#also i have made the executive decision to leave all the bond related stages for Ch 4 this time

[fortune-maiden]

I like how Ch 1 of WO3 is your typical Dynasty/Samurai Warriors faire

and then Ch 2 dumps you into Ancient Greece, Middle Ages France, Modern Day Japan and the Beach

[lizzybeth1986]

Quick Thoughts on DD Book 1 Chapter 5

• Content Warning: There are references to slut shaming while speaking about opera singers, and I speak about executions in the Hamid scene (I've not added grisly details or anything, but to me what I have included does sound a little macabre). I don't know if those warrant a warning, but I'd like to err on the side of caution and ensure that anyone comfortable with that knows this before they make the decision to proceed.

• Okay on with the QT!

• Why hello there, fancy hot looking Ottoman prince dude.

• Looks like not one but both of my MCs will be living the thot life.

• Apologies for the huge delay guys. There was a LOT to unpack this chapter, and it took me a while to actually explore, confirm my research and get a clear idea overall of how I wanted to approach this one. I'm hoping once TRR ends I can get these babies out earlier.

• You know what I realised? The Lady Grandma LIKES a sassy bitch. There are several times this chapter she's actually been more approving of my headstrong Marianne than she has been of my more mild-mannered Florence. See all of this:

She's mostly approving of this, however, when Henrietta is the recipient of this behaviour, but there are also points where she appreciates the MC's candor (if she chooses to show it) such as if the MC refers to the art of the fan as "ridiculous". If there is one thing that consistently gets on Dominique's nerves, it is occasions where the MC might speak of herself and her former background negatively, mostly out of annoyance because it shows she hasn't comfortably settled into her role yet, and Dominique needs the MC to do so if Edgewater is to stay within in the family and bloodline.

• Also I love the subtle streak of independence we get to see in Annabelle. She is someone who is doing what is expected of her, someone who tries to make the best of her circumstances the only way she knows how, but she is also refreshingly open about how stressful it is for her to go down this path, even in her free scenes. She is also playful and mischievous and doesn't take herself too seriously, which makes a lot of her scenes a joy to do.

• I also really really liked the option where you tell her she's the one you want to marry, and her reaction is both a disbelief that such a dream could come true alongside a receptiveness to the idea. It's soft and sweet and beautiful.

• So we start out with a crash course on the nobility we'll meet in London (Alfred Halloway, whose daughter Felicity is debuting this season, and the Barrymore family, who are related to the Halloways by marriage). Only this time, Annabelle wants to be a snarky little boss and fill the MC in on all the juicy gossip that Lady Grandmother won't give her.

• Lady Grandmother: Alfred Holloway is the viscount of Lochdale. His daughter, Felicity, will be coming from her estate at Bellington Hall to make her debut this season.

Miss Parsons: Alfred Holloway is an arrogant prig who looks like an Easter ham studded with cloves.

(For the record, this is what a clove-studded Easter ham seems to look like:

Holy shit Annabelle you savage af)

Lady Grandmother: Miss Holloway's family is also tied by marriage to the Earl of Barrymore...

Miss Parsons: Oh, avoid the Earl of Barrymore. His bed has more traffic than Drury Lane!

Annabelle here must be referring to the crowd that tends to flock around the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, which was popular as a source of entertainment for its plays and had a seating capacity of 3000 people.

• The free scene with Annabelle is important because it eases us gently into the main themes of her scene later on. The women get to speak about the whole concept of a "marriage market", and straight off the bat Annabelle lets us know how uncomfortable she is with having to go through a wedding to another man.

• She also speaks about what else - besides the fact that Harry was her closest friend - about his death affected her. Having been promised to Harry, Annabelle didn't have to go through the rigamarole of finding a husband. She had learned to settle with the idea of being married to someone who she knew and liked at least, if not loved. It's sad to us modern readers now that Annabelle would have to settle for less than passion or love, but back then I don't think she could have imagined a better deal. And now...and now she will have to settle for even less than what she had with Harry. This was a pretty neat way of easing us into the larger conversation she has with us in her diamond scene.

• A few days pass, and Briar is now helping us get ready for the trip to London. You have the option of encouraging her romance with Mr Woods, which...cmon. They cute 😊

•

Ooh so our House Colours are navy blue and gold! (considering that the Earl's default outfit itself is navy blue, I should have figured that would be a house colour). It's nice but MY NECK WHERE IS MY NECK.

Did You Know: that up until the middle of the 19th century, men's and women's riding habits were largely made by men in a distinctively masculine style. This is what Candice Hern's article "Regency Habits, Overview" on her website Regency World, says:

"Though the style and cut of riding habits changed with time and fashion, they continued to be tailored in a masculine style throughout the 17th and 18th centuries and into the early 19th century. In La Belle Assemblée in 1815, we read that: “Habits have, ever since they were first brought into fashion, been considered as decidedly calculated to give even the most delicate female a masculine appearance, and the wits of our grandmothers’ days were unmercifully severe on the waistcoat, cravat, and man’s hat which were then the indispensible appendages to a habit.”"

•

YOU'RE NOT COMING WTF DAD NO.

• WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY'LL DO TO YOU WHILE I'M GONE.

• I'm having a sinking feeling about leaving my old dad around in this house while Henrietta is still there, Grandma had better be his bodyguard (or maybe not. Cordonians seem to have weird ideas of what constitutes a successful bodyguard *COUGHCOUGH Mara and Bastien COUGHCOUGH*).

• Like most of the fandom I have a feeling the Earl will die sooner than we think. @i-dream-so-i-write once mentioned that it could well be towards the end of the book, and I think that's a fitting dramatic turn this book would take into the next. I'm going to miss the hell outta this guy though 😟

• Henrietta sent Mr Marlcaster and Miss Sutton ahead of time so they can screw things up for us, so we will need to butter them up like no tomorrow when we reach there, apparently.

• Hello Luke! It's been exactly one chapter!

• Kinda like the bonding the MC and Luke have with regards to the horse. Their first real conversation began with Clover, so it is fitting that their bonding continues over her at least for their initial interactions.

• Aww man, Henrietta wants Clover the horse to be sold and they give you a diamond option to keep her, name her and get extra scenes with her. Florence calls her Moonstone, Marianne calls her Pepper. Moonstone suits Florence's particular sense of whimsy, and I figured Marianne would want something short and snappy and it helped that Luke gave the horse some salt before the diamond option came up 😂

It's a fairly nice scene I guess, but it drives me batty because this book is already taking astronomical sums of money early on in the book, and people are already beginning to get frustrated. Even TRR, which is a pretty expensive book, took more than half the book before they pushed forward the option to buy the Derby horse. It just is beginning to feel like too much too soon at this point.

• Of all the free scenes this chapter, my favourite has to be the exchange among the four in the picnic en route London.

I found this particularly interesting because all of these people, so far, have been outside the rigors of the Season in some way or other. Briar is the most outside of this system of doing things: she has grown up completely out of it and will probably always struggle to understand the way things work within the gentry. Luke has spent years in that environment (that of the gentry) so he knows some of it, but he still is and will always be an outsider. Annabelle has grown up in this environment and is perhaps the closest to it, but has never had to take active part due to her association with Harry and the Edgewater Estate. And the MC straddles both these worlds. She is an heiress, part of this high society, but she was born in and more familiar with Briar's worldview. And I love how this scene captures all this in just a few bits of dialogue.

• Also Luke's sensible response to Annabelle's question and Briar being a teasing little imp is super cute, I will fight anyone who disagrees with me on this 😂😂😂

• So many gems nestled in Annabelle's scene guys I can't even. There's so much going on in this one. So much.

•

The main thing this scene does is to - without a doubt - establish Annabelle as a closeted lesbian. She's still at the stage where she's aware and finds it odd that she doesn't hold any affection for any man, that the idea itself of marriage frustrates her, and her growing confusion that she's now feeling for a woman all that she "should" be feeling for a man. There are points where she almost welcomes it, like the scene I mentioned earlier, but she still is clearly struggling.

The MC has three ways of responding to this - one where she misses the point completely and says "you haven't found the right man yet" (Marianne, unfortunately), another where she states that she "understands" (which is left open - either it is a gesture of support from an ally, or it is from someone who understands her dilemma to...well...some extent. Florence is the second. She is bi, so her "I understand" was basically "I've fallen for some men sure but I also have a hard time figuring out what my sexuality is"). My favourite is the response where the MC speaks of facing a similar dilemma in her life and is an excellent choice if your MC is also a lesbian. I couldn't use this one for Florence or Marianne because it didn't ring true for either of them, but I did see the screenshots on tumblr and it's quite poignant.

Did You Know: Lesbian/sapphic relationships and sex were not as much seen as illegal as invisible...and this was an attitude that a later monarch, Queen Victoria, would uphold as well, refusing to sign a legislation to criminalize it by insisting that "women do not do such things". Obviously as we all know, she couldn't be any more wrong. Today we know of famous lesbian women of the Regency as Anne Lister, owner of Shibden Hall, and the Ladies of Llangollen - two women from Ireland named Eleanor Butler and Sarah Ponsonby, who had a romantic relationship for over 50 years. Gail Eastwood, in an article titled "Queer in the Regency: a Slice of Once-Hidden LGBT History" says:

Defying their families, the two established an estate in Wales, called Plas Newydd, rather than enter into marriages with men they did not love. Though they incurred significant debt in order to have a staff, they survived on the generosity of friends until a fascinated Queen Charlotte convinced King George III to grant them a pension.

Plas Newydd became something of a haven for writers during the Regency era, especially since the couple living there could afford to keep it. 

Part of me wonders if elements of this story may be found in the Annabelle x MC route. Or like Anne Lister, who was well-endowed enough financially that she could refrain from marriage and have relationships with women. Maybe, or - given the limitations of having to chart out a storyline that will suit every LI - maybe not. Whatever it is, I'd be very interested in finding out how they'll handle the MC's romance with Annabelle.

• The second most interesting thing is Annabelle speaking about her poetry, and the restrictions her father has kept on her talent. She mentions him looking down on women's poetry as being "all bad rhymes and flowery sentiment", and that - in keeping with the times - he prefers Romantic Age poets such as Wordsworth, and that famous influence on Romanticism, Shakespeare. If we choose to ask her about showing us her poetry, she tells us her writing is "of a...delicate nature" (get it, girl! 😀) and if we choose to encourage her instead, the MC makes references to Mary Wollstonecraft, whose ideas of gender equality were considered radical for the times, and who is seen as one of the earliest feminist icons.

Did You Know: that in a time when female education was mainly geared to prepare women for their domestic roles, Mary Wollstonecraft advocated for women to receive an education that would help them survive beyond the home and the marriage market, stating that the one real barrier in the way of gender equality was the disparity in the education women received compared to men. She says, "this homage to women’s attractions has distorted their understanding to such an extent that almost all the civilized women of the present century are anxious only to inspire love, when they ought to have the nobler aim of getting respect for their abilities and virtues".

Her daughter, Mary Shelley, would write the famous novel Frankenstein in 1818, two years following the events of Desire and Decorum.

• Within this scene also lies a little tidbit that will hold some importance in Chapter 7: the MC tells Annabelle that her mother used to sing in the opera:

So this could be the root of some of the snarky remarks Henrietta makes about the MC's mother. She has close pretty darn close to calling her a "prostitute" on more than one occasion, and her comment after the MC sang along with Annabelle in chapter 3 about how it was "no wonder" that the MC could sing, given her mother's profession.

Did You Know: Opera singers had a very different reputation in the Regency era, not all of it very positive. Shana Galen, who is described as a Regency adventure author, speaks about how opera singers were viewed at the time: Of course, it was perfectly acceptable for a young lady to show her talents on the pianoforte or to sing in front of a small group of family and friends, but performing on the stage at Drury Lane or Covent Garden were frowned upon.

Female performers, especially, were shunned by society. One example of this sort of attitude was seen in the ridicule faced by a singer named Dorothea Jordan, who had an long-running affair with a Duke, bore him ten children, and who was the subject of a "satirical cartoon that showed her in her bedroom, gazing adoringly at a duchess’ coronet, which she hopes someday to wear by marrying her lover. A map on the wall purports to show the route from “Strolling Lane” (i.e. prostitution) through “Old Drury Common” all the way to “Derbyshire Peak.” A genealogical chart of the nobility lies on her dressing table, and her bed-hangings are crowned by a Phrygian cap, symbol of the French Revolution. The latter is intended to ridicule her pretensions to nobility; as a common woman, let alone an actress, she should know her place" ("Glimpse at Opera during Jane Austen's Lifetime" by Maggi Andersen, for the blog Historical Hearts).

• Luke's scene on the other hand is lighter in content but is important if you look at it from the viewpoint of establishing his role in the MC's life before they reach London. As a neutral friend, he is happy to serve her and considers her a vast improvement over Countess Henrietta. He tells her that she possesses what Henrietta lacks, understands something that Henrietta would never understand in several lifetimes: that looking down on people she believes as her 'inferiors' will leave her at a disadvantage eventually.

But if you hint at having feelings for Luke, the entire mood of the scene changes, and you see him feeling torn between his growing affections for her and his recognition that any relationship beyond the professional will end badly for them all.

• The thing with both Luke and Annabelle is that to not fall for them is to maintain the status quo. So even if there is an element of attraction, the MC not reciprocating does not tip the delicate balance that governs their lives at Edgewater over. But when she does...it gives rise both to moments of joy...and moments of fear.

• Ooh I love the animation for the train!!

I mean...just...look at this!

• The MC and Briar get to react in awe to their first sight of London before they get down from the carriage. We find out that we're pretty much stranded on the streets of London and no one has come to pick us up. Gee thanks, stepbro.

• Not gonna lie, but seeing Prince Hamid's shocked!face on his full-body shot made me giggle a little.

• He introduces himself as Imperial Prince Hamid, cousin to "his Imperial Majesty Mahmoud the Second, Caliph of Islam, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, and Custodian of the Two Mosques (the last especially was used in royal titles for many Islamic rulers, and refers to the Al-Haram Mosque (al-Masjid al-Ḥarām) of Mecca, and the Prophet's Mosque (Al-Masjid An-Nabawī) of Medina).

• In a sense he kinda reminds me of Kamilah: he is a fictional character positioned as being related to an actual historical figure, so they will give us plenty of background about the countries they were from (Egypt and Turkey [Istanbul in this case], respectively) but keep the actual historical figure at a distance. Making the fictional character a cousin and a person of an important position in that court is a smart choice to make: they're important enough to represent the royals of the times but distanced enough that it doesn't seem unnatural if they aren't that close and ergo can't tell you personal details about said historical figure.

• Did You Know: Sultan Mahmud II (the cousin Hamid mentions) was seen as quite a progressive ruler of his times. 1829 onwards, he tried to bring many, many reforms into the Ottoman empire, including (according to the Encyclopedia Britannica article on him) "adopting the cabinet system of government, provided for a census and a land survey, and inaugurated a postal service (1834), introducing compulsory primary education, opening a medical school, and sending students to Europe. In addition, the sultan’s right to confiscate the property of deceased officials was abolished, and European dress was introduced". It looks like some elements of this way of thought could be reflected in Hamid, from his talk of diplomacy in his diamond scene.

• Hamid not only positions himself as a bit of an outsider to England but also as a man who travels: talk of travelling and seeing the world is his ice-breaker when they get into the carriage. This will allow him not only to help familiarize the MC with London, and his home Constantinople, but also give her (and us) a view of what the world looks like at this point. For instance, if the MC speaks of even London is unfamiliar territory to her, he mentions the Blue Mosque, the construction of which was completed exactly 200 years prior to the events of the story.

• The other very essential point of this scene is to provide a bit of a parallel to Luke, but also as a counterpoint. Luke is disadvantaged both by his class and his race - ergo he has a very layered perspective. Hamid has privileges, but he is also aware of and in some ways used to the reception he gets in England, and has figured out how he wants to respond. Both Luke and Hamid find their ways to cope with their situation, and the MC is allowed - according to the ethnicity chosen for her - to relate to both.

Florence, for instance, relates heavily to this as someone is visibly a foreigner even though England is the only home she has ever known. Marianne does not fully understand this, but she can tell him like any decent human being would that she thinks it's wrong of people to treat him that way.

• Just prior to this the two manage to see the Tower of London, notorious for the imprisonment and execution of many, many people including royals and nobles. There is a short but rather poignant conversation on the "many people tortured and murdered over who had the right to sit on the throne" (among the people executed, you will find names like Anne Boleyn, Thomas More, Lady Jane Grey, Guy Fawkes and Walter Raliegh).

• Did You Know: For a long long time in England, executions were seen as a bit of a spectator sport. The more unusual the criminal, the bigger the crowd. The Capital Punishment UK blog speaks of the kind of atmosphere usually present around the time:

In many counties, executions were held on market days to enable the largest number of people to see them and school parties would be made to attend as a moral lesson, something which is certainly recorded as happening at Lancaster Castle.  Public houses and gin shops always did a very brisk trade on a hanging day.  

However, attitudes towards executions experienced a shift around the late 18th-early 19th century, and by 1864 Parliament established a Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, with a declaration that executions would take place inside the prisons rather than in public.

I'm not sure if this was intentional, but possibly the MC's and Hamid's reactions to the tower may be reflective of their times.

• Interestingly, Annabelle is shown to look jealous if you've been romancing her, and giving you a sly grin if you're just friends. I quite liked that little touch. Luke meanwhile is a little less open about how he feels at this point: whether you're romancing him or not, he is described as "watching you carefully" during your exchange with Hamid.

• So Mr Marlcaster got the letter from the Duchess to send a groom for picking the MC, but didn't...as per his mother's demands, surely. But AT LEAST you should have been a little prepared to answer me in case I dropped by anyway, dude? Instead of just standing there and staring at me like a scandalized goldfish.

• Looks like Edmund is still going to try screwing things up for us, and we'll need to find a way to get him on our side. After all, we get relationship points with both him and Theresa Sutton, and Lady Grandmother did tell us we could find a way to get them to be with us rather than against us.

• I'm looking forward to Chapter 5...but it's Chapter 6 I REALLY want to see. We're going to learn a bit more about the MC's mother's background!

General Thoughts:

• OMG so much was there to unpack this chapter!! A lot of it to do with Annabelle and Hamid, and Luke has taken a bit of a backseat this chapter but I'm hoping that's a taster of what's to come in his case.

• Look I love this story but IT COSTS SO MUCH. WTF. Keeping Clover was a nice option but it really added nothing to this chapter and could have easily been shifted elsewhere. I want this book to do well. I'm happy with how they're writing it, the effort they're putting into their research and into their characters so far...and I would hate for it to not be appreciated because they made it so hard for people to get into the book by making it this expensive so early.

• Florence is going for Annabelle and Luke (leaning more towards Annabelle at this point), and Marianne for Hamid and Sinclaire (I'm not sure yet but Hamid is a very very strong contender!!). Who would have thought I'd have my first polyam MCs in a book on Regency Era England!! Who woulda thunk!

• Annabelle particularly intrigues me at this point. She is clearly established as both inside and outside of this system, and vocally critical of it at least to the MC. She writes about her desires against the chargin of her father, and states that she doesn't want to merely settle into a 'safe' relationship like her mother, not unless she can know and trust that person (which is mostly why she agreed to the match with Harry even if she didn't love him). She is confused, and open and honest about her confusion. I really think the foundation of this character is immensely strong, but they really need to keep working on her and not just drop their efforts on her halfway. And I've seen that happen enough times with female LIs to be afraid.

• At this point, we now have three male LIs (one Master of Horse who is African-American, one family-approved eligible bachelor and one prince of the Ottoman Empire) and one female love interest. Is there space for one more confirmed female LI? I sure hope so but at the same time I don't want keep my hopes up.

However...IF the plan is to keep just one female LI, then they'd better do a pretty darn phenomenal job of her. If you're not going to give wlw players other options it's only fair to make sure the only option is given really, really good writing - consistently. They're doing a good job so far...but there's a long long way to go before I can fully trust PB to do justice to her.

• That's it for now! On to Chapter 6!

• Tagged: @boneandfur @liamraines @thespiritpanda @alanakusumastan @ernestsinclairs @private-investigator-nazario @bcdollplace @thedepthsremember @mcbangle @queenodysseia @novaelaras

If you'd like to be tagged on these QTs, do let me know! 😀

[ivory-spire]

So I felt compelled to add my thoughts to the 5.4 datamine fiasco.  Obviously, spoilers.  I apologize for length.  I didn’t edit this and I let it get away from me, but the core idea is my issue with the recent BIG REVEAL and BWA’s poor track record with consequences.

I’m not even going to touch the ridiculousness that is the traitor’s identity--I agree that it doesn’t make any sense--what I’m becoming progressively more upset about is the knowledge that there will never be any meaningful consequences to this.

I, perhaps naively, am in the camp that thinks Theron is playing triple agent.  One, I like to hope even BWA realizes how monumentally bizarre and awful it would be to take his character and say, “Yeah, btw, even if you romanced him, he apparently still wants to kill you.”  Two, I also like to hope that they recognize that the grandiose verbiage that shows up in the dialogue mines is... not in character?  My first thought upon reading that is that it’ll turn out to be a hint, played so heavily the player will have a concussion when it drops.  (The fact that he gives you a Bond-villain-esque monologue of his intentions, rather than just disabling your character from behind or just killing them.  The fact that he still apparently fails to steal the crystals no matter what, which makes me suspect that the intention was akin to what the LS!Agent can pull on Balmorra.  The fact that, no matter what, he reaches out to you to tell you that he’s doing “what has to be done,” which just leaves me off to the side like, “yeah I didn’t care about the Boss either, so let’s not play this card.”)

But that’s really not the point, just setting the stage for the issue that I’m taking right now--that, when it comes down to it, I suspect BWA is going to reduce this to a binary choice of “FORGIVE THERON (+ KISS IF APPLICABLE)” and “KILL THERON LIKE THE TRAITOR HE IS.”  Maybe they’ll make it a trinary situation with the neutral option being to let him live, but exiling him, but BWA hasn’t liked neutral options lately.

If BWA does decide to take the approach of “had to lie to make the betrayal look genuine,” those kinds of plots have the potential to still be interesting, imo, if the author is willing to consider the psychological implications.  Imagine if someone you love and trust does something awful to you, such as betrays your trust or publicly humiliates you, whatever.  Then they say they did it because someone would do something even worse if they didn’t.  It changes the context you view it from, but it doesn’t erase the fact that it hurt.  And it probably doesn’t change your feelings of betrayal, because rather than come to you to figure out what was going on and maybe figure out a better approach that doesn’t hurt you as deeply, they decided immediately to capitulate and do as they were told.

This is the feeling that I’m applying in this situation.  My “main,” inasmuch as I can be said to have one in swtor, is an inquisitor who romanced Theron, so a lot of this relates to their response to the situation.  And so I keep imagining what would happen if they found out that someone they loved, one of the few people they believed they could wholly trust, just tried to assassinate them.  That fucks a person up.  And my fear is that BWA is going to try and act like that binary decision above is enough to absolve Theron of the fact that, at the end of the day, he decided to go behind your character’s back in order to “authentically” betray them, rather than trust your character enough to involve them in the plans.  It’s shitty enough if your character is just friends with him; it ought to be devastating if they’re in a romance with them.  As I said, the only thing that’s changed in this situation is context, not what he does.

The other frustration I have with this theory is the hypocrisy of it.  In SoR, Theron is justifiably outraged that Lana let him be captured, instead of letting him in on the plan, because she was worried that letting him in on the plan would be given away, and he wouldn’t gain the intel.  In that situation, she demonstrates a disregard for his skills, his safety (lbr, he’s tortured), and, most importantly, his consent.  But in this situation, Theron pulls the same shit on you: you aren’t given a chance to agree to this.  He makes you a key player in his plot (by necessity, but that doesn’t change much), but never offers you the opportunity to refuse.  Like Lana, he disregards your character’s skills (ability to sell the con), safety (even if he made a “haphazard” effort, he still has to make it look ~*legit*~), and, again, consent.

I don’t even want to get in on the idea that Lana might be aware and have conspired with Theron to pull it off.  If that’s the case, I’d argue that Lana is, again, guilty of all of the above--even if she’s not the one playing the betrayer, she still contributes to the overall scheme.

But the issue here, as I said, is consequence.  Even though I took a lot of time to discuss why I felt like it was regressive to Theron’s character to take this route, I could tolerate it if I felt the game would let me have a reasonable response.  But BWA probably won’t let my character feel betrayed.  They’ll let me have some sorrowful lines about Theron’s betrayal initially, but I want dialogue options to reflect the damage this will do to the Outlander’s relationships with Theron (and possibly Lana).  I don’t want a forgiveness/execution binary.  I want the game to recognize that, even if Theron does it ~*FOR YOU AND FOR THE RIGHT REASONS*~ it’s still a betrayal.  Context matters, but it doesn’t nullify hurt.  I get that in the context of an MMO, and one with dwindling funds, it may be hard to delve too deeply into this.  Even just a line or two here and there where your character can say something to the effect of, “I still care for you (romantically/platonically) and I acknowledge your explanation, but what you did was indescribably painful and I don’t know if/when that can be forgiven,” would at least prove that the devs acknowledge that this isn’t a simple matter.

Disclaimer: It has entered my mind that, if the Star Cabal wasn’t wiped out completely, then Theron might be doing this against his will.  If that’s the case, he’s a victim in this and I want BWA to treat this TASTEFULLY.  No Vaylin repeats.  I don’t want my character, a former slave, to be forced to enslave another person in any way again.

Unrelated: Like, not going to lie, the cynical thought that came to mind as soon as I read it is, “Troy Baker demanded a raise, and so BWA has to find a way to limit Theron’s scenes/write him out entirely.”  But like... as much as I think TB’s a great VA and gave Theron a lot of personality, I’d prefer it if they replaced Theron’s VA and just shrugged and said, “What can you do, eh?” than completely destroy a character out of what, if this turns out to be true, in so many ways amounts to spite.

[asynca]

Do something with Sombra! Sombra/Zarya or Sombra/Katya or Sombra/Symmetra or just Sombra being Sombra and booping someone!

Okay, I totally forgot the booping part. Whoops. 

Friends with Benefits - Katya x Sombra - SFW (sorry)

[AO3] | [FF.net]

-

Katya should have expected that woman would be back verysoon. ‘Sombra’, was it? Whatever her name was, Katya should have known. Peoplelike that didn’t stay away from people like her for very long. 

When she returned, she'd cause another security breach,Katya assumed. Maybe alarms, drama, chaos—that seemed like the sort ofsituation Sombra liked to manufacture. She clearly had a flair for drama, afterall.

What Katya didn’texpect was to wander into her office late at night after most of her staff hadgone home and find herself suddenly face to face with—

God! That woman,who was sitting poised on Katya’s executive table, legs casually crossed,shaking a Chinese Baoding Ball beside her ear and listening to it chime. “Huh,”she said, examining the ball. “Are these really all that relaxing? I alwayswondered.”

Katya’s breath caught in her throat. “You.”

“Yup,” Sombra said, pushing herself off the desk and doing alittle bow. “Me. Did you miss me? I bet you missed me. I’d miss me, and I betit gets pretty boring around here…”

Sombra had the look of someone who was allergic to ‘boring’.Katya, on the other hand, had come to welcome ‘boring’. It meant peace and stability;those short periods of time where Katya could get a full night’s rest and notworry about Russia or her daughter’s future. She didn’t say as much: as if she’dshare something so private with thiswoman. “What do you want?”

Sombra put the Chinese Baoding Ball back in its nest,theatrically shrugging. “Oh, I don’t know? World peace? A different haircolour? Actually, come to think of it, amiga, I’m pretty hungry right now, youknow it’s a long flight here…” When Katya looked less than impressed, Sombradropped the theatrics. “Actually, I did some research on my brand new friendand found some very, very interesting reading material on her, so I thought I’dcome pay her a visit. You know, see how she is.”

That seemed unlikely. “If you’re here to threaten me again, don’tbother. Just tell me what you want.”

Sombra scoffed. “Geez, you’re not even going to tell me howyou are? You’re not even going to ask how Iam?” She was grinning. “A good friend would ask me how I am.”

That grin gratedKatya. These power games grated her. She didn’t know if part of the wholeblackmail arrangement was that she was expected to play Sombra’s little gamesas well—and if it was, she didn’t know how she was going to manage it. She didthe best she could. “I think you know how I am,” she said clearly. “I think youknow how far back your agents sent our mech program. We’ll be months behind ourdeployment date. And every day we don’t deploy, we lose another farm. Another town.More people to the Omnic extremists.”

Sombra looked unmoved. “Hey, but at least the board willkeep you appointed as CEO, right? ‘Katya Volskaya, Saviour of Russia’? Can’t beSaviour of Russia if Russia doesn’t need to be saved, and no one needs mechsfrom Volskaya Industries if there isn’t a war. You won’t even need to bribeanyone.”

Did she really just— Well, she was right, but—“How dare you. Russia is my home.”

Sombra gave her a tired look. “Spare me the rhetoric, I’veseen all your emails. Talon and me, we did you a big favour.” She took a step towards Katya. “And I’m about to doyou another big favour, too.”

Katya wasn’t sure she wanted to know, so she didn’t ask.

“I know there’s a guy who’s been breathing down your neckabout the program, right? Isn’t he related to the president somehow? Secondcousin? Niece’s friend? I forget the details.” Katya had a feeling Sombra hadn’tforgotten the details at all: she meant the president’s son. “Anyway, word on the street is that he’s after a corporateposition here. Chairman, right? Someone who’d have a lot of power over you. That’s what people are saying.”

Katya didn’t know where this was going, so she opted tolisten. The president’s son and her did notsee eye-to-eye, he was far more militant and Katya was and she knew he was interested in being ‘Saviour ofRussia’ so he could use that reputation to get elected himself, one day. Frankly,it worried her.

“Anyway,” Sombra continued. “Let’s just say I found outabout a little thing he had going on at university. Did you know he was dating anOmnic girl for three whole years? The horror, right? I can’t believe he managedkeep it hidden for so long.” She didn’t sound very horrified.

Katya wasn’t, either. Well, perhaps a little horrified aboutthis woman’s apparent lack of scruples. But—Russiawould be horrified, and that was Sombra’s point. These photos could destroy himjust like the ones Sombra had of her could destroy her. “Is that true?”

Sombra gave her a sideways grin and a big nod, and showedher some photos in the air. “All true, my friend, all true, and all here.” Shetook a memory stick out of her pocket, slipped it into Katya’s breast pocket,and patted the pocket once. “I’m sure they’ll come in handy if you need to usethem one day.”

Katya… wasn’t so sure how to feel. On one hand, she wasdisgusted that Sombra thought that she, Katya, would put someone else in thesame position she herself had been put in. On the other hand… if it was achoice between using the photos in defence of her country, or not using themand letting a megalomaniacal, egotistical maniac take centre stage….

Well, it was a tough choice. She almost wished she’d neverhave to make it. But she knew what she’d decide.

And… on realising that… suddenly, Sombra’s decision toblackmail her became a lot less evil and a lot more… well, she didn’t know whatSombra wanted, did she? Maybe she hadpeople she was protecting? Still, there were unanswered questions—the wholething made her incredibly uneasy. “Why are you doing this?”

Sombra looked blankly at her. “Doing that?”

“Helping me. You could have just used these photos yourselfto do exactly the same thing to him as you are to me.”

That, Sombra laughed at. “You know, I did think of that!”she said candidly. “But you’re way cuter than he is. And you’re definitely lesscrazy than he is, so…” She shrugged. “Easy choice. And besides, Katya—I cancall you that, right? Katya?—we’re friends.”

This whole ‘friends’ thing made her uneasy, too. More games.“My friends don’t usually blackmailme.”

“Not openly,” Sombra told her easily.  She took another step towards her. “But, see,I’m not like your other friends, Katya. I’m waybetter.”

Katya was wholly unconvinced, and she couldn’t shake thatdeep uneasiness. “My real friendswould never—”

“—Pfft. How many peopledo you think are the Saviour of Russia’s friend because they like her as aperson, amiga? Be serious. They’re all about what they can get out of you:believe me, I’ve read all their messages. The only difference with me is that I’mupfront about it: I like you because I can get information out of you,” shesaid easily, without any hesitation at all. Then, she paused, thinking. “Also,you didn’t flinch when I held a gun at you before, either, and that’s sort ofcool, if you ask—”

“Do you have a point?”

“Yeesh,” Sombra said. “I was only trying to say the wholegun-thing was totally badass, that’s all. Anyway, my point from before is that,amiga, you’ve seen what I can do. Now imagine how useful I could be if I was your friend, too. That’s a pretty…shall we say, attractive proposition,right?”

There was something… about that choice of words. There wasalso something about how close she was standing, come to think of it. Sheassumed it was a cultural thing, but—

Sombra was looking directly at her. “I have another attractiveproposition for you, too, Katya.” She let the words hang in the air for amoment. “As I was saying before, I came across some very, very interestinginformation about your time in the army. You had a friend, there, I think? Eva,wasn’t it? I think you were close to her. Very close.”

Katya’s blood ran cold. She knew exactly what Sombra was referring to—even if she’d almost forgottenabout it herself.

“It’s sad you lost touch with this Eva, I guess? But Iunderstand why you don’t talk to her anymore, Katya. After all, Russia doesn’tlook kindly on those sort of… friendships, does it?”

Katya felt sick. This woman was dangerous. “What do you want, Sombra?”

Sombra shrugged. She was always so casual. “Nothing inparticular, amiga, I was just going to say that you and I have a lot more incommon than you may—”

More in common than—was she trying to say that she was alsoa—

Katya sharply turned her head to look directly into Sombra’seyes. Is that what this visit wasabout? More blackmail?! “Are yougoing to blackmail me to sleep with you as well? Is that it?”

Sombra actually looked genuinely surprised, and perhaps evena little insulted. “Are you for real?” she said, as if expecting further blackmailfrom her was ludicrous. “Honestly, what sort of person do you take me for? Iwas just hoping that now we’re being honest with each other, that we could getto know each other a little better, maybe bond over the things we share, but,yeah, anyway….” she said, sliding off the table. “Perhaps it’s best if I justleave you with the photos of the president’s son for now.”

Not trusting Sombra for a single solitary second, Katya’seyes followed her as she calmly and deliberately walked all the way to thedoor. She stood there for a moment, pausing to give Katya a deep, wicked grinover her shoulder. “Besides, amiga,” she said, “I won’t have to blackmail you to sleep with me.Eventually, you’ll be asking for it.”

Still giving Katya the wicked grin, she mouthed ‘adiós’,fanned her fingers in a wave, and then instead of using the door, she vanishedinto thin air.

[brajeshupadhyay]

COVID-19 Lockdown: Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh watering down labour laws is a body blow to the working class

The proposed ordinance in Uttar Pradesh titled, “Uttar Pradesh Temporary Exemption from Certain Labour Laws Ordinance” exempts ‘All factories and establishments engaged in manufacturing process shall be exempted from the operation of all Labour laws for a period of three years’, subject to certain minimal conditions including payment of minimum wages, the working day being extended to 12 hours and retaining the protection of labour laws relating to the employment of children and women, as also bonded labour.

Labour concderns. PTI

Another notification dated 8 May, 2020 specifically exempts all factories registered under the Factories Act, 1948 from provisions regulating weekly hours, daily hours, overtime, intervals of rest etc. of all adult workers. Thus Uttar Pradesh has in effect decided to suspend 35 of the 38 labour law for three years including laws related to industrial disputes, trade unions and contract workers.

Madhya Pradesh has gazetted amendments to relieve employers of the responsibility of virtually all provisions of the Factories Act from provisions of water and toilets to basic health and safety, allowing working hours to be extended to 12 hours instead of eight and weekly hours up to 72 hours, while also barring the raising of complaints and disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act save for on the question of closure for establishments with more than 300 employees all for a period of 1,200 days.

Gujarat is seeking to give any new investor in Gujarat a holiday that makes an investment that lasts at least 1,200 days of all labour legislation with the exception of the Minimum Wages Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Himachal Pradesh has issued an executive order allowing shifts of 12 hours’ work a day or 72 hours of work a week with no provision of overtime. News reports also point to increase in working hours and tinkering with the operation of other labour laws in other states as well.

We can rest assured that this decision will be spun by those in power as being in the interest of workers. However, a close analysis reveals that this decision will be a body blow to the working class. There is a serious question of propriety and legality in using the ordinance route. It is settled law that ordinance-making power is given to the executive to promulgate a law when the urgency of the situation so demands provided the legislature is not in session.

An ordinance so promulgated must be laid before the Legislative Assembly of the state or when there is a Legislative Council in the state, before both the Houses when they reassemble. It shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the re-assembly of the Legislature.

It is in the nature of an exception to the normal rule that law-making and this was clarified by BR Ambedkar during the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol. 8 pages 208, 214,215) that it is not a parallel power of legislation and would have a very limited scope conferred only to deal with urgent matters when the Legislature was not in session.

The legality is suspect also given that labour is a concurrent subject on which the Central government has legislated in the form of the Industrial Disputes Act, Factories Act, Minimum Wages Act etc. Hence how can a labour regime be brought into force in some states, which does not meet the legislative intent and mandate of the Central legislations? Surely, there are more legal and technical grounds that could be raised in regard to the ordinances, but we will not dwell on that here.

One justification being offered is that flexibility has to be given to business and industry in this economic crisis to ensure revival. In reality, these ordinances which seek to deprive the working class of all legal protections break with an over 70 year compact between the state, labour and industry on protecting certain rights of labour.

While the history of the neo-liberal era is about the progressive whittling down of labour law protections, these amendments in one fell swoop attempt to take Indian labour back to the unregulated laissez-faire days of 19th-century European capitalism. These ordinances are not only illegal and  unconstitutional but also starkly indicative of the larger designs of a state determined to take advantage of the pandemic to push the working class to the situation of rightlessness.

These ordinances will have to be contextualised within a larger assault on the working class which has been mounted ever since the onset of neo-liberalism. Ever since the New Economic Policy initiated in 1991 the rights of the working class have been under assault on three fronts.

The first strategy par excellence, which has defined labour law, ever since its inception has been the startling discordance between the law on the books and the law in action. Nothing illustrates this better than the fate of legislation which has a life and death relevance today, namely, the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Act 1979.

If this legislation had been implemented in letter and spirit, it would have meant that migrant workers would have been paid fair wages, would have been guaranteed fair conditions of services and facilities as well as a journey allowance. The fact that this legislation was a dead letter is responsible for the misery inflicted upon the migrant workers who have been reduced to a condition of precarity, not getting paid during the lockdown, enduring lack of food and having no money to survive with dignity.

There has been the gradual whittling away of labour protections through judicial interpretation. The locus classicus (among many others) in this hall of constitutional shame is the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others, which has effectively gutted the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The Supreme Court held that ‘[M]erely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance’ thereby rendering the Act redundant.

The last strategy has been the gradual repeal of existing labour law protections. This came to a head in the Code of Wages, 2019 which repeals existing labour legislations like Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as well as Bonus Act all of which were the outcome of a struggle by the working class and replaces them by the Code of Wages Act, 2019 in which the power of the worker is diluted and the power of the contractor is enhanced.

The Code of Wages, 2019  is only the first Act, with three other codes planned namely the industrial code, the code on social security and the code on occupational safety, health and working conditions. The Code of Wages has been passed but not implemented, while the other three codes are still in the drafting stage. A look at all four codes gives one a sense of the wish list of the Narendra Modi government for labour -- remove all protections for labour regarding collective bargaining, fair wages as well as safety standards.

Due to the judicial, executive and legislative acts of commission and omission, a large proportion of the working population in India remain outside the protection of even rudimentary labour laws. In that context why should one even protest this latest assault and overhaul the existing labour law regime?

With all the limitations of existing labour law, it should be noted that unorganised worker unions have taken forward their struggle in this hostile space and fought to extend labour law protections in the organised sector to those in the unorganised sector as well as fought to ensure implementation of specific labour law legislation. A combination of a struggle on the ground working hand in hand with strategic litigation has delivered concrete results for many unorganised sector unions around the country.

What unions and activists have always relied on to wage their struggle is a clear framework of labour law protections encoded in law. It is the protections embodied in the Contract Labour Act, Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Wages Act, Factories Act, etc. which have been sought to be extended to the unorganized sector in the form of legislation which embodies the basic principles of limits to the hours of work, holidays, safe conditions of work etc.

These ordinances threaten this edifice of labour rights which should apply to all workers be they in the organised or unorganised sector.

The birth of labour law was around the core idea of the limits to the working day. It was the struggle of the working class which resulted in the eight-hour working enshrined as a legal limit in factory legislation in countries around the world.  As Marx put it ‘these laws curb capital’s drive towards a limitless draining away of labour-power by forcibly limiting the working day on the authority of the state, but a state ruled by capitalist and landlord’.

When the ordinance contemptuously throws aside this limitation of the working day, it is brushing aside an entire history of struggle and leaving workers at the mercy of owners of capital.

To read the chapter on ‘the working day’ in Marx’s Capital, Vol I is to reacquaint oneself with the voluminous evidence as to why in the first place the length of the working day had to be limited. Marx cites an 1861 Report on the Baking Trade which observes:

The committee believes that any constant work beyond twelve hours a day encroaches on the domestic and private life of the working man, and so leads to disastrous moral results interfering with each man’s home, and the discharge of his duties as a son, a brother, a husband, a father. That work beyond 12 hours has a tendency to undermine the health of the working man, and so lead to premature old age and death, to the great injury of families of working men, thus deprived of the care and support of the head of the family when most required.

Marx further documents what can happen when the working hour is increased.

A tremendous railway accident has dispatched hundreds of passengers into the next world. The negligence of the railway workers is the cause of the misfortune. They declare with one voice before the jury that 10 or 12 years before their labour lasted only eight hours a day. During the last five or six years, they say, it has been screwed up to 14, 18 and 20 hours, and when excursion trains are put on, their labour often lasts for 40 or 50 hours without a break. They are ordinary men, not Cyclops. At a certain point, their labour-power ran out. Terror seized them. Their brains stopped thinking, their eyes stopped seeing.

The extension of the working day is finally self-defeating as:

By extending the working day, therefore, capitalist production, which is essentially the production of surplus-value, the absorption of surplus-labour, not only produces a deterioration of human labour-power by robbing it of its normal moral and physical conditions of development and activity but also produces the premature exhaustion and death of this labour-power itself.

However ‘capital ..takes no account of the health and the length of life of the worker unless society forces it to do so.’ The factory’s legislations are the result of this force applied by society.

The Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh ordinances seek to destroy the initial gains of the labour movement which is the basis for all other gains which the working class has made over decades. If these ordinances are not repealed, we risk a return to a regime where labour is again pushed back to fighting for elementary right of the eight-hour working day.

It's also apposite to note that one of  Ambedkar’s little recognised contributions is as a labour member of the Viceroy’s Council. As the member of the Viceroy’s Council he gave many speeches on the nuances and intricacies of Factories Bills, Payment of Wages as well as on the welfare and social security of workers.

Many of his reflections are particularly apposite in a time when the ordinances seek to do away with precisely those legislations which he sought to painstakingly craft to protect the rights of labour. Like Marx, Ambedkar was committed to the idea of a limited working day. He too recognised that it was only on the basis of reduction of the working day that the worker could become a citizen. As he put it:

The labour department’s memorandum on the reduction of working hours pointed out that it was both unjust and unwise to deny the workers a reasonable amount of spare time away from the factory, which was indispensable for the building up of citizenship and for the maintenance of his physical efficiency.

It emphasised that the present was an opportune moment for taking up this question because there was a need for giving relief to factory workers who had been put to a great strain during the war. Moreover, shorter hours would lead to greater employment. The memorandum made it clear that the reduction in hours should not be accompanied by any reduction in basic wages or dearness allowances unless there was a fall in prices. The rates of piece-workers should be adjusted on the principle that a piece-worker should earn not less than a time worker.

In the 7th Labour Conference held on 26 November 1945, in his presidential address BR Ambedkar lamented the reluctance to enact labour legislations especially on wages where he stated:

How can the workers be asked to agree to reduce standards of living in an economy in which the profits are to go to private individuals?

He went on the state as follows:

We must do our best and do it immediately to mitigate it and to prevent it from lowering labour standards. I believe three things are necessary to ease the situation. Firstly, to reduce hours of employment so as to provide employment for many. Secondly, to provide machinery for fixing wages. The absence of such machinery combined with employment is bound to cause labour standards to slump, which ought to be prevented. Thirdly, to provide the employers and workers with a resolve to collective bargaining and learn to work together in the solution of other common problems. Nothing in my judgment can bring this about more effectively than sound and responsible Trade Unions.

The Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh ordinances attack a fundamental proposition of what it is to be human. It reduces a labourer to a machine, renders his livelihood even more precarious and raises the question of what does the Indian Constitution mean for the worker? As Ambedkar rightly noted the ability to claim citizenship rights is based on the freedom of the worker from being a slave to his work.

To not be a slave beholden to his work, to enjoy constitution rights,  labour laws are an essential substratum. It is this which makes Marx call the factories legislations, the  ‘modest Magna Carta of the legally limited working day’ more relevant than the ‘pompous catalogue of the ‘inalienable rights of man’. It is this  Marxian ‘modest Magna Carta’ and Ambedkarite ‘indispensable [condition] for the building up of citizenship’ which the UP and MP ordinances seek to destroy.

In Rajasthan, apart from raising the working hours from 8 hours per day to 12 hours per day, the state has amended Industrial Disputes Act to increase the threshold for lay-offs and retrenchment to 300 from 100 earlier. Further, in order to recognise the trade union, the threshold membership of the trade union has been increased from 15 percent to 30 percent.

In Maharashtra, all shops and factories are asked to submit consolidated annual returns instead of multiple returns under various labour laws while Punjab has amended Factories Act to increase the work time to 12 hours every day and 72 hours every week, compared to 8 hours every day and 48 hours every week.

Arvind Narrain is based in Bengaluru, Maitreyi Krishnan is lawyer and trade union activist with AICCTU and Clifton D’ Rozario is lawyer and national cecretary, AICCTU.

via Blogger https://ift.tt/2yCuCmL

[bountyofbeads]

POST-IMPEACHMENT, TRUMP DECLARES HIMSELF THE ‘CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER’ OF AMERICA

By Toluse Olorunnipa and Beth Reinhard| Published February 19 at 7:41 AM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 19, 2020 |

During his Senate impeachment trial, Democrats repeatedly asserted that President Trump is “not above the law.” But since his acquittal two weeks ago, analysts say, the president has taken a series of steps aimed at showing that, essentially, he is the law.

On Tuesday, Trump granted clemency to a clutch of political allies, circumventing the usual Justice Department process. The pardons and commutations followed Trump’s moves to punish witnesses in his impeachment trial, publicly intervene in a pending legal case to urge leniency for a friend, attack a federal judge, accuse a juror of bias and threaten to sue his own government for investigating him.

Trump defended his actions, saying he has the right to shape the country’s legal systems as he sees fit.

“I’m allowed to be totally involved,” he told reporters as he left Washington on Tuesday for a trip to California, Nevada and Arizona. “I’m actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country. But I’ve chosen not to be involved.”

The president’s post-impeachment behavior has alarmed Attorney General William P. Barr, who has told people close to the president that he is willing to quit unless Trump stops publicly commenting on ongoing criminal matters, according to two administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. It also has appalled several legal experts and former officials, who have said his direct intervention in legal matters risks further politicizing law enforcement at a time of fraying confidence in the Justice Department.

More than 2,000 former Justice Department employees signed a public letter this week objecting to Trump’s public intervention in the case of his longtime friend Roger Stone, and urging Barr to resign. The head of the Federal Judges Association has called an emergency meeting to address growing concerns about political interference in the Stone case. And four prosecutors resigned from the case last week after Trump publicly decried their recommended prison sentence of seven to nine years for Stone and the Justice Department reversed course to lobby for a lower sentence.

A jury convicted Stone last year of lying to Congress and obstruction in a case that Trump has repeatedly condemned as unfair while leaving open the prospect of issuing a pardon for his friend and political ally.

Carmen Ortiz, the former U.S. attorney for Massachusetts under President Barack Obama, was among the signatories on the letter condemning Trump’s political interference in legal matters.

“I’ve worked under both Republican and Democratic administrations,” she said, “and I’ve just never seen behavior like what were seeing right now.”

Trump added to the sense of legal disarray Tuesday by granting executive clemency to a group of 11 people that included several political allies and others convicted of corruption, lying and fraud. Among the recipients of Trump’s largesse was Rod R. Blagojevich, the former Illinois governor who was convicted on corruption charges in 2011 related to trying to sell Obama’s vacated Senate seat. His sentence was commuted. Financier Michael Milken, who was charged with insider trading in the 1980s, and Bernie Kerik, the former New York police commissioner jailed on eight felony charges, including tax fraud, were pardoned.

Trump said the pardons and commutations were based on “the recommendations of people that know them,” including Blagojevich’s wife, Patricia, who made a direct appeal to the president on Fox News.

Legal experts said that by relying on his personal connections rather than the Justice Department’s established review process for finding convicts deserving of clemency, Trump risked politicizing his pardon power.

“It’s a clemency process for the well-connected, and that’s it,” said Rachel Barkow, a professor and clemency expert at the New York University School of Law. “Trump is wielding the power the way you would expect the leader of a banana republic who wants to reward his friends and cronies.”

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Trump’s comments about the Stone case have caused the most concern. Trump has singled out the judge in the case, Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court in Washington, for personal attacks, accusing her of bias and spreading a falsehood about her record. He has amplified Stone’s request for a new trial, accusing a member of the jury of being politically biased against him.

Though Barr has warned that the president’s unbridled commentary about ongoing criminal cases was making it “impossible for me to do my job,” Trump continued to express his views about legal matters Tuesday.

Trump told reporters that he partially agreed with Barr, acknowledging that his tweets do make the attorney general’s job more difficult. But he said he would continue tweeting nonetheless.

“Social media, for me, has been very important because it gives me a voice,” Trump said.

And he has made a direct connection between his own legal travails and those of Stone, who was convicted of lying to Congress about his attempts to get details from Hillary Clinton’s private emails from the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign.

Trump’s increasingly provocative comments raised the prospect that he might issue pardons for Stone and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. Since his impeachment acquittal, Trump has tried to portray the prosecutions of his allies as the illegitimate product of an illegitimate investigation by former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III into Russian interference in the 2016 race.

Prosecutions stemming from the Mueller investigation are “badly tainted,” Trump tweeted Tuesday, and “should be thrown out.”

“If I wasn’t President, I’d be suing everyone all over the place,” Trump wrote. “BUT MAYBE I STILL WILL. WITCH HUNT!”

After learning that federal judges would be holding an emergency discussion about his intervention in legal cases, Trump tweeted that they should instead discuss the alleged shortcomings of the Mueller probe.

Trump’s constant commentary and increasing willingness to flout traditional legal processes signal that the president feels emboldened and unrestrained after Republicans voted almost unanimously to acquit him on impeachment charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, said Chris Whipple, author of “The Gatekeepers,” a history of White House chiefs of staff.

“It shows that Susan Collins was right — Trump has learned a lesson,” Whipple said, referring to a prediction by the Republican senator from Maine that Trump would be more cautious after impeachment. “The lesson he learned is that he’s unaccountable. He can do whatever he wants now with impunity.”

While some Republicans spoke out against Trump’s commutation for Blagojevich, the reaction from GOP lawmakers Tuesday was mostly muted. And there’s little to indicate that pardons for Stone or Flynn would lead to a significant Republican backlash.

Whipple said the president’s decision to pardon several of his political allies just before Stone is scheduled to be sentenced set the stage for an increasingly “dangerous” phase of Trump’s presidency.

“This is a president who thinks the law exists to be circumvented,” he said.

The next test of Trump’s willingness to intervene in the legal process could come as soon as Thursday, when Stone is set to be sentenced by Jackson. Asked Tuesday if he would issue a pardon for Stone, Trump demurred.

“I haven’t given it any thought. In the meantime, he’s going through a process,” Trump said. “But I think he’s been treated very unfairly.”

______

Fred Barbash, Mark Berman, Carol D. Leonnig and Anne Gearan contributed to this report.

*********

Trump grants clemency to high-profile individuals, including Rod Blagojevich, Michael Milken and Bernard Kerik

By Anne Gearan, Josh Dawsey, Beth Reinhard and Colby Itkowitz | Published

Feb 18 at 7:06 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 18, 2020 |

President Trump on Tuesday used his sweeping presidential pardon powers to wipe away the crimes of a list of boldface names, including disgraced politician Rod R. Blagojevich, convicted junk bond king Michael Milken and former New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik.

Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of seven convicted white collar criminals at the center of federal anti-corruption and tax fraud cases spanning decades, alongside four women whose cases were not as well known.

The action frees Blagojevich, the former Democratic governor of Illinois, from the federal correctional facility in Colorado where he was serving out his 14-year sentence. He was convicted on corruption charges in 2011 for trying to sell then-president elect Barack Obama’s vacated Senate seat.

“He’ll be able to go back home with his family after serving eight years in jail,” Trump told reporters. “That was a tremendously powerful, ridiculous sentence and my opinion and in the opinion of many others.”

Tuesday’s clemency announcements came as Trump has been flexing his power in recent days after being acquitted by the Senate on two impeachment charges earlier this month. The president has removed from their jobs witnesses who testified against him and publicly weighed in on criminal cases concerning his associates while dismissing the idea his actions have crossed any ethical or legal lines.

The pardons and commutations focus on the type of corruption and lying charges his associates were convicted of as part of the Russia investigation, once again raising the question of whether he will pardon former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and longtime adviser and friend Roger Stone. Trump said he hasn’t thought about pardoning those three but made clear he isn’t happy with the cases brought against them.

“I think Roger Stone has been treated unfairly. I think General Flynn has been treated very unfairly,” he told reporters. “I think a lot of people have been treated very unfairly.”

The executive actions announced Tuesday fit a pattern of highly personal presidential justice that largely bypasses the traditional pardon process administered by the Justice Department. Most of the people who have received clemency under Trump were well-connected offenders who had a line into the White House or currency with his political base.

Milken received a pardon with the White House providing a long list of advocates for the wealthy financier, including Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, political donors Miriam Adelson and Sheldon Adelson, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

Milken became a symbol of the culture of greed during the 1980s that was fictionalized in movies like “Wall Street,” where Michael Douglas plays ruthless financier Gordon Gekko who declares that “greed is good.”

Milken rose to prominence for his role in developing high-interest-bearing securities markets, known as junk bonds, before pleading guilty in 1990 to six felony counts, including securities fraud, mail fraud and aiding in the filing of a false tax return.

Since then, Milken has sought to rehabilitate his image by becoming a major donor to causes such as cancer research.

Also on Trump’s pardon list were Kerik, who was convicted of tax fraud, and Edward DeBartolo Jr., the billionaire former owner of the San Francisco 49ers football team, who pleaded guilty two decades ago to charges related to his role in a corruption case against former Louisiana governor Edwin W. Edwards (D).

The president also pardoned David Safavian, a senior official in the former George W. Bush administration who was convicted of obstructing a federal investigation as part of the scandal surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and two lesser-known business executives, technology executive Ariel Friedler and construction company executive Paul Pogue, who were convicted of computer and tax charges. He also pardoned Angela Stanton, an author who served a six-month home sentence for her role in a stolen vehicle ring.

Kerik is a frequent visitor to the president’s Florida Mar-a-Lago Club who recently posted a picture at the Trump hotel, tagging the president and bragging of “Badassry” at the hotel. He declined to comment. Safavian now works at the Trump-aligned American Conservative Union Foundation’s justice center and attacks Trump critics through his Twitter account. Blagojevich’s wife actively lobbied for her husband’s release, including going on Fox News to maker her case.

The White House says all 11 actions help people who had were treated unfairly or had repaid society through good works. Most are white men with connections to power, and in some cases to Trump himself.

Blagojevich and Trump were well acquainted from when the former Illinois governor was a contestant on Trump’s show “The Apprentice” in 2010. Trump fired Blagojevich for shoddy work on a Florida theme park project, telling him, “Your Harry Potter facts were not accurate. Who did the research?”

Kerik and Milken were both prominent New Yorkers during Trump’s professional rise as a New York real estate magnate.

“We have Bernie Kerik, we have Mike Milken, who’s gone around and done an incredible job,” Trump said, adding that Milken had “paid a big price.”

The 11 grants Tuesday mark the largest group Trump has announced so far, but barely makes a dent in the record-setting backlog of nearly 13,000 people currently waiting for a responses to their clemency requests.

The White House released synopses of each case Tuesday, including lists of supporters for each action that reads like a who’s-who of the president’s elite orbit.

Nelson Peltz, who threw the president a $10 million fundraiser at his $95 million Palm Beach house Saturday night, recommended the pardon of Milken.

TV personalities, including Geraldo Rivera, Andrew Napolitano and Maria Bartiromo, were all cited as pardon advocates by the president.

Gov. Chris Christie, who advises the president and takes on legal clients, got one of his clients a pardon.

Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, was listed as a supporter for both Milken and Kerik, who also received backing from Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher, who was granted clemency by Trump last year. Kerik rode his prominence as Giuliani’s police chief during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to a nomination to be Homeland Security secretary in the George W. Bush administration. But he soon ran into legal trouble and his nomination was pulled.

Newsmax Media Christopher Ruddy said he had lobbied Trump on behalf of Kerik and Blagojevich.

“It was just so glaring that it was a political case,” Ruddy said of Blagojevich.

The entire GOP delegation from Illinois lobbied against the Blagojevich pardon, officials said.

“We are disappointed by the President’s commutation of Rod Blagojevich’s federal sentence. We believe he received an appropriate and fair sentence,” Illinois Republican Reps. Darin LaHood, John Shimkus, Adam Kinzinger, Rodney J. Davis and Mike Bost said in a statement. “History will not judge Rod Blagojevich well.”

Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), who signed a letter supporting the Kerik pardon, said the president “has had a lot of respect for Bernie over the years.” Geraldo Rivera also signed the letter and was instrumental in the pardon, King said.

Trump acknowledged that in deciding whom to pardon, “a lot of times I really rely on the people that know them.”

The head of the pardon office in the Department of Justice during the first two years of the Trump administration told The Washington Post that he quit last year because the White House had sidelined his office in favor of taking its cues from celebrities, political allies and Fox News.

DeBartolo, Kerik and Milken were all denied pardons under President Obama. Friedler never applied to the pardon office, Justice Department records show.

Most presidents in recent decades have faced accusations at one time or another that they exploited the pardon power. President Bill Clinton issued pardons in the final hours of his presidency to his half brother, a Whitewater business partner, his former housing secretary and a fugitive commodities trader married to a major Democratic donor.

Under Trump, however, politically motivated grants have become the rule, not the exception.

Obama granted an unprecedented number of commutations, about 1,700, under a sweeping initiative that prioritized nonviolent drug offenders. Nearly all of those selected had been sentenced under the mandatory-minimum penalties deployed during the “war on drugs” that critics say disproportionately punished minority communities. Nearly all of the people who received commutations from Obama were men and nearly 80 percent were African American and Hispanic, according to a report by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

The program ended when Trump took office. He has granted clemency to only one African American man so far: the late boxer, Jack Johnson.

The White House also announced Tuesday that Trump had granted clemency to three women convicted of nonviolent drug or fraud offenses. The cases of Tynice Nichole Hall, Crystal Munoz and Judith Negron were all supported by Alice Johnson, a criminal justice advocate whose life sentence for a nonviolent drug offense Trump had commuted last year.

Johnson, whose case was featured in a Trump campaign ad aired during the Super Bowl this month, had been recommended to Trump by reality star and criminal justice advocate Kim Kardashian West.

“It’s a clemency process for the well-connected, and that’s it,” said Rachel Barkow, a New York University Law School professor and clemency expert. “Trump is wielding the power the way you would expect the leader of a banana republic who wants to reward his friends and cronies.”

Blagojevich was caught on FBI wiretaps talking about trying to sell Obama’s vacated Senate seat, saying it was a “valuable thing” and “you don’t just give it away for nothing.”

Trump has mentioned the Democrat’s case frequently in recent years, focusing on what Trump said was a disproportionate punishment for an offense he suggested was really just politics.

“He’s been in jail for seven years over a phone call where nothing happens — over a phone call which he shouldn’t have said what he said, but it was braggadocio, you would say,” Trump told reporters last year. “I would think that there have been many politicians — I’m not one of them, by the way — that have said a lot worse over the telephone.”

Trump first publicly mused about commuting Blagojevich’s sentence in 2018, when he exercised his clemency powers in a string of cases and speculated about others he might pardon. Others mentioned at the time included Martha Stewart, the television personality and lifestyle mogul who was convicted in 2004 of obstructing justice and lying to investigators about a well-timed stock sale.

Trump has routinely downplayed and mischaracterized the case against Blagojevich, whose trial included not only the wiretap but also numerous witnesses testifying that he had solicited campaign cash in exchange for official acts.

In comments last year, Trump also falsely blamed Blagojevich’s treatment on “the Comey gang and all these sleazebags,” a reference to James B. Comey, the FBI director Trump fired amid the mounting investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Comey was in the private sector at the time of Blagojevich’s prosecution and conviction in December 2011.

At fundraiser last year at his Chicago hotel, Trump polled the room on whether he should grant a pardon, taking some donors by surprise. Trump was pleased that so many people said they would be okay with it, people familiar with the event said.

Blagojevich’s turn as a contestant on Trump’s NBC reality show came after he was indicted but before his convictions. Trump praised Blagojevich at the time for having “a lot of guts” to appear on the program.

______

John Wagner and Marc Fisher contributed to this report.

*********

Most Trump clemency grants bypass Justice Dept. and go to well-connected offenders

By Beth Reinhard and Anne Gearan |

Published Feb 03 at 6:15 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted Feb 18, 2020

Two days after President Trump freed a great-grandmother sentenced to life in prison, he praised the reality-television star and social influencer who had championed the woman’s release.

“Kim Kardashian was great because she brought Alice to my attention,” Trump said in 2018 of Alice Marie Johnson, who had served nearly 22 years for first-time, nonviolent drug-trafficking crimes.

Johnson’s image reappeared Sunday during the Super Bowl in an ad run by Trump’s reelection campaign touting his record on criminal justice.

The ad didn’t mention Kim Kardashian West — or that all but five of the 24 people who have received clemency from Trump had a line into the White House or currency with his political base, according to a review by The Washington Post. As the administration takes its cues from celebrities, political allies and Fox News, thousands of other offenders who followed Justice Department rules are waiting, passed over as cases that were brought directly to Trump leaped to the front of the line.

For more than 125 years, the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the Justice Department has quietly served as the key adviser on clemency, one of the most unlimited powers bestowed on the president by the Constitution.

Under Trump, the pardon office has become a bureaucratic way station, according to government data and interviews with lawyers, criminal justice advocates, and former pardon and White House officials.

Most of Trump’s grants of clemency have gone to ­well-connected offenders who had not filed petitions with the pardon office or did not meet its requirements, The Post review shows.

“The joy you get finding meritorious people, working on those cases, making recommendations that go to the White House, seeing people receive the grants — you feel like you’ve done something,” said Larry Kupers, the former head of the office, who quit last year. “If that’s not happening, it feels like you are spinning your wheels.”

Trump’s approach is legal. The Constitution’s only restriction on the pardon power is that it applies exclusively to federal crimes and not to impeachment.

Trump has reveled in that clout, saying “the power to pardon is a beautiful thing” and claiming he has the “absolute power” to pardon himself.

He has used the power, however, very sparingly.

After about three years in office, Trump’s six predecessors had signed off on hundreds or even thousands of petitions forwarded from the Justice Department. Most were denials, a disappointing but vital step for offenders in limbo who can’t ask for clemency again until they are turned down.

Ronald Reagan set a low bar with 669 decisions during his first three years; 3,993 petitions processed during Barack Obama’s first three years reached a high-water mark.

Trump has ruled on only 204 clemency requests — 24 approvals and 180 denials. That is the slowest pace in decades.

 “I almost wish it would get denied. At least I would know that someone had looked at it,” said 39-year-old Nichole Forde, who handwrote her petition in 2016 from the Minnesota prison where she is serving a 27-year sentence for nonviolent drug crimes.

In the most recent end-runs around the pardon office and over the objections of Pentagon officials, Trump in November pardoned two former Army officers: Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn, facing trial for premeditated murder, and 1st Lt. Clint Lorance, convicted of murder after ordering soldiers to fire at unarmed men in Afghanistan. The White House cited endorsements from several Republican congressmen and a Fox News host.

Golsteyn’s pardon means he will not stand trial. Three weeks after the Lorance and Golsteyn pardons, Trump brought the men onstage at a closed Republican fundraiser in Miami.

During the Super Bowl, the reelection campaign sent out a fundraising appeal invoking Johnson’s release with “Go Alice!”

Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale said the ad reflects Trump’s view that there is a right way and a wrong way to address inequities in the criminal justice system. The 30-second ad“clearly communicates how President Trump expressed his concerns about the issue — he acted and he helped improve people’s lives,” Parscale said.

The White House declined to answer detailed questions about the president’s approach to clemency.

Asked what advice he would give offenders seeking leniency, Kupers said: “Find a way to get to Kim Kardashian. I’m very serious about that.”

WHAT IS CLEMENCY?

Clemency can take two forms: Commutations shorten sentences, and pardons erase the civil consequences of criminal convictions, including limits on gun ownership, jury service and voting rights.

For decades, federal offenders filed petitions for clemency with the pardon office, which assigns a staff attorney to investigate each case.

The office may be one of the least visible and least understood corners of a federal government scorned by a president who has declared war on what he calls the “deep state.”

With an annual budget of about $4.5 million, the office employs about 19 people, including 11 attorneys.

For pardons, the office looks for acceptance of responsibility and good conduct for a substantial period of time after conviction, among other considerations, according to Justice Department guidelines. Commutations hinge on the undue severity of a sentence, the amount of time served and demonstrated rehabilitation.

The pardon office’s decisions undergo scrutiny by the deputy attorney general, the No. 2 official at the Justice Department, who makes final recommendations to the Office of White House Counsel. During the Trump administration, the counsel’s office has been almost singularly focused on selecting conservative judicial nominees and, more recently, impeachment.

What’s more, the administration inherited a backlog of more than 11,300 petitions, according to Justice Department statistics.

As of late January, nearly 7,600 petitions have been filed since Trump took office. About 5,900 petitions have been closed by the pardon office during Trump’s presidency because the inmate was released, died or was ineligible for clemency.

Trump’s decisions on only 204 petitions means that nearly 13,000 people are waiting.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to say how many of its recommendations are backlogged at the White House.

The current pardon attorney, Rosalind Sargent-Burns, said she was not authorized to talk to reporters.

Justice Department spokeswoman Nicole Navas declined to comment on the pace or nature of clemency grants under Trump but noted his singular authority.

“The president always retains the plenary power granted to him by the Constitution to pardon or commute sentences, and does so at his sole discretion, guided when he sees fit by the advice of the pardon attorney,” Navas said.

A former senior White House official, who, like some others interviewed, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal decisions, echoed that assessment.

“The pardon power is one of the few presidential powers that is subject to few, if any, limitations,” the official said. “Trump has used it in a way that is probably more transparently political than his predecessors, but all things considered, he’s been reasonably restrained in the number of times he’s exercised it.”

Starting with his first pardon, for former sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona, Trump signaled that he would ignore convention.

Arpaio, a Trump booster who had defied a judge’s orders on detaining suspected undocumented immigrants, had not filed a petition and was pardoned one month after his conviction on a contempt charge. Justice Department guidelines generally prohibit pardon requests until five years after conviction or release from confinement, whichever comes later.

A lawyer for George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign aide who served 12 days in prison in 2018 for lying to the FBI in the Russia investigation, requested a pardon only a few months after his release.

“Because of the unique circumstances of George’s case . . . it was very clear to me that a traditional submission to the DOJ Office of the Pardon Attorney would not be the most prudent strategy,” said his attorney, Caroline J. Polisi. “Given what we knew about the unorthodox way the president has approached his granting of other pardons, we decided a less formal approach was appropriate.” She declined to say whom in the White House she approached.

Former White House officials describe a freewheeling atmosphere in which staff members have fielded suggestions from Trump friends while sometimes throwing in their own recommendations.

Former White House staff secretary Rob Porter, whose job was managing the flow of paperwork and people into the Oval Office, took a leading role refereeing pardon requests before he left, according to four former or current officials. Senior advisers Kellyanne Conway and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, also have relayed clemency requests to Trump in largely informal settings, those officials said.

When Trump began talking about pardoning Arpaio in the spring of 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions advised waiting until after a verdict. Trump was undeterred; Arpaio had endorsed Trump in early 2016 when he was a long-shot candidate, and the president thought the ex-lawman had been treated unfairly, former White House officials said.

“It was so obviously political,” a former official said. “The first early discussion we had was about Joe Arpaio, and there was discussion about, ‘Do you want this to be the first?’ ”

'HOW OTHER PRESIDENTS DID IT'

Most presidents in recent decades have faced accusations at one time or another that they exploited the pardon power. Bill Clinton issued pardons in the final hours of his presidency to his half brother, a Whitewater business partner, his former housing secretary and a fugitive commodities trader married to a major Democratic donor.

Presidents also have circumvented the formal pardon process to advance national interests, as when Obama offered clemency to seven Iranians charged with violating U.S. trade sanctions in exchange for the release of four Americans imprisoned in Iran, including Post reporter Jason Rezaian.

Under Trump, however, politically motivated grants have become the rule, not the exception.

“I don’t blame Kim Kardashian putting forward names. I blame them for listening to her,” said Kevin Ring, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a nonprofit that promotes sentencing reform. “It makes people cynical because the process isn’t based on merit.”

Of the five people who received clemency without White House connections or appeal to Trump’s political base, one went to a man whose pardon from Obama mistakenly omitted one conviction. The other four were for men who committed minor crimes in the 1980s and ’90s.

Roy McKeever, one of the four, said he was a “stupid kid who wanted fast money” in 1988 when he was busted for transporting marijuana from Mexico to Oklahoma. He served one year in prison and a year of probation. He applied for the pardon in 2016, he said, “so my dad wouldn’t be so disappointed.”

“It surprised me, too,” ­McKeever, now 50, said when he heard last year that he had been pardoned. “I didn’t think you could get a pardon unless you knew somebody.”

Oklahoma City lawyer Michael Risley said he had no idea how his client — his first for a federal pardon — got to the front of the line. “My sincere hope is that it’s because we did a good job on the paperwork,” Risley said.

Money and access have proved to be far more valuable under Trump.

Celebrity attorney Alan Dershowitz, a Trump ally who defended the president at his impeachment trial, got in a pitch for client Sholom Rubashkin during a 2017 visit to the White House to discuss Middle East policy. Dershowitz said he used a few minutes with Trump in the Oval Office to urge clemency for the Iowa kosher meatpacking executive sentenced to 27 years for money laundering. Trump was sympathetic to the argument that the business owner had been mistreated by the government, Dershowitz said.

“That resonated with him. As a businessman, he understood it,” Dershowitz said of Trump.

Dershowitz said Trump also was moved by his assertion that anti-Semitism had resulted in a disproportionately harsh sentence. Rubashkin’s backers included conservative Jews and evangelical Christians, significant strands of Trump’s political coalition. Kushner, an Orthodox Jew, was Rubashkin’s most vocal advocate inside the White House, according to two former officials.

Other Trump advisers urged caution because of the severity of Rubashkin’s crimes, in which prosecutors said he had bilked lenders out of more than $26 million.

But Obama’s denial of clemency for Rubashkin helped motivate Trump to adopt the opposite view, two advisers said.

“I would suspect a lot of pardons are given after face-to-face meetings,” said Dershowitz, who had failed to persuade Obama to help Rubashkin.

'OBAMA'S CLEMENCY APPROACH'

Obama granted a record-setting 1,700 commutations under a sweeping initiative that prioritized nonviolent drug offenders and expanded the criteria for commutations, triggering a ­flood of applicants.

Nearly all of those selected had been sentenced under the mandatory-minimum penalties deployed during the “war on drugs” of the 1980s.

Obama’s clemency program was widely described as historic but also inefficient and chaotic. Then-Pardon Attorney Deborah Leff resigned in January 2016 in part, she said, because her office needed more staff and resources.

An inspector general’s report in 2018 said the program made “significant strides” in its final year.

Kupers was a former federal public defender who joined the pardon office as a senior attorney in 2014, induced by Obama’s program.

“The clemency initiative set up these hopes and then they were virtually and entirely dashed after Trump’s election,” Kupers said.

Under Trump, the pardon office quietly reverted to the stricter pre-Obama guidelines for commutations.

Yet Trump also has raised hopes — with off-the-cuff remarks that have surprised his own aides.

On the day after Johnson’s release, Trump vowed to grant more pardons. “We have 3,000 names,” he told reporters. “We’re looking at them. Of the 3,000 names, many of those names really have been treated unfairly. . . . And I would get more thrill out of pardoning people that nobody knows.”

Kupers, who served as acting pardon attorney and deputy pardon attorney during Trump’s first two years in office, said he didn’t know what the 3,000 referenced.

The White House declined to comment on the meaning of what Trump said.

Some criminal justice advocates said they assumed the president was referring to names sent directly to the White House — not the official pipeline.

But that mention rang like a fire alarm in the community of roughly 175,000 federal inmates and their families.

Forde, the inmate who said she handwrote her petition in a sweltering room, dripping sweat onto the form, was so excited to hear about Trump’s “list” that she followed up with a letter to the White House.

More than three years later, Forde is losing hope.

“Why did he bring it up at all?” she wrote in an email to The Post. “It makes me want to pull my hair out. To feel like freedom is so close.”

“I wonder if that list is still sitting there,” she added.

Mary Anne Locke, serving a 20-year sentence in the same prison as Forde, thought she, too, finally had a shot at a second chance after word of Trump’s remarks spread through channels that people familiar with the criminal justice system dub “inmatedotcom.” She was indicted in 2008 as part of a methamphetamine distribution scheme. The long sentence stunned her family because she had cooperated with law enforcement.

“I’m extremely happy for each and every person that gets any kind of relief, but I wish there were more opportunities for those of us without those connections,” Locke, 41, said in a telephone interview. “If a connection is what it takes, then I pray for the right person to come along for me.”

Her father, John Owen, wrote an open letter in the Des Moines Register in July 2018 to Trump, describing his daughter’s struggle to overcome her drug addiction.

“I’m frustrated that the entire system is so slow moving,” he said in a recent interview with The Post.

'A BUREAUCRATIC SLOG'

Lawyers who specialize in clemency say the system has moved slowly for decades.

The way they tell it, the pardon office is like a black box — the only updates available on petitions are “pending” and “denied.” Deputy attorneys general, who make the final determination before petitions reach the Office of White House Counsel, tend to be reluctant to mitigate decisions made by fellow prosecutors in the criminal justice system.

In that climate, a Kardashian West endorsement becomes all the more coveted.

“It feels UNBELIEVABLE & AMAZING to have her (Kim) support me & advocate for my release!” Chris Young, 31, an inmate in Texas serving a life sentence for drug crimes, wrote in an email to The Post. His commutation request was turned down by Obama, but Kardashian West has talked him up to Trump. “I still have to keep a ton of humility & patience in me, cause i still haven't been released,” Young wrote.

Even the judge who sentenced Young, Kevin H. Sharp, has praised Kardashian West’s advocacy for Young, tweeting after he left the bench: “What I was required to do that day was cruel and did not make us safer.”

Young’s attorney, Brittany K. Barnett, is the co-founder of a legal project that has received funding from Kardashian West and assists inmates serving life sentences. Barnett has built a national reputation helping to secure commutations for eight people, including Johnson, whose clemency request had been rejected by Obama.

“I don’t feel that someone seeking clemency should have to have a celebrity endorsement, but as a lawyer, if that’s the avenue I have to free my client, then we have to pursue it,” Barnett said. “My alternative would be to let my client die in prison because Trump’s not following the protocol.”

Kardashian West declined an interview request.

Lorance, the former Army infantry officer convicted of murder, also failed to win clemency from Obama. After Trump’s election, Lorance’s story gained traction in the media as Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Pete Hegseth championed his case, and a Starz documentary highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecution.

“You never really know which pebble you drop on the scale of justice tips the balance,” said Lorance’s attorney, John Maher. “We were of the thought to use all of them.”

The made-for-television decisions by Trump are what drove Kupers to leave the pardon office in June. His colleagues included graduates of Yale, Northwestern and University of Texas law schools and former prosecutors and defense attorneys chosen for their strong analytical and writing skills.

“We had impartial lawyers who developed over time an expertise in evaluating applications and the skills to determine whether this is a person who could be a danger to the public,” Kupers said. “If you leave it to the White House, you are more likely to get arbitrary, capricious pardons that may be perfectly legal but are not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.”

______

Alice Crites and Matt Zapotosky contributed to this report.

*********

Justice Dept., in wrestling with how to handle Giuliani, tightens rules for Ukraine-related probes

By Matt Zapotosky | Published February 18 at 5:58 PM EST | Washington Post | Posted February 18, 2020 |

The Justice Department revealed Tuesday that law enforcement officials running Ukraine-related investigations must seek approval before expanding their inquiries — a move that could have implications for Rudolph W. Giuliani, as President Trump’s personal attorney pushes for scrutiny of the president’s political foes while facing a federal probe into his own conduct.

The directive from Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen was disclosed in a response to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) after the House Judiciary Committee chairman demanded clarity on how the Justice Department is reviewing information from Giuliani, who has urged law enforcement to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his family for their dealings in Ukraine.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd wrote to Nadler that the department had tapped two U.S. attorneys to assist in the process — Scott Brady in Pittsburgh, to receive and assess new information, and Richard Donoghue in Brooklyn, to help coordinate personnel throughout the Justice Department involved in Giuliani’s case and others with a focus on Ukraine. An accompanying internal memo, circulated by Rosen in January, says that he and Donoghue must approve expansions of any inquiries.

Such a move could be viewed as putting another layer of approval in place if prosecutors wanted to widen their Giuliani probe, although Rosen wrote in his memo that the aim was to “avoid duplication of efforts.”

In his letter to Nadler, Boyd defended the moves as normal and asserted that they do not give anyone special entry to the department.

“The Department regularly assigns U.S. Attorneys to coordinate or focus on certain matters,” Boyd wrote. “Nor do these procedures grant any individual unique access to the Department. Indeed, any member of the public who has relevant information may contact the Department and make use of its intake process for Ukraine-related matters.”

Attorney General William P. Barr faced criticism from congressional Democrats and former Justice Department officials when he acknowledged last week having created an “intake process in the field” to accept Giuliani’s information, which seems designed to damage Biden’s political prospects as he seeks the Democratic nomination for president. Barr said at that time that the department had an “obligation to have an open door to anybody who wishes to provide us information that they think is relevant.”

Taking information from Giuliani is particularly fraught for the department because the president’s personal lawyer is under investigation by federal prosecutors in Manhattan in a case that has led to campaign finance charges against two of Giuliani’s associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. The pair helped Giuliani try to conduct investigations in Ukraine and lobbied for the ouster of Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Prosecutors have in recent weeks contacted witnesses and sought to collect additional documents in that case.

Separately, federal prosecutors in Chicago have a long-standing case against a Ukrainian gas tycoon accused of bribery, Dmitry Firtash, who they suspect of having significant ties to Parnas and Fruman. And federal prosecutors in Cleveland have been investigating Ihor Kolomoisky, a Ukrainian oligarch, for possible financial crimes. He has sparred publicly with Giuliani.

Trump and Giuliani have pressed the Ukrainians to investigate Biden and his son Hunter, who worked on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father oversaw the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy. In a phone call in July, Trump personally appealed to his presidential counterpart in Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, to work with Barr on the matter. That call, coupled with Giuliani’s efforts, formed the basis of House Democrats’ decision to impeach the president.

Kerri Kupec, a spokeswoman for Barr, said in a September statement issued after the White House disclosed a rough transcript of Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president that Trump had not spoken with Barr “about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son.”

“The President has not asked the Attorney General to contact Ukraine — on this or any other matter,” Kupec said. “The Attorney General has not communicated with Ukraine — on this or any other subject.”

Boyd wrote in the letter to Nadler that the September statement “remains accurate” and that Barr “has not discussed matters relating to Ukraine with Rudolph Giuliani.”

The Justice Department in the Trump administration has turned repeatedly to U.S. attorneys outside Washington to handle politically explosive cases, and current and former officials have said they worry the moves are meant to help Trump politically.

Two top federal prosecutors — John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, and Jeff Jensen, the U.S. attorney in St. Louis — have been tasked with exploring aspects of the FBI’s 2016 investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the election. Durham is examining the probe’s origins; Jensen is reviewing, among other things, the case that prosecutors on that investigation made against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn for lying to the FBI.

Another federal prosecutor, U.S. Attorney John Huber in Utah, was tasked by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate old corruption allegations against Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state and Trump’s opponent in the 2016 campaign. His inquiry, though, ultimately went nowhere.

*********

[thechasefiles]

The Chase Files Daily Newscap 7/1/2018

Good Morning #realdreamchasers! Here is The Chase Files Daily News Cap for Sunday 1st July 2018. Remember you can read full articles by purchasing Sunday Sun Nation Newspaper (SS), via Barbados Today (BT) or Barbados Government Information Services (BGIS).

WORRELL: IMF ONLY PART OF SOLUTION - Former Central Bank Governor Dr DeLisle Worrell is sticking to his guns. He is adamant that going to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is only part of the solution to Barbados’ economic woes. With an IMF team due in Barbados this week, the economist yesterday insisted that Government also needed to send home public servants for the benefit of the economy. “The proposed retrenchment of public sector workers, which is a central element in my recommended strategy for economic prosperity in Barbados, would be funded by borrowing from international financial institutions,”he said. “A programme for reform of the public service would be among the conditions negotiated with the IMF and others. The local currency counterpart of some of the finance provided by the lenders could fund the retrenchment.” Worrell said the “retrenchment funds” could be used in various ways, including providing a cash grant, over and above other benefits they might be entitled to, to public servants who volunteer to leave”.Other uses were.

• to fund a top-up to full retirement benefits to anyone who retires early;

• to support funded retraining and further education for public workers who are retrenched;

• to provide grants and advisory services for all leaving officers who wish to start small enterprises;

• to provide personal and financial advisory services; and

• to provide a small fund and support services for any exceptional cases.

Worrell said public sector separations funded in this way would have economic benefits immediately and in the long run.  “The immediate benefit would be to avoid any dampening effect of retrenchment on the economy. All departing public workers would have the means to maintain their livelihoods. In addition, some would undoubtedly use severance funds to do home extension and repair, and others might take up farming or other enterprise,” he said. “The longer term benefit comes from the increase of productivity in the public service. There should be no fall in the quality or delivery of public services; in fact both quality and delivery should increase, with fewer but better qualified public servants.” He added that with fewer numbers, “this produces an improvement in the productivity of each worker. In addition, with lower numbers, senior public servants could be better paid, providing an incentive to attract talent into the service.” “The result would be public services that are better managed, improved morale within the public sector, and the recovery of Barbados’ reputation for efficient public administration,” Worrell added. He believe this would lead to “a marked improvement in Barbados’ ranking in the Global Competitiveness Report, and in the Doing Business Report”. “In such an environment we could expect renewed investment interest by foreign, regional and local investors, and a sustained boost to growth and jobs,” he said. (SS)

BRA GIVES TAX EXTENSION UNTIL JULY 9 – The Barbados Revenue Authority (BRA) is granting a further extension until July 9 to corporate and business taxpayers for their June 2018 tax obligations. According to BRA Communications Officer, Erica Lazare, this move was made to afford more time to people, especially tax agents, in utilising the BRA’s recently launched online, integrated Tax Administration Management Information System (TAMIS). “Although the BRA is quite pleased with the over 8 000 registrations we received thus far in TAMIS, we made the decision to give an additional extension after engaging with our key stakeholders, the tax agents, who have the responsibility of registering, filing and making payments on behalf of thousands of their clients. They expressed the need for additional time to complete their clients' tax obligations in our new system,” she asserted. She added that employers, sole traders, corporations and business owners are therefore being urged by the Authority to ensure they take this opportunity to register in TAMIS in order to meet their tax deadlines. The tax returns and related payments due by July 9 are: Corporation Tax, PAYE, Withholding Tax, Premium Tax, Value Added Tax, National Social Responsibility Levy and Excise Tax.  (SS)

WE’VE GOT YOUR BACK, SAYS CO-OP – Outgoing president of the Barbados Workers’ Union Co-operative Credit Union, Dalton Medford, is charging that “what commercial banks are doing to poor people is almost criminal”. He was speaking to the media yesterday after the Co-op’s annual general meeting at the Lloyd Erskine Sandiford Centre, Two Mile Hill, St Michael. “When you look around Barbados, and see what is happening with the commercial banks in terms of how they treat with poor people – paying almost next to nothing on deposits, while at the same time charging them fees for almost everything, I think it is almost – to use what the present Prime Minister has said about another thing – criminal for them to be doing that to us,” he charged. Medford, president for the last five years, said the 23 000-strong Co-op’s asset base currently stood at $138 million, a “great improvement”, and deposits were doing well. He described the rates as attractive and encouraged people to bring their loan business to the credit union. “Our average savings rate is 2.20 per cent, and we have term deposits as high as 4.5 per cent, which is about the best in the market. When you look around Barbados and see the amount of profits that commercial banks register, somebody has to tell them what they are doing to poor people is not good enough. So, at this stage, I want Barbadians to understand that the credit union movement is where they belong,” he said. Commercial bank rates on savings are as low as 0.01 per cent. The president also said it would cost just over $6 million to refurbish the headquarters on Fairchild Street, The City, a measure that could see the wealth of the members increased. “We hope the headquarters would represent to our members what working-class people can achieve once they work together,” he said. “The other big dream we have is to ensure that the headquarters is members-owned. We want to be able to do a perspective on it where . . . . we will set up a management company, which would be the credit union, and own 40 per cent, while the other 60 per cent would be sold to the members,” he said.  (SS)

EDEY VILLAGE BUS BLUES – Views are mixed in Edey Village, Christ Church, regarding the cancellation of the Transport Authority Service Integration (TASI) programme. But overall, residents are pleased. They said when the programme was working, they found themselves at a severe disadvantage. “It’s good the schoolchildren and old people will have to pay now because they used to crowd the van and we couldn’t get in. They had people from all around getting in we van and we in turn couldn’t even depend on the Transport Board bus as sometimes we had to wait hours for one,” said Valencia Small. TASI was an experimental project implemented two years ago by the then Democratic Labour Party Administration, allowing a small number of Public Service Vehicle (PSV) operators to work routes such as Edey Village, Christ Church and Sturges, St Thomas, from the Fairchild Street Terminal. Government subsidised fares for schoolchildren and the elderly, just as with Transport Board buses, but with the culmination of the project, the PSVs will be going back to normal service, which means everyone boarding them will be charged and the vans will be departing from the Constitution River Terminal. Residents were already aware of this because they had been called to attend a meeting last Saturday at which it was all explained. Hortenze Small-Burton said she didn’t mind children paying fares again as she was against free bus fare for schoolchildren. Her only wish was that the vans could still operate from close to the bus terminal. Small-Burton also spoke of some of the horrors she went through trying to get home when the vans were off road for servicing. “One morning the van break down and we had to walk to Boarded Hall in St George and the other evening the van had to get new numbers from the Licensing Authority and I had to catch a different bus, get off at the old BET in Wildey and walk home because my bus like it wasn’t running,” she said. Shanta Gibson said she did not travel by public transport that often but knew how full the vans got, especially when the bus did not come, which was often. She said at least the vans were on time but added she heard they would soon be pulled altogether. “I was told the Government would be getting rid of the vans and replacing them with buses that ran out St George. I’m not sure how that will work because St George got problems too,” she said. Victor Gibson said he hoped TASI would have continued as moving between the bus terminal and the Constitution River Terminal could be a hassle for some, especially when it rained. Many residents said the vans were a godsend on mornings for those who had to get to work early.  Samantha Small told the Saturday Sun the people of Edey Village had formed a bond with the drivers but she, too, lamented how difficult it was for them to catch the vans on evenings. She hoped it would be easier on them. The other suggestions included allowing the Yorkshire bus to travel to the Edey Village route and letting the vans run later than 8 p.m. (SS)

CEO SEES BETTER DAYS FOR QEH – Health care at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH)should show some improvement if the measures in Government’s Mini-Budget are realised, says that institution’s chief executive officer Dr Dexter James.  “This Government . . . has articulated policies that we have been advocating for the last seven or eight years [such as] the need for a new model of health care financing that has become a reality,” said James, referring to the new health service contribution (HSC). In her Mini-Budget, Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley announced that a HSC of 2.5 per cent would be levied on insurable earnings effective October 1, with 1.5 per cent of it to be paid by employers and one per cent by employees. This tax is projected to raise $45 million in a full fiscal year to support the operations of the cash-starved QEH. Mottley also announced that the Randall Phillips Polyclinic in Oistins, Christ Church, and Winston Scott Polyclinic in Jemmotts Lane, The City, will be upgraded for about $3 million and will function on a 24-hour basis. This, the Prime Minister said, would take the burden off the QEH’s Accident & Emergency Department (A&E), which will receive an $11 million upgrade to raise its standards to deliver the highest quality of health care Barbados can provide. James intimated these measures were a move in the right direction. He said the additional $45 million funding would reduce the QEH’s reliance on the Government’s Consolidated Fund and provide the financial resources necessary to sustain services at the Martindales Road institution, which annually needs approximately $200 million to provide its services. Secondly, the longer hours for the polyclinics should see fewer non-urgent cases going to the A&E, which should allow the department to deal with emergencies and very serious cases, as it was intended to do. That would mean shorter waiting times for the critically ill. “The Budget measures will have significant implications for the public health system, and the transformation that will occur will see a shift in access to primary care services from the hospital to the polyclinics. This is what extending the existing hours of the polyclinic will achieve, once there are diagnostics and dispensing capabilities,” said James. He said though Barbados was going through tough times, “from where I sit at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, we have been able to maintain the level and quality of services to the public even in these times of austerity”. In response to widespread concerns that he is set to leave Barbados’ lone tertiary health facility, James said he continued to discharge his responsibilities as CEO and was exceedingly pleased at the changes announced in the recent Budget and relished the challenges ahead. “As such, I have not resigned from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital,” James said. (SS)

BRANDED DRUGS TO REMAIN ON FORMULARY UNTIL GENERICS ARRIVE - The Ministry of Health has assured the public that, although the grace period for patients to receive certain branded pharmaceuticals under the Barbados Drug Service’s Special Benefit Scheme ends today, these pharmaceuticals will continue to be available under the Scheme until the replacement generic drugs arrive in the island. Minister of Health and Wellness, Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Bostic, gave this commitment today in a statement which addressed the issue. “The Cabinet of Barbados, after reviewing all the information related to changes in the Barbados Drug Formulary, has agreed that the grace period would come to an end as agreed on June 30. However, in the event that the Barbados Drug Service is unable to source quality generics from July 1, the Barbados Drug Service will continue to ensure an uninterrupted supply by providing the appropriate branded drugs under the Special Benefit Scheme,” he said. He added that Government will continue to reimburse the cost of these branded drugs to the private sector until a secure supply of generics could be established. Lt Col Bostic revealed that he had met yesterday with all the stakeholders, namely the Barbados Association of Pharmacy Owners, the Barbados Association of Medical Practitioners and the Barbados Pharmaceutical Society, to update them and also to apologise for any misunderstandings that may have arisen in respect of this issue. The parties, he revealed, committed to another meeting on July 20 to review progress and decide on any specific changes that may need to be made. “It was further agreed that primary focus must be on providing quality patient care to all residents of Barbados. To ensure that we are able to achieve this, I have committed to open and regular dialogue with all the parties involved, “ he stated. He also promised a review of the process within the next few months to determine the effectiveness of the roll out. “Our objective is to ensure that no citizen is left behind. To this end, the Government of Barbados will continue to work with all stakeholders to address the challenges and to deliver the highest quality service to the people of Barbados,” the Health and Wellness Minister concluded. (BT)

MINISTER SHARES PLAN FOR OISTINS -  Barbadian fishermen stand to reap real rewards from the influx of the Sargassum seaweed plaguing the beaches. As the brown macroalgae continues to litter shores, Minister of Maritime Affairs Kirk Humphrey said there was money to be made in the collection of seaweed. “We have to find a way to use the Sargassum and the fish that it brings, but we also have to stop the Sargassum because fishermen said that some of the seaweed is getting into their boats and affecting their fishing. “But there are some people who are prepared to pay fishermen, to ‘fish’ the Sargassum out of the water. So if that is something the fishing industry is interested in we can develop a relationship where we can start using the fishermen to help us . . . and then we would use that to help us make methanol, methane gas, and fertiliser,” Humphrey said. He did not disclose who would be buying the seaweed, but said more details would follow. The Minister made these disclosures yesterday at the Berinda Cox Fish Market as the Oistins Fisherfolk Association celebrated Fisherman’s Day. Humphrey also promised to do what he could to expedite repairs to the crane at the market so the cost of hauling in boats could be reduced. He said it was vital to improve working conditions there and provide necessary funds so people could invest more in the sector and transform the town. “If Oistins looks the same in five years after we’ve been in office for five years, then we have failed the people in this area. We have to make sure that Oistins looks and reflects the importance that Oistins has in Barbados,” he said. The annual event was also attended by Stella Lady St John, widow of late Prime Minister Sir Harold St John, and Member of Parliament for Christ Church South, Ralph Thorne. They presented several fisherfolk with awards for their service to the industry. Debra Gibbons received an award for Best Market Worker, Wellington Rowe Best Fish Vendor and the Careful Crew Most Productive Vessel. (SS)

CALL TO JOIN CLEAN-UP BANDWAGON – Minister of the Environment Trevor Prescod has issued a “clarion call” to Barbadians and members of the private sector to get on board with the National Clean-Up And Beautification Programme. His call came yesterday as he addressed the start of the programme at The Whim Gully, St Peter. The programme, which saw soldiers from the Barbados Defence Force joining crews from the Sanitation Service Authority and the National Conservation Commission to clean a number of sites from River Bay, St Lucy, to Long Beach, Christ Church, and The Whim Gully, will include watercourse clean-ups, tree trimming, debushing and the removal of Sargassum seaweed from beaches. In addition, there will be bulky waste clean-ups, derelict vehicle removals, clean-ups of illegal dump sites, an anti-litter drive, a vacant lot clean-up and other forms of beautification. Prescod explained to his audience of Government officials and members of private sector organisations that yesterday’s around-the-island clean-up was the beginning of the overall programme. “The economy, the society and the environment must be seen as key parts of a whole if we are to succeed in our endeavours to address this mission critical. “This programme speaks to the links between solid and liquid waste management, particularly of our water courses, biodiversity management, stormwater management and flooding, near-shore water quality and coral reefs,” he said. Prescod added that an important part of the national clean-up campaign would be education to break Barbadians of their littering and illegal dumping habits. Meanwhile, St James North Member of Parliament Edmund Hinkson, whose constituency includes The Whim, and who is also Minister of Home Affairs, which has responsibility for emergency management, said The Whim and its gully were problem areas and were the reason behind last year’s flooding in Gills Terrace, Speightstown. In urging Barbadians to join in the clean-up, Hinkson advised them to be “more thoughtful and caring and not to be so selfish” because when they took their garbage and put it somewhere else, they were only “transferring the problem”. (SS)

DOUBT ABOUT SARGASSUM FERTILIZER – While one of the possible uses for the influx of Sargassum seaweed is in agriculture, at least one farming leader is raising strong objections. Deborah Hunte is the president of the non-profit organisation Farmers Association of Barbados, and she thinks it may be best to burn the seaweed rather than use it widely in agriculture. She said more research needed to be done on the properties of the seaweed before she would feel comfortable using it in the soil. “I am very timid when it comes to that. It is something that has broken away and is free-floating, dead in the water. Why aren’t the fish eating it? What if there are marine diseases inside it? If the sea itself is rejecting this seaweed, why should we introduce it to the land?” she said, adding it would be prudent to have soil tests done to see how the seaweed affected soil over a period of time. Hunte said farmers in St Lucy had recorded initial success using the Sargassum in their fields during a yearlong trial but things eventually turned sour – or salty, to be precise. “Any and everything can’t grow in that seaweed and eventually the salt adversely affected the soil and the produce started to become scorched. That was as far as the trial went – it had pretty good results at first, but it ended badly,” she said. Hunte said she planned to look into the matter further but asked that she already had serious concerns about introducing marine material to terrain environments.  “I remember there was a push to introduce fish offal into fertiliser, but remember there are people who are severely allergic to seafood and there are others who are vegans. I have a problem with crossing certain things – the sea and land should be kept separate – and I don’t want it to be a case where something from the sea gets into the produce and ends up actually causing someone to get sick,” she said, also raising concerns about salt getting into the water table. Until she has more information on the issue, Hunte suggested the relevant authorities should burn the seaweed and then see if the ash could be useful.  (SS)

WESLEY HALL JUNIOR SCHOOL PRINCIPAL RENEWS CALL FOR BUILDING TO BE REPAIRED – Principal of the Wesley Hall Junior School, Herbert Gittens is making another call for the promised reconstruction of the St Michael school that has been in a state of disrepair for a number of years. He made the appeal as he delivered his report at the school’s graduation at the Sanctuary Empowerment Centre on Friday. The principal said the school was part of a programme commonly referred to as ‘EduTech 2’ project that was being financed by the Caribbean Development Bank, which started in 2012. He explained that as part of the project, one secondary and eight primary schools would be repaired or rebuilt and his school had been earmarked for reconstruction. “They have promised Wesley Hall a new school and I want it . . . the conditions at Wesley Hall really are not the best and we really could do with the new construction,” Gittens said. He requested that Government move swiftly to address their woes. “Our plant continues to deteriorate and we are really in need of those faculties, so when you [Shamin Ally, District Educational Officer] go back and you are walking the corridors and you run into Ms [Santia] Bradshaw, let her know to pass on the message to the new Prime Minister that we want them to give priority to the project.” The principal also reported that the school was also suffering from behavioural challenges. “Too much teaching is lost when we have to deal with that type of student because we have some challenges all year with one or two students,” he said. “We also see more students entering with serious behaviour issues and challenges. It is extremely difficult for a teacher of 20-25 students of various learning abilities to adequately cater to five or six students who have to severe behavioural challenges.” Gittens made the call for more resources to be provide and additional assistance for those students. (BT)

COLIN CARTER DONATES LIBRARY BEARING HIS NAME TO ST GILES PRIMARY SCHOOL – A new library was officially opened on Friday at the St Giles Primary School. The library was sponsored by former student of the St Giles Boys School, Colin Carter. Speaking at the launch, Carter who is a United Kingdom-based author who has published his autobiography entitled Walk With Me, said that children in societies today are being taught fiction but they do not know the history of the countries in which they live. “I do not have a problem with fiction, but I think that our children should be exposed to serious reading. They don’t know our story. I am sure that very few here, if any at all, could tell me what was the name of this island before the white man came,” he said “I am saying that we need these type of books here to pull our children out of the morass that black people did not make a contribution to human civilization and we need to tell them about the great things that we have done and give them a sense of pride in their blackness,” he said. Education Officer Janelle Little charged the pupils of the Ivy, St Michael learning institution to become authors as they all have a story to tell. “I want to make a call for those in front of me and even the children to become authors. Just like  Mr Carter has written about his life, each of us has a story to tell and each of us should be willing to write that story,” she said. “Often times we see so much work done by Trinidadian authors and Jamaican authors especially in the educational context but I really want to encourage our Barbadian teachers and our Barbadian students to write. Let the world hear your story.” Principal Sandra Anderson thanked Carter for ensuring that he maintained the promise he made to the school last year that he would outfit it with a library. “At his book launch, he made a promise that St Giles Primary School would get a library and Mr Carter I am so proud of you and you kept your word.”  (BT)

RILEY CALLING FOR GIRLS – Conde Riley wants to keep a good thing going. The Barbados Cricket Association (BCA) is all on board with the women’s game, having called for each primary school to have two girls on their Herman Griffith team to provide a nursery for the country’s senior side. Riley said this was all part of a development initiative during yesterday’s celebratory lunch for the women’s Super50 champs at Kensington Oval. “As we go forward this year we’re about to unveil a cricket development plan from 2018 to 2022 and in that plan we’re going to have a special development system for women’s cricket. We’re looking at women’s cricket with a view to having a holistic development for the game,” Riley revealed. “I know at present we have about six or seven players on the West Indies team and I also know we have some players on contract with Cricket West Indies, but I would like to see the performances of the ladies in our tournaments continue, so I believe a lot has to be done to get it going. “As such we’re looking at a programme with the Ministry of Education, where through the Herman Griffith tournament, each primary school has two ladies per school playing in those competitions until we can get probably a base of 400 or 500 young ladies playing cricket,” he added. Riley’s comments came as part of a congratulatory message to the senior women’s team, who won the regional Super50 title after falling just short as runners-up in the T20 tournament. It was the third such cup for the star-studded squad, who entered as heavy favourites with West Indies veterans Deandra Dottin, Hayley Matthews, Shakera Selman, Shamilia Connell and Knight twin sisters Kycia and Kyshona. “I want to give a special thank you to the BCA for investing in the girls. It was a well-fought tournament but unfortunately we did not win the T20 but I thought we had some really good performances,” said Kycia. “The senior players had some good performances in the 50-over tournament where we were successful and that was good to see. So I just want to thank the BCA for investing in us again and we look forward to that support in the future.” (SS)

BRIDAL SHOWCASE A HIT – This takes the cake! The Cave Shepherd Bridal Showcase was the perfect marriage of decorations, cakes and other treats that would make the big day oh, so sweet. The “one-stop shop” for the wedding was a hit yesterday with customers who visited the top floor of the retail store’s main branch on Broad Street. The display was a collaboration between Aurora’s Delights, Sage-B Events and DER Cakes Supplies Inc.  (SS)

For daily or breaking news reports follow us on Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter & Facebook. That’s all for today folks. There are 183 days left in the year. Shalom! #thechasefilesdailynewscap #thechasefiles  #dailynewscapsbythechasefiles

[hollywoodjuliorivas]

YOUR MONEY Death Is Inevitable. Financial Turmoil Afterward Isn’t. Retiring By JOHN F. WASIK JAN. 13, 2017 Continue reading the main storyShare This Page Share Tweet Email More Save Photo Erika Lupo, whose husband, John, died of cancer last year at age 57, was better prepared than many widows. He did everything he could to prepare his estate and make sure his wife knew where his assets were. Credit Bryan Anselm for The New York Times MOST of us do not even want to contemplate the death of a spouse or partner — much less the prospect of having to take care of the financial end of such a loss while still grieving. There are, however, plenty of details that people can attend to in advance that can avoid some measure of stress when the time comes. Most people tend to ignore or procrastinate over such tasks — for obvious reasons — but planning can certainly ease some avoidable financial sorrows. The first step to prepare for this unhappy life stage is to make sure both partners have a thorough understanding of the couple’s spousal and individual assets and where they are. Are there life insurance policies? Do they name the right survivors as beneficiaries? What about pensions and other retirement plans? How will the money flow after someone’s death? As all too many people find out too late, this sort of preparation should start well before either spouse becomes disabled or dies. The general principle is to protect the survivor and enable him or her to make decisions about the estate’s assets. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story That means setting up a durable power of attorney for health care and finances — two separate documents, one set for each spouse. You don’t need a lawyer to put these in place, but they should be signed so that one spouse can make medical and financial decisions if the other is incapacitated. Photo Photographs of Erika Lupo’s husband in their home on East Shore Trail in Sparta, N.J. Credit Bryan Anselm for The New York Times One couple who went through this exercise, Erika and John Lupo of Sparta, N.J., did so sooner than most, and it paid off. When Mr. Lupo died of cancer last year at age 57, Ms. Lupo, 51, who runs an acting school, was extraordinarily well prepared — unlike many widows. In his final days, Mr. Lupo, a former salesman, did everything he could to prepare his estate and make sure his wife knew where his assets were — and how they could easily be bequeathed to her and heirs. Photo Erika Lupo with her son, Trent Lupo, 14. Her husband worked with a certified financial planner shortly before his death. “We had everything in place,” she said. “I had no idea how to do any of this. They guided me seamlessly.” Credit Bryan Anselm for The New York Times There was a bit of complex estate and financial planning involved, because Mr. Lupo had a daughter from a previous marriage, and the couple has a teenage son. Working with Mark Germain, a certified financial planner with Beacon Wealth Management in Hackensack, N.J., Mr. Lupo had several documents in order just a few weeks before he died. “We made out wills, durable powers of attorney and a trust” for Mr. Lupo’s daughter, Mr. Germain said. “We also made some arrangements for the son in the will. We had to do some sophisticated planning.” For Mr. Lupo’s widow, the advance planning came as a great relief even as she mourned her husband. “We had everything in place,” she said. “I had no idea how to do any of this. They guided me seamlessly.” Organization of one’s estate will certainly not lessen the emotional turmoil, but it will smooth the way to financial security in the fog of grief. More than 800,000 Americans lose their spouses each year, and 700,000 of them are women, according to the Census Bureau. Because women generally outlive men, they spend an average of 14 years without a spouse. There are now more than 14 million widows and widowers, accounting for about one-quarter of the over-65 population. Although in the past, one spouse — usually the husband — “took care” of all of the financial planning, Mr. Germain said, most people don’t do a very good job of it. That traditional role is often a smoke screen for partial preparation and keeping one’s spouse largely in the dark, he said. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story “Don’t think of an estate plan as a ‘death’ plan,” Mr. Germain advised. “I try to get that out of my clients’ minds. Many people don’t have a clue as to what will happen with an estate after death.” One client, he said, a 72-year-old man, changed ownership of his assets while his wife was dying, creating financial chaos. But times are clearly changing when it comes to traditional gender roles. “Twenty years ago, the average husband did all of the finances,” said Catherine Anne Seal, a Colorado Springs-based estate planning lawyer and the president of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys. “Now it’s not uncommon for the wife to handle finances.” Widows who are inexperienced with money management tend to make a common mistake, Ms. Seal said: They “make imprudent gifts to adult children” within a year of their husband’s death. Down the road, this may leave the widow short of money, depending on how long she survives her husband. Ms. Seal advises that couples title their assets “jointly with rights of survivorship,” particularly if their joint estate is under $4 million. But estate planning becomes more complex if there are multiple marriages and stepchildren involved. “Couples in second marriages need good estate planning with attorneys who understand these issues,” Ms. Seal said. Such professionals can help provide a checklist of what both spouses should know: Where are the documents relating to Social Security? Insurance policies? Marriage and birth certificates? Wills? Powers of attorney? Living trusts? It is also important to have a list and statement of all assets, such as real estate, stocks, bonds, savings accounts, safe deposit boxes and trusts. Also on the to-do list: locating the titles to all properties, ranging from autos to vacation homes. Veterans should have copies of all military discharge papers. Another vital step is to appoint capable, financially skilled trustees in your powers of attorney, Mr. Germain said. They could be family members, but they should have some working knowledge of how to handle money. ADVERTISEMENT Continue reading the main story The National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys has a searchable online directory for people who want to find a lawyer who can help handle these complexities. When interviewing prospective lawyers, ask them if they specialize in the particulars of your situation: Are you divorced? Do you have a special-needs child? Do you have properties in several states? You should also involve your tax planner and financial planner — if you have them. A certified financial planner who acts as fiduciary can work directly with your accountant and family lawyer. At the root of a transparent estate plan, most lawyers say, is openness and communication. Both spouses should attend the meetings with lawyers and financial professionals. And each spouse should know the location of all important documents and understand what will happen upon death. Contingency plans should be made in the event one spouse becomes disabled or incapacitated. Prepare a workable estate plan while you are healthy. Cognitive decline can take its toll on couples’ abilities to manage and execute an estate plan. “Most people are in denial about what the aging process looks like,” Ms. Seal said. “That’s why you need trustworthy agents in your powers-of-attorney documents. You need to create a plan for incapacity.” Ms. Lupo of New Jersey emphatically agrees. “Realize that you need to take the time to understand your finances,” she said. “When you’re well — that’s when you need to plan.”

[brajeshupadhyay]

The proposed ordinance in Uttar Pradesh titled, “Uttar Pradesh Temporary Exemption from Certain Labour Laws Ordinance” exempts ‘All factories and establishments engaged in manufacturing process shall be exempted from the operation of all Labour laws for a period of three years’, subject to certain minimal conditions including payment of minimum wages, the working day being extended to 12 hours and retaining the protection of labour laws relating to the employment of children and women, as also bonded labour. Labour concderns. PTI Another notification dated 8 May, 2020 specifically exempts all factories registered under the Factories Act, 1948 from provisions regulating weekly hours, daily hours, overtime, intervals of rest etc. of all adult workers. Thus Uttar Pradesh has in effect decided to suspend 35 of the 38 labour law for three years including laws related to industrial disputes, trade unions and contract workers. Madhya Pradesh has gazetted amendments to relieve employers of the responsibility of virtually all provisions of the Factories Act from provisions of water and toilets to basic health and safety, allowing working hours to be extended to 12 hours instead of eight and weekly hours up to 72 hours, while also barring the raising of complaints and disputes under the Industrial Disputes Act save for on the question of closure for establishments with more than 300 employees all for a period of 1,200 days. Gujarat is seeking to give any new investor in Gujarat a holiday that makes an investment that lasts at least 1,200 days of all labour legislation with the exception of the Minimum Wages Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Himachal Pradesh has issued an executive order allowing shifts of 12 hours’ work a day or 72 hours of work a week with no provision of overtime. News reports also point to increase in working hours and tinkering with the operation of other labour laws in other states as well. We can rest assured that this decision will be spun by those in power as being in the interest of workers. However, a close analysis reveals that this decision will be a body blow to the working class. There is a serious question of propriety and legality in using the ordinance route. It is settled law that ordinance-making power is given to the executive to promulgate a law when the urgency of the situation so demands provided the legislature is not in session. An ordinance so promulgated must be laid before the Legislative Assembly of the state or when there is a Legislative Council in the state, before both the Houses when they reassemble. It shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the re-assembly of the Legislature. It is in the nature of an exception to the normal rule that law-making and this was clarified by BR Ambedkar during the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol. 8 pages 208, 214,215) that it is not a parallel power of legislation and would have a very limited scope conferred only to deal with urgent matters when the Legislature was not in session. The legality is suspect also given that labour is a concurrent subject on which the Central government has legislated in the form of the Industrial Disputes Act, Factories Act, Minimum Wages Act etc. Hence how can a labour regime be brought into force in some states, which does not meet the legislative intent and mandate of the Central legislations? Surely, there are more legal and technical grounds that could be raised in regard to the ordinances, but we will not dwell on that here. One justification being offered is that flexibility has to be given to business and industry in this economic crisis to ensure revival. In reality, these ordinances which seek to deprive the working class of all legal protections break with an over 70 year compact between the state, labour and industry on protecting certain rights of labour. While the history of the neo-liberal era is about the progressive whittling down of labour law protections, these amendments in one fell swoop attempt to take Indian labour back to the unregulated laissez-faire days of 19th-century European capitalism. These ordinances are not only illegal and  unconstitutional but also starkly indicative of the larger designs of a state determined to take advantage of the pandemic to push the working class to the situation of rightlessness. These ordinances will have to be contextualised within a larger assault on the working class which has been mounted ever since the onset of neo-liberalism. Ever since the New Economic Policy initiated in 1991 the rights of the working class have been under assault on three fronts. The first strategy par excellence, which has defined labour law, ever since its inception has been the startling discordance between the law on the books and the law in action. Nothing illustrates this better than the fate of legislation which has a life and death relevance today, namely, the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Act 1979. If this legislation had been implemented in letter and spirit, it would have meant that migrant workers would have been paid fair wages, would have been guaranteed fair conditions of services and facilities as well as a journey allowance. The fact that this legislation was a dead letter is responsible for the misery inflicted upon the migrant workers who have been reduced to a condition of precarity, not getting paid during the lockdown, enduring lack of food and having no money to survive with dignity. There has been the gradual whittling away of labour protections through judicial interpretation. The locus classicus (among many others) in this hall of constitutional shame is the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi and Others, which has effectively gutted the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The Supreme Court held that ‘[M]erely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance’ thereby rendering the Act redundant. The last strategy has been the gradual repeal of existing labour law protections. This came to a head in the Code of Wages, 2019 which repeals existing labour legislations like Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as well as Bonus Act all of which were the outcome of a struggle by the working class and replaces them by the Code of Wages Act, 2019 in which the power of the worker is diluted and the power of the contractor is enhanced. The Code of Wages, 2019  is only the first Act, with three other codes planned namely the industrial code, the code on social security and the code on occupational safety, health and working conditions. The Code of Wages has been passed but not implemented, while the other three codes are still in the drafting stage. A look at all four codes gives one a sense of the wish list of the Narendra Modi government for labour -- remove all protections for labour regarding collective bargaining, fair wages as well as safety standards. Due to the judicial, executive and legislative acts of commission and omission, a large proportion of the working population in India remain outside the protection of even rudimentary labour laws. In that context why should one even protest this latest assault and overhaul the existing labour law regime? With all the limitations of existing labour law, it should be noted that unorganised worker unions have taken forward their struggle in this hostile space and fought to extend labour law protections in the organised sector to those in the unorganised sector as well as fought to ensure implementation of specific labour law legislation. A combination of a struggle on the ground working hand in hand with strategic litigation has delivered concrete results for many unorganised sector unions around the country. What unions and activists have always relied on to wage their struggle is a clear framework of labour law protections encoded in law. It is the protections embodied in the Contract Labour Act, Minimum Wages Act, Payment of Wages Act, Factories Act, etc. which have been sought to be extended to the unorganized sector in the form of legislation which embodies the basic principles of limits to the hours of work, holidays, safe conditions of work etc. These ordinances threaten this edifice of labour rights which should apply to all workers be they in the organised or unorganised sector. The birth of labour law was around the core idea of the limits to the working day. It was the struggle of the working class which resulted in the eight-hour working enshrined as a legal limit in factory legislation in countries around the world.  As Marx put it ‘these laws curb capital’s drive towards a limitless draining away of labour-power by forcibly limiting the working day on the authority of the state, but a state ruled by capitalist and landlord’. When the ordinance contemptuously throws aside this limitation of the working day, it is brushing aside an entire history of struggle and leaving workers at the mercy of owners of capital. To read the chapter on ‘the working day’ in Marx’s Capital, Vol I is to reacquaint oneself with the voluminous evidence as to why in the first place the length of the working day had to be limited. Marx cites an 1861 Report on the Baking Trade which observes: The committee believes that any constant work beyond twelve hours a day encroaches on the domestic and private life of the working man, and so leads to disastrous moral results interfering with each man’s home, and the discharge of his duties as a son, a brother, a husband, a father. That work beyond 12 hours has a tendency to undermine the health of the working man, and so lead to premature old age and death, to the great injury of families of working men, thus deprived of the care and support of the head of the family when most required. Marx further documents what can happen when the working hour is increased. A tremendous railway accident has dispatched hundreds of passengers into the next world. The negligence of the railway workers is the cause of the misfortune. They declare with one voice before the jury that 10 or 12 years before their labour lasted only eight hours a day. During the last five or six years, they say, it has been screwed up to 14, 18 and 20 hours, and when excursion trains are put on, their labour often lasts for 40 or 50 hours without a break. They are ordinary men, not Cyclops. At a certain point, their labour-power ran out. Terror seized them. Their brains stopped thinking, their eyes stopped seeing. The extension of the working day is finally self-defeating as: By extending the working day, therefore, capitalist production, which is essentially the production of surplus-value, the absorption of surplus-labour, not only produces a deterioration of human labour-power by robbing it of its normal moral and physical conditions of development and activity but also produces the premature exhaustion and death of this labour-power itself. However ‘capital ..takes no account of the health and the length of life of the worker unless society forces it to do so.’ The factory’s legislations are the result of this force applied by society. The Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh ordinances seek to destroy the initial gains of the labour movement which is the basis for all other gains which the working class has made over decades. If these ordinances are not repealed, we risk a return to a regime where labour is again pushed back to fighting for elementary right of the eight-hour working day. It's also apposite to note that one of  Ambedkar’s little recognised contributions is as a labour member of the Viceroy’s Council. As the member of the Viceroy’s Council he gave many speeches on the nuances and intricacies of Factories Bills, Payment of Wages as well as on the welfare and social security of workers. Many of his reflections are particularly apposite in a time when the ordinances seek to do away with precisely those legislations which he sought to painstakingly craft to protect the rights of labour. Like Marx, Ambedkar was committed to the idea of a limited working day. He too recognised that it was only on the basis of reduction of the working day that the worker could become a citizen. As he put it: The labour department’s memorandum on the reduction of working hours pointed out that it was both unjust and unwise to deny the workers a reasonable amount of spare time away from the factory, which was indispensable for the building up of citizenship and for the maintenance of his physical efficiency. It emphasised that the present was an opportune moment for taking up this question because there was a need for giving relief to factory workers who had been put to a great strain during the war. Moreover, shorter hours would lead to greater employment. The memorandum made it clear that the reduction in hours should not be accompanied by any reduction in basic wages or dearness allowances unless there was a fall in prices. The rates of piece-workers should be adjusted on the principle that a piece-worker should earn not less than a time worker. In the 7th Labour Conference held on 26 November 1945, in his presidential address BR Ambedkar lamented the reluctance to enact labour legislations especially on wages where he stated: How can the workers be asked to agree to reduce standards of living in an economy in which the profits are to go to private individuals? He went on the state as follows: We must do our best and do it immediately to mitigate it and to prevent it from lowering labour standards. I believe three things are necessary to ease the situation. Firstly, to reduce hours of employment so as to provide employment for many. Secondly, to provide machinery for fixing wages. The absence of such machinery combined with employment is bound to cause labour standards to slump, which ought to be prevented. Thirdly, to provide the employers and workers with a resolve to collective bargaining and learn to work together in the solution of other common problems. Nothing in my judgment can bring this about more effectively than sound and responsible Trade Unions. The Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh ordinances attack a fundamental proposition of what it is to be human. It reduces a labourer to a machine, renders his livelihood even more precarious and raises the question of what does the Indian Constitution mean for the worker? As Ambedkar rightly noted the ability to claim citizenship rights is based on the freedom of the worker from being a slave to his work. To not be a slave beholden to his work, to enjoy constitution rights,  labour laws are an essential substratum. It is this which makes Marx call the factories legislations, the  ‘modest Magna Carta of the legally limited working day’ more relevant than the ‘pompous catalogue of the ‘inalienable rights of man’. It is this  Marxian ‘modest Magna Carta’ and Ambedkarite ‘indispensable [condition] for the building up of citizenship’ which the UP and MP ordinances seek to destroy. In Rajasthan, apart from raising the working hours from 8 hours per day to 12 hours per day, the state has amended Industrial Disputes Act to increase the threshold for lay-offs and retrenchment to 300 from 100 earlier. Further, in order to recognise the trade union, the threshold membership of the trade union has been increased from 15 percent to 30 percent. In Maharashtra, all shops and factories are asked to submit consolidated annual returns instead of multiple returns under various labour laws while Punjab has amended Factories Act to increase the work time to 12 hours every day and 72 hours every week, compared to 8 hours every day and 48 hours every week. Arvind Narrain is based in Bengaluru, Maitreyi Krishnan is lawyer and trade union activist with AICCTU and Clifton D’ Rozario is lawyer and national cecretary, AICCTU.

http://sansaartimes.blogspot.com/2020/05/covid-19-lockdown-uttar-pradesh-and.html