Main Menu

Judge Wingate: not in a hurry

Photo of Judge Henry T. WingateThe Court told the parties that Judge Henry T. Wingate was going to issue rulings on the outstanding motions in Taitz v. Democrat Party of Mississippi yesterday. Orly Taitz filed a lengthy brief titled “Notice of new material facts” on the eve of the hearing, and the result was that no rulings were issued, and the Defense was given two weeks to answer Taitz.

I’ve read commentary highly critical of Judge Wingate for letting Taitz get away with this, but I would speak a little in his defense. According to the summary of the hearing I read, Judge Wingate had not had time to read Taitz’ brief. Wingate (who is a judge characterized by taking a long time to resolve cases1 anyway) reasonably postponed issuing the decisions until this new item was briefed. It is also possible that after reading Taitz’ brief, Judge Wingate could decide to throw it out as immaterial, although I do not expect that.

Taitz alleged improper conduct on the part of the judge in her brief. That’s a pretty serious allegation, and Judge Wingate actually defended himself by pointing out that he didn’t even know the person he was supposedly having a conversation with, at an event that didn’t happen. Such allegations, to this lay opinion, would weigh heavily in any future decision of misconduct on Taitz’ part, but also provide Taitz with an avenue for future appeal.

By allowing Taitz to issue subpoenas for the Internet records of the parties who allegedly provided her with the information of these conversations where Wingate was alleged to have said in regard to Taitz: “We’re making the bitch squirm a little first,” [link to comment at Taitz web site] Wingate will get into the trial record (one hopes) a deposition from whomever sent those emails to Taitz that indeed he made them up. This ties up a loose end, and makes the way clear for decisions to be issued in the case, untainted by allegations of bias.

While I am unhappy about the delay in Taitz’ case, I am not critical of the Judge who allowed it, and I for one would be interested in learning a little more about the “punking Orly” story.


1Ref. Judgepedia article on Henry Wingate.

Judge Wingate is a member of the US Navy reserve. A graduate of Yale Law School, he was appointed judge to the Southern District of Mississippi by Ronald Reagan in 1985, and has served as Chief Judge since 2003.

Print Friendly

, , , ,

51 Responses to Judge Wingate: not in a hurry

  1. avatar
    Jane Whitman January 23, 2014 at 9:35 am #

    Sorry Doc, but I’m not quite buying your analysis. Let’s start here:

    “Taitz alleged improper conduct on the part of the judge in her brief. That’s a pretty serious allegation, and Judge Wingate actually defended himself by pointing out that he didn’t even know the person he was supposedly having a conversation with, at an event that didn’t happen.”

    Uh, where in Taitz’s “brief” (which is not a brief at all) does she allege improper conduct?

    From all I can gather, the “serious allegation” was brought to Judge Wingate’s attention not by Taitz, but by his clerk, who independently picked up the “comment” from Orly’s blog.

    Q. How, then, does this put the issue before the Court in this case?

    A. It doesn’t.

  2. avatar
    Roadscholar January 23, 2014 at 9:43 am #

    Jane Whitman: Uh, where in Taitz’s “brief” (which is not a brief at all) does she allege improper conduct?

    I believe T8z was saying that if what “Byrd” claimed were true, that would constitute improper conduct.

  3. avatar
    Sam the Centipede January 23, 2014 at 9:44 am #

    I am critical of the judge. The whole case is a pile of nonsense which should have been kicked out the day after the original cack was submitted. Hawai’i showed this can be done, Wingate is taking literally hundreds of times longer to dispose of this one way or the other.

    Remember, the case is a petition to remove Barack Obama from the 2012 ballot. 2012 – it is now 2014. The case is both moot and absurd.

    I don’t think there is no excuse for any court tolerating Taitz’s contemptuous drivel. And why does the court allow the defendants to be inconvenienced and harassed? Wingate is facilitating Taitz’s obnoxious misbehavior, even aiding and abetting it.

    Why should Wingate’s tardiness be excused? Would you accept this standard of service from a realtor, a builder, a chiropodist, even a … dentist? But the courts operate a monopoly.

    And what has Wingate done in this case that is in any way reflects any credit on him?

  4. avatar
    gatsby January 23, 2014 at 9:51 am #

    Wingate has sat on this case for two years. Orly fears six-figure sanctions in this case. She thus sought to sabotage yesterday’s hearing by filing her usual last-minute pile of crap. Orly was successful.

    I blame Wingate for that. A random Internet punking does not call for subpoenas and discovery. That’s ridiculous. Wingate should have ruled on pending motions and left Orly’s new crap for another day. Instead, his ego trumped justice.

    Wingate is notoriously incompetent. No judge in his circuit has as many old pending motions as he always does. Last summer, he said he would rule on pending motions “within several days” of receiving a filing from defendants. The defendants filed, but Wingate HAS DONE NOTHING.

    I wonder what Wingate does all day. Does he take long, extended vacations? Play golf? He certainly is not productive. A pretty good gig at $174,000 a year!

  5. avatar
    DaveH January 23, 2014 at 9:52 am #

    I still think this is a case of the judge covering all bases. Orly DID bring it to the court’s attention. I don’t know if it was in a brief or in a letter or what but had she not, the clerk would have not looked at her blog to see the comment.

    Yes, the whole thing is a pile of poo and has no merit. Her RICO statement clearly showed she had no idea how to plead one. None of the other co-plaintiffs filed RICO statements and I think they should have been required to do so.

    Regardless, I think the judge is going to make sure that there’s way that he showed any prejudice towards Orly despite the fact that she unloaded a pile of crazy into his court.

  6. avatar
    Jane Whitman January 23, 2014 at 9:56 am #

    @Roadscholar:

    “I believe T8z was saying that if what ‘Byrd’ claimed were true, that would constitute improper conduct.”

    While you may “believe” that, I’d prefer that you cite a page and/or paragraph in Taitz’s submission to the court that supports your mere belief.

    AFAIC, it’s the judge who’s behind the throttle of this particular train wreck.

    I could readily be disabused of my opinion with actual facts.

    Once again: How is this “blog post” properly before the court? And under what theory of law does a blog post trigger an authorization for the issuance of subpoenas?

    Good luck with that one.

  7. avatar
    Kate520 January 23, 2014 at 10:09 am #

    Is this really a Matter of National Importance? Of course not. She’s getting what she wants, to drag this dead horse as far as she can. Letting Obly have her way is always a bad thing, but I think the Judge is giving this the importance and the critical thought it deserves. None.

  8. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 23, 2014 at 10:27 am #

    Such allegations, to this lay opinion, would [...] provide Taitz with an avenue for future appeal.

    No, really? Some anonymous blog post (that Orly could’ve written herself) would make an appeal possible/successful where otherwise there would be no such thing?
    If the US legal system has come to that, I’m glad I’m on the other side of the Atlantic.

    This just opens up another can of worms for birthers (who are known to have been fabricating “evidence” many times over). By that logic, any reasonable claim of “Orly will lose this case” in a blog/forum post will entail discovery and appeal avenues because it creates the impression of foul play on the judge’s part. In other words, the same crap that birthers have been spewing ever since we Obots predicted the outcome of their sorry excuses for a lawsuit.

    That a judge in a case where the most outspoken anti-birther lawyer (Scott Tepper) is on the other side of the aisle appears so ill-informed about Orly/birther shenanigans is not a strong testament to his attention to the case.

  9. avatar
    Joey January 23, 2014 at 12:46 pm #

    Why is anyone expecting a Reagan-appointed conservative activist federal judge in Mississippi to do anything from the bench that might be perceived as assisting Barack Obama’s political agenda?

  10. avatar
    Bovril January 23, 2014 at 12:48 pm #

    Lets see

    Taitz’s site O’Malware is a wholly moderated blog

    Comments only show if Orly explicitly approves them

    In the short little exchange even Orly says it’s a nonsense comment

    The post was for some period of time ago

    All posts drop of the front page very quickly (based on the manic posting by MOO)

    The only way an old post can appear on the top page is if Orly explicitly pins its

    Looks like Orly done played the judge and the idiot swallowed it

    So, thin skinned, arrogant, technically illiterate, paranoid, incompetent and lazy, looks like Orly done found her dance partner

  11. avatar
    bob January 23, 2014 at 1:09 pm #

    Subpoenas are wholly unnecessary. The judge said the meeting never happened. Taitz (on her blog) said she believed the meeting didn’t happen. So deposing the poster of this comment will prove … the meeting never happened, a fact undisputed.

  12. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 23, 2014 at 1:15 pm #

    Jane Whitman: Once again: How is this “blog post” properly before the court? And under what theory of law does a blog post trigger an authorization for the issuance of subpoenas?

    I’m with you. I don’t get it.

    As noted I am not a lawyer and if there is one lurking here I’d really like to hear if he/she thinks this makes any sense and how it could go forward.

  13. avatar
    Slartibartfast January 23, 2014 at 4:21 pm #

    Nothing. Nothing at all. At least in my non-lawyerly opinion. It’s hard to see how his actions yesterday do anything but abet Orly in vexatiously multiplying her frivolous pleadings after having procrastinated doing his job for months. I think Judge Wingate seems to be building a very solid argument as to why judicial tenure is bad.

    Sam the Centipede: And what has Wingate done in this case that is in any way reflects any credit on him?

  14. avatar
    Thinker January 23, 2014 at 4:39 pm #

    Because he’s a federal judge. But I don’t think there is anything political in his approach to this case since he has a long, long history of letting motions linger for years. Even if his approach to his job is to avoid doing anything that might be perceived as beneficial to President Obama, I doubt he thinks that this case could potentially hurt Obama because the whole case is narcissism-fueled delusions.

    Joey:
    Why is anyone expecting a Reagan-appointed conservative activist federal judge in Mississippi to do anything from the bench that might be perceived as assisting Barack Obama’s political agenda?

  15. avatar
    Daniel January 23, 2014 at 5:30 pm #

    Perhaps he’s not in a hurry because there’s no danger and it’s not important, AND he’s not adverse to giving her more rope to hang herself with?

  16. avatar
    Thinker January 23, 2014 at 5:38 pm #

    He has a responsibility to rule on cases presented to him. Dispositive motions in this case were submitted almost 2 years ago. Yes, the case is bullshit, but it’s still a real case with real defendants who have a right to have this adjudicated. And as much as I would like to see Taitz hang herself (NADT), I don’t think that it would be proper for a federal judge to bait her.

    Daniel:
    Perhaps he’s not in a hurry because there’s no danger and it’s not important, AND he’s not adverse to giving her more rope to hang herself with?

  17. avatar
    nbc January 23, 2014 at 6:34 pm #

    I am of course disappointed that the inevitable was delayed however I do understand Judge Wingate’s position.

  18. avatar
    john January 23, 2014 at 6:47 pm #

    I think it is a pretty good guess that someone at the FOGBOW probably was Virgil Jackson who made the post. Of course, no one at the FOGBOW will dare fess up but I think it safe to say they are a hot suspect. Can Orly supoena different people at the FOGBOW. She can try to trace IP address at the FOGBOW to that of the post.

  19. avatar
    JPotter January 23, 2014 at 6:53 pm #

    Thinker: I don’t think that it would be proper for a federal judge to bait her.

    It isn’t necessarily intentional baiting, almost certainly no intention of doing so; rather that in going through the motions of a trial, attempting to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s in an effort to eliminate any basis for appeal, parties are naturally given every opportunity to grab all the rope they can. If you’re litigating in bad faith, litigate at your own risk.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2014 at 9:27 pm #

    The ballot challenge is moot, but the Civil RICO part isn’t.

    Sam the Centipede: Remember, the case is a petition to remove Barack Obama from the 2012 ballot. 2012 – it is now 2014. The case is both moot and absurd.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2014 at 9:37 pm #

    While Byrd is not named in the brief, the general allegation of “extrajudicial contacts” is point 4 of her brief, which is described on Page 6.

    Jane Whitman: While you may “believe” that, I’d prefer that you cite a page and/or paragraph in Taitz’s submission to the court that supports your mere belief.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2014 at 9:40 pm #

    What precisely do you mean by “someone at the FOGBOW.” Do you mean someone who reads The Fogbow, someone who has an account at The Fogbow, a regular commenter?

    john: I think it is a pretty good guess that someone at the FOGBOW probably

  23. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 23, 2014 at 9:44 pm #

    john:
    I think it is a pretty good guess that someone at the FOGBOW probably was Virgil Jackson who made the post.Of course, no one at the FOGBOW will dare fess up but I think it safe to say they are a hot suspect.Can Orly supoena different people at the FOGBOW.She can try to trace IP address at the FOGBOW to that of the post.

    How does one not know it wasn’t you who did it “John”?

  24. avatar
    john January 23, 2014 at 9:47 pm #

    A member of FOGBOW.

  25. avatar
    john January 23, 2014 at 9:49 pm #

    It wasn’t me CG.

  26. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 23, 2014 at 10:02 pm #

    john:
    I think it is a pretty good guess that someone at the FOGBOW probably was Virgil Jackson who made the post.Of course, no one at the FOGBOW will dare fess up but I think it safe to say they are a hot suspect.Can Orly supoena different people at the FOGBOW.She can try to trace IP address at the FOGBOW to that of the post.

    I think it’s a pretty good guess that “john” did it but, of course, you’ll never “fess up”….right?

    Can you prove you didn’t do it?

  27. avatar
    Thomas Brown January 23, 2014 at 10:08 pm #

    bob:
    Subpoenas are wholly unnecessary. The judge said the meeting never happened. Taitz (on her blog) said she believed the meeting didn’t happen. So deposing the poster of this comment will prove … the meeting never happened, a fact undisputed.

    Further, taking the Byrd comment seriously is rhetorically unsound.

    The anecdote was carefully crafted. The punker used Henry but never a last name. The details had truthiness, but were easily (if you’re not Orly) debunked.

    It is plainly not the case that the punker tried to write an anecdote that would survive scrutiny but failed to do it well enough. Its believability was intentionally sabotaged.

    In other words: a wicked jape, not a malicious prank.

    Why would anyone think it needs investigation?

  28. avatar
    JPotter January 23, 2014 at 10:10 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: “someone at the FOGBOW.”

    Y’know, at …. someone physically present in the secret underground space station. ;)

  29. avatar
    justlw January 23, 2014 at 10:29 pm #

    john:
    I think it is a pretty good guess that someone at the FOGBOW probably was Virgil Jackson … Of course, no one at the FOGBOW will … different people at the FOGBOW … trace IP address at the FOGBOW …

    I think it was almost definitely probably the BENGHAZI. Or the MUFASA.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 23, 2014 at 10:33 pm #

    The Fogbow doesn’t have “members.”

    john: A member of FOGBOW.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 23, 2014 at 10:34 pm #

    john:
    It wasn’t me CG.

    How do we know it wasn’t you? We know you’re a member of the fogbow

  32. avatar
    Reality Check January 23, 2014 at 10:42 pm #

    Orly Taitz is a member of The Fogbow. I suspect her. Just a hunch. (Yes, she really is a member)

    john:
    A member of FOGBOW.

  33. avatar
    CarlOrcas January 23, 2014 at 10:44 pm #

    Thomas Brown: Why would anyone think it needs investigation?

    More to the point – in my mind, anyway – is what’s to investigate???

  34. avatar
    Reality Check January 23, 2014 at 10:47 pm #

    Who the hell is Virgil “Jackson”?

    john: I think it is a pretty good guess that someone at the FOGBOW probably was Virgil Jackson

  35. avatar
    john January 23, 2014 at 10:54 pm #

    The FOGBOW (Those who have an account and post there) is really the only logical suspect. No other persons or party follows Orly other than hardened birthers, Doc C, NBC, and those affiliated with the FOGBOW (These parties cover 99% of Orly followers.)

  36. avatar
    Egipcios January 24, 2014 at 2:37 am #

    john: someone at the FOGBOW

    Just the facts, please.

    The fact is that it is someone at OrlyTaitzEsq.

  37. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 24, 2014 at 3:55 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: What precisely do you mean by “someone at the FOGBOW.”

    He probably believes FOGBOW is an anagram for Fellowship Of Great Barack Obama Worshippers. ;)

    Oh noes, did I give it away? *lol*

  38. avatar
    Lupin January 24, 2014 at 6:05 am #

    I am not competent to have an opinion on the Judge’s rulings in this case, but we had several legal actions contesting the results of the Mayoral elections in Carcassonne here (near where i live) and AFAIK they were all disposed off by various courts in about a year. More importantly, the one action which mattered — ordering a new election (the contesting party who initially lost won) — was effected within 2 weeks.

    As no one has ever claimed French courts were speedy, this seems awfully protracted, especially for something that appears moot anyway.

    Is it possible that there are actual cases requiring greater priority and this is just being relegated to “whenever I have some spare time” on the docket — or are all cases treated equally first in first out?

  39. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 24, 2014 at 6:57 am #

    Lupin: or are all cases treated equally first in first out?

    Since the law does not mandate that AFAIK, it’s up to the individual judge. Makes sense since they obviously would want to deal with urgent cases quickly (e.g. why should a woman who seeks an injunction against her violent ex-husband have to wait until Google vs. Oracle is over?).

    And since Judge Wingate obviously doesn’t share Orly’s “national emergency” opinion, it’s no wonder he’s taking his time. Many judges do that with cases that appear to have neither merit nor a plaintiff who is personally harmed.

    I once sued a guy for 20,000+ EUR in damages and the case took almost a year to resolve (it wasn’t even complicated), so I believe expectations that Wingate should’ve disposed of Orly’s case much quicker are perhaps a bit exaggerated. (I personally only criticize his inclination to take the blog post seriously, not that he allowed Orly to delay the case.)
    I once was sued by my landlord and the court took 3 months to even serve me with the complaint (in Germany, you send two/three copies of the complaint to the court and the court then serves the defendant and his lawyer, if he has one).

  40. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 24, 2014 at 6:57 am #

    Birthers have Fogbow accounts and post there. While The Fogbow is as far as I know the leading anti-birther forum, there are other online communities including the Orly’s World Facebook group, and this one where we may say that YOU are a member.

    But to call Fogbow “a suspect” is to suggest that the community, rather than an individual who posts there, is somehow responsible. Even if the person who punked Orly is a Fogbow commenter, they may well comment here, or at NBCs’ blog or City Data, or Birther Report or any number of other places, and to single out Fogbow as a suspect is essentially a smear.

    john: The FOGBOW (Those who have an account and post there) is really the only logical suspect. No other persons or party follows Orly other than hardened birthers, Doc C, NBC, and those affiliated with the FOGBOW (These parties cover 99% of Orly followers.)

  41. avatar
    The European January 24, 2014 at 7:08 am #

    Lupin:
    I am not competent to have an opinion on the Judge’s rulings in this case, but we had several legal actions contesting the results of the Mayoral elections in Carcassonne here (near where i live) and AFAIK they were all disposed off by various courts in about a year. More importantly, the one action which mattered — ordering a new election (the contesting party who initially lost won) — was effected within 2 weeks.

    As no one has ever claimed French courts were speedy, this seems awfully protracted, especially for something that appears moot anyway.

    Is it possible that there are actual cases requiring greater priority and this is just being relegated to “whenever I have some spare time” on the docket — or are all cases treated equally first in first out?

    Lupin, when something gets a little complicated or when politics come into the game French courts are even slower than molasses in winter. I call it a shame.

    And I confess: I am Virgil E. Bird. Come and get me, Orly.

  42. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) January 24, 2014 at 7:50 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: to single out Fogbow as a suspect

    Note john said “affiliated with” (not “member of”) which in his mind probably translates to “approving of the existence of an anti-birther community”.
    Remember you’re dealing with a mindset that considers anyone who does not loudly demand the resignation of the usurper to be a traitor.

    john: No other persons or party follows Orly other than hardened birthers, Doc C, NBC, and those affiliated with the FOGBOW

    I’m not covered by your list (technically I am because I have a Fogbow account, practically I’m not because I haven’t used it for years and have probably read two threads over there in the past two years).

  43. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater January 24, 2014 at 8:17 am #

    john:
    The FOGBOW (Those who have an account and post there) is really the only logical suspect.No other persons or party follows Orly other than hardened birthers, Doc C, NBC, and those affiliated with the FOGBOW (These parties cover 99% of Orly followers.)

    You have an account and lurk there “John” how do we know it wasn’t you?

  44. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG January 24, 2014 at 8:52 am #

    john:
    The FOGBOW (Those who have an account and post there) is really the only logical suspect.No other persons or party follows Orly other than hardened birthers, Doc C, NBC, and those affiliated with the FOGBOW (These parties cover 99% of Orly followers.)

    Logical. You keep using that word, but it I do not think it means what you think it means.

  45. avatar
    Northland10 January 24, 2014 at 8:57 am #

    john:
    No other persons or party follows Orly other than hardened birthers, Doc C, NBC, and those affiliated with the FOGBOW (These parties cover 99% of Orly followers.)

    What? Is John saying Orly’s has few followers. You may find yourself on her next RICO, John.

  46. avatar
    realist January 24, 2014 at 8:59 am #

    john:
    I think it is a pretty good guess that someone at the FOGBOW probably was Virgil Jackson who made the post.Of course, no one at the FOGBOW will dare fess up but I think it safe to say they are a hot suspect.Can Orly supoena different people at the FOGBOW.She can try to trace IP address at the FOGBOW to that of the post.

    Poor John. Can’t even get one simple thing correct. The pseudonym was not Virgil Jackson.

    And no, she doesn’t get to go on a fishing expedition.

    If there’s a subpoena issued to the ISP to attempt to learn the identity of the poster, it will (as stated from the notes of the hearing) be issued directly by the Court and any results issued directly back to the Court. The Court never said Orly gets to issue anything.

  47. avatar
    Yoda January 24, 2014 at 1:50 pm #

    A suspect for what, John? There is no crime in punking Orly.

  48. avatar
    BillTheCat January 24, 2014 at 1:56 pm #

    john:
    The FOGBOW (Those who have an account and post there) is really the only logical suspect.No other persons or party follows Orly other than hardened birthers, Doc C, NBC, and those affiliated with the FOGBOW (These parties cover 99% of Orly followers.)

    Yeh, no. Anyone reading any article on Orly anywhere can go to her site, and out of morbid curiosity, they do. You got nothing, Mr. Clueless. But hey, at least you admit that only those who want to watch a car wreck in progress follows her dreck.

  49. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 24, 2014 at 1:57 pm #

    realist: Poor John. Can’t even get one simple thing correct. The pseudonym was not Virgil Jackson.

    This is the same thing I run into with other birthers. They make claims but can’t even get their own players right like in the Vollin chatroom “carl from NY” claimed it was Susan Daniels who found Harry Bounel when it was Al Hendershot. He then claimed Susan Daniels did the self check when it was Linda Jordan. If they can’t even get their own players right how are we supposed to trust them on anything else they claim?

  50. avatar
    Roadscholar January 24, 2014 at 5:07 pm #

    Jane Whitman:
    @Roadscholar:

    “I believe T8z was saying that if what ‘Byrd’ claimed were true, that would constitute improper conduct.”

    While you may “believe” that, I’d prefer that you cite a page and/or paragraph in Taitz’s submission to the court that supports your mere belief.

    AFAIC, it’s the judge who’s behind the throttle of this particular train wreck.

    I could readily be disabused of my opinion with actual facts.

    Once again: How is this “blog post” properly before the court? And under what theory of law does a blog post trigger an authorization for the issuance of subpoenas?

    Good luck with that one.

    Are you dense? The point was, it is NOT properly before the court… except in the flea-bitten, nitrous-corroded brain of one Orly Taitz, Esq, DDS, WTF.

  51. avatar
    justlw January 24, 2014 at 6:38 pm #

    john: I think it is a pretty good guess that someone at the FOGBOW probably was Virgil Jackson who made the post.

    Very interesting.

    I think we will find out that in the records at Dr. Taitz’ site, the original poster’s name was indeed “Virgil Jackson”, but was later changed to “Virgil Bird.”

    How did John know this? If he didn’t know this, why did he make this slip? “Bird” is nothing like “Jackson.”

    The only way we can clear this up is for someone to provide the changelog for her site. John, since it’s obvious from this slip that you know what the real story is here, the burden is on you to provide this changelog.

    If you don’t provide this changelog, we’ll know you have something to hide.

    You don’t have anything to hide — do you, Virgil? I mean, John?

    Time’s a-wastin’, son.

333333 44444
5555555
6666666