Tag Archives: Chadwick Boseman

Is it a rerun?

We have all seen reruns, some are pleasant. There is the rerun of Charmed (three gorgeous women who can put a spell on you), there is the rerun of Gilmore Girls (two generations of flaky women in the best of times), we see another rerun of the X-Files, Star Trek, Gunsmoke, Will & Grace, the list goes on and for the most we do not mind that these series have reruns, some were great, plenty were fun and a few are merely guilty pleasure. Yet how to react when we are confronted with a rerun of the sex acts of Jeffrey Epstein, a rerun with new and different girls now?

ABC is giving a partially different story. They give us: “According to an indictment, Mr Epstein arranged for girls under the age of 18 to perform nude “massages” and other sex acts for him in his New York and Florida homes, and paid some girls to recruit others, from at least 2002 to 2005. Mr Epstein had faced similar charges in 2007, but negotiated a deal to avoid federal prosecution and plead guilty to a single Florida state prostitution charge“, I actually covered this in my article ‘As we judge morality‘ on January 7th 2015 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/01/07/as-we-judge-morality/), as well as ‘That what is ignored‘ on January 25th 2015 (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2015/01/25/that-what-is-ignored/), I even added the Palm Beach Police Department Probable Cause Affidavit in PDF form.

Now, we all have rights, and it seems that the rich have more rights, so the idea that (according to SBS News) ‘Jeffrey Epstein applies for house arrest over underage sex trafficking charges‘, an optional rapist and child molester gets to live in a golden cage on a space up to 15000 square feet, living the good life for the crimes that he is accused of is a little too rich for my blood. He might have the best lawyers when we see the quote: “Epstein’s lawyers argued home confinement, along with electronic monitoring, surveillance and a bond secured by a mortgage on his $US77 million ($A110 million) Manhattan mansion would be enough to ensure that he does not flee the country“, yet I do not agree. A man who was until recently labelled a billionaire, so to consider a person with well over 1,200 million not a flight risk when he optionally sacrifices 8.3% of his fortune to avoid 45 years in prison makes him very much a flight risk. I will do you one better, his lawyer, if he flees must spend 10% of that jail time in prison and forfeits his bar admittance when he does flee. How does that sound? Will his lawyer stand by his defence at that point? I actually doubt that. We can argue that it is not fair on the lawyer, but when we hear the lawyer state that he is not a flight risk, is it fair to hold his lawyer to account when he does? Is it really that unfair an expectation to have?

I already had a lot of issues with the 13 months he spend in 2008, even as there was a clear stage of sexual offense against a minor, so the issue is twofold, not only did we clear the Catholic priests, but we are going to clear Wall Street financiers too? How does that go over with you?

Initially I was in a stage where the law could not double dip, the case was closed, yet ABC gives us: “Prosecutors said Mr Epstein paid $US 100,000 in November to a person identified in his 2007 non-prosecution agreement as a possible co-conspirator. They said he paid $US 250,000 in December to another person identified in the agreement as a possible co-conspirator and employee“, it implies (implies not proves) that the case was a lot larger than first seen, so this is a renewed investigation. Even as the ruling of the house arrest is a little over 27 hours away, I believe that there is a lot more coming to the wires. When we revisit the parts I had, now by Global News Canada, we get: “In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida to state charges of soliciting a minor for prostitution under an agreement that required him to spend 13 months in jail and register as a sex offender. The agreement has been widely criticized for secretly ending a federal sex abuse investigation involving at least 40 teenage girls at the time that could have landed him behind bars for life“, the issue of 40 girls was unknown, I know that there were several, but not 40, as such if that number is proven we need to investigate the entire court matter, as well as the judge on how this person got only 13 months initially. It is nothing less than a complete travesty of justice. So even as we see that there was an agreement in one state, there are another 51 states that can have a go at him and the state of New York has decided to do just that. This gets us back to the SBS article and then too we can agree that we have to oppose “Epstein would nonetheless agree to be fitted with an electronic ankle bracelet, surrender his passport and de-register his private jet as conditions of his house arrest” a person with that many millions does not need a passport and hand over the keys of his jet, a person like that has loads of options on the side, he remains a flight risk, especially as he used to be so privileges with allotments a thousand times what the average person will ever have, the idea to spend the rest of his life in a room that is 7 feet by 12 feet is enough to forsake well over 75% of his well over 1200 million value, whatever he has left would be enough to have a decent life anywhere on the planet. Yes, this man remains a flight risk. It gets to be even worse that the lack of exposure he had in 2008 is no longer an option now. The people are angry and they will watch the media like a hawk, so the media has everything to lose by leaving this issue alone. Those who go soft will see a much larger impact, and as such they are all out for blood now.

So as the Insider gives us: “The FBI prepared a 53-page indictment against Epstein, but his lawyers instead started plea negotiations with Alexander Acosta, then the US District Attorney for the Southern District of Florida“, we see that his lawyers used whatever they could to stop the FBI indictment, and it goes beyond that. When we consider the Trump links and the fact that the person (Alexander Acosta) who was the US DA of Southern Florida is now United States Secretary of Labor, I wonder if this is all merely a coincidence and an actual prosecution, or whether this is something more. When we consider the quote: “The prosecutors had identified 36 victims of Epstein, most of them having no prior knowledge of the agreement and no opportunity to give input. The deal has been the subject of criticism by the Miami Herald and others“, we see an optional Republican perversion of justice, one so disgusting that we might open the floor to the debate whether a person like Alexander Acosta should be accepted in any public office ever. An optional stage where 36 victims, several regarded then to be minors were just left to their own devices. Can we argue that if any of those victims were the children of Alexander Acosta, would Epstein be walking free after 13 months? That is fair enough a question too, is it not?

And the plot does not stop here, if the reports from Global News Canada are to be believed, we are given the optional fact that Epstein’s New Mexico ranch not named in latest indictment despite older court records alleging abuse at compound. So we see another stage where a place of sexual transgression is not in the cards for prosecution, why is that? I for one do not understand why the FBI was taken out of the equation by Alexander Acosta. We have a clear setting of locations that Epstein owned in three states, making it a clear FBI case, there are alleged transgressions in at least two of them (I use alleged as this is about accepted evidence in court), as such this should have been the top issue for the FBI to a much larger extent. And when we look deeper into the New York Times, we see that they incriminate themselves to a much larger degree. With the quote: ““I’m not a sexual predator, I’m an ‘offender,’ Mr. Epstein told The New York Post in 2011. “It’s the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel.” Ms. Siegal recalled, “He said he’d served his time and assured me that he changed his ways.”” it is if the stage is correctly set. The article refers to Peggy Siegal, an A-lister event organiser, the fact that a person like this is left in the dark on one of her ‘highly regarded guests’ makes for a more concerning stage. If it is true that there is an implied lack of scrutiny and the stage of her events are merely the level of the bank account, we see that there is a chance that she would throw a party and that an unsuspecting guest would be exposed to people like Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, Manuel Noriega, General Sani Abacha, and so on. How good would you feel at a party like that? When we consider this, we see that there has been a much larger cape of protection around Jeffrey Epstein and that should worry us all. We could have argued to some extent that this was a mistake, yet when we see that a certain Secretary of Labor left a large bulk of 36 victims away from consideration, we see a much larger danger, there is no Justice, not when the rich and famous can avoid prosecution to this degree.

I wonder how a person like Peggy Siegal will defend her next A-list event, I wonder how any A-lister feels about mingling with predators, murderers and dictators, do they like their life to be that spicy and non-discriminatory? So in addition, to those who are not considered an A-lister, when a person like Jeffrey Epstein was one: Chadwick Boseman, James McAvoy, Jason Bateman, Cara Delevingne, Zoë Kravitz and Karen Gillan. Just a few names that are at present (as far as I was able to find), not officially set as A-lister. It does not matter whether they want to be one or not, the stage is that they are a dozen times more worthy as social role model than a person like Jeffrey Epstein is and that matters, it changes the view.

Now, I still accept that he is innocent until proven guilty, but he admitted to events in the past and now that we see that the accusations were optionally ten times worse, we see a shift in what we accept and find acceptable. I reckon that the next two weeks will be a lot more pressing for America than they comprehend, after the entire Catholic scandal; people are a lot less accepting of certain acts. The nice part is that the world is full of fathers and mothers, the idea that children, dozens of children might have included one of their children is making them really angry and well over 120 million parents are in the US, so whatever the law does, they better take a long hard look at themselves of whatever deal they make, I feel certain that the parents of America will not see it in that light. It also calls for a larger investigation on what was done in the past and there is a larger stage of the acts of some that might now be seen as totally unacceptable. I also wonder whether the FBI has looked into the 36 victims and whether they have all been interviewed by the FBI on the matter of what was avoided the last time around by a certain District Attorney. When we see politicians claim that these people need to be beyond clean, I wonder how many people have just endangered their own careers by allowing one DA make one person get away with proverbial murder.

Yet in addition to what I wrote earlier, only 5 minutes ago, 7 News Boston gives me ‘Jeffrey Epstein’s New Mexico ranch linked to investigation‘, it also gives us that Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta is stepping down amid the tumult over his handling of the 2008 deal with Epstein. It seems that the proverbial rats are fleeing the ship as fast as they can, it seems a harsh expression, but I always had an issue with the mere 13 months, now we see that a stage like this can impact to a much larger degree and I personally believe that this is a good thing, even as I personally believe that this case was set to such high visibility to impact the Republican party to the largest degree possible, we can all agree that several steps to ‘protect’ Jeffrey Epstein to the degree he was should never have been done, or openly be seen as acceptable. Yet I feel it is only fair to give view to the setting as Acosta gives it (in the New York Post), there we see: “Acosta said that as the US attorney in Florida more than a decade ago, he decided to offer Epstein a sweetheart no-prosecution deal on federal charges because state prosecutors were supposedly ready to let him walk free”, that is an important view too. If he can prove this, than there is a much larger issue, yet we were also given that a lot of the victims were not heard, so there is still that to account for. No matter how we slice this, this event and the event to those involved in all this from 2007 onward is far from over. A case that disgusts the bulk of people and it took 12 years to get it all to the stage it is today at, the law failed to too large a degree as I personally see it.

So this case will linger a lot longer than we initially thought, I can’t wait to see the bail hearing and to hear what the judge decides in this case.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The ethical threshold

When is it too much? That is the initial question I had. I am a tweeter, I love my twitter, I will be honest on that. I tend to merely be nice there, with all the negativity in the world thinking only positive there is merely a choice. Also, why would you want to waste time attacking a person there? OK, I have to admit, when Jimmy Kimmel decided to take the mean tweets as a segment, I ended up laughing out loud, especially the Marvel cast ones. Why would anyone do this? Why would Chadwick Boseman (Mr. Black Panther himself) get confronted with: “Okay, how did the coolest blackest dude in the galaxy end up with a whitebread-a– name like Chadwick” It was fun and he laughed too, but why do that? OK, if it was just a little friendly jab, I would get it, but why would you state to Scarlett Johannson: “emotional range of a f–ing celery”? It makes no sense to me. Sometimes we have an aversion to an actor, or perhaps more direct to the role that an actor portrayed, which makes perfect sense, but why vent it? I loved her work in many movies, and if there is one I did not like, then it is ‘The Other Boleyn girl‘, I personally believed it fell flat after the Tudors, which had nothing to do with her, Natalie Portman, or Eric Bana. In the end, it might not be the actors at all, merely the vision and choices of the director. It does not matter, I was no fan of that movie, yet to go out and tweet to her (or any of the other two) on how bad they acted seems like a waste of time and totally uncalled for. Many people feel that way, when we consider she gets hundreds of (optionally mean) tweet, yet each of them has tens of thousands of fans. Is it an ethical choice not to lash out? It might be, or it is merely good manners. Whatever it is does not matter, it is a visible part in all this.

In opposition, when do you professionally make choices based on morality or ethicality? We all do them and even as my threshold there is slightly higher than the Eifel tower, I do have them. I also believe in loyalty (even as some of my bosses have never shown that distinction themselves). There we have another setting do we not? So even as some might rage on how we need to make choices, as some rage against certain settings like playing hide and seek with the corpse of Jamal Khashoggi, whilst some claim to have evidence of recordings, that recording still has not been revealed to the world, these sources have now stopped mentioning that claimed piece of evidence, so when you seek political opportunity over a cadaver, how does that go over with some people? When you are merely an Iranian tool making claims and then leaving the accusation in the dirt, how does one ethically consider that person to have any intrinsic value or reliability?

So as Reuters gives us: “CIA Director Gina Haspel, in Turkey to investigate the death of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, has sought to hear a purported audio recording of his torture and murder, four sources familiar with her mission told Reuters on Tuesday” and now a week after the claims, the evidence is not forthcoming, why consider that government to be any level of ally?

Yet that is another matter, the ethicality of this is part of it all, not the rest of that stage. The entire stage of ethicality is seen in fortune as we are faced with: ‘SoftBank’s CEO Won’t Speak at ‘Davos in the Desert‘ Even Though Saudi Arabia Put $45 Billion Into His Vision Fund‘. There we should have some issue, when you get $45B invested in, should there not be some ‘tit for tat’, or is that what they sometimes call in the UK ‘tits for dad’?

So when we see: “However, according to a Tuesday report, Son has now cancelled his speaking appearance, though he may still show up at the conference“, how does that go over? I had the idea for an alternate information system that is based on something that does exist, but now on a much larger scale, a new way of driving 5G data forward, a new information system. I even came up with a new 5G device type called the ‘dumb smart device‘, not only did I not get any penny of $45 billion (which would have been way too much), I also did not get an invitation of speaking option at “Davos in the Desert”, which in hindsight makes perfect sense as I never gave my email and phone number to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, so it all partially makes sense. So as we see that list of important people like Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone and AOL founder Steve Case had pulled out in protest, we need to also realise that they are part of a setting where the pot is calling the kettle black. Remember JPMorgan’s and their $12 Billion Bailout? They want to talk morality? And in the end, we know that Jamal Khashoggi met his death in the consulate, we do not know the details, yet the people claiming to have evidence are not showing it and in addition those people are allied with Iran who is in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia. I know I have said that perhaps a little too often, yet the newspapers and online media REFUSE to add that truth to their articles, is that not strange? Yet this is about certain poor choices, however they were not the poor choices of those behind ‘Davos in the Desert‘. When I see the highlighted Softbank CEO Masayoshi Son and how he is not speaking at a multi-billion dollar event, is he merely proclaiming that he has ethical boundaries? Let’s not forget that apart from the fact that a journalist died under weird conditions, we have seen no actual evidence of ANY kind. We have seen actions that imply a cover-up, yet there is still not one clear piece of evidence that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did any of it, or even order it. That evidence was never shown and the Turkish claims have never been supported by evidence, was it? That part is more important than you know, because when we take ethical and morale based evidence from equity people like Jamie Dimon or Stephen Schwarzman we truly have gone off the deep end. So whilst he might be there, he is now optionally missing out on opportunities that go beyond merely Saudi Arabia, when we see that Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President of United Arab Emirates, you better believe that you are selling your investors short and how does that usually go over with those ‘return on investment chasing accountants‘?

He is important in more than one way. You see, he has been very active in growing the impact of the UAE on a global scale, the vice president is using LinkedIn at every option there is and his industrious nature gives rise to forwards momentum for the UAE and that means more investments and more optional profits, so why walk away from the opportunity to speak out, whilst the cold light of evidence has shown doubt on events, no evidence is presented, not even claimed evidence; when we abandon innocent until proven guilty in light of business we merely set the stage for bias, discrimination and abandonment of good business. That is the actual reality and the media is steering clear from that one as well. Even as everyone knows that the US is broke, it claims industrial momentum, yet it is not taxed momentum, hence where ever that profit goes is beyond the US government. They are desperate to get the money flowing their way, not the other way and we see now that the demise of the US is closer than we thought it was, as Saudi Arabia and its neighbours are steaming ahead, their footprint is pushing in positive technology ways and the rest is lagging behind. The ethical threshold is not who we do business with, it is becoming, what are we willing to accept as a norm and that is the baseline that follows us to a much larger degree, especially when you realise that the baseline of this norm is slowly moving towards an Islamic one. That part is scaring the people way too much, so even as these same people ignore the fact that the Vatican has no women in places of power and that the Reuters quote “Sister Sally Marie Hodgdon, an American nun who also is not ordained, cannot vote even though she is the superior general of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Chambery” gives clear indications that the Vatican is still as backwards as it was 920 years ago when it decided to take over the Middle East in a setting that we called the Crusades. So how far has our faith taken us? Even as we see that members of the clergy get off on Luke 12, Matthew 10 and John 11 (boys, not passages), we claim to protect children, yet the prosecution of the church members never got there, did it? So as most pushed for agnostic and atheist values, which makes sense to some, there is still a large part that drives their forward momentum through their inner faith and is there any evidence that Islam is evil? We get the ‘terrorist’ claim left, right and centre, yet how many are Muslims are truly evil? Now take the members list of the Ku Klux Klan, the member list of the IRA, White power and Neo-Nazi’s and set that in the scale against the names of terrorists that actually acted, suddenly Islam is not that evil anymore is it?

It is not important that we become Muslim, but would it hurt to learn about Muslim law and customs? If we embrace the next age of technology drive, having that knowledge makes us more and more valuable in places where the next trillions are actually spend, is that anything but our willingness to embrace some cultural change and adapt ourselves to the work sphere that we are ultimately confronted with?

How does our moral and ethical boundaries shift as we accept the religion of others, not to become Muslims, but to merely know enough to not cause offense, is that not a good first step? The BBC gave us less than a week ago the setting that we are now too poor to consider being ethical. They did that whilst posing the question: “Would you quit your job on ethical grounds?“, we are presented with Google employees who did that, yet the jackpot was gained with: “Research by Triplebyte, a start-up which recruits technical talent for technology companies, found 70% of those who get two job offers choose the highest paying one – exactly as our parents’ generation would have done“, if we accept that income is the driver, when we realise that ethics are almost no consideration in a job, would it matter if we embrace an Islamic employer? As we see that the answer is one we can live with a lot more than a job by ethically coloured and filtered Christian employer, can we truly ignore the optional long term life and security that some growing employers are giving us. That will be the driving factors to many and as such we will see that the Middle East influence will grow straight into the Common Law nations. When we realise that last year we were confronted in the UK with the notion that ‘Just one in five Muslims are in work as report finds they are held back by racism‘, what happens when the Muslim corporations see that this could be the driving force to open shop in a much larger audience all over Europe and even in the US. It is merely another facet in ‘the cost of doing business‘ versus ‘the cost of being in business‘. We have forfeited a large option by being choosy on who we choose, often on race, age and looks and that is how the cream evaded the corporations for a much longer time. Now as we see that the momentum is no longer in their corner, the work sphere will change a lot more than we ever could have realised.

A change we started in 1095 when Pope Urban II gave us: “calling all Christians in Europe to war against Muslims in order to reclaim the Holy Land, with a cry of “Deus vult!” or “God wills it!”“, now that we are entering an age where the roles are reversed because we decided to focus on profit and greed, we have no one else to blame but ourselves and the people we ourselves elected. So when we accept the history channel with: “between 60,000 and 100,000 people responded to Urban’s call to march on Jerusalem. Not all who responded did so out of piety: European nobles were tempted by the prospect of increased land holdings and riches to be gained from the conquest. These nobles were responsible for the death of a great many innocents both on the way to and in the Holy Land; absorbing the riches and estates of those they conveniently deemed opponents to their cause. Adding to the death toll was the inexperience and lack of discipline of the Christian peasants against the trained, professional armies of the Muslims. As a result, the Christians were initially beaten back, and only through sheer force of numbers were they eventually able to triumph“. How does our morality fare at this stage? In the end, whether we call them nobility or captains of industry, how many of them walked away with the setting that the benefit of all was merely their bottom line, and after all these years are you still accepting that excuse of as their profit drive?

When we see that a mere 12 hours ago we were given a Microsoft issue through: “But there’s evidence that Windows Insiders knew about and reported this problem, and Microsoft didn’t follow up on it, apparently not realizing the severity of the issue.” (at https://www.extremetech.com/computing/279368-windows-10-1809-may-have-another-file-deleting-bug-problem), another setting of profit and time pressure over quality and reliability, and this is not merely one of a few issues, this have been going on for well over two decades and in the end we end up in the same place, with a more expensive device making no headway. That part alone is part of the success that Google and Huawei gave them the forward push via their vision, driving forward momentum, so why would we want to stay in a place where the ‘status quo’ (not the band) is considered sexy?

So if my views are evil, then I am the Ifrit, the rebellious spirit that yearns for change and momentum, something that has been lacking in technology for too long, as profit boundaries has replaced ethical ones and therefor iteration trumped advancement a race that is now pushing the advantage to the Middle East and let’s not forget that Israel is part of the Middle East and they are also pushing technology boundaries through a whole range of tech start-ups, another reason to accept a much larger range of changes in our lives.
In the end, it is not where we need to go, it is where the opportunities are grown, and when we consider that “Diane Green, the chief executive of Google Cloud, also pulled out on Monday, according to the company” and gave that ‘Davos in the Desert’ a miss, whilst in the end, no evidence was given on several parts of the now accepted act of manslaughter by unknown parties, so not murder as the legal difference is proven intent, we need to ask more questions, not on merely the guilty parties, but those acting on alleged accusations that have not been met with evidence three weeks later is a much larger failure by those same people who kept quiet on years of endangered data safety (The Google+ issue), those needing a dozen billion dollars for bailout (and therefor their poor judgement) all clearly shown and proven, they are claiming some level moral high ground whilst evidence of the other act is still not given, where is our fake sense of ethical borderline now?

I call to some degree that the ethical threshold is one we live by; it is one that others call us on; that distinction is large and ignored by a lot of players. So when Al Jazeera gives us: “Fadi Al-Qadi, a Middle East human rights advocate and commentator, also denounced the photo-op as “ruthless”“, as well as “And here is the video. Salah (#JamalKhashoggi son, banned from travel) had to shake hands with who is believed to be his dad’s killer. Ruthless. Ruthless. Ruthless #Khashoggi pic.twitter.com/EKS9UZQ8Jc” that whilst evidence of ‘his dad’s killer‘ has not been given in any way shape or form, mere accusations from one of the tools that Iran employs, and until the evidence is clearly brought, that is how I will remain to see it. I feel for Salah Khashoggi, I truly do, and the pain of losing his father would be there, but is he merely in pain because of the hundreds of unsubstantiated accusations in almost all the large media? Is that not an important question in all this?

So as we see the impact of the accusations on so many levels, yet all in a setting where no evidence is handed out and whilst the global media is still using the extensive news leaks alleging that Turkey has audio recordings documenting Khashoggi’s demise and even dismemberment, no evidence has been given to the people. Claims of handing out the evidence were knocked back again and again, so how long until we make the ethical demand: “Hand over the evidence now, or be ignored for all time“, that will not happen, will it. The EU is too desperate to keep any talks with Turkey and Iran going and Turkey is taking advantage of that situation, whilst many claims by the Turkish government are a joke on many levels, even legal ones.

When will we learn that ethical, moralistic and emotional considerations are not merely different coins, they tend to be different currencies as well.

We can only choose out own path and make it the best path as we can, we need to realise that the high ethical and moralistic path is not a comfortable one and for the most, we are all about comfort, we have been so for much too long and through that we forgot what true values are, the media merely made it worse.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science