Media

Probe agencies, media mishandled Sushant case – The Tribune India

Published

4 years ago

October 18, 2020

KTS Tulsi

Senior Advocate and Rajya Sabha MP

CRiminal law does not allow the victim to prosecute directly because the victim can hardly be expected to take a balanced view. Therefore, the entire investigation and prosecution is put in the hands of criminal law experts to ferret out the truth, i.e. the unvarnished, unbiased truth. The victim cannot dictate terms to the investigation or prosecution in the way that it has sought to do.

A victim cannot interfere in investigation and during the prosecution, is given a supplementary role in assisting the public prosecutor. Allowing all of these to occur has caused an absolute mockery of the criminal justice system. For example, Rhea Chakraborty is being vilified for abetment to suicide without any evidence of intention or positive act on her part to see Sushant dead. The Supreme Court case of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal (1994) cautioned about careful factual scrutiny in abetment cases before acquittal or conviction.

If unbridled interference is allowed, no investigation would ever come to a conclusion. Allowing such interference at every stage facilitated media access. This caused a reversal of the “innocent until proven guilty” theorem in criminal law. Moreover, despite the absence of an iota of ‘reasonable doubt’, the media continued to concoct its own John Grisham novel. There is no difference between the mob lynching that occurs via ‘extra-judicial killing’ and a media trial. In both these cases, agencies other than the court assume the role of judge, jury and executioner. And eventually, even before the court hears the matter, the conjecture around the case causes competing narratives to engulf the public completely.

In Maharashtra vs Rajendra Jawanmal (1997), the court ruled that “a trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of the rule of law.” Similarly, in Manu Sharma vs NCT of Delhi (2010), the court said, “The media publishes statements which outrightly hold the suspect or the accused guilty even before such an order has been passed by the court.”

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, says that “prejudicing trial and hindering the administration of justice” amounts to “contempt.” In the case of YV Hanumantha Rao vs KR Pattabhiran (1975), it was held that “when litigation is pending before a court, no one shall speak on it in such a way that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the prosecution or, such as impact on the defendant, the witnesses or bias against a party to the case in general. Even if the person who makes the statement honestly believes it is valid, it is still a court contempt.”

Therefore, the actions of the media put them at the risk of having committed contempt. People’s perspectives are being made volatile puppets by being tailored by political-interest-fulfilling media houses that dish out narratives to suit whichever political parties they cater to.

There was a tremendous delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR). Until July 27 this year, there were no allegations made in this case. It was only 40 days after Sushant’s death that his family made allegations to the Bihar police. The delay in the filing of the FIR clearly shows how this was an after-thought. Legally, the Bihar police should have registered a zero FIR and then transferred it to the Mumbai police. But nothing of the sort happened. This caused the registration of an FIR at a place where no cause of action arose and was an abuse of the process of criminal law. Expecting the Bombay police to do their bidding was totally uncalled for.

There is also a privacy violation. Debatable, confidential facts about his mental health have been reported by TV channels. Sushant Singh Rajput has been accorded with several mental health conditions such as depression and bipolar disorder. The question that begs an answer here is whether such public disclosure amounts to a violation of the confidentiality which binds a doctor-patient relationship.

The reasoning employed by the court to allow the Patna police to exercise jurisdiction is problematic. The reasons are: first, Sushant’s father claims that his attempts to talk to his only son who was expected to light his funeral pyre were thwarted by the accused; secondly, under Section 181(4) of the CrPC, because of there being accusations of a criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money — which had to be eventually accounted for in Patna — the court held that it was legitimate for the Patna police to hold jurisdiction. The question here is: — is the father the sole heir of his son’s monies? Also, if the legal heirs of a deceased are based in different states, does each state gain jurisdiction?

Setting one agency after another by the government was unfortunate. It only managed to divert the attention from the key issue of whether Sushant’s death was suicide or murder. Based on Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the CBI cannot carry out an investigation without the consent of the state concerned. There is one exception to this for constitutional courts which exercise their power under Articles 32 and 226: By handing over investigation within the jurisdiction of the state to the CBI — the court went on to exercise the power of a constitutional court.

The Criminal Procedure Code exists to ease investigation in each case with uniformity. The Sushant suicide case seems to have torn the procedural Code to pieces by failing to follow any semblance of what the Code mandates. Allowing the Bihar police to investigate a suicide that occurred in Mumbai amounts to ignoring the concept of federalism.

The case was formerly hijacked by ‘outsiders’ within the films to masquerade their bravado of having ‘made it’ despite not being products of nepotism. After this, it was about an easy target and a holy trinity of romance, with men shifting seats at the corners. Then, it moved on to Bollywood’s ‘drug problem’. Eventually, Sushant’s corpse became a vote-catcher for the political parties in poll-bound Bihar. Not once, not ever, was this about the actor himself.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Media

What to stream this weekend: ‘Civil War,’ Snow Patrol, ‘How to Die Alone,’ ‘Tulsa King’ and ‘Uglies’

Published

13 hours ago

September 13, 2024

Anne Joseph

Hallmark launching a streaming service with two new original series, and Bill Skarsgård out for revenge in “Boy Kills World” are some of the new television, films, music and games headed to a device near you.

Also among the streaming offerings worth your time as selected by The Associated Press’ entertainment journalists: Alex Garland’s “Civil War” starring Kirsten Dunst, Natasha Rothwell’s heartfelt comedy for Hulu called “How to Die Alone” and Sylvester Stallone’s second season of “Tulsa King” debuts.

NEW MOVIES TO STREAM SEPT. 9-15

— Alex Garland’s “Civil War” is finally making its debut on MAX on Friday. The film stars Kirsten Dunst as a veteran photojournalist covering a violent war that’s divided America; She reluctantly allows an aspiring photographer, played by Cailee Spaeny, to tag along as she, an editor (Stephen McKinley Henderson) and a reporter (Wagner Moura) make the dangerous journey to Washington, D.C., to interview the president (Nick Offerman), a blustery, rising despot who has given himself a third term, taken to attacking his citizens and shut himself off from the press. In my review, I called it a bellowing and haunting experience; Smart and thought-provoking with great performances. It’s well worth a watch.

— Joey King stars in Netflix’s adaptation of Scott Westerfeld’s “Uglies,” about a future society in which everyone is required to have beautifying cosmetic surgery at age 16. Streaming on Friday, McG directed the film, in which King’s character inadvertently finds herself in the midst of an uprising against the status quo. “Outer Banks” star Chase Stokes plays King’s best friend.

— Bill Skarsgård is out for revenge against the woman (Famke Janssen) who killed his family in “Boy Kills World,” coming to Hulu on Friday. Moritz Mohr directed the ultra-violent film, of which Variety critic Owen Gleiberman wrote: “It’s a depraved vision, yet I got caught up in its kick-ass revenge-horror pizzazz, its disreputable commitment to what it was doing.”

— AP Film Writer Lindsey Bahr

NEW MUSIC TO STREAM SEPT. 9-15

— The year was 2006. Snow Patrol, the Northern Irish-Scottish alternative rock band, released an album, “Eyes Open,” producing the biggest hit of their career: “Chasing Cars.” A lot has happened in the time since — three, soon to be four quality full-length albums, to be exact. On Friday, the band will release “The Forest Is the Path,” their first new album in seven years. Anthemic pop-rock is the name of the game across songs of love and loss, like “All,”“The Beginning” and “This Is the Sound Of Your Voice.”

— For fans of raucous guitar music, Jordan Peele’s 2022 sci-fi thriller, “NOPE,” provided a surprising, if tiny, thrill. One of the leads, Emerald “Em” Haywood portrayed by Keke Palmer, rocks a Jesus Lizard shirt. (Also featured through the film: Rage Against the Machine, Wipers, Mr Bungle, Butthole Surfers and Earth band shirts.) The Austin noise rock band are a less than obvious pick, having been signed to the legendary Touch and Go Records and having stopped releasing new albums in 1998. That changes on Friday the 13th, when “Rack” arrives. And for those curious: The Jesus Lizard’s intensity never went away.

— AP Music Writer Maria Sherman

NEW SHOWS TO STREAM SEPT. 9-15

— Hallmark launched a streaming service called Hallmark+ on Tuesday with two new original series, the scripted drama “The Chicken Sisters” and unscripted series “Celebrations with Lacey Chabert.” If you’re a Hallmark holiday movies fan, you know Chabert. She’s starred in more than 30 of their films and many are holiday themed. Off camera, Chabert has a passion for throwing parties and entertaining. In “Celebrations,” deserving people are surprised with a bash in their honor — planned with Chabert’s help. “The Chicken Sisters” stars Schuyler Fisk, Wendie Malick and Lea Thompson in a show about employees at rival chicken restaurants in a small town. The eight-episode series is based on a novel of the same name.

— Natasha Rothwell of “Insecure” and “The White Lotus” fame created and stars in a new heartfelt comedy for Hulu called “How to Die Alone.” She plays Mel, a broke, go-along-to-get-along, single, airport employee who, after a near-death experience, makes the conscious decision to take risks and pursue her dreams. Rothwell has been working on the series for the past eight years and described it to The AP as “the most vulnerable piece of art I’ve ever put into the world.” Like Mel, Rothwell had to learn to bet on herself to make the show she wanted to make. “In the Venn diagram of me and Mel, there’s significant overlap,” said Rothwell. It premieres Friday on Hulu.

— Shailene Woodley, DeWanda Wise and Betty Gilpin star in a new drama for Starz called “Three Women,” about entrepreneur Sloane, homemaker Lina and student Maggie who are each stepping into their power and making life-changing decisions. They’re interviewed by a writer named Gia (Woodley.) The series is based on a 2019 best-selling book of the same name by Lisa Taddeo. “Three Women” premieres Friday on Starz.

— Sylvester Stallone’s second season of “Tulsa King” debuts Sunday on Paramount+. Stallone plays Dwight Manfredi, a mafia boss who was recently released from prison after serving 25 years. He’s sent to Tulsa to set up a new crime syndicate. The series is created by Taylor Sheridan of “Yellowstone” fame.

— Alicia Rancilio

NEW VIDEO GAMES TO PLAY

— One thing about the title of Focus Entertainment’s Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2 — you know exactly what you’re in for. You are Demetrian Titus, a genetically enhanced brute sent into battle against the Tyranids, an insectoid species with an insatiable craving for human flesh. You have a rocket-powered suit of armor and an arsenal of ridiculous weapons like the “Chainsword,” the “Thunderhammer” and the “Melta Rifle,” so what could go wrong? Besides the squishy single-player mode, there are cooperative missions and six-vs.-six free-for-alls. You can suit up now on PlayStation 5, Xbox X/S or PC.

— Likewise, Wild Bastards isn’t exactly the kind of title that’s going to attract fans of, say, Animal Crossing. It’s another sci-fi shooter, but the protagonists are a gang of 13 varmints — aliens and androids included — who are on the run from the law. Each outlaw has a distinctive set of weapons and special powers: Sarge, for example, is a robot with horse genes, while Billy the Squid is … well, you get the idea. Australian studio Blue Manchu developed the 2019 cult hit Void Bastards, and this Wild-West-in-space spinoff has the same snarky humor and vibrant, neon-drenched cartoon look. Saddle up on PlayStation 5, Xbox X/S, Nintendo Switch or PC.

— Lou Kesten

Source link

Media

Trump could cash out his DJT stock within weeks. Here’s what happens if he sells

Published

3 weeks ago

August 23, 2024

Harry Miller

Former President Donald Trump is on the brink of a significant financial decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his personal wealth and the future of his fledgling social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). As the lockup period on his shares in TMTG, which owns Truth Social, nears its end, Trump could soon be free to sell his substantial stake in the company. However, the potential payday, which makes up a large portion of his net worth, comes with considerable risks for Trump and his supporters.

Trump’s stake in TMTG comprises nearly 59% of the company, amounting to 114,750,000 shares. As of now, this holding is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. These shares are currently under a lockup agreement, a common feature of initial public offerings (IPOs), designed to prevent company insiders from immediately selling their shares and potentially destabilizing the stock. The lockup, which began after TMTG’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), is set to expire on September 25, though it could end earlier if certain conditions are met.

Should Trump decide to sell his shares after the lockup expires, the market could respond in unpredictable ways. The sale of a substantial number of shares by a major stakeholder like Trump could flood the market, potentially driving down the stock price. Daniel Bradley, a finance professor at the University of South Florida, suggests that the market might react negatively to such a large sale, particularly if there aren’t enough buyers to absorb the supply. This could lead to a sharp decline in the stock’s value, impacting both Trump’s personal wealth and the company’s market standing.

Moreover, Trump’s involvement in Truth Social has been a key driver of investor interest. The platform, marketed as a free speech alternative to mainstream social media, has attracted a loyal user base largely due to Trump’s presence. If Trump were to sell his stake, it might signal a lack of confidence in the company, potentially shaking investor confidence and further depressing the stock price.

Trump’s decision is also influenced by his ongoing legal battles, which have already cost him over $100 million in legal fees. Selling his shares could provide a significant financial boost, helping him cover these mounting expenses. However, this move could also have political ramifications, especially as he continues his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race.

Trump Media’s success is closely tied to Trump’s political fortunes. The company’s stock has shown volatility in response to developments in the presidential race, with Trump’s chances of winning having a direct impact on the stock’s value. If Trump sells his stake, it could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in his own political future, potentially undermining both his campaign and the company’s prospects.

Truth Social, the flagship product of TMTG, has faced challenges in generating traffic and advertising revenue, especially compared to established social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Despite this, the company’s valuation has remained high, fueled by investor speculation on Trump’s political future. If Trump remains in the race and manages to secure the presidency, the value of his shares could increase. Conversely, any missteps on the campaign trail could have the opposite effect, further destabilizing the stock.

As the lockup period comes to an end, Trump faces a critical decision that could shape the future of both his personal finances and Truth Social. Whether he chooses to hold onto his shares or cash out, the outcome will likely have significant consequences for the company, its investors, and Trump’s political aspirations.

Source link

Media

Arizona man accused of social media threats to Trump is arrested

Published

3 weeks ago

August 23, 2024

Harry Miller

Cochise County, AZ — Law enforcement officials in Arizona have apprehended Ronald Lee Syvrud, a 66-year-old resident of Cochise County, after a manhunt was launched following alleged death threats he made against former President Donald Trump. The threats reportedly surfaced in social media posts over the past two weeks, as Trump visited the US-Mexico border in Cochise County on Thursday.

Syvrud, who hails from Benson, Arizona, located about 50 miles southeast of Tucson, was captured by the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday afternoon. The Sheriff’s Office confirmed his arrest, stating, “This subject has been taken into custody without incident.”

In addition to the alleged threats against Trump, Syvrud is wanted for multiple offences, including failure to register as a sex offender. He also faces several warrants in both Wisconsin and Arizona, including charges for driving under the influence and a felony hit-and-run.

The timing of the arrest coincided with Trump’s visit to Cochise County, where he toured the US-Mexico border. During his visit, Trump addressed the ongoing border issues and criticized his political rival, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, for what he described as lax immigration policies. When asked by reporters about the ongoing manhunt for Syvrud, Trump responded, “No, I have not heard that, but I am not that surprised and the reason is because I want to do things that are very bad for the bad guys.”

This incident marks the latest in a series of threats against political figures during the current election cycle. Just earlier this month, a 66-year-old Virginia man was arrested on suspicion of making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris and other public officials.