Saturday, June 30, 2018
False college rape allegation ‘destroyed’ my life: suit...time to go back to the rule of law
A Long Island woman’s unsubstantiated rape allegation after a drunken night in an upstate frat house has “destroyed” a New Jersey man’s life, he says in a $6 million lawsuit.
Catherine Reddington, 22, claims on social mediathat Alex Goldman, also 22, raped her vaginally and anally in a bedroom of Syracuse University’s Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity following a party in April 2017.
She went to the police and the university with her accusations, and has posted her brutal tale of assault on Facebook in a campaign that Goldman says got him fired from his summer job and could get him tossed from his new college.
“I woke up in Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity in Alex Goldman’s bed confused, bloody, bruised, with ripped clothing and splinter[s],” Reddington wrote earlier this month. “Alex Goldman is a rapist.”
But Goldman — and the Onondaga County prosecutor — tell a different story of that night.
A months-long investigation, which included a medical exam, rape kit and bloodwork within 26 hours of the incident, found no evidence Reddington was assaulted, drugged or even had a sexual encounter with Goldman, according to court papers and the District Attorney.
The two engineering majors woke up fully clothed in Goldman’s bed, both claiming no memory of the night before.
Investigators found it “impossible to determine what, if anything, occurred that evening between Ms. Reddington and Mr. Goldman. There is no credible proof of any sexual conduct in this case, consensual or non-consensual,” an assistant district attorney wrote in a November 2017 letter, attached to Goldman’s lawsuit, explaining why Goldman was never charged.
Reddington slammed the DA’s letter on Facebook, calling it “disgusting.”
But Reddington’s accusations were enough to get Goldman booted from Syracuse in the fall, he claims. The school said it followed state and federal law in handling the complaint but declined to say why Goldman was expelled.
Now Reddington’s social-media posts targeting Goldman’s new school and employer show she’s out to “publicly tarnish his reputation and wreak havoc on his personal life and that of his family,” he says in his Brooklyn Federal Court defamation lawsuit.
Reddington posted Goldman’s picture, and links to his Facebook and LinkedIn profiles, in lengthy messages detailing the alleged assault, and accuses him of being a serial rapist. She added a #MeToo hashtag and linked to his current school, the New Jersey Institute of Technology.
“I write this post because this is not the first time Alex Goldman has raped someone and I want to make sure that it is the last,” she claims in a post earlier this month.
She also posted a screenshot of what appeared to be a message exchange with Goldman’s employer, Bohler Engineering, and crowed that he was fired.
“Due to the severity of the allegations and our zero tolerance policy, we have elected to immediately terminate the employment relationship,” the company replied in the screenshot posted on Reddington’s social media.
“Thank you to everyone for reposting and spreading the word on the monster that Alex Goldman is,” Reddington wrote alongside a post with a message from Bohler. “Thank you to Bohler Engineering for taking a stand against this disgusting excuse of a man.”
Bohler didn’t return a call for comment.
Onondaga District Attorney Bill Fitzpatrick said his office takes sexual assault cases seriously, but in this case, the evidence wasn’t there.
“What she has alleged about this office and this young man is simply not accurate,” Fitzpatrick told The Post. “I don’t know what her motivation is for that.”
Goldman chose to sue Reddington “because he could not sit idly by,” his lawyer Seth Zuckerman said. “Mr. Goldman will do everything possible to recover his good name.”
Reddington declined comment, calling it “a matter in the courts.”
Labels:
rule of law,
Sexual politics
DNC progressives can not/ will not cede power. Behavior that exposes their anti Americanism!
Remember when Hillary demanded that Trump accpt election results?
DNC CHAIR: OBAMA IS AMERICA’S ‘REAL PRESIDENT’ — NOT TRUMP
Peter Hasson | Reporter
Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Tom Perez introduced former President Barack Obama as America’s “real president” at a DNC fundraiser Thursday night.
“Let’s give it up for the real president of the United States,” Perez said at Thursday’s fundraiser, Politico reported.
Obama reportedly then told the crowd of Democratic donors that they are “right to be concerned” about Trump’s presidency.
Perez’s false descriptor for Obama is just the latest instance of prominent Democrats abandoning political norms in order to undermine President Trump. (RELATED: Leftists Want Democrats To Pack The Supreme Court Once Trump Is Gone)
Obama has sharply broken with precedent by repeatedly attacking Trump. When Obama left office, the existing standard was for presidents to refrain from publicly criticizing their successor.
Obama and his wife have slammed Trump more than a dozen times since leaving the White House. (RELATED: Trump Allies Face Harassment, Protests Anywhere They Show Their Faces)
Labels:
Constitution,
Democrats,
Dissecting leftism
Are Progressives too emotionally unstable to have in any important post? The origin of fake news!
Reuters editor apologizes, could be disciplined after blaming Capital Gazette shooting on Trump
A top editor at Reuters apologized on Thursday night after blaming President Trump for the deadly Capital Gazette shooting in a now-deleted tweet that was sent during a “state of emotional distress,” but he might still be disciplined by the international news service.
Reuters Breakingviews Editor Rob Cox admitted that he “responded emotionally and inappropriately” after being called out for jumping to conclusions prior to the facts emerging. Police said the suspected gunman, eventually identified as Jarrod W. Ramos, targeted the newspaper after a lengthy feud regarding a 2012 defamation lawsuit.
“This is what happens when @realDonaldTrump calls journalists the enemy of the people. Blood is on your hands, Mr. President. Save your thoughts and prayers for your empty soul,” Cox wrote in the deleted tweet, according to TheWrap.
Cox apologized in a series of four tweets once it became clear that Ramos’ motive predated Trump entering the world of politics.
“When I saw the news today that a mass shooter had targeted the employees of a newspaper in Maryland I responded emotionally and inappropriately,” Cox wrote. “Though my comments were entirely personal, they were not in keeping with the Reuters Trust Principles and my own standards for letting facts, not snap judgments, guide my understanding.”
Cox continued: “My experience as a member of the community of Newtown, Connecticut in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy, combined with the possibility that my colleagues in the press were being targeted, pushed me into a state of emotional distress.”
“I am sorry for my comments, which I quickly deleted and have disavowed, and especially remorseful if they did anything to distract from the thoughts and love we must send to the community of Annapolis,” Cox wrote.
Reuters bills itself as the "world’s largest international multimedia news provider,” which reaches over one billion people on a daily basis. Editor-in-Chief Steve Adler issued his own statement, calling Cox’s tweet “inconsistent with the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles requiring journalists to maintain freedom from bias.”
“We do not condone his behavior and will take appropriate action,” Adler said.
The five Gazette staffers killed in the attack were identified as Wendi Winters, John McNamara, Gerald Fischman, Rebecca Smith, and Rob Hiaasen.
Cox wasn’t the only powerful media member attempting to pin the tragic attacks on President Trump. Think Progress founder Judd Legum claimed “Ramos does appear to be a Trump supporter,” using a 2015 tweet that had nothing to do with politics as his evidence. He was quickly mocked for the misleading tweet but had not deleted it at the time of this publication.
Fox News’ Amy Lieu contributed to this report.
Labels:
Dissecting leftism,
Mainstream media
How the Democrat Party and unions circular money laudering scheme works.
Lisa SchenckerContact ReporterChicago Tribune
As many as 80,000 Illinois home health care workers will get a second shot at recovering $32 million in union fees, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision earlier this week in a case over payments to unions.
The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision last year in a case involving whether the home health care workers, paid with Medicaid dollars, should be able to recoup money the state took out of their paychecks for “fair share” union fees between 2008 and 2014. Those “fair share” fees covered the costs of collective bargaining even though those workers were not union members.
The 7th Circuit last year upheld a lower court’s decision that the 80,000 workers could not be certified as a class, partly because not all of them had objected to having part of their pay collected as union fees.
But on Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in a case involving Illinois state government worker Mark Janus that government workers can’t be forced to contribute to unions that represent them in collective bargaining. The decision was called a blow to unions and a major victory for labor opponents. The home health care case is to be reconsidered in light of that decision.
The 80,000 workers were employed by individuals with disabilities participating in the state-administered Home Services Program, which helps pay for severely disabled individuals to be cared for at home, rather than in institutions. Many of the workers were relatives of the disabled individuals who were also their caretakers.
“The (Service Employees International Union) and Blagojevich and Quinn administrations seized $32 million from 80,000 home health care providers against their will, just took their money,” said William Messenger, an attorney with the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, who represents the three home health care workers who brought the original case in 2010.
Those three workers prevailed at the Supreme Court, but then returned to lower courts to try to expand the ruling to the other 80,000 workers. “We’re hoping this will eventually allow them to get that wrongfully seized money back,” he said.
The three workers argue that the home health care workers shouldn’t have had to object to paying “fair share” fees; it’s enough that they never consented, they say.
It’s a point that may carry new weight following the Janus decision. In the majority opinion in the Janus case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that union fees cannot be deducted from employee paychecks “unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.”
But James Muhammad, spokesman for SEIU Healthcare Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas, said in a statement Friday that it’s “routine” for cases to be sent back to lower courts for reconsideration after major Supreme Court decisions. He expects the courts will reach the same decision as they did in the case before Janus.
“Right-wing extremists bent on silencing the voices of workers have been emboldened with the ruling for the plaintiff in Janus v. AFSCME, disallowing collection of fair share fees for collective bargaining work unions do on behalf of all workers,” Muhammad said.
The union argued in court documents in 2016 that many of those 80,000 workers would likely have supported the union and agreed to pay the fees if they had been asked. Up until 2014, the state automatically deducted those fees from home health care workers’ paychecks, regardless of whether they were union members.
The state stopped those automatic deductions after a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that home care workers paid by the state are not full-fledged public employees.
Conservatives have celebrated the Janus decision as a win for workers, free speech and Gov. Bruce Rauner, who has long been a foe of organized labor.
Rauner spokeswoman Nicole Wilson declined to comment Friday. Rauner was named as a defendant in the home health care lawsuit, though he did not participate in the appeal at the 7th Circuit.
Labels:
Corruption,
Democrats,
Unions
Now the narrative is exposed...anybody not for her is a Nazi and she is Churchill.
Convinced she's Churchill, Hillary Clinton is ready for her comeback
Monica Showalter
For a while there, the séances were all about channeling Eleanor Roosevelt (why didn't that ever become a campaign issue?), but now, it looks as though she's moved on, moved to a bigger league, moved to channel Churchill. Must be some séances...
It must make sense from her point of view. Aren't President Trump's "deplorables" really just Nazis? That's the word from the denizens of the left. So of course they are, too, in her leftist mind...Nazis, Churchill...it all clicks together.
Beyond Churchill himself, there's also the Churchill narrative, and there it must make even more sense. Churchill warned about Nazis, got thrown out of power, and then the U.K. ended up with Neville Chamberlain, who tried to cut deals with Hitler at Munich. The result of that mess was that the U.K. went right back and brought him in again.
Trump is making a mess, as she sees it, though comparing him to Chamberlain is a stretch. Never mind that...
Bottom line: Hillary is getting ready to run again. She's thinking of a comeback to beat back the Nazis. It's why the Churchill story is living rent-free inside her head these days. Churchill, Churchill, Churchill...
Lucky us.
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/convinced_shes_churchill_hillary_clinton_is_ready_for_her_comeback.html#ixzz5JvULwarX
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Monica Showalter
Hillary Clinton is convinced she's Winston Churchill.
Get a load of what her adoring media say, from Front Page Magazine, quoting the Guardian:
Get a load of what her adoring media say, from Front Page Magazine, quoting the Guardian:
Hillary Clinton, in an interview with a British newspaper this week, appeared to compare herself to wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill while responding to a question about being a polarizing figure.What a pathetic picture: a washed up presidential candidate who was convinced she had it in the bag and who up until now has been otherwise blaming everyone but herself for it (as President Trump has noticed), now delving into the history books in search of delusions of grandeur. "Between the wars"? Like, out in the political wilderness, you know, before the big comeback?
"I'm sure they said that about Churchill between the wars, didn't they?" she told The Guardian when asked if she should withdraw from public life to help heal divisions in the U.S., given her reputation.
For a while there, the séances were all about channeling Eleanor Roosevelt (why didn't that ever become a campaign issue?), but now, it looks as though she's moved on, moved to a bigger league, moved to channel Churchill. Must be some séances...
It must make sense from her point of view. Aren't President Trump's "deplorables" really just Nazis? That's the word from the denizens of the left. So of course they are, too, in her leftist mind...Nazis, Churchill...it all clicks together.
Beyond Churchill himself, there's also the Churchill narrative, and there it must make even more sense. Churchill warned about Nazis, got thrown out of power, and then the U.K. ended up with Neville Chamberlain, who tried to cut deals with Hitler at Munich. The result of that mess was that the U.K. went right back and brought him in again.
Trump is making a mess, as she sees it, though comparing him to Chamberlain is a stretch. Never mind that...
Bottom line: Hillary is getting ready to run again. She's thinking of a comeback to beat back the Nazis. It's why the Churchill story is living rent-free inside her head these days. Churchill, Churchill, Churchill...
Lucky us.
Hillary Clinton is convinced she's Winston Churchill.
Get a load of what her adoring media say, from Front Page Magazine, quoting the Guardian:
Get a load of what her adoring media say, from Front Page Magazine, quoting the Guardian:
Hillary Clinton, in an interview with a British newspaper this week, appeared to compare herself to wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill while responding to a question about being a polarizing figure.What a pathetic picture: a washed up presidential candidate who was convinced she had it in the bag and who up until now has been otherwise blaming everyone but herself for it (as President Trump has noticed), now delving into the history books in search of delusions of grandeur. "Between the wars"? Like, out in the political wilderness, you know, before the big comeback?
"I'm sure they said that about Churchill between the wars, didn't they?" she told The Guardian when asked if she should withdraw from public life to help heal divisions in the U.S., given her reputation.
For a while there, the séances were all about channeling Eleanor Roosevelt (why didn't that ever become a campaign issue?), but now, it looks as though she's moved on, moved to a bigger league, moved to channel Churchill. Must be some séances...
It must make sense from her point of view. Aren't President Trump's "deplorables" really just Nazis? That's the word from the denizens of the left. So of course they are, too, in her leftist mind...Nazis, Churchill...it all clicks together.
Beyond Churchill himself, there's also the Churchill narrative, and there it must make even more sense. Churchill warned about Nazis, got thrown out of power, and then the U.K. ended up with Neville Chamberlain, who tried to cut deals with Hitler at Munich. The result of that mess was that the U.K. went right back and brought him in again.
Trump is making a mess, as she sees it, though comparing him to Chamberlain is a stretch. Never mind that...
Bottom line: Hillary is getting ready to run again. She's thinking of a comeback to beat back the Nazis. It's why the Churchill story is living rent-free inside her head these days. Churchill, Churchill, Churchill...
Lucky us.
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/06/convinced_shes_churchill_hillary_clinton_is_ready_for_her_comeback.html#ixzz5JvULwarX
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Retirees returning to Jamaica face extreme murder risk, say police.
Returnees warned they are seen as soft targets following multiple killings of UK expats
Jamaican expats who retire there after decades in the UK face an “extreme risk” of murder, a former police chief on the Caribbean island has said, as official figures revealed that at least 85 Britons, Americans and Canadians have been killed in the country since 2012.
Senior police figures told the Guardian that returning residents were seen as soft targets by criminals and needed much more protection following the murders of three British retirees on the island in as many months.
Gayle and Charlie Anderson, aged 71 and 74, had only recently retired to Jamaica when they were fatally stabbed and their bodies burned following a firebomb attack at their “dream” home in Mount Pleasant, in the island’s Portland parish, last Saturday.
The double murder followed the killing in April of 63-year-old Birmingham charity worker, Delroy Walker, incidents that have put renewed focus on the disturbing pattern of elderly returnees being violently targeted by Jamaican criminals.
Percival Latouche, the president of the Jamaica association for the resettlement of returning residents, said he had counted more than 200 British, American and Canadian expats murdered in the country since 2000 and had attended 165 funerals in that time.
It is not known how many of the Britons murdered were of the Windrush generation but a large proportion of those targeted were pensioners, like Charlie Anderson, who left Jamaica as a child and returned to the Caribbean to retire after decades working in the UK.
Mark Shields, Jamaica’s former deputy commissioner of police, said returnees were seen as easy pickings by criminals, who see them as wealthy and naive to the country’s security risks. “I’ve always considered them to be an extreme risk,” he said, adding that police chiefs had previously “under-appreciated” the scale of the crime but that it was becoming a major issue. “There’s a significant risk to returning residents for robbery, fraud and the ultimate crime of murder,” he said.
Shields, who now runs his own security firm in Jamaica, advised Jamaican expats to “think very carefully about immersing themselves in local Jamaican culture in a rural community when they haven’t been back that much”.
Some gangs are known to wait until retirees’ pensions land before striking, while others tail them in rental cars from Kingston or Montego Bay airports and rob them once they reach their destination. Undercover police officers patrol the two airports on the hunt for corrupt baggage handlers or taxi drivers, who have been known to tip off gangs about new arrivals returning to live in Jamaica.
One such gang was led by a police officer and convicted several years ago of 20 robberies, all involving returning residents, although it was suspected of having committed many more crimes over the course of a decade, said Cornwall “Bigga” Ford, a former senior superintendent who caught the group before he retired in 2015. “Once returning residents come back they need support. They need good support,” Ford said. “They work so hard, buy these nice houses all over the place and some of the places are remote. They need security, they need to put up alarms, cameras and have dogs.”
Both the Andersons and Delroy Walker are believed to have been exploited financially before their murders. Detectives told the Jamaica Gleaner newspaper that the Andersons, from Gorton in Manchester, were victims of a £50,000 credit card fraud which they reported to police before they were killed. One suspect has so far been arrested by police.
Steve Walker, a television technical operator from the Midlands, said his brother was murdered following a dispute about money with a painter who was decorating his retirement home near Tower Isle, on Jamaica’s north coast. Delroy Walker died on 19 April after suffering multiple stab wounds. The painter and at least one accomplice have been charged over the murder.
“If you’re from Britain, the US or Canada, you’re seen as having money,” Walker told the Guardian. “My brother might have agreed one price but they think you can surely afford another - that’s what caused the grievance. People need to be aware of their security but there definitely should be a lot more communication with people who are thinking of returning.”
Jamaica experiences twice as many murders in an average year than Britain, even though the UK has a population 20 times higher. Last year the country recorded 1,616 murders, the highest in six years and equivalent to 31 a week, as the homicide rate rocketed by 20% in just 12 months. So far in 2018 there have been more than 600 killings, mainly linked to gang activity, yet only 44% of homicides result in arrests.
At least 85 British, American and Canadian nationals have been murdered in Jamaica since 2012, a Guardian analysis of government data has found. Of those, at least 30 were British and eight were murdered in 2017, the highest annual murder toll of Britons on the island in at least five years.
There are thought to be around 30,000 returned residents in Jamaica although the number coming back each year has dropped substantially since the 1990s, a trend that has heightened concerns about the country’s troubled economy. The newly-appointed police commissioner, major general Antony Anderson, has suggested he will make the issue a top priority.
“The commissioner knows the optics, he knows reputation, he knows how this can reduce footfall in Jamaica and reduce GDP,” said Leroy Logan, a former Scotland Yard superintendent who met Anderson earlier this month and who runs the Jamaica diaspora crime intervention and prevention taskforce in the UK. “There needs to be specific protections for returnees – from the Jamaica constabulary force, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development – while they’re in the UK and once they arrive. I don’t think they’re doing a sufficient risk assessment in preparation for their return.”
Latouche, a 77-year-old former London gas station operator who now runs the island’s biggest returning residents group, said his warnings about the pattern had for years fallen on deaf ears. He met the Andersons four years ago in Manchester and was devastated by news of their murder. “This country is anarchic, there’s no law here,” he said. “It’s going to have a devastating impact on the economy.”
Since you’re here…
… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. The Guardian is independently owned. That means we don’t have a billionaire owner funding us but it also means we increasingly rely on contributions directly from our readers.
The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as $1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.
Labels:
murder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)