FORD CAUGHT IN MAJOR LIE?-City Remodeling Permits Show ProjectShe Linked to Kavanaugh

FORD CAUGHT IN MAJOR LIE? — City Remodeling Permits Show Project She Linked to Kavanaugh Was in 2008 NOT 2012
Jim Hoft by Jim Hoft September 27, 2018 771 Comments
9.9KShare1.0KTweetEmail
LYING UNDER OATH TO THE US SENATE IS A CRIME– y


Christine Blasey Ford told the US Senate Judiciary Committee that the memories of Brett Kavanaugh “first came up” when she went into counseling in 2012. In May 2012 Ford and her husband argued over her desire to add “a second front door” to their home. Ford told the committee on Thursday the desire for a second door was because Brett Kavanaugh made her “claustrophobic.”


But there may have been something else…

As Paul Sperry reported on Thursday night. The Palo Alto building permits were issued to Ford and her husband in 2008 — NOT 2012.

Paul Sperry: Palo Alto bldg permit records raise questions about Ford’s testimony she completed an “extensive remodel” of home in 2012 & that this was seminal event that led her down path to coming out against Kavanaugh b/c she needed to add an escape door. Permit was issued in 2008.


Ford claims she's not "political" & that reason Kavanaugh first "came up in counseling" in May 2012 was that she & her husband argued over her desire to add "a second front door" to home b/c Kavanaugh had made her "claustrophobic." But there may have been something else ...

Ford claims she's not "political" & that reason Kavanaugh first "came up in counseling" in May 2012 was that she & her husband argued over her desire to add "a second front door" to home b/c Kavanaugh had made her "claustrophobic." But there may have been something else ...


More… Ford may have been talking about a addition that they rent out.

she built an addition on the house that they rent out !!!!! not for safety I pulled the property tax records she even said they use for google interns been verified even shows renters that receive mail at that address



We will update this as we obtain more evidence.


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...she-linked-to-kavanaugh-was-in-2008-not-2012/

Frankfooter said:

You call that a major lie?
Hilarious.

Click to expand...

Why would Ford with PTSD trust issues from an assault want to rent a room in her house to strangers? It’s getting weirder by the day? It’s not consistent with PTSD, anxiety, & panic disorder people’s behavior imo.

Frankfooter said:

You call that a major lie?
Hilarious.

Click to expand...

Insidious Von said:

PornAddict popped a zit, claims he has a clear complexion...MAJOR LIE!

Click to expand...

bver_hunter said:

So far this was the biggest lie and committed by "Choir Boy" Kavanaugh:

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...interview-rankles-former-yale-classmates.html

Click to expand...

So you believe all these accusers??

Here another accusers that is lying through her teeth!!

No hidden motives or agenda from the accusers???

The accused automatically asummed guilty and he must now proves himself innocent! What a fuckup world !!

Guess every woman who accused anyone of sexual assault now is consider a gold standard that she is automatically taken at face value and she cannot be lying at all ? Right?

What happened to the presumption that you are innocent until proven guilty??

Guess we are now going back to the Middle Ages now ! in the middle age anyone accused a person is a which is automatically is guilty! Now is you are guilty until you are proven innocent!!


Former Employer Sued Third Kavanaugh Accuser For Sexual Harassment Allegations

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/28/kavanaugh-accuser-swetnick-sued/

By Andrew Kerr of The Daily Caller

The woman who charges she was gang-raped at a party where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was present, Julie Swetnick, had a lawsuit filed against her by a former employer that alleged she engaged in “unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct” towards two male co-workers, according to court documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

WebTrends, a web analytics company headquartered in Portland, filed the defamation and fraud lawsuit against Swetnick in Oregon in November 2000 and also alleged that she lied about graduating from Johns Hopkins University.

Swetnick alleged Wednesday that she was gang raped at a party where Kavanaugh was present in the early 1980s. Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegation.

Swetnick is represented by Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with President Donald Trump.

WebTrends voluntarily dismissed its suit after one month. Avenatti told The Daily Caller News Foundation that the case was ended because it was “completely bogus.”

Swetnick’s alleged conduct took place in June 2000, just three weeks after she started working at WebTrends, the complaint shows. WebTrends conducted an investigation that found both male employees gave similar accounts of Swetnick engaging in “unwelcome sexual innuendo and inappropriate conduct” toward them during a business lunch in front of customers, the complaint said.

Swetnick denied the allegations and, WebTrends alleged, “in a transparent effort to divert attention from her own inappropriate behavior … [made] false and retaliatory allegations” of sexual harassment against two other male co-workers.

“Based on its investigations, WebTrends determined that Swetnick had engaged in inappropriate conduct, but that no corroborating evidence existed to support Swetnick’s allegations against her coworkers,” the complaint said.

After a WebTrends human resources director informed Swetnick that the company was unable to corroborate the sexual harassment allegations she had made, she “remarkably” walked back the allegations, according to the complaint.

In July, one month after the alleged incident, Swetnick took a leave of absence from the company for sinus issues, according to the complaint. WebTrends said it made short-term disability payments to her until mid-August that year. One week after the payments stopped, WebTrends received a note from Swetnick’s doctor claiming she needed a leave of absence for a “nervous breakdown.”

The company said it continued to provide health insurance coverage for Swetnick, despite her refusal provide any additional information about her alleged medical condition.

In November, the company’s human resources director received a notice from the Washington, D.C. Department of Unemployment that Swetnick had applied for unemployment benefits after claiming she left WebTrends voluntarily in late September.

“In short, Swetnick continued to claim the benefits of a full-time employee of WebTrends, sought disability payments from WebTrends’ insurance carrier and falsely claimed unemployment insurance payments from the District of Columbia,” the complaint states.

Swetnick allegedly hung up the phone on WebTrends managers calling to discuss why she applied for unemployment benefits, according to the complaint. She then sent letters to WebTrends’ upper management, detailing new allegations that two male co-workers sexually harassed her and said that the company’s human resources director had “illegally tired [sic] for months to get privileged medical information” from her, her doctor and her insurance company.

WebTrends also alleged that Swetnick began her fraud against the company before she was hired by stating on her job application that she graduated from John Hopkins University. But according to the complaint, the school had no record of her attendance.

An online resume posted by Swetnick makes no reference to John Hopkins University. It does show that she worked for WebTrends from December 1999 to August 2000.

It’s unclear what transpired after the complaint was filed against Swetnick. One month after WebTrends filed the action, the company voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice.

The complaint against his client was “[c]ompletely bogus which is why it was dismissed almost immediately,” Avenatti told TheDCNF in an email. “The lawsuit was filed in retaliation against my client after she pursued claims against the company.”

WebTrends did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

In March 2001, three months after WebTrends dismissed its action, Swetnick’s ex-boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, filed a restraining order against Swetnick, claiming that she threatened him after he ended their four-year relationship.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-Harassment-Allegations&p=6229204#post6229204




PS Ever Heard about ...Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case . Please google it!

REMEMBERING (AND MISREMEMBERING) THE DUKE LACROSSE CASE
A new documentary fails to illuminate one of the more complex scandals of our time.

BY WILLIAM D. COHAN
MARCH 10, 2016 5:18 PM
From left, David Evans, Colin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann at a news conference following the dismissal of their sexual assault charges in 2007.
From left, David Evans, Colin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann at a news conference following the dismissal of their sexual assault charges in 2007.
By Harry Lynch/Raleigh News & Observer/MCT/Getty Images.
Ten years ago this Sunday, three of the four co-captains on the Duke men’s lacrosse team held a day-long bacchanal for their teammates at their off-campus house, just off the school’s bucolic East Campus, in Durham, North Carolina. One of the supposed highlights of the party was to be a performance by two “exotic dancers” that the players had hired for a total of $800. Crystal Mangum, a single mother of two children and a student at the nearby North Carolina Central University, also in Durham, was one of them.

You may remember bits and pieces of what happened next. Mangum was black. All but one of the players on the lacrosse team were white. Among them were David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Colin Finnerty, all of whom Mangum later accused of raping and sexually assaulting her in the house’s small bathroom. The young men were subsequently indicted by a Durham County grand jury after a police investigation and a nurse’s examination convinced Mike Nifong, the district attorney, that a crime had occurred. The indictments created a firestorm that played out in the media (including this publication) and on cable-news channels, and all across the Internet. It ignited a national debate about sexual assault on college campuses that rages to this day.


But the Duke lacrosse case, as it came to be known, wasn’t so simple. In fact, its nuances were hard to behold and poorly understood. Soon after the indictment, as the Duke students hired top-notch defense attorneys, the narrative began to change and a vexing legal circus ensued. Mangum could no longer recall with precision exactly what happened on the night of March 13, 2006. Nifong overzealously championed his case in the media. The DNA evidence did not match any of the three players, but it showed that other men had been with Mangum in the week before the incident.

Watch Now: Remembering Whitney Houston

In a clever tactic, the defense attorneys turned to the North Carolina State Bar to intervene, and for the first time in its history, the state bar brought charges against a sitting district attorney—Nifong—for being too outspoken and concealing the crucial DNA evidence. Nine months into the case, Nifong dropped the rape charge and offered Mangum the chance to abandon the entire case. But she refused his offer. She said she wanted justice. Eventually, to defend himself in front of the state bar, Nifong had to recuse himself from the case, and he handed it over to Roy Cooper, the North Carolina attorney general who four months later dropped the remaining charges against the players, declared them “innocent,” and called Nifong a “rogue prosecutor.”


In the end, there was no trial—a fact that most people forget. The three players received $20 million each in a settlement with Duke. The university spent more than $100 million between legal fees, settlement costs, and other expenses to move on from the ignominy and preserve its “brand.”

Not only does this Sunday mark the 10th anniversary of that infamous night, it also is the ESPN premiere of Fantastic Lies, a 103-minute documentary about the case. (The title derives from David Evans’s famous remark to the press after his indictment.) The timing is serendipitous, you might say, since Fantastic Lies will appear on the same night and network as “Selection Sunday,” the popular prelude to March Madness, the annual N.C.A.A. college basketball tournament, which Duke won in 2015.

But the problem with Fantastic Lies isn’t its opportunistic programming as much as its uneven portrayal of the events in question. The Duke lacrosse case, after all, was remarkable for, among other things, its enormous complexity. This was the main point I tried to convey in The Price of Silence, my book on the scandal, which came out in 2014. (I should mention—not with any sort of Dickensian pretensions—that the final version clocked in at 614 pages for a reason. The innumerable subtleties of the story demanded it.) For the first time, Nifong explained his motivations for prosecuting the case with such zeal. For the first time, Mangum shared what she believed happened on the night of March 13, 2006. Cooper, the state attorney general, never charged her with making false accusations in the lacrosse case; she told me she still believed she had been sexually assaulted.

The fall after my book came out, Jonathan and Simon Chinn, the principals at Lightbox, wanted to option The Price of Silence for a documentary. Simon Chinn was the producer of the Oscar-winning documentaries Searching for Sugar Man and Man on a Wire. They explained that they wanted to tell the true, multi-faceted story of what happened, not just the sanitized version that the players, their parents, and their attorneys preferred—and the one that everyone now remembers and accepts as fact. On the other hand, after they signed the contract and paid my fee, they were free to make whatever movie they wanted.

From Raleigh News & Observer/Tribune News Service/Getty Images.
After a few false starts, the Chinns selected Marina Zenovich to direct the film. She was known for her two documentaries about Roman Polanski and another about Richard Pryor. She seemed genuinely moved by the incredible complexity and many subtleties of the story. In December 2014, she filmed me for close to six hours at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. After that, I helped her and the Chinns when I could. After Nifong declined to be interviewed or filmed, they asked me for the tapes of my conversations with him in order to include his voice in the documentary. With Nifong’s permission, I gave the Chinns 20 hours of my digital recordings, plus the transcripts, of our conversations. After they asked, I also gave the Chinns the digital recording of my conversation with Mangum, who is now in the North Carolina Correctional Institution for Women, in Raleigh, where she'll be for the next 14 to 18 years as a result of her 2013 conviction for second-degree murder in her boyfriend’s death. (The prison would not allow Zenovich to film Mangum.)

I did not get much information along the way about the film. Nor did I really expect any. I am hardly the first writer to be kept in the dark about how his book was being used, or not, in a documentary film. Occasionally, Jonathan Chinn and I would speak. After each conversation, I felt reassured. “It's a dense topic and not a straightforward story from any angle,” he wrote me in September 2015. “That's what makes it so fascinating. Editorially, we are interested in unpacking the way in which this story fed into a city, state, and country’s pre-existing racial and economic dysfunction and provided every side with a runaway bandwagon to jump onto. Some of the archive we have sourced of what was going on in Durham and on campus is remarkable in its expression of raw anger, mistrust, and frustration. It's turning out to be a story as much about the fallibility of the media and our universities as anything else. . . . Juicy stuff!”


The Duke men's lacrosse team in 2007, wearing practice jerseys with the numbers worn by their accused players.
By Sara D. Davis/A.P. Images.
In December, the Chinns sent me a cut of Fantastic Lies. It was breathtaking, but not in a good way. Nothing from my interview was used, nor were any of the recordings I shared with them from Nifong or Mangum. Instead, Fantastic Lies presents the narrative that the parents of the indicted players and their defense attorneys have been busily trying to preserve in amber for years: that the players were falsely accused, and that the Durham police, aided and abetted by Nifong, the rape nurse, and the media created an epic conflagration. Instead of grappling with why there never was a trial and how the North Carolina State Bar was used to subvert justice, the film once again spews the defense version that justice was served, even though it was not, and that no amount of money, not even $20 million, could ever compensate the three players for what Mangum and Nifong did to them.

We’ll never know what really happened in that that bathroom 10 years ago, and the house itself has long since been torn down. To be sure, Fantastic Lies is more than just a bunch of fantastic lies. But it can certainly seem that way. In the end, sadly, it is another major missed opportunity to explain to a wider audience the complex story of the Duke lacrosse case.