#emptional prison

[simply-ivanka]

Why Trump’s Conviction Can’t Stand

It rests on an intent to violate a state law that is pre-empted by the Federal Election Campaign Act.

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Elizabeth Price Foley Wall Street Journal

Donald Trump runs no risk of going to prison in the middle of his campaign, thanks to Judge Juan Merchan’s decision Friday to postpone sentencing until Nov. 26. The delay gives his lawyers more time to prepare an appeal. Fortunately for Mr. Trump, his trial was overwhelmingly flawed, and a well-constructed appeal would ensure its ultimate reversal.

A central problem for the prosecution and Judge Merchan lies in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which makes federal law the “supreme law of the land.” That pre-empts state law when it conflicts with federal law, including by asserting jurisdiction over areas in which the federal government has exclusive authority.

Mr. Trump’s conviction violates this principle because it hinges on alleged violations of state election law governing campaign spending and contributions. The Federal Election Campaign Act pre-empts these laws as applied to federal campaigns. If it didn’t, there would be chaos. Partisan state and local prosecutors could interfere in federal elections by entangling candidates in litigation, devouring precious time and resources.

That hasn’t happened except in the Trump case, because the Justice Department has always guarded its exclusive jurisdiction even when states have pushed back, as has happened in recent decades over immigration enforcement.

The normal approach would have been for the Justice Department to inform District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who was contemplating charges against Mr. Trump, of the FECA pre-emption issue. If Mr. Bragg didn’t follow the department’s guidance, it would have intervened at the start of the case to have it dismissed. Instead the department allowed a state prosecutor to interfere with the electoral prospects of the chief political rival of President Biden, the attorney general’s boss.

Mr. Trump was indicted under New York’s law prohibiting falsification of business records, which is a felony only if the accused intended “to commit another crime” via the false record. Judge Merchan instructed the jury that the other crime was Section 17-152 of New York election law, which makes it a misdemeanor to “conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” Prosecutors alleged that Mr. Trump violated this law by conspiring with his lawyer, Michael Cohen, and Trump-related businesses to “promote” his presidential election by coding hush-money payments as “legal expenses” when they should have been disclosed publicly as campaign expenses or contributions—matters that are governed by FECA.

FECA declares that its provisions “supersede and preempt any provision of state law with respect to election to Federal office.” The 1974 congressional conference committee report accompanying enactment of FECA’s pre-emption language states: “It is clear that the Federal law occupies the field with respect to reporting and disclosure of political contributions and expenditures by Federal candidates.” Federal Election Commission regulations likewise declare that FECA “supersedes State law” concerning the “disclosure of receipts and expenditures by Federal candidates” and “limitation on contributions and expenditures regarding Federal candidates.”

The New York State Board of Elections agreed in a 2018 formal opinion that issues relating to disclosure of federal campaign contributions and expenditures are pre-empted because “Congress expressly articulated ‘field preemption’ of federal law over state law in this area” to avoid federal candidates’ “facing a patchwork of state and local filing requirements.”

In using New York’s election law to brand Mr. Trump a felon based on his actions with respect to a federal election, Mr. Bragg subverts FECA’s goal of providing predictable, uniform national rules regarding disclosure of federal campaign contributions and expenses, including penalties for noncompliance. Congress made its goals of uniformity and predictability clear not only in FECA’s sweeping pre-emption language but also in its grant of exclusive enforcement authority to the FEC for civil penalties and the Justice Department for criminal penalties. Both the FEC and Justice Department conducted yearslong investigations to ascertain whether Mr. Trump’s hush-money payments violated FECA, and both declined to seek any penalties.

Prior to Mr. Trump’s New York prosecution, it would have been unthinkable for a local or state prosecutor to prosecute a federal candidate predicated on whether or how his campaign reported—or failed to report—contributions or expenditures. In 2019 the FEC investigated whether Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign failed to disclose millions in contributions from an outside political action committee. The agency deadlocked, and no penalties were imposed. In 2022 the FEC levied $113,000 in civil penalties against Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for violating FECA because it improperly coded as “legal services,” rather than campaign expenditures, money paid to Christopher Steele for production of the “dossier” that fueled the Russia-collusion hoax. In neither instance did any state or local prosecutor indict Mrs. Clinton under state election law based on failure to disclose these contributions or expenditures properly. If New York’s Trump precedent stands, Mrs. Clinton could still be vulnerable to prosecution, depending on various states’ statutes of limitation and the Justice Department’s potential involvement.

Mr. Bragg’s prosecution of Mr. Trump is plagued by many reversible legal errors, of which the failure to accord pre-emptive force to FECA is the strongest grounds for its reversal on appeal. The prosecutor’s interference in the 2024 presidential election process has created legal and political problems. The Justice Department’s failure to intervene before the trial is a dereliction of duty.

The department aggressively prosecuted Mr. Cohen based on the same hush-money payments, so it was well aware that New York’s prosecution invaded its exclusive FECA jurisdiction. This is another stark example of the Biden administration’s incompetence—or, worse, the distortion of justice through a partisan lens. It is left to the appellate courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, to clean up the mess Mr. Bragg and the Justice Department have made.

Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. Ms. Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.

[davidrivkin]

Why Trump's Conviction Can't Stand

By David B. Rivkin, Jr., and Elizabeth Price Foley

September 8, 2024, in the Wall Street Journal

Donald Trump runs no risk of going to prison in the middle of his campaign, thanks to Judge Juan Merchan’s decision Friday to postpone sentencing until Nov. 26. The delay gives his lawyers more time to prepare an appeal. Fortunately for Mr. Trump, his trial was overwhelmingly flawed, and a well-constructed appeal would ensure its ultimate reversal.

A central problem for the prosecution and Judge Merchan lies in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which makes federal law the “supreme law of the land.” That pre-empts state law when it conflicts with federal law, including by asserting jurisdiction over areas in which the federal government has exclusive authority.

Mr. Trump’s conviction violates this principle because it hinges on alleged violations of state election law governing campaign spending and contributions. The Federal Election Campaign Act pre-empts these laws as applied to federal campaigns. If it didn’t, there would be chaos. Partisan state and local prosecutors could interfere in federal elections by entangling candidates in litigation, devouring precious time and resources.

That hasn’t happened except in the Trump case, because the Justice Department has always guarded its exclusive jurisdiction even when states have pushed back, as has happened in recent decades over immigration enforcement.

The normal approach would have been for the Justice Department to inform District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who was contemplating charges against Mr. Trump, of the FECA pre-emption issue. If Mr. Bragg didn’t follow the department’s guidance, it would have intervened at the start of the case to have it dismissed. Instead the department allowed a state prosecutor to interfere with the electoral prospects of the chief political rival of President Biden, the attorney general’s boss.

Mr. Trump was indicted under New York’s law prohibiting falsification of business records, which is a felony only if the accused intended “to commit another crime” via the false record. Judge Merchan instructed the jury that the other crime was Section 17-152 of New York election law, which makes it a misdemeanor to “conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.” Prosecutors alleged that Mr. Trump violated this law by conspiring with his lawyer, Michael Cohen, and Trump-related businesses to “promote” his presidential election by coding hush-money payments as “legal expenses” when they should have been disclosed publicly as campaign expenses or contributions—matters that are governed by FECA.

FECA declares that its provisions “supersede and preempt any provision of state law with respect to election to Federal office.” The 1974 congressional conference committee report accompanying enactment of FECA’s pre-emption language states: “It is clear that the Federal law occupies the field with respect to reporting and disclosure of political contributions and expenditures by Federal candidates.” Federal Election Commission regulations likewise declare that FECA “supersedes State law” concerning the “disclosure of receipts and expenditures by Federal candidates” and “limitation on contributions and expenditures regarding Federal candidates.”

The New York State Board of Elections agreed in a 2018 formal opinion that issues relating to disclosure of federal campaign contributions and expenditures are pre-empted because “Congress expressly articulated ‘field preemption’ of federal law over state law in this area” to avoid federal candidates’ “facing a patchwork of state and local filing requirements.”

In using New York’s election law to brand Mr. Trump a felon based on his actions with respect to a federal election, Mr. Bragg subverts FECA’s goal of providing predictable, uniform national rules regarding disclosure of federal campaign contributions and expenses, including penalties for noncompliance. Congress made its goals of uniformity and predictability clear not only in FECA’s sweeping pre-emption language but also in its grant of exclusive enforcement authority to the FEC for civil penalties and the Justice Department for criminal penalties. Both the FEC and Justice Department conducted yearslong investigations to ascertain whether Mr. Trump’s hush-money payments violated FECA, and both declined to seek any penalties.

Prior to Mr. Trump’s New York prosecution, it would have been unthinkable for a local or state prosecutor to prosecute a federal candidate predicated on whether or how his campaign reported—or failed to report—contributions or expenditures. In 2019 the FEC investigated whether Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign failed to disclose millions in contributions from an outside political action committee. The agency deadlocked, and no penalties were imposed. In 2022 the FEC levied $113,000 in civil penalties against Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for violating FECA because it improperly coded as “legal services,” rather than campaign expenditures, money paid to Christopher Steele for production of the “dossier” that fueled the Russia-collusion hoax. In neither instance did any state or local prosecutor indict Mrs. Clinton under state election law based on failure to disclose these contributions or expenditures properly. If New York’s Trump precedent stands, Mrs. Clinton could still be vulnerable to prosecution, depending on various states’ statutes of limitation and the Justice Department’s potential involvement.

Mr. Bragg’s prosecution of Mr. Trump is plagued by many reversible legal errors, of which the failure to accord pre-emptive force to FECA is the strongest grounds for its reversal on appeal. The prosecutor’s interference in the 2024 presidential election process has created legal and political problems. The Justice Department’s failure to intervene before the trial is a dereliction of duty.

The department aggressively prosecuted Mr. Cohen based on the same hush-money payments, so it was well aware that New York’s prosecution invaded its exclusive FECA jurisdiction. This is another stark example of the Biden administration’s incompetence—or, worse, the distortion of justice through a partisan lens. It is left to the appellate courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, to clean up the mess Mr. Bragg and the Justice Department have made.

Mr. Rivkin served at the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush Administrations. Ms. Foley is a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/why-trumps-hush-money-conviction-cant-stand-appeal-federal-law-pre-empts-11ae9dc3

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

“Warren Fired Shot That Killed Dentist, Inquest Jury Finds,” Toronto Globe. October 21, 1932.. Page 11 & 12. ---- Clerk in Department Store Identifies Warren as Having Purchased Ammunition Day or Two Before Tragedy – School Caretaker Declares He Saw Accused Men Near Dr. More’s Office on Night of the Shooting --- VERDICT SAYS HICKS PRESENT AT AFFAIR ---- From the evidence submitted by twenty witnesses and allegedly signed statements given, police say, by both Eward G. Warren and Harold Hicks, charged with the murder of Dr. William George More, a Coroner’s Jury under the direction of Dr. G. W. Crawford returned the following versat close of the inquest held at the morgue yesterday: ‘We find William George More of 146 Close Avenue came to his death on Oct. 14, 1932, at the Toronto General hospital as a result of septic periotontis, caused by a pistol shot received on Oct. 5 at 3 Landsdowne Avenue. From the evidence submitted, we are of the opinion that the shot was fired by Ewart G. Warren while in company with Harold Hicks.’

Approximately twenty minutes before the commencement of the inquest a police patrol wagon drove up to the morgue and the two prisoners, with heads bowed and hats held over their faces, were rushed into the building, a strong guard of uniformed and plainclothes officers being in attendance. The prisoners were immediately seated on chairs at the side of the witness box. The handcuffs were removed and their legs were manacled together, while a police officer was seated on either side of the accused. Throughout both followed the proceedings with interest, but there were times when Warren appeared to have difficulty in restraining his emption.

Frank Malone was the Crown counsel, while W. L. Doyle acted for Hicks and, in the absence of W. B. Horkins, also represented Warren.

Physician Recalls Phone Call Dr. Henry H. Murray testified that he had known Dr. More personally. Recalling the night of Oct. 5, he stated that he was sitting in his office shortly after 7 o’clock, when he received a telephone call from Dr. More, who stated he had two men come into his office, and that he had been shot, and was feeling faint. Upon his arrival, Dr. Murray, said, he had found police officers in attendance, and that he immediately telephoned to Dr. Robert Shier. Outlining the story which, Dr. Murray said, Dr. More had told him, witness said that a man had entered the office, apparently desiring to make an appointment for a tooth extraction. When Dr. More had said he could do it right away, the man had made some remark about locking his car, and left the office. Shortly afterward two men entered, and one pointed a gun saying ‘Stick them up,’ or something to that effect. Dr. More, taken by surprise, had remarked, ‘What do you mean?’ and the next thing he knew there was an explosion.

Called to the witness box, Dr. Shier told he had operated on Dr. More approximately fifty minutes after the latter had entered the hospital. Witness stated that he had found seven perforations in the abdominal cavity and the blood vessels torn.

Bullets Identified Dr. E. R. Frankish, who performed the autopsy on Oct. 14, about 9.30 p.m., outlined his findings and said that there was a general septic condition in the abdominal cavity. He had found abullet hole on the pelvis bone on the right side, and he ascribed death to septic peritonitis, following the perforation of the intestines. Dr. Frankish next produced an automatic pistol and a leather holster, containing six unexploded shells, which he had received from the police. There were also produced eight shells taken from the clip of the hospital. The eight shells were the same as those found in the holster. These shells - .25 calibre – could be fired from the Mauser pistol, witness stated. The bullet which had been extracted from Dr. More’s body, according to the evidence, corresponded to those in the shells in the holster and in the clip.

The Crown – What conclusion do you arrive at? Dr. Frankish – The conclusion is that this revolver (the weapon alleged to have been in the possession of Warren) was capable of firing the bullet which I found in the man’s body. My microscopic examination of the bullet has not yet been completed.’

Asked by one of the jurymen what the velocity of a Mauser bullet was, witness replied: ‘Seven hundred and fifty feet per second and a penetration of four inches at twenty feet.’

Photographs Show Scene. Oliver Borland, police photographer, produced photographs showing the location of Dr. More’s office, the officer proper, the surrounding district, and the spot where the nickel-plated revolver, allegedly thrown away by Hicks, was discovered. Plans of the district and accompanying scales were presented by Frank Holden, architect.

The story of how he had observed two men in the vicinity of Dr. More’s office on the night of Oct. 5, and his subsequent identification of the accused at Police Headquarter, was unfolded by James Brown, assistant caretaker at the public school, Landsdowne Avenue. Wiitness said that he had been proceeding west on Queen Street and at Landsdowne he noticed two men coming south.

The Crown – What drew your attention to these two men? A. – I saw them looking up as they walked along.

Witness said that he knew where Dr. More’s office was located, and when he looked back he had noticed the two men standing in front of the door.

Q. – Were you close enough to see the faces of the men? A. – Yes, sir.

Identifies Accused Q – Have you seen them since?

A – I saw them at Police Headquarters.

Brown told how he had been summoned to police headquarters on the morning of Oct. 15 and how he had picked out the men.

Q. – No one pointed out these men? A. – No, sir.

Q. – No inducement was laid out to pick these men? A. No, sir.

Sergeant John Pickering, who was in charge at No. 6 Police Station on the night of Oct. 5 testified that he had received a call to the effect that there had been a hold-up. He told of how he had immediately despatched all the men on duty, and had proceeded himself to Dr. More’s office, where he called the ambulance and obtained descriptions of the men. Dr. More’ dental jacket showing a bullet hole was produced and identified by the officer.

P. C. Frank Young (336) gave evidence concerning the discovery of a .25-calibre shell in Dr. Moore’s office, while Plainclothesmen George Elliott (591) and William Baker (502) told finding a .22-calibre H. & R. nickel-plated revolver about 700 feet from Dr. More’s office on Oct. 6

Says Warren Bought Ammunition Gerald M. Grey of the sports section of a department store related how he had identified Warren as the purchaser of ammunition. The accused, he stated, had come to the store either on Monday, Oct.3, or Tuesday, Oct. 4, and that he (the accused) had been in the store either on Sept. 29 or 30, but that the ammunition had not been in stock at that time. On Oct. 3 or 4, however, he had sold Warren a box of .25-calibre ammunition, he affirmed.

Witness said that the accused had been dressed in dark clothes and had a very dark fedora hat. He had no doubt concerning Warren being the man to whom he had sold the cartridges.

Says Warren Made Trade for Gun Richard Dann, who described himself as a collector of antiques and guns, said that he had known Warren for nine months. The latter had told him he was going south and that he wanted a gun for protection. Warren, according to witness, had said, ‘I have a bullet-proof vest I will trade with you for a gun.’ Questioned by the Crown, witness could not tell the make of the weapon or definitely identify the exhibit. Dann stated that he had made the trade, and the bullet-proof vest was now in police possession.

Detective-Sergeant L. H. Williams told of how he had questioned Warren on Oct. 14, and learned from the accused that the latter had hidden a weapon in the window-well of a Dovercourt cr. Evidence concerning the search and discovery of the weapon was submitted by Detective Fred Miller and Inspector William Evans of the T.T.C.

Alleged Statements Described William Wall, police stenographer, gave testimony in connection with the statements allegedly given and signed by the accused. The statements in question, red by Mr. Malone, declared that Warren had had in his possession a .25-calibre automatic pistol. The statement stated that they (he and Hicks) had gone to Dr. More’s office accidentally. After Hicks had ascertained that Dr. More was alone, they both went into the office. ‘I went in first,’ read Warren’s alleged statement. ‘I had the automatic pistol in my left hand, and, unfortunately. Before going in, the pistol’ssafety-catch was off. I thought it was on. I went in first, said ‘Hold them up!’ and the gun went off, and we went out.’ Another part of the statement reads: ‘If there is any one thing I did wrong in this world, it is the gun going off accidentally.’ ‘What did you expect to get in the dentist’s?’ was a question asked Warren, and the reply read: ‘Money, I guess.’ The latter statement was taken at 12 noon on Oct. 14, while at 1.30 p.m. on the same day an alleged statement was made by Hicks.

The jury took less than half an hour to arrive at a verdict.

Photo caption: IDENTIFIES ACCUSED JAMES BROWN Assistant caretaker of the public school, Landsdowne Avenue, and witness at the inquest yesterday into the death of Dr. More, who says he saw Warren and Hicks in the vicinity of the dentist’s office on the night of the tragedy.

[verobatto]

What I can reach...

Looking for happiness. (14x10 Nihilism spoiler)

Hello my dear! I rewatched properly the last episode, and it was full of meanings and symbolism, you all know how much I love that!

One of the things I saw was this "lying to myself" about what Dean really wanted and see as "reached happiness" but is just what "he allows himself to have as happiness."

Let's see why I say this...

Rocky's bar AKA DEAN'S EMOTIONAL PRISON

When I first saw the bar, I saw a content Dean, ruling his own bar. And he even said "This is my dream." To Pamela, which, it isn't, in my perspective, this was his prison, his emotional prison, so perfectly constructed to cheat him. And because is the only thing more near to happiness that Michael could get from Dean's desires, because as I said, HE CAN'T REACH THE REPRESSED FEELINGS AND DESIRES FROM DEAN.

Then... When I began to travel my gaze around the scenario, there were a lot of clues Hockey put there to show us this wasn't at all what Dean really wants.

First of all, there were TFW colors all over the place, and the cosmic cowboy, so talked around the fandom, and something that caught my attention was the bullfighter (el matador) behind Dean, it was a statue in RED (Dean's color for toxicity) and I thought immediately in AVOIDANCE, bc as you know... The bullfighter AVOIDS the bull, called "the beast".

This is a symbolism from Dean behavior towards problems and inner desires. He avoid "the beast" what he really wants, his own feelings, like the bullfighter does with the bull.

There were a heart on the table ... It said "DAPHNE LOVES FRED" part of Dean's innocence recalling Scooby Doo characters in love, and the innocent idea of love, as we saw in 14x06 when i analyzed Harper's room, the meta is here.

There's the pic, and the limes there are remembering us about color GREEN (Healing!Dean) his innocent heart.

There was this...

The bright legend "EL SOL" (the sun), as a meaning of happiness.

Another interesting thing happened... The apparition of this character...

And what she said was very interesting... She said Dean had been interested in sell the bar, and she brought the papers for him to sign. But Dean didn't want to, and she turned around and said the bar was kind of "dead", I mean... Without customers... This is a very very symbolic scene, bc if we think this bar is Dean's emotional prison, where he keeps his repressed feeling and desires, and where he plays avoiding reality, and now it doesn't have costumers, and he wanted to sell it... Is bc HE IS HEALING PREPARING HIMSELF TO BREAK FREE FROM THIS PRISON, BC THERE'S NO MORE COSTUMERS (there's no more reason to be there, to that bar existing anymore.) Even so, he said no... Bc Michael locked him again. And he is again in negation.

Pamela, a complex projection of Dean's desires.

I know the fandom is talking a lot about her, I must be sincere here, I don't read anything till I write my metas, so, maybe a lot was said already about this, I know the fandom believes Pamela was a blantant Castiel mirror, but for me, is not just that, is more complex and interesting that just Castiel mirror... Let me explain to you...

When I first saw her I knew my brain will have to work hard... Bc, she is a projection from Dean's subconscious. There's not thing more complicated that our brains, so this girl was so great written, each detail and each word she said had a meaning FOR DEAN, bc she is A PROJECTION OF MEMORIES, FEELINGS, AND DEFENSE MECHANISM coming from Dean.

Having that in mind, the deconstruction of the character begins with one question WHY PAMELA BARNS WAS RULING THE BAR WITH DEAN? Don't see what SHE IS, BUT WHAT SHE IS REPRESENTING.

She represents the first day Dean came back from Hell, a traumatic experience (TRAUMA). She was there, she saw Castiel's true form and her eyes were burnt, and then she was killed by demons for helping him and Sam (GUILT).

She is using that t-shirt: TO HELL AND BACK: this represents DEAN'S RAISING FROM PERDITION, RESCUED BY CASTIEL. (First encounter in the barn).

She is using a necklace with wings, Castiel mirror.

Ok so here she is representing MEMORIES, TRAUMA, GUILT, CASTIEL, FIRST ENCOUNTER, SALVATION.

Then we have this...

Watch the image, she is DEAN. She represents his fem side. She is flirts, she is his partner ruling the bar, and she behaves as him, and she even flirted with Castiel!

So, this image is yelling BISEXUALITY here.

But is interesting bc Dean is placed near the COSMIC COWBOY and Pam near to FOX RYE. And bc Dean called her his girlfriend and she said: "YOU DON'T WANT ME. YOU JUST LIKE TO FLIRT." And my head exploded... Is Pamela representing women here? All of Dean's possible woman interest? Yes she is. And she is saying those words! And that could be so related to HEALING!DEAN too, accepting his feelings for Castiel, knowing WHAT HE REALLY WANTS! But then Pamela goes and says: "YO WANT WHAT YOU CAN'T HAVE." Yes.. THAT'S IT MY FRIENDS! DEAN WANTS CAS AND HE THINKS HE CAN'T HAVE HIM BC HE THINKS CASTIEL DOESN'T' FEEL THE SAME FOR HIM!! All our romantic specs about this coming true by Yockey's hand!

So Pam, Is a representation of women, placed near to the FOX (representing lies) as a lie. Dean wanting women, hook up with random waitress, is a lie. And Pamela being there is a lie too, bc she is just a projection.

Parallel between Dean's bar and Dean's cave

I just wanted to point here an idea that came to my mind about the things we think would make us happy and the really things we know will make us happy.

The quote YOU WANT WHAT YOU CAN'T HAVE is a sad quote. Is not a capricious child asking for some candy, no... Is a 40 years old man trying to allow himself things that he can reach, possible things (rule a bar) to reach a little of happiness in his life. Knowing very well what he really want (Castiel) he allows himself to have things that he knows may be possible and he settles for it.

The same thing happened with Dean's Cave. Dean made that place to have time with Castiel, watching movies, drinking beer and playing pool.

He allowed himself that, bc he thinks that more was impossible, having another kind of thing with CAS (what he really wants) is impossible, so he settled for the Dean's cave and watch movies with Castiel.

How to break free from this emotional prison

And again I'm gonna sound like a witch reading the future here, but we'll... I have to say it...

One of my specs said that we will see TWO DEANS INSIDE DEAN'S HEAD. Ok... It happened.

And I said Sam will figure out how to reach Dean and save him, bc Mint Condition was a foreshadow of this episode.

And is interesting all the colors again, blue and yellow in Dean's legs (CAS and Sam are by his side).

And another thing... Where's the fox? Yeap, is gone, just the cosmic cowboy now (Castiel) no more random waitress. There's just one love interest in Dean's heart.

So here, with FAMILY LOVE and ROMANTIC LOVE, Dean could broke free from this prison.

And this...

Gif credit @mishacolins

Gif credit @ahoyspn

... was priceless... Family love/Romantic Love helping Dean to wake up. Castiel had the decoder ring, and Sammy the key (Mint Condition).

To conclude...

Dean is strong, but how much is he going to keep Michael locked up?? I'm so scared bc of this...

The good thing is... Dean could break free from his emotional prison... Would he be able to do the same in real life? Is time to keep healing... But we are almost there for self acceptance and love for himself. Let's see what happens!!!

Thanks x reading this large mess!

C-u!

Tagging @gneisscastiel @metafest @magnificent-winged-beast @emblue-sparks @mrsaquaman187 @agusvedder @castiellover20 @lykanyouko @cheerstofandomfamily @evvvissticante

Buenos Aires January 18th 2018 05:00 PM

[youaremysunshine-court]

'Mummy' and 'Father' Holmes really done fucked up three kids and then had the audacity to put all the responsibility on Mycroft's shoulders huh

[othersociologist]

Policing the Quarantine

Heavy-handed policing was deployed in response to the Covid-19 outbreak in the nine tower blocks in Melbourne where residents are mainly Black, Brown and Asian. Fines have been administered more in suburbs where the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and/or migrant population is higher. But, the same logics of colonial policing used for over 200 years are also affecting other groups at a time when a policing, rather than a public-health oriented, response to the pandemic is being rolled-out by state governments with the use of fines, lockdowns, curfews, and even prison sentences against those who are seen as failing to comply with Covid orders. 

Panellists 

Roxanne Moore is a Noongar woman and human rights lawyer from Margaret River in Western Australia. She is the Executive Officer for the National Peak body on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services (NATSILS ). Previously, Roxanne was an Indigenous Rights Campaigner with Amnesty International Australia and Principal Advisor to Change the Record Coalition. Roxanne has worked for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission, as Principal Associate to the Hon Chief Justice Wayne Martin AC QC; as a commercial litigator; and has international experience with UNHCR Jordan and New York University’s Global Justice Clinic. Roxanne studied law at the University of WA, and completed an LLM (International Legal Studies) at NYU, specialising in human rights law, as a 2013 Fulbright Western Australian Scholar. Professor 

Megan Davis is Pro Vice-Chancellor Indigenous and Professor of Law at UNSW. She is Acting Commissioner of the NSW Land and Environment Court and was recently appointed the Balnaves Chair in Constitutional Law. Professor Davis currently serves as a United Nations expert with the UN Human Rights Council's Expert Mechanism on the rights of Indigenous peoples based in UN Geneva. Megan is an Acting Commissioner of the NSW Land and Environment Court. Professor Davis is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences. She is a member of the NSW Sentencing Council and an Australian Rugby League Commissioner. Professor Davis was Director of the Indigenous Law Centre, UNSW Law from 2006-2016. Professor Davis is formerly Chair and expert member of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (2011-2016). As UNPFII expert she was the focal point for UN Women and UN AIDS. During this period of UN service, Megan was the Rapporteur of the UN EGM on an Optional Protocol to the UNDRIP in 2015, the Rapporteur of the UN EGM on Combating violence against Indigenous women and girls in 2011 and the UN Rapporteur for the International EGM on Indigenous Youth in 2012. Megan has extensive experience as an international lawyer at the UN and participated in the drafting of the UNDRIP from 1999-2004 and is a former UN Fellow of the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva. 

Dr Vicki Sentas is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Law at UNSW. She researches processes of criminalisation and racialisation in law and policing. She teaches in criminal law, criminology and policing and coordinates the Police Powers Clinic, an experiential learning course, in partnership with Redfern Legal Centre. Her recent and current research projects examine: the effects of counter-terrorism practices on criminal justice and racialised peoples; the criminalisation of armed conflicts, self-determination and diasporas through the use of security lists; police powers and their relationship to diverse forms of regulation including pre-emption and prosecution; police accountability and criminal justice reform.

[absurdlakefront]

MacLean adds another dimension to this dystopian big picture, acquainting us with what has been overlooked in the capitalist right wing’s playbook.

She observes, for example, that many liberals have missed the point of strategies like privatization. Efforts to “reform” public education and Social Security are not just about a preference for the private sector over the public sector, she argues. You can wrap your head around those, even if you don’t agree. Instead, MacLean contends, the goal of these strategies is to radically alter power relations, weakening pro-public forces and enhancing the lobbying power and commitment of the corporations that take over public services and resources, thus advancing the plans to dismantle democracy and make way for a return to oligarchy. The majority will be held captive so that the wealthy can finally be free to do as they please, no matter how destructive.

MacLean argues that despite the rhetoric of Virginia school acolytes, shrinking big government is not really the point. The oligarchs require a government with tremendous new powers so that they can bypass the will of the people. This, as MacLean points out, requires greatly expanding police powers “to control the resultant popular anger.”  The spreading use of pre-emption by GOP-controlled state legislatures to suppress local progressive victories such as living wage ordinances is another example of the right’s aggressive use of state power.

Could these right-wing capitalists allow private companies to fill prisons with helpless citizens—or, more profitable still, right-less undocumented immigrants? They could, and have. Might they engineer a retirement crisis by moving Americans to inadequate 401(k)s? Done. Take away the rights of consumers and workers to bring grievances to court by making them sign forced arbitration agreements? Check. Gut public education to the point where ordinary people have such bleak prospects that they have no energy to fight back? Getting it done.

Would they even refuse children clean water? Actually, yes.

[sarymontasser-blog]

Reflection: What makes a great/famous photograph?

Since photography has been invented, billions of photos can be easily taken regularly among the thousand of photographers. Any Photographer can take as many pictures as he can possibly capture. However, not all Photos can be considered great.

A photograph can become famous/great thought the significance and uniqueness of it. A photo that is exceptional in originality, important or of human interest that may cause excitement or shock. Moreover, it is a photo that has been only taken once and is portrayed for the first time. A photo that has strong meaning and purpose that it affects the viewers mentally and emotionally.

Lighting also plays a huge role in perfecting a photograph. Light is the essence of an image. Basically, it portrays the mood and the emotion behind the photograph. Moreover, light is the real art in photography. A great photographer will know how to use the daylight or nightlight to help affect his photo using a composition that will eventually make this photograph ‘famous’. It is basically the most important technical issue in photography.

Time and pace also plays a huge role in the success of a photograph. Capturing a specific photo in a specific location and a certain time may cause a boost for a photo making it seem much more interesting and attracting for viewers. For example, the Abu Gharib prison photos taken in Iraq of the Iraqi prisoners being tortured by American soldiers during the war. These photos became iconic and exceptional because of the location of the pictures and the timing which is the war.

Finally, Photographs that show emption of their subjects or cast a story. People are always interested in a photograph that instantly triggers a story in everyones mind making it mysterious. Curiosity is major in photography. a picture that lets you wonder and question the real story behind it. A photograph that provoked a desire for knowledge and seem to promise it, but yet, always fall silent and still.

[profoundpaul]

Dick Morris: Why Heartbeat Laws are Dangerous for the Pro-Life Movement

The Georgia and Alabama legislatures have just passed laws banning abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected and providing possible prison sentences for doctors who violate them. The law won’t take effect until or unless the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade ending federal pre-emption of state legislation on abortion. But the new laws…

The post Dick Morris: Why Heartbeat Laws are Dangerous for the Pro-Life Movement appeared first on The Western Journal.

source https://www.westernjournal.com/dick-morris-heartbeat-laws-dangerous-pro-life-movement/

[mintchocolateleaves]

bakathief replied to your post: “Cost of Freedom: (9/??)”

Ooooh, another chapter! I think I've never told you how amazing I find your pace. And despite the auick updates, every chapter is amazing! I'll give you an applause for that! Anyway, back to the chapter itself! I'm just so excited about the final break-out from prison. I also loved the part where Kaito said that he shouldn't let the guards know that he can get out of his cell whenever he wants. I bet, if he was in a better mood and just there for a visit, he'd totally mess with the guards...

Maybe even haunting them. XD i also liked the part with the walls Kaito and Shinichi have built to protect themselves. But to me it seems like their relationship is improving with time step by step and I really enjoy that part. Also, I love all the trouble, also psychological trouble, Kaito is going through to help Shinichi. I mean, it must have been hard enough to call Aoko again but also to deal with Hakuba one more time. Let's just hope it was worth it! But great idea and your tags make me

Just so excited for the next chapter. Abuot your writing... I find the descriptions beautiful and relatable always and your dialogues seem so perfectly places. The reader always is able to follow the thoughts and problems of Kaito without so easily and some parts, even if they are just shrot phrases, just hit you with so many emptions! Amazing job on this chapter and can't wait for the next one! And of course, thank you for sharing! (´∀｀=)

Kaito’s progressed a whole lot since he last spoke to Hakuba in chapter 2 - do you remember how he blatantly refused to talk about the shootings at heists? It’s a big step and he doesn’t really seem to know that it is.

I’m really glad that you’re enjoying it.

Here’s a fun little fact, I’m super excited for the next chapter too. It’s got one of the first scenes I planned in it.

Thanks for reading!

[poweredinpeace]

“Lawlessness does not mean no law!  It means creating thousands of arbitrary, capricious laws so that no can disagree with totalitarian regime without being persecuted by their government.”

      June 08,2020

“Lawlessness does not mean no law!  It means creating thousands of arbitrary, capricious laws so that no can disagree with totalitarian regime without being persecuted by their government.”

Psalms 71:4 Rescue me, my God, from the hand of the wicked, from the hand of the unrighteous and cruel man.

Proverbs 11:17 The merciful man does good to his own soul, but he who is cruel troubles his own flesh.

Proverbs 12:10 A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

Some Facts:

The First Wave of global terrorism began in Russia. After Russia was humiliated in the Crimean War (1853–1856), Czar Alexander II decided to make it more like Western states which seemed so much stronger. In 1861, he freed 25 million serfs, roughly one third of Russia’s population. He then established local self-governments, “Westernized” the judicial system, abolished capital punishment, greatly expanded universities, etc. But the changes proved difficult. The serfs had little money to buy properties necessary for their livelihoods, and the Czar refused to establish a national legislature. Narodnaya Volya (People’s Will), a small group greatly influenced by anarchists, was formed in 1879, and in 1881 it assassinated Alexander II. Members were university students; women constituted one third of the group, the first time women had ever been involved in terrorist activity. Russian terrorism persisted for 40 odd years, though individual groups rarely lasted more than 5 years.

Assassinating prominent public figures was the principal tactic, and martyrdom was then sought in court trials. Efforts were always made to seek international support, i.e., foreign bases, Diasporas, other radical groups, etc. Two kinds of terrorist groups emerged on six continents: nationalists and anarchists. Anarchists produced the “Golden Age of Assassination” (1892–1901) in which more monarchs, presidents, and prime ministers were assassinated than ever before. The Wave’s high point was from 1890 to 1910. But that high point produced furious antiterrorist sentiment and no significant support from the poor, forcing many anarchists to abandon assassination and seek other methods like syndicalism for achieving their goals.

Major counter-terror practices were developed that are still employed. Police forces were re-made. They had always worn uniforms and responded to illegal actions after they occurred, but pre-emption efforts were then required to make it impossible for acts to happen. Uniforms were removed to observe actions without being identified in the process and to enable infiltration. Prisoners could not be treated as criminals. To avoid producing martyrs, Russia abandoned public trials. In 1 year, more than 1,000 were sentenced to death and were hanged or shot secretly within 24 hours. The treatment of criminals depended on the acts they committed. But terrorists had information about actions others would do, and torture was revived everywhere to gain that information. Terrorists could not be treated as prisoners of war because they did not follow the rules of war.  By David C. Rapoport

Www.poweredinpeace.com   see also www.nu-truth.com

[maxwellyjordan]

Tuesday round-up

The justices will hear oral argument this morning in two cases. The first is Parker Drilling Management Services. Ltd. v. Newton, in which they will consider whether California’s overtime and wage laws apply to drilling rigs on the Outer Continental Shelf. Andrew Siegel previewed the case for this blog. Lauren Devendorf and Tyler Schmitt have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute.

This morning’s second argument is in North Carolina Dept of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, which asks whether a trust beneficiary’s residence is sufficient under the due process clause for a state to assert tax jurisdiction over trust income. This blog’s preview came from Erin Scharff. Cecilia Bruni and Brady Plastaras preview the case for Cornell. At the UCLA Law Review, Bridget Crawford and Michelle Simon explain that “Kaestner Trust is the most important due process case involving trusts that the Court has decided in over sixty years; it bears directly on the fundamental meaning of due process.”

For this blog. Mark Walsh has a first-hand account of yesterday’s oral argument in Iancu v. Brunetti, in which the court considered a First Amendment challenge to the federal prohibition on “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks by a designer who wanted to register the trademark for his FUCT clothing brand. Nina Totenberg reports at NPR that “for the justices, the immediate problem was how to discuss the F-word without actually saying it.” For the Los Angeles Times, David Savage reports that “[t]hroughout the argument, the justices sounded unsure as to what words, if any, could be rejected as trademarks if the law were struck down.” Additional coverage comes from Robert Barnes for The Washington Post and Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, who reports that “[t]he justices showed little sympathy for the expressive content of Mr. Brunetti’s brand name, but their record on free speech points in his favor.” At the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson observes that “[t]he Justices seemed troubled by any argument that the Patent and Trademark Office … could reject a trademark on the basis that a majority or ‘substantial segment’ of people might find it objectionable, especially given changing morals and issues about which segments of the population” might differ.

Yesterday the justices issued orders from last Friday’s conference, granting no additional cases and asking for the views of the solicitor general in a case involving federal pre-emption of drug-reimbursement rates. Amy Howe covered the order list for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. At CNN, Ariane de Vogue reports that the justices “declined Monday to take up the case of a death row inmate, Charles Rhines, who sought to challenge his sentence based on juror statements that indicated discrimination based on Rhines’ homosexuality.” At the Pacific Legal Foundation blog, Tony Francois writes that the justices also vacated a conviction under the Clean Water Act and sent the case back for the court of appeals to determine whether the case is moot, giving “Carrie Robertson the chance to pursue justice for the federal government’s terrible wrong against her late husband, Joe.”

At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston reports that recent rulings indicate that “[t]he constitutional narrative that has guided the Supreme Court’s thinking on the death penalty for most of the past four decades is beginning to change[;] [d]eveloping in its place is a new approach that puts less emphasis on the rights of inmates on death-row and more on the power of the states to carry out executions.” At Take Care, Leah Litman weighs in on the rulings, suggesting that although “[t]he Court has made it a habit of penalizing and calling out prisoners for their death penalty litigation tactics,” “[i]n fact, it is the states’ sloppiness and secrecy that is creating many of the problems.”

Briefly:

In the latest episode of SCOTUStalk (podcast), Amy Howe chats with Stephen Wermeil about Supreme Court retirements, past and (possibly) future.

At The World and Everything in It (podcast), Mary Reichard unpacks the oral arguments in this term’s two partisan-gerrymandering cases, Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek.

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/tuesday-round-up-474/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[bvd11975]

fallesto​:

“My imagination –”

 — was who he is.

Without it he would not be alive, he would not be who he is, what this is that stands before them, that speaks, that moves, that is alive, there mind was working harder and harder each day to perfect everything and ensure they did not do something to upset them, because it would be so easy.

They could solve all the problems here, he knew it and she had to know it, there are not restrictions on him, nothing that can hinder him, his mind was free, whatever he could think inside his head, would come to pass and he could solve all the problems within the city, or he could make everything worse.

“Is who I am, it is everything to me.”

Something to think about.

As he would take them back and just made her, plop into her bed, already tucked in and wrapped up for a nights rest. As he sat there and just stared wide eyed at the screen before him, not truly caring what was in, flicking through history and nature, anything and everything and see everything that has shifted and turned within the world.

— so much has happened and he had not seen it.

He had not been here, because he had been sealed away, locked in a cell and left there to just slumber within the darkness. It ought to make him angry, but he did not know what that emption was, what that feeling was, how it felt – how did one become angry and what was hatred? He was not sure, he just felt so empty about it, because it was, what it was and it was not worth thinking too much about it, was something that had happened, it was something that had come to pass, it was just, something

— and his mind was more interested in learning.

“Hm?”

Oh he heard movement, and listened to the steps and shuffle as the other would come all the way back, despite there best efforts to imagine the best tucked into bed as possible, they had escaped from there comfort and come all the way back to them, how strange and odd. As they hummed out and turned their head to watch them come and settle down on the couch, pillow laid out, covers pulled over and then settling down.

“You are odd –”

She left a perfectly good and comfy bed that he had made for her, to come down and sleep on a couch?

— humans.

What a strange thing, as he just sat there, golden eyes widening and merely watching her as she would fall to sleep there, resting and then, falling into slumber. So that – was how someone would go to sleep? That was pretty – incredible he had to admit. And she made – odd sounds as well, a noise he had never heard before as he just dropped down with his head resting on her lap and just turned the television off and merely.

— he could not sleep.

But he just lay there then and closed his eyes, allowing his mind to merely have a little bit of rest, still thinking, still processing, this pushing forward to make everything as real as it needed to be, but giving it a small break for the first time since he had stepped out of the darkness of his prison and stepped into the light.

— that was her.

If his imagination was all that he was, if it meant everything to him... then it meant everything to her, too. It was just that simple. He occupied so much space within her heart and soul-- he lived within the forefront of her mind and he didn’t even need to alter her to do so. It was why she couldn’t just stay in bed and had to return. Her comfort with him beat the comfort he built for her to fall asleep within. To the point that skipping saying goodnight to him contributed to her being unable to settle.

It was such a silly thing but... it was what you did when you cared about another, wasn’t it? Wished them a goodnight and a good morning. Wished them the best. And wanted to be in their company whenever the opportunity allowed. Thankfully the two lived together so it made bounding back down the stairs and to the couch so easy.

Upon being called odd she let out a little amused sound even in her tired state but had no comment. There was no reason to argue when she knew that this was the stranger of the two choices. But some part of her just wasn’t through with him this eve, far too excited for the morning to come.

Even as she fell into a slumber she stirred just enough to register his weight against her. It came naturally then, the arm that draped off the couch lifted until her fingers brushed through his hair, a soft, “Mm.” of acknowledgement escaping her lips. Registering it was him, her arm moved to merely drape over his shoulder as if to hold him in some manner while she slept. To welcome him to stay. Attentive, even when the waking world grew farther and farther away.

Once more she sank into sleep, dainty fingers gently curling into the fabric of his coat. A reassurance of his presence for her subconscious mind for as long as he wished to lay there. The position may be a bit awkward but there were no complaints issued, far too content to merely sleep like this for it was more comfortable than some of the places she has rested before.

By morning, as the sunlight peeked through the long curtains of the living room, the agent let out of small disgruntled sound. Her face buried further into the blanket as she took in a deep breath - tried to return to her slumber. Alas, she was morning person and her body’s internal alarm clock was going off. Blearily her eyes blinked as she squinted, adjusting to the sunlight as her gaze shifted around the room before settling on his weight against her. A tired smile formed then and despite the cramping in her legs she didn’t mind enduring it so long as he was comfortable.

“Good mornin’ Gremmy.” Nestor greeted quietly as she woke up, her voice still struggling to catch up. “Did you... sleep?” Not even awake for a minute and already her curiosity was asking questions. She knew he didn’t sleep, there was never any evidence he had. Never when she fell asleep sharing the couch, never were any of the spare room beds untidy to indicate he had rested there. Did he just choose to lay there all night? The television was off, surprisingly, which led her to wonder if he did try to sleep - or simulate something close enough as his own version of a rest.

Whatever the answer may be, the day itself looked beautiful so far. Between having rested with her favorite person and seeing the morning light, she couldn’t imagine a better way to start the day.

[maxwellyjordan]

Wednesday round-up

This morning the justices will hear the last two oral arguments of the week. First on the agenda is Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, which asks whether the court should reconsider a precedent that requires property owners to exhaust state remedies before bringing federal takings claims under the Constitution. Miriam Seifter previewed the argument for this blog. Isaac Syed and Yuexin Angela Zhu have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, and Subscript Law provides a graphic explainer for the case. Today’s second argument is in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, which involves the scope of an exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act for transportation workers involved in interstate commerce. Ronald Mann had this blog’s preview, and Lauren Kloss and Nayanthika Ramakrishnan preview the case for Cornell.

Yesterday the justices considered Madison v. Alabama, an Eighth Amendment challenge to the execution of a death-row inmate who has dementia and cannot remember his crime. Amy Howe has this blog’s argument analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Nina Totenberg reports for NPR that Madison’s lawyer “told the justices that executing a man so incompetent is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment.” For The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that several “justices appeared to be looking for a way to rule for the inmate, Vernon Madison, without making a broad statement.” Additional coverage comes from Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Andrew Chung at Reuters, and Richard Wolf at USA Today. Yesterday’s second case was Gundy v. United States, which asks whether a provision of the federal sex-offender act violates the nondelegation doctrine. For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that several “justices appeared skeptical of a sex-offender’s challenge to a federal law giving the U.S. attorney general retroactive authority to decide which such criminals must register with authorities after they get out of prison.”

At NPR, Nina Totenberg reports that in  Weyerhaeuser Company v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a challenge to the federal government’s critical-habitat designation for the dusky gopher frog that was argued on Monday, “the four liberal justices pointed to language in the Endangered Species Act that allows reasonable actions like this one, and the court’s four conservatives complained that the Fish and Wildlife Service doesn’t say what reasonable is.” At PrawfsBlawg, Roderick Hills observes that “[t]he advantage of the narrower, crisper reading of ‘habitat’” advocated by Weyerhaeuser “is that it not only removes [a] cloud on land titles but also places some judicially manageable limits on the FWS’s jurisdiction.” Additional commentary comes from Mark Miller at the Pacific Legal Foundation Blog.

Charlotte Garden has this blog’s analysis of Monday’s oral argument in Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, which asks whether the 20-employee minimum in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to state and local governments.

For The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that “[i]n the wake of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s angry testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, some commentators are predicting that if confirmed, he may face calls for recusal in a range of cases,” and lists “four categories of cases that have been mentioned as recusal triggers for Kavanaugh,” concluding that recusal is “unlikely” in many cases. At CNN, Joan Biskupic writes that “[i]t is reasonable to anticipate the possibility of another series of 4-4 deadlocks on national legal controversies” on an eight-member court.

Briefly:

In an op-ed for The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Arthur Bryant observes that “[m]illions of consumers and employees cannot hold corporations that cheated or injured them accountable because the court recently changed the law and held that federal pre-emption, arbitration clauses and class action bans eliminated their rights to a day in court and a jury trial,” and highlights “[f]our cases now pending ask the court to immunize corporations even more.” 

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/wednesday-round-up-442/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[maxwellyjordan]

Petitions to watch | Conference of March 16

In its conference of March 16, 2018, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately; whether Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme, which includes so many aggravating circumstances that virtually every defendant convicted of first-degree murder is eligible for death, violates the Eighth Amendment; and whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit correctly held – contrary to several other courts of appeals – that the presumption against federal pre-emption of state law does not apply in the bankruptcy context.

Allen v. United States

17-5684

Issues: (1) Whether the petitioner’s mandatory guidelines sentence, which was enhanced under the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, and, if so, whether a conviction for burglary of a dwelling under Florida law qualifies as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2’s elements clause; and (2) whether published orders issued by a circuit court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), and in the context of applications to file second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions, constitute binding precedent outside of that context.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Robert R. McCormick Foundation

16-317

Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit correctly held – contrary to several other courts of appeals – that the presumption against federal pre-emption of state law does not apply in the bankruptcy context; (2) whether the 2nd Circuit correctly held – following the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 6th, and 8th Circuits, but contrary to the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 7th and 11th Circuits – that a fraudulent transfer is exempt from avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 546(e) when a financial institution acts as a mere conduit for fraudulently transferred property, or whether instead the safe harbor applies only when the financial institution has its own beneficial interest in the transferred property; and (3) whether the 2nd Circuit correctly held – contrary to the Supreme Court’s decisions holding that it is for Congress, and not the courts, to balance the multiple purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, and that courts must therefore rely first and foremost on the text of the code – that 11 U.S.C. § 546(e) is properly construed to extend far beyond its text and impliedly pre-empt fraudulent-transfer actions brought by private parties (as opposed to the “trustee” expressly mentioned in the statute).

Evans v. Mississippi

17-7245

Issue: Whether the death penalty, in and of itself, violates the Eighth Amendment in light of contemporary standards of decency and the geographic arbitrariness of its imposition.

Garco Construction, Inc. v. Secretary of the Army

17-225

Issue: Whether Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. and Auer v. Robbins should be overruled.

Gates v. United States

17-6262

Issue: Whether, under the Supreme Court’s opinions in United States v. Booker, Johnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States, which depended heavily upon the distinction between advisory and mandatory sentencing schemes, the residual clause of the mandatory sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague.

Hargan v. Garza

17-654

Issue: Whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., the Supreme Court should vacate the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s judgment and instruct that court to remand the case to the district court with directions to dismiss all claims for prospective relief regarding pregnant unaccompanied minors.

Hidalgo v. Arizona

17-251

Issues: (1) Whether Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme, which includes so many aggravating circumstances that virtually every defendant convicted of first-degree murder is eligible for death, violates the Eighth Amendment; and (2) whether the death penalty in and of itself violates the Eighth Amendment, in light of contemporary standards of decency.

James v. United States

17-6769

Issue: Whether, under the Supreme Court’s opinions in United States v. Booker, Johnson v. United States and Beckles v. United States, which depended heavily upon the distinction between advisory and mandatory sentencing schemes, the residual clause of the mandatory sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague.

Kisela v. Hughes

17-467

Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Andrew Kisela, the police officer who found Amy Hughes walking down her driveway toward another woman while carrying a large kitchen knife, acted unreasonably when he shot and wounded Hughes after she ignored commands to drop the knife given Kisela’s well-founded belief that potentially lethal force was necessary to protect the other woman from an attack that could have serious or deadly consequences; and (2) whether the lower court erred—to the point of warranting summary reversal—in refusing qualified immunity in the absence of any precedent finding a Fourth Amendment violation based on similar facts and, indeed, ignoring a case with remarkably similar facts that found no constitutional violation.

Nielsen v. Preap

16-1363

Issue: Whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately.

Oliver v. McDaniels

17-682

Issues: (1) Whether a one-sentence allegation of fact in the background section of a prisoner’s state court brief can be sufficient to exhaust a novel and complex federal constitutional double jeopardy claim; and (2) whether it is unreasonable to conclude that double jeopardy does not bar retrial, when the Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated that double jeopardy does not apply if the trial court lacks the power to enter a verdict.

Robinson v. United States

17-6877

Issue: Whether, following Johnson v. United States, in which the Supreme Court invalidated the Armed Career Criminal Act’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague, identical language in the residual clause of the previously-mandatory sentencing guidelines is likewise unconstitutional.

Sause v. Bauer

17-742

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s holding—granting qualified immunity to law-enforcement officers who stopped the petitioner from praying silently in her own home because there was no prior case law involving similar facts—conflicts with Hope v. Pelzer, which “expressly rejected a requirement that previous cases be ‘fundamentally similar’” or involve “‘materially similar’ facts.”

Sykes v. United States

16-9604

Issue: Whether Missouri’s second-degree burglary statute is divisible into two offenses with separate elements for the purpose of analyzing whether a conviction under that statute qualifies as a conviction for a “violent felony” as defined in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

The post Petitions to watch | Conference of March 16 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/03/petitions-watch-conference-march-16/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[verobatto]

Okay we are all crazy here, but I'm reviewing old metas from season 14, Yes i made a parallel between Rocky's bar and the Dean's cave and i called this meta WHAT I CAN REACH, because is Dean thinking he just can have Castiel as a friend. Damn...

We all were right people...

What I can reach…

Looking for happiness. (14x10 Nihilism spoiler)

Hello my dear! I rewatched properly the last episode, and it was full of meanings and symbolism, you all know how much I love that!

One of the things I saw was this “lying to myself” about what Dean really wanted and see as “reached happiness” but is just what “he allows himself to have as happiness.”

Let’s see why I say this…

Rocky’s bar AKA DEAN’S EMOTIONAL PRISON

When I first saw the bar, I saw a content Dean, ruling his own bar. And he even said “This is my dream.” To Pamela, which, it isn’t, in my perspective, this was his prison, his emotional prison, so perfectly constructed to cheat him. And because is the only thing more near to happiness that Michael could get from Dean’s desires, because as I said, HE CAN’T REACH THE REPRESSED FEELINGS AND DESIRES FROM DEAN.

Then… When I began to travel my gaze around the scenario, there were a lot of clues Hockey put there to show us this wasn’t at all what Dean really wants.

First of all, there were TFW colors all over the place, and the cosmic cowboy, so talked around the fandom, and something that caught my attention was the bullfighter (el matador) behind Dean, it was a statue in RED (Dean’s color for toxicity) and I thought immediately in AVOIDANCE, bc as you know… The bullfighter AVOIDS the bull, called “the beast”.

This is a symbolism from Dean behavior towards problems and inner desires. He avoid “the beast” what he really wants, his own feelings, like the bullfighter does with the bull.

There were a heart on the table … It said “DAPHNE LOVES FRED” part of Dean’s innocence recalling Scooby Doo characters in love, and the innocent idea of love, as we saw in 14x06 when i analyzed Harper’s room, the meta is here.

There’s the pic, and the limes there are remembering us about color GREEN (Healing!Dean) his innocent heart.

There was this…

The bright legend “EL SOL” (the sun), as a meaning of happiness.

Another interesting thing happened… The apparition of this character…

And what she said was very interesting… She said Dean had been interested in sell the bar, and she brought the papers for him to sign. But Dean didn’t want to, and she turned around and said the bar was kind of “dead”, I mean… Without customers… This is a very very symbolic scene, bc if we think this bar is Dean’s emotional prison, where he keeps his repressed feeling and desires, and where he plays avoiding reality, and now it doesn’t have costumers, and he wanted to sell it… Is bc HE IS HEALING PREPARING HIMSELF TO BREAK FREE FROM THIS PRISON, BC THERE’S NO MORE COSTUMERS (there’s no more reason to be there, to that bar existing anymore.) Even so, he said no… Bc Michael locked him again. And he is again in negation.

Pamela, a complex projection of Dean’s desires.

I know the fandom is talking a lot about her, I must be sincere here, I don’t read anything till I write my metas, so, maybe a lot was said already about this, I know the fandom believes Pamela was a blantant Castiel mirror, but for me, is not just that, is more complex and interesting that just Castiel mirror… Let me explain to you…

When I first saw her I knew my brain will have to work hard… Bc, she is a projection from Dean’s subconscious. There’s not thing more complicated that our brains, so this girl was so great written, each detail and each word she said had a meaning FOR DEAN, bc she is A PROJECTION OF MEMORIES, FEELINGS, AND DEFENSE MECHANISM coming from Dean.

Having that in mind, the deconstruction of the character begins with one question WHY PAMELA BARNS WAS RULING THE BAR WITH DEAN? Don’t see what SHE IS, BUT WHAT SHE IS REPRESENTING.

She represents the first day Dean came back from Hell, a traumatic experience (TRAUMA). She was there, she saw Castiel’s true form and her eyes were burnt, and then she was killed by demons for helping him and Sam (GUILT).

She is using that t-shirt: TO HELL AND BACK: this represents DEAN’S RAISING FROM PERDITION, RESCUED BY CASTIEL. (First encounter in the barn).

She is using a necklace with wings, Castiel mirror.

Ok so here she is representing MEMORIES, TRAUMA, GUILT, CASTIEL, FIRST ENCOUNTER, SALVATION.

Then we have this…

Watch the image, she is DEAN. She represents his fem side. She is flirts, she is his partner ruling the bar, and she behaves as him, and she even flirted with Castiel!

So, this image is yelling BISEXUALITY here.

But is interesting bc Dean is placed near the COSMIC COWBOY and Pam near to FOX RYE. And bc Dean called her his girlfriend and she said: “YOU DON’T WANT ME. YOU JUST LIKE TO FLIRT.” And my head exploded… Is Pamela representing women here? All of Dean’s possible woman interest? Yes she is. And she is saying those words! And that could be so related to HEALING!DEAN too, accepting his feelings for Castiel, knowing WHAT HE REALLY WANTS! But then Pamela goes and says: “YO WANT WHAT YOU CAN’T HAVE.” Yes.. THAT’S IT MY FRIENDS! DEAN WANTS CAS AND HE THINKS HE CAN’T HAVE HIM BC HE THINKS CASTIEL DOESN’T’ FEEL THE SAME FOR HIM!! All our romantic specs about this coming true by Yockey’s hand!

So Pam, Is a representation of women, placed near to the FOX (representing lies) as a lie. Dean wanting women, hook up with random waitress, is a lie. And Pamela being there is a lie too, bc she is just a projection.

Parallel between Dean’s bar and Dean’s cave

I just wanted to point here an idea that came to my mind about the things we think would make us happy and the really things we know will make us happy.

The quote YOU WANT WHAT YOU CAN’T HAVE is a sad quote. Is not a capricious child asking for some candy, no… Is a 40 years old man trying to allow himself things that he can reach, possible things (rule a bar) to reach a little of happiness in his life. Knowing very well what he really want (Castiel) he allows himself to have things that he knows may be possible and he settles for it.

The same thing happened with Dean’s Cave. Dean made that place to have time with Castiel, watching movies, drinking beer and playing pool.

He allowed himself that, bc he thinks that more was impossible, having another kind of thing with CAS (what he really wants) is impossible, so he settled for the Dean’s cave and watch movies with Castiel.

How to break free from this emotional prison

And again I’m gonna sound like a witch reading the future here, but we’ll… I have to say it…

One of my specs said that we will see TWO DEANS INSIDE DEAN’S HEAD. Ok… It happened.

And I said Sam will figure out how to reach Dean and save him, bc Mint Condition was a foreshadow of this episode.

And is interesting all the colors again, blue and yellow in Dean’s legs (CAS and Sam are by his side).

And another thing… Where’s the fox? Yeap, is gone, just the cosmic cowboy now (Castiel) no more random waitress. There’s just one love interest in Dean’s heart.

So here, with FAMILY LOVE and ROMANTIC LOVE, Dean could broke free from this prison.

And this…

Gif credit @mishacolins

Gif credit @ahoyspn

… was priceless… Family love/Romantic Love helping Dean to wake up. Castiel had the decoder ring, and Sammy the key (Mint Condition).

To conclude…

Dean is strong, but how much is he going to keep Michael locked up?? I’m so scared bc of this…

The good thing is… Dean could break free from his emotional prison… Would he be able to do the same in real life? Is time to keep healing… But we are almost there for self acceptance and love for himself. Let’s see what happens!!!

Thanks x reading this large mess!

C-u!

Tagging @gneisscastiel @metafest @magnificent-winged-beast @emblue-sparks @mrsaquaman187 @agusvedder @castiellover20 @lykanyouko @cheerstofandomfamily @evvvissticante

Buenos Aires January 18th 2018 05:00 PM