Surendra Ananth @surendraananth, you violated my conditional consent. I assented to unprotected intimate relations with you on the STRICT condition that you tell me if you have relations with anyone else. You failed to do so, and I became ill as a direct consequence.

You refused to reveal your own STI results to me, but claimed to others they were negative and alleged I had multiple other partners, slut-shaming me. You gaslit me saying you had told me about your other partners.
You called up @justice_sisters and @SistersinIslam to tell them I was crazy, jilted. You rebuffed attempts to organise a community mediation so we could address matters. You said I was crazy for speaking to your boss and father in an attempt to keep other women safe.
You have a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOUR of misogyny, harassment and sheer disrespect for women. This was sent to a friend of mine who has never expressed interest in you and has a partner.
You think women are playthings, notches on the bedpost. You, @surendraananth, are no human rights advocate.
This self-styled "human rights lawyer" shared defamatory material posted by @misshelle13 falsely claiming that I had attempted suicide (after a very long, stressful day I told a WhatsApp group she was in that I had taken Xanax).
This lawyer, who claims to care about our fundamental liberties, asked a UNIVERSITY STUDENT he matched with on Bumble to MEET HIM AT A HOTEL BAR.
After pressure from multiple parties, @surendraananth consented to a mediation. Over the course of this mediation he threatened to take action for defamation after people aware of his behaviour alluded to it on social media. Tl;dr, he asked me to CONTROL MY FRIENDS.
Try and control Twitter, @surendraananth. We SEE you.
I want to stress this isn't about me taking ill. It's about the LACK OF REGARD FOR THE TERMS OF MY CONSENT. The refusal to RESPECT MY BODILY AUTONOMY by taking away my ability to make informed choices.
This is how he speak to women. It's not illegal. But I don't think it's acceptable. What do you folks think?
I am tired. Tired of rampant misogyny, tired of men who revel in treading that grey area of morality where they can gaslight as much as they like. I am tired of scrolling through my phone for the screenshots from multiple women I've compiled about @surendraananth 's behaviour.
And now I have to prepare for the possibility he will take me to court. Given the way Malaysian laws are structured, I'll probably lose. But if he does start proceedings, I am ready. The other women too.

WE are ready. #MeToo #TimesUp
Adding accounts from women in my DMs. @surendraananth, what do you have to say for yourself? BTW this woman matched with Suren after he GAVE A TALK AT HER UNI. #MeToo
https://t.co/87tNq0a8LR
Okay. This is the most horrible, heartbreaking one I've received so far. He tried to offer a young, impressionable law student an internship as an opening gambit. This is. Wow. I need a moment.
Surendra's stance is that I am crazy, a jilted ex who has been harassing him. I have no doubt this will be his response, complete with cherry-picked narrative excerpts.
But when you read it, remember that it's not just me speaking up. You've read accounts from other women. #MeToo

More from Law

This thread will debunk "the judges didn't look at evidence" nonsense that has been going around.

Over and over again, judges have gone out of their way to listen to the evidence and dismantle it, enjoy the carnage!

1/

Bowyer v. Ducey (Sidney Powell's case in Arizona)

"Plaintiffs have not moved the
needle for their fraud theory from conceivable to plausible"

This is a great opinion to start with. The Judge completely dismantles the nonsense brought before her.

2/

https://t.co/F2vllUhM2G


King vs. Whitmer (Michigan, Sidney Powell case)

"Nothing but speculation and conjecture"

This is a good one to show people who think affidavits are good evidence. Notice how the affidavits don't actually say they saw fraud happen in Detroit.

3/

https://t.co/NZAtqivWkL


Trump v. Benson (Michigan)

"hearsay within hearsay"

Another good one to show people who think affidavits are absolute proof.

4/

https://t.co/17GeGhImHF


Stoddard v. City Election Commission (Michigan)

"mere speculation"

/5

https://t.co/ekqYEqiIL9
Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw


Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.

So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:

1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."


2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”

3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."

You May Also Like