Category Archives: Law

October 18, 2024 · 10:17

An interesting twist

There is an interesting  twist on the premise of timing happening. It is given to us by Politico. The headline ‘Khashoggi death: Saudi ambassador reveals new details’ and I have more than one reason. We read the statement by Prince Khalid bin Bandar al Saud. I would like to add that I presented ‘evidence’ (of a sort) on July 4th 2017 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2019/07/04/demanding-dismissal/) with ‘Demanding Dismissal’. And after that a little more on the 10th of September in ‘Squid rings of theatrics’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/09/10/squid-rings-of-theatrics/) it is nice that others are catching on and I do not blame Prince Khalid bin Bandar al Saud on this, but the media? Yes, the media is pricing itself out of the game really fast now. The article gives us “Speaking to POLITICO’s Power Play podcast, Ambassador Prince Khalid bin Bandar al Saud rejected the claim, insisting that the Saudi royal family continues to oppose the version of events backed by the U.S. as well as the U.K. And he disclosed that those the regime claims were responsible are still alive — casting rare light on the fate of the individuals blamed for the assassination”. Yet here he forgets one player. The United Nations and in particular Agnes Calamard (aka Eggy Calamari), I still have the UN document online where close to a dozen pieces on debate come into play. We also get “A detailed, declassified 2021 CIA report concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had approved the operation during which Khashoggi was brutally murdered and dismembered, possibly after an attempt to kidnap him in the consulate where he had gone to pick up documents for his wedding to his Turkish fiancée” showing us the larger folly (read: failure of the CIA) to dig into the truth. Don’t get me wrong, I was not part on any of this, as such I am a bystander at best, but I can read and illuminate the stupidity of others is a part time hobby of me, as such I found 5 items in the first hour giving us doubt on the entire issue and what is more important, the media neglected actions on ANY of this. More important they were speculatively deciding to fuel this fire to gain digital dollars for their presumptuous aiding the United Nations, as well as other players having the need to bash Saudi Arabia.

One hour that a simple man like me needed and I handed everyone the goods on what I found and where I found it (except the ‘claimed’ evidence that he was on Bora Bora with a mistress, because there was no evidence on this claim). 

Then we get to “Speaking to host Anne McElvoy, the kingdom’s top diplomat in London described the death and dismemberment of Khashoggi as “an awful crime — a stain on our country, not just the government but every Saudi out there,” while firmly denying any complicity by the powerful Saudi monarch.” My issue on this is ‘Where are the body parts?’ I saw the image that the Daily Mail giving us (I believe it was the Daily Mail) an image of some random person holding a trash-bag, which could have been any trash. That paper lined itself with protection stating somewhere there ‘could have been’ and/or ‘we suspect’ all tidied up. I personally believe that here Prince Khalid bin Bandar al Saud was wrong. You see, this is not a stain on Saudi Arabia, but a stain on the media. To the need of (what I expect to be) the drive for digital dollars the media made themselves the culprit, losing whatever credibility they thought they had.

And for me it is a nice twist on this all. You see I presented these facts going back more than 5 years and in the meantime the media, as well as (wannabe) writers Bradley Hope and Justin Scheck who gave us the fictional story ‘Blood and Oil’ they all ran the money mill to stamp out their revenue using Saudi Arabia as the source of their income. 

The nice twist is that these western lies are now pointing in another direction, is it an option? I think it dies, but the likelihood that Israel did this is remote at best. Who else? Well I have some ideas on this but they are highly speculative and completely absent of evidence. I’ll let the media dig their own hold deeper in this.

But this twist that Politico handed me is putting a smile on my face. On this rainy Friday 5 years of looking into the matter is showing a new sign of life and that is not the best part of this. What was once ‘massive’ evidence can now be proclaimed as useless. You see, none of these reports did a forensic investigation into the tapes of Khashoggi’s ‘interrogation’ the reports give us that no one listened to the entire tape. There is no forensic evidence on the tape and that has been cleverly ‘hidden’ in the full texts. The one part that could have made the Khashoggi case a real case was ignored by the Media, the CIA and the United Nations. 

So how do you like your kippers? With or without aioli?

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 12, 2024 · 16:11

The afterthought

It is Reuters that gave us ‘Exclusive: Stop Israel from bombing Iran’s oil sites, Gulf states urge US’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/stop-israel-bombing-irans-oil-sites-gulf-states-urge-us-2024-10-11/) Now normally this doesn’t bother or alert me, but after the 6th when I wrote ‘Is it merely political?’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2024/10/06/is-it-merely-political/) where we got to see “A loophole allows middlemen in countries like Turkey, China and India to refine Russian oil in petrol and diesel before selling it elsewhere — exempt from sanctions. According to a report first seen by POLITICO, Western countries spent $2 billion on this rebranded fuel in the first half of 2024” Now we see Gulf states all ‘worried’ about Iran, or are they perhaps worried about the cheap deal they have from Iran counting in the billions? A setting that most of us ignored as we were unaware of the loophole. But now, even after Iran threatens Israel, we are given “Gulf states are lobbying Washington to stop Israel from attacking Iran’s oil sites because they are concerned their own oil facilities could come under fire from Tehran’s proxies if the conflict escalates, three Gulf sources told Reuters” and in the article we aren’t given any names are we? Which Gulf sources? I think that we are entitled those answers, are we not? Isn’t it interesting that Reuters missed that beat, but then the media is becoming less and less reliable. And it makes sense that the first thing Israel goes after is the money, hence the oil. And in all of this Gulf states are urging the US to stop Israel from bombing oil sites? Who are the stake holders, what Gulf nations are involved and how is that money flowing? More important how can we track that money. How can we expose these exploiters? 

These are all questions that are derived from the article on the 6th of October that Politico gave us. If they rebranded 2 billion of Russian oil, there is nothing to stop us thinking that Iran gave others a lot more and from the gulf states there is plenty of players around to do whatever it takes to get a share of a mere 50 million and this has been going on for a while (a speculative thought). The Russia story came out relatively fast, but the Iran dilemma has been going on for decades and now with the Hezbollah eradication as well as the pounding of Hamas, these stake holders are worried that their well dries up and now they are speculatively crying like little bitches that their free ride is drying up. OK, that might have been a little over the top but the sentiment comes across, does it not? Now, I could be wrong, one sides does not prove the other. To put it simplistically every cube is a orthotope, not every orthotope is a cube. As such what is happening in Russia might not happen in Iran. On the other hand, what was set in motion to be applied to Iran was pretty much a setting for Russia as well. And the media isn’t asking questions, why not?

Until recently when Politico showed us the loophole no one asked questions and now they should have asked a few questions, yet they still are not. How weird is that?

Apply that to the fact that we are merely give “three Gulf sources told Reuters” and no one wakes up? Why is that?Journalists are not that dim, as such, I suspect that at least one stakeholders has a larger finger in the journalism pie of Reuters. Just a thought to consider.

Have a great weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 9, 2024 · 23:48

Personal perception

It is always funny to see greed and stupidity in one compact package. In this instance I am introducing you to the American department of Justice. The one that will not prosecute Microsoft, the one that hands their economy to China and the one that throws away whatever economic options they have. Hobbled by ego trippers without a clue, chastised by a failing religion, one nation under the league of flaccid atheists. 

Is that clarity enough? In comes the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62504lv00do) giving us ‘Google threatened with being broken up by US’ where we see “The US government is considering seeking the break-up of the world’s biggest search engine, Google, which it accuses of causing “pernicious harms” to Americans.” Really? The US government is accusing Google of “irreparable harm done through evil or insidious corrupting or undermining”? Who is the idiot making that accusation? Lets have a rundown

It was founded in 1998 by Sergey Brin and Larry Page. They released Google search and they were clever they had the IP properly patented. Two clever dudes designed something that Microsoft never considered. Microsoft who was licking the rear end of the CFO’s of the fortune 500 were outsmarted by two students who gave people a system they needed, they handed system the people needed. So in this daytime and age, who would you rather appeal to? 500 persons who think they know it all, or a few million who are happy to be grateful? One implies money, the other gives you clusters of happy workers. In 2010 they improved the search engine making it twice as fast. At that point they had the cornerstone of modern telecom electronics. And  that is when 4G came out. And Google became the power player it is today. The story is a little more complex but this is the gist of it. The power player who proclaimed to be innovating were surpassed by two students who actually were innovative. Apple took the option of letting the innovators be and offered their technology for a large payout. 

There is more to all this, but the lowdown is that innovators recognise other innovators (YouTube) and they came up with Google Ads and in all that time the so called innovators (Microsoft) couldn’t even get close to what Google designed. They failed to offer a decent search engine (Bing) and they had nothing to offer against Google Ads (Microsoft Advertising) they failed 4 times over. And now we get stakeholders to push for breaking up Google. So let’s see how stupid that is.

In 2019 Huawei created HarmonyOS. In 5 years it created a decently worthy opponent to Android. It is now available in 77 languages. Last year it created HarmonyOS NEXT. It allows several smart devices to talk to one another. We can speculate that Harmony OS NEXT is more than a worthy opponent to Google. It will allow Huawei to hand the people in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East with mobile solutions that will be happily accepted in the houses there. That is what the DoJ is achieving. And this is not the first time they are interfering where they seemingly have little knowledge. And for me it could open another door (yay me). 

All this matters because Huawei Harmony OS NEXT will enable seamless interactions among a wide array of device forms, from earphones and automobile head units to smart TVs and mobile phones. Google does this with the devices they have, but until now they had no real competitor, Microsoft was too soft and not enough micro and beside that they are spread too thin. Now that the DoJ is seemingly planning to break up Google Huawei gets a nice clean playing field to promote their brand outside the USA and with that America loses more and more market share. So whatever deceitful claim America makes They are about to be sliced and diced in the mobile industry by Huawei, TikTok (ByteDance) for video and on the electronic field by Tencent. Three companies that have real innovators and the one innovator that needs the space to continue their work is hobbled by “If the DOJ pushes ahead with the proposed remedies – and they are accepted by the judge in the case – it would represent arguably the biggest regulatory intervention in the history of big tech” which hands a clear victory to Chinese entrepreneurs. How silly they are.

As I see it, they are about to lose seven times over with the losses they have and looking at timeline of the innovators, the stakeholders as I personally see it are handing Chinese companies massive victories and I reckon that those ‘siding’ with America will change sides to the Chinese corporations before the ink dries of whatever bankrupt statement America gives the world and with the 35 trillion dollars they have less then 4 years to avoid that and I have no idea what happens to whatever Wall Street will side with. This is my personal perception of what is about to happen. Many will say that I will be wrong and I could be, but there is too much data siding with me and whilst these stakeholders get politicians to side with the need to line their pockets America keeps on losing more and more. 

In 2022, Saudi Arabia signed $4 billion worth of arms agreements with China, including deals for armed drones, ballistic missiles. In 2024 it has grown to $50 billion. This is partially important as I wrote on the 21st of February 2021 ‘How to miss out on $20,000,000,000’ And I was wrong, I stand corrected. Their revenue grew to $50 billion a mere three years later. I saw it coming a mile away and now it is happening. And the DoJ is making it worse. As I see it Google, Adobe, IBM and Oracle are the last of the real innovators and the DoJ is about to hobble one of these four, it will soon be that bad. 

As such, is my perception wrong? It might be, but my presumption has been a lot more correct than it has been wrong. No matter how you view it the entire Google mess is being mishandled (as I personally see it) pretty much from the beginning. 

And now America gives the option for a much larger win to Huawei Technologies. It will not impact  America, but Google is very likely to lose market share on several fronts. There is a much larger loss if Huawei would include TikTok on every Huawei mobile. Should these mobiles come with HarmonyOS NEXT the damage would increase and with their multi sharable sides Apple revenue would also be impacted as well as a loss of revenue to all kinds of accessories. These losses of revenue will hit Apple as well as Google. As I see it a simple creation of imbalance by people who (by my reckoning) have no clue on the internet of things. What a lovely present ego makes for others.

Enjoy the coming day.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 9, 2024 · 01:07

When the credit card stops

That is the setting for the US of A. The BBC gives us ‘US debt would increase under Harris and soar under Trump – study’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce81g9593dro). We are given that there is basically no escape for America, I have articles going back to 2018 where I give sight of what is coming. Oh, and by the way at what point do you cancel someones credit card? We are given “Donald Trump’s campaign proposals would increase the US national debt by double the amount Kamala Harris’s would, according to a new analysis by a non-partisan group.” We are also given “Trump would add $7.5tn” now consider that the interest on this would be around 450 billion, just on the increase alone. Now consider that the total debt is 500% larger and now consider that the US economy needs to come up 2.25 Trillion EACH YEAR to deal with the interest alone and I saw that coming 5 years ago and the news media and these so called financial experts never saw this? I do not believe this. We were all told and presented a story. And they are about to lose whatever leeway they thought they could hang over us. The media was the tool some were able to use (with what I speculatively see) as stake holders to ‘bring’ the presentation. And the media seemingly was left in the dark, or were they?

The problem is that we cannot see or prove any of this. But consider that I saw this coming for over 5 years and I do NOT have an economic degree. What makes you think that I am more clever than these financial wizard in the media (CNN, BBC, WSJ, the Guardian) and many more? Do you really think that they made a miscalculation? They isn’t nickel and dime stuff, this is about 35 trillion dollars. How much sneaky bookkeeping is involved to put such an amount under the tables? This would require the cooperation of media, banks and governments. So when your retirement falls away, who will you blame? The media? The Banks? The Governments? Seems ludicrous, almost some crazy conspiracy. But consider the facts. Consider the evidence and the avoidance of the media to address certain economic facts. That is not some cooky setting, the evidence is out there on the internet. Consider all the media and consider what the media never gave us. I can tell you more, but it is time to consider what I am telling you here and make your own mind up. 

Now consider that the EU had six trillion euros in taxable revenue in 2022. Now we see that America is optionally about to increase its debt more that the taxable income of 27 countries and it does not raise an issue? Now we know that plenty of EU countries have a GDP that equals an apple and an egg. But together they should amount to a fair amount considering that these countries have a total population of 449.2 million, which is a lot more than America (about 34%). Now consider that people pay taxation, companies pay taxation as well. But the tax breaks are mostly for companies. As such I look at the people. There is a baseline that extremely roughly applies and when that baseline is applied the numbers do not match up as I personally see it and I have seen this setting for over 5 years and the media ignores it all. 

Could I be wrong?
Yes definitely, but overall certain numbers create levels of equilibrium and I see that these numbers aren’t here at the moment. And the media seeing these debt levels fail them could also be seen as optional evidence. So how does it work? It seems clear that the media can no longer be trusted (in my opinion). So how to get the numbers? I cannot give you my sources, so you are a little on your own in that regard.

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 8, 2024 · 23:53

Making money

Yup, you can make money in three ways. You create it, you steal it, or you can make the government reimburse you. The third one is one that has its own risks. Yet the BBC informs us ‘Customers of failed crypto firm FTX set for refunds’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0qz3dg21vqo) Where we are given “Creditors of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX are poised to receive up to $16.5bn (£12.6bn) under a bankruptcy plan approved in the US on Monday.” And we get more with “Last year, former boss Sam Bankman-Fried was convicted of stealing customer funds ahead of the collapse and later sentenced to 25 years in prison. The deal will allow former customers to recover a sum worth about 119% of what they had in their accounts at the time of bankruptcy, according to FTX.” As such it seems that these customers get 19% on top of what they had in their accounts. There are ups and downs. We are also given “Some have suggested the repayment in cash will not match the loss of crypto holdings that would be worth far more today had they not been stolen. The value of bitcoin has more than tripled since November 2022.” As such I would surmise that someone went shopping with an approximate 180% of the total of sums. As the outstanding bill was set to “$8bn in customer funds were reported missing, not including debts to investors and others. Mr Ray’s team has since recovered assets worth $14.7-$16.5bn” As such 8 billion was found missing, Roughly double was retrieved and these customers only get 119%? I think there is a stinky fishy smell coming from the realm of banks. They might small consolation that Sam Bankman-Fried is convicted to 9125 days in Hotel Sing-Sing, but that might be merely the impression some feel. You see, the larger premise might be that we are given “the approval of the plan was a “significant milestone” in the firm’s efforts to repay the money to people and firms in more than 200 jurisdictions around the world” but the underlying issue that the BBC seems to ‘ignore’ is that people like Elisabeth Holmes and Sam Bankman-Fried (aka SBM) are given way to much leeway. Holmes was given 11 years imprisonment, where the Guardian on May 8th gave us that her sentence was reduced by two years and four months before original date. As such her sentence is reduced by almost 20%, so what reductions is SBM looking forward to? If is is a similar 20%, he could be out by 2044 and if he plays nice (good behaviour) he might be out even sooner that that. As such we might surmise that crime pays nowadays. And the media will milk these two for whatever they can be milked for. 

Enjoy the day ahead of you.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

October 6, 2024 · 20:05

Is it merely political?

That was the thought I had. It came from Politico, as such I would believe that it was political. Yet the larger premise is on the setting of circumstance. This sounds weirdly spooky, but it is the best I can offer. The story (at https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-war-economy-pain-saudi-arabia-sink-global-oil-prices-energy-russia-opec/) starts with ‘Putin’s war economy faces pain if Saudis sink global oil prices’ which is a partial truth, but it goes further then that. We are given “A Saudi move to grab market share will squeeze the Kremlin’s finances, experts argue” which is only a partial truth. The entire part is followed by “Riyadh is increasingly frustrated with other petrostates’ failure to coordinate on cutting supply to raise oil prices to about $100 per barrel — up from the current $70. Oil traders say Saudi Arabia is now set to respond by flexing its muscles and turning the tables on smaller producers, exporting more oil itself to grab market share and profits, even as prices fall.” We are also given “The Financial Times reported last week that Saudi Arabia could abandon its long-held ambitions to limit the crude supply to push prices to around $100 a barrel. Oil market experts have little doubt that Saudi Arabia has the enormous production and export capacity to change tactics and gun for market domination through volume instead.” In this view I need to align a few positions. What is missing is that America (the United Kingdom also) are depending in keeping oil cheap. So that is missing. Hanging it on the Russian needs is a bit dorky. Yes, they both matter, but the US an EU need for cheap oil missing as a pre-made need, is just dorky (I can’t find a better word for this). You see when there is a lack of a commodity prices go up and now this fails? The world requires (at present) that 2.4 million barrels per day pumped more than now and that is not done. I actually speculated this a year ago when I stated that we can pump 4 barrels at $3, or 3 barrels at $4. The amount gained is still the same but at 25% less oil. It is a simple equation (and an incorrect version) but the the premise remains. I went through to the next stage that Saudi Arabia could pump 2 barrels as the price goes up to $6, still the same revenue but now at half the oil delivered. This is how commerce works on commodities. I still doubt the statement that the $100 per barrel cannot be reached, I merely believe that certain stakeholders want the premise to keep their pockets lined. How? I cannot tell, I am not an oil person, I merely use it through various means. So what gives? 

When we get to ““The global economy is fairly sluggish and oil demand is not as high as the Saudis would want,” said Ajay Parmar, director of oil markets analytics at commodities intelligence firm ICIS.” I have issues here. You see, this means that the Russia delivers all oil. There is not a lack of demand, some people are playing a high end game to keep their pockets lined. If I had it my way (pretend that I am the new CEO of Aramco, a very fake one) I would stop 5.5 million barrels a day from reaching the US, EU and UK, in the combination 3,2 and .5 it would take less than 90 days for it all to implode. As Tesla is more and more lacking is quality, the other nations will need 2-3 years to overcome their downfall and in that time China is the new superpower with America stumbling over the edge of the abyss. That is clear in my (optionally wrong) point of view. The setting that Politico gives is too partial and slightly too flawed. 

Yes Russia has a problem and they are welcome to the problems they get to harvest now. A second problem is “Russia’s fossil fuel profits have also risen by 41 percent in the first half of this year alone, according to Moscow’s finance ministry, despite Western sanctions imposed over the war in Ukraine.” I don’t doubt these numbers, but who paid for that oil? I doubt is was merely China, North Korea and India. Although these countries were involved. I saw last year that India was buying some of the oil, China is a definite and I guess that North Korea had to pay for their weapons and it seems like a logical choice for them to accept oil as payment. So who more? 

Politico should have stated “Russia’s fossil fuel profits have also risen by 41 percent (from 1M barrels to 1.41M barrels)” but they didn’t if Russia only sold 50,000 barrels it will not be an issue, but that is not the case, is it?

Now if you doubt my reasoning. That is fine. But we have seen plenty of issues where prices go up the moment that commodities has a higher demand. Yet the article does not give us that does it? And who is Ajay Parmar? This article leaves me with plenty of questions and no answers. So in all this, Is Russia in actual trouble? To some degree, but I see this as an alternative way for Saudi Arabia to give in to the west requiring cheap oil. I personally believe that Politico missed their mark and as such loses credibility as such. The one part that I do see is “A loophole allows middlemen in countries like Turkey, China and India to refine Russian oil in petrol and diesel before selling it elsewhere — exempt from sanctions. According to a report first seen by POLITICO, Western countries spent $2 billion on this rebranded fuel in the first half of 2024” As such that should be the story and the story is that more and more nations are fuelling Russian revenue through refining Russian oil and filling their pockets. As such there is a momentum being built, one that is not addressed and one that is trivialised as such I expect that plenty of newspapers will fuel their revenue by posting this story. The 41% is now shown to be big business, especially when we see Turkey and India and how they are short on cash pretty much all of the time.

So we are seeing a larger stage. In the first on where is Russian oil going to and in the second what countries are fuelling their demands for cheap oil? A nice spreadsheet would have been nice, but that was a part that Politico oversaw (I guess).

Still as we see one part, we also see the part that some want us to see, appointed awareness. A combination of social awareness and the influence of appointing. A formal arrangement to create a designed social awareness. The ability to understand a situation as the offical parties would like others to see them. But as I see it, this will be at the expense of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Is that fair all whilst Russia is handed loophole after loophole, as long as the west gets its oil cheap. How is this not exploitation? 

Consider what is being done and at what expense? The question is simple enough. 

Enjoy the Sunday you have left to you.

4 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 4, 2024 · 21:11

Accepted doubt

This is on my, or better stated my view on matters. In this case it is the Reuters article ‘Exclusive:  Kushner has discussed U.S.-Saudi diplomacy with Saudi crown prince’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/kushner-has-discussed-us-saudi-diplomacy-with-saudi-crown-prince-2024-10-04/) which was released less than 30 minutes ago. I have had serious doubt on the media on a near global stage and at this moment Reuters has gained several points towards doubt. Yet, in this case I am willing to put doubt on my ability to see things clearly. 

So, lets take a look.

“The news that Kushner and Saudi Arabia’s de-facto leader discussed a peace accord”, here we see the statement “de-facto leader”, we know that Saudi Arabia still has a king, but what stops Reuters to state “The news that Kushner and Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud discussed a peace accord”, both are in principle correct. Yet the Reuters statement comes across as Saudi bashing. ‘To put a person in its place’ might be the interpretation as many would see it, especially in the Middle East. Then we get “renew questions about whether Kushner’s financial ties with Riyadh could influence U.S. policy under his father-in-law”, so what is the issue here? It is a serious question because the article does not give us a complete report on what those ties are, we get a link to the Hill, there we see ““crossed the line of ethics” by accepting a $2 billion investment from the Saudi government in his private investment firm six months after he left the White House” my question in this is were laws broken? You see, the investment was done AFTER he left the White House. So were laws broken, or were they not. 

Then we get “To encourage Saudi Arabia to recognise Israel, the Biden administration has offered Riyadh security guarantees, assistance with a civilian nuclear program and a renewed push for a Palestinian state. The deal could reshape the Middle East by uniting two long-time foes and binding the world’s biggest oil exporter to Washington at a time when China is making inroads in the region” How come that China is diminished with “when China is making inroads in the region” and what is this about “assistance with a civilian nuclear program”. My issue is that China has been making inroads for the better part of two years. As such making inroads, comes across as a joke, massively inaccurate. So why was the civilian nuclear program added? Could be true, could be anything. But the media at present has a massive credibility issue and whilst space on a webpage is nearly free, Reuters is a little stingy on using it.

Last we get to “The Saudi relationship with Trump was notably close. Trump’s first foreign trip as president in 2017 was to Riyadh, accompanied by Kushner. After Saudi expatriate opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Trump stood by the crown prince in spite of a U.S. intelligence assessment that he had authorised the killing. MbS denied involvement.” Is filled with inaccuracies. No clear evidence has been produced that Khashoggi was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Turkey, there was an assumption and the setting that “U.S. intelligence assessment that he had authorised the killing” is even more inaccurate. The document A/HRC/41/CRP.1 which was given to the world by the Human Rights Council does not give us that either. In that report U.S. Intelligence is mentioned twice. In one case we are given “The Directive states that if a U.S. intelligence agency “acquires credible and specific information indicating an impending threat of intentional killing, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping,” that agency has a duty to warn the intended victim.” No mention of authorisation or anything regarding an order by Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud. I am adding that document at the bottom. As such I have issues with the Reuters article. 

There is more but read the article yourself. The article hands us a pice of evidence that Reuters is losing credibility. 

I am not a Trump fan, but at present there is a larger stage and the Biden administration of fumbling the ball, and as issues go at present, China will be a large bigger inroad in the Middle East (Saud Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) in 2025 and I have to wonder how much inroad they will make in Egypt in 2025.

But I hope that the message comes across. And in the second stage, what laws did Kushner break? Because in the end that is what matters. 

Have a great day

a_hrc_41_crp.1Download

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 2, 2024 · 07:57

Greed and stupidity, aligned and enhanced

That is the trouble at times. When captains of ‘industry’ push for legal ‘solutions’ as they seemingly fall short of investor expectations. Well that is how I see it and the Herald Sun (at https://www.heraldsun.com/news/business/article293290914.html) hands you this with ‘Cary’s Epic Games sues Google again. Here’s what the new lawsuit claims.’ In this alignment we are given “As a federal judge weighs what corrective steps Google must take to remove barriers surrounding its Play Store, Cary’s Epic Games has accused the internet search giant of finding a new unlawful way to protect its Android app store monopoly.” I wonder how non-intelligent the connected judge is. You see the Play-store needs more protection, not less. When we are given “create an obstacle for Android owners to use third-party app stores like the Epic Games Store. Epic Games’ latest lawsuit focuses on a Samsung program called Auto Blocker, which stops users from downloading apps from sources other than the Google Play Store or Samsung Galaxy Store.” The danger is that ANY third party app store raises the danger of hackers and/or organised crime to get access to our mobile devices. And I will not allow ANY non-Google player to access my device. In addition, the judge is seen as the culprit if there isn’t a clear message that any play store can be prosecuted for transgressions on our mobile devices and sued for damages to our digital person as well as prosecuted of for data transgressions. This is what I saw coming when I wrote Epic downfall on November 12th 2021 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/11/12/epic-downfall/), when I wrote “I reckon that first issues will emerge within 3 months of the alternative to ApplePay path and it will not take long until lawyers will suit up for class actions all worth billions. Epic will need a lot more lawyers soon enough and it will cost them. It could constitute the dangers (for Epic) that 2021 started the downfall that could have been avoided, a setting they caused themselves and the greedy hackers saw a clear new target, Epic Games with a bullseye. A bullseye that will be painted on their CEO and CFO, what a wild web we tend to weave.” And now Epic goes on suing more (or better stated in other directions). There is a massive call of holding Epic Games accountable for what comes next, will the judge take that into account. All the people that Epic Games endangered for allowing this danger to reach over 800,000,000 devices? I guess not, but then we now have a picture as given in the Durham Herald Sun, so when your device is hacked due to these proceedings, I suggest to look him up and demand an explanation in person. 

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gaming, IT, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

October 1, 2024 · 19:11

Two words

I saw an article by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj31lpvnzl3o) where we are given ‘Netflix fails to get Baby Reindeer lawsuit dropped’ where we are given “The show, created by Richard Gadd, is billed as “a true story”, but certain key events, like the conviction for stalking, did not happen in real life, the judge concluded.” As we look at the ‘facts’ I got the idea that Netflix has a few more problems then they were ready for. Were they really ready for cutting the workforce? In 2023 we were given “The streaming giant said it was cutting 300 more jobs – roughly 4% of its workforce – mostly in the US, after axing 150 people in May” I wonder if one person was made redundant when that person could have given us the same solution that I had in mind and it would have saved them a court case. Instead of handing the viewer “a true story” when two words made the difference through “based on a true story” the word based hands the amounts of alleged inaccuracies towards creative writing and possibly makes the court case  thrown out and the defamation lawsuit falls flat. Now, I could be wrong here, but that I how I see it. In the meantime Netflix will optionally have a larger issue. When defamation becomes proven you will see dozens of involved people go over every movie that Netflix had on their channel for 2-5 years. Leave it to people to see their greed driven pupils draw attention towards that what could leave them loaded with cash. Perhaps a little skeptical, but that is where I am. You see if I could come up with the two words that could save Netflix a defamation case? Why didn’t Netflix come up with that.  But there is more, the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/sep/30/fiona-harvey-baby-reindeer-defamation-lawsuit-richard-gadd-netflix) gives us “the show was wrongly billed as a “true story” when Netflix “made no effort” to fact check Gadd’s story or disguise Harvey as the inspiration for Martha”. You see the fact check is another matter. I think that my suggestion could have prevented the case, but the fact check is another matter. I believe that any script writer could be ‘blamed’ for creative writing to give space towards super shrinking the alleged defamation case, but that is merely my point of view. So, what happens at Netflix? That is the question but that should require a lot more consideration on the structure of Netflix. To this part I raise the fact checking and the optional allotment of two words. And there  might be more issues in the weeds. For this I would need a lot more knowledge in the inner working of Netflix and my script(s) are meant for Dubai Media and the SBA (Al Arabiya in particular). So whilst the Guardian gives us “US district judge Gary Klausner noted that because the show’s episodes begin with the line “This is a true story”, it invited viewers to take the story as fact.” As such they didn’t need two more words, they merely needed to change the first two words and that was not done. As I see it, if I interpret the words by US district judge Gary Klausner correctly, my change would negate his observation, or so I believe.

How much would I have saved Netflix, and to be brazen, can I have a slice of that? It might be easier to ask Sergey Brin for $11,000,000 post taxation and a Canadian passport, but I don’t have his phone number. You see, even I am drawn in towards optional cash, but it doesn’t control me or make me greed driven. That is merely the smaller (and optionally more desperate) cluster of people.

Have a great day. We are all on the Wednesday clock. From Vancouver in the East through to Wellington in the west. 

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Stories

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 28, 2024 · 00:09

The partial view that is seen

This partial view comes from the BBC. When I looked at the article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz04depp2nro) the headline gave us ‘Can diplomacy bring Middle East ceasefire? Early signs don’t bode well’ it was the second part of the headline that woke me up. We are given “What they meant was they saw getting an agreement from key European countries and Arab states, led by Washington, as a big diplomatic achievement during the current explosive escalation. But this was world powers calling for a ceasefire – not a ceasefire itself.” It holds part of the problem I see. We also get “The statement urges both Israel and Hezbollah to stop fighting now, using a 21-day truce, “to provide space” for further mediated talks. It then urges a diplomatic settlement consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented. It also calls for agreement on the stalled Gaza ceasefire deal.” The first part that got to me was “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented” There were ‘signals’ that were seemingly ignored. “It was unanimously approved by the United Nations Security Council on 11 August 2006. The Lebanese cabinet unanimously approved the resolution on 12 August 2006. On the same day, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said that his militia would honor the call for a ceasefire. He also said that once the Israeli offensive stops, Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on Israel would stop. On 13 August the Israeli Cabinet voted 24–0 in favour of the resolution, with one abstention. The ceasefire began on Monday, 14 August 2006 at 8 AM local time, after increased attacks by both sides.” Now we ‘see’ the message that the resolution (1701) was never properly implemented. It has been basically 18 years. So what wasn’t properly implemented? Why do we see this now after 18 years? My issue is that there are a number of issues, and there are more players than Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas involved. The journalists taking a back seat to whatever digital dollars they are trying to get. The second are the politicians, both the involved and those connected. So why did we not see the repeated messages (via the media) to state who is was lacking in implementation and why?

So there is more than the early signs. As I personally see it there is a lack of follow up in these cases. 

We then get “intensive diplomacy led by Washington has failed to reach a ceasefire and hostage release deal between Israel and Hamas, with the US currently blaming a lack of “political will” by Hamas and Israel. Meanwhile, the US has continued to arm Israel. That doesn’t inspire confidence that Washington and its allies can now strong-arm Israel and Hezbollah into a quick truce, especially given the fighting on the ground, the intensity of Israel’s air strikes and last week’s explosive pager attacks on Hezbollah, which has continued to fire into Israel.” The part that I do not agree with is “a lack of “political will” by Hamas and Israel.” My issue is that (possibly) both players here have seen a massive lack of commitment from several sides. The very first is given through “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented” I cannot tell who dropped the ball first, or which players lacked in their ‘commitments’ but there were players who failed (optionally merely Hezbollah and/or Israel), the simple setting taking us back 18 years as well as the fact that nowadays media (this last decade) is more driven to chase digital dollars then the news. That gives doubt to how far this thing goes. And it goes beyond the Lebanese borders. The setting that exists with Gaza is still evolving. The US administration, as well as the EU have been playing these settings fast and loose is a dangerous setting and these players are no longer regarded as reliable. That becomes the ball game. Mediation only works when the mediator or mediators are no longer trusted, no ceasefire will ever work. 

It is my speculation, one I had for many years is, that the EU and the USA have been playing a dangerous game, optionally staged towards ‘a one step tactic from destabilisation’ and in this the games that Iran is playing do not help and now that it all goes to (assumed) shit, no amount of ceasefire prays will offer any decent insight into any resolution. So the ‘early signs don’t bode well’ is to be expected. That is clear, is it not? 

If you wonder what can be done I am, like many others at a loss for words or advice. The problem is that too many player have had their own agenda in mind. That is less speculation, more presumption. In this I call for the first piece of evidence “United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 – adopted to end the last Israel-Lebanon war of 2006, which was never properly implemented” and the evidence is that in 1982 I worked for the United Nations Security Council, and they have failed to keep the audience (as far as I know) properly informed for 18 years? So what good were they? I understand that they do not inform the audience, but they do report, usually governments, and this gets to the media one way or another. As such I see a massive failure in play. And you wonder why either Israel or Hezbollah has issues with either (or both) America and the EU? I wonder if this setting is not better served by mediation through a joined council of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and USA. The USA is essential to get Israel on board. I doubt that they will accept merely the other three parties but that is merely my speculation in this.

So as I just sailed into the night of Saturday, have a great day and as Vancouver is trailing us by 17 hours. I can report to them that nothing is happening at 00:03. Have a great day, wherever you are.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,