"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" wasn't "havoc" in just the modern sense of chaos, it was a particular order that was understood as heinous even in Shakespeare's day, authorization after battle was over to slaughter and pillage, both debilitated enemies and noncombatants, without restraint.

After the war, the planters reasserted themselves (in part by taking over confiscated Loyalist property), bought new slaves and began the shift to cotton cultivation. Enslavement could
not exist without strong law, and arguably the Revolution re-entrenched slavery in the South. (2)

and it applies to buildings built before 1978 *or buildings that replace those buildings*

why the fuck would anybody build anything in LA lmao

it's like they read all the arguments for why rent control is bad as a checklist

/4 The point is that the NYT has chosen a very specific way to look at the world — one of fatuous moral and political equivalence — and can’t expect anyone to read its stories outside of that frame. It’s perfectly plausible to think the Times would say “rape is bad. But the lost camaraderie!”

Seems likely to me this is a case of Halligan telling the foreperson "oh this is totally normal, sign this one which reflects the charges the grand jury approved."

They wouldn't know that's a fraud on the court. Halligan would or should know.