Did Gloria Allred Falsely Report A Crime?
March 26, 2012
By Bruce Walker
Gloria Allred, the leftist who uses a fig leaf of “feminist” – only, of course, when the women involved are leftists like herself – has requested that Michael McAuliffe determine whether Rush’s characterization of Sandra Fluke as a “slut” and a “prostitute” constitutes a violation of Section 836.04 of Florida Statutes which makes a crime “Whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degrees.”
One must, at some point, question whether leftists like Allred who have lived so long in the plastic bubble of chic leftism, without accountability to anyone or to anything, can grasp even the tiniest slivers of decency and integrity. No one ever holds them truly accountable for their dishonesty and their malice. But Allred, in her latest demand for a criminal investigation of Rush, reaches a new low, even for her.
Forget that this zealous quasi-advocate for [radical leftist] women has never demanded that David Letterman calling for the statutory rape of Sarah Palin’s daughter – and Letterman, unlike Rush, never apologized for his remarks - or Ed Shultz calling Laura Ingraham a “slut” also should be investigated by prosecutors. The savaging of brave conservative women, or just girls who happen to be children of those women, does not seem to trouble Allred at all.
Forget that the very statute Allred relies upon is blatantly sexist (it does not provide prosecution of a person who makes malicious statements about the chastity of a man.) That would mean if some white woman used the sick old ploy of accusing a black man, in a way that is highly destructive to his career, of having sexual relations with her that would not violate this “women only as allowed victims” law. Hmmm…I wonder if Ms. Allred, personally, would know of any examples of white women ruining a black man running for president with flimsy statements that imputed to him a want of chastity (realizing that chastity within marriage is not celibacy but marital fidelity?).
What is really egregious is that Allred, herself, may have committed a crime by accusing Rush of committing a crime. We may miss this because Allred is so blatant about calling Rush a criminal. If Allred accuses Rush of committing a crime when he obviously did not, then Gloria Allred, Esq. is, at the very least, engaging in a string of offenses related to deliberately abusing the criminal justice system to intimidate or punish the innocent.
Is Rush innocent of the violating Section 836.04? The crime for which Allred wants to harass and investigate Rush is for making false and malicious statements concerning Sandra Fluke’s “…want of chastity.” The very testimony of Fluke, in which she testifies under oath that she spends $900 a year on birth control pills, admits a complete lack of chastity.
There are several different ways in which Allred’s misconduct may be criminal. If Fluke or anyone else was involved in the setup, then all involved could be guilty of criminal conspiracy even if the vile actions Allred and others have taken are not criminal (this is particularly true if the intention is to stifle the exercise of Rush’s civil rights).
It also appears as if Allred may have violated several Florida criminal statutes like Section 817.49, which makes the false reporting of the commission of a crime itself a crime, or Allred may have violated provision Section 696.5(a) of the California Criminal Code which provides that: “Every judicial officer, court commissioner, or referee who commits any act that he or she knows perverts or obstructs justice, is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year.” Ms. Allred is a “judicial officer.”
The fact that Allred is an officer of the court raises a set of new problems with her remarks. Lawyers, as officers of the court, have a higher duty to prevent abuse of the judicial system. Making reckless public statements asking for obviously unwarranted criminal investigations certainly seems to be professional misconduct, and the casualness of the office does not diminish its seriousness.
Can we let Allred off the hook because her own crime is so outrageously public and clear? No. Three months ago, when the leading Democrat in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, said that if Newt Gingrich was the Republican nominee that she would reveal previously private information provided to the House Ethics Committee, I noted that Pelosi committed very loudly and very openly the crime of blackmail.
Not only does it make no difference that this sort of crime – Allred’s false accusation of a crime or Pelosi’s blackmail – is made conspicuously, but it ought to make the offense more egregious. The sorts of crimes that they may have committed are intended to destroy the operations of a free and democratic government. It is high time to call the insulated, “laws do not apply to us,” leftists to account. Did Allred and Pelosi commit crimes? If so, then the criminal justice system should charge them with those offenses. Men like Gingrich and Limbaugh have rights too, and they, also, can be victims of crimes committed by leftists.