Who actually
For some reason the name Ponzi keeps drifting through my brain. Like when re-reading the Guardian piece from yesterday about Victoria McCloud.
McCloud, who is supported by Trans Legal Clinic and W-Legal, said the application was brought under articles 6, 8 and 14 of the European convention on human rights, “essentially the rights to respect for who I am, my family, my human existence, my right to a fair trial in matters determining my own freedoms and obligations without discrimination.”
See, the reason that rings the Ponzi bell is because I’ve just been reading about how “Trans Legal Clinic” is…an empty shell. It’s another “Lemkin Institute”. When people are citing empty title pages as backup you want to take a close look at their claimed expertise.
I take it that the thing about the incline on which they work getting more steep and the thing about not having the resources indicates that they don’t actually do anything, aka they are just a name. I could be wrong! But that “Oh gosh we just don’t have the _______ to do this thing we say we do right now, so sorry, we’ll get back to you as soon as um er enough of you have sent us enough donations” does rather look like [whispers] Ponziness.
Unfortunately, this is exactly the sort of *ahem* legal clinic *ahem* that represented Amy Hamm at her nursing college disciplinary hearing. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) that represented Ms. Hamm is long on appeals for donations to conservatives and libertarians, but short on wins in court.
During the Covid pandemic the JCCF defended churches and others charged with violating public health orders. Their founder and president, John Carpay, was disbarred in Manitoba after hiring a private investigator to follow the province’s chief justice around hoping to find him in violation of Covid protocols. The JCCF were backers of the so-called Freedom Convoy that occupied the city of Ottawa for three weeks in early 2022, ostensibly to protest vaccine mandates for cross-border truckers.
The Trans Legal Clinic, the Good Law Project, the JCCF and Stephen Miller’s America First Legal Foundation spend much effort on PR to drum up donations from the rubes. Like a blind pig they occasionally find a truffle in court, but court wins aren’t their main focus. They’re a pox on society and legal resources. I wish Ms. Hamm had paid the extra premium on her professional liability insurance that would have seen her get proper legal representation before the nursing tribunal.
Trans activists learned early on that if you call yourself something enough times, people will start to believe it. “Fake it ’til you make it” has become the central tenet of the movement.
Fake that they’re women enough, people will eventually capitulate.
Fake being a legal clinic long enough, lazy journalists will start treating it like an authoritative source.
Fake academics have spun a citation-laundering ring, endlessly citing one another in a closed loop. “Gender identity” is the Ivies’ yellowcake uranium: a complete fiction, yet deadly enough to justify their attacks.
Even the grand, pompously titled “World Professional Association for Transgender Health” is just a rebranding of a once-puny little outfit formerly called something like the Harry Benjamin Association — a successful rebranding, given that journalists now revere it like it’s the Trans W.H.O.
They’re building a parallel world out of make-believe.
It’s the journalists I’m mad at, though. And really, the editors above them. Trans la-la land exists entirely — entirely — on the media’s approval. Its authority survives only because it’s propped up by those we trust to separate fact from fiction.
The three people on Earth most responsible for the trans mania are David Remnick, Kath Viner, and Dean Baquet — Editor of the New Yorker, Editor-In-Chief of The Guardian, and former Executive Editor of the New York Times, respectively.
McCloud has no idea how to write legibly: that statement is a mess.
Red-flagged by whom?
Given that the UK hasn’t been red-flagged with harsh measures – because the very idea makes no sense – that sentence is incomplete.
Where they can afford what?
Good sentence structure is not your forte. ‘There is no question of any of us abandoning our community’. It is not difficult to write clearly.
‘many many’? ‘pursue in pursuit of’? Good God! The man is barely literate. How on Earth did he earn his doctorate and go on to be a High Court judge?
Well, that’s typical. Borked the quoting. Hoist by by own petard!
Fixed.
@3 In my various dealings with lawyers over the years the one thing I’ve been consistently impressed with is their ability to be clear and focused, and quickly identify exactly what they need to know and understand to put arguments together. This guy? Not so much. (I have to wonder if his inability to communicate is age- or mental decline-related; it’s hard to imagine he was actually able to do his job if he was so poor at being able to marshal his thoughts into text.)
Sumi @ 1 – I didn’t know that about Amy Hamm’s case. How unfortunate.
[…] a comment by Artymorty on Who […]
Thanks, Ophelia.
guest, #6. McCloud is only 55 so I can’t see it being an age-related decline, but I assume that he was able to write more clearly in the past. His Wiki page says that as Victoria Williams he authored the first five editions of the Civil Procedure Handbook and the Surveillance and Intelligence Law Handbook for the Oxford University Press, which must have been prior to his taking his partner’s surname in 2006.
I suppose it’s possible that his statement was written and posted in haste without proofreading but it doesn’t reflect well on somebody who is currently practicing as a barrister and as a chartered psychologist to boot.
@9 interesting, I think I saw/heard him being interviewed in April after the Supreme Court decision and he looked and sounded much older than that.