists derogatorily refer to as “a useful idiot.”

A new filing by special counsel Jack Smith in the case he has brought against Donald Trump for his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election provides greater detail and support for Smith’s argument that Trump, while president, committed illegal acts to reverse his 2020 election loss.

By Jennifer Selin
Arizona State University

(THE CONVERSATION) — A new filing by special counsel Jack Smith in the case he has brought against Donald Trump for his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election provides greater detail and support for Smith’s argument that Trump, while president, committed illegal acts to reverse his 2020 election loss.

Those acts, argues Smith, were taken by Trump as a candidate for reelection and therefore are not covered by a 2024 Supreme Court opinion related to the case that says presidents’ official actions are immune from prosecution when they exercise their core constitutional powers.

But are the actions that fall outside of a president’s core constitutional powers clearly defined? Smith’s filing is not only relevant to his 2020 election subversion case against Trump but will likely affect the next and future presidents of the United States. The filing, and inevitable legal battles that will result from it, will help clarify precisely how far presidential immunity extends.

While arguments related to the Trump case will take place in a courtroom, Congress has and will continue to have an underappreciated responsibility in defining and curbing presidential power. As a constitutional law scholar who studies government institutions and how they work, I believe that Congress has a unique role in shaping the balance of powers among the three branches of government at this moment in history.

The Trump case and the precedent on which it relies recognize that the most constitutionally suspect presidential actions are those that exceed the outer limits of one branch’s authority or undermine the powers of another. For example, with respect to the certification of the results of a presidential election, the court noted that Congress has legislated extensively and the president plays no direct constitutional or statutory role in that process.

By acting under its own constitutional legislative and oversight authority, Congress can push back against presidential power.

—————

‘Zone of twilight’

In August 2023, a federal grand jury indicted Trump on four counts of conduct related to conspiring to overturn the November 2020 presidential election.

Trump contested the indictment, alleging the president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official actions taken while in office. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, and the court made its now famous immunity ruling, stating: “The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.”

Yet not all presidential actions fall within these core powers. The court differentiated between three types of presidential action.

Some actions clearly fall within the scope of the president’s exclusive constitutional authority. These responsibilities include serving as commander in chief, recognizing foreign governments and signing or vetoing the bills Congress passes. Presidential actions under this authority are absolutely immune from prosecution.

On the other end of the spectrum, some actions clearly are outside the scope of the president’s constitutional authority. For example, when a president files for reelection or sets up a campaign committee, the president acts as a candidate, not as occupant of the office of the presidency. There is no immunity for these acts.

Yet sometimes the president acts in what the Supreme Court has called a “zone of twilight,” where the president and Congress share powers or in areas that are within the outer perimeters of the presidential office.

For example, even though the Constitution does not explicitly detail this responsibility, the president acts in his official capacity when he addresses the nation from the Oval Office to update the American people on important events.

In these “zone of twilight” instances, a prosecution cannot hinder the president’s ability to do the job. That means the president has immunity unless the prosecutor can show that prosecution will not upset the balance of power between the three branches of government.

—————

Why immunity?

The primary reason for granting immunity to public officials, including to prosecutors and judges, is to enable them to serve the public without the risk of being punished criminally for doing what they think best serves the country. Potential criminal liability raises the possibility that public officials would make decisions based on political opponents’ threats, rather than by exercising the independent judgment required for effective public service.

Fear of political threat is of particular concern for the president. As the court explained in the Trump case, without immunity, “the President would be chilled from taking the ‘bold and unhesitating action’” required of the office.

In contrast to other federal offices in the U.S. constitutional system, the presidency composes an entire branch of government, known as the executive branch. Prior Supreme Court decisions recognized the president’s duties are “of unrivaled gravity and breadth” in that the president makes the most sensitive and far reaching decisions entrusted to any elected official.

The president is vested with the executive power of the United States and serves as the nation’s leader in politics and foreign and domestic policy. And the president’s job is far more complex than the 18th-century framers of the Constitution could have imagined.

The modern executive branch includes hundreds of agencies and millions of federal employees who help the president execute the law. As a result, the president has more political and policy advisers than anyone else in government. The promise of immunity helps these advisers provide the president nuanced information on policy and politics.

And while the expansion of the executive branch may seem like a modern phenomenon, concerns over increased executive power are nothing new. Indeed, at the beginning of President George Washington’s second term, Benjamin Franklin “was struck dumb with astonishment at the sentiments … (t)hat the executive alone shall have the right of judging what shall be kept secret, and what shall be made public.”

This raises the question, how does Congress write laws and oversee the implementation of them in a constitutionally, legally and historically established world where the president has such power?

—————

What are the limits?

While the phrase “separation of powers” has long been used to describe the U.S. system of government, in fact, U.S. legal history shows that the American constitutional system is one of shared, not separate, powers.

Presidential immunity sits purely within this context. So, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling, it’s not up to the president to decide which of his actions in that “zone of twilight” will be given immunity and which ones won’t.

That’s up to the courts and Congress.

Here’s how that works: The extent of presidential immunity rests on the federal judiciary’s rulings on what constitutes official and unofficial acts. Articulated first by the Supreme Court in 1803, it is the judiciary’s job “to say what the law is.”

But Congress writes the law. And Congress oversees how the president implements it.

Congress has investigated the conduct of at least 15 sitting or former presidents. For example, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the congressional investigations revealed crucial evidence of President Nixon’s illegal actions and ultimately led to his resignation.

In doing so, Congress relied on its own constitutional authority as a way to use litigation-like tools to shed light on presidential actions that are outside the president’s official duties or in the “zone of twilight.”

Not only did these investigations inform the public about presidential actions, they helped Congress assert its position in the American constitutional system of shared powers.

In a legal world that, in part, defines presidential immunity based on the balance of power between the three branches of government, this can’t be a bad thing.

“Chughlu, Chughlu,” were the hawkers’ chants that pierced the busy atmosphere around Chahrah-e-Farooshgah, the main street in downtown Shiraz, Iran. The road had a covered mall on one side. During spring a row of greyish wooden carts would line up by the mall front. Hawkers standing behind them allured passersby with their chants.

I said to the almond tree, 'Sister, speak to me of God.' And the almond tree blossomed.
— Greek writer and philosopher Nikos Kazantzakis.

“Chughlu, Chughlu,” were the hawkers’ chants that pierced the busy atmosphere around Chahrah-e-Farooshgah, the main street in downtown Shiraz, Iran. The road had a covered mall on one side. During spring a row of greyish wooden carts would line up by the mall front. Hawkers standing behind them allured passersby with their chants.

A heap of fresh young green almonds with soft fuzzy green hulls secretly hiding white translucent kernels adorned each cart. The sellers would ask approaching customers how much chughlu they wanted. Then they would scoop them up, weigh them, and put them in a paper bag and sprinkle a pinch of salt over the top before handing the bag over to customers. Salt balances the bitter-sour flavor of the hull.  

Even though this was the first time I saw chughlu, almonds were nothing new to me. Growing up in Abbottabad, Pakistan, I snacked on almonds and long green sultanas. We also had what we called paper-almonds because of their delicate skin. Even I, as a child, could crack a paper-almond open by pressing one in my hands.

Now I occasionally soak almonds for two days. Then I peel and blend them with a little water and freeze the liquid in ice-cube trays. These cubes are handy for fruit smoothies and cereal. Fresh almond milk can also be made from this.

While it’s thought that almonds grew wild in western and southern Asia prior to their domestication in 4,000 BC, I’m certain they must have grown elsewhere as well. Rumor has it that Middle Eastern and mediterranean travelers introduced them across Europe.

In addition to phosphorus, copper and riboflavin, this nature’s gift of powerhouse nutrients also contains fiber, protein, fat, Vitamin E, magnesium and manganese.

Almonds were introduced in America in the 1700s. For the past few decades, the demand for almonds has increased tremendously in America due to the awareness of the necessity of nutritious food. Now we have almonds with skin, without skin, almond flour, slivered almonds, almond milk and butter, and flavored almond snacks. California grows numerous edible varieties of almonds and boasts about 80% of the world’s production.

Almonds also have a bitter variety that grows on a different type of almond tree and they contain toxic chemicals. But people use their oil for spasms, pain, cough, and itch.

Now let’s whip up some muffins with this gift of nature. The ingredients should be at room temperature. Coating dried fruit ensures their even distribution and prevents settling in the bottom. Sifting flour aerates and results in lighter texture.

Nutty Muffins

Servings: 6

Ingredients

15 dried apricots

3 dates, pitted

1-2 tablespoons flour

3/4 cup slivered or finely  chopped almonds

2 cups sifted self-rising flour

1 teaspoon baking powder  

2 eggs, whites and yolks separated

3/4 teaspoon salt

1/2-3/4 cup sugar

1/4 cup olive oil

3/4 cup milk

12-cup muffin tray

Directions

Oil and flour muffin tray.

Preheat oven to 350 degrees.

Spread 2 tablespoons of flour on a dish.

Hold each piece of dried fruit in one hand over the dish with flour.

Using scissors cut each one into thin strips.

Then cut into small cubes and let them drop on the flour.  

Gently rub them with the flour and leave aside.

Sift the flour and the baking powder five times.

Using an electric beater whisk together the whites and salt until soft peaks are formed.

Add the yolks and beat until pale in color.

Gradually add the oil and milk and whisk well.

Using a spatula fold in the flour. Lumps may form but they will disappear.

Leave aside 1/4 cup of almonds and mix them along with the fruit pieces.

Using an ice-cream scoop pour the batter in muffin cups.

Sprinkle with almonds.

Bake for 20-25 minutes.

Remove and cool down for ten minutes.

Take out and serve with coffee or tea.

—————

Foodie Majida Rashid lives in Texas.  Food and cooking are her passion.  Her presentation about her love of food can be viewed on USA Today’s network: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0xi566VSPo – We Spread Love Through Food@Frontiers_Of_Flavor
Her philosophical writing can be read at apakistaniwomansjourney.wordpress.com.  

The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) welcomes Scott MacGriff as its new general counsel and chief compliance officer.

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department

The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) welcomes Scott MacGriff as its new general counsel and chief compliance officer.

MacGriff previously served the City of Detroit as senior assistant corporation counsel for transactions and economic development. Prior to working in city government, he was a member at Dickinson Wright PLLC. Before joining the private sector, MacGriff served with the U.S.  Department of Justice as justice attaché for the United States to Afghanistan at the U.S Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, as well as a trial attorney, representing the United States as lead counsel in government contract actions in the United States Court of Federal Claims and United States Court of Appeals.

At DWSD, MacGriff will be for directing a team of attorneys and professional staff engaged in a wide range of legal matters, including, among other things, legal strategy, regulatory compliance, litigation (contract disputes, billing disputes, collections activities, damage claims, and employment disputes), investigations, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and organizational policies.

The DWSD general counsel position has been vacant since June 2024.

—————

Plunkett Cooney

Plunkett Cooney has earned 2023-2024 Mansfield Certification Plus through Diversity Lab.

Mansfield is a year-long, structured certification process that Plunkett Cooney has committed to since 2021 to ensure all employees have a fair and equal opportunity to advance into leadership roles. The “Plus” designation is reserved for firms that voluntarily measure the outcomes of their inclusive processes and have achieved positive results.

“As a firm dedicated to creating opportunities for all attorneys to excel, we are thrilled to receive Mansfield Certification Plus,” said Jeffrey C. Gerish, the firm’s president and CEO. “It is incredibly rewarding to see the firm’s diversity and inclusion efforts have positively impacted our business. We look forward to advancing inclusion, equity and diversity with Diversity Lab and other participating firms.”

Mansfield is now entering its eight year, and Plunkett Cooney is among more than 360 firms that have achieved Mansfield Certification to advance a core value in the legal profession: the belief that everyone should have a fair opportunity for career advancement.
Plunkett Cooney was established in 1913 and is a provider of business and litigation services to public and private sector clients across a range of industries. The firm employs approximately 130 attorneys in seven Michigan cities, as well as in Chicago, Illinois, Columbus, Ohio and Indianapolis, Indiana.

Plunkett Cooney has achieved the highest rating (AV) awarded by Martindale-Hubbell, a leading, international directory of law firms and has been named by Best Companies Group as one of its 2023 Best Places to Work.

In addition, Plunkett Cooney partner Matthew J. Stanczyk was recently named to the 2024 Class of Go To Lawyers for Negligence Law as determined by Michigan Lawyers Weekly (MiLW).

A partner in Plunkett Cooney’s Detroit office, Stanczyk concentrates his practice in various areas of complex litigation, including toxic torts, product liability, fire-related claims, construction liability and commercial warranty disputes. His clients include product manufacturers, general contractors, construction managers, transportation firms, property restoration and remediation firms, commercial property owners and managers, among others that have matters in Michigan and Ohio state and federal courts.

Stanczyk is a member of Plunkett Cooney’s Board of Directors, and he serves as leader of the firm’s Product Liability Practice Group and co-leader of the Torts & Litigation Practice Group. An active member of  ALFA International (ALFAI), a global law firm consortium, Stanczyk is a past member of the organization’s board of directors. He has also served in several other leadership roles, including as chair of ALFAI’s Product Liability and Complex Torts Practice Group.

A 1986 graduate of University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and a 1983 graduate of the University of Michigan, Stanczyk is a member of the Detroit Bar Association, State Bar of Michigan (Negligence and Consumer Law sections), American Bar Association and the Building Owners and Managers Association, Southeast Michigan Chapter.

In addition to this MiLW award, Stanczyk is also the recipient of such professional honors as Martindale-Hubbell’s highest peer review rating-AV Preeminent™ and Dbusiness magazine’s Top Lawyer designation for product liability defense. Stanczyk’s peers have also nominated him as a  Best Lawyer in America® for mass tort litigation and class action defense and as a Michigan Super Lawyer for his product liability expertise.

—————

Honigman

Honigman announced that Kimberly (Kim) Dudek will succeed Donald (Don) Kunz as chair of the Corporate Department, stepping up from her prior role as vice chair. Kunz, who served as chair for 20 years, will continue as a partner in the Corporate Department, advising clients on corporate finance and governance matters while serving on the firm’s Attorney Compensation Committee and as chair of the Operating Committee.

“Kim couldn’t be more deserving of this role,” said Kunz. “In her successful tenure at Honigman, she’s emerged as a strong leader and earned the trust of her peers and clients—both as a result of her impressive legal acumen and her longstanding engagement in the growth of the Corporate Department.”

Dudek began at Honigman as a summer associate in 2008 and quickly took on a range of complex work. Throughout the years, she has led clients in corporate and financing transactions, including mergers, acquisitions and divestitures. Her primary focus is on representing private equity sponsors and private borrowers in connection with acquisition financings, working capital facilities, senior and subordinated financing transactions and recapitalizations. She also regularly counsels privately held companies and their owners and executives, providing a broad range of corporate legal advice across a wide variety of business sectors, including manufacturing, automotive, property management and residential services.

Over the years, Kunz served as a trusted mentor to Dudek, preparing her to continue his legacy of renowned client service in the Corporate Department. Dudek has made significant contributions to the firm, serving as vice chair of the Corporate Department and as advisor to the Compensation Committee. She also served as a member of the firm’s Board of Directors, has participated in firm strategic initiatives and served on other firm committees.

“Over the years, I’ve grown my career at Honigman and found a true home among my colleagues, who have empowered me to pursue my unique career path and encouraged me to explore my interest in the innerworkings of the firm,” Dudek said. “I’m grateful to Don, my peers, and valued clients of many years for the opportunity to help write the next chapter of Honigman’s Corporate Department.”

In addition, Honigman recently announced that it is expanding its Real Estate Department with the addition of partner Jackie Cook to the firm’s Real Estate Services Practice Group in the Bloomfield Hills office. Cook joins from Novara, Tesija, Catenacci, McDonald, & Baas where she led the tax division.

Cook has more than 20 years of experience litigating property tax and state and local tax (SALT) cases. She represents an array of publicly traded and privately held companies in complex property tax issues and appeals, with clients including Fortune 500 manufacturers, movie theaters, medical facilities, nonprofit organizations, small businesses, labor unions and employee benefit funds, along with families and individuals. With a focus on valuation issues, exemption claims, and classification disputes, she helps her clients navigate the intricacies of the tax landscape, from planning to audits to litigation and appeals.

Cook appeals classification decisions and exemption denials before the State Tax Commission, Michigan Tax Tribunal, and circuit courts. Her practice includes advocating for Fortune 500 companies in state income tax disputes in the Michigan Court of Claims, and she also represents taxpayers in significant personal property tax disputes carried out via audit, informal conference, and litigation, including before the Michigan Supreme Court. As a tax authority, she has written amicus briefs in matters pending before the Michigan Supreme Court and Michigan Court of Appeals, including in Comerica, Inc. v. Department of Treasury, Tomra of North America v. Department of Treasury, and Thomson Reuters Inc. v. Department of Treasury.

Cook earned a law degree from Cooley Law School in 2005 and a B.S. from Hillsdale College in 1999. Prior to joining Novara, Cook previously held roles at national and international law firms where she managed complex property and state tax matters.

—————

Kitch

At the Annual Meeting of the International Municipal Attorneys Association in Orlando on September 27, Mike Watza delivered a presentation to a national audience, where he addressed the significant issue of declining municipal cable and video service revenues, emphasizing the impact of subscriber cord-cutting and the growing preference for streaming video services.

Additionally, Watza provided a comprehensive update on the legislative contest and impending litigation between Michigan Communities and Netflix and Direct TV. This high-stakes dispute involves $3 billion in annual franchise fees nationally, with $150 million at risk in Michigan alone.

Watza leads Kitch’s Government practice, which focuses on telecommunications, electric service, and pipelines.

—————

Clark Hill

Diversity Lab recently announced that Clark Hill has achieved 2023-24 Mansfield Certification Plus recognition for expanding pipelines to firm leadership positions and providing transparency to firm attorneys on advancement processes.

Clark Hill is designated as a Mansfield Certification “Trendsetter” by having earned the certification since 2021 and committing to its goals for at least the next 2-4 years. This is the second year Clark Hill has also earned the “Plus” recognition.

“This is a great accomplishment for the firm to achieve Mansfield Certification for the third time and to achieve the Plus designation back-to-back,” said Clark Hill CEO John Hensien. “It’s a great recognition of our increasingly diverse leadership and Member roster, and we’re committed to building on the initiatives that were instrumental in this success.”

“We’re thrilled with the results we’ve achieved in fostering an inclusive and equitable culture and that these efforts align with the goals of the Mansfield program,” said Linda Watson, member and chair of Clark Hill’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Program. “We continue to work across the firm using programs, training, cultural celebrations, policy updates, and surveys, among other things, to promote inclusion, equity, and diversity at all levels.”

—————

McDonald Hopkins

McDonald Hopkins is proud to announce the election of two local attorneys to the firm’s membership as of October 1. The new members, Vanessa Bailey and  Sean Bowen, bring expertise across two key practice areas: Mergers and Acquisitions, and Data Privacy and Cybersecurity.

Bailey is in the Business Department at McDonald Hopkins and part of the firm’s Mergers and Acquisitions team. Her practice and experience include serving a variety of clients across numerous industries and providing proactive support for complex, commercial transactions such as
sales, acquisitions (target and add-ons), divestitures, mergers, investments, and fundraises.

Bailey also acts as outside general counsel to a number of clients and provides day-to-day support on their corporate and contract needs, including entity formation; corporate governance; vendor, supplier, and customer agreements; employment and equity incentive agreements; and license agreements.

Bowen is in the Litigation Department at McDonald Hopkins and a member of the firm’s national Data Privacy and Cybersecurity team. He is accredited by the International Association of Privacy Professionals as a Certified Information Privacy Professional for the United States, the gold standard certification for information privacy professionals. Bowen’s practice focuses on advising clients on best practices to prevent and respond to data privacy and cybersecurity matters such as ransomware attacks and email compromises.

Bowen is also a U.S. Army ceteran, having served for over six years, attaining the rank of captain.

—————

Varnum

Varnum partner Kathleen Cieslik has been elected to serve a three-year term as a council member of the Probate and Estate Planning Section of the State Bar of Michigan, beginning in September 2024. The council oversees Michigan’s probate and estate planning attorneys, focusing on education, law development, and Michigan appellate court decisions.

Cieslik has been an active member of the Probate and Estate Planning Section, currently chairing the Electronic Wills Committee and contributing to legislation for Michigan’s Uniform Power of Attorney Act. Her committee work also includes involvement with Citizens Outreach; Guardian, Conservatorship & End of Life; Nonbanking Entity Trust Powers; the Uniform Fiduciary Income and Principal Act; and the Uniform Community Property Disposition at Death Act.

In her trusts and estates practice at Varnum, Cieslik assists individuals and multi-generational families with customized estate planning and provides counsel to fiduciaries on managing trusts and estates. A litigator, she frequently handles probate matters, both routine and contested, throughout Southeast Michigan.

Cieslik’s other affiliations include the Board of Directors for the Planned Giving Roundtable of Southeast Michigan, the Oakland County Bar Association, and the Financial and Estate Planning Council of Metro Detroit. She is also a member of the Detroit Regional Chamber’s 45th Leadership Detroit Cohort.

—————

Bodman PLC

Bodman PLC is pleased to announce that for the second year in a row it has been awarded Mansfield Certification Plus status, the highest level of designation in the Mansfield program.

“We are thrilled to be awarded Certification Plus status for another year,” said Bodman Chair Carrie Leahy. “Inclusivity is a pillar of Bodman’s culture and we are continually striving to create a space that is welcoming and supportive of all, both internally and externally when serving our clients.”

—————

Miller Canfield

Miller Canfield is proud to announce that it has earned Mansfield Plus Certification for 2023-2024, marking the seventh consecutive year the law firm has achieved this recognition. Miller Canfield was the first Michigan-based firm to hold this distinction and is one of just a select few firms nationwide to meet the rigorous criteria required to achieve Mansfield Plus Certification every year since the program’s inception.

“This recognition reflects our unwavering commitment to fostering a more inclusive and equitable legal profession. Our success is built on ensuring diverse voices are heard and respected, and that underrepresented lawyers have an equal opportunity to be promoted to leadership positions within the firm,” said Miller Canfield CEO Michael Palizzi.

During the 2023-2024 certification period, women and members of historically underrepresented groups at Miller Canfield accounted for:

• 100% of attorneys promoted to equity principalship

• 38% of the firm’s nomination committee

• 66% of the firm’s C-suite executive leadership

• 50% of the firm’s compensation committee

• 41% of resident directors in the firm’s U.S. offices

• 52% of the firm’s associates

• 64% of the firm’s U.S.-based associates are women or BIPOC

• 83% of the firm’s 2024 summer associate class are women or BIPOC

Miller Canfield’s participation in the Mansfield Rule has resulted in progress toward promoting diversity in leadership roles. The firm’s initiatives also include participation in a summer associate program for BIPOC law students, expanded parental leave policies, a comprehensive Diversity Scorecard to track the demographics of its workforce and work assignments, and a robust mentorship and sponsorship program to ensure continued support for underrepresented attorneys.

—————

Fishman Stewart PLLC

Fishman Stewart PLLC is pleased to announce the addition of two experienced attorneys in September, James W. Taylor III and John Bretscher. Their hiring follows the recent addition of Partner Cecily O’Regan, a Silicon Valley IP veteran, and attorneys Jeong Hee Seo, Kimberly McLean, and Tracy Zawaski. Three of the new team members are former patent examiners and five of the new team members are registered patent attorneys, with the sixth offering trademark and copyright experience.

Bretscher is a registered patent attorney with a special interest in artificial intelligence and electrical and computer arts. His patent practice encompasses multiple hardware and software categories including machine learning, embedded control systems, network server control, computer architecture, communications standards, and telecommunications software, hardware and imaging. With an engineering background, he is an inventor on 15 patents related to computer architecture, communications and imaging.

Bretscher received his law degree from Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Physics from the University of Chicago, a Master of Science in Computer Science, AI, and Data Science from DePaul University, and an Associate in Science from William Rainey Harper Community College.

Taylor focuses his practice on patents and trade secrets, as well as litigation and dispute resolution. He has experience working in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as an examiner and worked as a patent agent for a decade before receiving his law degree and transitioning to being a registered patent attorney. His combination of technical skills encompasses chemical and computer science/electrical arts and AI.

Taylor earned a law degree from Wayne State University Law School; Master of Science in Chemistry from The University of Sydney (Australia); a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from Sewanee: The University of the South, Sewanee, Tenn.; and a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from Eastern Michigan University. He is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Electrical and Computer Engineering at Eastern Michigan University and a Master of Science in Computer Science at Johns Hopkins University.

O’Regan is a veteran Silicon Valley IP practitioner with a passion for helping entrepreneurs identify their sustainable, competitive advantage and create value in their business. Her areas of focus include medical devices, biometrics, software, and clean technologies. She is a named inventor on eight issued patents and author on 12 patent publications in the medical device and software fields.

Seo brings experience as a technical product support engineer as well as in patent prosecution, both as a patent practitioner and examiner. He also has patent experience working closely with inventors from a major Korean appliance and consumer electronics corporation while working at a Korean patent law firm in Seoul, enabling him to serve as a bridge for U.S. clients seeking IP protection in Korea and Korean clients seeking IP protection in the U.S.

McLean, a former primary patent examiner, has knowledge of the inside workings of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and understands how to achieve success with the PTO. Her practice focuses on patent prosecution and counseling in the electrical arts, including technology areas of software, cloud computing, blockchain, multimedia systems and applications, and autonomous vehicles.

Zawaski’s practice focuses primarily on trademarks, copyrights and computer law. For nearly 25 years, she has worked extensively on domestic and international trademark prosecution and contentious matters, trademark opinions, copyrights and counseling on trade secrets and
trademarks. She also offers expertise in trademark enforcement and litigation, license agreements, and brand enforcement, among other trademark and IP law practices.

—————

Dykema

Dykema recently announced that the firm has achieved Mansfield 7.0 certification as well as Mansfield Certification Plus status after completing the 12-month certification process in collaboration with Diversity Lab. This marks the third consecutive year that Dykema has achieved Certification Plus status—the highest standing possible—in as many times participating in the certification process.

Since joining the Mansfield cohort of firms in 2021, Dykema has worked to increase the transparency and accessibility of our advancement procedure and to open the door wider to ensure that all talent at the firm has a transparent, fair, and equal opportunity to be considered for leadership roles and activities.

Announced in August, Dykema will continue to embrace equity in leadership opportunities by renewing its participation in the Mansfield Rule certification process, joining more than 360 large and midsize firms from the U.S., UK, and Canada seeking Mansfield 8.0 certification, a process that runs from July 2024 to June 2025.

—————

Taft

Taft partner Justin Hanna received the 2024 Inaugural Young ACG Beacon Award for his involvement with the ACG Detroit Chapter. The award honors young professionals in each chapter of the Association for Corporate Growth (ACG) in the Great Lakes region who have made an extraordinary positive impact on their community. Hanna was recognized as an emerging leader who excels in his professional capacity and also contributes to the growth and enhancement of the ACG community.

Hanna is a partner in Taft’s Detroit office in the Mergers and Acquisitions, Private Equity and Venture Capital, and Emerging Companies practice groups. Hanna’s experience centers on business and real estate law, with a strong emphasis on middle-market M&A. He has dedicated his practice to empowering entrepreneurs, investors, and businesses of all sizes to grow through effective strategic planning and analysis, regardless of the size, complexity, or scale of representation.

Hanna serves on the Program Committee for the ACG Detroit Chapter.

—————

Dickinson Wright

Dickinson Wright is pleased to announce that the firm’s litigation practice, along with three attorneys, is recognized in the Benchmark Litigation United States 2025 Edition.

Benchmark Litigation recognized the following Dickinson Wright practices and attorneys:

• Michigan – Highly Recommended for Dispute Resolution and Labor & Employment

—Michigan
Phillip DeRosier – United States (National) and Local Litigation Star
Brandon Hubbard – United States (National) and Local Litigation Star
Scott Petz – Future Star

—————

Foley, Baron, Metzger, & Juip PLLC

Foley, Baron, Metzger, & Juip PLLC is pleased to announce that Enrico Tucciarone has been named a “Go To Lawyer” for negligence law by Michigan Lawyers Weekly.

As a member with the firm, Tucciarone’s defense experience encompasses a range of negligence law areas, including first- and third-party automobile negligence, motorcycle injuries, premises liability, and worker’s compensation.  

In addition, for more than 23 years he has defended healthcare institutions and professionals in medical malpractice litigation and high-exposure, high-publicity mass tort claims.

“Personally, nuclear power makes me a bit nervous,” Ken Sasaki, a construction ministry official in Japan, told the Los Angeles Times at the height of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe. “But as a nation, I still think we need it.”

“Personally, nuclear power makes me a bit nervous,” Ken Sasaki, a construction ministry official in Japan, told the Los Angeles Times at the height of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe. “But as a nation, I still think we need it.”

Sasaki’s patriotic instinct turned out to have a longer half-life than his personal misgivings. Although the Fukushima plant was hit by a tsunami and underwent partial meltdowns, the emergency caused no cases of radiation sickness, let alone deaths.

“There were no acute radiation injuries or deaths among the workers or the public due to exposure to radiation resulting from the [nuclear plant] incident,” the World Health Organization reported five years after the disaster. The most intense exposures recorded as a result of the Fukushima incident were equivalent to radiation doses experienced in many medical treatments.

At that time, experts were warning of a permanent Chernobyl-style zone of alienation in the Fukushima Prefecture, while Americans on the West Coast prepared for heavy radiation exposure. What explains the disparity between the dire warnings and the thankfully mild result?
It’s a mindset that could be called “radiophobia,” a combination of legitimate concerns about radiation risks with a fundamental misunderstanding of how radiation works.

“[T]he average person in the U.S. receives an effective dose of about 3 mSv per year from natural radiation,” according to RadiologyInfo.org, a website published by the American College of Radiology. (A mSv or millisievert is one-thousandth of a sievert. A sievert measures the effective dose of ionizing radiation.) In that context, Fukushima exposure levels, while serious, were not cataclysmic.

“[T]he average lifetime effective doses for adults in the Fukushima prefecture were estimated to be around 10 mSv or less,” reported the World Health Organization.

“[T]he average workers’ effective dose over the first 19 months after the accident was about 12 mSv,” according to Tokyo Electric Power Company reporting.

RadiologyInfo.org reports that a single computed tomography or CT scan of the abdomen and pelvic region, repeated with and without contrast material, has an approximate effective radiation dose of 15.4 mSv.

Despite the low-level doses of ionizing radiation received by people in the Fukushima area, governments around the world overreacted, letting radiophobia run far ahead of the facts.

In Italy, 94% of voters approved a referendum opposing plans to restart the country’s nuclear program. Although nuclear power meets 30-40% of their nation’s electricity demand, Swiss voters rejected any plans for new nuclear plants and targeted all existing plants for closure by 2034.

No policy overreaction to Fuku­shima tops the German response, however. Germany has long had a loud anti-nuclear movement, and activists didn’t let the crisis go to waste. After more than 200,000 German citizens participated in anti-nuclear protests in 2011, Germany ignored its Reactor Safety Commission’s report that all German reactors were safe and chose to close all of its nuclear capacity. At that time, nuclear made up about a quarter of the nation’s electricity supply. As a result of this decision, nuclear now supplies 0%.

This knee-jerk move started a chain reaction that still haunts the Germans today. After rapidly shuttering its nuclear generation, Germany still needed to meet electricity demand. The country reopened fossil fuel plants (mostly lignite — lower-rank coal) to replace the base­load role that nuclear once filled. Committed to their carbon dioxide reduction goals, the Germans also embarked on the Ener­gie­wende program, a strident push toward a grid powered primarily by wind and solar power and devoid of nuclear and fossil-fueled electricity.

But Energiewende has been a colossal failure, bringing energy insecurity and making electricity more expensive than that found in nuclear-powered neighbor France. Germany’s abandonment of nuclear power led it to rely even more heavily on coal and natural gas. Because the environmentalists holding power oppose domestic natural gas production, those energy sources had to be imported from Russia.

With the Russia-Ukraine War, Germany has had to rely even more heavily on low-rank lignite coal to ensure its citizens do not freeze to death. All because environmentalists overreacted to the Fukushima Daiichi plant’s zero deaths.

Likely, the hysterics from the media and lawmakers over the Fukushima incident acted as the turning point toward a dangerous and foolish energy policy that holds up wind and solar as the only legitimate electricity generation options.

The stalling of nuclear power in the United States occurred due to a different sort of radiophobia. The Fukushima incident was used to frighten people about nuclear energy.

Lost in the panic was that Fukushima was the site of an unprecedented and largely unpredictable disaster, yet the non-lethal result amounts to a powerful argument not against nuclear power but for it.

The Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami was the country’s largest magnitude earthquake ever recorded, and it killed more than 18,000 people. The subsequent tsunami flooded the plant’s backup generators (the company has been heavily criticized for not locating the generators on higher floors or in a protected location) and caused a partial reactor meltdown — generally recognized as the worst type of nuclear accident. Yet amid a profound national tragedy, radiation did not even make anybody sick.

Looking back at the Fukushima story indicates there was far less harm caused during the accident than the public was led to believe. The harm caused by the global reaction, however, was widespread and is still holding us back.

—————

Joshua Antonini is the energy and environmental policy research analyst at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Jason Hayes is the director of energy and environmental policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Few people expected the campaign to elect the first woman president to spark a referendum on masculinity, but what it means to be a man has become “arguably the most dominant theme of this year’s elections,” according to MSNBC’s Ja’han Jones.

(THE CONVERSATION) — Few people expected the campaign to elect the first woman president to spark a referendum on masculinity, but what it means to be a man has become “arguably the most dominant theme of this year’s elections,” according to MSNBC’s Ja’han Jones.

The debate between vice presidential nominees Democrat Tim Walz and Republican JD Vance on Oct. 1, 2024, showcased two candidates who not only had contrasting debate styles but also competing views of women’s and men’s autonomy.

As a political communication scholar, I have written about how gender shaped the dynamics of presidential and vice-presidential debates featuring opponents of different genders. The 2024 Walz-Vance debate illustrated how gender can become a focal point in a debate between two men.

Trust was an important theme throughout the debate, one that – perhaps surprisingly – revealed a key distinction between Walz, Vance and their respective political parties.

During an extended discussion about abortion rights, Vance reinforced his running mate Donald Trump’s assertion that women’s reproductive health care decisions should be made by state legislatures. Vance then introduced a new argument, suggesting that what the GOP should focus on is earning women’s trust by proving that the party can somehow make it more palatable for women to … not have an abortion.

Later in the debate, Vance stated that he supports “a family care model that makes choice possible,” but the range of choices referred to child care options, not choices about whether to have children.

Walz, conversely, urged that women should be free and trusted to make their own reproductive and child care decisions.

Throughout the debate, Vance subtly suggested that authority and autonomy are the purview of men, reinforcing how patriarchy is shaping the Republican strategy.

—————

Masculinity on the campaign trail

Both the Republican and Democratic parties have featured masculinity prominently in their campaigns for the White House.

Although Vance and Walz have each presented themselves as typical “Midwestern guys,” they differ on what that means.

Walz has embraced the moniker of “America’s dad” in ways that are both recognizable and revolutionary.

Esquire reported that he inspired “social media posts by the thousands” that “imagined Walz doing nice, midwestern-dad-like things.”

Using the “BigDadEnergy” hashtag, Walz supporters imagined, “Tim Walz will take your little league team to Dairy Queen even after you lose a game, because doggonit, you played your best” and “Tim Walz brushed the snow off of your car too, since you were parked next to him and he already had the darn brush out.”

But he also expanded that stereotype by ceding his status as patriarch to become Kamala Harris’s dutiful running mate and proving that pheasant-hunting football coaches can also advocate for gay and trans kids.

Vance featured his dad credentials in his speech at the 2024 Republican National Convention, but his status as a prominent member of the “manosphere” – an unofficial network of reactionary men’s groups promoting the supremacy of patriarchy – has given his masculine persona a hard and sometimes extreme edge.

Independent political groups have also made masculinity one of the presidential campaign’s central concerns. The Lincoln Project – an organization comprised of current and former Republicans opposed to Donald Trump – recently released a campaign ad aimed at moderate swing voters that featured the iconography of the American heartland made famous by President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” re-election campaign ad.

The ad is voiced by actor Sam Elliott, a frequent silver-screen cowboy with a deep bass drawl, who asks voters, “So, what the hell are you waiting for? Because if it’s the woman thing, it’s time to get over that. … It’s time to be a man and vote for a woman.”

The group “White Dudes for Harris” took a different approach to the same pitch, putting out an ad with a brash male narrator who observes that men are “pretty sick of hearing how much we suck,” but contends that “Trump and all his MAGA buddies are out there making it worse, shouting nonsense in their stupid red hats and acting like they speak for us when they don’t.”

The narrator then says that Harris and Walz “are actually talking to guys like us” and offering “real solutions that protect our freedoms and help us take care of the people who matter.” The ad concludes: At the “end of the day, you’re your own man. It’s your call. But if anyone gives you crap about it, tell them it’s none of their damn business,” echoing one of Walz’s most popular applause lines.

The debate put Walz’s and Vance’s competing views of masculinity in direct competition as they made their pitches to swing voters.

—————

Deference and doubling down during the debate

Before the debate, Washington Post politics reporter Ashley Parker wondered whether Walz’s “flannel-wearing, gutter-clearing, football-coaching Everyman shtick” might play better in front of a “friendly rally crowd” than it would “while facing an attack dog opponent.”

Vance, conversely, has embraced the vice-presidential nominee’s traditional role of “attack dog.” He campaigns by “borrowing his boss’s playbook of openly sparring with the media and rarely, if ever, apologizing for what he says,” as Vivian Salama of The Wall Street Journal reports.
But Vance took a different tack during the debate, making confident but cordial assertions while magnanimously agreeing that he and Walz shared good intentions for the American people.
He was less magnanimous when speaking to or about women.
Twenty-eight minutes into the debate, Vance’s mic was turned off after he mansplained immigration law to moderator Margaret Brennan.
Brennan, importantly, was correcting Vance’s claim that illegal immigration was harming the citizens of Springfield, Ohio, noting that the influx of Haitian migrants to Springfield was a product of legal immigration.
After Vance continued to speak beyond his allotted time, producers turned off his mic. Tellingly, Vance violated the rules of the debate when a woman moderator corrected him.
Vance also indicated, repeatedly, that Walz could be trusted but Kamala Harris could not.
It is, of course, not unusual for a vice-presidential candidate to attack the opposing ticket. Traditionally, that’s a vice-presidential candidate’s first priority in the VP debate.
But Vance took particular care to defer to his white, male counterpart and insist that the Black woman leading the Democratic ticket was the real problem.
For example, when responding to a question about housing prices, Walz argued that immigrants should not be blamed for the rising costs of housing, responding to a claim that Vance made about housing in Springfield, Ohio.
Rather than objecting to Walz’s fact check – as he had Brennan’s earlier in the debate – Vance said, “Tim just said something that I agree with. We don’t want to blame immigrants for higher housing prices, but we do want to blame Kamala Harris for letting in millions of illegal aliens into this country, which does drive up costs, Tim.”
Vance was careful to defer to his white male opponent while doubling down on criticism of immigrants and the Black woman running for president.
It’s a subtle strategy, but one that could be potentially effective with swing voters who have responded positively to Walz’s “Big Dad Energy” but who, consciously or unconsciously, are inclined to be skeptical about voting for a Black woman candidate.