Category Archives: Justice

Ghislaine Maxwell: Not Evidence-Based Law, But MeToo, Sexual Moral Panic

Argument, Criminal Injustice, Justice, Law, libertarianism, Sex, The Therapuetic State

6 Replies

Prosecutions now rest on he-said, she-said hearsay evidence, on facts that can’t possibly meet the rules of evidence (the ones the United States once abided), or be corroborated for the purposes of a just prosecution ~ilana

The reviled and revolting progressives of MSNBC and the hollow performers on Fox News are all agreed:

Ghislaine Maxwell was [rightly] convicted on Wednesday evening of grooming underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein to abuse… [and should face] decades behind bars for sex-trafficking.

The “incontrovertible” evidence upon which there ought to have been a sunset clause: The massage table. The gowns in the closet, too. Well, pretty much. My position with respect to prosecutions driven by sexual moral panic and revenge was expressed in “Mad, #MeToo Matriarchy Ensnared Bill Cosby.”

Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine were and are degenerates, scum of the earth. But the evidence against Maxwell is hearsay evidence.

Moreover, when one hears phrases like “years of sexual abuse,” one envisages dark, dank quarters, chains, an inability to leave the scene of the abuse, and drugs to addle the victim’s awareness.

In reality—not that it matters any longer to US prosecutors—the case of Ghislaine Maxwell is one of, admittedly, under-age girls. But these women were coming and going as they pleased, eager and greedy for more of whatever Epstein was using to lure them. The sainted MeToo victims were greedy for this ghastly man’s gifts. If charges are to be leveled—the adults in the room bear responsibility, but the charges should never yield the kind of sentence Maxwell is facing.

“Sex-trafficking,” as a charge in the Maxwell case, looks to me much like getting Al Capone on charges of tax evasion: You can’t prove anything substantive, so you conjure any category of charges that will stick. Also known as corruption of the law and its purpose.

Yes, the loathsome two, Jeffrey and Ghislaine, traveled with their greedy “victims.” So, voila, “sex-trafficking,” a legal charge that sticks.

Corruption, degeneracy and more: Absolutely.
But law is about evidence. Contrary to what the legal “experts,” left and right, assert, a just system of law is not about, “turning the tables on the powerful, to give the vulnerable a voice,” a whine that could be heard on the cable universe, left and right.

RELATED: “Mad, #MeToo Matriarchy Ensnared Bill Cosby“:

Prosecutions now rest on he-said, she-said hearsay evidence, on facts that can’t possibly meet the rules of evidence (the ones the United States once abided), or be corroborated for the purposes of a just prosecution, in accordance with the legal standards of Western law (of blessed memory). Evidence is tainted, solicited decades too late, with utter disregard for the statute of limitations.

* Image is of the “evidence,” via New York Post

The FDA Has De Facto Classified The Data Upon Which It Relied To License Pfizer’s mRNA Covid Vaccine

Argument, COVID-19, Crime, Democrats, GUNS, Healthcare, Individual Rights, Justice, Law, Pseudoscience, The State

Leave a reply

IF THIS DOESN’T GET THE SHEEPLE “THINKING,” nothing will. And no, this is not the Onion:

Apparently, the menageries of medical and news propagandists for the “clot shot” on the teli have not seen or studied the data upon which the government relied to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.

In response to a belated Freedom of Information Act request by “more than 30 professors and scientists from universities including Yale, Harvard, UCLA and Brown,” the Food & Drug Administration has agreed to release the requested data by the year … 2076, over the course of the next 55 years.

The plaintiffs pleaded the obvious when their lawyer said,

It is difficult to imagine a greater need for transparency than immediate disclosure of the documents relied upon by the FDA to license a product that is now being mandated to over 100 million Americans under penalty of losing their careers, their income, their military service status, and far worse.

If this doesn’t tell you what the US government and bureaucracies think of The People, their rights and well-being; nothing does.

This is Sir Humphrey Appleby funny. (Every paleolibertarian is obliged to watch and worship the famed British satires about The State: “Yes, Prime Minister” and “Yes, Minister.”

Sir Humphrey Appleby to the PM: “Yes, Prime Minister: 55 years to produce the Pfizer Covid vaccine data is well within the law. No need to rush , if you know what I mean. But I’ll start the paperwork, shall I?” (Me channeling Sir Humphrey)

By making Pfizer’s COVID vaccine data essentially unavailable for scrutiny in their totality for decades to come—the FDA has in effect classified the data upon which it based a decision to license Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines.

*****************

 

UPDATED (11/21/021): Prosecutorial Duties To Seek Justice Flouted In The Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Argument, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Justice, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Propaganda, Race, Republicans

Leave a reply

Prosecutorial power to bring charges against a person is an awesome power, stress Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton in The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Backing him, the prosecutor has the might of the state, and must never “override the rights of the defendant in order to gain a conviction.”

Unlike the defense attorney, whose job it is to defend the accused, regardless of guilt, the prosecutor’s job is to jail only those who are actually guilty. It is not unethical for a defense attorney to get a guilty client off—if the prosecutor can’t meet his burden of proof, it’s not the defense’s fault. But it is unethical for the prosecutor to prosecute someone he does not firmly believe is guilty.

Prosecutorial duties are dual. While acting as the plaintiff, the prosecutor must also take pains to protect the defendant’s rights.

This duty was clearly flouted in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, in which the prosecutor engaged not in a search for truth, but in full-on character assassination of the 18-year-old young man.

The hive media was along for the ride, as is evident from one in many such error-riddled reports in the once-august Newsweek. (They are all like this. Reporter here isn’t even corrected for spelling; she spells Judge Bruce Schroeder’s name two different ways in one sentence!)

The latest news:

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyers on Wednesday asked the judge for the second time in a week to declare a mistrial, this time arguing the defense received an inferior copy of a key video from prosecutors.

Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi told Judge Bruce Schroeder his team would have approached the case differently had it received the higher-quality video earlier. He said his newest motion for a mistrial would be made “without prejudice,” meaning prosecutors could try Rittenhouse again if the judge grants the mistrial.

Whereas Democrats are forever speaking up in defense of the armed militia of the Democratic Party, BLM thugs and rioters; Republican politicians for Kyle Rittenhouse where nowhere to be found. They do not give a dried camel’s hump to meet Dems on their combative terms on every front: cultural, legal, political.

It is clear that the adults had let young Kyle Rittennhouse down. They failed to explain to Kyle that he now lived in a country no longer free, and no longer based in ordered liberty. They forgot to tell Kyle that America was now systemically and institutionally anti-white. “Don’t do it, white boy.”

Whatever happens, one thing is clear: When Kyle went to Kenosha, “A Folk Hero was Born.”

Young Kyle went to Kenosha, Wisconsin, because he was never confused. He attempted to do the job politicians and police have refused to do. As the city’s mayor and the state’s governor watched Kenosha burn, Kyle confronted the enemies of the commonweal. Unlike the flaccid men of the media and in corridors of power, the 17-year-old rose to the challenge, firing only when he was prone and was being pounded by the feral fiends.

Now, let us all pray.

UPDATE (11/21/021):

* REMEMBER THE RIOTS of The Summer of Love, 2020? It turns out that politicians and the police who either stood down in Kenosha (and beyond) or knelt like ninnies need not have let THE COUNTRY BURN.

REPORTING FROM KENOSHA post verdict, NOV. 19, 2021, Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs (I thought double-barreled surnames were a feminist affectation. Oh, I guess he is a feminist) points out that,

Three hours after 12 jurors found Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges, the front steps of the courthouse in Kenosha are nearly clear of demonstrators. The scores of Rittenhouse supporters and detractors who were there after the verdict are almost entirely gone.

The crowds were likely cleared by the culprits who, only a year prior, allowed the place to burn down.

UPDATE II (12/21/021): NEW COLUMN: Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech (Part 3)

Free Speech, Individual Rights, Justice, Labor, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Republicans, Technology, The Courts, THE ELITES

Leave a reply

NEW COLUMN: “Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech,” is now on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews, and The New American.

This column is Part 3 of a 3-part series. Read Part 1, “Big Tech’s Financial Terrorism And Social Excommunication” and Part 2, “Justice Thomas’ Solution to Big Tech’s Social And Financial Excommunication.”

An excerpt:

It is inarguable that by financially crippling and socially segregating, and banishing politically irksome people and enterprises—the Big Tech cartel is flouting the spirit, if not the strict letter, of the Civil Rights Act.

For how do you make a living if your banking options are increasingly curtailed and constantly threatened, and your ability to electronically communicate with clients is likewise circumscribed?

Do you go back to a barter economy (a book for some bread)? Do you go underground? Cultivate home-based industries? Do you keep afloat by word of mouth? Go door-to-door? Return to stamping envelopes? How can you, when your client base is purely electronic?

Telling an individual he can’t open a bank account on account of the beliefs and opinions swirling in his head teeters on informing your innocent victim he might not be able to make a living, as do other, politically more polite Americans, and despite his innocence: Our only “offenses” as dissidents are thought crimes, namely, speaking, or typing or wafting into the air unpopular, impolite words.

“[I]n assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power,” Justice Clarence Thomas has argued, “what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.”

To paraphrase this Supreme Court jurist: Sure, there are alternatives to The Big Tech, but these make a mockery of the outcast. It would hardly be hyperbole, in driving home Justice Thomas’s point about comparability, to put it thus:

With respect to financial de-platforming, barring someone from PayPal is like prohibiting a passenger from crossing the English Channel by high-speed train, via ferry and by means of 90 percent of airplanes. “Have at it sucker.”

By Deep Tech decree, some Americans are worth more than others, based not on their actions, but on the voiced thoughts in their heads. This cannot stand.

The letter of the law needs changing. Do it.

Civil Rights Act

Thus, the preferred remedy to Deep Tech depredations would build upon existing Civil Rights Act jurisprudence.

As a reality-oriented conservative libertarian, I inhabit and theorize in the real world. From the conservative-libertarian’s perspective, Barry Goldwater got it right. Civil Rights law is an ass, for it infringes on property rights. But the onus is on flaccid Republican lawmakers to ensure that that ass can be ridden by all equally (with apologies to adorable, much-abused donkeys for the cruel metaphor).

These are existing laws that are already enforced. I see no reason to reject the application of civil rights solutions to wicked, woke bullies because existing laws that’ll never be repealed go against my core beliefs. What is libertarianism? The art of losing in life because of a slavish devotion to theoretical purity? …

… NEW COLUMN, “Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech,” can be read now on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews, and The New American.

UPDATED (10/26/021) I:

UPDATE II (12/21/021) II: “Berenson v. Twitter“:

Twitter is indisputably a messenger service. A longstanding California law regulates messenger services as “common carriers.” This means that they must accept all messages they receive. Twitter thus must accept all tweets it receives. It has no First Amendment rights to refuse them on the basis that it does not agree with them.
A federal law commonly called Section 230 “preempts” the California law, giving Twitter the right to reject tweets or ban users. (Whether that right is universal or whether Twitter must act in “good faith” in restricting service is a separate question; whether Twitter acted in “good faith” in this case is still another question. But put those issues aside for the moment.)
Section 230 is what enables Twitter to claim a First Amendment privilege that supersedes the California law and restrict my own First Amendment right to speak; thus federal courts have the right to review 230 on First Amendment grounds.

MORE.