#Expert Civil Lawyer

[legaleagleseyegurgaon]

Understanding the Different Types of Civil Cases in India

In the bustling hub of Gurgaon, everyday life is layered with complexities. At the intersection of this complexity often lies the necessity for a civil law perspective. However, understanding the complexities of civil law can be daunting. Here, the role of civil lawyers in Gurgaon comes into picture. These civil lawyers provide expert guidance and representation in all sorts of civil disputes.

There is a common misconception that civil law deals with only property disputes. However, this information is not correct. In reality, civil law stretches over a wide spectrum, covering aspects such as contracts, injunctions, torts, and more.

This blog will delve into the four different types of civil suits given under Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908.

Different Types of Civil Suits in India

Regular Civil Suits

Regular civil suits usually consist of disputes related to the title, recovery of money, declarations, and suits for redemption, among other issues. Expert Civil Lawyers in Gurgaon are well-versed in these matters. So they can effectively guide their clients through the legal process.

Special Civil Suits

Special civil suits involve cases against the government or government officers, or suits for the enforcement of public rights. These cases demand astute legal knowledge, therefore, the top Civil Lawyers in Gurgaon can be invaluable.

Summary Suits

Matters like promissory notes and bills of exchange fall under Summary suits. In such types of cases, the defendant must apply for the court's leave to defend the case, which requires the assistance of experienced Civil Lawyers.

Exclusively Triable Small Causes Suits

These suits involve petty civil matters with a limited monetary value. Any civil lawyer can handle these cases. As this type of cases does not need deep expertise of the civil lawyer. Many times junior lawyers handle these cases on behalf of the expert civil lawyer in Gurgaon.

Summing Up

Despite the complexity of civil law, with the right legal representation from Civil Lawyers in Gurgaon and Delhi, suffering clients can address the complexities seamlessly. Clients must understand that the key to success lies in the nature of your dispute and hiring an expert civil lawyer.

So, if you find yourself in any civil law tussle, feel free to connect with Legal Eagles Eye today. Our expert civil lawyers in Gurgaon hold years of experience in civil matters. We believe in providing quality legal solutions tailored to suit your unique needs. Let our team of skilled and experienced civil lawyers guide you through your civil law cases.

[lawfirm-elixir]

At Elixir, our Best civil attorney in Mumbai draws on decades of experience supporting businesses, individuals, and families across the nation and offshore. Whether you are looking to protect or defend civil litigation proceedings or issue a claim, we are here to endeavor and fight your corner to achieve the best possible outcome for you. Our commitment to exceptional client service remains the hallmark of our business.

[advocate-paresh-m-modi]

Free Legal Advice In Ahmedabad | Free Legal Advice Near Me In Ahmedabad । Free Legal Consultation In Ahmedabad | Advocate Paresh M Modi

[vague-humanoid]

Though calling out antisemitism is central to the commissioners’ role, it’s unclear what qualifies these officials to adjudicate anti-Jewish bigotry. Klein, for instance, came to his current position after a stint working as the German government’s representative to Jewish organizations, but prior to that, he spent most of his career in Germany’s foreign service working on unrelated issues, stationed in places like Cameroon and Italy. When I visited him in his office in Berlin last April, only a menorah decal pasted on one of the windows hinted at the nature of his position. Klein told me that there are no standardized training programs for the commissioners or educational requirements that they must fulfill before their appointments. Schüler-Springorum pointed out that, though references to the Holocaust underlie every aspect of Germany’s antisemitism system, many of the commissioners are far from experts on the history in question. “It’s amazing how little they know about National Socialism,” she lamented. None of the antisemitism commissioners for either the German Federal Government or its Bundesländer, or states, is ethnically Jewish—which, according to Klein, is by design. “The fight against antisemitism is a problem for the whole of society. It isn’t a problem for the Jewish community to face by itself,” he told me. “I mean, it’s not as though the most pressing problem with antisemitism in Germany is among Jews.”

Indeed, when Jews interact directly with the system, it is often as its targets: Klein told the Berliner Zeitung in a January 2021 interview that “tendentially left-leaning Israelis in Berlin” should “be sensitive to Germany’s special historical responsibility” when they criticize Israel. In the eyes of the commissioners, this seems to be all the more true of Muslims and Arabs—especially Palestinians—who voice support for the Palestinian cause. “Palestinians are like a thorn in the side of Germany’s memory culture,” Palestinian German lawyer Nadija Samour told Jewish Currents. They’re “disposable,” but also “crucial for the German identity . . . If you really want to prove how civilized you are, and how philosemitic or pro-Israel you are, you get the chance to prove that by throwing Palestinians under the bus.”

This commitment to Israel advocacy—which requires disciplining the state’s Jewish critics as well as suppressing Palestinian speech—has led observers to argue that the system of antisemitism commissioners exists less to ensure the safety of Jews than to placate Germans’ feelings of guilt for the Holocaust. Indeed, last summer, in the course of admonishing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for comparing Israel’s crimes to the Holocaust during his visit to Germany, Klein emphasized the way that antisemitism hurts Germans. “By relativizing the Holocaust, President Abbas lacked any sensitivity towards us German hosts,” Klein said. Emily Dische-Becker, a left-wing Jewish curator and journalist in Berlin, told Jewish Currents that German antisemitism efforts are ultimately not driven by a concern for Jews. “It basically is an issue of German identity politics at the end of the day,” she said. Neiman—whose 2019 book Learning from the Germans argues that the nation provides a model for other countries struggling with the weight of collective memory—told me that the creation of the commissioner system, and the passage of the anti-BDS resolution the following year, had caused her to question her previous evaluation. “Things have changed really dramatically since the book came out,” she said. “I still think that Germany did something historically unique by putting its crimes in the center of its national narrative, but I also think it’s gone haywire in the last three years. This system of antisemitism commissioners basically went in all the wrong directions.”

[mariacallous]

The US supreme court heard one of the most consequential LGBTQ+ rights cases in its history on Wednesday, with arguments that laid bare the conservative supermajority’s broad threats to civil rights, bodily autonomy and decades of legal precedent.

In US v Skrmetti, the court is weighing Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth, one of 24 state laws across the US prohibiting treatments that are part of the standards of care endorsed by every major medical association in the country.

The case originated with three trans youth and their parents who sued Tennessee, arguing the care – puberty blockers and hormone therapy – was medically necessary and “life-saving”. The Biden administration joined the case, asserting Tennessee’s law was unconstitutional.

The case hinges on the legal question of whether Tennessee’s healthcare ban constitutes a form of sex discrimination that merits “heightened scrutiny”, which would mean the case be returned to lower courts for a more rigorous review. But the oral arguments made clear that a ruling against the trans plaintiffs could have far-reaching implications for trans rights and anti-discrimination protections more broadly.’

The US and the ACLU argued that the law is discriminatory and bans treatments based on sex classifications; under Tennessee’s ban, cisgender boys with delayed puberty can be prescribed testosterone, but transgender boys are barred from accessing the same treatments for gender-affirming care. Tennessee argued that the law is an “across the board rule” to “protect minors” from “risky” medical interventions.

Elizabeth Prelogar, the US solicitor general, noted that the court would “turn its back on 50 years of precedent” if it sided with Tennessee’s arguments that the law does not constitute sex discrimination warranting closer scrutiny.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, repeatedly compared Tennessee’s ban with the prohibition on interracial marriage, overturned by the landmark Loving v Virginia decision in 1967: “Some of these questions … sound very familiar to me, [such as] the arguments made back in the day, the 50s and 60s, with respect to racial classifications.” Jackson later added: “I’m worried that we’re undermining the foundations of some of our bedrock equal protection cases.”

“I share your concerns,” responded the ACLU’s Chase Strangio, the first out trans lawyer to appear before the court. “If Tennessee can have an end-run around heightened scrutiny … that would undermine decades of this court’s precedent.”

Kate Redburn, co-director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, explained after the arguments that there was the potential for an outcome that “would authorize a much broader range of sex discrimination, which has been previously found unconstitutional.

“There could be situations where the government could distinguish between people by sex, and courts would not intervene,” they continued, saying a ruling in favor of Tennessee could make it easier for states to pass policies that discriminate on the basis of pregnancy or other reproductive choices, for example: “Regulations that we now would say are based on stereotypes – especially stereotypes about what women’s proper role is – depending on how expansive this opinion is, those stereotypes could be authorized.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another liberal, also noted that a decision declaring that the ban on care is not discriminatory could open the door to bans on gender-affirming healthcare for all trans people, not just youth: “You’re licensing states to deprive grown adults of the choice of which sex to adopt.”

Matthew Rice, Tennessee’s solicitor general, responded that the “democratic process” was the “best check on potentially misguided laws”. Sotomayor interjected: “When you’re 1% of the population, or less, it’s very hard to see how the democratic process is going to protect you. Blacks were a much larger part of the population and it didn’t protect them. It didn’t protect women for whole centuries.”

“That was a chilling moment,” said Sydney Duncan, senior counsel at Advocates for Trans Equality, who sat in the courtroom. “Is the next step to ban adult healthcare? The state didn’t have a great answer there.” She noted that Tennessee’s law is rooted in “bad science” and misinformation. Doctors cited as expert witnesses for the state have repeatedly been discounted and rebuked by US judges for their lack of credentials and anti-trans bias, the Guardian recently reported.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, asked Prelogar about bans on trans people in athletics: “If you prevail here … would transgender athletes have a constitutional right to play in women’s and girls’ sports?” Prelogar responded that the sports issue – which has become a focus of Republicans’ culture war – was related to a different legal question. Kavanaugh’s questions raised some concerns from advocates that the outcome could have broader impacts for LGBTQ+ rights beyond youth healthcare.

“The justices likely see this case as a potential harbinger of future litigation and constitutional questions about trans people’s equal protection,” Redburn said.

Rice also claimed that trans plaintiffs were seeking a “right to engage in nonconforming behavior”. Redburn said the remark was noteworthy and raised broader concerns about people’s rights to self-expression:

“You can see the motivation is not, as the state has suggested, to protect the health of children, which is something that states have a right to regulate, but instead is based on not only particular animus towards transgender individuals, but also a broader social vision that upholds a certain gender hierarchy.”

The conservative justices appeared reluctant to intervene and block Tennessee’s ban, which means the outcome next year could deliver a dramatic blow to trans rights at a time of escalating attacks on LGBTQ+ equality across the US.

“It’s so important that we understand this case as deeply connected to … laws on race and sex discrimination more broadly,” said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of United for Reproductive and Gender Equity (Urge), an advocacy group. “These questions of what is privacy, what is autonomy, can we control our bodies and our families – these are all intertwined.”

The questions from Jackson and Sotomayor, she said, made clear that “the struggle for the recognition of trans people’s humanity cannot be separated from questions of race and gender equality that have long been cornerstones of this nation’s jurisprudence”, McGuire said.

She noted that anti-abortion and anti-trans activism were closely linked and that this case would probably be followed by efforts to ban adult gender-affirming care, birth control, IVF and other healthcare: “We have seen the right use marginalized people as the tip of the spear for a much larger attack … This voracious desire to be involved in our most personal, private decisions has no end.”

Imara Jones, a podcaster and CEO of the news organization TransLash, who sat in the room, noted that the healthcare under threat was long established: “If you eliminate gender-affirming care, you’re going to be shortening people’s lives and diminishing the quality of their lives. It’s a very real impact. This is not a constitutional or esoteric consideration for trans people. It’s as personal as it gets.”

Bamby Salcedo, a longtime activist and president of the TransLatin@ Coalition, said she and other advocates were bracing for a harmful ruling, but added: “For many of us as a community, hope is the last thing that will die. Regardless of the outcome, we as people are resilient … and we are going to continue to exist despite the oppression we may experience because of this decision. We are going to continue to fight like hell for all of us to be protected.”

[qqueenofhades]

Having seen what's currently happening in Venezuela, I feel so terrible for everyone to tried to vote Maduro out, and I worry about the US election. Will Trump and the GOP be able to do the same thing??

I agree that what's happening in Venezuela is bad and scary, but it's also not unexpected (unfortunately), and it doesn't correlate to the US election. It is very much a cautionary tale for us, but in the case of what could happen, not what has happened yet (and which we could and MUST still avoid). Here's why I think that.

First, Maduro is the heir of 25+ years of dictatorship (first the Chavez regime and then his), and that political machine has had a full generation to fix/control everything in Venezuela just as they want it. They've collapsed the economy, driven mass emigration/purges/brain drains, installed corrupt systems and destroyed civil society, staffed the government with cronies who will only ever do what Maduro personally says -- etc. In other words, exactly what Trump and the Republicans aspire to do here in America, but with 25 years' head start, so all those fixes are well entrenched. Outside observers were also warning well ahead of the Venezuelan vote that even an overwhelming majority for the opposition candidate might not be enough, because Maduro and co. can just fix the result however they want with imaginary fantasy numbers. (See Putin's "win" in the Russian presidential "election.") Because dictators all draw from the same playbook regardless of their professed ideological temperament, they always use the same tools.

Next, voting in Venezuela is all-electronic, which is obviously the easiest kind of voting to jigger, and which means that whatever the people actually select has little to no relevance to what gets published, recorded, or proclaimed. Now, despite the Republicans' constant screaming about ELECTION FRAUD, the 2020 elections in America were widely hailed as the safest, most accurate, and fraud-free in the nation's history. (For that matter, multiple investigations afterward have re-confirmed this, and the tiny handful of cases of election fraud that were found were committed by, you guessed it, Republicans.) This did not happen because of the Orange Fuhrer and co., who were busy trying to commit election fraud on their own behalves, but because America, however flawed, is still a participatory liberal democracy and citizens have the right to engage and to do so in a meaningful fashion. We had the entire investigation about how Russia meddled with the election in 2016, and changes were made. Cybersecurity experts were brought in; redundancies and failsafes were introduced; etc., and even the Russian campaign focused on psychological influence rather than actually, physically changing already-cast votes, because that is very, very hard to do in America. We are not an all e-voting nation; there are paper trails, hard-copy ballots, hand recounts, poll observers, election lawyers, and multiple other safeguards that exist. The Republicans have been attacking them as hard as they can, but they're still there.

Thirdly, the Evil Orange tried to fix the elections when he was the sitting president (don't forget the infamous "find me 11,780 votes" phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State that got him slapped with felony charges), but he couldn't do it even then. He also tried a coup as the sitting president, with full discretion as to whether, for example, the National Guard should be deployed to the Capitol on January 6, and that didn't succeed. As such, when he's a disgraced jobless felon who is not the commander-in-chief of the American military and holds no official or political role, he's definitely not getting it done now. There were reforms made to the Electoral Count Act to prevent another January 6, Biden and not Trump would be the president at any other attempted attack on the counting of electoral votes, and I can guarantee Biden would not sit around for three hours watching Fox News and cheering the rioters on if such a thing happened again. Trump has been threatening violence again because that's the only move in his playbook, and he wants to intimidate people into voting for him out of fear that he'll attack them if they don't give him what he wants, like any other psychopathic bully. But that does not mean he actually has the tools to successfully carry it off, and honestly, motherfucker? Try it one more fucking time. I double fucking dog dare you. Biden has 6 months left in his term and total immunity, according to your own SCOTUS. So.

Basically, Venezuela has already been a banana republic for 20+ years, the dictator has had a full generation to destroy it/remake it/turn it into his personal fiefdom, he allows elections only because he already knows they won't change anything or actually remove him from power, and that is precisely what Trump wants to do in the US -- but, and this is crucial, has not done yet. Which is why it is so, so important to Orange-Proof America and get rid of him once and for fucking all on November 5th. We can do it. So yes.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dean Obeidallah at The Dean's Report:

The despicable effort by corporate oligarchs—many of who helped elect Donald Trump—to convince the rest of us to submit to Donald Trump is now in full gear. On Saturday, we saw the jaw-dropping announcement by ABC News—owned by Disney-- that the corporation had agreed to pay Trump $15 million in a bogus defamation lawsuit Trump would have NEVER won. ABC also agreed to publicly apologize and pay Trump’s lawyers $1 million in legal fees. The lawsuit arises from ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos’s exchange with GOP Rep. Nancy Mace in March when Stephanopoulos pressed Mace on how--as a survivor of sexual assault--she could support Trump given his history of sexual assault. One specific exchange cited by Trump’s lawyers was when Stephanopoulos challenged Mace to explain how she could endorse Trump after “judges and two separate juries have found him liable for rape and for defaming the victim of that rape” in the E. Jean Carrol civil case.

Trump’s defamation lawsuit alleged that Stephanopoulos knew Trump was never find liable of “rape”—only sexual assault—and, thus, had defamed him. But two things here. First, federal judge Lewis Kaplan--who presided over E. Jean Carroll defamation/sexual assault case—in his written opinion stated the jury had in fact determined Trump had “raped” Carroll. Judge Kaplan addressed this when considering Trump’s claim the damage award against him was too high because the jury didn’t find Trump had committed “rape” as narrowly defined by NY penal law. But the judge wrote that based on the evidence, Trump had raped Carroll in the way “many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’” The Judge added, “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.” I make that point as a lawyer who handled defamation cases to note that truth is a valid defense in every defamation case. Judge Kaplan’s opinion is the key to ABC News winning this case.

In addition, ABC News has another very strong defense. In a defamation case involving a public figure like Trump, the plaintiff has an added burden of showing not only that a statement is false but that the comment was made with “actual malice.” That means even if Stephanopoulos was wrong in saying Trump was found liable of “rape,” Trump would need to show Stephanopoulos knew that statement was false when he said that or “consciously chose to recklessly disregard the high probability that” the comment was false. But Stephanopoulos clearly could rely in good faith on Judge Kaplan’s written opinion that the jury had in fact found Trump raped Carroll when making his statement.

This is why Trump would’ve lost this case--as legal experts that focus on defamation told the NY Times. For example, RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor of law at the University of Utah, explained: “Major news organizations have often been very leery of settlements in defamation suits brought by public officials and public figures, both because they fear the dangerous pattern of doing so and because they have the full weight of the First Amendment on their side.” All of that is important to understand that ABC News also knew it would have ultimately prevail in the case--but they settled out of fear. They were bending a knee to Trump because during the campaign, Trump had threatened to take ABC’s broadcast license away after the presidential debate because the moderators fact checked his lies. Trump pointedly declared on Fox News: "They ought to take away their license for the way they did that."

With Trump now a month from being sworn in and his pick to head the Federal Communications Commission being Brendan Carr, an author of the far-right Project 2025, ABC News and other media outlets are fearful of how the Trump regime will target them. As MSNBC’s Ja'han Jones wrote, Carr is the type of “media attack dog” that will enable the GOP to follow the playbook of their beloved Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán and use the agency to silence critics of Trump. ABC News should have never bent a knee to Trump with this unheard of surrender this early in a case they would’ve won. But they were not alone in capitulating to Trump this week.

[...] However, there is also a fear factor at play here as well.

ABC News made a very stupid decision to bend the knee to autocrat-elect Donald Trump by settling, and that’s because ABC would likely have won their case. They are doing this out of fear of Trump handing out reprisals to outlets even slightly critical of him.

Brian Tyler Cohen: Mainstream Media Opts to Obey

[myemuisemo]

In approaching the first chapter of The Hound of the Baskervilles in this week's Letters from Watson, I initially felt that I was sort of cheating as I know I've read this more recently than middle childhood. Then I read the first chapter and realized my memory of the story consists of a vague impression that it has a moor and a dog. Oh well.

Mortimer's staff being referred to as a "Penang lawyer" reminds us that when you live in a colonialist society, the mindset is everywhere. The staff is presumably made from Licuala acutifida, a sort of cane native to China, southeast Asia, and Pacific Islands. By 1889, when the novel is set (five years after the date on the walking stick), British Malaya had been under direct crown rule for a couple decades. The Brits had owned Penang since at least the secret Burney Treaty of 1826.

Dr. Watson's initial wrong guesses provide a window into his world and preconceptions. My first reaction was "how did he think hunt rather than hospital when he himself has medical training?"

Growing up in the genteel countryside would explain "hunt." But Charing Cross Hospital, then located just off the Strand, would have been only about two miles from Baker Street. How do you miss a large hospital?

There might be a titch of snobbery in play, as Watson did his residency at much, much older Barts (St. Bartholomew's). Barts dates from the 12th century, while Charing Cross Hospital was an early 19th century upstart. Watson also went for additional training at the military hospital at Netley.

Watson really puts up with a lot, though.

James Mortimers' publications focus on the idea that illness stems from throwbacks to a more primitive state, an idea also applied to criminology of the day. Through 2024 eyes, this is unlikely to be a good thing, but let's see where Doyle goes with it. I have faith in Holmes due to his love of that book that attributes much of human civilization to non-white world cultures. (Coveting Holmes' skull reeks of phrenology, but I can't believe this was meant as an appealing trait.)

After being informed that Sholto was based on Oscar Wilde, I'm wondering which of Doyle's acquaintances was the pattern for James Mortimer (who is not addressed as "doctor" because he's a surgeon; it's a British thing).

While Holmes describes Mortimer as "amiable" before meeting him, he does not find being described as "the second highest expert in Europe" all that simpatico. There's some impatience in Holmes' chapter-ending request that Mortimer explain why he's there.

At this early stage, I dislike James Mortimer. It's partly the nature of his publications, but also the false humility of calling himself a "dabbler in science" when he in fact has publications, an award, and a degree. It's dabbling to collect bones or bugs or whatever and be perpetually working on a treatise that never gets finished or published. It's not dabbling when you have official recognition within your chosen career for your research.

So what is Mortimer here about?

[mightyflamethrower]

25 reasons Trump won’t pay a dime to E. Jean Carroll

That eye-popping $83 million judgment will not survive an appeal. A proper settlement would subtract at least $82,972,000.

In 2019, a strange woman named E. Jean Carroll accused Donald Trump of raping her in a changing room of the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Midtown Manhattan. Trump called her crazy, and a jury found him liable for both sexually abusing her and defaming her with the “crazy” talk. Last week, a New York jury decided Carroll deserves $83 million for defamation.

Here are 25 reasons why that’s nuts.

1) Carroll has said rape is “sexy”

She backs up this insane statement with, “Think of the fantasies” (which my wife and I can’t stop saying to each other). For the record, having someone forcibly violate you against your will is the exact opposite of “sexy.”

2) She’s already bragging about shopping sprees

Remember in “Goodfellas” when that idiot shows up at the party with his wife wearing a $20,000 fur coat and De Niro tells him to “bring it back”? When you run a scam, you need to lay low for a while. Carroll, conversely, is making appearances on national television telling Rachel Maddow she’s going to buy her a “penthouse in Paris” as well as fishing gear and a motorcycle for her counsel (could she pick weirder presents?). Her lawyer awkwardly murmured, “Uh, that’s a joke.”

Yeah, this whole thing is a joke.

3) The scenario she described came from her favorite TV show

She is a self-described “Law & Order” fan, and there is an episode wherein a man muscles his way into a changing room at Bergdorf Goodman and sexually molests a woman. This is likely where she got the idea. She’s also a big fan of “The Apprentice.” Would you like to watch your rapist on TV?

4) She didn’t want to press criminal charges

Being on the cover of New York magazine is one thing, but taking your BS story into an actual courtroom is a whole other level of fraud. When Bill de Blasio said he would change the law to make the case admissible, Carroll kept awkwardly repeating, “The experts told me … the time has passed.”

5) They changed the law

The case had no merit because the statute of limitations on civil action had passed. So what happened? The New York State Legislature changed the law. Is there anything that screams “witch hunt” more than that? What are we, Zimbabwe?

6) The man who backed the lawsuit is a major DNC donor

Leftist activist billionaire Reid Hoffman is the money behind this operation. His motive is obviously to bankrupt Trump so he can’t run again. Carroll denied this at first because she’s a liar, but her lawyer was forced to come clean.

7) The whole thing was George Conway’s idea, apparently

Though she denies it, it’s clear this entire plan was concocted by “conservative lawyer” Conway at a radical leftist cocktail party in Manhattan.

8) Carroll’s lawyer is desperate to fix her reputation as a rape-enabler

Roberta Kaplan was supposed to champion victims of sexual assault with her #TimesUp movement, but she used it instead to run cover for perverts such as Andrew Cuomo. She got caught and she got fired. Her comeback included representing Ashley Biden (A Biden lawyer going after Trump? Is anyone surprised?), but this case could permanently rescue her Google results.

9) Carroll’s dress didn’t exist back then

Carroll said the rape happened in the early 1990s. We just learned the particular dress she said she was allegedly wearing did not exist at the time.

10) She cannot remember when the rape happened

We’re not talking about the exact date. She can’t tell us if it was 1993 or 1995.

11) She won’t let anyone test her coat for DNA

Carroll calls the dress her “bad luck dress” and told CNN she will never make a talisman out of it — as though the idea had occurred to anyone. Why did she keep it around? This could be the left’s Monica Lewinsky dress, but she refuses to let anyone analyze it.

12) She doesn’t know if Trump ejaculated

I don’t know if anyone reading this has engaged in sexual intercourse, but evidence of the male orgasm is almost impossible to hide.

13) She is a serial accuser

Despite being a 3.5, she has claimed men have sexually assaulted her at least a half-dozen times. This isn’t proof of Trump’s innocence in and of itself, but it becomes relevant when surrounded by 24 other points.

14) She said it wasn’t sexual

Carroll has said pretty much everything that you could say about this encounter, from “it was not sexual” to “it was the definition of rape.” She said she would not press charges, however, because it would trivialize the experience of illegal aliens who are being “raped around the clock.”

15) She’s not his type

Trump is into elegant Slavs. This woman is like that hysterical chicken lady from “The Kids in the Hall.”

16) The judge and Carroll’s lawyer are pals

We’re told Judge Lewis Kaplan was Roberta Kaplan’s (no relation) mentor back when they both worked at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Roberta Kaplan denies this, but it can’t be denied they worked at the same firm at the same time. That alone is a conflict of interest.

17) Carroll didn’t talk to anyone about the alleged assault, until she did

If a woman is sexually assaulted, she is morally obligated to report it immediately, so the rapist doesn’t do it again. Carroll did not do this. What’s more, she didn’t talk to any of her friends about it. At least not at first. This is peculiar behavior for a blabbermouth.

18) Even if it’s all true, the settlement would be tiny

Carroll alleged that Trump cost her a columnist job at Elle, but the magazine made it clear it ended her contract as an advice columnist based on nothing more than lack of interest. But let’s assume Elle fired her because Trump wrote a mean tweet. A good price for an advice column would be a couple of hundred bucks per piece. That’s $2,000 a year for Elle. Assuming Carroll lives as long as “Dear Abby” columnist Pauline Esther Friedman, who died at 94, that would be a whopping total of $28,000 (Carroll is 80).

So, we’re off by about $82,972,000.

19) She said women “love” being abducted

She told Charlie Rose (remember him?) in 1995 that women love the idea of a caveman knocking them unconscious with a club and then dragging them — by their hair — back to the cave. I’m no feminist, but I’m pretty sure the cerebral contusions from this kind of violence are not a turn-on.

20) She said it wasn’t a big deal

“I’m a mature woman,” she said. “I can handle it.” OK, then why does she need $83 million to recover? That’s four times the amount of money you get when your kid is decapitated.

21) She lives in a Mouse House

Anyone who doubts this lady’s mental state needs to check out her house. She calls it “The Mouse House” because it’s infested with rodents (to whom she has given individual names, such as “Terbrusky”). She has painted the trees blue. She has printed out 27 years of advice column questions and stacked them all over the place. Yes, writers can be weird. But it is impossible to look at her place and not think, “This is nuts.”

22) She is a hoarder

Hoarding is a mental disorder. You can’t sue someone for calling you “crazy” if you have a mental disorder.

23) Her cat is called “Vagina” — seriously

E. Jean Carroll is obsessed with sex and her vagina. She said she lives in the woods because if she lived in the city, she’d have 16 boyfriends. She’s 80, remember?

Her dog “Tits” has blue hair, and her cat is named “Vagina.” The left-wing media thinks this is irrelevant. “Among the stranger complaints made by the former president … was that the jury wasn’t informed about the name of his accuser’s cat: Vagina T. Fireball.” Uh, when the charge is “calling a sane woman crazy,” Vagina T. Fireball matters.

24) She writes notes to herself

Wait, doesn’t everyone do that? Not like this. “The Mouse House” is festooned with bizarre messages. Her microwave says, “Burn Baby Burn.” Her bookshelf says, “Always amused never angry.” And, in a moment of deranged honesty, she taped a note to a lamp that says, “Hold your nerve. Pursue your radical options to the bitter END!”

25) Carroll said she wanted to “rape” Trump

Apparently, she thought having rough sex with him in the changing room would make for a “funny story.” (Wait, I thought she didn’t tell anyone about what happened to her out of fear.) She also suggested she’d do it for $17,000 if he was unable to speak. Sounds awfully rapey, doesn’t it?

Anyone who takes this case seriously and doesn’t see E. Jean Carroll as a complete basket case is a complete basket case.

[ireallyamabear]

Aldhani heist modern AU for Andor Appreciation Week 2023 - Day 3: Favourite Arcs ##

(Coruscant/Aldhani Valley) Vel Sartha, society girl, implicated in last year’s Aldhani Bank heist

Leaked documents from the Security Bureau allege collaboration of political and criminal elements on a not yet seen scale.

An investigation into the claims of Security Bureau agent Lt. Dedra Meero, who assembled the leaked file using confidential security documents, has been started. Experts doubt the validity of her claim that a yet unnamed leader, code name “Axis”, orchestrated the attack - in which eight bank employees and security officers lost their lives - with the goal to raise funds to establish a broad revolutionary alliance.

The investigation into the heist, in which over 12 tons of gold and an unknown amount of legal tender was stolen, has notoriously been kept under wraps, with no official suspect being named by Aldhani Valley Police as of yet. A political dimension had not been part of the conversation about the motive for the heist up until the leak. Some of the file was assembled from confidential sources, including a politically highly incendiary illegal missive by the SB about Sarthas’s cousin, Senator Mon Mothma. Parts of the document seem to come from redacted files and sources, with no explanation how Meero has obtained these. According to inside sources, intra- and interorganizational security leaks in the Bureau are already being investigated. The document claiming to identify the perpetrators and their motive was leaked online by a yet unnamed person, going by “A friend of Lt. Meero”, who claims to “not longer be able to sit idly by while a good officer who knows the truth gets no recognition for her work”. Meero’s lawyers maintain that she herself has not broken confidentiality and did not leak the document herself. Whoever leaked the documents faces charges for disseminating confidential SB information. The file also names Karis Nemik, founding member of the Alliance of Socialist Students (ASS) and a former officer of the Imperial Army, identified only as Lt. Gorn as co-conspirateurs. Also named are Cinta Kaz and Taramyn Barcona, two veterans of private security outfits that have served in multiple military tours overseas, as well as two more men, Cassian Andor and Arvel Skeen, who have minor criminal records. There are no current criminal investigations into any of the seven suspects. Besides Sartha, none of the accused have been present in the public or on social media in the last year. Unsourced rumors that at least the accused Lt. Gorn was actually one of the bodies found at the scene have yet to be confirmed.

Meero draws alleged connections between the suspects foremost through photographic evidence. Most of this evidence is already under scrutiny by officials and a vocal crowd online, with claims of image manipulation already going viral.

Various civil rights attorneys and organizations have already spoken up about the political dimension in the accusations against Sartha - especially because of her connections to the current senate - and Nemik, who has been an outspoken political activist in recent years. 

Members of the Mothma Senatorial office and Vel Sartha’s PR team have yet to comment.

Meanwhile, Sartha shared a cryptic post with the caption “Throwback to last year - I had been camping all spring!” on her various social medias.

## @andorappreciation

[simply-ivanka]

Letitia James Turns the Screws on Trump

The inflated $464 million bond required to appeal effectively denies him due process.

By The Editorial Board

Wall Street Journal

March 18, 2024 

New York Attorney General Letitia James’s use of lawfare to take down Donald Trump is getting uglier by the day. She is now threatening to seize the former President’s assets after effectively denying him the ability to appeal the grossly inflated civil-fraud judgment against him.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers wrote Monday in a court filing that they’ve been unable to obtain a bond to guarantee last month’s $464 million judgment. Defendants are required to post bonds to appeal verdicts. Mr. Trump’s lawyers say securing the full bond would be “impossible” since most of his assets are illiquid.

One way to satisfy the bond would be to borrow against his real-estate holdings. But Mr. Trump’s lawyers say that only a handful of insurance companies have “both the financial capability and willingness to underwrite a bond of this magnitude,” and “the vast majority are unwilling to accept the risk associated with such a large bond.”

What’s more, his lawyers say that none of the insurers that Mr. Trump’s team approached “are willing to accept hard assets such as real estate as collateral for appeal bonds.” This isn’t surprising given the recent write-downs in commercial real estate and enormous uncertainty about their valuations, especially in places like New York. Insurers may also fear Ms. James’s legal retribution if they provide the bond to Mr. Trump.

Thus in order to appeal the judgment, Mr. Trump could have to unload property in a fire sale. If he were later to win on appeal, his lawyers rightly argue that he would have suffered an enormous, irreparable loss.

Ms. James no doubt knows she has Mr. Trump in a bind. She and courts have opposed his requests to reduce the bond even though a court-appointed independent monitor overseeing his businesses eliminates the risk he could dispose of or transfer his assets to make the judgment harder for the state to enforce.

As we wrote last month, the judgment is overkill. None of Mr. Trump’s business partners lost money lending to him or claimed to have been deceived by his erroneous financial statements. No witness during the trial said his alleged misrepresentations changed its loan terms or prices, and there was no evidence that he profited from his alleged deceptions.

Nonetheless, state trial judge Arthur Engoron ordered him to “disgorge” $355 million in “ill-gotten gains.” This sum was based on the interest-rate savings that a financial expert retained by Ms. James estimated Mr. Trump netted from his legerdemain. But this calculation seems dubious since banks said they didn’t alter their loan terms.

The judge also tacked on profits that Mr. Trump putatively made on properties for which he submitted false financial statements without demonstrating that the latter enable the former. He also added “pre-judgment interest” dating back to the day Ms. James launched her investigation in 2019. This makes Mr. Trump liable for alleged wrongdoings before he was even charged. All of this provides plausible grounds for appeal.

Whatever his transgressions, defendants are entitled to due process, which includes the right to appeal. Ms. James is trying to short-circuit the justice system to get Mr. Trump, as she promised she would during her 2018 campaign. Anyone who does business in New York ought to worry about how Ms. James could likewise twist the screws on them.

[collapsedsquid]

I think the plan is to steal the Electoral College outright by getting states Trump loses to refuse to certify the results of their election. That’s because the 12th Amendment provides that the president is the person who wins the majority of the “whole number of Electors appointed.” That “whole number” is supposed to be 538. But one potential reading of the amendment is that Trump doesn’t have to win 270 Electoral College votes but just a majority of however many electors show up. Trump’s goal, I believe, is to decrease the number of electors appointed until he wins. This reading is untested. Nobody has yet tried to win an election with fewer than a majority of the Electoral College votes by decreasing the overall number of electors appointed after the election. But it’s an argument the Trump team could put forward, and it’s an argument Democratic lawyers and experts are preparing for. The first step in such a process is to get Republicans in states Trump loses to contest the certification of their own elections. In 2020, Trump and his team illegally tried to get slates of alternate electors submitted in states where Republicans control the state legislatures. They could try that again, but for this scheme to work, they don’t even have to get “fake” electors submitted but just to convince Republican state legislatures or Republican governors not to submit their valid slates of electors before statutorily imposed deadlines. All slates of electors are supposed to be certified by December 11. Those electors are then supposed to vote and submit their results by December 25. [...] If enough states refuse to certify the results of the election and submit a slate of electors—with the Supreme Court’s blessing—the math is not actually hard for Trump. Let’s say Vice President Kamala Harris wins the bare majority of Electoral College votes necessary, 270, but the Republican legislature in Wisconsin refuses to submit the state’s 10 electors by the deadline. In this scenario, the new total number of electors becomes 528, not 538—and Trump needs only 264 electoral votes to “win.” If you take Wisconsin and Nevada’s six electors out of the mix, Trump needs only 262 electoral votes to “win.” He’ll likely achieve those numbers without having to win one of the “blue wall” states.

[...]

And this is where Speaker Johnson becomes critical to the whole “secret” plan. In 2020, Nancy Pelosi was speaker of the House. If states had tried to get cute and not submit their electors by the December 11 deadline, Pelosi would just have extended the deadline. But Speaker Johnson surely won’t. If electors are not submitted by December 11, he’ll likely declare the process “over” and say that the electors appointed by that date are the only ones allowed to vote for president.

Like to consider these strategies in terms of "Is this going to cause a civil war(or honestly more realistically a 'general strike')" with the idea that if it will then he's not going to get people to go along with it. I feel just rejecting the votes outright without a pretext or just empty claims that some people may have voted illegally, you're talking something that won't be acceptable. You would have to destroy a good number of ballots or something.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

This day in history

#20yrsago Asimov’s magazine on DRM, copyright and Creative Commons https://web.archive.org/web/20041020235706/https://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0412/onthenet.shtml

#15yrsago MPAA shuts down entire town’s muni WiFi over a single download https://web.archive.org/web/20091114054844/http://www.coshoctontribune.com/article/20091109/UPDATES01/91109015

#15yrsago EFF lawyers grin like holy fools, surrounded by a fan of formerly secret government documents https://memex.craphound.com/2009/11/11/eff-lawyers-grin-like-holy-fools-surrounded-by-a-fan-of-formerly-secret-government-documents/

#15yrsago McDonald’s Gitmo is hiring! https://web.archive.org/web/20091112101249/http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2009/11/10/20091110guantanamo-mcdonalds-ON.html

#15yrsago EFF to represent Yes Men in Chamber of Commerce lawsuit https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2009/11/11

#15yrsago Pratchett’s “Unseen Academicals” – a gift to Discworld lovers and an argument for the importance of sport https://memex.craphound.com/2009/11/11/pratchetts-unseen-academicals-a-gift-to-discworld-lovers-and-an-argument-for-the-importance-of-sport/

#10yrsago Net Neutrality activists blockade FCC Chairman Wheeler’s house https://popularresistance.org/breaking-net-neutrality-activists-blockade-fcc-chairman-tom-wheelers-house/

#10yrsago DOJ helps local cops get around state limits on civil forfeiture https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/nov/10/asset-forfeiture-article/

#10yrsago New KKK organization open to people of color, Jews, LGBT https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ku-klux-klan-opens-its-doors-hispanic-blacks-jews-gays-1473907

#10yrsago Italian scientists acquitted of culpability in L’Aquila quake https://web.archive.org/web/20160826014632/https://www.dw.com/en/court-acquits-natural-disaster-experts-over-laquila-quake/a-18055155

#10yrsago Expat activists and journalists leave USA for Berlin’s safety https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/09/berlins-digital-exiles-tech-activists-escape-nsa

#10yrsago Senate races were won by dump-trucks full of “dark money” https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/opinion/sunday/dark-money-helped-win-the-senate.html

#10yrsago The Oatmeal to Ted Cruz: Net Neutrality is not Obamacare https://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality

#5yrsago AOC really plays in Iowa https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/11/turns-out-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-huge-in-iowa/

#5yrsago Bill Gates just accidentally proved that even “unsuccessful” antitrust enforcement works https://memex.craphound.com/2019/11/11/bill-gates-just-accidentally-proved-that-even-unsuccessful-antitrust-enforcement-works/

#1yrago "Brand safety" killed Jezebel https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/11/ad-jacency/#brand-safety

[artielu]

A few people have expressed confusion about my tags saying that Trump is not going to jail despite the fact that he's been convicted of 34 felonies.

The reason he isn't going to jail is not because he's a slippery fucker with a stacked deck.

It's because he's a first time convict and the felonies are only class E nonviolent. While the sentencing guidelines are for up to four years jail per conviction, the guidelines are a *range*. For a first time conviction, it would be extremely rare to get jail time, especially if the convicted felon is not black and poor (hi systemic racism, I see you're still fucking here).

This guy is white, old, has at least some money to pay lawyers to appeal (allegedly - his lawyers keep not getting paid and getting sanctioned and/or disbarred), and it's a first time conviction and for a nonviolent felony.

Note that if he had been convicted previously of other felonies or any violent felonies, this would be a different conversation, fucking looking at you, Republican senators who refused to impeach for Jan 6 or trying to get zelynsky to manufacture dirt on Biden.

So. You still gotta vote. You gotta vote for Biden and straight Democrat for Congress. If you don't, Trump can seriously still win the election and be back in the white house with the nuclear codes and a chance to put several more bigoted, ultra conservative people on the Supreme Court bench. You think our civil rights are fucked now with a 6-3 majority? Watch what happens if it's a 6-3 majority where the conservative justices are all in their 50s and will be on the Court for the next 30 years. That's another generation of Americans under Christofascist rule.

You don't have to love Biden. You just need to hate trump more than you dislike/hate Biden. Surely, surely you prefer Biden to Trump.

And I like Biden. He's done a lot of good things, and some things I don't like. But I like him. And I really hate Trump.

You need to vote blue. Nothing else matters if we lose the white house and congress again.

[mariacallous]

“She’s really giving throwback oblivious mean girl, it’s kind of amazing.” “Omg her saying she got her husband involved, she is SO that woman.” I would love to tell you that these comments, written this summer about Blake Lively, the lead actor in domestic violence drama It Ends With Us, were posted on Reddit by some anonymous misogynistic troll.

Lively had made what looked like tone-deaf promotional appearances to push her haircare and drinks line alongside the film. It was revealed that she had had a scene rewritten by her husband, actor/director Ryan Reynolds, and that she took control over the final cut, which also featured a song by her best friend, Taylor Swift. Everything from Lively’s conduct to her predilection for florals seemed like fair game, spawning a vast amount of negative discourse and tanking her reputation. But the comments above were texts written by me, made in my most active group chat.

On Saturday, Lively filed a complaint with the California civil rights department against Justin Baldoni, both the film’s director and her male co-lead, producer Jamey Heath, production company Wayfarer Studios and its public relations/crisis management retinue, alleging that they actively sought to harm her reputation to pre-empt any possibility of her going public with an HR complaint she made during the film’s making.

Alleging the violation of physical boundaries, sexual and inappropriate comments and the absence of intimacy coordination, the court filing is an astonishing read. It claims that Heath showed Lively unsolicited footage of his wife giving birth as they filmed a scene where her character does so; that Baldoni’s “best friend” was drafted in to play the obstetrician-gynaecologist in that scene, in which Lively was “nearly nude” in front of dozens of crew; that Baldoni talked to her about non-consensual sexual encounters; that he wept in her trailer over reactions to paparazzi photos from shooting that called her old and unattractive, prompting her to remind him that in those scenes her character had just been abused by her husband, and that she should look authentically distressed, not “hot”.

In January, prior to resuming filming after the Writers Guild of America strike, a meeting was held in which Lively sought to have 30 new set protections implemented. Wayfarer said: “Although our perspective differs in many aspects, ensuring a safe environment for all is paramount, irrespective of differing views. Regarding your outlined requests, we find most of them not only reasonable but also essential for the benefit of all parties involved.” One of those protections was that Lively should not be subject to retaliatory action for speaking out. Instead, her complaint seeks to illustrate that the parties behind the film allegedly engaged PR and crisis management – including a company that has represented Johnny Depp and is partly funded by music mogul Scooter Braun, who bought the masters to Swift’s first six albums – to destroy Lively’s reputation via media and social media manipulation.

“You know we can bury anyone,” crisis management expert Melissa Nathan wrote to PR executive Jennifer Abel, one of thousands of messages subpoenaed by Lively. (Bryan Freedman, a lawyer for Baldoni, called the accusations “categorically false”, saying a crisis manager was brought in due to “multiple demands and threats” allegedly made by Lively.)

In a subsequent message, Nathan told Abel that Baldoni didn’t realise how lucky he was given the allegations they had heard about his on-set conduct: “the whispering in the ear the sexual connotations like Jesus fucking Christ”.

While the film’s stars were told to keep their promotional activities positive and uplifting – “grab your friends, wear your florals and head out to see it,” Lively said in a promotional video – Baldoni, who most of the cast had unfollowed on social media, as fans had noticed, positioned himself as a feminist ally engaged with domestic violence issues. In response to the social media response “really ramping up” in terms of criticism of Lively, Nathan texted Abel: “It’s actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate on women.” A “scenario planning” document by Nathan’s firm, TAG PR, said it could “explore planting stories about the weaponisation of feminism and how people in [Lively’s] circle like Taylor Swift have been accused of utilising these tactics to ‘bully’ into getting what they want.” Baldoni told Heath that he “didn’t love” the document because it didn’t leave him feeling sufficiently protected.

“The weaponisation of the ‘weaponisation of feminism’.” That is how a friend in our group chat put it as we pored over the New York Times report that broke the news of Lively’s allegations and the subsequent release of her entire complaint; as we looked back, horrified, on what we had said about her in recent months (entirely in private, I hasten to add). We realised the degree to which a group of supposedly media-literate journalists were potentially manipulated by a confected misogynistic narrative; how persistent and pernicious internalised misogyny can be when another woman doesn’t meet your standards.

Of course, feminism can be weaponised and leveraged for personal gain. The flourishing of pop-cultural feminism a decade ago paved the way for “girlboss” and lean-in “feminism”, which didn’t fight for much more than a woman’s right to act and earn as rapaciously as men; it’s now considered a joke, with even girlboss creator, Sophia Amoruso, distancing herself from it in … interviews to promote her new venture capital firm. These are nuanced conversations about not allowing a fight for equality, respect and safety to be seized for self-gain. But the idea of the Hollywood and PR machines perverting that concept to discredit a woman apparently intent on ensuring the safety of herself and others – on the chaotic set of a film about ending cycles of domestic abuse – is a level of 4D chess that is terrifying in its imperceptibility, effectiveness and potential prevalence.

There is a chilling disconnect in the way the crisis and publicity parties rejoice in their apparent PR victory – “So much mixed messaging It’s actually really funny if you think about it,” Nathan texted Abel – and the covert warfare they allegedly used to manipulate the tabloid media into parroting their narrative. “This went so well I am fucking dying … We have the four majors standing down on HR complaint,” Nathan told Abel. When MailOnline published a piece in August asking “Is Blake Lively set to be CANCELLED?” Abel texted Nathan: “You really outdid yourself with this piece.” These methods are deadly, acutely attuned to how to form and nurture media and social media sentiment against a woman. As Taylor Lorenz writes in her newsletter User Mag, it takes its cues directly from the Gamergate playbook.

How many women has this happened to? How many smear campaigns have seduced our most base and ungenerous instincts into swallowing their line? How many male directors and actors successfully positioned themselves as feminist allies post-#MeToo for cynical reasons? Beyond celebrity narratives, how has this affected how we perceive the women in our own lives? Culturally, we seem to have progressed – rather,regressed – from ostracising figures who act badly to grasping for politically legible ways to take against anyone whose greatest crime might be “seeming a bit annoying”. Is someone “not a girl’s girl”, as you often hear online, or do they just have different values to you? Does their behaviour just feel confrontational and uncomfortable to you because it might reflect your own insecurities?

Lively’s complaint has left my head spinning. What can you really trust? How do we question accepted narratives without descending into tin-hatted conspiracy theory? Why do so many people hate women this much? How much internalised misogyny roils under my own skin every day? I’d like to reach for a cute ending, to say that through assiduous, informed questioning and acute media literacy, cases like Lively’s might, you know, end with us. But the truth is I don’t think we stand a chance.

[fuckterfs-deactivated20221212]

Huge news for trans people in germany! The old Transsexuellengesetz (TSG, something like "transsexuals' law") has been replaced with the new Gesetz über die Selbstbestimmung in Bezug auf den Geschlechtseintrag (SBGG, something like "law about self decision in regards to the legal gender marker" ), also known as Selbstbestimmungsgesetz ("self decision law")!

"But fuckterfs-deactivated20221212, what are they and why is it great? what changes?"

The TSG from 1980 was the law that determined the process for trans people to legally get their name and gender changed. It needed the individual in question to have been living as "the opposite gender" for several years already and it used to force trans people to get sterilized to get their legal gender and name change. Then you had to go to court and that court would then decide two arbitrary people who would be vague "experts" (read: gatekeepers) to determine whether you're really trans. The process could be as short as a few months or as long as several years, and usually cost several thousand euros. It was common for the gatekeepers to ask invasive questions regarding sexual life and do tests that humiliate and devalue the person, and it was not unheard of for trans people to be denied by these gatekeepers based on whether or not the person wore makeup, what colour their clothes were, or even just how they walked.

I'm talking about the TSG in past tense, but until the SBGG is in effect it's still happening.

Starting in November 2024, trans people can go to the registry office and make a "declaration with self insurance" in which they state that they want to change their name and gender entry in the civil status register. The declaration must contain the new name(s), or declare that they want to keep their old name if it corresponds to the newly chosen gender. The possible gender entries are male, female, diverse, and no entry. It is not possible to change your name without changing your gender based on this new law. There is a span of one year after each gender change but no numerical limit, and the change must be sort of pre-registered three months in advance every time. You can start doing that in August, so that in November the first name and gender changes can begin. After these three months, as soon as you hand in your declaration, the change will be in effect immediately. The once-per-year limit does not apply to minors. That brings me to another thing about this law: the minimum age to make this declaration yourself is 14 years! Legal guardians can do it for you with your approval and with you being present below those fourteen years with a minimum of five. If you are over 14 you need either the approval of a legal guardian or a family court. This is supposed to make sure that teens with transphobic parents can still get their gender change (not a great solution but not too awful either)

I am not a lawyer nor a professional translator, so it is possible there's errors in this post