#PM security lapse case | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 4 years ago

Link

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

March 3, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

We’re in this weird eddy where Republicans are trying to cling to past politics to gain advantage and the Biden administration is trying to move forward. On top of this struggle are stories about how the previous administration pushed the boundaries of our laws or, worse, broke them.

Yesterday, two Republican governors, Greg Abbott of Texas and Tate Reeves of Mississippi, ended the mask mandates and other coronavirus restrictions for their states. So far today, the Johns Hopkins University tracker has reported 88,611 new cases and 2,189 new deaths. The numbers are dropping, but they are still wildly high compared to other nations. Texas and Mississippi are both in the top ten states in terms of deaths per capita.

It is hard not to see the reopening of Republican-led states as a deliberate affront to President Joe Biden, who asked for a 100-day mask mandate and who has sped up vaccine production to end the pandemic before new variants throw us back into a crisis. The Biden administration has tried to take politics out of the national response to the coronavirus, and made it a point to respond quickly to the crisis in Texas two weeks ago, when the unregulated Texas energy system froze. Health officials worry that a rush to reopen will undo all the progress we have made against the virus, and they are begging Texas and Mississippi to reconsider.

Nonetheless, Abbott has reopened his state and today tweeted: “The Biden Administration is recklessly releasing hundreds of illegal immigrants who have COVID into Texas communities. The Biden Admin[istration] must IMMEDIATELY end this callous act that exposes Texans & Americans to COVID.”

While Abbott is mired in past politics, the Biden administration today laid out a new approach to foreign affairs. Shortly before the White House released a paper explaining its national security policies, Secretary of State Antony Blinken gave a speech reiterating the administration’s belief that the world needs American leadership and engagement to help create order, and that countries must cooperate with each other.

Blinken promised to stop Covid-19 both at home and abroad, and to invest in global health security. He said we would address the economic crisis and the climate crisis and create a more stable, inclusive global economy. We will “renew democracy,” he said, “because it’s under threat.” Blinken promised to “incentivize democratic behavior” overseas without “costly military interventions or attempting to overthrow authoritarian regimes by force.”

Blinken identified China as the greatest modern rival of the United States and promised to “engage China from a position of strength,” working with allies to counter that nation’s rising power through diplomacy.

The Secretary of State emphasized again how the Biden administration sees domestic and foreign issues as complementary. “Beating COVID means vaccinating people at home and abroad,” he said. “Winning in the global economy means making the right investments at home and pushing back against unfair trading practices by China and others. Dealing with climate change means investing in resilience and green energy here at home and leading a global effort to reduce carbon pollution.”

“[D]istinctions between domestic and foreign policy have simply fallen away,” Blinken said. “Our domestic renewal and our strength in the world are completely entwined.”

Biden’s paper was even clearer, noting that we are at an inflection point that will determine whether democracy will fall to autocracy. “I firmly believe that democracy holds the key to freedom, prosperity, peace, and dignity,” he wrote. “We must now demonstrate — with a clarity that dispels any doubt — that democracy can still deliver for our people and for people around the world. We must prove that our model isn’t a relic of history; it’s the single best way to realize the promise of our future.”

Meanwhile, stories continue to break about the previous administration.

Tonight, we learned that the Department of Justice under Trump loyalist Attorney General William Barr refused to investigate or prosecute Trump’s Secretary of Transportation, Elaine Chao, even after that department’s inspector general asked for a review of what it said was a misuse of her office. The inspector general found repeated instances of Chao using her office to benefit the Chao family company, Foremost Group, a shipping company run by Chao’s sister. Chao is married to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Also, today, the inspector general for the Department of Defense issued a review of Representative Ronny Jackson, who was Trump’s White House physician before he was elected to Congress from Texas in 2020. The review says he has an explosive temper, made “sexual and denigrating” comments about a woman who was his subordinate, created a hostile work environment, and drank alcohol and took Ambien while on duty. The inspector general recommended that the Navy take “appropriate action” with regard to the retired officer. Jackson said, “Democrats are using this report to repeat and rehash untrue attacks on my integrity.”

Today’s biggest story about the previous administration, though, came from the Senate hearings about the January 6, 2021, attack, held before the committee of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the committee on Rules and Administration. While there is still confusion about what happened when, it became clear that there were some serious lapses in the protection of the Capitol, and it appears those lapses originated with Trump appointees in the Pentagon.

Because the District of Columbia is not a state, its National Guard is under the control of the Defense Department, and it is overseen by Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy. The Commander of the D.C. National Guard, Major General William Walker, told the Senate that, in response to a request from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and the director of D.C. Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency, Dr. Christopher Rodriguez, Walker requested approval for the mission from McCarthy on January 1.

McCarthy’s approval did not come until January 5, when the event was already upon them. And, in what Walker saw as an unusual move, McCarthy withheld approval for Walker to deploy the Quick Reaction Force, guardsmen equipped with helmets, shields, batons, and so on, to respond to civil disturbance, without the approval of the Secretary of Defense.

Then, at 1:49 pm on January 6, then Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, Steven Sund, called Walker to say that the Capitol had been breached. “Chief Sund, his voice cracking with emotion, indicated that there was a dire emergency on Capitol Hill and requested the immediate assistance of as many guardsmen as I could muster,” Walker told the Senate. Walker immediately called the Pentagon for approval to move in his troops, but officials there did not give the go-ahead for 3 hours and 19 minutes. Once allowed in, the National Guard troops deployed in 20 minutes. But by then, of course, plenty of damage had been done.

The delay in deployment stood in dramatic contrast to the approval accorded to the National Guard to deploy in June 2020. Today’s testimony suggests that the Pentagon placed unprecedented restrictions on the mobilization of the National Guard on January 6, preventing it from responding to the crisis at the Capitol in a timely fashion.

The House will not meet tomorrow out of fears that militants will attack the Capitol again, expecting that March 4 will see former president Donald Trump sworn in for a second term.

—-

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#quotes #political #Letters From An American #Heather Cox Richardson #COVID-19 #January 6 2021 #assault on the US Capitol #corrupt GOP #criminal GOP #crazy GOP #sedition #lies and the lying liars who tell them

2 notes · View notes

troger · 4 years ago

Text

the atlantic: This is your last free article.

me: *shares the fuck out of it*

Trump Has Justified Breaking One of America’s Most Sacred Norms

The tradition of granting post-term immunity from prosecution to those who leave the White House now comes at too great a cost.

12:33 PM ET

Paul Rosenzweig

Principal at Red Branch Consulting

In the 240 years since America’s founding, no former president has been indicted for criminal conduct. This isn’t because they were angels—far from it. And it isn’t because post-term indictment is not legally allowed. Instead, it is because Americans don’t like the idea of criminalizing politics. Both parties and the public see the prospect of post-term immunity as a guarantee that the country’s politics will remain civil and that power will transition peacefully from one party to the other. That is what drove President Gerald Ford to pardon Richard Nixon. And it’s one reason why the Office of the Independent Counsel decided not to indict former President Bill Clinton.

The presidency of Donald J. Trump has upended those calculations, and the resistance to post-term investigation may now come at too great a cost. When he leaves office, whether in January or four years later, the next administration or one of the states can and should investigate citizen Donald Trump—a former president whose legal status will be no different from that of any other American. The risk of politicization of such an investigation is far outweighed by the danger posed by failing to uphold our nation’s values. To protect future presidents from retributive investigations once they leave office, however, any investigation should be limited to Trump’s conduct before and after his presidency, not his behavior while he was president. If the findings of such an investigation justify it, prosecutors should indict the former president for violations of criminal law.

I come to this view reluctantly. The risks in the approach are both real and substantial. But after having served as a prosecutor in the Department of Justice, as a senior counsel in the Whitewater investigation of Clinton, and as a Bush appointee at the Department of Homeland Security, I’ve come to recognize that challenging, balanced judgments of the sort necessary today are sometimes forced on us by circumstances beyond our control. Hard choices do, sometimes, make bad law, but they cannot always be avoided. To decline to investigate Trump’s alleged criminality after he has left office is itself a choice—and it’s the wrong one.

The biggest danger of countenancing the investigation of ex-presidents is also the most obvious: an ever-escalating cycle of retribution. One can easily imagine a losing president resisting the call to leave the White House at least in part because he feared subsequent prosecution, or a winning president prosecuting her opponents over normal political differences. Indicting one former president risks making a habit of doing so, and reducing America to little more than a revolving-door banana republic. That’s why, for example, former Attorney General Eric Holder has reacted with grave concern to calls for Trump’s post-presidency prosecution. As Holder might put it—with substantial justification—if you thought “Lock her up” was the wrong thing to say about Hillary Clinton, you shouldn’t support a “Lock him up” perspective on Trump.

But a reluctance to prosecute does not mean there should be a prohibition against doing so. The idea of absolute presidential impunity from prosecution for all time and for all actions is just a re-instantiation of the kingly prerogative—“The king can do no wrong”—that was one of several reasons America had a revolution. Should a president who committed murder before his election that was only discovered once he was in office be immune from prosecution after impeachment and removal? Surely not.

And yet the promise not to prosecute after a term ends is part of the price we pay for the routine peaceful transition of power. One can readily imagine, for example, the violent reaction of some presidential supporters to even the hint of a possible criminal investigation.

This is true even in normal times, but it is all the more true during periods of deep political hostility. The prosecution of Trump after he leaves office, as the conservative journalist Jonathan V. Last recently wrote in his newsletter, The Triad, is of secondary importance to the more important value of preserving the nation: “Buttressing the rule of law today won’t matter if we descend into widespread, open civic unrest that undermines the legitimacy of the political system itself. That would be a generational, ongoing crisis. And once the toothpaste is all the way out of that tube, then there is no going back until the people who have decided to be against the system die off.” That’s a pretty grim prospect, and if that were the choice, it might be wise to buy civil peace with the coin of prosecutorial deferral.

But is that the standard we aspire to? Do we think so little of our civil society that we set rules of behavior based on fear of mob rule? America is often said to be a nation of ideals, not of cultural groups. It exists as a collection of aspirational principles—equality of opportunity, freedom of expression, and, ultimately, the rule of law. If we discard those ideas to save the nation, have we actually saved the nation? If we truly believe in those principles, then, without prejudging the result, it would be a dereliction of duty for the next president—or for any state with cause to investigate—to refrain from examining the potentially illegal actions of former President Trump just because of his previous title. As Teddy Roosevelt famously said, “No man [should be] above the law and no man [should be] below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it.” To categorically say otherwise is to undermine the foundation of American democracy.

A post-term investigation would be on solid legal footing. Post-term immunity is fundamentally inconsistent with the ground that is offered by the Department of Justice for immunity from prosecution while a president is serving. The DOJ has long been of the view that sitting presidents cannot be criminally charged. It justifies that position in two ways.

First, it looks to practical questions of implementation. The DOJ has argued, broadly, that the possibility of an indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president would “undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.” It is difficult, they say, to imagine a president running a government while sitting in jail. While other, lesser officials have successfully continued in office from prison (the example of James Michael Curley, who served as the mayor of Boston while in prison for mail fraud, springs to mind), it is not unreasonable to think that doing so would be impossible for the president of the United States.

In addition to the practical difficulties created by a requirement for the president’s physical presence at a trial or in jail, the DOJ has relied on the intangible but significant effects that an indictment and trial could have on presidential power. As Nixon’s DOJ put it in a memorandum prepared in 1973, “The President is the symbolic head of the Nation. To wound him by a criminal proceeding is to hamstring the operation of the whole governmental apparatus, both in foreign and domestic affairs.”

Notably, for our purposes, both the analysis and the import of the DOJ’s views are limited to a time when the president is still in office. After the president’s term is over, there is no longer the practical problem of running a government. Nor are there the same sorts of intangible effects on presidential symbolism; he is, after all, no longer the “head of the Nation.”

All of this is precisely why the DOJ has long justified its term-based immunity argument by contending that a president would be subject to prosecution “after he left office” (albeit while noting the possibility that a lapse in the statute of limitations might create a gap in criminality). In other words, in the department’s view, it is the office itself that commands the immunity, not the person. It would be strange and ironic if the argument for immunity during a term of office were somehow converted into a prohibition on post-term indictment as well.

Quinta Jurecic and Benjamin Wittes: How to corrupt the Justice Department

It is likely that even the DOJ would argue against this sort of impunity. To do so would be, in effect, to recant much of what they said in 1973 and later repeated in 2000, with respect to Bill Clinton. As a formal matter, no legal barrier to post-term indictment exists.

Thus the ultimate question is not whether a former president can be investigated but whether one should be. What is best for our country? How can the country uphold the rule of law and the idea that no one is above the law, without driving itself into civil discord and risking fatal polarization?

There are no easy answers here. The best one can offer is a discretionary judgment that has some convincing rationale and offers a plausible way forward. In my view, the outlines of this are clear: It would be too great an affront to law for a president to have perpetual immunity. At the same time, the risks of polarization from criminalizing decisions that were made by the president during the course of a presidency is substantial. Alternatives, such as impeachment and loss of an election, exist that can address those wrongs.

Hence, let us try to thread the needle: Forgo the prospect of prosecution for actions undertaken while in office, but recognize that crimes a president commits while a regular citizen should not be excused just because he or she has served as the president of the United States.

This is not, by any means, a perfect solution. In our parade of horribles, there might be edge cases of conduct that occurred while the president was in office that would be so egregious we would want them to be criminally addressed. If, say, a hypothetical future president committed murder while in office, we would hope that a post-term prosecution for that offense would be permissible.

This example suggests that a ban on temporally based prosecution may be too broad and would, if strictly interpreted, revive the kingly prerogative against which we rebelled. On the other hand, any bright-line temporal rule that we adopt as a prudential matter has the virtue of being easy to administer and of avoiding post-term disputes about the level of egregiousness necessary for certain conduct to be prosecuted.

As a theoretical matter, the discretionary policy of not prosecuting an ex-president for acts committed while in office (especially those involving even tangentially the execution of his official duties) would have to yield in extreme cases. And while we cannot, with precision, define what those extreme cases might be, one hopes we would know them when we saw them.

Thankfully, we have yet to confront this degree of egregious behavior. For now, it is sufficient to articulate a general rule: A president should not be prosecuted after he leaves office for actions that occurred while he was the head of state, but he should remain subject to investigation for actions that occurred before or after his term.

To say anything else would be an affront. The powerful should be held to account. For society to function, all Americans must believe that crime doesn’t pay and that everyone is equal before the law. To avoid strife, we may exempt a president from criminal investigation for his political actions (however heinous and criminal they may be), but if we go further, and extend to him the kingly prerogative of impunity for his lifetime, we go a long way to destroying the faith in the rule of law that undergirds democracy.

With those concerns somewhat resolved, how do we decide whether to investigate former President Trump?

In many ways, the investigation of an ex-president should be no different from that of anyone else. As in other cases, a prosecutor would conduct interviews, subpoena documents, serve search warrants, convene a grand jury, and, in the end, if appropriate, ask the grand jury to return an indictment. There may be plea agreements, or trials, and then convictions, appeals, and, ultimately, perhaps, a prison sentence.

Kevin Wack: American justice isn’t impartial anymore

In that context, a prosecutor would typically ask two interrelated questions: First, is there sufficient admissible evidence of criminality that could sustain a conviction on the crimes to be charged? If not, the prosecutor should let the matter drop.

In Trump’s case, it seems clear that multiple credible criminal investigations are warranted. While not all of them may prove well grounded, the existing public record of well-documented allegations of criminal misconduct provides plentiful predication for opening an inquiry. This record includes but is not limited to a New York Times investigation that has described potential tax and mortgage fraud by Trump and the Trump organization; a narrower investigation of a series of transactions in the run-up to the 2016 election that has suggested the possibility of both tax fraud and campaign-finance fraud; a claim in Bloomberg that Trump may have committed insurance fraud; the uncovering of evidence by ProPublica of Trump’s alleged mortgage and tax fraud; the allegations of Trump’s niece, Mary Trump, that the Trump family committed fraud in the probate of her father’s will; and multiple alleged incidents of sexual assault (to the extent not barred by a statute of limitations).

There are other investigations for which there is likewise predication, but that, as a matter of prudence, we ought to forgo because they involve actions the president took while in office. For example, more than 1,000 prosecutors have concluded that the Mueller report uncovered ample evidence of Trump’s criminal obstruction of justice, and, additionally, former Trump staffers have reported the president’s corrupt offer of a pardon for illegal conduct that advanced his political interests.

One cannot, of course, know what an investigation of the allegations of pre-term criminal conduct might ultimately uncover (and, indeed, at least one, and possibly three, investigations are ongoing). But were Trump just an average citizen, there would be a basis to open up an inquiry into his behavior.

Which brings us to the second question: If prosecutors (at least those in the federal system, with which I am more familiar) conclude that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, they will ask if reasons of public policy exist that suggest that the prosecution should not be brought. Typical reasons might be that it’s a small enough infraction that it’s not worth their time, that they don’t have enough resources, or that the prosecution won’t have any deterrence value.

The Principles of Federal Prosecution are intended to guide prosecutors in the exercise of their discretion, and offers nine (admittedly flexible) factors for assessment and consideration.

The first of these, which asks what the current federal priorities are, is not specific to any individual. It allows, for example, for an administration to say that it is focusing on drug crimes or for another to devote resources to fighting child pornography or white-collar crime.

The remaining factors, however, deal with the specifics of the offense and the nature of the defendant. How serious is the crime? How culpable is the accused in the scheme, and what is his role? What is his criminal history? And, more generally, what would be the deterrent value of the prosecution?

Here, it is fair to say that any balance we can strike at this stage, before all the facts are known, strongly suggests that an investigation of former President Trump would be consistent with these principles and that they would not bar an investigation of his conduct were he just a typical citizen. Trump’s pre-term conduct (if it is proved) would indicate a long-standing scheme of fraud (akin to that perpetrated by Bernie Madoff, for example) and significant financial abuse—exactly that sort of pattern of conduct and severity of offense that, in normal cases, would demand the investment of federal resources. If Americans are to have any confidence in the concept of the rule of law and equality before the law, and if the Principles of Federal Prosecution are to be applied in a neutral manner, the same result must obtain here.

Focusing exclusively on potentially illegal conduct that occurs outside the presidency is unlikely to solve the problems that lie ahead. Trump’s supporters will not be mollified by the distinction. And leaving unaddressed criminal activity that occurred during the presidential term may be too high a price to pay. But this sort of uncomfortable compromise is the only way to maintain accountability for crimes without making political differences a criminal offense. At least, I hope that is so.

The real shame, of course, is that we even have to contemplate this issue at all. Three times in the past half century, Americans have had to ask whether a president should be prosecuted after he leaves office. Perhaps the better solution would be to be more careful in the person we elect.

PAUL ROSENZWEIG is a principal at Red Branch Consulting. Twenty years ago, he served as a senior counsel in the investigation of President Bill Clinton.

5 notes · View notes

fortheheavenssake · 5 years ago

Text

💜💜 PG MM Anon(II) 💜💜 Interpretation Collection - 4

20. May 19

MM ANON ……… a personal loss………… the Dynamic Duo………… FPhishing……Nlcola Nike Snike ………… Hydroxy- foxy(do not do this at home)…………………” a suitable case for ( shhhhh) treatment “ ………… “ no comment “ …………… “ a game of cards old thing “…………… “patience Philip ……………” ………… ma’am , it’s Charlotte and George on tic-toc…………… “dance, gan, gan, you dance, … Sydney!!

Thank yoi😊❤️❤️

*Entertainment purposes

MAY 19/2020. RIDDLE#21

a personal loss

LOSS CAN BE MANY THINGS. WE HAVE SEEN THE MASSIVELY TALENTED MUSICIAN, ADELE, COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF THE SUSSEXES, TWICE RECENTLY. SHE, AS I HAVE SAID PREVIOUSLY, POSTED A PHOTO OF HERSELF NEARLY UNRECOGNIZABLE. SHE HAS LOST SO MUCH WEIGHT AND HER FACE LOOKS SO DIFFERENT WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION. SHE OWES NONE TO ANYONE, ITS HER PERSONAL JOURNEY. I TRULY DOUBT THOUGH THAT SHE IS PERSONAL FRIENDS WITH THE SUSSEXES OR WE WOULD HAVE HEARD FROM HER BEFORE, SO WHY NOW? SHARED PLASTIC SURGEONS PERHAPS?

the Dynamic Duo…………

THIS USED TO BE BATMAN AND ROBIN. THEN THERE WAS THE FAB FOUR WHICH ORIGINALLY WERE THE BEATLES, THEN TWO ROYAL COUPLES, ONE OF WHICH NEVER REALLY EXISTED. WE HAVE SEEN THE EMERGENCE IN THE LAST YEAR OF A VERY CONFIDENT ROYAL COUPLE AND FAMILY, THE CAMBRIDGES. THEY ARE MARVELLOUS. THEY ARE AND HAVE BEEN FOR YEARS AND CONTINUE TO DO MARVELLOUS WORK REGARDING THE AREA OF MENTAL HEALTH AND WERE BRILLIANT DURING NURSES WEEK.

FPhishing……

THIS IS SCAMMING ONLINE. MOST OF OUR ROYALS AND FORMER GIRLFRIENDS, HAVE BEEN HACKED BEFORE, NOW THEIR SECURITY IS HIGHEST LEVEL. SO WHO IS PHISHING OR BEING PFHISHED? MADAM PERHAPS? SHE HAS NO MI5 OR ROYAL SECURITY ON HER DEVICES THAT IS CERTAIN.

Nlcola Nike Snike …………

SNP MINISTER, MY THEY SEEM TO HAVE IT OUT FOR MS STURGEON. RUMOURS OR MISLABELS OF COVERUP OF COVID 19 AT A NIKE CONFERENCE IN EDINBURGH IN FEBRUARY. SNIKE MEANS S***.

Hydroxy- foxy(do not do this at home)…………………”

I JUST CANNOT BELIEVE ANY DOCTOR COULD PRESCRIBE THIS. THE U.S. PRESIDENT HAS STATED PUBLICLY HE HAS BEEN TAKING HYDROXYCHOLORQUINE FOR A WEEK AND A HALF BECAUSE HE BELIEVES IT PROTECTS HIM FROM CORONOAVIRUS STRAIN CIVID-19. THIS DRUG IS GIVEN FOR MALARIA AND A NUMBER IF OTHER THINGS BUT THE PRODUCT MONOGRAPH IN NO WAY SUGGESTS ANY INDICATIONS OF USE FOR THIS PURPOSE. ALL PRESCRIPTION DRUGS HAS MONOGRAPHS WHICH ARE EXTENSIVE, INDICATIONS FOR USE, CONTRAINDICATIONS, SIDE EFFECTS ETC. ITS A BIG BOOK VALLED THE CPS IN CANADA. NO RECOMMENDATIONS YET THAT THIS IS FOR TREATMENT OF COVID AND IN FACT IS QUITE DANGEROUS.

“a suitable case for ( shhhhh) treatment “

SILENT TREATMENT IS SHHHHH. SO WHAT HAS BEEN DEEMED SUITABLE TO STAY SILENT? ARCHIES REAL SEX, LOCALE, PARENTAGE? THERE ARE MANY FACTS THAT WE WILL NEVER BE PRIVY TOO. WHEN HARRY WILL BE BACK? DIVORCE SOON? IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED HOPEFULLY ANNULMENT BUT I REPEAT MYSELF.

HER CASE, AS IN LEGAL CASE, AGAINST THE MOS, I BET SHE WISHES SHE HAD REMAINED SILENT. HOW AND WHERE IS SHE GOING TO FIND FIVE FRIENDS TO TESTIFY? YEP, IN THIS CASE, IT IS SUITABLE THEY REMAIN SILENT, FOR THEIR OWN FUTURE.

NO FORMAL ANNIVERSARY WISHES FROM THE CAMBRIDGES, HMTQ……..SEEMS TO ME ANNULMENT OR DIVORCE, KIDS YOU KNOW I ME, I AM IN THE ANNULMENT CATEGORY, HAPPENED THE DAY THEY VISITED CANADA HOUSE. SO THERE IS TO ANNIVERSARY TO CONGRATULATE THEM ON, SINCE THEY ARE NOT MARRIED😁😁😁😁

“ no comment “

NO COMMENT INDEED. THE BRF HAVE STATED THEY WILL MAKE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE SUSSEXES MONTHS AGO. SO THIS PAYBACK OF FROGMORE RENOVATIONS IS BEING LEFT TO PR AND THE MEDIA AND IT IS LOOKING PATHETIC.

“ a game of cards old thing “…………… “patience Philip ……………” ………… ma’am , it’s Charlotte and George on tic-toc…………… “dance, gan, gan, you dance, … Sydney!!

BACK TO WINDSOR, HMTQ AND HIMSELF ARE PLAYING CARDS, GONE IS THE JIGSAW PUZZLE. HE IS IMPATIENT WANTING HER TO MAKE HER MOVE, SHE IMPLORES HIS PATIENCE. THEY ARE INTERRUPTED BY SYDNEY, THE CAMBRIDGE CHILDREN ARE ON TIK TOK…SOCIAL MEDIAS NEWEST SERVICE THAT ALL THE YOUND KIDS ARE USING NOW. SOUNDS THEY HAVE MUSIC GOING, ARE DANCING AND THEY WANT GAN GAN TO DANCE ALONG….HIMSELF HAS HAD ENOUGH OF THE NOISE CALLING FOR SYDNEY! I HOPE THEY HAVE RESTOCKED HIS BODDINGTONS. 🤣🤣😂😂.

GSTQAOBC 🇨🇦🇬🇧🇦🇺🇳🇿

Thank yoi😊❤️❤️. *Entertainment purposes

————-

21. May 19

MM ANON …… Ana-adversity …… the gathering marital storm…………” first family visit will be the United States when normalisation hits ma’am” …………”life will return ma’am”……… Who is that? …………… guesting the testing ……… “ they won’t return early ma’am”…………… “one speaks to Catherine,daily , and the little ones” ……… “it’s interminable Sydney,” …” a Little top-up sir”

Thank you😊❤️❤️

*Entertainment purposes

MAY 19/2020. RIDDLE #22

TWO YEARS TODAY THE GATHERING OF UNHAPPY PEOPLE🤬😡🙁��🥺😫😖

Ana-adversity ……

THROUGHOUT THE COVID EMERGENCY WORLDWIDE THERE HAVE BEEN AND STILL ARE CRITICAL SHORTAGES OF PPE, SUPPLIES, TEST KITS, VARIETY OF, TESTING IS WOEFULLY LOW IN NUMBERS, VARIOUS REGIONS HAVE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS. HEALTHCARE WORKERS AND OTHER ESSENTIAL WORKERS JAVE BEEN PLACED AT HIGH RISK OF ADVERSITY AND MANY HAVE DIED WORLDWIDE.

the gathering marital storm…………

WE ARE IN FOR NEWS VERY VERY SOON. I HOPE IT IS ANNULMENT BECAUSE THAT MEANS AUTOMATIC LOSS OF MADAM’S TITLE BUT DIVORCE IS GOOD TOO. THE GACT THAT THERE WERE NO ANNIVERSARY WISHES CRICKETS 🦗🦗 FROM ANY OFFICIAL ROYAL TWITTER, INSTAGRAM ETC THAT I AM AWARE OF. EVERY DAY THERE ARE ARTICLES BRINGING HARRY’S NAME BACK IN, TODAY REMINDING US HE WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE TRIO THAT STARTED HEADS TOGETHER. KIDS ANY DAY A HEADLINE WILL HAPPEN AND 💜💜🐼💜💜 PAGE WILL GO GREEN. I CAN HARDLY WAIT!!

“first family visit will be the United States when normalisation hits ma’am” …………”life will return ma’am”………

I BELIEVE HMTQ TO BE SPEAKING WITH LG, HE IS REASSURING HER THAT LIFE WILL RETURN, RESUME THE WAYS OF LIFE. AS THE PROCESS OF UNLOCKDOWNING IS COMING, THINGS WILL BE CLOSELY MONITORED. SOUNDING LIKE ONCE ALL IS COPACETIC, THE CAMBRIDGES WILL BE OFF TO AMERICA FOR A VISIT. THAT PUTS A SPANNER IN THE MIX OF MY IDEA/DELUSION OF CATHERIN BEING PREGNANT. MM ANON, EVER SINCE YOU USED THE PHRASE, SPANNER IN THE MIX , WAY BACK LAST YEAR IN A RIDDLE. I USE IT ALL THE TIME!! I THOUGHT CANADA HAD BEEN ON THE DIARY BEFORE ALL OF THIS. EITHER WAY IT WILL BE HUGELY POPULAR.

Who is that? ……………

NOW THIS CLUE BEFUDDLES ME. WHO IS ASKING THE QUESTION? COUKD BE MANY THINGS. WE HAVE ASKED OURSELVES THAT IN MADAMS RECENT PHOTOS, THEY ARE SO BIZARRE, SHE LOOKS SO UNLIKE HERSELF. BUT BETTER, WHO IS FARRY? THAT WAS A GREAT POST OF THE PHOTO SHOWING THIS CHAPS COMPLETELY BALD HEAD FROM THE BACK. THIS IS SOME LOW PAID LIKELY OUT OF WORK ACTOR. IS HE COMPLICIT TO FRAUD.? IS IT ILLEGAL TO PRETEND TO BE A PRINCE? I DONT KNOW BUT I SURE KNOW HE IS NOT NOT NOT OUR HARRY.

guesting the testing ………

SO MUCH CONTROVERSY NOW ABOUT COVID TESTING. IN THE DM, I WAS READING THAT THERE ARE TRUTHS COMING OUT NOW ABOUT DECISIONS MADE AROUND ADEQUATE TESTS, ADEQUATE SUPPLIES OF TESTS AND ADEQUATE NUMBER OF TESTS HAVING BEEN DONE BETWEEN THEN AND NOW. WHO HAS THE BEST TEST? IT IS NASAL PHARYNGEAL WHICH TAJES DAYS AND MANY FALSE NEGATIVES OR FINGER PRICKS/SEROLOGY AND HAS ITS OWN ISSUES. TRACK AND TRACE WAS NOT DONE IN EARLY STAGE IN THE U.K.

“ they won’t return early ma’am”……

HMTQ IS SPEAKING WITH LG AGAIN, REASSURING HER THE CAMBRIDGE CHILDREN WILL NOT RETURN TO SCHOOL EARLY. SAFETY IS PRIORITY ESPECIALLY FOR THE CHILDREN DIRECTLY IN LINE OF SUCCESSION.

……… “one speaks to Catherine,daily , and the little ones” ……… “it’s interminable Sydney,” …” a Little top-up sir”

AS USUAL OUR DEAR MM ANON ENDS WITH A SCENE BETWEEN HMTQ AND HIMSELF. SHE IS SAYING SHE KEEPS DAILY CONTACT WITH CATHERINE AND THE EVER GROWING CAMBRIDGE CHILDREN. I WONDER IF PART OF THIS IS PER MY SPECULATION IN A PREVIOUS RIDDLE OF THE CLUE FOUR, MEANING CATHERINE IS EXPECTING. GENERALLY DURING HER FIRST TRIMESTER SHE HAS SUFFERED GREATLY. HIMSELF IS SAYING THIS PROTRACTED LOCKDOWN IS INTERMINABLE. EITHER THAT OR HIMSELF IS IRRITATED BY THE NOISE OF THE CHILDREN IS🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂. SYDNEY KNOWS WHAT MEDICINE HE NEEDS AND OFFERS HIM A TOP UP ON HIS BODDINGTONS!

GSTQAOBC 🇨🇦🇬🇧🇦🇺🇳🇿

gstqaobc GUYS IT JUST HIT MY THICK BRAIN, ANA ADVERSITY IS THE TWO YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE GATHERING OF UNHAPPY PEOPLE IS TODAY. WHAT A MESS THAT WAS AND THE BLUNDEROUS FALLOUT SINCE THAT TIME.💜💜🙏🏻🙏🏻😊😊PG😊😊🙏🏻🙏🏻💜💜 GSTQAOBC 🇨🇦🇬🇧🇦🇺🇳🇿

Thank you😊❤️❤️

*Entertainment purposes

—————

22. May 20

MM ANON ……… 5 years old ‘ COVID security ……… transmission admission??……… 1st. June. …………… A pollution solution ………… free at last……… kiss 💋 me 😱😱😱………… another Father???…………… Spanish,French and judo 😂😂😂…………… lies,damm lies, and MM……… an expensive squat………… A Greece-y gamble. ………… “ is one sitting comfortably’ good, Once apon a time “

*Entertainment purposes

MAY 21/2020. RIDDLE #23

5 years old ‘ COVID security ………

UK SCHOOLS SET TO RESUME JUNE 1ST. THERE WAS A RIDDLE CLUE THE OTHER DAY I INTERPRETED , IT SAID SOMETHING LIKE THEY WONT’T RETURN SOON. I TOOK THAT TO MEAN THE CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY AS BEING IN THE DIRECT LINE OF SUCCESSION WOULD NOT RETURN SOON. THERE IS A RISK WHEN THIS RESUMES. I THINK THE RIGHT DECISION WILL BE TAKEN. ACCORDING TO HELLO CANADA, CHARLOTTE WOULD BE THE FIRST TO LEAVE ISOLATION AS YEAR 1 AND YEAR 6 STUDENTS RETURN JUNE 1ST. I AM CERTAIN ALL SECURITY WILL HAVE BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE TESTED AND ISOLATED AS WELL. THERE IS A SERIOUS RISK HERE, AS WE ALL KNOW.

transmission admission??………

PRINCE CHARLES HAD COVID-19! PM BOJO HAD IT, NOW WE KNOW JACK’S FATHER WAS DEATHLY ILL WITH IT. THEY ALL ARE RECOVERING OR RECOVERED . I THINK PM BOJO NEEDS MORE TIME TO RECOVER, HE LOOKS SO PALE AND UNWELL IN THE PAPERS. AFTER HIS MORNING RUN. HAS THERE BEEN A BLIP IN SECURITY OR EXPOSURE HERETOFORE NOT TOLD? HAS THERE BEEN A LAPSE RESULTING IN THESE INFECTIONS OR THE GENERAL POPULATION. THERE IS GREAT TENSION FROM MAN Y TOWARDS CHINA, MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THE TRUE NATURE AND SEVERITY OF THIS CORONAVIRUS WAS NOT SHARED TRUTHFULLY AND QUESTIONS ABOUT THE W.H.O. I WONDER, AS WITH MANY THINGS, WE WILL EVER BE GIVEN THE COMPLETE TRUTH. THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASE IN ANTIASIAN INCIDENTS OF VERBAL AND PHYSICAL INCIDENTS IN 🇨🇦. PHARMACEUTICALS HAVE BILLIONS TO EARN FROM POTENTIAL TREATMENTS OR VACCINES.

1st. June. ……………

THIS IS OR HAS BEEN THE DATE SET FOR PRIMARY GRADE 1 AND 6 STUDENTS TO RETURN TO CLASSES. I WISH THEY WOULD JUST LET THE WEE ONES BE DONE. THE GRADUATING STUDENTS ARE THE ONES MY HEART HURTS FOR.

MIGHT THIS BE THE DAY HARRY OFFICIALLY RETURNS A WELL?🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

A pollution solution …………

WITH THE WORLD LOCKDOWN, MANY EMISSIONS THAT POLLUTE THE WORLD HAVE BEEN DRASTICALLY DIMINISHED. I REMEMBER A FEW WEEKS AGO ON THE BLOG, SOMEONE POSTED THE MOST BEAUTIFUL PHOTOS TAKEN OF THE HIMALAYAS. THE FOLKS IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD HAD NOT SEEN THEM VISIBLE FOR 30 YEARS OR SO. WHEN WE RESUME LIFE THERE IS NO GOING BACK. CREATIVITY IS ALREADY ABOUNDING IN ENDLESS WAYS. IT TRULY WILL BE A BRAVE NEW WORLD BUT IN A GOOD SENSE. MANY CAN WORK FROM HOME, LESS MASS TRANSPORTATION BUT THAT WILL DEFINITELY HAVE A TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMIC EFFECT FOR SURE. I HOPE THOSE BRILLIANT MINDS CAN USE THIS TO LESSEN POLLUTION PERMANENTLY AND DEAL WITH THE POLLUTION THAT IS DESTROYING OUR BEAUTIFUL PLANET GOD GAVE US TO STEWARD.

free at last………

THIS IS A LINE FROM DR KING, SPEAKING OF THE PLIGHT OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND REFERENCE TO SLAVERY IN AMERICA MANY YEARS AGO. HARRY HAS BEEN IN A RELATIONSHIP/PR SLAVERY OF A SORT, I WONDER AND PRAY AND FEEL VERY STRONGLY WITH THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY NOT MENTIONED BY ANY OF THE BRF, ANNULMENT OR DIVORCE ANNOUNCEMENT IS IMMINENT. I KNOW I HAVE SAID THAT A ZILLION TIMES BUT IT SEEMS THERE ARE MORE INDICATING SIGNS THAN PREVIOUSLY.

kiss 💋 me 😱😱😱…………

REMINDS ME OF KISS ME KATE, THE MUSICAL, JUST THE FIRST WORDS. KISSES TODAY CAN BE FATAL. WHO WANTS A KISS AND WHO GIVES A HORRID KISS. I REMEMBER 18MONTHS AGO, AT THE POLO, MADAM AWARDED THE TROPHY AND KISSED HARRY. HE GRABBED THE CHAMPAGNE AND TOOK A BIG SIP, SWISHED HIS MOUTH AND SPAT IT OUT AS TO GST RID IF HER MOUTHS TASTE. GROSS WHERE THAT MOUTH HAS BEEN, I CANNOT BEAR TO THINK. IS MADAM GOING TO TRY AND GET HIM TO KISS HER SOMEHOW?? OR WORSE YET THREE KISSES? IS SHE GOING TO TRY AND GET OUR CAMBRIDGE KIDDIES TO KISS HER?

another Father???……………

OH THE PR, 🇨🇦DAVID FOSTER IS ON HIS 547TH YOUNG WIFE AND PR IS HE IS LIKE A NEW FATHER TO FARRY= FAKE HARRY. PR HURTS SO BADLY AND NADAM IS GETTING HER DIGS IN AT EVERYONE. SHE IS SO EVIL.

Spanish,French and judo 😂😂😂……………

I LAUGHED AT THE PHOTOSHOPPED PICS ON THE BLOG OF A VERY FIT WOMAN DOING MARTIAL ARTS WITH MADAMS FACE GLUED ONTO THE BODY. HARRY HAD A GO AT MADAM AT CANADA HOUSE ENCOURAGING HER TO SPEAK FRENCH🤣🤣😂😂. OF COURSE SHE COULD NOT, SHE HAS TOLD SO MANY LIES, THESE THREE ARE JUST THREE SMALL DROPS IN AN OCEAN.

lies,damm lies, and MM………

I HAVE TAKEN TO CHECKING THE URBAN DICTIONARY, NORMAL SPELLING IS DAMN FOR THE CURSE OR DAM FOR THE THING THAT HOLDS BACK WATER. ACCORDING TO URBAN AND THIS IS DISGUSTING DAMM IS DRUNKS AGAINST MADD MOTHERS, PLAY ON MADD…MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING. A DAMM IS ALSO A COIN IN OLD INDIA.

SO IS MADAM LYING ABOUT FOREIGN MONEY OR IS THERE A HISTORY OF IMPAIRED DRIVING. ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING, AS OUR SKIPPY SAYS, IS POSSIBLE. THE ONLY THING WE KNOW FOR SURE IS NOTHING IS AS OT SEEMS, TOLD US OR PURPORTS TO BE.

an expensive squat…………

SQUAT IS A TOUGH EXERCISE, VERY CORE STRENGTHENING FOR SURE. IT IS ALSO A POSITION MANY WOMEN USE DURING LABOUR AND CHILDBIRTH. IT ALSO MEANS TO APPROPRIATE SOMEONE PROPERTY. THERE ARE, IN SOME PLACES, LAWS THAT PROTECT SQUATTERS RIGHTS AND THE RIGHTFUL OWNER CAN HAVE A WHALE OF A TIME TRYING TO GET THE COURTS TO EVICT THEM. IS MADAM SQUATTING IN ANY WAY? THIS IS TYPICAL HER, USING AND ABUSING ANYONE AND ANYTHING. USING PHOTOSHOPS OF TP’S MANSION AND PR LIES THAT HER AND A BALD HEADED “H” ARE THERE. I THINK THIS COST MIGHT NOT JUST BE IN MONEY BUT IN FREEDOM. AS WELL ON E THINGS FINALLY CATCH UP WITH HER. SCALES ⚖️.

A Greece-y gamble. …………

WE KNOW MADAM HAS YACHTED ALL OVER THAT PART OF THE WORLD. IS SHE USING SOME INFORMATION GAINED DURING THAT TIME TO GET SOMETHING FROM A CLIENT THERE? I KNOW LINDSAY LOHAN IS DOING EXTREMELY WELL. FOR HERSELF THERE WITH HER RELATIONSHIP WITH AN OLDER MAN. LAST I HEARD SHE HAD TWO NIGHTCLUBS OR WAS IT THREE…

“ is one sitting comfortably’ good, Once apon a time “

MM ANON AGAIN CHOOSES TO END WITH MY FAVOURITE PART, HMTQ QUIET TIME, SHE HAS REGULAR FACETIME CONTACT WITH THE CAMBRIDGES AND WE HEARD TIK TOK TOO🤣🤣😂😂😂. SHE IS READING A STORY OR A BEDTIME STORY TO THE CAMBRIDGE CHILDREN. HOW SWEET. OH WILL BE GOOD WHEN SHE CAN HUG THEM AGAIN AND ALL OF US.

Thank you😊❤️❤️

*Entertainment purposes GSTQAOBC 🇨🇦🇬🇧🇦🇺🇳🇿

——————

23. May 22

MM ANON …… “what , seen at Lympstone “………… a Diplomatic retreat ……… A-Nul-ment………… NY bio-diver-city……… facegrime ………… Charles, a man for all see-sons……… thermal Heathrow ………… 1st Solo address ………… high-end-ing ………… “ clever children, such a lovely dance”……… “ no darlings gan-pops with Sydney “………… “ yes’ we’ll all bake a cake “………… “ pretty Jim-jams Charlotte “.

Thank you!😊❤️❤️

*Entertainment purposes

MAY 21/2020. RIDDLE#24

“what , seen at Lympstone “…………

THE ROYAL MARINES COMMANDO TRAINING CENTRE IS IN LYMPSTONE. IS THIS A SIGHTING OF OUR HARRY, THE REAL ONE. HAS HE BEEN BACK SERVING THERE?? IF TRUE, I THINK THIS WOULD BE FANTASTIC!

a Diplomatic retreat ………

AFTER FIRMLY STATING I BELIEVE IT WAS A £400 CHARGE FOR FOREIGN WORKERS TO ACCESS THE NHS THE OM HAS WALKED THAT BACK. THERE WAS A HUGE PUBLIC RESPONSE TO A SOCIAL MEDIA POST BY A BADTA AWARD WINNING FILMMAKER WHO NOW WORKS AS A HOSPITAL CLEANER SHARING HIS PLIGHT. SINCE THAT RESPONSE OM BJ HAS WALKED BACK THAT POLICY.

A-Nul-ment…………

THIS IS WHAT I KEEP HOPING FOR AS IT MEANS AUTOMATIC LOSS OF HER STATUS AND TITLE. SOUNDS LIKE, WITH THE WORD NUL,MEANING VOID, THE ACTUAL MARRIAGE IS VOIDED FOR A VARIETY OF ALLEGED REASONS. THIS IS FANTASTIC AND AS WE HAVE ALL DISCUSSED HERE.

NY bio-diver-city………

NYC HAS A HUGE HUGE PROBLEM WITH COVID. YET NEAR STATES HAVE MUCH LESS . NY STATE IS AS VARIED AS THEY COME. GET OUTSIDE THE COTY, RANCHES, GREENSPACE, HORSES, ITS BEAUTIFUL. WITHIN HUMANS WE EACH POSSESS UNIQUE DNA, BUT YET DIFFERENT RACES AND MUXED RACES CARRY DIFFERENT GENETIC RISKS OR SENSITIVITIES. I READ A VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE ON HOW THE RICHER BOROUGHS IF NYC HAVE FAR FEWER CASES OF COVID THAN THE POORER ONES. THERE ARE ISSUES WITH ACCESS TO CARE AND AFFORDABILITY OR SO THE MEDIA REPORTS. (NOT BEING POLITICAL JUST EXPRESSING MY OWN THOUGHTS)

facegrime …………

IMMEDIATELY I HAD A VISUAL OF PRINCE LOUIS MAKING CAKE POPS WITH HIS FACE FULL OF STICKY YUMMY CAKE BITS. THIS IS FACEGRIME….FACETIME IS APPLE.

THE WORD GRIME , MAKES ME THINK KF MADAMS GREASY FACE AND THICK LAYERS OF BRONZER, MAKEUP ETC HAS SHE BEEN USING OLD SCHOOL LIKE ME, FACETIME, TO PLEAD FOR MONEY? OR TRYING DESPERATELY TO REACH H? YOU THINK SHE WOULD HAVE GIVEN THAT UP BUT SHE WILL NEVER.

Charles, a man for all see-sons………

A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS IS FANTASTIC PLAY, THEN FILM ABOUT SIR THOMAS MORE, WHO REFUSED TO ANNUL HENRY VII MARRIAGE TO CATHERINE OF ARAGON. THIS ALL LED TO THE KING BEING NAMED THE SUPREME HEAD OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,AND THANK GOODNESS SHE KEPT HER HEAD.

SO CHARLES IS VERY MUCH A MAN OF PRINCIPLES. I SHALL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO COMPARE HIM TO THOMAS MORE.

HAS HE BEEN SEEING HIS SONS VIA SKYPE, ZOOM, FACETIME? I FULLY BELIEVE SO. NOW MORE THAN EVER, WITH MADAME’S ESPECIALLY HURTFUL PR REGARDING DAVID FOSTER BEING LIKE A FATHER TO HARRY, DIRTY MEAN VICIOUS PR, THEY NEED SUPPORT FROM EACH OTHER.

thermal Heathrow …………

GONE ARE THE DAYS OF MERCURY THERMOMETERS, ORAL AXILLAE OR RECTAL TEMP CHECKS. IMAGINE THAT AT HEATHROW😮😮🤣🤣😂😂😂THERMAL TEMPERATURE SCREENINGS ARE BEING TRIALED AT HEATHROW. IT IS AMAZING, HOW MUCH OF OUR PRIVACY AND OUR DAY TO DAY GOING ABOUT WE HAVE JUST SIMPLY COMPLIED WITH. SOME SAY CONSPIRACY OTHERS SAY COOPERATION IS ESSENTIAL TO GETTING THROUGH THIS. WHAT DO YOU THINK/BELIEVE? I AM CURIOUS.

1st Solo address …………

IS HARRY GETTING READY TO ANNOUNCE THE ANNULMENT OR DIVORCE PUBLICLY IN PERSON. TILL NOW IT HAS ONLY BEEN VIDEOS AND FAKE HARRY PR. WOW THIS WOULD BE AMAZING AND HOW WOULD HE RELISH BEING THE ONE IN CONTROL OF PUBLICITY AFTER YEARS OF BEING CALLED EVERY INSULTING WORD IN THE BOOK.

high-end-ing …………

MADAM HAS A HISTORY OF MANY VARIOUS HOBBIES. CURRENTLY LIVING THE “HIGH” LIFE AT TP’S MANSION IN L. A…..RIGHT AND I CAN RUN A MILE!!! THE ENDING OR HER LAST DAYS AS A WIFE PUBLICLY, WE ALL KNOW IT WAS OVER AT CANADA HOUSE, SHE HAS MILKED THE LIES. WE KNOW SHE IS ON SOME COUCH SOMEWHERE IN THE U.K. SHE HAS LEGAL TROUBLE IN AMERICA, NO WAY SHE IS THERE. SHE CERTAINLY HAS MANY WILLING TO LIE FOR HER,BUT WHY? WHAT IS TO GAIN EXCEPT THEIR NAME IN THE MEDIA ASSOCIATED WITH MADAM. UNLESS THE BACKERS PAID OFF. EITHER WAY, NO MATTER, THE ENDING IS NEAR AND CHANCES ARE HOBBIES ARE USED TO COPE.

“ clever children, , such a lovely dance”……… “ no darlings gan-pops with Sydney “………… “ yes’ we’ll all bake a cake “………… “ pretty Jim-jams Charlotte “.

AS USUAL MY FAVOURITE MM ANON TIME. HMTQ IS COMMENTING ON SEEING THE CAMBRIDGE CHILDREN ON TIK TOK MOVING AND GROOVING AS WE USED TO SAY. HUGELY POPULAR CARE CAKE POPS ON A STICK, ITS BASICALLY AFTER YOU BAKE A CAKE , YOU SQUEEZE BITS OF IT INTO LITTLE BALLS OR POPS AND PUT ON A STICK. KIDS LIVE THE PARTICIPATING BECAUSE ITS MESSY AND TASTES YUMMY.

THE CHILDREN WANT GAN GAN TO HELP BUT CATHERINE SAYS NO, HMTQ DOES THIS WITH SYDNEY🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂. SO THE WHOLE GANG IS IN ON THE FUN, EVEN LITTLE LOUIS, PERFECT AGE. SOUNDS LIKE AFTER ICING OR FROSTING, THEY ARE DECORATING THEM. IN CANADA WE CALL THEM COLOURED SPRINKLES, IN PARTS OF AMERICA THEY ARE CALLED JIMMIES, IN THE U.K. JIM JAMS!

GSTQAOBC 🇨🇦🇬🇧🇦🇺🇳🇿. Thank you!😊💜💜💜💜

*Entertainment purposes

——————

24. May 22

MM ANON …… 88 two fat ladies ……… two blacked out Discovery’s in St Leonard’s ……… Priti Draconian …… pray,or else!! ………… gel my temperature ……… wash your hands then wrinkle cream ……… a memorial event ………… Hong-Gone…………” well, wake him up Sydney!!………… “bloody hell Sydney “ ………… “ sorry ma’am , Charlotte wants to play bingo”……… “ wonderful , clickerty duck”

Thank you 😊❤️❤️

*Entertainment purposes

MAY 22/2020. RIDDLE #25

88 two fat ladies ………

WILLIAM AND CATHERINE DID AN AWESOME JOB OF VIRTUAL BINGO WITH SENIORS. THEY MUST HAVE BEEN TUTORED BECAUSE THERE IS SUCH A THING AS, BINGO ETIQUETTE. YOU DON’T CALL NUMBERS TOO FAST, AND NUMBERS GET A FUNNY NAME. SO 88 BINGO BALL TWO FAT LADIES🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂I LOVE IT. TAKES ME RIGHT BACK TO CHILDHOOD GOING FROM LEGION TO LEGION WITH MY PARENTS AND PLAYING BINGO.

two blacked out Discovery’s in St Leonard’s

MADAM IS BEING TRANSPORTED. I AM TAKING IT THAT HER HOSPITALIZATION OR CONFINEMENT HAS CHANGED. WHOO HOO, THIS BRINGS ME AGAIN HOPE OF AN ANNULMENT ANNOUNCEMENT VERY SOON!! AGAIN I SAY, THE STAR CHAMBER CERTAINLY MUST HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY BUSY AND HAS THIS CASE EXACTLY SOLID NOW IN TERMS OF COERCION OF MARRIAGE, ALLEGEDLY, TREASON ETC ALL FICTIONAL AND FOR ENTERTAINMENT OF COURSE 😉.ACTUALLY THIS MIGHT BE THE FIRST TIME SHE HAS BEEN NEAR SUSSEX AT A TIME WHEN TITLE DUCHESS OF SUSSEX SHALL SOON NO LONGER EXIST. ALLEGEDLY OF COURSE. ALSO FITTING IT IS A SEASIDE TOWN, AS WE KNOW MADAM LOVES BOATS AND ALL THAT GOOD CLEAN FUN 😉.

……… Priti Draconian ……

AS I WROTE ELSEWHERE, PRITI PATEL STATED THE GUIDELINES, I WILL NOT REPEAT, SCROLL DOWN PLEASE. SOME PEOPLE FEEL SOME OF THE GOVERNMENTS MEASURES HAVE BEEN AND ARE ARE FAR TOO AUSTERE AND THERE MAY BE A LOCKDOWN BACKLASH. DRACONIAN IS A TERM FROM DRACOS CODE…STIFF SEVERE RULES OR LAWS, UNNECESSARILY SO RIGID, UNBENDING. STIFF RULES FOR LEAVING AND ENTERING THE U.K. WERE ANNOUNCED THIS EVENING, WITH SERIOUS FINES.

pray,or else!! …………

THIS IS MY LIFE MOTTO. PRAYER IS ESSENTIAL. THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN THE DM TODAY ABOUT HMTQ FAITH AND HOW SHE MISSES THE FELLOWSHIP OF ATTENDING CHIRCH ON SUNDAY MORNINGS. IF YOU ARE INCLINED,I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ IT. I KNOW WHERE HER STRENGTH AND FORTITUDE COMES FROM.🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

gel my temperature ………

OK, THE FIRST THING I THINK OF IS SOMEONE TRYING TO FOOL THE THERMAL BODY SCANNER OR FOREHEAD TEMPERATURE SCANNER BY USING COOLING GEL. IN 🇨🇦,IT IS CALLED ICY HOT, GREAT FOR JOINT PAIN OR MUSCLE ACHE. ITS LIKE RUBBING ALCOHOL BUT IN GEL FORM. AS US OLD NURSES KNOW, BACK IN THE DAY, WHEN A PATIENT HAD A HIGH FEVER WE WOULD WIPE THEM DOWN WITH RUBBING ALCOHOL. ARE SOME PEOPLE USING THIS METHOD TO TRY AND FOOL THE SCANNERS? DISGUSTING IF TRUE. ITS COLD AT ROOM TEMPERATURE BUT KEEP IN THE FRIDGE ITS EXTREMELY COLD.

wash your hands then wrinkle cream ………

MM ANON, EVERYTIME YOU WRITE ABOUT WRINKLE CREAM, I SELF PROJECT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A RUNNING THING HERE FOR SOOOOOO LONG, MY LOVE OF ALL CREAMS AND SERUMS..CURRENTLY USING PRAI AND KORRES COMBINATION. FABULOUS. AS RESTRICTIONS ARE BEING EASED, HANDWASHING IS A MUST. IT IS ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU LEARN IN NURSING SCHOOL , THAT AND MAKING A PROPER BED. ALL NURSES KNOW WHAT A BIG DEAL THEY MAKE ABOUT THAT.🤣🤣😂😂😂😂. SO WITH EASING OF SOME RESTRICTIONS, HAND WASHING, MASKS HERE ANYWAYS. DO NOT TOUCH YOUR FACE WITH OR WITHOUT A MASK. SO WHAT, NOW ITS OK TO USE WRINKLE CREAM?? I HAVE BEEN USING IT ALL THROUGH THIS LOCKDOWN! SERIOUSLY IT IS JUST REMEMBER TO KEEP WASHING YOUR HANDS OFTEN, DO NOT TOUCH YOUR FACE, USE HAND SANITIZER AS RESTRICTIONS ARE EASED UP. BE SAFE EVERYONE 💜💜🙏🏻🙏🏻💜💜

a memorial event …………

THIS WEEKEND IN AMERICA IS MEMORIAL DAY, THEY ALSO HAVE VETERANS DAY. 🇺🇸 ARE VERY PROUD OF THEIR VETERANS AND THOSE WHO CONTINUE TO SERVE, AND MY HOW RIGHTLY SO. THEIR PRESIDENT SPEAKS SO OFTEN OF HOW HIGHLY HE VALUES THE MILITARY AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT HE HAS BUDGETED AND BUILT IT STRONGER THAN EVER. IF INAM WRONG PLEASE CORRECT ME, B😊UT NICELY PLEASE? MY HOW I ADMIRE THEIR NATIONAL SPIRIT AND PRIDE. THIS MEANS IT IS A LONG WEEKEND. WITH SOME RESTRICTIONS BEING LIFTED IN MANY PLACES, MY PRAYER IS FOR HAPPY PEOPLE TIME, OUTDOORS, BBQ, ENJOYING THE FRESH AIR , ALL WHILST REMEMBERING ALL GAVE SOME…SOME GAVE ALL. 🇺🇸

Hong-Gone…………”

HONG KONG, CITY IN CHINA, HANDED OVER FROM THE BRITISH JULY 1/1997. WOW IT SEEMS LIKE ONLY YESTERDAY. PRITI PATEL WAS ADDRESSING THE NATION THIS EVENING, I WATCHED HER ON BBC WORLD. SOUNDING LIKE HOPES PEOPLE HAD FOR HOLIDAY MAY BE DASHED. FOREIGNERS OR THOSE RETURNING FROM SAID HOLIDAY WILL BE REQUIRED TO QUARANTINE FOR 14 DAYS. BEFORE BEING ALLOWED ENTRY, THEY HAVE TO PRODUCE A PLAN, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER. THERE WILL BE STRICT FOLLOWING. THE FIRST OFFENCE OF NON-COMPLIANCE IS A FINE OF £1000. AFTER THAT FURTHER OFFENCES THE FINE WILL BE “UNLIMITED”.

“well, wake him up Sydney!!………… “bloody hell Sydney “ ………… “ sorry ma’am , Charlotte wants to play bingo”……… “ wonderful , clickerty duck”

YESTERDAY WILLIAM AND CATHERINE HAD A FABULOUS TIME PLAYING BINGO VIRTUALLY WITH SENIORS. AS ALL PROFESSIONAL BINGO PLAYERS KNOW, THERE ARE A

WAYS CUTE SAYINGS AFTER EACH NUMBER. I COMMENTED THIS YESTERDAY, AT LENGTH. MY PARENTS PLAYED EVERY NIGHT OF THE WEEK, I KID YOU NOT.

SO WE HAVE PRINCESS CHARLOTTE INSISTING SYDNEY DISRUPT HIMSELF’S NAP TO PLAY BINGO WITH HER VIRTUALLY. I TAKE IT HE IS NOT AMUSED🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂. POOR EVER PATIENT SYDNEY. APOLOGIES TO HMTQ FOR THE INTERRUPTION. CLICKETY DUCK WHAT BINGO NUMBER IS THAT? 75 TOP OF THE HOUSE , 1 BOTTOM OF THE HOUSE , HERE 66 IS CLICKETY. CLICK SO I AM GOING FOR 66!! I COULD GO ON AND ON ABOUT BINGO, TYPES OF GSNES ETC BUT I WILL STOP NOW!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Thank you 😊❤️

*Entertainment purposes

GSTQAOBC 🇨🇦🇬🇧🇦🇺🇳🇿

———————

25. May 23

MM ANON …… 44 million? ………… anons’ how much on clothes?………… “still looked trash”………… evidences of past yachting 😱😱😱😱😱………… LA EX?? ………… “ in Exeter”…………… “ Josh Stones!!“………… a second peak? ……………not in Spain 🥳🥳🥳………… meanwhile in WC. ……… “ gan gan I want a tiara “ ………… “ and one day you shall “ ……… “ is nanny back Catherine?”……… “where’s my bloody slippers “ ……” your wearing them sir”

Thank you😊❤️❤️

*Entertainment purposes

MAY 23/2020. RIDDLE #26

44 million? …………

THE HEADLINE WAS £44 000 000 WAS WHAT THE PEOPLES COST WAS FOR THE SUSSEX WEDDING. OUTRAGEOUS ESPECIALLY FOR THE SHABBY SHOW IT WAS. HOW MUCH PUBLIC MONEY WAS RIFLED AWAY IN AN OFFSHORE BANK ACCOUNT BY SOMEONE AND HER CRONIES. OH INQUIRY BECKONS.

anons’ how much on clothes?………… ““still looked trash”…………

THE UNBELIEVABLE OVERUSAGE OF GIVENCHY AND BAIT AND SWITCH BILLING TWICE SCAM GENERATES A LOT OF REVENUE. CRIMINAL REVENUE. AGAIN WE HAVE A WEBSITE WHO HAS BEEN FLOGGING EVERY SINGLE ITEM. ALOT OF MONEY. WHERE IS IT? INQUIRY BECKONS. ALTHOUGH FOR THIS AND PREVIOUS CLUE INQUIRY HAS LONG BEEN DONE AND KEPT TRACK OF, MANY ARE GOING TO FALL.

evidences of past yachting 😱😱😱😱😱

WILL WE FINALLY SEE THAT DOSSIER OR PARTS THAT THE DM HAS AND OTHER OUTLETS HAVE BEEN SITTING ON? OR HAVE EVEN MORE COME TO LIGHT? TO QUOTE GAME OF THRONES..”WHAT IS DEAD NEVER STAYS BURIED”. NO MATTER FILTH ALWAYS EVENTUALLY IS REVEALED AND CLEANED UP. MAYBE NOT IN A TIMELY MANNER BUT EVENTUALLY.

………… LA EX?? …………

LAX AS WE ALL KNOW IS THE AIRPORT IN L.A. CALIFORNIA. IS ONE OF MADAMS EXES COMING TO GIVE INFORMATION TO THE STAR CHAMBER OR THE SECURITY SERVICES? THEY HAVE BOTH SAT QUIETLY BY AT LEAST PUBLICLY ANYWAYS. INTERESTING IF THIS WERE TRUE.

OF COURSE MADAM IS NOT IN L.A. SHE HAS NEVER LEFT THE U.K. DESPITE HER BAD PR FLURRY TO THE CONTRARY. I DEFINITELY BELIEVE THEIR MARRIAGE ENDED, OOOOOH HUGE THUNDER HERE NOW😮😮😮😮, SORRY GOT A STARTLE BY THAT, AT CANADA HOUSE BY A OR D , I HAVE SAID IT SO OFTEN, I HOPE FOR A AS IN ANNULMENT.

“ in Exeter”……………

A NURSE I USED TO WORK WITH HER DAUGHTER MARRIED A CHAP FROM EXETER, SHE BROUGHT ME A LOVELY PAIR OF CELTIC CROSS EARRINGS FROM THERE. WHAT NOW WE HAVE A SIGHTING IN EXETER? THIS HAD TO BE MADAM, AFTER ALL THE BLACKENED OUT DISCOVERYS WERE YAKING HER FOR A DRIVE THE OTHER DAY. AREN’T RIDDLES FOR ENTERTAINMENT FUN 😉? WHAT IS NEAR THERE?

“ Josh Stones!!“…………

JOSS STONE, FABULOUS SINGER, HAS BEEN IN THE BOYS ORBIT FOR AGES. I BELIEVE SHE WAS AT EUGENIE’S WEDDING, I CANNOT RECALL IF SHE WAS AT WILLIAM OR HARRY’S, SUCH AS HIS WAS. HERE WE HAVE JOSH, MALE NAME OR JUST JOSHING HERE MEAN JUST KIDDING AROUND . STONES PLURAL. TWO EXCLAMATION MARKS. STONES IS ALSO A MEASUREMENT OF WEIGHT. WE KNOW ADELE HAS LOST MEGA WEIGHT BUT JOSS IS TINY. BUT JOSH HMMMMM NOT SURE KIDS.

a second peak? ……………

COVID-19 AGAIN, HERE WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THEY FEAR A SECOND WAVE OR PEAK IN THE AUTUMN WHEN FLU SEASON RAMPS UP. WE NEED TO SERIOUSLY KEEP HANDWASHING, PHYSICAL DISTANCING ETC. I FEAR THIS GREATLY. AS THINGS UNLOCKDOWN, WHICH IS BADLY NEEDED FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND THE ECONOMY, THINGS WILL BE CLOSELY MONITORED.

not in Spain 🥳🥳🥳…………

HERE WE HAVE SPAIN AND THREE CHEERS, I TAKE THIS AS AS NANNY BORROLLO HAS RETURNED, AND OUT OF QUARANTINE BEEN TESTED AND IS HEALTHY . THREE CHEERING CAMBRDIGE CHILDREN.

meanwhile in WC. ……… “ gan gan I want a tiara “ ………… “ and one day you shall “ ……… “ is nanny back Catherine?”……… “where’s my bloody slippers “ ……” your wearing them sir”

REMINDS ME OF THE SAYING, MEANWHILE BACK AT THE RANCH😂😂😂🤣. HERE WE HAVE WC WHICH IS OF COURSE WINDSOR CASTLE. MY FAVOURITE PART OF THE RIDDLE. HERE WE HAVE THE DAILY VIRTUAL VISITS BETWEEN HMTQ AND PP WITH THE CAMBRDIGES. CHARLOTTE IS JONESING FOR A TIARA, GAN GAN ASSURES HER SHE SHALL ONE DAY WEAR ONE. HOW SPLENDID WILL THAT DAY BE EH? YESTERDAY I READ THAT CHARLOTTE WILL BE THE NEXT PRINCESS ROYAL, ONCE THE TIME COMES. OF COURSE WE KNOW HRH PRINCESS ANNE IS CURRENTLY THE PRINCESS ROYAL TITLE HOLDER.

SOUNDS LIKE NANNY HAS BEEN AWAY, OR WHY WOULD SHE NOT BE THERE. HAVE THEY BEEN IN LOCKDOWN WITHOUT NANNY? WAS SHE VISITING HOME ON SPAIN AND QUARANTINED FOR 14 DAYS? NANNY IS MARIAM BORROLLO.

MY MY PP HIMSELF IS MUTTERING WONDERING WHERE IS SLIPPERS HAVE GONE TO AND EVER PATIENT SYNDEY TELLS HIM HE HAS THEM ON. I RECALL DRIVING WITH A FRIEND AND SHE WAS MADLY LOOKING FOR SOMETHING. I FINALLY SAID WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR, SHE SAID MY SUNGLASSES, I SAID YOU HAVE THEM ON YOUR HEAD😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣. SHE HAD MOVED THEM UP TO LOOK FOR GUM OR SOMETHING GOT DISTRACTED AND WELL….THE REST IS HISTORY.😊😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣

GSTQAOBC 🇨🇦🇬🇧🇦🇺🇳🇿

Thank you😊❤️❤️❤️❤️

*Entertainment purposes

——————-

7 notes · View notes

kianraidelcam · 6 years ago

Link

Rest of the story below the cut for those who don’t want to click the link! My sister asked if Connor liked cats so this came out of that. Thanks for reading! @interstellarvagabond Thought you might enjoy this :)

In retrospect, perhaps Connor should have taken up North on her offer to walk him home.

Of course, he was fully capable of defending himself and others when the situation called for it, but he had a feeling the fiery WR400’s presence would have ended this confrontation before it became physical. As it was, Connor was bracing himself for an altercation, allowing his preconstruction software to determine the best methods for finishing this fight before it even begins, when a soft cry distracts him. He glances at the tiny thing cowering in the corner of the alleyway, the cat whose cries attracted him to this area to begin with, and the three humans who had been tormenting the poor thing take advantage of his momentary lapse in concentration.

Despite their temporary advantage, the most they do is bloody his nose and Connor has them running before a full minute has passed. It was rare for him to find a human who could match his skill in combat, and three teenagers hardly qualified as a fight. By the time he has turned to the trembling feline, he has already sent the precinct a report listing their names with video from his optical units as evidence of their misdeeds. Connor crouches down and quiets his voice, murmuring soft reassurances to the cat as he assesses its condition.

His analysis immediately identifies it as a female tortoiseshell, approximately aged two months old, in stable condition despite a severe break in her right hind leg. Connor’s LED blinks yellow as he searches for an available veterinary clinic while he reaches toward the little ball of fur, smiling as it cautiously reaches forward to sniff at his hand. “That’s it, little one, I’m not going to hurt you,” he murmurs, sliding closer to the slowly calming animal.

The kitten’s yellow eyes become half-lidded as she rubs her head against the palm of his hand and Connor takes that as an invitation to carefully pick her up, gently shrugging off his jacket to swaddle the tiny feline. Aside from a mewl of discomfort, she otherwise remains compliant, purring softly as the android scratches her head absentmindedly. The flickering yellow in his temple returns to blue as his search for a clinic yields no results. Not that he expected any at this time of night, although he certainly hoped at least one place would be open. “Alright, little one, you’re going to have to stay with me tonight,” the kitten blinks at him owlishly, “Don’t worry, I’ve already downloaded information on treating compound fractures in cats. I’ll take care of you tonight.”

The RK800 turns to continue his walk home, softly talking to the kitten the whole time, assuring it of a future with warm milk and a proper bed to lie in.

Detective Gavin Reed was beyond pissed off.

Of course his car had to fucking break down when it was forty fucking degrees out. Of course he had to get off work at ten fucking pm. Of course he broke his fucking phone this morning so he couldn’t call a fucking taxi. Mondays are a real bitch, and this one of course was no different. And then, of course, on his way home, he had to run into fucking RoboCop 1.0. Fucking androids, man. Gavin swore CyberLife had designed them to be as annoying as possible.

Brown eyes rose from the jacket bundled in his arms to mee Gavin’s green ones, and he had to stop himself from gasping at the sight of the plastic prick. Normally prim and proper, the android’s nose had a trail of blue blood leaking from it, the white plastic beneath showing as the skin glitched around it. Blue speckled his white button up, and if Gavin looked close enough, there was a hint of red blood on the gray jacket bundled in his arms. “The fuck happened to you, Barbie,” the question escapes him before he can contain it.

Gavin almost smiles vindictively when the robot mood ring jumps from blue to red, before settling on yellow. The android just stares at him for a second, and Gavin starts to wonder if he’s actually damaged until Connor answers, “Cat.”

He just blinks and Connor clears his throat, “Forgive me, Detective Reed. I meant that there was a cat in need of my attention. I was bringing her home to take care of her injuries, if you’ll excuse me.”

Gavin finally looks at the bundle in Connor’s arms and he can feel his heart drop as he notices the tiny yellow eyes staring at him. God damn it. The damn piece of plastic found his one weakness, a feat even his robo-brother hasn’t managed to do yet. The question leaves his mouth unbidden yet again, “Can I see?”

The android hesitates, and Gavin supposes he deserves it. He hasn’t exactly shown Terminator he had empathy as of yet, but Connor manages to shock him again when he relents, gingerly moving the jacket to give Gavin a better view of the most fucking adorable kitten he has ever seen. He’s aware of Connor mumbling in the background about how he came across the kitten, but all of his attention is focused on the bleeding leg just barely visible and the anger that rises with it. He sighs and runs his hands through his hair, “Fucking hell, Connor…”

Connor stops in his explanation, a single eyebrow raised as a prompt to continue. “Look, I got some vet supplies at home from when Ellie got an infection, and I know a thing or two about taking care of cats.”

Of fucking course Connor tilts his head.

“You can take the fucking thing to my house.”

Of fucking course Connor doesn’t say anything, the prick.

“I promise I won’t hurt you. I got a…thing...for cats,” Gavin smiles softly as he reaches to rub the kitten’s head, “I won’t hurt her.”

The mood ring blinks once, twice, and then returns to blue as Connor straightens up, “That would be acceptable.”

Gavin just rolls his eyes and refrains from shouldering the robot if only to spare the kitten, and leads him to his apartment, where he knows Ellie is pissed off from him missing dinner time. “You tell anyone about this, I’ll fuck you up, you understand me?”

“Need I remind you of our fight in the evidence room, Detective? I calculate a-”

Gavin cuts off the asshole before he can finish his calculation, “I don’t have to help you.”

Connor closes his mouth as Gavin fumbles for his keys, cold fingers uncooperative. He swears under his breath, even as he smiles when he hears Ellie scratching at the door like she’s helping to let him in. He might never get his security deposit back but, damn, did she make him smile. He finally gets the door open and lets the android inside, ignoring the sharp claws climbing up his legs to reach his shoulder, motioning for Connor to sit on the couch as he heads to the medicine cabinet in the bathroom. “Did you do your scanning thing on her or do I need to call my emergency vet to get her an x-ray,” he calls out, nuzzling the gray ball of fluff currently perched on his shoulder.

“Her right hind leg has a compound fracture which may require amputation, but she is unharmed everywhere else. I’ve already downloaded the necessary information to care for this injury until the clinics open tomorrow.”

Gavin swears under his breath. Fucking humans and their fucking treatment of cats. He knew he was an arrogant asshole, but even he understood that you never hurt an animal. Especially fucking cats, man. They deserved so much better. Gavin grabs the medical supplies and tosses them to Connor, who has made a nest of his jacket for the tortoiseshell to awkwardly cuddle up in. Despite her situation, Gavin can hear he purring from his location, and he smiles yet again. Fucking cats, man. Best fucking animals ever. “She’s a fucking trooper, just might have to keep her.”

The plastic detective, already cleaning the injury, nods in agreement. “She certainly is resilient,” he glances up at Gavin, or rather, Gavin’s shoulder, “Ellie, I presume?”

He grabs the cat from his shoulder as he nods and carries her to the kitchenette, “Found her on the street too, with a bad eye infection. She ended up losing her eyesight in that eye, as you can see, but she was otherwise fine.”

“I didn’t realize you liked cats, Gavin.”

“Remember the threat, prick. I’ll fucking end you if you tell anyone.”

“I’m alerting Lieutenant Anderson of my whereabouts, just in case,” Connor retorts as he wraps the leg, apologizing as the kitten cries.

He grabs some kitten food leftover from Ellie’s kitten days as she scarfs down her own meal, ignoring the two intruders. “Tell him you’ll need some blue shit too, most advanced prototype my ass. Can’t believe some fucking kids landed a hit on ya.”

“It was one hit, which is one more than you managed,” Connor reaches for the bowl as Gavin offers it, a smirk on his face, “Besides, the damage is minimal and my self-repair systems should handle it when I enter rest mode tonight.”

To refrain from smacking the piece of shit, Gavin focuses on the kitten instead of the insult. Fucking android was getting too good at them, no doubt as a result of Hank’s influence. The kitten is small, too small, Gavin notes, and she looks rather pathetic with the bright, white bandage engulfing her tiny leg. Despite it all, however, and despite a mouthful of food, she purrs louder than a motorboat and Gavin finds himself relaxing as he watches her. He pets her again, feeling a sense of satisfaction as the purring intensifies.

Fucking cats, man. He thinks he just adopted another one.

#detroit become human #dbh #connor rk800 #dbh connor #gavin reed #dbh gavin #cats #fanfiction #my writing #hurt/comfort but for a cat #kittens #dbh fanfic #fanfic #please don't tag as ship

34 notes · View notes

bountyofbeads · 5 years ago

Text

It’s Alan Dershowitz vs. David Boies, again and again

https://wapo.st/2yVg2D4

It’s Alan Dershowitz vs. David Boies, again and again

By Tom Jackman, Deanna Paul and Manuel Roig-Franzia | Published August 13 at 11:21 AM ET | Washington Post | Posted August 13, 2019 5:59 PM ET |

In the twilight of the ceaselessly dueling courtroom gods, legacies wobble and crack.

Once, they were unquestioned giants of the legal profession. David Boies, the slayer of Microsoft’s monopoly, the man Al Gore turned to in hopes of salvaging his bid for the presidency. Alan Dershowitz, one of the intellectual bulwarks of the O.J. Simpson defense team, the tactician immortalized on the big screen for reversing the murder conviction of socialite Claus von Bülow.

But now, as they reach an age when other esteemed elder statesmen of the bar might be basking in acclaim for their life’s work, the 78-year-old Boies and the 80-year-old Dershowitz are brutally yoked in a subplot of the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case. Their link became even tighter and more complicated this past weekend when the disgraced multimillionaire was found dead of an apparent suicide at a federal detention center in New York where he was awaiting trial on new sex trafficking charges. Epstein’s death occurred the day after newly unsealed court documents claimed he had a voracious sexual appetite for underage girls and detailed the alleged methods he and his friends used to recruit them.

The clash between Dershowitz and Boies, and its offshoots, have spawned lawsuits, swarms of stinging court documents, ferocious accusations, angry television appearances, a secretly taped call and more. In this long-running melodrama, Boies and his partners at Boies Schiller Flexner represent one of Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Roberts Giuffre — who was a teenage locker-room attendant at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort when she met Epstein. Giuffre has alleged that Epstein demanded that she have sex with him repeatedly when she was underage and lent her for sex to his friends, including Dershowitz.

Dershowitz finds himself labeled as an alleged sex abuser in a personal affidavit by Boies, a claim he has volcanically denied. Dershowitz’s effort to counter the accusations has been made all the more nettlesome because his long-ago representation of Epstein has come under greater scrutiny following Epstein’s arrest last month. Dershowitz, an emeritus Harvard University law professor, is also fending off a defamation suit filed by Giuffre, set for key oral arguments next month, in which Boies has become a vital player.

Because Epstein’s death will end his criminal case, the Giuffre defamation action against Dershowitz could be one of the dwindling number of cases that would allow for the full public airing of numerous accusations against Epstein that his alleged victims have long sought.

As the Boies-Dershowitz conflict has dragged on, Boies, his partners and his allies have tarred Dershowitz in personal affidavits related to a bar complaint and a defamation lawsuit for allegedly bedding Giuffre when she was an underage teenager. In court filings, they portray Dershowitz, who has never been charged with a sex crime, as a liar and a sneak who secretly recorded a call with a fellow lawyer.

“After extensive consideration of everything Mr. Dershowitz told and showed me, I ultimately concluded that his denials were not credible,” Boies wrote in an affidavit included in Giuffre’s defamation suit against Dershowitz. (Giuffre sued Dershowitz because of numerous statements he made in media interviews, including calling her a “certified, complete, total liar” and saying that “she simply made up the entire story for money.”)

Meanwhile, Dershowitz has painted Boies as a corrupt attorney with a long trail of ethical lapses, a cheat and the head of a criminal enterprise.

“I believe the law firm of Boies Schiller is a RICO,” Dershowitz said in a recent interview at his New York apartment, citing the acronym used for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a law frequently used against the mafia. “I believe they are the law firm of extortion, subornation of perjury and other crimes.”

Boies declined repeated interview requests and did not respond to written questions that specifically referenced the RICO allegation, as well as other assertions made by Dershowitz. Giuffre’s attorneys did not respond to requests for comment.

NAMED IN A COURT FILING

The mudslinging between two of America’s most famous and celebrated attorneys tracks to the wee hours of Jan. 22, 2015, when the men were casual acquaintances and occasional confidants. Dershowitz, a ubiquitous TV presence, awoke early that morning at his New York apartment and headed to Rockefeller Center, where he was scheduled to appear on NBC’s “Today” show to discuss the sex allegations made by Giuffre.

On the way, Dershowitz seethed.

Three weeks earlier, his name had surfaced in a court filing by Giuffre, who was then known only as Jane Doe No. 3, asking to join a lawsuit related to the Epstein case. The suit alleged that Epstein’s victims hadn’t been notified in advance of a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors after the wealthy financier was arrested on suspicion of sex trafficking involving minors.

It wasn’t the substance of the complaint about victim notification that was most important to Dershowitz, though. Instead, he was incensed that the filing asserted that Giuffre had been lent to Britain’s Prince Andrew for sex and to Dershowitz, whom she alleged had sex with her at Epstein’s private island, his Palm Beach estate, his New Mexico ranch, his New York mansion and on his private plane.

Dershowitz and the prince adamantly denied the accusations at the time. Dershowitz and Buckingham Palace, speaking on behalf of Andrew, also issued strongly worded denials last week when the court documents were unsealed.

On “Today” that day in 2015, Dershowitz went nuclear. He accused Giuffre of filing “perjured” court papers and said, “She is categorically lying and making the whole thing up.”

Dershowitz has bolstered his contention that Giuffre cannot be trusted by referencing claims that she has made about having dinner with former president Bill Clinton on Epstein’s island. Dershowitz took it upon himself to investigate the Clinton allegation and to clear his name. He hired a security firm headed by former FBI director Louis Freeh to investigate.

Through Freedom of Information Act requests, the firm determined that Clinton could not have been on Epstein’s island during the time period when Giuffre said she had dinner with him. A summary of findings prepared by the Freeh firm states that the FOIA records “completely undermine [Giuffre’s] credibility.” The firm also said it found no evidence to support the sex allegations against Dershowitz.

Unsealed records

Last week, Dershowitz also gained what might be a potent weapon in his quest to impeach Giuffre’s credibility in the newly unsealed court documents. The papers relate to a defamation suit filed against Ghislaine Maxwell, whom Giuffre and others have accused of procuring girls and women for Epstein. The suit was settled for an undisclosed amount in 2017. The records were unsealed at the request of several news organizations, including The Washington Post and the Miami Herald, which published a series of articles about Epstein’s alleged abuses prior to his recent arrest.

Among the documents was a 2011 email sent to Giuffre from Sharon Churcher, a journalist for the British tabloid the Mail on Sunday, that Dershowitz contends is proof that Giuffre was being encouraged to lie about him. The email appears to reference a book proposal Giuffre was compiling.

“Don’t forget Alan Dershowitz . . . JE’s buddy and lawyer,” Churcher writes to Giuffre in an apparent reference to Jeffrey Epstein’s initials. “Good name for your pitch as he repped Claus von Bulow and a movie was made about that case . . . title was Reversal of Fortune. We all suspect Alan is a pedo and tho no proof of that, you probably met him when he was hanging put [sic] w JE.”

Churcher did not respond to a request for an interview.

The famed law professor’s campaign to refute Giuffre’s allegations created a pile of legal trouble because of the words he chose. While defending himself, he also cast aspersions on the character and ethics of the two attorneys representing Giuffre in her attempt to join the lawsuit related to notifying Epstein’s victims.

Dershowitz had said in a television interview that the attorneys — Florida-based Brad Edwards and former federal judge Paul Cassell — were “prepared to lie, cheat and steal.” He had described Cassell as “essentially a crook.” (Cassell and Edwards did not respond to interview requests.)

Cassell and Edwards responded in the way lawyers might be expected to — they sued him for defamation.

Despite the lawsuit, Dershowitz continued to vociferously and publicly defend himself.

In Florida, an attorney in Boies’s firm named Carlos Sires was watching “Today” when Dershowitz appeared. He reached out via email to Dershowitz offering to help him with the dispute and later discussed the possibility of representing him. (Dershowitz has said he considered Sires his attorney at that point, a contention that Sires has disputed in an affidavit attached to a bar complaint Dershowitz later filed against Boies.)

Sires also said in the affidavit that he was not aware at the time of his initial contact with Dershowitz that other lawyers in his firm were representing Giuffre in a separate case. That digital note set in motion a cascading series of events that have put Dershowitz and Boies at odds for the past four years. (Sires could not be reached for comment.)

The dispute centered on Dershowitz’s claim that Sires reviewed confidential material about the defamation case filed against Dershowitz by Edwards and Cassell. About a week later, Boies determined that there was a conflict that Sires had not known about and the firm notified Dershowitz that it couldn’t represent him.

Dershowitz was angry, concluding that the firm sneakily got inside information about his defense in order to gain an advantage, according to interviews with Dershowitz. Boies has dismissed that suggestion, saying in a personal affidavit connected to the Florida bar complaint Dershowitz later filed against him that material Sires reviewed was nothing more than a recap of Dershowitz’s public statements.

What Dershowitz didn’t know at the time was that Boies, the man who would become his nemesis, had been in contact with Giuffre for nearly six months. Boies was contacted in June 2014 by Stanley Pottinger, an attorney who was the former head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, about representing Giuffre, according to an affidavit by Boies included in Giuffre’s ongoing case against Dershowitz.

Although Giuffre had two attorneys, Pottinger thought she needed more legal help because he expected her to “become the target of vicious attacks” by people she accused of sex abuse, according to an affidavit Pottinger wrote that is included in Giuffre’s ongoing case against Dershowitz.

The next month, Boies met with Giuffre in New York, according to his affidavit, and he asked Pottinger to vet Giuffre’s claims. Satisfied that she was credible, Boies agreed that his firm would take her on as a client, although he says the firm did no work related to her until November. Boies said in the affidavit that partner Sigrid McCawley represented Giuffre while she was a witness in the defamation suit filed in January 2015 by Edwards and Cassell.

Eventually, Dershowitz came to allege even darker motives for Sires’s outreach after the “Today” interview. He developed a complicated extortion theory involving Boies after being contacted in April 2015 by one of Giuffre’s friends — a woman named Rebecca Boylan — who’d seen coverage of the scandal and agreed to speak with him in a tape-recorded conversation, Dershowitz said in an interview. He played the tape for The Post, but did not let the news organization have a copy,

Boylan, according to Dershowitz’s account of the conversation, told him that Giuffre had never mentioned having sex with him. She added that Giuffre had told her she had been urged by her lawyers to name Dershowitz.

“She felt pressure to do it, she didn’t want to go after you personally,” Boylan said, according to Dershowitz’s tape of the conversation. “She felt pressured by her lawyers.”

But that wasn’t all. Boylan also said that naming Dershowitz was a step in a plan to win an enormous settlement from the founder and CEO of the parent company of Victoria’s Secret, the lingerie giant. Dershowitz knew Boylan was referring to Leslie Wexner, a billionaire who was a close friend and mentor to Epstein.

“They wanted to sue him for at least half his money,” Boylan said, according to Dershowitz’s tape .

Dershowitz also claims that Boies and his firm were attempting to send a message to Wexner, whom Giuffre had not publicly accused at that point of having sex with her at the behest of Epstein, although she later would. The message, according to Dershowitz, was that Wexner would be publicly shamed, in the same way that Dershowitz had been, if he didn’t pay up.

Boies wrote in his response to Dershowitz’s Florida bar complaint that neither he nor McCawley had been involved in the decision to name Dershowitz and has denied attempting to extort Wexner. He also wrote that “no settlement demand was ever made, or even discussed with, Mr. Wexner or his counsel.”

A SECRETLY TAPED CALL

Still, Dershowitz was eager to persuade Boies that he was innocent, according to interviews with Dershowitz and accounts of their interactions included in an affidavit by Boies. The two men began a series of meetings between May and July 2015, according to Boies’s affidavit.

Among the items Dershowitz showed Boies, according to Dershowitz, were detailed calendars that he cited as definitive proof that he could not have been at Epstein’s island, ranch, Palm Beach mansion or on his private plane during the time period when Giuffre said he was having sex with her. (Dershowitz keeps a massive spreadsheet handy at his New York apartment to show the reporters he’s courted to tell his version of events.)

The two lawyers have different memories of those meetings. Dershowitz has asserted in interviews with The Post that Boies told him during those meetings that Giuffre must have mistaken him for someone else. Boies wrote in his affidavit that Dershowitz’s account “is not true.” Among the data points Boies cites in his affidavit is a lie-detector test that he says Giuffre passed. (Results of such tests are seldom deemed admissible in court.)

Later in 2015, Dershowitz took the unusual step of secretly taping a call with Boies. Dershowitz played the tape, which is muffled and cuts off at points, for The Post, but did not allow the newspaper to have a copy. On the tape, Boies appears to say he and one of his partners are convinced Giuffre’s claim of having sex with Dershowitz is “wrong.” Boies said in his affidavit that he never told Dershowitz that Giuffre wasn’t telling the truth.

In Giuffre’s defamation case against Dershowitz, two of Boies’s partners assert that the taping was “a violation of the canons of ethics.” They also say Boies was merely discussing a hypothetical and that he believed all along that Giuffre was telling the truth. Dershowitz has said the taping was entirely legal because at the time he was in New York, which only requires the consent of one of the parties on the call for a legal taping.

Armed with what he thought was a plausible extortion theory and with his taped evidence, Dershowitz went to war.

In 2017, he filed the bar complaint against Boies in Florida. The document lays out his allegations about the Boies firm’s handling of the defamation case filed against him by Edwards and Cassell, and then goes on to read almost like a lengthy Wikipedia article about controversies during what he describes as the Boies firm’s “long and sordid history.” He cites a 2012 case in which a New York judge chided Boies’s firm, saying “a clearer conflict of interest cannot be imagined. A first-year law student on day one of an ethics course should be able to spot it.”

Dershowitz also summarized the controversy over a potential conflict spurred by Boies serving on the board of directors and as a lawyer for Theranos, the scandal-plagued blood-testing start-up.

The bar complaint, which was obtained by The Post, surfaced shortly after Boies was enmeshed in a major conflict-of-interest scandal in 2017 involving the famed movie producer Harvey Weinstein, who was being accused in a series of sexual abuse incidents. At the time, Boies was getting a torrent of bad publicity because of the revelation in media reports that he was representing the New York Times in legal matters without telling the newspaper that he was simultaneously representing Weinstein, who was being investigated by Times reporters. Boies also secretly oversaw an effort to undermine the paper’s reporting by hiring a firm that employed former agents of the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, to collect information on Times reporters and Weinstein’s alleged victims.

The Times cut ties with Boies and issued a blistering statement.

“We learned today that the law firm of Boies Schiller and Flexner secretly worked to stop our reporting on Harvey Weinstein at the same time as the firm’s lawyers were representing us in other matters. We consider this intolerable conduct, a grave betrayal of trust, and a breach of the basic professional standards that all lawyers are required to observe.” It added: “We never contemplated that the law firm would contract with an intelligence firm to conduct a secret spying operation aimed at our reporting and our reporters. Such an operation is reprehensible.”

Boies had signed the contract with the spy group, but later tried to distance himself from its work.

“I regret having done this,” Boies said in an email sent to his staff that was published by New York magazine. “It was a mistake to contract with, and pay on behalf of a client, investigators who we did not select and did not control. I would never knowingly participate in an effort to intimidate or silence women or anyone else. . . . That is not who I am.”

Dershowitz seized on the Times imbroglio to press his argument in public that Boies is an unethical lawyer.

“No lawyer in modern American history has ever been more credibly accused of more ethical violations than David Boies and his law firm,” Dershowitz said in a recent interview with The Post.

In 2017, Boies’s firm issued a statement in response to Dershowitz’s conflict-of-interest allegations, saying: “Over the years, there have been some bar complaints filed against Mr. Boies. Each of them was filed by an unhappy adverse party; none was filed by a client. No disciplinary action was ever taken.”

THE DISPUTE GOES ON

The feud between Dershowitz and Boies is well known in legal circles, where both men have earned stellar reputations over the years.

“People can have grudges and sometimes things get heated between lawyers, but based on headlines about two people I’ve worked with, who are talented, smart and committed to their clients, we just don’t have enough information to make a judgment,” said Lawrence Fox, a Yale Law professor and former chairman of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility who has worked alongside both men.

As the months have passed, one by one, Dershowitz’s broadsides against Boies and his allies have cratered. He settled the defamation case filed by Cassell and Edwards, Giuffre’s attorneys, before Boies and his partners came on the scene.

Earlier this year, the Florida bar complaint against Boies got tossed out.

But their dispute continues, with the next field of battle in New York, where Giuffre’s defamation case against Dershowitz — with a potential star plaintiff’s witness named David Boies — trudges on. Boies is a potential witness because he could be called to testify about his interactions with Dershowitz and about Dershowitz’s extortion theory. That means that Dershowitz, the 80-year-old, and Boies, the 78-year-old, will tangle again as the elder party in the grudge match tries to get the younger one’s law firm barred from representing Giuffre in the defamation suit against Dershowitz.

And so it has gone for years, an endless cycle of enmity playing out on a continuous loop. This clash of the titans is so persistent and many-tentacled that one could imagine it outliving the legal giants it has consumed.

Paul Farhi and Alice Crites contributed to this report

#politics #u.s. news #politics and government #us: news #international news #must reads #legal issues #world news #criminal-justice #sex crimes #jeffrey epstein

1 note · View note

newspro24x7 · 3 years ago

Text

SFJ threatens Justice Indu Malhotra probing PM Modi's security lapse case

SFJ threatens Justice Indu Malhotra probing PM Modi’s security lapse case

A shocking news has come to the fore in the case of lapse in the security of PM Modi during his Punjab tour. Former judge Indu Malhotra, who is probing the case of lapse in PM Modi’s security, has been given an open threat by the Khalistani organization Sikh for Justice (SFJ). SFJ has said in a threat call to former judge Indu Malhotra that PM Modi and Sikhs will have to choose between. Earlier,…

View On WordPress

0 notes

athibanhindi · 3 years ago

Text

जाने कौन है रिटायर्ड जस्टिस इंदु मल्होत्रा जिनकी अगुवाई में होगी PM की सुरक्षा चूक मामले की जांच | Know who is Retired Justice Indu Malhotra, who will be headed by the investigation of PM's security lapse case

डिजिटल डेस्क, नई दिल्ली। प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी की सुरक्षा चूक मामले जांच के लिए सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कमेटी के गठित कर दी है। �� कोर्ट ने कहा है कि इसकी जांच पांच सदस्यों की कमेटी करेगी। जिसकी अगुवाई रिटायर्ड जस्टिस इंदु मल्होत्रा करेंगी। इंदु मल्होत्रा 27 अप्रैल, 2018 को सुप्रीम कोर्ट की न्यायाधीश बनी थीं। वह पहली ऐसी महिला अधिवक्ता है जो वकील से सीधे सुप्रीम कोर्ट की न्यायाधीश बनीं। वह 21…

View On WordPress

0 notes

agwbharat · 3 years ago

Text

Supreme Court will pronounce its verdict today in the case of Security Breached of PM Modi

Supreme Court will pronounce its verdict today in the case of Security Breached of PM Modi #PMSecurityBreached #SupremeCourt #NarendraModi

The Supreme Court will pronounce its verdict on Wednesday in the matter of security lapses of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Punjab. The Supreme Court had reserved the verdict in the matter on January 10. The Supreme Court had said that there would be a high-level inquiry into the lapse in the security of the PM. The Supreme Court had said that the security lapses of the PM will be investigated…

View On WordPress

0 notes

newspro24x7 · 3 years ago

Text

Big disclosure in ASL report regarding lapse in PM Modi's security

Big disclosure in ASL report regarding lapse in PM Modi’s security

New Delhi : During the Punjab tour, there has been a big disclosure in the case of a big lapse in the security of PM Modi. This disclosure has been made in the report of ASL, which states that there was a conversation between the SPG and the Punjab Police on January 1. At that time there was a discussion between the two about an alternate route in case of bad weather. A letter in this regard was…

View On WordPress

0 notes

fardell24b · 3 years ago

Text

Daria 2097 - Part 1.2

Part 1.2

1111 Glen Oaks Lane, 6:00 PM

The Morgendorffers were having dinner. It was quiet. The way all four family members liked it. However, to say that there was no communication going on would be false. There was a lot of information passing to and fro between the family members.

Quinn: Sends transcript of Pep Squad recruitment meeting, and her refusal. Additionally her acceptance of Sandi's invitation into the Fashion Club.

Helen (Barksdale-Morgendorffer): As along as you can join the pep squad later, if you want. You never know how much we can handle until we try.

Jake: Daria, how was your first day?

Daria: My history teacher hates me because I know all the answers, but there are some interesting idiots in my class.

Jake: That's Great!

Helen: Physically glares at Jake.

Jake: Um...

Helen: Daria, your father's trying to tell you not to judge people until you know them. You're in a brand-new school in a brand-new town. You don't want it to be Highland all over again.

Daria: Not much chance of that happening... unless there's toxic material in the drinking water, here too.

Helen: I'm talking about you making a friend or two. Don't be so critical. Give people the benefit of the doubt.

Daria: It all boils down to trust.

House AI ('Glenny'): Unspecific request for communication with a family member incoming.

Quinn: Expresses hope that it's not Lawndale High's Booster Society again.

Helen: I'll take it, Glenny.

Helen stood up and took a handset unit from the kitchen base station. Quickly she determined that the person on the other end wanted verbal contact. She brought it up to her ear. “Hello?” A pause. “Uh, yes, she's my daughter.” Another pause. “I see. Listen, will this require any parent-teacher conferences or anything, and if so, is this the sort of thing my assistant or an AI can handle?” Another pause. “Okay, great. Bye!” The 'call' ended. She sat down and turned to her daughters.

Helen: You took a psychological test at school today?

Quinn: Looks annoyed at Daria.

Quinn: The way you answered may not have been what she was looking for.

Helen: Daria, they want you to take a special class for a few weeks, then they'll test you again.

Quinn: Quiet sigh.

Helen: It seems she has low self-esteem.

Jake: spits out some pasta. What? That really stinks, Daria!

Helen: Easy, Jake, Focus! Looks at Daria. We tell you over and over again that you're wonderful and you just... don't... get it!

Helen: Hit's table with Fist

Helen: What's wrong with you.

Daria: It's a mistake. I don't have low self-esteem! (annoyed emoticons!)

Jake: I'll say.

Daria: I have low esteem for everyone else.

Tuesday, September 17, 2097

There were many students in Daria's self-esteem class. All of them were doing anything other than listening to the teacher droning on.

One thing hadn't changed in the course of the 21st century. The presence of ineffective teaching methods in the curriculum. The self-esteem class was one of many examples.

The teacher was droning on, not understanding the words “Esteem... a teen. They don't really rhyme, do they? The sounds don't quite mesh. And that, in fact, is often the case when it comes to a teen and esteem. The two just don't seem to go together. But we are here to begin realizing your actuality... “

Daria was sure that those last three words didn't belong in that order. The last one she was sure wasn't used at all. She raised her hand. “Excuse me. I have a question.”

“Sorry, question and answer time is later,” Mr. Timothy O'Niell said.

“I want to know what "realizing your actuality" means.”

“It means... look, just let me get through this part, okay? Then there'll be a video!”

The teacher went back to his gibberish. Daria than heard someone speak behind her. “He doesn't know what it means. He's got the speech memorized. Just enjoy the nice man's soothing voice.”

Daria turned to the girl. She wore a black shirt with a red coat, and three earrings in each ear. Her hair was short and spiky. “How am I supposed to follow him if I don't know what he's talking about?”

“I can fill you in later. I've taken this course six times.”

Later, Daria and Jane were walking through Lawndale to Jane's house. “So, then, after the role-playing, next class they put the girls and the guys in separate rooms and a female counselor talks to us about body image,” Jane said.

“What do they talk to the boys about?” Daria asked.

“A classroom full of guys and a male teacher?”

Both girls stopped walking. “Nocturnal emissions.”

They resumed walking. “I don't get it, Jane. You've got the entire course memorized. How come you can't pass the test to get out?”

“I could pass the test, but I like having low self-esteem. It makes me feel special.”

Soon they were at Jane's house. Jane glanced at her tablet as they walked on the Lawn. “Unlocked! Trent! I've told you to check that the locks have engaged!”

“Trent?”

“My brother. He runs a local music site, and a member of a band. I use that last word loosely, you understand.”

“They play terrible music?” Daria asked as they entered the house.

“That's an understatement,” Jane said.

“Hi, Lane house,” Daria said.

“Oh, there's no AI. My parents have never bothered putting one in. Or was it, grandparents. All the computers come from the fifties or earlier.”

“Jane, that's crazy.”

“That's the hardware. The security software is up to date,” Jane said.

Daria breathed a sigh of relief.

“And my room...” Jane said opening the door to her room.

“Is that an easal?” Daria asked.

“Yes, I prefer the traditional art methods, although I do use digital.” Then an alarm sounded, and Jane looked at her tablet. “Uh, oh!”

“What?”

Jane showed Daria the image on the tablet. “Foreclosure drones!”

“Foreclosure drones? What have I gotten myself into?”

“My parents must have let the autopayments lapse.”

“How can I help?” Daria asked.

“You want to help?” Jane asked.

“Yes.”

Down in the Lane's basement, Jane opened an old closet. “Here, it is our server. Apparently from the fourties, though the OS is later than that,” she said.

“I don't think you'll be able to get in.”

“Oh really?” Jane placed her palm on the reading surface. “Authenticate!”

“Jane Lane Authenticated.”

“Now where have you stored the account details,” Jane said, once her account was signed in.

“OK, then.”

Five minutes later, Jane still hadn't found the account details. “Come on! Those foreclosure drones are getting antsy!”

“Maybe it's hidden in a virtual drive or something?” Daria pondered.

“Of course!” Jane said. “Activate all virtual environments!”

“Is there enough RAM for that?”

“I hope so!”

There was enough RAM in the server, and Jane was able to find the details in a file. “Done!” She picked up the tablet, which was showing the foreclosure drones leaving. “And they won't be back!”

After that crisis aversion, Daria went home.

#daria #daria morgendorffer #esteemsters #fan fiction #helen morgendorffer #jake morgendorffer #jane lane #quinn morgendorffer #timothy o'neill

0 notes

iamrickieslaughter · 4 years ago

Text

Rickie Lamont Slaughter is an innocent man who is serving a prison sentence for a crime he did not commit.

In 2004, a man along with some of his friends and family was robbed at, gunpoint, and unfortunately, that man was shot in the face. The victim said two men black men, with Jamaican accents, one 5 foot 6 inches, and one 5, foot 10 perpetrated the crime and took \$1500 in cash, various credit cards, and items of clothing.

Based on an unfair and faulty photo line-up, Rickie (who does not have a Jamaican accent and is 5'8") was misidentified. Additionally, witnesses described the perpetrators' vehicle as being a Pontiac Grand Am, a different kind of car than the one Rickie possessed, a Ford Taurus. Furthermore, there was no physical evidence of the cash, credit cards, or clothing, to link him to the crime. Despite obvious flaws in the case, Rickie was still eventually wrongfully convicted at trial due to the photo misidentifications.

Now, new evidence in a federal proceeding regarding Rickie's conviction has brought to light that the prosecutor knowingly withheld evidence that could have proved Rickie's innocence. There was a second, more fair photo line-up from which Rickie was not identified as a perpetrator by the victims and witnesses and a 911 dispatch report revealing what time the perpetrators left which was at 7:11pm. At that time, Rickie was picking up his girlfriend from work on the opposite side of town at the same time the crime was ending nearly 9 miles away proving that it was impossible for him to have committed the crime.

Below, follow along and click on the hyperlinks to read documents and evidence in Rickie's case. Also, sign the petition to help correct the grave injustice that was done to Rickie.

In his [federal habeas appeal](/pdfs/rickie-2AP.pdf), Rickie detailed how the facts against him were unjust for several reasons:

### The unfair photo line-up During the police investigation, an unfair photo line-up was presented to, the victims and witnesses that caused them to misidentify Rickie. Specifically, the photo line-up was made in a way that caused Rickie's photo to stand out from the rest of the photos. The color and background was uniquely different from the other 5 photos in the line-up, which psychological made his picture stand out to the viewers. Psychologists and police protocols have long-warned about making one photo stand out from the rest because it can lead to misidentification. The investigation deliberately did not follow the proper protocols. [The Innocence Project has an in-depth study of misidentification, which details how bias has been used to convict innocent people of crimes they did not commit.](https://www.innocenceproject.org/eyewitness-identification-reform/) ### New evidence of a second more fair photo line-up At a recent hearing, ordered by a federal judge, the now-retired lead detective in this case, Jesse Priedo (who retired after wrongly accusing 15 year old Patrick Wayne Harper of a crime that he was later exonerated for) testified for the first time ever that a second more fair line-up was shown to the witnesses in 2004. In that instance **no one picked Rickie out of this more fair line-up**. However, this information was not adequately provided to Rickie's attorney before trial, and the jury did not hear about this second more fair photo line-up. Police did not promptly preserve this photo line up as evidence. Hearing about this second more fair photo line-up, would have undermined the first unfair photo line-up and Rickie would likely have been acquitted had the jury heard this. Rickie deserves a trial where this evidence can be presented to the jury. ### New evidence of when the perpetrators left the crime scene and the prosecutor's deception At Rickie's trial, a big issue was what time did the perpetrators leave the crime scene. This was an important question because Rickie's girlfriend testified that Rickie picked her up at 7:15 pm, 9 miles away from the crime scene. Additionally, an investigator drove the fastest route possible between the crime scene and where Rickie's girlfriend worked to determine the fastest time it would take to drive that route. The fastest route was 20 minutes. At trial, the prosecutor secured a court ruling requiring that the jury be told that the perpetrators left the crime scene at 7 pm. However, new evidence (a 911 dispatch report, which was withheld by police and prosecutors all these years) proves that the perpetrators actually left the crime scene at 7:08 pm. Specifically, the call came in at 7:11 pm and the caller is documented as having stated to the dispatch operator that the crime had happened 5 minutes ago. This statement was made one minute and 48 seconds into the call, which means that the statement was made at 7:12 pm. The dispatch report documents this as t/l 5 minutes ago, which means that the time-lapse of the crime was 5 minutes ago. Simple subtraction of 7:12 pm minus 5 minutes means that the perpetrators left between 7:07 and 7:08 pm. Additionally, the now-retired detective testified at a new hearing that a witness who was the boss of Rickie's then-girlfriend originally stated that he had left work at 7:15 pm. This statement combined with the fact that he stated that he saw Rickie as he was pulling out of the parking lot means that Rickie must have been there at his girlfriend's place of work at 7:15 pm, 9 miles (or 20 minutes away) from the crime scene. At trial, the prosecutors knowingly hid this statement from Rickie's girlfriend's boss from the jury. This new information means that Rickie could not be one of the perpetrators at the crime scene. As such, the fact Rickie arrived at 7:15 to pick up his girlfriend at 715 North Nellis Blvd means he could not have perpetrated the crime because the earliest it would have taken a perpetrator to drive from 2612 Glory View would have been 7:28-7:30. This new evidence demonstrates Rickie's need for a new trial to show the jury the evidence of his actual innocence. The fact that the prosecutor misled the jury at trial into believing that the perpetrators fled the crime scene at 7:00 (and at the same time corruptly withheld a dispatch report that showed the contrary) is significant because it changed the actual timing of the event to favor the prosecutor's fictionalized version and caused Rickie to be wrongly convicted of a crime he did not commit. - Slaughter v. Charles Daniels A-20-812949-W 8th Judicial District Court - Slaughter v. Renee Baker - A-18-784824-W

0 notes