正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

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 次观看 • 5 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Well, that was a wild day in court for the John O'Keefe and Karen Read case. Was it my 2:52pm ET post on X, simply summarizing a public court document from the matter, that led Judge Gildea to call 32 lawyers into court? As of now, no one was sanctioned as a result of my reporting (as, obviously, I simply read the impoundment motion and summarized it). Alan Jackson was, however, not allowed to be heard at the end of the hearing in what was a tense moment. Just. Wild. Here's my full dispatch on today's hearing.

Well, that was a wild day in court for the John O'Keefe and Karen Read case. Was it my 2:52pm ET post on X, simply summarizing a public court document from the matter, that led Judge Gildea to call 32 lawyers into court? As of now, no one was sanctioned as a result of my reporting (as, obviously, I simply read the impoundment motion and summarized it). Alan Jackson was, however, not allowed to be heard at the end of the hearing in what was a tense moment. Just. Wild. Here's my full dispatch on today's hearing.

Grant Smith Ellis

178,890 次观看 • 2 个月前

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 次观看 • 5 个月前

🚨 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.

🚨 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 次观看 • 2 个月前

#WATCH | Ranchi: Harsh Kumar, intervener in the petitions filed against cancellations of exams, says, "The 'prima facie' case rests solely on the point that they were not granted a hearing. The issue isn't about who is right or wrong; the question of law being addressed is simply whether or not they have the right to a hearing. That is the extent of the question. It does not go into whether or not there was mass bungling... A stay was granted..."

#WATCH | Ranchi: Harsh Kumar, intervener in the petitions filed against cancellations of exams, says, "The 'prima facie' case rests solely on the point that they were not granted a hearing. The issue isn't about who is right or wrong; the question of law being addressed is simply whether or not they have the right to a hearing. That is the extent of the question. It does not go into whether or not there was mass bungling... A stay was granted..."

ANI

21,370 次观看 • 1 个月前

#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

553,900 次观看 • 1 年前

🚨 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.

🚨 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 次观看 • 2 个月前

‼️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 insert new evidence regarding safety standards from a Provo shooting range that were not previously added as evidence. In their reply brief and again at the podium they started citing things that were never admitted — including safety standards from a Provo shooting range that was not in evidence at the preliminary hearing. The defense immediately called them out for this. That is not argument. That is a backdoor evidence dump. Counsel was blunt. The state had every chance to put on guns, gun-safety specifics, physics, and probabilities. It did not. It does not get another bite at the apple through a brief or a closing. A judge deciding probable cause is supposed to weigh only what was actually placed into the record in court, not what a prosecutor wishes he had proved after the fact. Argument is not testimony. A citation in a reply is not an exhibit. They asked the court to stay inside the record. That is the whole point of holding a 5 day long evidentiary process. If the official story needed range rules and extra science, those belonged in July with a witness under oath — not in September as a sneak. RT and watch the FULL hearing linked below.

‼️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 insert new evidence regarding safety standards from a Provo shooting range that were not previously added as evidence. In their reply brief and again at the podium they started citing things that were never admitted — including safety standards from a Provo shooting range that was not in evidence at the preliminary hearing. The defense immediately called them out for this. That is not argument. That is a backdoor evidence dump. Counsel was blunt. The state had every chance to put on guns, gun-safety specifics, physics, and probabilities. It did not. It does not get another bite at the apple through a brief or a closing. A judge deciding probable cause is supposed to weigh only what was actually placed into the record in court, not what a prosecutor wishes he had proved after the fact. Argument is not testimony. A citation in a reply is not an exhibit. They asked the court to stay inside the record. That is the whole point of holding a 5 day long evidentiary process. If the official story needed range rules and extra science, those belonged in July with a witness under oath — not in September as a sneak. RT and watch the FULL hearing linked below.

Project Constitution

90,790 次观看 • 23 天前

According to Lauren Conlin, drama unfolded in the courtroom today, with a frustrated Judge Charlaine Olmedo entering the Clara Shortridge Foltz courtroom Thursday morning with several issues she wanted to put on the record. Before testimony resumed for the third day of David Anthony Burke’s preliminary hearing, the judge announced she received an email informing the court’s media office that a content creator in another state was receiving live transmitted updates about what was occurring in court. The judge had previously ordered that live transmitting for this hearing was not allowed, and the order is stated before court begins every morning. An altercation also took place between Beth Silverman and private investigator Steve Fischer, with Silverman accusing Fischer of directing negative comments at her and stating he should not be present in the courtroom as he was previously a witness in the grand jury. Finally, Silverman stated on record that Celeste’s family attorney, Patrick Steinfeld, had spoken with Fischer on day one of the hearing, which she also stated was not allowed. Steinfeld turned to Fischer and stated that he approached the investigator and the conversation only lasted 15 seconds. Fischer ultimately left the courtroom without objection. SF INVESTIGATES • STEVE FISCHER and I spoke following his interaction with Silverman on Tuesday. He stated Beth Silverman is “not a fan” of him, previously predicting “more of that will come out.” “She does not like the fact that I’ve kept the story, I’ve tried to keep it in the media while nothing seemed to be happening,” Fischer said. More forensic evidence was discussed once court began. Lauren Conlin has provided updates on her account, and a full video will be posted by her once the court breaks for lunch.

According to Lauren Conlin, drama unfolded in the courtroom today, with a frustrated Judge Charlaine Olmedo entering the Clara Shortridge Foltz courtroom Thursday morning with several issues she wanted to put on the record. Before testimony resumed for the third day of David Anthony Burke’s preliminary hearing, the judge announced she received an email informing the court’s media office that a content creator in another state was receiving live transmitted updates about what was occurring in court. The judge had previously ordered that live transmitting for this hearing was not allowed, and the order is stated before court begins every morning. An altercation also took place between Beth Silverman and private investigator Steve Fischer, with Silverman accusing Fischer of directing negative comments at her and stating he should not be present in the courtroom as he was previously a witness in the grand jury. Finally, Silverman stated on record that Celeste’s family attorney, Patrick Steinfeld, had spoken with Fischer on day one of the hearing, which she also stated was not allowed. Steinfeld turned to Fischer and stated that he approached the investigator and the conversation only lasted 15 seconds. Fischer ultimately left the courtroom without objection. SF INVESTIGATES • STEVE FISCHER and I spoke following his interaction with Silverman on Tuesday. He stated Beth Silverman is “not a fan” of him, previously predicting “more of that will come out.” “She does not like the fact that I’ve kept the story, I’ve tried to keep it in the media while nothing seemed to be happening,” Fischer said. More forensic evidence was discussed once court began. Lauren Conlin has provided updates on her account, and a full video will be posted by her once the court breaks for lunch.

Taylor Parise

25,557 次观看 • 2 个月前

#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

10,965 次观看 • 1 年前

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 次观看 • 4 个月前

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

534,687 次观看 • 1 年前

FETTERMAN: “I am angry at people like Bernie Sanders that pushed that accused rapist. Why did so many people on the Left embrace that accused rapist? What was the appeal? Was it no record in public service? Was it the record of the Nazi ink? Was it the crazy things he said?”

FETTERMAN: “I am angry at people like Bernie Sanders that pushed that accused rapist. Why did so many people on the Left embrace that accused rapist? What was the appeal? Was it no record in public service? Was it the record of the Nazi ink? Was it the crazy things he said?”

RNC Research

324,803 次观看 • 2 个月前

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

25,742 次观看 • 1 年前

VIDEO | Delhi: Advocate Naman Joshi on HC hearing the Gymkhana Club case, said, "I would say that your interpretation that the court has not granted any interim relief is incorrect. The court has stated that the Solicitor General’s statement addresses the concerns of the members. The real concern today was that a notice had been issued on May 22 seeking the resumption of the land and the termination of the lease. It also provided for the possible use of the public police force to take possession of the land. We had those concerns and brought them before the court. The learned Solicitor General made a statement that they would not take any action except in accordance with the law, and the court has taken that statement on record. Therefore, it is a reprieve for the club today. The club continues to function as it is for now. So, there is no problem." (Full video available on PTI Videos -

VIDEO | Delhi: Advocate Naman Joshi on HC hearing the Gymkhana Club case, said, "I would say that your interpretation that the court has not granted any interim relief is incorrect. The court has stated that the Solicitor General’s statement addresses the concerns of the members. The real concern today was that a notice had been issued on May 22 seeking the resumption of the land and the termination of the lease. It also provided for the possible use of the public police force to take possession of the land. We had those concerns and brought them before the court. The learned Solicitor General made a statement that they would not take any action except in accordance with the law, and the court has taken that statement on record. Therefore, it is a reprieve for the club today. The club continues to function as it is for now. So, there is no problem." (Full video available on PTI Videos -

Press Trust of India

10,483 次观看 • 4 个月前

NIGERIANS, THIS TINUBU CHICAGO CASE JUST TOOK A NEW TURN. 👀 Take your mind off the FBI filing for a moment. Focus on this VIDEO evidence. What makes this video particularly interesting is who is speaking. Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C. has just released another update on the Tinubu Chicago case. But unlike everything we’ve seen so far… This one isn’t a court document - it’s a video. Recorded at an APC political event in Nigeria. With President Tinubu present. And in that video, a man identified as Adewale Tinubu - reportedly President Tinubu’s nephew - publicly discusses the Chicago case. Now listen carefully to what he says. He reportedly states: “I did that case in Chicago. It was one of my first legal matters.” He then describes personally urging President Tinubu to settle the case. Interesting, right? But here is where things get VERY interesting. The official court record for that Chicago case identifies Patrick S. Coffey, Esq. as the attorney representing Tinubu. Not Adewale Tinubu. There is no court appearance under Adewale Tinubu’s name. No pleading bearing his name. No signature. No filing identifying him as counsel. At least, not in the official court record identified in this filing. So we have a very simple question: Why does a man publicly describe himself as having “done” the Chicago case when the official court record does not identify him as Tinubu’s attorney in that proceeding? There may be an explanation. Perhaps he was involved in some capacity that did not require appearing as counsel of record. Perhaps “I did that case” was being used loosely. Or perhaps there is something else we don’t yet know. That is precisely why this needs to be clarified. And this matters because of what is happening in the FBI FOIA case. Remember the last post I made on this case? Von Batten argued that Tinubu’s privacy position is weakened by the fact that the Nigerian Presidency itself publicly discussed the FBI records and the court case. Now there is another piece of public material. A VIDEO. At an APC political event. With Tinubu present. And his own reported nephew publicly discussing the Chicago case. So the question of privacy becomes even more interesting. Tinubu is asking a US federal court to protect records as private. Yet people within his own political and family circle are publicly discussing matters connected to the case. Can you claim something is private in court while people close to you are publicly discussing it? That is now an issue the court can potentially consider. And Von Batten is not simply posting the video on social media. He is seeking to put the video transcript before the court as part of his supplemental evidentiary exhibits. If the court accepts the filing, the judge will have before her: ➡️ The FBI’s confirmation of 399 pages of responsive records ➡️ Investigative material involving surveillance, undercover operations, cooperating witnesses and other matters ➡️ Wiretap recordings the FBI says were compiled during an investigation involving heroin-trafficking crimes ➡️ Von Batten’s argument concerning the Nigerian Presidency’s public statement ➡️ And now, a video in which Tinubu’s reported nephew publicly discusses the Chicago case Think about that. This case has moved from: “What does the FBI have?” to: “What does the FBI have - and what have people connected to Tinubu publicly said about it?” And there is one question I really want answered: If Adewale Tinubu was involved in that Chicago case, in what capacity was he involved? Because the official court record identified in the filing does not show him as counsel of record. That discrepancy deserves an explanation. And if the video is being presented to a US federal court as evidence, the court can decide what weight, if any, to give it. We don’t need to speculate. We need to look at the documents. Watch the video. Read the transcript. Check the court record. And ask the questions. We deserve the truth.

NIGERIANS, THIS TINUBU CHICAGO CASE JUST TOOK A NEW TURN. 👀 Take your mind off the FBI filing for a moment. Focus on this VIDEO evidence. What makes this video particularly interesting is who is speaking. Von Batten-Montague-York, L.C. has just released another update on the Tinubu Chicago case. But unlike everything we’ve seen so far… This one isn’t a court document - it’s a video. Recorded at an APC political event in Nigeria. With President Tinubu present. And in that video, a man identified as Adewale Tinubu - reportedly President Tinubu’s nephew - publicly discusses the Chicago case. Now listen carefully to what he says. He reportedly states: “I did that case in Chicago. It was one of my first legal matters.” He then describes personally urging President Tinubu to settle the case. Interesting, right? But here is where things get VERY interesting. The official court record for that Chicago case identifies Patrick S. Coffey, Esq. as the attorney representing Tinubu. Not Adewale Tinubu. There is no court appearance under Adewale Tinubu’s name. No pleading bearing his name. No signature. No filing identifying him as counsel. At least, not in the official court record identified in this filing. So we have a very simple question: Why does a man publicly describe himself as having “done” the Chicago case when the official court record does not identify him as Tinubu’s attorney in that proceeding? There may be an explanation. Perhaps he was involved in some capacity that did not require appearing as counsel of record. Perhaps “I did that case” was being used loosely. Or perhaps there is something else we don’t yet know. That is precisely why this needs to be clarified. And this matters because of what is happening in the FBI FOIA case. Remember the last post I made on this case? Von Batten argued that Tinubu’s privacy position is weakened by the fact that the Nigerian Presidency itself publicly discussed the FBI records and the court case. Now there is another piece of public material. A VIDEO. At an APC political event. With Tinubu present. And his own reported nephew publicly discussing the Chicago case. So the question of privacy becomes even more interesting. Tinubu is asking a US federal court to protect records as private. Yet people within his own political and family circle are publicly discussing matters connected to the case. Can you claim something is private in court while people close to you are publicly discussing it? That is now an issue the court can potentially consider. And Von Batten is not simply posting the video on social media. He is seeking to put the video transcript before the court as part of his supplemental evidentiary exhibits. If the court accepts the filing, the judge will have before her: ➡️ The FBI’s confirmation of 399 pages of responsive records ➡️ Investigative material involving surveillance, undercover operations, cooperating witnesses and other matters ➡️ Wiretap recordings the FBI says were compiled during an investigation involving heroin-trafficking crimes ➡️ Von Batten’s argument concerning the Nigerian Presidency’s public statement ➡️ And now, a video in which Tinubu’s reported nephew publicly discusses the Chicago case Think about that. This case has moved from: “What does the FBI have?” to: “What does the FBI have - and what have people connected to Tinubu publicly said about it?” And there is one question I really want answered: If Adewale Tinubu was involved in that Chicago case, in what capacity was he involved? Because the official court record identified in the filing does not show him as counsel of record. That discrepancy deserves an explanation. And if the video is being presented to a US federal court as evidence, the court can decide what weight, if any, to give it. We don’t need to speculate. We need to look at the documents. Watch the video. Read the transcript. Check the court record. And ask the questions. We deserve the truth.

Oluwakemi Oyefeso

74,252 次观看 • 18 天前

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

127,738 次观看 • 5 个月前

BREAKING: Harrison Floyd who is the last co-defendant in Trump’s election interference case in Georgia remains in custody. He was just denied bond Judge Emily Richardson in the Georgia courts. Floyd will remain behind bars. A lot of conservatives are questioning why all of the other defendants have been let out on bond, while Floyd, a black man, has not been. The ruling by the judge was that Floyd was a flight risk and there was also the risk that he may commit further crimes if he was released. However, Judge Richardson is not the judge who has been assigned the case. Judge Scott McAfee is the assigned judge, so it is still very possible he will be allowed out on bond when the official judge in the case can make a decision. It’s also worth noting that Richardson did not have an attorney with him to argue for bond. He elected to do so without hiring a lawyer. What are your thoughts? Will Floyd ultimately get bond? Should he?

BREAKING: Harrison Floyd who is the last co-defendant in Trump’s election interference case in Georgia remains in custody. He was just denied bond Judge Emily Richardson in the Georgia courts. Floyd will remain behind bars. A lot of conservatives are questioning why all of the other defendants have been let out on bond, while Floyd, a black man, has not been. The ruling by the judge was that Floyd was a flight risk and there was also the risk that he may commit further crimes if he was released. However, Judge Richardson is not the judge who has been assigned the case. Judge Scott McAfee is the assigned judge, so it is still very possible he will be allowed out on bond when the official judge in the case can make a decision. It’s also worth noting that Richardson did not have an attorney with him to argue for bond. He elected to do so without hiring a lawyer. What are your thoughts? Will Floyd ultimately get bond? Should he?

Ed Krassenstein

1,344,724 次观看 • 3 年前