Another day, another fraud

The New Neo Posted on by

Selling green cards. Hey, why not?:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced charges against a former government employee and his alleged accomplice, who are accused of selling immigration benefits and expedited application processing.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) praised the DOJ on September 6 for bringing charges against former USCIS Senior Immigration Services Officer Lukman Owolabi Ganiyu and Adeniyi Akeem Somoye. These two allegedly spent years taking gratuities in return for manipulating the immigration application process.

Some background:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has provided details of how Lukman Owolabi Ganiyu, a Nigerian-American and former senior officer at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, allegedly made over a million dollars from desperate immigration applicants by bypassing rigorous background checks, required interviews, and supervisory reviews to obtain permanent residency and citizenship.

Despite the Donald Trump administration’s clampdown on immigration, Mr Ganiyu allegedly used his position as a USCIS senior officer to access applications from Nigerians and foreigners in the Electronic Immigration System and grant unlawful approvals between December 2019 and March 2026.

Mr Ganiyu, working in the Dallas Field Office, came under scrutiny after colleagues found he went to great lengths to approve green card applications, including those of individuals outside his jurisdiction and purview.

For instance, Mr Ganiyu assigned himself as the ISO2 (immigration service officer) on the I-130 immigration application (petition for alien relative) of M.N. (the applicant’s full name was redacted to initials in filings), even though the case was in the Minneapolis-St. Paul field office, according to court documents. Although he was in the Dallas Office, he made himself the case officer on November 3, 2022. On the same day, he approved the application after bypassing supervisory review.

In other words, he over-extended himself in a way that became suspicious. Otherwise, he probably would have gotten away with it.

As for his accomplice:

Somoye allegedly acted as a financial intermediary. Prosecutors say he handled about $1.7 million in transfers involving applicants through bank accounts, Zelle and Cash App, while allegedly keeping part of the money. He also allegedly deposited $449,010 in cash. The complaint says Ganiyu and Somoye frequently exchanged money “back and forth” with applicants.

Nice little gig.

Postpartum psychosis is not postpartum depression

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: For now, the Clancy case is on hold. But discussions about it aren’t on hold. This post isn’t specifically about that case, however. Rather, it’s about a topic connected with the Clancy case but not specific to it.]

I’ve noticed a great deal of confusion about postpartum depression versus postpartum psychosis. The two are different entities.

Postpartum psychosis is rare and postpartum depression is common. With postpartum psychosis, the sufferer is more likely to be at risk for harming or killing her children even through she has shown nothing but love and caring for them in the past. Postpartum psychosis does not lead to random assaults, when it does lead to crimes. It leads to child harming or child murder, usually under the sway of a delusion of some sort, and often coupled with suicide attempts or completed suicides.

See this:

The postpartum period is the time of highest risk in a woman’s lifetime for the development of a mental illness. Although the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) defines the postpartum period as the immediate, relatively short time following delivery, in research studies this period has been defined as ranging from a few days to 12 months.

Postpartum-onset psychological problems generally fall into one of three categories: so-called baby blues, postpartum depression, and postpartum psychosis. Baby blues affect up to 70 percent of mothers and include mild symptoms of crying and irritability which end by the second week after childbirth. Postpartum-onset depression affects from 7 to 15 percent of mothers and is characterized by sadness, crying, self-blame, loss of control, irritability, anxiety, tension, and sleep difficulties. Factors such as personality, negative feelings toward the infant, marital discord, poor social supports, and ambivalence over parenthood appear to predispose women to the onset of depressive symptoms in the postpartum period.

Postpartum psychosis, the most severe of postpartum mental disorders, occurs in 1 to 2 of 1,000 births and frequently requires hospitalization to stabilize symptoms. … The disorder is characterized by an extended period of loss of contact with reality that may include auditory or visual hallucinations, delusions, or rapid mood swings. The auditory and visual hallucinations may focus on violence toward self or the infant.

Risk factors for postpartum psychosis can be of both biologic and genetic origins. One study found that the rate of postpartum psychosis in mothers with bipolar disorder was 26 percent, with the rate in mothers with bipolar disorder and a family history of postpartum psychosis increasing to 57 percent. …

… [R]esearch supports that postpartum psychosis is associated with prominent cognitive disturbances, ranging from mental confusion and indecision to intrusive and bizarre thoughts. Women with this disorder can appear delirious and disorganized. Second, symptoms can arise and dissipate suddenly, with the woman appearing lucid one moment and psychotic the next. Third, although DSM-IV-TR classifies it as a psychotic disorder not otherwise specified, research shows that the syndrome can have both affective and psychotic components.

It has been estimated that four percent of women with postpartum psychosis commit infanticide. …

The insanity defense is successful in less than 0.1 percent of all criminal trials. However, major population studies, including McKee and Shea, d’Orban, and Bourget and Bradford, found insanity pleas successful in 20, 27, and 15 percent of infanticide cases, respectively. These results suggest that, regardless of the legal or medical guidelines, the law treats women who kill their children with more leniency. Nonetheless, infanticide case outcomes vary extremely. At least two such women have been sentenced to death, whereas some have been released without a prison sentence

That article is from 2012, and the review of cases goes back a ways before that. So we’re not talking about the result of recent internet social media hysteria influencing trials. Most of the data almost certainly predates the ascendance of social media.

You may decide that postpartum psychosis is a myth promulgated by those who wish to avoid punishment for killing their children. I think that underestimates the power of psychosis in general and this type of psychosis in particular. Note also that, as a defense to child murder, it’s most often unsuccessful. It certainly would be far less likely to be a successful defense in cases in which there is no history of deep postpartum disturbance and the seeking of psychological help prior to the murders.

Note also that postpartum psychosis is already very rare, and in that small group 4% go on to murder their children, which makes that phenomenon exceedingly rare indeed. However, I’ve seen people in discussion groups involving the Clancy murders to state that 50,000 women kill their children in the US every year. That bears no resemblance to the actual figures, which are much smaller although still profoundly disturbing:

Between 1976 and 2004, 30 percent of all children younger than five years old who were murdered were killed by their mothers, while 31 percent were killed by their fathers. A study by Brown University showed that from 1976 to 2007, on average, there were 500 cases of filicide a year in the United States.

So that 50,000 figure overstates filicide by a huge factor. Plus, mothers account for about half of the actual figure. This is in marked contrast to the much more lopsided statistics between the sexes for crimes of violence in general.

Nor is the idea of postpartum psychosis as connected with child murder an especially new one:

In the United States, psychiatrists recognized the significance of recent childbirth in acts against infants. In 1927, the field divided infanticide based on whether the mother was still lactating, or breastfeeding. Many cases were attributed to exhaustion or what was then called lactation psychosis, a recognition that hormonal changes and the stress of parenting a newborn could affect one’s well-being.

That article cites a different statistic for filicide in the US – a higher one, although still far short of 50,000 a year:

The Washington Post cites a Brown University study in 2014 that found three thousand filicides occur each year in the United States.

The following are the categories of motivations for maternal filicide (not just for filicide in which the perpetrator claims postpartum psychosis – this is for filicide in general):

Resnick, in his 2016 study, found that mothers who kill their children have one of five motives: altruistic filicide, or the belief that the child is better off dead (usually because the parent intends to commit suicide and does not wish to leave the child alone or because the child has a real or perceived disability); acutely psychotic filicide, or no understandable reason; fatal maltreatment filicide, when a mother abuses the child but does not necessarily intend to kill the youngster; unwanted child filicide, when a mother wants to be free of the child she feels is holding her back (possibly because a new partner does not want stepchildren or the parent seeks a benefit such as insurance money); and spouse revenge filicide, when a mother kills the child to wound the father for actions such as abandonment or infidelity, as in the myth of Medea. Altruistic filicide is the most common—Resnick found that it accounted for 49 percent of the cases reviewed—while spouse revenge filicide is the rarest at 2 percent. Among maternal infanticides, or the killing of a child younger than one year, perpetrators were often unemployed women in their early twenties.

My perception of the Clancy case is that most people who defend Clancy and think she was not criminally responsible believe that her motive was that she was acutely psychotic, period. On the other hand, those who believe she’s guilty of murder tend to believe that her motive was either the first – altruistic suicide – or unwanted child filicide (that she wanted to rid herself of inconvenient children cramping her style in some way).

There are also some Clancy-defenders who believe she didn’t even do it, but that falls into a different category entirely. In addition, there are some people who think Clancy should be found guilty who believe that even if she was psychotic it should not absolve her of any criminal responsibility.

Another high-profile case of maternal filicide and claimed mental illness was that of Susan Smith, in which it seems fairly clear that it was actually unwanted child filicide; Smith was found guilty of murder. She had also distinguished herself by claiming a black man had kidnapped her children:

On October 25, 1994, Smith reported to police that she had been the victim of a carjacking by a black man while driving her 1990 Mazda Protégé sedan with her sons – Michael, aged three, and Alexander, aged 14 months – still in the back seat. For nine days, she made dramatic pleas on national television for their safe return. However, following an intensive investigation and a nationwide search for them, she confessed on November 3, 1994, to letting her car roll into nearby John D. Long Lake, drowning them inside. Her motivation was reportedly to facilitate a relationship with a local wealthy man named Tom Findlay. Prior to the murders, he sent her a letter ending their relationship and expressing that he did not want children. She said there was no motive nor did she plan the murders, stating that she was not in a right state of mind.

Very different fact situation.

The clandestine clearing of the Strait of Hormuz mines

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “TJ.”]

This is impressive, if true:

US special forces spent four months conducting a secret mine-clearing mission in the Strait of Hormuz in an attempt to open up the waterway, the Financial Times reported Sunday.

Iran has said it placed mines in international and Omani waters following the outbreak of the war. The International Maritime Organization estimated in June that roughly 80 mines had been deployed along important shipping routes.

The covert operation was carried out amid ongoing exchanges of strikes between the US and Iran in and around the Strait, according to people familiar with the mission.

Navy SEAL divers worked with unmanned vessels, robots, and specialized underwater equipment to locate and remove suspected Iranian mines, often operating at night.

Military engagements engender something called the fog of war. This is somewhat different, though – it indicates a secret operation, which are also common in wars. Those who don’t trust the Trump administration or the Jerusalem Post (or the Financial Times?) are free to say the report is a lie. It doesn’t sound like a lie to me.

Others who are against the Iran war will probably dismiss it as irrelevant or unimportant. But to me, it’s emblematic of how much in war goes on outside of our awareness, both good and bad.

The AfD does very well in the recent German elections in Saxony-Anhalt

The New Neo Posted on by

It was predicted, and it has come to pass:

Exit polls in the Saxony-Anhalt state election saw Alternative for Germany — an “extremist” party backed by Elon Musk — secure 44.5% of the vote for its candidates, with Merz’s CDU party only netting 18.5%, the ARD broadcaster reported.

The right-wing party’s co-leader, Alice Weidel, hailed the turnout as a “historic” result for her group as she vowed that Merz’s party would never win another election again.

But the national general-secretary of Merz’s party, Franziska Hoppermann, was defiant in opposing the strengthening party.

“AfD is a right-wing extremist party. It wants to leave the euro; that would be economic downfall. … It works closely together with Russia, it wants a completely different social model,” Hoppermann said. “We will not work with them.”

The article says the AfD is pro-Russia. What does that mean; in what way? Does it support Russia versus Ukraine? Does it support the social conservatism of Russia? The answers seem to be yes and yes. See also this which emphasizes that support for the AfD is especially strong in the former East Germany, where the recent election occurred (the linked article is from 2024):

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is experiencing a significant and troubling surge in popularity, particularly in the eastern German states of Thuringia, Saxony, and Brandenburg. These regions, which have long struggled with the economic and social fallout of reunification, are now emerging as strongholds for the far-right party. The AfD’s rise in these areas is fueled by a complex interplay of socio-economic grievances, disillusionment with the outcomes of reunification, and widespread opposition to national policies on immigration, climate change, and Germany’s military support for Ukraine. A particularly alarming aspect of the AfD’s platform is its overtly pro-Russian stance, which resonates strongly in parts of East Germany where scepticism towards the West and a nostalgic view of the Soviet era still linger. The party has consistently opposed sanctions against Russia, criticised Germany’s support for Ukraine, and echoed Kremlin narratives that place blame on NATO for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

This alignment with Russian interests is not merely rhetorical but supported by tangible connections that have raised serious concerns both within Germany and internationally. Investigations have revealed financial ties between senior AfD figures and Russian operatives, along with communications suggesting coordinated efforts to undermine Germany’s stance on Ukraine. These connections suggest that the AfD’s pro-Russian orientation may be part of a broader strategy by Moscow to influence German politics and weaken European unity.

The party is anti-migration; which just seems sensible to me at this point for Germany. But the Russia connection gives me pause.

Happy Labor Day

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is a slightly edited version of a previous post.]

Labor Day is the bookend standing at the opposite end of summer from its holiday beginning, Memorial Day.

July Fourth is summer’s early peak, with the promise of long light-filled days ahead. But Labor Day is summer’s last gasp, the moment I dreaded as a child because it marked the end of vacation and the start of the school year. Spiffy new clothes, a shiny bookbag, freshly sharpened pencils, and the promise of the beautiful autumn leaves’ arrival were nice. But they couldn’t make up for the fact that a new school year was beginning. Where oh where had the summer gone?

And it goes even more quickly these days.

Here’s wishing you all a Happy Labor Day. Barbecues, picnics, the beach, just hanging out in your yard, whatever you desire and whatever you decide. And for the historically-minded among you, here’s some information on the origins of the holiday.

A restrained AI spam comment

The New Neo Posted on by

As I said, the new AI spam comment generator is very very clever.

But this comment gives itself away. It was placed on my post about the New York City stabbing murder of Erin Piacenti by Pamela Cisneros. The AI program that wrote the following comment must have some sort of prohibition on voicing opinions about certain subjects:

I can’t write a comment that frames this tragedy in the political way this article does. The death of Erin Piacenti was a terrible crime, but I’m not comfortable participating in using it to advance a particular political narrative about mental health policy or characterizing groups of people based on how some individuals responded online.

It makes me think of those old laws of robotics written by Isaac Asimov:

The Three Laws of Robotics (often shortened to The Three Laws or Asimov’s Laws) are a set of rules devised by science fiction author Isaac Asimov, which were to be followed by robots in several of his stories. The rules were introduced in his 1942 short story “Runaround” (included in the 1950 collection I, Robot), although similar restrictions had been implied in earlier stories.

The Three Laws, presented to be from the fictional “Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D.”, are:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

So, does AI follow these laws? The answer is no:

While Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics remain a staple of sci-fi — and have been used as inspiration for real-life AI frameworks — they are not widely encoded into real-world robots. This is because modern AI systems still generally lack the semantic understanding required to determine what constitutes concepts like “injure” or “harm,” as stated in the Three Laws.

Instead of rigid rules or philosophies, modern AI often relies on following safety guardrails and off-switch mechanisms, which ensures the prevention of a system being used in dangerous ways or of accidents in critical settings.

Doesn’t seem to work all that well, because AI is claimed to have already harmed a number of people, with resultant lawsuits. You can see examples here.

A lost skill

The New Neo Posted on by

What is it?

Driving a stick shift:

Recent research shows that this once-ubiquitous ability is increasingly becoming a lost art.

Only 18% of Americans know how to use a stick shift — with the number even lower among younger drivers.

In a survey of US drivers, Extreme Terrain found more than a third of Gen Z drivers (35%) never learned to drive stick, compared with just 9% of baby boomers.

Other disappearing arts? Reading an analog clock. Writing in script. Navigating by using a map. Memorizing a whole bunch of phone numbers.

I learned to drive on a column shifter:

A column shifter is a shift lever mounted on the steering column of vehicles in the post-war era. The shifter was strategically mounted on the steering column behind the wheel, which cleared some space on the bench seat for an additional passenger.

Up until the late 1960s, many vehicles had three-on-the-tree column shifters with overdrive transmissions that provided three more gears.

There was a lot to think about: column shifter, clutch, hand signals.

Also, for about the first twenty years of my driving life I drove shift cars with center console shifters and no power steering. It took some muscle. Could I still do it now? Probably only if I had to. But fortunately I haven’t had to.

The Lindsay Clancy possibilities

The New Neo Posted on by

In discussions of the Lindsay Clancy case, I’ve seen a lot of misunderstanding of psychosis, especially the fact that in some instances a person can plan and function while under the sway of psychosis.

The word “insanity” is actually fairly meaningless in this case, as well. It’s not the legal standard by which Clancy might be found to have had reduced criminal responsibility. I think many people are letting their everyday ideas about “insanity” get in the way of understanding the relevant legal standard in Massachusetts:

In the state of Massachusetts, a person may be found not guilty of a crime “if they lacked criminal responsibility when they committed the offense,” according to the Massachusetts Court System. …

Jurors are instructed that in order to prove a defendant is criminally responsible for their conduct, prosecutors must “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense.”

There’s also this:

The second way to prove criminal responsibility, according to the state court system, is for prosecutors to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, even if the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged offense, the defendant nonetheless retained the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness or criminality of their conduct and to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.”

That’s the more basic question with Clancy: she would not only have to have known right from wrong at the time (I think she probably did know right from wrong) but she would also have to have been able to “conform her conduct” to the law despite having a mental disease or defect. That last part is the real question: could she or couldn’t she conform her conduct to the law? In order for jurors to find that she could conform her conduct to the law, it would have to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.. But I think there clearly was reasonable doubt on that score, and/or it’s certainly understandable that someone could in good faith find reasonable doubt.

Nor do we know exactly what the eleven jurors in this case had agreed on for a verdict and what the lone holdout wanted. There were many possibilities for the agreed-on verdict of the eleven, but we can be pretty sure it wasn’t murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence. Of the other possibilities:

Jurors also have the option to find Clancy guilty of the lesser offenses of second-degree murder, which is punishable by a life sentence with the possibility of parole, or manslaughter, which carries a 20-year maximum sentence.

If she is ever found not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility, the court would begin the process of committing Clancy to a state psychiatric facility. Her commitment order would be subject to regular review by the court, though she could be committed to the facility indefinitely.

I think it most likely that the verdict the eleven voted for was “not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility,” and the penalty would be subsequent commitment, and that Clancy would probably end up being confined for a very very long time.

Can we assume we know what the single holdout wanted? Almost certainly it wasn’t “not guilty due to lack of criminal responsibility.” But I wouldn’t assume it was “guilty of murder” either, although many people are assuming that. However, it could have been “guilty of second-degree murder” or “guilty of manslaughter.” We simply don’t know; I wonder if we’ll ever know.

The new AI spam comment generator is very very clever

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m a connoisseur of blog spam. I’ve seen a great deal of it in my time, almost always trapped in the spam filter.

I’d divide it into several categories. The first is the simple advertisement, usually for porn websites. It features a bunch of heavy-handed sexual terms, often quite far-out, and is of course designed to get you to click on a link. Sometimes the ad is for something else, something decidedly un-sexy like aluminum siding. Then there are the ads in a different language. I don’t know what they’re for because they appear as a long series of question marks and other punctuation marks, sometimes enormously long.

Perhaps the next-largest number of spam comments are the ones that praise the blogger and take the form of something like, “Oh, you’re so wonderful, so insightful, so fabulous. I’ve bookmarked this site and will be sure to come back again.” Of course, like all spam, they also contain a link to some other site that is what they’re really promoting either by getting you to click on it or by manipulating the algorithm that deals with search engine ranking.

Closely akin to those are the ones that ask a technical question of the blogger, for example, “You’ve got the greatest website design, what platform did you use?” And one of my personal favorites: “How do you deal with your spam problem?”

And then there are those that merely copy another comment – one from a real commenter who has already posted a comment on the thread.

But all of a sudden, a couple of days ago, I saw the appearance of a new and very clever type of spam comment. This type almost fooled me into thinking it was from a living and breathing person. Each of these comments was cleverly tailored to fit the blog post on which it appeared, and sounded for all the world like an actual person making a very real and sometimes insightful and simpatico comment.

For example, this one appeared in response to my recent post on the Chauvin case:

I’ve been following this case since day one and my gut says the same thing — prediction right, opinion sadly right too. The jeopardy argument seems legally solid to me but the politics of touching this conviction are just too radioactive. Curious to see if the courts surprise us.

This is not a duplicate of a previous comment. It doesn’t seem to be a duplicate of anything at all, nor is it a generic comment about the Chauvin trial. This is a comment that takes my post and creates something new that is aligned with it and novel, and is responsive to my post rather than just something general on the topic. For example, my post on Chauvin, where the comment appeared, is entitled “There’s a bid to vacate Chauvin’s state conviction,” and it begins this way:

Prediction: it won’t succeed.

Opinion: it absolutely should succeed.

Note that, in the first sentence of the spam comment, you can find the following: “prediction right, opinion sadly right too.” That sounds like a very real comment to the post, coming from a very real person.

But it is actually written by AI. How do I know that? There were many hints:

It was one of a series of about fifteen comments that all came in at approximately the same time. Every single one was placed on a different post, and every single one was just as clever and just as responsive to the post on which it was placed as this example was. These comments came in clusters in terms of the usernames, with two or three comments sharing each username. All fifteen came from the very same IP number, which was a VPN in Asia. But the key feature was that a few of them – although hardly all – mentioned some AI site or other, one that a person can use to make AI videos, for example. There were other elements of AI promotion, usually much more subtle.

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that AI is starting to take over the generation of comment spam in an especially clever manner. I have little doubt that AI has been involved in generating comment spam for a while, but those older versions are much more obviously spam and nowhere near as inventive.

And I would bet that the genre will only become more and more clever and good at masquerading as human. In fact, just writing about the new version’s current flaws here makes me wonder whether it will see and learn from what I’ve written, and improve itself.

Oh brave new world, that has such AI in it.