From Ken Ditkowsky — Black is white and vice versa

Subject: Much ado
Date: Jan 21, 2016 11:45 AM
Government has reached a new low in the mind of the governed.   The Concept of Right is Wrong, Up is Down, Left is Right etc that is frustrating so many of us has reached new proportions.  Every time I see an article detailing some ‘elder cleansing’ situation my skin crawls and the hair on the back of my neck rises.   How can public officials (and judicial officials) do this to other human beings?
The upcoming political campaigns are exhibiting this frustration and leading us into dangerous waters.    Worse yet it is leading us away from solutions! 
The problem that we face is really quite simple.   We need the equal enforcement of the RULE OF LAW.   There is no one – not even the most admired and loved political figure – who is entitled to a pass!   The Law is applied uniformly and fairly!.
What this means is that my First Amendment Rights are protected to the same extent that Jerome Larkin’s are and if Jerome Larkin violates the law he is punished.  Ditto for me.   Going a step further, If General P is prosecuted for his handling of secret information, HC similarly has to face the same standard.   Getting to our level – when we appear in Court the Judge decides the case on the merits, not the amount of tribute that he can extract from one or more the corrupt guardians, corrupt lawyers, *****.
The danger is in the fact that some of the people screaming equal justice for all, like the promulgators of the War on the Elderly and the Disabled are not in good faith and seek the destruction of our American Way of Life to the same extent the corrupt public figures such as the corrupt judges, corrupt political figures, ***** do!    
I learned a long time ago — few of us ever get screwed by our enemies!   It is usually our friends.    I’ve made no secret that Hillary Clinton is not one of my favored people.   I ran across the following article from the Activist Post.   I do not defend Hillary, nor do I know of anything that is not true in the article; however, I am offended by the article – 

Hillary Clinton Brags About Getting A Pedophile Off The Hook

JANUARY 20, 2016
When Hillary Clinton was just beginning her career as an attorney in Fayetteville, Arkansas, she received a request to represent a 41-year-old man by the name of Thomas Alfred Taylor who had been accused of raping a 12-year-old girl whom he had allegedly lured into his car.
Clinton accepted the case, represented Taylor, and succeeded in securing a plea to a much lesser charge. Years later, Clinton was taped discussing the case (sometime between 1983-1987) and the audio contained in these tapes shocked even those who may have already maintained a hatred for a politician who may be the most openly psychopathic “leader” since Dick Cheney.
The audio tapes – obtained and released by the Washington Free Beacon revealed that, not only did Clinton use a number of technicalities and devious tricks to essentially free Taylor, she did so knowing full well that he was guilty the whole time. In fact, Clinton even went so far as to slander the victim of the case in her effort to get Taylor a lesser charge than the 30 years he was originally facing.[1][2]
These revelations came out as far back as 2014 yet Clinton continues to paint herself as a tireless advocate for women and children ever since she began her legal career.
Clinton’s comments on the rape trial were taken down during the course of unpublished interviews with Bill and Hillary conducted by reporter Roy Reed in the 1980s while Bill was governor of Arkansas.
Alana Goodman of the Washington Free Beacon sums up the details of the case as follows, along with pertinent quotes from Clinton herself. Goodman writes,
Twenty-seven-year-old Hillary Rodham had just moved to Fayetteville, and was running the University of Arkansas’ newly-formed legal aid clinic, when she received a call from prosecutor Mahlon Gibson.
“The prosecutor called me a few years ago, he said he had a guy who had been accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer,” said Clinton in the interview. “Would I do it as a favor for him?”
The case was not easy. In the early hours of May 10, 1975, the Springdale, Arkansas police department received a call from a nearby hospital. It was treating a 12-year-old girl who said she had been raped.
The suspect was identified as Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old factory worker and friend of the girl’s family.
And though the former first lady mentioned the ethical difficulties of the case in Living History, her written account some three decades later is short on details and has a far different tone than the tapes.
“It was a fascinating case, it was a very interesting case,” Clinton says in the recording. “This guy was accused of raping a 12-year-old. Course he claimed that he didn’t, and all this stuff” (LISTEN HERE).[3]
Describing the events almost a decade after they had occurred, Clinton’s struck a casual and complacent attitude toward her client and the trial for rape of a minor.
“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she added with a laugh.
Clinton can also be heard laughing at several points when discussing the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime.
. . . . .
Public records provide few details of what happened on the night in question. The Washington County Sherriff’s Office, which investigated the case after the Springdale Police Department handled the initial arrest, said it was unable to provide an incident report since many records from that time were not maintained and others were destroyed in a flood.
A lengthy yet largely overlooked 2008 Newsday story focused on Clinton’s legal strategy of attacking the credibility of the 12-year-old victim.
The girl had joined Taylor and two male acquaintances, including one 15-year-old boy she had a crush on, on a late-night trip to the bowling alley, according to Newsday.
Taylor drove the group around in his truck, pouring the girl whisky and coke on the way.
The group later drove to a “weedy ravine” near the highway where Taylor raped the 12-year-old.
Around 4 a.m., the girl and her mother went to the hospital, where she was given medical tests and reported that she had been assaulted.
Taylor was arrested on May 13, 1975. The court initially appointed public defender John Barry Baker to serve as his attorney. But Taylor insisted he wanted a female lawyer.
The lawyer he would end up with: Hillary Rodham.
According to court documents, the prosecution’s case was based on testimony from the 12-year-old girl and the two male witnesses as well as on a “pair of men’s undershorts taken from the defendant herein.”[4]
Goodman then goes on to describe how Clinton went on the warpath against the 12 year-old victim. Goodman writes,
In a July 28, 1975, court affidavit, Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”
“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior,” Clinton said.
Clinton said the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”[5]
It turns out Clinton did not need to attack the girl at all and that the Prosecution would actually drop the ball or, at least drop it enough so that Clinton was able to salvage her case. Goodman writes,
“You know, what was sad about it,” Clinton told Reed, “was that the prosecutor had evidence, among which was [Taylor’s] underwear, which was bloody.”
Clinton wrote in Living History that she was able to win a plea deal for her client after she obtained forensic testimony that “cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff’s office.”
She did that by seizing on a missing link in the chain of evidence. According to Clinton’s interview, the prosecution lost track of its own forensic evidence after the testing was complete.
“The crime lab took the pair of underpants, neatly cut out the part that they were gonna test, tested it, came back with the result of what kind of blood it was what was mixed in with it – then sent the pants back with the hole in it to evidence,” said Clinton (LISTEN HERE). “Of course the crime lab had thrown away the piece they had cut out.”
Clinton said she got permission from the court to take the underwear to a renowned forensics expert in New York City to see if he could confirm that the evidence had been invalidated.
“The story through the grape vine was that if you could get [this investigator] interested in the case then you had the foremost expert in the world willing to testify, so maybe it came out the way you wanted it to come out,” she said.
She said the investigator examined the cut-up underwear and told her there was not enough blood left on it to test.
When Clinton returned to Arkansas, she said she gave the prosecutor a clipping of the New York forensic investigator’s “Who’s Who.”
“I handed it to Gibson, and I said, ‘Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice,’” said Clinton, breaking into laughter.
“So we were gonna plea bargain,” she continued.
When she went before Judge Cummings to present the plea, he asked her to leave the room while he interrogated her client, she said.
“I said, ‘Judge I can’t leave the room, I’m his lawyer,’” said Clinton, laughing. “He said, ‘I know but I don’t want to talk about this in front of you.’”
“So that was Maupin [Cummings], we had a lot of fun with Maupin,” Clinton added.
Reed asked what happened to the rapist.
“Oh, he plea bargained. Got him off with time served in the county jail, he’d been in the county jail for about two months,” said Clinton.[6]
Please see this video (audio recording of Clinton’s interview).
To this day, the victim still harbors resentment toward Clinton for the way she was treated. In fact, she subscribes many of the obstacles she faced in later life to the trauma caused her by Clinton’s handling of the trial.“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” she stated in an interview with the Daily Beast. “I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”[8]
She also responded to some of Hillary’s allegations regarding the victim’s alleged questionable behavior and her previous unsubstantiated allegations. “I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying,” she said. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.”
One of the key anchors of American culture is the concept that Lawyers have a duty and an obligation to protect the Constitution.   Protecting the Constitution means that every person accused of a crime or even civil wrongdoing is entitled a full and absolutely fair hearing.   This means very simply that the judicial system being unhappy that Jeff Norkin is pointing out their feet of clay has to be honored rather than castigated or defamed and called the most obnoxious lawyer in Florida.   This means that JoAnne Denison’s exposure of crooked lawyers and judges is honored not deemed as akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.    This means that lawyers not only must, but are obligated to fight corrupt not only within the legal system, but in society itself.    This also means that If the Florida Bar does not make an HONEST investigation of the disclosed conflict of interest, breach of fiduciary relationship, extortion occurring openly and notoriously its executives should be criminally prosecuted and required to pay the Federal Income taxes, interest and penalties that the criminals have neglected to pay.  See Rule 8.3 and 18 USCA 371.   Ditto for Jerome Larkin and his co-conspirators. 

1 thought on “From Ken Ditkowsky — Black is white and vice versa

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s