Next week, I have a hearing to determine whether my property will be returned to me. So I was thinking I could argue:
- The warrant doesn’t particularly describe what the investigators are searching for. It says, “Your Affiant request to search the aforementioned devices for their electronic content” which is so broad as to make this a general warrant, in violation of Code of Virginia § 19.2-55.
- According to 8 U.S. Code § 1186a, in order for the accuser, Meshelle Embodo, to stay in the country beyond the two years of her conditional residency, she needed to either file a petition for removal of conditions on residency jointly with me, or get a divorce and file the petition on her own. I wasn’t cooperating with the divorce, so she used the threat of a rape accusation to force me to sign off on the divorce papers. Comparing the timeline of Meshelle’s conditional residency and the divorce to that of the rape investigation suggests the possibility that she had an ulterior motive in making a report to the police. That motive was that she didn’t want to get deported for failure to meet the requirements of immigration law.
- There’s no evidence I committed computer trespass; that’s total speculation. Even if emails did disappear from her email account, it’s not clear that it was because of computer trespass, as opposed to a glitch, or some automatic deletion process. Or she may have simply misplaced or lost the email. And even if there was a computer trespass, there’s no evidence tying me to that. Normally there would be server logs with the IP addresses and useragents of all the devices that accessed the email account, which would allow activity to be traced back to a particular location and device; but no such server logs have been submitted as evidence. Also, normally she would have received an email notification if a new device has accessed her account. But no such email has been submitted as evidence.
- It’s also speculation that there would be anything on these electronic devices tying me to a rape. I haven’t seen any corroboration of that.
- There’s no physical evidence of rape; no photos of injuries, etc.; no medical reports corroborating an account of rape.
- No specifics, such as dates and times that these incidents occurred, have been provided.
- Code of Virginia § 19.2-58 says, “If any such warrant be executed by the seizure of property, or of any other of the things aforesaid, the same shall be safely kept by the direction of such judge or court, to be used as evidence, and thereafter be disposed of as provided by law; provided, however, that any such property seized under such warrant which is not used in evidence and any property which is stolen or embezzled property shall be restored to its owner”. It has been two months and the property still has not been used in evidence; therefore it must be returned.
- Next year, the statute of limitations on computer trespass will run out.
- It’s starting to become common knowledge that the courts are allowing women to get away with making false rape reports.
- Men are also becoming increasingly aware that in rape cases, when the standard of evidence is “probable cause” or “preponderance of the evidence,” judges will typically render judgments against the accused without any corroboration of the accusations. The reason is that judges do not want to seem anti-woman by siding with a man who is accused of rape.
- This is, however, going to encourage more false rape reports, as women see that they can use such accusations to manipulate defendants, police, and courts into giving them what they want.
- It also will tarnish the reputation of the justice system.
As for the sealing of the search warrant:
- Ms. Embodo can simply ignore the media and decline to comment.
- It is often the case that trying to hide information from the media will attract media attention, thus having the opposite effect as what was intended.
- If the media were to begin looking into this investigation, they might uncover facts that would rightfully discredit the accuser, which would improve the integrity of the process rather than diminishing it.
- Publicity promotes accountability of public officials; that’s why we have public trials, so the people can be assured that the government is not doing anything underhanded behind closed doors. That would include executing politically motivated searches and seizures to harass and thereby try to silence political dissidents such as myself. Sealing a search warrant in a case like this could undermine public confidence in the integrity and fairness of the justice system.
UPDATE: The new motion will be in the nature of a rewrite and an update, because at the hearing, the judge refused to consider arguments that were made verbally but not put into writing. The most convenient way to proceed is to incorporate those arguments into the new motion while also recapping.