#but hes also the plaintiff and defendant

[littlelovelore]

here to rule on the case of

"too cute vs too sassy"

[hag-o-hags]

It's worth noting that Disney is arguing that the plaintiff agreed to settle disputes via arbitration -- i.e. settlement -- instead of via a jury trial, NOT that Disney is protected unilaterally from the wrongful death claim. That's what "can't sue" means in this case.

A jury trial is incredibly expensive and time consuming, and I don't know where the plaintiff is located, but the trial jurisdiction is in Florida. It's not unreasonable for a TOS to include an arbitration clause in the US, especially for an entity as large as Disney. The BBC article implies that somehow agreement to the Disney+ TOS also applied to the TOS under which he bought parks tickets? And that's where the judge has to make the decision on Disney's motion. And I'm curious why the plaintiff wants to have a jury trial, since he's not asking for *that* much in damages.

I saw someone in the comments on another article say "It's horrible that someone who makes as much as Disney won't just settle this quietly out of court" -- that's LICHERULLY what they want to do, that's what the motion they've filed is for! The PLAINTIFF is the one who wants to drag it out to a jury trial.

(i am not a lawyer i just have a friend who does Law and Horses [she's basically an old west sheriff who occasionally comes out of retirement to scream about the supreme court] and also i spent the entire post correcting myself from saying "didney" please don't take anything i say as fact however also i don't think any of the lawyers quoted in that article are involved in the case either.)

What

[demonic0angel]

Court Story Idea

TW: the Joker

Where the Joker is being prosecuted for his crimes within the Ghost Zone and each side (defendant and plaintiff) is able to choose the lawyer for the other side. So that means that the Joker is able to choose an attorney for the plaintiffs AKA Jason, along with other victims, both alive and dead. (For drama’s sake, let’s say that the Justice League is there too, along with the younger generation of heroes.)

When everyone hears this, they’re like ??? Because isn’t that just going to help the Joker??

And the Joker, realizing this, is looking for the most weakest, most vulnerable person to exploit within this ghostly court room and he looks at the back of the room…

And finds Jazz, who’s sitting in a corner behind King Phantom, head down, trying her best to be unnoticed, nose in her papers as she’s writing down what’s said as the court reporter.

And the Joker picks her.

Nobody understands why everyone from the Ghost Zone is suddenly either 1) flabbergasted, 2) completely delighted, or 3) laughing so hard that it’s like they’re about to die a 2nd time.

Because the Joker chose the only person in the room with an actual law degree who is not only the big sister of the literal Ghost King, but also loves children, is fiercely protective of them, and most importantly, has never gotten the opportunity to show off her hard earned degrees in criminology, psychiatry, or law until now.

(Inspired by this post where someone says that Jazz would be the court reporter)

[carriesthewind]

Oh dear.

So as some of you may know, I love to point and laugh at bad legal arguments. And as fun as legal dumpster fires are when they are made by people who aren’t lawyers but think this whole “law” thing seems pretty simple, it’s even funnier when an actual, barred attorney is the person dumping gallons of kerosene into the dumpster.

And oh boy folks, do I have a fun ride for y’all today. Come with me on this journey, as we watch a lawyer climb into the dumpster and deliberately pour kerosene all over himself, while a judge holds a match over his head.

The court listener link is here, for those who want to grab a few bowls of popcorn and read along.

For those of you who don’t enjoy reading legal briefs for cases you aren’t involved with on your day off (I can’t relate), I will go through the highlights here. I will screenshot and/or paraphrase the relevant portion of the briefs, and include a brief explainer of what’s going on (and why it’s very bad, but also extremely funny). (Also, I’m not going to repeat this throughout the whole write-up, so for the record: any statements I make about how the law or legal system works is referring exclusively to the U.S. (And since this is a federal case, we are even more specifically looking at U.S. federal law.) Also, I don’t know how you could construe any of this to be legal advice, but just in case: none of this is, is intended to be, or should be taken as, legal advice.)

First, let’s get just a quick background on the case, to help us follow along. In brief, this is a civil tort suit for personal injury based on defendant’s (alleged) negligence. The plaintiff is suing the defendant (an airline), because he says that he was injured when a flight attendant struck his knee with a metal cart, and the airline was negligent in letting this happen. The airline filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that there is an international treaty that imposes a time bar for when these kind of cases can be brought against an airline, and the plaintiff filed this case too many years after the incident.

The fun begins when the plaintiff’s attorney filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (So far, a good and normal thing to do.) The opposition argues that the claim is not time-barred because 1) the time bar was tolled by the defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings (that is, the timer for the time limitation was paused when the defendant was in bankruptcy, and started again afterwords), and 2) the treaty’s time limit doesn’t apply to this case because the case was filed in state court before the state statute of limitations expired, and the state court has concurrent jurisdiction over this kind of case.

I’m struggling a bit to succinctly explain the second reason, and there’s a reason for that.

You see, the whole opposition reads a bit…oddly.

This is how the opposition begins its argument, and it’s…weird. The basic principle is...mostly correct here, but the actual standard is that when reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (which is what the defendant filed) the court must draw all reasonable factual inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. But even then, you don’t just put that standard in your opposition. You cite to a case that lays out the standard.

Because that’s how courts and the law work. The courts don’t operate just based on vibes. They follow statutory law (laws made by legislature) and case law (the decisions made by courts interpreting what those laws mean). You don't just submit a filing saying, "here's what the law is," without citing some authority to demonstrate that the law is what you say (or are arguing) it is.

Again, this isn’t wrong (although I'm not sure what it means by new arguments?), but it’s weird! And part of the reason it’s weird is that it is irrelevant to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant filed a motion stating that based on the facts in the complaint, the plaintiff has not stated a claim based on which relief can be granted, because the complaint is time barred by a treaty. There is no reason for this language to be in the opposition. It’s almost like they just asked a chatbot what the legal standards are for a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim, and just copied the answer into their brief without bother to double-check it.

The opposition then cites a bunch of cases which it claims support its position. We will skip them for now, as the defendant will respond to those citations in its reply brief.

The last thing in the brief is the signature of the lawyer who submitted the brief affirming that everything in the brief is true and correct. An extremely normal - required, even! - thing to do. This will surely not cause any problems for him later.

The next relevant filing is the defendant’s reply brief. Again, the existence of a reply brief in response to an opposition is extremely normal. The contents of this brief are…less so.

Beg pardon?

Just to be clear, this is not normal. It is normal to argue that the plaintiff’s cases are not relevant, or they aren’t applicable to this case, or you disagree with the interpretations, or whatever. It is not normal for the cases to appear to not exist.

Some highlights from the brief:

Quick lesson in how to read U.S. case citations! The italicized (or underlined) part at the beginning is the name of the case. If it is a trial court case, the plaintiff is listed first and the defendant second; if the case has been appealed, the person who lost at the lower court level (the petitioner/appellant) will be listed first, and the person who won at the lower level (the respondent/appellee) will be listed second. There are extremely specific rules about which words in these names are abbreviated, and how they are abbreviated. Next, you list the volume number and name of the reporter (the place where the case is published), again abbreviated according to very specific rules, then the page number that the case starts on. If you are citing a case for a specific quote or proposition, you then put a comma after the beginning page number, and list the page number(s) on which the quote or language you are relying on is located (this is called a “pincite”). Finally, you put in parenthesis the name of the court (if needed)(and again, abbreviated according to extremely specific rules) and the year the case was decided.

So the plaintiff’s response cited to Zicherman, which they said was a case from 2008 that was decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the defendant was not able to find such a case. They were able to find a case with the same name (the same petitioner and respondent), but that case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996, and the lower court cases associated with that case weren’t in the 11th circuit either. (The United States Reports is the only official reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court, and only includes SCOTUS decisions, so it’s not necessary to include the name of the court before the year it was decided.)

Just to be clear. The defendant’s brief is saying: the plaintiff cited and extensively quoted from these cases, and neither the cases nor the quotations appear to exist. These “cases” were not ancillary citations in the plaintiff’s brief. They were the authority it relied upon to make its arguments.

This is as close a lawyer can come, at this point in the proceedings, to saying, “opposing counsel made up a bunch of fake cases to lie to the court and pretend the law is something different than it is.”

That, “Putting aside that here is no page 598 in Kaiser Steel,” is delightfully petty lawyer speak for, “you are wrong on every possible thing there is to be wrong about.”

By page 5, the defendant has resorted to just listing all of the (apparently) made up cases in a footnote:

(skipping the citations to support this proposition)

This is where I return to my struggle to explain the opposition’s second reason why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. I struggled to explain the argument, because they failed to explain why the argument they were making (that plaintiffs can bring lawsuits against airlines in state court, and the state court have specific statutes of limitations for general negligence claims) was relevant to the question of whether the plaintiff’s specific claim against the airline was time barred by the treaty. Because 1) this case is in federal court, not state court, and 2) federal law - including treaties - preempts state law. Again, it’s almost like plaintiff’s attorney just typed a question about the time bar into a chatbot or something, and the machine, which wasn’t able to reason or actually analyze the issues, saw a question about the time to bring a lawsuit and just wrote up an answer about the statute of limitations.

We also end with a nice little lawyerly version of “you fucked up and we are going to destroy you.” The relief requested in the defendant’s original motion to dismiss was:

In their reply to the opposition, however:

“The circumstances” in this case, being the apparent fabrication of entire cases. Because courts tend to take that pretty seriously.

And the court took it seriously indeed. The defendant’s reply was docketed on March 15th of this year. On April 11th:

AKA: you have one week (an extremely prompt time frame for federal court) to prove to me that you didn’t just make up these cases.

On April 12th, the plaintiff’s attorney requests more time because he’s on vacation:

The judge grants the motion, but adds in another case that he forgot to include in his first order.

On April 25th, the plaintiff’s attorney files the following:

(And he lists the cases, with one exception, which he says is an unpublished decision.)

But he says of all of the cases except two, that the opinions…

Which is…nonsense?

First of all: if you cited a case, you had to get it from somewhere. Even unpublished opinions, if you are citing them in a brief, you are citing them because you pulled them off of westlaw or whatever. Which means you have access to the case and can annex it for the court. (There are even formal rules for how you cite unpublished opinions! And those rules include citing to where you pulled the damn case from!)

Secondly: remember that long digression I went into about how to read case citations? Remember that bit about how you include the name of the reporter (the place the case was published)? Yes, cases are published. They are printed in physical books, and they are published online in databases (e.g. lexis or westlaw). If the specific online database you are looking in does not have the case, you look somewhere else. If you have a judge telling you to get them a copy of the case Or Else, you track down a physical copy of the reporter if you need to and scan the damn thing yourself. You - literally - can’t just not have a copy of the case! (Especially published federal circuit court opinions, which multiple of these cases are! Those aren’t hard to find!)

And what kind of “online database” doesn’t include the entire opinion anyway? I’ve literally never heard of a case research database that only included partial opinions, because that wouldn’t be useful.

Maybe if we look at the attached annexed copies of the cases, that might give us some answers.

...

My friends, these things are just bizarre. With two exceptions, they aren’t submitted in any sort of conventional format. Even if you’ve never seen a legal opinion before, I think you can see the difference if you just glance through the filings. They are located at Docket entry #29 on Court Listener (April 25, 2023). Compare Attachments 6 and 8 (the real cases submitted in conventional format) to the other cases. Turning to the contents of the cases:

In the first one, the factual background is that a passenger sued an airline, then the airline filed a motion to dismiss (on grounds unrelated to the treaty's time bar), then the airline went into bankruptcy, then the airline won the motion to dismiss, then the passenger appealed. And the court is now considering that appeal. But then the opinion starts talking about how the passenger was in arbitration, and it seems to be treating the passenger like he is the one who filed for bankruptcy? It’s hallucinatory, even before you get to the legal arguments. The “Court of Appeals” is making a ruling overruling the district court’s dismissal based on the time bar, but according to the factual background, the case wasn’t dismissed based on the time bar, but on entirely other grounds? Was there some other proceeding where the claim was dismissed as time barred, and it’s just not mentioned in the factual background? How? Why? What is happening? Also it says Congress enacted the treaty? But, no? That’s…that’s not how treaties work? I mean, Congress did ratify the treaty? But they didn’t unilaterally make it!

In the second case, there’s an extended discussion of which treaty applies to the appellants claims, which is bizarre because there are two relevant treaties, and one replaced the other before the conduct at issue, so only the new treaty applies? There isn’t any discussion of the issue beyond that basic principle, so there is no reason there should be multiple paragraphs in the opinion explaining it over and over? Also, it keeps referring to the appellant as the plaintiff, for some reason? And it includes this absolutely hallucinatory sentence:

…the only part this that makes sense is that the argument is without merit. I’m not going to discuss the actual merits of the legal arguments in the opinion, because they are so bizarre and disjointed that even trying to describe them would require a Pepe Silvia-sized conspiracy board. Like the previous case, both the facts and the legal posture of the case change constantly, with seemingly no rhyme or reason.

The third one…oh boy. First, large portions of the “opinion” are individual paragraphs with quotations around the whole paragraph. What’s happening there? As far as the content of the opinion itself - I can’t. I mean that, I literally can’t. What is being discussed seems to change from paragraph to paragraph, much of it contradicting. It makes the first case seem linear and rational by comparison. The court finds it doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over the defendant so dismisses the case based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction? But also the defendant hasn’t contested jurisdiction? And also the court does hold that it has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the defendant? And then it denies the motion to dismiss the case? Also, at one point it cites itself?

…also, even if this was a real case, it doesn’t stand for the propositions the plaintiff cited it for in their opposition? I’m not going to go into the weeds (honestly it’s so hallucinatory I’m not sure I could if I tried), but, for example, the plaintiff’s reply brief states that the court held “that the plaintiff was not required to bring their claim in federal court.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a federal court, and there is no discussion of any filings in state courts. The closest the “opinion” comes is with the statement, “Therefore, Petersen’s argument that the state courts of Washington have concurrent jurisdiction is unavailing.” (This statement appears to be completely disconnected from anything before or after it, so I am unsure what it is supposed to mean.)

Moving on, case number four is allegedly a decision by the Court of Appeals of Texas. It includes the following line:

Honestly, the plaintiff’s attorney best defense at this point is that he wasn’t intentionally trying to mislead the court, because if he was doing this on purpose, he would have edited the cases to make them slightly more believable. (Context in case you’ve lost track: these documents are supposed to be copies of the opinions he is citing. The screenshoted line makes it clear that what he is actually citing is, at best, someone else’s summary of an "opinion". It would be like if a teacher asked a student to photocopy a chapter of a book and bring it into class, and instead the student brought in a copy of the cliffs notes summary of that chapter. Except that the book doesn’t even exist.)

The actual contents of the “opinion” are, as is now standard, absolutely bonkers. First, the court decides that it doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over Delta because “Delta did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits of conducting business in Texas.” This was despite the fact that the factual background already included that the appellant (sorry, the plaintiff, according to the “opinion”) flew on a Delta flight originating in Texas. Like, this is just wrong? It’s not even hallucinatory nonsense, it’s just facially incorrect legal analysis. Then the court starts discussing the treaty’s time bar, for some reason? Then it goes back to talking about personal jurisdiction, but now the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the appellate court agrees with the trial court that it does have personal jurisdiction, even though this is the plaintiff’s appeal from the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and the court already ruled it didn’t have personal jurisdiction? And even though on page 1, the plaintiff was injured during a flight from Texas to California, now on page 7 she was injured on a flight from Shanghai to Texas? Also the trial court has gone back in time (again) to grant the motion to dismiss that it previously denied?

Also, I’ve been trying to avoid pointing out the wonky text of these submissions, but:

Everything ok there?

Case number five is similar enough to number four that it’s not worth repeating myself.

Thank god, cases six and eight, as noted above, are real cases, so I’m going to skip them. The defendant alleges that the cases do not stand for the propositions the plaintiff cited them for, and I’m going to assume that is true, given the rest of this nonsense.

Case number seven looks legitimate on the surface. But neither the defendant nor I could find the case through any legitimate search mechanisms. The defendant looked up the purported docket numbers on PACER and found completely different cases; I was able to find a case with the name “Miller v. United Airlines, Inc.,” but it was for a different Ms. Miller, it was a California state case (not a Second Circuit federal case), it was decided on a different year, and the substance of the case was entirely different from the alleged opinion filed with the court.

On top of that, this might be the most morally reprehensible fake citation of them all? Because it is about the crash of United Airlines Flight 585, a real plane crash. Everyone on board - 25 people in total - was killed. 

The individual cited in this fake court case was not one of them.

I cannot imagine conducting myself in such a way where I would have to explain to a judge that I made up a fake case exploiting a real tragedy because I couldn’t be bothered to do actual legal research.

Now, I know you all have figured out what’s going on by now. And I want you to know that if your instincts are saying, “it seems like the lawyer should have just fallen on his sword and confessed that he relied on ChatGPT to write his original brief, rather than digging himself further into this hole”? Your instincts are absolutely correct.

Because obviously, the court was having none of this b.s. On May 4th, the court issued an order, beginning with the following sentence:

That is one of the worst possible opening sentences you can see in an order by the court in a situation like this. The only thing worse is when judges start quoting classic literature. If I was Mr. Peter LoDuca, counsel for the plaintiff, I would already be shitting my pants.

“I gave you an opportunity to either clear things up or come clean. Now I’m going to give you an opportunity to show why I should only come down on you like a pile of brinks, instead of a whole building.”

We are getting dangerously close to “quoting classic lit” territory here.

If I learned that the judge in my case called up the clerk of a circuit court just to confirm how full of shit I was, I would leave the legal profession forever. Also, the judge is now also putting quotes around “opinion.” When judges start getting openly sarcastic in their briefs, that means very very bad things are about to happen to someone.

So I’m guessing the delay between this filing and the court order was because the judge’s clerk was tasked with running down every single one of the additional fake citations included in the "opinions", just to make this sure this order (and the upcoming pile of bricks) are as thorough as possible.

If you are following along with Dracula Daily, the vibe here is roughly the same as the May 19th entry where Dracula demands Jonathan Harker write and pre-date letters stating he has left the castle and is on the way home.

Also, hey, what’s that footnote?

Wait, what?

Folks, it appears we may have notary fraud, on top of everything else! Anybody have bingo?

So on May 25, one day before the deadline, Mr. LoDuca filed his response. And oh boy, I hope ya’ll are ready for this.

Hey, what’s the name of that other attorney, “Steven Schwartz”? Where have I seen that name before…

...I ran out of room for images on this post. So I'm going to have to leave this as an accidental cliffhanger. Part 2 to follow once I refresh my tea.

[retiredteabag]

Dog-sitter!Toji - chapter 9

last chapter - next chapter - series masterlist

Synopsis: Toji was quite accustomed to objectifying himself for a check. And to be frank, far worse actions as well. Now he’s not sure what to do with himself after meeting the kind and generous owner of the dog he pet-sits for.

read along as Toji learns that you don't need to lose yourself in order to love and be loved.

Toji has never been the type to hold back.

He's honest and dislikes waiting to express his thoughts, even so, he had been holding in these feelings for a long time now.

How could it be that it took working together with you under extreme stress for him to realize that no one had seen him as a human quite like you had.

And for you, in the midst of your anxiety and strain, you consider him, in the small things he does such as ordering food, and in the large, working by your side to fight this battle day and night.

Dark evening nights bled into fresh mornings, unearthing the man who had threatened you had been the both of your main goals but along the way Toji grew more and more comfortable thinking of you as a friend.

In the past, when you had asked him to consider you as a friend, he would mentally roll his eyes. You were his employer, it was out of the question. But now? He found himself wondering why "friendship" seemed too gentle a term. Why is it he was wanting more?

You on the other hand, you had learned long ago to be honest with yourself. Even before, when you felt giddiness at his appearance or when you noticed yourself fixing your hair in the car, you were able to recognize your attraction to the man.

This attraction was not just physical though, he was dedicated and kind, humble and brave. You wouldn't say it, no matter how much your heart melted when you saw his nature.

Especially not now, when you needed to prioritize your dog.

--

Your hands shook as the attorney described the process of what defending you in court would look like. As it had turned out, despite there being a real case against your dog, there was still but a little evidence to suggest that your dog had initiated anything.

You also learned that the plaintiff not coming to you for months after the event was not a good look for them. Each passing hour, the ache in your heart would lessen. The beginnings of your chest easing helped you prepare yourself for the proceedings.

What you had not expected was how the dog that had attacked Toji was an unregistered working animal.

This would suggest that the work the dog was trained for was illegal or nefarious in some other nature.

In all honesty, you had expected the man who had shown up at your door to have been running a puppy mill of some sort.

Far from your realm of possibility was how dark the world could truly be. Toji had taken it upon himself to "do some digging", only to find that the Tosa Inu that had put your dog in the animal hospital over night had been an underground fighting dog.

The more you listened to what that could possibly mean, the sicker you felt. You were even more grateful to Toji though. He insisted that he hadn't hired a PI or anything, simply stating that he "knew a guy" who could uncover whatever had been happening behind the scenes.

Gambling was illegal in all areas of Japan but even worse was dog fighting. Several prefectures, including Tokyo had the act banned and on the level that this ring was operating, it was fair to assume other crimes were occurring behind the scenes. Betting on dog fights merely scratched the surface it seemed.

Even knowing all this, it wasn't until animal welfare organizations got involved, promising to back you in any way, that you began to rest easier at night.

--

You had spent what felt like an eternity yet somehow a blink of time making legal arguments in your office. You worked until your brain hurt and your eyes strained from the light of the computer screen.

During working hours, your attorney would occasionally be at your residence, working with yourself and Toji. Witnesses to Toji's injury, and your dog's behavior needed to be called forth, receipts and bills from the veterinary hospital needed to be located and confirmed for court proceedings, photographs of the scene in which the dog fighting ring was located needed to be confirmed. It all took far longer than you were expecting.

After working hours you would find yourself writing down your thoughts, hoping your lawyer was right to presume a positive fate. With the only companion you had known for years on the line however, it was a challenge to remain calm.

With his constant and unwarranted vigilance, you insisted Toji stay with you at the house. He had stayed in the guest room before and if he was so determined to help, the least you could do is offer him a place to stay.

It didn't take much convincing on your part, he stood by you through the whole ordeal.

One night, after a particularly grueling day of unburying evidence of animal abuse, you sat on your couch, tenderly stroking your dogs neck as tension built within your own.

It was funny to think that not even a month ago taking off this much work would be unthinkable to you. For the first time in your life, you had burned through all of your PTO, vacation, and sick leave. You were lucky enough to have an employer, though unperturbed by your usual overworking nature, was willing to be lenient with your schedule due to the nature of the issue at hand.

You had been mindlessly playing with the dogs ears, staring at the noiseless television before you when the gentle steps of the man you had come to appreciate so much found their way into the living room.

"Care if I join you?" He spoke softly, perhaps worried to startle you.

Attempting a carefree manner, you tried for a grin, "Of course, come, sit down."

He shuffled closer and sat to the other end of the dog, the beast, who had all his life (to your knowledge) been inconsolably frightened by men, did not hesitate to lay his head atop Toji's thigh.

The man laced his fingers through the dogs fur, smiling softly. "How are you feeling?"

Your shoulders jitter slightly as his hand brushes your own. Your dog lifts his head a moment to look at you. Huffing he plops his head back, returning to rest on the man's leg. Your heart races like a silly schoolgirl. "Good, good, everything is really looking up, you know?" You swallow a bit, "Toji, really, I know I said it before but I just wanted to make it clear how grateful I am to you. You really don't have any obligation to be here, helping me-"

The man by your side seems to straighten a bit where he sat. His hand as stopped moving and he just looks at you.

"-ever since that day at the animal hospital, when you put the needs of my boy here over your own, before that really, I have been in your debt. I hope it was never a burden... I hope you know what a comfort your presence has been."

"No." Toji's spine is taught and he takes a gulp of air before continuing on quickly, "no- no its not a burden at all. And...owe me? How could you owe me?" He laughs a bit at the notion.

Before you interject to make some painfully sweet comment, he pushes on, "You must not know-" he stares at you now, only a few breaths away, "how...lucky I am to be able to do this job, to be of some help...to...have even met you."

He's stumbling over his words, he never does that, but you make him weak somehow. You make him want to take care with his words. You make him feel so very human, so very alive.

"Well..." You fiddle with your hands, having long since moved them to your lap to avoid the strange thumping that occurs when your fingers cross. "I feel like the lucky one."

--

After weeks of scouring information, preparing documents, and developing exposé's, the result you could have only prayed for arrived.

The very next morning your attorney practically bounded in through the front door. She was laughing and flinging around a written notice as if it was a ticket straight to the pearly gates of heaven. Upon the address line, in bold letters, was a miracale in ink.

"COURT FILING: DISSMISSAL "

"W-what does this mean?" You smile up at your lawyer, her hoots and hollers were contagious.

"What does it mean? It means that coward of a litigant has withdrawn the charges!"

It took a moment for the elation to fill you, you repeated her words over and over, you gave her one clear look as if to ask, 'does that mean what I think it means?"

She just nodded.

You broke down in laughs. The dog wove in between your legs sensing your joy, Toji came rushing into the foyer, words of 'what's going on?' left him before he saw you grinning on the floor, scratching the dog's neck.

He smirks as if he had been counting on this the whole time, steadily walking your way until he is within arms reach. He displays one arm stretched out to you.

Under the assumption he was going to pull you up from your spot on the ground, you reach a hand to take his own and gasp when he dips to pull you into his arms. Lifting you with a steady grip.

"Toji!" You laugh, oh how it felt good to laugh once more.

The dog circled you, panting and wiggling his butt. The other person present was talking about how you had every means to come after the man with your own counterclaim, having found so much on his name. But it was all background noise. You were too caught up in the grasp Toji had on your waist. His smile. His laugh. All of it.

It wasn't until you were placed carefully back on your own two feet that you noticed the woman awkwardly grinning at the two of you.

You knew that you might still have a fight ahead of you, and it was one you would willingly take. But at this very moment, you felt incandescently happy. Nobody was taking your baby from you, and in all these efforts, it seemed you had made a close friend.

And perhaps even a connection verging dangerously close to something more.

--

Some cheap barbecue spot was not what you had expected when you told Toji you would get him whatever he liked in celebration.

"Honestly, I only started eating well when I began looking after your place." Toji takes a piece of beef that he grilled and placed it onto your plate, taking a spoonful of broth for himself.

"That's funny, I kind feel the same, I got so nervous that you wouldn't have anything to eat that I started planning for my groceries." You look down at the bite he prepared for you and smile.

The man before you narrows his eyes, "Well... I'm glad you started eating better." He spins his chopsticks around and flips some meat over on the grill.

"You know...you never asked for anything-" You start, recalling how you had left a note in the early days asking if there was something he wanted from the store.

"You never had to get me anything." Toji grins, "You've been more than generous."

There's a long pause occupied by the both of you taking bites of your dinner and smiling. You'd been doing that an awful, you realize and compose yourself, slightly embarrassed, "I don't think you know how much I appreciate you, Toji." You point an accusing finger at him.

And you don't know how much I love hearing you say my name he thought but kept it to himself.

"Nahhhh, I think I do. You kinda wear your heart on your sleeve."

You roll your eyes, recalling how he had seen you in so many positions, the awkward early phase, angry, teary, even sick, he had seen it all. Once again, you cringe at how much of you he knows.

"If you knew you wouldn't be calling me generous. Before I had someone I could trust with the house and dog, I was so stressed all the time. Work was piling up and I hated leaving home, knowing he would be anxious."

You recall all the nights before Toji when you tearfully considered rehoming your most loyal partner.

"Well now you're free to overwork yourself from the comfort of your office." He teases.

The two of you went on eating and poking fun at each other. Every little instance of connection between you two drew you both closer. Dark times bring out the true nature of individuals and identify exactly who someone is.

And who you were was everything he desired.

Dedicated, hardworking, kind.

Even Toji was surprised by his own unquestioning nature when it came to helping you. He would do whatever it took to see you happy.

--

Toji had insisted on driving you to dinner. He told you he was taking you to his favorite spot. For a time, he was embarrassed by his car, seeing you sitting in the passenger seat almost felt like a sin but you just grinned at him, and conversed easily.

He felt like a student again, driving as carefully as ever to ensure the safety of such precious cargo.

At the end of the night, when he pulled up your drive way, he told you to stay seated.

Confused, you couldn't help laughing when he came around to get the door for you.

A part of you, however small, hoped he wasn't just teasing. Hoped he might see you as more than his employer. Hoped this connection between you two would not end with the resurgence of the sun.

You tell him he didn't have to walk you to the door but he just scoffs and bares the cold by your side. The celebration was still fresh between you.

You didn't even have your hand on the door yet, everything of the day was weighing on you, the way he had lifted you up and held you, all the smiles you shared, all the easy conversation. You knew it had to stop, or you might end up deluding yourself further than you already had.

"I think it's fair to say you've gone above and beyond dog sitter status, Toji. I'm sure you'll enjoy staying at your place for once."

You had meant it lightheartedly. You really had felt bad these nights when he worked into the evening, staying in your guest room to support you. Pulling out his reading glasses for the first time in years. Despite your blithe attitude, he seemed to get all serious.

He looks at his shoes for a moment, the wind chilled you to the bone but Toji doesn't flinch.

Everything in Toji's mind was telling him to keep his mouth shut.

He was nothing special to you, no matter how kindly you told him otherwise. He had nothing to offer you. He was an ally cat of a man to your show cat of a women. He was never going to be any more than the dog sitter. Why risk the best position he had ever been granted? Why put an end to this dream he had been living?

But Toji has never been the type to hold back.

"I don't think I can keep on like this."

He doesn't look at you, still too occupied by the pavement.

"What?" Barely a beat had passed before you try to bend and catch his eye but he lifts his face to the heavens.

At one point, money was all Toji cared for, he was willing to do anything for it, but now, he was feeling things he hadn't felt since he was a boy, maybe things he never had before.

"This..." He sighs and finally gives you a resolute look, "this is my job."

You're taken aback. Replaying the words a hundred times within a millisecond. Trying to see his meaning. The words hurt, yes, you knew you paid him. Of course none of his actions meant anything more than job security. But as much as you had told yourself to be realistic, his kind and selfless attitude had started to leak into your brain, making you feel special.

You step back, still not opening the door. Wanting now to see him leave. To solidify this moment. "Right. Yes, Toji, of course."

He's still looking at you, pupils blown wide but he doesn't hesitate. "I'm afraid you’re gonna have to find someone else." in stark contrast to before, he never strays from your vision. He shakes his head as if to say, 'no'.

"What?" You repeat. Suddenly afraid of his meaning you try to take a step down to meet him at the landing but he holds up a hand. "What do you mean?"

Had it been too much? The court case? The working together? Had it only been pleasant for you? All those nights chatting on the couch, all those sweet "goodnight's"?

He pulls back his hand, one quick inhalation of the night's air was all the courage he could summon and coincidentally, all he required, "I've got these feelings that aren't exactly appropriate for the workplace."

All to be heard are the whistles of wind on the trees.

"So I think it might be best-" He's shaking his head again, not believing a word, "for you to find someone...less...attached."

It makes him chuckle, as broken as this moment makes him feel. How long has it been since he has been attached, since he has felt like this at all. How silly.

"Toji...Toji what are you saying?"

"All of this" his makes a show of his hands, "all of you, who you are, how you behave, what you do for others. I never want to lose it. It's my job, but deep down...I know it's more than that." He keeps heaving in breath, making wild motions with his hand, begging you to understand, "I want to be there to take care of the dog, I want to stay and take care of you when work is too much, I want to go for walks and eat dinner together, I don't even want to be paid anymore-GOD I cannot believe I just said that-"

He's laughing but your mind is morphing back into the dreamlike notion you had been shoving away. No words escape your lips as you grab hold of his hand, "I thought...I thought you wouldn't think of me like that..."

Now he's looking at you like you've made some ridiculous joke.

"I thought you just... liked taking care of the dog..."

He guffaws. "I do..." he inhales shakily, "believe me. I do. But... I definitely like you more."

You don't even know when his hand went to graze over your cheek but suddenly, your face is feeling warm in spite of the chill.

"I-I just can't believe- I feel...Toji I was talking myself out of this just a moment ago."

His eyes go all soft, you wonder if you had ever missed this look of his, "Is it too good to be true if I guess you feel the same?" "Gosh, Toji, No! I-" You pull his hand from your cheek and use it to cover your eyes.

Not too long ago, you felt like floating, thinking the day could not possibly become greater in importance, but life has a funny way of proving us wrong.

--

For a moment there on the porch, you had thought that he might kiss you. Right there on your doorstep in the cold, with your dog rolling his eyes inside. But Toji didn't, in fact, he pulled himself back. Holding your hand, murmuring that he wanted to "do this right" as he played with your fingers.

And for the second time that day, you have the overwhelming desire to dance around your house. To spin and clutch your heart as impossible hope filled your senses. Only this time, as the door closes and you watch out the window, a hand clutched to your chest. You grant yourself the privilege.

A moment to yourself of pure delight.

Hidden from your view, Toji was experiencing a very similar sensation, palm displayed across his pounding heart, he settles his head against the steering wheel and wonders if this all is a dream.

〰・♡・〰〰・♡・〰〰・♡・〰〰・♡・〰〰・♡・〰

Tags:

@sweetpo1son @scorpiosugar @starmapz @toruswrld @your-mum3000 @meow-satoru @animeblr @utarts @roxyyyyy1xx @lilming36 @scandibabeuh @atanasiaaaa @chouzuko @voronii @transsfish @h3llf4iry @lucrea @straewberrysoda @s4m4nth4wrld @storiesbyparadise @pokiona @neiostrike @breenatalle @uwolivia @gothic-fluffycow @luvvmae @justbelljust @voidshoutsback @chaotic-ish @jamzywiththejam28 @definitely-not-leena @kirawyd @kuro-chi69 @smoments @lukabwrry @esmedelacroix @professionalreblogger @yoongluverz @stainednailpolishremover @nappingmoon @lauretsy @noelssprings @bytgefirewbook @koji-ibitsu @wafflefries786 @bearchermer @p1nkfl0wers @sugojosgf @deafeningherofishcash @yeehawbrothers @wil10wthetree @youcantseem3 @poopooindamouf @miakxn @esggs @makosworld @neeshsoodrippedout @momoewn @mooncleaver @avocadomochi @getoisinnocent @femmefatal @lov3vivian @grima4lurking @lemonlimecrystal-blog @icedemon1314

tag list is sadly full! If you ever want to be taken off of the tag list, please just let me know :] (if your name is here but you didn’t get tagged. I think it’s either because your blog is new/blank/empty where you need to check your privacy settings.)

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Lincoln Brown

Beckett Law, a religious freedom advocacy group, has taken up the cause of three Jewish students at UCLA. The students claim that in the wake of the October 7 terrorist attack on Israel, they faced mounting antisemitism, which included barring them from access to areas of the campus. The students are also represented by Clement & Murphy, PLLC.

In the lawsuit, Frankel v. The Regents of the University of California, the plaintiffs claim that pro-Hamas/anti-Israel protesters set up barricades on the Los Angeles campus, effectively creating a "Jewish Exclusion Zone." Beckett Law states that after creating the encampment, protesters not only constructed barriers but also linked arms to prevent Jewish students from accessing the most popular areas on campus. They also imposed an ideological test, and those whose views were deemed to be sufficiently anti-Israel were issued wristbands and allowed to pass unmolested through the "checkpoints."  

By contrast, Beckett law says that Jewish students were harassed and even assaulted. Law student Yitzchok Frankel was forced to find other ways to reach his classes because his route was blocked by the exclusion zone. Sophomore Joshua Ghayoum could not attend classes or study sessions because of the zone and the antisemitic activities on campus. Additionally, he was forced to listen to chants of "death to the Jews" and "death to Israel." Eden Shemuelian had trouble getting to her final exams because of the zones and had to listen to the vitriol from the encampment as she tried to study. These, said Beckett Law, are just three examples of the problems faced by Jewish students at UCLA.

Mark Rienzi, president and CEO of Becket, stated:

If masked agitators had excluded any other marginalized group at UCLA, Governor Newsom rightly would have sent in the National Guard immediately. But UCLA instead caved to the anti-Semitic activists and allowed its Jewish students to be segregated from the heart of their own campus. That is a profound and illegal failure of leadership. This is America in 2024—not Germany in 1939. It is disgusting that an elite American university would let itself devolve into a hotbed of antisemitism. UCLA’s administration should have to answer for allowing the Jew Exclusion Zone and promise that Jews will never again be segregated on campus.

The suit notes:

Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of the free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference, as secured by the California Constitution, through a policy and practice that treats Plaintiffs differently than similarly situated non-Jewish individuals because Plaintiffs are Jewish.

Defendants furthered no legitimate or compelling state interest by engaging in this conduct.

Defendants failed to tailor their actions narrowly to serve any such interest.

As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have been injured by losing access to educational opportunities, losing access to library and classroom facilities, losing in-person learning opportunities, losing the ability to prepare for exams, being denied equal participation in the life of the university, suffering emotional and physical stress that has diverted time, attention, and focus from study, and by other harms.

In addition to seeking compensation for damages, the primary goal of the lawsuit is to hold the leadership of the University of California accountable and ensure that such a situation never arises again.

As usual, "never again" is here and now. The fact that these "students" take a great deal of pride in slinging the term "Nazi" at anyone with which they disagree yet use tactics that echo those of the Third Reich is ironic and chilling. But their savage nature can be attributed, at least in part, to those who educated them. 

Given that, one must ask if the regents of the University of California were merely caving to mob pressure. Did they turn a blind eye to the madness out of fear or because of the optics? Ideally, there should be nothing wrong with discussing the war and even debating whether or not Israel's response to the Hamas attack has been proportionate. 

The regents, president, vice-president, and chancellors never stopped to think, "Gee, it seems to be getting awfully brownshirty around here." And if they did, they were too cowardly or indoctrinated to say a word.

[shanieveh]

“ forget me not... ”

synopsis: neuvillette, too late to confess his love to you, is drowning from the suffering and regret that came along with it, especially after knowing that you felt the same all along.

tags: gn!reader x neuvillette, depression and low self-esteem, bittersweet ending, mentions of freminet, lynette and melusines, heavily implied reader death and neuvillette also kinda wanting to die

a/n: people want this and i have came to deliver (hopefully) enjoy~ this is my first long fic that i published

How can this be….?

Neuvillette sat in the corner of his office, all your letters in his right hand. How can you say you loved him… how dare you describe the love, the passion, everything you felt for him when he can't even say it back.

How can you love someone so unlovable?

His silent cries can't match up to the violent outbursts of the skies outside. Days went by when he first found out, the melusines were scared to death about who would report it to him. The way you dissolved into water, not even seeing you for the last time—not having the privilege to have a proper funeral.

He failed you… the monsieur wasn't too sure on many things but this one was certain.

Reading your diaries, knowing your thoughts and hopes for the future. It was an invasion of privacy but also in a way… the last remnants of your existence. One such entry was that of three years ago where you first met.

Encountering this, a profuse blush colored his face. The adjectives being used "handsome", "tall" and "kind" for your first meetingwith the chief justice. Far from the truth really, although Neuvillette knew you meant every word.

You always did.

You always were an honest person.

The very first day his lavender eyes met yours, to the very last. There was never a trace of impurity or a hint of a liar. Of course, the verdict went in your favor, because to him a precious rose like you can never steal and the plaintiffs were wrong.

Reading it now, not even a slightly negative comment was made to those who wrongly accused you.

"Maybe they had their reasons, after all, I was also in need of money at that time." you wrote. Adding on that you defended the "Monsieur Neuvillette" when people called "such a man of honor and kindness" a "merciless and arrogant man".

A man of honor and kindness? Your words became running thoughts in the hydro dragon's head. That day was one of the only days he didn't cry after a trial. Neuvillette was just happy that such a person of integrity was cleared of their name.

He turned through the pages of the diary, how you taught him to socialize and even mend his relationship with the hydro archon.

"Monsieur Neuvillette was too adorable! Being with a person of lowly status and treating me with such respect and humility, he truly is the epitome of mercy and loveliness."

How can you be so blind? Anyone with eyes will know that it's a privilege to be with someone so beautiful, especially to be with someone like Neuvillette. A cold and repulsive soul. You make him sound like a good person, when in fact he isn't both good and human.

He was a monster… these words of humanity you always used to describe a monster. Why do they sound so genuine? Why do they look so real? Maybe only you can make him like that, you and only you.

A few pages later he finally saw the words…

Words that should've made him scream in euphoria… tore him to a million pieces. Because even before this he already loved you… because you had so much time to confess but never did… and never will.

"I think I'm in love with the chief Justice."

And after that, he couldn't even get himself to read, he couldn't. His eyes got so blurry to see, his heart became too heavy to feel. Why were you… why you? In a world filled with monsters, they chose an angel. They chose a soul that still wanted to live, love and give. Those demons… despicable.

Remembering his shortcomings, maybe in some way he could've avoided all of this. Neuvillette shouldn't have given you his blessing to investigate the serial disappearance case.

But that glint of adventure in your eyes… he was too soft to reject you.

It was all his fault.

Wiping his tears he looked at the last entry of the diary… Oh.

Oh.

"After this investigation, I'll finally confess to him… I surely hope Neuvillette feels the same way, I even planted some forget-me-nots to give him in the backyard so that he'll know when it rains and he weeps. I will always be here."

The chief justice didn't know what was coming to him but he started running… and only then can he see the state of Fontaine. Many flowers have wilted and only a few people were outside. What had he become..?

"What's up with this weather? It isn't even the rainy season yet?!" A shop owner complained.

"I know! My crops have been drowning these days, at this rate if it doesn't stop we'll have a famine!"

It was all his fault, his running turned to a slow walk taking in all that he had done. This was all because of him. The lonely streets, the lowered morale. This was all because—

"Hydro dragon, hydro dragon, please don't cry!"

He turned to the voice and saw a young boy in the distance. Neuvillette remembered now, his name was Freminet. That child on which you doted extremely, giving him sweets and hushing his tears. The chief justice quickly let go of his gaze and continued to walk.

"You see Freminet, it didn't work... let's go inside."

The response was that of a stoic young woman, but he just continued his legs even if they wanted to rest all to see the last thing you cared for… those flowers. And when he finally was at the destination he saw it immediately outside.

It was in the bushes, he couldn't miss it. Every corner of your house was haunted, every tiny thing was a memory. The chairs you painted, the drawings pinned in the cabinet of you and him with the melusines. It was precious. All of it. Just as you are.

He finally saw them, most were almost to bloom and some were wilted. Picking one he unconsciously kissed it, perhaps mistaking it for you. These flowers were made to remind him he was never alone, but now he is.

More alone than he can ever be in one lifetime. Your scent still filled every corner, a remembrance of the biggest "what if" in his life. Your will stated that every single thing of yours is his just as you were always his. Bittersweet was he when reading it.

Neuvillete forgot that too included your house, maybe he was too consumed with your thoughts to visit this place. He was twisting the poor flower that looked so tiny compared to his hand. Perhaps that's what it's like to be with him. It's a curse…

He continues to caress the flowers, to treat them as if they were you. You were wrong on one thing about this, even if there were no flowers he will never forget you. Never, no way! The love he has for you can destroy nations and can cause millions of sacrifices. Just to keep you, to see your smile again.

But he can't even do that, you didn't give him the privilege to do something for you. If only he knew, he would've… done everything for you. The love that can create the strongest of floods failed to protect the one person he was supposed to protect.

At that moment, he felt the waters, the ocean, his home… you. It made his crying bearable, somewhat. Grief that could surpass a lifetime, wasn't enough. Nothing he can do will ever be enough to have you again. Perhaps he should also leave this world to stop being a burden to the people… and maybe to see you again.

"Neuvillette…"

Now he was even imagining your voice, or was he? Maybe he was delusional but he still followed your voice even if it took him to an unknown path. But the end was in a small pond, where you used to keep the fish, all of which were alive and well.

"Neuvillette…?"

At this he didn't even care if was going insane, your voice sounded like a melody even if it uttered his name. It sounded like a rare jewel, a myth, a prophecy too good to be true.

"Darling?" He replied in a hopeful tone. He looked through his surroundings, no longer was he in a pond but a terrain of boundless water. In the middle was a flying Oceanid, a spirit. Was it—could it be?

"Even I could feel the heavy pouring of rain, monsieur… don't be sad."

It was indeed your spirit, a part of you that remained before that bastard—he'll make whoever did this pay. It wasn't for justice anymore, this one is for revenge.

"How can I not? When I have failed you over and over again, I couldn't even get to say…"

"That you love me?"

His eyes widened, looking at you. Even if it didn't look like you, he knew… he always did. A nod soon followed after that, it was barely noticeable even at this rate the chief justice was a bit shy saying it.

"I just don't know why you could ever say you love me, how you could even think of me so kindly. Why? How? How can you love me back?" He was clueless to what you mean.

"How can I not?"

The reply you uttered was one of a teary-eyed person. Even to this moment you still haven't accepted you had died, not when he was still alone needing you.

"Just as you said… how can I not? You out of all people my dear… know of the sacrifices we make for the person we love."

It was that moment where you took your normal form, you looked beautiful as the day he lost you. As beautiful as the day you met. And as you walked towards him, the clock ticking until your final goodbye, it was time.

"I love you Neuvillette, i always had and continue to do so." For the last time, you cupped his cheek and kissed him.

"I love you, darling from the very beginning and every single lifetime to come." He let go of the kiss and hugged you tight, closing his eyes, until you disappeared not knowing he was hugging his own.

Opening his eyes, the rain was long gone, and what remained were the flowers in the bushes, the ponds, the fish, and him. Maybe… just maybe he will bring you and the other victims to light.

Until then, this one last encounter and goodbye will make him content. He was sure… that finally his love will be at rest.

[beaunoor]

higuruma hiromi x f!reader

synopsis: modern au! with both of you as lawyers. you're supposed to remain professional, but it doesn't stop the both of you from feeling a certain way when you both are in your element. sort of based on a previous imagine

wrd count: 1733

warnings: mdni! i don't really go into the actual court case bc i am lazy, female reader! light tension, smut (doing it on a desk, fingering, rough sex, tie pulling, semi-public, sort of breeding idk, praise), word "wife" used, yeah they get turned on in court in an odd way ig, barely any real plot

*extra editing will be done later, very tired while posting this

"Court is in session."

Your eyes watched as his black pant clad legs glide across the room to face the stand to give the plaintiff's opening statement. His gruff voice was tantalizing in a way you could see the confidence he oozed with his unwavering speech. This wasn't the time to ogle at your competition though. You had a job to do; to defend your own client who assumed you were preparing yourself to speak on their behalf as they shifted in anxiety. Which was wrong--you knew this was an easy civil contract case, and you just happened to be saddled with a defendant who was untruthful. Though you did not work on cases together often, discussion of them was a daily occurrence you partook in when in the privacy in your own home, so you knew the outcome was not in your favor. It didn't mean you wouldn't give it your all at least. Besides, anything was worth it to see Hiromi Higuruma in his own element.

You remembered him getting ready this morning and the image had you nibbling on your lip. You narrowed your eyes at the way his suit hugged his body. The way he spoke with assurance and the way he oozed confidence really did it for you; this was him at his best after all. You also remembered his tired eyes lingering on yours when you passed ways at the office, trying your best not to spare a glance--oh right. You were supposed to be mad at him. Your legs crossed and you looked down at the papers in front of you when you felt the faint wisps of arousal arise.

After his opening statement, you stood up from your chair, smoothing out your clothes before moving to the stand. While you talked and faced the judge and jury, Higuruma's chin rested atop of his folded hands. His eyes raked along your backside and further down to the pencil skirt you worn. He remembered taking glances at you earlier that morning. Though his morning was less than pleasant when you had not spoken a word to him. A small spat was what it was last night. It was insignificant in the grand scheme of things. He wished he could hear your voice in different circumstances.

As you slowly paced across the floor, his eyes watched your words and gestures. When you were done with your statement, you had a fiery look in your eyes and the upturn of your lip when you caught his gaze on you, which to his embarrassment had his pants tightening.

When a short recess was taken, he had walked up to you in hopes of getting you to talk him in a different manner.

"And how are you doing today miss?"

You just glanced up at him and turned away, "It'll be better when I win, Mr. Higuruma."

He faintly grimaced. He knew he had to end this quickly before you caught a worse attitude with him.

Back and forth the battle went, each more passionate in their witness testimonies and evidence. But Higuruma always had an ace up his sleeve to help his clients, always.

"B-but that doesn't mean--" You put your fingers on your temple and suppressed a groan at the defendant's admittance.

"Your attorney should've prepared you better, Mr. Soto." Higuruma jabbed.

"And you now just admitted to being aware of such knowledge of a contract. So, to the jury," he turned to their stand, "I hope you can agree that ignorance does not determine a good defense for such a company circumstance. Mr. Soto has shown his account of unjust will to comply and I hope you can see how the plaintiff is needed to be compensated rightfully so." With that he concludes his closing statement.

He’s got you good.

The gavel against its block boomed loudly throughout the courtroom signaling the conclusion of the session. You can't help but purse your lips in disappointment.

While the bailiff was trying to calm down your client you packed your things up and caught Higuruma's eye as he walked back to the plaintiff's side as he gathered his things and shook hands with his client. You proceeded to grab your things and walk out of the courtroom, feeling his presence following behind you, making himself known as he opens the door for you and you both walk out side by side in silence. Once a certain amount of distance away, he lets his hand rest on your lower back guiding you away from peering eyes.

His embrace feels warm when he's got his face buried in the crook of your neck.

"Are we okay now?" His question muffled.

"...Yeah, yeah we're good now." You say pulling away from him.

"Why do I always get the short end of the stick with my clients?" You huffed aloud as you both stood in the empty hallway of the office building.

"Maybe it's karma for getting angry at those who don't deserve it."

You stood in front of him, arms crossed and let out a scoff at his jest. 

“Well, I am available to help debrief in my office if you are free at the moment. I don't have another case until later.”

“Well I wouldn't want to intrude on the 'oh so great lawyer Mr. Higuruma's time” you replied.

"You know no one likes a sore loser" He leaned in close to your face, "though if you want a 'pick me up' I always have time for you, wife."

Your eyes looked into his eyes before flickering down to his lips, you tilted your head up at him, "What did you have in mind?"

As soon as his office door was closed, you turned around to see him drop his briefcase and reach for your face with both hands and fiercely kissed your lips. Your arms went up to his shoulders and chased his lips back. He walked forward and you clumsily stumbled backwards until your legs hit the front end of his desk causing you to half sit on the desk. You let go to take a breath, and half hazardly unbuttoned your dress shirt. He got his suit jacket halfway off before he felt you reach his belt loops and unbuckled his slacks. He stopped you to do it himself while you crumpled and lifted up your skirt to expose your panties to him. As soon as his boxers were lowered for his cock to spring out, you grabbed his tie to pull his lips to yours. His hand went down to slip past your underwear to insert a finger inside your pussy. When he felt how warm and wet you were he let out a groan into your mouth and inserted another finger to work you open.

“Oh baby, you’re so wet.” he groaned out against your lips.

“Haa- you were so hot out there,” you gasped out.

“Yeah? You like me arguing with you? This pussy sure loves it, can you hear it?”

He gave a few more pumps in with his fingers before pulling them out and using the same hand to jerk his dick before bringing it to your cunt and pushed in a little before pulling it back to rub it against your opening. He heard you whine at the sensation and finally pushed all the way in.

“Hah my wife is so inpatient.”

As his hips pushed into yours, his hands grabbed around your waist, wrapping your legs around his torso, back now flat against the desk.

“You did so good out there baby. Haa- you feel so good–” he moaned out, head falling back at the feeling of being inside you.

His thrusts begin slow and stroke deep. Your toes flexed inside your pointed heels at the feeling of being dicked down so good. One hand reached up to grab onto his shoulder and the other grabbed at your breast and groped in a way to make you moan out.

He looked down at you again, loving to see you enjoy yourself and let loose in your half undone shirt, “Oh baby, I'm so close–-feel so good--ah can’t believe you do this to me.”

He lifted up your left leg onto his shoulder to reach deeper which had you whining and your eyes teared up in the new sensation, he was hitting all the right spots.

“Hiroo- I’m going to-uhn-I’m going to cum baby” 

“Yeah you’re going to cum? Cum on this cock baby, you can do it baby I can feel it.” he encouraged by moving his hand down to play with your clit, rubbing it in circles to overwhelm you. 

You let out a shaky breath as you felt yourself orgasm, having it reach its peak had your legs flex and shake as it washed over you. A silent scream and the tightening of your cunt kept him going, him speeding up his thrusts to reach his end.

“Ah I’m going to cum–ahh I’m cumming in this pussy.” He groaned out, exhaling deeply as he felt his cock release into the deep crevice of your cunt. He gave a few more shallow thrusts, rubbing his hips against yours slowly before stilling his movements and letting your leg down. He held your thighs as both your breathing turned back to normal. He took one of your arms, hand sliding down to your hand before placing a kiss into your palm.

“Don’t worry baby, you'll win the next one. I can't loose, I want to look cool in front of my wife.”

You rolled your eyes at him and swat at him playfully.

"Hmm I thought that debrief surely helped your attitude, maybe not?"

You groaned and looked him in the eye to pout. He leaned down to kiss at your face and made his way down to nibble on your neck, before you giggled and pushed his face away.

"Mm Hiro stop, you have to get back to work soon." you reprimanded and he huffed through his nose before he pecked your lips one more time before pulling away from your body and tucked himself away.

After you separated and fixed yourselves you turned back to him to smooth out his suit and tie.

“Thank you for the pick me up." you pressed a kiss to his cheek. "See you at home, Mr. Higuruma. . .” you said and walked out of his office.

a/n: can't believe gege trying to take my man! it's superrr late but was inspired to get this out of the drafts, tumblr kept deleting the progress and it stressed me out so it may not be the best

likes, reblogs, and comments appreciated! thanks for reading!

[genderkoolaid]

https://thenewinquiry.com/on-hating-men-and-becoming-one-anyway/

found this beautiful article written in 2019 which sums up so so much about transmisandry and the dilemma of trans men, where they’re grouped with the perpetrator class even though they’re equally vulnerable

OHHH kissing you this article is so fucking good. 100% gonna post some quotes from it. I love how this is written & its a really good explanation of how "trans-inclusive" radical feminism & radical feminist ideas fuck over transmascs in a unique & painful way. Like!!:

But trans men’s manhood is inseparable from our transness, and the relationship between trans men and cis womanhood can’t be accurately understood by separating trans status from gender in order to claim we’re oppressed by one but not the other. The day-to-day operations of gendered power in our lives make no such distinction, and while theories of intersectionality are often invoked to defend such claims, the idea that these “axes” can be neatly separated relies on the exact additive conception of oppressive power relations that intersectionality was invented to disprove. In the critique where she coined the term, Kimberlé Crenshaw argues that Black women are frequently excluded from antidiscrimination case law, feminist theory, and anti-racist politics precisely because their experiences cannot be reduced to the sum of racism and sexism. She references the case of DeGraffenreid v. General Motors, in which five Black women plaintiffs were denied consideration of their Title VII claims because the discrimination they experienced was particular to Black women rather than all Black people or women of all races. Because each form of discrimination was treated as a “discrete set of experiences” in this case rather than part of a multidimensional whole, “the boundaries of sex and race discrimination doctrine [were] defined respectively by white women’s and Black men’s experiences.” In reality, however, Black women relate to power differently from either group, and their experiences cannot be understood by combining the experiences of oppression each have. Similarly, trans men’s relationship to gender cannot be understood by adding the privilege of maleness to the oppression of transness; the interaction between these axes substantively transforms both such that it generates an experience qualitatively different from either alone.

He even discusses black trans men&mascs experience with gendered racism & how exorsexism play a part in this. Read this article.

(Although it is fun how he talks about Tumblr in the past tense, like its a ghosttown. My friend we are still doing "do trans men experience misogyny" discourse here lmao)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Emily Singer at Daily Kos:

The men once known as the Central Park Five—five men who were wrongfully convicted of rape and assault over 30 years ago—filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump on Monday in federal court, alleging the former president acted with “reckless disregard” for the truth when he attacked them during the presidential debate in September. At the debate, Vice President Kamala Harris attacked Trump for his history of racism, bringing up the fact that he refused to apologize for calling for the death penalty for the men—Antron Brown, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, Korey Wise and Yusef Salaam—even after they were exonerated in the 1989 rape and assault of a jogger in Central Park. The five men, now known as the Exonerated Five, had their convictions vacated in 2002, after another man confessed to the crime and DNA evidence confirmed it. 

Trump responded to Harris’ comments about the Exonerated Five at the debate by defending himself for taking out full-page ads in New York City newspapers that called for the men to receive the death penalty. “They admitted, they said they pled guilty and I said, ‘Well, if they pled guilty, they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately ... And they pled guilty, then they pled not guilty,” Trump said at the debate. But none of the five men ever pleaded guilty to the raping and beating of the female jogger. And none of the men were ever convicted of murder, as the victim in the Central Park jogging case did not die. “Defendant Trump’s statements were false and defamatory in numerous respects," attorneys for the five men wrote in the lawsuit. “Plaintiffs never pled guilty to the Central Park assaults. Plaintiffs all pled not guilty and maintained their innocence throughout their trial and incarceration, as well as after they were released from prison.” “Defendant Trump falsely stated that Plaintiffs killed an individual and pled guilty to the crime,” the lawsuit added. “These statements are demonstrably false."

The Central Park Five members have sued Donald Trump for defamation after Trump refused to apologize for calling for the death penalty for the Central Park Five.

See Also:

The Guardian: Central Park Five members sue Trump for defamation after debate comments

[freakingholland]

"Law of attraction" – Asher Millstone x gn!reader

A/N: There aren’t enough HTGAWM fics here on tumblr so here I am with this little something for Asher! If you want to talk about the show or if you have ideas for some imagines feel free to slide into my asks 😊

Warnings: swearing, mentions of exam-related stress

Summary: The Keating 5 and reader are preparing for exams. Who would have thought that exam anxiety could give somebody enough courage to express their romantic feelings?

Set around season 3, post vacation but pre-jail era.

Word count: 1K +

If you enjoyed my work: Ko-fi.com/freakingholland

questions/requests/ideas here! - rules here

masterlist

my AO3 archive is here

-

September meant no more partying, but more preparations for the fall exams. You were stuck in the evening-lit library alongside Laurel, Asher, Michaela, and Connor. Wes did not take part in the study session since he was stolen by Annalise. They were preparing for a particular case with the help of Bonnie at Annalise’s place.

You could feel your eyelids becoming heavier and heavier. It was an nth hour of staring at your books, scrolling through documents and researching papers. The palms of your hands were stained with yellow and pink highlighters. You were sat between Laurel and Asher.

You glanced up from your notes to visually check on your friends, not wanting to disrupt them. Laurel’s eyes met yours and she smiled slightly. Tiredness was visible on her face as smudged mascara created a shadow underneath her eyes.

You looked to your right, heart skipping a beat as you caught sight of Asher, hunched over his notes, his posture sagged from exhaustion. The gentle blue light from his laptop’s screen reflected in his pretty brown eyes, giving them a shimmering hue that accentuated his warmth. His usually well-groomed hair was tousled and slightly disheveled.

His presence had a soothing effect on you, managing to lift your spirits even though he looked visibly tired. You couldn’t help but wish you could retreat to the comfort of your apartment with him. Yet, despite the butterflies in your stomach, you couldn’t muster the courage to admit your true feelings for Asher, leaving you trapped in longing for something more.

What if he doesn’t feel the same? What if saying something changes everything between you two? The thought of losing the closeness you have—of turning something so natural and easy into something complicated—keeps you quiet, even as your feelings for him grow stronger.

“So… I’m trying to remember this definition of Res Ipsa Loquitur and I keep messing it up. It’s so fucking long. Mind if I recite it to you and see if it sounds right?” Ash asked whispering, leaning into your ear.

“Go ahead.” you responded.

“Okay, here it goes: the thing speaks for itself, it refers to situations where the nature of an accident-- implies negligence due to the mere occurrence of the event.” he paused for a second.

“The doctrine—umm… allows a plaintiff to establish a presumption of negligence without direct evidence… provided the event is of a type that does not normally happen without negligence, and the instrumentality causing harm was under the-- defendant's control.”

You nodded with a grin.

“That sounds pretty solid.”

“Thanks.”

He exhaled heavily and leaned back in his chair crossing his muscular arms over his chest.

He shook his head no.

“Dude I’m so tired.” He murmured.

“I can tell. Me too. I could really use a nap.” You also leaned back in your chair.

“Mmm… a nap.” Asher reached out to grab his cup of now cold coffee. After taking a sip or two he turned back to you.

He laughed at his own thought.

“Remember that damned Civ Pro final?” He said.

“Oh yeah, you came out looking pale as fuck.”

“Seriously, I thought I was about to pass out right there in the exam room…”

“I’m starting to freak the fuck out if I’m being honest.” He exclaimed.

Michaela overheard the conversation and chuckled slightly.

“And what is that supposed to mean!”

“I told you to start reading that a week ago. But you guys were too busy with Annalise’s cases.”

“Aaaas alwaaays.” She added mockingly.

Ash only rolled his eyes in response to her remark.

“You’re not the only one who’s stressed out, but we got this.” You tried to reassure him.

He spaced out for a couple of seconds.

“You are right angel. We got this.”

He stood up abruptly and reached out to grab both your mugs.

“Anyone else wants some more coffee?”

You could feel your cheeks burning up. You eyed Ash up and down as he was making his way out of the room when your eyes met with Michaela’s. She gave you a wink and smiled.

*

The hours ticked by, and the evening grew darker.

The silence was suddenly interrupted when Oliver burst into the library, a cheerful grin spreading across his face as he carried a plastic container full of freshly baked cookies.

“There is absolutely nooooo way in hell that you made those!” Laurel said jumping up from her seat and walking towards Oli.

Oliver tilted his head pretending to be offended and smiled at her.

“It’s good to see you too! I did. You all look like you could use some glucose.”  he said with sympathy in his tone.

She quickly took one of the cookies and bit into it.

Everyone stopped in their tracks and locked their gazes on Laurel to see her reaction.

“Okaaay these are… not too bad actually.”

“Gimme one I got to try!”

Michaela reluctantly bit into a cookie. She started nodding after taking two more bites.

“Not too bad huh?”

“Okay alright… pretty good Oli. Good job hun.”

He walked towards her and embraced her in a hug, making sure not to spill the cookies.

*

As the study session wrapped up and everyone started packing their bags, Asher turned to you, his eyes a mix of exhaustion and excitement.

"You know," he began, his voice softer now.

"Once we get through these exams, I think we deserve a break." You looked up, curious, as Asher continued.

"How about we celebrate with dinner? Just the two of us?"

The sudden invitation made your tiredness fade slightly as you quickly considered the offer.

"Dinner sounds nice. "

Asher's grin widened, clearly pleased with your response.

"Great, it’s a date then” he said, his tone playful yet sincere.

The others exchanged quick glances but pretended not to hear, letting the moment pass without interruption. With that, you headed out of the library, finally chatting about other, less boring matters.

You delicately poked Ash’s side. He looked down at you and hummed.

“Sooo do we have a plan for the dinner or-?”

“Mmm… I was thinking of something low-key, maybe just some good food at my place and no textbooks in sight?”

“That would be perfect.”

-

A/N 2: Part 2 soon? Yes? No? :)

[beardedmrbean]

An expelled Yale University student who was acquitted of sex assault charges in 2018 is now suing 15 women's advocacy groups and an attorney for defamation after being called a “rapist” in a court brief that they filed in a 2022 proceeding.

Saifullah Khan, a 31-year-old Afghanistan native, said the organizations, which include the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence and the National Women's Law Center, repeated his accuser's allegations as fact, such as writing, “When Jane Doe was in college, the Plaintiff raped her” and referring to Khan as “her rapist."

While that language was amended, Khan says his reputation was harmed and that he has suffered “economic and non-economic damages." His lawsuit, which seeks financial damages, said the original draft brief “remains published, indefinitely" on the Connecticut Judicial Branch website and was also published online by the women's advocacy groups and for donors.

“We would like for them to understand that there is harm to someone when you just label them,” said Alex Taubes, Khan's attorney. “No one could complain about it if he had been found guilty. But he wants to see that when you actually are found not guilty, is there any vindication? Is there any way to stand up for yourself at that point?”

Although Khan was acquitted of four sexual assault charges by a jury in May 2018, he was expelled from Yale in November 2018 following a university investigation and sexual assault disciplinary proceeding. He sued both Yale and his accuser, and that case is pending in federal court.

As part of that case, the Connecticut State Supreme Court was asked to weigh in on the question of whether the accuser should be immune from a civil suit for comments made during the university proceeding. Various women's rights groups argued that such immunity is crucial to prevent rape victims from being discouraged to come forward.

The court, however, ruled 7-0 last year that because Khan had fewer rights to defend himself in the university proceeding than he would in criminal court, his accuser could not benefit fully from immunity granted to witnesses in criminal proceedings. As in many U.S. universities, Yale’s procedures do not subject accusers to cross-examination and do not require witnesses to testify under oath.

Messages seeking comment were left with National Alliance to End Sexual Violence and the National Women’s Law Center, as well as Jennifer Becker, the former legal director at the women’s advocacy group Legal Momentum who submitted the original application to file the amicus brief with Connecticut's highest court. In a response to an ethics complaint Khan filed against her, Becker wrote that when she drafted the brief “I wholly believed that my statements were fully supported by the record.”

Becker said she did “appreciate that the language drafted was overzealous and unnecessarily forceful.” But she noted in her statement how the brief was refiled, “shorn of all facts not supported by the record,” as ordered by the justices, and the court never admonished her for the language she used in the original one or made any finding that it was inappropriate.

“Additionally, any overzealousness on my part was ameliorated by the Court's order and there is no resulting harm to Mr. Kahn,” she wrote, noting the language he had complained about has been stripped.

Legal experts have said the Connecticut State Supreme Court's ruling last year could be a major precedent cited in other lawsuits by students accused of sexual misconduct in challenges to the fairness of their schools’ disciplinary proceedings.

[mariacallous]

In his face-off against Elon Musk, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner has already earned at least one important win.

A judge on Friday granted Krasner’s request to keep a civil lawsuit he filed against Musk and Musk’s pro-Trump America PAC in state court, rather than having it moved to federal court as the tech billionaire wished.

Musk, for his part, filed a motion seeking to quash any personal appearance he is ordered to make in court, saying that his attendance is unnecessary because the case is largely focused on actions of America PAC.

Earlier Friday morning, Musk had accused Krasner of engaging in a “rushed stage play” and a “spectacle” as he urged a federal judge to deny Krasner’s emergency request to keep the suit in state court.

Krasner sued the billionaire and his pro-Donald Trump America PAC over their pledge to give away $1 million daily to registered voters. Musk claims the giveaway is random, but Krasner alleges that Musk is intentionally targeting people in battleground states with an “illegal lottery scheme” meant to influence voters.

Musk has argued that Krasner must square off with America PAC attorneys in federal court because the lawsuit raises questions about a federal election and the federal laws that govern political action committees, not state matters.

Krasner is adamant that his lawsuit isn’t about whether Musk and America PAC are violating federal laws that ban vote-buying. Rather, the district attorney wants a state court, not a federal one, to determine whether the program violates Pennsylvania’s prohibitions against illegal lotteries.

Attorneys for Musk’s PAC filed a notice in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania federal court this week requesting to have the case remanded there. Explaining this maneuver in a brief filed Friday, a lawyer for the PAC wrote that the group’s expenditures are “political speech” and thus “entitled to First Amendment protections,” which is a federal jurisdictional issue.

But U.S. District Judge Gerald Pappert disagreed.

Musk and America PAC “have not identified any question of federal law that must be resolved in Plaintiff’s favor in order to prove either state-law claim,” Pappert’s memorandum states.

“Defendants argue the Complaint’s references to ‘the forthcoming Federal Presidential Election’ show the lawsuit necessarily raises questions of federal law,” Pappert wrote. “But federal question jurisdiction does not turn on a plaintiff’s motivations in filing suit; it turns on whether the legal issues arising from the claims originate in federal or state law.”

The ploy to have the lawsuit remanded to federal court may have been a boon for Musk anyway. The giveaway ends on Nov. 5, meaning that by the time the courts decide the next steps, the initiative will already be over.

The Justice Department warned Musk in a letter last month that he may run afoul of federal election laws against compensating voters, but Musk was undeterred.

Four giveaway winners are from Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state, according to a website for the program. So far, the PAC has given away a total of $14 million to voters who signed the petition that states they agree to support the First and Second Amendments. The website indicates that winners will be declared through Nov. 5. As of Friday, the site specified that those winners would be selected in Arizona and Wisconsin, which are also battleground states in the 2024 election.

Musk and Krasner were initially meant to face off in court on Friday, but the hearing was brought forward to Thursday. Krasner had asked to move the hearing to a more secure venue following a deluge of threats he said he received.

The DA accused Musk of amplifying inflammatory posts about him and the lawsuit on X, the social media platform Musk owns. In court records, Krasner showed Musk’s reposts from a user on X who claimed the DA knew his lawsuit wasn’t legal but “wants a leftist judge to stop it before Election Day.” Other users on the platform have threatened to come to Krasner’s house in masks and harass him.

Musk himself was a no-show at the hearing, sending his lawyers in his stead.

Attorneys for Krasner, Musk and America PAC did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for comment.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

* * * *

The resistance begins!

January 22, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

The resistance to Trump's depraved agenda began in earnest on Tuesday, January 21, even as he continued to issue lawless, dangerous, and reckless executive orders.

The immediate response by two dozen states and several organizations dedicated to the rule of law should give all of us an initial measure of confidence. The period of suspended animation is over and the time for action has begun.

States file lawsuits challenging Trump's effort to override the constitutional right to birthright citizenship.

Twenty-two states and several advocacy organizations filed several lawsuits challenging Trump's unconstitutional executive order that seeks to deny birthright citizenship to children of immigrants born in the US. See CNN, Birthright citizenship: 24 Democratic states and cities sue over Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship.

A lawsuit by eighteen states and the City of San Francisco is here: New Jersey et al. v. Trump.

The ACLU and the Lawyers for Civil Rights also filed lawsuits on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the birthright citizenship executive order.

Ian Millhiser explains why the president’s order is unconstitutional in Vox, The most unconstitutional thing Trump did yesterday involves birthright citizenship. Per Millhiser,

There isn’t even a plausible argument that this order is constitutional. The Constitution is absolutely clear that all people born in the United States and subject to its laws are citizens, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The Supreme Court recognized this principle more than 125 years ago. There are difficult questions in US constitutional law. The question of whether the federal government can deny citizenship to nearly anyone born in the United States is not one of them. The 14th Amendment provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Millhiser goes on to explain why the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not deny citizenship to children of immigrants regardless of their legal status in the US.

As explained by Millhiser, the only coherent argument to support Trump's executive order has been authored by now-disbarred and disgraced attorney John Eastman, whose argument would require the US Supreme Court to insert words into the 14th Amendment that are not contained in the Constitution’s text.

GOP members of Congress scramble to avoid answering questions about Trump's pardon of violent insurrectionists

Members of Congress spent the day scurrying through the hallways of the Capitol trying to avoid commenting on Trump's pardons to January 6 insurrectionists who attacked police officers. Cowards, all!

But, as Rachel Maddow noted on Tuesday evening, shame is a powerful political tool. GOP caucus members lack the spine to condemn Trump, but their survival instincts tell them to steer clear of Trump's reprehensible pardons. Republicans understand that the pardon of violent criminals is not a good look going into the 2026 midterms. See CNN, Republicans struggle to answer for Trump’s pardon of January 6 defendants just hours into his presidency.

And—sadly and predictably—some of the violent criminals pardoned by Trump will commit new crimes, proving the insanity of Trump's blanket pardon approach. Democrats must take a page from the Republican playbook to make those pardons and follow-on-crimes a central focus of the 2026 midterms.

Trump draws criticism from some legacy media publications for pardoning violent insurrectionists

The acid test for legacy media on Tuesday was whether they would condemn Trump's pardon of violent insurrectionists who attacked law enforcement officers. The New York Times passed that test, while Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post failed.

The Times editorial board published an editorial under the headline, Trump’s Opening Act of Contempt. (Accessible to all.) The Times wrote

Mr. Trump’s mass pardon effectively makes a mockery of a justice system that has labored for four years to charge nearly 1,600 people who tried to stop the Constitution in its tracks, a system that convicted 1,100 of them and sentenced more than 600 of them to prison. Most important, the mass pardon sends a message to the country and the world that violating the law in support of Mr. Trump and his movement will be rewarded, especially when considered alongside his previous pardons of his advisers. It loudly proclaims, from the nation’s highest office, that the rioters did nothing wrong, that violence is a perfectly legitimate form of political expression and that no price need be paid by those who seek to disrupt a sacred constitutional transfer of power.

After noting that President Biden issued pardons to protect people targeted by Trump for political prosecution, the Times continued

But what Mr. Trump did Monday is of an entirely different scope. He used a mass pardon at the beginning of his term to write a false chapter of American history, to try to erase a crime committed against the foundations of American democracy. To open his term with such an act of contempt toward the legal system is audacious, even for Mr. Trump, and should send an alarming signal to Democrats and Republicans alike

Jeff Bezos, on the other hand, apparently instructed his editorial board to resort to “both-siderism” to give Trump political cover. The Washington Post editorial board equated the Biden protective pardons for persons targeted by Trump for political persecution and the pardon of violent insurrectionists.

The Post’s editorial is entitled “Pardons from Biden and Trump flout the rule of law.” The Post’s editorial board claims that Biden “started the trouble” by issuing pardons in his final weeks as president. Because I have terminated my subscription to WaPo, you will need to find and read the editorial on your own. But the WaPo editorial board devotes as much newsprint to criticizing Biden over pardons to protect those targeted by Trump for political persecutions as it does criticizing Trump's pardon of violent insurrectionists.

The implosion of the Post is bound to become a case study for future journalism students about the cost of collaboration with fascist regimes.

More on Trump's executive orders.

Executive order purporting to extend the time period for TikTok to comply with the congressional ban.

I admit that I have not had time to read most of Trump's executive orders. They are available online at Whitehouse.gov. But I did read his executive order on TikTok because a reader suggested in the Comment section that Trump had a colorable basis under the statute to extend the time for compliance. Trump makes no such claim in the executive order.

The order is here: Application Of Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act To TikTok – The White House

Trump's only asserted legal justification for overriding a congressional statute is his claim that “I have the unique constitutional responsibility for the national security of the United States, the conduct of foreign policy, and other vital executive functions.”

Trump's statement that he has “unique constitutional responsibility” for national security is simply not true. And even if it were, such authority does not grant him the right to ignore congressional statutes.

Note that Trump does not cite any provision of the Constitution to support of his claim of “unique constitutional responsibility” over national security. No such grant of power to the president—exclusive or otherwise—exists in the Constitution. True, the president is Commander in Chief of the armed forces and has the power to appoint and receive ambassadors, but none of those powers invest him with “unique responsibility” over national security.

The Constitution does grant Congress the power to declare war and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” both of which are germane to national security. But most importantly, the Constitution grants Congress the authority to

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution . . . all other Powers vested by this Constitution in . . . any . . . Officer thereof.

Thus, the Constitution expressly grants Congress the power to make laws relating to the exercise of power by “any officer” under the Constitution—which includes the President.

Congress’s statute regarding the TikTok ban is thus rooted in the plain language of the Constitution, while Trump's claim that he has “unique responsibility” over national defense is an invention of result-oriented lawyers who couldn’t find a clause in the Constitution to support Trump's baseless assertion of power.

Trump styles his executive order as a command to the Attorney General to refuse to enforce the TikTok ban. As explained in Lawfare’s article by Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Trump's TikTok Executive Order and the Limits of Executive Non-Enforcement, directing the Attorney General to refuse to enforce a statute is a ruse that does not offer any meaningful protection to TikTok or its service providers.

But there is a more troubling aspect of this saga, as the author of the LawFare article notes. Several major tech companies (e.g., Oracle and Akamai) have relied on the transparently illegal ruse by Trump to begin offering TikTok to users hosted on their web servers. Rozenshtein writes,

[The fact that] sophisticated technology companies would take clearly illegal actions based on mere non-enforcement promises, bypassing established legal frameworks, suggests a dangerous willingness of our largest corporations to “obey in advance” with an administration whose disrespect for the rule of law is only going to get worse.

In sum, Trump has offered an extension of the TikTok ban without any authority to do so, and major US corporations are relying on that illegal executive order in the face of controlling statutory authority to the contrary.

Trump executive order implements expanded “Schedule F”—allowing massive terminations of federal workers.

As explained in Democracy Docket, Trump has signed an executive order that gives him the authority to override protections for thousands of federal employees previously protected by the civil service system. See Democracy Docket, Federal Workers Sue Trump Administration Over Schedule F Executive Order.

As noted in Democracy Docket, the Schedule F executive order requires employees to

faithfully implement administration policies to the best of their ability, consistent with their constitutional oath and the vesting of executive authority solely in the President.” The EO makes it clear that if any employee doesn’t do this, it’s “grounds for dismissal.”

Of course, those federal employees took an oath to support and defend the Constitution—not to support and defend Donald Trump. If, for example, an employee in the Department of Justice is told to refuse to enforce a binding law—say, for example, the TikTok ban—the employee’s oath would require the employee to ignore Trump's illegal executive order and enforce the TikTok ban. Trump would then fire the employee.

The lawsuit challenging the executive order addressing Schedule F is here: National Treasury Employee's Union v. Trump.

Executive Order allowing Trump to grant Security clearances to whomever he wants

Trump's transition team failed to initiate requests for security clearances in a timely manner. As a result, many acting officials do not have the security clearances they should have received in the normal course if Trump's team had complied with the rules.

Trump's solution is to declare that he can give six-month temporary security clearances to anyone he wants—without regard to background checks or approvals. See Newsweek, Donald Trump Orders Security Clearances to Be Given to Whomever He Wants.

For obvious reasons, circumventing the security clearance process poses grave national security risks to the US. (Remember that time, yesterday, when Trump asserted that he had a “unique constitutional responsibility” to protect national security? Circumventing security checks is a bad way to exercise the purported “unique responsibility.”)

If I had more time, I would have written about these developments

Trump Pardons Ross Ulbricht, Creator of Silk Road Drug Marketplace - The New York Times

Trump Says He Will Impose 10% Tariffs on Chinese Imports on Feb. 1 - The New York Times

Hegseth Ex-Sister-in-Law Tells Senators He Was ‘Abusive’ to Second Wife - The New York Times

Concluding Thoughts

At an interfaith prayer service at the National Cathedral, the Right Rev. Mariann Budde, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, D.C., took the opportunity to address President Trump and VP Vance, who were in attendance at the service. A video of Bishop Budde’s remarks is here: Episcopal bishop asks Trump 'to have mercy' on LGBTQ+ communities and immigrants.

In her remarks, Bishop Budde asked Trump to have mercy on members of the LGBTQ and immigrant communities who are fearful about the policies of the new administration. The video is short (less than three minutes). I urge you to watch it.

Bishop Budde’s calm, purposeful, passionate plea to Trump should serve as an example to each of us. Most of us will never have the opportunity to speak directly to Trump. But we will have the opportunity to speak to others who support his policies. Like Bishop Budde, speak plainly and from the heart. You may not change anyone’s view, but you will clarify your own thinking and commitment.

We’ve made it through the first full day of Trump's second term. Let’s keep putting one foot in front of the other as we look forward to the midterms. We will make it through this difficult period together.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[nomorefstogive]

Here is this idea imagine Furina as judge Judy.

Oh God that is a beautiful image lol.

This may not be what you have in mind, but I can see her being just so tired and done with everything after she has served her role as the Archon of Fontaine, but maybe Neuvilette winds up ill or forced on vacation, or such and she has to fill in for him, after all she helped write most of those laws.

Cue her filling the one role I imagine she hates about as much as being an actress, that being a judge, with everyone at first doubting that she will be even half as talented as their Iudex, only to be proven wrong time and again.

The problem is that for some reason, she is being forced to endure either the most convoluted trials imaginable, the most idiotic trials imaginable, or just the most annoying defendants/plaintiff's to the point of loosing her temper.

Arlecchino is treating the whole affair like a comedy, while her children are trying desperately not to join in the laughter as Furina begins to tear into someone who wished to sue their parents for not allowing them to stay in their home.

Clorinde is worrying that Furina is going to snap and start killing people herself, or have a massive mental breakdown due to the piling stress, with Navia sharing her concerns.

Wriothsely is busy laughing his ass off with each new page of transcripts he gets his hands on as he looks over what some poor fool did to piss her off enough to get sent to the Fortress.

The Traveler is just hoping to prevent any international incidents that could occur, while also trying to keep the peace in the Courtroom alongside of Clorinde and Navia, something that is made difficult when someone brings in a pair of horses and tries to point out the most minute differences in the brands to signify that one was made with a fake brand.

It is safe to say that Neuvilette's return will be a joyous one, complete with Furina running out of the Opera Epiclese screaming "I'M FREE!" at the peak of her lungs lol.

I hope you enjoyed this little tangent of an idea this image gave me, stay safe and take care.

[mspaesthetic]

speaking of flagrant disregard of stock image licenses, how close does homestuck skirt the boundaries of copyright law? was hussie really allowed to just go to google images, take some random image, and control C control V it into a panel?

I'm no counsel, so anything I say should not be taken as factual or legal advice, but from what I understand about U.S. copyright law, determining what constitutes as fair use is done on a case-by-case basis using four major factors:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2) the nature of the copyrighted work; 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Ultimately, it's up to the court to interpret and weigh these factors in their analysis of the new work, so while one case may be declared as fair use, a similar case could be found as infringement. To break down what each of these mean exactly, let's apply them to an example from the comic.

In the hypothetical case of Ornate Victorian Decorative Floral Pattern Artist v. Hussie, 612 U.S. 413 (2011), the plaintiff claimed the defendant infringed upon their work's copyright when the defendant incorporated an unpermitted use of said work into the defendant's own work, Homestuck, an on-line web comic.

The purpose and character was transformative, using the pattern as part of a backdrop in the story, and the more transformational the use is, the less importance is stressed on the other three factors. However, while the comic is made freely available to read on the Internet, Hussie profits off of the comic's ad revenue and sales of related merchandise, such as physical printed books of the comic, making it a technically commercial nature. This doesn't necessarily rule out the use as fair, but it weighs against it somewhat.

The nature of the copyrighted work, the original decorative pattern, has to be determined whether it actually falls under copyright or not. At present, it's impossible to ascertain if the pattern duly belongs to the author, or if it's merely a reproduction of a preexisting Victorian decoration. The concept of an ornamental Victorian era floral style isn't protected by copyright, but a particular rendition of one could be unless it has fallen under the public domain.

The third factor would seem to be counterproductive in defending against the claim, as Hussie markedly used the entire image to produce the repeating pattern, which is where it derives its entire value, at several points throughout the story, but this fact does not bar it to be found as fair use. It just makes it less likely. If the court found it to be sufficiently transformative enough, then this factor would not even weigh in as much.

Hussie's appropriation of the image definitely resulted in the loss of a license sale for the plaintiff (which could have prevented this mutually costly legal battle for both parties in the first place, but that's irrelevant), but the manner of how he used it definitely doesn't act as a substitute for the stock image. Any reasonable person looking to use a stock image of a pattern would likely prefer a higher quality, unmodified, and unwatermarked copy of the original, opting to purchase a license for it that guarantees some clearly defined legal rights. Regardless, the fact that it's licensed could weigh against Hussie's use.

If I was a powdered wig-wearing judge presiding at the trial, I would throw the book at Hussie and his lily white ass in the slammer. Whether this is how it would actually go down in court, I do not know. I'm also not sure of the more dubious inclusions of other copyrighted materials, like the countless movie posters plastering the walls of the characters, or straight up Iron Man and Johnny 5.

I guess the latter's case could fall under parody, since Hussie is at least stating that Johnny 5's sentience is fucking stupid. I still think he doesn't have much solid ground to stand on for everything else, though.

Then there's also the sticky issue of using celebrities' likenesses, as well as the photographer's copyright to those images.

Then you've got using trademarked brands.

In summary, Homestuck in particular is one big potentially misappropriated licensing powder keg waiting to explode (not really).

Oh, before I close out of this topic, there's actually one little curiosity I'd like to cover. On the MS Paint Adventures Wiki, two panels were uploaded on the very same day they were posted in an update that was soon after revised significantly:

It's clear that the changed panels are highly more transformative, the paintings having been flipped horizontally and drawn over. It strikes me as odd that out of all the times Hussie could have been cautious of copyright, the harlequin paintings was where he drew the line. It might not even have been a concern over copyright but a personal matter of aesthetics. If that was the case, it'd be weird to go to such extreme measures for an inconsequential thing. Unless someone can grab a hold of the big man himself and ask, I guess we'll never know the real reason why.

EDIT: I asked an old friend of mine, phantos, who's a veteran member of the MSPA Forums and former acquaintance of Hussie's if they knew anything about this, and they vaguely recall something about an artist not wanting their work to be used in this instance. They also went on to mention that after the incident "it wasn't until he stole the furry porn for Equius' room that [Hussie] even bothered to look for art for 'whimsical room decorations'", which I don't think is quite true since I can think of at least one instance where he did (the witch furry poster in Jade's bedroom), but I felt it was worth noting down.