Connect with us


‘Lucifer’ Recap Season 5 Episode 15 — Kevin Alejandro on Dan Twist



The following contains major spoilers from Lucifer Season 5, Episode 15 (“Is This Really How It’s Going To End?!”).

For Lucifer‘s Kevin Alejandro, the penultimate episode of Season 5 can best be filed under “Be Careful What You Wish For.”

Heading into Season 5, Alejandro had suggested to co-showrunners Ildy Modrovich and Joe Henderson that perhaps the time was right to “rip” Detective Daniel Espinoza away from fans. But that was when everyone thought that Season 5 was the end. And as we all know, just days before filming wrapped on the original series finale, Netflix had a change of heart and gave the supernatural series an additional (and very final) season. So… what to do with dead Dan?

TVLine spoke with Alejandro about Dan’s demise, whether Season 6 will somehow revive “Detective Douche,” and much more.

TVLINE | When did you first learn of the plan for Dan, and what was your reaction?
It was a conversation that happened before we started Season 5, which we all thought was building to our series finale. We all walked into that season thinking, “This is the last one, let’s go out big, let’s go out strong, let’s do this story justice.” I remember talking to Joe and Ildy and me loosely suggesting what I thought would be an interesting idea, that at this point in our story, in this journey that we’ve all been through together, the audience is just now starting to understand who Dan is. And there’s even a few of them that are actually starting to like him. “Wouldn’t it be interesting if we ripped him away from them before they got a chance to fully fall in love?” Because that happens in life. I thought it would be super impactful. Now I don’t know if they were already tossing around that idea, but they were on board with it, and we all agreed that that would be Dan’s arc.

Of course, three or four days before we stop shooting the last episode, we get word from Netflix that they found a bit more money or whatever and they want to give us Season 6. [Laughs]  I’m like, “Wait a minute! We just killed me! I’m done!”

TVLINE | “I thought I’d only be missing one episode, but now it’s an episode and a full season!”
Exactly. But Joe and ildy immediately got on the phone with me, to say, “Hey, here’s the news. If you still want to be part of us, we know how to do it respectfully, and not change the quality of what we’re creating.”

I wanted to be with these relationships and with these people to the very end, and now we weren’t anymore. And Joe and Ildy respected that, and thankfully they wanted me to be a part of it as well. So they found a gentle way to bring me back — not the way people are going to expect him to come back, and maybe not as a huge part of the show, but I got to be there for the end in some capacity. And that felt wonderful, to be able to finish out a full journey. Because dude, it’s been a journey, as you know.

Lucifer Dan DiesTVLINE | Lauren [German] and Scarlett [Estevez] killed it in the hospital scene, as they each get the sad news. Did you stick around to watch people mourn you? 
I am that person. “I’m here, do me proud!” [Laughs]  I showed up for Scarlett, because that day was going to be my goodbye to her — not to Trixie, but to Scarlett. So when I showed up that day…. The mood was heavy. Usually we’re a pretty jovial, jokey company of players, but on that day the mood was pretty heavy. It felt like a real end.

TVLINE | Having freshly seen you maybe helped Scarlett get where she needed to go as an actress.
Absolutely. Even people in that scene who had already done their work, just looking at me their eyes were watering. We’ve been together forever and we’ve established a real friendship throughout our time on the show. I remember Lauren hugging me, going, “I’m so glad you’re not dead in real life.” [Laughs]

Lucifer Season 5 Fight SceneTVLINE | You directed the hell out of the Season 5A finale, with the siblings’ fight at the police station and all. What was different about the script handed to you for next season’s premiere?
The first thing that aim going to say is “COVID.” That’s what was different. Coming back to direct the season premiere, and coming into it fully goggled, fully masked, fully shielded, and trying to communicate at a six-foot distance….The level of fear was still very high, as we tread these new waters. The anxiety was high. It was a different experience, I have to tell you. But halfway through it, something clicked — “This is how it is, and we just have to get good at it.” And as all of us communicated that to each other, that this is how we make movies now, the weight was lifted. Like, “OK, we can freakin’ do this.” So we did.

I think that it was awesome to be the first one up, as the director, coming back on a new season in a new environment, because we were all figuring it out together. It wasn’t some new guy barking orders, it was a family member taking the reins and communicating with people we already know how to communicate with. And together, we did the absolute best.

It’s a fun, fun episode. It’s a bit different style that I took with this one, so its comparatively different from the style of 5×08.

TVLINE | Is it continuous from the Season 5 finale, or has some time passed for the characters?
Some time has passed. Yes.

I also got the opportunity to direct the penultimate episode of our series. We have a two-part ending, and I had the pleasure of handling the big “climax” of everyone’s evolution of their characters, which was heartbreaking, and beautiful…. Again, this one was written by Chris Rafferty, who wrote the midseason finale that I directed [and more recently wrote 5×14, “Nothing Lasts Forever”], so together we already spoke each other’s language, and man, we knocked it out of the park, I cannot wait for people to see that episode.

Want scoop on Lucifer Season 6, or for any other show? Email [email protected] and your question may be answered via Matt’s Inside Line.

Take Our Poll
Take Our Poll

Continue Reading


Woman passenger from UK tests Covid positive at Hyderabad airport



Hyderabad: A 35-year-old international passenger who reached the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport here on Wednesday has tested positive for Covid-19 after undergoing an RT-PCR test at the airport itself. The woman passenger had traveled from the United Kingdom, which has been categorised as an ‘At Risk Country’. 

The passenger has been admitted to the Telangana Institute of Medical Sciences (TIMS) and samples were collected and sent for genetic sequencing. Officials said she did not have any symptoms and that her health condition was being monitored closely. 

According to officials, the woman hails from Rangareddy district and was on a visit to UK from Hyderabad. Though her close relatives tested negative, their health condition is also being monitored. 

Now you can get handpicked stories from Telangana Today on Telegram everyday. Click the link to subscribe.

Hyderabad News

click here for more Hyderabad News

Click to follow Telangana Today Facebook page and Twitter .

Continue Reading


Revealed: how Sidney Powell could be disbarred for lying in court for Trump | US elections 2020



Sidney Powell, the former lawyer for Donald Trump who filed lawsuits across America for the former president, hoping to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, has on several occasions represented to federal courts that people were co-counsel or plaintiffs in her cases without seeking their permission to do so, the Guardian has learned.

Some of these individuals say that they only found out that Powell had named them once the cases were already filed.

During this same period of time, Powell also named several other lawyers – with their permission in those instances – as co-counsel in her election-related cases, despite the fact that they played virtually no role whatsoever in bringing or litigating those cases.

Both Powell’s naming of other people as plaintiffs or co-counsel without their consent and representing that other attorneys were central to her cases when, in fact, their roles were nominal or nonexistent, constitute serious potential violations of the American Bar Association model rules for professional conduct, top legal ethicists told the Guardian.

Powell’s misrepresentations to the courts in those particular instances often aided fundraising for her nonprofit, Defending the Republic. Powell had told prospective donors that the attorneys were integral members of an “elite strike force” who had played outsized roles in her cases – when in fact they were barely involved if at all.

A couple poses for a photo in front of a Trump campaign bus at a rally in Alpharetta, Georgia, on 2 December 2020.
A couple poses for a photo in front of a Trump campaign bus at a rally in Alpharetta, Georgia, on 2 December 2020. Photograph: Nathan Posner/REX/Shutterstock

Powell did not respond to multiple requests for comment via phone, email, and over social media.

The State Bar of Texas is already investigating Powell for making other allegedly false and misleading statements to federal courts by propagating increasingly implausible conspiracy theories to federal courts that Joe Biden’s election as president of the United States was illegitimate.

The Texas bar held its first closed-door hearing regarding the allegations about Powell on 4 November. Investigations by state bar associations are ordinarily conducted behind closed doors and thus largely opaque to the public.

A federal grand jury has also been separately investigating Powell, Defending the Republic, as well as a political action committee that goes by the same name, for fundraising fraud, according to records reviewed by the Guardian.

Among those who have alleged that Powell falsely named them as co-counsel is attorney Linn Wood, who brought and litigated with Powell many of her lawsuits attempting to overturn the results of the election with her, including in the hotly contested state of Michigan.

The Michigan case was a futile attempt by Powell to erase Joe Biden’s victory in that state and name Trump as the winner. On 25 August, federal district court Judge Linda Parker, of Michigan, sanctioned Powell and nine other attorneys who worked with her for having engaged in “a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process” in bringing the case in the first place. Powell’s claims of election fraud, Parker asserted, had no basis in law and were solely based on “speculation, conjecture, and unwarranted suspicion”.

Parker further concluded that the conduct of Powell, Wood, and the eight other attorneys who they worked with, warranted a “referral for investigation and possible suspension or disbarment to the appropriate disciplinary authority for each state … in which each attorney is admitted”.

Wood told the court in the Michigan case that Powell had wrongly named him as one of her co-counsel in the Michigan case. During a hearing in the case to determine whether to sanction Wood, his defense largely rested on his claim that he had not been involved in the case at all. Powell, Wood told the court, had put his name on the lawsuit without her even telling him.

A man holds a sign reading "The dead cannot vote" at a rally in Alpharetta, Georgia.
Trump supporters attend a rally in Alpharetta, Georgia, where Sidney Powell spoke on efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Photograph: Nathan Posner/REX/Shutterstock

Wood said: “I do not specifically recall being asked about the Michigan complaint … In this case obviously my name was included. My experience or my skills apparently were never needed, so I didn’t have any involvement with it.”

Wood’s attorney, Paul Stablein, was also categorical in asserting that his client had nothing to do with the case, telling the Guardian in an interview: “He didn’t draft the complaint. He didn’t sign it. He did not authorize anyone to put his name on it.”

Powell has denied she would have ever named Wood as a co-counsel without Wood’s permission.

But other people have since come forward to say that Powell has said that they were named as plaintiffs or lawyers in her election-related cases without their permission.

In a Wisconsin voting case, a former Republican candidate for Congress, Derrick Van Orden, said he only learned after the fact that he had been named as a plaintiff in one of Powell’s cases.

“I learned through social media today that my name was included in a lawsuit without my permission,” Van Orden said in a statement he posted on Twitter, “To be clear, I am not involved in the lawsuit seeking to overturn the election in Wisconsin.”

Jason Shepherd, the Republican chairman of Georgia’s Cobb county, was similarly listed as a plaintiff in a Georgia election case without his approval.

In a 26 November 2020 statement, Shepherd said he had been talking to an associate of Powell’s prior to the case’s filing about the “Cobb GOP being a plaintiff” but said he first “needed more information to at least make sure the executive officers were in agreeing to us being a party in the suit”. The Cobb County Republican party later agreed to remain plaintiffs in the case instead of withdrawing.

Leslie Levin, a professor at the University of Connecticut Law School, said in an interview: “Misrepresentations to the court are very serious because lawyers are officers of the court. Bringing a lawsuit in someone’s name when they haven’t consented to being a party is a very serious misrepresentation and one for which a lawyer should expect to face serious discipline.”

Nora Freeman Engstrom, a law professor at Stanford University, says that Powell’s actions appear to violate Rule 3.3 of the ABA’s model rules of professional misconduct which hold that “a lawyer shall not knowingly … make a false statement of fact of law to a tribunal”.

Since election day last year, federal and state courts have dismissed more than 60 lawsuits alleging electoral fraud and irregularities by Powell, and other Trump allies.

Shortly after the election, Trump named Powell as a senior member of an “elite strike force” who would prove that Joe Biden only won the 2020 presidential race because the election was stolen from him. But Trump refused to pay her for her services. To remedy this, Powell set up a new nonprofit called Defending the Republic; its stated purpose is to “protect the integrity of elections in the United States”.

As a nonprofit, the group is allowed to raise unlimited amounts of “dark money” and donors are legally protected from the ordinary requirements to disclose their identities to the public. Powell warned supporters that for her to succeed, “millions of dollars must be raised”.

Echoing Trump’s rhetoric, Powell told prospective donors that Defending the Republic had a vast team of experienced litigators.

Sidney Powell speaks at a press conference on election results in Alpharetta, Georgia.
Sidney Powell speaks at a press conference on election results in Alpharetta, Georgia. Photograph: Elijah Nouvelage/Reuters

Among the attorneys who Powell said made up this “taskforce” were Emily Newman, who had served Trump as the White House liaison to the Department of Health and Human Services and as a senior official with the Department of Homeland Security. Newman had been a founding board member of Defending the Republic.

But facing sanctions in the Michigan case, some of the attorneys attempted to distance themselves from having played much of a meaningful role in her litigation.

Newman’s attorney told Parker, the judge, that Newman had “not played a role in the drafting of the complaint … My client was a contract lawyer working from home who spent maybe five hours on this matter. She really wasn’t involved … Her role was de minimis.”

To have standing to file her Michigan case, Powell was initially unable to find a local attorney to be co-counsel on her case but eventually attorney Gregory Rohl agreed to help out.

But when Rohl was sanctioned by Parker and referred to the Michigan attorney disciplinary board for further investigation, his defense was that he, too, was barely involved in the case. He claimed that he only received a copy of “the already prepared” 830-page initial complaint at the last minute, reviewed it for “well over an hour”, while then “making no additions, decisions or corrections” to the original.

As with Newman, Parker, found that Rohl violated ethics rules by making little, if any, effort to verify the facts of the claims in Powell’s filings.

In sanctioning Rohl, the judge wrote that “the court finds it exceedingly difficult to believe that Rohl read an 830-page complaint in just ‘well over an hour’ on the day he filed it. So, Rohl’s argument in and of itself reveals sanctionable conduct.”

Continue Reading


Govt to introduce important Bill, Covid situation likely to be discussed



The government on Thursday will table ‘The National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (Amendment) Bill 2021’ in the Lok Sabha. A discussion on Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic and its various related aspects is also likely to take place in the lower House.

Health Minister Mansukh Mandaviya will move the ‘The National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (Amendment) Bill’ in the Lok Sabha to amend the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research Act, 1998.

Under rule 193, a discussion on Covid-19 pandemic and various aspects related to it will likely take place. According to sources, the members may also raise their concern and ask for the government’s preparedness for the new Omicron variant. Under Rule 193, members can seek details about the new Covid variant. “Short duration discussion is likely to be held in the Lok Sabha on the Covid and its various aspects, including new Omicron variant,” sources said.

Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, Prahlad Singh Patel, General V.K. Singh, Krishan Pal, Bhanu Pratap Verma, Rameshwar Teli and Kaushal Kishore will lay papers on the table. Reports and action reports of different standing committees will also be laid in the day.

The Lok Sabha on Wednesday passed the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Amendment) Bill 2021 (ART) by voice vote as the amendments moved by the DMK MP N.K. Prem Chandran, Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy and Shiv Sena MP Vinayak Raut were negated. The ART Bill seeks to regulate fertility clinics. All such clinics will have to be registered under the National Registry of Banks and Clinics of India.

The opposition is likely to continue to raise its voices on price rise, unemployment and extended jurisdiction of the Border Security Force (BSF) in some states. The opposition parties are also demanding a law guaranteeing the minimum support price (MSP).

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Dear Reader,

Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.

We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

Continue Reading