Lorrie Sinclair – She will not go away

image_pdfimage_print

sinclair-2_01

 

Lorrie Sinclair simply will not go away, despite her inadequacies as a Judicial candidate.  This does not stop Sinclair from incredibly believing she is a qualified candidate.  James P. Fisher has already been interviewed, which was successful. However the local Loudoun Bar doesn’t seem to like James P. Fisher  article here.  When Lorrie Sinclair is your front running candidate,  you know you are in trouble. Sinclair is not judicial material. The Loudoun Bar is completely off base with recommending Sinclair. Her appointment would be an example of failing upwards.  Not to mention that she attempted to prosecute an innocent man, Bruce McLaughlin.

Sinclair has made no notable achievement to the Loudoun Legal community.unless you count suing your sorority and trying to incarcerate an innocent person.  The local bar, they are discrediting themselves by supporting Sinclair.

 

 

 

State Department FOIA Ruling

State Department FOIA Ruling

38 Downloads

Last Updated: 08-12-2018 13:25

Share

Description Preview

jw-v.-state-dept.-14-1242-lamberth-ruling-1.pdf

zvearesolohorne

 

 

Judge Horne, played the part of a whore, as concerned with Christopher Zveare. A real judge follows the evidence and allows the discovery of evidence. Horne didn’t do that, he took the coward’s way out.  You see Christopher Zveare is nothing more than a cheap liar and very bad producer of fake documents.  A simple granting of discovery would have uncovered Zveare’s perjury. Instead of that Judge Horne played the whore.

 

The attached document is a ruling from a real judge with real integrity. He is simply allowing discovery

”Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants”. 

In the attached ruling, the judge has the courage to allow discovery. It could be possibly make Obama and Hillary Clinton look even worse. This courage to allow discovery.

Horne is a coward, he was close to retirement when Zveare submitted his fake documents to the Court. If he would allowed discovery, there would have been no political penalty to pay.  He chose to protect Sandra Glenney and Lorrie SInclair.

 

Biases of Sexual Abuse Experts

Biases of Sexual Abuse Experts

48 Downloads

Last Updated: 15-11-2018 2:39

Share

Description Preview

biasesofsexualabuseexperts.pdf

glenneylindahlwellspringmonica

 

The attached document is a study performed on the biases of the child sexual abuse experts. Be certain that Sandra Glenney has contact information for therapists that will deliver for her. This study exposes the issue.  Always assume that Glenney’s expert will testify that abuse occurred.  This is the case with Dr. Mary Lindahl.

From the study a critical statement

Studies of expert classificatory reliability in cases of alleged child sexual abuse have demonstrated predictably high rates of error (Horner-Guyer pre- dictions) on the part of clinicians using clinically derived data to classify individuals as abusers/nonabusers. Rates of false positive classification have been shown to be many times greater than the rates of false negative classification.’

The alleged experts always, the majority of the time, assume that abuse has occurred. There assumption is not based on science but gut feeling. I should say it is a financial decision, Glenney pays $150 per hour.  There is an incentive to testify that abuse has occurred.