Connect with us

Published

on

A transgender Michigan woman who sued her ex-boyfriend for discarding her surgically removed testicles had her case tossed out by a judge who also rejected the ex’s counterclaim for being humiliated by the case.

Brianna Kingsley, 40, last year filed a small claims petition claiming her ex, William Wojciechowski, 37, retains possession of my surgically extracted testicles, preserved in (a) Mason jar, kept in (the) fridge next to the eggs.

The Pontiac resident demanded the immediate return of her human remains specimen in her handwritten affidavit, in addition to $6,500 in damages.

“We’re talking about my nuts. … I wanted them in my fridge not his, Kingsley told a court hearing. The damages were the loss of these nuts.”

Wojciechowski, meanwhile, said he’d already tossed out the testicles — and filed a? counterclaim for the same amount, claiming he’d been “humiliated” by coverage of the nutty case by “worldwide news outlets, the Detroit News reported.

But District Court Judge Jeremy Bowie denied both their claims, calling the whole matter a wash during a contentious hearing Wednesday adding that his decision cant be appealed, according to the outlet. 6 Brianna Kingsley, 40, right, a transgender Michigan woman, wanted her ex-boyfriend, William Wojciechowski, 37, left, to return her surgically removed testicles. Facebook / William Wojciechowski

The judge noted how hard it was to calculate potential damages in the bizarre case.

“I can put a dollar amount on, say, if you were missing work at $16 an hour,” he said. “But as to testicles, I can’t really put a number on it.”

The judge said Kingsley had the chance to retrieve her testicles when an Oakland County sheriffs deputy accompanied her to her former beaus home in January 2023.

At the time, Kingsley had just gotten out of jail, where she spent three days and was fined $100 for violating a personal protection order he had filed against her, the Detroit News reported.

“We allow a one-time visit with a sheriff’s officer in situations like that for people to go back to get their belongings,” Bowie said. 6 A judge threw out Kingsley’s lawsuit, which sought $6,500 in damages, calling the case “a wash.” 6 William Wojciechowski’s counterclaim seeking $6,500 for “humiliation” also was thrown out. The Detroit News

“Ms. Kingsley failed to retrieve the testicles from the refrigerator at that time. … If they were so important to her, she had the opportunity to grab them, and she didn’t, he said during the hearing.

Wojciechowski told the judge he tossed out the testicles in July.

“They were rotting in my fridge, and it was disgusting I’ve got food in there I wanted to eat,” he said. “She didn’t keep them in a biohazard container like she was supposed to.” 6 Kingsley posted a TikTok video apparently mocking her removed testicles. Facebook / William Wojciechowski

She told him her surgery at Henry Ford Hospital in March 2022 cost $20,000, but noted that the state covered the charge because shes disabled, according to the outlet.

The state paid for that, you didn’t. You’re not going to be unjustly enriched, the judge told her. 6 She is seen holding up a bag marked as a biohazard. Facebook / William Wojciechowski

The two said they met on Facebook Community in April 2020 and moved in together in the fall of 2021 in the house Wojciechowski bought. They broke up in December 2022.

Kingsley said ?she placed her testicles in a jar and stored them in the fridge “because I deal with trauma with comedy. Shakespeare did it.”

She went to Wojciechowskis house a second time after retrieving her belongings, but he said he denied his entry because he felt she was harassing him. 6 William Wojciechowski Facebook / William Wojciechowski

Bowie said he had a right to deny her entry because she’d already been inside a month earlier.

Kingsley appeared to poke fun at her missing gonads in a TikTok video in 2022 titled ?The ?Unboxing of Dees Nutz.

In it, she opens a box and removes a bag labeled a biohazard smiling coyly as she puts her fingers to her mouth and repackages it, suggesting they were her testicles and ending with a dance.

In October 2020, Kingsley pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and was sentenced to two months in the slammer after he pulled a knife on her then-roommate, also a trans woman, on Christmas Day.

Continue Reading

Politics

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

Published

on

By

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

South Korean court clears Wemade ex-CEO in Wemix manipulation case

After nearly a year of legal proceedings, a South Korean court acquitted former Wemade CEO Jang Hyun-guk of market manipulation charges.

Continue Reading

Politics

Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules?

Published

on

By

Is there £15bn of wiggle room in Rachel Reeves's fiscal rules?

Are Rachel Reeves’s fiscal rules quite as iron clad as she insists?

How tough is her armour really? And is there actually scope for some change, some loosening to avoid big tax hikes in the autumn?

We’ve had a bit of clarity early this morning – and that’s a question we discuss on the Politics at Sam and Anne’s podcast today.

Politics Live: Reeves to reform financial regulations

And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.

You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.

For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.

And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.

But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.

And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.

There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.

And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.

It’s outlined in paragraph 3.6 on page four of the Charter for Budget Responsibility.

This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.

In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.

Rachel Reeves during a visit to Cosy Ltd.
Pic: PA
Image:
A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA

Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.

But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.

This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.

But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?

The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.

But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?

Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?

And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?

I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.

And this morning, they issued one.

A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”

So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?

Read more:
Reeves hints at tax rises in autumn
Tough decisions ahead for chancellor

The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.

But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?

I’m still unsure that change has been ruled out.

Continue Reading

Politics

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

Published

on

By

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

LA sheriff deputies admit to helping crypto ‘Godfather’ extort victims

The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.

Continue Reading

Trending