I stopped wearing sunscreen a couple of years ago. If I’m headed somewhere more tropical, like Miami, or I have to be exposed to a UV higher than 8 without a base tan, I’ll opt for a low mineral coverage without the added ick. But I avoid sunscreen whenever possible.
My traditionally trained dermatologist friends think I’m bananas for this shift. But I am chronically Vitamin D deficient; not wearing sunscreen has helped abate this somewhat but I’m still kind of low.
I am beginning to think needing contact lenses/glasses for most of my life contributes to this.
In an attempt to get my circadian rhythm back on track, I’ve started trying to do the ~get sunlight as soon as you wake up without sunglasses~ thing.
But apparently my contacts are UV blocking. And you don’t really have a choice in that matter if you need corrective lenses, as far as I can tell.
Considering how vitamin D is essentially for immune and bone health, and how a large swath of the human population is lacking in the vitamin D department, could UV blocking corrective lenses be partly to blame?
Does this move us closer to the Insurrection Act and military intervention?
- Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15, §332; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, §1057(a)(2), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3440; renumbered §252, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, §1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
Hmmmm
Q said follow the wives, but I’m also following the husbands. And the husband’s coworkers.
To begin: Loretta Preska started her judicial career at Cahill Gordon & Reindel. She worked there from 1973 to 1982.
Preska moved to another firm in 1982 then was appointed to the federal bench by Bush Senior.
According to Wikipedia, Judge Loretta Preska’s husband is attorney Thomas Kavaler.
Kavaler currently works for Cahill Gordon & Reindel. He started there in 1975.
Why is this important?
Because that means he and Preska likely met while working there, and his time at the firm coincides with Loretta Lynch joining the firm after she graduated from Harvard Law.
Kavaler also considers the 2nd Circuit judge he clerked for, Milton Pollack, to be the best judge to ever take the bench. Pollack was appointed by LBJ, so I have my doubts. Kavaler was hired by Pollack without an interview, just on the word of one his professors. You could potentially go full conspiracy with the fact Pollack’s first wife died around the time LBJ appointed him for the judicial position, but there’s enough deep state connections at Cahill that Pollack’s wife’s untimely death doesn’t have to be considered important to still raise some eyebrows.
Preska and Kavaler’s relationship has previously been questioned due to her rulings in favor of corporations. See this article for why some consider her the “1%’s handpicked judge.”
But it gets weirder. Why?
The specific wording is:
Defendant claims that an appearance of partiality and an appearance of financial interest are too strong to be disregarded because (1) online postings purport to show that Thomas J. Kavaler, this Court's husband, is an alleged victim of some of the charged offense conduct, and (2) Mr. Kavaler's law firm represents, in unrelated matters, "other prominent victims" of some of the charged offense conduct.
The motion was denied, but think about that. Kavaler and Preska are potentially directly tied to Stratfor. And the Stratfor information that Hammond gave to Wikileaks.
Let’s look at the coworkers a bit, too.
Floyd Abrams also served as a Cahill attorney. Preska considers him a mentor, according to Wikipedia. Why does this matter?
On September 9, 2009, Abrams argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of Senator Mitch McConnell in the highly publicized re-argument ordered by the Court on the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold, defending the rights of corporations and unions to donate unlimited amounts of money to political allies in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Abrams was also involved in the 1971 case involving The NY Times and Nixon.
His first cousin is Elliot Abrams, Bush Jr’s deputy NatSec advisor.
But who else works at Cahill? Or used to?
Enter Ellen Weintraub, who not only began her career at Cahill but:
was then counsel to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for the U.S. House of Representatives (the House Ethics Committee), where she advised members on investigations.
then worked at Perkins Coie for the political law group.
is serving as chair of the FEC despite the fact her term ended in 2007. It doesn’t technically end until someone replaces them, which is insane. Why didn’t Trump do anything about this situation, especially when she challenged him on his election fraud assertions?
Knowing what I know now, I think I’ll see Jesus on his birthday tomorrow before I see justice come from this Epstein unsealing.
Why?
Richard W. Levitt is in his own firm now, but he’s a well-known criminal defense attorney. I found that odd since the Doe he’s representing is a victim.
But that’s not the main problem.
It stems from his LinkedIn.
From 1978 to 1981 he worked as an associate for Gerald Lefcourt. Why does that matter?
Gerald Bernard Lefcourt is an American criminal defense lawyer. He has represented a number of high-profile clients, including financier and registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein,[2] the Black Panthers, activist/author Abbie Hoffman, hotelier Harry Helmsley, former Speaker of the New York State Assembly Mel Miller, and actors Russell Crowe[3] and Tracy Morgan.
Lefcourt negotiated the non-prosecution agreement. When Epstein died, he was quoted in an AP article as stating “the deal should still protect any alleged co-conspirators for what happened between 2001 and 2007.”
Let’s not forget that Lefcourt is married to the daughter of Mortimer Sackler.
It seems to me that whoever Doe 107 is got this Levitt guy forced on her to keep her quiet/be used as a delay tactic for the name release.
Because I’m pretty sure Assange hitting US soil (or being exposed as already being here despite headlines to the contrary) is a point of no return.
The timing of that kind of thing must be impeccable. I’m not sure when it will be resolved, but the fact the extradition was approved and is still somehow sitting in the final appeals process seems sus.
I was surprised to see Louis Theroux interview Chelsea Manning recently, so this issue has been on my mind.
But it feels like we are currently caught in a massive game of chicken. I just don’t know when the next egg will drop.
What exactly are they waiting for re: a drop they want to use that state funeral to distract from?
Thoughts?
