Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Ranveer Allahbadia Controversy | LSJ Exclusive: Complainant Says ‘No Arrest Demand’ In an exclusive LawStreet Journal interview with Jhanak Sharma, Akshit Singh discusses his complaint against Ranveer Allahbadia, Samay Raina, and others over obscene content. He clarifies that he does not demand their arrest but calls for accountability and...

54,838 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

1 Yorum

M K profil fotoğrafı
M K1 yıl önce

@BeerBicepsGuy didn’t have to speak about INCEST FOT GETTING FAME as he already made a mark in the digital world - what infuriated everyone is the fake narrative of SANATHANA DHARMA HE SPEAKS WITH ALL GUEST ON HIS PODCASTS WHEN HE HIMSELF IS A FAKE ASS !

Benzer Videolar

To my knowledge, the SEC has never had a witness come forward to claim they were "Defrauded" by Reggie Middleton, Disruptor-in-Chief, not one! HAS ANY TOKEN HOLDER'S EXPERIENCED ACTIONS DESCRIBED BELOW? As quoted from the Dossier linked in the comments. "Tenreiro had reportedly aggressively pursued numerous VERI token holders, trying to convince them that they were victims of a Ponzi scheme and fraud, even when these individuals explicitly stated that they did not consider themselves as such, and in an attempt to “press gang” them into giving evidence against Mr Middleton. Please see the affidavit of Lloyd G. Cupp III linked within. There was one particularly egregious case where a token holder was approached just after being discharged from the hospital following major surgery and harassed by Tenreiro and his colleague to give evidence against Mr Middleton. Despite threats and intimidation, he refused to do so but is now too afraid to give evidence through fear of reprisals and possible repercussions but may be persuaded to give evidence provided anonymity could be assured." The Full Interview on Rumble is linked below. Thank you Sarah Westall for offering your platform for us to share our truth. Disclaimer The information provided in this video, including but not limited to documents regarding legal matters, is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal (or any other) advice, and no warranties or representations are made regarding the accuracy, completeness, or fitness of the information for any specific purpose. VeriDAO and its operators do not act as attorneys or legal, financial or technical professionals or advisors and are not responsible for any actions taken or decisions made based on the content provided. Users should seek independent legal counsel for any legal advice or guidance. By watching this video, you agree that VeriDAO and its operators shall not be held liable for any damages or legal consequences arising from the use or misuse of the information contained herein.

Riz

57,539 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

American entrepreneur Keonne Rodriguez built a successful Bitcoin wallet app called Samourai Wallet. He’s now being sent to prison for it. In a few weeks, Keonne will begin his 5-year sentence behind bars, unless the Bitcoin community can save him by pressuring the US Administration to offer a pardon. When I heard about this story, it sounded like fake news, so I went straight to the source. In this exclusive interview, Keonne Rodriguez is descriptive, logical, and vulnerable. His story is heartbreaking and terrifying. By the end, it's evident he's sitting directly in the crossfire between freedom tech and surveillance states. This is a critical moment in history—a moment for the Bitcoin community to stand up. Just as Ross Ulbricht was pardoned, Keonne Rodriguez must be forgiven, too. We cannot allow one of our own fellow Bitcoiners to spend time in jail for building a legitimate product that protects our Bitcoin and strengthens the network. We must unify to ensure Keonne Rodriguez is freed. Alone, he doesn’t stand a chance. But with support from faithful Bitcoiners, we can bring awareness to his cause. Knowledge is power. Watch the interview and vocalize your support for Keonne Rodriguez in the comments. Show Summary: In this gripping conversation, Keonne shares his harrowing experience of building Samourai Wallet, a non-custodial Bitcoin wallet focused on user privacy, and the subsequent FBI raid that led to his arrest. He discusses the legal challenges he faced, including conspiracy charges and the pressure to plead guilty, despite his innocence. The conversation highlights the broader implications of privacy in the cryptocurrency space and the political motivations behind his prosecution. Keonne’s story serves as a cautionary tale about the intersection of technology, law, and personal freedom. It is a moment in Bitcoin’s history that could define how we protect our freedom in the digital age. Key Takeaways: - Samourai Wallet prioritizes user privacy and control over funds. - The FBI raid was a shocking and aggressive response to a tech startup. - Keonne faced serious charges without any prior criminal history. - The legal system pressured him into a plea deal despite his innocence. - Public statements on social media were used against him in court. - The indictment was based on misinterpretations of his actions and intent. - Keonne’s case highlights the challenges of privacy in the cryptocurrency space. - The financial burden of legal fees was overwhelming for Keonne and his family. - Home confinement significantly impacted Keonne’s quality of life. - The case raises important questions about free speech and innovation in technology. Chapters: 00:00 Introduction to Free Speech and Innovation 02:41 Building Samurai Wallet: A Focus on Privacy 05:13 The FBI Raid: A Shocking Turn of Events 08:05 The Arrest: Confusion and Fear 10:45 Understanding the Charges: Conspiracy and Tweets 13:24 The Legal Battle: Navigating the System 16:04 The Impact of Social Media on Legal Proceedings 18:59 The Bail Conditions: A Million Dollar Bond 21:44 Life Under Home Confinement 24:33 The Ongoing Fight for Justice 29:03 The Burden of Legal Costs 31:11 Impacts of Home Confinement 33:31 The Decision to Take a Plea Deal 38:22 The Brady Violation and Its Implications 43:05 Sentencing and Aftermath 56:51 Community Support and Call to Action This story is brought to you by LAB Network. Thank you to Puncher75 - BIP-110 ,₿ob Van Kirk, CTP, BTC Sessions 😎, Eric V Stacks and countless other bitcoiners for already stepping up.

Jesse Tevelow

401,715 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Dele Farotimi is trending because SAN Afe Babalola has finally withdrawn the criminal defamatory case against the activist, Farotimi. The withdrawal is believed to be due to the intervention of Ooni, Oba Adeyeye Ogunwusi, and 9 other monarchs yesterday. Now Nigerians are hailing Dele Farotimi for his triumph. But the case has not been totally withdrawn. The people at the meeting in ABUAD last night: Ooni of ife, Ekiti State Council of Traditional Rulers and the Olojudo of Ido Ekiti, Oba Ayorinde Ilori-Faboro; the Ewi of Ado Ekiti, Oba Adeyemo Adejugbe; the Ajero of Ijero Ekiti, Oba Joseph Adewole: the Ogoga of Ikere Ekiti, Oba Adejimi Adu; the Oloye of Oye Ekiti, Oba Michael Ademolaju; and the Alaaye of Efon Ekiti, Oba Emmanuel Aladejare. ICYMI: On December 3rd. Dele Farotimi was arrested by Ekiti men working for the SAN, Afe Babalola. And driven by road from Lagos to Ekiti, where he spent 21 days in jail. Before the arrest, Dele Farotimi explained that, his life was in danger. That, in 2021 he got intel that 6 people wanted him dead. He reported to the police and the police did nothing. Now, on this 11th of November, he got a letter inviting him to the station. On the 13th he went with his lawyer, and found out Tony Elumelu, wrote a petition accusing him of defamation. Which he thought was a baseless claim, he got released and was told to return on 21st. After he left, 3 days later, he heard one of his church members was kidnapped by the police, interrogated and forced to give up Dele Farotimi, by luring him to their churches so that they will arrest him. To make them cooperate, the police showed them a petition written by SAN Afe Babalola, at the Ekiti State Police Command, who is also accusing him of defamation, following his book “NIGERIA AND IT'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM.” In the book Dele Farotimi exposed the criminality and the involvement of SAN Afe Babalola. And apparently, Afe Babalola is not happy about it and wants to “deal” with Dele Farotimi. So., the ekiti police who were now operating in Lagos tried to lure him, by luring his domestic staffs, when that didn’t work, they arrested his staff, and interrogated him to give up his boss’ address and contact. When that didn’t work, they finally resorted to abducting him that morning. According to reports, he was picked up by unidentified men this morning in his home office at Lekki Phase 1, Lagos. And no police station claimed responsibility. Until when TheCable has confirmed that, Ekiti State Police Command has claimed responsibility. Stating that they have an arrest warrant for Dele Farotimi, over alleged defamation, cyberbullying. Nigerians unanimously called for his unconditional immediate release. But according to Dele Farotimi, he believes Afe Babalola used Ekiti authorities to abduct him because he controls the state and it will be easy to deal with him there, even though the offense he commited are in Lagos. Afe Babalola is a 95yr old lawyer, farmer and educationist. He became a SAN in 1987. And has been active for 61ys. While the case was on. Several suits were filed in different states against Dele Farotimi. Afe Babalola also wrote a 90 page petition to The Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), asking them to Disbar Dele Farotimi for unethical conduct. It was rejected. Also filed for the removal of the book from stores nationwide. Farotimi was granted 50M bail, which was taken by Peter Obi. He got released on 24th December 2024. And was asked not to grant any interviews. As he was released he said “I’ve never lied against anyone. We are fighting evil and it will be tough. If I don’t know, anything I’d be quiet.”

Trending Explained

25,351 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

EXCLUSIVE: Humboldt Father Speaks Out, Exposes Why Sidhu Still Avoids Deportation: “He Only Cares About Himself" (WARNING: The contents of this story may be extremely upsetting or distressing to some viewers.) On April 6, 2018, a double-trailer semi-truck driven by Jaskirat Singh Sidhu blew through a stop sign at a rural intersection in Saskatchewan, Canada, and collided with a bus carrying the Humboldt Broncos players and staff, injuring 13 people and killing 16, most of them teenagers, including Chris Joseph’s son, Jaxon. After pleading guilty and serving roughly four years in prison, Sidhu has been on full parole since 2023. However, he has continued to dominate headlines, fighting tooth and nail not to be deported back to India. Jaxon’s father, Chris Joseph — a former NHL player and firefighter — says Sidhu is not the remorseful man the media portrays him to be, but a "selfish" one who affected his life “in the worst way possible,” and who continues to do so by seeking an exemption from the law after having destroyed 29 families. “The last time I ran my fingers through my son’s hair was in a morgue. He was cold, and he was beat up,” says Joseph, responding to the truck driver whose reckless driving resulted in the death of Joseph’s son Jaxon, along with 15 others, yet who continues to fight against deportation to India on the grounds that he does not want to be separated from his own son. While most Canadians agree with his deportation order, some columnists and politicians argue that he should be forgiven and not be separated from his family. “You tell me which child of yours you want to give up, and I will be the keyboard warrior hoping for forgiveness. It’s not about vindication — it’s about what’s right and what’s wrong, and the future of our country,” says Joseph, arguing that giving Sidhu an exemption from the law would set the wrong precedent for other unqualified drivers and signal that Canadian lives do not matter. “Everybody has told him he should be deported — the judge, the CBSA, the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Federal Court of Appeal — and he still keeps trying, because he is looking out for himself and he really doesn’t care about anybody else,” says Joseph, urging politicians not to interfere with the judicial process and to allow him to be deported as he is supposed to be. In this exclusive interview with Media Bezirgan, Chris Joseph addresses those who advocate against Sidhu's deportation, discusses the corruption within the trucking industry, and explains why he no longer trusts the mainstream media when it comes to this story.

Mocha Bezirgan 🇨🇦

999,952 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

I was a first person witness to the court hearing. Heres what happened to James O'Keefe & illegal confiscation of his firearms, from my first person witness of court events (long post of details below): It was filed by Matt Tyrmand, premised on lies, and he caimed that other people (not james) on the internet threatened him after James ran a news story with video of Tyrmand saying he wanted to kill James Okeefe, and that his first thought seeing charlie kirk murdered was that he wished it was Okeefe, and admitting he fired a gun through Okeefes book and pic of James. OKEEFE WAS ENTIRELY PEACEFUL and never once threatened Tyrmand ever- it was tyrmand who threatened James instead then Rammed it through *family court* under guise kf domestic violence. Complete BS, with no evidentiary hearing, and against another witness (Lidia, who dated Tyrmand for the video) who spoke up and told all of that to the Judge- who ignored it and ran roughshod over the 1st ammendment, 2nd, and 4th. Prior restraint on journalism, 2nd ammendment violation, and lack of due process. But the order of protection itself never should have been granted, as it was based on lies and had counterfactual evidence. And even if it was granted, controlling case law says that firearms need not be confiscated in an order of protection unless clear reasons exist (it didnt in this case; many orders of protection allow for the keeping of firearms- just stay away from each other). 2nd ammendment rights are civil rights. They'vebeen infringed upon for James O'Keefe, who had legal firearms removed by sheriff for no just cause, is a journalist also being subjected to prior restraint and anti-slapp (e.g 1st amendment) and without due process (4th amendment). Because tyrmand weaseled it in as he was trying to falsely frame it as under stalking/domestic violence- which is BS, since it was valid journalism and it was tyrmand who spent years stalking and harassing and threatening James while doing a hostile takeover of project veritas to steal it from James. They also knew that family courts are wildly corrupt and incompetent and unaccountable- so they weaponized it as is often done in that system. James has published his emergency appeal days ago, its public online. Here is video of the whole appeal and story Also this: This illegal confiscation of perfectly legal firearms of perfectly innocent citizens by corrupt & incompetent Family Courts happens to thousands each year, for unjust & illegal reasons. Let James O'Keefe be the catalyst to end it, O’Keefe Media Group Florida Gun Rights National Association for Gun Rights Gun Owners of America DOJ Civil Rights Division. ✝️ 💪 ⚖️ How does this happen and how do we fix it? Its because it relies upon sworn affadavits under penalty of perjury to the person and their attorneys, who never get that punishmnet and thus routinely lie like crazy due to no accountability: perjury charge person, disbar attorney, and impeach judges.

Rick Addante, PhD

38,224 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

PRESS STATEMENT In the last 24 hours, social media has exploded over my interview with Mehdi Hassan, albeit with varied opinions. Let me set the record straight. When I signed on to the privileged job granted to me by Mr. President, I was well aware of its implications. Selling ice cream, looking fine, and seeking the praises of men were never part of it. Some of the fiercest critics of my interview can not even stand local TV anchors. But the task of promoting and defending the President and his administration is what I do with ease and joy. I am prepared to appear before any interviewer, anywhere in the world, any day and at any time, to defend this government and its policies. I have never, and will never, subscribe to ducking or dodging interviews on matters that concern promoting and defending the administration I was appointed to serve. It is the least of what is required of me. Head to Head contacted me requesting an interview, stating that they wanted to challenge our government on security, the economy, and corruption. Nowhere in our almost six months of communication did they mention that they were going to challenge my past. If that had been their plan, ethically and professionally, they were supposed to inform me so I could prepare my response. But that’s okay, ethically, that is on them, not on me. I refused to swallow the pill of Mehdi’s “opposition research-style journalism,” and even today, if you carefully compare what he read as quotes from organisations and groups, you will see that many were inaccurate and some were outright fake news. But I will leave that for another day. As for what I said about President Tinubu in the past, I am glad those were things I said when I was in the opposition saddle with such zeal. It is all politics. Half of Donald Trump’s cabinet is made up of people who once spoke against him, and quite a number of people in our own cabinet also spoke against President Tinubu in the past. Those things do not bother him if you care to know. The majority of the naysayers are members of the opposition and their sympathisers. It does not bother me one bit. Their temporary excitement over the interview has not lasted and will not last, because it does not take away their obvious problem of lack of vision, mission in conducting and managing a political party; yet they seek to manage Nigeria. Clearly they have no path to victory and no alternative policies or program for the Nigerian people. And if they say they do, they can as well go to head to head and be interrogated on that; as the saying in Hausa goes “Ga fili Ga doki” I conclude by thanking the many Nigerians and non-Nigerians who sent in their commendations over my brave defence of our government in an interview where the anchor would hardly let you answer a question unless it suited his narrative. I still have admiration and respect for Mehdi Hassan as arguably the best debater on the planet. I look forward to part two of the Head to Head interview, and I am glad that by then questions about my past will no longer be news so that we can focus on our administration’s policies, programs and what we have achieved so far. Stay tuned. – D.H Bwala Special Adviser to President on Media and Policy Communication (State House) Saturday March 7, 2026

D. H Bwala

1,486,154 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

The 2016 Breakfast Club interview with Lakeith Stanfield set an early tone that later exploded into a years-long back-and-forth‼️. Stanfield, then rising off "Atlanta", *Straight Outta Compton* (as Snoop), and *Get Out*, came on to talk acting‼️. The hosts asked about his rapping (he has a project/group called The Moors and has released music)‼️. He delivered a dense, wordy freestyle‼️. Charlamagne and the crew were visibly unimpressed—the clip they later posted and referenced captures the awkward “that’s it⁉️” energy and some teasing‼️. Charlamagne later framed it as him trying to steer Stanfield: great actor, terrible rapper, don’t waste time on it‼️. In 2018, when Stanfield posted an “offensive freestyle” with homophobic language and a weak apology, Charlamagne replayed the 2016 moment on *Donkey of the Day* and doubled down on the same point‼️. That moment wasn’t the main feud, but it planted the seed‼️. Stanfield is eccentric, artsy, and doesn’t move like a typical rapper or radio guest‼️. Charlamagne’s show thrives on unfiltered grilling, roasts, and “keeping it real.” Asking an actor to rap on the spot and then dismissing it publicly can feel like a gotcha or public diminishment rather than genuine curiosity‼️. How it escalated⁉️ In 2019 Stanfield posted that platforms like The Breakfast Club, The Shade Room, WorldStar, and Lipstick Alley act as “feeding grounds for negative reinforcement toward BLACK ‘nonconformists’” and “slave mentality museums.” Charlamagne took it personally, gave him *Donkey of the Day*, called him a hypocrite for not going after white media (Hollywood handlers wouldn’t allow it), brought up the old freestyle and other interviews, and told him not to call the author of *Black Privilege* anti-Black‼️. Stanfield responded with the diss track “Automatic,” using Sambo-style imagery of Charlamagne and lines like “Insecure, you afraid, you’s a Charlamagne.”‼️ In 2021, during Daniel Kaluuya’s *Judas and the Black Messiah* interview, Charlamagne asked if Kaluuya looked at Stanfield differently because he played the informant “too well”—implying he was born for the snitch role‼️. Kaluuya shut it down immediately‼️. Stanfield called Charlamagne a “hoe” and later posted a video pointing a gun at his picture‼️. Charlamagne said he “owed him that” jab after the earlier shots‼️. This is not isolated‼️. Charlamagne built his brand as “hip-hop’s Howard Stern”‼️provocative, no-filter, willing to ask the uncomfortable question or roast someone on air‼️. He has history with Birdman (“stop playing with my name”)‼️, Drake (ongoing critiques and responses)‼️, Kanye, Nelly, Mo’Nique, and others who’ve checked him or walked out‼️. Some moments age poorly (past transphobic laughter from guests he didn’t shut down hard enough, Lil Mama interview backlash)‼️. Others are defended as necessary pushback in an industry full of yes-men‼️. He positions it as accountability and entertainment‼️. Critics see it as punching down for clips, personal defensiveness when his platform is criticized, or a style that works better on certain guests than others‼️. Stanfield, being more alternative and media-critical, was always going to clash with that energy‼️. Should media “bring a person down” like that⁉️ Media’s job isn’t to protect feelings, but it also isn’t obligated to manufacture humiliation for content‼️. Asking an actor to rap and then publicly declaring him unimpressive is closer to a bit than journalism‼️. Later personalizing it with *Donkey of the Day* segments, old clips, and snitch-role implications turns it into a running narrative‼️. That’s common in personality-driven radio and YouTube-era media‼️it generates conversation and views—but it can feel like the host using the platform to settle scores or enforce a certain vibe‼️. Black media occupies a complicated space: it can hold artists accountable in ways mainstream outlets won’t, but it can also amplify negativity, gatekeep, or prioritize virality‼️

(st_ides)

32,074 görüntüleme • 7 gün önce

Senator Imee Marcos and her gang’s contradictions: Twisting the law to protect Duterte Senator Imee Marcos and her gang’s attempt to frame Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest as unlawful is riddled with contradictions and blatant bias. They claims Duterte’s rights were “glaringly violated,” yet conveniently ignores the thousands of Filipinos who were deprived of their right to life under his brutal drug war. Now, when the justice system finally moves against Duterte, Manang Imee suddenly discovers a passion for due process. Let look into their assertions: 1. No Obligation to Arrest Duterte? Wrong. Senator Imee and her pro-Duterte gang asserts that the Philippines had no legal obligation to arrest Duterte because the ICC’s diffusion notice wasn’t a “Red Notice.” Yet, their own investigation confirmed that the Interpol’s “Wanted Persons Red Diffusion” serves the same purpose as a Red Notice, authorising the arrest of fugitives. If this mechanism was valid for other cases, why should Rodrigo Duterte be exempt? Manang Imee and her gang’s argument isn’t based on law—it’s based on political favoritism. 2. “No Due Process” for Duterte? A False Narrative. Senator Imee and her gang criticises the government for allegedly not obtaining a warrant from a Philippine court, but this completely ignores the reality of international legal cooperation. Duterte is wanted for crimes against humanity—an international crime that supersedes national legal barriers when local justice systems fail to act. Manang Imee and her gang’s argument would hold water if the Philippines had genuinely investigated and prosecuted Duterte’s crimes, but the government has done the opposite—shielding him from accountability. The ICC stepped in because Philippine institutions refused or failed to act. 3. The Family Visitation Argument is Pure Hypocrisy. Senator Imee and her gang bemoans that Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, was temporarily prevented from seeing him after his arrest. They cite Republic Act 7438, which ensures visitation rights for detained individuals. However, this law does not require immediate access during an ongoing law enforcement operation—especially one involving a high-risk individual like Duterte, whose arrest could trigger security threats. If ordinary detainees can have temporary restrictions for operational security, why should Duterte receive special treatment? More importantly, Manang Imee and her gang never once raised concerns about the thousands of drug war victims who never got the chance to say goodbye to their families before being executed without trial. If they truly cared about visitation rights, where was their outrage when Duterte’s police forces killed, dumped, and buried Filipinos without a second thought? Their selective outrage exposes the glaring bias. Conclusion: Senator Imee’s defense of Duterte is not about justice—it’s about power Senator Imee and her gang’s statements are not rooted in legal principle, but in a desperate attempt to shield Duterte from facing the very justice he denied to thousands of Filipinos. The Philippine authorities did not violate due process—they upheld it by cooperating with the ICC to ensure that no one, not even a former president, is above the law. Manang Imee and her gang’s blatant bias in favor of Duterte proves one thing: they are not defending justice—they are defending impunity.

The King

41,751 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Iranian parliamentary speaker who led the first round of negotiations with JD Vance in Islamabad, gave an important TV interview today. In it, he lays out his narrative of the war, the diplomatic track, and signals where Iran’s political goalposts are currently. He projects firmness throughout. Iran, in his telling, will not back down from its negotiating demands. At the same time, he frames negotiations not as a retreat from conflict but as its continuation by other means, a way to consolidate gains and secure what he calls a “lasting peace.” 🔴His core framework is that military power, public mobilization, and diplomacy are inseparable: ➡️“Today, we have the ‘field,’ the ‘street,’ and ‘diplomacy of authority.’ These are not three separate things. Do not make a mistake. Today the street, the field, and diplomacy are together.” 🔴He argues this is precisely why now is the moment for diplomacy. Iran, he says, has reached a peak position militarily and in terms of social cohesion, and negotiations are meant to lock that in politically: ➡️“In the military sphere, we are at a maximum point. The street has given strength to the field. We have achieved part of our demands militarily, but they must now be stabilized and recorded politically. This is where diplomacy must take the flag in hand.” 🔴At the same time, he signals to hardliners to not be overly triumphalist. Iran’s asymmetric warfare has paid off, but he is explicit that this does not mean superiority over the United States: Iran has succeeded without being the stronger military power. 🔴On escalation, he is blunt. Iran is ready for the war to resume if necessary. He warns that the Strait of Hormuz remains a central lever and that restrictions will continue if the US “blockade” is not ended. 🔴Passage, in any case, will be governed by Iranian “protocols.” 🔴At the same time, he presents a calibrated position. Iran, he says, wants normalization in the Strait and does not seek broader disruption: ➡️“We have always sought normalization… but when commitments were not fulfilled, we restricted traffic. 🔴He adds that access will remain open to countries that are not hostile: ➡️“We want those who do not act with hostility toward us to pass easily. We are not seeking to create insecurity.” 🔴But that openness is conditional and controlled: ➡️“This Strait must be used by the world, but with the protocols that we set.” 🔴On the ceasefire and negotiations, his narrative is clear. The United States, not Iran, initiated the diplomatic shift. He says US ultimatums failed and that Washington, through Pakistan, sent a 15 point proposal. Iran rejected it and countered with its own 10 points after internal deliberations at the Supreme National Security Council and consultation with the Supreme Leader. 🔴According to him, the US accepted the "generalities" of the Iranian framework and sought a ceasefire to negotiate on that basis. 🔴On trust, his message is stark. In Islamabad, he says JD Vance spoke of "good faith", and his response was that Iran also came in good faith, but with zero trust. The burden, he says, is on the US to change that. 🔴He underscores that Iran’s negotiating positions have not shifted. They remain aligned with the framework set by Ali Khamenei: ➡️“Our strategy was those same measures the Supreme Leader has stated. We have not pursued and will not pursue anything outside that framework.” 🔴He adds that the delegation is operating fully in line with current leader Mojataba Khamenei, “neither ahead nor behind.” 🔴He repeatedly returns to the goal of a durable outcome: ➡️“We want a lasting peace, one with guarantees so this is not repeated.” 🔴He says the first round of Islamabad talks produced some movement, but major gaps remain: ➡️“We have had progress, but our distances are still great. Some fundamental points remain.” 🔴Still, he suggests one important outcome from the Islamabad talks was a more realistic understanding on both sides: ➡️“These negotiations did not resolve our mistrust, but both delegations gained a more realistic understanding of each other.” 🔴He credits the tripartite format for helping resolve misunderstandings in real time. 🔴Finally, he outlines Iran’s preferred structure for any deal going forward, a step by step process rooted in reciprocity: ➡️“Our policy is step by step action. Commitment against commitment. They must take one step, we take one step. It should not be that we fulfill our commitments and they do not.” The throughline of the interview is clear. Iran sees itself as having gained leverage through the war. Diplomacy is meant to convert that leverage into durable political outcomes. But that process will be conditional and shaped by deep mistrust, with readiness to use the Strait of Hormuz as leverage, and readiness for renewed escalation and war.

Sina Toossi

24,785 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Custodial death of an 18 year old Irfan in Karachi . Irfan who belonged to Ahmedpur Sharqia had recently come to Karachi to live with his uncle after being affected by the disastrous flood. On the morning of 11:30am on 22nd October he along with three of his relatives Kamran, Salman and Nasir were abducted from the roadside by Police Officials of SIU/CIA who registered no case, did not cause any formal arrest and subject the youth to torture resulting in his death after which they left his body at JPMC. The families got a call from police on the night of 23rd Oct to come and collect the three boys. The Police trying to cover their steps registered a bogus and illegal FIR under the wrong provisions of law through SHO SIU/CIA as Sadr PS under Section 319 PPC which relates to Qatl-e-khata and is a bailable offence. This is a case of murder under Section 302 PPC punishable under Section 9 of the Torture and Custodial Death (Prevention and Punishment) Act 2022 which mandates tries all guilty police officials including all aiders and abettors. The family after protesting for 5 days in Karachi have left for Ahmedpur Sharqia for Irfan's burial. They were not involved during the Post mortem of the body and have not been provided any report as yet. Under the Custodial Torture law any and all investigating is exclusive mandate of FIA under the supervision of National Commission of Human Rights. The high ups of Sindh Police in order to appease the media have suspended some of the officials involved in the incident but even they are aware that a faulty FIR has been registered and proper proceedings are not taking place. We demand that National Commission for Human Rights takes immediate notice of this incident and a Complaint be registered with FIA without further delay, the police official be arrested and proper investigation be launched against Irfan's custodial death and without wasting any time the testimony of Salman, Kamran and Nasir be preserved by recording their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C before magistrate. #JusticeForIrfan

M. Jibran Nasir 🇵🇸

69,233 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

#WATCH | Bhopal, MP | Twisha Sharma death case | Mother-in-law of the victim and retired judge Giribala Singh says, "Within 5 months, I realised that she held quite liberal views... on the 17th, the moment she received confirmation of her pregnancy, her entire demeanour changed; she declared that she did not want to keep this child... that very evening, when I returned home from the office, I saw that she was in a terrible state; she was physically beating herself. She kept crying out, 'I cannot go on living like this!'... I told her, 'If you truly wish to leave, we can arrange your ticket for tomorrow so you may depart with dignity'... We do not know where she had gone in the night... I also asked her mother. She also said that she does not know about this... She acts entirely on her own whims, taking steps that are completely reckless and impulsive... Following that incident, her mother came here on the 23rd. She didn't even stay; she simply said she would return on the 30th when Samarth arrives... On the 30th, she returned and once again became adamant about going to the hospital to undergo an MTP (Medical Termination of Pregnancy)..." She adds, "Regarding Samarth, boys often aren't able to express their emotions through tears... My son is suffering because right from the very beginning, her behaviour was like that... he tried, but there was absolutely no sign of improvement... There wasn't such a fight. But after this MTP, a sense of distress inevitably settles in one's mind... her stubbornness and her insistence that 'you cannot control me'... if there are two conflicting voices within someone's mind, then what conclusion would you draw?... Samarth will appear... However, he also possesses the right to protect his own liberty... It is essentially a case that warrants dismissal, and one in which we should actually be the ones receiving public sympathy. Naturally, he will exercise his rights to the fullest extent, and his legal counsel will undoubtedly strive to advocate for him effectively."

ANI

508,792 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE AGAINST HONOURABLE TUNDU A. LISSU IS THE LAW BEING DISREGARDED? The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) raises its voice regarding the troubling conduct in the criminal case against Honourable Tundu Antipas Lissu — a lawyer, former Member of Parliament, and one of the nation’s prominent advocates for human rights, good governance, and constitutionalism. Since his arrest, there has been a disturbing pattern undermining the principles of justice, violating legal procedures, and casting a heavy shadow over our criminal justice system. This is evident in the following: His arrest was conducted without adherence to lawful procedures, signaling an abuse of power; The charges appear to be politically motivated, raising serious concerns about the use of judicial processes as tools for political ends; Denial of even the basic right to greet and meet with fellow citizens before the official hearing of the case; Repeated adjournments of the case on legally unsubstantial grounds, indicating a deviation from legal focus; Interference with or denial of the accused’s right to private consultations with his lawyers, which violates the right to equal legal representation; Indications of breaches of the attorney-client privilege, which is protected under the Constitution and legal framework, and is a cornerstone of the right to an effective legal defense. The right of a client to consult privately with their lawyer is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, the Evidence Act, and the Code of Ethics for Advocates. To restrict or interfere with this right is to undermine the foundation of the justice process and impair the accused’s ability to defend themselves adequately before the court. TLS emphasizes the following: The law must not be used as a weapon against justice; State authorities must not place themselves above the Constitution or the laws enacted by Parliament; The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must reflect deeply on the significant constitutional powers he holds in criminal justice and whether there is sufficient accountability to protect citizens' rights and ensure adherence to the law at all times; The right to legal assistance is not a privilege — it is a right of every citizen. Any criminal case, especially those involving individuals with political or social stature, must be conducted with transparency, fairness, and with respect for human dignity. The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) continues to closely monitor the progress of this case. We reiterate that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. We call upon the Judiciary and all state organs to uphold and protect the rights of the accused in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Furthermore, we urge all lawyers in the country, the media, and human rights stakeholders to continue championing the protection of justice, freedom of expression, and the rule of law — without fear or favour. BAK MWABUKUSI President, Tanganyika Law Society (TLS)

Boniface Mwabukusi

15,205 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨 ANDREW TATE ARRESTED IN MIAMI: UK CPS JUST AUTHORIZED A WAVE OF NEW CHARGES But This Is What Happens When One Man Becomes Too Powerful Exposing the Left’s Lies Andrew and Tristan Tate were arrested July 18 in Miami by US Marshals on a UK extradition warrant. The Crown Prosecution Service just announced they’re prosecuting additional charges on top of the existing ones — including seven more counts of rape for Andrew, multiple new trafficking facilitation counts, assaults, and 19 charges involving indecent images of a child and extreme pornography. Alleged offences dating back years, now involving seven claimed victims. The brothers deny every single allegation and have always maintained they are innocent. No convictions. This is the latest chapter in a years-long legal war. But it didn’t come from nowhere. It came because Andrew Tate became one of the most powerful voices on the planet by telling young men the truth the left never wanted them to hear. Born in 1986 in Washington DC to a legendary chess master father and British mother, raised in the UK, Tate first made his name as a multiple-time world kickboxing champion. He exploded into public view on Big Brother UK in 2016 before a video surfaced (which he has always said was consensual adult activity). That’s when the real empire began. He built his power the old-fashioned way — through raw, unapologetic content that cut straight through the noise. Luxury cars, private jets, cigars, discipline, and brutal honesty about masculinity, money, and modern society. He launched Hustler’s University (now The Real World) and The War Room, teaching men how to escape wage slavery, build wealth online, get in shape, and stop being simps. Tens of thousands joined. Billions of views followed. Even after Big Tech banned him from almost every platform for “hate speech,” the clips spread everywhere. When Elon Musk bought X and reinstated him, his reach went nuclear. Why did the left come after him so hard? Because Tate was against everything they push. He called modern feminism a cancer that destroys families and turns women into victims while emasculating men. He said men and women are different by nature — men lead, protect, and provide; women nurture the home and family. He told young men to reject degeneracy, build themselves into high-value men, and stop apologizing for being masculine. He called out the Matrix — the system of lies that keeps people weak, broke, and obedient. He supported Trump, criticized globalists, and said the West is dying because it abandoned tradition, God, and real manhood. Millions of lost young men listened, got in the gym, started businesses, and woke up. That kind of influence terrifies the establishment. And then there was Romania. In 2017 Tate and his brother moved to Bucharest and built their life and businesses there. He was blunt about why: the West, especially the UK, had become a feminist hellhole where any woman could destroy a man’s life with an accusation at any time. In a now-deleted video he said this was “probably 40% of the reason” he left — “I’m not a fucking rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free.” He praised Romania as more based and traditional, with stronger morality, less woke brainwashing, and a system that didn’t automatically side with accusers to destroy men. He said the West had turned men into slaves to political correctness and false claims while Romania still had real freedom for a man to live on his terms. He built his empire there while continuing to red-pill the world. That’s real power. Not bought with donations or handed out by elites — earned by speaking directly to what millions of young men felt but were told never to say. He filled the void the left created with their war on masculinity, fatherless homes, and anti-male propaganda in schools. Now the machine is at it again with fresh charges and an arrest in the US. Tate and his brother say it’s all lies and lawfare

ⁿᵉʷˢ Barron Trump 🇺🇸

91,635 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Man gets arrested for demanding to speak with chief of police in police lobby. Who was wrong in this situation? ​ Christopher Young walked into the Springboro Police Department lobby demanding to speak directly with the Chief of Police. Young was furious over a traffic citation he had received the previous day for not wearing a seatbelt—a ticket he adamantly claimed was based on a lie by the citing officer. ​When department staff informed him the chief was unavailable and asked him to calm down or leave, Young refused, repeatedly demanding to see leadership. The tension escalated rapidly when an officer ordered Young to take his hands out of his pockets. Young refused and began backing away. Believing Young was non-compliant and trespassing, the officer grabbed Young’s arm to initiate an arrest. ​A physical struggle ensued. Young tackled the officer to the ground, prompting multiple officers and station staff to intervene, with one officer shouting to "tase him." Young was ultimately subdued, handcuffed, and charged with criminal trespass and obstructing official business. ​This footage highlights a critical friction point between citizen rights and law enforcement authority. Was this a lawful arrest or did this officer violate his rights and assult Chris? ​Perspective A: The Officer Assaulted a Citizen Doing Legitimate Business ​From a strict civil liberties standpoint, many argue the officer was the unlawful aggressor. ​Right to be There: A police lobby is a public building funded by taxpayers. Young was there on legitimate business—to file a complaint regarding what he believed to be a fraudulent ticket. You cannot simply trespass a citizen from a public space when they are attempting to engage with their government/ have official business. ​The "Hands in Pockets" Fallacy: Keeping your hands in your pockets is not a crime. Because no crime was actively being committed, the officer's command to remove them was merely a request, not a lawful order. ​Initiating Force: Young was backing away and not posing an active physical threat. By "laying hands" on him first, the officer unlawfully escalated a verbal grievance into a physical assault, making the subsequent struggle a reaction to police aggression. ​Perspective B: The Officer Executed a Lawful Arrest for Obstruction ​From a law enforcement and prosecution standpoint, the officer's actions were fully justified under existing legal precedents. ​Limited Public Fora: Courts have consistently ruled that government buildings and police lobbies are "non-public fora." While open for business, citizens do not have an absolute right to remain if their conduct becomes disruptive or interferes with operations. Once ordered to leave by authorities, refusing to do so converts the stay into criminal trespass. ​Officer Safety and Terry Precedent: Under Terry v. Ohio, officers have the authority to manage a scene for safety. In a high-tension dispute, unseeable hands are a statistical threat for concealed weapons. Refusing a direct safety command to show your hands during an escalating dispute constitutes active non-compliance and obstruction. ​Lawful Use of Force: Once a subject actively obstructs and refuses a dispersal order, officers are legally permitted to use proportional physical force to effect an arrest. ​This case perfectly illustrates the fragile balance between a citizen's right to demand government accountability without fear of physical detention, and an officer's duty to maintain order and safety within a secure facility. ​Did the officer overstep his authority and assault a frustrated citizen, or did the citizen's non-compliance and disruption turn a legitimate grievance into a lawful arrest? ​I'm very interested to hear the debates on both sides.

Giggling Ganon

127,965 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Dear Dr. Sagar Preet Hooda, IPS Director General of Police, Chandigarh DGP Chandigarh Police Subject: Request for intervention regarding FIR No. 44 dated 19-04-2026 registered by East Sector 26 Police Station, Chandigarh 1. I write this letter through X with the sincere hope that it reaches your attention. The present issue concerns FIR No. 44 dated 19-04-2026 registered by East Sector 26 Police Station, Chandigarh against Professor Madhu Kishwar Madhu Purnima Kishwar and a few others under Sections 66C, 66D and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 196, 318, 336(1), 336(3), 336(4), 340, 353 and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was registered on the complaint of one Satinder Singh, who alleged that a video clip was being circulated by various social media users with misleading claims that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was receiving a facial massage from a woman. According to the complaint, several social media accounts amplified this allegedly false narrative. As understood, the complainant further stated that his preliminary verification revealed that the video was originally posted by one Pardeep Kaur Dhillon through Facebook, YouTube and Instagram accounts on 12 April 2026, and that the person in the video was actually Jaspal Singh Sarai, who was apparently receiving a facial massage from a woman. However, even a plain reading of the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence, much less a cognizable offence. Surprisingly, the police registered the FIR invoking an extraordinary range of provisions relating to identity theft, cheating, forgery, promoting enmity, defamation, public mischief, and even obscenity. 2. Let us briefly examine the applicability of each provision invoked in the FIR: (i) Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalises fraudulent or dishonest use of another person’s electronic signature, password, or unique identification feature. The fundamental question is: whose identity has Professor Madhu Kishwar allegedly stolen? Was it the identity of Satinder Singh? If not, what is his locus standi in lodging such a complaint? If the allegation concerns some other person, has that person complained? In the absence of any such complaint, how is an offence under this section made out? (ii) Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 relates to cheating by personation through a communication device or computer resource. Whom did Professor Madhu Kishwar allegedly impersonate? Who was deceived, and what wrongful gain or loss occurred? Did she impersonate Satinder Singh or any other person? If not, how does the complainant acquire locus standi under this provision? (iii) Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalises publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. The complainant himself states that the video was originally posted by Pardeep Kaur Dhillon and depicted Jaspal Singh Sarai receiving a facial massage from a woman. The video, by any objective standard, contains no obscene or lascivious material. Neither individuals were nude, nor was any sexual act depicted. It was merely a professional facial massage. Professor Madhu Kishwar merely reposted the content on X. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 67 are entirely absent. (iv) Section 196 of BNS concerns promoting enmity between groups on grounds such as religion, race, language, place of birth, or residence, and acts prejudicial to communal harmony. How does reposting a video of a man receiving a facial massage — even assuming someone believed the man resembled Prime Minister Narendra Modi — amount to promoting enmity between groups or disturbing public harmony? The provision appears wholly inapplicable. (v) Section 318 of BNS deals with the offence of cheating. The essential ingredients of cheating require deception causing wrongful loss, delivery of property, or inducement to act or omit in a manner causing harm. How does reposting a social media video satisfy any of these ingredients? Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Prime Minister Narendra Modi felt personally aggrieved, the complaint would have to come from him or an authorised representative. What is the locus standi of Satinder Singh or any unrelated third party in this matter? (vi) Sections 336(1), 336(2) and 336(3) of BNS These provisions deal with forgery involving false documents or electronic records. How does reposting a pre-existing video amount to creating a false document or forged electronic record? No document was fabricated. No electronic record was forged. Again, even assuming that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the aggrieved person, why has no complaint been filed either by him or by any authorised representative? How does Satinder Singh acquire standing in such circumstances? (vii) Section 340 of BNS concerns fraudulent or dishonest use of a forged document or electronic record. When there is no forged document at all, the provision itself cannot apply. Further, the alleged victim has neither filed nor authorised any complaint. In such circumstances, invocation of Section 340 appears entirely untenable. (viii) Section 353 of BNS concerns statements or reports intended to incite mutiny, offences against the State, public disorder, or inter-community violence. How can reposting a video of a man receiving a facial massage — even if someone attributes resemblance to Prime Minister Narendra Modi — possibly amount to incitement of mutiny, public disorder, or offences against the State? The invocation of this section is wholly unsustainable. (ix) Section 356 of BNS concerns defamation. However, Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 clearly provides that defamation can be prosecuted only by the aggrieved person. If the aggrieved person is a public servant, proceedings can be initiated only by a Public Prosecutor with prior sanction of the Central or State Government as the case may be. Neither Satinder Singh nor any unrelated individual has the legal standing to initiate such proceedings. 3. Dr. Hooda Ji, permit me to share a version of a well-known satirical anecdote about policing, which bears a striking resemblance to the present case, where Professor Madhu Kishwar is being compelled to endure the ordeal of criminal prosecution despite the absence of the essential ingredients of the offences invoked against her. A man sees an old friend running down the street — terrified, panting, and sweating. He stops him and asks, “What is wrong? Why are you running?” The friend replies, “The police are arresting all bulls!” The man says, “But you are not a bull. Why are you running?” The friend shouts back, “We both know I am not a bull. But by the time I prove it to the police and the courts, I will have spent the rest of my life in jail!” Terrified by hearing this, the other man also starts running. 4. Dr. Hooda Ji, I have heard that you are a competent, upright and distinguished officer. It is the solemn responsibility of senior officers of the IPS to prevent abuse of the criminal justice process and to ensure that policing does not degenerate into a spectacle in which criminal law is stretched beyond recognition to harass individuals for expressing views that may inconvenience those in power. 5. I therefore request your kind intervention to prevent the continued harassment and persecution of Professor Madhu Kishwar for her views on public issues, and to direct immediate closure of the case. 6. This letter has also been converted into video format and attached.👇 With Regards

M. Nageswara Rao IPS (Retired)

17,299 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

🚨🇵🇰 LEADING PAKISTANI JOURNALIST BREAKS SILENCE: TORTURE, ABDUCTION, AND A REFUSAL TO BETRAY IMRAN KHAN One of Pakistan’s biggest voices just described a nightmare that sounds like a political thriller. Imran Riaz Khan was abducted, tortured, and held in secret detention for months. His crime was refusing to follow the military’s narrative after the 2022 regime change. He says the demand was simple and constant: Go against his former Prime Minister Imran Khan and provide false evidence. He refused. What followed, he says, was extreme torture. Blindfolds. Hands tied behind his back. Hung by his arms or legs for hours. Isolation so complete that guards were forbidden from responding when he greeted them. He says the mental torture was worse than the physical pain. For more than four months, he says he was kept in a cell barely large enough to lie down. No human contact. Drugs injected. Repeated beatings. All for one video. They wanted him to record a statement saying he was free, hiding by choice, and that the state had nothing to do with him. He says he refused because that video would erase their responsibility if he was killed. He says they threatened him directly. Journalist Arshad Sharif was killed after refusing the same demands. And he was told he was next. Eventually, he fled Pakistan through the mountains. On foot. At night. One of Pakistan’s most familiar faces, crossing borders illegally and being attacked by wolves simply to stay alive. He is now in hiding in the UK, and runs one of the country’s largest YouTube channels We get into: • How he says the military pressured journalists to help remove Imran Khan • What he describes inside secret detention sites run by intelligence agencies • Why he refused to become a false witness against Imran Khan and judges • How Arshad Sharif’s killing changed everything • Why he says even exile does not mean safety • Why he believes Pakistan is heading toward a breaking point Stay quiet. Disappear. Or pay the price. Imran Riaz Khan says he chose something else: to speak. 00:45 – Why the military tried to force him to betray Imran Khan 02:12 – The exact pressure he says he faced in secret meetings 05:44 – How his torture began and what they demanded 07:19 – Why he says Imran Khan was the only leader who never retaliated 09:35 – How he became the most-watched journalist in Pakistan 12:10 – Why he believes May 9 was a state-orchestrated trigger 15:33 – The fake case he was asked to fabricate against Imran Khan 18:50 – What happened the night Imran Khan was ousted 22:07 – What he says happened inside an intelligence-run secret prison 25:58 – The moment he realized they were preparing to kill him 29:46 – How Arshad Sharif’s murder became a warning to others 33:14 – The trap he says was set to frame him with planted terrorists 36:22 – What his captors said when they finally released him 39:30 – Why he stayed in Pakistan even after being tortured 42:41 – His hidden escape route through the mountains 45:55 – The animal attack that nearly killed him during his escape 49:08 – How he crossed into Afghanistan under threat of assassination 52:34 – What the UK told him while deciding whether to grant asylum 56:05 – Why he says even exile can’t guarantee safety Disclaimer: Views expressed are my personal opinion as an Australian citizen permanently resident in Dubai, UAE, protected under Article 19 of the ICCPR (as ratified by Australia) and UAE constitutional provisions on freedom of expression. I am outside Pakistani jurisdiction. This post is published from the United Arab Emirates; any dispute falls exclusively under UAE courts.

Mario Nawfal

1,442,295 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Xiao Zhan has always been known for his striking looks, but his intelligence, resilience, and ability to navigate even the most difficult situations may be even more remarkable. When artists in the Chinese entertainment industry terminate their contracts, they can rarely avoid drawn-out disputes and messy fallout. But what Xiao Zhan faced back then was an exceptionally rare and complicated contractual situation. His management contract, commercial contracts, and ownership of his studio were divided among different parties. It was essentially like having four bosses at once. Authority and responsibilities were divided, with all sides holding each other in check. When he became caught up in a major public controversy, none of them was willing to step in, take responsibility, and stabilize the situation. Everyone just watched, passed the buck, and waited for someone else to act. During the years when his career was at its peak and the attacks against him were at their most intense, opportunities were snatched away from him, public opinion was manipulated against him, and powerful industry players waited for chances to pressure and control him. He was trapped in a desperate situation, under pressure from all sides and forced onto the defensive. But no one expected that Xiao Zhan would withstand it all on his own and find a way out of what everyone else saw as an impossible deadlock. Without public confrontations or making a scene, he quietly reclaimed all of his contractual rights over the course of several years, completely taking back control of his career. He established a studio that he fully owns and independently controls. It was only when people later looked back at the entire process that they began to realize just how much they had underestimated Xiao Zhan. His abilities, mental strength, and breadth of vision were even more formidable than his fame and looks. One netizen put it perfectly: other people come out of contract terminations battered and bruised, while Xiao Zhan's went by like a gentle breeze. Back then, he quietly changed the long prefix on his Weibo name, removing the title of the organization he had been affiliated with. That same day, the topic dominated the trending searches, with views surpassing one billion. Fans celebrated, and posts flooded the internet. Even an official media livestream mentioned it, and the buzz swept across the internet. Yet the person at the center of it all stayed offline the entire time. No marketing, no hype. It was only a few days later that he calmly posted two ordinary updates. Some people said that this is what real mature confidence looks like: calm and restrained, in control of the bigger picture, never panicking when problems arise, and making each move calmly and deliberately. He is a genius who hides his brilliance behind an unassuming exterior, and a pure-hearted person who sees the world clearly and understands how it works. Many people suddenly realized that Xiao Zhan was never an artist simply being carried along by powerful industry interests. In a game involving multiple competing sides, he was the player who kept the board steady and turned the tables to take control of the game himself. One industry insider put it bluntly: he is the only top star in the Chinese entertainment industry to have been targeted by powerful industry interests, attacked from all sides, and suppressed for years, yet still rise to the top against the odds while remaining clean and dignified. What is even more remarkable is that during those two hardest years, when overwhelming attacks against him swept across the internet, not a single member of his staff, business partner, or former team member came forward with even the slightest bit of damaging information about him. With nothing they could use against him personally, all the attacks could only be directed at his fans. That alone says a great deal about the integrity of his character and how sincerely he treats others. As netizens put it, hardship creates heroes. And fortunately, he emerged from it all tempered into steel. His striking looks are matched by exceptionally high intelligence and emotional intelligence. He is the perfect example of someone who has far more than just good looks. Beyond top-tier looks, he also has top-tier intelligence, emotional intelligence, the ability to get things done, and strong personal principles. [More interesting details in the video, there was too much to fit into one post] Youtube: Cr. 万一哪天有钱 #XiaoZhan #肖战

Xiao Zhan World ♥️ Adoki

16,765 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

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. "I really don't know why netizens are making this a caste or religious issue," Sameer MD said. He further claimed that his phone number and home address had been leaked and that some individuals were looking for him with intentions to harm him. Expressing concern for his safety, he stated. "I can't tell what will happen to me hereafter, so I request content creators to raise this issue." He also urged the Kannada YouTube community to unite and showcase their collective strength. He also further said that the troll pages supporting the 'Gowdru family' have alleged that Sameer MD accepted a bribe of Rs. 35 lakh to cover this Soujanya case on his #Dhootha Channel. The YouTuber has strongly denied these accusations, stating, "I don't even have money to pay my editor. Why are they dragging this issue?" The controversy escalated on March 4 after Sameer MD's YouTube video on the #DharmasthalaSoujanyaCase reportedly disappeared from the platform. This led to widespread speculation about the reasons behind its removal. Social media discussions, particularly on Instagram, suggested that the video was no longer accessible. However, some users claimed it could still be viewed using a VPN (Virtual Private Network). A social media user commented on Sameer MD's credibility, stating that while some details in his videos might be inaccurate, his dedication to producing well-researched and neutral content should be appreciated. The user also expressed hope that Sameer MD's influence would inspire more #KannadaYouTubers to engage in investigative journalism. The controversy surrounding Sameer MD's video ties into the long-standing debate over the Dharmasthala Soujanya case, which has remained unresolved for over a decade. On September 13, 2024, the #KarnatakaHighCourt denied a request for a new investigation into the tragic 2012 rape and murder of 17-year-old #Soujanya, a student from #SDMCollege in #Ujire. The court upheld the acquittal of the only accused, #SanthoshRao, emphasizing that the trial court had thoroughly assessed the evidence and that reopening the case would likely produce no new insights. Soujanya's father, Chandappa Gowda, had appealed for the court to instruct the #CBI to reassess the case, but the #HighCourt ruled against it, citing a lack of sufficient evidence against the accused. The case, dating back to October 9, 2012, was primarily built on circumstantial evidence due to the absence of eyewitness accounts. The court expressed concerns about the likelihood of obtaining new evidence after such a significant lapse in time, particularly due to shortcomings in the original investigation. In relation to Santhosh Rao's request for compensation for wrongful prosecution, the court clarified that he could pursue legal action through the appropriate judicial avenues. As interest in the Dharmasthala Soujanya case continues to grow, the controversy surrounding Sameer MD's video has heightened the intrigue. The circumstances surrounding the video's reported disappearance-whether it was due to the platform's intervention or a decision by the creator-remain ambiguous, further fueling speculation online. #JusticeForSoujanya #JusticeForSowjanya

Hate Detector 🔍

20,928 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce