Author: TSA Press

Two
Losses
Don’t
Make
A
Right:
Former
associate
general
counsel
loses
the
game
and
her
job
over
a
Dodger’s
win.
There
Goes
Your
Nomination!:
Paul
Ingrassia’s
nomination
gets
pulled
after
self-professed
Nazi
streak
went
public.
Violence
From
The
No
Kings
Protest
Came
From
The
Cops:
Even
with
an
injunction
telling
them
they
couldn’t
shoot
journalists.
This
Partnership
Can
Help
You
Find
What
You’re
Looking
For:
Check
out
Thomson
Reuters’s
partnership
with
DeepJudge!
On
This
Week’s
Episode
Of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer:
Things
to
NOT
call
a
judge,
FASORP
losses,
and
Baudrillardian
analysis.

Ed.
Note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature

Trivia
Question
of
the
Day!

Téa
Leoni’s
character
in
the
CBS
television
show

Madam
Secretary
is
a
law
school
graduate
of
which
T14
law
school?

Hint:
In
real
life,
Leoni’s
father,
Anthony
Pantaleoni,
was
an
alumnus
of
the
same
law
school
(and
was
a
partner
at
Biglaw
firm
Norton
Rose
Fulbright).

See
the
answer
on
the
next
page.

With

a
brittle
ceasefire
in
the
Middle
East,
President
Donald
Trump
secured
the
headlines
he
wanted,
and
he
has
now
set
his
sights
on
Ukraine.
Meeting
with
Ukrainian
President
Volodymyr
Zelensky

in
the
White
House
on
October
17
to
discuss
the
possibility
of
further
cooperation
between
the
United
States
and
Ukraine,
Trump
had
previously
indicated
a
potential
willingness
to
send
Ukraine
Tomahawk
missiles
to
allow
for
strikes
deep
within
Russia’s
home
territory.
Ultimately,
the
U.S.
president

declined
to
supply
Tomahawks
to
Ukraine,
at
least
for
now.

Trump
has
seemingly
switched
loyalties
several
times
during
the
course
of
this
war,
and
just
prior
to
his
meeting
with
Zelensky
took
a
phone
call,
and
arranged
a
future
in-person
meeting,
with
Russia’s
leader
Vladimir
Putin.
Since
Trump
took
office
in
January,

Putin
has
masterfully
evaded
further
U.S.
sanctions
and
placed
in
doubt
America’s
previously
unwavering
support
for
Ukraine
through
a
determined
campaign
of
personal
flattery
and
dangling
hypothetical
business
deals
in
front
of
the
American
president.

U.S.
support
has
been
key
to
the
Ukrainian
war
effort.
Still,
Trump
is
the
definition
of
an
unreliable
ally.
In
just
the
latest
example
of
this,
it
took
less
than
a
month
for

Trump
to
go
from
saying
Kyiv
can
“win
all
of
Ukraine
back
in
its
original
form”
and
get
back
“the
original
borders
from
where
this
war
started,”

to
saying,
“Let
[Ukraine]
be
cut
the
way
it
is.
It’s
cut
up
right
now.
I
think
78%
of
the
land
is
already
taken
by
Russia.
You
leave
it
the
way
it
is
right
now.”

Unfortunately,
such
contradictory
nonsense
matters
when
the
79-year-old
dotard
uttering
it
is
the
president
of
the
United
States.
But
peace
will
not
be
had
based
on
territorial
concessions
to
Russia.
As
long
as
Putin
is
in
charge,
a
Russia
in
possession
of
seized
territory
will
always
be
the
proverbial
mouse
given
a
cookie.

If
Trump
wanted
a
real,
lasting
peace
in
Ukraine,
he’d
be
better
served
to
let
the
disastrous
economics
of
how
Russia
is
conducting
this
war
run
their
course.
While
Russia’s
economy
has
proven
surprisingly
resilient
to
international
sanctions,
Moscow
has

reported
a
budget
deficit
of
$51
billion
for
the
first
eight
months
of
this
year,
and
its
own
central
bank
has
issued
warnings
over
depleted
production,
labor,
and
financial
reserves.
With
Russia’s
economy
now
almost
wholly
reliant
on
discounted
long-term
energy
sales
to
India
and
China,
the
Kremlin
is
proposing
significant
defense
budget
cuts.

Russia’s
misuse
of
its
military
resources
was
on
full
display

during
its
recent
bombardment
of
Lviv.
Five
people
were
killed
—
four
of
these
innocent
victims
were
a
whole
family
whose
house
was
flattened
—
with
terrorism
being
the
only
apparent
purpose
of
the
attack.
Yet,
the
people
of
Lviv
were
not
at
all
terrorized.
The
bombing
took
place
early
in
the
morning
on
a
Sunday.
By
that
afternoon,
there
were
more
people
sitting
out
convivially
on
the
sidewalk
patios
of
Lviv’s
numerous
cafes
and
bars
than
there
had
been
the
previous
day.
That
night,
an
impromptu
street
dance
sprang
up
in
a
historic
Old
Town
square.
Nobody
was
cowed.

Russia
spent
at
least
$200
million
to
accomplish
nothing
beyond
murdering
five
noncombatants.

According
to
the
governor
of
the
Lviv
region,
Maksym
Kozytskyi,
the
Russians
struck
Lviv
with
140
Shahed
kamikaze
drones
and
about
two
dozen
cruise
missiles.
Earlier
versions
of
the
Shahed
drones
imported
by
Russia
were
significantly
more
expensive,
but
now
that
Russia
is

increasingly
producing
them
domestically,
costs
have
fallen
to
an
estimated
$70,000
per
unit.
That’s
still
almost
$10
million
worth
of
drones
alone.

Ten
million
dollars
spent
on
drones
is
a
pittance
compared
to
the
cost
of
the
cruise
missiles.
Although
Ukrainian
authorities
did
not
delineate
the
exact
number
of
each
type
of
missile
that
was
fired
into
Lviv,
we
do
know
some
of
them
were
Kalibr
cruise
missiles
launched
from
the
Black
Sea
(cost:
$6.5
million
apiece),
at
least
one
was

a
Kh-101
cruise
missile
($13
million)
and
some
were
Kinzhal
air-launched
ballistic
missiles
(with
a
whopping
sticker
price
of
$15
million
per
unit).
Even
if
you
assume
that
the
majority
of
the
missiles
were
of
the
cheapest
variety,
Russia
was
well
past
$200
million
spent
on
military
hardware
alone
in
this
bombing,
to
say
nothing
of
all
the
other
costs
like
fuel
and
personnel.

Russia
is
indeed
occupying
some
Ukrainian
territory
(though
nowhere
near
78%
of
it
—
possibly
Trump
was
thinking
only
of
the
Donbas
region
with
that
figure).
The
tactics
Russia
now
must
resort
to
are
unlikely
to
win
it
any
more
large
territorial
gains.
Literally
burning
$200
million
worth
of
weaponry
over
the
skies
of
Lviv
to
demoralize
no
one
bleeds
Russia’s
struggling
wartime
economy,
and
these
are
the
types
of
attacks
Russia
now
routinely
launches.

Trump
cannot
secure
a
real
peace
in
Ukraine
by
offering
Ukrainian
land
to
Russia.
What
he
could
do
to
end
the
war
is
hasten
the
economic
ruin
that
Russia
has
brought
upon
itself
with
this
invasion.
Russia
cannot
sustain
the
level
of
waste
it
is
engaging
in
indefinitely.
When
the
Russian
economy
finally
breaks,
it
will
be
forced
to
withdraw
its
forces,
for
good.

---

Jonathan
Wolf
is
a
civil
litigator
and
author
of Your
Debt-Free
JD (affiliate
link).
He
has
taught
legal
writing,
written
for
a
wide
variety
of
publications,
and
made
it
both
his
business
and
his
pleasure
to
be
financially
and
scientifically
literate.
Any
views
he
expresses
are
probably
pure
gold,
but
are
nonetheless
solely
his
own
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
any
organization
with
which
he
is
affiliated.
He
wouldn’t
want
to
share
the
credit
anyway.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].

In
the
season
of
seemingly
never-ending
user
conferences,
the

NetDocuments
Inspire
conference
took
place
this
week
in
Scottsdale,
Arizona.

NetDocuments
is
one
of
the
leading
document
management
service
providers
and
is
finding
its
way
in
the
AI
landscape.
I
came
to
its
conference
frankly
wondering
whether
its
laser
product
focus
and
credibility
could
sustain
it
long
term
in
the
era
of
consolidation
of
functions
and
offerings.
I
still
don’t
know
the
answer.

The
Opening
Keynote

The
opening
keynote
was
primarily
given
by

Josh
Baxter,
NetDocuments
CEO,
along
with

Dan
Hauck,
its
Chief
Product
Officer.

In
the
era
of
bombastic,
over-the-top
keynotes
by
C-suite
legal
tech
bros
leaping
about
the
stage,
Baxter’s
approach
was
refreshing.
He
was
understated
and
spoke
in
a
calm,
credible
voice.
As
Baxter
put
it
when
I
met
with
him
separately,
“We’re
not
a
rock
band.”

Baxter
reflects
the
company
well.
NetDocuments
has
always
quietly
delivered
a
workman-like
document
management
system.
It
doesn’t
overpromise,
and
it
usually
overdelivers.
I
think
that’s
why
it
is
used
by
so
many
law
firms.
Its
team
can
walk
into
a
room
of
skeptical
lawyers
and
let
the
products
sell
themselves.
Too
often,
legal
tech
vendors
forget
that
at
the
end
of
the
day,
they
are
selling
to
lawyers
who
are
trained
to
be
skeptical
and
can
spot
bullshit
a
mile
away.

An
Apology

Baxter’s
opening
remarks
reflected
this
approach
and
the
company’s
attitude.
He
didn’t
start
by
touting
NetDocuments
successes;
he
started
by
taking
responsibility
for
an
outage
last
week
that
affected
NetDocuments
customers.
You
have
to
understand
how
that
played.
Baxter
was
talking
to
a
room
full
of
mostly
IT
people.
He
understood
that
when
systems
from
outside
vendors
fail,
angry
lawyers
who
know
little
about
technical
issues
flood
IT
personnel
with
demands
to
get
it
up
and
running
immediately.
Who
gets
the
blame
and
takes
the
beating?
The
IT
folks.
I
talked
to
some
of
them
afterwards
about
the
outage
who
confirmed
that
was
exactly
how
it
played
out.

Baxter
put
that
event
up
front
and
didn’t
sugarcoat
it.

The
Announcement
of
AI
Profile

The
product
announcement
portion
of
the
keynote
primarily
focused
on
a
new
tool
called
AI
Profile.
AI
Profile
is
designed
to
run
in
the
background
(it’s
no
coincidence
that
many
of
NetDocuments
tools
run
in
the
background
doing
nuts-and-bolts
work
day
after
day
that
the
user
rarely
notices).
It’s
designed
to
use
metadata
to
automatically
profile
the
critical
information
about
a
document,
so
that
users
can
drill
down
and
get
the
information
they
need.
This
enables
users
to
precisely
search
for
and
find
particular
documents
on
particular
issues.

Ahh
metadata,
I
haven’t
heard
that
term
much
lately.
The
problem
with
metadata
has
always
been
that
inputting
good
metadata
into
any
system
takes
time.
Lawyers
and
legal
professionals
aren’t
and
won’t
spend
the
time
to
input
critical
metadata
about
documents.

When
they
are
done
working
with
a
document,
they’re
done.
And
it
shouldn’t
be
surprising
that
this
is
the
case:
most
NetDocuments
customers
bill
by
the
hour.
Inputting
metadata
isn’t
billable.
 

The
second
problem?
Lawyers
by
nature
are
independent.
Which
means
10
lawyers
can
produce
the
same
document
and
call
it
10
different
things.
And
they
are
all
convinced
they
are
right. 

And
as
one
of
the
placards
outside
the
session
rooms
put
it,
“Lawyers
didn’t
go
to
law
school
to
fill
out
metadata
fields.”

But
it’s
metadata
that
reveal
the
guts
of
a
document:
its
type,
its
unique
characteristics,
and
what
it
does.
So,
it’s
valuable
and
NetDocuments
seems
to
have
found
a
way
to
automate
its
collection.

How
Does
It
Work
and
What
Does
It
Do?

NetDocuments
has
created
a
prebuilt
taxonomy
and
document
attributes
to
profile
various
documents
based
on
working
with
experts
in
legal
taxonomy
and
data
extraction.
(The
taxonomy
can
also
be
customized
to
meet
particular
firm
needs.)
AI
Profile
will
look
at
a
document
and
fill
in
the
information
about
it
based
on
the
prebuilt
profile.
This
can
be
done
quickly
across
millions
of
documents.

Hauck
gave
an
example
of
the
preparation
of
a
cell
phone
tower
lease
agreement
in
Arizona.
With
profiling,
I
can
access
all
the
leases
for
cell
phone
towers
in
Arizona
the
firm
has
done
and
then
access
the
key
unique
clauses.

And
by
having
AI
tools
run
on
profiled
documents,
you
reduce
response
inaccuracies.

In
short,
according
to
Hauck,
“metadata
dramatically
improves
the
search
capabilities
of
AI.
We
are
doing
things
with
semantic
search
and
AI
search
to
be
able
to
carve
out
results
that
are
profoundly
impactful.”
It
overlays
“foundational
GenAI
capabilities
into
NetDocuments.”

But
Isn’t
This
Old
School?

But
Hauck
posed
the
question
that
was
running
through
my
mind,
especially
after
attending
some
recent
user
conferences:
“Isn’t
this
old
school?
Aren’t
there
amazing
tools
that
already
can
handle
unstructured
data?”

Hauck
says,
no,
there
aren’t
a
lot
of
tools
that
can
do
that,
at
least
quickly.
With
AI
Profile,
“You
can
formulate
a
generic
search
and
then
use
complex
metadata
to
look
for
something
specific
like
a
certain
kind
of
agreement
of
a
certain
deal
value.”
You
can
do
things
like
determining
how
many
times
a
lawyer
has
done
a
certain
task,
which
is
valuable
for
things
like
RFPs
and
bringing
the
right
expertise
to
the
table.
Without
profiling,
Hauck
says
AI
tools
can’t
do
that
accurately
and
quickly.

Using
the
filtered
metadata
is
also
important
for
security:
it
would
enable
users
to
find
and
ensure
the
protection
of
documents
containing,
say,
personally
identifiable
information
or
personal
health
records
and
place
those
documents
in
secure
folders.

NetDocuments’
Future

I
don’t
know
if
AI
Profile
will
do
what
Baxter
and
Hauck
say
it
will.
I
don’t
know
if
other
companies
that
offer
AI
tools
that
work
on
internal
and
external
data
can
intrude
on
the
document
management
space
and
take
over
that
function.
I
don’t
know
if
someday
NetDocuments
will
be
acquired
by
a
company
that
offers
AI
tools
for
external
data
to
catch
up
with
competition.
Or
if
NetDocuments
might
become
the
acquirer.

But
what
I
can
tell
you
is
that
tech
companies
that
are
laser
focused
on
one
thing
typically
do
it
well
because
of
that
focus.
NetDocuments
isn’t
trying
to
take
over
the
legal
tech
world.
As
Baxter
put
it,
“We’re
not
going
to
deliver
every
capability
from
the
business
of
law
to
the
practice
of
law.”

What
it
is
doing
is
trying
to
solve
frustration
points
in
document
retention
and
management.
It’s
trying
to
help
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
use
their
documents
and
internal
content
in
new
and
valuable
ways.
Hauck
told
me
NetDocuments
wants
“to
give
them
the
ability
to
access
content
at
the
right
moment
in
the
right
way.
With
AI
capabilities
that
are
built
into
the
experience,”
instead
of
being
the
experience
like
others
seem
to
want
to
do.
Baxter
added,
“We
believe
there
is
still
this
world
where
meeting
users
where
they
are
is
valuable.”

So,
I
can’t
answer
whether
NetDocuments
can
remain
a
player
by
offering
a
document
management
product,
as
comprehensive
as
it
is,
especially
when
we
may
be
approaching
the
era
of
tech
Walmarts.
But
its
credibility
and
history
of
offering
good
products
makes
it
a
valued
and
trusted
partner
to
many
law
firms.

And
that
fact
alone
may
sustain
it
for
the
time
being,
even
as
other
vendors
promise
products
that
can
do
more
across
various
disciplines.

---

Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

I
don’t
expect
the
chaotic
pace
will
slow
down
for
the
remainder
of
the
year.

—
Loren
Monroe,
a
principal
at
BGR
Group,
in
comments
given
to

Reuters,
on
the
record
revenue
top
D.C.
lobbying
firms
took
in
during
2025’s
third
quarter,
just
before
the
federal
government
shutdown.
BGR
Group
said
it
earned
$19.1
million,
while
several
Biglaw
firms
—
Akin
Gump,
Brownstein
Hyatt
Farber
Schreck,
and
Holland
&
Knight
—
also
reported
their
best
quarters
ever,
with
earning
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
in
federal
lobbying
revenue.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

We
have
found
the
line!
It’s
easy
to
imagine
in
2025
that
there
is
no
scandal
too
great
to
stop
a
Trump
nominee
but,
well,
there
is
such
a
thing
as
too
much
scandal.
And

Paul
Ingrassia
has
found
that
threshold!

The
2022
Cornell
Law
grad
was
nominated
to
lead
the
Office
of
Special
Counsel
and
the
nom
survived
the

alleged
links
to
antisemitic
extremists
and
the

sexual
harassment
investigation,
but
the
racist
texts
were
simply
a

bridge
too
far
for
Senate
Republicans.
Yesterday,
Ingrassia
posted
on
social
media,
“I
will
be
withdrawing
myself
from
Thursday’s
HSGAC
hearing
to
lead
the
Office
of
Special
Counsel
because
unfortunately
I
do
not
have
enough
Republican
votes
at
this
time.
I
appreciate
the
overwhelming
support
that
I
have
received
throughout
this
process
and
will
continue
to
serve
President
Trump
and
this
administration
to
Make
America
Great
Again!”
And
a
White
House
official
said,
“He’s
no
longer
being
nominated.”

Earlier
this
week,
POLITICO
reported
on
a
right-wing
group
chat
where
Ingrassia
wrote,
“MLK
Jr.
was
the
1960s
George
Floyd
and
his
‘holiday’
should
be
ended
and
tossed
into
the
seventh
circle
of
hell
where
it
belongs.”
And,
“No
moulignon
holidays
…
From
kwanza
[sic]
to
mlk
jr
day
to
black
history
month
to
Juneteenth,”
then
added:
“Every
single
one
needs
to
be
eviscerated.”

And
when
one
member
of
the
chat
said,
“Paul
belongs
in
the
Hitler
Youth
with
Ubergruppenfuhrer
Steve
Bannon,”
Ingrassia
agreed.
“I
do
have
a
Nazi
streak
in
me
from
time
to
time,
I
will
admit
it,”
Ingrassia
responded.
When
called
out
as
a
“white
nationalist”
and
“scumbag”
on
the
chat
Ingrassia
didn’t
back
down.
“Nah
it’s
fine
…
Don’t
be
a
boomer
…
I
don’t
mind
being
a
scumbag
from
time
to
time,”
he
replied.

After
reports
of
the
offensive
text
chain
broke,
at least
four
Republican
senators
including
John
Thune,
Rick
Scott,
and
Ron
Johnson
pulled
their
support
of
Ingrassia’s
nomination.

---

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].

The
recent
“No
Kings”
protest
brought
out

millions
nationwide.
There’s
been
a
lot
of
focus
on
what
the
protest
means,
both
as
a
standalone
event
and
as

a
potential
starting
point
for
further
organizing
and
concrete
demands.
The
protest
was
lauded
for
how
overwhelmingly

peaceful
it
was
—
which
isn’t
what
you’d
expect
from
a
bunch
of
“Hamas
terrorists,
illegal
terrorists,
and
violent
criminals.”
But
there
were
pockets
of
violence
at
these
protests;
it
sprang
from
the
police.
At
a
No
Kings
protest
in
California,
the
LAPD
was
accused
of

hit-and-running
a
protester
along
with

shooting
at
reporters
with
less
lethal
ammunition
for
standing
there
menacingly.
In
a
world
where
the
Constitution
actually
mattered,
you
wouldn’t
have
to
worry
about
the
police
shooting
journalists
doing
their
job
documenting
a
protest
because
the
officers
would
have
a
robust
respect
for
the
press
and
exercise
of
the
First
Amendment.
However,
we
are
in
this
one.
Just
days
before
the
protest
happened,
the
LAPD
was
fighting
to
get
the
injunction
preventing
them
from
using
journalists
as
target
practice
removed.

Knock
LA
has
coverage:

In
a
unanimous
vote
on
Friday
morning,
LA
City
Council
put
a
halt
to
City
Attorney
Hydee
Feldstein
Soto’s
attempt
to
lift
an
injunction
on
LAPD’s
use
of
force
against
journalists.
The
City
Attorney’s
office
withdrew
their
misguided
motion
the
same
day.
…
Adam
Rose,
press
rights
chair
at
the
Los
Angeles
Press
Club,
told
LAist
in
a
written
statement,
“Karen
Bass
is
quick
to
run
to
the
media
for
attention
to
criticize
Trump
for
violating
court
orders
(rightfully
so!),
but
when
the
media
is
assaulted
by
her
own
LAPD,
she
never
says
a
word…Instead
of
holding
the
department
accountable,
the
city
is
spending
even
more
money
to
hire
an
outside
law
firm
so
they
can
effectively
beg
a
judge
for
permission
to
keep
assaulting
journalists
for
just
doing
their
job.
The
mayor
of
Los
Angeles
needs
to
take
charge
here,
and
Bass
has
been
completely
absent.”

The
takeaway
here
is
that
conversations
about
violence
and
lawlessness
at
protests
are
incomplete
without
a
thorough
analysis
of

all
of
the
parties
involved.
Where
is
the
room
in
public
discourse
to
discuss
protests
being
violent
or
not
peaceful

because
of
unlawful
uses
of
force
from
the
police?
To
the
people
who
have
the
reflex
to
respond
“Well,
they
were
just
doing
their
job,”
you
should
also
factor
in
injunctions
and
legal
restraints
that
determine
if
the
officers
were
doing
their
jobs
well
or
not.
An
aside:
the
injunction
obviously
wasn’t
enough
to
prevent
some
LAPD
members
from
shooting
journalists
according
to
eye
witness
accounts,
but
how
many
more
people
would
have
been
shot
if
Soto
successfully
got
the
injunction
to
shoot
journalists
lifted?

As
protests
continue,
we
will
see
talking
heads
and
politicians
demand
that
the
people
with
cardboard
signs
and
dinosaur
costumes
do
whatever
it
takes
to
de-escalate
and
make
sure
that
protests
remain
peaceful.
Just
keep
that
same
energy
for
the
people
at
the
protest
in
uniform
who
are
armed
with
guns
and
are
disappointed
that
injunctions
prevent
them
from
opening
fire
as
much
as
they’d
like.

LAPD
Wants
Judge
To
Lift
An
Order
Restricting
Use
Of
Force
Against
The
Press
[LAist]

---

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.

GENEVA
–
A
UN 
expert
today
welcomed
the
publication
of
a
Guiding
Note
on
Reporting
on
the
Rights
and
Welfare
of
Children
with
Albinism
in
Africa,
a

critical tool
developed
by
the
African
Committee
of
Experts
on
the
Rights
and
Welfare
of
the
Child
(ACERWC) in
collaboration
with
the
UN
Independent
Expert
on
the
enjoyment
of
human
rights
by
persons
with
albinism.
She
issued
the
following
statement:

“Children
with
albinism continue
to
face
systemic
discrimination,
violence, ritual
attacks, and
exclusion,
particularly
in
areas of education,
healthcare, parental
care
and
protection,
social
protection,
and
access
to
justice
among
others.
We
urgently
need
targeted
action
to
protect
and
promote
their
human
rights.

The Guiding
Note on
Reporting
on
the
Rights
and
Welfare
of
Children
with
Albinism
in
Africa
provides key indicators
to
assist
African
Union
Member
States
in
fulfilling
their
reporting
obligations
under
the
African
Children’s
Charter,
with
a
specific
focus
on
addressing
the peculiar challenges
faced
by
children
with
albinism. The
indicators
guide
States
on
which
specific
areas
they
should
report
on
in
relation
to
children
with
albinism
when
submitting
their
State
Party
reports
to
the
ACERWC.

I
call
on
all
African
Union
Member
States
to
integrate
these
indicators
into
their
reporting
frameworks
and
to
take
concrete
steps
to
implement
the
recommendations.
It
is
only
through
sustained
commitment
and
collaboration
that
we
will
be
able
to eliminate the
barriers
faced
by
children
with
albinism
and
uphold
their
rights
to non-discrimination,
life,
survival
and
development, and
full inclusion
and participation
in
society.

The
Guiding
Note
is
also
a
critical
tool
for
other
stakeholders
such
as
children,
NHRIs,
and
CSOs
in
their
alternative
or
complementary
reports
to
the
Committee.
It
also
serves
as
an
important
advocacy
tool
for
all
stakeholders. This
Guiding
Note
is
a
testament
to
the
power
of
partnership
between
regional
and
international
mechanisms on
issues
of
Children
with
Albinism
and
beyond.

Let
us
seize
this
opportunity
to
transform
the
lives
of
children
with
albinism
across
Africa.”

Post
published
in:

Featured