THE ANONYMOUS JANE DOE

         The woman in the Cornell 7 rape story remains unidentified, at least officially.  It’s difficult to see why, or what interest is being protected.

         Across the country, prosecutors, newspapers and broadcasters routinely conceal the name and identity of alleged rape victims from the public.  It can, at times, be a debatable practice, though I don’t plan to debate it here.  When we are dealing with a criminal case, it is often justifiable, and it is easy enough to do.  Since a criminal complaint is usually entitled “The State of X vs. The Accused Guy,” there is no need for the victim’s name to appear in the title of a public record, and with a judge’s permission, a pseudonym can be used in the body of the indictment.  Journalists don’t fight the practice, and the alleged victim becomes “Jane Doe.”

         In a civil lawsuit, the situation is completely different.  Rules of procedure (the Federal Rules, for example), usually state that the plaintiff’s name MUST appear in the caption of the complaint.  Since the case only exists because the plaintiff chooses to file suit, normally looking for money damages, anonymity is hard to justify.  If you don’t want your name in the papers, just don’t file suit.

         In some jurisdictions, however, a plaintiff may apply for a court’s permission to file a complaint anonymously, and the court may (rarely) grant such a motion under extraordinary circumstances.  That is what happened here.

         But why?  At this point, what possible justification can there be for the State of New York to conceal her identity?  The grant of anonymity is simply more evidence of the ridiculous level of deference she is being paid by Governor Hochul and the Attorney General.

         Let’s not forget what this woman has already done.  Two years ago, after she belatedly decided she had not really consented to all the things she had consented to, the local prosecutor investigated her claims, interviewed witnesses, and determined there was no criminal case to pursue.  Then she got Cornell itself involved on her behalf, suspending two of the young men she accused, expelling two others, and shutting down the entire frat house.  That, however, was not enough for this unnamed wrecking ball.  Now, she has filed a civil suit and seeks to get well paid for all the horrors she endured, most of which she herself initiated.

         And still, she’s just Jane Doe?  She didn’t have to do any of this, of course, and originally she wasn’t going to because she had viewed herself (correctly), as a willing participant.  But now that she’s making a career of it, why can’t we at least be told who she is?

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki

CNN, POLITICO, and MS NOW---Why Does Anybody Have To Talk to Them?

          In September, the Trump White House kicked CNN, MS NOW, and Politico out of the press pool and revoked their credentials to cover the White House.  They immediately got Federal district judge Timothy Kelly to issue a temporary restoration of their “rights” to access.  A more permanent ruling is expected soon.

         In their joint statement three weeks ago, the news outlets said they filed suit “to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes.”  They further claim their “liberty and property interests” have been taken away. The odds are they will win, not least of all because Judge Kelly has made a habit of ruling against Trump.

         The reasoning of the news outlets, however, is distinctly contrary to accepted free-speech principles.  Forcing Trump, or anyone else, to communicate with news companies is a perversion of the First Amendment.

         The claim is that the news companies are being punished by the government for their speech, but what is the punishment?  They have always been permitted to say what they wish and they still can, whether they are in the physical White House or not.  And as a matter of legal entitlement, CNN doesn’t have any more right to be in the White House than I do.  There is no statutorily-protected category of “professional journalist.”  Their rights to be in the White House are exactly the same as mine---zero.

         The “free speech” claim is actually rather perverse.  The media companies cannot be arguing they are being silenced because they are not.  They are arguing that the courts must force Trump to speak to them.  However, if there is one First Amendment doctrine with which we are all familiar, it is that no one can be required to say anything.  Kids cannot be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance.  Baseball fans cannot be forced to stand for the national anthem.  And Trump cannot be forced to talk to Kaitlan Collins.

         In fact, the attempt to regulate communication between politicians and the press is not only anti-speech, but also a-historical.  Politicians usually have rules about whom they will speak to.  Joe Biden and Barack Obama would never talk to Fox News.  In fact, Biden would go for months without talking to anyone in the press.  And when is the last time Nancy Pelosi was interviewed by Mark Levin?  Politicians routinely make judgments on which journalists are fair, or which journalists share their views, and nobody gets sued.  Why must Trump be treated differently?

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki 

THE NEW WUHAN

The New York Times and other brain-dead media assure us that the death of Darya Shipilova, a researcher at the “Anti-Plague Institute of Siberia and the Far East,” is nothing to worry about.  It was some kind of pneumonia, we are told. 

 Bubonic plague (the one with the rats and fleas) is still around, but an outbreak would be easily stopped in the modern world and would never kill millions like it did in the 14^th Century.  Pneumonic plague is out there too, but could never become epidemic because it kills too fast.

However, as a few people (including the always-reliable Dr. Peter McCullough), have pointed out, Russia’s continuing refusal to answer questions about the death, and their actions in imposing a draconian quarantine on 200 people who may have been exposed to “something,” is not what you do for pneumonia, no matter how exotic it may be.  It is, however, a counter-measure you might take when an easily-transmitted plague bioweapon has gotten loose. 

The “Anti-Plague Institute of Siberia and the Far East,” by the way, is a Russian bioweapons lab, though apparently, it’s impolite to mention that.

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki  

Governor Kathy Hochul (NY): Women are Children

     Recently on Substack (in “Unpopular Political Opinions”), I wrote about age of consent laws across the country that supposedly protect young mature women from making bad choices, or rather, choices her parents or the government would rather she not make.   There are states where an 18-year-old boy who has sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend commits a felony, regardless of her consent, regardless of her initiating the act, and regardless of her insisting she is 22 and showing him a driver’s license to prove it.

     Though these laws long pre-date today’s “fourth-wave feminism,” the reasoning behind them is perfectly consistent with modern feminist principles, the primary of which seems to be that women (especially young women) can never be held responsible for their own choices and their own behavior.

     The accuser in the Cornell-7 rape case showed up drunk to a frat party, then voluntarily (eagerly?) joined in some rather gross, drunken, and drugged group sex with a bunch of guys.  Three weeks later, after she found out what her friends were saying about her, she decided she had not consented, so she initiated a rape case that was never pursued by the prosecutor since it was obvious to him that whatever had happened, it was not a crime. 

     Now she’s at it again, this time in a civil suit where all she wants is to get paid.  The government of New York, however, in an election season, decided to reopen the criminal case, try to put the young men in jail and ruin their lives.  It is appalling there is a government anywhere in the world that would entertain such an idea.

     I am not the first person (or even the first feminist), to point out that, in the long run, infantilizing women does them no favors. 

Copyright2026Michael Kubacki