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

We are live tweeting from the preliminary hearing of the Employment Tribunal case in which #AllisonBailey is suing Stonewall and Garden Court chambers.


The judge has ruled that for this hearing only, the names should remain redacted.

It is a Rule 50 Order. These particular individuals are members of Stonewall’s Trans Advisory Group and their names may well be known elsewhere. What is relevant is the messages from the group to Garden Court.

The judge states she would not make the same decision at the full hearing. This is only for the preliminary hearing.

Having dealt with the anonymity issue we now move to the main submissions in the case.
@littlecarrotq I've been tracking these since December. Michigan


Wisconsin


Georgia


Arizona


Another Pennsylvania case. This is the most important one in my opinion. It shows the Republican Legislature broke the law when they created a mail-in ballot law in October, 2019, which they knew was against the state
A Call for Help!
1. we have a petition/open letter for the WHO
https://t.co/Bie8pUy7WJ
2. 372 people signed it but we want to boost it
3. I post link ascomment on related YT videos
Tks @KevinMcH3 for the tip
4. You can help by liking the comments
5. That will increase visibility!


6. Links for YT videos with comments are here
1. China curtails hunt for virus origins
https://t.co/NhcYdtsd2Y
2. China: nearly 500,000 may have been infected in Wuhan
https://t.co/KRUQ5hFrii
3. WHO becomes US-China battleground | DW Documentary
https://t.co/8ah8M8bpiB


4. Gravitas: The 'hidden hunt' for COVID-19 origins
https://t.co/hHhhUqgPYt
5. Seeking the invisible: hunt for origins of deadly Covid-19 coronavirus will take scientists to Wuhan
https://t.co/tCPQqjUZF3
6. WHO team to probe COVID-19 origins in

7. How forensic researchers track down origins of SARS-CoV2
https://t.co/r7A1lkr5li
8. Bats, roadblocks & the origins of coronavirus - BBC
https://t.co/Kh9jacC54t
9. New coronavirus strain is far more infectious and spreading among young - BBC

10. https://t.co/OcpAZ9nrl3
11. https://t.co/OcpAZ9nrl3
12. https://t.co/OcpAZ9nrl3
13. https://t.co/PhmoSfvbD8
14. https://t.co/TsvB7SYN2c
15. https://t.co/0o5YbmiUbJ
16. https://t.co/ir7QiwmlWt
17. https://t.co/PTT3KZDi8F
18.
There is a now-relevant parallel here to the difference here between matters before a judge & matters before a jury. Judges are far more reluctant to strike testimony or evidence if they are the only recipients of it, with the theory being that they are really smart about ...


law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:

1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.

2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.

Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.

3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.

4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...

judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.

The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...

You May Also Like