Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

PETER TRAGOS MAKES STUNNING UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS Yesterday, Peter Tragos Lawyer You Know made stunning claims about the contents of Michael Proctor's phone. He claimed that motions in the federal complaint, civil wrongful death case, and Myles King case stated that Proctor gave MSP investigative files to Colin Albert and...

JulieCar94's profile picture

Julie Carpenter

4,748 subscribers

32,462 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политикаНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

DISINFORMATION CORRECTION: MEGYN KELLY & PETER TRAGOS EDITION BLATANT DEFAMATION Yesterday, on Megyn Kelly show, Peter Tragos of Lawyer You Know made a false defamatory statement against the witnesses in John O'Keefe's murder case. Tragos stated the witnesses were sending group messages amongst each other stating they "were going to pin it on the girl." This is FALSE and a BLATANT LIE. There is no such text message sent by ANY person who testified in either trial including ANY law enforcement personnel. The "pin it on the girl" is a quote attributed SOLELY to Alan Jackson in his closing argument on June 25, 2024 as to his characterization of the investigation. Tragos covered the case extensively and should be fully aware his defamatory statement is false. Both Kelly and Tragos should immediately issue retractions.
0:22

DISINFORMATION CORRECTION: MEGYN KELLY & PETER TRAGOS EDITION BLATANT DEFAMATION Yesterday, on Megyn Kelly show, Peter Tragos of Lawyer You Know made a false defamatory statement against the witnesses in John O'Keefe's murder case. Tragos stated the witnesses were sending group messages amongst each other stating they "were going to pin it on the girl." This is FALSE and a BLATANT LIE. There is no such text message sent by ANY person who testified in either trial including ANY law enforcement personnel. The "pin it on the girl" is a quote attributed SOLELY to Alan Jackson in his closing argument on June 25, 2024 as to his characterization of the investigation. Tragos covered the case extensively and should be fully aware his defamatory statement is false. Both Kelly and Tragos should immediately issue retractions.

Julie Carpenter

15,135 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

As James Tuxbury and Chris Mattei, the attorneys representing Jennifer McCabe, Brian Albert, Colin Albert, and Brian Higgins made clear in their press release, the investigation into the relentless defamation campaign against these innocent witnesses is ongoing. I am calling on both Lawyer You Know and The Megyn Kelly Show to retract and correct the false and malicious statement made in the video below by Peter Tragos on Megyn Kelly's show. During the December 2025 show Tragos told host Megyn Kelly that there was a group text between the witnesses who were at 34 Fairview in the early morning hours when John O'Keefe was killed that stated they were going to "pin it on the girl". No such text between the witnesses exists. Tragos had inappropriately lifted a line from Alan Jackson's closing and attributed it to the witnesses to give the appearance the witnesses "framed" Karen Read. Tragos' statement was a blatant and defamatory lie told to a national audience. The video currently has over 100,000 views.
0:22

As James Tuxbury and Chris Mattei, the attorneys representing Jennifer McCabe, Brian Albert, Colin Albert, and Brian Higgins made clear in their press release, the investigation into the relentless defamation campaign against these innocent witnesses is ongoing. I am calling on both Lawyer You Know and The Megyn Kelly Show to retract and correct the false and malicious statement made in the video below by Peter Tragos on Megyn Kelly's show. During the December 2025 show Tragos told host Megyn Kelly that there was a group text between the witnesses who were at 34 Fairview in the early morning hours when John O'Keefe was killed that stated they were going to "pin it on the girl". No such text between the witnesses exists. Tragos had inappropriately lifted a line from Alan Jackson's closing and attributed it to the witnesses to give the appearance the witnesses "framed" Karen Read. Tragos' statement was a blatant and defamatory lie told to a national audience. The video currently has over 100,000 views.

Julie Carpenter

14,632 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Here is the clip with the transcript. What Peter says is clear: text messages including “pin it on the girl” were from “people inside the house” and from cops or related to the cops.” When The Megyn Kelly Show asks him “Oh, well, that sounds really bad. I actually hadn’t realized that there were EXPLICIT text messages saying, “We’re going to pin it on the girl.” That’s from cops?” Tragos didn’t clarify it was an interpretation of the messages, he clearly confirmed that the text message was “That's from the people inside the house. From people inside the house, inside 34 Fairview. Some of them are cops or related to cops.”
0:33

Here is the clip with the transcript. What Peter says is clear: text messages including “pin it on the girl” were from “people inside the house” and from cops or related to the cops.” When The Megyn Kelly Show asks him “Oh, well, that sounds really bad. I actually hadn’t realized that there were EXPLICIT text messages saying, “We’re going to pin it on the girl.” That’s from cops?” Tragos didn’t clarify it was an interpretation of the messages, he clearly confirmed that the text message was “That's from the people inside the house. From people inside the house, inside 34 Fairview. Some of them are cops or related to cops.”

Autumn 🍂❄️

35,716 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Attorney Marc Diller said yesterday that he has filed a subpoena with the Norfolk DA's Office for documents in my case, which they told him they can't produce them because there is a pending prosecution. Diller says he is going to try to intervene in my case to get them because he believes it is relevant for his case against Karen Read. The NCDAO wouldn't give them to him the materials he wanted in my case because there were protective orders in place. I am not entirely sure what materials he is seeking, but if I were to guess I would assume he wants Karen Read's Signal messages from my phone, since even the NCDAO can't go through my phone until a taint team reviews it. Keep in mind, Diller had no idea that there were Signal messages from Karen in my phone extraction until it was released by Meredith O'Neil and sent to Kate Peter and other people who want Karen in jail for life. Now he knows they exist, he can't get them legally from the NCDAO, and is trying to get them another way. None of this would be happening if Meredith didn't send out my phone extraction. Anyone supporting her behavior HATES Karen Read.
1:33

Attorney Marc Diller said yesterday that he has filed a subpoena with the Norfolk DA's Office for documents in my case, which they told him they can't produce them because there is a pending prosecution. Diller says he is going to try to intervene in my case to get them because he believes it is relevant for his case against Karen Read. The NCDAO wouldn't give them to him the materials he wanted in my case because there were protective orders in place. I am not entirely sure what materials he is seeking, but if I were to guess I would assume he wants Karen Read's Signal messages from my phone, since even the NCDAO can't go through my phone until a taint team reviews it. Keep in mind, Diller had no idea that there were Signal messages from Karen in my phone extraction until it was released by Meredith O'Neil and sent to Kate Peter and other people who want Karen in jail for life. Now he knows they exist, he can't get them legally from the NCDAO, and is trying to get them another way. None of this would be happening if Meredith didn't send out my phone extraction. Anyone supporting her behavior HATES Karen Read.

Aidan Kearney

36,695 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

DISINFORMATION CORRECTION: Megyn Kelly and Lawyer You Know EDITION Within two minutes of his interview with Megyn Kelly, Peter Tragos was spewing disinformation about Aidan Kearney's involvement in the Read case. Aidan Kearney did not "find" the plow driver through "reporting". The information came directly from Read herself as evidenced in the below leaked texts. Brian Loughran had been avoiding Read's team for weeks and they were desperate for him to sign an affidavit. His identity was well known but Read's team needed to force Loughran to respond, so Kearney was sent in which included Kearney issuing vague threats to Loughran in a live show telling him he "knew" what Loughran "did". Won't Megyn and Peter feel silly when the true story comes out in civil litigation because it's coming!!
2:46

DISINFORMATION CORRECTION: Megyn Kelly and Lawyer You Know EDITION Within two minutes of his interview with Megyn Kelly, Peter Tragos was spewing disinformation about Aidan Kearney's involvement in the Read case. Aidan Kearney did not "find" the plow driver through "reporting". The information came directly from Read herself as evidenced in the below leaked texts. Brian Loughran had been avoiding Read's team for weeks and they were desperate for him to sign an affidavit. His identity was well known but Read's team needed to force Loughran to respond, so Kearney was sent in which included Kearney issuing vague threats to Loughran in a live show telling him he "knew" what Loughran "did". Won't Megyn and Peter feel silly when the true story comes out in civil litigation because it's coming!!

Julie Carpenter

20,129 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

NEW : AIDAN KEARNEY ALLEGES KAREN READ ATTORNEYS WERE PASSING INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL INVESTIGATION TO READ WHO WAS LEAKING IT TO KEARNEY FOR PUBLICATION Last night, Aidan Kearney told his audience that Karen Read's attorneys David Yannetti and Alan Jackson were garnering information from Josh Levy and Adam Deitch for District Attorney about the federal investigation into John O'Keefe's death and sharing it with Karen Read. Read would then share that information with Kearney who would then spread it to the public by publishing it in his blog and repeating it on his YouTube show. While the truth of this statement will be tested in civil depositions and testimony, it does fit with the pattern Kearney has previously alluded to in other live shows. According to Kearney, on 4/20/2023, he had a phone conversation with Read's attorneys who "alerted" him to the federal investigation. We have confirmed through phone records that there was indeed a 16 minute call between Kearney and a phone number belonging to David Yannetti. We have further confirmed that Kearney recorded this conversation as he sent the recording to at least 4 other individuals that day. After the recorded phone call, on that same day, Kearney published a blog about the federal investigation which Alan Jackson would later use to announce in oral arguments during the May 3, 2023 pretrial hearing that a federal investigation was open and active.
1:04

NEW : AIDAN KEARNEY ALLEGES KAREN READ ATTORNEYS WERE PASSING INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL INVESTIGATION TO READ WHO WAS LEAKING IT TO KEARNEY FOR PUBLICATION Last night, Aidan Kearney told his audience that Karen Read's attorneys David Yannetti and Alan Jackson were garnering information from Josh Levy and Adam Deitch for District Attorney about the federal investigation into John O'Keefe's death and sharing it with Karen Read. Read would then share that information with Kearney who would then spread it to the public by publishing it in his blog and repeating it on his YouTube show. While the truth of this statement will be tested in civil depositions and testimony, it does fit with the pattern Kearney has previously alluded to in other live shows. According to Kearney, on 4/20/2023, he had a phone conversation with Read's attorneys who "alerted" him to the federal investigation. We have confirmed through phone records that there was indeed a 16 minute call between Kearney and a phone number belonging to David Yannetti. We have further confirmed that Kearney recorded this conversation as he sent the recording to at least 4 other individuals that day. After the recorded phone call, on that same day, Kearney published a blog about the federal investigation which Alan Jackson would later use to announce in oral arguments during the May 3, 2023 pretrial hearing that a federal investigation was open and active.

Julie Carpenter

31,281 просмотров • 8 дней назад

#KarenReadRetrial RENTSCHLER'S CONFOUNDING ADMISSION During a contentious line of questioning yesterday with Hank Brennan, Dr. Andrew Rentschler admitted that he knew the Commonwealth's theory of the case BEFORE he testified during trial Read's initial trial. For any other defense expert witness in any other trial it would be expected for the expert to have an understanding of the prosecution's theory, but not so in this one. Due to the circumstances in which ARCCA's initial involvement began through a separate investigation by the federal government, the parameters of what ARCCA could discuss with the defense were limited. So too were the materials ARCCA received from the federal investigators which did NOT include the theory of the case: Trooper Paul's reconstruction. Prior to the retrial we learned of the murky relationship ARCCA had with the defense including that they were not "independent", they had received compensation, and they had deleted their communications. We also learned that both Daniel Wolfe and Andrew Rentschler were receiving information from federal investigators in violation of a sequestration order during the first trial. Rentschler characterized the information they received during the trial as "evidence" under oath yesterday and stated it didn't change his opinion or analysis because he already knew the theory of the case. This leads to some serious questions: 1. WHO gave Rentschler the prosecution's theory? As per the materials listed in ARCCA's initial report he did not receive it from federal investigators. 2. WHEN did Rentschler receive the theory of the case? Based on his testimony under oath yesterday it was prior to the inception of trial one. 3. WHAT theory were they given? Was it generalized as a pedestrian collision or detailed as a sideswipe event? 4. HOW especially if only a generalized theory was given did additional information and evidence not have an effect on analysis or opinion? 5. WHY if he had the theory of the case would he choose to engage in and testify about testing two hypotheses that had nothing to the theory of the case? ARCCA tested whether or not throwing a glass could break the taillight and whether the head injury came from contact with the taillight, neither of which were even suggested in the prosecution's theory of a sideswipe and fall backwards. Add to this Rentschler's ludicrous statements yesterday about the insignificance of the DNA, the debris field and the taillight fragments embedded in John's clothes, and ARCCA's involvement in this case becomes even shadier. Time for US Attorneys office to shed some light on what really happened here.
0:42

#KarenReadRetrial RENTSCHLER'S CONFOUNDING ADMISSION During a contentious line of questioning yesterday with Hank Brennan, Dr. Andrew Rentschler admitted that he knew the Commonwealth's theory of the case BEFORE he testified during trial Read's initial trial. For any other defense expert witness in any other trial it would be expected for the expert to have an understanding of the prosecution's theory, but not so in this one. Due to the circumstances in which ARCCA's initial involvement began through a separate investigation by the federal government, the parameters of what ARCCA could discuss with the defense were limited. So too were the materials ARCCA received from the federal investigators which did NOT include the theory of the case: Trooper Paul's reconstruction. Prior to the retrial we learned of the murky relationship ARCCA had with the defense including that they were not "independent", they had received compensation, and they had deleted their communications. We also learned that both Daniel Wolfe and Andrew Rentschler were receiving information from federal investigators in violation of a sequestration order during the first trial. Rentschler characterized the information they received during the trial as "evidence" under oath yesterday and stated it didn't change his opinion or analysis because he already knew the theory of the case. This leads to some serious questions: 1. WHO gave Rentschler the prosecution's theory? As per the materials listed in ARCCA's initial report he did not receive it from federal investigators. 2. WHEN did Rentschler receive the theory of the case? Based on his testimony under oath yesterday it was prior to the inception of trial one. 3. WHAT theory were they given? Was it generalized as a pedestrian collision or detailed as a sideswipe event? 4. HOW especially if only a generalized theory was given did additional information and evidence not have an effect on analysis or opinion? 5. WHY if he had the theory of the case would he choose to engage in and testify about testing two hypotheses that had nothing to the theory of the case? ARCCA tested whether or not throwing a glass could break the taillight and whether the head injury came from contact with the taillight, neither of which were even suggested in the prosecution's theory of a sideswipe and fall backwards. Add to this Rentschler's ludicrous statements yesterday about the insignificance of the DNA, the debris field and the taillight fragments embedded in John's clothes, and ARCCA's involvement in this case becomes even shadier. Time for US Attorneys office to shed some light on what really happened here.

Julie Carpenter

15,224 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

KAREN READ TRIAL REVIEW #5: “During a federal proffer, #BrianHiggins admits that he had been served with a preservation order, and the Commonwealth told him he could destroy his phone despite the order. He then drives to a military base on Cape Cod, opens his phone, breaks the SIM card, and throws the phone away. He says that he discussed destroying his phone with #BrianAlbert. Brian Albert also destroyed his phone. And Brian Albert said that he had received some texts that concerned him as an explanation. And after that, Brian Higgins changes his phone number and his cell carrier. In short, he was present that night, he had a motive, and there is plenty of consciousness of guilt coverup evidence with regard to Mr. Higgins.” — Federal Touhy evidence provided by the Federal investigation. —————— The Federal investigation was “thorough”, to the tune of producing over 3k+ pages of evidence inculpating third party culprits, or exculpatory evidence for #KarenRead. Some people—without any evidence—claim the federal investigation closed and cleared the very people who it quite literally inculpated through its evidence thus far. This, of course, ignores the fact that the abstention doctrine precludes the federal government from intruding in ongoing state matters, which unlike the #SandraBirchmore case, for instance, applies to this—the Karen Read case pending resolution. #FreeKarenRead #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe
0:37

KAREN READ TRIAL REVIEW #5: “During a federal proffer, #BrianHiggins admits that he had been served with a preservation order, and the Commonwealth told him he could destroy his phone despite the order. He then drives to a military base on Cape Cod, opens his phone, breaks the SIM card, and throws the phone away. He says that he discussed destroying his phone with #BrianAlbert. Brian Albert also destroyed his phone. And Brian Albert said that he had received some texts that concerned him as an explanation. And after that, Brian Higgins changes his phone number and his cell carrier. In short, he was present that night, he had a motive, and there is plenty of consciousness of guilt coverup evidence with regard to Mr. Higgins.” — Federal Touhy evidence provided by the Federal investigation. —————— The Federal investigation was “thorough”, to the tune of producing over 3k+ pages of evidence inculpating third party culprits, or exculpatory evidence for #KarenRead. Some people—without any evidence—claim the federal investigation closed and cleared the very people who it quite literally inculpated through its evidence thus far. This, of course, ignores the fact that the abstention doctrine precludes the federal government from intruding in ongoing state matters, which unlike the #SandraBirchmore case, for instance, applies to this—the Karen Read case pending resolution. #FreeKarenRead #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe

Olivia

181,177 просмотров • 1 год назад

Karen Read Megyn Kelly is looking for the truth in the case below. Read and her minion, blogger Aiden Kearney, are accused of defamation. There are many of us who know the facts inside and out. We have followed the case from the beginning. People make mistakes. This attorney posted a falsehood recently and took his post down when he realized what he tweeted was patently false. He acknowledged the mistruth he stated. Here he makes another such false statement. I am hoping he will research and issue an apology soon. So many who know this case hope that huge accounts like Megyn's will find the truth and broadcast it. Obviously Megyn has the moxie and won't fear the Read/Turtle trolls. Dave Aronberg knows this case better than any attorney on SM. He is a criminal attorney not a personal injury lawyer. Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, the firm that earned the largest defamation suit in history, is backing the 4 witnesses whose lives have been ruined by false accusations accusing them of murder. I look forward to Megyn's continued coverage. The truth is there, buried beneath misrepresentations. The only person that said what this lawyer told Megyn was Alan Jackson, Read's attorney. Those were Jackson's words, not anyone else's. Show me the text string between Jen McCabe (mom/coach), Colin Albert (minor), Brian Albert (Boston Police Officer), or Brian Higgins (ATF), who were all friends with the decendent John O'Keefe, where anyone texted the words this lawyer regurgitated. It didn't happen. #KarenRead #AidenKearney
0:22

Karen Read Megyn Kelly is looking for the truth in the case below. Read and her minion, blogger Aiden Kearney, are accused of defamation. There are many of us who know the facts inside and out. We have followed the case from the beginning. People make mistakes. This attorney posted a falsehood recently and took his post down when he realized what he tweeted was patently false. He acknowledged the mistruth he stated. Here he makes another such false statement. I am hoping he will research and issue an apology soon. So many who know this case hope that huge accounts like Megyn's will find the truth and broadcast it. Obviously Megyn has the moxie and won't fear the Read/Turtle trolls. Dave Aronberg knows this case better than any attorney on SM. He is a criminal attorney not a personal injury lawyer. Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, the firm that earned the largest defamation suit in history, is backing the 4 witnesses whose lives have been ruined by false accusations accusing them of murder. I look forward to Megyn's continued coverage. The truth is there, buried beneath misrepresentations. The only person that said what this lawyer told Megyn was Alan Jackson, Read's attorney. Those were Jackson's words, not anyone else's. Show me the text string between Jen McCabe (mom/coach), Colin Albert (minor), Brian Albert (Boston Police Officer), or Brian Higgins (ATF), who were all friends with the decendent John O'Keefe, where anyone texted the words this lawyer regurgitated. It didn't happen. #KarenRead #AidenKearney

Jennifer Coffindaffer

22,006 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Justin Muturi: The President and I were standing next to each other; it's not that I was hearing him talk from a distance. I told him that I sent him a text message at 3AM & from my phone, it looked like he had not read it. That’s when he confessed to me that his phone had crushed. When he got his phone back, he made the call to Noordin #JKLive Ayub Sh Abdikadir
2:31

Justin Muturi: The President and I were standing next to each other; it's not that I was hearing him talk from a distance. I told him that I sent him a text message at 3AM & from my phone, it looked like he had not read it. That’s when he confessed to me that his phone had crushed. When he got his phone back, he made the call to Noordin #JKLive Ayub Sh Abdikadir

Citizen TV Kenya

130,249 просмотров • 1 год назад

KAREN READ & THE DECEITFUL DEFENSE: THE STORY OF THE GLASSES During Read's first trial, one of the head scratchers for everyone following the case was the glass on the bumper that did not match the cocktail glass John O'Keefe had walked out of the Waterfall with as seen on video. We were all left wondering where it came from. In closing arguments, Alan Jackson attempted to get the jury and the public to believe that the glass was planted by Michael Proctor. However, Alan knew at the time he made these statements the glass likely came from the full vodka soda Karen admitted was in her car. Jackson had willingly participated with Read in the ID documentary and in the first episode which contained footage prior to trial Read detailed how John got out of the car with that vodka soda glass & Jackson surely knew where that glass was from. Everything the defense has said in this case is a twisted version of half truths and lies they are well aware are untrue.
0:12

KAREN READ & THE DECEITFUL DEFENSE: THE STORY OF THE GLASSES During Read's first trial, one of the head scratchers for everyone following the case was the glass on the bumper that did not match the cocktail glass John O'Keefe had walked out of the Waterfall with as seen on video. We were all left wondering where it came from. In closing arguments, Alan Jackson attempted to get the jury and the public to believe that the glass was planted by Michael Proctor. However, Alan knew at the time he made these statements the glass likely came from the full vodka soda Karen admitted was in her car. Jackson had willingly participated with Read in the ID documentary and in the first episode which contained footage prior to trial Read detailed how John got out of the car with that vodka soda glass & Jackson surely knew where that glass was from. Everything the defense has said in this case is a twisted version of half truths and lies they are well aware are untrue.

Julie Carpenter

17,097 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨🚨 PROOF that Tommy Robinson is in jail for LYING, not "telling the truth" This is one of many examples of Tommy defaming the kid in his documentary, "Silenced." A student at the school (a young girl) tells a story about the boy attacking her with a hockey stick in class. Tommy used this "incident" to attack the kid in question, telling his audience that he has a history of attacking young girls. In Tommy's libel lawsuit, he had to back up the legitimacy of this story and his choice to include it in his videos. He made a fool of himself. The girl in the video testified in court, as well as another boy who testified as a witness. In court, the following was revealed: - The girl claims in the video that she has injuries lasting to this day and has been on medication for the pain ever since. NO medical evidence could be provided to back this up. No doctors' records, no prescription for the medications she claimed to be on, no X ray records (which she claimed to have had). The only record from her doctor during this time says she had "no medical issues." - 30 students were present in this PE class, and a teacher. There were 0 other witnesses of the attack. The girl claimed that no one came to her assistance who could be called as a witness. - There was no report of this incident made by the teacher. There was an example provided of when the girl suffered an injury in class, a report was made, and her mother was contacted. None of this happened for this "attack." - The boy who testified as a witness did not help; he simply contradicted the girl's story. When the lesson took place, how many students were present, among others. This boy also contradicted himself numerous times between his original statement and cross examination, he absolutely could not keep his story straight. - During cross examination, when the boy witness was asked why there were no other witnesses of this "attack," he hilariously said that all of the other 30 students happened to be looking in the opposite direction when the incident happened. - The girl claimed that she developed anxiety issues as a direct result of this incident. When her records from her own doctor and school nurse records show clearly that her anxiety predates the incident. - The girl saw an emotional health worker in the school. Not once did she mention this "attack" to this worker. - The girl claims to have told her mother. Yet, the mother never reported the incident to the school at the time, nor did she report this supposed violent attack to the police. The mother chose not to testify as a witness. Based on all of the above, the judge understandably determined, "For the reasons I have given, the Defendant has failed to prove that the Hockey Stick Incident happened. On the evidence, I am satisfied it did not happen, whether as alleged by Charly Matthews or at all." It is important to note that this libel ruling was in response to two Facebook videos posted by Tommy attacking the kid. He then doubled down showing this ridiculous hockey stick story again in Silenced, repeating his claims. This is one of many examples of Tommy clearly lying and defaming the young boy in his documentary. Tommy Robinson is BLATANTLY SCAMMING the public with his fundraising on the back of the idea that he is in prison for "telling the truth." There seems to be a major PR push right now for Tommy to fundraise on the back of this lie. So, I will post more breakdowns like this over the coming days. Tommy Robinson is in jail for lying and defamation and refusing to stop. It is black and white, obvious, clear as day. Regardless of whether you agree with or disagree with his politics.
1:29

🚨🚨 PROOF that Tommy Robinson is in jail for LYING, not "telling the truth" This is one of many examples of Tommy defaming the kid in his documentary, "Silenced." A student at the school (a young girl) tells a story about the boy attacking her with a hockey stick in class. Tommy used this "incident" to attack the kid in question, telling his audience that he has a history of attacking young girls. In Tommy's libel lawsuit, he had to back up the legitimacy of this story and his choice to include it in his videos. He made a fool of himself. The girl in the video testified in court, as well as another boy who testified as a witness. In court, the following was revealed: - The girl claims in the video that she has injuries lasting to this day and has been on medication for the pain ever since. NO medical evidence could be provided to back this up. No doctors' records, no prescription for the medications she claimed to be on, no X ray records (which she claimed to have had). The only record from her doctor during this time says she had "no medical issues." - 30 students were present in this PE class, and a teacher. There were 0 other witnesses of the attack. The girl claimed that no one came to her assistance who could be called as a witness. - There was no report of this incident made by the teacher. There was an example provided of when the girl suffered an injury in class, a report was made, and her mother was contacted. None of this happened for this "attack." - The boy who testified as a witness did not help; he simply contradicted the girl's story. When the lesson took place, how many students were present, among others. This boy also contradicted himself numerous times between his original statement and cross examination, he absolutely could not keep his story straight. - During cross examination, when the boy witness was asked why there were no other witnesses of this "attack," he hilariously said that all of the other 30 students happened to be looking in the opposite direction when the incident happened. - The girl claimed that she developed anxiety issues as a direct result of this incident. When her records from her own doctor and school nurse records show clearly that her anxiety predates the incident. - The girl saw an emotional health worker in the school. Not once did she mention this "attack" to this worker. - The girl claims to have told her mother. Yet, the mother never reported the incident to the school at the time, nor did she report this supposed violent attack to the police. The mother chose not to testify as a witness. Based on all of the above, the judge understandably determined, "For the reasons I have given, the Defendant has failed to prove that the Hockey Stick Incident happened. On the evidence, I am satisfied it did not happen, whether as alleged by Charly Matthews or at all." It is important to note that this libel ruling was in response to two Facebook videos posted by Tommy attacking the kid. He then doubled down showing this ridiculous hockey stick story again in Silenced, repeating his claims. This is one of many examples of Tommy clearly lying and defaming the young boy in his documentary. Tommy Robinson is BLATANTLY SCAMMING the public with his fundraising on the back of the idea that he is in prison for "telling the truth." There seems to be a major PR push right now for Tommy to fundraise on the back of this lie. So, I will post more breakdowns like this over the coming days. Tommy Robinson is in jail for lying and defamation and refusing to stop. It is black and white, obvious, clear as day. Regardless of whether you agree with or disagree with his politics.

Gadget

106,110 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨UPDATE: The first hearing was held today in Barnstable District Court regarding the lawsuit filed by Jen McCabe, Brian Albert, Brian Higgins, and Colin Albert, which includes claims of defamation, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other related allegations against Karen Read and Aidan Kearney. Noticeably absent were Karen Read and Aidan Kearney. Kearney was a no-show for the first hearing in the defamation case he’s been begging for, nonstop hyping, and supposedly couldn’t wait to face. He claimed he was unaware of the hearing this am, if you buy that, you might be in a cult.
4:42

🚨UPDATE: The first hearing was held today in Barnstable District Court regarding the lawsuit filed by Jen McCabe, Brian Albert, Brian Higgins, and Colin Albert, which includes claims of defamation, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other related allegations against Karen Read and Aidan Kearney. Noticeably absent were Karen Read and Aidan Kearney. Kearney was a no-show for the first hearing in the defamation case he’s been begging for, nonstop hyping, and supposedly couldn’t wait to face. He claimed he was unaware of the hearing this am, if you buy that, you might be in a cult.

Mama Llama

23,602 просмотров • 8 дней назад

JUST IN: Here is the video of Karen Read leaving court after the first day of defense testimony in the John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial. Karen lost her motion for a directed verdict and Hank Brennan shined on cross. Karen won't be calling Michael Proctor, although she may not be able to get his text messages into evidence unless he takes the stand during the defense's case. Judge Cannone is expected to issue a ruling on Monday as to whether the defense must call Proctor to the stand in order to introduce his text messages. The defense wants to call Proctor's friends to get the text messages into evidence, but that ran into a hearsay objection from Hank Brennan (and an end-of-day motion hearing on that issue). The defense is unlikely, if they are forced to call Proctor in order to get the texts into evidence, to do so, as Read's lawyers would be forced to ask open-ended questions of Proctor on direct (and Hank Brennan could then ask Proctor leading questions on cross).
3:04

JUST IN: Here is the video of Karen Read leaving court after the first day of defense testimony in the John O'Keefe and Karen Read re-trial. Karen lost her motion for a directed verdict and Hank Brennan shined on cross. Karen won't be calling Michael Proctor, although she may not be able to get his text messages into evidence unless he takes the stand during the defense's case. Judge Cannone is expected to issue a ruling on Monday as to whether the defense must call Proctor to the stand in order to introduce his text messages. The defense wants to call Proctor's friends to get the text messages into evidence, but that ran into a hearsay objection from Hank Brennan (and an end-of-day motion hearing on that issue). The defense is unlikely, if they are forced to call Proctor in order to get the texts into evidence, to do so, as Read's lawyers would be forced to ask open-ended questions of Proctor on direct (and Hank Brennan could then ask Proctor leading questions on cross).

Grant Smith Ellis

14,237 просмотров • 1 год назад

#KarenReadRetrial Imagine being Aidan Kearney and being so "invested" in Karen Read being acquitted that you are willing to spread absolute fabrications for the defense even though there are documented emails in the case exhibits from Read's own attorney, Elizabeth Little, which confirm Karen Read and David Yanetti have lied and twisted the incident. In the first trial, Michael Proctor testified that when he began going through Read's phone he was forced to stop as he came across attorney client privileged communication. This is 100% absolute fact. Proctor saw two text messages between Read and DUI attorney Jack Diamond which the defense later claimed as privileged per the below email. After the trial in the Vanity Fair article both Read and Yanetti claimed Proctor lied on the stand about this and Read had not communicated with Yanetti. A calculated and dishonest twisting of facts since Proctor never named the attorney in his testimony. So in conclusion, yes Proctor saw privileged texts and yes Aidan Kearney, Karen Read, and David Yanetti are flat out lying. Why are they so afraid of the truth?
0:59

#KarenReadRetrial Imagine being Aidan Kearney and being so "invested" in Karen Read being acquitted that you are willing to spread absolute fabrications for the defense even though there are documented emails in the case exhibits from Read's own attorney, Elizabeth Little, which confirm Karen Read and David Yanetti have lied and twisted the incident. In the first trial, Michael Proctor testified that when he began going through Read's phone he was forced to stop as he came across attorney client privileged communication. This is 100% absolute fact. Proctor saw two text messages between Read and DUI attorney Jack Diamond which the defense later claimed as privileged per the below email. After the trial in the Vanity Fair article both Read and Yanetti claimed Proctor lied on the stand about this and Read had not communicated with Yanetti. A calculated and dishonest twisting of facts since Proctor never named the attorney in his testimony. So in conclusion, yes Proctor saw privileged texts and yes Aidan Kearney, Karen Read, and David Yanetti are flat out lying. Why are they so afraid of the truth?

Julie Carpenter

19,383 просмотров • 1 год назад

🇮🇷🇪🇺🇺🇸| Did you know that Pezeshkian never read the JCPOA text while being in the Special Committee in 2015? In 2015, before Iran signed the JCPOA, they had formed a Special Committee to review the agreement. At that time, Pezeshkian was a MP and part of this committee but he never even read the JCPOA text (which he himself acknowledged) as he claimed that he trusts the JCPOA and doesn’t need reading! As seen in the video in the other tweet, Pezeshkian was present while Jalili was warning everyone about the snapback, but Pezeshkian was too cool to read the JCPOA text. And now this guy is the president. I can’t even fathom how this happened.
0:20

🇮🇷🇪🇺🇺🇸| Did you know that Pezeshkian never read the JCPOA text while being in the Special Committee in 2015? In 2015, before Iran signed the JCPOA, they had formed a Special Committee to review the agreement. At that time, Pezeshkian was a MP and part of this committee but he never even read the JCPOA text (which he himself acknowledged) as he claimed that he trusts the JCPOA and doesn’t need reading! As seen in the video in the other tweet, Pezeshkian was present while Jalili was warning everyone about the snapback, but Pezeshkian was too cool to read the JCPOA text. And now this guy is the president. I can’t even fathom how this happened.

Arya - آریا

46,422 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

In today's Karen Read hearing, Michael Proctor's attorney CONFIRMED everything we knew was on his new phone extraction.. essentially his attorney pled, “yes the phone is bad… but please don’t let her see HOW bad.” Proctor’s attorney said on the record that this 13-year phone dump contains: 🔹️Photos of intimate body parts 🔹️Images of people not involved in anything 🔹️Names of sexual assault victims 🔹️A whole lot of deeply personal material And then (I kid you not) he tells the judge to “assume” there might be ✨️homophobic texts✨️ … and “assume” there could be ✨️antisemitic messages✨️ from years ago. Sir… WHY are those your go-to examples unless that’s exactly what’s in there? 🗣🗣🗣 He continued his argument that none of it is relevant because Proctor didn’t meet Karen until January 29th, 2022 (the day John O'Keefe was murdered) and called this a “fishing expedition.” He also said this is “just a civil case” where no one is going to jail and no constitutional rights are at issue. (Meanwhile Karen is literally suing him for violating her constitutional rights.) They tried the classic, “she already got 38,707 pages of discovery.” 🙄 From a DIFFERENT phone. Before the mistrial. Before the second trial. Before all the new chaos. And then tried to tell the court that this was the improper venue and to request discovery directly from Proctor himself. The issue? Read's team has already tried that, hence filing in these other cases to force the hand of the DA's office to hand it over because Proctor has since lost that very cell phone. So no, she cannot just subpoena him directly. The ONLY copy left is with the Commonwealth. The same people fighting to keep it sealed. Multiple other defendants from Proctor cases already got this extraction. But Karen Read? Nope. The DA's office protecting Proctor (still) is no surprise but his attorney confirming to the public that yes, he is in fact a piece of shit? Priceless. 👩‍🍳💋
4:10

In today's Karen Read hearing, Michael Proctor's attorney CONFIRMED everything we knew was on his new phone extraction.. essentially his attorney pled, “yes the phone is bad… but please don’t let her see HOW bad.” Proctor’s attorney said on the record that this 13-year phone dump contains: 🔹️Photos of intimate body parts 🔹️Images of people not involved in anything 🔹️Names of sexual assault victims 🔹️A whole lot of deeply personal material And then (I kid you not) he tells the judge to “assume” there might be ✨️homophobic texts✨️ … and “assume” there could be ✨️antisemitic messages✨️ from years ago. Sir… WHY are those your go-to examples unless that’s exactly what’s in there? 🗣🗣🗣 He continued his argument that none of it is relevant because Proctor didn’t meet Karen until January 29th, 2022 (the day John O'Keefe was murdered) and called this a “fishing expedition.” He also said this is “just a civil case” where no one is going to jail and no constitutional rights are at issue. (Meanwhile Karen is literally suing him for violating her constitutional rights.) They tried the classic, “she already got 38,707 pages of discovery.” 🙄 From a DIFFERENT phone. Before the mistrial. Before the second trial. Before all the new chaos. And then tried to tell the court that this was the improper venue and to request discovery directly from Proctor himself. The issue? Read's team has already tried that, hence filing in these other cases to force the hand of the DA's office to hand it over because Proctor has since lost that very cell phone. So no, she cannot just subpoena him directly. The ONLY copy left is with the Commonwealth. The same people fighting to keep it sealed. Multiple other defendants from Proctor cases already got this extraction. But Karen Read? Nope. The DA's office protecting Proctor (still) is no surprise but his attorney confirming to the public that yes, he is in fact a piece of shit? Priceless. 👩‍🍳💋

BoozeyBeauty

111,010 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

READ & KEARNEY LEGAL TEAMS USE INFORMATION FROM A KNOWN LIAR & FRAUDSTER TO FILE INFLAMMATORY MOTIONS: KEARNEY ADMITS HE KNEW IT WAS ALL LIES On March 28th, Read’s legal team filed a confounding motion for discovery requesting, among other things, any witnesses reluctant to testify, any witness who had been given an inducement, and any witness who would be changing their testimony. The motion was allowed with no objection by the Commonwealth, but that didn’t stop the confusion the motion had caused. Who didn’t want to testify? Who had been “induced”? Who had threatened to change testimony? And where was the Defense getting information that any of these things occurred? Things became a bit clearer on April 26th, when during his live show, Aidan Kearney went on a rant about a person with the initials “JD” regarding information this person had been supplying to Read’s team, specifically David Yannetti as well as his own attorneys. At the time, Kearney railed that he knew “everything about that” and that the information was “conspiratorial bullshit”. Further, Kearney threatened “JD” aka Jean from Dorchester aka Jean Colantonio, that she “better come through” or “shut the fuck up”. Two days later, on 04/28, Kearney’s legal team, led by Timothy J. Bradl, P.C. and Bederow Law, filed a motion to compel discovery with an affidavit from a redacted individual, the aforementioned “JD” from his rant, that contained wild claims such as the CW was paying Kate Peter $1500 a month via cash app, Jennifer McCabe had bribed Peter with a couch purchase, Lally admitted to jury tampering in the first trial during a lunch with Peter, among other fantastical claims, none of which were supported by any kind of documented evidence. Interestingly, neither Bradl nor Bederow penned the affidavit for JD. That job was left to the paralegal, Courtney Healy. Kearney proudly advertised the motion and affidavit on his blog and presented the claims as credible along with other smears directed towards Peter. He followed this up with tweet that included a picture of the affiant’s door covered in papers claiming the affiant was being harassed at her residence by Peter. The apartment “JD” lived in just happened to be located in the same apartment building Peter resides in. Strangely, the picture of “JD” that had been posted on her door with the word “RAT” written over her face was that of her driver’s license, something only “JD” would possess. In leaked texts this week, Kearney admitted he knew “JD” was lying, but a “sworn affidavit means something” which when paired with Kearney’s threats to “JD” on his live show, begins to give the appearance of coercion to suborn perjury. What’s worse, Kearney has allowed his legal team to this day to continue on with this farce including using information in the affidavit in other filings and oral arguments. And as bad as it looks at this point, there are also additional allegations of text messages which show Timothy Bradl was heavily involved in obtaining this information from “JD” and helping her retain counsel to clear open warrants she had. It is also alleged that a hotel room was paid for by a third party for “JD” and Bradl personally thanked the party for doing so. So what did Timothy J. Bradl, P.C. , Bederow Law, David Yannetti, and Alan Jackson know about “JD” when they supplied information to the court from this person? Did either of these legal teams do a cursory search of her background? I may be “just a random housewife with lace curtains” but even I was able to see within 30 minutes this person has a history of fraud. Why would either team take the risk of filing under oath motions that either contained suspect information or that may have been based on highly suspect information from an unreliable source with a history of lying? And finally, why did Bradl procure legal services and housing for the affiant? Were they in exchange for her sworn affidavit? We are all ears if any of them wish to answer or correct the record
2:39

READ & KEARNEY LEGAL TEAMS USE INFORMATION FROM A KNOWN LIAR & FRAUDSTER TO FILE INFLAMMATORY MOTIONS: KEARNEY ADMITS HE KNEW IT WAS ALL LIES On March 28th, Read’s legal team filed a confounding motion for discovery requesting, among other things, any witnesses reluctant to testify, any witness who had been given an inducement, and any witness who would be changing their testimony. The motion was allowed with no objection by the Commonwealth, but that didn’t stop the confusion the motion had caused. Who didn’t want to testify? Who had been “induced”? Who had threatened to change testimony? And where was the Defense getting information that any of these things occurred? Things became a bit clearer on April 26th, when during his live show, Aidan Kearney went on a rant about a person with the initials “JD” regarding information this person had been supplying to Read’s team, specifically David Yannetti as well as his own attorneys. At the time, Kearney railed that he knew “everything about that” and that the information was “conspiratorial bullshit”. Further, Kearney threatened “JD” aka Jean from Dorchester aka Jean Colantonio, that she “better come through” or “shut the fuck up”. Two days later, on 04/28, Kearney’s legal team, led by Timothy J. Bradl, P.C. and Bederow Law, filed a motion to compel discovery with an affidavit from a redacted individual, the aforementioned “JD” from his rant, that contained wild claims such as the CW was paying Kate Peter $1500 a month via cash app, Jennifer McCabe had bribed Peter with a couch purchase, Lally admitted to jury tampering in the first trial during a lunch with Peter, among other fantastical claims, none of which were supported by any kind of documented evidence. Interestingly, neither Bradl nor Bederow penned the affidavit for JD. That job was left to the paralegal, Courtney Healy. Kearney proudly advertised the motion and affidavit on his blog and presented the claims as credible along with other smears directed towards Peter. He followed this up with tweet that included a picture of the affiant’s door covered in papers claiming the affiant was being harassed at her residence by Peter. The apartment “JD” lived in just happened to be located in the same apartment building Peter resides in. Strangely, the picture of “JD” that had been posted on her door with the word “RAT” written over her face was that of her driver’s license, something only “JD” would possess. In leaked texts this week, Kearney admitted he knew “JD” was lying, but a “sworn affidavit means something” which when paired with Kearney’s threats to “JD” on his live show, begins to give the appearance of coercion to suborn perjury. What’s worse, Kearney has allowed his legal team to this day to continue on with this farce including using information in the affidavit in other filings and oral arguments. And as bad as it looks at this point, there are also additional allegations of text messages which show Timothy Bradl was heavily involved in obtaining this information from “JD” and helping her retain counsel to clear open warrants she had. It is also alleged that a hotel room was paid for by a third party for “JD” and Bradl personally thanked the party for doing so. So what did Timothy J. Bradl, P.C. , Bederow Law, David Yannetti, and Alan Jackson know about “JD” when they supplied information to the court from this person? Did either of these legal teams do a cursory search of her background? I may be “just a random housewife with lace curtains” but even I was able to see within 30 minutes this person has a history of fraud. Why would either team take the risk of filing under oath motions that either contained suspect information or that may have been based on highly suspect information from an unreliable source with a history of lying? And finally, why did Bradl procure legal services and housing for the affiant? Were they in exchange for her sworn affidavit? We are all ears if any of them wish to answer or correct the record

Julie Carpenter

28,746 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Almost two hours into his show today, James O’Brien deigned to apologise for the outrageous claims made on yesterday’s show. “At this time yesterday on the show, I read out a message from a listener called Chris who said that his wife had been brought up in the Jewish faith and had attended what he described as a ‘Shabbat school’. “He went on to make further claims about what he said she had been taught in that school. As with all the texts and messages that I read out on the programme, I did so in good faith, but the message has understandably upset a lot of people, and I regret taking those unsubstantiated claims at face value, and I’m genuinely sorry for that. “It is very important that I get that out there, and thank you for your attention.” While we welcome Mr O’Brien’s apology through gritted teeth, perhaps he might take a break from moralising to the nation and reflect on why a listener like that understood that his was exactly the right show to promote his bile, and why Mr O’Brien himself was only too ready to treat the claims as entirely plausible and convenient to his narrative. What does that say about his own prejudices and views on certain topics to which British Jews are particularly sensitive?
0:56

Almost two hours into his show today, James O’Brien deigned to apologise for the outrageous claims made on yesterday’s show. “At this time yesterday on the show, I read out a message from a listener called Chris who said that his wife had been brought up in the Jewish faith and had attended what he described as a ‘Shabbat school’. “He went on to make further claims about what he said she had been taught in that school. As with all the texts and messages that I read out on the programme, I did so in good faith, but the message has understandably upset a lot of people, and I regret taking those unsubstantiated claims at face value, and I’m genuinely sorry for that. “It is very important that I get that out there, and thank you for your attention.” While we welcome Mr O’Brien’s apology through gritted teeth, perhaps he might take a break from moralising to the nation and reflect on why a listener like that understood that his was exactly the right show to promote his bile, and why Mr O’Brien himself was only too ready to treat the claims as entirely plausible and convenient to his narrative. What does that say about his own prejudices and views on certain topics to which British Jews are particularly sensitive?

Campaign Against Antisemitism

46,192 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

In yet another instance of stunning dishonesty, Aidan Kearney goes on his new cohort, Grant Ellis Smith's, Spaces to spread his propaganda and disinformation. Yesterday, protected discovery that Aidan Kearney freely admits he shared with at least one person outside his legal team found its way onto this platform. In the past few weeks, protected discovery has routinely been leaked here. The message was from Michael Proctor. In it, Proctor is upset at the harassment being directed toward the witnesses, specifically Colin Albert, and himself. Proctor claims Kearney posted a video of Proctor changing his infant son's diaper. Seconds before showing the video, Kearney had leaked Colin Albert's cell phone number to his audience. He had also published several threats to Colin before this date, including telling the young man he would disrupt all of his football games and practices. Last night Kearney blatantly lied about the publishing of the video in hopes to get his demented followers to believe Proctor and MSP were framing him. Left is Kearney lying, right is Kearney publishing said video in a live 5 days before Proctor sent message as well as the leaked protected discovery message.
0:47

In yet another instance of stunning dishonesty, Aidan Kearney goes on his new cohort, Grant Ellis Smith's, Spaces to spread his propaganda and disinformation. Yesterday, protected discovery that Aidan Kearney freely admits he shared with at least one person outside his legal team found its way onto this platform. In the past few weeks, protected discovery has routinely been leaked here. The message was from Michael Proctor. In it, Proctor is upset at the harassment being directed toward the witnesses, specifically Colin Albert, and himself. Proctor claims Kearney posted a video of Proctor changing his infant son's diaper. Seconds before showing the video, Kearney had leaked Colin Albert's cell phone number to his audience. He had also published several threats to Colin before this date, including telling the young man he would disrupt all of his football games and practices. Last night Kearney blatantly lied about the publishing of the video in hopes to get his demented followers to believe Proctor and MSP were framing him. Left is Kearney lying, right is Kearney publishing said video in a live 5 days before Proctor sent message as well as the leaked protected discovery message.

Julie Carpenter

13,745 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад