I think that the FBI should be curious enough to try to use their resources to recover this material, as well as her Holton-Arms high school yearbooks.

I hope that the FBI will also be diligent is checking out Dr. Ford’s high school years and her behavior, particularly as documented by her Holton-Arms high school yearbooks, apparently available, despite attempts to scrub them from the Internet.

** See https://www.scribd.com/document/389218606/Excerpts-From-Christine-Blasey-Ford-s-HOLTON-ARMS-Yearbook-by-Cult-of-the-1st-Amendment

Gatewaypundit’s people are doing a great job of fact checking Dr. Ford’s story, and it turns out they may have found another lie.

According to a story they’ve published today**, Dr. Ford was running/housed what appears to be some sort of couples counseling business at her home address.

It seems to me that having a second, different door for clients to enter and exit –without disturbing her family–makes much more sense than having a “panic door” as she claimed that second door to be.

It does seem like someone took the details of her life and experiences and recast them in a way to further Ford’s J’accuse narrative.

It would really be nice to see what Ford actually told her therapist/ But of course, her lawyers refuse to give the Senate Judiciary Committee that evidence.

** https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/this-doesnt-look-good-business-was-listed-operating-out-of-christine-fords-home-would-explain-second-door/

Revealed are people you would not invite to your house, not trust that they wouldn’t steal the silverware, or knife you in the back, if it was convenient, and served their interests.

Time to start flushing all most all of them out of their cushy congressional seats.

Judge Kavanaugh’s Nomination Puts Girls’ Rights At School At Risk
Don’t Turn The Kavanaugh Confirmation Into A Title IX Kangaroo Court
The Kavanaugh-Ford Hearing and Campus Sexual Assault: 3 Parallels
Could new Title IX rules invite retaliation? – POLITICO
Transgender Students & Title IX — Obama Administration Rewrites It
Sexual Misconduct Attorney | Know Your Title IX Rights?
[bet you didnt know laws could confer rights… and erase or modify others]

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

“Take her at her word” v “innocent until proven guilty” (self.Feminism)

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Margaret Atwood is a blood-drinking monster
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/margaret-atwood-is-a-blood-drinking-monster/article37609895/

Moderates like Ms. Atwood, with their odious ideas about due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, are traitors to the Revolution.

As one letter to The Globe put it the other day: “Revolution isn’t about justice. It’s about change.”

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

‘Guilty until proven innocent’: life after a false rape accusation
A growing group of men are calling for changes in the law around sexual assault to protect those who are the victims of false accusations, reports Jonathan Wells
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11912748/Guilty-until-proven-innocent-life-after-a-false-rape-accusation.html

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Feminist Actress Doesn’t Believe in ‘Innocent Until Proven Guilty’ for Sexual Assault

feminist actress/activist Amber Tamblyn (Joan of Arcadia, The Sisterhood of theTraveling Pants) has decided that people accused of assault or rape are “suspect until proven innocent.” On Twitter, the #metoo actress posted: “People keep asking me if I believe in innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to sexual assault, I believe in suspect until proven innocent. Goodnight.”

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Why I No Longer Call Myself A Feminist
https://www.cosmo.ph/lifestyle/not-a-feminist-anymore-a733-20170131-lfrm4
That means taking the victim’s word for what it is and/or setting up policies that will harshly punish the accused. There is hardly any due process in that. If a woman has to prove she was assaulted? You’re promoting rape culture! they say. To feminists, there is no “innocent until proven guilty” in these cases; yet the presumption of innocence is a human right. Systems of justice rely on that to prevent people from ruining innocent lives.

[nice she writes in 2017, but the thing that did this was created in 1972… talk about waking up slow to a new incarnation of communism and control.. without the supreme court and that limit, we will probably have a dictatorship soon (which is their stated goal but who listens to them? you hear them, but do you listen?)… ]

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Radical Feminism And The So-Called ‘Rape Epidemic’ | Above the Law
For the college-age male accused of sexual assault, it’s “guilty until proven innocent,” where the blameless are sacrificed at the ideological altar of radical feminism
https://abovethelaw.com/2015/12/radical-feminism-and-the-so-called-rape-epidemic/

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Why Feminists Are on the Wrong Side of Justice When it Comes to Betsy DeVos
https://acculturated.com/feminists-wrong-side-justice-comes-betsy-devos/

Radical feminists don’t care about equality. They don’t care about justice. They don’t care about men. And they don’t seem to really care about women, either.

DeVos plans to undo an Obama-era policy that threatened universities with litigation and the loss of federal funds if they failed to comply with the government’s new criteria for handling allegations of assault.

for the students accused of assault, things are far from noble. “Innocent until proven guilty” was replaced by “guilty if there’s a 50.01% chance he did it.” Who needs an impartial jury of one’s peers when there’s a single, appointed investigator with the power to determine who gets expelled?

Due process went out the window. Could the accused see the evidence against them? Nah. Cross-examine witnesses? Nope. Employ legal counsel? Not really.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

[and who never can get work, may lose family if they find out, and on and on too, and not one iota of evidence… you would think in my murder investigation they would have first checked to see if the person was dead… they werent… but hell with that, he murdered her anyway!!!!]

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

MGTOW means not having to fight a losing battle to save people that hate you!

Since the late 1970s, early 1980s, feminism has always attacked presumption of innocence constantly as unfair to women, minorities, inter-sectional, gays, etc. / changes to address this that we the peoplle allowed, from hiding the accuser, to hiding the perpetrator, only if either is a woman… to presumption of guilt as a norm on campus, to that in family court, to other areas…

of course. wait 30 years before you do anything and its precedence is solid as concrete
All your going to do is sit on this screwed up train and ride it
your time to act was when i was annoying you 10 years ago
NOW… its time to watch your chickens of inaction roost

ie. the end of our nation as it was as the feminsts intended it to be as they have always said and claimed, and thats that..

the only people who could have fought this, bailed and were presumed members of the opposition to their future… too bad i guess… maybe next time people wont let weeds and crap grow unattended till its so large you cant ignore it any more..

try to say its not them and i will show you 30 years of such
and too bad you didnt fight seizures and defend drug addicts, as now they come for you
you didnt defend the banks from activists doing damed if you do damned if you dont, now what?
too bad you didnt protect men, allowing (the feminist concept of) “unequal treatment for equal outcomes” to be enshrined by law, now they come for you
neimolloer warned you

under Title IX the standard of proof is a mere “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning that if the adjudicatory body leans 50.01% in favor of the victim it is to find the accused student guilty. Third, Title IX does not guarantee that an accused is given a hearing before it is determined whether he committed sexual assault, and allowing the accused to cross-examine witnesses is discouraged.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-shatz/feminists-we-are-not-winn_b_6071500.html

So if this LAW undid a foundation of our judicial system., why did we allow it?
oh yeah, men are all evil, white men are the source of slavery, etc…
and we could not have any discussions on it.. go ahead… take a look back at the 12 or more years of trying and its forced to be ignored… like senkaku islands will lead to war, we HAVE to ignore it… we cant do a thing about a precidence for this thing being placed like chess pieces in our legal system, while we sit and say no no no, until o crap, now what?

Presumption of guilt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_guilt

In 1990, Yale professor and radical feminist Catharine MacKinnon, is alleged to have addressed a graduation crowd thus; ‘look about you. Statistics tell us you have just laid eyes on someone guilty of sexual assault’. In her 1989 book Towards a Feminist Theory of the State she alleged that ‘all sex is akin to rape’.
-=-=-=-
High Court judge Sir Richard Henriques has criticized UK police training and methods which allegedly assert that ‘only 0.1% of rape allegations are false’ and in which all complainants are treated as ‘victims’ from the start. In three cases which later collapsed, including those of Liam Allan and Danny Kay, police withheld vital evidence from the defence

-=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=-
Quote from feminist:
My favorite activity to day is going through replies to the Stan Lee news & blocking eveone who says “innocent till proven guilty”
-=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=-

A Voice For Women!!
Jessica Valenti Calls for End to Presumption of Innocence, Due Process
https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/jessica-valenti-calls-for-end-to-presumption-of-innocence-due-process/

-=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=-

The Span of My Hips
Body love, mental health, and critical theory
Why I Don’t Subscribe to “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”
The IUPB framework is applied selectively. (Alleged) rapists are granted it, while their victims are presumed to be lying until proven innocent (in the extraordinarily rare case that sexual assault is actually convicted).
-=-=-=-
The criminal justice system is set up by–and for–those in power. Grand juries rarely indict police officers and the courts are simply not set up to attend to the realities of most sexualized violence. So if you are a vulnerable person (a woman, a person of colour, any number of intersecting identities), relying on the court to tell you who to stay away from, who to keep your eye on, who to warn your loved ones away from, you’re trusting a rigged system to keep you safe.
[so the fix will be to give THOSE same people presumption of guilt? great feminist logic in action!!!!]
-=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=-
Geek Feminism Wiki

Innocent until proven guilty is a part of the United States Judicial System in which it is argued that any harmful action that did not result in a criminal conviction must not result in any repercussions to the person who was accused of committing the action.

Problems with this stance include:

not all harmful actions actually being illegal in the first place (for example, many jurisdictions only make sexual harassment an offense in the workplace, if then)

the considerable time, energy and monetary burden assumed by victims who report harmful acts, in interacting with the police, lawyers and the judicial system

evidence of considerable underreporting of harm to oppressed groups, lack of prosecution when reported, and low rates of conviction when tried

the nation-state is a very powerful entity, typically having effectively unlimited financial resources and reserving the right to commit violence to itself, against which almost any individual person has a considerable disadvantage. It makes sense to hold such an entity to extremely strict burden of proof in exercising its power, relative to, say, a geek conference or meetup!

for followup check out
Fair trial for suggestions that geek communities should set up their own court-like systems for dealing with harassment or abuse.
-=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=–=-=-=-

your way too freaking late to do a thing about this!!!
other than discuss waiting for the hangman!!!

you should have been paying attention to what they have been doing in the places you dont pay attention to… they said they were going to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE things… think presumption is fundamental enough?

not a thing you can do now… the supreme court is broken, no matter what the outcome
[wait till the ladies see what they did to their id to quote a song]

this is now NORMALIZED by it being around unopposed for so long
title ix Effective: June 23, 1972

there is tons of it
too bad women dont know what women do in their name

if you survey the mens boards. they dont want to oppose it either
their attitude is that the best outcome is that these people get what they want
and they get the life they deserve, so there is really noting to oppose here

or rather, really no way to do a thing, the queen is pinned in by a knight, a rook, a pawn and a bishop – only took from 1972 to slowly do what they SAID THEY WOULD DO

Juanita Broaddrick never said anything of the kind. Democrats cannot stop lying.

The Senate was never under any obligation to consent to his elevation to the court. Nothing done to him was ‘undeserved’. He was left in peace. The last Democratic nominee raked over the coals was LBJ’s seedy crony, Abe Fortas. In the intervening years Wm. Rehnquist and Samuel Alito were subject to inquisitions that no Democratic nominee has had to face since Fortas and Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and now Brett Kavanaugh have been subject to campaigns of defamation so vicious and ugly you’d have to reach waaay back into the 19th century to find a precedent if you could find one at all.

If it does not, then courtroom results have no heft outside the courtroom unless they match the public verdict, as well. Which ultimately destroys Rule of Law. This is where lynch mobs form. Or a man is shunned by the community, though he was legally exonerated.

The funny thing about mob rule – it’s not really democracy as folks like to think of it. Folks think “democracy” and they think about individuals, making their own decisions and voting their own minds.
But, mobs are easily led. They are not a mass of individuals, but a group, a flock. In reality, mob rule is often rule by some clique (or a single person) with the power to present ideas as true, and thereby herd the mob about for their own ends.

https://www.thenewneo.com/2018/09/29/trial-by-tears/#comment-2406258

Snow on Pine on September 29, 2018 at 5:10 pm at 5:10 pm said:
Well, well, well.

According to an article out today**, it turns out that “Research Psychologist” “Doctor” Ford was misrepresenting her credentials (starting with the first sentence of her prepared testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, no less), that she is not a licensed psychologist in the state of California, nor has she ever been, and, that, in fact in the ten days before her testimony the folks at Stanford made some seven revisions to her bio on their “Stanford Profiles” website, culminating with their changing her title:

From: “Research Psychologist, Psych/General Psychiatry and Psychology (Adult)”

To: “Affiliate, Psychiatry and Behavioral Science”

** https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/holy-crap-christine-fords-stanford-bio-page-was-altered-updated-10-days-before-hearing/