In a previous article, I noted that I thought Attorney Celia Leonard was being coached by Attorney Bolton and his hired legal Dream Team on Wednesday, 4/10.  The next day, I looked for a camera in Courtroom 3, as Mr Buckmire, the head of security advised me to mention in my request for footage.

I just called the number given to me, (855) 212-1234, and wound up frustrated. It was the same variety of frustration I experienced when Attorney Lehmann said that emails to and from individual members of the legislature are NOT subject to 91A, Gmail, or NH dot gov addresses alike.

Frustration has many varieties, though not necessarily 57 of them. One of them is being told to pound sand by the stewards of information being sought.  I also mentioned how the police academy’s 10/13/21 raw video footage’s availability to the defense counsel was delayed for almost 20 months, even though Attorney Gens requested it.

My frustration was similar in that I was essentially denied also, but such frustration was compounded with my follow up questions being thwarted with repeated interruptions by the person on the other end of the phone. I will explain.

My call was answered by Pat, who introduced herself by name only.  It was one of those countless cases, public and private, where the caller tells the long, detailed story to the call answerer only to be “cold transferred” to a coworker chosen by the answerer as the one most fit to field the request.

I did not have Laurie Ortolano’s PARTICULAR case number handy, my bad, but I offered the dates and other information Pat might find helpful, considering Laurie has/had multiple cases.  I even said I would like to write the case number down so I could reference it in the future when asked.  Unfortunately, I was unable to get that information despite repeated attempts to get it from both Pat and the person Pat cold transferred my call to. Neither of them was interested in what customer service experts call “identification and acknowledgment of the customer’s request.”

A whole separate article could be written on how such expert consultants would advise the CSR to let the customer finish explaining the reason for the call/visit.  Then the CSR reiterates back to the customer what the problem or request is, thus establishing an understanding of the customer’s objective in the encounter.  I’m aware that we’re all human beings who often do things less than perfectly, but such training would benefit both the public and the people employed to handle calls made to (855) 212-1234.

My ex-BF, an electrical engineer, would always say that the more moving parts there are to something, the more opportunity there is for malfunctions. While I hate to point out that a man was right, especially him, he was indeed right, no matter how many trees were falling in the forest at the time.

There were too many moving parts to my unproductive phone call to discuss and still keep this article short, so I will only focus on a few. One of them was the second person I spoke to relentlessly interrupting me. A few times, I had to resort to interrupting her back with a “pardon, I would like to finish, please” to answer her question, steer her back to the nature of why I called, or properly clarify my follow-up question(s).

The second person thought I WAS Laurie Ortolano. That mistake was on one or both of them, not me, and I politely pointed out that I was not.  She also thought I was talking about another case with Laurie as the plaintiff.  When she mentioned the Supreme Court, her error was obvious.  She told me several times that there were several cases involving Laurie, but she obviously wasn’t listening when it was my turn to talk because I acknowledged several times that I was aware of there being multiple cases.

As noted earlier, I expressed interest in the one that was in court last Wednesday and would like to write down its case number.  Deaf ears were definitely on full display throughout the call, so I ultimately took the high road and ended the call with a “no sense in barking up the wrong tree, but thanks for the information you gave me and have a good day” instead of complaining about her attention being a real “moving target” during my line of questioning.  I will confess that I did throw in an “I think I’m done here” with my parting comment, but I stand by it. Let’s get to the takeaway item I learned.

I was told that they don’t just give out camera footage to anyone requesting it, media or otherwise. The request has to be filed as a motion by one of the parties involved in the case, and Judge Temple has to approve it. Laurie has another case on Thursday, 4/18, which is about the City’s misuse of New Market Tax Credits, so I’m not going to bog her down with my suggestion to motion Judge Temple while she’s preparing for it.

A reader might ask why I wrote this, and I have a few thoughts. One of them is that I have a greater appreciation for Frank Staples insisting on doing all his own courtroom recording. Another is that I’m glad to have heard during the robo greeting that my call was being recorded (presumably and hopefully for training purposes) when I called (855) 212-1234.  And lastly, it’s another example of the RTK frustrations our government creates all by design. Consider this another reminder to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee that HB 1002 is a bad bill and needs to be killed.

The post Celia Isn’t the Only One Breaking My Heart appeared first on Granite Grok.

Maksym Krippa is a renowned figure in the Ukrainian business landscape. AMCU approved the acquisition of the Parus business center through Ola Fine LLC, a company under the umbrella of ARS Capital. This development, endorsed by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, not only marks a significant milestone in Maksym Krippa’s investment journey but also reflects broader trends in Ukraine’s business ecosystem, potentially influencing foreign investors’ perceptions of the country’s investment climate.

This is known from information published on the 7day website.

The agreement brokered between Parus Holding’s principal stakeholders, Vadym Stolar, and his ex-wife, Inna Maistruk, signifies a pivotal shift in ownership dynamics. With Stolar’s ownership of 80% of shares through the Genesis fund and Maistruk’s 20% ownership via the Stream Investment fund, the transition of control to Krippa heralds a new chapter for the Parus business center.

Situated in the heart of Kyiv, the Parus skyscraper stands as a beacon of modernity and sophistication, boasting impressive architectural features and amenities tailored to meet the needs of corporate tenants. Its status as one of Ukraine’s tallest buildings between 2005 and 2008 underscores its significance within the urban landscape, retaining its allure and appeal to discerning occupants.

More about the skyscraper

Key features of the Parus business center include its towering height of 133.1 meters, augmented to 149.5 meters with the antenna, spanning across 33 floors of premium office space. Noteworthy attributes such as floors capable of withstanding loads of up to 250 kg/m² and two conference halls accommodating 40 and 100 delegates, respectively, highlight the center’s commitment to functionality and versatility.

Moreover, the presence of dining facilities on various floors, including restaurants on the fourth and thirty-first floors, adds to the convenience and allure of the Parus business center. Its strategic location, mere minutes away from the Klovska metro station and the Palace of Sports, further enhances accessibility and connectivity for tenants and visitors alike.

What is known about the new owner of this skyscraper?

Maxim Krippa entrepreneurial prowess extends beyond the realm of real estate, with notable investments in diverse sectors including IT, esports, and software development. His ownership of NAVI esports team and GSC Game World exemplifies his strategic vision and commitment to driving innovation across multiple industries, cementing his status as a prominent investor and business leader in Ukraine and beyond.

The post NAVI Investor Maksym Krippa Buys BC Parus appeared first on Granite Grok.

Whereas the practice of slavery enslaves the body, the dogma of apostasy ensnares the mind. Whereas slavery is a shameful practice of the past, some shameless religionists still use the doctrine of apostasy to intimidate and severely punish people who elect to choose their own beliefs.

Islam is extremely possessive of its subjects. It is a religion that admits anyone into its fold by the person simply uttering a one-sentence statement of faith, shahada: I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is Allah’s messenger. By so saying, one becomes Muslim for life and surrenders the right of ever leaving it. Anyone who leaves the Islamic fold is murtad (revert), apostate.

The notion of apostasy is best understood within the overall Islamic dogma. Islam forms a binding covenant with the believer. Once a person is Muslim, he and his issues are considered Muslim forever. In this covenant, Islam promises to bestow its beneficence on the faithful conditional on the person’s total and unquestioned surrender to it in all matters. Some of the rewards offered by Islam to the truly obedient believer, particularly the privileged males, are of this world as well as a great deal more promised to him in the next. If a Muslim faithful does not reap the rewards of his devotion in this world, Islam assures him of his inestimably cherished and limitless compounded rewards in the next world.

Islam demands the subjugation of the individual’s will to that of Allah and permeates the thinking, actions, and speech of Muslims by prefacing commitments they make contingent on the will of God (inshallah)

This total surrender and submission to Allah’s will and decree also absolve the individual from taking full responsibility for his conduct or honoring any commitments he may make, for Allah has the unquestioned authority to consummate or contravene any action or promise made by a faithful.

Within this overall framework of complete acceptance of Islam as the perfect living charter for the believer, the rules pertaining to apostasy can be better understood. Islam considers an apostate as a person who unilaterally breaks the covenant he has made with the faith. An apostate is condemned as guilty of turning his back on Allah’s immutable, eternal religion. Anyone who is born to Muslim parents and leaves Islam is stigmatized as murtad fitri (natural apostate) in the sense that he was born genetically Muslim and had rejected his gift of birth. Anyone who converts to Islam and later leaves it is condemned as murtad milli (a person who has turned his back to the Ummah)

The severe stricture against leaving Islam is consistent with other main principle beliefs of the religion. Islam is a faith of surrender and not that of free will. A Muslim is to surrender his freedom of thoughts and actions to the will and dictates of Allah. The very principle of freedom is alien to the Islamic belief system.

With regard to apostasy, the two main branches of Islam, the Sunni and the Shiite, are in considerable agreement. The great majority of Muslim scholars of both major camps agree that the Quran stipulates death for the apostate.

Islam, by its very nature, is an all-encompassing belief system that prescribes every detail of a person’s and society’s conduct. Sharia law, a comprehensive code of Islamic jurisprudence, purportedly is based on the Quran and the Hadith (the reported enunciation of Muhammad and his conduct).

Furthermore, Islamic societies rule by the Islamic laws of Sharia. Any new societal legislation must be harmonious with those of the Sharia, which are conclusively anti-democratic. Sharia law is in explicit contradiction and violation of the foundation of democracy. Sharia law places the dictates and rules of Allah over the sovereignty of the people. It discriminates against non-Muslims to the extreme of disenfranchising them from their rights of citizenship of Baha’is, barring them from jobs, higher education, worship, etc., not only in Iran but also in Saudi Arabia and even Egypt. It is blatantly discriminatory against women, Muslim or not. Men have a greater claim to inheritance, their testimony in the court of law is worth twice that of women, and they may marry multiple women at the same time. It stipulates even different rules and privileges governing free Muslim men as opposed to slave Muslims, implicitly condoning slavery. Saudi Arabia, the flagship of Islam, was finally forced by the free world to abandon slavery, I believe, only in the late 1960s, but it has been reported that it has not been completely abandoned.

Apostasy is defined both in the Quran as well as the Sharia and its punishment is clearly stipulated.

“Those who blasphemed and back away from the ways of Allah and die as blasphemers, Allah shall not forgive them.” [Qur’an 4:48]

Islamic law does not allow the freedom to choose one’s religion.

“Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Clearly the Right Path (i.e., Islam) is distinct from the crooked path.” [Qur’an 2:256]

The Quran also specifically addresses the issue of murtad milli:

“But those who reject faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of faith, never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.” [Qur’an 3:90]

The Hadith further restates the Quran’s provision regarding the apostate’s punishment.

The Sharia law stipulates that any Muslim who turns his back to Islam should be given a chance to revert to the religion. For an un-repenting male apostate, death is the punishment and life imprisonment for a female apostate.

“Kill whoever changes his religion.” __Sahih al-Bukhari 9:84:57

“The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”__ Sahih al-Bukhari 9:83:17

At present, apostasy is illegal in most Islamic countries. Although execution of the apostate is not common, it takes place occasionally by frequently buttressing the “crime” with additional charges. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for instance, often adds the charge of mohareb (one who wars with God) to legitimize its execution of apostates further. A case in point pertains to the treatment of the religious minority Baha’is by the Islamic Republic. A number of Baha’is have been charged as apostates and mohareb, executed, and some secretly buried in unmarked graves.

The late Ayatollah Khomeini in his Tahrir al-Wassilah adjudicates how a person’s apostasy is established: “Apostasy is proven in two ways: First, the person himself confesses to his apostasy twice. Second, two and truthful men bear witness to the person’s apostasy. But women’s testimonies do not prove apostasy in any case; either they bear witness individually, in a group, or beside a man.”

The misogynistic nature of Islam is once again evident in Ayatollah Khomeini’s blanket disqualification of women’s testimony solely on the basis of gender.

“Apostasy — or the formal renunciation of religion — is already punishable in Iran with death. But now, Iran wants to make the death penalty for apostasy part of the penal code. The European Union is concerned and has asked Iran to reconsider.” Who is an apostate according to the legislation? Anyone in the world, not just Iranians, born to a Muslim parent; also, any convert to Islam who leaves it. Only one parent needs to be a Muslim at the time of conception for Islam to own that child for life. Islam is Ummahist. Islam doesn’t recognize nationalities and national boundaries. And these Islamist zealots are very serious and have no sense of humor. Some say they have no sense at all, and they may be right. What they certainly have is a thirst for blood, particularly for the blood of infidels and apostates.

It is noteworthy that Islam considers the world as its Ummah and overarches national boundaries. Hence, Islamic clerics feel free to issue fatwa and other adjudications regarding any person, group, or nation anywhere in the world. A celebrated case of this practice was the fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini against the British author Salman Rushdie for his book The Satanic Verses. Hence, individual Muslims anywhere in the world take it upon themselves to carry out fatwa issued by Islamic high divines. In another high-profile case, the killing of Theo van Gough, a Dutch film director, and the recent attack on the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard clearly demonstrates this primitive practice that runs counter to the civilized world’s due process and has a seriously intimidating impact on the freedom of expression.

Free people and nations should not sacrifice their God-given liberty to please the Islamists by muzzling dissenters and even endangering their safety and their lives.

The concept and practice of apostasy is a shameful stain on the conscience of humanity. It is despicable for any belief system to stubbornly cling to the dehumanizing anachronism of apostasy while its counterpart, slavery, is already buried in mankind’s graveyard of past infamy.

The post Night Cap: Islam is a Faith of Surrender and Not That of Free Will appeared first on Granite Grok.