Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

remember when sen risa faced backlash when she sought an investigation into roblox on child safety? they thought she was calling for a ban of the game when it was DICT and CICC that issued ultimatum to roblox to address the issue or it could face a ban in...

13,229 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

One of the issues the judge focused on in this case was that the officer took the accused’s cell phone after placing him under arrest. The judge viewed that as part of an unlawful detention - even though the phone wasn’t searched, accessed, or used as evidence. It was simply held by the officer, as is routine in police custody. But let’s break that down in real-world terms: when someone is arrested and placed in the back of a police cruiser, their personal belongings (phones, wallets, keys, etc.) are always temporarily taken away. This isn’t unusual. It’s done for safety and control. Officers need to prevent the person in custody from using their phone to coordinate interference, delete evidence, or try to flee. They also need to ensure nothing in their possession could be used to hurt themselves or someone else. This is standard procedure during an arrest, especially when someone is handcuffed and in the back of a locked cruiser. Yet despite this, the judge treated the removal of the phone as a sign the officer violated the accused’s Charter rights. The court argued that since there was no lawful authority under the Highway Traffic Act to take the phone, it contributed to the detention being considered arbitrary and unreasonable, even though the phone was never actually searched. What makes this even more confusing is that Justice Renu Mandhane herself spoke publicly in 2016 about this exact issue - about the difference between seizing a phone during arrest and searching it without a warrant. She acknowledged back then that seizing a phone is one thing, but it’s the searching of it that raises serious privacy concerns under the Charter. That distinction was clear in her public comments, but now, from the bench, she ruled that even the simple act of seizing the phone, without any search, was problematic. This case shows the growing disconnect between what’s legally expected in court and what officers are trained to do in the field. Even when they follow routine, safety-based procedures, they’re being second-guessed by the courts based not on what they did wrong, but how it might be perceived. If you want to read the full court ruling for yourself, it’s available on CanLII here:

Ron Chhinzer

27,356 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Catherine Austin Fitts: "I [first] thought the [Covid] op was primarily to load an operating system in people's bodies... so that you could [do some] kind of mind control... [but] I underestimated the extent to which they were looking to downsize the population." This clip of Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from a discussion with Mel K (The Mel K Show) posted to Rumble on January 10, 2026. ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- "So when it [Covid] first started, literally on the first day, I said, it's an op... So I said it was an op. I knew a reset was coming because they had agreed on the Going Direct Reset in 2019. So I knew a reset was coming, but I thought they'd wait until after the election. I was wrong. They went before the election. So I knew a reset was coming, and I didn't know that the reset, they would use health. "They had tried to use it several times before, like with swine flu in 2008, and it had failed. And so... So it was not clear to me that they had the engineering in place to pull it off this time. But, as soon as it started, I realized, okay, they're gonna use health. Fine, that's it. So I knew. "But I thought the op was primarily to load an operating system in people's bodies to get the nanoparticles into the body so that you could do the kind of mind control. I didn't think that depopulation was as big an agenda as it is. So if you look at what the impact has been on, on all-cause mortality, as well as disability, as well as fertility rates. "You know, I think depopulation was a much more important part of the agenda than I figured initially. I thought initially it was just, you know, we want to— Bill Gates, you know, so it had worked on computers. Bill Gates had put an operating system on your computer, and then he kept sending out viruses, so you had to update your operating system. So I thought, okay, we're gonna play the same game in viruses with viruses in the Internet of Bodies. So I just thought it was an Internet of Bodies play. I underestimated the extent to which they were looking to downsize the population. "And I think part of that is the poisoning of the population weakens the population, makes it harder for them to push back. It lowers the quality of their cognition. So the great— I've been talking about the great poisoning since the late '90s, but this was an acceleration of the great poisoning, and I think that's part of plundering and weakening the first world population."

Sense Receptor

33,020 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce