Ottawa police made an annoucement about getting a lot of calls over the occupation. So I replied and got the following conversation!

Ottawa Police@OttawaPolice·Feb 19

We know the events in #Ottawa are upsetting. Still, we’re asking people to stop calling critical emergency and operational phone lines to express displeasure about the police action to remove an unlawful assembly downtown.

Poet Of Truth·Feb 20
Its called a call flood
Its an harassment tactic designed to flood you with calls
Take names and numbers and if they do it often, issue arrest warrants for their illegal actions.

Some Convoy Sov Cit wannabe

Yea, seize their bank accounts too, lol.

FailedState

CurrencyDevaluation

Poet Of Truth·Feb 20

And sue the Go fund things that raised the cash for all that cash. Make it cost them real money
Fine them as well for all convicted crimes.
Jail time is martyr time
Fined time is the right kind

Some Convoy Sov Cit wannabe

Do you really want this to go before the WTO?

You’re in violation of several treaties. The financial damage to Canada is going to be insurmountable if you escalate this, if it’s not already.

Poet Of Truth

WTO
World Trade Organization?
https://wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm…

Several treaties?
Name them

Financial damage?
To the occupier, it will be insurmountable for them

Escalate this? To whom? The council of 9 truckers?
The GG and the Senate?
To whom can they escalate this too?
Q?
Oh no not Q!

Some Convoy Sov Cit wannabe

Severe breach of fiduciary duty.

You’re injuring 3 separate parties by embezzling funds.

Poet Of Truth

LOL
Are you just googling those words?

First it was WTO then it was treaties, now Fiduciary duties?
An adult has a Fiduciary duties to handle the affairs of small children

Thus you are correct, the occupiers are all small children needing adult supervision

Good point!

Some Convoy Sov Cit wannabe

Any counter claim you might have is invalidated due to the fact that you suspended DUE PROCESS.

You don’t realize how serious this is, do you?

Poet Of Truth

LOL
Your law degrees from YouTube university only works on YouTube
You are not a budding Clarence Darrow.
Sorry, (not sorry) you are incorrect
No need for a counter claim where there is no claim to begin with
No violation of due process
Not serious at all
Worthy only of Mockery

Some Convoy Sov Cit wannabe

Exactly the kind of answer you’d expect from a #failedstate

Poet Of Truth

LOL
Yes
since you lack facts, lack knowledge, use intimidation and frankly Dunning-Kruger effect is clearly at work in your tweets
Don’t worry I am sure your cognitive dissonance will soon find a way to declare yourself the winner.
No matter what everyone else can read.

Some Convoy Sov Cit wannabe

We’re already in the process of recovering funds and assessing damages.

Poet Of Truth

LOL
Sure you are
Just like you toppled the government, made any dent in public opinion or changed anyone’s mind towards your cult
Your leaders are in jail
Your money is frozen
Your occupation is finished
But in your mind you are winning
Let me know when you are tired of winning

Some Convoy Sov Cit wannabe

Keep talking 😂😂

Poet Of Truth

Yes because someone with an open mind might be reading. So they will know just what garbage you’re trying to push either cause you’re too indoctrinated into a cult to know the difference or too corrupt. I would say the former, you recite the same tired old script to know any better

Trucker convoy Descends on Ottawa!

This is Canada, not the USA! The first stunt they pull, they will get an 800 dollar ticket for “Stunting” and they impound the vehicle.
Want to see how long their block aid will last as they tow away the trucks?

Next this group is not made up of 90% of the pop, it is like 3%, a very tiny minority. So when they upset the regular folks, the police will have to act.

The biggest killer of cops?
The year 2021 was a year where so many cops died from…
COVID-19
So the ones who are left will have little to no sympathy for these rednecks.

Like most extreme protests it will be covered as big news, but they don’t have the backing of the population and the politicians who are there are People part of Canada or Conservative reform alliance party
they are playing to the base
If anything this protest will backfire on them all and drive people to the liberals for fear of being anywhere near these idiots.

Remember the first rule of Canadians politics, we are a small, silly little country.
This protest is how large? Millions? Not
A few trucks and a few thousand people. That is it!

But it gets eyes to watch news and see commercials
It has the former guy posting he thinks it is genius… that alone is enough to stop and drive back home

Lastly, keep this in mind. We at CPC deal with the feds, but the vast majority of people deal with provincial regulations and mandates
The fed have so very few
Now, if you are an idiot, or Jason Kenny, PM of Alberta you hold a news conference to support the truckers. Only to be asked if he approved the Fed dropping their mandates, why has he not dropped all of his?
Because he is holding his medical system together by duct tape and prayer.
It is a testament to the strength of doctors and nurses that we have health care at all. Kenny and Legault and all premiers know just how close they are to the wall
This stunt has raised a few dollars, but only a few. 4 million this morning? A little more?
Out of 38 million people
less than 1 in 10 Canadians parted with a dollar…. WOOOO big war chest
NOT!

But news media sell the sizzle not the steak

Okay so I looked
I checked
I searched
What am I not seeing?
I saw one picture of a crowd of people in the ground.
No pictures of the convoy
No picture of all those screaming trucks
no mention of numbers.

Why not?
There should be MILLIONS of people, thousands of trucks.

So shout it out brother and sisters scream those numbers out

But newscast after newscast and I watched all the big three, CTV, CBC and Global and strange, not one mentioned how many. Not one showed them haul down the highway.

Not one.
Why is that?

Because they are so small, the media is afraid they would lose credibility if they mentioned the numbers of trucks and people, hoping instead for a much larger number on Saturday, to make their reporting seem justified.

The emperor has no clothes.
Despite the news media lying and laying fancy robes of gossamer thread and ethereal cloth.

Claim
“Current accounts say the convoy is over 70 km long, and may comprise around 50,000 trucks. It may break the world record for longest convoy ever assembled, the source of these stats is the event organizer,
It’ll be hard to impound and ticket 50,000 semis crowding into Ottawa.”

A semi is 72 feet (21.95 m) long
70 Km is 229658.8 feet (ca. 70 km) or 921 jumbo jets
simple math 3,190 semis in that length

Mind you 3200 trucks is a lot, but it is nowhere near 50 000 trucks

Remember what I said about credibility?
Mainstream won’t even try?
Yes, so you have Rebel media. Who have no credibility to lose or worry about!

Canadian Truck Protest Set to Become the Longest in History
The truckers on their way to Ottawa for an anti-mandate protest on Saturday may well be the longest truck convoy in history. Will it matter to the Stalinists in charge of their government? According to Guinness World Records, the longest truck convoy ever recorded was 7.5 km long, in Egypt in 2020. The Toronto Sun […]
http://www.independentsentinel.com

“The largest parade of trucks consisted of 480 trucks and is achieved by Tahya Misr Fund (Egypt), in Cairo, Egypt, on 20 November 2020,” Guinness says on its website. “With a length of 7.5 km, Tahya Misr Fund was able to organize a parade of 480 trucks, amid the harsh weather and heavy rain, breaking the Guinness World Records title for the largest parade of trucks, which was achieved 16 years ago in the Netherlands with a parade size of 416 trucks.”

So, by their own logic, 10 times the world’s largest would hold 4800 call it 5000 trucks, yet they claim 50 000 trucks?
Err
5000 is a far cry from 50 000?
Based on this math the convoy would stretch not 70 KM but 700 km.

There are an estimated 2 million trucks in the USA
Canada usually has about 10% of that number or 200 000

So they are claiming that 1 in 4 of all trailers will arrive in Ottawa?
25% when the unvaccinated makeup less than 10%
Normal motivation is around 1% of any given population. So this protest is carrying 25 times their weight in real numbers?
Really?
WOW

I am so impressed!
Or…
The convoy is total Bull…

One last point to ponder. In the spacing above, I was only putting in parked trucks, not driving trucks. Whereby, a separation would need to be anywhere from 6 to 10 time the length of a truck to avoid tailgating.
So, those 5000 truck that might fit in 70 km nose to nose is even smaller driving so 1/5 or maybe 1000 trucks. I can see a thousand crazy people driving to Ottawa, but I won’t mistake that for the harbinger of doom: The door knock of the apocalypse: or even the return of the revenant. It’s January and there is no real news to report. This sounds scary. Fearful people watch TV longer leading into sweeps month in February!

Postscript

Yes i know I am anal…
So they said 50 000 trucks
I did some math… Never leaving my chair.Just numbers…
Just me and my numbers and oh yes, reality on my side…  
Care to take a guess at those 50 000 trucks how many showed up?
Who is closer? their 50 000 to my 1 000 hmmm



10:45 a.m. EST

CTV News Ottawa’s Natalie van Rooy spoke with Antrim Truck Stop owner Tom Orr this morning on the convoy coming from Arnprior. Orr estimates there are more than 700 vehicles in total that have begun to leave for Parliament Hill.

Even I​ over estimated their numbers by 300.

1000 to 700 is close.

50 000 to 700 is easily not even in the same planet.

I know, I should be just humble but…

When you are good, you are good!

And

When you are right, you are right

And I was both good and right!

The covid testing center was terrifying to say the least.
I arrived to find three security guards outside, one on the door and one to hand out masks. Once inside there was yet another guard. They do not have that many guards for their health. Inside, they have signs not to use your cell phone. Why? So, you cannot secretly photograph the place to plan an attack. You don’t pay that many guards to stand around looking pretty. You pay them for protection and security. From whom? Antivaxxers? Anti-Maskers? Nut cases in general.
It is not enough that you see many nurses, mostly female, standing there to take your test to help protect you. This alone is super dangerous. Yet they do it. Risk their lives to fight an epidemic, and now they have to risk their lives in case the local nut cases come to attack them? It is overwhelming to see the security on what should be a scary medical issue, not a scary armed standoff.
I know, they are merely preparing for the worst. The fact that there is something worse than getting covid is, in itself, insane.
During the assault on the American capital, the young people, the interns and newly hired showed the older people where to hide and how to hide. They basically took care of their bosses to prevent tragedy. How did they know what to do or where to go? They have lived through the school shooting era. They learned the drills in class on what to do with an active shooter. Now, we have to teach this to nurses who are trying to save lives. This is truly insane.

Mr. Premier, Scott Moe

Can we not agree that idiots who protested in front of the home of Dr. Saqib Shahab are, wishful thinking, imports from the dysfunctional USA?

Can we not agree that doctors and scientist working to save lives, and by now with all the dead around us, that is what they are doing, fighting a losing battle, saving as many fellow Canadian’s lives, as humanly possible, that those men and women are working on our behalf and should be treated as a Banksy’s superheroes?

Can we not have the decency as a community, as a society as a province, to protect the chief medical officer whose only crime was to have done his job trying his best to save as many lives as he can?
Clearly, yesterday’s events have shown we cannot do any of these things. That is the sad reality that we live in. We are fighting two pandemics, one is Covid 19, the other is nasty, brutish, stupidity, such that we have not seen the likes of in generations. That has come from the roots of ignorance, hatred, stupidity and more. That we cannot endure if we are to battle this disease to the finish line.

The Barbarians who stormed the American Capitol, who spirit is seen in the Qanon conspiracy, (all in clear need of mental health care), the anti-mask, anti-lockdown, anti-anything, that might help save our lives, arrived in Saskatchewan yesterday. It has been here a long time, true be told but afraid to rear its ugly head. This cracker’s Kraken must be meet by an even greater response, police, prosecution and deterrence that protect our doctors, our scientists and out government.

It is not enough to shame them; they have no shame. It is not enough to expose them; they have no vested interest in the community. These people exist on the fringe with no connection to the people. They think they are on a mission from some deity known only to them, understood only by them and followed only by a small minority of fanatical followers.

The response, our response, the people’s response to this must be loud and clear so that there is no mistaken gesture of sympathy, there is no support and there will be no quarter given to them for this.

Mr. Premiere protect our doctors.

Mr. Premiere protect our scientist.

Mr. Premiere protect us from the spread of this disease; from the spread of both diseases, covid 19 and stupidity.

Thank you.

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?

Chemist Kate

Chemist Kate
Is Global Warming great?
The troublesome debate
Your views, please state
Assuredly, I will await
In anticipation and elate
But alas to date
No echo of the pony’s gait
I but sit and wait
Will I burn by carbon hate?
Should I learn to ice skate?
Please send me an update
To these questions I relate
Before it is too late
And the world earns its fate
Of trouble to un-crate
For true and straight
This problem on our plate
Surely does carry weight
Needing answers to checkmate

In a course lecture entitled “Global Temperature,” Dr Kate Biberdorf AKA Kate the Chemist uses a graph created by NOAA  to show global warming. The problem is that it shows the exact opposite. This is sadly typical of the whole Global Warming movement. They use data that is carefully selected and cherry picked to only highlight what they want it to show and not look at all the data. This example of confirmation bias is also seen in the recent Californian fires.
First, let us examine the claim of the entertaining Dr. Biberdorf to whom I saw entertaining us on Stephen Colbert! So I went to her web site and found her YouTube channel. Never one to turn down free educational videos, I started to watch them. Many are standard chemistry you expect from a first year class on the subject. When she reached the lesson on Global Warming I sat up to listen. Obviously, here is an expert and she should be very able to dispel any doubt I may have about the myth of Global Warming. She as a chemistry expert should have this subject nailed down such that even my doubts will be quelled. Sadly, I was so disappointed I wrote this.
The first error is that she uses the so called data from over the last 140 years or so from 1880. This overly used data is simply wrong. The quality of the readings and the location of where the readings have taken place are totally changed. It is one thing to take a reading in a remote location that is far from the micro temperatures of an urban setting. The problem is those remote locations are now right in the heart of urban sprawl. The measurements themselves are made by very different quality of instruments. Thus, making the data itself, very open to question. (But shhh don’t mention that to Global warming cabal they don’t practice science and certainly don’t understand the need for consistent measurements.)
Surely she had other evidence. She did. She had the ice core samples. Great stuff. Wonderful! Even amazing! The ice core samples are always the fall back position for this cabal. The problem is you have one localized source of information. Beware the man with only one book (Homo unius libri) is an old Roman maxim  I would update that to beware the man with only one Ice Core. Where is the ice core from say Italy? Florida? Texas? Or anywhere along the equator? I know there is no ice so there can be no ice core. So we only get them from the far north or far South. It’s like look for your wallet under the street lamp when you dropped it way over there because the light is so much better.
She presented evidence from and created by NOAA, I found it here,  (Graph 2)
The examination of evidence was to look at the right side where temperatures where very high. There, all the proof we need … to confirm our bias not to test this theory. If, as the theory goes, temperature is rising due to man made gases in the atmosphere, notable carbon gases, emissions and such, then surely we may test this thesis? When would be a good time to do so? Well, think of a time when there was much destruction, burning and explosions? Why a world war would have all the usual problems but only on a much larger scale as not only are things being moved and transported but there are so much more uses for carbon, such as weapons, fire bomb whole cities, the usual thing that we can expect in total war. Looking at that same chart in the Second World War, 1939-45 period we can see the temperature is indeed significant higher. There we go, theory tested and proven. The introduction of excess carbon in the air is causing Global warming.
Except, if we test again, since we looked at the Second, why not look at the first. Only we see the opposite. Significantly lower temperatures. What we would have expected to see was higher temperatures, perhaps not as high as seen in the Second World War but still higher than average. We do not see that at all. You cannot have a theory that gives two directly opposite results. Either anthropogenic carbon is causing Global warming or it is not. When looking at the sudden and magnitude difference from peace time to war, you should expect to see similar results. Only we do not see that at all.
Now the counter argument as seen above is that the older data is not as reliable as the modern version. Thus we can remove said data from consideration. But then they would lose the legitimacy in their scare tactics of Global Warming being shown over such an extended period. As well, we must consider that the accuracy of weather was a military necessity so the tracking in the war years would have been continuous and rigorous to ensure the best, most reliable forecasting for battle purposes. So that data should be seen as more reliable then pre and post war years.
The problem with this sort of tunnel vision enables the most foolish of claims. Take this year’s, 2018, California fires. Global Warming was the cry! It must be some mythical thing that no one lays blame upon anyone else; for if all are guilty none can be punished.
Except, by now, you must know better; California may be going through a drought but that is no reason to call on some false gods. The problems are numerous and they are certainly man made but they have nothing to do with Global Warming. Think horses, not zebras. The first problem is the water table. Whereas, California is rapidly draining water from its underground water table to produce agriculture and bottle water for export sales. The fruits and vegetables grown are very water dependent to sell to the colder and thus very lucrative markets in the north covered in winter’s snow and cold. They draw a lot of water from rivers and more from the water table, drying out more and more land as they suck it out for today’s market. As well bottle water companies are suck out billions of liters, a slight exaggeration, when they are only allowed to bottle in the millions. “The State Water Board says that of the 62.6 million gallons of water that Nestle says it extracted from the San Bernardino spring each year on average from 1947 to 2015, the company may only have a right to some 8.5 million gallons.
The other cause of the California fires? “A wild land–urban interface (or WUI) refers to the zone of transition between unoccupied land and human development. Communities that are within 0.5 miles (0.80 km) of the zone may also be included. These lands and communities adjacent to and surrounded by wild lands are at risk of wildfires. Since the 1990s, over 43% of new residential buildings have been constructed in this area. In some areas, the amount of new residences in those areas is 80%. In the past, when these areas burned, no residences were lost, but now residences are present, which end up being destroyed.”
Similar to the flooding in Houston Texas, if you build on a flood plain, expect to be flooded. If you build near a path for forest fires, you have to expect to be burned out. But SHHHHH these are real causes, with real solutions. But nah, it is so much better to point to the mythical deity called Global Warming so that nothing is can be done about the real cause of problems. And what little is done, won’t help the problem and certainly won’t solve it. Education is to educate. Not spread falsehoods and mythology as science.