BULAWAYO
–
A
Bulawayo
woman
has
been
jailed
for
two
years
for
hitting
a
neighbour’s
child
after
she
found
her
and
three
others
bunking
school.
Her
family
has
engaged
a
Bulawayo
lawyer
to
launch
an
urgent
appeal
against
the
sentence.
Panashe
Mpofu,
33,
flew
into
a
rage
after
being
informed
by
members
of
the
neighbourhood
watch
in
Old
Luveve
that
her
son,
two
girls
and
another
boy
were
bunking
school
and
spending
daytime
at
a
house
whose
owners
are
said
to
be
living
in
the
United
Kingdom.
The
second
boy
stays
at
the
house.
The
West
Commonage
Magistrates
Court
heard
that
Mpofu
confronted
the
quartet
on
November
8
and
used
a
switch
to
beat
up
her
son
and
the
two
girls
after
the
other
boy
fled.
The
family
of
one
of
the
girls
filed
a
police
report
leading
to
Mpofu’s
arrest.
Mpofu,
who
had
no
lawyer,
pleaded
guilty
to
assault
when
she
appeared
before
Western
Commonage
magistrate
Vakayi
Douglas
Chikwekwe.
The
magistrate
sentenced
Mpofu
to
a
two-year
jail
sentence
but
conditionally
suspended
six
months,
leaving
her
to
serve
an
effective
18
months
in
prison.
“Cases
of
assault
are
rampant
in
Bulawayo,
not
a
day
goes
by
without
at
least
five
cases
being
reported
and
some
of
these
victims
end
up
suffering
from
disability,”
Chikwekwe
said
before
sentencing.
He
said
in
arriving
at
the
sentence
he
took
into
account
that
the
victim
was
a
child
and
she
had
suffered
injuries
which
were
preventing
her
from
attending
school.
She
had
also
suffered
financial
prejudice
from
paying
medical
bills,
the
magistrate
said.
The
victim
is
a
niece
of
prominent
Matopo
gold
miner
Mkhululi
Ncube
and
controversial
lawyer
Mlweliwenkululeko
Ncube.
Mpofu’s
family
said
they
planned
to
appeal
the
“harsh
sentence.”
“This
is
a
parent
who
was
disciplining
children
who
were
engaging
in
wayward
behaviour.
The
parents
of
this
girl
should
actually
be
thanking
her,
not
persecuting
her,”
a
family
spokesman
told
ZimLive.
In
Zimbabwe’s
Shona
language,
mental
illness
is
known
as
chirwere
chepfungwa
or
kupenga.
Before
British
colonial
settlers
arrived
in
1890,
traditional
healers
(n’anga)
played
an
important
role
in
helping
people
to
manage
their
mental
as
well
as
their
physical
health.
But,
from
the
late
19th
to
the
mid
20th
century,
the
British
colonisers,
particularly
Christian
missionaries,
cracked
down
on
the
work
of
the
n’anga.
They
insisted
that
communities
should
abandon
their
traditional
beliefs
and
healing
practices.
Instead,
people
were
cajoled
and
threatened
to
embrace
western
biomedicine,
relying
on
its
psychiatric
and
psychological
methods
to
treat
mental
illness.
The
British
government
of
what
was
then
Rhodesia
introduced
the
Witchcraft
Suppression
Act
in
1899.
It
also
used
the
colonial
education
system
to
push
people
away
from
what
the
British
perceived
as
“superstitious”
ways
of
understanding
and
healing
illnesses.
The
colonial
crackdown
succeeded
only
in
driving
healing
practices
underground.
Shona
people
no
longer
openly
expressed
their
interest
in
using
traditional
rituals.
Unfortunately,
they
did
not
always
receive
the
help
they
needed
from
western
biomedicine,
since
there
were
only
a
limited
number
of
nurses,
medical
doctors,
psychiatrists
or
psychologists
available
to
treat
those
with
mental
illnesses.
The
system
favoured
white
“Rhodesians”
and
Shona
people
weren’t
given
priority.
In
the
1980s,
in
the
early
post-colonial
Zimbabwe,
the
government
introduced
several
strategies
to
try
to
restore
the
respect
and
function
of
cultural
beliefs
and
traditional
healing
practices.
It
created
Zinatha
(the
Zimbabwe
Traditional
Healers
Association)
and
later
amended
the
witchcraft
suppression
law,
so
that
traditional
healers
were
no
longer
viewed
as
witches
or
“witch-doctors”
or
their
healing
practices
as
witchcraft.
I
am
a
researcher
who
focuses
on
traditional
healing,
mental
health
and
neo-liberal
regimes
in
north-eastern
Zimbabwe.
I
wanted
to
know
what
role
n’anga
play
in
helping
the
Korekore
(a
sub-group
of
Shona
people)
in
the
country’s
Rushinga
district
manage
their
mental
health.
I
also
wanted
to
know
how
people
think
about
mental
illness
and
what
factors
they
believe
influence
it.
In
a
recent
study
I
did
just
that.
The
Korekore
strongly
believe
that
mental
illness
is
largely
caused
by
sorcery,
witchcraft,
the
breaking
of
cultural
taboos,
or
aggrieved
or
avenging
spirits.
They
acknowledge
that
other
psychosocial
and
physical
factors
can
play
a
role,
too,
but
largely
see
kupenga
as
a
social
and
cultural
issue.
This
means
that
traditional
healers
are
key
to
managing
mental
illness.
I
argue
that
the
public
health
system,
which
still
values
western
biomedicine
over
other
approaches
to
healing,
needs
to
take
the
role
of
traditional
healers
more
seriously
and
work
towards
helping
patients
holistically,
in
a
way
those
patients
value
and
recognise.
Traditional
healers
at
work
I
must
point
out
that
people
in
Rushinga
district
also
consult
with
psychiatrists,
psychologists
and
medical
doctors.
But
many
do
so
in
conjunction
with
the
guidance,
advice
and
interventions
offered
to
them
by
traditional
healers.
While
individual
interactions
will
differ,
the
healers’
approach
follows
an
overall
pattern.
Firstly,
healers
divine
the
causes
of
kupenga
and
suggest
healing
methods.
These
proposed
methods
differ
from
individual
to
individual,
even
if
their
challenges
appear
to
be
the
same.
They
include
exorcising
bad
spirits
(mweya
yakaipa
or
mamhepo),
witchcraft
and
sorcery,
through
inducing
vomiting
(kurutsisa),
and
the
use
of
spiritualised
(ritually
prepared)
and
non-spiritualised
herbs.
These
herbs
are
ingested
into
the
body
in
various
ways:
via
incisions
into
the
skin,
smoking,
sniffing,
steaming,
applying
animal
fats,
and
conducting
traditional
healing
rituals
(bira/mizva).
The
study
Rushinga
is
a
district
in
the
Mashonaland
Central
province,
home
to
about
77,000
people.
My
study
focused
on
people
living
in
Katevera,
a
rural
area
in
the
district.
I
spoke
to
traditional
healers,
faith
healers,
people
who
had
previously
been
treated
for
mental
illness
and
were
considered
cured,
and
relatives
of
mentally
ill
people.
The
Korekore
do
not
see
mental
illness
as
residing
only
in
the
human
body,
but
also
outside
it,
in
social
and
cultural
environments.
The
human
body
is
believed
to
take
in
and
leak
out
various
spiritual
and
ancestral
influences.
This
is
why
most
healing
seeks
to
make
the
body
flush
out
bad
things
and
to
make
it
more
resistant
to
evil
spirits,
witchcraft
and
sorcery.
The
respondents
told
me
about
their
experiences
of
mental
illness.
One,
Jada,
explained
what
had
caused
his
illness.
I
saw
two
very
small
“goblins”
(zvidhoma)
coming
to
fight
me.
This
was
the
last
time
I
knew
what
was
happening.
I
was
later
told
that
I
had
been
carried
to
Chimhanda
Hospital.
The
traditional
healer
later
told
me
that
I
was
bewitched
by
the
zvidhoma.
They
were
sent
by
one
of
my
jealous
family
members.
Somebody
in
our
family
has
money-making
goblins
and
wants
political
power.
The
zvidhoma
thrive
on
using
other
people
through
mental
illness.
They
suck
blood.
This
is
how
their
business
or
political
power
is
strengthened.
They
usually
cause
mental
illness
in
a
family.
Jada
consulted
with
a
traditional
healer,
doing
so
at
night
to
avoid
public
scrutiny
–
he
said
he
didn’t
want
to
be
judged
by
his
colleagues
for
working
with
n’anga.
He
made
a
full
recovery,
returned
to
work,
and
was
even
recently
promoted.
He
was
very
pleased
with
the
traditional
healer’s
methods.
A
number
of
people
I
spoke
with
insisted
that
traditional
healing
methods
were
efficacious
in
treating
mental
illness.
The
n’anga
I
interviewed,
meanwhile,
said
they
offered
lasting
healing
because
they
tackled
the
root
causes
of
mental
illness.
Strong
beliefs
It
is
clear
from
this
study
that
the
Korekore
people
in
the
Rushinga
district
have
not
wavered
in
their
beliefs
about
and
ways
of
healing
mental
illnesses.
This
is
despite
colonial
attitudes
that
persist
in
hospitals,
clinics
and
schools,
where
only
western
and
colonial
knowledge
is
valued.
People
told
me
that
nurses
and
psychiatrists
openly
denigrated
traditional
healers.
Public
health
staff
need
to
recognise
that
social
and
cultural
factors
can
cause
mental
distress
and
that,
in
some
cases,
traditional
healing
could
complement
their
work
or
even
be
a
better
way
to
treat
a
particular
patient.
I
recommend
that
schools
in
the
district
begin
to
teach
learners
about
the
importance
of
local
understandings
of
mental
illness.
Textbooks,
too,
could
feature
content
about
traditional
healing
alongside
information
about
biomedical
treatments.
The
Federalist
Society’s
National
Lawyers
Convention
got
wild
yesterday.
As
wild
as
a
gathering
of
right-wing
lawyers
can
get,
anyway.
Actually,
I
guess
the
wildest
a
gathering
of
right-wing
lawyers
can
get
was
January
6,
so
this
was
just
slightly
less
than
the
wildest
a
gathering
of
right-wing
lawyers
can
get.
Fifth
Circuit
Judge
Edith
Jones
took
the
opportunity
of
sitting
next
to
Georgetown
University
Law
Center
Professor
Steve
Vladeck
to
go,
I
believe
the
technical
term
is
“absolutely
bonkers.”
An
eye-popping
and
eye-rolling
meltdown
from
a
federal
judge.
Let’s
not
undersell
this…
conservatives
were
aghast
at
her
behavior:
I
think
it’s
fine
to
disagree
with
@steve_vladeck,
and
I
do
it
all
the
time.
But
I
fear
that
Judge
Jones’s
counterattack
on
this
panel
was
unpersuasive
and
if
anything
proved
the
point.
Steve
is
not
the
problem.
https://t.co/HooKAZqlcY
It
all
went
down
at
the
panel
on
The
Continued
Independence
of
the
Judiciary,
featuring
Jones
and
Vladeck
along
with
Paul
Weiss’s
Kannon
Shanmugam,
Washington
University
St.
Louis
Law
School
Professor
Dan
Epps,
and
moderated
by
fellow
Fifth
Circuit
Judge
James
Ho.
(It
starts
at
14:04.
For
some
reason
automatic
timestamps
aren’t
working.
Sorry.)
The
panel
begins
as
a
relatively
straightforward
academic
talk,
with
Vladeck
expounding
upon
the
problems
with
the
Supreme
Court’s
reliance
on
the
“shadow
docket”
to
issue
rapid,
unsupported
legal
rulings
and
the
risk
this
poses
to
faith
in
the
judiciary.
He
did
not
address
the
issue
of
single-judge
courthouse
shopping,
a
practice
that’s
notoriously
employed
within
the
Fifth
Circuit,
where
plaintiffs
can
file
their
claim
in
tiny
courthouses
without
fear
that
it
will
be
randomly
assigned
to
a
judge
within
the
district,
but
rather
knowing
with
certainty
that
it
will
go
to
the
lone
judge
sitting
in
that
courthouse.
But
that’s
all
Judge
Jones
wanted
to
talk
about,
so
here
we
go.
Professor
Vladeck
has
left
the
Fifth
Circuit
and
the
Fifth
Circuit
is
happy
to
announce
that
Professor
Vladeck
will
soon
be
criticizing
the
Ninth
Circuit
and
the
DC
Circuit,
where
I
believe
many
initiatives
of
the
Trump
administration
will
find
an
immediate
litigating
home
and
a
federal
judiciary
that
is
at
least
90%
appointed
by
presidents
whose
appointments
have
not
been
criticized.
This
is
the
sort
of
weird
“own
the
libs”
rhetoric
that
often
finds
its
way
into
conservative
legal
opinions
but
is
nonetheless
vapid.
The
critique
of
the
judge
shopping
problem
in
the
Fifth
Circuit
isn’t
about
finding
a
vaguely
friendly
audience,
but
on
the
threat
to
legitimacy
presented
when
litigants
create
artificial
ties
to
bumblefuck
locations
in
order
to
tie
the
hands
of
the
whole
federal
government.
Suing
the
FDA
in
DC
and
taking
a
turn
at
the
judge
assignment
wheel
doesn’t
carry
the
same
concerns
as
a
case
against
the
FDA
with
the
one
judge
you
know
sits
in
Amarillo.
This
is
fast
forwarding
a
bit,
but
Jones
will
never
even
attempt
to
address
this
specific
defect
in
her
loony
rant.
But
we’ll
offer
her
every
unearned
benefit
of
the
doubt
and
suggest
that
she
could
be
arguing
that
—
fundamentally
—
having
a
100
percent
chance
of
drawing
a
Matthew
Kacsmaryk
for
an
abortion
case
is
no
different
than
having
a
95
percent
chance
of
drawing
someone
in
the
Northern
District
of
California
appointed
by
a
Democrat
(there
is
one
G.W.
Bush
senior
status
judge
still
hearing
cases
in
the
district)
to
hear
a
challenge
to
mass
deportation.
If
that’s
the
comparison
she’s
trying
to
make,
it’s
weak.
Different
judges
are,
well,
different.
An
older
Clinton
judge
might
not
see
a
case
the
same
as
a
younger
Biden
judge.
A
Clinton
judge
confirmed
by
the
post-Contract
With
America
Senate
will
be
different
than
an
early
Obama
judge
confirmed
with
a
near
supermajority.
This
argument
is
just
categorically
different
than
allowing
plaintiffs
to
choose
a
single
judge.
For
the
record,
Jones
will
eventually
quote
Vladeck
addressing
this
issue
in
the
past
and
noting
that
none
of
the
California
judges
are
as
ideologically
committed
to
the
“left”
as
Kacsmaryk
—
a
former
lawyer
for
an
activist
conservative
religious
group
—
is
to
the
“right.”
Jones
dismisses
this
as
“if
that’s
not
an
attack
on
the
character
of
the
judge,
I
don’t
know
what
is.”
In
other
words,
she
does
not
know
what
one
is.
But
we’re
not
even
going
to
have
that
debate,
because
Jones
is
off
in
her
own
little
world.
Back
in
the
1970s,
there
was
one
judge
in
Tyler,
Texas
named
William
Wayne
Justice,
and
the
government
and
the
ACLU
liked
to
file
suit
in
Tyler,
Texas,
because
William
Wayne
Justice
was
the
arbiter
of
the
constitutional
law….
And
in
that
role,
he
ran
the
Texas
prison
system,
the
Texas
Mental
health
and
retardation
system,
the
Texas
juvenile
justice
system,
and
when
he
tried
to
take
over
the
Texas
education
system,
the
Fifth
Circuit
finally
said
that
was
maybe
a
bridge
too
far.
That
is
what
you
call
judge
picking.
Sure…
except,
in
these
prepared
remarks
the
only
devious
liberal
example
of
judge
picking
she
could
find
involved:
the
Texas
prison
system,
the
Texas
mental
disabilities
program,
and
the
Texas
juvenile
justice
system.
This
seems
significant
that
these
are
all
TEXAS
programs
litigated
in
TEXAS.
A
plaintiff
who
legitimately
resides
in
a
far-flung
rural
area
of
Texas
might
have
a
beef
against
the
state
government
wholly
within
that
jurisdiction.
That’s
a
whole
order
different
than
the
present
controversy
about
a
judge
in
Amarillo
imposing
a
national
ban
based
on
a
challenge
brought
by
non-Texans
setting
up
a
straw
organization
in
town
to
attack
a
nationwide
FDA
regulation.
I
hasten
to
point
out
that
when
[Vladeck]
was
filing
his
complaints,
his
articles,
his
amicus
briefs,
his
tweets,
calling
out
by
name…
started
out
with
Judge
Kacsmaryk,
went
to
judge
Reed
O’Connor,
later
on
included
Judge
Mark
Pitman,
Judge
Cam
Barker,
Judge
Jeremy
Kernodle
—
that’s
an
awful
lot
of
single
judges,
I
might
add
—
But
he
singled
them
all
out
for
criticism,
and
yet
the
actual
litigators
in
that
case,
which
was
often
the
US
government,
did
not
move
to
change
venue.
They
did
not
move
to
recuse
these
judges…
they
did
not
even
question
the
judge’s
integrity.
I’m
not
sure
she
even
understands
the
issue
here.
As
a
litigant,
the
DOJ
did
not
challenge
these
assignments
because
we
all
agree
that
this
is
how
the
law
currently
works.
Vladeck
is
not
disputing
that
this
is
what
the
law
currently
says,
he’s
making
a
normative
argument
that
it
should
not
work
that
way.
That’s
a
policy
question
above
the
pay
grade
of
any
litigant
in
a
specific
case.
It’s
why
the
Judicial
Conference
—
headed
by
a
Republican
judge
and
ultimately
answerable
to
a
Republican
Chief
Justice
—
went
out
of
its
way
to
pass
a
rule
to
change
this
process.
The
proposed
rule
was
limited
to
civil
actions
that
seek
to
bar
or
mandate
state
or
federal
actions,
“whether
by
declaratory
judgment
and/or
any
form
of
injunctive
relief,”
and
required
districts
in
those
cases
which
clearly
have
no
limited
geographic
tie
to
any
out-of-the-way
courthouse
to
be
assigned
through
a
district-wide
random
selection
process.
Jones
calls
this
a
“strange
idea”
and
revels
in
the
Fifth
Circuit
refusing
to
comply,
claiming
that
the
Conference
has
no
authority
over
them
because
district
assignments
are
governed
by
statute.
The
Conference
ceded
the
point.
Some
just
want
to
see
the
world
burn.
As
Professor
Vladeck
conceded,
while
he’s
complaining
about
single
judge
courthouses,
he
understands
it’s
the
law
and
that
Congress
can
change
it
if
he
can
lobby
them
to
do
that.
This
is
sort
of
a
side
issue
in
the
grand
scheme
of
this,
but
later
in
the
talk
she
characterized
the
prospect
of
legislation
to
reform
this
process
as
a
threat.
Almost
as
though
this
“just
lobby
Congress”
concession
was
entirely
disingenuous.
Oh
snap!
She
brought
a
visual
aide!
This
purports
to
be
her
collection
of
Vladeck’s
writings
on
the
subject.
What
good
faith
reason
would
she
have
for
bringing
that
to
a
panel
when
Vladeck
isn’t
even
talking
about
single-judge
courthouses?
Hush
now.
Stop
asking
silly
questions.
“This
is
not
ad
hominem,
professor,”
she
begins,
sounding
the
universal
signal
that
this
is
very
much
going
to
be
ad
hominem.
Most
folks
misunderstand
what
ad
hominem
means
and
use
it
as
a
synonym
for
insults.
That’s
not
necessarily
the
case.
It
refers
to
the
logical
fallacy
of
substituting
reasoned,
substantive
argument
with
claims
that
the
audience
shouldn’t
believe
the
other
side
simply
because
they
are,
supposedly,
just
a
bad
person.
And
that
has
little
to
do
with
whether
or
not
there
are
any
“insults”
involved.
But
in
this
case,
Jones
replaced
a
substantive
explanation
why
she
thinks
it’s
good
for
the
judiciary
to
have
Potemkin
Plaintiffs
running
to
single-judge
courthouses
seeking
national
injunctions
with
the
idea
that
Steve
Vladeck
is
mean
on
Twitter.
Making
her
stunt
very
much
ad
hominem,
something
that
Dan
Epps
correctly
pointed
out,
breaking
his
silence
during
the
scuffle
to
note
that
this
was
all
a
whole
lot
of
rhetorical
fallacy.
This
is
at
1:17:00
or
so
and
it’s
worth
watching
as
high
comedic
performance
art.
Jones
is
going
to
read
clips
to
prove
that
Vladeck
attacks
judges
personally.
As
a
taste…
Well,
I’ll
read
you
a
few
tweet.
uh,
November
18th
of
2022.
Someone
says,
“isn’t
judge
picking
a
practice
as
old
as
the
sun
done
by
both
sides?”
Professor
Vladeck
says,
“nope,
forum
shopping
is,
but
literally
picking
a
single
judge
is
a
relatively
new
phenomenon
available
only
in
a
handful
of
(primarily
red)
states.”
So…
not
a
personal
attack
on
a
judge.
Maybe
the
others
will
get
more
direct
(they
will
not).
Jones:
Here’s
Judge
Hendrix
denying
DOJ’s
motion
to
transfer.
One
of
the
articles…
Vladeck:
What
was
the
attack
in
that?
Jones:
[Slams
table]
Pretty
much
sums
it
up.
But
Jones
has
one
more
bonkers
conclusion
to
close
off
this
trip
through
the
Magical
Folder
Of
Mundane:
The
consequence
of
all
this
is,
Judge
Kacsmaryk
is
under
24
hour
day
protection.
He
has
five
kids.
someone
has
been
indicted
for
a
depth
threat
against
him.
That’s
not
the
assignment
rules.
That’s
the
ruling.
As
Professor
Brian
Frye
put
it,
“The
idea
that
anyone
would
threaten
the
life
of
a
federal
judge
based
on
a
disagreement
about
how
to
apply
venue
rules
is
frankly
risible.”
Maybe
that’s
too
far…
maybe
there’s
a
1L
out
there
whose
civil
procedure
final
was
totally
wrecked
by
the
Fifth
Circuit’s
position
and
they
missed
out
on
law
review
and
want
revenge!
Probably
not…
let’s
go
with
risible.
But
if
it
has
anything
to
do
with
assignment
rules,
it’s
that
the
existing
judge
picking
system
—
put
aside
whether
or
not
the
judges
are
ACTUALLY
in
the
tank
for
one
side
or
the
other
—
feeds
the
impression
that
the
litigants
do
see
judges
as
bought
and
paid
for
toys.
That’s
bad
for
the
judiciary.
You’d
think
a
judge
might
want
to
make
a
simple
change
that,
likely
without
actually
changing
the
outcome,
would
stifle
that
impression.
Instead,
they’re
just
going
to
blame
anyone
questioning
judge
shopping
for
inspiring
death
threats.
As
always,
these
are
just
not
serious
people.
In
recent
months
and
weeks,
some
local
and
central
government
authorities
have
enlisted
the
services
of
law
enforcement
agents
and
descended
on
some
villagers,
where
they
arrested
and
detained
them
and
also
getting
them
prosecuted
for
allegedly occupying gazetted land without
lawful
authority.
In
some
instances,
judicial
officers
have
convicted
the
villagers
and
ordered
them
to
move
from
their
homesteads
and
land,
which
they
have
occupied
for
several
years
as
it
is
their
ancestral
land.
The
intervention
by
ZLHR
in
representing
the
villagers
and
through
filing
appeals
in
court
challenging
their
eviction
as
an
infringement
of
their
right
to
freedom
from
arbitrary
eviction
guaranteed
in
section
74
of
the
Constitution,
has
saved
them
as
High
Court
Judges
have
set
aside
the
evictions.
The
insensitive
and
callous
eviction
of
people
against
clear
Constitutional
provisions
that
protect
against
arbitrary
eviction
stamps
from
both
the
local
and
central
government’s
intention
to
continue
violating
their
constitutionally
protected
rights
and
commit
rights
abuse
excesses
with
impunity. It
is
worrisome
that
both
the
central
and
local
governments
have dismally
failed
to
follow
the
dictates
of
the
law
in
executing
evictions.
ZLHR
does
not
support
lawlessness
in
occupying
land,
however,
forced evictions
have
the
effect
of
stripping
affected
families
which
include
women,
people
with
disabilities
and
children,
of
their
constitutional
right
to
freedom
from
arbitrary
eviction
and
dignity
and cause
loss
of
livelihoods,
life,
and
property
and,
in
turn,
impact
basic
social,
economic,
cultural,
political
and
civil
rights
of
several
people.
Despite
adopting
a
progressive
Constitution
in
2013, which
guarantees
freedom
from
arbitrary
eviction,
it
is
incomprehensible
that
both local
and
central
governments
have
once
again
chosen
to
embark
on
an
infamous
operation
to
forcibly
evict
and
displace
people
without
offering
them
any
alternative
accommodation
or
shelter.
The
heartless
evictions
and
displacements
amount
to
inhuman
and
degrading
treatment
of
citizens
in
contravention
of
guarantees
contained
in
the
Constitution
and
regional
and
international
instruments
to
which
Zimbabwe
is
a
state
party.
ZLHR
calls
upon
local
and
central
government
to
immediately
halt
the
forced
evictions,
ensure
the
protection
of
several
internally
displaced
people
and
other
vulnerable
groups
and
take
remedial
action
to
protect
the
rights
provided
in
the
Constitution
and
the
International
Covenant
on
Economic,
Social
and
Cultural
Rights.
It
is
prudent
for
both
the
local
and
central
government
to
invest
efforts
and
resources
in
creating
a
stable,
safe
and
just
society,
which
places
people
at
the
centre
of
development
plans
and
commits
to
advancing
social
development
including
uplifting
marginalised
communities
rather
than
perpetuating
injustice.
Local
and
Central
government
should
wherever
possible
prevent
people
from
constructing
houses
in
undesignated
areas
than
to
wait
for
them
to
finish
constructing
and
then
demolish
properties
without
following
the
due
process
of
law.
Ed.
Note:
A
weekly
roundup
of
just
a
few
items
from
Howard
Bashman’s
How
Appealing
blog,
the
Web’s
first
blog
devoted
to
appellate
litigation.
Check
out
these
stories
and
more
at
How
Appealing.
“I
Can’t
Wait
for
Matt
Gaetz’s
Confirmation
Hearings”: Columnist
Michelle
Goldberg
has this
essay online
at
The
New
York
Times.
“Ho
Decries
White
Racism
as
Court
Rejects
‘MAGA’
Bullying
Case;
Split
circuit
court
dismissed
race-based
bullying
claims;
Ho
says
culture
‘increasingly
accepts’
racism
against
whites”: Jacqueline
Thomsen
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.
“Two
Republicans
Resist
Trump
Demand
on
Biden
Judicial
Picks;
Sens.
Susan
Collins,
Lisa
Murkowski
voting
for
nominees;
Trump
wants
GOP
to
stop
Biden
judicial
confirmations”: Tiana
Headley
of
Bloomberg
Law
has this
report.
“The
Judge
Newman
Story
in
Her
Own
Words”: IPWatchdog,
Inc.
recently
posted this
video on
YouTube.
“The
Conservative
Justices
Bet
Dobbs
Wouldn’t
Hurt
Republicans
Forever.
They
Were
Right.
Abortion
had
been
a
losing
issue
for
Republicans
at
the
ballot
box.
Not
so
in
2024.” Jay
Willis
has this
essay online
at
Balls
and
Strikes.
“Supreme
Court
Seems
Ready
to
Allow
Securities
Fraud
Case
Against
Nvidia;
The
case,
which
is
in
an
early
stage,
accused
the
giant
technology
company
of
misleading
investors
about
its
exposure
to
the
cryptocurrency
industry”: Adam
Liptak
of
The
New
York
Times
has this
report.
(Photo
by
National
Motor
Museum/Heritage
Images
via
Getty
Images)
There
are
a
variety
of
inconveniences
that
may
befall
you
on
any
given
day.
But
part
of
living
in
a
polite
society
is
managing
those
frustrations
and
not
going
nuclear
on
those
who
piss
you
off
—
even
when
you’re
justified
in
your
irritation.
That’s
something
a
Biglaw
partner
is
figuring
out
the
hard
way.
Richard
Pitt
is
a
partner
at
Eversheds
Sutherland
in
their
Cardiff
office,
where
he
leads
the
Commercial
Dispute
Resolution
team
and
is
Co-Head
of
the
Procurement
team.
But
he’s
getting
a
lot
of
attention,
not
for
his
lawyering
skills,
but
for
his
anger
management
ones,
or,
more
accurately,
lack
thereof.
Pitt
was
dealing
with
one
of
life’s
frustrations
—
his
reserved
parking
space
in
the
office
carpark
was
taken
by
another
car.
His
spot
was
snagged
by
another
attorney
at
Eversheds
—
a
pregnant
associate
—
and
Pitt
absolutely
lost
his
shit.
See,
Pitt
never
learned
the
Daniel
Tiger
strategy
for
dealing
with
anger.
(Take
a
deep
breath
and
count
to
four.)
No.
Instead,
the
partner
took
his
frustrations
out
on
the
pregnant
associate
—
and
those
who
had
the
misfortune
of
being
parked
next
to
her
—
trapping
the
car
in
the
carpark.
As
reported
by
Roll
on
Friday:
When
Pitt
returned
from
the
gym
to
find
his
spot
had
been
taken
he
was
“enraged”,
said
a
source.
In
a
fit
of
pique
he
parked
his
car
behind
hers,
lengthways,
blocking
in
her
vehicle
and
another
colleague’s.
The
associate
discovered
she
was
trapped
and
asked
Pitt
to
move
his
car
–
believed
to
be
a
yellow
Porsche
–
so
she
could
go
home.
“Richard’s
response
–
a
firm
no”,
said
a
source.
The
associate
was
eventually
able
to
maneuver
her
car
out
of
the
lot
—
no
thanks
to
Pitt,
but
with
the
assistance
of
others
who
moved
their
cars
to
let
her
exit.
Sigh.
Listen,
parking
squabbles
can
indeed
be
frustrating.
And
having
your
reserved
spot
snaked
out
from
under
you
is
definitely
annoying.
But
Pitt
loses
all
sympathy
with
his
over-the-top
response.
You
never
know
what
someone
else
is
going
through,
and
giving
those
who
frustrate
you
some
grace
is
a
great
life
skill
—
particularly
when
those
people
are
colleagues
you
have
to
work
with.
Alas,
that
wasn’t
to
be.
But
that
wasn’t
the
end
of
it,
as
Pitt
then
asked
his
pregnant
colleague
to
provide
him
with
a
written
apology.
“Amazingly”,
she
did,
said
a
source.
But
that
still
wasn’t
the
end
of
it
–
the
written
apology
was
apparently
“not
good
enough”
and
Pitt
requested
an
in-person
apology.
At
that
point,
the
associate
refused.
At
least
cooler
heads
have,
at
last,
prevailed.
Pitt
apologized,
telling
RollOnFriday,
“In
the
moment
I
made
a
regrettable
error
of
judgement
for
which
I
apologise
unreservedly.”
Eversheds
Sutherland
provided
the
following
comment
about
the
affair,
“We
are
aware
of
the
incident
relating
to
car
parking
at
our
Cardiff
office.
The
matter
has
now
been
satisfactorily
resolved.”
Hopefully,
Pitt
will
count
to
four
next
time
he’s
inconvenienced,
lest
he
have
to
make
another
very
public
apology.
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].
In
today’s
business
environment,
where
every
move
is
scrutinized
and
every
decision
has
the
potential
to
go
viral,
legal
leaders
find
themselves
in
a
unique
position.
They
are
no
longer
just
gatekeepers
of
compliance
but
also
at
the
forefront
of
shaping
ethical
cultures
within
organizations.
Robert
Chesnut,
who
served
as
general
counsel
and
chief
ethics
officer
at
Airbnb,
offers
profound
insights
into
how
legal
leaders
can
transform
integrity
from
a
mere
buzzword
into
a
tangible
force
that
drives
company
culture
and
business
success.
1.
Make
Integrity
A
Daily
Practice,
Not
Just
A
Policy
One
of
the
more
unusual
yet
effective
approaches
Chesnut
advocates
for
is
making
integrity
a
visible,
daily
practice
rather
than
just
a
set
of
policies
collecting
dust
on
a
shelf.
At
Airbnb,
for
example,
integrity
wasn’t
confined
to
a
handbook.
Instead,
Chesnut
and
his
team
developed
“Integrity
Yetis,”
a
fun
and
creative
way
to
recognize
employees
who
demonstrated
ethical
behavior.
These
were
not
just
tokens
but
became
symbols
of
pride
around
the
office.
Imagine
an
employee
being
recognized
in
front
of
their
peers
for
standing
up
for
the
right
thing
—
even
something
as
seemingly
minor
as
calling
out
a
colleague
(or
even
a
senior
leader)
for
a
small
lapse
in
security
protocol.
The
act
of
recognition
turns
integrity
into
something
people
want
to
embody
and
be
celebrated
for,
rather
than
something
they
merely
comply
with.
Chesnut’s
experience
shows
that
when
integrity
is
embedded
in
everyday
actions
and
celebrated
publicly,
it
becomes
a
core
part
of
the
company
culture.
It’s
not
about
imposing
rules
from
the
top
down
but
about
fostering
an
environment
where
ethical
behavior
is
noticed,
appreciated,
and
emulated
by
others.
2.
Build
A
Network
Of
Ethics
Champions
Across
The
Organization
Another
unexpected
insight
from
Chesnut’s
work
is
the
power
of
decentralizing
the
ownership
of
ethics.
Rather
than
housing
integrity
solely
within
the
confines
of
the
legal
department,
Chesnut
argues
for
creating
a
network
of
“ethics
ambassadors”
across
all
departments.
At
Airbnb,
these
were
not
high-ranking
executives
but
rather
midlevel
employees
from
various
parts
of
the
company
who
volunteered
to
champion
integrity
within
their
teams.
This
approach
does
two
things:
it
democratizes
ethics,
making
it
everyone’s
responsibility,
and
it
embeds
ethical
decision-making
closer
to
where
actual
business
decisions
are
made.
By
appointing
these
ambassadors,
you
empower
employees
to
become
stewards
of
integrity
in
their
own
right.
They
become
the
go-to
people
for
ethical
questions
and
dilemmas,
fostering
a
culture
where
ethical
considerations
are
part
of
everyday
business
discussions
rather
than
afterthoughts
or
crises
management.
This
network
not
only
helps
in
identifying
potential
ethical
issues
early
but
also
ensures
that
ethical
behavior
is
seen
as
part
of
every
role,
not
just
something
for
the
legal
team
to
worry
about.
3.
Measure
Integrity
With
The
Same
Rigor
As
Business
Performance
Perhaps
one
of
the
most
groundbreaking
approaches
Chesnut
discusses
is
the
idea
of
measuring
integrity
with
the
same
rigor
as
any
other
business
metric.
This
might
sound
strange
at
first—how
do
you
quantify
something
as
abstract
as
integrity?
But
Chesnut
makes
a
compelling
case
that
if
you
don’t
measure
it,
you
can’t
manage
it.
At
Airbnb,
they
looked
at
metrics
such
as
the
number
of
integrity-related
questions
raised
by
employees,
engagement
with
ethics
training
materials,
and
responses
to
ethical
dilemmas.
By
quantifying
these
actions,
Chesnut’s
team
could
track
the
health
of
the
company’s
ethical
culture
and
identify
areas
for
improvement.
It
also
provided
tangible
data
to
show
the
board
and
other
stakeholders
that
integrity
wasn’t
just
a
feel-good
concept
but
a
measurable
and
managed
aspect
of
the
business.
This
focus
on
metrics
helps
shift
the
conversation
around
ethics
from
a
soft,
nice-to-have
quality
to
a
core
business
competency
that
impacts
the
bottom
line.
Final
Thoughts:
Integrity
As
A
Strategic
Asset
The
takeaway
from
Chesnut’s
experience
is
clear:
integrity
should
be
seen
as
a
strategic
asset,
not
a
compliance
requirement.
It’s
about
creating
an
environment
where
every
employee
feels
responsible
for
and
capable
of
contributing
to
the
ethical
fabric
of
the
company.
Legal
leaders
are
in
a
prime
position
to
drive
this
transformation,
but
it
requires
a
shift
in
mindset
—
from
being
enforcers
of
rules
to
being
champions
of
culture.
So,
what
can
you
do
as
a
legal
leader
to
build
this
culture
of
integrity?
Start
by
integrating
ethical
behavior
into
daily
business
practices,
empower
employees
at
all
levels
to
own
and
champion
integrity,
and
measure
it
as
you
would
any
other
critical
business
function.
For
more
on
how
to
implement
these
strategies
and
other
innovative
approaches
to
corporate
integrity,
be
sure
to
check
out
the
full
conversation
with
Robert
Chesnut
on
“Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self.”
You’ll
gain
deeper
insights
into
how
to
make
integrity
not
just
a
policy,
but
a
practice
that
drives
both
culture
and
business
success.
Olga
V.
Mack
is
a
Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
a
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
Olga
embraces
legal
innovation
and
had
dedicated
her
career
to
improving
and
shaping
the
future
of
law.
She
is
convinced
that
the
legal
profession
will
emerge
even
stronger,
more
resilient,
and
more
inclusive
than
before
by
embracing
technology.
Olga
is
also
an
award-winning
general
counsel,
operations
professional,
startup
advisor,
public
speaker,
adjunct
professor,
and
entrepreneur.
She
authored Get
on
Board:
Earning
Your
Ticket
to
a
Corporate
Board
Seat, Fundamentals
of
Smart
Contract
Security,
and Blockchain
Value:
Transforming
Business
Models,
Society,
and
Communities. She
is
working
on
three
books:
Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers
(ABA
2024), The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers:
An
Analytical
Framework
to
Systematically
Advise
Your
Clients
Throughout
the
Product
Lifecycle
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024),
and
Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data
(Globe
Law
and
Business
2024).
You
can
follow
Olga
on
LinkedIn
and
Twitter
@olgavmack.
Thanks
to
the
dedicated
work
of
Law
Students
for
Climate
Accountability,
we
know
that
Biglaw
firms
continue
to
be
a
“hotbed
of
fossil
fuel
activity.”
According
to
the
group’s
fifth
annual
Climate
Scorecard,
Biglaw
firms
received
grades
of
“A”
to
“F”
based
on
their
work
—
and
two
separate
environmental
groups
are
now
protesting
outside
of
the
offices
of
two
firms
that
received
“F”
grades.
Members
of
Lawyers
Are
Responsible
(LAR)
and
Fossil
Free
London
recently
staged
a
“climate
crisis
exhibition”
outside
of
the
London
offices
of
Akin
Gump
and
A&O
Shearman.
As
noted
by
LSCA,
Akin
earned
$7.92
million
from
fossil
fuel
lobbying
between
2019
and
2023,
while
A&O
Shearman
worked
on
$285
billion
worth
of
fossil-fuel-related
transactions
over
the
same
period.
In
a
statement,
LAR
referred
to
both
Biglaw
firms
as
“fossil
fuel
industry
enablers.”
The
American
Lawyer
has
additional
details
on
the
protest:
LAR
is
made
up
of
a
group
of
lawyers
campaigning
for
law
firms
to
cut
their
ties
to
the
fossil
fuel
industry,
while
Fossil
Free
London
describes
itself
as
a
group
that
uses
“direct
action,
creative
stunts,
disruption
and
protest
to
target
key
fossil
fuel
corporations
and
banks.”
…
Joanna
Warrington,
a
campaigner
at
Fossil
Free
London
said:
“Lawyers
here
are
raking
in
millions
by
defending
the
corporations
wrecking
our
planet.
They’re
not
just
complicit—they’re
profiting
from
climate
disaster
while
the
world’s
most
vulnerable
pay
the
price.”
Environmental
protests
like
these
aren’t
going
to
stop
anytime
soon.
Biglaw
needs
to
do
better,
to
make
the
future
better
for
all
of
us.
Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
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
X/Twitter
and
Threads
or
connect
with
her
on
LinkedIn.
In
today’s
modern
age,
many
law
firms
are
moving
business
intelligence
(BI)
solutions
from
the
nice-to-have
category
to
a
clear
differentiator
in
their
firm’s
success.
Still,
there
are
many
questions
regarding
the
true
benefits
of
BI
for
law
firms,
and
whether
it’s
worthy
of
the
hype.
We’re
here
to
set
the
record
straight
about
BI
in
this
CLE-eligible
webinar.
You’ll
learn
how
BI
can
revolutionize
your
law
firm’s
approach
to
data,
driving
efficiency
and
informed
decision-making.
Sign
up
today
and
join
us
on
November
20th
at
1
p.m.
ET.
The
panel
will
explore:
The
untold
story
hiding
in
your
data
and
how
a
BI
solution
can
bring
it
to
light
for
proactive
strategy
development
The
art
of
data
customization,
ensuring
that
every
role
within
your
firm
has
access
to
role-specific,
actionable
insights
tailored
to
their
specific
needs
How
having
an
eyeline
into
streamlined
reporting
helps
law
firms
cut
through
complex
analysis,
saving
time
and
elevating
productivity
Advanced
techniques
to
bolster
data
privacy
and
security,
safeguarding
your
firm’s
and
clients’
sensitive
information
How
establishing
a
single
source
of
truth
with
a
BI
tool
can
enhance
the
accuracy
and
trustworthiness
of
your
firm’s
data,
all
while
strengthening
teams
under
a
unified
goal
*
Judge
schedules
a
hearing
to
hear
concerns
over
the
transparency
in
the
bankruptcy
auction
that
awarded
Infowars
to
The
Onion.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
*
Proposed
law
to
protect
journalists
from
government
spying
already
passed
the
House
but
the
Senate
may
not
even
take
it
up.
Good
thing
there’s
not
an
incoming
administration
promising
to
jail
journalists
or
anything.
[WIRED]
*
Senator
Thom
Tillis
says
of
Fourth
Circuit
nominee
list
including
former
state
supreme
court
chief
justice
that
“Not
only
are
they
not
fit
for
the
Fourth
Circuit,
but
we
wouldn’t
even
consider
them
for
a
district
court.”
As
an
aside,
Thom
Tillis
voted
to
confirm
Kathryn
Mizelle
who
was
an
associate
at
the
time.
[Courthouse
News
Service]
*
Trump
placing
personal
lawyers
in
key
Justice
Department
positions.
[NBC
News]
*
The
lawyer
for
the
at-the-time
minor
at
the
center
Gaetz
investigation
urges
House
to
release
ethics
report.
[Politico]
*
Eversheds
partner
traps
pregnant
associate
in
parking
garage
after
she
took
the
spot
where
he
parks
his
Porsche.
[Roll
on
Friday]
*
EU
levies
massive
fine
against
Facebook
for
tying
its
marketplace
ads
to
its
social
media
platform.
[Law360]
Kathryn
Olga
