Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

‼️BUSTED: The State Got Caught SNEAKING-IN New Evidence During Closing Arguments In Yesterday's Tyler Robinson Hearing — The Defense IMMEDIATELY Called Them Out 👀 The state got five days to put on a case. When that was over, the record was closed. Yesterday the state got caught trying to...

ProjectConstitu's profile picture

Project Constitution

296,816 subscribers

90,790 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

And this is where Candace loses: If the defense could adduce evidence of fabricated documents, conspiracy, fake messages… they would not do it at the preliminary hearing for probable cause, but would wait until the trial? That the defense was precluded from adducing such evidence at the preliminary hearing? Absolute nonsense. True, it is not the trial. But there is no realm of the universe in which the defense would not attempt to adduce evidence - to the extent that you could, either through cross or direct - of fabricated / falsified text messages, manufactured documents and/or conspiracy to frame. They were not prevented from doing so at the preliminary hearing. They simply did not present anything to suggest the messages were fabricated, that a bullet did not kill Charlie, and other elements that, if remotely demonstratable, would easily be an obstacle for even the lower threshold of probable cause. And that is exactly why they could not deny them in their latest filing.
1:59

And this is where Candace loses: If the defense could adduce evidence of fabricated documents, conspiracy, fake messages… they would not do it at the preliminary hearing for probable cause, but would wait until the trial? That the defense was precluded from adducing such evidence at the preliminary hearing? Absolute nonsense. True, it is not the trial. But there is no realm of the universe in which the defense would not attempt to adduce evidence - to the extent that you could, either through cross or direct - of fabricated / falsified text messages, manufactured documents and/or conspiracy to frame. They were not prevented from doing so at the preliminary hearing. They simply did not present anything to suggest the messages were fabricated, that a bullet did not kill Charlie, and other elements that, if remotely demonstratable, would easily be an obstacle for even the lower threshold of probable cause. And that is exactly why they could not deny them in their latest filing.

Viva Frei

60,571 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨 The attorney for Erika Kirk and the family just addressed Judge Graf directly. His argument: the family hasn't seen the video evidence, and they should get to. His words to the court: "There's a complete distortion of reality that was just put forth." And on what this hearing is really about: "This is about allowing the family to see the evidence" gathered after a 10 month investigation "in which a father, a husband was assassinated." He asked the judge to let the family view the video the way the court has, so they can process the moment. For the record: this is the victim's representative speaking, not the state and not the defense. Three different sets of lawyers, three different interests in that room.
1:32

🚨 The attorney for Erika Kirk and the family just addressed Judge Graf directly. His argument: the family hasn't seen the video evidence, and they should get to. His words to the court: "There's a complete distortion of reality that was just put forth." And on what this hearing is really about: "This is about allowing the family to see the evidence" gathered after a 10 month investigation "in which a father, a husband was assassinated." He asked the judge to let the family view the video the way the court has, so they can process the moment. For the record: this is the victim's representative speaking, not the state and not the defense. Three different sets of lawyers, three different interests in that room.

Danks

22,478 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

‼️🇺🇸: DEFENSE REVEALS THAT GUN & SCREWDRIVER "DNA EVIDENCE" IN CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION IS MIXED FROM 5 DIFFERENT PEOPLE 👀 During the Tyler Robinson hearing on replacing the prosecution, prosecutors called a lead agent who claimed DNA evidence was from Tyler Robinson. HOWEVER the agent decided TO NOT MENTION that the DNA evidence they collected was a mixture of 5 DIFFERENT PEOPLE'S DNA. What is going on here!? 🤨
0:32

‼️🇺🇸: DEFENSE REVEALS THAT GUN & SCREWDRIVER "DNA EVIDENCE" IN CHARLIE KIRK ASSASSINATION IS MIXED FROM 5 DIFFERENT PEOPLE 👀 During the Tyler Robinson hearing on replacing the prosecution, prosecutors called a lead agent who claimed DNA evidence was from Tyler Robinson. HOWEVER the agent decided TO NOT MENTION that the DNA evidence they collected was a mixture of 5 DIFFERENT PEOPLE'S DNA. What is going on here!? 🤨

Diligent Denizen 🇺🇸

741,747 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

For accuracy: Aidan’s affidavit was not impounded when it was first covered on online. This issue was expressly addressed during the hearing. The judge asked whether the affidavit was impounded, and defense counsel (Attorney Bradl) confirmed that it was not. The judge then stated that it was therefore a “public record.” The only remaining concern raised was whether the plaintiff’s address should have been removed. A temporary impoundment order was issued later in the hearing for the exhibits, at which point Bradl informed the court that some of the materials was already publicly available online. A public record is a public record. In Massachusetts, once a court record (like an affidavit) has already been lawfully made public—including be posted or shared on social media—impoundment of the official court record does not “unpublish” it or retroactively make the public version secret or inaccessible. The judge’s temporary impoundment order applies to the parties of record in the case. It is not surprising that Kate is so wrong on this point. She is doing exactly what the judge ordered must stop, and the judge certainly will not consider her meddling in his decision.
0:30

For accuracy: Aidan’s affidavit was not impounded when it was first covered on online. This issue was expressly addressed during the hearing. The judge asked whether the affidavit was impounded, and defense counsel (Attorney Bradl) confirmed that it was not. The judge then stated that it was therefore a “public record.” The only remaining concern raised was whether the plaintiff’s address should have been removed. A temporary impoundment order was issued later in the hearing for the exhibits, at which point Bradl informed the court that some of the materials was already publicly available online. A public record is a public record. In Massachusetts, once a court record (like an affidavit) has already been lawfully made public—including be posted or shared on social media—impoundment of the official court record does not “unpublish” it or retroactively make the public version secret or inaccessible. The judge’s temporary impoundment order applies to the parties of record in the case. It is not surprising that Kate is so wrong on this point. She is doing exactly what the judge ordered must stop, and the judge certainly will not consider her meddling in his decision.

KY Maverick

13,089 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

NEWS: The Kirk family attorney has filed a motion on behalf of Erika DEMANDING the court release every piece of evidence from the preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson, her husband’s accused ass*ssin. “At certain points throughout the preliminary hearing, the Kirk family sat in the room while evidence was admitted but not presented for their viewing. They were present in body, yet denied the very thing their presence was meant to secure: their ability to meaningfully observe the preliminary hearing.” “The Victim's Family's position is simple. At a minimum, every exhibit entered into evidence during the preliminary hearing must be visible to every person lawfully present in the courtroom,” the court filing read. “To receive evidence in a manner shielded from those seated in the courtroom – as happened today – is not transparency. And in the absence of transparency, speculation and conspiracy theories related to the tragic assassination of Mr. Kirk will continue to proliferate in the public domain, breeding doubt and distrust in the judicial system. This is not what anyone should want."
0:49

NEWS: The Kirk family attorney has filed a motion on behalf of Erika DEMANDING the court release every piece of evidence from the preliminary hearing for Tyler Robinson, her husband’s accused ass*ssin. “At certain points throughout the preliminary hearing, the Kirk family sat in the room while evidence was admitted but not presented for their viewing. They were present in body, yet denied the very thing their presence was meant to secure: their ability to meaningfully observe the preliminary hearing.” “The Victim's Family's position is simple. At a minimum, every exhibit entered into evidence during the preliminary hearing must be visible to every person lawfully present in the courtroom,” the court filing read. “To receive evidence in a manner shielded from those seated in the courtroom – as happened today – is not transparency. And in the absence of transparency, speculation and conspiracy theories related to the tragic assassination of Mr. Kirk will continue to proliferate in the public domain, breeding doubt and distrust in the judicial system. This is not what anyone should want."

RedWave Press

35,063 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

“In almost twenty years practicing as a criminal defense attorney, I cannot imagine having exculpatory evidence and NOT bringing it up at the probable cause hearing.” Criminal defense attorney confirms the obvious—that if Tyler’s parents have been misreported as believing he’s guilty and urging him to turn himself in, the defense would use it during the evidentiary hearing. They would use anything credible that possibly exonerates their client because that’s their job, including at a preliminary hearing. They’re not sitting on bombshell exculpatory evidence to pull out at trial.
2:52

“In almost twenty years practicing as a criminal defense attorney, I cannot imagine having exculpatory evidence and NOT bringing it up at the probable cause hearing.” Criminal defense attorney confirms the obvious—that if Tyler’s parents have been misreported as believing he’s guilty and urging him to turn himself in, the defense would use it during the evidentiary hearing. They would use anything credible that possibly exonerates their client because that’s their job, including at a preliminary hearing. They’re not sitting on bombshell exculpatory evidence to pull out at trial.

Natalie Jean Beisner

29,788 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨 TYLER ROBINSON WILL NOT TESTIFY On the record moments ago: Robinson's own defense attorney told the court they advised him of his right to testify at this hearing, and that he is choosing to take their advice and NOT testify. The judge confirmed it: Robinson nodded yes. He stays silent. As is his right. At a preliminary hearing the defendant almost never testifies, so this is not a surprise. But it is now locked into the record on the final day.
0:23

🚨 TYLER ROBINSON WILL NOT TESTIFY On the record moments ago: Robinson's own defense attorney told the court they advised him of his right to testify at this hearing, and that he is choosing to take their advice and NOT testify. The judge confirmed it: Robinson nodded yes. He stays silent. As is his right. At a preliminary hearing the defendant almost never testifies, so this is not a surprise. But it is now locked into the record on the final day.

Danks

278,794 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

New testimony is shedding more light on the case surrounding Charlie Kirk's killing. During a five-day preliminary hearing in Utah, accused assassin Tyler Robinson's former roommate and former lover testified that Robinson confessed to killing Kirk and had been engraving bullets for up to a month before the shooting. Prosecutors also unveiled the rifle investigators believe was used in the attack. Experts testified that DNA linked to Robinson was found on the firearm, while the defense argued the evidence does not conclusively tie the weapon to the killing. Matt Finn breaks down the key moments from court.
1:05

New testimony is shedding more light on the case surrounding Charlie Kirk's killing. During a five-day preliminary hearing in Utah, accused assassin Tyler Robinson's former roommate and former lover testified that Robinson confessed to killing Kirk and had been engraving bullets for up to a month before the shooting. Prosecutors also unveiled the rifle investigators believe was used in the attack. Experts testified that DNA linked to Robinson was found on the firearm, while the defense argued the evidence does not conclusively tie the weapon to the killing. Matt Finn breaks down the key moments from court.

Fox News

121,382 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

ALERT: An attorney for Erika Kirk has submitted a new filing to Judge Graf claiming that the widow and Charlie’s parents have been denied the ability to observe evidence in court. “The victim’s family’s position is simple. At a minimum, every exhibit entered into evidence during the preliminary hearing must be visible to every person lawfully present in the courtroom. Receiving evidence in a manner shielded from those seated in the courtroom—as happened today—is not transparency. In the absence of transparency, speculation and conspiracy theories related to the tragic assassination of Mr. Kirk will continue to proliferate in the public domain, breeding doubt and distrust in the judicial system. This is not what anyone should want.”
2:38

ALERT: An attorney for Erika Kirk has submitted a new filing to Judge Graf claiming that the widow and Charlie’s parents have been denied the ability to observe evidence in court. “The victim’s family’s position is simple. At a minimum, every exhibit entered into evidence during the preliminary hearing must be visible to every person lawfully present in the courtroom. Receiving evidence in a manner shielded from those seated in the courtroom—as happened today—is not transparency. In the absence of transparency, speculation and conspiracy theories related to the tragic assassination of Mr. Kirk will continue to proliferate in the public domain, breeding doubt and distrust in the judicial system. This is not what anyone should want.”

E X X ➠A L E R T S

218,285 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

A sickening attempt is being made to discredit the Ayodhya judgment. Praying to God for a solution does not mean that the solution was provided by God. The only friend of justice is evidence. And evidence it was that prevailed in the Supreme court Ayodhya judgment. My views:
3:56

A sickening attempt is being made to discredit the Ayodhya judgment. Praying to God for a solution does not mean that the solution was provided by God. The only friend of justice is evidence. And evidence it was that prevailed in the Supreme court Ayodhya judgment. My views:

Anand Ranganathan

205,947 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🚨MY THOUGHTS After Day 1 of the Preliminary Trial: Sitting in the courtroom for the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing is a completely different experience than watching clips online. Seeing the defendant, hearing the testimony firsthand, and watching the evidence unfold in real time reinforces why due process matters. The State has presented evidence it argues establishes probable cause, the defense is doing its job by challenging that evidence, and the hearing is far from over. If you're following this case, watch the proceedings yourself instead of relying on social media narratives.
4:49

🚨MY THOUGHTS After Day 1 of the Preliminary Trial: Sitting in the courtroom for the Tyler Robinson preliminary hearing is a completely different experience than watching clips online. Seeing the defendant, hearing the testimony firsthand, and watching the evidence unfold in real time reinforces why due process matters. The State has presented evidence it argues establishes probable cause, the defense is doing its job by challenging that evidence, and the hearing is far from over. If you're following this case, watch the proceedings yourself instead of relying on social media narratives.

Brandon Tatum

196,202 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Just in: FlagBoy Posts Evidence as he reveals that VeryDarkMan Who is a Pathological Liar, lied that Randy Peterz was not inside the court room and that the story he said online was what someone else told him. it is Important to Note that VDM is A Convicted Liar, A Nigerian Court Convicted VDM of lying that Mr Jollof’s Wife was A Pr0stitute, when VDM was arraigned in court to come and Provide Evidence he couldn’t provide any Evidence to back up his Lies
2:28

Just in: FlagBoy Posts Evidence as he reveals that VeryDarkMan Who is a Pathological Liar, lied that Randy Peterz was not inside the court room and that the story he said online was what someone else told him. it is Important to Note that VDM is A Convicted Liar, A Nigerian Court Convicted VDM of lying that Mr Jollof’s Wife was A Pr0stitute, when VDM was arraigned in court to come and Provide Evidence he couldn’t provide any Evidence to back up his Lies

Gossip Mill Nigeria

11,529 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Judge Graf has just denied the defense's motion to subpoena Tyler Robinsons boyfriend, Lance Twiggs, for the preliminary hearing: "Under findings, the preliminary hearing is limited to determining probable cause and not— is not under— not a discovery device." "Based off the foregoing analysis and findings, the court issues the following order. It is hereby ordered that the defendant's application for certificate, certificate of attendance of out-of-state witness is respectfully denied, and the state's motion to quash the subpoena is granted." TRANSLATION: The prosecution can show a video of Twiggs, and he doesn't need to show up in person, as the defense was requesting.
1:50

Judge Graf has just denied the defense's motion to subpoena Tyler Robinsons boyfriend, Lance Twiggs, for the preliminary hearing: "Under findings, the preliminary hearing is limited to determining probable cause and not— is not under— not a discovery device." "Based off the foregoing analysis and findings, the court issues the following order. It is hereby ordered that the defendant's application for certificate, certificate of attendance of out-of-state witness is respectfully denied, and the state's motion to quash the subpoena is granted." TRANSLATION: The prosecution can show a video of Twiggs, and he doesn't need to show up in person, as the defense was requesting.

Andrew Kolvet

113,826 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

💥 BOOM 💥 did 11.3 confirm on 3.11? because the nations highest ranking military officer - #MarkMilley just went on the official record in a congressional hearing and said that our government is a corporation and that #Congress is in fact it's Board of Directors. that is part of the official record now folks! ---- add this to the sketchy events reported yesterday in ScottyMar10's video below and what you got yourself as a New Republic that has not been disclosed yet. if you've not been paying attention, today is a good day to start!!
1:29

💥 BOOM 💥 did 11.3 confirm on 3.11? because the nations highest ranking military officer - #MarkMilley just went on the official record in a congressional hearing and said that our government is a corporation and that #Congress is in fact it's Board of Directors. that is part of the official record now folks! ---- add this to the sketchy events reported yesterday in ScottyMar10's video below and what you got yourself as a New Republic that has not been disclosed yet. if you've not been paying attention, today is a good day to start!!

The Rubber Duck ™

832,675 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

‼️Erika Kirk Issues Statement CELEBRATING Judges Decision In Tyler Robinson Hearing As “JUSTICE” — After A Year Of Attacking ANYONE Asking Questions In Pursuit Of The TRUTH.🤯 A Utah judge found probable cause. That is not a conviction. That is the lowest bar in the case, viewed in the light most favorable to the state. Tyler Robinson pleaded not guilty. Erika Kirk went straight to X and called it an important step in her family’s pursuit of justice, then wrapped it in the children who will grow up without their father. The statement is designed to end the conversation. It should start one. For months she has not acted like a widow who wants every fact on the table. She has acted like a narrator who needs one ending. Journalists who pointed at holes in the official story got smeared, copyright-struck, and treated like enemies of Charlie instead of people trying to find who actually killed him. You do not hunt the truth by punishing the people collecting receipts. You do not hunt the truth by needing Tyler Robinson guilty before a jury has heard a full defense. Probable cause is not proof. A press release is not evidence. If this were about justice she would welcome the questions, release the records, and stop using victim status to rush a narrative that still does not add up. Charlie’s name is not a shield for a cover story. His kids deserve the real killer — not a slogan and a fast conviction.
1:06

‼️Erika Kirk Issues Statement CELEBRATING Judges Decision In Tyler Robinson Hearing As “JUSTICE” — After A Year Of Attacking ANYONE Asking Questions In Pursuit Of The TRUTH.🤯 A Utah judge found probable cause. That is not a conviction. That is the lowest bar in the case, viewed in the light most favorable to the state. Tyler Robinson pleaded not guilty. Erika Kirk went straight to X and called it an important step in her family’s pursuit of justice, then wrapped it in the children who will grow up without their father. The statement is designed to end the conversation. It should start one. For months she has not acted like a widow who wants every fact on the table. She has acted like a narrator who needs one ending. Journalists who pointed at holes in the official story got smeared, copyright-struck, and treated like enemies of Charlie instead of people trying to find who actually killed him. You do not hunt the truth by punishing the people collecting receipts. You do not hunt the truth by needing Tyler Robinson guilty before a jury has heard a full defense. Probable cause is not proof. A press release is not evidence. If this were about justice she would welcome the questions, release the records, and stop using victim status to rush a narrative that still does not add up. Charlie’s name is not a shield for a cover story. His kids deserve the real killer — not a slogan and a fast conviction.

Project Constitution

21,888 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

The big issue in Sean "Diddy" Combs' appeal of his convictions and 50-month prison sentence is whether Judge Arun Subramanian wrongly increased the sentence because of fraud and coercion that shouldn't have been considered under a new sentencing guideline that prohibits judges from factoring in acquitted conduct. Subramanian said when sentencing Combs last October that the fraud and coercion enhancement was based on conduct related to Combs' convictions for transportation for prostitution, instead of only relating to his acquittals for racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion. A three-judge panel at the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard argument on Thursday (April 9) in New York City. Combs' lawyer Alexandra Shapiro argued Judge Subramanian cited incidents that aren't actually connected to prostitution, including Combs threatening to release sexually explicit videos of Casandra "Cassie" Ventura during a flight home from the Cannes Film Festival. "There's no evidence that, even on the airplane, they were planning a so-called freak off. And moreover, there was no evidence in the record that there was a freak off other than Ms. Ventura's testimony," Shapiro said. "Wait, wait a minute. Pause, pause, pause. You just said there was no evidence other than a witness's testimony? Which is another way of saying there was trial evidence," said Judge William J. Nardini, a 2019 Donald Trump appointee. Shapiro said "not only was this argued to the jury in the summation, but the jury sent back a note asking for quote, 'Casandra Ventura testimony regarding Cannes and the events immediately following.'" "And we know that the jury rejected the notion ... that there was coercion and connection with that incident," Shapiro said. Nardini said he thought Shapiro was "just arguing a different thing, that the defendant did not have an intent for purposes of the Mann Act ... because then you were saying there was no evidence that a freak off even happened." The judge said Shaprio's argument is going beyond lack of coercion to "now you're saying they also found that none of this even happened. And I don't see how that follows." "That's not what I said," Shapiro said. "Well, you said there was no evidence that the freak off happened, except for Ventura's testimony. And then you were trying to argue the jury necessarily rejected Ventura's testimony. And I guess you're saying, because they rejected the argument of the government, that it was her testimony showed there was coercion, they must have rejected every single thing that Ventura said," the judge said. "That's not what I said," Shapiro said again. "Well, that was the implication. So let's back up," Nardini said. "Well that's not what I meant to imply," Shapiro said. "The whole Mann Act charges were basically an afterthought at this trial. They took up almost no time. The government relied principally on these two charts. And if you look at government exhibit 1402," Shapiro said as Nardini interjected. "I understand that, and you made that point very well in your brief. So isn't your argument really that what the government is doing here is mixing and matching. You're taking evidence from the claims that were acquitted to try to support the the Mann Act sentencing for purposes of the Mann Act, but none of that was presented to the jury for purposes of the Mann Act. Is that a summation of what, where —" Nardini said. "That's fair," Shapiro said. The judges have not yet issued their ruling. It could be at least a few weeks.
2:54

The big issue in Sean "Diddy" Combs' appeal of his convictions and 50-month prison sentence is whether Judge Arun Subramanian wrongly increased the sentence because of fraud and coercion that shouldn't have been considered under a new sentencing guideline that prohibits judges from factoring in acquitted conduct. Subramanian said when sentencing Combs last October that the fraud and coercion enhancement was based on conduct related to Combs' convictions for transportation for prostitution, instead of only relating to his acquittals for racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion. A three-judge panel at the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard argument on Thursday (April 9) in New York City. Combs' lawyer Alexandra Shapiro argued Judge Subramanian cited incidents that aren't actually connected to prostitution, including Combs threatening to release sexually explicit videos of Casandra "Cassie" Ventura during a flight home from the Cannes Film Festival. "There's no evidence that, even on the airplane, they were planning a so-called freak off. And moreover, there was no evidence in the record that there was a freak off other than Ms. Ventura's testimony," Shapiro said. "Wait, wait a minute. Pause, pause, pause. You just said there was no evidence other than a witness's testimony? Which is another way of saying there was trial evidence," said Judge William J. Nardini, a 2019 Donald Trump appointee. Shapiro said "not only was this argued to the jury in the summation, but the jury sent back a note asking for quote, 'Casandra Ventura testimony regarding Cannes and the events immediately following.'" "And we know that the jury rejected the notion ... that there was coercion and connection with that incident," Shapiro said. Nardini said he thought Shapiro was "just arguing a different thing, that the defendant did not have an intent for purposes of the Mann Act ... because then you were saying there was no evidence that a freak off even happened." The judge said Shaprio's argument is going beyond lack of coercion to "now you're saying they also found that none of this even happened. And I don't see how that follows." "That's not what I said," Shapiro said. "Well, you said there was no evidence that the freak off happened, except for Ventura's testimony. And then you were trying to argue the jury necessarily rejected Ventura's testimony. And I guess you're saying, because they rejected the argument of the government, that it was her testimony showed there was coercion, they must have rejected every single thing that Ventura said," the judge said. "That's not what I said," Shapiro said again. "Well, that was the implication. So let's back up," Nardini said. "Well that's not what I meant to imply," Shapiro said. "The whole Mann Act charges were basically an afterthought at this trial. They took up almost no time. The government relied principally on these two charts. And if you look at government exhibit 1402," Shapiro said as Nardini interjected. "I understand that, and you made that point very well in your brief. So isn't your argument really that what the government is doing here is mixing and matching. You're taking evidence from the claims that were acquitted to try to support the the Mann Act sentencing for purposes of the Mann Act, but none of that was presented to the jury for purposes of the Mann Act. Is that a summation of what, where —" Nardini said. "That's fair," Shapiro said. The judges have not yet issued their ruling. It could be at least a few weeks.

Meghann Cuniff

61,031 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

"What is wild is when feminism told women that they don't NEED men, it was not to make them more free." "It was to make them dependent on the state rather than their husbands." "Before the 1960's, family was the safety net. When things went wrong you had a husband, a father, a brother, a community, a church." Feminism over the last 65 years has evolved to be terrible for women as well as families in this country. Being a homemaker or stay at home Mom is not oppression, it is a blessing. Let's make that great again!
1:24

"What is wild is when feminism told women that they don't NEED men, it was not to make them more free." "It was to make them dependent on the state rather than their husbands." "Before the 1960's, family was the safety net. When things went wrong you had a husband, a father, a brother, a community, a church." Feminism over the last 65 years has evolved to be terrible for women as well as families in this country. Being a homemaker or stay at home Mom is not oppression, it is a blessing. Let's make that great again!

AmericanPapaBear™

75,117 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

UgandaVsMollyKatanga Yesterday, before Her Lordship Rosette Comfort Kania, we had what one can playfully call an anti-climactic moment; “Call Log-Gate”. You might recall that in July when DW3 was last on the stand, Chief State Attorney, Mr Jonathan Muwaganya put it to him that while he said he had treated Mrs Katanga for orthopedic injuries, he had not been at IHK at the time he said he had operated on her. The Senior Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon insisted he was at IHK. Mr Muwaganya stuck to his guns and confronted him with what he called call logs from 2nd Nov 2023, which he said showed the Doctor wasn’t at IHK. He informed Her Lordship that the state had secured a court order, served it on MTN Uganda and secured DW3’s KYCs as well as the call logs. He read DW3 an entry at around 10am whose cell tower had been Nakasero B and put it to him that at that time, the Doctor was in Nakasero. The defense called the document “meaningless, incomplete, unclear and easily doctored” and said the court needed a competent witness to help it understand these logs. They said such a witness wasn’t Mr Muwaganya and neither was it their witness to whom the state intended to put the questions. They questioned the court order used to secure the impugned call logs, why they were not party to the application, why the state didn’t disclose this information upon receipt and also wondered why the state was only revealing information for one day and not the entire stretch between 15th Oct- mid November 2023. The state response was to the effect that they were only interested in the fateful day when Mr Katanga lost his life and when Mrs Katanga was rushed to hospital for urgent medical care. Justice Kania ruled for the state and allowed them to put the questions to the witness. She said if the defense had any qualms with it, they’d bring those up during re-exam. She also advised the defense to go authenticate the document. It’s on that note that court ended then. (See frame 1) Then yesterday, the state brings to court a bigger document that they say they extracted the pages that they’d sought to use the previous session. The defense, that stopped short of calling the documents forged, asked why the documents don’t tally and why they’re different from the usual call log format. JM: My Lord what happens is once….once, my Lord, the information in the telecom is beyond three years, that information is provided as…it’s not synchronized. It’s provided not in chronological order” Justice Kania to Mr Karuhanga: No, let him clarify, I want to understand EK: But my Lord we don’t know if he’s telling the truth. He’s not under oath. Judge: Mr Karuhanga, court gave the defense an opportunity to go and look into this document so that it could help court. So I need to be able to make a decision and I have nothing to rely on so Mr Muwaganya, explain. JM: My Lord what happens is that once that information is provided, what we have been told, that the law in Uganda requires storage of that data for only three years. Now after three years, the information on the servers is sent back to the mother company in South Africa and so if you must retrieve that information after three years, then that information is given to you in raw form. (He raises the document as if to illustrate the form the state got it) Justice Kania: And that is the raw form JM: And this is the raw form, my Lord. This constitutes the raw form of the information. Now, my Lord, if you want to know what happened when, then you must traverse the specific data, my Lord. (Cont’d—-See frame 2) In rejoinder, the defense reminded court that 3 years hadn’t passed since the incident at issue. They said, among others, that Mr Muwaganya was peddling falsehoods that should not go unchallenged… The Judge ruled for the state but inexplicably, the state abandoned the whole thing. It later emerged in re-exam that the medical file on court record had an entry that showed DW3 at IHK Court resumes 9:30
5:50

UgandaVsMollyKatanga Yesterday, before Her Lordship Rosette Comfort Kania, we had what one can playfully call an anti-climactic moment; “Call Log-Gate”. You might recall that in July when DW3 was last on the stand, Chief State Attorney, Mr Jonathan Muwaganya put it to him that while he said he had treated Mrs Katanga for orthopedic injuries, he had not been at IHK at the time he said he had operated on her. The Senior Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon insisted he was at IHK. Mr Muwaganya stuck to his guns and confronted him with what he called call logs from 2nd Nov 2023, which he said showed the Doctor wasn’t at IHK. He informed Her Lordship that the state had secured a court order, served it on MTN Uganda and secured DW3’s KYCs as well as the call logs. He read DW3 an entry at around 10am whose cell tower had been Nakasero B and put it to him that at that time, the Doctor was in Nakasero. The defense called the document “meaningless, incomplete, unclear and easily doctored” and said the court needed a competent witness to help it understand these logs. They said such a witness wasn’t Mr Muwaganya and neither was it their witness to whom the state intended to put the questions. They questioned the court order used to secure the impugned call logs, why they were not party to the application, why the state didn’t disclose this information upon receipt and also wondered why the state was only revealing information for one day and not the entire stretch between 15th Oct- mid November 2023. The state response was to the effect that they were only interested in the fateful day when Mr Katanga lost his life and when Mrs Katanga was rushed to hospital for urgent medical care. Justice Kania ruled for the state and allowed them to put the questions to the witness. She said if the defense had any qualms with it, they’d bring those up during re-exam. She also advised the defense to go authenticate the document. It’s on that note that court ended then. (See frame 1) Then yesterday, the state brings to court a bigger document that they say they extracted the pages that they’d sought to use the previous session. The defense, that stopped short of calling the documents forged, asked why the documents don’t tally and why they’re different from the usual call log format. JM: My Lord what happens is once….once, my Lord, the information in the telecom is beyond three years, that information is provided as…it’s not synchronized. It’s provided not in chronological order” Justice Kania to Mr Karuhanga: No, let him clarify, I want to understand EK: But my Lord we don’t know if he’s telling the truth. He’s not under oath. Judge: Mr Karuhanga, court gave the defense an opportunity to go and look into this document so that it could help court. So I need to be able to make a decision and I have nothing to rely on so Mr Muwaganya, explain. JM: My Lord what happens is that once that information is provided, what we have been told, that the law in Uganda requires storage of that data for only three years. Now after three years, the information on the servers is sent back to the mother company in South Africa and so if you must retrieve that information after three years, then that information is given to you in raw form. (He raises the document as if to illustrate the form the state got it) Justice Kania: And that is the raw form JM: And this is the raw form, my Lord. This constitutes the raw form of the information. Now, my Lord, if you want to know what happened when, then you must traverse the specific data, my Lord. (Cont’d—-See frame 2) In rejoinder, the defense reminded court that 3 years hadn’t passed since the incident at issue. They said, among others, that Mr Muwaganya was peddling falsehoods that should not go unchallenged… The Judge ruled for the state but inexplicably, the state abandoned the whole thing. It later emerged in re-exam that the medical file on court record had an entry that showed DW3 at IHK Court resumes 9:30

Anthony Natif

55,759 Aufrufe • vor 23 Tagen