A response to this blog

Viva Frei is attempting to explain the whistle blower scandel of Sept. Oct 2019 in the Ttumpe adsministration.

Bias much. Yes, you keep saying how this a simple read of the documents…except you are a lawyer. Yet show no lawyer ability. Your insight show more signs of bias then one would expect short of Rudy Giuliani!

1) Hearsay: Frei told me he killed someone. He told me where he hide the body. He even told where the murder weapon is. What? That is all hearsay and the police won’t investigate?
Yes, we use hearsay all the time to start an investigation. It is reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause and the balance of probability to allow police to look into crimes.

2) Opinion: Everyone has one just like they all have @$$holes. So I guess everyone opinion is equal… Oh wait… There is this thing called an expert. They are allowed to give opinions. Any lawyer would know this to be true. Well except you. Anyone in the position to be speaking out about this call would easily qualify as an expert in any court American or Canadian.

An expert is allowed to offer their expert opinion. Should someone investigate such as an pen hearing before the public in the Congress, such experts would be called to testify and thus put an end to the hearsay and present expert witness testimony.

3) Whistle-blowers: They blow the whistle on powers that be for other powers to investigate. If there is nothing to the claims they are dismissed. None of these claims have been dismissed. In fact they have been deemed credible by the people in power to offer such opinions. What, instead, they have done is obstructed the investigation. “Shall pass on” is in the law they have obstructed. You should know this and know what Obstructing is.

Yep this can be found in the Canadian legal code:
Obstructing justice
139 (1) Every one who willfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

For a lawyer are you sure… Oh wait. You have previous proclaimed to have no knowledge of criminal law. Never mind. It shows.

4) Hunter Biden. We must mention him or this shows bias. Err why? Cause you say so. A) you harp on how much he is paid. Please post how much the other members of said board are paid. B) Please advise what the average payment for other companies are to their members of the board. C) aside from the shocking amount of money paid is there any evidence… right, evidence is that thing used in court. Never mind. You missed class the day they taught that part of law.Is there any evidence to be found that he acted improperly? This matter was also investigated years ago, and nothing was found. But we must keep mentioning it because?
Are ya sure? This seems like you are slandering Hunter Biden by the inference you keep trying to make. Now for someone who felt that the NY Times was also libeling Brett Kavanaugh because they published an essay based on eyewitness testimony but not of the victim they were out of line. Basically that would end any murder trial cause the main witness being dead never gets to testify. No wait, more criminal law. And as you have said, you know nothing about it. Never mind. At least we can agree on that.

4.1) If you have any, sorry, ANY, evidence that there was a crime committed by Hunter Biden. Why have you not reported it to the police? Instead of hand gestures in his direction. All you have said is hearsay. OMG that evil word again. Only your hearsay is from a bias source ie Ttump, himself. Why the double standard. The whistle-blower is not allowed to have any but you can freely spot it. But you have no bias? That whole proposition shows your bias. Now, in no court would he, Ttump be allowed to offer opinions as he is not an expert in anything. So your double standard is telling again.

Get off your soapbox. This is a political hit piece of questionable information and questionable knowledge, or lack of said knowledge. You missed basic facts that I would expect a first year law student to know the meaning of, never mind an actual lawyer. Terms like: “Whistle-blower”, “Expert”, “Opinion”, “Hearsay”, “Obstruction of justice” etc. All of which leads to some strong reasons to doubt your claims, you proffer of non bias information and your whole attack on others. Your case seems to be innuendo, smoke and mirrors. Perhaps you are looking for a career change. I hear Ttump is looking for so many positions. Send in your CV with a copy of this video. I am sure it will get you immediate access to cabinet.

On Sunday, I went to my sister’s house to have a birthday party with her daughter, my niece. Who turned all of three. I bought her a pink teddy bear cause all pretty girls should have one. I hugged my sister goodbye and left! We even planned to come back in three weeks for a nephew’s birthday too!
Last night, my sister, all of 35 years old, 4 kids, three boys and the aforementioned little girl of three, went to the bathroom to do her nails. I suspect it was more of a break and a “me” moment. She never came out. When she was in a long time they went to discover her body. She had died. Cause unknown but an autopsy is planned. I found out today, the thought that went through my head? Thank God I hugged her on Sunday so she knew she was loved.
When she was born, my father’s first child outside of my group of 4 brothers. We, as one, turned our backs and said we would have nothing to do with her. My mother, our mother, called a family meeting to quell the rebellion. Basically reading the riot act to us all. Just because father was a total @$$hole did not mean that little girl was any less deserving of having 4 older brothers. It was not her fault who her father was anymore then it was ours. Thus from that meeting, our sister inherited four older brothers. Mom got a bouquet of flowers from another grateful mother of said little sister.
We lost one brother to cancer along the way but she always had her big brothers even if Johny forced her to watch “GI JOE” instead of “My Little Pony.” (He made up for it on Sunday by buying her daughter a DVD copy of the cartoon to watch!) Even if I might have dropped her once or twice. She still came to be picked up, because that what little girls do when they see their big brothers. Big brothers are not supposed to bury their little sisters. I think they need to make that into a rule.
I don’t know what is going to happen to those four kids. They are so very young, from 9 years old to just turned 3. How is that little princess going to grow up without her mom to show her the ropes and help her learn all the things she needs to learn? Will they even remember her in the passage of years?
I don’t have any answers, just questions. I doubt that there are any answers to these questions and so many more that spring to mind. Just too numb with shock to say more than: “I don’t know, I don’t know.”
She was 35. She was my sister. Rest in Peace. I will never drop you again. But I will promise one thing, your daughter may not remember you in the years to come but she will hear tell of how much she was loved by her mother. Because I am going to tell her every single time I see her and her brothers. In the years to come, they will remember that if nothing else. I promise little sister, I promise.
Rest in Peace

Greenland loses 11 billion tons of ice in one day

That sounds bad. Very scary! Should we run and hide?

Better yet what does that mean exactly? How much ice does Greenland lose to sublimation each day? That where the ice turns to vapor directly. How much does it lose to calving; Ice breaking off the sheet into the ocean. How much did it gain last winter from the snow that fell and did not melt away? See without perspective and additional information this is meaningless.

Hillary Clinton, the girl most of us want to cheat off of on the next test, she IS the smartest person in the room, tweeted that this rate of melt is not expected until 2070; and that is the cause for alarm.  I can accept that. You have a failed climate change model and you have no clue what is going to happen, but you are sure the model is correct, when each prediction is wrong but this surely means we are heading to the conclusion even faster? Maybe. Or the model we are using is useless and needs to be reworked and redone without the false assumptions.

What are we worried about Greenland and its ice sheet anyways? The worry is this, 10 000 years ago a meteor crashed into Hudson Bay and cause an enormous melt of the tundra and ice. This cold water flushed into the Atlantic and shut down the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is the warm water from Mexico and Caribbean that comes north to warm Europe and Scandinavia allowing them to have a less harsh winter. So let’s see, the warm water rushing north is causing Europe to burn with too much heat but we are worried that the cold water from Greenland will shut this down? Would not a little extra cold water ease Europe from the heat stroke it is collectively having this summer? The Gulf Stream is too hot, so it melts the ice cooling it down until they get back to equilibrium? Yes, sorry, it seems that is not how things work in climate science. Cause and effect are different when talking about the COMING DOOM.

1000 years ago, the Viking settled the island because it was green, hence its name Greenland. It froze over. Hence, today, it is not nearly as warm or as green as it was 1000 years ago. Farming ended on the island as people could no longer find viability there and returned to Europe around mid 15th century. By which time, their diet was not grown but fished and caught sea mammals. They could no longer farm perhaps for centuries due to the ending of the medieval Cooling period around 1250 AD. So Europe was cold, Greenland was warm enough to farm. Now Europe is burning and Greenland is melting. What’s your point here? When the climate was cooling, the island of Greenland could still have viable farming. When the climate in Europe was warming, the island of Greenland could no longer be farmed! Now both seemingly are melting or are they?

“The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

The last part is science code, Gt = gigatonne. (1 Gigatonne or metric gigatonne (unit of mass) is equal to 1,000,000,000 metric tons)

This works out to 200 billion tons per year due to calving. That is how much ice falls off the ice sheet per year. How much is that per day? 0.54 GT per day. So 11 GT on a single day is a lot. How much would expect to see melt on a normal day? 60-70 GT per month or about 2 GT per day. So between the two, we have a loss of 2.5 GT per day versus a single day’s loss of 11 GT. A significant increase 4.4 times greater than the normal daily average. Or we may sum this up as a shocking loss equivalent to 4 and half days in one. OMG! It is much scarier to say 11 billion tonnes lost in a single day they say it lost 5 days of normal melting. Remember too, this is the average amount lost, not account for the highs and lows such that a normal peak might be only half that found this day!

Why bother to do science when you can just scare people into buying whatever garbage you want to toss out!

11 billion tonnes! So? Put in this headline instead. Greenland loses in a single the amount of ice that they would have lost in 4.4 days! Ya, you can see it just does not have the same scare factor.

“It’s a complete final decision of not guilty. That is finally a fully just verdict,” said Conrad Black.

Denial is not just in Egypt.

By accepting his pardon, Black has confessed that he committed the crime and is guilty as charged.

He is unclear of what he has accepted.

In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” Pardons have no formal, legal effect of declaring guilt, however all legal matters are extinguish by accepting one. Thus a person found guilty to a crime, by accepting a pardon cannot return to prove their innocence. You get a ticket and pay the fine. By paying the fine, you accept you did the deed as stipulated on the ticket. Even if no court has proven your guilty because the matter is moot. You paid the fine. Black’s effort to claim innocence is moot, he took the pardon. Thereby by doing so, he has accepted that he has a need to be pardoned for his crimes. Otherwise, he would never have accepted a pardon, in the first place. And many people are still rotting in jails proclaiming their innocence as well. Black was innocent of crimes he was charged with and should have been found not guilty. However, with the pardon, he can never be found not guilty because the matter is settled once and for all with the absolution of this pardon; and thereby the chance to be found not guilty or innocent at a further court hearing.

No court will address the matter and no one will care to open a closed case. But forevermore, the verdict is guilty of which he was pardoned for. The pardon does not expunge the guilty verdict. It does not change that he was judged and found guilty in a fair trial. All that it does is remove any legal sanction that the State may impose upon a felon for having been so found guilty. The difference between him having confessed to a crime and his being found guilty are? He willfully accepted the pardon. Therefore, he willingly accepts that he had no (Further) legal chance of proving his innocence to any legal certitude before any impartial tribunal. Simply put, when you accept a pardon, you accept that you were found guilty, even if, in this case, Conrad Black was innocent of the original charges.

“The court meant that, as a practical matter, because pardons make people look guilty, a recipient might not want to accept one.”

In this case Black is guilty. Having been found guilty, there is no longer a path to exoneration. Since Black was innocent, but found guilty in a court or law, he can no longer prove to any court of law that his guilt was an incorrect verdict. As such, he is guilty. Casper Weinberger was indicted not convicted when he was given a pardon. As such, he was not found guilty. No one may gainsay his innocence as he was not found to be guilty in any court of law. Black, on the other hand, has been found guilty. He cannot sue me for saying he is a criminal because even with the pardon, he has still been found guilty by a court of law. Casper could sue me if I were to call him guilty.
Black was found guilty. With the pardon, he can never remove that finding. No matter what, even though, as I have said from the first, he is innocent. By accepting a pardon, he is accepting that (incorrect) verdict of guilty, i.e. he is confessing to the crime. Because he may never go back to any court and challenge the conviction.
I repeat; “In 1915, the Supreme Court wrote in Burdick v. United States that a pardon “carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it.” They are referring to a case over 100 years old why? It is because there has been no challenge to what they said so long ago. We cannot compare Casper and Black because one was convicted, the other indicted. Legally, apples and oranges. “More recently, MSNBC host Ari Melber taunted (Sheriff Joe) Arpaio by saying he had admitted he was guilty when he accepted Trump’s pardon.” A better comparison indeed, “in rare cases pardons are used to exonerate people…” very rare indeed.
If, this pardon of Black, made him innocent, I could not call him guilty and I have. He could sue me for defaming his character. He could always sue me, but it would be tossed out of court, because it is on the record that he has been found guilty. (Even as I have said all along he is innocent of that crime.) A pardon just locks the court system. Whatever it is, it will remain so. By accepting his pardon, he has accepted the court ruling of his guilt. The result would be the same as if he had confessed to the crime itself. He is as guilty now with the pardon, more so then he has ever been. Because before he could explain his reasoning for claiming innocent as he has done so in his written statement on his reasoning for accepting the pardon. And it would be a legally viable question, because so long as he breaths je can still go back to court to get this ruling overturned and thus allowing him to claim innocence in the face of the guilty verdict. Once he accepted the pardon, this is no longer the case.
So why did accept the pardon to begin with? He faced no legal sanction such as jail or fines. The reason is twofold. He was incorrectly told it would make him innocent. It does not. And he is a vain man. Sadly, knowing his case, taking the pardon, merely ends any chance of a not guilty verdict. He has just confessed to a crime he has not committed.

In Twitter:
John MacLean
‏@JohnMacLean14
Accepting a Presidential pardon is not an admission of guilt. With that pardon the effects of and the restrictions resulting from his conviction have been expunged. Why would he spend a further fortune on legal fees for no practical gain?

Nor is it, “It’s a complete final decision of not guilty. That is finally a fully just verdict,” said Conrad Black.”
With the pardon, “the effects of and the restrictions resulting from his conviction have been expunged.” But not the guilty verdict itself. That remains and always will. Else why need a pardon in the first place?
Yet Black believes he is innocent, as do I. Without the pardon, he can still appeal, he could still in some future date win a judgment showing him to be not guilty. With the pardon; “Why would he spent a further fortune on legal fees for no practical gain?” Because no one, except Black himself, would care that he is no innocent. Thus he has pleaded guilty to a crime he did not commit for he can never be proven innocent.
Black is mistaken in believing the pardon shows him innocent. It does not. Black is an old, vain man. Yet he is smart enough to know all of this, even if he would disagree with me, he would know these facts, or he could do the research and find them, if he was not fooling himself into wishful thinking. The very definition of a pardon is that the justice system must be circumvented to correct a miscarriage of justice. It is an absolute power of the executive branch over the Judicial. However, it does not change was has happened before its use. It cannot revoke a guilty verdict. All that it can do is prevent further harm to the person such as a prison sentence. Black has no further time to serve. Parole, if he had any, ended years ago, All that matters is, is he innocent or guilty. Without the pardon he may claim to be battling to clear his name in order to show he is innocent. With the pardon, there are no more battles to be fought. Just that he was found guilty in a court of law and his case was such that only a Presidential Pardon could remove his criminal conviction. Not that he was a wrongly convicted innocent man. If he was innocent and you called him guilty, he could sue you! With the pardon, he is still and always will remain guilty. Thereby cannot sue anyone who says he is guilty. There is no difference between where he is now and if he had confessed. Except now he has accepted the pardon, he might as well have said “I did it”
Homework
Search for a SCOTUS judgment that says a person becomes innocent if pardoned?
You won’t find one, because it does not grant absolution. It grants clemency.

It locks the legal process in mid-action! In Black’s case, he is locked in as guilty. Therefor to accept the pardon is to accept his guilty. His actions, show his guilt. Even if he is innocent.

While there are limited cases on the subject so to say it is the law, that a pardon is not a confession of guilt, would not be correct. The US Constitution says: (Art 2, Sec 2. Clause 1) “and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States,” and that is it. Not much at all as is the usual want of the Founding Fathers. Short and to the point, let future generations figure it out.
In Burdick v. United States (1915), the court specifically said, “Circumstances may be made to bring innocence under the penalties of the law. If so brought, escape by confession of guilt implied in the acceptance of a pardon may be rejected, preferring to be the victim of the law rather than its acknowledged transgressor, preferring death even to such certain infamy.”

The only full explanation of the issue is in this decision. Where they are saying exactly this, If you are innocent do not take the pardon, it all but certain that you are henceforth deemed guilty.

Below are quotes from Burdick v. United States (1915)
“The case is on the ability to turn down a pardon and why. “‘A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power intrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.”

“This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.”
The WP may claim this is dicta but seems to strong point to why someone would not accept a pardon and that those who do are confessing they have a need for such an act of grace, name that they are guilty of the crime.

Last point, Black took this to be his “I am innocent” card. It is a foolish dream of a tired old man, proud of his life and his many achievements. Who long ago lost the will to fight these charges, so when offered a dream he accepted. Who would blame him?