Observations and Modeling of the Companions of Short Period Binary Millisecond Pulsars: Evidence for High-Mass Neutron Stars

We present observations of fields containing eight recently discovered binary millisecond pulsars using the telescopes at MDM Observatory. Optical counterparts to four of these systems are detected, one of which, PSR J2214+3000, is a novel detection. Additionally, we present the fully phase-resolved B, V, and R light curves of the optical counterparts to two objects, PSR J1810+1744 and PSR J2215+5135 for which we employ model fitting using the ELC model of Orosz & Hauschildt (2000) to measure the unknown system parameters. For PSR J1810+1744 we find that the system parameters cannot be fit even assuming that 100% of the spin-down luminosity of the pulsar is irradiating the secondary, and so radial velocity measurements of this object will be required for the complete solution. However, PSR J2215+5135 exhibits light curves that are extremely well constrained using the ELC model and we find that the mass of the neutron star is constrained by these and the radio observations to be greater than 1.75 solar masses at the 3-sigma level. We also find a discrepancy between the model temperature and the measured colors of this object which we interpret as possible evidence for an additional high-temperature source such as a quiescent disk. Given this and the fact that PSR J2214+5135 contains a relatively high mass companion (greater than 0.1 solar masses), we propose that similar to the binary pulsar systems PSR J1023+0038 and IGR J18245-2452, the pulsar may transition between accretion- and rotation-powered modes.Comment: Submitted to ApJ, 12 pages, 5 figures, 2 table

Why Cost/Benefit Balancing Tests Don\u27t Exist: How to Dispel a Delusion That Delays Justice for Immigrants

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court nullified its earlier presumption that indefinite immigrant detention without bond hearings is unconstitutional under Zadvydas v. Davis. If Zadvydas is a nullity, those who raise due process balancing tests during the post-removal-period in immigrant habeas review may need to find new grounds for review. However, since Boumediene v. Bush was decided in 2008, there are several reasons not to despair Zadvydas’s demise . For one, Zadvydas spoke to an extremely narrow subset of cases. It granted a concession under the Due Process Clause to immigrants detained beyond the statutory 90-day removal period. It decided that indefinite immigrant detention is likely unconstitutional, and that therefore the statute must have a judge-made six-month time limit after which the government must present evidence of reasonable cause to continue an indefinite detention. However, in 2018, Jennings v. Rodriguez did not extend Zadvydas’s sixmonth presumption, suggesting it was arbitrary. Jennings went further to rework constitutional avoidance doctrine in such a way that it, and the judicial duty to say what the law is under Marbury v. Madison itself, may no longer exist. Jennings decided that as long as a statute is clear, then it should go into force whether or not it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. In other words, Jennings limited Zadvydas to its facts and failed to address the constitutional question it was briefed to answer. Nevertheless, several district courts began to answer this constitutional question themselves by extending due process balancing tests to grant Zadvydas-like relief to asylum seekers. If Zadvydas is overturned, these fractured attempts at providing immigrant habeas corpus may be cut off by the Court. This article will explain why there is still hope for detained asylum seekers. The U.S. Supreme Court may unsettle stare decisis, constitutional avoidance, and its duty to say what the law is. It might completely misinterpret what is actually “due” process. But its imprudent behavior—its disrespect for its own precedent—is causing the Court to lean directly into the Suspension Clause, Boumediene v. Bush, and the pro-immigrant writ of habeas corpus that existed in 1789

A Candle in the Labyrinth: A Guide for Immigration Attorneys to Assert Habeas Corpus after DHS v. Thuraissigiam

In the summer of 2020, immigration law seemed to become the gravitational center of presidential power. After the Supreme Court decided several immigration cases in favor of the executive department, former President Trump cited “the DACA case” to support a new constitutional theory that “[t]he Supreme Court gave the president of the United States powers that nobody thought the president had.” Accordingly, Trump began to issue presidential legislation including “an immigration plan, a health care plan, and various other plans.” Trump also began to occupy cities that were politically opposed to his presidency with ICE and CBP agents, including BORTAC (“Border Patrol Tactical Unit”), citing a pretext of defending federal buildings from protesters. Finally on January 6, 2021, Trump attempted to force Congress to decide the election in his favor by inciting a violent insurrection of pro-Trump protesters. The desecration of the U.S. Capitol Building that followed made the Trump administration’s former pretext of defending federal buildings from protesters appear as nothing more than a ruse. The U.S. legal community had reason to hope that habeas corpus might have blocked Trump’s extraconstitutional exertions of power, because Boumediene v. Bush assured us that “the writ of habeas corpus is itself an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers.” However, in the summer of 2020 the U.S. Supreme Court decided DHS v. Thuraissigiam, which seemed to imply that the processes of ICE and CBP were beyond the reach of habeas corpus just as Trump used those agencies to occupy Portland, Oregon and other localities across the nation. In response, this article asserts six approaches inspired by Boumediene v. Bush to distinguish Thuraissigiam and to help the Court reassert itself as a check in the balance of power. The analysis below is geared toward drafting immigrant habeas petitions, but its principles may be applied to habeas writs generally. For immigration law is not a proper exception to habeas corpus, which, to quote Thomas Jefferson, exists in a grand manner to ensure that “[t]he military shall be subordinate to the civil power.

Bringing America Back to the Future: Reclaiming a Principle of Honesty in Property and IP Law

Seemingly undaunted by global market crisis, intangible assets have continued their course toward maximization as an absolute form of property. In fact, companies worldwide have been criticized for not claiming hundreds of billions of dollars of intangible value including their marketplace goodwill.[1] Overvalued intangible property can be a negative effect on pension funds, retirement and stock prices in general.[2] Shareholders have very little recourse when public businesses write off bad acquisitions of intangibles worth billions. The problem has infected our government to the highest levels. For instance, in 2011, the U.S. treasury\u27s valuation of the U.S. varied by $2 trillion from Standard and Poor\u27s valuation.[3] Further, estimates of the daily U.S. hedging activity, including futures and option contracts, is around$4 trillion. In contrast, the underlying daily trade of physical merchandise is only 40 billion.[4] This constitutes a 100:1 ratio of the trade of intangibles in the form of options and futures to the underlying physical property value being traded. Furthermore, this ratio only considers hedge funds, a small category of intangibles available to purchasers in the modern marketplace. Though intangibles played a central role in 2008 crisis, and arguably every other crisis of the past century, American leaders have been unsuccessful in rethinking their approach. This article puts forth one central argument: The hyper-broad concept of property needed to justify absolutist claims to intangible property is constitutionally unsound. This article demonstrates how a principle of honesty* enforced by the Court can keep property claims within the bounds of the constitution. Furthermore a principle of honesty can be used to protect property common law from the political fallout driven by the highly contentious valuations of intangibles that have escalated to a differences in valuation within the trillions of dollars. Finally, enforcing honesty in the courts will enable the lower and middle classes to continue to better themselves by participating in the marketplace. To arrive at a principle of honesty, this article discusses the role of property in constitutional interpretation. It analyzes the recent Sebelius & Kirtsaeng decisions, arguing that a reevaluation of Constitutional interpretation is currently underway. Then this article lays out the current concept of property discourse (centered on a liberal/libertarian debate) and its role in spurring America on a course toward worldwide intangible property maximization. Finally, this article will propose that the Court reclaim a standard of honesty in the context of property rights analysis. The marketplace allowance of shameless dishonesty in the creation, marketing and valuation of intangible property as if it is physical/tangible has exacerbated and accelerated market failure to a global crescendo in 2008. [1] Tim Boreham, IP assets a closed book for most companies, The Australian, April 5, 2013, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/ business/opinion/ip-assets-a-closed-book-for-most-companies/story-e6frg9lo-1226612839028 (noting a possible 850 billion valuation disagreement regarding going value of international businesses, $250 billion of which pertained to the value of unrecorded IP assets, like brand recognition.). [2] James B. Stewart, Bad Directors and Why They Aren\u27t Thrown Out, The New York Times, Mar. 29, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/business/why-bad-directors-arent-thrown-out.html?_r=0 (noting the worst corporate acquisition in history being HP\u27s purchase of Autonomy, a British software maker, for$11.1 billion. HP later wrote off 8.8 billion of that price, claiming that it had been defrauded. Also noting that HP\u27s failure was hurting New York City\u27s pension fund.). [3] Ian Katz & Vinny Del Giudice, S&P\u27s Analysis was Flawed by 2 Trillion Error, Treasury Says, Bloomberg, Aug. 5, 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-06/s-p-s-analysis-was-flawed-by-2-trillion-error-treasury-says.html (when the going value of businesses and countries are given the color of property, future projections of value become fixed in the present as if it was real. Those projections can vary wildly.). [4] David A. Stockman, The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America, 289 (1st ed. 2013) ( Currently, the daily volume of foreign exchange in hedging activity in global futures and option markets, for example, is an estimated $4 trillion, compared to daily merchandise trade of only$40 billion. This is a 100:1 ratio of hedging volume to underlying activity rate. This article is about the $3.96 trillion dollar gap between futures and actual tangible property being traded globally.). * By Principle of Honesty, I mean a minimum formality of honesty to claim property in something, explained in the paper

An In-Situation Review of Flourishing in Ministry by First Call Pastors

First Call pastors reflect on Matt Bloom's Book, Flourishing in Ministry and their first call

Observing and Modeling the Optical Counterparts of Short-Period Binary Millisecond Pulsars.

In this dissertation, I explore the subject of short-period binary millisecond pulsars discovered by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope and radio follow-up teams, and present observations of fields containing eight recently discovered short-period (Porb 1.75 solar masses; at the 3-sigma level. I also find a discrepancy between the model temperature and the measured colors of this object which I interpret as possible evidence for an additional high-temperature source such as a quiescent disk. Given this and the fact that PSR J2215+5135 contains a relatively high mass companion (Mc > 0.1 solar masses), I propose that similar to the binary pulsar systems PSR J1023+0038 and IGR J18245-2452, the pulsar may transition between accretion- and rotation-powered modes

Polynomial χ\chi-binding functions for tt-broom-free graphs

For any positive integer $t$, a \emph{$t$-broom} is a graph obtained from $K_{1,t+1}$ by subdividing an edge once. In this paper, we show that, for graphs $G$ without induced $t$-brooms, we have $\chi(G) = o(\omega(G)^{t+1})$, where $\chi(G)$ and $\omega(G)$ are the chromatic number and clique number of $G$, respectively. When $t=2$, this answers a question of Schiermeyer and Randerath. Moreover, for $t=2$, we strengthen the bound on $\chi(G)$ to $7.5\omega(G)^2$, confirming a conjecture of Sivaraman. For $t\geq 3$ and \{$t$-broom, $K_{t,t}$\}-free graphs, we improve the bound to $o(\omega^{t-1+\frac{2}{t+1}})$.Comment: 14 pages, 1 figur

The Dark Side of Due Process: Part I, A Hard Look at Penumbral Rights and Cost/Benefit Balancing Tests

Due process is the fountainhead of legitimate government coercion. When an individual’s rights of life, liberty, or property are at stake, the government is meant to apply due process of the law or suffer reversal of its intrusions as a plain trespass. However, such reversals are merely theoretical, premised upon the willingness of federal judges to interpose their power for the protection of ordinary individuals. The willingness of federal jurists to check the other branches of government for individual rights is transient at best. They do not usually check the global, dragnet United States surveillance programs that clearly violate the holding in Kyllo v. United States. Prophylactic measures like Miranda warnings and the exclusionary rule have proven mere symbols of contradiction and irony. Whenever our institutions appear to be overrun with injustice, well-meaning lawyers always seem to suggest that a Mathews balancing test could solve everything. The seductive belief that a utopia lies just on the other side of a balancing test confirms our doom under the ironies of panoptic Benthamism. As Justice Brennan argued, in dissent of Mathews’ sister case Stone v. Powell, the new cost/benefit balancing tests could be a mere “garb” to add an air of respectability to judicial error. Justice Powell, the author of Mathews and Stone, was himself a trained Bernaysian propagandist. While on the bench, Powell’s public relations agenda seemed to favor the normalization of injustice through cost/benefit due process ideologies. If Justice Brennan searched a little further into the claims Justice Powell made about the Lochner era, he might have exposed Mathews even more effectively. For it appears that Mathews balancing tests were derived from Buck v. Bell and eugenic pseudo-science. Despite an aversion to the darkness, this project does not seek to excoriate the dark side of due process. Rather, like Goethe’s Faust, it positions a listening ear in the direction of dark spaces. The aim of this project is to illuminate the substance of penumbral rights and cost/benefit balancing tests—especially their role in systems of oppression. The intended result will be a foothold for seekers of justice in one of our darkest eras yet