#Tribunal do Juri

[probablyasocialecologist]

GCs claim to campaign for the “safety” of women and children. I’ve long suspected this was confined to the “right kind” of women and children. Kathleen Stock, a former trustee of the “LGB Alliance” (public statements of which include “adding the + to LGB gives the green light to paraphilias like bestiality…”) appeared (to me) to suggest that it would be “more honest” for high-profile trans allies to publicly “declare” if they have trans children. Her post made no mention of obtaining the children’s consent. It seems reasonable to interpret this as a call for the public outing of certain trans children. Given “out” trans children have been murdered and 64% are subjected to bullying, it strikes me as, at the very least, callous. Joey Barton, one of the movement’s most high profile (and oft platformed) voices, will shortly stand trial accused of assaulting his wife. Donald Trump, who was found by a jury to have sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll, has increasingly made attacks on trans people a campaign talking point. The GC movement has claimed a degree of legitimacy based on previous legal successes, notably the case of Forstater v CGD Europe, in which GC beliefs were declared “worthy of respect in a democratic society”. Some seem to have interpreted this as a licence to persecute trans people. This summer three separate courts gave clear statements to the contrary. The Employment Tribunal upheld the sacking of teacher Kevin Lister after he equated being transgender (as one of his students was) with having a mental illness. The High Court upheld an order banning Joshua Sutcliffe from teaching children after he repeatedly misgendered a child in his care. In Australia, the Federal Court prohibited a dating app from discriminating against trans women. The message from the courts is clear: GC beliefs are worthy of respect, but GCs must also respect trans people. The summer of court losses also undermines the movement’s claims to expertise. High profile GC activists often hold themselves out as experts. The courts made clear that many are no such thing. Maya Forstater gave “expert” evidence in the Sutcliffe case. The judge was “not persuaded that she is properly described as an expert”, noting: “Ms Forstater explained that the use of non-preferred pronouns in this case might be due to cognitive dissonance. Mr Phillips was not, however, able to identify any medical expertise that she might have to opine on that issue.” Helen Joyce, Director of Advocacy at the GC group “Sex Matters”, purported to give “expert” evidence in the Australian case. The judge said she: “…does not have any formal education or qualifications even in biology, let alone in gender, sex or law… she is not an expert at all. She has no recognised expertise in any of the areas in which she expresses an opinion.” In April the Cass Report gave a veneer of scientific legitimacy to the GC movement’s various claims. Both Labour and the Conservatives used the report as justification to prevent trans children from accessing puberty blockers (which, contrary to popular myth, do not prevent puberty but, rather, delay its onset). Cis children are still given access. The report was swiftly rejected by medical bodies around the world. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society said, in a joint statement, “Medical evidence, not politics, should inform treatment decisions”. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists followed suit. The British Medical Association called Cass’ claims “unsubstantiated”. I’d argue the report was largely debunked by a Yale School of Medicine review.

15 September 2024

[ssa-atlas-alvez]

Hey, can i ask Hotch with a lawyer!male!reader ? Maybe when they meet during a case, the Reader having to ask questions about the case and all during the court/tribunal.

Ignore it if you don't want to write it !

-Crow anon

Hiya! I hope you like it! :)

((not sure how I feel about what I've written lol but hopefully you'll like it lol))

Warnings: mentions of taxidermy, mentions of murder and keeping eyes as trophies (season 5 episode 6)

Any case involving the BAU, or more specifically Agent Hotchner, was always a pleasure to work on. Granted, it usually meant that the material was extremely disturbing, but at least the company was decent - all things considered. And being one of the best prosecutors (not including Agent Hotchner when he was a prosecutor), more often then not you were placed on the BAU’s cases. 

The current case was one you were going to remember for a little while. This particular unsub, a taxidermist named Earl Bulford, was hunting individuals and using their eyes in his taxidermy. 

During the defense’s opening speech, Agent Hotchner leant close to you, “How do you predict this case is going to go?” He whispered.

“I think it’s going to be straight forward,” You mumbled back as Judge Matthews shot you a glare from her seat - but saying nothing. 

Eventually, you called Agent Hotchner to the stand. 

“And can you state to the court, Agent Hotchner, what was found upon closer inspection of his property?” You asked.

“That the unsub had been using the eyes of the victims in his taxidermy.” 

“No further questions your honour.” You said, returning to your seat. 

Agent Hotchner, as expected, answered the questions from the defense with ease and accuracy.

The trial lasted another two days before the jury found Earl guilty.

At the end of the trial, Judge Matthews approached you. 

“(L/N), ask Agent Hotchner for his number.” Judge Matthews sighed. “I’m not sure I ever felt such romantic tension in a courtroom.”

“Judge Matthews-”

“(L/N), grow a pair and ask the man for his number.” With that, she grins and walks away.

You had a terrible feeling that someone watching you, you turned. Your cheeks immediately flushed seeing Agent Hotchner.

“Agent Hotchner,” You said, “How much of that did you hear?”

“All of it.”

“All of it… Right…” You nodded slightly, “Okay, and your stance on the phone number?”

“No objections here.”

[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.

[haggishlyhagging]

"You have granted that woman may be hung," said Wendell Phillips to his fellowmen, and "therefore you must grant that woman may vote." It was as simple as that. Either women were the peers and equals of men, and in that case should enjoy all civil and political rights equally with them, or women were (as men repeatedly maintained) an inferior caste; and in that case, any woman tried by a jury of men was automatically deprived of the right to trial by a jury of her peers. Feminists argued that men simply could not have it both ways.

For the men the choice was no choice at all, for to concede either point was to lose ground and that would never do. The inconsistency of their position was rather embarrassing, but certainly not unbearably so considering what there was to lose to those implacable women so relentlessly consistent in their demands. The New York State Woman's Rights Committee laid out the agenda at the Tenth National Woman's Rights Convention in 1860: "We now demand the ballot, trial by jury of our peers, and an equal right to the joint earnings of the marriage copartnership. And, until the Constitution be so changed as to give us a voice in the government, we demand that man shall make all his laws on property, marriage, and divorce, to bear equally on man and woman." "A citizen can not be said to have a right to life," the feminists argued, "who may be deprived of it for the violation of laws to which she has never consented—who is denied the right of trial by a jury of her peers—who has no voice in the election of judges who are to decide her fate."

As things were, women could not get simple justice. "It is not to be denied," Elizabeth Cady Stanton argued to the New York legislature in 1854, "that the interests of man and woman in the present undeveloped state of the race, and under the existing social arrangements, are and must be antagonistic. The nobleman can not make just laws for the peasant; the slaveholder for the slave; neither can man make and execute just laws for woman, because in each case, the one in power fails to apply the immutable principles of right to any grade but his own." In the courts of law in particular, how could a woman receive just treatment from "men who, by their own admis-sion, are so coarse that women could not meet them even at the polls without contamination?" Feminists demanded "in criminal cases that most sacred of all rights, trial by jury of our own peers. The establishment of trial by jury is of so early a date," Cady Stanton explained with that reasonableness so maddening to her opponents, "that its beginning is lost in antiquity; but the right of trial by a jury of one's own peers is a great progressive step of advanced civilization... Hence, all along the pages of history, we find the king, the noble, the peasant, the cardinal, the priest, the layman, each in turn protesting against the authority of the tribunal before which they were summoned to appear. Charles the First refused to recognize the competency of the tribunal which condemned him: For how, said he, can subjects judge a king? The stern descendants of our Pilgrim Fathers refused to answer for their crimes before an English Parliament. For how, they said, can a king judge rebels? And shall woman here consent to be tried by her liege lord, who has dubbed himself law-maker, judge, juror, and sheriff too?—whose power, though sanctioned by Church and State, has no foundation in justice and equity, and is a bold assumption of our inalienable rights."

-Ann Jones, Women Who Kill

[igorlevchenko-blog]

Nerevarine's Farewell Speech (Canon)

NEREVARINE [At the podium] Excuse me, brothers and sisters, please. If someone could just count off…

AZURA [Narrating]: Nerevar looked out on his people and saw they were in great need, so he did what all great leaders would do: he told them the truth

NEREVARINE: Will you ignorant n'wahs PLEEEASE shut the hell up!

[gasps]

RANDOM DUNMER: He just said what I think he said?

NEREVARINE: Is this it? This is what I got my feet loped off for? I had a dream once. It was a dream that Chimer would drink from the river of prosperity, freed from the thirst of Nordic oppression. But lo and behold, some four millennia later, what have I found but a bunch of trifling, shiftless, good-for-nothing n'wahs? And I know some of you don't want to hear me say that word. It's the ugliest word in the Chimer language, but that's what I see now: n'wahs. And you don't want to be a n'wah, 'cause n'wahs are living contradictions!

N'wahs are full of unfulfilled ambitions! N'wahs wax and wane; n'wahs love to complain! N'wahs love to hear themselves talk, but hate to explain! N'wahs love being another mer's judge and jury! N'wahs procrastinate until it's time to worry! N'wahs love to be late, n'wahs hate to hurry! … Tribunal Temple is the worst thing I've ever seen in my life! … "Lusty Argonian Maid" is not a genre of theater drama! … And now I'd like to talk about Silt Strider Service…

I've seen what's around the corner, I've seen what's over the horizon, and I promise you - you n'wahs won't have nothing to celebrate. And no, I won't get there with you. I'm going to Akavir.

[beardedmrbean]

A juror was dismissed Monday after reporting that a woman dropped a bag of $120,000 in cash at her home and offered her more money if she would vote to acquit seven people charged with stealing more than $40 million from a program meant to feed children during the pandemic.

“This is completely beyond the pale,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson said in court on Monday. “This is outrageous behavior. This is stuff that happens in mob movies.”

These seven are the first of 70 defendants expected to go to trial in a conspiracy that cost taxpayers $250 million. Eighteen others have pleaded guilty, and authorities said they recovered about $50 million in one of the nation's largest pandemic-related fraud cases. Prosecutors say just a fraction of the money went to feed low-income kids, while the rest was spent on luxury cars, jewelry, travel and property.

During the trial that began in April, defense attorneys questioned the quality of the FBI's investigation and suggested that this might be more of a case of record-keeping problems than fraud as these defendants sought to keep up with rapidly changing rules for the food aid program.

These seven initial defendants were affiliated with a restaurant that participated in the food aid program. Those still awaiting trial include Feeding our Future's founder Aimee Bock, who has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing.

The 23-year-old juror said she immediately turned over the bag of cash to police. She said a woman left it with her father-in-law Sunday with the message that she’d get another bag of cash if she voted to acquit, according to a report in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Defense attorney Andrew Birrell told the judge that the bag of cash is “a troubling and upsetting accusation.”

Before allowing the trial to continue with more closing arguments on Monday, U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel questioned the remaining 17 jurors and alternates, and none reported any unauthorized contact. Brasel decided to sequester the jury for the rest of the proceeding as a precaution.

“I don’t do it lightly,” Brasel said. “But I want to ensure a fair trial.”

She didn’t decide immediately whether to detain the defendants, but she did order an FBI agent to confiscate the defendants’ phones.

The aid money came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and was administered by the state Department of Education. Nonprofits and other partners under the program were supposed to serve meals to kids.

Two of the groups involved, Feeding Our Future and Partners in Nutrition, were small nonprofits before the pandemic, but in 2021 they disbursed around $200 million each. Prosecutors allege they produced invoices for meals that were never served, ran shell companies, laundered money, indulged in passport fraud and accepted kickbacks.

[impetuous-impulse]

Ruthless Representatives, Unjust Executions (2/3): Tribunals and Arrests

In Part 1 of this series, I listed three memoirs that included details on Saint-Just condemning an artillery captain to death and described their inconsistencies. @josefavomjaaga has noted that the overall arc of the story is still true, which raises the question: did the captain actually get executed?

Dr. Lawrence Joseph Fischer, in his paper about Jourdan’s career in the Revolutionary army, says of this affair: "The evidence reveals that much of this was threat only; the artillery captain, for example, was never guillotined.” He adds in a footnote: "Such punishments were announced in each order of the day; no such execution, or even arrest, of any artillery captain was ever announced, either before or after Fleurus." (p. 214) If the artillery captain was executed, there would have to written evidence, because if there was one thing civilians were good at doing, it was paperwork!

Indeed, a look through official documents of the representatives, such as vol. 2 of the Œuvres completes of Saint-Just, turns up no news about the execution of an artillery captain. However, Saint-Just's Œuvres do contain correspondence and proclamations that Saint-Just made during his time as a representative in the Army of the Nord. The text shows that despite threatening executions around every corner, Saint-Just does not act on his word as much as expected.

First off, the decree for forming the extrajudicial military tribunals that Saint-Cyr condemned (cited by @josefavomjaaga in this post) indeed did exist. It was proclaimed on 4 May 1794, the second time Saint-Just and Le Bas went to the Nord. See pages 404, and 406-407, documents number 2. and 7., for more details.

7. The Representatives of the People to the Army of the Nord decree the following: Article 1. — The agents or partisans of the enemy who are found either in the Army of the Nord, or in the surroundings of this army, the prevaricating agents in all posts of the same army, will be shot in the presence of the army. Article 2. — The military tribunal sitting at Réunion-sur-Oise is raised to this effect by the special and revolutionary Commission and will not, for the cases mentioned above, be subject to any particular form of procedure. Article 3. — The tribunal will pronounce in the same manner in the fate of those imprisoned at Réunion-sur-Oise if they know agents or partisans of the enemy. To Réunion-sur-Oise, 15 floréal, year II of the Republic one and indivisible.  LE BAS, SAINT-JUST. (pp. 406-407)

Two further decrees of 21 floréal/10 May adds the military tribunal are authorised to print their verdicts, and affirms that “until further notice the military tribunal of the army will make judgements without being bound by the formality of the jury.” (pp. 413-414) Saint-Just and Le Bas give their reasoning in the following document of 27 floréal/16 May:

Proclamation to the Army of the Nord Soldiers, We call you back to rigourous dicipline, which alone can make you conquer, and which spares our blood; abuses have crept in among you; we have resolved to repress them. Those who provoke the infantry to disband in front of the enemy cavalry, those who leave the line before combat, during the combat, or during the retreat, will be arrested on the hour and punished by death. All cantonments will carry out patrols; they will recognise errant soldiers and arrest them; if they flee, they [the patrols] will fire. Soldiers, we will do you justice; we will punish those who refused it to you; we will share your work; but whoever deviates from his duty will be struck with a prompt death. […] (pp. 414-415)

These proclamations are extreme in its character, but I don’t doubt that indiscipline was occurring in the army. On 25 priarial/13 June, the Representatives specify that anyone convicted of having commandering supplies, implying that such excesses occurred, would be brought to the tribunal and punished with death (p. 430). We can debate whether the representatives’ proclamations were the cause of more privations and desertions, but there was reason for the representatives to watch the armies on the north-eastern frontier so closely. Fischer, in his paper on Jourdan, assesses the army of the Nord pre-Jourdan:

[...] the generals of the 'Nord' worked amid the aftereffects of the Dumouriez conspiracy. The sudden treason of the most powerful general of the Republic had shaken the government greatly. To men such as Robespierre and St Just, who had been weaned on the classics and the tales of military usurpers such as Sulla and Julius Caesar, all generals became objects of suspicion. [...] Because the 'Nord' had been Dumouriez'[s] army, its officers fell under particular scrutiny. The representatives with the 'Nord' were issued specific instructions to root out any who might have been Dumouriez'[s] accomplices. In such an atmosphere honest mistakes could easily be misconstrued as treasonous acts, and treasonous acts could bring execution to those who committed them. (pp. 48-49)

This also explains why so many specific accounts of representatives using disproportionate measures are found in memoirs of soldiers from the Nord, the Sambre-et-Meuse, and the Rhin-et-Moselle. By contrast, when recalling Toulon, Victor also mentions the representatives in his Memoires inédits, calling the representatives acclaimations "frenetic" and critizing revolutionary ideals as "bellicose" (p. 13), but his descriptions of the representatives are markedly less acerbic than Soult’s or Saint-Cyr's. The threats of the representatives of the Nord succeeded in creating an atmosphere of fear among the army cadres in the northeast, but whether they were uniformly as formidable across France is another question.

If the representatives did threaten officers with death, the fact remains to see if they carried it out, especially if there is printed evidence. Curiously, in Saint-Just’s oeuvres, I could only find two instances of dismissals and two instances of arrests, and none of them exhibit the bloodlust contemporary memoirists associate with Saint-Just. The first, dated 19 floréal/8 May, is this:

The Representatives of the People to the Army of the North decide that citizen Plaideux, general of brigade of the Army of the North, will retire to the Ministry of War, the Army of the Nord not having for the moment any need of his services. (p. 410)

So what happened to Plaideux? According to Georges Six’s Dictionnaire biographique des généraux et amiraux français de la Révolution et de l'Empire : 1792-1814, vol. 2, he was additionally issued an arrest warrant on 21 April of the same year. However, on 14 August, he assumed detachable command at Béthune, and on 6 November, he took up the post of general of brigade in the Laclaire devision (p. 318). In other words, he was back to work in three months. No executions here.

Saint-Just issued the other dismissal on 1 messidor/19 June:

Considering the citizen Capella, chef de brigade, commanding the 132nd demi-brigade, had neither the knowledge nor the energy necessary to fill a post so important; That this demi-brigade, composed of bataillons who have acquired in the war the highest reputation, has been exposed to see its glory eclipsed by an unable leader and his character, notably on the day of the 28th of the previous month, under the very eyes of the Reperesentants of the people; We decree that the citizen Capella will cease to be employed. He will present himself to the War Ministry his service records to obtain his retirement. (p. 433)

Next, the representatives promote Pouchin, captain of the 4th battalion of la Manche, in place of Capella, and orders that “all officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers acknowledge him and obey him according to military laws. Just like in Plaideux’s case, nowhere does Saint-Just order the execution of Capella, and despite Capella's incompetencies, Saint-Just does not sentence him to the extrajudicial military tribunal where he would have met certain death.

As for the arrest warrants, such as the one on 29 priarial/18 June, Saint-Just justifies them thus:

The Representatives of the People to the Armies of the Nord, the Moselle, and Ardennes, On the account given to them by the general of division Kléber that, yesterday, the second battalion of the Vienne fled shamefully before the enemy, during which the flags of the other battalions from two divisions of the Army of the Nord flew on the road to victory, and that it ignored ther voice of the general who called him back to his post; Considering that the crime cannot be of the entire battalion, because the bravery and the hatred of tyrants exist in the hearts of all the French and that, when a troop leaves their battle post, the cause is in the cowardice of officers or in the negligence of those tasked to maintain the discipline and to shape the soldiers they command to have a love of glory, which consists of braving the dangers of war and to conquer or to die at the post that the fatherland has conferred them; Decree that the chef de bataillon and all the captains of the second battalion of the Vienne will be dismissed and put under arrest; They will be replaced on spot according to the law. The chief of staff will execute the present decree. (pp. 432-433)

While this may seem extreme, knowing Saint-Just’s fanatic reputation, we might have expected him to force the representatives and generals to put the whole battalion to death. Moreover, this decree shows that generals in high command "tip off" the representatives on military indiscipline for them to correct, which I am sure deserting during a victory would count as. That said, the civilian respresentatives' attempts to rectify this military indiscipline may have caused irritation among the officers.

Notice that the proclamation also does not condemn the rightfully arrested to the military tribunals, as the Representatives have promised earlier, and that for the second time, these dissmisals and arrests decree all procedures to be done in accordance to the law. It is far cry from the disregard the representatives seem to have for the law and for the words of the generals, as they say their declaration of the military tribunal. And when prisoners are to be tried, it is also according to "the law", as in this proclamation on 1 messidor/19 June.

The Representatives of the People to the Armies of the Nord, the Moselle, and Ardennes, Approve the nomination made on the battlefield by the general of division Marceau of citizen Verger, captain of the carabiniers, to the rank of chef of the 1st battalion of the 9th demi-brigade of light infantry, and decree that the officer who commanded that battalion at that time and who refused to rally it despite the orders of the general, will be dismissed, put under arrest, and brought before the military commission established at the headquarters of the combined armies, to be judged in accordance to the law. The chief of staff is charged with executing this present decree. (pp. 434-435)

This proclamation raises a few questions. Is the military commission the same as the military tribunal, and if it is, is it following the laws of decree that the Representatives proclaimed on 15 floréal/4 May? If all the above are true, and Verger was found to be an agent of the enemy, then this is the only instance that the military tribunal had their hand in an execution.

Even so, Verger was not arrested for not being patriotic enough, but due to direct insubordination on the battlefield, as Marceau's actions indicate. Of course, Marceau may not have wanted to condemn his captain to arrest even with his insubordination, or one could argue that the representatives forced Marceau to denounce Verger. We would be here all day if we were to debate how much the representatives' paperwork differed from their historical actions. The bottom line is that despite all the threats the representatives have made about giving disobedient soldiers a prompt death, very few of the arrested individuals were made to appear before the military tribunals or were sentenced to death on paper. Furthermore, all the arrestations appear to be for actual offenses, even if said arrests are disproportionate to the offences.

Because of the comparatively lenient nature of the arrest warrants in Saint-Just's Œuvres, I am inclined to think tales of Saint-Just's ruthlessness, while not unfounded, are greatly exaggerated. Feel free to add any additional information.

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

What happened exactly to Lucile Desmoulins? I never quite understood why she got arrested... Did members of both the CSP and CSG really plotted against her? Was there a need to do it? Was Robespierre responsible for it?

On April 4 1794 the trial of the ”indulgents” had been dragging on for three stormy days, during which Fouquier-Tinville, the public prosecutor, and Hermann, the president of the tribunal, had had a hard time containing the accused. After the proceedings had been closed for the day, the two put their signatures on a letter written by the former which they then proceeded to send off to the Committee of Public Safety. In the letter they exposed their worries, particulary the one about the accused demanding their right to call witnesses, and ended by asking the committee ”to definitively outline our rules of conduct if this complaint is made, the current legal order providing us with no means of justifying this refusal.”

At three o’clock the same day, Saint-Just mounted the rostrum at the Convention and revealed the discovery of a new conspiracy:

…No, liberty shall not recoil in front of her enemies; their (the indulgents’) coalition has been revealed. Dillon, who ordered his army to march upon Paris, has declared that the wife of Desmoulins had received money in order to promote a movement to assassinate the patriots and the Revolutionary Tribunal.

After having heard Saint-Just’s report, the Convention used this new discovery to order ”that the Revolutionary Tribunal shall proceed with the instruction relating to the conspiracy of Lacroix, Danton, Chabot and others. The President shall make use of every means which the law permits to cause his authority and that of the Revolutionary Tribunal to be respected, and to repress every attempt on the part of the accused to trouble public tranquillity and to hinder the course of justice. It is decreed that all persons accused of conspiracy who shall resist or insult the national justice shall be outlawed and receive judgment on the spot.” This order became essential for getting the dantonists condemned to death the following day.

Right after the order had been passed, Billaud-Varennes proposed the reading of the report that had led the authorities onto this new conspiracy, announced by the prison informant Alexandre Laflotte:

We, administrators of the police department, seeing a letter written to us by the janitor of the Luxembourg prison, immediately went to said prison, and called before us the citizen Laflotte, former minister of the Republic of Florence, detained in this prison since around six days back, who told us that yesterday, around six to seven o’clock in the evening, being in the room of Arthur Dillon, who he declared to not have known before his incarceration, said Dillon, after having pulled him to the side, asked him if he knew of what had happened that day at the Revolutionary Tribunal; that after Laflotte had answered ”no”, Dillon had told him that the accused Danton, Lacroix, Hérault had declared that they would only speak in the presence of members of the Convention, Robespierre, Barère, Saint-Just and others; that the people had applauded, that the embarrassed jury had written a letter to the Convention, that was passed, that at the reading of said letter the people had given strong marks of disapproval, that were heard right up to the bridge (a rumour that Dillon had taken care to spread in the prison); that his fear was that the Committees of Public Safety and General Security were going to cut the throats of the prisoners detained at the Conciergerie, and that the same fate was reserved for those detained in the other prisons; that one must resist oppression; that the men with mind and heart were going to meet; that Dillon said that they wanted a republic, but a free republic. Dillon added that he was working on a projet together with Simon, deputy of the Convention that was detained in the same prison, a man with a cool head and big heart; that he wanted to communicate it to him. Laflotte, feeling that it for the public cause could be important to discover this project, made up his mind to dissemble and enter into Dillon’s views; Dillon told him that he would come to him; that he would bring Simon, and would also make sure to bring Thouret, him too detained. He then gave a letter to a guard, who’s name he thought was Lambert. On Lambert’s suggestion, Dillon cut out his signature; he said that this letter was for the wife of Desmoulins; that she had at her disposal one thousand écus in order to be able to send people around the revolutionary tribunal; after that he left the room. […]

At six o’clock in the evening, two hours after the closing of the session, the police commissioner Jacques-Philibert Guellard went to the Desmoulins apartment to arrest Lucile. According to the police report written by him, she handed herself over willingly, saying she was ready to obey the law. After a search warrant she was sent to the Sainte-Pélagie prison, and, five days later, from there to the Conciergerie. Once arrived there, she underwent a quick interrogation, being asked her name, age, profession, recidence, if she had ever conspired against the republic and if she had a counsel (she answered ”no” on the last two questions). She was given a defender, citizen Boutroux, who would however be unable to help her with anything. When asked to sign the minute, Lucile wrote Femme Camille Desmoulins, showing that she had not abandoned her since four days back executed husband. Whether or not this refusal of rejection contributed to her death I will leave unsaid.

Lucile’s trial began the following day, April 10. She was tried alongside 25 other people from different political backgrounds, but who all had been indicted ”of having, in complicity with the infamous Hébert, Clootz, alias Anacharsis, Ronsin, Vincent, Mazuel, Momoro, Camille Desmoulins, Danton, Lacroix and others, already struck by the sword of the law, conspired against the liberty and security of the French people, by wanting to trouble the state through civil war, by arming the citizens against one another, and against the exercise of legitimate authority, as a result of which, during last ventôse and current germinal, conspirators were to dissolve the national representation, assassinate its members and the patriots, destroy the republican government, seize the sovereignty of the people, and give a tyrant to the state.”

One of the accused was of course Arthur Dillon, the man Laflotte had pointed out as having gotten Lucile involved in this conspiracy. Dillon and Lucile were the very first the president turned to, and, after Laflotte had once again witnessed against the two, the protocol reports the following interchange:

The president to Dillon: Did you write a letter and read it to two citizens? Did you present it to Lambert, who refused to deliver it, and did you, on the observations of Lambert, take care to cut out your signature? And to whom did you address this letter?

Dillon: I adressed this letter to Camille’s wife, to whom I owed a great deal for some services received from her; I wrote to her: “Virtuous woman, do not lose courage; your affair and mine is in good progress, and soon the guilty will be punished, and the innocent will triumph.”

The president: Lambert, was this letter presented to you, and did you take care of it?

Lambert: Dillon asked me to deliver it, and to cut out the signature.

The president: Why did you take care of it, and why didn't you tell the janitor? Your aim was no doubt to provide this prisoner with communications to the outside, which is prohibited by law.

Lambert: I did all in my power to refuse the letter; but Dillon stealthily slipped it into my pocket. As soon as I perceived it, I handed it back to him; he wanted to force me to carry out this commission; I persisted in my refusals, and it would not have been possible for me to give this letter to anyone, because Dillon, doubtless, disconcerted by my refusals, conceived fears and tore the letter to pieces.

The public prosecutor to Lambert: But your duty, when this letter was presented to you for the first time, was to hasten to communicate it to the guards of the prison; and in the absence of this communication, you should at least denounce all the criminal attempts of Dillon to corrupt you.

The president to Camille’s widow: Did you receive Dillon’s letter?

Lucile: I didn’t receive anything.

[…]

The president: Did you (Dillon) send 3000 livres to Desmoulins’ wife?

Dillon: All these facts are imagined at Laflotte’s pleasure; the day that I spoke to him, he was a little drunk and yet he had brought some lemons to prepare some punch. It would not be surprising if his head, which was a little exalted that day, would not allow his memory today to render the facts as they happened.

The president: Femme Desmoulins, were you sent 3000 livres?

Lucile: I didn’t receive anything.

The president: Do you know Dillon? Have you had any relation with him? Did he ever come to your house?

Lucile: I’ve seen Dillon sometimes, he required me in different meetings; but he rarely came to my house.

[…]

The president: Dillon, did communicate your counterrevolutionary plans to Thuriot, and especially your secret relations with Camille’s widow, and all the steps she was charged with taking to assist you in your projects, and all the money you had given her to scatter to the public, to increase the number of your partisans?

Dillon: I haven’t talked to Thouret about any kind of conspiracy, and, when I had the good fortune to oblige Camille’s widow, I demanded nothing from her that was contrary to the public good.

This was the only time the three day long trial concerned Lucile, and also the only times she spoke during it. It was however all it took, on April 13, she and 18 of the other accused were found guilty and sentenced to death within 24 hours, as well as to having their belongings confiscated by the state.

So to say members of the CPS and CGS plotted against Lucile would be incorrect. They did seize on a rumor implicating her in order to easier condemn the indulgents, but it was not they themselves who had come up with it and they did for practical rather than personal reasons.

As for what Robespierre’s role in Lucile’s demise was, he had been one of eight people to sign her arrest warrant on April 4 (the others were Billaud-Varennes, C-A Prieur, Carnot, Couthon and Barère from the CPS and Du Barran and Voulland from the CGS. It was Du Barran who had been author behind the decree). After Saint-Just’s report and the Laflotte letter had been read at the Convention the same day, Robespierre also spoke up to propose the two be sent to the Revolutionary Tribunal for them to be read at the hearing (making sure Camille would find out about his wife’s arrest…), a proposition that was adapted. Finally, we also know of two letters (one of which has had its authenticity questioned) Lucile’s mother sent Robespierre on April 13, begging him to intervene in the trial and save her daughter’s life. It is however unknown if he ever received them or not (given that we have the letters today I would lean more towards the latter theory…)

[usagirln12003]

Levi Ackerman: Hogwarts AU

Levi Ackerman is a Pureblood wizard that was born on the 25th of December 1965 and started attending Hogwarts on the 1st of September 1976, being sorted into Gryffindor house.

He has an English Oak wand with a Phoenix Feather Core.

His Patronus is a Black Cat.

His favorite subject is Transfiguration and his least favorite is Herbology.

He was one of the Gryffindor Prefects of his year and the Seeker from his fifth year onward.

As a result of his early childhood years, Levi is described as a "clean freak" by those who know him personally as he prefers his environment and himself to be spotlessly clean. He is averse to having either himself or his equipment soiled, and has been known to wipe down his blood-smeared wand while still on the battlefield. However, he will not hesitate to touch filth if he deems it necessary.

Despite his preoccupation with cleanliness, Levi is not very approachable. He rarely shows emotion, giving a cold impression to others. His manner of speaking tends to be very blunt, even insulting, and his comments are often coarse or inappropriate. He is not above provoking or belittling those who oppose or irritate him. His sense of humor tends toward the vulgar, insulting, and dark. All of this makes him unsettling to a great number of people.

In his pre-auror criminal life, when he lived in London, Levi refused to take orders from anyone (as Petra Ral tells Eren), though he placed a great trust in his comrades, something he would later do with his subordinates. However, after he became an auror, he came to greatly respect his supervisor Erwin Smith, whose orders he follows willingly because he trusts in Erwin's vision for the Auror Department.

Levi's obedience is strictly limited to individuals he respects, and he has no problem showing open disdain for authority from anyone outside of this circle. At Eren's tribunal, he insulted the jury by calling them "pigs" and told them that they were not competent enough to handle Eren, mocking several of them by observing that they have never battled a single dark wizard. He even sardonically suggests that they join the Auror Department, which caused them to back off. He openly resents most of them for their continual attempts to undermine the Auror's Department, and also presumably because of the criminal life he led before he started working there.

Although he rarely shows it, Levi has a strong sense of morality and empathy. One of his most defining characteristics is the great value he places on preserving human life; this is especially shown when it was revealed that many dark wizards might have been under the Imperius Curse. The thought that he had unknowingly been sending innocent people to Azkaban all this time disturbs him greatly. Though Levi bore no malice against Eren, he was willing to resort to violence in order to save his life at his tribunal, eventually asking Eren whether he resented him for the beating. Levi himself has stated that he hates unnecessary casualties, and he tells his subordinates to use their judgment so that they can avoid blunders that may cost them their lives.

Because of their hazardous profession and his personal values, he cares greatly for his subordinates' welfare. This is seen several times: when ordered to retreat early to the ministry at the end of an disastrous mission, Levi was visibly distressed that so many of his coworkers had died on a fruitless mission. Later, he risked his life against Annie in order to retrieve Eren from her and also to protect to Mikasa, who had gone after her recklessly looking for vengeance. As they re-entered Londo, Petra's father approached him, cheerfully talking about his daughter and her unwavering devotion to the Auror's Department. Unbeknownst to him, his daughter had just been killed; Levi remained silent, he was too overcome with grief to reply. Levi was visibly affected by the loss of his entire original team at the hands of Annie, stating that he carries the will of his fallen comrades, and that their collective grudge against dark wizards further strengthens his resolve to continue to fight.

Despite his obedience to Erwin, Levi operates rather independently. Many of his arrests are solo, accomplished with little direct cooperation from other aurors (due to him usually assigning them to hunt other accomplices in the vicinity). Although he is looked up to by many, and he does not hesitate to give orders when necessary, Levi does not see himself as a leader in the same way Erwin is. He does not seem to have much use for hierarchy in general, and he leaves decisions up to his subordinates as often as he can.

Though Levi is aware that his battle skill is in a different league from that of almost any other auror alive, he is not arrogant about it, as he knows from experience that no human is invulnerable. Few will argue with his claims that only he can handle certain difficult tasks, because he has proven his ability to accomplish them.

While Levi shows loyalty and empathy for his comrades, he shows no mercy towards criminals, slaughtering them indiscriminately with obvious indifference. However, when they are former friends and subordinates, Levi can briefly hesitate and wonder if they are still aware of their actions while under the Imperius Curse; regardless, Levi has displayed no problem in defeating them. When dealing with individuals he perceives to be enemies to the wizarding world, Levi is capable of behaving sadistically, even vindictively. For example, when Annie was captured, Levi relayed his enjoyment at watching her suffer and described in chilling detail how he intended to mutilate her body. He has also tortured Djel Sannes with Hange Zoë, punching him and twisting his already broken nose. After defeating Zeke Yeager a second time, he sadistically made it clear that he was going to torture Zeke for his crimes against the wizarding world and the ministry. Levi displays no emotion during these times aside from bloodlust, shown by his methodically slicing apart Zeke's legs.

Levi is occasionally known to lose his calm demeanor and to use threats or violence to get others to listen to him, even if they are fellow members of the Auror's Department. An example of such behavior was shown when he directly ordered Historia Reiss to take on her families' seat in the Wizengamot when the question was presented to her. When she shakily says she is unfit, he grabs her and lifts her off the ground, choking her and telling her to fight back if she does not like it. He then drops her and yells at her to make her decision, but is however calm once again when she complies with his demands.

[blackjackkent]

All right, we know where Bhaal's temple is, so it is time to FLATTEN ORIN LIKE A PANCAKE. >:| We're heading back to the sewers, and on to the temple where once Caden fought Sarevok.

This dude is wandering around in the entry hall of the Murder Tribunal:

I can't interact with him but he's wandering around grumbling about the Lord of Murder. I had to do some googling - this is Ffion Goldgrind's son, the one I assumed had been replaced by a doppelganger. Apparently he just went down the Bhaalist rabbit hole instead, so I'm guessing he killed his mom. Apparently we could have run into him in a couple different places as part of the "Solve the Murders" questline (which I guess is shut down now that we've faced the tribunal), or if we had taken the evil route here, we would have had to fight him as a "professional rival" (according to the wiki).

Interesting. Let's get the hell out of here.

Back into the sewers from the Basilisk Gate, and following the quest icon, we're going way the fuck off to the north in an area of the sewers we haven't been yet. We run almost immediately into a couple of "Night Blades" and a "Death's Head of Bhaal," who are busy taking potshots at a camp of innocent refugees nearby, but all of whom are not happy to see us and immediately turn their attention to Hector instead.

"What's this? A heretic in our midst? Your death in the Dread Lord's name!"

I actually stumbled past these guys earlier in the sewers but then backed up when I realized it might trigger Orin's wrath early; at the time, though, they didn't actively get angry (presumably because we were still on some level allied with Orin because Gortash was still alive). Now, however, they're ready to jump. I'm assuming this is because Orin knows we killed Sarevok and is Not Happy.

...I hope killing Sarevok didn't get Lae'zel killed. :(

Not a difficult fight but does seem to indicate we're going in the right direction.

While searching for the path northward, I land in a place called "Heapside Barracks Cells" which appears to be a prison managed by the Flaming Fist. It's not what I'm looking for but I'll take a look around in the interest of thoroughness.

Surprisingly, the Fist didn't seem to mind me being there. So I set Hector into sneak mode and robbed them blind of anything useful and enjoyed the satisfying sight of the dead Steel Watcher lying on the floor.

Pretty much the only interesting stuff here is a bunch of documents in a back office, most of which deal with the rise of the Bhaalist cult in the city. There's a note from Devella indicating she requested more resources from the Fist to look into the situation and was denied. Florrick's sentence to death and information about the Stone Lord are also here, which thankfully are no longer relevant but would presumably have been alternate entrances into those quests. Also some notes about the rise of the Absolute, and a message from Ravengard (post-tadpole) ordering a complete lockdown of the Upper City.

There's definitely some documents here indicating the presence of decent Flaming Fist, also:

Hard to say if any such people remain in the force, though, or if they've all been tadpoled into submission.

A fun little note locked in a chest:

XD Yes he really is a [REDACTED]. Jury is out on whether [REDACTED] was [REDACTED] although I'm guessing she died fully human.

The Emperor is still a bit of a mystery to me. He does a very good job of pulling my heartstrings, but there are also definitely plenty of documents around reminding that mind flayers are capable of incredibly manipulative behavior so who knows. Maybe I am not immune to squid propaganda. I want to believe he's telling the truth about Stelmane but who knows.

Probably not a very relevant sidetrack but I always appreciate some lore flavor. :D

[thenxghtwemxt]

@whispcrings @espionisms (not a group thread, pick your muse!) | the morning after the pre-tribunal at the grand jury hall

He paces the space where injustice wins, and malevolent nature prevails. The tiles beneath his feet echoing the previous night's mayhem so clearly. After ensuring Lia was appraised and well-guarded, Rahmi takes it in. A stirring thought of apprehension and uncertainty fills his mind, unable to let go. Turning to the oncoming figure, there is a mark of vulnerability in his eyes. "When will it end?" He asks, voice cracking in the pressure. He knows what he must do - protect his new family by any means. But it would call on the part of him he did not like; the coward, the win-at-all-costs mentality that damned him. "I am sick of fighting everyday, just to pay for yesterday."

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Scott Stantis, Chicago Tribune

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 1, 2023

Heather Cox Richardson

Although no one has seen the charges, MAGA Republican lawmakers reacted to the decision of a grand jury of ordinary citizens to charge a former president by preemptively accusing Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg of abusing the power of the government against MAGA Republicans.

“[C]orrupt Socialist District Attorney Alvin Bragg [and] the radical Far Left” (New York representative Elise Stefanik) “irreparably damaged our country” (House speaker Kevin McCarthy) “for pure political gain” (Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin). It is “a direct assault on the tens of millions of Americans who support [Trump]” (Ohio senator J. D. Vance), and “[the House Republicans] will hold Alvin Bragg accountable” (Stefanik, again).

The lawmakers have reached their position after extensive coordination with Trump, with whom Stefanik, Jordan, and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) speak regularly to keep him abreast of what they know about investigations and to plan policy. As Stephen Collinson pointed out on CNN, they are taking to a new level what they have been doing since Trump took office: weaponizing the government to put Trump back into power.

As the Manhattan grand jury’s investigation got close to a decision, McCarthy backed an investigation of the Manhattan district attorney’s office. Promptly, committee chairs Jim Jordan (R-OH, Judiciary), James Comer (R-KY, Oversight and Accountability), and Bryan Steil (R-WI, House Administration) demanded that Bragg turn over all documents and testimony related to the investigation and appear before them to answer questions. As the counsel for the district attorney’s office, Leslie B. Dubeck, pointed out in response, these demands are “an unprecedented and illegitimate incursion on New York’s sovereign interests” and amount to  “unlawful political interference.”

Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, told Washington Post reporter Greg Sargent: “This is an extreme move to use the resources of Congress to interfere with a criminal investigation at the state and local level and block an indictment.” It is, he said, “the kind of political culture you find in authoritarian dictatorships.”

At Axios today, Sophia Cai and Juliegrace Brufke ran the numbers of Trump backers in Congress. Thirty-seven Republicans have already endorsed him, and in the House, McCarthy has put them into key positions. Trump supporters make up more than a third of the Republicans members on the Committee on the Judiciary, which oversees the legal system, and the Committee on Oversight, which oversees government accountability. Nine of the 25 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee support him; 11 of the 26 Republicans on House Oversight do, too.

What is actually in the indictment remains unknown, but the language Republicans are using to attack it reveals that what it says doesn’t particularly matter. Their claim that “the Left” is “weaponizing government” against the right echoes “post-liberal” ideology. This worldview explains why the right wing continues to lose ground in society despite Republican victories at the polls. The problem is not that right-wing positions are unpopular, post-liberal thinkers insist, it’s that the “left” has captured the nation’s institutions.

They argue that the ideas that underpin democracy—equality before the law, separation of church and state, academic freedom, a market-driven economy, free speech—have undermined virtue. These values are “liberal” values because they are based on the idea of the importance of individual freedom from an oppressive government, and they are at the heart of American democracy.

But post-liberal thinkers say that liberalism’s defense of individual rights has destroyed the family, communities, and even the fundamental differences between men and women, throwing society into chaos. They propose to restore the values of traditional Christianity, which would, they believe, restore traditional family structures and supportive communities, and promote the virtue of self-sacrifice as people give up their individualism for their children (their worldview utterly rejects abortion).

The position of those embracing a post-liberal order is a far cry from the Reagan Republicans’ claim to want small government and free markets. The new ideologues want a strong government to enforce their religious values on American society, and they reject those of both parties who support democratic norms—for it is those very norms they see as destructive. They urge their leaders to “dare to rule.”

Those who call for a new post-liberal order want to “reconquer public institutions all over the United States,” as Christopher Rufo put it after Florida governor Ron DeSantis appointed him to the board of New College as part of a mission to turn the progressive school into a right-wing bastion. “If we can take this high-risk, high-reward gambit and turn it into a victory,” Rufo told Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times, “we’re going to see conservative state legislators starting to reconquer public institutions all over the United States.”

To spur that process, Republicans have turned to so-called culture wars, but as David Kurtz of Talking Points Memo notes, issues are becoming heated not in some vague way, but because Republicans are deliberately making normal processes partisan to destroy consensus about them. So, for example, Rufo pushed the idea that the legal framework “critical race theory” was being pushed in public agencies and public schools in order, he told Benjamin Wallace-Wells of the New Yorker, “to politicize the bureaucracy.” He hoped to “take some of these essentially corrupted state agencies and then contest them, and then create rival power centers within them.”

The Republican attacks on Bragg reflect this process. They are quite deliberately destroying public faith in the justice system, declaring Trump’s looming indictment a political attack even before we know what’s in it, and attributing the indictment to a single man—a Black man— rather than to a jury of ordinary citizens. That attack, as Raskin pointed out, is their own attempt to politicize the Department of Justice and then take it over.  

It is important to understand the pattern behind these attacks on American institutions. They are not piecemeal; they are a larger attack on democracy itself.

Republicans are wrong, not only in their attacks on Bragg, but also in their premise that liberal democracy is immoral. It has not destroyed families or communities, or ended self-sacrifice: just the opposite.

The principles of liberal democracy made nineteenth-century writer Harriet Beecher Stowe turn her grief for her dead eighteen-month-old son into the best-selling novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which showed why no mother’s child should be sold away from her. It made Rose Herera sue her former enslaver for custody of her own children after the Civil War. It made Julia Ward Howe demand the right to vote so her abusive husband could not control her life any longer.

It made Black mathematician and naturalist Benjamin Banneker call out Thomas Jefferson for praising liberty while denying it to Black Americans; Sitting Bull defend the right of the Lakota to practice their own new religion, even though he did not believe in it; Saum Song Bo tell The New York Sun he was insulted by their request for money to build a pedestal for the Statue of Liberty when, three years before, the country had excluded people like him; Dr. Héctor García realize that Mexican Americans needed to be able to vote in order to protect themselves; Edward Roberts claim the right to get an education despite his physical paralysis; drag king Stormé DeLarverie throw the first punch at the Stonewall riot that jump-started the gay rights movement.

And self-sacrifice? Americans trying to push the United States to live up to its principles have  always put themselves on the line for freedom rather than permitting democracy to fall to white supremacists or theocrats. As James Meredith recalled of his long struggle to desegregate the University of Mississippi in the 1960s: “My entire crusade at Ole Miss, you see, was a love story. It is a story about my love for America….”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[venacoeurva]

What would be Wrens personal opinion on the tribunal? like Seht's death for Vivec's.....questionable past?

It's a mixed bag-- he liked Almalexia a bunch, but could see the writing on the wall pretty quickly. He's also someone who will flip a mental switch if you establish you're going to try to kill him, so he'll just coldly and unfeelingly fight you on that and maybe there'll be feelings about it after, or maybe there isn't. He's used to people turning on him or just making their intent very clear, so he sort of deals with it by going "Oh fuck you then, whatever"

With Vivec, he finds them to be a decent guide but is takes things with a grain of salt, and he's not a person to consider himself a judge jury and executioner regarding past actions considering his job and track record involves manipulating and murder all the time. Not a fan of basically theocratically holding a city hostage nor Vivec's willingness to let imperialism in, though (but he acknowledges with the tribunal losing power it may have been an inevitable move). He doesn't take the Lessons as literal and sees them as more symbolic stories (and as carefully managed propaganda), and is on guard around them since, y'know, the temple also wanted him dead for a while and he will always second-guess if Vivec would be trying to manipulate him for something else. He let them live, but they never saw each other again and he assumes they died (and feels kind of weird about outliving them in a way). They kind of creep him out, though, so he doesn't really fuck around with them at all and does what he needs to then vacates quickly

He straight up hardly cares about the betrayal of Nerevar aside from "oh that happened to me too but I made it out alive, and now I gotta do this stupid prophecy shit. Git gud", so there's not much emotional investment other than L+ratio+asshole move but whatever+sorry all that happened ig+stop involving me

Obvs he never met Sotha Sil (in canon, in ESO he will but yknow that's not character canon), but he didn't feel very inclined to wonder what it would be like to meet him alive. He kind of regarded what little he saw of Clockwork City the way he regards Dwemer ruins: unsettling that there used to be people there but a place built for people is now devoid of them and there's so much he'll never know about it. He figures he wasn't even in his body anymore by the time Almalexia got to him, and whatever his self was stored in is shut down by now so he'll never figure out what his last thoughts were, whenever those actually were.

[twistedtummies2]

The Devils I Know - Number 11

Welcome to “The Devils I Know!” For this spooky time of year, from now till Halloween, I’ll be counting down My Top 31 Depictions of the Devil, from movies, television, video games, and more! Today’s Devil is an Eggs-asperatingly Evil Fellow. Number 11 is…Vincent Price, from The Story of Mankind.

Yeah, given the actor and how ridiculous this movie is, I could not resist an Egghead reference. XD “The Story of Mankind” is probably one of the more “oddball” entries on the countdown. The film was directed and produced by Irwin Allen, a filmmaker known for his campy, colorful style of storytelling, making movies that were as inexpensive as they were absurd and bright. I know Allen best for his 1985 miniseries version of “Alice in Wonderland,” along with his work on TV shows such as “Lost in Space.” Long before those, however, Allen worked on this 1957 feature, which has become something of a cult classic, mostly due to its star-studded cast. The film takes place in an alternate future where mankind has developed an incredible weapon of war, which has the potential to lead to the destruction of the entire world. A high tribunal of celestial beings is called, as they freeze time and try to determine if they should intervene in some fashion, or potentially allow humanity to destroy itself. To this end, the defense and prosecution alike show the jury moments in humanity’s history to each of their respective ends. The defense focuses on the heroes of humanity, people who did grand and admirable things that everyone will remember forever with fondness, such as Abraham Lincoln and Moses. In contrast, the prosecution presents the villains of humanity: people like the Emperor Nero and Adolf Hitler, who forever despoiled humanity with acts of cruelty and horror unfathomable to this day.

The main issue I have with the film – and keep in mind it has SEVERAL issues – is that it suffers from two particular things: one is a very bonkers sort of tone, and two – which sort of ties into this – is its utterly haphazard casting. I’m sorry, but a movie with Agnes Moorehead throwing everything into playing a dramatic and serious Queen Elizabeth I just does not jive with scenes of the Marx Brothers as Peter Minuit, Sir Isaac Newton, and a Monk. Similarly, Peter Lorre as a particularly schlubby Nero doesn’t really mesh with Dennis Hopper as the world’s most American-sounding Napoleon. The movie can’t decide if it wants to be a comedy or a drama, and the actors largely just seem thrown into the piece with little to no regard as to whether they work in their respective roles or not. One piece of casting works perfectly, however, and that is Vincent Price as the Devil. Here referred to as “Mr. Scratch,” Price’s Devil is the head of the Prosecution, and the main antagonist of the picture. His rival, the defense attorney – known simply as “The Spirit of Man,” and played by Ronald Colman – is our central protagonist, forced to try and prove his case against the Devil’s quick rebuttals. Price plays one of the classiest, smoothest Devils in all of cinema. Dapper in appearance, refined in his manners, and eloquent in his speech, he mixes his sophistication with a roguish charm and fittingly devilish wit. Even though he’s seeking to destroy the planet and gain all of mankind for himself, he clearly has so much fun with what he’s doing, and does it with such style, you are never able to fear nor hate him. Honestly, he’s so entertaining to watch and to listen to, that the Spirit of Man’s examples of goodness and honesty become drab in comparison: a classic case where evil just seems like so much more fun than good, which, come to think of it, may or may not have been the intention. It’s a personal favorite of Vincent’s performances for me, and while the rest of the movie is a total and complete mess, this is the one element where everything truly clicks. If I was told Vincent Price in a fancy suit was the tempter of all sinners, I would have no trouble believing that, and frankly, I’d probably be okay with it.

Tomorrow, we move into the Top 10 of the countdown! HINT: A Uniquely Animated Evil.

[will80sbyers]

I dont want to come off as rude, but many stuff that you criticize Oppenheimer for are basically related to historical accuracy. Women are not that present because they were not that present at all in the history when it comes to this issue. It is like saying they should put women juries in American court in movies even though women did not have any rights regardong being juries. I agree that the movie was hyped to hell and back but it is because it is an okay movie, not because it doesnt portray some stuff with the 2023 perspective... it is just following the historical events.

The fact that it doesn't pass that test is not why I didn't like the movie, I like many movies that don't and I know the situation in America in those years but women still existed and the movie does use their stories to support Oppenheimer's story but for some you literally don't know shit about them really and others are used just to say "oh this happened to him because he lost his lover" like this so he also feels guilty because of that... Without anything that really makes you involved about these women's stories or that actually makes you feel sad when she kills herself or when the wife was living in depression for being a stay at home mother...

The fact that it fails is just one of the negatives but not the main problems I have with the movie, but there are women in the movie so it could have been done really easily and he just didn't care about doing that, they are used as a prop for him... It's not about being accurate because I'm not asking for them to be in the tribunal but the women lived in that town too

The only way it "passes" the test is when a secretary tells his wife to take the sheets as a code that it's basically a telephone game, it was all pretty sterile and soulless even if all the people involved are people and stories about people should make you involved in them and feel for them in a way and he did try putting scenes where Oppenheimer has mental breakdowns sort of but in my opinion he just failed to deliver the emotion through the visuals and the script in particular

In the end if you want to like this movie you are free to do it, I just think I wasted money on it and could have read a Wikipedia article about it instead

[marciagioseffi]

Caderno de Estudos Tribunal de Justiça do Rio de Janeiro - ARTIGOS DE LEI (on Wattpad) https://www.wattpad.com/1473073986-caderno-de-estudos-tribunal-de-justi%C3%A7a-do-rio-de?utm_source=web&utm_medium=tumblr&utm_content=share_reading&wp_uname=MarciaGioseffi53 Coletânea e lei esquematizada de estudos

Regras de acesso: Promotor de Justiça, Procurador de Justiça, advogados e polícia civil.

Precisa de perfil no portal. Distribuição de Processo Sigiloso:  Promotor e Procurador de Justiça e Polícia Civil

Casos: Criminal de Juri, combate ao crime organizado e crimes contra a criança e o adolescente.

Distribuição de forma sigilosa: Pedido de quebra de sigilo telefônico, de informática e Telemática.

ART 3 ) São órgãos do poder judiciário do Estado do Rio de Janeiro:

Tribula Pleno

Órgão Especial

Seções especializadas