#file court documents

[forecast0ctopus]

arthur (sopping wet, very confused, framed for murder) and merlin (probably having a heart attack, also very confused, got a law degree at some point?)

follow up to this because i just think its fun

[alexcabotgf]

not to be true crime posting on main but i think i'm falling down the wm3 rabbit hole again

[the-meme-monarch]

hi. i am back to reading an unauthorized fan treatise which i greatly recommend and so spoilers. absolutely obsessed how gottie started off writing this essay to prove rob and nathan were dating and went to further parasocial and stalkerish means and subsequently has gotten entangled with All The Shit of rob's past (and present!) dark web/criminal activity which caught his attention and he's going to further lengths in attempt to silence her Such As Breaking Into Her Home To Steal Her Laptop and all the while she finds the time to write Basically real person fiction about how she thinks him and nathan fell in love. she is Actively being targeted by an A-list celebrity.

[random-kazakh-stuff]

There is a common play on words in Russian about a town in Kazakhstan. It goes like this:

A: Где ты шлялся, пес? ("Where were you, dog?")

B: Где, где? В Караганде!("Where, where? In Karaganda!")

The play here is that Where and Karaganda(declenised, it's when you change the ending of a word, because grammar) have the same ending -de.

There is however many interesting things happening at the same time with this saying.

First of all, it's origin.

It can't be said when or where exactly this phrase appeared, but some argue that it could have been a common answer from people who had been released from Karlag(Karaganda Corrective Labour Camp) which around a million people went through from 1930 to 1959. It is suggested that people wouldn't want to say that they went to Karlag so they just dismissively answered that they were in Karaganda.

Secondly, there is the way the phrase traveled through the years.

Russian is spoken less and less in most countries that were once part of USSR. At the same time, there are young people today who have never learned the geography of other countries(in comparison to times in USSR when they would apparently learn about the entire USSR).

So there is an group of young people who might learn Russian and hear the phrase but never find out that Karaganda is a real plase, in Kazakhstan, and not a imaginary or a funny word.

There is also a monument for the phrase! where? guess.

The animal is marmot btw which is the symbol animal of Karaganda.

[ID: A photo of the monument on a sunny day. All of the figures are of a dirty coppery orange colour. From left to right: a man standing with a suitcase at his feet looking confused, and holding a hand close to his face as if looking out for the horizon; a signpost with arrows pointing to different directions, top to down: "Karaganda 0km", "Astana", "Moscow"; a sizeable marmot with a smug face leaning on the sign; a man in a cap spreading his arms, as if trying to explain something]

[officialbabayaga]

sending my boss my end of day update 15 minutes before i log off ‘in case he wants to follow up on anything’ (so i can do nothing for the last 15 minutes)

[nationallawreview]

Dependent Work Permits – Is the U.S. Catching Up with Other Immigration Destinations?

There are many ways in which the U.S. immigration system is lagging behind those of other countries. We still put physical visas in passports – something Australia stopped doing nearly 10 years ago when they converted to a purely electronic visa system. Our immigration system is predominantly paper-based, with limited options for electronic filings, an area where other countries have fully…

[beemovieerotica]

continually awed by how american states function like separate countries

I held back on getting my gender changed in the state of Georgia because it required filing a court case and appearing before a judge to prove that I had transitioned enough to warrant calling myself male on my documents. there was a strong possibility they could deny me because I hadn't undergone any type of surgery (a requirement under Georgia law that is waived only sometimes), despite passing as male 100% of the time.

this morning I went to the Maryland vehicle administration building and they had a touch screen with buttons that said "male" and "female."

I paused and asked the lady "I can choose male, right?" and she looked at me (again, I'm just some guy with a beard) (and I think she misheard me) and she was like "Oh! Do you want to be female now?" I said no, my Georgia license (directly in front of her) says female, they wouldn't let me change it, can I be male now?

she said to just pick whichever I wanted. I got my updated license in 5 minutes.

[courtcourierfortstjohn]

CourtCourier

Welcome to CourtCourier, your trusted partner in legal support solutions. With years of dedicated service, we take pride in being a cornerstone in the legal community, providing unparalleled process-serving expertise. At CourtCourier, we understand the critical role we play in the legal process, and our skilled team is committed to delivering reliable and efficient services.

Founded on the principles of integrity and professionalism, CourtCourier has become a beacon of trust for attorneys, law firms, and legal professionals across BC. Our mission is to seamlessly bridge the gap between legal documentation and its rightful recipients, ensuring that justice is served promptly and accurately.

What sets CourtCourier apart is not just our experience but our genuine love for the community we serve. We recognize the impact our services have on individuals, businesses, and the legal system as a whole. Our team is not only proficient in the intricacies of process-serving but is also deeply rooted in the values that define our local community.

Contact Info-

CourtCourier

Address- 6419 B Airport Rd, Fort St John, BC V1J 6A1, Canada

Phone- +1 778-760-3800

Business Email- service@courtcourier.ca

Website- https://courtcourier.ca/

Business Hour- Mon - Sun: 6am-8pm

Payment Methods- E-Transfer, Cheques, Credit Card

[courtcourierpentictonbc]

CourtCourier

Address: 129 Nanaimo Ave W. Penticton, BC V2A 1N2

Phone: 778-760-3800

Website: https://courtcourier.ca/

Business Email: service@courtcourier.ca

Hours: Mon - Sun: 6am-8pm

Payment Methods: E-Transfer, Cheques, Credit Card

Welcome to CourtCourier, your trusted partner in legal support solutions. With years of dedicated service, we take pride in being a cornerstone in the legal community, providing unparalleled process-serving expertise. At CourtCourier, we understand the critical role we play in the legal process, and our skilled team is committed to delivering reliable and efficient services.

Founded on the principles of integrity and professionalism, CourtCourier has become a beacon of trust for attorneys, law firms, and legal professionals across BC. Our mission is to seamlessly bridge the gap between legal documentation and its rightful recipients, ensuring that justice is served promptly and accurately.

What sets CourtCourier apart is not just our experience but our genuine love for the community we serve. We recognize the impact our services have on individuals, businesses, and the legal system as a whole. Our team is not only proficient in the intricacies of process-serving but is also deeply rooted in the values that define our local community.

[courtcourier]

CourtCourier

Welcome to CourtCourier, your trusted partner in legal support solutions. With years of dedicated service, we take pride in being a cornerstone in the legal community, providing unparalleled process-serving expertise. At CourtCourier, we understand the critical role we play in the legal process, and our skilled team is committed to delivering reliable and efficient services.    Founded on the principles of integrity and professionalism, CourtCourier has become a beacon of trust for attorneys, law firms, and legal professionals across BC. Our mission is to seamlessly bridge the gap between legal documentation and its rightful recipients, ensuring that justice is served promptly and accurately.    What sets CourtCourier apart is not just our experience but our genuine love for the community we serve. We recognize the impact our services have on individuals, businesses, and the legal system as a whole. Our team is not only proficient in the intricacies of process-serving but is also deeply rooted in the values that define our local community. 

Address: 3406 32nd Ave, Vernon, BC V1T 2N1 

Phone: 778-760-3800

Website: https://courtcourier.ca/ 

Business Email: service@courtcourier.ca 

Hours: Mon - Sun: 6am-8pm 

Payment Methods: E-Transfer, Cheques, Credit Card 

[sophiamcdougall]

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you.  I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age."  -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.  

[ink-asunder]

It is literally so fucked up that the one (1) person in charge of your place of work is literally able to revoke a person's only source of income and subject that person to potential starvation and homelessness over sitting down at a fucking job.

[techminsolutions]

Landmark Ruling on Input Tax Credit by Honorable Madras High Court: Transforming GST Compliance for Businesses

A Groundbreaking Ruling on Input Tax Credit by the Honourable Madras High Court: Insights from SRI SHANMUGA HARDWARES ELECTRICALS Case In the intricate realm of tax compliance and regulatory frameworks, the Honourable Madras High Court has recently issued a landmark judgement that promises to significantly impact the way input tax credit (ITC) claims are approached in India. The case in question,…

[quadrantadvisor]

Imagine if the GIW started gunning for Jason without the Batfam ever meeting Phantom. Like, Bruce has to figure out on his own that the guys in white suits with Lazarus guns are 1. a legitimate government agency, and 2. are perfectly within their rights to hunt Jason like an animal, because 3. there's secret government legislation that says that since Jason's body processes ectaplasm, he's classified as non-sapient and has no legal protections.

Bruce calling up Clark like

Bruce: I am currently in the process of breaking into a government facility in order to dismantle their operations.

Clark: Okay? Do you need... help?

Bruce: Yes.

Clark: Sure, I'll be right there.

Bruce: Not that kind of help. Oracle is sending you the files now. I'd like you and Ms. Lane to make these people wish they were never born.

Clark: [speed-reading the documents] Oh yeah, can do. This is truly disgusting. If the public is half as outraged as I am, we'll get this sorted as fast as the courts can manage.

So Clark Kent acts as a whistle-blower, the Justice League publicly condems the Anti-Ecto Acts as inhumane, the GIW is disbanded, and Batman gets pardoned for all of those crimes that he technically did by assaulting federal agents. And after all that gets sorted, some white haired kid pops up in the Watchtower like "haha thanks for that I really didn't want a war between Earth and the Infinite Realms" and the League are like "wait what"

[elierlick]

Tennessean trans man David Scott Ryan III transitioned in 1949, around age 26. He became a pastor in 1955 while passing as cis and preached throughout Arkansas and Oklahoma for years. Narratives like David's narratives don't often end well, but David successfully fought to live as a man! Here's his story:

Born in rural Oklahoma on 9/22/1923, David privately transitioned in 1949 before marrying his first known wife, chaplain Margie. He then married another woman named Gwyn after leaving Margie in 1953. He later married a third wife, Glenda, in 1960.

David was outed after his 1961 bigamy arrest. It's unclear if his bigamy was accidental or even real. Gwyn filed for divorce in March 1960 before he married Glenda in June, but documents do not show if the divorce was completed. Glenda filed the bigamy complaint herself for unknown reasons. Was it jealousy? Was David outed? Was she feeling neglected? Glenda did not speak with reporters.

David was far from the first trans man arrested for marrying a woman. Yet, the courts did not know what to do with him. The judge dismissed his case after 4 months of jail and he stayed out of the news for a decade.

There are countless cases like David Ryan in the mid-20th century- trans people who make the news for a few weeks before fading into history. However, thanks to new archive technology, we can trace David's story further. He re-married a woman named May Louise and they divorced in 1971. He then married for a 5th and final time to high school teacher Imogene Cox in 1975. He took up jobs at a construction equipment site and Walmart in Evansville, Indiana over the following decades.

David passed in 2002 from heart disease at age 78. The mortician must have insisted on using an "F" for David despite "M" appearing on his other documents (why?). Local news reported that David loved to play instruments and paint. 50 years after transitioning, he still worked with the church.

[moyazaika]

tbh jaded lawyer darling trying to save yan crime kingpin from getting his ass thrown into prison for life — yet again.

he’s lingering at the court’s steps, entertaining the news reporters with a dazzling smile, the entire world waiting with bated breath to see whether this is the day his billion dollar criminal empire comes crumbling down—

“the whole world knows you did it!”

“are you ashamed of yourself?”

“do you really think you’ll walk away a free man after today?”

that gets his attention.

“darling, don’t ‘ya worry about me,” he turns to the journalist, and tilts his head to the side, pulling out his lollipop from between those lips, curled in a sly grin. “i ain’t gotta worry ‘bout no fuckin’ laws when i got the world’s best damn lawyer on my side.”

a young man, then. thick glasses and braces on his teeth. far too thin and lanky, for all his balls of steel as he speaks up. “are you implying that your lawyer is an accessory to your crimes? a corrupt lawyer for a guilty man on his way to the gallows?”

he hears you approach before he can think to respond. the familiar, expensive echo of the dress shoes he’d bought you the first time you’d won a case, before you’re there where he thinks you belong; right by his side.

“alleged crimes,” you correct, and your kingpin turns to greet you with a million dollar smile. “now, my client will not be taking any more questions. kindly, fuck off.”

cameras flash instantly and countless more mics are shoved into his pretty face, still mesmerised by you, even when you grab him by the back of his collar (unironed, you notice with absolute dismay) and pull him inside, away from prying eyes.

“you’re being tried for sixteen drug and weapons counts,” you hiss, digging your newly manicured nails into his skin, as you pull the lollipop he’s sucking on right out of his mouth with a wet ‘pop’ and toss it to the side, seething. “when will you fucking get serious!”

he only dumbly stares back at you with a slack jaw, and stars in his eyes. his voice dips an octave lower, deep in his throat when he speaks. “oh, i could get very serious if you wanted to give me a kiss. or, y’know, maybe you could act as a replacement to that sweet lollipop of mine ‘ya just—oh, fuck!”

when you stride into the courtroom later, in your neat, pressed suit and slicked back hair, nobody dares ask why the infamous ‘alleged’ crime lord is following after you with a bruise blossoming on cheeks that flush a deep, deep scarlet.

-

the judge announces the jury's verdict, and you don’t even look up from the documents you’re perusing when he’s found ‘not guilty’ in a court of law, yet again—

“jesus fuckin’ christ, i knew you were gonna save me!” your kingpin jumps up from where he’s sitting besides you, pressing his face into your shoulder as he breathes you in with an elated, shuddering breath. “can’t even imagine which ditch i’d be rottin’ in without ‘ya, sweet pea.”

“excuse me, sir.” you pry his hands off you with a detached air of reservation you reserve for when the two of you are in public, but the way your knuckles are white when you gather the countless files and papers of yours scattered on your desk tell him everything he needs to know about how pissed you are. “hands off.”

he knows he’s in for it when the two of you get home, and yet, he looks forward to the sight.

it’s always more… exciting than it should be; when you’ve got him shoved right up against a well, going off about how ‘irresponsible’ and ‘immature’ he is, nails leaving his skin bleeding from how deep you sink them into his body, too caught up in your own irritation to notice or, honestly, care.

and maybe, he thinks, as he follows you out, tonight he’ll go pay a visit to someone after you’re done with him.

a man’s got needs, y’know?

he’s high off the rush of his latest win when he walks up the porch steps hours later. it's really only the latest achievement in a long line he attributes solely to you and your efforts.

he’ll make sure to repay you one day, with all you’ve done for him. he’ll take such good care of you; let you do whatever you wanted to him, as a token of his appreciation for how hard you've worked to keep him on the streets he rules and out of the prisons he knows he belongs in.

in fact, his efforts start right here and right now; on the steps of a nice, suburban house, that belongs to the journalist with thick glasses and braces and a wiry frame. the white picket fence and 'keep off the grass' sign do little to deter the man outside. then again, the poor bastard could have had gates of iron, and he still would have found a way to creep inside.

he never knew being a journalist paid so well. shit, maybe he should’ve gone down this path instead of, y’know, running a criminal empire. this bastard's got balls of steel, for what he had the nerve to say about you. but it’s okay! hey! he’s here to take care of it for you!

you don’t ever need to find out what he’s done in your name. ♡

he’s very adamant about this, choosing to see the job to completion all alone, slinking away from your critical, watchful gaze—only once he’s made sure you’re knocked out by watching you sleep, crouched by your bedside, for a few hours—to make sure the problem’s all taken care of.

the kingpin rings the doorbell, and patiently waits for the door to open with his scarred hands held behind his back. there’s a glock in his left back pocket, and a silencer in the right. a swiss army knife curled in his fingers, because he’s always been creative.

yeah, can you believe that? his teachers used to tell him he would make a great artist one day. and he is, he likes to think. only that his canvases are a little less traditional, and not in the banksy way. you know how it is! life imitates art... or some hippie shit like that.

there's no rules in art for what you can paint with, right? or what surfaces you can carve up into pretty shapes...

and so, when the lock clicks open, and the handle turns, it’s exactly like he said; a man’s got needs!

so sue him! really, so what if his needs mean his heavy hands are clamping over the journalist’s mouth, twisted into a silent scream—

so what if he knocks the smaller man back, a fist flying to his face, those wide eyes and all, slack jaw stupidly hanging open in disbelief—

so what if he shoves him inside and kicks the door behind them shut?

your kingpin knows what comes with the life he chose, and sullying his name is one thing—but nobody gets to drag your name through the dirt and live.

he makes sure of that, personally.

-

“where did you go last night?” you ask, not taking your eyes off the weekly newspaper in your hands. there, on the front page, a greyscale photo of you and your headache of a client, descending the court’s steps after the verdict. “and why didn’t you ask for my permission before you left?”

the headline, in big, bold letters, splashed above the picture; INTERNATIONAL OUTRAGE AS INFAMOUS DRUG LORD EVADES LAW YET AGAIN. SHADY LAWYER TO BLAME?

“just takin’ out the trash, lovely. don’t you worry ‘yer pretty little mind about it.” as he says that, he abandons his own breakfast, suddenly snatching the paper out of your hands and ripping it up, but not before noting the name of the article’s author, tucking it away for later.

shreds of the weekly paper you hadn't even gotten to read yet fall to the floor, fluttering this way and that. you close your eyes and smile. “haha. funny. well, my ‘pretty little mind’ is telling me to throw the coffee in my hands all over you.”

“tryna mark me up?” he purrs, “if you really wanna wake me up, can i suggest somethin’ else ‘ya could throw at me? or on me, really. but—”

“i’m going to kill you in your sleep, one of these days.” you deadpan, turning back to your food. he’s like a little kid, and you’re not about to indulge him by giving him the attention he so desperately wants from you.

“'yer serious??" he grins, hands flying to his face in elation, a curious blush colouring his skin a deep pink. “you mean you actually wanna step into my bedroom— at night— of 'yer own damn will?“

you take another sip of your coffee, fingers trembling around the cup. don’t throw it at him it’s what he wants don’t throw it at him it’s what he wants don’t throw it at him it’s what—

“damn... guess i should start sleeping naked, then.”

extra; what if darling was a prosecutor instead?