Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Court’

Ford Polygraph Results Released. Did They Just Blow a Huge Hole in Her Story?



Reported By Benjamin Arie | September 26, 2018 at

3:37pm

The narrative that liberals have hung their hopes on to stop Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is falling apart. There are now so many holes in the story, it’s incredible Democrats are still running with it.

Christine Blasey Ford is the woman who accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly groping her at a party way back when he was 17 years old, but she has been largely unable to produce solid evidence or witnesses to back up her serious claims.

One of the only points in her favor was that she took a “lie detector” polygraph test, which was widely reported by the media as supporting her story by showing that she wasn’t lying.

That is, until now. On Wednesday, the actual details from that polygraph were released to the public — and they make her already-flimsy story seem downright unbelievable.

The biggest problem with the so-called “lie detector” results are that the examiner never actually asked questions about Kavanaugh during the polygraph test.

Bizarrely, the person conducting the polygraph — who was a third-party examiner and not a law enforcement official — had Ford scribble down her nearly 40-year-old memory of the drunken party, and then asked her two vague questions.

Those two questions were: “Is any part of your statement false?” and “Did you make up any part of your statement?”

This is absolutely important to understand: Again, the polygraph test didn’t actually ask the main accuser any questions about Kavanaugh. His name was never brought up by the interviewer. Instead, Ford was simply asked if she believed her own hand-written statement.

It gets even more strange, as nowhere in that written statement does the name “Kavanaugh” appear, either.

And, to make matters worse, the statement from Ford that she was then asked about by the polygraph examiner directly contradicts different versions of the alleged event that the accuser has also given.

“Ford’s polygraph letter contradicts letter she sent to Feinstein,” pointed out Charles C. W. Cooke, the editor of The National Review.

“Polygraph letter says ‘4 boys and a couple of girls’ were at party. Letter to Feinstein says ‘me and four others,’” he continued. “No way to reconcile the two — irrespective of whether she’s counting herself in polygraph letter.”

It’s important to remember that fundamental facts such as how many people witnessed the alleged incident and what their genders were have been up in the air already. Even journalists from the left-leaning Washington Post are seemingly unable to keep the details straight.

“July 30 (to Dianne Feinstein): It was me and four other people. August 7 (to polygraph examiner): There were four boys and a couple of girls. September 16 (to Washington Post reporter): There were three boys and one girl,” The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis posted to Twitter, summarizing the inconsistencies.

Here’s another huge point: The fact that Ford “passed” the polygraph based on a statement that she later herself contradicted while telling the story to other people shows how unreliable this “evidence” truly is.

Contrary to how it’s shown in the movies, a polygraph can’t actually determine if a person is lying or not. All it can do is indicate how calm or stressed somebody is compared to a baseline. It can be used to indicate deception, but a completely delusional person can also “pass” a polygraph.

In other words, Ford may believe that something happened at a party four decades ago, and she may be confident that some version of her story is true, but the vagueness and unscientific nature of this process proves absolutely nothing. The problems with this accuser’s story don’t stop there. Buried in the release of the weak polygraph results was the fact that Ford was in Maryland — on the other side of the country from her home in California — to take that test.

But the supposed reason she couldn’t appear to testify in front of the Senate and answer questions about her accusations was that she’s afraid of confined spaces, which means she won’t travel by plane.

“The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington … which means she may need to drive across the country,” reported Politico just five days ago. “Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane.”

Yet the letter from Ford to Senator Feinstein made no mention of this difficulty, and casually mentioned that she planned to be back in California from the East Coast in less than three day’s time. It takes at least 42 hours of nonstop driving to go from Maryland, where the polygraph was administered, to Palo Alto, California, where Ford lives and teaches at a university.

This borders on being humanly impossible: Anybody who has done long road trips knows that a realistic daily limit is about ten hours of driving a day before exhaustion sets in. USA Today has recommended that people set aside between four and six days to do this arduous drive.

When none of the details add up or pass even the most basic sniff test, something is wrong.

This entire ordeal looks increasingly like a slimy and desperate effort to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation at any cost. But the truth always has a way of coming out, and it doesn’t even need a polygraph.

HERE IS THE POLYGRAPH REPORT:

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.


Army Col. Awarded $8.4 Million After Woman’s Sex Assault Allegations Blown Apart


Reported By Jack Davis | September 24, 2018 at

6:01pm

As official Washington is captivated by the drama surrounding decades-old allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a former soldier whose career was cut short by similar allegations is trying to get out a message that accusations are not the same as the truth.

Back in 2013, Wil Riggins was an Army colonel who had been nominated for general, when Susan Shannon wrote on her blog that Riggins raped her at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point back in 1986, according to the Daily Mail.

Four years later, after Riggins had been denied his promotion based on the claim, a jury heard Riggins’ suit against Shannon and awarded him $8.4 million in damages, according to The Washington Post.

With that as the background, Riggins has been using his Twitter account to remind those rushing to judgment in the Kavanaugh case that regardless of what an accuser says, the truth may be very different.

Most of his posts are retweets of others who cite his case as a cautionary tale against believing any accuser at face value.

Riggins said that even though he was exonerated, he still suffered irreparable damage from the false claim.

This journey we’ve been on the last four years,” Riggins said, “it’s been a nightmare. … The large dollar amount is meaningless. All I was looking for was the opportunity to be vindicated, to set the record straight, to take every action to get my reputation back to where it was before the 15th of July, when she published that false accusation.”

Shannon entered West Point in 1983 and resigned in 1986. She never mentioned being raped until 2013. In a blog post, she named Riggins as her rapist and said she was drunk at the time. Despite Riggins’s denials, she has maintained that she told the truth in her blog post.

“Frankly the day I started saying his name was the day I started blaming him instead of myself,” Shannon told WJLA.

Riggins admitted he and Shannon had a sexual encounter in 1983, but had no relationship after that time. Shannon called that “a compete fabrication”  and said Riggins “smugly admitted he did indeed rape” her.

However, after the verdict she did take down the posts she made about Riggins.

Stephen Horvath, Riggins’s lawyer said Riggins was able to win because,  “Everything in that blog post was provably false and could not have happened.”

Riggins said that his effort to fight back was aimed at sending a message to those who make false accusations.

“This will discourage other false accusations but would not discourage legitimate accusations of sexual assault,” he said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Jack Davis is a free-lance writer. Writing as “Rusty” Davis, he is a Spur Award-nominated writer whose first two novels, “Wyoming Showdown” and “Black Wind Pass” were published by Five Star Publishing.

Fed-Up AZ Supreme Court Hits Dreamers with Costly Bad News in Blowout Ruling


Reported By Ben Marquis | April 10, 2018 at 12:39pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/az-supreme-court-hits-dreamers/

Former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program created something of a legal limbo for a select class of illegal immigrants, shielding them from deportation without granting them legal status. Now, some of the program’s enrollees could quite literally be paying for that uncertainty.

According to The Washington Times, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that DACA recipients, also known as “dreamers,” are not eligible for the in-state tuition rates that some state colleges and universities were offering them, and instead will have to pay out-of-state rates.

That 7-0 decision upheld an earlier 3-0 state court of appeals ruling against the Maricopa Community Colleges, who had decided on their own volition to extend in-state tuition rates to DACA recipients. The ruling applies to all state colleges and public universities in Arizona.

The appeals court had ruled that both federal and state law granted that sort of decision-making power to the state’s political branches, and not the colleges or universities. At the heart of the decision was a 2006 law passed by voters known as Proposition 300, which declared that illegal immigrants were not eligible to receive state benefits, including in-state tuition rates.

“While people can disagree what the law should be, I hope we all can agree that the attorney general must enforce the law as it is, not as we want it to be,” stated Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich. 

The Arizona Republic reported that an estimated 2,000 DACA recipients are currently enrolled in community colleges or state universities at in-state tuition rates, and could now find themselves being compelled to pay nearly three times as much for out-of-state rates if they wish to remain in school.

As might be expected, advocates for DACA recipients are incensed by the court’s ruling. They have claimed the decision essentially blocks access to education for dreamers by making it “impossible” for them to afford, especially when considering these particular illegal immigrants aren’t eligible for any sort of state or federal financial assistance because of their lack of legal status.

But based on a clear reading of the 2006 law, those dreamers should never have received the lower in-state tuition rates from colleges in the first place.

As Brnovich stated, “It’s about time someone held (the colleges) accountable, and that’s my job. My role as AG is to make sure you’re following the law.”

Though Brnovich did express some sympathy for the plight of the dreamers, he nevertheless pointed out that the law is the law. “What makes this country unique and great … is because the rule of law means something,” the attorney general said.

However, the Arizona Daily Sun reported that some college-aged dreamers may not ultimately find themselves having to pay the substantially higher out-of-state tuition rates thanks to something of a middle-ground solution worked out by the state university system’s Board of Regents.

That policy, put in place years ago by Regent Jay Heiler, “sets charges at 150 percent of the in-state rate for any student who graduated from an Arizona high school after attending school” in the state for at least three years, the Sun reported.

While that policy could very well be challenged through litigation, Heiler and others believe it will survive because the special rate would actually cover the costs of tuition, meaning state taxpayers would not be subsidizing or offering a “benefit” to illegal immigrants.

The Republic noted that the Arizona supreme court has only released a three-page order at this point, and won’t make the full opinion explaining the ruling public until May 14.

Whatever one may think about the state law or this court ruling, one thing that’s patently obvious is that the hap-hazard manner by which Obama devised and implemented the DACA program has once again hurt those individuals it purported to help by leaving them in a legal limbo.

The only way to truly solve the problems created by DACA is for Congress to finally agree on a permanent solution to the legal status question for DACA recipients, as President Donald Trump has repeatedly called on legislators to do.

With Indictments of Russians, the Groundwork Is in Place to Criminally Charge Hillary


Authored By Erin Coates | February 20, 2018 at 3:42pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/indictments-russians-groundwork-place-criminally-charge-hillary/

The indictments of Russian nationals for meddling with the election could “make the Clinton Campaign a potential target,” according to a California lawyer.

In an opinion piece for Law & Crime, Robert Barnes said that Robert Mueller indicted of 13 Russians and three Russian companies because they did not register as foreign agents or record financial expenditures to the Federal Elections Commissions.

They were foreign citizens; they tried to influence an election; and they neither registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act nor reported their funding to the Federal Elections Commission,” he wrote. 

Under this claim, there are three things that “make the Clinton Campaign a potential target,” according to Barnes.

The first one is that they knew Christopher Steele, the author of the infamous Russia-Trump dossier, was a foreign citizen.

According to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s press conference on the indictments, the Russians “used stolen or fictitious American identities, fraudulent bank accounts and false identification documents” to hide their activities.

The next potentially criminating thing is that the Clinton campaign “knew, and paid, Steele to influence an election.” 

Similarly, the indictments showed that twelve defendants worked for a company called Internet Research Agency, LLC, based in St. Petersburg. It reportedly operated through Russian shell companies.

“It employed hundreds of people in its online operations, ranging from creators of fictitious personas, to technical and administrative support personnel, with an annual budget of millions of dollars,” Rosenstein said.

Lastly, the Clinton campaign “knew, and facilitated, Steele” not registering as a foreign agent or reporting that he was being funded by the Clinton campaign to the Federal Election Commissions. He instead disguised the payments as a “legal expense.”

Steele himself, based on Mueller’s theory, is a criminal under the same guidelines as the Russian indictments. He is a foreign citizen, was paid to influence an election, and never registered as a foreign agent or listed his expenditures. 

The Clinton campaign is not the only potential target under Mueller’s theory. The DNC, Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS could also be targeted for indictment, according to Barnes. However, Barnes said not to expect an indictment of any of these people or organizations.

“Mueller chose his targets because he knows they will never appear in court, never contest the charges, and cannot be arrested or extradited as Russian citizens,” he wrote. 

Barnes is a California-based trial attorney who focuses on Constitutional, criminal and civil rights law.

New York Dem Arrested for Stealing from Hurricane Sandy Victims


 

Reported By Joe Setyon | January 11, 2018 at 10:46am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/new-york-democrat-arrested-for-stealing-from-victims-of-hurricane-sandy/

New York State Democrat Assemblywoman Pamela Harris was arrested Tuesday for allegedly defrauding the federal and state governments out of $60,000, including $25,000 in FEMA funds that were allocated for residents left homeless in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

But officials say Harris — who represents parts of Brooklyn in the state assembly — was not among the homeless. Instead, her Coney Island residence was still intact following the devastating 2012 storm, according to the New York Daily News.

The 57-year-old remained in her home after the storm but allegedly filed fake paperwork to prove she was paying rent for a residence in Staten Island. FEMA then compensated her with money that was set aside for “temporary housing assistance,” officials said.

In an effort to cover up what she had done, Harris is accused of telling witnesses they should lie to the FBI.

“Harris was busy brewing a storm of her own — one that resulted in her receiving significant payouts by the very federal agency charged with helping those truly in need,” said William Sweeney Jr., the head of the bureau field office in New York.

Prior to her 2015 election to the state assembly, Harris ran a non-profit training and mentoring organization. But she allegedly pocketed $34,000 that the city council had given to her group to pay for rent. Officials believe Harris used $10,000 to pay for vacations — including one on a cruise ship. She also allegedly used stolen money to shop for lingerie from Victoria’s Secret, as well as pay off bills she had accumulated from Kohls and the mortgage on her Coney Island home.

For her alleged crimes — which authorities say took place between 2012 and 2016 — Harris was charged with wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, making false statements, bankruptcy fraud, witness tampering and conspiracy to obstruct justice, according to the Daily News. Harris pleaded not guilty and was released on $150,000 bond.

“Ms. Harris has been an invaluable community organizer and a well-regarded legislator,” her attorneys said in a statement. “Especially given her background, we are disappointed that Ms. Harris was indicted.”

“She has pleaded not guilty, and we look forward to her day in court and an opportunity there to present the full facts.”

The Democrat assemblywoman’s arrest came the same week New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a lawsuit against the five largest oil companies in the nation, claiming Sandy’s destruction was amplified due to the climate change those companies contributed to. The storm struck the city in October 2012, leaving more than 40 New Yorkers dead and causing tens of billions of dollars in damage.

“After Sandy, it became clear that climate change was an active threat to our lives. It may have happened five years ago, but we are still dealing every day with the destruction it caused,” de Blasio tweeted Wednesday.

“It’s time for Big Oil to pay for that damage.” 

De Blasio also noted that New York is “the first major American city to take this action against fossil fuel companies.”

New York’s road to recovery has been a long one, with multiple resiliency projects being carried out in order to prevent future natural disasters from affecting the city in a similar manner, according to Politico.

“The city seeks to shift the costs of protecting the city from climate change impacts back onto the companies that have done nearly all they could to create this existential threat,” the lawsuit reads, as reported by the New York Post.

Moreover, de Blasio wants the city’s pensions to divest from oil companies. But according to the National Association of Manufacturers — an industry trade group — this move will come with a high price tag, as it could cost city employees $2.8 billion over 20 years.

“Divestment won’t do anything to cut greenhouse gas emissions. All it does is pass stocks from one shareholder to another,” NAM Vice President Chris Netram said Wednesday.

Just In: Judge Issues A Decision In The Bundy Ranch Case


Reported By Randy DeSoto | December 20, 2017 at 3:36pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/judge-issues-a-decision-in-the-bundy-ranch-case/

A federal judge declared a mistrial on Wednesday in the case against Cliven Bundy and his co-defendants, stemming from their 2014 standoff in Nevada with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing rights.

U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro ruled that federal prosecutors unlawfully withheld information they were required to turn over to the defense including surveillance video, maps and FBI interview information, the Las Vegas Journal Review reported. The judge stated prosecutors knew or should have known of the existence of this evidence that may have been helpful to Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and co-defendant Ryan Payne.

“Considered collectively, she said, the evidence that was withheld was favorable to the defendants and its untimely disclosure was prejudicial in that it ‘undermined the confidence of the outcome of the trial,’” Navarro found, according to the Journal Review.

The men are accused of conspiring to block federal agents from enforcing a court order to confiscate the Bundys’ cattle, which was grazing on public lands.

“Cliven Bundy had failed to pay grazing fees and fines for years,” according to The Associated Press. “The men are also charged with firearms crimes, threatening a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction of justice and extortion in a trial that began (on Nov. 14) in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas.”

Bundy contended the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to own vast tracks of western lands, stating it instead belongs to the states and the people. He and the others present were protesting what they contended was unlawful conduct by the federal government in seizing his cattle.

As previously reported by The Western Journal, a federal whistleblower sent a memo to the Department of Justice last month alleging malfeasance in the handling of the investigation in the Bundy Ranch standoff.

Special agent Larry Wooten, who worked on the investigation (until being removed in February), wrote in the 18-page memo, “I routinely observed, and the investigation revealed a widespread pattern of bad judgment, lack of discipline, incredible bias, unprofessionalism and misconduct, as well as likely policy, ethical, and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff.”

He added their actions, “adversely affected our agency’s mission and likely the trial regarding Cliven Bundy and his alleged co-conspirators and ignored the letter and the intent of the law.”

Wooten chronicled in his memo that those overseeing the investigation showed clear prejudice against the Bundys, their supporters and the Mormon faith, which the ranchers profess.

BLM agents prominently displayed booking photos with “X’s” drawn over the faces of the Bundys, according to Wooten.

The agent recounted that when he reported what he was seeing to the agent-in-charge of the investigation, Dan Love, he came to realize the supervisor was “aware of the issues, participated in, or instigated the misconduct himself.”

Wooten accused Love, who was in charge of the cattle roundup at the Bundy ranch, of intentionally ignoring direction from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and his superiors “in order to command the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible.”

Washington state Rep. Matt Shea, spoke out forcefully to the media last week after seeing Wooten’s memo, stating in an interview with Redoubt News, “a sniper rifle is not due process.”

“The government in the trial was saying, or at least implying that there were no snipers on site, and then this document details that there were in fact snipers on site,” Shea told The Western Journal. “These were being pointed at Americans who were protesting lawfully.”

The representative has been a longtime advocate for significant portions of federal lands held in the west being turned over to the states. Shea said the clear bias shown by the investigators is exculpatory and can be used to impeach the government witnesses at the Bundy trial. He noted that Navarro cited the Wooten memo in her Wednesday ruling.

According to ABC affiliate KTNV, a new trial in the Bundy case will likely begin in February. Based on what he has seen, Shea does not believe a mistrial is an adequate remedy.

“The withheld evidence doesn’t just give reason for a mistrial,” he said. “It looks like there needs to be a dismissal.” 

Shea added: “I don’t think this stops with a mistrial and a dismissal, I think this continues with an investigation,” into the BLM.

Fox News reported that “jurors acquitted (Ammon and Ryan Bundy) of taking over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon for more than a month in early 2016 and amid calls for the U.S. government to turn over public land to local control.”

Liberals Launch Program to Increase No. of Illegals Allowed to Stay by 1,100%


Reported By Ben Marquis | November 13, 2017 at 2:17pm

URL of the original posting Site: https://conservativetribune.com/liberals-program-illegals-allowed/?

Since President Donald Trump took office, there has been a marked difference in the manner in which the federal government deals with illegal immigration, both on the border and within the country.

Deportations are reportedly rising, but liberals are intent on reversing that trend and allowing as many illegals to remain lawfully in the country as long as possible, and they appear to now be using taxpayer funds to do so.

The liberal New York City-based Vera Institute of Justice just announced via a press release the formation of a new program known as the Safety and Fairness for Everyone Cities Network.

The SAFE Cities Network provides publicly-funded legal representation to both legal immigrants and illegals involved in deportation and detainment hearings at no cost to the immigrants themselves. Some localities have begun similar programs on their own already.

The program is based on a study by the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project that was conducted in one particular New York City immigration court, the results of which the Vera Institute now intends to attempt to duplicate nationwide.

That study found that immigrants facing deportation hearings had only a 4 percent success rate of avoiding deportation when representing themselves, but that their success rate was about 48 percent when they were provided with legal representation — an estimated increase of 1,100 percent.

The organization touted, “Network members come from 11 politically, economically, and ethnically diverse jurisdictions that are united in their commitment to the belief that … a crucial way to keep our communities safe is to ensure legal representation for those whose future depends on it.”

Except that the 11 Network members aren’t exactly as “politically” diverse as the Vera Institute would have the public believe. Just check out the list of participating jurisdictions and see if you can spot the one thing they all have in common.

The 11 Network members are: Atlanta, GA; Austin, TX; Baltimore, MD; Chicago, IL; Columbus, OH; Dane County, WI; Oakland/Alameda County, CA; Prince George’s County, MD; Sacramento, CA; San Antonio, TX; and Santa Ana, CA.

If you noticed that all of those cities and/or counties are liberal-dominated and Democrat-controlled, even if they are in a “red” state, then you would be correct.

The Vera Institute proudly proclaimed that under their initiative, “[Eleven] jurisdictions are providing funding for trained legal service providers to represent immigrants facing deportation proceedings supplemented by a catalyst grant administered by Vera.”

What that means is that Vera provided some private funding up front to start the program, but that participant jurisdictions will continue the program with taxpayer dollars.

Were this initiative to be completely funded by private dollars, we would have no qualms with it whatsoever, as it would be nothing more than liberals putting their money where their mouths are and funding a venture to protect illegals by themselves. But this program will utilize taxpayer money, funds that will inevitably come from individuals vehemently opposed to the program who will nevertheless be paying for it. That is not right.

Furthermore, can we expect liberal organizations like the Vera Institute to formulate similar programs using taxpayer funding to provide for the “free” legal defense of American citizens facing hearings for violations of gun or tax laws or other government regulations? After all, wouldn’t that be “fair” to everyone?

We highly doubt it.

H/T LawNewz

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: