Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

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.show more

KY Maverick

3,977 subscribers

13,089 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Another remarkable footage from that court is when he appeared for the first time before an investigative judge in July 2004, not in a public trial but a preliminary legal procedure. It wasn't meant to be videotaped, but somehow it was. He was equally defiant. He refused to recognize the authority of the court, challenged the legality of the U.S. occupation, and asked the judge to identify himself. When the judge said the court was established based on a coalition power decree, he replied, "I don't recognise the coalition; it's an occupation force."

Another remarkable footage from that court is when he appeared for the first time before an investigative judge in July 2004, not in a public trial but a preliminary legal procedure. It wasn't meant to be videotaped, but somehow it was. He was equally defiant. He refused to recognize the authority of the court, challenged the legality of the U.S. occupation, and asked the judge to identify himself. When the judge said the court was established based on a coalition power decree, he replied, "I don't recognise the coalition; it's an occupation force."

Arabs in Pictures

50,461 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Breaking News: Context: Meredith O’Neil successfully obtained an Emergency Restraining Order against Aiden Kearney last week. The details and affidavit was ordered by the Judge to be impounded. According to report from Aiden Kearney, only his Attorney Tim Bradl has copy of Meredith’s affidavit and submissions and he was not allowed a copy. And what did you think the apparent abuser do next? He approached the court to also obtained an Emergency Restraining Order against Meredith O’Neil. And was granted yesterday. Attached is the video of one of his cult members Jess M reading Aiden’s Affidavit to the public. For what reasons? Incitement against a witness or a defendant? Critically, actively listen to the accusations against Meredith and you’ll be laughing your head off, in that same Aiden appears to have forgotten that he had admitted to what he is framing Meredith of in his affidavit. OMG!!! #meredithoneilisinnocent #saynotobullies #saynotodomesticabuse

Breaking News: Context: Meredith O’Neil successfully obtained an Emergency Restraining Order against Aiden Kearney last week. The details and affidavit was ordered by the Judge to be impounded. According to report from Aiden Kearney, only his Attorney Tim Bradl has copy of Meredith’s affidavit and submissions and he was not allowed a copy. And what did you think the apparent abuser do next? He approached the court to also obtained an Emergency Restraining Order against Meredith O’Neil. And was granted yesterday. Attached is the video of one of his cult members Jess M reading Aiden’s Affidavit to the public. For what reasons? Incitement against a witness or a defendant? Critically, actively listen to the accusations against Meredith and you’ll be laughing your head off, in that same Aiden appears to have forgotten that he had admitted to what he is framing Meredith of in his affidavit. OMG!!! #meredithoneilisinnocent #saynotobullies #saynotodomesticabuse

AIM

21,295 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

#BREAKING: Legendary #Maddow: "For the record, the worst inflation in this country was in 1980. For the record, the economy that he [Trump] was left by President Biden was not a catastrophy, it was literally the BEST economy in the world...For the record, social security is not paying benefits in large numbers to 300 year old people..."

#BREAKING: Legendary #Maddow: "For the record, the worst inflation in this country was in 1980. For the record, the economy that he [Trump] was left by President Biden was not a catastrophy, it was literally the BEST economy in the world...For the record, social security is not paying benefits in large numbers to 300 year old people..."

Emoluments Clause

553,639 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

#WATCH | Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma row | Prayagraj, UP: Anil Tiwari, President of Allahabad High Court Bar Association says, "...Whether this perception which is being given by the Supreme Court administration, is being looked upon by public at large with confidence - this is the question. The manner in which the matter is being dealt with, the public faith has already been eroded, it has already gone. Once public faith is gone, the entire democracy will collapse... The manner in which the proceedings was going on, raises suspicion in the mind of the general public - suspicion about integrity of a particular judge and suspicion about the manner in which the matter is being dealt with...I say that the matter should be inquired or investigated not by the in-house committee but by CBI or ED. I say that there are loopholes...Arvind Kejriwal was a sitting CM of Delhi. He was sent to jail. He was not given any protection in criminal matters. Then why Justice Yashwant Varma is being given this specific facility?...Same treatment should be given to him..

#WATCH | Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma row | Prayagraj, UP: Anil Tiwari, President of Allahabad High Court Bar Association says, "...Whether this perception which is being given by the Supreme Court administration, is being looked upon by public at large with confidence - this is the question. The manner in which the matter is being dealt with, the public faith has already been eroded, it has already gone. Once public faith is gone, the entire democracy will collapse... The manner in which the proceedings was going on, raises suspicion in the mind of the general public - suspicion about integrity of a particular judge and suspicion about the manner in which the matter is being dealt with...I say that the matter should be inquired or investigated not by the in-house committee but by CBI or ED. I say that there are loopholes...Arvind Kejriwal was a sitting CM of Delhi. He was sent to jail. He was not given any protection in criminal matters. Then why Justice Yashwant Varma is being given this specific facility?...Same treatment should be given to him..

ANI

10,960 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

The directive issued by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath regarding namaz has been at the center of political debate, but the actual policy was far narrower than many critics portrayed. The order did not call for a ban on namaz, closure of mosques, or restrictions on Muslims offering prayers. The position taken was that namaz should not be conducted on public roads in ways that disrupt movement and public access. In cases where mosques could not accommodate large congregations, the administration suggested organizing prayers in shifts. Supporters of the directive have pointed out that the legal basis for such restrictions already existed through earlier rulings of the Allahabad High Court, which held that offering namaz on public land is not a fundamental right when it interferes with public order and the rights of other citizens. According to this view, the controversy emerged not because of a new law, but because an existing court position was being actively enforced by the state government. #NoNamazOnRoads

The directive issued by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath regarding namaz has been at the center of political debate, but the actual policy was far narrower than many critics portrayed. The order did not call for a ban on namaz, closure of mosques, or restrictions on Muslims offering prayers. The position taken was that namaz should not be conducted on public roads in ways that disrupt movement and public access. In cases where mosques could not accommodate large congregations, the administration suggested organizing prayers in shifts. Supporters of the directive have pointed out that the legal basis for such restrictions already existed through earlier rulings of the Allahabad High Court, which held that offering namaz on public land is not a fundamental right when it interferes with public order and the rights of other citizens. According to this view, the controversy emerged not because of a new law, but because an existing court position was being actively enforced by the state government. #NoNamazOnRoads

Megh Updates 🚨™

30,515 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

ABC chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl on Trump deporting Tren de Aragua members: “[A] calculated decision to ignore the judge’s directive...[T]his is rather extraordinary. The hearing on this had already started before those planes took off. It was before the judge actually issued the order, but it was — after it was quite clear the judge was skeptical of the use of this 1798 Alien Enemies Act. By the way, that is an act that’s only been used three times in all of American history, so the judge was clearly skeptical of it...[T]he order was clear that even if the planes had taken off, they were to turn around...[T]his has huge implications for the other court cases working their way through right now on other actions by this President.”

ABC chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl on Trump deporting Tren de Aragua members: “[A] calculated decision to ignore the judge’s directive...[T]his is rather extraordinary. The hearing on this had already started before those planes took off. It was before the judge actually issued the order, but it was — after it was quite clear the judge was skeptical of the use of this 1798 Alien Enemies Act. By the way, that is an act that’s only been used three times in all of American history, so the judge was clearly skeptical of it...[T]he order was clear that even if the planes had taken off, they were to turn around...[T]his has huge implications for the other court cases working their way through right now on other actions by this President.”

Curtis Houck

534,636 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Githu Muigai: The public is not participating so that it may make the decision whether to impeach or not. That is not the work of the public. The public is participating so that this political process may be informed.

Githu Muigai: The public is not participating so that it may make the decision whether to impeach or not. That is not the work of the public. The public is participating so that this political process may be informed.

KTN News

94,050 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

For the record. This was not unanimous. I was muted on the call and not allowed to speak or voice my opposition to this move. Also for the record, this was not on the agenda. This was not consensus. This is censorship.

For the record. This was not unanimous. I was muted on the call and not allowed to speak or voice my opposition to this move. Also for the record, this was not on the agenda. This was not consensus. This is censorship.

Rep. Joyce Beatty

6,380,422 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

The mistrial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu By ALOY EJIMAKOR The purpose of this essay is to enhance a better public understanding of the arcane dimensions and complexities arising in the case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from 24th September 2024 (when Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako was recused) to 10th February 2025 when Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was surprisingly summoned to appear before the same Justice. Despite our abhorrence for the summons to appear before a Judge who no longer possessed jurisdiction, we nonetheless decided to honor the summons out of respect for the sanctity of the judiciary and the overriding need to avoid the fell consequences of an in-absentia proceedings that would be legally injurious to our Client. So, we appeared with the self-assurance and confidence that the proceedings would, as a matter of law, amount to a nullity because the Judge, having been recused by an extant Order of court, no longer possessed the requisite jurisdiction to conduct the hearing. It therefore came to pass that when the case was called, I immediately went on the record to state that we appeared “under protest”, and that our “limited” appearance is specifically aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and thus should, in no way, be misconstrued as succumbing to the jurisdiction of the court. Given this scenario, it therefore follows that - as far as it was conducted by a recused Judge - the infamous proceedings of 10th February 2025 carried all the elements of a “mistrial” of some sorts, to the extent that the purported order of adjournment sine die made by the Judge at the close of the “hearing” is obviously nugatory and of no legal or judicial effect whatsoever. Below are the additional reasons for our position: First of all, the process by which Honorable Justice Murtala-Nyako exited from the case as the trial judge was a “judicial event”, as it emanated from the COURT ORDER she made on 24th September 2024. A plain reading of the Order shows that Her Lordship graciously consented to the recusal and that alone amounts to an additional factor that endowed the order with more tenacity. Second, of then and now, the said Order is still extant and subsisting and was never appealed. So, it remains valid in all ramifications. To be sure, the Judge cannot REVIEW, REOPEN or REVISIT the matter of her recusal because she became FUNCTUS OFFICIO as of 24th September 2024 when the order was entered and enrolled. In Ukachukwu v. Uba (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt.956), it was held that: "The phrase "functus officio" has been defined to mean a task performed, fulfilling a function or discharging and accomplishing the intended purpose, and when it is referred to a Court, that Court will have no further force or authority in effect it would lack competence or jurisdiction in the matter anymore. It cannot review, re open or re-visit the said matter except under exceptional circumstances.” Third, the point needs to be made that the post-recusal Summons issued to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu that brought us to Court on 10th February 2025 is not to be blamed on the Court alone. The prosecution grandfathered this infamous unconstitutionality by a Letter it wrote to the same Court on 5th December 2024, requesting that the case be re-calendared for a hearing. In our prompt reaction and after a considered view that the said Letter strained the boundaries of prosecutorial misconduct, we countered with a reply, vehemently opposing re-listing the case to be heard before a Judge who is bound by an extant Order of recusal. To this date, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court has not respondent to our Letter.

The mistrial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu By ALOY EJIMAKOR The purpose of this essay is to enhance a better public understanding of the arcane dimensions and complexities arising in the case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from 24th September 2024 (when Justice Binta Murtala-Nyako was recused) to 10th February 2025 when Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was surprisingly summoned to appear before the same Justice. Despite our abhorrence for the summons to appear before a Judge who no longer possessed jurisdiction, we nonetheless decided to honor the summons out of respect for the sanctity of the judiciary and the overriding need to avoid the fell consequences of an in-absentia proceedings that would be legally injurious to our Client. So, we appeared with the self-assurance and confidence that the proceedings would, as a matter of law, amount to a nullity because the Judge, having been recused by an extant Order of court, no longer possessed the requisite jurisdiction to conduct the hearing. It therefore came to pass that when the case was called, I immediately went on the record to state that we appeared “under protest”, and that our “limited” appearance is specifically aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and thus should, in no way, be misconstrued as succumbing to the jurisdiction of the court. Given this scenario, it therefore follows that - as far as it was conducted by a recused Judge - the infamous proceedings of 10th February 2025 carried all the elements of a “mistrial” of some sorts, to the extent that the purported order of adjournment sine die made by the Judge at the close of the “hearing” is obviously nugatory and of no legal or judicial effect whatsoever. Below are the additional reasons for our position: First of all, the process by which Honorable Justice Murtala-Nyako exited from the case as the trial judge was a “judicial event”, as it emanated from the COURT ORDER she made on 24th September 2024. A plain reading of the Order shows that Her Lordship graciously consented to the recusal and that alone amounts to an additional factor that endowed the order with more tenacity. Second, of then and now, the said Order is still extant and subsisting and was never appealed. So, it remains valid in all ramifications. To be sure, the Judge cannot REVIEW, REOPEN or REVISIT the matter of her recusal because she became FUNCTUS OFFICIO as of 24th September 2024 when the order was entered and enrolled. In Ukachukwu v. Uba (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt.956), it was held that: "The phrase "functus officio" has been defined to mean a task performed, fulfilling a function or discharging and accomplishing the intended purpose, and when it is referred to a Court, that Court will have no further force or authority in effect it would lack competence or jurisdiction in the matter anymore. It cannot review, re open or re-visit the said matter except under exceptional circumstances.” Third, the point needs to be made that the post-recusal Summons issued to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu that brought us to Court on 10th February 2025 is not to be blamed on the Court alone. The prosecution grandfathered this infamous unconstitutionality by a Letter it wrote to the same Court on 5th December 2024, requesting that the case be re-calendared for a hearing. In our prompt reaction and after a considered view that the said Letter strained the boundaries of prosecutorial misconduct, we countered with a reply, vehemently opposing re-listing the case to be heard before a Judge who is bound by an extant Order of recusal. To this date, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court has not respondent to our Letter.

aloy ejimakor

25,598 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

The Department of Energy canceled 321 grants worth $7.5 billion last October. Every single one was in a state that voted against the President. Not a single project in a red state was touched. This week, I asked Energy Secretary Wright a simple question: why? The Trump Administration already answered that question themselves, admitting in a court filing that the terminations were “influenced by whether a grantee's address was located in a state that tends to elect Democratic candidates.” By the end of the hearing, Secretary Wright committed on the record to reconsidering those terminations. That commitment is now public, and you better believe I’ll be holding him to it.

The Department of Energy canceled 321 grants worth $7.5 billion last October. Every single one was in a state that voted against the President. Not a single project in a red state was touched. This week, I asked Energy Secretary Wright a simple question: why? The Trump Administration already answered that question themselves, admitting in a court filing that the terminations were “influenced by whether a grantee's address was located in a state that tends to elect Democratic candidates.” By the end of the hearing, Secretary Wright committed on the record to reconsidering those terminations. That commitment is now public, and you better believe I’ll be holding him to it.

Rep. Mike Levin

127,692 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

🚨 HOLY CRAP! After a judge blocks Virginia's Democrat gerrymander map, it has a REAL CHANCE of being FULLY struck down in the court system Make it happen! "Virginia's case is particularly egregious not simply because of the reasons the judge cited — he said that the proper process for putting on a constitutional amendment vote was not followed, and therefore, the whole thing was out the window. I don't know whether that'll hold up on appeal or not..." "...Virginia's map, this was a state which was 6 Democrats and 5 Republican seats. And people looking at this map that's been that's been put in place. If this is this referendum holds would be 10 to 1!" "Of course they said that they did it to ensure 'FAIRNESS!'" — Brit Hume H/t TV News Now

🚨 HOLY CRAP! After a judge blocks Virginia's Democrat gerrymander map, it has a REAL CHANCE of being FULLY struck down in the court system Make it happen! "Virginia's case is particularly egregious not simply because of the reasons the judge cited — he said that the proper process for putting on a constitutional amendment vote was not followed, and therefore, the whole thing was out the window. I don't know whether that'll hold up on appeal or not..." "...Virginia's map, this was a state which was 6 Democrats and 5 Republican seats. And people looking at this map that's been that's been put in place. If this is this referendum holds would be 10 to 1!" "Of course they said that they did it to ensure 'FAIRNESS!'" — Brit Hume H/t TV News Now

Eric Daugherty

99,095 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

BREAKING NEWS 🚨🚨🚨: Prosecutors in the case of Massachusetts man Bryan Walshe have confirmed on the record in open court that the federal probe into the death of John O'Keefe is over! The Judge in the case, herself, then also confirmed that the "investigation is not [still] going on" after reading a letter provided to the court by those prosecutors (who were, themselves, contacted directly by the US Attorney and told the federal O'Keefe investigation is over). It was all true. The Karen Read trial has come to it's stunning conclusion. For context: One of the Troopers involved in investigating Walshe (Michael Proctor) was brought up in the Walshe trial over recent months by the defense, and, in turn, that led to the moment in court today. The Judge asked prosecutors to explain if there was any changes related to a previous Touhy request sent to the federal government and, in turn, the prosecutor said there was an update from the US Attorney directly to the prosecutor's office (that was given to defense counsel yesterday). That update, in turn, confirms the end of the federal probe of John O'Keefe's death (as the prosecutor made direct reference to U.S. Attorney Massachusetts, US Attorney Foley, and Foley's interview with Dan Rea on Tuesday of this week, wherein US Attorney Foley said it would not be a violation of DOJ policy for the US Attorney to tell Law Enforcement partners about the status of, or updates related to, an investigation). "[US Attorney Foley] said it is not uncommon for law enforcement partners to be notified of the status of an investigation. My office was notified by the US Attorney's Office and I provided that to defense counsel," said the prosecutor on Walshe's case. An ongoing federal protective order related to the O'Keefe materials, that will remain active even though the investigation is over, may have some impact in the Walshe case (and the Judge discussed that as well). See my video analysis (and the full clip from court today) below. The news, first broken by BillMcEntyre (and then confirmed by Ted Daniel and Kristina Rex) is now part of the history books.

BREAKING NEWS 🚨🚨🚨: Prosecutors in the case of Massachusetts man Bryan Walshe have confirmed on the record in open court that the federal probe into the death of John O'Keefe is over! The Judge in the case, herself, then also confirmed that the "investigation is not [still] going on" after reading a letter provided to the court by those prosecutors (who were, themselves, contacted directly by the US Attorney and told the federal O'Keefe investigation is over). It was all true. The Karen Read trial has come to it's stunning conclusion. For context: One of the Troopers involved in investigating Walshe (Michael Proctor) was brought up in the Walshe trial over recent months by the defense, and, in turn, that led to the moment in court today. The Judge asked prosecutors to explain if there was any changes related to a previous Touhy request sent to the federal government and, in turn, the prosecutor said there was an update from the US Attorney directly to the prosecutor's office (that was given to defense counsel yesterday). That update, in turn, confirms the end of the federal probe of John O'Keefe's death (as the prosecutor made direct reference to U.S. Attorney Massachusetts, US Attorney Foley, and Foley's interview with Dan Rea on Tuesday of this week, wherein US Attorney Foley said it would not be a violation of DOJ policy for the US Attorney to tell Law Enforcement partners about the status of, or updates related to, an investigation). "[US Attorney Foley] said it is not uncommon for law enforcement partners to be notified of the status of an investigation. My office was notified by the US Attorney's Office and I provided that to defense counsel," said the prosecutor on Walshe's case. An ongoing federal protective order related to the O'Keefe materials, that will remain active even though the investigation is over, may have some impact in the Walshe case (and the Judge discussed that as well). See my video analysis (and the full clip from court today) below. The news, first broken by BillMcEntyre (and then confirmed by Ted Daniel and Kristina Rex) is now part of the history books.

Grant Smith Ellis

13,974 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Judge Juan Merchan has ordered Donald Trump to be sentenced for 34 counts on January 10th ahead of inauguration Judge Merchan was never supposed to oversee Donald Trump’s case, he was specifically assigned the case to weaponize our legal system against Trump, here’s the proof “Understand there's absolutely no reason that Judge Merchan should have even had a chance to be assigned to this case? Now, I'm sure the left is just gonna call this a conspiracy theory. ‌ So I'll issue a challenge to them, and maybe they can tell me how he managed to be the judge. Because for these type of cases, the way it's supposed to work is that there is a panel of 24 judges, and they are all put in rotation and randomly assigned these types of cases. Judge Merchan is not on that panel. ‌ That's because he's not a judge. He's an acting judge. So even though they're trying to claim that they didn't pick the judge, that it was randomly assigned, that's not possible because judge Merchan isn't in the pool to be randomly assigned. So the only way he could have caught this case was to be specifically assigned to it. There was no chance of him being randomly selected. ‌ And the wild thing is that according to the left and the department of justice, judge Merchan was not only randomly selected to be the judge in this trial, but he was also randomly selected to be the judge in the Trump Organization case, and he was randomly selected to be the judge in the Steve Bannon case. ‌ So judge Merchan, a judge that is not in the pool of 24 judges that is supposed to catch these cases, a judge that is not an actual judge, but an acting judge caught all 3 Trump related cases randomly. This is a judge who gives heavily to an organization very plainly named Stop Trump, and a judge whose daughter makes tens of millions of dollars every year promoting Democrats. ‌ But, yeah, I'm sure this was just a coincidence. It was a coincidence that one of the most high profile cases ever, we didn't assign a judge, we assigned an acting judge. ‌ And that that judge somehow got selected even though he wasn't in the pool of judges available to be selected, and that that same judge that was selected also caught 2 other Trump related cases in the same year, and then that judge's daughter makes tens of millions of dollars a year promoting Democrats. Yeah. I'm sure that's all a coincidence.”

Wall Street Apes

514,459 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Supreme Court Decision on ADC Should Not Warrant Celebration, Nothing Has Been Decided - Maduabuchi The ADC had no business at the Supreme Court. There was no appealable decision by the Federal High Court. The Court of Appeal overstepped its bounds by making an order no one sought. In reaching the proper decision that there was no valid appeal by the David Mark faction, the Court of Appeal went a step further and ordered that the _status quo_ be maintained. That was wrong. When INEC, acting on the Court of Appeal’s order, removed David Mark, it was on solid ground. The Appellate Court’s order was to maintain _status quo ante bellum_, not _status quo_. Oba Maduabuchi, SAN

Supreme Court Decision on ADC Should Not Warrant Celebration, Nothing Has Been Decided - Maduabuchi The ADC had no business at the Supreme Court. There was no appealable decision by the Federal High Court. The Court of Appeal overstepped its bounds by making an order no one sought. In reaching the proper decision that there was no valid appeal by the David Mark faction, the Court of Appeal went a step further and ordered that the _status quo_ be maintained. That was wrong. When INEC, acting on the Court of Appeal’s order, removed David Mark, it was on solid ground. The Appellate Court’s order was to maintain _status quo ante bellum_, not _status quo_. Oba Maduabuchi, SAN

ARISE NEWS

75,528 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

For those who may need a bit of additional clarification on the ruling by Judge Mrazik this afternoon, Alison Motta diagnosed and explained it during our Live today as it was happening. For the record, every lawyer in that Courtroom, and Judge Mrazik who I really think is a great Judge completely whiffed on this analysis. Back in chambers, doing what he does, which is puts in the work…he got it right and issued his Order. #KouriRichinsTrial #KouriRichins

For those who may need a bit of additional clarification on the ruling by Judge Mrazik this afternoon, Alison Motta diagnosed and explained it during our Live today as it was happening. For the record, every lawyer in that Courtroom, and Judge Mrazik who I really think is a great Judge completely whiffed on this analysis. Back in chambers, doing what he does, which is puts in the work…he got it right and issued his Order. #KouriRichinsTrial #KouriRichins

Defense Diaries

33,287 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

#WATCH | Delhi: On Delhi court declines to take cognisance of ED chargesheet in National Herald money laundering case, Advocate Shaurya Veer Singh says, "The judge said that the ED was misused and that BJP members turned it into a tool, and that, too, only against the opposition. Under Section 3 of the Money Laundering Act, the judge held that it is illegal to conduct a trial in court on behalf of a private complainant. That's why the judge did not take cognisance and further ordered the ED to explain why they alone took action in this case. There are the CBI and other departments, none of whom filed an FIR, so it was considered baseless and unfounded... The court further ordered the ED that if they want to make any submissions on the next date, January 16th, they should do so. Information was allowed in the UOW case, but cognisance was refused in this case..."

#WATCH | Delhi: On Delhi court declines to take cognisance of ED chargesheet in National Herald money laundering case, Advocate Shaurya Veer Singh says, "The judge said that the ED was misused and that BJP members turned it into a tool, and that, too, only against the opposition. Under Section 3 of the Money Laundering Act, the judge held that it is illegal to conduct a trial in court on behalf of a private complainant. That's why the judge did not take cognisance and further ordered the ED to explain why they alone took action in this case. There are the CBI and other departments, none of whom filed an FIR, so it was considered baseless and unfounded... The court further ordered the ED that if they want to make any submissions on the next date, January 16th, they should do so. Information was allowed in the UOW case, but cognisance was refused in this case..."

ANI

51,650 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

#WATCH | BMW accident case | Deceased Navjot's advocate, Ishan Dewan, says, "... The police demanded judicial custody and not police custody. The court has granted judicial custody for two days. The lawyer of the accused has moved a bail application today... What is important right now is that the unfortunate incident that has happened should not happen again... We will present all facts in the court... It was not just an accident of two minutes. It was an episode of a couple of hours. The decision they took was not to take the victim to a hospital, which was a minute away; instead, he was taken far away. This shows their mental and decision-making condition. We will ensure that this is presented to the court properly... The version of the wife of the deceased is most important... The court has said that if any medical care is required for the accused, it will be provided in the jail... She will be produced in the court the day after tomorrow... We will oppose the bail..."

#WATCH | BMW accident case | Deceased Navjot's advocate, Ishan Dewan, says, "... The police demanded judicial custody and not police custody. The court has granted judicial custody for two days. The lawyer of the accused has moved a bail application today... What is important right now is that the unfortunate incident that has happened should not happen again... We will present all facts in the court... It was not just an accident of two minutes. It was an episode of a couple of hours. The decision they took was not to take the victim to a hospital, which was a minute away; instead, he was taken far away. This shows their mental and decision-making condition. We will ensure that this is presented to the court properly... The version of the wife of the deceased is most important... The court has said that if any medical care is required for the accused, it will be provided in the jail... She will be produced in the court the day after tomorrow... We will oppose the bail..."

ANI

88,265 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Kash Patel CONFIRMS Judge Juan Merchan should have never been assigned to Donald Trump’s case Kash Patel “I'm calling for the subpoenas to be issued to Judge Merchant's Daughter's company who made $15+ million dollars from the illicit information pouring out of her father's courtroom - I wanna know the bank records because money doesn't lie - I wanna know how deep it is and how much of it went to the family and how much of it is going to the family after this false conviction - Then we need to investigate the FEC actual violations that this judge and his family conducted Judge Juan Merchan should never have been overseeing this trial to begin with because of the illicit campaign money that was flowing through there and the unconstitutional due process violations are only the beginning.“ That’s not all, here’s more reasons why he should have NEVER been assigned Donald Trump’s case from The Older Millennial: ‘For these type of cases, the way it's supposed to work is that there is a panel of 24 judges, and they are all put in rotation and randomly assigned these types of cases. Judge Merchan is not on that panel. That's because he's not a judge. He's an acting judge. The only way he could have caught this case was to be specifically assigned to it. There was no chance of him being randomly selected. The wild thing is that according to the left and the department of justice, judge Merchan was not only randomly selected to be the judge in this trial, but he was also randomly selected to be the judge in the Trump Organization case, and he was randomly selected to be the judge in the Steve Bannon case. So judge Merchan, a judge that is not in the pool of 24 judges that is supposed to catch these cases, a judge that is not an actual judge, but an acting judge caught all 3 Trump related cases randomly. This is a judge who gives heavily to an organization very plainly named Stop Trump, and a judge whose daughter makes tens of millions of dollars every year promoting Democrats.’ Insane corruption.

Kash Patel CONFIRMS Judge Juan Merchan should have never been assigned to Donald Trump’s case Kash Patel “I'm calling for the subpoenas to be issued to Judge Merchant's Daughter's company who made $15+ million dollars from the illicit information pouring out of her father's courtroom - I wanna know the bank records because money doesn't lie - I wanna know how deep it is and how much of it went to the family and how much of it is going to the family after this false conviction - Then we need to investigate the FEC actual violations that this judge and his family conducted Judge Juan Merchan should never have been overseeing this trial to begin with because of the illicit campaign money that was flowing through there and the unconstitutional due process violations are only the beginning.“ That’s not all, here’s more reasons why he should have NEVER been assigned Donald Trump’s case from The Older Millennial: ‘For these type of cases, the way it's supposed to work is that there is a panel of 24 judges, and they are all put in rotation and randomly assigned these types of cases. Judge Merchan is not on that panel. That's because he's not a judge. He's an acting judge. The only way he could have caught this case was to be specifically assigned to it. There was no chance of him being randomly selected. The wild thing is that according to the left and the department of justice, judge Merchan was not only randomly selected to be the judge in this trial, but he was also randomly selected to be the judge in the Trump Organization case, and he was randomly selected to be the judge in the Steve Bannon case. So judge Merchan, a judge that is not in the pool of 24 judges that is supposed to catch these cases, a judge that is not an actual judge, but an acting judge caught all 3 Trump related cases randomly. This is a judge who gives heavily to an organization very plainly named Stop Trump, and a judge whose daughter makes tens of millions of dollars every year promoting Democrats.’ Insane corruption.

Wall Street Apes

3,330,838 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce