Rome Relaxes and Ignores The Noise

Last week, the US Supreme Court ruled that the ATF could not classify so-called “bump stocks” with rendering a semi-automatic firearm into a fully automatic firearm, i.e., a machine gun.   The case is called Garland (the Attorney General) vs. Cargill.

This decision was (1) unfortunate and (2) eminently avoidable by a rational Congress.  Equally unfortunate is that the United States currently does not have a rational Congress.

Bump stocks are a relatively recent – and simple – innovation to firearms.  It uses the recoil of the weapon to cycle the trigger without constant voluntary squeezes of the trigger by the shooter.  They were largely unknown until 2017.  A shooter from the 32^nd floor of Mandalay Bay casino & hotel in Las Vegas used bump stocks and a LOT of ammunition to kill 60 people and wound 400 more.  The victims were attending an open concert next door to the hotel.  (The shooter suicided before when the police closed in.)

The majority opinion by Justice Thomas splits hairs and says that the action of a machine gun is not precisely the action of a bump stock.  Which is true.  Moreover, the ATF didn’t have the authority to expand the statutory definition of what constitutes a machine gun.  Likewise, true.  Justice Sotomayor applies the old theory that if it walks and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.  A quick and steady firing weapon is a machine gun, no matter how it works. And that’s likewise, as a practical matter, true.  A short concurring opinion by Justice Alito says that Congress can easily outlaw bump stocks.   Which is true.

Let’s find expert witnesses to help us understand the effects of bump stocks.  There are lots of them:  The Officers who responded to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.  If one listens to the radio transmissions of the responding officers, you hear several officers describe the gunfire that is still happening as they were transmitting as “automatic fire” or “fully automatic fire.” In other words, the gunfire was steady and fast, like a machine gun.  [See Note 1 for why people listen to those tapes.]

These expert witnesses heard machine gun fire.  What exact mechanism was causing the machine gun fire was irrelevant.    Former President Trump, often endorsed by the National Rifle Association, had the ATF draft regulations to ban bump stocks.  The late Sen. Feinstein disagreed because she did not believe that ATF had the power to do it by regulation.  She said "legislation is the only answer."   Last week, the Supreme Court agreed with Sen. Feinstein.  But so far, no legislation. 

Since 2017, Congress has had the power to ban bump stocks.  Nothing has happened.  Even the NRA hasn’t criticized the limitation of machine guns or the high fees and strict rules regarding machine guns.  There is NOTHING barring Congress from banning bump stocks next week – except inaction brought about by endless political bickering.  Maybe Congress should be ashamed, but that would require the ability to feel shame.  Ain’t likely.

Mizpah!

 

Note 1 – There is a science of quick and proper response to sudden emergencies.  To be good at that science requires preparation and preparation requires study of how others confronted with sudden emergencies have performed.  FEMA – the Federal Emergency Management Agency – sponsors National Incident Manage System, a long and involved course of a systematic approach to emergencies.  So emergency managers study the radio tapes – now usually available on Youtube – to see how a real emergency was handled and what could have been done better.  The 9/11 FDNY and NYPD tapes are a record of how confused and then creative was the response to a theretofore impossible set of circumstances; the Aurora FD theater tapes establish that the Incident Command System was pretty closely followed.

Can Donald Trump or Hunter Biden get fair trials?

No. 

And the circumstances are delicious – One can speak what one sees as the Truth without being seen as a Trump/Biden apologist.  (Yeah, right – This ink-stained wretch will be seen as only half right, with the halves split about evenly.  Even that is delicious.)

(Pontius Pilate: But what is truth?)

What is a fair trial?  A fair trial is where:

1 – The government prosecutor is competent and presents a fair case using legally admissible evidence.

2 – The defendant is represented by competent counsel who presents a fair case using legally admissible evidence.

3 – The Judge applies the law equally and doesn’t favor either side.

4 - The jury either doesn’t know anything about the case or will put aside any knowledge they have and judge from the evidence.

You have those four things, and you may have a fair trial.  Most importantly:  A FAIR TRIAL DOESN’T DEPEND TO WHO WINS AND WHO LOSES.

Pretty simple, right?

The devil is in the details and the details make lots of trial unfair.

For example:  Most readers will think that a fair trial for Trump or H. Biden depends on who wins.  Obviously, if Trump is convicted and H. Biden is acquitted, they each got a fair trial.  But, no, wait:  If Trump is acquitted and H. Biden is convicted, they each got a fair trial.  Maybe Jethro Bodine doesn’t have an opinion, but you do. 

Admissible evidence is information which is both relevant and material.  Relevant means the evidence tends to prove something.  Material means what it proves has something to do with the case.  I’ve heard that Booth shot Lincoln.  But I wasn’t there, so my testimony is worthless – irrelevant.  That Trump saved American/caused a million deaths in the pandemic or that H. Biden has used cocaine and hookers might be true.  But it is not material, it doesn’t have anything to do with either case. 

Let’s run down the list –

The prosecutors – The Prosecutor in each case will be competent and on their A-game.  Whether they will be a little underhanded remains to be seen.  Probably not, because everyone will be watching.

The defense counsel – Ditto.

OK, maybe the lawyers will try to get away with a little crap, but they won’t get far.

The Judge – Ok, now it gets a little sticky.  Each is charged in Federal Court, and Trump also has state charges.  Guess who appoints Federal Judges?  The president.  As in Trump, H. Biden’s dad, or somebody in their party.  Almost everyone will think the fix is in on one of the cases.  They may be right, they may be wrong, but they will believe it.  Even if the fix is kind of in, the Judges will honestly not believe it in their hearts.

The jury is the big problem.   The jury produces a “verdict.”  That word comes from the old French word, “verdicto,”  It means “True.”  So a verdict means “True.”  In every case, how does a jury determine what is true?  No juror will be picked who was either at the January 6 patriotic event/seditious insurrection or who works for Burisma.  That would make them witnesses, not jurors. 

God, who knows all and sees all, does not appear as a witness.  If you don’t believe in God, no problem – He still doesn’t come.  The jury listens to the evidence from people who were there, sees videos, photographs, documents, and so forth.  Then, they will decide not on Truth, but on what they BELIEVE the Truth is.  

The jurors form a belief.  We hope that the belief is true.  Sometimes, it isn’t.  Well, that’s just the breaks.

In Trump’s or H. Biden’s trials, if you get someone who has never heard of the cases, you have one dumb juror, a Jethro Bodine doesn’t watch the news and dreams about being a brain surgeon or a fry cook. 

We’ll see three varieties of potential jurors. 

One, some people will sincerely try to put their opinions aside and sincerely try to come to a fair verdict.  They are wrong because they’ve been dipped in constant propaganda, but they’ll try.  Moreover, the propaganda they have seen and heard was intentional.  Both sides have been constantly announcing their talking points – disguised as news – since the cases came about.

Two, some people are narcissists.  They think they are fair.  But they will bring to the jury table a whole heaping helping of confirmation bias.  They will accept evidence which confirms what they already believe and ignore the rest.  Narcissists are tricky.  They actually believe that they will be fair.  They’d pass a lie detector.   We’ll never know if we get a narcissist, even after they write their book at the end of the trial. 

Finally, we will see out-and-out liars.  Those people have zero intention of judging fairly and will lie to get on the jury.  Some liars will be stupid and be exposed.  If someone has expressed an opinion publicly, we’ll know what it was.  We’ll have a constant flow of “good citizens” who will rat out the jurors.  (Oh, the “good citizens” may be liars themselves.)    

The public will never agree that Trump or H. Biden got a fair trial.   It will all depend on who wins.  Nobody wants justice.  They want the rascal to go to prison and the innocent guy to be vindicated.  Only the names have changed to protect the guilty.

A fair trial?  Pull the other one.

 Mizpah!

Try It in a Small Town

Try That in a Small Town

This ink-stained wretch is clueless concerning any sort of celebrity culture.  Jason Aldean is – apparently – a country music singer who is well known, but not to us.  That’s not a criticism – he does his thing and we do ours.  We've only heard of him in the past week or so.

Jason Aldean has provoked a negative response to a song he recorded, “Try That in a Small Town.”  Wait – People responded to it, but he didn’t provoke anything.  He used his First Amendment rights to say – in music, in verse – what he thought.

The First Amendment is invoked and avoided at the whim of the citizen, depending on the political and social beliefs that they have already formed.  But lest we forget:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, “Congress shall make no laws . . .” applies to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Maybe it should apply to citizens, but that would inhibit THEIR First Amendment rights.  This constitutional republic has very inconvenient laws concerning what citizens do.  (Thank God.) 

So if someone says that Aldean’s music is violent, racist (based on where it was filmed which was the scene of a racist scene 75 years ago, go figure), or . . . Oh, pick something negative – That is protected speech.   In my judgment, it is stupid speech, but in some people’s opinion, this post is stupid speech.  Welcome to the First Amendment!

The much-maligned Aldean lyrics include:

    Sucker punch somebody on a sidewalk

    Carjack an old lady at a red light

    Pull a gun on the owner of a liquor store

    Ya think it's cool, well, act a fool if ya like

    Cuss out a cop, spit in his face

    Stomp on the flag and light it up

    Yeah, ya think you're tough

    Well, try that in a small town

    See how far ya make it down the road

    Around here, we take care of our own

    You cross that line, it won't take long

    For you to find out, I recommend you don't.

Let’s first talk about small towns and rural areas.  The Pew Research Center is as near to a nonpartisan, nonaligned statistical source as you are likely to encounter worldwide.  They published a survey showing where the US population iives, divided between rural and small towns and urban and large suburban people:

So, depending on the accuracy of the Pew study (which I accept), 44% of people live in small towns and rural areas.   That 44% deserves to be heard, just like any other citizen.  We are part of that – We live in Ohio County, West Virginia, in what is to most people a small town.  It’s part of the Pittsburgh, PA, statistical area, but is 60 miles from downtown Pittsburgh.  Ohio County is a progressive place, as measured by the whole of West Virginia, Pennsylvannia and Ohio, but it’s still a small town.

The lyrics: 

Sucker punch somebody on a sidewalk; Carjack an old lady at a red light; Pull a gun on the owner of a liquor store; Cuss out a cop, spit in his face; Stomp on the flag and light it up. 

You do any of that, that’s illegal -- except lighting up the flag which is First Amendment speech in action.   (If somebody does that, they are still a flaming jerk but they have a right to do it no matter what I think.)

 As to the others – sucker punch somebody, carjack an old lady, pull a gun to rob a liquor store and even spit on a police officer – that’s illegal and invites a response by a citizen who sees it.  (Mind you, spitting on a police officer has it’s own reward, and seldom will a citizen (1) need to get involved or (2) care what happens to the miscreant if it’s less than serious injury.)  But the others – carjacking, punching someone or robbery – invites a justified citizen response.  If the miscreant is armed or presents a serious threat to life, it invites a lethal citizen response.  Lethal responses are not limited to firearms.  The papers are full of citizens who have stopped – and killed – people without a firearm. 

“Try that in a small town” – That reflects the real possibility that if you are in a small town or a rural area, the citizens are more likely to respond to the stimulus.  In a small town or a rural area, people are used to delayed police response and have reason to take action on their own.  So – the “try that in a small town” is valid.  If you try to that stuff in a small town or rural area, you are more likely to encounter fierce citizen resistance.

Is that bad?  Is it bad to intervene in a crime which presents danger to another?  That is a personal decision – but we don’t want to live in such a pusillanimous place.  There is something to be said for looking in the mirror in the morning and know that you have done your best.  If you have ever stopped someone using appropriate force to interrupt them from hurting others, you know in your heart that you have done your best.

Aldean has also been criticize for invoking firearms:

     Got a gun that my granddad gave me

    They say one day they're gonna round up

    Well, that shit might fly in the city, good luck

Some people sincerely wish that everyone should give up their weapons if the government requires them to.  That is their First Amendment right.  It does not reflect the belief of many people, certainly not among the rural and small town citizens.  When bad things happen, seconds count.  The police are only minutes away.  They see firearms as the founders did – a defensive device.  Like it or not, that is how small town dwellers think and it is reflected in reality.  What will happen in the future and how will rural and small town people respond?  We don’t know.  We can’t know until it happens.  I do know that if statutes are passed relating to weapon’s possession, a whole lot of firearms are going to be reported as stolen, lost, destroyed and so forth.  Illegal?  Sure.  Just like marijuana.  How did that work out?

(I had a gun that my granddad gave me:  I had a Stevens .22 single shot rifle that I inherited from my father, my grandfather and my great-grandather.  My great-grandfather - Rufus H. Curry - used the weapon on the farm.  It has now passed on to my son.  Maybe his son or daughter.  That's the West Virginia way, it is our version of the Way of the Jedi.) 

Facing reality is a tough duty.  Are we up to it?

 

 

The Name is Tiger, not Parnelli; a Motor Vehicle Accident

 We don't want special justice for anybody.  We don't want celebrities, politicians and the rich to escape justice just because of their status.

And we also don't want celebrities, politicians and the rich to be prosecuted - when they otherwise wouldn't - just because of their status.

On 23 February 2021, elite golfer Tiger Woods was driving a Genesis SUV on as rural a road as you can find in LA County.  He ran off the road, hit a tree, destroyed the SUV, was pinned in the wreckage, and is still being treated for injuries including an open, comminuted tib-fib and foot/ankle fracture.  He reported that he doesn't remember driving.  The Sheriff has reported that there were no skid marks, indicating that he didn't apply the breaks before he left the pavement.  The Sheriff has not found indications of impairment, other than remarkably lousy driving.

Other than the identity of the driver, this was an ordinary, boring - to those who responded - motor vehicle accident.  In the past month, dozens or hundreds of accidents have happened which are very similar.  If the LA wreck happened with Joe Blow driving, nobody would remember the details of the wreck after a month.

The LA Sheriff's Department is still "investigating."  And they probably really to some extent, to avoid the charge of giving Tiger special justice and giving him a pass on prosecution.  In doing so, he's receiving special justice in an effort to avoid the appearance of special justice.

Let's pretend Joe Blow was driving.  Here's what would have happened:  The police, fire and EMS would have responded just as they did, gotten the driver out, and transported him to the hospital.  Hopefully, he would have gotten the same medical treatment.  I'm less sure of the treatment, because no doubt they knew that it was Tiger Woods, that they had better not mess up, and that he could afford the absolute best.  But I  think that Joe Blow would have gotten similar surgeries and I hope Joe would have gotten similar healing.

Then the Sheriff would have sent a accident investigator to the scene, one of many the Department uses in LA County.  They would have found no indication of impairment other than lousy driving.  It would have been referred to one of the many assistant prosecutors.  That prosecutor and the investigator MIGHT have charged Joe with "Failure to Maintain Control," a citation only with a fine.  But probably, they would have determined that Joe's experience had already taught him all the lessons he might have learned and closed the case within a week.

Mizpah!

Mrs. Nutter Redux; A Post about Race, Life and Niceness

In 2009, I posted this.  It seems appropriate to repeat it.

Tomorrow is Groundhog Day, which anyone without tolerance of the inane at least ignores. It’s stupid, and is an opportunity to pretend to observe an irrational superstition and act the fool. The point, however, is that sometimes it’s fun to act the fool. Perhaps that reminds us not to take ourselves too seriously. 

In recent years, Groundhog Day has been most connected to the Bill Murray movie of the same name. In the movie, Murray consciously relives the same day over and over. It’s a queer “quest” movie, temporal rather than geographical, and perhaps the lesson is to think about what we would do if we had the time or were willing to take the time. In his case, it was to learn to play a mean jazz piano. Or perhaps I’ve missed the point entirely and there is a much more meaningful lesson or perhaps I’m an intellectual snob and it’s merely fun and there’s no lesson at all there. (Aside: I use the word “queer” intentionally. I will not countenance the hijacking or our language - queer, straight, life, choice, for example - by political pirates.) First thing in the morning is the annual Groundhog Day Breakfast put on by First Exchange Bank. This is a rather fun event which represents marketing for the bank, but also one of those y’all-come community business things that are don’t-miss. Oh, there’s a strong slug of boosterism involved, and that’s OK, too. I think that Babbitt gave boosterism a bad rap. What it amounts to is a positive attitude of a community which, if followed by helpful action, usually produces positive results. There’s also an annual prognostication contest which is mostly blind luck, since economists and futurists consistently get short-term forecasts dreadfully wrong. None of that really impresses me to death. 

The meaning of Groundhog Day, to me, is that it’s Mrs. Nutter’s birthday. When I was growing up, our family moved around a lot due to my Dad being transferred to various jobs within the Power Company. About a week into the school year of third grade, we moved to Bridgeport, and I entered a new grade school, Bridgeport Elementary. By “new,” I mean newly built. Whenever I've gone into a construction project or a new building ever since I was a kid and smell concrete dust and the other odors of construction, it's taken me right back to Bridgeport Elementary. I was placed in Mrs. Nutter’s third grade class. Mrs. Nutter was an unforgettable figure. She was short. I mean, she was short. And she was old. Now, to an 8 or 9 year old, “old” is relative, but she was white-haired and wrinkly, so I’m sure she was into her 60's. She wore matronly dresses and big clunky heels and had a raspy country voice. I don’t remember much about the academic subjects, other than flashes here and there. Mrs. Nutter was a wagon boss about handwriting and drilled us kids mercilessly. My mother still comments - no, laments - that I got certificates for good handwriting from Mrs. Nutter. Oh, the lamentations are because that training didn’t stick and my cursive now is perfectly readable - to me. 

But I remember Mrs. Nutter’s lessons. I remember them because they affected me and still have an effect on my behavior. Some find me a bit stiff in my constant use of “sir” and “ma’am.” That comes primarily from Mrs. Nutter. She preached courtesty, politeness and respect. She demonstrated how goofy disinterested slang sounded and how interested and respectful proper address was received. Well before I read Robert A. Heinlein’s explanation of courtesy as the lubricant of human interaction, Mrs. Nutter had demonstrated that concept. Mrs. Nutter also pushed respect for others through the herds of the 60's sacred cows. 

Racial discrimination certainly was a part of West Virginia at that time, but not so blatantly as in the Deep South for the simple reason that there weren’t nearly so many black folks. Mrs. Nutter’s lessons about tolerance were nothing short of passionate sermons, about how totally stupid it was to judge somebody by color. I remember her talking about suntans and eye color and probably other stupid stuff to illustrate what a lame concept the whole thing was. There is a lesson there. Pass all the civil rights acts and so forth you want, if you are attempting to modify the actions and beliefs of adults, you have the ol’ tough row to hoe. Teaching children and trusting them enough to reason with them and tell them why, that is our responsibility as parents and as communities and as a society. Let’s see: I remember Mrs. Nutter talking a lot about human hardship. Like many in the early 60's, she had been through the great economic Depression of the 30's, and she brought that feeling of hardship to us as much as she could to little kids. I remember her talking about the Shinnston tornado. To my midwestern readers, know that tornados are very rare in West Virginia. Every couple of years, our county gets what appears to be a really small vortex that damages a few acres of woods, and that’s a big deal. Out and out tornados are almost mythical. The only one that I’ve ever really heard of which took lives was the June 1944 tornado which destroyed much of Shinnston, Harrison County. I remember Mrs. Nutter describing the noise and the funnel cloud, and the aftermath, the devastation, people with dirt blown into their skin. And I remember Mrs. Nutter talking about human failings. She talked about how stupid it was to light something on fire and suck down the smoke, way before the surgeon general did. She talked about obesity when nobody really was noticing. When we did organized physical activity, she exercised right along with us, clunky heels and all. 

I’ve no idea of Mrs. Nutter had biological children. But she did have children and did leave a legacy. So Happy Birthday, dearest Mrs. Nutter. 

Mizpah!

The Trick of Truth

 Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

 

I remember the first time I swore in a witness.  I was a young, young lawyer, and I was a notary, so I was able to swear folks in.  I was waiting at Judge J. Harper Meredith’s office. He saw me and told me to swear in the people in his office.  He did it to give me a tiny bit of experience, and maybe an anecdote to tell forty-some years later.

 

The whole truth:  That’s a problem with public discourse.  It always has been.  Maybe my impression that it’s sharply on the rise is because we are living in it now.

 

But I don’t think so – It’s worse.

 

Public discourse never contains "the whole truth."    Even when it's true, the whole truth doesn't live there.  To tell any of the good, valid points on the other side detracts from your argument. 

 

And leaves you open for valid criticism of your views because you are not subject to the "What they didn't tell you was . . ."

 

We have lived for 2-1/2 months with voter ID, mail-in ballots, absentee voting and early voting.  Have you ever seen a discussion of any of these issues which presented "the whole truth?"

 

I didn't think so.  So we stumble along, growing louder and louder with our arguments.  We DISCUSS nothing.

 

Let's go over some issues and tell, as much as we can in a little blog post, "the whole truth."

 

THE $15 MINIMUM WAGE:

 

No one can exist with a 40 hours job at the current $7.25 hourly wage.  You cannot feed yourself, have a private place to sleep, clothe yourself and find transportation on $7.25.  It will bring people out of poverty.  It will stimulate the community - People with have more money to spend at the grocery store and the shoe repair shop.  In fact, local Chambers of Commerce say that a dollar of wages will add $7 to the economic activity of the area.  It will loosen the public purse by getting people off public assistance.  $15 an hour will disproportionally affect women minorities positively.

 

These are all pretty good reasons.  They are valid.

 

Oh, I know which readers are getting mad.  Let me make everyone else mad.

 

A problem arguing against $15 is that an argument anti- is much more involved.  Equally valid, but hard-to-follow.

 

Some businesses will lay off workers who currently earn $10 or less an hour.  The businesses will lay off minimal-skilled workers, who are the people $15 an hour is supposed to help.  It will also reduce take-home wages because, at some point, cutting hours, the minimum wage worker will result in less money coming in.  (Minimal-skilled workers are mostly young, women, minorities, and seniors.)  Long-term, lay-offs reduce on-the-job training, which will cut that worker's future wage.  Minimum wage work teaches some skills - use of equipment and cash-registers, and the simple lesson that it pays to get to work on time.  $15 will hit the $16 - 20 an hour particularly hard.  They will work harder and be able to buy less groceries.  $15 will result in higher prices for everyone.  It's PEOPLE who pay for everything.  Groceries are sold at low mark-up.  The owners want to - and are entitled to - make a certain amount.  The $!.99 loaf of bread just went up to $2.09.  It's not makers of luxury goods who will suffer, it's mom & pop business customers.  Walmart customers.  Every customer.

 

Tentative lessons to be drawn:

 

Most minimum wage workers will be better off.  How much is subject to dispute.

 

Minimum wage workers will not be as better-off as much as the Pro-15 people say.  Some workers will be worse off and some workers will be laid off.  How much and how many is subject to dispute.

 

GREEN NEW DEAL:

 

The scientific community has decided that the planet is warming steadily.  We are seeing some effects.  A major player is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and it is raised by burning fossil fuels.  Some people disagree, they are entitled to, and they are wrong.

 

Arguments Pro:  The warm air stimulates hurricanes and odd climate shifts.  Polar ice will melt and the ocean level will be raised significantly.  If the methane currently in solid from far down in the oceans melts, that will add a sudden boost to the greenhouse gases.  Areas of the earth currently livable like the Australian Outback will become unbearable.   There is a point when the climate change becomes unstoppable, but we don't know where that is.  Everybody uses "existential" inappropriately.  With this one, it's used correctly.

 

Proponents make valid arguments.

 

Arguments Anit-:  We cannot suddenly stop burning fossil fuels or the world economy will collapse.  Really.  No kidding.  If we do it partially, the economy as it applies to low wage workers will collapse.  We cannot even successfully quit using fossil fuels unless we are willing to live without steel and nylon and a host of other products drawn from fossil fuels as feedstocks.   We will - we have - suddenly put many workers out of work, and they do not have transferrable skills.  (Transferrable skills are those you learn in one job but you can transfer to other work.  If you are a coal miner and lose your job, you've learned very little which makes you attractive to employers.)

 

It applies to voting.  It applies to guns - Pass Beto O'Rourke's dream bill.  Some people next year will be alive when they would not absent the bill.  And some extra people will be dead.  Both sides have points.

 

Apparently, we are not ready to have fair discussions or anything vaguely resembling unity, other than "believe it my way or else" unity.

 

And you wonder why I term myself a member of the Bull Moose Party.

 

Mizpah!

The 1776 Commission Report

President Trump created a "1776 Commission" whose brief was to look at how we look and teach about America.

Perhaps they are right.  Perhaps they are wrong.

The Biden Administration has suppressed it as an official government document.  (The Administration hasn't burned it or such like.)

Here it is - Right, wrong or in-between.

 1776 Commission Report.pdf

Mizpah!