Army General in Sexual Assault Case to Plead Guilty to Lesser Charges

Thanks, Patrick.

The dirty laundry is getting a good airing, and lots more raunchy duds to be hung on the line in the coming days. I feel sorry for any women in the military. It must be hell because sexual misconduct is rampant.  Whatever happened to saltpeter???

This stuff always used to be swept under the rug. but not any more. Obviously the defense is going to go with precedent, but the rules are going to change—hopefully beginning with this particular case.  ~ BP

March 16, 2014

RALEIGH, N.C. — The Army general prosecuted in the military’s most closely watched sexual assault case has agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges in exchange for the dismissal of accusations that he twice forced his longtime mistress into oral sex, threatened to kill her and her family, and performed consensual but “open and notorious sexual acts” with her in a parked car in Germany and on a hotel balcony in Tucson.

The new guilty pleas, outlined in a document obtained by The New York Times, are expected to be entered by Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair in military court at Fort Bragg, N.C., as soon as Monday morning. They would end an embarrassing two-year case against one of the military’s rising stars that was derailed this year after prosecutors concluded that their chief witness, a captain who was the general’s mistress, may have lied under oath at a pretrial hearing.

The pleas could still set up a showdown. Defense lawyers say military prosecutors may call the captain — as well as her parents, who are from Nebraska — as witnesses at a sentencing hearing this week, in an effort to persuade the military judge to impose tougher punishment on General Sinclair.

But that would allow the general’s defense team, led by a former federal prosecutor, to cross-examine the 34-year-old woman, a military intelligence officer, with what they assert are numerous instances of contradictions or deceptions discovered during a year of trial preparation. The woman already testified earlier this month about what she said were threats from General Sinclair and forced oral sex, but she was not cross-examined because the court-martial was postponed.

General Sinclair, 51 and married with two children, was deputy commander of the 82nd Airborne Division as well as of American forces in southern Afghanistan when he was recalled in 2012. Until then, he was seen within the military as an officer who could progress to division commander or higher.

The general’s punishment will not be determined until a judge finishes holding the sentencing hearing. Prosecutors are expected to argue for prison time, while defense lawyers will contend that officers in similar cases have not faced jail time and have been allowed to retire at reduced rank. As one example, they cite the recent case of an Army brigadier general who lost his command and paid a $5,000 fine but was allowed to keep his rank after it was determined he had assaulted a girlfriend and committed adultery.

Had prosecutors proceeded with the sexual assault charges, General Sinclair would have faced the possibility of life in prison and permanent registration as a sex offender if convicted.

Defense lawyers also say General Sinclair is willing to retire as a lieutenant colonel — two rungs below his current rank, and the last at which no illegal acts are alleged to have occurred — which would probably cost him more than $1 million in total retirement pay.

Though his former lover’s problematic testimony at a hearing in January shook the prosecution team, and led the chief military prosecutor to quit the case after his bosses rejected his advice to drop charges that relied solely on her testimony, Army officials say they do not question her account of the general’s forcing her to perform oral sex against her will.

But the prosecution suffered another major setback last week when the military judge, Col. James L. Pohl, ruled that the senior Army commander overseeing the case may have been wrongly influenced by political considerations when he rejected the general’s earlier offer to resolve the charges by pleading guilty to lesser counts.

The judge’s ruling suggested that he thought military officials, under political pressure, may have stuck with the toughest charges against General Sinclair despite qualms in an effort to show new resolve against sexual misconduct.

General Sinclair pleaded guilty earlier this month to charges that included adultery, requesting explicit photographs from female Army officers, possessing pornography in a combat theater and seeking a date with a lieutenant.

The new guilty pleas expected to be entered Monday include disobeying a commander’s order not to contact his mistress, using demeaning language to refer to female officers and using a curse word when confronted about that conduct, and misusing his government travel charge card.

Yet the one guilty plea that may have been the break that allowed the deal to come together is a charge of “maltreatment” that a member of the defense team said was of critical importance to the general’s accuser.

In that portion of the plea document, General Sinclair admits that he treated the captain “in a manner which when viewed objectively under all the circumstances was unwarranted, unjustified and unnecessary and reasonably could have caused mental harm or suffering during the course of an ongoing inappropriate sexual relationship.”

The lead Army prosecutor on the case, who has not spoken publicly about the matter outside of the courtroom, did not respond to an emailed request for comment on Sunday.

In an interview, Richard L. Scheff, the lead defense lawyer, said the plea deal would allow General Sinclair to move on with his life.

“The Army finally agreed to what were the essential terms for us, taking off the table all the charges that required General Sinclair to be a registered sex offender,” he said.

Mr. Scheff added that he was preparing for the possibility that he would be able to cross-examine the accuser at the sentencing hearing this week.




Bankster Update: Banksters Recently Arrested, Soon to Be, or Gunned Down [videos]

Thanks to Idaho Picker! (Logic Before Authority channel)  Woo-hoo!  What goes around comes around, and he says in the coming weeks there will be many more.

Now is not a good time to be a banker. We saw a rash of jumpers last summer and I wouldn’t be surprised to see another slew of those as I doubt if they’ll like the alternative.

Uploaded Aug 22, 2013 (the video Idaho Picker mentions in the video above)

Parading them in handcuffs through The Hague? I love it!  And did you notice at the 5:20 mark Tony Robinson says, “It’s almost like they’re not human”?

Doctors: Prescribe Emergency Contraception for All Girls Under 17

contraceptionpills 255x159 Doctors: Prescribe Emergency Contraception for All Girls Under 17You have GOT to be kidding me. Where’s the fire? What’s the ’emergency’?!

These aren’t doctors, they’re robots. The memory of the hipocratic oath has been erased from their memory banks, they’ve been programmed by and are getting paid off by Big Pharma.

Aside from the list of negative side-effects below that could result, there’s still the fact they’re putting something unnatural and synthetic into the body and that is always bad news and completely unpredictable from person to person.

I certainly hope parents have the sense to see a red flag when it’s waving wildly in front of their faces. It’s time to stop taking a pill to solve every issue and start by looking in the mirror at the root cause of behaviour. Take some responsibility, people! Parents—raise your children properly and quit passing the buck.

Violence against women—sure, it happens, but who are the perpetrators? Men! Parents—take a more active role in raising your children and reduce the violence in the world. Things are going to be changing dramatically very soon, thank goodness, because it doesn’t look like people are going to assume the responsibility in this current consciousness.

And the anti-abortion folks who say it’s a beating heart that constitutes a ‘person’, and therefore abortion constitutes murder—maybe they’ll revise their stand when they learn that consciousness, or the soul, doesn’t enter a body until around the time of birth, not on conception—so the ‘person’ doesn’t yet exist prior to that. Man, do we need change in this society…

November 27, 2012

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a surprising bit of advice in its new policy statement: doctors should prescribe underage teens emergency contraceptive pills like Plan B.

The heads of abstinence-advocates, natural healers, and skeptics at large are spinning.

Teen pregnancies in the US, while having dropped 44% between 1991 and 2010, remain five times that of France, 2 ½ times that of Canada, and higher than China’s and Russia’s.

An unfortunate share of it is attributed to sexual assault, which are highest among teens and young adults according to the Justice Department’s Office on Violence against Women.

“We really can do better,” says Dr. Cora Breuner, a member of the AAP’s Committee on Adolescence. “By providing more education and improving access to contraception and more education about family planning, we can do better.”

About 80% of teen pregnancies in America are unplanned, and Breuner adds that babies of such pregnancies tend to experience behavioral and academic problems compared to babies born in planned pregnancies from older parents.

Because emergency contraception pills work most effectively if taken within the first 24 hours, teens may feel more comfortable not talking to parents or gynecologists and instead using the preemptively prescribed pills for emergency contraception.

Dangers Associated with Emergency Contraceptives

The logic may be sound—better safe than sorry—but there are other implications to consider, though the gravity of each one compared to an unplanned pregnancy is entirely up to the individual.

Women taking birth control drugs with imitation progesterone (to include Yaz, Bayer’s Yasmin, Beyaz, Safyraland Angeliq) are, according to the US Food and Drug Administration, 150 percent more likely to develop blood clots.

Other dangers to consider when taking birth control or emergency contraceptive pills include:

  • Weight gain or loss
  • Reduced or increased acne
  • Nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting
  • Emotional sensitivity and mood swings
  • Irregular bleeding, spotting
  • Decreased libido
  • Benign liver tumors
  • Yeast overgrowth and infection
  • Vitamins B2, B6, and B12 deficiency

Because emergency contraception administered to underage teens would not be prescribed for cases like acne and hormonal imbalances (as with conventional birth control pills), the issue of using birth control to clear symptoms of deeper, underlying conditions such as poor liver or adrenal function is not at issue.

The issue here is using emergency birth control for teens who, for poor planning, emotional unease, or sexual assault, are unable or unwilling to discuss courses of action with gynecologists or parents.

Arguably, instead of prescribing emergency contraception to teens, it might be worthwhile (and healthier) for parents and pediatricians to have regular, comfortable talks about sexual health and non-hormonal methods of birth control (like condoms).

Sadly, not all adults have the mindfulness or time befitting a good parent and not all children, environments, or circumstances prevent accidents, assault, or plain bad planning.

Condoms do fail and sexual assault is a horrid reality, and emergency contraceptives then would be a boon for any scared, underage teen to have at hand.

And of course, is it morally correct to stop a pregnancy in its path? Just recently, some individuals said that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them. They are calling for after-birth abortions.

The writers say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life”. Is society slowly trying to better control population numbers?

Are emergency contraceptive pills OK? What do you think?



Thousands to Videotape TSA Pat Downs in Protest

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (WIAT) – A Birmingham man is among many who say the Transportation Security Administration’s tactics are aggressive and invasive.

Chris Key will take part in “Opt Out and Film Week.” It’s a national effort where people who share his views will voluntarily undergo pat downs at airports. They will videotape the encounters and post them online.

“People don’t realize when they give up a little bit of liberty for security, you lose both,” Key said.

“TSA takes its mission to protect the safety of the traveling public seriously and our officers will continue to uphold our high standards of professionalism during the busy holiday season and every day throughout the year,” TSA said in a written statement.

Key says the videos will show the pat downs are borderline sexual assault and are unnecessary for passenger safety.

“We are reminded of the need for constant vigilance with instances such as the Christmas Day 2009 suicide bomber,” TSA continued. TSA respects passengers right to exercise freedom of speech as well as the rights of fellow travelers trying to get to their destination safely and without unnecessary delay.”

“People have inalienable rights given to them by God and are supported by the Constitution and these things are being violated,” Key said.


And if you have the slightest inclination to believe the TSA, read this bit of Truth; a comment left re: the above article…

“That’s Sexual Assault (TSA). It is not Necessary. The Thousands Standing Around (TSA) should be abolished. The Christmas day under wear bomber was an employee of Michael Chertoff and a False Flag Event so he could usher in his cancer causing full body cancer causing naked body scanners and further perpetuate the Illusion of Security Theater and continue the war OF terror in the Tyrannical States of Amerika (TSA)”

Here’s another…

Screening Protests Grow as Holiday Crunch Looms

Published: November 15, 2010

WHO knows how these things gain momentum on the Internet, but there have been enough online protests against the new body imaging machines at airport checkpoints that the Transportation Security Administration’s new boss, John S. Pistole, called me on Monday to talk.

Mr. Pistole was specifically worried about the Internet-based campaign encouraging fliers who opposed the new machines to observe a “national opt-out day” on Nov. 24, the day before Thanksgiving. Any passenger can opt out of a scan that creates an image of the naked body and choose a full-body pat down instead. Only a tiny percentage of passengers now do, the T.S.A. says. But if enough people choose to do so on one of the busiest travel days of the year, checkpoints could become crowded and disorderly.

As any security expert knows, a chaotic checkpoint is a security problem. “If terrorists can anticipate that, it gives them an opportunity” to try to evade various layers of security by creating an incident for diversion, Mr. Pistole said. “And what would this do for travel plans for Thanksgiving? Are people going to miss flights because there are long backups, because other people are protesting?”

As if that were not trouble enough, some airline pilots are engaged in their own protests against the body imagers, which the T.S.A. is now calling advanced imaging technology. Pilots have long bristled at being subjected to intensive security when, as they point out, a pilot in control of an airplane does not need a Swiss Army knife to bring it down. Last week, the union representing 11,500 pilots at American Airlines called on members to “politely decline” screening by the “backscatter” models of the machines, the models that use X-ray technology.

The union’s main concern is the potential cumulative effects of repeated exposures to radiation. The T.S.A. cites studies showing that the effects are harmless, but other studies have challenged that conclusion. The other model of the body imagers uses millimeter-wave technology, which doesn’t raise radiation issues. There are now about 385 body imagers in place at 68 airports — 211 of them backscatters and the rest millimeter wave units. A total of 1,000 are planned by the end of 2011.

The pilots are being heard. Mr. Pistole said that the agency would meet Tuesday with pilots’ representatives and airline security officers to discuss new procedures that could allow pilots to avoid the intensive screening that passengers receive. Doing that would require a pilot to have a foolproof form of identification like cards encoded with their fingerprints and iris scan.

Judging from the intense reader reaction I’ve had on this subject, questions abound about what to expect at the checkpoint, especially as more people are now routinely being directed by screeners to use the new machines, even when an old-fashioned metal detector is available. The scanners detect anything on the body, including a slip of paper in a pocket. An alarm necessitates a pat down.

On Nov. 1, screeners began using a far more invasive form of procedure for all pat-downs — in which women’s breasts and all passengers’ genital areas are patted firmly. Since that change happened to coincide with the accelerated introduction of the body scanning machines, many fliers began expressing their dismay on blogs, fanning anti-T.S.A. reactions.

A traveler named John Tyner, for example, posted a detailed account of being detained at the San Diego airport when he tried to leave after declining a body scan. Mr. Tyner recorded the encounter, in which person who appeared to be a T.S.A. screener insisted that he undergo a “groin check.” That account, and that indelicate term, quickly went viral.

I’m getting a lot of questions about the new security regime, including some pointed ones from women. Do the imagers, for example, detect sanitary napkins? Yes. Does that then necessitate a pat-down? The T.S.A. couldn’t say. Screeners, the T.S.A. has said, are expected to exercise some discretion.

Meanwhile, as the holiday crunch looms, Mr. Pistole said, “What we’re telling our security officers is remain calm, remain professional, just provide clear instruction.”

Did the T.S.A. anticipate this kind of reaction to the new measures? “We knew it would be controversial, in terms of some people not liking that combination,” he said. But, he added, “When somebody gets on a plane, they want to know that everybody else — O.K., maybe not themselves but everyone else — has been thoroughly screened.”


Some cities have fired the TSA and replaced them with private firms. Why don’t we do that nationwide? It’s not hard.