HIGH ABOVE CORNELL, THERE’S AN AWFUL SMELL

    I derive my title from the local ditty “High above Cayuga’s waters, there’s an awful smell.  Some say it’s Cayuga’s waters; others say Cornell.”

I am a third-generation Cornellian; my daughter is a fourth.  I attended Cornell from 1958 through 1964 and received bachelor’s and master’s degrees.  I was a member of Zeta Beta Tau fraternity.  I am ashamed of both the university and the fraternity.  I am outraged and pained that Jane Doe has been so grievously abused in so many ways.  I hope that judicial proceedings will bring some relief to her pain.  And I hope that the full disclosure of this horrific episode will prompt an examination of the conditions which made it possible; I hope that it will prompt all of us to determine what we—each of us in our private lives—can do to prevent other such episodes.  At the very least, we must teach boys to grow up to be men, not misfits or misogynists.

 

For various reasons, I severed my connection with the university many years ago.  For good reason, I severed my connection with the fraternity in 2018.  The reason: a gross incident, as described in an AI overview: “Cornell University placed its Zeta Beta Tau (ZBT) fraternity chapter on a two-year probation in February 2018 following an investigation into a secret 2017 sex competition dubbed a ‘pig roast.’ … The Competition: New members (pledges) of the Zeta Beta Tau chapter at Cornell allegedly earned points by having sexual intercourse with women without their knowledge or consent regarding the game.  The Rules: Additional bonus points or tiebreakers were awarded to the member who had sex with the woman who weighed the most.”  When I resigned, I wrote that I no longer wanted to be associated in any way with a fraternity which had members capable of such disgusting conduct.

 

A contemporary of mine wrote to a friend that Cornell had a curfew for women in our day.  His implication was that the curfew prevented “date rape,” a phrase then unknown.  I doubt it.  Although I heard nothing about sexual misconduct, I have no reason to doubt that it occurred.  Silence or, at most, whispers prevailed in those years.  Even then and certainly now, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

Which brings me to the present moment, as another obscene episode is receiving national attention.  Because the facts reported have changed by the day or even by the hour, just now no one can know the whole truth about the episode.  However, the trends bend toward clearing the victim of voluntary participation, darkening the “Cornell Seven” perpetrators, and discrediting the campus, the campus and city police, and the district attorney.  The decision of New York Governor Kathy Hochul to appoint New York Attorney General Latitia James as a special prosecutor with unfettered authority to investigate this episode is a wise one.

 

Appalled as I am by what has occurred not for the first time at my alma mater, I am even more appalled by what it implies about the men involved and their upbringing by their parents.  I can readily imagine that, in many families, the response to youthful male misbehavior is that old maxim “boys will be boys.”  The truth of that maxim is precisely that outcome, no matter what age such misbehaving males attain.  Fade to the still-protected perpetrators in the Epstein case.

 

I think that there are more boys today.  Societies change (I do not say evolve).  Perhaps with the exception of the Roaring Twenties, society had both explicit and implicit rules of social and sexual conduct, and personal respectability meant more, in the first half of the twentieth century.  Occupational and residential mobility—no roots, no connections—eroded those rules after 1945.  The Greatest Generation, which withstood the Great Depression and won the Second World War, were very imperfect parents.  They spoiled the generation of Boomers by giving their children what they had not received, and the Boomers gave their children what they had received.  This parental indulgence created their children’s sense of entitlement, including the right to do as they please.  The relaxation of social rules meant the relaxation of restraints in sexual relations.  I think it quaint that, in my day, talk about virginity was commonplace; the burning question was whether a man should marry, or a woman should be, a virgin on the occasion.  By then, many had answered it: who cares?

 

More generally, changes in social and sexual mores resulted from the post-WWII flourishing of tolerance, a good thing, and moral relativism encouraging non-judgmentalism, a bad thing.  Indeed, it is common today for one person to reproach another for being judgmental, as if being judgmental is a bad thing (of course, the reproach expresses a judgment).  The result has been an erosion of a concern for moral character and moral guidance.  Changes have also reflected changes in technology.  The pill greatly reduced fears of undesired consequences of intercourse between unmarried “copulators.”  The relaxation of the Hays (no relation) code, a set of guidelines about suitable language and conduct in Hollywood films from the early 1930s through the late 1960s, allowed and thus modeled in theaters and on television behavior previously frowned upon.  Computers and iPhones expanded access to the raunchy through pornography, which dehumanizes and objectifies both men and women.  “Research consistently shows a positive association between pornography consumption—particularly violent or degrading content—and attitudes supporting sexual aggression, as well as the actual perpetration of sexual abuse and harassment against women.” (AI). In this period of liberation—“rules are meant to be broken,” so some say—, parental authority has been undermined, and many parents are confused or uncertain about what moral standards remain valid or how to instill and enforce them.  The conditions for episodes like the current one at Cornell exist throughout much of America.

 

Nevertheless, a consensus maintains that the control of these conditions is the responsibility of both institutions and individuals.  Many campuses have codes of conduct and rules of procedure for dealing with sex-based offenses.  The challenge is to enforce them.  In the present episode, Cornell officers and its campus police failed to handle Jane Doe’s complaints in an appropriate, effective manner.  Depending on what the AG James’s investigation learns, what actions it takes, and what recommendations it makes, Cornell will have another opportunity to create a safe environment for women on campus.  It must do better.  And other campuses might well incorporate lessons learned from this episode.

 

Individuals—parents, other family members, and friends—can and must help as well.  The right way, however difficult it might be, is to counsel children from their earliest days to respect others, and to correct them when they fail.  I can speak only from my experience in raising my daughter and my son, with advice given to both throughout their minority, to respect all others.  As a rising high-school senior, my daughter caught the eye of a rising Naval Academy senior.  Before a first date—a movie, a snack, and goodnight—, my wife and I insisted on meeting him, setting a curfew, and implying our expectations.  In advance of a second date, I cautioned my sensible, strong, but relatively inexperienced daughter that the cadet was far more experienced than she was.  Trusting her, I gave her clear guidance: first line of resistance, the neck; last line, the waist.  She expressed her embarrassment; I replied, better embarrassed than pregnant.  She returned early from the date, strode to her room, and slammed the door.  She never said a word about the date, but I knew that her response to his advances was “no,” that her dad would kill her.  My talk with my son is what the cadet’s father should have been with his son.  By the time he reached puberty, he knew the facts of life without a talk about the birds and the bees.  We had a different talk; well, “we” is too generous; I did the talking.  The gist of it was that he must never take advantage of any woman and must accept that “no” means “no,” whether he thinks that she means it or not.  (The old joke—if a lady says “no,” she means “maybe”; if she says “maybe,” she means “yes”; if she says “yes,” she is no lady—is not an OK guide to boy/girl conduct.)

 

Many parents—I think mainly of fathers—do not teach such lessons to their sons, perhaps because doing as they say does not fit comfortably with doing as they had done or were still doing.  Clearly, what the Cornell Seven did in Ithaca they did not learn at home not to do anywhere.  Though they are not entirely responsible for what their older teenage or young adult children do—peer pressure and others become increasingly influential in their lives—parents must do what they can from the start or they might not like the finish.  Despite light being shined on Cornell and Chi Phi as well as other colleges and universities, and their fraternities, much more light needs to be shined on the moral guidance and example provided or not by parents.  A concern for moral character must be resurrected even in these problematic times when current politics is demonstrating how its absence can be so destructive of decency and democracy.

IRAN: THE ONLY WINNING MOVE

 At the end of the movie War Games, the protagonist, played by Matthew Broderick, teaches a computer gaining control of the ICBM launch codes that any game from tic-tac-toe to Global Thermonuclear War ends in defeat.  The computer learns and flashes up a final message: “The only winning move is not to play.”

There is no going back to the day before Trump decided to launch his war of choice against Iran.  There is no undoing 8 months’ worth of deaths to thousands of Irani civilians and damage to countless homes and businesses, as well as Irani political leaders, military personnel, and military installations.  And there are no continuing attacks and threats of attacks to achieve any of the war’s shifting objectives.  There is only quitting the war.

 

That is the only option on the table; end the war by quitting it.  Quitting it means that Trump’s hubris in starting the war requires America’s humiliation in ending it.  But quitting it is not as bad as continuing it, for the longer Trump wages war on Iran, the greater its cost to America’s and the world’s economic well-being, its political influence in international affairs, and its military standing.

 

Of course, Trump will not quit.  He who cannot admit a mistake will not abase himself by doing so.  Instead, he will continue the war in one way or another short of all-out hostilities while he searches for something, anything, which he can claim is a win.  The most which he can now hope for is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, although, with Irani/Omani tolls, that reopening will not restore the status quo ante.  American and Israeli ships will probably be denied passage.  But even that reopening with restrictions might be enough for him to claim a win as if it were one of his original objectives.  But he will be reminded of this faux success any time he raises the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, which is likely to be accelerated.  (Update: he must also hope for the opening of the Houthi-controlled Bab al-Mandab Strait.)

 

After the interlude of Trump's second presidency, Democrats will have their work cut out for them to make America great again, as we nearly were before Trump descended his escalator.

 

Militarily, the Pentagon must learn how to fight modern, evolving wars.  Whatever might be said about the performance of its military forces in bombing Iranian targets, elementary schools included, they have failed to subdue Iranian leadership to Trump’s demands.  After intensive American bombing with advanced weaponry, Iran has lost many of its senior leaders.  But they have been replaced by leaders even more repressive of a suffering population and even more hostile to and defiant of America.  The country has rallied in understandable nationalistic support and has survived to resist American aggression.  America has not learned from the Vietnam War that it cannot bomb an enemy into submission.

 

Indeed, Iran has inflicted serious damage on American military forces and on America’s Arab allies in the region.  The plight of personnel on the USS Abraham Lincoln led to the discovery of problems not only with that aircraft carrier, but also with associated naval warships and facilities.  Some of those problems reflect the damage done to a major American logistical center which has led to shortages of munitions and necessities like food and water.  Iran needed few missiles and many drones to inflict this damage and to close the Strait.

 

More ominously, the failure of America’s reckless campaign against Iran, which reflects both political dementia and military debilities, has called into question the value of American security guarantees and capabilities.  The damage to American bases, not to mention facilities in allied countries, and the revelation of weaknesses in war-fighting and logistical means to support that fighting suggest that the American shield against Iranian (and Houthi) aggression is not as strong as it had seemed.  The result will be that allies will pursue other means to protect themselves which are less reliant on America.  The Pentagon must rethink its entire approach to modern warfare—Trump’s push for battleships will be nothing more than a waste of resources diverted from more effective weaponry—and to do so in ways which enable it to support America’s international interests and political objectives.  Otherwise, it will fail to restore military power as an effective agent of America’s political influence.

 

To make America great again in international affairs and keep it safe at home will require more brains and brawn than Trump and Hegseth can muster.  Their foolishness has jeopardized American interests and influence not only in the Middle East, but also in the Far East.  And their closing of counter-intelligence agencies and their dismissal of experienced intelligence analysts and military leaders make America more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.  America is less capable of detecting and preventing another major terrorist attack and less capable of identifying and responding effectively to its attackers.  The likelihood of such attacks will increase with a prolongation of the war against Iran.  Quitting that war will make America safer, if not greater.  If “the only winning move is not to play,” the next best move is to stop playing.

DO VASQUEZ AND CUNNINGHAM HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE?

       The political season begins semi-officially today, Labor Day.  Joe Monahan, New Mexico’s primary political commentator, has already characterized the Congressional race in District 3 between the Democratic incumbent Gabe Vasquez and Republican challenger Greg Cunningham as a tight one.  Other media have more recently reached the same conclusion.  I am not interested in the race, only in a comparison of the candidates, with a particular interest in their positions and record on public safety, that is, police operations.  So I visited their websites.

Vasquez lists the following ten issues of concern:

 

Making life more affordable for working New Mexicans

Protecting public lands

Improving public safety

Expanding access to healthcare

Real immigration reform

Reforming Washington

Protecting reproductive healthcare

Supporting our veterans

Respecting tribal sovereignty and investing in Native American communities

Free and fair elections

 

The phrasing of some of these issues is infelicitous.  “Real” as opposed to unreal immigration reform?  “Reforming Washington” as Trump is reforming it or as reforming some or all of the federal government?  “Our veterans” as opposed to their veterans?  Five issues conspicuously missing: strengthening public education, supporting small businesses, assisting agriculture and ranching, protecting the environment, and ensuring water supplies for residential, commercial, agricultural, ranching, and mining uses.  Still, his discussions of his ten issues outline his positions in some detail and with only a few cliches and slogans.

 

Cunningham lists the following six issues of concern:

 

Keep the border secure

Develop American energy

Protect our New Mexico way of life

Build a stronger economy

Invest in New Mexico children

Make New Mexico safe

 

There is some infelicitous phrasing of these issues.  By contrast with Vasquez’s “Improving public safety,” Cunningham’s “Make New Mexico safe” implies that the state is generally unsafe and that most residents fear for their lives.  Worse, Cunningham provides no discussion of issues.  The phrases are open-ended; their vagueness might allow them to mean whatever readers want or imagine them to mean and to include or exclude numerous issues not specified.  Because he indicates his allegiance to President Trump, readers might interpret the phrases in light of Trump’s decisions affecting them.  For instance, “develop American energy” might mean both encouraging companies to drill for more oil and gas, and discouraging them from installing solar and wind power.  “Keep the border secure” might mean more abuses of citizens and immigrants, legal or illegal, by ICE and CBP.  A Trump-aligned congressman seeking to “Protect our New Mexico way of life” might support federal heavy-handedness in defining and making the state’s way of life to be less diverse, equitable, and inclusive than it is—not a good fit for the state.  Cunningham’s vagueness is a con-man’s modus operandi.  At this point, we have had enough Republican efforts to defraud Americans.

 

The transparency and accountability arise in the relationship between each candidate and his previous experience in public safety, specifically, with the police.  Vasquez claims to have “worked with law enforcement on the Las Cruces Council to increase their police budget by $3.8 million.”  A nit: no law enforcement served on City Council, only elected counselors, with whom he could have worked.  However, he did work with law enforcement officials when he served on the City Council’s secret Public Safety Select Committee (PSSC) for about one year, from December 2020 until he resigned from office in late 2021.  Voters should ask Vasquez to explain why he participated in a secret committee which operated contrary to the Open Meetings Act (OMA) and whether his participation indicates a lack of commitment to open government, and to specify what he did on that committee and what public-safety measures he supported or rejected .  In view of a complaint about the PSSC’s violation of the OMA, he should support transparency and accountability by urging the New Mexico Department of Justice (NMDOJ) to reopen that complaint, one which it seems determined to suppress in order to protect him from personal embarrassment and his campaign from political damage, and to thereby assist his campaign for reelection.  Otherwise, he implies his desperate need for NMDOJ to support his reelection.

 

Cunningham touts his work in the Albuquerque Police Department (APD), as an officer in which he “took on cartels, gangs, and violent crime, dedicating himself to protecting New Mexican families and ensuring safer neighborhoods.  His years in law enforcement earned him a reputation as a man who never backed down from tough challenges and always put the well-being of others first.”  For years, the APD has been under scrutiny for its abuses by its police officers, so any officer must be under some suspicion.  To me, in 2026, his talk is a little too hyper-masculine, a little too much of the kind of talk by which an ICE or CBP officer might characterize his or her conduct.  So, in support of transparency and accountability, he should request that his entire file with the APD be released so that the public can decide whether his conduct as an APD police officer conformed to professional standards, legal requirements, and constitutional norms.  Any refusal suggests a tacit admission of discreditable conduct.

 

 

A concluding note: Only one of the two major political parties in America is striving to suppress voting by imposing difficult voter registration or voter identification requirements, shortening periods for early voting, limiting voting sites or ballot drop-off boxes, USPS shenanigans, among other administrative, election-subversive means.  That party is the Republican Party.  Which raises the question, why vote for any candidate of a party which wants to erode the right to vote and to constrict the means to exercise it—your right to vote, whether you are a Democrat, an Independent, or even a Republican.  The appropriate response to reject such efforts is to vote for Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.  In 2026, make the vote too big to rig, too real to steal.

DERELICTION OF DUTY: ELECTED OFFICIALS TOLERATING INJUSTICE IN NEW MEXICO

      New Mexico is a state historically dominated by Democrats at state, county, and city levels.  In my 19 years in Las Cruces, I, a left-leaning Independent, have watched them hold power and do little good.  All of the people-centered domains—education, environment, health, public safety, social services—are perpetual shambles.  In most of these domains, New Mexico leads or strives to lead to the bottom of national rankings.

Las Cruces shares in the state’s pervasive political culture of incompetence, corruption, and complacency about it all.  Those in Las Cruces who pride themselves on their progressive approaches to and stances on issues are strutters who are nevertheless about as ineffectual as political strutters can be.  If you want to see back scratching and glad handing at its best, go to a meeting of the Progressive Voters Alliance and listen to its members’ two-minute soundbites.  What exactly has the PVA actually accomplished?  Nothing.  But its members assume a pervasive smugness about the virtues of Democratic predominance despite clear evidence that all is not well in Las Cruces.  To give the Police Chief his due, Jeremy Story has reduced petty crime in the city.  But homelessness and vandalism are still problems; violence, domestic or random, is rife; and sexual predators abound.

 

As readers of my blogs know, my attention focuses on public safety, a euphemism for policing, and good government, a matter to which neither the public nor politicians pay much attention.  Senator Jeff Steinborn’s effort to reform legislators’ ethics is the outer limit of such a concern.  Probably because the state’s Attorney General is elected, not nominated and confirmed as part of the Governor’s administration, there is little control over an office responsible for law enforcement to ensure good policing and good government.  Since many AGs aspire to higher office, political considerations too often enter into decisions about which cases to pursue and which to elide.  No AG wants to offend the police community or the political powers-that-be.  Accordingly, AG Raul Torrez brought in an expert specializing in defending police to clear LCPD officer Jared Cosper of killing Sra. Amelia Baca and is letting NMDOJ lawyers resist my complaint about four former Las Cruces city counselors who violated the Open Meetings Act.

 

I offer my experiences with the Las Cruces legal community—police officers, judges, and attorneys—as proof of my point.  I have no way of knowing whether my experiences are more or less numerous than or different from those of others.  My responses have been actions, never for my personal benefit, which most people do not take.  I have taken them on the assumption that my experiences are typical and in the hope that I might do some public good.  When I received $22,000 from a settlement, I gave $20,000 to Community of Hope and kept the difference only to cover my taxes.  My actions engaging the powers-that-be reflect my passion for justice—quite a different thing from the retrograde Right’s cry for “law and order.”

 

After I challenged five Las Cruces Police Department’s false allegations of code violations, Internal Affairs Sergeant, now Deputy Police Chief, Sean Mullin reported to Police Chief Patrick Gallagher that the allegations were unfounded, that is, false.  Neither IA nor Gallagher reported this finding to me; the LCPD did not want to admit its mistake.  When I discovered it through an IPRA request, Gallagher and succeeding Police Chiefs Miguel Dominguez and Jeremy Story refused to clear my file.  Story even lied that there was no file, then broke his promise to look into it and get back to me when I proved there was one.  Hypocritically, the “I” in the LCPD’s slogan P.R.I.D.E stands for “integrity.”  Meanwhile, when City Manager Ifo Pili accepted that I was owed an apology detailing the facts, City Attorney Jennifer Vega-Brown prevented it and substituted verbal pablum.  Every counselor knew the facts; not one—not my Progressive District 1 representatives Kasandra Gandara and Cassie McClur—did a thing about this injustice.

 

When I filed complaints about violations of my due process rights and about bias-based policing, the New Mexico Department of Justice under Attorney General Hector Balderas ignored both of them; it did not even acknowledge receiving my electronically filed complaints, much less address them.  Balderas clearly wanted to steer clear of complaints which would rile LCPD officers and perhaps their comrades elsewhere in the state, and taint any political ambitions.  My blogs went to all city counselors and state legislators; none took any action.

 

When I requested all records pertaining to the City Council’s Public Safety Select Committee, City Clerk Christine Rivera initially provided only a small fraction of them.  When I sued, she released a few more, some redacted, and withheld others, without complying with the IPRA requirements to describe them.  When my suit looked to prevail in court, the City settled; it released about 500 records, unredacted much of the redacted records, and withheld only a few.  The cost to the City: about $150,000 to pay for IPRA violations which City Clerk Rivera well knew how to avoid, it being her job to fulfill IPRA requests.  Again, every counselor knew the facts; not one did a thing about this criminal conduct.  With one exception: Progressive City Councilor Becky Corran nominated Rivera for New Mexico's Clerk of the Year in April 2025, who then won.  Such was the appreciation of Rivera’s criminal conduct in City Council.

 

In a recent (21 August) blog, “New Mexico DOJ’s Political Shenanigans Require Legislative Correction,” I copiously detailed the many and various ways in which Department lawyers were attempting to avoid the gravamen of my complaint about members of City Council—the-mayor Ken Miyagishima, Gabe Vasquez (current incumbent Democratic candidate for District 2), Tessa Abeyta, and Kasandra Gandara—who, on a Public Safety Select Committee operating in secret, violated the Open Meetings Act over several years.  My suspicions were amply vindicated by a thorough, year-long investigation by the Foundation for Open Government.  Every member of the state legislature, including my local representatives Jeff Steinborn and Angelica Rubio, has received my blogs on this complaint; this recent blog was an open letter which I sent to every member of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees; no one in the legislature, notably those on these committees, has replied to me or, so far as I know, taken any action on my complaint.  What surprises me is that even Republican legislators in an election year have nothing to say about it.  Apparently, a shared interest in protecting fellow politicians overrides considerations of party affiliation, the rule of law, and justice.

 

In contrast are two experiences with my Virginia representatives when I had trouble with state and federal agencies about my taxes.  In the first instance, the Virginia Department of Taxation improperly applied the additional payment accompanying my amended return to the following year, then billed and penalized me for underpaying my taxes for the current year.  When I contacted the Department about this mishandling of my taxes, I got no response.  My state senator intervened, got the Department to change its methods of handling amended returns, and elicited an apology to me from the Department director.

 

In the second instance, I asked the IRS whether I was supposed to pay social security taxes for a once-a-week housecleaner.  Advised that I was, I filled out 6 years’ worth of quarterly social security returns, paid the taxes due, and later paid all penalties for late payment.  The IRS mishandled my returns and claimed that I owed payments of taxes and penalties for a missing quarter.  The Taxpayer Advocate, instead of correcting the mishandling, doubled down on the claim and blamed me for a failure to file for that quarter.  My senator brought my case before the Senate Finance Committee then investigating IRS performance respecting taxpayers’ complaints.  The chair was so outraged by IRS mishandling of my returns and allegations against me that he insisted that an IRS agent to be transferred from her detail to the committee stay with the case until I was satisfied with its resolution.  Meanwhile, it turned out that I had been misadvised, that I did not owe social security taxes, and that the IRS had to refund my payments of taxes and penalties, and pay accrued interest.  In the end, I received a long and detailed apology from the Taxpayer Advocate; it is framed and hangs in my office, perhaps the only one of its kind in the country.  Without the intervention of my senator, I might be sharing a cell with Al Capone.

 

The point of these two stories is obvious.  The non-performance of elected representatives or appointed officials at the city and state level in New Mexico is not typical of those in other cities and states.  It is reflective of incompetent, corrupt, or complacent personnel in the Las Cruces Police Department, the Las Cruces City Council, and the New Mexico Department of Justice.  It has to be this way, however, because the citizens of Las Cruces and New Mexico are, except in the most outrageous, publicized incidents, indifferent to police misconduct or bad government.  And Democrats, especially Progressives, know so, and thus can dodge the duties which would ordinarily be theirs to discharge.

NEW MEXICO DOJ'S POLITICAL SHENANIGANS REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE CORRECTION

[Note: I sent the following text under the title "Open Letter to All Members of the New Mexico Senate and House Judiciary Committees" to them and members of the media.]

The New Mexico Department of Justice (NMDOJ), under the leadership of the Attorney General Raul Torrez, is doing everything possible to avoid enforcing the Open Meetings Act (OMA) against former members of the Las Cruces City Council who, through a select committee operating in secret, influenced public safety policies and practices usually without the knowledge of City Council or the public and thereby violated OMA for several years.  Its investigation of my complaint about OMA violations avoided this core of my complaint.  Its response to FOG’s request that it re-open my complaint in light of its year-long investigation documenting OMA violations is silence.  Its rationale for refusing my request that it re-open my complaint defies logic.  Its responses to my Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request to know about NMDOJ’s decision making in this matter have violated this act.

 

I do not know the purpose, mission, or writ of either Senate or House Judiciary Committees, but I assume that some element of oversight is involved in your work.  I hope that there is no parallel between the USDOJ and the NMDOJ, both contextualized by one-party control of government and liable to political considerations, and that New Mexico’s Democratic-controlled legislature has more integrity and courage than the Republican-controlled Congress has.  So I write to bring your attention to NMDOJ’s reprehensible response to my complaint and to request that you review its performance and prompt NMDOJ to do its proper work properly.  Those who have read my blogs know some of the details; I summarize them for those who have not.

 

Context is important.  In his 20 December 2024 letter to the Las Cruces City Council about improper hiring practices, Mr. Blaine Moffatt, Director, Government Counsel and Accountability Bureau (GCAB), concluded with a warning: “Future complaints related to your public body will be examined with increased attention.”  With respect to my complaint, his office and lawyers did not practice what he preached.

 

My 19 December 2024 complaint about OMA violations was assigned to Isabelle Lopez, an Honors (that is, a newly hired) Attorney.  In May 2025, her questions to the City Attorney and the City Attorney’s answers failed to address the core of my complaint.  I wrote to Ms. Lopez and criticized her investigation, but she did not reply.  In October, Rebecca M. Guay, Deputy Director, GCAB, replied with an elaborated restatement of Ms. Lopez’s answer to my complaint; it, too, failed to address the core of my complaint.  I wrote to Ms. Guay and criticized her reply, but she did not reply.  And there my complaint has rested, closed out.

 

In May 2025, I contacted the Foundation for Open Government (FOG) and provided it with the approximately 500 records which I had received from the City of Las Cruces in response to my successful suit about IPRA violations by the City Clerk and City Attorney: improper redactions, improperly withheld records, and failure to describe the records redacted or withheld.

 

On 28 May 2026, FOG submitted a report of its findings to the Las Cruces City Council and to NMDOJ.  City Council responded by implementing FOG’s recommendation to repeal the ordinance establishing select committees.  NMDOJ did not reply to FOG.  On 29 May, I wrote to Ms. Guay to request a “reconsideration of my complaint in view of documentary evidence supporting allegations of OMA violations.”  She did not reply.  On 30 June, I wrote to Mr. Moffatt to request that his Bureau reopen my complaint.  He did not reply.

 

In late July, I submitted an IPRA request to NMDOJ to learn about its handling of these requests to re-open my complaint.  In an exchange of correspondence with Ms. Carrie Cook, IPRA Attorney, about this request, she has feigned to be responsive, but she has given me wrong, misleading, or no reasons for not complying with IPRA requirements: to provide all relevant records, to state the exemption for any redaction or withholding, and to describe the records redacted or withheld.  I do not know whether she provided all relevant records; the nature of her emails does not inspire trust.  She cited the attorney-client privilege to justify redactions and withholdings; I doubt that the attorney-client privilege applies to inter-departmental NMDOJ communications.  She failed to provide descriptions—in particular, repeatedly failing to identify the authors or the audience–by falsely claiming that providing this information would require NMDOJ to create a record—which it is not required to do; she tried to mislead me by equating the disclosure of required information and the creation of a record.

 

On 19 August, I received an 18 August close-out letter from Christopher M. Harrington, Assistant Attorney General, GCAB.  He states that my complaint is now void because the Las Cruces City Council repealed the ordinance establishing select committees.  He avoided the core of my complaint: city counselors in a select committee violated OMA by operating in secret and making decisions about policy and practice.  His position is that a case against a bank robber is mooted if the bank later installs better vault locks.

 

NMDOJ’s handling of my complaint reflects badly on NMDOJ lawyers—from staff lawyers Isabelle Lopez, Rebecca M. Guay, and Carrie Cook to officials Blaine Moffatt and Christopher M. Harrington.  Their performance discredits NMDOJ and Raul Torrez.

 

When NMDOJ responds to a citizen with discourtesy, dissembling, dishonesty, and defiance, the question is why.  I have two answers: partisan political considerations to protect Democratic incumbent Congressman Gabe Vasquez in the fall election and protection from embarrassment at the exposure of its politically corrupt investigation.  NMDOJ lawyers who found no basis for my complaint after a cursory investigation now confront FOG’s thorough investigation rebutting their finding.  Rather than reveal political motives, admit investigative error, and take corrective action, these lawyers have not replied to FOG’s report and request to re-open my complaint and have denied my request to re-open it.  In short, in my case, NMDOJ has deliberately failed to follow its IPRA guidance, to enforce OMA, more generally to adhere to the rule of law, and to pursue justice in response to a valid complaint by a citizen who trusted that NMDOJ was more ethical and professional than its federal counterpart.

 

I make this letter to members of the New Mexico Senate and House Judiciary Committees public so that it can better understand NMDOJ’s efforts to protect Democrats and to maintain a cover-up of its flawed investigation.  I also want the public to observe how elected officials with legislative and oversight duties in their respective judiciary committees react to NMDOJ’s reprehensible performance.

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE U.S. WAR AGAINST IRAN

       There is no better example of the ill consequences of actions based on ignorance and motivated by arrogance than Trump’s self-initiated attack on Iran launched on 28 February.  Anyone who knows anything about foreign affairs in the Middle East has long known that Iran has had the option to close the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic response to an American or Israeli attack.  Military planners expected Iran would close the Strait in the event of hostilities between it and America, and so advised the President.  He rejected their advice out of blind pride.

 

Yet, despite the hostile relationship between Iran and America for nearly half a century, Iran had not exercised the option to close the Strait until this war.  The question is why; the answer is that exercising that option, with its severe worldwide consequences, would, without justification, have incurred the wrath of many nations.  Trump’s attack provided that justification, and many countries in the region, though not allied with Iran, understand and in part forgive its response.  They may chafe under its new regime of controlled shipments and payments of transit fees, but they are unlikely to do more than try to alleviate its terms by negotiation and political pressure.

 

So the question is why Iran did not close the Strait when America and Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities.  The answer depends on a crucial distinction between hostility and hostilities.  The June 2025 American/Israeli attacks had no political objective—that is, regime change.  Instead, they had only a military objective, the destruction of those facilities, with tacit support from countries in the region which fear Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons.  Trump’s February 2026 attack on Iran was different because it also had the political objective of regime change.  That objective ensured that Iran would react, to the surprise of no one but Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.  Both were either ignorant of this likelihood or indifferent to it in the hubristic belief in America’s military superiority.

 

After over five months of on-again, off-again attacks and talks, Trump and Hegseth have lost the war.  They have achieved none of its alleged objectives, primarily, regime change and termination of Iran’s nuclear-weapon program.  Indeed, they lost the war before the attack was launched mainly because they had only their arrogant, racist belief that an economically and politically suffering third-world Muslim country would quickly submit to a sudden onslaught of expensive, high-tech weaponry of the worlds’ most powerful military.  Such a belief is the more remarkable because Trump and Hegseth know that America, despite its overwhelming military might, lost its war in Vietnam, a country far more vulnerable because less populous, educated, and developed than Iran.

 

With traditional American hubris, Trump and Hegseth, with their boyish fascination with video-game-like razzle-dazzle weaponry, thought the attack would produce victory in a matter of weeks.  Anticipating their amusement, Hegseth expended vast quantities of costly, sophisticated ballistic and cruise missiles, though a few thousands-of-dollars bombs could have done as much targeted damage as one multi-million-dollar missile.  Using more conventional munitions would mean delivering them by tactical fighter-bombers and strategic bombers, and risking pilots’ lives, but it is unlikely that either considered using missiles to save lives.  If American forces had incapacitated Iran’s air defenses—Hegseth’s claim cannot be readily believed—, then the use of conventional weapons at a negligible increase in casualties would have avoided the far greater problems created by depleting theater arsenals of major military assets, with serious implications for strategic requirements elsewhere in the world, particularly the Far East, especially Taiwan.

 

Trump and Hegseth have lost the war because they foresaw no ill consequences, had no support or strategy, and squandered valuable munitions—and could not have prevailed against a determined opponent resolute in its resistance to an existential threat.  Having lost, America is now a weaker, more vulnerable country.  For many months or some years, the military will be weakened by shortages of major weapon systems.  Its power, as exercised by its armed forces, has been exposed as having diminished effectiveness in achieving political objectives.  More importantly, America’s prestige has been tarnished and its authority undermined by ignorant, arrogant, and erratic decision making.  The world has witnessed a demonstration of collective incompetence at the highest levels of America’s government.  At this point, America is anything but great again—in the words of Richard Nixon, it is “a helpless, pitiful giant"—, and Trump, who campaigned to “make America great again” has done as much to erode its reputation and dissipate its moral, economic, political, and military strength as our adversaries could wish.

 

Trump is in a quandary from which he cannot escape.  His military attacks have failed, and more attacks cannot succeed.  He lacks diplomatic skills and is deemed untrustworthy by foreign diplomats; his substitute negotiators are equally unskilled and untrustworthy.  His ego, brittle but defensive, and his personality, immature and irresponsible, cannot admit error or defeat.  His ego will not let him admit that he has lost the war and much American influence in foreign affairs.  His personality will lead him to insist that others, mainly Obama and Biden, are to blame.  For anyone but Trump, the aftermath—though there looks to be no aftermath in the short term—would provide a steady diet of crow and humble pie.  All in all, his Iran escapade has shown Trump to be a loser to everyone but himself.  Because he cannot admit his mistakes and losses, he cannot learn from the one and cut the others.  Which means a continuation of the armed impasse and its consequences, and more of Trump’s braggadocio, bungling, and boondoggle.

 

Until the Democrats achieve regime change here, America cannot expect any improvement in our relations with countries abroad.  Indeed, Trump is liable to initiate other adventures, like occupying Greenland and Cuba.  In Greenland, he will use the locals’ resistance as a pretext to protect a Texas oil venture illegally landing drilling gear in its northeast region and thereby begin the occupation.  This case of might making right by Trump’s standards will serve Trump and his cronies, but it will do nothing to enhance America’s standing in the world.  What its effect on NATO will be remains an open question likely with an uncomfortable answer.

 

It is unlikely that Trump can be stopped unless Democrats acquire a majority at least in the House.  At the very least, it must restrict or refuse funding for the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.  In the event of violations of the law and inaction by the Department of Justice, it must restrict or refuse funding it, too.  I am not hopeful, however.  Democrats are not much more courageous than Republicans.  Whereas Republicans act because of their cult-like subservience to Trump, Democrats dither because of their political diversity and their aversion to vigorous though righteous action. 

DOES NEW MEXICO’S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RUN A PROTECTION RACKET FOR DEMOCRATS?

      In my 29 May blog, I questioned whether Attorney General Raúl Torrez is committed to open government or not.  The answer is probably not.  The New Mexico Department of Justice’s (NMDOJ) has thus far failed to respond to several requests to reopen my complaint about Open Meeting Act (OMA) violations by former members of the Las Cruces City Council, including incumbent Democratic Congressional District 2 candidate Gabe Vasquz and independent candidate for governor Ken Miyagishima.  Vasquez and Miyagishima need NMDOJ protection.

On 28 May, the Foundation for Open Government (FOG) submitted a request to Government Counsel and Accountability Bureau (GCAB) Deputy Director Rebecca M. Guay to reopen my complaint.  The request was based on its thorough, year-long investigation of abundant evidence obtained by my Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request and FOG’s further research.  Its investigation supersedes the brief, perfunctory, skimpy work of GCAB lawyers.  Presumably, Ms. Guay must consult her superiors whether she or they will or will not reopen my complaint.  FOG has received no response to its request over seven weeks later.

 

On 29 May, I made a request to Ms. Guay (copied to Torrez) to reopen my complaint on the basis of FOG’s investigation.  I have received no response to my request over seven weeks later.  On 30 June, I restated my request to Mr. Blaine Moffatt (copied to Torrez and Ms. Guay), Ms. Guay’s immediate superior.  I have received no response to my restated request over three weeks later.

 

Whatever decision Torrez, Moffatt, or Guay make, their individual failures to respond to a reasonable request is inexcusable, shabby treatment of a private citizen by government officials.  That treatment might reflect the usual bureaucratic reluctance to admit a mistake, an incomplete, if not incompetent, investigation of my earlier complaint, as disclosed by FOG’s investigation.

 

Other reasons might also explain their failures, discussed in my blog, which I summarize.  I said that Torrez faces two risks to reopening my complaint.  One, he might offend the political establishment, mainly Democrats, if he directs the NMDOJ to reopen my complaint and thereby investigates current candidates for office.  An investigation of Vasquez, a Democrat, might anger Democrats by jeopardizing his re-election to the District 2 seat in the House of Representatives (Miyagishima’s candidacy is a vanity project of a fading politician).  Two, he might offend officials and employees in the department.  Novice attorney Isabelle Lopez would not appreciate the implicit judgment of her cursory initial investigation; and GCAB Deputy Director Rebecca M. Guay would not appreciate the reversal of her reflexive ratification of Ms. Lopez’s work.

 

I also noted that Torrez runs two risks if he does not reopen my complaint.  One, he might appear to be protecting members of his party.  Two, whatever his professed commitment to open government, a negative decision might suggest political hypocrisy.  I now add that, if he does not reopen my complaint, he makes Government Counsel and Accountability Division Director Blaine Moffatt look like a blowhard; his letter on another matter to the Las Cruces City Council promised that “Future complaints related to your public body will be examined with increased attention.”  Thus far, they have not been so examined.  If Moffatt appointed or approved the appointment of Ms. Lopez to investigate my complaint, then he showed himself a blowhard.

 

My guess: Torrez will try to reduce or avoid some of these risks by slow walking a reopening of the investigation until after the November midterm elections or by refusing to reopen it altogether.  In the expected close race for the District 2 Congressional seat—Cook Partisan Voter Index rates this district “even”—Vasquez, a weak incumbent candidate, needs all the help which he can get.  If Torrez slow walks or does not reopen the investigation, he would seem to agree with my assessment of this Democratic candidate.

 

This complaint to NMDOJ about OMA violations is not my first and only one.  Two others occurred under AG Hector Balderas’s leadership.  One was that an LCPD Internal Affairs (IA) investigation of my complaint about five false allegations of code violations violated my due process rights.  Although IA found that the allegations were false, it neither reported that finding to me nor acted upon to clear my LCPD file.  This complaint went unanswered.  The other was that IA’s violation of my due process rights was motivated by antisemitism.  This complaint also went unanswered.  NMDOJ does a lot of not answering complaints about government agencies.

 

I assume that I am not the only citizen of New Mexico who has filed complaints with NMDOJ alleging violations of laws by government agencies, including police departments, and has received no answer.  (If I am the only such citizen, then I must wonder why my complaints do not matter.)  Since the common element of my three complaints is local government officials and agencies, I infer that NMDOJ is reluctant to investigate as many cases as a lack of adverse publicity allows in order to protect state and local officials, ranking employees, and agencies from scrutiny.  For NMDOJ, transparency and accountability appear to be merely ideals “more honored in the breach than in the observance.”  Attorneys General honor them when they choose to avoid them because of political consequences adverse to their aspirations to higher office.  Which is to say that public relations and personal politics deny justice for citizens with complaints about state and local officials and ranking employees.  Officials and employees know that NMDOJ prefers to tolerate and protect rather than to deter or prosecute illegal behavior.  The refusal of NMDOJ officials to investigate complaints encourages misconduct; immunity leads to impunity.

 

I doubt that the New Mexico legislature is scrutinizing the NMDOJ in matters concerning citizen complaints about local governments and state agencies.  Does the legislature know what number of citizen complaints NMDOJ receives?  Or what percentage of citizen complaints it acknowledges?  Or what percentage of citizen complaints it dismisses without investigation?  Or what percentage of citizen complaints it investigates?  Or what percentage of citizens receive a report on the disposition of their complaint?  Or whether it measures citizen satisfaction with its handling of complaints?  I doubt the legislature can answer any of these questions because it has not asked NMDOJ for answers.

 

If I am right that the legislature is ignorant in these matters about local governments and state agencies, the legislature cannot ensure that the NMDOJ is a department acting for good government throughout the state—a fact not suggesting good government.  Perhaps legislators on the House and Senate judiciary committees should conduct investigations of the NMDOJ.  But it is unlikely that Democrats on those committees would approve inquiries or investigations of their political brethren.  NMDOJ under Torres will remain corrupt in its protection of government officials and employees from the rule of law regarding open government.