Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

🚨 Garlasco 🚨 The case that risks being the biggest judicial error in the history of Italy 🇮🇹‼️ > Be Alberto Stasi > Born in 1983 near Milan > Normal Northern Italian family, no privileges > Prestigious Bocconi University Economics graduate > Steady boyfriend of Chiara Poggi > 13...

mamboitaliano__'s profile picture

Mambo Italiano

258,685 subscribers

34,093 views • 3 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Important message to U.S. President Donald Trump (Donald J. Trump) "We are November 17, 2024. As you can see, I am front the White House in Washington DC. I am Gloriane Blais, former lawyer and Canadian citizen. I am seeking asylum in United States of America because since 2020 I have been the victim of significant, violent, illegal and abusive persecution by the Canadian judicial system, including Canada's highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada. It all started in 2020, when as a lawyer I received a fraudulent judgment at the end of a trial for my client, a very solid businessman who was the victim of government corruption (abuse of power), against a Crown corporation of the Quebec government in Canada, a lawsuit by my client for 35 million Canadian dollars. Following the fraudulent judgment, I took the case to the Quebec Court of Appeal, with an appeal as of right. The Quebec Court of Appeal preliminarily dismissed the appeal, refusing to look at the evidence, illegally refusing to wait until the evidentiary stage. In March 2021, I filed an Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking the country's highest court to reform the fraudulent judgment in favour of government corruption. This was the first time in Canadian judicial history that a party not only alleged a wilful lack of impartiality, but actually proved it; I filed 14 volumes of evidence. Before the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision, the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court, i.e., the boss of trial judges for the province of Quebec, filed a request for a disciplinary inquiry against me with the Quebec Bar, even though I had filed evidence of my allegations with the Supreme Court of Canada, even though it was not the lawyer who was to be investigated, but rather the judge under his authority who had rendered the fraudulent judgment. In May 2024, Me Daniel Gagnon for the Quebec Bar lodged the 1st lifetime disciplinary complaint against me, based on this request for investigation by the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court. Since then, the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court has resigned, and Me Daniel Gagnon has twice admitted under oath that he never read a single page of the 14 volumes of evidence (except my 20-page brief, which are my allegations)! On July 8, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada failed in its constitutional responsibilities by rejecting my client's Application for Leave to Appeal. All the evidence of what I have just named is, in French, via my Docurium link : On the same date, July 8, 2021, Me Daniel Gagnon for the Quebec Bar lodged a 2nd (and final) disciplinary complaint against me concerning my spring 2021 comments on the Covid-19 vaccine, as a whistleblower and lawyer with expertise in health law, medical liability and hospitality. I called this vaccine an experimental injection, and when they started inoculating children, I called it a crime against humanity, again as a lawyer. It should be remembered that this vaccine was still in phase 3 of the clinical trial and was a new technology never before used in the general population. We would later learn a great deal of information, including that the product was manufactured using process number 2, with only 252 participants in Pfizer's clinical trial, as the 44,000-participant clinical trial was manufactured using process number 1; consequently, the product distributed to the general population did not undergo a clinical trial! For this, I refer you to the book in English by biostatistician in the pharmaceutical industry Christine Cotton, from France, for which I wrote the Afterword: The two disciplinary complaints continued. ⬇️2/
10:00

Important message to U.S. President Donald Trump (Donald J. Trump) "We are November 17, 2024. As you can see, I am front the White House in Washington DC. I am Gloriane Blais, former lawyer and Canadian citizen. I am seeking asylum in United States of America because since 2020 I have been the victim of significant, violent, illegal and abusive persecution by the Canadian judicial system, including Canada's highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada. It all started in 2020, when as a lawyer I received a fraudulent judgment at the end of a trial for my client, a very solid businessman who was the victim of government corruption (abuse of power), against a Crown corporation of the Quebec government in Canada, a lawsuit by my client for 35 million Canadian dollars. Following the fraudulent judgment, I took the case to the Quebec Court of Appeal, with an appeal as of right. The Quebec Court of Appeal preliminarily dismissed the appeal, refusing to look at the evidence, illegally refusing to wait until the evidentiary stage. In March 2021, I filed an Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking the country's highest court to reform the fraudulent judgment in favour of government corruption. This was the first time in Canadian judicial history that a party not only alleged a wilful lack of impartiality, but actually proved it; I filed 14 volumes of evidence. Before the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision, the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court, i.e., the boss of trial judges for the province of Quebec, filed a request for a disciplinary inquiry against me with the Quebec Bar, even though I had filed evidence of my allegations with the Supreme Court of Canada, even though it was not the lawyer who was to be investigated, but rather the judge under his authority who had rendered the fraudulent judgment. In May 2024, Me Daniel Gagnon for the Quebec Bar lodged the 1st lifetime disciplinary complaint against me, based on this request for investigation by the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court. Since then, the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court has resigned, and Me Daniel Gagnon has twice admitted under oath that he never read a single page of the 14 volumes of evidence (except my 20-page brief, which are my allegations)! On July 8, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada failed in its constitutional responsibilities by rejecting my client's Application for Leave to Appeal. All the evidence of what I have just named is, in French, via my Docurium link : On the same date, July 8, 2021, Me Daniel Gagnon for the Quebec Bar lodged a 2nd (and final) disciplinary complaint against me concerning my spring 2021 comments on the Covid-19 vaccine, as a whistleblower and lawyer with expertise in health law, medical liability and hospitality. I called this vaccine an experimental injection, and when they started inoculating children, I called it a crime against humanity, again as a lawyer. It should be remembered that this vaccine was still in phase 3 of the clinical trial and was a new technology never before used in the general population. We would later learn a great deal of information, including that the product was manufactured using process number 2, with only 252 participants in Pfizer's clinical trial, as the 44,000-participant clinical trial was manufactured using process number 1; consequently, the product distributed to the general population did not undergo a clinical trial! For this, I refer you to the book in English by biostatistician in the pharmaceutical industry Christine Cotton, from France, for which I wrote the Afterword: The two disciplinary complaints continued. ⬇️2/

Gloriane Blais

30,949 views • 1 year ago

BREAKING: ENOCH BURKE SAYS APPEAL OF HIS DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT PROCEED THIS SATURDAY Teacher Enoch Burke's appeal of his dismissal from Wilson's Hospital School is due to be heard by the Department of Education this Saturday, 13 December. Enoch Burke will speak in court tomorrow. He will argue that the Supreme Court must address the issue of conflicting Court of Appeal judgments in his case before the Department of Education hears his appeal. It is imperative in the interests of justice that this issue be resolved. A three-member division of the Court of Appeal today granted an order that Enoch Burke appear in person before them tomorrow at 2:30pm to apply that this hearing be postponed. There are conflicting judgments of the Court of Appeal regarding the critical question of why Enoch Burke was disciplined by Wilson's Hospital School. This is an extremely serious matter as the school’s Board of Management is relying heavily on a flawed judgment for Saturday's hearing. The Department of Education hearing should not proceed while this matter is unresolved. One judgment from 2023, written by Mr Justice John Edwards, contains the extraordinarily false assertion that "there is no evidence whatever" that Enoch Burke's suspension was because of his views on transgenderism or his refusal to comply with the principal's instruction to call a child "they". Mr Justice Edwards, on foot of this, stated that the constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are "not engaged" i.e. not relevant to Enoch Burke's case. As stated previously, the Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School are relying heavily on this flawed judgment for Saturday's hearing. In a later Court of Appeal judgment in 2025, Ms Justice Mary Faherty ruled, on the contrary, that the principal's instruction is "a kernel" of the disciplinary proceedings against Enoch Burke. She stated: "In my view, any reasonable reader of the principal’s report would understand that the principal considered her overarching complaint against the appellant to fall under the heading of refusal to comply with a legitimate instruction resulting in serious consequences, as provided for in the Circular". Notwithstanding this, the second Court of Appeal did not correct the errors of the first Court of Appeal and was unwilling to state that the findings of Mr Justice John Edwards are wrong. Enoch Burke has appealed this issue to the Supreme Court. The Department of Education hearing should not proceed until the Supreme Court hears this case and makes its ruling. Justice must be done.
2:51

BREAKING: ENOCH BURKE SAYS APPEAL OF HIS DISMISSAL SHOULD NOT PROCEED THIS SATURDAY Teacher Enoch Burke's appeal of his dismissal from Wilson's Hospital School is due to be heard by the Department of Education this Saturday, 13 December. Enoch Burke will speak in court tomorrow. He will argue that the Supreme Court must address the issue of conflicting Court of Appeal judgments in his case before the Department of Education hears his appeal. It is imperative in the interests of justice that this issue be resolved. A three-member division of the Court of Appeal today granted an order that Enoch Burke appear in person before them tomorrow at 2:30pm to apply that this hearing be postponed. There are conflicting judgments of the Court of Appeal regarding the critical question of why Enoch Burke was disciplined by Wilson's Hospital School. This is an extremely serious matter as the school’s Board of Management is relying heavily on a flawed judgment for Saturday's hearing. The Department of Education hearing should not proceed while this matter is unresolved. One judgment from 2023, written by Mr Justice John Edwards, contains the extraordinarily false assertion that "there is no evidence whatever" that Enoch Burke's suspension was because of his views on transgenderism or his refusal to comply with the principal's instruction to call a child "they". Mr Justice Edwards, on foot of this, stated that the constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of conscience are "not engaged" i.e. not relevant to Enoch Burke's case. As stated previously, the Board of Management of Wilson’s Hospital School are relying heavily on this flawed judgment for Saturday's hearing. In a later Court of Appeal judgment in 2025, Ms Justice Mary Faherty ruled, on the contrary, that the principal's instruction is "a kernel" of the disciplinary proceedings against Enoch Burke. She stated: "In my view, any reasonable reader of the principal’s report would understand that the principal considered her overarching complaint against the appellant to fall under the heading of refusal to comply with a legitimate instruction resulting in serious consequences, as provided for in the Circular". Notwithstanding this, the second Court of Appeal did not correct the errors of the first Court of Appeal and was unwilling to state that the findings of Mr Justice John Edwards are wrong. Enoch Burke has appealed this issue to the Supreme Court. The Department of Education hearing should not proceed until the Supreme Court hears this case and makes its ruling. Justice must be done.

Enoch Burke

149,178 views • 8 months ago

🚨BREAKING: After 3½ Years, Crown’s Case Against Csaba Vizi Collapses in Just 6 Minutes🚨 Timeline of the Csaba Vizi Case – Collapse of the Crown’s Prosecution February 19, 2022 – Arrest and Charges Csaba Vizi, a trucker participating in the Ottawa Freedom Convoy, was arrested during the police operation to clear downtown Ottawa. He was charged with four offences: - Resisting arrest - Mischief (two counts) - Disobeying a court order (the “no-honking” injunction) Vizi alleged that despite kneeling and attempting to comply, he was assaulted by police during the arrest, leaving him with injuries. (Video attached below) Before September 25, 2025 – Charges Narrowed Over time, two charges were withdrawn by the Crown: the resisting arrest charge and one mischief count. By September 2025, only two remained: - Mischief (single count) - Disobeying a court order September 25, 2025 – Charter Ruling 9:15 AM – Justice Macfarlane delivers his decision on the defence Charter application. - “Vacuum of evidence”: no arresting officer testified, no video of the arrest, and no clear evidence of who arrested Vizi. (Note: The arrest video exists; it was of his beating. Presumably this is why the Crown didn't provide it as evidence to the Court.) - The arrest was ruled unlawful, making the subsequent search unlawful. - Seizure of Vizi’s driver’s licence deemed an unreasonable search. - s. 10a breach: Police failed to explain the alleged court order adequately. - s. 10b breach: Inconsistent evidence about access to counsel. - s. 24(2): Video evidence obtained through these breaches was ruled inadmissible. With no evidence left, the Crown still failed to withdraw. The matter was adjourned to October 3 to determine whether a trial would proceed. October 3, 2025 – Acquittal 9:45 AM – Court convened to decide if a December trial would move forward. Early confusion: No Crown was present; defence counsel, Ms. Magas, and Vizi (via Zoom) were already in place. 9:57 AM – Fill-in Crown Wlodarczyk arrived. 9:59 AM – Judge re-entered. 10:00 AM – The Crown conceded, stating they would call no further evidence and requested an acquittal. 10:01 AM – Justice Macfarlane entered Not Guilty verdicts on both charges. 10:05 AM – Court concluded. The collapse of a case that dragged on for more than three years was over in just six minutes. Key Takeaway The Crown pursued this prosecution, despite a glaring lack of evidence, repeated Charter violations, and a failure even to call the arresting officer as a witness. Mr. Vizi endured years of stress, legal battles, costs, and uncertainty — only to have the court find that there was never enough evidence to justify a trial. The Crown arrived in court unprepared, disorganized, and unable to meet the most basic evidentiary standard. Justice was delayed for years, then delivered in a matter of minutes. Here is the arrest video 👇👇👇
2:22

🚨BREAKING: After 3½ Years, Crown’s Case Against Csaba Vizi Collapses in Just 6 Minutes🚨 Timeline of the Csaba Vizi Case – Collapse of the Crown’s Prosecution February 19, 2022 – Arrest and Charges Csaba Vizi, a trucker participating in the Ottawa Freedom Convoy, was arrested during the police operation to clear downtown Ottawa. He was charged with four offences: - Resisting arrest - Mischief (two counts) - Disobeying a court order (the “no-honking” injunction) Vizi alleged that despite kneeling and attempting to comply, he was assaulted by police during the arrest, leaving him with injuries. (Video attached below) Before September 25, 2025 – Charges Narrowed Over time, two charges were withdrawn by the Crown: the resisting arrest charge and one mischief count. By September 2025, only two remained: - Mischief (single count) - Disobeying a court order September 25, 2025 – Charter Ruling 9:15 AM – Justice Macfarlane delivers his decision on the defence Charter application. - “Vacuum of evidence”: no arresting officer testified, no video of the arrest, and no clear evidence of who arrested Vizi. (Note: The arrest video exists; it was of his beating. Presumably this is why the Crown didn't provide it as evidence to the Court.) - The arrest was ruled unlawful, making the subsequent search unlawful. - Seizure of Vizi’s driver’s licence deemed an unreasonable search. - s. 10a breach: Police failed to explain the alleged court order adequately. - s. 10b breach: Inconsistent evidence about access to counsel. - s. 24(2): Video evidence obtained through these breaches was ruled inadmissible. With no evidence left, the Crown still failed to withdraw. The matter was adjourned to October 3 to determine whether a trial would proceed. October 3, 2025 – Acquittal 9:45 AM – Court convened to decide if a December trial would move forward. Early confusion: No Crown was present; defence counsel, Ms. Magas, and Vizi (via Zoom) were already in place. 9:57 AM – Fill-in Crown Wlodarczyk arrived. 9:59 AM – Judge re-entered. 10:00 AM – The Crown conceded, stating they would call no further evidence and requested an acquittal. 10:01 AM – Justice Macfarlane entered Not Guilty verdicts on both charges. 10:05 AM – Court concluded. The collapse of a case that dragged on for more than three years was over in just six minutes. Key Takeaway The Crown pursued this prosecution, despite a glaring lack of evidence, repeated Charter violations, and a failure even to call the arresting officer as a witness. Mr. Vizi endured years of stress, legal battles, costs, and uncertainty — only to have the court find that there was never enough evidence to justify a trial. The Crown arrived in court unprepared, disorganized, and unable to meet the most basic evidentiary standard. Justice was delayed for years, then delivered in a matter of minutes. Here is the arrest video 👇👇👇

Jason Lavigne

44,192 views • 10 months ago

🚨GAUCI REPORTS: RYAN FIRESTONE RELEASED ON BAIL AFTER SHOCK COURT TURNAROUND After months in custody at HMP Bedford, Ryan Firestone has now been unexpectedly released on bail following a hearing at St Albans Crown Court. Even Ryan himself admitted he was shocked by the sudden turnaround, especially after previously being repeatedly remanded over address and disclosure issues. I sat down with Ryan for an exclusive interview following his release, where he speaks candidly about prison conditions, life behind bars and the reality of the UK prison system in 2026. He describes some disturbing experiences during his time inside, the difficulties he faced whilst self-representing and why he believes many prisoners are being failed by the system. Ryan also reflects honestly on the fact that while some people clearly belong in prison, others perhaps should never have been there in the first place. The hearing itself saw the judge move the trial date back to May 2028. But the story didn’t end there… When Ryan finally walked out of court, he had no wallet, no bank cards, no phone, no keys and no access to his belongings - just boxes of legal paperwork. After waiting outside court for hours, we then had to contact HMP Bedford and drive all the way back to the prison in the hope his property could be recovered before he was effectively left stranded. Thankfully, prison staff were helpful and eventually managed to retrieve his belongings after another long wait. There is also expected to be a further case management hearing in July - believed to be around 17th July, (although I double check) where the court will review how the case proceeds moving forward. Ryan has now finally been provided with a significant amount of paperwork and material from the CPS, giving him the opportunity over the coming weeks to properly review the evidence, prepare his defence statement and continue preparing his case. It was a surreal end to an already extraordinary few months. 🎥 Full interview with Ryan Firestone on Gauci Reports. #CitizenJournalism #GauciReports
17:56

🚨GAUCI REPORTS: RYAN FIRESTONE RELEASED ON BAIL AFTER SHOCK COURT TURNAROUND After months in custody at HMP Bedford, Ryan Firestone has now been unexpectedly released on bail following a hearing at St Albans Crown Court. Even Ryan himself admitted he was shocked by the sudden turnaround, especially after previously being repeatedly remanded over address and disclosure issues. I sat down with Ryan for an exclusive interview following his release, where he speaks candidly about prison conditions, life behind bars and the reality of the UK prison system in 2026. He describes some disturbing experiences during his time inside, the difficulties he faced whilst self-representing and why he believes many prisoners are being failed by the system. Ryan also reflects honestly on the fact that while some people clearly belong in prison, others perhaps should never have been there in the first place. The hearing itself saw the judge move the trial date back to May 2028. But the story didn’t end there… When Ryan finally walked out of court, he had no wallet, no bank cards, no phone, no keys and no access to his belongings - just boxes of legal paperwork. After waiting outside court for hours, we then had to contact HMP Bedford and drive all the way back to the prison in the hope his property could be recovered before he was effectively left stranded. Thankfully, prison staff were helpful and eventually managed to retrieve his belongings after another long wait. There is also expected to be a further case management hearing in July - believed to be around 17th July, (although I double check) where the court will review how the case proceeds moving forward. Ryan has now finally been provided with a significant amount of paperwork and material from the CPS, giving him the opportunity over the coming weeks to properly review the evidence, prepare his defence statement and continue preparing his case. It was a surreal end to an already extraordinary few months. 🎥 Full interview with Ryan Firestone on Gauci Reports. #CitizenJournalism #GauciReports

Gauci Reports

91,591 views • 2 months ago

We are at the final stretch. After years of legal hearings and judicial deliberations, today, Britain’s High Court judges get their last chance to decide whether to wash their hands of Julian Assange and let him be extradited to the United States – where he will disappear in a supermax prison maze never to be heard of again until he dies. Julian is not on trial. He has already been declared a hero of journalism and of everyone around the world who believe in the right of the public to know what crimes their governments have perpetrated in their name, behind their backs. Britain’s High Court is on trial. This is the Court’s last chance to restore a small part of the British courts’ dignity that was sacrificed by judges who, year in year out, allowed themselves to be deployed as the legal agents of war criminals. But, let us make no mistake: It is not just Britain’s judges that are on trial. So are we – citizens, journalists, organisations and politicians who claim to care for universal human rights and press freedom. History will deliver its own verdict in due course on us depending on whether we stand with Julian while the judges deliberate – and on whether we continue to stand with Julian the day after the High Court verdict. Let us commit to passing History’s test, even if the United Kingdom’s High Court judges fail it.
2:08

We are at the final stretch. After years of legal hearings and judicial deliberations, today, Britain’s High Court judges get their last chance to decide whether to wash their hands of Julian Assange and let him be extradited to the United States – where he will disappear in a supermax prison maze never to be heard of again until he dies. Julian is not on trial. He has already been declared a hero of journalism and of everyone around the world who believe in the right of the public to know what crimes their governments have perpetrated in their name, behind their backs. Britain’s High Court is on trial. This is the Court’s last chance to restore a small part of the British courts’ dignity that was sacrificed by judges who, year in year out, allowed themselves to be deployed as the legal agents of war criminals. But, let us make no mistake: It is not just Britain’s judges that are on trial. So are we – citizens, journalists, organisations and politicians who claim to care for universal human rights and press freedom. History will deliver its own verdict in due course on us depending on whether we stand with Julian while the judges deliberate – and on whether we continue to stand with Julian the day after the High Court verdict. Let us commit to passing History’s test, even if the United Kingdom’s High Court judges fail it.

Yanis Varoufakis

204,419 views • 2 years ago

Nnamdi Kanu is trending because his trial has been adjourned indefinitely. Barely 48hrs after he said no one should beg Tinubu, on his behalf. Because agitating Biafra is not a crime. He rejected the adjournment by Justice Binta Nyako. Lectured the court, alleged Nyako wants to exchange his head. September 24th, 2024, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu rejected and openly accused Justice Binta Nyako of being an unprofessional, bias Justice who actively disobeys the rule of law. Then asked her to remove herself from his trial. She admitted and transferred his case file to Justice Tosho. Justice Tosho rejected it and sent it back to Justice Nyako. MNK insisted he isn’t confident in Justice Nyako handling his case. That, if there is no one willing to handle his case in Abuja. Then, his trial should be moved to the South East. Since his alleged offense of “Treason” affects the South East, not the North. Then, they should be well equipped to handle the trial accordingly. Today in court, Justice Nyako appeared again and was ready to proceed with the case at the Federal High Court Abuja. As prosecution was looking to begin, MNK’s lawyer opposed, saying they are not here for trial. Justice Nyako then said, she initially recused herself from the case, but she was assigned back by the Chief Judge. That, they’d need to file a reassignment motion. As Kanu’s lawyers and the prosecution were arguing the need for such. Nnamdi Kanu demanded to speak. He said, he’s only in court out of respect. That, Nyako no longer has jurisdiction over his case. And he doesn’t understand why they always turn the law upside down when it comes to his case. He argued that, since Nyako had officially recused herself from his case. Then, the Chief Judge can’t impose, instead appeal. Kanu insisted Nyako is unprofessional and bias. Kanu said “If the Chief Judge disagrees, he should appeal the decision. You cannot preside over this case, not now, not today, not ever. You stand recused and you must leave my case. I don’t need you in my case. You are biased. Tell the Chief Judge that Nnamdi Kanu said so. This is not a court of law. This is a shrine to injustice and i will not subject myself to it”. After his submission, the prosecutor still wanted the court to go ahead with trial. MNK interrupted saying “Because of money they are paying you from the AGF’s office, a grown-up man like you is here supporting evil. The rule of law says you should go on appeal. The same Chief Judge, writing this stupid memo, I have recused him before. He sat on appeal, I took him to NJC and recused him. Why is he insisting on this one? He wants to embarrass your lordship by asking her to sit on this case.” Then Justice Nyako, decided Adjourn the case indefinitely due to the situation of things. Kanu again; “You have no jurisdiction to adjourn anything. None whatsoever. You cannot make an order without jurisdiction. The memo from the Chief Judge cannot confer jurisdiction upon you” Kanu insists they deliberately ignore the law due to their bias against him. That him agitating for Biafra is his right, that somehow they’ve changed his charge from treason to terrorism. He remains defiant, against Justice Nyako handling his trial. He alleged that Justice Nyako has reached some sort of agreement to give his head in exchange for the freedom of her husband and son, who are facing a criminal case. Hinting that Nyako never truely left the case. Basically, he just wants the court to obey the Nigerian constitution. He has been in detention since 2021. But Nigerians fear it has become political and he may need to be submissive, otherwise his pride will keep him incarcerated indefinitely. • Pay for what you use. Get detailed analytics on your energy consumption • water, electricity & gas. Inquire now: Vendr Utilities || iOS • Web • Android || info@vendr.ng ||
9:20

Nnamdi Kanu is trending because his trial has been adjourned indefinitely. Barely 48hrs after he said no one should beg Tinubu, on his behalf. Because agitating Biafra is not a crime. He rejected the adjournment by Justice Binta Nyako. Lectured the court, alleged Nyako wants to exchange his head. September 24th, 2024, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu rejected and openly accused Justice Binta Nyako of being an unprofessional, bias Justice who actively disobeys the rule of law. Then asked her to remove herself from his trial. She admitted and transferred his case file to Justice Tosho. Justice Tosho rejected it and sent it back to Justice Nyako. MNK insisted he isn’t confident in Justice Nyako handling his case. That, if there is no one willing to handle his case in Abuja. Then, his trial should be moved to the South East. Since his alleged offense of “Treason” affects the South East, not the North. Then, they should be well equipped to handle the trial accordingly. Today in court, Justice Nyako appeared again and was ready to proceed with the case at the Federal High Court Abuja. As prosecution was looking to begin, MNK’s lawyer opposed, saying they are not here for trial. Justice Nyako then said, she initially recused herself from the case, but she was assigned back by the Chief Judge. That, they’d need to file a reassignment motion. As Kanu’s lawyers and the prosecution were arguing the need for such. Nnamdi Kanu demanded to speak. He said, he’s only in court out of respect. That, Nyako no longer has jurisdiction over his case. And he doesn’t understand why they always turn the law upside down when it comes to his case. He argued that, since Nyako had officially recused herself from his case. Then, the Chief Judge can’t impose, instead appeal. Kanu insisted Nyako is unprofessional and bias. Kanu said “If the Chief Judge disagrees, he should appeal the decision. You cannot preside over this case, not now, not today, not ever. You stand recused and you must leave my case. I don’t need you in my case. You are biased. Tell the Chief Judge that Nnamdi Kanu said so. This is not a court of law. This is a shrine to injustice and i will not subject myself to it”. After his submission, the prosecutor still wanted the court to go ahead with trial. MNK interrupted saying “Because of money they are paying you from the AGF’s office, a grown-up man like you is here supporting evil. The rule of law says you should go on appeal. The same Chief Judge, writing this stupid memo, I have recused him before. He sat on appeal, I took him to NJC and recused him. Why is he insisting on this one? He wants to embarrass your lordship by asking her to sit on this case.” Then Justice Nyako, decided Adjourn the case indefinitely due to the situation of things. Kanu again; “You have no jurisdiction to adjourn anything. None whatsoever. You cannot make an order without jurisdiction. The memo from the Chief Judge cannot confer jurisdiction upon you” Kanu insists they deliberately ignore the law due to their bias against him. That him agitating for Biafra is his right, that somehow they’ve changed his charge from treason to terrorism. He remains defiant, against Justice Nyako handling his trial. He alleged that Justice Nyako has reached some sort of agreement to give his head in exchange for the freedom of her husband and son, who are facing a criminal case. Hinting that Nyako never truely left the case. Basically, he just wants the court to obey the Nigerian constitution. He has been in detention since 2021. But Nigerians fear it has become political and he may need to be submissive, otherwise his pride will keep him incarcerated indefinitely. • Pay for what you use. Get detailed analytics on your energy consumption • water, electricity & gas. Inquire now: Vendr Utilities || iOS • Web • Android || [email protected] ||

Trending Explained

103,162 views • 1 year ago

It's been almost three years since August of 2022, but I don't think anyone realizes what David Yannetti accomplished with the Karen Read defense. Yes, Alan, Aidan, Eliza Little, the Boston DOJ and others put in work, but do not forget that real power moves in humble silence. TRANSCRIPT: **David Yannetti:** Today was my client's first appearance after her Superior Court arraignment. And as you would expect, we are now starting the discovery process in Superior Court. The history of this case was such that while the case was pending for months in the district court, we had a lot of difficulty getting cooperation from the prosecution in turning over the information that they had. We had more than one court date where there was a big fight in court where we were pushing to get the information that we needed. And [the prosecution team] were essentially giving us the stiff arm in district court. Now that the case has been indicted, I'm pleased to say that the spigot has started to open up a little bit. We got some further material today, which we are going to review, cross-reference against what we have. And I think the theme for the day, really the theme for the past several months, is that with each new piece of evidence that comes in, we're more and more convinced of my client's innocence. Each new piece of evidence appears to corroborate that, and we're doggedly investigating this case to exonerate her, which we're confident she will be if this case ever goes to trial. **Court TV Interviewer:** What do you say if? What could stop it at this point? **David Yannetti:** The only thing that could stop this case from going to trial is if the prosecution becomes convinced of my client's innocence as we are. So, you know, if the question was, "Will there be a plea deal in this case?" That's off the table. I have an innocent client who looks forward to going to trial on this case, but I believe there may come a point where the prosecution sees the evidence that we have, and maybe they realize that they were wrong from the start. **Court TV Interviewer:** What can you tell us about what you have, the picture, the starting time, the image of what you're gathering? **David Yannetti:** So, I'm not prepared to reveal the evidence in our possession, mainly because we're using that evidence as a springboard to get further evidence. And, you know, before I begin revealing, you know, material of that nature, I need to complete my investigation. So, there's not, you know, a rush to reveal our defense. We're preparing our defense, but the truth will come out in time.
2:36

It's been almost three years since August of 2022, but I don't think anyone realizes what David Yannetti accomplished with the Karen Read defense. Yes, Alan, Aidan, Eliza Little, the Boston DOJ and others put in work, but do not forget that real power moves in humble silence. TRANSCRIPT: **David Yannetti:** Today was my client's first appearance after her Superior Court arraignment. And as you would expect, we are now starting the discovery process in Superior Court. The history of this case was such that while the case was pending for months in the district court, we had a lot of difficulty getting cooperation from the prosecution in turning over the information that they had. We had more than one court date where there was a big fight in court where we were pushing to get the information that we needed. And [the prosecution team] were essentially giving us the stiff arm in district court. Now that the case has been indicted, I'm pleased to say that the spigot has started to open up a little bit. We got some further material today, which we are going to review, cross-reference against what we have. And I think the theme for the day, really the theme for the past several months, is that with each new piece of evidence that comes in, we're more and more convinced of my client's innocence. Each new piece of evidence appears to corroborate that, and we're doggedly investigating this case to exonerate her, which we're confident she will be if this case ever goes to trial. **Court TV Interviewer:** What do you say if? What could stop it at this point? **David Yannetti:** The only thing that could stop this case from going to trial is if the prosecution becomes convinced of my client's innocence as we are. So, you know, if the question was, "Will there be a plea deal in this case?" That's off the table. I have an innocent client who looks forward to going to trial on this case, but I believe there may come a point where the prosecution sees the evidence that we have, and maybe they realize that they were wrong from the start. **Court TV Interviewer:** What can you tell us about what you have, the picture, the starting time, the image of what you're gathering? **David Yannetti:** So, I'm not prepared to reveal the evidence in our possession, mainly because we're using that evidence as a springboard to get further evidence. And, you know, before I begin revealing, you know, material of that nature, I need to complete my investigation. So, there's not, you know, a rush to reveal our defense. We're preparing our defense, but the truth will come out in time.

Grant Smith Ellis

31,789 views • 7 months ago

BREAKING: ENOCH BURKE FINED €225,000 AFTER REFUSING TO BOW TO TRANSGENDERISM Teacher Enoch Burke refused to endorse transgenderism in his school. Today he was fined almost a quarter of a million euros by the Irish Courts. Enoch Burke won his Court of Appeal case last July against the make-up of the Disciplinary Appeal Panel appointed to hear the appeal of his dismissal from Wilson’s Hospital School. The panel had included Kieran Christie, the General Secretary of the ASTI and promoter of transgenderism. There is a major discrepancy between the recent Court of Appeal judgment (which ordered the removal of Kieran Christie) and the behaviour of the High Court today in continuing to uphold the lawfulness of Enoch Burke’s suspension. The Court of Appeal ruled that the principal’s “overarching complaint” against Enoch Burke was his refusal to comply with her instruction to address a child by a new name and the “they” pronoun. The Court of Appeal further ruled that “indisputably” the disciplinary authorities must assess the legitimacy of that instruction. The High Court has never assessed whether the principal’s instruction was legitimate. It has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the true basis for the disciplinary action against Enoch Burke and has never determined Enoch Burke’s claim that there has been a breach of his constitutional rights. Notwithstanding, it has purported to uphold the lawfulness of Enoch Burke’s suspension. In all of these matters the High Court is wholly at odds with the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal. Today Judge David Nolan refused to have regard to the findings of the Court of Appeal and threatened to find members of the Burke family in contempt of court for raising the issue. Judge David Nolan refused to allow Enoch Burke’s affidavit or submissions to be opened or addressed in court. This behaviour is extremely concerning. Judge David Nolan stated today he does not want to put Enoch Burke back in prison. In the same breath he has accused Enoch Burke of having “a perverted sense of justice”. The truth is that Judge David Nolan knows that the public is appalled and outraged at the perverted actions of the Irish Courts over the past three years as Enoch Burke has been repeatedly denied his constitutional rights, the very rights which Judge David Nolan and others have solemnly vowed to uphold. All of this would never have happened but for the silence of the Church. The Church has betrayed Christ and been silent. For the last three years Enoch Burke has been made a pariah and a scapegoat for refusing to affirm transgenderism. The ethos of Wilson’s Hospital School, a Church of Ireland school, is Christian. Its teaching is “God made them male and female”. ‘Bishop’ Patricia ‘Judas’ Storey, the Patron of Wilson’s Hospital School, has betrayed this ethos, as has Archbishop John ‘Judas’ McDowell. Enoch Burke stood up for the ethos of Wilson’s Hospital School in 2022 when Principal Niamh McShane instructed all students and staff to use the ‘they’ pronoun for a male student. He objected to this demand. Storey and McDowell were silent and agreed with corrupt judges who upheld Enoch Burke’s unlawful suspension. When you see these people in their pulpits, making their fair speeches, think of Enoch Burke - locked up for over 500 days, stripped of his salary and denied his constitutional rights. Do not be deceived. These so-called Church leaders are Judases who have betrayed Christ. Their silence has been the prime cause of this whole situation.
12:15

BREAKING: ENOCH BURKE FINED €225,000 AFTER REFUSING TO BOW TO TRANSGENDERISM Teacher Enoch Burke refused to endorse transgenderism in his school. Today he was fined almost a quarter of a million euros by the Irish Courts. Enoch Burke won his Court of Appeal case last July against the make-up of the Disciplinary Appeal Panel appointed to hear the appeal of his dismissal from Wilson’s Hospital School. The panel had included Kieran Christie, the General Secretary of the ASTI and promoter of transgenderism. There is a major discrepancy between the recent Court of Appeal judgment (which ordered the removal of Kieran Christie) and the behaviour of the High Court today in continuing to uphold the lawfulness of Enoch Burke’s suspension. The Court of Appeal ruled that the principal’s “overarching complaint” against Enoch Burke was his refusal to comply with her instruction to address a child by a new name and the “they” pronoun. The Court of Appeal further ruled that “indisputably” the disciplinary authorities must assess the legitimacy of that instruction. The High Court has never assessed whether the principal’s instruction was legitimate. It has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the true basis for the disciplinary action against Enoch Burke and has never determined Enoch Burke’s claim that there has been a breach of his constitutional rights. Notwithstanding, it has purported to uphold the lawfulness of Enoch Burke’s suspension. In all of these matters the High Court is wholly at odds with the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal. Today Judge David Nolan refused to have regard to the findings of the Court of Appeal and threatened to find members of the Burke family in contempt of court for raising the issue. Judge David Nolan refused to allow Enoch Burke’s affidavit or submissions to be opened or addressed in court. This behaviour is extremely concerning. Judge David Nolan stated today he does not want to put Enoch Burke back in prison. In the same breath he has accused Enoch Burke of having “a perverted sense of justice”. The truth is that Judge David Nolan knows that the public is appalled and outraged at the perverted actions of the Irish Courts over the past three years as Enoch Burke has been repeatedly denied his constitutional rights, the very rights which Judge David Nolan and others have solemnly vowed to uphold. All of this would never have happened but for the silence of the Church. The Church has betrayed Christ and been silent. For the last three years Enoch Burke has been made a pariah and a scapegoat for refusing to affirm transgenderism. The ethos of Wilson’s Hospital School, a Church of Ireland school, is Christian. Its teaching is “God made them male and female”. ‘Bishop’ Patricia ‘Judas’ Storey, the Patron of Wilson’s Hospital School, has betrayed this ethos, as has Archbishop John ‘Judas’ McDowell. Enoch Burke stood up for the ethos of Wilson’s Hospital School in 2022 when Principal Niamh McShane instructed all students and staff to use the ‘they’ pronoun for a male student. He objected to this demand. Storey and McDowell were silent and agreed with corrupt judges who upheld Enoch Burke’s unlawful suspension. When you see these people in their pulpits, making their fair speeches, think of Enoch Burke - locked up for over 500 days, stripped of his salary and denied his constitutional rights. Do not be deceived. These so-called Church leaders are Judases who have betrayed Christ. Their silence has been the prime cause of this whole situation.

Enoch Burke

1,780,699 views • 11 months ago

LINK & INSTRUCTIONS HOW TO ATTEND OUR FEDERAL COURT HEARING VIA ZOOM NEXT MONDAY *Repost & share - We need to show the court that there is still very much public interest in this incredibly important landmark case. No government can be allowed to invoke such vile overreaching and tyrannical charter/human rights violations on Canadians ever again. Vaccine Travel Mandates lawsuit Hearing Date: November 3rd, 2025 - 1pm EST Case/file #: T-2536-23 - SHAUN RICKARD ET AL. v. HMK ET AL If you would like to attend the hearing virtually, please follow this link. Scroll down, go to page 2 and and click on the little green box with the pen (see attached screenshot). Then enter your information, click register and you will be sent an e-mail confirmation: *Please note, the hearing will now be held at the Federal Court in Toronto, not the Federal Court of Appeal as originally thought: 180 Queen St W Toronto ON M5V 1Z4 If you would like to attend in person, please contact the Clerk at the Federal Court and quote the file # above: T: 416-973-3356 E: audiences@fct-cf.ca Where we are at with the case: After nearly 4 years, the 15,000 pages of evidence – including some extremely damning/incriminating details – is getting closer to Court. Further to the Federal Court ruling that our landmark action can go to trial, the appeal to ensure the whole action can proceed will be heard on November 3rd, 2025 in the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Further to our earlier and full update below from January 9th of this year, we now now move a step closer to the opportunity to fully hold the Liberal government, and Justin Trudeau, to account in court. Their divisive, cruel and unscientific overreach in imposing a nearly 9 months ban on unvaccinated Canadians and Permanent Residents from travelling on planes, trains and ships caused hardship and damage to millions of people in Canada. The hard work of our talented young lawyer, Sam Presvelos, paid off in June 2022 when evidence emerging in discovery in those earlier stages of the case caused then Attorney General David Lametti to reconsider the government’s position and the ‘vaccine mandate for travel’ was suspended with the implicit threat being made that they would do it again if they wanted to do so. In a moment of respite those millions of people, denied their fundamental Section 6 rights for nearly 9 months, could once again travel to see their loved ones and family events; to work; and to take much needed vacation time. This appeal, which will be heard at the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto on November 3rd at 1pm Eastern Time, will consider whether Justice Kent Horne erred when he allowed the government’s motion to strike out two parts of our claim – those parts in relation to s.7 and s.12 of the Charter. Justice Horne allowed those parts in relation to s6 and s15 to go ahead to trial pending the outcome of this appeal and any further appeals that may follow. s.7 (life, liberty, security) deals with crucial rights that permit us all to decide for ourselves what happens to our body. We believe that the choice to accept a vaccine or not should be free of any sort of coercion or detrimental consequences imposed by any authority. They do not accept that the bar to their success in relation to s.7 is so high as to have no reasonable prospect of success and that their arguments should be allowed to proceed to trial. s.12 (cruel/unusual punishment) is normally heard in relation to the cruel and unusual punishment of people in the criminal justice system in relation to penal sanctions. We believe that then Prime Minister Trudeau developed the vaccine mandate as a deliberately cruel and unusual punishment for those Canadians who were exercising their s7 right to refuse the Covid-19 vaccines and, at the same time to use that punishment very publicly as a political campaign promise and ‘wedge issue’ in the 2021 General Election. The appeal will not be easy, but our case is in great hands with Sam Presvelos, the young litigator who achieved so much for millions of people in Canada who were, until June 2022, denied the right to even leave their country! If we succeed the government may then try to further appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is very apparent that they do not want this case to be heard and particularly, perhaps, the s.7 arguments. If we are unsuccessful at this stage, they may take their arguments to the Supreme Court. We want to have our arguments and evidence heard on all four Sections 6,7,12 and 15. If you would like to help support this incredibly important landmark lawsuit, you can do so via e-transfer: donations@freedomandjustice.ca or via the donations page on our website: More details can be found on our official website: Also more details/updates on the case and hearing here:
8:07

LINK & INSTRUCTIONS HOW TO ATTEND OUR FEDERAL COURT HEARING VIA ZOOM NEXT MONDAY *Repost & share - We need to show the court that there is still very much public interest in this incredibly important landmark case. No government can be allowed to invoke such vile overreaching and tyrannical charter/human rights violations on Canadians ever again. Vaccine Travel Mandates lawsuit Hearing Date: November 3rd, 2025 - 1pm EST Case/file #: T-2536-23 - SHAUN RICKARD ET AL. v. HMK ET AL If you would like to attend the hearing virtually, please follow this link. Scroll down, go to page 2 and and click on the little green box with the pen (see attached screenshot). Then enter your information, click register and you will be sent an e-mail confirmation: *Please note, the hearing will now be held at the Federal Court in Toronto, not the Federal Court of Appeal as originally thought: 180 Queen St W Toronto ON M5V 1Z4 If you would like to attend in person, please contact the Clerk at the Federal Court and quote the file # above: T: 416-973-3356 E: [email protected] Where we are at with the case: After nearly 4 years, the 15,000 pages of evidence – including some extremely damning/incriminating details – is getting closer to Court. Further to the Federal Court ruling that our landmark action can go to trial, the appeal to ensure the whole action can proceed will be heard on November 3rd, 2025 in the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Further to our earlier and full update below from January 9th of this year, we now now move a step closer to the opportunity to fully hold the Liberal government, and Justin Trudeau, to account in court. Their divisive, cruel and unscientific overreach in imposing a nearly 9 months ban on unvaccinated Canadians and Permanent Residents from travelling on planes, trains and ships caused hardship and damage to millions of people in Canada. The hard work of our talented young lawyer, Sam Presvelos, paid off in June 2022 when evidence emerging in discovery in those earlier stages of the case caused then Attorney General David Lametti to reconsider the government’s position and the ‘vaccine mandate for travel’ was suspended with the implicit threat being made that they would do it again if they wanted to do so. In a moment of respite those millions of people, denied their fundamental Section 6 rights for nearly 9 months, could once again travel to see their loved ones and family events; to work; and to take much needed vacation time. This appeal, which will be heard at the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto on November 3rd at 1pm Eastern Time, will consider whether Justice Kent Horne erred when he allowed the government’s motion to strike out two parts of our claim – those parts in relation to s.7 and s.12 of the Charter. Justice Horne allowed those parts in relation to s6 and s15 to go ahead to trial pending the outcome of this appeal and any further appeals that may follow. s.7 (life, liberty, security) deals with crucial rights that permit us all to decide for ourselves what happens to our body. We believe that the choice to accept a vaccine or not should be free of any sort of coercion or detrimental consequences imposed by any authority. They do not accept that the bar to their success in relation to s.7 is so high as to have no reasonable prospect of success and that their arguments should be allowed to proceed to trial. s.12 (cruel/unusual punishment) is normally heard in relation to the cruel and unusual punishment of people in the criminal justice system in relation to penal sanctions. We believe that then Prime Minister Trudeau developed the vaccine mandate as a deliberately cruel and unusual punishment for those Canadians who were exercising their s7 right to refuse the Covid-19 vaccines and, at the same time to use that punishment very publicly as a political campaign promise and ‘wedge issue’ in the 2021 General Election. The appeal will not be easy, but our case is in great hands with Sam Presvelos, the young litigator who achieved so much for millions of people in Canada who were, until June 2022, denied the right to even leave their country! If we succeed the government may then try to further appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is very apparent that they do not want this case to be heard and particularly, perhaps, the s.7 arguments. If we are unsuccessful at this stage, they may take their arguments to the Supreme Court. We want to have our arguments and evidence heard on all four Sections 6,7,12 and 15. If you would like to help support this incredibly important landmark lawsuit, you can do so via e-transfer: [email protected] or via the donations page on our website: More details can be found on our official website: Also more details/updates on the case and hearing here:

Shaun Rickard

34,834 views • 9 months ago

The ruling by a High Court’ judge in the Mike Chimombe & Moses Mpofu case is very interesting. I encourage everyone in business, every director, Executive, tenderpreneur and every lawyer to watch it. The judge ruled that both accused have a case to answer. This means they must be put to their defence, and explain their conduct. Depriving them of such after the state rested its case would work against them and lead to their conviction. The judge articulated the law in detail and interpreted it clearly at great length explaining how he arrived at that decision. Note that the accused wanted the case dismissed, arguing that their clients had no case to answer since they didn’t award themselves the tender and that the tender was awarded to a company, not them as individuals. The hearing and subsequent ruling is interesting for the following reasons: •The two are accused of deceiving the state by submitting fraudulent documents and winning the tender. •The judge explains in detail the 3 essential elements /rails on which in a criminal case, a person accused of fraud can be acquitted without being put to their defence, that is the accused can apply for discharge at the close of the state’s case. • The first essential element is that there is no evidence presented linking the accused to the offence. The court has no choice but to acquit. •The second element is that there may be no evidence of an ingredient of the crime (there are essential ingredients of the crime), in which case the accused must be acquitted. •The third element is that the state witnesses’ testimony and evidence is so poor that a court cannot rely on it to convict, in which case the accused must be acquitted. •In their application for discharge, Mpofu and Chimombe didn’t raise essential element 3. In other words, they deemed the witnesses credible in their evidence. They didn’t argue that the evidence of the state witness isn’t credible. •Mpofu and Chimombe also didn’t raise element number 1, meaning they didn’t argue that they were not linked at all to the offence, in which case they would have persuaded the court for an acquittal. •The two accused sought to rely, in their application for discharge, on the second element, which is, they argued that an ingredient of the evidence of committing the crime was missing: in other words, they are arguing that indeed fraud, deception and misrepresentation occurred, but was not occasioned by them personally, but by companies that won the tenders. •The accused’s lawyer argued that the accused did not influence the award of the bid, may have participated by signing contracts after the award, but that is neither here nor there, making their involvement post facto. They further argued that the state dealt with a corporate entity, not an individual. The state would have to pierce the corporate veil through an application to that effect to get to Mpofu and Chimombe. This is where it gets more interesting. •The judge delves into the issue of the corporate veil in criminal matters in detail. He explains that the effect of section 277 of the criminal code and reform act is to remove the corporate veil that exists in common law on criminal issues relating to companies. It’s very important for employees and directors to grasp these aspects of the law. The judge also touches on aspects of vicarious liability. •The companies act and criminal code were modified a lot in the last ten years. Most people are not aware of this. •Watch the hearing and ruling and educate yourself. Busisa Moyo Tawanda Nyambirai @tino_chinyoka1 Retired Elder Rex M.E Midzi
26:32

The ruling by a High Court’ judge in the Mike Chimombe & Moses Mpofu case is very interesting. I encourage everyone in business, every director, Executive, tenderpreneur and every lawyer to watch it. The judge ruled that both accused have a case to answer. This means they must be put to their defence, and explain their conduct. Depriving them of such after the state rested its case would work against them and lead to their conviction. The judge articulated the law in detail and interpreted it clearly at great length explaining how he arrived at that decision. Note that the accused wanted the case dismissed, arguing that their clients had no case to answer since they didn’t award themselves the tender and that the tender was awarded to a company, not them as individuals. The hearing and subsequent ruling is interesting for the following reasons: •The two are accused of deceiving the state by submitting fraudulent documents and winning the tender. •The judge explains in detail the 3 essential elements /rails on which in a criminal case, a person accused of fraud can be acquitted without being put to their defence, that is the accused can apply for discharge at the close of the state’s case. • The first essential element is that there is no evidence presented linking the accused to the offence. The court has no choice but to acquit. •The second element is that there may be no evidence of an ingredient of the crime (there are essential ingredients of the crime), in which case the accused must be acquitted. •The third element is that the state witnesses’ testimony and evidence is so poor that a court cannot rely on it to convict, in which case the accused must be acquitted. •In their application for discharge, Mpofu and Chimombe didn’t raise essential element 3. In other words, they deemed the witnesses credible in their evidence. They didn’t argue that the evidence of the state witness isn’t credible. •Mpofu and Chimombe also didn’t raise element number 1, meaning they didn’t argue that they were not linked at all to the offence, in which case they would have persuaded the court for an acquittal. •The two accused sought to rely, in their application for discharge, on the second element, which is, they argued that an ingredient of the evidence of committing the crime was missing: in other words, they are arguing that indeed fraud, deception and misrepresentation occurred, but was not occasioned by them personally, but by companies that won the tenders. •The accused’s lawyer argued that the accused did not influence the award of the bid, may have participated by signing contracts after the award, but that is neither here nor there, making their involvement post facto. They further argued that the state dealt with a corporate entity, not an individual. The state would have to pierce the corporate veil through an application to that effect to get to Mpofu and Chimombe. This is where it gets more interesting. •The judge delves into the issue of the corporate veil in criminal matters in detail. He explains that the effect of section 277 of the criminal code and reform act is to remove the corporate veil that exists in common law on criminal issues relating to companies. It’s very important for employees and directors to grasp these aspects of the law. The judge also touches on aspects of vicarious liability. •The companies act and criminal code were modified a lot in the last ten years. Most people are not aware of this. •Watch the hearing and ruling and educate yourself. Busisa Moyo Tawanda Nyambirai @tino_chinyoka1 Retired Elder Rex M.E Midzi

mmatigari

20,172 views • 1 year ago

SANJIV BHATT: WHEN LAW, POWER, AND PUBLIC TRUST COLLIDE The accompanying material presents the second part of the story surrounding former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, focusing on allegations linked to the 2002 Gujarat riots, the custodial death case from 1990, and the sharply contrasting narratives that continue to divide public opinion. According to the source, Bhatt claimed that he possessed information relating to the alleged killers of former Gujarat minister Haren Pandya and that he faced pressure to destroy evidence. He also alleged that he repeatedly warned authorities about the deteriorating situation during the 2002 Gujarat riots, including the danger faced by people at Gulberg Society. These allegations were later placed before investigative agencies and judicial forums. The video also notes that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) did not find sufficient evidence to support these allegations and gave a clean chit to the then Chief Minister, a conclusion later accepted by the Supreme Court. These findings remain an important part of the legal record, even as critics continue to question aspects of the investigation. The second major issue concerns the 1990 custodial death of Prabhudas Vaishnani. The source states that the case was initially closed after investigation but was reopened years later. In 2019, a trial court convicted Bhatt and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a conviction that was upheld by the Gujarat High Court in 2024, while the Supreme Court declined to grant relief. The courts relied on witness testimony and medical evidence in reaching their conclusions. The video also describes Bhatt's tenure as Superintendent of Sabarmati Central Jail, claiming that he introduced reforms that improved prison conditions and earned the respect of many inmates. The source presents this as evidence of the complexity of his public image. Ultimately, the story portrays two competing narratives. One views Sanjiv Bhatt as an honest police officer who suffered for challenging those in power. The other holds that the judicial process established his criminal liability in the custodial death case and that court verdicts must be respected. Whatever one's perspective, the case underscores the importance of independent investigations, judicial transparency, accountability of public officials, and public confidence in the rule of law. In a constitutional democracy, both the pursuit of truth and respect for due process are essential. Where questions remain, they should be addressed through credible evidence, transparent institutions, and impartial justice—not through political loyalty or public emotion alone. Source: Facebook Video:
5:55

SANJIV BHATT: WHEN LAW, POWER, AND PUBLIC TRUST COLLIDE The accompanying material presents the second part of the story surrounding former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, focusing on allegations linked to the 2002 Gujarat riots, the custodial death case from 1990, and the sharply contrasting narratives that continue to divide public opinion. According to the source, Bhatt claimed that he possessed information relating to the alleged killers of former Gujarat minister Haren Pandya and that he faced pressure to destroy evidence. He also alleged that he repeatedly warned authorities about the deteriorating situation during the 2002 Gujarat riots, including the danger faced by people at Gulberg Society. These allegations were later placed before investigative agencies and judicial forums. The video also notes that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) did not find sufficient evidence to support these allegations and gave a clean chit to the then Chief Minister, a conclusion later accepted by the Supreme Court. These findings remain an important part of the legal record, even as critics continue to question aspects of the investigation. The second major issue concerns the 1990 custodial death of Prabhudas Vaishnani. The source states that the case was initially closed after investigation but was reopened years later. In 2019, a trial court convicted Bhatt and sentenced him to life imprisonment, a conviction that was upheld by the Gujarat High Court in 2024, while the Supreme Court declined to grant relief. The courts relied on witness testimony and medical evidence in reaching their conclusions. The video also describes Bhatt's tenure as Superintendent of Sabarmati Central Jail, claiming that he introduced reforms that improved prison conditions and earned the respect of many inmates. The source presents this as evidence of the complexity of his public image. Ultimately, the story portrays two competing narratives. One views Sanjiv Bhatt as an honest police officer who suffered for challenging those in power. The other holds that the judicial process established his criminal liability in the custodial death case and that court verdicts must be respected. Whatever one's perspective, the case underscores the importance of independent investigations, judicial transparency, accountability of public officials, and public confidence in the rule of law. In a constitutional democracy, both the pursuit of truth and respect for due process are essential. Where questions remain, they should be addressed through credible evidence, transparent institutions, and impartial justice—not through political loyalty or public emotion alone. Source: Facebook Video:

Ashok Dadhwal

31,633 views • 3 days ago

THE POST OFFICE DESTROYED HUNDREDS OF LIVES. DID IT ALSO PUT AN INNOCENT MAN AWAY FOR MURDER? Paul Bourne from Linkedin brought this story to me this week. Paul, I owe you one for this. Robin Garbutt woke up on 23 March 2010 and went to open his Post Office like any other morning. By the end of that day, his wife Diana was dead. He was a suspect. Within a year, he was in prison for life. He has been there ever since. Robin says what happened that morning was this. An armed man broke in. Forced him at gunpoint to open the safe and hand over £16,000. Robin was powerless. He ran upstairs after the man left and found Diana bludgeoned to death in their bed. The police did not believe him. Prosecutors built a case around one central idea. Robin had been stealing from the Post Office. Diana found out. He killed her to keep her quiet and staged the robbery to cover his tracks. The theft evidence came from Horizon. The same IT system that fabricated shortfalls in hundreds of Post Office branches across the country. The same system that saw innocent sub-postmasters prosecuted, bankrupted, and driven to suicide. The system that the courts have since described as one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history. Robin was never actually charged with theft. Not once. A former Fujitsu employee has since come forward and confirmed the Horizon data used at his trial had been compromised. The Post Office knew it. There was no DNA on the murder weapon. A clump of unidentified hair found at the scene was never tested. It disappeared. Police admitted that was a serious professional failure. The pathology evidence on the time of death has been challenged by independent experts. What the prosecution had was a theory. Built on a broken computer. Presented to a jury who had no reason to doubt the Post Office. Robin has appealed four times. The CCRC has said no four times. A Sky documentary aired Christmas 2025. Former sub-postmasters who were themselves destroyed by Horizon are now publicly demanding he gets a retrial. Lee Castleton OBE is one of them. Empowering the Innocent (ETI) and The Justice Gap @justicegap.bsky.social have both covered this case in depth. A new CCRC case manager has been appointed. Robin is 60 years old. He has been inside for 15 years. His family have spent 15 years fighting for him. His sister says he does not want early release. He wants to stand in court, face the evidence, and prove he is innocent. That is not what a guilty man asks for. The Post Office corrupted evidence. The prosecution used that evidence to convict a man of murder. The body that is supposed to correct miscarriages of justice has blocked him at every turn. If the system was this broken for hundreds of financial cases, what makes anyone confident it worked properly in this one?
0:30

THE POST OFFICE DESTROYED HUNDREDS OF LIVES. DID IT ALSO PUT AN INNOCENT MAN AWAY FOR MURDER? Paul Bourne from Linkedin brought this story to me this week. Paul, I owe you one for this. Robin Garbutt woke up on 23 March 2010 and went to open his Post Office like any other morning. By the end of that day, his wife Diana was dead. He was a suspect. Within a year, he was in prison for life. He has been there ever since. Robin says what happened that morning was this. An armed man broke in. Forced him at gunpoint to open the safe and hand over £16,000. Robin was powerless. He ran upstairs after the man left and found Diana bludgeoned to death in their bed. The police did not believe him. Prosecutors built a case around one central idea. Robin had been stealing from the Post Office. Diana found out. He killed her to keep her quiet and staged the robbery to cover his tracks. The theft evidence came from Horizon. The same IT system that fabricated shortfalls in hundreds of Post Office branches across the country. The same system that saw innocent sub-postmasters prosecuted, bankrupted, and driven to suicide. The system that the courts have since described as one of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history. Robin was never actually charged with theft. Not once. A former Fujitsu employee has since come forward and confirmed the Horizon data used at his trial had been compromised. The Post Office knew it. There was no DNA on the murder weapon. A clump of unidentified hair found at the scene was never tested. It disappeared. Police admitted that was a serious professional failure. The pathology evidence on the time of death has been challenged by independent experts. What the prosecution had was a theory. Built on a broken computer. Presented to a jury who had no reason to doubt the Post Office. Robin has appealed four times. The CCRC has said no four times. A Sky documentary aired Christmas 2025. Former sub-postmasters who were themselves destroyed by Horizon are now publicly demanding he gets a retrial. Lee Castleton OBE is one of them. Empowering the Innocent (ETI) and The Justice Gap @justicegap.bsky.social have both covered this case in depth. A new CCRC case manager has been appointed. Robin is 60 years old. He has been inside for 15 years. His family have spent 15 years fighting for him. His sister says he does not want early release. He wants to stand in court, face the evidence, and prove he is innocent. That is not what a guilty man asks for. The Post Office corrupted evidence. The prosecution used that evidence to convict a man of murder. The body that is supposed to correct miscarriages of justice has blocked him at every turn. If the system was this broken for hundreds of financial cases, what makes anyone confident it worked properly in this one?

Artur Nadolny

15,290 views • 2 months ago

Defence calls for charges to be withdrawn in Bafana Mahungela case amid DNA Dldiscrepancies The legal representatives of Bafana Mahungela, currently facing trial in the South Gauteng High Court, have submitted formal representations to the Director of Public Prosecutions requesting that charges against their client be withdrawn to allow for further investigation. Mahungela is facing serious charges related to a case registered in Sandton under CAS 797/10/2023. The matter was postponed to 14 May 2025 for the defence to confirm trial readiness, following the disclosure of police docket contents and additional evidentiary material on 14 April 2025. According to the defence team, critical DNA evidence was not disclosed during earlier bail proceedings, despite being available as early as 22 December 2023. During those proceedings, prosecutors had opposed Mahungela’s release, citing pending forensic analysis and post-mortem findings. The bail hearing attracted notable media attention. The newly disclosed DNA evidence, however, reportedly does not link Mahungela to the crime scene. Swabs taken from the deceased’s hands and under her fingernails instead point to a physical confrontation with another female individual at or near the time of death. Despite the significance of these findings, the defence argues that the prosecution failed to present the DNA results during bail proceedings or to disclose them during pre-trial engagements. Even during an appearance on 23 February 2025, prosecutors allegedly stated they were unaware of the DNA results but would follow up. “The DNA evidence introduces a new line of inquiry that must be fully explored in the interest of justice,” the defence wrote in their submission. “We are therefore requesting that the charges be withdrawn pending a proper investigation into the implications of this evidence.” Mahungela, described by his lawyers as a student with no flight risk, has expressed willingness to cooperate fully with investigators should the charges be withdrawn. The National Prosecuting Authority has not yet issued a formal response to the representations.
1:58

Defence calls for charges to be withdrawn in Bafana Mahungela case amid DNA Dldiscrepancies The legal representatives of Bafana Mahungela, currently facing trial in the South Gauteng High Court, have submitted formal representations to the Director of Public Prosecutions requesting that charges against their client be withdrawn to allow for further investigation. Mahungela is facing serious charges related to a case registered in Sandton under CAS 797/10/2023. The matter was postponed to 14 May 2025 for the defence to confirm trial readiness, following the disclosure of police docket contents and additional evidentiary material on 14 April 2025. According to the defence team, critical DNA evidence was not disclosed during earlier bail proceedings, despite being available as early as 22 December 2023. During those proceedings, prosecutors had opposed Mahungela’s release, citing pending forensic analysis and post-mortem findings. The bail hearing attracted notable media attention. The newly disclosed DNA evidence, however, reportedly does not link Mahungela to the crime scene. Swabs taken from the deceased’s hands and under her fingernails instead point to a physical confrontation with another female individual at or near the time of death. Despite the significance of these findings, the defence argues that the prosecution failed to present the DNA results during bail proceedings or to disclose them during pre-trial engagements. Even during an appearance on 23 February 2025, prosecutors allegedly stated they were unaware of the DNA results but would follow up. “The DNA evidence introduces a new line of inquiry that must be fully explored in the interest of justice,” the defence wrote in their submission. “We are therefore requesting that the charges be withdrawn pending a proper investigation into the implications of this evidence.” Mahungela, described by his lawyers as a student with no flight risk, has expressed willingness to cooperate fully with investigators should the charges be withdrawn. The National Prosecuting Authority has not yet issued a formal response to the representations.

MDN NEWS

78,162 views • 1 year ago

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.
2:27

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 views • 1 year ago

WOAH 🚨 The UK Labour government is planning to do away with the right to appeal prison sentences Liberals are - Cancelling elections - Ending jury trials - Ending your right to appeal prison sentences - Locking people up for social media posts The UK is FULL TYRANT “I have a chilling revelation that I think you all need to pay attention to at home. Soon, the courts will be allowed to lock you up without any right to appeal.” “Without any kind of mandate, the government wants to do away with jury trials, and it wants to extend the powers of magistrates to sentence people for up to two years without any right to appeal, conviction or sentence. Right now, this Orwellian Labour government is quietly tearing up one of the last safety nets in British Justice, your right to automatic appeal. The Justice Secretary and mastermind champion, David Lammy, wants to make it harder to challenge convictions handed down by magistrates. The very courts where errors are most common. Under his plans, if you're convicted of an of an offence carrying under two years, your right to appeal is no longer automatic. It's conditional on a judge's opinion. And I'd argue, more often than not, judges also get it wrong. Just look, to free speech cases without jury as evidence for that, and it's also very important to remember that miscarriages of justice aren't rare. They're happening all the time”
3:36

WOAH 🚨 The UK Labour government is planning to do away with the right to appeal prison sentences Liberals are - Cancelling elections - Ending jury trials - Ending your right to appeal prison sentences - Locking people up for social media posts The UK is FULL TYRANT “I have a chilling revelation that I think you all need to pay attention to at home. Soon, the courts will be allowed to lock you up without any right to appeal.” “Without any kind of mandate, the government wants to do away with jury trials, and it wants to extend the powers of magistrates to sentence people for up to two years without any right to appeal, conviction or sentence. Right now, this Orwellian Labour government is quietly tearing up one of the last safety nets in British Justice, your right to automatic appeal. The Justice Secretary and mastermind champion, David Lammy, wants to make it harder to challenge convictions handed down by magistrates. The very courts where errors are most common. Under his plans, if you're convicted of an of an offence carrying under two years, your right to appeal is no longer automatic. It's conditional on a judge's opinion. And I'd argue, more often than not, judges also get it wrong. Just look, to free speech cases without jury as evidence for that, and it's also very important to remember that miscarriages of justice aren't rare. They're happening all the time”

Wall Street Apes

57,362 views • 7 months ago

The Supreme Court just proved to all of us that the ICC case against Rodrigo Roa Duterte is necessary It all made sense now! There’s a reason for the remand, there’s the reason for all the unnecessary delays — they are waiting for this decision.I feel like we’re being robbed of the truth by the very institution we tasked to uphold the constitution. Why are they trying so hard for us not to know the truth? All these layers of protection are telling me that there are a lot of things Sara Zimmerman Duterte is hiding and she will do whatever it takes for a no-trial scenario. Justice Leonen claims that their duty is just to protect the rule of law – to protect fairness or due process. But it feels like they are just protecting the accused, as trial doesn’t mean conviction. And all the four impeachment complaints have the same goal — to impeach Sara Zimmerman Duterte. I don’t understand! How was directly transmitting the impeachment complaint wrong? 215 congressmen signed the complaint! That is more than the required ⅔ votes of the constitution. I have read the decision, in my simple mind — THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT PROTECTION FOR THOSE ARE IN POWER. A very dangerous precedent. The Supreme Court single handedly tipped the balance away from the people by overturning the ruling in 2003 — the Francisco vs the House of Representatives reiterating that only the House holds the constitutional authority to initiate impeachment. More than ⅔ of the members signed the impeachment complaint and they are just throwing it away because of technicality. The response of the House of Representatives is available online, they explained how they counted the session days —- it is rules of procedure, the Supreme Court doesn’t concern themselves with the rules of a co-equal branch. How was that unfair for the accused? I heard the rumor that this might happen days before the announcement of the Supreme Court — still, this ruling hit me hard. I have no good words to say at the moment. It is comforting that the House of Representatives released a statement today that they will seek all legal matters: Atty Princess Abante said: “The House will exhaust all remedies to protect the independence of Congress and preserve the sanctity of our constitutional role. This is not defiance. This is constitutional fidelity.” I cannot consider the statements of the Senators as good news for now, just as long as Chiz Escudero is the Senate President —- the very reason for all the delays until this happened. I have no faith in them.
0:59

The Supreme Court just proved to all of us that the ICC case against Rodrigo Roa Duterte is necessary It all made sense now! There’s a reason for the remand, there’s the reason for all the unnecessary delays — they are waiting for this decision.I feel like we’re being robbed of the truth by the very institution we tasked to uphold the constitution. Why are they trying so hard for us not to know the truth? All these layers of protection are telling me that there are a lot of things Sara Zimmerman Duterte is hiding and she will do whatever it takes for a no-trial scenario. Justice Leonen claims that their duty is just to protect the rule of law – to protect fairness or due process. But it feels like they are just protecting the accused, as trial doesn’t mean conviction. And all the four impeachment complaints have the same goal — to impeach Sara Zimmerman Duterte. I don’t understand! How was directly transmitting the impeachment complaint wrong? 215 congressmen signed the complaint! That is more than the required ⅔ votes of the constitution. I have read the decision, in my simple mind — THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT PROTECTION FOR THOSE ARE IN POWER. A very dangerous precedent. The Supreme Court single handedly tipped the balance away from the people by overturning the ruling in 2003 — the Francisco vs the House of Representatives reiterating that only the House holds the constitutional authority to initiate impeachment. More than ⅔ of the members signed the impeachment complaint and they are just throwing it away because of technicality. The response of the House of Representatives is available online, they explained how they counted the session days —- it is rules of procedure, the Supreme Court doesn’t concern themselves with the rules of a co-equal branch. How was that unfair for the accused? I heard the rumor that this might happen days before the announcement of the Supreme Court — still, this ruling hit me hard. I have no good words to say at the moment. It is comforting that the House of Representatives released a statement today that they will seek all legal matters: Atty Princess Abante said: “The House will exhaust all remedies to protect the independence of Congress and preserve the sanctity of our constitutional role. This is not defiance. This is constitutional fidelity.” I cannot consider the statements of the Senators as good news for now, just as long as Chiz Escudero is the Senate President —- the very reason for all the delays until this happened. I have no faith in them.

Just

69,229 views • 1 year ago

What a tragic case! George lost his life & there was no justice for the victims. George Stinney Jr was falsely convicted at the age of 14. He was accused of killing two girls, Betty (age 11) and Mary (age 7). The bodies were found near the house where George lived with his parents. Before his execution, George spent 81 days in prison before he was ever able to see his parents. He spent this time in solitary confinement, in a jail 80 miles from the city. He was questioned without the presence of his parents or a lawyer. His trial lasted only 2 hours, and the sentence was handed down 10 minutes later. The boy's parents were not allowed in the court room, and was subsequently expelled from that city after the trial. During his trial & until the day of his execution, George always carried a Bible in his hands. On the day of his execution, they used the Bible he was carrying as a booster seat because he was too short for the adult sized electric chair. 70 years after his execution, a judge in South Carolina finally overruled George's conviction. It was determined that the beam used in the murder, which weighed more than 19.07 kilograms, would have been too large for George to lift. There was no way he could have used it to strike the victims. ‘The Green Mile’ by Stephen King was inspired by George's case.
2:11

What a tragic case! George lost his life & there was no justice for the victims. George Stinney Jr was falsely convicted at the age of 14. He was accused of killing two girls, Betty (age 11) and Mary (age 7). The bodies were found near the house where George lived with his parents. Before his execution, George spent 81 days in prison before he was ever able to see his parents. He spent this time in solitary confinement, in a jail 80 miles from the city. He was questioned without the presence of his parents or a lawyer. His trial lasted only 2 hours, and the sentence was handed down 10 minutes later. The boy's parents were not allowed in the court room, and was subsequently expelled from that city after the trial. During his trial & until the day of his execution, George always carried a Bible in his hands. On the day of his execution, they used the Bible he was carrying as a booster seat because he was too short for the adult sized electric chair. 70 years after his execution, a judge in South Carolina finally overruled George's conviction. It was determined that the beam used in the murder, which weighed more than 19.07 kilograms, would have been too large for George to lift. There was no way he could have used it to strike the victims. ‘The Green Mile’ by Stephen King was inspired by George's case.

bstrat515 👑💛

15,761 views • 2 years ago

Empowering Maharashtra’s Legal Landscape! Glad to perform the Bhoomipujan for the new Civil Judge, Junior Division Court building in Mahad, Raigad-Alibag, along with Supreme Court’s Justice Hon Bhushan Gavai ji. This new court building will strengthen judicial infrastructure, ensuring faster and more efficient access to justice for the people of Mahad and nearby regions. Additionally, launched the book "Mahadcha Muktisangram", celebrating its rich legacy. Being in Mahad is truly special, as this land echoes the legacy of the Chavdar Tale Satyagraha, led by MahaManav BharatRatna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar—a pivotal moment in the fight for social equality. The town also serves as a gateway to Raigad Fort, the capital of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, standing as a proud reminder of Maratha valour and Maharashtra’s rich heritage. This Bhoomipujan marks a significant step toward strengthening judicial infrastructure in Mahad. There will be no obstacles due to funding, as we are committed to ensuring the smooth progress of this project. Every effort will be made to complete the construction on time, providing a well-equipped court for efficient legal proceedings. And I will surely be present for its inauguration. In Maharashtra, judicial infrastructure is being shaped with a distinct vision, thanks to the efforts of Supreme Court Justice Hon Bhushan Gavai ji. His contributions have played a key role in enhancing efficiency and accessibility in the justice system. To support this, around ₹800 to ₹1000 crore has been allocated for the development of judicial infrastructure, reinforcing our commitment to a stronger and more effective legal system. Maharashtra is also set to become the only state in India with 3 prestigious National Law Institutions—in Nagpur, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar, and Mumbai—further strengthening legal education and opportunities. We are rapidly implementing the three new criminal laws, ensuring a smooth transition. Courts will be digitally connected, expediting justice through better evidence management. High Court Chief Justice Hon Alok Aradhe ji, Justice Hon Milind Sathaye ji, District Judge Srishty Neelkanth ji, Justice Makarand Karnik ji, DCM Eknath Shinde ji, Minister Aditi Tatkare, Minister Bharat Gogawale, and other dignitaries were present. Eknath Shinde - एकनाथ शिंदे Aditi S Tatkare भरतशेठ गोगावले #Maharashtra #Raigad #LegalInfrastructure
1:17

Empowering Maharashtra’s Legal Landscape! Glad to perform the Bhoomipujan for the new Civil Judge, Junior Division Court building in Mahad, Raigad-Alibag, along with Supreme Court’s Justice Hon Bhushan Gavai ji. This new court building will strengthen judicial infrastructure, ensuring faster and more efficient access to justice for the people of Mahad and nearby regions. Additionally, launched the book "Mahadcha Muktisangram", celebrating its rich legacy. Being in Mahad is truly special, as this land echoes the legacy of the Chavdar Tale Satyagraha, led by MahaManav BharatRatna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar—a pivotal moment in the fight for social equality. The town also serves as a gateway to Raigad Fort, the capital of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, standing as a proud reminder of Maratha valour and Maharashtra’s rich heritage. This Bhoomipujan marks a significant step toward strengthening judicial infrastructure in Mahad. There will be no obstacles due to funding, as we are committed to ensuring the smooth progress of this project. Every effort will be made to complete the construction on time, providing a well-equipped court for efficient legal proceedings. And I will surely be present for its inauguration. In Maharashtra, judicial infrastructure is being shaped with a distinct vision, thanks to the efforts of Supreme Court Justice Hon Bhushan Gavai ji. His contributions have played a key role in enhancing efficiency and accessibility in the justice system. To support this, around ₹800 to ₹1000 crore has been allocated for the development of judicial infrastructure, reinforcing our commitment to a stronger and more effective legal system. Maharashtra is also set to become the only state in India with 3 prestigious National Law Institutions—in Nagpur, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar, and Mumbai—further strengthening legal education and opportunities. We are rapidly implementing the three new criminal laws, ensuring a smooth transition. Courts will be digitally connected, expediting justice through better evidence management. High Court Chief Justice Hon Alok Aradhe ji, Justice Hon Milind Sathaye ji, District Judge Srishty Neelkanth ji, Justice Makarand Karnik ji, DCM Eknath Shinde ji, Minister Aditi Tatkare, Minister Bharat Gogawale, and other dignitaries were present. Eknath Shinde - एकनाथ शिंदे Aditi S Tatkare भरतशेठ गोगावले #Maharashtra #Raigad #LegalInfrastructure

Devendra Fadnavis

13,788 views • 1 year ago

This one is crazy. If ever there was a case that you could point to as police brutality, this one is it. It’s early morning in Paulding County, Georgia. 29-year-old Tyler Canaris is doing what millions of us do every day—he’s waiting for his ride to work. Tyler is a landscaper, minding his own business, when Deputy Michael McMaster pulls up. In the blink of an eye Tyler Canaris was body-slammed so hard by Paulding County Deputy Michael McMaster that his skull fractured. Tyler was an innocent man waiting for his ride to work. He didn't have a weapon. He wasn't committing a crime. After the slam you can hear Tyler is in pain. Instead of offering help, McMaster mocked him and told him to shut up and act like a man. One of the most disturbing parts of this case is how long it took for consequences to arrive. For nearly a year, the Paulding County Sheriff’s Office did nothing. McMaster remained on the force, and Tyler was the one facing criminal charges for "obstruction." ​It wasn't until the GBI stepped in—that McMaster was finally fired. But even then, the department claimed he was fired for "policy violations" unrelated to the GBI’s use-of-force investigation. No Charges to this day, Michael McMaster has not been criminally charged for the injuries he inflicted on Tyler. Despite a GBI investigation, no indictment has been handed down. While Tyler lives with metal plates in his body and $75,000 in debt, the man who put him there remains a free man. Tyler filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (Section 1983) seeking accountability. However, the path to justice hit a major wall: ​Parts of the case faced significant hurdles in District Court, as his case was dismissed by the district court with prejudice. ​ In early 2026, the case moved to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Tyler’s legal team is fighting to overturn rulings that have stalled his pursuit of damages. As of right now, the court is still processing briefs, meaning Tyler is years away from a potential settlement or trial. What is your take on this case, I look forward to reading your comments below.
6:31

This one is crazy. If ever there was a case that you could point to as police brutality, this one is it. It’s early morning in Paulding County, Georgia. 29-year-old Tyler Canaris is doing what millions of us do every day—he’s waiting for his ride to work. Tyler is a landscaper, minding his own business, when Deputy Michael McMaster pulls up. In the blink of an eye Tyler Canaris was body-slammed so hard by Paulding County Deputy Michael McMaster that his skull fractured. Tyler was an innocent man waiting for his ride to work. He didn't have a weapon. He wasn't committing a crime. After the slam you can hear Tyler is in pain. Instead of offering help, McMaster mocked him and told him to shut up and act like a man. One of the most disturbing parts of this case is how long it took for consequences to arrive. For nearly a year, the Paulding County Sheriff’s Office did nothing. McMaster remained on the force, and Tyler was the one facing criminal charges for "obstruction." ​It wasn't until the GBI stepped in—that McMaster was finally fired. But even then, the department claimed he was fired for "policy violations" unrelated to the GBI’s use-of-force investigation. No Charges to this day, Michael McMaster has not been criminally charged for the injuries he inflicted on Tyler. Despite a GBI investigation, no indictment has been handed down. While Tyler lives with metal plates in his body and $75,000 in debt, the man who put him there remains a free man. Tyler filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (Section 1983) seeking accountability. However, the path to justice hit a major wall: ​Parts of the case faced significant hurdles in District Court, as his case was dismissed by the district court with prejudice. ​ In early 2026, the case moved to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Tyler’s legal team is fighting to overturn rulings that have stalled his pursuit of damages. As of right now, the court is still processing briefs, meaning Tyler is years away from a potential settlement or trial. What is your take on this case, I look forward to reading your comments below.

Giggling Ganon

54,324 views • 3 months ago