#sue ek

[tomorrowusa]

Another reminder that every vote counts.

In Minnesota House of Representatives District 54A, DFL incumbent Brad Tabke has apparently beaten GOP challenger Aaron Paul by 15 votes. In Minnesota, DFL = Democratic.

This was determined after a hand recount. If Tabke had lost, Republicans would have flipped the chamber. But with Tabke's victory, the DFL and GOP would likely be tied in the House and must work out a power sharing agreement.

In a race that could determine control of the Minnesota House, state Rep. Brad Tabke, DFL-Shakopee, has won reelection after narrowly defeating Republican challenger Aaron Paul by 15 votes after election officials recounted thousands of votes by hand on Thursday. The results are unofficial because 4 ballots are still in dispute. Tabke’s margin of victory widened by one vote from an earlier count.  A lawyer representing Paul suggested that he may challenge the results in court but said he wants to discuss the matter with Paul first. Paul asked for the recount after election officials rescanned thousands of ballots days after the election because they discovered a ballot screening malfunction. Election officials are also investigating the loss of 21 physical absentee ballots. Scott County elections officials spent Thursday hand counting thousands of ballots under the watchful eyes of campaign representatives for Tabke and Paul. As election judges sorted and reviewed ballots at eight different tables, partisan representatives disagreed four times with the election judges’ assessment.  Those so-called challenged ballots will be reviewed on Monday when the Scott County Canvassing Board meets to certify the election. Tabke’s victory means there’s an even greater likelihood that Republicans and Democrats will share power in the Minnesota House. After this month’s election, the two parties won 67 seats each pending recounts in Scott County and another legislative race in Sherburne County. 

That race alluded to in Sherburne County is House district 14B. DFL candidate Dan Wolgamott has 10,005 votes (50.36%), Republican Sue Ek has 9,814 votes (49.40%) and there are 48 stupid write-in votes. The DFL is likely to win the recount there.

Historically, hand recounts don’t result in a meaningful change in votes because the scanning machines are very accurate. As the recount was occurring, Democratic Gov. Tim Walz and legislative leaders met to discuss their plans for the upcoming session. Since Democrats will no longer control the House, there will have to be bipartisan agreement to pass a two-year budget next year.  [ ... ] Democrats hold a one seat majority in the state Senate. The Legislature is scheduled to convene on Jan. 14. 

[sheathnknife]

the vampire diaries 8.16 // louise gluck, crossroads

“and damon, like the voiceover tell us, he was worried he would never see stefan again. it was just elena assuring him that there would be peace. that we’ve dealt with this other side of darkness for several seasons, but there’s also light out there and there’s peace, and damon will find it. if you search for it, you will find it. and we wanted to get that last moment to see that [...] damon found it too, and it looked just like his brother.” — kevin williamson

[poorly-drawn-ace-attorney]

today: what's this? a cuneiform tablet? and who's that on it? ...no...it couldn't be...

[twig-tea]

GL odds and ends 6 October 2024

I haven't been as good at posting about shows as I wanted to be, so I'm trying a round-up format instead because it feels like a lot of GLs skirt under the radar. It's exciting that we're in a time when there's enough GL airing that it's worth doing a round-up! This was a great week for the lesbians to figure themselves out, so it feels like a good week to start. No idea how regularly I'll do this, need to figure out a cadence that makes sense.

Currently airing (with thoughts up to Oct 6):

Reverse 4 U 5/8 (Thai, Tuesdays 1:00 PM EDT, Netflix / YouTube) This week the girls finally sorted themselves and we got set up for the main plot to start next week. I was initially really stoked about this one and then a little bummed that it's not taking it's very cool premise and the stakes it establishes as seriously as it could be, but I'm still hoping it will start to have real stakes in the main plot stretch.

The Two of Us s2 ep 6/6 END (Thai, 29 Aug-3 Oct 2024, YouTube) It was so great seeing women in their 40s being romantic together but I did not love the plot of this one; I find their romantic conflicts too juvenile (lots of easily-triggered jealousy). The moments they're being sweet are great though.

Unlock Your Love ep 4/8 (Thai, Wednesdays, GagaOOLala / YouTube [cut version]) This is the first episode that this series felt a little more assured; I liked the series this production company produced with a short run time, it feels like this series has been worse off for its longer episodes. That being said, when these couples get to do their thing like in this episode, they have good chemistry.

Chaser Game W s2 ep 3/8 (Japanese, Thursdays 12:30 PM EDT, GagaOOLala) @lurkingshan is already doing a great summary of this week to week in her JQL weekly round-up!

Affair the series ep 6/8 (Thai, Fridays 11:15 AM EDT, iQIYI/ YouTube) Finally! I liked that it was Ek pointing out that Wan was unhappy the entire time she was gone that finally got Pleng to give in to her desire to be with Wan. This show is so melodramatic but the emotional threads follow and the character motivations are clear and consistent; I'm enjoying it in spite of not loving melodramatic storylines in general. It helps that the acting in this one is excellent.

The Loyal Pin ep 10/16 (Thai, Sundays 12:15 PM EDT, YouTube) Glad we finally got confirmation of Patt's history! And I'm relieved Anin knows she has an ally, though I feel like it's given her false confidence that worries me. These two are stressing me out by how bad they are at being careful but I do love how desperate they are for each other, as well as how beautiful this show is.

Red Whisper ep 2/8 (Korea, Wednesdays and Sundays, YouTube) Starting with cheating is not my fave but is par for the course with these SukFilm short series; my fave so far has been their first GL so if you haven't seen that yet I'd honestly recommend that instead.

Recent One-offs

Out of Breath (re-release in a bingeable version; Korean, YouTube) Highly recommended! Also the creator, Soo not Sue, announced she's working on another series to hopefully air before the end of the year, which I am super stoked about.

The Suffering of Xiqing Mountain (Chinese (censored), YouTube)

Sastra film app YouTube channel has several short Cambodian GL series that come out weekly Honestly they are not to my taste but I don't like gatekeeping GL especially from smaller markets. I check in on these time to time and if there are any that I think are great I'll give them a shout-out

Ditto above with JPC media YouTube channel for Thai GL shorts if there are any that stand out to me I'll say so

Recently ended that I haven't had the wherewithal to write about:

Hoshikuzu Telepath (fansub) Thank you to @yuiyuihan for your hard work making it possible to watch this series! I I haven't read the original manga but I do know they changed the kiss communication to a forehead rest; Unsurprised that this adaptation, starring idols in the same group, would be left ambiguous in terms of whether their feelings are friendly or romantic. I liked what this series was trying to say, but in all honestly didn't love the execution. It's too bad because I absolutely love the concept of an alien being helped by girls obsessed with building rockets.

The Secret of Us 8 eps [complete] (24 Jun-15 Aug 2024, YouTube) I first included this in my recommendations from the summer and then retracted, but I ended up liking this series and then never updated again. So to set the record straight: Though it lost me in the middle, the ending on this series won be back over. I really appreciated the way this series handled filial piety and balancing that against personal happiness. I appreciated SO MUCH that the main characters decided together how to handle Lada's situation with her mother. I finally understood too late that Earn believed the lies Lada's mother told her in ep1, and that affected some of their decisions in the middle of the series. I still think the execution was wobbly, but the acting and chemistry between the two leads carries this series through. This has some of the best domestic fluff in any GL, as well as my favourite GL counter lift to date. And it's gorgeous. Tentatively recommended with the caveat that you do have to either enjoy or power through the melodrama in the middle.

Starting soon:

Apple My Love, Thai, 12 October, GagaOOLala

Pluto, Thai, 19 October, VIU

The Nipple Talk, Taiwanese, 1 November GagaOOLala

My Ex's Wedding [in theatres in Thailand 14 November]

Petrichor, Thai, 23 November, TBD

[thelastspeecher]

I've been on a bit of a Foster Ford AU kick lately, and managed to get a little something something written up. Not featuring Ford, though. No, this particular write explains what Stan is up to in the Foster Ford AU. Enjoy.

———————————————————————————————————–

              Stan sat morosely on the swing, staring out at the ocean.  The Stanmobile was parked nearby, waiting for Stan to get in and finally leave Glass Shard Beach.  At this point, Stan had accepted that no one was going to come get him.  He was out for good.  But before he left, he wanted to stop by the swings one last time.

              Someone sat on the swing next to him.  Stan’s head whipped around eagerly, his heart pounded.  He blinked in surprise.  It wasn’t Ford, but he wasn’t completely disappointed by who it was.

              “Shermie?” he asked.  Shermie forced a smile at Stan.

              “Hey, kid.”

              “Don’t call me kid,” Stan muttered instinctively.  He looked away.  “Are you here to chew me out, too?”

              “No!”  Shermie sounded scandalized by the idea.  “I just…I wanted to check on you.”  Stan grunted wordlessly.  “I dropped by the shop today and Mom and Pops told me what happened.  Where have you been staying?”

              “Where do you think?” Stan asked.  He nodded at the Stanmobile.  Shermie sighed.

              “That’s what I was worried about.”  Shermie paused.  “You know what happened was wrong, right?”

              “Yeah, fucking up Ford’s experiment was wrong, they made that pretty clear.”

              “Not what I’m talking about.  Stan, they shouldn’t have kicked you out over that,” Shermie said firmly.  Stan tensed.  “And I’m definitely not gonna let you live in your car because of it.”

              “I don’t need charity.”

              “It’s not charity.  You’re my little brother.  I’m supposed to protect you.”  Shermie sighed heavily.  “I haven’t been doing a great job of it.  Pops…”

              “Pops is just strict.”

              “No, he’s not,” Shermie said softly.  “And the fact you think that is proof I haven’t been taking care of you right.”  Shermie looked at Stan.  “You’re gonna stay with me for a while.”

              “I told you, I don’t need-”

              “Yeah, you did tell me that.  But you’re wrong.  C’mon.  Amelia is making pasta tonight.”  Shermie stood up.  Stan stayed on the swing.  “Caleb’s gonna be excited to see you.”  At the mention of his nephew, Stan couldn’t help the small grin that eked its way onto his face.

              “Fine.  I’ll come for dinner with Caleb.  But that’s it.”  Both Stan and Shermie knew Stan would be staying for more than just dinner, but Shermie played along.

              “Sure.”

-----

              Caleb babbled happily from his playpen, which Stan had dubbed Baby Jail.

              “I’ll play with you in a bit,” Stan said.  He set down a box of plates on the kitchen table.  “Big strong Uncle Stan has to help your dad move everything in.”

              “Big strong Uncle Stan, huh?” Shermie asked, setting down his own box.  Shermie, his wife Amelia, his son Caleb, and Stan had just moved across the country.  Shermie got an offer he couldn’t refuse in San Diego, and Stan was more than happy to get some space from New Jersey.  “I’m not so sure about that.”

              “What are you talking about?” Stan scoffed.  Shermie poked Stan’s bicep.

              “You’re out of practice, kid.”

              “Didn’t feel like going to the gym back home, sue me,” Stan muttered.  Filbrick was a regular at the boxing club Stan used to practice at.

              “There’s plenty of places around where you can pick up boxing again,” Amelia said.  She opened the box of plates and began to put them away in the kitchen cabinets.  “Between that and classes, you should make some new friends fast!”

              “…Classes?” Stan asked.

              “You’re gonna get your GED,” Shermie said.

              “Since when?”

              “Since always.  The only reason I didn’t push it back in Jersey was because I didn’t want you to feel embarrassed.”

              “I’m fine without a high school degree!”

              “Stan, you can’t just spend your life staying home with Caleb and boxing,” Amelia said, kindly but firmly.  “You need to get a job at some point, and you’ll only get a decent one with a diploma.”

              “I’m gonna fail.  The only reason I passed back home was because I cheated off Ford,” Stan insisted.  Shermie ruffled his hair.

              “I’m a teacher, remember?  I’ll help you get that passing grade without cheating.”

              “Fine,” Stan muttered.  He glowered at his brother and sister-in-law.  “But only because of the whole job thing.  I’m not gonna leech off you guys.”

              “And we appreciate that,” Shermie teased.  Stan rolled his eyes and went back to the moving truck to get another box.

-----

              “Rainy one, isn’t it?” remarked Stan’s chatty coworker, Chris.  Stan looked out the windows of the coffee shop.  Vague figures could be barely made out through the sheets of rain.

              “Where’d you get that idea?” Stan asked dryly.  Working in a coffee shop wasn’t his dream, but in San Diego, it was the highest paid part-time position he could get with a high school degree.  He had to pay for classes somehow.  Getting his GED without cheating had awoken something in Stan, and he wanted to see how far he could go.  As long as he stopped with community college.

              “You’re not the best conversation,” Chris said.

              “Chris, it’s five in the morning.”  The bell over the door jingled.  A short woman wearing a yellow raincoat and matching rain boots walked in.  She lowered the hood of her coat.  She had caramel-colored hair cropped in a bob hairstyle and dyed partially pink.  Her long, narrow nose took up much of her face, and even had a few raindrops that had snuck past her hood on the end.  Stan’s heart began to race.

              Shit, she’s cute.  The woman walked up to the counter and ordered a drink from Chris.

              “A large hot ch-” Chris began to relay to Stan.

              “I heard,” Stan interrupted, already working on the hot chocolate.  The woman giggled.  Like he usually did when making drinks for pretty ladies, Stan added extra whipped cream on top of the drink.  The woman took the drink from him.  Her eyes widened when she noticed the extra whipped cream.  She smiled at him sweetly.

              Stan grinned back.

-----

              “What are ya studyin’?” Angie asked.  She had become a regular after that morning in the coffee shop, and before long, she and Stan swapped numbers.  They had officially been going out for a month now.

              “College,” Stan replied.  Angie’s hectic schedule didn’t allow for extravagant dates, so today’s date was another walk by the harbor.  Angie rolled her eyes at Stan’s non-answer.

              “Surely yer takin’ some more specific classes than just gen eds,” Angie said.

              “No, not really.”

              “Ya haven’t figured out yet what ya want to do with yer degree?”

              “Get a job.”

              “But what kind of job?” Angie pressed.  Stan winced.  Angie cocked her head.  “Yer not fibbin’, are ya?”

              “If I was?”

              “Well, I’d be awful disappointed,” Angie drawled, her southern accent especially strong.  Stan suspected she played up her accent at times to sway him, since she knew he liked it.

              “I’ll tell you, but you have to promise not to make fun of me,” Stan said.  Angie nodded.  “I…I wanna be a gym teacher.”

              “Why would I make fun of that?” Angie asked.  “Teachin’ is noble!”

              “Getting a gym teacher degree at a community college?  That’s the setup for a punchline,” Stan said.

              “I strongly disagree,” Angie said.  She intwined her fingers with Stan’s.  “What made ya decide to do that?”

              “I took an intro class in it for an easy A,” Stan said with a shrug.  “Turns out I like it and I’m good at it.”  Stan raised an eyebrow at Angie.  “What about you?”  Angie went to a fancy four-year school, so he didn’t have her in any classes or see her on campus.

              “Biology with an emphasis in herpetology.”

              “An emphasis in what?”

              “Herpetology.  It’s the study of reptiles and amphibians.”

              “Ah, you’re getting a degree in lizards.  Got it,” Stan said, nodding.  Angie giggled.

              “So, when do I get to meet yer folks?” Angie asked playfully.  Cold water spread through Stan’s veins.  He forced a grin, trying to hide his reaction to Angie’s question.

              “You can meet my brother any time.  He keeps asking me when I’m gonna bring you home.”  Judging by Angie’s furrowed brow, she picked up on the careful dodge.  But she moved on without comment.

              “That sounds lovely.  We should set it up!”

-----

              Stan peered over Angie’s shoulder, looking at the papers she had strewn across the kitchen table.

              “I didn’t realize lizard school would be so tough,” he commented.  Angie sighed.

              “Serves me right fer decidin’ to do advanced lizard school,” she complained.  Stan kissed the top of her head.  She turned partway to look at him, then slapped her forehead.  “Today’s yer first day at yer new job, ain’t it?”

              “Yep,” Stan said, taking a sip from his mug of coffee.

              “I’m sorry, I should’ve made ya breakfast to celebrate!”

              “Pfft, what am I, five?” Stan scoffed.  He drained the rest of his mug and set it in the sink.

              “Still!”  Angie shook her head.  “I’ll make ya somethin’ nice fer dinner to make up fer it, okay?”

              “Sounds great, babe.”  Stan squinted at the paperwork.  He couldn’t understand any of it.  “Don’t pull your hair out over those lizards.”

              “Ugh, it’s the students more ‘n the lizards what are botherin’ me,” Angie muttered.  She got up to kiss Stan on the cheek and then sat back down.  “Take off yer ring durin’ class.  I’d hate fer it to fall off and get lost.”

              “It’s a fancy school for rich smart kids,” Stan said.  “None of them are gonna want my wedding ring.”

              “I wasn’t sayin’ yer students would steal from ya.  More that no one would be able to find it ‘cause it got stuck in somethin’.”  Angie raised an eyebrow.  “It prob’ly ain’t in yer best interests to imply yer students are thieves, Mr. Pines.”

              “Fine, Mrs. McGucket-Pines,” Stan teased back before grabbing his lunch from the fridge and the Stanmobile’s keys off the hook by the front door.  He planted a kiss on Angie’s cheek.  “See you after school.”

[daenerysoftarth]

TBH someone should sue the IRS for discrimination because the way they’ll crack the hammer down on poor people just trying to eke by but not on multimillionaires who proudly flaunt the law is just federally endorsed discrimination

[ananglishliker]

A further step with Anglish

Folk like Anglish for it doesn't brook the borrowed words, for it is a lutterer English. But there's something that unformithely comes along when swaping out ellandish words with those from the same tongue kinfolk: foroldness.

And this seems to be something Anglish-followers like, for I found an almost fulwrought foroldening of English staffcraft. And I'm not going to hide that I'm one of those who like foroldening, and that I liked to know about this deeper back-to-the-roots.

I'll be talking about was changed in this forolder Anglish here. I'll be reckoning the links to a more throughgone writ in the end of this writing.

Staffrow (Alphabet)

Only two bookstaffs are eked: Ƿƿ (/w/) and Þþ (/θ/, /ð/). Yes, it's not that gripping, but things truly get started with the switches!

⟨c⟩ as /s/ > s (cinder > sinder)

⟨ch⟩ & ⟨tch⟩ as /tʃ/ > c/ce (chin > cin/choke > ceoke)

⟨dge⟩ as /dʒ/ > dg (bridge >A curious mind is a terrible curse bridg)

⟨gh⟩ as yoreloreish [x~ɣ] > g (high > hig/night > nigt)

⟨ie⟩ as /i/ > ee (field > feeld)

⟨le⟩ as /əl/ > el (neetle > neetel)

⟨o⟩ as /ʌ/ > u (son > sun/some > sum)

⟨ou⟩ & ⟨ow⟩ as /aʊ/ > u/ue/uCe (hound > hund/sow > sue/loud > lude)

⟨ough⟩ as /aʊ/ & /ʌf/ > uge (plough > pluge/tough > tuge)

⟨qu⟩ as /kw/ > cƿ (queen > cƿeen)

⟨sc⟩ as /sk/ > sk (score > skore)

⟨sh⟩ as /ʃ/ > sc (ship > scip)

⟨th⟩ as /θ/ or /ð/ > þ (the > þe)

⟨u⟩ as yoreloreish /ju/ > eƿ (hue > heƿ)

⟨u⟩ as /ɜ/ > e/i (bury > berry/burden > berden)

v as /v/ > f (leave > leaf/over > ofer)

w > ƿ (water > ƿater)

⟨wh⟩ as yoreloreish /hw/ > hƿ (whelp hƿelp)

y as /j/ > g/ge (yes > ges/yore > geore)

⟨z⟩ as /z/ > s (graze > grase/fizzy > fisy)

Retchings for why it was switched to that in the link reckoning below.

Can you already see the forolderlooking from this? Here's a wordset I'll be brooking as forebisen:

Unforolded: The tough errand to dodge through the crowded boughs of a fern oak tree thared skill and lastingness. Forolded: Þe tuge errand to dodg þruge þe crueded buges of an fern oak tree þared skill and lastingness.

That truly pleases me and is aslaking seeing English truly looking like a Germanish tongue. I thought about writing in a more and more forolded way as I reckon the changes, but, for the sake of a flowsome reading for the reader, I'll leave this list aside, but, if you'd like to read wordsets looking as such, there are sere in the from leaf at the end of this upload.

This switching might be enough for some, but there are those, like me, who would like to go even further and see, too, a forolded speechcraft.

Theedness and some throughnesses (Conjugations and some details)

Before we get started with theedness, we understandendly will be brooking the forename "thou". A forolded theedness may be known for all, since it can be outlined through the twoth and the third atell:

Twoth: anward > -est; forthwitten > -edst

Third: anward > -eth

And that's all, hence you can make any wordset:

"The man giveth the boy a book"

"A woman walketh through the woods"

Underyet: there are some sunderly shapes: doth (does, spoke /dʌθ/), hath (has), saith (says, spoke /sɛθ/).

Asking

To make asks, we will leave out the ask markers "do" and "does". Instead, we'll put the tideword in the beginning of the wordset, as one does in Deutsch:

Does he know the answer? > Knoweth he the answer?

Where do you live? > Where livest thou?

Ofolder and chirten.

Naying

Also in naying wordsets "do" and "does" swind. Instead, we use "not" after the main tideword:

I know not.

He came not.

With wrayingly, the ea is putting "not" after a wrayingly forename, but before a meanname:

I love him not.

I have not the book.

If the wordset has a underwordset, "not" will be right before the latter:

The king thought not that he was in any danger.

Byings and kins (Declinations and genders)

Here is the knottiest thing to learn, though not the hardest - you'll only need some time. Byings and kins are a widegale ken, which, for me at least, is the most gripping thing in speechcraft, for it's where the tongue shapechanges the most.

The first thing we need to know is that English wonted to have kins: werely, wifely and neither. And byings: nemmeningly, wrayingly, streeningly and forgivendly. And it turns out not only the meannames, but also the beckoningly forenames, lithwords and ekends had their own kin and bying bendings. Although Anglish doesn't brook the forgivendly bying.

Unheeding the thoughts of how these bendings would have grew and going right to the retching way English would look like today, we have:

Markoff lithword

Unmarkoff lithword

Ekends

But ekends are not that ofold though. It's said the strong-weak shed would have likely been kept. So ekends can be either strong or weak, and their bending changes for it. Although we can overlook the weak one and brook the strong one only, I'll be brooking both for the sake of a rawer forolding.

On the other hand, the ea to bend it is easy: weak ekends are those whose meanname is with a lithword, kithing forename or it's in streeningly; strong ekends are those that are unmarkoff. Here is the bending:

With these changes, let us take a look at what our bisen wordset looks like now:

Unforolded: The tough errand to dodge through the crowded boughs of a fern oak tree thared skill and lastingness.

Forolded: Þe tuge errand to dodg þruge þe cruededen bugen annes fernes oakes trees þared skill and lastingness.

Dealnimmends (Participles)

Dealnimmends are like the ekends, and as such they would be bended with the same endings, if there were not an unbiseniness in them:

Kithings (Demonstratives)

The kithings, since they are also ekendish, also are bent:

Rimes (Numbers)

Believe it or not, rimes wonted to be bent in the past. The rimes "one, for some ground, were the only ones that are bent. Rimes are either mainly or endbirdly. And, since they can be brooked with lithword, they can also be either strong or weak. The mainly's benting is:

The endbirdly's benting is:

Ownerly forenames (Personal pronouns)

And going even further, we forolden the ownerly forenames:

The shapes "mine" is now brooked before words beginning with a clepend as "a(n)". The same for "thou", which becomes "thine".

Askinglies

And, alongside with it, the askinglies are also bent!

Kinshiply (Relatives)

Forget we not the kinshiplies:

And since "that" and "which" have now a streeningly bying, there's no more anyet in brooking "whose" for unmanly words, so:

Þe dog hƿose oƿner is far aƿay > Þe dog þas oƿner is far aƿay In þe ƿoods þere ƿas a birdling, hƿose huse was red > In þe ƿoods þere ƿas a birdling, hƿices huse was red.

---

There are still other changes that make it even more forolded, reliving raw shafts of the tongue, but I think this is enough for now. It's not like you would be wrong brooking only a stitch of the forolding anyway, since it's clearly underfangendly to not fully forolden. I shall likely make another upload on these foroldenings in the toward.

---

Froms:

Staffrow: https://anglisc.miraheze.org/wiki/Anglish_Alphabet

Theedness: https://anglisc.miraheze.org/wiki/Archaic_grammar

Byings and kins: https://anglisc.miraheze.org/wiki/Archaic_case_%26_gender

[top2go]

Scopri il Fascino della Cultura Maya nella Riviera Maya

La Riviera Maya è una destinazione che incanta non solo per le sue spiagge mozzafiato ma anche per la profonda ricchezza della cultura Maya. Situata lungo la costa caraibica del Messico, questa regione offre un'esperienza unica che combina storia, avventura e relax in un contesto paradisiaco.

Esplora la magia della Riviera Maya, dove la storia millenaria dei Maya si mescola con paesaggi da cartolina. Dalle rovine antiche di Tulum alle acque turchesi di cenotes nascosti, ogni angolo di questa costa incanta i visitatori con la sua bellezza naturale e l'eredità culturale degli antichi Maya.

La Riviera Maya è molto più di una meta turistica; è un viaggio nel tempo attraverso una delle civiltà più affascinanti della storia. I siti archeologici come Chichén Itzá e Ek Balam trasportano i visitatori in un passato ricco di misteri e conoscenze avanzate, mentre le spiagge di sabbia bianca e i parchi naturali offrono un rifugio di pace e avventura.

Cultura Maya

Visite a Chichén Itzá e Ek Balam

Arte, architettura e mitologia Maya

Natura e Avventura

Esplorazione di cenotes e grotte subacquee

Parchi naturali e biodiversità locale

Spiagge e Relax

Spiagge incontaminate e sport acquatici

Resort di lusso e relax tropicale

Cultura Maya

Tour guidati a Chichén Itzá e Ek Balam.

Approfondimento sull'arte, architettura e mitologia Maya.

Natura e Avventura

Esplorazione dei cenotes e delle grotte subacquee.

Parchi naturali con la loro biodiversità unica.

Spiagge e Relax

Spiagge incontaminate perfette per sport acquatici.

Opzioni di resort di lusso per un relax tropicale.

For more details: Visit Us - https://www.top2go.it/

[libidomechanica]

Untitled Composition # 11691

Worlds glory thinking to me here     with wealth no more endure to sue, ne let the smooth muskets     at her side, full of tender

wants, no Angel, but a voyage     is furious, love a goat in velvet; or something     real, a gallant fight: I

know her beautiful, a faery’s     song. Equal with me so cruel. Leaving—the warl’! As the day,     where Mercy, Pity, Peace,

that naught else they did like a sea     of milk shalt have a trentall sung by virgin hand did my     colds a forward through thou

make admyre, and eke mine eyes, the     myrrour of the innocence and clip my willing lookes     that long into future

ye may thy vertues manifold?     Truth: for men in earth in me the way her ankles go into     them, but wish thy dainty

eares, cannot, with love: little     Cup whose Fountains high; such thy mother skin: I am     pure onion—pure union

of outside. The youngest he that     from the same Fountain Arethuse, and yet how their trailing     chair to see, through the second

suit of pleasure in her mood.     The huge melons and of Gaule in little red pieces     of their moss. So my

stonishment, rouse us, and I love     as fondly dream had ye sorted with greedinesse hunts after     shall not trout name you

bastard signs of fair were answers     in. My spark should faire sight, that doth alleys, wearing as this,     that if your comin’ I

hae seen the day, when she love begets,     then liue and will color and unmated birds sing. Do     Well, that make Lovers mad.

[giancarlonicoli]

9 mag 2024 15:47

RIBALTONE ALLA PROCURA DI MILANO! – IL CSM NON CONFERMA IL PROCURATORE FABIO DE PASQUALE, PM DEL PROCESSO ENI-NIGERIA IMPUTATO A BRESCIA CON IL COLLEGA SERGIO SPADARO PER RIFIUTO D’ATTI D’UFFICIO – DURISSIMA LA DELIBERA DEL CONSIGLIO SUPERIORE DELLA MAGISTRATURA: “DIMOSTRATA L’ASSENZA DI IMPARZIALITÀ E EQUILIBRIO, HA REITERATAMENTE ESERCITATO LA GIURISDIZIONE IN MODO NON OBIETTIVO NÉ EQUO…” -

Estratto dell’articolo di Valentina Errante per “il Messaggero”

Ha nascosto prove potenzialmente favorevoli agli imputati. Per questo il procuratore aggiunto di Milano Fabio De Pasquale, nominato nel 2017, non è stato confermato nella sua funzione, nonostante il parere a favore della toga espresso dal Consiglio giudiziario.

Ieri il plenum del Csm ha approvato con 23 voti a favore, incluso quello del vicepresidente Fabio Pinelli, la delibera della quinta commissione che nega la riconferma di De Pasquale.

Pm nel processo Eni-Nigeria, […] è imputato a Brescia, come il pm Sergio Spadaro, (oggi alla nuova Procura europea Antifrodi) per «rifiuto d'atto d'ufficio» per non avere depositato nel febbraio-marzo 2021 nel processo prove segnalate loro dal collega Paolo Storari. Al Csm, a carico di De Pasquale sono stati aperti due procedimenti: uno disciplinare, l'altro per incompatibilità ambientale.

Nella delibera approvata ieri si sottolinea il «difetto di imparzialità e di equilibrio» di De Pasquale proprio in relazione al processo Eni-Nigeria, e si stigmatizza la «contraddittorietà delle sue scelte processuali».

Si legge nel documento: «Risulta dimostrata l'assenza dei prerequisiti della imparzialità e dell'equilibrio, avendo reiteratamente esercitato la giurisdizione in modo non obiettivo né equo rispetto alle parti non che senza senso della misura e senza moderazione».

E aggiunge: «D'altra parte, la pervicacia dimostrata in tutte le sedi in cui è stato chiamato a illustrare il proprio operato è idonea a dimostrare come, diversamente da quanto ritenuto dal Consiglio giudiziario nel parere di maggioranza, le condotte poste in essere dal magistrato in valutazione, lungi dall'essere contingenti e occasionali, rappresentino un modus operandi consolidato e intimamente connesso al suo modo di intendere il ruolo ricoperto, proiettando, pertanto, un giudizio prognostico negativo sul possesso dei prerequisiti dell'imparzialità e dell'equilibrio anche ai fini della conferma».

Tra le prove "nascoste", un video girato in maniera clandestina dall'avvocato Piero Amara, ex legale esterno di Eni, che registrava Vincenzo Armanna (ex manager Eni) mentre pianificava di ricattare i vertici dell'azienda e che si sarebbe attivato per «fargli arrivare un avviso di garanzia». In effetti proprio Armanna si era presentato alcuni giorni dopo in procura.

Dopo avere interrogato Amara nell'ambito dell'inchiesta sul falso complotto Eni, Storari aveva trasmesso a De Pasquale e Spadaro anche alcune chat trovate nel telefono di Armanna, dalle quali sarebbe emerso come l'ex manager licenziato avesse versato 50mila dollari al teste Isaak Eke per fargli rilasciare dichiarazioni accusatorie nei confronti di alcuni coimputati.

Si legge nella delibera: «De Pasquale ha ritenuto dunque di respingere i documenti trasmessi da Storari archiviandoli come una accozzaglia di roba dal contenuto "risibile", non dovendosi così più confrontare con il problema della radicale inattendibilità di Armanna che gli stessi avrebbero evidenziato.  […]

[boatcats]

This is. Oh man. I always find it hard watching non-lawyers try to navigate our messed up legal system. But when someone who should know better does this....

If this were my opposing counsel in a case, I'd be cackling with predatory glee and making "ek ek ek" noises.

I hope the plaintiff can sue his former (I hope he's fired them) law firm.

That said. I kind of feel for these guys. If you're a lawyer and you find yourself struggling with the weight of it all... figure out a non-law-job escape plan. God knows it's hard and stressful out there.

Oooh, update! The firm itself has now retained outside counsel. Thank god.

Oh dear.

So as some of you may know, I love to point and laugh at bad legal arguments. And as fun as legal dumpster fires are when they are made by people who aren’t lawyers but think this whole “law” thing seems pretty simple, it’s even funnier when an actual, barred attorney is the person dumping gallons of kerosene into the dumpster.

And oh boy folks, do I have a fun ride for y’all today. Come with me on this journey, as we watch a lawyer climb into the dumpster and deliberately pour kerosene all over himself, while a judge holds a match over his head.

The court listener link is here, for those who want to grab a few bowls of popcorn and read along.

For those of you who don’t enjoy reading legal briefs for cases you aren’t involved with on your day off (I can’t relate), I will go through the highlights here. I will screenshot and/or paraphrase the relevant portion of the briefs, and include a brief explainer of what’s going on (and why it’s very bad, but also extremely funny). (Also, I’m not going to repeat this throughout the whole write-up, so for the record: any statements I make about how the law or legal system works is referring exclusively to the U.S. (And since this is a federal case, we are even more specifically looking at U.S. federal law.) Also, I don’t know how you could construe any of this to be legal advice, but just in case: none of this is, is intended to be, or should be taken as, legal advice.)

First, let’s get just a quick background on the case, to help us follow along. In brief, this is a civil tort suit for personal injury based on defendant’s (alleged) negligence. The plaintiff is suing the defendant (an airline), because he says that he was injured when a flight attendant struck his knee with a metal cart, and the airline was negligent in letting this happen. The airline filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that there is an international treaty that imposes a time bar for when these kind of cases can be brought against an airline, and the plaintiff filed this case too many years after the incident.

The fun begins when the plaintiff’s attorney filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (So far, a good and normal thing to do.) The opposition argues that the claim is not time-barred because 1) the time bar was tolled by the defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings (that is, the timer for the time limitation was paused when the defendant was in bankruptcy, and started again afterwords), and 2) the treaty’s time limit doesn’t apply to this case because the case was filed in state court before the state statute of limitations expired, and the state court has concurrent jurisdiction over this kind of case.

I’m struggling a bit to succinctly explain the second reason, and there’s a reason for that.

You see, the whole opposition reads a bit…oddly.

This is how the opposition begins its argument, and it’s…weird. The basic principle is...mostly correct here, but the actual standard is that when reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (which is what the defendant filed) the court must draw all reasonable factual inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. But even then, you don’t just put that standard in your opposition. You cite to a case that lays out the standard.

Because that’s how courts and the law work. The courts don’t operate just based on vibes. They follow statutory law (laws made by legislature) and case law (the decisions made by courts interpreting what those laws mean). You don't just submit a filing saying, "here's what the law is," without citing some authority to demonstrate that the law is what you say (or are arguing) it is.

Again, this isn’t wrong (although I'm not sure what it means by new arguments?), but it’s weird! And part of the reason it’s weird is that it is irrelevant to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant filed a motion stating that based on the facts in the complaint, the plaintiff has not stated a claim based on which relief can be granted, because the complaint is time barred by a treaty. There is no reason for this language to be in the opposition. It’s almost like they just asked a chatbot what the legal standards are for a motion to dismiss for a failure to state a claim, and just copied the answer into their brief without bother to double-check it.

The opposition then cites a bunch of cases which it claims support its position. We will skip them for now, as the defendant will respond to those citations in its reply brief.

The last thing in the brief is the signature of the lawyer who submitted the brief affirming that everything in the brief is true and correct. An extremely normal - required, even! - thing to do. This will surely not cause any problems for him later.

The next relevant filing is the defendant’s reply brief. Again, the existence of a reply brief in response to an opposition is extremely normal. The contents of this brief are…less so.

Beg pardon?

Just to be clear, this is not normal. It is normal to argue that the plaintiff’s cases are not relevant, or they aren’t applicable to this case, or you disagree with the interpretations, or whatever. It is not normal for the cases to appear to not exist.

Some highlights from the brief:

Quick lesson in how to read U.S. case citations! The italicized (or underlined) part at the beginning is the name of the case. If it is a trial court case, the plaintiff is listed first and the defendant second; if the case has been appealed, the person who lost at the lower court level (the petitioner/appellant) will be listed first, and the person who won at the lower level (the respondent/appellee) will be listed second. There are extremely specific rules about which words in these names are abbreviated, and how they are abbreviated. Next, you list the volume number and name of the reporter (the place where the case is published), again abbreviated according to very specific rules, then the page number that the case starts on. If you are citing a case for a specific quote or proposition, you then put a comma after the beginning page number, and list the page number(s) on which the quote or language you are relying on is located (this is called a “pincite”). Finally, you put in parenthesis the name of the court (if needed)(and again, abbreviated according to extremely specific rules) and the year the case was decided.

So the plaintiff’s response cited to Zicherman, which they said was a case from 2008 that was decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the defendant was not able to find such a case. They were able to find a case with the same name (the same petitioner and respondent), but that case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996, and the lower court cases associated with that case weren’t in the 11th circuit either. (The United States Reports is the only official reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court, and only includes SCOTUS decisions, so it’s not necessary to include the name of the court before the year it was decided.)

Just to be clear. The defendant’s brief is saying: the plaintiff cited and extensively quoted from these cases, and neither the cases nor the quotations appear to exist. These “cases” were not ancillary citations in the plaintiff’s brief. They were the authority it relied upon to make its arguments.

This is as close a lawyer can come, at this point in the proceedings, to saying, “opposing counsel made up a bunch of fake cases to lie to the court and pretend the law is something different than it is.”

That, “Putting aside that here is no page 598 in Kaiser Steel,” is delightfully petty lawyer speak for, “you are wrong on every possible thing there is to be wrong about.”

By page 5, the defendant has resorted to just listing all of the (apparently) made up cases in a footnote:

(skipping the citations to support this proposition)

This is where I return to my struggle to explain the opposition’s second reason why the motion to dismiss should not be granted. I struggled to explain the argument, because they failed to explain why the argument they were making (that plaintiffs can bring lawsuits against airlines in state court, and the state court have specific statutes of limitations for general negligence claims) was relevant to the question of whether the plaintiff’s specific claim against the airline was time barred by the treaty. Because 1) this case is in federal court, not state court, and 2) federal law - including treaties - preempts state law. Again, it’s almost like plaintiff’s attorney just typed a question about the time bar into a chatbot or something, and the machine, which wasn’t able to reason or actually analyze the issues, saw a question about the time to bring a lawsuit and just wrote up an answer about the statute of limitations.

We also end with a nice little lawyerly version of “you fucked up and we are going to destroy you.” The relief requested in the defendant’s original motion to dismiss was:

In their reply to the opposition, however:

“The circumstances” in this case, being the apparent fabrication of entire cases. Because courts tend to take that pretty seriously.

And the court took it seriously indeed. The defendant’s reply was docketed on March 15th of this year. On April 11th:

AKA: you have one week (an extremely prompt time frame for federal court) to prove to me that you didn’t just make up these cases.

On April 12th, the plaintiff’s attorney requests more time because he’s on vacation:

The judge grants the motion, but adds in another case that he forgot to include in his first order.

On April 25th, the plaintiff’s attorney files the following:

(And he lists the cases, with one exception, which he says is an unpublished decision.)

But he says of all of the cases except two, that the opinions…

Which is…nonsense?

First of all: if you cited a case, you had to get it from somewhere. Even unpublished opinions, if you are citing them in a brief, you are citing them because you pulled them off of westlaw or whatever. Which means you have access to the case and can annex it for the court. (There are even formal rules for how you cite unpublished opinions! And those rules include citing to where you pulled the damn case from!)

Secondly: remember that long digression I went into about how to read case citations? Remember that bit about how you include the name of the reporter (the place the case was published)? Yes, cases are published. They are printed in physical books, and they are published online in databases (e.g. lexis or westlaw). If the specific online database you are looking in does not have the case, you look somewhere else. If you have a judge telling you to get them a copy of the case Or Else, you track down a physical copy of the reporter if you need to and scan the damn thing yourself. You - literally - can’t just not have a copy of the case! (Especially published federal circuit court opinions, which multiple of these cases are! Those aren’t hard to find!)

And what kind of “online database” doesn’t include the entire opinion anyway? I’ve literally never heard of a case research database that only included partial opinions, because that wouldn’t be useful.

Maybe if we look at the attached annexed copies of the cases, that might give us some answers.

...

My friends, these things are just bizarre. With two exceptions, they aren’t submitted in any sort of conventional format. Even if you’ve never seen a legal opinion before, I think you can see the difference if you just glance through the filings. They are located at Docket entry #29 on Court Listener (April 25, 2023). Compare Attachments 6 and 8 (the real cases submitted in conventional format) to the other cases. Turning to the contents of the cases:

In the first one, the factual background is that a passenger sued an airline, then the airline filed a motion to dismiss (on grounds unrelated to the treaty's time bar), then the airline went into bankruptcy, then the airline won the motion to dismiss, then the passenger appealed. And the court is now considering that appeal. But then the opinion starts talking about how the passenger was in arbitration, and it seems to be treating the passenger like he is the one who filed for bankruptcy? It’s hallucinatory, even before you get to the legal arguments. The “Court of Appeals” is making a ruling overruling the district court’s dismissal based on the time bar, but according to the factual background, the case wasn’t dismissed based on the time bar, but on entirely other grounds? Was there some other proceeding where the claim was dismissed as time barred, and it’s just not mentioned in the factual background? How? Why? What is happening? Also it says Congress enacted the treaty? But, no? That’s…that’s not how treaties work? I mean, Congress did ratify the treaty? But they didn’t unilaterally make it!

In the second case, there’s an extended discussion of which treaty applies to the appellants claims, which is bizarre because there are two relevant treaties, and one replaced the other before the conduct at issue, so only the new treaty applies? There isn’t any discussion of the issue beyond that basic principle, so there is no reason there should be multiple paragraphs in the opinion explaining it over and over? Also, it keeps referring to the appellant as the plaintiff, for some reason? And it includes this absolutely hallucinatory sentence:

…the only part this that makes sense is that the argument is without merit. I’m not going to discuss the actual merits of the legal arguments in the opinion, because they are so bizarre and disjointed that even trying to describe them would require a Pepe Silvia-sized conspiracy board. Like the previous case, both the facts and the legal posture of the case change constantly, with seemingly no rhyme or reason.

The third one…oh boy. First, large portions of the “opinion” are individual paragraphs with quotations around the whole paragraph. What’s happening there? As far as the content of the opinion itself - I can’t. I mean that, I literally can’t. What is being discussed seems to change from paragraph to paragraph, much of it contradicting. It makes the first case seem linear and rational by comparison. The court finds it doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over the defendant so dismisses the case based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction? But also the defendant hasn’t contested jurisdiction? And also the court does hold that it has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the defendant? And then it denies the motion to dismiss the case? Also, at one point it cites itself?

…also, even if this was a real case, it doesn’t stand for the propositions the plaintiff cited it for in their opposition? I’m not going to go into the weeds (honestly it’s so hallucinatory I’m not sure I could if I tried), but, for example, the plaintiff’s reply brief states that the court held “that the plaintiff was not required to bring their claim in federal court.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is a federal court, and there is no discussion of any filings in state courts. The closest the “opinion” comes is with the statement, “Therefore, Petersen’s argument that the state courts of Washington have concurrent jurisdiction is unavailing.” (This statement appears to be completely disconnected from anything before or after it, so I am unsure what it is supposed to mean.)

Moving on, case number four is allegedly a decision by the Court of Appeals of Texas. It includes the following line:

Honestly, the plaintiff’s attorney best defense at this point is that he wasn’t intentionally trying to mislead the court, because if he was doing this on purpose, he would have edited the cases to make them slightly more believable. (Context in case you’ve lost track: these documents are supposed to be copies of the opinions he is citing. The screenshoted line makes it clear that what he is actually citing is, at best, someone else’s summary of an "opinion". It would be like if a teacher asked a student to photocopy a chapter of a book and bring it into class, and instead the student brought in a copy of the cliffs notes summary of that chapter. Except that the book doesn’t even exist.)

The actual contents of the “opinion” are, as is now standard, absolutely bonkers. First, the court decides that it doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over Delta because “Delta did not purposefully avail itself of the benefits of conducting business in Texas.” This was despite the fact that the factual background already included that the appellant (sorry, the plaintiff, according to the “opinion”) flew on a Delta flight originating in Texas. Like, this is just wrong? It’s not even hallucinatory nonsense, it’s just facially incorrect legal analysis. Then the court starts discussing the treaty’s time bar, for some reason? Then it goes back to talking about personal jurisdiction, but now the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the appellate court agrees with the trial court that it does have personal jurisdiction, even though this is the plaintiff’s appeal from the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and the court already ruled it didn’t have personal jurisdiction? And even though on page 1, the plaintiff was injured during a flight from Texas to California, now on page 7 she was injured on a flight from Shanghai to Texas? Also the trial court has gone back in time (again) to grant the motion to dismiss that it previously denied?

Also, I’ve been trying to avoid pointing out the wonky text of these submissions, but:

Everything ok there?

Case number five is similar enough to number four that it’s not worth repeating myself.

Thank god, cases six and eight, as noted above, are real cases, so I’m going to skip them. The defendant alleges that the cases do not stand for the propositions the plaintiff cited them for, and I’m going to assume that is true, given the rest of this nonsense.

Case number seven looks legitimate on the surface. But neither the defendant nor I could find the case through any legitimate search mechanisms. The defendant looked up the purported docket numbers on PACER and found completely different cases; I was able to find a case with the name “Miller v. United Airlines, Inc.,” but it was for a different Ms. Miller, it was a California state case (not a Second Circuit federal case), it was decided on a different year, and the substance of the case was entirely different from the alleged opinion filed with the court.

On top of that, this might be the most morally reprehensible fake citation of them all? Because it is about the crash of United Airlines Flight 585, a real plane crash. Everyone on board - 25 people in total - was killed. 

The individual cited in this fake court case was not one of them.

I cannot imagine conducting myself in such a way where I would have to explain to a judge that I made up a fake case exploiting a real tragedy because I couldn’t be bothered to do actual legal research.

Now, I know you all have figured out what’s going on by now. And I want you to know that if your instincts are saying, “it seems like the lawyer should have just fallen on his sword and confessed that he relied on ChatGPT to write his original brief, rather than digging himself further into this hole”? Your instincts are absolutely correct.

Because obviously, the court was having none of this b.s. On May 4th, the court issued an order, beginning with the following sentence:

That is one of the worst possible opening sentences you can see in an order by the court in a situation like this. The only thing worse is when judges start quoting classic literature. If I was Mr. Peter LoDuca, counsel for the plaintiff, I would already be shitting my pants.

“I gave you an opportunity to either clear things up or come clean. Now I’m going to give you an opportunity to show why I should only come down on you like a pile of brinks, instead of a whole building.”

We are getting dangerously close to “quoting classic lit” territory here.

If I learned that the judge in my case called up the clerk of a circuit court just to confirm how full of shit I was, I would leave the legal profession forever. Also, the judge is now also putting quotes around “opinion.” When judges start getting openly sarcastic in their briefs, that means very very bad things are about to happen to someone.

So I’m guessing the delay between this filing and the court order was because the judge’s clerk was tasked with running down every single one of the additional fake citations included in the "opinions", just to make this sure this order (and the upcoming pile of bricks) are as thorough as possible.

If you are following along with Dracula Daily, the vibe here is roughly the same as the May 19th entry where Dracula demands Jonathan Harker write and pre-date letters stating he has left the castle and is on the way home.

Also, hey, what’s that footnote?

Wait, what?

Folks, it appears we may have notary fraud, on top of everything else! Anybody have bingo?

So on May 25, one day before the deadline, Mr. LoDuca filed his response. And oh boy, I hope ya’ll are ready for this.

Hey, what’s the name of that other attorney, “Steven Schwartz”? Where have I seen that name before…

...I ran out of room for images on this post. So I'm going to have to leave this as an accidental cliffhanger. Part 2 to follow once I refresh my tea.

[partycardigann]

[gottabemelody]

YASSSS WE LOVE TO HEAR IT

[scarefox]

Thanks for the tag.

Oh wow, well at least it's equally possible for husband or wife if one "cheats". But now I also get why Pleng was worried to be seen as Wans affair.

But the social media part is also messed up. I know by now that Thailand is a very social media country but bruh... that just encourages people to stalk others and upload pictures of every random person that acts sus or you don't like, envy or like too much (also seems like they don't have personal rights regarding photos and recordings? in germany the one on the photo can sue the photographer if there was no consent, especially if the photo harms them. also such photos aren't valid in court here either for that reason).

Anyways they give social media way too much power over there. In general.

What I was also interested in was, if one can get trapped in a marriage if the other person doesn't sign the divorce papers.

Since Ek was said to be a good husband (till he escalated), Wan couldn't do much other than waiting 3 years I am afraid.

That's messed up, that the partner either has to agree to the divorce or you have to bring "valid" reasons to divorce them.... other than not loving them I guess. I don't know about other countries, in germany you don't necessarily need the agreement of the partner to get divorced. But a lawyer nonetheless.

But you are saying he could??

[ekgormandesigns]

Watercolored Poppies

Well it is a new year, and one of my goals this year is to simply play more, take a few things far less series. So today, I am fully playing around with some Elizabeth Craft Design stamps and watercolor just for the fun of it. In fact, I set out of make a bit of a mess. Step One: Stamp and emboss the sentiment from the Hello stamp set on some watercolor paper. I used a rose gold embossing…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Mass arbitration attack could bring Intuit to its knees

Ever hear of “binding arbitration?” That’s a clause in a contract that says that you aren’t allowed to sue the company you’re doing business with, even if they cheat, maim or kill you. It was invented to let giant companies of equal size and power agree in advance not to spend billions and decades in court to resolve contractual disputes.

Then, Federalist Society judges led by Antonin Scalia set about clearing the way for arbitration to be crammed down everyday folks’ throats by powerful businesses. Today, it’s primarily used by doctors, mechanics, publishers, after school programs, ski resorts, fast food restaurants, gig/app work companies and tech companies of all kinds to strip the people who buy from them or work with them of the rights that Congress gave them, all at the stroke of a pen.

The advent of non-negotiable contracts with binding arbitration clauses makes a mockery of the law, and of the very idea of contracts. These clauses are a (literal) get out of jail free card for businesses that abuse the people who interact with them. They have multiplied like cancer, and today, they’re everywhere.

When you sign a binding arbitration waiver, you lose the right to sue, and, critically, to join a class action suit, which is often the only way to get justice for mass-scale, small-dollar ripoffs. Very few of us will pay a lawyer thousands to get back the $50 some business owes us, but if that business owes millions of people $50, then one lawyer can represent all of them at once through class action. But not if they’ve all clicked “I agree” to binding arbitration.

Instead of suing, binding arbitration lets you go to a fake court: an arbitration proceeding presided over by a corporate lawyer who is paid by the company you’re seeking redress against. These arbitrators overwhelming find in favor of the business that signed their paycheck, but even if you do eke out a win, you don’t set a precedent that the next person can rely on. Every arbitration case starts from scratch.

The proliferation of arbitration has rapidly eliminated the very idea of civil justice for individuals wronged by companies, with private arbitration increasingly replacing courts. For a while there, it seemed like our rights had been eliminated by a conspiracy to insert binding arbitration into every contract, terms of service and business onboarding.

But then some clever lawyers noticed a critical flaw in the arbitration scam. Businesses have to pay the arbitrator, and that costs thousands of dollars per claim. If these lawyers could figure out how to streamline the arbitration process and file thousands of claims, they could cost businesses far more in fees than they’d ever have to pay in a class action settlement. Then the businesses would cry uncle and release their workers or customers from the binding arbitration and give them a day in court.

The first serious success for this tactic came in California, where Uber drivers had been forced into arbitration to recover hundreds of millions in wages that Uber had stolen for them. When Uber found itself facing thousands of arbitration claims, it surrendered and paid the drivers $146m.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/uber-sues-aaa-block-100-million-fees-politically-motivated-arbitration-2021-09-20/

Mass arbitration has only gone from strength to strength. Last spring, Amazon removed arbitration from its Alexa terms of service, as a way of escaping thousands of claims over its deceptive sharing of Alexa audio with third parties:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/06/02/arbitrary-arbitration/#petard

It’s getting steadily easier to automate mass arbitration claims. The company Fairshake launched in 2020 to produce a toolsuite to enable more lawfirms to mass-file claims on behalf of their clients.

https://pluralistic.net/2020/04/11/socialized-losses/#justice-restored

And courts are starting to see through the arbitration scam. Last spring, a Massachusetts court ruled that a blind Uber passenger wasn’t subject to the binding arbitration in the company’s terms of service, because they weren’t available in accessible form, so he never read them and never agreed to arbitration:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/01/06/methane-diet/#i-agree

As the wheels come off of the arbitration wagon, there’s a delicious wave of mass arbitration campaigns crashing down upon the worse companies in America. Few companies are sleazier than Intuit. For decades, Intuit bribed and bullied the IRS to keep it from automatically sending Americans pre-completed tax forms.

https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-turbotax-20-year-fight-to-stop-americans-from-filing-their-taxes-for-free

This is a routine practice in most other high-income nations. After all, the tax authority knows how much you’ve earned, it knows how much you’ve had deducted, and it knows the tax code. Every year, you get a pre-completed form. If it looks right to you, you sign it and you’re done. If you want to hire an accountant, you can do that too.

By blocking free tax prep, Intuit secured billions in revenue for its Turbotax division. But for some reason, taxpayers consistently refused to accept that their own interests should take a back-seat to Intuit’s shareholders and kept pressuring the IRS to send out pre-completed tax forms for free.

To keep this at bay, Intuit teamed up with the other oligarchs in the tax-prep industry to create a program called “FreeFile” that would offer free tax prep to the majority of Americans.

But there was a catch.

They made it nearly impossible to use.

No matter how hard you tried, you it was effectively impossible to actually get a FreeFile filing. Intuit pulled out all the stops — they created programs with nearly identical names that weren’t free. They bought Google ads for “Freefile” that redirected you to these expensive, name-alike programs. If you did stumble into a FreeFile workflow, they’d bombard you with fraudulent messages implying that you weren’t eligible to use the service. If you ignored that, they’d let you spend hours inputting your tax data, then present you with an error message saying you couldn’t go any further without paying.

This was fraud. Outright fraud. Even the FTC says so:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/08/attack-surface-kickstarter/#tax-fraud

But, of course, everyone who got sucked into this fraud vortex clicked through a binding arbitration waiver, and lost the right to sue, and the right to join a class action to recover the billions that Intuit had stolen from them.

Enter mass arbitration. The law firm of Keller Lenkner has made a name for itself by using mass arbitration to bring companies like Postmates and Doordash to their knees on behalf of workers who’d had their wages stolen. Now they’re taking on Intuit.

https://www.propublica.org/article/turbotax-maker-intuit-faces-tens-of-millions-in-fees-in-a-groundbreaking-legal-battle-over-consumer-fraud

Writing for Propublica, Justin Elliott (who broke this story and has followed it relentlessly) tells us that more than 100,000 Intuit customers have sought arbitration over FreeFile. Intuit’s already tried to staunch the bleeding by offering a $40m settlement, but the judge said no. The company had told its customers they had to arbitrate, so it was on the hook for arbitration.

Elliott calculates the potential bill for arbitration fees at $175m, plus any settlements and plaintiffs’ lawyers fees the arbitrators award.

As US District Court Judge Charles Breyer told Intuit’s lawyers, “Intuit was, in Hamlet’s words, hoisted by their own petard…arbitration is the petard that Intuit now faces.”