"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.

Rod Op'edTwitterCongress

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

             Grown Folks Presidential Library located in United States of America. Tour open today.                    

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.                                                                

Rod is not a lawyer, also he uses citing tools and paraphrasing tools such as: www.citationmachine.net/mla/cite-a-website and www.rephrase.org/better-than-rephrase-generator so they might not be perfect; either.

(1) Rod will critique issue of Congress hearing for the next couple of days, 9/6/2018. He heard a group of people that sounded inferior to understanding Twitter tools, social media actual uses, and diminishing one of the greatest tools for Entertainment_Research_Education to a telephone or a place that they could spam their constituents like an email. They actually want to run a business that they lack understanding and lack innovation, they already have one, it is called the government, with a twenty-one trillion-dollar debt. They stifle American internet innovation just like their ideas bankrupted the American government and now ask social media to abide by European laws with people lacking the same creative innovation to invent as they do. World Debt Clock Public Debt to GDP Ratio. USA Debt Clock 

                                                                                and

(2) Rod’s Hypothesis: The Conspiracy Agreement: Russia Conspiracy Theory to “Take Down” Hillary Clinton’s opposition thru Furtherance, Foreseeable with Deceptive Practices of Coercion. This document has a lot of Case Law PDF File Pages 1 -46

This research paper is written on Criminal Law by Rod Jackson. He read some of the text 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) First, Rod will list some defenses that may prevent Prima Facia Cases, then he will write a little bit on some of these topics: Ex Post Facto, The Mercy Rule, Conspiracy and what Government has to prove, Strategy, Exclusion of [exculpatory] evidence as unconstitutional, Impeachment of witness, law on Outrageous Government conduct, what it takes to prove a case, hearsay evidence that usually won't make it to a competent court of law, legal argument against scumbags testifying in front of Congress and reasons to appeal to higher court, entrapment elements, a person with a history of false testimony not testifying, examples of Mens Reus, Actus Reus, discovery in criminal trials, Jurisdiction and venue, specific intent, that secret informant may be a bug, room tap, placed anywhere a person goes in your business; sweeping the White House for taps each week, Planting Evidence and Criminal Framing a person is a crime against that person by the Government vs Entrapment is unconstitutional acts by the government, the Russian investigation was not bogus, it was unconstitutional entrapment, coercion, framing, and impossibility as a defense to committing a crime. Note. Rod has never taken a criminal law course in College and has not read any law books at length before reading this text. So, he probable ignorant on some of this stuff. For some people, to deny without presenting an alternative explanation, is inferior in law or science, every space has to occupy something, bogus, what in legal terms is it, if it isn’t what is said, then explain what it is, this is called Defense.

This paper only skirts Criminal Law, and you can find much more comprehensive answers at the following link to purchase this book, or older or newer edition, by Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia book. Rod gives it an excellent rating for the first time reading. (All High Schools should require every student to take a criminal law course reading this book, before graduating; it would be make more than likely a great impact on many people lives forever; cut crime from unintentional mistakes too: TinyURL.com/y97l4ncv


     Qualifier, Rod: Expert in creating Twitter List, Website Portals, and the functionality of Social Media in those Areas. Rod often writes in third-person-self so it is he speaking when he uses "Rod" this or that.

     Rod will use the book: 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)

     Expert Background: Rod has spent 16 years studding, taking related courses, and building Website Portals. He joined Twitter in 2009 and took a social media class at UNLV where he gained expertise in using, building and the functionality of Twitter list. He started building Website platforms and portals around 2003; so Rod was already advanced in Platform building before joining Twitter. Twitter was just another platform made available to the public to use. The folks at Twitter were very courteous and polite to Rod. So Rod made Twitter list Great, but Twitter list did not make Rod. He was already great at what he did. As Rod progressed with list over the years, Twitter made changes so the product better suited what Rod was doing. Rod never had his accounts suspended, never had any warnings against him creating list, he never was said to have violated any abusive behavior policies, he attempted to stay within the guidelines that they made visible available, and if did violated any, like he said, he was never approached as a developer to be in error of them before he decided to close all his Twitter accounts. Around 2016 before the election, Rod posted several times that he would be retiring from social media, but he has been dragged back into ever since. His plan debated whether to leave some list up passive to run to eternity, or the life of the Company, unless format changed or to close the list to not have to monitor them. His mind was made up when he thought a person working with a network on Twitter were trying to frame him with things put into his list beyond his control that he could not remove that were not appropriate. He caught them. And just like that scumbag girl at UNLV voice message he recorded tried to change his tax situation, and those at the Veterans Hospital backdating a false fabricated document with lies working with this network of individuals, Rod shut down all Twitter use and list before they succeeded in damaging his long time work on Twitter. Anything said other than that about Rod using Twitter, would be after the fact lies, and have to be the scumbags that were trying to frame him, now working after the fact of him Closing His Account and List at His Own Will. Rod was the King of Twitter at developing new ideas and concepts building list and many people new that. In his opinion, when he quit, it was a major loss to Twitter and their users. 

"In the course of its instructions, the trial court advised the jury that to prove willfulness" the Government must prove the voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty, a burden that could not be proved by showing mistake, ignorance, or negligence. The court further advised the jury that an objectively reasonable good-faith misunderstanding of the law would negate willfulness, but mere disagreement with the law would not.” {Such as not paying taxes because you made a mistake to be willfully corrected vs. the instance of willfulness not paying taxes because you disagree with the law of paying taxes.]

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

     Congressional Hearing: Mentioning some of the members leaving and coming back after Twitter correction listed in the below articles? No, Rod will never use Twitter again for that reason. He built a safer platform that accomplish more in Education_Entertainment_Research that he can leave passive, and not have to constantly watch, without the threat from internal or external sources adding things to his Personal Blog that are inappropriate in framing another person’s ideas, with malicious, maybe fraudulent intent, as Rod's ideas. This was the background of Rod on Twitter. He will analyze the inferior parts he heard and the potential dangers that he saw, and still see, that Twitter presents to America Democracy after he watched the Congressional Hearing attended by Twitter CEO.

     Alvarez, Edgar. “What to Expect When Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Testifies to Congress.” Engadget, 5 Sept. 2018, www.engadget.com/2018/09/04/jack-dorsey-sheryl-sandberg-twitter-facebook-congress-hearings-preview/ "the company did discover more than 2,500 accounts in 2016 linked to the Internet Research Agency (IRA), the Kremlin's notorious digital army of bots and trolls. Last January, Twitter revealed that the damage was actually larger than originally thought, announcing that 1.4 million of its users interacted with nearly 4,000 Russian spam accounts during the 2016 election. This included people who retweeted, quoted, replied to, mentioned or liked tweets from these accounts, though it still left out those who saw messages from the IRA on the site but otherwise didn't interact them. The Senate Intelligence Committee will ask Dorsey about what steps his team is taking to crack down on these bad actors, not just from Russia but also other countries that are trying to create discourse between Americans"

     The Debt. This is not Democracy. This is Suicide of a Democracy. Likened to, similar to an Opioid Dope Head Addicted; killing themselves even when you tell them "you killing yourself." Just Rod's opinion. He was never an Opioid addict and he is not an Opioid user. 

“When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which absolute liability is imposed by law, the element is not established unless the actual result is a probable consequence of the actor’s conduct.”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 183)

“Demimus Causes. The cause must be more than a “trifle.” “To be considered the proximate cause of the victim death, the defendant’s act must have been substantial factor contributing to the result, rather than insignificant or merely theoretical.” People v. Briscoe, 112 Cal.Rptr.2cd 401, 413-14 (Cal.App. 2001).”

“MENS REA. The most powerful criticism of the ostrich instruction is, precisely, that its tendency is to allow juries to convict upon a finding of negligence for crimes that require intent. A deliberate effort to avoid guilty knowledge is all the guilty knowledge the law requires.”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 133)

                            Inferiority Complex

          "Understanding The Inferiority Complex.” Everyday Health, Everyday Health, 15 Nov. 2017, www.everydayhealth.com/emotional-health/understanding-inferiority-complex/ "The concept of inferiority complexes was developed by Alfred Adler, who credited Napoleon as the first to have suffered from such a condition. Since then, many sociologists have even suggested that inferiority complex symptoms can affect entire culture groups. This is defined as a “cultural cringe”, and is used to describe societies that feel threatened by others, and act out in negative ways to overcome that feeling of inadequacy. It can also refer to the way a people group embraces their own culture, and Australia is often presented as a prime example. Their entertainment has been heavily influenced by American television, almost to the point where they have no media concepts of their own. This inward self-defeat of creativity is an example of the controversial cultural cringe."

The most powerful criticism of the ostrich instruction is, precisely, that its tendency is to allow juries to convict upon a finding of negligence for crimes that require intent. A deliberate effort to avoid guilty knowledge is all the guilty knowledge the law requires.

The most powerful criticism of the ostrich instruction is, precisely, that its tendency is to allow juries to convict upon a finding of negligence for crimes that require intent. A deliberate effort to avoid guilty knowledge is all the guilty knowledge the law requires.

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 139)  

5.02 Proximate Cause
"Under the instructions given by the trial court, the element of legal causation defeated by an intervening cause only when the intervening cause amounts to the sole substantial cause of the prohibited result."

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 255-256)  

            Inferiority Complex

          "Understanding The Inferiority Complex.” Everyday Health, Everyday Health, 15 Nov. 2017, www.everydayhealth.com/emotional-health/understanding-inferiority-complex/ "The concept of inferiority complexes was developed by Alfred Adler, who credited Napoleon as the first to have suffered from such a condition. Since then, many sociologists have even suggested that inferiority complex symptoms can affect entire culture groups. This is defined as a “cultural cringe”, and is used to describe societies that feel threatened by others, and act out in negative ways to overcome that feeling of inadequacy. It can also refer to the way a people group embraces their own culture, and Australia is often presented as a prime example. Their entertainment has been heavily influenced by American television, almost to the point where they have no media concepts of their own. This inward self-defeat of creativity is an example of the controversial cultural cringe."


     Inferior on a subject and given inferior word terminology and information leads to false premises, false analysis, and false conclusions to investigation which may lead to false prosecution on bad evidence. Not all Bots are malicious and anyone speaking as an expert witness on the subject should differentiate between the two. So no, Good Bots should not equally be treated as something automatic bad by mention. A comprehensive array of information is available by googling the words so Rod will not cover that subject. He will focus on Good Bots use on Twitter. They can be one of the most resourceful, ingenious, important, talented, sharp, clever, cost-effective, creative tools for people promoting research work, developing entertainment platforms, or as an automated program for learning and teaching the public different core subjects. Rod will go deeper on the subject.

     Rod has followed Alex Jones for a couple decades as he proved many conspiracy theories to be true or disproved the media to be false by documenting the evidence and going to places where the theories were supposed to have occurred. He brought into question much investigation journalism investigating what the public wanted to know having 5 million or more followers or hits maybe. But, Rod did remove Alex Jones Info-wars, from his Twitter list in 2016-2017 before anyone else banned him. Alex took his show more in a direction of acting and performing with the Sandy-Hook matter and was making more personal angry threats directed at certain folks that was becoming unacceptable for a couple a reason. In weighing a threat, so many are made on the internet, other people have to consider does the person have the resources or tenacity to carry it out. With Alex Jones, he visits people he talks about, so he does have resources. Now Alex could be just a "Rick Flair" impersonator but he began to put more people on edge with anger sometime brandishing weapons on his shows and making allegation about Jews in Charlottesville Va. Although, Rod does think many NAZI impersonators at function are more than not, likely also impersonated by opposition to arouse tension. So, Rod has watched Mr. Jones for a long time and still catch him not so often over the last couple years, but many others in the liberal parties, Politicians, Actors, Actresses, should be temporarily banned at times or permanently banned not for speech; but for good cause, action associated with the free speech, that they are allowed. Rod will talk about this in depth. JTA. “Alex Jones Says Jewish Actors Posed As Klansmen In Charlottesville.” The Forward, 15 Aug. 2017, forward.com/fast-forward/379925/alex-jones-says-jewish-actors-posed-as-klansmen-in-charlottesville/ Because of this anger, yes, Rod removed Corey Booker and Maxine Waters from his list several times. It is they who have the anger but it may be causation for another to act out violent actions. More legal terminology coming. 

     Rod believes Twitter and Facebook failed to act in the anger at Charlottesville, Virginia which left one dead and many injured. Rod believe that Twitter and Facebook failed to act in Colin Kaepernick kneeling angry protest in the first two weeks which he believes was a subsequent cause to the Las Vegas shooting. Differently Rod responsible shut his list down for two weeks so no one could communicate during the peak of the anger from the kneeling and media sensationalism of it. At least Facebook should be able to foresee the causation of angry "flash-mobs" that show up in cyberspace especially when their sister "flash-mob" has shown up in person physically on ground locations; examples are the overthrow of Egypt, Libya, and Syria. One, the Arab Spring, which Zuckenberg Facebook was alleged to be involved in. He downplayed it. 2012, Chen, Adrian. “Mark Zuckerberg Takes Credit for Populist Revolutions Now That Facebook's Gone Public.” 02/02/2012 Gawker, gawker.com/5881657/facebook-takes-credit-for-populist-revolutions-now-that-its-gone-public When Rod saw the people attempt to gather in an angry manner, he pulled the plug on their activity, for America not to be overthrown by this anger, coordinated with live physical on ground "flash-mobs" they, Congress, Justice Department, or Supreme Court by suit, will have to require social media to pull the plug when these angry "flash-mobs" form; even if it is at the highest level, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, Labron James, or even the President of the United States, or Middle East, or European Union, Russia, or China may be involved. This is not interfering with free speech coupled with violent "flash-mobs" whether virtual or on the ground; they are not guaranteed speech, no more than falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater. It really is not about spreading descent and discourse from other countries that is the major threat for America Politics and Elections. It is not Russia, maybe Iran, in Congress and America saying that they hate America, pledge, and flag. It is not Russian boycotting and picketing American Holidays like Christmas. It is not Russia desecrating the American Flag, they showed it respect at the Olympics. More on this issue coming. Rod was taught about forming "flash mobs" in Journalism, but it was taught as people gathering to do dance duo(s), I don't think that is really why media studies people are taught how to form "flash-mobs" what the heck is a "flash mob." Dancing is great, but when Bill Clinton was in office, a "flash mob" gathered in Rwanda full of anger and murdered one million people before it was stopped over a 3 month period.

Hains, Tim. “Cory Booker: ‘I Am Frankly Seething With Anger’ Over Trump Comments, ‘Had Tears Of Rage.’” Video | RealClearPolitics, RealClearPolitics, www.washingtonexaminer.com/watch-cory-booker-seething-with-anger-as-he-yells-at-dhs-chief-kirstjen-nielsen

Giaritelli, Anna, and Jose Luis Magana. “Watch: Cory Booker 'Seething with Anger' as He Yells at DHS Chief Kirstjen Nielsen.” Washington Examiner, 16 Jan. 2018, www.washingtonexaminer.com/watch-cory-booker-seething-with-anger-as-he-yells-at-dhs-chief-kirstjen-nielsen

Harper, Jennifer. “Judicial Watch Files House Ethics Complaint against Maxine Waters for 'Inciting Violence'.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 25 June 2018, www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/25/judicial-watch-files-house-ethics-complaint-agains/

“Hillary Clinton's Other Dream Job? To Run Facebook.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 25 May 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/05/25/hillary-clinton-as-ceo-facebook-would-be-her-first-choice/?utm_term=.1decec7dbbfc

    “1 Million Killed by Machete, Club and Gun: Rwanda Remembers Its Genocide 20 Years Later.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 7 Apr. 2014, www.cbsnews.com/news/one-million-killed-by-machete-club-and-gun-rwanda-remembers-its-genocide-20-years-later/

    “Is It Illegal to Yell ‘Fire’ in a Crowded Theatre?” Law Stack Exchange, law.stackexchange.com/questions/28853/is-it-illegal-to-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre "Law The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment): The original ruling is this: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm."

    Twitter CEO spoke that he believes that Twitter is the proper place to have all types of dialogue. Rod and he are in agreement. Some subjects are rude, not nice, insulting, sensitive, but need to be able to be talked about in such places like Rod's research and educational sites. If no one talks, the problems still do not go away, but are left misunderstood as inferior. And we can not walk through life blind and inferior. So Rod's policy is that as long as you are not angry, you are welcome to his blog, or have been welcomed to his past works, to explore different thoughts of different people. But, this privilege to explore does not give you right to try to change a person with different thoughts from you. He will write more on this issue. 

Education_Entertainment_Research
Inferior on a subject and given inferior word terminology and information leads to false premises, false analysis, and false conclusions to investigation which may lead to false prosecution on bad evidence. I think the CEO said they are challenging 5 million customers a day. I think Congress was demanding that accounts be verified names of the person using it. Well, that was one reason not to develop on other platforms, differentiating itself from the others, that many chose Twitter. Thousands of these fan accounts bringing entertainment and followers to Twitter. 
     The fan who wanted to support a star by opening up an account with the star's name and face, when the star hasn't for whatever reason, and keeping that star's legacy alive sending the Star free advertisement, maybe increasing the stars’ revenue sales whatever he, the Star, has for sale on other platforms, even though that Star did not use Twitter. 
     The fan who wanted to support a star by opening up an account fan page for a Star that has passed to keep his legacy living; certainly the name of the account could not be a dead star. Thousands or millions of these fan accounts bringing entertainment and followers to Twitter may have existed.
     Tweeting with a stage name; stage names are not the persons real name in entertainment. Many in entertainment do not use their real names because they don't draw as many people than does a stage name or a theme based name according to subject.
       Tweeting with a stage name; stage names are not the persons real name in entertainment may be used by many people in other countries because they do not have freedom of speech and their real name would put their lives in jeopardy. So many may not be malicious characters but people that lack freedom to speak but add value; the needed conversations that are welcome in education, entertainment and research sites' platforms. 

National Intelligence
Inferior on a subject and given inferior word terminology and information leads to false premises, false analysis, and false conclusions to investigation which may lead to false prosecution on bad evidence.
     The person in a troubled area Tweeting with a stage name; stage names are not the persons real name in entertainment. This person could not use a real name because they may be killed because many operate in war torn areas. But, they give vital intelligence to the State Department, CIA, and Military. If not for them, and now you force them to verify, a girl was chopped up last month and fed to the dogs in the street in one of those Providences for speaking on Twitter and other social media, our troops have to risk their lives to go into these areas, highly noticed, to gather the same intelligence, not as good as a local for sure. You may now cost more our soldiers, intelligence people, and volunteers helping the United States more of their lives; and a high financial cost that may be provided free. 

Good Bots
Inferior on a subject and given inferior word terminology and information leads to false premises, false analysis, and false conclusions to investigation which may lead to false prosecution on bad evidence.
     A Good Bot is an aggregated or compiled group of information assimilated to be dispersed automatically over another platform. For example, a person who has done twenty years research, and decides to give it away free in an entertaining method using 140 characters at a time. So, he spends months putting this information together to Tweet out, over and over, at a set time, through infinity maybe. You can design these to fit whatever platform you may want to work on. At one time you could transform yourself into a Good Bot by using some tools like Tweet Deck, or today some others maybe, so your tweets came out at specific times for given times for several days or more.. Rod generally had suspicion when you yourself was a Bot because your tweets came out perfect day after day at a certain time, maybe every one hour or every half hour or at a certain hour. There is no malicious act going on here just people using technology as it is supposed to be used to make their and your experience more entertaining and meaningful. Thousands, if not millions, may be doing this on Twitter. In addition, they may choose to aggregate all of Einstein's work, Shakespeare's work, a series of math or science calculation into similar Bots to fit the 140 character platform on Twitter. Or some mom wanted to aggregate all of her food recipes, or for that matter, a person is using a stage name themed to all Italian or Russian recipes into a bot to work on the Twitter platform. Or someone wanted to list, well there is tons of things to put on the automatic bots like news, history, unproven conspiracy theories that still needed research work, statistics, and many others. So, just do not use the word loosely and mess up important research and education because you don't understand entertainment, education, and how research work on Twitter. Rod used Good Bots in list making. They kept the list moving 24 hours a day and provided reliable content and entertainment to Twitter users. 

An Algorithm to Detect anger levels would be a great innovation if invented by the tech folks.


Election Research

     Rod talked about Plan A and Plan B failing those who may have been perpetrating them for and after the 2016 Presidential Elections doctheshow.com/Tax_Day_April_15.html or doctheshowbackup.blogspot.com/ But, He visions Plan C is already set up for the 2020 elections. He will go into more detail in the next couple days. 

The Premise.

     Plan A: It has been two years since the 2016 Election and not one person has been found guilty of the highly publicized with many books and profits made about the subject. From Rod understanding an email was leaked to some third party to wiki-leak, and the Russia Gov't newspapers spreading the information to others in the United States to affect the outcome of the 2016 that award Donald Trump the victory instead of Hillary Clinton.

The Scapegoats. 
     Two companies have closed because of the investigation. In Rod's opinion they were both scapegoats to assert that something happened in the 2016 election because none of the above have closed and still remain vibrant on Twitter that were originally accused. One of the business, Cambridge Analytical, activities occurred a couple years before the 2016 election, similar and nothing much different from reported 200 other companies with the same access allowed to the same material, and it was reported that they did not do work in the 2016 election. The second company was indicted but from what Rod read, they may be guilty of financial crimes or using someone's social security number improperly. But, they were doing advertising work with all the parties in the election running satire cartoon adds and in Rod's opinion had little substantial influence in the 2016 because they are no names, doing some of the above mentioned activity, and Social Media is driven by popular well know people verses a bunch of no names stuffed in a small office with a couple hundred thousand Tweet or Facebook followers, sending out satirical adds about a candidate. There are already plenty of those free on the internet.
 
     Rod believes Since Plan A accused are all still in play on Twitter and Facebook, non-have been closed or banned, it is likely this will again surface sometime here between now or in 2020 as Plan C. It does not matter whether Republicans or Democrats or Anonymous Party or a similar network next time secret whatever, fabricate another email, or whatever, feed this stolen information; all that may matter is that it is something similar with the same players to bring twice the accusation of injustice in 2020. It does not matter who wins the Election, as long as the injustice is perceived. Rod had the first three Newspapers in some of his list; but deleted the first two of them when there was accusation that they had spread discourse into America. He never removed Reuters because of their great reputation in the world for news. 

https://twitter.com/RT_com

https://twitter.com/SputnikInt

https://twitter.com/Reuters

https://twitter.com/wikileaks

https://twitter.com/Snowden

     Alex Jones was banned from Twitter, but none of the Russian media initial accused of spreading information into the United States to spread discourse in America. Putin is a bad man but his Twitter account and the Russian Government accounts are still open. Why is wikileaks still on Twitter communicating with millions and millions through those questionable "impression numbers" maybe, on Twitter? Espionage, maybe, is not protected free speech and even though Twitter is following European Law, are they not still an American company under American Law? 

     Rod only banned one person from his list permanently and that was Wikileaks but he never thought about putting Snowden in any list. He does not have anything personally against the two, but they may have been involved in espionage against the United States and he does not approve of people stealing top secret or classified information from the United States, and releasing it to the public; unless it has been declassified; emails are or should not be classified or top secret. He later temporarily removed people who retweeted Wikileaks on a regular basis. 

Inferior on a subject and given inferior word terminology and information leads to false premises, false analysis, and false conclusions to investigation which may lead to false prosecution on bad evidence. Which leads those to be suspicious of actual truth as perceived misinformation.


Alternate Proximate Cause of Hillary Clinton losing 2016 Election

Many thought President Obama was Muslim at some point in his life other than birthers. His dad was Muslim. America does not have many Americans Christians change their name from Barry to Barrack or Hussein. Hussein sounds very Muslim. President Obama attacked some Christians, mostly White Southern Christians, guns and Bible stuff, on occasions but overcompensated to appease celebrating around Christian Holidays. Many Americans have short memories, little grudges, in politics. Hillary attacked many conservative Christians, not just White Southern Christians. Trump supported conservative Black Christians and White Christians. Many questioned his sincerity in doing so, but he put on a good show. Trump seemed sincere. He changed his mind a lot.

Like others, Rodney thought Trump won because he said he was Christian, did not back down from Christian issues, and guaranteed to proceed to support Christian values. Rodney thought another reason Clinton lost maybe because of her history. Whether Comey, Russia, Minister Farrakhan, Alex Jones, the 50% of Americans that Hillary called Deplorable Americans, the NRA, the Bernie disappointed that they cheated him, Benghazi lies losing Military vote, the anti-establishment Americans against both Democrats and Republicans, the many offended American Christians under attack, or the folks holding those signs about Bill Clinton may have lost her the #metoo(s) helped is speculation of the alternative to the Russian Conspiracy Theory having little substantial effect on 2016 Elections.

Rod believes, this thing called Habit, is the basis for entrapment and framing a person by those understanding and knowing the law. Evidence can be fabricated based on your habits to fit a certain crime or elements of the crime and you may not even know it is happening, or happened to you, unless you read and new the law. Such as this statement written by Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 251:

 “Specific acts can also be used to prove someone’s habit. “Habit” is defined in two different ways, depending upon the jurisdiction. Under the frequency or probability theory of habit is a very frequently-repeated response to a very specific stimulus, a response so frequent as to make it a good predictor of behavior. Under the alternative psychological theory, frequency is still required, but in addition the behavior must be semi-automatic so that it is not under the actor’s fully conscious control. “

  1. 2012 Benghazi attack
  2. Hillary Clinton cattle futures controversy
  3. Clinton Cash
  4. Clinton Russia Uranium Deal
  5. Clinton Foundation–State Department controversy
  6. Commerce Department trade mission controversy
  7. 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak
  8. Hillary Clinton email controversy
  9. White House FBI files controversy

10.  White House travel office controversy

Rod looks at the next four pieces of law and gives an alternate theory about the Russian Conspiracy Theory:

                                       (1)

Impeachment involves: Reputation, Opinion of a close friend, Specific, Unconvicted Acts of Untruthfulness, Prior Convictions, Felonies, Chimen-Falsi when a person has lied or made intentional false statements before a court or judge, and Perjury.

 (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 231, 232, 233, 234)

"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)

                                       (2)

Trials Determine Facts, Not Law 

“What act will suffice to show than an attempt itself has reached the stage of a complexed crime has persistently troubled the courts. They have an applied a number of approaches:”

Proximity Approach

The Probable Desistance Approach

The Equivocality Approach

                                       (3)

“The Model Penal Code Approach” looks to section 5.01 of the Model Penal Code (Proposed Official Draft 1962) to solve the problem. Under subsection (1) (c) a person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime, he “purposely does or omits to do anything which, under circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 429, 430)

                                       (4)

"Criminal cases, the law is not in dispute. Rather, controversy centers around what the facts are and how the law should apply to them. Fact-finding is therefore central to the criminal trial indeed it is central to civil trials as well and too much other lawyering activity. The facts that must be proven or disproven those that help to establish or undermine the existence of any of the basic elements of a crime — the act, attendant circumstances, mental state, and results or to support or-attack an affirmative defense. — - Facts relevant to any or all elements of a crime or defense might be in controversy."

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 229)


This research paper is written on Criminal Law by Rod Jackson. He will use the reference text 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) First, Rod will list some defenses that may prevent Prima Facia Cases, then he will write a little bit on some of these topics: Ex Post Facto, The Mercy Rule, Conspiracy and what Government has to prove, Strategy, Exclusion of [exculpatory] evidence as unconstitutional, Impeachment of witness, law on Outrageous Government conduct, what it takes to prove a case, hearsay evidence that usually won't make it to a competent court of law, legal argument against scumbags testifying in front of Congress and reasons to appeal to higher court, entrapment elements, a person with a history of false testimony not testifying, examples of Mens Reus, Actus Reus, discovery in criminal trials, Jurisdiction and venue, specific intent, that secret informant may be a bug, room tap, placed anywhere a person goes in your business; sweeping the White House for taps each week, Planting Evidence and Criminal Framing a person is a crime against that person by the Government vs Entrapment is unconstitutional acts by the government, and impossibility as a defense to committing a crime. Note. Rod has never taken a criminal law course in College and has not read any law books at length before reading this text. So, he probable ignorant on some of this stuff.

This paper only skirts Criminal Law, and you can find much more comprehensive answers at the following link to purchase this book, or older or newer edition, by Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia book. Rod gives it an excellent rating for the first time reading. (All High Schools should require every student to take a criminal law course reading this book, before graduating; it would be make more than likely a great impact on many people lives forever; cut crime from unintentional mistakes too: TinyURL.com/y97l4ncv

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rod’s Hypothesis: The Conspiracy Agreement: Russia Conspiracy Theory to “Take Down” Hillary Clinton’s opposition thru Furtherance, Foreseeable with Deceptive Practices of Coercion.

 Rod is not a lawyer, but the law guiding his Hypothesis 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)

       Rod believes the paragraphs he wrote on the issue, maybe a Prima Facie case with supporting evidence supporting a wheel conspiracy. He believes there is enough evidence to withstand a defense for such actions. A Prima Facie case would have to do much of the next Six things:                                                                                     

                                                         (1)

"§6.02 Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt "The element of causation is satisfied if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the acts of the defendant the substantial cause of the act."

 "If the intervening cause is merely a coincidence rather than a response, then the question is whether it was foreseeable."
           "Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment - the presumption of innocence, and the related requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain a criminal conviction."
            "The evidence, in other words, must be or such persuasive quality that a jury could reasonably find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of that evidence"
            "The Court has recognized that the presumption of innocence requires that the accused be acquitted so long as the government has not proved every element of the offense beyond reasonable doubt, without any requirement that the accused offer evidence (or indeed lift a finger) in his defense. ****"
(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 199, 200, 201, 202)

                                       (2)
             
§Causation Cause-in-Fact
            "Reversal - The reason is that the prosecutor did not introduce sufficient evidence in its case-in-chief on the causation element and therefore the charge should be dismissed at point in time."
            "The first cause-in-fact requires the government to prove that but for the actions of the defendant the result would not have happened when it did."
            "The second cause-in-fact is that the defendant be the proximate cause of the result."
(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 173, 176, 182)

                                      (3)

"State needed to prove not defendant, but the prohibited result would not have occurred but for the conduct of the defendant, but also that the defendant's conduct was the legal (or proximate) cause of the prohibited result."
 (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 184 - 187)

                                      (4)

“* * * In order to establish a conspiracy under § 371, the government must-prove: (1) an agreement to commit an illegal act; (2) the defendant's knowing and intentional participation in the agreement; and (3) an overt act committed in furtherance of the agreement. The government may rely on circumstantial evidence to establish both the existence of a conspiracy and the defendant's involvement. But although a jury may infer facts from other facts derived by inference, "each link in the chain of inferences must be sufficiently strong to avoid a lapse into speculation." United States v. Peters, 277 F.3d 963 (7th Cir.2002)”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 489 - 490)

                                      (5)

This quote is true but is different involving a chain conspiracy:

“To be members of the same conspiracy, however, each person must know that others are involved in the criminal enterprise, and that those unknown participants are a functional part of the conspiracy.”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 499)

Thus,

"In Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946), the Court reversed the conspiracy conviction for a wheel conspiracy involving a central "hub" figure, whose associates were the "spokes." In Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539 (1947), the court upheld a conviction involving a chain conspiracy, with several "links" leading linearly from a source; each link may not know the entire chain, but the links eventually lead back to the source."
(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 498)

                                      (6)

 “In some cases "outrageous government conduct" is considered a separate defense from entrapment. Like "objective entrapment" it is premised on the conduct of the police. In order to be successful with this defense, courts require the police conduct to rise to a level of being a due process violation. See Williams v. United States, 705 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1983)
(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 664)

“4. When Does a Conspiracy End? "In_Krulewitch-v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949,)', the government tried to introduce the statement of an alleged conspirator 'urging a cover-up of the participation of another conspirator after-They had-been arrested. The government argued that any statements designed to conceal the existence of a conspiracy are part of the conspiracy, and therefore the conspiracy continues so long as it is not exposed and the later statements can be used to establish its existence. The Court rejected the government's proposed expansion of every conspiracy, stating:”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 499)

Rod Believes, in 2016 - 2018, The Government, The State, The Hub, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Hillary Clinton's old intern, Michael Dean Cohen were framing and furthering a Russian Conspiracy before the 2016 Election. Two were removed from the Government when the identity of what they were doing was revealed before and after the 2016 Election. The later pleaded to eight felons, unrelated, maybe, to being President Trump's personal attorney. But, in a wheel conspiracy in which the Government is the central "hub" figure, removing several spokes does not stop the furtherance of the conspiracy. He thinks this one paragraph supports the next six parts that needed to support the law applied to the evidence:

                                      (1)

"In Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946), the Court reversed the conspiracy conviction for a wheel conspiracy involving a central "hub" figure, whose associates were the "spokes." In Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539 (1947), the court upheld a conviction involving a chain conspiracy, with several "links" leading linearly from a source; each link may not know the entire chain, but the links eventually lead back to the source." 

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 498)

                                      (2)

"(1) No person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of such offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of such proof, the innocence of the defendant is assumed. (4)(b) the fact must be proved to the satisfaction of the court or jury, as the case maybe." "Scharmer, 501 N. W2d 620 (Minn.1993) In such cases "circumstantial evidence must do more than give rise to suspicion of guilt."' 'it must point unerringly to the accused's guilt.'''
Reasonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an investigation of all the proof"
                  (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 208, 209, 213)

Here in this article, Michael Cohen taking down President Trump with a dozen secret tape-recordings by his own lawyer; supporting Rod’s hypothesis: The Conspiracy Agreement: Russia Conspiracy Theory to “Take Down” Hillary Clinton’s opposition thru Furtherance, Foreseeable. with Deceptive Practices of Coercion.                   

“Why Is Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen Hanging with Trump Basher Tom Arnold?” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-mugs-trump-critic-tom-arnold-n885611

In another article, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page talk about an Insurance Policy to take down Trump.

“FBI Texts Reveal ‘Insurance Policy’ To Prevent Trump Presidency.” Zero Hedge, www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-13/we-cant-take-risk-fbi-texts-reveal-insurance-policy-prevent-trump-presidency

In the three cases with the women spokes attempting, with the intent to compel Rod to abstain Rod from doing an act which they have a right to do or abstain from doing. One, attempted to frame Rod, that could have caused him severe harm, with a phone call with false statements about gifts and taxes. She reached the point of intent when someone in the link erased the tape from Rod’s message service; his only proof of what she did. The Doctor that wrote the false statement in his records, after 10 complaints, and a lot pressure, changed the statement admitting it was a lie at Rod’s next visit in August 2018. But, she had already reached the point of intent to compel Rod to abstain Rod from doing an act which they have a right to do or abstain from doing. He filed a similar complaint against the Nurse, but he saw her in August 2018, but did not bring up the issue, because he had already disproved her many lies, concerning medicine and medical issues with documentary evidence. she had already reached the point of intent to compel Rod to abstain Rod from doing an act which they have a right to do or abstain from doing.

In the case with Trump, maybe another spoke, even though violence further supports Rod’s hypothesis: The Conspiracy Agreement: Russia Conspiracy Theory to “Take Down” Hillary Clinton’s opposition thru Furtherance, Foreseeable. with Deceptive Practices of Coercion. Another spoke threatens violence and bodily harm. NRS 207.190, “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.”              

Harper, Jennifer. “Judicial Watch Files House Ethics Complaint against Maxine Waters for 'Inciting Violence'.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 25 June 2018, www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/25/judicial-watch-files-house-ethics-complaint-agains/

                                      (3)

§-11.03Mens Rea

“An attempt charge requires the government to prove that the defendant acted with the specific intent to commit the target offense. Since genera! will not suffice, many jurisdictions hold that attempt cannot be object crime is defined merely by recklessness or negligence. however, make reference to "knowledge" as sufficient, and some j adopt an approach tying attempt to the mens rea of the object crime_ some elements, requiring that the actor exhibit the degree of culpability that is required for the object offense. For a specific intent crime. the will have to show both the intent for the offense and the intent to. offense. If the crime only requires proof of negligence or .7. - person be guilty of attempting such a crime, e.g. such as attempted manslaughter. The general rule is that such a charge is impossible by the Hawaii Supreme Court in State v. Holbron, 904 P.2d 912 (Haw. 1995)”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 438)

                                      (4)

“Proof of intent can be based on circumstantial evidence. For in attempt crime, it will often be difficult to determine-what the defendant intended, when the attempt is incomplete; may not be sufficient to establish the intent”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 439)

                                      (5)

“5.01 Criminal Attempt

(1) (a) Definition of Attempt. A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be; or

(b) …with the belief that it will cause such results without further conduct on his part

(c) … is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.

(2)…Substantial Step

(a) Lying in wait

(b) Enticing

(c) Unlawful entry

(d) Possession of material to be employed in the commission of the crime.

(e) Posssession, collection or fabrication of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 433, 434)

                                      (6)

 “To be admissible, then the government must establish by a preponderance of the evidence two requirements: (1) a conspiracy existed at the time of the statements between the defendant and the declarant, and (2) the statements contributed to the ultimate goal of the conspiracy. Bourjaily v. United States, 486 U.S. 171 (1987).”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 502)

Rod believes one of the spokes furthered the Russian Conspiracy Entrapping/Framing when the Government failed to stop a Russian company contacting and creating a paper-trail to many Conservative Americans that had no idea of the Russian company was Russian until they were indicted late after the 2016 Election which they plead not guilty. Rod believes Papadopoulos furthered the Russian Conspiracy Entrapping/Framing when leaking a story about Russian email framing a meeting with many of Trumps campaign team. Rod has heard no more of that case since they pleaded not guilty; he thought it was supposed to be in the summer of 2018.

“There is a constitutional right guaranteed to those accused of crimes to confront witnesses against them. In Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 10967), the Supreme Court stated:

"The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution's witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element Due process of law.”

“Inconsistent Defenses. As long as the defendant offers sufficient evidence to support a defense, there is no problem with bringing forth inconsistent defenses. In States v. Trujillo, 390 F.3d 1267 (10th Cir. 2004)”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 539)

Rod believes the tape recording of President Trump violates this law; but he further believes it went further to attempt to frame Trump by the way his lawyer leads the questions and volunteered set up an illegal business, which was illegal, recorded it to entrap Trump in several crimes, and then the lawyer blame it all on the President, when the lawyer, fiduciary duty, could have told Trump a legal way to make the payment. He made a dozen or so of these tapes. Then, the lawyer bragged, motive, on television that he was out to bring down this President. Those tape recordings were before the Election 2016. Rod has stated on several occasions of person fabricating false evidence, planting it, and attempting to frame Rod:

"affirmative defense of entrapment requires proof of two elements: first, that the government induced the offender to commit the crime; and, second, that he or she was induced to commit a crime-that he or she was not otherwise predisposed to commit. To identify someone’s “predisposition “to do something is but other than their relevant character or personality trait.”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 253)

Rod believes they were trying to frame him to attempt to pull his Twitter list into the Russian Conspiracy, as several spokes later placed Russian information into his list and other social media that he could not remove. Early 2016, Rod believed that the Russian Conspiracy Entrapping/Framing was furthered by one of the spokes that attempted to have Rod attend a seminar which had one of Edward Snowden's past lawyers by placing flyers in the bathrooms that he used at a library.

Later, in 2017 the spokes had two new doctors, he lost his long time doctor, write false statements in his medical records, one about they had a conversation that Rod revealed he was now smoking cigarettes and she desperately tried to stop him, he never smoked anything in his life. Then, July 2018, when those came under investigation, another spoke in the wheel had a new nurse fabricate to support the lies of the two doctors, backdated into Rod's medical Records, in which Rod was alerted about the fabricated document, as he got a copy that he was not supposed to see, in his opinion. After a lot of complaints and pressure, the Doctor admitted the statement was a lie about him smoking. These were attempts to go after Rod's credibility of statements already in his medical records that this would contradict. The spokes kept growing in the Russian Conspiracy Entrapping/Framing against Americans furthering it when Mark Warner contacted several Russian operatives responsible for fabricating lies in a document paid for by people connected to Clinton.

Is Framing Someone for a Crime a Crime? - Quora. www.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 believes, this thing called Habit, is the basis for entrapment and framing a person by those understanding and knowing the law. Evidence can be fabricated based on your habits to fit a certain crime or elements of the crime and you may not even know it is happening, or happened to you, unless you read and new the law. Such as this statement written by Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 251:

 “Specific acts can also be used to prove someone’s habit. “Habit” is defined in two different ways, depending upon the jurisdiction. Under the frequency or probability theory of habit is a very frequently-repeated response to a very specific stimulus, a response so frequent as to make it a good predictor of behavior. Under the alternative psychological theory, frequency is still required, but in addition the behavior must be semi-automatic so that it is not under the actor’s fully conscious control. “

Rod believes the two elements repeatedly happens in this wheel, chain-conspiracy:

 ‘Affirmative defense of entrapment. That defense requires proof of two elements: first, that the government induced the offender to commit the crime; and, second, that he or she was induced to commit a crime that he or she was not otherwise predisposed to commit. “

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 253)

Another spoke came from the Justice Department when a senior official named Bruce Ohr was demoted in 2017. His wife firm, Fusion GPS, made money off the Trump Dossier that her firm put together, gave back to the "hub" the Government, to launch FISA warrants. Another spoke furthered the Russian Conspiracy Entrapping/ Framing reach out to Rod April 2015 to further try to frame him by leaving a recording on his answering service for tax day about some gifts that he did not give to change his tax situation consideration for a prior year or maybe 2018, which the "hub" later erased but Rod recorded the message to preserve the evidence. In correlation to all this entrapment and framing, the "hub" formed another spoke to further the conspiracy called "a special counsel."

The Hub is still in action because it contacted Rod again on the date it thought was its best, but it was not, http://doctheshow.com/Tax_Day_April_15.html

You see, if the "Hub" is the Government involved, itself, in misconduct, removing several spokes does not stop the wheel. The network in the Government has to further The Conspiracy Entrapping/ Framing because they are the now the spokes. But, who now prosecutes the wheel. It was reported on 09/13/2018, that Manaford had cut a deal; maybe it was because of the weakness of the first case and the chance of another embarrassment by both parties.

 “A defendant charged with a specific intent crime can be testified; strongly tempted to testify falsely or wish to present witnesses who will testify falsely in the hope of securing an acquittal. There is no dispute that defense counsel may not call witnesses who intend to commit perjury. ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.2, 3.3, 3.4. Counsel for the defense is presented with some competing ethical concerns when it is his or her client that has testified falsely on the witness stand. See ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.4. See also Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986).”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 159)

“These disputes over what happened and over how events should be interpreted are questions of credibility. “Credibility” judgments are decisions about who is telling the truth or whose tale merits belief. Although a witness might speak an un-truth knowingly, that is, might lie, more often witnesses are mistaken or confused.”

“Prior inconsistent statements might also call memory into question.”

“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits using any “involuntary” confession against an accused at trial, even if Miranda has not been violated.”

The Conspiracy Entrapping/ Framing may respond in several ways. They more than likely would deny the conspiracy existed. Two defenses they may use:

                                                         (1)

  §Alternate Theories of Causation

 "Although the State may submit alternate theories of causation to the jury, if supported by the evidence, it must establish in its case-in-chief a Prima Facie basis for each theory that goes to the jury."
                               (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 180)

                                                         (2)

  §Character as Evidence Exception
             "FRE (The Federal Rules of Evidence are the governing rules in Federal Cases) 404 generally prohibits using evidence of character or character traits to prove that a party or witness acted consistently with those traits on a particular occasion."
              "Phrases such as "I don't recall" and Not to my recollection." Rather, we can attribute watery testimony to the fallibility of human memory and to inherent limitations..." {Rather than perjury}
               "In addition to the potential detrimental effect of time on his memory, ... was also inherently limited as a witness because he was not present."
               "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits using any "involuntary" [secret tape  recordings gained from deception?] confession against an accused at trial," Miranda v. Arizona
               "28 U.S.C. § 2254 (D)(2). Rephrased, "a federal court may not second-guess a state court's fact-finding process unless, after review of the state-court record, it determines that the state court was not merely wrong but actually unreasonable." Taylor V. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (9th Cir 2004)."
(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 234, 242, 244, 245, 247)

    (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 254)

 “The government overstates the strength of its evidence This sequence of events establishes at-most that Jones was present while-Rock engaged in what Rock-admitted-was-an illegal straw purchase-of a firearm but “mere presence” while a crime is being committed is insufficient to show that a defendant acted too further a conspiracy. Even if Jones knew of Rock's plan to resell the rifle. His knowledge or approval of the illegal scheme is insufficient to sustain a conviction.”

    (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 489 - 490)            

Another spoke went after Cambridge Analytical, but Rod believes this may be the law that they may be violating when they consider taking action against Cambridge Analytical.

“2.. Ex Post Facto. The Constitution prohibits ex post facto (after the fact) laws. 
U.S. CONST., Art. 1, § 9, 10. In Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), the Court stat9d:”

“I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action, done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender. All these, and similar laws, are manifestly unjust and oppressive. * * *”

    (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 75)

In such case, Rod differentiates himself from such acts according to the law:

The Mercy Rule

“This rule permits a defendant to choose to offer evidence of a pertinent trait f — his or her character one relevant to disproving one or more of the elements of a crime. It is called the "mercy rule" because it is considered an act akin to mercy to allow a defendant to seek to raise a reasonable doubt about his or her guilt of a crime by proving pertinent good character.”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 159)

 “A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when:

(a) the statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct alleged”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 167)

 “Most standard criminal law texts will say that motive is never an element of a crime. Rather, motive is simply circumstantial evidence helping to prove the existence of an element. These assertions are usually correct but are overstated because sometimes "motive" is an element of a crime, though not always so ',.labeled. For example, if motive is defined as the reason why an offender thought or acted a certain way in a particular case, then the specific intent portion of fiery specific intent crime constitutes motive as an element. -------“

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 250)

They have now become spokes in the Wheel working for the "hub." Rod had three women from the spokes bring false statements against him to attempt to destroy his character. 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. Feinstein may be another spoke in the wheel:

“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, www.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, www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/15/feinstein_russia_interfered_and_altered_the_outcome_of_the_election.html

Rod only have a couple more days of writing and no more post on this blog. Rod relationship is with God. He has no connection in any conspiracies and has no relationship with President Trump other than a United States citizen that wish the President well. But, he does have a problem with allowing a scumbag, as he believes tried to frame the President testify to anything. And, a prosecutor that would allow that scumbag to testify and give him rewards, I would probable not trust anyone he brought before a courtroom. Prosecutors have discretion when allowing witnesses to testify.

"Section 2.013. Entrapment.

A public law enforcement official or a person acting in cooperation with such an official perpetrates an entrapment if for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, he induces or encourages another person to engage in conduct constituting such offense by either:

(1)    (a) making knowingly false representations designed to induce the belief that such conduct is not prohibited."

(2)    "A person prosecuted for an offense shall be acquitted if he proves by a preponderance of evidence that his conduct occurred in response to an entrapment. The issue of entrapment shall be tried by the Court in the absence of the jury."

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 133)

Rod saw John Carry with his new book stating that Watergate allowed criminals to testify in Congress and he even showed a clip of one of their opening statements. If Rod recalls correctly, he said that he knew he would serve forty or fifty years in jail for what he was about to say; but still would testify about his involvement. Now. Did he later get a deal? Rod does not know the answer. But, he was willing to testify assumable before he got a deal. He did not sound like he was getting a deal. Or, he was not sincere omitting the fact; lying.

So now we have the Muller deal cutters that would only testify if they got deals which require a certain amount of saying what the Muller team wants to hear or the deals want be so sweet. I won’t lose any sleep if they say Putin and Trump are ancestral cousins with the same Grandpa. But, I would not equate their duty for the country as I would a man willing to tell his story with a forty-year sentence having not cut a sweep deal. In Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 159, they discuss, comparable, defendant being the Government Hub, “A defendant charged with a specific intent crime can be testified; strongly tempted to testify falsely or wish to present witnesses who will testify falsely in the hope of securing an acquittal. There is no dispute that defense counsel may not call witnesses who intend to commit perjury. ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1.2, 3.3, 3.4. Counsel for the defense is presented with some competing ethical concerns when it is his or her client that has testified falsely on the witness stand. See ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.4. See also Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986).” Of course, in Rod’s opinion, a guilty verdict of any kind of something to do with Russia may be an acquittal for what the spokes, Hub, the Wheel have been up to for the last two years.

“Successful negotiations thus require an exchange of information about what evidence each side has to offer, what arguments it will make about credibility, and what legal issues it will rely upon. “

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 272)

A Kangaroo court would let such action take place without considering Impeachment of such witnesses by Reputation, Opinion of a close friend, Specific, Unconvicted Acts of Untruthfulness, Prior Convictions, Felonies, Chimen-Falsi when a person has lied or made intentional false statements before a court or judge, and Perjury. He does not think a Judge, in a competent court of law would allow scumbag to testify if the defendant had a good attorney challenged to the Supreme Court, or appealable at the minimum of any conviction coming from this framing scumbag. (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 188)

 “Ethically, lawyers are generally prohibited from any direct contact with a party or witness who is represented by counsel. Instead all communications must be between the two lawyers, who may then negotiate whether any direct witness contact is permitted (if it is, usually it will be only in counsel’s presence).”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 271)

 “The Government now asks us to expand this narrow exception to the hearsay rule and hold admissible a declaration, not made in furtherance of the alleged criminal transportation conspiracy charged, but made in furtherance of an alleged implied but uncharged conspiracy aimed at preventing detection and punishment. No federal court case cited by the Government suggests so hospitable a reception to the use of hearsay evidence to convict in conspiracy cases. * * * The rule contended for by the Government could have far-reaching results. For under this rule plausible arguments could generally be made in conspiracy cases that most out-of-court statements offered in evidence tended to shield co-conspirators. We are not persuaded to adopt the Government's implicit conspiracy theory which in all criminal conspiracy cases would create automatically a further breach of the general rule against the admission of hearsay evidence.”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 499)


“Legal Dictionary - Law.com.” Law.com Legal Dictionary, dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=859. "hearsay (redirected from Inadmissible as Hearsay) Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Financial, Encyclopedia. Hearsay A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is the job of the judge or jury in a court proceeding to determine whether evidence offered as proof is credible. Three evidentiary rules help the judge or jury make this determination: (1) Before being allowed to testify, a witness generally must swear or affirm that his or her testimony will be truthful. (2) The witness must be personally present at the trial or proceeding in order to allow the judge or jury to observe the testimony firsthand. (3) The witness is subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify. In keeping with the three evidentiary requirements, the Hearsay Rule, as outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence, prohibits most statements made outside a courtroom from being used as evidence in court. This is because statements made out of court normally are not made under oath, a judge or jury cannot personally observe the demeanor of someone who makes a statement outside the courtroom, and an opposing party cannot cross-examine such a declarant (the person making the statement). Out-of-court statements hinder the ability of the judge or jury to probe testimony for inaccuracies caused by Ambiguity, insincerity, faulty perception, or erroneous memory. Thus, statements made out of court are perceived as untrustworthy. Hearsay comes in many forms. It may be a written or oral statement; it also includes gestures. Essentially anything intended to assert a fact is considered a statement for the purposes of the Hearsay Rule. A nodding of the head may be a silent assertion of the word yes. A witness pointing to a gun may be asserting, "That is the murder weapon." Even silence has been accepted as a statement, as when a passengers' failure to complain was offered to prove that a train car was not too cold (Silver v. New York Central Railroad, 329 Mass. 14, 105 N.E.2d 923 [1952]). Not all out-of-court statements or assertions are impermissible hearsay. If an attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the fact that a certain statement was made, but not the truthfulness of that statement, the statement is not hearsay and may be admitted as evidence. Suppose a hearing is held to determine a woman's mental competence. Out of court, when asked to identify herself, the woman said, "I am the pope." There is little question that the purpose of introducing that statement as evidence is not to convince the judge or jury that the woman actually is the pope; the truthfulness of the statement is irrelevant. Rather, the statement is introduced to show the woman's mental state; her belief that she is the pope may prove that she is not mentally competent. On the other hand, a defendant's out-of-court statement "I am the murderer," offered in a murder trial to prove that the defendant is the murderer, is hearsay. The Federal Rules of Evidence outline the various types of statements that are excluded by the Hearsay Rule, and are thus admissible in court. These exceptions apply to circumstances believed to produce trustworthy assertions. Some hearsay exceptions are based on whether the declarant of the statement is available to testify. For example, a witness who has died is unavailable. A witness who claims some sort of testimonial privilege, such as the Attorney-Client Privilege, is also unavailable to testify, as is the witness who testifies to lack of memory regarding the subject matter, or is too physically or mentally ill to testify. These definitions fall under Rule 804 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. There are also situations where hearsay is allowed even though the declarant is available as a witness. These situations are outlined under Rule 803 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Hearsay Exceptions: Availability of Declarant Immaterial Present Sense Impression. "A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter," is admissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 803(1)). An example is the statement "That green pickup truck is going to run that red light."

Federal Rules of Evidence › ARTICLE VIII. HEARSAY ›  

Rule 

803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

(1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

(2) Excited Utterance. A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.

(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that:

(A) is made for — and is reasonably pertinent to — medical diagnosis or treatment; and

(B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.

(5) Recorded Recollection. A record that:

(A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;

(B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and

(C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.

If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.

(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis if:

(A) the record was made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge;

(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of a business, organization, occupation, or calling, whether or not for profit;

(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute permitting certification; and

(E) neither the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

(7) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity. Evidence that a matter is not included in a record described in paragraph (6) if:

(A) the evidence is admitted to prove that the matter did not occur or exist;

(B) a record was regularly kept for a matter of that kind; and

(C) neither the opponent does not show that the possible source of the information nor or  other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

(8) Public Records. A record or statement of a public office if:

(A) it sets out:

(i) the office’s activities;

(ii) a matter observed while under a legal duty to report, but not including, in a criminal case, a matter observed by law-enforcement personnel; or

(iii) in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation; and

(B) neither the opponent does not show that the source of information nor or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

(9) Public Records of Vital Statistics. A record of a birth, death, or marriage, if reported to a public office in accordance with a legal duty.

(10) Absence of a Public Record. Testimony — or a certification under Rule 902 — that a diligent search failed to disclose a public record or statement if:

(A) the testimony or certification is admitted to prove that

(i) the record or statement does not exist; or

(ii) a matter did not occur or exist, if a public office regularly kept a record or statement for a matter of that kind; and

(B) in a criminal case, a prosecutor who intends to offer a certification provides written notice of that intent at least 14 days before trial, and the defendant does not object in writing within 7 days of receiving the notice — unless the court sets a different time for the notice or the objection.

(11) Records of Religious Organizations Concerning Personal or Family History. A statement of birth, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history, contained in a regularly kept record of a religious organization.

(12) Certificates of Marriage, Baptism, and Similar Ceremonies. A statement of fact contained in a certificate:

(A) made by a person who is authorized by a religious organization or by law to perform the act certified;

(B) attesting that the person performed a marriage or similar ceremony or administered a sacrament; and

(C) purporting to have been issued at the time of the act or within a reasonable time after it.

(13) Family Records. A statement of fact about personal or family history contained in a family record, such as a Bible, genealogy, chart, engraving on a ring, inscription on a portrait, or engraving on an urn or burial marker.

(14) Records of Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. The record of a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if:

(A) the record is admitted to prove the content of the original recorded document, along with its signing and its delivery by each person who purports to have signed it;

(B) the record is kept in a public office; and

(C) a statute authorizes recording documents of that kind in that office.

(15) Statements in Documents That Affect an Interest in Property. A statement contained in a document that purports to establish or affect an interest in property if the matter stated was relevant to the document’s purpose — unless later dealings with the property are inconsistent with the truth of the statement or the purport of the document.

(16) Statements in Ancient Documents. A statement in a document that was prepared before January 1, 1998, and whose authenticity is established.

(17) Market Reports and Similar Commercial Publications. Market quotations, lists, directories, or other compilations that are generally relied on by the public or by persons in particular occupations.

(18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if:

(A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and

(B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice.

If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit.

(19) Reputation Concerning Personal or Family History. A reputation among a person’s family by blood, adoption, or marriage — or among a person’s associates or in the community — concerning the person’s birth, adoption, legitimacy, ancestry, marriage, divorce, death, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, or similar facts of personal or family history.

(20) Reputation Concerning Boundaries or General History. A reputation in a community — arising before the controversy — concerning boundaries of land in the community or customs that affect the land, or concerning general historical events important to that community, state, or nation.

(21) Reputation Concerning Character. A reputation among a person’s associates or in the community concerning the person’s character.

(22) Judgment of a Previous Conviction. Evidence of a final judgment of conviction if:

(A) the judgment was entered after a trial or guilty plea, but not a nolo contendere plea;

(B) the conviction was for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than a year;

(C) the evidence is admitted to prove any fact essential to the judgment; and

(D) when offered by the prosecutor in a criminal case for a purpose other than impeachment, the judgment was against the defendant.

The pendency of an appeal may be shown but does not affect admissibility.

(23) Judgments Involving Personal, Family, or General History, or a Boundary. A judgment that is admitted to prove a matter of personal, family, or general history, or boundaries, if the matter:

(A) was essential to the judgment; and

(B) could be proved by evidence of reputation.

(24) [Other Exceptions.] [Transferred to Rule 807.]


                             
Case 1

“An affirmative defense such as choice of evils provides a legal justification for otherwise criminally culpable behavior. A defendant who asserts an Affirmative defense admits the doing of a charged act, but seeks to justify the act of grounds deemed by law to be sufficient to avoid criminal responsibility.(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 630) For instance, one type of case is "DIMINISHED CAPACITY.""[T]he diminished capacity defense is available in West Virginia to permit a defendant to introduce expert testimony regarding a mental disease or defect that rendered the defendant incapable, at the time the crime was committed, of forming a mental state that is an element of the crime charged." "Extreme emotional disturbance . . . is . . . an affirmative defense upon which the burden of persuasion rests on the defendant. * * "To sustain his burden of establishing extreme emotional disturbance by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant must persuade the trier of fact that: (1) the emotional disturbance is not a mental disease or defect that rises to the level of insanity as defined by the penal code; (2) the defendant was exposed to an extremely unusual and overwhelming state, that is, not mere annoyance or unhappiness; and (3) the defendant had an extreme emotional reaction to it, as a result of which there was a loss of self-control, and reason was overborne by extreme intense feeling, such as passion, anger, distress, grief, excessive agitation or other similar emotions." * * *” (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 690) The defendant became distress from working 18 to 20 hours a day, seven days a week, for an extended period of time, in a self-owned business that a Psychologist determined to be OCD, obsession compulsion disorder, ie: work-aholic. In addition, his wife was eight months pregnant and he was pretty much in a state of a different celibacy abstaining in marriage but with no sexual relations for that period of time, and after a drink, beer, in a state of confusion, extreme emotional reaction, he was out of town from his wife, about to turn in for the night, missing her, in his twenties, and masturbated in public, but he initially thought it was private, seen by a man and woman, simultaneous, which was definitely an extreme emotional reaction, seen by several people that called police. The Defendant was given an open beer, grog, by two strangers that the defendant had met moments earlier. They were working in the same field so he had no reason to suspect that the grog, beer, may have been spiked with something. He was in a state of confusion, distressed, felt bad and depressed, and set on a curb for about a half hour waiting on police when he could have just got in his truck and drove off. He stood up when he saw the officer, and said, "here I am" He was arrested and charged with indecent exposure and release after a couple of hours because he was on a business trip and presented no harm to the public. He received a breathalyzer and was not public-intoxicated. He pleaded no contest in court and later remanded to see a psychologist or psychiatrist for mental illness. He was diagnosed above. On his return to court, he received no jail time and release to the care of his dad. Now, many laugh at these kind of mental break downs; but mental illness is no laughing matter, even if it temporary. He continued with a normal life after that extreme breakdown.

“An affirmative defense such as choice of evils provides a legal justification for otherwise criminally culpable behavior. A defendant who asserts an Affirmative defense admits the doing of a charged act, but seeks to justify the act of grounds deemed by law to be sufficient to avoid criminal responsibility. For instance, one type of case is "DIMINISHED CAPACITY.""[T]he diminished capacity defense is available in West Virginia to permit a defendant to introduce expert testimony regarding a mental disease or defect that rendered the defendant incapable, at the time the crime was committed, of forming a mental state that is an element of the crime charged." "Extreme emotional disturbance . . . is . . . an affirmative defense upon which the burden of persuasion rests on the defendant. * * "To sustain his burden of establishing extreme emotional disturbance by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant must persuade the trier of fact that: (1) the emotional disturbance is not a mental disease or defect that rises to the level of insanity as defined by the penal code; (2) the defendant was exposed to an extremely unusual and overwhelming state, that is, not mere annoyance or unhappiness; and (3) the defendant had an extreme emotional reaction to it, as a result of which there was a loss of self-control, and reason was overborne by extreme intense feeling, such as passion, anger, distress, grief, excessive agitation or other similar emotions." * *

The Code further specifies that involuntary intoxication is an affirmative defense.
*” (Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 699, 706) 



                 Case 2

 “There is a constitutional right guaranteed to those accused of crimes to confront witnesses against them. In Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 10967), the Supreme Court stated: "The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution's witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element Due process of law.”(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 539) The Defendant in this case did not confront witnesses or accusers against him in court so could the Defendant have appealed these cases on those grounds or should they have automatically been dismissed? The Defendant ordered around $18,000 in Christmas Trees to be delivered over schedule days during December. Trees have to be ordered a month or more in advance. Upon delivery of first shipment. He brought it attention to the driver of the truck that trees were wind-burnt; when the weather is hot, and the trees are not fresh, then if not wrapped in tarp, the tree needles and limbs may become brittle and fall quickly. The defendant had problems selling these trees when they were first delivered. So, the next scheduled deliveries came, and cash flow was short. His two backups that would normally help him out in a financial jam, had spent out for the holiday. Then, a giant snow storm came a week before Christmas diminishing last week sales. The defendant lost a lot of Christmas trees; the season was disastrous. The Defendant could not cover about six-thousand of the $18,000 at the end of sales and had two checks return to separate suppliers. After 30 days, the law state that if you do not cover a check you are guilty of Bad Check writing. The Defendant was contacted by an investigator to come down to the station and finger print and later arraigned and pleaded “not guilty” because of extenuating circumstances. He was remanded to pay trees off before trial in six months. He paid trees off. It was five months later. One charge was dropped because the dealer had some culpability in the Defendant not selling the trees. But, the Prosecutor argued that the other case with the bad weather, the person had no culpability. Neither of the accusers showed up in court. The defendant subpoenaed the driver to appear about the condition of the trees, but he did not come either. It may have been understood that the tree conditions were not good from one supplier. So, Defendant was found guilty by the Judge, the Defendant requested no jury, of writing a bad check over $250. The Defendant wrote the Judge a strong letter, that he thought the Judge had erred on the grounds that there was no criminal intent, mens res, by the defendant. He had been in business for around five years, stayed in business about five more years, 10 years, had been a third generation Christmas tree seller, produced photos of the lost Christmas Trees, and had paid the trees off when instructed. At sentencing, the Judge gave the Defendant no time, five years’ probation, and wished the Defendant luck. The Defendant respected the Judge decision and did not appeal, which his attorney wanted to do. Did the Judge think he erred? Did the Defendant error? The defendant never committed any financial crimes, no embezzlement, no thefts, no tax evasion, no etc... Here is law on the issue:

“There are two broad sorts of facts that must be proven at a criminal trial. The first sort is “raw” facts.”

B. Two Types of Facts: “Raw and “Normative”

“There are two broad sorts of facts that must be proven at a criminal trial. The first sort is “raw” facts – who did what to whom, when, and why.” “A raw fact is something that happened “out there,” in the real, observable world of the past, that is, the event either happened or did not.” “Since it is impossible to travel back in time and observe the crime, factfinder biases; lawyers errors, ; insufficient, fraudulent, or distorted evidence; poor judgment; and myriad other factors might result in the factfinder making a mistake about what really happened. But, in theory, there is one and only one “right” answer waiting to be found.”

“The second sort of fact is a” normative” fact, on for which even time travel would not present a single, crystal clear answer.” “Mental state determination involves normative facts to varying degree.” What was someone thinking when they did something, if they do not tell you, you cannot read their mind. “Yet, even proving normative facts turns on proving raw facts that support normative inferences.”

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 231, 232, 233, 234)

“The Basis for an Appeal: The Defendant convicted of a crime must demonstrate a legal error in pre-trial procedure, which is usually based on:”

1-Insufficient evidence

2-Improper jury instruction

3-Evidentiary challenges

4-Constitutional Issues

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 48)

  § Model Penal Code - Mistake of Fact and Law
              § 2.04. "Ignorance or Mistake (1) Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if:"                                              

(Podger, Henning, Taslitz, and Garcia P. 167, 168)