#criminal lawyer regina

[saskatooncriminaldefenselawyer]

Looking for an Experienced Criminal Lawyer in Saskatoon?

When facing criminal charges, finding the right representation is essential. At Criminal Lawyer in Saskatoon, our team offers expert felony advice and defense techniques tailored to your precise case. With years of revel in in Saskatoon’s prison system, we're dedicated to defending your rights and reaching first-class viable final results.

Call us: 3065025987

[chiefdirector]

Bargaining | Tim Bradford | The Rookie

Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four | Part Five | Part Six | Part Seven | Part Eight

Sargent Grey watched Regina intently through the two-way mirror. She sat as poised and composed as she ever had, knowing that she was in a position of power over the LAPD. For a moment, the possibilities of her grasp and influence over the tragic chapter in Tim and (Y/N)’s life sent a chill down his spine. He had dealt with criminals like her before, who believed they were in control of the situation at every angle, but he also knew from Rosalind Dyer that their own perceived infallibleness could lead to their own downfall. 

In many ways, Regina reminded Grey of Rosalind. The way the conducted themselves was an obvious similarity, but there was a glint that Regina held in her eye when speaking of her wrongdoings, especially the ones inflicted on his officers, that Rosalind held when they escorted her to the burial sites of her victims. She found this amusing; she enjoyed the toying and the torture of her actions but Grey was determind to break it out of her, he would break her down to dust if that’s what it took.

He had to take a step out of the interrogation room after Regina asked for her lawyer, she was trying to play him and he knew he was letting his rage guide him into her traps. So he watched from the viewing room, Nyla and Jackson beside him as Angela took over the questioning. 

“Ms. Diaz,” Angela said as she walked into the room, she immediately sat down and kept her gaze on the drug lord, choosing to not acknowledge her legal counsel. “You said to Sargent Grey that you had information pertaining to our-”

Regina raised her hand slightly from where it was still cuffed to the table. “I implied.” 

“Okay you implied that you had information pertaining to an ongoing case.” Angela opened a file before turning it to face the woman. “But you did say, and I quote ‘...their case worker didn’t know where they were all day?’ which was classified information. So would you like to elaborate how you know that before I charge you with stealing and weaponizing confidential police records?”

“Hey, hey now.” The lawyer, who now grabbed Angela’s attention, said. He did not look like the type of legal help someone of Regina’s notoriety or funds would hire. He sat in a too big blazer, held together by quick-fix hand stitches and mis-matching buttons. His greying hair matched the weary look he carried. “You don't need to answer it.”

“I know, but I want to,” She smirked, leaning forward in her chair slightly. “I want to make a deal. I know I'm going away for life, and then some, but I want privileges. You know, extra yard time, early access to the commissary. Quality of life, I’m sure you’re aware of what I mean, Detective Lopez?”

“Something can be arranged, if your information holds up that is. So if you will…”

“One more thing.”

Angela had to stop herself from getting irate, she didn't want to lose the semblance of control she currently had. “What?”

“I want to tell Officer Tim Bradford. I’d like to meet him properly. I’ve only seen him through images you see, and the time I shot his wife, of course. How is she by the way?”

Lopez didn’t respond, instead she gathered the files and turned to storm out of the room. She couldn’t handle anymore of her games, and she would be damned if she let Regina Diaz know that she got under her skin. She already had taken her best friend away from her for two years, Angela refused to give her any more satisfaction than that.

-----

“Absolutely not.” Grey slammed it fist down on the table in front of him. He had heard Regina’s request, but he never thought that any of his officers would want to humour the woman. “We are not giving her what she wants. If she wants her deal, she will do it on our terms.”

Nyla stepped forwards, hands raised slightly in surrendering to show she meant no animosity. “I don’t think we have a choice, we have all gone over her files and her records numerous times, does any part of it seem like she ever gives in. Or that she has anything to lose, like she said, she’s almost guaranteed life in prison, if not the death penalty. If we don’t play her game, we may never know what happened.”

Grey looked like he was going to reject Nyla’s statement, but Jackson stepped to speak before he could start. “Harper’s right. I spoke with Detective Bradford this morning, to get her statement. She knows as much as Williamson did. Their version of events line up, the only two people who know the rest is Diaz, and the case worker.”

“That's the thing though,” Angela flipped through the files she had brought to the interrogation, looking for something. “The case worker for this assignment has been redacted. I took the name that Jackson got from (Y/N) earlier and ran him through the system. He doesn’t exist.”

Grey pinched the bridge of his nose and sighed. “So we’re hunting a ghost, and the only way we even get a lead is to make a deal with the Devil.” 

-----

Lopez moved through the familiar walls of the hospital as she made her way towards (Y/N)’s room. She had been here many times during her career within the police department so the lurch of uncertainness growing in the pit of her stomach unnerved her. She was normally so comfortable here, it was like being anywhere else, but this time was different, she was going to see her best friend properly for the first time in two years.

Despite (Y/N) being here for a few days now, Angela still hadn’t visited. At first she said it was because she was so busy getting all of the paperwork and the crime scene logged and cleared of all evidence, and then she was helping the others piece together Regina’s confessions. Grey could see through her excuses, he could tell that she was scared to find someone who looked like her best friend but had changed completely. The two of them had been rookies together, and even though (Y/N) got promoted to detective rather quickly and Angela to Training Officer their friendship never swayed or lessened. The reality that all of this years together could be gone scared Angela, but she had to face it head on; she knew that, and Grey knew that, so he bit the bullet and ordered her to go see (Y/N).

She stopped outside the door and took a breath. Angela didn’t bother knocking, she never had before and she didn't see the reason to start now. Instead, she creaked open the door and leaned against the frame. “Hey.”

“Ange. What are you doing here?” (Y/N) said, smiling up to her friend from where she sat with her legs crossed on the bed. She looked a lot better than Anegla had expected, the last time she had seen her was when she was holding pressure on her gunshot wound as (Y/N) started to bleed out in front of her. In all honesty, Angela didn’t know what to expect, but seeing (Y/N) as her usually chipper self isn't something she would have bet on. “Here, come sit. Tim will be back in a moment with coffee, if you text him I'm sure he will bring you one.”

“I came to see you… and I’m good… thank you though.”

“What’s up? Is everything okay?”

And that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. At (Y/N)’s question, Angela pushed herself forward to envelope (Y/N) in her grasp, pulling back only slightly when she heard (Y/N)’s little gasp of pain. As she hugged her best friend, tears started to fall down Angela’s face and into (Y/N)’s shoulder. “I never thought I’d see you again.”

“I know.” (Y/N) pulled back to allow Angela to collect herself. Once the sobs died down into trickling tears, she continued. “I also didn’t think I’d be seeing anyone again.”

“What?” Angela sniffled, wiping away the tears with her sleeve. 

“She, Regina, had photos. She threatened to hurt and kill you all if I didn’t disappear.”

“We thought the images were just of Tim.”

“No.” (Y/N) shook her head. “They had pictures of Tim, you, Grey as well as others in the station. There were hundreds. It wasn’t only my life at stake, all of you were. So I made the obvious call, me for all of you.”

“Don’t say that.” Said a voice from the doorway, Tim. He stood there, mouth almost open in shock at what he heard (Y/N) say. “There is not a situation where your life is worth trading, (Y/N). You’re too valuable to us, to me.”

(Y/N) looked down at her lap as Tim made his way fully into the room. He wasn’t surprised at Angela’s presence, he knew that she would have shown up sooner or later. He sat in the chair opposite the bed and looked up at the girls. “Has Regina said anything?”

“Not exactly…”

“What does that mean?”

“She said that she would talk, but only to you Tim.”

Part Eight | Part Ten

Series Masterlist | Masterlist

Tags: @xceafh @kmc1989 @buba424 @salty0cracker

Tags are open :)

[erikahenningsen]

regina as a lawyer is something i didn't know i needed. also, give us headcanons, pls! (with prof cady)

Regina is a criminal defense attorney with a private firm. She did start as a public defender but she got poached pretty quickly.

People always underestimate Regina based on her looks and then she just. eviscerates them. Her insults are legendary. People fear her.

Regina has an entire closet just for suits. Suits in every color. Suits in a variety of patterns. And racks and racks of heels. During a trial she never wears the same suit twice.

Regina always wears red lipstick during closing arguments

Regina practices opening/closing arguments with Cady and Cady doesn't really ever have any useful feedback but she finds it very hot

Regina has a TikTok where she gives legal advice/reacts to things in the news

Cady is a math professor and she has a photo of her and Regina in her office and a student sees it and connects the dots that that's the hot lawyer from TikTok and it spreads like wildfire around the school

I'm not saying Cady and Regina do courtroom roleplay in the bedroom a lot but I'm not saying it never happens

Regina's coworkers take bets on how many times she'll object over the course of a trial

Cady's favorite nights are the ones where she's grading papers and Regina is prepping for a hearing in their living room in their pajamas with some candles lit and mugs of tea although there is the risk of Regina suddenly going "HA" when she finds exculpatory evidence and scaring the shit out of Cady

Sometimes if she has a light day Cady will bring coffee to Regina at the office and Regina's coworkers are fascinated by how like. normal and chill Cady is because they know Regina as this incredibly intense and aggressive and successful litigator and then Cady shows up in a flannel and is like yeah I teach math (and Regina is so uncharacteristically soft with her)

Edit: (I just thought of it) Regina listens to 5-4

[screamingaboutaceattorney]

which culprits were executed?

disclaimer i know nothing about actual law and did no research for this post which i feel fits the spirit of the franchise so i will not apologize for it. also i did not include perjury charges because no one has ever been charged for that in these fucking games

ideas under the cut because spoilers or whatever and also there's so many of these bitches oh my fucking god

frank sahwit: no, i don't think so. he killed one person in a panic, and aside from that he was just a petty burglar. probably a decade or two in jail, but he's getting out eventually (plus, we did see him in the imprisoned turnabout, and he seemed to be doing just fine)

redd white: unfortunately, no. blackmailing most of la and killing mia is probably not an executionable offense :( i'd imagine life in prison, if not 50 years or so. depends on his lawyer, honestly

dee vasquez: i'd say no. yes, she blackmailed people and had mafia connections, but she killed hammer in self defense. a good few decades behind bars, and then she'll be back to producing movies with the same dramatics as always (someone is probably going to keep a closer eye on that, though)

yanni yogi: prooooobably not? he killed hammond, yeah, but was at least slightly coerced into it, and based on his confession in turnabout goodbyes, probably plead guilty this time! fairly certain he'll just get a life sentence

manfred von karma: hell yes. he killed a man in cold blood over what most people would consider an inconvenience, covered it up for fifteen years, assaulted maya and phoenix (which they probably pressed charges for), and probably forged evidence (he definitely got jeff master's confession under duress, at least, even if it was orchestrated by blaise). even beyond all that, though, we know he's dead by bridge to the turnabout (maybe earlier, i don't remember off the top of my head)

damon gant: yuuuup. he killed two people, forged loooooots of evidence, blackmailed the chief prosecutor, and did so all as the chief of police (except the first murder, i guess). he's gonna hang for that

richard wellington: nah. similar to sahwit, he was a petty criminal who killed someone in a panic to keep his other crimes a secret. he'll be out of prison in like 25 years

mimi miney: this one's tough, but i think no. did she kill thirteen people? yes, she did. however, the first twelve were because she was overworked and exhausted and made a mistake, while the last one was something she did out of desperation to keep her secret from getting out. she's probably got a good 20-30 years behind bars, but she'll get out eventually

acro: nope, nope, no way is he being executed. he intended to kill regina, sure, but definitely not russell. i'd imagine the rest of the circus vouched for him at his trial, too. on top of that, he's already disabled. probably got a solid 20 or so years in prison, but that's it

matt engarde: shockingly (maybe), no! he's an all-around godawful person, but kidnapping a girl and hiring an assassin (and then blackmailing said assassin) probably doesn't warrant the death penalty. i imagine he would've asked for life in prison, too, given the... situation he was in regarding de killer

dahlia hawthorne: canonically executed, which is a big plot point. don't think i need to elaborate here

luke atmey: no? he killed bullard because he was being blackmailed, blackmailed ron delite because he was being blackmailed, and then was also a phantom thief. don't think he's gonna die for any of that

furio tigre: i'm gonna say no. he killed glen elg, was a loan shark, had ties with the mob, and assaulted phoenix, but i imagine that just got him a hefty prison sentence

godot: absolutely not. he's canonically disabled and only killed misty to protect maya. if anyone's getting out of this with just a fine, it's him

kristoph gavin: empathetically yes. forging evidence, killing two people, attempting to kill a third... he's getting the noose, no questions asked

alita tiala: don't think so. she killed meraktis, but he did try to kill her first. also had ties to the mob, but the kitakis openly hate her now, so i don't think that matters as much. three decades in prison, tops

daryan crescend: HARD maybe. he killed letouse, blackmailed machi, and smuggled the cocoons, but he's also a celebrity and a police officer and was being kinda blackmailed about the cocoons. depends on his lawyer and how hard interpol pushes for his execution. i could see it going either way

ted tonate: no, but he probably is getting a life sentence for killing arme, assaulting apollo, and setting off a bomb in an occupied courtroom while a trial was in session

florent l'belle: i don't think so, no. he can only be charged with killing kyubi since perjury isn't a thing in ace attorney, so he's probably got 50 years to a life sentence, since he did kill the mayor of a village and also caused environmental damage with all the fucking perfume (he did get sued for that one, though).

aristotle means: gonna say no here. just because he accepted bribes and instilled his students with shit values doesn't mean any of that is necessarily a crime (the bribes thing might be but hell if i'm gonna check), so it's really just killing one person that he's being charged with. his sentence might be longer depending on klavier, though, since he was expressly close with constance courte and is well respected in the legal system (as well as an actual fucking celebrity)

the phantom: if simon blackquill was gonna hang for killing metis and stealing a psychological profile while pleading guilty, there's no fucking way this guy's escaping the noose

marlon rimes: canonically, no! that death was a full-on accident, and phoenix argued for him to receive help instead of conviction. he'll be fine

pees'lubn andistan'dhin: given that they were going to execute a nine-year-old for this crime, yeah he's gonna die

roger retinz: don't think so, no. troupe gramarye was fucked up, and he continued the trend, but i don't think he'll die for it. depends on who prosecutes his trial though, since he framed trucy for it and she is the little darling of the legal system (who is not very involved in the legal system)

geiru toneido: probably not. she killed taifu on purpose, sure, but over a misunderstanding. i'd imagine she'll be fine and out of jail in a few decades

paul atishon: god i wish, but no. being a politician an asshole isn't a crime, and i don't think archie buff's death is something he'll get the death penalty for

ga'ran sigatar khura'in: i have NO IDEA if she'll be executed or not. she's responsible for countless deaths (and lots of treason), yes, but she IS still royalty. i'd like to say yes, but that's not something i'm super confident in

pierce nichody: probably not, given that gloomsbury's death was an accident and he didn't succeed with killing ellen. depends on if the sprockets press charges, given that they're pretty rich and influential

jacques portsman: don't think so. i'm fairly certain that faith's murder and his involvement in the smuggling ring don't add up to the death penalty

cammy meele: nahhh. she's involved with the smuggling ring again, but she killed hicks in a panic. she'll probably be fine

lance amano/ernest amano: you have no idea how desperately i wish i could say these fuckers got the noose, but i unfortunately can't. organized crime + a fake kidnapping + involvement in the smuggling ring + a few deaths =/= execution

calisto yew: yeah i'd say so. she killed at least two people, was involved in the smuggling ring, was a member of a vigilante group, and attempted to shoot kay. lang and edgeworth are getting her in the noose if it kills them

quercus alba: yuuup. part of the smuggling ring, killed people, abused his diplomatic immunity, had a cross examination that lasted too long... he's gonna hang for that last offense alone /j

horace knightley: i would not think so, but i could be wrong! i think the biggest thing in regards to his execution would be if "di-jun huang" pushed for it, but roland killed him so it's a moot point anyways

patricia roland: yeah. everyone involved in the ss-5 plot is gonna hang, no questions asked

dane gustavia: i'm going to tentatively say yes? given that he caused the is-7 incident, which led to the dl-6 incident, which led to... many things, plus the fact that he fled the country for a while, he's probably gonna hang for that. could be wrong, though!

blaise debeste: dear god yes. not only did he kill jill crane, he was involved in ss-5, forged a shitload of evidence, has made many people "disappear" (they're probably all dead), and not to mention sebastian :( he's gonna hang and i'm gonna enjoy it

simon keyes: probably not? given that he's only directly responsible for one death and was a victim of circumstances, i imagine he'll get a life sentence, but nothing more

[piece-of-the-pie-if]

So, what exactly is the scope of Kinsley's influence over the school and the town? Because while I definitely don't advocate violence (well, duh), I will be very shocked if no one, you know, punched her since she likes (or used to like) being mean so much, in a "talk shit, get hit" kinda way. No way she didn't test some people's patience with her shenanigans that they willingly decided to face whatever the consequences that might come if they get to put some fear of God in her.

That's not to say I want there to be an option to beat her up, although I think a catfight would be fun because what high school drama doesn't have them (albeit I mostly saw the verbal catfights in my school years, but I know the girls in question always wanted to beat each other up so bad).

Plus the fun of said catfight being misrepresented in the rumor mill as being over Dylan instead of MC having had enough of Kinsley's bullshit.

Although I guess that would be problematic based on what gender you choose your MC to be: most wouldn't take lightly to a boy beating up a girl, after all.

Uh, basically, I'm just trying to ask if Kinsley ever met the consequences of her actions in the past or most people were too scared to do so for a variety of reasons.

So Kinsley's parents are all very influential people. Her mother's both come from quite wealthy families and are both lawyers in their respective fields. (Emilia Grace was a criminal defense lawyer and Lavender Cameron is corporate/business lawyer) Kinsley's father (Jared Montgomery), though he is only in her life sparsely as he is only a sperm donor, is part of New York's municipal government.

In all honesty, Kinsley is a bit of a nepotism baby──most of her popularity comes from her last name because Grace-Cameron is a private law firm that deals with very high class clients, and her connection to New York's governing people. (Fun fact, J's mother is the Mayor of New York in this story and Jared Montgomery is J's uncle)

Most people are scared of getting in trouble with the Grace-Cameron's more than Kinsley herself... so she gets away with a lot.

My main inspirations for KGC is Regina George (mean girls) Caroline Forbes (the vampire diaries) and Dylan Schoenfield (geek charming) so take from that what you will!

I might play around with the option of giving f!MCs the chance to... get into it with her if they continue to have a bad relationship.

Kinsley's not afraid to get scrappy... she just doesn't do it where others can see her do it🤭

[onisiondrama]

"Sarah Could See Jail for Perjury (Onision Vindicated)" November 18, 2023, Onision

Video Description:

Onision was framed by Sarah for horrible acts she herself admitted never happened. Sarah confessed to blackmailing Onision involving a contract that demanded parties not lie about each other after Sarah had indicated she could destroy Onision’s life if she wanted to (with said lies). Sarah sexually extorted/raped Onision and his spouse after she insisted she would only sign the contract (effectively not destroying their lives with lies if she respected the contract) if they slept with her (got what she wanted, do stuff, as she put it). Sexual extortion is the act of using threats to reputation in exchange for sex acts. Rape is using force or threats of destruction of reputation in exchange for sex as well. Sarah is a rapist, made painfully clear through her own confessions. She later tried to extort Onision again for hundreds of thousands of dollars, she wanted to be paid in exchange for her agreeing to stop harassing Onision, but Onision knew she was a liar, and did not respect contracts, he also could not pay her and would not pay her because she was a rapist/criminal who was dumped for being a criminal. Sarah initially made it very clear to everyone that Onision and his spouse had done nothing to her (even told police that as well, months after the last time she saw them). Stating over and over that as a minor, when she was around them, they never did anything to her. Again, she said this repeatedly, via text, via live stream, her own published video & to police - still having not seen them since they kicked Sarah out of their life, years after, Sarah changed her story completely when introduced to the possibility of making hundreds of thousands of dollars by lying about the people who repeatedly rejected her. Sarah even admitted that she was dumped for blackmailing Onision, her lawyers did not care about the facts, the proceeded to knowingly represent a total fraud regardless, which is a serious violation to which they could lose their ability to be lawyers over. Sarah additionally admits she begged for forgiveness for what she did to Onision (for raping him, she literally confessed that she begged for forgiveness). Then there is Regina, who admitted she never met Onision or his spouse, and admitted she had little to no contact with Onision. She admitted when she said she was homeless, that Onision’s spouse still refused to fly her up. This is a person who is, like Sarah, lying on legal documents in the hopes that Google/YouTube will settle and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars - complete scammers/con artists. The facts combined, (1) no one did anything sexual to anyone who was not an adult, as Sarah made painfully clear through all her confessions (2) even after Sarah became an adult, she was again, rejected - went on an entire rant and ended her friendship for a short while because Onision/his spouse would not sleep with her (3) no one ever met Regina, no one wanted to fly Regina up or meet her and Onision had “little to no” contact with Regina entirely - per her own admission. (4) Sarah confessed to blackmailing/sexually extorting Onision after she was rejected by them as an adult (5) the legal complaint they filed ignores all the critical facts while making baseless, debunked and disgusting false claims. Their legal complaint results in countless charges of perjury that both her lawyers and Sarah were aware was perjury (as her lawyers made it clear they had access to the information and interviews where Sarah confessed she was never a victim, and that no one committed a crime against her). These crimes (acts of perjury against Onision/his spouse, as well as against YouTube & Google) are within the statute of limitations. The crime of perjury occurred in 2023 by Sarah. If the legal system is justice, and we believe in taking real #MeToo victims seriously (if we don’t want to allow real victims to be discredited) and example needs to be made of Regina, Sarah, and their lawyers via the legal system.

I'll watch his latest videos one of these days and post anything new that I find.

[mariacallous]

International law prohibits participants in armed conflicts from taking civilians captive. Nonetheless, abducting civilians and holding them prisoner has become one of the hallmarks of Russia’s war against Ukraine, according to human rights workers. In occupied territories, Russian forces often imprison people who have no links to the Ukrainian military at all. Some of the victims are charged with official crimes, while others are told they’re being held captive for “resisting the special military operation,” despite the fact that no such offense exists in Russia’s Criminal Code. The independent outlet Verstka Media carefully examined Russia’s practice of imprisoning civilians, both in the current war and during past conflicts. In English, Meduza is publishing an abridged version of their report.

‘They took males who could hold weapons’

Nineteen-year-old law student Nikita Shkryabin was taken captive in his home village near Kharkiv on March 29, 2022. According to his mother, Tatyana Shkryabina, Nikita left the house one day and never returned. The family’s neighbors later told Tatyana that they saw Russian soldiers put him in a vehicle and drive off.

“As far as I know, they were arresting males who could hold weapons and taking them to Russia,” said Leonid Solovyov, Nikita’s lawyer in Russia. “Since then, [Nikita’s family] hasn’t had any contact with him. No legal case against him has been opened. They’re holding him on the grounds that he ‘opposed the special military operation,’ but they haven’t pressed any charges.”

According to Tatyana Shkryabina, her son has no combat or military experience. “What kind of resistance could he put up if he didn’t have any military equipment? My son is a civilian and doesn’t have ties to any [military] formation. He’s still enrolled in the [law] institute.”

Tatyana says the last update she received about her son’s condition came from Russian Human Rights Commissioner Tatyana Moskalkova in May 2022. A letter from Moskalkova said that Nikita was located on Russian territory and that his condition was “satisfactory.”

Solovyov’s requests to visit his client have been denied. In a written response, the Russian Defense Ministry said that ��necessary investigation procedures regarding N. Shkryabin are currently ongoing, and requests for personal visits cannot be considered until they are completed.” Nikita’s exact location is unknown.

‘A form of torture’

International law prohibits the imprisonment of civilians who aren’t involved in military service at the time of their capture. But human rights advocates say the capture of civilians has been a defining aspect of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Lawyer Oleksandra Matviichuk, the head of the Ukrainian Center for Civil Liberties and a 2022 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, told Verstka Media that, in the year after February 24, her organization received requests from 915 people whose civilian relatives have been taken captive by Russian forces. Ukrainian lawyers have been working together with colleagues inside Russia to locate the prisoners and help relatives contact the Russian authorities.

“Among the detainees, there have been 118 women and 797 men,” said Matviichuk. “Out of those, 306 people have been released, while 594 remain in captivity. In terms of the regional breakdown, we’ve received requests from the Dnipropetrovsk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kyiv, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, Odessa, Sumy, Kharkiv, Kherson, and Chernihiv regions, as well as from Crimea.”

Russian human rights lawyer Roman Kiselyov told Verstka Media that he and his colleagues are currently working on roughly 70 cases of Ukrainian civilians taken captive by Russia.

“On Russian territory, we’re able to send a lawyer physically to the site and get in touch with the authorities promptly,” said Kiselyov. “On all Ukrainian territory, we’re unable to work physically on the ground, which is a fundamental issue for us. We only work there with Ukraine’s permission. We don’t currently have that permission, so all of our advocacy work there consists of correspondence with the current authorities.”

According to Kiselyov, Russian forces have shown a willingness to take captive anybody they suspect of having ties to the Ukrainian military or even a sense of loyalty to the Ukrainian authorities. The military typically holds its civilian captives in prisons or pretrial detention centers.

Even if the Russian Defense Ministry views civilians as military personnel, the Third Geneva Convention, which outlines the rights of POWs, still makes it illegal to hold these prisoners in penitentiaries.

“They’re supposed to be given the right to correspond [with people on the outside] and to receive packages. [The administrators] of the detainment sites are supposed to notify the people’s home countries [of their location],” said Kiselyov. “In addition, prisoners are supposed to receive rations and to have a fairly high level of autonomy from the institution’s administration. They shouldn’t be made to wear prison uniforms. But in reality, as our surveys indicate, they’re being held in conditions far worse than those of regular prisoners. They’re not being allowed anything. We consider this treatment to be a form of torture.”

“Separately, I should mention the cruelty and torture to which [captive] civilians are subjected,” said Oleksandra Matviichuk.

Unfortunately, this [cruel treatment] is a widespread practice. I remember one case from our database. A civilian who was taken captive during the first stage of the offensive in February–March had his blood forcibly taken so that it could be transfused to Russian soldiers. There was a doctor present. The man later told our lawyer that they continued taking his blood until he started to lose consciousness. Only then did the doctor stop the process.

Types of prisoners

To get a better understanding of Russia’s systematic imprisonment of Ukrainian civilians, human rights lawyers have divided the prisoners into several categories:

1. Civilians taken captive for ‘resisting the special military operation’

The first category includes civilians who have never served in the army or had any ties to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The Russian authorities accuse these people of “opposing the special military operation” and essentially equate them with soldiers.

“This is a kind of new status that, on the one hand, doesn’t exist in [Russian] law, but, on the other hand, is constantly mentioned in Defense Ministry documents related to these cases,” said Roman Kiselyov. “It’s important to note that this is the same status given to Ukrainian soldiers; they’re also recorded as ‘detained for opposing the special military operation.’”

Some Ukrainians, such as Nikita Shkryabin, have been taken captive in their home villages during periods of Russian occupation. Others have been detained while undergoing “filtration” at the Russian border. For example, 24-year-old Ivan Gonchar disappeared at a border checkpoint in Russia’s Rostov region after escaping shell-battered Mariupol with his parents and girlfriend. After months without answers, his mother learned in November that Ivan is being held captive in Russia for “opposing the special military operation.”

2. Civilians charged under Russia’s Criminal Code

The second category consists of prisoners who have officially been charged with felony offenses.

Matvey (name changed), a 19-year-old Kherson resident, was first taken captive in the summer of 2022, when the city was under Russian occupation. Like Nikita Shkryabin, Matvey left his house one day and never returned. His relatives later learned that he was been held on suspicion of treason in the occupied part of the Kherson region. Several weeks later, his charges were reclassified as espionage.

In October — six months after Matvey’s initial capture — human rights activists learned that Matvey’s case was now classified under “reasonable suspicion” of murder. The occupation authorities have refused to grant Matvey access to a lawyer, citing the fact that there’s currently no bar association in the occupied region.

According to lawyer Roman Kiselyov, Matvey is far from the only prisoner in this situation; all of the incarcerated civilians in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, he said, are essentially in a “legal vacuum.”

“For example, we have a priest from the Kherson region who was detained in November,” he said. “We know where he’s being held. We call them, and we’re told, ‘Yes, we have him, but we’ll release him [only] after we finish investigating.’ We write to the [Russian] Defense Ministry, and they say that they don’t know who the person is. Those are the prevailing conditions in these two regions.”

3. Former military servicemen

Another common reason Russian forces cite when taking civilians captive is past military experience. This is illegal under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

“I have one such case. [It involves] a former dog handler for the Azov Regiment — emphasis on ‘former,’” said Roman Kiselyov:

He left the regiment in 2019. But evidently, they had lists [of former personnel], or they broke him [and got him to confess], and on those grounds, they’ve opened a criminal case against him for participating in the activity of a terrorist organization. They finished their investigation, sent the case to the “DNR Supreme Court” for trial, but the court hasn’t done anything yet. We’re waiting. The period of detention there is a year and a half, so we might be waiting for a long time.

Thirty-year-old Dmytro Lisovets, a former member of the Ukrainian Volunteer Army, is in a similar situation. He was taken captive on April 2 at a “filtration” center while escaping war-torn Mariupol. He’s now facing life in prison and is currently awaiting trial.

4. Civilian ‘POWs’

In some cases, Russian security officials end criminal proceedings against incarcerated civilians and declare them to be prisoners of war. The practice is most widespread in the Donetsk region, according to Roman Kiselyov.

“There, unlike in Russia proper, they have their own rules regarding prisoners of war,” he said.

They have a so-called resolution on prisoners called the “State Defense Committee.” It’s classified; the text isn’t [publicly] available anywhere. But they quote parts of it in written communications sometimes. We know that this is the resolution that introduces the term “prisoners.” One of the letters from the Donetsk prosecutor’s office, citing the resolution, said that the status is given for 10 years. From that, we know that these people will be incarcerated until they’re exchanged or until they’re liberated.

According to Kiselyov, the status is given both to soldiers and to civilians, like the charge of “opposing the special military operation” is elsewhere.

“As far as we understand, there are many prisoners in the ‘DNR’ that the Russian authorities don’t know about,” said Kiselyov. “Nonetheless, civilians are effectively being held as prisoners of war in Russia; the annexation happened, so they can’t say that these are prisoners being held in a different country.”

5. Missing persons

The last category consists of people who were captured by Russian soldiers in front of eyewitnesses and taken to Russian territory, but whose capture or incarceration has never been confirmed by Russian officials.

“Literally yesterday, we received an answer regarding one of these people,” said Roman Kiselyov:

He was taken from a village in the Kharkiv region; there were witnesses. Then other witnesses in Strilecha, which is also in the Kharkiv region, saw him being taken towards [Russia’s] Belgorod region. But what happened after that is unclear. And now we’ve gotten an answer from the Defense Ministry that says they have no record of this person. For some reason, some people either aren’t mentioned in their databases, or they’re hiding them from us.

‘Nobody is safe’

The practice of taking civilians captive is nothing new for the Russian army. According to Oleksandra Matviichuk, Russia began taking civilians hostage as a way to blackmail Ukraine all the way back in 2014.

“The whole time, Russia has put forth political demands for exchanging these people,” Matviichuk said. “It held them as hostages and blackmailed Ukraine in order to exchange people for geopolitical concessions. This applies to Crimea, and to amnesty for war criminals, and to amending the Constitution, federalization [and so on]. It clearly showed that Russia uses civilians as hostages to achieve its aims.”

The Russian army took civilians captive even before the conflict in Ukraine that began in 2014. According to Vladimir Malykhin, a human rights advocate who works for the Memorial Human Rights Center, Russian security forces would detain anybody they suspected of having ties to militants in both the First and Second Chechen Wars. They also created a system of “filtration points” and illegal prisons.

“The feds tried to use civilians in exchanges for POWs captured by [Chechen] militants,” said Vladimir Malykhin. “Especially during the First Chechen War, when the militants had quite a few Russian POWs. The militants realized [what the Russians were doing], and they sometimes refused to trade POWs for civilians, though not always.”

According to Malykhin’s colleague, Memorial head Alexander Cherkasov, it wasn’t rare for civilian prisoners in Russian filtration centers and illegal prisoners to face torture (and not always for the purpose of extracting confessions).

“I can give you a specific example,” said Cherkasov:

Our colleague Natasha Estemirova, journalist Anna Politkovskaya, and lawyer Stanislav Markelov all helped investigate this case. It concerned the disappearance of 20-year-old Zelimkhan Murdalov on January 2, 2001. He was arrested by Russian police officers and military officers, who then proceeded to beat him for several hours before making him serve as an informant. The following morning, the officers took him away to an unknown location, still alive, and no body was found afterward. The person arrested in this counterterrorist operation didn’t commit any [crimes]. He wasn’t even suspected of anything; the cops, high on their own impunity, wanted to recruit him.

Memorial estimates that the number of people who disappeared in Chechnya from 1999 to 2009 is between 3,000 and 5,000. It’s unclear how many of these cases involved criminal charges, and it’s unknown how many of these missing persons were killed.

“Our Ukrainian colleagues are also currently saying that there’s a huge gap between the number of POWs and the number of people who disappeared,” said Cherkasov:

The question is what happened to them. With the Chechen experience in mind, there’s reason to expect the worst. After all, the Chechens preferred to believe that the people who disappeared were being held in secret prisons somewhere, in camps on Russian territory. That wasn’t quite the case. In the late spring and early summer of 2000, a system of forced disappearance, of imprisonment in secret prisons, began operating, but in reality, these [prisons] were pits in Khankala from which people would disappear altogether; they were killed.

According to Matviichuk, Russia’s system of secret illegal prisons in Ukraine’s occupied territories is operating in full force too. Human rights advocates have discovered them in apartments, basements, and police stations in territories that have been liberated by the Ukrainian military after periods of Russian occupation.

“These kinds of detention facilities are used not only to destroy the active minority from the artistic community, volunteers, journalists, civil activists, or people who simply ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time. They’re also part of [Russia’s] policy of terror, in order to maintain control,” said Matviichuk. “In these conditions, nobody is safe. Combined with fear, it’s a way to maintain control and to overcome even non-violent resistance among the populations of occupied territories. It’s an organized and systemic problem.”

[linhphareginalawyer]

Experienced Assault Lawyer in Regina SK | Strong Legal Defence for Your Rights

Need an experienced assault lawyer in Regina SK? Our legal team specializes in defending clients against assault charges with a focus on protecting your rights. Whether you're facing criminal charges or need legal guidance, we offer expert defence strategies tailored to your case. With a proven track record of success, we are committed to achieving the best possible outcome for you. Contact us today for a consultation and get the legal support you deserve. Visit us - https://maps.app.goo.gl/rmmsRFMJkHMdkp5F6

[agentcable]

Law & Order Season 21 Ep. 10 "Black and Blue"

The murder of an off-duty NYPD detective has caused great tension in the city. Cosgrove is grieving the loss of a friend and has requested assistance from Captain Benson to solve the case. McCoy and Price have differing opinions on how to prosecute the perpetrator, leading to criticism from all sides.

If you want to watch the series for yourself, stop reading! This post contains spoilers to the storyline.

After a man harasses a woman on her way to the subway, she hears gunshots and discovers a body near a dumpster in an alley. The victim was a police officer, known to Cosgrove.

Deputy Chief McGrath promptly issues a statement. Cosgrove questions the woman who heard the gunshots, insisting that she must have seen someone. Bernard intervenes.

At Jimmy's wake, Bernard and Cosgrove speak with Mrs. Doyle, asking if she has any idea why Jimmy was shot. She does not. She says that they split up three years ago, but he remained her best friend.

The police talked to another woman who has been dating Jimmy since the divorce. They went to dinner last night, and nothing happened. She believes it's unfair. Jimmy was special. Her friends didn't understand her relationship with a White cop. However, no one confronted Jimmy. Nonetheless, someone harassed her over it.

The individual claims to have had romantic feelings for Jimmy's girlfriend, but denies any involvement in Jimmy's murder. He asserts that he does not own a firearm. According to video evidence, he was present when Jimmy said goodnight to Ezre and left shortly thereafter. He reports hearing gunshots but did not witness the shooting. He did observe a white male running down Broadway approximately 10 seconds after the gunshots were heard.

The technology department has already accomplished this task. Dixon stated the need to identify the suspect. The suspect refused to answer any questions without a lawyer present and provided the police with contact information. The suspect has no prior criminal record, weapon, or connection to Doyle. Cosgrove is questioning why the suspect is unwilling to cooperate if he is truly innocent. The individual was attending a charity event for at-risk teenage girls. According to the charity organizer, there are rumours about Scott.

A young woman, who has been in the program for two years and is currently in college, claims to know Scott and says they have some sort of involvement. When the young woman's older sister arrives home, she becomes concerned and refuses to allow the girl to answer any questions, ultimately kicking the police out.

Cosgrove and Bernard meet with Benson. Benson is familiar with the case and doubts the girl hit her head on the table as claimed. She was planning to check in with the girl regardless.

The police then visit Scott and his lawyer, who requests immunity for charges related to Regina. Scott claims that Regina is crazy. Cosgrove threatened to have Scott arrested. Scott knows who was involved in the murder but won't say a word without immunity.

Bernard reported that Regina won't tell them anything, according to Benson. Sam is annoyed because Scott is mistreating her. Dixon states that a deal must be made to uncover the identity of the cop's killer. Sam agrees to make the deal. Scott claims that Kendra accused him of wrongdoing, pulled out a gun, and that Jimmy attempted to intervene. Scott fled the scene and heard gunshots.

Kendra told Scott to stay away from her sister, but evidence suggests that something else occurred, leading to Kendra's arrest.

Dixon assures McCoy of their support in light of the detective's shooting. McCoy expresses uncertainty about the motive behind the shooting. McGrath emphasizes the significance of the case and the need to restore the city's safety and protect law enforcement. He urges McCoy to send a message.

DNA evidence proves Kendra is the shooter. However, there is no evidence of motive. McCoy suggests using the available evidence. Nolan argues that Kendra had no prior convictions. Sam points out that some communities do not trust the police. McCoy insists that Kendra must be held accountable for her actions. The defendant says, Doyle allegedly used racial slurs against Kendra. McCoy is focused on the facts and law, rather than the optics.

Price has charged Kendra with manslaughter, which has angered some police officers who believe he is a coward. Cosgrove, in particular, is upset. Price says that if Kendra Daniels were White and the reality is not understood, it is on the listener. Cosgrove almost punches him, and Bernard tries to intervene. Cosgrove accuses Price of making excuses for Kendra because she is Black, but Bernard explains that it is not that simple. He also respects what Price is doing.

Scott testifies that Doyle identified himself as NYPD and he and Kendra started running.

During the trial, Harris attempted to inquire about immunity but was denied. Additionally, he highlighted that Doyle pursued Kendra instead of Scott and questioned whether Doyle could discern the color of their skin. On redirect, Price clarified that only Kendra possessed a firearm.

Harris proceeded to call Detective Michelle Pierce of IAB to the stand. Price is unsure of Kendra's identity and requests a private meeting with the judge. Harris insists that racism played a role in the events. Harris argues that Doyle's racism is relevant to the case, but Price disagrees, stating that Kendra was threatening Scott with a gun. Price argues that Harris is attempting to divert attention from the case. The judge agrees with the defense. Price suggests that this is a trick for the election year.

IAB reads two reports about Doyle allegedly mistreated two Black suspects. Price cross-examines and highlights that the charges were not substantiated. When he calls the accusers degenerate criminals, he gets admonished.

Price complains to Sam that the judge is giving Harris everything he wants. Jimmy's wife yells at Price, saying he shouldn't have let them destroy Jimmy's reputation, and storms off. Sam agrees that it isn't fair, but there's nothing they can do about it. Price suggests they rebut the idea that Doyle is a racist. Sam thinks they should call Doyle's girlfriend.

Harris has a video that he says proves Doyle was racist, despite dating a Black woman. Doyle referred to his girlfriend as "brown sugar".

During her testimony, Kendra expressed her lack of trust in law enforcement due to their past actions towards people she cared about. She recounted the officer telling her to get on the ground and demanding compliance, even though she was already complying. Kendra also mentioned that even when Black people do comply, they still get hurt. She explained that she informed the officer that she had a gun, and when he approached her, she feared for her life and acted in self-defense. Price cross-examines Kendra and pointed out that she did not call 911 or attempted to help after shooting Doyle.

Kendra was acquitted for the first charge, which upset the attending police officers. However, she was found guilty of the second charge, and her supporters complained that she did nothing wrong.

Sam believes that the fact that both sides are outraged indicates a fair outcome.

[westoverlaw22]

Contested & Uncontested Divorce Nulaw

He has also performed with the Saskatoon-based organizations Cornerstone Theatre and Music for the Gut. During law faculty, Christine served as Vice President of Academics for the Law Students’ Association, co-managing editor of the Caveat Lector, and producer of the charity occasion divorce lawyer california, Legal Follies. Christine additionally volunteered with Pro Bono Students Canada on the Consent Project and completed the intensive medical program at CLASSIC .

While all stress related with these points might never be absolutely alleviated, it may be lowered with the compassionate support and skilled information of an skilled lawyer on your aspect. Forum Law’s devoted family and divorce lawyers have more than 60 years representing purchasers in numerous legal proceedings. While not everybody can afford a lawyer, each Albertan deserves entry to a good legal system. As a publicly funded, non-profit group divorce attorney, we offer reasonably priced authorized services in household law, home violence, baby welfare, immigration, and youth and grownup criminal defence. She has appeared successfully earlier than all levels of Court in Saskatchewan, including Provincial Court, Court of King’s Bench and the Court of Appeal. She has also been involved in responding to an utility for depart to enchantment to the Supreme Court of Canada.

But be cautious of lawyers whom family or pals describe as the ‘toughest in town’. The dedicated and skilled divorce lawyers at Merchant Law of Regina, SK are here to help. We’ll help Divorce lawyers you information your divorce motion to essentially the most favorable conclusion we can, defending your rights and your pursuits.

As for youngster custody, the courts prefer preparations that enable both mother and father to maintain a relationship with your children. Shared custody arrangements or joint custody preparations with liberal parenting time for both events are the commonest. Courts solely contemplate sole custody preparations when there's clear proof that one mother or father is a danger to the opposite. For most couples, it will mean residing “separate and apart” for at least one year. Thus, many divorcing couples have already had a preliminary go at deciding issues of kid access, division of property, and support. A formal separation agreement ensures these early negotiations are adopted to the letter, and will serve as an aid to future negotiations.

They have "Been there. Done that" and bring their considerable data and ability to assist every case they undertake. One of the issues that differentiates Top Lawyers from different directories is our exclusivity. As our name suggests, we solely list experienced lawyers that meet strict, minimal follow, experience and/or recognition necessities. Hear the dear feedback from somebody who has been there and back.

Mincher Koeman acknowledges that family law issues have the potential to turn out to be extraordinarily expensive and complicated and that this comes at a time when the family is often underneath excessive emotional and monetary stress. They also perceive that not all household matters are high-conflict. This process allows a household to easily create their very own written agreements that incorporate all points which are required to be addressed in Alberta, at a minimal cost. Contested divorces take longer to resolve than uncontested divorces, and might divorce lawyer shortly turn out to be expensive, relying on the number of outstanding issues and the way willing the parties are to barter and settle. If events are obtaining a divorce, likelihood is they have already got a separation settlement that addresses particulars corresponding to spousal assist, division of property, child assist, and parenting arrangements. However, this is not all the time the case, and divorces can get messy and complicated.

Whatever your grounds, a lawyer may help you determine what plan of action to take. If your spouse is abusive, for example, it is going to be in your finest interest to attempt to ask the court docket to dissolve the marriage. This can even allow you to defend your children and acquire custody extra easily. Hayward Sheppard is an experienced team of lawyers who are devoted to providing you with the very best high quality legal advice and illustration. In many circumstances you do not want a court hearing to break up order. If you each agree, you can get a divorce by submitting the required types at Supreme Court.

[reginacriminallaw]

Facing Criminal Fraud Charges in Regina? Get Legal Help Now

 If you are facing Criminal Fraud Charges Regina, our experienced lawyers specialize in defending clients against fraud allegations. We offer aggressive representation to help you fight fraud charges and avoid severe consequences. Get professional legal representation to protect your rights and future.

[saskatooncriminaldefenselawyer]

Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer in Moose Jaw

Facing criminal expenses is a severe count that could affect your private and expert life. If you're in Moose Jaw, having a professional criminal legal professional through your aspect could make a big distinction. Criminal prison specialists cope with instances associated with costs like DUI, assault, Drug offenses, and theft, supporting customers navigate the complexities of the criminal device with expert guidance and illustration.

What Does the best Criminal Lawyer Do?

A crook legal professional affords defense and prison aid for people accused of criminal activities. They represent clients in the courtroom, negotiate plea deals, and work to minimize consequences or have prices dropped. The proper attorney will apprehend nearby legal guidelines and have an established track document in criminal defense.

Why You Need a Criminal Lawyer in Moose Jaw

Understanding Your Rights: Legal representation ensures that your rights are covered all through the procedure.

Expert Negotiation: Skilled crook attorneys can negotiate with prosecutors to secure plea bargains or decreased fees.

Court Representation:��An experienced lawyer will guard your case in the court docket, aiming for the first-rate feasible outcome.

Key Qualities to Look for in a Criminal Lawyer

When selecting a criminal legal professional, don't forget factors like their enjoy, familiarity with neighborhood courts, and consumer testimonials. Lawyers who specialize in crook safety in Moose Jaw deliver treasured insights into neighborhood legal techniques, which may be super in building strong safety.

For expert legal support in criminal defense, consider reaching out to trusted professionals like those at Criminal lawyer in Moose jaw. With the right help, you’ll be better prepared to handle the legal challenges ahead.

[unitedtruthseekers]

Constantinidis v R; Lazar v R (Costs)

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name: Constantinidis v R; Lazar v R (Costs)

Medium Neutral Citation: [2022] NSWCCA 248

Hearing Date(s): On the papers

Date of Orders: 24 November 2022

Date of Decision: 24 November 2022

Before: Gleeson JA; Fagan J; Lonergan J

Decision: Certificates granted pursuant to ss 2 and 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act

Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – costs – application for certificate under Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 – successful appeal against conviction – where the Crown case critically dependent upon the credibility of Witness B – institution of proceedings unreasonable

Legislation Cited: Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited: Constantinidis v R; Lazar v R [2022] NSWCCA 4

Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129

Fejsa v R (1995) 82 A Crim R 253

Higgins v R (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 82

R v Dunne (Supreme Court (NSW), 17 May 1990, unreported)

R v Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197

R v Manley [2000] NSWCCA 196

Category: Costs

Parties: Achilles Constantinidis (Applicant) Ian David Lazar (Applicant) Regina (Crown)

Representation:Counsel:

T Game SC with D Barrow (Applicant Constantinidis) C Parkin (Applicant Lazar)

M Kumar SC (Crown)

Solicitors:

Wright and Strickland Solicitors (Constantinidis) Murphy’s Lawyers (Applicant Lazar)

Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2016/00013067 2014/00320266

Publication Restriction: No

JUDGMENT

1 THE COURT: On 11 February 2022 this Court set aside findings of guilt against each of the applicants on the charge jointly laid against them under s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), that between 7 August 2012 and 30 September 2012 they did an act with intent to pervert the course of justice. The charge had been tried by judge alone in the District Court. The appeal was upheld on the ground that the findings of guilt at first instance were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence: Constantinidis v R; Lazar v R [2022] NSWCCA 4 (the principal judgment). It was ordered that findings of not guilty be entered.

2 Each applicant now applies for a certificate under ss 2 and 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW) that:

in the opinion of the Court […]—

(a) if the prosecution had, before the proceedings were instituted, been in possession of evidence of all the relevant facts, it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings, and

(b) that any act or omission of the defendant that contributed, or might have contributed, to the institution or continuation of the proceedings was reasonable in the circumstances.

3 Mr Constantinidis’ application was filed on 15 March 2022, accompanied by written submissions. The exchange of the Crown’s submissions and Mr Constantinidis’ submissions in reply was completed on 20 June 2022. Mr Lazar’s application was filed on 6 September 2022, also with submissions. By that date the members of the Court who had decided the appeal had not fully considered Mr Constantinidis’ application. It was resolved to await receipt of the Crown’s submissions in Mr Lazar’s costs application and then to determine both applications together. The Crown filed submissions opposing Mr Lazar’s application on 11 November 2022

4 The applicants have not tendered on their applications any evidence of additional “relevant facts”; nor has the Crown. The reasonableness or otherwise of the institution of the criminal proceedings is therefore to be decided on the hypothesis that, before laying the charge against each applicant, the prosecution was in possession of the evidence of all relevant facts as that evidence emerged up to the conclusion of the trial. The Crown has not submitted that any act or omission of either applicant contributed, or might have contributed, to the commencement or continuation of the prosecution.

5 The prosecution case was critically dependent upon the accuracy and truthfulness of the evidence of Witness B. In allowing the appeal the Court held that it was not open to the learned trial judge to have accepted Witness B’s evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The Crown submits that in those circumstances the present applications for costs certificates are governed by the consideration that where proof of a charge depends upon the credibility of one or more witnesses it will generally be reasonable for the prosecution to proceed so that the issue of credibility may be determined by a tribunal of fact rather than by the pre-emptive assessment of a prosecutor. The following extracts from the cases disclose limits to that general proposition.

Cases concerning “not … reasonable to institute the proceedings”6 The precedential value of past decisions of this Court either granting or refusing a costs certificate following a successful appeal is limited by the Court’s disinclination to formulate general rules or criteria concerning when “it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings”. That reluctance was expressed in Fejsa v R (1995) 82 A Crim R 253 at 255 as follows:

This Court too has never sought to lay down any all-embracing definition of the circumstances in which it would (to adapt the language of the statute) be unreasonable within the meaning of s 3(1)(a) of the Act to have instituted proceedings. In our opinion, it would be unwise to attempt to do so. The circumstances of the different cases vary to such an extent that, unless such a definition were expressed in terms of such generality as to be of no assistance in the particular case, it may well cause an injustice in the case whose circumstances have not been foreseen.

There is nevertheless a helpful discussion of various situations which do not make it reasonable to prosecute (in the context of s 3(1)(a)), in the decision of Blanch J in McFarlane v R (Supreme Court of NSW, 12 August 1994, unreported). It was not reasonable to prosecute, the judge said, merely because there had been a reasonable cause to suspect that the accused was guilty, thus justifying an arrest: Nor was it reasonable to prosecute merely because the usual test adopted by prosecution agencies throughout Australia had been satisfied - namely that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction:

nor was it reasonable to prosecute merely because the magistrate (presumably with all of the relevant facts before him or her) had declined to hold, pursuant to s 41(6) of the Justices Act 1902 (NSW), that a jury would not be likely to convict the accused. Nor was it reasonable to prosecute merely because there was at the trial (again, presumably with all of the relevant facts before the trial judge) a prima facie case to go to the jury, because such a decision necessarily disregards all of the evidence which favours the accused.

We agree with all that Blanch J said, and we would for ourselves add that, conversely, merely because this Court enters a judgment of acquittal in favour of an accused does not mean that it was not reasonable to have prosecuted him, because sometimes that course is followed rather than to order a new trial if (for example) the accused has already served most of the sentence imposed upon him.

Blanch J held in that case that it had been unreasonable to have prosecuted the accused because the evidence favouring him was “overwhelmingly strong”. We agree with Blanch J that, in such circumstances, it would be open to find that it had been unreasonable to prosecute, although we stress that he did not suggest (and nor do we) that a certificate will be granted to a successful accused only where the evidence favouring him is “overwhelmingly strong”

7 R v Manley [2000] NSWCCA 196 is presently relevant only for the Court’s reiteration that there cannot be laid down any “all-embracing definition” of circumstances in which it would not be reasonable to institute a prosecution. In R v Manley Wood CJ at CL cited Fejsa v R and said this:

[14] Given the wide variety of cases that might arise for consideration, I am similarly reluctant to attempt any exhaustive definition of the test. It seems to me that the section calls for an objective analysis of the whole of the relevant evidence, and particularly the extent to which there is any contradiction of expert evidence concerning central facts necessary to establish guilt, or inherent weakness in the prosecution case. Matters of judgment concerning credibility, demeanour and the like are likely to fall on the other side of the line of unreasonableness, being matters quintessentially within the realm of the ultimate fact finder, whether it be Judge or Jury.

8 The circumstances that justified the grant of a certificate in that case have no parallel in the prosecution of Messrs Constantinidis and Lazar. The Court’s decision in R v Manley is not an illustrative guide to how the present application should be decided. The applicant in that case was prosecuted for the murder of his infant son in circumstances where guilt depended upon proving that fatal injuries were inflicted at a particular time. On that issue, Simpson J held (Wood CJ at CL agreeing) that “the conflict in the testimony of the Crown’s own medical witnesses, if fully analysed, shows that it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings”.

9 In R v Johnston [2000] NSWCCA 197 this Court quashed the applicant’s convictions on three counts of sexual intercourse without consent, with a girl of

15 years. The Crown case was dependent upon the evidence of the complainant, who said that all three instances occurred within half an hour. She did not complain to anyone until five years after the alleged events. Her evidence was contradicted in material respects by three other witnesses. Simpson J (Wood CJ at CL agreeing) held as follows (emphasis added):

[25] The evidence of each of these witnesses, individually, was capable of casting considerable doubt on the reliability or the credibility of the complainant. It is obvious that the delay in complaint would have been the cause of some disadvantage to the applicant in the presentation of the evidence and this was a factor relevant to the jury’s consideration of their evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the trial judge inadequately directed the jury about the possible effects of delay on the applicant’s capacity to defend the charges. In addition, when the Court considered the weight of the combined evidence of the three witnesses, it concluded that the convictions could not be sustained. In part this was contributed to by the deficiencies in the directions about delay, the Court concluding that the jury probably discounted the evidence of those witnesses because of uncertainty in their accounts of the detail of the events.

[26] The next step for present purposes is to assume that the Crown was, prior to the institution of the prosecution, in possession of the evidence of the three witnesses. On that assumption, can it be said that it would not have been reasonable to charge the applicant? I think not. The Crown was in possession of an apparently credible complaint of serious criminal offences. A responsible Crown Prosecutor in possession of the evidence both of the complainant and the three defence witnesses would be obliged to make some assessment of the potential reliability of each. The period of delay was a relevant factor affecting that reliability, requiring careful scrutiny.

[27] The need for such scrutiny was even more apparent in relation to the evidence of the applicant’s wife, whose credibility, as well as reliability, was open to question. The scrutiny required was that of a jury properly instructed.

[28] The Crown Prosecutor making that evaluation would not assume that the jury would be inadequately directed on the question of delay. This feature of this case clouds the issue because the defective directions were one circumstance which led the Court to conclude that the convictions could not be sustained.

[29] This was a case which hinged, ultimately, on an evaluation of the evidence of the witnesses as given in the trial. That was a matter properly committed to a jury. Notwithstanding this Court’s conclusion that, in the event, the convictions were unsustainable, it has not, in my view, been shown that the institution of the proceedings was not reasonable.

10 In Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129 an application for a costs certificate was made after the applicant’s conviction on a single count of sexual

intercourse with a boy of seven years was quashed on the ground that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The complainant’s evidence was critical to the Crown case. It was affected by multiple conflicts and retractions and was inconsistent with evidence from other sources concerning contextual events. In finding that it was not reasonable for the prosecution to have been instituted, the Court said this (some citations omitted, emphasis added):

[8] [… We] have taken into account observations of various judges at first instance and on appeal that suggest that where a case turns on questions of credibility the conclusion that the institution of the proceedings was not reasonable will less readily be made. There can be no hard and fast rules in this area and the determination turns on the facts and circumstances of each case. So much is clear from decisions such as R v Dunne (Supreme Court (NSW), 17 May 1990, unreported), R v Cardona [2002] NSWSC 823 and R v Krishna [1999] NSWSC 525 where certificates were granted even though the cases turned on questions of the credibility of the witnesses. In the first of those cases, David Hunt J (as his Honour then was) observed:

In a majority of [cases involving an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses] it would be quite reasonable for the prosecution to allow those matters to be decided by the jury. It would, however, be different where the word upon which the Crown case depended had been demonstrated to be one which was very substantially lacking in credit.

11 In Higgins v R (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 82 the applicant had been found guilty following a trial by judge alone of three sexual assaults of a male pupil at a school where the applicant taught. The offences were alleged to have been committed some 44 years before the trial. The findings of guilt were quashed. Several grounds of appeal were upheld, including that the guilty findings were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The Court found that the institution and continuance of the prosecution was not unreasonable on account of any one or more of the following circumstances: long delay before complaint, paucity of corroboration of the complainant, the applicant’s consistent denial of the charges, his good character, inconsistencies in statements made by the complainant’s mother who was called to substantiate some surrounding events.

12 The Court concluded its reasons for dismissing the costs of certificate application as follows (emphasis added):

[31] This leaves to be addressed the issue of the credibility of the complainant. As explained above, it will generally be reasonable for a prosecutor to allow questions of credibility in a “word on word” case to be decided by a jury. This is not a case where the complainant’s account has been shown to be “plainly wrong” as was the case in Cox v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 129. As Payne JA said in the principal judgment:

The question posed by this ground is one of fact which the Court must decide by making its own independent assessment of the evidence and determining whether, notwithstanding that there is evidence upon which the trial judge might have convicted, nonetheless it would be dangerous in all the circumstances to allow the verdict of guilty to stand. I have concluded that this is such a case. This is one of those rare cases where the evidence in the record itself contains discrepancies, displays inadequacies, is tainted and otherwise lacks probative force in such a way as to lead me to conclude that, even making allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the trial judge, there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted. It follows that the applicant is entitled to be acquitted of all charges.

Unreasonableness of the prosecution in the present case13 Unlike the situation in R v Johnston, the Crown in the present case was not “in possession of an apparently credible complaint”. Witness B’s complaint was, from the outset, apparently doubtful. Doubts arose, first, from his character and antecedents: see [83] of the principal judgment. Secondly, the first of his statements containing the allegations was not made until more than two years after the events, on 27 November 2014, and then in the context of Witness B seeking a discount on sentence for further serious offending of his own: [85]. Likewise, his second statement was made when he faced charges for yet further offending: [86]. Thirdly, Witness B made no mention of the alleged involvement of Mr Constantinidis, whom he ultimately alleged played a part substantially equal to that of Mr Lazar, until his third statement nearly three years after the alleged events: [87].

14 From this unpromising start, a reasonable decision to prosecute the applicants would have required some independent corroboration of Witness B. Preferably that would take the form of direct evidence from another source to confirm the conversations by which the applicants allegedly enlisted him, or at least circumstantial evidence to support an inference that those criminal conversations must have taken place. In fact, the Crown had no corroboration of Witness B in any respect.

15 Concerning Mr Constantinidis’ alleged oral request that Witness B should interfere with DSC Roberts’ investigation, Witness D was unable to give supporting evidence of having heard any probative conversation at Mr Constantinidis’ Windsor home: [88]-[91]. The Crown had no intercept recordings of phone conversations between Mr Constantinidis and Witness B. Either he could not, or would not, give evidence of what was said in those conversations, or his testimony about them would not have assisted the Crown case. That is apparent from the fact that the Crown made no attempt to lead from Witness B any recollection of what was said his calls with Mr Constantinidis: [27]-[28], [111]-[112].

16 Concerning Mr Lazar’s alleged request to Witness B and payment of instalments of $50,000 and $49,000, there was no independent evidence to confirm the testimony of Witness B. The large number of intercepted calls on Mr Lazar’s phone made no reference to Witness B having been requested to interfere in the investigation, nor is the content of those intercepts circumstantially supportive of an inference that such a request must have been made.

17 The Court considered the transcripts of intercepted calls in detail for the purpose of determining the grounds of appeal. It was found that the calls do not accord, in any respect, with the allegation that the applicants requested Witness B to deflect DSC Roberts from his investigation. In particular, the McGillicuddy call was not open to the interpretation that Witness B was thereby implementing such a request from Mr Constantinidis. On the contrary, the McGillicuddy call supports reasonably possible alternative inferences that Witness B had been asked by Mr Constantinidis to do something quite different from what was alleged, or that Witness B acted on his own initiative: [114]-[116].

18 The prosecution’s endeavour to marry the content of the intercepted calls with Witness B’s narrative was foredoomed to failure, as should have been apparent from an analysis of the calls in light of the evidence Witness B would give. Counsel for both Mr Constantinidis and Mr Lazar submit that the Crown case based upon Witness B’s evidence in conjunction with the intercepted calls was “incoherent”. That is a fair characterisation.

19 In addition to Witness B’s uncreditworthy antecedents, the delay and self- interest from which his police statements emerged and the absence of independent evidence to corroborate him, his account of having been engaged by the applicants to corrupt or intimidate DSC Roberts was inherently incomplete and implausible. The main grounds for disbelieving him are recorded in the principal judgment at [125]-[142], [159].

20 On the hypothesis that when the criminal proceedings were instituted the Crown was in possession of Witness B’s evidence as given by him at the trial, together with evidence of surrounding circumstances that contribute to his testimony being unbelievable in the respects identified, this was a case like Cox v R (No 2) and R v Dunne (Supreme Court (NSW), 17 May 1990, unreported), where “the word upon which the Crown case depended [has] been demonstrated to be one which was very substantially lacking in credit”. Adopting the expression used by Wood CJ at CL in R v Manley, there was “inherent weakness in the prosecution case”. It was not reasonable to institute the proceedings.

Certification21 For these reasons, pursuant to ss 2 and 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, the Court will certify substantially in the terms sought by each applicant respectively as follows:

(1) Grant a certificate to the applicant, Achilles Constantinidis, under s 2(1) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), that certificate to specify that in the opinion of this Court it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings relating to the alleged offence under s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), if the prosecution had, before the proceedings were instituted, been in possession of evidence of all the relevant facts.

(2) Grant a certificate to the applicant, Ian David Lazar, under s 2(1) of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), that certificate to specify that in the opinion of this Court it would not have been reasonable to institute the proceedings relating to the alleged offence under s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), if the prosecution had, before the proceedings were instituted, been in possession of evidence of all the relevant facts.

PDF of Judgement:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yQc-n3sZVifFAg3fesSFCXEtxksL2ipn/view?usp=sharing

[stlangels]

From this article

The sponsor of the bill, Democratic state Sen. Regina Barrow, has said it would be an extra step in punishment for horrific crimes. She hopes the legislation will serve as a deterrent to such offenses against children.

Deterrents are ineffective.

From this aricle

More than nearly every other state, Louisiana has a dismal track record of wrongful incarceration. Its criminal justice system exonerates more people on a per capita basis — 1.93 for every 100,000 citizens — than anywhere else but Illinois (2.34), according to the National Registry of Exonerations.

And this article

One bill would make it tougher to get out of jail when new evidence is discovered that could clear someone of a crime after a conviction. It would shorten the post-conviction relief timeline from two years to one.

-

She also introduced a bill calling for a 25-to-99-year sentence for anyone dealing with the deadly drug fentanyl in a manner that appeals to minors.

-

Wednesday, the panel is expected to consider a bill eliminating parole eligibility for crimes committed by an adult on or after Aug. 1, 2024.

According to the Innocence Project

The vast majority (97%) of these people were wrongfully convicted of committing sexual assault and/or murder. (Data from 2020)

According to EJI

African Americans are burdened by a presumption of guilt that most defense lawyers are not prepared to overcome. As a result, African Americans make up 47% of exonerations even though they are only 13% of the population. Innocent Black people are about seven times more likely to be convicted of murder than innocent white people, and Black people who are convicted of murder are about 50% more likely to be innocent than non-Black people convicted of murder

According to this article from 2022

The best estimate of the rate of wrongful convictions to date comes from a study by Gross et al. (2014), which reported a wrongful conviction rate of about 4% for capital cases.

From the National Registry of Exonerations

Also important to note that the bill applies to amab and afab people. So someone with a penis would have their testices removed and those with ovaries would have their obaries removed.

As noted above, you can still get an erection with no testicles.

Also important is that after having these organs removed, a doctor would most likely order one of these people to take hormone supplements to prevent osteoporosis. So.

This seems wrong actually

[alldatwrite]

Crazy Ex Girlfriend AU

Regina Mills has a fulfilling live. She has a five year old kid, Henry, who's wonderful and the sunshine of her life. She has a great job as a criminal lawyer that pays more than enough for her to have a splendid penthouse on Fifth Avenue. She has what many people would only dream of achieving. But something's missing: she doesn't feel like herself anymore, and she can't find joy in anything.

Everything changes when she crosses paths with David Nolan, a guy she dated when she was seventeen at a drama summer camp. He's in NYC because of work, and he has a coffee with her. In the process, he tells her about his quiet and happy life in Storybrooke, a small town in Maine. He talks about his great friends and the fun you can have in there. And Regina takes this as a sign to move to that small town, hoping she can find happiness.

But, when she arrives, she realises that it makes no change. It takes some time, though, because she has already bought a house and enroled Henry in a local school when she finds out that David has a girlfriend. More like fiancée. But that's not why she moved in there, okay? It's not like she is still in love with David.

She's Mary Margaret, her son's teacher and a lovely girl, younger than her and funny, and adventurous, and sweet, and loving. And David is marrying her.

Little does Regina know, this is just the beginning of her story. Maybe there's more than what meets the eye with that couple, maybe she can be happy in this little town.

All she has to do is break up the couple.

[treatian]

The Chronicles of the Dark One: Breaking the Curse

Chapter 34: Criminal Organizations

It was a perfect plan. A brilliant plan. But it was a double-frame job, and that made it a complex plan. He had to make it look like Mary Margaret was behind Kathryn Nolan's disappearance, on the surface, at least. But when it came right down to it, he had to make it something deeper. He intended to make Regina look like she was responsible for framing Mary Margaret. It was complex on the whole, but when he sat down to think it through it, piece by piece, it at least seemed much simpler. But still, expensive.

There was work to be done with this, work he couldn't be seen doing, work he couldn't actually do physically because he might be too slow, or it might arouse suspicions. So, he hired Dove's cousins, damn near all of Dove's cousins. It felt like every last one of them had a job to do or was reporting to him. Marc was already watching David. He'd put Stan on watching Emma Swan while Dove assisted him with Kathryn. He finally broke down and tasked another cousin to watch Mary Margaret and one to keep an eye on Regina from a distance and another for Sidney Glass, first because he wasn't going to make the mistake of underestimating him again and second because he had plans for him later. Hell, he'd even gotten Dove to put his old friend Will Scarlet on the payroll. He'd asked him to stick to his job at Granny's as a new dishwasher a little more reliably for a while. Everything happened at Granny's; he wanted eyes and ears there too. If any of them suspected what they were participating in, they didn't question it. It was expensive, but it would be worth it if he could pull this off with the desired results.

He employed two more to go to Regina Mill's residence, where he told them to retrieve a shovel. They'd returned with one that was large and bulky, probably not the right choice for a woman, but he'd work with what he had. When they returned, he sent them to Mary Margaret's apartment with a skeleton key he'd gotten "on loan" from Regina earlier in the day and a hunting knife he'd had in the back of his shop collecting dust since the beginning of the Curse. It was likely one of Graham's, from the other world, but he'd never claim it now. And because he'd already seen to any evidence it had ever been in his shop, no one would ever trace it to him either. "Use this to get into Mary Margaret's apartment," he explained, handing the key over, "and be sure to hide this," he wrapped the knife in a cloth and gave it over as well, "somewhere in the apartment that is neither too obvious nor too difficult to find. Remember to wear gloves and don't make a mess of things. Oh, and while you're there, I need you to steal something, preferably a box, preferably something old or stashed away in a closet that the girl isn't likely to notice it gone for a while. And on your way back, I need you to go see Sheri Lewis, the butcher..."

A few hours later, they'd done their job. Extremely well, if he had to say so himself. They'd returned from Mary Margaret's with an old jewelry box they claimed they found in the back of her closet buried under some clothes as if for safekeeping. And from Sheri Lewis, former warlord turned butcher, they returned with a sheep's heart. He fetched another hunting knife from his back room and made sure to cut just below all the places Lewis had cut the heart himself. It wouldn't be an exact match, but at least it was two hunting knives that appeared to make the cuts instead of a clean butcher's knife. Then, after cleaning the blade, he placed the heart inside the jewelry box himself then returned to the front of the store and the men who were waiting. He handed one of them the shovel along with the small piece of the shovel he'd broken off himself while they'd been at Mary Margaret's.

"Bury this-" he motioned to the metal fragment, "under this-" he handed him the box as well, "using this-" he explained, handing them the now broken shovel. "Bury it under the old toll bridge." The place that Marc had told him David would meet Mary Margaret when they were seeing each other. "Were seeing," past tense, since his spies reported they were on the outs since the affair went public. "When you are done with that shovel, kindly return it to Regina's home to the place you found it. And please, both of you, remember not to muddy the future crime scene with your fingerprints or other potential evidence," he muttered, glancing down at their shoes. "You only get paid if the right people are implicated."

Breaking and entering, murder weapon hidden, soon enough Kathryn would be secure and missing...but it still wouldn't be enough. He would need DNA. He was a lawyer; he knew that would be the clincher to doing this right. But he had plans for that to be fixed at a higher level. Dove had a cousin who worked in the hospital. When Dove went to pick up Kathryn, he was under orders to get some of her blood and leave it in the mailbox when he arrived at the safe house. Once everyone of his players were asleep, he'd send another cousin to pick it up and take it to the cousin who worked in the hospital and now for him. That cousin would make sure results matched when the time came. In the meantime, he resisted the urge to take notes on who was doing what or start making name tags for all Dove's cousins. It might help him keep things straight, but as of right now, none of this could be tied to him, and if he made a list like that...

"Is it done?" he questioned when he received a call from Dove just past one in the morning a couple of nights after he'd had his conversation with Regina. He was utterly exhausted already. He'd wanted everything done and set by the time this call arrived. He usually was in bed strictly by nine, ten at the latest, but he'd waited up just to hear from Dove that one of the last pieces had fallen into place.

"Yeah, just finished getting her in and settled…if you call banging against a soundproof door settled."

"Did she give you any trouble?"

"No. The car stopped just like you thought. How did you know that would happen?"

"I have my ways, Mr. Dove. Everything else went as planned?"

"Yeah, I blindfolded her, convinced her I had a gun, and got her into the car, then waited until after dark to get her into the house. Blood's in the mailbox. She actually cut herself before I grabbed her, so no harm, no foul there. She's in the basement now. I left her some books and cards to keep her entertained; hopefully, she'll notice when she calms down a bit. Why do you have a house like this?"

"The former tenant wanted to start a band and make a recording studio. When he failed to pay rent, I saw the benefit in keeping what he'd done. Make yourself comfortable, Mr. Dove, check-in and call me if you need something. I'll see your needs are met."

Getting Kathryn, like the rest of the plan, was easy enough. In talking to Regina, he'd learned that Kathryn had confessed to her weeks ago that she'd applied to law school in Boston. Boston…David's affair with Mary Margaret wasn't a strong relationship, nor was his relationship with Kathryn. A little pressure and everything was sure to begin to crack. And with just the right pressure, then Kathryn would get herself to the perfect place to disappear for a while…the town line. Either she'd get there alone, and he could go through with his plan. Or David would go with her, and Mary Margaret would be devastated. One way, and he'd be happy, another and Regina would be. It was a careful bet. But it had paid off. The affair became public knowledge yesterday. Will Scarlet had reported that to Dove, who had let him know that the relationship seemed to be over. Tonight, he wasn't surprised that Kathryn had gone alone. Or attempted to, at least.

He was exhausted, sorely in need of a good night's sleep after all of this, but he wasn't done yet. This weekend was Miner's Day, a town holiday, and the morning after Dove took Kathryn, as the town prepared for a weekend of festivities, he realized that he had one more visit to pay. Regina was taken care of, and Mary Margaret was taken care of…now he had to handle the third person in this trio…Emma Swan.

Yes, he wanted Regina to think he was working for her, and yes, he wanted to let her think she was close to getting everything she'd ever wanted…again. But then he needed Emma to take it all away. Emma was the key; the wild card he needed to be sure was tamed. After what he'd done, in a normal police precinct, Mary Margaret would go to jail for life, without question, because there would be no reason for the police to look deeper into it. But in Storybrooke, Emma Swan was the sheriff, and even if Regina had forgotten who the enemy was, he suspected that Emma would not. With everything pointing to her good friend Mary Margaret she'd investigate, she'd leave no stone unturned. She'd be determined to look deeper and prove it wasn't her. What would she find? Regina. Not Mary Margaret, but Regina. He was paying good money for that.

But it wasn't enough. He needed to be certain that along with Regina's guilt and Mary Margaret's innocence, she discovered something else. Motive. It was time. All his visions in the Enchanted Forest had always been clear. Emma needed to face off Regina. If it wouldn't happen naturally, then he'd kill two birds with one stone and orchestrate the damn thing himself. In the midst of all this, he needed Emma to ask questions, and he needed her to think. Why would the Mayor of Storybrooke hate a simple schoolteacher so much that she was willing to frame her? Why would she murder someone just to put Mary Margaret in jail? Why would she care so much?

Those were difficult questions that required a difficult answer, but the time had come to give her something to believe in that went beyond what she could see. And how would he do that? Well…there was one step in his plan that he was most worried about, one step that he didn't want to leave up to fate. Mary Margaret running away. He had a plan for that, but unfortunately, he needed someone to help him, and he was fresh out of cronies. Fortunately, he knew someone he might be able to convince, someone who used to work for him, someone who hadn't wanted to see him again but wouldn't remember that in this world.

"Mr. Jefferson," he smiled when his old associate answered the door. He stepped forward to offer his hand in a friendly shake. "I don't believe we've met, I'm-"

"Rumpelstiltskin…what took you so long?"