Pizzagate Investigation - Lawyers Needed ( pizzagate )

submitted by totalrecall

Everyone here knows that there is already a solid foundation of existing cases and research to build upon. Epstein, Hastert, Franklin, Conspiracy of Silence, etc.

There is amazing research going on here with new information every day.

However, I would never red pill my friends on facebook with a link to Voat.

Too much wingnut and noise. "Smoking Guns" and "Bombshells".

The truth is people do good work here regardless of the noise.

Voat is a forum that can be populated over and over by new posts. New posts bury old posts. Relevant info can only be cited in new posts if someone remembers and links.

What I propose is bringing people in with a law background that can take the research and evidence, even circumstantial, and build actual cases based on law.

Then establish a place, other than Voat, where these documents exist and can be archived for protection.

A place where anyone can reliably link too.

We need to build pages that legitimately lay out pieces of puzzles in a presentable way that can stand up in court.

I'm not a lawyer and know little about the law. But I do know that there is plenty of evidence and info to compile and present in a more legitimate way.

Jem777

Some might consider that actual investigators are involved. It must seem like it cannot be true but is it possible that we are all together on this!

Throgmorton

Link?

lawfag123

Reporting in. Let's see what next week brings.

Fateswebb

There are people on here that actually have blog access on Wikileaks, if we could use that for the host it would garner respect I believe.

Votescam

George Webb is also involved in the same kinds of investigations which touch Pizzagate and child trafficking, human and organ trafficking. Many other investigations going on. WikiLeaks may have been given info from NYPD investigation; even possibly Weiner's Clinton email "life insurance" ... ??? All of this will have to come to the same kind of fruition you're talking about and think it should all be brought together to bring these people down. Danger is that there is always a play using MSM to bring down the investigation and confuse the public. NYPD Detective Jim Rothstein talks about this in YouTube interview with Prof. Jim Fetzer. LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cnT5amf6Ys&t=118s Over 50 years of NYPD investigations of higher ups involved in pedophilia, kidnappings, murder.
One of the investigations got as far as the NY Senate where hearings were held. These major investigations were stopped as soon as names began coming out. Avoiding the cover up is the hardest part. Also see what happened in Belgium. Just amazing that after so many citizens came out into the streets protesting interference with the investigations that a Media campaign was able to convince them that the stories were all lies and simply two or three girls killed by one pedophile ring. They also had amazing witness in one woman who had been involved when she was a child giving them all of the details and she was finally taken down by their press and slandered. Other witnesses, as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftPERN9s5b8&t=42s

keepthefaith

Votes, I replied to you on my thread...the comment about 1 Irishman, 2 E-fits.....

carmencita

I agree this is a great idea. It's time has passed. We have done great work and spent countless hours researching. Now is the time to organize and present what we have found. I am sure there must be some legal minds ready to take this on.

smokemirrors

"New posts bury old posts." Aint that the truth. Its getting tedious doing a bunch o' research, crafting a thoughful submission, with links all laid out, have it cause a frenzy for a few hours, then....drop off the face of the earth.

What is anyone DOING with all these revelations? Have David Seaman rant a bit, like a crazy person, before going back to "bitcoin?" Sigh.

What IS the point of all this?

Vindicator

Smokemirrors, one thing that would be helpful is for well-read users to go back through the TOP posts, reread, and ask the OP to add an EDIT summarizing information that came up in comments and subsequent follow-on posts, which you can provide them links to. That would help thread together some of this research for people who come here that are new. If the OP doesn't want to edit, you could create a summary post linking all of the submissions on the same topic summarizing what each added to the existing knowledge. You can then ping @RebelSkum who keeps the pizzagate wiki up to date, if what you see there doesn't include the latest and greatest research.

smokemirrors

ok, I will do this. Thanks, Vindi X

Vindicator

Please ping other users you know are well-read and have them do the same. I've tried to do some of this myself...but herding shitposts is just too time consuming. :-)

Fateswebb

I'm very glad we have a good mod that's active. Thanks for your service, we trust you, and you're doing a good job. Thanks.

Vindicator

Thanks! Have an upvoat :-)

smokemirrors

Will ping def. And I find drinking helps.....XO

Vindicator

I am saving up my drinking and pizza-eating for a special night out at the only authentic Neapolitan pizzeria in my town for when the pizza shitstorm hits the fan. For now, abstinence for the cause.

smokemirrors

Glad youll be going sedate at a pizzeria. Ill be celebrating at the nearest vodka distillery.

Is this real life? X

AreWeSure

Everyone here knows that there is already a solid foundation of existing cases and research to build upon. Epstein, Hastert, Franklin, Conspiracy of Silence, etc

Tacitly you should limit yourself to only recent cases before stretching into wild theories connecting every government all previous cases from decades ago. You should have something with tight center locked down before going on tangents.

If you're interested in building an actual case based on law, you probably need to answer this question that I have asked before:

Pizzagate is believed to an active and ongoing conspiracy involving John Podesta and James Alefantis and others, so how you would you articulate the probable cause of this case to a judge?

If you can answer that, you might have a real case. Otherwise, you're just going to have a wiki.

probable cause

"Probable cause" generally refers to the requirement in criminal law that police have adequate reason to arrest someone, conduct a search, or seize property relating to an alleged crime.

Probable Cause for Arrest

Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause must come from specific facts and circumstances, rather than simply from the officer's hunch or suspicion.

Probable Cause to Search

Probable cause to search exists when facts and circumstances known to the officer provide the basis for a reasonable person to believe that a crime was committed at the place to be searched, or that evidence of a crime exists at the location.

Search warrants must specify the place to be searched, as well as items to be seized.

Probable Cause to Seize Property

Probable cause to seize property exists when facts and circumstances known to the officer would lead a reasonable person to believe that the item is contraband, is stolen, or constitutes evidence of a crime.

When a search warrant is in play, police generally must search only for the items described in the warrant. However, any contraband or evidence of other crimes they come across may, for the most part, be seized as well.

Should evidence prove to have resulted from an illegal search, it becomes subject to the "exclusionary rule" and cannot be used against the defendant in court. After hearing arguments from the prosecuting and defense attorneys, the judge decides whether evidence should be excluded.

Conclusion

Probable cause refers to the amount and quality of information required to arrest someone, to search or seize private property in many cases, or to charge someone with a crime. Probable cause to arrest, search, or seize property exists when facts and circumstances known to the police officer would lead a reasonable person to believe:

that the person to be arrested has committed a crime; that the place to be searched was the scene of a crime; that the place to be searched contains evidence of a crime; and/or that property to be seized is contraband, stolen, or constitutes evidence of a crime.

Fateswebb

So you would go....

These text messages released by the dailymail, and the interview with a 15 year old victim provides probable cause to seize mr wieners devices that he may have used to commit the crime including his cell phone and laptop.

This laptop would certainly have the other evidence needed to tie this together.

Recent cases like hastert would be very relevant especially since there are Wikileaks emails that show John was discussing finding mr hastert an island to hide on. Now the problem here is that hastert who admitted to sex crimes wasn't convicted of them. They got him for something else. But it does even show collusion of or even planning of committing a crime in that they were discussing the hiding of a fugitive from justice. That again is proof of an actual crime being committed or planned on being committed, which is a crime within itself. Why does that crime not work for probable cause of collusion. Then also there are pay to play crimes exposed in the emails that also provide probable cause to arrest Hillary, and all involved in the Qatar pay to play scheme. Furthermore there is also evidence or electioneering, which again is another law that was broken that provides probable cause..

Now for the actual pizzagate probable cause that's debatable... sure there is plenty of circumstantial evidence and some would say the sheer vastness of it provides probable cause.. how much is enough? It's subjective I suppose. I mean if you find a scene that has all the hallmark signs that a crime occurred there but no dead body no gun and no blood.. at what point do all the other signs, people heard screams and a struggle looks to have taken place etc.. at what point is it that the circumstantial evidence becomes probable cause? If a police man pulls me over and sees that I have a water bong in my car? It's certainly evidence of nothing. It is no proof that I'm in possession of anything illegal. Otherwise police would just sit outside of the head shop and arrest me when I walk out. So would that be probable cause? Or is the officer to assume that the pipe has never been used, and is intended as a piece of art or for use with tobacco? So then add the smell of marijuana to the incident. Now does he have probable cause? There are other things that smell the same, maybe I was burning a hemp rope or something. Heck even cigarettes sometimes have that same weird weed smell. So at what point does probable cause actually occur or is it simply subjective and up to the officer? I can tell you this, in the state that I live in smelling marijuana by a policeman has been ruled as not probable cause by the supreme court in case precedent. But don't you believe for a second that cops are even aware of that ruling and that they wouldn't search if they smelled it. So what exactly is probable cause and who is to determine when it has been met?

shoosh

So, crowd-funding private investigators to provide more information? These guys shouldn't be hard to nail down. They're addicted to their "life blood" as Sparky Alefantis would call it. Like any addiction they can't go too long without slipping into their CULTure. Set up a crowd-fund, share it globally, and give them 3 months and it's game over.