text:
"A vortex of freedom": HOROVOD festival is merging queer euphoria and Slavic tradition
A collaboration between Russian and Ukrainian promoters, the Moscow festival is a sanctuary for the LGBTQI+ community
Words: Aneesa Ahmed | Photography: Sasha Mademuaselle
Check out a selection of images from this year's HOROVOD festival, alongside a series of exclusive mixes recorded during the festival's latest edition
Across September 4 to 7, HOROVOD threw the third edition of its celebration of queerness, Slavic culture and community in Moscow.
The three-day festival was held at the city's hugely anticipated new nightspot Mutabor, with attendees gathering from across Russia and the surrounding region after a turbulent 18 months to celebrate queer arts and music.
Read this next: Raves not war: How Shum is building a new future for war-torn Eastern Ukraine
The event was "all-encompassing" according to organiser Nikita Egorov-Kirillov, who told Mixmag that HOROVOD had wanted to "give more space for different types of queer art, integrate performances into the storytelling and communicate the rules." The rules and overall ethos of the festival, are based on practising tolerance and welcoming diversity, and that sexism, homophobia, transphobia and racism are not welcome to their sanctuary.
HOROVOD Festival is a collaboration between Moscow-based queer party Popoff Kitchen and Ukrainian LGBTQI+ friendly techno party Veselka Kyiv. In the September celebration, there were performances from both local artists and international acts, including Abelle, Sofia Rodina and Nastia Reigel, Projekt Gestalten, SHEIS, Nazira, and Cestlek.
Popoff Kitchen and Veselka residents including Kirill Shapovalov, Sexstasy, Raumtester, Roma, Mays, Nastya Muravyova, S.A. Tweeman, Vani Vachi, also joined in the festivities.
The name HOROVOD comes from the name of an ancient Russian and Ukrainian form of dance called "khorovod." One of the oldest forms of dance in the world, khorovod is a circular dance that would be used as a way to join together communities and match potential couples.
Nikita describes khorovod as "the grandfather of rave", and said that organisers had wanted from the beginning to celebrate their own local culture, including Slavic folklore and tradition, as part of this event. The visuals of the festival, designed by Rakan Suleiman, featured khorovod formations.
Organiser Stas Tweeman recounted the event as being a "vortex of freedom, art and self-expression experience."
"The atmosphere was filled with notes of kindness and tolerance, also sexually liberated in its most beautiful way - a lot of naked beautiful people who are not ashamed of their nudity united in one single organism."
Read this next: 15 photos from Клуб "the wildest club in Russia"
"We managed to create a unique atmosphere and gather so many open-minded people. Every chapter we get to contribute with more multidisciplinary artists from all around the world."
Despite massive demand for tickets from fans, organisers have made it clear that they would like to keep the event intimate, as it's what made the event special. Following the success of Moscow's version, there are currently plans for the festival to be brought to a new location in Europe.


He's played with some of music's top recording artists and he's even been nominated for a Grammy. I'm talking about our very own Guillermo Rodriguez, who by day is a field service operations supervisor at CPS Energy but at night plays the bass for the popular local band "Finding Friday." The band puts on an electrifying show for audiences all around San Antonio.
For a list of Guillermo's scheduled appearances, visit Finding Friday's website.


text:
Request A Confidential Consultation
CALL TO SCHEDULE A CONFIDENTIAL CONSULTATION
Federal Criminal
Sex Crimes Lawyer
Federal Sex Crimes
Texas State Sex Crimes
Federal Drug Crimes
Drug Crimes Lawyer
Criminal Appeal Lawyer
Firearms Crimes
Murder / Homicide
John T. Floyd
Christopher M. Choate
Bastrop/Elgin, TX
Bellville, TX
Beaumont Sex Crimes Defense
Brazoria/Pearland/Freeport, TX
Brenham/Caldwell, TX
Cameron County Sex Crimes Defense
Bryan/College Station, TX
Coldspring, TX
Columbus, TX
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
El Campo/Wharton, TX
El Paso Sex Crimes Defense
Galveston/League City, TX
Hempstead, TX
Killeen/Temple/Belton, TX
LaGrange, TX
Livingston, TX
Lubbock Sex Crimes Lawyer
Lufkin,TX
Lufkin Sex Crimes Defense
McAllen, Edinburg Sex Crimes Defense
Midland/Odessa, TX
Midland/Odessa Sex Crimes Defense
Navasota,/Anderson, TX
Sugar Land/Richmond, TX
Waco Sex Crimes Lawyer
Previous Post: GIDEON'S GREAT GRANDCHILDREN
Next Post: MORE IMMUNITY FOR ROGUE PROSECUTORS
Apr.19
SCOTUS: MORE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE LITIGATION
Posted By: John Floyd
Category: Federal Criminal Law | Uncategorized
Ineffective-Assistance-Of-Trial-Counsel Claims Not Barred From Federal Habeas if Ineffective Counsel at Initial State Habeas Proceeding
By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down its third major decision this term dealing with ineffective assistance of counsel, Martinez v. Ryan. (The other two decisions can be found here and here.) Martinez deals with counsel who failed to take specific steps to protect a state prisoner's right to present an ineffective assistance counsel claim in state post-conviction proceedings—a professional dereliction that procedurally barred the state prisoner from having the claim heard in federal court.
And what exactly is a "procedural bar," more commonly referred to as a "procedural default? A federal court will almost always refuse to hear a state prisoner's claimed constitutional violation presented in a federal habeas proceeding if the prisoner failed to present the claim in state court in the precise manner mandated by state procedural rules governing collateral attacks. A state prisoner can only get around a procedural bar by demonstrating either 1) cause to excuse the default and actual prejudice suffered by because of an alleged violation of federal law or 2) the failure to review the alleged violation would "result in a marriage of justice."
Luis Mariano Martinez was convicted in the State of Arizona for a sexual offense involving a minor. Under Arizona law, as in Texas and most other states, Martinez was constitutionally and statutorily entitled to a "direct appeal" to a state court of appeals and to the Arizona Supreme Court. In Arizona, and in Texas, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not favored on direct appeal. Because such claims generally require a factual development, state courts generally require that these claims be raised in a post-conviction application—in Arizona, the collateral proceeding is known as "post-conviction relief" while in Texas it is habeas corpus relief. The Supreme Court in Martinez elected to call these post-conviction remedies "initial-review collateral proceedings."
Martinez's ineffective assistance claim against his trial counsel centered around two primary issues:
Defense counsel did not object to testimony by a state expert witness that recanted testimony in child sexual abuse cases is not uncommon. The State introduced a forensic interview with the child detailing the abuse; however, at trial the victim said no abuse occurred.
Defense counsel did not pursue an exculpatory explanation for Martinez's DNA being found on the victim's nightgown. The State offered the DNA as evidence indicating sexual abuse.
As happens in most cases following conviction, especially in cases involving appointed counsel, trial counsel is replaced by post-conviction counsel.
Martinez was appointed a post-conviction attorney who filed his direct appeal raising a number of issues, including insufficient evidence to convict and newly discovered evidence. While Martinez's direct appeal was pending, the attorney initiated post-conviction proceedings by filing a "Notice of Post-Conviction Relief." However, the attorney did not raise an ineffectiveness claim regarding trial counsel's performance and, in fact, later filed a statement with the trial court that she could not find any "colorable claims" in the case. As required by Arizona post-conviction procedures, the court hearing the post-conviction application informed Martinez through counsel that he had 45 days to file a pro se petition raising any claim he wanted to protect. The attorney did not inform Martinez of this requirement, thus he did not file a pro se petition. The trial court denied post-conviction relief—a decision upheld by the Arizona appellate courts.
Eighteen months later, represented by a new attorney, Martinez filed a second notice for post-conviction relief. The new attorney raised the ineffectiveness claim that trial counsel had not challenged the State's evidence as outlined above. The trial court dismissed the application and particularly rejected the ineffectiveness claim because it had not been presented in the first post-conviction proceeding as required by Arizona's post-conviction procedures. The Arizona appellate courts agreed.
With all state remedies completely exhausted, Martinez's attorney sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. At the outset the attorney called the U.S. District Court's attention to the fact that the ineffectiveness claim had been defaulted because it had not been presented in the first post-conviction application. The attorney, however, argued he could surmount this federal procedural bar by showing Martinez had cause for the default. The cause was the dereliction of the first post-conviction attorney to raise trial counsel's ineffectiveness in that initial proceeding.
This is where the procedural waters got murky. More than two decades ago the U.S. Supreme Court in Coleman v. Thompson held that mistakes by a post-conviction attorney do not qualify "as cause for default." Coleman was a horrific decision which often placed convicted state prisoners at the whim and incompetence of attorneys handling their post-conviction appeals. In the Coleman case, for example, the attorney failed to timely file a notice of appeal which defaulted the state prisoner's appeal and thereafter barred federal review of any claims associated with that appeal.
Bound by the Coleman precedent, the federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concurred that Martinez was procedurally barred from presenting the ineffectiveness of trial counsel claim in federal habeas because of the mistake made by the first post-conviction attorney in not raising the issue in that initial post-conviction, effectively defaulting the issue.
Coleman, however, did leave open certain unresolved issues; namely, whether a state prisoner has a right to appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings because this is his first opportunity to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. As the Coleman court noted, it is the state prisoner's "one and only appeal" on the issue of ineffectiveness by either trial or direct appeal counsel. The Martinez Court declined the opportunity to address this constitutional issue, but did focus on the sole issue of whether an attorney's failure in the initial post-conviction proceeding to raise an ineffectiveness claim about trial counsel provided sufficient "cause" to preclude a federal procedural default. The Martinez Court agreed that it did, modifying the Coleman rule slightly. The Martinez Court specifically held: "Inadequate assistance of counsel at initial-review collateral proceedings may establish cause to excuse a prisoner's procedural default of a claim of ineffective assistance at trial." So, an otherwise procedurally barred claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel can now be brought IF the prisoner's initial post-conviction writ attorney was also ineffective and failed to raise the issue.
We welcome the Martinez rule, just as welcome the other two cases this term by the Supreme Court holding bad attorneys' feet to the fire of accountability.
Obviously we would have preferred a bright line ruling holding that prisoners have a Constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at their "initial post-conviction proceeding," especially given that the Court has consistently held that this is a prisoner's last real chance for Constitutional relief.
What we continue to find disturbing, and quite hypocritical, is the Supreme Court's continuous sanctioning and immunizing prosecutorial misconduct that sends innocent people to prison and death row. (Here, here, and here). While there is no excuse for mistakes by defense attorneys that cost a defendant a fair trial or result in a lost appeal or defaults a post-conviction review, there is certainly no excuse for the Supreme Court giving rogue prosecutors a license to lie, cheat, and frame defendants, especially innocent ones and particularly those who are railroaded to death row.
For example, the American Bar Association in a recent Louisiana case, in which prosecutors engaged in serious misconduct, encouraged the Supreme Court, in an amicus curiae brief, to use the case to recognize that a prosecutor's pre-trial ethical obligation under Rule 3.8(d) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct to disclose favorable evidence, regardless of materiality, is broader than that required under the post-conviction Brady analysis. The ABA stated:
"The case involves numerous serious allegations of non-disclosure that, post-trial, a court must evaluate under this Court's Brady jurisprudence. However, a prosecutor's pre-trial ethical disclosure obligations, as governed by the attorney disciplinary rules of the state or jurisdiction in which the prosecutor practices, are separate from and broader than the constitutional standards. Specifically, the ABA Model Rule 3.8(d) [Model Rules of Professional Conduct] mandates disclosure of exculpatory and mitigating evidence without regard to materiality. This Rule's widespread acceptance is reflected in the fact that 49 states, including Louisiana, as well as the District of Columbia, United States Virgin Islands, and Guam have adopted ethics rules that include a provision identical or substantially similar to it. Similarly, various provisions of the ABA Criminal Justice Standards promote broad disclosure of all exculpatory evidence, without regard to the materiality standard that is required for post-trial analysis under Brady. Accordingly, this Court should again recognize that a prosecutor's pre-trial ethical disclosure obligations are distinct from the constitutional standards that control a court's post-trial determination."
While the Court reversed the conviction in that Louisiana case, the Justices did not even mention a prosecutor's pre-trial ethical obligations to disclose Brady material. It was an affront to the ABA. But we suspect, as we long have, that the Supreme Court remains determined to provide as much constitutional cover for "rogue prosecutors" as possible. Put simply, the Court wants the status quo to remain in place; namely, that the worst consequence a prosecutor can expect for committing a Brady violation is a slap-on-the-wrist by reversal of the conviction.
The reality is that our justice system works only when its three primary components—prosecutors, defense attorneys, and the courts—function with the overriding goal of seeking the truth and finding a just conclusion in all criminal cases. This goal will never be realized so long as the Supreme Court sanctions prosecutorial misconduct with absolute immunity (and the trial courts that too often permit such misconduct). It undermines the integrity of the truth-seeking process. We deplore it, and will continue to speak out against it.
By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair
John Floyd is Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Take the first step toward protecting your freedom by contacting us now:
jfloyd@johntfloyd.com
John T. Floyd is Board Certified in Criminal Law By the Texas Board of Legal Specialization
Time to Pass Police Reform in Texas, George Floyd Act
Corporate Email Spoofing in TX Is a State and Federal Offense
Former US Attorney for SDNY Should Be Disbarred
Convicted Felons Possessing Firearms in Texas
Cases of Brady Violations and Prosecutorial Misconduct
The Difficulties for Felons Restoring Gun Rights in Texas
Account Takeover Fraud
Capital Crimes
Compassionate Release COVID
Corporate Conspiracy
Corporate Espionage
Defense of Property
Federal Aviation Crime
Federal Criminal Law
Federal Domestic Violence
Federal Firearms
federal Sentencing
Foreign Corrupt Practices
Hoaxes / Spreading False INformation
Homicide/Murder
Illegal Pornography
Indecency With A Child
Medicare/Medicaid Fraud
Mortgage Fruad
PACT Act
Plea Deals
Prisoners Rights
Romance Fraud
Sealed Indictments
Sex Offender Deregistration
State of Texas Law
Super Sexual Assault
Telehealth Fraud
Terrorism Criminology
Venue Transfers
Weapon Crimes
4900 Woodway Dr.
MEETINGS WITH LAWYERS AT THIS
LOCATION WILL BE BY APPOINTMENT ONLY
The State of Texas vs. DC
Sexual Assault, Harris County/Felony Assault Family Member, Galveston County. Our Client was facing multiple felony
No - Billed!
The State of Texas vs. GM
Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child Under 14, Harris County Our client was a m
The State of Texas vs. ML
Alleged Sex Crime Our client was charged with continuous sexual abuse of a child, indecency with a child, and sexual assault of a child. They faced 25 to
Mistrial!
The State of Texas vs. LC
Sex Crime Our client was charged with three counts of indecency with a child and one count of burglary of a habitation for the purpose of committing a sex
Reduced Sentence/Dismissed
The State of Texas vs. KR
Client facing life in prison, he received 10 years probation in case involving three child victims. Two other cases of murder dismissed.
Dismissed
The State of Texas vs. JR
Aggravated Assault Family Member
Client was involved in an altercation with his better half that resulted in allegations of a belt and scissors being used in ways they were not necessarily intended. The allegations were shown to be
The State of Texas vs. JU
Aggravated Assault Against a Public Servant
The State of Texas vs. JD
Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon
A good Samaritan intervened in a car burglary and stabbed the burglary suspect in the back. Our client struck the good Samaritan on the head with a firearm, not realizing that the good Samaritan was
Reduced Sentence
The State of Texas vs. GC
Murder, Harris County
Client charged with killing victim in alcohol-fueled drug deal gone bad. He faced life in prison. After preparing for trial and arguing a pre-trial motion to dismiss, our client was offered probat
The State of Texas vs. JB
Felony Possession of Marijuana
The State of Texas vs. MZ
Manufacture/Delivery of a Controlled Substance
Harris County. Client facing life in prison, case dismissed.
The State of Texas vs. ME
Harris County. Officers in full riot/swat gear burst into our client's business and attacked employees and customers in search of drugs that they 'knew' he was hiding after following one of hi
The State of Texas vs. MM
Sexual Assault, Harris County
Directed Verdict of Not Guilty during Jury Trial. In this case our client operated a therapy center for medical rehabilitation. After the prosecution rested its case, we successfully argued a moti
The State of Texas vs. JG
2 cases of Possession of Child Pornography, Harris County. Client facing 20 years, case dismissed.
The State of Texas vs. LG
Our client was downloading large amounts of pornography and accidentally acquired images alleged to be child pornography. After facing serious charges and potentially serious time in prison, our team
The State of Texas vs. MS
Indecency with a Child, Harris County
The State of Texas vs. TW
Mistrial
The State of Texas v. ML
Montgomery County case. Individual charged with continuous sexual abuse of a child, indecency with a child, and sexual assault of a child. Individual faced 25 to 99 years, or life, in prison for t
The State of Texas v. LC
Montgomery County case. Individual charged with three counts of indecency with a child and one count of burglary of a habitation for the purpose of committing a sex crime. Individual faced 2 to 20 y
United States v. MA
Criminal Copyright Infringement
Probation granted when government argued 24 months of imprisonment.
United States v. RV
Drug Conspiracy, San Juan
Sentenced released on time served after 17 months when the government argued for 84-month sentence.
United States v. RL
Drug Conspiracy, Corpus Christi
Acquitted!
United States v. SG
Drug Conspiracy, El Paso. After facing serious charges, our team achieved an acquittal for our client after a retrial of cocaine allegations.
GUILTY!
Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child Under 14
Harris County. No-Billed (Grand Jury declined to indict). A medical student with an entire lifetime in front of him. Our client was facing horrendous allegations from his troubled and drug addicted si
CASE DISMISSED!
Sexual Assault, Harris County / Felony Assault Family Member
Galveston County. All Cases Dismissed in All Counties. Facing multiple felony charges in several counties from the same crazy girlfriend the prosecutors in both counties set our client free. If the fe
2 cases of Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child Under 14
Harris County. No-Billed (Grand Jury refused to indict based on insufficient evidence). In this case the client was charged in two criminal complaints of sexual assault of his sister. After we conduct
The State of Texas vs. MH
Sexual Assault of Family Member
Harris County. Dismissed. Client was accused of all kinds of behavior that he was physically incapable of. The charges were eventually dismissed.
The State of Texas vs. TS
Possession of a Controlled Substance, Harris County
Possession of a Controlled Substance, Harris County. Dismissed. Client was arrested in regards to an attempted murder of a police officer and possession of a large quantity of drugs. She was placed on
Possession of a Controlled Substance, Harris County. Dismissed. Officers in full riot/swat gear burst into our client's business and attacked employees and customers in search of drugs that they '
The State of Texas vs. BW
Possession of a Controlled Substance, Harris County. Dismissed. Accused of possession of a very rare drug known as DMT (Dimethyltryptamine), heroin, and marijuana…our client was in serious trouble a
Thompson-Reuters
IBT Media
H Texas Magazine
National Trial Lawyers
Texas Board of
Legal Specialization
Child Pornography Defense
Federal Criminal Lawyer
Immigration Crimes Lawyer
White Collar Lawyer
Saturday - Sunday 9am to 5pm
Copyright ©2021 John T. Floyd Law Firm - All Rights Reserved

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl