He says that no authority seems to be looking into the grievances of the borrowers.
<< 𝙇𝙤𝙖𝙣 𝙈𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙪𝙢 & 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙒𝙖𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧 >>
#SupremeCourt bench led by Justice Ashok will today take up plea(s) seeking extension of loan moratorium owing to the pandemic alongwith sector-specific plea’s.
@RBI
#loan
#loanmoratorium #ExtendMoratorium
He says that no authority seems to be looking into the grievances of the borrowers.
He adds that he is unable to understand how the RBI is holding the borrowers hands with the present policy stipulations.
“But there has to be a cut off date. Otherwise how will there be invocation?” Justice Reddy asks
More from Live Law
More from Court
1/It seems apparent that the rulings in my case & was the Travis judiciary has allowed/ignored us related to the fear/coercion of #AlexJones and of his audience and employees who harassJudges & jurors.
.@FBI pls investigate the 3.07 violations, donations & defamation/slander..
2/I am aware that such coercion & perception has had real impact on my children’s lives & these cases Alex files against me.
Alex’s counsel has threatened me “accidentally” & tells my representation & others lies to coerce them to stay on team good-ol-boy$.
3/Why doesn’t the Court protect my kids? I filed a Temporary Restraining Order before the Thanksgiving that any judge should immediately grant: #AlexJones publicly intoxicated/getting wasted while he is enjoined (disallowed to) drink while he has my kids. The Court must fear him
4/No judge may be persuaded by coercion or benefits of ruling the way their main donors demand. No litigant can coerce judges or witnesses. Witness tampering very clear, documented by probative evidence as fraud in Alex’s lawsuits against me. .@fbi investigate pls
.@FBI pls investigate the 3.07 violations, donations & defamation/slander..
Totally agree about @FBI
— LongTime\U0001f913FirstTime\U0001f469\u200d\U0001f4bb (@LongTimeAmy) May 1, 2020
What #AlexJones says on #Infowars doesn't just stay on the internet. It incites violence IRL!
See how former InfoWars guest host, Owen Benjamin, parrots Alex Jones rhetoric on premeditated murder!?!https://t.co/U1HiqGg7XU
2/I am aware that such coercion & perception has had real impact on my children’s lives & these cases Alex files against me.
Alex’s counsel has threatened me “accidentally” & tells my representation & others lies to coerce them to stay on team good-ol-boy$.
3/Why doesn’t the Court protect my kids? I filed a Temporary Restraining Order before the Thanksgiving that any judge should immediately grant: #AlexJones publicly intoxicated/getting wasted while he is enjoined (disallowed to) drink while he has my kids. The Court must fear him
4/No judge may be persuaded by coercion or benefits of ruling the way their main donors demand. No litigant can coerce judges or witnesses. Witness tampering very clear, documented by probative evidence as fraud in Alex’s lawsuits against me. .@fbi investigate pls
You May Also Like
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.