#davis (juror 8) | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

nzhdehby · 2 years ago

Text

Settlement reached in Dominion defamation lawsuit against Fox News

9:00 p.m. ET, April 18, 2023

Here's the ruling about Fox's on-air lies it acknowledged after settling defamation case

From CNN's Marshall Cohen

People walk by the News Corporation headquarters, home to Fox News, on April 18, in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

In a statement made Tuesday after Fox News settled the defamation case brought by Dominion Voting Systems, Fox said:

“We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false.”

So, what did those rulings say?

This is about the topic of falsity. To win a defamation case, you need to prove a few things. Most importantly, you need to prove the statements were false and that they were made with actual malice, otherwise known as a reckless disregard for the truth.

In a major pretrial ruling on March 31, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis ruled Dominion had successfully proven that all 20 statements mentioned in its lawsuit against Fox were false.

“Through its extensive proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact as to falsity… The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true,” Davis wrote.

8:00 p.m. ET, April 18, 2023

Fox��settlement papers were signed minutes before announcement, Dominion lawyer says

From CNN’s Danny Freeman

Dominion Voting Systems' co-lead counsel Justin Nelson said he and Dominion's other attorneys were expecting to go to trial against Fox News on Tuesday.

The final deal to settle the case with the right-wing network for $787.5 million came late in the day, and the settlement papers with Fox were signed just “minutes” before the agreement was announced, he said.

Prior to the last-minute settlement, Nelson told CNN he and other attorneys had been preparing opening statements – even during the two-and-a-half-hour courtroom delay after the lunch recess.

7:49 p.m. ET, April 18, 2023

Here's how it looked inside the courtroom during the Fox vs Dominion case today

Fox News will pay more than $787 million to Dominion Voting Systems after lawyers from both sides hammered out a last-minute settlement of the defamation case launched against the right-wing network.

The deal was announced hours after the jury was sworn in at the Delaware Superior Court. Rumors of a settlement swirled in the courthouse when, after a lunch break, the proceedings dramatically ground to a halt for nearly three hours with no explanation, while the parties apparently hammered out an accord.

CNN's Bill Hennessy, court sketch artist, captured scenes from inside the courtroom:

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis, center, with Dominion attorney Justin Nelson, left, and Fox attorney Dan Webb, right. (Sketch by Bill Hennessy)

Members of the public are seen in the foreground, with Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis on the far right. On the left are smudged glass panels to obscure the jurors and protect their identity. (Sketch by Bill Hennessy)

Lawyers for both sides talk amongst themselves. Lawyers for Dominion are seated on the left side of the room, with Fox's lawyers on the right. (Sketch by Bill Hennessy)

Dan Webb, attorney for Fox, looks at his phone. (Sketch by Bill Hennessy)

7:52 p.m. ET, April 18, 2023

Fox News settlement is the first time anyone has 'paid the price' for election lies, Dominion's lead counsel says

Justin Nelson, Dominion's lead counsel, appears on CNN. (CNN)

Dominion Voting Systems had two goals in its defamation case against Fox News — accountability and “trying to make Dominion whole,' said Justin Nelson, the lead counsel election technology company.

Both were accomplished in this settlement, he told CNN on Tuesday.

The payment of more than $787 million by Fox News to Dominion and the network's statement acknowledging that its coverage of the 2020 election was false was “a strong message of accountability” and an important victory for the employees of his client's company.

“This is really the first time that anyone has paid a price for telling the lies of the 2020 election and we're very proud about that,' he said.

While the settlement does not stipulate that Fox’s anchors must acknowledge the lies on air, Nelson said it was a consequential outcome for the network.

The texts and emails that emerged during the litigation process from inside the Fox network were valuable, he said. 'And what today has shown is that you have to pay a price if you're telling lies.'

Previous court filings revealed messages that showed that the most prominent stars and highest-ranking executives at Fox News privately ridiculed claims of election fraud in the 2020 election, despite the right-wing channel allowing lies about the presidential contest to be promoted on its air.

“It’s a lot of what we teach our kids, which is that the truth does indeed matter, and if you are lying, eventually there's going to be consequences to that,' Nelson said.

He said the settlement with Fox sends a 'strong message' to other right-wing outlets in which Dominion has ongoing legal disputes.

6:44 p.m. ET, April 18, 2023

Fox-Dominion defamation settlement is largest involving US media company

From CNN's Jon Passantino

Fox News’ payment of $787.5 million to Dominion Voting Systems is the largest publicly known defamation settlement in US history involving a media company.

Notably, in 2017, ABC News paid $177 million after its years-long legal dispute with South Dakota-based meat processor Beef Products Inc. over its textured meat product that the network referred to as “pink slime.”

At the time, the settlement was believed to be the biggest amount ever paid in a media defamation case in the United States.

5:23 p.m. ET, April 18, 2023

Fox anchors not required to acknowledge lies told about Dominion as part of settlement, Dominion rep says

From CNN’s Oliver Darcy

Fox News anchors will not have to acknowledge on-air that it told election lies about Dominion Voting Systems as part of the terms of its settlement, a representative for the election technology company told CNN.

Fox News did acknowledge in its statement that falsehoods were broadcast.

But top anchors at the right-wing talk channel will not be required as part of the settlement to acknowledge on air the lies broadcast in the wake of the 2020 election.

5:10 p.m. ET, April 18, 2023

'Fox has admitted to telling lies,' Dominion CEO says

From CNN's Jon Passantino

Dominion CEO John Poulos, joined by members of the Dominion Voting Systems legal team, speaks outside the Leonard Williams Justice Center in Wilmington, Delaware, on April 18. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images)

“Fox has admitted to telling lies about Dominion,' said the company CEO John Poulos on Tuesday, following the last-minute $787.5 million settlement with the right-wing network.

'Fox and Dominion have reached a historic settlement. Fox has admitted to telling lies about Dominion that caused enormous damage to my Company, our employees, and our customers. Nothing can ever make up for that,' Poulos said in the statement. 'Throughout this process, we have sought accountability and believe the evidence brought to light through this case underscores the consequences of spreading and endorsing lies.'

5:04 p.m. ET, April 18, 2023

Smartmatic says its pending case will further expose Fox News' wrongdoing after Dominion settlement

From CNN's Jon Passantino

Smartmatic representative demonstrates his company's system on August 30, 2018, at a meeting of the Secure, Accessible & Fair Elections Commission in Grovetown, Georgia. (Bob Andres/Atlanta Journal-Constitution/AP/FILE)

Smartmatic, the voting technology company that is suing Fox News for $2.7 billion for defamation said its pending case will further expose wrongdoing by the right-wing network, following the last-minute settlement in the case brought by Dominion Voting Systems.

“Dominion’s litigation exposed some of the misconduct and damage caused by Fox’s disinformation campaign. Smartmatic will expose the rest. Smartmatic remains committed to clearing its name, recouping the significant damage done to the company, and holding Fox accountable for undermining democracy,' said a statement from Smartmatic attorney J. Erik Connolly.

4:54 p.m. ET, April 18, 2023

Dominion attorney says settlement represents a 'ringing endorsement for truth and accountability'

From CNN’s Liam Reilly and Laura Dolan

Attorney Justin Nelson (Matt Rourke/AP)

The settlement for more than $787 million with Fox News represents “a ringing endorsement for truth and accountability,” the attorney representing Dominion Voting Systems said Tuesday.

“The truth matters. Lies have consequences,” said Justin Nelson of the Susman Godfrey law firm at a news conference outside the courthouse.

Nelson said that more than two years ago a “torrent of lies” had swept Dominion and election officials across America, causing “grievous harm to Dominion and the country.”

Nelson also said the country must “remain ever vigilant to find common ground.”

“For our democracy to endure for another 250 years and, hopefully much longer, we must share a commitment to facts,” Nelson added.

Source Link: Some on-air claims about Dominion Voting Systems were false, Fox News acknowledges in statement after deal is announced

0 notes

funkymbtifiction · 4 years ago

Text

REQUEST FILLED: 12 Angry Men: Juror #8 / Davis [INTP 9w1]

Function Order: Ti-Ne-Si-Fe Davis is respectful of his fellow jurors, but doesn’t allow their opinions to sway him from his insistence that a young man on trial for murdering his father is innocent. He doesn’t believe in sending a boy to his death when there is reasonable doubt, and argues that they did not prove the case against him. He ignores the “facts” (much to the annoyance of an ESTJ 8…

View On WordPress

#12 Angry Men #9w1 #Henry Fonda #INTP #Davis #intp x 9w1 #official typing #character typing

29 notes · View notes

kwebtv · 3 years ago

Photo

The Jury - ITV - February 17, 2002 - March 18, 2002

Legal Drama (11 episodes)

Running Time: 60 minutes

Stars: (Season 1)

Gerard Butler as Johnnie Donne, Juror #1

Helen McCrory as Rose Davies, Juror #2

Michael Maloney as Peter Segal, Juror #3

Nina Sosanya as Marcia Thomas, Juror #4

Nicholas Farrell as Jeremy Crawford, Juror #5

Sylvia Syms as Elsie Beamish, Juror #6

Paul Reynolds as Warren Murphy, Juror #7

Stuart Bunce as Charles Gore, Juror #8

Gillian Barge as Eva Prohaska, Juror #9

William Hoyland as Hector, Juror #10

Connor McIntyre as Derek Batey, Juror #11

Sarah-Louise Young as Jessica Garland, Juror #12

Antony Sher as Gerald Lewis, Q.C. Counsel for the Prosecution

Sonnell Dadral as Duvinder Singh, the Accused

Derek Jacobi as George Cording, Q.C. Counsel for the Defence

Supporting cast

John Duttine as Mark Waters

Steven Emrys as Mr. De Jersey

Fiona Gillies as Fiona Crawford

James Hayes as Father Gervase

Tim Healy as Eddie Fannon

Tiana Paige Johnson as Joy Thomas

Claire Neilson as Eleanor Colchester

Joanne Pierce as Marion Segal

Billy Scott as John Maher

Shaughan Seymour as the Judge

Jack Shepherd as Ron Maher

Mark Strong as Len Davies

Steve Sweeney as Thomas Haines

Ellen Thomas as Ruby Thomas

Peter Vaughan as Michael Colchester

#The Jury #TV #ITV #2000's #Legal Drama #Stuart Bunce #Gerard Butler #Nicholas Farrell #Michael Maloney #Helen McCrory #Nina Sosanya #Sylvia Syms #Antony Sher #Derek Jacobi #Tim Healy #Jack Shepherd #Mark Strong #Peter Vaughn

6 notes · View notes

blackkudos · 5 years ago

Text

Harold Ford, Jr.

Harold Eugene Ford Sr. (born May 20, 1945) is an American politician and Democratic former member of the United States House of Representatives representing the Memphis, Tennessee area for 11 terms—from 1975 until his retirement in 1997. He was the first African-American to represent Tennessee in the U.S. Congress. He is a member of the Ford political family from Memphis.

During his 20 years in Congress, Ford obtained ample federal funds for his district through his membership on the House Ways and Means Committee. He advocated for increased government assistance for lower income constituents including job training, health care, and supplemental unemployment benefits with welfare as a safety net. He supported President Carter's initiatives to rebuild central cities, and opposed Reagan era cuts to programs such as Medicare and food stamps. He proposed welfare reform legislation to gradually transition recipients from welfare to work, but it was not passed.

His effectiveness was diminished following his 1987 indictment on bank fraud charges that alleged he had used business loans for his personal needs. Ford denied the charges and claimed the prosecution was racially and politically motivated. He lost his committee leadership roles but remained in Congress while the legal proceeding were pending. He was ultimately tried and acquitted in 1993 of all charges by a jury.

He chose to retire from Congress in 1996. His son Harold Jr. returned to Tennessee from New York and successfully ran for his seat. In his retirement, Harold Sr. has been active in Democratic Party affairs and has worked as a lobbyist. He lives in Florida and in the Hamptons.

Early life, education and family

Harold grew up on Horn Lake Road in the West Junction neighborhood of South Memphis. He is the eighth of fifteen children born to Newton Jackson Ford (1914–1986) and Vera (Davis) Ford (1915–1994), prominent members of the African-American community. His mother was a homemaker and his father was an undertaker and businessman, who opened N.J. Ford Funeral Home (later changed to N.J. Ford And Sons Funeral Home) in 1932. His grandfather Lewie Ford (1889-1931) started the family funeral business and became allied with E.H. Crump, an influential white politician in Memphis and the state in the early 20th century.

Ford and his family have a public service orientation which dates back to his great-grandfather Newton Ford (1856–1919), who was a well-respected civic leader around the southern section of Shelby County. Newton Ford was elected as a county squire from 1888 to 1900. N.J. Ford ran for the Tennessee House in 1966 but was not elected.

Harold Ford graduated from Geeter High School in 1963, received his B.S. degree from Tennessee State University in Nashville in 1967 and did graduate work there for one year. He received a mortuary science degree from John A. Gupton College of Nashville in 1969, and worked in the family business as a mortician from 1969 until 1974. In 1982, he earned a Master of Business Administration from Howard University.

Political career

State legislature

Ford was able to use his family's deep roots in Memphis to garner support within the affluent black community for his first run for office. He also ran an organized campaign and was able to take advantage of the increase in black voters that followed the Voting Rights Act. He was elected to the Tennessee House of Representatives in 1970, becoming one of its youngest members and one of only a few African Americans to have served in the Tennessee General Assembly to that point in the 20th century. He was made majority whip in his first term, and chaired a state house committee on utility rates and practices.

He was a delegate to Democratic State Convention and to the quadrennial Democratic National Conventions from 1972 through 1996.

U.S. House of Representatives

In 1974, after two terms in the Tennessee legislature, he ran for the Democratic nomination for the Memphis-based 8th U.S. Congressional district, easily beating three opponents. He faced four-term Republican incumbent Dan Kuykendall in the general election. At that time, the district still had a white majority, though the 1970 round of redistricting by the Tennessee legislature had redrawn the 8th to include more African-American voters. Ford ran on a bipartisan platform emphasizing economic development to attract both black and white voters. He waged a large and well organized get-out-the-vote campaign using paid workers, volunteers and his own considerable energy, and received support from black churches and celebrities. He was also able to take advantage of post Watergate dissatisfaction with the Republican Party. When the votes were first counted it looked like Kuykendall had eked out a narrow victory—but Ford ultimately won by 744 votes after contesting the original count.

Ford became the first African-American to represent Tennessee in the United States Congress. He was re-elected by large margins, locking in the black vote, and winning a large number of white votes in his district. After the 1983 census, the district was renumbered as the 9th District, and was drawn as a black-majority district. With the percentage of black voters increasing due to increased white flight, Ford then won re-election by gaining more than 70 percent of the vote. After he was indicted, he still garnered more than 50 percent of the vote.

He served on a number of House committees including: Banking, Currency and Housing; Veterans' Affairs, and the Select Committee on Assassinations that investigated the death, among others, of Martin Luther King Jr. He was a member of the influential House Ways and Means Committee beginning in 1975, and chaired the subcommittee on Public Assistance and Unemployment. He served as the chairman of the House Select Committee on Aging during the 102nd and 103rd Congresses.

Ford obtained ample federal funds for his district through his membership on the House Ways and Means Committee. He focused his work in Congress on helping lower income constituents. He advocated for increased federal government assistance for job training, health care, and unemployment supplemental benefits with welfare as a safety net. He supported Democratic President Carter's initiatives to rebuild central cities, and opposed cuts to programs such as Medicare and food stamps that were passed during the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan. Ford proposed comprehensive welfare reform legislation to gradually transition recipients with children over the age of six from welfare to work. The legislation had a high start up cost due to the education and job training aspects, and was opposed by the Reagan administration.

Ford suffered in the eyes of many for the antics of his brother John Ford, who had been elected to the Tennessee State Senate in the same 1974 election. John Ford was accused, but never criminally convicted, of driving between Memphis and Nashville at high speeds while in possession of a legal firearm. Harold Ford said he had no control over his brother's actions.

Bribery trials

In 1987, federal prosecutors obtained an indictment against Ford from a grand jury in eastern Tennessee. The indictment was based on testimony from two bankers, both partners of Jake Butcher, who pled guilty to bank fraud under a plea bargain. Ford was charged in 18 counts of conspiracy and fraud accusing him of receiving nearly $1.5 million in loans from 1976 to 1983, that prosecutors alleged were actually bribes. Ford contended that the loans were legitimate business transactions used to extend loans to him and his family funeral home business.

A first trial in Memphis in 1990 ended in a mistrial with the jury deadlocked 8-4 along straight racial lines. The eight black jury members voted to acquit, and the four whites voted to convict. The judge granted the prosecutor's motion for retrial, and held that an impartial jury could not be found in Ford's hometown, the heavily Democratic and predominantly black city of Memphis where Ford was very popular. He ordered that the jury for the retrial be selected for a pool of jurors living 80 miles from Memphis in 17 heavily Republican and predominantly white rural counties. The jurors were to be bused into Memphis for the trial. Ford appealed this jury selection plan twice to the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the ground that it violated his constitutional right to a jury of his peers; the appeals were denied twice. In 1993, Stuart Gerson, a hold-over Bush-appointee serving as acting Attorney General sided with Ford's request for a jury from Memphis, but the federal judge hearing the trial rejected the request. On April 9, 1993, a jury of 11 whites and 1 black acquitted Ford of all charges. During the seven year pendentcy of the criminal charges, Ford remained a U.S. Representative, but was stripped by Congress of his committee leadership roles. After his acquittal they were restored. In 1992, he had also been implicated in the House banking scandal.

Later career

Harold Jr., Ford's son, in 1996 returned to run for his retiring father's seat after having worked in New York City and completed his education at the University of Pennsylvania and University of Michigan Law School. The elder Ford publicly hoped that the confrontational stance that he had sometimes used, particularly with regard to race, would never need to be employed by his son.

Personal life

Ford married Dorothy Bowles in 1969 and the couple had three children: Harold, Newton Jake and Sir Isaac. They divorced in 1999. He then remarried to Michelle Roberts and had two children: Andrew Ford and Ava.

He is a member of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity. He is a Baptist. Currently retired, Ford divides his time between Tennessee and Fisher Island in Miami, Florida. He is still active in the Democratic Party.

#05/20

3 notes · View notes

bm2ab · 5 years ago

Photo

Arrivals & Departures 16 May 1905 – 12 August 1982 Celebrate Henry Jaynes Fonda Day!

Henry Jaynes Fonda (16 May 1905 – 12 August 1982) was an American film and stage actor who had a career that spanned five decades in Hollywood. Fonda cultivated a strong, appealing screen image in several films now considered to be classics, earning one Academy Award for Best Actor on two nominations.

Fonda made his mark early as a Broadway actor and made his Hollywood film debut in 1935. His film career began to gain momentum with roles such as Bette Davis's fiancee in her Academy Award-winning performance in Jezebel (1938), brother Frank in Jesse James (1939), and the future President in Young Mr. Lincoln (1939), directed by John Ford. His early career peaked with his Academy Award-nominated performance as Tom Joad in The Grapes of Wrath, about an Oklahoma family who moved to California during the Dust Bowl 1930′s. This film is widely considered to be among the greatest American films.

In 1941 he starred opposite Barbara Stanwyck in the screwball comedy classic The Lady Eve. Book-ending his service in WWII were his starring roles in two highly regarded westerns: The Ox-Bow Incident (1943) and My Darling Clementine (1946), the latter directed by John Ford, and he also starred in Ford's western Fort Apache (1948). After a seven-year break from films, during which Fonda focused on stage productions, he returned with the WWII war-boat ensemble Mister Roberts (1955). In 1957 he starred as Juror No.8, the hold-out juror, in 12 Angry Men. Fonda, who was also co-producer, won the BAFTA for Best Foreign Actor.

Later in his career, Fonda moved into darker roles, such as the villain in the epic Once Upon a Time in the West (1968), underrated and a box office disappointment at its time of release, but now regarded as one of the best westerns of all time. He also played in lighter-hearted fare such as Yours, Mine and Ours with Lucille Ball, but also often played important military figures, such as a Colonel in Battle of the Bulge (1965), and Admiral Nimitz in Midway (1976). He finally won the Academy Award for Best Actor at the 54th Academy Awards for his final film role in On Golden Pond (1981), which also starred Katharine Hepburn and his daughter Jane Fonda, but was too ill to attend the ceremony. He died from heart disease a few months later.

Fonda was the patriarch of a family of famous actors, including daughter Jane Fonda, son Peter Fonda, granddaughter Bridget Fonda, and grandson Troy Garity. His family and close friends called him "Hank". In 1999 he was named the sixth-Greatest Male Screen Legend of the Classic Hollywood Era (stars with a film debut by 1950) by the American Film Institute.

2 notes · View notes

marymosley · 5 years ago

Text

The 25 Best Lawyer Movies of All Time

Happy New Year everyone! I hope that you’ve had a wonderful 2019 and are looking forward to paying off debt, building wealth and achieving financial independence in 2020.

Today’s post is totally for fun – and I hope you have as much fun with it as I had creating it. Below are the 25 best lawyer movies of all times (in my opinion), complete with clips from some of the best scenes. Did I leave anything out? If so, let me know in the comments.

Enjoy the downtime during the holidays (assuming you got it) and enjoy the cheap entertainment below, some of which can be streamed on Netflix and all of which can probably be obtained for less than $10.

youtube

1. My Cousin Vinny (1992)

Directed by Jonathan Lynn and written by Dale Launer, My Cousin Vinny follows two young New Yorkers, Bill Gambini and Stan Rothenstein, who are arrested and put on trial for murder while traveling in rural Alabama. The fate of these men rests in the hands of Vincent Gambini (Vinny) a cousin of Bill’s and a lawyer who’s just barely passed the bar exam.

Gambini, played by Joe Pesci, does his best to defend his cousin and his cousin’s friend but makes a number of missteps along the way. Gambini’s fiancee, Mona Lisa, who is played by Marisa Tomei, is instrumental in helping him with his defense.

Trivia: Marisa Tomei received an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role.

youtube

2. 12 Angry Men (1957)

This classic courtroom drama was directed by Sidney Lumet and details the deliberations of 12 men, all of whom are part of the jury deciding the fate of a poor young man who’s been accused of murder. If found guilty, he will face the death penalty.

The film begins with all jurors except for Juror 8 agreeing that the young man is guilty. Juror 8, played by Henry Fonda, encourages his fellow jurors to discuss the defendant’s case before sentencing him to death. Throughout the discussions, many of the jurors go back and forth, changing their votes as their forced to confront certain aspects of the case that they initially dismissed.

Trivia: The film was shot in less than three weeks.

youtube

3. Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

Deemed one of the greatest courtroom dramas of all time and based on the novel with the same title, Anatomy of a Murder follows Michigan lawyer Paul Biegler (played by James Stewart), who has his work cut out for him after agreeing to defend Lt. Manion (played by Ben Gazzarra), who murdered a local bar owner after learning he’s been accused of rape.

Biegler, who is encouraged to take the case by his mentor, Parnell McCarthy, played by Arthur O’Connell, must go up against big-city prosecutor Claude Dancer (played by George C. Scott) in order to help his client.

Trivia: The novel upon which the film is based was written by John D. Voelker (under the pseudonym Robert Traver), a Michigan Supreme Court justice.

youtube

4. The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)

Directed by Brad Furman, The Lincoln Lawyer stars Matthew McConaughey as Mick Haller, a defense attorney who runs his law practice out of a Lincoln Continental. Mick’s clientele is comprised mainly of petty criminals, but he’s surprisingly presented with an opportunity to defend a wealthy Beverly Hills playboy by the name of Louis Ross Roulet, played by Ryan Phillippe, who’s been accused of attempted murder.

At first, Mick assumes that the case will be an easy, open-and-shut affair. He soon learns, though, that there’s more to it than meets the eye and that it’s connected with a previous case of his.

Trivia: After starring in the film, McConaughey went on to become a spokesman for the Lincoln brand in 2014.

youtube

5. Witness for the Prosecution (1957)

In this film, Tyrone Power plays Leonard Vole, who has been accused of murdering a wealthy woman. Vole is represented by the legendary Sir Wilfrid Robarts (played by Charles Laughton) and, in order to win his case, must have his alibi corroborated by his wife, Christine (played by Marlene Dietrich).

In a shocking turn of events, Christine decides to appear in court and testify against him. Several other twists and turns occur throughout the award-winning film as Sir Wilfrid does his best to defend his client and close the case.

Trivia: Witness for the Prosecution was the last film that Power completed before he died of a heart attack in November of 1958.

youtube

6. Legally Blonde (2001)

Based on the novel by Amanda Brown, Legally Blonde is a courtroom comedy that stars Reese Witherspoon as Elle Woods, a sorority girl from California. Elle follows her ex, Warner Huntington III (played by Matthew Davis), to Harvard law school after he breaks up with her on the night when she expects him to propose.

While her initial goal is to win back Warner, Elle soon falls in love with the legal profession as she works to overcome the challenges of being a first-year law student. She goes on to realize that she has the potential to become a great lawyer in her own right.

Trivia: Reese Witherspoon’s contract allowed her to keep all of the costumes she wore in the movie after filming ended.

youtube

7. Philadelphia (1993)

Directed by Jonathan Demme, Philadelphia tells the story of lawyer Andrew Beckett, who struggles to hide his homosexuality, as well as his HIV status, for fear that they will have a negative impact on his career at a prestigious Philadelphia law firm. Eventually, his secrets are exposed by a colleague.

After losing his job at the firm, Beckett decides he must sue on the grounds of discrimination. The only lawyer who will help him with his case is Joe Miller, played by Denzel Washington. The two men work together as they face down Belinda Conine, one of the firm’s top litigators, who is played by Mary Steenburgen.

Trivia: Initially, Demme planned to cast a comedic actor in the role of Joe Miller, but he changed his mind after Washington showed an interest in the part.

youtube

8. Erin Brockovich (2000)

Erin Brockovich tells the true story of a woman who fought hard against the giant energy corporation Pacific Gas and Electric after learning about a cover-up that was exposing a local community to contaminated water and contributing to serious illnesses.

In the film, directed by Steven Soderbergh, Brockovich is played by Julia Roberts. Her attorney, Ed Masry, who eventually hires her at his firm, is played by Albert Finney. It is when she starts working at Masry’s firm that Brockovich discovers medical records related to the case and kicks off her investigation.

Trivia: Julia Roberts’ salary for her role as Erin Brockovich made her the first actress in Hollywood to earn more than $20 million.

youtube

9. The Verdict (1982)

The Verdict follows Frank Galvin, played by Paul Newman, a once-promising attorney who’s down on his luck after being fired from a Boston law firm for accusations of jury tampering. At the beginning of the film, directed by Sidney Lumet, as a favor to his friend Mickey (played by Jack Warden), Galvin agrees to take on a medical malpractice case.

Galvin initially plans to settle the case, but declines the offer from the hospital and decides to take it to trial instead, much to the surprise of the judge and the relatives of the victim.

Trivia: Two of the film’s cast members, Jack Warden and Edward Binns, starred in 12 Angry Men, which Lumet also directed.

youtube

10. Presumed Innocent (1990)

Directed by Alan J. Pakula, Presumed Innocent tells the story of Rusty Sabich, a chief deputy played by Harrison Ford, who is assigned by prosecuting attorney Raymond Horgan (played by Brian Dennehy) to investigate the rape and murder of his colleague, Carolyn Polhemus (played by Greta Scacchi).

At the time of the assignment, Horgan doesn’t know that Polhemus and Sabich are involved in an affair. Eventually, though, evidence implicates Sabich and causes Horgan’s enemies to demand his arrest. Sabich must call on defense attorney Sandy Stern (played by Raul Julia) to help him with his defense.

Trivia: Before Harrison Ford was cast as Rusty Sabich, both Robert Redford and Kevin Costner turned down the role.

youtube

11. Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

Set in the late 1940s post-World War II, this political drama follows nazis who are tried in an American court in Germany. In the film, directed by Stanley Kramer, these individuals must face a military tribunal and address charges of crimes against humanity.

Chief Justice Haywood, played by Spencer Tracy, must hear from the lead defendant Ernst Janning (played by Burt Lancaster) as well as his defense attorney (played by Maximillian Schell), the widow of a Nazi general, a US army captain (played by William Shatner), and a witness named Irene Wallner (played by Judy Garland).

Trivia: Maximillian Schell’s Academy Award for Best Actor made him the lowest-billed winner in history (he was billed fifth on the film’s cast list).

youtube

12. A Man for All Seasons (1966)

Directed by Fred Zinnemann, A Man for All Seasons is set in 16th Century England and tells the story of Sir Thomas More, played by Paul Scofield.

More is known for standing up to King Henry VIII (played by Robert Shaw) and refusing to pressure the Pope into allowing the king to have his marriage annulled so he could remarry. More, who was a devout Catholic, stood by his convictions to not allow the king to divorce, despite intense pressure to do otherwise. The king and his loyalists responded by charging More with treason.

Trivia: Fred Zinneman describes A Man for All Seasons as the easiest film he’s ever made, thanks to the talent and cooperation of the cast and crew.

youtube

13. A Few Good Men (1992)

Directed by Rob Reiner and written by Aaron Sorkin, A Few Good Men tells the story of military lawyer Lt. Daniel Kaffee (played by Tom Cruise) as he defends two Marines who have been charged with killing another Marine at Guantanamo Bay.

Kaffee is convinced by another lawyer, played by Demi Moore, that he should not seek a plea bargain for these Marines. Instead, she convinces him that they were acting on the orders of a commanding officer, Col. Nathan Jessep, who is played by Jack Nicholson.

Trivia: The American Film Association named the film’s famous line “You can’t handle the truth!” as one of the top movie quotes of all time (it ranks #29 on the list).

youtube

14. The Rainmaker (1997)

The Rainmaker, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, follows a new attorney by the name of Rudy Baylor, who, struggling to find work, is forced to take a job under another lawyer of questionable morals, played by Mickey Rourke.

While working for this lawyer, Baylor meets Deck Shifflet, a paralegal played by Danny DeVito and Dot Black (played by Mary Kay Place), whose insurance provider will not provide coverage for her dying son. When he learns of this information, Baylor decides to team up with Shifflet to take on Black’s insurance company and its formidable attorney (played by Jon Voight).

Trivia: Danny DeVito wore fake teeth for his role in the film.

youtube

15. Kramer vs Kramer (1979)

Written and directed by Robert Benton, Kramer vs Kramer follows advertising executive Ted Kramer (played by Dustin Hoffman) after he finds out that his wife (played by Meryl Streep) is abandoning him and his young son.

Despite losing his advertising job, Ted goes on to develop a much stronger relationship with his son, helped along by a fellow single parent named Margaret, played by Jane Alexander. This causes problems later when his wife returns to try and win back custody. An arduous courtroom battle ensues as a result and has serious implications for all who are involved in the case.

Trivia: Meryl Streep wrote her own courtroom speech when she was unhappy with the original speech she was given.

youtube

16. The Paper Chase (1973)

In The Paper Chase, written and directed by James Bridges, a first-year Harvard law student named James Hart (played by Timothy Bottoms) who faces a series of academic challenges. His load becomes even heavier, though, when he has a run-in with an intimidating contracts professor, Charles W. Kingsfield (played by John Houseman).

Despite Kingsfield’s intensity in the classroom and the harsh demands he places upon his students, which cause many to abandon their pursuits and drop out altogether, James perseveres and even begins to date his professor’s daughter, Susan, who is played by Lindsay Wagner.

Trivia: The film received three Academy Award nominations and received one for Best Supporting Actor.

youtube

17. The Firm (1993)

In The Firm, directed by Sydney Pollack and based on the legal thriller by John Grisham, a young lawyer by the name of Mitch McDeere (played by Tom Cruise) joins the ranks of a small and prestigious firm. Although at first honored to be part of the firm, McDeere soon learns, with the help of a receptionist played by Holly Hunter, that there’s more than meets the eye and that the firm is involved in laundering money for the mob.

McDeere finds himself in a jam when the FBI contacts him to gather evidence about the actions of his colleagues. As a result, he must decide between doing what’s best in the eyes of the law and making the decision that will keep him alive.

Trivia: Holly Hunter’s performance lasts five minutes and 59 seconds, making it one of the shortest Oscar-nominated performances of all time.

youtube

18. Compulsion (1959)

This crime drama, directed by Richard Fleischer, tells the story of two sociopathic students, Artie Straus (played by Bradford Dillman) and Judd Steiner (played by Dean Stockwell). Artie and Judd find themselves in serious trouble after they commit a murder in an attempt to pull off a flawless crime. They leave behind a crucial piece of evidence and end up arrested for what they’ve done.

Their lawyer, played by Orson Welles, must then work hard to defend the two young men and save them from execution. The film is based on the well-known and often-cited Leopold and Loeb case of 1924.

Trivia: Despite his top-billed status, Welles does not appear in the film until an hour and five minutes in.

youtube

19. And Justice for All (1979)

Directed by Norman Jewison, follows Arthur Kirkland, a Baltimore defense attorney played by Al Pacino, who finds himself in jail after punching Judge Henry T. Fleming (played by John Forsythe) while arguing in defense of his client, Jeff McCullaugh (played by Thomas G. Waites). McCullaugh, after being stopped for a minor traffic defense, was mistaken for a murderer with the same name.

Kirkland eventually gets out of jail and later finds himself hired to defend Judge Fleming, who has been accused of the brutal assault and rape of a young woman. Fleming wants Kirkland as his lawyer because he believes it will work in his favor to have someone who openly hates him defending him.

Trivia: And Justice for All marks the theatrical film debut of acclaimed actor Jeffrey Tambor.

youtube

20. A Time to Kill (1996)

In this film, directed by Joel Schumacher, Samuel L. Jackson Carl Lee Hailey, a man who shoots the bigoted men who brutally raped his daughter when they are on their way to being tried for their crime. Hailey must then rely on the help of defense lawyer Jake Brigance, played by Matthew McConaughey, to help him get acquitted.

Brigance feels that the chances of an acquittal are slim, due in part to the fact that Hailey resides in a small and segregated town in the South, but he takes on the man’s case regardless when he shows unshakable faith in his abilities.

Trivia: Woody Harrelson had an interest in playing Jake Brigance, but John Grisham objected.

youtube

21. A Civil Action (1998)

In this film, written and directed by Steven Zaillian and based on a true story, John Travolta stars as personal injury attorney Jan Schlichtmann. Schlichtmann finds himself involved in a case that, while seemingly straightforward at first, ends up being incredibly difficult and appears to have the potential to be his undoing.

The case involves a major company responsible for contaminating a town’s water supply and causing several of its residents to develop leukemia. At the risk of bankrupting his firm and ending his career, Schlichtmann goes up against a powerhouse attorney played by Robert Duval in an attempt to make things right and hold the company accountable.

Trivia: This was the only non-Best Picture nominee for the year to receive a nomination for Best Cinematography.

youtube

22. The Conspirator (2010)

Directed by Robert Redford, The Conspirator tells the story of the aftermath of the assassination of President Lincoln. After the President is assassinated, seven men and one woman are arrested and charged with conspiring to murder him, the vice president, and the secretary of state.

The lone woman, Mary Surratt (played by Robin Wright), is represented by the reluctant lawyer Frederick Aiken (played by James McAvoy). Surratt owns the boarding house where John Wilkes Booth and the other men planned their crimes. Convinced that Surratt may be innocent, Aiken works hard to defend her throughout the film and prove that she’s being used to try and capture her son, another suspect who is still at large.

Trivia: This was the American Film Association’s first film.

youtube

23. Amistad (1997)

Set in 1839, Amistad tells the story of a slave ship sailing from Cuba to the United States. In the film, directed by Steven Spielberg, Cinque (played by Djimon Hounsou) leads the slaves in an uprising, which results in them being held as prisoners in Connecticut.

Theodore Joadson, a freed slave played by Morgan Freeman, learns of the plight of these individuals and recruits the help of property lawyer Roger Baldwin (played by Matthew McCaughnehey) to defend and exonerate them. Their pursuit later wins the support of John Quincy Adams, who is played by Anthony Hopkins.

Trivia: This was the theatrical film debut of Chiwetel Ejiofor.

youtube

24. The Devil’s Advocate (1997)

Keanu Reeves stars in the film as Kevin Lomax, a Florida defense attorney who takes a position at a New York law firm headed by John Milton (played by Al Pacino).

As Kevin moves up the ranks within the firm, his mentally ill wife, Mary Ann (played by Charlize Theron), has a series of progressively more severe frightening and mystical experiences that alter her perception of reality. While dealing with the strain of his wife’s illness, Kevin also learns that his boss is involved in some nefarious activities and is not who he claims to be.

Trivia: Charlize Theron spent an hour per day working with a psychotherapist to learn how to play a schizophrenic in an accurate way.

youtube

25. RBG (2018)

RBG chronicles the career of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which spans several decades, and how she developed a legal legacy while becoming a pop culture icon.

After frankly answering questions about abortion and discrimination at her Senate confirmation hearings, Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3, which President Clinton notes was astounding given the partisan political environment of the 1990s.

Trivia: The nickname is inspired by the “Notorious” honorific from the name of rap artist Notorious B.I.G. Ginsburg shows a good-natured embrace of her nickname, noting that she and the rapper have much in common: they were both born in Brooklyn.

Originally posted on The 25 Best Lawyer Movies of All Time

Biglaw Investor - Personal finances for the aspiring millionaire lawyer

The 25 Best Lawyer Movies of All Time published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

4 notes · View notes

antoine-roquentin · 6 years ago

Text

Perfect equipoise: a perfect fantasy. A more realistic American tableau was unfolding in Chicago, where the conspiracy trial was at its entropic height.

During jury selection, the questions the defense wanted the pool to be asked included “Do you know who Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix are?” and “If your children are female, do they wear brassieres all the time?” In a pretrial hearing Judge Hoffman described the “intent” standard by which the defendants were to be judged: “The substance of the crime was a state of mind.” (That was just the way Time had defined Middle America: a state of mind.) To that standard, the defense was glad to accede. When the twelve jurors turned out to be middle-class and middle-aged, except for two girls in their early twenties, Leonard Weinglass, the lead defense attorney, moved for a mistrial, claiming his clients weren’t being judged by a jury of their peers—which would have to be chosen also from people not drawn from the voter rolls, because blacks, the young, dropouts, and misfits were not well-enough represented on them.

The government had selectively indicted to display a cross-section of the monstrous personages rending the good order of American civilization: the older guru (David Dellinger); two long-haired freaks (Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin); the by-any-means-necessary Negro (Bobby Seale); two SDS militants (Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis); two radical young faculty members (a chemistry professor, John Froines, and a sociology professor, Lee Weiner, who were supposed to have planned a bombing). The prosecutors warned on TV that the defendants might walk into court the first day naked.

That didn’t happen, though when court adjourned on New Year’s Eve defendant Froines and his girlfriend did pass out autographed nude posters of themselves.

The jury was sequestered every minute they were outside the Federal Building: if states of minds were on trial, even the cultural air was prejudicial (some stories they missed: the Mobilization, the Silent Majority speech, the Moratorium, the rise of Spiro Agnew, the second moon shot, the My Lai massacre). They received a respite from cabin fever the day after Christmas when they were treated to a Disney on Parade show. But even that was prejudicial: the monkeys in the Jungle Book number were go-go girls. Alice in Wonderland was done up in psychedelic patterns.

Jerry Rubin called his indictment “the Academy Award for protest.” Judge Julius Hoffman seemed to relish the notion. “Tell me something,” he asked New York Times reporter Tony Lukas, who had called up to ask for press credentials. “Do you think this is going to be the trial of the century?”

Outside, trial marshals confiscated spoons, books, compacts, nail clippers, attaché cases—and two pistols. Defense sympathizers waited half the night in line for a spot in the gallery; the judge gave seats instead to Chicago socialites (one hippie who survived the gauntlet leapt up in the spectators’ gallery during a defense argument to cry “Right on!” and was swarmed so badly a witness thought marshals might have broken some bones). When Bobby Seale’s family managed to get seats, Judge Julius Hoffman summoned a marshal and had these strange people with bushy Afros removed. The jury wouldn’t be able to watch his child’s and wife’s reactions when Seale was bound and gagged like a slave. They weren’t there on November 5, 1969, either, when Judge Hoffman sentenced Seale to an unprecedented four years in prison for sixteen counts of contempt of court and severed his case from the rest, turning the Chicago 8 into the Chicago 7. Reporters made a mad dash for the phones. The courtroom marshals unpinned their badges, put them into their pockets, and scoured the jammed courtroom for anything else sharp, fearing an outbreak of hand-to-hand combat.

The next day a defense lawyer argued the four-year sentence was illegal and asked the judge to explain himself. Judge Hoffman replied, “I have known literally thousands of what we used to call Negro people and who are now referred to as black people, and I have never heard that kind of language emanate from the lips of any of them.” That was the day Bob Hope sent out his letter to senators “FOR A WEEK OF NATIONAL UNITY.”

Judge Julius J. Hoffman was a strutting, little bantam cock of a man. On the first day of jury selection he read out the indictment to the jury pool like a nineteenth-century thespian. Defense lawyer William Kunstler objected. Judge Hoffman boomed, “Motion denied!” and said he’d never apologize for “the vocal facilities the Lord hath given me.” When one of his young law clerks was told to prepare a denial of the defendants’ motion to see the wiretap logs and replied, “But, Judge, that’s not fair,” citing the plain letter of the law, the old man flew into a rage that awed his clerk—who was told not to return to work after his vacation.

Federal judge selection was supposed to be random. But in Chicago, the fix was always in. In big mob cases, the state always angled to argue before Judge Hoffman: he always decided against the defendant and made the prosecuting attorneys look like heroes. He “is the bane of do-gooders who would give every bum a second chance, and a third and a fourth and a fifth,” Chicago’s American said. He was also a self-hating Jew who took willful pleasure in mispronouncing his fellow Jews’ names (Weinglass: “Fineglass,” “Weintraub,” “Weinruss,” “Weinrob”) and wouldn’t let one witness wear a yarmulke in court (“Take off your hat, sir”). He popped a vein when Abbie Hoffman called himself his “illegitimate son,” but hated David Dellinger (“Derringer,” “Dillinger”) most of all: he was a WASP who’d surrendered privileges the judge so dearly wished to possess. Hoffman was especially taken aback when one of the defendants informed him that the plaque for the Northwestern Law School classroom named after him had been ripped from the wall.

“The plaque?”

“Apparently while the board of trustees feels affection for you, the student body does not.”

The defense was determined to put the war on trial and the defendants’ lifestyle on proud display (the Boston 5 had “sat like good little boys called into the principal’s office,” Dr. Spock had pointed out, and were railroaded nonetheless). The Chicago defendants were determined to show why their state of mind was morally superior. The seventy-four-year-old they called Mr. Magoo was a hanging judge, hired to grease the rails for a conviction that would only be overturned on appeal. It was a show trial. So why not put on a show?

The prosecution presented its case first. Their witnesses were undercover infiltrators. Once, when a witness was called just as one of the defendants exited a side door, the rest of the Chicago 7 braced themselves: was one of their own a police spy? (Actually, he was just going to the bathroom.)

One prosecution witness was simultaneously a member of the executive committee of Veterans for Peace, the Chicago Peace Council, the New Mobilization Committee to End the War—and the Chicago Police Department Red Squad. The people most useful in the movement, radicals often learned too late, were the ones later revealed to be spies; being paid for their time by the government, they were the most avid “volunteers.” Another had enrolled in the Northeastern Illinois State College SDS and had led a group that pushed Northeastern’s president off a speaker’s platform. (The most militant activists, radicals also discovered too late, were often police-agent provocateurs.) He testified that Rennie Davis said their plan to recruit for Chicago was to “lure them here with music and sex”; at the meeting where he claimed he heard that, he himself had suggested disabling army jeeps with grappling hooks. A third prosecution witness was a college newspaper reporter hired as a spy by the Chicago’s American columnist Jack Mabley. A fourth had worked as Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin’s dirtbag motorcycle-gang “bodyguard.” A fifth was a policewoman who’d dressed for her work in Lincoln Park every day in white hippie bell-bottoms carrying a .38 Colt in her bag.

This witness, Officer Barbara Callender, testified blushingly, “Every other word was that F-word.”

Cross-examination: “Haven’t you ever heard that word in the station house?”

The government objected to the line of questioning. The objection was sustained. Part of the prosecution’s strategy was to establish that the defendants were obscene. Ten days later, when another Red Squad member testified, he said he’d told a newsman “to turn the censored cameras around because of that civilian brutality.” His side believed it was obscenity to say [censored] without blushing; the other believed it was obscenity during an evil war to save your shame for mere words: the war was the obscenity. (A joke going around the New Left: a policeman tells a protester to come back after she has removed the obscenity from her FUCK THE WAR placard and she returns with one reading FUCK THE.)

The prosecutors, U.S. Attorneys Richard Schultz and Thomas Aquinas Foran, were perfectly cast. Schultz was so ploddingly literal-minded he could call the most obvious Yippie put-ons devious incitements to riot. Foran was a Democrat who said he had been a closer friend of the late Bobby Kennedy’s than Tom Hayden had been. In his summation he spoke of his empathy for the kids, who “feel that the lights have gone out in Camelot.” But “these guys take advantage of them. They take advantage of it personally, intentionally, evilly, and to corrupt those kids, they use them, and they use them for their purposes and for their intents. And you know what are their purposes and intents?…This is in their own words: to ‘disrupt.’ To ‘pin delegates in the Convention hall.’ To ‘clog streets.’ To force the use of troops. To have actions so militant the Guard will have to be used…. ‘Tear this city apart.’ ‘Fuck up this convention.’…‘We’ll lure the McCarthy kids and other young people with music and sex and try to hold the park.’”

The prosecution’s aim was to reduce a complex stew of motives, interests, approaches, and personalities to a concentrated, unified plot. They said David Dellinger, the Gandhian who had little direct role in Chicago, was only pretending to be a pacifist and was really the rioting’s “chief architect” (“Oh, bullshit. That is a complete lie,” Dellinger shouted. “Did you get that, Miss Reporter?” Judge Hoffman replied, and revoked Dellinger’s bail). Prosecutors said the ham-handed self-defense training in Lincoln Park was combat training. Patrolman Frapolly described a meeting in which he claimed he heard plans to throw burning flares at the cops.

Mr. Foran: “Were any of the defendants present?”

The Witness: “Yes. Weiner and Froines were at this meeting. So was Abbie Hoffman.”

Mr. Foran: “Do you see Mr. Hoffman here in the courtroom?”

The Witness: “Yes, I do.”

Mr. Foran: “Would you step down and point him out, please.”

The Witness: “Mr. Hoffman is sitting with the leather vest on, the shirt—he just shot me with his finger. His hair is very unkempt.”

The hippies’ hippie-ness was on trial; style was a battleground. Abbie Hoffman, asked why they lured innocent youth to Chicago with sex and rock bands, replied, “Rock musicians are the real leaders of the revolution.” Posture was a battleground. When Judge Hoffman admonished William Kunstler not to slouch on the lectern designed by the Federal Building’s distinguished architect Mies van der Rohe, Abbie replied, “Mies van der Rohe was a Kraut.” He added that the courtroom was a “neon oven”—thus deploying his Madison Avenue brilliance in the service of the defendants’ pet theory that America was becoming Nazi Germany. Pencils, even, became a battleground: “primly squared off and neatly sharpened beside a few neatly stacked memos on the prosecution table,” the Evergreen Review’s John Schultz wrote; “askew and gnawed and maybe encrusted with a sliver of earwax,” a proud part of the “unholy clutter,” on the defense table. (When Abbie Hoffman, a very hard worker, took the stand, he said, “Work is a dirty word instead of fuck is a dirty word.”)

Humor was a battleground most of all.

The judge fancied himself a rapier wit. But when the defense table laughed at him, or with the defense—as when Abbie and Jerry showed up in judicial robes—he made sure the court reporter got it in the record, for in the courtroom laughter wasn’t appropriate. Which jurymen laughed when was how both sides kept score.

Based on that calculus, when the prosecution rested on December 9, the day after the Nixon press conference that earned him a snap 81 percent approval rating, movement sympathizers predicted a hung jury. That prediction led to a debate in the defense camp. Tom Hayden said that, since they weren’t going to be convicted, they could best get on with the revolution if they rested their case without mounting a defense, ending the affair in a mistrial. Others—Abbie, Jerry—said the trial was the revolution. The Yippies won: they would use their defense to introduce “Woodstock Nation”—the title of Abbie’s new book—to America. They would fight through the jungles of TV.

They spoke at colleges, women’s clubs, and churches to raise money for their defense, to warm receptions. At a tony synagogue in suburban Highland Park, Illinois, fourteen hundred turned out to hear them. At universities they were treated like the Beatles. At a University of Chicago rally, Rennie Davis announced he would continue fighting the way he was fighting even if they put a pistol to his head: “How can you be a young person and have any other position?”

Thomas Aquinas Foran would have said the same thing, if asked about his own position.

It seemed an auspicious week to indict an Establishment gone mad. As Wednesday night, December 3, 1969, became Thursday morning, December 4, what the Chicago Tribune had called the “wild gun battle” at Black Panther headquarters in a West Side apartment building left two Panthers, twenty-one-year-old leader Fred Hampton and lieutenant Mark Clark, twenty-two, dead. Lewis Koch, the young New Left producer for the local NBC affiliate, smelled a rat in the cops’ claim they were met with “a shotgun volley.” He’d seen film of the cops leaving the building: smiling, embracing, exulting as if they’d won a football game—not the behavior of men who had just survived an ambush. He put Panther Bobby Rush on the afternoon news the next day, who called it cold-blooded murder and invited viewers to the apartment to see for themselves. The Chicago Daily News columnist Mike Royko took him up on his offer. The morning that the conspiracy-trial prosecution rested its case, Royko published a column called “The Hampton Bullet Holes.” According to the police account, Royko wrote, “miracles occurred. The Panthers’ bullets must have dissolved in the air before they hit anybody or anything. Either that or the Panthers were shooting in the wrong direction—namely, at themselves.” Royko had examined the building with a ballistics expert, who identified at least seventy-six bullets coming in, including twenty-four in the wall near Hampton’s bed—and not a single one coming out.

Chicago cops failed to secure the crime scene. People lined up around the block to tour the open-and-shut evidence. Years later it came out that the FBI COINTELPRO had provided Chicago cops with the floor plans of the apartment, and an FBI infiltrator had slipped secobarbital in Fred Hampton’s drink the previous evening to make it easier to murder him in his bed. Such revelations would only have confirmed what the Chicago 7 defense already knew: the “justice system” wasn’t a system of justice, “law and order” was a cover for state-sponsored crime.

Those same days the last cop indicted for crimes during convention week was on trial. The jury absolved him of beating a twenty-year-old hitchhiker after only an hour of deliberation. The prosecution was so convincing, the defense so obviously false, the shocked judge implored of the foreman, “Are you certain, not guilty?”

The Silent Majority was practicing jury nullification, just as the Chicago 7 opened their defense.

The first defense witness was a supervisor at a candy factory. He displayed slides he had taken of police chopping their way through a crowd, kicking kids when they were down—without provocation, he said. The next day he was fired from his job. And any pretense to a straight defense was abandoned. The prosecution said the Chicago 7 had lured lambs to slaughter with music and sex. So the Chicago 7’s defense would be…music and sex.

Jacques Levy, director of Oh! Calcutta! (the off-Broadway play where the cast took off their clothes), Timothy Leary, Allen Ginsberg, Country Joe McDonald were all called to the stand. (“Dr. Leary, what is your present occupation?” “I am the Democratic candidate for governor in California.” “Doctor, can you explain what a psychedelic drug is?”) Judy Collins broke out into a chorus of “Where have all the flowers gone?” (Judge Hoffman: “We don’t allow singing in this court.”) William Kunstler presented folksinger Phil Ochs with exhibit D-147, the guitar he’d used to perform “I Ain’t Marching Any More” at the Festival of Life. He, too, tried and failed to sing.

The following colloquy ensued: Abbie Hoffman had “led the crowd in a chant of ‘Fuck LBJ,’ didn’t he?”

“Yes, I think he did….”

“Now, in your plans for Chicago, did you plan for public fornication in the park?”

Allen Ginsberg had been in Chicago helping calm things with his Buddhist chants. Judge Hoffman had once been an ally of Ginsberg’s. He’d ruled in 1960 that the avant-garde Chicago literary magazine Big Table wasn’t obscene, noting that William S. Burroughs’s Naked Lunch was intended “to shock the contemporary society in order perhaps to better point out its flaws and weaknesses,” quoting the Ulysses decision on the subversive necessity of art. But that was a different age, when such nuances were possible. Now everyone had to choose a side.

One day a clerk at Barbara’s Bookstore in Old Town saw a middle-aged man pacing around. A member of the prosecution team, he asked, “Do you have any of Allen Ginsberg’s books?” She went to hunt some down. He said, “Could you hurry up? The future of the country may depend on this.”

Later that day, on the stand, Ginsberg explained, “I was chanting a mantra called the Mala Mantra, the great mantra of preservation of that aspect of the Indian religion called Vishnu the Preserver.”

Thomas Aquinas Foran leafed through one of his newfound literary treasures.

Mr. Foran: “In The Empty Mirror, there is a poem called ‘The Night Apple’?”

The Witness: “Yes.”

Mr. Foran: “Would you recite it for the jury?”

The Witness:

THE NIGHT APPLE

Last night I dreamed

of one I loved

for seven long years,

but I saw no face,

only the familiar

presence of the body;

sweat skin eyes

feces urine sperm

saliva all one

odor and mortal taste.

Foran, sarcastically: “Could you explain to the jury what the religious significance of that poem is?”

Ginsberg, earnestly: “If you could take a wet dream as a religious experience, I could. It is a description of a wet dream, sir.”

Defense witness Linda Hager Morse was a pretty Quaker girl from Philadelphia who had won the Kiwanis Decency Award and first marched for peace on New York’s Fifth Avenue in 1965. She was now a revolutionary. The defense wanted her to talk about why it was necessary to overthrow capitalism. The judge ruled that out of order. The prosecution, however, was glad to pick up the thread in cross-examination, and the judge was glad to let them. What Morse said encapsulated the strangeness of the last four years of American history. One part sounded quite like Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society speech: “My ultimate goal is to create a society where everyone is fed, where everyone is educated, where everyone has a job, where everyone has a chance to express himself artistically or politically, or spiritually, or religiously” (Johnson: “a society of success without squalor, beauty without barrenness, works of genius without the wretchedness of poverty”). The other part couldn’t have been further afield from Johnson’s consensus bromides. Assistant DA Schultz posed the question: “You practice shooting an M1 yourself, don’t you?”

The Witness: “Yes, I do.”

Mr. Schultz: “You also practice karate, don’t you?”

The Witness: “Yes, I do.”

Mr. Schultz: “That is for the revolution, isn’t it?”

The Witness: “After Chicago I changed from being a pacifist to the realization that we had to defend ourselves. A nonviolent revolution was impossible. I desperately wish it was possible.”

Rennie Davis thought this was the defense’s most effective witness with the jury. He asked a reporter what he had thought of Morse’s testimony. The reporter’s answer spoke to the polarization: “It certainly was a disaster for you. Now you’ve really had it.”

Could your daughter kill?

The defendants had intended to win the sympathy of the big jury out there, the general public. Their message was seen through a glass darkly. “What did go on in Judge Julius Hoffman’s courtroom?” asked the back cover of one of the many paperback books that appeared later reproducing court transcripts. With no cameras to record it, it was hard to know. Afterward a friend asked Tony Lukas of the Times which of the defendants had defecated in the aisle of the courtroom.

Most newspaper coverage came from secondhand wire reports, built from a written record that the judge made sure reflected every defense outrage and whitewashed every prosecution one. The Times’s Lukas paid careful attention to such unfairness, but his editors pruned him ruthlessly: Abbie Hoffman always “shouted”; Judge Hoffman always “said” (even if it was really the other way around). To much of the public, the presumption was that the defecation was nonstop.

William Kunstler offered his summation to the jury on February 13, 1970: “I think if this case does nothing else, perhaps it will bring into focus that again we are in a moment of history when a courtroom becomes the proving ground of whether we do live free or whether we do die free…. Perhaps if you do what is right, perhaps Allen Ginsberg will never have to write again as he did in ‘Howl,’ ‘I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness,’ perhaps Judy Collins will never have to stand in any courtroom again and say, as she did, ‘When will they ever learn?’”

Thomas Foran offered his summation: “At the beginning of this case they were calling them all by diminutive names, Rennie and Abbie and Jerry, trying to pretend they were young kids. They are not kids…. They are highly sophisticated, educated men, and they are evil men.”

The jury returned their verdict after five days. All seven were acquitted on the conspiracy count. Froines and Weiner were acquitted of the charge they’d constructed an incendiary device. But Dellinger, Davis, Hayden, Hoffman, and Rubin were found guilty on the indictment’s counts two through six, which cited Title 18, United States Code, Section 201—the provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, passed to honor the martyr Martin Luther King, outlawing the “travel in interstate commerce…with intent to incite, organize, promote, and encourage a riot” and to “speak to assemblages of persons for the purposes of inciting, organizing, promoting, and encouraging a riot.”

The liberal editorialists praised the jury’s ruling as judicious and well considered, a complex split decision: the system worked. Spiro Agnew called it an “American verdict.” It was indeed an American verdict: almost as soon as the trial began, the jury had split into polarized camps. One believed the defendants were not guilty on all accounts. The other believed they were guilty on all counts. Only three jurors actually agreed with the decision as rendered.

They had socialized apart, eaten apart—and, when together, spent most of their time in the jury room debating child-rearing philosophy. One of the convict-on-all-accounts jurors talked about the time she took her willful daughter to see a shrink who said she just needed “love and patience”—and how she stalked out saying of her daughter that she needed to have something “shoved down her throat.” They voiced their fears that their children would end up hippies, said things like “They are evil” and “This is like Nazi Germany—hippies want to take over the country” and “They had no right to come into your living room.” The liberal jurors argued that slovenliness wasn’t a crime, the prosecution was corrupt, and that for the first time they were afraid the government might be spying on them. They wondered whether the antiriot statute was constitutional. At that, the conservative side wondered, if the law didn’t protect decent people from this, then what did it protect them from?

A journalist later observed the sociology that divided the two groups. “The convict-on-all-counts jurors tended to be people who had moved recently from the city of Chicago itself to the suburbs. They were the hard-line we-worked-hard-and-won-our-way-according-to-the-standard-rules-of-social-mobility-people…. The acquittal jurors tended to be those who had been longer situated in the suburbs or outlying parts of the city, and were easier in their attitudes about raising children.”

Franklins and Orthogonians: they hated each other too much to agree on anything. They sent out notes to the judge that they were a hung jury. The judge refused to accept them: “Keep deliberating!” A juror finally brokered the split-verdict compromise. Judge Hoffman still was not satisfied. So he exercised his discretionary power. Over two long days, he called each defendant and each defense lawyer before the bench and delivered contempt specifications for each act of schoolboy naughtiness, sometimes reading out long stretches from the record: “Specification 1: On September 26, during the opening statement by the Government, defendant Hoffman rose and blew a kiss to the jurors. Official Transcript, Chapter One.”

Abbie Hoffman got a day in jail for that. He got six days for calling the judge, in Yiddish, shanda für di goyim. (The judge read the phrase, which meant “a Jew who shames Jews in front of the gentiles,” from the transcript haltingly and pronounced, “I can’t understand the following words.”) David Dellinger had insisted, on Moratorium Day, on reading a list of the war dead. For that, he got six months.

The law had spoken. John Lindsay responded, “The blunt, hard fact is that we in this nation appear headed for a new period of repression—more dangerous than at any time in years.” Foran, at a booster club rally at a parochial high school, said, “We’ve lost our kids to the freaking fag revolution.” Rennie Davis said that when he got out of jail, “I intend to move next door to Tom Foran and bring his sons and daughters into the revolution” and “turn the sons and daughters of the ruling class into Vietcong.” Jerry Rubin signed his new book—Do It!—to “Judge Hoffman, top Yippie, who radicalized more young Americans than we ever could.” And Tom Hayden said, “Our jury now is being heard from.”

In Ann Arbor, five thousand students and hangers-on marched to city hall busting windows and wrecking cars. The FBI put a “White Panther” on the ten most wanted list, who wrote from exile in the Michigan woods, “I don’t want to make it sound like all you got to do is kill people, kill pigs, to bring about revolution,” but “it is up to us to educate the people to the fact that it is war, and a righteous revolutionary war.” In Madison a student stole an Air Force ROTC training plane and tried to bomb an army ammunition plant (just as a student radical stole a plane in the newly released Zabriskie Point).

The preliminaries in the trial of the “Manson Family” were all over the news: Manson had hoped, it turned out, to foment a race war. Weatherman Bernardine Dohrn said of the murders, “Dig it, first they killed the pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!” On February 17, what appeared to be a copycat crime emerged, a hideous attack on a military family: a Green Beret captain, Jeffrey MacDonald, reported regaining consciousness from a knife attack to find his wife and two children, Kristen and Kimberly, dead. He remembered what one of the intruders, a woman wearing a “floppy hat” and carrying a burning taper, chanted: “Acid is groovy, kill the pigs.”

In St. Louis, at 2 a.m. on February 23, the Quonset hut housing Washington University’s Army ROTC program was burned to the ground. In frigid Buffalo, on February 24, the president of the State University of New York campus summoned cops to control the threatened disruption of a basketball game. The next night, forty students stormed his office. A police squad chased them into the student union. Eight hundred students attacked the police. At the precinct house, amid the Jewish-looking haul, one arrestee heard a cop say that America “should have let Hitler win, he’d have known how to take care of these fuckers.”

That same day, William Kunstler, facing two years in jail for contempt of Judge Hoffman’s court, gave a speech at the UC–Santa Barbara stadium. Ten years earlier he had dropped out of the executive-training program at R. H. Macy’s; how things had changed. “I have never thought that [the] breaking of windows and sporadic, picayune violence is a good tactic,” he now said. “But on the other hand, I cannot bring myself to become bitter and condemn young people who engage in it.” Students whistled and cheered. Hundreds strolled to a rally in the adjacent town of Isla Vista. One of them idly swung around a bottle of wine. The cops, thinking it a Molotov cocktail, arrested him. Violence broke out. Kids burned down a Bank of America branch. Ronald Reagan ordered his attorney general to look into charging Kunstler with crossing state lines to incite a riot.

On March 6 a mysterious explosion collapsed an entire town house in Greenwich Village. Cops searching through the rubble pulled out three dead bodies and enough live-wired dynamite bombs to blow up the entire block if detonated at once. The house had been a bomb factory, and one of the bombs was intended to slaughter attendees at an upcoming dance at Fort Dix. One decapitated body was identified by a print taken from the severed little finger of the right hand: Diana Oughton, a Weatherman. Another was a leader of the 1968 Columbia University strike. The third was a Weatherman based at Kent State University, in Ohio.

On March 11 a bomb gashed a chunk out of the corner of the Dorchester County Courthouse in Maryland, site of pretrial hearings for H. Rap Brown for inciting the burning of the schoolhouse in Cambridge in 1967.

The next night, in Buffalo, hundreds of students fought a running battle with police, throwing Molotov cocktails at the faculty peace monitors trying to keep the two sides apart.

Three days later Judge Hoffman received an enthusiastic clap on the shoulder from Richard Nixon. He was a special guest at the president’s weekly Christian service in the East Room, where the Reverend Billy Graham preached that America’s “differences could melt in the heat of a religious revival.”

In New York City one day in March, fifteen thousand people were evacuated from office buildings from three hundred separate bomb threats. On April 4, Governor Reagan, in a reelection campaign speech to the Council of California Growers, said of government’s dilemma of beating back the mounting violence, “If there is to be a bloodbath, let it be now.” That America was in the middle of a civil war had once been but a metaphor. How soon before it became real?

- Rick Perlstein, Nixonland

#a real classic

29 notes · View notes

papermoonloveslucy · 7 years ago

Text

LUCY & HENRY FONDA ~ Part Two

1975-1979

[For Part One - Please Click Here!]

“The Dean Martin Celebrity Roast: Lucille Ball” (February 7, 1975)

Director: Greg Garrison Writers: Harry Crane, George Bloom, Tom Tenowich, Milt Rosen, Don Hinkley, Peter Gallay, Stan Burns, and Mike Marmer

Starring: Lucille Ball, Henry Fonda, Dean Martin, Ginger Rogers, Gale Gordon, Vivian Vance, Bob Hope, Jack Benny, Milton Berle, Gary Morton, Don Rickles, Rich Little, Foster Brooks, Nipsey Russell, Phyllis Diller, Dick Martin, Dan Rowan, Ruth Buzzi

TRIVIA

Lucille Ball is visible excited to hear that Fonda is roasting her. He tells the story of how he and Lucy dated when she first arrived in Hollywood. Public speaking and comedy where not Fonda's forte, but he delivers the material sincerely.

“The Dean Martin Celebrity Roast: Jimmy Stewart” (May 10, 1978)

Producers: Greg Garrison, Lee Hale Director: Greg Garrison Writers: Harry Crane, Stan Burns, David Axelrod, Jay Burton, Robert L. Mills, Mel Chase, Arthur Phillips, Martin Ragaway, Sol Weinstein, Howard Albrecht, Jack Shea, Larry Markes

Starring: Lucille Ball, Henry Fonda, Dean Martin, James Stewart, June Allyson, Greer Garson, Red Buttons, Barry Goldwater, LaWanda Page, Eddie Albert, Foster Brooks, George Burns, Tony Randall, Don Rickles, Janet Leigh, Rich Little, Milton Berle, Jesse White, Orson Welles, Mickey Rooney, Ruth Buzzi

TRIVIA

Henry Fonda talks about the films they did together. Fonda introduces and narrates film clips of Stewart's career. Henry Fonda and Stewart first worked together on the film On Our Merry Way (1948). They also collaborated on How The West Was Won (1962), Firecreek (1968), and The Cheyenne Social Club (1970). The were frequently seen on TV awards shows and tributes.

Lucille Ball and Jimmy Stewart never appeared together in a dramatic context. They often were guests on the same awards shows, tributes, and talk shows. The first was “Hedda Hopper's Hollywood” (1960) and the last was Lucille Ball's final public appearance on “The 61st Annual Academy Awards” (1989).

Fonda, Ball, and Stewart, were all neighbors in Beverly Hills. Lucy talks about his vegetable garden, a subject she has mentioned on other programs. Lucy jokes about what a respectful neighbor he is. She also ribs Stewart about his somewhat prudish reputation.

Lucy: “Next to Jimmy Stewart, Fred MacMurray is electrifying!”

“AFI Life Achievement Award: Henry Fonda” (March 15, 1978)

Producers: Eric Lieber, George Stevens Jr. Director: Marty Pasetta Writer: Hal Kanter

Starring: Henry Fonda, Lucille Ball, Jane Alexander, Richard Burton, Bette Davis, Kirk Douglas, Jane Fonda, Peter Fonda, James Garner, Lillian Gish, Charlton Heston, Ron Howard, Jack Lemmon, Fred MacMurray, Marsha Mason, Dorothy McGuire, Lloyd Nolan, Gregory Peck, Barbara Stanwyck, James Stewart, Richard Widmark, Billy Dee Williams

TRIVIA

The American Film Institue (AFI) is an organization that educates filmmakers and honors the heritage of the motion picture arts in the United States. It was founded in 1965 by a mandate from President Lyndon Johnson. Their annual life achievement award began in 1973 and was awarded to John Ford. The ceremony that honored Henry Fonda was the first and only one not to have a host / presenter.

Henry Fonda: “I dated Lucy once. I guess you could say I didn't really plight my troth. I cry myself asleep a lot because if I had plighted by troth properly, they might've changed the name of that studio to Henrylu.”

Lucy's daughter, Lucie Arnaz, and her husband, Gary Morton, sit next to her in the audience.

Film clips from two out of three film collaborations with Lucille Ball, The Big Street (1943) and Yours, Mine and Ours (1960), are included.

“General Electric's All-Star Anniversary” (September 29, 1978)

Director: Dick McDonough Writers: Monty Aidem, Jeffrey Barron, Bob Howard, Paul Keyes

Cast: John Wayne (Host), Lucille Ball, Henry Fonda, Albert Brooks, Alex Haley, Pat Hingle (as Thomas Edison), Bob Hope, Cheryl Ladd, Michael Landon, Penny Marshall, Denise McKenna, Donny Osmond, Marie Osmond, Charlie Pride, John Ritter, Red Skelton (as Old Man Watching a Parade), Suzanne Somers, Jimmy Stewart (as Mark Twain), Elizabeth Taylor, Leslie Uggams, Jimmie Walker, James Whitmore (as Will Rogers), Cindy Williams, Henry Winkler, Sha-Na-Na

Synopsis: John Wayne hosts this 90-minute ABC variety show. He gives a capsulized running history of the past 100 years between musical numbers, vignettes, and vintage film clips. Leslie Uggams and the group Sha-Na-Na perform musical numbers and Albert Brooks does a routine about holding auditions to find a new national anthem.

TRIVIA

Although video of this special is scarce, photographs show Lucille Ball interacting with host John Wayne and performing a fast-paced dance number. There are no photos or other records of Henry Fonda's role in the celebration.

John Wayne also hosted a similar patriotic variety show, “Swing Out, Sweet Land,” in 1971. Lucille Ball did a serious monologue as the internal voice of the Statue of Liberty. Bob Hope and Leslie Uggams were also involved in both shows. Mark Twain was a character in both.

This special was ostensibly to mark the General Electric Corporation's (GE) 100th Anniversary, which came as a surprise to many as it had just celebrated its 75th Anniversary in 1970! Although the company was formed in 1895 by the merger of several smaller companies, GE eventually decided that its Anniversary should be marked by the day Thomas Edison himself formed the company in 1878. This change was primarily for advertising purposes – and this special was one of those marketing strategies.

From 1953 to 1962, GE sponsored the anthology series “General Electric Theatre” which, like “I Love Lucy,” was aired on CBS. It was hosted by future US President Ronald Reagan. Henry Fonda played clown Emmett Kelly in “The Clown” aired on March 27, 1955.

In 1952, Lucille Ball was featured in a print ad campaign to promote GE Ultra-Vision television sets.

“America Alive!” (November 9, 1978)

“America Alive!” was a short-lived hour-long NBC daytime show which featured consumer tips, relationship advice, entertainment news and reviews, and comedy, from its home studio in New York City as well as remotes from Los Angeles.

Cast: Jack Linkletter (Host), Lucille Ball and Gary Morton (Co-Hosts), Henry Fonda (Guest)

TRIVIA

While Lucy and Gary were in a California studio, Lucy was supposed to interview Henry Fonda, who was in their studio in New York. The following day, host Jack Linkletter infers that it wasn't strictly an interview. Linkletter doesn't specify what happened and there are no video records of the interview.

The following day, Lucy spent the entire hour taking questions from an audience of students at UCLA.

“The 36th Annual Golden Globe Awards” (January 27, 1979)

Lucille Ball was the recipient of the Cecil B. DeMille Award. Henry Fonda was in attendance to support his daughter, Jane Fonda, who won for Coming Home and received the Henrietta Award for World Film Favorite. Fonda was also a presenter.

SPEAKING OF HENRY....

In 1971's “Lucy & Carol Burnett: The Hollywood Unemployment Follies” (HL S3;E22) the ensemble sings “Hooray for Hollywood” with specially-written lyrics that mention Henry Fonda and his children Jane and Peter.

In 1973's “Lucy and Joan Rivers Do Jury Duty” (HL S6;E9), Lucy and Joan are on a deadlocked jury they compare to the film Twelve Angry Men (1957) starring Henry Fonda as the holdout juror.

“Lucy Moves to NBC” (February 8, 1980) kicks off with a tour bus driving through Beverly Hills and the tour guide's voice announcing the homes they are driving past, including the Henry Fonda’s. When the bus reaches Lucille Ball's Roxbury Drive mansion, Lucy gets out of the bus – having hitched a ride from after her downtown shopping trip. In real life, the Arnaz family actually did live in the same neighborhood as Henry and Shirlee Fonda as well as James and Gloria Stewart and Jack Benny and Mary Livingstone.

Henry Fonda died in 1982.

Shirlee Fonda: "She [Lucy] was always calling or coming over to see him when he was ill. And after he died, she was one of the ones who always included me in social gathering. When I gave that first party after Henry's death, I said, 'Lucy, you have to be there and help me get though this.' And she was there for me, for 100%"

Lucille Ball died in 1989.

#Lucille Ball #Lucy #Henry Fonda #The Dean Martin Celebrity Roast #Jimmy Stewart #AFI #Golden Globe Awards #General Electric #America Alive!#Carol Burnett #Jane Fonda #Lucy Moves to NBC #Here's Lucy #Joan Rivers #Lucie Arnaz #Gary Morton #John Wayne

9 notes · View notes

newsmanmdgn · 4 years ago

Text

He Lost a Fortune in Eight Days

That time I was pissed that I lost a twenty dollar bill

He Lost a Fortune in Eight Days. I lost a $20 bill. I feel more aggrieved.

There was this time, last week I think it was, I lost track of a twenty. I'm still mad.

I wonder how this guy goes on.

He lost $8 BILLION in 10 days. You'd have to keep me in a padded room with no access to sharp objects.

It was the “biggest single-firm meltdown since the financial crisis,” per the WSJ, and it’s causing introspection in finance about the ability of private family offices to cause market havoc.

Morning Brew

Gee, ya think?

To say the tide is turning on this one would be a massive understatement.

The Chief of Police in Minneapolis is going to take the witness stand in the Derek Chauvin trial. It's not expected to go well for Chauvin, to put it mildly.

Minneapolis police chief Medaria Arradondo is expected to take the stand as soon as today, as testimony in the Derek Chauvin trial continues for a second week.

Yahoo News

Arradondo, who fired Chauvin and three other officers last summer after George Floyd died was murdered, has said this was murder and will, in fact, state that Chauvin did not follow the training MPD are given.

This could be devastating. Or not. I'm still skeptical AF one juror just won't see what happened here.

Full coverage here.

Just another day at Facebook

The exposed data includes the personal information of over 533 million Facebook users from 106 countries, including over 32 million records on users in the US, 11 million on users in the UK, and 6 million on users in India. It includes their phone numbers, Facebook IDs, full names, locations, birthdates, bios, and, in some cases, email addresses.

Business Insider

Meh, it's two years old (says Zuck) and everybody knew your phone number and they don't care about you any way. Meanwhile, get ready for some spam–it's what's for dinner now.

Florida man…in this case, it's the “Guvna”

Ron DeSantis has some explainin' to do, but he won't, because that's just not his thing.

Manatee County in Florida was under a state of emergency over the weekend and more than 300 homes were ordered evacuated because of a leak at a wastewater reservoir.

A significant leak was discovered Friday at the wastewater pond located at Piney Point, a former phosphate plant.

NPR

In fact, it's really no big deal, even though I ordered you to leave your house:

(DeSantis) said in a press conference Sunday that the water being dumped wasn't radioactive and that it's primarily salt water “mixed with legacy process water and stormwater runoff.”

So you should be alright. I mean, when has a government official at the highest level downplayed a drinking water issue?

This guy was the assailant:

Justin Arthur-Ray Davis (no relation)

A man has been arrested after stalking his former female colleague for over a month, shooting her husband and attempting to kidnap her from her own home.

The incident occurred on Friday, April 2, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when the unnamed target of the kidnapping was leaving for work in the morning as her husband escorted her to her vehicle when they saw the suspect, Justin Arthur-Ray Davis, sitting in his truck nearby, according to a statement from the Tulsa Police Department (TPD).

“Davis has been stalking the victim for over a month after he resigned at their mutual work place,” TPD said. “She has made reports of Davis sitting outside her apartment and leaving candy and food on her door step.”

It was then that Davis got out of his truck with a shotgun and chased after the couple with it as they ran back into their apartment.

ABC News

It gets worse.

To think I used to call it “shitcoin.” My bad.

Daniel Maegaard, 30, of Brisbane, Australia, made a fortune not once, but twice: First, by hedging bets on various cryptocurrencies from 2013-2017, then, more recently, by getting in early on the explosion of non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

It’s a rare tale of how extreme risk-taking, timing, intuition, and a lot of luck resulted in a multi-million dollar payout.

And it began just 8 years ago, with an investment of a few thousand dollars.

The Hustle

Ah, to be young again. But wait, I didn't have “a few thousand dollars” then, either

The article was originally published here! He Lost a Fortune in Eight Days

0 notes

bizarre-blorbo-bracket · 2 years ago

Text

Round 1 poll 16: Davis (Juror 8) from Twelve Angry Men vs Baikinman from Anpanman

Propaganda under the cut:

Davis (Juror 8) (these are all from the single submitter)

a quick lil list babes, and I apologise for all of this in advance:

He's from the fucking film 12 angry men. like, aside from letterbox bootlickers and middle school hass students NO ONE has watched this film let alone care about it, it was made in 1957, is shot almost exclusively in one room and the entire film is just middle aged white men yelling at each other over whether some not white poor kid should be sent to the electric chair. what the fuck.

Henry Fonda, the actor, was 52 years old at the time of filming

Henry Fonda is the father of Jane Fonda, the woman who would revolutionise the 80's with her home workouts and her blindingly neon leg warmers.

His name wasn't revealed until the very end of the film and even then it's just "Davis."

I could honestly give him a lil smooch

He's absolutely not girlypop but he's the ally-iest ally who's ever allied

He's categorised as a "Benevolent Leader" on the Heroes Wiki

instead of the overwhelming urge for me to coddle him like most all other blorbos, i would appreciate it switched

I have a photo of him inside my saxophone case and sometimes i forget he's in there, then he creeps into my saxophone bell and when I play it he shoots out like a ballistic missile

Dude, on ao3 there's more fanfiction about the real life 80's British punk band The Clash than the entire film of 12 angry men, let alone Davis (80 fics come up under the clash, while 10 come up for 12 angry men)

I have a counter, and I've watched 12 Angry men a total of 145 times. The figure is up on my wall in tallies. whenever the number goes up, I like to watch it in 5's so then I can put another full group of tallies on my wall.

I have incredibly detailed stories about how Davis would boogie down to ringo starr's solo career, and they're written within the margins of a book called Tobruk written by Peter Fitzsimons. The only reason I reread that book is to wonder at my elaborate works of fiction

My HASS teacher was the one to introduce me to 12 Angry Men as he played it for the entire class. He gave us a set of questions to complete on the film and a few Law based questions as a little treat, and he expected it to be handed in the next day. What he didn't expect was an 11 page monster of a response that included social commentary, 4 paragraphs dissecting the character of Davis alone, deeply discussed comparisons between the landscapes of politics and law in the 50's to the present, and basically an entire point-for-point summarisation of the film, completed with obscure quotes from Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon and Presley (Elvis). He presented the printed masterpiece in front of the entire class to shame me.

After class he explained how his favourite Juror would either be 6 or 5, because 6 seems like a big dumb teddybear and he just liked 5. I explained how I liked Davis because he didn't want to send a kid to die, then he told me how Davis would make a good cowboy (at this point in time I was unaware of Henry Fonda's role in Once Upon A Time in The West) and I proceeded to go home and write a 3 part orchestral composition that I could pretend would play as the soundtrack to Juror 8: A Cowboy's Tale or something like that

I had started to make an animation meme starring Davis but only gave up when photoshop literally deleted itself from my laptop

I didn't even hear that Juror 8's name was Davis when I first watched it in class, somehow I only heard it on my 6th rewatch but when I did I literally got so excited I literally got winded and cried a little bit, I had to take a panadol because I got so lightheaded

I have learned the musical motif that plays throughout the film on saxophone, clarinet, recorder, guitar, bass, ukulele, piano and trumpet

I have visions of him

One of Davis' 3 children HAS to be gay and nothing can convince me otherwise

honest to god I'd be a home wrecker if it came to him

I quote not only Davis but the film a lot, and sometimes in the dead silence of all my friends I go on about how the old man couldn't have possibly made it to the door in such a short amount of time to see the kid running down the stairs (because the old man has a limp, and Davis proved it my limping around the room, which I have to say was incredibly attractive of him)

He's literally an architect

I once had a dream where Davis was in my bass guitar case when I opened it, and i literally just picked him up and started picking him like a bass guitar until I tried to play a full chord and he bit the hand that was meant to be on the fretboard. I dropped him and he fell on his ass, and when I said "what the hell dude what was that for" he said bass chords are lowkey ugly to listen to, and since then i don't like playing bass chords because now they're lowkey ugly to listen to. before this ordeal, i enjoyed them, but alas

i once got my romantic partner to write me a davis x reader fanfiction as a birthday present

my parents believe that Davis is my first celebrity crush, and while they're actually wrong it's still actually so embarrassing they believe that because OH MY GOD it's literally JUROR 8 FROM 12 ANGRY MEN

I've attempted slam poetry about him

I've eaten a paper printed full a4 size photo of his hand

I would also not mind him to be literally my father, but given the rest of the things I've just said about him that's really weird and I recognise that

Baikinman

Children's show popular in Asian countries. Infinitely obscure in the west. He's a little germ man and I want his gender.

#Baikinman #anpanman #davis (juror 8)#twelve angry men

42 notes · View notes

newjerseyprelawland-blog · 4 years ago

Text

How Do Mistrials Occur?

By Sarah Samdani, Rutgers University Class of 2024

February 23, 2021

When a case is brought to court, a jury delivers a verdict after hearing witness testimony and considering all the evidence that has been brought before them. But what happens if this process contains a flaw, or even several? In these instances, a mistrial would take place. A mistrial is a trial that does not finish and is declared void before the jury delivers a verdict. In trials without juries, a mistrial is a trial that is incomplete before the judge reaches a decision. Mistrials can occur for several reasons, and either side in the case can make a motion for a mistrial if they believe such a motion is deserved. The judge then has the option to either grant the motion and declare a mistrial or not grant the motion and allow the trial to proceed [1].

So, what are some of the causes of a mistrial? The first one, and perhaps the most obvious, would be the death or severe illness of a juror or attorney involved in the case. In such circumstances, the judge would most likely have to declare a mistrial. Because trials are long and require a significant amount of time and energy, all members involved must be present throughout the entirety of the process [2].

Another reason for a mistrial is wrongdoing in the jury selection process. Both the prosecution and defense attorneys choose jurors through a method known as the voir dire process. Each side aims for jurors who have absolutely no knowledge of the case beforehand, therefore increasing the chance of having an unbiased jury. However, if a judge decides that the attorneys from either side engaged in improper practices in picking a jury or if they find out that a juror lied during the voir dire process, a mistrial can take place [3]. This can happen at any point during the trial, for jurors may later realize they have a conflict of interest in the case and cannot reach a decision fairly [4].

Furthermore, mistrials can happen if an attorney or juror commits any acts of misconduct during the trial. If a juror is found to have not followed the instructions they were given at the start of the trial, they can cause the declaration of a mistrial. For instance, in the OJ Simpson murder trial, the jury was instructed to not watch television for months because of the mass news coverage surrounding the case. If a juror had been found to have disregarded this rule and watched television, a mistrial would likely have followed [5]. Other ways a juror can act improperly include considering evidence that was never presented at trial, investigating the case independently, and having contact with either the prosecution or defense privately [6]. If a juror takes into consideration any evidence that is inadmissible based on the rules of evidence, there is a chance of being biased toward believing one side over the other. A judge would then have to believe the case has become tainted and declare a mistrial [7].

Moreover, the most common reason mistrials occur is the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict. Many states require all jurors to find the defendant guilty for a conviction. When the jurors cannot decide unanimously, then the jury will be regarded as a hung jury and a mistrial will be declared. A hung jury is also known as a jury that is deadlocked. A famous example of when this occurred was in 2007, with Bill Cosby’s trial for rape. The prosecutors in this case went to bring a second trial after the first became a mistrial [8].

Now, what happens after a trial is declared void? There are several paths the case can go from here. The trial process can simply start all over again and get rescheduled. The case can be closed if the prosecutor decides to dismiss the charges. The prosecutor and defense attorney can also try to reach a plea bargain instead of going to court again [9].

There is a common assumption that mistrials take place because someone intentionally behaved improperly, but mistrials can be the result of a simple mistake in which the jury sees evidence they are not supposed to [10].

The ability to declare a mistrial is powerful, for it indicates the justice system is doing its best in ensuring complete fairness and accuracy in its results. Mistrials are not the ideal outcome for a case, but they have thus far been effective in minimizing miscarriages of justice.

______________________________________________________________

Sarah Samdani is a student at the Honors College of Rutgers University-New Brunswick, double majoring in Political Science and Psychology. She plans on attending law school after her graduation in 2024, practice as a federal prosecutor, and later focus on human rights law.

______________________________________________________________

[1] American Bar Association, (2019). “How Courts Work”, American Bar Association,

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/mistrials/

[2] Parker, C. (n.d.). “5 Common Reasons for Mistrials”, The Appellate Law Firm,

https://theappellatelawfirm.com/blog/5-common-reasons-mistrials/

[3] Ibid.

[4] Neal Davis Law Firm, (2018). “What is a Mistrial?”, Neal Davis Law Firm,

https://www.nealdavislaw.com/blog/criminal-defense/what-is-a-mistrial

[5] Parker, C. (n.d.). “5 Common Reasons for Mistrials”, The Appellate Law Firm,

https://theappellatelawfirm.com/blog/5-common-reasons-mistrials/

[6] American Bar Association, (2019). “How Courts Work”, American Bar Association,

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/mistrials/

[7] Parker, C. (n.d.). “5 Common Reasons for Mistrials”, The Appellate Law Firm,

https://theappellatelawfirm.com/blog/5-common-reasons-mistrials/

[8] Ibid.

[9] Neal Davis Law Firm, (2018). “What is a Mistrial?”, Neal Davis Law Firm,

https://www.nealdavislaw.com/blog/criminal-defense/what-is-a-mistrial

[10] Brown, H. (2014). “Good Question: How Often Do Mistrials Occur, And What Causes Them?”, CBS Minnesota,

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/04/23/good-question-how-often-do-mistrials-occur-and-what-causes-them/

0 notes

districofcolumbiaprelawland-blog · 4 years ago

Text

Stairway To Copyright Litigation

By Trevor Haefner, The George Washington University, Class of 2020

October 12, 2020

After a long court battle, starting in 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States decided not to ask for a writ of certiorari for a case involving a copyright lawsuit against Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven." This case is of the utmost importance for the music industry as many artists use similar chord progressions and musical styles. Many artists and lawyers were afraid of the courts expanding copyright rules to instrumentals that are widely utilized which would arguably limit creativity. On the other side, artists do not want their songs to be plagiarized, which makes adjudicated these issues complicated. This decision made by the California court as it stands now is favors a less strict interpretation of copyright law.

The band Spirit's estate was represented by Francis Malofiy of Malofiy Alexander LLC. To be more specific, Malofiy represented Michael Skidmore who was the plaintiff and executor of Randy Wolfe's trust. The late Randy Wolfe was the guitarist for the band Spirit who wrote the introduction for their song "Taurus." The estate accused Led Zeppelin's song "Stairway to Heaven" of taking direct inspiration from Spirit's song in 2014 [1]. The trial was brought to court in 2016. The evidence presented by the plaintiff included a claim that Jimmy Page and Robert Plant, guitarist and singer of Led Zeppelin, could have listened to Spirit's song written in 1967. This could have happened when Led Zeppelin opened for the band in 1968, or while listening the album, or when they saw the band perform in Birmingham, England, in 1970 [2]. Malofiy contended that "Spirit" laid the foundation for the now legendary "Stairway to Heaven" and that Wolfe should be credited with one-third of the songwriting credit, which would result in a sum of millions of dollars. This does not include the entire wealth the song has created, as the song is estimated to have made $3.4 million in the five years since the issue was brought to the court [3]. Spirit's estate had an opportunity to acquire millions of dollars which helps indicate why this case was brought to court and appealed to the highest court in the United States.

However, the 2016 case did not end in Spirit's favor. The trial lasted for six days, but within one day the jury reached a verdict that exonerated Page and Plant. The jury concluded that it is reasonable to state that Page and Plant heard the song before writing their song, but the two songs were deemed to not be "extrinsically similar" [4]. Page and Plant did testify to having no awareness of the song until the trial was brought to them, but the jury rejected this statement [5]. Also, the jurors were informed that although the two songs could share similar chord progressions, such musical arrangements are not grounds for copyright protection. Peter J. Anderson of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and Helene Freeman of Phillips Nizer LLP represented Led Zeppelin in this case. They advised the judge, R. Gary Klausner, to shorten the trial as they claimed Malofiy did not demonstrate nearly as much evidence needed to support his position [6]. This result was not the end of this case, as the petitioners found the trial to be unfair.

Malofiy was unhappy with the outcome of the case stating, "Led Zeppelin won on a technicality," [7]. His reasoning for this contention is because the jury was not allowed to listen to an audio recording of the song "Taurus." This is because the copyright claim was limited to the sheet music that was registered to the copyright office. The live versions, studio-recordings, and other formats to hear these songs was not admissible because it was not attached to the copyright that was filed by Spirit. The jury heard expert-witnesses' renditions of the songs, which Malofiy compared to having "blinders" on [8]. Therefore, the Spirit estate appealed to the Ninth Circuit judges, who temporarily reversed the verdict. The judges stated that the trial judge "undermined" the jurors; however, this decision of the first trial was reinstated because the full en banc appeals court deemed the defendants not guilty. After a second defeat, Randy Wolfe believed the ruling would be a "disaster for the creatives" but his words did not change the outcome [9]. Next, Spirit appealed to the Supreme Court that denied to hear their case. The Court is not obligated to explain why they found this case to not be noteworthy, but one explanation is the Court heard several copyright issues last term [10].

The precedent this case set is liked by many critics, who believe this decision was a correction for previous failures of the court. Specifically, the trial that pitted "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams against "Got to Give It Up" by Marvin Gaye. The Ninth Circuit ruled that "Blurred Lines" did infringe on the copyright of Gaye's song in 2018, which was controversial to many music critics and lawyers [11]. The two cases are not the same, but they do both deal with how far copyright claims can extend. Many artists, record labels, and lawyers found the 2018 decision as a blow for creativity and an over-extension of copyright [12]. The Led Zeppelin case does not change the outcome for the previous trial, but it does display a change in the courts' thought process. One major impact of the 2020 case is the removal of the inverse ratio rule. This rule allowed lawyers to argue that works can have "substantial similarity" if there is enough evidence to illustrate that the alleged infringer had access to copyrighted work. The Ninth Circuit Court expounded, "Access does not obviate the requirement that the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant actually copied the work," [13]. The future of creativity in music appears to be stable, until another copyright claim is brought before a court.

________________________________________________________________

[1] Siegal, Daniel. “Led Zeppelin Triumphs In 'Stairway' Rip-Off Trial.” Law360, June 23, 2016. https://www.law360.com/articles/809896/led-zeppelin-triumphs-in-stairway-rip-off-trial.

[2] Ibid.

[3] “Led Zeppelin's Stairway To Heaven copyright battle is finally over.” BBC News, October 5, 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54423922.

[4] Siegal, Daniel. “Led Zeppelin Triumphs In 'Stairway' Rip-Off Trial.” Law360, June 23, 2016. https://www.law360.com/articles/809896/led-zeppelin-triumphs-in-stairway-rip-off-trial.

[5] “Led Zeppelin's Stairway To Heaven copyright battle is finally over.” BBC News, October 5, 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54423922.

[6] Siegal, Daniel. “Led Zeppelin Triumphs In 'Stairway' Rip-Off Trial.” Law360, June 23, 2016. https://www.law360.com/articles/809896/led-zeppelin-triumphs-in-stairway-rip-off-trial.

[7] Donahue, Bill. “Supreme Court Won't Hear Led Zeppelin Copyright Fight.” Law360, October 5, 2020. https://www.law360.com/articles/1308109.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Donahue, Bill. “3 Things To Know About Zeppelin's 'Stairway' Copyright Win.” Law360, March 10, 2020. https://www.law360.com/articles/1252159.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

0 notes

thezakcave · 7 years ago

Text

Re-Casted: 12 Angry Men

The Original Cast

Martin Balsam as an assistant high school American football coach. As the jury foreman, he is somewhat preoccupied with his duties, although helpful to accommodate others. He is the ninth to ultimately vote "not guilty", never giving the reason for changing his vote.

John Fiedler as a meek and unpretentious bank worker who is at first dominated by others, but as the climax builds up, so does his courage. He is the fifth to ultimately vote "not guilty".

Lee J. Cobb as a businessman and distraught father, opinionated, disrespectful and stubborn with a temper. The main antagonist and most passionate advocate of a guilty verdict throughout the film, he is the last to vote "not guilty".

E. G. Marshall as a rational, unflappable, self-assured and analytical stock broker who is concerned only with the facts. He is the eleventh to ultimately vote "not guilty". Marshall is convinced after concluding the witness' eyesight was in question.

Jack Klugman as a man who grew up in a violent slum, does not take kindly to insults about his upbringing. A Baltimore Orioles fan. He is the third to ultimately vote "not guilty". When Klugman died in 2012, he was the last surviving juror.

Edward Binns as a house painter, tough but principled and respectful. He is the sixth to ultimately vote "not guilty".

Jack Warden as a salesman and New York Yankees fan, who is so eager to leave in order to attend a baseball game that he becomes impatient with the deliberations, despite the fact that the defendant's life is at stake. He is the seventh to ultimately vote "not guilty".

Henry Fonda as an architect and the first to vote "not guilty". At the end of the film he reveals to Juror #9 that his name is Davis, one of only two jurors to reveal his name.

Joseph Sweeney as a wise and observant retiree. He is the second to vote "not guilty". At the end of the film, he reveals to Juror #8 that his name is McCardle, one of only two jurors to reveal his name.

Ed Begley as a garage owner; a pushy and loud-mouthed bigot. He is the tenth to ultimately vote "not guilty".

George Voskovec as a European watchmaker and naturalized American citizen. He is polite and makes a point of speaking with proper English grammar. He is the fourth to ultimately vote "not guilty.

Robert Webber as a wisecracking, indecisive advertising executive. He is the only Juror not sure what to vote, changing his vote more than once during deliberations, initially voting "guilty", changing three times until he is the eighth to ultimately vote "not guilty".

My Proposed Modern Day Recasting

Sam Rockwell - Actor best known for his portrayal of Chuck Barris in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and a turn as an evil businessman in Iron Man 2. His everyday guy and witty demenour can lend to the character of Juror #1 once played by Martin Baslam.

Ron Howard - Actor/Director best known as Richie on Happy Days and for various award winning films as a director. His physical reslemblance is perfect and his acting abilities haven't been showcased in many years. A welcome return in a remake such as this would be a willing sight.

Sylvester Stallone - Actor best known as Rocky in the Rocky Franchise. Sly can give a mean speech when he wants to and dammit if this character doesn't have a lot of fire and bark along with working class family tones and the regret of loss. Stallone would crush this part.

Jamie Foxx - Actor/Musician best known for his portrayal of Ray Charles in Ray. A change up here. Foxx started out as a comedic actor and transitioned easily into action and drama. He could bring new depth to this character. And with it maybe another award for the shelf.

Mike Gordon - Musician best known as the Bassist of Phish. I dont know if Mike can act but he sure looks the part. And i couldn't resist pointing it out as im a huge Phan.

Josh Brolin - Currently Thanos and Cable in Avengers and Deadpool franchises. Best Known for starring roles in No Country for Old Men, MIB 3, and Nightwatch. With a wide range of emotion and great talent Brolin is an asset to have in any film.

Mike Rapaport - Comedian, sitcom star, Podcast host. Rapaport could easily play the role of a everyday guy that just wants out of jury duty so he can get to a game. And bring a fair amount of humor to it also.

Tom Hanks - Best known for his portrayal of Forrest Gump. I mean. Tom Hanks. Nuff said.

Christopher Lloyd - Best known as Doc in the Back to the Future Franchise. He is the right age and looks the part. Pair that with his great skill in acting and his physical resemblance and its a lock.

Denzel Washington - Known for Starring roles in Fences and Training Day. Washington can deliver the tone and fire needed for this role. He should be in every movie. They would all be infinitely better for it. But i would love to see his take on this character.

John Turturro - Best known as Jesus in The Big Lebowski and as a CIA agent in the Transformer series. He is funny and serious and can lose himself in this role quite well.

Jon Hamm - Best known for his starring role in the television series Mad Men.

What do you think? - Zk

#12 angry men #re-casted #movies #by #number #Zak #Kneipp #Smk #Signals #2018

1 note · View note

saccharinesatoru · 5 years ago

Text

#BLACKLIVESMATTER

Hello,

I apologize for how inactive and silent I have been on the app as of late. Originally, a little over a week ago, I had logged off to focus on my studies. And then I just stayed logged off to focus my attention on spreading awareness for the Black Lives Matter movement on twitter, which I would say is the main social media platform for accurate information about protests and the injustice the poc- SPECIFICALLY the Black community- face every day. But I definitely need to address the same situation here.

George Floyd, an innocent and unarmed black man, was murdered by police in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020. There were four police officers repsonsible for his death: Derek Chauvin, Tou Thao, J. Alexander Kueng, and Thomas K. Lang. And as of today, June 2nd, only ONE of these four monsters have been convicted. While all of them have been fired, that is not enough. Especially when the officer who WAS convicted, Derek Chauvin, the criminal who suffocated and murdered Floyd by pressing his knee into Floyd’s throat for over 8 minutes, a VERY INTENTIONAL MURDER, was only convicted on charges of third degree murder and second degree man slaughter.

For those of you who don’t already know, these charges are nothing short of lenient and unacceptable, to say the least.

Third degree murder is defined as ACCIDENTALLY killing someone, as second degree manslaughter implies as well. There was absolutely nothing accidental about Derek Chauvin’s actions. He wanted to kill Floyd, and he is being shielded by the corrupt, notoriously racist system that is law enforcement. Not only was his sentencing nowhere near as severe and incriminating as it should have been, but Chauvin has also been granted protection by the Minneapolis PD after there were threats on his life. This monster is being protected by the fascist, racist, amoral system that condones and promotes brutality against the Black community.

Floyd’s murder inspired protests for the Black Lives Matter movement in cities across the United States. The last time I checked, there were only two states within America that didn’t have protests happening.

I cannot stress this enough, the protests and standing for justice is of the utmost importance. Time and time again, law enforcement and politics have failed the American public, putting its inhabitants- SPECIFICALLY POC AND EVEN MORE SPECIFICALLY BLACK LIVES AND CIVIL RIGHTS- in danger. We cannot wait for change to come; we must actively fight for it ourselves.

George Floyd was just the tip of the iceberg. There have been thousands of cases just like his. He was not the first innocent, unarmed black person to be murdered in cold blood because of their race, and he won’t be the last UNLESS WE STAND AND FIGHT FOR JUSTICE AND CHANGE. And if you don’t believe law enforcement is corrupt and racist, just take a look at the statistics:

- There were only twenty-seven days of 2019 where police did not kill someone

- Black people are at minimum three times as likely to be murdered by police than white people

- 99% of killings by police from 2013-2019 have NOT resulted in officers being charged with a crime

(source: https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/)

The facts speak for themselves.

This movement and these protests are absolutely essential to protecting and fighting for the civil rights and lives of black people everywhere.

Not only is law enforcement composed of evil, racist individuals with god complexes and vindictive, violent vendettas who abuse their power and murder innocent people because of their race, but the government is filled to the brim with the same type of hate and injustice.

In response to the protests, the spineless, inhumane, evil tyrant Trump (the monster that part of America actually elected to be President) tweeted:

Which was so violent, hateful, and racist that Twitter flagged it as having violated their policy about glorification of violence.

The saying, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” was originally said by fellow racist Miami police chief Walter Headley in 1967 in response to black protesters fighting for civil rights. He was notorious for abusing his power and actively inciting violence to fuel his racist agenda.

From one evil racist to another.

(source: https://www.npr.org/2020/05/29/864818368/the-history-behind-when-the-looting-starts-the-shooting-starts)

This tweet incited even more violence. While power-hungry, corrupt, abusive cops were already at protests, arresting innocent protesters (primarily black protesters), firing rubber bullets and spraying teargas and mace against protesters (AGAIN primarily black protesters), Trump’s insensitive, evil tantrum on twitter only incited more violence. As of the past day, Trump has sent in the National Guard, a highly militant group, into cities with protests. Not to mention, racist white supremacist civilians have been at protests, heavily armed themselves. A statement from these monsters stated that they were waiting for Trump to “give [them] the green light” to start shooting protesters. If you are not disgusted with this, you are part of the problem.

(Evidence below)

If you follow, support, or even voted for Trump, unfollow and block me. You may not recognize or admit it, but associating yourself with that monster makes your just as evil as he is. And YES you ARE A RACIST if you voted for/support him! There is no reasonable, valid dispute to that fact.

Ahmaud Arbery. George Floyd. Christian Cooper. Breanna Taylor. Atatiana Jefferson. Kathryn Johnson. Anthony Hill. Kevin Davis. Walter Scott. Jordan Davis. Renisha McBride. Tamir Rice. Philando Castile. Sandra Bland. Tayvon Martin. Oscar Grant. John Crawford. Alton Sterling. Nicholas Thomas. Amadou Diallo. Eric Gamer. The Charleston 9.

This is just a small portion of the black people who have been abused and murdered by racists. Some of which, by the way, were murdered by white supremacists who weren’t cops and STILL were heavily armed. If we’ve proven that no law enforcement official should have these weapons, CERTIANLY civilians shouldn’t have them! And even though these white supremacists who murdered black people were NOT a part of law enforcement and shielded behind a badge, there STILL wasn’t justice. These racist criminals have NEVER BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT SPECIFICALLY OTHER RACIST COPS, PROSECUTORS, AND JURORS. THAT’S BECAUSE THE SYSTEM ITSELF IS BROKEN. NO SYSTEM REFORM CAN CHANGE THE SYSTEMIC RACISM DEEPLY EMBEDDED AND WOVEN INTO LAW ENFORCEMENT.

The Black Lives Matter movement wasn’t something that just magically showed up over night after Floyd’s murder. This isn’t some newly found racism and hatred on behalf of law enforcement, politicians, and civilians.

THIS INJUSTICE HAS EXISTED SINCE WHITE COLONIZERS “DISCOVERED” AMERICA IN THE FIRST PLACE. THESE RACIST, EVIL IDEOLOGIES STEM BACK SO MUCH FURTHER THAN JUST THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS. DON’T ALLOW YOURSELF TO BELIEVE THIS MOVEMENT AND THESE INJUSTICES DIDN’T EXIST JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT, WEREN’T DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY, AND/OR IGNORED THEM.

To my white/white passing readers, you have more privilege than you probably realize. Learn about your privilege and use it to fight for justice. Just because you may not be directly impacted by these murders, protests, or injustices does NOT mean they should matter any less to you. We all have a responsibility to stand up for what’s right and to fight for justice. And if you happen to go to a protest, it is CRUCIAL that you do not instigate or provoke any violence. Not only does this make it dangerous for other protesters, but it’s just another opportunity for the media to invalidate the meanings of this movement.

If you are ignorant, there is nothing wrong with realizing and admitting that. The REAL problem with you ignorance is if you recognize it and deliberately choose not to educate yourself. At that point, you are directly disregarding the injustices.

I cannot emphasize this enough: THERE IS NO NEUTRALITY IN THIS.

You either recognize your ignorance, educate yourself, and fight for justice or you take the side of the oppressor. That goes for all my non-black readers reading this not just white people.

To my readers who aren’t black or white, you still do very much have a responsibility to be speaking up about and standing with the movement for justice. And even if you’re not white, you are not immune from racism, ignorance, and/or intolerance.

To my black readers, my blog has always been and always will be a safe space for you. Although I can never fully understand the prejudice, hate, and injustice you experience firsthand, I will fight alongside you.

To ALL readers no matter what your race, please please PLEASE hold me accountable to anything and everything I say. If anything I say offends you or makes you uncomfortable, please let me know. Not only will I immediately delete or edit my post and apologize, but I will do everything in my power to learn from my mistakes and combat my ignorance.

If you ever need support or someone to talk to, my messages are always open, and I will do everything I can to help you. Please feel free to reach out.

As for my parting notes in this letter, I would like to address a few more topics.

Firstly, on a much more superficial level, I will be posting more resources for the movement on my twitter under the same name @brokenspinez, and additionally, my DMs are always open there as well if that is a preferred, more comfortable form of communication for you.

Secondly, and related to the prior topic, I will be making another post shortly addressing Yoongi’s intro to “What do you think” off of his second studio album D2 and issues/ignorance within the fandom. More info for what I think about that particular situation can be found on my twitter as well.

Third, I want to specify to the non-black readers of this post that this movement is not an opportunity for you to bring up the injustices you have faced. Even if you have suffered from injustice because of your race, now is not the time or place to be talking about your experiences as if to prove that your race has suffered tremendously too. That’s not what’s important right now. Your feelings are valid, but if you only bring up the prejudice your race suffers from in an attempt to silence the #BlackLivesMatter movement, that’s sick and wrong.

Fourth, do not comment on any social media platform anything along the lines of “not all cops”. I do not care for this justification of police brutality, and I certainly do not care to hear you defend the corrupt system that abuses and murders black people simply because of the color of their skin. In addition, I do not care for or support praise for cops being decent human beings. A cop doesn’t get a gold star and a pat on the back just because they themselves don’t appear to be racist even though the belong to a racist, fascist federation. I don’t care to hear people rave in support over one cop that happens to kneel in solidarity with protesters. Now is not the time to be supporting and defending cops; that is not the purpose of the this movement. Never forget that ALL media outlets- especially news providers- pick and choose parts of a story to make it fit their agenda. Do not fall for the narrative they paint about about these acts of violence from police officers just being a “few bad apples”. That is incorrect.

Fifth, there has been looting at some of these protests. But I implore you to not be so easily fooled by the news that these looters are only black protesters. In fact, a majority of looting and damage to property either comes from

A) ignorant white protesters that won’t be held accountable

B) people not at all involved in the protest who just take advantage of the situation

C) white supremacists/cops who go undercover and commit crimes to reflect poorly on the movement.

Are there some looters/protesters who vandalize property who ARE black? Yes. But it is not the majority. Don’t allow yourself to be tricked.

(sources: https://www.valleynewslive.com/content/news/Fargo-Police-Saturdays-rioters-and-looters-mostly-outsiders--570911841.html AND https://www.justsecurity.org/70497/far-right-infiltrators-and-agitators-in-george-floyd-protests-indicators-of-white-supremacists/)

Sixth and finally, I want to link some websites where you can help contribute to the cause. Below are some links to various donations, petitions, and resources with information about protesting. Even if you are not in a situation where you can protest or donate (which is completely valid), there is no reason why you cannot sign FREE petitions, educate yourself on the movement, and spread awareness on social media.

Here are some links and resources:

1) https://blacklivesmatters.carrd.co/

2. A link to a petition for Breanna Taylor, an awardwinning EMT who was shot and killed in her home by police. Police, unannounced, fired 22 rounds, hitting Taylor 8 times and murdering her. Her murderers have faced no criminal changes. JUSTICE FOR BREANNA. http://chng.it/q8PthQmtfX

3. petition for Emerald Black, a pregnant woman brutally attacked by police. She suffered a miscarriage from police brutality after she and her fiancé were pulled over. Currently, there is no investigation being conducted. JUSTICE FOR EMERALD. https://www.change.org/p/san-leandro-police-deartment-justice-for-emerald-black

4. petition for disbarment of George E. Barnhill, a prosecutor who sat FOR THREE MONTHS on the case of the murder of innocent, unarmed black man Ahmaud Arbery because of his own racist beliefs/relationship with the murderers. JUSTICE FOR AHMAUD ARBERY. https://www.change.org/p/federal-bureau-of-investigation-disbarment-of-george-e-barnhill

5. petition to put the cops who murdered George Floyd in prison. George Floyd was another innocent, unarmed black man who was murdered by police. he was in pristine health, and an autopsy paid for by Floyd’s Family through a private forensic pathologist confirmed that it was asphyxiation caused by Chauvin knee on Floyd’s neck that killed him. No matter how law enforcement tries to deny it and say Floyd died because of prexisting health conditions and drug use, we know the truth. JUSTICE FOR FLOYD. https://www.change.org/p/federal-bureau-of-investigation-put-the-minneapolis-police-officers-who-killed-george-floyd-in-prison?recruiter=766698229&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_message&utm_term=psf_combo_share_abi&recruited_by_id=37d65b20-88e6-11e7-9751-b3880c72a222&share_bandit_exp=message-22417260-en-US&share_bandit_var=v2

6. Gofundme link to Floyd’s family to cover costs of legal advising and representation, George Floyd’s autopsy conducted by a private forensic pathologist, Floyd’s funeral, and other various costs. https://www.gofundme.com/f/georgefloyd

Thank you for reading. If you have any other links to add to this post, please message me and I will edit the document. Stand with the Black Lives Matter movement. Stand for justice.

- Jay (6/2/2020)

#black lives matter #justice #george floyd #protests #ignorance #law enforcement

0 notes