While I have to wait on responses to public records requests, the Associated Press has picked up where I left off on the story of Nicole Price’s professional ties to Ian Roberts. (Link to the article in the comments, along with my prior posts on the subject.) Price employed Roberts, and I’ve also heard credible allegations that they were romantically involved.

In September 2023, Roberts proposed that the Des Moines school board award $116,000 in contracts to Price’s consulting firm, Lively Paradox, and another company. According to a district spokesperson, the CFO flagged the apparent conflict of interest and spoke with Roberts about it. Roberts later told board members he was canceling the proposal after receiving “an update from the finance team.” The board says it was unaware of the real reason for the cancellation at the time.

Just a few months later, in December 2023, the district paid Price $6,476 for leading a two-hour exercise at a school board retreat. Roberts approved that smaller payment himself, without board involvement. The AP reports that the board did not learn of Roberts’s relationship with Price until July 2024, when they were again considering hiring her.

The article omits one important detail—the board has said it received a resume from Roberts during his 2023 interview, and every publicly available version of that resume lists Lively Paradox as a past employer.

Board chair Jackie Norris told the AP that concerns of a conflict of interest were addressed with Roberts at that time, which was almost a year after the CFO had spoken to him about the problem. (I question whether these apparent private communications between the board and Roberts on the topic complied with Iowa’s open meetings laws.) “I strongly feel that a review is needed of all expenditures related to the former superintendent,” Norris told the AP.

Price counts several of Roberts’s other former employers—Millcreek Township School District, St. Louis Public Schools, and Aspire Schools—among her own clients. She told the AP she saw nothing improper about her work with Roberts’s employers.

The two also co-authored several self-published books, which Price admitted sold poorly. She said most sales came from Roberts purchasing copies to hand out at conferences. Despite that, she told the AP that Roberts’s wife encouraged her to move forward with a new book project. (A source has told me Price remains in regular contact with Roberts while he is in custody, though I have no way to confirm that.)

Despite her upbeat tone in interviews and continued defense of Roberts, Price has quietly removed references to him—and to their joint projects—from her websites in recent days. Perhaps she’s hoping the publicity will boost her business, but she also appears to be hedging against the risk of standing by an apparent conman and alleged criminal.


apnews.com/article/ian-ro…

I’ve been examining public records related to the Des Moines Public Schools superintendent search, which was largely conducted behind closed doors.

This thread explores one aspect: consideration of input from the community on desired traits for the new superintendent. It focuses on the role of a new figure, who works nationally as an education consultant—in shaping the process. 🧵 DMPS held community forums to collect feedback on the qualities residents prioritized in a new superintendent. AJ Crabill, from the Council for Great City Schools, a Washington DC-based nonprofit, analyzed the feedback and presented it to the school board. Crabill describes himself as a “student outcomes evangelist,” and others have called him a “school board guru.” It was apparent from watching video that school board members are deferential towards him.

Ian Roberts, the Des Moines school superintendent arrested by ICE, has so many inconsistencies in his public biographies that it’s amazing that no one questioned his identity before.

I’ll keep adding receipts to this thread as I find information. 🧵 Court records show Roberts’s birthdate as December 18, 1970. But his original Wikipedia entry, created by an account that nearly matches a handle Roberts uses, says he was born December 18, 1978. And records from athletic competitions list his DOB at December 18, 1973.

University President J. Luke Wood, who identifies as African American, launched a “Black Honors College” at Sacramento State University last year. His stated goal is to transform it into the “HBCU of the West.” As he explained in an interview: “So we can’t be an HBCU—we weren’t founded in time, right? But we can be everything but the historical part.”

But that “historical part” is not incidental. “Historically Black Colleges and Universities” are called that because they were historically black, founded during a time of legal segregation. The designation came about in 1965 after the Civil Rights Act made it illegal for HBCUs to refuse to admit non-black students. When Wood laments that the program wasn’t “founded in time,” he is expressing a yearning for the time of segregation, which the Civil Rights Movement fought to dismantle.

The Black Honors College website claims it does not discriminate based on race, yet Wood has described the program as “specifically designed to serve Black students.” He and other university officials have emphasized that its primary purpose is to address the problem of lower graduation rates among black students. Notably, the program does not require applicants to show that they have personally faced any disadvantage or hardship.

Given President Wood’s own descriptions, it is difficult to see how this program complies with federal anti-discrimination laws, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. This thread contains a number of clips that give you an idea of Luke Wood’s views on race.

https://x.com/LauraPowellEsq/status/1950962499177881611

Yesterday, a trans activist attacked a man protesting against boys in girls’ sports at the California track and field championships. He was in his car with his wife and 4-year-old child at the time. He fought the attacker off with pepper spray before police intervened.
1/3 The attacker had been interviewed by local media earlier. The person appears to be a female who identifies as male. She rambled about oppression, Palestine, etc. “If you’re a Nazi, or complicit, I mean, f*ck off,” she said.
2/3

Matt Taibbi is suing Congresswomen Kamlager-Dove for libel.

Members of Congress are shielded from liability for defamation for statements made during legislative activities, but Kamlager-Dove apparently didn’t realize this doesn’t extend to her social media communications, unless they were within the scope of her official duties as a member of Congress. FYI, I was going to follow up my initial post with more detail about the law, but I realized what I wrote might be misleading without a qualification, so I edited the post.

🧵 UPDATE on the lawsuit against the executive affecting trans people in the military.

Judge Reyes called a hearing this afternoon, because the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint today, five days after it was due. The attorneys were adding new plaintiffs and said they had issues communicating with them.

Judge Reyes decided the solution is to give plaintiffs a do-over so that they file a new motion for a preliminary injunction next week. (She used the analogy of shaking an Etch-a-Sketch to start over.) 1/x After addressing the issues around the briefing schedule, Judge Reyes questioned attorneys for both sides on what arguments they intended to make around the definition of “sex.”

At the hearing last Wednesday, Reyes raised this topic and lectured the defense attorneys on her belief that there are more than two sexes. She then ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the topic. Plaintiffs filed their brief last Friday, and defendants (Trump et al) were supposed to file their response this coming Friday.

It seems unusual to me that the judge expected defendants to respond orally in court to these arguments, when they haven’t had a chance to draft their brief, especially given the fact that she was announcing they would start anew with with a new preliminary injunction motion. 2/x

A squirrel ran across the stage while everyone was waiting for Kamala's concession speech. 👀
For those questioning whether this is a real video, multiple videos of the squirrel of been shared.

Kamala Harris was admitted to law school under a program for students “who have experienced major life hurdles, such as educational disadvantage, economic hardship, or disability.”

Kamala Harris’s mother came from the highest caste in India, but by moving to the U.S. and Canada, obtaining a prestigious degree, marrying a future Stanford professor, having a successful career as a cancer researcher, and sending her daughter to private schools, her daughter became unusually disadvantaged?

Strange how that works.
In 1992, three years after Kamala graduated from Hastings Law School (a public university), there was a controversy after the dean of the law school realized the extent of student group involvement in admissions to the program for disadvantaged students (called LEOP).

Students who claimed to be eligible for the LEOP because of some special hardship they suffered would have their claims of being disadvantaged verified via a phone call by members of the student organization associated with the applicant’s race. The phone interviews were used by some students to screen out conservative candidates—to avoid future “Clarence Thomases,” as one student explained.

This would have been the process in place when Kamala Harris applied to law school in 1986. According to her resume, she also served as President of the “Black Law Student’s [sic] Association,” so she likely participated in the process of selecting admittees to the LEOP program while she was a law student as well.

While the program was advertised as a class-based affirmative action program—which Kamala Harris wouldn’t have qualified for—in practice it was based on race and politics, during her time.

People have expressed an interest in hearing more dirt on Kamala Harris’s past, so I am collecting my posts that contain information that has been underreported or not reported elsewhere into one thread. 🧵 In this thread, you will find detailed information about Kamala Harris’s misuse of Biden’s FEC candidate ID number in order to take possession of his campaign funds. A complaint has been filed with the FEC but will not be resolved before the election.

https://x.com/LauraPowellEsq/status/1821369361904628057

UPDATE: Last night, Kamala Harris personally filed an updated Statement of Candidacy (aka Form 2) to designate Tim Walz as her running mate.

Since she used Biden’s personal candidate ID number (P80000722) instead of her own (P00009423), the FEC records are convoluted. Her newly filed Form 2 shows up on Biden's personal FEC page. But if you look at the 2024 election cycle, Biden is erased and replaced with Harris, as if he was never never running for President.

Looking at Biden’s campaign committee’s FEC record, it’s now associated with both Biden’s and Harris’s candidacies for President for the period of 2020-2022. But that makes no sense, because Harris’s Presidential run in 2020 was never linked to Biden’s, and she ceased her campaign for President in 2020 and did not run again until 2024. Now Harris’s personal FEC candidate ID number (P00009423)—which is supposed to follow her for all Presidential campaigns for life—is somehow linked to Biden’s Presidential campaign in 2020. Only her Vice-Presidential campaign was ever linked to Biden’s, but that is separate from any Presidential campaigns.

The current 2023-2024 FEC record for “Biden for President” (aka “Harris for President,” ID number C00703975) is linked to two Presidential candidates. Both are both named “Kamala Harris.” One of these candidates is associated with Harris’s candidate ID number (P00009423), and the other “Kamala Harris” is associated with Biden’s candidate ID number (P80000722).

The Statement of Candidacy that Kamala Harris filed on July 29, using Biden’s personal candidate ID number (P80000722), now shows up under Harris’s ID number. But last night’s filing for that same candidate—number P80000722—shows up for the other “Kamala Harris” who is running for President. (Based on what happened previously, I suspect the FEC will shift these records in the future, to make it seem like there aren’t so many discrepancies between the names and the ID numbers.)

Confused? That’s because these filings from Harris are irregular. If Kamala Harris had used her own candidate ID number, like every other candidate in modern history, this wouldn’t have been so complicated, but then it would have been difficult to make the case that she’s entitled to Biden’s war chest. Undoubtedly, these filings are trying to circumvent those pesky campaign finance laws.

By the way, since Walz has never run for President, he doesn’t have his own FEC candidate ID for a Presidential run. According the the logic of Harris’s supporters, Walz is equally entitled to any funds from the campaign committee associated with ID number C00703975. And, just as Harris felt entitled to file an amended Statement of Candidacy using Biden’s personal candidate ID number because she was the Vice Presidential candidate, Walz could do the same, using Biden’s personal candidate ID number to run for President if he wanted to. The Democrats could pass this campaign down in perpetuity, without even obtaining the formal agreement of the prior candidate.

This reminds me of a system of government that isn’t considered anything like a democracy. Normally, I would include helpful screenshots to document and illustrate all the information I provided, but I just don't have the time right now. Sorry to disappoint! Maybe I will sign up for subscriptions so that I can find more time for this kind of reporting.

San Francisco’s managed alcohol program provides homeless alcoholics with housing, meals, activities (including crafts and outings to Giants games), and a quantity of alcoholic beverages determined by their “need and desire,” with no expectation of reducing consumption. With a reported budget of $5 million for 20 beds (half set aside for Latinx or indigenous people), it would be cheaper to accommodate these people in all-inclusive resorts. Advocates had wanted managed alcohol programs in San Francisco for years. In 2020, SF Dept of Public Health used Covid as an excuse to shut down their sobering center and set up an alcohol program in just 48 hours. Impressive how quickly the government can move when motivated.

I appeared on this @KTVU news segment, which unfortunately grants far too much air time to Malak Afaneh, the law student who disrupted the Berkeley dean’s dinner. But it’s interesting to hear her thinking. She seems pretty smug for someone who claims to have suffered an attack. “We felt that this dinner was, you know, a disgusting and extravagant and lavish display of wealth that was already being funneled using our tuition money for this genocide.”

So, Afaneh’s chief complaint was that the dinner was tacky. Instead of declining the invitation, she decided to ruin the event for everyone. Note she had no knowledge of whether a penny of tuition money was being spent on the dinner. (Here’s a shot of the intolerable extravagance, for the record.)

A group of Berkeley law students accepted an invitation to dine at the private home of dean Erwin Chemerinsky and his wife, a law professor, then disrupted the event and refused to leave. Bizarrely, this student claims her conduct is protected by the 1st Amendment. Activists are attacking the dean and professor as "white supremacist" and "Zionist." This provides some background on the protest.

https://x.com/FreeBeacon/status/1775236622470074680

The fact that taxpayers are still paying for security for Fauci after his retirement was uncovered by a FOIA request. I haven’t found any information about how much this costs us. Is there anyone other than former presidents and families who has received this treatment? This is what it looks like when Fauci arrives anywhere, thanks to your tax dollars.

What kind of egomaniac thinks having a fairly common bad thing happen to her is “proof” that God does not exist?

https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1723935952538628449

"That’s out of context." Here's the context. Change anyone's opinion?

https://x.com/JaredMichaels17/status/1724094817578152340?s=20

I offer this thread in appreciation for the beautiful parade of humanity who exercised their First Amendment rights to speak out in favor of the rights of families during the @OrangeUnifiedCA board meeting on Thursday. This is what democracy looks like.🧵 1/ “It doesn’t matter what side you’re on, as long as you’re in a happy, healthy family, parents should be involved in their students’ lives and daily activities. No secrets kept away from parents. Parents should know everything about their children while they’re in school.” 2/

This state senator and the state Attorney General both graduated from prestigious law schools, so they must be aware the claims in this letter that Chino Valley’s policy of informing parents of their children’s gender dysphoria is illegal/unconditional are spurious. 🧵

https://twitter.com/scott_wiener/status/1682391463982669824

Bonta claims “Courts have recognized that gender identity is a protected privacy right” but his legal citations do not support his claim. This kind of deception gets lawyers into trouble in court.

Two cases challenging AB2098, California’s Covid medical censorship law, had oral argument today in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The state’s attorney was grilled and struggled to respond. Clips of the highlights in this thread. 1/7 Judge Forrest pointed out California already has a scheme in place to address when doctors who engage in misconduct. The unique aspect of AB2098 is that it hones in on Covid and requires doctors conform to the “contemporary scientific consensus.” 2/

If the massive increase in LGBT identification in recent years is a result of increased acceptance, why aren't we seeing large numbers of Gen X and older coming out of the closet? Another chart, which is based on different data, but shows the same pattern.

For 3 years, California was under a state of emergency that allowed unelected public health officials to rule by edict. Attempts to challenge their orders in court failed because normal rules were suspended. Finally, the state of emergency ended. But the orders did not. 1/ @CAPublicHealth claims that the law generally gives them to power to issue orders aimed at preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Are there any limits to this alleged power? Who knows? It’s never been exercised before, despite being on the books since 1901. 2/