On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee brilliantly proved that Hollywood can take a break. The entire country, holding their breath and preparing several packs of disposable handkerchiefs, watched the meeting of this commission all day, in which senators questioned Christina Ford and Supreme Court candidate Bret Kavanaugh. Christina, as you know, unexpectedly, but very timely, remembered that Bret almost raped her thirty-six years ago, and Bret had no such memories.
Christina was the first to speak, describing everything rather colorfully and interrupting from time to time for restrained sobs, after which, as it should be according to the regulations, each member of the commission was given five minutes to ask Christina questions. The Republicans decided not to interrogate Christina and entrusted this difficult task to a former Arizona sex crime prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, who asked questions on the merits, but since, according to the rules of the commission, Democrats and Republicans alternated, the professional interrogation was constantly interrupted by five minutes of speeches by Democrats beating themselves in chest and saying that they believe Christina, and praising her for her courage and heroism, thanks to which she found the strength to speak at public hearings. Someone even managed to shove the magic word “Trump” into their speech and even remembered the long-forgotten children of illegal immigrants who are taken away from their parents at the border.
Christina continued to sob from time to time and tried to convince everyone that the tragedy that happened to her thirty-six years ago was forever imprinted in her mind, but she constantly forgot everything and got confused in her testimony. She did not remember where it happened and when, and forgot how she got to this party and how she left there, and all the participants in this event named to her unanimously, although in writing, nevertheless, under oath, declared that nothing they don’t remember this, and her best friend Leland wrote that she didn’t know Bret at all, which, however, didn’t bother Christina at all, who immediately explained that Leland now has health problems, so she only takes care of herself and mixed everything up.
Christina herself was confused not only in the events of thirty-six years ago, which can be understood, but also in the events of late July - early August of this year, when she sent a letter to Dianne Feinstein, after which she was advised to take a lawyer and just in case be checked on a lie detector. On the way, it turned out that the story with her fear of flying, because of which this meeting was postponed several times, turned out to be a fiction for the sake of dragging out time, because a couple of months ago she flew safely from California to Delaware, and then to New Hampshire, and in holidays to Latin America also flies regularly, and she passed the lie detector very successfully literally at the time of the funeral of some close relative, so apparently it was not difficult to deceive him at such an unpleasant moment, especially considering that she was only asked if it was true she wrote in a handwritten statement specially prepared for the lie detector, many times corrected and crossed out.
After Christina, Bret Kavanaugh spoke, on whom the media had already put an end to it, because Christina's tears convinced them, despite memory lapses and the absence of at least one witness who was ready to confirm her accusation. But Cavanaugh also delivered a very emotional speech, which slightly shook the confidence of some media, after which he was amicably, but, as expected by the regulations, the Democrats attacked him through one, trying to find out exactly how much beer he could drink at a time and what the words meant, which he wrote in his school album. There was a lively discussion about the subtle differences in the American idioms “passed out” (passed out) and “blacked out” (passed out), and Cavanaugh was long, but unsuccessfully tried to find out if he ever woke up in a different place than he fell asleep.
Kavanaugh kept a diary from an early age, carefully marking life events on the calendar and recording who was present at the parties, and carefully kept all these records, so he brought extracts for the summer of 1982 to the hearing, confirming his innocence. The Democrats tried to get him to say that he did not mind the FBI investigation, but Kavanaugh only smiled in response, and Commission Chairman Chuck Grasley was forced several times to explain that the Commission itself can conduct an investigation, and the FBI investigation is essentially no different from an affidavit. witnesses named Christina.
Unexpectedly, the star of this performance was Lindsay Graham, who made a vivid speech and accused his fellow Democrats of ruining the lives of both Christina and Bret in pursuit of their political points, after which he said that he did not understand how, after such hearings, at least one Republican can vote against Kavanaugh, and in doing so he looked very menacingly at Jeff Flake, who persisted in his unwillingness to support Kavanaugh. Everyone liked Lindsay's speech so much that after the end of the meeting, when the Republicans went to deliberate, his appearance was met with a storm of applause.
When Senate commissions consider someone's candidacy and stories like this arise, the commission quietly talks to the candidate and the accuser, sorts it out, and as a result either ignores this application, or the candidate withdraws his candidacy without giving specific reasons. But the commission's top Democrat, Diane Feinstein, who received Christine's letter at the end of July, decided to go her own way, saying nothing to anyone and revealing the existence of the letter only on the eve of Kavanaugh's vote, which eventually led to these hearings, but in the end it turned out to be very sideways for her, because the Republicans asked her a lot of unpleasant questions that she could not answer or answered so unconvincingly that she later had to justify herself on Twitter. Particularly unconvincing was her answer to the question of where the text of Christina's letter got into the media, if this letter was in fact only Diane and Christina's lawyers, and whether her assistants had a hand in this. Diane immediately said that “I am not me and the cow is not mine,” and she did not ask assistants, because even this could not have crossed her mind. One of the assistants immediately whispered something to her, and Diane, without even having time to finish the previous phrase, immediately said, “Ah! I forgot, I asked them, and they denied everything.”
Utah Republican Senator Orin Hatch, who was asked after the hearing if he thought Christina was sincere, said "it's definitely just that she was genuinely wrong."
Trump, like the rest of America, watched this meeting without looking up, because of which he even had to reschedule the meeting with Rod Rosenstein to the beginning of next week, so the answer to the question of whether Rod's career had already ended or not remained unknown.
Jeff Flake after these hearings continued to hesitate for some time and disturbing news came from the bowels of the Republican Party that there were not enough votes, because two more partially Republican women Susan Collins and Lisa Mirkowski were going to vote "no", but by Friday morning everything was safely resolved and Jeff Flake broke down, followed by Susan and Lisa, and they were immediately joined by a couple of Democrats, who are facing re-elections in a month in the states convincingly won by Trump. Today there is a vote in the judicial commission, and this process can drag on for several hours, because it is usually accompanied by long speeches, especially if it is shown on television. The vote of the entire Senate has already been scheduled for tomorrow (Saturday), but due to complex and intricate Senate rules, the final vote will not take place until next Tuesday, because the entire Saturday will be devoted to some kind of preparatory procedural vote.
P.S. Some Democrats, believing that everyone around them are fools, began to say that Kavanaugh is much worse than the previous Chief Justice Neil Gorsuch appointed under Trump, because Gorsuch's candidacy was confirmed by the Senate and the Democrats did not even think about sexual harassment. The people, as it turned out, remember the events of last summer quite well, and the Democrats then also unanimously boycotted Gorsuch's candidacy, hoping that he would not be approved, because this required sixty votes, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, using another hole in the Senate rules , with an unwavering hand, canceled this rule, after which the usual simple majority became enough for the confirmation of the Supreme Justice, and the main Senate crocodile Chuck Schumer then grossly erred because he thought that McConnell would not go for it.
A program for those who have nothing to lose.Complementing the previously described, for those who want to win, I offer step-by-step instructions on the next page
(Expert).
Below, techniques that blow up lawsuits, up-to-date information that allows you not only to apply proven methods, but also to find your own successful solutions in any situation.
By interrogating you, you will form the judge's image of a competent person who analyzes the trial, feels the most subtle tendencies and knows how to use them.
Methods of judicial interrogation.
The first method of interrogation (Deceptive clarification or false questioning).
You, as a manipulator, pretend that you want to clarify something for yourself, you ask again, but you repeat the necessary words only at the beginning and then partially, introducing a different meaning to what was said earlier, thereby changing the general meaning of what was said to please yourself. Be extremely attentive, listen to what they say to you, and if you notice a catch, clarify what was said earlier.
The second technique of interrogation (Jumping with that, deliberate haste).
Strive after voicing any information hastily move on to another topic. Reorienting the expert's attention to new information, which means the likelihood that the previous information that was not "protested" may reach the subconscious of the judge-rapporteur (if the information reaches the subconscious, after a while it is realized by the person, i.e. passes into consciousness ). And strive to strengthen your information with an emotional load. A positive bonus of this technique, as a result of haste and jumping topics, a large number of topics are “voiced” in a short period of time; which means that “censorship of the psyche” will not let everything pass through itself - the probability of penetration of the necessary information into the subconscious of the listener (judge) increases.
The third method of interrogation (Inattention and indifference).
Try as indifferently as possible to perceive both the interlocutor and the information received, the expert will begin to try at all costs to convince you of his significance. I assure you the number of "useful" facts from the expert will grow with each sentence, just to convince everyone of their competence. Receiving those that the expert was not going to spread earlier.
Fourth Interrogation Technique (Condescension Effect).
"Through time" try to show the expert "your weakness" incompetence. The principle of the expert's indulgence will work here, which means that the censorship of his psyche will go into a relaxed mode. Consciousness will become dull and ... perhaps there will be a chance to "hook it by a loose tongue."
Fifth technique of interrogation (Excessive respect).
Act out excessive respect, veneration, etc. So you will achieve incomparably more than if you openly asked for something.
The sixth method of interrogation (Pressure and anger).
This is possible as a result of your unmotivated rage. The expert will have an inner desire to calm and defuse the situation. Why is he subconsciously ready to make soft concessions.
Seventh example of interrogation (Tempo).
You need to push through some of your ideas at a fast pace of speech. This is also possible when the judge speaks about the lack of time.
Combine techniques, change them in a chaotic sequence. So you exhaust the mind of an expert and lead him to the necessary monologue, which will form the basis for refuting the conclusions of the forensic examination.
State experts apply certified methods that have been certified and recommended by a government agency.
On the scientific basis of expertise;
On the scientific validity of the methods;
On the correctness of the choice and application of methods;
About certification or exclusivity, applied methodology;
On the degree of reliability of the conclusions.
—
Where are the documents confirming the size of the shares of co-owners reflected in the examination?
(In the forensic examination, I did not find a certificate of shared ownership of the parties. This means that the objectivity of the expert during the forensic examination was violated (Article 8 of the Federal Law -73 “On state forensic activities in the territory of the Russian Federation” was violated))
- Where is the opinion of the parties on the possible options for the division of home ownership recorded and assessed?
(In the forensic examination there are no references to the decision of the justice of the peace, objections and demands of the parties. The expert did not fully examine the case materials, in fact, did not answer the question of the “possibility” of dividing the household. (Article 16 of the Federal Law -73 was violated))
- Does your version of the division of home ownership correspond to the option indicated in the decision of the justice of the peace and in the stated requirements of Ivanova O.N.?
(This question raises the question of possible agreement with the materials of the case and the end of the trial on the factually resolved case).
- Why is the variant of the division of home ownership by decision of the justice of the peace not calculated and proposed?
- Why are outbuildings considered as living quarters in their versions of the section?
(Each question must be posed as a student to demonstrate the expert's lack of general background knowledge)
— Is it possible to live in outbuildings and attic?
(The question, of course, with a clear and understandable answer, but for some reason, in the examination, both utility and residential premises and the attic belong to residential premises)
- Is the attic insulated and is it equipped with a heating system?
(This question was not disclosed at all in the contested examination. There is no answer to this question, which means that the residential building was not fully examined (Article 16 of the Federal Law -73 was violated))
- On the basis of what standard to the detriment of Ivanova O.N. increased by several times the share of residential space?
(The area of one of the co-shareholders was unreasonably reduced by half. Which violates the legal basis of the forensic examination, Article 3 of the Federal Law -73))
- Why is the proposed section of the total, and not living space?
(This issue is reflected in the methodology, which is usually referred to by all building experts. The goal is to show the judge the deep knowledge of the expert.)
- According to what standard and for what number of persons is the calculation of 8 m2 of living space proposed?
(According to the standard known only to the expert, 8m2 is assigned either to one person, or to a co-owner, or to several persons. The expert simply did not disclose this standard.)
- What standards and programs were used to calculate the repair and installation work?
(All calculations presented by the expert are not verifiable and not clear. Calculations for repair and construction work, according to his own approval on page 11 of the examination, should be made on the basis of TSN 30-303-200 "Territorial building codes." Calculation of construction and installation works using verifiable methods in the examination not disclosed.)
- Who and at whose expense is obliged to carry out the reconstruction of a residential building?
(This question was generally skipped by the expert and left unanswered)
— Where on the examination plans is it proposed to take into account the communication section?
(The expert is repeatedly brought to the question of the incompleteness of the forensic examination)
- Where is the expensive heating equipment located before the division and where should the expensive heating equipment be located after the division of the household?
- What method was used to calculate the wear of the supporting structures of the reconstructed residential building?
(Experts constantly write about methods, but do not describe them in the research part. Unfoundedness is not verified. (Article 8 of the Federal Law -73 is violated)
— How were the load-bearing structures examined?
(An expert who did not set out the methodology for detailed measurements will not be able to answer the question posed. In fact, an examination was not carried out.)
— Do you have a completed basic higher education as a construction expert or civil engineer under the state program?
(This is the last and “finishing” question about the complete incompetence of a forensic expert in the eyes of a judge)
The examiner should also ask the following questions:
- why was it used only for these options?;
- Are there different methods for establishing the fact that a section of home ownership has been completed?;
- are there any other methods and why did the expert choose this particular method? (The expert must explain his choice).
Ask a question about the validity of his conclusions:
- What criteria for evaluating the results of the study are provided for in this methodology?;
- were there enough signs, their number, totality in order to draw conclusions on these materials?
Demand the presentation of the expert methodology for review, so that the expert shows the methodology used by him and shows the rules that formed the basis of his conclusion.
How to win over a judge during an interrogation?
The “first impression” of ourselves in the first few seconds we form not only by clothes, but also thanks to his movements or gestures. These few seconds usually decide the opinion of a person for the first half an hour. How long does the appeal process take? Correctly 5 - 10 minutes. So how can you improve your body language to create a positive impression of yourself?
1. Pay attention to how you move.
Watch yourself from the side. For example, you can watch videos with your participation and objectively assess how pleasing to the eye your body movements are.
2. Find faults in your movements and eliminate them.
Pay attention to how other people who deservedly arouse your sympathy move. For example, popular public figures (just don’t shoot everything “carbon copy” - this will make you funny in the eyes of others).
3.
Relaxand don't touch anything hands.
In any situation, try to feel comfortable. What problem do people have when they feel insecure? They don't know what to do with their hands. Free your hands and move them in time with what you are saying. These are “open” gestures: show your palms, move your hands in the direction from yourself to the listener, the body should speak with different gestures.
4. Smile and mirror.
Smiling has a positive effect on our image. Body language without mirroring is like a conversation between the blind and the deaf. In order to better communicate with the interlocutor - borrow his manner of moving. Here it is important to observe the measure. Just “map out” certain movements that your interlocutor performs.
How to appoint a forensic expert?
What would seem to be the question? How they got up and got up. But in fact, let the judge see the face of an expert who tries to hide his eyes. Your back will not spoil the relationship with the judge. There is already a common phrase " people lie at least once every 10 minutes».
To begin with, let's find out what the lie of an expert is manifested in?
- A liar often responds using your own wording.
- The liar often pronounces phrases in full, speaks in a cardboard-literary way.
- The liar often tries to avoid a direct answer.
- A liar will often say more than necessary to sound more convincing.
- A liar often emphasizes pronouns and nouns in speech.
- A liar often mumbles, mutters and stammers.
- The body of the liar is constrained, hands do not touch the chest, often touches the earlobe, avoids eye contact.
- There is also an observation that the emotion of a liar manifests itself on the face, in gestures and a trembling voice after a long time.
That is why the expert must face the judges. How do you stand during interrogation? Yes, what's the difference, at least sit.
Thinking about how to refute a forensic examination?
I will write questions for interrogation of the expert.
Interrogation with predilection
The Commission of Inquiry immediately took action. Already at the first interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to everything that could really be blamed on them. They did not deny either that on various occasions they spoke sharply and impartially about the Empress and her dissolute personal life, nor that they resolutely condemned the excesses of her favorites and mocked them. They further confessed that they often discussed among themselves the general discontent and the demand to restore the former government, and pointed out as the reason for this the indifference of the monarch to all public questions and the resulting abuse of power by her ministers and servants. Everyone with whom they had ever spoken even a few words about it was immediately isolated. Soon no one in St. Petersburg felt safe. And yet, despite the terrorism employed by this new Inquisition, led by Lestocq, the case did not move forward, so that the Frenchman, who did not stop at any means, urged the queen to subject the accused to interrogation with prejudice.
Although Elizabeth remained firm in keeping her word given to Razumovsky, she nevertheless pondered how to get around it, and suddenly, turning to Lestok, she said:
“I found a solution, just let me do it, and I’ll make these bastards make a confession.”
The next day, in the evening, an officer entered the prison where the young Ivan Lapukhin was kept, ordered to put shackles on him and put him in a covered sleigh standing ready. After a short trip, they went out into the gateway of a building completely unfamiliar to the prisoner, and along the corridor, through a suite of rooms, the officer led him to a small chamber furnished with cozy luxury, where he told him to wait. First, an elderly servant appeared and freed him from his chains, then a tall lady came out of the next room, wrapped in a spacious cloak of black silk and under such a thick veil that only a pair of large imperious eyes sparkled through a dense veil, whose gaze was fixed on him.
“You have so far withstood the trials that have fallen to your lot, my friend,” the lady began, sinking into a high-backed chair, “that we can treat you with complete confidence. So know that I, too, belong to a ramified conspiracy against the existing government, which has supporters everywhere; The officer who brought you here is also our man. You are free, free thanks to us, but we hope that by joining us you will dedicate your freedom to only one goal: to overthrow this terrible tyrant sitting on the Russian throne.
“But I don’t know anything,” young Lapukhin replied ingenuously, “and I don’t want to know about anything. I've had enough fear in my dungeon. Don't count on me in this disastrous business.
“But your mother, as you know, is involved in a conspiracy,” said the veiled lady quickly.
“Perhaps,” Lapukhin replied, “although I doubt it.
“Didn’t she insult the queen at every opportunity?”
- Of course, but this is not treason.
- Do you think? said the lady. - So, you approve when someone touches the honor of the Empress, you probably also hate her, this gallant and windy woman.
“I only condemn the fact that she gives so much power to her favorites to the detriment of the state.
“And that’s why you feel disgust for her and even, probably, you yourself consider her a real ugly thing, otherwise her beauty, about which there is so much talk about her, extolling her, should have disarmed you.
“I also consider the queen a beauty,” Lapukhin said.
- Desired beauty? the veiled lady asked quickly.
- Certainly.
“So you, therefore, would not refuse to become one of her favorites yourself?”
- ABOUT! Of course I would not refuse, I would even be happy.
“Why didn’t you ever tell her that she was beautiful and that you would be happy to use her grace?” the lady continued.
“I didn’t get a good opportunity,” Lapukhin replied.
“Well, tell her now,” the lady exclaimed, and with these words she threw off her cloak and veil.
Lapukhin cried out in astonishment; before him stood the queen in all her seductive beauty, such as he had never seen her before, the folds of a silver-gray silk dress flowed from her hips to the ground, a close-fitting jacket of blue silk, generously trimmed with royal ermine fur, emphasized the perfect splendor of her marble bust and arms. She smiled and extended her hand to him.
“Well, you look more frightened than delighted, Lapukhin.
“I don’t know what to think,” the young man stammered in indescribable confusion.
“You must think that I wish you well,” the queen replied, “and that such happiness awaits you, which falls to the lot of very few, but you too should be grateful to your monarch for the favor she shows you, and immediately tell everything that you know about the conspiracy of your mother and Countess Bestuzheva with the Marquis von Botta and which you have kept silent until now.
“I didn’t hide anything, Your Majesty,” Lapukhin said in a trembling voice.
“Are you afraid that your confessions might ruin you?” The empress responded briskly. “Very well, I guarantee you, and your mother too, full release from liability, but in return I demand that you spare no one.
“But your majesty, I swear to you that I have already voluntarily told everything that I knew,” said the poor young man, trembling like an aspen leaf.
“You are mistaken if you think that your stubbornness will bring you some benefit,” said the empress, threateningly frowning her beautiful eyebrows, “if I see that my kindness to you is wasted, then I have other means at my disposal to untie you language.
“My God, I really don’t have anything else to confess,” Lapukhin murmured.
“So you want to experience austerity for yourself?”
"Your Majesty, I swear to you..."
- Confess! - this imperious beautiful woman shouted at him, imperiously coming close to him.
"I don't know anything at all...
Well, we'll see that. - The queen pulled back the curtain and made a sign to the executioner, who stood ready behind her with his henchmen. “Here is one goose whose tongue you must untie,” she joked cruelly, “take care of him.”
The henchmen grabbed and tied Lapukhin, then the executioner threw a noose around the unfortunate neck and, in this form, dragged him out of the room to the courtroom located next to it, where, sitting at a long table, the commission of inquiry was already waiting for him. The queen followed them.
“So, Your Majesty will now allow us to interrogate him under torture?” Lestock began.
“No,” the queen answered quickly, “but there are other means.
- What, your majesty?
“We really somehow didn’t think about it,” Trubetskoy said.
“But I thought,” Elizabeth smiled, “he should be whipped until he confesses everything.”
“Have mercy, your Majesty,” Lapukhin pleaded, throwing himself at her feet, “I don’t know anything, I confessed to everything, I’m innocent.
However, the queen remained deaf to his tears and requests, she made a sign to the executioner to start interrogation with passion. His henchmen lifted Lapukhin from the floor and hung him by outstretched arms from a beam usually used for torture, the executioner approached him from behind, holding a whip in his sinewy hand, and struck him on the back. Lapukhin gasped.
“More diligently, my friend, more diligently,” shouted the queen, who took her place on a nearby chair.
Rapid and merciless blows rained down.
What else can you confess? Trubetskoy asked the accused.
“I have already confessed everything, I have nothing more to add,” he groaned plaintively.
- Do you remember any other episodes concerning the complicity of the Marquis Botta in this case? Lestok shouted.
The executioner continued to work with the whip.
“Forgive me,” Lapukhin called out, “I don’t know anything except what has already been entered in the protocol, would I have spared an outsider after I had so gravely accused my own mother? Think about it, please, and show mercy!
Trubetskoy looked at the queen, who, however, ordered the flogging to continue. Only after Lapukhin received fifty blows, but did not change his testimony, did she order him to stop and untie him. The unfortunate man, unconscious, sank to the floor and, in this form, was sent to the dungeon. Now his mother, Mrs. Lapukhina, was brought into the hall. At first, the queen stared at her ill-fated rival for some time with a cruel smile, then loudly ordered her to be hung on a terrible beam and interrogated under whips. The poor woman, a victim of her own beauty, was already hanging on a torture pole, the executioner had already swung his whip, but she remained firm and, to the question of the prosecutor general, answered: let them tear her to pieces, but she will never in the world begin to incriminate herself and can add nothing more to what she previously confessed to doing and knowing.
The empress even seemed to like her admirable steadfastness, for at her sign they untied Lapukhin again, without giving him a taste of the whip. Countess Bestuzheva was interrogated in a similar way, and when she, in the same way, without being frightened, only confirmed her previous testimony, she was also untied.
The process then proceeded as usual. First of all, it was important for Lestocq to present the Austrian envoy Marquis Botta as the head of the conspiracy, and thus forever link the foreign policy of the Empress with the interests of France. The accused were given to understand that they themselves could count on mercy, accusing Botta as the main instigator of all intrigues, and, in the end, they managed to move them to admit that the Austrian envoy called for the release of the exiles and the overthrow of the existing government. Lestok's attempt to compromise the Bestuzhevs, on the contrary, was unsuccessful. All the defendants unanimously stated that they had never informed either the minister or Chief Marshal Bestuzhev about their plans. When Lestok, nevertheless, could not resist and opened the papers of the chief marshal, this only led to the fact that the innocence of the latter was fully confirmed.
When all the ways to extract some more information turned out to be exhausted, the Empress convened a large Council to pass a verdict. It said: death by breaking the wheel. The manifesto declared the women Lapukhina and Bestuzhev to be traitors to the state, who, with the help of the Marquis Botta, tried to incite the people to revolt.
The Empress gave life to all the accused and commuted the death sentence to whipping.
Interrogation La question Genre Drama Director Laurent Heinemann Producer Jacques Offrere Claude Gedge Bertrand Tavernier ... Wikipedia
BUT; m. Interrogation of the accused, witness, etc. to clarify the circumstances of a case, crime, etc. D. witnesses. Interrogation protocol. Summon to the village of Vesti d. Subject to interrogation. Crossroads (conducted alternately by the prosecutor and the defense counsel). D. with ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary
interrogation- but; m. see also. interrogator, interrogator a) Interrogation of the accused, witness, etc. to clarify the circumstances of a case, crime, etc. Interrogation / with witnesses. Interrogation protocol. Call for interrogation / s ... Dictionary of many expressions
I, cf. 1. Strong inclination, attraction to something l. [Nejdanov] had no passion for music. Turgenev, Nov. Vanya's only real passion was the circus. Ketlinskaya, Days of our life. 2. Prejudice against whom, what l .; ... ... Small Academic Dictionary
I; cf. 1. Strong inclination, attraction to something l. P. to the theater. Have a paragraph to the photo. The only item. The real item. The circus is mine item 2. Prejudice against whom, what l .; prejudice. Find p. in judgments. Experiencing a clear p. to Buddhists. ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary
predilection- I; cf. see also with passion, without passion 1) Strong inclination, attraction to something l. Addiction to the theatre. Have an addiction to photography. The only attachment/… Dictionary of many expressions
A. Preliminary C. 1) The concept and limits of preliminary C. The judicial investigation of a crime is divided into two sections: preparatory and final. The preparatory study aims to clarify the event of the crime, to outline it ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron
This term has other meanings, see War of Independence. Algerian War of Independence ... Wikipedia
Danil Koretsky Birth name: Danil Arkadyevich Koretsky Date of birth ... Wikipedia
addicted, addictions, cf. 1. Strong inclination, attraction. Addiction to gambling. Passion for music. 2. Unfair preference, the lack of a fair, objective attitude towards someone to something. Passion in judgments. ... ... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov
This term has other meanings, see Doomed City. This article needs to be completely rewritten. There may be explanations on the talk page ... Wikipedia
Books
- Antikiller-3. Interrogation with passion (MP3 audiobook on 2 CDs), Danil Koretsky. The most famous novel by the classic Russian detective Danil Koretsky has finally received a sequel. The world of Tikhodonsk has changed little: thieves and bandits, showdowns and skirmishes, corrupt ... audiobook
- Antikiller-3. Interrogation with prejudice, Danil Koretsky. The most famous novel by the classic Russian detective Danil Koretsky has finally received a sequel. "Antikiller" and "Antikiller-2" are books that are in every third Russian house. ...
