That is what I saw a few days ago, but as with all matters, the people who see the advantage do not always see what they have. You see, almost 3 years ago I wrote ‘Girdle your loins’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2022/11/30/girdle-your-loins/) where I have both Kingdom Holdings, Saudi Arabia and Amazon the stage where they could set the stage of an additional 6 billion a year with optionally enlarging this to about 15 billion a year (a cautious conservative estimate) and that was merely the beginning. I tried to hand it to Google, but the person I had to seal to was not in the office (it was in the Covid lockdown stage) and 2 days later they dumped the Google Stadia. So, I was depending on Amazon (and Andy Jessy), or the Kingdom Holding, but there I had to deal with Prince Al Waleed bin Talal Al Saud. And he has never heard of me, so I was up going nowhere. And I get it, a billionaire gets thousands of ‘pleads’ in a daily basis and I don’t amount to much. I get that. But that doesn’t take away the anguish of having the idea of a lifetime (well 50 million dollars plus change) and as it holds billions of revenue, I was in a decent position, but over the last three years my changes has dwindled, even Tencent was leaving the idea in the ground and for the life of me I cannot understand why these so called ‘self made billionaires’ leave this much revenue one the floor. I get the idea that if it isn’t AI, it is worthless, but the sentiment behind that is flawed as AI doesn’t exist and the issues I raised with energy and validation and verification of data are showing a much larger setting now (see yesterday’s blog).
But as Saudi Arabia bought Electronic Arts the issue changes. You see the second pillar on the story ‘Girdle your loins’ has a new lease on life as Electronic Arts brought some of the highest rated games during 1985-1999 and that is the focal point of a lot of games and as Saudi Arabia owns the IP now, the games that are published as Bullfrog will be worth a massive amount.
We had Magic Carpet (1+2), Dungeon Keeper (1+2), Populous (1+2) and there is another upside. These games can be released in the original setting (with upgraded sound and graphics) and there is the setting that these games can be ‘islamiphied’ giving a game like Populous the setting to add the graphics of an Arabic themed land, with optional setting that added libraries can be unlocked in the game as you conquer the lands it adds a cauldron with a graphic theme and that gives the player a new stride on the game. And that is one house who had additional titles, as such the setting for Riyadh increases to a larger setting and one that brings in the money. Wouldn’t it be nice if (as I personally see it) that the investment of $55 billion will earn itself back in under a decade by additional means? That is what Google, Amazon and others left on the floor. And only 20 hours ago the Guardian gave us ‘Boom or bubble? Inside the $3tn AI datacentre spending spree’ with the byline “Investment in these vast warehouses is huge but some worry the debt-fuelled exuberance will backfire” with the setting of “Google’s owner Alphabet has reported revenues of $100bn in a single quarter for the first time, helped by growing demand for its AI infrastructure, while Apple and Amazon have also just reported strong results.” And still the media avoids certain matters as we are given “Goldman Sachs expects it to double by the end of 2030. This carries a further infrastructure cost of its own, according to Goldman, with $720bn of grid spending needed to meet that energy demand.” So double the effort by 2030? Is that a critical holding, because as I personally see it, the American economy doesn’t have that long and the energy setting is critical as is validating and verifying the Deeper Machine Learning data sets, an issue that is ‘circumvented’ by nearly all. As such I personally feel that my solution as a way around shortage of funds was seemingly (a personal view) a good idea to have in the back pocket and I was eager to hand it to Google (just to keep it out of the hands of Microsoft) but alas, I was not that fortunate. And make no mistake. I wanted to cash in on my ideas as anyone would, so there is no altruistic setting here. I am not better than all (just better than most) and now it seems that Saudi Arabia and through it I reckon Kingdom Holdings have the inside track on billions left on the floor. I wonder if they will make a deal with Tencent to make it work.
Have a great day. I will dream of icy cold water (it is 28 degrees celsius now) and the taste of refreshing icy cold water appeals to me at present.
That is how I saw the news (at https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/tech/dubais-10000-ai-firms-goal-to-redefine-competitiveness-power-uaes-startup-vision) with the headline ‘Dubai’s 10,000 AI-firms goal to redefine competitiveness, power UAE’s startup vision’ there is always a risk when you start a new startup, but the drive to something that doesn’t even exist is downright folly (as I see it) and now it is driven to a 10,000 times setting of folly. That is what I perceive. But lets go through the setting to explain what I am seeing.
First there is the novel setting and it is one that needs explaining. You see AI doesn’t yet exist, even what we have now is merely DML (Deeper Machine Learning) and it is accompanied at times with LLM (Large Language Models) and these solutions can actually be great, but the foundations of AI are not yet met and take it from me it matters. Actually never take my word, so lets throw some settings at you. First there is ‘Deloitte to pay money back to Albanese government after using AI in $440,000 report’ and then we get to ‘Lawyer caught using AI-generated false citations in court case penalised in Australian first’ (sources for both is the Guardian). There is something behind this. The setting of verification is adamant in both, You see, whatever we now call AI isn’t it and whatever data is thrown at it is taken almost literally at face value. Data Verification is overlooked at nearly every corner and then we get to Microsoft with its ‘support’ of builder.ai with the mention that it was goo. It lasted less than a month and the ‘backing’ of a billion dollar went away like snow in a heatwave. They used 700 engineers to do what could not be done (as I personally see it). So we have these settings that is already out there.
Then (two weeks ago) the Guardian gives us (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/08/bank-of-england-warns-of-growing-risk-that-ai-bubble-could-burst) ‘Bank of England warns of growing risk that AI bubble could burst’ with the byline “Possibility of ‘sharp market correction has increased’, says Bank’s financial policy committee” now consider this setting with the valuation of 10,000 firms getting a rather large ‘market correction’ and I think that this happens when it is the least opportune for the UAE. This take me to the old expression we had in the 80’s “You can lose your money in three ways, first there are women, which is the prettiest way to lose your money, then through gambling, which is the quickest way to lose your money and third way is thought IT, which is the surest way to lost your money” and now I would like to add “the fourth way is AI, which is both quick and sure to lose your money” that is the prefix to the equation. And the setting we aren’t given is set out in several pieces all over the place. One of them was given to us in ABC News (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-20/ai-crypto-bubbles-speculative-mania/105884508) with ‘If AI and crypto aren’t bubbles, we could be in big trouble’ where we see “What if the trillions of dollars placed on those bets turn out to be good investments? The disruption will be epic, and terrible. A lot of speculative manias are just fun for a while and then the last in lose their shirts, not much harm done, like the tulips of 1635, and the comic book and silver bubbles of the late 1980s. Sometimes the losses are so great that banks go broke as well, which leads to a frozen financial system, recession and unemployment, as in 1929 and 2008.” As I personally see it, America is going all in as they are already beyond broke, so they have nothing to lose, but the UAE and Saudi Arabia have plenty to lose and the American first are good to squander whatever these two have. I reckon that Oracle has its fallback position so it is largely of, but OpenAI is willing to chance it all. And that is the American portfolio, Microsoft and a few others. They are playing bluff with as I see it, the wrong players and when others are ignoring the warnings of the Bank of England they merely get what is coming for them and it is a game I do not approve of, because it is based on the bluff that gets us ‘we are too big to fail’ and I do not agree, but they will say that it is all based on retirement numbers and other ‘needly’ things. This is why America needs Canada to become the 51st state so desperately, they are (as I personally see it) ready to use whatever troll army they have to smear Canada. But I am not having it and as I see “Dubai’s bold target to attract 10,000 artificial intelligence firms by 2030 is evolving from vision to execution, signaling a new phase in the emirate’s transformation into a global technology powerhouse. As a follow-up to earlier announcements positioning the UAE as the “Startup Capital of the World,” recent developments in AI infrastructure, capital inflows, and global partnerships show how this goal is being operationalised — potentially reshaping Dubai’s economic structure and reinforcing its competitive edge in the global digital economy.” I believe that those behind this are having the best interests at heard for the Emirati, but I do not trust the people behind this drive (outside of the UAE). I believe that this bubble will burst after the funds are met with smiles only for these people to go out of business with a bulky severance check. It is almost like the role Ryan Gosling played in the Big Short where Jared Vennett receives a bonus of $47 million for profits made on his CDSs. It feels almost too alike. And I feel I have to speak up. Now, if someone can sink my logic, I am fine with that, but let those running to this future verify whatever they have and not merely accept what is said. I am happy to be wrong but the setting feels off (by a lot) and I rather be wrong then be silent on this, because as I see it, when there is a ‘market correction’ of $2,000,000,000,000 you can consider yourself sold down the river because there is a cost of such a correction and it should 100% be on the American shores and 0% of the Arabic, Commonwealth or European shores. But that is merely my short sighted view on the matter.
So when we get to “Omar Sultan Al Olama, Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence, Digital Economy, and Remote Work Applications, said the goal reflects the UAE’s determination to lead globally in frontier technology. “Dubai’s target to attract 10,000 AI companies over the next five years is not a dream — it is a commitment to building the world’s most dynamic and future-ready digital economy,” he said. “We already host more than 1,500 pure AI companies — the highest number in the region — but this is just the beginning. Our strategy is to bring in creators and producers of technology, not just users. That’s how we sustain competitiveness and shape the industries of tomorrow.”” I am slightly worried, because there is an impact of these 1,500 companies. Now, be warned there are plenty of great applications of DML and LLM and these firms should be protected. But the setting of 10,000 AI companies worry me, as AI doesn’t yet exist and the stage for Agentic programming is clear and certain. I would like to rephrase this into “We should keep a clear line of achievements in what is referred to as AI and what AI companies are supposed to see as clear achievements” This requires explanation as I see whatever is called as AI as NIP (Near Intelligent Parsing) and that is currently the impact of DML and LLM and I have seen several good projects but that is set onto a stage that has a definite pipeline of achievements and interests parties. And for the most the threshold is a curve of verifiable data. That data is scrutinized to a larger degree and tends to be (at times) based on the first legacy data. It still requires cleaning but to a smaller degree to dat that comes from wherever.
So do not dissuade from your plans to enter the AI field, but be clear about what it is based on and particularly the data that is being used. So have a great day and as we get to my lunch time there is ample space for that now. Enjoy your day.
That’s me (if you were wondering). The setting is that I take offense to the media and the way they are conducting their business. The larger setting is that I have no overwhelming love for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I have no business in Saudi Arabia, I have no relatives, no experience there and I have never been there. The simple setting is that I could have business there, but I do not. I am however drenched in fair play and the media settings are in an abundance of corruption, whoring (for the digital dollar) and smearing for the ‘friends’ they claim to have. Claim is as good as anything, because the political field is forever in flux.
And the media is to be held to account much higher standard than they are now. So as the Guardian gives their new ‘abundance’ of smearing through their emotional settings like “and was the kind of expert – passionate, principled, always glad to hop on the phone – that journalists loved having in their digital Rolodex”, yes smearing the goo to soften the reader and something broke in me. So here goes:
Where we see “Ali al-Ahmed didn’t think that Elon Musk was responsible for the decline and fall of Twitter. Musk was another face representing an old regime. And its sins began well before Musk bumbled into Twitter HQ, in October 2022, carrying a porcelain sink. (In an attempt at humor, Musk posted a video of himself arriving at the Twitter offices carrying a sink with the caption “Entering Twitter HQ – let that sink in!”)” The first ‘error’ Elon Musk wasn’t responsible for anything (as I see it) he overpaid for a social media for well over 50% ($44 billion) A friend of mine and myself saw that the accounts were ‘spiked’ and that fake accounts were abundant. My personal view was that he paid over $15B too much for it and that is his right. As well as that Musk wasn’t ‘old’ regime anything. And at present is is ‘valued’ at $52.3 billion, so he made ten billion in just three years, that is not old anything, It is a massive influx of value (I never saw that).
Then Ali Al-Ahmed gives us the one truth that matters ““They care about making money. Twitter and Facebook are not champions or models for human rights. These people are nothing but money-grubbers.” Twitter had banned Ahmed’s Arabic-language Twitter account, which had 36,000” that is social media for you and as I see it LinkedIn is about to be set to that same drive. It is all about the communications that are being drawn to catering (to whom is the question). Then we get the ‘dubious’ part (cannot agree, whether I see it that way or not). “For Saudi authorities, Twitter was an asset in every sense. The billionaire Saudi businessman Prince Alwaleed bin Talal was Twitter’s largest outside shareholder, and the site had become a key tool in the government’s apparatus of surveillance and control.” Is it really? It might be, but that is social media for you. If you share with the world, you share with EVERYONE, not just your ‘core’ people and the Saudi Government might as well take notice (as does the German, French, America and Commonwealth nations). Then we get a ‘tainted’ part. With “Ahmed believed his Twitter account had been compromised. He worried that spies had access to it, which would endanger dissident Saudis with whom he exchanged private messages. This wasn’t an idle concern. One of his contacts was Abdulrahman al-Sadhan, an aid worker who, in 2018, was abducted by Saudi security forces for running a satirical Twitter account that parodied members of the government. Abdulrahman, who was then 37, was sentenced to 20 years in prison.” There is a hidden truth, EVERY Twitter account is compromised. We do it ourselves and whether it is some security forces or hackers, they all try to get information and the Chinese, Israeli and Russians make the Saudi security forces look like little kids in the playground. And the writer knows this. So there.
Then we get the (seemingly) big lie “As the brutal murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi demonstrated, the Saudi state pursued vigorous methods of transnational repression, allegedly sending hit squads after enemies abroad.” In the first place. Where is the evidence? What makes a murder brutal? There is no body, as such Jamal Khashoggi is merely missing and the press knows this (apparently he moved to bora bora with a 19 year old mistress) but that is something I am willing to dismiss as have no evidence of this. The second lie is “Saudi state pursued vigorous methods of transnational repression, allegedly sending hit squads after enemies abroad” this might be true, but it requires evidence (that pesky requirement) and I do not see the evidence given by Saad Aljabri as evidence. He silenced a few settings through the CIA to set silent the evidence against him. The truth and all the truth is my motto and he has allegedly over 3,000,000,000 reasons not to be honest. Then we get the ‘meh’ setting. In “Prince Mohammed used his country’s bottomless reserves of oil and capital to flood Silicon Valley, politics, sports leagues and other power centers with cash and influence. Venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and Peter Thiel’s investment vehicle, Founders Fund, were among the most notable recipients of Saudi money, but they were just two among hundreds. In 2016, Uber received an astonishing $3.5bn from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF). Blackstone’s infrastructure fund got $20bn. By autumn 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported, Saudi Arabia had become “the largest single funding source for US startups”.” So Saudi Arabia is setting wealth to create wealth? Isn’t that the proper use of Business Intelligence? So they had the money and they were starting up companies (to get a return on investment I reckon) and then we get another setting ““They’re surveillance states. They’re police states,” said Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East and Islamic politics at Georgetown University. “They want to use the latest technology in order to continue to remain in power and surveil their populations. So they have another interest in trying to sort of be the beneficiaries of hi-tech developments, hoping that that will help them internally with their own political rule.”” Might be seen as direct settings of intelligence and I would say that this is a valid use of technology. The west is run over by Hamas and Gaza sympathizers and we do nothing. Saudi Arabia knows how dangerous that could become and they are making sure that these people do not succeed and I reckon that the UAE is on that setting too. There is something to be said for the Saudi approach when we see the ‘news’ that is spread through social media. As I see it, pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel protests are rampant in the streets of Europe and they are ‘supporting’ one another making life in Europe less and less interesting and the populist agenda is somehow fed through that. Saudi Arabia has no interest in getting involved through that setting.
Then we get the ‘dangerous’ part ““Since late 2017 or January of 2018, Prince Mohammed has exercised control over more Twitter stock than is owned by Twitter’s founder,” according to a civil complaint filed against Twitter and the consulting firm McKinsey by Omar Abdulaziz, a film director and Saudi exile. Abdulaziz said that the consultancy helped finger him as a prominent online dissident, leading to his Twitter account being hacked. (In 2020, Canadian authorities warned Abdulaziz that he was a target of a Saudi kill team.) According to Abdulaziz’s original complaint, “Because of the tremendous wealth of key figures in [the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia], major corporations have enabled, collaborated with, and turned a blind eye to [its] efforts to suppress, torture, falsely imprison, terrorise and murder dissenters both within Saudi Arabia and around the world.” Twitter had given the Saudi government a reach well beyond its borders.” It is dangerous as it assumes several parts. In part as the setting of Omar Abdulaziz, he failed a complaint, how did that end? We do not know. We are given that “finger him as a prominent online dissident, leading to his Twitter account being hacked”, so was this on McKinsey? He was out there getting ‘visibility’ as a film director and some might not like that (for all kinds of reasons) it might have been an Islamophobe. Then we get “In 2020, Canadian authorities warned Abdulaziz that he was a target of a Saudi kill team.” What authorities? I reckon that the CSIS got wind of something and did their job, but where is the evidence? I get that the CSIS gets all kinds of information (Saad Aljabri anyone)? So they did their job (if they were the source). So what was that Saudi Kill team? Overzealous football supporters? And with “suppress, torture, falsely imprison, terrorise and murder dissenters both within Saudi Arabia and around the world.” Twitter had given the Saudi government a reach well beyond its borders” we get another setting of ‘seemingly’ setting the stage. Where evidence doesn’t exist, the media drenches the story in emotion and what we call soft pressures and I have had enough whilst this happens they are pushed around and they want their digital dollars. And this is how the seemingly get it. And in conclusion, Twitter doesn’t give them anything, because some already showed me that others use Twitter (say X) for exactly the same reason and that gives the population of one (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) a much larger pool with Trolls, Russian, China, Commonwealth, America, CIA, NSA, DIA, Democratic corporations and a whole range of alphabet combinations and there are several who would like to take out someone they don’t care about and lay the blame on Saudi Arabia for all the interesting reasons that we might not see.
So this is how I see emotional articles from the Guardian at present. Feel free to disagree because that is how I am. Have a great day.
That is how I see it and the article by Stephanie Kirchgaessner (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/18/saudi-arabia-turki-al-jasser-executed) goes straight into this. You see, I am not debating whether someone was ‘deleted’ it is what you can prove and we cannot prove anything. You see, The Guardian ‘hides’ behind a piece by the United Nations and I dove into this in ‘That was Easy!’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/02/27/that-was-easy/) I even added the UN document there and I made several connections, I used the setting of something called ‘evidence’ it is how I roll and seemingly the Guardian does not. Somewhere today I stumbled upon a Kirchgaessner article that was from June 18th 2025. I do not track everything that is out there, so I have an excuse. But the setting that the media uses requires me to illustrate where they went mad like a lemming. We get “It was the first high-profile killing of a journalist by the Saudi state since the 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist and prominent critic of the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, who was lured into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and murdered by Saudi agents. A UN report concluded that the murder was an extrajudicial killing by the state, and an intelligence assessment released by then president Joe Biden in 2021 concluded that Prince Mohammed approved the murder.” We need to take heed of the two settings here. The first one is “A UN report concluded that the murder was an extrajudicial killing by the state” and the second one is “intelligence assessment released by then president Joe Biden in 2021 concluded that Prince Mohammed approved the murder”. So, we have two settings. Lets start with the second on first. How was this assessment obtained? That is the question. There is a chance that it came from Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri and the ‘pasted’ solutions that the Americans give him (read: CIA) sounds that he is all on the up and up. Yet “Aljabri has strong support in the US, where former intelligence officials have credited their Saudi counterpart for helping to save American and Saudi lives following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US.
On 60 Minutes, the former acting CIA director Mike Morell said Aljabri was “honorable”. Intelligence relayed to the US by Aljabri – Morell said – had led to the interception of bombs that had been planted by al-Qaida in 2010 in two desktop printers that were being flown as cargo on two planes. Morell said there were also other examples of Aljabri saving the lives of Americans, but that they were still classified.” Yet here too I have questions and they might be invalid and when we see the accusations of “The Saudi government did not address Aljabri’s allegations but said in a statement that “Saad Aljabri is a discredited former government official with a long history of fabricating and creating distractions to hide the financial crimes he committed”” So how does a general get these billions? That was the issues that I saw when I looked at the CBC article (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/investigates/saad-aljabri-assets-frozen-1.5903422)
Where we see ““Although the investigation is ongoing, it is clear that from at least 2008 to 2017, Aljabri masterminded and oversaw a conspiracy incorporating at least 21 conspirators across at least 13 jurisdictions to misappropriate at least [$4.3 billion] from the plaintiffs,” the lawsuit states.” As well as “It alleges Aljabri funneled security and counterterrorism funds from Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry to himself, his family and associates.” So is one true, or is the other true? It is a fair question as the sources of the “intelligence assessment” remain valid if Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri was involved. At that point, merely one issue remains and I blew that apart in my initial blog (link above) and what wasn’t mentioned is that the so called ‘torture tapes’ were never forensically cleared in any way. There are mentions of “I heard them and they were dreadful” or something of that nature. That is not evidence. Evidence is “The tape(s) consist of x number of tapes (or files). They are set to a length of XXX minutes and the voices on the tapes include Jamal Khashoggi” That NEVER happened, that was NEVER done. As such there is no evidence and the shoddy journals behind blood and oil added a few inches of fantasy to that counter. That as well as the issues in that UN report gave me enough to call Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud innocent. Evidence is set to that, not thoughtful processes of ‘I don’t believe he is guilty’ a person is innocent until proven guilty and that proof never came, no matter how intensely all the media is pushing for it and the media with people carrying trash bags stating “This could be the part of the body of Jamal Khashoggi” is nothing less than a joke, a bad one at that. So as Stephanie Kirchgaessner is linked to several of these articles the journalist is just as guilty as the story. She never properly investigated the articles she wrote and I just called out several parts. There is no such setting with Saudi journalist Turki al-Jasser, as the news gives us “the Saudi interior ministry announced that al-Jasser had been executed in Riyadh, for crimes including “high treason by communicating with and conspiring against the security of the Kingdom with individuals outside it”.” It seems like a setting that is. There is no wonder about guilt or innocence. He was found guilty and executed, but leave it to the Guardian to add the columnist no-one ever cared about to the mix (Jamal Khashoggi). Yet I have seen this game being played by the Guardian and several other sources and I have had enough. As such I have questions. Questions like will Stephanie Kirchgaessner ever be questioned and will there be a larger setting where journalists like this are held to account on what they write, because as I see it this cannot continue as it is. The CBC gives us a lot more. You see as we see “Aljabri, 62, was MBN’s chief advisor. As Minister of State and head of security and counterterrorism, he was a key member of the regime. He was stripped of his duties in 2015. Following the power change in 2017, he fled the country and now lives in a mansion on The Bridle Path, one of Canada’s most upscale residential neighbourhoods.” Is a setting that does not imply he is guilty of anything, but as I see it, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has 4.3 billion reasons to want him and I do not know any government that takes such a loss for granted. And they would be right. And as I see it, there is an easy setting, get a forensic accountant go over the records and I reckon that this is where the CIA is not to happy over that happening and I expect neither is Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri. I wonder why the media didn’t set this setting to paper, do you know?
So when the Guardian gave us (in June) “The former intelligence chief also claimed Prince Mohammed “feared” the information Aljabri knew about him, including a 2014 recorded discussion between Prince Mohammed and the then crown prince, Bin Nayef, in which Prince Mohammed allegedly said he could kill the sitting king, Abdullah, to clear the throne for his own father, Salman.” The use of ‘allegedly’ makes the quote dubious, did anyone hear that recording? Was it forensically analyzed? Simple questions that could lift the veil of this. Did no one catch on to this?
I think I have raised enough doubt on the settings we see. And as we go back to the setting of “an intelligence assessment released by then president Joe Biden in 2021 concluded that Prince Mohammed approved the murder.” As such, as it was released, why didn’t the Guardian include this to give weight to the article? Was it because it relied to heavy on Saad bin Khalid Al Jabri? I don’t know, I never saw the assessment. So have a great day and consider what others want you to think. I, merely want you to see the evidence because that decides the guilt of someone, I could (of course) be wrong.
That is at times a rule, but to call it the massive rule to measure things to is not the greatest rule to live by (you might have to think that sentence over a little while before it makes sense). You see, there is a story that bugs me and I was almost willing to let it go. But Yesterday in ‘Name Calling’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/09/17/name-calling/) I started down a rabbit hole, a hole that smothers and makes it hard to breath. You see the press to a much larger degree has become a populist media, they do not check sources (as shown yesterday) The media is losing credibility in massive waves. The problem is that I thought I was alone. When you are the only one shouting at a wall, is there a case that you yourself might have lost the focus?
That was my premise (at first).
So when you start looking at the wall, not being a wall, but a sea the dimension changes. It is no longer the height, but the amount of water that becomes an issue (it makes sense after a little while) and when you start looking into the water and you realise that water is transparent, you start looking for things. As such I found several sources (I already had a few) and these sources are a lot more focussed on the sham that is the International Association of Genocide Scholars. There was the simplest setting that “a member in good standing—a status achieved simply by paying an annual fee of 30 dollars. No academic credentials are required” and this comes with the added quote “Dr. Sara Brown, regional director of the American Jewish Committee in San Diego and a scholar who has served on the IAGS advisory board, told The Media Line: “I was silenced. And the resolution was forced through. What really troubled me was the way that it was presented to mainstream media, that 86 percent of the association had unanimously agreed to condemn Israel for genocide. That’s inaccurate. And to be perfectly honest, it lacks academic integrity, basic integrity to falsely represent the association and falsely cite statistics.”” (source: the media line) The France24 news (added in yesterday’s blog) had a few other settings that were weird, but the overbearing setting was that the media didn’t care, they preferred to not do their job. They became (as I personally see it) as courtesans towards the digital dollar.
The medicine also gives us “Only 28 percent of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) cast a ballot in the resolution declaring Israel guilty of genocide in Gaza. Of those who voted, 108 supported the measure—less than a quarter of the association’s total membership. Yet international outlets, including The Guardian, AP, Reuters, The Washington Post, and the Financial Times reported the outcome as if it were a sweeping consensus of the world’s foremost genocide experts. Critics inside and outside the association now argue that the process was unrepresentative and that the coverage misled the public into believing in unanimity where none existed.” Now I wanted to have a setting that if people like Amal Clooney (a revered British lawyer and human rights activist) was part of that list, you get a mixed setting, but that is as I see it less of a case. The doughty street chambers adds this to her name “Amal Clooney is a barrister who specializes in international law and human rights. She is ranked in the legal directories Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners as a leading barrister in international human rights law, public international law, and international criminal law. She is described as ‘a brilliant legal mind’ who is ‘in a league of her own at the Bar’. The directories spotlight her ‘commanding presence before courts’ and describe her as ‘a dream performer before international tribunals’ with ‘superb advocacy’ that is ‘crystal clear in focus and highly persuasive’. The rankings emphasize her ability to galvanize ‘heads of state, foreign ministers and business … in a way that is very effective’ for victims of human rights abuses.” That would be a legal mind to say ‘wow’ to, but when you see the feedback from the IAGS (in the France24 story) stating that it goes through a “rigorous peer reviewing process” and that it went through three separate committees. Now here is the crunch, there are 500 members, did they came from that pool? Where is the paperwork on that? And that happens before the vote. So how was the voting set? What was the minimum amount of votes? Only 28% voted as other sources gave its (the France24 article never brought that out) the article also ‘pressed’ of those who voted. As I see it, Melanie O’Brien never gave the details and more over France24 never pushed anything on this. And she skipped over the report being a three page document. That alone should have halted the press. They didn’t. The joke about the journalist no one cares about was 106 pages (the UN document). One person, so how come that the ‘genocide’ setting that players like Hamas feed us can be summarized in three pages? So how is ‘extensive’ research done in three pages? And who are these reliable and extensive sources? That entire sham (about 4 minutes of it) was swallowed whole by the audience.
So, here I am digesting several matters. As such it is time to call in some assistance and (at https://www.thefp.com/p/another-reason-not-to-trust-the-experts) wee see that the Free Press gives us ‘Another Reason Not to Trust the ‘Experts’’ and it starts by giving us “The International Association of Genocide Scholars calls itself a body of experts, but joining requires only a form and a fee. Members include parody accounts like ‘Mo Cookie’ and ‘Emperor Palpatine.’” And the story start of in a most interesting way. “This week, the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) voted on a resolution that accused Israel of committing genocide in its war against Hamas. Like moths to a flame, the mainstream press ran wild with the story of the organization’s declaration. “Israel Is Committing Genocide in Gaza, Leading Scholars’ Association Says,” ran the headline in The Washington Post.”
And in continuation we get “The Guardian quoted the president of the association, Melanie O’Brien, declaring that the resolution represented “a definitive statement from experts in the field of genocide studies that what is going on on the ground in Gaza is genocide.” In another interview with ABC News Australia, O’Brien boasted that the resolution passed with nearly 90 percent support. The BBC’s headline read: “Israel Committing Genocide in Gaza, World’s Leading Experts Say.” The problem for these publications is that if you kick the tires—even slightly—it becomes obvious that the resolution is a sham, top to bottom.” And the press is not waking up? You have gotta be joking me. With the source that according to most started the wave of looking into this setting we are given “On Tuesday evening, Salo Aizenberg, a board member of HonestReporting and contributor to NGO Monitor, tested that proposition. After exploring the IAGS website, he found that he could become a member of the organization with just a $30 contribution. “This organization that purports to be a leading organization of scholars is open to anyone who is interested,” he told The Free Press.” I got alerted to this setting by the Javier Bardem (who told us all on the red carpet in the Emmy event) and someone who went to town on this in LinkedIn. That was my trigger to give you yesterday’s blog and I found out most of what I know in under an hour of investigation. As such what did the Guardian, the Washington Post and ABC News Australia do? Is it weird that I call the ‘Courtesans of the digital dollar’? (I considered that calling them greed driven whores was too crass a statement to make). We then get “IAGS’s open membership is important because as Aizenberg learned in his research on the website, 80 of the 500 members of IAGS all claim to be based in Iraq—a country not known for universities with robust genocide scholarship. But it’s even worse than that. Only 108 out of the organization’s 500 members actually voted for the resolution. So contra O’Brien, only 21.6 percent of the IAGS supported it, not nearly 90 percent. That figure represents 108 out of the 129 people who bothered voting for the resolution at all.” As well as “One IAGS member, Sara Brown, the author of Gender and Genocide in Rwanda, posted on X that the leadership of the organization prevented members from filing comments criticizing the resolution before the vote. “We were promised a town hall, which is a common practice for controversial resolutions,” she wrote, “but the president of the association reversed that. The association has also refused to disclose who were the authors of the resolution.” After reading through the resolution, it’s easy to understand why the identities of the authors were shielded from the other members of the group. It’s riddled with inaccuracies and deceptive language. For example, the first paragraph asserts that Israel has killed “59,000 adults and children in Gaza,” without distinguishing between civilians and Hamas fighters.” You need to read the rest in the Free Press article (link above) And there is more to ‘convict’ the IAGS of, they make a sham of several settings and the press has no other recourse but to convict them as well, because if they do not, the press will have proven themselves to be biased and unworthy to call themselves news media. There is of course the funny setting that all these papers will have to be charged VAT from now on as most hide behind the zero VAT setting for being news sources. When that stops their advertisers go the way of the Dodo really fast.
The media line also gave us “For her, the flaws went beyond procedure. “They cite U.N. sources … and if you look at the citation, it says data that has not yet been verified by the United Nations, and then in footnote five it says Ministry of Health Gaza—the Hamas-run Ministry of Health,” she pointed out. “The fact that those are the statistics that they had to cite and it’s in the first paragraph immediately speaks to a lack of academic integrity … It’s not even academically lazy. It’s reckless. And the harm is real.””
Darn, I forgot to shine the limelight on Microsoft again (my personal behemoth) and in that same setting I now wish you a good day and consider trusting the news media a lot less than before. So to all of you, have a great day today and don’t forget to question your news vendor at some point.
That is at the centre of this and the Guardian is guilty as fuck (pardon this expression). So what gives? Well on August 10 2025 I wrote a blog article where I gave light to an article they posted on August 7th 2025. I did it in ‘The emotional grab’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/08/10/the-emotional-grab/) as I said there, I had some issues with the article. And I stated “And in that story, we see one photo of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which was taken in Riyadh, May 2009. It is the only time that his royal highness is mentioned. There is no mention of him anywhere in the article, I checked. So why is he there? Because of the mention of Saudi Arabia?” Then we get “Then we get the wife Emma, she is mentioned four times, and twice by name. What is her involvement? Or is she merely dressing (like a Window) making this story more ‘humane’ The more I read it, the less it makes sense.” I ended the article with “In the end I wonder what this article served. It was not the truth (too much emotion and too little evidence for that), was this another anti-Saudi smear campaign? I am not sure but as we see the lack of evidence and no reference to the declassifieduk site, which could have been used to spice up the article. I reckon that this counterbalanced the article and the article would make even less sense. But that is merely my view on the matter.” So now we get (less than 21 hours ago) the same article as a podcast (By David Pegg. Read by Shane Zaza), as such, what is this rehashing of a smear campaign. Is the Guardian setting out feelers for politicians? I didn’t bother listening to the podcast as there are too many issues with the printed article and if they are resolved it would prove that the Guardian isn’t doing its job correctly. It is a simple setting we tend to see in a smear campaign. So what is the issue with the British government (because this is evidently the push as I see it) So what did the Saudi government do wrong? Did they not rise the oil prices too much? Did they not buy enough British sportspeople? Your guess is as good as mine and I reckon that the Guardian owes the readers (and listeners) a decent explanation. And if it was rehashing for news levels, the Guardian left a lot on the floor. There is the EEA report in 2022 where they stated (outright) that 50% of all the environmental damage was done by 147 factories (I gave light to that a few times), but no that never made the papers apart from the settings that they (and their friends) felt happy with. And they were eager to blame airplanes for all that environmental damage. Even Taylor Swift got that dirty spade of clubs (hidden joke there). As I showed the readers that 41,000 flights a day more amounts to a lot more than the private jets out there. And to wreck Tim McGrath’s day out there this week. He was every bit as guilty as the Guardian itself. And when I see that the EEA report hands out the setting to 147 facilities in Europe. How does the smear-campaign towards Saudi Arabia men make the top 25 anywhere?
That is the setting of the day and the Guardian advertising that they are under pressure doesn’t make the cut. Clean up your editorials to begin with and then give proper light to the EEA reports.
Have a great day, I’ll be looking into Microsoft a little more today.
That is at times a setting. I got this article two days ago in my sights, but I rejected it for the obvious reasons. But today I had some second thoughts, so I took a hold of it. There are a few settings that I need to explain. When a newspaper needs 7000 words to give you the issues that you could have gotten from 700 words, we usually see that there is something under it all. In this case we see all these ‘emotional’ settings, because there is basically nothing to be seen. This isn’t entirely true, but the gist of it comes to that. The Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/07/long-read-british-bribery-britain-arms-deals-saudi-arabia-ian-foxley) gives us ‘Very British bribery: the whistleblower who exposed the UK’s dodgy arms deals with Saudi Arabia’ and the headline gives us ‘dodgy arms deals’ and that takes some explanation. The United Kingdom is a nation, a monarchy no less. As such it can sell weapons to other nations. Saud Arabia is a monarchy too, as such is there something dodgy going on?
And in that story, we see one photo of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which was taken in Riyadh, May 2009. It is the only time that his royal highness is mentioned. There is no mention of him anywhere in the article, I checked. So why is he there? Because of the mention of Saudi Arabia?
Then we get the wife Emma, she is mentioned four times, and twice by name. What is her involvement? Or is she merely dressing (like a Window) making this story more ‘humane’ The more I read it, the less it makes sense. The first is that it took 7000 words to say nothing, the second that it is lacking a few items. The first is that Declassified (at https://www.declassifieduk.org/britains-secret-saudi-military-support-programme/) gave us a lot more information which was RELEASED in 2019. A simple setting is that the London School of Economics had 24 alumni working there. So at what point did the Guardian interview, or at least try to interview any of them? The 2019 story also gives us “Earlier this year, another US military official, Colonel Kevin Lambert, manager of the US’s own SANG modernisation programme, confirmed that the SANG was “executing combat operations in the Yemen conflict”.” The Guardian article doesn’t even mention Yemen once. In addition, the story is riddled with emotion. Things like “an accountant called Michael Paterson, was “a madman”” this might be true, but what purpose does it serve? If it is about dodgy deals, why is the wife involved? I get that she gets to be mentioned once (at the beginning) optionally twice (at departure), but the other two mentions? As I stated, the more data you see, the less is valued and it is not valued because there is more useless data, at times more data is to hide that you have none. So, then we get the ‘abundance’ of data. In this I refer to “Another time, a colleague casually joked about a Saudi general being willing to sign anything GPT suggested, on account of something called “bought in services”. Foxley didn’t recognise the term and when he began asking about it, he received only vague non-answers about “things we buy in”.” 47 words that could have been set through “GPT used ‘bought in services’ to hide acquisition of Saudi top military signing for services” I simplified it in 15 words, one third and then I would set the situation to evidence, which is massively lacking here. Then we get the word ‘bribery’ used 13 times, but how? Once is to mention the Bribery Act which was passed in 2010. It is important three times. The first is “Foxley could not have known bribery was rife in Saudi Arabia” (i’ll get to this later) and “Not only had the government ratted him out to GPT when he discovered the bribery conspiracy”, so who did rat him out? And is ratting him out the correct phrase here? The third time is “The MoD and the government “had been running the scam, the bribery, since 1978, ever since the project was set up”” So, exactly what scam were they running? A scam implies that criminal acts are being committed by the UK government. What is the scam exactly and who is involved? Then we get the one setting where it is important. It is given with ““Do you know about the Cayman Islands?” Paterson asked. Over the following 90 minutes, the accountant set out a series of discoveries that implicated GPT in years of bribery and corruption. What neither man knew was that the scheme they had stumbled upon had been overseen and authorised for decades, in both Britain and Saudi Arabia, by the highest levels of government.” Here we get the following settings. The Cayman Islands and what evidence is there of bribery and corruption? The setting is given in the article as well. “It doesn’t invalidate the invoices and the payments to Simec” as such, bribery is merely a smudging word and there is no evidence of bribery or corruption.
As I see it, the United Kingdom needs to walk a fine line to make deals with some nations and these high ranking officials are entitled to a commission, or a consultancy fee and as Generals were mentioned they are most likely allowed consultancy fees. I am using ‘most likely’ because I do not know Saudi law in these matters. In case of Simmer, that is up to the Saudi government. This article is a simple act of slinging mud, see what sticks and I fear it is very little as this article is missing all kinds of connections and evidence. So when we see “Eight Saudis received a collective £10m between 2007 and 2012 alone” and weirdly enough, this article doesn’t name these people as we are also given “the British government had authorised the entire scheme – had won out.” As such 7000 words to fulfill the setting that was decided over a year ago. So, what exactly was the meaning of this? Seems a fair question as there are settings that are not given, too much emotion in the entire article and a massive amount of facts that just aren’t there.
So what was exactly the call for this article? To smear the Saudi Government? To smear the British government? As such we also get both Cook and Mason were acquitted. Then a mention that one of them is separately convicted for taking kickbacks, while he was a civil servant at the MoD, before he became part of the GPT. A simple unrelated misconduct offence.
In the end I wonder what this article served. It was not the truth (too much emotion and too little evidence for that), was this another anti-Saudi smear campaign? I am not sure but as we see the lack of evidence and no reference to the declassifieduk site, which could have been used to spice up the article. I reckon that this counterbalanced the article and the article would make even less sense. But that is merely my view on the matter.
That is the setting as I personally believe it to be. The problem isn’t me, the problem is that politicians are clueless and as such the people will end up suffering. As we get the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/30/zuckerberg-superintelligence-meta-ai) telling us ‘Zuckerberg claims ‘super-intelligence is now in sight’ as Meta lavishes billions on AI’ the dwindling situation is overlooked. This is not on Meta or on Mark the innovator Zuckerberg, well, perhaps it is a little on him. But the setting of “Whether it’s poaching top talent away from competitors, acquiring AI startups or proclaiming that it will build data centers the size of Manhattan, Meta has been on a spending spree to boost its artificial intelligence capabilities for months now”. So, what are you missing? It is easy to miss it and unless you are savvy in data, there is absolutely no blame on you. I will blame politicians shoving the buck to a pile that has no representation and I do see that the political mind is merely ‘money savvy’, it does not have an alleged clue on data verification. There is a second point, it was given to me by someone (I don’t remember who) who gives us “All AI startups are their own shells linking to ChatGPT” I see the wisdom of that, but I never investigated that myself. You see, all these shells have issues with verification and these startups don’t have the resources to properly verify the data they have, so you end up having a bucket with badly arranged and misliked data. You would think that if they all link to ChatGPT it is a singular issue, but it is not. Language is one, interpretation of what is, is another side and these are merely two sides in a much larger issue. And hiding behind “build data centers the size of Manhattan” is nothing else than a massive folly. You see, what will power this? Most places in this world have a clear shortage of power and any data centre relying on power that isn’t there will crash with some regularity and these data links are maintained in real time, so links will go wrong again and again. And that link is seen by ‘some’ as “A new study of a dozen A.I. -detection services by researchers at the University of Maryland found that they had erroneously flagged human-written text as A.I. -generated about 6.8 percent of the time, on average” that implies that 1 in 15 statements are riddles with errors and there is no way around it until the verification passes are sorted out. Consider that one source gives us “monthly searches to more than 30.4 million during the last month”, this gives us that AI events resulted in 2,026,666 possible erroneous results and when that happens to something that was essential to your needs? When technical support and customer care fails because the number, aren’t right? How long will you remain a customer? That is the folly I am foreseeing and when all these firms (like Microsoft) are done shedding their people and they realise that the knowledge they actually had was pushed out of the side door? Where does this leave the customers? Will they remain Microsoft, Amazon, IBM or Google customers? This is about to hit nearly every niche in America business. The ones that held on the their people knowledge base tend to be decently safe, but the resources needed to clean up the mess that this created will scuttle the European and American economies as they overextended the new they spun themselves and when reality catches up, these people will see the dark light of a self created nightmare.
So in retrospect consider “Behind the hype of Microsoft backing and a $1B+ valuation, the company reportedly inflated numbers, burned through ~$450M funding, and collapsed into insolvency.” This setting was hyped on every channel and praised as a solution. It took less then a year to go from a billion to naught. How many even have a billion? Considering that Microsoft backed it, implies that they were unaware how they were, driven by a simple setting that should have been verified before they even backed it to over a $1,000,000,000 plus.
Now, we can feel sorry for Zuckerberg, not for the money, he probably has more in his wallet, but the ones wanting in on such a ‘great endeavor’ are bound to lose everything they own. This is a very slippery slope and as governments are seeing what some call as AI as a solution to solve a expensive setting in a cheap way are likely to lose the ownership of data of their entire population and these systems do not care who the owner is, they copy EVERYTHING. So where will that data end up going? I wonder who looked at the ownership of collected data and all the errors it has within itself.
The fear is not what it costs, but for billions of people is where their information will end up being and these politicians sell ‘sort of solutions’ which they cannot back with facts and in the end it will end up being the problem of a software engineer and that setting was too complicated to understand for any politician who was too eager to put his name under this and merely will shrug saying ‘I’m sorry’ whilst he is exiting through any side door with his personal wallet filled to the brink to a zero tax nation with a non-extradition treaty.
A setting we will see the media repeat time after time without seriously digging into the mess as they told us “Wall Street investors are happy with the expensive course Zuckerberg is charting. After the company reported better-than-expected financial results for yet another quarter, its stock soared by double digits.” All whilst the statement “Zuckerberg did not provide any details of what would qualify as “super-intelligence” versus standard artificial intelligence, he did say that it would pose “novel safety concerns”. “We’ll need to be rigorous about mitigating these risks and careful about what we choose to open source,”” is trivialized to the largest degree and in all this there is no setting of verification. Weird isn’t it?
So feel free to enjoy you cub of toffee and don’t worry about the jacked setting of demonstration which was tracked by the original AI as “enjoy your cup of coffee and don’t worry about the impact of verification” because that is the likely heading of the coming super-intelligence
Yes, these people exist, but it is uncommon and actually quite rare, but the setting of Ghislaine Maxwell warrants that thought. It is not a simple setting. Not only was she convicted, she was convicted to 20 years and several women’s life were squandered to what some call the ‘pedo’ organisation of a lifetime (as expressions go). They were not merely destroyed by man, a woman named Ghislaine Maxwell seemingly ‘prepared’ them for the ‘entertainment’ of certain man.
And now 4 years later it starts again as she is vying for reduced sentences, optionally overturning her situation. I’ll grant it is balmy, because every father with daughters is willing to shoot her down, they will hunt her across the globe and as she wants to ‘compel’ them to stay their weapons, she is unlikely to succeed. And this is a circus with three rings. The first ring is the list of Epstein and the wealthy ‘suiters’ of these underaged woman. The second ring has President Trump and whatever political aspirations are coning from this scene. And here we see the first (as I personally see it, the first lie) and we get to thank ABC news for that (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-29/trump-has-not-considered-pardoning-epstein-ally-maxwell/105584506) where we see ‘Donald Trump says he has not considered pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell’, you see, the question was asked and in that moment any person would consider the question and as such he would have considered pardoning her. There of course the thought that he would reject that, but that doesn’t matter the question was considered as I personally see it. So as ABC gives us “Maxwell is appealing against her 20-year prison sentence, arguing that a prior plea deal that Jeffrey Epstein took protected her from prosecution.” This is as I see it a null option. For that to be considered Epstein would have had to set that stage, but he (allegedly) committed suicide making the entire stage to go away. It is a personal view and perhaps there was something, but if that is absent of documentation it is null and void. You see, an old setting has been (going all the way back to the Italian army of AD45) “If it isn’t written down, it does not exist” or words (and written down) to that nature. As such this is basically a Marie Celeste in business, in politics and in ethics. Now, I am all for the law and if there is something then show us the documentations, in other settings, such an agreement would have had witnesses, who were they? Where are they? And what was the stage? Because Jeffrey Epstein decided that suicide by hanging was preferable than facing the world and his world is all about presentation and alleged holiness. He took the fast way out, he was sentenced to eighteen months in prison and he was sentenced to (as some sources state) be housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County Stockade and, according to the sheriff’s office, was, after 3.5 months, allowed to leave the jail on “work release” for up to twelve hours a day, six days a week, but after one month he must have realised what his life was about to become and he took the quick avoidance method.
The third ring is about the list, who was on it, what evidence was there and so on. This ring has its issues and problems. The conspiracy theorists are flaming this in the trend of “Republicans will set the list to democrats, no republicans and President Trump was never on the list” in that setting I have no idea. You see, the setting is that political players all want billionaire people as friends as they can fund campaigns, as such plenty might have ‘known’ Jeffrey Epstein but to what matter remains the question. We all have seen the image of Trump and Epstein. That is however no proof of guilt. Billionaires hang around billionaire, that part makes sense, but that is no evidence that President Trump did anything wrong. I go one step further, as I speculatively see it, no farther of daughters will use a minor girl for sex. The only possible setting is that these men also sexually abuse their own daughters. It is speculation but that is what I think and if there is a decent psychologist that states that this is not the case, I will accept that. As I say it is speculation. I still have a problem imagining that any woman will serve up female minors for sex duty.
So as we see this we get to the Guardian (at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/28/ghislaine-maxwell-supreme-court) who gives us ‘Maxwell, sentenced to 20 years for sex trafficking, says 2007 plea deal negotiated by Epstein should have protected her’ and my issue is also (I already answered this at the beginning) that she ‘waited’ over 2 years to set the stage. Was she hoping the case had gone cold? As we are given “Her legal team, however, submitted a request to the supreme court on Monday, seeking to overturn the lower court’s decision, arguing that a prior plea deal that Epstein took protected Maxwell from prosecution.” The skeptic in me is thinking that they have a juicy paycheck coming their way and whilst Ghislaine Maxwell is paying, they will continue any branch they can get. In the end it becomes a setting of coin and a setting of ego. More coin as it is a paying setting, less ego as it is about overturning a conviction with witnesses and that is a lot to un-stage. So as we are given “The controversial 2007 plea agreement between Epstein and the justice department said that if Epstein followed the terms of the plea agreement, the US government would not charge “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”, including “but not limited to” four co-conspirators. Maxwell is not one of the four co-conspirators named in the agreement, but her attorneys say she did not need to be named to receive the protection from that deal.” I have an issue with that (with my limited law knowledge). As such shouldn’t the four coconspirators be named? Who are these four? As I see it, an exact number requires identities? No, here the attorney of Ghislaine Maxwell is correct, it is seen in “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein”. The issue is, how was this ‘overlooked’? The referred document is seen (at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6184602-Jeffrey-Epstein-non-prosecution-agreement/) and on page 2 and 3 gives us the setting. We are given:
THEREFORE, on the authority of R, Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.
If the United States Attorney should determine, based on reliable evidence, that, during the period of the Agreement, Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may, within ninety (90) days following the expiration of the term of home confinement discussed below, provide Epstein with timely notice specifying the condition(s) of the Agreement that he has violated, and shall initiate its prosecution on any offense within sixty (60) days’ of giving notice of the violation. Any notice provided to Epstein pursuant to this paragraph shall be provided within 60 days of the United States learning of facts which may provide a basis for a determination of a breach of the Agreement. After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed.
This is what we are given as Exhibit 62. What I believe the case is that as given “Epstein willfully violated any of the conditions of this Agreement” making the setting null and void. As such all coconspirators could be prosecuted and that is as I see it the setting. So when we see
Epstein shall be sentenced to consecutive terms of twelve (12) months and six (6) months in county jail for all charges, without any opportunity for withholding adjudication or sentencing, and without probation or community control in lieu of imprisonment; and Epstein shall be sentenced to a term of twelve (12) months of community conool consecutive to his two terms in county jail as described in Term supra.
But he never did the second term, he never made it past the first term as such the setting becomes a nulled one and he basically hung all ‘his friends’ out to dry, wasn’t that great of him? As I have legal training (a decade ago), this is what I see. Perhaps there are American ‘rules’ that state that the agreement is till valid, but that agreement would be hung (I couldn’t resist that) on the setting that he completed his sentence and he did not.
I reckon that this was seen 5 minutes after this was agreed upon and it is my personal view that lawyers will cash in on any option they can and as Ghislaine Maxwell cannot spend her money in prison and most likely will not survive her time in prison (she is 63 after all) there might be an alternative setting for the lawyers in question (a presumption, as there is every chance that they were instructed by their client Ghislaine Maxwell to pursue any option they can) and they are doing their job as instructed.
As such I think this goes nowhere and perhaps there will be leniency if she hands over the list, but that is might be a big if, and that should strike fear in the hearts (and loins) of anyone making that list. As such I reckon that a certain Silk Road marker place will have more than one items for the execution of Ghislaine Maxwell with the reward at ₿1000 (or $119,000,000) that is the setting she is invoking, even if she gives false names, her days are numbered. These people don’t like taking chances and she is likely happy to go that road for one free day, one last meal and one drink. This is mere speculation but that is how I see it and as I stated it, every father of daughters likely wants her dead, they are all about keeping their daughters safe. It might not sound reasonable, but fathers tend to be not so solid and sturdy when their little girls are in danger.
That is a question that is more often than not a valid one. We went to exit any setting, but there is the ego to consider, America has skin in the game (as the expression goes). As the Guardian gives us (at https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/jul/08/saudi-arabia-capital-punishment-executions-foreigners-drug-offences-crime-600-people-amnesty-international) last week, last Tuesday to be more exact, we are given ‘Saudi Arabia executing ‘horrifying’ number of foreigners for drug crimes’ with the byline “Hundreds put to death for non-violent drug offenses over past decade, with little scrutiny of Saudis, says Amnesty”, yup it is everyones favourite crybaby Amnesty International. I can’t really fault them here. They have a ‘strict’ setting and I get that, but the rest of the world needs to understand that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia takes a harsh views on any drug offense. So as we are given “Almost 600 people have been executed over the past decade for drug-related offenses, Amnesty International has found, three-quarters of whom were foreign nationals from countries including Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Nigeria and Egypt.” It is like toddlers in a zoo. If you put your hand in the tiger cage, it will be bitten off. There is no ‘but’ or ‘why’ in this. It is the nature of the beast. Saudi Arabia is totally against drugs and they do not accept any other setting. You see, America might have started ‘the war on drugs’ around 1971 (optionally 1970) and for 50 years where we see that the setting should be seen as “at least $100 billion a year, and far from eliminating use, supply and production, as many as 300 million people now use drugs worldwide, contributing to a global market with a turnover of $330 billion a year” as such America has spend a generic $5,000,000,000,000 dollars on a war that has no exit strategy. Saudi Arabia isn’t falling for that trap and is not concerned for the 600 people who threw away their lives and is happy to end their seemingly pathetic lives. I am decently certain that their lives in Pakistan or Egypt would end in the same way. Although, I am certain that these two countries only give the death penalty on extreme cases (whatever that means), still the death penalty is in the cards there too.
So, whilst every is calling the war on drug in America a lost cause and it is only in the eye of politicians who want to get coin out of this setting that they would ‘see’ an optional solution. I am of the mind that simply putting them all to death might have saved America $100,000,000,000 on an annual basis. That is the setting I personally see.
So whilst we see “With little international scrutiny of what Amnesty describes as “grossly unfair trials” and a “chilling disregard for human life”, the rights organisation warned that the death toll would only increase.” We need to understand that Saudi Arabia sees drug use as a complete ‘no-no’ and they have strict laws in place. When we understand this, we should consider why these people go for drugs, and more important, how is this setting being supported? I think that most people in that ‘industry’ want their slice of a $330 billion cake and it is an annual cake, as such I wonder what is fueling this. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia isn’t wondering this at all. They merely execute the people who go for that dish and I get that. The American war on drugs is a stalemate for negotiations and a setting for delays and optionally some people get some out of this. Saudi Arabia sees them all as equally unworthy and treats them all to a one way ticket to the grim reaper, or towards Malak al-Maut as they call him. I reckon he is the American version of ‘Kill ‘em all, let god sort them out’ I have no real view on this. You see Saudi Arabia has capital punishment and the results are not unlike “Old Sparky,” who had been executing people since 1924 at the Huntsville Penitentiary. So is that any different? There is no setting of violent or non-violent. If you get caught with drugs in Saudi Arabia, they get a one way ticket to wherever they were supposed to go. It sounds harsh, but it is time that people realise that intentionally breaking the law in some countries has consequences and drugs have a finite consequence here. So when we see “Dana Ahmed, Amnesty International’s Middle East researcher, said: “We are witnessing a truly horrifying trend, with foreign nationals being put to death at a startling rate for crimes that should never carry the death penalty.” According to who? Is my question. You see “Saudi Arabia has a zero-tolerance policy regarding drugs and enforces its laws rigorously” as such I wonder where Dana Ahmed got her law degree. I kinda understand her. I am not in favor of the death penalty, but it is for every government to decide for themselves and as I see it, Saudi Arabia is not interested in wasting $100,000,000,000 a year on this problem. I get that too and I see that they decided to take ‘zero-tolerance’ to the next level and the people who cannot stay away from drugs, need to find a little burrow in America to see they lives through. As I see it Saudi Arabia said ‘not here’ and I get that too, I very well understand that. As such these people should have exited that country (preferably) before they got caught, they had the option between ‘leave now’ or ‘drugs now’ and they chose poorly.
So whilst we see all parties cry their way into your hearts consider that it is well stated and openly documented that Saudi Arabia does not tolerate drugs of any kind, even as we might, we ned to learn that other countries have other values and they might not condone our recreational approach to drugs. That part I see missing here. There was a larger truth, it was there from day one and now we see that some are trying to seek other solutions, but the fact is that the other solution has proven to be a failure for over half a century and now that the funds are dwindling I reckon that America will get a new premise, it will go from ‘America first’ to ‘Healthy Americans first’ a setting we are likely to see before the years end. Especially when fentanyl is not only fueling political settings, America might take drastic steps to downsize that problem. So does that make Saudi Arabia a trendsetter?
Consider that and not merely the ‘bad’ feeling you get from a death penalty, consider what drugs and the drug market is doing to your economy. There are a few sides to this that Amnesty International does not want you to see, consider the impact of trillions on a war that never had anywhere to go. And you can afford this trillion, can’t you?
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 