"D.O.C. The Show"
#1  Cloud. Your Hometown Talk. Self-Educating Since 1815.

Happy Father's Day Dad. Dads. Happy Mother's Day Mom. Moms. Halloween Treats, Thanksgiving Turkey and Ham. Christmas Trees. New Year Eve. Love Proud American Holidays. Keep Dancin 4th July. Born Great.

Ford Case Con, 80s'Party

Welcome. Rod's Homepage. This is a Homepage and 7-page Passive Private NonForProfit Website.

Clicking on the second Page: Rod's Favorite Links; takes you to a nicely arranged page with 500 or so links to Rod's favorite sites that made him so smart.)

Rod has five Investigative Journalism writings and a few other writing on this Website Blog:             Tax Day / Scumbags       Rod's Op'ed Twitter Congress      $extortion, Man Survivors                        Answer: Russian Conspiracy Theory Hoax      Rod explain why he thinks Ford Case is a Con                       The Cosby Verdict     The Resistance Page, The Real First Purge        Baptism 
Question 1, Michael's Judgment, falsely accused man Victims, Court, they did Jesus
War on Veterans, Corruption, Cover-up, Attacks at the Las Vegas VA

             Grown Folks Presidential Library located in United States of America. Tour open today.                       Taking American Tribe back to the 70s, 80s, and 90s before the New World Order bad ideas broke Country.

Kids have their own Web site. Now Grown-folks have theirs. Not a kid anymore. No thanks. Sorry, you not educated enough on the issues to get on this site yet. Read a little more. Get back. This Website is a destination and tailored for Grown Folk, Rod. If you are not Grown, 18+, you may ask your mom, your dad, or your grown-guardian(s) first, are you grown enough, before touring this site.     

Some of These are my Beliefs, Writings at Issue, Issue Stated, Legal Argument, Supporting Documents, Block quotes, Writings, Best Copy; Any errors, misstatements, typos, omissions are without malicious intent and I will correct if contacted; if I agree they are mistakes. Rod Jackson.



“Belief, Legal Definition of A sense of conviction about the truth of an idea that lies somewhere between “suspicion” and “knowledge.” Belief has been described as being entirely a subjective condition or state of mind as a result of evidence or information received from others. It has been defined as an actual conclusion drawn from information, a conclusion arrived at from external sources after weighing various probabilities, a conviction of the truth of a given proposition, or an alleged fact based on grounds insufficient to constitute positive knowledge. The meaning “belief” and its distinction from “fact” and “knowledge” are very important in the administration of justice.” (Page 120, Reader’s Digest Family Legal Guide).



John 14:26 NKJV

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.


*****Please, do not respond, I have nothing further to add, though I do understand that some have auto-response systems. The arguments may be argued to the public, as your arguments, if you think they are creditable or valid arguments. Thus again, it is not the author that is important in an argument of law, but the argument itself. 

Rod was not even going to comment on this case; much less watch more than 15 minutes of this; he caught the last 15 minutes of the testimony and about 15 minutes of CNN commentators, "The Most Hated Trump in America" that is a joke. Why Rod does not believe her story at all? Wasted: Tales of a Genx Drunk May 01, 1997. Rod will listen to the rest of the story and he will tell you what he saw in her story and why he think her story is a, like the President said, con job! Rod is not a lawyer. For legal advice, consult an attorney at law. Any errors, or omissions are without malicious intent and the author will correct and repost any mistakes if he agrees that they are mistakes if contacted. Anyone mentioned is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. This writing is the belief of the author.

Kaufman, Seth. “Good Luck Finding a Copy of Mark Judge's ‘Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk.’” The New Yorker, The New Yorker, 30 Sept. 2018, www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/good-luck-finding-a-copy-of-mark-judges-wasted-tales-of-a-gen-x-drunk

          Rod's MBA Professor of Ethics, he was a Doctor of his field, gave Expert Testimony and was called to testify as an Expert Witness in court; because he was an Expert in analyzing situations. So, he shared a lot of expertise with the classroom. In Rod's opinion, one case scenario that he shared with the class was as followed: quote, unquote, but close maybe, "do not let your bad information get out to the public," a con artist will take your bad information and change it into a story of theirs to bring against you. Her testimony is right out of Wasted: Tales of a Genx Drunk, May 01, 1997, "A Tremor of Bliss: Sex, Catholicism, and Rock 'n' ". Just by looking at the book, it has bliss Sex (act), a drunk, and CNN said it had a character named, Bart O'Kavanaugh" which is her story but not Brent Kavanaugh story. So, the question that has to be answered is would this lady take a book, and build her own story in 2012, when Brent Kavanaugh was a federal judge too try to disrupt his career. Rod thinks her testimony says yes, that is how she has built this story and that is how she wants to further build this story. Thru-out she says, she would take the FBI information and further build her story. That generally is not how investigations work. You give your evidence; but you don't get to look at the investigative evidence to make a story that fits into your story. That would mean whoever is working with the FBI is working with her to build a story; not to get to the no-partisan truth. So, she looks at information to build stories. She corroborates stories by reading information that already exist; but can't recall much of the rest? The first thing that an FBI investigation would have to consider is that many people have called her a liar, three people denied being at the incident of the party, her story would seem is out of a 1997 book. If this is the way cases are being built, in these sex cases, just a bunch of different attorneys, the President, called one a lowlife, they may not be investigating the accused, but framing the accused while giving information to witnesses, to testify to, to prove a case, built on previous bad acts, not really investigating facts. This is where hiding exculpatory evidence play in cases and finding the innocent guilty; hiding evidence on one hand and fabricating false evidence or false testimony on the other to meet the elements of criminal law. The Criminal Law book, that in section 7.06 Investigations that “when a case begins, each side has only a limited idea of what evidence is in fact available. Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia writes on P 269, “Investigation must be conducted: witnesses, interviewed, new witnesses located, scientific tests done, crime scenes examined, photographs taken, and discovery exchange.” Congress failed to exchange discover with the accused, defendant, to examine with his lawyers and bring rebuttal expert witnesses. The polygraph test results maybe should have not been admissible evidence. Even something as specific as DNA testing can present problems when examined in the discovery process such as:

(1) Overstating the strength of results; (2) overstating the frequency genetic matches on individual pieces of evidence; (3) misreporting the identifying each person’s unique DNA to any individual case, provided that proper protocols were followed.(4) reporting that multiple items of evidence be shown by the proponent (the one evidence have been tested, when only a single item had been tested; (5) reporting inconclusive results as conclusive; (6) repeatedly altering '' laboratory records; (7) grouping results to create the erroneous (8) failing to report conflicting results; (9) failing to conduct or finding” in the studies conducted to date is that laypersons undervalue to report conducting additional testing to resolve conflicting results; (10) implying a match with a suspect when testing supported only a match with a victim; and (11) reporting scientifically impossible or improbable results.                           

Criminal Law, Concepts and Practice, Second Edition, Carolina Academic Press, Authored by Ellen S. Podger, Peter J. Henning, Andrew E. Taslitz, and Alfredoo Garcia. (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P 263).

       The polygraph test was taken right after a funeral and she cried during the taking of the test, but she was thrilled and happy to take it. I did not watch the whole interview, but I did not see her cry during questioning, except playing to the Great Person speech by one of the men senators. Polygraph are based on emotion, so it seemed odd that someone would fly to meet someone right after an emotional funeral. Polygraphs are not excepted in real courtrooms because they are subjective to the person giving them, let’s say that there were odd up and down curves; a subjective person, under the guise of a lawyer, not law enforcement, could subjectively dismiss the inconsistency on the fact that she was crying or just had a bad experience at a funeral. A law enforcement agent wouldn't. The first thing the FBI investigation should do is have her retake the polygraph in their office. Senate should have made that evidence available to the accused and his lawyer to examine and bring rebuttal testimony before he testified; and at least before they make a decision on his nomination. If congress is going to have a hearing on an attempted-rape and murder case, then they have to follow some legal rules. Maybe Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that all scientific or other expert evidence be shown by the proponent…

Courts and legislatures have increasingly become suspect about the value of scientific and other expert testimony for good reason. First, forensic laboratory error rates are high, most such laboratories being neither accredited for quality by any authoritative body nor employing technicians certified as qualified in their fields. These labs often neither articulate nor enforce written standard protocols setting out the right way to perform tests, nor do they uniformly require examiner proficiency testing in the particular technique in question. Convictions of substantial numbers of innocent persons have been the result technicians are indeed often sloppy or incompetent, losing critical Evidence and misreporting results. Underfunding and overwork further raise the risk of error, and there have been some major cases recently proven to have involved outright fraud. The most infamous of these cases have taken place in Oklahoma, Montana, Texas, West Virginia, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Perhaps one of the worst offenders was forensic scientist Fred Zain, originally a “forensic superstar.” Fraud.

Criminal Law, Concepts and Practice, Second Edition, Carolina Academic Press, Authored by Ellen S. Podger, Peter J. Henning, Andrew E. Taslitz, and Alfredoo Garcia. (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P 269).

Many jurisdictions do not define an offense of assault with intent to murder; instead an assault with this specific intent is simply treated as “attempted murder.”

Criminal Law, Concepts and Practice, Second Edition, Carolina Academic Press, Authored by Ellen S. Podger, Peter J. Henning, Andrew E. Taslitz, and Alfredoo Garcia. (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P 436).

          She is a professor and have to give many speeches, maybe every teaching day. Public speaking class teaches do not read to give a presentation. Her story went from Sexual assault, she is educated enough to look up the definition, to attempted rape and murder; difference of about 30 years in jail, maybe, that is a big difference. That is what the prosecutor was getting to; that maybe she exaggerates. She read a speech almost not to know it, as she read it, about something that she should have been able to say straight from her heart; if the memory has resurfaced for thirty years. 
          Near the end, I watched a little more. The prosecutor hit on for her to describe some other parties she attended. She doesn't think the other two people that was at the party, who gave notorious parties, that she had to have been at, would remember this one party. She says only the person with a book that would corroborate her story, because Rod thinks her story, from what his professor told the classroom, was right out the book, he would know about it; whom he denied it. There were three kid of parties in High School. There were High School Parties at school gym, which had several hundred people; there was house parties, which had 20 to 200 people in the house, the yard, around the block; and there were fuck-parties. That is a girl call you over to a party and the only person you saw was her and a bunch of alcohol. Most guys assumed that the girl invited them over to fuck. Rod was a homophobe so he did not do the wild girl parties. He had friends though. One friend name D., not to disclose his name, invited Rod to one of these parties. These were wild girls in high school, Rod was sixteen, and they usually were 15-17, that had threesome sex with two guys, and were called "running trains" by girl. But, as Rod said, he could never see himself touching another man in bed. He never ran a train, but many high school boys and girls did get really "fucked-up." You can only get to the truth by being real and using real terminology is why Rod uses the word fuck; was no grannies and grandpas at these party, and they used real words. Now, a girl throwing one of these parties, if she is the aggressive, having sex with two boys because one does not satisfy her, she may invite a girl-friend over, which mean she would invite four boys over. She would provide alcohol from her parents cast of alcohol, they did not card people much in the eighties, fifteen year olds passed as eighteen year olds easily many times. She would provide the venue, usually her parents out of town on a business trip, visiting grandma and grandpa out of town, church trip, or sometimes she may tell her parents she wanted house time to give a party; and they would give the okay and make it available. She didn’t invite people over to do homework, to play games, to study music, but to party. So far, the witnesses that came forward to support the accuser actually supports Kavanaugh story that he was not into sex in High School and he did not drink until he got eighteen. Sex was pretty easy in High School in the 80s. Not one person has come forward to dispute that he did not have sex, or he had sex with them in High School? Nor, no one says he was drunk until after he was eighteen, as he said, High School to College, Someone says he showed his penis at a drunk party, well at those college parties, a lot of women showed boobs, and a lot of men showed penis(s), and everyone were shit-faced drunk; how one know or remember who did what without mistake in fact. Twenty years later, a guy once told Rod he remembered him as being a great High School basketball player shooting that rock, far from the truth. Google, ‘animal house party boob” and then push images, and you can see what went on at many “animal house” or “frat” college parties in the 80s with boobs and penis(s). No Rod did not go to many; and no “animal house college parties” but he listened to a lot of people, and saw a lot of movies, that did.

          Any law enforcement agency, sheriff too FBI that investigates the accused story and not the accusers story is biased and inferior to the total facts of a case and may give a false outcome of an investigation; finding innocent people guilty. They may be hiding evidence, by omitting leads and valid arguments given to them to investigate about the accuser, Plantiff.  Which leads to accusations of cover-up, corruption, and con-jobs. Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia write on page 270, "The prosecution must provide all exculpatory material to the defense." They state on P 261, "...inn numerous recent high-profile exoneration of innocent persons wrongly convicted at trial, many of whom ..."                       

      Rod won't be watching the rest of the testimony. He did not really have time to watch this much; but, it was his civic duty as a US Citizen. Addendums made. But, Rod later saw him get pretty angry. Which someone would be that made up a lie of attempted rape and murder to destroy his name. So, that reaction was really expected as the first reaction to a false allegation. He should not be showing any remorse. There have been 351 men exonerated of rape allegations through innocenceproject.org/all-cases/#exonerated-by-dna (Innocenceproject.org). They show all the faces of men the Plaintiff(s) lied falsely accusing someone innocent and fabricating false testimony.  351 men "faces" spent those 10 to 30 years, amount of years in jail for a person that told a lie not caught. A mandatory sentence of 5 years for false rape allegations should be imposed nationwide. Anyone with a previous history of lying to the F.B.I. or fabricating evidence challenged as not credible witness in any future case. 

Joyce, Kathleen. “Woman Pleads Guilty to Making up Rape Allegations against Two College Football Players.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 6 June 2018, foxnews.com/us/2018/06/06/woman-pleads-guilty-to-making-up-rape-allegations-against-two-college-football-players.html

Kavanaugh gave a political defense as response to the false allegation and some Senators said he was too political. What other response would you give to a political accusation? Rod stated earlier, “He'll wait after the hearing next Monday with the Supreme Court to give final remarks on both or more political games, the act not so important, and the political collateral damage, maybe waiting out reaction to Cosby Sentencing on Monday was the goal, set in May for September 24, 2018, since Tuesday is good, but not Monday.” Kavanaugh gave a political defense as response to the false allegation and some Senators said he was too political. What other response would you give to a political accusation? The Clinton money machine, “Take Down” Hillary Clinton’s opposition, was at work to destroy his life and career. This was political; Opportunity and Motive was what he was giving.

"Federal courts have also specifically recognized the importance of the defendant's right to produce evidence that a third party (or "aaltperp," i.e., "allege alternative perpetrator." This term was coined by Professor David McCord in h- article, But Perry Mason Made It Look So Easy! ": The Admissibility of Evidence Offered by a Criminal Defendant to Suggest That Someone Else Is Guilty. 6 TENN. L. REV. 917, 920 (1996). * * *), actually committed the crime. * “

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 538)

Here, in an article from Judge Jeanine, she asks why else would Feinstein wait 2 months before she bring forth a woman that claim she was raped forty years ago by Brett Kavanaugh. There is another reason, if the incident had merit, it would have come to the forefront immediately; but, by the time ending of the Supreme Court nominee, the matter would have been done investigating. Rod believes she waited to push the vote after the election, in hope of winning more votes in Congress or Senate to vote down this Supreme Court. I listened to Judge Jeanine, and say Ford is one major problem with the #metoo movement, some celebrate not because there is evidence (physical evidence, 2 witnesses all say she a liar, 2 witnesses that were not involved denied that they were there either, they don’t recall, no time, no criminal scene to investigate, no bruises reported, no reports to anyone until 2012 when Clinton loss her bid for President) that a woman was sexually assaulted or rapped; but for just destroying a man. A congressional floor would make her a hero with knowledge that her claim is spuriously substantiated with little or no evidence. In Rod’s opinion, she inspired women with contempt in their heart and hate for a man to attempt to frame more men. Men should fear more for their sons than their daughters from this flash mob group. Jesus was executed by a similar lynch mob that were unjust and did not seek truth before public persecution. This is a very dangerous group because of the radical members that associate themselves with the group. The group has sparked wide ranges of false charges across the nation. One case recently in Nevada dismissed because of fabricated evidence of a false-accuser/victim of sexual assault:

Ferrara, David. “Charges Dropped against 4 Dentists Accused of Rape in Las Vegas.” Las Vegas Review-Journal, Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1 Oct. 2018, www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/charges-dropped-against-4-dentists-accused-of-rape-in-las-vegas/

        Kavanaugh gave a political defense as response to the false allegation and some Senators said he was too political. What other response would you give to a political accusation? The Clinton money machine, “Take Down” Hillary Clinton’s opposition, was at work to destroy his life and career. This was political; Opportunity and Motive was what he was giving.

“Brett Kavanaugh.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Sept. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh. “Kavanaugh was a principal author of the Starr Report to Congress on the Monica Lewinsky–Bill Clinton sex scandal; the report called for the impeachment of President Clinton.[32] He urged Starr to ask the president sexually graphic questions and argued on broad grounds for the impeachment of Bill Clinton,[39][40] describing Clinton as being involved in "a conspiracy to obstruct justice", having "disgraced his office" and "lied to the American people".[41] The report provided extensive and explicit descriptions of each of the President's sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky, a level of detail which the authors described as "essential" to the case against Clinton.[42][43]”

2012 Ford visited a Psychologist/Psychiatrist. Hillary Clinton was running for President going after her Political Opponents. The Opportunity rose. The Motive was there. Hillary Clinton loss the bid. The Opportunity may have been lose. Kavanaugh was a federal judge.

2016 Hillary Clinton loss the Election. The motive was still there; but the opportunity was missed again. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. But, the Clinton machine still went after her political opponents.  If you listen to the President’s lawyer on the tape, it was not the President leading the conversation, it was one person leading the conversation, making sure the right names are recorded, controlling the conversation, controlling the events for his commissioned dollars, was this some of that $20 million he received in the reported bank fraud, and leading to make sure the President agree to his terms, making a tape recording for more money because he is the lawyer, he knows what the law of breaking campaign law is. He is the lawyer with the duty of telling the President that he was breaking a law (No criminal intent by the President); the President’s lawyer set up everything to break the law. This person did the same in court, he did not name the President exactly, he stated the law to the Judge, and he knew the law, which in my argument in the next paragraph was a possible frame of the President. The President’s lawyer plead guilty to 8 counts of fraud, working with the FBI, and Congress wants to hear his testimony maybe? Is not he an eight time admitted felon? Rod belief and argument is that these acts were premeditated. Real President’s lawyer working for the government; President’s lawyer network because they are willing to bring false legal claims against individuals to frame someone for rewards.  The President’s lawyer did not flip on the President, the President maintain he was innocent relying on bad advice from his legal counsel (No criminal intent from the President). If you listening to the tape, the President’s lawyer is in control of the act, and leading the criminal act, and is the only one who admitted in court that he intended to break the law, along with his other 8 fraudulent acts who has been rewarded a reduction to nothing much in sentencing if the eight time admitted felon say the President was his partner in crime. He flipped on himself and admitted he was a criminal with criminal intent from the beginning of the act. He stated in court that he knew the law. (Criminal Intent). He would take a bullet or die for the President is a lie now and Rod argue it was a lie then. This President’s lawyer was reported hustling himself for sale as the man to get to the President. He was hustling the same line when he was in contact with those two women wanting and receiving money from him. The $130,000 was set up. Yes, he long ago flipped on the President. He was tape recording for the highest bidder before the election. The second heist was in the works; ground work being laid; to set up the President. The President’s lawyer new the law, while making a tape recording setting up the President, he was reported he was also, designing, architecture, and the financial documents to set up the President. The whole thing could have been done legal as required that the President’s lawyer design the accounting legally. He told the President that he needed to "set up a company" but he never told the President that he was setting up anything illegal from what Rod heard on the tape. But is not this the whole case, no criminal intent by the President heard on the tape-recording. The President’s lawyer is setting up everything and he never said on the tape that any of it was illegal or violating campaign finance law? Business do not have the knowledge of law as lawyers. 

2018 The Opportunity was there. The Motive was still there. The Clinton Machine was still there as Kavanaugh said at the hearing.

“Former Feinstein Staffer Hired Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele.” The Federalist, 27 Apr. 2018, thefederalist.com/2018/04/27/confirmed-former-feinstein-staffer-hired-fusion-gps-christopher-steele/. "A declassified congressional report confirms prior reporting by The Federalist that Daniel Jones, a former staffer for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), hired Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele after the 2016 election to push the anti-Trump Russian collusion narrative."

“Judge Jeanine: Feinstein's Handling of Kavanaugh Letter Shows Complete Disregard for Truth and Justice.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 16 Sept. 2018, foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/16/judge-jeanine-feinsteins-handling-kavanaugh-letter-shows-complete-disregard-for-truth-and-justice.html

 "PIRRO: Then, Dianne, you've been sitting on this letter for almost two months. You let Brett Kavanaugh go through days of Senate hearings, meeting with Senators, answered then an additional 263 pages of 1,300 follow-up written questions, and now, you want to character assassinate this man who has undergone six FBI full field investigations where no such allegation resembling this anonymous nonsense has ever surfaced? What impact will Sen. Feinstein's decision have on the confirmation process? 'America's News HQ' panel weighs in. Dianne, as a ranking member of the committee interviewing Kavanaugh, how could you possibly let a moment pass without addressing the issue when Kavanaugh was right in front of you and would have had the opportunity to respond? What were you thinking? Are you stupid? Why would you let it go? Let me tell you why you let it go, Dianne. Because even you didn't believe it. What other reason could there be? Now, I know about women who have been sexually assaulted and the kind of pain they go through. It is different from other crimes. It lingers and rears its head throughout their lives. I have prosecuted on their behalf for decades. One of the ways that we establish their credibility is with how recent their complaint is. A recent outcry is enormously powerful. An anonymous one almost 40 years later, not so much, Dianne. But silence? I guess, I shouldn't be surprised."

Schwartz, Ian. “Feinstein: Russia Interfered And ‘Altered’ The Outcome Of The Election.” Video | RealClearPolitics, realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/15/feinstein_russia_interfered_and_altered_the_outcome_of_the_elec

And some, claimed that a constitutional defense, a political defense, was too political for a political hearing. With the evidence, impeachment will not withstand the Constitution of the United States. Threating impeachment may be furthering this political stunt, moving forward, substantial step forward, sufficient act of maybe a conspiracy to stop Kavanaugh from a vote that he already had, 51 was said, which he had clear possibility of getting according to these below articles before the act occurred; Actus Reus and Menus Reus:

September 2, 2018, Kavanaugh Has a Strong Chance of Confirmation—and of Becoming an Election Rallying Cry theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/kaavanaugh-confirmation-hearings-curtain-raiser/568732

Numbers Still Favor Kavanaugh's Confirmation to Supreme Court. (n.d.). Numbers Still Favor Kavanaugh's Confirmation to Supreme Court. Retrieved from voanews.com/a/numbers-still-favor-kavanaugh-s-confirmation-to-supreme-court/4567367.html

All but two of 51 Republican senators either have announced their backing for Kavanaugh or are widely expected to do so in the coming days or weeks. Kavanaugh's testimony did not appear to have cost him any support among Republicans, nor has it prodded two moderates in the caucus to declare how they will vote. "I look forward to voting for him," Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander said in a statement late last week. "Judge Kavanaugh kept his cool this week and demonstrated the qualities that I look for in a judge or a Supreme Court justice — good character, good temperament, high intelligence and respect for the law."

“Nancy Pelosi Calls Brett Kavanaugh ‘Hysterical," Threatens to Impeach Him If He's Confirmed.” LifeNews.com, 1 Oct. 2018, www.lifenews.com/2018/10/01/nancy-pelosi-calls-brett-kavanaugh-hysterical-threatens-to-impeach-him-if-hes-confirmed/

Rod is not a lawyer, but the laws guiding his Hypothesis in Nevada is NRS 207.190 Coercion:

      1. It is unlawful for a person, with the intent to compel another to do or abstain from doing an act which the other person has a right to do or abstain from doing, to:

      (a) Use violence or inflict injury upon the other person or any of the other person’s family, or upon the other person’s property, or threaten such violence or injury;

      (b) Deprive the person of any tool, implement or clothing, or hinder the person in the use thereof; or

      (c) Attempt to intimidate the person by threats or force.

      2. A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 shall be punished:

      (a) Where physical force or the immediate threat of physical force is used, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.

      (b) Where no physical force or immediate threat of physical force is used, for a misdemeanor.

6.03 Jurisdiction and Venue

“Jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear a case and render a valid decision,
while venue concerns the  place where a case may be filed or tried. In criminal cases, the Constitution requires that "such trial shall be held in the state where thee said crimes shall have been committed.  ." U.S. CONST. art. III 2, cl.3.”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 222)

Is Framing Someone for a Crime a Crime? - Quora. quora.com/Is-framing-someone-for-a-crime-a-crime "12 Answers Kelly Kinkade Kelly Kinkade, Law student from a long time ago, not a lawyer. Answered Apr 28 2015 · Author has 8.1k answers and 43.1m answer views Some possible charges: Perjury, if the framer actually offers false testimony in court, in a deposition, or in a sworn affidavit; Subornation of perjury, if the framer pays or otherwise induces others to offer false testimony in court, in a deposition, or in a sworn affidavit; Filing a false police report, if the framer makes false statements to the police; Obstruction of justice; Conspiracy; Official misconduct, if the framer is a police officer, prosecutor, or other public official having a duty to refrain from prosecuting the innocent and acts to further prosecution knowing that the defendant is innocent; Deprivation of civil rights under color of law (18 USC § 242), if the framer acted under color of law and the individual framed was targeted for framing on the basis of his or her membership in a class protected by that statute. In addition, the framer can be charged with being an accessory to the underlying criminal act, if there is an underlying criminal act and a purpose of the frame is to protect the actual criminal wrongdoer from prosecution. A prosecuting attorney who participates in a scheme to prosecute a person he or she knows to be innocent may also face disciplinary action, which can include disbarment."

Rod won't be watching the rest of the testimony. He did not really have time to watch this much; but, it was his civic duty as a US Citizen. Addendums made. But, Rod later saw him get pretty angry. Which someone would be that made up a lie of attempted rape and murder to destroy his name. So, that reaction was really expected as the first reaction to a false allegation. He should not be showing any remorse. Later comes forgiveness from false accusation for male-survivors of false accusations; maybe. 09/27/2018