#they are already assigned the duty of judge & jury

[heatheniousmaterials]

You are the stupid one here, both for missing the point of the post & overusing the big font

Big font is only for punchy main points. This medium font here is better if you want to write a lot & write it big, but really,

you should just write normal size in bold. Please, I am begging you. It WILL stand out, I promise. Even all caps if you have to. Overusing big text makes it lose impact. Emphasizing everything is emphasizing nothing. Plus, I don't know about desktop, but on mobile it's extremely hard to read a contiguous block of big text if it's more than, like, a sentence long.

Anyway, onto your wild misreading of this post,

(see? that's how you use big text. sorry, I'll stop now)

People aren't saying this in front of a judge. You will notice this is a reddit post, not a court transcript. Yes, if you said any of this shit to a judge, you will not get a fair trial & will probably immediately get the maximum sentence, in addition to being held in contempt of court. Yes, sucking the judge's dick is the only way out of this. But that doesn't mean it's not stupid.

You can disagree with something while still being forced to engage with it.

I say ACAB, but I wouldn't say that to a cop because they'd shoot me. That does not diminish my point that all cops are bastards; it just proves that they're bastards who can kill me. If anything, it strengthens my point that they would be willing to ruin or end my life over a petty insult & have thus coerced me into compliance.

OP never said they wouldn't call a judge by that cringe fantasy title. They just said it's stupid that they have to. So if it's bad to say this in front of a judge, & it's bad to say it not in front of a judge, are we supposed to just never say it? By your logic, nobody could ever complain about anything.

You are literally actually doing the "Yet you participate in society. Curious!" image right now. You are a cartoon character.

(also you make the assumption that everyone who goes to court is a criminal? which?? like, the whole point of court is that most people sent there aren't criminals & it's the court's job to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty. not to mention all the witnesses & stuff that aren't on trial but still have to interact with the judge & use that foolish title. really your whole post is just a circus of errors from top to bottom)

this is my all time favourite post I've ever seen on reddit everyone read it please

[mynameisjessejk]

Return

The day the grand jury ruled that Sauron Wolfe would serve three consecutive life sentences without opportunity for parole, Elladan left Paenvellon at the apartment with Elrohir and Legolas and went to the bar.

He ordered a glass of whiskey, neat, and a Sprite, and found a quiet table in the back corner. It was a dive bar, and he figured that and the glass sitting in front of the empty chair was signal enough to leave him alone.

For a while, it was, and he sipped his drink and missed the man who had been a second father to him.

And then the blond settled across from him. His posture, his hair, the awkward hold on his drink all screamed cop.

Elladan shifted to get his feet more firmly under him. "That seat's taken," he said quietly.

"I know," the cop said quietly. His voice was richer and lower than Elladan had expected from his face. "I won't take much of your time."

Elladan huffed at the audacity. "I'd prefer none, thanks."

"I know," he said. "And I also know you're thinking I'm a cop, and you're half right."

Elladan's eyebrows rose. "Now you've intrigued me," he admitted.

"I know you're one of the Peredhel twins," the cop said evenly. "And while the photo I have of you both is old, I rather suspect the scar on your eyebrow marks you as Elladan, though I suppose it's not impossible Elrohir sustained such a wound in the line of duty."

Ellladan's chin lifted. "Yeah?" he asked.

The cop put both his hands up briefly. "I need your help."

Elladan scoffed.

"I'm not a cop," the cop said again. "I'm a Marshal."

Elladan's head tilted, waiting for the rest.

"And I'm currently assigned to Wit-sec. My name is Eonwe Hawke and I am the currently assigned supervising officer for Ereinion Finellach."

Elladan fumbled his glass on the table. "What," he whispered.

Eonwe nodded. "He was badly injured in the explosion, and we took the opportunity to remove him from the situation, as he'd already turned witness for us. He's been living in Valmar for the last seven years." More quietly, he said, "And he wants to come home."

Elladan closed his eyes. "Did you stake me out to ask me how to bring my Dad's boyfriend home?"

Eonwe said blandly, "Those rumors were never officially confirmed. But I did imagine you would be both easier to find and less likely to stab me first, yes."

Elladan figured this was a not-inaccurrate assessment of his father. Also, he decided, Marshal Hawke had a sense of humor. That was unusual in cops, to Elladan's experience. "All right, you've caught my attention," he said. "And this feels like an incredibly inefficient way to manage to arrest me for anything I might have allegedly done, and anything my father might allegedly have done is past its statute."

"First dregree murder has no statute," Eonwe said evenly.

Elladan cocked an eyebrow. "Was there an alleged murder?"

Eonwe finally cracked a smile. "No," he said. "And I'm out of my jurisdiction for policing," he added. "Ereinion became a friend," he said quietly.

Elladan had always considered himself a good judge of character, and in his studied opinion, Eonwe was a good person. Strange to find in a cop, though it was perhaps telling that Marshal Hawke had chosen the one branch whose job actually was protecting people. "So you want me to arrange a meeting between Erein and my dad," he said. "And you want me to… not tell him a Marshal is involved?"

"I'm not," Eonwe said. "Ereinion officially left Marshal custody today at 2pm."

The time the sentence had been handed down. Elladan nodded slowly. "Marshal Hawke, are you abusing the privelege of your position?"

Eonwe smiled. "I was in town filing the paperwork, and Ereinion has to drive down from Valmar, so I know I beat him. I just want you to warn your father."

Elladan did a quick calculation in his head. "I have to go," he annouced, downing the rest of his sprite. "Drink the whiskey, if you like."

Eonwe observed the glass for a moment, and then picked it up contemplatively. "I am off the clock," he observed to no one as Elladan headed for the door.

"Come on, we gotta go," Elladan shouted as he hurried into the apartment.

"Are we in danger?" Paen asked, moving protectively towards Elrohir.

"No," Elladan said, diving for his car keys in the bowl. "But we gotta get to Dad's, like, in half an hour."

"Unlikely at this hour," Elrohir said wryly.

Elladan shoved him towards the parking garage. "Come on, come on, come on, I'll explain on the way."

Elrohir swore at him as he hopped on one foot trying to get his other shoe on as Elladan pushed him.

Legolas and Paenvellon trailed them confusedly. "Do- we-?" Paen asked.

"If you hurry," Elladan snapped.

He bent several traffic laws on the way, but the long drive to their parents little cottage was empty when they arrived.

Dad met them on the porch. "What's wrong," he demanded. "You never come without warning."

Elladan lunged into his arms. "Dad," he said.

Elrohir, who'd turned grey when Elladan had told him the news, shuffled to their Mum, holding her hands to keep from wringing them. She swept him close. "What's wrong, Baby?" she whispered.

Elladan said, "Erein's alive." He felt Dad sway in his arms, and he started shaking. Elladan eased him into one of the ricking chairs on the porch and knelt at his feet.

Mum was clinging to Elrohir.

"How?" Dad breathed.

"Witsec," Elladan said. "Like Grandma."

"They wanted Sauron," Celebrian whispered.

Elladan nodded.

Dad tipped his head foreward into Elladan's shoulder.

As gravel crunched at the end of the drive, Elladan said, "I talked to his WitSec supervisor, Marshal Hawke, and he said he was on the way, and didn't want you to stab him."

Dad huffed a slightly hysterical laugh.

The car on the drive stopped and the engine died. A car door opened and then closed.

Elladan looked back.

Erein looked older. Grey streaks broad enough to be visible even in his sandy-blond hair, laugh- and frown- lines around his eyes and mouth, and what looked to be the edgings of a limp as he moved slowly towards them.

Elladan braced as Dad used his shoulder as a leverage point to launch himself out of the chair.

Erein went down under his father's weight, and for a moment Elladan couldn't tell if they were fighting or hugging.

Then they were definitely kissing, and Elladan and Elrohir made identical retching sounds, the same noise they always made when Dad kissed Erein.

Erein, who'd rolled himself over on top, laughed, buried his face in Dad's shoulder, and shifted immediately into crying.

Mum joined the pile, entirely heedless of the gravel or her clothes.

Elladan, Las, Paen, and Rohir all exchanged a look and let themselves into the house. Elrohir started the kettle. Elladan headed for the fridge. Las disappeared into the garage. Paen stood kind of helplessly by the island.

"Sit," Elladan offered to him, starting to slice cheese and sausages. "They'll be at that a while."

Las emerged from the garage, slightly dusty and carrying an old carryall.

"Is that Erein's?" Elrohir wondered.

Las hummed. "Got all his toiletries in it," he offered. "Your Dad always kept the brands around, but couldn't use them." He shrugged. "Thought it might make it feel more like home."

Elladan kissed him briefly.

Las winked and trotted up the stairs.

There was the sound of Mum shouting, and Dad's lower tones. Erein answered, and then they subsided again.

Elrohir reached over and turned on the radio.

Elladan bumped their shoulders together. They could've been sixteen again, making dinner for everyone because Mum was with Grandad and Dad and Erein had texted to say they'd been late. The only thing missing was Arwen with her foot on the bar, stretching. But she was off in Harad on a world tour, showing the world what she was worth on the stage and—if they knew their sister at all—making off with everything valuable and portable in the region. And they were elves grown, and their second father, who they'd never called that, never told that, was back from the dead.

"We should call Arwen," Elladan said abruptly.

"It's three AM in Harad," Paen informed them.

"We should call Arwen in the morning," Elladan said.

Elrohir nodded.

Paen silently entered it into his phone as a reminder. Elrohir kissed his cheek fondly. Elladan rolled his eyes.

Legolas appeared again in the doorway. "Paen, I need your help," he said.

Looking confused, Paen stood and followed him. "What?"

"Now," Las said, and towed him up the stairs.

This made more sense when Erein shuffled into the kitchen a moment later. "Hey lads," he said softly.

"Hey," Elrohir said.

"I met Marshal Hawke," Elladan said. "He wanted me to warn Dad, so Dad wouldn't stab you."

Erein's mouth turned at one corner. "I'll have to thank him," he said quietly. He stood awkwardly by the counter, like he wasn't sure of his welcome. "You grew up," he said softly.

Elrohir laughed softly. "Erein," he said warmly, and stepped forward for a hug.

Erein melted into it gratefully. "I'm sorry," he murmured into Elrohir's shoulder. "I missed you," he added.

Elrohir pulled back and smiled. "We missed you too," he said. "We're glad you're not dead."

Elladan nodded agreement when Erein looked at him. Elladan stepped forward for his own hug. Erein squeezed him till his ribs creaked, just like he always had, the only person to hug him tight enough for his taste. "Dad," Elladan whispered.

Erein made a soft noise, and rested their heads together.

[little-grey-dowitcher]

I’ve been seeing more and more posts recently about the way legislators in red states are currently talking about and treating kids/teens and I really need everyone to know that this is NOT a new phenomenon. This has been going on for who knows how long and I’ve seen it get worse with my own eyes.

In my home state of Georgia, teens in the Juvenile Justice system are regularly subjected to this type of treatment, where they’re expected to act like an adult but are also not given the same protections as adults. For adults, a violation of probation typically means they’ve committed another crime, missed a court appearance, left the state when they weren’t supposed to, had a weapon they weren’t supposed to have, failed a drug/alcohol screening, failed to keep their job, etc. (personally I think a lot of these are incredibly unjust things to send someone to jail for but that’s a discussion for another time). For teens, something as simple as raising their voice at their parents or failing a single assignment in school can result them being charged with violation of probation. In some cases, their parents are allowed to set the terms of their probation, making behavior that their parents deem “unruly” or “disrespectful” a criminal offense punishable by a court of law.

Because any behavior deemed “unruly” or “disrespectful” by a parent can be deemed a crime, this system allows parents to treat their teen’s probation officers as co-parents who dole out punishments on their behalf with little to no pushback. Sometimes, these punishments are incredibly cruel, and I’m not even entirely sure some of them are legal.

A common punishment for minor probation violations is “jury duty,” though that’s putting it in generous terms. The teens of the jury aren’t there to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty, because that’s already been decided before anyone sets foot in the courtroom. Instead, the defendant is just there to receive a sentence that is decided by a group of their own peers instead of a judge, while the local mock trial club feigns advocating for stricter or more lenient sentencing. It’s the perfect scare tactic, for both the defendant and the jury. The defendant must stand and face condemnation from their peers, while those who decide their fate are painfully aware that they could end up in the defendant’s chair if they step even slightly out of line.

A minor probation violation (which, again, can be something as trivial as raising their voice at their parent) can result in the teen being forced to spend up to 6 hours on a Saturday sitting in solitary confinement in the back of a courthouse. They’re allowed to bring a book and a jacket, and a soggy ham and cheese sandwich with a bottle of water will be provided for lunch. If they need to use the toilet, they’ll be put into handcuffs and taken to a restroom, then right back to the cell.

A more major/repeated probation violation can result in a weekend of manual labor for a private family farm that contracts with the local governments of several nearby counties, ensuring they have a full team of teenagers there every single weekend to do farm work for them. Essentially, free labor for a private entity disguised as community service.

Alternatively, the sentence for a major/repeated violation could be foster care. If you know anything about the foster system in America, you know that this could quite literally turn into a death sentence. Teens as young as 13 can be sentenced this way. Cases that involve sending a “delinquent” child into foster care are almost always domestic violence cases, and almost always it is framed as protecting the parent from the child, when it usually should be the other way around.

And yes, jail time is always on the table for these cases. Regional Juvenile Detention Centers for anyone aged 16 and under, the local county jail for anyone 17 and up.

I’ve been in the DJJ system of Georgia. All of the examples I listed above have happened to me or people I know. There’s almost certainly horrific things happening in the Juvenile Justice System that I haven’t addressed here because, due to the nature of the cases they handle, there’s simply not a lot of publicly available information. These systems are corrupt through and through and the people claiming to “protect the kids” will NEVER address them, because they don’t actually want to protect kids, and the sooner we call them on it, the sooner we can actually prevent kids from being exploited by these systems.

I say this is the case in Georgia, because I know that for a fact to be true, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out this is happening all across the country.

I personally don’t have a concrete answer for how to solve these issues, but I do know that putting pressure on legislators to address the topic is a good way to get the gears of change to start turning. So if you actually want to protect kids, then yes, you should still protest against anti-LGBTQ bills that affect queer youth, and yes, you should still stand up against these “parents rights” bills that take away the autonomy of teens, and yes, you should still speak out against bills that exploit child labor or allow child marriage, but you should also start rallying against injustice in the way kids and teens are sentenced in the Juvenile Justice System, and you should also start fighting to protect kids in the foster care system because oh my god I can’t even begin to touch on how corrupt it is without turning this post into a 20 page essay. Protecting the kids means protecting ALL of the kids.

[shintorikhazumi]

(Diakko Week) There’s no way she- (2): “There’s no way she did that.”

@dianakko-week

A/N: BOY, OH BOY. I DIDN’T THINK THIS STORY WAS GONNA GO THIS WAY, BUT HERE WE ARE, I GUESS? Please do enjoy, I’m not sure about the quality of this chap, but I personally am enjoying this story so far an I hope you all do too!

Again, Enjoy?

~Shintori Khazumi

Day 2: Trust

“There’s no way she did that.”

Diana was seething at her desk, Hannah and Barbara desperately trying to calm down their long-time friend with a cup of tea and some rationality.

She wasn’t having it however. Not even the tea.

“There’s no way. There is just no. Possible. Way. That Akko would so such a thing!” Diana growled, head whipping in the direction of her poor friends-slash-secretaries-and-attendants. “Right?!”

Barbara nodded wordlessly, clearly unnerved by Diana’s foul mood while Hannah sighed, moving the teacup away from the clearly miffed Diana before any mishaps could occur.

“Yes, Diana. We think so too.”

Diana released a heated sigh, nostrils flaring as she slumped against her leather chair. Today just wasn’t her day.

Never mind it being only her second week of being chosen for the grand magical council and being harassed with much work simply because she was the youngest to enter at the tender age of twenty-three. That same council of old pricks were now interfering with her personal life by giving her a case that made her burn deep with rage.

They dared accuse Diana’s girlfriend of magical misconduct when Diana-for a fact- knew that Akko read the terms and conditions of being a traveling magician- yes, ALL the terms and conditions- back-to-back. Back-to-back to back-to-back. Diana had found it both unnecessary and incredibly endearing, and sweet Akko- oh, bless her sweet soul- had wanted nothing more than to be able to share the magic of dreaming to all sorts of people, gain experience as she traveled; and hoped to overall just help people along the way on her cross-country journey.

Sure, she had left her incredibly stable position as one of the council’s security personnel, and the job paid extremely well- especially for people who were relatively fresh from school. It really did. However, Diana knew Akko was far from happy with that job. In a somewhat similar position to Diana, she had been made a lackey by her seniors and superiors, and though she loved helping people through her job, it just wasn’t worth staying. She couldn’t even be assigned to Diana! Thus, Akko had resolved to go independent, under strict supervision and conditions.

That had been five months ago.

Sure, Diana had missed the other woman dearly and hadn’t seen her for all that time, but Diana knew this was what the other woman wanted to do- to make people smile. She loved making smiles blossom from one person to the other. Diana wanted to support her in her endeavor. She believed in Akko and in what she wanted to accomplish.

And anyway, Akko had always made it a habit to send one of her familiars to bring Diana little souvenirs of her travels, accompanied by the sweetest words on paper, reassuring her girlfriend that she was well and good, and living life to the fullest, and that she’d surely be back in a year.

She was coming back sooner than they’d both expected, and for reasons neither had desired.

Diana ran her fingers through her hair in frustration, massaging her scalp to nurse the quickly growing headache.

She hoped Akko would come home safe at the very least.

//

“Miss Diana Cavendish. Could you repeat those words to me one more time? I might have misheard.”

“I said. I refuse to vote against Atsuko Kagari’s innocence. I know her, and I know her well. She would never ever do such horrid things.”

Diana watched the council secretary bristle, eyes burning at her response.

“You can never know someone too well. You don’t know what people are capable of. They can cha-”

“And I trust that Akko only ever changes for the better.” Diana cut off, casting her own glare over the two high council members who held the papers and a sum of money in front of her. “I know nothing of what the inner circle of the council has been up to, but I can’t believe they would try something so terribly scandalous such as bribery and false report! Dare I assume you are hiding something worse-”

“One more word from you, and you will suffer the consequences. Not that you already haven’t.”

Diana would have lashed out had she not needed to remain calm for Akko’s sake as well.

“This is our final offer, Miss Cavendish. Push for her guiltiness, or lose your seat in the council.”

Diana’s eyes widened, fists clenching. These people-

“You have no authority over this matter!”

She shivered in repulsion at the grins that grew on their hideous faces.

“Oh, but we do.”

//

Kagari Atsuko, twenty-three years of age, stood at the podium in the courts of magic with steely eyes and a rigid frame. She dared not glare at the jury nor the judge, but she would like to at least show them her determination in proving her own innocence.

Chancing a glance at Diana who was sending her worried looks from the jury stands, Akko reassured her with a gesture that all was and would continue to be alright. Returning her attention to the presider of the meeting, Akko readied her words, carefully crafted by herself and her lawyer who ironically just so happened to be Amanda O’Neill. Akko tried her best to keep a grin from forming at the hilarity of that fact. She was, after all, still on trial. She had to keep things professional.

“Kagari Atsuko. What do you have to say for yourself?” The judge questioned after all her supposed ‘charges’ had been read out.

‘Magical misuse, abuse of title as a former council official, trafficking endangered species across borders, and exploiting my audience, huh... Honestly, what a bunch of-’

“Bullshit.”

Akko’s eyes widened, and so did everyone else’ at the accidental slip-up.

“I-I mean... I apologize, your honor. I didn’t mean to say that. Ehem. I’d like to plead not guilty of these accusations.”

With brows raised, the judge continued on with the ruling, the tension in the room not once lowering. Akko just hoped this would end smoothly, and end soon.

She didn’t know what the council got out of this, to be honest. To go so far as to forge evidence against her, what had she done against them? Honestly, this new council, with almost all-new members weren’t doing a good job in succeeding their predecessors.

If the whole jury hadn’t been bought out at this point, she really could only hope for the best.

//

“Thanks for driving me home, Amanda.” Akko bowed to her friend, clutching her suitcase.

“Hey, hey! None of that. C’mere.” Amanda pulled her shorter friend into a tight hug, patting her back firmly. “I’m just glad it all worked out in the end.” She sighed, running a hand through her hair after they pulled apart.

“No kidding.” Akko chuckled. “You’re the best, bud. Totally fit for this job.” She giggled, as Amanda rolled her eyes with a shrug.

“I know, right? Obviously knew this is what I wanted to do for a living all along.”

They shared a laugh before Amanda had to leave, having work to do the next day. Waving at the car until it had disappeared far beyond what her eyes could perceive, Akko turned to the porch, taking careful steps to the front of the door.

Facing that familiar wooden barrier, she took a deep breath before allowing her knuckles to meet with the hard material.

No sounds, no response. Not even the slightest shuffling could be heard from within. Akko’s brows furrowed, teeth biting her lower lip nervously. This was their house... This was the Cavendish manor... right? Amanda was above pranks as evil as this, especially after what had just happened, so there was no way that-

“Mrrmmhpphhggh! Mmrhg!”

Akko struggled against the hand covering her mouth, desperately trying to reach for her wand, however her assailant had already figured her out, catching her hand and holding it against her back...

-before releasing her completely.

“A-Akko?! I! I’m sor- wait, no time to explain, come.”

And Akko was dragged into the house by Diana herself who rushed her up the stairs and into their bedroom.

“Akko, do you have all your essentials in that suitcase you hold at the moment?”

“Huh? Diana, what is... why are you home already? Don’t you have a council meeting running until late-”

“Grab anything you’d like to bring with you. Hurry!”

“But Diana!”

Akko felt a duffle bag hit the back of her head, and she whipped her head around only to find her prepared glare fading at the sight of a scowling Hannah.

“Do what she says, idiot. And make it quick.”

Diana seemed as caught off-guard by the presence of Hannah and Barbara as much as Akko was.

“You two! I... You can’t be here. Go back to your home, and from this point forward, don’t come back to the manor. I’m relieving you of your duties as my-”

If Akko and Diana’s eyes could widen any more, they’d surely be the size of Diana’s large serving plates. Hannah had clapped her hands against both sides of Diana’s face, shaking her lightly.

“Are you truly going to just leave us?!” She hissed.

“Diana... we know we were wrong to snoop around, but... couldn’t you confide in us for something this important?” Barbara said, teary-eyed. “I know we can’t ever replace what Anna was to you, and when she... when she left, we didn’t know how else to help you after losing your only family. But we still wanted to be by your side.” She smiled, placing her hands on Hannah’s shoulders to rub them, getting her partner to calm down.

“Did you really think...” Hannah sniffed, wiping her tears off her sleeve. “That we wouldn’t make you take us with you?” She finished with a grin. “You are never getting rid of us, honestly.”

Barbara nodded, reaching forward to ruffle Diana’s hair before she was met with a deep frown because of the gesture.

“Sorry, always wanted to try that.” She said, not sorry at all. “To sum all this up, Diana. You are taking us. There will be no further argument.”

Diana couldn’t help the relieved smile breaking across her face, her two longest companions also sporting their own. Tears slipped from her eyes as she pulled them into a long embrace.

“Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.” She sobbed quietly, feeling arms rubbing her back from each side. “Thank you.”

“You better be thankful. We’ll never forgive you if we’re not the maids of honor at the wedding.” Hannah declared, half-joking.

“Wedding?” Diana parroted, pulling away as she wiped her remaining tears away. “Whose?”

Both girls simply rolled their eyes as Hannah walked over to Akko who felt seriously out of the loop. Barbara patted Diana’s shoulder, shaking her head, amused.

“Hannah? Barbara?”

She was promptly ignored from that point onward.

“Come on, idiot. Get packing. I’ll even graciously offer you my superb assistance.” Hannah said with a smirk, opening the closet she knew was designated for Akko’s belongings. “We don’t have all night.”

“I still... I still don’t understand what’s going on.” Akko stated, but began to do as she was instructed anyway. “What are we doing? Where are we going?”

“What part of ‘no time to explain’ don’t you understand?” Barbara quipped, before going over to assist the brunette pair. “I could’ve sworn we informed Amanda about this.”

“Even O’Neill knows?!” Diana continued to be ignored. “Okay, great. So who doesn’t know about this getaway?”

“Calm yourself, Diana. We only told our little circle of friends.” Barbara spoke over her shoulder as they finished closing Akko’s suitcases with a click. “Amanda and Constanze prepared as a cloaked little vehicle until we leave the country. You should be grateful.”

“Jasminka should be here to pick us up any minute now.” Hannah commented.

Diana remained slack-jawed, amazed at the follow-up her attendants had done.

“You didn’t think we’d just let you fly off on a broom in the middle of the night again, did you? Really Diana, we’ve been with you so long, your smarts should have rubbed off on us even the slightest bit.” She grinned. “The magical council really aren’t all that smart, huh? Look at their dullness contaminating our brilliant, Diana.” She shook her head in dismay.

“A shame indeed.” Barbara agreed as they began carrying their luggage out.

“No one’s still told me anything!” Akko announced, scratching the back of her head with her free hand as she followed Hannah and Barbara out with her own possessions.

She turned to Diana at the sound of a lock clicking in place, the former heiress running her hands over the grooves of the wood and the carvings.

Placing her things down momentarily, Akko walked over to wrap Diana in a hug from behind. “I hope we can come back one day. To the place where you began.” She whispered, placing loving kisses against Diana’s shoulders. “I’ll make sure we can.”

Akko’s heart cracked as Diana began to tremble in her arms, a hand going up to cover the sobs that were escaping her lips. All the memories of her family, her mother- they were probably much too painful for Diana to leave behind, but she had to. They had to.

Akko walked the mansion halls one last time with Diana as they locked each door one at a time, Diana embedding every room, every window, every banister into memory.

They finally came to the front door where Hannah and Barbara had awaited patiently, bags already loaded into their vehicle.

“No longer asking where we’re going, love?” Diana questioned Akko who had seemed to accept whatever was happening already.

“Do you trust me, love?” Akko responded with a question of her own, earning her Diana’s smile accompanied with raised brows.

“More than anyone and anything in the world.” Diana replied.

Akko gave her a chaste kiss as they all boarded the vehicle, watching the mansion disappear with an area cloaking spell that would hopefully keep it safe for as long as they were gone.

Squeezing Diana’s hand, Akko spoke. “Then know that I think the same. No matter where we go, how far away we are from here, and what we end up doing, just know... Just like those two dorks there,”

Akko laughed as the two snorted from the seats in front of them, knowing they were rolling their eyes at her.

God, she was thankful for them. For all her friends. For Diana.

Taking Diana’s hand in hers and entwining their fingers together, she placed a soft kiss on the back of her hand, laying all her worries to rest. They would figure things out. They all would- together.

“I trust you with all of my believing heart.”

A/N: WHAT’S GONNA HAPPEN NOW, WHERE ARE OUR BABIES GOING? OOOHHH. SEE YOU ON DAY 3!

~Shintori Khazumi

[talvin-muircastle]

Uncomfortable Moment from Jury Duty

This last Monday, I was summoned for Jury Duty. I got assigned to a panel along with 59 other people, and taken to an empty courtroom for orientation.  

A young woman, one of the Court Officers, was giving us a pep talk.  She told us the rules (Cell Phones Off and Out of Sight in the regular courtroom, etc.) and reminded us that we would be waiting for a bit, so hope you brought a book or something to do. 

I am not going to use many quotes, here, because I don’t remember her exact words, but I feel I can get pretty close to them.

Or we could, you know, turn and talk to the people around us if we like!  Single people! “Captive Audience!” [That one I remember clearly.]  Had one guy come in here, did NOT want to be here, but he took advantage of the situation and left with three phone numbers!

And I am sitting there thinking, “This is not cool.”

We are already there against our will, or perhaps I should say regardless of our will:  we are summoned by the Court.  Legally, we are required to be there, and we are, not exactly confined, but very much restricted in our movements for that time.  If we leave without permission, we can be fined or jailed.

And a representative of the Court is trying to set up a Speed-Dating Service. What could possibly go wrong?

Everybody just pulled out a book or electronic device and mostly ignored everyone else. So it did not really become an issue past that point.

I would complain, but I suspect I would be treated as a sourpuss killjoy who is trying a novel way to get out of Jury Duty. 

(They also forgot about us, or at least half of us, for four hours.  We all got to see the judge as a group, get sworn in, and then split in two for Voir Dire.  They got their full complement of jurors out of the first half, and everybody thought somebody else had told the rest of us to go back downstairs for reassignment.  So it was almost 2 PM when we finally complained and they realized THEY FORGOT US.  And if somebody had been pushing for phone numbers like she suggested, that’s over half a day of uninterrupted harassment.  Also, yes, I am still pissed.)

[ornathe]

Okay, so. Below is an assortment of Alternian law thoughts, which also involves some ranting and speculating in teals and teal expectations, Alternian history and culture, and no small amount of headcanons and wild extrapolating for my own amusement and enjoyment. I have a physical notebook with an absurd amount of notes on all of this, so bear with me as I attempt to voice some of the things that keep my brain going at 120 miles an hour during travel. 

Starting off - teals, legislacerators, and what exactly crime is! 

LIES AND SLANDER. EVERYTHING BELOW WAS WRITTEN AROUND 3-4AM IN ASSORTED SLEEPY DELIRIUM AND AS SUCH, JUST. Be warned that I get extremely wordy when very tired but also excessively chatty about something. Rambles may be somewhat incoherent in jumping from topic to topic, but I stand by every word. Probably. Always open for questions to muse on, though. 

So, we have some teal trolls we know a fair amount about, some we know a little about, and some we have practically nothing on, which means we’ve got several degrees here ranging from “this is based on all the actual canon stuff we know about this character” to “this is purely extrapolating based on, like, a singular bullet-point and the etymology of one of their names”. 

I’m going to start easy; with Terezi and Redglare, we actually know more about legislacerators than most other jobs in all of troll culture! Redglare, as described in Mindfang’s journal, is a legislacerator, and from the descriptions of her job hunting down Mindfang, we can see that legislacerators appear to function as kind of an all-purpose perp hunter job - they essentially work as cops assigned to specific cases and criminals, and are then put to not only investigating them and hunting them down themselves, but they’re also responsible for prosecuting that criminal and seeing them to whatever bitter end they meet in the end. Pretty much the only parts of the process the legislacerators aren’t part of are the lawmaking, the assignment of criminals to the legislacerators, and the judgment and execution, which largely seems to wrap up in one pile of merciless highblood justice. But I digress. 

I’ll come back to Terezi and Redglare in a moment, but to continue this discussion properly, we have to consider a few important things; more specifically, what counts as crime in the Alternian society, and how does their law system actually work? 

For starters, it seems obvious to start with the hemospectrum. Highbloods are afforded more leniency and privileges than midbloods, who again have a better standing than lowbloods, and across the whole spectrum, anyone higher than rust red and lower than royal fuchsia has to consider themselves part of the chain, where they’re higher than some trolls, but lower than some, and that affects how the laws and rules apply to what they do and to whom. For instance, terrorizing and even killing rustbloods doesn’t appear to have any consequences beyond that troll’s particular ire - there’s no justice for them in the system, being considered lesser beings of minimal worth, and even less so if they’re mutants or otherwise likely to be deemed a waste of perfectly good space, and the only thing that can work for them is sheer numbers in order to overwhelm with riots and revolutions. (Which the Condesce sat through just long enough to say “actually, fuck this, every adult troll capable of causing trouble will be exiled from the planet to work elsewhere”, because it turns out revolution DOES have an impact, and as we know, that’s brewing once again during the time of Hiveswap.) 

On the contrary, highbloods are afforded the utmost leisure, really only answering to each other and then only the ones higher than themselves, and if they decide to take out some lowbloods for whatever reason, or they take matters into their own hands if a low- or midblood disrespects them, this is largely seen as not just fine, but entirely reasonable. After all, why bother taking a lowblood to trial when absolutely everyone knows the highblood will win by default? But this brings up another matter - killing versus culling. Because highbloods can do what they want to lowbloods, but what about the other way, or disputes involving similar- or same-caste trolls? If everything was decided by way of “whoever has the highest blood wins”, there wouldn’t be any need for a trial system in the first place, so it stands to reason that there must be trials that don’t necessarily lead to the lowest blood being spilled for impudence. 

Tagora, in his first appearance, introduces something we haven’t seen in Homestuck proper yet - the concept of personal legislacerators representing plaintiffs, which would mean legislacerators do not only prosecute cases, but may well also handle defense of injured parties. This rounds them out as covering even more legal ground, because it implies legislacerators play just about all the active roles in a trial, though it’s entirely possible that not all trials involve defense - just because it’s possible to have a personal legislacerator doesn’t necessarily imply all trolls are entitled to one; just the ones who can pay or otherwise charm their way into getting (presumably) a tealblood to represent them in court to put pressure on whomever they’re filing against. This also implies the law system includes civil cases with trolls agaiinst trolls, rather than just criminal cases (with trolls against the system, that is, breaking specific laws). 

Tagora also shows himself as especially interested in this type of legislacerative work - contract law, civil lawsuits, traffic law, and other personal matters that litigants would find themselves requiring legal assistance with (especially if the troll they’re suing happens to be of a blood caste high enough where just throwing them to the drones wouldn’t fly). This contrasts directly with Terezi, who shows clear interest in the type of legislacerator we saw Redglare as - an investigative trollcop detective, who persecutes criminals obsessively like a predator circling their prey, taking justice into their own hands if the need arises or if getting them to a trial just wouldn’t be possible. Where Tagora is essentially a civil defense lawyer, taking on clients who seek justice for wrongs done to them personally, Terezi aims to be a prosecutor of criminal law and a detective ready to solve and present cases for the judgement of His Honorable Tyranny. 

That said, it’s also important to consider two major changes in Alternian culture that would’ve affected the law system. The first one is the previously mentioned enforced exile - with all the adult trolls scattered to the winds, this includes His Honorable Tyranny and all adult practising legislacerators, as well as most criminals who have done enough crimes against Alternian society to be worth pursuing (even Mindfang, infamous gamblignant and slaver, among other things, managed to sustain a criminal lifestyle openly for an incredibly long time, only needing one specific person to not give her up to the authorities), which means troll courts were probably changed significantly, particularly since it separates the whole court system from on-planet to off-planet, which again means that even if the planet still followed the pre-existing law system, it wouldn’t be enforced in the same way on-planet unless the troll children decided to do it just like it was before the exiling. Most likely, the adult exiled trolls followed the same system until the Vast Glub that killed them off, separate from the younger Alternian trolls, while the children changed and adapted the laws and rules and norms to their own needs and desires - I personally believe this led to a change, including a turn towards more civil cases and more vigilante justice against actual criminals.  

Teals being the lowest of the highblood classes if divided down the middle, and only just above the middle of the midbloods, this makes them as close to impartial as it gets hemospectrum-wise; higher than the many and oppressed lowbloods, but lower than the entitled highbloods, letting them see both ends more objectively than any other caste would be as able to. Presumably, this is a large reason why they, according to Mindfang’s journal, tend to make for good civil servants - they have a uniquely objective vantage point that only jades could be comparable to, and jades already have their own important duties serving the community from the brooding caverns. 

The second change in the law system comes after the time of Hiveswap, and just before we first meet the trolls in Homestuck proper. Simply put, the change comes when the rest of Alternia is eradicated as a result of Sgrub, reducing the population to twelve, messing up the possible meager remainder of the Alternian law system; exile no longer matters, Alternian society is gone, and the only trolls they have to answer to are each other. Justice, at this point, is largely narrowed down to Terezi Pyrope only, who takes on the role of legislacerator, but in the broadest possible sense - with no one else to defer to, with all the highbloods ending up dead, criminals themselves, or completely unfit to do any judging, Terezi becomes judge, jury, and executioner; no longer something that would count as vigilantism, because with only twelve trolls left and that number declining rapidly over the course of the aftermath of the game, she is the law. 

Now, though, with the Hiveswap era being the most relevant, it’s most interesting to look at the time between the beginning of the exiles and the time just before Sgrub, where the children who have never actually met adult trolls find themselves in a society where they’re expected to look up to adults and their professions, in order to be ready to suddenly enter adult Alternian society in outer space once they outgrow their adolescence - and their grasp of law may be tenous at best and incredibly vague at worst. 

We know for a fact that several of the Hiveswap teal trolls have an interest in jurisprudence, and it might at this point be entirely within reason to assume that this goes for all teals, to some degree. Tagora is the one we have seen the most clearly on this subject, given his routes in the Friendsim, and Tyzias is explicitly mentioned as extremely interested in “traditional jurisprudence” (presumably Alternian law pre-exile, which their contemporary jurisprudence would likely be based on), complete with (conspiracy) theories and thus, probably, also legal philosophy and things involving ethical and moral dilemmas that build the foundations of case law and details that separate crimes from non-crimes. Tirona is shown to be a fan of His Honorable Tyranny, and Tegiri’s bullet-points may imply that he’d be more involved in the persecution of criminals and wrong-doers. Stelsa is the only teal troll where we really do not have much to go on law-wise, but with some reaching, it’s possible to argue her as a notary, which would place her as more distantly involved with legal proceedings, primarily involving paperwork, signatures, witnessing, and other related (more bureaucratic) acts, which would also complement Tagora's contract focus nicely.

All in all, we actually know very little about Alternian society in matters that pertain to law, both pre-exile and post-exile. Yes, Redglare pursued Mindfang as a wanted criminal, but which parts of her known deeds was she pursued for? The thefts, the slavery, the murders, the mind manipulation of other trolls against their will, sexual advances with aforementioned methods to bypass consent in a way that deliberately messes with the victim's mind, leading them to wonder whether they truly consented to the advances or not? It's easy to assume all of the above and probably much more, but it's also very hard to say for certain which of her deeds were considered as crimes, since Redglare never did get to deliver her opening statement and Mindfang's journal is heavily biased. In the canon era of Homestuck, Alternian law is ever further unclear - Vriska murdering other trolls is frowned upon, but no one takes action until she begins maiming and eventually killing people in their circle of friends and associates, so it's never quite clear if the persecution of her (and, relatedly, Eridan and Gamzee once they begin their killing sprees) is because the acts were unlawful or simply a matter of personal vengeance disguised as justice, in what can only be considered vigilantism unless we find any proof she had a duty to respond to what they did. Eridan having killed a fuchsiablooded heiress would almost certainly count as a crime against Alternian society, even in a world decimated by the events of Sgrub, but he's never the one specifically persecuted; Terezi's main focus was Vriska, to the point of being so blinded by her personal bias that she even blamed Gamzee's deeds on her, and while Kanaya dished out the hurt in all three directions, Gamzee was the one she spent the most time focusing on afterwards (though that can probably be attributed to Eridan's deadness by then). 

Especially in Beforan society, we have incredibly little to go on when it comes to their justice system - if they even have one. Presumably they do, too, though their version of being sentenced to "culling" is more smothering than lethal. But Latula, despite her Alternian legacy as a prodigy legislacerator, seems to be more taken with seeming as unperturbed and unaffected by the world around her as possible - common for a Knight, but not so much for a tealblood. If anything, her Beforan sense of justice seems to lean more towards balance and equality, but it's skewed due to her need to hide herself behind a mask of disinterested radness and "girl power" that feels forced and unnatural. Just as importantly, we don't know if tealbloods were even predisposed towards civil duties and jurisprudence on Beforus; it might not have been a part of their society in their world to begin with, which again supports Latula's deviation from the Alternian norm. 

Coming back to a previously mentioned topic - what exactly are the legal differences between the different parts of the hemospectrum - I have my own theory regarding the difference between killing and culling. There seems to be little doubt that the higher end of the hemospectrum - seadwellers especially, but purplebloods as well, and to some degree indigo and cerulean bluebloods - gets away with much more. We know for a fact, with Tagora’s route in the Friendsim, that it’s entirely possible for the upper half of the hemospectrum to just sic drones on lowbloods and mutants for no other reason than that they personally feel like it, and several other lowblood routes (Skylla and Diemen, especially) show that lowbloods are shown very little mercy and would at best be laughed at if they brought their grievances to court; worst case they’d be murdered on the spot, or worse yet, given to a merciless highblood for torture and entertainment. If you’re a rustblood, bronzeblood, or goldblood, you’re more or less expected to be thankful you even get to live at all - there are certainly no perks or privileges, and the best you can hope for is to stay quiet and keep to yourself enough that no one higher up than you decides you’re not worth the space you take up on the planet. If you even get to be a mere servant for those above your station, for the short time you’re alive and off-planet (if you even survive until exile!), it’s considered pretty much the greatest honor you can get. After all, the only reason for the exile in the first place is to avoid another revolution by scattering trolls around the galaxy as soon as they’re old enough to not only formulate opinions, but act on them as a united group, and the highbloods are scattered even further so no one can hope to simply overthrow them in one rush. The Condesce herself even makes a point of staying as far away as possible, simply so no lowblood would ever be able to reach her, much less a congregation of revolutionaries. 

I’m talking myself away from the point, though - highbloods have more rights and privileges and can get away with most crimeful things, or at least, as long as the only victims are lowbloods. Where exactly that line is drawn depends on exactly how high the offender’s blood is, though; seadwellers practically have total authority, and fuchsiabloods can clearly do just about whatever they wish without having to take other trolls’ laws into account, even against violetbloods. However, while we know the hemospectrum plays a huge role in cases between highbloods and midbloods, and crimes done by lowbloods against mid- and highbloods or midbloods against highbloods, it’s completely unknown how cases between lowbloods are dealt with! With limebloods being eradicated, the three lowest castes don’t seem to be treated much differently, and are generally shunned and considered societal garbage, with barely any rights whatsoever. With this in mind, it’s more likely that rustbloods, bronzebloods, and goldbloods are given roughly the same amount of rights and justice, that is to say, not much at all. And taking the law into their own hands is only going to be overlooked as long as their victims are fellow lowbloods; midbloods and higher, after all, would be able to pursue justice through legislacerators, or simply their blood-given right to do whatever they want to their offenders. This is also presumably meant to foster a general distrust in lowbloods against each other as well as higher castes - if they can’t trust each other, they won’t band together, and will be more likely keep to themselves and sell each other out in hopes of favors from higher castes. Crude, but effective, as long as they don’t begin communicating more with each other and realizing just how many lowbloods there are who could fight their oppressors together. 

This brings me to the point I keep trying to get to: killing versus culling. 

Culling, as I understand it, is first and foremost a punishment. It may be in form of a court-ordered execution, or it may be vigilante justice done by highbloods; either way, culling is a means to achieve an end that is considered just, and not a crime. Killing, on the other hand, seems to carry heavy connotations in Alternia as well; lowbloods may be culled “for their own good” or to control the population or simply because they didn’t respect members of the castes above them or for showing signs of rebellion, but killing? Killing is, even in this violent society, something that is considered unjust. That’s when you bring in legislacerators. A highblood who kills a lower-blooded acquaintance or friend for little to no clear reason might still be seen by the larger Alternian society as a culling, as someone who had a reason (regardless of whether it’s a GOOD reason or simply what felt right to the highblood in question) to rid their world of merely another lowblood who didn’t know their place. But in smaller communities, such as the twelve Alternian trolls we follow through Sgrub, everyone knows everyone, and the death becomes personal; it becomes a killing, because to that chunk of society, that action feels unjust and unwarranted, no matter how high or low the blood. In a large-scale Alternian society, one lowblood here and there won’t be missed by many, nor even a midblood or two, but in a group where more or less the whole hemospectrum is equally represented and most everyone know one another, status means less. In that society, highbloods murdering lowbloods and midbloods is no longer an acceptable privilege; culling becomes limited to “just” murder, as punishment for what the members of that society considers to be against their greater good. This is one of the things that changes between the Hiveswap timeframe and the Homestuck timeframe, as a direct result of the removal of the rest of Alternian society and the expectations that once followed being part of that. 

Jesus, okay, I’m on about 3,300 words now, so I’ll see about reaching an end. If you’re still reading, I genuinely applaud you for your patience. Thanks for sticking with me here. 

Anyway - I think tealbloods, to varying degrees, do tend to be interested in matters relating to law, justice, and balance - it’s especially interesting to see how varied it gets in the Hiveswap trolls, and I’m really, REALLY looking forward to seeing what kind of fun new lore gibs we can pillage from them in Act 2. Like, Tagora’s route dropped traffic on us? Scuttlebuggies? Since when do they have CARS, holy fuck, when do they get their licences. Indigos would almost certainly be the ones most biased towards being car mechanics, not just because of their strength (lowbloods could just as easily do the grunt work with psionics), but a lot of mechanics pride themselves on it being almost an artform of sorts, especially building cool new rides, and we already know all the Zahhaks are suuuper predisposed towards robotics, not to mention Vikare wanting to tinker airplanes. Are their cars even mechanical in nature? Scuttlebuggy sounds like it could just as easily be derived from, I don’t know, lusii carcasses on wheels, giant insects, I don’t know. If they are mechanical, would the indigo influence have an effect on traffic law? Do they have any laws about cybercrime at all, either yes in order to punish more goldbloods (who are possibly more predisposed towards coding and the internet, like Sollux and Cirava) or no because that’s more of a goldblood thing and thus petty and unimportant in the grand scheme? Do caste predispositions and usual preferences play a role in Alternian law, skewing the priorities of what’s considered more severe crimes (lowblood things) or mere misdemeanors (highblood things)? Are trollcops basically the Sherlock Holmes of Alternia, idealized versions of a much less prevalent specific role than media/fiction makes it seem like? Is Troll Sherlock Holmes a tealblood? (I’m joking. Of course Troll Sherlock Holmes is a tealblood. Anything else at this point would be scandalous.) 

I have many questions. Hopefully, uh, somewhere in this ridiculous post there’s also some good answers, or at least things to chew on? I like thinking about these things too much. Also, the thought that sparked this entire rant in the first place was “hee hee, I hope tealbloods speak shitty troll Latin to impress each other, and also I hope they have loads of ridiculous case law things that leads to Weird Legal Conversations To Overhear like the slayer rule and eggshell skulls and clean hands (ABSOLUTELY a Tagora thing I’ll fight you this is real ass contract law shit) or calculus of negligence (Tirona, again, I’ll fight you) or one of my favorite things, the attractive nuisance, which just describes every tealblood ever”. 

Anyway. Thoughts. There are many. Please give me an excuse to come up with dumb Alternian case law for teal nerds to quote in my imaginary roleplays. I’m done for now. 

Probably. 

[theknowlegal]

Three Things Your Coaching Agreement Needs. Right Now!

Whether you are a life coach, business coach, health & wellness coach, or any kind of amazing coach – you need a client services agreement.  But you already know that!  And, since you’re reading this, it’s safe to assume you want to get an agreement in place or get your current agreement up to snuff.  Maybe you “borrowed” it from a friend or colleague, or -gasp- downloaded a free sample from some shady website.  You can’t be sure that its adequate, or even appropriate for your coaching business.  But no fear, we are here to help!  

DIY LEGAL CAN WORK FOR COACHES

DIY legal is totally okay in many cases; so long as you have the right guidance and foundation.  Online legal templates from can be a great resource.  Templates that are vetted and provided by coaching certification programs can also be valuable.  But the best practice for DIY legal, regardless of the source is this:

Get your templates from a trusted source (not the dark web or some questionable anonymous website, not from a friend of a friend who had their real estate attorney “whip it up”).  If it’s free, keep in mind you are probably getting what you paid for.

Once you customize a template to your needs, have it looked over by a qualified attorney to ensure that you are satisfying your particular state’s laws, and that the agreement reflects the realities of YOUR coaching business.  Even customizable templates are not a perfect one size fits all (more like one size fits most) – so go that extra quarter-mile to do it right and get it checked.  We recommend that final step to all our customers. (And having an attorney review your completed template will still save you money over hiring an attorney to draft one from scratch.)

THREE CRITICAL CLAUSES TO ADD

If you already have a coaching contract in place, let’s assume that you’ve got the basics covered: naming the parties; listing your fees; describing the services; outlining coach and client responsibilities; and explaining your refund policy. (And, yes, “No Refunds” is a complete and clear refund policy!)

But what might your business, health, or life coaching agreement be missing that is critical to protecting yourself, your business, and your clients?  

Let’s discuss 3 critical clauses to include.

1. Term and Termination. A clear explanation of how long your coaching contract is in place and effective is critical.  Being clear on when and how it can be properly terminated is equally important.  Term and Termination often tie in closely with payment and refunds, so you want to be sure that there’s no question here.  The term can be open-ended (think automatic renewals every year), or finite (e.g., six months, 12 sessions, etc.) – it just has to be clear.  

If there is no set termination date, when can you or your client terminate?  Do you require a reason why either of you terminate?  Is there notice required, and if so, how much notice?  All of these questions should be addressed in the termination clause.

2.  Confidentiality. A mutual confidentiality clause in your business coaching agreement is crucial.  Confidentiality is important in all coaching relationships – it builds trust, demonstrates respect, and creates a space that allows for free exchange of information.  But when it comes to business coaching, both the coach and the client are getting a peek behind the other’s metaphorical curtain – sensitive and proprietary business information, including intellectual property, may be shared in either direction (especially for Coaches of coaches), so ensuring that all parties are on the same page as to respecting and keeping shared information private is essential.

3. Limitations on Liability.  Sometimes things go wrong.  Life is crazy that way.  And when they do, it is our nature as humans to find and assign responsibility.  Sometimes it is easy and clear to see who is responsible, sometimes less so.  As a Coach, you have a duty to provide the best service you can to your clients, but you are not responsible for their actions or mistakes.  

But if something goes wrong for your client, and they try to assign the blame to you, you want to be sure to limit the extent to which a judge or jury might be able to find your liable, or responsible.  Having a properly drafted clause that limits your liability is incredibly important.  Commonly, the limitation is set to the amount actually paid by the Client under the agreement.  That way, should your client prevail in a lawsuit against you, the maximum you would be obligated to pay would be what they had paid you.

There you have it. You may certainly have more than what is contained above, but these are the critical components to any solid coaching contract.

Article Source: https://intheknowlegal.com/three-things-your-coaching-agreement-needs-right-now/

[orphancookie69]

7/14: Jury Duty (Every Citizens Responsibility)

So today is my first day back to normal after serving Jury Duty. I am emotionally drained, tired, and left with more questions than answers. Let's tell this story from the beginning:

I got my Jury Summons in the mail during April/May when everything was closed and I remember thinking to myself, If I can't go to the mall...how is court in session? But then the day came for me to call in and I actually almost forgot to call in. Someone reminded me and I was told to report on Monday. That Friday I actually posted online and asked, "What can I do or not do? How does this work?" and the general feedback was, "Just bring a computer or a book and wait for them to send you home". I was like cool ok, I can do that. Come Monday I bring way too many books and not enough snacks. I check in and a judge comes in to thank everyone for actually showing up. They called one group that I was not in, but I was in the second group. They had us fill out a paper, which I should of realized was a clue to the subject matter of the case. A mass of jurors went to the next meeting location and they assigned us numbers, all the seats had been marked and numbered, per COVID-19 of course. I was one of the first 12 seats to be seated.

The judge then explained that we were to be addressed as numbers, to keep our names out of the records, and when our number was called, we were to answer the questions on the board: Age, Marital Status, Occupation, Know any cops, Been on a Jury, Been convicted of a crime. After the 12 jurors all go through the questions, unable to be heard because we are all wearing masks, the Prosecution and Defense start asking questions and talking to jurors. You could tell right away the jurors that were not going to get picked, "I don't work well with others because I am better than them. I have a bias. If the prosecution proves 3 out of the 4 elements, I would just give them the 4th one"...that came from a crazy young person. Something that surprised me is the answers people gave: No jobs, no school, no husbands...or the other extreme where people and their entire family had experience with the subject matter - Sexual Assault. Living in my bubble, I did not think that sexual assault was that common? We get released at 5 o'clock and told to come back the next day. When I get home, I tell my family that I might be picked and their response was, "Of course you would, you would choose to not play dumb to get out of it".

The next day I am back at the juror selection room, and the lawyers have to do the same song and dance multiple times. Each time they go through jurors, most of them leave and some stay. The ones that have stayed, from the beginning like me, have heard the song a couple of times now. By the 3rd, 4th, and 5th time of hearing it-I realized the lawyers give away their strategy in the questions they ask jurors. To be fair, all documentation and evidence has to be submitted before court begins so I guess there's no real room for mystery, but that surprised me. Jurors already basically picked got to leave for a longer than normal lunch. When we get back, they finally pick 12 jurors and a couple of alternates. We then go to see the room the trial will take place in. Due to COVID, we are all spaced out-not sitting in the 12 seats to the left of the judge. I in fact sat in the audience area the entire time. They release us for the day and trial starts the next week. I spend the next couple of days doing what I can, since it basically looks like my next week is spoken for.

Next Monday comes and the trial begins. I left the house saying, today can't be that bad, its not like we are going to hear from the victims first. Oops. I was wrong, We heard from both victims. Up until this point, I did not realize it was multiple victims. The accused was their uncle. As a woman, trying my best to be objective, it was hard to hear what the girls said happen to them. Basically, the uncle was alleged to have molest them for a period of 10 years for one and 5 years for the other. I know that even though I had not heard everyone else speak yet, I already had an idea forming in my mind of what my decision was as a juror.

Tuesday comes and we are back in court. The prosecution brings in a psychologist, the victims brother, the teacher that reported it, and the investigator. We are told not to talk about it with anyone else...no other juror, family, friends. As the days go on, we as jurors talk more and more and it slowly starts to get talked about in a general way. Wednesday comes and back in court, this is the heaviest day of testimony-its time for the defense. We see the defendants daughter, son, wife, nephew, and an aunt. On Thursday back in court, the investigator comes back and so does the victims step mom. Before leaving we are read juror instructions and some information on the counts. I do not envy either side of this case-do you defend the man who molested or the girls who are supposedly making it up?

We did not have enough time for closing statements and deliberation, and court does not happen on Fridays so we were to come back the following Monday. Over the weekend, I decided I was going to go in with my mind decided on my position. For me, I removed any part of the story that could not be corroborated and looked at the story left over. I also had to ask myself, what do the girls get out of lying? In a He Said She Said, they can't both be telling the truth. I actually don't think either side told a whole truth. I think the truth was weaved in there, with the victims adding details and the defendant's family trying to cover any hole possible, which only looks more suspicious. I went in Monday morning with this thought: I think something happened, but not everything. Did enough happen to convict though?

Monday morning we are back and hearing closing statements. The prosecution and defense both did a very good job with their statements and we went into a nearby room, another judges courthouse, to deliberate since the juror room is not COVID friendly. The security guard started by spreading us out, but as soon as he was gone we all went into an oval like shape. We elected one juror to basically be the leader, since he had served on another jury before. We deliberate for  short time before we have to break for lunch. After lunch we get back to it. We all basically agree something happened, and found it easier to believe the younger victim more than the older victim. We took a anonymous vote to see where everyone was at and it was: 11 to 1 for victim 1, 12 for victim 2. I have to be honest with you, I had an idea who the 1 was, and I would not have been all that nice if we were that close and had to come back tomorrow. We listened to the interview again of victim 1 again and took another vote.

We unanimously agreed guilty on count 1, count 2, and the special allegation. We all reconvene in the court room and the verdict is handed to a court employee and read out. Each juror then had to answer the following question, "Is this your verdict?" and each one said yes. We were then all excused and the investigator for the prosecution let us know that if we were open to staying for a few minutes, we could talk to the prosecution lawyer. A majority of the group stayed and talked to him, something I had no idea happened. The full reality of our decision hit me when I asked about sentencing and the lawyer said," It does not matter because of the charges." "What is the sentence?" "Based on the special allegation, it's life". We just kind of looked at each other, we just sent a man to prison for life.

There are a couple of things I found really interesting about the process of being a Juror. So many people in my family would of avoided it instead of rolling with the punches. If the majority of people around me avoid it, that means it is up to people not afraid to take 3 weeks of their life to help girls get justice like me to make justice happen. The process is nothing like the movies make you think it is. I had no idea that COVID was not only holding up the economy but justice too. For a criminal case, I do not know that the decision of that mans life should of been in our hands. As much as I tried to be impartial and what not, that was so hard to do. The law is also crazy, the prosecution cited one part of the law, "If we believe the testimony, then it can be used to convict", while the defense cited another part of the law, "If the people do not prove all elements of the case, you have to find the defendant innocent". The same law can be used so many different ways, how do the lawyers even do it?

If you get a Jury Summons, I would ask that you don't ignore it, (or throw it away as I have also heard other people do), but go and see what happens. It seems like most of the time you are not picked, but if you are-do your best. Even though I am 1 of 12 that sent a man to prison for life, I could not sit there and say he did not do it-and that is what they call an abiding conviction. One juror called it, "I sleep well at night and don't regret my decision". I can safely say, I slept well last night and hope for the family involved in the case that this closure starts healing for both sides- victims and non-victims.

[half-bloodxresources]

Angels and Demons

Some religion is discussed? beware???? Have fun reading.

Hades had to learn how to live without the blonde goddess. It was impossible for her to come back, after all, Demeter would never allow it. He had already proven to be the monster, gods, and mortals alike, thought he was. Kidnapping, even for the greatest of reasons was still kidnapping. He adored Persephone and he did believe she was the very reason why he had to wait. Zeus used trickery into his marriage, Poseidon would not be far behind. They were terrible husbands to their partners, as he saw again and again. Hades feared to be cut from the same cloth and decided to better immerse himself back into his work.

With that in mind, again, he went back to his duties and Lord of the dead. Things began going smoothly again. The presence of the dreaded god made the cogs in his machine to run more efficiently, as his minions dared not to face his wrath, and he had been quite moody since the Goddess of Spring left him behind. Every now and then, there would be fires or earthquakes provoked by Hades’ anger and even though most creatures would never perish, they did feel pain and spent months if not years trying to come back from Tartarus.

On one of his strolls down the crowded Fields of Asphodel, he heard something that caught his attention. Every soul, heroes, and mortals alike, would end up in the Underworld and they would be judged. It did not matter how good or bad they had been when they lived, everyone, without exception, would end up in front of the jury. Minos, Rhadamanthus, and Aeacus evaluated the dead’s actions and they would be sent to different places. Fields of Punishment for the wicked, Asphodel Meadows for those who did not prove to be good nor bad and Elysium, for the heroic and virtuous. Was it the same for Christianity? Buddhism? Maybe so, but Hades never bothered on learning that, as most, if not all souls ended up in his domain. Until now.

Maybe it was all the time he had to keep himself busy, in other words, not thinking about anything but work. Or maybe it was only plain curiosity, as he rarely ventured down to Asphodel himself. Either way, he now was curious as to what that meant. Divine winged creatures from above and infernal monsters from hell were yet other concepts that did not compute with the Lord of the Underworld, for it was not something he was accustomed to. Indeed, the Greek version of hell was his own domain and Hades learned to be okay with that, but it did not get any easier. Even his own siblings made him feel unwanted, needed but not appreciated. Death was never welcomed, but it was feared and respected.

Demons, guardian angels, heaven. What nonsense was that? Sure, the creatures that came from under the earth were mostly beings from dubious reputation, but the words made no sense to the god. Angelos meant messenger, and daemon meant something else entirely. When in history did everything get so… twisted? Maybe mortals confused the son of Ares with a demon itself? That, he could understand. Deimos was such an awful beast.

Hades began to obsess with it. It was his way to keep himself from going bonkers. Good or bad, heaven or hell, it did not matter much. Both heaven and hell were in his territories. Elysium and the Fields of Punishment were under his rule. All life after death had to go through him. The Underworld was a vast place, so why would mortals focus on it so passionately? He understood that Elysium or The Isle of Blest was what heroes would choose if they could yet mere impossible. The Judges had a say in it and they were ruthless.

So why would mortals thought that they were given the easy way by the assignation of a so-called a guardian angel in hopes that they will grow kind enough to go to heaven. Either they choose right or not. There was no way back. If a mortal were an awful human, he would surely end up in the Field of Punishment. Only those with valor and nerve would manage to get to Elysium. No one was special enough to have someone help them. There was no such thing as guardian angels….

But was it? What if Persephone had been sent to him for that very reason? He was, after all, the god that reeked of death and she was the complete opposite. What if Persephone was his guardian goddess in hopes that he would grow to be kind? He was the sweetest thing he had ever seen. Was he that awful that needed to be guided into submission? NO. No. It cannot be that. Who would dare to insult a God in that way? Hades shook his thoughts away. He was going mad with heartache.

PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER

[frasier-crane-style]

The Dirty Harry movies ranked, or not ranked, society is breaking down

1. Dirty Harry

You know it’s great. I know it’s great. Let’s move on. 

Of interest, though, is how a lot of the cliches of the ‘cowboy cop’ that Dirty Harry would come to exemplify just aren’t in play with what’s, at this point, a shaded and nuanced character. For instance, we all know the shouting police captain, “damnit, you were supposed to wait for back-up!” In the hold-up scene that famously leads to “Do I feel lucky?”, Harry does call for back-up. It’s only the fact that the criminals take off before back-up can arrive that prompts Harry to intercept them.

2. Magnum Force

I’d actually put this up there with Alien/Aliens and Terminator/T2 as an example of a sequel to a great movie that changes tack instead of doing the same thing over again. After spending a movie on criminals who play the system and get away with it, here we go the other way and focus on fascist cops who style themselves as judge, jury, and executioner.

I especially appreciate that the movie shows that such vigilantes wouldn’t be as scrupulous about avoiding collateral damage as comic book guys like the Punisher or Batman, but that’s also not used as an easy out by Harry in condemning them. He entirely takes issue with the fact that they’re murdering people, not going “good on ya, but ya shot a nun too, so I have to bring you in.”

3. The Enforcer

Probably the least memorable of the Harry movies, for good or ill. Harry goes up against a terrorist revolutionary group, which given Harry’s own problems with bureaucracy and the system might be interesting (if a little redundant after he went after the Magnum Force), but then it turns out they’re Gruberesque terrorists-for-hire. Given the topicality of the Harry movies, this means we end up with villains who don’t really stand for or espouse much of anything.

There’s an (notably unromantic) subplot about Harry partnering with a woman which is somewhat staggeringly nuanced--Harry takes issue with her lack of experience and being promoted to Inspector for PR reasons, but she’s also shown to be a competent officer for all her inexperience and she’s shown dealing with sexism both positive and negative. That is, people both dismissing her for being a woman and trying to use her as a poster child to promote their own agenda. It probably says all you need to say about Dirty Harry and the feminist movement, which is too bad, because the next one is the exact same thing, only, uhhhh

4. Sudden Impact

Eeeeeeeeh. Dirty Harry guest-stars in a rape-revenge movie, as performed by a cast of Bronson victims outta a Death Wish movie. (The event is frequently recalled with nauseating detail--a gang-rape involving the heroine, a lesbian (!), and an underage sister who ends up in a catatonic state! Geez, I thought Harry was supposed to be the sleaziest thing in these movies.) 

Although this movie did give us the Eastwood classic “Go ahead, make my day”--not bad for a film series to still be so memorable on its fourth go-around--it also pushes Harry himself to the point of self-parody. In earlier movies, Harry seemed like an average guy who might spend his off-hours having a beer, watching the game, or enjoying some female companionship. Here, Harry is taken off the case (you know how it is) and immediately goes to test-fire a huge .44 Auto Mag like he has no life outside shooting guns.

Also, having Harry be Furiosa’d in his own movie is a dubious prospect--as you might expect, having Harry investigating someone else going around ventilating scumbags means he has precious little impact on the plot (until, of course, he has to step in and save ‘Furiosa’). But, coupled with sequel escalation that sees Harry not able to go five minutes without getting into a fistfight or shoot-out (seriously, you could start a drinking game at this point), this movie gets especially dubious.

In the opening moments, Harry bluffs a murderous mafia don into having a heart attack by faking evidence proving he tortured a witness to death (uhh, isn’t this exactly what the Magnum Force was doing?). So there’s a hit put out on Harry and he has to deal with assassins every coupla minutes. (Oddly, organized crime is never the main focus of these movies.) Again, this has nothing to do with the actual plot--which already takes advantage of Harry getting into various misadventures as he goes about his duty as a cop, stopping hold-ups, negotiating hostage situations, et al--it’s just an excuse to let Harry blow some people away.

Besides, if the idea is to ask the question of a rape victim being allowed to take revenge, doesn’t it completely invalidate Harry’s moral standing if he’s done pretty much the same thing in the opening act? Spoiler alert: he doesn’t end up hauling her in or saying she’s gone too far, but still, the dramatic question is inert from the get-go because he’s already demonstrated that cold-blooded murder is fine by him. I guess maybe the dramatic question is whether he’ll be a hypocrite and say that it’s okay for him to murder bad guys, but not for her to do the same? Well, he doesn’t. Yippee.

5. The Dead Pool

The one where Dirty Harry gets into a car chase with a remote control car.

This isn’t hypocritical at all--the violent, R-rated film series full of rape, sex, gunplay, murder, foul language, et al now asks hey, what if the media is causing violence? It doesn’t go so far as to come out and say it--a villain representing violent video games or whatnot being hard to personify--but still, you’d think the movie would be a little self-aware about probably having shown as many women being terrorized as the slasher movies they target here.

Well, that and heavy metal music, Jerry Springer-like talk shows, sensationalistic news programs, and, uh, celebrity dead pools. Plus, I guess, metafiction, what with all the movies being filmed while inside a movie. No wonder this movie doesn’t end up having anything to say about violence in the media. It’s covering practically everything that could be on a TV screen.

Speaking of everything that could be on a TV screen, take a look at this actual scene from an honest-to-God Dirty Harry movie and see if you can find everything that would be downright hilarious to a viewer in 2017.

(Now that’s the video he should’ve sent to Emma Stone. She would’ve been like “Andrew Garfield who?”)

By the way, is it not odd that a bunch of people in Hollywood, who you’d think would know how movies work, expect us to believe there would be a scene in a slasher movie’s narrative which could double as a music video for Real-Life Rock Star Jim Carrey? Yeah, pretty much any eighties slasher director would be that cheap, but an actual scene where a rock star lip-syncs to his song while reenacting The Exorcist? Could you image watching, say, Friday The 13th Part VII: The New Blood and that scene following any other scene at all? They could’ve just said that Liam Neesons is using the same crew as the movie he’s shooting at the same time, or that’s it a tie-in. Well, maybe the movie within a movie is depicting Jim Carrey filming an Exorcist-themed music video there as well, a movie within a movie within a movie. We have to go deeper.

Anyway, this is pretty much a slog. The villain is a serial killer who’s motivation for killing people on a celebrity dead pool is pretty much just that he’s crazy. He’s not a patch on Scorpio. He’s one of those movie serial killers who uses a bunch of crazy methods, including (infamously) an RC car loaded with explosives. And, like I said, it’s odd that we’re going back to the serial killer well instead of doing organized crime for once.

There is a mob figure who puts a hit out on Harry (just like in the last movie; how many real-life cops have had hits put out on them, much less multiple times?), but Harry bluffs him into thinking he’ll get whacked if Harry dies. This results in the guy actually assigning Harry some mob guys as bodyguards but, unforgivably, nothing at all comes of this. You’d think Harry being escorted around by the fucking Mafia would be comedy gold, but they disappear from the movie immediately. Gyp!

The only thing that makes this a fitting cap for Harry’s oeuvre is that at the end, the villain gets his hands on Harry’s .44 Magnum and fires six shots instead of only five. Of course, that means that when Harry shoots him with a harpoon, he’s basically executing a guy in cold blood who was clearly stated to be mentally ill and who is effectively unarmed. He didn’t have a hostage or anything. Even Scorpio was going for his gun after Harry tried to bring him in alive. Kind of a sour note to end five movies on.

Oh, and to continue the theme of Harry becoming a self-parody, we’re told here that he’s trashed three department squad cars in a month. Even for Dirty Harry, that seems a little excessive.

[talesofabyss-blog]

A BITTERSWEET BREAK

A 10- MINUTE PLAY 

BY

D. M. Escoto

C.A. Feltis

J. Intal

R. G. Ocampo

R. T. Policarpio

Grade 12- Jehoshaphat

 CHARACTERS

Atty. Riguel Aleje Fontanilla – 25 year-old

-          Attorney at Happy Firm

Atty. Veronica Perez  - 24 year-old

-          Public attorney at CA Department

Anika Jimenez – 24 year-old

-          Investigator

-          Friend of Veronica

Sec. Anna Cruz – 20 year-old

-          Secretary of Veronica

TIME

The time is in the year 2050

PLACE

California

(Scene 1)

RIGUEL

(Answers the phone immediately)

Hello? Yes, this is Atty. Fontanilla from Happy Firm. How may I help you? Okay, Just text to me the address and I’ll go there right away.

 RIGUEL fixes his things quickly before leaving the coffee shop then suddenly RIGUEL bumps on VERONICA. Veronica’s coffee spilled on her dress.

VERONICA

(in a yelling tone)

Excuse me?! Are you blind?!

RIGUEL

(Leaving the place in a hurry)

I’m sorry, miss!

 VERONICA

(Staring at him badly)

How rude!

(Scene 2)

Afternoon. At the Crime Scene. In a condo unit. POLICEMEN are all around. The cadaver on the floor. RIGUEL goes straight to the INVESTIGATOR to tell him that he is assigned to investigate the crime.

Subsequently, VERONICA comes in. RIGUEL leaves.

 VERONICA

(whispering)

What is he doing here?

 ANIKA

(In confusion)

Why? Do you know him?

 VERONICA

(In a pissed tone)

No, but all I know is that he’s an annoying guy who ruined my day just couple of minutes ago.

 ANIKA

But that guy happened to be your opponent. He is Attorney Fontanilla, the lawyer of the accused.

 VERONICA

(In shock)

What?! He’s a lawyer? He didn’t even say sorry properly earlier and now he’s acting like a hero here? Fighting for justice? Hah! Let me show him what a real lawyer is.

 ANIKA

Veronica Perez Garcia, what are you planning to do?

 VERONICA

(Smirks)

Nothing. Let’s just go and start looking for evidences we can use against that Fontanilla-annoying-guy.

(Scene 3)

VERONICA goes outside the CA Department

A STRANGER suddenly holds her hand. 

STRANGER

(Begs)

Ms. Garcia, please help me, my son is innocent.

 VERONICA

(Talks softly)

Sir---wait, please stop grabbing my hand. Sir, please let go. There’s nothing I can do anymore.

 STANGER

(Begging)

No, I need you to listen. My son is innocent but now he’s in the prison.

 RIGUEL parks his car. Hears a COMMOTION. Goes to the scene. Sees VERONICA being harassed.

RIGUEL

Sir, let go of her hand. If you refused to, we could file a case against you.

 STRANGER

(softly)

Ms. Garcia, please reconsider. I really need your help.

 RIGUEL

(In a concerned tone)

Are you alright, Miss? What does he need from you?

 VERONICA

(Raging)

None of your business!

 RIGUEL

(In a confused tone)

Wait, why are you shouting at me instead of saying thank you? What did I do?

 VERONICA

(Sarcastic)

Well, as far as I remember, we bumped at each other yesterday in the coffee shop and you threw my coffee but wait there’s more, you also ruined my dress!

 RIGUEL

(Apologetic)

Oh right, I am so sorry. I didn’t mean it, it’s just that I’m in a hurry. If you want, I could replace that coffee today, if you are free.

 VERONICA

(shrugs off)

Fine. Let’s go for a coffee, just meet me on the same coffee shop.

(Scene 4)                                                                  

VERONICA and RIGUEL walks into a coffee shop. Buys a coffee. THEY decide to go home.

 VERONICA

Thanks for the coffee, Mr. Fontanilla.

 RIGUEL

Welcome, I owe you one. By the way, just call me Riguel, Mr. Fontanilla is too formal.

 VERONICA goes inside her car, but it won’t start.

 VERONICA

(pissed tone)

This car is just fine earlier!

 RIGUEL

(Concerned)

What happened?

 VERONICA

I don’t know. It just won’t start.

 RIGUEL tries to fix VERONICA’S car but in the end, RIGUEL also gave up.

RIGUEL

I’ll just give you a ride if it’s okay with you.

 VERONICA

(Shy and hesitant)

No, it’s fine. I’ll just take a cab.

 RIGUEL

(insisting tone)

Again, I insist. It’s getting late and what if that man is still following you?

By the way, where do you live?

 VERONICA

Hillsborough Park but if you’re out of the way, I’ll just take a cab.

 RIGUEL

(Surprised)

What? You mean, we live in the same neighborhood?

 VERONICA

(Astonishes)

Really? What a coincidence.

 RIGUEL

Yes, so there’s no way you’re taking a cab.

 THEY leave the coffee shop. Goes straight to VERONICA’s house. THEY arrive. RIGUEL opens the door for VERONICA.

VERONICA

Thank you for today.

 RIGUEL

(Apologetic)

No problem. I’m sorry for making a bad impression yesterday.

VERONICA

(Goodbye tone)

Forget it. You should go home, it’s already late. Thank you for the coffee and ride.

  (Scene 5)

Next morning, RIGUEL sees VERONICA walking while on his way to work. He beeps his car.

 VERONICA

(surprised)

Oh my God!

 RIGUEL

(laughs)

What’s making you frown so early in the morning?

 VERONICA

(irritated tone)

You almost gave me a heart attack! I’m just pissed off because my car is not working.

 RIGUEL

Still not? Come on, hop in.

 VERONICA

(agreeing tone)

What? No! I don’t want to be a burden and besides, it looks like you have a work?

 RIGUEL

Yeah, but I still have hours before my work.

 VERONICA

Fine, whatever.

 RIGUEL starts the engine and drive to                                                                                  her office.

VERONICA

So, what’s your work?

 RIGUEL

(mocking tone)

Getting to know each other stage, huh?

 VERONICA

(reacts with disbelief)

Stop assuming please, I’m just curious.

 RIGUEL

(cleared his throat and started to be serious)

I am a lawyer and I work for Happy Firm. How about you? I saw you yesterday in CA Department of Justice Riverside.

 VERONICA

Technically, I work there, I run errands for them.

 VERONICA’s stomach grumbles.

 VERONICA

(Surprised and laughs)

Oh my God, that’s definitely not my tummy!

 RIGUEL

(embarrassed tone)

Fine, it’s mine! But let me explain, I usually don’t eat my breakfast because, first, I’m always early for work and second, no one cooks for me so I don’t really have time for it.

 VERONICA

(concerned face)

Do you want to eat first? We can drive thru from the fast food nearby our office.

 RIGUEL

No, it’s fine. I’m used to it. Besides, you’ll be late.          

 VERONICA

Okay, if you say so.

 They arrive in their offices and bid goodbye. RIGUEL sees VERONICA walking again outside their subdivision and asks her to hop in his car.

 RIGUEL

(asks Veronica with a jolly face)

Hey Veronica! Hop in, I’ll drive you into your office.

What’s that? Why do you have an excess bag?

 VERONICA

(joyfully handed the paper bag to Riguel)

Oh, this for you! Since, you’re driving me to my work and even driving me to home. I’ll cook for you in exchange.

 RIGUEL

(surprised)

Wow, thank you. I really appreciate it.

 VERONICA

No problem, I’ll just leave it here later. So, how’s work?

 RIGUEL

(frowns)

It’s fine but a bit stressful. I’m handling a murder case. I’m fighting for the accused, I don’t know but they kept on blaming him even though the evidences are not pointing him. Something’s wrong.

 VERONICA

(inquisitive)

What makes you think that he is not the killer?

 RIGUEL

(confident)

I just know and after all, he’s my client.

 Months had passed, it's been a routine for them to come to work and eat breakfast together. One day…

 RIGUEL patiently waits for VERONICA outside her house.  Eventually RIGUEL decides to go.

(Scene 6)

RIGUEL enters the court and sees VERONICA standing on the other side with the family of the victim. Upon seeing VERONICA, RIGUEL has realizations until the hearing ends that leads for veronica to win the case and he concluded that she used him to win her case.

 JUDGE

Members of the jury, attorneys, and court personnel, thank you for the respect that you have given the law. However, as you leave the court, remember that you have a duty to uphold the oath of confidentiality concerning these proceedings. I hereby declare the trial adjourned.

 The JUDGE bangs the gavel. RIGUEL walks out from the court. VERONICA chases him.

 VERONICA

(teary eye)

Riguel, wait, let me explain!

 VERONICA chases RIGUEL.

 RIGUEL

(disappointed)

Go ahead, explain how you fooled me all this time.

 VERONICA

Fooled? I never did that! It was never my intention to make you feel this way. I’m sorry, please believe me.

 RIGUEL

(sarcasm and mockery)

You’re really a good actress, huh. You even cooked for me and all but then all of those were front act? To spy on me and win this case then congratulations because you succeed!

 VERONICA

(gently)

Okay, at first, I saw you at the crime scene of this case then that time, I was mad at you. I was so determined to show you that I am better than you but believe me, I never planned for this to happen. I never planned to spy on you or what. I am not that shallow!

 RIGUEL

(shouts)

Do you think I’ll believe on you? After everything you’ve done? After showing up here out of nowhere?

 VERONICA

(teary eyes)

I am sorry.

  RIGUEL

(shouting)

I asked you, right? I asked you about your work and you told me you’ll just run errands for the office but just a few minutes ago, you stood up there, accusing someone!

 VERONICA

(cracking voice)

Yes, but that’s because I still don’t know you enough that time. That’s why I didn’t tell you about my job. I’m sorry. I promise, I won’t lie to you again.

 RIGUEL

I’m sorry but you missed your chance. I won’t let you lie to me again.

 VERONICA

(tears started to fall down)

I love you. I really do. Please, believe me.

 RIGUEL

(frustrated and disappointed)

You didn’t love me. You used me. For God sake, I am not an object! But you treated me like one. But you know what’s more painful? After everything you’ve done, after you0 lied to me, I still love you but I can’t stand being with you knowing that you succeed by ruining someone else’s life. Congratulations, Veronica!

 VERONICA

(shouting and crying heavily)

Riguel!

(Scene 7)

After three months, Veronica is promoted and sent to another place because of the case she won against Riguel.

 EMPLOYEE

Good morning Ms. Veronica!

VERONICA smells the EMPLOYEE’S PERFUME. VERONICA thinks about RIGUEL

EMPLOYEE

(concerned tone)

Ms. Veronica, are you alright?

 VERONICA

(jolted tone)

I’m sorry, I just remembered someone.

 The EMPLOYEE exits. VERONICA goes to Backyard Brew, the coffee shop where VERONICA and RIGUEL first met.

VERONICA orders a COFFEE and spills accidentally to RIGUEL

VERONICA

Oh my God, I’m sorry, sir.

 RIGUEL

(cold voice)

It’s fine.

     VERONICA looks at the guy (RIGUEL) as she hears RIGUEL’S voice.

 VERONICA

(In shock)

Riguel? Oh my God, it’s me, Veronica. How have you been?

 RIGUEL

(in frustration)

I have to go, I’m sorry.

 VERONICA

(sobbing)

Wait, Riguel, I have to take this chance because if I didn’t, I might regret again not only for three months but for the rest of my life. Riguel, I still love you.

 RIGUEL

(emotionless)

Veronica, when I told you I love you, I really do and after we fought, I just wanted space to think but you, you chose to walk away. I even waited for you, but I realized something, waiting for you was like waiting for the stars to go down, it’s useless and disappointing.

 _________________________________________________________

Photo source: https://www.pinterest.ph/pin/402368547957169514/?nic=1a&fbclid=IwAR1H3cmxXAUNCVkh70le7Qwtp5cHkbDjimYdfeZgR4d0lPzFVfo-yWcufgo

[douglasacogan]

Just some (of lots and lots of) commentary about Roger Stone(d) federal sentencing process

Unsurprisingly, lots of folks have lots of things to say about the upcoming federal sentencing of Roger Stone and the sentencing process and controversy that has already unfolded.  Here are links and short passages from three notable pieces that recently caught my eye:

From Jacob Sullum at Reason, "Roger Stone Deserves a Lighter Sentence, but Not Because He Is Trump's Buddy":

This week President Donald Trump and his appointees at the Justice Department intervened in the sentencing of Roger Stone, a longtime Trump crony who was convicted last November of obstructing a congressional investigation, lying to a congressional committee, and witness tampering. Yesterday, the day after four prosecutors assigned to the case recommended a sentence of seven to nine years, Timothy Shea, the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, overrode them, suggesting "a sentence of incarceration far less" than the one originally proposed.

That reversal, which came after Trump called the original recommendation "horrible and very unfair," is unseemly and smacks of legal favoritism. At the same time, a prison sentence of seven to nine years is disproportionate given the nature and consequences of Stone's crimes....

Regardless of its motivation, the revised memorandum is admirably measured and fair-minded, noting that prosecutors have a duty to pursue justice, not simply to clobber defendants with the heaviest penalties the law allows. It would substantially improve the quality of justice in this country if prosecutors more often took that approach with defendants who are not the president's buddies.

From Andrew McCarthy at The National Review, "The Roger Stone Sentencing Fiasco":

But for his connection to Trump, Stone would never have been pursued in a collusion fever dream that Mueller’s prosecutors knew was bogus when they charged him. Yet his crimes, while exaggerated, were real. He was convicted by a jury and, under federal law, that presumptively warrants incarceration, though he could be spared by the judge (whom the president has picked a strange time to antagonize). If the president thinks that Stone and Flynn (among others) have been given a raw deal, the Constitution empowers him to pardon them, or at least commute their sentences.

If President Trump is afraid, in an election year, to take the political hit that a pardon for Stone would entail, that is understandable. But then he should bite his tongue and click out of Twitter. The Justice Department’s job is to process cases, including Mueller cases, pursuant to law. If the president wants to make those cases disappear, he has to do it himself and be accountable. His provocative running commentary only ensures that the DOJ will be accused of kowtowing to him. It also guarantees that, if the ongoing criminal probe of the Russiagate investigation eventually yields any indictments, they will be assailed as political persecutions rather than good-faith law enforcement.

From David Oscar Marcus at The Hill, "Let's use Roger Stone's case to fix our broken justice system":

People are rightly upset that DOJ is saying that the sentencing guidelines apply to everyone — except the president’s friends.  That’s a huge problem, and it’s no wonder that the prosecutors handling the case resigned.  How can they go into court every day and ask for monster sentences across the board except for FOT (Friends of Trump)?

But the larger problem, and the one that no one is talking about, is that the system itself is fatally flawed because it is set up for prosecutors and judges to issue unjustifiably harsh sentences.  Stone shouldn’t be thrown in a cage for 7-9 years — and neither should any other first-time non-violent offender.  There are two important fixes available:

First, we should abandon the sentencing guidelines.  Often prosecutors fall back on the sentencing guidelines for cover when asking for these crazy high sentences. Those “guidelines” are a complicated point system that calculate potential sentences by adding and subtracting points based on factors like the amount of loss, whether the person is a leader, and so on.  The problem with this point system is that it is not based on any empirical data or study. The numbers are plucked out of thin air.  Further, they don’t take into account the characteristics of the individual being sentenced.  Has the defendant led a good life?  Did she serve in the military?  Donate to charity?  Raise a good family?  The guidelines don’t care.  The Supreme Court recognized these problems and said that judges should simply consult the guidelines but should not be bound by them.  That was a good start, but the truth is that they aren’t even worth consulting.  They don’t work, and — since their implementation back in 1984 — our jail population has exploded.

Second, we should eliminate the trial tax.  This case is a good example of the trial tax in action. Had Stone pleaded guilty, he would have been looking at a sentence of closer to 24 months under the guidelines.  And had he met with prosecutors and cooperated, he likely would have been sentenced to probation.  Because he had the audacity to go to trial, his sentence goes from probation to 7-9 years.  It’s no wonder that innocent people plead guilty. It’s no wonder that trials are vanishing.  Before the sentencing guidelines and the trial tax, 20 percent of cases went to trial.  Now it’s less than 3 percent.  That is pretty stark evidence that the trial tax has become too severe.

Lots of people are rightly saying that Trump was wrong to jump in for his friend and overrule the line prosecutors’ sentencing recommendation.  But what was wrong about it was not overruling an overly harsh sentence.  What was wrong about it was that he did it for a friend instead of across the board. We are in bad need of criminal justice reform. Let’s overrule all of these insane sentencing recommendations for first time non-violent offenders — not just the FOT.

Prior related posts:

For Roger Stone, federal prosecutors advocate for within-guideline sentence of 7.3 to 9 years in prison ... which Prez Trump calls a "miscarriage of justice!" 

DOJ now says "sentence of incarceration far less than 87 to 108 months [for Roger Stone] would be reasonable under the circumstances"  

Would it be improper for a President to write a character letter for a defendant facing federal sentencing? 

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247011 https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2020/02/just-some-of-lots-and-lots-of-commentary-about-roger-stoned-federal-sentencing-process.html via http://www.rssmix.com/

[marymosley]

Types of Lawyer You Can Hire In USA

There are more than 1.3 million lawyers in the USA and all of them specializes in a different field. Getting in legal trouble can be worrisome and finding the right kind of lawyer can sometimes be exhausting. There are different lawyers for different kinds of crimes, and only the right type of lawyer can represent properly. Let’s have a look at some major types of law specializations that American Bar Association offers:

Corporate Lawyer

A corporate lawyer also referred to as business lawyer works for a specific business. Their job is to make the board or owner of the corporation aware of the corporate laws. They also make sure that the organization is following all the rules of the state and everything is done within the boundary of laws. Corporate lawyers mostly work in-house, as the company prefers them to be strictly focused on them. In some cases, corporations hire law firms to negotiate more complicated things like mergers. A corporate lawyer also helps a company negotiate business deals and gives them a legal edge. They are classified into business litigators and business transactional lawyers.

Personal Injury Lawyer

Personal injury law refers to the lawyers that specialize in tort law. They represent people who have received a personal injury in an accident that was the fault of another person. They take on following different types of cases, i.e. assault-related cases, accidents that may have resulted in injury or had caused the death of a family member, malpractice by a doctor, defamation, insurance company refusing to pay damages and physical damage caused by any kind of product. They help the victim getting fair compensation for their losses. They can be of great help if a person has been in an accident and the insurance company is not accepting the claim

Estate Lawyer

These lawyers’ help people manage their property and also help them buy new ones. One can go to them if they are planning to buy a specific part of the land or if they want to solve a property dispute. They can also help you if anyone has taken your land or if your space is being used without your permission. Estate planning lawyers help you make a will as well. They give you a plan for your estate and how it will be distributed in your will. It is their duty to make sure that the beneficiaries of the will are notified in time. They can also help you pick the right kind of life insurance and retirement plan as well.

Public Lawyer

Public lawyers are lawyers who work for the welfare of society. They are usually dedicated to causes, organizations and people who cannot afford to get justice. They work with several different types of NGOs, education sector and as well as international organizations in some scenario. They do not charge any fee or work at a much cheaper rate for these clients. Anyone who cannot afford a lawyer can look for a public lawyer to get out of their legal situation. Lawyers who are associated with a firm and do pro bono occasionally are not usually considered as public lawyers.

Criminal Lawyer

As evident by the name, criminal lawyers help prosecute or defend a client. They are usually involved in situations where a serious crime has been committed and justice is needed. These lawyers have to go to trials most of the time and have to convince the jury that the person alleged did or did not commit the crime. These lawyers include Prosecutor attorney who brings charges against a party, Defense attorney who defends the accused against all the charges, Public Defense attorney, which is assigned by the court to the person against whom the charges have been brought. They are responsible for the proceeding of everything including bail, plea deal, and avoiding conviction. Also, if you are looking for a criminal lawyer nearby, you can look for the best Sacramento Criminal Lawyer in your area.

Family Lawyer/ Divorce Lawyer

Family lawyers help you deal with all the legal issues that can arise in a family. They help you deal with the complexities of estate or assets division after the death of a family member who owned it. But most of the times family lawyers work in divorce court. The percentage of divorce in the US is around 50% and these cases are handled with the care of family lawyers who are also referred to as divorce lawyers.  Not only they help ease the divorce process but also takes care of child custody as well. People usually hire divorce lawyers when they want full custody or want a part of their spouse’s wealth. They also help couples with prenuptial agreements and takes action as well to enforce them.

Civil Rights Lawyer

Civil rights attorney help people get justice when they have been denied their rights. They represent people who have been a victim of racism, gender discrimination, age discrimination, religious discrimination, or class discrimination. They also represent people who have been denied a right because of a physical or mental disability. The United States is a free country and any individual who has been discriminated against has a right to fight for what they deserve in the court.  For example; if a person was fired from a job because of their religious views, they can sue them with the help of a civil rights lawyer, to get what they owe.

Military Lawyer

Also known as Judge Advocate Generals, military lawyers work for a different sector of the military. These sectors include Marines, Navy corps, Army and Air force. Their duties include making the army personnel aware of the laws, advising the military officers on legal issues, counselling regarding court marital, preparing army personnel for a trail. They represent army personnel who have been caught in between a case. They are also responsible for the paperwork for the army. All the important documents are drafted under their supervision. They also write military handbooks and rules. However, the military lawyers do not get paid as much as other kinds of lawyers do.

Internet Lawyer

Internet lawyers help an organization, business or an individual deal with online issues. For example: if you are looking to make a website for your registered business but the domain name has already been taken, they can help you file a motion to claim the domain name. You can also call them when an online website is stealing your content or are showing your trademark on your website. They can also be the lawyers for cybercrime issues as well. If someone is bullying you on the internet or are sending you dangerous threats, you can prosecute that person with an internet lawyer. Copyrights issues, privacy policies and terms of agreement violations can all be proceeded with the help of an internet lawyer.

Government Lawyer

Government lawyer is usually as similar to the public lawyers, but they may have expertise in one specific area. For example, a public lawyer who specializes in the field of taxes can become a government lawyer and can provide his input and advice to make the tax regulations better. They also deal with other public sectors including health, human rights and workplace safety. They also make sure that the right laws are put in order to make sure that they are getting justice. They take actions on wrongful death complaints, harassment issues and discriminations as well.

Immigration Lawyer

If you are looking to experience the culture of another country and considering moving there, then immigration lawyer is for you. They help you with the process of immigration and makes sure that all your papers are in order for you to get the visa. It is their responsibility to make sure that your application is without a flaw and will not be rejected for any silly issues. They can also help you find work options outside of the US. They can circulate your CV in potential organizations and can get you an offer letter. Some immigration lawyers also offer services for students as well. They can help the student to find their desired course in a foreign country and can work on their application form there.

Legal Malpractice

Ever wonder if there is a specialized lawyer for lawyers who have committed a crime by mistreating the law. If the lawyer is charged with malpractice, he will have to appear in front of a judge and would have to answer for his crimes. Now in these scenarios lawyers are usually charged when they have used illegal means to win a case or has altered a piece of evidence or a witness. Legal malpractice lawyers specialize in this field and represent people who have been wronged by lawyers or a lawyer who has been accused of malpractice. If a wrong verdict is made in the court and it has affected you or your family or a friend, you have the right to go after the lawyer who may have misguided the jury and you can do that by hiring a legal malpractice lawyer.

The post Types of Lawyer You Can Hire In USA appeared first on Legal Desire.

Types of Lawyer You Can Hire In USA published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[deadlydagger]

WHAT MADE ME DECIDE TO BECOME A LAWYER AND WHAT DID I LIKE MOST ABOUT THE PROFESSION?

On December 15, 1961, at age 22, I walked out of what I thought would be the last classroom in my life. It just goes to show you that there are two words that should be used sparingly: they are "never" and "always."

I loved playing football and was determined to continue playing even though my eligibility had expired at the end of the 1961 season. But the Marine Corps had a couple of military bases with football teams that played against college teams. One was Quantico and the other was Camp Pendleton. It looked like I was going to be drafted into the service one way or the other as they had sent me a notice to appear for a physical examination to see if I physically qualified for the military. If I passed the physical examination and got drafted, I would have a two year hitch as a dog face (Army slug). Both the Navy and the Marines had a three year hitch but it was remarkably better duty. The Marine Corps recruiters said they thought that they could ensure my matriculation into one of their two bases where I could play football.

I also met with the local recruiting agency for the Navy and they advised me that they had a football team in Japan that could play a college schedule. So I was caught between the two branches of the service. I was not interested in the Army or the Air Force at all. One of the people that I was working with, Harold Headlee, had been a Navy SeaBee and he crystallized the nature of the services for me. He told me I could decide between a Marine, ending up in a foxhole eating food out of cans, sleeping on the dirt, ducking hand grenades and other types of artillery. Or, I could be on a ship, eating three square meals a day in the wardroom, sleeping in a nice warm bed at night, and benefiting from other things that the Navy had to offer; such as sailing the seas of the world, an adventure in and of itself.

So I joined the Navy, went to Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island for 18 weeks, and then was assigned to a destroyer home ported in San Diego. (The promise of playing football in the Navy was a phony pipe-dream). During the three years that I spent on this ship, we sailed the entire Pacific Ocean twice and had many positive and negative experiences. One of the things that Harold never told me was that, in rough seas, we would have to hang on our rack throughout the night to keep from being tossed out of it onto the deck. He did not tell me that, if the seas got really rough, our full plates of food would fly across the room banging off the bulkhead, food all over the floor. At least, we never got shot at.

My Navy experiences were extensive and would be the subject of another essay. However, they did play into my ultimate career as a lawyer.

After officer candidate school, I reported to my ship on September 3, 1962. Twenty-five months later, in October, 1964, I had a 10 day leave during which I returned to my home right before my ship was due to head to the Western Pacific again at the end of October. I had already made up my mind that I would leave the Navy once my obligation was up in August 1965. I wanted to be a football coach, walking in the shoes of one of the great football coaches of all time, Woody Hayes. So I went to see Woody one afternoon while I was at home to discuss with him what I would need to do in order to enter the field of coaching college football. I did not know whether I had the talent to be a football coach but Woody assured me that I definitely did have all that I needed to be a success. He also assured me that he could set forth a path for me to establish a career in coaching. He would let me be a student assistant coach with Ohio State, learn how things needed to be done in order to be successful. However, there was a condition. He said while I was a student assistant coach, I needed to go to law school.

My heart sank. I told him that I never wanted to go into a classroom again and especially to law school which would have required three years of school. I told him pretty much flat out that I would not agree to that. He said that would be no problem but those were the parameters within which I had to comply to receive his assistance. (I think he had a vision of the future that I was too young to see).

After my leave, I went back to my ship and, strangely enough on my bunk was the biography of Clarence Darrow, one of the great trial lawyers of all time. To this day I have no idea who the book belonged to or how it got on my bunk. But I read the book cover to cover very quickly and was kind of inspired by it. While I was reading about Clarence Darrow, I was talking to one of the sailors on my ship who, at the same time, was reading about Samuel Leibowitz, a great trial lawyer and judge in the state of New York. As the sailor and I finished our respective books, we traded so I got to read that book as well.

Shortly after I returned from my leave, our ship left for the Western Pacific. Our destroyer group was escorting an aircraft carrier, the Coral Sea. We always stopped at Pearl Harbor to refresh and replenish before continuing to Westpac. On the way to Pearl, the Coral Sea blew a boiler and was unable to continue until repairs were made. So we were hung up in Pearl Harbor for 60 days. During that time and thereafter on that trip overseas, many of our sailors got into mischief, resulting in courts-martial. A court-martial consisted of a prosecuting officer, a defense officer, and several officers sitting as a jury. I was assigned to be a prosecutor and/or a defense counsel on every one of these cases.

An officer’s day is filled with many duties while on ship at sea. One day as I was working hard to prepare for one of the cases that I was handling, I said to one of my fellow officers that I was really enjoying doing these courts-martial and, if I did not have all of the extensive duties otherwise, the courts-martial work would really be challenging and exciting. Bingo! A transformation took place on the spot.

As a result of all of these factors coalescing at the same time, I made a decision to at least apply to law school, take the LSAT, and see where this took me. When I was released from the Navy in August 1965, I went to the administrative offices of the Ohio State law school to see what the status of my application was. I was told on the spot that I was admitted and to come for orientation at a particular date at the school. Jody Wharton, the Assistant Dean who interviewed me, who became a good friend of mine throughout the years, later told me that as soon as they saw my photo in full Navy dress blues, I was in!! It was clearly an easier process than later when my children went through the same thing.

I compressed my law school education into nine straight quarters. In other words, instead of taking summers off as most of my classmates did, I went to school in the summer of 1966 and 1967. I was not allowed to work for the first year of law school, per student rules. However, during the 1966 and 1967 football seasons, I was a graduate assistant coach. In 1966, I coached the freshman team. But in 1967, due to the number of guard and tackle positions, I was elevated to be a varsity coach, assisting Bill Mallory who was our defensive line coach. This was truly an unbelievable experience to prepare me for a career in coaching. I was able to be a definite part of the defense coaching team, participating in the evaluation of the players week to week and was present at all the defensive coaches’ meetings early in the morning, during the course of the day, and in the evening. Sometimes we would have meetings until 11 o'clock at night and have to be back on campus at 6 o'clock or 7 o'clock in the morning for more meetings or to work with the team. In addition to this great experience, Woody paid me $500 for the 1966 season and $1000 for the 1967 season. That and the little bit of money that I received from the G.I. Bill kept me afloat financially until I graduated.

I graduated from law school in December 1967. By that time, I was firmly committed to the law. By and large, coaching was the toughest job I've ever had, even harder than running jackhammers, hod carrying, digging footers, you name it, jobs that I had while in college. So I decided to be a lawyer!

I practiced law for 47 years. The first few years were kind of rocky. I did not receive a great job offer like some of the better students in my class. As a result, I accepted a couple of jobs that I did not like all that well and then worked for the County Prosecutor’s office for ten months during which I tried 47 jury trials. I was in trial all the time and as soon as I finished a case, I started another one right away. Sometimes, I had a jury deliberating while I was impaneling a jury in the same courtroom. I also started a little side practice on my own where I sometimes worked in the evening and also every Saturday and Sunday. So I was working seven days a week for about 27 months.

Well, if I wanted to be a trial lawyer, I sure got my feet wet in that career. But I was working so hard that I literally ran out of steam. In March 1971, I collapsed and was out of work for a week. Believe it or not, I was so happy to be in bed feeling like I just could not do anything but rest. After the week off, I returned to work for a week but collapsed again and had to take another week off. My body was sending a clear message to me which I finally understood.

In April 1971, I left the prosecutor's office, hung my shield, and became a real good trial lawyer. I developed a reputation statewide and nationally to some extent in my areas of practice. That lasted until 2014 when I retired. It was quite a thrill for me to seek justice for those who could not achieve it by themselves. There was no greater sense of excitement then to have a client reach out to shake my hand with tears in his eyes, telling me thanks for working so hard for him.

It is kind of ironic that high-powered law firms did not seek me out when I graduated. But, striking out on my own, working diligently every day, I was able to build a law firm with seven lawyers and 10-15 staff. This was a great contribution to our local community as well as making law in the legislature and the Supreme Court. Early in my life, I would never in a million years have thought that I would be a lawyer. Yet, that was exactly what I was cut out to do. There are no coincidences in life. We each have a plan set in stone. Our job, each of us, is to sort out what the plan is and follow it to its conclusion. Hopefully we will benefit those with whom we come in contact. In my case, that is definitely what happened.

If one looks at my history set forth above, it is clear that a large number of occurrences had to take place in a timely manner for me to end up where I am today. In another essay, I laid out my educational and athletic experiences.

From the time that I started high school until I left the University of Dayton six years later, I had one setback after another, a lot of adversity. In a high state of frustration, I entered Ohio State to finish my education but, through a miracle, I was able to play football, played for two of the greatest coaches in history and won a National Championship. I was urged by Woody Hayes to enter law school which I did not want to do, read the biographies of two great lawyers, was commissioned by the captain of my ship to participate in a large number of courts-martial, changing my attitude about law, was admitted to law school in a breeze, passed the bar and my life was changed forever. This is how I developed my philosophy of life: you never know what opportunities will prevent themselves, or what adversity you have to overcome to accomplish your goals. So: be prepared, never give up, show up every day.

Daniel D. Connor

December 22, 2018

[theconservativebrief]

The fatal police shooting of 19-year-old Quintonio LeGrier, a black university student in mental distress, sparked controversy in 2015, particularly due to the death of a bystander struck when a Chicago police officer opened fire. Now a recent verdict in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by LeGrier’s father is only adding to that controversy after a judge reversed a settlement given to the man’s family.

On Wednesday, a jury ruled that while the shooting was unjustified, Chicago Police Officer Robert Rialmo reasonably feared for his life when he began firing at LeGrier. The jury also awarded the teenager’s family $1 million in damages, far less than the $25 million the family sought. But Judge Rena Marie Van Tine quickly reversed the award, determining that because the jury’s ruling found that Rialmo had reacted out of a reasonable fear, the man’s family could not be awarded money.

Since 2015, LeGrier’s has been one of the more high-profile cases against the Chicago Police Department, occurring as the agency faced heavy scrutiny for incidents of police violence in black neighborhoods. The shooting received more scrutiny with Bettie Jones’s accidental death.

In the wake of the incident, each of the involved parties sought to assign guilt in the case, with the city at one point blaming LeGrier for Jones’s death, while his family argued that the officer was responsible for the shooting.

Due to laws that give police wide latitude to use force, it’s rare for officers to be charged or convicted for police shootings. Wrongful death lawsuits often serve as the only recourse for a shooting victim’s family. But the LeGrier case highlights that these types of suits rely heavily on questions about the justifiability of a police shooting, a question made much more complicated given the significant legal protections afforded to police officers.

In the early morning hours of December 26, 2015, Antonio LeGrier called police, saying that his 19-year-old son, Quintonio, who was staying in his father’s apartment, “freaked out” and was holding a baseball bat. Quintonio himself had also called 911 several times that night, telling dispatchers that there was an emergency and that he needed the police. Two of those calls came before his father dialed 911, and were dismissed by dispatchers, a third was made shortly before police arrived.

When Rialmo and another officer arrived at the multi-unit apartment building, they began moving toward the LeGriers’ second-level apartment. According to the officers, Quintonio quickly appeared in front of them, swinging an aluminum and almost striking Rialmo, forcing the officer to move back.

The officer then fired at the teenager, striking him several times, with some of the bullets hitting him from behind. One of those shots hit and killed Jones, the LeGrier’s 55-year-old neighbor who lived in a first-level apartment unit and had opened the door for the police. Early last year, prosecutors declined to press criminal charges against Rialmo for the shooting deaths of LeGrier and Jones, but the city recently settled a wrongful death suit with Jones’s family for $16 million.

In the wake of the incident, the LeGrier family argued that Rialmo did not attempt to de-escalate the situation prior to opening fire, claiming that he shot at Quintonio LeGrier from far away. In 2017, Chicago’s Civilian Office of Police Accountability agreed, determining that the deaths of both LeGrier and Jones were unjustified and adding that evidence suggested Rialmo was further away from LeGrier than initially reported.

The city police chief disagreed, saying that Rialmo had behaved reasonably. Rialmo has worked desk duty since the shooting. Due to the split decisions between the disciplinary office and the department, it is now up to the Chicago Police Board to determine if he will be fired. The two 911 dispatchers who had ignored LeGrier’s calls were punished.

Rialmo has maintained that fear of injury caused him to fire at LeGrier, arguing that the young man’s actions were the catalyst for the shooting. When LeGrier’s father filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Rialmo, the officer filed a countersuit against the LeGrier estate, alleging that Quintonio’s actions were the reason Jones died and that the shooting had caused Rialmo severe mental distress. In a particularly bizarre turn, the city of Chicago also briefly filed a lawsuit against LeGrier’s estate, blaming him for the shooting. The city’s lawsuit was quickly withdrawn after receiving heavy criticism.

The LeGrier shooting came as Chicago PD’s use of force was already under intense scrutiny, just one month after the department released footage of the fatal shooting of Laquan McDonald, a 16-year-old shot multiple times by a city police officer in 2014.

At the civil trial that began earlier this month, lawyers largely faced off on the question of where both men were standing when Rialmo opened fire. Rialmo’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, maintained that the shooting was an act of self-defense, at one point saying that LeGrier forced Rialmo “to have to take his life, and, unfortunately, tragically, the life of Bettie Jones.”

“I don’t believe that Officer Rialmo is a bad person necessarily,” David Fitzsimmons, the jury foreman, told reporters shortly after the verdict. “I think he just made a bad decision at the moment.”

It’s unclear exactly why the jury ended up with a contradictory verdict, but the LeGrier case is hardly the first time that a fatal police shooting has been found to be the result of “reasonable” fear. But the verdict, which comes just weeks after a Florida family received a mere $4 settlement in a wrongful death lawsuit over a police shooting of a loved one, suggests that these suits, often the only way for families to get relief, won’t always end in a settlement.

Research has shown that these settlements can be incredibly costly for cities and police departments alike. Chicago for example, borrowed some $709 million from 2010 to 2017 to cover the cost of settlements according to a new report from the Action Center on Race & the Economy. An investigation from the Chicago Reporter noted that the city of Chicago has paid out more than half a billion dollars to settle misconduct lawsuits since 2005.

But the exact amount of these settlements can vary widely — if they’re even awarded in the first place. As the New York Times notes, “the vast majority of families who lose someone in a questionable police shooting get nothing.”

And it is still incredibly rare for officers to actually face criminal charges for a shooting. While some recent police shootings — such as the shooting of 17-year-old Antwon Rose in East Pittsburgh, and the shooting of Anthony Green, a black man shot as he ran from a police officer in Georgia on June 21 — have led to swift criminal charges against the officers involved, that is still the exception and not the norm. And even when officers are charged, it is unlikely that a jury will find them guilty.

These realities have frustrated racial justice activists who note that police officers are disproportionately likely to shoot African Americans. According to the Washington Post’s Fatal Force database, more than 500 people have been shot and killed by police in 2018. Ninety-two of those people were identified as black in news reports.

Research has shown that there are significant racial disparities in police use of force. While these disparities are most commonly attributed to issues like implicit bias and systemic racism, recent research has also found that specific factors like high levels of housing segregation and economic inequality also play a role in where police shootings occur and whom they affect.

There’s another factor at play here as well: Police officers are generally given wide latitude to use force. As Vox’s German Lopez has noted, “Legal standards make it difficult to legally punish individual police officers for use of force, even when it might be excessive.”

This standard has long been upheld by the Supreme Court. Two key decisions in the 1980s, Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor, created a framework for when cops can reasonably use deadly force.

David Klinger, a criminologist with the University of Missouri in St. Louis, previously told Vox that the first standard allows officers to use lethal force “to protect their life or the life of another innocent party.”

The second standard allows officers to shoot a person who is trying to escape after committing a violent felony, because that person could reasonably be deemed a threat to the community.

Taken together, these decisions form the “objective reasonableness” standard, or the idea that so long as an officer reacted to a reasonably perceived threat, their shooting is justified, even in cases where their perception turned out to be incorrect.

In the years since these two landmark cases, the idea has been challenged in court, but the standard has not been changed. In April, the Supreme Court sided with an Arizona police officer who shot a woman holding a kitchen knife at her side, saying in a 7-2 ruling that the officer’s decision to shoot was reasonable. In their dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the ruling “tells officers that they can shoot first and think later.”

Recent months have seen a new effort to change this standard by reducing the number of officer-involved shootings that happen. In California for example, the fatal police shooting of Stephon Clark prompted state legislators to introduce a bill that would only allow officers to shoot when it is absolutely necessary, and only after they have exhausted other options. The measure has drawn criticism from police groups who argue that the bill will make officers second guess their decisions and put them in danger. If the legislation passes, it will the be first in the nation to restrict officers’ ability to shoot.

Original Source -> Quintonio LeGrier was killed by police. A jury awarded his family $1 million. Then a judge took it away.

via The Conservative Brief

[nyuui]

What Exactly Is Healthcare Negligence?

Medical negligence occurs when treatment that is medical below anticipated requirements. In cases where a patient becomes injured as a results of medical negligence, that patient might file a lawsuit claiming malpractice that is medical. Then file a wrongful death lawsuit if a patient dies, the family might. Probably the most typical type of medical negligence involves surgery, but it can happen with any nursing assistant, physician, medical technician, or facility that is medical. The various kinds of medical negligence are almost endless. Here are some examples: Harm to an organ that is neighboring surgery. a diagnosis that is wrong leads to no treatment for the situation or the incorrect treatment plan for the condition. a physician whom tells someone that she or he is fine, causing a delay in treatment that eventually leads to injury. This is particularly dire if an infection is modern, such as cancer. a dentist whose negligent therapy causes the individual to lose teeth. an incorrect medication or the prescription of a medication in a harmful dosage. This can be negligence on the section of a health care provider prescribing the medication, a nursing assistant administering the medication, or a pharmacist. Unnecessary surgery that results, for instance, in the inability of the patient to possess kids. A botched cosmetic procedure that causes a personal injury or a seriously displeasing outcome. a medical instrument unintentionally left inside a client during surgery. Mistakes on a medical chart that lead to incorrect medical procedures or medications. Improper or anesthesia that is ineffective prior to surgery. A blunder made during childbirth that leads to the death of the baby or injury that is permanent the infant, such as brain damage. Cerebral palsy is normally a total consequence of this kind of medical negligence. The Difficulty of "Causation" To enable a patient to enjoy a medical malpractice claim for medical negligence, he/she has to show (1) that the doctors had a duty to deliver a standard of care and did not do so, (2) that the patient suffered an injury or injuries, and (3) that the injury was caused by the so-called medical negligence. Just What does "standard of care" mean? It differs from state to mention. Some rules restrict the standard to physicians in the same part of the country, while others extend the typical to MBBS Admission doctors on a level that is national. For example, a heart surgeon will be held to the standard of other surgeons in the same field. If he or she acted in a way that differs from the way most heart surgeons might have acted in similar circumstances, that surgeon can be found to have been clinically negligent. Since the human body consists of interconnected systems, "causation" is a complicated problem in medical negligence. The personnel that are medical argue that the therapy didn't cause the injury but that it was rather the effect of a condition the client already had. Psychologists and psychiatrists can be sued for also medical negligence, although these kinds of cases are a great deal more difficult to prove because not merely are the injuries non-physical, but causation is very complex. In any kind of case, the attorneys assigned by the doctors' malpractice insurance company will likely you will need to argue that the injury had not been due to medical negligence. For this explanation, people who suffer accidents are advised to hire a lawyer to help them negotiate a settlement to recuperate the costs they incurred. Lawyers in this situation work on a "contingency" foundation, which means they usually do not require the client to pay them. Their fees are contingent upon receiving settlement monies from the medical malpractice insurance carrier. If the lawyer is successful in finding a settlement for the customer, he or she then takes a share associated with cash as a cost. If the lawyer isn't successful, he or she does not earn hardly any money for the work. As a result, lawyers work hard to have settlements for their clients. The settlement might include funds for pain and suffering, which is not a reimbursement for costs but a payment for the emotional stress experienced from the injury in some states. Some states also enable for "punitive damages" if gross misconduct or negligence is included. The amount allowed for such damages is often restricted. No more than $250,000 can be awarded for non-economic damages in the state of California, for example. When gross negligence or misconduct is involved, the area authorities might additionally bring a criminal action against the physician or medical center. This action is separate from the malpractice case that is medical. The plaintiff is the city or the state in a criminal action. A medical malpractice lawsuit is called a "civil" action, while the plaintiff in that case is the patient that is injured. Both the criminal and civil instances would have one or more defendants in accordance, nevertheless. The defendant is anyone who is defending the claim - the party or events that are alleged to have now been medically negligent. Note that only in situations of gross negligence does the wellness department take away a doctor's medical license. Do All Health Negligence Cases Go to Trial? Most of these full situations are settled out of court, however when the parties cannot acknowledge funds quantity, the case visits trial. a jury or judge then makes the choice as to whether the patient is eligible for monies and how much. Before instance goes to test, however, years of negotiations might pass. During that period, the lawyers for both edges prepare legal papers that answer the questions associated with the other party. These are known as "pre-trial discovery" documents. Depositions may also be often taken associated with parties. These are interviews that let the side that is opposing attorneys to ask questions. It is not uncommon for a settlement to take place at the courthouse during the jury selection process. This can be a strategy that pushes both edges up against the wall, wanting to coerce them to cave in. The plaintiff wants the defendant to give in by providing more money in the settlement, while the defendant wants the plaintiff to give in by accepting the current settlement offer. Nobody ever wants to have a full case to trial if it can be aided as the costs of court are much higher than out-of-court settlements.