Engage with me in a one minute thought experiment

On 10 February 2013, you suffer an accident and enter into a deep coma.

Today you awoke, miraculously cured.

You know absolutely nothing about what has transpired in the world since the day of your accident, at which time all of the following statements were demonstrably true:

Hillary Clinton is against so-called “gay marriage.” The mere idea of Donald Trump as POTUS is laughable. Also, Donald Trump is not a Russian asset. No one has ever heard of “Fake News.” CNN is a marginally credible news source. The UK is part of the EU. The Philadelphia Eagles have never won a Super Bowl.

All of these things are now demonstrably false, except one, and that is Donald Trump is still not a Russian asset. Well, that’s assuming Brexit is “allowed” to happen. Tell me, which of these things would you be most surprised about? Probably that Donald Trump is POTUS, but I bet the Eagles are also high on the list.

Okay, that was a diversion. On with the thought experiment.

On 10 Feb 2013, Benedict was pope. But what if the first thing you saw upon awakening was this video of another prelate in white, yanking his hand away as the faithful try to reverence the ring, the symbol of the papal OFFICE. HERE  and then I explained to you that yes, shockingly, this really is the guy currently recognized as Christ’s Vicar on Earth.

Watch the video, if you haven’t already. Remember, these people are NOT reverencing the person, they are reverencing the OFFICE. Except he doesn’t hold the OFFICE. You don’t think there is some sort of significance to him doing this so publicly, with the camera literally three feet away from him? Dare I say, even something supernatural, perhaps?

If you have ever done any kind of television work, or done any sort of public speaking that involves cameras, you know that no matter how many times you’ve done it, you are always keenly aware of that camera being right there, almost like a violation of personal space. There is an inescapable and constant awareness of its presence. There is absolutely no way to “forget” you are on camera, and mistakenly get “caught” doing something you didn’t want people to see.

The video is jarring, isn’t it? There is something that makes it very uncomfortable to watch. It’s almost like watching an act of violence, in a sense.

There is another thing to watch for, which was even clearer in a longer version of the video that now I can’t find: He not only yanks away the ring hand, but he also redirects the faithful reverence to his OTHER HAND. The effect is that they are reverencing the man, not the office. Mafia style.

Don Bergoglio, having been informed of the disturbance caused by the video, sent out an underling yesterday to report to the world that this “amused” him. He finds it amusing. Knowing that biggest rush for a diabolical narcissist is not in committing the criminal act, but in the GETTING AWAY WITH IT, how much more obvious could he be making it for us?

Now what if I told you that the guy in the video usurped power via a “conclave” where a group of thugs conspired to rig the “election,” that Benedict is very much still alive, living inside the Vatican, wearing white and called “His Holiness”, because he believes the acceptance of the papacy is “always and forever”, and that he did not resign the papal munus in his abdication speech, but only tried to resign the active ministry, which means the abdication was defective and not properly manifested and likely with substantial error and under grave fear, all of these being violations of canon law, which means the conclave never took place but only appeared to, and then what if I gave you just a generalized rundown of the Bergoglian antipapacy heretical proofset of him NOT enjoying the supernatural protection promised by our Lord in Luke 22:32, and then I threw in the reminder about Matt 24:22.

What would you conclude, based on the evidence which you’ve been presented?

Thus ends today’s thought experiment.

image1 (1)

Guest Post: A Friendly Challenge to Robert Siscoe

From frequent combox contributor, “Smith.”

——————————–

A Friendly Challenge To Robert Siscoe

I have the book True or False Pope, and have read it a couple of times. I think it is literally monumental; an extremely scholarly work, upon which extraordinary diligence has been exercised.
In spite of the huge respect I have for it I must admit that there were a very few assertions made therein that seemed to me to be lacking the necessary support of fact and/or logic.
One of these was the claim that, once a pope is accepted with moral unanimity of the Church, that very fact guarantees the validity of his election.
For the sake of furthering public debate, with a view to clarifying this issue, I think myself obligated to rebut this position.
I will not be preaching or pontificating here, just stating what seem to be facts, and questioning your position.
Let me say beforehand that I am personally quite comfortable with the situation in the Church, only insofar as it does not in the least shake my Faith. Moreover, it is perfectly clear to me that the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, and all Her dogmas, are perfectly safe regardless of whether Francis is really a pope or not. There are perfectly good arguments, in either eventuality, to show that neither case impugns the fact that the Catholic Church is the true Church.
That means that I have no emotional investment levering me toward one conclusion or the other.
Let me begin.
If I have your position correct, the guts of it all is this:
1) Assertion: It is a dogma that once a pope is accepted with moral unanimity by the Church, he is a valid pope, regardless of any antecedent irregularities.
Justification:
A) It was defined as such by Martin V (Dz 674)
B) It is the unanimous teaching of the Church’s theologians
2) The arguments of said theologians run as follows:
A) M — Dz 674 is infallible; it is a dogma that once a pope is accepted with moral unanimity by the Church, he is a valid pope, regardless of any antecedent irregularities.
m — Francis has been accepted with moral unanimity
c — Francis is the pope
B) M — If the Church were mistaken about a rule of faith it would not be infallible, and we know that cannot happen due to Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against Her.
m — The pope is the rule of faith.
c — In saying Francis is pope, the Church is not mistaken.
3) All this means that it is a heresy to say that Francis is not a real pope.
I respond:
Firstly, and by far most importantly, it is utterly impossible that a determination of the *present* juridical status of anyone can be a matter of divine Faith. The thing itself is obviously not comprehended among the two primary objects of Faith; matters of doctrine and morals. It is simply a question of present juridical validity. For instance, it is certainly not recorded in either Scripture or Tradition (which obviously concern the past) that Francis is a real pope. Neither has any past pope (again, obviously!) declared that Francis’ election has been valid.
But your contention is not this, but that it is a matter of the *secondary* object of Faith; that is, you say it is a dogmatic fact. But this does not work for present popes, only past ones. Why? A dogmatic fact is one that is so connected to a *primary* fact of faith that, without it, that primary fact becomes impossible. In the present question, we can take as an example the dogmatic fact that Pius IX was a real pope. Why is this a matter of divine Faith? There are two reasons:
First and most important is that he himself defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. If he wasn’t a real pope, that is no longer, and never was, a dogma. If the Church were to come to believe a “dogma” through a supposed solemn papal declaration that never occurred because the supposed pope was not a pope at all, it wouldn’t be a dogma, so the Church would be in error on a matter supposed to be infallible, thus the Church would be fallible, which would mean the Church had defected.
Secondly, the indefectibility of the Church is a primary dogma, but that requires an unbroken line of popes, because a pope is an essential requirement in the constitution of the Church as such, as decreed by Divine Law. If Pius IX were not a true pope, the line of succession would have been broken (especially considering his long reign).
But there HAVE been interregnums, and no one knows exactly how long one could last before it constitutes a break in the line. It could be as long as a generation, and probably not longer. But therefore, as long as a *current* putatative pope reigns, there is the possibility that his election was invalid, regardless of universal acceptance. If he is a fraud, and exposed as such, there is no great difficulty in reversing all his “papal” acts. Therefore, none of his acts can be a matter of dogmatic fact; there are no dogmas whatever that depend on *the present pope* being a valid pope. Neither can his standing as a link in the unbroken chain of popes be definitively established, because if he is not a real pope then, even assuming that Benedict XVI is not still the pope, we are simply in an interregnum. Thus the current pope’s validity cannot be a matter of dogmatic fact in that regard either.
MAJOR POINT: The designation of dogmatic fact as to the validity of a papal election can only apply to *past* popes.
Your Assertion (1) is faulty on both counts (both A and B)
Re/ 1,A — It was most certainly not defined as a dogma by Martin V that a pope accepted with moral unanimity by the Church is definitely a valid pope, because:
Firstly, ALL dogmas must be stated in clear terms as to what exactly is being defined (Cartechini, De Valore, ch. 3, part I, Tradibooks ed.). But Dz 674 does not do so. It says that a Hussite recanting of his heresy must be asked: “Whether he believes that a pope, canonically elected, who lived for a time, his proper name being expressed, is the successor of Blessed Peter…”
What exactly does “who lived for a time” (quo tempore fuerit) mean?
Literally it means “in the time which he *was* [pope]”. This probably is referring to former popes, excluding the present one. In any case, it is not clear what we are being asked to believe here. As Cartechini says: “Lex dubia nulla est” (a doubtful law is null).
There are many other reasons that I could quote from Cartechini to show that Dz 674 cannot be a dogma, but I don’t want to get bogged down in details right now. Let me just add a quote from your own book, True or False Pope, p. 440, footnote 8: “A dogma…means a clear cut proposal, as we have previously explained…”
Secondly, there is grave question as to whether Francis was “canonically elected”. In fact, that’s the whole thrust of the Substantial Error argument; that he was NOT canonically elected. Dz 674 then, far from militating against that position, actually supports it, since it requires canonical regularity in an election of a valid pope.
Re/ assertion 1,B — I would like to know how one can speak of the “unanimous teaching of theologians”. You only cite five. How does such a small number constitute unanimity? Besides, excepting John of St. Thomas, all these theologians were active in modern times; there is no real theological tradition on this point, so far as I am aware, and without it we cannot speak of unanimity in any meaningful sense.
Firstly, your citation of Berry is not to the point, because the context of his discussion concerns PAST popes, not present ones. Scratch Berry. He seems to support my position, not yours.
Secondly, your citations of Van Noort:
The first citation clearly also addresses past popes, not present ones.
The second one does indeed concern present popes. His book was published in 1957, and therefore written before that, and Pius XII died in October of 1958. Here, Van Noort claims that Pius XII is guaranteed to be a valid pope by the infallible Ordinary Magisterium, as follows:
“The Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matters in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following theological truths:..Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter.”
Most unfortunately, there is a completely irredeemable and fatal flaw of fact in this reasoning. What Van Noort seems to forget here is that the Universal Ordinary Infallible Magisterium requires universality not only in space, but in time. In other words, the bishops’ unanimous teaching of a particular truth must be not only something they, worldwide, are agreed on NOW, but also something which they have Traditionally always agreed upon.
In support of this I have to adduce your OWN exposition of this fact, given in True or False Pope, pp. 439ff, in particular p. 440: “Ordinary acts of the magisterium…to be considered as belonging to the Church’s [infallible] teaching…are infallible only insofar as they fit into the constant teaching…reflect or echo the permanent teaching and unchanging Faith of the Church.” (Canon Berthod)
I am afraid that this does not at all jive with Van Noort’s exposition. You have to pick one or the other; it’s either Van Noort or your own opinion as supported by other authorities. Since your teaching in ToFP is consonant with the Old Catholic Encyclopedia article, Infallibility (V. 7, p. 800), which you also cite, not to mention many other authorities that could prove that this is the Traditional teaching of the Church on the OUM, I suggest you go with Tradition, and your own previous position, and chuck Van Noort here.
So scratch Van Noort too. It seems you aren’t even sure if you agree with him.
What about your next theologian, Card. Billot?
His thesis certainly supports your position. (NVP: perhaps not. It seems ++Billot was selectively quoted)
Let’s move on to Cardinal Journet.
First of all, let’s just note that he’s not exactly a paragon among theologians. And though he had the reputation of being conservative in his day, he went along with Vatican II. Call that an ad hominem if you want, but aside from that, while the quote you give from him does indeed support your position, so far as I can see, it really offers no arguments, or even authorities, just assertions. I find the citation valueless. I could explain why in detail, but I think the reader should not be subjected to such a waste of time.
Cardinal Journet is on your side too then, though I think his opinion here is worthless.
So far, I believe that theologians are *not* unanimous in agreeing with your position. We are about to find that John of St. Thomas most likely is not on your side either. If I am right, we have a grand total of two theologians that support your contention.
Now what about John of St. Thomas?
An examination of the quotes you cite from him reveals that most of his argument hinges upon a seeming presumption that the teaching of Martin v in Dz 674 is de fide.
I want to keep this as short as possible, leaving details for later if necessary, so I’m going to stab at the vitals of the matter.
1) That Dz 674 is simply not de fide, I’ve explained above. It is doubtful if John of St. Thomas even claims Dz 674 is infallible. Since he seems to be speaking of past popes, not current ones, the basic perennially known dogma of the indefectibility of the Church could be the dogma he is referring to, and he may only quote Dz 674 as support for this.
2) If he claims that universal acceptance guarantees validity, John’s whole treatment speaks not of a presently reigning pope, but only of past ones.
As to the second point, let me give a few quotes:
Quote 1: “we discuss whether or not it is de fide that this specific person, who *has been* legitimately elected…”
Note the past tense. And please don’t suggest that it is past *progressive*, thus implying something that has occurred and is continuing up to the present. I do not have John’s original Latin text, but I don’t need it in order to eliminate this possibility. I don’t need it because there is no such *thing* as a past progressive tense in Latin. This is past tense, period.
Quote 2: “It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, lawfully elected and accepted by the Church (past tense), is the supreme pontiff…”
One may say that the present tense “is” in the last clause qualifies the entire statement as speaking of a pope that *was* elected, but is *presently* pope. That would be hasty. Latin has no articles. Therefore, “is *the* supreme pontiff” could just as legitimately be rendered as “is *a* supreme pontiff”. The first usage would imply that we are speaking of the pontiff currently reigning. The second that we are speaking of pontiffs in general, and thus possibly past cases only. This quote is not clear enough to show anything.
As an aside, note also that, in the following context, John says “although it [the certainty of validity of election] is made much more manifest…when de facto the pope defines something.”
And you yourself correctly comment on this: “the Pope acts as the rule of faith only when he defines a doctrine to be believed by faith.” In other words, when he makes a solemn, ex cathedra definition of a dogma.
This last observation is pertinent to my point above, that it could only be a dogmatic fact that a *current* pope is a valid pope if he *has* at some time already made a dogmatic definition, as did Pius IX or others. Otherwise, all bets are off, since the only other way is for him to pass away and be dead for some decent length of time.
Quote 3: “…this matter — namely, whether a particular man has been (past tense) lawfully elected and canonically established (past tense) as the rule of faith — is something that the Church can determine as a truth of faith.”
This clearly means that the Church can determine as a truth of faith (more exactly, as a dogmatic fact), that a *past* pope has been a real pope. Again, I say this is simply because the indefectibility of the Church requires an unbroken succession of popes. It is not because Dz 674 is a dogma; Dz 674 merely gives authoritative support to that dogma, which has always existed in the Church.
Given the facts about the quotes just given, let’s come back to Cardinal Billot’s teaching.
As far as I can tell, he truly does think that the valid election of a *present* pope is a dogmatic fact. As I believe I have definitively shown, that is completely impossible. Therefore, Cardinal Billot is just plain wrong.
We have to admit that he is one theologian who is clearly on your side.
One could speculate that he read John of St. Thomas with an ultramontane prejudice. After all, he was a Jesuit, and of the good old school. He no doubt took very seriously that fourth vow of the Jesuits: to serve the pope in whatever way asked. And he was asked to serve as a papal theologian. It is not at all hard to imagine that he just went overboard a bit here.
I have completely ignored John of St. Thomas’ discussion concerning whether lack of the necessary conditions for a papal election could invalidate it. This is because I see nothing wrong whatever in his treatment — whether here or elsewhere — PROVIDED we are speaking of a pope who has already passed into history.
I conclude that it is an extravagant statement to say it is a heresy to deny that Francis is pope. While it is in normal times not prudent to question the validity of a papal election, these are most certainly not normal times, and there are very good reasons to question this one in particular. All the faithful should feel no scruples in doing so, provided they do so with prudence, with serious and objective reasons, and out of a love of the Church.
I would be very interested to hear your sed contra, if any. As I said, I am not stuck on the Substantial Error theory, or any other. I must say, however, that I don’t presently see how it is even POSSIBLE to mount a serious argument against my MAJOR POINT. I would find it fascinating to be proven wrong.
Thank you once again for that excellent book, True or False Pope.

Quick lesson in humility

By the grace of God, I’ve managed to get back into the habit of daily Mass. It really is a wonderful thing. Sometimes it can be difficult with my travel schedule, and it’s easy to make excuses for yourself if you want to.

Today my only option was an N.O. parish of the Strict Observance. Pictures of liturgical dancers and Santa on the altar promoted on their website, which I was tempted to post the pics but I will spare you. Presider/masonic sanctuary set-up in a once beautiful old church with the high altar ripped out. Confession Saturday only, 3:30-3:45pm (I’m not making this up).

I really didn’t want to go.

Then the thought dawned on me (grace): “You pathetic, pride-filled monster.”

I mean, if our Lord and Savior still lowers Himself to come down on that altar in that setting, and my response is that He’s not worth it if I have to endure even the slightest tinge of suffering or discomfort? Effeminacy much? And I seriously think I’m really prepared to be a martyr?

Anyway, I went. He was there. He helped me grow a little closer to Him today.

AMDG

 

Honestly, I’m not making this up.

Almost as if it was in cue to follow my post which immediately precedes this one, Robert Siscoe at 1P5 opines,

“Dogmatic Fact: The One Doctrine that Proves Francis Is Pope”

HERE.

His error was refuted in my post immediately below.

Be sure to click the link for the pure gold in the combox content while you can, for it is sure to be deleted soon.

Calumnious projection, circular reasoning, and the law of non-contradiction

A video was posted a few days ago by Steve Skojec at 1P5 HERE.

It seems a response is in order.

A transcript has helpfully been provided by the author, so if I just cut and paste, at least I won’t be accused of hearing wrongly, am I right? Wasting no time, it takes all of 0:00:34 seconds to invoke the tactic of Projection:

“…we’ve got an in-house problem…It’s rooted in this battle over who the real pope is — Benedict or Francis — and what the repercussions of each choice are. But it goes deeper than that because it makes certain folks think it’s okay to calumniate or attack anyone who disagrees with them…

Boy, I’ll say. Specifically, the accusation leveled against those who believe with moral certainty that Benedict is pope is that we are “crazy.” Steve has lobbed the “crazy” diagnosis more times than I can count over the past two years. If you ever look at twitter, you know. Anyone who dares question the Skojec magisterium is immediately attacked, usually without any rational argument, but only with shouts of “insane.” Frank Walker of canon212.com is one of the more recent victims, and it is great to see Frank fighting back (seeking a second opinion on his diagnosis, you might say). Speaking of diagnosis, a few months ago Steve’s dance partner Hilary White even went so far as to literally faux diagnose Ann Barnhardt with a specific mental illness (Borderline Personality Disorder), publicly on facebook. Those comments were eventually deleted, but not before being captured for posterity. So on this point, I agree with Steve, “it makes certain folks think it’s okay to calumniate or attack anyone who disagrees with them.”

Later in the video, Steve calls the idea Benedict is still pope “madness”, and goes on to call anyone who might believe this as being: Schismatic, heretics, sedevacantists, Protestants, and finally, Satan. Yes, he compares the actions of those who dare point out the obvious irregularities of the current situation to the actual non serviam of Satan. I’m not going to reprint those words here, so go ahead and check the video/transcript at 00:13:14. Please click the link and read/listen to the whole thing.

But the real reason for this post is to muse about circular arguments and the law of non-contradiction, so let’s not get distracted by a little calumnious projection that has almost certainly risen to the level of mortal sin. On to the main event.

We start with some rational circuity related to the faithful having no right to examine the evidence and draw conclusions, in honest pursuit of truth:

[00:02:08] “And what I think is and has always been that Francis is a problem. A big one. That he represents a danger to the Church…I am not now nor will I ever be barring some massive conversion on his part, a Francis defender… (But) we’ve made clear that it’s wrong for us to decide for ourselves. However much we feel that we have moral certitude that the pope is anyone other than who the Church says he is. The only thing I’m doing is the same thing I’ve always done: I tell people what I believe the truth is even if they don’t want to hear it.”

This argument can be paraphrased as: “Francis is a danger to the Church (and thus a danger to souls), but it’s just wrong to point out facts which might better explain the reality of the situation, and thus help those souls struggling with their faith. It’s wrong unless you’re me, because I’m always going to tell people what I believe the truth is.”

Are you getting a feel for where this is going?

[00:03:40] “…Now people don’t want to hear that Benedict isn’t the Pope. But it’s also true. And we know that because the Church is the only authority on earth who can state unequivocally who the pope is. And she has told us that Francis is the Vicar of Christ. The cardinal electors were unanimous in their acceptance of him. The sitting bishops of the world have not raised a finger to oppose the validity of his election…[00:07:44] The Church has always held that the election of a pope is what is known as a dogmatic fact…We need to know that the guy the Church says is the pope is the pope because otherwise we can’t trust anything he says…[00:10:09] If we can’t trust that the man the church says is pope is pope, then the governance of the Church falls into chaos…There are no take backs, not even for bad popes…[00:12:41] So I will say now again what I’ve said countless times before: If we cannot trust the Church to tell us who the pope is, we cannot trust her to tell us anything that we must believe…”

Paraphrasing, “The Church has universally accepted “Francis” as pope, and since the Church is indefectible, he must really be pope.”

That sounds so beautiful, so simple. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

But here is where that nasty law of non-contradiction comes into play:

[00:14:31] “Perhaps someday…the Church will declare Francis to be an antipope. Perhaps someday his entire papacy or at least large swaths of it will be condemned by a future pope or even an ecumenical council. It’s happened before. Perhaps this disaster can only be sorted out by Our Blessed Lord Himself through an act of divine intervention we have not yet even imagined. But I’ll tell you this: if Catholicism is true we know that the influence of this pontificate in many essential things will have to be rooted out and refuted. Knowing this in the present moment as this is unfolding, as the crisis goes on, and seeing that no action is being taken is maddening…But we have a choice to make however difficult we find it if we wish to be sons of the Church, we must take our mother at her word…”

Wait, what?

It’s hard to paraphrase, because the argument is so turned in on itself, but it goes something like this: “The Church is indefectible, and the Church says “Francis” is pope, therefore he is pope. It’s dogmatic. But in the future, the Church could declare “Francis” to be an antipope, and his entire “pontificate” expunged, which would also be dogmatic. But for now, we have to sit and do nothing, be sons of the Church, yada yada.”

If the above statement were true, it would mean Truth could change, and it would mean two contradictory states could both be true. Witness the internal conflict and violation of the Law of non-contradiction of Steve’s pounding insistence that the Church cannot defect with regards to the identity of the Pope, and then claim two minutes later that in the future the Church could declare that it totally DID DEFECT in calling Bergoglio the Pope and then declare he was an antipope.  As if he is true pope today because indefectibility, but tomorrow he could be antipope because… indefectibility! Do you see that both of these things can’t be true? This logic suggests it is simultaneously IMPOSSIBLE and POSSIBLE for the Church to defect. The Church is both defectible and indefectible. 

Now, should a future meeting of cardinals or a council at some point declare Bergoglio an antipope, and they do so by reason that the conclave that elected him was invalid, due to the failed abdication of Benedict, then said council would be declaring he NEVER WAS POPE and that Benedict never stopped being pope. Despite appearances, acceptances, etc, IT NEVER HAPPENED.  If only we didn’t have to wait for some future council, and we had a few live prelates walking around right now who might want to defend their mother.

Please click the link and do go read/listen to it all. I’ve omitted many paragraphs out of brevity. He offers several paragraphs with supporting evidence for the validity of Benedict’s abdication, including quotes from the Seewald interview where Benedict claimed, inter alia, that he was forced to continue wearing white because no other clothes were available… a claim which (wink) REALLY lends weight to anything else he might have said. But there are also quotes from saints and other sources that do lend some credibility to his arguments, just very weak IMO when levered against the eternal fate of souls.

 

The man who drove Natacha Jaitt to the place she died has some splainin to do

Raúl Velaztiqui Duarte, 47, was Jaitt’s friend and producer. The businessman lied to investigators on three occasions about the circumstances surrounding her death at the facility, according to Buenos Aires province’s Attorney General Julio Conte Grand.

“There were some noticeable contradictions in the declarations he made yesterday…”

And it wasn’t *just* the false/contradictory statements. There is security video of Duarte lifting Jaitt’s cell phone from the scene after her demise, concealing it in a towel and absconding.

Source link HERE.  Barnhardt commentary HERE.

Oh yes, I know all the cool kids already have this all figured out. She was a former prostitute and drug user. She was a trainwreck, so who cares if she said she had damning evidence on Gustavo Vera AND DOZENS OF OTHER “CELEBRITIES” WHO ENJOY KIDDIE RAPE. So what that the trial in which she was supposed to testify was set to begin this week. Stop being such a conspiracy nut about literally everything, won’t you? Didn’t you see that the coroner immediately declared a drug overdose HERE.? I mean, it would be super duper hard for someone capable of murder (or contracting a murder) to pay off an Argentinian coroner, right? And again she was a whore or former whore, so she has no credibility anyway, so shut up.

Really? Allow me to cast her situation in a different light. Jaitt was not only a prostitute and porn model, but proud of it, with certainly no moral qualms, and then an outspoken fighter for the rights of “sex-workers” after her own departure. What would it take for a person like this to be so full of legit moral outrage so to risk her own life to bring justice to these scum? It wasn’t blackmail, because you don’t execute blackmail by publicly accusing your targets. It’s much more likely that what she learned, what she saw, or what she had physical evidence of, was so sickening that even for a person like Jaitt, it was WAY WAY WAY over the line. If you follow this line of reasoning, her background actually makes her MORE credible.

I don’t know the truth of this case, but fishy is as fishy does. #Contrails #FlatEarth

And then there was this…