#Exculpatory Agreement

[recreation-law]

States that allow a parent to sign away a minor’s right to sue.

Unless listed here, your state does not allow a parent or guardian to sign away a minor’s right to sue. State By Statute Restrictions Alaska Alaska: Sec. 09.65.292 Sec. 05.45.120 does not allow using a release by ski areas for ski injuries Arizona ARS § 12-553 Limited to Equine Activities Colorado C.R.S. §§13-22-107 Florida Florida Statute § 744.301 (3) Florida statute that allows a parent…

[beardedmrbean]

COLUMBUS, Ohio – An Ohio man will receive $1.3 million from the state of Ohio as compensation for the 21 years he spent in prison for a reported home invasion and robbery that perhaps never occurred.

Ralph Blaine Smith will split the amount with his lawyers, who in December filed a wrongful imprisonment claim against the state in the Ohio Court of Claims. A settlement agreement between the two parties was reached shortly thereafter.

On Monday, the Ohio Controlling Board approved the release of the settlement payment to Smith for his wrongful imprisonment claim.

Reached by phone Tuesday, Smith said the settlement will allow him to take care of his family.

"They helped me out a lot when I was incarcerated with visits and phone calls. I'd like to make things a little easier on them," he said.

Smith was accused of being one of two Black men who forced their way into a Lancaster home that was occupied by a man and a woman and their young children on Feb. 2, 2000. The adults told police the intruders reportedly forced one of them to open a safe, from which they stole rare comic books and approximately $10,000 in cash.

Canada: Gunman in Canadian mass shooting had feud with condo board; 3 of 5 victims board members, police say

Chicago: A corrupt cop destroyed hundreds of lives. Now victims want justice.

Judge claims prosecutors withheld evidence 

The prosecution's case hinged entirely on the two adult victims identifying Smith from a photo array, which they reaffirmed in court testimony. There was no other evidence linking Smith to the crime, and no one else has been charged in the case. None of the items reported stolen was recovered.

Fairfield County Common Pleas Judge Richard E. Berens in June 2021 granted Smith a new trial, ruling that prosecutors at the time had withheld evidence that suggested the crime never occurred.

Fairfield County Prosecutor Kyle Witt, who wasn't the prosecutor at the time of Smith's conviction in August 2000, later decided to drop all charges against Smith rather than pursue a second trial.

The motion for a new trial for Smith focused on evidence suggesting that the crime may have been staged. Among the pieces of evidence that county prosecutors at the time failed to provide to the defense was a narrative supplement, written by one of the first police officers to arrive at the residence after the reported robbery.

That supplemental narrative "contains numerous observations expressing skepticism about whether a crime had occurred," Berens stated in his order granting Smith a new trial. The responding officer wondered how multiple men could have conducted an armed home invasion and fled the Lancaster house without leaving tracks in the snow that covered the area.

Berens determined that evidence was "exculpatory," meaning that it could create reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt and that prosecutors were required to share it with the defense.

Smith also is pursuing a federal lawsuit against the Pickerington police detective who investigated his case, the city of Pickerington and Fairfield County. Depositions in that case are ongoing, said Columbus defense attorney Joe Landusky.

Also named as a defendant in that lawsuit filed in January 2022 in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio in Columbus was then-Fairfield County Prosecutor Gregg Marx, who handled Smith’s case. But U.S. District Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley in November dismissed the claims made against Marx, court records show.

[vhlegal]

What are Complex Criminal Cases and How Lawyers Deal Them?

Complex criminal cases present a myriad of challenges for both defendants and their legal representatives. These cases involve intricate legal issues, voluminous evidence, multiple parties, and often high stakes. Attorneys handling complex criminal cases must possess specialised skills, resources, and strategic acumen to navigate the complexities of the legal system effectively. In this article, we'll explore what constitutes complex criminal cases and how a leading Brampton criminal lawyer deals with them.

Understanding Complex Criminal Cases

Complex criminal cases encompass a wide range of legal matters, including:

White-Collar Crimes: Cases involving financial fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, or corporate misconduct often involve complex financial transactions and extensive documentary evidence.

Organised Crime: Prosecutions targeting organised crime syndicates, drug cartels, or racketeering enterprises require attorneys to unravel intricate criminal networks and present evidence linking defendants to criminal activities.

Federal Prosecutions: Federal criminal cases, such as those involving violations of federal law or interstate criminal activity, often involve complex legal statutes, federal regulations, and federal court procedures.

Cybercrimes: With the rise of cybercrimes such as hacking, identity theft, or online fraud, attorneys must grapple with complex digital evidence, cybersecurity issues, and jurisdictional challenges.

Massive Document Cases: Cases involving large volumes of documentary evidence, such as electronic discovery in complex litigation or government investigations, require attorneys to manage, review, and analyse extensive records efficiently.

9 Strategies for Handling Complex Criminal Cases

Check out the nine strategies that attorneys devise in complicated cases.

A  criminal lawyer dealing with complex cases employs various strategies to effectively represent their clients and navigate the complexities of the legal process:

Early Case Assessment: Attorneys conduct a comprehensive assessment of the case early on to identify legal issues, assess the strength of the evidence, and develop a strategic plan for defence or prosecution.

Team Collaboration: Complex criminal cases often require collaboration among attorneys, paralegals, investigators, forensic experts, and other professionals. Lawyers assemble a multidisciplinary team with diverse expertise to address different aspects of the case effectively.

Thorough Investigation: A  criminal lawyer conducts detailed investigations to collect evidence, interview witnesses, examine forensic evidence, and uncover any mitigating or exculpatory factors that may benefit their client's case.

Legal Research and Analysis: Complicated criminal cases involve intricate legal issues and statutes. Criminal attorneys conduct extensive legal analysis and investigation to understand relevant laws, precedents, and court rulings that may impact the case's outcome.

Strategic Planning: A  criminal lawyer develops a strategic plan tailored to the specific situations of the case, including pre-trial motions, trial preparation, witness examination, and presentation of evidence.

Effective Communication: Attorneys maintain open and transparent communication with their clients throughout the legal process, keeping them informed of developments, discussing legal options, and addressing any concerns or questions they may have.

Negotiation and Settlement: In some cases, a  criminal lawyer may negotiate plea bargains or settlement agreements with prosecutors to resolve the case expeditiously and achieve a favourable outcome for their clients.

Trial Advocacy: For cases that proceed to trial, lawyers employ persuasive advocacy techniques, present compelling evidence, and cross-examine witnesses to vigorously defend their clients' rights and interests.

Appeals and Post-Conviction Relief: In the event of an unfavourable outcome at trial, a  criminal lawyer may pursue appeals or post-conviction relief, challenging legal errors, constitutional violations, or ineffective assistance of counsel to seek reversal or modification of the judgement.

Conclusion

In conclusion, complex criminal cases present unique challenges for both defendants and their legal representatives. These cases involve intricate legal issues, voluminous evidence, and high stakes, requiring specialised skills, resources, and strategic acumen to navigate effectively. Lawyers such as Vincent Houvardas handling complex criminal cases conduct thorough investigations, collaborate with multidisciplinary teams, and formulate strategic plans tailored to the precise circumstances of each case. By employing effective strategies for case assessment, investigation, negotiation, trial advocacy, and appeals, the  Brampton criminal lawyer can effectively depict their clients' interests and achieve favourable outcomes in complex criminal proceedings.

[ear-worthy]

New iHeart Series About The Conviction of Black Activist To Debut

Like many, H. Rap Brown has a complicated legacy. He was a human rights activist, Muslim cleric, black separatist, a convicted robber, and convicted murderer who was the fifth chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in the 1960s. He served as the Black Panther Party's minister of justice during a short-lived (six months) alliance between SNCC and the Black Panther Party.

Yet over 20 years later, questions still linger about his arrest, trial, and conviction. Perhaps the biggest piece of exculpatory evidence is the confession by Otis Jackson of the murders before Brown's trial. At the time, the court did not consider Jackson's statement as evidence.

 Premiering December 5, 2023, the podcast tells the story of Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, a Muslim leader who was convicted of shooting two sheriff’s deputies — one fatally —in 2000, outside a mosque in one of Atlanta’s oldest neighborhoods. Prior to converting to Islam, Al-Amin was known as the Black Power activist H. Rap Brown, and was one of the most polarizing figures of the movement, gaining a reputation as a charismatic orator and passionate revolutionary. H. Rap Brown was an honorary officer in the Black Panther Party, and like his peers, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King JR., and Stokely Carmichael, was a target of the FBI’s COINTELPRO surveillance program.

The trial for the shootings took place just months after the September 11 attacks — a time of unprecedented anti-Muslim fervor in the United States — and Jamil Al-Amin was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.  Al-Amin, in prison to this day, has maintained his innocence, and by 2020, a glimmer of hope emerges as a “conviction integrity unit” begins to reexamine the case.

Leading Atlanta-based independent content production company Tenderfoot TV, and award-winning podcast studio Campside Media, have announced a multi-show partnership agreement. Both of the first-announced series sit at the intersection of social justice, true crime, and journalism, focused on stories from Atlanta, Georgia, where both companies have roots.

“Radical” is hosted by Mosi Secret, a former reporter for The New York Times and ProPublica who grew up in Atlanta’s African-American Muslim community. Secret takes listeners through this odyssey that spans the Jim Crow South, the Civil Rights Movement, the War on Drugs, and post-9/11 America, unraveling a story that transcends a murder trial to explore the impact on a community of Black Muslims in the South, revealing something deeper about violence in America, and who deserves to be called radical.

“Jamil Al-Amin was a crucial figure in Black history, and a vibrant leader who played an integral role in establishing a religious community in one of Atlanta’s oldest neighborhoods, yet many people do not know his story,” said “Radical” host, Mosi Secret. “This podcast is not just a story of a brutal murder and a manhunt, but a complex historical and political story, and one that showcases the consequences of violence for a small community of African American Muslims in the South.”

On the heels of the recently announced Cop City documentary with award-winning production company Ventureland, Tenderfoot TV and Campside Media will release an investigative podcast surrounding Atlanta’s controversial proposed police training facility. The indie podcast will cover the protests, violence, arrests and accusations of domestic terrorism erupted last year in response to the proposed $90M, 85-acre ‘Cop City,’ which is set to become one of the largest militarized police training centers in the United States. Told in eight episodes, the narrative will center specifically on the death of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán, a young activist killed by police in January 2023.

“Atlanta’s cultural and political influence is unmatched both nationwide and globally. The stories and figures that have shaped Atlanta — both historical and present-day — are as complex as the city itself,” said Donald Albright, CEO of Tenderfoot TV. “We’re proud to partner with Campside Media to take a deeper dive into the events taking place in our own backyard and told through the voices of our neighbors.”

[justice4initiative]

Wrongfully Convicted Statement

When I went to trial in September 2006 at the age of 22, I argued that I was not guilty of being a party to a crime of home invasion because I never entered the home. I argued that the initial plan was to burglarize the garage and when the plan changed to entering the home, I backed out. For the past 18 years I have been studying the law on this issue. When I was younger in my 20s I was misled into believing that just because I was on the scene of the crime that I was automatically party to the crime. It was this mistaken belief that caused me to develop a consciousness of guilt for the crimes I am in prison for. However upon further study of the law on this issue coupled with my level of education and maturity at the age of 39 I am certain that just because I was on the scene of the crime doesn't automatically make me guilty of being party to that crime. I feel like if I was granted a new trial this issue can be addressed and resolved in a more comprehensive and adequate manner than what was done at my first trial with all the constitutional violations and unlawful acts of corruption that process was subjected to. At the end of the day if I am found to be guilty of anything concerning the crimes I am in prison for, 50 years is an excessive sentence considering that no one was murdered. I have been in prison 18 years I have paid my debt to society for any wrongs I may be deemed to have committed.

The theory of the prosecution is that me and my codefendant Terez Cook committed the home invasion because we were the only two Black males in the vicinity when the crime was committed. Marinette County is 97% White and there are scarcely any Black people. The victims said their home was invaded by two Black males which makes it more likely than not that if me and Terez (two Black males) were in the vicinity when the crime was committed that we were the Black males who committed the crime. The prosecution based this theory on the testimony of Ashley Sadowski and Jessica Babic.

The theory of the defense is that Ashley and Jessica are presenting false testimony that me and Terez were the only two Black males in the vicinity when the crime was committed. There were other Black males present which is proven by DNA evidence. I argued during my trial that I never participated in the home invasion. The plan was to burglarize the garage and when others changed the plan to a home invasion I backed out and refused to be a part of it.

It is my position that I was wrongfully convicted because had my case been fairly and lawfully processed through the court there is no way I would have been convicted of a home invasion I did not participate in. I was there but I backed out. The court allowed illegally obtained evidence to be presented against me, exculpatory DNA evidence was concealed from me, there is evidence of jury tampering and jury misconduct among other things. I refused to rat or snitch on the actual perpetrators of the crime and as a result I was targeted by a malicious prosecution. Wisconsin State law clearly states:

A person is a member of a conspiracy if, with intent that a crime be committed, the person agrees with or joins with another for the purpose of committing that crime. A conspiracy is a mutual understanding to accomplish some common criminal objective or to work together for a common criminal purpose. It is not necessary that the conspirators had any express or formal agreement, or that they had a meeting, or even that they all knew each other.

Even if you find that the defendant conspired with one or more other persons to commit crimes, you have to consider whether the defendant withdrew from the conspiracy before the crimes were committed. A person withdraws if he voluntarily changes his mind, no longer desires that the crimes be committed, and notifies the other parties concerned of the withdrawal within a reasonable period of time before the commission of the crimes so as to allow the others to also withdraw. A person who withdraws from such a conspiracy is not held accountable for the acts of the others and cannot be convicted of any crimes committed by the others after the timely notice of withdrawal. The State has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not timely withdraw from the commission of these offenses.

The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crimes charged, either directly or as a party to the crimes charged.

Please review the Justice for Atiba Kweli Kamali Campaign Purpose Statement for more information on how I was wrongfully convicted.

[libertariantaoist]

News Roundup 3/8/21

by Kyle Anzalone

US News

The FBI says that it is unaware of any guns being found at the Capitol during the 6th riot. [Link]

Three men were freed after being convicted of killing a New York police officer in 1996. The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. [Link]

The Quad – an anti-China group including the US, Japan, India, and Australia – will hold its first meeting between the heads of state this week. [Link]

Korea

South Korea agrees to pay the US more for troops deployed in South Korea. [Link]

The US/South Korean spring war games will be scaled back due to Covid. [Link]

Afghanistan

The US Envoy to Afghanistan proposed a ‘shake-up’ to the peace talks between the Taliban and Afghan government. Both sides rejected the suggestion. [Link]* The US says all options are on the table for Afghanistan. The US-Taliban agreement calls on the US to withdraw forces by May 1st. [Link]

Middle East

Vice President Kamala Harris spoke with Israel’s leader about the US unwavering support for Israel. [Link]

Israel’s Supreme Court ruled the state could build a Jewish-only elevator at the site of the Ibrahimi Mosque. [Link]

The Pope met with Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq. [Link]

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin says the US demands the right to bomb the Middle East to defend American troops occupying the Middle East. [Link]

Yemen

A Houthi drone attack hit a Saudi oil facility. The US said it is committed to defending Saudi Arabia. [Link]

Nearly 100 fighters died during a 24-hours period in central Yemen. [Link]

Read More

[donaldresslerfanfic]

Rating: M

Warnings: Strong Language, Sexual Content.

Word Count: 3266

Donald Ressler X OC Maggie Waters.

Chapter: Eighty-Five

Chapter Index

Story on Wattpad

Ressler.

I felt as if my world was falling appart little by little. Maybe not so dramatically, but a lot of the things I used to believe suddenly weren't real, Reddington wasn't Reddington, and Reddington wasn't a traitor. Two of the things that defined the beginning of my career in the FBI were no longer the things that defined me.

I felt as if the whole idea of Agent Ressler wasn't necessary. The one reason I was here, being the Commander in Chief for Reddington's case, was no more. There was no Reddington.

I'd let it slip after the briefing of a case that I knew Reddington was an imposter by doubting everything he did, and after the persuit of a tape recording, I got to hear in first row how Reddington had been framed.

I'd been called in as a witness for his trial to explain the Intel I had that made us reach the conclusion that he was a spy and had betrayed us. I attempted to not perjure myself, I really tried, but Liz needed answers. And so did I.

Reddington must've caught up on my attempt, and he asked me why I'd hesitated.

After hearing the tape, I felt half relieved that he was going to be taken out of the death penalty, the jury was going to rule to his favor, I knew that.

James had giving me a call earlier in the week, saying he was going to buy me a drink to celebrate Reddington's capture, and I thought after the trial would be a good time as any.

That was my first mistake, because when he made the connection of me having to testify for being head point in Reddington's case, he asked me about the trial.

"You know I can't say anything" I said, taking my beer bottle and giving him a side look.

"I know you can't. But you can not say it." I gave him a frown and shook my head.

"That's a bad idea"

"You can pat me down, I'm not wearing a wire" he said patting his chest.

"It's not because of that" I dismissed him.

"Why was the trial suddenly closed? It was supposed to be aired"

"Of that I actually have no idea" I said convincingly lying. I knew why the trial had been closed, it was for the immunity agreement and the current deal with the FBI and our taskforce. "Believe me, I was the first one eager to be there for the whole thing. I was very angry when it got shut down"

"But you got to see a little bit of it, you got called to testify"

"Yes" i said with a nod.

"And?"

"I testified" I nodded again. He gave me a chuckle and a shake of his head.

"You're seriously not going to say anything"

"I seriously am, I don't want to go to jail, my daughter's second birthday is in a few weeks"

"Oh yeah" he said in realization. I knew Maggie had invited him. "Still have to buy her something. You can give me a hint about that" he said with a chuckle.

"Give her something with a penguin on it, she'll love it"

"She likes penguins?"

"Yeah, it's somehow her favorite animal"

My eyes diverted to the TV on the wall, Reddington's face was on the screen and in the breaking news segment of every news channel. And of course, they talked about the lastest development, the non-guilty sentence on his traitor count.

James' flashed me a twist of eyebrows and a shake of his head.

"Son of a bitch did it. Unbelievable" he took a sip of his beer, finishing it and motioning at the bartender to give him another on. "How could he honestly?"

"It's not like he had a tape recording of him saying he didn't do it" I said.

"Haha, imagine" he chuckled. It took him a while to actually realize that I'd told him the key piece of evidence that was presented. He gave me a bewildered look, frowning in confusion.

"That's...." He scoffed "that's not possible. Not to sway the ruling like that. It can be that exculpatory"

I shrugged and finished my beer, fishing my phone out of my pocket. I looked at the screen, Maggie's face filling the screen.

"I have to go, but I'll see you in the birthday" I said patting James' back and heading out, picking up the call as I exited the bar. "Maggie" I saluted.

"Hey, are you on your way home?"

"Yeah, I just finished here"

"Good, because I kind of need some help" she said with a tired sigh.

"On my way" I said, then hung up.

Mags was definitely busier than me, she was working on a project all by herself, because it was that important, and the rest of the projects were left on hold. Her routine quickly went back to her being at her office at the house with a lot of blueprints, books she was reading for research, calls at all times, drawings, samples, boxes on top of boxes of materials. She couldn't necessarily tell me what she was working on, but it seemed important.

On top of her work, she'd been planning things for Alma's birthday, and now that she was older she put her two cents in every decision.

I arrived at the house and went straight to the office were Mags was walking around the room with the phone to her ear, whilst I waited for her to finish I changed out of my suit, and she found me when I was finishing with my shirt.

"Hey, I need you to pick up some things from the woman that's got the souvenirs for me, and be careful because it's like a-" she made a motion with her hand "it's glass, so be careful"

Maggie definitely didn't look like herself, she was as hectic as when she was with the casino project.

"Right" I nodded.

"And there's some samples I need to pick up from some other place if you could pick that one up, that would help"

"Okay" I nodded again.

"And I love the kid to death but if you could take her and just-" she sighed "I need peace for like two hours."

"Okay love, whatever you need"

"Thank you" she said with a sigh, then exited the room, I followed and looked for Alma on the way, she was in her bedroom, making a mess out of her toys.

"Hey" I called, she turned around and gave me a sheepish smile "let's get changed, we're going out"

She squealed in excitement, and headed to the drawer to pick something to wear. Honestly she had a better sense of style that Maggie and I combined, so I just let her pick a dress because we were in the dead of summer, and helped her with some sandals.

"Alright, let's go" I said pulling her on her feet and motioning at the door.

"I'm saying bye to mommy" she yelled as she ran out of the room, I walked behind her and watched her barge into the office, then began a string of 'mommies' until Maggie paid attention to her. I reached the door office and saw Maggie bend over and cover her phone with her hand.

"Yes, what" she asked

"Bye" Alma replied.

"Bye love" she kissed her forehead and looked up at me.

"Give daddy a kiss" she said pointing back at me.

"No, Alma let's let Mom work" she threw her head back and I walked to her, picking her up in my arms, she began complaining and Maggie complied kissing me quickly.

"There, now go, have fun" she said motioning at the door.

"Bye" Alma said waving her hand as I walked out of the room, closing the door behind me.

I didn't know why Alma always made Maggie kiss me, at first she was very jealous of me and would want Mags as far away as possible, but now she was all about the romanticism. I strapped her in the car seat and rolled out to the city. Mags had sent me the addresses of the things I needed to pick up, and after I did that in maybe half an hour, I took Alma to the mall and the kid's playground for a while.

Somehow even after I did all that and took Alma to the playground and made her play in every single one of the games, we still had one hour to go, and even though I wanted to give her more time to finish with her work, there was so much I could do with the kid.

We walked around the mall, I bought her another book, I bought her some candy, then she sadly saw the toy store and we lost a good half an hour there. I always bought her something if we were out, but she had so many toys that she honestly didn't need any more. Maggie donated often the ones she didn't get to use or the ones that she was too old to play with, and even then she had way too many. I think we could've gone to three vacations with the money we spent on things for the baby.

I quickly reminded myself of our last vacations, and it felt as if we'd just gone to Miami a few weeks ago, work had consumed my time in ways inimaginable.

At one point we were walking down the mall towards the parking lot, I had a watchful eye on Alma because she didn't feel like behind carried, and someone bent over next to her with an enthusiastic cheer. I looked closely to see one of Mag's friends, one of the many, saying hi to Alma. She looked up at me with a smile.

"Hi Don" she saluted, then looked back at Alma "hi princess, how are you?"

"Fine" she replied. She awed at her and leaned in to cup her cheeks and kiss her in the forehead.

"Just saw you guys and came to say hi" she said finally standing up and giving us both a look "say hi to Maggie for me"

"Will do, bye Crystal" I saluted, seeing Alma walk around her and take off. After a bit of walking and almost reaching the parking lot I pulled Alma up, because I didn't want her run around with cars nearby.

"Who's Maggie?" She asked out of nowhere as I reached the car and unlocked it.

"What do you mean who's Maggie?" I opened the door and sat her down at the car seat. "Maggie is your mom" I explained.

"Nah-ah" she said shaking her head. That type of denial she'd gotten it from Nathan in the off times they were together, even though he was like 8 years old now.

"Ye-ah" I said imitating her tone.

"Nah-ah" she said, now more angry, she had an incredible temper for a two year old.

"Yeah, that's her name"

"She's mommy"

"Nah-ah" I said, with a chuckle. I finished with her seatbelt and got into the car, hearing the beginning of a fit. Alma's fits were mostly just fake crying with her head thrown back and staying still until someone came to try and calm her down. She wasn't the type to trash around and scream at the top of her lungs, at least not for now.

I gave in to the joke after she cried all the way out of the parking lot, and she  usually forgot what she was crying about when we got moving and she got distracted looking outside, but I wasn't about to get yelled at by Mags for making the baby cry on purpose, so I just told her okay, that she was right, and she instantly stopped crying.

I turned on the radio to some music and saw her move after a while to the songs, and she continued until we reached the house.

Alma instantly dashed in, probably to tell on me to Mags, and I busied myself taking out the things from the trunk.

"Hey" I heard Mags from the garage door as I took the box with her samples and placed it at my feet "what's with you making her mad?" She asked, I lifted my eyes to her holding Alma on her arms. Mags was just following along, and Alma looked at me, kind of ducking my gaze for making Maggie scold me.

"I'm sorry" I said.

"I'm going to put you on time out, don't make the baby cry" she said, giving me a wink.

"Okay, I'll stop making her mad"

Maggie looked down at Alma, and she hugged herself to Mag's neck, landing her cheek on her shoulder.

"Are those my samples?" She asked. I closed the trunk and took the box again.

"Yes love"

"Nice" she said giving it a quick inspection "can you put it in my office please, I'll check it now before I make dinner" she said walking out of the garage, I followed and talked with her as we reached the office.

"I can take care of that if you'd like" I offered. Mags looked back at me and motioned at the floor. I heard her phone go off just as I was setting the box down, she picked it up and got right back to it.

I was kind of unnerved when I saw a video playing on her computer, and as  she took a piece of tile that she was supposed to match with the one in the video, the camera panned up and focused on the face of a man that I recognized.

He wasn't a particular big deal but I knew for a fact that he was in the list of people that James and the taskforce I used to work on was after.

I didn't know how to react, I couldn't step in to help, and couldn't step in to tell Maggie not to help. I just wished that she wasn't the kind of professional people turned to for an opinion or work.

I wasn't paying attention to the conversation because I knew that would confirm what I suspected. She hung up and patted Alma on her back, she didn't look like she was going anywhere, and Mags had her on arms as she finished with some details.

"I'll take your offer on dinner" she said pressing play on the video again.

"Roger" I said, turning around and walking out of the room.

Making dinner was easy during the summer, and I got that ready in half an hour. Mags finally made it out of the cave and sat Alma on the high chair of the dining room, then walking a few steps to the kitchen to help.

"Are you done?" I said, trying to sound casual.

"Yeah, at least for what I can do today" she said taking a few plates from the cupboard.

I followed with the food as she finished with the glasses and the other things, then gave me a funny look as I served her.

"Okay, Gordon Ramsey" she said, inspecting the plate "any other hidden talents I should know about?"

"There's many, but I like to keep it interesting" she chuckled, then sat at the table. To be fair, cooking was just following instructions, it wasn't hard to cook something watching a ten minute video on YouTube.

I spent a few minutes looking at Mags sort food for Alma, thankfully she was not picky about the food, she ate just about everything, then she looked at me,  checking that I hadn't served myself anything.

"You're not eating?" She asked, getting to her plate.

"No" I said, she frowned and gave me another look.

"Why?"

"I'm not in the mood" I dismissed. She pouted, then moved her chair to sit closer to me, being a little restricted by the corner of the table.

"Are you okay?" She said placing her hand on my temple.

"Yeah, I guess" I shook my head and took her hand in mine, watching her reluctantly start eating. "I'm just... Disappointed I guess. I mean, first Reddington is not Reddington and now he's not even a traitor. That's the two things that defined my job and basically my career path and now... It doesn't even matter."

"It's not like it doesn't matter" she said, giving my hand a squeeze. "I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of it"

"I can try" I said with a chuckle. "Don't know how far I'm going to get, being about Reddington"

"I think you'll get far enough" she assured.

"You have a lot of faith in me"

"One of us has to" I looked at her with a smile, then leaned to kiss her hand.

This woman was just so damn precious to me.

"I'd like you to be careful" I said before she finished with dinner.

"I'd like you to not spy on me" she said with a chuckle, knowing that I had seen what she was working on. "I also-" she said standing up and walking up to where I was sitting, she threw her leg over my lap and straddled me. "Would like a back massage" She rounded my neck with her arms, and I quietly placed my hand on her waist. "I've been working hard"

"I guess I can do that. I've been your slave all day" I jokingly complained, she opened her mouth in a surprised gesture.

"I thought you would enjoy giving me a back massage"

"Oh, so it's a favor to me then?"

"Yeah" she said with a chuckle, I laughed with her and hugged her by the waist, I pulled her in and kissed her on her neck, hugging her fully. I felt her caress on the back of my ear, and honestly it was my favorite spot. I gave a comfort sigh  and placed my chin on her shoulder. When my eyes landed on Alma I chuckled, she was passed out on the high chair.

Mags pulled back and looked behind her, she laughed as well, standing up from my lap and heading to her she carefully moved the tray forward and pulled Alma up, she was startled at first but Mags shushed her and held her to her chest, patting her on the back.

I cleaned up the table and filled the dishwasher, finding Mags cutting the corner just as I was leaving the kitchen. Mags quietly checked that everything was set, then turned off the lights and we both walked towards the bedroom.

"Why did you make Alma mad?" She asked out of nowhere as I was moving my thumbs on both sides of her neck along the spine.

"She found out that your real name isn't 'mommy'"

She chuckled and turned her body to me, rubbing her neck. She placed her hand on my thigh and patted it.

"Are you okay?" I nodded with my head "you don't need anything?".

"I'm good love".

She gave me a tight lipped smile and moved to lay on the bed, covering herself with just a sheet.

"I have the next few days off to help you with the birthday if you want" I said, laying on the bed myself.

"That would be nice" she said with a sigh, I gave her a quick look, she had her eyes closed and was hugging a little pillow.

I didn't sleep much that night. Reddington may have won this battle, but I wasn't so sure he was going to win this war.

[ml-pnp]

It’s as if Judge Sullivan has never seen a plea agreement before. Plea agreements have long been abused. It’s common for defendants facing the might of the federal government to lie about a lesser wrong to escape endless trials, personal bankruptcy, undeserved guilty verdicts, or, in Flynn’s case, the government’s threat to go after his son. Any agreement entered into under duress is invalid.

That same duress also applied to Flynn’s counsel. Under pressure from the prosecution, Flynn’s attorneys immediately abandoned their fiduciary duty to him. When they should have demanded that the government produce exculpatory documents, they instead encouraged Flynn, who knew nothing about the legal maze in which he found himself, to cop to a guilty plea.

[rewritenumberthirteen]

A Glossary of Selected Criminal Justice Terms to Help Aid You in Your Conversations.

-A-

Acquittal- A judgement stating the defendant has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Affidavit- A written statement of facts as asserted by the author. Affidavits must either be notarized or administered by an officer of the court.

Alford plea- A plea where the defendant asserts their innocence, but allows the court to sentence them without conducting a trial. This pleas recognizes that there is significant evidence to prove guilt and is often entered as a negotiating tool for a more lenient sentence.

Allegation- An assertion of fact by both the prosecution and defense from which their case is founded. 

Appeal- A request made to another court (usually the court of appeals) to reexamine the legitimacy of the original trial. Appeals are available to both the prosecutor and defendant and are requested for a variety of reasons.

-B-

Bench trial- A trial in which a judge decides the facts.

Beyond a reasonable doubt- The standard in which prosecutors must prove the guilt of the defendant.

Binding precedent- A previous decision that must be upheld by the court without a compelling reason. This is also known as case law.

-C-

Capitol offense- A crime punishable by death usually associated with first degree murder, but can also be associated with treason and genocide.

Circumstantial evidence- Any evidence that is based on inference (such as eyewitness testimony).

Conviction- A judgement of guilt for the defendant.

-D-

Direct evidence- Evidence that supports a fact without an inference.

-E-

Exculpatory evidence- Evidence that tends to show the innocence of the defendant.

-F-

Felony- A crime that carries more than a year of prison time if convicted.

-G-

Grand jury- A group of citizens who listen to evidence of criminal allegations in order to determine the validity of an accusation.

-H-

Habeas corpus- A writ to determine the validity of a prisoner’s detention.

-I-

Inculpatory Evidence- Evidence that tends to show the defendant’s guilt.

-J-

Jury- People selected according to law and sworn to look into and deliver a verdict on matters of fact.

-M-

Misdemeanor- Often a petty offense that is punishable by no more than a year in prison

Mistrial- A trial in which there was a fundamental error, and must start again—beginning with the selection of a new jury.

-N-

Nolo contendere- A plea of no contest that has the same effect as a guilty plea, but cannot be considered an admonition of guilt.

-P-

Petit jury- A group of six or twelve citizens who hear evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense at trial in order to determine the facts. 

Plea- The defendant’s assertion in response to the charges levied against them (guilty, not guilty, nolo contendere, or Alford plea). 

Plea deal- An agreement between the prosecution and the defense where the defendant pleads guilty in order to receive a more lenient sentence, lesser charges, or a dismissal of charges.

Probable cause- Reasonable grounds for suspicion, apprehension by law enforcement, and pressing charges.

Probation- A sentencing alternative to prison in which the convicted defendant is released, monitored, and given stipulations in which they must follow in order to avoid going to prison.

Pro se- Latin for “on one’s own behalf” where the defendant represent themselves without the aid of lawyers.

Prosecute- To charge someone with a crime.

Prosecutor- Someone who tries criminal cases on behalf of the government.

Prosecutorial immunity- Protection against civil and criminal lawsuits where prosecutorial misconduct is alleged.

-S-

Sequester- To separate. Often juries are sequestered from outside influences during the deliberation process.

Statute- Law passed by a legislature. 

Statute of limitations- A law that sets a timeline for which a parties involved can take action to enforce their rights.

Subpoena- A command for a witness to appear and give testimony.

Subpoena duces tecum- A command for a witness to produce documents.

-T-

Trial- A formal examination of evidence before a judge, and usually a jury, in order to assess guilt of the defendant in criminal or civil proceedings.

-V-

Verdict- The decision of a petit jury or judge based on the evidence presented.

Victim advocate- Someone who works with prosecutors and assist the victims of a crime.

Voir dire- The process in which petit juries are selected by the lawyers and judges. 

-W-

Warrant- A legal or government document authorizing actions relating to the administration of justice.

Witness- A person called by either side in a lawsuit to give testimony before the court.

Writ- A formal written command, issued from the court, requiring the execution of a specific act.

This list is by no means meant to be exhaustive. However it should aid you in general conversations about criminal justice and prison reform.

[princeescaluswords]

By the way, this is the proof that Peter’s excuse of being out of his mind is bunkum. Three months before the start of the show, Peter was already plotting with Nurse Jennifer to lure Laura back here./Do you think there's a timeframe for when someone can be insane or something?? Those of us who claim Peter Hale is mentally ill are mostly all in agreement that he became mentally ill the moment his family was burned alive/he was put in a hospital and spent years in a coma trapped in his own head.

No, I don’t think that there’s a time frame on mental illness; I think it’s a complex subject.  However I do think that when a person demonstrates rational and self-directed behavior toward a clear goal, when a person takes steps to insure their well being and continued freedom to act, and when a person demonstrates an awareness of the consequences for their actions, the fact that they’ve endured mental trauma is no longer exculpatory. 

In other words – Peter went through something terrible, but it doesn’t excuse what he did in Season 1.   He was clearly aware of what he was doing and what it meant.  He was aware of the dangers and the difference between right and wrong.  He recognized what he did to Scott, to Lydia, to Stiles, and to Laura as terrible acts, and he just didn’t care. 

Tell me this – thanks to Peter, Scott endured the same trauma on top of the trauma he already endured.   Do you think that Scott McCall was mentally ill?  Do you think he shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions afterwards?  I’m pretty sure you don’t.  How about Lydia Martin?  How about Jennifer Blake?  How about Deucalion?

It just boggles my mind how many people want to say that Peter shouldn’t be held responsible for what he did in Season 1 and then turn around and celebrate the fact that Peter did what he did in Season 1.   Do you know how many times I’ve read a member of the fandom writing that, well, yeah, Peter ruined a few innocent lives, but he avenged his family and that’s all that matters?  

[recreation-law]

Kentucky appellate court upholds the use of a release to stop claims from injuries using a zip line.

Kentucky appellate court upholds the use of a release to stop claims from injuries using a zip line.

Plaintiff did not make very good arguments, and court pointed that out. Bowling v. Mammoth Cave Adventures, LLC (Ky. Ct. App. 2020) State: Kentucky: Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals Plaintiff: Billy D. Bowling Defendant: Mammoth Cave Adventures, LLC Plaintiff Claims: (1) an employee of MCA negligently misrepresented that he could zip line despite being over the weight limit, (2) MCA…

[beardedmrbean]

NEW YORK — The city of New York is settling lawsuits filed on behalf of two men who were exonerated last year for the 1965 assassination of Malcolm X, agreeing to pay $26 million for the wrongful convictions which led to both men spending decades behind bars.

The state of New York will pay an additional $10 million. David Shanies, an attorney representing the men, confirmed the settlements on Sunday.

"Muhammad Aziz, Khalil Islam, and their families suffered because of these unjust convictions for more than 50 years," said Shanies said in an email. "The City recognized the grave injustices done here, and I commend the sincerity and speed with which the Comptroller's Office and the Corporation Counsel moved to resolve the lawsuits."

Shanies said the settlements send a message that "police and prosecutorial misconduct cause tremendous damage, and we must remain vigilant to identify and correct injustices."

Last year, a Manhattan judge dismissed the convictions of Aziz, now 84, and Islam, who died in 2009, after prosecutors said new evidence of witness intimidation and suppression of exculpatory evidence had undermined the case against the men. Then-District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. apologized for law enforcement's "serious, unacceptable violations of law and the public trust."

The New York City Law Department, through a spokesperson, said Sunday it "stands by" Vance's opinion that the men were wrongfully convicted and the financial agreement "brings some measure of justice to individuals who spent decades in prison and bore the stigma of being falsely accused of murdering an iconic figure."

Shanies said over the next few weeks the settlement documents will be signed and the New York court that handles probate matters will have to approve the settlement for Islam's estate. The total $36 million will be divided equally between Aziz and the estate of Islam.

Aziz and Islam, who maintained their innocence from the start in the 1965 killing at Upper Manhattan's Audubon Ballroom, were paroled in the 1980s.

Malcolm X gained national prominence as the voice of the Nation of Islam, exhorting Black people to claim their civil rights "by any means necessary." His autobiography, written with Alex Haley, remains a classic work of modern American literature.

Near the end of Malcolm X's life, he split with the Black Muslim organization and, after a trip to Mecca, started speaking about the potential for racial unity. It earned him the ire of some in the Nation of Islam, who saw him as a traitor.

He was shot to death while beginning a speech Feb. 21, 1965. He was 39.

Aziz and Islam, then known as Norman 3X Butler and Thomas 15X Johnson, and a third man were convicted of murder in March 1966. They were sentenced to life in prison.

The third man, Mujahid Abdul Halim — also known as Talmadge Hayer and Thomas Hagan — admitted to shooting Malcolm X but said neither Aziz nor Islam was involved. The two offered alibis, and no physical evidence linked them to the crime. The case hinged on eyewitnesses, although there were inconsistencies in their testimony.

Attorneys for Aziz and Islam said in complaints that both Aziz and Islam were at their homes in the Bronx when Malcolm X was killed. They said Aziz spent 20 years in prison and more than 55 years living with the hardship and indignity attendant to being unjustly branded as a convicted murderer of one of the most important civil rights leaders in history.

Islam spent 22 years in prison and died still hoping to clear his name.

[latinbossboy9]

FindLaw Legal Dictionary

The FindLaw Legal Dictionary -- free access to over 8260 definitions of legal terms. Search for a definition or browse our legal glossaries.

term:

Evidence

evidence n

[Medieval Latin evidentia, from Latin, that which is obvious, from evident- evidens clear, obvious, from e- out of, from + videns, present participle of videre to see]

: something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof

;esp

: something (as testimony, writings, or objects) presented at a judicial or administrative proceeding for the purpose of establishing the truth or falsity of an alleged matter of fact see also admissible, best evidence rule, exclusionary rule, exhibit, foundation, objection, preponderance of the evidence, relevant, scintilla, state's evidence, suppress, testimony, witness Federal Rules of Evidence in the Important Laws section compare allegation, argument, proof

best evidence

: evidence that is the most reliable and most direct in relationship to what it is offered to prove see also best evidence rule

char·ac·ter evidence

: evidence of a particular human trait (as honesty or peacefulness) of a party or witness see also character witness at witness NOTE: Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, character evidence generally may not be used to prove that a person acted in accordance with that character. It is admissible for that purpose, however, if a criminal defendant offers it about himself or herself or about the victim, or if the prosecution offers evidence to rebut the defendant's evidence in either of those circumstances. The prosecution may also rebut a claim of self-defense by presenting evidence of the peaceful character of the victim. Additionally, the character of a witness with regard to truthfulness may be attacked or supported by opinion or by evidence of reputation.

circumstantial evidence

: evidence that tends to prove a factual matter by proving other events or circumstances from which the occurrence of the matter at issue can be reasonably inferred compare direct evidence in this entry

clear and convincing evidence

: evidence showing a high probability of truth of the factual matter at issue compare preponderance of the evidence, reasonable doubt

com·mu·ni·ca·tive evidence

[kə-myü-nə-kə-tiv-, -kā-tiv-]

: testimonial evidence in this entry

competent evidence

: evidence that is admissible, relevant, and material to the factual matter at issue

corroborating evidence

: evidence that is independent of and different from but that supplements and strengthens evidence already presented as proof of a factual matter called also corroborative evidence compare cumulative evidence in this entry

cumulative evidence

: evidence that is of the same kind as evidence already offered as proof of the same factual matter compare corroborating evidence in this entry

de·mon·stra·tive evidence

: evidence in the form of objects (as maps, diagrams, or models) that has in itself no probative value but is used to illustrate and clarify the factual matter at issue

;broadly

: physical evidence in this entry called also illustrative evidence

derivative evidence

: evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful gathering of primary evidence called also indirect evidence secondary evidence see also fruit of the poisonous tree

direct evidence

: evidence that if believed immediately establishes the factual matter to be proved by it without the need for inferences

;esp

: evidence of a factual matter offered by a witness whose knowledge of the matter was obtained through the use of his or her senses (as sight or hearing) compare circumstantial evidence in this entry

evidence in chief

: evidence that is to be used by a party in making its case in chief

exculpatory evidence

: evidence that tends to clear a defendant from fault or guilt see also brady material NOTE: The prosecution in a criminal case is obligated to disclose to the defense any exculpatory evidence in its possession.

extrinsic evidence

1 : evidence regarding an agreement that is not included in the written version of the agreement NOTE: A court may use extrinsic evidence to make sense of an ambiguity in a writing subject to some limitations.

2 : evidence about a witness's character obtained from the testimony of other witnesses rather than from cross-examination of the witness himself or herself NOTE: A witness may not be impeached by the use of extrinsic evidence.

hearsay evidence

: a statement made out of court and not under oath and offered in evidence as proof that what is stated is true

: hearsay

il·lus·tra·tive evidence

: demonstrative evidence in this entry

impeachment evidence

: evidence that may be used to impeach a witness because it tends to harm the witness's credibility

indirect evidence

: derivative evidence in this entry

intrinsic evidence

: evidence that exists within a writing [the will contains ample intrinsic evidence of the testator's intent "Stoner v. Custer, 251 N.E.2d 668 (1968)"] compare extrinsic evidence in this entry

material evidence

: evidence that is likely to affect the determination of a matter or issue

;specif

: evidence that warrants reopening of a claim or reversal of a conviction because but for the circumstance that the evidence was unavailable the outcome of the first proceeding would have been different

no evidence

: evidence presented that is insufficient to prove a matter of esp. vital fact

: a point of error that insufficient evidence has been presented to support a finding

parol evidence

: evidence of matters spoken (as an oral agreement) that are related to but not included in a writing see also parol evidence rule

physical evidence

: tangible evidence (as a weapon, document, or visible injury) that is in some way related to the incident that gave rise to the case called also real evidence compare demonstrative evidence and testimonial evidence in this entry

presumptive evidence

: prima facie evidence in this entry

prima facie evidence

: evidence that is sufficient to prove a factual matter at issue and justify a favorable judgment on that issue unless rebutted

pri·ma·ry evidence

1 : best evidence in this entry

2 : evidence obtained as a direct result of an unlawful search

re·al evidence

: physical evidence in this entry

rebuttal evidence

: evidence that tends to refute or discredit an opponent's evidence

relevant evidence

: evidence that tends to prove or disprove any issue of fact that is of consequence to the case

secondary evidence

: derivative evidence in this entry

sub·stan·tial evidence

: evidence greater than a scintilla of evidence that a reasonable person would find sufficient to support a conclusion

substantive evidence

: evidence offered to prove a factual issue rather than merely for impeachment

testimonial evidence

: evidence given in writing or speech or in another way that expresses the person's thoughts compare physical evidence in this entry NOTE: Only testimonial evidence is protected by the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.

in evidence

: as evidence [introduced a letter in evidence]

vt -denced

-denc·ing

: to provide evidence of

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Published under license with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

Related Terms from the Criminal Law Glossary

Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

Carjacking

Character Evidence

Circumstantial Evidence

Crime

Criminal Civil Rights Violation

Criminal Law

Due Process Clause

Evidence

Exclusionary Rule

Expert Testimony

Federal Rules Of Evidence

Felony

Guilty Verdict

Hearsay

See More Criminal Law Terms

[radfemetc]

When Bindels speak*

Fourteen years ago, in an opinion column in The Guardian provocatively entitled ‘Gender Benders, Beware’, lesbian feminist activist Julie Bindel wrote that:

“I don’t have a problem with men disposing of their genitals, but it does not make them women, in the same way that shoving a bit of vacuum hose down your 501s does not make you a man.”

I vaguely remember reading this at the time, slightly bemused both at the piece and then at the subsequent outraged public reaction to it. Fast forward to a few months ago, and I’ve just published some blog pieces which, though not reaching Bindelesque proportions, have proved moderately controversial in my discipline, academic philosophy. As I discuss and defend my views on social media, and watch others discuss them, the name of Julie Bindel comes up repeatedly, as an example of company which, it is presumed, I absolutely don’t want to keep. A well-established male philosopher intones repeatedly about Bindel’s ‘offensive, transphobic’ comments in the past. Another describes her to me as a ‘loopy extremist’, and ‘potty’. I go back to find the article online and rather disbelievingly check whether it’s the same one I vaguely remember. It is.

Now, to attempt to mitigate against such perceptions, which perhaps you share, I could tell you about Bindel’s frankly stunning track record of effective activism, working on behalf of natal women and girls world-wide with an energy and bravery which borders on heroic. I could tell you that the context of her Guardian piece was partly a discussion of an attempt by trans women Kimberley Nixon to sue Vancouver Rape Relief for not allowing her to work with traumatised natal women fleeing male sexual violence: a case which rumbled on for another three years before Nixon lost, costing the shelter thousands of dollars to defend against. I could point out that the idiom of the piece was clearly intended to be comic, colourful, and frank, and was pretty funny in several places; for instance:

“When I were a lass, new to feminism and lesbianism, I was among the brigade who would sit in the women’s disco wearing vegetarian shoes and staring in disbelief at the butch/femme couples, mainly because they were having a better time than me”.

I could tell you that even so, she later apologised ‘unreservedly’ for writing the article. I could point out that many of the things she says in the piece are prescient, and over time have only got more troubling: worries about how trans ideology often essentialises wholly sexist gender stereotypes about masculine and feminine behaviour; about the development of a culture apparently in favour of cutting off parts of healthy bodies if one is ‘unhappy with the constraints of .. gender’; and about the harmful implied message sent by this culture to butch lesbians and camp gay men. And I could also easily manifest the anger I felt, as I read these online comments from middle-class heterosexual males, typing smugly and contemptuously about one moment fourteen years ago in the life of a working-class lesbian, who has devoted most of the rest of that life to addressing issues such as child grooming, sex trafficking, prostitution, and cross-border surrogacy; doing activism in the field, and not just from the armchair.

But to cite these facts as exculpatory of Bindel would suggest that an ordinary woman who had said roughly the same thing as her– that is, that trans women aren’t, in fact, women — and yet who was not already a heroic feminist defender of natal women, or who wasn’t partly talking about an odiously selfish individual such as Nixon, would be at fault. I deny this too. That is, I reject the near-pathological zeal with which trans activists, ‘trans allies’, and ‘woke blokes’ generally, seek to monitor and control natal women’s language in this domain: not just with respect to discussing whether trans women are actually women, but also in uses of particular names and pronouns, and gender attributions.

The statement “transwomen are women” has become a kind of mantra for so-called progressives. To understand what it is meant by it, we need to distinguish the use of that phrase, in those mouths, from two other contexts. One of those involves a claim about the law. Since 2004, those in the UK with a Gender Recognition Certificate are counted as having had their gender ‘reassigned’. This is not, and was never intended to be, any pronouncement on a biological fact. It is in fact impossible for a child or adult to biologically change sex. (I’m prepared to offer arguments for this, if needed, but most readers will, I hope, accept it as true). Nor was this law supposed to pronounce definitively on the question of whether a trans woman with a GRC ‘really is’ a woman. The Gender Recognition Act was at most intended to allow for a legal status — that of ‘gender reassignment’ — for the purposes of access to certain protections under the law.

A second version of the claim “trans women are women” is uttered for therapeutic reasons. One basis for self-identifying as a trans person is the condition of gender dysphoria. It is assumed by many medical practitioners that, on diagnosis of this condition, treating a person ‘as if’ belonging to their self-identified gender is helpful to their well-being; whereas confronting them with their ‘birth-assigned’ gender, or the biological facts of their sex, is not. We might easily interpret this as a kind of benevolent role-playing or method-acting, extending from the medical practitioner out into the wider community: act as if a trans woman is a woman, in most social contexts. But this is completely compatible with denying that trans women really arewomen, in a more committed sense.

Somehow, though, in recent years, a respectful concern for the well-being of trans people has supposedly morphed into a literal claim about category membership: trans women really are women. That is: trans women belong unambiguously in the category of women; the concept of woman literally applies to them. For most trans activists, this is supposed to be true whether the trans woman is a post-operative transsexual, or a trans woman on hormones, or whether she belongs to the significant proportion of trans women who are neither. She ‘is’ a women, whether she transitioned in her teens, or in middle-age; whether thirty years ago, or yesterday. Moreover, for many trans activists, not only are trans women literally women, but if they have children, they can be mothers. If they have female partners, they can be lesbians. They can be victims of misogyny. And so on. One by one, the familiar words women have used to describe themselves tumble like a chain of dominoes.

Such claims are usually unargued-for. They are presented more as self-evident truths; the outcome of revelation, perhaps, or as some article of faith which it would be downright evil to try to deny or complicate. As this description suggests, agreement with such claims is ruthlessly socially enforced by trans activists. Not only are you not supposed to refer to or imply, in front of a trans person, any fact about their natally-bestowed gender or biological sex; you aren’t suppose to mention these, even in their absence. To do otherwise is sometimes called a form of ‘violence’. Even on a massive UK discussion forum like Mumsnet, in a thread about trans people written by gender-critical feminists and directed towards fellow gender-critical feminists, you aren’t supposed to mention it. Even on a Whatsapp group chat involving natal women working at the BBC, you aren’t supposed to mention it. It doesn’t matter if your subject matter is Labour party all-woman shortlists, what to do about children who think they are trans, medical discussions, biology teaching, or presumably, your own relatives; you are never, ever, eversupposed to describe trans women as men or male, ‘deadname’, ‘misgender’, or use the ‘wrong’ pronouns out loud. Even trans women themselves aren’t supposed to do these things: see the bullying treatment that trans women in the UK such as Miranda Yardley, Kristina Harrison, and Debbie Hayton get, when they deny that they themselves are ‘really’ women, and seek a different narrative.

This is in itself quite striking, as for other false claims about category membership, people are normally socially permitted to assert them. Take the claims: “Elton John is straight”. “Marvin Gaye is white”. Those claims are obviously false, but there was, presumably, no inward gasp of horror as you just read them. Now contrast with: “Caitlyn Jenner is a man”; “Lily Madigan is biologically male; he is a man”. Even though I mention these as exemplary sentences, rather than assert them myself, I assume that at least some readers think I just wrote something awful. Moreover, this is presumably not just the feeling that I showed a lack of respect for the addressee’s wishes; for if I tell you that the composer of the song ‘Rocket Man’ is Reginald Dwight, presumably you don’t think I just committed ‘violence’ against Elton John by ‘deadnaming’ him.

Writing down those phrases about Jenner and Madigan just now, but without quotation marks, would be enough to have me banned from Twitter. Articles have been removed from Medium for less. This is not, despite what opponents have sometimes suggested, because such statements are obviously morally equivalent to denying the personhood or humanity of those who are racially different to oneself. (Again, I’m happy to offer arguments for this — it won’t take long — but I leave it aside for the moment, on the assumption that most readers aren’t so sophomoric). Nor is it reasonable to think that hearing such statements will generally cause trans people to have thoughts of suicide, as is sometimes dramatically suggested by Owen Jones, in a way that means we should never utter them.

A better explanation seems to involve the thought that, should a speaker X publically refer to a trans person Y by their natally-bestowed name or pronouns, even out of the earshot of Y, Y might later find out about it; or at least, some other trans person might find out about it, and by extrapolation to their own case, be caused to experience a distressing episode of dysphoria. Equally, presumably, it is worried that if a trans woman overhears a general claim such as “trans women are men/ males”, she will be caused great distress; perhaps too, a trans man might be caused great distress, again by extrapolating to his own case.

However, this reasoning clearly has limits. If gender critical feminists are talking to each other on a discussion thread clearly advertised for the purpose, or in a Whatsapp group, then it just seems too demanding to require they talk a certain way, just in case a trans woman or trans man reads or ‘hears’ them. The trans woman in question would almost certainly have to be specially looking. Quite often trans activists will equate misgendering along the lines of going up to a trans person and screaming ‘you’re a man!’ in their face(always ‘screaming’, of course). Obviously this isn’t what is happening in the contexts just mentioned: this is natal women talking to other natal women, about matters of great importance to them, as such, and with no reasonable expectation that they will be accidentally ‘overheard’.

In any case: even if one can foresee that trans people will overhear when one denies that trans women are women — is that a compelling reason not to say what one thinks? It rather depends on what is at stake. It was part of the original argument of my blog pieces that rather a lot is currently at stake in the UK with respect to this matter. There are several conflicts of interest that arise between trans women, as a category, and women, as a category, competing for the same spaces and resources. Trans activists seem to think that natal women should accede to all their demands. In that context, I think natal women should be allowed to speak freely in a critical way about the underpinnings of trans activist views. If natal women conclude after consideration that trans women aren’t women, they should be able to say so, whether or not they’re ultimately right.

Partly too, though, I think that the moral horror which unconsciously accompanies ‘misgendering’ in particular is, perversely, an artefact of sexist normative stereotypes for natal women and men. We tend to frame statements like “Caitlyn Jenner is a man/ male” in terms of insults launched at ‘butch’ or ‘manly’ natal women. The combination of a woman’s name and the epithet ‘man’ or ‘male’ sounds insulting, automatically. Compare: “Kathleen Stock is a man”. Were you to hear someone else saying this, perhaps you would empathically imagine me hearing the same thing and finding it distressing or embarrassing; you might assume that as a woman, I must aspire to the norm of a feminised appearance, and must suffer if I miss the mark. But — of course — to say e.g. that “Caitlyn Jenner is a man” isn’t an insult, in many contexts in which it is uttered. It is, in the mouths of many, a descriptive fact, not a slur or insult. Indeed, arguably it could only be an insult in the way just indicated, if in fact the speaker already assumed that Caitlyn Jenner was a woman. And this is, precisely, not assumed by those that tend to say it.

What else might underly the reaction to Bindel, in particular? I’m sure that part of it is to do with another sexist assumption: that women cannot be bawdy, frank, or colourful in their language; they must be sober, measured, cautious, responsible, kind. At this point we might as well also revisit Germaine Greer’s statement from the Victoria Derbyshire show in 2015:

“Just because you lop off your penis and then wear a dress doesn’t make you a fucking woman .. I’ve asked my doctor to give me long ears and liver spots and I’m going to wear a brown coat but that won’t turn me into a fucking cocker spaniel.”

This is a vividly Rabelaisian way of making the basic claim — which I have argued that natal women should be freely permitted to make, whether or not it is true — that trans women aren’t women. It caused an enormous fuss at the time, and is still regularly cited, along with other such statements, as evidence of Greer’s ‘transphobia’. Yet in her brilliant and funny seminal work of feminism The Female Eunuch, published in 1970, it is clear from Greer’s discussion of April Ashley that she held the same position then as she does now. Greer expresses herself frankly about many things, and always has. See also, for instance, this brutal passage, also from The Female Eunuch, about female students in Universities:

“Their energy is all expended on conforming with disciplinary and other requirements, not in gratifying their own curiosity about the subject that they are studying, and so most of it is misdirected into meaningless assiduity. This phenomenon is still very common among female students, who are forming a large proportion of the arts intake at universities, and dominating the teaching profession as a result. The process is clearly one of diminishing returns: the servile induce servility to teach the servile, in a realm where the unknown ought to be continually assailed with all the human faculties: education cannot be, and has never been a matter of obedience”. (p.75)

Now, you very possibly disagree with this, and so do I. And the style may not be to your taste. You might prefer your lady writers hedged, scholarly, sympathetic, and so on. Myself, I find it refreshing, like a bucket of cold salt water has been chucked over me after days of humid air. That is of course, compatible with saying that I disagree with a lot of what Greer says: as I have a mind of my own, this is hardly surprising. But whether Greer is to your taste or not, it is simply obvious that we don’t police colourful derogatory male speech in anything like the same way, whether the males in question are talking about natal women/ females, or even trans people.

The constant harping of progressive men on supposedly salutary examples like Bindel and Greer sends a message to natal women. Don’t say what you think. Don’t express an opinion on what women are; leave it to trans women to decide that. Don’t be assured. Don’t be bold. Don’t be whimsical or linguistically playful. Don’t try to be funny. Watch your mouth. Given the typical circumstances of female socialisation, natal women are already highly susceptible to such messages, and to feeling shame as a result. So here’s a task for any progressive males reading. Next time a natal woman expresses herself in a way you find unattractive, unseemly, unkind, or downright rude about trans people, then, assuming they aren’t “screaming it in a trans person’s face”: why not shut the fuck up and keep it to yourself.

Kathleen Stock 

[libertariantaoist]

US News

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke resigns. [Link]

A new lawsuit challenges Arkansas anti-BDS law. The law requires all private companies that do business with the state to sign an agreement not to boycott Israel. [Link]

Heavily redacted documents released under an FOIA request reveal the Department of Justice created an anti-leaking unit in 2017. [Link]

Russiagate

Declassified information shows Mike Flynn was in contact with US intelligence about his 2015 trip to Russia. Flynn’s trip to Russia has been apart of the Russiagate narrative. Senator Chuck Grassley has been calling for the release of this information since 2017. [Link]

Court documents show an associate of John McCain leaked the Steele Dossier to Buzzfeed. [Link]

The New Cold War

NASA postpones the visit of a Russian official because of US sanctions. [Link]

The US arrests a Russian citizen on a Pacific island administered by the US. The man was transferred to Florida. [Link]

Syria

Fighting is escalating between rebel groups in northern Syria. Al-Qaeda linked rebels are seizing territory from other rebel groups. [Link]

US airstrikes kill ten civilians – including four civilians – in Syria. [Link]

Two American ISIS fighters were captured by the SDF. [Link]

The Syrian government gives the Iraqi government authority to strike ISIS targets in Syria without pre-approval. [Link]

The Syrian Kurds are entering into talks with Assad. [Link]

US and Russian military commanders hold talks on the US withdraw from Syria. [Link]

National Security Adviser John Bolton warns Assad that the use of chemical weapons will be met with a strong response. [Link] Bolton said the US withdraw from Syria is conditioned on the Kurds having protection and the defeat of ISIS. [Link]

Elijah Magnier breaks down Trump’s decision to slow the US troop withdraw from Syria. Elijah also explains why Assad is entering 2019 in a strategic position. [Link]

Mark Perry gives a detailed timeline of Trump’s decision to leave Syria. Trump made the decision in March of 2018. The withdraw did not come as a surprise to the Syrian Kurds. [Link]

Read More

[districofcolumbiaprelawland-blog]

The Promise and Shortcomings of Indictments Against Businesses

By David B. Arnold, American University Class of 2021

July 7, 2021

The corporate indictment of the two businesses, the Trump Corporation and the Trump Payroll Corporation, (commonly referred to as the  Trump organizations)  on July 1 made many wonder whether it is adequate to to pursue corporate actors that break the law by indicting the company itself. Although Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg was indicted as well, it beggars belief that he was the only individual who was aware of a fringe  benefits scheme that allegedly hid millions of dollars from the state, municipal, and federal governments[1].  

The corporate indictment is a fascinating instrument because at first blush the government seems more restricted procedurally then it would be in bringing a case for civil wrongdoing. There are also more pressing rules of discovery in criminal prosecutions, and a higher bar of certainty to convict. The government has the option of suing corporations, and this enables it to take advantage of a discovery based on document requests rather than the Brady Rule that all exculpatory evidence be handed over to the defendant[2]. Civil cases have the additional advantage of only needing to be proved based on a preponderance of evidence standard. Arguably, this is not a good arrangement for constitutional Due Process, as they enable the government to punish individuals in preceding where defendant rights are not a priority they way they are, ideally, in the criminal justice system.   These concerns hardly explain why Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance chose to pursue a corporate indictment rather than prosecute more individuals when the indictment itself mentions coconspirators. “Beginning from at least 2005 to on or about June 30, 2021, the defendants and others devised and operated a scheme to defraud federal, New York State, and New York City tax authorities”[3]. Assuming this is the totality of the charges, these others would go unprosecuted.

A memo from 2003 by Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson sheds some light on why the process of a corporate indictment may be desirable from a government’s perspective. There is a thesis that in the case of outrageous wrongdoing, corporations are more likely to act to remedy their behavior when indicted, which is a much stronger rebuke than a civil suit by an agency[4]. The memo also asserts that corporate indictments are valuable instruments for promoting social benefits. “…corporations are likely to take immediate remedial steps when one is indicted for criminal conduct that is pervasive throughout a particular industry, and thus an indictment often provides a unique opportunity for deterrence on a massive scale”[5]. There are also cases where the danger to the public cause by corporate criminality is too severe to justify a mere civil suit[6]. This memorandum also contains a basic philosophical argument that companies should not be immune to criminal prosecution just because they are legal rather than natural persons[7].

According to these internal guidelines, corporate indictments should not necessarily be considered adequate if the prosecutor can find evidence to secure an indictment against the specific officers of the company who committed the crimes in question[8]. However, there have been instances where corporate criminal charges that are not accompanied by personal indictments are met with outrage by the public. An example of this would be the charges against HSBC, an multinational bank, in 2012[9]. While the organization was accused of laundering money for Mexican cartels, the company agreed to pay a 1.9 billion dollar fine and no individuals were charged in the complaint[10]. The Department of Justice forced HSBC into a deferred prosecution agreement wherein the bank agreed to strengthen compliance procedures to prevent similar regulatory violations in the future[11].  The question of whether this is a just sentence for an organization that was laundering money obtained by committing capital offenses in the United States very much remains open for debate.  

In cases like that one, charging the company might seem like a way to protect powerful people from accountability. The counterargument is that this corporate charge did enable a deferred prosecution agreement that HSBC followed, and that company has not subsequently been charged with money laundering again, seemingly giving weight to the argument that this practice can terrify an organization’s leadership into reforming its criminal practices[12]. (Several officials of that bank have, however, since been charged with numerous other federal crimes. If this is a case study, perhaps it indicates that the corporate criminal charge is useful mostly in regards to the highly specific crime that was pursued)[13]. Corporate charges are, often, useful for the government in that they enable the Department of Justice to dictate a different course of behavior to the company in question, and therefore might be a reformative rather than punitive step.

 However, the Trump Organization is relatively small. It is not clear that paying fringe benefits in the hotel and real estate industry is a common abuse that needs exemplary action to correct. The philosophy of the District Attorney in this case may be to demonstrate that no man is above the law, even if attached to the former President but if so, why only prosecute the CFO, who could not have unilaterally decided his own pay scheme? The size of the Trump Organization would make an eventual deferred prosecution agreement of very little societal benefit. The move to charge the company and only one supposed offender (we must logically deduce from the way the alleged payment scam was carried out that there are more conspirators) defies the usual rationale given for corporate indictments.  The Manhattan District Attorney may not be finished with the Trump Organization given that these acts on their own seem to be an extremely minimalist response to the fact pattern alleged in the indictment.

______________________________________________________________

1.      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK | against : ‘THE TRUMP CORPORATION, | bla THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, i TRUMP PAYROLL CORP., i dia THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION, ALLEN WEISSELBERG, Case No. _, July 1, 2021.

2.      Rollins, “It's Time for Agencies to Adopt the Brady Rule in Civil Enforcement Actions.” New Civil Liberties Alliance, 21 May 2021, nclalegal.org/2020/02/its-time-for-agencies-to-adopt-the-brady-rule-in-civil-enforcement-actions/#:~:text=In%20its%20current%20construction%2C%20the,government%2C%20i.e.%2C%20Brady%20material.

3.      New York v. Trump Corporation et al., 3.

4.      Thompson, Larry. “Principles of Federal Prosecutions of Business Organizations”, January 20, 2003. https://assets.hcca-info.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Resources/Conference_Handouts/Clinical_Practice_Compliance_Conference/2006/Tues/501-%20Handout%201.pdf

5.      Ibid. 2.

6.      Ibid. 4.

7.      Ibid.1.

8.      Ibid. 8.

9.      Ross, Marc L. “HSBC's Money Laundering SCANDAL.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 17 June 2021, www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2013/investing-news-for-jan-29-hsbcs-money-laundering-scandal-hbc-scbff-ing-cs-rbs0129.aspx.

10.  Viswanatha, Aruna, and Brett Wolf. “HSBC to PAY $1.9 Billion U.S. Fine in MONEY-LAUNDERING CASE.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 11 Dec. 2012, www.reuters.com/article/us-hsbc-probe/hsbc-to-pay-1-9-billion-u-s-fine-in-money-laundering-case-idUSBRE8BA05M20121211.

11.  Ibid.

12.  White, Lawrence. “HSBC Draws Line under Mexican Cartel Case after Five Years on Probation.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 11 Dec. 2017, www.reuters.com/article/uk-hsbc-usa-idUKKBN1E50OO.

13.  Mattera, Phillip. “HSBC: Corporate Rap Sheet.” Corporate Research Project, www.corp-research.org/HSBC.