Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
Texas Tech fans, meet your newest commit — former Allen University EDGE Amarie Fleming (Amarie Fleming). Fleming was dominant in 2025, terrorizing offensive lines with 48 tackles, 18 TFLs, 14.5 sacks, and 4 forced fumbles. Impact pass rusher heading to Lubbock. #WreckEm
20,565 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 0
Нет доступных комментариев
Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста
![The secret recordings: Texas Tech's senior official admits that they lied about me in the official documentation leading up to my medical school dismissal For months after I began writing about how wrong the medical and scientific communities had gotten the COVID-19 response, senior Texas Tech administrators had been engaged in a flurry of internal activity about my public speech. They did not debate my views. They only discussed what to do about the attention. My right to free speech is protected under the United States Constitution. Texas Tech is a taxpayer-funded agency that must guarantee its students First Amendment rights. Its Student Handbook promises to uphold them. Senior administrators, including deans of multiple schools, held several meetings about what I wrote online. They instructed administrators to compile surveillance dossiers -- screenshots, PDFs of my articles and tweets, negative emails and hearsay. They instructed faculty not to say good things about me. They assigned me a "professionalism coach," Cheryl Erwin, who posed as an impartial advisor but privately wrote that I engaged in "intellectual narcissism" and believed in "conspiracy theories." In one passage, she compared my case to the Trump indictment and his denial of the 2020 election results. She wrote that I was exercising my First Amendment rights to "make an idiot of himself." I questioned the wisdom of lockdowns and the effectiveness of masks. This warranted, it appears, my very own Stasi dossier. I was aware of none of this until I exercised my statutory right to inspect my educational records. After dozens of email exchanges, months of delay, and a federal complaint to the Department of Education, I was finally able to inspect them two months ago. Dr. Erwin had accused me of believing in conspiracy theories. I did not. But I should have. Shortly after the dean of the medical school demanded my signed Honor Code and asked "what rotation is he on," I began receiving evaluations from Texas Tech faculty that were false and misleading. This went on for months. Something on the order of fifty discrete complaints were made against me. Prior to that, the number had been zero. I filed seven detailed complaints according to the Student Handbook and under the guidance of several administrators. I alleged that my evaluators had fabricated evaluations. I demanded hearings to hold them accountable. On November 4, 2023, senior administrator Simon Williams signed a document removing me from campus on the pretext of being dangerous. A BOLO was issued telling students, faculty, and employees to call 911 if I was seen. Mass emails warned that I was dangerous. An incident that continues to be cited to this very day, more than two years later. On November 5, Dr. Williams invited me to a sandwich shop. He confessed that he knew I was not dangerous. He admitted that Texas Tech faculty and administrators felt threatened by my complaints -- and took it out on me. In other words, Dr. Williams confessed that he lied in Texas Tech's official documentation and that the campus removal was retaliation for constitutionally protected speech alleging wrongdoing by Texas Tech faculty. Here are just some of the things he told me: "This profession expects more of everyone. And if you choose to enter it, by definition you choose to live by those professional rules." "And you know, free speech is free speech. We've actually had a lot of talks. Our lawyers are doing works with us. Just yesterday when I was at the meeting, they were talking about free speech. I mean I'm 100%. I want you to be able to say whatever the frick you want. And I won't get -- I usually will not get in any way triggered by it. But when you're in a position that's such a trusted position in society -- then your standard has to be a little bit. And that's one of the places this is becoming a problem." [Timestamp: 00:34:48] "Can I say in my appeal letter that Dr. Williams seems to believe that I'm not [nervous laughter] homicidal?" "I... I have said that. I don't think you are. I don't think there's -- I've never sensed threat or danger or anything like that." [Timestamp: 00:34:48] "But it's important for me that I do this. In fact, that's why I moved back from Seattle a day early. Because I needed to be here today. I want you to know that because I never felt [inaudible] bad here. I've always enjoyed my interactions with you. I wish other people could see it that way, but apparently that's [inaudible]." [Timestamp: 00:34:48] Yet in his letter authorizing my removal just the day before, he wrote: "You have engaged in behavior that may constitute violation(s) ... specifically, but not limited to ... 'Physical harm or threat of harm to any person.'" Then an appeal hearing was held. A Schrodinger's Administrator of sorts, just as soon as Dr. Williams was observed to speak publicly, he immediately asserted that I was indeed dangerous and should be kept off campus, flip-flopping back from the position he communicated privately. The timeline: November 4: "Physical harm or threat of harm to any person" November 5: "I've never sensed threat or danger or anything like that" November 9: Kevin is dangerous actually To be clear. Under 18 U.S.C. § 242, it is a federal crime to willfully deprive a person of constitutional rights under color of law. A federal crime. And that is exactly what Dr. Williams did. Dr. Williams's decision to remove me was not impulsive. Nine months earlier, two days after my Newsweek article was published, he wrote in internal emails: "It is obviously protected speech but also quite concerning in the way he appears to speak for the medical community. We need to discuss an appropriate response." -- February 1, 2023 "I am not surprised that there was backlash. I think it will be best to hear what legal says we should do." -- February 2, 2023 The "appropriate response" took nine months to execute. It was relentless, and it came from all directions. This "appropriate response" was precisely the one I filed grievances to confront. And I was met with calls from the campus police. I am not the first one Texas Tech has done this to. How do I know? An administrator told me. At least one other student had false allegations leveled against him because the administration wanted them gone. And if they win, I won't be the last they do this to either. I only discovered these emails because I exercised my right under FERPA to inspect my educational records. Now Texas Tech's litigation counsel, Assistant Attorney General Scott Smith, has recently blocked all further access to my records -- in writing. If Texas Tech does not fulfill its FERPA obligations, it could lose all federal funding. Texas Tech, apparently, is getting very nervous. Smith also ordered me to stop contacting the Registrar and to route all requests through him. That's right. The attorney defending Texas Tech against my lawsuit is now trying to establish gatekeeping control over my education records. That's illegal. A federal complaint is pending with the Department of Education and other federal agencies. FIRE Greg Lukianoff -- crickets DOJ Civil Rights Division -- you have my complaint Attorney General Ken Paxton @OAGTexas -- your AAG is doing a terrible job; borderline sanctionable; I don't get it Greg Abbott -- this your university Texas Tech University -- Williams was not the top of the decision tree; I know that for a fact Newsweek -- help me publish my story @ACLUofTexas -- do you know about this? Department of Justice (DOJ) Harmeet K. Dhillon Pam Bondi -- theoretically, this is prosecutable under 18 U.S.C. § 242. I'm not a prosecutor, but it does theoretically fulfill the elements. Willful. Chancellor Brandon Creighton -- you are the chancellor. Do something. My case is a strange one. It gets stranger everyday. It will get stranger still. Of that I am sure. Here's something strange: the defending Assistant Attorney General and two colleagues are getting hammered on the docket by a pro se plaintiff. They seem utterly incapable of following court rules, making coherent arguments, or even properly citing their own exhibits or authorities. I suspect that they just don't know what to do with my case. In the next post, I will begin telling that story. You won't believe it. Texans, your government is setting your taxpayer money on fire to defend a university that set out not just to destroy a medical student's career, but his personal and professional reputation as well. Remember. They destroyed me because I was damn good at what I did. Now I'm an order of magnitude better. And I don't bluff. Horror and laughter. Those come next.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2036168164942209380/amplify_video_thumb/2036167931789189120/img/F1X6JSfDvsqT4L1e.jpg)
![The most epic 13 minute AI rant I've heard in 2026 PS: My parent's heard this when I was playing it in the car and thought Jason ✨👾SaaStr.Ai✨ Lemkin went OFF like Stephen A Smith does on first take PPS: Full transcript below [17:00] Harry Stebbings: I I just wanted to ask Jason, if the people that we want are fundamentally different, the developers that we used to hire, we don't because AI writes the code for us. The marketers we don't want, the sales people we don't want—who who do we want genuinely? Like what is the attractive profile? Because your Anthropic’s and your OpenAIs are hiring, so so what are the people that we want in the companies of the future? [17:18] Jason Lemkin: Look, I know it sounds trite, but but the answer is simple. It's just the expression each year changes. We want folks that are genuinely AI fluent. It's pretty simple. Now you know, maybe last year we called them prompt engineers, right? That used to be a job. I don't know if you remember that actually used to be the hottest job on planet earth. Now no one needs a prompt engineer because it's pretty easy to prompt all these tools. That job died. Okay. Um and now we need go-to-market engineers. Um I think that job's going to die. We need—everyone needs so many forward deployed engineers. Like you can't hire enough forward deployed engineers. But uh you know um but Palantir just announced in whatever their their big their big event—they've gotten their deployment times down over 90% with forward deployed engineers. So that may become—so the this wave of disruption for the titles and the specificity, it's also exhaustingly accelerating. But it's really simple. You meet anyone for any role—sales, marketing, engineering, product, QA—they're they're either they're either they can't keep all of the ways they use AI to accelerate their job from spewing out of their mouth, or they're staring at you. It's there's nowhere in the middle. Like, and the person that comes in and says—it's it's it sounds Captain Obvious—but like, you know, you just had the whatever from Lovable, the the marketing head that was super popular on the show, right? She's just spewing AI-native insights into Lovable, right? It's not that complicated. You hire her, Elena, or whatever it is. You just hire her. It doesn't matter whether she's still in college or a junior or a senior or a middler, a left or right. And honestly, if you interview people, I would say of all even of the best startups I've invested in, maybe 30% of the management team meets this standard at best. 30%. Maybe less. And of the interviews I do in general, it's single-digit percents. It's just and in in that sense, it's the same as ever. Like you either lower the bar in hiring or you hire someone that's actually great. And someone that's actually great is so far ahead of you in how to apply to to employ the efficiencies of AI in their role, your jaw falls on the table. The difference is we used to need warm bodies. That's what's changing. We used to need warm bodies to answer the call, to do QA, to do code review, to to get the blue pixel to go from the upper left to the lower right. You laugh, but you need you literally needed to brute force this with humans. With AI, every day that goes by, the AI—you do not need brute force human beings on your team. And that's another reason they're shrinking. Why are all these new companies so efficient? They're just not brute forcing things with humans. They're just not. They're choosing not to. And so these team—all the brute forcers out there—everyone talks about how bloated teams got in 2021. I don't agree with that. I think they got as big as they needed to be when growth was high and you needed humans to do everything. All you look at these teams that that doubled—well if growth continued at 60% like the rate in early 2021 for 5 years or can help me do the math and every single thing a software company did required a human. You were understaffed by your 2021 headcount. You'd be sitting here in 2026. You every office in SoMa would be triple packed and you there wouldn't be enough humans to staff your company. It's just the world changed. [20:33] Harry Stebbings: Jason, you live on the bleeding edge. I think me and Rory see that and I think the world sees that when they hear you every week in terms of how you run SaaS. For all of the CEOs and execs who listen to the show, what would you advise them in terms of determining whether someone is AI fluent when they meet them for jobs, for talent? [20:51] Jason Lemkin: Here's I realized I was just asked this. I just did a review with a super fast startup growing just crossing 100 million and I was asked this question. And one of my favorite executives, I thought his answer was pretty dated and because he gave me an answer that was about 6 months old. The answer 6 months old is: "I look for folks in my team, I look for you know at what tools they play with." Okay, that was a great answer in like summer of 2025. Okay, I tried Lovable last week. Okay, the answer in 2026 is: "What commercial AI tool have you brought into your organization this month?" That's the test. Anyone that is on the bleeding edge that you would want to hire—now there are so many great products in the market. Okay, there is no excuse in any role to have not brought one tool a month into your organization. Okay, there—now there's going to be better and better tools and better and better products as the year goes on. What's the one you did? And you will see folks with their deer in the headlights to this question. What what sales tool? What marketing tool? What product tool? What engineering tool? What did you bring in? Why did you pick it? How does it working? Because if you're at remotely at the cutting edge, you're all over this. You're looking for the next agentic tools that will radically improve how you do business. This is—you think everyone thinks SaaS is at the bleeding edge, right? You know, you know, all we do is we're just looking for the tools and trying them. Okay? Okay, we're one year ahead of everybody else because we did the simplest thing in the world. Like we tried the tools early and we trained them. We trained them for a month. Okay, I'll give you—want hear a horrible example from this week? Super hot AI company valued at 6 billion. Okay, I'm not going to name it. Um, this week yesterday told us we had to quadruple what we spent on their product. Okay, their agent told us, right? And why did this happen? Okay. Well, at this $6 billion company, no one had trained the agent on its pricing properly. No one had tested it. They said, "Well, well, we've been in beta." And we said, "Well, when did the beta launch? A year ago." Okay, these are people asleep at at the wheel. You want somebody who the instant this comes up, they exactly know what the issue is. And "Hey, when I was at Lovable Replit, we trained the agent. This is how we did it. I brought in this tool. I brought in this tool that that Rory invested in last week. It solved all these issues." That's what you want to hear. And if they haven't brought in a tool in the last 30 days, at least deeply evaluated it. I don't really care whether they bought it, but gone so far down the funnel they can tell you—pick whatever tool: Fixie, Regie, GC, AIGC—I don't care how you went through it, you looked at it, you can tell me the eight ways it would improve the productivity of your business and three you didn't. Just don't hire that person because they're going to run your company to the ground. This is the job today. The job today is not to screw around on ChatGPT and to be a prompt engineer. The job today is to bring the best AI and agentic products into your organization and leverage all the hard work that the engineers have done building those products. That's your job. You don't have to screw around. You don't have to be a prompt engineer anymore. You have to be an agent deployment expert. A—this is the new job we're making up today. An Agentic Deployment Expert. That's your job from C-level to junior. Agentic Deployment Expert. Don't hire anybody else. You're going to regret it. They're going to stare at the camera. He's good. Stare at the camera. He's honorable. We could probably just I could slip away, get a coffee, and come back. No. And I I sound exasperated, Rory. And I—but the reason I am is I can just see I can see my best companies doing it. And I can see some companies I've invested in not doing it. And I want to cry. I just want to cry when they have no ADs on their team. I just—like you're flushing your years of your life down the toilet by not approaching your how you're building this company this way. [24:33] Rory: Yes. And at the risk of being positive, it's worth pointing out two things he didn't say. Well, something implicit why he said—Jason didn't do the only hire, you know, he didn't commit the um employment law, I think it's a civil penalty of saying only employ people below X who get the new new thing because he implicitly said anyone can do it provided you're willing to learn. And I think that's the big aha that's one of the positive statements to make here right? Look and I think it applies—I'm always wary of being "Hey, coming across, hey this this is the things that you all have to do." I think it applies to everyone including investors right? I mean I will say I have found that unless you're willing to invest the time learning these tools you actually shouldn't be investing in them. One of my partners Andy had this expression: "You know, if you decide you want to stop learning new things you probably should retire within 6 to 12 months and never write another check again." Maybe that's down to 3 to 6 months at this stage, right? And I think, you know, it's— [25:27] Harry Stebbings: Yeah, I actually I actually had a meeting with mine and Jason's biggest investor the other day and I—pretend he's not here—I said I think he's the most equipped investor for this generation of investing because I don't think anyone quite sits at the bleeding edge like he does on the investor side. [25:42] Harry Stebbings: Why in terms of using the equip stuff? Yeah. Yeah. In terms of using the stuff, understanding understanding bottlenecks, constraints. For sure. [25:51] Jason Lemkin: But can I just add one point? We can just cuz it's so important if it helps people. Okay, we are—and thank you Harry. We're going through these phases. Okay, and when AI started to blow up for real for us, uh call it early 2024, right? Maybe late '23, I wasn't equipped. It was too technical. I wasn't going to go in and figure out—I wasn't smart enough to figure out how to deal with a massively hallucinating LLM API and turn that and turn that into something magical. Kudos to investors and others that that got it in early '23, '22. I mean I remember I—I guess it was maybe SaaStr Annual '23. I was with David Sacks and I did a Q&A and I said, "How you thinking about AI at Craft?" He's like, "Well we're all in. We want 80% of '23 of investments to be AI." I'm like, "Great but like show me the show me the great ones in market." He's like, "They're all prototypes. We're all they're all they're all proof of concepts but we're all in anyway." That's where you kind of had to be in '23 if you weren't investing at like the LLM level. Okay, I wasn't smart enough. Then we went through this weird-ass prompt engineer era where like you you could torture these products to do something good, right? But you had to torture them. You had to like craft these crazy things that made no sense. Now we are in the era where mere ordinarily smart generalists can make these tools do magical things. And literally I go to these meetings and people be like, "I don't know how to like this is so scary. I don't know how to do this." And we show them our backends. Do you know how to do a workflow generator? Do you know how to do a a decision tree? Like we've been building these since software in the '90s. Okay, if you—I can show you all of our agents. The how they work is novel. They do have to be trained. You can't be lazy and have these agents work. But honestly, the the UI, the UX, the way we interact with them, it's just software. And so my point is: Pick yourself off the ground. This is your time now. If you felt lost in AI era, if you felt like you're behind, you don't understand what all these people are saying on X and Twitter and their Claude and and their and talking about all the 4.6 point Nano point and it's over—like you just it's not your world. This is your time. This is your time for the generalist that knows how to use software tools really really well. And I—this is my last point but it's so important. If ever in your recent life—and this is why you could be all you need to be is young at heart to Rory's point—if in the last three to five years you have successfully deployed a piece of enterprise software of any sort you yourself, not some agency you hired, but if you have deployed it, you can deploy any agentic tool. Any. And you can become the hero in your company and you can become the hero in your functional area. But I watch folks—I'm literally helping a company now that they're adding hundreds of sales folks this year with a new pre-IPO COO—he's not hasn't brought in a single tool, totally scared of it. Okay, it's not that hard. Did you use SalesLoft? Did you use Outreach? Did you use HubSpot? Do you know these tools? If you can deploy these tools, you can deploy a world-changing AI agent. And so this is the time for people like the folks that that were shut out of the AI revolution right now. The generalist folks that are not that know how to deploy software that don't even know how to build software. Like vibe coding for me was folks who knew how to build software, but you didn't have to be an engineer. Now, you just need to know how to deploy software to win with AI agents. That's all you need to know. So many people have these skills and they're petrified of AI. "How did you do that? How did you deploy an AI BDR?" Well, we bought a piece of software, we figured out how it worked for a day, we set it up in an afternoon, and then and then we did spend 30 months training it, which you didn't do with this old software because in the old days, we just had to manually upload all the data, right? And there was no training. The the only non-intuitive part is training these things. And it's it's it's just work. So that's why when I see folks on the management team not doing this, there's no excuse. You do not need to be technical to win with AI agents in Q2 of '26. You do not need to be even 1% technical. Not at all. So it's your time. Or you're going to get laid off. Or you're going to get laid off because you're not going to matter.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2036795243681423518/amplify_video_thumb/2036794127560613888/img/52_cdbzzL6_foTSI.jpg)
![The Royal High Courts are certainly a place of grandeur and perhaps some are intimidated by the surroundings. Well that impressive 19th century Gothic architecture is a sight to behold but the Judges less so. I’ve seen too many judges in the UK and Pakistan and by God, they leave a lot to be desired. Especially when one comes across McGowan the Mediocre. What should have been a straightforward win has turned into a cheating exercise by the very judiciary meant to uphold justice in this country. Why do I say straightforward? Let’s recap. After 3-4 failed complaints to the GMC, the Jewish lobbies upped the ante. First came my loss of contract at South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust where I was doing some clinics. No investigation. Just blocked from the email and can’t address patient queries. Then started the defamation in the press – articles in the Jewish News, Jewish Chronicle and Telegraph followed by loss of contract with Medinet with whom I’d worked since 2018 intermittently and had glowing reviews. The GMC now opens an investigation – given the pressure from Wes Streeting, elected in July 2024. They wanted an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) to decide if any sanction should be imposed whilst I was being “investigated”. I had a trip abroad for my brother’s assassination case and I had clinics. Patients who had waited 12-18 months to see a Neurologist. The GMC and MPTS didn’t care. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is allegedly an independent body to the GMC and runs the IOT panels. They would not move the IOT by 11 working days as the GMC had refused (so much for independence!) – instead of 20th December I had suggested 13th January 2025. Recall this was over the Christmas period – people going on holidays and yet I was expected to get legal advice when I was in clinic from 8am – 6pm. I told them patients came first – I stand by that. Hurt Jewish feelings aren’t urgent and they don’t come before my patient care. I requested deferment by 11 working days, told them I would defend every single tweet and indeed, looked forward to it. This was all via email. Multiple emails. All ignored – including the one letter that contained my “defences”. They would not budge – the Jewish lobbies were demanding action and the GMC wasn’t going to risk their ire again. Wes Streeting was breathing down their necks. On 20th December 2024, I saw my Neurology patients and on 23rdDecember, I found out that I’d been suspended for 18 months. No other doctor had an 18-month suspension or got one since – in their absence. My remaining clinics in December and January all cancelled. Some patients were cancelled as they were making their way to my clinic. I requested the transcript of the IOT hearing – the GMC had been demanding conditions on my license on public interest grounds yet 3 batty women decided I should be suspended for 18 months for public interest and patient protection! Later, the barrister for the indemnity body stated he “couldn’t get purchase on” how they came to that decision. In any case, after being misled by my indemnity body – who suggested that I first ask for an early review, delayed asking for it and then the GMC refused. They were refusing to allow me to be heard after claiming I wouldn’t attend. The indemnity body then reneged on the agreed High Court action. The GMC even send me the Rule 7 letter – the final “allegations” against me on 5 February 2025 which they then updated in March. Ordinarily this takes about 9 months to send – in my case, they managed to do it within 6 weeks! Yet one of the reasons they claimed I needed to be suspended for 18 months was because of the lengthy investigation…. I had to reply by 5 May 2025 which I did via a191-page response. The GMC usually respond within 3-4 weeks. As of 21 January 2026, I have yet to hear from them. I then took matters into my own hand. Let down by cowardly lawyers except one (Yasmin), I filed a High Court application under Section 41 A(10) of the Medical Act 1983 to challenge my unlawful suspension. I requested an urgent expedited hearing as I was being left with no way to earn a living. There were 10 grounds of appeal. The High Court date was set for 10th July 2025. Meanwhile, the MPTS is obliged to give a 6-month review – 16th June 2025 afternoon was scheduled. I stated I wanted this in person and in public. I flew back from Kashmir on 9th June – it’s cheaper to live there - and found myself arrested at Holyhead under s12 of the Terrorism Act for “alleged support of proscribed groups” – apparently I was “on the wanted list. I’m released 14 hours later. They’d seized my mobile phones and laptop and wait for it, all my GMC documents that I’d carefully put together. I’m still not sure why I couldn’t get those back. I learn that the GMC is seeking information about this non-reportable arrest within 24 hours of it – they know. In any case, I go for the IOT hearing – and the GMC Counsel attempts to utilise the arrest. I object. The panel agree that it will not be considered. However, the MPTS have set an insufficient amount of time for the hearing – they would have known. There were over 1000 pages in the bundle of nonsense – the only worthwhile part of that was my beautifully written 191-page response. I was quite proud of it if I’m honest. It could be considered my second PhD thesis. As I have to return to Pakistan for hearings and the High Court case was 10thJuly, the IOT hearing was re-scheduled for 14th July 2025. So, fast forward to 10th July 2025. Under 48 hours before the hearing is due, the GMC submit their skeleton arguments – ordinarily submitted 7-14 days before – no doubt, to wrong foot me. They finally admit that the IOT panel made an “error of law” in not properly applying the Article 10 rights but argue they got to the “right decision but by the wrong route” (!) I am self-representing in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice – the GMC have their in-house lawyer, their GMC Counsel and her clerk. But I have the best lawyer (currently abroad) and an excellent McKenzie friend, Sean Naughton and my well wishers who attended to support me. We start at 10 30am – and I ask the Judge to review the admission of illegality. On that basis alone, my suspension should be revoked. She declines and wants to hear the case. I then detail the IOT powers and how the grounds to sanction me had not been met – they had not proven public interest or public protection. I discussed the GMC actions, the unfairness, disproportionality, the abuse of process, the outright lies by the GMC, the draconian 18-month suspension, the persecution by the Jewish lobbies and the breach of my rights under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the ECHR. My opening lines: “I submit that the suspension was political in nature. It was subject to bias and external pressure was clearly evident. It was unlawful and demonstrated seriously flawed reasoning. It was manifestly wrong and the panel erred in law. It was completely unnecessary. It’s been tainted by marked procedural errors, unfairness and it has demonstrated gross abuse of process by the GMC and the MPTS and the IOT panel and those abuses have continued. The suspension is draconian and disproportionate and inconsistent with other decision makings of the IOT panels. It is a complete violation of my rights under Article 8, 9 and especially Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights. And it is demonstrated also limitation of the panel’s expertise, both in terms of law, but also, importantly, the context of the rights of the Palestinian people and it brings into serious question whether the GMC should be policing speech of doctors. It should certainly not be policing or interfering in political speech.” I went through each ground in detail giving the relevant case law. I talked openly about the nature of that persecution: “All of the complaints against me have been made by Jewish and pro-Israeli affiliated organisations and I think it’s necessary to list them – Lawyers for Israel, in collaboration with Gnasherjew, the Jewish Medical Association twice; the unnamed Jewish Zionist doctor; the Jewish News who defamed me; the reporter is Michelle Rosenberg - who is Jewish and Zionist; the Daily Telegraph defamation - George Chesterton is married to a Jewish woman; Miranda Levy and Jacob Freedland are both Jewish and Zionist. I had the Jewish Chronicle defamation - Jane Prinsley is Jewish and has a home in Israel; Campaign Against Antisemitism by Stephen Silverman, who is Jewish and has submitted three similar tweets in March 2025 to the GMC which have been included in my Rule 7 letter without due process the GMC is obliged to follow on receipt of a new complaint. And then, twice in the Jerusalem Post - Mathilda Heller and Michael Starr are both Jewish Zionists. And despite the suspension, Sabrina Miller, a Jewish Zionist journalist at the Daily Mail attacked a number of pro-Palestinian doctors, including myself. So, these previous complaints that have been dismissed by the GMC included tweets of a similar nature. The tweets have not changed, but I would contend that the priorities of the GMC had and my complaint was clearly being handled by individuals who appeared conflicted. In my witness statement, I have detailed the behaviour of XXX, XXX, XXX who refused to respond to emails on where disclosures from the GMC themselves, since I submitted this appeal, have since revealed that XX XX had made false notes on my record claiming I had prior FTP history. In addition, in July 2024, Wes Streeting became the Health Secretary. I refer Your Honour to pages 327 to 337 of the bundle. There’s a Declassified article, incidentally, that’s been written by a Jewish journalist, Matt Kennard. He has investigated Streeting’s support of Israel since his days at the National Union of Students. It documents that he visited Israel in 2022 paid for by the Labour Friends of Israel. That organisation’s former chair was Joan Ryan, infamously found to be discussing her £1 million payment from Israel with Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat. Streeting has taken over £20,000 from Israeli lobbyist, Trevor Chinn. Trevor Chinn’s father heads the Jewish National Fund which supports illegal Israeli settlements and from Lord Mendelsohn and David Menton. The Jewish Chronicle even ran a profile of him entitled “Wes Streeting, our friend at the NUS”. So, there’s little surprise that Wes Streeting made comments in The Telegraph stating he would urge medical regulators to discipline staff expressing views which he, as a pro-Israeli and Zionist, opposed. He stated that regulators had the power to set conditions that a healthcare professional must work under. Suspend them or strike them entirely from the medical register. He made similar comments to The Times. He then met with the Board of Deputies for Community Security Trust, which is also behind my complaint, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Jewish Medical Association, reiterating “I expect employers and regulators to take action”. The idea that this political pressure by the Health Secretary in November 2024 was irrelevant to my suspension is untenable in the face of this clear intervention, which actually represents political interference and undermines the alleged independence of the GMC.” And I made clear the Jewish privilege at play “So, from what I’ve just presented, it’s very clear that the red line concerns Israel. Tweets, that’s words. Criticising an entity, carrying out the mass slaughter against innocent civilians will be punished more severely than malpractice, blatant dishonesty, criminal convictions or even genuine Jew hatred, as long as you are not a Muslim. And if you’re Jewish and you belong to a powerful lobby group like the Jewish Medical Association, then the GMC gives you a clear pass as shown in the case of Liz Lightstone and Justin Stebbing.” I made clear that even the GMC referral to the MPTS explicitly stated “that there was no evidence of [her] racially discriminating against anyone or discriminating against Jewish people.” I stated in the High Court “And I should point out that the Jewish people are not a race; Judaism is a religion” and “It is my inalienable right to be able to disagree with the narrative from Israeli lobbies and express it. Their free speech does not trump mine.” I made sure that she understood that my patients and even Grok approved of me: “In fact, Grok is positively glowing – “Dr Rehiana Ali’s tweet carry a fiery, unapologetic tone blending sharp intellect with a raw defiance against injustice echoing the spirit of Malcolm X, mirrors Malcolm’s blend of moral clarity, confrontational rhetoric and distain for oppressive systems.” “I can’t think of a better person to be compared to.” I further stated “I do not believe that legal, that legitimate political commentary or reporting facts can be antisemitic. I do not believe that any groups, be they Jewish, Muslims or Christians, are exempt from criticism where the situation warrants it. I do not believe in hate speech, as that’s the very antithesis of free speech, but also, importantly, there is no tweet of mine that demonstrates hatred for any group simply by virtue of their religious identity and, indeed, none has been identified as such.” I even quoted the Queen: “I do not accept that stating facts becomes anti-Jewish simply because the majority of those committing the crimes are Jewish. If you take that to the logical conclusion, that would mean that no Jewish person could ever be criticised for their bad behaviour. That cannot be right. I would also point out that the late Queen, according to the Israeli press, and the ex-President of Israel Rivlin, was reported to have viewed every Israeli as a terrorist or the son of a terrorist. Who would have thought that the Monarch would have been so based?” At 1pm, the Judge wants a lunch-break – I haven’t finished. We continue after lunch break – and I complete my submission dealing with the GMC’s arguments. “Before I sum up, I’ll just briefly address the skeleton arguments that the defence submitted on 8 July. And obviously I’ve already raised disgruntlement about that but I think it’s important to note, that the GMC has finally conceded, after over two months since receiving my skeleton arguments, that the IOT erred in law. On that basis alone, that suspension should be quashed today. If the GMC was capable of self- reflection, it would have withdrawn its objections to my appeal gracefully but that is probably too optimistic an outcome to expect of this bureaucratic monster which has become a law unto itself…” Then the GMC repeats their arguments and argues that the High Court have broad powers and should take original jurisdiction over the matter: “And that is an exercise that this Court can properly make, exercising its original jurisdiction” In fact, the words “original jurisdiction” were repeated about 7-8 times. The GMC Counsel repeated to the Judge “We accept that you have a free-er hand” and again “Because, as I say, this Court is free-er to exercise the original jurisdiction” and so on. Look at the tweets! She said “Mossad did 9/11” and that “Israelis shouldn’t be allowed near humanity”. She said “Israelis are involved in organ trafficking”. All true. I was amused. Ordinarily the High Court usually looks at technical and legal aspects without going into the actual details of the issue itself (e.g. on covid, they wouldn’t debate the merits of the covid vaccine – the issue was whether the conditions/suspension was legal according to rules and procedural fairness). I reply I have no issue but it wasn’t necessary – the grounds did not require that. However, if the Judge wanted to look at the tweets she should acquaint herself with the facts that I presented in my 191-page response. I request a judgement that day or the next day. I had no faith in the MPTS and GMC. That review hearing was due a few days later on 14 July 2025. Judge McGowan was fully aware of that review IOT hearing. She stated “We need to finish this during the course of today. It cannot go part heard and I understand that your review hearing is listed on Monday next.” She stated the following: “And if there is not a decision from this Court today then, presumably, the review hearing will be made aware of these proceedings, but their decision is independent of this. If they decide to not lift the suspension, then my decision either does the same or lifts or terminates the suspension. If they terminate the suspension on Monday, then my decision probably becomes quite academic, but necessary, nonetheless.” Even the GMC Counsel admitted that the Court’s decision was “of interest” I didn’t agree it was “academic” The Judge continued: “There is too much material. It is too important.” And later that her decision was “nonetheless, an important exercise.” I emphasised in my response that I wanted the High Court to rectify that injustice done to me in December 2024 and that “the overarching question is “was my original suspension, was it correct or not?” McGowan replied : “I – I do understand that and in order to reach a decision about that I have to look at what you say are the procedural mistakes. I have to look at what you say are the errors of law. I have to look at what you say is unfair about the way the hearing was conducted...” and again,“Until I have made my mind up about the procedural unfairness and all the other points you have raised, I have got to consider everything.” I again pointed out “..I would argue it’s an abuse of the system and I’m actually paying the price for their deficiencies, or rather procedural irregularities. I’m having to live with the consequences of being deprived of an income…” In other words, there have been consequences for me – financially and professionally. And I ended with “I have no faith in the IOT. I have no faith in the MPTS, and I have no faith in the GMC, and I am not the only one to feel that way. The fact that we are calling for a different body and we’re calling for the GMC to be dismantled. I’m simply asking that the injustice that was done in December is rectified…” The concluding remarks of McGowan? “Well, I am certainly not going to give judgment in this case at 3.55pm. You raised an awful lot of important issues. The importance of a decision to you, personally, is obviously great. The importance of a decision to your potential patients is high and the importance of a decision to the public is equally important. So, all of those matters have to be considered and balanced and I will get to a decision early next week. I think that is probably the best way, which will be handed down in the usual way. All right, well thank you both very much. Thank you all very much for your attendance.” At no point did McGowan state there would be no Judgement. On 14 July 2025, my suspension was revoked. I self-represented and I didn’t concede a single point or any tweet. What happened next was a shocking abuse of the judicial process. My registration was reinstated – no conditions. But that 7 months suspension remains on my record visible to every employer. The very next day GMC emails the Court to state that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter as the suspension was revoked! The IOT panel has very limited powers so whilst it revoked my suspension, it will not deem it unlawful or indeed make any comment about the previous panel’s decision – and certainly not its legality. The MPTS admitted that only the High court could rule it was unlawful. I contacted the Court pointing this out and that I was expecting a judgement as per McGowan’s position in the High Court. The High Court had a full day’s hearing and the court was independent of the tribunal and had seized jurisdiction. All my grounds including the legality of the suspension were outstanding. The revocation was to some extent irrelevant to the Court issuing the Judgement – if anything, it rather supported my contention that the suspension imposed on me in December 2024 was unlawful. I ask the GMC to provide what law they’re relying upon….they quote this section and claim it is written in the present tense! “Section 41A(10 of the Medical Act 1983, Interim Orders, states Where an order has effect under any provision of this section, the relevant court may –..” Yes – that is the best they could come up with it. Needless to say, the convention in UK legislative drafting is the simple present tense …because the law is “always speaking”. I call and even visit the Royal Courts of Justice. The Court staff chase the Clerk …I’m asked to be patient and await the Judgement. Even up to 6th August 2025 I was told that the Judgement was coming. On 11th August 2025, I am informed by email that there will be no Judgement!! I spoke to a number of barristers and solicitors – it’s almost unheard of. They're all useless though. I get no replies to my emails to the High Court. So in November 2025, I requested the Hearing transcript. On 12th December 2025 – over 5 months after the substantive hearing – I received an Order (not a Judgement). It was a bare order – simply stating “Upon the Court hearing the substantive hearing on this matter on 10 July 2025 And upon following consideration of the documents lodged by Respondent on 15 July 2025 confirming revocation of the Interim Order pursuant to Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, the application is dismissed.” No reasons whatsoever as to why the Judge had contradicted her own position in Court. I replied to the Court and file an application for permission to appeal – not just to McGowan (the system is so barmy that you have to ask the same judge for permission to appeal) but also to the Court of Appeal – the latter for both permission to appeal and the appeal itself concerning McGowan’s bare unreasoned order. McGowan now responds (miraculously) via the Court staff wanting a 30-minute hearing for permission to appeal – that is set for Tuesday 13 January 2026. So, yet again I am at the High Court now requesting permission to appeal. To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much. McGowan had shown she lacks the spine to address the issues – and has zero integrity. You don’t get a DBE in the UK for nothing. In fact, she started this hearing by asking the GMC to interpret the Section 41A of the Medical Act!!! Then she turned to me – the Claimant – and asked if “I understood what was being said”. I replied that I understood full well. English after all is my first language and I’m a Cambridge graduate. I can understand basic English. She clearly has difficulties though – I later learnt that she dropped English at Manchester University for Law. At the expense of sounding very snobbish, I just knew she wasn’t Oxbridge material…. I present my arguments – including case law. The GMC has no relevant case law – their arguments are “it is written in the present tense” (I did correct them that in actual fact, it was written in the simple present tense to be more precise) and that the decision of the High Court “is final”. Of course, I point out that finality is based on two aspects – firstly, getting a reasoned Judgement! I never got a judgement. I effectively got a blank piece of paper. On no grounds, could that be considered “a decision”. And secondly, if there were any errors of law, procedural irregularities …they were always appealable. Appeal however was not automatic – all that meant was that one had to request permission to appeal. Can you imagine a system where a Judge makes an error but you can’t appeal it?! I point out that every issue remains live. I even simplify it for them – I point out that in the case of rape, and using GMC logic, we’d never prosecute the rapist – after all, the rape was no longer in progess. That is not justice. The High Court seized jurisdiction by having a substantive hearing and had to produce a judgement. Of course, I understood that had I appealed after the revocation, the application would have been dismissed. McGowan sat there clearly not listening. This was merely an exercise to show there’d been a hearing. She tried to claim she has “no power”!! She then had the audacity to say “You’ve had a success. Why aren’t you satisfied with that?” I point out that I was suspended unlawfully – I had 20 years of an impeccable record and it states “misconduct” on my record. I have a right to get that unlawful suspension struck from my record and remedy with regards to the consequences I had suffered. The GMC – a public body – should be held accountable not just for my sake but for other doctors and I remind her of her own words “for the wider public interest”. In fact, I quote liberally from the transcript and point out her contradictions. At no point did she ever state – because it’s not possible – that the High Court lost jurisdiction. That’s the legal principle: “Once seized, always seized.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2014084863523991988/amplify_video_thumb/2014081102336438272/img/PO6AC1MzPmGnWRpm.jpg)
!["Mark this day on your calendar: 11/18/25 - the day the entire online world surrounding Karen Read, John O’Keefe, Turtleboy, Lindsey Gaetani, Brian Tully, Michael Proctor, Yuri Bukhenik, and the Norfolk DA went straight to hell in a handbasket. Kate Peter and Leigha “Bathtub” Genduso have taken center stage in the remaining Aidan “Turtleboy” Kearney cases, and Lindsey Gaetani is on an absolute wrecking path. Look at that: Kate Peter had ex parte contact with one of the special prosecutors working for the Norfolk DA, and now there's a record of it. Kate's Discord server might not survive. She's got a November 25 hearing on her open felony charges where the issue is the Norfolk DA's conflict because of their contact with Kate Peter." To understand why PI Kate Peter and all her Discord operatives are losing their collective minds on social media right now, the answer is this recent filing from Aidan TurtleBoy Kearney; In short, Kate had ex parte contact with the DA's office (and Lindsey Gaetani can prove it). TRASNCRIPT: In the past week, the defense—that's the Aidan Kearney defense—has obtained five items of favorable and discoverable evidence which should have been, but were not, disclosed to us by the Commonwealth. Two of the discoverable items originated from civilian witness Lindsey Gaetani. First, there's an audio recording where Leigha Genduso texted her on December 11, 2023, which Ms. Gaetani posted online on November 9, 2025. And second, an email from Kate Peter to special prosecutor Kenneth Mello dated February 14, 2024, which Kate Peter forwarded to Lindsey Gaetani on February 22, 2024, and Lindsey then forwarded to the defense on November 11, 2025. Oh hey, Leigha Genduso, you made it into a court filing! God bless America! Look at that, ladies and gentlemen—Leigha Genduso is in the Aidan “Turtleboy” Kearney case. She's going to be so pleased. I have to do a tweet about this. I'm posting about this right now. Ladies and gentlemen, hold on—how do I phrase this? Kate Peter's Discord server is going to lose their ever-loving minds. Leigha Genduso has made her appearance in the Aidan Turtleboy Kearney case, and it is glorious. Who hid that recording from the defense? God bless the United States of America. I should join the defense bar—I think I'm going to do it. Oh, Adam Deitch just announced he's running for Norfolk DA, by the way—the guy from the federal investigation into John O'Keefe's death. God bless us all. How do you even spell Genduso? G-E-N-D-U-S-O. Can I call her Leigha Bathtub Genduso? I feel like that's reasonable. Lindsey's trying to make that a thing, and I think it should be a thing. Leigha Bathtub Genduso has made her appearance, and Bossy Texas Chicken Bella are listening with all their towel ears. Here we go—let's do it. Oh, Kate Peter's in there too. God bless America. This is a glorious day. Listen, listen—now I know my Towel Mom best. I'll take the slings and arrows. This is freaking amazing. About time. Goddamn Kate Peter and Leigha Genduso—goddamn little towels. They're not towels; they're anti-towels. Is there such a thing as an anti-towel? If there is, it's Kate Peter. We thought maybe it was other people—it was Kate Peter all along. She's an anti-towel. Yes, it is glorious. Kate Peter and Leigha Bathtub Genduso have taken center stage in the remaining Aidan Turtleboy Kearney cases, and Lindsey Gaetani is on a wrecking path. Somebody check on Kate's Discord server—it's probably chaos. I'm hilarious, you've got to admit. I'm endearing and hilarious. Who else just narrates writing their Twitter posts as they write them? It's very meta, you know what I'm saying? I can't take forever with this though—I have to be somewhat of an erudite and informed little towel. We've got to continue. I'm tagging Lindsey because she's a little towel. You're a little towel. I'm clearly overly excited. Wow, it's all happening at the same time. What a day. God bless these United States of America. I'm never going to get to eat if all this keeps happening—I'm just running in circles. Look at that—Kate Peter had ex parte contact with one of the special prosecutors working for the Norfolk DA, and now there's a record of it. Kate's Discord server might not survive. She's got a November 25 hearing on her open felony charges where the issue is the Norfolk DA's conflict because of their contact with Kate Peter. Mark this day on your calendar, ladies and gentlemen: November 18, 2025—the day the online world related to Karen Read, John O'Keefe, Turtleboy, Lindsey Gaetani, Brian Tully, Michael Proctor, Yuri Bukhenik, the Norfolk DA, and everything else all went to hell in a handbasket. Their worlds have imploded. Kate Peter had direct ex parte contact with members of the Norfolk DA's office, and there is now evidence in the hands of Aidan Turtleboy Kearney. This could be huge for Kate's November 25 hearing where her relationship to the DA's office is at issue. The revenge of Lindsey Gaetani. Lindsey Gaetani will be a prosecution and defense trial witness. She voluntarily cooperated with the prosecution against Mr. Kearney from December 2023 until approximately September 2025. During that period, she met and spoke with Detective Lieutenant Brian Tully, Mr. Mello, and Mr. Cosgrove. Her direct contact with Mr. Mello and Detective Lieutenant Tully resulted in Mr. Mello being disqualified from a now-dismissed 2024 case because his interactions with her made him a material defense witness. On December 14, 2023, she was interviewed by Detective Lieutenant Tully and Mr. Mello's investigator. On December 22, 2023, she was summoned to testify before the grand jury. In January 2024, she voluntarily provided her cell phone to Detective Lieutenant Tully for the MSP to prepare an extraction report, under a promise by Ken Mello and Tully that it would be redacted. On January 22, 2024, Detective Lieutenant Tully applied for a search warrant to seize Karen Read's cell phones. Information from Ms. Gaetani served as a substantial source of the probable cause in Tully's affidavit—paragraphs 72 to 89, I'd say a good 12 to 15 paragraphs dedicated to her. Mr. Cosgrove is currently seeking to search Ms. Read's phones in anticipation of seeking an indictment against her and Mr. Kearney for conspiracy to commit witness intimidation. What the fuck? That's it. I'm just trying to eat my fucking lunch, and now this? Aiden Turtleboy Kearney's lawyers have confirmed in a bombshell filing that special prosecutor Robert Cosgrove is aiming to search Karen Read's phones for the purpose of criminally indicting Kearney and Read. This is outrageous. They were never going to really charge Kearney—it was all to get to Karen. I told you! Somebody get me a soapbox! Peep Bunny Towel! Peep Bunny Towel! Peep Bunny Towel! [Peep Bunny Towel squeaking in the background] I woke him up very rudely. I'm sorry, Peep—I'll give you food in a second. I am having a day! This has been a ridiculous fucking day. First I just wanted to cover a regulatory hearing, and now I'm forced to use my comfort Peep Bunny Towel because there have been so many developments. First Brian Walsh pleading guilty to two charges but going to trial on first-degree murder, then Karen Read announcing she's suing basically the entire town of Canton, then the 46-page filing, then the Farwell filing, then down the rabbit hole on the sealed affidavit—and now all hell is breaking loose. Leigha Genduso and Kate Peter are probably running around like chickens with their heads cut off, and the reason Cosgrove and Tully were seizing Karen's phones all the way back in January 2024 was because their plan was to charge Karen and Aidan together. Ladies and gentlemen, someone get my broom—I don't even know what to say anymore. This is outrageous. I'm joining the defense bar. I've had enough prosecutorial misconduct. I'm done. On February 1 and 22, 2024, Ms. Gaetani testified before a grand jury that returned indictments against her. In June 2025, Mr. Cosgrove called her as a prosecution witness against herself in a district court trial, and she was acquitted of all charges notwithstanding her own testimony. In the past few months, Ms. Gaetani has publicly accused numerous prosecution witnesses and sources—including Kate Peter, Leigha Genduso, Detective Lieutenant Tully, and Jen McCabe—of assorted misconduct that adversely impacts their credibility. On September 5, 2025, she sued Mr. Cosgrove and Detective Lieutenant Tully for intentional infliction of emotional distress and interfering with her rights by threat, intimidation, or coercion. That same day she served notice of intent to sue the Norfolk DA. As a result of her civil complaint against him, Mr. Cosgrove voluntarily withdrew from the 2024 case, recognizing the obvious conflict when a prosecutor is sued for intentionally harming a witness in a case he is prosecuting. Thank you, Peep Bunny Towel—this is a day if I've ever seen a day. I'll go back to reading the document. I mean, how do you even make sense of this? There's like 70,000 words, Peep Bunny Towel is in it, it won't stop—it's just more and more and more. Thank you, Peep Bunny Towel. All right, he says I can get through it. Let's do it. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a day. This is a day if I've ever seen a day. Let me tell you right now—this is a day. On February 1st and 22nd of 2024, Ms. Gaetani testified before a grand jury that returned indictments against Ms. Gaetani. In June of 2025, Ms. Gaetani was called by Mr. Cosgrove as a prosecution witness against Ms. Gaetani in a district court trial. Notwithstanding Ms. Gaetani's own testimony, Ms. Gaetani was acquitted of all charges. In the past few months, Ms. Gaetani has publicly accused numerous prosecution witnesses and sources—including Ms. Peter, Ms. Genduso, Detective Lieutenant Tully, and Jen McCabe—of assorted misconduct or other issues that adversely impact their credibility. See Bederow/Yannetti's October 2nd filing, paragraphs 90 through 98. On September 5th, 2025, Ms. Gaetani sued Mr. Cosgrove and Detective Lieutenant Tully for, among other things, intentional infliction of emotional distress and interfering with her rights by threat, intimidation, or coercion. I think that had to do with the release of one specific report—it wasn't about her phone; it was about a report on something that's very intense. That same day, Ms. Gaetani also served notice of her intent to sue the Norfolk DA because of the harm Mr. Cosgrove and Det. Lt. Tully allegedly caused her. I'm still not totally sure where he's getting that from—I went to the docket, I read the filing, and I still don't fully understand what he's referring to there. Maybe he's reading something I'm not. I don't know. And finally, point 13: As a result of Ms. Gaetani's civil complaint against him, Mr. Cosgrove voluntarily withdrew from the prosecution of the now-dismissed 2024 case because he, quote, “recognized the obvious conflict created by circumstances where a prosecutor is sued for intentionally harming a witness in a case where he is prosecuting.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1991823086832804341/amplify_video_thumb/1991821461842022400/img/I5txItLQnTsET-PX.jpg)
