#to be clear I personally do not support the death penalty or its equivalent

[bookwyrminspiration]

I imagine the only reason Vespera wasn’t sentenced to eternal sedation was plot convenience. what’s even the point of having a pseudo death penalty if they won’t even sentence their worst criminal in history to it?

[theoutcastrogue]

Outcasts and outlaws in medieval society

[by Bronislaw Geremek]

Expulsion in late Roman law

Society’s outcasts deserve special attention. They were banned people—men and women who, by a decision of the community, an article of the law, or a court sentence had been de­prived of the right to remain within the confines of a particular terri­tory or had been declared total outlaws. The ban look different forms in Roman law, and it was interpreted in still different ways, as is evi­dent In Justinian's Digesta [~530 CE]. Exile was defined spatially in various ways: it might be expulsion from a particular territory, confinement within a carefully de­fined area, or being sent to an island (insulae vinculum). The first form, the prohibition to reside in a certain city or ter­ritory, was thought to be the oldest historically. It has quite specific consequences. The denial of "water and fire" (interdictio aquae et ignis), which implied loss of the benefits of residence or hospitality (symbolized by shaking one's thirst and warming oneself), did not prevent the person from establishing himself elsewhere and leading a normal life there. Within the area covered by the ban he (or she) was under the threat of death. It is difficult to interpret this penalty, however. It contains the right to impunity sui generis, on the condi­tion that the person leaves the place mentioned in the ban, but inher­ent in it is an element of social exclusion and a privation of all the individual's natural rights.

Banishment in early medieval law

In the "barbarian laws" and the customary law of the early Middle Ages banishment was strictly equivalent to exclusion. It replaced the taking of a person's life, which had been considered compensation for the disturbance of sacral order. Banishment was thus exclusion from the right to peace; it meant stripping people of their natural rights; depriving them of their true condition. The Lex Salica [~500 CE] declares that the banished person wargus sit, which meant that he was to be treated like a wolf and chased away from collective human society. To kill him would be legitimate self-defense. Even in this principle of customary law there is an avowal that man, outside social bonds and outside the patria, exposed to the risks of a wild environ­ment and subject to the rules of life in the woods and the wilderness, became almost a wolf—a man-wolf, a werewolf. The ogre of the fable corresponds in real life to the asocial man who had transgressed the norms of social life and found himself on the outside.

Excommunication in canon law

Canon law applied the penalty of interdict and excommunication, analogous to banishment, to exclude individuals and groups from the church and from the Christian community. The liturgical frame­work of excommunication and its dramatically stratified verbal struc­ture conferred a dimension of terror to this ecclesiastical sanction. Apart from the fact that the church took to such measures in particu­lar situations (for the most part, to exert pressure when its interests might be endangered), complete alienation was implied in expulsion from the community of the faithful, withholding of the sacraments, and exclusion from the consecrated space of the churches, from all holy places, and from all rites. It was only in the thirteen century, with Gregory lX, that the distinction between excommunicatio minor and excommunicatio major was formulated and that the second implied total exclusion from the Christian community. Christian ethnocen­tricity relegated people of different religions to the edges of European societies, but they found support in their own religious communities and in their ethnicities. Excommunication required their isolation—at least in theory, for in practice its effects depended upon the social position of the person or persons involved and was, in like propor­tion, easily reversed. It cut them off from worldly community rela­tions (any sort of contact with kin was prohibited) and deprived them of hope for eternal salvation.

I am speaking here of banishment and excommunication not in their institutional aspect but as typical processes of marginalization. During the Middle Ages, both punishments underwent considerable evolution, gradually becoming more conventional, hence losing their original power of exclusion.

Wayfarers and vagabonds

Chilperic's edict of 574 defined malefactors as bad per­sons who commit bad deeds, who have no fixed abode, who possess nothing that could be confiscated for their wrongdoings, and who roam the woods. Here the lack of worldly goods has a certain impor­tance, and It should be understood in the more extended sense of an absence of specific sources of revenue (which is what interested the laws of the late Middle Ages). The other two points regard lack of stability. In Charlemagne's capitularies we often encounter mistrust and hostility toward vagabonds and wanderers. Even pilgrims came under thls heading, as is clear in the Admonitio generalis in synodo Aquensi a. 789 edita: It was better that a person who has committed some grave fault remain in one place, working, serving, and doing penance, rather than travel about dressed as a penitent affirming his desire to cancel his guilt. In later centuries the church sought to pro­vide pilgrims with organizational structures to assure them stabilitas in peregri natione, thus making pilgrimages a part of stable order.

Fostering stability was an understandable phenomenon in this society whose basic structures were formed in the conditions of enor­mous migrations that made nomadism a widespread life-style. Apart from the changes In the degree of mobility that took place in the course of the Middle Ages, this association of spatial mobility with a sense of threat to the public order remained as a permanent trait. As time went on, these negative associations came to be limited to rather precise social groups—popular groups above all, but surely not to them alone, because an errant knight did not merely evoke admira­tion, the traveling merchant was treated as a vagabond, and the trav­eling monks who took to vagabondage were unambiguously con­demned in the monastic rules as gyrovagi (vagrants).

~ Bronislaw Geremek, “The Marginal Man”, in The Medieval World (ed. Jacques Le Goff, 1987); abridged, titles mine

[lordsister]

Late Night Stories (Ja’far x Reader) Parent! AU

A/N: Can we all appreciate how freaking beautiful Ja'far is? Both physically and personality-wise? Ah, I'm so glad I finally get to write for this series!^^

I do not own Magi or any of its characters.

Note: "Baba" is the Persian equivalent of "Father" AND we're just going to call your child Haroun because repeatedly writing (c/n) disrupts the flow of the story.

The night sky glimmered far above, the moon and stars and milky heavens shimmering with otherworldly light, while all slept peacefully in the kingdom of Sindria far below.

All except for a small boy with white hair and a splash of freckles across his face, the spitting image of his father, standing at his parents' bedside.

"Baba!" the little boy whispered, nudging his father's arm.

The older male stirred, sighing and turning over, before falling back asleep.

"Baba!" he said again, more insistent this time.

Ja'far's features pinched for a second before smoothing out again, nearly pulled from the depths of sleep but not quite.

"Baba!" the little boy said a third time, his voice no longer a whisper as he shook his father's arm with a small hand.

"Huh-What? What's going on?" The white-haired man startled awake, blinking bleary, grey eyes. His gaze settling on his son, Ja'far sat up, a look of confusion and concern crossing his features.  "Haroun? What are you doing up? You should be asleep."

"I had a bad dream," the child admitted, looking down at his bare feet.

Before Ja'far could say anything, a shifting from the other side of the bed drew both boys' attention. With a soft groan, you sat up, rubbing the sleep from your eyes as you turned to your husband. "Ja'far? What's wrong?"

"Haroun had a nightmare."

"Oh, my little one, did you?" you cooed, peering over Ja'far's shoulder at your son. Your child only nodded, his large eyes hopeful. "Come here, baby." Lifting the blankets, you opened your arms to the little boy as he readily leaped onto the bed, scrambled over his father, and snuggled into you.

Exchanging an amused, loving look with you, Ja'far ran a hand through Haroun's hair as you held him close, both parents attempting to soothe their distraught son. "Would you like to sleep with us tonight?" Ja'far murmured. Haroun nodded into the fabric of your loose linen nightgown, clinging to you as a baby animal would cling to its mother even as you laid him down between yourself and Ja'far. Reaching out, the white-haired man rubbed a hand up and down his son's back. "Would you like to hear a story, Haroun?"

Finally detaching from you, the little boy turned towards his father, excitement making his eyes sparkle as he nodded enthusiastically. "Mhm!"

Smiling, you and Ja'far curled around Haroun, reaching out to lace your hands together from across the small body lying between the two of you. Tiny fists grasped the blankets as Haroun wiggled a little bit, eagerly awaiting the beginning of his father's story. "Which story are you going to tell me, Baba? The fisherman and the djinni? Oh! Or the three princes and the Princess Nouri- Noro-"

"Nouronnihar?" Ja'far supplied.

"Yeah, that!"

"No, none of those. I have a new story for you tonight."

"A new story? What's it called?"

"Mmm..." Tilting his head back, Ja'far thought for a moment before saying, "The Princess and the King's Adviser."

You blinked at your husband, eyes wide and curious, but he only gave you a sly wink.

"Once upon a time, there was a great king who was meant to marry a beautiful princess." Ja'far's grey gaze shifted from Haroun to you and he smiled. "Though the princess was the youngest of six sisters, she was the most beautiful as well as the smartest and her father was determined to make a powerful match for her." You rolled your eyes humorously and Ja'far's attention returned to your son. "Hearing of a strong king from an island kingdom far away who had yet to find a wife, the princess's father rushed to arrange a meeting, hoping to persuade the king into marrying his favorite daughter."

"Was the king a good person?" Haroun questioned.

Ja'far chuckled. "You could say that. The king had done many great deeds and helped many people, but he was quite a pain to deal with sometimes. He was a constant source of annoyance for his generals. There was one time he fell asleep by the side of a road and-" You cleared your throat, urging Ja'far to go on with the story. "Right, so, the king himself wasn't interested in marrying, but the king's adviser, who had been urging the king to marry for years, saw a valuable opportunity in the match and advised his king to accept the invitation."

"Were the king and his adviser close?"

Ja'far smiled softly, something of sentiment flashing across his face. "They were. They had gone on many adventures together and had known each other since childhood. Which was precisely why the king decided to follow his advice. Traveling many weeks, they came to the princess' city, receiving a grand welcome upon their arrival."

"And did the king and princess fall in love?"

"Not quite. After spending some time together, the king and princess grew to be good friends, but a romance didn't form."

"What? Why not?" Haroun whined.

"Because upon meeting the king and his adviser, the princess had fallen in love with the adviser instead of the king, and he had fallen deeply in love with her in turn." You chuckled under your breath and gazed at your husband through half-lidded eyes, a lazy smile painted across your face as memories suffused the air.

"Really?" your son asked in disbelief.

"Yep," you answered, winking at Ja'far. "The adviser was head over heels from the beginning."

"Yes, I - I mean he! - was. He was." The slightest of blushes reddened Ja'far's freckles at his slip-up.

"Were they able to be together? The king would have let them be together wouldn't he?"

"I'm afraid it wasn't nearly that simple," Ja'far sighed, and a frown appeared on Haroun's face. "Though they hadn't told the king about their newfound love, the king could tell just by watching them. He, of course, was supportive of the relationship, but the princess' father wasn't quite as accepting."

"Why? Shouldn't he have been happy that the princess was in love?"

"He should've," you said, "but he wasn't. The princess' father felt that his daughter needed a wealthier, more powerful husband and that a king's adviser wasn't good enough."

"So what did they do?"

"Well, the king took it upon himself to persuade the princess' father otherwise. He was happy for his friend, happy that he'd found love, and didn't want him to lose that love. After much thought and discussion with his adviser, the king offered the princess' father a deal. In exchange for allowing the adviser and princess to be together, he would be given a share in the island kingdom's trade; spices, fabrics, and luxuries from all over the world readily available to him."

"Did he accept?"

"He did...on one condition."

"What condition?" Haroun asked around a yawn, trying and failing to stifle the action.

"That should the king's adviser ever hurt the princess in any way or ever fail to protect her, he receive the penalty of death at her father's hand. The king's adviser accepted without hesitation, swearing an oath on his king and honor."

"And did he ever break his promise?" your child asked, his eyes closing and his breathing evening out.

Ja'far's eyes settled on you once more, his gaze tender in the dim light of the room. "No, I haven't. And I never will."

"And they lived happily ever after?" Haroun murmured, finally falling asleep.

"And they lived happily ever after," you ended, leaning down to place a kiss to your sleeping son's head. Carefully leaning over the little boy, you kissed your husband next, the contact loving, lingering. "Goodnight, my love."

"Goodnight, my princess."

A/N: Thank you for reading! Hope you enjoyed this!^^

[cassh24sg]

As some states clamp down, Rhode Island still embraces payday lending with the equivalent of a triple-digit interest rate

During a recent event at Tolman High School in Pawtucket, educators and Democratic leaders celebrated a new law requiring Rhode Island students to be trained in financial literacy.

Rhode Island Treasurer General Seth Magaziner said the research is clear – students become more tax conscious adults as they learn the fundamentals of finance.

“When students have access to education, how to budget, how to save, how to invest, these children, on average, have higher creditworthiness, lower debt, and less chance of ever taking out a payday loan. and all sorts of other better financial results, ”he said. “So that works.”

Despite this financial literacy campaign, Rhode Island is the only state in New England that allows consumers to fall into what the Center for Responsible Lending calls the “Payday Loan Debt Trap”. In other words, while the interest rate is capped at 21 percent for most commercial lenders, payday lenders can charge an annual percentage of 260 percent.

Maine allows the equivalent of 217 percent APR, according to the center, while strong safeguards restrict payday loans in other New England and northeastern states.

In Rhode Island, payday lenders charge $ 10 interest on every $ 100 borrowed, up to $ 450 on a single loan, for a period of two weeks.

Andy Posner, founder and CEO of Capital Good Fund, a nonprofit credit agency based in Providence, said that’s why payday loans can seem reasonable.

For example, someone who takes out a $ 300 loan should pay back $ 330 within two weeks. However, Posner said that most payday customers fail to meet this deadline. Instead, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, they repeatedly extend the loan and pile up more debts.

“So a $ 300 loan ends up costing $ 700 in interest and fees,” Posner said. In other words, the basic problem here is that a payday lender only makes money when you are trapped in debt. If you use the product successfully as planned, you will lose money. “

Rhode Island lawyers have been fighting to cap these rates since 2011.

And when the Student Financial Education Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in April, the sponsor in that chamber, Rep. Joseph McNamara (D-Warwick), leader of the RI Democratic Party, cited payday lenders as the reason behind the legislation was necessary. “In my district alone,” he said, “if you drive down Warwick Avenue from Cranston before you go a mile and a half into it, you will see two payday loan franchises, national payday loan companies that charge exorbitant rates and benefit from our citizens. “

But unlike some other states, Ocean State legislatures have shown little interest in cracking down on the payday loan industry.

State Senate President Dominick Ruggerio was among the elected officials at the financial literacy event earlier this month at Tolman High School in Pawtucket, a city where payday loan giant Advance America has three locations. Ruggerio said a bill to cap interest on payday loans to 36 percent was not a priority in the final weeks of the legislature.

“Haven’t even looked at them,” said Ruggerio. “I didn’t know there was a bill.”

“It’s been in the legislature for 10 years,” one reporter said.

“I don’t know at this point,” said Ruggerio. “It doesn’t sound like something we’re going to do in this legislature.”

House Speaker Joe Shekarchi is more cautious. During a recent interview, he was noncommittal as to whether he will have the payday loan bill voted in the House of Representatives, despite saying he believes payday is a predatory practice.

“I hear this argument,” said Shekarchi. “I tend to agree with that argument. It’s not something I do or recommend. But there are other people in Rhode Island who have a different view that it’s a private business and people should have that service available. “

Governor Dan McKee does not appear to have publicly raised concerns about payday loans in Rhode Island.

When asked for comment, McKee spokeswoman Alana O’Hare said the governor and his team will review payday loan capping legislation on their way through the general assembly. The governor supports efforts to protect consumers from harmful debt cycles and to protect Rhode Islanders and their personal finances. “

The ostensible status quo of payday loans comes from the fact that lawmakers passed laws to promote student financial literacy and a bill requiring financial institutions to report suspected financial exploitation of seniors to the state’s Healthy Aging Office and to temporarily suspend such transactions.

The Rhode Island legislature legalized payday loans 20 years ago.

Julie Townsend, senior policy counsel for the parent company of Advance America, the nation’s largest payday lender – with 18 locations across the state – said consumers understand their finances.

She said consumers typically use payday loans to fill a void when they are short of cash.

“Our customers understand their finances,” said Townsend, “and they use this product because it’s the cheapest loan they can get. It’s cheaper than the other options they face such as overdraft fees, undeliverable check fees, and late payment penalties. “

Some payday customers describe the situation differently.

Vannessa Ramirez, now 29, took out a payday loan when she moved to a new apartment in Providence two years ago and couldn’t afford to turn on the utilities. She said payday loans are being marketed as a quick and easy way to resolve financial difficulties.

“What happens in the end is that most people don’t understand how the interest and fees are going to affect you,” Ramirez said. “In a moment of desperation you think, ok, I have to do this. In my situation, I couldn’t be in a house without electricity and gas so I did this to solve that, but then I wouldn’t have enough money to pay my rent or buy food so it just did a lot more heavy.”

Ramirez took advantage of payday despite working for the Capital Good Fund despite being unaware of the risks.

The nonprofit started a social entrepreneurship course at Brown University in 2008 and describes its mission as helping people get out of poverty. Ramirez says she eventually paid off her payday loan by refinancing it through the Capital Good Fund at a dramatically lower interest rate.

Andy Posner of the Capital Good Fund said it was hard to talk about lower-cost loan programs like CGF and credit unions as the payday loan industry can spend a lot more money on advertising. “There is a little bit of a level playing field,” he said.

Still, the industry faces a number of challenges.

The advent of online lending has impacted the business of payday lenders using brick and mortar stores. Rhode Island had a little less than $ 50 million in loans last year, up from a high of nearly $ 100 million in 2014. That doesn’t include interest and fees.

Online loans are legal in Rhode Island as long as the lender is licensed. The state does not differentiate between online and brick-and-mortar payday lenders. It also groups the licenses issued to these lenders with check cashing offices.

Both payday supporters and critics say that federal stimulus payments last year reduced demand for payday loans. Even so, the industry is still considered highly profitable when lenders can charge tariffs like those in Rhode Island.

If proponents here want to see how a state can change course, they can look to Illinois and Hawaii, which enacted laws this year to impose a 36 percent interest rate cap on payday lenders. Almost 20 states use a similar limit.

Brent Adams of the Chicago-based Woodstock Institute said it took 20 years to get to that point and that the increased focus on racial justice gave a boost after the death of George Floyd.

Adams said the protracted battle shows a gap between how voters and elected officials view the payday industry.

“When consumers of all political parties are asked whether they want interest rate caps, such as B. support an interest rate cap of 36 percent, with large bipartisan majorities, they say ‘yes’. “he said.” But that is not reflected in the state capitals and in the state capital because the industry is very powerful. They have a lot of connections, they have a lot of lobbyists, they have a lot of resources. “

In Rhode Island, Advance America pays former House Speaker William Murphy $ 30,000 annually to advocate his interests. He’s one of the most prominent lobbyists in the state, though Advance America’s Julie Townsend claims Murphy is no more influential than a typical lobbyist.

On the other hand, state treasurer Seth Magaziner and a small number of liberal lawmakers and activists are loudly calling for changes to payday lending. They appear every year and testify at legislative hearings. Posner paid for a full-page ad in The Providence Journal last week – with this headline in large print: RI Legislature: Okay with 260% APR? “- in a final attempt to motivate lawmakers during what will likely be the final week of the General Assembly.

But the legislature leaders do not seem to be pushing the bill to cap payday interest rates to the bottom of their respective chambers. And proponents didn’t organize a broad grassroots campaign urging reluctant lawmakers to legalize same-sex marriage in 2013 and a state right to abortion in 2019.

This is an expanded version of a story that aired on The Public’s Radio.

Ian Donnis can be reached at idonnis@ripr.org. Follow him on Twitter @IanDon. Sign up for his weekly RI Politics and Media newsletter here.

source https://www.cassh24sg.com/2021/06/28/as-some-states-clamp-down-rhode-island-still-embraces-payday-lending-with-the-equivalent-of-a-triple-digit-interest-rate/

[newstfionline]

Wednesday, March 3, 2021

COVID-19 pandemic fuels attacks on health workers globally (AP) Two Nigerian nurses were attacked by the family of a deceased COVID-19 patient. One nurse had her hair ripped out and suffered a fracture. The second was beaten into a coma. Following the assaults, nurses at Federal Medical Centre in the Southwestern city of Owo stopped treating patients, demanding the hospital improve security. Almost two weeks passed before they returned to work with armed guards posted around the clock. The attack in Nigeria early last month was just one of many on health workers globally during the COVID-19 pandemic. A new report by the Geneva-based Insecurity Insight and the University of California, Berkeley’s Human Rights Center identified more than 1,100 threats or acts of violence against health care workers and facilities last year. Researchers found that about 400 of those attacks were related to COVID-19, many motivated by fear or frustration, underscoring the dangers surrounding health care workers at a time when they are needed most. “Our jobs in the emergency department and in hospitals have gotten exponentially more stressful and harder, and that’s at baseline even when people are super supportive,” said Rohini Haar, an emergency physician in Oakland, California, and Human Rights Center research fellow. “To do that work and to do it with commitment while being attacked or with the fear of being attacked is heartbreaking to me.”

Millions couldn’t afford diapers before the pandemic. Now, diaper banks can’t keep up. (Washington Post) Chelesa Presley is deeply familiar with the struggles of young families, first from her years as a social worker and now from running a nonprofit in one of Mississippi’s poorest regions. She’s used to the questions about car seats, nursing and colicky babies, but paying for diapers is always the chronic and most-pressing worry. “I see parents not putting anything on their babies because they don’t have diapers,” she said. “I’ve seen people use shopping bags with some rags in it. I’ve seen T-shirts. I’ve seen people keeping the diapers on longer than necessary, and the diapers sag down when the babies walk.” As founder and executive director of Diaper Bank of the Delta, Presley is part of a grass-roots support network at the forefront of a crisis: Requests have doubled, tripled and even quadrupled at some locations, social services workers say, with diaper shortages and families lining up for hours in some communities. Meanwhile, the cash and in-kind donations that keep diaper banks afloat have slumped, and their mostly volunteer workforce has shriveled since the pandemic. Diaper need is an often-overlooked measure of Americans’ economic reversals, said Joanne Samuel Goldblum, chief executive and founder of the National Diaper Bank Network. There are so many people “who do not have enough money to meet their basic needs, and what we’ve found is that diaper need is a window into poverty.”

Biden retreats from vow to make pariah of Saudis (AP) As a presidential candidate, Joe Biden promised to make a pariah out of Saudi Arabia over the 2018 killing of dissident Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi. But when it came time to actually punish Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, America’s strategic interests prevailed. The Biden administration made clear Friday it would forgo sanctions or any other major penalty against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the Khashoggi killing, even after a U.S. intelligence report concluded the prince ordered the hit. The decision highlights how the real-time decisions of diplomacy often collide with the righteousness of the moral high ground. And nowhere is this conundrum more stark than in the United States’ complicated relationship with Saudi Arabia—the world’s oil giant, a U.S. arms customer and a counterbalance to Iran in the Middle East. Ultimately, Biden administration officials said, U.S. interests in maintaining relations with Saudi Arabia forbid making a pariah of a young prince who may go on to rule the kingdom for decades. That stands in stark contrast to Biden’s campaign promise to make the kingdom “pay the price” for human rights abuses and “make them in fact the pariah that they are.”

Heavy rains lead to rescues, road closures in Appalachia (AP) Kentucky firefighter Eddie Stacy was turning his firetruck around in the dark while responding to storm damage when he noticed a tiny light coming from the flooded Red River. A woman was sitting on a stalled car’s door window, waving her cellphone flashlight and yelling for help. “Nobody could hear from where she was,” Stacy said. “That little flashlight when I was driving down the road just caught my attention. It was God, I tell you. It was God to have me in that place where I was supposed to be.” Heavy thunderstorms pounded parts of Appalachia on Sunday and Monday, sending rivers out of their banks and leading to multiple water rescues, mudslides, road closures and power outages, officials said. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear declared a state of emergency Monday because of heavy rainfall across the state.

In Mexico, those accidents waiting to happen (Worldcrunch) For drivers in Mexico, the rule of thumb for traffic accidents is simple: el que pega, paga! In other words, the perpetrator of a crash—i.e. the incoming vehicle—pays. In a country where many are uninsured, that kind of unspoken understanding makes sense. But the pega-paga approach has also created an opportunity for scammers to pocket some ill-gained pesos through a practice known as montachoques or chocachoca, the operative word being choque, Spanish for “crash.” An extortion technique being used increasingly in Mexico City, it involves provoking an accident by halting a car on a busy highway, then demanding compensation from the person who crashed in from behind. When victims are reluctant to pay, they are threatened and sometimes even attacked, a senior police official in the eastern sector of the city recently told the Milenio newspaper. The official, Luis Martínez Rodríguez, described a typical maneuver as overtaking a car, then suddenly slamming the breaks to provoke a crash. The “injured party” then steps out, sometimes with companions, and demands compensation, with sums ranging from the equivalent of around $70 euros to $1,500. Two or even three cars may be involved to ensure the victim is trapped into the situation.

Amid scramble for COVID-19 vaccine, Latin America turns to Russia (Reuters) As Bolivia struggled late last year to secure deals with large drug firms to supply COVID-19 vaccines, the incoming president, Luis Arce, turned to Russia for help. By the end of December, Bolivia clinched its first major COVID-19 vaccine deal, with enough shots for some 20% of the population. The first Sputnik V doses arrived in the country in late January, just as virus cases were spiking. “It was a really marathon task,” said Bolivian trade minister Benjamin Blanco of the procurement quest, but Russia’s political will made it possible. Western vaccine makers “told us developing countries that we had to wait until June.” He didn’t name names. Bolivia’s reliance on Moscow underscores how governments across the region have turned to Russia’s Sputnik V drug amid fears of being left behind in the global scramble for vaccines. As many wealthier developed nations have signed big deals with large drugmakers like Pfizer Inc and AstraZeneca PLC, countries in Latin America have faced difficulties securing adequate vaccine supplies.

Pandemic Pushes Brazilian Hospitals to Breaking Point (Reuters) Coronavirus deaths are now at an all-time high in Brazil, averaging 1,208 per day over the past week. New cases have also peaked, averaging roughly 54,000 per day over the last seven days. The increases are pushing medical resources to the limit. Intensive care units in 17 of Brazil’s 26 states are close to capacity, while six more are completely full, O Globo reports. Vaccine distribution, long-touted as the country’s strength, has been slow—only 3.2 percent of the country has been given a vaccine dose, according to Bloomberg.

Banks in Germany Tell Customers to Take Deposits Elsewhere (WSJ) Interest rates have been negative in Europe for years. But it took the flood of savings unleashed in the pandemic for banks finally to charge depositors in earnest. Germany’s biggest lenders, Deutsche Bank AG and Commerzbank AG, have told new customers since last year to pay a 0.5% annual rate to keep large sums of money with them. The banks say they can no longer absorb the negative interest rates the European Central Bank charges them. The more customer deposits banks have, the more they have to park with the central bank. That is creating an unusual incentive, where banks that usually want deposits as an inexpensive form of financing, are essentially telling customers to go away. Banks are even providing new online tools to help customers take their deposits elsewhere. According to price-comparison portal Verivox, 237 banks in Germany currently charge negative interest rates to private customers, up from 57 before the pandemic hit in March of last year. Charges range between 0.4% and 0.6% for deposits beginning anywhere from €25,000 to €100,000.

Gorbachev, last Soviet leader, to mark 90th birthday on Zoom (Reuters) Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, was expected to throw a Zoom party on Tuesday to celebrate his 90th birthday as President Vladimir Putin lauded him as an outstanding statesman who influenced the course of world history. Gorbachev, who championed arms control and democracy-oriented reforms as Soviet leader in the 1980s, is widely credited with helping end the Cold War. His critics in Russia blame him however, for what they regard as the unnecessary and painful breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Afghan reconstruction (AP) A study from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reviewed the $7.8 billion spent on buildings and vehicles in the nation since 2008 and found that only $1.2 billion was used as intended, and a paltry $343.2 million worth of the buildings and vehicles remain maintained in good condition. The billions wasted include both infrastructure lost to attacks and corruption, and just kind of throwing money around without really thinking about it. Often the agencies responsible for building things did not ask if they were wanted or needed, or if they had the ability to maintain them.

Myanmar’s Military Deploys Digital Arsenal of Repression in Crackdown (NYT) During a half century of military rule, Myanmar’s totalitarian tools were crude but effective. Men in sarongs shadowed democracy activists, neighbors informed on each other and thugs brandished lead pipes. The generals, who staged a coup a month ago, are now back in charge with a far more sophisticated arsenal at their disposal: Israeli-made surveillance drones, European iPhone cracking devices and American software that can hack into computers and vacuum up their contents. In Myanmar, they are the digital weapons for an intensifying campaign in which security forces have killed at least 25 people and detained more than 1,100, including the ousted civilian leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. On Monday, she was hit with new criminal charges—making a statement that could alarm the public and inducing someone to act against the state—that could put her in prison for years. Hundreds of pages of Myanmar government budgets for the last two fiscal years viewed by The New York Times show a voracious appetite for the latest in military-grade surveillance technology. The documents, provided by Justice For Myanmar, catalog tens of millions of dollars earmarked for technology that can mine phones and computers, as well as track people’s live locations and listen in to their conversations.

China Charges Ahead With a National Digital Currency (NYT) Annabelle Huang recently won a government lottery to try China’s latest economics experiment: a national digital currency. After joining the lottery through the social media app WeChat, Ms. Huang, 28, a business strategist in Shenzhen, received a digital envelope with 200 electronic Chinese yuan, or eCNY, worth around $30. To spend it, she went to a convenience store near her office and picked out some nuts and yogurt. Then she pulled up a QR code for the digital currency from inside her bank app, which the store scanned for payment. China has charged ahead with a bold effort to remake the way that government-backed money works, rolling out its own digital currency with different qualities than cash or digital deposits. The country’s central bank, which began testing eCNY last year in four cities, recently expanded those trials to bigger cities such as Beijing and Shanghai, according to government presentations. The effort is one of several by central banks around the world to try new forms of digital money that can move faster and give even the most disadvantaged people access to online financial tools.

‘Turning the knife blade inwards’ (The Economist) For many members of China’s 3 million-strong domestic-security forces, these must be deeply worrisome times. On February 27th the Communist Party announced the start of a long-expected purge of their ranks. It will involve, say officials, “turning the knife-blade inwards” to gouge out those deemed corrupt or insufficiently loyal to the party and its leader, Xi Jinping. More than eight years into Mr Xi’s iron rule, the party appears to wonder whether a vital bulwark of its power is entirely trustworthy. State-controlled media have described it as the biggest such campaign since the late 1990s within the domestic security system, which includes the police, the secret police, the judiciary and prisons. It is due to last for about a year. The aim is to ensure that these agencies are “absolutely loyal, absolutely pure and absolutely reliable.”

Nearly four in 10 university students addicted to smartphones, study finds (The Guardian) Almost four in 10 university students are addicted to their smartphones, and their habit plays havoc with their sleep, research has found. A study of 1,043 students aged 18-30 at King’s College London found that 406 (38.9%) displayed symptoms of smartphone addiction, as defined by a clinical tool devised to diagnose the problem. More than two-thirds (68.7%) of the addicts had trouble sleeping, compared with 57.1% of those who were not addicted to their device. Students who used their phone after midnight or for four or more hours a day were most likely to be at high risk of displaying addictive use of their device. Participants were judged to be addicts if they could not control how long they spent on their phone, felt distressed when they could not access their phone, or neglected other, more meaningful parts of their life because they were busy on their device.

[bendelanghe]

Litigation Funding Is Right Here To Remain

 About : Ben Delanghe

Now, every personal injury attorney has become aware of "litigation financing" - the non-recourse sale of a portion of a complainant's future negotiation earnings in exchange for cash money today. In recent times, the accessibility and use litigation funding has actually proliferated and most attorneys currently acknowledge the demand for complainant financial backing. A 2001 study by Attorneys Weekly asked an easy question: Should Lawsuits Funding Be Allowed? Of the 1,876 ballots cast, 82.5% reacted of course.

Nevertheless, similar to the objection faced by test lawyers over backup costs, litigation financing business must respond to the exact same disparagements. Defenders of the status seek to brand litigation financing as profiteering by rascals taking advantage of the down trodden. They trot out such false trails as champerty, usury and far flung theories of intrinsic disputes to show how vexatious the technique truly is. Noise familiar?

In spite of the criticism, we know the following: complainants love it; defendants hate it; it is right here to remain!

 Equal Protection Calls For Equal Accessibility

The lynchpin for every benefit considered by our founding fathers and also codified in our constitution rests in one easy concept-- equivalent protection under the legislation.

Given that 1786 when pamphleteer Benjamin Austin called it "a destructive practice", contingent lawful costs have actually been slammed non-stop. Yet today, it is one of the most widely made use of cost arrangement in the USA. Why? Straightforward-- since it functions! The contingent charge system aids to achieve the goal of equal protection by promoting accessibility.

It is axiomatic that there can be no equal security when access to the court system is expensive by a significant section of the population. The entire raison d'etre for backup costs stocks this fundamental access issue. So convincing is this factor that, for many years, courts, have actually methodically removed virtually every barrier preventing access to the court system. From backup fees to attorney advertising to champerty, laws avoiding access, in even one of the most indirect ways, have actually bitten the dust.

Perhaps Judge Michael A. Musmanno stated it finest:

" If it were except contingent charges, indigent victims of tortious mishaps would certainly be subject to the unchecked, self-willed partisanship of their tortfeasors. The individual who has, without mistake on his component, been injured and also that, due to his injury, is unable to work, and also has a huge household to support, and also has no money to engage a lawyer, would certainly be at the mercy of the person who disabled him because, remaining in a superior financial placement, the harming individual could force on his victim, seriously seeking cash to keep the candle of life burning in himself and his dependent ones, an entirely unconscionably meager amount in settlement, or even reject to pay him anything at all. Any society, as well as specifically a democratic one, worthwhile of respect in the spectrum of human being, need to never ever endure such a victimization of the weak by the mighty." Richette v. Solomon, 187 A. 2d 910, 919 (Pa. 1963).

However, managing an attorney is just one part of a complainant's obstacle. A plaintiff must likewise have the capacity to maintain themselves during the pendancy of their action. Nevertheless, what good is preserving an attorney, if you can not pay for the standard necessities of life? How are economically stressed plaintiffs to maintain themselves during the pendancy of their litigation which may be the source of their economic condition in the first place

Litigation Funding

One response is litigation financing. Being able to stay the course is a prerequisite to fair treatment as well as this basic transaction can aid level the playing field with a well-off opponent. This truth was acknowledged by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the 1997 situation of Saladini v. Righellis, (426 Mass. 231, 234) when it kept in mind:

" We have long abandoned the sight that litigation is suspicious, and also have actually acknowledged that contracts to buy an interest in an activity may real foster resolution of a conflict."

Various other superior courts seem to be encouraged by the Massachusetts court including the High court of South Carolina which relied heavily on Saladini when it eliminated champerty in Osprey, Inc. v. Cabana Limited Collaboration, 532 S.E. 2d 269 (S.C. 2000).

In justness it must be noted that the High court of Ohio held a various view in Rancman v. Interim Settlement Funding Corp. 99 Ohio St. 3d 121, 2003-Ohio-2721. Nevertheless, Ohio is in the minority and also the doctrine of champerty may eventually satisfy its last just death penalty at the US Supreme Court when the applicability of the 14th Amendment is determined. (Bennett v NCAAP 370 S.W. 2nd 79 82 (Ark 1963)).

What are the real issues?

In Addition To 15th Century English Legislation, what are the real issues today? The assumption exists is absolutely nothing in it for lawyers, a minimum of not instantly or straight. Providing details to the financing business, administering the execution of the contract as well as observing the lien are all an annoyance for complainant's advice. However, regardless of this, an increasing number of PI attorneys are building relationships with financing companies due to the fact that their clients require it, and they have actually discovered that reputable seasoned business can show to be an invaluable resource.

Price.

The most typical criticism is the cost.

The typical quantity paid for bodily injury insurance policy claims suffered in automobile crashes is little - less than $10,000. Hence, it ought to not be surprising that the average litigation funding agreement is also little. Many contracts are for $1,000 to $5,000. Consumer financial products have reasonably fixed transaction costs suggesting that smaller sized offers are virtually as pricey as larger ones. It adheres to that, because of their tiny size, the average costs on lawsuits funding contracts will unavoidably be high.

  That having been claimed, the very development of business will solve the issue of price. The marketplace will certainly set rates equally as it makes with contingent lawful charges. As soon as the there is enough experience for the true dangers of these transactions to be commonly understood, capitalists will certainly value the risk to an equivalent level. Currently, costs have actually dropped substantially. Just a couple of years ago it was not uncommon to find fees of 15% per month worsened-- with no cap! This is now rare.

There are three fundamental fee approaches made use of by a lot of financing business:.

 1. Month-to-month interest or fees. These can vary 3% to as high as 15% each month without any cap.

2. A percent of the recuperation.

3. Apartment charges that are capped and also might or may not have a discount for early payment.

( Attorneys must be cautious of large costs at shutting that offer to increase real cost considerably).

A legitimate issue is that, with regular monthly costs climbing without any cap, customers may be tempted to take a negotiation simply to stop the fee increases. This not only injures the customer's opportunities of a fair recovery yet additionally restricts the lawyer's fees. The good news is, topped charges are constantly offered out there.

While the industry place will remain to drive price levels towards stability, it needs to be soothing for those without faith in market forces to remember that, in the last analysis, the court has the last word and also can allot violent charges. Schlesinger v Teitelbaum, 475 F2nd 137, 141 (3rd Cir), cert. rejected, 414 U.S. 1111 (1973 ).

On this problem Saladini is significantly on factor:.

" This indicates that if an agreement to finance a suit is challenged, we will think about whether the fees billed are excessive or whether any type of healing by a prevailing celebration is vitiated because of some impermissible overreaching by the sponsor.".

Is it truly a finance in camouflage?

Litigation financing agreements are nearly globally non-recourse. The interpretation of a car loan is blackletter law. If any type of part of the principal or rate of interest is contingent on an occasion that is "more than a mere colorable threat", the agreement is not a loan. A difficulty because the requisite degree of threat is absent would need to be adjudicated case by situation, each situation being distinct. Remember that the funding company is subordinate to lawyer's costs and also expenses, statutory liens as well as previous liens. The risk for an attorney is significantly much better than for the financing company that is last in line. Many regulatory authorities from attorneys general to banking commissioners have actually examined the practice and taken no action. It appears clear that non-recourse methods non-recourse which litigation funding is a danger.

Severe Agreements.

A 2nd widely had problem is making use of contracts with oppressive stipulations. While the enforceability of such clauses is suspicious at best, they still offer an awesome problem worth. Regular undesirable conditions are:.

 - Prior consent of funding business called for to change lawyers.

- High sold off problems.

- Waiver of all defenses.

- Disclosure of non-discoverable info.

 Most respectable business, including CapTran ® have actually modified their agreements to resolve these problems.

Principles

George Kuhlman, principles advice for the American Bar Association, was quoted in Lawyers Weekly UNITED STATES as stating: "The trouble just can be found in when legal representatives are getting an interest in the subject of the litigation, however anyone can get a piece of somebody's judgment. I do not see any type of attorney involvement so I do not see any trouble. This is a 3rd party becoming involved; making certain individuals can endure their judgments.".

With one exception, all Principles Opinions of which we understand locate lawsuits financing ethical. Michigan finds contracts with certain provisions to be impermissible.

State Bar of Michigan Ethics Board Opinion RI-321, June 29, 2000. 

" 1. The best control of the litigation may be transferred to the equity capital firm as a result of the reality that the attorney is completely assigned to the situation;.

2. The original legal representative can not be terminated without the equity capital company's permission in light of the reality that as needed of the equity capital firm all documents and also things should be demanded by that group; as well as.

 3. Privileged materials might be disclosed.".

 We need to likewise keep in mind that some states require particular details procedural problems to be observed.

Where do we go from here?

As experience expands, capital will go into business in ever raising quantities, making it fairly commonplace while competitors will most certainly mold the item, as well as deal with most, otherwise all, of the problems.

 Several wise lawyers understand that litigation funding is not going away anytime quickly as well as they are welcoming it and also discovering how ideal to use it. They are creating relationships with funding companies and using their services to satisfy the demands of their clients. In doing so, they get the added benefit of bargaining for a client that is no more under the scary and destabilizing result of financial pressure.

Visit Here : Benjamin Delanghe

[sociologyquotes]

America’s Imperialist Crimes Against Humanity

from the article Human Rights Day: Sobering Truths About America’s Imperialist Crimes Against Humanity by Harold Pinter and Dr. Gary G. Kohls

“We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it ‘bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East’. – Harold Pinter

British playwright Harold Pinter won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005. His powerful acceptance speech exposed the United States for its fascist, imperialist policies since World War II. His speech (delivered three years before he died in 2008) was an important glimpse into – and a reasonable summary of — the innumerable documentable US imperialistic crimes that have been secretly facilitated by our multinational corporations, our national security apparatus, our military leaders, our wealthy elites and the craven politicians who are beholden to those four realities that have shaped American foreign policy over the past 60 years.

True American patriots, if they really love the United States, must be honest about the dishonorable, dark side of their nation’s history, a history that the rest of the world, especially Pinter, sees so clearly. Understanding that history will clear up any mystery about why the rest of the world fears and hates us.

Real patriots are courageous enough to hear painful truths.

Therefore I present below an extended excerpt from Harold Pinter’s acceptance speech. It was videotaped and posted at: http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=620. For the sake of the future of our children and the planet, please listen to it in its entirety, and then wonder out loud why none of our so-called leaders will ever bring themselves to utter such truths:

“As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45 minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that was true.

“It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true.

“It was not true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We were assured it was true, and it was not true.

“The truth is something entirely different. The truth has to do with how the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses to embody it.

“I would like to look at the recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory for us to subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny, which is all that time will allow here.

“Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.

“My contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States’ actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded that it had carte blanche to do what it liked.”

“Low Intensity Conflict” in Central America

“Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America’s favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described as ‘low intensity conflict’. Low intensity conflict means that thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country, that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom. When the populace has been subdued or beaten to death … the military and the great corporations sit comfortably in power, and they go before the camera and say that democracy has prevailed.

“The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to offer it here as a potent example of America’s view of its role in the world, both then and now.

“I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.

“The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: ‘Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.’

In War, the Innocent People are the Ones Who Suffer the Most

“Ambassador Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. ‘Father,’ he said, ‘let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.’ There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.

“Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.

“Finally somebody said: ‘But in this case “innocent people” were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?’

“Seitz was imperturbable. ‘I don’t agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,’ he said.

“As we were leaving the embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my plays. I did not reply.

“I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the following statement: ‘The Contras are the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers.’

“The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution.

“The death penalty was abolished by the Sandinistas. Hundreds of thousands of poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated.

“The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self-respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.”

Reagan’s Tapestry of lies Covered up Gruesome Atrocities

“I spoke earlier about ‘a tapestry of lies’ which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a ‘totalitarian dungeon’. But there was no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The ’totalitarian dungeons’ were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.

“Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died.

“Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.

“The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. ‘Democracy’ had prevailed.

“But this ‘policy’ was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.

Perennial US Support for Right-wing, Anti-democratic, Military Dictatorships

“The United States supported – and in many cases engendered – every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.

“Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries. Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn’t know it because ‘it never happened.’

“Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

“The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn’t give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a leash, the pathetic and supine Great Britain.”

The Invasion of Iraq was an act of Blatant State Terrorism

“The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading – all other justifications having failed to justify themselves – as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.

“We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it ‘bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East’.

“How many people do you have to kill before you qualify as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is right and just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier finds himself in the dock, Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they’re interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.

“Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don’t exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. ‘We don’t do body counts,’ said the American general Tommy Franks.

Full Spectrum Domination is the New American Foreign Policy

“I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as ‘full spectrum dominance’. That is not my term, it is theirs. ‘Full spectrum dominance’ means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.

“The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don’t quite know how they got there but they are there all right.

“The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity – the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons – is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it.

“Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, ashamed and angered by their government’s actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force – yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish.”

[mrlnsfrt]

Fulfill not Destroy

I find Matthew 5:17 to be a fascinating passage, especially because I have often had people quote it to me and proceed to interpret “fulfill” to mean what in a practical sense is incredibly similar to “destroy.” I have often heard some version of, “don’t worry about the law, Jesus fulfilled it.”

Though the idea that “to fulfill” could practically mean the same as “to destroy” always seemed odd to me I thought maybe it had to do with my preconceived notions. After all, as much as I would love to approach the Bible from a completely unbiased perspective, I must admit that it is simply impossible. The next best thing, at least in my mind, is to be aware of my biases and theological leanings. I approach the Bible as a Seventh-day Adventist and my interpretation of the Bible will be influenced by my Adventist background. Being aware of this I decided to do a deeper study in this passage, and to focus especially on the meaning of the word “fulfill.”

I wish to take you through the journey I embarked on in an attempt to equip you to do the same whenever you desire to do a deeper study of a Bible passage.

When studying any biblical passage, context is your best friend. I will talk about context later on even though that is whee you ought to always begin since it will help you interpret all the information you will discover. Suffice to say for now that the context is Jesus’ famous Sermon on the Mount.

Whenever you want to study one specific verse I recommend looking at how it is translated in different versions of the Bible. When a passage is challenging you will notice greater variation between the translations and when a passage is fairly straight forward you will notice greater uniformity in the translations. One easy way is to type the passage into Biblehub.com which will give you a list with several translations available at the same time.

Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17 American Standard Version

In case you have a specific word you want to look up a free tool you can use is BlueLetterBible.com. There you can use several study tools and the one I often use is the interlinear Bible which will give you the translation word by word allowing you to click on any specific word for a deeper study. In the case of Matthew 5:17 the word I was interested in was "fulfill." Below is what I found.

The Greek word, here translated as fulfill is πληρόω (plēroō) which means to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full

to cause to abound, to furnish or supply liberally

I abound, I am liberally supplied

to render full, i.e. to complete

to fill to the top: so that nothing shall be wanting to full measure, fill to the brim

to consummate: a number

to make complete in every particular, to render perfect

to carry through to the end, to accomplish, carry out, (some undertaking)

to carry into effect, bring to realization, realize

of matters of duty: to perform, execute

of sayings, promises, prophecies, to bring to pass, ratify, accomplish

to fulfill, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment. (for a deeper study click here.)

If you click the link above you can see a list of passages where this same word is used.

All these tools, the different translations and a closer study of the word itself gives you a better idea of how this word was used and interpreted.

Next, both the websites mentioned above make available some Bible commentaries for free. Some are more helpful than others, but they help you become aware of how others have interpreted the passage.

The explanations I had heard of this passage fit with what I learned in this study, that Jesus gave people a fuller understanding of the law and the prophets. The context supports this because Jesus goes on to talk about how the law says you should not murder, but you should not even say to your brother “you fool” (Matthew 5:21-22). Jesus then talks about how it's not enough to not commit adultery, but you should not even entertain any lustful thoughts (vv.27-30). So Jesus is not telling people to go ahead and disregard the law, but rather teaching that obedience to the law goes beyond simply obeying the letter of the law.

Both the study of the context as well as of the meaning of the original Greek word used all point to the word fulfill meaning expanding the meaning of the law, making it more full. Jesus taught how to fully obey the law in a practical sense, and what God desires of us.

Here are a few snippets from some of the commentaries available at Biblehub.com.

Not . . . to destroy, but to fulfil.--Explained by the immediate context, the words would seem to point chiefly to our Lord's work as a teacher. He came to fill up what was lacking, to develop hints and germs of truth, to turn rules into principles. Interpreted on a wider scale, He came to "fulfil the Law and prophets," as He came "to fulfil all righteousness" (3:15) by a perfect obedience to its precepts, to fulfil whatever in it was typical of Himself and His work by presenting the realities. (Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm)

The Phrase,'" the law and the prophets," is sometimes used as practically equivalent to the whole of the Old Testament (Matthew 7:12; John 1:45; Romans 3:21; cf. Matthew 11:13; Matthew 22:40; Acts 24:14) …

But to fulfil. By establishing the absolute and final meaning of the Law and the Prophets. Christ came not to abrogate the Law or the Prophets, but to satisfy them - to bring about in his own Person, and ultimately in the persons of his followers, that righteousness of life which, however limited by the historical conditions under which the Divine oracles had been delivered, was the sum and substance of their teaching. (Pulpit Commentary https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-17.htm)

However, I would also argue, and this is my personal take on this, that Jesus also fulfilled the requirement of blood. The penalty of sin is death (Romans 6:23, James 1:16, Genesis 2:17, Genesis 3:3, Romans 5:12.) and someone had to die. The sacrificial lamb ultimately pointed to Jesus (John 1:29, Genesis 22:8). Once Jesus died, He fulfilled that requirement of the law, the veil on the temple was split from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51) signifying the end of the sacrificial system.

My understanding is that God made it very clear that when Jesus died on the cross there was no longer a need for the earthly temple or the sacrificial system. The veil was ripped from top to bottom. No human could have accomplished this. The Lamb of God has been slain. The animal sacrifices, the sin offerings, told people that one day someOne would come and die for their sins (someOne is coming). Therefore there is no need for a Christian to keep any of the feasts or the aspects of the law that were connected to the sacrificial system and sanctuary. The aspect of the law related to sacrifices and the earthly sanctuary have been fulfilled in Christ when He died on the cross.

However, not all the law was connected to the sacrificial system. The ten commandments, for example, continue to be valid. Killing, lying, adultery, worshiping false gods, creating images of god and worshiping them, failing to honor your parents, all continue to be a sin.

When the law changed God was very clear, the veil on the temple was split. There was no longer a need for the sacrifice and for an earthly priest. It is the blood of Jesus that matters and He is our high priest. We believe in His death and resurrection and we celebrate Jesus’ sacrifice for us through communion. Jesus established the communion service and commanded us to do it in remembrance of Him (Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-25, Luke 22:7-20, John 13:21-30, 1 Corinthians 11:23-32). The Passover was replaced with the communion service. The Passover pointed forward to the death of the Messiah, the communion service looks back on the death of the Messiah.

Ultimately, we are saved by grace through faith. Before Jesus’ birth followers of God believed that one day the Messiah would come. Since Jesus’ death on the cross, we believe the Messiah did come and eagerly expect His soon return. As I mentioned on a my post entitled Spiritual or Religious, religious practices, offering sacrifices or partaking of communion, are only valuable so long as they point us toward a spiritual truth, thus fostering spiritual growth. The truth is God’s sacrificial love for us personified and demonstrated most clearly in the life of Jesus.

I bring up this point of fulfilled vs destroyed simply to highlight that God does not change. There was always only one way of salvation, always by grace, always through faith, always completely dependent on the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. The fact that God does not change (James 1:17, Hebrews 13:8, Malachi 3:6) makes Him worthy of our complete trust. His law is a reflection of His character, His values, His will for our lives. It is our joy and privilege to order our lives according to His will (Romans 7:22, Romans 3:31, Psalm 1:1-2). Trusting in His promises to provide and deliver (Philippians 4:19, Psalm 50:15) and ultimately to come again!

Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.

John 14:1-3 NKJV

[eitherandor-blog]

Wait For The Moment

Like many children, classrooms were the formative environment of my youth.  These were places where I did an awful lot of learning (most of the time).  Some learning happened formally at desks or seated around a rug; other times, this was less structured, like learning how to share or be creative through interaction with others and my own independent learning.  All in all, much of my learning happened in a school setting.

Though I cannot remember all the lessons over the years, I remember a lot about the schools.  My first few schools I lived nearby and could walk to.  As a teenager, I would carpool with family friends.  I remember within each one, where some classrooms were located, where I could go #2 and stored my things, and how to enter and access each building.

Now fast forward to being a “young” adult, my professional career has revolved around the academic calendar, in a mix of school buildings and campuses.  After graduating for the final time as a student, my career has stayed close to education.  Since I’ve been in the workforce, my daytime is spent still orbiting around these institutions: on college campuses, presenting to a variety of school classrooms and youth programs, or based within one school at a time. 

At the latest school where I work, a public high school, hundreds- if not thousands- of our students organized and participated in a walkout in March.  This was hardly the singular example- a neighbor school had its own 3rd grade class simultaneously organize their own protest.  Students across the country- and globe- have been staging walkouts and protests months after the latest mass school shooting.  This was not the first, just the latest in a long line.  These actions were in response to the shooting earlier this year at Marjory Stoneman High School in Florida.  More students were marching on Friday, many participating from my same high school.

There is no one that (openly) agreed with these senseless acts of violence and shootings (that I know of, although I could be wrong on that somehow).  Reactions ranged, from tweets placing blame to those of uncontrolled- and justified- emotion.  Most notably though, there have been the voices, strength, anger, and leadership of students.  Since the Parkland shooting, the nation- and world- have taken notice of the leadership by these young people of Marjory Stoneman, and others like them.

Granted interviews and a microphone, many of the surviving students have been heralded as the fulcrum to finally crack the debate on gun rights and common sense reform.  With access to a platform and to politicians, many students and victim’s families are making their voices heard, having confronted their local politicians on gun control and those recipients of NRA funding.

All of that is amazing.

Now remember, none of these young people were seeking out this opportunity.  Instead, they witnessed, experienced and survived a school shooting. 

While no one is really supporting the fact that this shooting happened, many are taking this opportunity to remind of the importance, and constitutional right, of guns.  Even in Florida, within weeks of the shooting, the state voted to arm teachers (I wonder where that brilliant idea came from..).  And then things like this happen, and you wonder how this was ever considered a positive idea.

So the safety’s off, let’s talk about guns if that’s what y’all want.

...

(1) The notion of Gun Reform

Gun reform doesn’t mean:

-No one should own a gun

-You shouldn’t be able to be safe and protect yourself

-You are losing your freedoms

Who in the world needs an assault rifle?  I mean, maybe it’s because I do not like nor support the extreme weaponization of anyone and am likely always going to be antiwar.  Still, who could ever need an assault weapon?  Why is a bump stock necessary for hunting or for you safeguarding you property?  

Let’s be clear too: if the argument is “it’s in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.,” this would not be the first time we reformed or rewrote our founding documents.  Remember that these documents were written into law at the founding of our country, centuries ago..when slavery was legal.  Not to mention, without our formalized (racist) institutions and much of the country unexplored/destroyed by European immigrants, safety looked differently.  

So I’m sorry NRA, private industries and interested citizens.  A few things may need to be adjusted for the times, guns included.  To start, let’s acknowledge that the rates of shootings in this country are inexcusable- and truly, preventable.  Trying to prevent the next shooting is not an agenda; it’s called logical sense.  There is really never going to be a time where it is “appropriate” to talk about guns, seeing as we are constantly using and killing with them across the country- so maybe we should be done talking? 

For those of y’all looking for voices of reason, there are perspectives and people speaking on both sides.  Be sure you’re at least listening to those who have had experience with firearms talk about some minuscule improvements to gun laws.  Reform with gun laws- like any reform- doesn’t mean that the original no longer exists.  It adapts and updates with the times, which leads to trying to decide between...

(2) Guns or people?

By the way, though I think that the notion that guns = safety is a false equivalency, it’s a little sad that there are some people who seem to prioritize guns > human life.  Like seriously, if I told you definitively, with research, personal testimony and the like, that with fewer guns in X country, there was less violence, fewer deaths and no increase in burglaries or vindictive animals who killed humans, there would still be people arguing for guns.

I get that this is something that seems deeply rooted into the fabric of our country and ‘American’ (I would counter these are not all positive affiliations, but I digress).  If that is your angle, how do you respond to the folks with military experience who contend that these are not an everyday necessity for folks?  Or that in fact more guns especially in schools have a direct link to greater/worser penalties and punishment of students of color in our school system?

Arming teachers, anyone, in a school building is a license to increase the school-to-prison pipeline and add capital punishment to the list of responsibilities of teachers.  When our schools, and especially punitive discipline procedures, require an overhaul, we want to give out more guns? Hell no.  Most teachers are not interested, most educators are overworked, and most students- namely students of color- are already over disciplined.  A gun will make that situation better?  If you talked to most educators- no, not her- the issues they are facing in schools and education, having a gun is not likely to be high on the list.

And then there’s the ongoing, supposed link between...

(3) Guns, Shootings, and Mental Health

As access to guns is relatively easy in this country, there are a diverse array of folks who own and gain access to weapons.  This includes people living with a number of mental illnesses as well as those who do not.  Some of them, maybe, have committed crimes, killing others and/or themselves.  Some of these shootings are not in the least related to the issue or perpetuated by folks with mental health illnesses. 

Now I can agree with the idea that some people should not have firearms.  If someone has been diagnosed with a mental disorder, and specific ones that can be determined by mental health professionals, perhaps they should have some evaluation before getting a gun, if ever.  I also think that if someone is an overt or closeted racist, xenophobe, anti-semitic, homo-, bi- or transphobic, they too should have difficulty gaining access to a weapon.  

I can also agree that there is a connection between shootings, guns, and mental health concerns.  Whether a large shooting with numerous casualties or a single shot that leaves no one dead, there are lifetime effects for the survivors.  Mental health services are a necessity for the folks that have to live with this trauma.  It also would unfortunately seem that among those who are shot and killed in senseless killings have their own history of mental health diagnoses.

Commonly, the most public retort after a mass shooting committed by a white man, we talk about mental health.  Maybe these folks need services and support.  Maybe we need to actually tend to reforming and updating our mental health system, rather than shuttling folks into our jails and prisons, and giving people the help they need.  However, we only talk about mental health on certain instances when guns and shootings are discussed, and that boils down to... 

(4) Privilege- who do we hear from and whose lives do we value

I hate what happened at Parkland.  And yet.  There are people dying of gun violence everywhere in our country.  People of color continue to be killed at alarming rates, publicly in examples by police.  Even in instances of clear murder, these police shooters or night watchmen are most often let free without punishment.  There are poor people, trans people, undocumented people and others whose deaths are not given any public, mainstream attention though their lives are lost too.

Specifically after Parkland, we have heard from the primarily same group of white and light-skinned students.  Now I don’t entirely fault the students themselves.  They are naming the discrepancy of how much coverage their largely white, largely affluent school and community have received since the shooting; how that might be different if there school was made up of different students.  And that’s great.

However, it seems like there are others in their own school looking to speak and be heard..and they aren’t getting a chance.  Beyond the school in Parkland, there are others, survivors of gun violence, clamoring to be heard who go unnoticed.  There are innumerable organizations and organizing vying to amend our gun problem.  These are commonly ignored, overlooked and not given the resources necessary or deserved- though on they fight and change the world.  Maybe the students can not just acknowledge others but actually invite other students into the fold, onto the platform?

...

I know there are people with guns who say they are liberal or vote Democrat.  I know Republicans that want gun reform.  I do not think is simply a black and white- or rather, blue or red political issue.  As is so commonly the case, there are an abundance of options that exist between current gun procedures and allowances and stripping everyone of their guns.

Also, there is no denying there is a problem with school shootings.  Although there is also a problem with shootings in movie theaters; at nightclubs; at concerts; at churches, mosques and temples.  I am not naive enough to think that guns are the only problem here.  However, if people are unwilling to talk about the big issues that are destroying our world- you know, like systemic racism, xenophobia, and the like- then getting rid of your damn guns to at least shrink the damage people can inflict seems like a must. 

People, daily if not hourly if not every minute in this country, are killed by the bullet.  Those involved in the struggle, and those parked outside it.  Millions are invested- and proposed to continue being spent- on our protection and institutions of “safety.”  This includes guns and weaponry, $95M alone in Chicago that could be spent on other more dire services.

However, if you would rather keep your gun, I am totally open to thinking how that can be possible.  If you are unhappy that people want to reign in the lax policies and availability of guns, that’s okay- don’t sing about it.  If change is hard for you, get in line.  Because while this may not be the time you want to have this conversation, we are having this conversation; there is no perfect time to wait for.  Actually, with how constant shootings occur, there is no way we can discuss an ideal time: this is an ever present reality in our country.  How could there ever be a time where we are not talking about this?  How can this not matter enough to be a topic now, tomorrow and from now on until we curb the violence?  In some sick, twisted way, it may appear beneficial to those clinging to their guns to hold out for a moment of peace and no shootings to talk, seeing as that time does not seem to be coming.

There is no argument when the right time is to get into it and dialogue about the issues related to guns and gun violence.  Rather, if there is a problem- a constant, daily problem, across communities and locations- you either confront it and have the conversation or you allow it to continue.  Stop waiting for the moment and do something.

(This latest blog is named after my favorite tune by Vulfpeck, straight outta Ann Arbor!  You can listen to the song- featuring THE Antwaun Stanley- here.  It’s worth listening beyond the introductory 45 seconds too.) 

[christinaepilzauthor-blog]

Lordship in the Tenth-century – What was its Political and Social Function?

by Annie Whitehead

"No man can make himself king, but the people have the choice to select as king whom they please, but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people and they cannot shake his yoke from their neck."

So said Aelfric of Eynsham, (c955-c1010), and he tells us here of the absolute nature of kingship. The king is the lord of all the English, so if we are to discover the function of lordship, we should begin by examining the role of the king.

King Edgar

By the tenth-century ideas  about the spiritual role of kingship had developed along Carolingian lines. A well-documented example of this is Edgar's coronation at Bath in 973. One school of thought is that Edgar delayed his coronation until he had reached the canonical age of thirty, but it is unlikely that he could have reigned successfully for so long (he succeeded his brother Eadwig in 959) without having been consecrated earlier in his reign, particularly in view of what Aelfric has to say about consecration. [1] It is more probable that this coronation was based on the Frankish notion of 'imperium', stressing the king's duty before God. Wulfstan, Archbishop of York, expanded this idea in his Institutes of Polity. His view was that a Christian king should be a just shepherd to his Christian flock, he was to help the righteous and to afflict the evil-doers, especially thieves and robbers. His true function was to purify his people before God and the world. [2] The mutual obligation between the king and his subjects is illustrated by an incident in Aethelred the Unready's reign. With the death of Swein Forkbeard, Aethelred was asked to return from exile in Normandy by the Witan (council), who declared that "no lord was dearer to them than their rightful lord, if only he would govern his kingdom more justly than he had done in the past."[3] The king was king, but his subjects would not allow him to neglect his duty to them. Yet neither would they neglect to exalt a praise-worthy monarch. Florence of Worcester* summed up the virtues of King Edgar thus:-

"In the winter and spring, he used to make progress through all the provinces of England and enquire diligently whether the laws of the land and his own ordinances were obeyed, so that the poor might not suffer wrong and be oppressed by the powerful…Thus his enemies on every side were filled with awe, and the love of those who owed him allegiance was secured."

There were, of course, more personal relationships, not only between the king and his subjects, but between the lord and his man. The argument continues among historians as to whether pre-conquest England was feudal; suffice to say that there was an English equivalent to the Frankish oath of vassalage, this being the Hold-Oath. The oath was essentially negative, a promise to do nothing to harm the lord. It included a gesture of bowing to the lord. The lord in his turn had certain obligations to his man.

"By the Lord, before whom this hallowed thing is holy, I will be steadfast and true to X, to love all he loves and shun all that he shuns, and never, by will or by thought or by deed do aught of what is loathsome to him, as long as he upholds me as I am willing to earn and fulfil all that our understanding was, when I bowed to him and took his will." 

Naturally, the king could not rule without counsel. The witenagemot, or witan, was the royal council, and had the right, rather than the privilege, to advise the king. The king's thegns owed their status and position to the king and were rewarded for their service (the word thegn originally meant servant.) It was usually the king's thegns who were appointed as reeves, responsible for administration in the localities as a check on the powerful ealdormen.

The king with his witan

The most usual form of reward was that of a land grant. Many charters confirming these land grants still exist, such as King Edgar's grant of land at Kineton to his thegn Aelfwold in 969. These grants, known as bookland, were not the same as the fief of feudal Frankia. They were granted by the king in the form of a book (charter) for services rendered. Aelfwold was granted the land at Kineton for all his life and could leave it to whomever he chose. The estate was free from all service except "fixed military service and the restoration of bridges and fortresses." Many grants were made to the Church, who in turn leased out land in return for service. A good example of this comes from Oswald of Worcester, who lists the service required of the beneficiaries of the land. They should fulfil the law of riding as riding men should, they should pay dues to the Church, swear to be humbly subject to the bishop and lend horses, build bridges, and send hunting spears. Initially these endowments were made to the Church from the king, and only he could turn folkland into bookland. It soon became, however, the most common way for a lord to reward his man. A grant by Aethelred the Unready shows how far he was prepared to support his men. His thegn, Aethelwig, gave Christian burial to men killed fighting in defence of a thief. Rather than censure Aethelwig, as Ealdorman Leofsige advised, Aethelred granted his thegn the forfeited land of the brothers who had been killed. [3] Not all thegns were king's thegns; many of them had another lord to whom they owed their allegiance. When these thegns died, the heriot (war gear) was surrendered to their lord and not to the king.

Aethelred the Unready

There was another aspect to lordship, an extension of the personal bond into the field of law. In the reign of Edward the Elder (899-924) a letter was written to the king explaining the history of an estate at Fonthill, Wiltshire. It describes how a thief, Helmstan, was required to give an oath to clear himself of the charges brought against him. He asked his lord Ordlaf to intercede for him, which Ordlaf did, even though his man was guilty. [4] This illustrates how a lord was bound to protect his man, whether innocent or guilty. Though the law codes might have forbidden the lord from doing this, often it was more beneficial for a man to appeal to his lord in this way than to appeal in the hundred courts. By the middle of the tenth-century it was becoming customary for lords, ecclesiastical or lay, to receive grants of jurisdiction from the king. Usually these grants were laid down in the charters as 'sake and soke'. The term implied jurisdiction and control of a court. It was not granted lightly, and these delegated rights were intended to emphasise rather than undermine royal authority. While the landowner enjoyed immunity from public courts, the court over which he presided was not held for his men, but was attended by men drawn from the neighbourhood. There was also a much more specific form of private jurisdiction. All lords, be they bishops, earls, thegns or abbots, were held responsible for the behaviour of their men. "Such a responsibility involved an exercise in judgement, which would easily be formalised into the giving of judgement." (HR Loyn) Fortunately, the monarchy was strong enough to ensure that the worst abuses were avoided. Along with sake and soke, other judicial rights were specified. 'Toll' gave the lord the right to take toll on goods sold within the estate, and 'team' gave the right to supervise the presentation of convincing evidence that goods for sale actually belonged to the person selling them. 'Infangenetheof' gave the lord the right to hang a thief if he had been caught on the estate with the stolen goods still in his possession. By the end of the period, large numbers of hundred courts were in private hands.

A charter of King Aethelred's to his 'faithful man' 

Lords, of course, had always been involved with the public courts. Earls and bishops presided over the shire courts. It was here that arrangements were made for the collection of taxes. It was in the interests of landowners to be represented, as the king always was by his servant the shire-reeve. It was also important for lords to establish a presence at the hundred court, where much money could be lost and won. They were also commanded to give full support to the hundredsmen, whose job it was to supervise legal trading and to discourage cattle theft. King Edgar specifically ordered ealdormen Oslac, Aelfhere, and Aethelwine to give such support. "And they are to send them in all directions, that this measure may be known to both the poor and the rich." [5] Military duties were linked with the social function of lordship. From the time of King Ine (688-725) forfeiture of land and a heavy fine of 120 schillings was the penalty for a lord neglecting military service. After 899, as well as national obligations to fyrd service, and building bridges and fortifications, men were now to group themselves into tithings and hundreds to protect themselves. Ealdormen and thegns not only formed the select body of the king's household retainers, but were, as landlords, responsible for the organisation, the summons and the assembling of the fighting forces. They were also involved in the financial and personal organisation which was essential to ensure that competent levies turned out to perform military duties on behalf of their estate. Lords, then, led their men and were responsible for them in times of peace and war and were at both times high up on the social scale, just beneath the king. Although it was not necessarily a feudal society, a constant theme runs throughout tenth-century English society, that of mutual obligation. At the highest level, the king could demand loyalty and service from his subjects, but in return must rule them justly and protect them. The thegns, earls, and other landowners owed service to the king in judicial, military and personal capacities, for which they were rewarded. They in turn could expect loyalty and service from their men, but they were responsible for them and must protect them. Running though society in this way, the organised system which developed from the simple notion of personal loyalty was an integral part of all areas of central and local administration. [1] DJV Fisher – The Anglo-Saxon Age Ch 12 [2] HR Loyn – The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England Ch4 [3] EHD – i 117 [4] EHD- i 102 [5] IV Edgar 'Wihtbordesstan' Code EHD i 41 * The authorship of the work of Florence is considered to owe more to a fellow monk, John of Worcester

~~~~~~~~~~

Annie Whitehead is an historian and novelist who writes about the Anglo-Saxon era. The author of two award-winning novels set in Anglo-Saxon Mercia, she was also a contributor to 1066 Turned Upside Down, a re-imagining of the events leading up to the Battle of Hastings. She is a member of the Royal Historical Society and an editor of the EHFA blog. Currently she is working on a contribution to a non-fiction book to be published by Pen & Sword Books in the summer of 2017. Her novel Alvar the Kingmaker is set in the tenth-century during the reigns of Eadwig, Edgar and Aethelred the Unready and contains many scenes where the above-mentioned laws and charters were put into effect.

Amazon Author Page

Blog

Website

Twitter

Hat Tip To: English Historical Fiction Authors