Connect with us

News

IHC Schedules Imran Khan’s Bail Application Hearing In Missing Cipher Case For Monday

Imran Khan

(CTN NEWS) – On Saturday, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) scheduled the hearing for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) leader and former Prime Minister Imran Khan‘s bail application in the missing cipher case, setting it for Monday, September 25th.

The IHC registrar released the cause list for next week’s hearings, which included the bail plea of the PTI leader.

The case will be presided over by IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq, who has issued a notice to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to present their arguments. bail

Additionally, the IHC had previously deferred its decision on the request to transfer the former prime minister from Attock jail to Adiala jail, but it has now been rescheduled for re-hearing. Chief Justice Aamer will also hear this petition on September 25th.

The court had previously reserved its verdict after the conclusion of arguments a few days ago. The current hearing is intended to provide further clarity on specific legal points.

Previously, a special court designated for cases under the Official Secrets Act had rejected Imran Khan’s bail application.

Imran Khan’s Controversial Cipher Saga and Its Aftermath

The controversy initially surfaced on March 27, 2022, just days before Imran Khan’s removal from office in April 2022. During this time, Khan revealed a letter, claiming it to be a communication from a foreign nation, suggesting that his government should be ousted.

He refrained from disclosing the letter’s contents or identifying the nation responsible. However, a few days later, he pointed to the United States and asserted that Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Affairs, Donald Lu, had advocated for his removal.

The cipher in question pertained to a meeting between former Pakistani ambassador to the US, Asad Majeed, and Lu.

Khan, while asserting that he was quoting from the cipher, contended that “all would be forgiven for Pakistan if Imran Khan was no longer in power.”

Subsequently, on March 31, the National Security Committee (NSC) addressed the matter and opted to issue a “strong demarche” to the concerned country, citing its “blatant interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs.”

Following Khan’s removal from office, his successor, Shehbaz Sharif, convened another NSC meeting, which concluded that no evidence of foreign conspiracy in connection with the cipher could be substantiated.

The case regarding the cipher against the former prime minister escalated when his principal secretary, Azam Khan, attested before a magistrate and the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) that Khan had exploited the US cipher for his “political advantage” and to avert a vote of no-confidence against him.

In his confession, Azam revealed that when he provided the ex-premier with the cipher, Khan exhibited great enthusiasm and described the language as a “US blunder.”

Khan allegedly suggested that the cable could be employed to “construct a narrative against the establishment and opposition.”

Azam further claimed that the US cipher was utilized at political gatherings by the PTI chairman, despite his advice to refrain from such actions.

He noted that the former prime minister also informed him that the cipher could be employed to divert public attention toward “foreign involvement” in the opposition’s no-confidence motion.

Ex-Prime Minister Files Bail Application

The former prime minister, in a petition filed by his attorneys Barrister Salman Safdar and Khalid Mehmood, has formally requested the court to grant him bail while he remains detained at Attock Jail.

In his petition, the PTI chief contends that the prosecution has lodged a baseless and concocted case against him.

He argues that the special court, established to adjudicate cases related to the Official Secrets Act, has “completely disregarded numerous irregularities and inconsistencies” within the prosecution’s case.

A written judgment authored by Special Court Judge Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain asserts that the missing cypher case is of utmost secrecy, and the prosecution possesses “indisputable evidence linking Imran Khan and [PTI leader] Shah Mahmood Qureshi to the case.”

The court observes that there is “sufficient incriminating evidence on record linking the accused to the present case.”

The judgment further states, “The record indicates reasonable grounds for believing that the accused/petitioners are guilty of the offences under sections 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, based on the contents of the initial First Information Report (FIR).”

“Furthermore, there are also reasonable grounds for suspecting that the accused/petitioners have committed a non-bailable offence.

The record, which comprises various documents, provides adequate justification for the denial of bail to both accused individuals,” concludes the seven-page written order.

RELATED CTN NEWS:

The Impact Of ‘No More Bets’ And Online Rumors On Chinese Tourism In Thailand

Tragic Discovery: Bodies Of Migrants, Including Three-Year-Old Child, Found In Rio Grande

Cathay Pacific Announces Pilot Pay Adjustments Amidst Roster Changes And Aircrew Complaints

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

google

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

google

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

Continue Reading

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

Supreme Court

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP

SEE ALSO:

Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.

Scientists Awarded MicroRNA The Nobel Prize in Medicine.

US Inflation will Comfort a Fed Focused on Labor Markets.

Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

shkreli

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.

Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.

Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.

shkreli

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.

Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.

shkreli

He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.

shkreli

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.

“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.

Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.

SOURCE | AP

Continue Reading

Trending