Speaking
at
a
multi-stakeholder
engagement
meeting
organised
by
the
Environmental
Management
Agency
(EMA),
Hwange-based
public
prosecutor
Pride
Mharadza
said
fewer
than
15
EMA-related
cases
were
recorded
in
the
province
in
2025,
describing
the
situation
as
“deeply
disappointing.”
“In
Hwange,
we
only
received
one
case
last
year
involving
the
transport
of
hazardous
substances
without
a
permit,”
Mharadza
said.
The
accused,
who
had
transported
mercury,
was
convicted
and
fined
US$500,
with
four
months’
imprisonment
suspended
for
five
years.
Mharadza
said
Victoria
Falls
recorded
no
EMA
cases
in
2025,
calling
it
“worrying
that
a
whole
station
did
not
receive
a
single
case.”
Binga
recorded
two
cases
involving
cyanide,
one
resulting
in
six
months’
imprisonment
and
forfeiture
of
the
chemical,
while
the
other
could
not
proceed
to
court
due
to
the
absence
of
a
forensic
report.
In
Inyathi,
a
single
case
involved
implementing
a
project
without
an
Environmental
Impact
Assessment
(EIA)
certificate,
resulting
in
a
US$200
fine.
Nkayi
recorded
one
case
of
prohibited
alluvial
mining,
leading
to
suspended
sentences
for
19
accused
persons.
Meanwhile,
Tsholotsho
and
Lupane
reported
no
EMA
cases
during
the
year.
Mharadza
said
delays
in
forensic
reports,
limited
EMA
representation,
and
weak
collaboration
between
police
and
prosecutors
were
major
obstacles
to
successful
prosecution.
“The
overall
picture
points
to
weak
environmental
law
enforcement
rather
than
an
absence
of
environmental
crimes,”
she
said.
“Half
the
stations
did
not
receive
any
EMA
cases.
Some
prosecutors
even
said
they
do
not
know
how
to
handle
EMA
cases
because
they
are
not
receiving
them.”
Mharadza
urged
law
enforcement
and
prosecutors
to
take
action,
saying
that
successful
prosecutions
would
“send
a
message
to
society”
and
strengthen
environmental
protection
across
the
province.
Martin
Chaburumunda,
president
of
the
Zimbabwe
Rural
Teachers’
Union
(ZRTU),
argued
that
the
prohibition
has
left
teachers
powerless,
restricting
their
ability
to
shape
and
maintain
disciplined
classrooms.
Said
Chaburumunda:
“The
banning
of
corporal
punishment
has
caused
discipline
issues
to
rise
in
schools.
“Discipline
is
a
cornerstone
of
education.
Moderate
disciplinary
measures
are
necessary
in
schools.
“We
have
a
new
problem
of
drug
and
substance
abuse
in
schools,
and
with
no
teacher
control
over
learners,
it
will
be
difficult
to
fight
it.
“Right
now,
teachers
are
treading
very
cautiously
when
reprimanding
learners
because
they
fear
being
accused
of
infringing
on
pupils’
rights.”
Charles
Musembwa,
Manicaland
provincial
coordinator
for
the
Progressive
Teachers’
Union
of
Zimbabwe
(PTUZ),
argued
that
the
ban
on
corporal
punishment
should
have
been
paired
with
an
alternative
disciplinary
tool
to
maintain
control
over
pupils.
Musembwa
lamented
that
learners
now
know
they
can
misbehave
with
impunity,
including
engaging
in
risky
activities.
However,
Primary
and
Secondary
Education
Minister
Torerai
Moyo
recently
warned
school
heads
in
Mutare
that
any
use
of
corporal
punishment
would
carry
serious
consequences.
Moyo
reiterated
that
the
ban
remains
firmly
in
place
but
suggested
that
those
in
favour
of
reintroducing
it
should
petition
the
House
of
Assembly
and
lobby
parliamentarians.
He
said:
“Let
me
remind
you
that
corporal
punishment
is
still
outlawed.
No
learner
should
be
beaten
at
school.
“I
have
been
a
teacher
myself,
and
I
used
to
beat
a
lot
of
learners.
Upon
reflection
later
on
in
life,
I
realised
it
was
wrong
to
beat
them.
I
do
not
remember
beating
my
own
children.
“Those
who
feel
corporal
punishment
should
be
restored
are
free
to
petition
Parliament,
stating
their
reasons,
but
as
of
now,
it
is
banned.
“Headmasters,
as
leaders,
identify
those
learners
who
have
a
habit
of
partaking
in
drugs
so
that
remedial
action
is
taken.”
The
Ministry
of
Primary
and
Secondary
Education
recently
issued
new
guidelines
making
it
clear
that
hitting
pupils
is
strictly
forbidden.
The
rules
stress
the
importance
of
respecting
learners’
dignity
and
promoting
alternative
forms
of
discipline,
such
as
counselling
and
guided
reflection.
Teachers
who
break
the
ban
could
face
disciplinary
measures
or
even
criminal
charges.
HARARE
–
The
government
is
preparing
sweeping
constitutional
amendments
that
would
extend
presidential
terms
to
seven
years,
end
direct
presidential
elections
and
fundamentally
reshape
the
country’s
succession
framework.
Justice
minister
Ziyambi
Ziyambi
is
expected
to
table
a
memorandum
to
cabinet
on
Tuesday
outlining
the
proposed
Constitution
of
Zimbabwe
Amendment
Bill,
2026,
which
introduces
far-reaching
changes
to
the
country’s
governance
system
and
institutional
architecture.
One
of
the
most
significant
proposals
is
the
repeal
of
Section
92
of
the
constitution
to
allow
the
president
to
be
elected
by
a
joint
sitting
of
parliament
instead
of
through
a
direct
popular
vote.
Under
the
leaked
draft,
seen
by
ZimLive,
members
of
the
National
Assembly
and
Senate
would
elect
the
president
by
majority
vote
following
general
elections
or
whenever
a
vacancy
arises.
The
bill
also
seeks
to
extend
the
term
of
office
for
both
the
president
and
parliament
from
five
years
to
seven
years,
a
move
which
could
allow
President
Emmerson
Mnangagwa
–
currently
serving
his
second
and
final
term
under
existing
constitutional
limits
–
to
remain
in
office
for
an
additional
two
years,
from
2028
to
2030.
The
memorandum
argues
that
longer
terms
would
reduce
what
it
describes
as
“election
mode
toxicity”
and
allow
more
time
for
government
programmes
to
be
implemented,
framing
the
change
as
necessary
for
stability
and
policy
continuity.
Lawyers
have
argued
that
such
constitutional
amendments
may
require
approval
through
a
public
referendum,
but
Ziyambi
has
publicly
declared
that
a
referendum
will
not
be
necessary.
A
Constitutional
Court
application
allegedly
sponsored
by
Zanu
PF
and
fronted
by
the
Matabeleland
pressure
group
Ibhetshu
LikaZulu
and
its
secretary
general
Mbuso
Fuzwayo
is
set
to
be
heard
after
the
group
was
granted
direct
access
in
an
unopposed
application
on
Monday.
The
question
of
whether
a
referendum
is
required
to
pass
the
amendments
is
expected
to
be
central
to
the
case,
which
could
be
determined
before
Chief
Justice
Luke
Malaba
retires
on
May
14.
The
government’s
proposals
are
expected
to
trigger
intense
political
debate,
with
critics
warning
that
removing
direct
presidential
elections
could
dilute
citizens’
role
in
choosing
their
leader
and
further
centralise
power
within
parliament,
where
Zanu
PF
holds
a
dominant
majority.
The
amendment
opens
up
the
possibility
of
an
unpopular
but
wealthy
politician
becoming
president
by
buying
MPs’
loyalty.
The
draft
amendments
also
significantly
alter
presidential
succession
rules,
potentially
reshaping
internal
political
dynamics
within
the
ruling
party.
Instead
of
a
vice
president
automatically
assuming
office
following
a
vacancy,
the
bill
proposes
that
parliament
elect
a
new
president
within
a
specified
period
after
the
death,
resignation
or
removal
of
an
incumbent.
Analysts
say
the
change
could
undercut
the
traditional
advantage
enjoyed
by
a
sitting
vice
president
and
open
succession
to
broader
political
contestation,
a
shift
likely
to
fuel
speculation
about
succession
politics
within
Zanu
PF,
where
Vice
President
Constantino
Chiwenga
has
frequently
been
viewed
as
a
potential
successor
to
Mnangagwa.
Vice
President
Constantino
Chiwenga
In
another
controversial
provision,
the
bill
proposes
increasing
the
size
of
the
Senate
by
allowing
the
president
to
appoint
an
additional
10
senators
chosen
for
their
professional
skills
and
competencies,
further
expanding
presidential
influence
within
parliament.
The
draft
legislation
also
proposes
abolishing
the
Zimbabwe
Gender
Commission
and
transferring
its
functions
to
the
Zimbabwe
Human
Rights
Commission
“since
the
latter
is
already
mandated
to
protect
all
human
rights.”
The
bill
would
also
repeal
constitutional
provisions
establishing
the
National
Peace
and
Reconciliation
Commission.
Additional
changes
include
transferring
responsibility
for
voter
registration
and
custody
of
the
voters’
roll
from
the
Zimbabwe
Electoral
Commission
(ZEC)
to
the
Registrar
General,
and
allowing
traditional
leaders
to
participate
in
partisan
politics
by
repealing
existing
constitutional
restrictions.
Requiring
traditional
leaders
not
to
engage
in
partisan
politics
“violates
their
political
rights,”
Ziyambi
argues
in
the
memorandum.
The
government
also
plans
to
amend
the
functions
of
the
Zimbabwe
Defence
Forces
by
replacing
their
duty
“to
uphold
this
Constitution”
with
wording
requiring
them
to
act
“in
accordance
with
the
Constitution.”
Ziyambi
argues
in
the
memorandum
that
the
constitutional
amendments
will
“reinforce
constitutional
governance,
strengthen
democratic
structures,
clarify
institutional
mandates,
and
harmonise
Zimbabwe’s
constitutional
order
with
tested
and
successful
practices
in
other
progressive
jurisdictions.”
If
adopted,
the
proposals
would
represent
the
most
extensive
overhaul
of
Zimbabwe’s
constitutional
framework
since
the
current
constitution
was
enacted
in
2013.
Baker
McKenzie
Plans
To
Lay
Off
Hundreds
Of
People:
Little
harder
to
make
the
“AI
won’t
take
our
jobs”
argument.
When
Accuracy
Doesn’t
Go
Far
Enough:
You’ve
gotta
check
for
more
than
hallucinations
when
using
AI.
Adios,
Cadwalader!:
5
litigation
leaders
jump
ship
after
merger.
DHS
Can’t
Feign
Ignorance:
Federal
judge
reminds
them
that
court
orders
are
binding.
Orange
Is
The
New
[Redacted]:
HBCU
chilled
out
of
using
the
word
“Black”
for
Black
History
Month
events.
Cropped
shot
of
business
people
standing
in
a
modern
office,
shaking
hands
after
having
a
successful
meeting
and
reaching
an
agreement.
Welcoming
new
hire.
Celebrating
success
and
achievement.
Momentum
dies
when
teams
treat
every
decision
like
it
is
irreversible.
Why
Product
Lawyers
Need
a
Better
Decision
Lens In-house
product
counsel
spend
a
surprising
amount
of
time
untangling
slow
decisions.
Not
because
the
legal
issues
are
complex.
Not
because
the
team
is
irresponsible.
The
real
drag
comes
from
a
deeper
problem.
No
one
agrees
on
which
decisions
are
safe
to
move
quickly
and
which
require
deliberate,
documented,
cross-functional
judgment.
The
result
is
familiar.
Product
managers
over-escalate.
Engineers
hesitate.
Legal
becomes
the
default
“decider”
for
matters
that
do
not
truly
need
legal
ownership.
Meanwhile,
genuine
high-risk
decisions
sometimes
sneak
through
unexamined
because
the
team
is
exhausted
from
treating
every
choice
with
the
same
level
of
scrutiny.
When
everything
feels
irreversible,
nothing
moves
with
confidence.
This
problem
sits
at
the
core
of
modern
tech
development.
AI,
automation,
rapid
shipping
cycles,
and
integrated
systems
all
heighten
uncertainty.
Teams
want
speed.
Legal
wants
clarity.
The
business
wants
impact.
Without
a
decision
framework
that
distinguishes
between
reversible
and
irreversible
decisions,
everyone
slows
down
for
the
wrong
things
and
speeds
through
the
wrong
things.
Momentum
becomes
erratic.
The
reversible–irreversible
distinction
is
one
of
the
simplest
tools
a
product
lawyer
can
use,
yet
most
organizations
never
formalize
it.
They
rely
on
intuition,
hierarchy,
or
whoever
raises
the
loudest
concern.
That
approach
is
unpredictable,
energy-draining,
and
often
risky.
The
Hidden
Cost
of
Treating
Every
Decision
the
Same Most
companies
fall
into
one
of
two
traps.
The
first
is
over-caution.
Teams
slow
down
because
they
think
every
decision
might
create
legal
or
compliance
exposure.
This
creates
unnecessary
escalations
that
clog
workflow.
The
second
is
false
confidence.
Teams
race
forward
with
decisions
that
seem
simple
but
involve
commitments,
dependencies,
or
user
impact
that
are
difficult
to
unwind.
Both
patterns
have
real
costs.
Over-caution
drains
product
velocity
and
erodes
morale.
False
confidence
creates
operational
debt
that
legal
is
forced
to
clean
up
later.
Without
a
shared
way
to
identify
which
decisions
are
reversible
and
which
are
not,
even
highly
competent
teams
misallocate
time
and
attention.
When
product
counsel
steps
in
with
clarity,
everything
changes.
Lawyers
who
can
help
teams
classify
decisions
early
become
facilitators
of
speed,
not
barriers.
They
reduce
unnecessary
back-and-forth.
They
help
teams
understand
risk
in
the
context
of
business
impact.
They
teach
teams
how
to
make
good
decisions
without
legal
needing
to
join
every
conversation.
This
is
the
work
in-house
product
lawyers
are
increasingly
being
asked
to
do.
Yet
very
few
have
a
repeatable
model
to
support
it.
Why
Reversibility
Matters
More
in
Today’s
Product
Environment Product
teams
operate
in
constant
motion.
Features
ship
incrementally.
AI
systems
evolve.
User
behavior
shifts
weekly.
Decisions
that
once
seemed
high
stakes
may
now
be
easy
to
reverse
with
a
simple
configuration
change.
Other
decisions
that
look
harmless
may
create
lasting
dependencies
in
data
architecture,
user
trust,
or
regulatory
classification.
This
is
where
the
reversible–irreversible
framework
earns
its
value.
It
helps
lawyers
diagnose
the
true
nature
of
a
decision
from
the
start.
It
separates
actions
that
can
be
revised,
rolled
back,
or
iterated
from
those
that
lock
in
risk
or
create
meaningful
external
reliance.
It
gives
teams
permission
to
move
fast
when
speed
is
safe
and
permission
to
slow
down
when
diligence
is
necessary.
Legal
does
not
need
to
be
everywhere.
Legal
needs
to
be
where
reversibility
drops.
Where
Product
Counsel
Can
Bring
Immediate
Clarity Product
counsel
can
make
a
measurable
impact
by
bringing
structure
to
six
pressure
points
that
cause
friction
in
most
organizations.
These
include
early
product
design,
sales
escalations,
privacy
implications,
AI
model
decisions,
commitments
to
customers,
and
executive-facing
trade-offs.
In
each
area,
teams
benefit
from
understanding
whether
they
are
dealing
with
decisions
that
are
easy
to
adjust
later
or
ones
that
will
be
costly
to
unwind.
The
reversible–irreversible
lens
helps
reduce
unnecessary
escalations
in
these
moments.
It
also
helps
counsel
shape
conversations
around
trade-offs
rather
than
fear.
When
lawyers
explain
decisions
through
the
language
of
reversibility,
the
team
can
see
the
practical
consequences
more
clearly.
It
builds
trust
because
it
removes
the
mystery
behind
why
one
decision
requires
friction
and
another
does
not.
This
is
not
about
being
permissive.
It
is
about
being
precise.
The
Power
of
a
Repeatable
Decision
Diagnostic The
resource
you
provided,
the
Reversible
or
Irreversible
Decisions
Framework,
is
built
around
a
simple
three-question
diagnostic.
This
diagnostic
helps
lawyers
quickly
identify
the
decision
type
and
calibrate
the
diligence,
documentation,
and
timing
required.
That
repeatability
is
what
makes
it
valuable.
Good
judgment
scales
when
you
can
teach
others
how
to
apply
it.
The
template
also
includes
practical
examples
across
product,
privacy,
sales,
and
executive
contexts.
It
includes
communication
phrasing
that
helps
explain
reversibility
and
trade-offs
to
business
teams.
And
it
offers
an
implementation
guide
that
helps
lawyers
integrate
the
model
into
intake
forms,
approval
workflows,
and
retrospectives
so
the
organization
internalizes
the
approach.
Readers
can
access
the
full
framework
here.
With
the
right
tools,
reversible–irreversible
analysis
becomes
a
fast,
reliable
way
for
legal
to
reinforce
speed
without
sacrificing
discernment.
Where
This
Framework
Fits
Into
the
Future
of
Product
Counseling As
product
cycles
accelerate
and
AI
permeates
more
systems,
product
counsel
must
move
beyond
issue
spotting.
They
must
help
teams
build
decision
systems
that
scale.
The
reversible–irreversible
model
is
one
of
the
simplest
and
most
effective
starting
points
for
this
shift.
It
transforms
legal’s
role
from
a
final
checkpoint
to
a
partner
who
strengthens
the
system
that
produces
decisions.
This
evolution
is
not
theoretical.
It
is
becoming
a
core
competency.
The
best
product
lawyers
use
frameworks
like
this
to
align
expectations,
reduce
ambiguity,
and
ensure
that
the
right
level
of
scrutiny
is
applied
at
the
right
time.
They
help
teams
move
faster
by
teaching
them
how
to
decide.
Speed
with
judgment
is
the
new
competitive
advantage.
The
teams
that
master
it
will
build
better,
safer,
more
resilient
products.
Building
Product
Judgment
Requires
Deliberate
Practice Having
a
framework
is
one
step.
Building
the
instincts
to
use
it
well
is
another.
Product
law
is
a
discipline
that
rewards
practice.
Decision-making
under
uncertainty,
especially
for
AI-powered
features,
gets
easier
when
lawyers
have
worked
through
enough
scenarios
to
see
patterns.
If
you
want
to
deepen
these
skills,
you
can
explore
training
tools
designed
for
this
specific
kind
of
judgment
work.
One
option
is
early
access
to
Coach
Frankie,
the
Product
Law
beta.
Frankie
offers
scenario-based
coaching,
real
decision
cycles,
and
structured
reasoning
prompts
to
help
lawyers
practice
making
product
decisions
with
speed
and
clarity.
You
can
sign
up
here.
Strong
product
counsel
do
more
than
say
yes
or
no.
They
help
teams
understand
which
decisions
matter,
why
they
matter,
and
how
to
make
them
with
the
right
balance
of
speed
and
care.
The
reversible–irreversible
framework
gives
you
a
practical
way
to
do
that
work
reliably
across
the
product
lifecycle.
It
is
not
a
theory.
It
is
a
practice.
And
it
is
becoming
one
of
the
most
valuable
capabilities
an
in-house
lawyer
can
build.
Olga
V.
Mack
is
the
CEO
of
TermScout,
where
she
builds
legal
systems
that
make
contracts
faster
to
understand,
easier
to
operate,
and
more
trustworthy
in
real
business
conditions.
Her
work
focuses
on
how
legal
rules
allocate
power,
manage
risk,
and
shape
decisions
under
uncertainty.A
serial
CEO
and
former
General
Counsel,
Olga
previously
led
a
legal
technology
company
through
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
She
teaches
at
Berkeley
Law
and
is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
the
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics.She
has
authored
several
books
on
legal
innovation
and
technology,
delivered
six
TEDx
talks,
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
VentureBeat,
TechCrunch,
and
Above
the
Law.
Her
work
treats
law
as
essential
infrastructure,
designed
for
how
organizations
actually
operate.
Another
day,
another
federal
judge
having
to
explain
to
the
Trump
administration
that
court
orders
are
not
optional
suggestions.
This
time,
the
lecture
came
from
Judge
Matthew
Kennelly
of
the
U.S.
District
Court
for
the
Northern
District
of
Illinois,
who
found
that
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
failed
to
comply
with
a
prior
order
directing
it
to
unfreeze
migrant
support
funds
owed
to
Chicago,
Denver,
and
Pima
County,
Arizona.
Because
you
don’t
get
to
dodge
your
legal
obligations
just
because
you’d
rather
not
follow
them.
The
case
centers
on
reimbursement
requests
submitted
by
local
governments
under
federal
migrant
support
grants.
Those
requests
were
filed
before
Homeland
Security
formally
terminated
the
grants,
and
the
law
requires
agencies
to
process
reimbursements
within
a
statutory
30-day
window.
Instead
of
paying
up
or
offering
a
lawful
explanation
for
denying
the
requests,
the
administration
froze
the
funds
and
then
argued
that
it
no
longer
had
to
meet
the
reimbursement
deadline
because
the
grants
were
now
in
“closeout.”
Judge
Kennelly
was
not
impressed.
The
governing
regulation,
he
explained,
“does
not
contemplate
allowing
a
federal
agency
to
escape
its
regulatory
obligations
simply
because
it
later
terminates
a
grant.”
This
ruling
fits
neatly
into
a
growing
stack
of
judicial
orders
documenting
the
administration’s
increasingly
casual
relationship
with
the
concept
of
a
co-equal
branch
of
government.
Time
and
again,
courts
have
had
to
spell
out
what
should
be
basic
civics:
executive
agencies
don’t
get
to
ignore
deadlines,
rewrite
regulations
on
the
fly,
or
treat
judicial
oversight
as
a
nuisance
to
be
managed
rather
than
authority
to
be
respected.
Judge
Kennelly’s
order
doesn’t
do
anything
flashy.
It
doesn’t
grandstand.
It
simply
insists
that
the
government
do
what
the
law
requires.
But
in
the
current
climate,
that
insistence
itself
feels
momentous.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
Other
people
in
the
Epstein
files
along
with
us.
(Photo
by
Davidoff
Studios/Getty
Images)
We’ve
talked
a
lot
about
the
high-powered
lawyers
and
famous
legal
luminaries
who
find
themselves
in
the
notorious
Epstein
files.
So
it’s
only
fair
to
point
out
that
we
here
at
Above
the
Law
also
found
ourselves
in
the
Department
of
Justice’s
latest
document
dump.
I
guess
that’s
the
sort
of
participatory
journalism
you’ve
come
to
expect
from
us.
None
of
us
gushed
about
the
infamous
pedophile’s
parties
or
preened
about
gifts
the
trafficker
gave
us.
Rather,
an
FBI
agent
received
a
copy
of
our
Daily
Newsletter
in
2023
that
included
a
story
about
Epstein.
While
we’re
at
it,
if
you
haven’t
taken
the
opportunity
to
subscribe
to
our
various
newsletters,
this
is
a
perfect
time.
Make
sure
we’re
featured
when
your
inbox
is
featured
in
the
next
generational
crime
story.
But
our
cameo
in
the
highest
profile
document
production
in
the
world
should
raise
a
few
questions.
Like
“why
is
a
publication’s
newsletter
in
the
Epstein
files
at
all?”
Or
“why
are
they
producing
documents
between
a
third
party
and
an
FBI
agent?”
Or,
at
the
risk
of
being
blunt,
“why
is
a
request
for
investigation
files
producing
documents
from
FOUR
YEARS
AFTER
THIS
EPSTEIN
JACKASS
DIED?”
In
any
event,
there
aren’t
a
lot
of
good
reasons
why
this
newsletter
ended
up
marked
responsive.
The
Trump
administration
was
directed
—
by
statute
—
to
produce:
all
unclassified
records,
documents,
communications,
and
investigative
materials
in
the
possession
of
the
Department
of
Justice,
including
the
Federal
Bureau
of
Investigation
and
United
States
Attorneys’
Offices,
that
relate
to…
Jeffrey
Epstein
including
all
investigations,
prosecutions,
or
custodial
matters.
But
this
is
the
same
DOJ
that
dumped
all
these
files
into
a
janky
database,
knowing
that
they
include
discussions
about
the
sexual
exploitation
of
children
and
gated
it
with:
Good
heavens.
Jeffrey
Epstein
put
more
effort
into
making
sure
someone
was
18.
There
are
states
with
obscenity
laws
that
would
run
websites
out
of
business
for
such
a
lax
age
verification
procedure.
But
the
federal
government,
handling
investigatory
files
detailing
a
child
sex
ring
runs
its
age
gate
on
the
honor
system.
It’s
not
like
they’ve
been
rushed
either.
The
statute
required
production
“not
later
than”
December
19th.
The
files
didn’t
actually
show
up
in
any
meaningful
volume
until
January
30,
2026.
So
they
were
six
weeks
late
and
considerable
dollars
short.
Or,
maybe
this
was
a
rush
job,
because
the
DOJ
appeared
content
to
flagrantly
ignore
the
deadline
until
ICE
agents
started
killing
innocent
people
on
camera.
Suddenly,
the
salacious
document
production
that
could
occupy
the
backburner
for
weeks
became
an
urgency.
Then
we
got
three
million
pages
of
material
delivered
with
all
the
organizational
rigor
of
a
monkey
smearing
feces
on
the
wall
to
mark
its
territory.
The
documents
aren’t
in
any
clear
order
or
grouped
in
any
identifiable
way.
And
the
redaction
“errors”
—
oh,
the
redaction
errors.
As
NPR
reported,
the
same
DOJ
PowerPoint
presentation
appears
six
times
in
the
database
with
different
redactions
applied
each
time.
That’s
not
even
one
of
the
egregious
errors.
The
first
tranche
of
documents
made
the
redactions
incorrectly
such
that
the
public
could
just
copy
and
paste
the
text
into
a
new
document
and
see
whatever
appeared
below
the
black
box.
The
last
time
someone
was
dumb
enough
to
do
that
Saddam
Hussein
was
alive
and
well.
It’s
an
error
that
no
one
makes
anymore
because
everyone
learned
the
hard
way
that
you
can’t
use
the
bargain
Adobe
product
to
do
your
redactions.
But
Elon
Musk’s
DOGE
canceled
a
bunch
of
government
Adobe
licenses
as
part
of
the
ill-fated
budget
slashing
charade.
We’re
not
saying
that
directly
resulted
in
these
botched
redactions
but…
you
know.
Then
there’s
whatever
this
is:
That’s
a
redaction
of
the
word
“don’t.”
That
wouldn’t
seem
to
be
worthy
of
redaction
unless
someone
committed
a
typo
and
didn’t
include
the
apostrophe
and
software
followed
directions
to
eliminate
any
incidence
of
words
with
“Don”
and
“T”
appearing
next
to
each
other
(Or
“don!
w/1
t!”
for
the
boolean
heads
out
there…
I
see
you).
Meanwhile,
victim
names
were
left
catastrophically
unredacted,
even
though
that’s
one
of
the
very
few
redactions
the
statute
actually
allowed.
Then
the
DOJ
published
and
then
quietly
deleted
a
document
that
explicitly
tagged
Trump.
It
returned
once
social
media
called
it
out.
Not
suspicious
at
all.
Which
brings
us
back
to
the
ATL
newsletter
from
years
after
Epstein’s
death.
In
any
normal
litigation
context,
this
kind
of
overproduction
would
earn
a
scolding
from
the
court.
Dumping
millions
of
pages
of
loosely
connected
material
to
bury
genuinely
responsive
documents
is
the
kind
of
classic
discovery
abuse
that
Magistrate
judges
spend
their
lives
swatting
down.
Is
it
fair
to
accuse
the
DOJ
of
this?
Well,
yes,
since
they
admitted
it.
From
their
statement
accompanying
this
release,
Deputy
Attorney
General
Todd
Blanche:
The
Department
erred
on
the
side
of
over-collecting
materials
from
various
sources
to
best
ensure
maximum
transparency
and
compliance
with
the
Act.
Framing
deliberate
overproduction
as
a
virtue
is
bold.
And
yet
the
DOJ
isn’t
just
erring
on
the
side
of
overproduction,
it
deliberately
underproduced
as
well.
This
Schrödinger’s
production
managed
to
exist
in
both
contradictory
states
by
“over-collecting”
newsletters
while
acknowledging
that
roughly
2.5
million
pages
of
documents
were
being
withheld
from
the
public.
While
the
statute
did
include
provisions
to
prevent
the
public
release
of
some
material,
it
strains
credulity
to
accept
that
almost
half
of
the
corpus
of
documents
would
fall
into
these
intentionally
limited
categories.
It
would
be
nice
to
see
something
akin
to
a
privilege
log
explaining
exactly
what
statutory
exception
they’re
claiming
on
these
pages.
Alas,
that
would
suggest
good
faith
as
opposed
to
the
DOJ’s
transparency
theater.
But
hey,
we’re
in
the
Epstein
files.
There’s
an
achievement
I
didn’t
expect
to
unlock.
Lawyers
have
a
reputation
for
being
bad
at
math.
What
better
way
to
fix
that
reputation
than
by
helping
others
crunch
numbers?
Something
scarier
than
the
Amityville
House
is
upon
us
—
tax
season.
Many
of
us
could
use
some
hand
holding
to
figure
out
what
we
owe
the
government
and
what
the
government
owes
us.
Chances
are
you’ve
already
heard
the
H&R
Block
commercials
peddling
their
wares,
but
Vermont
residents
could
have
a
more
accessible
option
nearby:
their
law
school.
V
News
has
coverage:
For
the
second
year
in
a
row
Vermont
Law
and
Graduate
School
students
will
be
available
to
assist
Upper
Valley
residents
who
make
less
than
$69,000
a
year
file
their
taxes
for
free. … “I
think
it’s
an
important
resource
because
a
lot
of
people
don’t
know
the
benefits
they’re
entitled
to,”
said
Pamela
Cartier…“They
walked
out
with
$7,000,
$8,000
dollars
that
they
needed
as
single
parents
to
help
care
for
their
children,”
Cartier
said.
“That’s
always
really
nice.”
That’s
a
huge
chunk
of
money!
And
even
if
tax
season
doesn’t
hit
them
with
a
windfall,
the
peace
of
mind
from
knowing
that
they
won’t
have
to
deal
with
the
IRS
a-knocking
is
invaluable.
If
you
or
someone
you
know
qualifies
for
assistance,
you
can
reach
the
school
at
802-831-1363
to
schedule
in
advance;
they’re
running
the
program
through
April
15th.
If
you’re
outside
of
their
service
area,
the
lower
half
of
the
article
has
information
on
what
to
do
if
you’re
in
Randolph,
Ascutney,
Bradford,
Lebanon,
New
London,
Newport,
White
River
Junction,
or
Woodstock,
Vermont.
Is
your
law
school
doing
community
outreach?
Let
us
know
at
[email protected].
It
is
easy
to
fall
in
to
the
habit
of
thinking
of
law
schools
as
degree
mills
you
attend
before
you
get
your
law
firm
job,
but
so
much
student
action
has
gone
to
show
that
they
play
an
important
role
in
advocating
for
and
protecting
their
communities.
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
Photographer:
Samuel
Corum/Sipa/Bloomberg
via
Getty
Images
Set
your
mind
back
to
November
4,
2024,
one
day
before
the
presidential
election.
I
know. That’s
hard.
Imagine
that
you
were
about
to
vote
for
Donald
Trump
for
president.
I
know. That’s
even
harder.
But
if
we
can
do
time
travel,
then
surely
we
can
adopt
the
mindset
of
the
77
million
people
who
chose
to
vote
for
Trump
about
15
months
ago.
If,
on
November
4,
you’d
been
able
to
see
the
future,
would
you
have
cast
your
ballot
the
same
way?
If
you
had
known
that,
upon
taking
office,
Trump
would
immediately
pardon
1,600
of
the
January
6
rioters,
would
that
have
made
a
difference
to
you?
Suppose
you
had
known
that
Trump
would
support
the
idea
of
setting
up
a
“compensation
fund”
to
reimburse
the
rioters
who
had
lost
income
or
paid
fines
because
of
their
conduct? Still
voting
for
Trump?
Suppose
you
had
known
that
Trump
was
going
to
fire 17
inspectors
general on
his
fifth
day
in
office
in
his
second
term?
That’s
an
awful
lot
of
lawlessness.
Do
I
have
you
yet?
Suppose
you
knew
that,
as
part
of
his
crackdown
on
illegal
immigrants,
Trump
would
have
thousands
of
masked
federal
agents
storming
around
American
cities,
and
those
agents
would
have
shot
(and
killed)
some
American
citizens? Is
the
name
“Kamala
Harris”
starting
to
sound
acceptable?
Suppose
you
knew
that
Russia’s
rate
of
drone
and
missile
attacks
on
Ukraine
would
increase
for
the
first
year
Trump
was
in
office,
rather
than
drop
to
zero
because
Trump
had
ended
the
war
on
his
first
day
in
office,
as
he
promised?
Suppose
you
knew
that,
after
Trump
had
been
in
office
for
a
year,
the
inflation
rate
would
be
essentially
the
same
as
it
had
been
when
Trump
was
campaigning
on
the
promise
of
reducing
the
rate
of
inflation
“very
quickly“?
Or
suppose
you’re
a
supporter
of
Palestine,
living
in
Michigan,
and
your
vote
helped
Trump
to
win
that
state
in
2024. Suppose
you
were
figuring
no
one
could
be
as
bad
for
your
cause
as
Joe
Biden
had
been. Are
you
still
voting
for
Trump
despite
what
you’ve
seen
happen
for
the
last
year?
Suppose
you
knew
that
Trump
would
have
approved
airstrikes
or
bombing
operations
in
seven
foreign
countries
during
his
first
year
in
office? Does
that
conflict
with
your
“America
first”
priorities?
Suppose
you
knew
that
tariffs
would
have
jumped
from
about
2.5%
(on
average)
to
about
18%
(on
average)
during
Trump’s
first
year?
That
Trump
would
have
threatened
to
invade
Greenland,
prompting
our
NATO
allies
to
send
troops
to
the
country
to
help
defend
it
in
case
of
American
attack?
That
the
value
of
the
dollar
would
have
crashed
10%
against
the
euro
during
Trump’s
first
year
in
office?
That
the
United
States
would
be
on
the
verge
of
losing
measles
elimination
status,
which
it
had
held
since
2000,
as
a
result
of
the
pockets
of
unvaccinated
people
around
the
country?
That
two
members
of
the
Federal
Reserve
Board
would
be
the
subject
of
federal
criminal
investigations?
That
Trump
would
sue
his
own
government
—
the
IRS
—
for
$10
billion
in
damages
supposedly
inflicted
on
Trump
when
his
income
tax
records
had
been
leaked
during
his
first
term?
That
the
East
Wing
of
the
White
House
would
have
been
torn
down?
That
the
U.S.
economy
would
have
lost
68,000
manufacturing
jobs
during
Trump’s
first
12
months
in
office?
That
the
U.S.
Agency
for
International
Development
would
have
been
gutted,
and
thousands
of
people
would
have
died
as
a
result,
at
Trump’s
command?
That
the
National
Institutes
of
Health
would
have
been
gutted?
That
Trump
would
replace
the
board
of
the
Kennedy
Center
and
the
new
board
would
choose
to
rename
the
building
the
“Trump
–
Kennedy
Center”?
That
the
United
States
would
have
attacked,
without
showing
probable
cause
or
giving
warning,
boats
sailing
off
Venezuela,
killing
the
crew
members
on
board,
and
later
attacked
Venezuela
and
abducted
President
Nicolas
Maduro
without
congressional
approval?
Kathryn
