CONVICTING ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, OF THE ALLEGED CRIMES OF SERIAL PEDOPHILIC RAPE, TRAFFICKING AT LEAST ONE UNDERAGE CHILD FOR SEXUAL PURPOSE AND EVENTUALLY JOINT ENTERPRISE IN A PEDOPHILIC GROOMING ORGANIZATION
The allegations of pedo activity by Dersh still await indictment and trial because of the cover-up and protection he receives from his cohort. But there is no time bar on the pedo allegations, content of which is extensively covered in comments to previous Dershows. An aim is to encourage notoriously reluctant prosecutors and the FBI to cooperate in competently prosecuting Derhowitz despite the political consequences. A starting point is Dersh's false leitmotif that the multiple pedo allegations are based merely on "guilt by association". They are not, but his long and deep association with Epstein may provide an additional basis for conviction. One accuser was paid one million dollars in hush money to drop specific accusations against Dershowitz..What was Dersh hidjng? Dersh forced issuance of a full and secret immunity agreement (an NPA) for his own activity. Why did he need that? Arguably Dersh can ALSO be convicted on matters related to "guilt by association", where he is responsible because of the nature of his participation in a group for the pedophilic action of others..
Guilt by association is not per se a crime, but it is closely related to the crime of "joint enterprise".
A certain threshold of participation, aka co-conspiracy, can make Dersh also responible for not only his personal activity but also that of others. The attorney-client privilege is be inapplicable when a red line delineating criminal participation is crossed. There is considerable evidence in the longstanding relationship of Dersh aiding Epstein in contacting and winning over other people at their homes, in personal meetings, seminars, etc. The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine may be applicable either directly or by analogy..Expansion of this doctrine has been promoted by Tony West, brother in Law of Kamala Harris. There is the rule of aiding a crime, being an accomplice/accessory to a crime. like planning the crime, protecting it from law enforcement and concealing ,covering up evidence. . Guilt by Association is a basis for a Federal conviction, for example in terrorism cases and in the Rosenberg atomic spy cases. Background checks are an example of application of guilt by association. The Law of Imputed Negligence seems applicable, Notably Dersh at no time reported the Epstein child abuse to State authorities as required by Mandatory State Law, Imputed Negligence is applicable to gang-related violent activity. The Epstein pedo organization was a gang violently raping underage kids. All this in addition to the personal accusations of Dersh's criminal activity.
Today is Day 2419 of the Dershowitz-Epstein cover-up. The FBI/Palm Beach Police criminal investigation of Dershowitz's alleged pedo activity needs to be released to the public. This is where the meat of the matter is, not in "files" and flight logs.
I lost half an hour researching PODUS. No such word, no such acronym. It seems to be either a typo (IN BOLD CAPITALS?), or newspeak, or just a bad joke. POTUS is bad enough. PS: A thug is a violent gangster. Sugarcoating words denoting violent behavior contributes to the normalization of violence.
I don't always agree with your personal perspective on the topics you cover, but from a legal study standpoint, I learn a lot from gaining insight into how you structure your arguments.
Spot on re: the Roe overturn. It was judicial activism. Though I left the Dems a week after Obama took office, I’m not a hyper-social ideologue. Extremism begets extremism. Neither party appears to grasp the Founding Fathers’ meaning behind the term,” Their Maker”. It was deist, not theist in implementation. God was described as Divine and Supreme- a shining light , but not God of a particular religious order. Hence freedom of and if one isn’t of a defined religious affiliation, freedom from religion. This was designed to prevent government tyranny of all sorts, particularly theocratic. The Founders were well versed in historical religious persecution.
As per John Roberts and ACB, they often rule extraneously. The one time I thought Roberts would come through as a swing vote, he didn’t. On Roe. ACB is wrong 75% and it appears deliberate. Kavanaugh is all over the place. Gorsuch is correct 90% , Thomas and Alito are 80%, but hyper-religious ideologically and they cannot separate their ideology from social issues.
The other three are wrong on everything. So ideologically driven that they no longer even consider the written law when deciding a case. They just vote against anything involving Trump or brought forth by a Conservative. Regardless of the issue. It’s very unhealthy.
Al Green is also a Farrakhan crony, ergo, he is an illegitimate critic.
Every six months he reinvokes his call for impeachment without any specific cause- only his mantra of “ Unfit to serve”.
The only profession he’s “ fit to serve” is as an understudy for the Geico commercial’s “Caveman”. I take it back. Body double. He doesn’t have the wit to deliver the “ Roast Duck with mango salsa” punchline.
Assemblies are usually governed by Robert's Rules of Order. Green was properly warned and ejected as per standard and normal rules. As Chair/president of a non-profit society for over 20 years, I have had to rule disruptors "out of order", and have them ejected from meetings, and at times have had to have hired security call the local police to escort resistant extremist disruptors from meetings. Not pleasant but has to be done to maintain order and decorum. Board meetings and public meetings must be allowed to proceed unimpeded. That's what an able Chair or president does. I have even had to ask elected directors to step down from the board and resign when they were operating outside board approval, like making unapproved financial deals or inviting politicians to closed board meetings without board approval. One director doesn't decide to do whatever they want with board approval, it's not a one man show.
CONVICTING ALAN DERSHOWITZ, PROFESSOR EMERITUS, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, OF THE ALLEGED CRIMES OF SERIAL PEDOPHILIC RAPE, TRAFFICKING AT LEAST ONE UNDERAGE CHILD FOR SEXUAL PURPOSE AND EVENTUALLY JOINT ENTERPRISE IN A PEDOPHILIC GROOMING ORGANIZATION
The allegations of pedo activity by Dersh still await indictment and trial because of the cover-up and protection he receives from his cohort. But there is no time bar on the pedo allegations, content of which is extensively covered in comments to previous Dershows. An aim is to encourage notoriously reluctant prosecutors and the FBI to cooperate in competently prosecuting Derhowitz despite the political consequences. A starting point is Dersh's false leitmotif that the multiple pedo allegations are based merely on "guilt by association". They are not, but his long and deep association with Epstein may provide an additional basis for conviction. One accuser was paid one million dollars in hush money to drop specific accusations against Dershowitz..What was Dersh hidjng? Dersh forced issuance of a full and secret immunity agreement (an NPA) for his own activity. Why did he need that? Arguably Dersh can ALSO be convicted on matters related to "guilt by association", where he is responsible because of the nature of his participation in a group for the pedophilic action of others..
Guilt by association is not per se a crime, but it is closely related to the crime of "joint enterprise".
A certain threshold of participation, aka co-conspiracy, can make Dersh also responible for not only his personal activity but also that of others. The attorney-client privilege is be inapplicable when a red line delineating criminal participation is crossed. There is considerable evidence in the longstanding relationship of Dersh aiding Epstein in contacting and winning over other people at their homes, in personal meetings, seminars, etc. The Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine may be applicable either directly or by analogy..Expansion of this doctrine has been promoted by Tony West, brother in Law of Kamala Harris. There is the rule of aiding a crime, being an accomplice/accessory to a crime. like planning the crime, protecting it from law enforcement and concealing ,covering up evidence. . Guilt by Association is a basis for a Federal conviction, for example in terrorism cases and in the Rosenberg atomic spy cases. Background checks are an example of application of guilt by association. The Law of Imputed Negligence seems applicable, Notably Dersh at no time reported the Epstein child abuse to State authorities as required by Mandatory State Law, Imputed Negligence is applicable to gang-related violent activity. The Epstein pedo organization was a gang violently raping underage kids. All this in addition to the personal accusations of Dersh's criminal activity.
Today is Day 2419 of the Dershowitz-Epstein cover-up. The FBI/Palm Beach Police criminal investigation of Dershowitz's alleged pedo activity needs to be released to the public. This is where the meat of the matter is, not in "files" and flight logs.
PODUS?
President of deez United States.
Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was President of Duh United States.
BS"D
I lost half an hour researching PODUS. No such word, no such acronym. It seems to be either a typo (IN BOLD CAPITALS?), or newspeak, or just a bad joke. POTUS is bad enough. PS: A thug is a violent gangster. Sugarcoating words denoting violent behavior contributes to the normalization of violence.
Alan, Donald Trump should give SCOTUS the middle finger and dare them to enforce their decisions.
I don't always agree with your personal perspective on the topics you cover, but from a legal study standpoint, I learn a lot from gaining insight into how you structure your arguments.
I wish you were the President everything is upside down
Spot on re: the Roe overturn. It was judicial activism. Though I left the Dems a week after Obama took office, I’m not a hyper-social ideologue. Extremism begets extremism. Neither party appears to grasp the Founding Fathers’ meaning behind the term,” Their Maker”. It was deist, not theist in implementation. God was described as Divine and Supreme- a shining light , but not God of a particular religious order. Hence freedom of and if one isn’t of a defined religious affiliation, freedom from religion. This was designed to prevent government tyranny of all sorts, particularly theocratic. The Founders were well versed in historical religious persecution.
As per John Roberts and ACB, they often rule extraneously. The one time I thought Roberts would come through as a swing vote, he didn’t. On Roe. ACB is wrong 75% and it appears deliberate. Kavanaugh is all over the place. Gorsuch is correct 90% , Thomas and Alito are 80%, but hyper-religious ideologically and they cannot separate their ideology from social issues.
The other three are wrong on everything. So ideologically driven that they no longer even consider the written law when deciding a case. They just vote against anything involving Trump or brought forth by a Conservative. Regardless of the issue. It’s very unhealthy.
Al Green is also a Farrakhan crony, ergo, he is an illegitimate critic.
Every six months he reinvokes his call for impeachment without any specific cause- only his mantra of “ Unfit to serve”.
The only profession he’s “ fit to serve” is as an understudy for the Geico commercial’s “Caveman”. I take it back. Body double. He doesn’t have the wit to deliver the “ Roast Duck with mango salsa” punchline.
Assemblies are usually governed by Robert's Rules of Order. Green was properly warned and ejected as per standard and normal rules. As Chair/president of a non-profit society for over 20 years, I have had to rule disruptors "out of order", and have them ejected from meetings, and at times have had to have hired security call the local police to escort resistant extremist disruptors from meetings. Not pleasant but has to be done to maintain order and decorum. Board meetings and public meetings must be allowed to proceed unimpeded. That's what an able Chair or president does. I have even had to ask elected directors to step down from the board and resign when they were operating outside board approval, like making unapproved financial deals or inviting politicians to closed board meetings without board approval. One director doesn't decide to do whatever they want with board approval, it's not a one man show.