Tumgik
#Joyce Vance
porterdavis · 1 month
Text
Quote of the Day
In Alabama, women can now be forced to have babies they don't want and can’t have babies that they do.
Joyce Vance
74 notes · View notes
Text
Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday overruled the special master she appointed to review thousands of documents seized from Mar-a-Lago, shielding former President Donald Trump from addressing his claims that documents may have been "planted" or "declassified" in court.
Cannon, a Trump appointee in southern Florida, issued an order extending the timeline of the review after Trump's lawyers objected to the expedited schedule laid out by special master Raymond Dearie, who was chosen from a list proposed by Trump's lawyers. Under the new order, the review and any surrounding issues around Dearie's rulings "will almost certainly" stretch into next year, according to Politico.
Cannon, who has served on the bench for less than two years, also overruled Dearie, a Reagan appointee who has served for 36 years, on his requirement that Trump assert whether the FBI's inventory of seized items is accurate, effectively challenging his public claim that agents may have "planted" evidence.
"There shall be no separate requirement on Plaintiff at this stage, prior to the review of any of the Seized Materials, to lodge ex ante final objections to the accuracy of Defendant's Inventory, its descriptions, or its contents. The Court's Appointment Order did not contemplate that obligation," Cannon wrote.
She wrote that if any issues rise during the review "that require reconsideration of the Inventory or the need to object to its contents, the parties shall make those matters known to the Special Master for appropriate resolution and recommendation to this Court."
Cannon also rejected other parts of Dearie's plan for the review, giving Trump's lawyers additional weeks to assert whether they believe any documents are covered by attorney-client privilege or executive privilege.
"If Judge Cannon was going to continue calling every ball in Trump's favor, I'm not at all sure why she felt the need to appoint a special master to review the documents the government seized from Mar-a-Lago," tweeted Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney. "No real surprises here. The name of the game is delay. Judge Cannon countermanded Judge Dearie's streamlined schedule & helped Trump advance his usual delay game in litigation. That means it could be late December before DOJ can use documents it recovered from Mar-a-Lago."
Cannon previously came under criticism for repeatedly siding with Trump in the case. Cannon's initial order barred the Justice Department from continuing its criminal investigation into the documents and ordered documents marked classified to be included in the special master review and shared with Trump's lawyers. A federal appeals court overturned those rulings, arguing that she had abused her discretion and that Trump "not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents."
Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe said that Cannon's order on Thursday was "clearly wrong."
"But she's a sideshow now that the Court of Appeals has lifted her injunction with respect to the classified documents," he tweeted. "On the eve of her stupidly extended deadline, DOJ should indict Trump and render her delays and game playing moot."
Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti said the order was a "minor win" for Trump.
"But this doesn't change the difficult position Trump is in," he added. "He still has to take a position regarding every seized document."
Some legal experts criticized Cannon for repeatedly intervening on Trump's behalf.
"She's an embarrassment to the federal judiciary," wrote conservative attorney George Conway.
"Cannon's latest order has neither law nor reason on its side," tweeted former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman. "Judges never micromanage special masters this way," he said.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who served on special counsel Bob Mueller's team, said that the order was "one more piece of evidence that she is completely unfit to serve on the bench."
"What does Donald Trump have on Judge Cannon or her husband?" Weissmann wrote. "Something is SO off in her decisions (and the court of appeals said as much) that it is impossible not to ask this question in all seriousness."
Read Cannon's full order below:
Cannon overrules Dearie by Igor Derysh on Scribd
67 notes · View notes
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal Constitution
* * * * *
No More Mifepristone
Joyce Vance
On the Friday before Easter, just after the end of the workweek in Texas, a federal judge in Amarillo decided that Mifepristone, one of two key drugs used for medicated abortion, should be banned. This despite 20 years of data showing it’s safe and effective. Mifepristone has a lower rate of complications than Tylenol.
The judge also entered a stay, which means his order won’t go into effect for seven days. He did it to give the government an opportunity to appeal. But if neither the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, deeply conservative after a tranche of Trump appointments, nor the Supreme Court orders a lengthier extension, legal access to Mifepristone will come to an end. Not just in Texas, but nationwide.
The government didn’t need seven days. It filed its appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals a few hours after the decision.
DOJ was prepared to file immediately because they understood the inevitable ruling in this case. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who the plaintiffs judge-shopped for by filing this case in the Amarillo division where virtually all cases are assigned to him, has a background of deep antagonism to letting pregnant people make their own decisions. Kacsmaryk’s legal ruling affects the entire country, not just Texas. A federal district judge in Washington State entered a ruling ordering the FDA to keep Mifepristone on the market, just moments after the Texas ruling. But Kacsmaryk entered a nationwide injunction that rescinds the FDA’s approval of Mifepristone nationwide—even in states where abortion is still legal and without exception for the mother’s health.
That’s not the legal landscape the Supreme Court said it was creating when it ended 50 years of abortion rights under Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs case. When the Court decided Dobbs, it said decisions about whether and under what circumstances abortion should be legal would be left up to each state. But now, Judge Kacsmaryk has made that decision for all of us—you and me, for our mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, and friends, regardless of medical necessity or our personal religious and moral beliefs. Judge Kacsmaryk knows best.
Challenged legal rulings are typically stayed to preserve the status quo while appeals work their way through the courts. But the post-Trump, uber-conservative Supreme Court has always had a different jurisprudence when it comes to abortion, permitting restrictive measures like Texas’s SB-8 vigilante-justice law to go into effect while the appeal was pending. Nothing says “result-oriented” like special rules for anti-abortion litigants (to say nothing of reversing the long-standing precedent of Roe that had worked well to balance rights and did not meet the Court’s test for when precedent should be reversed). It’s tempting to think the Court might decide the Mifepristone decision is a bridge too far, if not based on legal principles and the expectations it set when it decided Dobbs, then out of purely pragmatic political considerations some of Justice Clarence Thomas’s billionaire friends might want to see in order to avoid steep Republican losses at the polls following yet another anti-abortion decision. But it’s difficult to imagine this Court walking it back so close to its goal of extinguishing abortion rights. DOJ has strong arguments to make on appeal—compelling ones on threshold issues like whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring this case, as well as on the merits. Whether the Court will give them a fair hearing is an entirely different matter.
Soon we’ll find out if the Court meant it when it said abortion would be up to the states. Or if one judge in Texas can resurrect the long-disfavored Comstock Act and terminate people’s rights across America. The Act is an 1873 law that makes it illegal to advertise or mail anything, including information, related to preventing contraception or producing abortion (as well as outlawing sending “obscene, lewd or lascivious,” “immoral,” or “indecent” publications). The Comstock Act fell into disuse because of its effect on First Amendment rights—it involves prior restraint by the government on speech. The prohibition on materials and items related to contraception was removed after the Supreme Court’s 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which held that Connecticut’s “mini-Comstock” law unconstitutionally invaded the privacy rights of married couples. Be concerned about where a resuscitation of this law could lead.
Restricting abortion today does not seem to be about good-faith conservative values and protecting the sanctity of life. It’s hard to believe that a party that denies access to basic medical care and education and that lets schoolkids die at the hands of mass shooters in the name of the Second Amendment is deeply committed to unborn children, unless it’s become somehow morally righteous to protect them only until they leave the womb. Ending abortion is a political rallying cry, used to bring voters to the polls and raise money, with a healthy side effect of owning uppity liberal women.
It’s really not that difficult: If you’re against abortion, don’t get one. We live in a pluralistic society and there are religions other than conservative Christianity, for instance Judaism, that command their followers to protect the life of a mother over that of an unborn fetus. Somehow their rights are now ignored, while a minority that has gained control of the Supreme Court dictates to the rest of us.
Interestingly, banning Mifepristone isn’t just part of the trend to make abortion less available; it’s also part of the trend to make it less safe and to endanger women’s lives. I spoke with Jesanna Cooper, a friend and a doctor in Birmingham, who is an experienced Ob-Gyn. She told me, “The take-home is that without mifepristone, more people will hemorrhage and/or get septic from incomplete expulsion of the products of conception.” Using Misoprostol, the other drug used in a medication abortion procedure, alone is “less effective,” she says. It involves the “same amount of pain but [is] more likely to be incomplete, which can be dangerous.” It doesn’t sound very pro-life.
More information about the two drugs, if you want to read some of the science, is here.
In 1996 then-Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) tried to convince the House to take the Comstock Act off the books. They didn’t. But her floor speech has resonance today. She explained that the Act was named for a man named Anthony Comstock, who “was one of these people who decided only he knew what was virtuous and right, and somehow he managed to convince all sorts of people that this was correct.” That sounds familiar.
She continued, “Anthony Comstock was a religious fanatic who spent his life in a personal crusade for moral purity—as defined, of course, by himself. This crusade resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of a multitude of Americans whose only crime was to exercise their constitutional right of free speech in ways that offended Anthony Comstock. Women seemed to particularly offend Anthony Comstock, most particularly women who believed in the right to plan their families through the use of contraceptives, or in the right of women to engage in discussions and debate about matters involving sexuality, including contraception and abortion.” We don’t need a new Anthony Comstock, and we don’t need Judge Kacsmaryk to dictate health care—or the absence of it—to people across the country.
You know what the solution is: go vote. Democrats will need sufficient majorities in both houses of Congress to restore protections for abortion. It’s not enough to win the House or the Senate; Democrats must take both to ensure access to abortion, and 2024 is not that far off.
We’re in this together,
Joyce
[Civil Discourse With Joyce Vance]
21 notes · View notes
trmpt · 1 month
Text
3 notes · View notes
gwydionmisha · 10 months
Text
7 notes · View notes
tomorrowusa · 2 years
Video
youtube
A federal grand jury is apparently investigating how 15 boxes of classified material ended up at Mar-a-Lago after Trump left office.
Trump was probably waiting for a Russian submarine to slip into Palm Beach to pick them up.
4 notes · View notes
sentinelleblr · 3 months
Text
"Elections matter. You’re not just picking a president—you’re electing state leaders who will determine what kind of taxes you pay and a mayor impacts issues like how local dollars are used. You’ll be electing school board members who decide what books your kids can read. You’re electing a sheriff who determines law enforcement priorities and how his deputies will be trained and what standards they’ll have to live up to. You may be voting for legislators who will decide if women in your state will have a right to an abortion—or an exception if there isn’t one for the mother’s health. There are dozens of reasons to get out and vote in every election. But they are all amplified in this next one. And topping them all is the need to do everything we can to prevent Trump from launching a dangerous narrative that leads to civil unrest."
0 notes
mizelaneus · 4 months
Text
Joyce Vance
Civil Discourse
0 notes
filosofablogger · 8 months
Text
He Threw The First Match
In a country filled with people who are only waiting for an excuse to ‘go after’ their perceived opponents with threats and acts of violence, in a country that is truly a tinderbox just waiting for a match, a ‘man’ who was once the most powerful in the nation throws a burning match into the already-smoldering large pile of very dry straw.  Joyce Vance tells the tale … “If you go after me …” By…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
asmallexperiment · 1 year
Text
Joyce Vance: Tennessee
I haven't been doing much here for a little while on account of some health stuff, but with respect to the Tennessee House expulsions, I think some history is in order, courtesy of Joyce Vance:
Several months after his election in June 1965, a civil rights organization that Mr. Bond belonged to issued an anti-war statement about Vietnam, which he subsequently endorsed in statements to the press. White members of the Georgia House challenged Bond’s right to be seated, charging that his statements aided our enemies, violated the Selective Service laws, discredited the House, and were inconsistent with the legislator’s mandatory oath to support the Constitution.
Bond filed a challenge in the House to the petitions against seating him, alleging they were violations of his First Amendment rights and they were racially motivated. The House committee hearing his challenge concluded that Bond should not be seated. He filed a lawsuit, and a three-judge panel in the federal district court in Georgia ruled against him 2-1. Bond filed an appeal under a provision that permitted him to go straight to the United States Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, he was re-elected to the Georgia House in a special election, and, again, the House refused to seat him. He was elected again in the regular election in 1966, and the Supreme Court decided his case shortly afterwards.
The unanimous Supreme Court decision in Bond’s favor relied upon a famous First Amendment case, New York Times v. Sullivan, holding that although a state may impose a requirement that legislators take an oath of allegiance, it cannot limit their capacity to express views on local or national policy. “[D]ebate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” the Court wrote, citing the decision in Sullivan.
The Court’s opinion in Bond concluded with these words: “Legislators have an obligation to take positions on controversial political questions so that their constituents can be fully informed by them, and be better able to assess their qualifications for office; also so they may be represented in governmental debates by the person they have elected to represent them. We therefore hold that the disqualification of Bond from membership in the Georgia House because of his statements violated Bond’s right of free expression under the First Amendment.”
Julian Bond died in 2015, so his own personal experience isn't even long past, and that time is still very much in living memory. You would hope that we would have learned by now, but it seems as though the challenge of the 60s is still with us, and it's up to us to meet it again.
0 notes
mothrite · 1 year
Text
Dating Vance Hopper HCS (AU VER)
This is what it’s like dating Vance Hopper in my Ultim Hawkins AU (AKA an AU that’s just a whole bunch of AUs stuck together [plus OCs])
Warnings: None!<3
AN: Not proof read!! Was this an excuse to write about my AU? Oh yes absolutely. Will I regret it? NEVER. Don’t be afraid to send in a request! I don’t really have much to write so I can do more AU headcanons for like Robin or something
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
To start with, Vance has A-LOT of siblings.
Though he only grew up with his older sister and sadly had to watch as their younger sister passed, he now has two more sisters and three more brothers
If you decide to spend the day at his house expect ZERO privacy from Roxy barging in to ask for cash to Will gently knocking on the door asking to borrow some pencils for him and El
You two barely get a moment alone
I can also imagine one day Roxy invites you over for a family dinner and Vance is begging you not to go, but you go anyways cause you’re curious to see what’s it like when all his family is together
Btw his family consists of his father Jim Hopper and his step-mother Joyce Byers. His siblings are Leo, Valerie, Jonathan and Will Byers and Roxanne and Jane Hopper :) [Jane is adopted]
When you finally sit down it’s utter chaos
Will and El are gossiping about kids at their school and judging them
Roxy and Leo look like their about to get into a fist fight (Which Jim is betting 10 bucks Roxy’ll win)
And Joyce is talking to Valerie trying to figure out what Jonathan and Argyle’s relationship is
Needless to say you just end up eating and listening to the different conversations with your hand intertwined with Vance’s, hidden under the table
And if you’re lucky some other guests will be there! Like Murray and his daughter Noelle, Jonathan’s partners Argyle and Nancy, Will’s boyfriends Lucas and Mike, El’s girlfriend Max, Valerie’s friend Bonnie and Jim’s friend Dmitri
Luckily Joyce threatened to take Lonnie to court for mental and physical abuse towards the kids so she got enough cash to buy a big enough house for her seven children
I’d like to imagine that Jonathan brings you two places and will always remind Vance to stay safe and stay with you at all times due to the situation that happened when Vance was in Denver with his birth mom
Joyce is the best mom ever, she supports you two sm and absolutely adores you. Vance loves her more then his birth mother and it shows.
Roxy is also super cool and will dye your hair if you ask since she did her own
It’s 100% canon in this AU that Vance is a punk metal head. You can and will be forced to listen to that kind of music, but if he’s feeling nicer then usual then he’ll let you put on what you like.
Vance most likely struggles in some subjects so you’d offer to help him study, and when you get to his place and tell Joyce she just nods her head like “ya sure. Study.”
But she’s pleasantly surprised when she walks past Vance’s open door to see you and him sitting at his desk with you explaining different aspects that go into solving a two step equation for math
Before you and Vance started dating, Will and El would be with you in their living room watching some program and Vance leaves to go grab some drinks from the fridge when El turns to you and says
“You know Vance has been talking about you ALOT lately. I think he might like you.”
And as your face is turning red Will is interjecting “YOU MEAN THEY AREN’T DATING? Shit. I owe Max 10 bucks now.”
Once Vance gets back he’s confused as he sits down next to you who’s face us flushed scarlet and El who’s mouth is painted with a smug smile
Cat person. If you have a cat expect him to lay on your couch with the cat on his chest as he gently strokes its furr while talking to you
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
231 notes · View notes
stranger-rants · 1 year
Note
Hop would have to pull in Joyce for help with all three kids. Now imagine them with the Hopper-Byers family. Vance will help Will free his feral side.
Hopper thinks she will help, but she also gives Hopper a hard time. "El is grounded? For what?!" and Billy and Vance are like... "That's what we're asking!"
Joyce babies Vance. Like, Vance is a feral kitten and Joyce is like I'm not taking that nonsense but you're cute and I will brush your hair and Vance pretends not to like that because he is NOT a baby!
(He is THE baby...)
32 notes · View notes
Photo
Tumblr media
Salt Lake Tribune
* * * * 
Putting More Guns in the Wrong Hands  ::  Joyce Vance
First the Supreme Court decided Heller, a case that extended the Second Amendment notion of well-armed militias to permit Americans to possess virtually any kind of firearm that wasn’t fully automatic or short-barreled in their home, under a self-defense rationale. Then came last term’s decision in Bruen, a New York case, that struck down what it decided were unreasonable limitations on public possession of firearms. So we knew it was only a matter of time until a court took it even further. After all, over the years the NRA has advocated for the right of blind people to carry firearms, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the only federal agency tasked with oversight of the gun industry, is so notoriously underfunded by Congress that it cannot fully perform that role.
This week the 5th Circuit entered the fray, ruling that the domestic violence provision of 18 U.S.C. 922(g) contradicts the nation’s “historical tradition” of access to firearms even for people who aren’t “model citizens.” The three-judge panel (two Trump appointees and one Reagan appointee, for those who are counting) held that the statute is unconstitutional because it gives too much power to Congress to determine who qualifies as “law-abiding, responsible citizens” when it comes to gun ownership.
The court worried about who might lose their right to possess firearms if they permitted the prohibition against people with a demonstrated propensity towards violence against their partners to stay on the books: “Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle?”
The court vacated the conviction of the Texan man Zackey Rahimi, who pleaded guilty to having a pistol in his home following the issuance of a civil domestic-violence restraining order for assaulting his former girlfriend. Texas, which we know denies women abortion access to protect the lives of unborn fetuses, apparently thinks it’s acceptable to risk that same woman’s life at the hands of a man with a firearm who has already shown a willingness to do violence to her. The court wrote that “Rahimi, while hardly a model citizen, is nonetheless part of the political community entitled to the Second Amendment’s guarantees, all other things equal.”
The 5th Circuit contorted itself to ignore the use of language like “law-abiding citizen” that prior cases have used to determine the reach of Second Amendment rights. And while the decision is limited to the 8th subsection of the statute, which we started out with above, there is little reason to believe litigants won’t proceed to challenge other parts of the statute.
And none of this is theoretical. Prosecutions for possession of firearms by disqualified persons have risen steadily over the years. The most recent numbers available from the U.S. Sentencing Commission show that in 2021, there were 7,454 offenders convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g). That was an increase from 6,032 offenders in fiscal year 2017. Illegal firearms possession cases are also significant as a percentage of DOJ’s total criminal docket. For instance, in fiscal year 2016, there were 5,391 offenders convicted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), accounting for 8% of all offenders sentenced in federal court.
DOJ has already announced it will appeal the Rahimi decision in a statement from Attorney General Garland: “Nearly 30 years ago, Congress determined that a person who is subject to a court order that restrains him or her from threatening an intimate partner or child cannot lawfully possess a firearm. Whether analyzed through the lens of Supreme Court precedent, or of the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, that statute is constitutional. Accordingly, the Department will seek further review of the Fifth Circuit’s contrary decision.”
What should we expect the Supreme Court to do? In a 2019 case, Rehaif, the Court considered whether the government had to prove a defendant was aware they had the status that made it a crime for them to possess a firearm (in that case, that they were not legally in the United States). The Court ruled that the government did, without in any way suggesting that the statute itself was unconstitutional. However, this Court has been less mindful of precedent than the Court has been at any other point in our lifetimes. Given its recent trajectory on firearms and Second Amendment issues, it’s hard to feel optimistic that all of the public-safety-based restrictions on firearms ownership in 922(g) will survive.
We’re in this together,
Joyce
8 notes · View notes
trmpt · 5 months
Text
CIVIL DISCOURSE
Joyce Vance
2 notes · View notes
gwydionmisha · 2 years
Link
3 notes · View notes
rosettastarlight · 1 year
Note
I really like your Stranger Things AU with Vance! I'd like to learn more. Do you have any headcanons on how Vance adjusts to Hawkins and what his relationship would be like with the Party?
First off, I am so sorry taking so long to respond, I’ve had finals and been trying to catch up on missing work before the end of the semester. 
And second, oh, I very much do, but it depends mainly on timeline because like I said Vance moving to Hawkins would be after escaping the Grabber, and while I have thought to myself that the move taking place between 1983 and 1984 would be easiest as the chaos of season 1 might be a little too much for Vance who would just be recovering from his own disappearance and kidnapping (although I also think he’d be part of the reason Jim would start to take the Will Byers case seriously since everyone also probably thought Vance was just skipping school or causing trouble before realizing he’d been gone too long, except no one really cared beyond the first few weeks that Vance was gone because he was a constant trouble-maker), and it might be better to place him in a calmer where the worst has more or less blown over, but the timeline is also pretty important.
I mostly, in my head, place him in Hawkins around season 2 in 1984 both because of the former reason and because I just think it’d be hilarious to see the utter confusion of being dropped smack in the aftermath while knowing nothing of what went on before. Like, Jim trying to explain El away when Vance can see straight through his bs because he knows damn well this strange girl did not pop up out of nowhere, and since when was his dad the type of guy to move to a cabin in the middle of the woods. Where there’s no one or anything in sight for at least a good, long walk. And if he’d adopted El, why are there no records anywhere in the cabin, why does she have the vocabulary and knowledge of a child half her age, since when did he have the time or mindset in between being a recovering alcoholic and a cop who was too busy and gone half the day to pay attention to his only other child? Why can’t she go outside but Vance can as long as he’s back before curfew, why can’t she be seen by anyone to the point that the blinds need to always be closed?
Still, let’s drop him in season 1 for the hell of it, which would mean him moving to Hawkins within 1983 just before the events of Stranger Things, making him kidnapped in 1982. He might have been found maybe a month or two prior at most, spent a while in the hospital (he was down in the basement for months and judging from the conditions we see in the movie, he was probably malnourished, dehydrated, not to mention all the injuries he might have gotten from the beatings and if any of them got infected), and I’ll try my best to organize my thoughts
For context, after Sarah’s death, we know Diane and Jim divorced a year later, after which Hopper moved back to Hawkins, Diane moved with Vance to Denver from New York, and it's known Hopper did not take his family breaking apart well.
Speaking from personal experience, when a parent is grieving the loss of one child, they can be so lost in their own downspiraling mental health, they can start neglecting their remaining one, and losing custody and the now physical distance between them didn't help matters since back then, all they had to communicate long distance was phone and letters.
There was also a bit of guilt there since Hopper had thought himself responsible in a way for Sarah's death and thought he might mess up with Vance too, so he distanced himself emotionally as well.
So for a long while, Jim was kind of an absent father and hasn't seen Vance in person since he was ten. He was starting to come back into his life three years later, around the same time Vance went missing.
That was essentially Jim's wake up call rather than the Byers case, to realize he could have just lost his son, too, not knowing what happened to him until he was found a year later having been kept captive the entire time.
When Hopper found out, he dropped everything to get to the hospital Vance was staying, but Vance himself had pretty complicated feelings, because on one hand, his dad being there as a familiar face in the wake of a very traumatizing event and the unfamiliar people of the hospital where everyone is touching (and he does not want them touching him), poking and prodding him, but on the other, it took him nearly dying for his dad to actually come see him, so....pros and cons.
Hopper and Diane did talk about him wanting to be back in Vance’s life, trying to get sober, and wanting a chance to be there for him, and that maybe getting away from the place of trauma might help Vance out mentally, make him feel more safe to not be reminded of the events everywhere when people were still talking about it and his face is in all the papers, and Hawkins was quiet and isolated where everyone knows everyone and nothing ever happens.
Vance was not happy once he got out the hospital. He did not want to leave Denver, he did not want to leave the familiarity of his home after just coming back, he did not want to leave his friends who were the only ones he felt could understand what he went through since they went through the same thing, he did not want or like anymore abrupt changes in his life.
Part of the only reason he even agreed to move in with his dad was because both his parents insisted on it and he didn’t want to argue with his mom.
The other part was because he started to feel like she just didn’t want him around, much like before he even got kidnapped, especially seeing her with her new family, his stepsister and stepfather, and that he always felt like she didn’t try all that much to find him while he was gone.
That was not exactly the case, Diane was doing the best with what she had, but parents aren’t perfect and as much as they loved each other, their relationship did become strained with him distancing himself from her as he got older and her being busy taking care of a new baby.
Jim had bought Vance a Walkman he'd planned to give him on his 14th birthday (it was supposed to be the first birthday they spent together since the divorce, so it was supposed to make up for all the ones he missed), but instead gave him in the hospital after the police found him. He still remembers how loud music usually calmed Vance as a kid and figured it might help now.
Despite not being all that receptive towards Jim, he takes good care of it and takes it everywhere he could for when he was feeling stressed.
Also, the mental image I have of Vance staring Jim dead in the eye as he puts on his headphones mid-lecture to show just how done he is with their conversations when he doesn't feel like fighting.
Jim genuinely did think that Hawkins would help because it’s a small, sleepy town where nothing ever happens and no one’s going to really know him beyond the chief’s son which is better than being gawked at for escaping a serial child kidnapper everywhere you go, and while that can get boring, maybe after what happened, “boring” might be best since at least in “boring,” it’s safe because nothing ever happens.
Point at the irony and laugh.
I said in my last post of this au that Vance does not like new stuff, and this is no exception, he does not like having to get used to the cabin, the  smells and new textures and having to ask where everything is, he does not like looking outside and just seeing trees upon trees upon trees, needing rides to town, not knowing where to go when he’s in town (just overall having to rely on Jim for everything in an unfamiliar place, he hates it)
Considering the last time he talked to a stranger, he got grabbed, and as much as he’d never admit it to anyone (he doesn’t really have to since Hopper can see it in how Vance asks him to drive him places at first with how Vance wants nothing to do with him if he can help it--so if he’s willing to put up with being in a car with him for some sense of security, that means something), he doesn’t feel safe anymore walking alone where there’s not many people, which does lead to him being more aggressive and off-putting with strangers as a way to feel so.
He was canonical held back, but it was in elementary school, so he'd be in the eighth grade rather than the high school, which actually would give a good opportunity to meet the Party even if he's still a grade above them.
He mostly keeps to himself, and he spends most of his time outside of school (and sometimes skipping class), at the arcade after Jim showed him where it was, for the closest thing he can find to his pinball machine back home.
He’s both not as violent and yet worse at the same time, like he won’t fuck with you if you don’t fuck with him, but if you fuck with him in even the slightest way (touch him on bad days, mess with his music, mess with his game, accidentally or otherwise when he doesn’t know you), he will try to end you.
It ends him in jail a lot, Jim has to bail him out every time if he's not the one himself escorting him to the station (he just drops him off at home), sometimes vouch for him to his coworkers that "he's going through a tough time" and if you see him running from the cops, he's not running from the law, he's running from getting grounded.
Calls and writes his friends back home every chance he gets, mostly about updates and t complain how much Hawkins sucks.
Small detail but Vance can't drink soda anymore, he never liked the fizz and would usually wait for it to go flat, but after returning, all soda now reminds him of Sprite and Sprite reminds him of the Basement.
He also mostly cooks for himself and Jim because while he always was a picky eater, after what happened, he won't accept food from other people unless he can watch it being made, and he refuses to go anywhere where the door can be locked from the outside.
Altogether, this does give him a bit of a reputation for being a violent asshole who gets away with everything because his dad's the police chief.
Hopper did threaten once to call his mom in a fight, Vance retaliated by threatening to tell her about the anti-anxiety pills he found in Hopper’s room while exploring.
Oh, the fights, have you ever tried to raise a young version of yourself that's just as a stubborn, angry, and prone to violence as you once were but twice as bad? That's what Hopper’s going through, and while he is trying to be patient because he knows Vance isn't in the best place and he kinda does deserve some of his ire, Jim has considered putting the boy's head through a wall more than once.
Now, onto the actual Disappearance of Will Byers and relationship with the Party
The Party initially thought he was just another bully and steered clear of him up until Will disappeared.
A lot of people think Vance is older than he is, like sixteen, seventeen, but in reality, he just had a growth spurt when he was, like, twelve.
I like to headcanon because of how good he is at pinball and Sarah's fascination with space when she was alive, Vance is actually pretty good at math and science if it's put into a way he understands, and while he is a grade above them, I like to think the Party's teacher would be someone who could do that even with Vance's unease around adults. Like, he just seems like a fun, laid back teacher who cares about his students.
Hopper is trying to kick his worse habits in season 1 this time since he's trying to gain Vance's trust and prove to both his ex-wife and himself that he can be a competent parent, so s1 Jim Hopper might be a bit more serious in this au.
Like his personal storyline in this au in between searching for Will wouldn't just be being reminded of his grief but also reconnecting with his estranged son, like he and Vance would both get flashbacks throughout the season of their respective traumas.
I can't remember what happened to the Byers' dog, but I'm going to use it as a way to insert Vance into the plot since I mentioned in one of my last posts, Vance loves animals.
The night Will went missing, the dog ran away once the Demogorgon disappeared. Vance found it the next morning on his way to school and skipped class to take it to the cabin for a bit, so he didn't know anyone was searching for Will until later that day when the dog led him to where the police found Will's bike.
That's how Vance officially met the Byers, when he went to return the dog, and he mostly kept coming back to see or offer to walk him. Joyce does try to talk to him sometimes since she doesn't want to be rude and she somewhat remembers him since Vance would have been 2 when the Hoppers moved out of Hawkins.
While Vance probably would try to avoid stuff about the Will Byers case because of the memories it dredges up, I do like to think of him trying to comfort Joyce once when he could see her struggling. He's not good at it but it's thought that counts.
With the stuff with the phone, maybe he overhears it or sees it one time while he's over, he remembers the phone in the Basement. How it kept ringing all those times before Finney got there, and all he and the other boys would hear was static when they picked it up, but Finn claimed to hear voices of the Grabber's past victims.
It'd have some bad implications on Vance's end and maybe he might bring it up to Hopper that maybe Joyce wasn't going crazy, but since he's still in his denial phase, Hopper would probably just tell Vance that they were going through a stressful time and made up whatever it took to cope.
That's all I've got for right now, but I'll try to get back later after rewatching some stuff.
27 notes · View notes