Category Archives: Law

November 17, 2020 · 22:39

The jeopardy lingo

It seems fitting that I do see sort of Homage to Jeopardy, I was never a fan like a lot are, but Alex Trebek pretty much put his heart and soul into that and it seems fitting that we acknowledge that, if only for that one simple part. This article is largely based on the Al Jazeera article (at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/17/report-us-military-buying-location-data-on-popular-muslim-apps)

So as we see “US military buys location data of popular Muslim apps: Report”, the question becomes ‘Who bought a lot of religious tainted data?’ Yes the military did. It was a setting that was always going to happen and there is every indication that this has been going in for quite a while. It is one of the flags that I saw coming over a year ago setting the stage that Saudi Arabia with its (at present) vastly superior 5G might want to offer apps and such from their locality. Even though it is not about the apps, but consider all US and EU data missing Arabic data, it is something to think about and I saw this scenario taking shape some time ago. 

Next we get “several used by Muslims that have been downloaded nearly 100 billion times” gets us to the question ‘Who at Motherboard was unable to count and weight their data properly?’, yes another point for the blogger, the numbers indicate that the apps in question had been downloaded by every person on the planet at least 12 Tims, in light of the fact that less than to thirds of the planet has an internet capable phone makes the setting a little dubious. 

And as it is time to see “Monday found the US Special Operations Command was procuring location data from several companies”, we get to ‘What did US politicians allow to happen in light of personal privacy?’ Which is a loaded question by itself. You see there is every indication that a lot of people have all kinds of apps, there is another indication that those in the extreme know (those who know extreme actions taking place) have a digital footprint that is close to zero, as such I actually wonder how interesting the data is, as I downloaded the Quran on Android, they might have my details, well good luck to the and if they get personal details on Olivia Wilde, Laura Vandervoort, Leslie Bibb, Natasha McElhone or Olivia Munn, would US Special command please forward that to my personal phone? I gratefully thank you in advance for that. 

As such when we get to “the Motherboard investigation noted some companies obtain app location data when advertisers pay to insert their ads into peoples’ browsing sessions” we almost get to the end of round one where we wonder how foreign intelligence organisations react to the US military acquiring the location at a of its citizens. It is a slippery slope, you see if advertisers can buy it, why not the US military? Isn’t that a fair question? Stating that Halal Malik, on 34th street, best Islamic butcher in New York can get data, yet the US military can not is basically discrimination, as such there is a much larger station there and the question becomes, what additional data was given to the US Military that Malik was unable to get, which boils down to another level of discrimination. So when we get to Timmy the sea-rat Hawkins (allegedly his nickname) giving us “We strictly adhere to established procedures and policies for protecting the privacy, civil liberties, constitutional and legal rights of American citizens”, I reckon that it has the emphasis on ‘legal rights of American citizens’, anyone not in that group might not have any rights. So at that point we get to “it tracks 25 million devices inside the United States every month and 40 million elsewhere – including in the European Union, Latin America, and the Asia-Pacific region” we get to ‘What rights do the 40 million tracked mobile devices have?’, yup they allegedly have none, but that is a speculation from my side, in addition how many players outside of Al Jazeera have this and how much visibility will this part not get, especially in Europe, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. I reckon France (for obvious reasons) will go along with whatever the politicians connected to this will say to them. 

You see there is an almost dangerous setting when we see “US Senator Ron Wyden told Motherboard that X-Mode also admitted selling data it collected to other “US military customers”” I am setting the emphasis on ‘almost’, from my point of view if you have no issues with commercial corporations digging on your needs, then why object to governments doing the same thing? As I personally see it, there is a lot more to question when healthcare insurers get your data than the government does. It seems almost fair, they all get access, and this is what I stated again and again is the price of free apps and free social media, so now that the cat is out of the bag (he is just to the right of your peripheral vision) we will see all these people scream, shout and cry yet I wonder why and what do you have to hide? It pretty much boils down to something (I believe it was Stephen Fry) that was said “If you do not want your nude pictures on the internet, do not pose naked”, the man has a point and it is a point we can adapt or use in emphasis as the actor Chris Evans gave joy to a billion woman, whilst setting his staff to the notion to go vote. Yes that was an accidental unintended pun. 

So even if we consider both ends of the spectrum and the setting where we keep all our data sacred and separate, we will soon find that it is much to late for that. Apart from the things I reported recently giving some people 5 versions of the customer data, and part from these mishaps, there is a whole station of data that is on back-ups, legacy systems and there is close to no stage of any kind of legal rights. We saw the Guardian give us close to a year ago ‘NHS data is a goldmine. It must be saved from big tech’, if you really think that big tech is the larger danger you are quite out of your mind. Even now we see the emotional response to Islamic data on Al Jazeera, so how about your health data available for health instances to tweak your annual premium, or them adjusting the questionnaire? Did you consider the simple question ‘How often do you smoke?’, whilst most people automatically answer ‘Don’t smoke’, yet social media has you puffing something and the health records give them certain other parameters, so when they ask you for verification purposes, you unwillingly set yourself up for a massive price hike, or a stage where you might be discontinued as a customer when you actually need help, because they will claim you lied. The setting eludes a lot of people but it is an important stage, because there are close to a dozen other settings the will give you health issues when you turn 50, 60 and when you are pre-dead.

Which almost gets us to the question ‘Who, what, when, where, how, why for $50’ and you will see that the bulk of the people are not ready for what is linked behind it all.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Military, Politics

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

November 17, 2020 · 17:20

Cursed by choice

It is a setting some will remember, some fondly, some less so. It is a state where you have too much options. Let me try to explain this, for example, your iPod you find after a year and you see hundreds of songs you have not heard for some time, but you cannot decide, or perhaps a choice of 5 RPG games and you have select one to play. The inability to seek between good options if you want.

It is a setting the reflects on to situations. The first is the one, the only, the musk (Elon to insiders). BBC reports “Tesla’s share price surged about 14% in New York following the news it was being added to the index. Given Mr Musk’s 20% stake in Tesla his net worth rose to $117.5bn, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. His wealth has jumped $90bn this year as Tesla’s share price has continued to rise”, I look at the setting differently, some say he has the Midas gene, he can anything he touches to gold, I reckon like Steve Jobs and a few others, he has the ability to turn generic outliers into commercial successes. We can go from the fact he knows what is useful, we can go with he knows where to push, who to push and how much to push. We can look at it in different ways, but in basic “Tesla’s share price surged about 14% in New York following the news it was being added to the index. Given Mr Musk’s 20% stake in Tesla his net worth rose to $117.5bn, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. His wealth has jumped $90bn this year as Tesla’s share price has continued to rise”, and that is before he realises (perhaps he already knows) that he is optionally sitting on an additional $1.2 trillion (meaning $1,200 billion) and the wired has seemingly no caught on, I had a few ideas in support of that, but the IP is already his, so why bother, he will figure it out. And that is before he goes to space, there he might make a few coins more. 

It is one setting and the opposing view is seen when we look at the lovely youthful youngling known as Taylor Swift. That BBC view (at https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-54969396) gives us “Writing on Twitter Swift said it was “the second time my music had been sold without my knowledge””, here we want to answer in anger, yet the article also gives us “Swift signed a deal with record label Big Machine in 2004 granting them ownership of the master recordings to her first six albums in exchange for a cash advance to kick-start her career”, as such if there is no clause with a mandatory first option to buy back, I wonder if Scooter Braun did anything wrong. The news gives us that she signed over ownership on her first 6 albums, so I understand that she is not happy, but did Scooter do anything wrong? She is not the first, I learned a lot later in life that Paul McCartney has lost ownership of Beatles songs. I actually never knew that. And he is not alone, as such, and especially as we know and have seen that Taylor is very intelligent, why she learned her lesson the hard way. As one is cursed by many options, the other one was forced by a lack of options. The most dangerous part in all this is doing something expecting them to act in another, when we see “US entertainment magazine Variety first reported on Monday that Braun had sold the rights – known as masters – to an investment fund. It said the deal is thought to be worth more than $300 million (£227m)”, I wonder how much the songs were bought for, as such still, one third of a billion is a whole lot of money, I would not sell my IP for that (I would set it to a percentage of the patent value), yet overall I could be tempted. And there is a setting switch, it is about awareness, how many people in the music industry have a real grasp of IP and what it is worth nowadays. Games, movie, TV series, they are all in need of music and there is so much one can compose, it was perhaps one of Ubisoft most brilliant moments in all this, get well known songs or well known artists to support the IP, Imagine Dragons is perhaps one of the more known artists, it propelled the game, not merely the graphics, the music was a large part of it and Ubisoft was exceedingly clever there, they might not own the IP, but they knew a good deal when it was there and musicians need to catch up, especially in this age of Netflix and streaming. Now this is not an attack on Taylor Swift, this might have been her only option, yet the stage remains, what kind of legal advice did she get? I do not know, I am merely asking. So when I see (according to the BBC) “When his company, Ithaca Holdings, paid $300m to acquire Swift’s former record label last year, Swift saw it as an act of aggression that “stripped me of my life’s work”. She accused Braun – who also manages Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber and Demi Lovato – of “incessant, manipulative bullying”” we see a lot of emotion, but the stage is did Scooter Braun do anything wrong or illegal? We might say immoral and unethical but neither is a crime according to law and that is the setting we need to see and perhaps Taylor should have appealed to Elon Musk who has well over 3,000 times what she apparently needed, it is merely food for thought, although, I reckon that Elon gets a dozen of these attempts to contact an hour, and optionally when he figures out where his optional missing $1.2T is even more.

Such is life!
There are two groups cursed by choice, one group has too many, the other has (far) too few. Which one do you belong in? And what makes you think that you are in one or the other, because that contemplation tends to be a solution in itself at times.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Science

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

November 15, 2020 · 23:06

Dead on arrival?

Yes, we get the at times, not when the ambulance is racing to get to the ER with a guy wearing 10 knives in his chest, but a setting the is less obvious, almost like the movie dead on arrival, I saw the Dennis Quaid version (1988), I never saw the original from 1950. Yet in this version the victim (USA) does not yet know that it is carrying a deadly toxin, it was the benefit Dennis Quaid had in the movie. So as we see the USA in a stage of what they think matters, we see a larger stage, the stage Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) gives the people, with a still open invitation to India, it is the first time we get an economic bloc of this size where the USA is no longer a consideration, their 300 million consumers are in a stage where they can afford less and less. So as we get (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-54949260) “President Donald Trump pulled his country out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) shortly after taking office. The deal was to involve 12 countries and was supported by Mr Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama as a way to counter China’s surging power in the region”, we need to see the partial truth that was a problem, a global one. Some give us (in regard to the TPP “Most of the gains in income would have gone to workers making more than $87,000 a year. Free trade agreements contribute to income inequality in high-wage countries. They promote cheaper goods from low-wage countries”, in addition we get “The agreement regarding patents would have reduced the availability of cheap generics. That could have raised the cost of many drugs. Competitive business pressures would have reduced the incentives in Asia to protect the environment. Last but not least, the trade agreement could have superseded financial regulations”, and there was more, so now we see the RCEP, optionally with similar issues, yet with India optionally joining we see a severe blow to patents (not good for me), but generic medication gets better protection (really good for me), and as we now get “The RCEP is expected to eliminate a range of tariffs on imports within 20 years. It also includes provisions on intellectual property, telecommunications, financial services, e-commerce and professional services”, so if that pact grows any further, we see a larger stage, one where the US and the EU see their cushy incomes diminish by well over 25%, yet it might take a decade, but it also means that the stage cannot be continued, as such their economies will need a vast overhaul in the next 5 years or living there in 2030 might not be a nice ideal in several places. So whilst the players are all about their financial services, we see a field that will vastly adjust in the next 5 years. And as I personally see it, it means that the death clock on Wall Street is pushing towards midnight. This is the consequence of catering to the greed stricken, this is what happens when ego takes over and in this case the ego of the USA and the EU are limiting their options, but the EU can always cater to Iran. And as I see it, a third of the global population is holding on to its 29% of the global gross domestic product. A stage that is a little new for a lot of us. As I see it, in 2030 when the national budgets become reality, I wonder how many people will herald the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, remember these grannies holding up the banner, stopping the arms trade against those bad bad Saudi’s? So when their pension goes down another 20% (if it still exists then), who will they blame? Will they call for Jeremy Corbyn? Will he still be alive? The same for the USA, yet here it will be president elect Biden calling the shots (he is entitled to that), but. Can they foresee the impact that the RCEP will have on their economy? I very much doubt it, yet endangering the $8,500,000,000 deal out there tends to be a really bad call, so as the RCEP will deliver to a larger population, we see a slow push take the USA from the pool of those who matter. As I personally see it, hypocritical high morals are nice, that is until the invoices come in, and these always come in.

Today the largest trade agreement in history was signed and the USA was no longer part of the big things happening, it might be a first, but it is no longer a last, that is the impact of close to 15 years of stupidity, short sightedness and ego, all set in a near package, it is efficient, I merely wonder for who it was an efficient setting, not for the USA, not for the EU, that much is certain. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

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

November 14, 2020 · 00:37

Some heavenly statement

Yup we all have the moment. We have that small voice within ourselves that suddenly screams out in 50+ decibels, others cannot hear it, because it is all between the ears. So we get in a stage where we rely on ‘God made me do it’ or optionally ‘the Devil made me do it’. It happen to us all, when we slam our Mario cart into the cart of our partner winning the race, the stage where you look into the distance stating ‘is that a car crash’ and whilst everyone looks, you quickly devour the cake that wasn’t meant for you. We all have these moments. Some of these situations when it is more than a game or a piece of cake, we end up in court. Court has strict (or stricter) rules in setting the stage. We get evidence and beyond all reasonable doubt. Spending on the nation we see a much larger stage. So when we see Al Jazeera with ‘Saudi crown prince served court summons via WhatsApp’ and that is merely the tip of the napkin. We also get “New documents filed to a US federal court show the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), was issued a summons via WhatsApp last month on charges of torture and directing an assassination attempt against a former Saudi security adviser”, can anyone tell me why this was not set via the state department, even more laughing is the small fact “In the lawsuit, a former security adviser, Saad al-Jabri, alleges MBS sent a 50 person “assassination squad” from Saudi Arabia to Canada in an attempt to “eliminate him” in October 2018, but the Saudis were denied entry at the border”, so here we get two elements. The first is ‘the Saudis were denied entry at the border’, as such there was no assassination, the fact that Saad al-Jabri is still alive might have something to do with it and the second part is ‘50 person “assassination squad” from Saudi Arabia to Canada’, Canada? What the frick is happening here? That is before the humour of “Al-Jabri claims the assassination attempt took place days after Khashoggi’s murder” hits us, oh: “Someone tried to assassinate me, it was a devious dapper Dan of the British SAS”, as such: “Your highness, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, in light of this, can I please receive GBP 132,556,322.24 in damages? I can send the invoice via WhatsApp, what is the number of your personal assistant?” Now, I have no chance of that deposit happening to me, a pesky things like evidence, is most likely not accepting any of it. Yet the station that we all see should be clear.

  1. An allegation of assassination, more dumb is the fact that it was 50 men, so can we see the border even with 50 confirmed identities, weapons, things like that. Unnamed sources were able to get me part of it by submitting to me the alleged battle plan created by someone named K. McAlister of the US Rangers (alleged), see the image above.
  2. Saad Al-Jabri still lives, one person with a long range sniper rifle could have done it. The other 49 people? What were they for? One for getting coffee, one to get the bagel, one to comb the hair, one to do the massage if the muscles cramp up?
  3. Court summons are done in person or by registered mail. There is a rumour that it is done via “Summons is usually issued by the clerk of the court. In many states, the summons may be issued by an attorney, but some states use filing as the means to commence an action and in those states, the attorney must first file the summons in duplicate before it becomes effective”, so where is the State department in all this? And who on earth is Thomas Musters? Is he a representative of the Department of Justice? What evidence is there that the phone was operated by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman?
  4. As Al Jazeera gives us “sent a hit squad to assassinate him in Canada”, who in Canada confirmed this, who in Canada filed papers for the arrest of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman? 

This is a smear campaign was set up as window dressing for a joke (a bad one at that). So as the article gives us “It is alleged MBS used WhatsApp to spy on Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos”, all whilst the evidence was flawed on several counts, it was countered by Cyber Specialists and the report by FTI Consulting was so debatable that if they caught a drug dealer they filmed doing just that could not be convicted, there were massive gaps in that report. And for the journalist no-one gives a toss about, there is no evidence that shows in any way that a Saudi Royal member was involved. As for “Several intelligence agencies, including the CIA, have reportedly concluded MBS ordered Khashoggi’s killing”, those fucking idiot could not find any WMD’s in Iraq, as such their credibility is in the basement. The paper by UN Essay Writer Agnes Callamard has a few more issues and I addressed them in the past. 

In this I would like to see the Washington, DC court names involved. I want to see who in the US State Department is involved and the official papers the have been filed, but I reckon that we will never see this, the article is window dressing, for what?  I am not sure.

So before that the Wall Street Journal gave us in July ‘Saudi Arabia Wants Its Fugitive Spymaster Back’ OK, that makes sense, and is it a leap of faith that Saad al-Jabri arranged 50 friends to be at the border of Canada making a ruckus? Making a stage where he is seemingly assassinated so that he can live whatever life he has in the US? Oh, and in light of the ‘Canada’ link, how many newspapers looked at the Canada link? It might exit, it might not, I for one find the WhatsApp link to be dodgy as hell. There is no way to factually and actually prove that is was Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman who got the summon, this is why it is done via lawyers and clarks to hand these papers, I reckon the in this specific case a decently high ranking member of the State department might also fit the bill, did anyone talk to the State department? 

You see the State department and the Canadian government are overly not visible in this article, why is that?

Was Canadian coffee not good enough for the filers of this article?

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Military

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

November 11, 2020 · 21:10

Brother, can you spare a clue?

Yup, we all need clues at time. In some cases it is a simple as a vowel or a consonant, a stage where the word is still hidden to us. At times it is a clue to a larger picture, like the Guardian giving us ‘Biden to Trump – you’re embarrassing US’, now I am no Trump fan, yet the elections are not called yet in two states (31 electoral votes), we are optionally facing a recount in Wisconsin and Arizona (21 electoral votes), and there we see the larger difference, it is up in the air who becomes president. The media is shouting and screaming that Biden has won, which would be nice, but I deal in certainties and this is not certain. Georgia is leaning towards Biden, North Carolina is not. Yet until these two are officially called this race is still on. We can scream ‘count every vote’ and I support that, but not all the votes have been counted yet and there we have the larger station.

Then we see China optionally requiring a legal clue, we see this in BBC article ‘Hong Kong disqualifies four pro-democracy lawmakers after China ruling’, a lot of us might go all huffy and puffy, yet does that remain when we see “The expulsion came moments after Beijing passed a resolution allowing the government to disqualify politicians deemed a threat to national security”, as well as “China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee says that lawmakers should be disqualified if they support Hong Kong independence, refuse to acknowledge China’s sovereignty, ask foreign forces to interfere in the city’s affairs or in other ways threaten national security”, a setting that is open to interpretation. Especially when I consider “Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human dignity; the birthright of every person—in every civilisation. Throughout history, freedom has been threatened by war and terror; it has been challenged by the clashing wills of powerful states and the evil designs of tyrants; and it has been tested by widespread poverty and disease. Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom’s triumph over all these foes”, which President George Bush gave us from the White House in 2002, it comes in context with The National Security Strategy (NSS) which is a document prepared periodically by the executive branch of the government of the United States for Congress. It sets a tone towards the outlines the major national security concerns of the United States and partial methods on how to to administer these plans for dealing with issues. The legal foundation for the document is spelled out in the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The document is purposely general in content (read: Ambiguous), and its implementation relies on elaborating guidance provided in supporting documents. Both are choices in execution the need for a national security. Did you actually believe that the stage where Britain obtained a 99-year lease of the New Territories in 1898 was the end of that? After WW2, 50% of that lease period was surpassed, what did you think was going to happen? China giving up on the most profitable region in history? It is emphasised when we consider the Conversation giving us a year ago “Since 9/11, American domestic and international security policy has been focused on individual terrorists, terrorist groups and rogue countries as the primary threats. The country’s defensive response has been focused on the military and law enforcement capabilities. That’s natural, because the military knows how to shoot, drop and launch things at threats like that. And those dangers still exist”, do you think that China was not doing that as well? Since 2000 almost 100 attacks (mostly lone wolves) have been nipping at the heels of the USA, do you think that China is waiting for an attack? It will be minimising risk and Hong Kong is seen as all risk. 

Yet these matters are out in the open, there is a whole range of issues the remain in the dark, in the US, in China, in the Middle East and in Russia, each having its own baton of transparency, each having a different working method and in position we see the media pushing buttons and giving a partial view whenever possible, they too have their share holders, their stake holders and their advertising needs, it does not help many of us getting a clear picture. Consider the AP 4 days ago when they gave us “On Saturday, Biden captured the presidency when The Associated Press declared him the victor in his native Pennsylvania at 11:25 a.m. EST. That got him the state’s 20 electoral votes, which pushed him over the 270 electoral-vote threshold needed to prevail”, which is by all accounts a fair call, but the votes are not counted yet, the 31 out in the open and the end result could become Biden 276-Trump 262. This is an awful close call to be celebrating when votes are still being counted, one contested state is all the is required to show is all overboard and Wisconsin with 10 electoral seats might get us Biden 266 – Trump 272, that is the ball game. This is where it is at and the previous stage will be abandoned by so many it will scare you. You see, I am no Trump fan, and the chaos will ensure that the US will see several attacks, it infrastructure is massively undercut, its resources strained in the wrong directions and we are all screaming: Biden save us, all whilst the stage is not yet set, a stage that the Lone Wolves are really liking at present. Consider Savannah Georgia, Long Beach California, Seattle, Houston and South Carolina, they all have something in common and they neglected a lot in the last decade, the finds were not there. So when problems come calling the American people better have a real focal point instead of the reds versus the blues, we saw how that happened in Gangs of New York, how did the city fair there? It was set to Herbert Asbury’s 1927 nonfiction book The Gangs of New York. Yet what set it all apart, how do you remember the New York City draft riots? You think it does not relate? Consider that it was the moment when the population of New York fell below 11,000 and the area’s demographics changed pretty much forever as a result of the riot. You think that the second time around it will be better? When the reds versus the blues come calling instead of uniting, the US stands to lose a massive amount more from the start and this time around nationwide. I agree, it does not help when one of the players isn’t the sharpest tool in the tool chest, but the stage needs to be secured, China did it from the start, here we see a stage that is open for all with a gun and a loud mouth. Still thinking I have gone coo-coo? Consider ‘Three-quarters of Americans fear post-election violence and riots, Independent reveals’ (at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/election-results-2020-riots-trump-biden-b1700559.html), a stage given to us 2 days ago. That stage still exists, and it still holds water and there is the larger danger, not the rioters, but the opening the they give the lone wolves waiting for a signal. We are given “Such fears appeared directly linked to Americans’ concerns that it will not be clear by 4 November who won the presidential race”, now consider that one week later this issue is still in play. I watched two states remaining at 99% for 3-4 days, so what is hampering the final count? 

As you can see, in light of the unknown and there is quite a lot of it, brother, can you spare ME a clue?

Oh, and I was not done yet (well, not completely). You see, the Goldwater-Nichols Act is the foundation of a larger issue (at https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a525942.pdf), you see when we consider “Goldwater-Nichols may have made DOD more efficient but at the cost of civilian control. It has also politicised the Armed Forces. Like the law it replaced, it has created a national military command structure that ignores the separation of powers. The amended National Security Act has consolidated dispersed powers into one office, unintentionally establishing conditions under which an imperious Secretary might abuse them”, as such we can surmise that the US will be under a larger version of exposed danger until the 19th of January, 2021. You did not actually think that these lone wolves are sitting on their hands, did you? The danger is not red versus blue, it is those seeking an advantage during that time and as I personally see it, the US is not ready to deal with that danger.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

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

November 10, 2020 · 19:10

The election continues

You might think that the elections are over, but they are not. It will not change the outcome, so I am not here to scare you or put undue pressure on you if you are in the democratic camp. Everyone started to celebrate, there was dancing in the street, never before was a president so unpopular that he is getting hounded in the streets, but what about the votes? You see the results of Georgia and North Carolina are still outstanding and if I am correct, there represent 31 electoral votes, it is not enough for President Trump to win, but the setting is that if he gets both, the difference is too small and a recount of Arizona and Wisconsin will turn it all around. The 10 of Wisconsin and the 11 of Arizona would be enough, when we see Arizona: Biden leads by .6 percentage points (98% reporting) and Wisconsin: Biden wins by .6 percentage points (99% reporting) source: CNN, we see that there could be enough to start a recount. Even as a Republican, I do not want President Trump a second term, he did enough damage for the USA to suffer close to a decade, who wants that? I do not, and many others feel the same, in light of the 99% for the two states we have been seeing for two days, you all need to wake up and you need to wake u fast. Skinning the bear before you kill the bear is one of the most dangerous plays to make. 

My view of the danger is seen when we consider North Carolina: Trump leads by 1.4 percentage points (98% reporting), even the 2% is highly unlikely to topple the stage and as such we see that President Trump would gain 15 votes. That difference seems to high, but a recount not in favour of President elect Biden changes it by another 21 votes, giving President Trump 36 votes, this is not fear mongering, this is a fatal danger the American people face, so relaxing whilst Georgia is known is the mot dangerous part in all this and lets face it, the recount for Ariana and Wisconsin have not been called, but you forget that the Republican Party is allowed to demand a recount, and that I when the stage gets dicey to say the least.

So when I see ‘Biden era begins, but Trump fights on in his own world’ source: the Guardian, I wonder if anyone has seen the danger the looms, in a stage where the difference in a state with 3,100,000 registered votes gives us less than 15,000 and that is if all districts are even, which they are not, in addition we saw yesterday ‘A possible Wisconsin recount: How would it compare to 2016?’ (Source: FoxNews), so make all the fun of FoxNews you like, but if the happens, there is a small chance that we are at 50% of overturning an election, good luck with the next 4 years at that point, so everyone relaxing whilst the endgame is still in play is perhaps one of the dumbest things you can do. Also consider that Wisconsin is showing to be largely Republican, President Trump had most of the state and Biden won by a mere 25,000 votes, the two districts he got were Madison and Kenosha, you still feel safe and secure? 


A recount could change it, and recounts are a given when the win is too small, but can be demanded by ether party and Trump is anting a recount, bet your horses (Napoleon and Sprout) on that. So whilst I am one to enjoy a meme or to in a stage where the end result is not final, is just ludicrous. So when we consider the Guardian giving us ‘Trump fights on in his own world’, I wonder if they realise the hazard everyone is still in and when that setting explodes in your face, good luck getting the Trump Administration doing anything for you at all. 

Remember, Georgia might seem all for Biden, but the difference is a mere 13,000 votes, a recount is pretty much a given and 1% is still to be counted. So let’s not drink the bubbly yet, a victory drink the shows to be a loss is really the ultimate form of sour grapes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

October 29, 2020 · 19:09

Is it me? Perhaps it is!

Yup, we need to look into matters and I am willing to concede that I am the stupid one, yet the BBC is setting a stage that is not set to the proper players and it shows (well, to me it does), so as I look at ‘Facebook, Twitter and Google face questions from US senators’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54721023), we see ““[It] allows digital businesses to let users post things but then not be responsible for the consequences, even when they’re amplifying or dampening that speech,” Prof Fiona Scott Morton, of Yale University, told the BBC’s Tech Tent podcast. “That’s very much a publishing kind of function – and newspapers have very different responsibilities. “So we have a bit of a loophole that I think is not working well for our society.”” You see, the stage is larger, even as we see a reference towards section 230 with the added quote “some industry watchers agree the legislation needs to be revisited”, so can we have these names? 

Section 230
Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content.
Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by third-party users: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides “Good Samaritan” protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

Yet the stage is a lot larger, most common law nations (civil law nations too) have similar protections in place, and ever as we see the repose by Professor Fiona Scott Morton giving us “we have a bit of a loophole that I think is not working well for our society”, most parties refuse to hold the posters of the online information accountable. It is too hard, there are too many issues, but in the end, I call it a load of bollocks, the avoidance of accountability has been on my mind for close to a decade, the lawmakers have done nothing (or close to it). These lawmakers do not comprehend, the politicians are mostly clueless and the technologists cannot abide to the lack of insight that the other two are showing they lack.

So as we see “both sides agree they want to see the social networks held accountable”, yet neither is willing to hold the poster of the transgressor accountable and that is the larger issue. So even as we see the so called political ploys and no matter what the reason is, when we see “Both President Trump and his election rival Joe Biden have called for the removal of Section 230, though for different reasons”, yet both ignore the obvious, the posters want a medium and outside of the US they have all the options to continue. Basically the only thing that the US will accomplish is isolation, all whilst the dreaded posts from those who seek to harm society will never be stopped, they merely change location, and now that the US is ranking 8th on the 5G speed lit at a mere 13.29% of the speed of number one, things will go from bad to worse, limiting big tech is the larger error in their thinking pattern. 

Any form of censorship strangles freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Holding the speakers accountable is not censorship, it merely sets the frame that these social media speakers will be held to account, optional in a court for WHAT they say. It was never that complex, so why push the side that resolves nothing? So whilst we see all these media articles on AI and how AI is NOW the solution that one can purchase, the factual reality is “experts have predicted the development of artificial intelligence to be achieved as early as by 2030. A survey of AI experts recently predicted the expected emergence of AGI or the singularity by the year 2060”, a stage we seemingly forget whenever some short sighted politician makes a twist towards AI and the solution in social media, the reality is that there is no AI, not yet. Forbes (at https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/06/10/how-far-are-we-from-achieving-artificial-general-intelligence/#389ade286dc4) introduces us to “Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) can be defined as the ability of a machine to perform any task that a human can”, you see, commerce couldn’t wait for AI to come, so they pushed it into AGI, and the AI they all advertise is merely a sprinkle of AI, scripted solutions to singular tasks and even that part is debatable, because the application of AI needs more, I wrote bout it almost two months ago. I wrote “until true AI and true Quantum computing are a fact, the shallow circuits cannot cut through the mess”, I did this in ‘About lights and tunnels’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/09/08/about-lights-and-tunnels/), you see, IBM IS THE ONLY PLAYER that is close to getting the true Quantum computing up and running, Shallow circuits are still evolving and that matters, because they only launched their first quantum computing solution a year ago. When they complete that part we see the first stage when a true AI can become a reality, only then is there an actual solution available to seek out the perpetrators. So as we look at all the elements involved, we can see to a clear degree that 

  1. There is no real solution to the problem (at present).
  2. Section 230 is doing what it was doing, even as there are issues (no one denies that).
  3. As such we need to hold the posters accountable for what they post.

As I see it these three parts are only the top layer, and in no way is adapting or editing section 230 the solution, it might if all nations adopt it, but what is the chance of that? The only thing that the US and its senators achieve is scaring business somewhere else, when that happens the US and its data gathering stage will take a spiralling downward turn, one their economy is certainly seen as a near death experience. I think that these senators need to stop selling shit as peanut butter. To realise that part we merely need to turn the clock back to April 2018 and consider Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) asking Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg how he is able to sustain a business model in which users do not pay. The answer was simple “Senator, we run ads” (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2H8wx1aBiQ). A stage where someone was allegedly this unaware of the stage of digital media, when they rely on questions that are a basic 101 of digital media, how can we take the efforts, or the presented efforts of both the democratic and republican houses serious? 

It is a stage where you will need to take a deeper look at what you see, it is not easy and I am not asking you to believe me, I for one might be the one who sees it wrong, I believe that my view is the correct one, but when all these high titled and educated people give sides, I am willing to go own faith that I need to take another look at what I believe to be correct. And wth that, I get to my very first article. The article ‘The accountability act – 2015’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2012/06/19/the-accountability-act-2015/) was me seeing the change in 2012, seeing the need for an accountability act, an essential need in 2015, it never came to be and people more intelligent than me thought it not essential. So whilst I wrote (in 2012) “I believe it is time for things to truly change. I believe that the greed of some is utterly destroying the future of all others. Who would have thought in my days of primary school, that an individual would be able to have the amount of power to bleed entire cities into poverty? It was never in my thought, but then, GREED was always a weird thing. It is the one utter counterproductive sin. You see, greed does not drive forward. Competitiveness does. Innovation does. Greed does not. Greed is the foundation of slavery and submission. It drives one person to get everything at the expense of (all) others”, as such, I saw a setting that we see now more and more clearly, I was ahead of my time (well, my ego definitely is). 

We need a different setting and we can blame the big tech companies, but is that the factual setting? When we use the quote from the AFP giving us “Capitol Hill clashed with Silicon Valley Wednesday over legal protections and censorship on social media during a fiery hearing a week before Election Day in which Twitter’s Jack Dorsey acknowledged that platforms need to do more to “earn trust.””, yet the big tech companies do not write laws do they? Yes they all need to earn trust, but trust is also lost through the newspapers using digital media to set the stage of ‘click bitches’ reacting to THEIR stories, as such, how guilty is big tech? So when we are confronted with the ludicrous headline “Kim Kardashian is accused of having SIX TOES in snaps from THAT controversial birthday getaway: ‘Why is this not trending’”, something that comes up apparently every now and then, yet this is a NEWSPAPER, as such as they also use digital media to push forward their economic needs, the stage of section 230 is a little larger, and the fact that what I personally would see as fake news, we see fake news coming from news agencies, so when we consider that some talk about “earn trust”, I think that we demand this from newspapers and see how long they accept that stage before greed takes over, or should I say the needs for clicks on digital media? A stage we saw in the Leveson Inquiry and as greed took over, I wonder whether these senators have any clue on the stage that is before them and the size of that stage. A stage that has additional sides and I am willing to wager that they haven’t got a clue how many sides they are unaware off. The US (and some others) need big tech to be as it is, if I can innovate 5G beyond their scope, that matter will merely increase when they break up, making the US more and more of a target against innovators they have no defence against, because the innovators are no longer in the US, and those they thought they had are moving away to greener pastures.
It might not hurt the big tech companies with offices outside of the US, but I reckon those senators thought of that, didn’t they?

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media

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

October 27, 2020 · 19:28

Freedom to insult

That is the stage that we see reopen an hour ago on Reuters. The article ‘Saudi Arabia condemns cartoons offending Prophet Mohammad’ (at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-security-boycott-saudi/saudi-arabia-condemns-cartoons-offending-prophet-mohammad-idUSKBN27C0FE), which pretty much repeats my view given in ‘Creation of doubt’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/10/18/creation-of-doubt/) almost 10 days ago. Even as the BBC gives us ‘France targets radical Islam amid row with Turkey’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54692802), the larger issue is avoided by almost all. In a stage where we see ‘freedom of expression’ versus ‘disrespecting religion’ how can this ever be right? We see it in Hedbo in their view of christian values and in this there is no real setting, there is no doctrine against an image of Jesus, or an image of cardinals or the pope. Yet there is a clear directive on images of the prophet Mohammed, and Islam is quite outspoken of that part and that is ignored again and again.

The Reuters article gives us “Freedom of expression and culture should be a beacon of respect, tolerance and peace that rejects practices and acts which generate hatred, violence and extremism and are contrary to coexistence”, yet we see a lack thereof by the teacher Samuel Paty, in this I believe that the action against him were wrong, yet I wonder what drove a teacher to intentionally insult Islam, yet the media is driving around that question, driving around it by well over a mile. In this the BBC gives us “The government believes the response cannot only be about law enforcement. They also need to manage social networks and associations, because this tragic case shed light on a whole network which spreads hate speeches within the population. The system needs changing”, an interesting quote, yet if we look at ‘a whole network which spreads hate speeches within the population’, yet that applies to a schoolteacher as well as the person who beheaded that teacher, and that part is largely missing. And by the time we get to “Marine Le Pen has also cast the peaceful public expression of Islam as a threat to French national identity”, in this it is not about “peaceful public expression of Islam”, it is the intentional disrespect of Islam that is the larger part here, and ever as some state that this is the need of Macron to win a reelection, the stage of intentionally insulting religion has a much larger stage all over Europe, and as far as I can tell the big newscasters are all in silence there, they will skate around the subject and most of them are doing just that.

Even as the Guardian gives us yesterday ‘Macron’s clash with Islam sends jolt through France’s long debate about secularism’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/26/macrons-clash-with-islam-sends-jolt-through-frances-long-debate-about-secularism) we get a set stage, and as such we need to look at that stage.

First there is secularism, which means “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations”, as such we need to see “rejection of religious consideration” when it is set against ‘insulting religion’. In an age of discrimination laws where some might accept “The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Thursday that insulting Islam’s Prophet Mohammed is not covered by freedom of expression” (source: Al Arabiya), the stage is not that clear as France rejects the Blasphemy Law, as such France is in a different pickle, yet the stage of ‘insulting religion’, and until that part is dealt with, the stage remains and might actually get worse.  So whilst we all accept and see that beheading a teacher is wrong, no one is wondering why a teacher is allowed to openly insult religion, insult Islam. Even as some papers give us “some of them caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, during a history lesson about freedom of speech and freedom of conscience”, I would have had the same stage in 2015, I protested like others Je suis Charlie, yet at that point I did not know why the action was taken. I believe that the protest was valid, but the lack of validity that goes with openly insulting religion is not addressed, not by any news paper. Why is that?

Now that I know that images of the prophet Mohammed are taboo, why would a teacher repeat the same insult? If it truly was about freedom of expression, why not use the christian examples (we christians do not object to this) and refer in that same lesson that Islam has specific rules on idolisation, yet the papers and plenty of other sources steer clear of that part, I wonder why?

It is clear that there is a gap in secularism, as such we need to take heed on how we openly insult the religions around us, why do this, what is there to gain? 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

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

October 25, 2020 · 10:56

First of two

I had to take a small break, we all need to do this, but the realisation that the deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell Brough me was a little too overwhelming. Yes, we go from what we know versus what we can prove, yet the beginning giving us “Ms. Maxwell, when did you first recruit a female to work for Mr. Epstein?” With the response “I don’t understand what you mean by female”, so pardon my lack of empathy or diplomacy. Yet, when did she stop realising she had (saggy) tits and a vagina? There is a basic lack of understanding here and yes, we all accept that she should be not be given any understanding and comprehension here either. That is the setting she is going towards and that is the situation she faces. Now that she is begging for a fair deal, where was that understanding when the victims of Jeffrey Epstein went to court? She was not really into a fair deal then either, was she? And the stage that evolves from there is not a nice one either, we can hide behind the conspiracy theorists that are popping up all over, or we can go with the transcripts and depositions, two bad choices from the get go. If we look beyond, we need to see on HOW Ghislaine Maxwell was trained and prepped. Then an idea sprung to mind, it is seen on page 412 of the deposition “MR. PAGLIUCA: I think we are out of time, counsel”, the entire tactic was set so that questions could not be asked. Yet when a defendant knowingly intentionally sets the stage for time, the clock should be stopped, any question knowingly and intentionally evaded adds 10 minutes to the clock. In case of Ghislaine Maxwell with a question having to be risked 28 times, we see that she get to be deposed for an additional 280 minutes. I wonder if her counsel was ready for that. It is merely a thought, yet I feel sure I cannot be the only one having that thought, and even as this would be a most delightful idea on Ghislaine Maxwell, she is not the only, not by a long shot. 

Yet, I have no real answers at present, I cannot fix everything (at times I cannot fix anything). Yet the station of feelings that anyone would have is that we want the fix things that do not add up, it is a natural stance, at least for trouble shooters, it is, it might be for a troubled shooters too, but that is another discussion. 

It gets me to my predicament, I created a weapon system called Gordian One, it was designed to sink participating vessels of the Iranian navy (and optionally a really ugly dinghy too), yet now I realise that it will work on any vessel (as it would), if the test works, it could end shipping business as we know it, a side effect I am not proud of, but a person has got to eat and capitalising on appeasing greed driven people is not the worst sin to have. One could be the opening move for facilitation to the other. IF one works, the others have more value and when you deliver, there is every chance that they will too, continuation is a great taskmaster. It gets me to there other IP, IP that only now could work. The first is a new device called the Tome. Whether it becomes an iTome, or a Google Tome is beyond my care. I designed the concept to impact the cost of the NHS, a setting where the need for paper diminishes to a much larger degree is important, the setting was also a station to improve timelines and cut out several steps that doctors and hospital administrations need to rely on. A larger station of costs that dwindle on all in that environment, but as I saw it, any block of cost taken away lowers the cot of the NHS and offers a station for more staff, how could I not think that through. The fact that Google (or fruity fruit fruit) got a setting for additional revenue is not a failing, it is to some extent a one off and when a company knows that this is a state where millions of devices are sold, multiple nations move towards a new setting and renew a system that required overhaul for decades is not a bad step. 

So how did Ghislaine Maxwell fit into all of this? Consider of the accusations against her, and the dwindling feelings of her innocence in all this, and here I am, a simple person (or is that a simpleton), who came up with a weapon that could end shipping as we know it. And it is up for sale. Am I any better? My weapon is not meant to be used, but then Alfred Nobel had the same excuse when he came up with that plan, he merely thought of a solution to give relief to engineers. We tend to set two standards, one we hold ourselves to as we are allegedly and seemingly unable to consider bad ideas of our inventions, and the other one where we hold others to, they should have known better. It is a setting of hypocrisy and I won’t have it. We cannot set ourselves to one value, all whilst we know that there are two values in play.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Military, Science

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

October 23, 2020 · 23:33

Is avoidance & evasion the same?

The stage has been set from the very beginning, Ghislaine Maxwell is out and there is a firing squad, she had hoped that it is was all going towards Epstein, but he offed himself, or so they say. So at this point there is the setting where Ghislaine Maxwell is out and in front and the firing squad wants its day, it want to fire bullets, so that they can say “I was in a firing squad”, yet the setting is less simple and when we see the deposition, we see more than we want, from the very beginning. From the very beginning those who read closer to what is actually said will see that Ghislaine Maxwell was well prepared, perhaps too prepared. I understand, this does not make sense to you, so let’s show you.

The very first question towards the girls involved is:

Q. When did you first recruit a female to work for Mr. Epstein? 

This is followed by the immediate response:

MR. PAGLIUCA: I object to the form and foundation of the question. I believe this is confidential information. I ask anyone who is not admitted in this case be excused from the room, please. 
MS. McCAWLEY: So the response to that question would — 
MR. PAGLIUCA: The subject matter of this question is confidential and I’m designating it as confidential. 

As we see here, her attorney labelled the information ‘I’m designating it as confidential’

This is the light in which this deposition sets, As I personally see it, there is a larger play at work, I would presume that the attorney has a view on a much larger playing area. This is further exposed  after certain parties are expelled from the room. 
Q: So Ms. Maxwell, when did you first female to work for Mr. Epstein? 
MR. PAGLIUCA: Again. I object to form and foundation of the question.
Q. You can answer the question. 
A. First of all, can you please clarify the question. I don’t understand what you mean by female, I don’t understand what you mean by recruit. Please be more clear and specific about what you are suggesting.

And we see more of this

Q. How old was the youngest female you ever hired to work for Jeffrey? 
MR. PAGLIUCA: Object to the form and foundation. 
Q. You can answer.
A. I have not any idea exactly of the youngest adult employee that I hired for Jeffrey. 
Q. When you say adult employee, did you ever hire someone that was under the age of 18?
A. Never 

This deposition is filled, filled to the brim of avoidance and evasionary tactics, Ghislaine Maxwell was indeed well prepared and the part you just saw is also the gravy of the train, if any of the ladies were ever under 18, that is the ballgame and she knows it, more importantly her attorneys do. This is not someone who cared, this is not someone who cared about the protection of children, and in this ABC does an even better job. They give the audience “Ms McCawley persists and asks Ms Maxwell, in different forms, a further 27 times if she believed Epstein sexually abused minors. Among Ms Maxwell’s responses were lines about how she believed Ms Giuffre was a liar and that she was not aware why Epstein had gone to jail in 2008. Epstein was originally convicted of securing and procuring an underage girl for prostitution in a plea deal that has been widely criticised” (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-23/ghislaine-maxwells-secret-jeffrey-epstein-documents-unsealed/12806036)

The fact that the same question was asked 28 times and evaded shows a larger stage and this deposition is merely one of a few pieces of paper to set the stage that her time is up, there is only so much the people will allow for and she knows this, even if she claims that she does not. So when we read: “Prosecutors will argue she lied when she gave the deposition released today when she denied knowing of Epstein’s alleged crimes”, you see the larger stage is not merely the fact tht she lied, if any of these questions, questions she evaded 27 times show that she lied, the prosecutor will have made a stage of intent, and that is a much larger setting in court, it will be the largest setting towards the 35 years in prison, a place she will not leave alive, so we see Ghislaine as a wounded animal trying to get out of the trap she laid for herself, a trap that sprung when someone allowed Jeffrey Epstein to commit suicide, because that too is still under review. So when we see “I never observed Jeffrey having sex with a minor”, whether true or not will not matter, if a minor was there and there is enough showing that she allegedly hired this person, or knew of this person, we have a stage where she is almost quite literally in the doghouse. Because either she hired the minor, or she knows who did and that is what she is seemingly desperate to avoid. Her having to point at someone else, if that person can enough reasonable doubt it will all tick to Ghislaine Maxwell and the deposition of 465 pages will have the foundation of being the rope that hangs her. This is to some degree seen on page 113 where we see 

Do you remember him visiting you and Jeffrey in New York in the spring of 2001? 

A socialite that cannot recall dates? Especially dates of important people? I have met a few socialites in my time and they all have an amazing ability to capture dates, more than I ever will, as such “spring of 2001” is almost a given, and as such the answer 

I have a recollection — you’ve asked me if I have a recollection of being in New York but if you are asking for a date, I cannot confirm that date. 

I merely see more evasion and avoidance, and any prosecutor will go over this position with a fine tooth comb, they will find more than I ever will. I merely notice one thing on page 412

MR. PAGLIUCA: I think we are out of time, counsel. 

After dozens of evasions and avoidance and countering the simplest of questions by statements of non-comprehension, we are faced with the response: I will state for the record there were questions today that remain unanswered because the witness has been instructed not to answer those questions and we will be raising our objections with the court to be able to have those questions answered in the near future.

And there we have the turnaround, at this time, there is every indication that the travels and settings of Ghislaine Maxwell are now out of time. 

I am not attaching the deposition at this time, even as it is out there on the internet, I am not sure if I am allowed to place the full 465 pages (with a massive word index at the end). Yet if you want to see the deposition, you can find it (at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/ghislaine-maxwell-epstein-questions-dodged-unsealed-deposition-2020-10).

In my opinion, when any jury driven court gets a load of this, there is no way that they have will not have the ‘What is she hiding vibe’, and that does not stop a trial from being fair, it sets the stage where minors were in at the very least in danger, and optionally Ghislaine Maxwell let it happen, that and the Miami Dade Police affidavit shows a larger stage and that stage is about to get the limelight, every corner of that stage, so anyone caught in that stage will be in serious trouble and anyone seen in that stage will also illuminate the involvement of Ghislaine Maxwell. I see no other way to see this, but then I am not an administered US court professional, am I?

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , ,