#legalsystem

[worldwatcher3072]

Upholding the Rule of Law:

Striving for Equality and Justice

In a just and democratic society, the rule of law stands as the cornerstone of fairness, ensuring that every individual, regardless of their position or power, is subject to the same legal standards. However, recent concerns about disparities in the application of the law have sparked discussions on the need to address any flaws in the system. In this blog post, we will explore the significance of the rule of law and its impact on societal trust, emphasizing the importance of upholding equality and justice for all.

The Rule of Law: An Unwavering Principle

The rule of law is not a mere catchphrase; it is a fundamental principle that underpins the functioning of democratic societies. At its core, the rule of law dictates that the law should be applied uniformly and consistently, without discrimination or favoritism. It ensures that no one, regardless of their status or influence, is above the law, and everyone is held accountable for their actions.

Challenges to the Rule of Law

While the rule of law is a guiding principle, its application can sometimes be influenced by power dynamics, political considerations, or disparities in resources. Such challenges can lead to perceptions that there are "two standards of law"—one for the powerful and privileged and another for the marginalized and less fortunate. When this happens, the very essence of justice is compromised.

The Erosion of Public Trust

When the rule of law appears to be inconsistent or biased, it erodes public trust in the legal system and institutions. Citizens lose faith in their ability to seek justice, and a sense of injustice permeates the collective conscience. This loss of trust can have far-reaching consequences, including decreased civic engagement and an increase in corruption and social unrest.

Addressing Flaws and Ensuring Equality

To maintain the integrity of the rule of law, it is crucial to identify and address any flaws in its application. This involves empowering an independent judiciary that can impartially interpret and enforce laws. Additionally, transparency in legal proceedings is essential to building trust and instilling confidence in the fairness of the system.

Promoting Access to Justice

A key aspect of upholding the rule of law is ensuring that all individuals have equal access to justice. Legal assistance and representation should not be limited to those with resources; rather, it should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their economic background. Equal access to justice enhances the legitimacy of the legal system and safeguards human rights.

Individual Commitment to Justice

Upholding the rule of law requires the commitment of each citizen to stand for justice and fairness. Civic engagement, public awareness, and holding public officials accountable are vital in safeguarding the principles of the rule of law. By advocating for a just and equitable society, individuals can collectively influence positive change.

The rule of law is a powerful concept that ensures a level playing field for all individuals within a democratic society. Striving for equality and justice under the law is an ongoing effort that demands the commitment of both citizens and institutions. By addressing any flaws in the application of the law and promoting transparency, accessibility, and impartiality, we can reinforce the rule of law and create a society where justice prevails for all, regardless of their status or influence. Let us unite in our pursuit of a fair and just world, upholding the principle that no one is above the law.

[iimtcollege]

On April 29, 2024, IIMT College of Law in Greater Noida organized a "Parliamentary Debate on Capital Punishment." The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, refers to the execution of a convicted criminal as ordered by a court of law. It is imperative to distinguish capital punishment from illegal executions that are carried out without proper legal procedures.

Venue: Moot Court, IIMT College of Law.

[ivygorgon]

An open letter to the U.S. Congress

Pass a bill to make Trump’s trial viewable by ALL Americans!

1,333 so far! Help us get to 2,000 signers!

I understand that the Senate just passed a bill, S. 3250, to permit victims of crimes associated with the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 to access court proceedings in the criminal case against the perpetrators. This new law will mean that affected people who are too old or infirm to travel to Washington, D.C., or those who are too far away to readily make the trip will still be able to observe court proceedings. Prosecutors at the Justice Department supported the move because they thought it was important for people affected by the crime to see justice in action. They are correct. Bearing this precedent in mind, I would like Congress to swiftly pass a similar bill for Trump’s prosecution for interference in the 2020 election. This case, United States v. Donald J. Trump, is of even more singular importance than the Lockerbie case. If such access can be offered for those victims it can be offered to the American people for a trial in which they have a distinct and unparalleled interest. This is one of the most important court cases this country will ever see. It is in the best interests of every US citizen to provide full access to it. There are, furthermore, no compelling reasons not to do so. Please introduce and/or support such a bill right away. People will be able to learn more about the arguments being made and it is more difficult to pass off disinformation about a proceeding that the public has full access to. Thanks.

▶ Created on January 22 by Jess Craven

📱 Text SIGN PIYDKC to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

[civicsavvy]

Justice Over Retaliation: Upholding Impartiality in America’s Political Landscape

The statement attributed to a Trump ally warning New York Attorney General Letitia James underscores the intense conflicts within the American legal and political landscape. Such rhetoric highlights the tension between political opponents, raising questions about justice, accountability, and political power in the U.S. This essay will analyze the implications of such a statement, examining the broader issues surrounding the relationship between politics and the judiciary, the potential consequences of escalating threats, and the need for a commitment to impartial justice in public office.

Political Rivalries and the Legal System

The American legal system is structured to operate independently of political influence, with judicial offices meant to uphold laws impartially, regardless of political affiliation. However, high-stakes legal cases involving political figures can strain this ideal. Letitia James, in her role as New York’s Attorney General, has pursued various investigations and lawsuits against Donald Trump, citing alleged financial misconduct and violations of state laws. Her actions have led some Trump allies to argue that her efforts are politically motivated—a claim that has only intensified with statements like the one attributed to a Trump ally about imprisoning her.

When legal processes become intertwined with political rivalry, public trust in impartiality can erode. Statements threatening legal action against officials, if politically motivated, risk undermining the judicial system’s credibility. For democracy to function effectively, citizens must trust that judicial actions are based on evidence and law, rather than personal or political agendas. Threats of retaliation against a public official, particularly from a position of anticipated power, place additional strain on the perception of fairness, challenging the very foundations of democratic governance.

The Escalation of Rhetoric and its Consequences

Statements threatening to imprison political figures represent an escalation in political rhetoric, signaling a shift from debate to more extreme confrontations. When political leaders and their allies use aggressive language, it can set a precedent that normalizes hostility in public discourse. Such language has consequences beyond the immediate political conflict—it can impact the public’s attitude toward government institutions and legal processes. In a society already divided along ideological lines, threats and inflammatory statements serve only to deepen those divisions, fostering an environment where political retribution becomes expected.

The risk is that such rhetoric might encourage individuals within the public to lose respect for the rule of law, seeing it as a tool for punishment rather than justice. Once political disagreements cross into threats of imprisonment based on affiliation, it becomes challenging to maintain a healthy, functioning democracy where leaders are judged by their policies and actions rather than by their political allegiances. The consequences of escalated rhetoric, therefore, go beyond individual cases and threaten to undermine democracy’s checks and balances.

Accountability, Justice, and Impartial Governance

For a nation founded on principles of justice and equality under the law, statements that suggest imprisonment based on political affiliation contradict these ideals. True accountability means ensuring that any public official, regardless of party, faces justice impartially if evidence supports wrongdoing. Politically motivated investigations or retaliatory statements that seek punishment based on political beliefs rather than facts distort this principle.

Public officials must work to uphold standards of impartiality, particularly in highly charged cases involving political figures. When politicians or their allies make threats, it raises doubts about whether officials can act independently without fear of political retribution. Such independence is essential to a functioning democracy and for maintaining citizens’ trust that justice is administered fairly and without favoritism.

Restoring Public Trust in the Legal System

To address the challenges posed by politically charged statements and actions, both parties must recommit to principles of fair and impartial governance. This may include reforms to ensure greater transparency and accountability within judicial processes, especially in cases involving high-profile figures. Ensuring that investigations and trials are based on evidence and legal merit, rather than political aims, is essential to restoring public faith in these institutions.

Additionally, political leaders on all sides have a responsibility to use language that promotes respect for the law, rather than language that might undermine it. Calls for de-escalation and a renewed focus on evidence-based investigations could help bridge some of the existing divides. Respectful discourse not only strengthens public trust but also sets a standard for future generations.

Conclusion: The Importance of Upholding Justice Over Retaliation

Threats of imprisonment based on political motives reflect a dangerous shift toward a retributive approach in politics that could weaken democratic institutions. Ensuring justice and accountability means evaluating individuals and their actions based on evidence, not ideology or affiliation. To preserve the integrity of the legal system, political figures and their allies should exercise restraint, recognizing that the rule of law depends on impartiality.

By respecting these principles, political leaders and officials can foster an environment where justice is both fair and impartial. Refraining from threats or retaliation against political rivals would serve to strengthen American democracy, allowing for an atmosphere where genuine accountability can thrive without the specter of politically motivated retribution.

[amirhashmilive]

भारतीय न्यायपालिका: राजनीतिक हस्तक्षेप और सुधार

भारतीय न्यायिक प्रणाली अपने विशाल और जटिल तंत्र के बावजूद आज धीमी गति और मामलों की भारी संख्या के कारण संकट में है। लाखों मामले वर्षों से अदालतों में लंबित हैं, और न्यायाधीशों की कमी ने इस प्रक्रिया को और अधिक बाधित किया है।

भारत की न्यायिक प्रणाली दुनिया के सबसे बड़े और सबसे जटिल न्यायिक तंत्रों में से एक है। देश का संविधान न्यायपालिका को एक स्वतंत्र और निष्पक्ष इकाई के रूप में मान्यता देता है, जिसका मुख्य उद्देश्य संविधान की रक्षा करना और नागरिकों के अधिकारों की सुरक्षा करना है। हालांकि, पिछले कुछ दशकों में न्यायालयों के धीमी गति से काम करने, न्याय में देरी और राजनीतिक हस्तक्षेप जैसे मुद्दों ने इस प्रणाली की…

[joannapetitioner]

It’s not the noise –

the clanging in your ears –

the blasting over and over in your brain –

that makes you angry.

It’s what’s underneath the noise –

embedded disregard of your Existence –

systematized dehumanization of your Soul –

that makes you angry.

In the face of others’ disrespect, you can respect yourself.

You don’t need to drown out your own Being.

Hear the noise and let it move through You.

Hold your own Life in High Esteem.

Honor who You are.

#OwnYourVoice.

#YourLifeMatters.

#BeClearAboutThat.

Music credits:

Flood by LogicMoon -- https://freesound.org/s/702947/ -- License: Attribution NonCommercial 4.0

Tobias Lorsbach / Logic Moon Music - https://logic-moon.de/  - https://www.youtube.com/@LogicMoonMusic  - @LogicMoonMusic

https://www.instagram.com/logicmoonmusic/  - @logicmoonmusic

https://logicmoon.bandcamp.com/album/last-dayshttps://soundcloud.com/logic-moon/popular-tracks

Video credits:

Anna Tarazevich  - https://www.pexels.com/@anntarazevich/ 

- https://annatarazevich.com/  - https://www.instagram.com/anntarazevich/  - @ anntarazevich

Suhaib Abu Salim - https://www.pexels.com/@suhaib-abu-salim-115809335/

Gal Shapira  - https://www.pexels.com/@gal-shapira/  - https://www.instagram.com/Galshapira.eth/ - @galshapira.eth  - https://x.com/Galshapiraeth  - @galshapiraeth 

-  https://www.tiktok.com/@galshapira.eth  -  @galshapira.eth

[buzzblend]

Lies, and money, and a history of (no) violence! Oh my!

Believe all women? Please don’t. Especially not a woman by the name of Jo Natauri.

If the recent verdict in the Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard case taught us anything, it’s this: Women are just as likely as men to lie, manipulate, and mislead. If anything, some of them are more likely to. After all, for years now, we have been encouraged, loudly and repeatedly, to believe all women, even the ones lacking a shred of evidence. As we saw in that Virginia courtroom, the jury determined that some women exploited this.

The following story plays out as Amber Heard, ironically, warned in her Washington Post op-ed against abuse where, drawing an analogy to the Titanic, people will “patch holes” to protect a powerful man accused of abuse – not because they care about him – but because they have a vested interest in his enterprise staying afloat. What happens if the woman is the powerful enterprise? This reality, a brutal one, is full of false allegations, cover-ups, unconscionable lies, and more than a few uncomfortable truths. It involves attempts by powerful people to destroy a good man’s name to keep Jo Natauri afloat.

The man’s name is Tiku Natauri.

Before going any further, it’s important to make the following clear: Everything you read here is backed up by facts – in other words, actual evidence. Before writing this piece, my investigation reviewed a number of illuminating email and text exchanges, documents, video footage, and audio recordings (including the police recordings embedded below). Now, you may find yourself asking the following: Why am I reading the story here, and not somewhere more, shall we say, prestigious? Good question. Well, the answer is quite simple.

The editors I reached out to were terrified by the idea of being hit with SLAPP suits. For the uninitiated, these suits are intended to intimidate and silence critics. They are frighteningly effective. This is America, after all, a place where slapping someone with a lawsuit has become a national hobby, a recreational activity, just something people do to pass the time. Americans sue for fun. This is why you’re reading the story here (thank you, by the way). It’s not because other outlets didn’t want to run the story. They did. However, the costs involved – or more specifically, the perceived costs – of being sued by someone, who has already spent millions on attorneys, gave outlets the chills.

The final question many will ask is this: Why are you writing it, and why should I read it? Like the Amber Heard affair, this is a public interest story: The number of articles referencing #MeToo and #BelieveWomen have exploded in recent weeks, and here seems to be another prominent #MeToo ambassador falsely alleging domestic violence.

Journalism that actually serves the interests of the public is at a premium. It’s also under threat. This story matters to anyone in possession of a conscience.

Background

Now, back to the actual story. The similarities to the Amber Heard trial are striking. Jo styles herself as a spokesperson against abuse, but four years ago, at the height of the #MeToo movement, she falsely accused Tiku of abuse to start the divorce. Ms. Natauri’s key witness is her sister, Sameera Gadiyaram. Last year, Jo falsely accused him of abuse again. This was only a few months after she publicly acknowledged in an acceptance speech that she has been personally “touched by” domestic violence. She did not name Tiku, but she referenced being “in this situation with someone you love” and “you have children. You are co-dependent financially.” Jo and Tiku have been together since 1996.

While there are two gag orders pending against Tiku, he stated “this has to end.” What follows is not “his” truth. It’s the truth.

Recordings reveal both sets of allegations are false along with evidence to corroborate his other claims. The same, however, cannot be said for the claims made by Jo.

Alleged Judicial Conflicts

Before delving into the damaging claims that have upended Mr. Natauri’s life, it’s important to establish a little context, most of which was reported in an October 2021 Air Mail article “Inside Teitler & Teitler, Goldman Sachs's Go-To Divorce Firm.” Tiku and Jo met in 1995 and started dating the following year before deciding to tie the knot in 2007. In 2018, Jo filed for divorce; their children were 8, 5, and 4 at the time. The Teitler firm seems to represent a vast majority of Goldman Sachs employees, including Jo, in divorce proceedings. The article reported conflicts between the judge handling their divorce, Lori Sattler, and the Teitler firm including campaign donation conflicts and how Judge Sattler hired Alexandra White, the sister of Jo’s lawyer Elizabeth White, within the first year of this case and without disclosure.

A September 2017 New York Post article “Democrats turn on judge nominee over controversial abortion case,” reported that current New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was the Public Advocate at the time, co-signed this letter from the National Organization for Women NY that Lori Sattler was “unfit to be elevated to a permanent status on the State Supreme court.”

In December 2021, Tiku filed a motion. He noted a number of additional conflicts involving Judge Sattler, Judge Sattler’s appointees Karen Rosenthal and Rodrigo Pizarro, and the Teitler firm. His key allegations:

Judge Sattler and the Teitler firm have not disclosed the hiring of Alexandra White in any affected cases

Judge Sattler, Karen Rosenthal, and Susan Bender are close personal friends, who regularly socialize together, which is not being disclosed

Karen Rosenthal and Rodrigo Pizarro work together in a separate entity, which is not being disclosed

Karen Rosenthal made personal contributions to causes sponsored by the Teitler attorneys, which is not being disclosed

The operative words, in case you missed them, are “not being disclosed.” The judicial system is predicated upon freedom from bias, and New York has refined it further stating that a judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety. One of Tiku’s former attorneys, concerning the lack of disclosure regarding the White sisters, expressed it best: The “deliberate silence only underscores the fact that there is a serious conflict of interest here.”

Shortly after Tiku filed this motion, change rippled through the New York City matrimonial circuit. Records reveal that a new judge, Kathleen Waterman-Marshall, took at least 300 cases from Judge Sattler, who according to the New York courts website is no longer sitting in the matrimonial part. Alexandra White left the employ of the court system. Karen Rosenthal’s law firm, Bender Rosenthal, seems to have closed its doors. Concerned? You should be.

The New York Chapter of AFCC now lists Ms. Rosenthal as a Past Co-President, and Dr. Pizarro’s name is nowhere to be seen, but Ms. Rosenthal and Dr. Pizarro were listed as Co-President and board member, respectively, as recently as November 2021. This is important, because, according to Tiku, he asked both Karen and Rodrigo in 2018 if they had any conflicts or relationships with others in this case: Both disclosed nothing. My research uncovered tax filings showing Ms. Rosenthal listed as Co-President as far back as 2014, and Dr. Pizarro listed as Vice President as far back as 2016. If this all seems a little odd, to you the reader, there’s a reason why. What occurred was, for lack of a better word, suspicious.

The Natauri Family

Then again, what occurred shouldn’t really come as a surprise. Jo Natauri is, after all, a very powerful woman. She is a partner at Goldman Sachs, the most coveted position on Wall Street. Ms. Natauri is “the lead investor for Launch with GS,” a Goldman investment initiative overseeing $1 billion “designed to narrow the gender gap in investing.” According to my research, Ms. Natauri earned more than $10 million last year, which is consistent with CNBC’s reporting that Goldman partners make anywhere between $12 to $15 million dollars per year.

Somewhat hilariously, Jo is a board member of Safe Horizon, the nation’s leading victim assistance non-profit whose mission is “to provide support, prevent violence and promote justice for victims of crime and abuse, their families and communities.”

Over their two decades together, Tiku shares stories of laughter and love but also unpredictable tension. He struggled with Jo’s forgetfulness, mood swings, and demands. He never came to grips with her ability to lie so effortlessly. Their marriage drifted between lower highs and even lower lows with an increasing frequency of make-up to break-up. These two text messages from March 2018, separated by just one week, showcase how quickly they moved from divorce to madly in love.

In June 2018, Jo gave Tiku a Father’s Day card that was effusive in its praise of him as husband and father:

"I am really finding myself falling in love with you again – sometimes for the same reasons as before – your kindness, humor and love but the new things like your sense of responsibility for your family, your love and involvement with the kids, your understanding of my ADD – it has just made what I feel for you deeper somehow … I cannot image a better DAD."

The lower lows continued. In July 2018, Tiku told Jo that he wanted a divorce. According to Tiku, Jo almost immediately set wheels in motion to destroy him. She met with the Teitler firm. She reached out to Michelle Szeremeta, who reached out to Caitlin Elise Brown, both ex-caregivers who were caught covering up an abusive punishment meted out on one of the Natauri children (this was captured in a recording also submitted to court). Jo procured a burner cell phone number. Jo spent hours, now individually, with the couple’s former marriage therapists. It seems Jo met with Harold Koplewicz, the founder of the Child Mind Institute (this is important later).

This is all happening with Jo in New York City while Tiku and the three children are in Charlotte for the summer.

In hindsight, Tiku shares, “she was laying the foundation for her upcoming emergency court filing.” Tiku goes on, “Jo needed corroboration and witnesses, and she did whatever it took to get them. Michelle was receiving more than $200,000 annualized, on the books, after being rehired for working around 20 hours per week.”

Violence Allegation #1: Ms. Natauri’s Emergency Filing

The following month, and without warning, Sameera served Tiku with an ex parte emergency motion with lurid tales of child abuse, kidnapping, and allegations of a domestic violence incident on August 9, 2018, so savage that Jo was “sobbing and terrified” having painted a picture of Tiku trying to get to her ultimately fighting over a bedroom door, where it seems she overpowers him, immediately locks the bedroom door and then locks herself into the bathroom leaving a further impression that Tiku is so enraged that he is capable of breaking down doors.

Documents reveal two other women – Goldman partner Elizabeth Cogan Fascitelli and Jo’s sister Sameera Gadiyaram, who had recently left Goldman to work for one of Earvin “Magic” Johnson’s firms – corroborated Jo’s tale. Sameera reported that Jo “was scared and locked herself in the bedroom and further locked herself in the bathroom” and that she asked Jo if the police should be called. Ms. Fascitelli provides a more thorough account:

The allegation is most certainly one of a physical nature. This will be very important later in this story. Slightly over a month separated this narrative from that loving Father’s Day card where Jo expressed that she was “so happy you [Tiku] are my partner,” and how she is “truly in awe of you [Tiku] as a parent and a father.”

At the emergency hearing, Mr. Natauri produced an audio recording showing Jo’s allegation was entirely fabricated. The recording reveals nothing close to the accounts reported by the three Goldman women. There is no fight, struggle, or violence.

Rather oddly, Jo, the “sobbing and terrified” victim, waited four months before claiming that the recording was incomplete, implying the incident happened before the start of the audio recording. An exasperated Tiku then produced a video recording that still showed no incident. Jo, presumably desperate to contradict reality, then alleged the recordings were edited, a claim that was refuted by a media forensic expert, who confirmed the recordings are “authentic and unedited” and true to August 9th. Tiku shares, “only then did Jo, through her attorneys, indicate that she misremembered, which is absurd given her three attempts to manufacture a domestic violence incident that she knows never existed.”

Fabrication and omission appear to be something Ms. Natauri excels at.

The Air Mail article referenced a rather interesting document, one that seems to demonstrate Jo’s fondness for fabricating false narratives. My research reveals this particular document was the product of surveying Jo’s Goldman colleagues as part of an executive coaching review to address concerns. Out of 15 directives, the first is for Jo to be “fully transparent” in her communications and “avoid misleading communications.” Please, it begs further, “avoid misleading by omission.” State the facts clearly, it adds. In other words, it asks her to stop lying. This, along with the next two requests – be “less absolute and demanding” and avoid “doing whatever it takes” – paints a picture of someone. All of the above is white-collar speak. It’s clear that Jo’s coworkers are describing deceit, self-centeredness, and a lack of remorse.

Nevertheless, there’s not a single acknowledgment or reference on the record of Jo’s multiple lies regarding August 9th from anyone other than Tiku. He shares, “everyone has my recordings and my affidavits; everyone saw Jo lie over those four months in a desperate attempt to salvage her credibility, but everyone is also silent.”

I ask Tiku, why would they do this? Tiku shares, “the headline, Multiple Goldman Sachs women caught fabricating abuse, at the height of #MeToo would have been devastating for Goldman’s image. I now know that Judge Sattler and the Teitler firm, aka the Goldman Sachs lawyers, are inappropriately close. So, unknown to me, the fix was in. Less than a month after Jo files for divorce, Goldman provides the first of many lines of credit – $1 million – which she needed to afford Teitler to bury what she did.” Mr. Natauri shares further, “and it worked.”

Mr. Natauri continues, “Teitler began obfuscating, delaying, and hindering everything, and Sattler let it play out. For example, Jo failed to produce a single credit card statement for financial discovery. Teitler tells Sattler that Jo no longer uses credit cards, so there’s no statements to produce. This madness is accepted by Sattler. Things like this continued. I was not allowed to testify about August 9th or the recordings during the custody trial. Teitler frequently objected, which Sattler sustained, during my direct testimony. This blew the mind of my attorney, who called this out for being a one-sided proceeding.” To think that this occurs in modern day America should shock any reader with a conscience. Then again, it really shouldn’t.

Rodrigo Pizarro, Judge Sattler’s appointed forensic custody evaluator, certainly has a way with words. Like Ms. Natauri, he appears to enjoy playing hard and fast with definitions – and the truth. Unlike Tiku, Dr. Pizarro was allowed to testify about August 9th, and it seems Dr. Pizarro took creative license with the “truth.” His testimony regarding August 9th is extremely brief (below) and lacks any mention of the original false allegation from Jo and her Goldman witnesses or the two follow-on lies by Jo to salvage the original allegation. Recall the statements from Ms. Gadiyaram and Ms. Fascitelli plus Jo’s sworn summary that “Tiku terrified me on my arrival in Charlotte last week, following me through the house and up the stairs to my separate bedroom and forcibly tried to prevent me from closing and locking the door” with what seems to be a Rochester garbage plate of double-speak from Dr. Pizarro to avoid plainly stating that Jo lied to the court multiple times:

"So even though it's true that there was no hitting or no physical violence, for me the context, which is his view that the mother isn't safe and his view that the mother has ADHD and [h]is view that the children shouldn't spend time alone with the mother, which is happening just in the days before, his view that somehow the mother's request to spend time by herself with the children during the weekend is unfair to him, and his insistence on trying to kind of split the weekend and his refusal to accept her no, for me they're all abusive from a psychological perspective, even though there was no physical violence."

At least, he correctly states there was no physical violence (he had no choice; the recordings are immutable), but the allegation was most certainly physical. How does one psychologically assault a door? According to Mr. Natauri, “the only psychological abuse is having the supposedly neutral forensic expert omit real evidence, in one swift stroke, to whitewash Jo’s false allegations of domestic violence into my being abusive. He also refused to accept the Goldman Sachs executive coaching report that outs Jo as a liar once I told him what it said about her.”

The Goldman Sachs Family

Mr. Natauri told me that this is one of many examples where “Jo, her effectively Goldman Sachs funded lawyers, seven engaged at last count, and Officers of the Court manipulated the divorce.” He reports “Teitler has been paid probably $3.5 to $4 million for their services, which is coincidentally about how much Goldman has loaned Jo.” Most recently, it seems Goldman Sachs has provided a minimum of a $10 million line of credit to Ms. Natauri. Multiple people and organizations, all seemingly connected to Goldman, have also enabled Jo to destroy a good man’s name.

At some point in 2018, Ms. Natauri started seeing Dr. Seth Aidinoff, a psychiatrist, who according to Tiku represented that Jo presents as someone who has suffered domestic abuse. It seems Dr. Aidinoff may have worked for Goldman Sachs briefly after college, but Dr. Aidinoff’s father was certainly important to Goldman Sachs: He was a board member of Goldman’s Philanthropy Fund.

Ms. Natauri used the Child Mind Institute (cue the earlier reference to meeting with Mr. Koplewicz) to disavow a prior mental health concern, but why use a center that self-describes itself as focused on children’s mental health? It turns out many of Jo’s key Goldman colleagues, including Ms. Fascitelli, are also key leaders for this institute as noted in a November 2018 Bloomberg article “Goldman's Varadhan Gives Thanksgiving Homily at Child Gala.” The article reported that almost $7 million was raised at the annual event that was attended by a who’s who of Goldman executives, some of which including the gala’s honoree and others used the Teitler firm in their respective divorces. This gala is happening less than two months after Tiku provided the audio recording to everyone but before Jo alleged the recording was incomplete.

In May 2021, Ms. Natauri, who was already a Safe Horizon board member, became one of the leading advocates for victims of abuse by being honored by Safe Horizon at their annual gala alongside Ashley Judd, who is widely recognized as being pivotal for the #MeToo movement. Documents reveal that Goldman Sachs along with its executives, including Jo and fellow Safe Horizon board member and Goldman partner Luke Sarsfield, were the largest financial sponsors of this annual gala having donated almost $700,000. Jo became more vocal about her own non-profit, the Sita Foundation, which is building a hidden recording device for victims of violence.

The irony is overwhelming.

Another non-profit, Children & Parents United (CPU), reached out twice to Safe Horizon detailing the history of Jo’s false accusations. While Safe Horizon did not respond to CPU, Mr. Sarsfield forwarded one of the communications to Jo, who used it as the basis for the second gag order pending against Tiku. While Ms. Natauri, who in her Safe Horizon acceptance speech, seems to advocate for bringing domestic violence out of the shadows, she has moved for multiple gag orders against Tiku.

I asked Tiku, why would they want to silence you? “Because they don’t want the public to see what’s happening to me. Once gagged, I can be arrested for speaking out. And, according to Pizarro, I’m the abuser so let’s be honest, the ACLU isn’t coming to my rescue, no one is coming to protect an alleged abuser’s right to free speech. But once September 9th happened, they never wanted that cat out of the bag. It exposes Jo as a fraud and others’ complicity in helping her cover it up.”

Violence Allegation #2: Ms. Natauri & The Police

The second whitewashing of false domestic violence allegations happened in relation to September 9, 2021, when Jo effectively represented to the police that the children were missing and in danger. It appears that Judge Waterman-Marshall without evidence or a trial and with conflicting affidavits from Tiku and Jo somehow concluded there was only a single call to the police.

To be clear, there were two phone calls with the police on September 9th. These recordings are being shared here for the first time.

While I have included these two recordings with this article, I feel compelled to address the recordings in this case. First, the two police recordings: They might not be as sensational as the recording of Amy Cooper feigning hysteria while falsely reporting that a Black birdwatcher was trying to assault her, but I am troubled by the calm, almost eerie serenity, in Ms. Natauri’s voice on the second call. Surely, any reasonable person knows that alleging a parent is mentally unwell with the status of the children unknown will lead the police to a certain conclusion.

Second, my investigation reviewed other recordings, but I did not include those with this reporting. I reviewed a video where Jo and Michelle are barricading a child into a room. I reviewed a video of Michelle purposefully “catapulting” a child off a bean bag a few feet into the air, and the child starts to cry uncontrollably after crashing down onto the hardwood floor. I reviewed a recording where Michelle, Michelle’s husband Matt Szeremeta, and Caitlin Brown are laughing about a punishment that was subjected upon one of the children (the recording does not reveal if Caitlin’s fiancé, Alex Amirsaleh, is part of the conversation). I reviewed a recording where Caitlin and Michelle are together and one of them seems to mimic and mock a Jewish accent while discussing Goldberg’s Deli in the Hamptons. These recordings have been previously submitted to the court, but just like the recordings of the alleged domestic violence incident from August 2018, there’s little to no acknowledgement of them by anyone other than Tiku.

Now, back to September 9, 2021. As background, Jo, her attorneys, and Tiku are parties to an email from September 3rd, where Tiku rejected Jo’s demand for him to drop off the children early on September 9th. Jo replies again, so there’s no question that she is aware of his position. Over the following week, Tiku does not hear further from the Teitler firm or Jo. Based on this email exchange alone, there was no reason to involve the police that day. Jo and her attorneys know that the children will not be dropped off early on September 9th.

Nevertheless, Ms. Natauri visits the Tribeca Precinct in person and falsely leads the police to believe that Tiku is mentally unhinged, unresponsive, and the children are missing. She claims the children were supposed to be dropped off early that morning. She files paperwork indicating that Tiku has “strangled her in the past” and is capable of killing her or the children. According to Tiku, there are no prior allegations of him choking Jo or any physical harm beyond her emergency allegation concerning August 9, 2018. He also shares that this is the first time that he has been accused of being able to kill someone.

This results in a two-minute call between Tiku, Jo, and Officer Lindo, the latter two are together at the police station. Officer Lindo confirms the 6:00pm exchange of the children. The recording reveals that Jo omitted telling the police about the email exchange and then lies to Officer Lindo, who asks her directly on the call. Jo states she is “unaware of those emails.”

First call with the police

Jo leaves the Tribeca Precinct, walks a few blocks away, and places a second call directly to 911. The recording reveals Jo repeating the same false allegations: Tiku has mental issues, he is not responding to anyone, and she does not know when the children will be returned. Except, as you hear in the first phone call, Tiku just spoke with Jo and the police, who also explicitly confirmed the 6:00pm exchange that evening.

Second call with the police (redacted to remove identifying information)

Not only was there no reason to involve the police on September 9th due to the prior email exchange, but there was no reason to call 911 minutes after the first phone call.

911 immediately dispatches police to Tiku’s home.

She was, according to Tiku, “weaponizing the police hoping that I would be hurt or killed. She fully loaded her allegations so the police would fear that I was dangerous and up to something horrible. All because I said no to her early drop-off demand.”

Jo misled the police to believe that children might be in harm’s way. Of course, the police officers who rocked up at Tiku’s door didn't know this. To be clear, stressed Tiku, although “the responding officers were professional,” the initial few minutes were very tense. They were “understandably aggressive and concerned thinking children were in danger. By the end of the visit, the officers were very apologetic since they realized that Jo had tried to use the police, in their words, as a wedge in a divorce.”

In any western country, an emergency police visit, under false pretenses, is at risk of ending in disaster. In the US, however, the risk of disaster is particularly high.

On that inauspicious day, “had the police arrived minutes earlier,” said Tiku, “they would have heard a child’s screams exiting the elevator. Had they then decided to enter by force, they would have immediately seen an allegedly unstable father turn towards them with a knife in one hand with red covered things strewn on the kitchen counter with those same screams still penetrating the air.” Tiku was in the middle of making pizza for lunch. One child was playing video games at the dining room table.

Alleged Judicial Abuses

My investigation reveals that both judges and the Teitler firm hindered more than ten separate attempts by Tiku to obtain the evidence from the police. Judge Sattler refused to sign a subpoena. Judge Waterman-Marshall moved from questionable argument to argument – stating that falsifying a police action is “not a provision of the penal code,” that Tiku could not “rely on the police department” to make his case, and that there was a single call – before dismissing all fact-finding. In other words, Tiku would never be able to obtain the evidence to prove that Jo knowingly misled the police.

Somewhat miraculously, the records were acquired, proving that Jo had provided false statements and reports to the police and court.

Mr. Natauri shares, “this is why proof of two calls – not one as Jo and Judge Waterman repeatedly cite – is key to my allegations of misconduct. Like Pizarro’s testimony, Waterman removed the existence of the second call from the record. They were whitewashing the police incident just as they did Jo’s original domestic violence incident. It’s telling that after a single very brief hearing, Family Court, free from conflict, was willing to do what Sattler and Waterman refused to do for eight months.”

Tiku shares further, “while obstructing the police evidence might be the worst of Waterman’s actions, there’s a pattern. She is fearless in manipulating the record. She has a style of mischaracterizing what you say to suit her agenda and then berates you when you attempt to correct the record. This leaves her misrepresentation as the only version on file. Other times, she just openly disregards black and white facts.”

There seem to be a few examples supporting Tiku’s point.

Judge Waterman-Marshall stated that she has “no proof that there was any failure to disclose” Judge Sattler’s hiring of Alexandra White, but this conflicts with multiple independent sources.

Jo alleged that Tiku had hidden over $500,000 in an undisclosed account. Tiku showed that these funds were related to Jo’s NYC apartment, so Jo walked back her allegation. Judge Waterman-Marshall still imputed this as income to Tiku.

Tiku filed a contempt motion highlighting significant lies allegedly made by Jo throughout the proceeding concerning cancer, miscarriage, and finances. Judge Waterman-Marshall declined to sign the motion.

On the first day of the financial trial, Jo produced almost 1,000 pages of never-before-seen financial documents from Goldman Sachs related to the couple’s investments. Despite Tiku’s objection and the Teitler firm’s refusal to provide proof of the email that they claim was used to provide these documents to Tiku, the judge allows them into trial. “Jo had $50 million reasons to keep those documents out of reach,” Tiku shares, “because Goldman controls all our marital investments. I have not received a single statement since 2018, even after subpoenas, leaving me with no way to prove the size of our estate.”

Mr. Natauri’s Concussion

Despite all these abuses, what Mr. Natauri has suffered through with his physical health is nothing short of heartbreaking. Plagued by headaches, insomnia, fatigue, ringing in his ears, and sadness, his life is torture. One needn’t be religious to believe in Hell. Mr. Natauri currently resides there.

On March 10, 2022, Mr. Natauri fell down the Columbus Circle subway stairs hitting the back of his head and briefly losing consciousness. He was evaluated by EMTs, who transported him to the Weill Cornell Medical Center emergency room. He was diagnosed with a closed head injury/concussion.

Within an hour of being discharged from the emergency room, Tiku was ordered to appear for a virtual hearing, which Tiku reports was thirty minutes of absolute hell. “Waterman and Teitler started manipulating the facts to invalidate my injury. All I wanted to do was rest.” Judge Waterman-Marshall stated on the record that his emergency room discharge paperwork “doesn't have any diagnosis.” Yet, “head injuries, initial encounter” is clearly denoted under a bold “Diagnosis” caption on the first page. “More of the same,” Tiku shares, “they would argue the sky is red, if needed.”

These actions from the judge and Jo’s attorneys continued that evening and into the next day. Instead of rest, Tiku shares, he was under immense stress having to keep addressing repeated attempts to invalidate his injury.

He is now diagnosed with post concussive syndrome due to not being able to rest immediately following his concussion. It is hard for him to talk about this with me. It brings him to tears. Despite being evaluated by multiple doctors including a neurologist, who noted his inability to resume even normal activities, both Judge Sattler and Judge Waterman-Marshall concluded matters without him.

The financial trial, which he attended for two days prior to suffering a concussion, resumed for two days without him or anyone representing his interests: the defendant’s chair was empty. “Another one-sided proceeding,” Tiku states. Judge Sattler and Judge Waterman-Marshall now claim his medical paperwork lacks “competent medical proof,” but neither has defined what this means. Both judges did previously accept similar medical documentation when adjourning earlier items.

Conclusion

Mr. Natauri could have lost his life on September 9th due to Jo’s actions with the police. Starting on March 10th, Tiku lost, hopefully temporarily, some semblance of normalcy while he struggles with post-concussive syndrome due to the insensitive and vile actions from Jo and Officers of the Court. Does anyone care?

I know some that do – Mr. Natauri’s three children that love him dearly. Much like the Father’s Day card from 2018, there are numerous cards, letters, and emails from Jo, each one praising his genuine love for his children, and in turn, praising his importance to the lives of his children. This man is not a monster.

When I first heard of Mr. Natauri’s story, I was prepared for shocking claims. The Amber Heard defamation trial prepared me. I was not prepared for the layers: The Goldman connected law firm and its connection to the judge, the Goldman witnesses, the Goldman loans, a Goldman connected therapist, and the Goldman connected non-profit organizations. I realized I had not asked the obvious question: Why? Why is Jo doing this to the father of her three children and someone, according to her own actions and words, she loved until that moment in July 2018 when Tiku said he wanted a divorce.

I asked Mr. Natauri.

“Everyone asks,” he shares. “There’s no skeleton in the closet. Remember, her emergency papers were full of crazy accusations some going back a decade, so if I kicked her puppy or had an affair, it would be there. She’s used to winning and being in control. You don’t become a partner at Goldman, one of the youngest at the time, as a minority woman in a sea of white men without being ruthless, a killer.”

Mr. Natauri continues, “so, in July, we had another argument, probably the fourth breakup cycle in just a few weeks. We’re in separate bedrooms. She comes to my room in the middle of the night, wakes me up, and asks to reconcile one more time. This time, I say no. Not rude, lovingly. I say it’s clear we’re no longer in love with each other, and we are tearing each other apart. I think it’s time we go our separate ways. From that moment, I’ve never seen the Jo I used to know. I think the switch flipped. Even though she was just as unhappy, I guess I took away control by being the one to say no. I think from then, this divorce became just another transaction to her, something to win.”

Will Ms. Natauri pay a price? Probably not. She has the full force of Goldman, one of the most powerful firms in the world, behind her. They have invested heavily in her, and the company appears willing to cover for her. Where is the justice for Tiku? A good man has had his reputation dragged through the mud. At the same time, the real aggressor continues to be rewarded with fame and fortune.

Today, noted Tiku, “the #MeToo movement is under scrutiny due to the Johnny Depp trial.” Do we still believe all women? he asked, somewhat rhetorically. “Why does it have to be all or nothing?” It doesn’t. There is a distinct difference between taking a woman’s (or a man's) claims seriously and believing them without a shred of evidence. The former is understandable, even commendable; the latter is unconscionable. Jo Natauri appears to be an opportunistic, remorseless soul. She is, according to her own employer, a liar willing to do whatever it takes. She has gone to great lengths to destroy an innocent man’s name. After reading his story, I hope that the following is clear – men can be victims too. Mr. Natauri is just one of those many victims.

Remember how I opened by noting the similarities to the Amber Heard defamation lawsuit. There are also key differences. Unlike that trial, Mr. Natauri was able to produce recordings directly refuting both sets of domestic violence allegations against him. Unlike that trial, Tiku does not need to prove by proxy that Jo is a liar, since her Goldman Sachs colleagues already did this for him. In that trial, Judge Penney Azcarate gave each of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard equal time to try their respective cases. In the Natauri matter, Judge Sattler provided Jo with 7 days while directing Tiku could have only 2.5 days.

During Safe Horizon's 25th Annual Champion Awards broadcast (which can still be viewed on YouTube), John F. W. Rogers, Goldman Sachs’ Chief of Staff and Secretary to the Board of Directors described Jo as “a woman of great courage, character, and integrity … a shining thread in the tapestry of our great firm.” On April 11, 2022, the Teitler firm, in response to Tiku notifying them that the police records have been obtained, stated that “Ms. Natauri stands by her actions on September 9th.”

I wonder if Mr. Rogers and Ms. Natauri still feel the same way now that we really see what happened on that day. I’m not sure if we’ll ever know.

Outreach

I reached out to Jo, the Teitler & Teitler law firm, Caitlin Brown, Michelle Szeremeta, Karen Rosenthal, Rodrigo Pizarro, and Jeffrey Brodsky and Michael Slocum – the current and former Chair of the board with Safe Horizon – providing almost 24 hours for comment.

After 12 hours and receiving only one response, I contacted Goldman Sachs directly – John Rogers along with Andrea Williams, the head of media relations. Ms. Williams responded to my email by asking where this would be published. She then asked for a delay in publishing, as she was catching a transatlantic flight and wouldn't have enough time to address the “multiple inaccuracies.” I declined her request.

“I represented the Children and as such will continue to refrain from engaging in any publicity regarding them which ultimately is who this story will impact,” responded Ms. Rosenthal.

To be clear, this piece is not about the Natauri children. My reporting centers around what seems to be false police actions by a noted spokesperson against domestic violence and the context, i.e., people patching holes in Ms. Natauri’s Titanic, for why Tiku finds himself trapped in a never-ending cycle of injustice – all coincident with the conclusion of a nationally televised defamation trial along similar lines.

It seems others may have started to hedge their bets.

As of this publication, Ms. Natauri, still listed as a Safe Horizon board member, is conspicuously absent from the list of Safe Horizon Champion Award Honorees. Her co-honoree Ashley Judd is still noted.

Please share this story.

Mr. Natauri is a good man. More importantly, while he’s never claimed to be a perfect husband or father, he’s innocent of perpetuating the abuse and violence as Jo Natauri has alleged.

[christiana007009]

Rage in the Court: When a Murderer Went Mad

In a chilling turn of events, what was expected to be a routine court session transformed into a scene of chaos and madness when the accused, John Doe, erupted in a violent and frenzied outburst during his trial for murder. The courtroom, packed with attorneys, jurors, and the victim's distraught family, became an arena of fear and confusion, illustrating the thin line between sanity and madness.See more...

[osintelligence]

https://bit.ly/3V3vsRj - 🔒 Hackers known as LockBit threaten to release court documents from Fulton County, Georgia, including those related to Donald Trump's criminal case, unless they receive a ransom by Thursday. The group, which was recently disrupted by law enforcement, claims the documents could impact the upcoming U.S. election. #CyberSecurity #Ransomware #Election2024 🌐 After a brief shutdown following a law enforcement raid, LockBit resurfaced online, renewing their ransom demands and claiming possession of sensitive documents. This move comes despite a significant takedown operation by the FBI and international partners, showcasing the persistent challenge of combating cybercrime. #DigitalThreat #LawEnforcement #CyberCrime 💼 The focus of the hack is on Fulton County's court system, which has been under scrutiny due to charges filed against Donald Trump and his allies concerning attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. The breach's timing and LockBit's overt political statements add layers of complexity to the incident. #LegalSystem #PoliticalInterference #Justice 🌎 LockBit operates a ransomware-as-a-service model, targeting a wide range of victims globally, including major corporations and government entities. This incident underscores the extensive reach and sophisticated operations of modern cybercriminal syndicates. #GlobalSecurity #RansomwareAttack #CyberThreats 🏛️ Fulton County and its officials have stated they will not comply with the ransom demand, focusing instead on restoring services safely. This stance is echoed by law enforcement agencies, which continue to investigate and combat the threat posed by groups like LockBit.

[worldwatcher3072]

Amendment VII:

The Right to Trial by Jury in Civil Cases

"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of common law."

Explanation:

The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury in civil cases. It ensures that in certain legal disputes, where the value in question exceeds twenty dollars, the parties involved have the right to have their case decided by a jury of their peers.

The amendment emphasizes the importance of preserving this right, which dates back to English common law traditions. It seeks to protect individuals from having their property or financial interests decided solely by judges without the input of a jury.

Application to Daily Life:

Amendment VII plays a significant role in protecting the rights of individuals and corporations in civil disputes in modern-day America. Here's how it applies to our daily lives:

Legal Disputes: The Seventh Amendment becomes particularly relevant in civil cases, such as personal injury claims, contract disputes, property disputes, and tort cases. If the amount of money or value involved exceeds the threshold set by the amendment, both parties have the right to request a trial by jury.

Jury Selection: In cases where a jury trial is requested, a jury of ordinary citizens is selected to hear the evidence, review the facts, and reach a verdict. This ensures that decisions are not made solely by legal professionals but by a group of impartial peers.

Balancing Power: The Seventh Amendment helps maintain a balance of power in the legal system. It prevents potential bias or unfair decisions by giving individuals the opportunity to present their case to a jury, making the process more democratic.

Civil Justice System: This amendment plays a crucial role in the civil justice system, as it empowers citizens to participate actively in the legal process. It helps ensure that verdicts are not solely based on the interpretation of laws by judges but also consider the collective wisdom of a jury.

Settlements: In many cases, the right to a trial by jury can influence parties to settle out of court to avoid the uncertainty of a jury's decision. This, in turn, can lead to more efficient resolution of disputes in the legal system.

The Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution preserves the right to trial by jury in civil cases, providing individuals and corporations with an essential safeguard against potential unfair rulings. By empowering ordinary citizens to participate in the legal process, the amendment contributes to a more just and democratic civil justice system that protects the rights and interests of all citizens in their daily lives.

[pastorjburd]

The Role of the Bible in the Development of the Legal System

The Bible has played a significant role in the development of legal systems throughout history. Its influence can be seen in various aspects of law, including the establishment of foundational principles and the development of legal codes.

The Bible has played a significant role in the development of legal systems throughout history. Its influence can be seen in various aspects of law, including the establishment of foundational principles and the development of legal codes. One of the most notable ways the Bible has influenced the legal system is through the establishment of the Ten Commandments. These commandments, found in the…

[ivygorgon]

An open letter to the U.S. Supreme Court

Your decision to hear the Presidential Immunity case is terrible and dangerous.

2,181 so far! Help us get to 3,000 signers!

I’m writing to express my horror and disappointment in your decision to first delay, then hear Donald Trump’s absurd Presidential immunity case. It’s a major disappointment for people who believe justice can be done and presidents are not above the law. This is not about politics. This is not about using a criminal prosecution in an unfair way against a candidate for office. This is about seeking justice and accountability, the core functions of our criminal justice system. This isn't a hard case. The substantive argument Trump makes—that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for anything they do in office and more specifically, for trying to steal an election—is a loser and everyone knows it. If it’s not, to quote Joyce Vance, “our claim to be a democracy is no longer viable.” But it’s becoming increasingly apparent that several justices on your court don’t care. If it is true—and it is—that “justice delayed is justice denied,” then this Supreme Court has denied U.S. citizens justice in the most important court case we’ve ever seen. We will remember it. So will history.

▶ Created on February 29 by Jess Craven

📱 Text SIGN PRWOYC to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

[evelynharper007]

"Unexpected Consequences: A Woman's Encounter with Law Enforcement!

The narrative explores an unexpected encounter between a young woman named Sarah and law enforcement, which led to her arrest. The details surrounding Sarah's interaction with the police remain unclear, leaving room for speculation about the reasons behind her arrest. This incident prompts reflection on the complexities of interactions between citizens and law enforcement, highlighting the importance of empathy, understanding, and accountability in our justice system.

[frnwhcom]

Jason Vukovich, known in the media as the “Alaskan Avenger,” is a figure whose story interweaves tragedy, vigilantism, and the complexities of the criminal justice system. His actions, driven by a traumatic past, have sparked significant debate on the nature of justice and retribution. Early Life and Childhood Trauma Born on June 25, 1975…

[thenewlightpaper]

Justice Prevails: Police Officer Accused Of Defiling Toddler Faces Charges Again After Public Outcry

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) has initiated an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the exoneration of a police officer in Arua who was accused of sexually assaulting a 21-month-old child. Inspector of Police, Thomas Otim, previously served as the head of the Professional Standards Unit (PSU) in the West Nile region and was stationed at Arua Central police station. He faced allegations of sexually assaulting a toddler, and though forensic evidence supported the accusation, the case was dismissed by the area Resident State Attorney due to insufficient evidence. The decision to drop the charges prompted the parents of the victim to protest the outcome. They expressed concerns about possible financial inducement leading to the police officer's exoneration. However, the Office of the DPP responded to public complaints, stating that they took immediate action after the baby's family reported the matter to their Regional Office in Arua. The regional officer reviewed the case file, and subsequently, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) got involved. The DPP's office has determined that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the charge of aggravated defilement, and as a result, the charge has been reinstated and sanctioned against the police officer. They are also collaborating with the Director of the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to ensure the suspect's arrest and presentation in court. Additionally, the DPP is investigating the circumstances surrounding the closure of the case file by RCSA Arua. In their complaints, the victim's parents have raised concerns that financial impropriety may have played a role in the police officer's exoneration. They have pledged to vigorously pursue justice in this case. Read the full article