OCT. 6, 2018


Demoncrats Use Dirty Tricks to Derail Justice’s Confirmation - Delayed Sex Assault Allegations

by Atty. Emmanuel S. TIPON

There are good and bad Republicans. They are all called Republicans. There are also good and bad Democrats. Good Democrats are called “Democrats”. I call bad Democrats “Demoncrats” because of their penchant for malevolence, playing dirty tricks, or engaging in hanky panky.

To derail the confirmation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Demoncrats produced a letter of Christine Blasey Ford claiming that 36 years ago while she was 15 and Brett M. Kavanaugh was 17, Kavanaugh “physically and sexually assaulted” her during a party in Maryland. This is a Hail Mary pass to achieve a nefarious goal.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein reportedly knew of the letter in July but disclosed it in September after the confirmation hearing ended. “Feinstein behaved outrageously,” complained Jonah Goldberg, a columnist of the pro-Democrat Honolulu Star Advertiser, calling the allegations, if false, “one of the worst acts of character assassination and sewer politics in modern American history, and any one involved should be held to account by the law and voters alike.”

I first met Feinstein at the San Francisco salon of her beautician who was my client. Feinstein has no “fire in the belly” said her former campaign manager Clinton Reilly who quit in disgust. She is probably making up for her lack of “fire in the belly” by disclosing the letter of Ford. That’s just being bellicose.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, whom I met when we organized Filipinos to raise funds during her first run for congress in San Francisco and whom I introduced to the Iglesia Ni Cristo hierarchy in the United States, is a Democrat but does not appear to be Feinstein’s co-conspirator.

I met Barbara Boxer, a Democrat when she first ran for Congress in Marin County, California. I accompanied Barbara to the Iglesia Ni Cristo leaders who promised to vote solidly for her. As we left, the San Francisco minister whispered to me “You have introduced only beautiful women.” I said: “Barbara, they are asking why I am only introducing beautiful women. I do not know of any ugly women.” Barbara laughed. Barbara won.

Bill Clinton was a good Democrat until Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky and other women demonized him. Nancy Pelosi introduced us at a fund raiser at the Fairmont Hotel. “Bill, this is Al Tipon. He also went to Yale.” Bill put his arm around my shoulder and asked: “How was Yale for you.” My reply was: “I spent more time with the girls than with the books.” He laughed loudly. “And how were the girls,” Bill asked. I replied: “Fantastic. We went to bed but never slept.” He guffawed loudly.

I contributed to Bill’s campaign. I asked Ka Erdy, my wedding sponsor, then the Iglesia ni Cristo Executive Minister, to advise the Iglesia members in the U.S. to support Bill. I contributed to Bill’s Paula Jones defense fund. Jones alleged that Bill had invited her to his hotel room and upon entering Bill dropped his pants. I wrote to Bill saying: “Yale men do not drop their pants at the mere sight of a woman.” My beloved saw Bill’s thank you note and remonstrated “You gave Clinton money? You could have used it to buy milk for the children.” “The children have lactic intolerance,” I quipped. Bill said on television: “I did not have sex with that woman – Monica Lewinsky.” DNA tests establishing that Monica’s blue dress was tarnished with Bill’s “love juice” proved that Bill was a liar. He was a cad.


Christine Blasey Ford wrote to Sen. Dianne Feinstein telling her about the alleged “sexual assault” by Kavanaugh. The letter, in relevant part, reads:

“Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980’s. He conducted these acts with the assistance of his close friend, Mark G. Judge.

Both were 1-2 years older than me and students at a local private school. The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and 4 others.

Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stairwell from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music, precluding any successful attempts to yell for help.

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with Judge, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state.

With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth, I feared he may inadvertently kill me.

From across the room, a very drunken Judge said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from “go for it” to “stop.”

At one point when Judge jumped onto the bed, the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other.

After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.”



Kavanaugh issued “a strong denial of the allegations against him,” according to Vox, who quoted Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) as saying that Kavanaugh had told him that “he didn’t do that, and he wasn’t at the party” in question.

Mark Judge denied the allegations, saying he had “no memory of this alleged incident” and that “such behavior would be wildly out of character for the Catholic-raised-and-educated boys who went to Georgetown Prep in the early ’80s.”

Even a liberal, Democratic-appointed judge in Maryland but is honest would dismiss the accusation without much ado.

(1) The allegations in Ford’s letter do not constitute “sexual assault” under current Maryland law. Ford did not specify the Maryland criminal law violated by the alleged misconduct. The least severe of the current Maryland sexual assault statutes is sexual assault in the fourth degree which provides that “a person may not engage in sexual contact with another without the consent of the other.” (MD Code Sec. 3-308). “Sexual contact” means an intentional touching of the victim’s or actor’s genital, anal, or other intimate area for sexual arousal or gratification, or for the abuse of either party.” (MD Code Sec. 3-301). Ford did not say that Kavanaugh engaged in “sexual contact” with her by “an intentional touching of the victim’s or actor’s genital, anal, or other intimate area for sexual arousal or gratification, or for the abuse of either party.” Furthermore, Ford did not protest against the assaulter. Did she consent to it? If there was consent, then there is no sexual assault. Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent is understood to consent.

(2) The complaint is too late. Thirty five years is too long to wait to file a complaint of sexual assault. In Maryland, the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor sexual assault is one year from the event, but for a felony sexual assault there is no statute of limitations. For civil actions for sexual assault, the statute of limitations where the victim is a minor is 7 years from her 18th birthday, and where the victim is an adult it is 3 years from the event. What the statute of limitations was 36 years ago is not known.

What did Ford do during 36 years? Did she tell anybody about the alleged incident? Did she tell her husband before they were married that she had been almost defiled? If she did not, Ford did not enter into her marriage with clean hands. Did Ford have a medical or mental examination after the alleged incident? She is claiming injuries and trauma.

Why did not Ford file a complaint within the period allowed by the statute of limitations? Why did not Ford file a complaint at the latest when Kavanaugh was nominated as a Judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals?

A number of alleged victims of sexual assault defend their tardiness in complaining by claiming that they were subject to threats, or were ashamed, or feared retaliation, or their memory was repressed, or they suffered amnesia.

In a recent criminal case for sexual assault defended by my son, Noel Tipon, one of the best criminal defense attorneys in Hawaii, the excuse for the complainant’s not filing a complaint sooner was that the alleged perpetrator was a good friend of her father and she did not want her father to lose a good friend. It may be plausible or implausible, but at least there was a reason. But in the case of Ford, no reason was given why she filed her complaint 36 years late.

(3) A complaint for sexual assault must, as a general rule, be corroborated, by direct or circumstantial evidence.

Ford’s allegations have not been corroborated.

On the other hand, Kavanaugh and Mark Judge have denied the allegations in Ford’s letter.

In the world of “she said” and “he said and he said” with two people saying the same thing, and corroborating each other, it becomes a numbers game, and therefore two must prevail against one, other things being equal.

“A lone witness is not sufficient to establish any wrongdoing or sin against a man, regardless of what offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” Deuteronomy 19:15

(4) The allegations are not credible. There is a rule that “evidence to be believed must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience of mankind.” Zapatos v. People, 457 Phil. 969, 985 (2003).

Ford’s allegations fail to satisfy this evidentiary rule.

Ford alleges that Wayne Judge was watching and even laughing with Kavanaugh while Kavanaugh was on top of her. Sexual assault does not happen with others watching or laughing, except in rare instances. When the Japanese soldiers invaded the Philippines, they broke into our house in Laoag, and raped one of our beautiful housemaids who was my favorite. There were six of them. They watched each other commit rape. I was there. I hated the Japs.

Ford says that Wayne Judge was shouting “go for it” and then shouting “stop” as Kavanaugh was “on top” of her. Was this a “stop and go” sex assault?

Ford alleges that Kavanaugh was “on top” of her. But she did not say that Kavanaugh took off his pants or unzipped his zipper. Can one commit sexual assault with his pants on or his zipper unzipped?

Ford claims that Wayne Judge jumped onto the bed while Kavanaugh was “on top” of her such that the weight of the two on her was “substantial”. Was this a menage a trois?

If Ford’s allegations actually happened, it is mere horseplay, but it does not rise to the level of sexual assault.

Ford’s conduct does not comport with that of a victim of sexual assault. It was only after 36 years that she raised her voice. The first creature that she contacted was the Washington Post. Sexual assault victims do not contact a newspaper first after they have been victimized. It is obvious that she is only seeking publicity.

(5) The complainant cannot meet her burden of proof to establish Kavanaugh’s guilt by clear and convincing evidence.

Some Demoncrats have demanded that the accused, not the accuser, should bear the “burden of proof” and that Kavanaugh should testify first to prove that he is not guilty. Demoncrats claim that this is not a criminal trial where the accuser bears the burden of proof. But even in a civil trial, the complainant has the burden of proof.

“Clear and convincing” evidence is the most appropriate standard in a confirmation hearing. This is because it is not a criminal case and is not just a simple civil case.

Based on the evidence presented thus far, complainant Ford has not established her case by “clear and convincing evidence”. She has not produced any evidence to support her allegations against Kavanaugh. The only person whom she claims actually witnessed the incident, Wayne Judge, has denied it happened.


Judge Kavanaugh is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Kavanaugh must be given the benefit of the doubt. The liberal pro Demoncratic media does not even mention this presumption of innocence. Instead, they have already condemned Kavanaugh and declared him guilty.


When this article was originally written, Ford was the only accuser. Now the Demoncrats have come up with a new accuser – Deborah Ramirez, 53, of Boulder Colorado, a Puerto Rican student at Yale. She reportedly accused Kavanaugh of “exposing himself at a dormitory party and “thrusting his penis” in her face”. She acknowledged “she had been drinking that night and had gaps in her memory”.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/24/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-what-we-know/1408056002/ ; https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/who-is-deborah-ramirez/index.html

If she testifies, an effective cross-examiner should be able to quickly destroy her story. How did Kavanaugh’s private part look like – mushroom, banana, etc. If she gives a specific description, a physical examination of Kavanaugh should be conducted to determine if his private part jibes with her description.

She might feign loss of memory. That will give the cross-examiner an opening to ask: What else don’t you remember? How come you remember this and don’t remember that. You must have a selective memory. There are a thousand questions that can be asked to discredit a fake sexual assault victim.

When I was at Yale Law School, I never saw a female law student get drunk like this Puerto Rican. Que horror. Sin verguenza.


Demoncrats are hell-bent in preventing Kavanaugh from being confirmed as a Justice of the Supreme Court because:

(1) The attack against Kavanaugh gives the Democrats or Demoncrats an opportunity “to retaliate” against the Republicans who denied their Supreme Court candidate a hearing during the Obama administration when Republicans were in control of the Senate, according to USA Today, an anti-Trump newspaper.

(2) They want a woman to become the next Justice of the Supreme Court, believing that a woman will always be a liberal and do their bidding.

(3) They fear that a Justice Kavanaugh might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) which held that there is a right of privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment to the constitution which includes a woman’s decision to have an abortion. Kavanaugh already said that Roe is an “important precedent” of the Supreme Court which has been reaffirmed many times. [Although I personally believe that a woman ought to be able do what she wants with her own body (including having an abortion) without government interference, there is no constitutional right to abortion.] If anyone can show a specific clause in the Constitution saying that a “woman has a right to abortion,” I will eat the constitution, with sugar and spice. But if my challenger fails or refuses to show a specific clause in the Constitution saying that a “woman has a right to abortion,” my challenger must kiss the ass of his favorite Demoncrat senator.


ATTY. TIPON has a Master of Laws degree from Yale Law School and a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of the Philippines. He specializes in immigration law and criminal defense. Office: 900 Fort Street, Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96813. Tel. (808) 225-2645. E-Mail: filamlaw@yahoo.com. Websites: www.MilitaryandCriminalLaw.com. He is from Laoag City and Magsingal, Ilocos Sur. He served as an Immigration Officer. He is co-author of “Immigration Law Service, 1st ed.,” an 8-volume practice guide for immigration officers and lawyers. This article is a general overview of the subject matter discussed and is not intended as legal advice.

...other Columns



Home | Advertise | Subscribe | About Us | Contact Us

© 2008-2018 Hawaii Filipino Chronicle Inc.