NewStats: 3,259,755 , 8,170,834 topics. Date: Sunday, 25 May 2025 at 10:28 PM 56k1k

DrAda:
It's exhausting reading about this duo. What exactly is the end game here?

How dare you deny your woman champion?

What happened to women ing women?😝

luminouz:

How dare you deny your woman champion?

What happened to women ing women?😝

I was referring to both parties Natasha and Akapbio. This fight is akin to mud slinging whereas there are more sophisticated weapons available. They can do better

DrAda:


I was referring to both parties Natasha and Akapbio. This fight is akin to mud slinging whereas they are more sophisticated weapons available. They can do better

Lol...true!

JimRohn:
Your interpretation of the situation appears deeply flawed and lacks an understanding of how legal processes actually function. Petitioning the AGN, IGP, or any relevant authority is a legitimate and often necessary step in escalating a matter to the appropriate institutions for investigation—especially when systemic abuse or criminal conduct is alleged.

Your repeated fixation on ‘tangible evidence’ without access to the case files, petitions, or testimonies is not only speculative but intellectually dishonest. You are not in a position to determine the weight or issibility of the evidence she may possess.

Furthermore, your assertion about her with Sandra Duru misrepresents the core issue. Acknowledging does not negate the possibility of blackmail. If anything, it reinforces the need for legal intervention, which she is now pursuing through the proper channels. Suing is not always the first step—especially when criminal elements are involved and safety concerns are present.

Finally, dismissing a serious claim simply because someone has ‘been begging to be sued’ trivializes the gravity of the matter. The law is not a tool for spectacle—it is a process, and she is within her rights to follow it as she deems fit. Until you've reviewed all facts, it would be wise to refrain from unfounded conclusions.

Who made you judge and jury over my line of thought? So all this write up because you lack comprehension. How does my opinion become facts or conclusions. Do you have access to the said files and documents you listed? Have we not seen these politicians and elites suing people for billions in trivia cases? Your statements about blackmail and calling people "criminal elements " when you're not privy to the whole situation shows your bias. Since you're the Legal luminary and juggernaut, you should know that everything in the petition is "alleged" until proven true. Do have a great day

xjiggy:

Who made you judge and jury over my line of thought? So all this write up because you lack comprehension. How does my opinion become facts or conclusions. Do you have access to the said files and documents you listed? Have we not seen these politicians and elites suing people for billions in trivia cases? Your statements about blackmail and calling people "criminal elements " when you're not privy to the whole situation shows your bias. Since you're the Legal luminary and juggernaut, you should know that everything in the petition is "alleged" until proven true. Do have a great day

Your outburst is a poor substitute for reason, so let’s cut through the emotional noise and get to the substance you’ve clearly avoided:

1. “Who made you judge and jury?”
No one needs to “appoint” me anything to respond to flawed reasoning in a public space. If you make bold claims, expect bold responses. You don’t get to toss opinions into the public arena and then whine when they’re dissected. That’s not how rational discourse works—that’s how echo chambers are built.

2. “All this write-up because you lack comprehension?”
If that’s the best you can offer in defense of your claims, then the weakness isn’t in my comprehension—it’s in your articulation. Baseless insults don’t mask the fact that you’ve failed to present a single coherent rebuttal. You haven’t pointed out what I misunderstood—because you can’t.

3. “How does my opinion become facts?”
When your opinion is delivered with the force and finality of a verdict—without evidence—it invites challenge. That’s what I did: challenge the logic, question the assumptions, and highlight the inconsistencies. If you can’t differentiate between personal opinion and public rhetoric, then perhaps it’s time to rethink how you frame your statements.

4. “Do you have access to the files and documents?”
Do you? Highly doubtful. You’re speculating from a distance like the rest of us. The only difference is that I build my views on existing facts, patterns, and precedents—not emotional appeals and vague suspicions. If you have something concrete to offer, by all means, share it. If not, the question is irrelevant.

5. “Elites sue over trivia”
Yes, they do. And sometimes they sue because they have something to hide. That possibility exists too—conveniently ignored in your logic. Throwing out generalities as if they invalidate specific circumstances is intellectually lazy.

6. “Calling people criminal elements is biased”
No—it’s called inference. When behavior aligns with known patterns of coercion or malfeasance, it raises questions. That’s not bias, it’s analysis. You don’t get to police language simply because it makes you uncomfortable. If you disagree with the conclusion, challenge the reasoning—not the right to draw it.

7. “Alleged until proven”
Stating legal platitudes doesn’t excuse you from engaging the actual issues. Yes, allegations are not convictions—but they are not sacred either. They must be scrutinized, interrogated, and yes, sometimes doubted. That’s not prejudice—it’s critical thinking.

If your position is so fragile it can’t withstand logical pressure, that’s your problem, not mine. Don't mistake volume or sarcasm for substance. If you're going to argue, do so with facts, clarity, and logic—or not at all.

Have a more intellectually honest day.

emkz:
Natashism: the act of prostituting from one controversy to another without following any to the end or supplying evidence on claims made.

Supply evidence in the court of public opinion where trial was initiated. They didn't.

File a case in court and present evidence. No.

Okay, file evidence in senate petition. They filed affidavit.

What kind of law are they teaching?

Your definition of “Natashism” is as lazy as your thinking — shallow, agenda-driven, and intellectually bankrupt.

Let’s break your hollow tantrum into parts:

1. “Prostituting from one controversy to another” — Look at the irony of a man crying about decency while using the language of a gutter. If you had a real argument, you wouldn’t need to lace it with vulgar metaphors. Resorting to name-calling just shows that facts are not on your side.

2. “Court of public opinion” — You and your crew initiated the smear campaign in the court of public opinion, not Natasha. You cheered as your fake “professor” pushed out half-baked accusations on Facebook and AI graphics. Now you’re suddenly screaming for evidence when the heat is on? You don't get to light the fire and then complain about the smoke.

3. “No case in court” — And? Filing in court isn’t a requirement to expose political rot or respond to attacks. Many political exposés start in the public sphere. Ever heard of investigative journalism? Whistleblowing? Apparently not. If Mgbeke’s evidence is that strong, why hasn’t she filed a case? Why is she hiding behind social media and throwing breadcrumbs instead of serving hard facts?

4. “Affidavit” in Senate — Yes, an affidavit is a legal document. It carries legal weight. If it was false, it could be challenged or punished under perjury laws. But that hasn’t happened. You pretend like affidavits are gossip notes when you clearly don’t understand basic legal procedure. Or maybe you do — and you’re just hoping your audience doesn’t.

So, what kind of law are they teaching? Apparently, not the kind that defends frauds hiding behind AI filters and imaginary titles. Not the kind that rewards people who scream “release the evidence!” every week while refusing to back anything up with verifiable facts.

You don’t get to demand court filings while you run your courtroom circus online with fake credentials, doctored chats, and zero legal merit.

Put up or shut up. Otherwise, stay in your lane and let real people with actual credibility speak.

Coward! Go and use the new block button.

JimRohn:
Your outburst is a poor substitute for reason, so let’s cut through the emotional noise and get to the substance you’ve clearly avoided:

1. “Who made you judge and jury?”
No one needs to “appoint” me anything to respond to flawed reasoning in a public space. If you make bold claims, expect bold responses. You don’t get to toss opinions into the public arena and then whine when they’re dissected. That’s not how rational discourse works—that’s how echo chambers are built.

2. “All this write-up because you lack comprehension?”
If that’s the best you can offer in defense of your claims, then the weakness isn’t in my comprehension—it’s in your articulation. Baseless insults don’t mask the fact that you’ve failed to present a single coherent rebuttal. You haven’t pointed out what I misunderstood—because you can’t.

3. “How does my opinion become facts?”
When your opinion is delivered with the force and finality of a verdict—without evidence—it invites challenge. That’s what I did: challenge the logic, question the assumptions, and highlight the inconsistencies. If you can’t differentiate between personal opinion and public rhetoric, then perhaps it’s time to rethink how you frame your statements.

4. “Do you have access to the files and documents?”
Do you? Highly doubtful. You’re speculating from a distance like the rest of us. The only difference is that I build my views on existing facts, patterns, and precedents—not emotional appeals and vague suspicions. If you have something concrete to offer, by all means, share it. If not, the question is irrelevant.

5. “Elites sue over trivia”
Yes, they do. And sometimes they sue because they have something to hide. That possibility exists too—conveniently ignored in your logic. Throwing out generalities as if they invalidate specific circumstances is intellectually lazy.

6. “Calling people criminal elements is biased”
No—it’s called inference. When behavior aligns with known patterns of coercion or malfeasance, it raises questions. That’s not bias, it’s analysis. You don’t get to police language simply because it makes you uncomfortable. If you disagree with the conclusion, challenge the reasoning—not the right to draw it.

7. “Alleged until proven”
Stating legal platitudes doesn’t excuse you from engaging the actual issues. Yes, allegations are not convictions—but they are not sacred either. They must be scrutinized, interrogated, and yes, sometimes doubted. That’s not prejudice—it’s critical thinking.

If your position is so fragile it can’t withstand logical pressure, that’s your problem, not mine. Don't mistake volume or sarcasm for substance. If you're going to argue, do so with facts, clarity, and logic—or not at all.

Have a more intellectually honest day.

I can see where the problem lies. You're trying desperately to be clever by half..... which is quite unfortunate. I do not have the the time for unproductive arguments. So brother, I rest my case and wish you well

xjiggy:
I can see where the problem lies. You're trying desperately to be clever by half..... which is quite unfortunate. I do not have the the time for unproductive arguments. So brother, I rest my case and wish you well

Your response is noted, though dismissive. Resorting to ad hominem remarks like 'trying to be clever by half' is not a substitute for engaging with the actual points raised. If the discussion were truly unproductive, it would have been more constructive to address where it lacked merit rather than retreat with vague insinuations.

Resting your case without responding to the substance suggests either a lack of counter-argument or an unwillingness to engage further, which is your prerogative. However, don’t mistake disengagement for resolution, and certainly not for intellectual victory.

Nonetheless, I appreciate the exchange thus far and genuinely wish you clarity in thought and conviction in pursuit of the truth.

Natashism: the act of prostituting from one controversy to another without following any to the end or supplying evidence on claims made.

Supply evidence in the court of public opinion where trial was initiated. They didn't.

File a case in court and present evidence. No.

Okay, file evidence in senate petition. They filed affidavit.

What kind of law are they teaching?[/quote]