#Tribunal II

[evilhorse]

It’s hard to turn down the Tribune.

[thieves-oasis]

i crave numidium artwork. i need interpretations of this massive brass god

[historydailyfrancischappellblack]

Japanese Prime Minister Hideki Tojo was Sentenced to Death By the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. He Was Declared Guilty of Seven Counts of War Crimes and Was Condemned to Death by Hanging. November 12, 1948.

Image: General Hideki Tojo lies semiconscious, limp in a chair with a gaping bullet wound just below the heart after a botched attempt to kill himself as American soldiers surround his house. September 11, 1945. (Public Domain). On this day in history, November 12, 1948, Japanese Prime Minister Hideki Tojo was sentenced to death by the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. He was declared guilty of seven…

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Horses and wagons used by The Tribune as a wartime conservation measure in delivering newspapers. The Tribune's stables, in disuse for two decades, are busy again. Today's story about The Tribune tells about the circulation department. (Story on page 4)" - from the Chicago Tribune. October 10, 1942. Page 8.

[reasonsforhope]

"Tuesday’s [April 9, 2024] definition-shifting court ruling means nearly 50 governments must now contend with a new era of climate litigation.

Governments be warned: You must protect your citizens from climate change — it’s their human right.

The prescient message was laced throughout a dense ruling Tuesday from Europe’s top human rights court. The court’s conclusion? Humans have a right to safety from climate catastrophes that is rooted in their right to life, privacy and family.

The definition-shifting decision from the European Court of Human Rights means nearly 50 governments representing almost 700 million people will now have to contend with a new era of litigation from climate-stricken communities alleging inaction. 

While the judgment itself doesn’t include any penalties — the case featured several women accusing Switzerland of failing to shield them from climate dangers — it does establish a potent precedent that people can use to sue governments in national courts.

The verdict will serve “as a blueprint for how to successfully sue your own government over climate failures,” said Ruth Delbaere, a legal specialist at Avaaz, a U.S.-based nonprofit that promotes climate activism...

Courting the courts on climate

The European Court of Human Rights was established in the decade following World War II but has grown in importance over the last generation. As the judicial arm of the Council of Europe, an international human rights organization, the court’s rulings are binding on the council’s 46 members, spanning all of Europe and numerous countries on its borders.

As a result, Tuesday’s [April 9, 2024] ruling will help elevate climate litigation from a country-by-country battle to one that stretches across continents.

Previously, climate activists had mostly found success in suing individual countries to force climate action. 

A 2019 Dutch Supreme Court verdict forced the Netherlands to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent, while in 2021 a French court ruled the government was responsible for environmental damage after it failed to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals. That same year, Germany’s Constitutional Court issued a sweeping judgment that the country’s 2019 climate law was partly “unconstitutional” because it put too much of the emissions-cutting burden on future generations.

Even in the U.S., young environmental activists won a local case last year against state agencies after arguing that the continued use of fossil fuels violated their right to a "clean and healthful environment."

But 2024 is shaping up to be a turning point for climate litigation, redefining who has a right to sue over climate issues, what arguments they can use, and whom they can target. 

To start, experts overwhelmingly expect that Tuesday’s ruling will reverberate across future lawsuits — both in Europe and globally. The judgment even includes specifics about what steps governments must take to comply with their new climate-related human rights obligations. The list includes things like a concrete deadline to reach climate neutrality, a pathway to getting there, and evidence the country is actually on that path...

Concretely, the verdict could also affect the outcomes of six other high-profile climate lawsuits pending before the human rights court, including a Greenpeace-backed suit questioning whether Norway's decision to grant new oil and gas licenses complies with its carbon-cutting strategy.

An emerging legal strategy

In the coming months, other international bodies are also expected to issue their own rulings on the same thorny legal issues, which could further solidify the evolving trend. 

The International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights all have similar cases working through the system.

"All these cases together will clarify the legal obligations of states to protect rights in the context of climate change — and will set the stage for decades to come," said Chowdhury, from the environmental law center."

-via Politico, April 9, 2024

[scorebetter]

Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956

Inter-State River Water Disputes (IWRD) Act since the law is creating more disputes than resolving them

Interstate River Water Disputes Act: Karnataka’s CM has said irrigation projects are bogged down by river water sharing disputes and asked the Center to “revisit the Inter-State River Water Disputes (IWRD) Act since the law is creating more disputes than resolving them.” Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 The IWRD Act, 1956 aims to resolve the water disputes that would arise in the use,…

[politicalprof]

From the Salt Lake Tribune, 2017:

“I am a 67-year-old American white woman. My parents enlisted in World War II to fight fascism. They both served; my mother was a nurse, my father navigated bombers. They lost friends in that bloody war so that all the world could be free of fascism. They did not fight so that some white people could claim supremacy or that Nazis could openly walk the streets of America.

White person to white supremacist person: What is wrong with you?

People of European heritage are doing just fine in the world. They run most of the world’s institutions, hold much of the world’s wealth, replicate as frequently as other humans. You’re not in any danger here. The world is changing, that’s true. Others want a piece of the pie. They work for it, strive for it and earn it. Technology (robotics) is having a greater effect on your job prospects than immigrants. Going forward, tackling corporate control and climate change will need all of our attention, ideas and energy. Put down your Tiki torches and trite flags and get involved in some real work.

By the way, the world won the war against Nazi fascism in the 1940s, just as America won the war against the Confederacy in the 1860s. Aligning with two lost causes just labels you as profound losers.

And finally, white person to white person: Like my parents before me, I will not stand idly by nor give up my rights or the rights of other Americans because you think you are better than some of us. It doesn’t work that way. All Americans stand shoulder to shoulder against your hatred and bigotry.”

Jonna Ramey

Salt Lake City

[uncleclaudius]

The Lyon Tablet, a transcript of the speech Emperor Claudius had given in the Senate in 48 AD, arguing for the admission of senators from Gaul.

1. I should say at the outset that I reject the first thought that will, I am sure, be the very first thing to stand in my way: namely that you will recoil from my suggestion as though I were introducing some revolutionary innovation.  Think, instead, of how many changes have taken place over the years in this state and how many forms and constitutions our state has had, from the time of its very foundation.

2. At one time this city was held by kings, though they did not pass it along to successors from their own families. People from other families came to the throne and even some foreigners.  Numa, for example, succeded Romulus, and was a Sabine; that made him a neighbor, certainly, but at the time he was also a foreigner. Another example is Tarquinius Priscus, who succeded Ancus Marcius: because of his impure blood--his father was the Corinthian Demaratus and his mother was from Tarquinii, to Tarquinius Priscus supposedly had a Greek father and an Etruscan mother. And though well-born she was very poor, which is why she was forced to marry such a husband.--Tarquinius was kept from positions of honor in his own land and thus emigrated to Rome, where he became king.  Between Tarquinius and either his son or his grandson (for our authorities disagree on this point) there came Servius Tullius.  And according to the Roman sources Servius Tullius had as a mother a prisoner of war, Ocresia; according to the Etruscans he had been the faithful companion of Caelius Vivenna and took part in his adventures, and later, when he was driven out by a change of fortune, he left Etruria with all the suriving troops of Caelius and seized the Caeliian hill, which thus takes its name from his leader Caelius, and after changing his name (for his Etruscan name was Mastarna) he was given the name I have already mentioned, and became king, to the very great advantage of the state. Then, after the behavior of Tarquinius Superbus came to be hated by our city--and not only his behavior but that of his sons--the people obviously became tired of monarchy, and the administration of state was transferred to the consuls, who were annual magistates.

3. Why need I mention the dictatorship--more powerful even than the consulship--which was what our ancestors came up with when wars were particularly hard or there was serious civil disturbance?  Or why need I mention the the creation of tribunes of the plebs, to provide assistance for the plebs?  Why mention transfer of imperium from consuls to the decemviri, and at the end of the reign of the decemviri the return of imperium back to the consuls?  Why mention the distribution of the consular power to multiple recipients, called tribunes of the soldiers with consular power, who were first six and then eight in number?  Why should I mention the fact that offices that were once patrician ones were shared eventually with the plebeians, religious ones as well as military?

4. If I were to tell of the wars, which our ancestors started with and which have continued down to the present day, I fear that I would appear too boastful, and look as though I wanted to boast about my glory in extending the empire beyond the Ocean.  But let me instead return to my original point.  Citizenship can ... [some text is lost here]

[column II]

5. Certainly it was a new thing when my great-uncle Augustus and my uncle Tiberius decided to admit into this Senate house the flower of the coloniae and the cities from all over the empire--all of them good and wealthy men of course.  But, you may say, is not an Italian senator more useful than a provincial one?  When I start explaining this aspect of my censorship I will reveal what I think about that.   But certainly I  think that provincials should not be rejected, as long as they will be a credit to the Senate.

6. Behold that most glorious and flourishing colony of Vienne: how long has it provided senators for this chamber?  From Vienne comes an ornament of the equestrian order with few equals, Lucius Vestinus, whom I esteem greatly and retain even now in my service.   May his children, I beseech you, enjoy priesthoods of the first rank, and after that, in the years to come, may they proceed to further honors.  (I will not utter the dire name of that brigand—I detest him, that monster of the wrestling-ring—or the fact that he acquired the consulship for his family before his colony had ever obtained the solid benefit of the Roman citizenship.  And I could say the same thing about his brother, who suffered a pathetic and fate, and was thus no use to you as a senator.)

7. It is time now, Tiberius Caesar Germanicus, to reveal to the senators where your speech is headed; for you have already come to the extreme limits of Gallia Narbonensis.

8. Consider all the distinguished young men I see before me: the fact that they are senators should cause no more regret than that felt by Persicus--a most distinguished man and a friend of mine--when he reads the name Allobrogicus among the images of his ancestors.  And if you agree that this is true, what should I not also point out to you that the land beyond Gallia Narbonensis already sends you senators?  We do not, after all, regret that we have men in the senate from Lugdunum.

9. I was somewhat hesitant, senators, about leaving the boundaries of provinces that were well known to you, but now I must make the case for Gallia Comata with some seriousness.  If anyone concentrates on the fact that the Gauls resisted the divine Julius in war for ten years, he should consider that they have also been loyal and trustworthy for a hundred years, and had this loyalty tried to the utmost when we were in danger.  They it was who provided my father Drusus with secure internal peace when he was conquering Germany, even though he was summoned to the war while in the middle of a census, which was then a new and strange business for the Gauls.  And we know from our own experience how difficult the census can be, even though for us it involves nothing more than the public recording of our resources. (tr. E. M. Smallwood)

[mostlysignssomeportents]

A taxonomy of corporate bullshit

Next Tuesday (Oct 31) at 10hPT, the Internet Archive is livestreaming my presentation on my recent book, The Internet Con.

There are six lies that corporations have told since time immemorial, and Nick Hanauer, Joan Walsh and Donald Cohen's new book Corporate Bullsht: Exposing the Lies and Half-Truths That Protect Profit, Power, and Wealth in America* provides an essential taxonomy of this dirty six:

https://thenewpress.com/books/corporate-bullsht

In his review for The American Prospect, David Dayen summarizes how these six lies "offer a civic-minded, reasonable-sounding justification for positions that in fact are motivated entirely by self-interest":

https://prospect.org/culture/books/2023-10-27-lies-my-corporation-told-me-hanauer-walsh-cohen-review/

I. Pure denial

As far back as the slave trade, corporate apologists and mouthpieces have led by asserting that true things are false, and vice-versa. In 1837, John Calhoun asserted that "Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually." George Fitzhugh called enslaved Africans in America "the freest people in the world."

This tactic never went away. Children sent to work in factories are "perfectly happy." Polluted water is "purer than the water that came from the river before we used it." Poor families "don't really exist." Pesticides don't lead to "illness or death." Climate change is "beneficial." Lead "helps guard your health."

II. Markets can solve problems, governments can't

Alan Greenspan made a career out of blithely asserting that markets self-correct. It was only after the world economy imploded in 2008 that he admitted that his doctrine had a "flaw":

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/greenspan-admits-flaw-to-congress-predicts-more-economic-problems

No matter how serious a problem is, the market will fix it. In 1973, the US Chamber of Commerce railed against safety regulations, because "safety is good business," and could be left to the market. If unsafe products persist in the market, it's because consumers choose to trade safety off "for a lower price tag" (Chamber spox Laurence Kraus). Racism can't be corrected with anti-discrimination laws. It's only when "the market" realizes that racism is bad for business that it will finally be abolished.

III. Consumers and workers are to blame

In 1946, the National Coal Association blamed rampant deaths and maimings in the country's coal-mines on "carelessness on the part of men." In 2003, the National Restaurant Association sang the same tune, condemning nutritional labels because "there are not good or bad foods. There are good and bad diets." Reagan's interior secretary Donald Hodel counseled personal responsibility to address a thinning ozone layer: "people who don’t stand out in the sun—it doesn’t affect them."

IV. Government cures are always worse than the disease

Lee Iacocca called 1970's Clean Air Act "a threat to the entire American economy and to every person in America." Every labor and consumer protection before and since has been damned as a plague on American jobs and prosperity. The incentive to work can't survive Social Security, welfare or unemployment insurance. Minimum wages kill jobs, etc etc.

V. Helping people only hurts them

Medicare will "destroy private initiative for our aged to protect themselves with insurance" (Republican Senator Milward Simpson, 1965). Covid relief is unfair to people that are currently in the workforce" (Republican Governor Brian Kemp, 2021). Welfare produces "learned helplessness."

VI. Everyone who disagrees with me is a socialist

Grover Cleveland's 2% on top incomes is "communistic warfare against rights of property" (NY Tribune, 1895). "Socialized medicine" will leave "our children and our children’s children [asking] what it once was like in America when men were free" (Reagan, 1961).

Everything is "socialism": anti-child labor laws, Social Security, minimum wages, family and medical leave. Even fascism is socialism! In 1938, the National Association of Manufacturers called labor rights "communism, bolshevism, fascism, and Nazism."

As Dayen says, it's refreshing to see how the right hasn't had an original idea in 150 years, and simply relies on repeating the same nonsense with minor updates. Right wing ideological innovation consists of finding new ways to say, "actually, your boss is right."

The left's great curse is object permanence: the ability to remember things, like the fact that it used to be possible for a worker to support a family of five on a single income, or that the economy once experienced decades of growth with a 90%+ top rate of income tax (other things the left manages to remember: the "intelligence community" are sociopathic monsters, not Trump-slaying heroes).

When the business lobby rails against long-overdue antitrust action against Amazon and Google, object permanence puts it all in perspective. The talking points about this being job-destroying socialism are the same warmed-over nonsense used to defend rail-barons and Rockefeller. "If you don't like it, shop elsewhere," has been the corporate apologist's line since slavery times.

As Dayen says, Corporate Bullshit is a "reference book for conservative debating points, in an attempt to rob them of their rhetorical power." It will be out on Halloween:

https://bookshop.org/a/54985/9781620977514

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/27/six-sells/#youre-holding-it-wrong

[amateurvoltaire]

Today in "The French Revolution is a continuous WTF moment," I present to you an aspiring cannibal. Yes, I'm not joking.

On the 6th Thermidor Year II (July 24, 1794), the Revolutionary tribunal sentenced Françoise-Camille de Béranger, ci-devant Duchess of Beauvillier, to death. Her crime? She was accused of wanting to grill Robespierre's heart and eat it.

I really, really hope she meant it metaphorically.

For those wondering why Robespierre was paranoid, this is a prime example. People literally threatened to eat him!

Now, multiply the crazy by thousands, add insane working hours, poor health, constant stress, and two assassination attempts, and it's frankly surprising Robespierre even lived to see the 9th of Thermidor.

So, what happened to Françoise-Camille de Béranger? She claimed to be pregnant at the time, which postponed her execution. While in the Hospice of the Bishopric, she wrote a petition to the Convention, explaining her dire situation. She mentioned she was a mother of three children, one of whom was still unborn, and that her husband had already been executed. This petition eventually reached the Committee of Legislation, and the Thermidorians released her from custody. Source: G. Laurent Annales historiques de la Révolution française,1924

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Robert Reich's Substack:

Friends, For years, conservatives have railed against what they call the “administrative state” and denounced regulations. But let’s be clear. When they speak of the “administrative state,” they’re talking about agencies tasked with protecting the public from corporations that seek profits at the expense of the health, safety, and pocketbooks of average Americans. Regulations are the means by which agencies translate broad legal mandates into practical guardrails. Substitute the word “protection” for “regulation” and you get a more accurate picture of who has benefited — consumers, workers, and average people needing clean air and clean water. Substitute “corporate legal movement” for the “conservative legal movement” and you see who’s really mobilizing, and for what purpose.

**

[...] Last week, the Supreme Court made it much harder for the FTC, the Labor Department, and dozens of other agencies — ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Food and Drug Administration, Securities and Exchange Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and National Highway and Safety Administration — to protect Americans from corporate misconduct.

On Thursday, the six Republican-appointed justices eliminated the ability of these agencies to enforce their rules through in-house tribunals, rather than go through the far more costly and laborious process of suing corporations in federal courts before juries. On Friday, the justices overturned a 40-year-old precedent requiring courts to defer to the expertise of these agencies in interpreting the law, thereby opening the agencies to countless corporate lawsuits alleging that Congress did not authorize the agencies to go after specific corporate wrongdoing. In recent years, the court’s majority has also made it easier for corporations to sue agencies and get public protections overturned. The so-called “major questions doctrine” holds that judges should nullify regulations that have a significant impact on corporate profits if Congress was not sufficiently clear in authorizing them.

[...] In 1971, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, then a modest business group in Washington, D.C., asked Lewis Powell, then an attorney in Richmond, Virginia, to recommend actions corporations should take in response to the rising tide of public protections (that is, regulations). Powell’s memo — distributed widely to Chamber members — said corporations were “under broad attack” from consumer, labor, and environmental groups. In reality, these groups were doing nothing more than enforcing the implicit social contract that had emerged at the end of World War II, ensuring that corporations be responsive to all their stakeholders — not just shareholders but also their workers, consumers, and the environment.

[...] The so-called “conservative legal movement” of young lawyers who came of age working for Ronald Reagan — including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — were in reality part of this corporate legal movement. And they still are. Trump’s three appointments to the Supreme Court emerged from the same corporate legal movement. The next victory of the corporate legal movement will occur if and when the Supreme Court accepts a broad interpretation of the so-called “non-delegation doctrine.” Under this theory of the Constitution, the courts should not uphold any regulation in which Congress has delegated its lawmaking authority to agencies charged with protecting the public. If accepted by the court, this would mark the end of all regulations — that is, all public protections not expressly contained in statutes — and the final triumph of Lewis Powell’s vision.

Robert Reich wrote an interesting Substack piece on the history of the right-wing war on regulatory power that began with the infamous Powell Memo by Lewis Powell, and culminated with the recent Loper Bright Enterprises, Jarkesy, and Trump rulings.

[cavalierzee]

Hold Them Accountable

Incitement to commit acts of violence, especially in the context of armed conflict, can be considered a violation of international law, including international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights law. Incitement to genocide and war crimes are severe offences under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and may be investigated and prosecuted.

Furthermore, encouraging or inciting the use of weapons against civilians or non-combatants is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law.

Politicians or military leaders who incite war crimes can be held accountable under the principle of command responsibility.

During World War II, Nazi leaders who incited violence and genocide through propaganda were held accountable at the Nuremberg Trials.

Rwanda Genocide: Politicians and media figures who incited violence during the Rwandan Genocide were prosecuted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).

Why not hold Nikki Haley responsible, Isaac Herzog, Mike Pence and Chris Evans?

By Elijah J Magnier

[butdaddyilovehim-hs]

Tolerate It III

"Tell me I've got it wrong somehow."

Read Part II here

Harry watches as Kendall leaves, his heart heavy with the weight of the situation. He turns his attention back to Y/N, who stands there, waiting for his explanation. He knows he doesn't have much time to make things right, and he takes a deep breath before he starts speaking.

"Y/N, I swear, I didn't invite her over. I had no idea she was coming. I've been a mess since you left, and I've barely left this place. She must have just shown up on her own," he pleads, his voice full of sincerity.

Y/N's grip on her bag loosens slightly, but she doesn't sit back down. Her eyes are still filled with hurt and doubt, and Harry can see her fight or flight kicking in.

"I know I messed up, and I can't even begin to express how sorry I am for everything. I love you, Y/N, more than anything in this world. You and Elle mean everything to me, and I've been a fool for not showing it," Harry continues, his voice cracking with emotion.

Y/N remains silent, her gaze fixed on him. Harry knows that he needs to give her more than just words. He needs to show her that he's committed to making things right.

"I'm going to make it up to you, Y/N. I'll do whatever it takes to rebuild your trust. We'll go to counselling if you want, and I'll be more present in Elle's life. I promise to be the husband and father you both deserve," Harry says, his voice filled with determination.

Y/N finally sits back down, her bag still in her lap. She looks at him with a mixture of sadness and hope in her eyes.

"Harry, this isn't going to be easy. Rebuilding trust takes time, and I can't just forget everything that's happened. But I want to believe that we can work through this," she says, her voice quivering.

Harry nods, relieved that she's willing to give him a chance. He reaches out and gently takes her hand, giving it a reassuring squeeze.

"I know it won't be easy, but I'm willing to do whatever it takes to make things right. I love you, Y/N, and I'll spend the rest of my life proving that to you."

Y/N's eyes soften, and she leans in to kiss him. It's a tender and heartfelt kiss, filled with all the love they've shared over the years. It's a kiss that signifies a fresh start, a chance to rebuild what was broken.

As they pull away, Y/N gives him a small smile, the first genuine one he's seen in days. "Okay, Harry, let’s try and fix it.”

Harry nods, his heart feeling lighter than it has in days. "I know, and I'm ready for all of it. I just want us to be okay again."

Y/N places her hand on his cheek, wiping away a stray tear. "We'll get through this together, Harry. But it's going to take time and effort from both of us."

Harry leans into her touch, closing his eyes briefly before opening them to meet her gaze. "I'm willing to do whatever it takes, love. I promise."

And in that moment, as they sit together on the couch, holding onto each other, they both believe that maybe, just maybe, they can find their way back to the love that had once been so strong.

~

So they do it. They go to counselling for the first time and Harry is a shaking bundle of nerves and Y/N is internally breaking down. Because what if it doesn’t work out? They sit in the waiting room, the minutes ticking away slowly, the tension in the air palpable. Harry's leg bounces nervously, and he can't help but feel like he's about to face a judgmental tribunal. He glances at Y/N, who is lost in her thoughts, her fingers nervously playing with the edge of her sweater. He reaches out and gently touches her hand, offering a reassuring smile. She looks at him and manages a small, trembling smile in return.

When their names are called, they enter the therapist's office together. The therapist, a calm and empathetic woman, greets them warmly and invites them to sit down on the cozy couch. The session begins, and Harry and Y/N take turns talking about their feelings, their fears, and their hopes. It's difficult at first, and there are moments when tears flow freely. They confront the pain they've caused each other and the scars it has left on their relationship.

The therapist guides them through various exercises, helping them communicate more effectively and teaching them strategies for rebuilding trust. They start to see the deep-seated issues that led to their problems in the first place, and it's not easy to confront those truths.

As the session progresses, Harry's nerves start to ease. He realises that this process isn't about judgment but about healing. Y/N, too, begins to feel a glimmer of hope as they explore ways to rebuild their relationship.

After the first session ends, they step out into the daylight, and Harry takes Y/N's hand in his, squeezing it gently. "How are you feeling?" he asks softly.

Y/N looks at him, her eyes reflecting a mix of emotions. "Nervous, but I think it's a step in the right direction. We have to try, Harry, for ourselves and for Elle.”

Harry nods in agreement, his heart heavy with the weight of their journey ahead. "I know, love. And I promise you, no matter how hard it gets, I'm with you every step of the way.”

A/N: Finally the end to this series. Thank you for all the love on it :)

Tags: @lukesaprince @harryspirate @walkingintheheartbreaksatellite @lilyrmason12 @styleslover-1994 @stylesfever @kathb59 @indierockgirrl @bxbyysstuff @gills-lounge @lomlhstyles @opheliaofficial07 @behindmygreyeyes @gem1712 @stylesmoonlight12 @babyiamperfectforyou @velvetballaspark @harrys-flower @macy-tpwk @mema10 @jerseygirlinca @daphnesutton @rafaaoli

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Hello :)

I would like to know if you know who is behind the horrible false accusation against Marie Antoinette regarding her son. We know that Hébert presented the testimony in the revolutionary tribunal, and although he bears responsibility for it, I don't think he was alone in fabricating this false testimony.

While it is hard to know for sure exactly whose idea it was to make incest a charge against Marie-Antoinette, these are all the people involved in obtaining the information needed that I’ve been able to track:

When giving his testimony during Marie-Antoinette’s trial, Hébert claimed this ”fact” had been discovered by Antoine Simon, Louis-Charles’ caretaker in the Temple, who then told him, alongside mayor of Paris Jean-Nicolas Pache and prosecutor of the Paris Commune Pierre-Gaspard Chaumette, about it (cited in Histoire parlementaire de la Révolution française, volume 29, page 355-356):

…He (Hébert) adds that Simon having informed him that he had something important to communicate to him, he went to the Temple accompanied by the mayor and the prosecutor of the Commune. There they received a declaration from the young Capet, from which it was revealed that at the time of Louis Capet's flight to Varennes, La Fayette was one of those who had contributed the most to facilitating it; that for this purpose they had spent the night at the castle; that during their stay at the Temple, the inmates had continued for a long time to be informed of what was happening outside; that correspondence was sent to them in clothes and shoes. The little Capet named thirteen people as those who had partly cooperated in maintaining these intelligences, that one of them having locked him and his sister in a turret, he heard him telling his mother: I will get you the means of finding out the news by everyday sending a peddler to shout the evening newspaper nearby. Finally, young Capet, whose physical constitution each day was deteriorating, was discovered by Simon [while engaging] in indecent pollutions that were fatal to his temperament; that the latter having asked him who had taught him this criminal practice, he replied that it was to his mother and his aunt that he was indebted for the knowledge of this fatal habit. From the declaration, observes the deponent, that the young Capet made, in the presence of the mayor of Paris and the prosecutor of the Commune, it follows that these two women often made him sleep between the two of them, that he there committed acts of the most unbridled debauchery; that there was not even any doubt, from what fils Capet said, that there had been an incestuous act between mother and son. There is reason to believe that this criminal enjoyment was not dictated by pleasure, but rather by the political hope of annoying the physique of this child, who one still liked to believe was destined to occupy a throne, and whose morale one wanted by this maneuver to ensure the right to reign over while, by the efforts that one made him make, he remained attacked by a descent, for which it was necessary to put a bandage on this child; and ever since he no longer lives with his mother he has regained a robust and vigorous temperament.

The letter where Simon asks Hébert to come over to the Temple has been conserved and can be found cited in volume 1 of Histoire du tribunal révolutionnaire de Paris : avec le journal de ses actes (1880) by Henri Wallon:

The republican Simon to the patriot and damn patriotic Father Duchesne, The Temple, 30 September 1793, year II of the Republic one and indivisible Hello. Come quickly, my friend, I have things to tell you and would feel a lot of pleasure seeing you. Try to come today, you will always find in me a frank and brave republican.

Louis-Charles’ declaration, made on October 6 1793, can in its turn be found cited in Procès des Bourbons (1798). Besides Louis, Simon, Pache, Chaumette and Hébert, the document has been signed by Frery and Seguy, commissioners of the temple, Heousée, police administrator, and Laurant, council commissioner. According to The Dauphin (Louis XVII) (1921) by G. Lenotre, Louis-Charles’ signature is very clumsily written when compared to the handwriting in his schoolbooks, opening the door to the possibility his interrogators had threatened him or made him drunk in order to get him to put his name on the paper:

…He declared to them, furthermore, that having been surprised several times in his bed by Simon and his wife, charged with watching over him by the commune, committing indecency on himself that was harmful to his health, he admitted to them that he had been instructed in these very pernicious habits by his mother and his aunt, and that different times they had amused themselves by seeing him repeat the practices in front of them, and that very often this took place when they made him lie down between them. From the way the child explained himself, he made us understand that once his mother made him approach her; it resulted in copulation and a swelling in one of his testicles, as said by the citoyenne Simon, for which he wears a bandage, and that his mother recommended him to never speak of it: that this act had been repeated several times since.

In the same work we also find the interrogation held with Louis’ sister Marie-Thérèse-Charlotte the following day. She was then among other things asked ”if, when playing with her brother, he did not touch her where he didn’t get to touch her; if one didn’t make her brother jump on a blanket, and if his mother and aunt hadn’t made him sleep between them?” Thérèse responded with a no. The protocol then documents the following:

We immediately called for Charles Capet, and invited him to tell us if what he said yesterday, regarding the touching of his person, was true? [He] persisted in what he had said, repeated and maintained it in front of his sister, and persisted in saying that it was the truth. Asked a second time to state whether this was indeed true, he replied yes, it is true; his sister claimed to never have seen it.

This document is signed by Jacques-Louis David, Pache, Chaumette, Heussé, Laurent and Danjou. The same people plus one Séguy also signed the interrogation of Madame Élisabeth held the very same day. The childrens’ aunt was she too questioned about the incest:

Has she read Charles' statement, regarding the indecencies mentioned in the document, dated the 15th of this month? Responded that a similar infamy is too far below and too far away from her to be able to respond to it; that moreover the child had had this habit for a long time; and that he must remember that she and his mother scolded him for it several times. Charles was asked to explain on this subject: he attested that he had told the truth. She read the rest of Charles' statement on the same subject, in which he persisted, adding that he did not remember the times, but that it happened frequently. She said that as it only concerns her, she will not respond to it any more than to the rest; she believes that her conduct must protect her from suspicion. Charles asked to declare who had first instructed him in this practice. The two together. Did it happen during the day or during the night? He doesn’t remember, but he thinks it was in the morning.

The secretary who wrote the interrogations down was one Daujon. His colleague, the municipal officer Goret, wrote that he had told him the following about the incident (cited in The last days of Marie-Antoinette (1907) by G. Lenotre):

It was this same Daujon who was acting as secretary when the young prince was subjected, in the Temple, to an examination on the subject of the slanderous and infamous statements that had been circulated with in regards to the Queen. Here, word for word, is what Daujon told me on the subject of that examination, and I may say that I considered him a man worthy of belief. The young prince, he told me, was seated in an armchair, swinging his little legs; for his feet did not reach the ground. He was examined as to the statements in question, and was asked if they were true: he answered in the affirmative. Instantly Madame Elizabeth, who was present, cried out: ”Oh, the monster!” As for me, added Daujon, I could not regard this answer as coming from the child himself, for his air of uneasiness and his general bearing inclined me to believe that it was a suggestion emanating from someone else, — the effect of his fear of punishment or ill treatment, with which he may have been threatened if he failed to comply. I fancy that Madame Elizabeth cannot really have been deceived either, but that her surprise at the child's answer wrung that exclamation from her.

[darkmaga-returns]

By Martin Armstrong October 21, 2024

QUESTION: Marty, you are a constitutional scholar. I heard your father was quite brilliant and defended the Constitution, even going against McCarthy. I would like to hear your legal opinion on the following: Can Biden declare martial law like Zelensky and postpone the election?

DR

ANSWER: YES! The question of the constitutional status of martial law was raised during World War II by the proclamation of Governor Poindexter of Hawaii on December 7, 1941. He suspended the writ of habeas corpus and delegated to the local commanding General of the Army all his own powers as governor and also “all of the powers normally exercised by the judicial officers . . . of this territory . . . during the present emergency and until the danger of invasion is removed.” Two days later, the Governor’s action was approved by President Roosevelt. The regime which the proclamation set up continued with certain abatements until October 24, 1944.

During the Civil War, when it was over, a divided Court, in the elaborately argued Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866), was truly an important case that effectively ruled that the use of military tribunals to try civilians when civil courts are operating is unconstitutional. This also means that during war and courts can be closed, then all bets are off. The Court’s opinion bearing on this point is the following:

“If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theater of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war.”

Chief Justice Chase declared that Milligan’s trial was void because it violated the Act of March 3, 1863, governing the custody and trial of persons who had been deprived of the habeas corpus privilege. He declared the belief that Congress could have authorized Milligan’s trial. The Chief Justice wrote:

“Congress has the power not only to raise and support and govern armies but to declare war. It has, therefore, the power to provide by law for carrying on war. This power necessarily extends to all legislation essential to the prosecution of war with vigor and success, except such as interferes with the command of the forces and the conduct of campaigns. That power and duty belong to the President as commander-in-chief. Both these powers are derived from the Constitution, but neither is defined by that instrument. Their extent must be determined by their nature, and by the principles of our institutions. . . .”

[shapelytimber]

Heeeeyyyyy I finally had the time to do some more cards !

II - THE HIGH PRIESTESS (Almalexia) (Thanks @werevampiwolf​ for suggesting Almalexia and Potema :) )

III - THE EMPRESS (Potema Septim)

XI - JUSTICE (The Gray Fox ft. Nocturnal) (And thanks @neospacez​ for suggesting the gray fox ! :D)

(Part 6/8? (I fucking did the maths wrong omg)) Well, here it is after nearly 4 months ! I am still playing morrowind, loving it, even tho I am really slow (begining to think I’ll finish this project before I start Tribunal-)

I hmmm still have a card idk who to do so hmmm if anyone have an idea for Judgement, I am all ears :)) 

Like always, I added these to my redbubble if you want a sticker !

PART 1 - PART 2 - PART 3 - PART 4 - PART 5 - PART 7 - PART 8