Franklin Templeton Update

1. Franklin Templeton (Trustees) - six schemes under winding up - have announced dates of voting to seek consent of Unitholders to wind up. Voting begins 26Dec20 at 9am

2. Supreme Court will continue to hear the case - Next hearing on 9th Dec

(1/n)

Q1: What is the voting about by FT
Ans: To validate/approve decision of Trustees to wind up 6 schemes - both Guj & Knataka Courts said Unitholder consent is mandatory

FT has now agreed to do this and this vote will take ur consent to either wind up the scheme or NOT.

(2/n)

Q2: What are the options in this Voting?

Ans: This will be the first voting. (There will be a second vote, I will explain in thread later)

In this Vote, you will have two options
YES - Wind up Schemes
No - Do not wind up, open them up

You have to choose one option

(3/n)

Q3: Should I vote YES or No?

Ans: There is fatigue in investors as their money is locked up for in these tough Covid times. It's been now over 7 months

Most investors take it as fait accompli to vote YES
FT is exhorting investors to vote YES as the best way ahead

(4/n)

Q4: But how should investors vote? YES or No?

Ans: YES will lead to wind up at a pace defined by winder (the person winds up the scheme). This will lead to best value realisation of underlying assets

NO- Will lead to immediate access to money but not best value for you

(5/n)

Tunde Thomas (alias Tunde Gentle), 45, died about two weeks ago from heartbreak. The two kids from his marriage were indeed fathered by a man without scruples or conscience, the current MD of FCMB, Adam Nuru who was his wife’s boss (MD) in FCMB. Tunde’s wife, Moyo Thomas
#thread

(Nee Ojo), a useless an unconscionable adulterer was engaged in an office romance with her MD, a relationship that was well known throughout the organization as the lack of shame and decorum in both lovebirds made them to get carried away and to throw caution to the wind.

FCMB, an organization without proper rules or governance looked the other way while the open and unprofessional romance was going on between the MD and a subordinate staff of the same organization, a married woman.

The MD, Adam Nuru, who was supposed to be the chief

Governance Officer and Chief Image Maker of FCMB spared no thought for the husband of this lady who was bringing up his (Nuru’s) two children while thinking they were his. He also did not think of the organization he was leading while engaging in this foul conduct, the

scandal with which no ethical organization would want to be associated.
Tunde was so in love with & attached to his wife & children that he spent most of his resources on them. He took them to London & Dubai on holidays. He also spared no penny in putting them in the best schools

This will be a thread containing the more sensitive information @LLinWood tweeted tonight.

How about a brief refresher on federal bail, since everyone's got opinions on it this week? Yes?

Okay, here we go. In federal criminal cases, bail is governed by the Bail Reform

/2 Under the Bail Reform Act, a defendant MUST BE RELEASED ON BAIL unless the judicial officer (usually a federal magistrate judge) finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure (1) them appearing for trial or (2) the safety of the community.

/3 It's the burden of the government -- the federal prosecutor - to PROVE by CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE that the danger element applies, and no conditions can reasonably control it, if the government wants someone detained without bail. Preponderance burden for flight risk.

/4 HOWEVER there are certain statutory categories of crimes where there is a rebuttable presumption that no conditions will prevent flight or danger -- in other words, for those crimes, the burden shifts to the defendant.

/5 The Federal Rules of Evidence don't govern detention hearings and they can and do proceed by "proffer" -- that is, the government saying what they will prove if necessary.

I’ve often said that nothing is normal about Julian Assange’s case. Here’s my list of the top 10 least normal aspects, strictly on the logistical side of monitoring the extradition proceedings (this is not to mention the many substantive issues that are also far from normal).

1. The judge’s stubbornly persistent refusal to acknowledge that NGO observers are professionals and have an important role to play (separate to that of the general public) in ensuring open justice, and refusal to grant us access to be able to do our jobs properly.

2. The constantly shifting goal posts in gaining access to the public gallery, and arbitrary restrictions on numbers in all 3 courts where proceedings have been held. On any given day, it’s impossible to predict how many will be let in and when, necessitating very early queuing.

3. Receiving conflicting information from the court about remote access, including being accredited to the Cloud Video Platform and then having that access revoked in September. The same thing seems to have happened to us again for 4th January.

4. After unbelievable difficulty getting in, what we actually observed was a small screen on the other side of a large room. It was often impossible to tell who was who, and I could only follow properly as I had the lawyers’ voices memorised from February (when I could see them).

Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the Bell v Tavistock case has been refused. 10 grounds of appeal were advanced. None succeeded, including an attempt at an Article 14 (discrimination) point which had not been suggested previously by the Defendant.

Here is a copy of the Order refusing the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal.

An application for permission to appeal will now to be made TO the Court of Appeal itself.



That appeal will only be allowed where the court below (the High Court) was wrong or the decision unjust because of some procedural irregularity. The High Court has already said no. Will the CoA?

In other words - permission has been refused by the High Court to appeal up to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal now gets to decide ITSELF if it will hear the appeal. That we won’t know the outcome of for a few months.

Be sure to note you WILL hear about it.

WHY DO BRITISH LAWYERS STILL WEAR WIGS?

WRITTEN BY LAURIE L. DOVE

- Wigs, when not used to cover syphilis-related hair loss, were a big help for those who had lice.

- Wigs began to catch on in the late 16th century when an increasing number of people in Europe were contracting the STD.

- Long hair was all the rage, and premature balding was a dead giveaway that someone had contracted syphilis.

The drama of a criminal trial has a macabre allure. In America, strangers line up to enter courtrooms as spectators of high-profile proceedings. Those who can't be there in person watch live-streamed versions on televisions and tablets.

And when there's downtime from real-life court battles, many turn instead to pseudo-fictional primetime portrayals.

But when was the last time you saw lawyer or judge wearing a powdered wig?

While this isn't a tradition you'll find in America (excepting historic re-enactments), in England wigs remain an important part of formal courtroom attire for judges and barristers — the term there for lawyers.

⚠️ENDGAME: VOTER ID LAWS⚠️

1/17

One of the goals of the 2020 election is to show the public rampant proof of voter fraud so every state would be pressured to implement strict Voter ID Laws.

The One Spirit of God is the very definition of good (order, righteousness, fullness of completion). During creation, God called things as 'good' as the sequence of creation occured. God centered things always follow proper sequencing.

A Blessed2Teach (B2T) team drafted & filed this Court of Heaven document as accepted following several weeks of preparation to draft and implement it's proper order. The B2T team filed this document sometime in mid-to late- afternoon of Dec 18th.

The B2T team recreated the original filing of this Court of Heaven as notice (legal term) and recorded & shown here in early January before electoral college votes were certified.

At the time when the B2T team was filing this Court of Heaven document, a servant of God, Amanda Grace, had been given a Word from God near midday of the 18th. The word given her she later published that day after tending to her husband in the hospital.

Because prophecy precedes action/activity, the sequence & filing of the Court of Heaven document is confirmed as accepted. On December 19th, servant Amanda Grace was given another word from God.

Dear Texas: When your argument is that election procedures were adopted in violation of the Electors clause, the only evidence you need to "marshal" is "what election procedures were adopted and how"

You don't need weeks, a magnifying glass, and Melissa Carone

Also, why is there no other forum? You couldn't have sued in Federal court in Georgia or PA in advance of the election because ...?

Oh, right. No standing. That's still a problem

Also, Texas? I feel like you should take that up with ... Texas

I kind of feel like "look, what you meant by Purcell was let's just wait until after the election and then invalidate ALL the votes" isn't necessarily the *strongest* argument

Also, you don't just get to make up a new principle of constitutional and election law and just call it "a variant of" Purcell (or anything else).

You can tell it's made up by the total absence of any citation to ANY case, ANYWHERE, saying that

1/ I want to briefly tease out Cruz's statement, which will help set expectations about what might happen January 6:

2/ At its heart, the presser states, "we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given' and ‘lawfully certified' (the statutory requisite), unless & until that emergency 10-day audit is completed."

3/ How does a10-day emergency audit happen? Congress would need to enact a statute to amend the Electoral Count Act before January 6, when it's compelled by law to meet. That seems unlikely.

4/ Cruz et al. seem to hold a "thick" view of the Electoral Count Act, adhering to the "statutory requisite," which means that Congress would need to amend or adhere to the statute.

5/ A 10-day audit is impossible under the current statute. Objections to a state are limited to 2 hours' debate. Adjournments are fixed in the statute, too--no recess if you've hit five days:

TATA v MISTRY

Hearing to resume today in Supreme Court. Senior Advocate CA Sundaram to continue arguments on behalf of Shapoorji Pallonji firms.

Follow this thread for live updates from court.

@tatatrusts @TataCompanies

#SupremeCourt #tatamistry

TATA v MISTRY

Bench headed by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde assembles.

Hearing commences.

@tatatrusts @TataCompanies

TATA v MISTRY

CJI SA Bobde announces that over the weekend he discovered his son who is practicing in Mumbai has been appearing for the last 2 years in a slum rehabilitation matter for a subsidiary company of Shapoorji Pallonji group.

@tatatrusts

TATA v MISTRY

CJI asks whether Harish Salve, Dr Singhvi or CA Sundaram has any objections to CJI hearing the matter.

None of them object. The same is recorded by the Court.

Hearing continues.

#SupremeCourt

TATA v MISTRY

CJI says such issues could cause potential problems in future.

Sundaram continues with his arguments.

@tatatrusts @TataCompanies

🤔🧐⬇️ 🚨Active Thread🚨
Safe? Doesnt exist? No evidence? Decide for yourself I have things to show you...

Dont say I didnt try to tell you...

Over 1300 post & counting...

Parts 1-11 attached...

#BombayHighCourt begins hearing the plea of Sunaina Holey accused of making objectionable statements against Maharastra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and Cabinet Minister Aaditya Thackeray.

@SunainaHoley
@OfficeofUT
@AUThackeray
@CMOMaharashtra
@MumbaiPolice

Adv. Abhinav Chandrachud answers the query of the court asking the parties to present the stand of other democratic countries on the statements made on WhatsApp or Twitter.

Chandrachud relied upon judgments of US Courts to submit that when similar statments against the government were made, a US court took a stand that the statement needs to be rectified and not arrested.

Chandrachud relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Amish Devgan wherein the court observed that if it is a prominent person like a news channel anchor or a public figure, they have to observe higher amount of responsibility before making statement.

Chandrachud: My client (@SunainaHoley ) is not a public figure and hence her statements if incorrect can be rectified by the concerned authority. She need not be arrested.

#BombayHighCourt begins hearing the plea of Lawyers Collective challenging the summons issued by ED for appearance of Sr Adv Anand Grover before them in the capacity of the trustee of the NGO.

@LCHIVWRI
@IJaising
@dir_ed

Bench of Justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik ask ASG Anil Singh where the other Sr Advs are.

ASG: Milords had this been physical hearing, I would have located them, it is difficult during virtual hearing.

All Laugh.

Court states that the officers of ED are willing to come to Mumbai to carry out interrogation and they can proceed with the interrogation subject to the outcome of the plea.

Sr Adv Amit Desai asks the court to note certain facts from the plea.

Desai submits that ED has claimed they do not have certain documents with them. We have submitted those records, these are public records, but we will provide them with whatever additional documents they want.

Desai: So I am submitting that those documents can be sent to the ED, they can go through the documents and then take further course of action.

Today someone showed me an INCREDIBLE piece of evidence that #CraigWright is Satoshi.

This image, sourced from metanet-icu was shared with me.

It appears to be one of Satoshi’s earliest emails to Hal Finney, screen grabbed by Craig when he wrote it.

But, on closer inspection all is not as it seems.

This email was made public by journalist and can be found in a pdf of lots of emails from Satoshi to Hal Finney spanning 10-24 Jan 2009.

I’m not making any claim whether these are or are not

But, the most glaring and immediate problem with the metanet-icu screenshot of the draft email is in the top right hand corner of the image, where the user’s membership expires on 13th of March 2019.

Anonymousspeech is a paid service. The web archive of their product page shows that going back to the earliest snapshots they have never offered a package that lasts more than 2 years.

So the earliest this screenshot could have been made was March

But there’s something else strange about this image as well, and that’s down in the bottom left hand corner.

Anonymousspeech allows a maximum of 50000 characters in an email and has a counter of spare chars at the bottom.

This email has 48932 chars left.

A thread on the most unusual “victim advocate” case I handled. Not, oddly, a SA case. This is a story for NCOs & JOs especially. 1/

I was a LT (O3) assigned to USS Mount Whitney. Not a surface warfare officer, so while they stood command duty officer watches in port, I stood the lesser officer watch: Officer of the Deck. A nonrate was often assigned to my watch team as Messenger of the Watch: 2/

Let’s call her Laila. She was a seaman (E3) w/no rating (MOS), so she chipped paint & handled lines etc in Deck Department. She was 35yo, had a BA, & spoke two languages flawlessly—English & Farsi. She was SQUARED AWAY. But: she was from Iran. Came to the US as a child 3/

to go to school & live w/her older brother, a doctor. This was 1979. She got stuck in the US during the Revolution, became a US citizen. Joined the USN when her brother was killed in a car wreck. Most of the sailors called her “The Terrorist.” She did not fit in. 4/

She was VERY squared away, & always chipper & upbeat. She was a runner. She saved every penny, trying to get enough $ to get her youngest brother to Jordan & then to help him apply for a US visa & eventually citizenship. She wanted to strike for linguist, but still had 5/