Connect with us

News

AEW Double or Nothing 2021 Predictions & Pressing Questions

Published

on

All Elite Wrestling returns to pay-per-view this Sunday with the Double or Nothing event, and for the first time since the pandemic began Daily’s Place will be at full capacity with fans in attendance. The show is headlined by three major championship matches — Kenny Omega vs. PAC vs. Orange Cassidy, Hikaru Shida vs. Britt Baker & The Young Bucks vs. Jon Moxley & Eddie Kingston — along with the Casino Battle Royale, Sting’s first live-action match since his retirement in 2015 and a grudge match between Cody Rhodes & Anthony Ogogo.

But who walks out with the gold? Once again we’ve assembled ComicBook’s team of wrestling writers to break down the biggest questions heading into the show, as well as predict what AEW has planned for the summer. Check out the predictions below!

Is There Any Chance Kenny Omega Drops the AEW Title Here?

Kenny-Omega-AEW-World-Championships
(Photo: AEW)

Connor: None. I still maintain this whole “Belt Collector” thing is leading to Hangman Page knocking Omega off his perch and winning the world championship, paying off a storyline that started way back at All Out 2019.

Evan: I think that Kenny’s hot streak is still too high for him to lose the AEW title now, even though PAC and Orange Cassidy would make for good champions at the moment. It’s going to take something absolutely stellar to take Omega’s belt at this point and I don’t think these two have the “It” factor to do it. 

Nick Valdez: Nope! He’s still got a couple of huge matches scheduled in the immediate future that he’s going to need to look strong for. His title loss is fast approaching, but it needs just a little more time.

Matt: Nah, the story is doing well and it doesn’t seem time just yet to blow it all up, though like Nick said, it is nearing.

prevnext

The Young Bucks or Hikaru Shida — Who Loses Their Gold on Sunday?

AEW-Britt-Baker-Lights-Out-Match
(Photo: AEW)

Connor: I’ll say both. Fans have been clamoring for Baker to take the reins of the Women’s Division for half a year now and the buddy cop duo of Moxley & Kingston has become one of the most enjoyable aspects of Dynamite each week. I doubt Kingston and Mox keep the titles for long (could easily see FTR getting them back at All Out), while Baker could easily have a year-long run just like what Shida has done. 

Evan: Pound for pound, I’d probably lean more toward the Young Bucks losing the belts over Shida. While the Bucks definitely have a good history within the company, I can see them losing to Moxley and Kingston here, creating a nice, ongoing rivalry. 

Nick: I would prefer Shida losing simply because it’s not like they have her doing anything with the championship anyway. On top of this, you have the undeniable star quality of Britt Baker, who’s at the top of her game right now. It’d be foolish not to capitalize.

Matt: I really don’t want Shida to lose the title, because she’s been a great Women’s Champion. On the other hand, it’s undeniably time for Baker to hold the title and run with it, and taking the loss would just halt her momentum for no reason. If they can book Shida into a new feud with promise, then it’s time for Baker to become Champion.

prevnext

Will Anthony Ogogo KO Cody Rhodes?

Connor: If it were any other weekend I’d say Cody does the honors for Ogogo. But he’s bringing out the “American Dream” nickname and has centered the entire storyline around patriotism just in time for Memorial Day weekend. I’d love to be wrong, but Cody takes it.

Evan: With Arn Anderson in his corner? I think Rhodes has this one in the bag, but I could definitely see some shenanigans taking place before the match is through. 

Nick: I would like to see it, yes. The build to this match has been really weird, so Rhodes has come out looking very punchable through his recent promos. It’s kind of the only way it can end.

Matt: The sense I get is that Rhodes will lose here, simply because it benefits Ogogo more in the long run and Rhodes can take the loss without any real consequences.

prevnext

Who’s Your Pick for the Casino Battle Royale Surprise Entrant

AEW-Paul-Wight-WWE-Big-Show-AEW-Signing
(Photo: AEW)

Connor: I’d love for it to be Andrade, but I think Paul Wight being confirmed for the commentary desk during that match gives away that he’ll be the surprise. But if it is the man formerly known as Big Show, I’m guessing Christian Cage winds up winning the match.

Evan: Paul Wight, the former Big Show, I’d bet. There are plenty of other competitors to make an argument for, but this Battle Royale seems like the perfect place for his return to the ring. 

Nick: No idea, but if I had my way, Andrade would be the mystery entrant here. He’s not taking on Omega until TripleMania, and I’m not entirely sure whether or not his non-compete is still in effect, but Andrade would be a pretty neat surprise.

Matt: I would say Andrade, but because I have no idea if Andrade can compete in AEW yet because of that contract, I’ll say Big Show, because we knew he would be in the ring at some point.

prevnext

It’s AEW’s First Show With a Capacity Crowd Since COVID Happened. Who Gets the Biggest Pop?

Hangman-Page-AEW
(Photo: AEW)

Connor: I’m going with Cody and Hangman. But if Mox and Eddie win that celebration will be the loudest of the night.

Evan: Man that’s a tough one. Darby and Sting maybe? I feel like a dual entrance by them would light some fires under the seats. 

Nick: Whoever the first match of the night is, if it’s anything like WrestleMania 37. Even doubly so if it all opens with Hangman Page.

Matt: I’m going to say Cody Rhodes, just because he’ll be playing up the Dream legacy.

prevnext

Will The Inner Circle Have to Break Up?

AEW-Chris-Jericho-Inner-Circle
(Photo: AEW)

Connor: There’s not a lot left for the Inner Circle left to do. Santana & Ortiz deserve better treatment in the tag team division, Sammy Guevara has proven he can shine as a young babyface and a cocky heel and Jericho has a Fozzy tour coming up and a very real elbow injury. Let this be the way they write him off and let the rest go their separate ways.

Evan: I’m going to say yes. I think giving the Pinnacle such a big victory would hype them up as one of the biggest forces of the AEW today and seeing Jericho attempt to pick up the pieces would make for some amazing storytelling. 

Nick: Please, god. The Inner Circle was a great idea when AEW needed something to keep it going from week to week, but there is so much talent these days that lumping up two huge groups together seems like such a bad idea now. It’s tired, and outshone tenfold by Pinnacle’s work. Time to hit the old dusty trail.

Matt: I’m not entirely confident in this pick, but I’ll say no. I think the best thing for long-termlongterm storytelling would be to break them up, but AEW loves factions, and I don’t think this is their swan song just yet.

prevnext

Book Three Matches for AEW’s All Out in August

AEW-All-Out-Poster-Adam-Page-Chris-Jericho
(Photo: AEW)

Connor: Kenny Omega vs. Hangman Page, Britt Baker vs. Thunder Rosa, Jon Moxley & Eddie Kingston vs. FTR

Evan: Miro vs Cage, Cody Rhodes vs Darby (leveraging a Sting vs Arn Anderson on the sidelines), Hangman Page vs Anthony Ogogo. 

Nick: Britt Baker vs. Hikaru Shida run back, Moxley and Kingston vs. Young Bucks run back, and Miro vs. Page.

Matt: Britt Baker vs Hikaru Shida, Sting vs Christian, Inner Circle vs The Pinnacle (for real last time)

prev

News

Woman passenger from UK tests Covid positive at Hyderabad airport

Published

on

Hyderabad: A 35-year-old international passenger who reached the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport here on Wednesday has tested positive for Covid-19 after undergoing an RT-PCR test at the airport itself. The woman passenger had traveled from the United Kingdom, which has been categorised as an ‘At Risk Country’. 

The passenger has been admitted to the Telangana Institute of Medical Sciences (TIMS) and samples were collected and sent for genetic sequencing. Officials said she did not have any symptoms and that her health condition was being monitored closely. 

According to officials, the woman hails from Rangareddy district and was on a visit to UK from Hyderabad. Though her close relatives tested negative, their health condition is also being monitored. 


Now you can get handpicked stories from Telangana Today on Telegram everyday. Click the link to subscribe.

Hyderabad News

click here for more Hyderabad News

Click to follow Telangana Today Facebook page and Twitter .

Continue Reading

News

Revealed: how Sidney Powell could be disbarred for lying in court for Trump | US elections 2020

Published

on

Sidney Powell, the former lawyer for Donald Trump who filed lawsuits across America for the former president, hoping to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, has on several occasions represented to federal courts that people were co-counsel or plaintiffs in her cases without seeking their permission to do so, the Guardian has learned.

Some of these individuals say that they only found out that Powell had named them once the cases were already filed.

During this same period of time, Powell also named several other lawyers – with their permission in those instances – as co-counsel in her election-related cases, despite the fact that they played virtually no role whatsoever in bringing or litigating those cases.

Both Powell’s naming of other people as plaintiffs or co-counsel without their consent and representing that other attorneys were central to her cases when, in fact, their roles were nominal or nonexistent, constitute serious potential violations of the American Bar Association model rules for professional conduct, top legal ethicists told the Guardian.

Powell’s misrepresentations to the courts in those particular instances often aided fundraising for her nonprofit, Defending the Republic. Powell had told prospective donors that the attorneys were integral members of an “elite strike force” who had played outsized roles in her cases – when in fact they were barely involved if at all.

A couple poses for a photo in front of a Trump campaign bus at a rally in Alpharetta, Georgia, on 2 December 2020.
A couple poses for a photo in front of a Trump campaign bus at a rally in Alpharetta, Georgia, on 2 December 2020. Photograph: Nathan Posner/REX/Shutterstock

Powell did not respond to multiple requests for comment via phone, email, and over social media.

The State Bar of Texas is already investigating Powell for making other allegedly false and misleading statements to federal courts by propagating increasingly implausible conspiracy theories to federal courts that Joe Biden’s election as president of the United States was illegitimate.

The Texas bar held its first closed-door hearing regarding the allegations about Powell on 4 November. Investigations by state bar associations are ordinarily conducted behind closed doors and thus largely opaque to the public.

A federal grand jury has also been separately investigating Powell, Defending the Republic, as well as a political action committee that goes by the same name, for fundraising fraud, according to records reviewed by the Guardian.

Among those who have alleged that Powell falsely named them as co-counsel is attorney Linn Wood, who brought and litigated with Powell many of her lawsuits attempting to overturn the results of the election with her, including in the hotly contested state of Michigan.

The Michigan case was a futile attempt by Powell to erase Joe Biden’s victory in that state and name Trump as the winner. On 25 August, federal district court Judge Linda Parker, of Michigan, sanctioned Powell and nine other attorneys who worked with her for having engaged in “a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process” in bringing the case in the first place. Powell’s claims of election fraud, Parker asserted, had no basis in law and were solely based on “speculation, conjecture, and unwarranted suspicion”.

Parker further concluded that the conduct of Powell, Wood, and the eight other attorneys who they worked with, warranted a “referral for investigation and possible suspension or disbarment to the appropriate disciplinary authority for each state … in which each attorney is admitted”.

Wood told the court in the Michigan case that Powell had wrongly named him as one of her co-counsel in the Michigan case. During a hearing in the case to determine whether to sanction Wood, his defense largely rested on his claim that he had not been involved in the case at all. Powell, Wood told the court, had put his name on the lawsuit without her even telling him.

A man holds a sign reading "The dead cannot vote" at a rally in Alpharetta, Georgia.
Trump supporters attend a rally in Alpharetta, Georgia, where Sidney Powell spoke on efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Photograph: Nathan Posner/REX/Shutterstock

Wood said: “I do not specifically recall being asked about the Michigan complaint … In this case obviously my name was included. My experience or my skills apparently were never needed, so I didn’t have any involvement with it.”

Wood’s attorney, Paul Stablein, was also categorical in asserting that his client had nothing to do with the case, telling the Guardian in an interview: “He didn’t draft the complaint. He didn’t sign it. He did not authorize anyone to put his name on it.”

Powell has denied she would have ever named Wood as a co-counsel without Wood’s permission.

But other people have since come forward to say that Powell has said that they were named as plaintiffs or lawyers in her election-related cases without their permission.

In a Wisconsin voting case, a former Republican candidate for Congress, Derrick Van Orden, said he only learned after the fact that he had been named as a plaintiff in one of Powell’s cases.

“I learned through social media today that my name was included in a lawsuit without my permission,” Van Orden said in a statement he posted on Twitter, “To be clear, I am not involved in the lawsuit seeking to overturn the election in Wisconsin.”

Jason Shepherd, the Republican chairman of Georgia’s Cobb county, was similarly listed as a plaintiff in a Georgia election case without his approval.

In a 26 November 2020 statement, Shepherd said he had been talking to an associate of Powell’s prior to the case’s filing about the “Cobb GOP being a plaintiff” but said he first “needed more information to at least make sure the executive officers were in agreeing to us being a party in the suit”. The Cobb County Republican party later agreed to remain plaintiffs in the case instead of withdrawing.

Leslie Levin, a professor at the University of Connecticut Law School, said in an interview: “Misrepresentations to the court are very serious because lawyers are officers of the court. Bringing a lawsuit in someone’s name when they haven’t consented to being a party is a very serious misrepresentation and one for which a lawyer should expect to face serious discipline.”

Nora Freeman Engstrom, a law professor at Stanford University, says that Powell’s actions appear to violate Rule 3.3 of the ABA’s model rules of professional misconduct which hold that “a lawyer shall not knowingly … make a false statement of fact of law to a tribunal”.

Since election day last year, federal and state courts have dismissed more than 60 lawsuits alleging electoral fraud and irregularities by Powell, and other Trump allies.

Shortly after the election, Trump named Powell as a senior member of an “elite strike force” who would prove that Joe Biden only won the 2020 presidential race because the election was stolen from him. But Trump refused to pay her for her services. To remedy this, Powell set up a new nonprofit called Defending the Republic; its stated purpose is to “protect the integrity of elections in the United States”.

As a nonprofit, the group is allowed to raise unlimited amounts of “dark money” and donors are legally protected from the ordinary requirements to disclose their identities to the public. Powell warned supporters that for her to succeed, “millions of dollars must be raised”.

Echoing Trump’s rhetoric, Powell told prospective donors that Defending the Republic had a vast team of experienced litigators.

Sidney Powell speaks at a press conference on election results in Alpharetta, Georgia.
Sidney Powell speaks at a press conference on election results in Alpharetta, Georgia. Photograph: Elijah Nouvelage/Reuters

Among the attorneys who Powell said made up this “taskforce” were Emily Newman, who had served Trump as the White House liaison to the Department of Health and Human Services and as a senior official with the Department of Homeland Security. Newman had been a founding board member of Defending the Republic.

But facing sanctions in the Michigan case, some of the attorneys attempted to distance themselves from having played much of a meaningful role in her litigation.

Newman’s attorney told Parker, the judge, that Newman had “not played a role in the drafting of the complaint … My client was a contract lawyer working from home who spent maybe five hours on this matter. She really wasn’t involved … Her role was de minimis.”

To have standing to file her Michigan case, Powell was initially unable to find a local attorney to be co-counsel on her case but eventually attorney Gregory Rohl agreed to help out.

But when Rohl was sanctioned by Parker and referred to the Michigan attorney disciplinary board for further investigation, his defense was that he, too, was barely involved in the case. He claimed that he only received a copy of “the already prepared” 830-page initial complaint at the last minute, reviewed it for “well over an hour”, while then “making no additions, decisions or corrections” to the original.

As with Newman, Parker, found that Rohl violated ethics rules by making little, if any, effort to verify the facts of the claims in Powell’s filings.

In sanctioning Rohl, the judge wrote that “the court finds it exceedingly difficult to believe that Rohl read an 830-page complaint in just ‘well over an hour’ on the day he filed it. So, Rohl’s argument in and of itself reveals sanctionable conduct.”

Continue Reading

News

Govt to introduce important Bill, Covid situation likely to be discussed

Published

on



The government on Thursday will table ‘The National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (Amendment) Bill 2021’ in the Lok Sabha. A discussion on Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic and its various related aspects is also likely to take place in the lower House.


Health Minister Mansukh Mandaviya will move the ‘The National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (Amendment) Bill’ in the Lok Sabha to amend the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research Act, 1998.





Under rule 193, a discussion on Covid-19 pandemic and various aspects related to it will likely take place. According to sources, the members may also raise their concern and ask for the government’s preparedness for the new Omicron variant. Under Rule 193, members can seek details about the new Covid variant. “Short duration discussion is likely to be held in the Lok Sabha on the Covid and its various aspects, including new Omicron variant,” sources said.


Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, Prahlad Singh Patel, General V.K. Singh, Krishan Pal, Bhanu Pratap Verma, Rameshwar Teli and Kaushal Kishore will lay papers on the table. Reports and action reports of different standing committees will also be laid in the day.


The Lok Sabha on Wednesday passed the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Amendment) Bill 2021 (ART) by voice vote as the amendments moved by the DMK MP N.K. Prem Chandran, Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy and Shiv Sena MP Vinayak Raut were negated. The ART Bill seeks to regulate fertility clinics. All such clinics will have to be registered under the National Registry of Banks and Clinics of India.


The opposition is likely to continue to raise its voices on price rise, unemployment and extended jurisdiction of the Border Security Force (BSF) in some states. The opposition parties are also demanding a law guaranteeing the minimum support price (MSP).

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Dear Reader,

Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.

We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

Continue Reading

Trending