Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Popular Kannada YouTuber #SameerMD has recently come under the spotlight after his discussion on the #Dharmasthala's #SoujanyaCase went viral on various social media platforms. The video garnered widespread attention and reactions from netizens. Addressing the backlash, Sameer MD questioned why people were dragging caste and religion into the issue....

HateDetectors's profile picture

Hate Detector 🔍

69,974 subscribers

20,846 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & TeknolojiKomediHaberler & Politika#SameerMD#Dharmasthala#SoujanyaCase
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

1 Yorum

km profil fotoğrafı
km1 yıl önce

60% of the information he gave on his YouTube video is fake. He targets anything related to Hindus on his Youtube channel.

Benzer Videolar

A 40-year-old man allegedly died by suicide on Sunday after a woman posted a video on social media accusing him of sexually harassing her on a bus. The man has been identified as Deepak U, a native of #Govindapuram in #Kozhikode. He was found hanging at his residence early morning. According to police, his parents were home at the time. When he did not respond to repeated calls, neighbours were alerted to the situation, and the door was forced open, following which he was found dead. The incident came to light after a woman shared a video on social media alleging that the man had deliberately touched her with sexual intent while travelling on a crowded bus. The video, reportedly recorded during a journey from Payyannur railway station to the bus stand, went viral and garnered over 20 lakh views, triggering widespread online reactions. According to relatives and friends, he was under severe mental stress after the video went viral and was deeply disturbed by the allegations. His family has alleged that he was subjected to character assassination through social media and claimed that the video was created for online publicity. They have maintained that he was a person who generally stayed away from controversies. Relatives further alleged that the man faced intense online abuse following the circulation of the video. At the same time, the woman who posted the video was also reportedly subjected to cyber attacks. Police said the alleged incident took place in #Payyannur. The Kozhikode Medical College police have registered a case of unnatural death and launched an investigation. Further legal steps will be taken after examining all aspects, including the circumstances leading to the death and the viral social media content. The man was working as a sales manager at a textile store in Kozhikode and frequently travelled for work. Family members said he had travelled to #Kannur last Friday, following which the video surfaced online. Police said the investigation is ongoing.
0:26

A 40-year-old man allegedly died by suicide on Sunday after a woman posted a video on social media accusing him of sexually harassing her on a bus. The man has been identified as Deepak U, a native of #Govindapuram in #Kozhikode. He was found hanging at his residence early morning. According to police, his parents were home at the time. When he did not respond to repeated calls, neighbours were alerted to the situation, and the door was forced open, following which he was found dead. The incident came to light after a woman shared a video on social media alleging that the man had deliberately touched her with sexual intent while travelling on a crowded bus. The video, reportedly recorded during a journey from Payyannur railway station to the bus stand, went viral and garnered over 20 lakh views, triggering widespread online reactions. According to relatives and friends, he was under severe mental stress after the video went viral and was deeply disturbed by the allegations. His family has alleged that he was subjected to character assassination through social media and claimed that the video was created for online publicity. They have maintained that he was a person who generally stayed away from controversies. Relatives further alleged that the man faced intense online abuse following the circulation of the video. At the same time, the woman who posted the video was also reportedly subjected to cyber attacks. Police said the alleged incident took place in #Payyannur. The Kozhikode Medical College police have registered a case of unnatural death and launched an investigation. Further legal steps will be taken after examining all aspects, including the circumstances leading to the death and the viral social media content. The man was working as a sales manager at a textile store in Kozhikode and frequently travelled for work. Family members said he had travelled to #Kannur last Friday, following which the video surfaced online. Police said the investigation is ongoing.

Hate Detector 🔍

65,313 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

A 28-year-old businessman in Faridabad died by suicide inside his shop on Sunday after hanging himself. Before taking the extreme step, he posted a video on Instagram in which he accused his wife and her family of mentally harassing him. Police have launched an investigation and are also examining the allegations made in the video. In the Instagram video posted before his death, Rahul accused his wife Jyoti, his mother-in-law Veena, his father-in-law Bittu and his wife's sister Neetu of mentally harassing him. He claimed that despite doing all household chores, including sweeping and washing utensils, he was assaulted, and false cases were filed against him. He said he had been living under constant mental stress. Rahul also said in the video that his wife and her family were responsible for his death and should be punished according to the law. He further said that after his death, his property should go to his mother, sister and brothers. The victim, Rahul, had opened a garment shop around four months ago. According to police, Rahul met his mother at home on Sunday morning before leaving for his shop. A short while later, he hanged himself inside the shop. Police reached the spot after receiving information, took custody of the body and sent it to hospital for post-mortem. According to Rahul's family, he had married a woman named Jyoti in a love marriage around two years ago. They alleged that after the marriage, his wife did not want him to live with his parents, following which he started living separately. They said Rahul had recently opened his new garment shop. A family member, Amit, alleged that Rahul had been under severe mental stress due to harassment by his wife and her family. He claimed that Rahul's wife had also filed a case against him, which added to his stress. The family further alleged that Rahul was not even allowed to meet his parents. Investigating officer Sanjay Kumar said police have sent the body for post-mortem and are investigating the case. He said the viral social media video has been included in the investigation and that the allegations made in it will be verified during the probe.
1:25

A 28-year-old businessman in Faridabad died by suicide inside his shop on Sunday after hanging himself. Before taking the extreme step, he posted a video on Instagram in which he accused his wife and her family of mentally harassing him. Police have launched an investigation and are also examining the allegations made in the video. In the Instagram video posted before his death, Rahul accused his wife Jyoti, his mother-in-law Veena, his father-in-law Bittu and his wife's sister Neetu of mentally harassing him. He claimed that despite doing all household chores, including sweeping and washing utensils, he was assaulted, and false cases were filed against him. He said he had been living under constant mental stress. Rahul also said in the video that his wife and her family were responsible for his death and should be punished according to the law. He further said that after his death, his property should go to his mother, sister and brothers. The victim, Rahul, had opened a garment shop around four months ago. According to police, Rahul met his mother at home on Sunday morning before leaving for his shop. A short while later, he hanged himself inside the shop. Police reached the spot after receiving information, took custody of the body and sent it to hospital for post-mortem. According to Rahul's family, he had married a woman named Jyoti in a love marriage around two years ago. They alleged that after the marriage, his wife did not want him to live with his parents, following which he started living separately. They said Rahul had recently opened his new garment shop. A family member, Amit, alleged that Rahul had been under severe mental stress due to harassment by his wife and her family. He claimed that Rahul's wife had also filed a case against him, which added to his stress. The family further alleged that Rahul was not even allowed to meet his parents. Investigating officer Sanjay Kumar said police have sent the body for post-mortem and are investigating the case. He said the viral social media video has been included in the investigation and that the allegations made in it will be verified during the probe.

Hate Detector 🔍

508,208 görüntüleme • 17 gün önce

VIDEO | Delhi: After 16 years, a Rohini court acquitted all the accused in the 2009 acid attack case of Panipat MBA student Shaheen Malik. The trial, transferred to Delhi in 2013, involved allegations of harassment and conspiracy behind the attack. Victim’s advocate Madiah Shahjar says, “In the Shaheen Malik case, the court acquitted all the accused, citing insufficient evidence, a faulty and incomplete investigation, and the absence of the victim’s evidence on record, though an inquiry has been ordered against the investigating officer. While the court expressed sympathy, it stated that justice, not sympathy, was sought after a 16-year legal battle. The decision will be challenged in the High Court and, if required, in the Supreme Court.” #AcidAttack (Full video available on PTI Videos -
2:35

VIDEO | Delhi: After 16 years, a Rohini court acquitted all the accused in the 2009 acid attack case of Panipat MBA student Shaheen Malik. The trial, transferred to Delhi in 2013, involved allegations of harassment and conspiracy behind the attack. Victim’s advocate Madiah Shahjar says, “In the Shaheen Malik case, the court acquitted all the accused, citing insufficient evidence, a faulty and incomplete investigation, and the absence of the victim’s evidence on record, though an inquiry has been ordered against the investigating officer. While the court expressed sympathy, it stated that justice, not sympathy, was sought after a 16-year legal battle. The decision will be challenged in the High Court and, if required, in the Supreme Court.” #AcidAttack (Full video available on PTI Videos -

Press Trust of India

45,267 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Just in: A video from inside a court in occupied Jerusalem shows Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya appearing via video link and attempting to speak with his attorney before Israeli court security blocked the screen and terminated the call, preventing journalists from filming the exchange or the video appearance. I listened carefully to what the attorney was saying to Dr. Abu Safiya. It appeared that Dr. Abu Safiya could not hear him. The attorney repeatedly stated that he could neither see nor hear Dr. Abu Safiya after his “captors turned off the camera.” He also informed him that some people were present in the courtroom to show their support and that they were waiting for the judge to arrive so that he could be brought back on screen before the court addressed the appeal. This is Israel’s democracy. Dr. Abu Safiya has been subjected to starvation, abuse, and cruel torture, and this latest development only adds to concerns about the conditions he has endured and the lack of public scrutiny surrounding his case.
1:01

Just in: A video from inside a court in occupied Jerusalem shows Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya appearing via video link and attempting to speak with his attorney before Israeli court security blocked the screen and terminated the call, preventing journalists from filming the exchange or the video appearance. I listened carefully to what the attorney was saying to Dr. Abu Safiya. It appeared that Dr. Abu Safiya could not hear him. The attorney repeatedly stated that he could neither see nor hear Dr. Abu Safiya after his “captors turned off the camera.” He also informed him that some people were present in the courtroom to show their support and that they were waiting for the judge to arrive so that he could be brought back on screen before the court addressed the appeal. This is Israel’s democracy. Dr. Abu Safiya has been subjected to starvation, abuse, and cruel torture, and this latest development only adds to concerns about the conditions he has endured and the lack of public scrutiny surrounding his case.

Mosab Abu Toha

257,730 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

UK-based Nigerian Doctor Loses Custody Of Son After Flogging Him With Belt A Nigerian doctor based in the United Kingdom has lost custody of his 16-year-old son to the government after flogging him with a belt. This was revealed by a child rights advocate known as pepstalk1 on her Instagram page on Wednesday. She narrated that the Nigerian doctor flogged his son after he caught him and his friends invited over to study together watching an inappropriate video. His friends reportedly informed the police and told them that while the father was beating his son with a belt, the doctor repeatedly said, "Is this how you want to become a doctor?" In the video, she could be seen in front of the court where the case was being held while giving an account of the case. She said, "In court, the 16-year-old told the court that his father always flogs him and is forcing him to choose a career he doesn’t want. "After listening to the boy’s testimony, the court ordered that the boy be taken away from his father and he will remain in the custody of the UK government." Credit: Instagram | pepstalk1 -- Follow us for more breaking news and videos
1:29

UK-based Nigerian Doctor Loses Custody Of Son After Flogging Him With Belt A Nigerian doctor based in the United Kingdom has lost custody of his 16-year-old son to the government after flogging him with a belt. This was revealed by a child rights advocate known as pepstalk1 on her Instagram page on Wednesday. She narrated that the Nigerian doctor flogged his son after he caught him and his friends invited over to study together watching an inappropriate video. His friends reportedly informed the police and told them that while the father was beating his son with a belt, the doctor repeatedly said, "Is this how you want to become a doctor?" In the video, she could be seen in front of the court where the case was being held while giving an account of the case. She said, "In court, the 16-year-old told the court that his father always flogs him and is forcing him to choose a career he doesn’t want. "After listening to the boy’s testimony, the court ordered that the boy be taken away from his father and he will remain in the custody of the UK government." Credit: Instagram | pepstalk1 -- Follow us for more breaking news and videos

Punch Newspapers

765,707 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

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

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

Grant Smith Ellis

31,789 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

#WATCH | Calcutta High Court ordered a CBI investigation into RG Kar Medical College and Hospital rape-murder incident. Advocate Billwadal Bhattacharyya says, "...There were statements made by the Chief Minister that they have no objection in transferring the case to the CBI but it was made time bound that after expiry of this particular period of time, we will transfer it to the CBI. But we say that this delay will be very fatal because evidence will be destroyed. So the court has heard the arguments of the parties. Today the parents of the victim girl, they also were there before the Court by way of a petition. And I contended on behalf of my clients, that despite this gruesome murder, despite the body being in such a bloodied state and half naked, the police was casual enough to register a suicide case and it took quite a lot of time for the police to basically register an FIR and thereafter arrest someone. So this was enough to indicate how casual the attitude of the police was. We are rather thankful and grateful to the Court that the case has been now handed over to CBI. We also wanted the investigation to be monitored by the Court. Now the Court has also directed the CBI to file periodic reports. In the event the parents of the deceased girl feel threatened, the CBI should always take all the necessary steps to give them protection under the witness protection scheme."
1:54

#WATCH | Calcutta High Court ordered a CBI investigation into RG Kar Medical College and Hospital rape-murder incident. Advocate Billwadal Bhattacharyya says, "...There were statements made by the Chief Minister that they have no objection in transferring the case to the CBI but it was made time bound that after expiry of this particular period of time, we will transfer it to the CBI. But we say that this delay will be very fatal because evidence will be destroyed. So the court has heard the arguments of the parties. Today the parents of the victim girl, they also were there before the Court by way of a petition. And I contended on behalf of my clients, that despite this gruesome murder, despite the body being in such a bloodied state and half naked, the police was casual enough to register a suicide case and it took quite a lot of time for the police to basically register an FIR and thereafter arrest someone. So this was enough to indicate how casual the attitude of the police was. We are rather thankful and grateful to the Court that the case has been now handed over to CBI. We also wanted the investigation to be monitored by the Court. Now the Court has also directed the CBI to file periodic reports. In the event the parents of the deceased girl feel threatened, the CBI should always take all the necessary steps to give them protection under the witness protection scheme."

ANI

36,308 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨 The attorney for Erika Kirk and the family just addressed Judge Graf directly. His argument: the family hasn't seen the video evidence, and they should get to. His words to the court: "There's a complete distortion of reality that was just put forth." And on what this hearing is really about: "This is about allowing the family to see the evidence" gathered after a 10 month investigation "in which a father, a husband was assassinated." He asked the judge to let the family view the video the way the court has, so they can process the moment. For the record: this is the victim's representative speaking, not the state and not the defense. Three different sets of lawyers, three different interests in that room.
1:32

🚨 The attorney for Erika Kirk and the family just addressed Judge Graf directly. His argument: the family hasn't seen the video evidence, and they should get to. His words to the court: "There's a complete distortion of reality that was just put forth." And on what this hearing is really about: "This is about allowing the family to see the evidence" gathered after a 10 month investigation "in which a father, a husband was assassinated." He asked the judge to let the family view the video the way the court has, so they can process the moment. For the record: this is the victim's representative speaking, not the state and not the defense. Three different sets of lawyers, three different interests in that room.

Danks

22,478 görüntüleme • 6 gün önce

Andrew Tate - Uncovering the Truth The case against Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate has received significant media attention and has raised important questions about the role of prosecutors and the criminal justice system in cases of this nature. Many people have expressed concern that the case against the brothers is based on weak evidence and may be politically motivated. Some have even gone as far as to suggest that the case is an attempt to silence the brothers. The investigation began 1 year ago, and they have been in preventative detention for 4 months ago. Despite the passage of time, the prosecutor has failed to file charges against them, and the case remains unresolved. The brothers have vehemently denied the allegations against them and have consistently maintained their innocence. Despite the challenges they have faced, the brothers have remained resilient and have continued to fight for their rights and their freedom. Throughout the investigation, the prosecutor has used various underhanded tactics, including leaking snippets of information from the case, private communications with family and attorneys, and other such tactics to build a case against the brothers. However, despite these efforts, the prosecutor has been unable to create a substantial case file. The reason for this is that the allegations made against the brothers are weak, lacking merit and substance. The allegations made by the women contain numerous inconsistencies and lack evidence, and the women themselves are not credible witnesses. CCTV footage and leaked messages have demonstrated that the women had complete freedom of movement, both physically and psychologically, which suggests that no human trafficking occurred. The CCTV footage clearly shows that the women were free to leave and return to the house without any interference from the brothers, indicating physical freedom of movement. Additionally, leaked messages suggest that the women had access to people outside of Romania, they had their passports, and they used Uber regularly, which shows that they had psychological freedom. Regarding the alleged offense of rape, at least three witnesses have categorically stated that it was consensual. There is no other evidence, and the woman who made the claim did so weeks after leaving Romania, which further weakens her case. Several alleged victims have publicly stated that they are not victims, but the prosecutor has ignored their claims and included them as victims. This suggests that the prosecutor is unwilling to accept evidence that contradicts their narrative, which is concerning. The claim made against the brothers was that they brainwashed the women, but the psychiatrist never spoke to the women in question to make such a determination. Instead, the psychiatrist relied on the word of two women from the UK and US to make the determination, which is a biased and flawed process. The prosecutor attempted to bolster the claim despite the lack of evidence, indicating that the case against the brothers is paper-thin. It is unclear when the case against the brothers will be resolved, but one thing is certain: the outcome will have significant implications for the criminal justice system in Romania and beyond. Many are watching this case closely, and the world is waiting to see what will happen next. The brothers continue to maintain their innocence and to fight for their rights. They have vowed to clear their names and to expose the injustices that have been perpetrated against them. Initially, many believed that the brothers were guilty of the allegations against them, but upon closer examination of the evidence, leaks, and reporting, it is clear that the case against them is weak. It is important to ensure that justice is served. This case has highlighted the importance of due process and fair trials, and it has reminded us that everyone, regardless of their status or reputation, is entitled to a fair hearing and a fair trial.
0:36

Andrew Tate - Uncovering the Truth The case against Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate has received significant media attention and has raised important questions about the role of prosecutors and the criminal justice system in cases of this nature. Many people have expressed concern that the case against the brothers is based on weak evidence and may be politically motivated. Some have even gone as far as to suggest that the case is an attempt to silence the brothers. The investigation began 1 year ago, and they have been in preventative detention for 4 months ago. Despite the passage of time, the prosecutor has failed to file charges against them, and the case remains unresolved. The brothers have vehemently denied the allegations against them and have consistently maintained their innocence. Despite the challenges they have faced, the brothers have remained resilient and have continued to fight for their rights and their freedom. Throughout the investigation, the prosecutor has used various underhanded tactics, including leaking snippets of information from the case, private communications with family and attorneys, and other such tactics to build a case against the brothers. However, despite these efforts, the prosecutor has been unable to create a substantial case file. The reason for this is that the allegations made against the brothers are weak, lacking merit and substance. The allegations made by the women contain numerous inconsistencies and lack evidence, and the women themselves are not credible witnesses. CCTV footage and leaked messages have demonstrated that the women had complete freedom of movement, both physically and psychologically, which suggests that no human trafficking occurred. The CCTV footage clearly shows that the women were free to leave and return to the house without any interference from the brothers, indicating physical freedom of movement. Additionally, leaked messages suggest that the women had access to people outside of Romania, they had their passports, and they used Uber regularly, which shows that they had psychological freedom. Regarding the alleged offense of rape, at least three witnesses have categorically stated that it was consensual. There is no other evidence, and the woman who made the claim did so weeks after leaving Romania, which further weakens her case. Several alleged victims have publicly stated that they are not victims, but the prosecutor has ignored their claims and included them as victims. This suggests that the prosecutor is unwilling to accept evidence that contradicts their narrative, which is concerning. The claim made against the brothers was that they brainwashed the women, but the psychiatrist never spoke to the women in question to make such a determination. Instead, the psychiatrist relied on the word of two women from the UK and US to make the determination, which is a biased and flawed process. The prosecutor attempted to bolster the claim despite the lack of evidence, indicating that the case against the brothers is paper-thin. It is unclear when the case against the brothers will be resolved, but one thing is certain: the outcome will have significant implications for the criminal justice system in Romania and beyond. Many are watching this case closely, and the world is waiting to see what will happen next. The brothers continue to maintain their innocence and to fight for their rights. They have vowed to clear their names and to expose the injustices that have been perpetrated against them. Initially, many believed that the brothers were guilty of the allegations against them, but upon closer examination of the evidence, leaks, and reporting, it is clear that the case against them is weak. It is important to ensure that justice is served. This case has highlighted the importance of due process and fair trials, and it has reminded us that everyone, regardless of their status or reputation, is entitled to a fair hearing and a fair trial.

Mario Nawfal

3,646,145 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

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

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

Trending Explained

103,162 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

‼️UPDATE ON THE CASE AGAINST BILL GATES, ALBERT BOURLA (PFIZER CEO) AND THE DUTCH STATE‼️ 🔥THE NARRATIVE ON TRIAL THE FIGHT CONTINUES🔥 For those asking what happens next in the Dutch Covid litigation; the main case is moving forward and a full hearing on the merits is scheduled for 22nd October 2026 in Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. This is NOT the procedural appeal hearing from March - which was a second, separate (though connected) case. This is the main case itself! The claimants - who were coerced through fear campaigns, relentless propaganda and instituional deception into taking covid injections that injured them - will have the opportunity to present their case in full, submit evidence, and bring forward expert testimony in open court. Peter Stassen has stated that he will bring the proposed experts (who appear in this short video) into court and that he requires no permission from the court to do so, because this is a procedural right embedded in procedural law. He has also confirmed that new evidence can still be introduced up until one month before the hearing and says he intends to present even more conclusive evidence! Despite the attempt to shut down the separate evidentiary appeal on procedural grounds, the core case remains fully alive. Nothing has been decided yet on substance. The 22nd October is when this fight continues, and I will be attending and covering in full! Please see links in comments for previous coverage and to understand this case in full! Video Credit: Recht Oprecht
1:27

‼️UPDATE ON THE CASE AGAINST BILL GATES, ALBERT BOURLA (PFIZER CEO) AND THE DUTCH STATE‼️ 🔥THE NARRATIVE ON TRIAL THE FIGHT CONTINUES🔥 For those asking what happens next in the Dutch Covid litigation; the main case is moving forward and a full hearing on the merits is scheduled for 22nd October 2026 in Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. This is NOT the procedural appeal hearing from March - which was a second, separate (though connected) case. This is the main case itself! The claimants - who were coerced through fear campaigns, relentless propaganda and instituional deception into taking covid injections that injured them - will have the opportunity to present their case in full, submit evidence, and bring forward expert testimony in open court. Peter Stassen has stated that he will bring the proposed experts (who appear in this short video) into court and that he requires no permission from the court to do so, because this is a procedural right embedded in procedural law. He has also confirmed that new evidence can still be introduced up until one month before the hearing and says he intends to present even more conclusive evidence! Despite the attempt to shut down the separate evidentiary appeal on procedural grounds, the core case remains fully alive. Nothing has been decided yet on substance. The 22nd October is when this fight continues, and I will be attending and covering in full! Please see links in comments for previous coverage and to understand this case in full! Video Credit: Recht Oprecht

Fiona Rose Diamond

18,403 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

#WATCH | Surat, Gujarat | On the Gyanvapi case, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain says, "In the Gyanvapi case, the matter is subjudice in the Supreme Court. A 'Shivling' was found there on May 16, 2022, and the Allahabad HC ordered an ASI investigation. On May 19, 2023, the Supreme Court stayed that order. The case is going on at a slow pace in the trial court. The reason for this is that on 12 December 2024, the Supreme Court passed an order that no survey order will be passed in any case and no effective orders will be made in any trial, until this matter of the Place of Worship Act is decided. A huge obstacle has arisen due to this... The Muslim side does not have any proof, and the same is true in the Ram Mandir case, be it Gyanvapi or Mathura's Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi; in any case, they could not provide any proof except saying that they have been offering namaz there for the last few years... I want to clearly state that if you enter the premises of a temple and forcibly offer namaz, then the existence of the temple does not end, and the Supreme Court has also held this issue in the Ram Mandir case..."
1:22

#WATCH | Surat, Gujarat | On the Gyanvapi case, Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain says, "In the Gyanvapi case, the matter is subjudice in the Supreme Court. A 'Shivling' was found there on May 16, 2022, and the Allahabad HC ordered an ASI investigation. On May 19, 2023, the Supreme Court stayed that order. The case is going on at a slow pace in the trial court. The reason for this is that on 12 December 2024, the Supreme Court passed an order that no survey order will be passed in any case and no effective orders will be made in any trial, until this matter of the Place of Worship Act is decided. A huge obstacle has arisen due to this... The Muslim side does not have any proof, and the same is true in the Ram Mandir case, be it Gyanvapi or Mathura's Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi; in any case, they could not provide any proof except saying that they have been offering namaz there for the last few years... I want to clearly state that if you enter the premises of a temple and forcibly offer namaz, then the existence of the temple does not end, and the Supreme Court has also held this issue in the Ram Mandir case..."

ANI

19,836 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

🚨 NOW: The Tyler Robinson-Charlie Kirk assassination trial is a DEATH PENALTY CASE, which is exactly why the killer was spotted PANICKING in the courtroom while bombshell tapes played "This is a death penalty case. A lot of this evidence, they're going to have to use later on to convince jurors after a conviction to put him to death, the greatest punishment that we have in this country." "So some of this evidence about the etchings and understanding how he almost viewed this as a joke is going to go a long way with those jurors and might be part of the reason why prosecutors wanted to make sure that it was admissible at this point in the proceedings." "I think after this week, his team is probably seriously thinking about going to the prosecution and asking for that [plea deal] hat in hand. But it's up to the prosecution whether or not they want to take the death penalty off the table."
1:27

🚨 NOW: The Tyler Robinson-Charlie Kirk assassination trial is a DEATH PENALTY CASE, which is exactly why the killer was spotted PANICKING in the courtroom while bombshell tapes played "This is a death penalty case. A lot of this evidence, they're going to have to use later on to convince jurors after a conviction to put him to death, the greatest punishment that we have in this country." "So some of this evidence about the etchings and understanding how he almost viewed this as a joke is going to go a long way with those jurors and might be part of the reason why prosecutors wanted to make sure that it was admissible at this point in the proceedings." "I think after this week, his team is probably seriously thinking about going to the prosecution and asking for that [plea deal] hat in hand. But it's up to the prosecution whether or not they want to take the death penalty off the table."

Eric Daugherty

136,392 görüntüleme • 6 gün önce

#WATCH | Delhi: On Delhi court declines to take cognisance of ED chargesheet in National Herald money laundering case, Advocate Shaurya Veer Singh says, "The judge said that the ED was misused and that BJP members turned it into a tool, and that, too, only against the opposition. Under Section 3 of the Money Laundering Act, the judge held that it is illegal to conduct a trial in court on behalf of a private complainant. That's why the judge did not take cognisance and further ordered the ED to explain why they alone took action in this case. There are the CBI and other departments, none of whom filed an FIR, so it was considered baseless and unfounded... The court further ordered the ED that if they want to make any submissions on the next date, January 16th, they should do so. Information was allowed in the UOW case, but cognisance was refused in this case..."
1:24

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

ANI

51,650 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

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

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

mmatigari

20,172 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

#WATCH | Tamil Nadu: Chennai Police today arrested YouTuber Savuku Shankar following a brief standoff at his residence after he allegedly refused to open the door when the investigating officer arrived to execute the arrest. According to police, Shankar declined to allow the officers inside, insisting that they first speak to his advocates before entering the premises. An official said that despite repeated requests, he did not cooperate with the police team. Hours before his arrest, Shankar released a video statement on his social media handle, alleging that the police were attempting to arrest him in a “false case” filed by a film producer. He claimed that the police had issued him a summons in late October, to which he had responded, stating that the complainant had never visited his office and that he had not demanded money to remove any allegedly defamatory video. Shankar further alleged that the police accused him and his team of assaulting the film producer, forcibly taking Rs 2 lakh from him, and demanding a large sum to delete the video. He also alleged that the police action was carried out at the behest of a senior official. Police, however, maintained that the arrest was carried out in accordance with the law and based on the complaint received. Further investigation is underway.
1:30

#WATCH | Tamil Nadu: Chennai Police today arrested YouTuber Savuku Shankar following a brief standoff at his residence after he allegedly refused to open the door when the investigating officer arrived to execute the arrest. According to police, Shankar declined to allow the officers inside, insisting that they first speak to his advocates before entering the premises. An official said that despite repeated requests, he did not cooperate with the police team. Hours before his arrest, Shankar released a video statement on his social media handle, alleging that the police were attempting to arrest him in a “false case” filed by a film producer. He claimed that the police had issued him a summons in late October, to which he had responded, stating that the complainant had never visited his office and that he had not demanded money to remove any allegedly defamatory video. Shankar further alleged that the police accused him and his team of assaulting the film producer, forcibly taking Rs 2 lakh from him, and demanding a large sum to delete the video. He also alleged that the police action was carried out at the behest of a senior official. Police, however, maintained that the arrest was carried out in accordance with the law and based on the complaint received. Further investigation is underway.

ANI

154,928 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Watching Benjamin Crump eat a snack during a serious interview about Nolan Wells struck me as unprofessional and distracting. More importantly, I question the decision to bring him in as a spokesperson for this case. From what has been publicly reported, there has been no evidence presented that Nolan’s disappearance and death were racially motivated. Because of that, I think that introducing racial narratives before the facts support them could distract from the central question: what actually happened to Nolan Wells? Nolan appeared to have friends from different backgrounds, and I believe the focus should remain on finding answers and establishing the truth based on evidence rather than turning the case into a broader social or political cause. The family has every right to choose their legal team and advocates, but I think this approach risks taking attention away from the facts of the case. As for the interview itself, seeing a spokesperson eating on camera during such a serious discussion did not inspire confidence.
1:26

Watching Benjamin Crump eat a snack during a serious interview about Nolan Wells struck me as unprofessional and distracting. More importantly, I question the decision to bring him in as a spokesperson for this case. From what has been publicly reported, there has been no evidence presented that Nolan’s disappearance and death were racially motivated. Because of that, I think that introducing racial narratives before the facts support them could distract from the central question: what actually happened to Nolan Wells? Nolan appeared to have friends from different backgrounds, and I believe the focus should remain on finding answers and establishing the truth based on evidence rather than turning the case into a broader social or political cause. The family has every right to choose their legal team and advocates, but I think this approach risks taking attention away from the facts of the case. As for the interview itself, seeing a spokesperson eating on camera during such a serious discussion did not inspire confidence.

Tamera Nealy

52,739 görüntüleme • 2 gün önce

🚨COURT REPORT - RYAN FIRESTONE Firestone Actual Address Dispute Leads to Shock Custody Decision at St Albans Crown Court! I attended a hearing today at St Albans Crown Court involving Ryan Firestone - and what unfolded in court was unexpected. A dispute over something as basic as his address ultimately resulted in Ryan being remanded in custody until Monday’s hearing. Presiding over the hearing was Judge Mann. From the public gallery, I have to say I was surprised to see how the hearing unfolded, particularly the decision to keep Ryan in custody until next week. The issue centred on the address Ryan had previously given the court. Judge Mann raised concerns that the address appeared to be a business or office address rather than a residential one, and pressed Ryan to explain where he actually lives. Ryan told the court the office address is currently the only place he is able to stay and receive correspondence. Without it, he explained, he would effectively have nowhere else to stay. Ryan also told the court he owns a separate residential property outright, but said he has been unable to live there. According to Ryan, every time he has attempted to return to that property he has been faced with possible arrest, preventing him from accessing the home. “I would like nothing more than to go back to that house,” he told the court. When the address of that property was checked during the hearing, information suggested the house had apparently been sold last July. Ryan strongly disputed that claim and said he holds Land Registry documents confirming the property is still in his name, although he did not have the documents with him in court. He asked whether he could access his email to retrieve the documents there and then, but that request was not granted. The court also questioned Ryan about council tax, utilities and residency at the property. At one stage Ryan attempted to show the court his driving licence displaying the address he currently uses, but the judge declined to review it and expressed surprise that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) would issue a licence linked to what appeared to be a business premises. Judge Mann also questioned why the address had not been properly verified at a previous hearing, expressing some surprise that the issue had not already been resolved earlier in proceedings. Ryan then asked the judge directly whether, if he could provide Land Registry proof of ownership at the next hearing, the court would consider issuing an order allowing him to return to the property he says he owns. The judge indicated that if ownership were proven, such an order could be considered. However, the hearing concluded with the court ruling that Ryan would remain in custody until Monday at 10am, while checks are carried out regarding the property and its ownership. The prosecution were directed to make enquiries before the case returns to court. Watching from the public gallery, one question stood out: If someone cannot currently access their home, what address are they expected to give the court if the only place they can stay is a business premises? The case returns to court Monday morning, where the ownership of the disputed property is expected to be clarified. I’ll continue to follow developments. #Lawfare #TwoTierJustice
2:54

🚨COURT REPORT - RYAN FIRESTONE Firestone Actual Address Dispute Leads to Shock Custody Decision at St Albans Crown Court! I attended a hearing today at St Albans Crown Court involving Ryan Firestone - and what unfolded in court was unexpected. A dispute over something as basic as his address ultimately resulted in Ryan being remanded in custody until Monday’s hearing. Presiding over the hearing was Judge Mann. From the public gallery, I have to say I was surprised to see how the hearing unfolded, particularly the decision to keep Ryan in custody until next week. The issue centred on the address Ryan had previously given the court. Judge Mann raised concerns that the address appeared to be a business or office address rather than a residential one, and pressed Ryan to explain where he actually lives. Ryan told the court the office address is currently the only place he is able to stay and receive correspondence. Without it, he explained, he would effectively have nowhere else to stay. Ryan also told the court he owns a separate residential property outright, but said he has been unable to live there. According to Ryan, every time he has attempted to return to that property he has been faced with possible arrest, preventing him from accessing the home. “I would like nothing more than to go back to that house,” he told the court. When the address of that property was checked during the hearing, information suggested the house had apparently been sold last July. Ryan strongly disputed that claim and said he holds Land Registry documents confirming the property is still in his name, although he did not have the documents with him in court. He asked whether he could access his email to retrieve the documents there and then, but that request was not granted. The court also questioned Ryan about council tax, utilities and residency at the property. At one stage Ryan attempted to show the court his driving licence displaying the address he currently uses, but the judge declined to review it and expressed surprise that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) would issue a licence linked to what appeared to be a business premises. Judge Mann also questioned why the address had not been properly verified at a previous hearing, expressing some surprise that the issue had not already been resolved earlier in proceedings. Ryan then asked the judge directly whether, if he could provide Land Registry proof of ownership at the next hearing, the court would consider issuing an order allowing him to return to the property he says he owns. The judge indicated that if ownership were proven, such an order could be considered. However, the hearing concluded with the court ruling that Ryan would remain in custody until Monday at 10am, while checks are carried out regarding the property and its ownership. The prosecution were directed to make enquiries before the case returns to court. Watching from the public gallery, one question stood out: If someone cannot currently access their home, what address are they expected to give the court if the only place they can stay is a business premises? The case returns to court Monday morning, where the ownership of the disputed property is expected to be clarified. I’ll continue to follow developments. #Lawfare #TwoTierJustice

Gauci Reports

15,381 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce