Saturday, July 02, 2011

Being a Socialist means you get to trample the rights of others and talk of ignorance

This is a rant about the Socialist Worm DSK and the asylum sysytem

1 Asylum cases are decided before an aslyum officer or an Immigration Judge. The case is long decided before it comes to the local office where the officers at that level determine if the person is eligible to formally adjust. Unless the person has major criminal convictions it is a mere formality. The key word is CONVICTIONS not charges.

2 The contens of n asylum claims are sacred. Officers may not discuss them with each other save where a legal point is in question. We never ever discuss the specifics of an actual case. Releasing the information on a crime victim is a severe violation of the privacy act. Anyone familiar with asylum claims will tell you similar fraud is very common. The applicants are 90% economic refugees with a BS tale of lies spun into a poor mix of cheap theatre.

No doubt if the laws werte applied correctly 95% of asylum seekers wouidn't make the grade.

3) The person has lied about many things and likely has engaged in rampant criminality. This does not infer that she lied about being raped and even if she was a hooker this changes almost nothing. This does reduce the credibility of witness before the legal assasins. A similar look at the life of DSK reveals he has problems that make Clinton look like Pat Boone.

4) The statements of lefties like the Duck with the far less credible Duke Rape Case should be examined. Abusing and exploiting minority women from the lower class seem to be OK as long aa a socialist Baboon is the perpetrator.

Any concerns about working class people are mere trivialities.

5) Perhaps the only good that might come from this is an intense look at the asylum and refugee program that needs to get back to helping worthy people flee persecution
and not economic charlatans with BS stories.

Do note another disturbing bit of news is the commnts about someone claimuing to be Muslim getting drunk would have been crucified by HR. We are not a theocracy and Muslims and other religious people do fail to uphold their faith. The possible money laundering, tax fraud, benefits fraud, prostitution could have been gleaned without going anywhere near asylum testimony that should have remained private.

A crime victim does not deserve to have their privacy violated to protect a distubed serial predator who espouses leftist cliches while abusing and exploiting the workingh class people who they lecture the planet about.

On a personal note the usual rants of the Duck are basically good for cheap theatre.
The closest he gets toactual minorities is a three minute conversation with a cleaning lady or boring a cabbie.


Speedy G said...

Question to a hooker, "When did you first realize that you had been raped?" Her answer, "When the check bounced."

Ducky's here said...

Unless the person has major criminal convictions it is a mere formality.


In other words, you're redundant.

Thanks, Officer Strutter.

Ducky's here said...

Do note another disturbing bit of news is the comments about someone claiming to be Muslim getting drunk would have been crucified by HR.

We were talking about false rape claims by a women who is associating with drug dealers.

Whats that got to do with some Muslim having a scotch or two?

Ducky's here said...

On a personal note the usual rants of the Duck are basically good for cheap theater.
The closest he gets to actual minorities is a three minute conversation with a cleaning lady or boring a cabbie.


Actually, I was only a few yards from the Dominican who got lugged after a domestic disturbance beef on the street.

beakerkin said...

That is a distint possibility we can not dissmiss. However, the matter should go to trial.

That being said asylum statements are sacred

beakerkin said...

As usual the Duck feigns expertise
about subjects he knows nothing about. Her probably lectures his mechanic about his trade as well.

Stick with doodling Duck.

The Duck has apparently not bothered to read the latest relevations about the crime victim that do indeed discus a "pious Muslim drinking heavily". It appears the left thinks the PrivacyAct is toilet paper when it is Expedient to violate them for a serial predator socialist worm.

Glad that an actual minority slipped across the lilly white life of the demented salonista

The Pagan Temple said...

Beak, just because the guy is a socialist doesn't automatically mean the woman's charges are valid. And just because HS considers asylum interviews sacrosanct doesn't mean she gets to keep everything about her life a secret when she accuses somebody of rape.

This is a matter of local laws being allegedly violated, and on top of that it could even be a matter of national security somewhere down the line. Coming to this country is a privilege, not a right, and if anybody comes here they should have to obey the same laws as the rest of us, and be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as all of us, especially when they go around making accusations.

Even if the accusations were to turn out to be accurate (which does not seem to be the case here) you are forgetting something that is very important, and that is due process. The accused have rights too. Have you forgotten that little matter known as "Presumption of Innocence"?

I'm sorry Beak but the constitution has to take precedence over HS's sentimentality towards the "sacred" rights of asylum seekers.

Ducky's here said...

Officer Strutter, the woman is a plaintiff in a rape case. Rules of discovery are going to trump your paperwork.

She discusses money during a prison visit with a drug dealer and that conversation is PUBLIC RECORD, bubba.

She gets wasted at a party, also public record.

Pitch till you win, Officer Strutter. When we need to know which forms to fill out we'll contact you.

beakerkin said...

Sane Dissent First

Pagan it is becoming increasingly clear that this woman is not a model of good behavior. That being said Asylum Records are never ever
to be opened unless it is National
Security concerns. They are private matters that are sacrosanct.

In your case you would be saying the same thing were this a Socialist Predatory Baboon or Donald Trump. In the case of the Duck his head would be spinning to fry the Capitalist.


1) As stated before your ignorance is monumental.

2) This is a crime victim. Protecting a Socialist Weasel does
not Trump the Privacy Act.

Repeat Crime Victim

3) Asylum claims are given the highest level of privacy and deference by trained professionals
that do not include you.

4) All of the other information is true and does not excuse violating a sacred trust. Perhaps a gay applicant will not step forward because our agency has shown it will betray confidences when expedient.

5) Lets see the hypocrite about the working class changes his tune depending on whom is abusing the
working class. The man is a predator and should be barred from the USA.

Ducky's here said...

Once again, you get on the phone during a prison visit and as a matter of course the visit is recorded and is on the public record. Got it Officer Strutter?

She goes to a party and gets wasted, that's public behavior and isn't a matter of privacy.

Now go back and fill out your forms. Your agency isn't involved.

Ducky's here said...

Oh, and I'm sure you're aware that she self incriminated concerning "your department's" incompetent performance on her case. She admitted lying.

The Pagan Temple said...

I'm sorry Beak but whatever his intentions might be here, I have to agree with the Duck in this matter.

You just can't get around the Constitution, it absolutely has to trump DHS. Asylum seekers do have a right to expect a reasonable adherence to privacy rules, but when it comes to criminal activity, or accusations of same, they should be told point blank what the score is from the get-go. Presumption of innocence is something they should become familiar with very quickly, because coming from where most of them likely come from, chances are its an alien concept to them. As long as they know its supposed to work the same for everybody, that should ward off a lot of these problems from jump street.

Presumption of Innocence is itself a very sacrosanct matter, and we shouldn't toss it just because we don't like the political affinity of the accused. You might well be right about the Duck's change of attitude if the accused were Donald Trump or some other major capitalist, or a major Republican or Tea Party figure. In fact, I would almost bet money on it.

But that's the Duck. As much as it galls me, I have to say it looks like we owe DSK an apology. I know I do, because I sure did rush to judgment. And that's just what the Bill of Rights was supposed to discourage. Our founders realized all too well that we're only human.

beakerkin said...

Insane dissent first

1) The statements made in the prison have nothing to do with the asylum application. Obviously being a commie means that you lack the critical judgement and reading comprehension.

2) I am not an asylum officer. These cases are decided before they
enter my turf. At my level the question is admissability.

Of course if the agency started bouncing cases like this you would be the first to claim racism. In fact FGM which is the preffered route of West Africans is a good lefty cliche.


The basic information that was gleaned had zero to do with the asylum application. The asylum application is protected under the Privacy Act. There was absolutely
zero reason to leak this information to the public.

As for the socialist worm DSK we also have plenty of information that casts doubt on his credibilty.
He appears to be a serial predator
and is owed nothing other than "Don't let the door hit you on the ass". Lost in the mix is the scores of women who have stepped forward and described similar behavior.

As for the Constitution and DSK, who is from France and part of a far left group that has a history of show trials, this is sheer comedy. Make no mistake, there is a world of difference between not guilty and innocent. DSK is not guilty, but is clearly not innocent
and is owed nothing.

Ducky's here said...

This is typical of Beak contortions. In order to give himself meaning everything is reduced to DHS or Israel. Beak isn't aware of much outside that sphere.

Anyway, this woman's asylum application is irrelevant other than the fact that she admitted lying about rape which is certainly relevant to this case. Beak's activity filling out the forms is not at issue.

beakerkin said...

For the developmentally disturbed duck.

The testimony in asylum cases are very personal and are treated as a sacred trust. There is zero reason for law enforcement to ever delve into these matters especially when they pertain to a crime victim.

The fact that there is fraud in an asylum case is akin to being shocked at the presence of venereal diseases at Plato's retreat. Any professional will tell you that all of these cases involve fraud.

You are forgetting that we also know DSK has used hookers, has had a history of predatory sexual behavior and has ethics scandals that are well known.

It is okay to investigate what apparently is a seedy person. The alleged crimes of the accuser are no worse than those of DSK.

In other words the wisdom of the Duck it is okay to violate the Privacy Act and trample the rights
of a maid to save the bacon of an ethically challenged sexual predator socialist fat cat.

The Pagan Temple said...

It all goes back to Presumption of Innocence, Beak. You just can't get around that. What you say about DHS and the asylum statements is not unconstitutional, but neither can it trump the constitution. Anything that's in those statements that might be germane to the case is fair game, especially since the woman would seem to be a serial liar. How can you see something as sacred when its likely a pack of lies from somebody who is nothing more nor less than an international grifter?

Granted, I don't think either of them as foreign nationals are entitled to the same protection of the constitution in total that a US citizen is entitled to (for example, they don't have the right to contribute to campaigns), but certainly when someone is accused of a crime they have the right to a vigorous defense and the presumption of innocence, at least. Granted, she is entitled to justice as the complainant. What she is not entitled to is the protection of the federal government from having to prove her charges the same as every other complainant. If her asylum claim is germane, then it needs to come in.

And by the way, if she has AIDS she shouldn't have been admitted. Admittedly, I think there should be a moratorium on all immigration for an indefinite length of time,but that's a different matter. This woman would seem to be a poster child for my views. Here she is granted asylum, she has AIDS, and what does she do? Associate with gangsters and engage in prostitution.

As if that were not bad enough, she might be affiliated with gangs with ties to the SEIU. One source says she was purposely set up as a hotel maid in order to engage in prostitution in the belief she would be, in typical mobster parlance, "a good earner".

Think about that. The SEIU. Organized crime. And a socialist who is oftentimes decried by more revolutionary socialists as being too married to the capitalist system.

I find that very interesting, and not just a little suspicious.

Ducky's here said...

She revealed the asylum application was false during question about the alleged rape. It has nothing to do with your paperwork, other than your department being a waste of money.

beakerkin said...

In correct Duck.

NYPD would have no reason to ask about a rape unless it possessed the actual record as the most common cause for asylum is FGM.

There is zero rationale for the Police to investigate a sacred trust of a CRIME Victim.


The person in question is a legal permanent resident and does have legal protections. Her Asylum claim is covered under the Privacy Act.

Apparently, this person has cheated on her taxes, faked a claim of HIV and is not a model
of decorum. All of this can be gleaned without violating a sacred trust tasked to Officers.

As for HIV, Obama has removed it from the list of disqualifying conditions. Prior to that one had to show proof of insurance.

HIV is such a bombshell that nobody wants to go near it.

As for hotel locals in NYC they are notoriously corrupt. An equally plausible explanation is a payoff for a cushy assignment or some form of nepotism.