Judicial Corruption

Arrest Warrant Plans Make A Mockery Of Universal Jurisdiction - Political Corruption As Normal
QUOTE
Giving suspects from 'protected countries' immunity from war crimes arrests would turn the UK into a safe haven for suspects

The rationale behind universal jurisdiction is that certain crimes – piracy, war crimes, genocide, torture, crimes against humanity and hostage taking – are so harmful to international interests that states are entitled, and in some cases even obliged, to bring proceedings, regardless of the location of the crime and the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim. In accordance with that principle, in December 2009 a British judge granted an arrest warrant against Tzipi Livni, who had been the foreign minister during Israel's assault on Gaza a year earlier. It was withdrawn when it emerged that she had not travelled here after all, but the Labour government, backed by the Conservative leadership, expressed outrage that the warrant had been issued.

The coalition government claims that it is in favour of applying universal jurisdiction here. But it has brought forward proposals to change the law on arrest warrants requested by private individuals in international cases that will, in practice, deny access to criminal justice to victims from those countries allied to Britain who are prepared to withdraw intelligence co-operation or use other political or economic pressure to achieve immunity for suspects.

If the law is changed, suspects from a list of "protected countries" that includes Israel, America, China, Saudi Arabia and potentially others, such as Bahrain, will visit our shores with impunity, making us a safe haven for some war criminals and torturers. This outcome would be a sick parody of true universal jurisdiction.

The offending clause in the police reform and social responsibility bill [ see Section 153 of Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 ], which receives its third reading in the House of Commons this week, will give the director of public prosecutions (DPP) a veto over private applications to judges for arrest warrants in international criminal cases. Complainants will have to beg the to give them the keys to the court, even though no legal need has been demonstrated for this change. Ten applications for arrest warrants in 10 years, with two being successful, hardly suggests that judges are unable to weed out bogus cases.

Parliamentarians appear unaware that behind the visible hurdle of the DPP is an invisible and insurmountable one in certain cases, namely the attorney general, who will be the instrument that will deliver the new restricted form of universal jurisdiction that the government has in mind. The  DPP's evidence to the Commons public bill committee in January was unequivocal – he would consult the attorney general attorney general whenever he is approached to give consent to allow an application to proceed to court. The attorney general will make a judgment [ allegedly ] on the public interest test behind closed doors, knowing he or she will never be held accountable for the decision, and all the victim will know is that the DPP refused consent to an application to a judge for an arrest warrant.

The foreign secretary, William Hague, made the government's logic clear to parliament last week (Hansard, 24 March 2011, Col 1130):

"It makes this country rather ridiculous if people can get an arrest warrant for people from other countries where there is no realistic chance of prosecution … The law as it stands has been abused in relation to visitors from several other countries. It was abused, in my view, when there was a threat to the proposed visit of Mrs. Livni to the United Kingdom. She is an Israeli politician of great importance and a strong advocate of the peace process [ Livni is a vicious war criminal - Editor ] … If we want, as we do, to be able to engage in pushing forward the peace process, we need such people to be able to visit the United Kingdom."

The abuse he has in mind seems to have nothing to do with the strength of the evidence, but everything to do with his government's perception as to how the public interest test applies to suspects from "protected countries". The public interest test is logically considered when deciding to charge someone, rather than arrest them, because the decision-maker wants to have a full assessment of the evidence prior to deciding whether a prosecution is in the public interest. Anachronistically in these international cases, it is not the DPP who makes the charging decision, but the attorney general, who can lawfully consult with cabinet colleagues before deciding whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

Giving the DPP the "keys to the court" actually means that the public interest decision is brought forward from the charging stage and hidden from view, and will protect a swath of suspects from arrest. If the attorney general privately tells the DPP that it will not be in the public interest for protected suspects to be prosecuted, then the DPP's role is just a smokescreen to prevent political accountability of the attorney general.

Is it in the public interest to have a list of countries or suspects that are going to be protected from the application of universal jurisdiction? What if the even-handed application of criminal justice to all suspects would do more to enhance peace processes everywhere than granting immunity from prosecution, especially as the number of politicians actually at risk is limited and that immunities apply to some key individuals in any event.

Indeed, it is in Israel's interests to exaggerate the impact of arrests and prosecutions of its nationals on the Middle East peace process, and Hague has fallen for this trick, just as David Miliband did before him. If the true reason for giving Israelis and others immunity is the fear of reprisals by withholding intelligence, then surely the public should know this?

Neither the interests of justice nor the long-term reputation of this country in relation to the even-handed application of the rule of law will be enhanced by the secretive administrative process being proposed to parliament. A legal case for changing the current judicial process, through the senior district judge, has not been made out and parliament is entitled to reject the proposed change on that basis alone.
UNQUOTE
The Guardian talks the talk when criminals it does not like are getting a pass from corrupt politicians. But some criminals are more equal than others.
Protected countries include:-
Israel
America
China
Saudi Arabia
Bahrain - maybe

 

2011 c. - Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/13/contents/enacted

Arrest warrants153.Restriction on issue of arrest warrants in private prosecutions

Arrest warrants153.Restriction on issue of arrest warrants in private prosecutions

153 Restriction on issue of arrest warrants in private prosecutions(1)In section 1 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (issue of summons or warrant), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A)Where a person who is not a public prosecutor lays an information before a justice of the peace in respect of an offence to which this subsection applies, no warrant shall be issued under this section without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
(4B)In subsection (4A) “public prosecutor” has the same meaning as in section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
(4C)Subsection (4A) applies to—
(a) a qualifying offence which is alleged to have been committed outside the United Kingdom, or
(b)an ancillary offence relating to a qualifying offence where it is alleged that the qualifying offence was, or would have been, committed outside the United Kingdom.
(4D)In subsection (4C) “qualifying offence” means any of the following—
(a) piracy or an offence under section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837 (piracy where murder is attempted);
(b)an offence under section 1 of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (grave breaches of Geneva conventions);
(c)an offence which (disregarding the provisions of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978, the Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983, the United Nations Personnel Act 1997 and the Terrorism Act 2000) would not be an offence apart from section 1 of the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (attacks and threats of attacks on protected persons);
(d)an offence under section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 (hostage-taking);
(e)an offence under section 1, 2 or 6 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 (hijacking etc.);
(f)an offence which (disregarding the provisions of the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978, the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978, the United Nations Personnel Act 1997 and the Terrorism Act 2000) would not be an offence apart from sections 1 to 2A of the Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983 (offences relating to nuclear material);
(g)an offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (torture);
(h)an offence under section 1 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 (endangering safety at aerodromes);
(i) an offence under sections 9 to 14 of that Act (hijacking ships etc.);
(j)an offence which (disregarding the provisions of the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978, the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978, the Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983 and the Terrorism Act 2000) would not be an offence apart from sections 1 to 3 of the United Nations Personnel Act 1997 (attacks on UN workers etc.).
(4E)In subsection (4C) “ancillary offence”, in relation to an offence, means—
(a) an offence under Part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (encouraging or assisting crime) in relation to the offence (including, in relation to times before the commencement of that Part, an offence of incitement);
(b) attempting or conspiring to commit the offence.”.
(2)In section 25 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (consents to prosecutions etc.), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A)Subsection (2)(a) is subject to section 1(4A) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.”.

 

Englishman Convicted Of  'Offending' Muslims On Facebook [ 12 August 2016 ]
QUOTE
A man from Manchester in the United Kingdom has been sentenced to 180 hours unpaid work and a 12-month community order after posting comments that were said to be “grossly offensive” towards Muslims.

Stephen Bennett, 39, reportedly took to the Greater Manchester Police’s Facebook page to post comments “concerning an Asian woman” as well as another which was “likely to be offensive to Muslims”. While the Greater Manchester Police refused to disclose the details of the case to Breitbart London, he is said to have also written: “Don’t come over to this country and treat it like your own. Britain first,” according to the Manchester Evening News.

The father of seven, whose mother-in-law and sister-in-law are Muslim, was visited at his home at 8am by police officers who arrested him under the anti-free speech Malicious Communications Act. He is reported to have said to the officers: “Is this about that Muslim thing on Facebook? I’m getting locked up for sticking up for my own country.”

The legislation, brought forward under Tony Blair’s Labour government in 2003, states that a person is guilty of an offensive if they:

• send by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or;
• cause any such message or matter to be so sent.

It adds:

A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b) causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(4)Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to anything done in the course of providing a programme service (within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990 (c. 42)).

The loosely worded law has caused legal experts to question the “menacing” nature of the legislation.

It is the same legislation that saw a man frustrated with airport delays who tweeted a sardonic threat to “blow the airport sky high!” prosecuted in a much-publicised case – the “Twitter Joke Trial” – which eventually led to a court quashing the sentence after three appeals..........

The judge said his comments ran “the risk of stirring up racial hatred in the present climate” and sentenced him to a 12-month community order with 180 hours unpaid work. The judge added: “Your remarks damaged the community in which you live, and it’s the community that you must repay.”
UNQUOTE
This is bad law and a bad decision. Blair is a corrupt little Psychopath on the make. This law is just one example of his evil. He also got rid of the law regarding Double Jeopardy so that he could mount a second and Malicious Prosecution on the Englishmen alleged to have killed Lawrence, a black. Then there all the thousands he murdered by making war on Zionist crazies against Iraq.
PS Notice that Subsection 4 makes the BBC exempt when it incites anti-English race hatred contrary to Part III of the Public Order Act 1986.

 

Anish Patel Tweeted  [ 8 November 2017 ]

If your face fits, you walk free no matter what. Think e.g. of Blair, Jimmy Savile et cetera ad nauseam. If it doesn't, you're screwed. Poor little Emma West knows that. Tommy Robinson is a tougher proposition, albeit the source of this one is a Zionist liar with an agenda.

 

Black Female Racist Admits Torturing White Teenager And Walks Free  [ 12 December 2017 ]
QUOTE
A Chicago woman who live-streamed video of the racially charged beating of a teen with mental disabilities pleaded guilty Friday to a hate crime and was sentenced to four years of probation.

Calling the incident “horrific,” Cook County Circuit Judge William Hooks banned Covington from social media over the four years, prohibited her from contact with two of her co-defendants and ordered her to do 200 hours of community service..........

Hooks said he hoped the strict terms [ sic ] of probation would put Covington on a more productive life path, but he warned she would face prison time if she violated any of the restrictions.
UNQUOTE
Having a bent judge Perverting The Course Of Justice by letting blatant evil doers walk free after major offences sends a message to the wonderful people of the crime industry, to Blacks that they can do whatever they want. Of course it is different for White Men.
PS Police in Chicago have well informed views about the Judge and about official corruption generally.

 

Senior Judge Billed Office £75 To Have His Daughter's Splinter Removed [ 8 October 2019 ]
QUOTE
A senior judge spent £75 of his legal chambers' funds to pay for a splinter to be removed from his daughter's finger, an employment tribunal heard. Anthony Metzer QC, a deputy high court judge, also made sure members of his family and their friends were taken on as interns, it was claimed.

They were allegedly paid more than their colleagues and known as 'Metzer's interns'.

When Karen Gillard, a fellow barrister and chambers deputy treasurer, leaked details of the splinter treatment to website Legal Cheek she was fired, the central London tribunal was told.
UNQUOTE
Is this a story of earth shattering importance? No but it does tell us something about the Establishment, the light fingered rogues who run and ruin the country. Notice further the malice that led to the whistleblower being invited to take her services elsewhere. It is entirely likely that Metzer is a Jew, one of a tribe that likes its pound of flesh. He not a senior judge; that is just the Mail overstating its case again.

 

 Justice closes its eyes to BBC bias [ 27 February 2020 ]   by Kathy Gyngell
It is very disappointing to have to report that three judges (two in the High Court, one in the Court of Appeal) have thwarted David Keighley’s application for judicial review to challenge the impartiality of the BBC.

Very frustratingly, they have acted without calling a full oral hearing to consider evidence put forward by David and his legal team, relying instead on written submissions to the court. That shows an almost casual disregard for the importance of the need to make sure the BBC meets its main Charter obligations – and leaves no line of redress except through Ofcom, which is itself stuffed full of ex-BBC staff of the same mindset.

Judges lined up to assist Gina Miller [ a Third World alien, a Sikh from Guyana ] in her manic efforts to stop Brexit, but faced with extensive evidence of the need to stop the BBC’s negative reporting of Brexit, they have performed the judicial equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and closing their eyes.

Last summer TCW’s readers helped support the crowdfunding effort get this judicial review in motion.

As David reports on the crowdfunding site, Lord Justice Singh in the Court of Appeal has refused to grant leave to appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Supperstone who on 14 November 2019 rejected his application for judicial review to challenge the impartiality and performance measures of the BBC. This hearing was a review of the refusal of Mrs Justice Lang to grant leave for the judicial review (on the most cursory of grounds).

You can read about the rejection of the appeal in detail, with links to both rulings, here.

David Keighley is left with considerable costs – approximately £18,000 – to shoulder, on top of the £57,000 very generously donated in the crowd-funding appeal, which paid the considerable costs of taking the case through its various stages.

The brick wall nature of the judgment is extremely worrying and frankly raises nearly as many questions about our judiciary as it does about the BBC.

It seems extraordinary, too, that Mrs Justice Lang has decreed this level of costs. She might as well have said: ‘This is a warning to anyone who has the temerity to challenge the action of the nation’s monopoly broadcaster – you will pay for it.’

Neither judgment, of the High Court or the Court of Appeal, took into account the inability of the BBC to exercise its judgment, analyse its performance and properly measure it. There’s no doubt, as David writes, the lack of impartiality of the BBC continues to be a matter of grave public concern – the recent raft of negative newspaper reporting of BBC bias supports that. You would be forgiven for believing there was no current debate about the BBC or the anachronism and inequity of the Licence Fee.

The BBC remains its own judge and jury – which we pay for. As David has written repeatedly, the ‘supervision’ of OFCOM has made no difference. Its October 2019 review of BBC News and Current Affairs content and elsewhere demonstrated that it is not prepared to tackle this issue. 

David has not stopped in his endeavours. This judicial review case is over, but with the support of other like-minded individuals, he will carry on trying to make the BBC accountable and comply with its Charter obligations.

 

Judicial Discretion Abused By Judges And Others             
The Establishment is destroying England Western Civilization deliberately, with malice aforethought. Sean Gabb, our leading Libertarian does not put it quite so bluntly but that is the message.
QUOTE
Any system of criminal justice worth the name needs to reconcile humanity with certainty. On the one hand, part of the function of the criminal law is deterrent. When you know that you will go to prison for six months if you smash someone’s window, you may be less inclined to pick up the stone than if you believe you may get an absolute discharge or a whipping. Another part of the system’s function is to match severity of sentencing to the perceived gravity of offences. We need to see that breaking a window is less of a crime than breaking someone’s nose, and that murder is much more of a crime than either.

On the other hand, no set of laws can take into account every set of circumstances. Should someone who steals a loaf of bread for a bet receive the same punishment as if he had stolen it to feed his hungry children? We can write in allowances for age and mental capacity. We can write in examples of mitigating circumstances. But rigid sentencing tariffs will always lead, sooner or later, to perceived injustice of punishments. Indeed, unless the system is in the hands of human robots, rigid tariffs will usually be circumvented in practice. Before the nineteenth century, English juries would often acquit rather than see a defendant sentenced to death or transportation for a crime of passion or an uncharacteristic lapse. Or judges would pass sentence, and then approach the King or his Ministers for a pardon or a commutation of punishment. Later on, the prosecuting authorities would bring lesser or greater charges, depending on how they saw a defendant.

By the twentieth century, both in Britain and America, a criminal justice system had emerged in which, murder and treason aside, offences had minimum and maximum sentences laid down in the law, and it was up to the judges to decide what sentence was appropriate within these bands. Sometimes, a judge was too harsh or too lenient. On the whole, however, the system worked. It reconciled a general hierarchy of punishments with a reasonable faith in the justice of punishment for each individual case.

In Britain, the system is now breaking down. Take these examples:

In January 2013, Chelsea Lambie and Douglas Cruikshank attached bacon to door handles and threw strips inside the Edinburgh Central Mosque in Scotland. In June 2014, Lambie was sent to prison for twelve months and Cruikshank for nine months. [Pair jailed for Edinburgh’s Central Mosque bacon attack]

In June 2014, an Islamic teacher called Suleman Maknojioa was found guilty of sexually molesting one of his eleven year-old female students. He was let off going to prison because the Judge accepted that his wife’s English was too bad for her to function in England without him to take her about. [Islamic teacher who sexually abused girl, 11, as he taught her the Koran spared jail because his wife doesn’t speak English]

I could fill a whole article – I could fill a small book – with similar instances of differential punishments that must shock any reasonable sense of right and wrong. I am not saying that the wilful desecration of a place of worship should go unpunished, or even that the case given above should have been punished exactly as if the defendants had left bacon in a church. But prison for sacrilege and a suspended sentence for sexual assault of a child – where is the justice in that?

The answer is that the criminal justice system has been politicised. It still dispenses justice, but the justice dispensed is no longer our justice. It instead reflects the sense of right and wrong of a ruling class that has no regard for the moral views of ordinary people, but is committed to a revolutionary transformation of British society. Stupidity aside, there are no mitigating circumstances for those Scottish bacon-layers, and they deserved some punishment. But their real crime appears to have been that they disobeyed the prime commandment of the modern law, which is to act and speak at all times as if we really were living in a multicultural love feast. Their actual crime was “hate,” or “intolerance.” The act of leaving bacon in a mosque was only evidence of their crime. As in Rotherham [ Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal ], the sexual abuse of children may be at best a minor offence, to be lightly punished, if not systematically covered up, when committed by one of the ethnic minorities.

But the corruption is more profound than the manipulation of sentencing guidelines. During the past twenty years in Britain – and perhaps also in America – the criminal justice system has been politicised at its heart. Traditionally, a criminal court has been asked to consider two elements of guilt – wrongful act (actus reus) and wrongful intention (mens rea). For example, murder is defined as “killing with malice aforethought.” If you poison your wife to lay hands on the insurance money, you have killed her, and you have killed her deliberately. You have committed murder. If, on the other hand, you kill her by accidentally knocking her off a ladder, or letting her catch your cold that then turns to pneumonia, you may only have been negligent. You may be guilty of manslaughter or nothing at all. But you are not guilty of murder.

Beginning with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the British ruling class has added a further element, which is motivation. For example, if you commit grievous bodily harm against someone of your own race or religion, the maximum prison sentence is five years. If you commit this against someone of a different race or religion, and it can be shown that you were motivated by dislike of that race or religion, the maximum sentence is now seven years. There is a consistent loading of punishments for virtually every crime against life or property.

According to the Crown Prosecution Guidance Note:

[T]here are common problems that are experienced by victims of racist of religiously aggravated crime. They can feel extremely isolated or fearful of going out or even staying at home. They may become withdrawn, and suspicious of organisations or strangers. Their mental and physical health may suffer in a variety of ways. For young people in particular, the impact can be damaging to their self-esteem or identity and, without support, a form of self-hatred of their racial or religious identity may result.

This may be the case. But it can be the case with any assault, regardless of motive. The effect of the law is to make opinions into crimes. If you get into a fight with a black man, and you are charged with assault, you will be in greater trouble if the police then search your home and find copies of books by Enoch Powell, or if your browsing history shows that you read articles on VDare. Again, some part of your crime will be “hate,” and, again, the specific assault will be merely evidence of this.

A through tyranny, such as Bolshevik Russia, can get away with perverting the law in this manner. In a semi-free society, such as Britain or America, the natural result is gradually to bring the criminal law into scandal, and its officers into contempt. The main danger is probably not that differential punishments will lead to thorough tyranny. There is still the possibility of a reaction. The danger is that all law, of whatever kind, will be seen as an expression of rule by a malevolent ruling class, and that all the safeguards of life and property will be weakened. A further danger is that if, or when, the reaction comes, the idea of sentencing discretion will be so discredited that the balancing of certainty with humanity will be forgotten, and we shall find ourselves with a criminal law written in letters of blood.

Sadly, given the nature and current progress of the revolutionary transformation mentioned above, it can be doubted whether something unpleasant can be avoided.
UNQUOTE
Sean does not mention that the Establishment has been perverted by Zionist crazies. It is true none the less.

 

Appeal Court Orders Import Of Vicious Enemy Alien    [ 18 July 2020 ]
She went to Syria to help make war for the Queen's enemies. Now senile old fools want her back so that she can get legal aid and Pervert The Course Of Justice. In fact Begum has already been given Legal Aid by the Enemy Within. NB the Quasi-Intellectuals running what was a great university at Cambridge, one used by Isaac Newton  and Stephen Hawking [ grossly overrated ] have made a fat, ugly, stupid black the Master. She has never even taught let alone done any research - see the Protocols Of The Learned Elders of Cambridge. The other lot are just as crazed - see the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Oxford. They should not be trusted to run a whelk stall either.

 

Pakistani Policeman Kidnapped Girls, Stayed Out Of Prison & Gets To Be A Taxi Driver   [ 3 September 2020 ]
QUOTE
An ex-policeman who quit the force after admitting abducting a schoolgirl has won a battle to become a taxi driver 13 years after his conviction.

Imran Ali lured a 15-year-old and another girl into a vehicle after a night out in Manchester city centre in 2006.

The following year, the 39-year-old pleaded guilty to abducting a child under 16 at Preston Crown Court and resigned from the force having been based at Didsbury police station at the time of the offence. Ali, of Merston Drive, Manchester, then applied for a private hire licence from Sefton Council in Merseyside earlier this year, even though he lived some 40 miles away.
UNQUOTE
Pakistanis benefit from judicial corruption & political corruption if they are anywhere near Rotherham. They are setting him up for a life time of raping English girls. Ain't life grand? NB The Mail is censoring comments because he is a Pakistani but people still do not sound amused by the swine.

 

Black Murderer's Conviction Overturned By Minnesota Supreme Court  [24 September 2021 ]
QUOTE
A court has overturned the murder conviction of an American [ Somali in fact - Editor ] cop who shot dead Australian woman Justine Ruszczyk Damond. 

Rookie cop Mohamed Noor was convicted of third-degree murder after shooting Ms Damond in Minneapolis on July 15, 2017, and jailed for 12-and-a-half years. But the Minnesota Supreme Court overnight quashed the conviction on a legal technicality and ordered his sentence to be reduced.

The court agreed with his lawyers that the specific wording of the 'depraved mind' murder charge he was convicted of was not justified by his actions.

He is two years into his sentence and it is unclear how much it will be reduced by - but it is likely to be less than the 10 years he was facing..............

She feared it was a sexual assault and ran outside when the cop car arrived, approaching it from behind. Noor pulled his trigger, killing her at the scene. He never testified, nor was he interviewed by police [ in order to Pervert The Course Of Justice presumably ]. The only information his lawyers gave was that he may have been scared of her - even though she was unarmed. 

Damond had called the police after hearing a woman screaming near her home. As she approached the police vehicle, Noor fired his gun at her from the passenger seat. 

There is no bodycam of the actual shooting but there is of what happened next - when Noor's partner told him to 'keep his mouth shut' [ in order to facilitate crime - Editor ].................. The Supreme Court judges agreed. The victim's family have not yet reacted to the court's decision. 

In their defence of him at trial, Noor's attorneys said he was just doing his job. 
UNQUOTE
Even the Wikipedia admits that this "rookie cop" had been with the Minneapolis Police Department for 21 months. It also tells us that in two years as a police officer, Noor had three formal complaints against him, two of which, in September 2017, were pending resolution. In a separate case from May 2017, he was being sued for allegedly assaulting a woman while on duty. Further
QUOTE
In September 2018, it was reported that in 2015, two psychiatrists and other training officers had raised concerns about Noor's fitness for police duty. Two months before the shooting, Noor pointed a gun at the head of a driver he had pulled over for a minor traffic violation.
UNQUOTE
Trigger happy is the standard phrase used about Americans. Noor fitted right into that idea. He was, in the contemptuous term, a Diversity Hire; he got the job because he is black, not in spite of it. As the Wiki tells us, he was "fast tracked" to diversify their police forces.^[18] Being grossly unfitted for the job is irrelevant to the Lunatic Fringe, to the self-righteous. It is Pathological Altruism.

 

Black Lunatic Beats Murder Rap  [ 5 October 2021 ]
QUOTE
A MENTALLY ILL woman who believed she was possessed by the spirit of Princess Diana and killed her housemate before cutting off his genitals to “protect Prince William” has been found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity at the Central Criminal Court. Grace Miano (53) had been charged with the murder of Malawian man Limbani ‘Robert’ Mzoma (27) at Tudor Lawns in Foxrock, Co Dublin, on 1 November 2018.

The jury took just under two-and-a-half hours to reach their unanimous verdict today. Miano, who is also known as ‘Margaret Sloane’, told the court on the first day of the trial on Monday that she was pleading “not guilty by reason of insanity”..............

Her defence counsel, Michael Bowman SC, yesterday told the jury that Miano on occasion “believed she was effectively possessed by Princess Diana, who came to tell her what she had done. She was not in her right mind, and claims that the day after [the killing], Princess Diana told her she was the one who did it,” he said.....................

The trial has heard from consultant psychiatrists that Miano told Gardaí that she killed Mzoma to “protect Prince William” and had cut off his genitals after death “to protect women”. She also told psychiatrists that she had been inhabited by the spirits of Princess Diana and other British royals to stop a plot that would have put Prince William and Prince Harry in danger.
UNQUOTE
The Irish Savant comments; he is perceptive as ever. Why does the Irish government import Third World aliens? Are they trying to make Ireland a better place? If so they are failing - but of course they are not. Destroying Western Civilization is Government Policy.

 

Do Black Lives Matter To Los Angeles District Attorney?   [ 16 March 2022 ]
QUOTE
Hey, whatever happened to that story about Sandra Shells? She was the 70-year-old nurse killed by one of Los Angeles’ many “unhoused” individuals (drug-addicted psychopaths) while she waited for a bus at 5:15 in the morning in January, on her way to her job at the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center.

A homeless guy, Kerry Bell, walked up to Shells and punched her in the face, knocking her to the ground and fracturing her skull. She died of her injuries three days later.

Her life mattered more even than, say, George Floyd's — and I can prove it.

1) Shells was a hardworking nurse, remembered as “kind, compassionate and giving” and a favorite of patients.
2) There is no evidence that she’d ever committed a home invasion robbery on a woman in Texas, pistol-whipped the woman and put a gun to her abdomen.
3) She was not a meth addict.
4) She did not have a long rap sheet, including selling cocaine, selling crack and theft.
5) She was merely standing at a bus stop — not, for example, resisting arrest after passing a counterfeit bill and having the police called on her.

But no one even knows her name, much less runs around erecting sacramental altars to her. To the contrary, news about this vicious assault on a kindly nurse was purged from all media outlets approximately 10 minutes after it happened. The police haven’t even released her assailant’s mug shot. Only after extensive searching online can you find the arrest report for Bell. “Race: B.”

It doesn’t matter to me, but it does to some of you, so I’ll mention that the victim’s race was also “B.”

If you can’t remember Shells’ name, then please remember this name: George Gascon, the district attorney entirely responsible for the explosion of murders, stabbings and smash-and-grab robberies in Los Angeles. So many, in fact, that the sickening murder of an elderly nurse isn’t considered especially newsworthy.

There’s an effort underway to recall Gascon — a George Soros-sponsored D.A. Coincidentally, there’s also an effort to recall San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin, another George Soros-sponsored D.A. “George Soros-sponsored D.A.” is shorthand for “This man will empty the prisons of berserk savages to prey on you and your loved ones.”

Which happens to be the official policy of the Democratic Party.. Pay no attention to the windbaggery of President Biden’s recent Oh My God, Midterms Are Coming speech — I mean, State of the Union address — where he said, “The answer is not to defund the police. The answer is to fund the police!” Has he met his vice president? Kamala Harris endorsed Gascon.

Gascon’s response to the bloodbath he’s unleashed on the City of Angels is to announce: “In many ways, we cannot prosecute our way out of social inequalities, income inequalities, the unhoused, the desperation that we have.”

What does the “in many ways” do in that sentence? I know English isn’t Gascon’s first language, but I can’t make heads or tails of the “in many ways.”

Nor, come to think of it, the rest of the sentence. Is it a prosecutor’s job to reduce “social” and “income” inequalities? How about inequalities in work ethic, mathematical skills, good looks, athletic ability, comedic talent and empathetic understanding?.................

Gascon is either very, very stupid or thinks the public is stupid, and his incomprehensible verbiage will persuade them that the last thing he should be doing is prosecuting criminals.
UNQUOTE
George Gascon was the chief of the San Francisco Police Department; his business was crime prevention; it is still is. At least you might think so. He's being paid to do it & making a bad job of it. Is he a criminal? Is he Perverting The Course Of Justice? Should he be in prison? Is he helping to destroy America?

 

January 20, 2017 (J20) vs. January 6, 2021 (J6) A Study in Judicial Anarcho-Tyranny, by Nicholas Stix - The Unz Review  [
QUOTE
Nicholas Stix is an Independent Writing and Editing Professional:
QUOTE
Nick writes about so-called 'taboo' topics who very few other people will touch. He's tireless and hunts down information which takes an enormous amount of energy, dedication and time. Without him (and people like him), many of these topics would have never seen the light of day. He fits my definition of a modern day patriot, who is trying to help save this country from the sewer into which we've fallen in the last 50 years.
UNQUOTE

Two lots of people acted. One lot were rioters acting with Malice Aforethought, with criminal intent. The others were demonstrators who, arguably got carried away. Their treatment by the Establishment was very different. The criminals, the rioters, the Subversives were treated very leniently. The honest ones were hounded down & treated as major criminals, put in solitary, refused bail etc.

Mr Stix tells us rather plainly that U.S. Superior Court Presiding Judge Lynn Leibovitz & U.S. Superior Court Chief Judge Robert E. Morin used their powers in court to Pervert The Course Of Justice, to let Left Wing criminals walk free; that they are guilty of deliberate Judicial Misconduct. One might even call it Judicial Corruption.

He says further that the following D.C. judges are so out of line that they make Leibovitz and Morin look exemplary: Michael Aloi, Royce Lamberth, Emmet Sullivan, Thomas Hogan, Timothy Kelly, Randolph Moss, Zia Faruqui and Beryl Howell.

They had fun, torturing the accused, ignoring the presumption of innocence, refusing bail etc.

 

Nicholas Stix, Uncensored Read the First National Exposé of “Broken Windows Policing’s”
This is not so much about judicial corruption as the in depth nastiness and criminality in New York. Mr Stix has the misfortune of living there.
QUOTE
Read the First National Exposé of “Broken Windows Policing’s” Fakestats

Letter from New York City: Crime Stories
By Nicholas Stix
Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture
August, 1996

According to former New York Police Commissioner William Bratton, New York City is safer than it has been in years. And if you believe that, I’ve got a great deal for you, on a slightly used bridge.

Last December, the NYPD announced that violent felonies had dropped 17.2 percent for the previous 12 months, their biggest drop in 23 years. Murder, robbery, and assault went down 26 percent, 18 percent, and 10 percent, respectively, while rape somehow went down only five percent. (Clouding the issue even more, Board of Education spokeswoman Lena Kim told me last February 21 that city schools had recorded a 16 percent increase in violent crime during the 1994-95 school year.)

Last December also saw two massacres. Telling the black customers of a Jewish-owned, Harlem clothing store under “boycott” to leave, Roland Smith (a/k/a Abubunde Mulocko) then set a blaze which killed seven employees and himself.

That the dead were all “persons of color,” while three survivors whom Smith/Mulocko had shot were white, outraged his conspiracy-sniffing supporters.

And in a botched robbery of a North Bronx shoe store, drug dealer Michael Vernon shot five people to death. (Citing “confidentiality,” the Housing Authority covered up much of Vernon’s violent past. Despite Vernon’s remorseless confession to the massacre, and to having killed two cabbies in 1990 and 1993, Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson immediately decided against seeking the death penalty; it was Johnson’s refusal to seek the death penalty in the March shooting of a white police officer by a Dominican thug that led Governor Pataki to remove the D.A., a controversial act that will doubtless end up in court. [P.S., 2021: The Dominican cop-killer would ultimately commit suicide in jail.]

More typically, last September 22 in Lower Manhattan, a Mutt-and-Jeff team of “Crooklyn boys” tried to mug me, the only white on a full A train. “Manhattan makes it, Crooklyn takes it.”

All of the above assailants were black men.

Things weren’t always so bad. While visiting my sister during the wee small hours on Manhattan’s Lower East Side in the late 1970’s, nobody even looked at me funny. In 1990, an octogenarian lawyer told me of the long, romantic walks he and his wife had taken from Manhattan to Brooklyn on Depression-era Saturday nights, without being accosted.

Today, some prosperous New Yorkers hand over their money on the street to black males on demand, as a black man did in Brooklyn’s affluent Park Slope area last January 20, without being touched or even threatened. The declarations of middle-class mugging victims—“Thank God, I’m alive.” “They can take my money”—are music to any potential robber’s ears. Well, they can’t have mine.

When black pundits and politicians are not affirming images of violent “black males,” they are accusing whites of racism for believing them. In fact, most middle-class blacks are also terrified of young black males. Educated civilians and journalists of all colors reflexively note the “rule” about not looking “anyone” (i.e., black males) in the eye. However, the times that I have gotten hurt—all since 1991—were almost always when I did not stare down a criminal. (Subway muggers will rarely undertake anything without first landing a sucker punch, or otherwise getting the drop on a mark.)

Playing on white fears, even black male noncombatants harass whites. Calling their bluff enrages them, whereupon they hope aloud for assistance from real “mopes” (cop talk for criminals).

Strangers bond or split over crime stories. Arresting two would-be robbers while off-duty in Brooklyn, a white cop saw his attackers cop pleas to misdemeanors and do two days of community service. A black mother from Far Rockaway complains that the police refused to arrest the 17-year-old black girl who had slashed her daughter’s chest. Working-class, black female “subway buddies” tell of unreported muggings. Yet middle-class black women I meet deny they are in any danger, and defend the black men who routinely attack black women as the victims of racist police.

Expressing upper-middle-class whites’ desperate hope for appeasement, the New York Times portrayed Smith/Mulocko as a man of principle, the Harlem Massacre as born of economics, not racism, and has misreported stories, in its search for violent crimes it could attribute to whites.

Often marked by “shank”-scarred faces and arms, and sporting jailhouse muscles, the black, and increasingly American-born “New Yorican” and “Dominicanyork” criminals in question were usually raised by mothers who neither wed nor worked. Of 7.5-8 million New Yorkers, 1.4 million are on the dole, including 300,000 whom democratic socialist Mayor David N. Dinkins (1990-1994) moved onto generous, federally funded “supplemental security income,” in cooking the books for the 1993 election.

Seeking to lure business back to the city, Mayor Dinkins’ police commissioners, Lee Brown [1990-1992] and Raymond Kelly [1992-1993], began reporting crime “creatively,” even by New York standards. Liberal Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's former commissioner, William Bratton, evidently continued this practice. Last October 11, the Daily News published a memo by Deputy Inspector Anthony Kissik, commander of The Bronx’ 50th Precinct, which merely formalized the city’s unwritten policy of “defining down” many violent attacks into misdemeanors or no crimes at all. At the other extreme, on January 29, Newsday’s Leonard Levitt charged that the city had failed to disclose a recent double-rape, a shooting homicide, and the fatal shooting of a car thief by a cop.

Such non-disclosures mesh with my own experience of a shooting that officially never occurred on the A train last December 8. On February 8, NYPD Spokeswoman Officer Kathy Kelly insisted to me, “There’s no shootings on the eighth.”

The crime report reduction policy has enjoyed its greatest success with those whose knowledge of crime is limited to press releases. In the December 1995 Commentary, Irwin Stelzer celebrated a poll showing that 41 percent of residents believed the city was safer. Most such “suburban urbanites” live in buildings with 24-hour security. Some ride the subways only during rush hour, others pay through the nose for segregated, slow-moving taxis, and yet others drive to work.

The safest areas, however, are self-reliant, white, and immigrant working-class neighborhoods, such as Brooklyn’s Bensonhurst, where I lived from 1986-94. For 30 years, activists have hindered police in black areas with trumped-up charges of “excessive force” and “racial insensitivity” based on the premise that no white officer may arrest a black suspect.

In truth, white cops are often guilty of excessive restraint. When you handcuff the police, people die.

Last New Year’s Eve in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, my Puerto Rican host’s patrolman son observed that “in a rough neighborhood, you gotta be rough with the people. Either you’re gonna be in charge, or they’re gonna be in charge.”

Former Commissioner Lee Brown’s PR gimmick, “community policing,” portrayed cops in free-fire zones as social workers. Commissioner Bratton’s only real improvement, the crackdown on “quality-of-life” offenses (e.g., panhandling, public drinking, and urination) is being undermined by left-wing judges.

On January 10, the Daily News’ Miguel Garcilazo noted a state court report’s finding that “nearly 70 percent of all desk appearance tickets issued by police are either dismissed [in court] or that recipients never show up in court.” Bronx DA and former judge Robert Johnson is dismissing 25 percent of the summonses, before they ever get to court.

Judicial incompetence is so commonplace here that federal Judge Harold Baer had to outdo himself to gain national notoriety with his decision in favor of some drug dealers last January.

Police had observed a car with Michigan plates slowly circling a block in upper Manhattan’s Washington Heights area again and again, at 6:00 A.M. It finally stopped in front of an apartment building, from which four young black men came out, and wordlessly packed two duffel bags (containing 34 kilograms of cocaine and two kilos of heroin) and then, depending on whether you believe the confessed drug courier Carol Bayless or the cops, either walked away or ran.

Volunteering that she had made over 20 such trips since 1991, Michigan resident Bayless alternated between pleading that drug money was her “only means of survival” and bragging that she planned on buying a new Pontiac Grand Prix with her $20,000 courier pay.

Judge Baer ruled that the $4 million in cocaine and heroin police had seized from the duffel bags were the fruits of an illegal search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Despite accepting the officers’ claim that the men had run away upon spotting them, Baer noted that since police were known to be “corrupt and violent” in Washington Heights, it was only natural for locals to run away at the sight of them.

In the ensuing cause celebre, even many left-wing journalists deserted Judge Baer. Critics noted that Baer, who lives in the luxurious Carnegie Hall district, had apparently confused the Heights’ relatively clean, “3-4” precinct with Harlem’s corrupt, “dirty thirty.” In the February 5 New York Post, Jack Newfield quoted Detective Jerry Giorgio as insisting of Judge Baer, “He was writing out of pure fantasy and ignorance. He referred to this neighborhood as a black community, but it is predominantly Dominican.”

Initially calling prosecutors’ attempts to change his mind a “juvenile project,” Judge Baer finally yielded to intense pressure from none other than Bill Clinton, rescinded his initial decision, and allowed the seized drugs to be entered as evidence.

Cop-bashing judges have lots of helpers. Since the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) went all-civilian in July 1993, complaints against “the job” have risen 50 percent. While keeping its telephone number unlisted and its findings secret, the CCRB’s supporters seek the independent investigative powers of a counter-police.

Last spring, CCRB staffer Lizette Navarro was caught making false “911” calls, reporting nonexistent “assaults in progress” at a West Village gay bar. (Only Navarro was fired, and neither she nor her boss was arrested.)

Speaking with me last February 13, pro-Dinkins CCRB spokesman Joe Catrambone denied that the board has an anti-cop bias, and blamed the rise in civilian complaints on an “in-your-face” attitude he said Giuliani and Bratton had instilled in police.

The Navarro case raised the specter of a gay activist-CCRB conspiracy to set up officers. The cop-bashing, gay activist New York Times refused to grant the scandal even a cursory reference. Note that cop-hating gays are guaranteed a response to all attacks against them, as bias crimes.

Encouraged by Eric Adams (the leader of the segregated, black officers’ fraternal organization), the Guardians, and by affirmative action, some young black cops are rankled by arrests of “brothers” for crimes against whites. A psychiatrist who screens Police Academy recruits laments, “It’s incredible, the pressure to pass people, just because they’re minorities. It’s all racial. They push, push, push with people who are inappropriate and are often antisocial themselves.”

Black thugs, however, do not always return the solidarity. In October 1992, a black policeman was assaulted in front of Bedford-Stuyvesant’s Medgar Evers College by a student he had caught smoking marijuana. Cop-hating Brooklyn Councilwoman Una Clarke and Evers’ president got the student and his street scholar accomplices released the same night.

Prosecutors do what they can. In June 1993, an 18-year-old black girl, emboldened by her girlfriend and the ten black and Hispanic young men surrounding me, called me racial epithets before trying to “shank” me in the face with a scissors in Greenwich Village’s West Fourth Street station.

My bloody hand, a corroborating witness, and a satisfied crime-scene captain failed to impress a young, white prosecutor named Kunkel. Admitting he only took taxis at night, Assistant District Attorney Kunkel thundered, “Because of you, two black girls spent a night in jail!” (He suggested I was a racist who swore out false complaints against blacks.) Upon hearing my story, a black bus driver who had fled Brooklyn for New Jersey asked knowingly, “Did you bring a lawyer?”

According to the Washington-based Sentencing

40/CHRONICLES

Project in 1995, 32 percent of black men ages 20-29 were either in jail, or on probation or parole—not counting those convicts who had finished their sentences. In areas such as Brooklyn’s East New York, Bedford-Stuyvesant, and Brownsville, and Queens’ Far Rockaway, the number tops 50 percent. However, white Queens College sociologist Andrew Hacker urges black men to perpetrate more violent crimes against white men. Insisting that authorities conspire to incarcerate innocent black men (including O.J. Simpson!), he interprets racial attacks as acts of political rebellion, and advises those same authorities to go easy on black racists.

Only 60 percent of all Bronx criminal juries hand down guilty verdicts (in contrast to a national rate of 75-80 percent). Bronx judges are even worse, with a mere 48.6 percent conviction rate in non-jury trials during 1994 and 1995. And yet, the D.A. Robert Johnson fought plea bargaining.

With black mopes nine times more likely to harm blacks than whites, racist jury nullification is self-destructive. As with white mopes who occasionally commit racial attacks against blacks, racism is but a pathetic rationalization for what violent people enjoy doing, irrespective of their victims’ race.

But, what do I know? The influential Thank-God-I’m-Alivers on Manhattan’s West Side struggle for gun control and for the release of convicted Philadelphia cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. (Having courageously routed smokers from public places, they soldier on against a Chinese restaurant distributing take-out menus in co-ops, and the proliferation of social service agencies in their own backyard.)

Many cops unofficially support citizens’ right to self-defense. One spring afternoon in 1990, I ran into three “uniforms” from Staten Island in the East Village. They had just swept some black “peddlers,” whose real business was breaking into cars in the adjacent parking lot. After some good-natured ribbing back and forth, the sergeant asked where I kept my (illegal) gun. When I nudged the leather attache bag at my feet, he advised me, “Be careful, vou don’t get the bag stolen on you.” I was too embarrassed to admit that I didn’t have a gun.

New Jerseyans may defend themselves with mace and tear gas. In early 1995, however, a 42nd Street store manager and his assistant told me they were jailed for three days by William Bratton’s police, for the sales of mace and tear gas that Lee Brown had tolerated. And pistol permits are awarded only to those civilians who least need them.

Returning to the September 22 attack on me, the two black cops who happened onto me spraying “Jeff” with tear gas, after he had broken my nose, were not at all happy about arresting him and “Mutt.” A sergeant had Mutt and Jeff booked for assault, attempted robbery, carrying an illegal weapon (a boxcutter), and possessing, with the intent to distribute, crack cocaine. He also had me handcuffed, charged with “possession of a noxious substance.”

Some white cops called me “Bernie Goetz,” after the notorious subway gunman. I had heard that compliment before, when I was the guest of the Fifth Precinct in August 1993, following my similar handling of a big, white bully.

Is the city really safer? Neither Shirley, a 30-ish, black home-health attendant from Bedford-Stuyvesant, nor Ylluminada, a 29-year-old Dominican fast-food worker from Sunset Park, buys the new line. Residents from Mott Avenue, Far Rockaway, to Alexander Avenue in the Bronx rage that drug dealers ply their wares in full view of police precincts. A 40-year-old, black cabbie in Far Rockaway insists, “The city’s no safer than it was five or ten years ago. That’s just Giuliani saying that, because he wants you to vote for him. It’ll take 10 or 20 years to make this city safe again.”

You could hire more cops and fudge the facts all you want, but the city will not become safer until New Yorkers insist on living as citizens in a republic.

In Far Rockaway two days after the Harlem Massacre, a black teenager praised his 15 or 16-year-old girlfriend’s rap, “I got my Tech to your neck.” With the Commodores playing on the radio, I asked the 35-year-old cabbie driving me home what explained the deterioration of black music since the 1970’s. He answered, instead, an unspoken question: “We stopped loving each other.” It does not matter, if “we” meant “blacks” or “everyone.” Once ignited, the flames of violent hatred will not be contained.

Nicholas Stix is the editor and publisher of A Different Drummer.
UNQUOTE

 

Judicial Misconduct ex Wiki
QUOTE
Judicial misconduct occurs when a judge acts in ways that are considered unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct.

Actions that can be classified as judicial misconduct include: conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts (as an extreme example: "falsification of facts" at summary judgment); using the judge's office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives; accepting bribes, gifts, or other personal favors related to the judicial office; having improper discussions with parties or counsel for one side in a case; treating litigants or attorneys in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner; violating other specific, mandatory standards of judicial conduct, such as judicial rules of procedure or evidence, or those pertaining to restrictions on outside income and requirements for financial disclosure; and acting outside the jurisdiction of the court, or performance of official duties if the conduct might have a prejudicial effect on the administration of the business of the courts among reasonable people. Rules of official misconduct also include rules concerning disability, which is a temporary or permanent condition rendering a judge unable to discharge the duties of the particular judicial office.^[1]
UNQUOTE
It sounds about right to me.

 

Woke St Louis District Attorney Refuses To Charge Armed Robber - Judicial Corruption Gets Blatant  [ 24 March 2022 ]
QUOTE
The St. Louis Circuit Attorney's Office refused to file charges against an armed robbery suspect who tried to steal a marked police car and pointed a gun at officers on Saturday.

Police wanted to charge the 27-year-old man, who they did not identify, with first-degree robbery, armed criminal actions, and resisting arrest charges. Police told DailyMail.com on Tuesday that the man's identify hasn't been released due to the charges against the suspect being 'refused by the Circuit Attorney’s Office, making his identity a closed record.'  The Attorney's Office did not provide a reason why they declined to charge the suspect. [ Because he was black? - Editor ]

The office is headed by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, who was elected on a 'woke' platform to not prosecute many misdemeanors and felonies, police have criticized her office for failing to take on more cases. She recently sued the police for racism, but the case was dismissed. She is also currently under investigation for misconduct, according to the New York Post. 

Under her leadership, the office has only prosecuted 1,500 of the 7,000 felony cases in the city's police department in 2019. Numbers for her full term were not available.
UNQUOTE
This might qualify as Judicial Corruption or even Judicial Misconduct. It is certainly Selective Prosecution. The New York Post comments on this case among others; it is prone to tell the truth.
PS The Mail is censoring comments because this one is Racism in action; it's Anti-White Racism so that's different. The BBC and The Guardian will pretend it never happened. The MSM are also racist.

 

Black Attorney General Suppressed Evidence Against Her Henchman Ibrahim Khan  [5 December 2022 ]
QUOTE
New York Attorney General Tish James covered up sexual harassment allegations against her own chief of staff for political purposes — rather than pursuing the claims with the same zest she put into her probe of now ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, his rep charged.

James’ chief of staff, Ibrahim Khan, 38, resigned after being slapped with multiple sexual harassment complaints, her office confirmed Friday.

But the AG was “actively lying” about her probe of Khan, who “by her own definition” faced serious allegations, insisted Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi.

“This is more proof that Tish James has corrupted the AG’s office, abusing power to further her own political ambitions through a sham report,” Azzopardi said in a statement to The Post Saturday. “She ‘believes all women’ when it’s in her political interest — otherwise, she attacks the accuser or covers up the complaint.”

Cuomo in September filed an ethics complaint against James over her sexual harassment probe that forced him from office last year.
UNQUOTE
Was this in order to Pervert The Course Of Justice? She didn't hesitate to put the boot into Andy Cuomo. Of course she is eagerly ignoring Joe Biden's extensive track record of thieving, extortion etc.

 

Black Judge Sacked For Lying, Wearing Spandex Etc.   [ 21 January 2023 ]
QUQUOTE
Pinkey Susan Carr, an Ohio judge is in the news after she was removed from the bench Tuesday for misconduct that included repeatedly lying, issuing illegitimate arrest warrants, and wearing spandex shorts, tank tops and sneakers in court.

Judge Pinkey Susan Carr was suspended indefinitely by the Ohio Supreme Court as she agreed to undergo evaluations of her mental and physical health.

She had been accused of more than 100 instances of misconduct. Carr received the second-most severe sanction that can be imposed against an attorney or judge for ethics violations.
UNQUOTE
The Irish Savant explains all. He even gives a mug shot. It is another demonstration of Diversity hires