Parrott Clams Up: Circling The Wagons

Key former housing adviser to President Obama Jim Parrott has allegedly plead the fifth concerning his role in the unlawful seizure of the GSEs. We knew very early on that Mr. Parrott’s fingerprints were all over this considering he was President Obamas top housing adviser and was very involved in the Third Amendment Sweep.Jim’s name comes up repeatedly in the executive privilege logs which show that he was in constant contact with the President as the sweep was being concocted and implemented in 2012.
The fact that he has chosen to plead the fifth speaks volumes concerning the predicament both our government and those wrapped up in the scheme to seize all of Fannie and Freddies profits find themselves in.

One simply only has to see under what conditions someone is permitted to plead the fifth in a civil case to understand the seriousness of this action:

“To assert the Fifth Amendment privilege, a witness must have “reasonable cause to apprehend a real danger of incrimination.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). Incrimination refers to the possibility of criminal prosecution in the United States, Courts construe the privilege broadly: criminal charges need not be pending and most courts do not require criminal prosecution to be probable, but only possible. In re Folding Carton Antitrust Litigation, 609 F.2d 867 (7th Cir. 1979); In re Master Key Litigation, 507 F.2d 292, 293 (9th Cir. 1974). However, there must be a real possibility of criminal prosecution; the risk cannot be imaginary, remote or speculative. United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980).”

“The Supreme Court has described two categories of questions that might lead to a reasonable fear of incrimination: (1) where the risk in answering a question is patent, such as where the answer calls for admission of a crime, and (2) where the question, on its face, appears to call for an innocent answer, but is dangerous in light of other facts already developed. Hoffman, supra 341 U.S. at 487. Courts also recognize a third category that may give rise to the privilege: (3) where the witness asserts the privilege, but the court lacks sufficient facts to determine the risk of incrimination. In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 168 (6th Cir. 1983). In any event, if another party challenges an assertion of the privilege, the witness must present sufficient evidence for the court to conclude the fear of prosecution is warranted. Id. at 169 – 170.”

Pleading The Fifth In A Civil Case In Federal Court Is Never Helpful, Is Rarely Harmless, And Is Typically Very Damaging — Indeed, It’s Often Fatal To The Party’s Claims Or Defenses. “

The following excerpt from Max Kennerly Esq. shows just how damaging a move like Parrot’s is:

“Second, although in a criminal procedure, the court must instruct the jury that it cannot draw an inference of guilt from a defendant’s failure to testify about facts relevant to his case, Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), in civil cases, “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976).
The rule under Baxter is akin to Cicero’s maxim, “Though silence is not necessarily an admission, it is not a denial, either.” That is to say, an opposing party can’t simply point to the silence and claim victory in their civil case, but a court is entitled to draw adverse inferences against the party that “pleads the Fifth.” (Justice Brandeis said: “Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.” United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149 (1923)). Thus, pleading the Fifth in a civil case in federal court is never helpful, is rarely harmless, and is typically very damaging — indeed, it’s often fatal to the party’s claims or defenses. ”

Harrison v. Willie,132 F.3d 679,683 (11th Cir. 1998) Held that an adverse inference may appropriately be drawn from a public employee’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when considered along with “other evidence”

The fact that “other evidence” is important to determine if an adverse inference can be drawn by one pleading the fifth in a civil case spells disaster for our government. The “other evidence” that has been gathered has proved time and time again that our government lied and committed perjury. There have been reams of other evidence that has turned up and well covered here on this blog that proves that Parrots decision will easily qualify as an adverse inference. It is plainly obvious that the key players are beginning to see the light and circle the wagons.Jim really had two choices just as Ugoletti before him did. Either go in and admit that many lies have been told surrounding the Third Amendment or plead the fifth. I must say that if I were representing him, I would have had to suggest the latter. The fact that our government has pushed this to this length is perverse and I expect more of theses tactics going forward.

Fiderer Before His “Handlers” Got To Him

David Fiderer had this stern warning to share say when first learned that Parrott took the fifth:

“If Parrott took the fifth, that suggests obstruction of justice and conspiracy and the DOJ is conflicted in acting as attorneys for Treasury. Loretta Lynch better appoint a special investigation totally sealed off from the rest of DOJ, because once it comes out the GOP will demand a special investigator.”
David said this before his new found “handlers” got to him and he wrote his more recent Wall Street Journal styled government apologist take on it. I caution everyone to keep this in mind as David tries to influence our cause.

Our Role Is More Important Than Ever
So now our government that claims to have done nothing wrong has gone to extraordinary lengths to hide the truth at every turn. We now see a key conspirator and President Obama confidante plead the fifth. We have seen Fannie Maes former CFO blow Ugoletti’s lies right out of the water. Again everything I have warned about is coming to bare.
It is grossly apparent that there is no one that is willing or brave enough to report the truth on this heist as we do. Again we want to thank the many brave patriots who risk so much to help ensure that we get the true story to document here on this blog.
We are working on a few other initiatives with some key allies that show great promise and will be sharing much more in the near future. Keep The Faith!