90 Miles From Tyranny

Monday, October 1, 2018

A woman who accused a former colonel of rape will be forced to pay millions in defamation damages

Retired Col David Riggins, pictured here as deputy director of the U.S. Army Acquisition
Support Center, on Aug. 1, 2017, won a defamation lawsuit against a woman who
claimed he raped her while they were both cadets at West Point. (Bob Coultas/Army)

Former West Point cadet Susan Shannon took to her blog in 2013 to recount the story of being raped by a fellow cadet in 1986 while at the military academy.

Her accusation came amid a storm of press coverage about the prominence of sexual assault in the military, and it led to a criminal investigation and the end of the fellow cadet’s Army career.

The problem, a Virginia court found on Aug. 1, is that it wasn’t true, and in naming the colonel whom she claimed raped her, she defamed him to the tune of $8.4 million, the Associated Press reported Aug. 11

A Fairfax County jury sided with retired Col. David ”Wil” Riggins, who filed a lawsuit in Virginia district court back in 2014, when it became apparent that he would lose his nomination for promotion to one-star general after Shannon’s post came to the attention of Army leadership. The post also led the Army to launch a criminal investigation.

“The allegations of rape were investigated by U.S. Army [Criminal Investigation Command], and it was determined that there was no testimonial or physical evidence to corroborate Defendant Susan Shannon‘s statements concern Colonel David W. Riggins,” according to the lawsuit.

Shannon alleged in a post on her Wordpress blog, “Short Little Rebel,” that Riggins raped her after she‘d blacked out from drinking beer at Eisenhower Hall on campus.

“I felt the need to tell the story about a rape of a soldier I personally know: that soldier is me,” she wrote on July 15, 2013. ”The man who raped me, Will riggings [sic], class of 1987, is now a Colonel in the Army. The rape is the reason I left West Point. So, while his military career is soaring, I left mine far behind.”

In his filing, Riggins poked holes in her story, arguing that cadets are never served beer on campus and, at the time, were not allowed to drink at all. He also said he did not have a car and couldn’t have had one on campus to...

One Week? Not If The Democrats And The Leftist Propaganda Media Have Anything To Say About It....

Should Christine Blasey Ford Be Applauded Or Prosecuted?

Feminists have jumped on the Kavanaugh confirmation bandwagon in order to advocate the conviction of all men for the sexual assaults committed by a few men. Senators Feinstein, Harris, and Hirono "are saying because women have been assaulted, you can't vote for any man who has been accused," explains author and TV commentator Bill O'Reilly. "So therefore anybody can raise an accusation to disqualify anyone from an appointed position or even running for office." That is the very definition of a witch hunt.

Is it important whether accusations of men by women are truthful? It doesn't matter, says Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. "Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard," says Hirono, "but they need to be believed." Hirono expects all of the "enlightened men in our country" to rise up and say, "We cannot continue the victimization and the smearing of someone like Dr. Ford." Poor, poor Dr. Ford.

Poor, poor United States of America when due process and respect for the truth go flying out the window. We have always believed that a person is innocent until proven guilty. We have always believed that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. The left wants to change all that when it is not convenient, as in the case of Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. We can thank the Democrats for perverting our judicial system in support of their political objectives. The politically correct thing to do is (a) believe Ford by virtue of her sex and (b) place the burden on Kavanaugh to prove he didn't do it. Otherwise, say the Democrats, we could have a justice who might rule against progressive ideas like curtailing freedom of speech or replacing free markets with socialism.

Ford testified that her life has been ruined by the impact of a sexual assault. It took real courage for her to come forward, argue the Democrats, exposing herself to the further indignity of media scrutiny and death threats. So should we call Ford a "heroine" and "courageous" and a "very fine woman"? If we do, we ignore her iniquitous behavior – she made a deliberate unsubstantiated accusation of another human being. Ford's assault does not give her the right to destroy the life of an innocent person.

Attacking a man like Judge Kavanaugh without evidence constitutes a reprehensible act. Ford must assume responsibility for that. If you believe she was telling the truth, that is a subjective opinion and does not change the fact that there is no evidence other than her statement that "he did it." Our system of justice allows no substitute for evidence. The Democrats ask, what message are we sending to assault victims if we confirm Kavanaugh? What message are we sending about the justice system if we don't confirm him?

Prof. Ford may have been assaulted by someone, but without evidentiary proof that Judge Kavanaugh was that someone, the accusation should not have made it to the Senate committee. It should have been vetted and put to sleep for lack of evidence. Ford's allegation that "he did it" is not evidence. The accusation has been rebutted by the people she claims were there – including her...

BREAKING: Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell COMPLETELY EXONERATES Judge Kavanaugh in NEW REPORT!

After a careful review of all of the evidence put fourth by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford in her accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell has released a report which completely exonerates the judge.

WOW! Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell COMPLETELY EXONERATES Brett Kavanaugh after reviewing allegations pic.twitter.com/3TxmSzH6sF
— Jacob Wohl (@JacobAWohl) October 1, 2018

Sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, a non-partisan third-party with more than 25 years’ experience prosecuting sex crimes in the state of Arizona, carefully reviewed the allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, including hours of testimony, and has released a report on the matter. In the report, Mitchell points out more than a dozen glaring inconsistencies in Dr. Ford’s account and paints the accusations as potentially fraudulent.

Mitchell’s points out several points, including:

“Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.”
“Dr. Ford struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.”
“When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.”
“Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.”
“She does not remember in what house the alleged assault took place or where that house was located with any specificity.”
“Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.”

Rachel Mitchell reaches the conclusion that ““A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.”

In perhaps her most damning finding, Rachel Mitchell writes that...