"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.

The Cosby Verdict 2

July. Born Great

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.           

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



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

                        Meet Sex Norms of the 70s, 80s, 90s
                Acceptable By Men and Women of those Times
     Is it unconstitutional to judge a man or woman today under                             Strict-Interpretation of Law under different Norms of a Different               Culture Society of Norms, than was performed 20, 30, or 40 years ago?

Rod is not a lawyer. Rod did not watch the Cosby trial. He saw a few headlines, maybe 8 - 10, in the past that he will write his opinion from.

Kavanaugh gave a political defense as response to the false allegation and some Senators said he was too political. What other response would you give to a political accusation? Rod stated earlier, “He'll wait after the hearing next Monday with the Supreme Court to give final remarks on both or more political games, the act not so important, and the political collateral damage, maybe waiting out reaction to Cosby Sentencing on Monday was the goal, set in May for September 24, 2018, since Tuesday is good, but not Monday.” 

In the Cosby Trial, the people did not see Bill Cosby as the person we all grew up to know. Some never saw Bill Cosby in anything. Cosby was given a bad defense by his lawyers. It should have covered the complex of every accusation instead of an isolated complaint or two filed. Then he would be able to show many of the shame allegations, that they were all not the same, and good investigators would be able to uncover, maybe, many of these; similar, maybe, to the Kavanaugh Con-Artist case. They would be able to point out that these women at some point were coach to make, maybe false statements, many under the control of one lawyer. Of course, each would have to be asked "any contact with one particular lawyer." If one of their clients lied, fabricated false evidence, forged a writing, blaming it on and framing the accused, over-exaggerated claims, under the one firm, lawyer, maybe more have been coerced or corroborated to lie by contacting many women with hope of a grand payday. What want they do for the right price? Was it not until the group of lawyers got involved, publicity was given to the fact that he paid millions out for women? He admitted his guilt and showed remorse? Does that not offer him an affirmative defense? But, then did not a woman lawyer connect a group of women with a history of women being paid large amount of money to keep sex secrets, money was suitable then and no criminal charges, as no intentional criminal acts happened in those union of cases, and nor these union of cases, they expose their agreements’, unclean hands now, lied then that money was ample for their disagreement with Mr. Cosby, telling the truth then to an agreement; or unclean hands now in legitimizing maybe some unsubstantiated claims as somehow being legitimate, to make their story fit so everyone would be also compensated; as they were.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/08/roy-moore-accuser-admits-forged-part-yearbook-inscription-attributed-to-alabama-senate-candidate.html "(Serrie. Pappas.)  #MeToo

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/15/attorney-lisa-bloom-sought-to-line-up-paydays-for-women-accusing-trump-sexual-misconduct-report.html (No name cited).

Bryant, Kenzie. “Gloria Allred Responds to Her Daughter Lisa Bloom's Decision to Represent Harvey Weinstein.” The Hive, Vanity Fair, 6 Oct. 2017, www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/10/gloria-allred-lisa-bloom-harvey-weinstein-statement

Shaw, Adam. “Trump Challenges Dems after Kavanaugh Accuser Allegedly Admits to Making False Rape Claim.” Fox News, FOX News Network, www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-challenges-dems-after-kavanaugh-accuser-allegedly-admits-to-making-false-rape-claim "The accusations were initially made via a “Jane Doe” letter to Sen. Kamala Harris’ {ex-prosecutor], D-Calif., office in September. Ms. Munro-Leighton submitted a fabricated allegation, which diverted Committee resources,” Grassley’s office said."

Casiano, Louis. “'No Evidence' to Back Kavanaugh Accusers' Claims, Senate Panel's Report on FBI Probe Finds.” Fox News, FOX News Network, www.foxnews.com/politics/no-evidence-to-back-kavanaugh-accusers-claims-senate-panels-report-on-fbi-probe-finds "Grassley last month requested that the FBI investigate accuser Julie Swetnick and her attorney, Michael Avenatti, who also represents porn star Stormy Daniels in her allegations against President Trump. “Indeed, the evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee’s investigation.” — Chairman Chuck Grassley, Senate Judiciary Committee"

Richardson, Matt. “Kavanaugh Accuser Referred to DOJ for False Statements, Grassley's Office Announces.” Fox News, FOX News Network, www.foxnews.com/politics/kavanaugh-accuser-referred-to-doj-for-false-statements-grassleys-office-announces

“Swetnick, Avenatti Referred for Criminal Investigation.” United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 25 Oct. 2018, www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/swetnick-avenatti-referred-for-criminal-investigation

Breuninger, Kevin. “Trump Supporters Won't like the Rulings in These 3 Court Cases.” CNBC, CNBC, 15 June 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/06/15/trump-supporters-wont-like-the-rulings-in-these-3-court-cases.html "Special counsel Robert Mueller and lawyer Michael Avenatti on Friday saw favorable rulings in court cases involving key figures in Trump's orbit."

Lee, MJ, and Maegan Vazquez. “Avenatti Pitched Cohen on Working Together against Trump.” CNN, Cable News Network, 23 July 2018, www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/politics/avenatti-cohen-trump-meeting/index.html

Nolte, John. “Nolte: 28 Reasons Julie Swetnick's Kavanaugh Allegations Are Total Garbage.” Breitbart, 4 Oct. 2018, www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/10/03/nolte-28-reasons-julie-swetnicks-kavanugh-allegations-are-total-garbage/ "8. Swetnick says that in 1981-82 she “became aware” of Kavanaugh spiking the punch at these parties with “drugs and/or grain alcohol” in order to take sexual advantage of inebriated girls. “Became aware” is not the same as witnessing. How she “became aware” is never explained. 9. Swetnick says she did “witness” something she calls “efforts” by Kavanaugh to get unsuspecting women “inebriated and disoriented so they could be gang raped.” Here we have an adult woman attending more than ten high school “gang rape” parties organized by a 15 to 16-year-old Brett Kavanaugh, and she not only doesn’t go to the police, she continues to attend them. In her NBC interview, though, she attempted to clear this up, but in doing so, only undercut her story all the more. She says people aged 15 to 25 attended these gang rape parties and that it was only in “hindsight” that she figured out girls were being gang raped. Had she known at the time, she now says she would have “burst into the room” to save the victims and then gone to the police. 10. Swetnick alleges she herself was gang raped and that Kavanaugh was “present.” She does not claim Kavanaugh participated in the gang rape, only that he was present, whatever that means. 11. Swetnick claims she told two people at the time about the alleged gang rape. Those two people have not been found."

Secondly, the people saw Bill Cosby's lawyer as Bill Cosby, Cosby as his lawyer, his lawyer on stage as Bill Cosby. Cold, calculating, and non-remorseful were some of the words used; but that was not Bill Cosby, that was amplified from his lawyer. He was given a bad defense by a group of lawyer. The angry black man was not Bill Cosby's Character, and his Character should be a major part of his defense, such as in the Kavanaugh Con-Artist case. Mr. Cosby is not this angry black man that would aggravate anyone. This is Cosby's character:


1960s in the television show I Spy

1969 -1972 His own sitcom The Bill Cosby Show

Fat Albert character established during his stand-up comedy

Cosby created and produced animated comedy television series Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids 

1970s Cosby starred in many family movies

He attended Temple University in the 1960s and received his bachelor's degree in 1971

In 1973, he received a master's degree from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst

His Doctor of Education degree in 1976, also from UMass.

His dissertation discussed the use of Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids as a teaching tool in elementary schools.

1980s – 1990s, Cosby produced and starred in The Cosby Show highlighted the experiences and growth of an affluent African-American family.

Cosby produced A Different World 1987 - 1993

The Cosby Mysteries from 1994 to 1995

Cosby from 1996 to 2000

Hosted Kids Say the Darndest Things from 1998 to 2000

Mr. Jello Man Comercial

“Bill Cosby.” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/name/nm0001070/

In such case,

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)

Rod saw maybe, "a mistake in fact" case, here. A man that spent his whole life performing, laughter at night clubs or on television, he thought his role was to make people enjoy the moment and have a good time. While, none, complained in public at the time that they were having sex, drinks, and drugs, or complained, had not had a good time, he did not seem to tell what he was doing in anyway was wrong, at the time. Did any come forward with any accusations before the relationship had already broken off? Or were most of the revenge anecdotes? He thought everyone were having a good time, sex, drugs, rock and roll, Woodstock, was open and wild in the 80s and 90s; early 2000s, not this time of bitter-hate by bitter women in 2018.

“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)

“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." * * 

Rod is not a lawyer, but he sees Seven grounds that he would appeal: 

(1) Insufficient evidence, lack of clean hands by Plaintiff,  Judge calling Mr. Cosby a "Violent Sexual Predator" (http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_32162639/judge-cosby-is-violent-sexual-predator) and a witness calling Mr. Cosby a serial rapist (https://www.voanews.com/a/accuser-calls-bill-cosby-a-serial-rapist/4342401.html); the Judge is now the Jurist at sentencing and he introduced his own opinion, insufficient evidence, in the record, to support this claim, in Rod's opinion prejudicing the defendant for future litigation. The argument can be made that this should allow new evidence into the case to rebut the statement, testimonial evidence from witnesses, documentary evidence; even Mr. Cosby, who may have shy away before because of some factors which may include dementia, loss of memory, inability to recall some things, and even it may have to be explained to the Judge and the upper court, that he may get a few things wrong, but it will not be intentional or in a prejudicial manner; but he will try, and certainly his mind set was different from what he has heard from these ladies already. He will need time with his new counselors, away from the confines of ease dropping on his case, from detention. This will be work and even more difficult since the defendant is blind.

(2) Improper jury instruction, Judge calling Mr. Cosby a "Violent Sexual Predator" (http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_32162639/judge-cosby-is-violent-sexual-predator) and a witness calling Mr. Cosby a serial rapist (https://www.voanews.com/a/accuser-calls-bill-cosby-a-serial-rapist/4342401.html); the Judge is now the Jurist at sentencing and he introduced his own opinion, insufficient evidence, in the record, to support this claim, in Rod's opinion.

(3) Evidentiary challenges,  Judge calling Mr. Cosby a "Violent Sexual Predator" (http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_32162639/judge-cosby-is-violent-sexual-predator) and a witness calling Mr. Cosby a serial rapist (https://www.voanews.com/a/accuser-calls-bill-cosby-a-serial-rapist/4342401.html); the Judge is now the Jurist at sentencing and he introduced his own opinion, insufficient evidence, in the record, to support this claim, in Rod's opinion.

(4) Constitutional Issues Disability, blaming Mr. Cosby for being blind and not responsive (remorseful) with many facial expressions. Judging some act under strict law, when in the past, 10, 20, 30 years ago laws on the book were not enforced as such. In Rod’s Opinion. Man was once governed by strict laws of the Bible, 600 laws or so in the Old Testament. They were found to be too stringent for man to abide by for today’s time. Rod would argue that we would not today persecute man under strict guidelines of laws that are not of his time from the Bible; nor should we today place too strict guidelines on laws today for a man and woman of a different generation of ideas, thought, and behavior, say 20, 30, 40, or 80 years ago.

“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)

      (5) Improper Sentence, a “fit” sentence, request home arrest or daily releases, so Mr. Cosby can prepare for further litigation, appeals, and new trials
      (6) Admitting improper evidence  Judge calling Mr. Cosby a "Violent Sexual Predator" (http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_32162639/judge-cosby-is-violent-sexual-predator) and a witness calling Mr. Cosby a serial rapist (https://www.voanews.com/a/accuser-calls-bill-cosby-a-serial-rapist/4342401.html); the Judge is now the Jurist at sentencing and he introduced his own opinion, insufficient evidence, in the record, to support this claim, in Rod's opinion.

(7) Inadequate Legal Defense, failure to investigate for a proper defense, obviously and grossly inadequate representation; lawyers would be changed immediately replaced by a new defense team

“Question: Can I Appeal If My Trial Lawyer Was Incompetent?” Sanders Criminal Law, 16 May 2016, www.sanderscriminallaw.com/appeal-if-lawyer-incompetent. "It should be noted that if you are convicted and sentenced in respect of a criminal offence, you have 30 days from the date of sentence to appeal both the conviction and the sentence (after which you require leave of the court). Generally speaking, a conviction appeal will only be successful if the trial judge made an error of law or misapprehended evidence in a way that if he or she had not done so, the result might have been different. In the case of a jury trial, the judge must have erred in law, say, in admitting important evidence that should have been excluded (or vice-versa) or in erring in instructing the jury on an important point of law or evidence. As to sentence appeals, they will generally only succeed if the sentence is “unfit”. The range of what constitutes a “fit” sentence can be broad."

“Inadequate Legal Defense.” Northwestern Pritzker Law, www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/issues/defense/ Appealing a lawyer’s incompetence: "The exonoree's lawyer at trial or on appeal provided obviously and grossly inadequate representation. **The failures of defense counsel are overwhelmingly sins of omission, especially the failure to investigate."

England, Deborah C. “Affirmative Defenses in Criminal Cases.” Www.criminaldefenselawyer.com www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/affirmative-defense.htm "Sometimes a criminal defendant is entitled to acquittal even though the prosecution has proven every element of the charged offense. This happens when the defendant has successfully raised and the jury has accepted an “affirmative defense” that operates by law to exonerate him. Common affirmative defenses include a plea of insanity, self-defense, mistake of fact, intoxication (in some situations), duress, contributory negligence, entrapment, and the running of the statute of limitations (the time period, starting when the crime occurred, during which a prosecution must begin)"

Staff, LII. “Entrapment.” LII / Legal Information Institute, 13 Apr. 2015, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/entrapment "Entrapment An affirmative defense in which a defendant alleges that police officers acquired the evidence necessary to commence a criminal prosecution of the defendant by inducing the defendant to engage in a criminal act which the defendant would not otherwise have committed. see, e.g. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540(1992)"

“Legal Dictionary - Law.com.” Law.com Legal Dictionary, dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=211 "clean hands doctrine n. a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have "clean hands" or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim. His/her activities not involved in the legal action can be abominable because they are considered irrelevant. As an affirmative defense (positive response) a defendant might claim the plaintiff (party suing him/her) has a "lack of clean hands" or "violates the clean hands doctrine" because the plaintiff has misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. Example: A former partner sues on a claim that he was owed money on a consulting contract with the partnership when he left, but the defense states that the plaintiff (party suing) has tried to get customers from the partnership by spreading untrue stories about the remaining partner's business practices."





$extortion defined is having sex, or not, with a man, and later demanding rewards, money, or fame with an "or else" clause. Rod will make one more appearance after his retirement, speech on Russian Conspiracy Theory, Addendum Timeline Annotated Constitution of United States, Article II by Rod Jackson, now that he has seen the Time Line, somebody leaked it to New York Times September 20, 2018, Conspiracy Hoax, and full of fake news, yes it is a Hoax, they call people's differences of opinions fake, folks, an opinion is not fake news because you disagree, even the front page, the one eye, stands for Globalism, Trump and Putin are not Globalist, they both are anti-globalist, and it better supports Rod's theory over the last two years. Why is You Tube framing a lot of American musicians with one eye, is it not to frame them in New York Times conspiracy theory, why was not Wiki-leaks removed from Twitter before the 2016 Election, removed Alex Jones in a couple hours for violating policies, is it not left up to Frame Americans, who connect to a tweet, or hashtag, or direct message someone, very shaky precedents being set by owners of social media working with the government, to create conspiracies. He'll wait after the hearing next Monday with the Supreme Court to give final remarks on both or more political games, the act not so important, and the political collateral damage, maybe waiting out reaction to Cosby Sentencing on Monday was the goal, set in May for September 24, 2018, since Tuesday is good, but not Monday. Congress should keep schedule, vote on Monday Morning, to savage any hope of confirmation, if he loses, then there will be no celebratory celebration of this alleged allegation bestowed in Congress after her testimony; the truth may never be gotten to. Many times a victim won't appear because they made a false allegation and will be impeached on the witness stand, they have filed a false police report and the investigators have discovered it, contradictory evidence, and the victim will be charged with filing a false police report, or there was not enough evidence, insufficient evidence, to prove that the victim's accusation happened, no place, no time, no witnesses, no physical evidence, and a continued changing story, or the victim lied to damage someone's reputation for political gain, political maneuvers to stop someone from getting something they deserved, coercion, and never intended to appear in a court room; dropped charges, in any case the defendant-accused is the True-Victim from such ruthless, vindictive, cold, and calculating people. Yes, Rod's opinion is that Trump would be a fool to have an interview. Tape-recordings, witness corroborating stories, fabricating false testimony, planting evidence, manufacturing  or fabricating evidence, fake news and spreading discourse, where people call "suggestive review answers and opinions," a term used by business leaders as an investigative tool on an issue used in The Scientific World Journal called lies and fake news by not so business journalist each night on television, the two, term fake news, probably not admissible into a court of competence as a definable legal term, entrapment, framing, lies, secret bugs maybe, wires tapes maybe, rewarded (pay-to-play) admitted felons, phone tapes maybe, hidden secret tape recordings on people, threats of arrest, he may want to wait until after he is charged to disprove the charges. The opinion is not fake. I mean what thousand things could any person get wrong; or contradictory evidence possible fabricated after one testifies where there have been any signs of bias, hostility, and corruption by investigators (leaking, conspiracy, lying, hiding exculpatory evidence, that will come out in criminal discover). But, Rod is not a lawyer, and not connected to Trump Campaign, MANGA, and not part of any Russian conspiracies. He never talked to any Russians. 

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

Re, Gregg. “Kavanaugh Accuser's Details Have Changed, but She Remains Certain about Abuse.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 23 Sept. 2018, www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/kavanaugh-accusers-details-have-changed-but-remains-certain-about-abuse.html. Kavanaugh was a Federal Judge in 2012 – Present. “Those boys purportedly included Kavanaugh, Judge, and another classmate, Patrick Smyth -- all of whom have since denied to the Senate Judiciary Committee,” “She said that her therapist had made an error by indicating she had told him in 2012 that all four boys had been involved in attacking her.” “However, a woman, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford's at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, has since been identified by Ford as a fourth witness at the party. In a dramatic twist, Keyser emerged Saturday night to say she doesn’t know Kavanaugh or remember being at the party with him. “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” Keyser's lawyer, Howard J. Walsh III, said in an email to the Senate Judiciary Committee that was obtained by Fox News.” ‘ANALYSIS: FORD'S ACCUSATIONS AGAINST KAVANAUGH REVEAL BIG PROBLEM IN THE MEDIA “Republicans have fiercely criticized Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, for initially failing to disclose -- even anonymously -- the letter she received from Ford on July 30 outlining her allegations against Kavanaugh. Ford did not send the letter directly to Feinstein, opting instead to route it through her Northern California congresswoman. Feinstein only shared the letter with federal authorities and other senators less than two weeks ago, days before a key Judiciary Committee vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation”                                            


Last Post 10/04/2018 DC Chaos. Weekend votes are politics; serious votes are Monday thru Friday. Rod predicts K man won't be nominated; since it is still politics at work. The #metoo flash angry mobs will come out in full force, as planned, to intermediate, intimidate, the Government leaders and coerce the vote to support a woman liar that made false allegations against a male, okay he was white, Rod saw the movie "Purge," are they all white-racist-kkk-russo-conspirators that need to be eliminated, one may decry she should go to jail. Another say she is a hero, fly banners they support all survivors, for her, a survivor, on attempting to destroy a male, that survived, the survivor, not being caught or maybe prosecuted, but surely not for the male falsely accused, the survivor, of this vindictive, spiteful, meanness, nastiness, heartlessness, attacks, with emotions’ worse than sexual assault, he has been assaulted, by, this, many a woman, who pat themselves on the back, how great they are, a woman survived, but not really what the hell she did survive. Sorry #metoo, we do not support your leaders that lie, and present little evidence other than hearsay, he said this, she said that, or your leaders that support liars, because they happen to be of woman origin, you are sexist, racist and discriminatory against the male species. Not even threats from angry, violent, loud, obnoxious, lynch mobs of yours, such as yours, will you not overthrow our government bodies, our laws, with your Chaos. We Americans do support male victims, even the white ones, in $extortion cases. Rod not saying that he would vote for the K man himself for Supreme Court; but it would not be because he is white and a male, but he guess this will bring this Chaos to a close for politics on this case; until the next unjust arise. Such a syndicate angry flash mob of women and pink men, forming, acting in such fashion, virtual, or on government property, should be shut down itself. The constitution gives one the right to protest within certain limits; it does not mention angry flash mobs, nor lynch mobs, as being constitutional. But, you have already purged, been taught, to purge yourself, not teaching your black boys to read at the proficiency as the other races:

21 Quotes by Margaret Sanger that Will Probably Make You Sick. (n.d.). By TFP Student Action. doi:https://www.tfpstudentaction.org/blog/margaret-sanger-quotes

Founder of Planned Parenthood quotes, "3. "We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..." -- Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2" "16. "... these two words [birth control] sum up our whole philosophy... It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks -- those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization." -- Margaret Sanger, "High Lights in the History of Birth Control," Oct 1923. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s..." "2. "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." -- Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families." (1920)http://www.bartleby.com/1013/"

BlackGenocide.org | Abortion and the Black Community. (n.d.). doi:http://www.blackgenocide.org/abortion.htm

The Purge: "In America, over 15 million BLACK BABIES since 1973."

Hearsay Evidence not admissible in court, maybe, of a Scenario for a Con Artist; this guy has made it, they knew him, can prove it, a signature in a year book, that they may add to, forging, or they have a picture with the guy that made it, or they were at a party he attended, or read a book about some “not so famous stuff” that they can tweak into their story; now they have their premise to begin their story, lie, but they need to fabricate additional evidence; testimony evidence. They can visit a psychiatrist or psychologist and tell them the lie, to document the lie, give it some creditability, which never happen, happened. Then, they may say a different situation years later, and say, that that creditability that they fabricated through the psychiatrist or psychologist was a lie, the psychiatrist or psychologist wrote it down wrong, but the knew lie that they told to people today is the truth, and not what they original told the psychiatrist or psychologist. In their old story, they may have told a close relative, husband, or anyone that will say that they told them, they told them, twenty years later, and say they have corroborating witnesses to the story. But, a good investigator knows these are not corroborating witnesses to anything, all they are doing is repeating the lie, hearsay evidence, which does not corroborate anything but someone told them a lie and they are repeating the lie, hearsay, maybe, not admissible in real competent court of law. So, the good investigators have no reason to question these hearsay witnesses because they are not really corroborating witnesses, at all.

Now the Con Artist(s) makes contact with her new story and is told to get a special attorney that handles these cases, he will get you a lie detector test, and pay for it, to show that you are not lying. She is not told to go to the police department and file a criminal complaint and take a lie detector test with them or to talk to a rape counselor. This is politics; not so much victim concern policy. They will destroy this man.

“Why Polygraph Tests Are Not Admissible in Court.” Dallas Criminal Defense Attorneys |State & Federal Lawyers, 13 Oct. 2015, www.brodenmickelsen.com/blog/why-polygraph-tests-are-not-admissible-in-court/

So, now this person (s) hooks up, maybe, with a skilled, as some people said, maybe, low life attorney, that has all the connections, this is what they do. They get together another forty or fifty more or these phony witnesses, maybe, not admissible in court and try to use them in the media. The low life attorney, as one may call, or an ex attorney general, maybe already have connections in the FBI with these cases; so the case is referred to the FBI that set on it until the time is right. But, a different set of investigators’ under great watch by other investigators are assigned to investigate properly, this case, and not work with the Con Artist, or their attorneys, giving them information to make up the “rest of the story” or make use of their non- corroborating long witness list that they attempt to sell as corroborating witness to the press and other kangaroo courts; that do not buy it this time. They know nothing but the lie told them. Then now seek revenge.

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

Berry, Deborah Barfield, et al. “Brett Kavanaugh Confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, Cementing Conservative Control of the Nation's Highest Court.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 6 Oct. 2018, www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/06/brett-kavanaugh-senate-confirmation-final-vote-supreme-court/1538964002/

Kelly, Caroline. “Collins: 'I Do Not Believe That Brett Kavanaugh Was' Ford's Assailant.” CNN, Cable News Network, 6 Oct. 2018, www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/collins-sotu-kavanaugh-cnntv/index.html

Baker, Peter, and Michael S. Schmidt. “White House Tells F.B.I. to Interview Anyone Necessary for Kavanaugh Inquiry.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 Oct. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/trump-fbi-kavanaugh.html

Charter, David. “FBI Clears Brett Kavanaugh as Senate Prepares to Vote.” The Sunday Times, The Sunday Times, 5 Oct. 2018, www.thetimes.co.uk/article/supreme-court-fbi-clears-brett-kavanaugh-as-senate-prepares-to-vote-5g097csmc

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

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

Cleveland, Margot. “Christine Blasey Ford's Changing Kavanaugh Assault Story Leaves Her Short on Credibility.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 3 Oct. 2018, www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-changing-memories-not-credible-kavanaugh-column/1497661002


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.03 Jurisdiction and Venue

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

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

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

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

Homepage Rod 's /Family 1815-Present | Baptism Privacy Policy | Contact Page | Disclaimer  Site Map