#they would be presumed guilty of a crime due to their status

[innerchorus]

Based on your tags and the point in canon you mentioned, I'm guessing this is referring to Alfarid's reaction on seeing how many gold coins Narsus has? If so, you'll have to forgive me but I'm going to defend her here because her reaction makes total sense!

(From Chapter 29)

I'll include the relevent section from the novels, too (with part of it bolded for emphasis):

'“Huh, guess you’re caught up in some shady business, aren’t ya. Though y’look like such a respectable sort.” “Why do you think so?” “Ain’t no honest folk can get their hands on the likes of gold. If an azat had any gold or anything on them, the officials would come and give ’em the rack, even. They’d just assume you stole it all from somewhere, yeah?” Narses was unable to reply. He had absolutely no inclination to reveal his own pedigree as one of the shahrdaran. Good grief. He really was no respectable sort himself. Considering his very identity as one of the governing class, a noble aristocrat…' (Book Two, Chapter 3, part iv)

Alfarid doesn't know Narsus is a noble. When she speaks of 'respectable people' she's talking of regular honest working folk rather than the upper classes, having assumed that Narsus fell into this category. In that context, her reaction is understandable. It's not a case of some people just having money while others don't, it's her knowledge of the Parsian class system telling her that the only way for regular people to get hold of gold coins is through 'shady business'.

Let's not forget Narsus doesn't just have one or two gold coins; Alfarid is startled by the amount. As she doesn't know he's not only a noble but one of the shahrdaran, what else is she supposed to think?

Honestly, I can't imagine Narsus disagrees with her. I'm sure that, although he hasn't been subjected to this class prejudice himself, he's well aware of it, given that he's an advocate for many of the social reforms that Pars needs. What Alfarid is saying isn't wrong. It's only incorrect in how she applies it to Narsus, and that's only because she doesn't know he's one of the nobility. He doesn't dispute what she says because the only way to do that would be to reveal this to her.

Here's her reaction when she does learn of Narsus's origins when they next run into Hilmes in Chapter 36.

(I also think that Narsus's reluctance to reveal his status and his subsequent minimisation of it above points to him having some personal hangups about being identified that way. He also knows how someone like Alfarid will react and he tries to avert that. This comes across more strongly in the novels where he has a rather bitter line of dialogue here: "Just because one is wispuhran or wuzurgan doesn’t mean they’ll sprout horns and a tail…".

Alfarid's preconceptions of what nobles are like is definitely meant to parallel Narsus's mistaken belief that, as a bandit, Alfarid will steal from the dead, indicating that both of them are exceptions in a way (the Zott are not typical bandits, and Narsus is not a typical noble). But although they are both wrong about each other, while Narsus's comment caused genuine offence to Alfarid, her assumptions about the provenance of his gold coins aren't what bothers him, it's the knowledge that she'll see him differently once she knows he's a noble.)

I hope this made sense, I'm about to go climbing and I'm rushingggg

Oh my god...

I forgot how annoying Alfarid was in the beginning! And how hypocritical. Dear lord above (or below).

I am so happy that she later has such a big character development. She now is one of my favourit characters. (And that is the genius of Arakawas writing! Or rather of Tanaka...)

I am continuing chapter 5 and am now where Narsus and Alfarid are at the village that go attacked by Team Zahhak.

[tumblingxelian]

The Atlesian Military Bigger Does Not Equal Better

I wanted to share on the lore and narrative of the Atlesian military.

Throughout the show, the fandoms had a lot to say about them to be sure, be it their heroism in V2 and 3 or their more antagonistic role in later seasons. And given past experience with other properties, I think we can say for sure that RT has a unique take on military in fiction. Often identifying with the soldiers on the ground, but being critical of the military industrial complex and those in power.

The purpose of this video will be to reflect on Atlas’s history and how it played into modern day and recent volumes, which means we’re going back to the Great War.

Ironically, despite losing, this was probably Atlas at their most influential.

Their alliance with Miastral’s empire had shifted into Mistral acting more like a client state given Atlesian anti emotion policy was institute among the lower classes. They and their ally were expanding across a third continent, extracting resources and while eventually checked by a similar alliance between Vacuo and Vale it was only with a secret weapon that they were defeated.

So, our historical introduction to Atlas is that of a powerful state with a heavy focus on the acquisition of resources and client states. We also know that despite hopes for a shift, that when Atlas was raised into the sky it quickly became a haven for the types of people who held power during the previous regime. As well as the military, with Atlas ignoring popular convention and keeping their own rather than agreeing to the unilateral hunter system.

Following that, we have the Faunus Rights Revolution; we don’t know when this took place, though my best bet is when STRQ were teenagers, with figures like Sienna, Kali and Ghira serving as adolescents in the revolution but that’s heavy on the headcanon (Wink)

Regardless, we know this war was centered around a attempt by human dominated nations, IE all of them save Kuo Kuana, trying to effectively deport all Faunus to Menagerie. An act that would have been genocide by proxy thanks to Grim and starvation. We also know the human nations, including Atlas, lost this war and for a time had to acknowledge and respect the diplomatic organization the White Fang as a result.

However, like many things this didn’t last and it was back to business as usual on the world stage, which eventually led to the rise of Sienna Khan and the White Fang shifting into para military, guerrilla fighting force. One that enacted raids to liberate chained Faunus, assassinate figures who they deemed guilty of crimes that would go un-punished and stealing resources from organizations closely tied with the Atlesian military.

By the time canon rolls around the White Fang have been operating for five years and until competent leadership showed no signs of slowing down or losing popularity. As it stands, Atlas had little to do with their eventual dissolution, with it instead being tied to internal power struggles, corruption of several major figures and rejection by their own people. (IRA = White Fang)

But it wasn’t all bad, while one can question the political wisdom of surprise dropping a huge chunk of your army on an allied nations doorstep, or with charging in the vague direction of a hidden enemy base with no subtly, the Atlesian military did indeed helping volumes 2 and 3.

We see this in particular during the Breach with their forced being called in and helping contain and clear out Grimm of and in V3 by aiding in the evacuation. Though we also had stark reminders of their limits when Huntress level threats were able to decimate their numbers.

Due to suspicion cast upon them by the hacking, which I don’t hold against them given Watt’s previous rank and presumed dead status, the Atlesian military pulled out of Vale. By the end of volume 4, fearing Salem would target Mistal, they also withdrew their forces from their ally there to protect themselves. We also see the leader of this military resorting to intimidation and veiled threats to a former ally when challenged on his questionable use of political power.

Cordoven’s forces were overall portrayed quite well showing bravery in the face of overwhelming odds and even the local commander being willing to adjust her plans and reflect on her decisions when pressed, though not before some truly spectacular chaos.

Volume 7 is when se see the Atlesian military on their home turf.

They are primarily stations on Atlas, with their forced in Mantle being insufficient given their commander has been secretly taking resources meant for the city’s defense for Amity and they are framed and viewed more as an occupying force, even supplanting local law enforcement.

When ordered we do indeed see valor during the evacuation, however we also see Atlas’s ideal of loyalty being rooted in hierarchy and obedience to authority in the army’s willingness to abandon Mantle, especially given many may have hailed from the city. Given the nature of military training is often rooted in a sort of collective thinking and ingraining obedience to counter poor discipline on the battlefield, this might be expected, but it is worth noting.

It is in volume 8 when we get to see the Atlesian Military deployed at full force.

We also see terror in the ranks among some when faced with their own commanding officer and a willingness to shift to a new plan when presented with one. Though be it only by someone already in the military and political hierarchy, independent or bottom-up counter thinking was not demonstrated, which is fairly common based on my own research. Not unheard of, but uncommon.

As to their performance against Salem’s forces:

Well their efficiency should definitely be noted, though the effectiveness of their troop formations could be seen as questionable, given the outside of context nature of this threat I’m willing to leave it as neutral.

All in all, while having shown competence and valor, especially in evacuations; the Atlesian military was rather demonstrative of the results of many styles of military training where obedience is concerned and were often more effective and fighting their own people than their enemies.

However, I’d remind viewers at this point that Atlas’s military has been living in a time of peace, we have no knowledge of Ironwood’s past experience with largescale warfare and that in the last two instance of such warfare, Atlas lost and was showing no signs of countering the White Fang in the modern day either.

Based on past performance, the minimal systemic change and even the authors own statements, I very much feel the portrayal of the Altesian military is consistent and makes sense, especially given the culture the writers hail from and the commentary they would be aiming for in their work both past and present.

[mothgenes]

hope you don't mind an addition onto this!! i've been thinking about that point a lot, articulating my thoughts on it clearly is bit hard but i want to try

for the majority of the story Polle has no dialogue, in the game "dialogue" is in text boxes with names and "noise" doesn't have a dialogue box but might be picked up in the in-game subtitles, like the cartoons dialogues are "noise". For most of the game Polle only makes "noise" but in that last scene Polle has a dialogue box- and the text is blue. Just like Anya's text is. I think this could be interpreted that way. Maybe not directly- i don't think Anya specifically is represented by a horse? but i think it's emblematic of how Jimmy doesn't see her as a full person.

Jimmy has a hostile relationship to Polle and Pony Express throughout the game, but in every way that matters he doesn't have any control over how Pony Express effects him, and the way it effects him importantly ruins his relationship, opportunities and future as Curly's partner (which is his most concrete goal, staying with Curly). By firing them, Jimmy will have to leave the situation where he and Curly get to spend lots of time together, and are obligated to be together for over a year at a time. He's very literally at Curly's left hand, his co-pilot. He is impotent in how he hates Polle- in the game we never even see him break one of the mascot statues that spits phrases. He sees Pony Express as sort of an impossible force of nature or higher power that creates obstacles in his life to spite him somehow.

I think he sees Anya in a really similar way- he doesn't see what he did to Anya as subjectively bad, or something he should feel guilty about, even if he may understand objectively, morally and legally that it was a crime and serious transgression against her in every way. But what he does feel about Anya is that she's useless, that she's in the way, creates obstacles for him- whether its by giving him tasks he doesn't want to complete, is the "source" of his possible life-ruining conviction or punishment (presuming they reached their destination). Given more than a day or two to process the situation, there's also a chance Curly could have done something more active to take Anya's side, especially seeing how it affects her as she gets closer to her due date, and he would consider her, and the baby responsible for that ruining their relationship. I don't know for a fact that's what would happen, but Jimmy specifically prevents a reality where he could be feasibly punished for his actions or separated from Curly.

The unblinking eyes of the Polle figurine are the same eyes as Anya's to him, because her presence reminds him of the consequences of his actions and he feels judged, and in a fucked up way, like she has some kind of power over HIM because she is pregnant- that SHE could ruin HIS life for something he doesn't seem to process as his own responsibility or fault. Just a staring reminder of his circumstances, and the way he feels like he's being fucked over by his surroundings and everyone in his life- "poor him, caged and misunderstood!" and so on. Anya sees him for what he is and that reminder makes him feel less-than or on some level, in danger, because he's deeply messed up and doesn't see the reality of their power dynamic because he's always both the victim and the hero.

The baby, initially represented by the horse which he tries to destroy, is also something that is a threat to him, a reminder of the consequences of his actions, and endangers his status quo. Even if they weren't fired, there's even a sliver of a chance he'd receive some penalty for his actions, and that could ruin the situation where "[they're] in control here." In some ways, Anya and Pony Express to him both represent the idea that the consequences for his actions are these unstoppable, uncontrollable forces like entropy and that he didn't cause them and cannot stop them, even though he did. He crashed the ship, he assaulted Anya, he got Daisuke killed, he shot Swansea. He takes responsibility only in the way that he confiscates responsibility from other people and abuses it.

I almost think the horse sequence in the basement with the black-light is also about the baby, but maybe moreso consequences for his actions as a whole. It's a blind beast he cannot run from- No matter what he does, the baby won't stop existing, the ship won't become un-crashed, he won't be un-fired. He can only see it with the black light and its invisible to the naked eye- Anya isn't showing yet, but the fact that she is pregnant is still a threat in Jimmy's eyes because of how he could face consequences in any way? He also can't run from the responsibility for his actions, because even if he won't take it, he is responsible for his criminal behavior. Anya in his mind is equivalent to the representation of Pony Express in how they're objects that judge and torment him, do not value him, do not respect him, and have the capacity in any way to "punish" him in a way that isn't just violent retribution- i doubt he sees Anya as capable of violence against him at all, and neither is the literally inanimate object.

this is LONG and kind of scattered but i think it gets the idea across? hope this addition is okay <X]

more mouthwashing spoilers yapping but i KNOW the reason why anya doesnt get to be a big blatant (human) direct part of jimmy's storytelling is bc he doesnt respect her as a human being, being the unreliable narrator he is, but i just saw someone say polle at the end was perhaps another way to represent anya all along (along with being the womb/horse centipede. its horses all the way down), and fuuuuuck. yeah actually that makes perfect sense. ok tiny bit of catharsis she got to snap at him for the first time during his mental breakdown yippee. bro stop apologizing to curly say sorry to HER ���

[uncloseted]

What gives the public the right to “cancel” someone when every single person in the world has done bad things and things they would be so ashamed of if they were public figures and came to light. I honestly felt bad for Shane Dawson. Ik his jokes were so fucked up but everyone has made inappropriate and non politically correct jokes. Everyone. Saw it all day everyday at school and uni. Sometimes at the workplace with the clique groups. Like y does the public do this when we ourselves r no better?

I'm going to try and keep this post on the shorter side, so apologies in advance if I skip talking about a part of cancel culture that you all think is important. I would love to continue this conversation in more posts and dig into some of the other details that won't be present here.

What is cancelling? Where did it come from and what is it for?

Okay, so I think the first thing we need to talk about here is what cancelling is and what it isn't. "Cancelling" in its current form has been around since about 2014. It's a vigilante strategy to hold people who have caused harm accountable for their actions and to bring them to justice. "Cancelling" exists because there are some people who are essentially immune to the consequences of their actions due to their status or power. The institutions and systems in place to hold them accountable cannot or will not hold these people accountable themselves. So "cancelling" is a strategy used to protect groups of people who are vulnerable and who are not institutionally protected. The Me Too movement is one of the biggest examples of this- it used social shaming tactics to hold men in power accountable for their actions, since they weren't able to be held accountable in any other way, even though it was an open secret in Hollywood that these men were abusive. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need cancelling as a tool to hold people accountable for their actions at all, since the systems in place would protect everyone equally. But we live in a world where the way justice is distributed is fundamentally unequal, and so cancelling is a technique to address a real concern.

The downsides of cancelling and cancel culture

However, cancelling his grown out of the scope of its original purposes into what we might call "cancel culture". It's (often, not always) no longer about accountability so much as it is about letting people know that they're terrible and irredeemable. Natalie Wynn has a great video on Cancelling where she talks about the stages of being cancelled in this cancel culture system:

Presumption of Guilt. The person who is being cancelled is presumed guilty rather than being presumed innocent (as they would be if this were a legal case). There is no obligation to hear both sides, assess the evidence, and pass judgement based on that evidence. There is only punishment for a perceived crime. In the case of Shane Dawson, this would be something like, "Shane Dawson made inappropriate jokes about race" instead of "Shane Dawson is accused of making inappropriate jokes about race in xyz videos on his channel."

Abstraction. The specific claim being made about a person is lost to a more general accusation, and the nuance gets lost along with it. People's imaginations fill in the gaps of the facts they don't have, often assuming that the situation is worse than it actually is. In the case of Shane Dawson, this would be something like, "Shane Dawson made racist remarks."

Essentialism. A person's actions stop being the focus of what's being criticized. Instead, the person themself is being criticized. They're a "bad person" instead of being someone who did something bad. In the case of Shane Dawson, this would be something like, "Shane Dawson is racist."

Pseudo-moralism or pseudo-intellectualism. The "cancelling" gets framed as a moral or intellectual issue- the people doing the cancelling are just concerned citizens who want this person to stop causing harm. But often, this moralism is attributed to the cancelling after the fact, and the cancelling itself originated from something else entirely- spite, envy, revenge, wanting to "take someone down a peg". People generally aren't cancelling because they're truly concerned about the moral implications of someone's actions. They're doing it because it's fun. There's a certain delight that people find in other people's suffering, particularly when that person is seen as being enviable in some way. In the case of Shane Dawson, this would be something like, "Shane Dawson's racist remarks are harmful, and he must be de-platformed because of it," when they actually just want to see Shane Dawson's career implode.

No forgiveness. People who cancel others will often dismiss the apologies that they're demanding, deeming them insincere. And any time that person does something that could be (maliciously) interpreted as questionable, the receipts of all of the times that person has been cancelled in the past resurface. People dig through their internet presence from before they were famous to see if they can find more posts that are incriminating. The person is branded as a "bad person", and they're not allowed to come back from that- at least, not in certain circles.

That "cancel culture" process can have real-world effects, both on a person's career and on their own mental health. People have lost their jobs over being cancelled. People have become suicidal or died by suicide because being constantly inundated with messages about how you're a bad person is really emotionally damaging. And the people who are disproportionately impacted by this kind of cancelling are not powerful white men- they're people with marginalized identities and not a lot of power who have been cancelled by their own communities.

So that puts us in a complicated position, right? Cancelling does have legitimate value as an accountability method, particularly when the victim is someone who's part of a marginalized group and the person who has caused harm is in a position of power. But it's been taken out of its original context in a way that is now causing harm to those it once sought to protect, and it's lost sight of nuance. In some circles of the internet, all offenses are equally deserving of total cancellation, meaning that people like Aziz Ansari are seen as being on the same level as Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein.

And that's not even to talk about the (largely straight, white, right-wing or libertarian) men who have made careers around complaining about "being cancelled" or how "everyone is too sensitive these days", when in fact they've just experienced consequences for their actions or received criticism, things that they're entirely unused to. And by centering the narratives of those people who have been cancelled, we're once again erasing the narratives of the victims of the situation- those who have lost professional opportunities or have to cope with trauma because of what the person who caused harm did to them.

My Own Thoughts

Rather than engage in "cancel culture," I think people should be given the room to grow and change.  By cancelling them forever over something they did decades ago, I think we’re de-incentivizing growth.  When someone is canceled without hope of redemption, they start to dig their heels in and see themselves as a victim of the situation, which can lead them to become more entrenched in their problematic beliefs rather than less.  By “calling people in” instead of “calling them out”, I think we can encourage them to critically interact with their own actions and see the error of their ways.

I also think cancel culture leads to a culture where saying the right thing is more important than doing the right thing, and where people are shamed for imperfectly trying to learn.  I would much rather see someone screw up while trying to understand than someone parroting other people’s views without understanding what those viewpoints mean and why they’re important.

In general, I think we need to focus on investigating and understanding the nuances of a situation when someone gets "cancelled", investigate our own motivations for wanting to cancel them, and think about what it would take for us to be convinced that they've changed or be worthy of "un-cancelling".

What gives the public the right to cancel someone?

So now let's talk about the actual question you asked (sorry the ramp up took this long). What gives the public the right to cancel someone when we've all done bad things? Well, “he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her,” is a lovely sentiment, but it's not a tenable solution to the issue of accountability in an unequal world. How do we hold people accountable if only those of us who are perfect can hold them to account? That would fundamentally create a system in which nobody can hold anyone else accountable, because none of us are sinless. I think the "purity culture" that has grown up alongside "cancel culture" is problematic in itself. The goal should not be that the "pure" hold the "sinners" accountable for their "sins". Instead, it should be a system in which each of us imperfect people can hold each other to account. Just like we should hold Shane Dawson to account when he says things that are inappropriate and hurtful, we should hold our friends, family, and co-workers accountable, too. We should "call them in" and help them to understand why what they said is hurtful and why they might want to consider using different language in the future. We should give people the room to grow and improve and help them to make those improvements, and we should expect that people will do the same for us.

Shane Dawson

I've never been a huge Shane Dawson fan, and I'm not super familiar with this whole situation, so take this with a grain of salt. But he does seem like he's trying to improve. He's apologized for his actions, reflected on his past behavior, taken accountability for them, deleted the videos with the offending "jokes" in them, demonetized his channel, and taken a break from YouTube. The people who were hurt by his content don't have to forgive him by any means, but I do think that we as a culture should give him the chance to be better.

But also, Shane Dawson was never really cancelled. He still has 20 million subscribers on YouTube, making him the 10th most subscribed-to individual. He has 4.5 billion views on his main channel alone. He's lost less than 10% of his fan base over the several times he's been cancelled. This means that even after being cancelled, he still has more followers than the populations of 47 of 50 states, or about as many followers as the population of the smallest 17 US states combined. If Shane Dawson were a country, he would have the 59th largest population in the world. That's more people than live in the Netherlands and almost as many people as live in Australia.

As many people "cancelled" Shane Dawson, a lot of people ardently defended him. I don't want to understate how much it sucks to have thousands of people constantly telling you that you're an awful person, but you always have the option to not engage with that kind of cancellation. You have the option, as Shane did, to take a break from being a public figure and not read people's opinions about you. Shane's situation is very different from people who get cancelled and lose their jobs, support system, friends, or financial resources needed to survive. He's is a big enough celebrity that being "cancelled" didn't do an awful lot to his bottom line. As of 2019, his net worth was estimated to be $12 million, and it doesn't seem like that number has seen a huge change since.

And Shane does have a huge amount of influence, cancelled or not. When that many people listen to you, you do have a responsibility to use that platform well. And just like we keep other thought leaders (such as politicians or academics) accountable, we should keep our social media influencers accountable, too. What they say does have a real impact on how people think and feel, and it would be irresponsible of us to let that kind of influence go unchecked.

[krispwrites]

WIP Intro: Down the Rabbit Hole

Synopsis: The defendant of a cut-and-dry attempted homicide case dies when the guilty verdict is cast down. Unwilling to accept that it may have been a suicide, the police and prosecution arrest Ernest Talbot, the defense attorney who had been representing the victim.

Laurel, a defense attorney from the arrestee’s firm, and her coworkers do not believe that their boss could commit such a crime. She investigates herself, with the help of her computer specialist sister Coral, willing to uncover clues for her boss’s defense team if she cannot defend him herself.

But on the other side is Ivy, a K-9 detective and her other sister... whom Laurel hasn’t spoken to in almost a year. Ivy is dedicated to her job and the courts, teaming up with prosecutor Xavier Wolfe to find the evidence to keep Laurel’s boss behind bars.

A chase to find the truth ensues, uncovering not only pieces to Mr. Talbot’s case, but also cases from the past.

Genre: Mystery, crime, drama

POV: First-person, multiple POVs.

Status: First draft

Themes: Family (found and reunited), friendship, confronting the past, murder, justice, loyalty

Excerpt: We rose for the judge, the prosecutor said her opening statement, and the trial began. I glanced at Mr. Sidney Hale sitting in the defendant's box. His posture was rigid, his arms crossed loosely before him, and his head barely inclined in any way while listening to the proceedings. To my gaze, it seemed as if he was already resigned to whatever verdict he was to get. I presumed Mr. Talbot hadn't gotten Mr. Hale's hopes up too high with the possibility of a not guilty verdict.

Adriana Knights was the prosecutor on the case, the junior prosecutor Xavier Wolfe assisting her from the prosecutor's bench. Her tone was professional for the most part as she reiterated every piece of evidence that was stacked against my boss's client. The click of her boots punctuated her words as she moved about the trial floor, holding up the bottle of poison disguised as a sugar container that had gotten the victim sick enough to land in the hospital.

The victim – an elderly neighbor of Mr. Hale's – had lived, barely, and I was sure she wasn't supposed to. Once she was discharged of her hospital stay, the victim had charged Mr. Hale with coercing her to add him to her will just a week prior to her hospital stay. As elderly as she was, the victim's mind was still sharp. She surmised that the change of the will and the fact that she fell ill at her usual weekly teatime with Mr. Hale were connected.

"I call the officer that had discovered the poison at the scene to the witness stand. Ms. Ivy Reed," Ms. Knights announced.

I froze as my sister took the witness stand. A simple pantsuit in dark hues and flats had always been normal for her, ever since she joined the career world, but she wasn't as recognizable as I thought she would be. Her hair was short, falling in angles towards her jawline, when it had always been long and plaited behind her. Her frame was lither, a little more muscular than I remembered, which I suppose was to be expected with her job. There were no more glasses over her eyes, although her hand still hovered by her face as she sat down, as if she were going to adjust her frames. Smoothly, her fingers brushed some of her hair behind her ear to hide the tic. Her contacts must be fairly new still, then. Perhaps she switched when she had moved back to this district.

If either of us had bothered to connect with the other when she had been transferred six months ago, I wouldn't have such arbitrary thoughts.

When prompted for her name and occupation, my sister stated, "Ivy Reed, K9 officer for East Santham."

"Describe to the court how you came to find this poison," Prosecutor Knights said.

Ivy briefly nodded before speaking, her tone rehearsed and clipped. "Once the toxicology report was returned regarding the victim's hospitalization, my canine partner Mocha and I were dispatched with a team of fellow officers to search the crime scene for anything suspicious. The bottle of poison was recovered buried in the middle of the trash in the victim's kitchen. Mocha caught the scent of an individual on the bottle and tracked the scent down the front walkway and past three houses before leading me to the source of the scent."

"And the source of the scent?" Prosecutor Knights asked for show.

"It was the defendant," Ivy reported. "He was outside at the time working on a car in the driveway and was apprehended."

I glanced at Hale and saw him pointedly staring at his shoes. Mr. Talbot's shoulders shook with a deep breath as he added a packet of sugar to his coffee.

"Your witness." Prosecutor Knights looked to Mr. Talbot and gestured towards Ivy, apparently certain that my sister's testimony was ironclad, as she took her seat next to Prosecutor Wolfe.

"Thank you. Ms. Reed…" My boss hesitated for a moment on the name, and I knew I would get asked questions about my family whenever the trial was over. He started again with, "Ms. Reed, would you agree that your canine partner could have tracked my defendant due to the fact that he has shared tea on a weekly basis with the victim?"

"Mocha tracked the scent that was specifically on the found bottle of poison," Ivy said as her response, "rather than a general search of other persons that could have been on the scene."

"The bottle of poison was buried with garbage. Could Mocha have made a mistake?"

Ivy glowered enough that Mr. Talbot took a step back. "You are not questioning my canine partner's training."

"I'm certain Mocha is an excellent K9 unit." Mr. Talbot cleared his throat. "Yet, with the garbage and the fact that Mr. Hale was a frequent visitor to the victim, it is possible that my client was mistakenly connected with the bottle of poison."

"The defendant broke into a run toward the backyard when Mocha led me to him," Ivy said. "There were no words spoken. He knew what we were there for. I allowed Mocha to give chase. She took him to the ground before he could leave the yard."

I knew what Ivy left unspoken. If Mr. Hale was innocent, there would be no reason for him to try to escape from an officer.

"Perhaps it was a mistake for my client to run," Mr. Talbot conceded, "but maybe he was spooked by seeing such a large dog. While I'm sure Mocha has wonderful manners, seeing a dog of her caliber very well could have scared my client into taking cover. After all, unfamiliar German shepherds and Doberman dogs can look frightening."

"Mocha is a chocolate lab."

There was a ripple of chuckles in the gallery around me at the idea that a grown man such as Mr. Hale would be frightened of one of the friendliest-looking dog breeds around. My boss could have played up the idea that his client was frightened of dogs in general, but it seemed pointless at the moment.

Instead, with a look to the jury box, Mr. Talbot pressed on with, "Even so, it is possible that my client was wrongfully pinpointed as the main suspect due to the mistake of a dog."

Ivy leaned forward on the witness stand, her fingers forming a steeple in front of her face. "My partner tracked down the defendant so he could be apprehended. This apprehension allowed his fingerprints to be recorded and matched with the fingerprints that our forensics team found on the bottle of the poison. Does that clear up your doubts regarding my partner's abilities?"

I bit my lip as my boss squared his shoulders before murmuring, "No further questions," to the judge and returning to his seat. Prosecutor Knights was having a difficult time hiding her smirk behind her case files. She shared a nod with Ivy as the judge dismissed my sister from the witness stand and Ivy returned to her seat in the lower gallery.

The testimony my sister had provided seemed to have dismissed whatever hope my boss had to get an acquittal. The victim's will had been the motive, the poison the means. To the jury, it seemed like Mr. Hale wanted whatever was promised to him in the victim's edited will as soon as possible.

An open and shut case. No one was shocked when the jury took only fifteen minutes to deliberate before returning with a guilty verdict. What did shock the courtroom was seeing Mr. Hale shake my boss's hand before Mr. Hale dropped dead.

[creepingsharia]

Oregon: Muslim immigrant who provided support to Islamic State (ISIS) for 5 years is charged...and released!

One story from a June 2018 issue encouraged readers to carry out attacks in their home countries if they were unable to join ISIS in active fighting, according to the indictment.

Another issue carried a graphic depicting the Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower on fire, captioned 'Soon in the Heart of Your Lands,’ the document states.

No image yet again. If he were an American convert or a right winger, his face would be plastered across media nationwide.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, November 6, 2020

Portland Resident Indicted for Providing Material Support to ISIS

The Department of Justice announced that a federal grand jury in Portland returned a five count indictment against Portland resident Hawazen Sameer Mothafar, 31, charging two counts of conspiracy to provide material support to a designated terrorist organization and one count of providing and attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339B(a)(1). In addition, the indictment charges Mothafar with one count of false statements in an immigration application in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1546(a) and one count of false statement to a government agency in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).

Mothafar had his initial appearance in front of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo yesterday.  Due to the fact that Mothafar has physical disabilities and is confined to a wheelchair, the government did not seek detention. Rather, Mothafar was released on conditions including limitations on travel and the use of electronic devices.

According to the allegations contained within the indictment, between February 2015, and up to the time of arrest, Mothafar conspired with ISIS members to provide material support to ISIS.  This support included a range of activities.  Mothafar produced and distributed ISIS propaganda and recruiting materials that he created and edited in coordination with official ISIS media operatives located overseas.  Mothafar produced, edited, and distributed a number of publications and articles including “Effective Stabbing Techniques,” which provided detailed guidance on how to best kill and maim a target in a knife attack, a tutorial on using explosive ignition devices entitled “How Does a Detonator Work,” and propaganda that encouraged readers to carry out attacks in their home countries if they could not travel overseas to fight.  Mothafar also maintained contact with ISIS officials overseas and provided technical support to these individuals that included opening social media and email accounts for official use.  During the time of this alleged activity, Mothafar also made false statements on immigration documents and to government officials denying any ties to terrorist organizations.

This case is being investigated by the FBI’s Portland Division and prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Ethan Knight and Geoffrey Barrow with the assistance of Counterrorism Trial Attorney Alexandra Hughes.

An indictment is only an accusation of a crime, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

---------------------------------------------------

More via: Oregon man is charged with working with ISIS over five years to create propaganda and training materials - but feds don't seek pre-trial detention because he has physical disabilities

Mothafar is accused of being a conduit of information from ISIS to Al Dura'a al Sunni, or Sunni Shield, a pro-Islamic State internet-based media organization that published a newspaper called Al-Anfal.

He edited and published 32 issues of Al-Anfal, which ran stories with titles such as 'Effective Stabbing Techniques' and 'How Does a Detonator Work,' the government alleged.

One story from a June 2018 issue encouraged readers to carry out attacks in their home countries if they were unable to join ISIS in active fighting, according to the indictment.

Another issue carried a graphic depicting the Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower on fire, captioned 'Soon in the Heart of Your Lands,' the document states.

Mothafar is also accused of moderating Sunni Shield's private social-media chat rooms and creating a 'bot' that would help answer questions, spread information, and make user identities anonymous.

He faces a charge that he lied on an immigration form, allegedly checking 'no' in response to a question asking whether he had ever associated with any terrorist group.

Mothafar faces another charge for allegedly telling the same thing to an immigration official during a citizenship interview.

Each of the three counts of providing material support to a designated terrorist organization carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

The charge of making a false statement on an immigration form could bring a sentence of up to 25 years if it's proven Mothafar did it to facilitate an act of international terrorism.

In January 2019, Mothafar told an ISIS supporter in an online chat that he was worried about using his real name in connection with Sunni Shield, the indictment states.

'If published for the foundation,' he allegedly wrote, 'it could mean 4 terror.'

-------------------------------------

Nine-page indictment via Judicial Watch.

[sneuendank]

Just Mercy, is a 2019 film starring Michael B Jordan as Bryan Stevenson, Jamie Foxx as Walter McMillian and Brie Larson as Eva Ansley. This based on a true story film begins when the recent Harvard Law School graduate, Bryan Stevenson, travels to Alabama to defend those who have been wrongfully convicted and to represent those who cannot afford an attourney. Walter McMillian, who had been unlawfully sentenced to death in 1987 for the murder of an 18 year old white girl, is one of Stevenson’s first cases. Stevenson relentlessly fights for the freedom of McMillian, while encountering racism within the judicial system. 

In the closing statements of the Walter McMillian case, Stevenson expresses the concern that this case may appear as a single individual trying to prove his innocence; however, there is a greater message trying to be conveyed. “This case becomes more than the trial of a single defendant, it becomes a test on whether we are going to be governed by fear and by anger or by the rule of law. The people standing in the back of the court room are all presumed guilty when accused…” For context, in this part of the film, the court room is filled with many individuals witnessing the Walter McMillian trial. It is important to note that all white individuals are seated in the rows of the courtroom, while all black individuals are standing in the back. This scene further represents the privileges of a white individual in the judicial system. Stevenson then continues by stating, “If we’re going to accept the system that treats you better if you are rich and guilty then if you are poor and innocent, then we can’t claim to be just. If we say we are committed to equal justice under law to protecting the rights of every citizen, regardless of wealth, race or status, then we have to end the nightmare for Walter McMillian and his family. The charges against him have proven to be a false construction of desperate people, fueled by bigotry and bias, who ignored the truth in exchange for easy solutions and that’s not the law! That’s not justice! That’s not right!” Stevenson finishes his closing statement by requesting the judge to dismiss McMillian’s case immediately, for the charges against him are simply due to racism. 

The injustice found in McMillian’s courtroom, directly relates to Nicholas Mirzoeff’s “The Shadow and the Substance”. In this piece of literature, the correlation between race and photography is discussed. More specifically the use of photography “enabled the spectacular modern lynching”. Images of African Americans with burnt and lacerated bodies were shared with individuals across the nation. These images were extremely graphic and, more often than not, the story attached to the image shared a false narrative as to why the individual ‘deserved’ the lynching. According to DuBois’s “Without Sanctuary” lynching photography, “Negro baiting and even lynching became a form of amusement, that existed, like other amusements…They are lynched in the thousands of glances from white supremacists all over the land every day”. Ultimately, these images revealed how African Americans were falsely accused of white people’s crimes and would pay with their lives. 

Walter McMillian was unlawfully accused for the murder of an eighteen year old white girl, because of the false testimonies of white eyewitnesses. African Americans were lynched and murdered by white people, because white individuals used this strategy to terrorize and control Black people. The unjust accusations made against people of color continues to occur in our society and judicial system. In order for our communities to fix racial disparities, we must review and renew policies and inform individuals about this social issue. 

Works Cited:

“Just Mercy.” Rotten Tomatoes, https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/just_mercy.

“Matt Williams Barbarically Lynched in Salisbury MD: 1931.” Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/washington_area_spark/15278441581. Accessed 11 Dec. 2021.

Mirzoeff, Nicholas. “The Shadow and the Substance.”

WarnerBrosOnline, director. YouTube, YouTube, 17 Mar. 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b_9PBKQgkQ. Accessed 11 Dec. 2021.

WarnerBrosPictures, director. YouTube, YouTube, 4 Sept. 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQbeG5yW78. Accessed 11 Dec. 2021.

[permeatingdusk]

Youichi Nakamura Char. Info

This is written in a little bit of a different style  its meant to mirror a government document.

Name: Nakamura, Youichi Jesus 中村今村耶穌

Age (approx.): 29

Birthdate: November 14th 2387 二三八七年十一月十四號

Birthplace: Lower Lanfeng, Lanfeng City, Venus

Status/Caste: Exile, former member of several criminal cabals endemic to the upper reaches of the Venusian floating resort city of Lanfeng, catering to wealthy casino bosses and the banking clans which permeate the city’s governance, Mr. Nakamura is indubitably guilty of a litany of crimes the most severe of which follow: larceny, extortion, assault both of commoners and more egregiously of higher blood, flouting and denigrating the largesse of our refulgent emperor and the heptarchy, and breaching the computer data terminals belonging to the nascent outpost of MCI within the city. Although Mr. Nakamura was by virtue of pecuniary aggrandizement relatively wealthy compared to many people who are born in the lower slums of Lanfeng, however his family shares no blood moieties with any of the noble families either through marriage or through consanguinity, and as such is considered to be of common heritage, thusly all personal wealth was bequeathed to his paramour after its confiscation. Mr. Nakamura is suspected of an even more severe transgression, the murder of Aynala DeBeers of the DeBeers-Tang banking and mining corporation, he was narrowly exculpated of the crime by a paucity of evidence, and the winnowing chances of conviction in a protracted trial. It is worth noting that Nakamura’s implication in the crime is no mere calumny, his role as the hacker and occasional enforcer for an avaricious and rapacious crime gang which employs a wide sundry of executioners means he could have been contracted to murder along with his typical tasks. Narrowly dodging the death penalty by escaping the murder conviction, Nakamura’s other crimes still resulted in the glorious viceroy Ivan Ngyuen deigning to offer him an ultimatum with the options of being sent to asteroid labor camps or being impressed into colonization of the outer solar system, which is the path he out of his own volition selected. Nakamura’s government issued threat level is defined at level A, the penultimate value, due to his criminal activity, technological erudition, as well as the lingering suspicion of his involvement in murder.

Occupation (if applicable): Mr. Nakamura’s assigned role in his exile was to be as part of an expeditionary force meant to spearhead colonization of the outer solar rim, specifically the Jovian system, as I am confident anyone who has the classification to become privy to these documents is already well aware, he was delegated to become the chief mechanic and technological expert of the nascent outpost in the abyssal plain of the satellite Europa which remains largely unexplored, and comprehending the biota which is endemic to the biome is germane to any further settlement of the moon. He will working under the supervision of a security Synth known as 4L3-X, as to ensure that any inklings of intransigence are swiftly quelled prior to their ability to interfere with the mission.

Appearance: Nakamura’s skin tone is a dark sallow, having light umber overtones with more auric undertones, as expected for someone of his ancestry. His eyes have epicanthic folds characteristic of Asiatic descent with lissome raven black eyebrows which arch slightly at the slope of his brow ridge. His eyes are ringed by a slight shadow which he often accentuates with make-up to be imposing. The hue of the eyes is mostly aptly described as an ardent amber color, with nuances of both cerise and a sylvan wood brown. Amongst his facial features the jaw line features imminently and is a tad rectangular with a prominent chin. Nakamura stands at 1.8 meters with a weight of 82 kilograms. Obsession with his appearance and his employment as an enforcer, has led to the development of a greatly toned physique with great strength, his shoulders are a tad bit disproportionate with his trunk as a result of this insinuating the overreliance on chest exercise in his physical activity regimen. Arranging his carbon black facial hair into a goatee and a thin line moustache takes up a copious amount of his morning routine, which was observed during his captivity. His hair is a similar obsidian color and is generally worn in a close cropped style with copious amounts of styling gel applied in order to spike it. Sartorially, Nakamura enjoys garishly patterned suits emblazoned with foliage, low-cut silk V-necks, as well as expensive shorts and slacks. He also was a flagrant violator of sumptuary laws by choosing to wear a copious amount of jewelry, including gold which is expressly forbade for someone of commoner status including gold and sapphires, however, all of his illicit jewels were confiscated and will remain government property in perpetuity. Lastly, Nakamura has extensive tattooing across the entirety of his back, most of which features iconography associated with Japanese culture along with stylized depictions of Scorpions and Tigers.

Personality 性格: Successfully maintains a stoic facade even under extreme duress, enigmatic, former members of both the Flying Tigers and Golden Blood gangs attest to his rather laconic and intimidating personality, however they also drew a direct juxtaposition for the complete transmogrification he could undergo in situations which incurred his wroth, with former victims of his brand of extortion often noting his Machiavellian stemming in part from what one [Redacted]; an account which used to serve at the behest of the Venusian Yakuza; best described as an “…abyssal magnetism, the way his eyes could bore into the reaches your very soul, exhuming the most stygian thoughts. It was almost as if a conflagration solely made of the most gelid ice burned in the surface of his eyes, the darkest of scintilla” Nakamura was not on the most amiable terms with the crime-boss, in spite of his deft manipulation and hacking skills he was referred to as “recalcitrant”, “intransigent”, and “pugnacious” during his absence from meetings. He was also known to employ his purportedly debonair appearance to his advantage, leveraging salacious behavior when interacting with those whom can presumed to be susceptible to such facades, however his paramour remarked that he knew of no known instance of infidelity. The aforementioned fact seems to be part of a broader trend, for the façade which Mr. Nakamura dons in public seems to be the antithesis of his domestic life, both his paramour Nikita [Redacted] and his mother Marissa [Redacted] described a man who was profoundly romantic at his core, even sometimes maudlin, as well as someone who was inordinately affectionate. His eldest child similarly seemed quite melancholy at the possibility of his father’s exile, and seemed to hold the man in great esteem. The main point of similarity was that he maintained his terseness even at home, often preferring tactile expression of his emotions rather than verbal, along with vagaries in his moods. Psychoanalyst [Redacted], who performed the hypnosis sessions upon Nakamura, believes this dichotomy in his chosen mien intimates a broader instability in his personal identity, specifically a peculiar fixation on machismo (a scion of his father absconding at a young age) and the need to project a sense of virulence and masculinity designed to guise a in truth rather fragile ego and the opprobrium still extant in Catholic communities over homosexuality, this is supported by the garish opulence of his home as well. She also classified him as displaying a number of symptoms characterizing Borderline Personality Disorder. His capricious, violent, and disobedient personality in combination with the lingering suspicion of his guilt is the central reason as to why his threat designation has been elevated to the echelon of A, which would usually be reserved for only the most truculent of individuals, the vacillations which can characterize his tumultuous moods makes his stability in a crisis unreliable, as such the leader of the mission has the additional onus of canvassing his behavior for any signs of duplicity which could spark any further rebellious tendencies, however it is worth noting his knowledge of electronics makes him an invaluable asset to this mission assuming that the signals detected indeed end up being genuine evidence of artificial constructions on the planet and not mere disruptions in the magnetic field, as such, should Nakamura behave in a manner lacking a certain “decorum” we have outfitted him with a repressed code activator during his hypnosis sessions. For your convenience, merely state the word “coruscating” followed by a command and Nakamura’s Phi-2351 neurological implants will coerce him into obedience, however only use this sparingly, the electrical output would overload the grey matter if used at regular intervals; it is meant for only dire situations.

Education: Recipient of a Master’s degree in Computer Science from the College of Technology based in the upper districts of Lanfeng, where he was a scholarship candidate based on his penury status, once again solely the result of the generosity of the Venusian court, and was amongst the zenith of his class in terms of academic marks. It appears that during this time he was scouted for his deft hacking abilities by the Golden Blood gang(later absorbed into the Flying Tigers), who entreated him through extending an offer of subsidizing his mother’s income in the interim period of entering the organization as a neophyte. Choosing to specialize primarily in the rather arcane field of data terminal management surprisingly turned into a major boon for Nakamura considering the paucity of government surveillance on the planet, which allowed him to furtively purloin extensive sums from the merchants and casino bosses who caved to intimidation tactics. Mr. Nakamura’s public education in contrast was rather rudimentary, being sent to the systems of Lower Lanfeng with the majority of the tail end of the Cupric class which populated the city slums, and as such also retained networks of allies amongst the demotic classes.

Technical Skills: Nakamura’s talents in the area of coding and hacking should not be understated, he operates on a level of sophistication analogous to only the most adroit agents employed in the annals of MCI history, he has managed to surpass what were prior thought to be insuperable barriers to Hackers including the ZhangChengSan or the Third Great Wall along with the Moscow invective tracer. Data terminals remain one of the sole bastions which keeps the Venusian colonies from plunging into tumult for their role in maintaining MCI operations until infrastructure is updated in compliance with the new Surveillance standards, and he managed to override several head terminals within Lanfeng. Nakamura is a savant with computational systems as well, and was documented to be the secondary mechanic working on Synths and androids which were illicitly employed in the gambling and prostitution coteries by the Flying Tigers after their merger with the Golden Blood, as such it is worth once again reiterating that Nakamura should never be made aware of the true nature of his guardian. Nakamura also used his amassed wealth to fund several implants (besides those which he is unwittingly carrying as per MCI regulation to quell high level plants), and has Gama-994 implants to ameliorate ocular problems which plagued him as a child according to his mother, as well as an Epsilon prosthetic to replace a portion of his hand which he was made bereft of during a territorial conflict between rival gangs of Yakuza, both of which grant his a slightly elevated physical prowess in addition to his natural upper body strength. Infelicitously his talents are going to be squandered in preforming rudimentary computer repair in the Jovian system, at least in the temporary until proper deference to the government can be instilled into him, at which point he could prove to be an asset to the MCI.

Political/World Views: Ardent antipathy to the Auric and the Sapphiric classes was apparent during the conscious and torpor-induced phases of Nakamura’s interrogation, with special rancor reserved for the viceroy of Venus and the nobility of Lanfeng. Whether this animus was engendered following his implication and subsequent arrest for the murder of Aynala DeBeers or was already extant prior to his capture is concurrently unknown, yet, it can be extrapolated through Nakamura’s personality profile that disregard for authority was likely ingrained into him from a young age with the absconding Father and the embezzling uncle. His hypnotherapy sessions allowed our agents to elucidate the fact that his perspective and philosophical outlook is rather negative, and as expected from someone with such a turbulent personality, it also appeared that a deeper penchant for both the occult and spirituality is obfuscated beneath a veneer of aggressive stance against organized religion.

Orientation: Undeclared, since adolescence Mr. Nakamura has ardently and aggressively refused to cooperate with data garnering drones in the procurement census data on Venus during the annual count. The last extant record of Mr. Nakamura’s personal data in government sanctioned data banks prior to his aforementioned arrest and interrogation was retrieved when he was only fourteen, before the question is cogent. Due to the dearth of operatives within the Venusian colonies, and their age, direct surveillance data is insufficient as well. Unfortunately, Mr. Nakamura remained recalcitrant even when subjected to the most efficacious extraction techniques, as such no verbal confession of his preferences was retrieved either. His laconic nature forces us to theorize based upon the parentage of his three children that Mr. Nakamura is a Homosexual, with the actuarial division giving this approximately 96% confidence, however this is merely an extrapolation and thusly should not engender a sense of complacence amongst the female settlers who will share housing with him. Considering his belligerent nature and criminal past MIC strongly cautions against EVER entering an amorous relationship with him.

Religious Affiliation: Pouring through the census data from the last available date, Mr. Nakamura appears to have abjured formal religious participation since adolescence, with his response being recorded as Agnostic. In addition, the official promulgation necessitating the return of temple attendance rolls is generally regarded as moot amongst the Venusians, due to the lack of an entrenched bureaucracy, so the trajectory of Mr. Nakamura’s spirituality remains nebulous. Meticulous analysis of interview footage captured subsequent his arrest, along with that of his hypnosis sessions, both show Mr. Nakamura’s demonstrable disregard for social morays and a disdain for the avariciousness which he believes permeates any ecclesiastical organization. Nakamura’s sentiments were likely engendered by the scandal which besmirches his matrilineal line, caused his uncle who used his position as a Catholic priest to embezzle copious amounts of money given in donation. The opprobrium which resulted from this event is   theorized by MCI psychoanalyst [Redacted] to be a quintessential factor contributing to his descent into poverty and thusly criminality, as such it should be regarded as a topic of great sensitivity and should be avoided in conversation. By pilfering through his confiscated personal belongings, the agency discovered several religious talismans of both a Shinto and Christian nature, intimating some level of personal spirituality.

Children: Known father of three children, a set of twins both aged 2 and another child 4, based upon SNP analysis across the gamut of retrieved genetic material for the Five Heavenly Cities, all of which were produced by inverse Oogenesis and subsequent extra-maternal incubation with another man, lending further credence to MCI’s hypothesis of Mr. Nakamura’s preferences. The other father in question was the aforementioned former Flying Tigers member and executioner turned MIC double Agent Nikita “Nick” [Redacted] known colloquially as “Ice-pick Nick”, who was invaluable to the dissolution of the criminal syndicate and unwittingly the arrest of his paramour. Nakamura has intentionally not been made privy to this fact.

Star Sign 生肖: Scorpio

Nationality 種族: Japanese Hispanic

[marymosley]

Five Ethics Rules Every Prosecutor Should Know

The School of Government and the Conference of District Attorneys co-sponsored Practical Skills for New Prosecutors last week. The five-day course includes 12 hours of Professionalism for New Attorneys requirements, so we spent a lot of time talking about professionalism and ethics. While every attorney should, of course, be familiar with the Rules of Professional Conduct, there are five ethics rules that should be at the top of every prosecutor’s list.

1. In addition to a prosecutor’s constitutional and statutory duties to disclose evidence, a prosecutor must, after making a reasonably diligent inquiry, timely disclose to the defense all evidence all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense. See North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(d), Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor.

How does this rule differ from a prosecutor’s constitutional obligation pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), to learn of and disclose to the defendant materially favorable evidence? The ethical requirement is broader. That is because, unlike a prosecutor’s due process obligation, the ethics rule does not include a materiality requirement. North Carolina State Bar v. Brewer, 05 DHC 37 Reprimand at 26 n.9 (April 4, 2008) (citing Richard A. Rosen, Disciplinary Sanctions Against Prosecutors for Brady Violations: A Paper Tiger, 65 N.C. L. Rev. 693, 714 (1987) (noting that to fulfill ethical obligations under modern ethics codes “the prosecutor must disclose all exculpatory evidence . . . whether or not the evidence presented or omitted is important enough, in the context of all of the evidence presented at trial, to warrant a reversal of the conviction”; concluding that “[a]n ethical violation can, and often will, be present even when due process is not violated.”).

Rule 3.8(d) also requires a prosecutor, in connection with sentencing, to disclose to the defendant and the court “all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor,” unless disclosure is barred by a protective order.

And a prosecutor’s disclosure duties do not end with a conviction. When a prosecutor knows of new, credible information that creates a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense for which the defendant was convicted, Rule 3.8(g) requires the prosecutor to disclose that information to the defendant or the defendant’s counsel and the North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services (or the federal public defender if a federal conviction).

2. A prosecutor may not prosecute a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause. See North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(a), Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor. Thus, if a trial court enters an order suppressing evidence that bars the prosecutor from establishing probable cause that a crime occurred, the only proper course of action is for the prosecutor to dismiss the charge. Likewise, a prosecutor may not seek the filing of charges that are precluded by established law. See North Carolina State Bar v. Paul, 12 DHC 33 (October 17, 2012) (suspending assistant district attorney from the practice of law for one year for instructing law enforcement to seek warrants for charges that she should have known were precluded by established law). The State Bar cautioned in Paul: “It is imperative to the proper administration of justice that prosecutors maintain objectivity and exercise their powers cautiously. Even the best of intentions is insufficient to justify causing a person to be arrested on charges unsupported by law.” Id.

3. A prosecutor may not offer special treatment to a person charged with a crime in exchange for a charitable contribution. While a prosecutor may engage in plea negotiations with a defendant, including negotiations that require a defendant to pay statutorily-authorized restitution, a prosecutor may not reduce or dismiss charges or seek prayers for judgment continued (PJCs) in exchange for a charitable contribution. See RPC 204, Prosecutor’s Offer of Special Treatment to Defendants Who Make Charitable Contributions (July 21, 1995) (ruling that it is prejudicial to the administration of justice for a prosecutor to offer special treatment to individuals charged with traffic offenses or minor crimes in exchange for a direct charitable contribution to the local school system). The State Bar has explained that “[t]he offer of special treatment from a prosecutor to individuals charged with traffic violations or minor criminal offenses in exchange for direct donations to even the most worthy charity implies that justice can be purchased.” Id. This type of conduct is prejudicial to the administration of justice and contravenes a prosecutor’s duty to seek justice, not merely to convict. Id.

4. A prosecutor may not intentionally fail to inform the court of prior convictions that affect a defendant’s sentence. See 2003 Formal Ethics Opinion 5, Participating in Misrepresentation of Prior Record Level in Sentencing Proceeding. To so misinform the court would violate a prosecutor’s duty under Rule 3.3 of candor toward the tribunal. Moreover, a prosecutor may not under-report a defendant’s criminal history even with the permission of the court. 2003 Formal Ethics Opinion 5 (explaining that a prosecutor may not collude with a judge to avoid the requirements of the Structured Sentencing Act; such conduct violates Rule 8.4 as it involves dishonesty and misrepresentation, is prejudicial to the administration of justice, and knowingly assists a judge in violating the rules of judicial conduct).

5. A prosecutor should not publicly comment before trial on the possibility that the defendant will plead guilty, the results of any examinations or tests, the contents of any statement given by the defendant, or the character, credibility, reputation, or criminal record of the defendant or a witness. And, while a prosecutor may publicly state that a named defendant has been charged with a crime, the prosecutor should include a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

Rule 3.6 prohibits an attorney, including a prosecutor, from making an extrajudicial statement that the attorney knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. The commentary to the rule recognizes that, of all such proceedings, criminal jury trials are the most sensitive to extrajudicial speech. Rule 3.6(a) sets forth a safe harbor for extrajudicial speech, permitting prosecutors to state the following:

(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;

(2) the information contained in a public record;

(3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;

(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;

(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;

(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest;

(7) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused;

(8) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;

(9) the fact, time and place of arrest; and

(10) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.

The commentary to Rule 3.6 lists “certain subjects that are more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding,” particularly when they refer to a criminal matter. These subjects include commentary relating to:

(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a suspect or witness in a criminal investigation, the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a witness;

(2) the possibility of a guilty plea or the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect or that person’s refusal or failure to make a statement;

(3) the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented;

(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration; and

(5) information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and that would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial.

The commentary notes that a prosecutor may state the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, but notes that such a statement is likely to have a material prejudicial effect unless it is accompanied by a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

The post Five Ethics Rules Every Prosecutor Should Know appeared first on North Carolina Criminal Law.

Five Ethics Rules Every Prosecutor Should Know published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[annadelveyfoundation]

Official Press Release from the DA

Think of this as reference material archived on the Foundation. It is the press release from the District Attorney of New York listing the charges against against Anna Delvey when she was indicted last year.

DA Vance Announces Indictment of Repeat Scammer for Multiple Thefts Totaling $275,000

Link: https://www.manhattanda.org/da-vance-announces-indictment-repeat-scammer-multiple-thefts-totaling-275000/

OCTOBER 26, 2017

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the indictment of ANNA SOROKIN, a/k/a “ANNA DELVEY,” 26, for stealing approximately $275,000 through multiple scams between November 2016 and August 2017. SOROKIN is charged in a New York State Supreme Court indictment with Attempted Grand Larceny in the First Degree, Grand Larceny in the Second and Third Degrees, and Theft of Services. [1]

“This defendant’s alleged criminal conduct spans from check fraud to six-figure stolen loans and includes schemes that resulted in a free trip to Morocco and travel on private planes,” said District Attorney Vance. “The investigation into her criminal activity is ongoing, and if you believe you may have been a victim of this defendant, I urge you to call my Office’s Financial Frauds Hotline at 212-335-8900.”

According to the indictment and statements made on the record in court, beginning in November 2016, SOROKIN stole approximately $275,000 through a variety of scams. On November 21, 2016, claiming to be a German heiress in an attempt to secure a $22 million loan to open a private club, SOROKIN provided an employee at City National Bank in Midtown with falsified bank documents from other banks showing bank accounts abroad with a total balance of approximately €60 million. A few weeks later, when City National Bank denied the loan, she showed the same documents to a representative from Fortress Investment Group in Midtown. Representatives from Fortress Investment Group said they would consider the loan, if SOROKIN provided $100,000 to cover legal and due diligence expenses. On January 12, SOROKIN secured a $100,000 loan from City National Bank by convincing a bank representative to allow her to overdraft her account. She assured representatives from City National Bank that she would wire the funds shortly to cover the overdraft, but she never re-paid the money.  

In February, Fortress Investment Bank had used approximately $45,000 of SOROKIN’s $100,000 payment for due diligence and legal fees and were attempting to continue verifying her assets to complete the loan. At that point, SOROKIN claimed she no longer needed the loan and withdrew herself from consideration. However, the defendant kept the remainder of the loan from City National Bank – approximately $55,000 – and spent it on personal expenses, including sessions with a personal trainer, stays at the 11 Howard hotel in Manhattan and shopping at Forward by Elyse Walker, Apple, and Net-a-Porter.  

Between April 7 and April 11, the defendant deposited $160,000 in bad checks into her Citibank account and transferred $70,000 from the account before the checks were returned. She used approximately $30,000 to cover her bill at the 11 Howard hotel, where she was living at the time. In May, the defendant chartered a private plane to the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting in Omaha. She never paid the $35,000 owed to the company, Blade, following the completion of the round-trip flights.

Also in May, SOROKIN invited a friend on an all-expenses paid trip to Morocco. During the trip, SOROKIN offered her debit card for payment knowing it would be declined due to insufficient funds. Once the card was declined, the defendant asked the friend to provide hers instead, with the promise she would reimburse her. The victim paid for approximately $62,000 worth of travel expenses for the six-night trip, including the rental of a luxury villa with a private swimming pool and butler. SOROKIN never reimbursed her, and made excuses when asked about the status of the re-payment. Finally, in August, the defendant opened a bank account with Signature Bank, deposited $15,000 of bad checks into the account, and withdrew approximately $8,200 in cash before the checks were returned.

Assistant District Attorney Catherine McCaw handled the prosecution of this case under the supervision of Assistant District Attorneys Gloria Garcia, Deputy Chief of the Financial Frauds Bureau; Anne Ternes, Deputy Chief of the Financial Frauds Bureau; Archana Rao, Chief of the Financial Frauds Bureau; and Executive Assistant District Attorney Michael Sachs, Chief of the Investigation Division.

District Attorney Vance thanked the NYPD’s Financial Crimes Task Force, specifically Detective Jackson Todd and Officer Michael McAffrey; Detectives Montejano and Kipp of the Los Angeles Police Department Gang and Narcotics Division, Fugitive Warrant Section; investigators at Deutsche Bank, UBS, Citibank, and Signature Bank; and US Department of State Special Agent Christopher Nieves for their assistance with the investigation.

[1] The charges contained in the indictment are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. All factual recitations are derived from documents filed in court and statements made on the record in court.

Defendant Information:

ANNA SOROKIN, a/k/a “ANNA DELVEY,” D.O.B 1/23/1991 New York, NY

Charges: •    Attempted Grand Larceny in the First Degree, a class C felony, two counts •    Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a class C felony, three counts •    Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, a class D felony, one count •    Theft of Services, class A misdemeanor, one count

[duaneodavila]

Ability To Pay Bail Held A Constitutional Consideration

When the Appellate Division, Second Department, referred the Article 70 proceeding to Dutchess County Supreme Court Justice Maria Rosa, they made an excellent choice. Justice Rosa had already proven herself an exceptionally bold and tough judge, willing to confront systemic problems in the system head on. And bail? One of the worst.

The NYCLU argued that failure of judges setting bail to consider a defendant’s ability to pay was a violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. It’s not that judges were prohibited from considering ability to pay, but they weren’t required to do so by statute. And most didn’t.

While it is clear that the legislature must act, it is undisputed that the earliest such action could occur would be 2019. In the interim, thousands of individuals will be in a similar situation as the petitioner was at his arraignment. It is clear to this court that a lack of consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay the bail being set at an arraignment is a violation of the equal protection and due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and of the New York State Constitution: Clearly, $5000.00 bail to someone earning $10,000.00 per year, like the petitioner, without significant assets, is much more of an impediment to freedom than $5000.00 bail would be to a defendant earning substantially more and/or with significant assets. Setting that sum as to both such individuals would not be equal treatment.

As can happen, the petitioner in the case copped a plea in midstream, but Justice Rosa properly rejected the mootness argument.

The court considered the matter as an action for declaratory judgment in that case, and this court finds it appropriate to do so here. See also Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 NY2d 707 (1980) where the Court of Appeals outlined a three prong test for recognition of an exception to mootness when (1) the case raises a substantial or novel issue, (2) that has a “likelihood of repetition, either between the parties or among other members of the public”, (3) and yet, because of the fleeting nature of the dispute, the issue will typically evade judicial review.

This is a critical detail that allows a court to deal with huge systemic problems that impact an enormous number of defendants, but easily evade review because they’re “fleeting.” So even though the petitioner pleaded guilty, and no longer needed  remedy, the case proceeded as a declaratory judgment action.

And Justice Rosa came down on it.

While imposing bail under appropriate circumstances clearly serves an important and perhaps even compelling governmental objective, the failure to consider the economic status of a defendant does not serve that interest nor does the consideration of economic status impede that interest. Therefore, applying any of the above tests, the failure to consider a defendant’s financial situation when imposing bail violates that defendant’s right to equal protection under the United States and New York State Constitutions.

Significantly, Justice Rosa’s ruling was grounded in the rational basis test, rather than strict scrutiny, as indigency is not a “suspect classification” for equal protection analysis. The distinction almost always dictates the outcome, as strict scrutiny is an  extremely high burden, while rational basis is usually a government throwaway test. With a little rhetorical effort, almost any rule can be twisted into serving a rational governmental purpose.

Not this time. There was simply no justification, not even a little bit, for ignoring a defendant’s ability to pay bail when holding a presumptively innocent person in jail.

Protection against discrimination is never more important than when a person’s freedom is at stake. Since one accused of a crime in the United States is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the setting of bail is supposed to be limited to those defendants who are either a danger to a specific individual* or to the public or who pose a flight risk. There are conflicting allegations as to Mr. Kunkeli’s work and living situations and his record of prior court appearances. This court is not ruling upon whether or not it was appropriate for Judge Sullivan to set bail in this case, or even to have knowingly set bail the defendant could not afford, but only as to the propriety of the failure to consider whether Mr. Kunkeli had the ability to pay the sum of bail set.

But if you read closely, you realize that practical roadblocks stand in the way. At initial arraignment, the judge has little to go on about the defendant’s actual financial conditions. If his CJA forms show he’s unemployed, then it may well be that he’s indigent. Except when the charge is drug dealing, which will be argued that he’s hardly unemployed or indigent. Or if he’s got an iPhone on him at the time of arrest. If he can afford a fancy toy, he can afford bail.

The contentions in the trenches put a judge in a difficult position, as it’s all talk and no proof. Saying a defendant is broke doesn’t make him broke. And indeed, if he’s got private counsel, that could be seen as a deal breaker, even if his family’s last dime was spent retaining a lawyer, as is their right.

While Justice Rosa’s ruling, that the Constitution requires judges to consider a defendant’s ability to pay when setting bail, is a significant step forward, and sufficiently sound to hold up on appeal, whether it will have a material impact in the trenches will have to be seen. For some defendants who are employed and can prove they make poverty level wages, this could prove to be a viable way out. Provided, of course, that judges can do that math and recognize that half a year’s salary is a bit steep for a turnstyle jumper.

Still, this ruling fails to confront the core problem, that bail is imposed for the asking for cases where there is no substantive justification for bail at all. And judges can fix that problem any time they want. Any time at all.

*Note that the New York bail statute does not include a “danger to the community prong.”

Copyright © 2007-2018 Simple Justice NY, LLC This feed is for personal, non-commercial and Newstex use only. The use of this feed anywhere else violates copyright. If this content is not in your news reader, it means the page you are viewing infringes copyright. (Digital Fingerprint: 51981395c77d7762065ca2c084b63e47) Ability To Pay Bail Held A Constitutional Consideration republished via Simple Justice

[anarchistnewsdaily]

Via: 325 

PDF: The Fenix verdict – Defendants acquitted (Czech Republic)

3 years of lack of evidence – 3 years that fucked up our lives (DOWNLOAD PDF FILE HERE)

The Fenix case uproar, consists of a lot of accusations of many crimes, ranging from the one of so-called “promotion of terrorism” to the one of preparation of terrorist attacks. These are the ones that were most discussed at the latest Municipal Court Hearing in Prague. During their verdict, the judge acquitted all the five defendants of the Fenix 1 case. Is it a victory? Why this decision isn’t final? Followed article is a translation of a month old overview over the court hearings and some analyses of our situation and experience, originally written in Czech language.

This long court hearing was about five anarchists, three of them accused of plotting a terrorist attack on a train carrying military paraphernalia. Two of them were accused of knowing about such plans and not having stopped the presumed authors. Two of these five people were also accused of preparing an attack with Molotov cocktails on police cars during the eviction of the Cibulka squat. Basically, according to the deployed police agents, there are in total five people and three different crimes involved. (And all this is just for Fenix 1, because some of these people are facing further accusations in the context of Fenix 2).

In the group where the five accused were involved, there were two police agent infiltrators. These two individuals actively prepared both attacks and they also partly started them up. However, the judge did not identify their actions as a provocation just because the materials that would detect the provocation are not available.

The Judge, Her Hon. Hana Hrncirova, stressed that she acquitted all the defendants precisely because of lack of sufficient evidence. She highlighted the lack of transparency of police’s work: “The reason why the court took such decision is the fact that during the evidence assessment the judge expressed strong doubts over the police transparency in their methods both before the commencement of the criminal prosecution and when it was legally permitted to involve the deployed agents in the case,” she said.

The judge stressed that the police acted without having a warrant for months and when the defense attorney asked for the records of their activity, the police did not have them: ” The court has no trace of such records, not even one” the judge said. Then she said: “The Defense attorney has tried to get these materials because it can be assumed that, on the grounds of these individual permits, there must be some records somewhere. Such records were never included in the file.”

According to what the police said, the materials from the first months of infiltration “are not existing or cannot be used”. Then, we have another stack of files that are existing, files with a transcript of taped down cell phone communication, and can indeed be used. Especially to prove that the secret agents, the infiltration and the construction of the case are not a matter of the past as we hear very often. Comic was the moment, when the judge raised this stack over her head (it is a volume of about 400 A4 pages) and said that from all these transcripts not a single thing has any value as evidence.

The decision is not final because the state prosecutor Pazourek felt that he still has not destroyed people’s life enough and appealed on site. As a former police officer, he believes that the police has acted correctly and hopes that the higher Court of Appeal will confirm his opinion. Surely, he will do his utmost best to find something that “must be there and can be used”. We can then just hope that this hunter of anarchists (who is also the one who proposed at least 12 years in jail for charged ones in Fenix) and also plays role in Fenix 2 will have elements with no value of evidence in the next trial as well.

Unlike Pazourek, The Minister of inferior, gun lover, social democrat, Josef Chovanec, does not have time to wait for the Higher court. The Parliamentary Elections are approaching and he has to give priority to polishing his image, presenting himself as a fair and just daddy. And therefore, after three years, he has suddenly noticed that in the Fenix case something “is not quite right”. In his “Twitter” profile he dropped a few comments by making reference to facts belonging to Czech history: “If it proves, that it was just police provocation, I will ask for a thorough investigation case and a punishment of the culprits. The police of such a democratic state […] cannot arbitrarily destroy the lives of people, and this is regardless of their political thinking.. I hope that the “Omladina trial [1]” belongs to our history and not to our present.” Too bad that he was not there saying such words when, at the time of Martin Ignacak’s imprisonment, main detective Palfiova, looking at the file, stated: “we can do everything!”.

Whether Chovanec himself is directly and or partly responsible for the process against the anarchist movement or not, we do not know and it will take long time before we find out. Surely, if the court would sent the five people behind bars we can bet that he will tap his guys’ shoulders “for the good job they have done”. Now, when the contrary happened, he can blame for their mistakes and abuse of power just a couple of individuals out of a police and punitive apparatus that is otherwise “spotless” and “helpful to all the community”.

The lack of evidence wins For many of us the Court’s verdict is a relief. For a moment we can breathe, meet up for dinner, and see our friends in a more relaxed state of mind outside the prison walls. These moments are important in life and it is good that we can enjoy them. Prison is a useless institution, it divides relationships, isolates people and destroys lives. This is why the verdict, no matter how much more pleasant than “guilty”, is not a total win for us. We do not forget what three years of infiltration and later investigation meant. Ales, Martin, and Peter have all been incarcerated for 27 months in total, Lukas – 7 months, and before that he had been one year underground. All of them with still awaiting trials (appeal of Fenix 1 and for some of them and two more comrades Fenix 2) Some of them with possible life sentences still in the air. Let’s not forget about Igor, who is today found innocent, was in the hardest custody for three months, is still facing hard restrictions and had been reporting to the probation services for almost year and a half. On top of that, he is still at risk of deportation from the Czech Republic due by his stay in custody.

The families, friends and closest people of the defendants and imprisoned, as well as those who are directly affected by the Fenix case, are facing a great deal of emotional pressure and separation. The Police broke in in several flats and has been taking more and more people for interrogations. The police is using practices in their powers such as taking people to the forest, threatening the partners and the parents of the suspects. A list of what has been done during the various repressive actions (and we are only talking about the last three years on the anti-authoritarian scene in so called Czech Republic) would probably be long and scary.

In short, it is clear that there is nothing to celebrate. The need to smash the oppressive system is still in the game, just there is need to think about a better strategy and find new ways how to fight. In cases like the Fenix, it is necessary to understand what this is really about. From the very beginning, we said that the police is not primarily after long imprisonments of single anarchists. The Repressive units are not afraid of us alone, nor they don’t fear of Martin, Peter, Sasha, Ales, Katarína, Radka, Igor, Lukas, Ales and the other defendants. What scares them is that more and more people would come out by identifying with our ideas, especially if they start using a wider variety of tactics. The protectors of the status quo invest a lot of strengths, energy and resources to keep people in the belief that this is the freedom they dream for.

Anti-authoritarian and anarchists people that believe that we can live our lives in a more genuine way than the one offered by neo-liberalism and that we do not need State and Politics, can offer an alternative which could interfere with this consumerist life-style. Repression is then seen as the ideal tool to suppress ideas. And by them the state apparatus wants to discredit us through sensationalist media and labeling us as terrorists, to intimidate us by using imprisonment and to divide the movement between “the radicals” and the “the nonviolent ones” and place us against each other. Paralyze us with paranoia.

The question is where this attempt of repression is successful and in which points we can work on ourselves. How not to fall into traps that are invisible at first sight and how to tear down walls in our heads. The walls inside ourselves and between us and other people. How to break these walls and build bridges out of them. How to overcome fear, obtain what are fighting for and respect each other. And last but not least, how not to fall in the urge of winning in a game that is not ours and which only takes us away from important things and activities.

The Fenix case has become a crucial point in the lives of many of us. We can learn a lot from it. Take it as a point of reference to better understand how the power structures work and to understand each others as well as to critically analyze our own mistakes. We do not want to pretend that we have the answers to all the questions out there. But we have learned one thing. If we want our actions and our organizing to be really effective and dangerous for the structures of oppression that keep us under control, these must come from collective discussions and negotiations that go beyond the outlines given by the state. We learned that there is no point to hide from repression, it is better to be ready to face it and create conditions that will make such operations inactive. As long as people are put in jail first and it is discussed whether this is the right measure to implement or not only after the imprisonment, there is a reason to keep on fighting. That is not to say that if the legal proceedings happen in the opposite order the issue is solved, rather that we need to imagine an entirely different world. A world without prisons, borders and police where we must really solve the problems ourselves rather then hidding them behind the walls.

Fenix is not an operation targeting a few naive anarchists, but an attack to the future of subversion as a whole. It is also a demonstration of Police power and of the work of the secret state agents in democracy we hear as synonymous to freedom so often.

Do not get caught!

In Solidarity, Anarchist Black Cross, Prague, Autumn Equinox 2017.

“My pillar values are: Life, Justice, Freedom, and Equality. People who construct cases and want to imprison people hardly understand such values. I am ready for any verdict, and I will take it holding my head high. A verdict that will affect my life and the life of others.” End of Martin Ignacak’s Final Speech.

Notes:

[1] In 1894, the Omladina Trial, convened in the Austro-Hungarian regional capital of Prague, ostensibly placed Czech Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism before the court as well as specifically convicting 68 Czech Nationalists of radical activities. (Source: Wikipedia) Original Article

[nancyedimick]

Short Circuit: A roundup of recent federal court decisions

(Here is the latest edition of the Institute for Justice’s weekly Short Circuit newsletter, written by John Ross.)

This month marks the 25th anniversary of Davis v. Grover, in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the nation’s first modern school choice program. IJ Senior Attorney Dick Komer reflects on the occasion and on such programs’ potential to bring the benefits of choice, already enjoyed by the well-off, to lower-income families. Click here to read.

Union representing workers at Sausalito, Calif. restaurant purportedly does little but collect dues; majority sign petition to decertify it, but union leader persuades several workers to withdraw their signatures (perhaps by raising the specter of deportation), yet does not tell the restaurant, which proceeds with decertification. D.C. Circuit: The restaurant violated the law, but the NLRB can’t order the restaurant to recognize and bargain with the union.

Prosecutors play short clips from movie The Town, which defendants allegedly emulated by dressing as police at armed robbery of Queens, N.Y. check-cashing business, presenting an employee with a photo of her home, and pouring bleach on the crime scene. Second Circuit: The clips were not unduly prejudicial to the defendants. Convictions affirmed.

Radiology resident at private Philadelphia hospital alleges director sexually harassed her; she is let go, and finds other programs are unwilling to hire her. Can she sue under Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs? District Court: She should have filed under Title VII, which governs employment discrimination. Third Circuit: Medical residencies are federally-funded education programs; her (timely) Title IX claims were improperly dismissed.

High Point, N.C. officer allows police doggie to bite unresisting homeless man twice after realizing the man is not the robbery suspect he’s pursuing. Fourth Circuit (over a dissent): Qualified immunity.

Husband pleads guilty to fraud and, over wife’s objection, agrees to forfeit $3.4 million in ill-gotten gains. Fifth Circuit (notably not relying on cases allowing forfeiture of innocent persons’ property): The assets were held in the husband’s sole name, so, under state law, we presume he had power to dispose of them without his wife’s approval.

During prolonged interrogation, Milwaukee detectives falsely tell intellectually disabled suspect that he failed a polygraph and that eyewitnesses identified him as the murderer. He proclaims his innocence more than 140 times, but eventually confesses and spends over a year in jail before the confession is suppressed and the charges are dropped. Can he sue the detectives for coercing the confession? He cannot, says the Seventh Circuit.

We’ll give you one guess which Seventh Circuit judge thought that a cat analogy would be the best way to explain why a case against eye-drop manufacturers needs to be dismissed.

Rock Island County, Ill. sheriff requires female pre-trial detainees to wear white underwear or go commando, lest they extract ink from colored underwear and use it to make tattoos. Seventh Circuit: There is no evidence that has ever happened anywhere. Plaintiffs’ claim, that the policy mars their dignity without advancing a legitimate penal interest, should not have been dismissed.

Officers at Stearns County, Minn. jail listen to pre-trial detainee shriek, bang his head against the door of his cell for eight hours. Deliberate indifference to his medical needs? Could be, says the Eighth Circuit. But officers who held him down and tasered him are immune from the excessive-force claim arising from his death.

In a pair of decisions, the Ninth Circuit holds that two or three instances of corrections officers opening a prisoner’s properly marked legal mail outside of the prisoner’s presence is enough to raise a First Amendment claim, and, if the mail relates to a criminal matter, a Sixth Amendment claim.

Did a Mexican national seeking refugee status in the U.S. successfully demonstrate past persecution based on his sexual orientation? Ninth Circuit (en banc): The horrific sexual abuse he suffered, combined with the Mexican authorities’ inability or unwillingness to deal with the situation, certainly meets that standard.

The Dodd-Frank Act protects whistleblowers from retaliation but defines “whistleblower” to mean people who give information to the SEC. Does it also protect a guy who was fired for giving information to his employer, rather than the SEC? Ninth Circuit: If the Supreme Court can call a health-care exchange established by the federal government “an exchange established by [a] State,” see King v. Burwell, we can call this guy a whistleblower. Dissent: I disagree for reasons best illustrated by John Carpenter’s The Thing (Universal Pictures 1982).

Oklahoma prosecutor issues fake subpoenas, bogus arrest warrants in attempt to force three underage witnesses to testify against murder suspect — and does not inform their parents or get them counsel. (One, a 12 year old, testifies but later recants.) The suspect spends 16 years in prison, much of it on death row, before being freed. Oklahoma Supreme Court: No need to disbar the prosecutor. Tenth Circuit: But the suspect’s suit over his alleged post-trial actions (which include efforts to ensure potentially exculpatory evidence remained concealed) can proceed. We don’t have jurisdiction to reconsider the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Allegation: EPA agents lead armed raid of Casper, Wyo. laboratory based on false accusation from former employee, an 18 year old, that the lab falsified water-quality records. Five years later, case dismissed against former lab owners without charges. They sue the EPA. District court: It’s too late to sue; the two-year statute of limitations started running when you lost the lab. Tenth Circuit: Actually, you couldn’t have even sued then because sovereign immunity.

In 1982, heirs of Coca-Cola magnate sell part of Georgia’s largest barrier island (also owned in part by Carnegie family) to the National Park Service, retain right to use dock. Yikes! The dock will soon be inaccessible to most sea craft, owing to buildup of sedimentation. Must NPS allow the family to extend or move the dock? The Eleventh Circuit, in an Otis Redding-themed opinion, says no.

Inmate spreads feces about his cell. While he is restrained and compliant, an officer allegedly punches him in the gut. The officer is fired. North Carolina court (over a dissent): Reinstate him.

Police make to arrest motorist who did not break any traffic laws but has outstanding warrant. (Officers don’t check to see what the warrant is for.) A pat down reveals a suspicious bulge in an intimate area, which leads to a strip search, which yields contraband, which leads to a search of the vehicle, which yields more contraband. Yikes! The warrant is for failure to pay a $6.50 traffic fine. New Jersey court: The strip search was unconstitutional. New trial to determine whether the motorist can still be imprisoned for the contraband in the car.

At a meeting in the White House last month, a sheriff from Kentucky told the President that critics of civil asset forfeiture simply “make up stories.” This is a woefully inaccurate claim, write IJ Senior Legislative Counsel Lee McGrath and Communications Associate Nick Sibilla in The Wall Street Journal, citing, among others, the case of Russ Caswell, who almost lost his Massachusetts motel, which had been run by his family for more than 50 years, because of 15 “drug-related incidents” there from 1994-2008, a period through which he rented out nearly 200,000 rooms. Click here to read more (gated).

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/13/short-circuit-a-roundup-of-recent-federal-court-decisions-46/

[wolfandpravato]

Short Circuit: A roundup of recent federal court decisions

(Here is the latest edition of the Institute for Justice’s weekly Short Circuit newsletter, written by John Ross.)

This month marks the 25th anniversary of Davis v. Grover, in which the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the nation’s first modern school choice program. IJ Senior Attorney Dick Komer reflects on the occasion and on such programs’ potential to bring the benefits of choice, already enjoyed by the well-off, to lower-income families. Click here to read.

Union representing workers at Sausalito, Calif. restaurant purportedly does little but collect dues; majority sign petition to decertify it, but union leader persuades several workers to withdraw their signatures (perhaps by raising the specter of deportation), yet does not tell the restaurant, which proceeds with decertification. D.C. Circuit: The restaurant violated the law, but the NLRB can’t order the restaurant to recognize and bargain with the union.

Prosecutors play short clips from movie The Town, which defendants allegedly emulated by dressing as police at armed robbery of Queens, N.Y. check-cashing business, presenting an employee with a photo of her home, and pouring bleach on the crime scene. Second Circuit: The clips were not unduly prejudicial to the defendants. Convictions affirmed.

Radiology resident at private Philadelphia hospital alleges director sexually harassed her; she is let go, and finds other programs are unwilling to hire her. Can she sue under Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs? District Court: She should have filed under Title VII, which governs employment discrimination. Third Circuit: Medical residencies are federally-funded education programs; her (timely) Title IX claims were improperly dismissed.

High Point, N.C. officer allows police doggie to bite unresisting homeless man twice after realizing the man is not the robbery suspect he’s pursuing. Fourth Circuit (over a dissent): Qualified immunity.

Husband pleads guilty to fraud and, over wife’s objection, agrees to forfeit $3.4 million in ill-gotten gains. Fifth Circuit (notably not relying on cases allowing forfeiture of innocent persons’ property): The assets were held in the husband’s sole name, so, under state law, we presume he had power to dispose of them without his wife’s approval.

During prolonged interrogation, Milwaukee detectives falsely tell intellectually disabled suspect that he failed a polygraph and that eyewitnesses identified him as the murderer. He proclaims his innocence more than 140 times, but eventually confesses and spends over a year in jail before the confession is suppressed and the charges are dropped. Can he sue the detectives for coercing the confession? He cannot, says the Seventh Circuit.

We’ll give you one guess which Seventh Circuit judge thought that a cat analogy would be the best way to explain why a case against eye-drop manufacturers needs to be dismissed.

Rock Island County, Ill. sheriff requires female pre-trial detainees to wear white underwear or go commando, lest they extract ink from colored underwear and use it to make tattoos. Seventh Circuit: There is no evidence that has ever happened anywhere. Plaintiffs’ claim, that the policy mars their dignity without advancing a legitimate penal interest, should not have been dismissed.

Officers at Stearns County, Minn. jail listen to pre-trial detainee shriek, bang his head against the door of his cell for eight hours. Deliberate indifference to his medical needs? Could be, says the Eighth Circuit. But officers who held him down and tasered him are immune from the excessive-force claim arising from his death.

In a pair of decisions, the Ninth Circuit holds that two or three instances of corrections officers opening a prisoner’s properly marked legal mail outside of the prisoner’s presence is enough to raise a First Amendment claim, and, if the mail relates to a criminal matter, a Sixth Amendment claim.

Did a Mexican national seeking refugee status in the U.S. successfully demonstrate past persecution based on his sexual orientation? Ninth Circuit (en banc): The horrific sexual abuse he suffered, combined with the Mexican authorities’ inability or unwillingness to deal with the situation, certainly meets that standard.

The Dodd-Frank Act protects whistleblowers from retaliation but defines “whistleblower” to mean people who give information to the SEC. Does it also protect a guy who was fired for giving information to his employer, rather than the SEC? Ninth Circuit: If the Supreme Court can call a health-care exchange established by the federal government “an exchange established by [a] State,” see King v. Burwell, we can call this guy a whistleblower. Dissent: I disagree for reasons best illustrated by John Carpenter’s The Thing (Universal Pictures 1982).

Oklahoma prosecutor issues fake subpoenas, bogus arrest warrants in attempt to force three underage witnesses to testify against murder suspect — and does not inform their parents or get them counsel. (One, a 12 year old, testifies but later recants.) The suspect spends 16 years in prison, much of it on death row, before being freed. Oklahoma Supreme Court: No need to disbar the prosecutor. Tenth Circuit: But the suspect’s suit over his alleged post-trial actions (which include efforts to ensure potentially exculpatory evidence remained concealed) can proceed. We don’t have jurisdiction to reconsider the district court’s denial of qualified immunity.

Allegation: EPA agents lead armed raid of Casper, Wyo. laboratory based on false accusation from former employee, an 18 year old, that the lab falsified water-quality records. Five years later, case dismissed against former lab owners without charges. They sue the EPA. District court: It’s too late to sue; the two-year statute of limitations started running when you lost the lab. Tenth Circuit: Actually, you couldn’t have even sued then because sovereign immunity.

In 1982, heirs of Coca-Cola magnate sell part of Georgia’s largest barrier island (also owned in part by Carnegie family) to the National Park Service, retain right to use dock. Yikes! The dock will soon be inaccessible to most sea craft, owing to buildup of sedimentation. Must NPS allow the family to extend or move the dock? The Eleventh Circuit, in an Otis Redding-themed opinion, says no.

Inmate spreads feces about his cell. While he is restrained and compliant, an officer allegedly punches him in the gut. The officer is fired. North Carolina court (over a dissent): Reinstate him.

Police make to arrest motorist who did not break any traffic laws but has outstanding warrant. (Officers don’t check to see what the warrant is for.) A pat down reveals a suspicious bulge in an intimate area, which leads to a strip search, which yields contraband, which leads to a search of the vehicle, which yields more contraband. Yikes! The warrant is for failure to pay a $6.50 traffic fine. New Jersey court: The strip search was unconstitutional. New trial to determine whether the motorist can still be imprisoned for the contraband in the car.

At a meeting in the White House last month, a sheriff from Kentucky told the President that critics of civil asset forfeiture simply “make up stories.” This is a woefully inaccurate claim, write IJ Senior Legislative Counsel Lee McGrath and Communications Associate Nick Sibilla in The Wall Street Journal, citing, among others, the case of Russ Caswell, who almost lost his Massachusetts motel, which had been run by his family for more than 50 years, because of 15 “drug-related incidents” there from 1994-2008, a period through which he rented out nearly 200,000 rooms. Click here to read more (gated).

Originally Found On: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/13/short-circuit-a-roundup-of-recent-federal-court-decisions-46/

[marymosley]

Five Ethics Rules Every Prosecutor Should Know

The School of Government and the Conference of District Attorneys co-sponsored Practical Skills for New Prosecutors last week. The five-day course includes 12 hours of Professionalism for New Attorneys requirements, so we spent a lot of time talking about professionalism and ethics. While every attorney should, of course, be familiar with the Rules of Professional Conduct, there are five ethics rules that should be at the top of every prosecutor’s list.

1. In addition to a prosecutor’s constitutional and statutory duties to disclose evidence, a prosecutor must, after making a reasonably diligent inquiry, timely disclose to the defense all evidence all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigate the offense. See North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(d), Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor.

How does this rule differ from a prosecutor’s constitutional obligation pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), to learn of and disclose to the defendant materially favorable evidence? The ethical requirement is broader. That is because, unlike a prosecutor’s due process obligation, the ethics rule does not include a materiality requirement. North Carolina State Bar v. Brewer, 05 DHC 37 Reprimand at 26 n.9 (April 4, 2008) (citing Richard A. Rosen, Disciplinary Sanctions Against Prosecutors for Brady Violations: A Paper Tiger, 65 N.C. L. Rev. 693, 714 (1987) (noting that to fulfill ethical obligations under modern ethics codes “the prosecutor must disclose all exculpatory evidence . . . whether or not the evidence presented or omitted is important enough, in the context of all of the evidence presented at trial, to warrant a reversal of the conviction”; concluding that “[a]n ethical violation can, and often will, be present even when due process is not violated.”).

Rule 3.8(d) also requires a prosecutor, in connection with sentencing, to disclose to the defendant and the court “all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor,” unless disclosure is barred by a protective order.

And a prosecutor’s disclosure duties do not end with a conviction. When a prosecutor knows of new, credible information that creates a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense for which the defendant was convicted, Rule 3.8(g) requires the prosecutor to disclose that information to the defendant or the defendant’s counsel and the North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services (or the federal public defender if a federal conviction).

2. A prosecutor may not prosecute a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause. See North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(a), Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor. Thus, if a trial court enters an order suppressing evidence that bars the prosecutor from establishing probable cause that a crime occurred, the only proper course of action is for the prosecutor to dismiss the charge. Likewise, a prosecutor may not seek the filing of charges that are precluded by established law. See North Carolina State Bar v. Paul, 12 DHC 33 (October 17, 2012) (suspending assistant district attorney from the practice of law for one year for instructing law enforcement to seek warrants for charges that she should have known were precluded by established law). The State Bar cautioned in Paul: “It is imperative to the proper administration of justice that prosecutors maintain objectivity and exercise their powers cautiously. Even the best of intentions is insufficient to justify causing a person to be arrested on charges unsupported by law.” Id.

3. A prosecutor may not offer special treatment to a person charged with a crime in exchange for a charitable contribution. While a prosecutor may engage in plea negotiations with a defendant, including negotiations that require a defendant to pay statutorily-authorized restitution, a prosecutor may not reduce or dismiss charges or seek prayers for judgment continued (PJCs) in exchange for a charitable contribution. See RPC 204, Prosecutor’s Offer of Special Treatment to Defendants Who Make Charitable Contributions (July 21, 1995) (ruling that it is prejudicial to the administration of justice for a prosecutor to offer special treatment to individuals charged with traffic offenses or minor crimes in exchange for a direct charitable contribution to the local school system). The State Bar has explained that “[t]he offer of special treatment from a prosecutor to individuals charged with traffic violations or minor criminal offenses in exchange for direct donations to even the most worthy charity implies that justice can be purchased.” Id. This type of conduct is prejudicial to the administration of justice and contravenes a prosecutor’s duty to seek justice, not merely to convict. Id.

4. A prosecutor may not intentionally fail to inform the court of prior convictions that affect a defendant’s sentence. See 2003 Formal Ethics Opinion 5, Participating in Misrepresentation of Prior Record Level in Sentencing Proceeding. To so misinform the court would violate a prosecutor’s duty under Rule 3.3 of candor toward the tribunal. Moreover, a prosecutor may not under-report a defendant’s criminal history even with the permission of the court. 2003 Formal Ethics Opinion 5 (explaining that a prosecutor may not collude with a judge to avoid the requirements of the Structured Sentencing Act; such conduct violates Rule 8.4 as it involves dishonesty and misrepresentation, is prejudicial to the administration of justice, and knowingly assists a judge in violating the rules of judicial conduct).

5. A prosecutor should not publicly comment before trial on the possibility that the defendant will plead guilty, the results of any examinations or tests, the contents of any statement given by the defendant, or the character, credibility, reputation, or criminal record of the defendant or a witness. And, while a prosecutor may publicly state that a named defendant has been charged with a crime, the prosecutor should include a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

Rule 3.6 prohibits an attorney, including a prosecutor, from making an extrajudicial statement that the attorney knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. The commentary to the rule recognizes that, of all such proceedings, criminal jury trials are the most sensitive to extrajudicial speech. Rule 3.6(a) sets forth a safe harbor for extrajudicial speech, permitting prosecutors to state the following:

(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;

(2) the information contained in a public record;

(3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;

(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;

(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;

(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest;

(7) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused;

(8) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;

(9) the fact, time and place of arrest; and

(10) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.

The commentary to Rule 3.6 lists “certain subjects that are more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding,” particularly when they refer to a criminal matter. These subjects include commentary relating to:

(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a suspect or witness in a criminal investigation, the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a witness;

(2) the possibility of a guilty plea or the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect or that person’s refusal or failure to make a statement;

(3) the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented;

(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration; and

(5) information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and that would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial.

The commentary notes that a prosecutor may state the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, but notes that such a statement is likely to have a material prejudicial effect unless it is accompanied by a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

The post Five Ethics Rules Every Prosecutor Should Know appeared first on North Carolina Criminal Law.

Five Ethics Rules Every Prosecutor Should Know published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/