Is the system protecting Aidan Rhys Santiago, Icis Hill, and Cassy Young-Perez through selective enforcement because of Corruption/Homophobia/Discrimination/or Outside Influence — toward those victimized?

The four hypotheses Active legal actions

Series Trailer

Black Robe Trial

Audio
Series Trailer  ·  Black Robe Trial

Your browser may have muted this audio — click the speaker icon to enable sound.

Four Hypotheses

Four possible answers to one question. The evidence will let you decide which — if any — fits.

Hypothesis I
Corruption

Is the pattern one of money, favor, and quiet exchange — charges declined, hearings rescheduled, files thinned, because the right hands were greased?

Hypothesis II
Homophobia

Is the pattern one of a court system that views the alleged victims as less worthy of protection because of who they are — their identity discounted, their statements weighed lighter, their cases moved to the back of the docket?

Hypothesis III
Discrimination

Is the pattern one of systemic bias against the populations Aidan has victimized — treated as collateral the system has already decided not to spend resources defending?

Hypothesis IV
Outside Influence

Is the pattern one of external pressure from powerful agencies and institutions — forces operating outside the visible court record — that have steered outcomes away from accountability for those victimized?

Statement of Purpose

Todd Wilson Short holds no animosity toward Aidan Rhys Santiago, Icis Hill, Cassy Young-Perez, Ashley Patterson, or any other individual named in or connected to these proceedings. He does not approach this record seeking retribution, and he demands nothing directly of any named party at this time.

Mr. Short’s purpose is singular: to place a documented record before the courts, administrative bodies, and oversight agencies that exist precisely to determine what is just and proper — for all parties, without exception. He is neutral as to the personal outcome for any individual respondent. He is not neutral as to the principle that the law must be applied equally and without favor. That determination he has entrusted entirely to the institutions authorized to make it, and he is prepared to abide by what those institutions decide on a full and fair record.

The record speaks. The law will decide.