February 13, 2022

EVERYONE HAS GOT AN OPINION

Any station? Any station? Do you read? Over. Reporting live from the world’s newest banana republic, everyone, before evolving science knew what opinions were like, and Pastor Hemmings Jacobson with attorneys for defendant in error had a bad meeting with Justice John Marshall Harlan on the topic in 1905. And, under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, as any law student by at least second year knows, “[i]f a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. Can we get a witness to testify to a court on the topic of what is classified information or not, especially with 15 boxes apparently noticed missing containing classified information, with some marked as top secret?

As a corollary, a term that should be familiar to anyone who has completed high school sophomore geometry, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, “[a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” So, the dispositive question on classified information is regardless of your personal opinion, in a legal discussion, are you able to be certified as an expert? Then shut up, because in a court your opinion doesn't matter, and you can join Pastor Jacobson on the losers’ bench, and enjoy the super bowl game on television to root for your favorite team, while at this hour, according to the Washington Post, Jill Biden may have to concentrate on how to enjoy celebration of Saint Valentine's Day, because “President Biden will speak to Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky by phone Sunday as Western allies scramble to deter a possible Russian attack on Ukraine, as Moscow intensifies its pressure on NATO allies and Kyiv.”

However, in other pandemic news that suddenly finds Democrats ready to move on, according to the Center for Politics at UVA, a primary partner in Democrat former Governor Ralph Northam’s COVID-19 response, and former employer of Mohammed Norman Oliver, the former State Health Commissioner, one fringe independent, and not an option candidate for congress can actually be certified to testify as an expert in federal courts, and, in his expert opinion, the case fatality rate for COVID-19, because of the explosion of omicron infections, has dropped from 1.8 to 1.18. That's significant because in China, 1,800 teams of at least five epidemiologists, not economists, albeit not from Johns Hopkins University, but the WHO, important considerations for fact checkers at Snopes, had a case fatality rate around 3.4% from almost 75,000 laboratory confirmed cases in China by February 20, 2020. That is a deployed biological agent configuration profile, according to Major Mike Webb.

This finding would be consistent with the WHO findings that had been determined in February 2020, finding a less than five percent secondary attack rate, as revalidated by the largest sample size tracer contacts study to date, over three million laboratory confirmed cases in India, warranting their conclusion derived from examination of almost 56,000 laboratory confirmed cases and properly. ther trace contacts, “it is not clear whether this correlates with the presence of an infectious virus”, being four times too low and 12 times too low to set off a super spreader event, an empirical fact known in science since at least 1982, in a study of tuberculosis by Martin Blaser.

In the famous crimes against humanity case brought against Adolph Eichmann, the Court found dispositive that the accused undoubtedly knew the tale of the administration of the tonics to which he had put his signature.

Under U.S. v. Christianson, for purposes of sentencing under 18 USC Section 2332b, transnational terror, anyone, regardless of age. who aids and abets the goals of a terrorist organization is, by definition, a terrorist.

The White House reply to the Chief Justice regarding what has been almost a year of failure to reply to a FOIA request that ultimately determines the origins and ownership of a novel coronavirus is due on February 14th, a matter not promoted nor published by Richmond Times-Dispatch, and, under Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, anyone who supports the goals of a terrorist organization through willful blindness can be charged as a terrorist.