Connect with us

Politics

UPDATE: Judge Moore’s Accuser Still Refuses to Give Deposition

The Judge wants to get to the bottom of Leigh Corfman’s accusations.

Published

on

After more than a year, the woman who accused Judge Roy Moore of sexual misconduct during his 2017 U.S. Senate bid still has not given a deposition about the alleged incident.

“On Friday, Moore’s attorneys filed in court a ‘renewed motion to compel Leigh Corfman to appear for a deposition,'” according to Alabama.com.

Corfman’s deposition is key. It will be the first time that she accuses Moore under oath, facing the penalty of perjury. So far, she has only recounted her story to The Washington Post, which gleefully ran with the accusations just 32 days before the election.

Trending: Bezos-Linked Thinktank Official Calls for Michael Anton’s Execution for Exposing Anti-Trump Color Revolution

“The 320-word press release summarized that Corfman has not given a deposition, Moore has given a deposition, said that Moore had filed a motion to dismiss ‘Corfman’s frivolous lawsuit’ (the first time more than a year ago) and closed with ‘Where is Leigh Corfman? It’s been a year!'” the report said of Judge Moore’s latest legal action.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The demand for a deposition comes in the context of dueling defamation suits – one by Corfman, who sued the Judge simply for denying the allegations against him, and a countersuit by Moore against Corfman for defaming him.

Not only has Moore been deposed under oath, he also took and passed a polygraph test in response to the allegations. Big League Politics reported:

The evidence continues to add up showing that Judge Roy Moore was mugged during his 2017 campaign for U.S. Senate.

Monday, the Judge released the results of a polygraph test, which he took voluntarily, that asked questions regarding whether he ever had a sexual relationship with his primary accuser, Leigh Corfman. Moore passed with flying colors.

In a press release, representatives for Moore said:

On December 19, 2017, Judge Roy Moore took an official polygraph examination, regarding his accusers. To this day no one but Judge Moore has sworn under oath multiple times as to the false allegations that were brought against him during his run for United States Senate in 2017.  This polygraph extends to include questions about not only Corfman but also Nelson and Johnson as these three are the ONLY ones who have accused him of any sexual misconduct.  Judge Moore has also been present for deposition. To this day Leigh Corfman and her attorneys refuse to answer questions about Judge Moore’s residence and/or vehicle. Furthermore, neither her or her attorneys have agreed for us to take Corfman’s deposition.  As illustrated in the document Judge Moore proved to give a truthful account and successfully passed the polygraph.

The Judge wants to get to the bottom of Corfman’s accusations, but so far, Corfman has failed to comply.

Politics

Judge Amy Comey Barrett Recently Approved Democrat COVID-19 Lockdown Policies

Her decision should raise some eyebrows.

Published

on

Judge Amy Comey Barrett has emerged as the choice of Conservative Twitter to be the successor on the Supreme Court to replace deceased former justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on Friday after many bouts of cancer.

However, Barrett’s record is troubling on many issues, with a ruling that gives Democrats in Illinois blanket authority to shut down society based on COVID-19 mass hysteria standing out as particularly heinous.

Barrett concurred with the majority in Illinois Republican Party et al. v. J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois to keep the illegal lockdown in place and allow Democrats to rip up the Constitution under the guise of safety. She hid behind the precedent of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905) in an attempt to avoid culpability for her decision.

“At least at this stage of the pandemic, Jacobson takes off the table any general challenge to [Pritzker’s executive order] based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty,” the majority opinion read in the case.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

It continued: “[W]hile in the face of a pandemic the Governor of Illinois was not compelled to make a special dispensation for religious activities, see Elim, nothing in the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment barred him from doing so. As in the cases reconciling the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, all that the Governor did was to limit to a certain degree the burden on religious exercise that [the governor’s executive order] imposed.”

While Barrett rolls over to the far left and allows Democrats to rip up the Constitution, other judges are actually living up to their oath, such as the Trump-appointed District Judge in Pennsylvania, William S. Stickman.

In his ruling, Stickman refused to hide behind precedent to allow the constitution to be destroyed by Democrats. He effectively deep-sixed Pennsylvania’s lockdown and obliterated the abominable Jacobson decision.

He wrote: “Jacobson was decided over a century ago. Since that time, there has been substantial development of federal constitutional law in the area of civil liberties… That century of development has seen the creation of tiered levels of scrutiny for constitutional claims. They did not exist when Jacobson was decided. […]”

“The Court shares the concerns expressed by Justice Alito… and believes that an extraordinarily deferential standard based on Jacobson is not appropriate,” Stickman added.

Patriotic attorney Robert Barnes has levied additional criticism against Barrett for her unwillingness to stand up to Democrat overreach.

“For example, Barrett, I would oppose her nomination personally. So I would do whatever I can to see her nomination fail. I have no interest in seeing someone like that on the bench,” Barnes explained during an interview on the Viva Frei YouTube channel.

“She comes from the old money corporate South, a world I’m familiar with and the kind of people I’d never want to see in positions of power… That’s the world she comes from. Her dad was a big Shell oil corporate lawyer,” he continued.

Barnes explained how Barrett’s history working as a Clerk for deceased former Justice Antonin Scalia is giving the false impression that she shares his staunch originalist beliefs when that is not in fact the case. He explained that her rise is similar to that of Chief Justice John Roberts, whose record of extreme cowardice on the bench has harmed the nation immeasurably.

“This is how Justice Roberts got on the bench. You do two things if you’re on the Republican side of the aisle: You let people know that you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned even if you don’t believe that… And you play the corporate side of the equation,” he said.

“But most importantly, you get that Justice and his extended intellectual heavyweights to lobby for you to be appointed to the judicial bench down the road… That’s why people are pushing Barrett,” Barnes added.

Barnes highlighted some of Barrett’s worst decisions in a blistering Twitter thread.

 

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending