top of page

NEWS

In light of the Julian Assange appeal, an Interpol and extradition focussed NGO has called on several Parliamentary Committees to investigate the need for changes to Britain’s extradition treaties and process. Radha Stirling , who heads up the groups  IPEX Reform and Due Process International , herself a leading expert witness on the issue, has written to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Joint Human Rights Committee and the Home Affairs Committee to offer evidence from “more than a dozen witnesses” on how the extradition process is leading to human rights violations. One of Stirling’s concerns is that the extradition treaties are “infringing on UK sovereignty” in that countries are misusing the process to expand their jurisdiction, meaning that British citizens would have to abide by the laws of countries they haven’t even been to. In her letter, she refers to British citizens who have been listed on Interpol for “violating US sanctions” despite not being US citizens and not being required to abide by US law. Stirling asks “Would the UK attempt to extradite a US citizen for violating UK sanctions (or other crime) even if that person had not been to the UK and even if they did not violate US or international laws? “Would the UK allow the UAE to extradite a British citizen for violating UAE sanctions (or other crime) from outside the UAE if he did not violate any UK or international laws? “If the answer is no, then our extradition process needs urgent review”. Julian Assange Stirling highlighted the case of Julian Assange, “The US has successfully applied for the extradition of persons who are not US citizens and were not in the US at the time of the alleged “crimes”,  then the question,  “should the US have the ability to jail people abroad under US law when they are not US citizens and have not been physically present in the US? Would we allow other countries to do the same?” The Test Stirling suggested a test be considered. "If a less ‘allied’ nation had made the request, would we consider it reasonable? If the UAE accused a US citizen in France of violating sanctions by attending a conference in Israel, would we extradite that person to the UAE? No, we would determine the UAE has no right to enforce their laws internationally. I f Assange had exposed the ‘secret’ human rights abuses of Russia or Saudi Arabia (from a third country), would we extradite him there? No. We must not give special universal jurisdiction privileges to countries on a pick and choose, diplomatic basis. If the argument wouldn’t work for the UAE, Russia, China or Saudi, they must not work for allied nations either. Justice should not be about politics or diplomacy. British citizens should not need to learn nor comply with US, UAE, Saudi, Australian, German or other country’s laws unless they are physically in those countries. Our extradition treaties must specify that persons will only be extradited for crimes physically committed within the requesting country or else we lose legal and jurisdictional sovereignty. Pre-Trial Detention Stirling expressed her opposition to pre-trial detention except in situations where the public is at risk. She highlighted that it’s free for countries to request extraditions but the cost to the UK taxpayer is in the millions. She says some countries know their request is doomed to fail but try anyway as it’s no cost to them and the punishment is the process. Her letter states “It is astonishing that Julian Assange has been jailed for five years when he could have been held under house arrest. This kind of treatment simply should not be allowed as part of the extradition process.” “It is further absurd that a country that has discussed killing him is even able to continue with the request. If we look at the test above, would we even be entertaining it if Saudi Arabia had discussed conspiring to execute a target? “We need fairness and equality within our extradition principles and should not give ‘special friends’ more privileges within our legal system than we would others. That might help British leaders with diplomacy, but at the expense of individual human rights. “It is clear that further, more detailed human rights protections should be written into extradition treaties so that the courts may with confidence, deny extraditions where there is no dual criminality and where a person may suffer unfair trials, discrimination, human rights violations or torture, regardless of what unenforceable “assurances” are provided by the requesting country.” Investigation Stirling urges an investigation into the lack of human rights protections provided for in our treaties. “Our extradition treaties as they are, put anyone who visits the UK at risk of arbitrary detention and human rights violations. As it stands, a foreign country could accuse a foreign national of violating their laws even though they are not subject to them, and have them detained for years on end at great taxpayer expense, then potentially extradited where they could suffer unfair trials, discrimination, human rights abuses and torture.” Established by Radha Stirling , founder and CEO of Detained in Dubai , and a leading voice against Interpol abuse, Interpol and Extradition Reform (IPEX) is a comprehensive initiative to address the widespread and multilayered problems with the current framework of the extradition process, including the many flaws in Interpol itself as an organisation. An international not for profit organisation focusing on lawful due process and fair trials, human rights and the accountability of  criminals, corporations, law enforcement organisations and governments.  Due Process is the head of internationally acclaimed  Detained in Dubai , Detained in Doha , IPEX Reform and Gulf Investment Monitor , founded by world renowned justice expert Radha Stirling. Detained in Dubai: http://www.detainedindubai.org Detained in Doha: https://www.detainedindoha.org Radha Stirling: http://www.radhastirling.com CLAN - Crypto Legal Advocacy Network: https://www.bitclan.org/ Due Process International: http://www.dueprocess.international IPEX - Interpol & Extradition Reform & Defence Experts: https://www.ipexreform.com/ Interpol Red Notice https://www.interpolrednotice.com/  Podcast: http://www.gulfinjustice.news Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/detainedindubai YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/detainedindubai X (Twitter): https://x.com/RadhaStirling   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/radhastirling   Live news and updates on Telegram: https://t.me/stirlingnews mail: info@detainedindubai.org  / Press queries: press@detainedindubai.org Phone: +447309114195  WhatsApp: Click here

Assange: NGO calls for extradition treaty review

..an Interpol and extradition focussed NGO has called on several Parliamentary Committees to investigat

Read More
California tech entrepreneur tortured into sending crypto to corrupt Dubai cops with threats to rape his wife. An American cryptocurrency entrepreneur was tortured into emptying his crypto wallet amidst brutal beatings by Dubai’s CID that included threats to rape both he and his wife. He now faces permanent blindness after being deprived of medication by Dubai authorities. Radha Stirling from organisation Detained in Dubai , says “this is all too familiar a situation. We are preparing an urgent report to lodge to Dubai’s ruler, Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum and the UAE’s Ambassador to the US as well as a criminal complaint with the blockchain tracing details. Corruption within law enforcement must be taken seriously by the ruler if people are to feel at all safe in the Emirates”. Californian native, Edel Hsieh, accepted a role as technical advisor to crypto startup, Fomodex, and moved to Dubai in 2022. His new colleague was a then successful crypto developer along with his co-partner. Edel began work, producing whitepapers and technical & operations advice for the backend of Fomodex while the others provided the community. “He was certainly drawn in”,  said Ms Stirling, “Edel officially co-invested and was expecting 20% of net profits. He was hoping to benefit as an early investor but some red flags were raised and he held concern over the company operations”.  The others were in control of the company wallet and were using public funds to invest in other platforms without consultation.  Edel didn't want to be a part of it anymore and asked for the return of his investment for which he retained security cheques. “Security cheques are often exchanged for investments in Dubai”,  explains Stirling. “If one party doesn’t adhere to the agreement or abscond with the funds, the cheques can be presented. Failing to honour a cheque can result in a custodial sentence”. Edel was advised by his lawyer to present the cheques which bounced so Edel opened a case against Sam for his investment. “What Edel probably didn’t know, is that fraudsters who know the system in Dubai often open criminal cases against financial claimants as a sort of insurance policy. They try to have them jailed under false allegations so the victim can not proceed with their genuine case. They often insist on the victim dropping their financial cases in return for being freed from jail”,  says Stirling, who has helped more than 20,000 people over her 16 years running the organisation. Still hoping for the voluntary return of his funds, Edel and his friends attended a meeting that turned into a party at one of the partner's residences at Fountain Views in Downtown Dubai. He asked his former partner to arrange for his investment reimbursement.  His response was to suggest Edel drop the cheque case then they could continue to work together. The next day, on the 6th of March 2024, Edel was arrested and taken into custody by Dubai’s Criminal Investigations Department (CID). His worried wife received a message to urgently call him and when she did, she was asked to send approximately $100,000 to a crypto wallet address. Hearing that he was clearly distressed, she quickly sent the money. She knew something was wrong but he couldn’t talk. She could not have imagined that he was being extorted by Emirati officials. He was later able to reveal that he had been severely beaten and tortured. He told his wife how CID took pictures of her from Edel’s phone then a high ranking Emirati official in traditional kandura forced him to ask her to send money, telling him that he and his wife would both be raped if he did not cooperate. A metal prong was used to violently jab his ribs and he was forced to sign some sort of confession in Arabic. “While shocking, cases of police beatings, torture and forced confessions do happen in Dubai prisons. We have a case before the United Nations right now of a grandfather having been beaten so badly, he suffered multiple fractures. To add financial extortion to the list, if left unaddressed, will only serve as an incentive to corrupt officials to partake in torture in the future. The government of Dubai needs to direct authorities that this is absolutely not acceptable. They respect Sheikh Mohammed and if he tells them to stop, they will obey him which begs the question of complicity. Why has this order not been made?” “Edel’s wife Neda is distressed”, reports Ms Stirling. “She is afraid to even try to visit her husband in Dubai in case they detain and rape her.” Neda told Stirling  “He has been denied access to a lawyer and to medication. He’s been wearing the same clothes for two months and doesn’t have a bed to sleep on. During the floods, he couldn’t even sleep on the concrete floor. He’s suffered multiple infections and has been told if he doesn’t see a specialist, he may lose his eyesight. Edel suffers severe allergies that make it difficult to breathe but has been refused nasal spray that opens his airways.” Although the allegations against him are unclear, it appears he has been accused of threatening one of his former partners in regards to returning the investment. “The tactic of reporting someone like Edel is often used by individuals who fear cases will be opened against them. If they get in first, it immunises them against future complaints from the victim. The first person to make the report usually prevails”,  adds Stirling. “We are briefing the US State Department, the UAE’s Ambassador to the US , Congresswoman Linda Sanchez and Senator Josh Newman. The mistreatment of a US citizen in the penal system of one of our closest allies, along with the serious allegations of corruption and torture should be addressed diplomatically by the states involved. Edel has done nothing wrong but has become a target of extortion and was terribly abused by those entrusted with his care during an investigation. All evidence of his innocence is available on his electronic devices held by Dubai police and he is desperate to be exonerated and reunited with his family”. Detained in Dubai: http://www.detainedindubai.org Detained in Doha: https://www.detainedindoha.org Radha Stirling: http://www.radhastirling.com CLAN - Crypto Legal Advocacy Network: https://www.bitclan.org/ Due Process International: http://www.dueprocess.international IPEX - Interpol & Extradition Reform & Defence Experts: https://www.ipexreform.com/ Interpol Red Notice https://www.interpolrednotice.com/  Podcast: http://www.gulfinjustice.news Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/detainedindubai YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/detainedindubai X (Twitter): https://x.com/RadhaStirling   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/radhastirling   Live news and updates on Telegram: https://t.me/stirlingnews mail: info@detainedindubai.org  / Press queries: press@detainedindubai.org Phone: +447309114195  WhatsApp: Click here

California tech guy tortured into sending crypto to Dubai cops with threats to rape his wife.

American cryptocurrency entrepreneur was tortured into emptying his crypto wallet amidst brutal beatings by Dubai’s Police

Read More
Dubai Unlocked: Is Dubai really a safe haven for fugitives?  Interpol & Extradition expert, Radha Stirling , the founder of  Detained in Dubai , looks into it. The intriguing results of the OCCRP report entitled “Dubai Unlocked” has confirmed Dubai as a hotspot investment destination for celebrities, politicians, former presidents and of course, for international fugitives, but the report raises many complex questions such as “who decides who should or shouldn’t have a property in the UAE and should the UAE be placed on a financial grey list for its seemingly lax regulations?” Certainly, Dubai has provided safe haven to a number of individuals wanted by countries abroad but who have not committed any crimes locally but Interpol & extradition expert and founder of Detained in Dubai , Radha Stirling  asks, “is it really as safe as has been made out? After all, British citizen  Sanjay Shah  was extradited to Denmark,  Christian Michel  to India and numerous others over the past several years. “We field a lot of complaints from governments and investigators that the UAE is not cooperating with certain extradition requests and it can appear to some that the Emirates provides an absolute safe haven for fugitives, but this is simply not true. The UAE has complied with many extradition requests, including high value targets and some of those extraditions have been unfortunate for the individuals facing wrongful charges. “The extradition process in Dubai is both a legal and a diplomatic process. If the UAE feels the extradition is of some benefit to them, they are more likely to comply. The higher value the target, the more quid pro quo will be expected and thus, this can thwart efforts. “It’s also complicated by a lack of extradition treaties and a lack of reciprocity from other countries who have treaties in existence. The UK, for example, regularly denies extraditions based on human rights issues. The UAE is therefore not going to feel very compelled to agree to the UK’s requests. However, that’s a fair price to pay since British citizens should be protected from unfair treatment and they should remain the priority. “Wanted persons, though, are not all guilty as perceived. Should they feel they’re unsafe or at potential risk of unfair persecution, jurisdictional overreach or imprisonment, there are extra steps they can take to protect themselves while in Dubai. For people in this position, neutral countries are a necessity for protection.” The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) “Pressuring the UAE with greylisting has resulted in increased regulation but as we can see from the Dubai Unlocked report, has perhaps not had the desired effect and any sanctioning of the UAE would sabotage building long term relations. The UAE knows its important strategic position as a security and trade partner and may begin to resent FATF targeting. Such resentment may lead to stronger alliances being built with other countries. The UAE is in a position to push back and may not appreciate what it perceives to be bullying from the US and allies.” Sanctions & Jurisdiction Overreach “We must remember that different countries sanction different individuals, organisations and countries. Unless the UAE has sanctioned someone, they are not required to adhere to another country’s policies and visa versa. “The US in particular has trended in indicting foreign citizens for violating US sanctions abroad and then seeking to extradite them. What other country gets away with that? Saudi Arabia recently denied the extradition of UK citizen Christopher Emms to the United States for allegedly violating US sanctions in visiting a crypto conference in Pyongyang. He was not a US citizen, did not violate British sanctions or international law. The extradition process should not be misused in this way by the US or any other country. Similarly, the US for example, has no right to tell the UAE to disallow US sanctioned individuals from owning real estate in the UAE. EU list of “high risk third countries” In April, the European Parliament voted to keep the UAE on the “high risk third countries” list after having been removed from the FATF greylist saying “Those who circumvent sanctions against Russia should not be rewarded with removal from the EU list.” “The UAE should not be bullied into adhering to other country’s sanctions and in the same way, the West will not submit to the UAE’s sanctions." Balancing criminal enforcement While the UAE may extradite fugitives in order to strengthen alliances or as a quid pro quo, we are decades away from removing wasta (VIP influence) style protection from powerful individuals. Even changes in regulations will be more of a public relations effort than an enforcement policy, depending on the status of the individual and local political motivations. Detained in Dubai: http://www.detainedindubai.org Detained in Doha: https://www.detainedindoha.org Radha Stirling: http://www.radhastirling.com CLAN - Crypto Legal Advocacy Network: https://www.bitclan.org/ Due Process International: http://www.dueprocess.international IPEX - Interpol & Extradition Reform & Defence Experts: https://www.ipexreform.com/ Interpol Red Notice https://www.interpolrednotice.com/  Podcast: http://www.gulfinjustice.news Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/detainedindubai YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/detainedindubai LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/radhastirling   Live news and updates on Telegram: https://t.me/stirlingnews mail: info@detainedindubai.org  / Press queries: press@detainedindubai.org Phone: +447309114195  WhatsApp: Click here

Dubai Unlocked: Is Dubai really a safe haven for fugitives?

Dubai Unlocked: Is Dubai really a safe haven for fugitives? Interpol & Extradition expert, Radha Stirling, the founder of Detained in Dubai

Read More
Biden sexual assault accuser, Tara Reade, met with Tucker Carlson in Russia after seeking asylum. Tara Reade was forced to seek asylum in Russia after senior political representatives told her she was in danger for speaking out against Biden.  Tucker Carlson interviewed her for the second time in Moscow. Tara Reade’s only “crime” was to speak out about President Joe Biden’s sexual assault of her during her time as his Senate Aide. Ms Reade had lodged complaints at the time of being an employee and through official channels. She then decided to take the brave step of taking the allegations public on the back of the #MeToo movement, given that Biden was now running for the presidency. In stark contrast to those who accused Trump, Tara became victim of what her attorneys have termed “Operation Cassandra” in the latest legal filings. Lawyer and Congressman Matt Gaetz stated that Reade was the most credible witness he had interviewed in his career and all Tara wanted was an investigation, but instead of an investigation, “Operation Cassandra” was invoked and Ms Reade was targeted in a concerted effort to discredit and diminish her, to the point where she was forced to apply for asylum in Russia. Supported by her representatives, attorney Dr Jonathan Levy and Radha Stirling , human rights advocate and founder of Due Process International , a number of legal filings were submitted to international bodies including the United Nations. A suit filed last month against the Federal Government claims that Reade was investigated "in order to retaliate, intimidate, discredit and if possible, eliminate her as a threat to President Biden was investigated." It also claims that FBI Director Christopher Wray "unlawfully and unconstitutionally ordered" the secret operation that violated privacy and surveillance statutes, as well as engaged in unconstitutional searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, ultimately "forcing" Reade to seek asylum in Russia "in fear of her life." In a continued effort, Reade was then demonized by the Biden supporting mainstream media and employees, headlining her as a “Russian asset”, which she clearly is not. “It is outrageous to create a situation where Russia is the only safe haven from Federal Government abuse for Tara, then demonize her for choosing safety”, asserted Ms Stirling , who filed preventative submissions to Interpol after a threat against Ms Reade was made. During Carlson’s trip to Russia to interview President Putin, he met with whistleblower Edward Snowden and interviewed Ms Reade at his hotel. “It’s important that journalists investigate the serious abuse of power that has left a US citizen in an egregious situation where she does not feel safe to return to her own country”, added Stirling. "Ms Reade built a career in the US and grew as a geopolitical commentator. She later became the victim of a political vendetta for which the consequences have been dire. Tara’s case highlights the human toll of an out of control ruling elite whose policy is to crush any threat to power, at any cost and that absolutely includes crushing democracy. “The current administration has made it more than clear that they fully support their own disinformation campaigns and censorship of the truth, even working with private corporations, media and social media companies to do so. Perhaps worse than censorship though, is the weaponization of government and law agencies, judicial abuse, slander and wrongful imprisonments, all of which have become the standard playbook.” Ms Reade, Dr Levy, & Ms Stirling have been inundated with not only support, but numerous complaints from other victims and with no other organization in place, the group are establishing an international committee to address weaponization and the protection of whistleblowers. “The public has a right to know when the government abuses its own citizens. It’s not acceptable nor constitutional and it will only stop through exposure and legal accountability. We seek to prevent the US becoming an autocratic and undemocratic state where citizens are unsafe. We are already on the road and it will take independent journalists, brave lawyers and libertarian members of government to halt this trend. We are thankful to Carlson for sitting down with Tara in Russia, but it may take a change of administration before she can feel safe to travel again”. Detained in Dubai: http://www.detainedindubai.org Detained in Doha: https://www.detainedindoha.org Radha Stirling: http://www.radhastirling.com CLAN - Crypto Legal Advocacy Network: https://www.bitclan.org/ Due Process International: http://www.dueprocess.international IPEX - Interpol & Extradition Reform & Defence Experts: https://www.ipexreform.com/ Interpol Red Notice https://www.interpolrednotice.com/  Podcast: http://www.gulfinjustice.news Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/detainedindubai YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/detainedindubai X (Twitter): https://x.com/RadhaStirling   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/radhastirling   Live news and updates on Telegram: https://t.me/stirlingnews mail: info@detainedindubai.org  / Press queries: press@detainedindubai.org Phone: +447309114195  WhatsApp: Click here

Tucker Carlson interviews Tara Reade in Moscow

Tara Reade was forced to seek asylum in Russia after senior political representatives told her she was in danger.

Read More
Introduction The Australian Government has requested public consultation in respect of eSafety. The issues raised have been answered below by Radha Stirling, expert witness and founder of Due Process International. Submit your own answers via the government website.  Let them know what you think! Part 2 – Australia’s regulatory approach to online services, systems and processes 1. Are the current objects of the Act to improve and promote online safety for Australians sufficient or should they be expanded? The scope of the Act does not require expansion. It is already so expansive with vague language such as “harmful” that it is potentially subject to misuse and abuse, depending on the political climate or issue at the time. 2. Does the Act capture and define the right sections of the online industry? The Act captures literally everything online. 3. Does the Act regulate things (such as tools or services) that do not need to be regulated, or fail to regulate things that should be regulated? The Act covers everything that is already subject to pre-existing laws and needs no further government regulation. The Act should certainly not regulate overseas companies or individuals who happen to have a website. 4. Should the Act have strengthened and enforceable Basic Online Safety Expectations? No, pre-existing laws already cover criminal activity. 5. Should the Act provide greater flexibility around industry codes, including who can draft codes and the harms that can be addressed? How can the codes drafting process be improved? “Flexibility” can be misused in the future as new regulatory bodies are established. If in the future, there is a perceived need for a new body or code, this should be tabled independently of this Act, rather than allowing the flexibility in advance which will ultimately lead to a situation where there is no public consultation on issues. 6. To what extent should online safety be managed through a service providers’ terms of use? External service providers should not be required to manage Australia’s “online safety” demands proactively. We do not want a situation where global companies and individuals are required to comply with any country’s wish lists. People should be able to decide what websites they wish to visit, whether they comply with the Australian government’s desires or not. 7. Should regulatory obligations depend on a service providers’ risk or reach? No, this is discriminatory and vague. It’s open to abuse and therefore should not be considered. Part 3 – Protecting those who have experienced or encountered online harms 1. Are the thresholds that are set for each complaints scheme appropriate? No, they are far too broad and conflict with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, specifically related to Freedom of Expression. The scope would allow for content to be removed and for platforms to be fined in respect to non-criminal activity. 2. Are the complaints schemes accessible, easy to understand and effective for complainants? It appears that anyone who is offended can make a complaint and claim they are being targeted or that it is impacting their lives or businesses. It appears action can be taken even where that activity is lawful. That makes it extremely unfair, vague and open to abuse by complainants and the Commissioner. 3. Does more need to be done to make sure vulnerable Australians at the highest risk of abuse have access to corrective action through the Act? Absolutely not. Severe cases can be taken up with law enforcement under pre-existing harassment laws which can then result in a legal order to remove content. This is not the role of an eSafety Commission. 4. Does the Commissioner have the right powers to address access to violent pornography? It is already sufficiently enabled to control violent and child pornography as are law enforcement bodies. Although using the example of “child pornography” which most people find abhorrent, any proposed expansion of powers will cover other more disputed areas of issue like discrimination. 5. What role should the Act play in helping to restrict children’s access to age inappropriate content (including through the application of age assurance)? None. The government has no parental responsibility. This is a social issue that should be dealt with through education and the promotion of ‘wholesome’ values. 6. Does the Commissioner have sufficient powers to address social media posts that boast about crimes or is something more needed? If “boasting about crimes” is unlawful, this should be dealt with by law enforcement. If it is not unlawful, it should not default to become unlawful via an eSafety Commissioner. 7. Should the Act empower ‘bystanders’, or members of the general public who may not be directly affected by illegal or seriously harmful material, to report this material to the Commissioner? No, this will cause an inundation of politically and socially motivated reports. Notifying the Commissioner will become a standard part of social activism. There are already enough lobbyist groups, bot farms and governments who mass report posts they don’t like to social platforms, risking violating the UN right to freedom of expression. 8. Does the Commissioner have sufficient powers to address harmful material that depicts abhorrent violent conduct? Other than blocking access, what measures could eSafety take to reduce access to this material? This does not need expansion but in fact, needs more clarification. Violent abhorrent conduct is legal as depicted in Hollywood movies. Restricting “violent” content can impact on the public’s ability to protest or share true (or made up) information. Recommending the public make responsible decisions is the best solution. 9. What more could be done to promote the safety of Australians online, including through research, educational resources and awareness raising? Further education in respect of avoiding online scams would save a lot of people a lot of money. As far as safety is concerned, people need to understand that they can block people or websites voluntarily if they don’t like the content. That is the extent of the service governments should provide in online education. Part 4 – Penalties, and investigation and information gathering powers 1. Does the Act need stronger investigation, information gathering and enforcement powers? Definitely not. We already have law enforcement to deal with crime and do not require an additional government body that can be weaponized against people and platforms. 2. Are Australia’s penalties adequate and if not, what forms should they take? The penalties are disgracefully high to the point where the fines involved act as an incentive for the department to make inappropriate requests to remove content in hope the platform does not comply and they are financially rewarded. It is completely inappropriate to fine an individual $156,500+ and jurisdictionally flawed to fine a company that doesn’t even operate within Australia (as was threatened against X). No company registered outside of Australia should ever be issued with a local penalty. Universal jurisdiction is risky and frankly, unlawful. If we wouldn’t accept Saudi Arabia penalising an Australian company who had a site on the world wide web, then we should not be attempting to initiate the same. 3. What more could be done to enforce action against service providers who do not comply, especially those based overseas? No further “actions” should be taken against service providers who “do not comply”. Citizens can exercise their personal responsibility by choosing online content well. Education over censorship. 4. Should the Commissioner have powers to impose sanctions such as business disruption sanctions? Absolutely not. The Commissioner should never be able to issue any sanctions against businesses. We are not living in a communist regime and should refrain from acting as though we are. This concept would be open to significant abuse by the Commissioner and the government. Part 5 – International approaches to address online harms 1. Should the Act incorporate any of the international approaches identified above? If so, what should this look like? A voluntary “suggested” and “encouraged” model is much less open to infringing on the right to freedom of expression. If a platform tends to ignore these “guidelines”, citizens can be recommended to avoid them and take their business elsewhere. This could be similar to giving a product an “organic” or “made in Australia” tick but still gives citizens the choice to buy a “lesser” product should they wish. If Australians want safe content, let a technology company develop a PG/censorship browser for their use. 2. Should Australia place additional statutory duties on online services to make online services safer and minimise online harms? No. Again, we delve into issues pertaining to universal jurisdiction. If we would accept Saudi dictating the “duties” non Saudi companies have, we should not ask for it ourselves. If our friends in other countries are attempting this, we should discourage the overreach. 3. Is the current level of transparency around decision-making by industry and the Commissioner appropriate? If not, what improvements are needed? If there must be a Commissioner, he or she should be an elected representative and changes to their roles, responsibilities and authority should be voted on by online referendum every single time. With instant access to be able to participate in democracy, there is no reason why these issues should not require public consultation every single time. 4. Should there be a mechanism in place to provide researchers and eSafety with access to data? Are there other things they should be allowed access to? eSafety and “researchers” should not be given mechanisms to access data. Any access requests coming from eSafety should require going via law enforcement and then through a court to obtain a warrant before they are able to be granted any information held by third parties. If there is data held by the Commissioner, it should be made available to the public under freedom of information principles. This would enable the public to know whether the Commissioner is abusing their authority. 5. To what extent do industry’s current dispute resolution processes support Australians to have a safe online experience? Is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism such as an Ombuds scheme required? If so, how should the roles of the Ombuds and Commissioner interact? We already have courtrooms available to serious disputes and the concern with a binding, unelected ombudsman is that it is another government body that would likely side with the government. This could remove remedies from victims and allow unchecked government abuses. Thus, any decision by any potential Ombudsman should be appealable by the individual or company, but not by the Commissioner. 6. Are additional safeguards needed to ensure the Act upholds fundamental human rights and supporting principles? In the same way that human rights provisions were (at the last minute) inserted into the UAE - Australian extradition treaty, the right to freedom of information, opinion and expression (speech) is crucial and is the most likely right to be trampled on by the eSafety Commissioner. It is this right that must be defended first. Part 6 – Regulating the online environment, technology and environmental changes 1. Should the Commissioner have powers to act against content targeting groups as well as individuals? What type of content would be regulated and how would this interact with the adult cyber-abuse and cyberbullying schemes ? No, there is no need for additional powers already covered by the law and other sections of this Act. 2. What considerations are important in balancing innovation, privacy, security, and safety? Privacy and safety are issues usually covered by existing harassment laws. If there is a genuine risk, a police report can be made and escalated to the appropriate platform. Social media companies already comply with law enforcement requests. The right to privacy can not be automatic and enforceable through the Commissioner as it will often conflict with the right to information and freedom of expression. 3. Should the Act address risks raised by specific technologies or remain technology neutral? How would the introduction of a statutory duty of care or Safety by Design obligations change your response? Changing the Act every time new technology is introduced is going to keep people in jobs. Like a Constitution, an Act should be made for longevity but it should not be vague either. Thus, it should only cover the absolute minimum intervention required, allowing it to stand the test of time. 4. To what extent is the Act achieving its object of improving and promoting online safety for Australians? The Act is providing an avenue for politically charged censorship and the expansion of governmental powers to curb UN rights to freedom of information and expression thus making Australians less safe. 5. What features of the Act are working well, or should be expanded? If one is a victim of criminal harassment, they may (in theory) receive a speedier response from eSafety than from the police. However, that is at the expense of unreasonable interference in the entire population’s right to freedom of expression and information. This should certainly not be expanded. 6. Does Australia have the appropriate governance structures in place to administer Australia’s online safety laws? Australia has already quadrupled the budget of an unelected and largely unsupported, controversial body. Until issues of censorship and free speech have been properly considered, debated and resolved, no consideration of “appropriate government structures” should be discussed. 7. Should Australia consider introducing a cost recovery mechanism on online service providers for regulating online safety functions? If so, what could this look like? Absolutely not. Is eSafety simply a money making scheme for the government? A significant portion of Australians have publicly stated they would prefer eSafety to be defunded. If Australia began to see eSafety as a profit centre, the body would be more inclined to seek to expand its powers. This is not beneficial to the Australian population who may prefer a limited version of the body. Detained in Dubai: http://www.detainedindubai.org Detained in Doha: https://www.detainedindoha.org Radha Stirling: http://www.radhastirling.com CLAN - Crypto Legal Advocacy Network: https://www.bitclan.org/ Due Process International: http://www.dueprocess.international IPEX - Interpol & Extradition Reform & Defence Experts: https://www.ipexreform.com/ Interpol Red Notice https://www.interpolrednotice.com/  Podcast: http://www.gulfinjustice.news Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/detainedindubai YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/detainedindubai LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/radhastirling   Live news and updates on Telegram: https://t.me/stirlingnews mail: info@detainedindubai.org  / Press queries: press@detainedindubai.org Phone: +447309114195  WhatsApp: Click here

Australia: eSafety review submissions to government, by Radha Stirling

Introduction The Australian Government has requested public consultation in respect of eSafety. The issues raised have been answered...

Read More
Australian government attempts fine X US$500,000 if he doesn't comply with requests to globally censor content on X.  Musk to appeal. "The Australian censorship commissar is demanding global  content bans!" posts free speech champion, Elon Musk, vowing to “robustly challenge this unlawful and dangerous approach in court”. Australia’s Labor Party condemned Musk’s commitment to liberty, branding him a “narcissistic billionaire”, claiming they “won’t be bullied” and are “ready for a fight”, “but who are they fighting for?”  asked free speech advocate, Radha Stirling , founder of human rights group, Due Process International . “It is clear that the overwhelming majority of Australian (voting)  citizens support Elon Musk’s commitment to opposing government censorship. “Citizens saw what happened when the government began censoring voices in order to manipulate the population into accepting a single narrative during covid times. But the truth cannot be suppressed forever and people have woken up to the danger of state endorsed censorship as a means to mislead and deceive the public. “Most Australians believe that Julian Assange should be freed, that he should not be jailed for telling the truth. There is a long history of support for freedom of press and freedom of information, and the recent example of covid truths censorship has hit home. People are feeling less trusting of the government to decide what information they should consume under the guise of “safety”. The eSafety Commissioner  was founded to ‘protect the public’ under the ‘Liberal’ party, then expanded by the Labor party. Its recent attempt to police the global internet though, has left the Australian public supporting Elon Musk over their political leaders. “Elon Musk’s commitment to oppose censorship and encourage open debate is something that resonates with Australians as much as Julian Assange’s whistleblowing journalism. The public wants to discern the truth from information without interference from the state and their vested interests. “Taking on a free speech hero like Elon Musk is a huge mistake for eSafety and the Labor administration. Voters are going to be increasingly electing people who actually value the basic liberties of the population.  Without freedom of information, it is impossible to fully appreciate issues and be able to formulate educated opinions. This is what the government wants but doesn’t look like it's going to get. “Political parties who protect free speech, value their citizens' intelligence and freedom to decide what information they consume will be more likely to win elections and lead a more happy and productive society. Censorship is not for the benefit of the people and it’s imperative Elon Musk wins this precedent setting battle”. Detained in Dubai: http://www.detainedindubai.org Detained in Doha: https://www.detainedindoha.org Radha Stirling: http://www.radhastirling.com CLAN - Crypto Legal Advocacy Network: https://www.bitclan.org/ Due Process International: http://www.dueprocess.international IPEX - Interpol & Extradition Reform & Defence Experts: https://www.ipexreform.com/ Interpol Red Notice https://www.interpolrednotice.com/  Podcast: http://www.gulfinjustice.news Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/detainedindubai YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/detainedindubai LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/radhastirling   Live news and updates on Telegram: https://t.me/stirlingnews mail: info@detainedindubai.org  / Press queries: press@detainedindubai.org Phone: +447309114195  WhatsApp: Click here

Australia Labor set to lose Elon Musk battle

Australian government attempts fine X US$500,000 if he doesn't comply with requests to globally censor content on X.  Musk to appeal.

Read More
The Assange team is ‘hopeful’ for Biden’s review of charges against Julian Assange, but what’s really going on behind the scenes at the White House? Interpol and Extradition Expert, Radha Stirling  explains. “British courts have sufficient legal reasoning to block the US request to extradite Julian Assange leaving Biden worried the US will be humiliated on the world stage” , explains IPEX (Interpol & Extradition) Reform  founder, Radha Stirling. “The UK frequently denies extraditions where the wanted person is likely to face unfair trials, human rights violations, discrimination or torture. The court has heard sufficient evidence to rule against extradition and they certainly would do so if it were any other country’s request. “The US has failed to provide any binding or believable assurances that Assange would not face the death penalty, that additional charges would not be levied, that he would not be discriminated against and would not face human rights violations in accordance with UDHR principles. Assange would not be afforded the same protections as US citizens and would not be entitled to constitutional protection of the first amendment right to free speech. “Further, the UK denied the extradition of British citizen Corey de Rose to the US based on his mental health and suicide risk. The Assange team has demonstrated that after over a decade of persecution, of living in exile and in harsh prison conditions, he too, is arguably in the same boat. “The UK has every right to reasonably deny the extradition. The Biden administration is carefully considering the humiliation they would suffer if the British courts ruled against extradition. Without being able to satisfy UK assurance requests, US decision makers realise his extradition is not guaranteed, regardless of the strength of the US-UK alliance. “The inevitable humiliation in the event of an extradition denial is absolutely the only reason the DNC is even entertaining the idea of withdrawing the charges against Julian Assange. Make no mistake, Assange is an enemy of the state, but not of the people. Assange has overwhelming public support and the vast majority support his release. His case is evidence that the state does not represent the will of the people and would rather persecute or even kill its political opponents. “If the charges are withdrawn, it is evidence that prosecutors advised the administration that the extradition would be ruled against and we can thank the British judiciary for their independence. “If the extradition is approved, it sets the frightening precedent that any country can file charges against a foreigner who has never even stepped foot into their jurisdiction, and have them handed over via the extradition process. Universal jurisdiction is one of the most dangerous legal developments in modern history. “It’s worth noting that Saudi Arabia denied a US extradition request of our client, British citizen Christopher Emms , who was accused of conspiring to violate US sanctions. He was not in the US, is a British citizen and violated no UK law, no international laws or UN principles. The US has no right to attempt to force the whole world to follow United States law!” Detained in Dubai: http://www.detainedindubai.org Detained in Doha: https://www.detainedindoha.org Radha Stirling: http://www.radhastirling.com CLAN - Crypto Legal Advocacy Network: https://www.bitclan.org/ Due Process International: http://www.dueprocess.international IPEX - Interpol & Extradition Reform & Defence Experts: https://www.ipexreform.com/ Interpol Red Notice https://www.interpolrednotice.com/  Podcast: http://www.gulfinjustice.news Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/detainedindubai YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/detainedindubai LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/radhastirling   Live news and updates on Telegram: https://t.me/stirlingnews mail: info@detainedindubai.org  / Press queries: press@detainedindubai.org Phone: +447309114195  WhatsApp: Click here

Biden reviews Julian Assange Indictments to avoid humiliation

The Assange team is ‘hopeful’ for Biden’s review of charges against Julian Assange, but what’s really going on behind the scenes at the...

Read More
UK courts have sufficient legal reason to deny the extradition of Julian Assange. “The UK has more than enough legal reasoning to deny the extradition of Julian Assange but has failed so far to do so, despite having denied the extradition of other citizens whose cases had less legal justification for doing so” , explains Interpol and Extradition expert witness, Radha Stirling , founder of IPEX Reform  and Due Process International . “Assange’s legal team has presented sufficient evidence in respect of his mental and physical health that would allow the British courts to decline American requests. British courts denied the extradition of Corey de Rose  to the US based on the defendant’s depression and suicide risk. Certainly the Assange legal team has demonstrated that Julian himself, is a suicide risk if extradited to a country that would have him jailed for life (or executed). It’s outrageous that the English court in Julian’s case has denied him the same rights other citizens have been granted. I believe this exemplifies America’s bullying of our politicians and judges, resulting in partial rulings that would not be given in other less political cases. “There is further undeniable evidence that Assange would not receive a fair trial in the jurisdiction where he would stand trial and that it is highly likely he will face human rights violations within the penal system. In other cases where wanted persons have surrendered, they have faced abuse within the prisons, violence, unjustified solitary confinement and human rights violations with deliberate intimidation by authorities to obtain guilty pleas. “The UK can not rely on any assurances by the US that additional charges won’t be levied, that he will be treated fairly, that he won’t face the death penalty or will be afforded the same rights as US citizens. There is no way for the UK to enforce these assurances post extradition. I have personally witnessed countries permit extraditions on the basis of assurances and when these promises were broken, there was nothing the country could do. “The United States does not take kindly to being told what to do and any assurances made to the British courts are likely to be promptly disregarded as soon as Assange steps on a plane. The US knows full well that the UK would not break diplomatic ties or treaties, even if the US breached their promises. “We should not rely on the US to abandon the indictments against Julian Assange when the UK has all of the power, justification and authority to deny the extradition right now. Assange has already been subjected to pre-trial detention in appalling conditions where he has been denied access to the outside world. “Julian Assange is the only one paying for the crimes that he exposed. It is time we united against State led persecution and the abuse of our extradition treaties. The Judges have more than enough justification to deny the extradition and should feel confident enough to finally set him free”. Radha Stirling CEO at Due Process International +44 7 309 114 195 Detained in Dubai: http://www.detainedindubai.org Detained in Doha: https://www.detainedindoha.org Radha Stirling: http://www.radhastirling.com CLAN - Crypto Legal Advocacy Network: https://www.bitclan.org/ Due Process International: http://www.dueprocess.international IPEX - Interpol & Extradition Reform & Defence Experts: https://www.ipexreform.com/ Interpol Red Notice https://www.interpolrednotice.com/  Podcast: http://www.gulfinjustice.news Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/detainedindubai YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/detainedindubai LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/radhastirling   Live news and updates on Telegram: https://t.me/stirlingnews mail: info@detainedindubai.org  / Press queries: press@detainedindubai.org Phone: +447309114195  WhatsApp: Click here

English courts must deny Julian Assange Extradition

UK courts have sufficient legal reason to deny the extradition of Julian Assange. “The UK has more than enough legal reasoning to deny...

Read More
Part 2: TNT's Lembit Öpik  invites Radha back for a full hour, talking politics & current affairs.  Are we doomed with uni-parties in the UK and US?  News, propaganda, censorship and more. Detained in Dubai: http://www.detainedindubai.org Detained in Doha: https://www.detainedindoha.org Radha Stirling: http://www.radhastirling.com CLAN - Crypto Legal Advocacy Network: https://www.bitclan.org/ Due Process International: http://www.dueprocess.international IPEX - Interpol & Extradition Reform & Defence Experts: https://www.ipexreform.com/ Interpol Red Notice https://www.interpolrednotice.com/  Podcast: http://www.gulfinjustice.news Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/detainedindubai YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/detainedindubai LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/radhastirling   Live news and updates on Telegram: https://t.me/stirlingnews mail: info@detainedindubai.org  / Press queries: press@detainedindubai.org Phone: +447309114195  WhatsApp: Click here

The Lembit Öpik Show with Radha Stirling

Part 2: TNT's Lembit Öpik invites Radha back for a full hour, talking politics & current affairs.  Are we doomed with uni-parties in the...

Read More
Born in Northern Ireland in 1965 to Estonian parents, Lembit Öpik  studied Economics, then Philosophy at Bristol University. In 1988, He joined multi-national firm Procter & Gamble in Advertising, rising to Global Human Resources Training & Development Manager for the 112,000 staff. Lembit was British MP from 1997-2010, and as Shadow Secretary State for Northern Ireland helped negotiate the Northern Ireland peace. Lembit also chairs the world’s only Digital Parliament – Asgardia, the first ‘space nation.’ An intense liberatarian, Lembit regards increasing societal pressure to conform as the ‘potential end of reason.’ He regards the ‘climate emergency’ mantra as a ‘free speech emergency,’ where vested interests oppress scientific rigour: ‘They’ve the right to be wrong, but they’ve no right to silence other people who are right.’ He’s been broadcasting since the early 1990s on radio and television, and is a feature filmmaker and author. GUEST OVERVIEW: Radha Stirling  is a leading UK based human rights advocate, crisis manager and policy consultant, focusing on the UAE and the wider Middle East. She is the founder and CEO of British based organisation Detained in Dubai  (which have helped almost twenty thousand victims of injustice over the past 16+ years), Due Process International  and IPEX (Interpol and Extradition)  Reform. Stirling also hosts the Gulf in Justice Podcast . Detained in Dubai: http://www.detainedindubai.org Detained in Doha: https://www.detainedindoha.org Radha Stirling: http://www.radhastirling.com CLAN - Crypto Legal Advocacy Network: https://www.bitclan.org/ Due Process International: http://www.dueprocess.international IPEX - Interpol & Extradition Reform & Defence Experts: https://www.ipexreform.com/ Interpol Red Notice https://www.interpolrednotice.com/  Podcast: http://www.gulfinjustice.news Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/detainedindubai YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/detainedindubai LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/radhastirling   Live news and updates on Telegram: https://t.me/stirlingnews mail: info@detainedindubai.org  / Press queries: press@detainedindubai.org Phone: +447309114195  WhatsApp: Click here

Lembit Öpik interviews Radha Stirling on world politics, foreign policy and censorship.

Born in Northern Ireland in 1965 to Estonian parents, Lembit Öpik studied Economics, then Philosophy at Bristol University. In 1988, He...

Read More
Can’t work. Can’t leave. Relying on charity for food and shelter: The foreigners trapped in Dubai Sanjit Pruthi paid 80,000 Rupees (£760) in November 2023 to an agency in his native India called Al Shayan. Pruthi, 27, paid the huge sum because he was promised a job as a computer technician in a Dubai supermarket for a company called Al Adil. The job paid AED 1200 a month (£258) which compared favourably with Sanjit’s earning potential in his hometown of Mumbai. However when he arrived, Sanjit was told that he would not be doing the job promised, but would be cleaning toilets, loading and unloading tricks, and other general labour. The young Indian refused. “I am an IT specialist and that is my career path,” explains Sanjit. “I didn’t leave home and pay all that money to come here and clean toilets.” Al Adil refused to give Sanjit his passport back or cancel his visa. Eventually he was able to bribe a member of the Al Adil HR department to give him back his passport. But his troubles were far from over. “ Al Adil filed a police case against me for allegedly breaking the terms of my visa ,” says the good natured Sanjit. “And now I am not allowed to work in Dubai, nor am I allowed to leave the country. Luckily it is Ramadan and I am surviving on the free meals given out by various charities. Plus my family at home sends what little money they can, which allows me to share a room with seven other people in Karama (a part of the city populated by low income workers). I have no idea how I will live once the charity and my family’s money runs out.” Unlike Western countries, the UAE has no minimum wage. Companies can get away with paying the absolute minimum wages required to persuade someone to leave their home country. For Westerners, this can be high wages of many thousands of pounds a month. For the Sanjit Pruthis of this world, it can be a couple of hundred pounds. This creates a society of “haves” and “have nots”. It has allowed the economy to burgeon, but at the expense of human dignity. The huge discrepancy in wages is reflected in the way people are treated. With those at the bottom living cramped, miserable lives and treated as merchandise. “The country has been likened to a slave society ,” confirms Radha Stirling , CEO of humanitarian group Detained in Dubai . “No Westerner would think it acceptable to advertise a job in IT, but then tell the candidate they were going to be cleaning toilets when they arrived. “Sachin left his family and home country for this opportunity. Now he is faced with financial ruin, homelessness and starvation. And according to the Dubai legal system, there is nothing wrong with his situation.” It is not only labourers and low income residents who risk being trapped in the desert state. “Anyone who falls foul of the law is given a travel ban until the case is settled,”  continues Stirling. “It doesn’t matter what the offence is, if there is a fine involved the person is forbidden to leave the country or to work once their visa runs out. If the victim can’t pay the fine, it doesn’t matter. They have to stay, relying on charity or until theoretically they starve to death. “We have spoken to many thousands of Westerners since Detained In Dubai’s inception in 2008 who are trapped in this way. Many of them over unpayable debts.” Detained in Dubai: http://www.detainedindubai.org Detained in Doha: https://www.detainedindoha.org Radha Stirling: http://www.radhastirling.com CLAN - Crypto Legal Advocacy Network: https://www.bitclan.org/ Due Process International: http://www.dueprocess.international IPEX - Interpol & Extradition Reform & Defence Experts: https://www.ipexreform.com/ Interpol Red Notice https://www.interpolrednotice.com/  Podcast: http://www.gulfinjustice.news Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/detainedindubai YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/detainedindubai LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/radhastirling   Live news and updates on Telegram: https://t.me/stirlingnews mail: info@detainedindubai.org  / Press queries: press@detainedindubai.org Phone: +447309114195  WhatsApp: Click here

Sanjit Pruthi trapped in UAE

Can’t work. Can’t leave. Relying on charity for food and shelter: The foreigners trapped in Dubai Sanjit Pruthi paid 80,000 Rupees (£760)...

Read More
Tara Reade has weighed in on George Stephanopoulos and his controversial “rape shaming” of Rep. Nancy Mace. Reade has called on Stephanopoulos to interview her. “He knows exactly who I am. He knows my claim is valid”. Reade exposed that she was sexually assaulted by Joe Biden when she worked as his staffer, but the media and law enforcement agencies responded completely differently. Reade has filed a $10m lawsuit against the DOJ for pursuing her on behalf of the Biden administration. “Tara’s life was destroyed, she was targeted by government agencies to the point where she was not safe living in her own country” , explained Radha Stirling , CEO of Due Process International . “News and media outlets demonized her because the assaulter in Tara’s case was their preferred presidential candidate. We have been working to achieve justice for Tara for nearly a year. With the new filing, this is becoming increasingly likely”. Yesterday, Reade told Ms Stirling, “I find that with the Democrats, as usual, hypocrisy rules. They basically suppress and smear and go after anyone that they consider political opposition. They attempt to diminish anyone making legitimate claim of sexual assault. “Look at the comparison between E. Jean Carroll and the treatment that she got in the mainstream Western media compared to how I am being treated. It’s amazing, they’ve literally made a campaign of terror against me to the point where I had to leave the  country and seek political asylum from Russia for protection because my life became in danger. That is how they went after me when I tried to tell the truth and when I was just about to testify in Congress against Joe Biden. “Look at the comparison of how they treated her. She gets a Vogue cover, millions of dollars, she gets a multi billionaire to basically back her legal claims against Trump and she gets all the help in the world and support and is never even questioned. I don’t want to go into the veracity of her claim but look at the difference! “We have a two tier justice system that is playing out in my case, very clearly as well. I have not been able to even get an investigation. Media smears are not an investigation. He’s never been held accountable and it is time that he is held accountable. “My attorney has filed a $10 million lawsuit against the FBI and DOJ because of Biden and his zealousness to try to silence my story and keep me from testifying, went after me, violating my first and fourth amendment rights and illegally surveilling me. They’ve done this to countless other people that they consider political opponents. I want to bring attention to this. I want the FBI files open. I want to be exonerated. I want them expunged and all of this needs to be done with transparency and for the public to see so that’s why I’m taking this suit against these agencies. Americans should not be targeted for telling the truth or for whistleblowing. Megyn Kelly quite eloquently, went after George Stephanopoulos, whom I’ve known by the way. He knows exactly who I am. He knows my claim is valid. He’s basically being a puppet of the regime as usual. He's paid to do so. Megyn went into great detail of his history with the Clintons and with the Democrat elite and he is carrying out his duties as planned. I would welcome an interview with him and go into detail with him about my claim. He has never asked to speak to me, and instead what he’s done is go after Rep. Mace who in good faith was discussing her case and he was basically trying to disparage her. Megan Kelly, to her credit, did interview me several times and she has looked into the veracity of my claim, as has Tucker Carlson but where is the rest of the western media? Why are they silencing me and suppressing me? Why was I chased out of my own country and threatened and my life destroyed? It was like Biden weaponised the DOJ and FBI to his advantage to cover up his crimes, not just the crime he did against me, but also crimes against American people. It’s time that he be held accountable. It’s time that there be a proper investigation and the imbalance be exposed.” Ms Reade’s attorneys have called on the public to support and donate to “ Justice for Tara Reade ”.  Radha Stirling CEO at Due Process International +44 7 309 114 195 Detained in Dubai: http://www.detainedindubai.org Detained in Doha: https://www.detainedindoha.org Radha Stirling: http://www.radhastirling.com CLAN - Crypto Legal Advocacy Network: https://www.bitclan.org/ Due Process International: http://www.dueprocess.international IPEX - Interpol & Extradition Reform & Defence Experts: https://www.ipexreform.com/ Interpol Red Notice https://www.interpolrednotice.com/  Podcast: http://www.gulfinjustice.news Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/detainedindubai YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/detainedindubai LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/radhastirling   Live news and updates on Telegram: https://t.me/stirlingnews mail: info@detainedindubai.org  / Press queries: press@detainedindubai.org Phone: +447309114195  WhatsApp: Click here

Tara Reade challenges “puppet” George Stephanopoulos.

Tara Reade has weighed in on George Stephanopoulos and his controversial “rape shaming” of Rep. Nancy Mace. Reade has called on...

Read More
bottom of page