『YesToHellWith』のカバーアート

YesToHellWith

YesToHellWith

著者： and may TRUTH reign supreme!
無料で聴く

YesToHellWith exposes the lies and condemns them to hell.

yestohellwith.substack.comyestohellwith 政治・政府 政治学 毎時
エピソード
  • Free books and reports - thanks to TikTok

    Free books and reports - thanks to TikTok
    2026/10/18

    jamesbowersjohnson.com and theyneverhadit.com



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    続きを読む 一部表示
    2 分
  • Get this book for free: The American Republic’s Demise

    Get this book for free: The American Republic’s Demise
    2026/10/18

    Yours for free!



    Get full access to YesToHellWith at yestohellwith.substack.com/subscribe
    続きを読む 一部表示
    2 分
  • Who will hold Glassman Accountable?

    Who will hold Glassman Accountable?
    2026/10/18
    It is October 18, 2026. Welcome to yestohellwith.com.What is the responsibility of a United States Attorney?To win convictions?To defend the Department of Justice?Or to pursue justice, even when the truth exposes failures within his own institution?In 1935, the United States Supreme Court addressed this very issue in Berger v. United States.The Court explained that a federal prosecutor represents a sovereign whose interest in a criminal prosecution is not simply to win, but that justice shall be done.That principle is fundamental.A prosecutor is not merely an advocate. He is an officer of justice.Now consider the prosecution of Orlando Carter.FBI Agent Kevin Gormley investigated the case.Gregory Lockhart and Richard Chema served as federal prosecutors.The alleged $4 million loan became the centerpiece of the prosecution.Carter was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years in federal prison.Yet the bank’s own records and subsequent communications identified only a separate $250,000 obligation.That raises the first question.Did the FBI and original prosecutors adequately verify the existence of the loan before proceeding?If they did, where is the supporting documentation?If they did not, why was the prosecution permitted to advance upon that financial premise?The duty to seek justice begins before trial.It requires prosecutors to evaluate evidence, respect constitutional protections, and refrain from knowingly presenting false information.But the responsibility to justice does not necessarily end with conviction.Specific post-conviction duties may arise when prosecutors learn of credible evidence indicating that a convicted person may be innocent.That brings us to Benjamin Glassman.On October 22, 2018, Glassman was presented with evidence challenging the existence of the $4 million loan.Kenneth Parker, then an Assistant United States Attorney, was also present.Glassman stated that the Department of Justice had shredded the evidence of the loan.I challenged his statement.And after the meeting, I submitted a FOIA request seeking records documenting the destruction.The Executive Office for United States Attorneys found no responsive destruction records.Now consider the professional rules governing prosecutors.Rule 8.4(c) of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct addresses dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.A lawyer who knowingly makes a false statement may face professional discipline when the applicable rule’s requirements are satisfied.Rule 3.8 addresses the special responsibilities of prosecutors.Those responsibilities include obligations concerning the fairness of criminal proceedings and, in specified circumstances, newly discovered evidence relevant to wrongful convictions.And federal law separately prohibits certain forms of obstruction, false statements, and misconduct when their statutory elements are established.These are serious obligations.But they are not interchangeable.A mistaken statement is not automatically a crime.An inadequate investigation is not automatically malfeasance.And a refusal to reopen a conviction is not automatically an ethics violation.The question is whether a specific official violated a specific duty.That is why the evidence must be examined.What did Glassman know?What records supported his shredding statement?Did he verify the destruction?Did he make the statement knowing it was false?And what actions did Kenneth Parker take after becoming aware of the same controversy?Parker’s role deserves particular attention.He was present at the 2018 meeting.He later served as United States Attorney.That raises a continuing question of responsibility.Did he independently examine the banking records and OCC correspondence?Did he investigate the disputed shredding statement?Did he determine whether the conviction required further review?These questions cannot be answered merely by pointing to Carter’s conviction.The conviction is the very outcome being challenged.Under the Liberty Dialogues System, the analysis begins with the official’s assertion and the authority supporting it.Then we examine the applicable duty.Then the evidence.Then the conduct.And finally, accountability.Presumption is not proof. Official position is not evidence. And institutional loyalty is not a substitute for justice.I believe the conduct surrounding the Carter prosecution deserves independent examination, including the actions of Lockhart, Chema, Glassman, and Parker.The responsibility of a United States Attorney is not to protect the reputation of every predecessor.It is to fulfill the obligations of the office.And when evidence raises serious questions about a conviction, the response must be governed by law, truth, and professional duty.Not institutional convenience.In our final episode, we will move from the failures exposed by this case to the larger question.How do Americans prevent these injustices?How can citizens demand accountability before government power becomes ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    7 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません