Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
How deep can FFun Vers šš½ get both his arms in my hole? Letās seeā¦ā¦ @ffistercom X Lube Powder #ffun #ffisting #punchedpussy #sloppyhole #fisting #gayfisting #meatycunt #gayfist #fisting #gayff #gape #fistpunch #punchhole #doublefist #doubleff
313,360 Aufrufe ā¢ vor 1 Jahr ā¢via X (Twitter)
0 Kommentare
Keine Kommentare verfĆ¼gbar
Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt
![The following is a message from Diana Bloom, an anonymous Iranian activist living in Germany who is being threatened with potentially extremely dangerous "exposure" by what appears to be a lunatic. I am passing this message on since Diana has deleted her account for her own protection and safety. To note, I don't think I should be involved with this crazy Evil Evi woman or her OSINT dramas whatsoever since she went bonkers the other day, but she is acting in defamatory ways and with malicious recklessness in a way that endanger an anonymous Iranian dissident I believe to be good, so I must pass this along. A MESSAGE FROM DIANA BLOOM This is a post in two parts. Part one is a brief summary of what has happened so far. Part two addresses the defamatory claims being made about me. PART 1 - [JL: Diana's explanation and responses] For everyone who doesnāt understand what led to this point, hereās the shortest summary possible: Evi [Kokalari] and I had been friendly in DMs since the end of June. She messaged me first. After [DataRepublican] published her piece on the State Department, I asked Evi not to go too hard against DR. Evi did anyway, and James Lindsay defended DR. I didnāt like the way Evi went after James, including citing Milo. So I unfollowed and removed Evi. She confronted me in DMs, and I explained why. Evi then made a post attacking James that started and ended with me and used my profile picture. I responded once, as politely as I could. Evi then repeatedly threatened to dox me, so I deactivated my account. Now, regarding the substance of the accusations she has made so far: 1. I am not a man. My name is not Derek. 2. I am Iranian. 3. I do know stuff about American politics because (and that is the boring truth) German television is really bad. So Iāve only watched English/American stuff for the past, I donāt know, 15 years, podcasts, late night shows, etc. I didnāt think about it, I just did. Little did I know that that would give me an understanding of the inner dynamics of whatās going on within the Republican Party that would tie back to the Iranian peopleās cause in 2026. Believe me, Iām still baffled by it whenever I pause to think about it. But thatās the truth, and here we are. 4. I am not in the United States. I shared a blog, and the provider of that blog (a big, common one) is in the United States. My VPN location is sometimes in the United States. Not me. 5. I am not responsible for the content of people defending me. I have no control over it. Itās not my content, and I keep my distance whenever I see problematic stuff. Many accounts defended me, but going to look for one that has done/said problematic stuff to tie it back to me is not right or fair. I am not responsible. I have nothing to do with it. 6. I wanted to help DR because Evi was threatening to go after her hard, and I didnāt think DR deserved that. I meant no harm, I wanted to help. I made a mistake, and I regret it now, but my intention wasnāt bad at that moment in time. 7. Evi herself was the first to come into my DMs and tell me not to fight with an account named Stephanie. So I did Evi that favor. Meaning: Evi came into my DMs first and tried to calm down a public disagreement between me and someone else. When I did this in defense of DR, I did the same thing Evi had done before. I would never think to accuse Evi of restricting my right to free speech because of it. 8. Publishing private DMs from someone without their permission is wrong. It is something both Evi and Stephanie have now done. Both have shared private messages from me without my permission. 9. Part of Eviās āsourcesā seem to be Azi Yazdi (granddaughter of Khomeiniās first foreign minister), Benji, and Nima Yamini, as well as his ghost accounts (I have blocked multiple of them by now). If you know any of them, you know this is insane. None of them are reliable. Itās like using Milo as a source against James Lindsay. This is not about truth but about a (malicious) takedown to silence me and get me out of the way. 10. Evi has threatened to dox me (there is no doubt) multiple times, and she keeps going after me. This puts my life and my familyās lives in Iran in real danger, but she doesnāt care. She keeps going, and I canāt stop her. She keeps putting out one lie after another, and it traps me in a forever loop of defending myself. If I donāt respond to more and more accusations from her against me, rest assured, my silence should never be taken as agreement with the lies she puts out there. Be sure there is always context, a counterargument, counterevidence, etc., that would show that none of what she shares is fair or true. But itās a forever war that is meant to drain me. So me not commenting on her stuff moving forward is never, ever, ever an admission that she is right about something. Itās just a rejection of playing a game I cannot win. To ALL the people who wrote/shared one or multiple posts and comments in my defense: Thank you very, very, very much. Iāve seen it, and I am grateful. But I think itās best for my own and my familyās safety, as well as for the whole situation, that I step away and stay away from X. I hope thatās understandable. And Evi, for the last time: if you are not malicious, please just stop. Let me out of this. I am not your target. Just leave me and, through doxxing/"exposing", my family out of it moving forward. I beg of you, please. PART 2 - proof - [JL: The following are direct quotes from Evi indicating her intention to "expose" Diana, which she tries to claim is different than "doxxing," though for all practical purposes the effect will be the same and this is a distinction without a difference. The video below shows all of these quotes from her own posts.] 1. āIām getting enough information on her from her own community. I may share itā¦ā 2. āEither log back in with your real name, or I will start exposing you. And trust me, you will not like that.ā 3. āSo stop provoking me. If you continue, I will look much deeper into who you are and what your actual role is behind this anonymous account.ā 4. āYou know what...WAR IT IS. I will start with Diana!! STAY TUNEDā 5. āSo I will take those words seriously and dig as deep as I canā 6. āThe identities of the "Iranian activists" would never have been called into question had they not attacked my right to freedom of speech in my own country.ā 7. Someone: āShe deleted her account because sheās concerned for her safety and the safety of her relatives in Iran your threats to dox herā Evi: āShe should be...but if she turns out to be clean, I shall protect her identity. But trust me, she is not who she claims to beā 8. āLast I checked, Support on X is against fake accounts. Why are we being threatened for wanting to know the true identity of certain accountsā¦ā 9. āDo you think I know who Diana bloom is? No but I need to find out at this pointā 10. ā... because I asked one of their group operatives from Germany to debate me using her/his true identity, or I would expose whoās behind the account.ā 11. āSo I donāt know what youāre all thinking, but this isnāt simply about Diana being scared of the IRGC in Iran. The IRGC has been significantly weakened and has plenty of other things to worry about. There are thousands of Iranian accounts fighting for Iranās freedom under their own names while still having family members back in Iran. At this point, I think people have every right to ask who is actually behind these anonymous accountsā¦ After a few more new posts on her feed, I was forced to tell her to either come back on X and do this under her real name, or I would expose who she was, so at least we would be having this discussion on equal grounds.ā 12. āDonāt freaking interfere with other peopleās business like that retard did and no one comes after you. So go ahead down and sue me and I will push harder to expose her and you and anyone elseā¦ā MY OWN [JL's] COMMENTS, which Diana has nothing to do with and doesn't know I'm appending here. I now believe Evi is likely to be a malignant narcissist who is incapable of admitting that she is wrong. She will not stop in her behavior, and she will aim to harm anyone who attempts to intervene. I do not recommend you do this. I recommend you mark, avoid, and block. Fighting with her will only fuel her because she simply cannot admit that she's wrong about all of this and can only double down in increasingly insane, dangerous, and reckless ways, including toward Diana and her safety. She believes everything she sees that's trying to talk sense into her about any of this is part of an elaborate "op" that "disrespects her free speech" (which isn't a thing, by the way). No one is silencing her. People are just trying to talk sense into her to stop spreading defamation and reckless "exposure" of people who she will put at risk with it and who do not in any way deserve it, people she considered friends and allies until literally four days ago when she suddenly blew up. Therefore, not only is her reckless belief hermetically sealed against any disagreement, she turns any disagreement into proof of allegedly coordinated attacks against her from a network that simply doesn't exist. As a response, in her malignancy, she is threatening to damage, "expose," or otherwise reputationally harm anyone who even tries politely to talk sense into her, much less to disagree with her or oppose her. I strongly recommend everyone realize what they're getting into if they work with or ally themselves with this crazy woman going forward. You do so at your own risk. I can attest from watching her over the last few days that her research abilities, at least when agitated, are so sloppy as to be beyond worthless, even dangerous. The post I'm quoting below is proof of that. She's trying to prove Diana is secretly an American because she's too sloppy and stupid to realize that a Wordpress domain has an American location. She isn't doing research in good faith or with fidelity on this issue, or about me. She is looking for any information she can to hurt people who have upset her. In fact, she is presently being sued for defamation by an Albanian singer (Evi is an Albanian immigrant to the United States and a U.S. citizen for at least a couple decades), so we might recognize this bad behavior and poor praxis as a pattern with her. I can provide just from the last few days, as can others, much evidence that she's simply grasping at the nastiest straws she can find to try to harm people she has suddenly decided are her opponents because of her jealous outburst at DataRepublican and her narcissistic injury at being called on it. The sloppiness and outright retardation of her "fact" finding and "analysis" are so shocking that it's hard not to laugh even given how horrifically dangerous it is. We can therefore infer this sloppiness, recklessness, and malice-when-opposed to be at least partially true of her other "research" against her other targets, by extension. That's a shame because many of those targets are worthy of real scrutiny, which she is undermining with her loose cannon. Therefore, I insist her OSINT "research" is at best worthless and at worst maliciously harmful. In either case, it cannot be engaged by people who want to make a positive difference in the world, so mark and avoid. Evi seems good at making connections. She was quite positively in my own DMs for a while, trying to find ways to work productively together, even suggesting we start an alternative to CPAC (lol). She appears to be friends with both Eric Trump and Don Jr., though the relationship with the former appears to be more solid. She seems to have worked behind the scenes with a lot of relatively prominent Republican groups. I find all of this incredibly concerning after the events of this week, even though I wouldn't have beforehand. My own assessment from this stupid and nasty drama is that Evi's primary motivation is that she is pathologically envious of DataRepublican and her influence, likely believing it should be her in DataRepublican's place. As we can see, she isn't nearly careful or accurate enough for that. Mark and avoid. Further, though, while DataRepublican has no driving interest to be who or what she is and is doing it in service to the best of her abilities (which are considerable but still limited and imperfect as are anyone's), Evi appears to covet the role, which she has demonstrated she cannot possibly handle responsibly. Again, mark and avoid. Block if you will. I will not unblock her for this post or in the future. You can think of that whatever you want. I will rarely, almost never, say anything about her except in the defense of others she is wantonly and recklessly attacking. I will NEVER interact with her directly again, no arguments, no back and forth, no dunks, nothing. My involvement here is pure exposure and nothing else. Thank you for your attention to this matter.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2093725313872085205/amplify_video_thumb/2093718725035712512/img/t5AqANtbD3mDn808.jpg)
!["How do you know you can trust what [a non-human intelligence is] saying?" ~Bigelow Bigelow/Knapp 2: If I Was President, I'd Tell the World We Have Non-Human Craft and Bodies "The President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation...is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something." ~Bigelow Do China and Russia also have non-human bodies and craft? "Oh yeah, freaking yes!" ~Bigelow ~ "You've opened up Pandora's box." ~Bigelow ~ 17:44 (I'm using the KLAS YT video for time stamps. As you'll see, I add a lot to these, so they take forever to put together.) George Knapp (GK): "Would you guess - based on what you know about the topic and how it's been handled over the decades - would you guess that [Trump] had been briefed, or that any other presidents have been briefed? You know that Bill Clinton was not, even though he expressed an interest in it. So at some point, the President has to be told, 'No, we can't tell ya.'" Robert Bigelow (RB): "I think Bush Sr. knew quite a bit because he was the head of the CIA." (Dr. Eric Davis says Bush. Sr. told him some interesting things, including that he (Bush) was partially briefed in 1976 about the alleged 1964 Holloman AFB landing and meeting, and more, when he first became the director of the CIA in 1976. Watch Davis explain it, here. ) ~ RB: "I think Nixon did." (We have the Jackie Gleason story, where Nixon allegedly snuck away from his Secret Service detail and took Gleason to see non-human bodies at Homestead Air Force Base. But that was a claim from his ex-wife, and Gleason, who died in 1987, never said anything about it, on the record. The controversial Larry Warren (Rendlesham) claims Gleason told him the same story, but that's it.) Bigelow: "I think Eisenhower did. So, it's kind of hit and miss over historic...over the period of history as to who has and who hasn't." 18:20 Knapp: "Can you tell us what would be in the briefing document that you left behind? Was it cases? Here's a wave of UFOs, here's a case, here was a crash. Anything like that?" Bigelow: "Yeah, I related conversations I have had with General De Brouwer, who was the chief of the Air Force for Belgium. And there was a very interesting flap that was about 18 months long (1989-1990) with triangular craft. And he was in command of all the Air Force, and he really chased the heck out of these. "And he told me, he said, Bob, 'I'm just burning fuel, and it makes no sense.' He said, 'We're gonna stop because we're not getting anywhere. All we're doing is getting closer, you know, photographs and things, but we're not getting anywhere. We're not getting any information that is really valuable for us to understand anything.'" (I wonder if those were OUR triangles? If so, it's still a solid case/flap of anomalous craft. Dick D'Amato was a longtime (18 years) senior staffer for Senate Democratic Leader Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.) "Dick D'Amato has returned from Belgium where he met with Colonel De Brouwer, a 'very interesting fellow.' Dickās conclusion, again, is that the triangular objects are very plain human craft. ~Jacques VallĆ©e's Forbidden Science Volume 4 - November 1992 And then we have this... Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "We hear about all these people on military bases seeing triangles, and you're doing this study, AAWSAP, to try to figure out the physics of how to do that. Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAWSAP had a lot of value." Lacatski: "[three-second pause] It hasn't been achieved to its full extent." Video... ~~~ RB: "And I gave [Trump] other examples of where large amounts of witnesses were involved, and so that he could read about these particular [incidents]. And, of course, the one with Fife Simington in '97 was so interesting. Because there you had a governor who was an actual witness, and he made a joke of it on and brought a guy in an alien suit on stage because he was scared to death." GK: "It's the Phoenix Lights case." (Great case for Bigelow to show Trump.) RB: "The Phoenix Lights, which weren't just lights, it was actually friggin' craft, and it came from northern Arizona. I think it started, actually, in southern Nevada, is where the craft began. In the Henderson area (not far from me. ~Joe), I think, somewhere in there. And, so you see this huge triangular craft, gigantic craft, going slowly, and [Symington] was scared to death. "But finally, fast forward 10 years later, and he confesses that he was an eyewitness, but he didn't know what to do. So he was there at a point in time when the dynamic of disclosure could have been forced, and actually, confirmation could have been from a governor of the state like that. He was a credible guy. "So we've had many [incidents] like that in the early 50s, flying over the White House and the Capitol building. We've had so many of those. So, in my report, I included a lot of very dramatic, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt kind of witnesses of exhibitions." GK: "Did you share with him anything about your knowledge of a classified program?" RB: "No." GK: "You got a Top-Secret security clearance, right?" RB: "Yeah" GK: "It was for the AAWSAP program for BAASS." RB: "Right." GK: "Operated under the DIA." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You learned a lot during that program. It's the largest accumulation of UFO info. of any government-funded UFO program ever." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You didn't tell him about it." RB: "It wasn't credible enough, I felt, for him." (Someone on here watched this interview and told me that Bigelow said the AAWSAP data wasn't credible. That is NOT what he said. Not credible enough for Trump, is what he said. And if you read "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" or listen any of Lacatki's interviews where he talks about UFOs being under a paranormal umbrella, I think Bigelow made the right decision for an 11-minute briefing for someone (Trump) who seems to be struggling (at least in public comments) with the reality of the basics.) RB: "[The AAWSAP data is] just something pertaining to me. And whereas, these other examples are historic, and they're in a lot of literature, they're very famous. The amount of witnesses were huge. We operated under a private situation with the Skinwalker Ranch, and he wouldn't relate to...well, we all had hitchhikers, we all took things home with us. You know, we all saw a lot of stuff. Whether it was at the ranch or where we lived, it didn't make any difference where in the United States we lived. We saw a lot of things, but that wouldn't be relevant for him to be able to relate to that, right?" GK: "Well." RB: "So, why talk about it?" GK: "Yeah, I mean, you know, you're kind of jumping into the deep end of the pool when you get into hitchhikers and skinwalkers." RB: "Yeah." GK: "Maybe for your first big conversation on this topic, that might not be the place to go." RB: "No, you know. And I couldn't even...if he said, 'Oh, I need a beer (Knapp laughs),' I couldn't even give him something to drink. You know, maybe stronger than that. So, I didn't wanna do any, you know." 22:15 GK: "You used the term non-human intelligence in the sentence you gave him. Hey, try this as you're climbing aboard Air Force One. Say that to media, and then, you know, close the door." RB: "Right." GK: "You said non-human intelligence, not ET. Are they the same, and did you share anything with him about what you think it is?" RB: "Well, there have been reports of humans on board, right? But the non-human are more interesting. I mean, if a human's on board and he or she has free reign of the craft, that's pretty damn interesting, right? And you don't know where those people are when they're not on board." (I wonder what cases he's talking about? Travis Walton reported seeing humans with non-humans and John Keel wrote about humans being seen onboard craft.) ~ Bigelow: "But the other ones are...some are scary, you know? It's not surprising, that, in the Universe, everything is [not] gonna look like us. Every intelligent organism is [not] going to look like us. But you have to have... It's also a matter of respect for any really intelligent animal or creature, whatever it is, right? And the more advanced, the more respect because you don't know what they know, and you don't know the future. And they may know. They may know more than just the now." (In interviews (which I can't find right now), Bigelow has hinted at an unstoppable, not-so-rosy future for mankind. Have people in the Legacy programs told him that the NHI have warned us about our doomed future or some cataclysmic event? Or, has Bigelow encountered these non-humans (or humans) and had them make claims about our future?) ~ 23:34 GK: "If you were to have a second conversation with him, would you explain that ET is one idea, but it's not necessarily the only option for a non-human intelligence that's out there?" RB: "You have to tell me first how much time do I have with the second conversation?" GK: "[laughs] Let's make it an hour. You have an hour with the President. What would you tell them about who they are, who they might be?" RB: "Umm... So, I would try to get into the complexity of the relationship. That once you've had confirmation, you know, you've given that text of that little sentence I wrote and quoted there, and you start to go down the path of disclosure, where it's more than than just FLIR videos, and you're seeing other things that are much more crystal clear, you know, in video. "Or, legitimate people in places that you recognize these people, and they're around something, or with some thing, or somebody that's a holy cow, that's wow, you know. That's a very dramatic kind of disclosure about something landing on the lawn somewhere, you know." (I have no idea what he's talking about. Anybody else able to decipher that? Is he saying that there's evidence (that he's seen?) of people that we know (a President or head of state?) hanging with a non-human or next to a downed or landed craft?) RB: "So I think what I would have spent time doing is talking about, how do you establish: You've been in 80 years of denial as a nation, and the world. We have countries who are very upfront, and others that are also in denial. Now you wanna pivot 180 degrees. How do you start that relationship? How do you do that? "And it's not as though that we've ever been in control. We haven't been in control of anything, ever, for this 80 years of modern history. Nothing. We have no ability to control anything." GK: "That's a tough thing to tell the President, right? I would think that would be a tough thing for a President to accept." RB: "Well, you're giving me an hour to talk to him, you said." GK: "[laughs] Yeah, okay." RB: "So I'm using my hour." GK: "All right." 25:46 RB:" So, yeah! So, that's a really intriguing thing is: How do you do that, where do you start? And into a relationship? And I would say more like, well, I would wanna start with, the biggest question I would ask, I would say, what I wanna get from them is... My first question is: What are the chances we are gonna survive ourselves? That we are not going to annihilate ourselves. "Because they already are familiar with a whole lot of other species on a lot of other worlds or other planets. So, chances are they have a pretty good idea of percentage." (That assumes a lot, since we have no idea how long they've been around, what they've seen, or where they're from. Unless...Mr. Bigelow has seen evidence that relates to those questions or heard it from folks who work in the Legacy programs?) RB: "And it's not that we're a spiritual species. You talk to people that have near-death experiences; they're changed for the rest of their life. They've become a spiritual person of a caliber that they've never been. "Well, we're a long way, as an average, from that category, from that level. There are monsters among us, as human beings, and they're angelic people among us. So we are a danger to another species, we're potentially the Klingons. We have a technological maturity that is not just going on a line, but it's vertical and it's segmented because it's jumping. "And meanwhile, our spiritual maturity just bumps along the bottom, you know? So, we look at the 20th century; 60 million people were killed. Are we ever gonna get beyond that? So, the thing of it is, we know so little about how to have a relationship. I'm not in any position to really advise, except for the few ideas I have as to where to start, and the how is really super important. 27:49 "It's not gonna be like a 'Close Encounter of the Third, Kind,' which was a really cool movie. And it's not gonna be because of SETI. You know, it's gonna be by some other kinds of means that you're embarking on. And I'm interested in that kind of research." 28:06 GK: "We go back to your meeting with the President. You walk into the Oval Office, they clear off the Resolute Desk, you spread out your seven piles of stuff, and you start making a presentation about each one, in particular about ET, non-human intelligence. You can't say what he said to you. Can you say whether he asked questions? Was he curious?" RB: "He was distracted by other things. So, he also asked me... He did ask questions, but he asked questions about other stuff that wasn't necessarily just on what I was talking about." GK: "He's getting your input on other things going on in the world." RB: "Yeah, yeah." 28:49 GK: "If you had to make a guess, would you guess that you got through to him on this issue? I mean, he hasn't stood in the doorway of Air Force One and made those remarks yet, but he has taken some pretty dramatic steps on this topic since you met with him. Do you think you made a dent?" RB: "Don't know. I advised him on something that I can measure, and he hasn't taken my advice so far on what I suggested to him, on a totally different, unrelated subject. But so far, he has not taken my advice." GK: Well, somebody seems to have got through to him, because he's been taking steps that we're seeing real results. I mean, people are either..." RB: "Well, I'm talking about an unrelated subject altogether. So, yes, there there are a couple of different task forces that are involved. So, there is an initiation of an activity in this subject, [but] it remains to be seen, though, that he gives actual presidential confirmation. I don't, I haven't... Maybe you're more aware than I am. Has that been...has he done that?" GK: "Not, not really. Nothing like what I'd call confirmation. But that's really what you're talking about. I remember us having a conversation in 2008, right after you had signed the contract with DIA for BAASS to run [AAWSAP]. And you made the case then that what we need is not Disclosure; it's confirmation." RB: "Yeah." 30:25 GK: "For somebody like the President, I'm not sure if it could be anyone less than the President that steps forward and says this, and it carries the same kind of weight." RB: "Yeah. It's a big appetizer. You know, you're looking for the entree, and where's the dessert in this whole buffet? But the confirmation is a huge appetizer to start with, and that's why I started with that in my conversation with him. Is, pushing him to try and make a confirmation. And maybe he wants to get personally more comfortable?" (I have said that I want the entire enchilada NOW, but I'm also a realist, and would take a simple confirmation that somebody else is on this planet with us. That SHOULD wake up the mainstream media and masses, but no guarantees since Trump is so controversial and people might just ignore it, IF he ever did it. I've also said that I'd surround him with people like Schumer, Rubio, Rounds and Gillibrand in order to show that it's bipartisan. And a few firsthand whistleblowers who say they worked hands on, IN one of these alleged Legacy UFO/UAP programs.) 30:57 Bigelow: "And, you know, he will go down in history for a lot of things, for better or worse, that people are on both sides of the fence about him and so forth. But he's involved in so many different things and has been, that I don't know what his legacy is gonna be, I really don't. "He has an opportunity, in this serious subject, to build a legacy using this as part of the blocks, part of the brick and the structure...the content of a structure that is very unique. So, you can have all the political programs that you want, and so forth, and nobody is gonna really remember those as time goes by, as the decades fade away. "Nobody can remember Benghazi and Afghanistan and Iraq, different kinds of things, and that's just recent history. You know, the world goes so fast. But the President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation, and actually built a satisfactory conclusion of a relationship between human beings and that subject is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something. And if it's handled right, it can be done successfully." (To me, it's a no brainer. His presidency would go down as one that changed the world and our species. Or course, I'm sure he has people in his ear telling him that confirmation would cause societal disruption that we're not prepared to handle, and that THAT would be his legacy.) (32:21) GK: "A lot of Presidents have made comments, often after they're out of office, on this topic. 'Yeah, gosh, I'm real interested in that.' Or, 'Wouldn't that be something?' Or, 'I think aliens could exist.' Something like that. But nothing like what you're talking about, which amounts to confirmation, saying, 'It's real. They're here. We gotta figure it out,' and stopping it there, not disclosing..." RB: "Well, the dialogue, the ability to learn something from them is huge. What can we do for you? I mean, that's where...one of the first things I would ask is, not just, are we going to survive ourselves? Yeah, that's pretty damn important. That's like, probably number one, you know? "But close behind that is: Okay, we've been aware of you for a long time, and the government's never admitted it. But us as a public, we know it, and we're really curious. Is there anything that we can do for you? Not just what can you do... I loved what John Kennedy, what he said famously: Don't ask what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. That huge. So that's giving them a kind of a respect that they deserve." (Do they deserve respect? I'm not so sure. It all depends on if they're upfront with us and tell us their true intentions. Of course, how do we know they're telling us the truth? Why have you (or some of you) been abducting us against our will, and injuring some of us? See Jim Semivan's abduction story with his wife. "I don't think [the phenomenon] cares whether it does harm. I think it may go out of its way not to do harm, but, if it does harm... "I had a hole in the back of my neck, and my wife...unexplained bleeding for 17 days." ~Former CIA Officer, Jim Semivan to Engaging The Phenomenon ~ 33:33 GK: "If you were President, would you announce that yes, we've got crash retrievals, yes, we have reverse engineering programs, and yes, we've got bodies?" RB: "Yeah, because the rest of the world already knows that. The people that count in Russia and China already know." GK: "Because they've got their own." RB: "Oh yeah, freaking yes! Yeah! They've had their missiles shut down, they've had their missiles activated. You know, depending on which country you're talking about." 33:56 GK: "Have you considered the political fallout for a President? Let's say it's Trump, because he might be the guy that would do it and just cast his fate to the winds. But, he makes an announcement: 'Yeah, they're here. Yeah, we've got programs. Yeah, we've got crashes, we've got bodies. That's as far as I'm able to go right now.' What happens to him, politically? Is he able to get anything else done?" RB: "That's more than I would have said, for him to say. What you just said." GK: "That goes too far." RB: "I wouldn't advise him to say, initially, what you just said." GK: "You just say, non-human intelligence, been here a long time, and leave it at that." RB: "Yeah, that one sentence is a starter because it's a huge canon. You've opened up Pandora's box, in terms of, 'Oh my gosh, what's gonna happen?' Okay. So now, you can categorize and segment into topics. And you need time to do that, and it needs to be digestible." ~ āI have met with people who I know are in the know. One of them told me the truth is indigestible.ā ~Jim Semivan to James Iandoli ~ RB: "And it needs to be not packaged in a scary kind of way, and it can't be packaged in a way that you're divulging what you shouldn't be divulging. You know, other countries aren't, so there's reasons to have national secrets. There really are. I mean, that's kind of like common sense, right?" (Well, David Grusch claimed that some other countries aren't divulging for a specific reason." Grusch on Yes Theory: "So there are certainly friendly governments, both across the pond and say, local to where we...our landmass, that are for this. And a lot of them know that they got a raw deal with the U.S. because they were, basically, part of the secrecy, through kind of agreements like, bilateral, unilateral agreements. And they're like, you know, they kind of wanna be, 'Release me!' Like, you know, because they they do realize it was a bad deal. "With the ecosystem secrecy, some people, one of their arguments is like, 'Well how would they keep the secret?' I'm, like dude, I was cleared to some of the most nation's most sensitive programs, I used to handle the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing). You know, I had full access to most DoD activities. And most of the stuff, BROAD programs that were enduring, have NEVER leaked. "So the U.S. and its allies are very good at keeping secrecies, to include programs that are, let's say, global in nature. And really, it's been leaking like a sieve in some weird way for many decades. Now it's been mixed in with some BS in ufology and stuff, but the general gist of it's actually been out there for a long time. It has been leaking in some sense, so." ~ 35:06 GK: "We don't want the Russians and Chinese and maybe other adversaries to know how far along we are, or are not, in configuring this out." RB: "Absolutely. Especially of that. I think that the relationship (with he phenomenon) thing is a mankind relationship. It's not just for America. When you are embarking as a President on trying to initiate a solemn relationship, you're not doing for U.S. of A. only. "And so, the...and then we probably can do a show on communication (with a non-human intelligence), but it's really complex because, who are you going to have initiate it? Are you going to have politicians initiate? Are you going to have military people? Because everybody has kind of their own mindset. Are you gonna have a bunch of lawyers initiate it? Are you gonna have scientists only, initiate it? (And what if we're dealing with more than one non-human intelligence? Who do we communicate with? And what if it's one intelligence pretended to be multiple? How would we even figure that out?) "[Hynek] cited the 'poltergeist' phenomena experienced by some...after a close encounter; the fact that some witnesses develop psychic abilities after an encounter. 'Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?'" ~J. Allen Hynek ~ RB: "And how do you know to whom you're talking? You know, how do you know you can trust what they're saying?" (I'm so glad he said that. We don't, and we don't.) RB: "Because it depends on the form of communication, and what are you asking for in the way of proof or demonstrations to establish trust, both ways, in the communication process?" "Because, we haven't had that happen before. It is totally new ground, and frankly, we need The Others' help. We need the help of The Others to help, to guide us." (Firs off, it MAY have happened within these Legacy programs. And, if we don't know who we're talking to, or if we can trust them, why would we enlist the help of The Others? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2087243559091261706/amplify_video_thumb/2087241641329561600/img/dSAd4v8WLh8yq8Qw.jpg)
![The Royal High Courts are certainly a place of grandeur and perhaps some are intimidated by the surroundings. Well that impressive 19th century Gothic architecture is a sight to behold but the Judges less so. Iāve seen too many judges in the UK and Pakistan and by God, they leave a lot to be desired. Especially when one comes across McGowan the Mediocre. What should have been a straightforward win has turned into a cheating exercise by the very judiciary meant to uphold justice in this country. Why do I say straightforward? Letās recap. After 3-4 failed complaints to the GMC, the Jewish lobbies upped the ante. First came my loss of contract at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust where I was doing some clinics. No investigation. Just blocked from the email and canāt address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press ā articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom Iād worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation ā given the pressure from Wes Streeting, elected in July 2024. They wanted an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) to decide if any sanction should be imposed whilst I was being āinvestigatedā. I had a trip abroad for my brotherās assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didnāt care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is allegedly an independent body to the GMC and runs the IOT panels. They would not move the IOT by 11 working days as the GMC had refused (so much for independence!) ā instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period ā people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am ā 6pm. I told them patients came first ā I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings arenāt urgent and they donāt come before my patient care. I requested deferment by 11 working days, told them I would defend every single tweet and indeed, looked forward to it. This was all via email. Multiple emails. All ignored ā including the one letter that contained my ādefencesā. They would not budge ā the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasnāt going to risk their ire again. Wes Streeting was breathing down their necks. On 20th December 2024, I saw my Neurology patients and on 23rdDecember, I found out that Iād been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since ā in their absence. My remaining clinics in December and January all cancelled. Some patients were cancelled as they were making their way to my clinic. I requested the transcript of the IOT hearing ā the GMC had been demanding conditions on my license on public interest grounds yet 3 batty women decided I should be suspended for 18 months for public interest and patient protection! Later, the barrister for the indemnity body stated he ācouldnāt get purchase onā how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body ā who suggested that I first ask for an early review, delayed asking for it and then the GMC refused. They were refusing to allow me to be heard after claiming I wouldnāt attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter ā the final āallegationsā against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send ā in my case, they managed to do it within 6 weeks! Yet one of the reasons they claimed I needed to be suspended for 18 months was because of the lengthy investigationā¦. I had to reply by 5 May 2025 which I did via a191-page response. The GMC usually respond within 3-4 weeks. As of 21 January 2026, I have yet to hear from them. I then took matters into my own hand. Let down by cowardly lawyers except one (Yasmin), I filed a High Court application under Section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to challenge my unlawful suspension. I requested an urgent expedited hearing as I was being left with no way to earn a living. There were 10 grounds of appeal. The High Court date was set for 10th July 2025. Meanwhile, the MPTS is obliged to give a 6-month review ā 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June ā itās cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for āalleged support of proscribed groupsā ā apparently I was āon the wanted list. Iām released 14 hours later. Theyād seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that Iād carefully put together. Iām still not sure why I couldnāt get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it ā they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing ā and the GMC Counsel attempts to utilise the arrest. I object. The panel agree that it will not be considered. However, the MPTS have set an insufficient amount of time for the hearing ā they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense ā the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if Iām honest. It could be considered my second PhD thesis. As I have to return to Pakistan for hearings and the High Court case was 10thJuly, the IOT hearing was re-scheduled for 14th July 2025. So, fast forward to 10th July 2025. Under 48 hours before the hearing is due, the GMC submit their skeleton arguments ā ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before ā no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an āerror of lawā in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the āright decision but by the wrong routeā (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice ā the GMC have their in-house lawyer, their GMC Counsel and her clerk. But I have the best lawyer (currently abroad) and an excellent McKenzie friend, Sean Naughton and my well wishers who attended to support me. We start at 10 30am ā and I ask the Judge to review the admission of illegality. On that basis alone, my suspension should be revoked. She declines and wants to hear the case. I then detail the IOT powers and how the grounds to sanction me had not been met ā they had not proven public interest or public protection. I discussed the GMC actions, the unfairness, disproportionality, the abuse of process, the outright lies by the GMC, the draconian 18-month suspension, the persecution by the Jewish lobbies and the breach of my rights under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR. My opening lines: āI submit that the suspension was political in nature. It was subject to bias and external pressure was clearly evident. It was unlawful and demonstrated seriously flawed reasoning. It was manifestly wrong and the panel erred in law. It was completely unnecessary. Itās been tainted by marked procedural errors, unfairness and it has demonstrated gross abuse of process by the GMC and the MPTS and the IOT panel and those abuses have continued. The suspension is draconian and disproportionate and inconsistent with other decision makings of the IOT panels. It is a complete violation of my rights under Article 8, 9 and especially Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. And it is demonstrated also limitation of the panelās expertise, both in terms of law, but also, importantly, the context of the rights of the Palestinian people and it brings into serious question whether the GMC should be policing speech of doctors. It should certainly not be policing or interfering in political speech.ā I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: āAll of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think itās necessary to list them ā Lawyers for Israel, in collaboration with Gnasherjew, the Jewish Medical Association twice; the unnamed Jewish Zionist doctor; the Jewish News who defamed me; the reporter is Michelle Rosenberg - who is Jewish and Zionist; the Daily Telegraph defamation - George Chesterton is married to a Jewish woman; Miranda Levy and Jacob Freedland are both Jewish and Zionist. I had the Jewish Chronicle defamation - Jane Prinsley is Jewish and has a home in Israel; Campaign Against Antisemitism by Stephen Silverman, who is Jewish and has submitted three similar tweets in March 2025 to the GMC which have been included in my Rule 7 letter without due process the GMC is obliged to follow on receipt of a new complaint. And then, twice in the Jerusalem Post - Mathilda Heller and Michael Starr are both Jewish Zionists. And despite the suspension, Sabrina Miller, a Jewish Zionist journalist at the Daily Mail attacked a number of pro-Palestinian doctors, including myself. So, these previous complaints that have been dismissed by the GMC included tweets of a similar nature. The tweets have not changed, but I would contend that the priorities of the GMC had and my complaint was clearly being handled by individuals who appeared conflicted. In my witness statement, I have detailed the behaviour of XXX, XXX, XXX who refused to respond to emails on where disclosures from the GMC themselves, since I submitted this appeal, have since revealed that XX XX had made false notes on my record claiming I had prior FTP history. In addition, in July 2024, Wes Streeting became the Health Secretary. I refer Your Honour to pages 327 to 337 of the bundle. Thereās a Declassified article, incidentally, thatās been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streetingās support of Israel since his days at the National Union of Students. It documents that he visited Israel in 2022 paid for by the Labour Friends of Israel. That organisationās former chair was Joan Ryan, infamously found to be discussing her Ā£1 million payment from Israel with Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat. Streeting has taken over Ā£20,000 from Israeli lobbyist, Trevor Chinn. Trevor Chinnās father heads the Jewish National Fund which supports illegal Israeli settlements and from Lord Mendelsohn and David Menton. The Jewish Chronicle even ran a profile of him entitled āWes Streeting, our friend at the NUSā. So, thereās little surprise that Wes Streeting made comments in The Telegraph stating he would urge medical regulators to discipline staff expressing views which he, as a pro-Israeli and Zionist, opposed. He stated that regulators had the power to set conditions that a healthcare professional must work under. Suspend them or strike them entirely from the medical register. He made similar comments to The Times. He then met with the Board of Deputies for Community Security Trust, which is also behind my complaint, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Medical Association, reiterating āI expect employers and regulators to take actionā. The idea that this political pressure by the Health Secretary in November 2024 was irrelevant to my suspension is untenable in the face of this clear intervention, which actually represents political interference and undermines the alleged independence of the GMC.ā And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play āSo, from what Iāve just presented, itās very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, thatās words. Criticising an entity, carrying out the mass slaughter against innocent civilians will be punished more severely than malpractice, blatant dishonesty, criminal convictions or even genuine Jew hatred, as long as you are not a Muslim. And if youāre Jewish and you belong to a powerful lobby group like the Jewish Medical Association, then the GMC gives you a clear pass as shown in the case of Liz Lightstone and Justin Stebbing.ā I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated āthat there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.ā I stated in the High Court āAnd I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religionā and āIt is my inalienable right to be able to disagree with the narrative from Israeli lobbies and express it. Their free speech does not trump mine.ā I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: āIn fact, Grok is positively glowing ā āDr Rehiana Aliās tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolmās blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.ā āI canāt think of a better person to be compared to.ā I further stated āI do not believe that legal, that legitimate political commentary or reporting facts can be antisemitic. I do not believe that any groups, be they Jewish, Muslims or Christians, are exempt from criticism where the situation warrants it. I do not believe in hate speech, as thatās the very antithesis of free speech, but also, importantly, there is no tweet of mine that demonstrates hatred for any group simply by virtue of their religious identity and, indeed, none has been identified as such.ā I even quoted the Queen: āI do not accept that stating facts becomes anti-Jewish simply because the majority of those committing the crimes are Jewish. If you take that to the logical conclusion, that would mean that no Jewish person could ever be criticised for their bad behaviour. That cannot be right. I would also point out that the late Queen, according to the Israeli press, and the ex-President of Israel Rivlin, was reported to have viewed every Israeli as a terrorist or the son of a terrorist. Who would have thought that the Monarch would have been so based?ā At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break ā I havenāt finished. We continue after lunch break ā and I complete my submission dealing with the GMCās arguments. āBefore I sum up, Iāll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously Iāve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think itās important to note, that the GMC has finally conceded, after over two months since receiving my skeleton arguments, that the IOT erred in law. On that basis alone, that suspension should be quashed today. If the GMC was capable of self- reflection, it would have withdrawn its objections to my appeal gracefully but that is probably too optimistic an outcome to expect of this bureaucratic monster which has become a law unto itselfā¦ā Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: āAnd that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdictionā In fact, the words āoriginal jurisdictionā were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge āWe accept that you have a free-er handā and again āBecause, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdictionā and so on. Look at the tweets! She said āMossad did 9/11ā and that āIsraelis shouldnāt be allowed near humanityā. She said āIsraelis are involved in organ traffickingā. All true. I was amused. Ordinarily the High Court usually looks at technical and legal aspects without going into the actual details of the issue itself (e.g. on covid, they wouldnāt debate the merits of the covid vaccine ā the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasnāt necessary ā the grounds did not require that. However, if the Judge wanted to look at the tweets she should acquaint herself with the facts that I presented in my 191-page response. I request a judgement that day or the next day. I had no faith in the MPTS and GMC. That review hearing was due a few days later on 14 July 2025. Judge McGowan was fully aware of that review IOT hearing. She stated āWe need to finish this during the course of today. It cannot go part heard and I understand that your review hearing is listed on Monday next.ā She stated the following: āAnd if there is not a decision from this Court today then, presumably, the review hearing will be made aware of these proceedings, but their decision is independent of this. If they decide to not lift the suspension, then my decision either does the same or lifts or terminates the suspension. If they terminate the suspension on Monday, then my decision probably becomes quite academic, but necessary, nonetheless.ā Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Courtās decision was āof interestā I didnāt agree it was āacademicā The Judge continued: āThere is too much material. It is too important.ā And later that her decision was ānonetheless, an important exercise.ā I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that āthe overarching question is āwas my original suspension, was it correct or not?ā McGowan replied : āI ā I do understand that and in order to reach a decision about that I have to look at what you say are the procedural mistakes. I have to look at what you say are the errors of law. I have to look at what you say is unfair about the way the hearing was conducted...ā and again,āUntil I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.ā I again pointed out ā..I would argue itās an abuse of the system and Iām actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. Iām having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an incomeā¦ā In other words, there have been consequences for me ā financially and professionally. And I ended with āI have no faith in the IOT. I have no faith in the MPTS, and I have no faith in the GMC, and I am not the only one to feel that way. The fact that we are calling for a different body and weāre calling for the GMC to be dismantled. Iām simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectifiedā¦ā The concluding remarks of McGowan? āWell, I am certainly not going to give judgment in this case at 3.55pm. You raised an awful lot of important issues. The importance of a decision to you, personally, is obviously great. The importance of a decision to your potential patients is high and the importance of a decision to the public is equally important. So, all of those matters have to be considered and balanced and I will get to a decision early next week. I think that is probably the best way, which will be handed down in the usual way. All right, well thank you both very much. Thank you all very much for your attendance.ā At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didnāt concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated ā no conditions. But that 7 months suspension remains on my record visible to every employer. The very next day GMC emails the Court to state that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter as the suspension was revoked! The IOT panel has very limited powers so whilst it revoked my suspension, it will not deem it unlawful or indeed make any comment about the previous panelās decision ā and certainly not its legality. The MPTS admitted that only the High court could rule it was unlawful. I contacted the Court pointing this out and that I was expecting a judgement as per McGowanās position in the High Court. The High Court had a full dayās hearing and the court was independent of the tribunal and had seized jurisdiction. All my grounds including the legality of the suspension were outstanding. The revocation was to some extent irrelevant to the Court issuing the Judgement ā if anything, it rather supported my contention that the suspension imposed on me in December 2024 was unlawful. I ask the GMC to provide what law theyāre relying uponā¦.they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! āSection 41A(10 of the Medical Act 1983, Interim Orders, states Where an order has effect under any provision of this section, the relevant court may ā..ā Yes ā that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense ā¦because the law is āalways speakingā. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk ā¦Iām asked to be patient and await the Judgement. Even up to 6th August 2025 I was told that the Judgement was coming. On 11th August 2025, I am informed by email that there will be no Judgement!! I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors ā itās almost unheard of. They're all useless though. I get no replies to my emails to the High Court. So in November 2025, I requested the Hearing transcript. On 12th December 2025 ā over 5 months after the substantive hearing ā I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order ā simply stating āUpon the Court hearing the substantive hearing on this matter on 10 July 2025 And upon following consideration of the documents lodged by Respondent on 15 July 2025 confirming revocation of the Interim Order pursuant to Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the application is dismissed.ā No reasons whatsoever as to why the Judge had contradicted her own position in Court. I replied to the Court and file an application for permission to appeal ā not just to McGowan (the system is so barmy that you have to ask the same judge for permission to appeal) but also to the Court of Appeal ā the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowanās bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal ā that is set for Tuesday 13 January 2026. So, yet again I am at the High Court now requesting permission to appeal. To be honest, I wasnāt expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues ā and has zero integrity. You donāt get a DBE in the UK for nothing. In fact, she started this hearing by asking the GMC to interpret the Section 41A of the Medical Act!!! Then she turned to me ā the Claimant ā and asked if āI understood what was being saidā. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and Iām a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though ā I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasnāt Oxbridge materialā¦. I present my arguments ā including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law ā their arguments are āit is written in the present tenseā (I did correct them that in actual fact, it was written in the simple present tense to be more precise) and that the decision of the High Court āis finalā. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects ā firstly, getting a reasoned Judgement! I never got a judgement. I effectively got a blank piece of paper. On no grounds, could that be considered āa decisionā. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities ā¦they were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic ā all that meant was that one had to request permission to appeal. Can you imagine a system where a Judge makes an error but you canāt appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them ā I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, weād never prosecute the rapist ā after all, the rape was no longer in progess. That is not justice. The High Court seized jurisdiction by having a substantive hearing and had to produce a judgement. Of course, I understood that had I appealed after the revocation, the application would have been dismissed. McGowan sat there clearly not listening. This was merely an exercise to show thereād been a hearing. She tried to claim she has āno powerā!! She then had the audacity to say āYouāve had a success. Why arenāt you satisfied with that?ā I point out that I was suspended unlawfully ā I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states āmisconductā on my record. I have a right to get that unlawful suspension struck from my record and remedy with regards to the consequences I had suffered. The GMC ā a public body ā should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words āfor the wider public interestā. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state ā because itās not possible ā that the High Court lost jurisdiction. Thatās the legal principle: āOnce seized, always seized.ā](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2014084863523991988/amplify_video_thumb/2014081102336438272/img/PO6AC1MzPmGnWRpm.jpg)
