Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 376  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 11:04:57 PM »
We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Claims are evidence.

Yep. A rando on the internet said that he thinks he knows something about the cases being dismissed on merit. So do senators, lawmakers, and WH officials, who tell us that the cases were not dismissed on merit. This internet rando thinks that his claim provides better evidence then their claims.  ::)

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 11:00:06 PM »
We've been talking about this "cases were dismissed" claim for weeks now, and you guys still haven't haven't provided the evidence that they were dismissed on merit, so your evidence is zero.

Your proof is your own personal assertion, which is all you continue to provide. A garbage assertion without the strength of evidence to back it up.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 10:37:15 PM »
No, you keep referring to yourself again as your source. Paul is a U.S. Senator and is considered a political expert. You have no experts, only your own internet opinion.

Tennessee lawmakers:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/gop-tennessee-state-lawmakers-urge-senators-reps-to-object-to-electoral-votes_3639825.html

"But, according to the Tennessee lawmakers, “Very few of these irregularities have been investigated in a professional manner by anyone in law enforcement or in a position to do anything about it. In fact, most of these jurisdictions, save Arizona, are blocking transparency efforts at every turn.”

They also faulted the U.S. judiciary system for not taking up lawsuits and typically refusing to hear the cases based on procedural errors—rather than merit."

Former WH Deputy Press Secretary:

https://money.yahoo.com/maxine-waters-slams-trump-security-130000896.html

"Fraud claims were the centerpiece of 60 lawsuits that have been denied in court. Gidley retorted those court defeats, saying “the cases were lost not on merit but lost to judicial technicalities.”"


So again, you are claiming that we should listen to the internet persona Rama Set over a number of political experts, lawmakers, people in the political process in the know.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 10:23:46 PM »
We had this discussion already. The Supreme Court didn't dismiss it on merit either. It was dismissed on standing.

Rand Paul said that the cases weren't dismissed on merit and that the courts tried to stay out of it. Who are you to contradict him?

https://m.theepochtimes.com/courts-havent-decided-facts-on-voter-fraud-found-excuses-to-dismiss-trumps-cases-rand-paul_3622644.html

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rejected the notion that courts have 'decided the facts' amid allegations of election fraud during the Nov. 3 election.

'The courts have not decided the facts,' Paul said during an election integrity hearing on Wednesday. 'The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.'

The Kentucky senator went on to say that courts mainly rejected lawsuits from President Donald Trump’s team or other election-related lawsuits on procedural grounds."


5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 10:10:05 PM »
Quote from: Rama Set
Because they were shitty lawsuits.  Multiple judges said that even though the suits lacked standing, laches, etc... that the merits were deeply flawed.  You should have paid more attention.

Why do you think that you know better than Senator Paul on the lawsuits? Are you claiming that you are a better political and legal expert than he is?


Incorrect. The cases didn't get to the stage of evidentiary hearings.
Incorrect.
Here’s a judge talking about how poor the evidence is. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_get06-tgo

Actually that video only says the particular evidence collected from the internet form was insufficient for the judge. It doesn't even give a decision on the case.

Your Maricopa County video is from Nov 21st. Have you been following the fraud cases in Maricopa since then?

They were ordered to permit inspection of election equipment and they refused to follow the subpoena.

Here is an article from Jan 13 -

https://www.azsenaterepublicans.com/post/statement-from-senate-president-fann-on-new-subpoenas-issued

"On December 15, 2020, Senate Judiciary Chair Eddie Farnsworth and I issued a subpoena to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, calling for them to produce and permit inspection of election equipment and software used in the most recent general election. Contrary to the County's claims that the Senate was only interested in overturning election results, there were three reasons for issuing the subpoenas. Many voters questioned the accuracy of the extremely close results in the presidential election and we wanted to respond to their concerns by auditing those results and confirming the outcome. Secondly, if the audit of the results demonstrated significant fraud or irregularities, we would forward that information to Congress to take appropriate action regarding recognition of presidential electors. Finally, we wanted to determine if any election laws should be amended to solve any problems we discovered from the audit. After being assured it could be done in a relatively quick manner, we called for them to comply by December 18. The Board refused to comply.

With the swearing-in of the new legislature on January 11, new Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Warren Petersen and I issued subpoenas to Maricopa County leaders on Tuesday, January 12. They were again ordered to comply with our request by 9 a.m. Wednesday. Once again, they did not produce any of the election documents requested. A short time after their refusal this morning, the Superior Court Judge presiding over the case reinforced that the issuing of Senate subpoenas for the purpose of reforming election law is 'a valid legislative purpose'.

It is disheartening that the Board continues to thwart our attempt to gain access to vital information in order to further legally valid legislative purposes, confirming the results of the election and investigating whether we need to modify statutes regarding the voting process. We have attempted to partner with the Board on this issue. Supervisors have consistently rebuffed us, even going so far as to file a court action to quash our subpoenas.

The judge has given the parties one week to arrive at a resolution."


Why would they refuse to follow orders if the election was legitimate?

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 08:30:13 PM »
Turns out that it's positive evidence and you guys don't know what heresy or evidence is.
Positive evidence which kept falling flat in court.

Incorrect. The cases didn't get to the stage of evidentiary hearings.

Here is Senator Paul telling you that the cases were not dismissed on merit:

https://m.theepochtimes.com/courts-havent-decided-facts-on-voter-fraud-found-excuses-to-dismiss-trumps-cases-rand-paul_3622644.html

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) rejected the notion that courts have 'decided the facts' amid allegations of election fraud during the Nov. 3 election.

'The courts have not decided the facts,' Paul said during an election integrity hearing on Wednesday. 'The courts never looked at the facts. The courts don’t like elections, and they stayed out of it by finding an excuse.'

The Kentucky senator went on to say that courts mainly rejected lawsuits from President Donald Trump’s team or other election-related lawsuits on procedural grounds."

Quote
Because as I’ve said not all evidence is created equal.
Trump claimed in the Georgia call that 5,000 dead people voted. Obviously that was something he’d seen on some conspiracy site or other. He was calmly told that they’d looked into that and found only 2 instances and...he just repeated the claim.
So yeah, him keep repeating it is “evidence”, I suppose. Doesn’t make it true.
What exactly is your point here?

The complaints and cases weren't comprised of a statement from Trump repeating a sentence over and over. Don't lie.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 08:20:40 PM »
Holy shit!  I just realized Tom's logic and how it relates to Trump. (Because this is a Trump thread.)

So Claims are evidence.
Trump has claimed that voter fraud has happened and he has done so many, many times.  A trumendous amount of times.
Since each claim is evidence, therefore there is trumendous amounts of evidence for voter fraud. 

So if you lie enough, its evidence of truth.

Trump claims that there is evidence of voter fraud. We've been discussing such evidence over the last few months. From the videos on what people saw and experienced you guys basically claimed that all of that witness and affidavit testimony was heresy.

Turns out that it's positive evidence and you guys don't know what heresy or evidence is.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 07:33:08 PM »
I wasn't arguing that the juries can't decide on the testimony of the witness and judge evidence. That is their purpose. It is also the purpose of the defense to come up with a defense when evidence is presented. Jury decides in the end.

Stack said that Bill Murray's wife would need to provide supporting evidence for her claim:

Quote
Sure, Bill Murray's wife would be first hand testimony - Presumably she would need to have some corroborating evidence otherwise it's just he said/she said.

Iceman thinks that claims are not evidence:

Claims are evidence /s

Rama Set thinks that someone saying something is

Quote
mostly ineffective at proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, inadequate at giving any notion of the truth of the matter.

Incorrect. The claim of a witness is evidence. People have been convicted and sent to jail based on the claim of a single person.


From https://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I07_0020.htm on rape accusations:

Quote
"'[T]he testimony of a single witness [can be enough] to support a conviction'" (People v Schulz, 4 NY3d 521, 530 [2005] quoting People v Arroyo, 54 NY2d 567, 578 [1982]). Although corroboration is not necessary in support of a rape prosecution, the underage victim's testimony was bolstered by her prompt outcry the morning after the first rape occurred...

From https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/united-states-proposed-jury-instructions on jury instructions:

Quote
Similarly, the government is not required to prove the essential elements of the offense by any particular number of witnesses, or by every witness. The testimony of a single witness can be sufficient to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of an essential element of the offense charged if you believe that the witness was truthful.

All it takes is for a single claim and for the jury to think that they are truthful.

If the jury believes that Bill Murray's wife is truthful then he's toast.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 05:08:15 PM »
The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.
And, as your story demonstrates, they are not necessarily reliable evidence.
Anyone can claim anything. Just saying you have evidence of something because you found someone online claiming it is completely meaningless.

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken. They can come up with alibies for the defendant, receipts or data showing location at the time, or any number of contradicting pieces of evidence. If they drop the ball on that then the court sides with the evidence they have. The defense dropped the ball in the above story and the person was convicted. He was convicted because claims are considered to be evidence.

If someone claims that they were at the island and saw your pedo prince with Jeffrey Epstein, that's evidence, whether you like it or not.

So you think a witness gets up on the stand, says they saw a thing, and without any corroboration or substantiation, that that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime?

Did you read what happened in the court case? Someone claimed that the defendant confessed murder to him. It was a lie, but the court found the defendant guilty anyway, based on a claim of one person.

Quote
https://www.radio.com/kywnewsradio/articles/news/philly-mans-wrongful-conviction-overturned-after-22-years-behind-bars

"It was essentially the statement of one person who claimed that John Miller confessed to him," added attorney Tom Gallagher, who represents Miller.

Same thing here:

Quote
https://kfor.com/news/man-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-sues-oklahoma/

In 1991, Corey Atchison was convicted of murdering James Warren Lane. Officials say Atchison was convicted on testimony from a single witness, who eventually came forward to say he was coerced by police into testifying against Atchison.

Another one:

https://www.appellate-litigation.org/justice-first/

Quote
Robbery conviction vacated where our client had been convicted based on a single eyewitness identification.  Upon a reinvestigation, we discovered documentary evidence indicating that our client had left New York City to go to Connecticut to visit his family on the weekend of the robbery.

And another:

Quote
https://www.jonesday.com/en/practices/experience/2020/04/pro-bono-client-cleared-of-wrongful-conviction-and-released-from-michigan-prison

Jones Day represented George Clark, a man who was released from a Michigan State prison in April 2020, eighteen years after he was wrongfully convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Mr. Clark's 2002 conviction was based on the testimony of a single witness who later recanted and indicated that police detectives had coerced her statement. The Wayne County Prosecutor agreed to vacate Mr. Clark's conviction and sentence and to dismiss all charges against him after an investigation by the Prosecutor's Conviction Integrity Unit uncovered additional evidence of police misconduct.

How did these people get convicted based on the claim of a single witness if such claims are not sufficient or considered to be evidence?

Jury instructions:

http://www.vtbar.org/UserFiles/Files/WebPages/Attorney%20Resources/juryinstructions/civiljuryinstructions/generaljury.htm

Quote
A witness may be discredited or “impeached” by contradictory evidence, by a showing that he testified falsely concerning a material matter, or by evidence that at some time the witness has said or done something, or has failed to say or do something, which is inconsistent with the witness' present testimony in court.  If you believe that any witness has been so impeached, then it is your exclusive province to give the testimony of that witness such credibility or weight, if any, as you may think it deserves.

Again, it's the defense's job to provide all of that when a claim from a witness comes forward. The burden is on the defense here. When a witness gives a statement or makes a claim that is evidence which needs to be disputed. In the above stories someone failed to appropriately dispute the single witness claim, and so the person was convicted by a judge in a court based on that evidence.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 02:55:58 PM »
The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.
And, as your story demonstrates, they are not necessarily reliable evidence.
Anyone can claim anything. Just saying you have evidence of something because you found someone online claiming it is completely meaningless.

It's the defense's job to investigate the witness and show that the testimony is false, misleading, or mistaken. They can come up with alibies for the defendant, receipts or data showing location at the time, or any number of contradicting pieces of evidence. If they drop the ball on that then the court sides with the evidence they have. The defense dropped the ball in the above story and the person was convicted. He was convicted because claims are considered to be evidence.

If someone claims that they were at the island and saw your pedo prince with Jeffrey Epstein, that's evidence, whether you like it or not.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 02:13:17 PM »
So for you, the only evidence you need is that some guy made a list of celebrity names on his blog and said they all went to an island. That's the level of legitimacy you consider as evidence? Says a lot about where you set the bar for all of your claims. Got it, duly noted.

I don't care if wife beater Bill Murray is on there somewhere or not. If someone was claiming that they found his name it would be evidence though. Claims are considered to be evidence.

https://www.radio.com/kywnewsradio/articles/news/philly-mans-wrongful-conviction-overturned-after-22-years-behind-bars

Philly man's wrongful conviction overturned after 22 years behind bars

"John Miller was in his 20s when he was convicted for the 1996 robbery and murder of a Philadelphia parking attendant. The key piece of evidence to his conviction was the testimony of a witness who claimed Miller told him he committed the crime. However, that testimony was false. The witness even wrote to the victim's family to admit to his lie."

The possibility of a false statement doesn't mean that it wasn't evidence. It was evidence enough for the court to convict in the above story, as claims are evidence.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 04:33:13 AM »
Sounds like the claim of a single person is considered to be evidence to me.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-if-there-is-no-physical-evidence-other-than-wi-1717488.html

“So If there is no physical evidence other than withness testimony, can one still be convicted? Would it be hard for the prosecution to get a conviction?”

Benjamin David Goldberg
Criminal Defense Attorney in Marietta, GA

"The answer to your first question is yes. In fact, judges often instruct juries that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish a fact. That means that, for most offenses, a person can be convicted based solely on another person's testimony (unless that other person is an accomplice). The second question is impossible to answer without knowing all the facts and circumstances of the particular case."

Hence I'm convinced based upon the list found that both DJT and Tom Bishop traveled to Epstein's island. That's what was found in the source you presented.

Sure, claims are evidence. And then it would then be my job to show that I'm not on the list such as by working with the court to find an approved third party expert to analyze the data, or by showing that I had an alibi like not having a passport or something of that nature. The judge or jury then weighs the evidence at the end of the back and fourth by both sides.

The assertion that claims are just disregarded must be clearly incorrect if judges instruct juries to treat a claim by a witness as sufficient to establish a fact.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 03:10:31 AM »
Sounds like the claim of a single person is considered to be evidence to me.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/-so-if-there-is-no-physical-evidence-other-than-wi-1717488.html

“So If there is no physical evidence other than withness testimony, can one still be convicted? Would it be hard for the prosecution to get a conviction?”

Benjamin David Goldberg
Criminal Defense Attorney in Marietta, GA

"The answer to your first question is yes. In fact, judges often instruct juries that the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to establish a fact. That means that, for most offenses, a person can be convicted based solely on another person's testimony (unless that other person is an accomplice). The second question is impossible to answer without knowing all the facts and circumstances of the particular case."

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: Today at 02:09:52 AM »
Sure, Bill Murray's wife would be first hand testimony - Presumably she would need to have some corroborating evidence otherwise it's just he said/she said.

Incorrect. Learn moar law.

https://www.slgattorneysflorida.com/the-state-only-has-one-witness-isn-t-that-hearsay.html

"We often get questions about whether the State can convict you of a crime when they only have one single witness in a "he said/she said" type of case. We usually get the question, "Isn't that hearsay?" Is "he said/she said" testimony hearsay and inadmissible?

No. Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay. Hearsay relates to when a witness testifies about an out of court statement. For example, if Jill testifies, "John told me that Phil punched him," this statement is hearsay because Jill is testifying about John's out of court statement. Now if John testifies that Phil punched him, that is not hearsay, because John is testifying to what happened, not what somebody told him.

Also, hearsay is not always inadmissible. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule where an out of court statement would be admissible."

https://splinternews.com/people-are-convicted-based-on-one-witness-all-the-time-1829367479

People Are Convicted Based on One Witness All The Time

"I rob you on a dark, deserted street at night. You call the police. You describe me. The police find me. You confirm it was me. You testify against me. I go to jail. This sort of thing is completely normal.

Sure, the police and prosecutors would like to have as much evidence as possible. They would like to have another witness, or my DNA, or to find the items that I stole from you in my possession. But if they don’t have any of those additional things—if they only have your own testimony that I robbed you—I have news for you: they will still arrest me. And, if the jury finds your testimony to be credible, they will find me guilty, and I will go to jail."

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 17, 2021, 11:23:45 PM »
Nope. Claims are evidence. Bill Murray's wife claimed that he beat her and abused her. That's evidence. It's evidence regardless of whether she is really secretly lying about it. It's evidence enough to get a restraining order or other police action. Bill Murray's wife's word is evidence to them.

If by “claim” you mean something someone says. Sure, it’s shitty, shitty evidence.  Sometimes inadmissible in criminal trials, mostly ineffective at proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, inadequate at giving any notion of the truth of the matter. But I suppose that doesn’t concern you much.

That's incorrect that it's low value though. You can get someone convicted for the capital crime of treason with only two witnesses.

Northwestern.edu - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D7084%26context%3Djclc&ved=2ahUKEwj1mNjLjKTuAhUNiqwKHWH-BKAQFjALegQIRxAB&usg=AOvVaw1syeDjTFkTGRiKIKd1Yqre

"The requirement is more commonly known as the two-witness rule and its main purpose is to protect those who are innocent of treason and to promote reliability. The rule mandates that a person may not be convicted of treason unless at least two witnesses testify to the same overt act."

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 17, 2021, 10:47:50 PM »
Nope. Claims are evidence. Bill Murray's wife claimed that he beat her and abused her. That's evidence. It's evidence regardless of whether she is really secretly lying about it. It's evidence enough to get a restraining order or other police action. Bill Murray's wife's word is evidence to them.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 17, 2021, 10:37:07 PM »
Bill Murray's wife claimed he beat her. Why wouldn't that be evidence?

Someone claimed to have gone through the paperwork to produce those names. Why wouldn't that be evidence?

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 17, 2021, 10:26:28 PM »
I'm really just not interested in deciphering hand written scrawls in hundreds of pages of low resolution pdfs for Bill Murray's name. If you are interested in that, have at it.

Proving that Bill Murray has no connection to Epstein's pedo island sounds like something you are more interested in than me.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 17, 2021, 09:38:47 PM »
You can conduct your own research and go through it on your own. Here is Rachel Chandler promoting underage models from the MC2 Epstein Agency used to pass around young girls: https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/

I don't know who Rachel Chandler is and don't really care.

You never answered the question. Is there some sort of guestbook log that shows all the people that visited the island regardless of their mode of transpo? Ex., how do we know that Beyonce and Bill Murray visited the island? How was that documented?

And there's still a lot to clear up about the decade or so that DJT and Epstein were each others "wingman". I mean a party for just the 2 of them and 28 calendar girls. Sounds quite saucy.

If you are interested in things about particular celebrities then you should do your own research on things you are curious about. I'm not going to do everything for you on every side discussion.

Bill Murray may not be the great guy everyone thinks he is.

https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/bill-murray-wife-files-divorce-accuses-actor-sex-addiction-abuse-article-1.326688





20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 17, 2021, 08:57:32 PM »
You can conduct your own research and go through it on your own. Here is Rachel Chandler promoting underage models from the MC2 Epstein Agency used to pass around young girls: https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/16-models-to-watch-in-2017-as-predicted-by-midland-agencys-rachel-chandler-and-walter-pearce/

Quote
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/rachel-chandler-still-working-w-epsteins-modeling-agency-mc2-accused-in-court-of-procuring-children-for-elites/

Rachel Chandler Still Working W/ Epstein’s Modeling Agency MC2 Accused In Court of Procuring Children For Elites

Rachel Chandler: Epstein victim, turned skeezy famous photographer, photographed with Bill Clinton

High fashion W Magazine article “16 Models to Watch According to Rachel Chandler”

Picture #4/16 and 13/16 Says the models are from MC2

MC2 modeling agency is all wrapped up in Epstein’s scandals…and now its connected to none other than Rachel Chandler.

Article #1

2015 “The boss of a hot New York modeling agency supplied Jeffery Epstein with underage girls for an orgy with Prince Andrew, court documents claim.
There, the fashion-industry honcho staged a topless photo shoot with young models from Russia, Roberts told the Daily Mail.

Brunel scored US passports for girls as young as 12 — then passed the minors off to pervy pals like Epstein, according to court documents.

Roberts claims Epstein forced her to have sex with Brunel, co-founder of MC2 Model Management, at his home in West Palm Beach, Fla., in New York, California and several other spots.

READ  The party of the working people: Newsom defends his economy; says its richest people are “doing pretty damn well”
https://pagesix.com/2015/01/09/modeling-honcho-allegedly-gave-epstein-young-models-for-orgy/

Article #2

Two sources familiar with Epstein’s finances tell The Daily Beast they believe Epstein dropped as much as $2 million into MC2 to get it started. (Brunel has denied that Epstein funded the agency.) “Jeff put his money up for this guy to get Jeffrey these young girls. That’s a front for Jeffrey’s securing more and more young girls,” one longtime Epstein confidant said.

According to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Epstein used the agency to lure underage prey. In those court documents, one alleged victim accused the billionaire of “deliberately engag[ing] in a pattern of racketeering that involved luring minor children through MC2, mostly girls under the age of 17, to engage in sexual play for money.

READ  Condemned by elites for Capitol Hill riot, half of Americans still approve of President Trump
The offices for MC2 in New York are smack in the middle of prime real estate at the northern edge of Manhattan’s tony Greenwich Village neighborhood. The agency also claims to have international offices in Miami and as far away as Tel Aviv.
www.thedailybeast.com/the-dead-model-and-the-dirty-billionaire

Just published a few days ago

“Among those potentially on the list: Ghislaine Maxwell, a 57-year-old British socialite and publishing heir who has been accused of working as Epstein’s madam; and Jean-Luc Brunel, who, according to court records, was partners with Epstein in an international modeling company.

Giuffre claims that Epstein used the modeling agency, Mc2, to lure underage girls and in court papers said Epstein “deliberately engaged in a pattern of racketeering that involved luring minor children through Mc2, mostly girls under the age of 17, to engage in sexual play for money.”

www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article232385422.html


Chandler also apparently associated with Epstein's friend and visitor spirit cooker Marina Abramovic.

Quote
http://thedivinegoddessblog.blogspot.com/2018/04/rachel-chandler-eminem-and-sex.html?m=1

One thing you guys have missed is that she has a much deeper connection to the occult artist Marina Abramovic than I've seen documented so far.

Some links you might find interesting:

- Rachel is the primary photographer for an artist named Terence Koh, who frequently collaborates with Abramovic. Here, he's in a death pose on a piece of hers: http://purple.fr/diary/terence-kohon-a-work-by-marina-abramovic-at-a-collectors-house-east/Another photo of the same set: http://purple.fr/diary/terence-kohon-a-work-by-marina-abramovic-at-the-collectors-house-east/

- A video from a MoMA party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPPKj99ZV60 YouTube List of attendees: "Those in attendance included Madonna, Mary-Kate Olsen, Yoko Ono, James Franco, Lou Reed, Patti Smith, Chloe Sevigny, Penn Badgely, Padma Lakshmi, Rose Byrne, Kim Cattrall, Lucy Liu, Marina Abramovic, Daphne Guinness, Terence Koh, Andrej Pejic, Leelee Sobieski, Cindy Sherman, Agnes Gund, Katharina Sieverding, Rachel Chandler, Michelle Harper, David Rockefeller, Jr., MoMA's Director Glenn Lowry, Volkswagen's Martin Winterkorn, and Director of MoMA PS1 and MoMA's Chief Curator at Large Klaus Biesenbach."

- Rachel was a photographer/attendee at Marina Abramovic's 2010 "The Artist is Present" performance at the MoMAhttp://www.patrickmcmullan.com/site/event_detail.aspx?eid=32454 (look for her name on the left-hand list of Featured People and use the filter function)

- This is the one I think you might find the most interesting, and I'm surprised this hasn't been delved into before. Abramovic gave a very controversial performance at the LA MoCA that involved a kind of pseudo/ritualized cannibalism of a female body, and Rachel was present as well. https://www.artforum.com/diary/id=29517

-- Abramovic cutting the fake female dead body: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article07.jpgJPG -- A Black woman's head lying in front of dinner eaters: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article08.jpgJPG -- A body being eaten: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article16.jpgJPG -- Body after many parts being eaten: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article05.jpgJPG -- Rachel Chandler posing at the party with Dasha Zhukova, who is the wife of Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich: https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.000/id29517/article13.jpgJPG

There's a lot more of a connection between these two (Chandler and Abramovic) but that's all I could find with Google.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 376  Next >