Standard Chartered Bank Zambia Plc (SCZ.zm) listed on the Lusaka Securities Exchange under the Banking sector has released it’s 2014 annual report.For more information about Standard Chartered Bank Zambia Plc (SCZ.zm) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Standard Chartered Bank Zambia Plc (SCZ.zm) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Standard Chartered Bank Zambia Plc (SCZ.zm) 2014 annual report.Company ProfileStandard Chartered Bank Zambia Plc is a leading financial services company providing products and services in three key segments: corporate and institutional banking (CIB), retail banking and commercial banking. The financial institution has a national footprint with 25 branches and four electronic banking centres located in the Copperbelt, Lusaka, Northern, North Western, Southern and Western Provinces. The CIB division provides corporate clients with solutions for trading, corporate finance, loans, trade finance, cash management, deposits and treasury. The Retail division services personal, priority and business clients; providing solutions for transactional accounts, deposits, overdrafts and loans, and investment service. The Commercial division manages mid-sized companies that fall between CIB and Retail banking. Standard Chartered Bank Zambia is a subsidiary of the Standard Chartered Bank Group which is an international financial services conglomerate, with headquarters in London, United Kingdom. Standard Chartered Bank Zambia Plc is listed on the Lusaka Stock Exchange
Botswana Insurance Holdings Limited (BIHL.bw) listed on the Botswana Stock Exchange under the Insurance sector has released it’s 2017 annual report.For more information about Botswana Insurance Holdings Limited (BIHL.bw) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Botswana Insurance Holdings Limited (BIHL.bw) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Botswana Insurance Holdings Limited (BIHL.bw) 2017 annual report.Company ProfileBotswana Insurance Holdings Limited (BIHL Group) is a leading financial services group in Botswana which operates through three subsidiaries. Botswana Insurance Fund Management (BIFM) is an asset management company and wholly-owned by BIHL Group; managing in excess of P23.9 billion in assets across equity, fixed income, real estate, liquidity and alternative investments. The subsidiary company is also invested in non-traditional assets which include the healthcare industry, tourism sector and property development. Botswana Life Insurance Limited (BLIL) is the leading life insurer in Botswana; with an estimated market share of 80%. Legal Guard is a legal expenses insurer which provides clients with access to personal legal counseling and assistance with experienced attorneys based in 11 branches located in the major towns and cities of Botswana. Legal Guard represents clients in civil, criminal and labour matters.
Why I’d buy cheap FTSE 100 stocks in a market crash Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! Peter Stephens | Saturday, 15th February, 2020 I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. Enter Your Email Address Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Image source: Getty Images. Having experienced a decade-long bull market, some investors may feel the FTSE 100 is likely to record less favourable returns in the coming years. Furthermore risks, such as the spread of coronavirus, geopolitical challenges in the Middle East and Brexit, may cause investor sentiment to weaken in the coming months. This could lead to a challenging period for the stock market which ends in a market crash.While this possible outlook may cause some investors to become increasingly cautious and seek relative safety in lower-risk assets, such as cash, it could in fact prove to be a worthwhile buying opportunity.5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…A track record of recoveryThe FTSE 100’s past performance shows it’s a cyclical index which experiences booms and busts. Throughout its history, it’s always fallen following bull markets, only to successfully recover from subsequent bear markets to post new record highs.As such, buying during uncertain periods could prove to be a sound move. Not only does the index have a solid track record of recovering from its low points, investors may be able to make strong long-term gains as a result of purchasing stocks while they trade on low valuations.In many bear markets in the past, notably during the financial crisis, the valuations of a range of high-quality businesses were exceptionally low. Investors, it seemed, were preparing for a prolonged period of depression which never came. Therefore, capitalising on the fears of other investors and buying during a market crash can prove to be a highly profitable move.Fundamental focusOf course, being selective in terms of the companies you purchase during a market crash is also a worthwhile move. Seeking companies with strong balance sheets and robust cash flow can help to reduce your overall risk, since they may have a better chance of reporting resilient financial performances during a challenging economic period. They may also offer a stronger recovery outlook, since they may be in a position to invest in other businesses or new market segments while valuations are low.Additionally, buying shares with affordable dividends could be a good idea. They may be less likely to cut their shareholder payouts than companies which have less headroom when making dividend payments. Since a large proportion of the FTSE 100’s historic returns have been derived from the reinvestment of dividends, income shares may produce surprisingly high total returns – especially when purchased while they offer higher yields during a market crash.Ignoring market ‘noise’Perhaps the most difficult part of buying stocks during a market crash is ignoring the opinions of other investors. Panic can easily set in among commentators and investors, which may cause you to become less positive about the long-term prospects for the wider market.However, by focusing on the fundamentals of specific businesses and recalling that the FTSE 100 has always recovered from its various crises, it’s possible to capitalise on the next market crash – whenever that occurs. I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee. Peter Stephens has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. See all posts by Peter Stephens
On March 24, 1999, the U.S. led its European NATO allies in a 78-day bombing campaign targeting Serbia in order to destroy Yugoslavia, the last socialist country holding out in Europe. NATO planes bombed hospitals, factories, schools, trains, television stations, bridges and homes, killing thousands of Yugoslavs.In 2000, the same NATO forces destabilized what remained of Yugoslavia — the republics of Serbia and Montenegro — then overthrew its political leader, Slobodan Milosevic, later imprisoning and trying him in a pro-NATO court in The Hague, Netherlands, for alleged war crimes. Failing in its attempt to convict him, the court case ended when Milosevic died there on March 11, 2006. Many suspect NATO forces had him poisoned.NATO’s pattern for the destruction of Libya and Syria — and also of Iraq and Afghanistan, with variations — was based on the experience in Yugoslavia: demonization of a leader, with false charges of “ethnic cleansing” to give a pretext for a NATO “humanitarian intervention,” followed by slaughter of civilians from the air and destruction of the infrastructure.Yugoslavia was a multinational state, formed by uniting the various South Slavic peoples following the imperialist slaughter of World War I. During World War II people from the Yugoslav republics joined an intense partisan resistance against the Nazi-led German occupation. Josip Broz, also called Tito, headed the Communist Party-led partisans and became Yugoslavia’s first Prime Minister and President.Socialism in Yugoslavia produced artists and intellectuals, free health care, zero unemployment, free education, excellent public transportation and advanced industrial and agricultural development.While the Soviet Union existed, Yugoslavia was an independent and relatively prosperous country. With no Soviet Union after 1991, Yugoslavia was vulnerable to the powerful imperialist countries in Western Europe and the United States, which provoked and exacerbated disputes among the various Yugoslav peoples.Although Germany, France, Britain, Italy and the U.S. had competitive interests in Yugoslavia, these imperialist powers joined to destroy the multinational state of more than 20 million people and break it into seven small and weak states that would become mini-colonies of the NATO powers.In 1991 German imperialism, following its annexation of the German Democratic Republic, supported secessionist puppet regimes in Croatia and Slovenia. Germany also led NATO’s backing of one side of the war in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995.Washington seized the initiative by backing the illegal paramilitary Kosovo Liberation Army in that province in Serbia. The U.S. used the KLA terrorists to provoke NATO’s war against what remained of Yugoslavia in 1999, putting the Pentagon’s air power at the head of the pack of imperialist pirates.Opposition grows to privatization of BalkansAfter the destruction of Milosevic and his party, neoliberal forces in Serbia and the other republics privatized the health care system, sold off the mines, and closed automobile, petroleum and other industries. Now Bosnia has an unemployment rate of 43 percent, Croatia’s is 19 percent, and tiny Kosovo’s is 45 percent. Kosovo hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Balkans, Camp Bondsteel, which protects Kosovo’s criminal government and oversees NATO control in the Balkans.Opposition to NATO is growing. This winter major protests against NATO‘s subservient governments emerged. When the government of Montenegro agreed to join NATO, thousands of people in its capital, Podgorica, poured into the streets in opposition last Dec. 13. The former Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, Momir Bulatović, told the rally that joining NATO, which had bombed Montenegro in 1999, would mean “blood of innocent people on our hands.” (RT, Dec. 13)Bulatović pointed to the pattern that the war against Yugoslavia set: “What has Afghanistan done wrong, what has Iraq done wrong? Why has Libya been destroyed, what’s happening today in Syria?” After 25 years of oppression the people of ex-Yugoslavia are making the connections, resisting NATO and the juggernaut of militarism, occupation and neoliberalist impoverishment.On Feb. 20 more than 15,000 people in the Serbian capital, Belgrade, protested in opposition to the Serbian government’s cooperation with NATO. On March 19, thousands marched against NATO in Novi Sad, Serbia’s second largest city.In 1999 in all the imperialist countries and especially in the United States, the heavy media campaign to demonize Yugoslav President Milosevic weakened war opposition even within the progressive and anti-war movement.In the U.S. in 1999-2001, the International Action Center and Workers World Party played a leading role among those who stood firm against expanding NATO’s mayhem and slaughter in Yugoslavia. Workers World organized forums and marches all over the country calling for an end to war on Yugoslavia. The IAC also published three books to explain the wars NATO conducted in Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia designed to crush the sovereign nation of Yugoslavia. (iacenter.org)FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
WhatsApp blocks accounts of at least seven Gaza Strip journalists September 28, 2020 – Updated on September 30, 2020 US — RSF launches #PressFreedomPact ahead of November 2020 elections Campaigns United StatesAmericas Online freedomsMedia independenceEvents Building on RSF’s eight press freedom recommendations for candidates, the #PressFreedomPact seeks to defend the vital role of the free press by asking candidates to publicly affirm their commitment to the principles of press freedom as upheld by the First Amendment. The #PressFreedomPact provides a key opportunity for the nation’s political leaders to address the need to protect press freedoms at home — and to set a better example abroad. “We launch this campaign at a crucial moment, with press freedom under greater attack than ever before in the United States and globally. These elections are the moment to turn that around — to begin to rectify the damage that has been done to the United States’ own press freedom record, and to set a more positive example for the rest of the world,” said RSF Director of International Campaigns Rebecca Vincent.To publicly demonstrate their commitment to protecting press freedom, RSF is asking all candidates running for public office — in the presidential, congressional, and local elections taking place on November 3rd — to sign the #PressFreedomPact, stating:“I commit to uphold the principles of the First Amendment in my words and actions, my domestic and international policy and in my governance, to protect the vital role of the free press in American democracy, and to lead by example in upholding democratic values throughout the world.”“The #PressFreedomPact provides a much-needed opportunity for candidates to publicly commit to protecting press freedom. As their first debate opens, we challenge President Donald Trump and Joe Biden to lead by example by being the first to sign the #PressFreedomPact,” said RSF USA advocacy manager, Daphne Pellegrino.RSF has worked with the advertising agency BETC in developing this campaign, which will be promoted in key US media and on social media — starting with live-tweeting during the September 29 presidential debate. The United States is ranked 45th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2020 World Press Freedom Index.Notes:In the run-up to the 2020 elections, please visit RSF’s campaign webpage for updates, press freedom alerts, and to see which of your elected officials have signed the #PressFreedomPact. For candidates who wish to discuss the #PressFreedomPact, RSF’s press freedom recommendations, or RSF’s broader press freedom concerns both in the United States and globally, please contact RSF USA advocacy manager Daphne Pellegrino at dpellegrino(a)rsf.org or via telephone at (202) 813-9497, extension 2. For press or media inquiries related to this campaign, please contact RSF USA communications manager Collin Boylin at cboylin(a)rsf.org or via telephone at (202) 813-9497, extension 3. April 28, 2021 Find out more NSO Group hasn’t kept its promises on human rights, RSF and other NGOs say United StatesAmericas Online freedomsMedia independenceEvents As the first 2020 presidential debate opens in the United States, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has launched the “#PressFreedomPact,” a campaign challenging candidates running for office in November’s elections to publicly commit to upholding the principles of press freedom. RSF_en Help by sharing this information to go further News Follow the news on United States Organisation June 7, 2021 Find out more June 3, 2021 Find out more Facebook’s Oversight Board is just a stopgap, regulation urgently needed, RSF says News News Receive email alerts
News UpdatesInclusion Of Biological Mother’s Name In The Passport Instead Of Step Mother’s Would Not Cause Any ‘Prejudice’: P&H HC [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK20 July 2020 11:46 PMShare This – xThe High Court of Punjab and Haryana recently directed the Regional Passport Office to allow an applicant’s request for inclusion of her biological mother’s name in her passport, instead of her step-mother’s name. The bench of Justice BS Walia allowed the writ petition filed by one Divya Nagpal, on noting that “no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in the eventuality…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe High Court of Punjab and Haryana recently directed the Regional Passport Office to allow an applicant’s request for inclusion of her biological mother’s name in her passport, instead of her step-mother’s name. The bench of Justice BS Walia allowed the writ petition filed by one Divya Nagpal, on noting that “no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in the eventuality the name of the Petitioner’s biological mother is mentioned in her passport.” The Petitioner had moved the High Court stating that her biological mother’s name is reflected in her birth certificate, educational certificates as well as Aadhar Card, therefore, correction sought in the passport is only by incorporation of name of the biological mother instead of the step mother to avoid any kind of difficulty during travel or in studies abroad. It was submitted that her biological mother died in the year 2002, when she was 12 years of age. In the year 2004, her father applied for issuance of passport in her name by mentioning her step mother’s name. She contended that she had applied for issuance of a fresh passport after she attained majority and at that time she had the opportunity to change any particulars if she so desired, in terms of Clause 4.12 of Chapter-9 of the guidelines in the Passport Manual. As per the said, guidelines, “Name of stepfather/stepmother may be written in the passport of the minor against the column of father/mother. Death certificate from the authority concerned in respect of death of biological father/mother, remarriage certificate/joint affidavit relating to remarriage of father/mother and school certificate showing name/step-parent’s name (for school going children) should be submitted along with the passport application. When the child applies for passport for the first time after he becomes major, he has the option to retain the name of biological parent or step-parent, as recorded in his Birth Certificate/educational certificate” The bench observed that even though the manual prescribes “mere guidelines”, mention of her biological mother’s name on her passport would in fact “prevent confusion” in the identification of the petitioner in view of different mothers names in birth certificate, educational certificates as well as Aadhar Card on the one hand and in the passport on the other hand. The court thus directed the Regional Passport Officer, Chandigarh to process her request and issue a fresh passport to her by reflecting her biological mother’s name, within a period of ten days. Case Details: Case Title: Divya Nagpal v. Union of India & Anr. Case No.: CWP No.7892/2020 Quorum: Justice BS Walia Appearance: Advocates SS Behl and Harpreet Kaur (for Petitioner); Advocate Amrita Singh (for Respondent) Click Here To Download Order Read Order Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
Top Stories”No Limits To Atrocities Of UP Police”:BCI Condemns Police Assault On Etah Advocate-Requests CJI & CJ of Allahabad HC To Take Action Against Guilty Sparsh Upadhyay26 Dec 2020 5:30 AMShare This – xTaking a very serious notice of the incident which took place at Etah, Uttar Pradesh a few days back, the Bar Council Of India has issued a Press Release resolving to request Chief Justice of India & Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to take “immediate steps to find out the guilty police personnel and issue a direction to Uttar Pradesh Government to immediately put them…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginTaking a very serious notice of the incident which took place at Etah, Uttar Pradesh a few days back, the Bar Council Of India has issued a Press Release resolving to request Chief Justice of India & Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court to take “immediate steps to find out the guilty police personnel and issue a direction to Uttar Pradesh Government to immediately put them under suspension, transfer them and remove them from service.” It maybe be noted that the Police broke open the door of a house, and had dragged & pulled an Advocate (who was in Advocate’s dress) and had assaulted him mercilessly. The video of this incident had got viral recently. Stating that “there is no limit to such atrocities of Uttar Pradesh Police and it has crossed all the limits”, the Press Release adds that similar incidents have been witnessed in West Bengal, Bihar and almost all state and that “such actions of the police is rather worse than the crime committed by any hardened criminal/s.” The Press Release also states, “The act of police of Uttar Pradesh is shocking, this cannot be expected from the protectors of Law and Order. The brutality clearly shows that the police personnel of Etah were acting with some planning with some ulterior motive.” While requesting the CJI & CJ of Allahabad High Court to take actions, the BCI has also added that its request hasn’t been considered by Uttar Pradesh Government. “Can’t Tolerate Such Atrocities Anymore” The BCI has stated in its Press Release that it “cannot tolerate such atrocities anymore and if the Judiciary and the Government are ignoring such atrocities on the Lawyers or even on common man, the Bar will have no option except to come on roads.” It further states that the Council has also resolved to write to Hon’ble Mr. Amit Shah, the Union Home Minister to take suitable action in the matter and make immediate suitable laws for providing protection to the Lawyers of the country. Other proposed steps of the Council The Bar Council of India has resolved and stated that the entire Legal Fraternity is in support of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and Lawyers of Uttar Pradesh on this issue.The Council is going to convene a joint meeting of representatives of all the State Bar Councils through Video-Conferencing to decide the future course of action within 3-4 days.The Joint Meeting shall also consider the inaction of Union and State Governments who have failed to provide any financial assistance to Lawyers during these bad days of pandemic. The Press Release states that the Apex Court too, “has not done anything to help the Lawyers and the writ filed by Bar Council of India and suo-motu matter are still pending.” “We only wanted some interest free or soft rated loan from Government for the needy Lawyers, but, even that is not being done by the Government”, the Press Release states. Regarding Court Proceedings (Physical, not Virtual) Expressing “serious concern on the intention of Government in planning to introduce the system of Virtual Hearings of Court proceedings and to give a go-bye to physical hearings”, the Press Release says, “The Rules and proposal to make this system of virtual hearings permanent feature can never be accepted by Advocates of the country. Such proposal would be very dangerous and may lead to putting/ giving the entire system in the pockets of some selected ‘big Law Firms’ and few other ‘blessed Lawyers’. The Indian Bar is not going to accept it at any cost. ‘Physical Hearings’ should be resumed throughout the country without any delay” Regarding Foreign Lawyers & Law Firm Stating that the proposal of Government to allow the Foreign Law Firms has been rejected by Bar Council of India on several occasions in past and all the State Bar Councils of the country and Bar Council of India have been stating and replying that this is not in the interest of the Indian Bar, the Press Release questions the move to raise this issue in the Parliament. Calling it a matter of serious concern for the .Indian Bar, Bar Council of India has stated that “unless the interest of the Indian Lawyers who practice right from the Lower Courts to the highest Court of the land are protected and Indian Law Firms/Lawyers are allowed to practice and establish in the bigger countries like USA, UK, Australia and other European countries without any rigorous/impractical conditions, on reciprocal basis, the Indian Bar will not allow the foreign Lawyers or Law Firms to establish here.” Furthermore, the Press Release adds that the area of practice of foreign lawyers has to be very limited, “so as to not to affect the Indian Lawyers practice in Civil, Criminal and other Laws.” Lastly, it states, “Lawyers and Law Firms of some of the irrelevant countries are applying for practice in India, while there is no scope for Indian Law Firms or Lawyers to practice in those countries and it would open a flood gate for them in our country without any benefit to Indian Lawyers.” The Joint Meeting of representatives of State Bar Councils and High Court Bar Associations would be considering all the issues in coming week.Click Here To Download Press ReleaseRead Press ReleaseSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
Journey home will be easier – Paul Hegarty Twitter Homepage BannerNews Inquest into death of Kathleen Thompson in Derry in 1971 continues Pinterest Google+ Pinterest News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Previous articleRuaille Buaille le Colm Feiritéar 6/3/18Next articleLYIT Ladies Soccer and Basketball sides into Colleges Finals News Highland Facebook WhatsApp WhatsApp DL Debate – 24/05/21 Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows Google+ By News Highland – March 8, 2018 Harps come back to win in Waterford A barrister for the family of Kathleen Thompson said today that ballistic reports ‘could not exclude’ the possibility that the shot that killed her was fired from a gun pressed through a gap in a fence at almost point blank range.Karen Quinlivan QC was questioning Soldier D on the fourth day of a fresh inquest into the death of the 47-year-old mother of six, who was shot on November 6 1971.Ms Quinlivan put it to the soldier that the reports suggested that it was possible ‘the shot that killed Kathleen Thompson could have been fired by him putting his gun at one of the gaps in the fence’.The soldier replied ‘that is outrageous. ‘Ms. Quinlivan suggested if he did that, he cold bloodily murdered her.This was rejected by the witness.It was also put to the witness that changes he made between his 1971 statement and later ones he made were designed to put him in a better position and provide greater justification for the shots he fired in 1971.Again he rejected this suggestion, and maintained that he believed he had come under fire.The barrister put it to Soldier D that there never was a shot fired from the garden of 129 Rathlin Drive and he was lying when he suggested there was.The witness replied: “No I am not lying”.The inquest continues. Twitter Facebook
iStock(NEW YORK) — Heading into the third and final week of testimony in Harvey Weinstein’s rape and sexual assault trial, the Hollywood mogul’s defense attorneys presented a trio of witnesses Monday who sought to challenge the state’s case.The defense witnesses attempted to raise doubt about three key witnesses — Annabella Sciorra, Lauren Young and the unnamed woman Weinstein is charged with raping in a Manhattan hotel room in 2013 — though only one witness struck at an accuser’s core accusations of violent sexual assault.ABC News is not naming the rape accuser because she says she is a sexual assault victim and — unlike some of the other accusers — has not publicly identified herself. Weinstein is charged with five felony counts and has pleaded not guilty to all of them. He has denied ever engaging in nonconsensual sex.The rape accuser had portrayed her former roommate and friend, Brazilian actress and model Talita Maia, as the driving force behind the two young women’s early interactions with Weinstein — portraying Maia on the witness stand as needy, pushy and anxious for the Hollywood mogul’s attention.But over hours of testimony Monday, Maia served to reinforce the defense’s argument that the rape accuser’s relationship with Weinstein was consensual.The actress, who was subpoenaed by the defense, testified that despite being roommates and friends the rape accuser had never spoken ill of Weinstein, and only once expressed a desire not to see him.“She said a few times that he was like her spiritual soulmate,” Maia said at one point.“She said he was the most wonderful person,” she testified at another point.Maia had breakfast with the rape accuser, Weinstein and another man the morning that Weinstein is charged with raping her at the Doubletree Hotel in midtown Manhattan in March 2013.Asked if the rape accuser seemed upset at the breakfast, Maia replied that “she seemed normal.”Asked if Maia was trying to pitch a script to Weinstein at the breakfast meeting, as the rape accuser testified, she denied it.Under cross examination, prosecutor Joan Illuzzi asked Maia if she had “a very, very bitter falling out” with the rape accuser in 2016 and she denied any disdain for the woman.“I don’t dislike [her],” Maia said. “[She] did things in my life that impacted my life in a very negative way and … I don’t hate her or anything.”The second defense witness called to the stand on Monday was the longtime superintendent of a Grammercy Park co-op where Sciorra briefly subleased the apartment where she said she was raped by Weinstein.Prosecutors have struggled to explain how Weinstein could have gotten past the doorman and up to Sciorra’s 17th-floor apartment without her explicit permission.Superintendent Nelson Lopez testified stringent building guidelines would not allow uninvited visitors beyond the building’s entranceway. Sciorra testified that Weinstein surprised her by showing up at her apartment door and pushing his way in to rape her after he’d dropped her off out front in a limousine sometime in late 1993 or early 1994.Even under relentless pressure from prosecutors to acknowledge the possibility that a staffer could have been bribed for entry by Weinstein, Lopez was unflinching in his defense of his staff and explained at length how unlikely that was.He testified that in 31 years on the job, he had never fired a doorman for breaching protocol.Monday’s final witness for the defense was Claudia Salinas, a Mexican actress and model who was accused by Young of luring her into a hotel suite bathroom where Weinstein allegedly sexually assaulted Young as Salinas lingered just outside the door, according to Young.Salinas flatly denied on the witness stand ever accompanying Young and Weinstein up to a hotel suite.Defense attorney Damon Cheronis kicked off her questioning by launching into a rapid set of exchanges with Salinas that initially seemed compelling.“I’m going to cut right to it,” Cheronis began. “Have you ever seen Harvey Weinstein run out of a bathroom suite naked?”“No,” she responded.“Ever seen him naked under any circumstances?” Cheronis continued.“No, never,” Salinas replied.“Did you ever lure Lauren Young into a bathroom w Harvey Weinstein?”“No.”“Did you ever lock Lauren Young in a bathroom with Harvey Weinstein?”“No.”Displaying prosecution photos of the California hotel room where Young testified that Weinstein sexually assaulted her, Cheronis asked, “Do you ever recall following Lauren Young down that hallway as Mr. Weinstein was in front of her?”“No, that never happened,” Salinas said.“Did you ever close that door on Lauren Young while she was in a bathroom with Harvey Weinstein?” Cheronis asked at another point.“No.”Asked to explain how she was so certain, she replied that “if I had done that, I would remember that. I never closed a door behind anybody ever.”Under similarly rapid cross-examination by prosecutor Meghan Hast, Salinas acknowledged that she had initially told investigators last year that it was “possible” Young and Weinstein ended up together in the bathroom — and that she couldn’t recall much about that night — but insisted that if it did happen she wasn’t there.“What’s true is that I wasn’t there in a bathroom scenario,” Salinas said. “It could have happened, but it didn’t mean I was there.”She also acknowledged that she was something of a conduit between Weinstein and her physically attractive young friends.“Did you introduce other women to Harvey Weinstein?” Hast asked.“I didn’t introduce other women … he met some of my friends because I would always come with a friend,” Salinas replied. “Harvey was always asking me to bring my better-looking friends.”Salinas was pressed repeatedly on the point by a relentless prosecutor who kept asking, “But you did always bring your better-looking friends to … Harvey Weinstein?”The witness finally took a breath, looked Hast straight in the eye, and generated laughter across the courtroom when she calmly volunteered her answer.Several more defense witnesses are expected to testify on Tuesday before the defense rests its case. Closing arguments could be completed by the end of the week.If you or someone you know experienced sexual assault and is seeking resources, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE (4673).Copyright © 2020, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
Comments are closed. Related posts:No related photos. Previous Article Next Article Data file: Employment tribunbal disputesOn 19 Jun 2001 in Personnel Today The latest in a series of articles that give the basics on key areas ofemployment legislation. This issue we look at employment tribunbal disputesThe hard facts Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations2001 These new regulations come into force on 16 July 2001 and bring in a newrange of issues for employer and employee when a claim is pursued in thetribunal. The intention behind the changes is that tribunals should activelymanage cases to a conclusion more quickly and efficiently. The main changes include: – A new overriding objective similar to that in use in County Courtprocedure – The introduction of case management powers – The increase of the fee payable to continue with a claim following a pre-hearingreview from £150 to £500 – The increase in costs that may be awarded without assessment from £500 to£10,000 – A new rule to allow tribunals to direct cases are heard in private when thereis a national security issue – The ability to lodge claims previously submitted in a number of ET1s in asingle document. www.legislation.hmso.gov.ukAlternative Dispute Resolution Acas Arbitration Scheme This new procedure was introduced in the Employment Rights (DisputeResolution) Act 1998. It is only applicable to unfair dismissal claims. The main provisions are: – Both parties must agree to arbitration – Evidence is not given on oath – There is no right of appeal except in respect of “seriousirregularity” in the arbitrator’s conduct, hearing of the case or aboutthe award made. Advantages: – Likely to be quicker than an employment tribunal– Proceedings are held in private and – Awards made are confidential. www.acas.org.uk/arbitrationMediation This is available for most litigation disputes and may be a good optionwhen: – The claim is of high value and of a sensitive nature – The issues are highly complex or involve international law. Reading around the subject – The DTI has produced a useful commentary on the main changes resultingfrom the employment tribunal regulations: www.dti.gov.uk/er/individual/et.htm– The Acas website has access to a full copy of the Arbitration Schemetogether with a guide and introduction to the provisions: www.acas.org.uk/arbitration– The Centre for Dispute Resolution (CEDR) provides a useful source ofinformation on mediation including “myths and facts”,”appropriate cases”, a news update and an online fee calculator: www.cedr.co.ukIn the news “Arbitrator to handle unfair dismissals” – The Daily Telegraph, 19February 2001