Attorney Jennifer Sisk sent a warning letter claiming that Judge Gorsuch was "sexist", making him unfit for the Supreme Court. Here is the portion of the letter about "what happened", allowing us to analyze to learn: Is Jennifer Sisk telling the truth?
[Gorsuch]"He asked the class to raise their hands if they knew of a female who had used a company to get maternity benefits and then left right after having a baby. Judge Gorsuch specifically targeted females and maternity leave. This question was not about parents or men shifting priorities after having children. It was solely focused on women using their companies.
I do not remember if any students raised their hands, but it was no more than a small handful of students. At that point, Judge Gorsuch became more animated saying “C’mon guys.” He then announced that all our hands should be raised because “many” women use their companies for maternity benefits and then leave the company after the baby is born."
Here is the letter with emphasis added:
He asked the class to raise their hands if they knew of a female who had used a company to get maternity benefits and then left right after having a baby.
This sentence is straight forward and is statistically reliable.
Judge Gorsuch specificallytargeted females and maternity leave.
Here, she introduces his name and gives us an unnecessary sentence. When asking if anyone knew of a "female" the question is about "females"; Note the choice of language: "targeted." If asked a question about "does anyone know of a man who...", the focus is upon the specific male gender. Note the word "specifically" as unnecessary. Unnecessary words are deemed very important in analysis. This falls under the category of "attempt to persuade" that belies weakness. Q. How could it be "attempt to persuade" since "female" is designated by both the question and the author's response? A. Asking "mothers" already specifies "female." This makes it unnecessary/redundant, but also logically unnecessary. The author's "over-emphasis" tells us more about herself than it does the gender of "mothers." Remember: our words reveal four elements: 1. Our background 2. Our experiences 3. Our priority/motive 4. Our personality traits (including possible disorders/mental health) The word "specifically" seeks emotional, rather than logical response. She is targeting female audience, while actually showing contempt for them presupposing that they would not know that "mothers" are "female" without her emphasis. This speaks to personality traits, including manipulation within a personality. a. To address this focus is redundant. As unnecessary information, it is, to the analysis, always very important. In this sense, 'the more unnecessary, the more important' stands. Redundancy is treated as "repetition", increasing importance. b. The focus or topic is called "target" by the subject, specifically in an unnecessary sentence. We should ask why she chose this word in this context where it is redundant. That this is "repeated" and it is "unnecessary", the analysis indicates an elevation of importance of "targeting." One should consider if the subject is projecting here.
This question was not about parents or men shifting priorities after having children. It was solely focused on women using their companies.
a. This is unnecessary as the question was about women. She now repeats the same theme, also increasing its importance to her. This is how one reveals oneself; through the words chosen. b. The Rule of the Negative She now elevates sensitivity by telling us what he did not "target" in his question about women: men. The topic of men, or "male" should be considered very sensitive to the author (subject) of the letter. That she revisits redundancy (repetition) within an unnecessary statement, combined with the rule of the negative further heightens sensitivity. Truthful people tell us what happened, with repetition indicating importance. Unnecessary repetition, within the negative, suggests further why the word "target" was employed. As truthful people, in an open statement, tell us what happened, the repetition tells us just how important this event was to the author. Not only is it important enough to mail to United States congressmen and women, but it is important enough to repeat. We should consider that this event (the question by her teacher) is very important to the author, leaving an impression upon her. With the opening sentence being statistically reliable, we must now learn why such a question would leave a powerful imprint upon memory.
I do not remember if any students raised their hands, but it was no more than a small handful of students.
Here, she tells us what she does not remember (rule of the negative) followed by the word "but", which minimizes or negates that which preceded it. She tells us, in an open statement, what she does not remember. She then rebuts her own statement. She does not remember if "any" raised their hand, but then her rebuttal is that is was no more "than a small handful of students."
We now understand the projection suggested by the word "target" by the author.
The event that left such a powerful impression (repetition) now leads to open statement discrepancy.
The event is not coming from experiential memory. She now introduces more editorializing:
At that point, Judge Gorsuch became more animated saying “C’mon guys.”
Truthful people rely upon the strength of their testimony. Here we have the need to persuade enter by the editorializing of the demeanor of Judge Gorsuch. It is interesting to note where he is "he" and where he is "Judge Gorsuch" in the author's language. This is also unnecessary repetition and violates the "law of economy."
Once introduced, Judge Gorsuch will likely become a pronoun and/or a shorter noun. That the author feels the need to use the title and last name is unnecessary emphasis.
He then announced that all our hands should be raised because “many” women use their companies for maternity benefits and then leave the company after the baby is born. He is no longer speaking or telling, he is "announcing" in the editorializing. She does not attribute any quote nor near quote.
Jennifer Sisk is deceptive. Jennifer Sisk is "targeting" the Judge. Jennifer Sisk shows particular sensitivity towards males. This should be explored for personal issues. Jennifer Sisk shows motive of agenda in her deception. There is not enough sample here to know if motive extends beyond anti-male agenda onto self promotion (national stage), politics, etc.
Jennifer Sisk's use of editorializing language shows experience with deception as well as a willingness to use deception on a large stage. She uses diversion in that she does not challenge the question but tells us what he did not do. This is also a habitual technique that deceptive people use. She attacks him not for what he said, but for what he did not say. It shows sophistication in deception employment. This is associated with a lack of fear of external consequences as well as a lack of fear of internal consequences (conscience). It is unknown if this is a childhood trait or a learned trait, as more sample would allow us to know more about inner conscience. Jennifer Sisk would not pass a polygraph employed with her own words. Expect classmates to dispute her account. For training in statement analysis (deception detection) visit www.hyattanalysis.com Seminars and at-home training. Special tuition plans for law enforcement.