#may she be entirely legally vindicated

[hotdamnfandoms]

Feels good to have our suspicions confirmed after readers gaslit us for years for speaking out against Yui just because she's the victim of cheating or maybe an abusive, patriarchal past.

We still don't know her backstory or what she went through but I've always believed you lose a lot of right to sympathy if you choose to become an abuser especially if you're hurting innocent bystanders.

If she's willing to toy with her flesh and blood this way what can the rest of the cast hope for? This also vindicates me personally because Nol has received tons of crap for pushing away his friends in fear of Yui. Now do you see he had reasons to do that? Now do you see why it's not as simple as "getting over it with the power of love?"

Nol has seen sides of Yui that others haven't. He's been one of her most visible victims. Kousuke's abuse was a lot more covert and hidden behind the veil of a mother who worried about her child and gave him things because she could, because she was privileged.

As you say, Yui doesn't care about Kousuke for all the reasons you've stated but there's more.

Assuming Yui is angry at the patriarchal values that subjected her to the misery of marrying a random man to enjoy any power she was entitled to as the daughter of a powerful family, then Kousuke's life represents perpetration of that norm.

Oh, he gets to easily inherit things because he's a man?

What if I made the journey so bitter for him that he won't be able to enjoy the privilege his gender afford him?

Yui for me is that sinister and vindictive.

People who try to minimize her choices because she was cheated on by a husband she's clearly never cared for continue to miss the entire point of her character.

Not to say it didn't irk or offend her or that she doesn't see Nol as a threat to her plans given the legal ramifications of Nol being Rand's son, but the kid hasn't even been legally adopted.

They may call Nol "Yeong Gi Hirahara" at his prestigious school, but it's just a fake name. Legally, he's a Lochlainn, the son of a single mom being cared for by his maternal grandmother.

Since Rand is a Hirahara, he doesn't even get the chance to recognize Nol as his son. The public can know he's illegitimate, but that doesn't mean he's family even on paper.

Yui has been controlling everything.

From how close Rand can be to Kousuke to how much Nol should believe his father hates him. She reminds me of a spider weaving a large web to trap her opponents. If they try escaping, she'll just lure them back. Her web is so extensive she'll trap them eventually.

Kousuke was brought back in college.

There's no doubt now.

She did something to bring him back, destroying the connections he had to people who showed him a different world.

A true mother would worry about her son.

A woman with her power would run the tests to find out what is wrong with him and then have it all destroyed if she didn't want Kousuke worrying about tests done on him.

She could destroy evidence that would show Kousuke as an unfit heir but still find out what's wrong with him and get him secret treatment if needed. She is powerful. She can do this.

She doesn't want to though because she doesn't care.

As long as he works good enough, for what she needs, then that's all that matters. If anything she can always throw him into medical care to prove he's unfit if her agenda is outing Rand from any power or ties to the Hirahara business before declaring Kousuke unfit to lead and positioning herself as the temporary head.

As was discussed that may be her reason to want him to date and marry. If he can just give her an heir then she can throw him away and try again with his kid, but in the meantime, she would be the one in power and control of everything, as she deserved from the start.

Yui has clearly told us that she is not on Kousuke's side.

When she says nobody will be at his side, she is removing herself as his ally too because she has never been that to him.

Yui doesn't care (Ep. 221)

We live in a time when a lot of people think plot twists are things that come out of nowhere, weren't foreshadowed or hinted at, because it's the cheapness we've been served by a lot of media for years now.

They feel cheated when a story properly builds and foreshadows, rewarding its audience with that delicious "aha" moment when their theories are finally confirmed.

Many people think you're not supposed to see plot twists coming. That's false. Good writers will clue you in early on so when that juicy, explosive moment finally arrives, you're rewarded for piecing it all. It's beautiful and wonderful; this was exactly that kind of episode for me.

For a very (very) long time I have said that Yui doesn't love Kousuke. Many in the fandom insisted she did—that her actions were based on twisted love. I never bought it.

She is also not just a “scorned woman” out to get revenge on her trash, unfaithful husband.

Yui is more than that; she always has been.

The moment when I knew she didn't care for Kousuke was when she invited Shin Ae (who was still a minor at that time) to his apartment on his birthday. She had planned to put Shin Ae in a revealing dress, but when that didn't work out, Yui put her in one of Kousuke’s shirts.

This wasn’t some harmless prank either. It’s how she set up Shin Ae to look—hair messy and without bottoms—that really chilled the spine. Shin Ae looked like she had just gotten out of bed after a romp and got into her lover’s shirt. That was the visual she went for.

Yui did this for her own amusement. Quimchee often says, “She’s bored” and I think people dismiss this too easily.

Yui wanted to unsettle her son for the thrill of it.

Because seeing Kousuke bothered was amusing.

Because playing with a young, vulnerable girl was amusing.

And she could get away with it. She can always get away with it. She’s lived so long doing all these terrible things and has gotten away with it every time.

Regardless of any deeper, ulterior plans she has, Yui moves while trying to maximize her amusement.

She loves playing with people.

She loves using them as personal entertainment tools.

She has spent her married life trying to break Rand’s cold facade because she wanted to see him in red. This is why Rand has tried maintaining such an indifferent attitude. If he’s unable to overcome her then at least he didn’t want to give her the satisfaction of seeing him respond to her many aggressions and instances of undermining his authority (especially as a parent to Kousuke.)

All her actions throughout have shown us she doesn’t care about Kousuke. Not as a mother or even as a person. He is a tool, a toy, and a powerful blackmail piece.

This thing is her most precious, priceless pawn.

Kousuke is the key to her having power back entirely into her hands and not needing Rand. She has done everything in her power to make sure he is hers. She has purposefully isolated and manipulated him so that the only person he has to turn to is her. She makes him doubt the sincerity of every relationship to prove only she is real when she is the fakest of them all.

[I am not absolving Rand of anything, but to claim that Yui hasn't had anything to do with his deteriorated relationship to Kousuke is a huge disservice to the story and the complex layers in all their dynamics.]

Consider how even Shin Ae has been presented to him as someone who comes around for money. She went to his apartment for money, she went to the formal for money. Whatever positive opinion Kousuke can form about Shin Ae, she tries to underscore that in the end, she came into his life because of money and will stay because of money.

She even makes him doubt Hansuke, the only relative and person openly caring and worrying for him. The only one who might genuinely stand by his side through everything.

This isn’t a mother’s twisted love.

This is far worse.

And so, finally, after years of seeing so many people defend Yui in this fandom—claiming she has done everything out of love—I can say you are wrong.

You have always been wrong.

The signs were there.

You've just chosen to ignore them.

This has nothing to do with Rand's affair. Having an affair does not make a person—a mother—not love her own son.

The way she has manipulated Kousuke was there before Rand even had an affair. This has always been Yui's goal with her offspring.

[And it might be the reason why Rand was never with her again or willing to "have more kids"—putting aside the whole theory of him not being Kousuke's biological father.]

This chapter shows us that Yui is not afraid of drugging or murdering to get her way. She's not afraid of exposing perhaps the truth that he isn't Rand's son (if that turns out being true) so long as she gets to keep control of her priceless pawn.

If Rand were to show Kousuke love now, if he were to stretch out that hand in spite of Yui's threats and her only recourse was killing him or revealing he's not the father, then she will do it.

She has said it with her own mouth.

She is not on Kousuke’s side. If Rand is gone, he will have no one—because she’s not on his side, actually.

This is what Yui wants.

She wants to surround him with people loyal to her, obedient to her, and serving her interests. If not, she will cut them out. She will not allow anyone to steer Kousuke away from her agenda and she has laid the threat very plainly, once more.

This is not the first time she's given Rand an ultimatum.

The difference now is their age, perhaps their power levels being a lot more matched, and the kids being essentially adults so Rand is willing to risk more.

[We could also argue that Yui wanted Shin Ae as Kousuke's assistant because Jayce has always been Rand's man, but that's a whole other post for a different time.]

Yui has never cared.

And she’s not beyond tossing Kousuke when he’s no longer useful to whatever she needs.

The people who think "I want what's best for him" is genuine have really missed all the clues laid for us before this decisive moment.

She's always taken pleasure from Kousuke's discomfort. Back at his birthday, in those flashbacks at the park when Kousuke comes back from meeting Nol and Nessa, and even through Meg's harassment.

That she would be amused by Rand, Nol, or Shin Ae's misery wasn't surprising, but what gave her away was when she was tickled by her own son's suffering.

And now nobody can argue otherwise because episode 221 exists.

[tommyhardyx]

Mr Solomons - Chapter Seven

** Updated Version**

Pairing: Modern!Alfie Solomons x Reader Word Count: 900 Summary: Alfie has a meeting with his inner circle, the topic of him dating a journalist comes up. Warnings: swearing Note: This is an entirely new chapter! I decided to add this one to flesh Alfie and his world out a bit more, I hope you enjoy and please let me know what you think!

In the back room of a pub in Camden, Alfie sits with the three most trusted men in his organisation.

These three men are the only other people who know every (well almost every) detail of Alfie’s business, both the legal and illegal aspects. With Ollie as his right hand man, Luke in charge of protection and Ben in charge of illicit substances, and Alfie himself overseeing the entire operation, he knows he can trust these men.

Leaning back in his chair, Alfie brings his cigar to his lips, listening as the men go through whatever business was on the agenda for the evening.

Alfie generally keeps quiet during these meetings, letting the boys report on the areas of the business they’re in charge of while he listens and decides the best course of action on how to deal with any issues. While the other men around the table may give their opinions, the ultimate decision always lies with Alfie.

“Before we go I’ve got something I'd like to say,” Luke says just as Alfie is about to bring the meeting to a close. It’s the first time he’s said more than two words all night.

Alfie, who had just leant forward to put his cigar in the ashtray, sits back against his chair watching Luke with an amused look on his face.

“Go on.”

Luke shifts in his chair, glancing down at his cigarette before looking back at Alfie making it clear he’s addressing him rather than the group as a whole.

“I wanna know if I’m the only person who thinks it’s a fucking stupid idea for you to be playing boyfriend with a journalist,” he says.

Alfie is quiet as he considers the question, and while Luke had put the question to the group the others aren’t stupid enough to respond, at least not before Alfie.

“Is that right?”

Luke looks around the table, his frown deepening as he looks for any sliver of support from the others.

“I figured you’d side with him,” he spits at Ollie. “You encouraged this shit. But you two, why are you so alright with this?”

Ollie scowls, shifting in his seat. ”So you think he should be alone his whole life because you’re paranoid?”

“Fuck off Ollie, he’s a big boy he doesn’t need you finding him a girl to suck his cock.”

Eyes dart towards Alfie but no one says anything to that comment, leaving Ben to take the opportunity to speak.

“If Alfie trusts the journalist I don’t see why we shouldn’t,” Ben says, though the lack of conviction in his voice gives Luke a burst of vindication.

“Bullshit. Alf mate this is a bad idea, you barely know this woman you don’t know she won’t turn on you the minute she finds out you’ve lied to her,” Luke argues.

Ollie opens his mouth to retaliate at the same time Ben opens his mouth to defend himself but before either of them can speak Alfie cuts them off.

“Enough.”

Alfie doesn’t have to shout to be heard, the men around the table know that when Alfie speaks especially in that tone they shut up and listen.

“My relationship is none of your fucking business mate. I’m well aware of her job, so at the moment I’m keeping some parts of this business to myself, and when I fucking decide I’ll tell her, but that will be when I’ve decided she can handle it and won’t run off and fucking write an article about us,”

Luke scowls and Alfie sits forward in his chair. His elbow resting on the table as he points a finger directly at Luke.

“I don’t want to hear another word out of your mouth about this. I didn’t think any of you needed a reminder that I am the fucking boss here. I don’t fucking care what you think about this, it’s my business and my business alone.”

There’s a tension in the room that isn’t often felt, the men around the table don’t often challenge Alfie, his position as the boss clear to even those with more authority within the organisation than anyone else.

Alfie clears his throat, sitting back against his chair as he brings his cigar back to his lips.

“Now if that’s everything, you lot can fuck off. I've had enough of this."

Ollie and Ben are quick to stand, pulling their coats on as they get ready to leave, but Luke lingers still glaring at Alfie.

"If she exposes us, I'll be paying her a visit."

Alfie's nostrils flare, his jaw clenched hard as he stares at Luke.

"Don't you fucking dare threaten her," he says, hand gripping the table so hard his knuckles have gone white. "Now fuck off, go clear your head you're clearly not thinking straight."

Luke scoffs as he pushes away from the table, grabbing his coat and stalking out of the room leaving Alfie staring after him.

He waits for Luke to be out of sight, waits for Ben and Ollie to leave ignoring their apologies and unsure looks before pulling out his phone.

Alfie: alright love? Y/N: of course I am, something wrong Alf? Alfie: no, no just checking in Alfie: what are you up to? Y/N: just reading in bed is all. how's your boys night going? Alfie: we're just finishing up, you don't want company do you? Y/N: I'd love company Alfie: perfect, I'll be there soon.

@lizyshores @durdntheoryx @joan2914 @innerpaperexpertcloud @lauren-raines-x @tommymcartney @misselsbells06

[a-room-of-my-own]

Great news for our gender critical friends in the UK, Maya Forstater won! And not only did she win, but gender critical convictions are now protected!

PR below:

Gender-Critical Beliefs are Worthy of Respect in a Democratic Society

In a landmark judgment handed down at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London at 10:30 am, Mr Justice Choudhury overturned an earlier judgment of the Employment Tribunal, which had declared that gender-critical beliefs are “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”, and were therefore not protected against discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal substituted a finding that gender-critical beliefs are a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Those who hold such beliefs are now legally protected from discrimination.

The ruling was handed down by Mr Justice Choudhury, the President and most senior judge of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. He found that in 2019 the Employment Tribunal had erred in the case of Maya Forstater v CGD Europe and Others, in its application of the legal test for whether a philosophical belief is protected by the Equality Act 2010.

Sitting with two lay members, Judge Choudhury ruled that under the European Convention on Human Rights, only extreme views akin to Nazism or totalitarianism are excluded from protection on the basis that they are not worthy of respect in a democratic society. The Appeal Tribunal held:

“The Claimant’s gender-critical beliefs, which were widely shared, and which did not seek to destroy the rights of trans persons, clearly did not fall into that category.“

Mr Justice Choudhury said:

“It is clear from Convention case law that…a person is free in a democratic society to hold any belief they wish, subject only to ‘some modest, objective minimum requirements’.”

The judgment directly contradicts the views of Stonewall, the lobby group that advises over 850 major employers in the UK, including many government departments, universities, police forces and schools, covering 25% of the UK workforce.

Stonewall argues that the only acceptable view that can be publicly expressed is that “trans women are women, trans men are men and non binary people are non binary”. Any belief to the contrary – such as that now protected as a result of this Judgment – has been denigrated as bigoted and hateful. Nancy Kelley, Stonewall CEO, recently compared gender-critical beliefs to antisemitism.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the Index on Censorship both intervened in support of the view that gender-critical beliefs are protected by the Equality Act.

Mr Justice Choudhury noted:

“The Claimant’s gender critical belief is not unique to her; it is a belief shared by others who consider that it is important to have an open debate about issues concerning sex and gender identity.”

The case came to worldwide attention in December 2019 when J.K. Rowling tweeted in support of Ms Forstater. In her tweet, Rowling said:

“Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill”

Others who have publicly supported Ms Forstater include MP Rosie Duffield, Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, Lord Philip Hunt, athletes Martina Navratilova and Sharron Davies, actor Joe McGann, writers Joan Smith and Trevor Phillips, and broadcasters Jenni Murray and Jonathan Ross.

Ms Forstater, a researcher and co-founder of the new human-rights campaign group Sex Matters, said:

“I am delighted to have been vindicated. I lost my job simply for expressing a view that is true and important, and held by the great majority of people in this country: sex matters.

Being a woman is a material reality. It is not a costume or a feeling. Institutions that pretend sex doesn’t matter become hostile places for women, in particular. After this judgment, employers and service-providers that ignore sex and silence women who object, need to consider whether they are acting unlawfully, and the substantial legal risks they face if they do not change their approach.

Forstater’s beliefs, now recognised as protected philosophical beliefs by the Appeal Tribunal, include that:

“There are only two sexes in human beings: male and female. This is fundamentally linked to reproductive biology.

“Males are people with the type of body which, if all things are working, is able to produce male gametes (sperm). Females have the type of body which, if all things are working, is able to produce female gametes (ova), and gestate a pregnancy.

“Women are adult human females. Men are adult human males.

“Sex is determined at conception, through the inheritance (or not) of a working copy of a piece of genetic code which comes from the father (generally, apart from in very rare cases, carried on the Y chromosome).

“It is impossible to change sex or to lose your sex. Girls grow up to be women. Boys grow up to be men. No change of clothes or hairstyle, no plastic surgery, no accident or illness, no course of hormones, no force of will or social conditioning, no declaration can turn a female person into a male, or a male person into a female.”

“Under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, a person may change their legal sex. However this does not give them the right to access services and spaces intended for members of the opposite sex.”

After the original six-day hearing in 2019, Judge James Tayler had concluded that Ms Forstater’s belief was “absolutist” and would result in her “violating the dignity” of, or “creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment” for, transgender people. Although Ms Forstater had told her employer that she would “respect anyone’s self-definition of their gender identity in any social and professional context” and had “no desire or intention to be rude to people”, the Center for Global Development claimed that her beliefs meant that she would indiscriminately “misgender” people at work, and that her presence in any workplace would make it unsafe.

Mr Justice Choudhury rejected this entirely.

He stressed that his judgment does not mean that “those with gender-critical beliefs can indiscriminately and gratuitously refer to trans persons in terms other than they would wish. Such conduct could, depending on the circumstances, amount to harassment or discrimination.”

On the question of pronouns, he found that while Ms Forstater would usually use preferred pronouns out of politeness, she would not do this “whenever she considered it appropriate not to do so”, for example in relation to single-sex services, and that this was not necessarily harassment.

Ms Forstater was represented by Ben Cooper QC and Anya Palmer of Old Square Chambers, and Peter Daly, a partner at Doyle Clayton Solicitors. Mr Daly said:

“This is a landmark judgment, holding great significance. It is one of the most important appellate free speech judgments handed down by a UK court in many years. As well as the extensive legal implications for equality and discrimination law, it is a recognition of the unlawfulness of discriminating against people – in practice, overwhelmingly women – who hold gender-critical beliefs.

“The implications of this Judgment are vast. It is not only of major significance to the employment sphere, but to goods and services, education, associations and political parties, and to the way in which we interact and are treated by the state that governs us. By rejecting the practice of people illegitimately labelling as hateful statements with which they merely disagree, and by clarifying the process for recognising which philosophical beliefs are protected from discrimination, it will hugely improve the way in which social and political discussion is conducted in the UK. By virtue of the centrality of the European Convention on Human Rights to its reasoning, the Judgment will also have this effect internationally.

“The judgment is testament to the ability of counsel, Ben Cooper QC and Anya Palmer of Old Square Chambers. They marshalled complex arguments and evidence with the utmost skill and persuasiveness, and they are due every accolade.

“Primarily, however, this judgment is testament to the fortitude and determination of Maya Forstater. She has endured two years of unspeakable vitriol, simply for pursuing her legal rights from which society will now benefit. The judgment she has now received reaffirms the legal protections of everyone engaged in the discussion of sex and gender, regardless of whether or not they agree with her, and indeed strengthens protections for everyone who holds a philosophical belief of any kind. This is Maya’s achievement.”

Maya Forstater said:

“My judgment comes after a two-year battle that has been supported by thousands of people. It is a win for millions of people, and for democracy. No one should be bullied in their workplaces, universities or schools, or removed from social media or political parties, for stating the basic truth about the sexes and believing their own eyes. I am proud to have been the person who got these legal rights recognised, and grateful to everyone who spoke up and supported me.”

[thestarsspeak-blog]

for the past few weeks, since we got put into that bloody WhatsApp group, I have felt very little. I went into practical mode immediately, contacted my aunts to see what was happening, found out what ward he was in and started to get things in order if we needed to take any legal action. I even emailed a solicitor that I trust to see how we would take the first steps towards getting an intervention order or a guardianship or something. I didn’t get sad, I didn’t get anxious, I didn’t get angry. the only real thing I felt was exasperation for a fleeting moment and then I was back to being pragmatic.

and people wouldn’t stop telling me how surprised and impressed they were at the fact that I was holding it together. Lucie may be the older daughter and he has two sisters of his own that have care jobs so they knew what to do but for some reason I was doing the heavy lifting of getting things sorted. and I think everyone expected me to go off the deep end considering that a) I'm the crazy one and b) I don’t have a relationship with him and hadn’t actually spoken to him in two years.

but I was sorting shit out and organising things, phoning the hospital and getting updates myself because I wanted to hear what exactly was going on. even though I was shitting myself when we went to the hospital to visit, Lucie was definitely more nervous and I actually ended up supporting her more than the other way around and she told me she was grateful that I was there, etc. which felt great because it was just compounding what everyone was saying - that they were impressed with how I was coping with it all, that they’re proud of me for putting my own things aside in order to visit him and see what I could do to help.

and then things got worse and he’s now being violent and has been sectioned. I'm sat at work wondering if the compulsory treatment order that’s gone to out of hours is for him after he attacked another nurse. and for some reason, I'm still pretty ambivalent about the whole thing.

so I have a session with Julie and I explain all this to her and I realise that anger is definitely bubbling under the surface. which makes me feel guilty because I'm not the one in the hospital bed and if we’re all being honest, there were so many red flags that we should have acted on in the past couple of years and maybe if we had, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

I’m angry that it’s now my job to listen to people tell me how shocked they are, how the man they knew never had an aggressive bone in his body when I know the truth of it. I'm angry that I now have to decide whether or not to shatter their perfect perception of what kind of person he is. I'm angry that I have to explain to his sisters that they were never fully aware of how bad it got. I'm angry that people are only now coming out of the woodwork with stories like “oh I remember one time he smashed a glass” and that nobody stepped in at that point. I'm angry that he gets to wake up the day after and have no recollection of attacking multiple nurses.

I am fucking angry that, once again, we are left knowing the truth of things and having to deal with the fallout while he sits oblivious to what’s happening because he caused himself so much damage with drinking that he no longer understands the situation he’s in. I am fucking angry that his family are running around trying to organise care for him while he sits there and tries to harm the people that are looking after him. I am fucking angry knowing that if he were cognisant of the entire situation, he’d feel vindicated. he’d love the fact that he’s surrounded by people worrying and fawning over him.

and then Julie says something about grief and I get confused because he’s not dead, he’s just unwell and he won’t get better. and she explains that I'm grieving the loss of my fairytale resolution that I will never get. and I tell her that that ship sailed long ago, I came to terms with his behaviour and our history and the fact that he was never going to have a lightbulb moment and apologise for everything and beg to allow him to try and be better. and she said that a part of me had always held onto hope that that might happen. she said it’s like playing the lottery, you know you’re not going to win but you keep doing it for that tiny bit of hope.

and now I will never have the chance to have that fairytale resolution. because he is no longer capable of understanding and he’s no longer capable of forming an apology that would mean enough for me to accept it.

the fairytale ending where I mended my relationship with my dad was never going to happen, I knew that in my rational mind. but I suppose a tiny part of me hoped that one day he’d wake up and realise that he could do the work and try to fix it.

and now that’ll just never happen. and as well as being angry, I'm sad at the loss of that fairytale.

[speciesofleastconcern]

What would happen if the southern United States declared their secession from the union and created a Confederacy 2.0 in 2021 and they declared that Donald Trump was their president?

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE THIRTY HOURS’ WAR (slightly updated)

9:27 AM: Governor Greg Abbott announces a surprise press conference to be held at noon. The Texas State Capitol is a whirlwind of activity, but no one will explain. Journalists stationed in the capitol buildings of several other Southern states notice a sudden fever of activity, but again, no word on what is taking place.

12:07 PM: Abbott enters the press room, faces the cameras, and delivers a speech televised around the world—a speech that makes the assembled journalists gasp.

“I have been in private communication with the governors of several other Southern states for the past few weeks, and we have an announcement of great consequence. I may announce that we are of one accord, united in our purpose, not without sorrow, and yet filled with pride and determination at the step we are undertaking this day. We are a free people, we Texans, and we wish only to live according to our traditional laws and the laws of a just and righteous God. For too long have we put up with abuse and threats from the Federal government in Washington, that hotbed of liberal elites and so-called “experts” who believe that they know better than we know what freedom truly consists of. It has gone on for too long, and we shall not continue any further. President Trump fought for our rights; the lies of the liberal media brought him down; but when one man lets the stainless banner fall, other hands must take it up, as we have done this day.

“The Lone Star State is the first star in the heavens of a new constellation of freedom and liberty—the first of the New Confederated States of America. We hereby announce the severing of all ties to the Washington government, and ask only to be allowed to depart in peace to seek our own liberty and prosperity.

“We are the first, but not alone. Governor Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, Governor Tate Reeves of Mississippi, Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma, and Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida have joined with me in forming a new nation, conceived in liberty with God as our vindicator, with each State acting in its sovereign and independent character. The governors of Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, and South Carolina are considering our proposal now, but a great groundswell of support is coming from the citizens of these states. We trust that they will soon join us.

“We hereby announce that all Federal property within the boundaries of our state, including all national parks and forests, Indian reservations, and military bases, is forfeit to our state government. Orders have gone out to the Texas State Guard and State Police to secure these properties, and they are backed by thousands of citizen militia forces who have mobilized have taken up arms to secure what is rightfully ours. For freedom and justice for ourselves and our descendants, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

12:17 PM: The President of the United States is whisked from a routine meeting with the Department of Agriculture to an emergency meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

12:31 PM: Emergency orders are issued to cancel all civilian flights to the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Mississippi. All inbound flights are ordered to divert immediately, leading to crowded and difficult scenes at airports such as Wichita, Albuquerque, Denver, St. Louis, and Cleveland.

1:47 PM: Chaos reigns on Interstates 10 and 40 and smaller highways, as thousands of Texas motorists flee for the New Mexico border, only to be stopped by armored New Mexico National Guard units, reinforced by heavily armed troops from Fort Bliss. Motorists fleeing eastward are stopped by the Louisiana National Guard, backed up with troops from Fort Polk. Motorists heading north towards Kansas or east through Arkansas also report blockades.

3:12 PM: There are reports of rioting in Austin and Houston, as columns of unregulated militia march or ride through urban neighborhoods where protests are expected. No one knows or will admit who shot first, but neighborhoods are soon ablaze, and fire trucks that attempt to reach the fires report being shot at. In other cities and towns, a watchful, tense quiet prevails as everyone awaits the next announcement. Footage of the riots and attacks is widely disseminated on social media.

4:29 PM: A column of militia in assorted vehicles approaches Fort Hood to demand its surrender. Seeing the main gates deserted, the lead vehicle drives onto the fort, and the driver, 47-year-old Braxton Beauregard, hoists the Lone Star Confederate flag over the guardhouse.

4:29:17 PM: The guardhouse, the flag, and the first ten vehicles of the convoy are simultaneously obliterated by Hellfire missiles. The remaining vehicles beat a hasty retreat to Killeen, although not before seven more vehicles are wiped out. That evening at the local Whataburger, one of the traumatized survivors is heard to mumble, “well, shit, this may be tougher than we thought.”

5:25 PM: The President emerges from his meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and gives a brief address to the nation. It’s short on details. He says only that he has been fully briefed on the situation and is deeply troubled, but is considering his legal options, and will provide a full reply to Governor Abbott’s announcement tomorrow morning. He pleads for calm and prays for peace and unity. The country remains on edge.

1:37 AM: Fort Hood’s gates open.

2:12 AM: A lone C-17 Globemaster III makes a pass over Austin, Texas, at 30,000 feet. Similar aircraft pass over Little Rock, Arkansas; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Jackson, Mississippi. Their flight paths are later traced to Fort Benning.

6:48 AM: Journalists based in Austin report seeing a huge column of tanks and trucks moving into the city on Interstate 35, as helicopters fly cover.

7:24 AM: Tanks have surrounded the Texas State Capitol. The skies are torn by noise as F-15s and F-18Es fly combat air patrols over the city; they hold their fire for now. Heavily armored infantry patrols deploy onto the streets, although they, too, hold their fire and simply observe.

7:37 AM: A unit of unorganized militia patrolling the streets of Austin encounters soldiers from III Corps Special Troops Battalion on the corner of 14th and Guadalupe Street. One of the militiamen raises his AR-15 and fires at the troops, slightly wounding one soldier.

7:37:15 AM: Six militia members are killed or wounded in the ensuing firefight. Survivors are spotted fleeing towards the 7–11 convenience store on 15th Street, where it seems their commander has set up his base.

7:42:37 AM: The 7–11 convenience store on 15th Street is struck by multiple Hellfire missiles. Scenes like this play out all day throughout the capital city, with minor variations. By noon, few militia are willing to advertise their presence; discarded weapons and body armor can be found on the streets as erstwhile militiamen try to blend back into the general population.

8:31 AM: A group of Army Rangers exit the Texas Governor’s Mansion, escorting a handcuffed Governor Greg Abbott to a waiting flight of HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopters that have materialized on the lawn.

9:17 AM: Several other Texas state officials are removed from the State Capitol or other government buildings by Rangers and escorted to waiting helicopters. Similar scenes are playing out in Oklahoma City and Little Rock and Jackson.

9:19 AM: An emergency press conference is held in Houston. The Hon. Sherry Radack, Chief Justice for the 1st District Court of Appeals in Houston, announces that under the line of succession as spelled out in the Texas state constitution, it appears that she is now the governor. Choking back tears, she announces the immediate cessation of hostilities, pleads for citizens to put down their weapons, orders the surrender of all State Guard forces, and expresses eagerness to remain a part of the United States.

11:10 AM: The governors of Louisiana, Missouri, and Tennessee deny any knowledge of Texas's plan, announce that their states will not be joining Texas, and pledge their states’ loyalty to the Federal government. At about the same time, the governor of Florida announces that his state’s inclusion in the list of seceding states was entirely the fault of unnamed “liberal agitators,” that he never agreed to leave the Union, and that despite all their differences of opinion he has pledged his state’s loyalty to the Federal government. Rumors that Navy SEALS were aiming at him from concealed firing positions as he was making this profession of loyalty were never substantiated.

12:37 PM: The President appears again on TV, thanking the loyal units of the US military, who have executed “a textbook counterinsurgency mission with minimal loss of life and destruction of property.” He assures the people that order will be restored and life will return to normal as soon as possible, and states that steps are already underway to restore the state governments. He promises to bring the rebels who actually took up arms to justice, while proposing that Congress immediately establish a bipartisan Truth and Reconciliation Commission to reintegrate the rebel states into the US as smoothly as possible. (He does not say this, but commentators note that with the sudden disappearance of Congressional delegations from the rebel states, he should have the votes to get what he wants.) He ends his speech by pleading once again for peace, adding that “I understand the despair and anger and paranoia that many Americans feel—but this is not the way to express those. Let us come together as one nation, one people, united by our devotion to the principles of democracy and liberty, from sea to shining sea. God bless America!” (Fun fanfic from quora)

[encounterthepast]

If you enjoy this please follow @RussInCheshire on twitter for his regular threads on UK politics.

As it’s the weekend, let’s start #TheWeekInTory with a frivolous and jolly story about our own govt deliberately starving hundreds of thousands of children...

1. In May, Boris Johnson promised “nobody will go hungry as a result of Coronavirus”

2. He then denied school meals to the 600,000 poorest children

3. So Marcus Rashford ran a campaign to get the govt to feed children, which - just think about that: he had to *campaign* for it

4. Then Boris Johnson congratulated Rashford on his campaign to overturn the cruel policies of, erm, Boris Johnson

5. And then 3 days later, Boris Johnson refused to feed those kids during school holidays

6. So this week Labour organised a parliamentary vote about it

7. And 322 Tories voted against feeding hungry children

8. Vicky Ford, the Children’s Minister (who you’ll be surprised to hear neither looks nor sounds like a ludicrous Dickensian villain) went ahead and voted against feeding children

9. Tory MP Jo Gideon voted against feeding children. Jo Gideon, in case you didn't think things could get any more unbelievable, is also the chair of "Feeding Britain", a charity that campaigns to end food poverty and hunger in the UK.

10. Tory MP Paul Scully waved away the grumbling parents of kids with grumbling tummies, and said “children have been going hungry under Labour for years”, seemingly forgetting Tories have been in power for a decade

11. Tory MP Ben Bradley, who once had to apologise for suggesting sterilising the poor, said feeding children will simply “increase their dependency”. On food. Yeah, wean the little bastards off it. It’ll do them good in the end, which will be around 3 agonising weeks.

12. At this point, pause to consider that MPs get their food and drink subsidised. A £31 meal in a parliamentary restaurant costs MPs £3.45. In 2018 this subsidy cost the taxpayer £4.4m. I can’t find any record of Tories like Ben Bradley voting against this.

13. Pressing on: Ben Bradley also said “Some parents prioritise other things ahead of their kids. Small minority, yes... but some do”. Yes, and a small minority of Tory MPs have been arrested for rape. Should we send them all to prison?

14. Also, Mark Francois voted (by proxy) to keep kids hungry. Not related to the previous item. Why would you think that?

15. Tory MP Nicky Morgan said the govt voted to starve 600,000 children cos a Labour MP called a Tory MP scum. And that’s not a scummy thing to do at all.

16. Tory MP David Simmonds said Marcus Rashford’s experience of poverty in secondary school “took place entirely under a Labour government”. Rashford was 11 when Tories came into power, making David Simmonds are rare example of an ad hominem attack on yourself

17. Simmonds then said Labour’s parliamentary vote was “all about currying favour with wealth and power and celebrity status”. He might be right – the govt managed to unify Gary Linaker and Nigel Farage in condemnation of their denial of food to kids

18. Brandan Clark-Smith (who voted to starve kids) demanded “more action to tackle the real causes of child poverty”

19. So at once, the govt cut minimum wage for furloughed people. They now get 2/3 of the money the govt says is the absolute minimum it is possible to survive on

20. And then it was revealed that low-paid workers who have to isolate due to Covid can claim £500. Yay!

21. But if they’re told to isolate by the govt’s contact tracing app, they can’t claim anything. Un-yay.

22. Long story short: the govt cannot spend £120m feeding children. But it can spend £522 on the Eat Out Scheme, which its own report said contributed “negligible amounts” to the hospitality economy, and Boris Johnson admitted drove up infection rates – especially in the North

23. Those infection rates caused the govt to move Manchester into Tier 3

24. So the Mayor of Manchester asked for a £90m support package (1/6th of the money the govt spent causing the problem in the first place)

25. The govt said no, £60m

26. The Mayor said, how about £65m?

27. The govt said no, £60m

28. The Mayor said ok, fine, we’ll take the £60m

29. And then govt offered Manchester £22m, and then went to the press and said the Mayor was "being unreasonable"

30. The negotiations were led by Robert Jenrick, who recently set up a fund for the poorest 101 towns, then awarded his town £25m even though it is the 270th poorest, and therefore not even eligible

31. £25m is £237 per person

32. Manchester gets £7.85 per person

33. Robert Jenrick gave Manchester (2.8 million people) £22m

34. Robert Jenrick gave Richard Desmond (1 person) £45m

35. The talks broke down when the govt wouldn’t spend an extra £5m

36. The govt plans to spend £7m vitally rebranding "Highways England" to "National Highways"

37. Manchester Young Conservatives tweeted “Boris has lied about helping us in the North. It’s time for him to go". Don't look - they deleted it. Suspect somebody had a word.

38. Meanwhile the govt said Manchester will get the £60m after all, and chaos continue to reign supreme

39. But that £60m is brief reprieve for the Tories of Manchester, as a govt report said Tory seats in the North of England (the so-called "Red Wall" seats) can expect to lose at least 4000 jobs *each* as a result of Brexit, even if we do get a deal. More if we don't.

40. The govt rushed to begin its first airport Coronavirus testing, a mere 211 days after mandatory airport testing was begun in South Korea

41. South Korea has had 8 deaths per million

42. The UK has had 665 deaths per million

43. More airport news, as the govt finally accepted Brexit will cause “up to 8-hour delays at passport checks” and asked the EU to allow UK citizens to queue at EU-only lanes. Like we did when we were in the EU. But we aren’t now. So tough.

44. A senior diplomat said, “Having grown up in Brussels, Boris Johnson values the ability to travel freely to the continent”. You’d think Boris Johnson would foresee this problem when he led the campaign to stop that freedom.

45. The independent reviewer of Terrorism Legislation said the UK “will be increasingly unable to cope” after Brexit, as we lose access to EU data-sharing agreements

46. And a No-Deal end to UK/EU scientific collaboration will leave London with a £3bn annual deficit

47. In the space of 38 days, the govt announced the £100bn "Operation Moonshot" to solve Covid; then cancelled it; and then re-launched it again after it was found they’d accidentally continued to pay over 200 private consultants up to £7000 a day to work on it.

48. So this week, Boris Johnson said Moonshot would continue, but it’s goals “would take time”, which is the literal opposite of what he said it would do when it first announced it, and makes the entire thing absolutely pointless

49. And now it’s been admitted that Operation Moonshot would be quietly folded into the existing £12bn Test and Trace programme, and the £100bn has vanished. Apart from the bits the Serco consultants took for doing… nothing.

50. But Boris Johnson said the Test and Trace programme was “helping a bit”, and “a bit” is the least you’d expect if you’d spent £12bn

51. And then the £12bn Test and Trace programme fell to its lowest success rate so far, identifying only 60% of at-risk people

52. Local councils, with no additional funding, are tracing 98% of cases

53. A quick sweep though other epic successes you may have missed (or deliberately blocked out): Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch declared that it should be illegal to teach about inequality

54. The Cabinet Secretary said the report into “vicious and orchestrated” bullying by Home Secretary and Dementor Priti Patel “may never see the light of day”, cos if you have a report that vindicates you, you definitely sit on it as long as possible

55. And the appeals court unanimously overturned Priti Patel’s policy of removing people from the UK without giving them access to legal process or justice because – and I’m paraphrasing the judges here – what the fuck, Patel? What the actual fuck?

56. Undeterred, she announced plans to make rough-sleeping “grounds for removal of permission to be in the UK” and "denial of legal aid". So if you’re too poor to have a home, you must pay for a lawyer or she’ll shove you in the sea

57. After an unnamed Tory MP said it “looks bad to be handing top jobs to your friend and old boss”, Charles Moore, Boris Johnson’s friend and old boss, withdrew as next BBC chair.

58. The new favourite is Richard Sharp, the - yep - friend and old boss of Rishi Sunak

59. You’ll be amazed to hear this: Richard Sharp is a major donor to the Tory party. These little coincidences keep on happening

60. The govt decided to prevent EU citizens from having physical proof of their right to live in their own home

61. Grant Shapps threatened to “seize control of Transport for London” to save it from financial ruin at the hands of Sadiq Khan, who – the bastard - achieved a mere 71% reduction in the debts caused by his noble predecessor, Boris Johnson

62. Matt Hancock, facts at his fingertips, told MPs from Yorkshire their constituents could go on holiday abroad

63. But not in the UK

64. And then that they CAN go on holiday in the UK

65. But can't leave Yorkshire

66. He then said “I'll get back to you” about the details

67. A cross-party report found “the UK’s foreign policy is adrift”, that it lacks “clarity, confidence and vision” and that Britain is “absent from the world stage”. All of which is very soothing, as we move into the govt's proclaimed goal of a post-Brexit Global Britain.

68. And we can all relax: the govt is finally supporting culture in the UK, specifically the Nevill Holt Opera, which performs private operas, and is owned by Boris Johnson’s friend (and - jaw on floor! - Tory donor) David Ross, who is worth £700m so really needs the money.

69. The Nevill Holt Opera only functions in the summer, so thank god it has been prioritised with £85,000 to “maintain operations” in October.

And now, in honour of the opera, the fat lady can sing, cos I’m off to drink myself into oblivion. Join me.

We live in interesting times.

[miss-choco-chips]

What if- Janet Drake was a good mom

Hers.

This little… warm and squishy ball of spit was hers. 

Her son.

His eyes still not defined, bald little head fragile under her hand and so, so vulnerable, she wouldn’t have believed he had come out of her  if not for the pain still lingering on her body and the vomit stains on that hateful nurse’s shirt, the one that talked to Janet in cooing, condescendent voice during the whole birthing process. Her son had rightfully avenged her honor by burping all over her the moment she took him out of his mother’s arms.

Her arms.

God, she was a mother. She was this baby’s mother.

Sitting by her bedside with his stupid, well meaning smile, Jack apologised half heartedly at the nurse, ignoring the proud look his wife was giving the little creature back on her grasp. He had given up on trying to take him from her, too. The almost hiss he had gotten after the first three tries was enough to let him know that wouldn’t fly well a fourth time. Slow, but he had learned not to come between a new mother and her child. Specially not a vicious, dangerous new mother like her.

-So, what’s this cutie’s name? -asked the (still annoyingly chirpy) nurse, notepad at the ready.

Jack looked at his wife and waited. He had asked for the middle name to be Jackson -which had gotten him an eye roll from the back then still pregnant lady-, and let the first one for her to decide. He hadn't tried to argue that right out of her, because, well, he valued his life and health and, despite what many people thought, wasn’t completely stupid.

Janet looked down to the- to her baby, and smiled lightly. Still high from the thrill of having brought to life something so perfect, it took her barely a moment to decide. 

-Timothy. Timothy Jackson Drake.

To honor God, in thanks -if he or her actually existed- for having let one of their angels down to earth and into her arms.

Yes, she was still hormonal for giving birth, So sue her.

The nurse cooed and took her baby again, to clean him up and measure him.

He vomited on the neckline of her scrubs this time, directly on skin.

Janet laughed.

Her son.

---.---

The party was socially required and expected. It would stain both her and Jack’s reputation if they didn’t give in to the unspoken rule. People would  no doubt start wondering why weren’t they showing off their offspring. What was wrong with them. 

What was wrong with him.

That, mainly, was what got Janet to accept it and organize the whole affair. In between, of course, to leading the company and tending to Timothy. If it was only about her, she’d first let the whole world burn than subject her son to the stupid but voracious pack of wolves that Gotham’s elite was, but if they started talking shit about him, her options were to give in to their demands or silence them the easy way. And, after a quick talk with her lawyer, she decided on the actually legal option.

Not that she couldn't get away with the other one. But she wasn’t about to contaminate her hands, the hands that held her son, with those fools’ blood. What if stupidity was contagious? She wasn’t taking that risk. Jack’s genes were enough of a wild card as it was.

A tea party seemed the most appropriate option. A ball would upset Timothy’s carefully planned sleeping schedule (as in, closely monitored so any time he woke up at night, it would always fall in Jack’s designated ‘baby duty’ hours; two weeks into it, she expected another three before he catched on), and with a tea afternoon she had an excuse to disappear back into the Mannor when -not if; when- their half witted guests started to get too much on her nerves, claiming ‘Timothy’s bedtime’ as a perfect getaway.

Halfway through it, though, she realized it wasn’t all bad. No one tried to hold her baby -men probably too uninterested in the actual child beyond the expected pleasantries, the women scared away by her ‘I fucking dare you, bitch’ glare-, Jack was properly entertained by tending to the guests, the staff doing a good job of maintaining the insides of the closed off awning at the proper temperature to keep the star of the party from catching a cold, and anyone entering the place came bearing an offering to Timothy, like peasants at a deity’s temple. It was satisfying to watch. 

‘He’s going to be everyone here’s boss, one day. The city will be his’, Janet smiled, accepting with a tilted head another gift, adding it to the growing pile on the big chest she ordered for the occasion, every socialite trying to outdo the former one.

It was going perfectly fine, and she had almost forgotten her reluctance to the whole thing, when everything inevitably crashed and burned.

Because there were a set of arms extended in her direction, accompanied by a polite ‘May I?’.

If the reaction of the people closest to her was an indication, the sound that came out of her mouth was an actual growl. Instinctively, she drew her arms closer to her chest, baby hold as tight as possible, as if she might protect him better like that.

Timothy, the angel, didn’t protest. He barely ever cried, and never when with her. Just gazed up at her face, his own eyes starting to gain pigment day by day, looking now almost completely like hers a good month after his birth. 

Hers.

Jack appeared by her elbow in barely a second, a wonder since he was at the other side of the backyard the last time she saw him, entertaining people in the farthest of the awnings she had had set. Nicole, her lawyer and one of the few people she was willing to call a friend, was at her other side a moment later, sider glass at hand and looking between her and the brave -stupid- man with equal parts amusement and trepidation.

Bruce Wayne was asking her for a turn holding her child. Nineteen year old Brucie, who had just come back to Gotham after his nine year ‘sabbatical’ from who knows where, with a high school title she was almost completely certain he had faked. Brucie, who acted as a fried brained, goofy, easy going guy, well meaning despite his supposed shortcomings in the mind department. Who was her playmate a time or two during their childhood, which is why she knew he was too damn smart to be who he showed to the society.

Or, maybe not so smart. He was asking for her baby, after all.

For a minute, Janet merely assessed him, two predators staring the other down, looking for weakness, soft spots to sink teeth into. Literally, in her case, if he tried to pry her son away. There was the shadow of amusement hidden behind the dumb, fake smile in his face. The bastard probably was asking just to watch her try to summon her inner meta human and fry him with heat vision. Oh, if only.

While she was busy staring down the threat and looking for an answer stronger than ‘fuck no’, Jack pulled a quick one over her, sliding his arms between hers, retrieving the still and warm bundle, and depositing him in Wayne’s arms, all in one smooth move.

The betrayal. Jack was sleeping on a guest’s room for the next year. How dare he give her child away? And to this man, of everyone? Smart as she may know him to be, who could promise her no harm would come to Timothy so far away from her arms?

Gods above, what if Wayne dropped him? Then she would have to throw him off a plane. Into open waters. Right in the middle of a shark circle. Tied up. 

With rocks weighing his feet.

Nicole gently grasped her upper arm, just below the dress’ sleeve (a lovely red, perfect for hiding blood stains), a gesture that might have gotten her a hole on her toes the exact size of Janet’s stiletto heel, hadn’t she been busy watching Wayne accomodate his arms to better hold her son.

At least he was supporting his head. He wasn’t a complete fool, then. Not like Jack, who might as well start writing his will (dedicated entirely to her and their son, of course).

-He… -Wayne wasn’t looking at her anymore (in any other situation, where he wasn’t holding precious cargo, a mistake), eyes drawn to Timothy’s, who returned the gesture without a hint of fear.

-He, what? -barked the offended mother, now held in both sides by best friend and husband, the only force keeping her from making a scene.

The young man smiled, still not parting his gaze from the baby. She could understand the sentiment; it was hard to look away from perfection like that.

-He looks like you -was the honest answer. A finger carefully caressed the soft, round cheek, and Timothy’s toothless mouth parted in a pure, innocent, bright giggle.

Well. Maybe Wayne wasn’t quite so bad. He’d be allowed to live another day.

-What was his name, again?

Relaxing a little, since he seemed to have an adequate grasp on the baby, Janet composed herself and answered.

-Timothy Jackson Drake.

The blank expression that overtook the man for a second when the middle name was pronounced made her feel slightly vindicated. She, too, thought it dumb the need to put himself plus the word ‘son’ on a baby. As if they didn’t already know Timothy was his. Whatever, she couldn’t complain. Any other choice about their son was hers to make, she couldn’t exactly deny Jack that one request.

Said child choose that moment to move, raising his tiny arm from the depths of his blankets, catching Wayne’s finger in a miniscule fist.

Janet saw the exact second the man melted. Huh. Well, there was an idea.

Not like it was needed, but the love and protection of one of the most rich men on earth, the richest in Gotham, might end working up on Timothy's favor. One could never have too many minions willing to put themselves at risk for their master’s wellbeing, after all.

Janet looked at Wayne, playfully moving the finger in her son’s grasp, eliciting another laugh from him in payment, and let her mind whirl.

----.----.

A little over a week later found Janet sitting on the floor next to her desk, important documents scattered around her. Timothy was napping in her lap, hence why she wasn’t on the chair (too much of a risk of falling), while she worked. Jack had been sent to entertain the board of directors of DI, one of the only chores she trusted him to not fuck up without her supervision, so mother and son had the evening to themselves.

That was, until the phone rang. Snake-quick, she raised a hand and snatched it from the desk, eyes scanning her son’s sleeping face to make sure he hadn’t woke. When she was assured, she held the device to her ear.

-Really, Jannie? Wayne? You choose Wayne as a godfather? Did giving birth melt your brain?

Swiftly, she hanged up. Then, just in case, she stretched her arm and unplugged the machine. 

Five minutes later, the butler came in, holding her cellphone (which she never had on herself during Tim’s nap time) on a silver platter. She waved him away.

Half an hour passed, and Nicole walked into her favorite tea room while she was breastfeeding her baby. Her venom-green eyes shone gleefully, kinda like they did when she utterly crushed her opponents in court.

Because she was her best friend, and Jantet reluctantly liked her, she had sent the lawyer a copy of Timothy’s daily schedule, so to be sure Nicole would never interrupt it and thus get murdered by his mother. It was no coincidence she entered the room just as Tim was finishing his evening feeding.

-Janet, wonderful to see you! 

-Tell that brain dead, lavender wearing fool that I’m not taking his call.

The other woman barreled on, ignoring her. She was lucky she was holding her son; more difficult to dismember someone.

-Aww, how’s my little baby godson? Had a good nap? 

Sighing, Janet offered the bundle of spit and genius that was her baby to her for burping duty, something she didn’t even do with his father.

-Hello, Nicole, nice to see you too. Or it would be, had I actually invited you over -she played along, accepting a cup of coffee from the maid while Nicole sat at the other side of the small table, baby held against her shoulder, little towel protecting her blouse from any substance the baby might cough up.

She would hope he puked all over her, but that would mean he’d have an upset stomach. So she switched to hoping Nicole would spontaneously combust.

-Oh Jan, you say the funniest things. Hey, one guess as to who called me half an hour ago!

Finally to the point- Tell that waste of space, colorblind idiot that if he wants to keep his place in the stock market, to never bother me again when I’m spending quality time with my son.

-He was sleeping, Jan.

-Are you a mother? No. Shut up.

Nicole rolled her eyes, and, after a few burps, cradled the baby more securely in her arms. Timothy immediately started playing with her long necklace, which she probably wore for that particular purpose, as she wasn’t particularly fond of such colorful jewelry.

-Can you even drink coffee while you’re breastfeeding? 

A scowl- It’s decaffeinated. I’m just desperate for even a taste. I have the service saving all the empty cans of this aberration, and I’m making a burning pyre with them the moment I’m allowed to drink the good kind again.

Nicole threw her head back and laughed, long black hair tragically held in a bun to keep away from the baby’s greedy chubby fingers.

-The doctor ordered it for Timmy’s good, I’m sure you can’t be that mad about it.

-I’m sure your parents must have indulged in far more dangerous vices during your conception and pregnancy, and you don’t seem worse for that.

-That’s as close a compliment I’m ever getting from you, huh? It doesn’t change the fact that I’m not your secretary, Jan. Pick up the damn phone, if only to tell Luthor to stop calling me to reach you.

As on cue, Nicole’s phone, carefully placed in the table between them, rang. Both women stared it down for a few seconds, before locking eyes. When the loud noise started making Timothy grumble and whine, Janet sighed and picked it.

-What do you want, you sad excuse of a businessman?

-So it was a good idea to call your lawyer. Hello, Janet, how is your afternoon?

-Getting worse by the minute.

-That’s no way to speak to your dear old friend.

And she couldn’t even have her usual migraine medication. Now she understood why many women choose to hire someone else for breastfeeding; if she trusted anyone else with her son to that degree, she might have done the same.

-And speaking of things that are rude to do to your favorite people, choosing someone else as godfather for your one and only son is quite the insult.

Nicole, even though she couldn’t hear the other end of the line, was smirking as she rocked the baby. Seemingly having the time of her life.

-One; you are not, by a long shot, one of my favorites. That’s a list of two, and you wouldn’t  make the cut even if one of them died.

-Timothy and Jack?

-Timothy and Nicole. Jack is currently being punished for daring give my son to someone else, and has been demoted.

-Hmm. And two?

-Two: who’s to say I’m not having another child?

-Please, you wouldn’t be able to go another year without coffee.

True, but still- Don’t presume to know my limits.

-Why him? -Insisted the man, and if they weren’t such good friends (and old classmates, from back in the day) she would have thrown the phone halfway across the rome at his pathetic whine- Is this an insult to me? Are you trying to communicate your displeasure over something I did lately? You could have done that a thousand ways, without giving such a honor to someone like Wayne.

She sighed. Nicole’s attention turned to the baby currently patting at her chin, and she let her eyes wander over them both.

-I needed someone willing to risk his life for my baby. Wayne seems like the kind of man that would, if he cares enough for someone.

-And you’re saying I wouldn’t. That…

-...is completely true. You would kill, and let other people die, and for that I already have someone -Nicole blinked in her direction, venomous green eyes stone cold for half a second before her smirk took the edge off it-. Wayne is here to provide light heartedness, and if the situation called for it… well. And you, as my friend and business partner, are bound to provide safe sanctuary when he undoubtedly reaches adolescence and runs from home in a rebellious bout.

-Still a pathological need to plan sixteen years into the future, I see.

-Still a pathological need to be chosen first, I see. I’m having memories of back in school when someone was elected first for a team during PE.

----.----.

Her baby is a genius. Of course, it was expected, being her son and everything; but with Jack’s ‘normal’ genes in the way, it was a coin toss as to whether he’d take after her or him.

He starts talking way before other babies do. Momma, Dadda, I’ole for his godmother, Bose for his godfather, and Atez for Lex. He knew how to ask for water or food, and to be carried. He had also learned to walk, although clumsily, and would be seen following after Janet’s skirts as she circled around the Manor attending to her various duties.

She was so proud of him. So excited each day, floating in a cloud of wonder of ‘what will he learn next?’, ‘how will he surprise me today?’. Nicole and Alexander were a stronger than ever presence in their lives, with Timothy as an excuse to visit as often as she would allow. And, in the softness granted to her by motherhood, she was far more lenient than she’d ever been. Still bringing fear into the hearts of whoever dared cross her but… less bloodthirsty, if her best friend’s words were to be believed.

Then, Jack came, practically demolishing her peacefulness and joy  with all the grace and delicacy of a grinning, hammer wielding moron.

-Dear! I got the perfect site for the next digging.

Time seems to stop, for her, as breathing turns suddenly an unachievable chore and her steely eyes bore into her husband’s happy ones. 

Jack, who seems to have forgotten about the very same baby currently in Janet’s arms, who had her blouse in a tight grip -as if suspecting of the situation, keeping her close-, drooling a little over the little blanket handmade by Wayne’s butler.

Her little bundle of spit, snot and genius. Her baby.

She had known, intellectually, that things were bound to change, the moment her baby was born. She had all but decided, back then, that she’d hire some good  babysitter and keep going things the way she liked them, flying from digging site to digging site, remotely managing the company and meeting her friends at fancy galas. With enough money, keeping her lifestyle, and still get her son the care he needed, without her sacrificing anything, was affordable.

But now, it was different. If she went, she would be sacrificing things. She’d be leaving the chance of seeing her son grow behind. She would be putting him in someone else’s arms and hope they’d raise him the way she wanted. 

Her son. Hers.

She looked down to the baby in her arms, and then up at her husband. Jack loved archeology, he would be leaving with or without her. 

Breathing in deeply, Janet made her choice.

[kinetic-elaboration]

October 25: 1x20 Court Martial

Now that Chopped is done I am free to watch TOS again. Today’s ep: Court Martial, a wonderful combination of two of my favorite things: Captain Kirk and Legal Stuff.

Look at that backdrop. I forgot how many Very 50′s backgrounds they had in this show.

The Intrepid is here for repairs! Such a lost opportunity to show more Vulcans in Starfleet.

I don’t entirely get why the Commodore has his own special transport pad. I guess it must allow him to beam himself places without the use of a ship but like... to where is he beaming?

Lol that absolutely terrible sailor suit outfit on the little girl. I can only assume it’s a school uniform as it’s the only thing she ever wears.

Can you believe how this whole episode is based, essentially, around allegedly broken regulations? I mean I know it’s more than that and they do a good job explaining why it’s bad to eject the pod early (”when there is no emergency”) but like, essentially, the underlying conditions of emergency are not in Kirk’s control. It’s possible to just skip officially calling the emergency while nevertheless acting in a way that is appropriate for an emergency, and so it comes down to “did he first declare the emergency officially and then act in accordance with the declared emergency or did he just skip the first step?” rather than “did he act too quickly?” since HE was the one who determined if the conditions warranted an emergency.

Having said all that I still don’t get what an ion pod is or where it was or why it had to be ejected at all. Or how Finney got out of the pod if it was ejected.

Vulcanian expedition?!?

Kirk’s default voice is just flirty; I’m sorry but it is. Even talking to his old school classmates, who are VERY quick to judge him harshly and hate on him, implying they were probably never friends, he’s All Charm by default. And he doesn’t drop the charm even when he starts politely fighting with them.

Bones using Jim to flirt--with Jim’s ex-girlfriend! “Did you see that guy over there, he’s pretty famous, and we’re friends!”

I love Areel Shaw and I’m just gonna say I think she’s my favorite Kirk girlfriend.

Charged with culpable negligence. As opposed to...not culpable negligence?

When he was a midshipman...

What’s with all these professor & student friendships??

I cannot believe part of the Finney & Kirk backstory is that he literally named his daughter after Kirk. Like that’s so intense! I feel like it kind of changes everything but I can’t entirely untangle how.

This “I can’t believe you filed a report about my error” backstory is literally the beginning of STID except Kirk is the Spock of this scenario.

Star Trek: Law and Order. Bum bum.

This whole idea of pitting Kirk against a computer is clever in that people to this day are like “but computers are infallible?” but also dumb because Kirk >>> Computer obviously.

Having drinks with the ex and he turns the charm up to 11.

All of this is wildly unethical, from her telling him about the prosecution’s case, to her BEING the prosecution.

I actually read an article recently about this isn’t, or shouldn’t be, her job as prosecutor, to drum him out of the service in disgrace. Her job should be to find the truth in a more neutral way.

Wtf are all these totally useless federal reporters doing here?

I’m a pro-book person but this is a HILARIOUS anti-computer speech. Like--the law is in the computer dude! It is! It’s the same law as in the books. Intergalactic Westlaw is available to you. And then he goes off on this weird rant about Moses, like--dude, Moses isn’t in the reporters OR Westlaw OR whatever Starfleet code is actually at issue here.

Kirk likes him though.

Shaw in the dress uniform with the long skirt hot damn.

Not even the computer can pronounce Spock’s full name. And he’s been demoted again.

Vulcanian Scientific Legion of Honor.

Spock isn’t having any of this. “I don’t dispute it. I just... actually I do dispute it because it’s nonsense.”

His entire testimony is the equivalent of “You don’t have all the facts.” / “Which are?” / “I love him.”

The defense doesn’t need to question him because he’s already testified for the defense.

This is such a hilarious use of McCoy. For the first time ever we’re told he’s actually a psychologist on top of being a surgeon and GP and then his whole testimony isn’t even really medical? It’s just like wild speculation, which being a doctor and an “expert in psychology” somehow qualifies him to provide?

I love how Kirk’s service record just goes on and on and on. Areel doesn’t do herself any favors objecting to it; that just draws attention to it. As the defense lawyer knows by insisting it continuing and then cutting it off for being comically long.

Kirk: “I can be level-headed in an emergency. This wasn’t my first rodeo.”

This chair design is SO BAD. I know it needs to be like this for the plot but omg putting the pod release button on the chair at all (like does the captain have to jettison pods a lot?) and then especially directly under the red alert button, and then putting both of them just out there without any kind of cover or anything--that’s just waiting for someone to lean on his chair arm and make a deadly mistake.

Also nothing else is even labeled lmao.

This is a very impressive deep fake.

This whole ion storm does not really seem like a scary emergency situation lol. It seems like Kirk and everyone else are basically keeping their heads.

“You may be able to beat your next Captain at chess” Kirk as chess master confirmed.

“I didn’t realize how close you and my father were even though I was literally named after you.”

Obligatory Bones accuses Spock of not caring about Jim scene.

“Why thank you, Doctor, my blood is very cold.”

I can’t believe Spock programmed the computer to play chess with him. Probably so he could practice for Jim.

The lawyer’s outfit is hilarious: little pocket for a pen in front. Is he... a civilian lawyer? Is that even allowed?

Here is talking about the Bible again. And the Magna Carta. First, it’s always funny when a bunch of real things are followed by some fake science fiction things. And second, he’s pretty obviously just talking about the Constitution, and like maybe a very tiny bit about the Magna Carta. There’s no right to counsel in the Bible.

Really glad to know the Martians care about the right to an attorney though. And that the Alpha 3 Colonies protect the right of confrontation.

I bet Spock is unimpressed with this Drama.

Why did they change out of their dress uniforms?

How convenient that Finney was one of only three people who could change the computer. I mean I guess this is a permissions thing--but why would the records officer have that? Not that I know what a records officer is.

“White noise device” you can’t fool me, that’s a microphone.

Also another hilarious use of McCoy. Do they really NEED the ship’s surgeon to put a microphone against people’s chests? “Don’t mind me, just stealing your heartbeats.”

Like the general concept of this is nifty story telling but some of the details are....uh.... funny.

Captain’s log: “We brought a young girl onto the ship even when it’s in a dangerous position so we could use her against her father.”

Finney really was playing the looooooong game of revenge lol. And yet it still doesn’t seem well thought out. What was the next part of his plan? Somehow get back OFF the ship once Kirk’s career is ruined, and then live the rest of his life under an assumed name? Never seeing his daughter again? No Starfleet career even though it’s allegedly so important to him? Seems a little bit like everyone loses.

Lol not letting Spock leave the bridge because the court martial’s not ever. “Sorry, we all might die, but court IS still in session.” Even though they ALREADY KNOW the alleged victim is still alive!

I love that Uhura is essential personnel. They didn’t keep the navigator on board, even though they apparently need one, but they did keep Uhura.

Oh no, Kirk’s flimsy shirt, falling apart again!

“Beaten and sobbing, Finney told me how to fix the ship.” Bitter much?

Kirk, being a badass, fixing the ship all by himself.

Honestly I just really love a narrative in which an upright man plays by the rules, does the right thing, and behaves in good faith and is ultimately vindicated and rewarded.

Now everyone agrees there’s no crime and thus no point to continuing the court-martial.

He’s defending Ben Finney! Good luck with that.

I love how Kirk’s face goes from full-on-romance to slightly-embarrassed-serious-Captain as soon as he remembers, hey, I really AM on the bridge!

“She’s a very good lawyer.” / “Obviously.”

This was such a good Kirk episode, both for showing off all his good qualities, and for getting some interesting insight into his character. He strikes me as the kind of person who, because he’s so by-the-book, and because he’s smart and successful, inspires jealousy in other people, and thus has a lot of strained acquaintanceships--like with the other men at the bar. But he also has these really, really strong friendships and relationships: Areel Shaw, Spock and McCoy, and even Finney. I feel like he’s probably rather awkward with most people, but then when the relationship is established, he’s ride or die. And, he doesn’t hold grudges. I don’t think he really knew how upset Finney was about what happened literally 10+ years ago--especially if he had any say at all about Finney serving on his ship, and I suspect he could have at least vetoed him. And even after Finney tried to disgrace him and then actually kill him, he still didn’t seem to upset about it, or about his lawyer turning around and defending Finney.

I think Kirk likes the military in part because it gives him this very strict set of rules about interacting with other people, so he doesn’t have to make up his own. I bet the intensity of the service also allows him to form these stronger relationships, which do seem to suit him better. And when he doesn’t have anything else to fall back on, he INVARIABLY pulls out the charm: he does it with old classmates, random 21st century pilots, immortal teenage girls, and actual love interests. It’s his default mode. I think that makes sense for someone who’s very ambitious, very precise, very nerdy, very rules-oriented, and whose default mode as a young man, by his own admission, was “grim.”

Wow it is so much later than anticipated... I need to get to sleep!

Next ep is Return of the Archons, which I’ve only seen once and don’t remember super well. I think it’s a ‘society ruled by computers’ thing, which is fine. Maybe not as much of a classic as some other S1 eps, but it should be fun anyway.

[fixomnia-scribble]

Ten Niche Interests

I picked up a vaguetag (is that a thing? it is now.) from the charming @mia-ugly​ to post 10 NICHE INTERESTS of mine. I won’t ever be the life of the party but I will happily sit at the kitchen table nattering about these things over tea, or just puttering away at them.

In no particular order…

1. Knitting. The finer the better. I started knitting lacy patterns with beads a while ago, and friends, if I ever win a lottery and take an entire year off, I’ll basically be doing this and writing. (This isn’t mine, but this is pretty much what I mean.)

2. Cooking. I’ve worked in quite a few small restaurants, and I absolutely love that feeling, clichéd but real, when the love is cooked right into the food. I often wake up with recipe ideas to try. Living alone means there’s not nearly as much scope for experimentation, but it probably saves a ton of cash.

3. Old-school science fiction. All those glorious, creepy, brilliant futuristic and speculative stories the 1930’s to the 1960’s, from Asimov and Pohl and Lem et cetera.

4. Antique microscope slides. I have a collection of over 250, and growing. Help. But just look! They’re little works of art.

5. Bones, obviously, given my field of study. Biology in general, but bones. Not just their individuality after death in a forensic context, but the whole living microcosm of bone development. And they are always being absorbed and reshaped according to how we use them, what we eat, our health and stresses...they really do record our life stories.

6. Dead languages. I’ve picked up a dusting of Latin, Middle English, Ancient Greek and Biblical Hebrew. Nothing much to string together, but enough for etymological fun and to spot a useful scientific root or legal phrase or two. (I’d love to know ALL THE LANGUAGES. Sigh.)

7. World religions. I may be a big ol’ humanist-atheist nun-of-the-above, but I spent many years as a sort of generalized theist. I’ve taken various Religious Studies courses in university and have studied all kinds of eastern and western faiths and practices. It’s been a delight and a privilege to have been made welcome in so many different kinds of services, ceremonies and circles. They are all deeply important to our human story.

(I will always adore Sinclair introducing the alien ambassadors to “the dominant belief system of Earth”)

8. Diving into neurodiversity papers and communities these days, as I am 95% certain I slipped through the cracks and was never diagnosed as a child as being ADHD/ND. I am finding SO MUCH self-recognition and, well, vindication. I was about to pursue this officially when lockdown happened. It can wait.

9. Spreading the gospel of PCOS awareness and accompanying challenges to sizeist/weightist assumptions. I was 25 before I was diagnosed. Could the underlying epigenetics of PCOS be linked with ADHD/ND? Possibly? I doubt we’ll know in my lifetime, but it’s a fascinating prospect.

10. The Wars of the Roses era of British Monarchy. Why? I don’t know. But it fascinates me and keeps dragging me back in. I recently discovered the charming Dr. Kat on YouTube and I highly recommend her clear breakdowns on different events and social concepts in British history, if that is your thing. She’s amassed a loyal group of nerdy historian lockdown followers - for once, go and read the comments!

Tagging @kinpiraa​, @blackcatphysics​, @chaotic-archaeologist​, @archaeologysucks, @rhysintherain​ and anyone else who wants to play!

[deppisallyouneed]

Why I defend Johnny Depp

A while ago I did a thread on twitter about why I believed in Johnny's innocence and I think it's time to bring it here. I warn you in advance, it’s going to be a long post. 

1. First of all because just because a woman accuses a man of dv doesn't mean I'm gonna believe her without any proof. Women can be as abusive as men. Get that through your head. 

2.  Amber first asked for divorce citing "irreconcilable differences", not a single mention of the abuse. 

3. Before asking for the RO, she sent an extortion letter to his team demanding cars, money, apartments, spousal support and for him to pay all her legal fees or she would go to the media with the thing of the abuse

4. After he denied these requests she, of course, went public with the dv saying Johnny abused her mentally and physically throughout their entire relationship

5. Lets talk about the incident with his finger that happened in Australia, she wasn't even there at the time. 

6. We have then, the incident that happened on May 21 which by the way it was the same day that Doug Stanhope and his girlfriend were at Johnny's house comforting him because of his mother's death. As Doug said in his article, Johnny told them that his mood wasn't just for his mother but that now Amber was going to leave him and I quote: "threatening to lie about him publicly in any and every possible duplicitous way if he didn't agree to her terms" 

And that's exactly what happened. She sent that letter demanding all those things. He refused. She went to the media. So simple.

Going back to the incident that happened that night, THE POLICE went to their apartment and saw NO EVIDENCE of abuse. No bruises, no damaged property. NOTHING. Amber refuse to file a report.  

8. Then in May 22, the day after, she appears at a friends party and looks fine. A picture was posted on ig but was deleted. Wonder why...

9. On May 27 she goes to the court to ask for a RO with a visible bruise on her face but the day after the bruise was gone????? 

10. She said that she wanted to keep this matter out of the public eye, yet she sold pictures to People Magazine.

11. I'm gonna address here that she was arrested for domestic violence against her then partner. She went to court and was given a two year probation And of course she tried to erase her record when she met johnny. What a coincidence uh?

And don't come up to me saying that Tasya came on her defense because it was 7 years later. She didn't do shit back then to try and stop the trial. And by the way, the cop that arrested her is lesbian so your argument of "she was homophobic" doesn't fit here

12. Neighbours and people who worked on the building where they lived saw Amber with NO BRUISES on her face. Their bodyguards said she was the one who needed to be pulled off him.

13. Amber avoided her deposition 3 times. THREE TIMES. Until the judge said it was time for her to sit down and give one. First she said she couldn't because she needed to be in London for a fitting but that turned out to be false.

Then she was at her best friend engagement party (priorities) and so on. So confusing that she said she wanted to be divorced from him asap but wouldn't sit to give her deposition.

14. Johnny submitted his evidence and witnesses to the court and three days after that and a day before she could have obtained a PRO she dropped everything WITH PREJUDICE. He had police officers in his witnesses list btw

15. These are Johnny's evidence that were presented to the court. She didn't include in hers those text messages that apparently Johnny's assistant sent to her and also she didn't cite him as a witness. He was willing to testify under oath on Johnnys side. They were never verified

16. After she said she was going to donate the money to charity  (because people were calling her a gold digger), Johnny was going to send the money directly to those charities but she refused and was going to take him to court. Again, mysterious shit going on with this girl

17. During their marriage, Johnny was seen with scrathes and bruises. She hit him in that car episode, even if it was a joke, I wouldn't dare to hit the man who behind close doors makes me fear for my life. But whatever, it doesn't seem important for anybody.

18. And lets talk about the video. If you think that somebody who has been abusing his wife throughout their entire relationship is going to chose to break glasses and smash cabinets instead of hitting the person, then I don't know what to say. In the video Johnny's pissed off about something that has NOTHING TO DO WITH HER. He says it very clearly. She asks him multiple times what happened and he replies with: "Were you here this morning?". She says no and he answers: "Then nothing happened TO YOU this morning". 

He tries so hard to ignore her but she keeps asking him and trying to make the problem about her to get a violent action from him but that never happens. He doesn't even scream at her. Then she said she was sorry, what does that have to do with all of this?  And lets get this clear, he NEVER throws anything at her. He NEVER touches her.

As Johnny said in his GQ interview this fall, his mood in that moment was because he found out about his financial situation. She knew he was in a bad mood and tried to set him up. 

It's so clear that she feared for her life when she dared to ask if he had been drinking and to record him without his consent. Then he finally finds out that she was recording him and takes the phone away from her, yet he doesn't delete the video. Sounds odd to me.

19. Amber's lawyers had to apologise to Johnny because of the statement they made saying Amber was vindicated in the court of public opinion because it wasn't true. 

20. We can also talk about her controlling behavior towards him. Like in the airport where he had to say something to her so he could go and see his fans and she lets him letting his hand go with disdain. 

Or at the Black Mass premiere at TIFF where she tried to stop him from chatting with another woman and tried to pull him aside. A lot of people have said that she treated him bad, like a child. They said he loved her so much that he would do anything for her and she knew it

Johnny HAS ALWAYS DENIED THESE ALLEGATIONS. Do you really think that if he was trully guilty he would risk his reputation, the love and trust of his family friends and fans by denying the requests in that extortion letter? Makes no sense. 

Johnny’s lawyer has said Amber admitted beign violent to him and that they have evidence of her false allegations. And they seem pretty confident so, I really hope he gets the justice he deserves. 

Johnny Depp is innocent and the truth will come out.

UPDATES: 

Johnny Depp has fought off a High Court bid to temporarily halt his libel action against The Sun over allegations that he beat his former wife Amber Heard. The judge announced: “I am not satisfied on the current evidence that Ms Heard’s concerns about the restrictions that the divorce agreement imposes on her are well-founded.” Mr Justice Nicklin said Depp had stated clearly in his evidence to the court that he expects Heard “may well” give evidence in the proceedings, and “he will not attempt to prevent that”. He added: “The fact that Ms Heard presently thinks that there is some impediment to her giving evidence for the defendants is nothing to do with Mr Depp.

Here we have, again, her trying to avoid a trial, her avoiding to give the evidence she claims she has.

Johnny has also filed a defamation lawsuit against Amber in which he asks for $50 million.

In the suit, Depp calls the “false allegations” against him “an elaborate hoax to generate positive publicity” for her and “advance her career.” The lawsuit strongly states that she is the one attacked him, claiming, “Ms. Heard is not a victim of domestic abuse; she is a perpetrator.” He claims that Heard’s abuse claims were “conclusively refuted by two separate responding police officers, a litany of neutral third-party witnesses, and 87 newly obtained surveillance camera videos.” The lawsuit claims that an employee of the building reviewed building surveillance video three days after the alleged incident. Depp claims the employee “testified under oath that she saw Whitney Heard pretend to punch her sister in the face. Then Ms. Heard, Ms. Pennington [Heard’s best friend], and Whitney Heard all laughed.” Depp also details an incident one month into their marriage where he claims she threw a glass vodka bottle at him, which shattered when he made contact with his hand. He claims his finger had to be surgically reattached and claims Heard “disseminated false accounts of this incident, casting Mr. Depp as the perpetrator of his own injury.”

Amber Heard is just a fucking psychopath, if things aren’t the way she wants she will go crazy and Johnny loved her so much that he did everything that was in his hand to keep her happy and yet, she did this to him.  

We can also talk about the multiple witnesses he has:

Esparza said under oath that she did not see any visible injuries to Heard’s face or body in the days following the incident and up to the police investigating. She explained how close in proximity she was to Amber and claimed there were no injuries. However, Esparza did note that on May 27, six days after the reported incident, Heard did have a visible injury, including a “red cut underneath her right eye and red marks by her eye.” After seeing the images, Esparza testified that she went back and reviewed security footage from the building because the “time didn’t add up” and she suspected the allegations against Depp were “false.” The concierge services owner was adamant she had seen the actress “several times” without a mark on her face.

Then we have this:

A second employee of the building, a security guard named Alex Romero also claimed to have seen Heard multiple times throughout the week and said he did not see anything to indicate that Heard had been “punched by anyone,” or had anything thrown at her, like a cell phone. The security guard said he seriously doubted the actress’ story once he saw her photos, describing on record, “I saw the pictures and the next day I saw her. I was like come on, really. I couldn’t believe,” adding, “When I saw her in person, I didn’t see anything.” Two other employees — including the general manager of the building, Brandon Patterson — also testified that Heard was observed multiple times in the building following the alleged assault and was seen “without bruises, cuts, redness, swelling or any other injuries to her face.” They also testified that building surveillance captured lots of video of Heard without any visible injuries like the ones seen in the photographs. Baruch, who admits he’s been friends with Depp for 37 years, said Heard “stretched her neck” to show him her alleged injuries, and said he could not see any injuries while standing less than a foot away from her face. Baruch was adamant that he did not even see any redness or swelling. Baruch also describes a bizarre encounter with Heard a few weeks later, on June 3, where she invited him over for dinner while Depp was out of town. The neighbor said he declined, and stated, “I think it’s best that we don’t talk anymore because I’m confused, angry and frustrated by what I’ve been seeing.”

So, Johnny has all of these evidence, yet people still believe her, because a woman can’t lie about domestic violence and we have to believe her just because she is a woman.

Johnny Depp suffered domestic abuse from his ex wife and he has PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INJURIES SHE CAUSED HIM, WITNESSES TESTIMONIES, AUDIO TAPES AND 87 SURVEILLANCE SECURITY CAMERA VIDEOS to let you all know and let the court know THAT SHE LIED AND THAT HE IS INNOCENT. 

WE ARE WITH YOU JOHNNY. 

[jonsafan-blog]

How Leaks Work

Most highly paid professionals would never leak the ending of a show anonymously. The main cast, the most important part of production... just not happening. They have too many legal risks to do so.

That’s why the majority of leaks have occurred in two waves:

First Wave - Before the episode is sent out to television networks to be closed captioned and prepared for their servers, leaks seem to only occur when a lot of lowly paid people are involved with the scene. The reason we knew so many details about 8x05 is because it took place almost entirely outdoors with a lot of extras and a lot of special effects. Scenes that are filmed indoors without special effects (like Daenerys mourning over Missandei and Varys sending letters) don’t make these early leaks most of the time.

Second Wave - About 1-3 weeks before an episode airs we start getting really accurate leaks, and this occurs primarily because non-studio people all over the world become involved with subtitling and closed-captioning the episode. It takes a lot of people to get these done, and since they are not immediately in the general circle of the showrunners it is difficult to determine who leaked and prosecute them over other borders. This is why most second wave leakers actually tend to be non-English speakers. They can get away with it better. However, many of these leakers wait until the last possible moment to share... likely because it lowers the risk of their managers choosing to punish them. That’s why we only see leaks that take place between a handful of top actors on a closed set the day of or the day before (solar scene and sex scenes).

So what about the leaks going forward?

Here’s what we know.

Jon snow finally sees Arya after they reach the Irone Throne in King's Landing. (I think this means that he hasn't seen her since she left Winterfell ahead of him) Dany starts executing everyone in Kings landing (Tyrion and Jon are upset) Dany has Tyrion arrested for freeing his brother. (his trial is supposed to have neither Dany or Jon present) Tyrion tries to convince Jon to turn on Dany. His family will never be safe because it threatens Dany's legitimacy. Jon is horrified by what Dany has done to King's Landing, and she gives speeches about how she'll keep doing it to free slaves from their chains. He's also convinced by Tyrion that his family will never be safe because he presents a threat to her rule. Jon tries to talk to Dany but she ignores him thinking she is justified. Jon pledges himself to Dany, then stabs her, and surrenders himself. Very traumatic for Jon because he does love her. Drogon should melt the Iron Throne after her death.

All these leaks require a lot of extras to be present or some level of special effects.

However, given the rather concise but comprehensive narrative... I think it likely plays out rather sequentially above, though I think it is going to be prefaced with some sort of Arya telling Jon Dany needs to die and it being reinforced by Tyrion’s public arrest. I also suspect a Jon and Davos conservation before he meets Arya or directly afterward. Those scenes would likely have been private without special effects, so filmed separately from extras without a large production crew involved.

I also believe that Daenerys will be killed with Arya’s dagger. It’s the only way I can imagine Jon getting close enough without raising the suspicion of her men.

There are also three possible endings:

Ending 1

King's Council: A council gets formed to decide who the King should be. Tyrion gives a speech and everyone votes on Bran to become King. The end. In the Epilogue, Jon takes the black again for killing Dany. (I think this is penance for regicide and guilt. People take the black to avoid the death penalty and he would be the 1,000th Lord Commander of the Night's Watch) Arya leaves. (she told Clegane she would) Sansa rules the North. When they're deciding who to elect as king, Sam suggests holding a democratic election and the other nobles laugh at him. That's before they vote on Bran. Bran oversees his council of Tyrion, Davos, Sam, and Bronn. The Unsullied leave to cross the sea and start liberating slave cities on their own, because that's Dany's plan before Jon kills her -- she has this big speech scene, after sacking King's Landing, where she's talking about wrecking the world, liberating all of the slaves from their masters 

Tyrion's fate after the beginning of the episode is uncertain, but I think it is confirmed his trial does not happen before Dany's death. Ending 1 does not address Tyrion's trial, but it does have multiple scenes which would have required a lot of extras to achieve, though no special effects:

The council would be formed with numerous bit actors and extras serving as guards. An easy enough leak to imagine. That said, there does seem to be a rather large public vote on Bran becoming King of the Seven Kingdoms, so I think this is pretty much confirmed. Sam also clearly says a lot of lines to confirm this to the extras. Tyrion is also present for this council... likely representing the Westerlands, and Bronn probably does actually get Highgarden.

However, Jon taking the black and there being no trial suggests that Jon simply chooses to leave King's Landing and is not forced to. He likely tells his family on or off screen and then Jon is in the North for a lineless "ending" in which he is reunited with Wildlings and Night's Watch. Extras involved in filming probably were led to believe this was his final ending, and once Daenerys’s death was leaked, him “taking the black” was assumed.

Arya leaving can be a rather private scene as would her saying she is leaving, but likely assumed because she clearly survives the ending but is not present in anyone else's storyline. That is probably the last time we see her in the show.

Sansa rules the North... this leak happens in three ways. The first is that Sansa is simply referred to as the Lady of Winterfell or the Lady of the North or something like that. Extras could easily assume she rules the North even if she doesn't in this circumstance.

However, she could also be "ruling the north" if production saw her on the battlements. If she has a scene in the Great Hall, that would confirm it, but only if her vassals declare her as Lady of the North.

The Unsullied also set sail. We likely see Grey Worm talking to someone before he leaves among a lot of extras or even it just being mentioned in the council. It's possible Jon taking the black is mentioned in the castle, but I doubt it.

My theory for how these leaks came to be is that it was a combination of two factors:

The council with a lot of extras... and production special effects tying together a bunch of mostly dialogue-free shots of Westeros after the council.

Ending 2

Tyrion's Trial: Tyrion's trial in the dragonpit is a major scene and has no Jon, Dany, or dragons. Sir Davos is present not wearing the Hand of the King pin (he wasn't in 8x04 either) along with all 3 stark children. Samwell Tarly, Brienne, Robyn Aryn, Grey Worm, an unknown man wearing golden clothes (likely Dornish), and another unidentified man (an older short bearded one dressed in green) will be there as well. Bran will flash back to season 1 where Tyrion Lannister told Catelyn Stark, "I never bet against my family". Tyrion is filled with anger and resentment against the people of Kings Landing because he saved them against Stannis and they still turned on him. Thinks people of King's Landing deserved it. He saved them and were ungrateful (trial of Joffrey's murder) Will fall to his knees in the middle of the speech dragged down by the weight of his actions. His death was filmed in studio so not sure how he dies.

Tyrion's trial has a lot of extras... that's clear. A trial would need a lot of people present. I think it takes place before the council, and I think he ends up being declared innocent of the charges, but this, like so much of the season, happens off-screen.

I think it was written so that all the charges are laid against him and his jury are present to question him... but after the charges are given and Tyrion gives his public tirade, the director likely told the extras that the death would be filmed in studio. In reality, the ambiguous ending actually transitions to the council and we see Tyrion has been spared. I'm willing to bet his tirade about the city being ungrateful ends up being what saves him - he may have done what he did to save his family, but he tried to do it to save the city too.

Ending 3

Both Endings Combined: King's Council seems most likely as multiple scenes can be cheaply shot however few will have graphic effects or sound added. Friki's leaks were from the 7 months ago when they were filming. Friki is doubling down that it is a trial and because Tyrion's death isn't filmed, it may be both. Tyrion will have a trial, give a speech, and ultimately be spared and raised to the King's Council. On the other hand, if he is killed, it doesn't change the ending too much so it should be interesting. 

The person compiling the leaks on freefolk seem to think that one of the endings could be wrong (probably Tyrion’s trial) though I think it’s right to create a third ending in which both events happen... because they clearly do.

Tyrion is eventually vindicated offscreen and receives the Westerlands.

So How Does the Next Episode Go?

We only know about the scenes film with a lot of extras or that have some level of special effects. Any scenes which would be between two people in an ordinary room (like Jon and Sansa’s scene in the solar) would not have been included in the leak. I also suspect Bran is narrating over a montage of scenes.

So unless the entire scene is special effects or has a lot of extras... we have a number of missing scenes. Here is the likely order of events and my speculation on what is missing.

Exposition - establishing the episode’s “normal world”

Tyrion walks through the destruction of the city.

Jon and Davos approach the Red Keep as Daenerys prepares to give her victory speech. They have a tense conversation about the horrors they witnessed.

Arya and Tyrion approach the army as they congregate for Daenerys’s speech.

Inciting Incident - very first conflict that occurs in the plot

Daenerys declares her victory. The Dothraki and Unsullied go wild when she says she is going to keep conquering cities and liberating the people, and it is clear the speech isn’t meant for the people of Westeros she had “liberated” but her two armies - the Dothraki who want to pillage, and the Unsullied who want to end slavery.

We see the reactions of Jon, Davos, Arya, and Tyrion. None of them are happy. It’s clear that Arya has made a decision.

Rising Action - 3 major events leading to the climax

Tyrion is publically arrested and tells Jon that his family will never be safe if Daenerys is Queen.

WINTERFELL/DAENERYS SCENE - Daenerys sends a letter demanding Sansa come to King’s Landing or we see her preparing to deal with Sansa herself. Both scenes wouldn’t need a lot of people and likely be done lowkey in private rooms. However, the audience also needs to know the stakes of what Tyrion said, so there must be another scene involved not yet leaked.

Jon finally sees Arya. She gives him his dagger and confirms what Jon already knows what he must do - kill Daenerys. However, he’s not sure he can and it is uncertain to the audience if he will do it or not. As an audience, we still aren’t certain if Jon is going to just go along with Daenerys or not - though we suspect and hope he will take Arya’s dagger.

Climax - Most suspenseful part of the plot. The turning point for the main character.

Jon confronts Daenerys either because he goes there of his own free will or is summoned to her court in the destroyed throne room. He tries to convince Daenerys not to do what she plans on doing. It could be referring to continuing her war across the world or even just calling Sansa to answer for her crimes.

Clearly Jon says something for Daenerys to believe he is on her side, likely pledge himself to her cause... or maybe agree to Sansa’s execution. Something where the audience isn’t sure if Jon is really going to go through with what Arya asked him to do.

Daenerys believes Jon really is in love with her, and she gets close to him - and that is when he stabs her. It’s clear Jon is choosing his family/realm over Daenerys.

Jon is devastated over his action, and surrenders himself immediately. Grey Worm is likely the person to encounter him first, but hell breaks loose because Drogon likely senses Daenerys is dead/dying and incinerates the room itself, going crazy. It’s possibly Drogon is killed in this moment, and it may result in Grey Worm realizing what cause he nearly pledged himself to - he does seem to make it to end of the show, so I assume he isn’t killed in battle.

Falling Action - 3 events or less that unravel the conflict between the protagonist and the antagonist to lead to the resolution.

Daenerys dying is clearly the climax... so what is Jon’s obstacle after her death? I think it’s going to be the guilt over killing her and everything that led up to that moment that Jon was involved in. He doesn’t think he is a good person. That means we have changed from Jon vs. the Night King and Jon. vs Daenerys to it really being Jon vs. himself - and the one thing he won’t accept about himself is being king... hmm...

The council is called to order from around Westeros, and we see Sansa, Arya, and Bran reunited. Arya probably tells Sansa that Jon has gone to the Wall to take the black... even though there is no more Night’s Watch. Sansa is probably devastated by this news. And also very confused... reminding her family and the audience that he should be King now.

We see Tyrion being put on trial, having been found imprisoned. It is used not to punish Tyrion, but as the final nail in the coffin to Dany’s madness when Tyrion goes into his tirade about trying to save the city. It’s left ambiguous as to what his sentence is.

Change to the council. Sam gives a speech about democracy, and the lords vote Bran in as the King of the Seven Kingdoms (or something like it) because he is memory or something? I think it’s going to be because Jon is supposed to be King, but he left, and now the lords of Westeros wonder what is going to happen to the leadership.

Either way, Sam probably gives a convincing argument. Tyrion is there as Lord of Casterly Rock. Bran gives a final speech, and we see a montage of everyone around Westeros rebuilding or leaving - The Unsullied go east (hopefully with the Dothraki!), and Arya leaves too. We see Sansa in the North. However, there is something clearly missing with this arrangement as Bran being King of the Seven Kingdoms and that doesn’t make much sense.

Let me ask you... has Jon’s final antagonist (himself) been addressed? Nope.

Resolution - The conflict is resolved and we see if the protagonist achieved his goal or not.

We see Jon at the Wall, but he’s not happy. He’s not fulfilled. He’s never accepted that Westeros needs a king like him, but something causes him to go back - probably Tormund.

Jon makes a decision to accept who he is and leaves the Wall because Westeros needs him. I think there is going to be some promise of another threat to Westeros, but I don’t know what it is yet.

Denoument - The tying of loose ends.

Jon still needs to become King. And a King needs a Queen.

Jon returns to Winterfell on his way south. He reunites with Sansa because she needs to reunite with someone to begin pledging his own cause as king... and who better than the woman who tried to make him king?

Jon is crowned in Winterfell alongside Sansa.

Perhaps a letter stating about him ascending to become King of the Seven Kingdoms is sent out, with Sansa as his queen.

I believe we may have a Jonsa ending because of what Sophie was given and has said about what she has given.

Sophie was gifted two items from the last episode: a scroll, and her storyboard. The scroll says something important, and the scroll looks like something banal or something that appears to have happened before.

However, Sophie also stated that it was a scene which resulted in every story arc coming to a really good close. While I may have some bones to pick with  that, I really think she is referencing the endings to major characters and specifically what happens to the characters involved in her final scene. Jon has no closure unless he becomes King, and Sansa marrying him just makes a lot of sense.

[tired-pinetree]

Wrote an essay about how the FBI uses the label “terrorism” and in conclusion

(I’ll post the rest of the essay under a read more, because I think it’s really important for anyone involved in any activism to know this stuff)

((Also much of what I wrote about is applicable to racist and islamophobic profiling, but I focused on “eco terrorism” here because the class I wrote this for was an environmental writing class))

Fire and metal shrapnel bursts from the car. The pipe bomb tears through the car and its two occupants. Judi Bari, the driver, takes the brunt of the force. Her pelvis is crushed, her life bleeding out of her. She and her passenger, fellow activist Darryl Cherney, survive. In just a few hours, however, they’re both arrested in the hospital. The FBI declares them “eco-terrorists,” almost entirely on the fact that two environmental activists were near a bombing. Eleven years later, a jury finally vindicated Cherney and Bari and mandated the FBI and Oakland police pay $4.4 million dollars for civil rights abuses. This verdict came far too late for Bari, who died of cancer five years earlier, still falsely deemed a terrorist. As attorney J. Tony Serra aptly warned, "the jury showed the rest of America that even in the face of brutal terrorism we cannot discard the very civil liberties that make the country great” (Zamora 2002).

           Bari and Cherney’s case showcases a problem within the FBI and the justice system as a whole concerning terrorism, especially eco terrorism. Ask any particular person what a terrorist is or looks like, and you would likely get a quick answer. An answer heavily based off of prejudice, yes, but an answer nevertheless. The legal definition, however, is surprisingly ambiguous. This is particularly true following the September 11th attacks, as both the policies and consequences for alleged terrorism has increased even though the term “terrorism” itself has remained vague and even broadened its range.

            Before any other analysis can be made, basic definitions and limitations must be determined. Eco terrorism has two general meanings: terrorism committed against the environment, and terrorism committed on behalf of the environment. Eco terrorism in this case will refer to extreme actions performed by environmentalists, and the same will hold for other mentions of eco terrorism in quoted material unless otherwise stated. Moreover, the use of “terrorism” in the phrase “eco terrorism” is not legally technical or a reflection of personal opinion as this phrase is widely used in discussions on this topic.

           Before delving into the legal nature of eco terrorism and its consequences, first revisit personal and cultural concepts of terrorism. Picture some of the prevalent threads: masked militia surround and terrorize civilians; video recordings of executions; grimy guerilla fighters hunched in forests preparing an ambush; schools of kids held hostage; buildings bustling with people, bombed into an apocalypse of blood, fire, and dust. These scenes are noteworthy because they aim to hurt and kill people, and are often successful. By contrast, imagine radical environmentalism and “eco terrorism.” Consider some common situations: loud and annoying protests; graffiti, breaking windows, posted propaganda, slashing tires, and other minor vandalisms; sabotaging industrial equipment and property to delay or halt projects; tree huggers chaining themselves to trees and hammering spikes into them to deter chainsaws; releasing hundreds of minks from fur farms; and, in more extreme cases, arson. From a cursory glance, the difference is fairly clear. Although these eco terrorist acts are certainly crimes, they appear to be at a significantly lower magnitude and severity than terrorism.

           Determining what is and isn’t terrorism is a harder concept to nail down legally. The precise definition is as follows: “The term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that – (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States” (US Code, Title 18, Code 2331). Essentially, anything potentially violent with a social, economic, or political motivation could be considered terrorism. This is the conventional, pre 9/11 definition of terrorism and is the basic interpretation used by the FBI. Both Robert Mueller, FBI Director in 2005, and James Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief in 2002, have named eco terrorism as a serious threat (Jarboe 2002, Eco-Terror Indictments 2006). Director Mueller stated “Terrorism is terrorism, no matter what the motive […] persons who conduct this kind of activity are going to spend a long time in jail, regardless of their motive” (Eco-Terror Indictments 2006). Therefore, if eco terrorism is to be evaluated independently of its purpose and whatever justification that may provide, as Mueller demands, then an objective look at what separates terrorism from simple crimes is necessary.

           Ignoring personal morality and ethics over the goals and tactics of eco-terrorists simplifies the question to a matter of legality and loopholes. Former FBI Domestic Terrorism Chief Jarboe attempts to expand the definition of domestic terrorism to cover criminal violence or threatened violence against individuals or property for the purpose of sending a larger message concerning environmentalism (2002). The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) restates this basic definition while touching on some of the controversial aspects when it comes to the specifics. However, when the FBI and START begin to venture from this base, they begin to contradict themselves and bring in irrelevant information. For example, the FBI has stated radical environmentalism is terrorism in part because it is highly organized, but the FBI also says eco terrorist groups are highly disorganized and barely functions as any sort of structured organization (FBI 2002, FBI 2006, FBI 2008). START also participates in conflicting information as it cites acts outside of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as one of its criteria. However, the IHL doesn’t apply to domestic or eco terrorism because neither qualifies as an armed conflict (START, ICRC 2014). Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a similar document, cannot be used to definitively support either side, though several articles can be interpreted to support or condone eco terrorism (ICRC 2014, UN 1948). As can be seen, terrorism in both name and concept has had an obscurity for years. This lack of clarity has intensified in the years since 9/11. Due to legislature such as the Patriot Act and rhetoric, terrorism qualifications and punishments have expanded, but remained ambiguous. Before moving into these later additions, however, does eco terrorism already qualify as terrorism?

           The core of this issue is determining what separates terrorism from ordinary criminal activity. After all, few of the thousands of violent crimes committed each year are considered terrorism, and charges of terrorism carry serious consequences. The FBI and other groups like the ADL argue that radical environmentalists are eco-terrorists due to the economic cost of vandalism, their level of organization and uniform intent, and their violent rhetoric (FBI 2008, ADL). However, others like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), many individuals, and the “eco terrorist” organizations themselves deny this. Steve Vanderheiden, author of a text discussing radical environmentalism, explains in depth that eco terrorism cannot, under the conventional understanding of terrorism, be considered terrorism. Vanderheiden discusses that terrorism is a trend of violence or threat of violence against a specific group of people but where victims are randomly chosen from this group, people are the primary or secondary target of this violence, with the intent to manipulate the social structure or the government. The targets of eco terrorist attacks may be considered as a subgroup, however, targets of eco terrorism are not random and are specifically chosen in response to their actions. In addition, as Vanderheiden points out, the general public is not targeted, only wealthy leaders of companies that damage the environment. Therefore, the widespread terror and coercion against society that characterizing terrorism is absent. Although eco terrorism is, by its nature, motivated toward social, political, or economic change, the intents of one of the most prevalent “eco terrorist” organization, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) specifically states several times that harm against people is to be avoided and is not the intent of their actions (ELF 2001). Following this, eco terrorism has never resulted in the death or serious injury of a person in America, despite its presence since the 1970s (FBI 2008, Vanderheiden 2005, ADL, ELF 2001). Undoubtedly ELF and other eco-terrorists have committed dramatic, and sometimes serious, crimes such as arson, widespread vandalism, and releasing captive animals en mass (FBI 2002). However, no one has been hurt or killed, and these acts of violence have been focused on inanimate objects and economic tools (property, profit, etc.). Can – and should – terrorism be allowed to cover violence towards these nonsentient objects? Paul Watson, captain of the anti-whaling organization Sea Shepherd, argues “We agree with the assessment […] that violence cannot be committed against a non-sentient object. Sea Shepherd sometimes damages equipment used for illegal activities, but we have an unblemished record [in regards to injuries/deaths caused by Sea Shepherd]” (New Zealand Herald 2010). Vanderheiden, along with many people and organizations labeled “eco-terrorists,” agree that violence against people is significant and applicable to the label “terrorism,” whereas vandalism and other forms of violence against inanimate objects should rarely, if ever, be considered terrorism (Vanderheiden 2005, ELF 2001). It’s based off of the simple idea that harm against people is worse than harm against objects. Kidnapping is worse than stealing, murder is worse than vandalism. Equivocating the two as similarly terrorist acts is misleading rhetoric as the two are not comparable.

           Due to these key differences, “eco-terrorists” would typically not be considered terrorists. However, the Patriot Act of 2001 and other new policies have changed that. They expanded how and when anti-terrorism resources and procedures can be used while intensifying rhetoric against eco terrorism. The ACLU published the changes made under section 802 of the act. Among them, they found that governmental powers expanded to investigate and prosecute anything with the potential for terrorism (ACLU). Terrorism now covers anything that may pose a danger to human life, regardless of the intensity, likelihood, or conditions of this danger (ACLU). Furthermore, anything that may cause economic damage, either through the loss of profits or the destruction or theft of property, is also terrorism (Vanderheiden 2005). The FBI openly admits to using legislation to widen the definition of terrorism and implement more severe punishments, stating “we’re also taking advantage of the 2006 revision to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which toughened penalties […] and included secondary targets” (FBI 2008). Using this vague justification of potential human harm and financial loss, the government can then investigate individuals and organizations intensely and using the policies created or expanded upon under the Patriot Act (ACLU). Given these new policies, the potential for civil liberty abuse from the FBI is extraordinarily high. These new policies have created three powerful tools the government can use to violate civil rights and coerce terrorism charges: asset seizure, access to highly confidential information, and preemptive prosecution.

           Asset seizure is a significant weapon the government uses against alleged terrorists and activists. Seizure of assets allows law enforcement to confiscate all of a person or group’s resources, including money, property, and valuables (ACLU). Without any warning, before any hearing, without ever being charged with a crime, anyone can suddenly find themselves homeless and penniless for months (ACLU). Since these are considered civil cases, not criminal cases, the victim of asset seizure does not have a right to a lawyer if they can’t afford one – and given that all of their resources are currently possessed by the government, they almost certainly cannot afford one. Even if the civil case goes favorably, the government is not required to give much justification about why they appropriated assets and are not liable for any wrongdoing related to it (ACLU). This results in little to no consequences for hasty or false seizures against innocent people. As such, it is a powerful weapon against any person or individual the government doesn’t approve of, regardless of their crimes or lack of crimes (ACLU).

           Protection for confidential information is significant because it limits bias and keeps the government from having absolute power and control over the nation. Despite this importance, government is now able to access information that previously was protected under privacy laws. Again, all it takes are vague and subjective terrorism suspicions, and again the FBI doesn’t need to verify the legitimacy of these claims or face consequences for false ones. This information covers academic performance, private medical/health information (such as counseling and abortions), what organizations they are involved in, family income, race, taxpayer information, and other previously confidential information (ACLU). Americans seem to have become relatively desensitized to privacy leaks and government spying, however, releasing this sensitive information quickly leads to coercion and heavily biased cases. Legally improper probes conducted by the FBI into nonviolent organizations such as Greenpeace have already been uncovered (ACLU, Jerry 2010). Nonviolent activists and organizations who have never ventured outside the realm of civil disobedience were arbitrarily placed on terrorist watch lists in an effort to control legal, peaceful activism (Jerry 2010). There is nothing stopping the FBI from repeating this, no consequences, and no real limits to their power.

           Underlying these aggressive tactics is preemptive prosecution. Preemptive prosecution is a strategy where people are investigated, charged, and prosecuted on the basis of possible future terrorism and not actual terrorist plots (Downs and Manley, 2014). This larger theme of improperly and illegally charging people with terrorism was uncovered by Project SALAM and the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms (NCPCF), revealing that the vast majority of terrorism arrests and charges have been based on entrapment and preemptive prosecution (Downs and Manley 2014). Their study shows that 72.4% of nearly 400 terrorist convictions were based on this illegal tactic, with 94.2% of cases having strong elements of preemptive prosecution (Downs and Manley 2014). In nearly every case, these “terrorist plots” were lead by an FBI paid infiltrator who incited and planned violence while manipulating others into the plot (Downs and Manley 2014). In essence, the FBI was mostly busting itself for terrorism, while arresting and charging nonviolent activists and minorities with terrorism. The ACLU and other organizations claim that these charges of terrorism and flexible definition of terrorism has been deliberately used by the FBI to attack activists and destabilize activism groups (ACLU). This attitude of exaggerated threat and response is dubbed the Green Scare, in reference to the McCarthyism of the 1950s (Loadenthal 2013). Combining preemptive prosecution and the low requirements to be charged and convicted of terrorism, America’s domestic anti-terrorism effort ends up strengthening authoritarian government control and protecting the profits and interests of companies.

           In recent years, the harmful effects of overzealous terrorism labeling is increasingly clear. Vanderheiden states that a terrorist is unbound by moral limitations against harming others, and therefore, eliminating terrorism can follow similarly merciless procedures. This increases the importance of determining who is a terrorist and who is simply a criminal, bystander, victim, or activist. Bari and Cherney are far from the only people to be falsely charged with eco terrorism. Eric McDavid served nine years in jail for allegedly plotting to blow up a dam before key documents suddenly appeared in 2015 proving that McDavid was coerced and entrapped into the plot by a person paid by the FBI to incite acts of terrorism (Kuipers 2015). In other cases, like John Burton Wade, his criminal actions would have not resulted in charges of terrorisms prior to these changes, according to professor of environmental Peter Manus and unnamed governmental officials (Baldwin 2008). Consider your own personal history with activism and organizations. If you have ever participated in anything as innocuous as a boycott or a peaceful protest, or been a member of an organization who has, you may be on a terrorist watchlist or classified as a terrorist without you ever knowing.

           Thusly, the simple answer to “is eco terrorism actually terrorism” is yes, technically it falls under terrorism and has been treated as such. However, classifying activism as terrorism is a major threat to human rights and civil liberties. Countless people have suffered under the government’s domestic anti-terrorism policies, and anyone could be next. By their own definitions, the FBI is far more of a terrorist organization than the ELF or any other eco terrorist could be.

        References

“Eco-Terror Incitments: ‘Operation Backfire’ Nets 11.” (Jan 20 2006). Federal Bureau of Investigation archive.

“Ecoterrorism: Extremism in the animal rights and environmental movements.” Anti-Defamation league (ADL).

“Hardline warrior in war to save the whale.” (Jan 10 2010) New Zealand Herald.

“How the USA Patriot Act redefines ‘domestic terrorism’.” ACLU.

“New documents show FBI targeting environmental and animal rights groups activities as ‘domestic terrorism’.” (Dec 20 2005). ACLU.

“Putting intel to work against ELF and ALF terrorists.” (June 6 2008). Federal Bureau of Investigation archive.

“What is international humanitarian law?” (Dec 2014) International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Baldwin, Brent (Feb 6 2008). “Wade’s War.” Style.

Downs, Stephen and Manley, Kathy (May 2014, updated 2017). Inventing Terrorists: The Lawfare of Preemptive Prosecution. Project SALAM AND National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). (2001). North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office. ELF.

Jarboe, James F. (Feb 12 2002). Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI, Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health “The Threat of Eco-Terrorism.” Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Kuipers, Dean (Jul 30 2015). “Exclusive: tough questions for Feds after they jailed an innocent man for nine years.” Take Part.

Loadenthal, Micheal (Jan 2013). ‘The Green Scare’ & ‘Eco-Terrorism’: The Development of US Counter-Terrorism Strategy Targeting Direct Action Activists. Research Gate.

Markon, Jerry (Sept 20 2010). “FBI probes were improper, Justice says.” Washington Post.

National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Response to Terrorism (START). Data Collection and the Definition of Terrorism. Global Terrorism Database.

United Nations General Assembly (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations.

US Code. Title 18. Code 2331.

Zamora, Jim Herron (June 12, 2002). “After 11 years, jury vindicates Earth First pair / FBI, Oakland officers must pay $4.4 million for civil rights abuses.” SF Gate.

[buzzdixonwriter]

Kitty Genovese And The Central Park Five

The recent death of Harlan Ellison brought Kitty Genovese to mind again, and the multiple lessons to be learned from both her case and another one.

Some background for those not familiar with the case: Kitty Genovese was a young New Yorker killed by an assailant early on the morning of March 13, 1964. 

Initial reports indicated a story far more horrifying than a simple murder: Supposedly up to 38 people had heard her screams for help and did nothing, not even call the police, allowing her assailant to stab her repeatedly until she died.

This cowardice and callousness made the story an international headline.  News anchors and pundits commented at length on this, and the story struck a nerve with Harlan Ellison in particular.

Ellison railed against a populace so timid, so sheep-like they would let one of their own be slaughtered without doing anything to help.  He based one of his best short stories (“The Whimper Of Whipped Dogs”) on the murder and harkened back to it again and again in other stories, essays, talks, and media appearances.

Ellison directed his outrage not at the silent witnesses in particular or in the murderer himself, but rather at the mindset that allowed the justification of doing nothing as another human was being murdered.

This was the popular version of the incident, that modern Americans, no longer feeling a communal link, “didn’t want to get involved” and allowed an innocent person to be murdered.

It was, to be sure, an easy story to believe.  Only 20 years earlier the world had to smash an evil reich that came to power when “good Germans” did nothing to oppose the tiny handful of radical racists among them.

It wasn’t that far fetched a leap to assume modern city dwellers, cowed by gangs and rampant crime, hid in their fortified apartments rather than risk anything -- even a phone call! -- to save an innocent victim.

And while the Genovese murder certainly fired Harlan’s imagination, he was far from the only one. Even more macho approaches to modern crime such as Dirty Harry and Death Wish used and condemned civilian timidity as  a touchstone. 

Ellison’s story and his impassioned speaking out on the topic urged people not to be like the Genovese witnesses but rather to have the courage to at least speak out when they saw harm and injustice inflicted on innocent people.

It would be an exaggeration to say Ellison directly influenced the Black Lives Matter movement, but his story and speaking certainly helped keep the story alive and that, however indirectly, urged people to speak out against wrong when they see it.

There’s only one problem with the popular view of the Genovese murder:  It didn’t happen that way.

People who heard Genovese being attack called the police.  True, many assumed it was a domestic dispute escalating beyond control, but nonetheless they called the police.  Some opened their windows and yelled at the attacker, trying to drive him off by telling him the police were on their way.

One brave woman raced down from her apartment to Genovese, comforting the dying woman in her final moments.

Nobody knows where the “38 witnesses” came from in the original story.  It was known within days of the murder that the initial report was grossly mistaken, that Genovese’s neighbors had not ignored her but tried to help by doing the right thing (i.e., calling the police).

But in the aftermath, nobody wanted to hear the facts.

The damning fiction rang truer than facts.

Almost exactly 25 years later, a similar crime shocked New Yorkers and the nation again.

A young woman jogging in Central Park was brutally assaulted.  While she fortunately survived and eventually recovered physically from her wounds, she could not recall the actual attack itself.

It was the capper to an extremely violent night, even by New York standards of the 1980s.  Up to 30 youths staged a series of assaults, robberies, and other crimes in and around Central Park that evening.

What is not clear is how coordinated these attacks were or the actual identities of those who participated.

Even the number of the attackers is open to question, based of victims’ and witnesses’ descriptions, not on verified identification.

New York -- both the populace and the authorities -- reacted with wholly justifiable outrage. Focusing on the jogger attack as emblematic of the entire evening, the authorities identified and arrested five teens -- four African-Americans, one Hispanic-American -- as the perpetrators of that particular attack and quickly secured confessions.

But just as speedily as the confessions were secured, they were recanted once The Central Park Five (as they came to be known) obtained legal representation.  The trials dragged on for several years, and during that time one Donald Trump led a virtual lynch mob against the five, urging the death penalty be restored even for cases where the victim wasn’t killed.

The five were convicted and despite their claims of innocence, spent several years in jail.

Donald Trump repeatedly cited them in particular and by name as the sort of “animals” society shouldn’t tolerate.

There’s only one problem with Trump’s view of the Central Park jogger case: The five young men accused didn’t do it.

The unfortunate female victim was attacked by a perpetrator who left his DNA behind, DNA that matched none of the Central Park Five.  The actual rapist, now serving a life sentence because of other rapes and a murder, voluntarily confessed to the crime and provided information only the perpetrator could know.

While the Central Park Five may have been engaged in some of the various crimes reported that evening, there is absolutely no evidence linking them to the jogger attack.

They were coerced into confessing without lawyers present, and if you have no problem with that, then someday may some cop who needs a patsy give you the third degree until you confess.

Trump to this day refuses to apologize for his personal attacks on the Central Park Five despite their proven innocence and legal vindication.

What’s the difference between Ellison and Trump?

Harlan, as best I know, never acknowledged he had been wrong in his understanding of the facts of the Genovese case.

Nonetheless, thought he was wrong, he was wrong for the right reasons, and in the right manner.

Ellison never led a lynch mob against the falsely accused witnesses as individuals.

He never identified them by name, he never doxed them, he never singled them out as agents of evil.

Rather, he attacked the perceived mindset that would allow such callous indifference to flourish.

And you know what? Nothing wrong with that.

He never said, “Make John Doe and Mary Roe pay for ignoring Kitty Genovese.”

Rather he said, “Don’t be the kind of person who could ignore Kitty Genovese.”

As noted above, there are in reality other far more horrific examples of indifference to suffering -- and on a far greater order of magnitude -- than the Kitty Genovese case.

That the facts of the actual murder don’t jibe with the story is immaterial in this case.

Genovese’s murder now serves as a parable of sorts, a vitally needed moral and ethical teaching.

“Don’t be the sort of person who ignores harm and injustice to others” is a valid lesson, regardless of the facts surrounding it.

Not to sound dismissive or like I’m trivializing a tragedy, but the popular conception of the Kitty Genovese’s murder is like a text book math problem in which John buys 12 cantaloupes and gives four of them away.

Neither John nor his cantaloupes exist in reality but the principle taught in the math problem is valid and valuable and can be applied to an infinite number of other situations.

Contrariwise, Trump stands for no principle except a distaste for minorities.

He stands for no higher principle, such as:  “Hold those guilty of such a crime accountable,” a valid principle regardless of who actually committed crimes or even if such a crime had actually been committed.

Rather, he stands punishing those whom he deems guilty no matter what the truth is.

Ellison, though wrong in the particulars, can still be right in his stance.

Trump, forever and ever, will always be wrong.

  © Buzz Dixon

[highlifestyleindia]

On the eve of a second trial pitting the Kardashian family against former reality TV star Blac Chyna, a deal has been reached. The trial over Chyna's allegations that her former boyfriend Rob Kardashian intentionally released nude images of her in 2017 following their traumatic breakup was supposed to begin Monday, but the parties told the judge that they had agreed to a settlement, according to court filings.

Attorneys for both sides did not immediately respond to emails requesting comment and specifics on the conditions of the settlement. After a judge last week refused Kardashian's attorneys' petition to enforce a settlement agreement the two parties claimed they had struck, a trial appeared to be a foregone conclusion.

The trial was to be a sort of follow-up to a defamation trial earlier this year, in which Chyna, whose legal name is Angela White, claimed that Kardashian's mother and sisters — Kris Jenner, Kim Kardashian, Khloé Kardashian, and Kylie Jenner — had defamed her as violent and unstable, leading to the cancellation of her reality show, Rob & Chyna.

On May 2, the Kardashians scored a resounding victory in that trial. The four ladies had been present for the majority of the hearings and had all testified, despite the fact that they were in New York for the Met Gala at the time the decision was read.

Rob Kardashian, who shares a kid with Chyna, was not a defendant in the trial, but he testified about the late-night brawl that ended their relationship.

Chyna had originally filed a single case against the entire family, but the judge ordered that Rob's allegations, which included assault allegations, should be heard separately. Only Rob and Kris Kardashian were slated to testify at the second trial, as fewer members of the famous family were expected to attend.

Jurors determined the Kardashians acted in bad faith in their interactions with producers of Rob & Chyna and executives from the E! network, which aired the show, regarding the couple's problems. However, they determined that it had no significant impact on Chyna's contract or the show's future, and she was not awarded any damages.

After the verdict, Chyna's lawyer, Lynne Ciani, said she and her client were disappointed, but felt vindicated by the jury's findings, which she said demonstrated that Chyna had not physically abused Rob and validated their claim that the Kardashian women had tried to interfere with her contract to be on the show.

[orbemnews]

When a Black homeowner concealed her race, her home's appraisal value doubled Suspicious that her race may have played a role she ordered another appraisal, but this time concealed that she is Black by removing family photos and other items indicating her race from her home and asking a White friend to pose as her brother when meeting with the appraiser. The appraised value more than doubled during the third appraisal, leading Duffy to file a Fair Housing complaint against the lenders and appraisers she had worked with alleging racial discrimination. Duffy purchased her home for about $100,000 three years ago and, given home price appreciation in her area, she expected her home’s value to be about $185,000 when she applied to refinance her loan in March of last year, according to the Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana, a housing non-profit that investigated her case and filed the complaint on her behalf. But her appraisal came back at only $125,000. A second appraisal from a different company was even lower at $110,000. She paid for a separate market analysis for her home, which concluded a possible list price of $187,000 and challenged both appraisals. But she was told the previous appraisal values would not be amended. “I felt completely defeated,” Duffy said. She began to wonder if her race was impacting how her home was being valued and the comparable properties that were being used. So she set up a fair housing test. When arranging for a third appraisal, she did not reveal her race or gender on the application, according to the complaint. She kept communication to email and told the appraiser that she would be out of town and her brother would be at her home during the appraisal. She removed photos of herself and her family, as well as African-American art and some books which might identify her race. Then a White friend posed as her brother and met the appraiser instead of her. That home appraisal valued her home at $259,000, nearly $150,000 more than her lowest appraisal. At first she felt vindicated, she said in an interview on CNN’s New Day. “It allowed me to see that I knew that I was right. But then you think about the fact that I had to remove myself from my home in order for my home to have value — that’s the part that really hurts,” she said. “It felt dehumanizing, it felt demoralizing.” Together with the local Fair Housing Center, Duffy alleges in complaints filed with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development that the lenders, appraisal companies and appraisers she worked with violated Fair Housing laws by allowing race and color to impact their appraisals or lending practices. The complaint alleges that the comparable home sales — or comps — used to value Duffy’s home were not fair because they were from homes located too far away or from neighborhoods with particular demographics. Those named in the complaint have denied to CNN that discrimination took place. As part of these filings HUD will conduct an investigation to determine whether there were any legal violations. Neighborhood impact The lower appraisals that Duffy alleges in her complaint have an impact — not just on her personal wealth and her home’s value, but on her entire neighborhood. Duffy lives in a historically Black neighborhood in Indianapolis where homeownership is often passed down to family members and fewer homes get put up for sale, said Amy Nelson, executive director of the FHCCI, in an interview on CNN’s New Day. “There aren’t a lot of comps,” she said. “But her neighborhood shouldn’t be devalued because of that or because of the race of her particular neighborhood, when we have seen the neighborhoods of those around her gentrify.” Research has shown that homes in largely Black neighborhoods are valued less than homes in mainly White areas, even when housing type and income of the areas are the same. In the average US neighborhoods where the share of the population is 50% Black, homes are valued at roughly half the price of homes in neighborhoods with no Black residents, according to recent research from the Brookings Institute. Homes in majority Black neighborhoods in the US have been undervalued by an average of $46,000 over nearly a decade, according to a recent analysis by Redfin. The firm looked at more than 73 million single-family homes listed and sold between January 2013 and February 2021 and found a major gap between houses sold in Black and White neighborhoods. And the disparity seems to be getting worse. A separate study found that the racial composition of a neighborhood is affecting values now even more than it was 40 years ago, with the appraisal gap roughly doubling since 1980. The gap between average home appraisals in majority White neighborhoods and those that are mainly Black and Latina was $164,000 in 2015, up from about $86,000 in 1980, according to a study from sociologists Junia Howell at the University of Pittsburgh and Elizabeth Korver-Glenn at the University of New Mexico. The researchers conclude that this growing gap is primarily due to appraising practices, including the use of sale comparisons, which has allowed appraisals impacted by race and appraisers’ assumptions about neighborhoods to devalue communities of color. “In the past year, we have heard stories across our country of African Americans questioning the appraisal process and the values assigned to their homes,” said Noe Rojas, director of systemic investigations at the FHCCI. “This shows how systemic racism continues to haunt neighborhoods of color.” Source link Orbem News #appraisal #Black #concealed #doubled #herhome'sappraisalvaluedoubled-CNN #homeowner #homes #Race #WhenaBlackhomeownerconcealedherrace

[soulstealer1987]

Interlude: Enthir

Ziist Grozein

While Gallus is on his way to Dawnstar, someone else who may or may not have known him pre-amnesia is still trying to wrap his head around the fact that Gallus is, apparently, not dead.

Crossposted from AO3. Masterpost is here.

Arc 1, Chapter 11 ~ Arc 2, Chapter 1

Enthir’s last few weeks have been… stressful, to say the least. Stressful might not be the right word, but what is the right word for absolutely everything going to shit at once and someone you’d long since given up for dead turning up alive, well, and apparently with a bad case of amnesia. That last part’s a given, because the fact that Gallus didn't recognize him was a rather obvious indication of that. There's also the fact that Gallus looks a little too similar to how he'd looked the last time Enthir had seen him in person, which was over twenty-five years ago.

Gallus should be an old man by now, not to mention very dead. Enthir never saw his old friend’s body, but he'd spoken to someone who had. Someone who may or may not have had a hand in Gallus’ death.

Someone by the name of Mercer Frey.

When he'd taken over leadership of the Thieves Guild, things began going downhill almost immediately, almost like something or someone had it in for him. Being a mage himself, Enthir knew a curse when he saw one, and so he distanced himself from the Thieves Guild. It retrospect, it was one of the best decisions he'd made for some time, although that didn't keep him from feeling a little bad about it. They'd only just managed to stay afloat for the past few years, after all, and it had gotten to the point where Enthir was beginning to wonder how much longer they could keep this up for.

Of course, if Gallus was alive - amnesia or no - this changed everything. Enthir considered contacting Mercer for a time, except that Enthir doubted it was an accident that the Guild had begun going downhill as soon as Mercer became Guildmaster, and he was reasonably certain that Gallus hadn't trusted Mercer for some time before his death. Personally, Enthir had never trusted the man, but the vindication from being right was vastly overshadowed by the tragedy of Gallus’ death.

Except, Gallus wasn't dead. Enthir suspected some sort of magic was involved, because people didn't just come back from the dead. Regardless, someone needed to know, and if not Mercer…

Karliah.

For a time, Enthir wasn't entirely sure how he would meet with her, or even get in touch with her to begin with. After all, rumor had it she'd fled to Morrowind, where she could disappear easily. However, Enthir suspected she had not, because if he knew her at all, if Mercer was lying through his teeth about the circumstances surrounding Gallus' death, she would be searching for a way to bring him down.

Eventually, Enthir recalled a dead drop just outside Winterhold, one that supposedly, only he and Gallus had known of, and used to communicate occasionally. (Gallus had always been… paranoid, which made the circumstances surrounding his death more suspicious.) Somehow, Enthir suspected that Karliah too knew of it, and with that in mind, he left a letter there in the faint hope that she would actually check it.

The night after Gallus left for Dawnstar, when Enthir had all but given up hope on getting in touch with Karliah, was the night a hooded figure that was unmistakably her stepped into the Frozen Hearth.

Enthir was having a drink with Nelecar, listening to his complaints about the soul gem that had gotten him and others kicked out of the College, when he saw her enter, and take a seat at a table somewhat obscured from the entrance. Enthir hastily excused himself, made his way over, and sat across from her.

“Enthir,” she greets evenly, and any doubt Enthir had that this was her evaporates. It's been twenty-five years, but she looks much the same as she did before everything went wrong. The main difference is the grief written all over her face and especially visible in her signature violet eyes.

She’s still mourning Gallus, Enthir realizes, even after all this time. As far as Enthir knew, Mercer hadn't mourned Gallus at all. Some could have attributed it to a need to move on, Enthir supposed, but he knew better. With that in mind, a ny remaining doubt Enthir might have had about Karliah herself and whether she could be trusted evaporates as well.

“Karliah,” Enthir replies in the same, even tone of voice. “I was beginning to think you wouldn't come.” Karliah’s gaze meets his, and Enthir doesn't look away.

“I considered not coming,” Karliah says, and her gaze, already piercing, hardens. “If this is a trap-”

“This is no trap,” Enthir says a little too quickly. Karliah only looks more suspicious, and Enthir winces. “Look, I am, and always have been, Gallus’ friend first. I never trusted Mercer.” Apparently, that was the right thing to say, as Karliah visibly relaxes. She's still very much on edge, but at least now she doesn't look like she'll disappear into thin air on him.

“You know, then.”

Enthir shrugs, and says, “I do now.”

“Oh,” Karliah says, quietly. She looks to the ground, then back at Enthir. “I… as nice as it is to catch up, you said you had something important to discuss.”

“I did,” Enthir agrees.

“What...?”

Well, Enthir could just tell her outright that Gallus is alive, but for one thing he has no idea how Karliah is going to react, and for another…

“Enthir?” Karliah asks, and his decision’s made. He gulps. While he'd like to think he can keep a level head in any situation, ‘any situation’ clearly doesn't extend to informing his dead friend’s lover that said dead friend may not actually be dead. “What is-?”

“Were you there when Gallus died?” Enthir blurts, and internally curses. Karliah’s eyes go wide. Enthir’s don't, but clearly neither of them were expecting this question.

“Yes,” Karliah says softly. “He was meeting with Mercer at a Nordic ruin north of Windhelm, alone. He made that quite clear, and yet… I followed him. I watched him looking for Mercer, and… he never stood a chance. One moment, he was looking around, wondering where Mercer was, and the next, Mercer had stabbed him in the back. I… if I'd moved then, I might have been able to save him.”

She stops talking, staring off into space, and Enthir can tell she's reliving what happened. He clears his throat.

“What happened after?” Enthir prompts, partially out of curiosity, and partially because if this is what happened… how in Oblivion is Gallus still alive? Magic must be involved, then, although Enthir supposes that if Gallus hadn't died in the first place that he wouldn't look the same as he did then. Things would be much, much simpler if there was some way for him to have not died in the first place.

“By the time I’d managed to move… he'd dumped his body down a hole, into the ruins below. That's when I attacked.” Karliah smiles sadly. “I almost killed him, too.” She doesn't offer any more details, and Enthir doesn’t press for any more. Instead, he decides… it’s time he got to the point.

“Did you see him die?” Enthir asks quietly, and much to his dismay, he’s greeted with a nod.

“I didn’t want to believe it until the end, I still don’t, but… he died quickly,” Karliah says. “By the time Mercer… got rid of his body, he was quite dead.” Enthir’s heart sinks. Karliah might be a thief, but she doesn’t stretch the truth. If she believes she saw Gallus die, then chances are that he did… which makes Gallus being alive, albeit with amnesia, even stranger. Magic has to be involved... either that, or Karliah didn't see what she thought she saw.

“Are you sure?” Enthir asks.

Anger blazes in Karliah’s eyes, replacing the quiet melancholy in them up to now, and Enthir has just enough time to realize he’s made a mistake before she’s stood, and she’s drawn her bow, and Enthir soon finds himself staring down the shaft of an arrow aimed at his throat. He gulps.

“Enough of this,” she says. There’s more than a bit of bitterness in her words, and Enthir could guess at why, if of course he wasn’t staring down the shaft of an arrow that may well be his doom if he doesn’t get his act together fast. “You implied in your letter that you had something important to tell me. Tell it. Now.” Enthir nods.

“You’re not going to believe me,” Enthir says. “I wouldn’t have if I were in your position.” Karliah narrows her eyes.

“Try me,” she says.

“Gallus is alive,” Enthir blurts out, and Karliah freezes. Anger turns to shock, but swiftly becomes anger again. She doesn’t lower the bow. Instead, she pulls the arrow back further, and while Enthir will never admit this, he’s on the verge of soiling himself. He’d always known Karliah as the soft-spoken Dunmer girl who practically worshipped the ground Gallus walked on, and who eventually became a proficient thief in her own right.

Clearly, these twenty-five years have changed her, and it’s debatable whether it’s for the better.

“This isn’t funny, Enthir,” Karliah says.

“I’m telling the truth, I’ll swear on anything you like,” Enthir says, raising his hands in the universal gesture of surrender in a last, desperate attempt to convince her, “and I don’t know how, but he is, I swear.” Karliah regards him for a few, tense seconds, then silently puts the bow away, puts the arrow back into her quiver, and takes a seat like nothing happened. Enthir risks a glance towards the bar, and realizes that the bartender’s left, probably when she drew her bow on him. He doesn’t blame the man.

As he lets out a breath he didn’t realize he was holding, Enthir makes a mental note to slip a few extra septims into Dagur’s pockets when he gets the chance. The guy deserves it for putting up with the dubiously legal deals he can't conduct within College grounds.

Karliah’s been silent for some time now, and eventually, cautiously, Enthir risks a look up at her. Her hood does little to hide the hope in her eyes, although she quickly masks it with skepticism.

“I wish I could believe you,” she says softly, “but I already told you… I watched him die.” Enthir nods.

“I know,” Enthir says. “I’m not arguing that. I don’t know how he’s alive, but if you watched him die, then magic’s likely involved. What kind, I don’t know. The closest any conjurer can achieve would be a mindless thrall, and Gallus clearly isn’t that.”

Karliah blinks hard. “So he… Nocturnal’s grace, he must hate me.” (Enthir raises an eyebrow at this, but says nothing.) “So he’s… here? In the College?”

“He was, until yesterday,” Enthir says. ”I don’t know that he’d recognize you, however. He didn’t recognize me.”

“What do you…” Karliah trails off as she realizes just what Enthir might be saying, and her gaze falls to the table. She glances up again, and slowly, Enthir nods.

“Amnesia,” Enthir confirms. “Took a bit of asking around, but word is that he showed up some time ago knowing nothing but his name, and hoping to find out more about himself. I was… out, at the time, unfortunately, when he first arrived.”

“Shadows preserve us,” Karliah swears under her breath. “He must be so lost…” Despite the fact that she’d looked very ready to kill him if need be just minutes before, Enthir offers her a reassuring smile. While the years clearly haven’t been kind to her, she’s still very clearly the same Dunmer girl who thought the world of Gallus, and still does.

He hopes, for both of their sakes, that she can figure things out.

“Then you should go find him,” Enthir says. “He’s left for Dawnstar, in the hope that someone there might be able to help with his amnesia. Even if he doesn’t remember you, he’d be significantly less lost with someone to help.” Karliah takes a shaky breath, and slowly, carefully, shakes her head.

“I-I couldn’t,” she says. “After what… what happened, I… don’t think I can face him.”

Enthir sighs.

“Then don’t,” Enthir says. “Protect him from the shadows. Keep him from dying a second time. As I said… Dawnstar. If you hurry, you’ll be able to catch up with him.”

Karliah nods, slowly, deliberately, and stands.

“I think… I’ll do that,” she says softly. “Enthir… thank you. Words can’t express…”

“It’s quite alright, Karliah,” Enthir replies. “You don’t have to say a word. Just… I’d appreciate it if you’d try not to draw your bow on me in the future.” Karliah nods, and has the decency to look sheepish.

“Sorry about that,” she says. “I’ll just…”

“Get going?” Enthir offers. She nods.

“Thank you,” she says, and is out the door in a quiet, sneaky flash. Enthir doesn't go back to the College immediately. Instead, he waits for Dagur to come out, and when he does, he orders another drink. Partially because he needs it, and partially because the man could use the coin. Even as he drinks it, his thoughts go to Gallus, and by extension, Karliah.

That night is the last he sees of her for a long time, although it's not quite as long a wait as before.