THE CASE OF A CORRUPT CALIFORNIA LAWYER - KAMALA HARRIS AND HER PEDOPHILE PRIESTS - She may hate Catholics but loves the taste of their bribes!
BLOG EDITOR:
MY DEFINITION OF A LAWYER IS THAT OF ONE WHO IS INSTITUTIONALLY TRAINED IN LAW
SCHOOL TO LIE, CHEAT, STEAL, ORCHESTRATE PERJURY, COMMIT PERJURY AND GAME THE
LEGAL SYSTEM.
THERE IS NO
PROFESSION THAT DRAWS THE SOCIOPATH MORE THAN LAWYERING.
NO LAWYER
SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO RUN FOR HIGHER OFFICE.
ONE SEES HOW
UTTERLY CORRUPT THE CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL IS BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THE STATE
BAR NEVER PROSECUTED THIS ‘OFFICER OF THE COURT’ ETHICALLY SQUALID LAWYER!
Does
Church Fund Kamala Harris? And Her Other Shady Shenanigans
During her
decade-and-a-half tenure as a chief prosecutor, Harris would fail to prosecute
a single case of priest abuse and her office would strangely hide vital records
on abuses that had occurred despite the protests of victims groups. PETER SCHWEIZER
She somehow served as San
Francisco district attorney from 2004 to 2011, and then as California attorney
general from 2011 to 2017, and never brought a single documented case forward
against an abusive priest. PETER SCHWEIZER
According to San Francisco election financial disclosures,
high-dollar donations to Harris’s campaign began to roll in from those
connected to the Catholic Church institutional hierarchy.” PETER SCHEIZER
“However, I would like to encourage my fellow Democrats to approach
Senator Harris with a healthy dose of skepticism. As a prosecutor and
California State Attorney General, Harris has engaged in blatantly unethical
behavior for her profession and embraced positions that actively hurt her
constituents.” JESSER HOROWITZ
Harris has often
been described as a "politician on the make," someone who will do
whatever is expedient. Writing for RealClearPolitics, Debra
Saunders calls Harris a "progressive opportunist." Yves Smith,
looking through her less than progressive record as California prosecutor,
would alter that to "opportunist to the core." JEFFREY FOLKS
The best-case scenario is that she’s a progressive who repeatedly
violated her own principles so that she could promote her career. In the
worst-case scenario, she’s just another corrupt, rotten, regressive prosecutor.
JESSER HOROWITZ
How come you wouldn’t prosecute Catholic priests for sexual and
child abuse? Where was your empathy? JACK HELLNER
THE HOUSE OF PEDOPHILES S.F. CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE HAS BEEN VERY
GENEROU$ WITH KAMALA HARRS. HERE’S WHY:
VIDEO:
AS SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY, KAMALA HARRIS’S
OFFICE STOPPED COOPERATING WITH VICTIMS OF CATHOLIC CHURCH CHILD ABUSE
https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/kamala-harris-san-francisco-catholic-church-child-abuse/
Thanks to Kamala Harris’s predecessor, the
San Francisco DA’s office had files on clergy sex abusers. But Harris refused
to share them with victims.
KAMALA HARRIS, SURROUNDED by thousands of cheering supporters,
kicked off her presidential campaign in Oakland earlier this year, declaring that
she has always fought “on behalf of survivors of sexual assault, a fight not
just against predators but a fight against silence and stigma.”
Fighting
on behalf of victims of sexual abuse, particularly children, has been central
to Harris’s political identity for the better part of three decades. Harris
specialized in prosecuting sex crimes and child exploitation as a young
prosecutor just out of law school. She later touted her record on child sexual
abuse cases and prosecuting pedophiles in television
advertisements, splashy profiles, and on the trail as she
campaigned for public office.
But
when it came to taking on the Catholic Church, survivors of clergy sexual abuse
say that Harris turned a blind eye, refusing to take action against clergy
members accused of sexually abusing children when it meant confronting one of
the city’s most powerful political institutions.
Why is Kamala Harris getting the kid-glove press treatment?
By Jack Hellner
The media endlessly attacked Sarah Palin when she was a
much-talked about female vice presidential candidate in 2008, but they treat
Kamala Harris with kid gloves.
How come you wouldn’t prosecute Catholic priests for sexual and
child abuse? Where was your empathy?
As
most people know, prior to her being a Senator, she served as the chief
prosecutor for the city of San Francisco. Now, complaints are coming
forward that she flat out refused to pursue criminal cases against Catholic priests
who allegedly sexually battered children.
People
who say they were victims of childhood sexual abuse call out Harris for not
doing all that she could to prosecute their cases.
Joey
Piscitelli, who himself is a survivor of sex abuse, says that the DA before
Harris, Terence Hallinan, worked hard at getting he and his fellow victims
justice.
However,
after Harris beat Hallinan in the election, the progress they were making to
prosecute the cases seemed to stop altogether.
KAMALA HARRIS,
ETHICALLY SQUALID LAWYER
Who's the
Real Joe Biden?
Is
there any such thing as "the real Joe Biden" in the sense of an
actual, breathing human being with enduring loyalties and principles? His
long political record and recent behavior provide some idea.
The
choice of Kamala Harris as running mate is one indication. Harris
has often been described as a "politician on the make," someone who
will do whatever is expedient. Writing for RealClearPolitics, Debra
Saunders calls Harris a "progressive
opportunist." Yves Smith, looking through her less than
progressive record as California prosecutor, would alter that to
"opportunist to the core."
KAMALA HARRIS,
ETHICALLY SQUALID LAWYER
Unethical conduct plagues legal career of Kamala Harris
“However,
I would like to encourage my fellow Democrats to approach Senator Harris with a
healthy dose of skepticism. As a prosecutor and California State Attorney
General, Harris has engaged in blatantly unethical behavior for her profession
and embraced positions that actively hurt her constituents.” JESSER HOROWITZ
The best-case scenario is that she’s
a progressive who repeatedly violated her own principles so that she could
promote her career. In the worst-case scenario, she’s just another corrupt,
rotten, regressive prosecutor. JESSER HOROWITZ
On
Jan. 2019, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris declared her candidacy for President of
the United States of America to great fanfare.
She
earned quick praise and frequent comparison to former President Barack Obama. A
recent Democratic Party straw poll by the Daily Kos ranked her in the top tier
of Presidential candidates, with 27 percent of respondents voicing their
support for her candidacy. So far, she has pitched herself to the American
people as a strong progressive with a particular passion for criminal justice
reform.
Harris
has a reasonable chance at winning the Democratic Party nomination. She’s
charismatic, smart and very likely to bridge the growing divide within the
party between the progressive left and the centrists. If she wins the
nomination, she might even defeat Donald Trump in the general election. I
understand why some voters in the party have decided to rally around her: She’s
a promising alternative for Democrats who want someone progressive like Bernie
Sanders but better than he is at speaking to identity politics.
However,
I would like to encourage my fellow Democrats to approach Senator Harris with a
healthy dose of skepticism. As a prosecutor and California State Attorney
General, Harris has engaged in blatantly unethical behavior for her profession
and embraced positions that actively hurt her constituents. While this does not necessarily have
to be a red line for everyone—and it certainly will not prevent me from voting
for her should she win the Democratic nomination—our party should hold Harris’
feet to the fire here. Even more concerning than her past positions is that she
refuses to own up to them, portraying herself as a long-time, progressive
criminal justice reform activist.
I
want to clarify that I have no inherent issues with a prosecutor being elected
to the presidency. We need prosecutors; we need people who serve the public
good rather than represent the interests of paying clients. However, if your
job requires you to make decisions that could potentially ruin people’s lives,
the ethical standards should be higher, not lower. If you, like Kamala Harris,
decide you want to run for President of the United States, it becomes
imperative that the public thoroughly and mercilessly scrutinizes every facet
of your political career.
In
2015, law enforcement caught Robert Murray, a prosecutor in Kern County,
committing one of the most egregious offenses a prosecutor could perpetrate.
Specifically, he falsified a confession transcript that connected the defendant
with a far worse crime than that with what he had actually been charged. When
the defense demanded a copy of the original tape recording, Murray admitted to
his crime but said that it was merely a harmless joke. The judge disagreed. He
stated that the court refuses to tolerate such outrageous conduct and dismissed
the indictment on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct (Observer,
“California Prosecutor Falsified Transcript of Confession,” 03.04.2015).
How
does this incident involve Senator Harris? At the time, she was the Attorney
General of California. In that capacity, she appealed the indictment. According
to Sidney Powell of The Observer, this was the third time she had appealed a
prosecutorial misconduct dismissal in less than three months. As of March 2015,
Murray was still allowed to work as a prosecutor (Observer, “California
Prosecutor Falsified Transcript of Confession,” 03.04.2015).
As
Attorney General, Harris has a history of fighting to keep men she knew were
innocent in prison and of hiding cases of significant illegal activity
conducted by law enforcement. In 1999, Daniel Larsen was sentenced to 27 years to life in
prison for possession of a concealed weapon. There had been nine witnesses who
could testify that Larsen was not guilty, but the court called none of them at
the trial because of his incompetent and now disbarred attorney. With the help
of the Innocence Project, he was able to prove his innocence, and the court
overturned his conviction in 2009.
How
does this involve Senator Harris? She challenged his release not because she
believed he was guilty—she did not dispute his innocence—but because he hadn’t
presented proof of his innocence quickly enough. And so, she fought to keep a
man she definitely knew was innocent behind bars for life (NBCLosAngeles,
“After 13 Years in Prison, Man Found Innocent of Crime Freed,” 3.20.2013).
In
another incident, law enforcement discovered that Deborah Madden had purposely
sabotaged the drug results of multiple cases as a technician at a San Francisco
crime lab. But even though the highest levels of the district attorney’s office
knew about Madden’s unreliability as a drug expert, Kamala Harris and her
office hid this information from defense attorneys. Superior Court Judge
Anne-Christine Massullo ultimately ruled that Harris’ office had violated
defendants’ rights through this act of prosecutorial misconduct, calling into
question the convictions of nearly 40 defendants (SFGate, “Judge rips Harris’
office for hiding problems,” 05.21.2010).
However,
perhaps Harris’ most egregious example of immoral conduct happened in 2014. A
federal judge ordered that all non-violent second-strike offenders be eligible
for parole in California in an action against constitutional prison crowding.
Kamala Harris, then the Attorney General of California, disagreed with the
decision. She argued in court that by releasing these inmates early, prisons
would lose “an important labor pool” (Los Angeles Times, “Federal judges order
California to expand prison releases,” 11.14.2014). Despite pitching herself as
a lifelong champion for criminal justice reform, Harris had advocated that the
need to keep nonviolent offenders as slaves outweighs their constitutional
rights. How would the Democratic Party call itself progressive if members threw
their support behind someone with such an atrocious record on civil rights
issues?
Even
worse, Harris has yet to apologize for her actions and in fact has refused to
even acknowledge them (Reason.com, “Kamala Harris Hopes You’ll Forget Her
Record as a Drug Warrior and Draconian Prosecutor,” 01.31.2019). At a town
hall, she responded to a question calling her out on her past actions by
answering “I’ve been consistent my whole career,” and then explained how the
record supports her claim that she has been progressive on prison reform (CNN
Twitter, “I’ve been consistent my whole career,” 01.28.2019).
I
won’t delve into her argument because, in my view, it’s irrelevant. When you
actively cover up police misconduct, try to keep a man who you know is innocent
in prison and refuse to release nonviolent offenders because you need their
involuntary labor, you don’t get to reframe your narrative.
Kamala
Harris is not owed an audience. She is not entitled to one simply because she
wants to be president. We should not give her the benefit of the doubt, because
she refuses to even acknowledge her wrongdoings. We don’t have the right to
forgive her; that right belongs to all the people she’s wronged over the course
of her long career.
For
that reason, I ask you not to vote for Kamala Harris in the primary, no matter
how attractive a candidate she is or how well she explains away her inconsistent
career. It’s possible that her past really won’t have much of an impact on how
she’ll be as president, but why should we wait and see? The best-case
scenario is that she’s a progressive who repeatedly violated her own principles
so that she could promote her career. In the worst-case scenario, she’s just
another corrupt, rotten, regressive prosecutor.
KAMALA HARRIS,
ETHICALLY SQUALID LAWYER
Does
Church Fund Kamala Harris? And Her Other Shady Shenanigans
During her
decade-and-a-half tenure as a chief prosecutor, Harris would fail to prosecute
a single case of priest abuse and her office would strangely hide vital records
on abuses that had occurred despite the protests of victims groups. PETER SCHWEIZER
Who Is
Willie Brown And What’s The Connection?
“In 1994, she met Willie Brown, who at the time was the
second-most-powerful man in California politics. As Speaker of the State
Assembly, Brown was a legend in Sacramento and around the state.
Brown was under investigation several times,by the State Bar of
California, Fair Political Practices Commission,the FBI.
In 1986 …as California Assembly Speaker, he “received at least $124,000 in
income & gifts…from special interests that had biz before the Legislature.”
Now this is neither here nor there for me, except for the
political angle:
“Brown was sixty at the time he began dating Kamala, who was twenty-nine. Brown
was actually two years older than her father. Their affair was the talk of San
Francisco in 1994.
Kamala’s mother defends her daughter’s decision – and offered
choice comments about Brown. “Why shouldn’t she have gone out with Willie
Brown? He was a player. And what could Willie Brown expect from her in the
future? He has not much life left.
He (Willie Brown) put Kamala on the State Unemployment Insurance
Appeals Board and later the California Medical Assistance Commission. The MAC
paid $99k a year in 2002.. UIAB ~$114k. Both posts were part-time. At the time,
she was working as a county employee making ~$100k”
During his tenure, Brown came under FBI investigation twice for
corruption involving lucrative contracts flowing from the city to his political
friends.
I thought it was only in Third World countries that people were
forced to pay bribes to get services they’re entitled to from their
government,” said U.S. district judge Charles Legge about the rampant
corruption under Brown. “But we find it right here in San Francisco.
In January 2003, shortly after announcing her campaign, (Kamala)
Harris had signed a form saying that she would stick to the city’s $211,000
voluntary spending cap for the campaign (for the San Francisco district
attorney election).
Harris signed the pledge-and then blew right past the spending
limit. By the end of Nov, she had raised $621,000…
The San Francisco Ethics Commission vote to fine Harris was unanimous. Her
campaign had to pay a $34,000 fine, a record in city elections.
Moving On To The Next, And By Far
The Most Disturbing Aspect: Church Sex Abuse Scandal
Harris often recounts her background as a sex crimes prosecutor
earlier in her career to attack others for their legal failings in this area.
During her decade-and-a-half tenure as a chief prosecutor, Harris
would fail to prosecute a single case of priest abuse and her office would
strangely hide vital records on abuses that had occurred despite the protests
of victims groups.
Harris’s predecessor as San Francisco district attorney, Terence
Hallinan, was aware of and had prosecuted numerous Catholic priests on sexual
misconduct involving children. And he had been gathering case files for even
more.
Hallinan’s office had launched an investigation and quickly
discovered that the San Francisco Archdiocese had extensive internal records
concerning complaints going back some seventy-five years.
In spring of 2002, Hallinan demanded the church turn them over to
his office. A month later, the archdiocese reluctantly complied.
The secret documents were explosive and reportedly contained the
names of about forty current and former priests in the San Francisco area who
had been identified in sexual abuse complaints.
Hallinan used the information from the files to begin pursuing
legal cases against them. In nearby San Mateo and Marin County, prosecutors
obtained the same church records and those in Marin charged Father Gregory
Ingels in 2003
But by June 2003, Hallinan and other prosecutors had hit a
roadblock: the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California’s law extending the
statute of limitations for priest abuse cases was unconstitutional.
The records that Hallinan had in his possession touched on
well-connected institutions at the heart of California’s power structure. St.
Ignatius College Preparatory School, in the Archdiocese of San Francisco,
counted California governor Jerry Brown … as alumni.”
Now Comes Church Sexual Abuse And
The Kamala Connection
According to San Francisco election financial disclosures,
high-dollar donations to Harris’s campaign began to roll in from those
connected to the Catholic Church institutional hierarchy.”
For some reason, she did not want the documents released in any
form.
Harris’s office claimed that the cover-up was about protecting the victims of
abuse.
Victims’ groups wanted the documents released and Harris was stopping it.
They’re
full of shit,” said Joey Piscitelli, the northwest regional director of Survivors
Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), the largest and most active victims’
group. “You can quote me on that. They’re not protecting the victims.
With the outcry of victims groups, Harris’s office then attempted
to shift blame, claiming that the idea of burying the evidence had been first
suggested by her predecessor, Hallinan.
But he [Hallinan] responded angrily to her claims. “I told Jack
Hammel [the archdiocese’s legal counsel] in no uncertain terms that I wouldn’t
go along with anything like that.
James Jenkins..the founding chairman of the archdiocese’s
Independent Review Board… resigned from the board… Jenkins argued that Harris’s
deal with the archdiocese not only denied the rights of known victims, it also
prevented other possible cases from coming forward.
In April 2010, a journalist with the San Francisco Weekly asked
for the records through California’s Public Records Act. Harris’s office denied
the request, offering conflicting explanations as to why they could not provide
them.
In 2019, I requested those records through a California attorney.
The San Francisco district attorney’s office responded that they no longer had
them in their possession. Were they destroyed? Were they moved somewhere else?
It remains a disturbing mystery.
She somehow served as San Francisco district attorney from 2004 to
2011, and then as California attorney general from 2011 to 2017, and never
brought a single documented case forward against an abusive priest.
To put this lack of action in perspective, at least fifty other
cities charged priests in sexual abuse cases during her tenure as San Francisco
district attorney. San Francisco is conspicuous by its absence.
Next One: Construction And
Conflicts Of Interest
Ricardo Ramirez ran a cement and concrete company called Pacific
Cement. As of 2003, a full one-third of the public works projects in San
Francisco used Pacific. … Those contributions often went to the Willie Brown
machine and were not always legal.”
39/51″In 1997, state officials found that Ramirez had illegally contributed
$2,000 to Brown’s 1995 mayoral campaign.
…
Ramirez never faced charges for delivering substandard concrete. Instead,
Harris’s office settled for a plea deal involving a single environmental count,
illegally storing waste oil at one of his production facilities.
Harris & her office refused to offer an explanation as to why
they were going so light on Willie Brown’s friend & donor. “Harris’
office had no explanation for why it dropped the concrete case,” – the
Chronicle.””Kamala Harris’s signature program as San Francisco district
attorney was called Back on Track-a program designed to give first-time drug
offenders an opportunity to avoid a criminal record.
Those (in the program) included were not just nonviolent,
first-time offenders who had committed a single drug offense. Some were illegal
immigrants and violent criminals such as Alexander Izaguirre.
Amanda Kiefer was walking down the street when Izaguirre snatched
her purse and jumped into a waiting SUV. Rather than drive off, the SUV sped
toward Kiefer to run her down. Kiefer jumped on the hood and saw Izaguirre and
the driver laughing.
The driver slammed on the brakes throwing Kiefer to the ground.
The impact fractured her skull.
…
Harris did not offer an explanation. Instead, she simply explained that
enforcing federal immigration law was not her job.
These excerpts are from @peterschweizer‘s 2020 #1 bestseller, “Profiles
in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite. A pity this
book’s not received the coverage it deserves in India.
amzn.to/3iCKPt9 Feature Image Credit – Breitbart
Disclaimer:
views expressed are personal.
KAMALA HARRIS,
ETHICALLY SQUALID LAWYER
Comments
Post a Comment