#law courts and tribunals

[news4dzhozhar]

[tmarshconnors]

“The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.”

Robert Houghwout Jackson was an American lawyer, jurist, and politician who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1941 until his death in 1954.

Born: 13 February 1892, Spring Creek Township, Pennsylvania, United States

Died: 9 October 1954 (age 62 years), Washington, D.C., United States

Supreme Court Justice: Robert H. Jackson served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1941 to 1954. He was appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Nuremberg Trials: Jackson is perhaps best known for his role as the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. These trials were historic as they prosecuted major Nazi war criminals for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.

Legal Career: Before his appointment to the Supreme Court, Jackson held several significant positions, including Solicitor General (1938-1940) and Attorney General (1940-1941). His tenure in these roles was marked by his strong defense of New Deal legislation.

Influential Opinions: As a Supreme Court Justice, Jackson authored several important opinions. Notably, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), he wrote the majority opinion that declared it unconstitutional to force public school students to salute the flag, emphasizing the protection of individual rights against government mandates.

Literary Style: Jackson was renowned for his eloquent and clear writing style. His opinions are often cited for their literary quality and persuasive power. His legal writings continue to be studied and admired for their clarity and rhetorical force.

[sapphia]

USA please listen to me: the price of “teaching them a lesson” is too high. take it from New Zealand, who voted our Labour government out in the last election because they weren’t doing exactly what we wanted and got facism instead.

Trans rights are being attacked, public transport has been defunded, tax cuts issued for the wealthy, they've mass-defunded public services, cut and attacked the disability funding model, cut benefits, diverted transport funding to roads, cut all recent public transport subsidies, cancelled massive important infrastructure projects like damns and ferries (we are three ISLANDS), fast tracked mining, oil, and other massive environmentally detrimental projects and gave the power the to approve these projects singularly to three ministers who have been wined and dined by lobbyists of the companies that have put the bids in to approve them while one of the main minister infers he will not prioritise the protection of endangered species like the archeys frog over mining projects that do massive environmental harm. They have attacked indigenous rights in an attempt to negate the Treaty of Waitangi by “redefining it”; as a backup, they are also trying to remove all mentions of the treaty from legislation starting with our Child Protection laws no longer requiring social workers to consider the importance of Maori children’s culture when placing those children; when the Waitangi Tribunal who oversees indigenous matters sought to enquire about this, the Minister for Children blocked their enquiry in a breach of comity that was condemned in a ruling — too late to do anything — by our Supreme Court. They have repealed labour protections around pay and 90 day trials, reversed our smoking ban, cancelled our EV subsidy, cancelled our water infrastructure scheme that would have given Maori iwi a say in water asset management, cancelled our biggest city’s fuel tax, made our treasury and inland revenue departments less accountable, dispensed of our Productivity Commission, begun work on charter schools and military boot camps in an obvious push towards privatisation, cancelled grants for first home buyers, reduced access to emergency housing, allowed no cause evictions, cancelled our Maori health system that would have given Maori control over their own public medical care and funding, cut funding of services like budgeting advice and food banks, cancelled the consumer advocacy council, cancelled our medicine regulations, repealed free prescriptions, deferred multiple hospital builds, failed to deliver on pre-election medical promises, reversed a gun ban created in response to the mosque shootings, brought back three strikes = life sentence policy, increased minimum wage by half the recommended amount, cancelled fair pay for disabled workers, reduced wheelchair services, reversed our oil and gas exploration ban, cancelled our climate emergency fund, cut science research funding including climate research, removed limits on killing sea lions, cut funding for the climate change commission, weakened our methane targets, cancelled Significant National Areas protections, have begun reversing our ban on live exports. Much of this was passed under urgency.

It’s been six months.

[detainedstaffday]

Pledging to protect and support humanitarians as they help build a more peaceful, humane world for us all.

Today is a solemn reminder of the grave risks facing our staff members as they carry out their vital work under the United Nations flag.

These brave women and men represent humanity’s highest calling: helping people in their hour of desperate need. They come from countries spanning the globe, but are united in their common dedication to the noble causes of peacekeeping, delivering aid and assistance, and upholding international law and human rights in countries and regions rocked by conflict and disaster.

They also face enormous and unacceptable risks — including violence, detention and abduction. Since 2022, 381 UN personnel have been detained — including 7 in January and February of this year. In total, 27 UN personnel are still in detention.

Our hearts are with their families and colleagues, and I will not relent in calling for their release and safe return.

In their name, we urge all countries to fully implement the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, and the 2005 Optional Protocol to the Convention.

On this important day, let’s honor the courage and dedication of humanitarians everywhere by pledging to protect and support them as they help build a more peaceful, humane world for us all.

António Guterres.

Statement from the UN Secretary-General António Guterres on the International Day of Solidarity with Detained and Missing Staff Members 2024; March 25th.

[vasanthasworld]

CS Executive JIGL – Special Courts, Tribunals Under Companies Act Question and Answers

[techminsolutions]

Decoding Section 147: Mangalam Publications Verdict and the Essence of Tax Disclosures

In the intricate legal battle between M/S Mangalam Publications and the Commissioner of Income Tax, Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, takes centre stage. The case, marked as Civil Appeal Nos. 8580–8582 of 2011, reached its zenith on January 23, 2024, with Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivering landmark verdicts. Mangalam Publications Verdict and…

[redsnerdden]

Appeals Court Blocks Texas From Enforcing Book Rating Law

Victory! Appeals Court Blocks Texas From Enforcing Book Rating Law #Texas #Books #Manga #GraphicNovels #Politics

Three months ago, Judge Alan D. Albright struck down the enforcement of HB 900 (better known as the READER ACT), which would require any vendor who wishes to sell books to the Texas Public School System to provide ratings as to the level of Sexual explicitness. Recently, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has blocked the Texas Education Agency from enforcing the Reader Act, dealing another blow to…

[godwin247]

A summary view of the Tribunal judgement on Peter Obi/Labour party case

TRIBUNAL: On the allegation that Tinubu was convicted in the USA and as such disqualified from contesting on grounds of previous conviction, the Tribunal held that this ground of the Petitioners’ petition fails, because there is no evidence that Tinubu was convicted of any criminal offence involving fraud or dishonesty in Nigeria or elsewhere within the 10 years preceding the 2023…

[davidhencke]

Half baked and half finished: How courts and tribunals burned through £1 billion on computers to improve access to justice and failed

Royal Courts of Justice It is portrayed by HM Courts and Tribunals Service as “our vision for reform to make the justice system more straightforward, accessible and efficient.” But this £1.3 billion digital court reform programme has been exposed by the National Audit Office and last week by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee for having failed to meet its objectives. This ambitious…

[reasonsforhope]

"Tuesday��s [April 9, 2024] definition-shifting court ruling means nearly 50 governments must now contend with a new era of climate litigation.

Governments be warned: You must protect your citizens from climate change — it’s their human right.

The prescient message was laced throughout a dense ruling Tuesday from Europe’s top human rights court. The court’s conclusion? Humans have a right to safety from climate catastrophes that is rooted in their right to life, privacy and family.

The definition-shifting decision from the European Court of Human Rights means nearly 50 governments representing almost 700 million people will now have to contend with a new era of litigation from climate-stricken communities alleging inaction. 

While the judgment itself doesn’t include any penalties — the case featured several women accusing Switzerland of failing to shield them from climate dangers — it does establish a potent precedent that people can use to sue governments in national courts.

The verdict will serve “as a blueprint for how to successfully sue your own government over climate failures,” said Ruth Delbaere, a legal specialist at Avaaz, a U.S.-based nonprofit that promotes climate activism...

Courting the courts on climate

The European Court of Human Rights was established in the decade following World War II but has grown in importance over the last generation. As the judicial arm of the Council of Europe, an international human rights organization, the court’s rulings are binding on the council’s 46 members, spanning all of Europe and numerous countries on its borders.

As a result, Tuesday’s [April 9, 2024] ruling will help elevate climate litigation from a country-by-country battle to one that stretches across continents.

Previously, climate activists had mostly found success in suing individual countries to force climate action. 

A 2019 Dutch Supreme Court verdict forced the Netherlands to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent, while in 2021 a French court ruled the government was responsible for environmental damage after it failed to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals. That same year, Germany’s Constitutional Court issued a sweeping judgment that the country’s 2019 climate law was partly “unconstitutional” because it put too much of the emissions-cutting burden on future generations.

Even in the U.S., young environmental activists won a local case last year against state agencies after arguing that the continued use of fossil fuels violated their right to a "clean and healthful environment."

But 2024 is shaping up to be a turning point for climate litigation, redefining who has a right to sue over climate issues, what arguments they can use, and whom they can target. 

To start, experts overwhelmingly expect that Tuesday’s ruling will reverberate across future lawsuits — both in Europe and globally. The judgment even includes specifics about what steps governments must take to comply with their new climate-related human rights obligations. The list includes things like a concrete deadline to reach climate neutrality, a pathway to getting there, and evidence the country is actually on that path...

Concretely, the verdict could also affect the outcomes of six other high-profile climate lawsuits pending before the human rights court, including a Greenpeace-backed suit questioning whether Norway's decision to grant new oil and gas licenses complies with its carbon-cutting strategy.

An emerging legal strategy

In the coming months, other international bodies are also expected to issue their own rulings on the same thorny legal issues, which could further solidify the evolving trend. 

The International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights all have similar cases working through the system.

"All these cases together will clarify the legal obligations of states to protect rights in the context of climate change — and will set the stage for decades to come," said Chowdhury, from the environmental law center."

-via Politico, April 9, 2024

[alicedrawslesmis]

(sorry this is from a week ago but) Wait, what's going on right now that's complicated with Amazonian farmers' land rights?

Not farmers, indigenous people

See, recently they put a new law through congress that severely reduces indigenous land to the borders established during the late dictatorship, or immediately post-dictatorship, in 1988. An absolute joke of a border that was dreamed up by some military assholes. People in america may recognize this type of society from the times of westward expansion and think this is a thing of the past because for you guys it is. But here it is a reality. Murder is rampant. The reach of the law is incredibly limited. Government is just too weak and landowners basically run things. THAT'S WHY it's so important to donate directly to the native peoples instead of random NGOs because native people are fucking there and the more power they hold in the land the safer the land will be from agroindustrial expansion.

Well the law was vetoed by the the president and the Supremo Tribunal Federal, aka supreme federal court, labeled it as unconstitutional. Which it is, because our 1988 constitution describes native american land rights in some of its first articles. We thought this would be it for the law

But then the senate (that already overrepresents landowners in rural states) just went along and approved it anyway. I had no idea they could approve something unconstitutional. The progressives and particularly the socialists are fighting this in court. But it happens that for now the legal border is the severely reduced version.

Doesn't mean they'll just give up, because as it happens we don't have any stand your ground laws so even if you own a piece of land, you cannot legally speaking just shoot everyone there. Or attack or threaten them in any way. They'll just have long legal battles individually for the rights to occupy land based on use. Also the Xingu national park, the largest preserved land of the Amazon described as 'larger than Belgium', is being encroached by huge farms that are poisoning their water supply. The border is Visible. I'll try to find video of it but essentially you have a forest and a desert separated by a strict line.

Just last week in the south of Bahia (not the Amazon, let me explain more about the Amazon situation in a bit) Hãhãhãe leadership Nega Muniz Pataxó was shot and killed by an armed militia group that invaded and occupied the Caramuru territory.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by SOMOS PATAXÓ HÃHÃHÃE (@somoshahahai)

The situation in the Amazon, specifically the yanomami territory in Roraima our northernmost state, aka deep forest, is more dire than average given difficulty of access, sheer size, and government abandonment. It's a place that depends on government aid for medicine. It's land that is being systematically invaded by gold miners, pandemic, toxins from nearby farmlands, wood extraction etc. (wood extration is rampant everywhere tho). Early 2023 saw a massive federal government operation by now president Lula to empty the mines and try to look for where funding comes from. Yanomami land is still being invaded to this day, the struggle is ongoing.

The yanomamis need support right now more than any other. Last year saw a massive heat wave that (well, one, caused a girl named Ana Clara Machado to die during the Taylor Swift concert. This is unrelated but I feel like not enough foreign media covered this, Taylor even lied about it as well.) dried up a lot of rivers, killed a LOT of fresh water animals including an unprecedented amount of pink dolphins. Access that was already hard became damn near impossible without boats. I cannot overstate how many pink dolphins were found dead.

Another technique that landowners use to clear space for farms is to just set things on fire and then occupy the empty land, which they legally can do to land that was naturally burned in a forest fire. It happened that Pantanal, another national park of swampland, was massively devastated by fires last year too

this article is from 2020, the year that the worst fire happened, but in 2023 there was another one. It's been happening yearly now due to a) deliberate action and b) climate change aggravation.

And this is not nearly all. Just off the top of my head. If you speak portuguese I recommend following the APIB or the COIAB on instagram to keep up with the news. The FUNAI is the government branch of indigenous organization, but it's not generally that well liked. Still.

[news4dzhozhar]

[wilwheaton]

"Clarence Thomas might not be the finest Justice money can buy, but he’s definitely bought," charges Moe Davis, the well-known retired U.S. Air Force colonel, attorney, educator, politician, and former administrative law judge. Former federal prosecutor and legal commentator Mimi Rocah, who is now he elected District Attorney for Westchester County, New York expressed disgust. "As a public servant who sacrifices donor $ (I don’t take donations from elected officials, PBAs, or attorneys with cases before my office), b/c I believe the justice system should be free from even the appearance of political influence, this sickens me." "Thomas and his billionaire pals have trashed the court’s reputation," observed author Mark Jacob, a former Chicago Tribune editor. "Corruption of the highest order," is how Heather Cox Richardson, the well-known historian, author and professor of history described Justice Thomas' alleged actions. "Personally, I’d go right to resign. It’s long overdue. And I’d revisit the cases he’s decided—including Citizens United and Shelby v Holder, which together handed our democracy to the rich—while we’re at it."

‘Corruption of the highest order’: Experts ‘sickened’ at ‘definitely bought’ Clarence Thomas and his ‘pay to play’ lifestyle

[probablyasocialecologist]

Geoffrey Nice, a human rights barrister who led the prosecution of former Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic at an international criminal tribunal, has told Al Jazeera that the opinion issued by the highest UN court will surely affect Israel’s standing in the world.

“For a long time, there has been real concern that the so-called world order supported by the world legal system has been prepared to play second fiddle to and be cowed down by political pressure,” he said, adding that the ICJ and the International Criminal Court are changing things now.

“As a result of what’s happened in Russia and Ukraine, and more particularly perhaps in Israel and Gaza, the two senior international courts have emerged from periods of slow or no activity and they’ve shown that they are prepared to do that which they were set up to do,” Nice said.

“It’s something the public would want, and it puts countries that are suppressing the application of international law, in particular the US and also Britain, in a difficult position.”

Nice said the UN General Assembly could now potentially move forward with suspending Israel’s activities at the organisation.

“Israel is going to suffer. Is it going to suffer because of trade sanctions or matters of that sort? It’s hard to tell at this stage. But it’s going to suffer almost inevitably in the approach that is going to be taken by countries to the ongoing war between Israel and Gaza,” he said.

19 July 2024

[detainedstaffday]

Human Rights Committee General Comment 35, Article 9 (Liberty and Security of Person).

International human rights law provides a clear and universal framework relating to detention, enshrined by the following standards:

United Nations CCPR/C/GC/35.

The right to take proceedings for release from unlawful or arbitrary detention.

Paragraph 4 of article 9 entitles anyone who is deprived of liberty by arrest or detention to take proceedings before a court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of the detention and order release if the detention is not lawful. It enshrines the principle of habeas corpus. may, in appropriate circumstances, be limited to review of the reasonableness of a prior determination.

The right applies to all detention by official action or pursuant to official authorization, including detention in connection with criminal proceedings, military detention, security detention, counter-terrorism detention, involuntary hospitalization, immigration detention, detention for extradition and wholly groundless arrests. It also applies to detention for vagrancy or drug addiction, detention for educational purposes of children in conflict with the law and other forms of administrative detention. Detention within the meaning of paragraph 4 also includes house arrest and solitary confinement. When a prisoner is serving the minimum duration of a prison sentence as decided by a court of law after a conviction, either as a sentence for a fixed period of time or as the fixed portion of a potentially longer sentence, paragraph 4 does not require subsequent review of the detention.

The object of the right is release (either unconditional or conditional) from ongoing unlawful detention; compensation for unlawful detention that has already ended is addressed in paragraph 5. Paragraph 4 requires that the reviewing court must have the power to order release from the unlawful detention.132 When a judicial order of release under paragraph 4 becomes operative (exécutoire), it must be complied with immediately, and continued detention would be arbitrary in violation of article 9, paragraph 1.

The right to bring proceedings applies in principle from the moment of arrest and any substantial waiting period before a detainee can bring a first challenge to detention is impermissible.134 In general, the detainee has the right to appear in person before the court, especially where such presence would serve the inquiry into the lawfulness of detention or where questions regarding ill-treatment of the detainee arise. The court must have the power to order the detainee brought before it, regardless of whether the detainee has asked to appear.

Unlawful detention includes detention that was lawful at its inception but has become unlawful because the individual has completed serving a sentence of imprisonment or the circumstances that justify the detention have changed. After a court has held that the circumstances justify the detention, an appropriate period of time may pass, depending on the nature of the relevant circumstances, before the individual is entitled to take proceedings again on similar grounds.

“Unlawful” detention includes both detention that violates domestic law and detention that is incompatible with the requirements of article 9, paragraph 1, or with any other relevant provision of the Covenant. While domestic legal systems may establish differing methods for ensuring court review of detention, paragraph 4 requires that there be a judicial remedy for any detention that is unlawful on one of those grounds.139 For example, the power of a family court to order release of a child from detention that is not in the child’s best interests may satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4 in relevant cases.

Paragraph 4 entitles the individual to take proceedings before “a court,” which should ordinarily be a court within the judiciary. Exceptionally, for some forms of detention, legislation may provide for proceedings before a specialized tribunal, which must be established by law and must either be independent of the executive and legislative branches or enjoy judicial independence in deciding legal matters in proceedings that are judicial in nature.

Paragraph 4 leaves the option of taking proceedings to the persons being detained or those acting on their behalf; unlike paragraph 3, it does not require automatic initiation of review by the authorities detaining an individual. Laws that exclude a particular category of detainees from the review required by paragraph 4 violate the Covenant. Practices that render such review effectively unavailable to an individual, including incommunicado detention, also amount to a violation. To facilitate effective review, detainees should be afforded prompt and regular access to counsel. Detainees should be informed, in a language they understand, of their right to take proceedings for a decision on the lawfulness of their detention.

Persons deprived of liberty are entitled not merely to take proceedings, but to receive a decision, and without delay. The refusal by a competent court to take a decision on a petition for the release of a detained person violates paragraph 4. The adjudication of the case should take place as expeditiously as possible. Delays attributable to the petitioner do not count as judicial delay

The Covenant does not require that a court decision upholding the lawfulness of detention be subject to appeal. If a State party does provide for appeal or further instances, the delay may reflect the changing nature of the proceeding and in any event must not be excessive.

[himasgod]

Enemies to lovers! Neuvillette x Reader II

Where you keep pushing him to try to break his facade

You've always worked alone, for years, with the sole objective of uncovering the whole truth about Fontaine. All the corruption that runs through the veins of the Court and the Tribunal. So, you have Neuvillette in the crosshairs of your shotgun, able to destroy his life and dethrone him in an instant. But he could also ruin yours. So, you decide to play with fire against each other, to see who crumbles first.

(I have many ideas in mind, many requests that I want to complete and many daily one-shots that I am writing, but still, here is part II of Neuvillette x Reader enemies to lovers for all those who requested it. Enjoy it! <3)

Neuvillette x Reader enemies to lovers! PART I

The roar of the storm had ceased by the next morning, but the sky of Fontaine was still covered with grey, heavy clouds, as if the city itself were holding its breath. The Court was strangely quiet; the sound of your footsteps echoed in the empty corridors, an echo that seemed to mock your temporary freedom. You had managed to evade prison once again, although this time not thanks to your usual legal tricks. This time, your freedom had a higher price.

As you walked through the corridors, you couldn't get the image of Neuvillette's cold eyes out of your head, that look that seemed to pierce your soul, but that also revealed, in ephemeral flashes, a contained rage that he rarely dared to show. If there was one thing you had learned in all these years of confrontation, it was that the Judge was not as indifferent as he pretended. And that was precisely what kept you on edge. You had learned to read his expressions, the little nuances in his voice that slipped away when he momentarily lost his iron control. And at that last hearing, you had noticed something different.

As you turned the corner into a little-used conference room, you stopped dead in your tracks. Neuvillette’s imposing figure was there, waiting for you, as if he knew exactly you would take that path. There was no one else in the room. Just you, him, and a silence laden with the tension that had characterized your relationship since the first day you met.

“Are you following me now, Neuvillette?” you mocked, raising an eyebrow with a smile that didn’t reach your eyes. “Or has Fontaine decided it no longer need a formal trial to convict someone?”

He didn’t answer immediately, just watching you with those clear, unblinking eyes. Yet there was something different in his gaze today; an intensity that made your skin tingle, as if an electric current floated in the air between you.

“You and I have unfinished business,” he said finally, his voice lower and deeper than usual.

The smile on your lips widened, a provocative glint in your eyes.

“Oh, really?” You took a step forward, closing the distance between you. “I don’t recall leaving anything unresolved for you, Monsieur Supreme Judge. Unless you’re here to confess that you’ve finally found a law I can’t evade.”

Neuvillette watched you in silence for a long moment, and the air seemed to grow thicker around you. The room, which had previously seemed cold and lifeless, now felt suffocating, as if every breath cost you twice as much.

“You are aware that your presence here only aggravates your situation, right?” he asked, not letting himself be carried away by your provocations. But this time, his tone wasn’t as cold as usual. There was an almost… personal tone to his words.

You leaned into him, so close that you felt the heat emanating from his body. Your lips curved into a smile that defied any notion of regret.

“If you truly wanted me locked away, you would have taken me to Fortress of Meropide already, wouldn’t you?” you whispered, letting your words slide between us like a subtle poison. “But here we are, you and I, alone once more. And oddly enough, you don’t seem all that eager to deliver me to justice.”

His eyes narrowed, and for a moment, you thought you’d crossed a dangerous line. But instead of pulling away, Neuvillette took a step toward you, closing the distance even further until you could feel his warm breath on your face. Your hearts beat in unison, a frantic cadence that betrayed the calm you both pretended to maintain.

“Do not mistake my patience for leniency,” he growled, his voice low and strained. "If you’re still free, it’s not because of a lack of evidence, but because of something you don’t yet understand."

“And what would that be?” you asked, your voice almost a whisper.

His gaze darkened, as if he were fighting an internal battle that you couldn’t see. Then, unexpectedly, his hand moved. But it wasn’t to restrain you or imprison you. Instead, his hand rested on your chin, forcing you to look him in the eyes.

“Sometimes justice isn’t just about laws and evidence,” he murmured, his voice so low you could barely hear it. “Sometimes, it’s about redemption.”

The word seemed to hang in the air, as heavy as the storm still brewing outside the Courthouse windows. You couldn’t help but laugh, a low, bitter laugh.

“Redemption?” you scoffed. “If that’s what you’re after, you’re talking to the wrong person. Fontaine doesn’t need redemption; it needs someone who isn't afraid to get their hands dirty to expose what's really wrong with this nation. And that person, Monsieur Iudex, is me.

His eyes darkened, but he didn't remove his hand from your chin. On the contrary, his grip became a little firmer, as if he wanted to make sure you wouldn't take your eyes off him.

"Maybe you're right," he conceded, to your surprise. "But that doesn't change the fact that you remain a danger to the peace of Fontaine."

The intensity of his gaze took your breath away for a second. There was a mix of anger, frustration, and something you couldn’t quite place. Something that, for a brief, confusing moment, made you doubt everything you thought you knew about him.

“And you, Neuvillette, are still a coward who hides behind your laws so as not to face the truth,” you said, and this time there was no mockery in your tone, only a cold, defiant sincerity.

His lips pressed into a thin line, but he didn’t let go. Instead, he lowered his hand to your neck, his fingers brushing your skin with a strange mix of firmness and softness. It was a touch that unnerved you, because it was neither a threat nor a show of affection. It was something else… something you couldn’t quite figure out.

“You keep getting me wrong,” he whispered, his voice a barely audible murmur. "Don’t underestimate me… or yourself. This feud of ours is an abyss that can consume us both if we’re not careful."

You fell silent, your eyes locked on his. There was something in his tone you hadn’t heard before. Something that told you that no matter how much you two fought, no matter how much he wanted to see you behind bars, he couldn’t deny that there was an attraction between you that even he, with his relentless sense of duty, couldn’t ignore.

But before you could say anything, Neuvillette released his grip on your neck and stepped back, his face returning to its usual impassive expression.

“This isn’t over,” he said, turning to leave the room. “And the next time we meet, I won’t be so forgiving.”

As you watched his figure disappear down the hall, you couldn’t help but smile. Because you knew that, even if he wanted to keep his distance, the line between enemies and something more was growing thinner and thinner.

And both of you, however much you denied it, were dangerously close to crossing it.

Here is my masterlist, in case you are interested in any more of my work or want to send me a request <3