The Promise of the Blockchain – Silicon UK

As data security continues to occupy the time of CIOs and CTOs, adopting technology like the blockchain seems inevitable. The decentralized nature of the blockchain ledger is based upon, offers a new environment where data can be safe and secure.

However, the need for more openness, which forms the basis of the blockchain is proving a difficult sell, as businesses fear opening their secure networks could compromise their security. It seems the ideology that the blockchain is based on is not finding wholesale support across the business landscape yet.

Also, the developers of blockchain services come up against the current raft of legislation and regulation that governs how personal data can be stored and the right to be forgotten. As one of the central supports of the blockchain is once a transaction has been entered into the blockchain it cant be altered, there is instant friction with GDPR for instance. Accenture has developed a mutable blockchain where changes can be made, leaving what ts calls a scar to show where the data was altered, but this is just a short-term solution.

The blockchain has been on the distant horizon for CIOs for several years. A wait and see stance have been the mode most businesses have taken regarding the implementation of this technology. Gartner predicts the blockchain could generate $3 trillion in new business over the next decade.

Blockchain technologies offer a set of capabilities that provide new economic, business and societal paradigms, says David Furlonger, Distinguished Vice President Analyst, Gartner. Exploiting blockchain will demand that enterprises be willing to embrace decentralization and strategic tokenization in their business models and processes even if these strategies are not straightforward.

Use cases for the blockchain have been in development for some time. The issue is whether the business community will adopt the cultural shift needed to implement the blockchain widely as a whole. No one is disputing that the blockchain or more accurately the distributed ledger would be transformative. No business as yet has been willing to take the step themselves without the full support of their market sector.

Richard Gendal Brown, Chief Technology Officer at blockchain firm R3, told Silicon: A key challenge for senior technical leaders within firms is that its not enough to want to use blockchain, there has to be a compelling business case, and the most compelling business cases operate at the level of markets. So, the CTOs and CIOs who are having the most impact are those who are well networked both within their firms with the relevant lines of business but also well networked with their peers across firms.

In their report, Deloitte concludes: Where enterprise organizations seek ways to integrate blockchain into their existing business modelsor, more accurately, how to transform existing processes and systems to work with blockchainemerging disruptors built their businesses around blockchain from the start. This makes them potentially more fluid and agile than competitors and less constrained by similar challenges that inhibit adoption among their more established competition.

Speaking to Silicon, Dimitar Pavlov, Head of Development at Luckbox. Luckbox, an esports betting platform with its own native cryptocurrency, LuckCash said: If we leave speculative trading and actual payments using crypto aside, I cant name a business that is successfully using, say, smart contracts, or another blockchain tech at scale. Blockchain is great, and the applications are indeed limitless, and it has the power to transform the world that we live in. As a global development community of blockchain users, we all share the responsibility to advance the technology and make it truly accessible and usable for everyone.

The potential the blockchain has is plain to see. However, the collaboration will be necessary for this technology to enter the mainstream. Detailed use cases have helped so far in specific sectors such as finance. But for a broader adoption to take place, CTOs and CIOs will need further convincing they can make practical use of the blockchain in targeted or wider areas of their businesses.

The current link many CIOs make between the blockchain and cryptocurrencies is understandable. These new currencies have gained most of the news headlines over the last few years often for less than positive reasons. Looking beyond what can seem like a clandestine world of legally dubious transactions, is only one way the blockchain can be applied.

Businesses then must ask whether they need to implement a blockchain. Often there will be confusion between the digitization already taking place across their companies and, what additional advantages the blockchain could deliver. There is interest in this technology, as, in the first half of 2019, $822 million was raised from VCs for blockchain-related initiatives. How this translates into more wide-spread applicable technologies CTOs can use, remains unclear.

For CIOs seeing how blockchain could enhance processes across their business will also mean choosing the right implementation of the technology. Blockchain Research Institute report explained the current options:

Unlike the original Bitcoin blockchain, which was designed solely to enable the exchange of crypto tokens, these platforms are designed for general-purpose use. In many cases, they can be designed to cater specifically to the needs of businesses. Of these platforms, three are of particular interest to CIOs for their potential in the enterprise setting:

Says Nick Fulton, head of partnerships, Paybase: Although blockchain solutions are being applied to streamline back-office processes, they really come into their own when multiple parties are interacting in the same network or ecosystem. An example of this could be an entire supply chain (such as the beef industry) operating on a blockchain to improve the efficiency and transparency of their transactions.

This, however, requires collaboration between parties to overcome the initial chicken and egg problem that comes from building that network. Clear market leaders are more likely to take the lead in adoption in a B2B setting; however, they often have the greatest vested interest to maintain the status quo.

Could the blockchain hold the key to the new business architectures that are needed to move cybersecurity to the next level? IBM dubbed those businesses looking closely at blockchain technologies as explorers. This is perhaps an apt description of the general attitude towards the blockchain at the moment.

Because of its early link to cyber currencies, the focus of the blockchain has been in the financial sector. The expanding FinTech sector illustrates how new businesses and services can be built using the blockchain as its foundation. Other burgeoning industries, such as IoT, could also see a massive expansion in the application of blockchain principles. Where smart environments exist, highly personalized and sensitive information will be collected and transmitted a scenario the blockchain is eminently capable of securing.

The Blockchain Research Institute explains: Now we shift from blockchains impact on enterprise architecture and industry structure to its effect on the role of the CIO and what CIOs can do to navigate and thrive in the blockchain era. The CIOs changing role is an important subject. New technologies do not deploy themselves. Organizations wanting to exploit new technological capabilities need talented individuals and teams to develop the vision and then build, test and implement it. As chief technologist of the enterprise, the CIO plays a crucial role in this process.

R3s Richard Gendal Brown sees a general evolution of the blockchain taking place: Mainstream adoption wont come in a big bang moment and companies have to proceed in a careful, proportionate manner in moving towards this. This is particularly important when there are so many regulatory, compliance and legislative factors at play in ensuring blockchain is adopted sustainably.

With John Connolly, Chief Product Officer, Receipt Bank concluding: I think once skill-sets become more widely available, and once the areas of application are appropriate rather than overkill or rather, once the hype gives way to some real applications we will (as always) see those who are happy to be on the leading edge than on the bleeding edge. Right now, it feels like the bleeding edge. Few can make decisions on behalf of their respective companies.

Sectors such as finance and healthcare are prime candidates for blockchain transformation. Logistics and supply chain management could also be radically altered if the promises made by blockchain technology could be implemented with practical systems. Removing a central data controller is such a radical change to how security has been traditionally handled, its challenging to see businesses moving wholesale to these platforms anytime soon. The blockchain is coming; its arrival is just delayed.

Read this article:

The Promise of the Blockchain - Silicon UK

What Are The Major Limitations, Challenges In Blockchain? – Inc42 Media

High energy is an issue, as Bitcoin consumes more energy than a country Switzerland needs today

Scalability, as Bitcoin at max, can handle only 7 transactions per second

Blockchain is going to be 1000x bigger than the todays internet, are we game?

Over the last decade, numerous blockchain platforms including Ethereum, Ripple, Hyperledger, R3 Corda, IBM Blockchain and Bigchain have gained prominence for developing unique and various use-cases despite the challenges involved. With Facebooks Libra coming up on the horizon, and countries including India and China considering their own fiat cryptocurrencies, whats the future of blockchain going to like?

In an interview with Nasdaq, Celsius CEO and inventor of VOIP Alex Mashinsky estimates that the blockchain systems will be 1000 times the size of todays internet. He explains the analogy by comparing the telephones in the 90s and the transition to the internet, which was just an application on voice network.

Working on voicemail, I could sense that the internet will be so huge that voice will be just an application on the internet.

Mashinsky firmly believes that blockchain today is just a fraction of what it can be.

Blockchain and cryptocurrencies are the future of everything. This means that network is gonna be 1000x bigger and more powerful than the internet because it requires much more processing power. Also, the largest network always wins.

While Mashinsky is talking about the future, in the present day, despite so many protocols, consortiums to back it, blockchain use cases are available and adopted only in a limited manner. Mostly due to lack of awareness, infrastructure, skill to its existing complexity and numerous other factors.

So what are the major factors that limit blockchain potential?

Lets take a deeper look!

The beauty of blockchain lies in the complexity of the network. The higher the number of parties associated with a transaction, the better it is for the applicability of the blockchain. In the beginning, many of the PoCs were not at all practical, in terms of operationality and cost-efficiency, as they had very few nodes running the blockchain.

Further, most of the companies, banks are currently adopting blockchain in parts. Instead of going fully centralised or decentralised, entities have taken a hybrid approach. This increases complexity by huge margins. Further companies have to deploy dedicated blockchain experts, even if their existing applications are small.

Secondly, one blockchain application cannot be easily duplicated across operations and use-cases. Each application requires a deeper understanding of the business needs and blockchain can be drastically different for applications such as insurance contracts and for land records.

Do you remember the Ethereum Classics 51% attack in January this year? On January 5, Coinbase had detected a deep chain reorganisation of the Ethereum Classic blockchain and as a result it immediately paused interactions with the ETC blockchain.

Back in 2016 too, the Decentralised Autonomous Organisation (DAO) that was managing Ethereum was attacked. This led to the loss of $50 Mn i.e. over one-third of its funds. As a result, the Ethereum community then decided to go for a hard-fork or break in the blockchain to create a new blockchain. The new hard-forked cryptocurrency became Ethereum (ETH) with the theft reversedBlockchain, and the original continued as Ethereum Classic.

So what is the 51% attack? Satoshi Nakamoto, the inventor of Bitcoin had defined honesty in terms of the largest CPU mining network. In the case of a public blockchain, a 51% attack is a malicious miner or a group of miners taking control of more than 50% of a networks mining power or hash rate. The miner (or most likely a group of miners) having control of over 50% of the networks hash can block the history produced by the rest of the network and can even define a new canonical transaction history.

However, in todays times, precautionary protocols have been written by miners and developers to avoid such attacks.

Bitcoin is one of the most popular applications of the blockchain and indeed the first one. The Bitcoin Core needs around 200 GB storage space in every node that is part of the blockchain network. Among other requirements are 5 GB upload and 500 MB download everyday. While India is still struggling to implement Bharatmala Broadband project and 4G having limited availability and capacity across states, blockchain implementation certainly needs a massive infrastructure upgrade.

In the case of Bitcoin blockchain, energy consumption remains one of the biggest issues with miners. Researchers at the University of Cambridge have estimated that Bitcoin consumes more energy than the entire nation of Switzerland. The energy is mainly fed to keep the entire network alive all the time. Thats just one blockchain, imagine the case if we have many more such networks.

Scalability is another likely issue and a hurdle for many blockchain applications. For instance, lets compare the largest centralised payments system i.e. Visa and the largest crypto payments system i.e Bitcoin. If Visa can process 65,000 transactions per second, Bitcoins maximum speed is 7 transactions per second. In the case of centralised architecture, its the controlling authority which decides the flow, it does not unnecessarily notify about a transaction to other peers. This saves time and speed.

In the case of blockchain architecture, the validation takes several minutes because a majority of nodes has to authorise the transaction.

Bitcoin works on Proof-of-Work model which is secure but slow at the same time. There is an alternative in the form of Proof-of-Stake, which is faster in validating entries, but is not regarded as an ideal option for distributed consensus protocol.

Brain-Drain for Blockchain

According to various surveys and reports, more than 80% of the blockchain developers in India are moving abroad in search of better opportunities. Developers cite the brain drain happening due to lack of robust regulatory framework in the country on blockchain technology.

The report suggests that blockchain developers are moving to Singapore, UAE, Estonia and Switzerland which offer tax breaks and e-residency for startups. The significantly improved digital infrastructure in these countries is also better suited for applications under blockchain.

The Indian government recently announced that it is indeed working on a National Blockchain Framework which will soon be released. However, such promises have been made in the past as well. The government had earlier asked the NITI Aayog to prepare a roadmap for largest blockchain-based egovernance project called IndiaChain.

However, its been two years since the announcement, there have been very few updates in this regard. This has only discouraged blockchain developers further.

It must be noted that storage, high energy consumption, scalability and many other issues are momentary issues. As blockchain is still evolving, many of the existing issues have either already been sorted out in different protocols or are in progress of being managed. Hence, despite these existing flows, its the blockchains advantages that score heavily and it heavily outweighs the limitations.

Also, many of the issues can be resolved based on how it gets implemented. Today, private and permissioned blockchain are being integrated at the top, or a hybrid of various blockchain protocols are adopted to achieve whats needed. This also nullifies many of the above-mentioned limitations.

Message from our partner

More here:

What Are The Major Limitations, Challenges In Blockchain? - Inc42 Media

Now Christmas trees are going on the blockchain – Decrypt

Blockchain-powered Christmas trees are proving popular this year. Two separate teams of developers, one at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia and the other funded by Nano, introduced interactive trees this month, with lights that can be changed via a blockchain donation.

The projects are real world examples of how physical things can be manipulated via a simple blockchain interface. They demonstrate the technologys power alongside smart meters and the Internet of Things (IoT), and are designed to encourage understanding and adoption.

The Ethereum powered tree resides in the lobby of the University of Ljubljanas Faculty of Electrical Engineering.

Its a working prototype the students can use, the projects leader Matev Pustiek told Decrypt.

We provided a simple web user interface. You can open it on your mobile phone or another device, and then you can select the colour of the lights and the period [of time] the lights should go on for. In the background, it executes an Ethereum transaction which is accepted by a smart contract, he said.

The smart contract is composed by a device dubbed Swether, an IoT gadget designed by the team to manage the lights. In essence, Swether intercepts events from the Ethereum network and toggles its state accordingly. Anyone with the link to access the site can control the tree. But, since the team has yet to install a webcam, theres no way to see the result unless youre in the lobby. The donations are currently supplied by the Faculty.

Nevertheless, Pustiek considers that its a good starting point for students to develop decentralized applications such as charging points for mobiles and electric cars, or applications for the smart grid.

Nano's Christmas tree at the Pixel Bar in Leeds, UK. Image: Vimeo.

Log on to the live stream for e-sports venue Pixel Bar in Leeds, UK, and you can see its very own Nano powered Christmas tree.

To change the lights on the tree, you can send Nano donations using a QR code via a simple interface. The last digit of the sum sent dictates what the lights will dothere are ten different program patterns to try out.

The project is a collaboration between the Nano Center, which funds the blockchains initiatives, and the Pixel Bar. Funds will be donated to Simon on the Streets, a charity which helps the homeless of Leeds get back on their feet.

We developed this to show that you could have a fun and engaging way to drive donations for charity by having something cool and innovative tied to a simple donation, one of the developers on the project posted on Wednesday, on Reddit. Weve raised approximately 500 for Simon on the Streets, and hopefully delivered some holiday cheer along the way as well.

Whats most remarkable about the project is the speed of its transactions. Nano combines blockchain technology with a Directed Acrylic Graph (DAG), a structure which sees individual transactions directly linked to one another rather than grouped for processing in blocks.

According to Nano, when dedicated Nano wallet Natrium is used for the transaction, the tree lights change in as little as 170 milliseconds. Theres a demo here.

And in answer to the Redditor who asked: Cant someone just unplug it and plug straight into the wall outlet?

Its about adoption, you klutz. Next stop: Times Square.

Read more from the original source:

Now Christmas trees are going on the blockchain - Decrypt

ExxonMobil, Shell oil consortium trials blockchain to decide joint venture interests – Ledger Insights

Yesterday, the OOC Oil & Gas Blockchain Consortium announced it completed a trial for blockchain-based authorization for expenditure (AFE) balloting in collaboration with Canadian tech firm GuildOne. The alliance consists of several major oil companies including Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell.

AFE balloting is used to approve large expenditures related to exploration, development and production. Most exploration projects are joint ventures which makes blockchain a good match for sharing. Depending on how much of the expenditure a participant agrees to bear, AFE balloting determines the final interest of parties in a joint venture project.

The legacy AFE balloting process is manual and largely paper-based, where an operator sends ballots via registered mail or courier to invite prospective joint venture partners to participate in new capital projects. This process may take months to complete. Owing to a paper trail, it becomes difficult to calculate working interests of partners which may lead to delays and disputes.

In the proof of concept (PoC) by OOC, the operator submitted AFEs digitally under multiple scenarios to nine non-operating partners using the blockchain solution from GuildOne. Smart contracts automated the calculation of working interests based on the responses from the stakeholders over several balloting rounds.

In September, GuildOne was awarded the contract to develop a blockchain solution for AFE by the OOC consortium. All members of OOC Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Equinor, ExxonMobil, Hess, Marathon, Noble Energy, Pioneer Natural Resources, Repsol, and Shell participated in the trial which lasted for less than four months.

Successfully proving the application of blockchain in the AFE balloting process with all ten operator member companies demonstrates the power of this technology and its ability to transform fundamental oil and gas business activities, said Rebecca Hofmann, chairman of the OOC Oil & Gas Blockchain Consortium.

The positive result of the PoC will now be leveraged by the consortium to streamline joint venture management. In 2020, OOC plans to combine AFE balloting and the joint interest billing (JIB) exchange use cases to develop an end-to-end solution for the joint venture management process. JIB deals with billing and payment of expenditures between joint venture operators.

The success of this POC demonstrates how the industry can use blockchain technology to address these pain points, and we expect to leverage learnings from this project to realize key blockchain frameworks and guidelines for the oil and gas industry, said JD Franke, vice-chairman of the OOC Oil & Gas Blockchain Consortium.

Meanwhile, Chevron and Equinor are part of another prominent oil and gas initiative, VAKT, which is trialling blockchain for post-trade processes.

See the original post here:

ExxonMobil, Shell oil consortium trials blockchain to decide joint venture interests - Ledger Insights

The Future Of IoT Security Using Blockchain Technology Via The Chip – Forbes

By 2020, 20.4 billion IoT devices will be in use around the world.

From your smartphone to your toaster, TV, curtain rail, car and toothbrush the time is coming when all "things" will always be connected.

Though it is an exciting time in technology, it is also a critical time to look at the way our data is owned and used as it passes through "things."

If we continue connecting everything we possibly can, letting anyone control our devices and data, we will face an array of potentially serious problems. After all, our data is our most important asset. If we allow our data to "flow freely," we will lose control of it. And though our personal data can be used for good reasons, it can also be exploited.

As with all new technologies, industry leaders are still developing the best long-term solutions at scale. Trust, transparency and immutability are the characteristics that make blockchain technology the perfect partner for managing all the data flowing through all devices.

As with any great building, you need a strong and deep foundation.

A natural place to start is at the chip level and I do not mean the variety that you eat. This is the foundation of any device. All are operated by embedded chips. If you can control the data from the silicon chip that sits in the device, then you have an extremely important device identity foundation.

Imagine a chip that is immutable, programmable and smaller than a pinhead.

You could program this chip once, set an immutable identity for it and deploy it on a blockchain network. In the current world, you would likely use a centralized database and register the device to the network. While this is a great solution today, it is still open to centralized vulnerabilities.

Once this chip is embedded, you can then track everything it processes, manage its security and decide what happens to the data in and out of this chip.

It takes some imagination to think about this vision, but what I am suggesting is a real opportunity, and some companies are developing these solutions.

Take U.S. startup Borsetta.io (a company I admire and have worked with), which is working on a "trusted physical assets" project. This project is a "patented decentralized security protocol," otherwise known as a set of rules and codes built to protect, secure, tokenize and transact physical assets using technology.

What this means to you and me is that Borsetta is able to secure data from IoT devices. The data flowing through the "things" is securely encrypted at the source and then "chained" (like in blockchain) with other data through Borsettas zero-knowledge mesh network (a cryptographically secured network) and shared via its distributed ledger.

Another example is a real production solution we launched for a client, where the firmware updates of the "things" in the smart city run through our blockchain solution. This provides an instant, shared record of what was updated, when it was updated and with what solution. All the participants in the smart city network then know that these IoT devices are all updated and with which version of the update. The next stage is to develop the network further and start to develop the new chips.

This is the next step for leaders in IoT technology to understand: The identity of things is difficult to track and maintain, but every thing has a chip. Therefore, every device can have an immutable and maintainable identity. Everything the device does can then be tracked and traced immutably.

The benefits:

The list goes on, but we need to wake up to the world of things and use blockchain technology at chip level to secure, manage and maintain this new and exciting world.

Read this article:

The Future Of IoT Security Using Blockchain Technology Via The Chip - Forbes

Exploring the Next Wave of Blockchain Innovation – CXOToday.com

Karthik Ramarao

Talk about blockchain and the first thing that comes to mind is Bitcoin. Blockchain has been stereotyped or correlated with Bitcoin and crypto currencies even though its applications lies far beyond, with high potential in auditing, healthcare, business and even cloud computing. The technology has come a long way since its inception and is now being adopted by enterprises for day-to-day functions like invoice automation, fraud control, patent tracking etc. People are gradually realizing that blockchain technology can have myriad applications.

The global blockchain market is expected to be worth $20 billion in 2024. Blockchain becomes the core enabling technology for financial institutions to move into the modern age of real time transactions. Government, medical and IT industries are all experimenting with the advanced blockchain solutions. Corporates can work with NGOs/ non-profit organizations to sustain a healthy and transparent way to give back to society by creating a social good ecosystem. Holistic policies are used to create a paradigm shift in using blockchain technology for creating directional social impact. By bringing digital technology into real time computing systems management, blockchain changes all aspects of our economy including healthcare, shopping, entertainment, education as well as social networks.

Blockchain new-age applications

Blockchain applications have been extracted from the use-case of Bitcoin to varied fields. It started off with banking and is slowly moving in to different fields.

Focusing on Blockchains potential to reduce cost, increase efficiency, instill trust and improve security will enable this technology to move away from the hype and become a full-fledge technology enabler in all spheres of businesses.

(Disclaimer: The author is Founder and CTO, Empirical Data and views expressed in this article are those of the author.)

Continue reading here:

Exploring the Next Wave of Blockchain Innovation - CXOToday.com

AMD Joins Blockchain Game Alliance, Hopes The Tech Grows Within The Sector – Yahoo Finance

Computer hardware maker Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMD) is joining a collaboration of companies seeking to boost the use of blockchain-powered gaming platforms.

AMD said it joined the Blockchain Game Alliance, to help spur the increased use of blockchain in gaming, and in doing so may be creating more business for itself. The company says it can provide the tech to run the blockchain-powered applications that would be needed.

"AMD is in a unique position to offer the best combination of high-performance (central processing units) and (graphics processing units) for demanding blockchain workloads," the company said.

Other gaming concerns, including "Assassin's Creed" makers Ubisoft Entmt S/ADR (OTC: UBSFY) of France, are part of the alliance, as is blockchain software company ConsenSys.

Blockchain's Role In Gaming Future

While blockchain has largely been thought of in terms of its role in cryptocurrency adoption and supply-chain and other logistics environments, some experts have said it could play a big role in the future of games. Aside from the obvious use of cryptocurrencies for payment systems, blockchain is seen as potentially allowing the trading of in-game resources, such as weapons, characters and accessories. Some experts have talked about the ability to make items transferrable from one game to another with a blockchain system. It also could protect against fraud - stealing of in-game items or money.

Blockchain has drawn some interest in the gaming industry - games startup Forte this year partnered with Ripple's Xspring to form a $100 million fund aimed at speeding up that integration, for example.

Value May Bring Regulation

There is some caution:One of the reasons gaming companies have been able to avoid regulation of games as "gambling" is that things players can win, like a loot box, don't have any real-world value. That could changeif a blockchain system made it easier to treat those winnings as currency, Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter noted in a Wired story in May.

AMD's interest in blockchain gaming follows what appears to be a short-lived foray into the cryptocurrency mining equipment space. Blockchain and cryptocurrency publication The Block reported that AMD had significant revenue from that business in early 2018, but appeared to be out of it by the end of last year.

Price Action

Shares of Advanced Micro Devices were up slightly Wednesday at $42.86

0

See more from Benzinga

2019 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

See the original post here:

AMD Joins Blockchain Game Alliance, Hopes The Tech Grows Within The Sector - Yahoo Finance

CipherTrace Discovers that 10 US Retail Bank Currently Have Unregistered Cryptocurrency MSBs – the blockchain land

KPMG Origins is a blockchain track and trace supply chain platform created by KPMG. It has launched in Australia, as well as China and Japan, and will be trialled in the Australian sugar cane, food export, and wine industries.

The platform has been designed specifically for the agricultural, resources, manufacturing, and financial services industries, to provide transparency and traceability between trading partners.

KPMG Origins will allow its users to share unique product information throughout supply chains as well as to end-users, whilst reducing operational complexities, explains the press release.

KPMG not only uses blockchain for provenance, but it also combines other emerging technologies, including the Internet of Things (IoT) and data and analytics tools.

CaneGrowers, an organisation for sugarcane producers in Queensland, Australia, as well as SunRice, one of the countrys largest food exporters, will be trialling KPMG Origins. They will be joined by a major Riesling producer, Mitchell Wines.

Ken Reid, ASPAC Head of Advisory and Partner at KPMG Australia says 21st century supply chains are faster, more interconnected, and require sharing greater amounts of data than ever before.

This creates operational risks, reconciliation challenges, and safety concerns within supply chains. To solve these challenges, KPMG Origins will provide independent third-party verification and certification of data and processes. The platform will also help to enable global trade.

For CaneGrowers this trial manifests as using blockchain to demonstrate the sustainability of sugar and to recognise and reward growers for better environmental practices.

KPMG Origins has been previously tested and is now ready to be trialled amongst a more complex group of stakeholders. Laszlo Peter, KPMG Head of Blockchain Services for Asia Pacific adds:

The platform is based upon in-depth work across highly specialised areas, as well as collaboration across multiple jurisdictions to deliver a multi-lingual, standards and taxonomy driven platform that accelerates the development of distributed ecosystems.

It will be rolled out across Asia Pacific, as per KPMG, as part of the companys regional broader investment, in blockchain capability, ranging from consulting advice to technology delivery, build and service operation.

KPMG joins several technology companies in utilising blockchain for food and supply chain provenance in answer to growing consumer demand for ethical and proven product sources. In October, Topco revealed it would use Envisible Wholechain, a platform built with Mastercards Provenance Solution. This summer Bumble Bee Foods announced it would use SAPs cloud-based blockchain platform to track yellowfin tuna from ocean to store.

Read the original:

CipherTrace Discovers that 10 US Retail Bank Currently Have Unregistered Cryptocurrency MSBs - the blockchain land

Honeywell applies anti-counterfeit tech for aircraft parts blockchain – Ledger Insights

Aviation is a fast-growing industry but still lacks digitization on several fronts. Yesterday, Honeywell announced partnerships with iTRACE and SecureMarking to prevent counterfeit aerospace parts by using the technologies in combination with blockchain.

The new system employs two-factor authentication of Honeywell Aerospace parts to ensure their authenticity. First, iTRACEs 2DMI solution will laser-etch data onto the identification plate of a part on Honeywells assembly line. Then, a special ink is applied to the component. This comes from Honeywells Performance Materials and Technologies (PMT) business and SecureMarking, a third-party authentication company.

Once the part is ready for sale, iTRACEs mobile app is used to scan the 2D matrix etched on the part to activate its digital authenticity. Honeywells blockchain will record this data along with the part information such as manufacturing and subsequent repairs.

The two-factor authentication will be useful for Honeywells GoDirect Trade aircraft parts e-commerce portal, which was launched last year. Blockchain will help to ensure the authenticity of the parts sold on the portal.

Our mission is to build the first aerospace marketplace that customers can confidently buy quality parts from. Our work with Honeywell PMT, SecureMarking and iTRACE is bringing new levels of security to the aviation industry, said Lisa Butters, general manager of Honeywells GoDirect Trade online marketplace.

In aviation, it is common to see parts and planes being leased or sold multiple times. This makes it very hard to verify the provenance of the aircraft parts. With blockchain, a repair technician can use the identification plate to verify the authenticity of a part and view previous maintenance events.

We use upconverting nanoparticle ink to create physically unclonable codes, bringing the ability for every aerospace part to be stored on the blockchain network, said Daniel Stanton, president of SecureMarking.

Innovative identification technologies are being increasingly used to verify the provenance of a product. IBM is working on a nano-chip thats so small it is part of magnetic ink that could be used in pills. Sydney-based startup UCOT is using a microchip and sensor in product packaging to combat counterfeiting.

A key issue with blockchain is how to link a physical item to its digital fingerprint.

Blockchain firm Everledger is tagging luxury products with molecular DNA to guard them against counterfeiting. Credit Suisse and Innogy Ventures-backed startup ScanTrust has developed a QR code which cannot be cloned. Some of ScanTrusts customers include Unilever, Dow Chemicals, and ABInBev, though not necessarily all for blockchain.

Read this article:

Honeywell applies anti-counterfeit tech for aircraft parts blockchain - Ledger Insights

EXW Wallet Named the Best Wallet of 2019 at World Blockchain Summit in Bangkok – newsBTC

The 14th edition of Trescons World Blockchain Summit was hosted in Bangkok last week. Over 300 blockchain and crypto experts from around the world came together at the event. This was WBSs first appearance in South East Asias most active regions when it comes to cryptocurrency and blockchain development. It has become one of the most prestigious events in the crypto space, bringing together enthusiasts, investors, entrepreneurs, developers and fans from all over the world in one place.

This year WBS saw participation from many regional and international executives and managers as well. Blockchain and cryptocurrency startups from around the world were at the summit to build new connections and pitch their ideas to fans and investors alike. The summit also became a hotspot for the discussion of current and future market trends and regulation pushes around the world.

The conference took place right after the Trescons Startup Grand Slam Pitch Competition. The competition was an effort to discuss and argue the leading startup ideas in order to refine them and showcase and celebrate their success.

The summit also hosted an honorary award ceremony to encourage and appreciate the best projects and to celebrate their wins over the past year. The EXW Wallet was also at the summit to receive the reward for the best cryptocurrency wallet of 2019. The award celebrated EXWs work in offering a product to the cryptocurrency fans that can help them use and trade their tokens easily.

The EXW Wallet is a project to take on the traditional economy of the world and replace it with the new and better-decentralized economy of digital tokens and distributed ledger technologies. With their EXW Exchange, the EXW Wallet is offering great bonuses and awards to its customers simply for holding their EXW Token.

The EXW token is an ERC-20 token with which you can earn up to 0.32% profit daily without additional effort. Making it easier and simpler for individuals or businesses to participate in exchange-based transactions and take advantage of the bonuses offered by EXW.

The summit also gave out awards to the entrepreneurs attending the event with the best and most innovative ideas to help blockchain merge into peoples daily lives and business operations in the most seamless way possible.

The EXW Wallets founder, Benjamin Herzog, co-founder Manuel Batista, co-founder and CNO Pirmin Troger all received this award at the World Blockchain Summit. The award was an appreciation of their efforts to make the ideas behind EXW Wallet a reality.

The WBS Bangkok was a major success in bringing together the blockchain community and providing a platform for collaboration and networking to entrepreneurs and investors. The summit proudly showcased the blockchain industrys most innovative ideas and projects to the world.

View post:

EXW Wallet Named the Best Wallet of 2019 at World Blockchain Summit in Bangkok - newsBTC

HTC doubles down on VR headsets and blockchain phones – Decrypt

Taiwanese mobile giant HTC has announced that it intends to focus on developing blockchain smartphones, according to local news reports.

As part of a major strategy change, the company will make further cuts to its team for the second year running but will continue to focus on developing new products.

Currently, the firm employs 3,000 people, although its expected to layoff staff across a number of departments. At this point, the firm hasnt revealed which areas of the business will be affected by job cuts.

Despite planning to downsize its team, HTC plans to continue investing in research and development activities. In particular, the company wants to focus on its virtual reality system Vive and smartphones.

Going forward, the company will place a bigger emphasis on products like the VR headset Vive Cosmos and Exodus blockchain-powered smartphones.

HTCs chief decentralized officer, Phil Chen, recently told Decrypt the creation of a blockchain smartphone where users own their private keys was a paradigm shift.

He said, This really is a smartphone plus hardware wallet, which I think by definition makes it an entirely new category, whether you call it a crypto phone or a blockchain phone.

Once upon a time, HTC was one of the worlds most profitable smartphone manufacturers. However, in recent times, its struggled to compete with the likes of Apple, Samsung and Google, all of which have a bigger market share.

Because of this, the firm has continued to slash jobs. In 2015, it laid off 2,250 jobs, while laying off a further 1,500 people last year. Right now, its not known how many more jobs will be lost. But its likely that this trend will continue in the near future.

Be the first to get Decrypt Members. A new type of account built on blockchain.

Although further job cuts will worry some, HTC obviously has a vision for its future - and blockchain smartphones form an important part of that.With more consumers becoming conscious about issues such as security and data privacy, it seems inevitable that crypto smartphones will rise in popularity. Having developed the Exodus 1 and the newly-released Exodus 1s, it seems like HTC could lead this market. But will the pivot work?

Continued here:

HTC doubles down on VR headsets and blockchain phones - Decrypt

Huawei Exec: How Xis Endorsement of Blockchain Greatly Improved Industry Reputation – newsBTC

Huawei Research Manager Ruifeng Hu said that Chinese President Xi Jinpings endorsement of blockchain technology greatly improved the reputation of the industry. However, there is a clear divide between blockchain and crypto.

At the Blockchain for Global Impact Conference, Hu said that specialists working during the early days of the industry struggled with the publics perception of the industry.

He said that the use of crypto assets in black markets and money laundering brought a negative reputation to the asset class and the underlying technology.

As people working on blockchain, the most exciting thing is our President has announced his endorsement to the technology. Blockchain is a technology, it depends how you using that. Sometimes, people would use that for bad things, sometimes you would use for good things, said Hu.

However, following President Xis encouragement of blockchain development, Hu noted that the reputation of the industry recovered almost overnight.

Hu explained:

Dont mistake me from the bad guys. And it has been troubling for a long time. Our President has expressed his endorsement and I think its the best news for me. I dont need to worry about that [reputation].

China is primarily looking at the ability of the blockchain to process data on an immutable ledger to implement it to various applications like a digital currency, a settlement network, and a supply chain network.

In a purely decentralized and immutable blockchain network, an incentive system in the form of a cryptocurrency is necessary to prevent bad actors intentionally affecting the protocol.

However, recent initiatives from China including the National Blockchain Initiative indicate that the government is exploring the development of permissioned distributed ledger platforms that focuses on transparency over decentralization.

Focus on blockchain, crackdown on minor crypto exchanges continue

Multi-billion dollar firms in the likes of IBM and Intel among many others are developing similar platforms through consortia such as Hyperledger.

Read this article:

Huawei Exec: How Xis Endorsement of Blockchain Greatly Improved Industry Reputation - newsBTC

Extropianism – H+Pedia

Extropianism is a philosophy of transhumanism that encompasses the Extropian principles in improving the human condition. It was founded in 1989 and incorporated in 1990 as a 501(c)3 non-profit. It established the modern movement of transhumanism through its conferences and publications. While it closed in 2006,[1] for its time frame, it was largely in support of libertarian political values of democracy such as small government, individual rights, liberty, morphological freedom and the Proactionary Principle. However, many of its members were not libertarian and as an international organization encompassed transhumanists of diverse political backgrounds and views. These individuals share the advocacy of individual rights and the reduction of government. The movement's leading advocates include founder Max More.

Positions include:

Members of the Extropian mailing lists would go on to be involved with Bitcoin, encryption and the beginnings of blockchain, future libertarian and transhumanist projects.[3]

Principles: See Extropian principles

Main: Extropy Magazines

Official history

Flyer for 'EXTRO 1 - The First Extropy Institute Conference on Transhumanist Thought'

Sunnyvale, California, April 30 - May 1 1994

https://github.com/Extropians/Extropy/blob/master/extro1_ad.pdf

Extro1

https://web.archive.org/web/20011211090742/http://members.aol.com:80/T0Morrow/PolyJust.html

Proceedings

2001: Reason.com review

2004 http://www.extropy.org/summitabout.htm

The Vital Progress conference was held in response to the latest moves by Leon Kass.

Review

Vital Progress Summit II was scheduled for winter 2005 but never materialised.

ExI Satellite Meeting in 2005, Caracus, Venezuela ended up launching under the TransVision instead which held many successive events.

Link:

Extropianism - H+Pedia

Extropian | Prometheism Transhumanism Post Humanism

Satoshi Nakamoto is the name used by the unknown person or persons who designed bitcoin and created its original reference implementation, Bitcoin Core.[1] As a part of the implementation, they also devised the first blockchain database. In the process they were the first to solve the double spending problem for digital currency. They were active in the development of bitcoin up until December 2010.

Nakamoto has claimed to be a man living in Japan, born around 1975. However, speculation about the true identity of Nakamoto has mostly focused on a number of cryptography and computer science experts of non-Japanese descent, living in the United States and Europe. One person, Australian programmer Craig Steven Wright, has claimed to be Nakamoto, though he has not yet offered proof of this.

As of 2 February 2017, Nakamoto owns roughly one million bitcoins,[2] with a value estimated at over US$1billion.

In October 2008, Nakamoto published a paper[3][4] on The Cryptography Mailing list at metzdowd.com[5] describing the bitcoin digital currency. It was titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. In January 2009, Nakamoto released the first bitcoin software that launched the network and the first units of the bitcoin cryptocurrency, called bitcoins.[6][7] Satoshi Nakamoto released the bitcoin software on Sourceforge on 9 January 2009. Version 0.1 was compiled using Microsoft Visual Studio.

They claim that work on the writing of the code began in 2007.[8] The inventor of bitcoin knew that due to its nature the core design would have to be able to support a broad range of transaction types. The implemented solution enabled specialised codes and data fields from the start through the use of a predicative script.[9]

Nakamoto created a website with the domain name bitcoin.org and continued to collaborate with other developers on the bitcoin software until mid-2010. Around this time, he handed over control of the source code repository and network alert key to Gavin Andresen,[10] transferred several related domains to various prominent members of the bitcoin community, and stopped his involvement in the project. Until shortly before his absence and handover Nakamoto made all modifications to the source code themselves.

The inventor left a text message in the first mined block which reads 'The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks'. The text refers to a headline in the Financial Times published on 3 January 2009. It is a strong indication that the first block was mined no earlier than this date.[11] The genesis block has a timestamp of 18:15:05 GMT on January 3 2009. This block is unlike all other blocks in that it doesn't have previous block to reference.[11] This required the use of custom code to mine it. Timestamps for subsequent blocks indicate that Nakamoto did not try to mine all the early blocks solely for themselves in an effort to benefit from a ponzi scheme.[11]

As the sole, predominate early miner the inventor was awarded bitcoin at genesis and for 10 days afterwards.[12] Except for test transactions these remain unspent since mid January 2009.[12] The public bitcoin transaction log shows that Nakamoto's known addresses contain roughly one million bitcoins.[2] As of 10 December 2016[update], this is the equivalent of around US$895 million.[13]

Nakamoto did not disclose any personal information when discussing technical matters.[14] They provided some commentary on banking and fractional reserve lending. On his P2P Foundation profile as of 2012, Nakamoto claimed to be a 37-year-old male who lived in Japan,[15] but some speculated he was unlikely to be Japanese due to his use of perfect English and his bitcoin software not being documented or labelled in Japanese.[14]

Occasional British English spelling and terminology (such as the phrase "bloody hard") in both source code comments and forum postings led to speculation that Nakamoto, or at least one individual in the consortium claiming to be him, was of Commonwealth origin.[3][14][16]

Stefan Thomas, a Swiss coder and active community member, graphed the time stamps for each of Nakamoto's bitcoin forum posts (more than 500); the resulting chart showed a steep decline to almost no posts between the hours of 5 a.m. and 11 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time. Because this pattern held true even on Saturdays and Sundays, it suggested that Nakamoto was asleep at this time.[14] If Nakamoto is a single individual with conventional sleeping habits, it suggests he resided in a region using the UTC05:00 or UTC06:00 time offset. This includes the parts of North America that fall within the Eastern Time Zone and Central Time Zone, as well as parts of Central America, the Caribbean and South America.

Gavin Andresen has said of Nakamoto's code "He was a brilliant coder, but it was quirky".[17]

There is still doubt about the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto.

In December 2013, a blogger named Skye Grey linked Nick Szabo to the bitcoin whitepaper using a stylometric analysis.[18][19][20] Szabo is a decentralized currency enthusiast and published a paper on "bit gold", which is considered a precursor to bitcoin.[19][20] He is known to have been interested in using pseudonyms in the 1990s.[21] In a May 2011 article, Szabo stated about the bitcoin creator: "Myself, Wei Dai, and Hal Finney were the only people I know of who liked the idea (or in Dai's case his related idea) enough to pursue it to any significant extent until Nakamoto (assuming Nakamoto is not really Finney or Dai)."[22]

Detailed research by financial author Dominic Frisby provides much circumstantial evidence but, as he admits, no proof that Satoshi is Szabo.[23] Speaking on RT's The Keiser Report, he said "I've concluded there is only one person in the whole world that has the sheer breadth but also the specificity of knowledge and it is this chap...".[24] But Szabo has denied being Satoshi. In a July 2014 email to Frisby, he said: 'Thanks for letting me know. I'm afraid you got it wrong doxing me as Satoshi, but I'm used to it'.[25] Nathaniel Popper wrote in the New York Times that "the most convincing evidence pointed to a reclusive American man of Hungarian descent named Nick Szabo."[26]

In a high-profile March 6, 2014, article in the magazine Newsweek,[27] journalist Leah McGrath Goodman identified Dorian Prentice Satoshi Nakamoto, a Japanese American man living in California, whose birth name is Satoshi Nakamoto,[27][28][29] as the Nakamoto in question. Besides his name, Goodman pointed to a number of facts that circumstantially suggested he was the bitcoin inventor.[27] Trained as a physicist, Nakamoto worked as a systems engineer on classified defense projects and computer engineer for technology and financial information services companies. Nakamoto was laid off twice in the early 1990s and turned libertarian, according to his daughter, and encouraged her to start her own business and "not be under the government's thumb." In the article's seemingly biggest piece of evidence, Goodman wrote that when she asked him about bitcoin during a brief in-person interview, Nakamoto seemed to confirm his identity as the bitcoin founder by stating: "I am no longer involved in that and I cannot discuss it. It's been turned over to other people. They are in charge of it now. I no longer have any connection."[27] (This quote was later confirmed by deputies at the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department who were present at the time.)[30]

The article's publication led to a flurry of media interest, including reporters camping out near Dorian Nakamoto's house and briefly chasing him by car when he drove to an interview.[31] However, during the subsequent full-length interview, Dorian Nakamoto denied all connection to bitcoin, saying he had never heard of the currency before, and that he had misinterpreted Goodman's question as being about his previous work for military contractors, much of which was classified.[32] Later that day, the pseudonymous Nakamoto's P2P Foundation account posted its first message in five years, stating: "I am not Dorian Nakamoto."[33][34]

Hal Finney (May 4, 1956 August 28, 2014) was a pre-bitcoin cryptographic pioneer and the first person (other than Satoshi himself) to use the software, file bug reports, and make improvements.[35] He also lived a few blocks from Dorian Nakamoto's family home, according to Forbes journalist Andy Greenberg.[36] Greenberg asked the writing analysis consultancy Juola & Associates to compare a sample of Finney's writing to Satoshi Nakamoto's, and they found that it was the closest resemblance they had yet come across (including the candidates suggested by Newsweek, Fast Company, The New Yorker, Ted Nelson and Skye Grey).[36] Greenberg theorized that Finney may have been a ghostwriter on behalf of Nakamoto, or that he simply used his neighbor Dorian's identity as a "drop" or "patsy whose personal information is used to hide online exploits". However, after meeting Finney, seeing the emails between him and Satoshi, his bitcoin wallet's history including the very first bitcoin transaction (from Satoshi to him, which he forgot to pay back) and hearing his denial, Greenberg concluded Finney was telling the truth. Juola & Associates also found that Satoshi's emails to Finney more closely resemble Satoshi's other writings than Finney's do. Finney's fellow extropian and sometimes co-blogger Robin Hanson assigned a subjective probability of "at least" 15% that "Hal was more involved than hes said", before further evidence suggested that was not the case.[37]

On 8 December 2015, Wired wrote that Craig Steven Wright, an Australian former academic, "either invented bitcoin or is a brilliant hoaxer who very badly wants us to believe he did".[38] Craig Wright took down his Twitter account and neither he nor his ex-wife responded to press inquiries. The same day, Gizmodo published a story with evidence obtained by a hacker who supposedly broke into Wright's email accounts, claiming that Satoshi Nakamoto was a joint pseudonym for Craig Steven Wright and computer forensics analyst David Kleiman, who died in 2013.[39] A number of prominent bitcoin promoters remained unconvinced by the reports.[40] Subsequent reports also raised the possibility that the evidence provided was an elaborate hoax,[41][42] which Wired acknowledged "cast doubt" on their suggestion that Wright was Nakamoto.[43]

On 9 December, only hours after Wired claimed Wright was Nakamoto, Wright's home in Gordon, New South Wales was raided by at least ten police officers. His business premises in Ryde, New South Wales were also searched by police. The Australian Federal Police stated they conducted searches to assist the Australian Taxation Office and that "This matter is unrelated to recent media reporting regarding the digital currency bitcoin."[44] According to a document released by Gizmodo alleged to be a transcript of a meeting between Wright and the ATO, he had been involved in a taxation dispute with them for several years.[39]

On 2 May 2016, Craig Wright posted on his blog publicly claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. In articles released on the same day, journalists from the BBC and The Economist stated that they saw Wright signing a message using the private key associated with the first bitcoin transaction.[45][46] Wright's claim was supported by Jon Matonis (former director of the Bitcoin Foundation) and bitcoin developer Gavin Andresen, both of whom met Wright and witnessed a similar signing demonstration.[47]

However, bitcoin developer Peter Todd said that Wright's blog post, which appeared to contain cryptographic proof, actually contained nothing of the sort.[48] The Bitcoin Core project released a statement on Twitter saying "There is currently no publicly available cryptographic proof that anyone in particular is Bitcoin's creator."[49][50] Bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik agreed that evidence publicly provided by Wright does not prove anything, and security researcher Dan Kaminsky concluded Wright's claim was "intentional scammery".[51][52]

On May 4, Wright made another post on his blog promising to publish "a series of pieces that will lay the foundations for this extraordinary claim".[53][54] But the following day, he deleted all his blog posts and replaced them with a notice entitled "I'm Sorry", which read in part:

I believed that I could put the years of anonymity and hiding behind me. But, as the events of this week unfolded and I prepared to publish the proof of access to the earliest keys, I broke. I do not have the courage. I cannot.[55][56]

In June 2016, the London Review of Books published a 35,000 word article by Andrew O'Hagan about the events, based on discussions with Wright and many of the other people involved.[57][58] It also reveals that the Canadian company nTrust was behind Wright's claim made in May 2016.

In a 2011 article in The New Yorker, Joshua Davis claimed to have narrowed down the identity of Nakamoto to a number of possible individuals, including the Finnish economic sociologist Dr. Vili Lehdonvirta and Irish student Michael Clear, then a graduate student in cryptography at Trinity College Dublin.[59] Clear strongly denied he was Nakamoto,[60] as did Lehdonvirta.[61] In October 2011, writing for Fast Company, investigative journalist Adam Penenberg cited circumstantial evidence suggesting Neal King, Vladimir Oksman and Charles Bry could be Nakamoto.[62] They jointly filed a patent application that contained the phrase "computationally impractical to reverse" in 2008, which was also used in the bitcoin white paper by Nakamoto.[63] The domain name bitcoin.org was registered three days after the patent was filed. All three men denied being Nakamoto when contacted by Penenberg.[62]

In May 2013, Ted Nelson speculated that Nakamoto is really Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki.[64] Later, an article was published in The Age newspaper that claimed that Mochizuki denied these speculations, but without attributing a source for the denial.[65] A 2013 article,[66] in Vice listed Gavin Andresen, Jed McCaleb, or a government agency as possible candidates to be Nakamoto. Dustin D. Trammell, a Texas-based security researcher, was suggested as Nakamoto, but he publicly denied it.[67] In 2013, two Israeli mathematicians, Dorit Ron and Adi Shamir, published a paper claiming a link between Nakamoto and Ross William Ulbricht. The two based their suspicion on an analysis of the network of bitcoin transactions,[68] but later retracted their claim.[69]

Some considered Nakamoto might be a team of people; Dan Kaminsky, a security researcher who read the bitcoin code,[70] said that Nakamoto could either be a "team of people" or a "genius";[16] Laszlo Hanyecz, a former bitcoin core developer who had emailed Nakamoto, had the feeling the code was too well designed for one person.[14]

See more here:

Satoshi Nakamoto - Wikipedia

Continued here:

Extropian | Prometheism Transhumanism Post Humanism

Federal court demands the military turn over secret documents about the trans military ban – LGBTQ Nation

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has ordered the Department of Defense to hand over documents related to Donald Trumps transgender military ban including those which would explain his rationale for the ban.

Its unclear whether the Trump administration will contest the order.

Related:Military leaders are lining up to oppose Trumps attacks on HIV+ service members

The court order came in response to Karnoski v. Trump, an August 27, 2017 lawsuit filed on behalf of Ryan Karnoski, a transgender social worker from a military family who wanted to join the military but is now forbidden by Trumps ban. The lawsuit also lists several other transgender military members as plaintiffs and was filed by Lambda Legal and the Modern Military Association of America (formerly known as OutServe-SLDN and the American Military Partners Association).

The lawsuit alleges that Trumps trans military ban was made without any meaningful deliberative process and was directly contrary to the considered judgment of the military and violates equal protection and due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment [without] any compelling, important, or even rational justification.

In a statement, about the new district court order, Lambda Legal Counsel Peter Renn said, We look forward to the court shining a light onto what the government has fought very hard to hide. There is no cloak big enough to hide the deficiencies of the Pentagons rushed plan, which was cobbled together after-the-fact to backfill a justification for President Trumps arbitrary tweets.

The court order follows a September 2019 Washington D.C. court decision also requiring the military to hand over similar materials that theyve previously withheld and a Michigan court ruling from the same month requiring an anti-LGBT organization to turn over its communications with the government regarding the ban, though Lambda Legal didnt name the exact organization.

When Trump issued the ban via Twitter in July 2017, military leaders seemed blindsided, referring all media inquiries about the ban to the White House. Trumps tweets said the ban was because of the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.

But while trans healthcare wouldve cost the military between $2.4 million and $8.4 million annually, the military currently spends $41.6 million annually on the erectile dysfunction medication Viagra, blowing a hole in Trumps justification.

House Democrats almost overturned Trumps trans military ban in an amendment to a major defense spending bill earlier this month, but Republican legislators stopped them.

See the rest here:

Federal court demands the military turn over secret documents about the trans military ban - LGBTQ Nation

Why Republicans Are Refusing to Testify – The Atlantic

Should these witnesses testify, they can resist certain questionsfor example by invoking executive privilege or their own Fifth Amendment rightsand they would surely insert do not recalls into the record, but they would face consequences for lying. The president often characterizes his public comments on pending investigations as freedom of speech or fighting back, but his aides have no First Amendment right to lie under oath, and perjury is never excused by self-defense. As the Supreme Court stated in the Bryson case 50 years ago: Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Governments right to ask questionslying is not one of them.

Brenda Wineapple: How to conduct a trial in the Senate

In many religious and moral traditions, bearing false witness constitutes the most serious form of deception and occasions the most dire punishment. Even if the solemn nature of an oath no longer instills fear of eternal damnation, breaking that oath does warrant a felony charge. Among the 4,000-plus federal crimes, at least 300 address various forms of deception. Perjurywillfully making a false statement under oath about facts material to an official proceedingis the most significant of the federal dishonesty offenses. Perjury goes way back: In legal texts from the ancient world and medieval codes, it was punishable by death. In the 16th-century common law that is the precedent for Americas criminal statute, perjury was declared infamous and detestable. Since the First Congress, in 1790, lying under oath has been proscribed under federal law, and all 50 states now have statutes criminalizing perjury.

The elements required to prove perjury are stringent and specific. Under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1621, prosecutors must demonstrate that the sworn statement is false, that the lie is willful and deliberate, and that the statement could influence the proceeding. Cases can be difficult to prosecute and prove, because perjury requires clear and direct questions and brazenly untrue responses. The law does not prohibit trivial falsehoods or carelessness, statements that are misleading but literally true, or statements that are incomplete and merely evasive.

The general perjury statute covers false evidence presented to tribunals other than courts that act with the authority of law, including Congress. Should witnesses lie to Congress, they could laterup to five years later, given the statute of limitationsface a criminal indictment in court. Impeachment proceedings have intersected with perjury charges before. Both President Richard Nixons chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, and his attorney general, John Mitchell, served time in prison for perjury committed before the Senate Watergate Committee. And one of the articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton arose from his testimony to the grand jury and sworn deposition in Paula Joness civil suit.

Original post:

Why Republicans Are Refusing to Testify - The Atlantic

Homeowners Behind Addicks and Barker Dams in Houston, Texas Entitled to Compensation, Federal Judge Rules – PRNewswire

Vuk Vujasinovic of VB Attorneys, who is part of the court-appointed lead team that took the case to trial and won, stated: "People living in the flood pools behind these dams sacrificed their homes to save the heart of Houston, and we are extremely pleased the judge agreed with us that they are entitled to compensation under the 5th Amendment to our constitution."Click here to learn more HurricaneHarveyLawsuitHelp.com.

The homeowners alleged the two dams stopped water that would otherwise have flowed from the project's location 17 miles west of downtown Houston, eastward into West Houston neighborhoods, Houston's central business district, and the industrial ship channel. The homeowners alleged the water backed up until it flooded over the thirteen test properties and over 10,000 homes and businesses located behind the dams.

The homeowners claimed the government's construction and operation of the Addicks and Barker project constituted a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, entitling them to compensation.

The government alleged Hurricane Harvey was a very large storm that it could not foresee when it built the dams in the 1940s, and denied owing compensation to any homeowners.

Judge Lettow held a 2-week trial in Houston, Texas, which concluded on May 17, 2019. Over 30 witnesses were called to testify, including property owners, experts in hydrology, meteorology, and real estate valuation, representatives of the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as officials with Harris County and Fort Bend County. The trial included an excursion with the Judge to personally view the entire Addicks and Barker project.

Mr. Vujasinovic notes the following major points were established at trial:

In his ruling, Judge Lettow held that the federal government's construction and operation of the Addicks and Barker project was a "taking" under the 5th Amendment, entitling the homeowners to compensation. "The court finds that the government's actions relating to the Addicks and Barker Dams and the attendant flooding of plaintiffs' properties constituted a taking of a flowage easement under the Fifth Amendment. Thus, the court finds defendant liable."

Mr. Vujasinovic anticipates a second phase of litigation for the thirteen test properties to determine the amount of compensation owed to each. Collective damages for the over 10,000 flooded properties are estimated to exceed $1 Billion.

According to Mr. Vujasinovic, "this trial victory will be instrumental in our efforts to obtain fair compensation for all our clients whose property was damaged or destroyed due to the Addicks and Barker project. We look forward to finishing this fight to enforce our clients' constitutional property rights."

About Vuk Vujasinovic Vuk Vujasinovic is part of the court-appointed lead team that won the test case trial. His firm represents homeowners in all impacted communities behind the dams, including Bear Creek, Twin Lakes, Lakes on Eldridge, Concord Bridge, Concord Colony, Canyon Gate Cinco Ranch, Charlestown Colony, Cinco at Willow Fork, Cinco Ranch Equestrian Village, Cinco Ranch Greenway Village, Cinco Ranch Meadow Place, Cinco Ranch Southpark, Concord Fairways at Kelliwood, Grand Lakes, Grand Lakes Phase Three, Grand Mission, Green Trails Oaks, Greens at Willow Fork, Jamestown Colony, Kelliwood Greens, Kingsland Estates, Lakes of Buckingham Kelliwood, Mayde Creek Farms, Park Harbor Estates, Parklake Village, Pine Forest, Savannah Estates, Stone Gate at Canyon Gate, and Windsor Park Estates.

About VB Attorneys Based in Houston, Texas, VB Attorneys handles cases throughout the country. To learn more about the firm, visit HurricaneHarveyLawsuitHelp.com and VBAttorneys.com, or call 888.695.6993.

Contact: Carlos Villarreal Phone: (888) 695-6993 Website:VBAattorneys.comEmail: Carlos@VBAttorneys.com

SOURCE VB Attorneys

http://www.vbattorneys.com

See original here:

Homeowners Behind Addicks and Barker Dams in Houston, Texas Entitled to Compensation, Federal Judge Rules - PRNewswire

Ask the author: The enduring and controversial legacy of the Warren Court – SCOTUSblog

The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins to Geoffrey Stone and David Strauss in connection with their new book, Democracy and Equality: The Enduring Constitutional Vision of the Warren Court (Oxford University Press, 2020).

Geoffrey Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago Law School. He served as dean of the law school from 1987-1994 and provost of the University of Chicago from 1994-2002. Stone was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. and before that a law clerk to Judge J. Skelly Wright on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

David Strauss is the Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Jenner & Block Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. Before joining the law school faculty, he worked as an attorney-advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice and was an assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States.

Stone and Strauss, along with Yale Law School professor Justin Driver, are the editors of the Supreme Court Review.

Welcome, Geoffrey and David, and thank you for taking the time to participate in this question-and-answer for our readers. And congratulations on the publication of your latest book.

* * *

Question: Democracy and Equality is the 18th book in the Inalienable Rights series published by Oxford University Press. As the editor of the series, Geoffrey, congratulations on such an impressive array of books by everyone from Richard Epstein to Laurence Tribe and from Martha Nussbaum to Nadine Strossen. Might you tell us whats in the works for the next volume or two?

Stone & Strauss: By coincidence, the next two volumes in the series, which will be published in 2020, both deal with the issue of religion. In the 19th volume, Jack Rakove, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian at Stanford, has written Beyond Belief, Beyond Conscience, which explores the evolution of religious freedom from the 16th century to the modern era, focusing especially on history, philosophy and political theory.

In the 20th volume, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, and Howard Gillman, chancellor of the University of California, Irvine, have written The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, which focuses on what the authors see as the troubling directions our conservative justices are now taking insofar as they reject the idea of a wall separating church and state.

Question: The first book in the Inalienable Rights series was Richard Posners Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in Times of a National Emergency (2006). In the editors note to that volume, Geoffrey and Dedi Felman wrote: Rights invite discussion: What is a constitutional right? What are the counterbalancing duties?

In terms of the Warren Courts civil rights and civil liberties jurisprudence, what do you see as some of the major counterbalancing duties?

Stone: As a bit of background, I should explain that back in 2004 Dedi Felman, then an editor at Oxford, came up with the idea for the Inalienable Rights series. I had just published Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime (2004), and Dedi persuaded me to take on the challenge of serving as editor of this series. The goal was to produce a series of books, written by distinguished legal scholars, that would be relatively brief (roughly 40,000 words, lightly footnoted), that would deal with important issues of constitutional law and that would be both interesting to constitutional law experts and accessible to general readers. Dedi left Oxford shortly thereafter, and David McBride has taken on her role in the years since. Initially, we imagined that the series would consist of perhaps six volumes published over eight years. We never imagined that we would publish 20 volumes, with more no doubt to come. The authors in the series have included truly remarkable scholars, including not only the individuals you mention above, but also Cass Sunstein, Pam Karlan, Lee Bollinger, Mark Tushnet, Michael Klarman, and on and on and on.

In terms of your question about counterbalancing duties, I assume we were referring most fundamentally to the doctrine of precedent and to the obligation of justices not to reach results merely because they think those results reflect good public policy for the nation, but to honestly ground their decisions in principles of interpretation that are true to the fundamental concerns of specific constitutional provisions and to an approach to constitutional interpretation that is grounded in the aspirations of the Framers and in a principled understanding of the central reasons for judicial review.

As we hope to demonstrate in Democracy and Equality, in our view, although the justices of the Warren Court often confronted problematic precedents, they had a deep understanding of the most fundamental reasons for judicial review and of the essential role of our Supreme Court in our constitutional system most centrally, to make sure that majorities do not disregard the rights and interests of those without the political power to protect themselves, or abuse their power to manipulate the rules of democracy in order to ensure their continued dominance. As we argue in the book, the Warren Court confronted difficult issues of precedent, but did so in a manner that fulfilled the most central reasons for having a Supreme Court in the first place.

Question: As a matter of originalist jurisprudence, do you think Alexander Bickels memorandum for Justice Felix Frankfurter in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) carried the day, or do you think Raoul Berger had the better argument in his book, Government by Judiciary (1977), in which he argued that Bickels historical defense was untenable?

Stone & Strauss: The Warren Court, of course, never claimed to be originalist. In Brown, and then emphatically in Loving v. Virginia (1967), the case that struck down laws forbidding interracial marriage, the Warren Court was quite clear that it was not pretending to follow the original understandings. In that respect, the Warren Court was intellectually honest in a way that not everyone has been.

In fact, the question you ask, by itself, shows how impoverished originalist jurisprudence is. Bergers claim that the 14th Amendment was not understood at the time to establish a principle of racial equality is pretty clearly correct, even if some of Bergers specific arguments are flawed. So originalists have to tie themselves in knots to try to explain how originalism can be made consistent with cases like Brown and Loving. Bickels account essentially, to emphasize the principles underlying the 14th Amendment and its capacity for growth, rather than how people at the time understood it is of a piece with one of the ways originalists try to save their approach from generating unacceptable conclusions.

If we understand originalism that way, about principles and the capacity for growth, then it can be unobjectionable; everybody can be an originalist. But that version of originalism also doesnt really limit judges, decide controversial cases or explain how U.S. constitutional law develops.

Question: In your conclusion, you argue that the Warren Court would have rejected the Second Amendment argument in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) on historical and textual grounds. I assume the same would hold true for the courts ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which applied the Second Amendment to the states.

If so, why did those originalist and textualist standards not defeat the constitutional claim in Malloy v. Hogan (1964)? The majority in Malloy, per Justice William Brennan, incorporated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination against the states with little, if any, originalist support.

Stone & Strauss: Right the Warren Court was not, and did not purport to be, originalist, and thats true of the incorporation decisions, too. Justice Hugo Black emphasized the text and what he said were the original understandings, but his view was not accepted by the Warren Court as a whole.

Incorporation the application of the Bill of Rights to the states was a Warren Court success story. But it was not based on original understandings. At the time of most of the incorporation decisions, the received historical view was that the 14th Amendment was not understood to incorporate the Bill of Rights. Justices Felix Frankfurter and John Marshall Harlan, who were very historically minded, opposed incorporation on that ground.

We now know, thanks to the impressive work of some important scholars, that this received understanding was too simple and that the history is actually quite complicated no surprise there. But by the end of the Warren Court, incorporation had become the norm, except for a couple of well-established exceptions (basically, the Seventh Amendment and the Fifth Amendments grand jury clause). It became the norm for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with the history or, for that matter, the text. In part it was, as we say in the book, one of the Warren Courts weapons against state criminal-justice systems that were engines of white supremacy or, at least, badly dysfunctional. More generally, as the Warren Court made the protections of the Bill of Rights more extensive and elaborate, it made a lot of sense not to operate with separate sets of rules for federal and state governments, particularly in the area of law enforcement.

Heller was wrong, but once it was decided, it became an uphill struggle to keep the Second Amendment from being incorporated, precisely because the Warren Court made incorporation the norm.

Question: As you note, in a 1980 Santa Clara Law Review article, Justice Arthur Goldberg declared: Without actually overruling Mapp v. Ohio, which applied the exclusionary rule to the states], the present Court has riddled it so full of loopholes as to render its effect almost meaningless.

Might the same be said of one of the Warren Courts most famous decisions, Miranda v. Arizona (1966)? Have Mapp and Miranda become almost meaningless?

Stone & Strauss: No. Although in the years since Mapp the increasingly conservative justices of the Burger, Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have limited the impact of Mapp in a string of decisions, illustrated by United States v. Calandra (1974), Stone v. Powell (1976) and Herring v. United States (2009), many police departments across the nation have reformed themselves in response to Mapp. Despite the limitations the Burger, Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have imposed on the scope of the exclusionary rule, the central holding of Mapp remains intact. As Yale Kamisar has observed, it is comforting to know that, although battered and bruised, Mapp remains in place waiting for a future Court to reclaim the torch.

As with Mapp, the ever-more conservative justices since the end of the Warren Court have limited the impact of Miranda. In Harris v. New York (1971) for example, the Burger Court held, over the dissents of Black, Brennan and Justices William Douglas and Thurgood Marshall, all of whom had joined Miranda, that statements made by a suspect in the course of custodial interrogation could be used to impeach the defendants credibility if he testified in his own behalf at trial. Over time, though, Miranda came increasingly to be accepted as the culture of the police station as law enforcement practices became more civilized and more positive.

In 1993, the Rehnquist Court declared that, in the 27 years since Miranda was decided, law enforcement has grown in constitutional as well as technological sophistication, and there is little reason to believe that the police today are unable, or even generally unwilling, to satisfy Mirandas requirements. In 2000, in Dickerson v. United States, Chief Justice William Rehnquist expressly reaffirmed Miranda, noting that Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice and there is no principled justification for overruling Miranda.

Nonetheless, the Roberts Court has continued to undermine Miranda. In Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), for example, the court, with Chief Justice Roberts joining Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in the majority, held that an individual arrested for murder who remained silent for three hours after being warned of his right to remain silent, despite continued and ongoing police interrogation, had waived his rights when he finally gave in and responded to a question.

Although Miranda has become generally accepted, how it will fare in the hands of justices who do not share the Warren Courts vision of the Constitution remains to be seen.

Question: It seems that the court since the Warren era has preferred creating numerous exceptions to landmark liberal rulings to formally overruling them. Consider another quotation, for example, from Rehnquist in Dickerson: While we have overruled our precedents when subsequent cases have undermined their doctrinal underpinnings, we do not believe that this has happened to the Miranda decision. If anything, our subsequent cases have reduced the impact of the Miranda rule on legitimate law enforcement while reaffirming the decisions core ruling.

Do you think the exceptions to Roe v. Wade (1973) carved out since the ruling have undermined Roes doctrinal underpinnings, leaving it vulnerable to being overruled? Or do you think the court will continue to riddle it with exceptions?

Stone & Strauss: Roe was a profoundly important decision. Although it was not a Warren Court decision, there is little doubt that the Warren Court would have reached the same result in 1973. One thing that is interesting and revealing about Roe is that five of the seven justices in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon (Brennan, Chief Justice Warren Burger, and Justices Potter Stewart, Harry Blackmun and Lewis Powell). The two dissenters were appointed by Republican President Nixon (Rehnquist) and Democratic President John Kennedy (Justice Byron White). In short, Roe was a remarkably nonpartisan decision.

Things have changed dramatically since 1973, though, as presidents from both parties have increasingly appointed justices with what they hoped were preconceived views on abortion. Nonetheless, although Republican presidents have appointed 14 of the 18 justices in the last 50 years (even though they have won the popular vote in only six of the last 13 presidential elections), Roe has survived.

It is true, of course, that the court over that period has handed down several important decisions limiting Roe, including Maher v. Roe (1977), Harris v. McRae (1980), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), but the plain and simple fact is that, despite those decisions, at least the core ofRoehas survived notwithstanding the many attacks on it. That is due largely to the fact that four Republican-appointed justices in this era Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day OConnor and David Souter were deeply committed to the principle of precedent and to the rights of women. Unfortunately, in our view, the five Republican-appointed justices now on the court (Roberts, Thomas and Alito, alongside Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh) are likely to cast Roe aside. They might do this quickly, or in a series of decisions over the next three or four years, but as long as they remain in the majority, they will almost surely do this.

Question: In all 12 cases you discuss, the various rights claims were vindicated. But what of important Warren Court cases in which a claim was denied, as in Brennans opinion in Roth v. United States (1957), in which the court held that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment?

How important was Roth to the Warren Courts First Amendment jurisprudence?

Stone & Strauss: Its important to understand that the Warren Courts jurisprudence evolved over time as the makeup of the court changed. Indeed, although Chief Justice Earl Warren joined the court in 1954, the only decision of the 12 we discuss in our book that was handed down before 1961 was Brown. Brown was, of course, a profoundly important and transformative decision, but with that one exception the Warren Court as we know it didnt really take on its historic identity until the early 1960s. At the time Roth was decided in 1957, the court still had Frankfurter and Justices Harold Burton, Tom Clark and Charles Whittaker on it. It was not surprising that those justices would not welcome a radical decision giving broad constitutional protection to obscenity. Moreover, Warren himself was personally quite put off by what at the time was understood to be obscene expression.

On the other hand, although Roth might be seen today as a somewhat timid decision, Brennans opinion for the court gave much greater First Amendment protection to sexual expression than existed almost anywhere in the nation. The dominant approach to defining obscenity in the United States at that time was still rooted in the 1868 English case of Regina v. Hicklin, which held that any material that tended to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences must be deemed obscene and therefore could be banned. Brennan, building on lower-court and state-court decisions that had increasingly interpreted anti-obscenity statutes more narrowly although not based on the First Amendment held that sexual expression could not be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment unless the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest of the average person applying contemporary community standards. Although Roth did not go nearly as far as Douglas and Black wanted (they maintained that so-called obscene expression should be fully protected by the First Amendment), it was in fact a cautious, but meaningful step forward in the protection of sexual expression.

Moreover, nine years later when the Warren Court revisited the question in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, Brennan, joined by Warren and Justice Abe Fortas, with concurrences by Black, Douglas and Stewart, held that sexual material could not be deemed obscene unless, in addition to the requirements set out in Roth, it also had no redeeming social value. By the time the Burger Court came into being, this test had proved so expansive in its protection of sexual expression that the justices of the Burger Court felt it necessary in 1973 in Miller v. California and Paris Adult Theater v. Slaton to cut back substantially on the Warren Courts approach to sexual expression and the First Amendment.

Question: Harlan dissented from some of the Warren Courts seminal rulings, including Mapp and Miranda. How, if at all, do his dissents inform our understanding of constitutional law?

Stone & Strauss: Harlan today has an excellent reputation, deservedly so, but it is more despite than because of his dissents from some of the Warren Court decisions. His opinions as a whole reflect a respect for tradition and precedent, a recognition of the importance of being principled and a genuine effort to get things right without political or ideological precommitments.

Harlan misjudged the criminal-procedure revolution, in the cases you mention for example, and he was mistaken about some other Warren Court initiatives, notably reapportionment. But even then, his opinions presented the right kinds of challenges to the Warren Court. And although he was often a conservative dissenter on the Warren Court, he was the intellectual godfather of Roe he was not on the court at the time of Roe, but his opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut (1967) paved the way for Roe, and the approach he took in Griswold became the foundation of so-called unenumerated rights more generally.

To give just a couple of other examples: In Cohen v California (1971), Harlan wrote an opinion upholding the First Amendment right of an individual to wear a jacket saying Fuck the Draft in a courthouse, even though he himself undoubtedly found that kind of display worse than distasteful. But he understood the nature and importance of dissent in the Vietnam War era. And in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971), Harlan wrote an exceptionally thoughtful opinion explaining why people should be able to sue federal officials who violate their constitutional rights. More recent courts have been relentlessly hostile to Bivens but have never met Harlans arguments on the merits. The conservative counter-revolution on the Supreme Court has been, in many ways, as much a repudiation of Harlan as of the Warren Court.

Question: As you note in your chapter on Loving, in the aftermath of Brown the Warren Court was reluctant to declare prohibitions on interracial marriage unconstitutional.

You write: The Justices, in what amounted to a kind of judicial civil disobedience, had decided that they had to violate Congresss jurisdictional statute in order to protect Brown.

What do you make of this judicial civil disobedience? And given the cultural state of affairs in America in the early 1970s, was the Supreme Court warranted in refusing to hear Baker v. Nelson (1972), a case challenging a Minnesota anti-gay-marriage law?

Stone & Strauss: Whatever might be said about Baker, it was not an act of judicial civil disobedience; the court complied with the jurisdictional statutes (Baker was a decision on the merits), and there was no established law favoring same-sex marriage at the time. The question of when the court should hold back on establishing constitutional rights that it would otherwise recognize because it is concerned about a public backlash that is a very difficult question. Disobeying a legal obligation because of a concern about backlash is the most extreme example. Maybe it is a partial answer to say that, in the real world, the justices are, in fact, going to take the risks of a backlash into account (as they perceive those risks), no matter what those of us on the outside might say.

This issue whether the court should have held back because of a concern about backlash might have arisen in a dramatic way in the run-up to Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that established a right to same-sex marriage, had public opinion not moved so quickly in favor of same-sex marriage. But as it was, the court did not have to face that issue squarely.

Question: What might the Warren Court have done had it heard Buckley v. Valeo (1976), in which the court under Chief Justice Warren Burger struck down spending limits in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971?

Stone & Strauss: This is a fascinating question. To keep things simple, well focus only on the contribution and expenditure limits, although that leaves out some interesting parts of the law. At the time Buckley was decided, there were only four justices from the Warren Court still on the Supreme Court Brennan, Stewart, White and Marshall. Brennan and Stewart voted to uphold the contribution limits but to strike down the expenditure limits. White voted to uphold both the contribution and expenditure limits. Marshall voted to uphold both the contribution and expenditure limits (but only as applied to candidates themselves). In short, the four holdovers from the Warren Court all voted to uphold the contribution limits, but were all over the lot on the expenditure limits. Given this distribution of votes, its difficult to predict what Warren, Black, Douglas, Harlan and Fortas would each have done had they still been on the court in 1976.

Part of the reason this is so difficult is that the Warren Court deeply valued both the freedom of speech and the proper functioning of the democratic process. A case like Buckley arguably put these central values in conflict. On the one hand, the members of the Warren Court generally believed that individuals should have a right to speak their minds, but on the other hand they also believed that government could constitutionally intervene in the democratic process to ensure that it functions fairly.

Although the remaining justices of the Warren Court clearly disagreed about how best to strike the balance in 1976, we have little doubt that by the time Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission made it to the court in 2010 a substantial majority of the Warren Court justices would have voted to uphold the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. This is so because by this time the destructive impact of money in the political process had grown far more severe than had been the case in 1976. Moreover, although the limitation on free speech was not insignificant, it was viewpoint-neutral and thus made the danger to free-speech values much less serious than if the law had expressly treated supporters of Democratic candidates differently from supporters of Republican candidates. And given the increasingly dangerous impact money was having by 2010 on a well-functioning democracy, it seems clear that most of the Warren Court justices, like Stevens and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor in Citizens United (and OConnor, who had voted to uphold the act a few years earlier in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission), would have voted to uphold the central provision of the McCain-Feingold Act.

Question: In cases such as Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968) and Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966), the Warren Court relied on the 13th and 14th Amendments to uphold Congress power to enact anti-discrimination laws that apply to the federal government and the states. Do you think we will see more rulings like the one in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which struck down such a law, Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Stone & Strauss: The Warren Court was, of course, criticized for activism for declaring laws unconstitutional. But more recent conservative courts have generally accepted the activist decisions: Brown, Loving, Reynolds v Sims (1964), Miranda, Gideon, Griswold, the school prayer cases, the First Amendment cases.

The Warren Court decisions that have fared the worst at the hands of conservative courts have been the decisions that upheld acts of Congress. Katzenbach v. Morgan, which you mention, was effectively overruled by City of Boerne v. Flores (1997); Shelby County is hard to square with South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966), to say the least; and the Warren Courts generous view of Congress power under the commerce clause (which was the basis for upholding key provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) was systematically limited by the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts.

In other words, the conservative courts biggest objection to the Warren Court seems to be that the Warren Court was too deferential to Congress too willing to step aside and let the peoples elected representatives in Congress run things. That was part of the Warren Courts abiding commitment to democracy. One of the reasons we wrote the book was that we thought the legacy of the Warren Court was misunderstood by conservatives, by moderates and even by liberals and this is a prime example.

Question: You suggest that, consistent with its rulings in Brown and Loving, the Warren Court would have sustained affirmative-action programs in order to help rectify the grave and lasting wrongs of slavery. You write: Racial classifications do not present a critical constitutional problem unless they reinforce something comparable to white supremacy. How might the Warren Court have applied that formula in the context of affirmative action?

Stone & Strauss: Critics of affirmative action like to say that Brown and Loving stand for a principle of colorblindness that racial classifications are across the board unacceptable. Thats a mischaracterization. The problem with the racial classifications of the Jim Crow era is that they were used to subordinate African Americans, and the logic of the Warren Court decisions is that racial classifications are unacceptable when they are used to oppress minority groups.

Affirmative-action measures classifications that benefit minorities may be good or may be bad, but that is a decision that should be entrusted to the political process; there is no reason for the courts to step in. Current law has moved far away from that way of thinking, but that is the right way to understand the principle that underlies the Warren Court decisions about race.

Question: In a nutshell, what would you say is the central difference between the constitutional jurisprudence of Warren and that of Roberts?

Stone & Strauss: As the title of our book suggests, the enduring constitutional vision of the Warren Court was its concern with democracy and equality. Warren certainly shared that vision. What this meant, simply, is that in exercising the fundamental responsibility of judicial review in cases like Brown, Mapp, Engel v. Vitale (1962), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), Reynolds, Griswold, Miranda, Loving, Katz v. United States (1967), Shapiro v. Thompson (1968) and Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) which are the central focus of our book Warren and the Warren Court focused on ensuring that the American Constitution protected the rights of minorities and the essential requisites of a well-functioning democracy. That was correctly, in our view the core focus of Warrens interpretation of our Constitution. Of course, as we say in the book, there were some cases in which Warren, and his court, did not follow through on that vision. But there is an overall principled coherence to the work of the Warren Court.

It is much more difficult to define the constitutional jurisprudence of Roberts and his court. Quite frankly, when one reviews such cases as Heller, Citizens United, Shelby County, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), Trump v. Hawaii (2017) and Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), and the dissenting opinions in Obergefell, Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) and Fisher v. University of Texas (2016), it is difficult to discern a principled approach to constitutional interpretation.

Originalism is not a plausible theory of constitutional interpretation, as we have said, and does not even purport to be the basis of most of these decisions. The text does not answer the questions posed by these cases. The Roberts Court is certainly not an avatar of judicial restraint it is far more willing to invalidate important acts of Congress than the Warren Court ever was or of following precedent. The affirmative-action and gun-control cases belie any principled commitment to federalism. Although Warren and Roberts were both Republicans, appointed by Republican presidents, the difference in their courts approach to constitutional interpretation is dramatic.

Question: In your view, recent developments in the courts equality and liberty jurisprudence paint a bleak picture. Where does that leave those who value the constitutional vision of the Warren Court?

Stone & Strauss: There are historians who say that the Warren Court was a one-off: a product of a particular constellation of political and legal forces that is unlikely to be replicated. That may be true, of course. But we wrote the book not as an exercise in nostalgic hagiography the Warren Court made its share of mistakes, as we say in the book but in order to hold out an ideal of the role the Supreme Court could play in a democratic society.

In particular, we wanted to refute the notion that the Warren Court was just a liberal counterpart to the conservative courts that have succeeded it. The current administration, and the current Senate leadership, have tried to make the courts an instrument of partisan warfare. Things dont have to be that way, and they werent that way for the Warren Court. Warren was one of the most successful Republican politicians of his generation. Brennan was appointed by a Republican president. White, a Kennedy appointee, dissented from many of the Warren Courts criminal-procedure decisions, as well as from Roe. Harlan, an establishment Republican appointed by a Republican, believed the Constitution protected reproductive rights; Black, a New Deal Democratic senator, vehemently disagreed. But every one of those justices shared the core commitments of the Warren Court its war on racial apartheid and its defense of democracy.

What the Warren Court shows, we think, is that the Supreme Court can transcend partisanship and help fulfill the highest ideals of American democracy. That should be our aspiration for the future of the courts, however discouraging things might seem right now.

Posted in Featured, Book Reviews

Recommended Citation: Ron Collins, Ask the author: The enduring and controversial legacy of the Warren Court, SCOTUSblog (Dec. 17, 2019, 3:15 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/ask-the-author-the-enduring-and-controversial-legacy-of-the-warren-court/

See the original post here:

Ask the author: The enduring and controversial legacy of the Warren Court - SCOTUSblog

Man charged with triple murder to have hearing this week – Peninsula Daily News

PORT ANGELES A Port Angeles man charged with triple murder in December 2018 will have a court hearing this week to determine whether statements he made to law enforcement can be used at trial.

Ryan Warren Ward, 38, will appear in Clallam County Superior Court at 9 a.m. Wednesday for a 3.6 hearing on the suppression of a Jan. 31 interrogation that occurred after he had requested a lawyer.

He is one of three people charged with a Dec. 26, 2018 triple homicide east of Port Angeles.

Ward was charged Jan. 28 with three counts of first-degree aggravated murder with firearms enhancements and one count of second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm.

Dennis Marvin Bauer, Kallie Ann Letellier and Ward are each charged for the slayings of trucking company owner Darrell C. Iverson, 57; his son, Jordan D. Iverson, 27, and Jordan Iversons girlfriend, Tiffany A. May, 26.

Wards attorney, Lane Wolfley, filed a motion Oct. 25 to suppress his clients Jan. 31 interview with Clallam County Sheriffs Det. Jeff Waterhouse and Det. Sgt. Eric Munger.

Wolfley argued that Ward said he would like a lawyer prior to the interrogation.

Ward invoked his right to remain silent and subsequent questioning violated his Fifth Amendment rights, Wolfley said in his motion.

Prosecutors argued that Ward stated hed like a lawyer if Im being charged and voluntarily waived his rights to counsel.

The states list of witnesses for the 3.6 hearing include Munger, Waterhouse, Sheriffs Sgt. Don Wenzl and State Patrol Det. Mike Grall.

A six-week trial for Ward, now scheduled to begin Feb. 3, is expected to be reset Wednesday.

Theyre still trying to (complete) the rest of the testing, said Michele Devlin, Clallam County chief criminal deputy prosecuting attorney, in a Friday court hearing.

A State Patrol crime lab is expected to complete DNA testing next month and firearms testing in February, Devlin said.

Devlin added there was no indication on when the crime scene response team would produce its report.

She deferred to Wolfley on whether to reset the trial date Friday or Wednesday.

I would appreciate being able to wait so that I can confer with other council working on the other cases and just taking an opportunity to talk with Mr. Ward, Wolfley said.

We both recognize the reality of the evidentiary situation.

The victims lived at Iversons residence at 52 Bear Meadow Road, where nearly a thousand pieces of evidence were collected.

Ward is being held in the Jefferson County Jail on $3 million bail.

Erickson signed a transport order for Ward to appear in Clallam County Superior Court at 9 a.m. Wednesday.

According to court documents, Bauer was upset with Darrel Iversons treatment of Letellier, with whom Bauer had a relationship.

Ward, Bauers nephew, according to court records, first said he was not at Iversons property when the shooting occurred, then said he was there but did not take part in the killings.

He said Bauer shot Iverson and Iversons son and that Letellier shot May.

As Bauer, Letellier and Ward fled Iversons residence in a vehicle following the killing, Ward made comments to the effect that the Iversons were both still alive after being shot by Dennis, and he had to finish them off, Letellier said, court papers said.

________

Reporter Rob Ollikainen can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 56450, or at [emailprotected]dailynews.com.

Originally posted here:

Man charged with triple murder to have hearing this week - Peninsula Daily News

Julio Carrillo pleads 5th when called to testify in wife’s murder trial – WMTW Portland

Julio Carrillo invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when called to testify Friday in the murder trial of his wife.Sharon Carrillo is charged with murder in the death of her 10-year-old daughter Marissa Kennedy.Julio Carrillo is serving 55 years in prison after pleaded guilty to killing the girl.Sharon Carrillo's father and stepmother also took the stand Friday morning as the defense continued to present its case. Prosecutors rested on Thursday.Roseanne Kennedy, Sharon Carrillos stepmother, testified that her stepdaughter didn't say her first word until she was nearly 5 years old and was diagnosed with learning disabilities.The defense has argued that Sharon Carrillo has limited mental capacity.Roseanne Kennedy said Julio Carrillo had Sharon Carrillo and Marissa Kennedy under his control, with both seeking his approval before doing anything.Kennedy went on to say Sharon Carrillo lost her identity and turned into a robot because of Julio Carrillo.

Julio Carrillo invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when called to testify Friday in the murder trial of his wife.

Sharon Carrillo is charged with murder in the death of her 10-year-old daughter Marissa Kennedy.

Julio Carrillo is serving 55 years in prison after pleaded guilty to killing the girl.

Sharon Carrillo's father and stepmother also took the stand Friday morning as the defense continued to present its case. Prosecutors rested on Thursday.

Roseanne Kennedy, Sharon Carrillos stepmother, testified that her stepdaughter didn't say her first word until she was nearly 5 years old and was diagnosed with learning disabilities.

The defense has argued that Sharon Carrillo has limited mental capacity.

Roseanne Kennedy said Julio Carrillo had Sharon Carrillo and Marissa Kennedy under his control, with both seeking his approval before doing anything.

Kennedy went on to say Sharon Carrillo lost her identity and turned into a robot because of Julio Carrillo.

Read the original:

Julio Carrillo pleads 5th when called to testify in wife's murder trial - WMTW Portland