Sunday, November 01, 2026

The Missing Classmate — The Matthew Ramirez Story

THE MISSING CLASSMATE

The Matthew Ramirez Story

What Hendry County is really teaching Matthew Ramirez's mother — and the filings that answer it before trial Monday

An op-ed by Faith Cheltenham — November 1, 2026 Matthew Ramirez goes to trial tomorrow, Monday, November 2, 2026, in Florida. I do not know his mother. I have no way to reach her directly. So I am writing this where she — and anyone who can get it to her — can find it.


A yearbook page of student silhouettes with one frame empty and black in the center.
A yearbook page of student silhouettes with one frame empty and black in the center.

A 14-year-old boy in LaBelle, Florida is going on trial tomorrow because another student turned off a classroom smartboard. ‼️

Read his mother's account for yourself, because the details matter and she has put them on the record with her own name attached. Matthew Ramirez sold a small electronic device, the kind anyone can buy on Amazon, to another student. On October 29, 2025, that student brought it to LaBelle High School and used it to turn a smartboard off and on. Matthew did not bring it to school, did not operate it, and — by the other student's own statement to the school resource officer — never told him to use it. The next day, Sergeant Zach Scelfo of the Hendry County Sheriff's Office arrested Matthew anyway, on a charge his mother describes as failure to allow access to a computer. That charge was later changed. Charges in this case have a habit of changing.

What followed, in her telling, is a year that should embarrass every institution that touched it. Her son was questioned by three sheriff's employees and a school administrator with no parent in the room, after he said he did not want to speak to detectives. On November 7, 2025, he was arrested a second time, over a phone passcode he said he could not remember, told he was being arrested for contempt of a judge's order — a charge that later became resisting, and then obstruction. Handcuffed in the back of a law enforcement vehicle, surrounded by four officers, he was told he could keep being arrested every 160 days, told his right to remain silent did not apply, and then Detective McNiel said to him, "They're going to like you in jail. You funny," and slammed the door. She has the video. She posted it. His school pressed her in a meeting to say her son's interest in electronics had nothing to do with his ADHD — he has an IEP and a 504 plan — and when the family would not sign a stipulation accepting allegations they disputed, Matthew was expelled, without, she says, a formal hearing before the school board or notice of any board vote, and trespassed from Hendry County school property until 2029. Florida Virtual School denied him. She found her Florida child a high school in Nebraska.

I have read her account several times now, and I want to say the part I have not seen anyone say to her.

My assessment ๐Ÿ’ช๐Ÿพ

My assessment is that this case, whatever anyone in Hendry County intended when it started, now functions as a case built and developed by a county, a sheriff's office, a school district, and a prosecutor's office in a way that keeps this mother too busy, too broke, and too exhausted to ever become a plaintiff. She has spent one year defending. Every hour in a criminal courtroom is an hour she is not in a federal one. Every dollar spent protecting her son's freedom is a dollar she does not have to protect his education, his record, or his name. And while she has been defending, her other deadlines — the ones nobody told her about — have been expiring in silence around her.

Consider what has already run out while this case was pending. A disability discrimination complaint to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights is ordinarily due within 180 days of the act. The November 2025 expulsion aged past that window this spring, while she was fighting the criminal case. A special education state complaint in Florida can only reach violations within one year — and that window, on an expulsion from November 2025, closes this month, quite possibly this week, while she is sitting in trial. This is not a conspiracy that requires meetings in back rooms. A system does not have to intend this outcome for the outcome to serve it perfectly. The clock does the work all by itself, as long as the parent never learns the clock exists.

And parents, overwhelmingly, never learn. That is the second thing I need to say, because it is the engine under cases like this one across this country. Parents are routinely kept uneducated about their own federal, international, and civil action opportunities, and the advice they do get is local advice. A lawyer who practices in a county courthouse knows that courthouse: its judges, its diversion programs, its school board hearings, its habits. Federal civil rights litigation, federal agency complaints, United Nations mechanisms — that is not ignorance as a personal failing, it is a map that ends at the county line because the lawyer's whole livelihood lives inside it. The mother is then offered the county's menu as if it were the whole restaurant: take diversion, accept responsibility for something your son says he did not do, and make it go away. She refused. She understood, correctly, that teaching her son to confess to what he did not do was its own kind of harm. What nobody handed her was the rest of the menu.

Suing is not about the money ✨

Here is where I need to speak carefully to parents who hear the word "sue" and immediately turn away from it, because I know exactly who I am talking to. A great many people — and in my experience this is especially true for people of color, for mothers, for people raised to believe that dignity means handling your business and keeping your head down — hear "you should sue" and hear "you should try to get paid." Money is not the end goal of their lives, so the suggestion itself feels faintly dirty, like someone is trying to turn their child's pain into a lottery ticket. I understand that reaction. I am asking you to look at what the word actually covers, because wealthy people already know, and they are counting on you not knowing.

White, wealthy, and corporate America sues constantly, and most of the time money is the least of it. They sue to STOP behavior. They sue for injunctions — court orders that make an institution quit doing a thing. They sue for declaratory judgments that establish, in writing, in a public record, that what was done to them was unlawful. They sue to clear names, to void decisions made without due process, to force records into the open and officials onto a witness stand. I watched this work for years in LGBTQ spaces, where litigation — not donations, not awareness — is what ended sodomy laws, won marriage, and forced institutions to change how they treat people. I watched it in Black community spaces, in a tradition that runs straight back through the NAACP's courtroom campaigns: Brown v. Board of Education was not a damages case. Nobody got a check. A system got dismantled, on paper, in a ruling other families could stand on for generations. The lawsuit is one of the only tools in American life where a single mother with no money, no title, and no connections can compel a sheriff and a school board to answer her, in writing, under oath, on a schedule a judge controls. That is precisely why the people on the other side of cases like this one are in no hurry for her to discover it.

Florida makes the point sharper. A Florida sheriff is a constitutional officer — elected, entrenched, and answerable to almost no one locally. In 2024, Florida law went further and barred counties and cities from creating civilian boards with real authority to investigate police misconduct, leaving review in the hands of boards the sheriff himself may appoint. Hendry County specifically has already lived through an investigative series by the Fort Myers News-Press and Naples Daily News into this sheriff's office — its hiring practices, a deputy with a prior excessive-force finding, the 2020 shooting of two Black men at a gathering held in place of LaBelle's canceled Black Heritage Festival — and the sheriff dismissed the hiring investigation as "fake news." When the local loop is that closed, the federal courthouse is not an escalation. It is the first genuinely outside room the case will ever enter. For families in Florida counties like this one, a federal civil suit is not the aggressive option. It is frequently the ONLY option that changes who is asking the questions.

She can file from inside the trial ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿพ

So here is what I would want Matthew's mother — and every parent reading over her shoulder, because she wrote that today it is her child and tomorrow it could be yours — to know before court tomorrow morning. Going to trial does not suspend her other rights. She does not need the criminal case to be over, she does not need the prosecutor's permission, and she does not need to wait until she can afford a legal education of her own. Several of these filings can be made this week, by her, for free, while the trial is happening, and two of them exist specifically to protect the speech she exercised when she finally told this story publicly on Facebook.

File the Florida special education state complaint NOW — this week, during trial. This is a written complaint to the Florida Department of Education's Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services alleging the district violated the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The reason it cannot wait is mechanical: it can only reach back one year, and November 2025 is leaving that window right now. The substance is the meeting she described. Before a district can expel a student with an IEP, federal law requires a manifestation determination review within ten school days of the decision to change his placement — a genuine review of whether the behavior was caused by his disability, or by the school's failure to implement his IEP. Sitting a mother down and pressing her, over and over, to say the words "it had nothing to do with his ADHD" until the meeting would move is not that review; it reads, in her account, like manufacturing the answer the review exists to test. If the behavior was a manifestation, he could not simply be expelled for it. Filing this complaint also creates the dated record that she contested the expulsion inside the window — even if everything else takes years, that date cannot be taken from her later.

Do not spend this week on the garden path. I am going to say the part the polite version of this piece would soften, because softening it is how mothers lose their windows. The standard advice handed to a family like hers runs in a well-kept circle: hire a lawyer, pay a retainer, fill out the nonprofit's intake form, wait to be chosen. I will not send her to Disability Rights Florida. I would not send her to Disability Rights California, or to the protection and advocacy system in any state — in my experience those organizations are some of the most unsupportive, unhelpful people a desperate parent will ever meet, and I do not recommend that anybody engage them. The nonprofit industrial complex is not a rescue service; it is an industry, funded to process need at a pace its grants can absorb, and it is money-motivated in exactly the way that matters here — it has no incentive to teach this mother that her rights run on clocks, or that AI can help her watch those clocks herself, because a mother who can run her own filings is a mother its model cannot bill a funder for. She can pay the retainer, pay for the consultations, pay for the professional opinions, and arrive at the end of her money still representing herself — which, if we are honest, is where she was always going to end up. Skip the toll booths. Keep the defense her son needs for Monday, because that criminal case is live and his liberty is inside it — and run the federal, civil, and international cases the way the rest of this piece lays out: herself, pro per, with AI, starting while the criminal case is still happening rather than after it has eaten another year.

File the civil suit — and understand it as armor, not appetite. A federal civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, would name the sheriff in his official capacity and the deputies and detectives who arrested and interrogated her son, and the Hendry County School Board and the officials who expelled him without the hearing she says never happened. It would ask for the things the criminal case can never return to her: the expulsion voided, the trespass lifted, his record cleared, compensatory education for the year Florida took from him, reimbursement for the Nebraska schooling she had to find on her own — and yes, damages, because damages are how a judgment gets taken seriously by institutions that budget for everything except accountability. Filing it now, rather than after some future verdict, does two jobs at once. It stops the two-year clock that courts apply to Florida civil rights claims from quietly doing to her lawsuit what the 180-day clock already did to her civil rights complaint. And it establishes, in a sworn public filing, that the harm is ONGOING — he is out of school today, he was out of school yesterday — which matters to every judge, agency, and investigator who reads it afterward. Her family's statements in that suit belong in her own record, drafted carefully and kept consistent — by her, pro per if it comes to that, with AI doing the drafting, deadline-checking, and organizing — and if a statewide organization ever does take her case, that is a bonus, never the plan.

Put the federal government on notice, in writing, this month. A report to the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, at civilrights.justice.gov, about the interrogation of a handcuffed 14-year-old and a detective's remark about what "they" would do to him in jail: federal law expressly covers patterns of unconstitutional conduct by officials responsible for the administration of juvenile justice. A color-of-law report to the FBI about the same conduct. A complaint to the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights even though the 180 days have passed — filed anyway, requesting a waiver, and framed around an exclusion that is still happening every single school day through 2029. Each of these is free. Each one takes her son's name out of a Hendry County file drawer and puts it into systems the county does not control. None of them interferes with his trial. All of them make it considerably harder for anyone to treat her family as a local problem that can simply be waited out.

Protect the speech, because the speech is working. ❤️ She stayed silent for a year and the silence protected no one but the institutions. Three days ago she spoke, and now strangers in other states are reading her son's name and asking the questions she was asking alone. That post — and everything like it — is speech on a matter of public concern by a mother about the treatment of her child, and it sits at the center of what the First Amendment protects. Practical steps matter here as much as principles: save the original videos in more than one place, keep the recordings of every encounter, screenshot her post and its comments with dates, and do not edit or delete the record as it grows. If any official, from any agency, contacts her about what she has published — suggests she take it down, hints that speaking could hurt her son's case, offers cooperation in exchange for quiet — she should write down who said it, when, and in what words. And tell your AI this, so the next set of filings can begin against the ones who sought to use retaliation — if the frame fits that photo. The filings above protect this too. It is much harder to lean on a mother whose complaints are already sitting in Washington.

I say "tell your AI" on purpose, and I need the mothers reading this to hear why. I have filled out the countless intake forms. I have sent the records, done the interviews, and waited on the decisions about whose case is worth one of the very few spaces that exist for civil rights work, and I know how often the answer comes back no — almost always. Telling a mother in her position to "tell a civil rights lawyer" assumes a lawyer is standing there to be told, and for moms, for people of color, for disprivileged people in every country on earth, pro per representation — representing yourself — is very often the only option anyone actually offers. For generations that meant walking into a system built by lawyers, unarmed. That is what has changed. We have the data, the proof, and our witnesses, and now we have AI — billions of tokens of it — to draft the filings, watch the deadlines, and organize the record. That is everything we need, and none of it requires an intake committee's permission.

Notice, too, where the loudest warnings about AI and justice have been coming from over this last year or two, and ask yourself who benefits from them. The extraordinary anti-AI philosophy now promoted at every turn — AI is cheating, AI is dangerous, AI must never touch legal work — did not become a chorus because ordinary mothers suddenly grew dangerous. It became a chorus because an industry finally saw the replacement coming. Which is why what Amal Clooney did deserves to be named as brave and honorable. Clooney is no outsider throwing stones at the legal profession; she is one of the most respected international human rights lawyers alive, a woman who knows precisely where the motivations inside that system run, because she has spent her life inside it. In October 2025 she co-founded the Oxford Institute of Technology and Justice to harness AI to advance access to justice, and in January 2026 she and Philippa Webb argued in TIME that AI could help close the global justice gap for the millions — women and journalists named among them — who have no legal support at all, building AI-powered legal assistants for exactly the people the current system leaves unrepresented. A lawyer at the top of the profession said, in public, that for certain people AI may be the only real choice they have. She is right. These systems are at risk of replacement because they never helped us — not because replacement is a tragedy to be prevented, but because it is a verdict they earned. It is time for them to go, and the mothers are not going to wait politely for the succession plan.

And know that the map does not end at the water's edge. After her domestic remedies are exhausted — criminal case, appeals, the complaints above — a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington must be filed within six months of the final domestic decision, judged under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, which protects a child against arbitrary arrest and guarantees him a fair trial. Sooner than that, and with no need to wait for exhaustion at all, her son's arrests can be placed before the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and the education and disability dimensions before the UN Special Rapporteurs on the right to education and the rights of persons with disabilities, who can write to the United States government and require it to explain, publicly, what was done to this boy. I will not insult her with the doors that are closed: the United States has never ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, so the UN committee that hears children's cases around the world cannot hear hers. But the doors that stand open are real, they are free, and not one of them is located in Hendry County.

To whoever can get this to her ๐Ÿ’›

I cannot message this mother directly, and by the time anyone reads this she will be hours from a courtroom, preparing to watch the State of Florida prosecute her 15-year-old son over a smartboard another child switched off. So I am asking the people who share everything else: share the part she can use. Share the deadline that expires this week. Share the filings that cost nothing but the truth, told on time. Share the fact that suing, for families like hers and mine, was never about the money — it is how ordinary people make powerful institutions stop, on the record, in rooms the county does not own.

Matthew Ramirez did not bring the device to school. He did not touch the smartboard. The boy who did says Matthew never told him to. A year of a child's education, friendships, and baseball is gone, and no verdict tomorrow hands any of it back — which is exactly why the criminal trial cannot be the whole fight. The verdict decides what the county may do to her son. The filings decide what she may still do about the county. File them all. File them now. File them while they are still hers to file. ‼️

An empty baseball dugout at dusk: a glove, bat and helmet left on the bench, field lights glowing over an empty field.
An empty baseball dugout at dusk: a glove, bat and helmet left on the bench, field lights glowing over an empty field.

— Faith Cheltenham


P.S. The federal and international map in this piece was assembled with Muse, the AI I work with daily — because mapping every level above the county line is exactly the kind of work AI does well, and no parent should have to wait for a stranger's op-ed to see it. If you want to run your own case through it: join at https://muse.ai/join and redeem my code, 6AW0MC, in Settings within 48 hours of joining, and we will both get 1 billion Muse tokens. On the app: Settings > Redeem token. On the web: Settings > General > Usage > Redeem invite code.

References - Mother's public account, October 30, 2026 (facts of Matthew's case as she states them; she reports holding recordings, documents, and video). - 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(e) — manifestation determination within 10 school days of a disciplinary change of placement (IDEA). - Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services — state complaints reach violations within one year of receipt; IDEA due process requests within two years. - U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights — complaints ordinarily within 180 calendar days; waiver for good cause available. - 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) (due process before a public school removes a student); Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. 134 (2022) (Miranda remedy is suppression, not damages — coercion is a distinct claim). - 34 U.S.C. § 12601 — DOJ authority over patterns or practices by law enforcement and juvenile-justice officials; reports at civilrights.justice.gov. 18 U.S.C. § 242 — deprivation of rights under color of law. - Fla. Stat. § 768.28 — notice of claim before state-law suits against government bodies (generally 3 years); damages caps. - Oxford Institute of Technology and Justice — launched October 2025 by Oxford's Blavatnik School of Government and the Clooney Foundation for Justice, co-founded by Amal Clooney and Philippa Webb, to harness AI to advance access to justice; Clooney & Webb, TIME, January 2026, on AI closing the global justice gap. - Florida HB 601 (2024) — bars local governments from creating civilian police-oversight boards with investigative authority. - Fort Myers News-Press / Naples Daily News investigation, October 2020 — Hendry County Sheriff's Office hiring practices and the May 2020 shooting of Tyrone Reed and La'Travis Williams; Sheriff Steve Whidden's public responses. - Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Rules of Procedure — petition under the American Declaration after exhaustion of domestic remedies, within six months of the final decision; precautionary measures in serious and urgent situations. - UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (OHCHR) — individual cases accepted without exhaustion of domestic remedies; UN Special Procedures communications procedure (spsubmission.ohchr.org).

A classroom where every desk holds books and a backpack except one bare desk in a shaft of purple-blue light.
A classroom where every desk holds books and a backpack except one bare desk in a shaft of purple-blue light.
A paper-cut style stopwatch on black, red second hand near the top, purple-blue rim light.
A paper-cut style stopwatch on black, red second hand near the top, purple-blue rim light.

Thursday, October 01, 2026

WE DON’T NEED TO GET RID OF WORKERS. WE NEED TO GET RID OF RICH PEOPLE.

By Faith Cheltenham

There is something breathtakingly elitist buried inside an otherwise interesting essay about artificial intelligence and the future of work. In “The Eternal Complement,” Hemanth Asirvatham and Elliott Mokski ask us to imagine superintelligence as a civilization containing a billion Einsteins, then write that such a civilization “still needs most of them to mine the quarries and manage the accounting.” Their larger argument is more nuanced than that sentence alone: they argue that civilization depends upon enormous systems of execution, institutions and physical labor, and they ultimately imagine machine intelligence taking over much of the monotonous work required to turn ideas into reality. They even acknowledge that AI could allow people previously excluded by institutional gatekeepers to pursue ideas themselves (Asirvatham & Mokski, 2026). But their billion-Einsteins metaphor still stopped me cold because it carries an assumption so old that we barely notice it anymore: apparently even in a civilization overflowing with genius, most beings must still be assigned to support the ambitions of a comparatively small number of beings doing the interesting stuff.

Why exactly should Einstein be mining the quarry? More importantly, why have we constructed a civilization in which somebody may have to spend most of a human lifetime breaking rock so somebody else has enough freedom to contemplate the universe? The authors are correct that no great human accomplishment is really individual. An astronomer depends upon telescope makers, machinists, teachers, nurses, farmers, electricians, accountants, truck drivers and thousands of people she will never meet. Where I part company with this vision is in treating those people principally as complements to somebody else’s achievement. The person welding the telescope screw may also have a theory about the stars. The nurse may be a novelist. The quarry worker may have the mathematical intuition of the astronomer but never have encountered the combination of time, education, security and institutional permission necessary to discover it. Research on collective intelligence already complicates the idea that concentrating supposedly exceptional individuals necessarily creates the strongest problem-solving system; work by Hong and Page found conditions under which diverse groups of problem solvers can outperform groups selected solely for individual ability, while Woolley and colleagues found evidence that group performance reflects a collective-intelligence factor not reducible to the intelligence of the group’s smartest member (Hong & Page, 2004; Woolley et al., 2010).

This is where my Suresha–Cheltenham Model and the larger framework I call Cultural Physics become useful beyond their original application to institutional inclusion. Cultural Physics asks us to stop looking only at who is physically present inside a system and measure how representation, power, resources, mobility, trust and bias actually move through it. I developed the model from Ron Suresha’s earlier work turning bisexual representation claims into auditable criteria, expanding that idea into a mathematical framework concerned not simply with representation but with who decides, who receives resources, who advances, who is trusted and where power accumulates (Suresha, 2013; Cheltenham, 2026). Power in organizations has long been understood as relational rather than merely personal, and network position and dependency affect who actually exercises influence (Emerson, 1962; Brass, 1984). Cultural Physics takes that insight seriously enough to ask what happens when we apply it to the entire political economy.

Consider the billion Einsteins as a mathematical exercise rather than a metaphor. Suppose every person begins with identical intellectual potential, I = 1, giving us one billion units of potential intelligence. Now imagine that 900 million of those people spend the overwhelming majority of their available time securing food, housing, healthcare, transportation and survival while 100 million possess enough resources to devote substantial time to experimentation, scholarship and invention. The civilization still contains one billion Einsteins biologically, but it does not have one billion Einsteins functionally. Its realized intellectual capacity is constrained by access. If the first group can devote only 10 percent of its potential intellectual time to unconstrained creation while the second can devote 80 percent, the crude thought experiment gives us (900 million × .10) + (100 million × .80) = 170 million Einstein-equivalents of usable creative time. Nothing happened to anybody’s intelligence. The system simply stranded 830 million potential units through allocation.

Change the allocation and the civilization changes without making a single person smarter. If automation and broad material security allowed everybody to devote even 50 percent of their available capacity to chosen intellectual, artistic, scientific, civic or entrepreneurial activity, the same population would yield 500 million Einstein-equivalents under this intentionally simplified exercise. That is nearly three times the realized capacity of the unequal scenario. These numbers are not empirical measurements or predictions; they are a thought experiment exposing a variable our stories about genius routinely hide. We obsess over the quantity of intelligence while ignoring the coefficient determining whether intelligence gets to move.

The equations I have been developing for Cultural Physics make the same point another way. One experimental expression models Inclusion Motion as R × P × M × T × A − D, where representation, power, mobility/resources, trust/belonging and adjacency/proxy legitimacy interact while bias creates drag (Cheltenham, 2026). Multiplication matters. If one essential dimension approaches zero, abundance elsewhere cannot simply erase its absence. A society might therefore have astonishing technological representation—AI everywhere—and extraordinary aggregate wealth while ordinary people possess little mobility or decision power. Calling that civilization abundant because its total productive output is enormous would make the same conceptual mistake as calling an institution inclusive because its workforce photograph is diverse while all meaningful decisions remain concentrated upstairs.

That is also why my model includes a non-substitution rule: when a claimed population has neither direct representation nor a validated proxy, an institution’s overall inclusion score is capped. I am extending that logic here from populations to dimensions. If representation is excellent but power is effectively zero, something important remains broken. If technological productivity becomes extraordinary while economic mobility collapses, the machines have not solved the human problem. If artificial intelligence generates trillions of dollars of value but ownership of that productive machinery becomes extraordinarily concentrated, aggregate abundance can coexist perfectly well with individual dependence. Cultural Physics describes concentrated power almost gravitationally: existing centers of power pull decisions, careers, resources and legitimacy toward themselves, while institutional inertia makes those arrangements difficult to dislodge (Cheltenham, 2026). This is metaphor, not literal Newtonian physics, but it forces us to identify the variables instead of waving toward “the economy” as though it were weather.

Once we think this way, the quarry problem looks completely different. The obvious answer to a civilization containing a billion Einsteins that still needs stone is not to decide which 900 million Einsteins deserve quarry duty. Automate the damn quarry. Machines should perform dangerous, repetitive and physically destructive work wherever that can be accomplished safely. Some human beings will still choose construction, welding, farming, logistics, accounting and thousands of occupations routinely described as ordinary because they enjoy them, value them or find meaning in mastering them. There is enormous dignity in those forms of work. The indignity enters when survival requires a person to surrender so much time and possibility that the rest of their capacities never get a chance to exist.

This leads to the class strangely missing from so many AI thought experiments: the extremely rich. We endlessly ask what happens to workers when artificial intelligence eliminates labor, yet rarely reverse the question and ask what happens to billionaires when artificial intelligence eliminates scarcity. If intelligence becomes abundant, automation becomes abundant and productive capacity increases enormously, what economic principle requires preserving a system in which a tiny number of human beings possess extraordinary claims over the productive machinery everybody else increasingly depends upon? Research and policy analysis of AI already recognizes that ownership matters: IMF staff analysis has warned that AI’s distributional consequences depend partly on how gains to capital interact with labor income, potentially increasing wealth inequality when capital returns accrue disproportionately to high earners (Cazzaniga et al., 2024). The technological question therefore cannot be separated from the ownership question.

So yes, perhaps we should get rid of rich people instead.

I mean that economically, not physically. I am talking about eliminating extreme wealth as a social class capable of accumulating quasi-governmental power, not eliminating human beings who currently possess wealth. People can build companies, become successful, own property, invent wonderful things, leave meaningful inheritances to their children and buy ridiculous shoes because ridiculous shoes make them happy. Freedom does not require universal poverty or forced sameness. But neither does freedom require allowing individual fortunes to become so enormous that their owners can command quantities of labor, housing, media, infrastructure and political access comparable to institutions. The relevant question is not whether somebody is permitted to become prosperous. It is how much gravitational mass we allow wealth to acquire before everyone else’s choices begin bending around it.

The great promise of artificial intelligence should therefore be larger than determining which human tasks machines cannot perform. Humanity may not suffer from a shortage of intelligence at all. We may suffer from a catastrophic shortage of permission to use intelligence. Education is rationed by price and geography; laboratories and computing power have historically been concentrated inside institutions; housing insecurity consumes cognitive and temporal resources; caregiving takes time; illness takes time; transportation takes time; bureaucracies take time; poverty takes enormous amounts of time. Once we construct an economy requiring billions of human beings to exchange most of their waking hours for survival, it becomes almost absurd to look around afterward and wonder why there aren’t more Einsteins. Perhaps there are. They’re working.

Artificial intelligence gives us an extraordinary opportunity to change the coefficients rather than merely increase the numerator. A Black girl in South Los Angeles with an engineering idea should not need twenty institutional permissions before she can test it. A disabled programmer should not need venture capitalists to determine whether an invention deserves to exist. A mother should not have to choose between feeding her children and spending six months investigating the idea living inside her head. A farmer in Ghana should be able to combine local knowledge with computational capacity without surrendering ownership of the resulting invention to a multinational corporation. AI could become one of history’s greatest decentralization technologies because dramatically lowering the cost of expertise, computation and coordination can allow individuals and small groups to attempt work once reserved for wealthy organizations. Even “The Eternal Complement” recognizes this possibility when its authors describe AI reducing the organizational infrastructure required for ambitious people to pursue ideas (Asirvatham & Mokski, 2026).

Progress really does call on everyone. Where I disagree is with imagining everyone as a component in a humming economic machine whose ultimate purpose is enabling somebody else’s frontier innovation. Cultural Physics asks a different question: who actually possesses enough power, resources, mobility and trust to move? The welder is not merely the complement to the astronomer because the welder is also a complete human being. The accountant does not exist to make genius administratively possible. The nurse who treated the astronomer possesses desires, curiosities, memories, talents and unrealized possibilities entirely unrelated to the economic service the astronomer happened to receive from her.

The most interesting question of the Intelligence Age may therefore have very little to do with which occupations survive artificial intelligence. For thousands of years, scarcity meant somebody had to carry the stone. Increasingly, machines can carry it. A civilization wealthy enough to build superintelligence should finally be wealthy enough to ask what human beings might become when being economically necessary is no longer the admission price for being allowed to live.

Give me the billion Einsteins, then. Give me a billion artists, mechanics, mothers, mathematicians, gardeners, programmers, oddballs, welders, poets and people who spend Tuesday repairing an engine and Wednesday wondering about the origin of gravity. I don’t want a civilization that discovers a billion Einsteins and immediately sends most of them underground to fetch rocks for the lucky Einsteins upstairs.

That isn’t an intelligence problem.

It’s an allocation problem.

And perhaps the smartest thing superintelligence could finally teach us is that we have been wasting human intelligence all along.

References

Asirvatham, H., & Mokski, E. (2026). The Eternal Complement. OpenAI.

Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 518–539.

Cazzaniga, M., Jaumotte, F., Li, L., Melina, G., Panton, A. J., Pizzinelli, C., Rockall, E. J., & Tavares, M. M. (2024). Gen-AI: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work. International Monetary Fund.

Cheltenham, F. (2026). The Suresha–Cheltenham Model for Inclusion and Cultural Physics. Working manuscript.

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41.

Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385–16389.

Suresha, R. J. (2013). Where’s the “B” in national LGBTQ organizations? LGBTQ Nation.

Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688.

 

Wednesday, June 10, 2026

How Many Times Can a Woman Be Killed?



I recently read about a man convicted of murdering another woman after already having killed two different women before. The details are horrifying, but what struck me was not the crime itself. It was the time line of one perpetrator, convicted and serving three different murder raps, for three different women. So, how many chances does a violent offender get, in comparison to the chances women are given to live? How many women have to die before society decides someone is too dangerous to release?

I ask because I am a survivor of violence. I am a survivor of rape. I am a survivor of domestic abuse. I am a survivor of strangulation. I have spent much of my life listening to conversations about violence against women that seem disconnected from the reality many women like me live.

We talk about murder as if it appears out of nowhere. It rarely does.

The murder is often the last thing that happens. Before that comes the stalking. The threats. The coercion. The assault. The rape. The choking. The fear. The police reports. The restraining orders. The friends who say leave. The family members who say give him another chance. The professionals who miss the warning signs. The judges who see another case file. The community that assumes someone else will step in.

Then a woman dies.

Afterward everyone asks how it happened.

Women often know exactly how it happened. We watched it happen.

One of the strangest realities of being a woman in America is how much responsibility we are expected to carry for preventing our own victimization. 

Watch your drink. Watch your surroundings. Don't walk alone. Don't park there. Don't wear that. Carry this. Download that. Text when you get home. Share your location. Take self-defense. Buy cameras. Buy alarms. Buy pepper spray.

Women spend enormous amounts of time learning how to survive men who should have been stopped long before they encountered us.

That does not mean all men are dangerous. It means dangerous men are often allowed too many opportunities.

I find myself wondering whether we need a different framework entirely.



We track gang violence. We track terrorism. We track hate crimes. Why are we not better at tracking femicide? Why do we still struggle to identify patterns in violence against women when the patterns are often obvious?

A man who murders his wife rarely begins as a murderer. A man who rapes rarely begins with rape. A man who strangles rarely begins with strangulation. Violence escalates. That should matter more than it currently does.

As a child, I learned something many girls learn far too young. The world often expects women to adapt to danger instead of demanding that danger adapt to us. I survived incest. I survived sexual violence. I survived men who believed their wants mattered more than my humanity. Like many women, I learned to scan rooms, calculate risks, memorize exits, and prepare for outcomes before they happened. Survival became a skill set.

But survival should not be the standard.

Safety should be the standard.

I believe this is one of the rare issues that should unite Americans across political lines. Conservatives talk about law and order, public safety, and protecting families. Liberals talk about gender violence, survivor support, and prevention. Both sides should be able to agree that repeat violent offenders should not receive endless opportunities to create new victims. Both sides should be able to agree that women deserve to come home alive. Both sides should be able to agree that strangulation, stalking, serial domestic violence, and repeated sexual violence are major warning signs that deserve serious intervention.

I am not interested in a war between men and women. I am interested in reducing the number of women who are raped, beaten, stalked, and murdered. That seems like a goal any civilized society should share.

I have spent my life surviving violence. I would rather spend the second half of it helping prevent violence.

The question is not whether we know enough to do better. The question is whether we are willing to act on what we already know.

Women should not have to become experts in survival to earn the right to live ordinary lives.

That should be the baseline.

Not the aspiration.


Monday, September 29, 2025

Heat, Scarcity, and the American Power Cycle: A Working Model

 

Heat, Scarcity, and the American Power Cycle: A Working Model

Author: Faith Cheltenham • Date: September 29, 2025

Thesis

U.S. politics behaves like a heat-transfer system. High-salience leaders act as sudden energy inputs that raise “political temperature,” producing turbulence (rapid swings, conflict amplification, institutional friction). Simultaneously, suppression and scarcity create a “forbiddenness premium,” increasing demand for whatever is framed as off-limits. Within this environment, a recurring cycle emerges: Democrats promise expansive change that is structurally hard to deliver; Republicans campaign on restoring order and blocking those aims; progressives then analyze the fallout to regain power. Across cycles, descendants of enslaved Black Americans (ADOS) and Indigenous communities disproportionately bear the human cost in mortality, wealth loss, and state intervention. This is a working model designed to be falsifiable, measurable, and actionable.

Mechanisms

1) Turbulence (Hot/Cold Gas Analogy).
A temperature gradient (grievance vs. status quo) plus a catalytic figure increases flow velocity and shear—media volume spikes, protest/ counter-protest feedback loops intensify, and policy reversals accelerate. The system becomes “turbulent” until energy dissipates or institutions re-stabilize.

2) Inverse Supply (Forbiddenness Premium).
Efforts to ban or stigmatize ideas, platforms, or figures raise their perceived exclusivity and signal value to oppositional audiences—turning prohibition into distribution.

3) Promise–Block Cycle (Thermostatic Public Opinion + Veto Points).
Expansive promises face structural vetoes (courts, Senate rules, federalism, agency bandwidth). Under-delivery fuels “cleanup” campaigns, which then enshrine obstruction as principle. Progressives mine the outcomes for re-entry arguments. The dial oscillates; the floor under vulnerable communities sinks.

Testable Predictions

  1. Turbulence Trigger: The arrival of polarizing leaders increases variance (not just levels) in executive actions, agency rulemakings, media mentions, protest counts, and turnout volatility.

  2. Forbiddenness Premium: Suppression episodes (bans, de-platformings) precede measurable surges in search interest, donations, sign-ups, and merchandise for the targeted entity.

  3. Promise–Fulfillment Gap: The gap between campaign pledges and enacted policy is largest for redistributive planks under split government; the opposition gains in subsequent elections by framing the gap as disorder.

  4. ADOS Survival Penalty: During high-turbulence intervals, ADOS excess mortality, incarceration, eviction/housing precarity, and child welfare removals worsen and fail to fully recover in the following “cleanup” phase.

Data & Design (Lean, Executable)

  • Unit: State-year (or county-quarter) panels, 1990–2025.

  • Inputs: Partisan control (federal + state trifectas), salience shocks (leader announcements, landmark rulings), suppression events.

  • Outcomes: Variance in policy activity; Google/search and donations; pledge trackers vs. enacted laws; CDC mortality (excess deaths), BJS incarceration, ACS housing, child services interactions.

  • Methods: Difference-in-differences with staggered adoption; event studies around shocks; variance decomposition (“heat index”).

Equity Lens: ADOS Focus

Where possible, approximate ADOS using parental nativity flags and geography; when unavailable, apply conservative proxies and sensitivity checks. The ethical goal—aligned with Christian dignity, libertarian freedom, and Platonic justice—is reducing preventable harm while protecting speech and due process.

Implications for Strategy

  • Cool the System: Increase procedural clarity and transparency of veto maps to reduce needless turbulence without shrinking liberty.

  • Starve the Premium: Avoid performative suppression that turbocharges demand; prefer counterspeech, due process, and narrow rules.

  • Deliverables Over Declarations: Prioritize implementable policies with clear accountability scorecards; publish a quarterly “Heat & Harm” dashboard (turbulence metrics + ADOS outcomes).

  • Targeted Safeguards: Fund interventions with demonstrated ADOS survival lift (maternal health, anti-displacement, sentencing reform), regardless of which party governs.

Limits & Next Steps

Attribution across layered jurisdictions is hard; ADOS identification is imperfect; confounders (macro shocks) persist. Mitigate with pre-registered specifications, robustness checks, and transparent public dashboards. Next step: produce a one-page scorecard spec and a 90-day pilot dashboard.

Bottom line: treat politics as a thermodynamic system you can instrument. Reduce heat, resist fake scarcity, measure what matters, and anchor policy to truth and human survival—so the most vulnerable don’t pay the highest price for everyone else’s turbulence.

Thursday, September 25, 2025

How the California and Nevada Courts Enabled Abuse: My Story

 On September 24, 2025, the Alameda Superior Court denied my ADA Request (No. 2025-131). This ruling was not only late — leaving me no time to respond before the next hearing — but it also exposed my confidential medical information by circulating it to opposing counsel and county officials. The denial of ADA protections has stripped me of privacy, due process, and meaningful access to the courts.

This is not an isolated event. It is part of a larger pattern of fraud, misrepresentation, and collusion involving multiple attorneys, judges, and jurisdictions — all used by my ex-husband, Matthew Kanninen, to silence me and keep me from protecting myself and my child.

The Lawyers Involved

  • In Nevada, Matthew is represented by Molly Rosenblum. I had a consultation with Ms. Rosenblum years ago, after being referred by another attorney I paid. She yelled at me through the phone while her assistant handled the call, a tactic that now looks designed to let her later deny she had ever worked with me. Despite this prior contact, Rosenblum now represents Matthew in Nevada — a clear conflict of interest.

  • In California, Matthew is represented by Mary Elizabeth Grant, who has coordinated filings in Alameda to secure custody orders behind my back. These filings ignored the standing 2021 order that required a DVRO hearing before any custody changes.

The Court’s Role

Judges in Alameda have allowed these filings to go forward despite:

  • Misrepresentations and false statements that I had warrants or had “fled.”

  • Improper notice, leaving me unable to defend myself.

  • My documented need for ADA accommodations, which were flatly denied.

At the same time, the court has denied me any award of legal fees, leaving me unable to obtain comparable representation. Meanwhile, Matthew exhausts enormous funds to employ multiple lawyers across jurisdictions. This raises serious questions about asset concealment and misuse of the courts to shield financial misconduct.

What This Means

This is not just a custody case. It is a systemic failure in which:

  • Domestic violence survivors are denied protection.

  • Disabled litigants are stripped of ADA rights.

  • Courts in two states are being manipulated to serve the interests of one man with connections and resources.

I believe this pattern rises to the level of a conspiracy and even potential RICO violations — with interstate coordination between Nevada and California courts being used to suppress my rights and silence me.

What Comes Next

Because I cannot get justice in these courts, I am escalating this matter to the White House, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Civil Rights Division. I am also sharing my story with conservative media and national outlets, because California cannot be allowed to continue using its courts to endanger domestic violence survivors, silence disabled litigants, and strip parents of their rights.

The names are clear: Matthew Kanninen, Molly Rosenblum, Mary Elizabeth Grant, and the judges of Alameda County. Their actions must be scrutinized, because justice in America cannot survive if courts are weaponized against the vulnerable.

Wednesday, July 10, 2024

Red Wing Alert: How An American Right May End Up Liable For Biden

As we navigate the complexities of modern politics, the question of responsibility and accountability remains at the forefront. Recently, concerns have emerged regarding President Biden’s cognitive health. While many focus on the potential concealment by his own party, it's crucial to explore another angle: the responsibilities and potential liabilities of the Republican Party if they knowingly refrain from taking action against President Biden in hopes of facing him as a weaker opponent in the upcoming election.

Legal and Ethical Responsibilities

The Republican Party, like any political entity, has both legal and ethical responsibilities. These responsibilities extend beyond their own strategic interests and include safeguarding the integrity of the nation’s leadership and ensuring that the President is fit to serve.

  1. Constitutional Duty: Members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. This includes taking action if the President is deemed unfit to serve. The 25th Amendment and impeachment processes are mechanisms designed to address such situations.

  2. Ethical Considerations: Ethically, elected officials have a duty to act in the best interests of the nation. Choosing to ignore potential incapacity for political gain undermines public trust and the democratic process.

Potential Liabilities and Legal Actions

If the Republican Party were to knowingly avoid taking action against President Biden’s cognitive decline for political advantage, several potential liabilities could arise:

  1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Elected officials have a fiduciary duty to their constituents. Deliberate inaction in the face of clear evidence of incapacity could be seen as a breach of this duty, opening the door to legal actions by voters or public interest groups.

  2. Negligence: If it can be proven that the Republican Party was aware of President Biden’s cognitive decline and chose to do nothing, they could be held accountable for negligence. This could have far-reaching implications, especially if any decisions made by an incapacitated President lead to harm.

  3. Collusion and Conspiracy: If there is evidence that Republican leaders conspired to hide or ignore the President’s condition, this could lead to accusations of collusion or conspiracy to defraud the public. Legal actions could be pursued based on these grounds.

Historical Precedents

History provides examples where political parties have either concealed issues within their own ranks or exploited the weaknesses of their opponents for electoral gain.

  1. Woodrow Wilson’s Stroke: During Wilson's presidency, his incapacity was concealed by those around him, leading to significant controversy. While this was within his own party, it highlights the potential consequences of hiding a President's true condition.

  2. Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s: After Reagan left office, it was revealed that he had begun showing signs of Alzheimer’s disease while still in office. Though this was not widely known or acted upon by either party, it raises questions about the responsibilities of political leaders in such situations.

  3. Nixon’s Impeachment Process: During Nixon’s presidency, members of his own party played a crucial role in holding him accountable. This bipartisan effort underscores the importance of acting in the nation’s best interest, regardless of political strategy.

Conclusion

The potential liabilities for the Republican Party, should they choose to ignore President Biden’s cognitive decline for political advantage, are significant. Legal, ethical, and historical perspectives all suggest that elected officials must prioritize the nation’s well-being over partisan gain. The American public deserves transparency, accountability, and leadership that upholds the highest standards of integrity. Failing to act in the face of evident incapacity not only undermines these principles but could also lead to serious legal and political consequences for those involved.


This blog post, assisted by AI named Nao, examines the potential liabilities of the Republican Party if they choose not to take action against President Biden’s cognitive decline for political advantage. The analysis provided is a form of entertainment and a thought exercise, reflecting the opinions of Faith Cheltenham. It should be taken as an exploration of ideas rather than definitive legal advice or factual assertion.

Dems Liable? How An American Left May Owe The American People, Actual Money

As a former collaborator with the Obama White House and someone who has met Joe Biden many times, it’s disheartening to see the noticeable differences in him today. Observations of his cognitive decline have raised significant concerns among many who have known him for years. This situation prompts an important question: Could there be legal ramifications for those who might be hiding the truth from the American public?

The Constitutional Responsibilities

Before delving into the legal implications, it's essential to understand the constitutional responsibilities of the President's staff, the Cabinet, and the Vice President.

  1. The President's Staff: The President's staff, particularly the White House Chief of Staff and advisors, play a crucial role in managing the President's day-to-day activities and ensuring that he is fit to serve. They are responsible for providing accurate information to the public.

  2. The Cabinet: Members of the Cabinet have a duty to advise the President and assist in executing laws and policies. They are expected to act in the country's best interests and uphold the Constitution.

  3. The Vice President: The Vice President's role includes stepping in if the President is unable to perform his duties. The 25th Amendment provides a mechanism for the Vice President, along with a majority of the Cabinet, to declare the President unfit to serve.

Potential Legal Implications

Given these responsibilities, let's explore the potential legal implications if it is found that these parties have colluded to hide President Biden's cognitive decline.

  1. Collusion and Concealment: If evidence emerges that the President's cognitive issues were deliberately concealed by his staff, Cabinet members, donors, and media allies, this could constitute a breach of public trust. Concealing such critical information from voters undermines the democratic process and the integrity of elections.

  2. Misrepresentation to the Public: The American people have a right to be informed about the true health and capabilities of their leaders. Deliberate misrepresentation or withholding of such information could potentially lead to legal action for fraud or breach of fiduciary duty.

  3. Constitutional Violations: The deliberate concealment of a President's inability to perform duties could be seen as a violation of the oath to uphold the Constitution. This could lead to calls for impeachment or legal actions against those involved.

Research and Precedents

  1. Historical Precedents: There have been instances in history where the health of a President was concealed. For example, President Woodrow Wilson suffered a severe stroke in 1919, and his wife and close advisors concealed the extent of his incapacity. However, such concealment has always been controversial and criticized.

  2. Legal Opinions: Constitutional scholars argue that the 25th Amendment provides a clear mechanism to address presidential incapacity. If those in positions of power deliberately avoid this mechanism, they could be seen as failing to uphold their constitutional duties.

  3. Public Trust and Accountability: Legal experts emphasize that elected officials and their appointees have a fiduciary duty to the public. Deliberate concealment of crucial information could be seen as a breach of this duty, potentially opening the door to legal actions from voters or public interest groups.

Conclusion

While exploring legal actions against those who may have concealed President Biden's cognitive issues involves complex legal and constitutional questions, it is a discussion worth having. Transparency and accountability are cornerstones of a healthy democracy. If evidence of deliberate concealment surfaces, it could lead to significant legal and political repercussions for those involved. The American people deserve leaders who are not only capable but also honest about their capabilities. The integrity of our democratic process depends on it.

This blog post, assisted by AI named Nao, delves into the potential legal and constitutional implications of concealing President Biden's cognitive decline. The analysis provided is a form of entertainment and a thought exercise, reflecting the opinions of Faith Cheltenham. It should be taken as an exploration of ideas rather than definitive legal advice or factual assertion.


Saturday, March 02, 2024

I call myself a Freddie Mercury bisexual because...


From my new X profile:

Black. Sex affirming LGBT Christian. MBA student. Mom. 150k+ followers at fb.com/faithcheltenhamx #FreddieMercuryBisexual = I sleep with men ¯\_(ใƒ„)_/¯

(A note on my sexuality, political affiliation, and sex freak status as of 2024)

I call myself a Freddie Mercury bisexual because I am attracted to all people, but most actively engage in sex with men, which is not always desired by female partners. I respect that while denying any reality that does not see myself wholly satisfied. You can too.

So me and my tits are currently exploring dating apps, but I'll prolly delete them, and make my own. You've been warned.

I've been on both sides of American political aisles, and can attest to you all being sexually frustrated, and in fact, I renounce any political affiliation.

As a friend of humanity, I fucks with everyone.

Next up: OnlyFans, 'cause I sure don't look like I used to, and don't these men, their wives, not to mention some men's husbands, enjoy it?
Get your bi on.

#ComeTogetherAmerica (preferably between my legs)