#malicious prosecution
Link
Judicial farce drags on
#Canada#Ottawa#police#politics#freedom convoy#malicious prosecution#lawfare#corruption#tyranny#COVID#fraud#machinations
8 notes
·
View notes
Link
Qualified not Absolute Privilege
Reporting Suspected Insurance Fraud is Subject to a Qualified Privilege in Oklahoma
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gjNJknSG and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gEUJdFqg and at https://lnkd.in/gze4mUpM and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4500 posts.
Reporting Suspected Insurance Fraud is Subject to a Qualified Privilege in Oklahoma
Sue Chimento sued claiming defamation, negligence, intentional interference with business relations, false representation, constructive fraud, and conspiracy against Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc., and Scott McCoy, based on allegations they made to the Tulsa Police Department, Tulsa County District Attorney’s Office, and the Oklahoma Insurance Department that she had embezzled money while under their employment. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Defendants, finding that their statements to the police and district attorney were subject to an absolute privilege and their statements to Oklahoma Insurance Department were subject to a qualified privilege under 36 O.S. § 363.
In Sue Chimento v. Gallagher Benefit Services, Inc., and Scott Mccoy, Individually, Nos. 120089, 120101, 2023 OK 22, Supreme Court of Oklahoma (March 21, 2023) resolved the dispute.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner, Sue Chimento would pay individual premiums on behalf of the client Native American Tribes’ employees out of the Tribal Account. Given how the Tribal Account was utilized, it was typical for the Tribal Account to have a zero balance.
In March 2017, Midfirst Bank found that the Tribal Account was overdrafted. Shortly after management’s Mr. McCoy inquired of Chimento as to why the account was overdrafted, Chimento resigned her employment with AJG. McCoy then filed a report with the Tulsa Police Department (“TPD”) alleging that Chimento embezzled approximately fifty-one thousand dollars ($51,000.00).
Shortly thereafter the Tulsa County District Attorney filed a criminal information charging Chimento with one count of felony embezzlement. The District Attorney later dismissed the charges against Chimento for insufficient evidence.
IMMUNITY DEFENSES
Defendants asserted that any of their statements to TPD, the District Attorney’s Office, and the OID were subject to an absolute privilege, and thus, to the extent any of Chimento’s claims were based on these statements, the claims must fail. The trial court granted summary judgment to AJG/GBS on all of Chimento’s remaining claims. The trial court found that Defendants’ statements to TPD and to the District Attorney’s office were subject to an absolute privilege under 12 O.S. § 1443.1 and their statements to the OID were subject to a qualified privilege under 36 O.S. § 363.
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court concluded that Defendants’ statements to law enforcement were entitled to a qualified privilege.
The Supreme Court in the past applied an absolute privilege to communications made during various proceedings and find that statements made to law enforcement enjoy a qualified – and not absolute – privilege. Thus, any statements Defendants made to TPD and the District Attorney’s Office only enjoy a qualified privilege.
Defendants’ Statements To The Oklahoma Insurance Department Are Entitled To A Qualified Privilege.
The immunity provisions of §363 expressly apply to reports made when an insurer furnishes information, either orally or in writing for an investigation or prosecution of suspected insurance fraud. The terms of the statute, insofar as to when immunity applies, are clear and unambiguous. If any insurer furnished information for an investigation or prosecution, as they did in this case, they are protected from civil action for libel, slander or any other relevant tort or any criminal action.
The Supreme Court concluded that the clear and unambiguous intent of § 363 is to provide qualified immunity from civil actions for individuals who furnish information to the OID regarding fraudulent insurance activity.
As noted in the OID’s Notice of Hearing to Chimento, its investigation was prompted by and relied upon the investigation of the Tulsa Police Department into allegations made by Defendants against Chimento. The allegations in the Notice of Hearing relate exclusively to Chimento’s employment by the Defendants.
Therefore, Defendants statements to TPD and the District Attorney’s Office are entitled to a qualified privilege. Likewise, Defendants statements to the Oklahoma Insurance Department are entitled to a qualified privilege under 36 O.S.Supp.2012 § 363.
ZALMA OPINION
State law requires insurers to report to the Oklahoma Department of Insurance (OID) suspected insurance fraud and by statute an insurer is provided an immunity from certain suits like those made by the Plaintiff if the suit is based upon the report to the OID. The report to police, if made in good faith, usually provides an absolute immunity but Oklahoma no makes the immunity qualified. Whether qualified or absolute the immunity protected the defendants.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; https://creators.newsbreak.com/home/content/post; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
#insurance#claims#insurance claims#fraud#insurance fraud#embezzlement#crime#prosecution#malicious prosecution#immunity#qualified immunity absolute immunity#privilege#absolute privilege#qualified privilege#insurance books#amazon.com
0 notes
Text
#jonhutson#nacdl#maryland#anne arundel#district court#malicious prosecution#nolle prosequi#Jonathan Hutson#chriseargle#Chris Eargle
0 notes
Text
Understanding Personal Injury Claims: A Comprehensive Guide to Navigating the Legal Landscape
Suffering a personal injury can be a life-altering experience, and understanding the nuances of the legal process that follows is crucial for a fair recovery. In this blog post, we delve into the intricacies of understanding personal injury claims, providing you with a comprehensive guide to navigate the legal landscape. From the initial steps to the potential outcomes, this guide aims to empower you with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions during a challenging time.
Defining Personal Injury Claims:
Begin by explaining what constitutes a personal injury claim.
Discuss the various scenarios, such as accidents, medical malpractice, or workplace incidents, that may lead to personal injury claims.
Common Types of Personal Injuries:
Explore different types of personal injuries and their potential legal implications.
Discuss injuries resulting from car accidents, slip and falls, medical negligence, and more.
Determining Liability: The Key to a Successful Claim:
Explain the concept of liability in personal injury claims.
Discuss how establishing fault is a crucial factor in pursuing compensation.
Steps to Take Immediately After an Injury:
Provide a checklist of immediate actions to take after sustaining a personal injury.
Emphasize the importance of seeking medical attention, documenting the incident, and gathering evidence.
The Role of Insurance Companies: Navigating the Claims Process:
Demystify the involvement of insurance companies in personal injury claims.
Discuss how to communicate effectively with insurance adjusters and handle the claims process.
Seeking Medical Treatment and Documenting Injuries:
Stress the importance of seeking prompt medical attention.
Discuss how medical records and documentation of injuries play a pivotal role in the strength of a personal injury claim.
Calculating Damages: Understanding Compensation:
Explore the types of damages that may be sought in a personal injury claim.
Discuss economic and non-economic damages, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.
Negotiating a Settlement vs. Going to Trial:
Discuss the pros and cons of negotiating a settlement versus taking the case to trial.
Provide insights into when each option might be more appropriate.
Statute of Limitations: Understanding Legal Deadlines:
Explain the concept of the statute of limitations in personal injury claims.
Highlight the importance of adhering to legal deadlines for filing a claim.
The Importance of Legal Representation:
Discuss the role of an attorney in a personal injury claim.
Highlight the benefits of seeking legal representation, including expertise in negotiation and litigation.
Conclusion:
Understanding personal injury claims is paramount to securing fair compensation and navigating the legal journey effectively. By arming yourself with knowledge about liability, the claims process, and the importance of documentation, you empower yourself to make informed decisions. In challenging times, knowledge becomes a powerful ally, and we hope this comprehensive guide aids you on the path to a fair recovery.
#Abuse Compensation Lawyer Sydney#Malicious Prosecution Compensation#Conveyancing Lawyer Sydney#Commercial Leasing#Retail Leasing#Debt Collection Lawyer#Personal Injury Lawyer Fairfield#Personal Injury Lawyer Bonnyrigg#Personal Injury Lawyer Bossley Park#Personal Injury Lawyers Cabramatta#Personal Injury Lawyer Cabramatta West#Personal Injury Lawyer Canley Heights#Personal Injury Lawyer Canley Vale#Suing for Negligence in the Workplace#Injury Claims#Suing Employer
0 notes
Text
Understanding Personal Injury Claims: A Comprehensive Guide to Navigating the Legal Landscape
Suffering a personal injury can be a life-altering experience, and understanding the nuances of the legal process that follows is crucial for a fair recovery. In this blog post, we delve into the intricacies of understanding personal injury claims, providing you with a comprehensive guide to navigate the legal landscape. From the initial steps to the potential outcomes, this guide aims to empower you with the knowledge needed to make informed decisions during a challenging time.
Defining Personal Injury Claims:
Begin by explaining what constitutes a personal injury claim.
Discuss the various scenarios, such as accidents, medical malpractice, or workplace incidents, that may lead to personal injury claims.
Common Types of Personal Injuries:
Explore different types of personal injuries and their potential legal implications.
Discuss injuries resulting from car accidents, slip and falls, medical negligence, and more.
Determining Liability: The Key to a Successful Claim:
Explain the concept of liability in personal injury claims.
Discuss how establishing fault is a crucial factor in pursuing compensation.
Steps to Take Immediately After an Injury:
Provide a checklist of immediate actions to take after sustaining a personal injury.
Emphasize the importance of seeking medical attention, documenting the incident, and gathering evidence.
The Role of Insurance Companies: Navigating the Claims Process:
Demystify the involvement of insurance companies in personal injury claims.
Discuss how to communicate effectively with insurance adjusters and handle the claims process.
Seeking Medical Treatment and Documenting Injuries:
Stress the importance of seeking prompt medical attention.
Discuss how medical records and documentation of injuries play a pivotal role in the strength of a personal injury claim.
Calculating Damages: Understanding Compensation:
Explore the types of damages that may be sought in a personal injury claim.
Discuss economic and non-economic damages, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering.
Negotiating a Settlement vs. Going to Trial:
Discuss the pros and cons of negotiating a settlement versus taking the case to trial.
Provide insights into when each option might be more appropriate.
Statute of Limitations: Understanding Legal Deadlines:
Explain the concept of the statute of limitations in personal injury claims.
Highlight the importance of adhering to legal deadlines for filing a claim.
The Importance of Legal Representation:
Discuss the role of an attorney in a personal injury claim.
Highlight the benefits of seeking legal representation, including expertise in negotiation and litigation.
Conclusion:
Understanding personal injury claims is paramount to securing fair compensation and navigating the legal journey effectively. By arming yourself with knowledge about liability, the claims process, and the importance of documentation, you empower yourself to make informed decisions. In challenging times, knowledge becomes a powerful ally, and we hope this comprehensive guide aids you on the path to a fair recovery.
#Abuse Compensation Lawyer Sydney#Malicious Prosecution Compensation#Conveyancing Lawyer Sydney#Commercial Leasing#Retail Leasing#Debt Collection Lawyer#Personal Injury Lawyer Fairfield#Personal Injury Lawyer Bonnyrigg#Personal Injury Lawyer Bossley Park#Personal Injury Lawyers Cabramatta#Personal Injury Lawyer Cabramatta West#Personal Injury Lawyer Canley Heights#Personal Injury Lawyer Canley Vale#Suing for Negligence in the Workplace#Injury Claims#Suing Employer
0 notes
Text
The creation of sexually explicit "deepfake" images is to be made a criminal offence in England and Wales under a new law, the government says.
Under the legislation, anyone making explicit images of an adult without their consent will face a criminal record and unlimited fine.
It will apply regardless of whether the creator of an image intended to share it, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said.
And if the image is then shared more widely, they could face jail.
A deepfake is an image or video that has been digitally altered with the help of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to replace the face of one person with the face of another.
Recent years have seen the growing use of the technology to add the faces of celebrities or public figures - most often women - into pornographic films.
Channel 4 News presenter Cathy Newman, who discovered her own image used as part of a deepfake video, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was "incredibly invasive".
Ms Newman found she was a victim as part of a Channel 4 investigation into deepfakes.
"It was violating... it was kind of me and not me," she said, explaining the video displayed her face but not her hair.
Ms Newman said finding perpetrators is hard, adding: "This is a worldwide problem, so we can legislate in this jurisdiction, it might have no impact on whoever created my video or the millions of other videos that are out there."
She said the person who created the video is yet to be found.
Under the Online Safety Act, which was passed last year, the sharing of deepfakes was made illegal.
The new law will make it an offence for someone to create a sexually explicit deepfake - even if they have no intention to share it but "purely want to cause alarm, humiliation, or distress to the victim", the MoJ said.
Clare McGlynn, a law professor at Durham University who specialises in legal regulation of pornography and online abuse, told the Today programme the legislation has some limitations.
She said it "will only criminalise where you can prove a person created the image with the intention to cause distress", and this could create loopholes in the law.
It will apply to images of adults, because the law already covers this behaviour where the image is of a child, the MoJ said.
It will be introduced as an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament.
Minister for Victims and Safeguarding Laura Farris said the new law would send a "crystal clear message that making this material is immoral, often misogynistic, and a crime".
"The creation of deepfake sexual images is despicable and completely unacceptable irrespective of whether the image is shared," she said.
"It is another example of ways in which certain people seek to degrade and dehumanise others - especially women.
"And it has the capacity to cause catastrophic consequences if the material is shared more widely. This Government will not tolerate it."
Cally Jane Beech, a former Love Island contestant who earlier this year was the victim of deepfake images, said the law was a "huge step in further strengthening of the laws around deepfakes to better protect women".
"What I endured went beyond embarrassment or inconvenience," she said.
"Too many women continue to have their privacy, dignity, and identity compromised by malicious individuals in this way and it has to stop. People who do this need to be held accountable."
Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper described the creation of the images as a "gross violation" of a person's autonomy and privacy and said it "must not be tolerated".
"Technology is increasingly being manipulated to manufacture misogynistic content and is emboldening perpetrators of Violence Against Women and Girls," she said.
"That's why it is vital for the government to get ahead of these fast-changing threats and not to be outpaced by them.
"It's essential that the police and prosecutors are equipped with the training and tools required to rigorously enforce these laws in order to stop perpetrators from acting with impunity."
279 notes
·
View notes
Link
Too stoned to traffic
#Canada#police#RCMP#dysfuncionality#incompetence#corruption#drugs#Hell's Angels#Toronto#Nova Scotia#malicious prosecution
0 notes
Link
Malicious Prosecution Not Insurable in California
California Insurance Code § 533 Prohibits Insurance for Wilful Acts of the Insured
Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gyEa58mz and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gyam64WP and at https://lnkd.in/gqw6aETf and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4450 posts.
Aspen Specialty Insurance Company appealed from the district court order dismissing its complaint against Miller Barondess, LLP, and several of its partners (collectively “MB”). Aspen appealed to the Ninth Circuit in Aspen Specialty Insurance Company v. Miller Barondess, LLP Louis R. Miller; James Goldman; Alexander Frid; Jason Tokoro, No. 22-55032, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (March 15, 2023) who interpreted California Insurance Code § 533 as it related to a suit for malicious prosecution.
DISCUSSION
Under California statutory law, “[a]n insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the wilful act of the insured.” [Cal. Ins. Code § 533.]
Section 533 is considered a statement of the public policy of the state of California. It was enacted to prevent encouragement of wilful torts.
Section 533 is a codification of the jurisprudential maxim that no man shall profit from his own wrong. It is an implied exclusionary clause which, by statute, must be read into all insurance policies. As a result, the parties to an insurance policy cannot contract for such coverage.
THE TRIAL COURT
The district court concluded that § 533 did not apply because there was no final adjudication that the insureds engaged in malicious prosecution. The California Court of Appeal had concluded that § 533 precluded indemnification for an underlying malicious prosecution action, even though the matter had been settled without a final adjudication. California precedent confirmed that courts examine the allegations of the underlying complaint, not whether there has been an adjudication of the allegations, in determining whether § 533 bars coverage. Insurance coverage is precluded by Insurance Code § 533 as a matter of law.
The underlying complaint against MB alleged malicious prosecution, which is categorically a willful act within the meaning of § 533. This is so because malicious prosecution requires a wilful act.
DISCUSSION
Since the malicious prosecution action was not based on an innocent party’s vicarious liability for the wrongdoing of another the complaint alleged that the insureds themselves, not an agent or third party, engaged in the acts of malicious prosecution. For example, the complaint alleged that the insured knowingly submitted NMS’ perjured testimony to the trial court, and actively and knowingly assisted NMS in its fraudulent and malicious scheme.
The law firm thus could have been vicariously liable for the partner’s conduct. There was no question that the MB partners were acting in their capacity and within their authority when they litigated the action that became the subject of the malicious prosecution allegations.
The district court order dismissing Aspen’s complaint was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings and Aspen was awarded its costs on appeal.
ZALMA OPINION
When a law firm maliciously brings an action a knowing that the action is false and fraudulent and then presents false, perjured evidence in an attempt to prove the false case, it has acted wilfully and maliciously against the defendant. When the law firm lost the suit the defendant sued seeking damages for malicious prosecution and the lawyers sought defense and indemnity from its insurer. The Ninth Circuit found that since malicious prosecution is always wilful, § 533 prevented the insurer from defending or indemnifying the law firm Miller Barondess, LLP and lawyers Louis R. Miller; James Goldman; Alexander Frid; Jason Tokoro.
(c) 2023 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/publish/post/107007808
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected]
Follow me on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/comm/mynetwork/discovery-see-all?usecase=PEOPLE_FOLLOWS&followMember=barry-zalma-esq-cfe-a6b5257
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gfFKUaTf.
Consider subscribing to my publications at substack at https://lnkd.in/gcZKhG6g
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gWVSBde.
#insurance#claims#insurance claims#malice#malicious prosecution#intentional#excluded#Insurance Code Section 533#wilful#Wilfull#insurance books#amazon.com
0 notes
Text
Obama still had knowledged and approved of the CIA and FBI launching investigations of newly elected President Trump and many of the Trump Administration appointees based on fabricated information from the Obama Administration. Obama did not notify Trump, he only fanned the flames of Russia collusion and wrongdoing, misinformation that has cost people millions of dollars, their careers and in doing so, Obama knowingly and intentionally, maliciously, interfered with the orderly transition of power from one President to the next in violation of Federal Law.
Obama and those involved must be investigated, indicted, prosecuted, convicted, incarcerated.
#investigate. indict. prosecute. incarcerate.#Obama#Obama Administration#barack obama#Michelle obama#BLM#Obama turns out to be the very worst President in the History of the United States.#REPOST
344 notes
·
View notes
Text
Letitia James is accusing Trump of crimes she's already fucken committed, back in (2017) she secured a ($770K) loan on a property that was assessed at ($94K) dollars
(RT)
if you want Letitia James disbarred for abuse of power and malicious prosecution of Trump
458 notes
·
View notes
Text
I wish people would stop interpreting the stuff that happened with baby AFO as a telltale sign that he was evil rather than a series of tragic events that were completely out of his control. Especially because I get the feeling that Hori very purposefully reduced AFO to his “animalistic; non human” survival instincts as a means of representing what society thought of him. Hori is deliberately portraying young AFO’s actions to be more malicious than they actually were because his origins are being recalled from HIS pov. AFO wants you to think he was some sort of evil hyper intelligent toddler that was fully conscious of his actions, no matter how illogical that is (i cannot stress enough that he was an actually fucking baby nobody should be prosecuting a newborn child oh my god) (and leave toddler AFO out of this too)
85 notes
·
View notes
Photo
On this day, 18 June 1984, striking workers of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) in Britain were assaulted by 6,000 police officers at the Battle of Orgreave. The British government wanted to close 20 coal pits and lay off 20,000 workers. The resulting strike by the NUM was the largest post-World War II strike in Britain with up to 142,000 mineworkers participating. The strike lasted 51 weeks, through 3 March 1985, with no concessions to the workers. Thatcher herself called the workers “the enemy within.” The biggest confrontation of the strike was the Battle of Orgreave. Police armed with round shields and batons, and horse-mounted police, charged the miners. This was the first use of such aggressive tactics in Britain, which were imported from British colonial police forces’ experience suppressing riots of colonised peoples around the world. One officer has said they were instructed to “use as much force as possible,” and the miners were “actually doing nothing” when the charge occurred. 95 miners were arrested and charged with rioting. Many remained in prison while waiting a year for the cases to be brought before a judge. Within 10 days in court, the prosecutors withdrew the charges due to obvious signs of fabricated evidence and lies on the part of the police officers. Many of the miners sued for assault, wrongful arrest, and malicious prosecution, and the South Yorkshire Police paid out £425,000 in damages without admitting fault. In 2012, a BBC investigation revealed that many of the police statements may have been “coached” or fabricated, leading the modern South Yorkshire Police to submit itself to the review of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The IPCC declined to investigate, and the victims of the Battle of Orgreave are still waiting for full justice. Learn more about the dispute in our podcast series: https://workingclasshistory.com/tag/1984-5-miners-strike/ https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=646551040851448&set=a.602588028581083&type=3
188 notes
·
View notes
Text
Porcha Woodruff was eight months pregnant when Detroit police mistakenly arrested her for robbery and carjacking based on a faulty facial recognition match. She was held in jail for 11 hours, where she started having contractions, and had to be taken to the hospital upon her release on a $100,000 bond. “Being under that type of stress could have ultimately led me to lose my child,” says Woodruff. According to the ACLU, Woodruff is at least the sixth person — all of whom are Black — to report being falsely accused of a crime as a result of facial recognition technology. It is yet another case of what has been termed algorithmic bias, in which technology is trained on biased information, automating and further cementing existing oppression. “No one would take what I was saying seriously. It was as if I was already a suspect,” says Woodruff about her experience. She and attorney Ivan Land are now suing the city of Detroit for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
108 notes
·
View notes
Text
SUITS | 2.02
He doesn't want to force Mike to do something he doesn't want to. Harvey is too in love with that. But it was the right decision. Mike won't be able to build a relationship with someone who doesn't know about his secret. He doesn't know how to lie to those he loves. Therefore, all that remains for Harvey is to pat the newcomer on the back, gently touching the edge of hair growth and invite him to drink.
Now is the time for this. And if Mike falls asleep upset and drunk on Harvey's couch, continuing to cuddle under someone else's hands, then who is Harvey to deny a puppy a roof over his head? He has no malicious intent. Of course not. It's just that Harvey was the first to light stars in cornflower blue eyes, and he's going to be the only one. All he needs is to remove a sweet and kind assistant from the field of view of his equally sweet and kind assistant.
And if Harvey looks happier than usual the next day, you can sue him. Be prepared that he will rip you off like a stick, even though all this is the pure truth.
"So", Donna enters without asking, as usual, and looks piercingly, as if she already has the answers … as usual.
Harvey just arches an expressive eyebrow. The first rule if you are brought in for questioning is to close your mouth, you are not obliged to say anything.
Donna repeats his gesture and folds her arms over her chest, looking at him with a slight condescension. The prosecution went on the attack!
"Okay", Donna snorts and unceremoniously sits down on the chair in front of him.
"Yesterday you gave Mike a lecture about relationships, then took him out for a drink, and today you look too pleased for a man who was tormented by guilt because his assistant is a golden retriever who suffers for a girl. There's something wrong here", Donna doesn't ask—she claims.
"I still don't hear the question," Harvey shrugs.
Donna stares intently into his eyes and suddenly gasps. Her face lights up with an epiphany, and her gaze becomes predatory and dangerous. The blood is already in the water, and the shark can smell the victim.
"There was no guilt', Donna leans back in her chair.
Only she manages to sit on these uncomfortable chairs as if she is a queen who has condescended to receive servants. This woman is gorgeous.
"You didn't want him to date her because you only wanted him for yourself".
She's not asking again.
"It was the right choice, and I want to remind you that you agreed with him," Harvey shrugs.
It's a trap.
"Yes, but you didn't deny it".
"What's the point if you've already decided everything?" — counteroffensive.
"Oh, Harvey, it won't work on me — expected failure".
" What do you want to hear?", Harvey looks at her wearily. "I said what I had to say. Did I know that this would lead to certain consequences when…"
"Will the puppy be vulnerable, and will you be able to pick him up? Donna chuckles".
Harvey rolls his eyes.
"Call it what you want".
"Harvey," Donna's tone suddenly becomes serious. "If you started this game, then don't hurt him. Mike doesn't deserve this".
"Who do you take me for?", Harvey winces because Donna is unconsciously voicing his fears.
"For a man who does not know how to show emotions, and who hides any affection behind a thick—skinned armour", her answer is honest and ruthless as always. "Mike is all emotions, Harvey".
"And because of that, we have so many problems," he says.
"And that's why you like working with him so much. Think about it".
"I'm trying, okay?"
Donna stands up and straightens the folds of her dress.
"Do it or leave Rachel's boyfriend".
She leaves, clicking her heels loudly on purpose, looking so much like a proud lioness. Mike flies in after him, carrying folders. Tired and sleepless, but collected. Harvey looks him in the eye and thinks trying would be an insult.
Harvey will just do it. As always.
#suits#suits tv#harvey specter#suits usa#mike ross#harvey specter x mike ross#marvey#my fanfiction#fanfic#i am not a native english speaker#so i will be glad to receive feedback
72 notes
·
View notes
Text
Cam - The Unsung
Booth should add Cam's name to his list of saints. That woman has one HELL of a thankless job as the administrator of the Medico-Legal lab. The irony of her position is that the better she does her job, the less it looks like her position is needed. And being the calm, steady one in a team full of highly individualistic, radical personalities means that her own specialized intelligence often gets ignored. When you have 'works-on-a different-plane-of-thought' Brennan, affable-yet-utterly-mad scientist Hodgins, and queen-of-lateral-thinking Angela on your team, your astute leadership skills and pathological expertise are not given their due importance.
Which is a bloody travesty. The Medico-Legal lab's job is not only to determine the truth, but also to make certain that the analysis can be utilized and presented successfully in court. Before Cam, the team was essentially a group of genius scientists working on individual remains on an as-is basis. Booth was correct in Season 2 when he told Brennan that Cam's objective is to ensure a successful prosecution. And in order to safeguard the findings of the team from being thrown out on a legal technicality, she is bound by the rules of the Justice Dept, the FBI and the Jeffersonian board. It sucks that time and again her team chastise her for doing so.
I mean the poor woman was treated like a traitor by her team for not lying to the authorities when Brennan was framed by Pelant. I mean, sure Angela, Cam should just lie about the evidence implicating Brennan. It's not like evidence in murder cases has a long chain of custody, and any fudging would be soon discovered. It's not as though Cam wouldn't immediately nuke her career and possibly her freedom by actively sabotaging a Federal murder inquiry.
And look - I love Hodgins but I'm surprised how fans of the show either ignore or simply brush over the times he blatantly uses his financial privilege without considering the ramifications to other people. I mean seriously, do we really think he would be so free to full off half his shenanigans if he wasn't the last scion of the Cantilever group, and thus enjoyed donor privilege? He regularly swipes items from other departments and exhibits, often without approval. He brews alcohol in Jeffersonian owned instruments and sets off minor explosions. His intentions are never ever malicious, and he is genuinely an adult version of the boy who loved to take everything apart to see how things worked. But let's face it - ANY other person would have faced severe consequences for these actions. Remember the Founder's Day party? It would have been Cam's job to take the heat for the decimated Mexican succulents and unauthorized drinking in the workplace. I wonder just how much she's shielded her team from - and whether she's ever been acknowledged.
Gods even in the episode where Wendell comes back after his chemo and lets Cam know that he takes medical marijuana to deal with the pain - did she have ANY recourse but to let him go? She stuck her neck out for Finn but Caroline bulldozed her, and with justifiable reason. She was stuck between the same rock and hard place with Wendell. And wow, the way Angela and Hodgins immediately painted her as a moustache twirling villain laughing at Wendell's pain infuriated me. They should realize how hypocritical their stance is - after all when Brennan left for Maluku and Booth for Afghanistan they had a proper cause and mission. Hodgins and Angela left simply because they could, and because they didn't want to put in the effort of breaking in a new team, however temporarily. Cam was left in the dust.
So here's to Camille Saroyan - woman of infinite patience, empathy and the ability to handle rambunctious adults. May she one day get the recognition she deserves.
72 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
lil-ace-of-spades
Just a Small City Local
lieci
Untitled
laserbobcat
Recovering Artist
women-rule-my-world
i fall to my knees
thesetupwizard
The Setup Wizard