Columns

Plunkett Cooney recently expanded its Transportation Law Practice Group with the addition of attorney Cody R. Ellwanger.

Plunkett Cooney recently expanded its Transportation Law Practice Group with the addition of attorney Cody R. Ellwanger.

A member of the firm’s Bloomfield Hills office, Ellwanger focuses his practice primarily on the defense of claims involving bodily injury and Michigan No-Fault personal injury protection.

Ellwanger represents national insurers, their agents and policyholders in first- and third-party motor vehicle liability matters, as well as uninsured and underinsured motorist, breach of contract and intentional torts claims. He has defended his clients in cases involving fraud by policyholders, failure to provide reasonable proof of loss and other violations of insurance contracts. Ellwanger also has experience resolving premises liability, medical malpractice, criminal enterprises, and negligence law claims.

In addition to his transportation law practice, Ellwanger serves as an attorney magistrate in the Oakland County 52-1 District Court in Novi where he presides over small claims trials, landlord-tenant proceedings, informal hearings for traffic infractions, and criminal arraignments for defendants charged with misdemeanors and/or felonies in Oakland County.

Ellwanger is a 2021 graduate from Cooley Law School. He received his undergraduate degree from Northwood University in 2016.

•            •            •

Tim Sulolli, a partner at Goodman Acker, has been selected as a 2025 Leader in the Law by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. The awards ceremony was held Friday, November 14, at The Mint at Michigan First Conference Center.

“Being recognized as a Leader in the Law is a tremendous honor,” said Sulolli. “This distinction reflects not only my work in the courtroom but also the mentorship, collaboration and trust of colleagues and clients who have supported me throughout my career. I am deeply committed to advocating for justice and making a difference for those who have been injured due to negligence.”

A personal injury attorney, Sulolli has more than two decades of experience handling medical malpractice, motor vehicle accidents, and premises liability cases. He has earned repeated recognition as a Michigan Super Lawyer (2016–2024). 
Throughout his career, he has secured multi-million-dollar verdicts and settlements on behalf of his clients.

Sulolli earned his B.B.A. from the University of Michigan-Dearborn and his law degree from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. He began his career under the mentorship of attorney Geoffrey Fieger before joining Goodman Acker in 2003, where he serves as an equity partner.

In addition to his legal practice, Sulolli  is a former executive board member of the Michigan Association for Justice and actively participates in the Albanian American Bar Association. He mentors young attorneys at Goodman Acker and is heavily engaged in Detroit’s Albanian community.

•            •            •

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently announced the reappointment of attorney Steve Birenbaum to the State 9-1-1 Committee.  He will serve a term that expires December 31, 2027. 

Berenbaum is the director of regulatory relations for AT&T. He earned a bachelor of science, a master of business administration, and a law degree from Wayne State University Law School. 

The 9-1-1 Committee and its 21 member organizations work to promote the successful development, implementation, and operation of 9-1-1 systems around the state.

•            •            •

Miller Canfield is pleased to welcome attorney Rebecca Noeske enhancing the firm’s immigration team which is recognized for guiding employers, universities, health systems, and individuals through today’s rapidly evolving immigration landscape.

Noeske brings experience counseling clients through employment-based and family-based immigration processes, including high-skilled petitions in the O-1 and EB categories. She joins the firm from Ellis Porter PLC in Troy where she developed a practice representing companies and professionals across multiple industries.

Noeske earned her law degree from Georgetown University Law Center and her undergraduate degree in economics from the University of Michigan. Her background includes work with leading immigration law firms, an internship with former Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Bridget McCormack, and public service experience in Washington, D.C.

Noeske will be based in the firm’s Detroit office.

•            •            •

Williams, Williams, Rattner, & Plunkett PC is pleased to announce that six firm attorneys have been named to DBusiness magazine’s Top Lawyers list for 2026. 

The WWRP attorneys included in this year’s DBusiness Top Lawyers list are:

Alexander Ayar, Litigation/Commercial

Robert Bick, Mergers & Acquisitions Law

Robert B. Labe, Trusts and Estates

Michael Petrus, Litigation/Commercial

Richard D. Rattner, Land Use & Zoning

C. Kim Shierk, Real Estate Law

The Top Lawyers recognition follows other legal accolades for these and other firm attorneys in recent months, including 2025 Super Lawyers and 2026 Best Lawyers.  Additionally, in another firm distinction from DBusiness, WWRP President and Managing Partner John W. Crowe was again included in the magazine’s annual Detroit 500.

•            •            •

Fishman Stewart PLLC is pleased to announce that firm partner and co-founder Michael Stewart is among the honorees recently recognized by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) with the 2025 Pro Bono Award at the 
AIPLA annual conference in Washington D.C.

The recognition is sponsored by the AIPLA Pro Bono Committee and is given to select AIPLA members who have contributed at least 50 hours to the USPTO Pro Bono Program. While Stewart was highlighted as an AIPLA member, he acknowledges the tremendous efforts of Fishman Stewart colleagues and peer firms who provide pro bono services through a joint program with the USPTO’s Detroit office and the State Bar of Michigan’s Patent Pro Bono Project. The project provides free legal assistance with the patent application process to low-income, independent inventors and small businesses.

“I view this award as a celebration of the collective efforts of attorneys at Fishman Stewart and other Michigan-based IP law firms who are dedicated to the Michigan Pro Bono Project. Every hour adds up in assisting the creative efforts of inventors who might not otherwise have access to legal representation to file a patent that protects their intellectual property,” Stewart said. “It must also be noted that the State Bar of Michigan does an outstanding job managing the program. I believe it is the gold standard of pro bono patent programs nationwide.”

Stewart was instrumental in promoting the initial World IP Day programs throughout the United States, working in tandem with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the USPTO. World IP Day has been celebrated every year on April 26 since 2016. Stewart also played a key role in the establishment of the Public Educucation Committee within the AIPLA. More recently, he has been involved with the Engineering Society of Detroit’s annual writing contest for aspiring engineers, which Fishman Stewart sponsors.

•            •            •

Foley & Lardner LLP is pleased to announce that Daljit Doogal has been re-elected to serve as chairman and CEO for a second four-year term beginning May 1, 2026, upon expiration of his current term and effective through April 30, 2030.

“Foley’s culture revolves around people – our own personnel, our clients, and our communities. It’s a privilege to lead this great firm and see it excel as we continue to drive our strategic plan forward,” said Doogal. “Credit for Foley’s 
accomplishments is all owed to our talented attorneys and business professionals who routinely deliver innovative and impactful solutions to our clients. We are operating from a position of strength and aggressively growing our footprint, but 
our culture remains the cornerstone of everything we do.”

Since Doogal’s first term began, Foley has promoted 63 lawyers to partnership and welcomed nearly 530 attorneys – including 70 lateral partners and 278 new associates and law graduates – adding more scale and greater bench strength across Foley’s key sectors, including energy and infrastructure, health care and life sciences, innovative technology, and manufacturing.

“We’ve seen a significant surge in demand for our services in all of these sectors indicating a clear signal that our strategy is succeeding,” said Doogal. “By scaling our operations and deepening our bench, we are better equipped than ever to deliver holistic client service. We are deeply committed to continuing this growth to further strengthen our firm and the value we provide to our clients.

“This is a remarkable period for Foley. We are advancing our goals around our clients, our people, innovation, and investment in our sectors,” said Doogal. “As we develop the firm’s next strategic plan to be introduced next summer, these goals will not change. We will continue to focus on smart and strategic growth, deepening our culture of service excellence and cross-servicing clients, and accelerating our investment in AI and technology.”

•            •            •

Taft Detroit partner-in-charge Mark Cooper has been named to Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s 2025 Managing Partners Spotlight. 

Cooper is partner-in-charge of Taft Detroit, responsible for the strategic direction for the firm’s Southfield and Detroit offices. He counsels a diverse set of clients nationwide on a variety of matters, including risk management, commercial disputes, real estate litigation, business torts and construction and contract disputes, and all aspects of insurance, from both a legal and business perspective.

The 2026 election will take place in a political system that is divided, discordant, flagrantly gerrymandered, and marked by widening racial discrimination. Thank Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues on the Supreme Court. And the supermajority of highly activist justices seems poised, even eager, to make things appreciably worse.

By Michael Waldman

The 2026 election will take place in a political system that is divided, discordant, flagrantly gerrymandered, and marked by widening racial discrimination. Thank Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues on the Supreme Court. And the supermajority of highly activist justices seems poised, even eager, to make things appreciably worse.

In 2019, in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court refused to adopt any standard to police partisan gerrymandering, and it even prevented federal courts from hearing that claim. Fast-forward through a census, six years of line-drawing, and a flurry of lawsuits, and predictably, our democracy has become much less fair.

Redistricting is supposed to take place once a decade, after the census. In fact, that’s why the census is written into the Constitution. But earlier this year, Texas abruptly drew new congressional maps in a gambit to squeeze out five extra seats for Republicans. It was in the middle of the decade and at the behest of someone who doesn’t live there (President Trump) — and all at the expense of Black and Latino voters. Even though 95 percent of population growth in the state came from those communities, the map’s main feature was fewer districts where those voters can elect their preferred candidates.

Bad, right? A panel of three federal judges agreed, temporarily blocking the map from being used in the upcoming election until a full trial could be held. Texas first resisted allegations of a partisan gerrymander, then insisted it was actually acting at the behest of the Justice Department for racial reasons, then said it was, in fact, a partisan power grab. (“I don’t see race. Just Democrats.”) Talk about a Texas two-step! Amid these gyrations, the court found it illegal.

Enter the Supreme Court. Last week it blocked the lower court’s ruling, thus allowing the election to go forward with freshly gerrymandered maps. It’s yet another brazen use of the shadow docket — the Court’s supposed emergency docket (with limited briefing and no oral argument) — to hand Trump a win with only a few sentences of explanation.

Where does that leave things? The Texas seat grab set off a partisan arms race across the country. Furious Democrats acted. California voters overwhelmingly supported drawing new Democratic-leaning congressional districts there to counter the GOP gains in Texas. Republicans in Indiana and Florida are moving to redraw lines, while Democrats in Illinois, Maryland, and Virginia aim to do the same.

With all this headbutting, the gerrymander war of 2025 could turn out to be close to a wash in partisan terms. Moreover, voters may have their own ideas. If Democrats win big, as recent races have suggested is possible, the gerrymander might produce extra GOP losses. (The technical term for this, believe it or not, is a “dummymander.”)

All that sound and fury, in short, might signify . . . not exactly nothing, but not a decisive partisan gain.

That’s where the next big intervention by the Supreme Court would come in. And its impact could well be even more dramatic — and if possible, more harmful.

The Court seems poised to demolish the effectiveness of what’s left of the Voting Rights Act. Recently, in Louisiana v. Callais, it heard arguments about whether the law’s Section 2 remains constitutional. For decades, that provision effectively barred states, particularly in the South, from enacting maps that dilute or cancel out the voting power of racial minorities. As our friend-of-the-court brief pointed out, the provision has transformed both Congress and legislative bodies across the country. And the disparity in registration rates between white and Black voters dropped from nearly 30 percentage points in the early 1960s to 8 percentage points just a decade later. Now the justices seem ready to wreck Section 2 if not strike it down entirely.

This would not only mark a shameful retreat from federal action to protect racial equality and fair representation. It could have a dramatic and specific impact: A bad ruling, especially early, could be followed by another wave of redistricting in coming months, maybe even in time for the 2026 election.

As my colleague Kareem Crayton writes, “The argument invites a return to the era when race was a barrier to entry for political representation — the cruel and painful experience of political exclusion that made passage of the Voting Rights Act necessary in the first place.”

Nate Cohn of The New York Times has crunched the numbers and predicts that an extreme Supreme Court ruling could allow Republican states to eliminate between 6 and 12 districts currently held by Democrats. That would be a margin larger than the House majority either party has had in recent years.

When politicians pick voters — whether based on race or politics — instead of the other way around, our elections become less fair and less democratic. The country would slide toward even greater division and balkanization. Republican voters in Massachusetts (where there are no Republican members of Congress even though Trump won 37 percent of the vote) have no party representation in Congress, while Democrats in Texas (where Kamala Harris won 42 percent) would have only about 7 of the state’s 38 seats. John Adams famously said that the legislature must be an “exact portrait of the people at large.” The current portrait doesn’t bear much of a resemblance.

So what’s the answer?

There must, above all, be national standards that apply to red states and blue states alike. The Constitution gives Congress that power. It should enact national redistricting rules that would ban partisan gerrymandering, bar mid-decade redistricting, and ensure fair representation for voters across the country. In 2022, it almost did: The Freedom to Vote Act would have banned mid-decade redistricting and set other standards. And the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would have strengthened protections against racially discriminatory maps. Both came achingly close to enactment.

And then the ideologues on the Supreme Court should stop meddling in elections. Over the past 15 years, the Court demolished campaign finance rules in Citizens United, wrecked the Voting Rights Act starting in Shelby County, and gave ex-presidents vast and unprecedented immunity from prosecution for crimes committed in office — thus ensuring no legal accountability for candidate, now president, Trump.

In a season when it seems increasingly clear that the justices plan to hand President Trump even more power, inexcusable rulings and interventions in partisan politics will leave a very sour taste for many voters. The Supreme Court itself, increasingly, will become an issue in American politics. That’s as it should be.

————————

Michael Waldman is president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. A nonpartisan law and policy institute that focuses on improving systems of democracy and justice, the Brennan Center is a leading national voice on voting rights, money in politics, criminal justice reform, and constitutional law. Waldman, a constitutional lawyer and writer, has led the center since 2005

The 2026 election will take place in a political system that is divided, discordant, flagrantly gerrymandered, and marked by widening racial discrimination. Thank Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues on the Supreme Court. And the supermajority of highly activist justices seems poised, even eager, to make things appreciably worse.

By Michael Waldman

The 2026 election will take place in a political system that is divided, discordant, flagrantly gerrymandered, and marked by widening racial discrimination. Thank Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues on the Supreme Court. And the supermajority of highly activist justices seems poised, even eager, to make things appreciably worse.

In 2019, in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court refused to adopt any standard to police partisan gerrymandering, and it even prevented federal courts from hearing that claim. Fast-forward through a census, six years of line-drawing, and a flurry of lawsuits, and predictably, our democracy has become much less fair.

Redistricting is supposed to take place once a decade, after the census. In fact, that’s why the census is written into the Constitution. But earlier this year, Texas abruptly drew new congressional maps in a gambit to squeeze out five extra seats for Republicans. It was in the middle of the decade and at the behest of someone who doesn’t live there (President Trump) — and all at the expense of Black and Latino voters. Even though 95 percent of population growth in the state came from those communities, the map’s main feature was fewer districts where those voters can elect their preferred candidates.

Bad, right? A panel of three federal judges agreed, temporarily blocking the map from being used in the upcoming election until a full trial could be held. Texas first resisted allegations of a partisan gerrymander, then insisted it was actually acting at the behest of the Justice Department for racial reasons, then said it was, in fact, a partisan power grab. (“I don’t see race. Just Democrats.”) Talk about a Texas two-step! Amid these gyrations, the court found it illegal.

Enter the Supreme Court. Last week it blocked the lower court’s ruling, thus allowing the election to go forward with freshly gerrymandered maps. It’s yet another brazen use of the shadow docket — the Court’s supposed emergency docket (with limited briefing and no oral argument) — to hand Trump a win with only a few sentences of explanation.

Where does that leave things? The Texas seat grab set off a partisan arms race across the country. Furious Democrats acted. California voters overwhelmingly supported drawing new Democratic-leaning congressional districts there to counter the GOP gains in Texas. Republicans in Indiana and Florida are moving to redraw lines, while Democrats in Illinois, Maryland, and Virginia aim to do the same.

With all this headbutting, the gerrymander war of 2025 could turn out to be close to a wash in partisan terms. Moreover, voters may have their own ideas. If Democrats win big, as recent races have suggested is possible, the gerrymander might produce extra GOP losses. (The technical term for this, believe it or not, is a “dummymander.”)

All that sound and fury, in short, might signify . . . not exactly nothing, but not a decisive partisan gain.

That’s where the next big intervention by the Supreme Court would come in. And its impact could well be even more dramatic — and if possible, more harmful.

The Court seems poised to demolish the effectiveness of what’s left of the Voting Rights Act. Recently, in Louisiana v. Callais, it heard arguments about whether the law’s Section 2 remains constitutional. For decades, that provision effectively barred states, particularly in the South, from enacting maps that dilute or cancel out the voting power of racial minorities. As our friend-of-the-court brief pointed out, the provision has transformed both Congress and legislative bodies across the country. And the disparity in registration rates between white and Black voters dropped from nearly 30 percentage points in the early 1960s to 8 percentage points just a decade later. Now the justices seem ready to wreck Section 2 if not strike it down entirely.

This would not only mark a shameful retreat from federal action to protect racial equality and fair representation. It could have a dramatic and specific impact: A bad ruling, especially early, could be followed by another wave of redistricting in coming months, maybe even in time for the 2026 election.

As my colleague Kareem Crayton writes, “The argument invites a return to the era when race was a barrier to entry for political representation — the cruel and painful experience of political exclusion that made passage of the Voting Rights Act necessary in the first place.”

Nate Cohn of The New York Times has crunched the numbers and predicts that an extreme Supreme Court ruling could allow Republican states to eliminate between 6 and 12 districts currently held by Democrats. That would be a margin larger than the House majority either party has had in recent years.

When politicians pick voters — whether based on race or politics — instead of the other way around, our elections become less fair and less democratic. The country would slide toward even greater division and balkanization. Republican voters in Massachusetts (where there are no Republican members of Congress even though Trump won 37 percent of the vote) have no party representation in Congress, while Democrats in Texas (where Kamala Harris won 42 percent) would have only about 7 of the state’s 38 seats. John Adams famously said that the legislature must be an “exact portrait of the people at large.” The current portrait doesn’t bear much of a resemblance.

So what’s the answer?

There must, above all, be national standards that apply to red states and blue states alike. The Constitution gives Congress that power. It should enact national redistricting rules that would ban partisan gerrymandering, bar mid-decade redistricting, and ensure fair representation for voters across the country. In 2022, it almost did: The Freedom to Vote Act would have banned mid-decade redistricting and set other standards. And the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would have strengthened protections against racially discriminatory maps. Both came achingly close to enactment.

And then the ideologues on the Supreme Court should stop meddling in elections. Over the past 15 years, the Court demolished campaign finance rules in Citizens United, wrecked the Voting Rights Act starting in Shelby County, and gave ex-presidents vast and unprecedented immunity from prosecution for crimes committed in office — thus ensuring no legal accountability for candidate, now president, Trump.

In a season when it seems increasingly clear that the justices plan to hand President Trump even more power, inexcusable rulings and interventions in partisan politics will leave a very sour taste for many voters. The Supreme Court itself, increasingly, will become an issue in American politics. That’s as it should be.

————————

Michael Waldman is president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. A nonpartisan law and policy institute that focuses on improving systems of democracy and justice, the Brennan Center is a leading national voice on voting rights, money in politics, criminal justice reform, and constitutional law. Waldman, a constitutional lawyer and writer, has led the center since 2005

This is the second commentary in a series first describing the Founding Fathers’ perspectives on “thinking like a scientist” and second comparing those perspectives with present-day government actions and policy.

By Samuel Damren

This is the second commentary in a series first describing the Founding Fathers’ perspectives on “thinking like a scientist” and second comparing those perspectives with present-day government actions and policy.

The focus of the prior commentary was on Benjamin Franklin’s introduction to scientific thinking while he was an apprentice printer at his brother’s newspaper. The paper covered the Boston smallpox epidemic of 1721 and the controversy and startling success of experimental smallpox vaccinations. 

From that event Franklin learned the value of not fearing experimentation where potential benefits outweigh risks, of keeping an open mind during crisis, and to preferring facts over conventional dogma in decision-making.   

This commentary focuses on the scientific lessons Franklin learned through his experiments with the properties of electricity.

Chapter four, titled “The Bolt from the Blue” of Tom Shachtman’s 2014 book “Gentlemen Scientists and Revolutionaries,” outlines Franklin’s experiments. 

Franklin received little formal schooling and no training as a “scientist” as the term did not exist in the English language until 1833.  Nonetheless, at an early age, Franklin demonstrated a consuming desire to learn how things work and to improve his station through self-taught education.

That drive and his ingenuity served him well when he began his own printing business at age 17 in Philadelphia. The business succeeded, and as he prospered, Franklin dedicated more of his time to inventing.  

Lacking familiarity with the advanced mathematics that enabled Issac Newton to prove his grand exposition of the planetary and natural world, Franklin used experiments as his method of proof. Although not by name, Franklin practiced the “Scientific Method.” He carefully observed, saw patterns and possible explanations then devised experiments to test theories. He would refine and perfect experiments until identifying a solution that could be proven by successful repetition.  

Based on the forces of attraction and repulsion exhibited by magnetized lodestones, Newton posited that those two forces comprised the “basic components of electric force.” He was wrong. Nevertheless, for decades natural philosophers fruitlessly sought to prove Newton’s “two-fluid theory” of electrical force: attraction and repulsion, which they termed “vitreous” and “resinous.” 

Guided by the results of experiments, Franklin in 1747 proposed a “single-fluid-that-seeks-equilibrium theory” as an alternative. To fully express the theory, Franklin coined new but now familiar terms: “positive” and “negative” as well as “plus” and “minus.”  As Shachtman explained, these “pairs” described “not two kinds of electricity, but two phases of a single fluid.”  

As a result of the much later discovery of electrons, positively and negatively charged electrons would substitute for Franklin’s “single fluid” with “electric spark” as the means to restore “equilibrium.” Franklin’s theory was correct.

In arriving at the single fluid theory over a period of several years, Franklin enjoyed the support of many collaborators and correspondents. In pursuit of a common goal, these individuals provided forthright communications and shared valuable insights to refine Franklin’s experiments. The efforts of this “ad hoc” group led to his success in ultimately identifying how electricity worked.

The single fluid theory of electricity had practical and immediate benefits. Franklin’s invention of the “lightning rod” to prevent fires in homes, building, and churches was one of these. Franklin did not patent the invention. As he had done before with the “Franklin stove,” he sought no profit from these inventions believing they were for “the benefit of mankind.”

In addition to deserved celebrity for placing American science on the world stage, Franklin learned lessons that would also serve him in his future role as a Founding Father.  

Franklin learned that perfecting experiments to final fruition required time and perseverance in the face of short-term setbacks.  He learned that revealing intermediate steps and results to a community of like-minded collaborators fostered creative synergy.  He learned that honest shared insights in a community dedicated to serving the greater good need not be motivated by individual profit to achieve success.

The next commentary in this series will focus on the scientific thinking of other Founding Fathers as a prelude to turning attention to present-day government actions and attitudes directed at the scientific community.

————————

Samuel Damren is a retired Detroit lawyer and author of “What Justice Looks Like.”

If you are on overload already with political controversy you may want to skip this column.

By Berl Falbaum

If you are on overload already with political controversy you may want to skip this column.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ordered that all communications in his department be typed in Times New Roman not the present typeface, Calibri which he said was too woke. He also demanded it be in 15-point type — not 14 or 16.  

Trumpites gloated, charging that they now had evidence that I was biased because in my ongoing criticism of their hero, I apparently always used Calibri. (I had no idea).

To show that I am open to have dialogues with various political points of view, every paragraph in this column is written in a different typeface.  I want to cover all political bases.

As to the type size, I wanted to comply with the Rubio edict but my computer does not offer 15-point so this column is typed in 14-point and I ask you to imagine it’s 15. (To Trumpites: this was not a political decision.)

I didn’t even want to deal with it, knowing we are all overwhelmed by crisis after crisis. Enough is enough.  

Yet, when I read the papers, I went into deep depression to discover that this might just be the beginning of this political dilemma. I apparently did not understand its urgency or political significance.

A day after the change, The New York Times devoted four stories on the issue. While educating me on the relevance of the decision, it really put me in the dumps.

I considered that if The Times devoted so much attention to the matter, this change must have serious political ramifications.  That whetted our journalistic instincts and sent us to do some investigating. Boy, what we found.

First, the Ukraine. Its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has contacted Rubio, stating that his country’s computers don’t provide for a 15-point type; they (like mine) jump from 14 to 16 points.

Thus, in addition to Tomahawk missiles, he has asked for new computers so he can communicate with the State Department.

Next:While the order does not affect the Department of Justice, Attorney General Pan Bondi wants to stay on the good side of Rubio. Thus, she is having the Epstein Files — all the thousands of pages — retyped in 15-point Times New Roman.

President Trump has asked her to use black ink equivalent to 30 points to blot out his name, but the words “hoax” and “witch hunt” must be in capital letters and bold face.

She is also asking all those named in the files in what kind of type they would like their names to appear.

In Russia, President Putin was furious. He has to spend millions of rubles to reconstruct his entire satellite spy apparatus because it is programmed to decrypt 14-point Calibri. 

Back at home again, the Supreme Court is also taking a look at the issue. The Constitution was handwritten by Jacob Shallus, an engrosser or penman, and it appears the writing is equivalent to about 20 points in either Times New Roman or Calibri.  

We learned the Court’s six conservatives believe this makes the Constitution unconstitutional. They also feel the writing tilts toward Calibri. They are in the process of recruiting a penman who can copy the document by hand but the writing must not be larger than 15-point Times New Roman.

The National Archives has appointed a special committee to study the issue, and make recommendations on what to do with the millions and millions of records.

As I worked on this piece, I learned (seriously) that studies show Republicans like fonts with serifs while Democrats go sans-serifs. I will never again look at political lawn signs in the same way. Maybe that’s why Georgia Congresswoman 
Marjorie Taylor Greene is resigning. She wanted to keep Calibri but House Speaker Mike Johnson would not bring her proposed legislation to the floor.

I might go back an examine why Hillary lost; the political analysts and pollsters may have been totally wrong. Maybe it wasn’t because of Comey or the emails. Maybe it was the fault of not putting serifs —those little squiggles — at the end of letters.  Some polling in the seven swing states on serifs and non-serifs might have been helpful.

Just so you understand the seriousness of the issue, here is a capital T in 16-point Calibri. Here is the T in Times New Roman. Who knew?  How could we have missed this?  (Sorry, I could not show it to you in 15-point, Rubio’s preference.)
Holy, moley!  What has Rubio wrought!

————————

Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.

In my last column, I wrote that I would examine the unconscionable, one-sided coverage of Israel in its war with Hamas. While this is a complex subject and deserves much more space than a political column allows, I will deal with one issue—but I believe it is a major one.

By Berl Falbaum

In my last column, I wrote that I would examine the unconscionable, one-sided coverage of Israel in its war with Hamas. While this is a complex subject and deserves much more space than a political column allows, I will deal with one issue—but I believe it is a major one.

We’ll begin with a hypothetical:

A journalist goes into Gaza to research an in-depth piece on Hamas, covering its oppression of Gazans, corruption, infighting among its leaders and plans to seek the reactions from Gazans, including those critical of the terrorist organization.

What do you think would happen to the journalist and the Gazans who had the courage to go public with their opinions?

Exactly. And that is a part of the story which has never been told, leading to the distorted coverage of the Israel-Hamas war.

The media cannot even report that they cannot cover this part of the story for fear, literally, of their lives.

After the ceasefire, Hamas publicly executed more than 30 Gazans who they believed were critical of the organization or collaborated with Israel.

Does anyone believe that “Palestinian journalists” that major news organizations hire as stringers would file stories critical of Hamas?

That reality, of course, is not new. The same was true during the Yassar Arafat era when journalists, feeling threatened, failed to report critically of him and his terrorist organization. And the intimidation need not be overt; a word here-and-there is sufficient to “instruct” the press “to use good judgment.” Indeed, terrorists such as Arafat and Hamas members need not say anything at all.  

Here is what the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs said about Arafat’s control of the media:

“Most foreign correspondents, and particularly local Palestinian stringers who report from the West Bank and Gaza for Jerusalem-based foreign bureaus, operate under an unspoken [note “unspoken”] but firm set of rules. They avoid reporting stories involving wide-spread human rights abuses, high-level corruption, financial mismanagement, and violence between Palestinians groups that could be embarrassing to Arafat and senior Palestinians officials.”

Journalists understand the consequences they would face if they offend terrorists as do Gazans who, when they do speak up, ask reporters not to photograph them or use their names.

(There were many interviews with directors of hospitals in Gaza—both in person and on cell phones—who told reporters Hamas was nowhere to be seen. Did the reporters really believe they would acknowledge that terrorists were in the building or in tunnels below?)

For instance, I read about 10 media reports on the latest Gaza Health Ministry (read Hamas) report that the death toll of Palestinians has allegedly reached 70,000. None of the reports I read even questioned the number; nary a word that the data might be suspect. A terrorist organization that beheaded civilians, burned them alive, gang-raped women on October 7, certainly would not lie.

Moreover, most stories I read made no distinction between deaths of combatants and civilians, implying all were civilians. Some stories did not even attribute the number; just published it as fact.

Several think tanks and other apolitical organizations did studies on the death toll data and found the numbers “distorted” and “manipulated.” The media did not criticize these findings; they did not report them at all.

And, there was no recognition that in wars, civilians always pay a higher price than combatants. In World War II, while exact figures vary greatly, some 15-20 million combatants died compared to 30-45 million civilians.

Which brings us to Rami Aman, a Gaza peace activist who was imprisoned by Hamas for six months in 2020, yet refuses to remain silent. Here are some of his observations and comments from an interview in mid-September.

Aman said the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) as well as Amnesty International are frequently depicted by the media as neutral humanitarian organizations but actually work closely with Hamas. He charged that Hamas has control over UNRWA’s 13,000 employees in Gaza and it was an Amnesty International researcher who had Hamas arrest him. Here is more:

—“On April 8, 2020, Amnesty International researcher Hind Khoudary, who is now a popular Al Jazeera reporter in Gaza, publicly called on Hamas to arrest [me] for [my] peace initiatives. So, for me, how come Amnesty is calling for my arrest? How come a journalist asking [Hamas] security to arrest me?

— “UNRWA was one of these organizations that Hamas distributed their leaders inside, and distributed their employees. Because in UNRWA, it’s like a very good salary for them, and it’s not for all people in Gaza. If you are not Hamas, you will not work there.

—"Hamas dominates news coverage in Gaza. From 2011 until 2019, I was organizing…protests against Hamas. In January, I was with other friends calling the people to go to the streets to let Hamas solve the electricity crisis, to let Hamas find for us a job. 
They shot at us and no media talked about us. Because of what? Because Hamas controlled the media inside Gaza and outside Gaza.

—"You will not find Al Jazeera cover any demonstration in Gaza calling for peace or calling to end the war. But you will find Al Jazeera cameras all over the Israeli community, because they want the pressure that comes from there, from Israel, not from Gaza.

—"Aid stamped ‘not for sale’ by the United Nations is looted by Hamas and sold in markets. [He also blames UNRWA for this violation.] Can you imagine that one cigarette cost $50? One cigarette, $50. So, I think Hamas made a lot of money in the war.

—"Hamas orders come from Iran and Qatar…Hamas loves the wars. Hamas loves if there is no university. Hamas loves if there is no school. Hamas loves if there are no good lives for the people. Hamas loves if we have just tents in Gaza, just people standing in lines and waiting for food and flour. Hamas loves to control the poverty. Hamas loves if there is no kind of life.”

These comments received little, if any attention. The reason, as stated above, is pretty obvious.

————————

Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.