A new claim of Sexual Misconduct against Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh has surfaced within the last 24 hours, once again leading to speculation that another woman will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and prompting calls for Trump to rescind Kavanaugh’s nomination.

On Sunday Evening, The New Yorker published a story about another woman, Deborah Ramirez, who had decided to come forward with a claim about Kavanaugh sexually harassing her at a Yale Party in 1983. The report adds on to Christine Ford’s questionable account of being held down against her will at a similar party four years later at a different college by Kavanaugh.

The New Yorker directly interviewed the accuser and wrote the following on the story:

The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said. In a statement, Kavanaugh wrote, “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name—and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building—against these last-minute allegations.”

Ramirez, according to The New Yorker, went into full detail about the alleged sexual harassment, claiming that Kavanaugh put his exposed crotch in her face and would thrust it numerous times.

Witnesses at the supposed party gave differing answers, with some claiming that the party did happen and the events are true; the party did happen but Kavanaugh was not there; the party did happen but the vents did not transpire, or the party never happened at all. Several of Ramirez’s closest allies and friends have come to her aid, saying they believed her even though some had never been told about it before.

Kavanaugh has once again denied the allegations, while Trump has come to the aid of his nominee, stating the allegations are nothing but “totally political. It’s totally political,” he told news stations at the UN meeting in New York.

However, just as in the case of Christine Ford and with her upcoming testimony, there has been some questions around the validity of Ramirez’s story and differing witness accounts, as well as her background in an organization that supposedly combats domestic violence.

Upon further review, it was found that the organization was not only a domestic violence organization, but also a social justice organization that is bent on “racial, economic, and social equality,” according to their website.

It was also found out that questionable spending tactics, and a potential smuggling of funds from the IRS led to an independent audit report that discovered a general misuse on the allocation of funds, as well as a chunk of the money going into the stock market to make the organization grow, which was not reported to the IRS in an adequate matter.

ThegodofRage was able to find out the name of the non-profit she had not only worked for, but was current Vice-Chair of, just after the story had been published. It was found that she was a board member and volunteer of the Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Non-Violence, or SPAN, possibly as early as 2002, according to various sources, which has had some very sketchy practices within the last decade and a half of its existence.

The organization’s “about us” page showed the following about their missions:

SPAN is a human rights organization committed to ending violence against adults, youth and children through support, advocacy, education and community organizing. SPAN began providing services in 1979 and is crucial to the network of support that offers critical “safety net” services to vulnerable, low-income and at-risk populations. It is the only organization serving Boulder, western Broomfield, smaller towns and unincorporated Boulder County designed to provide shelter and advocacy for victims of interpersonal violence at a time when our community is experiencing higher domestic violence rates than national and state averages.

In 2016, the organization donated nearly $50,000 to several law associations and organizations dedicated to protecting victims of domestic violence.

However, domestic violence was not the only mission goal they were aiming for. SPAN also wanted to “promote economic, racial, and social justice.” in the Boulder Area, not for Domestic Violence, but to influence groups and high-profile policy makers that could influence congress in a left-leaning way.

In addition, SPAN has also found themselves at both ends of lawsuits that have damaged their reputation, especially the most recent one involving a racial discrimination claim against certain individuals.

The case, CALDERON V. SAFEHOUSE PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE FOR NONVIOLENCE, was filed in October of 2012 against the organization for allegedly wrongful termination and on the basis of alleged racial discrimination by Ramirez’s executive, Anne Tapp.

In one part of the case, Debbie Ramirez was asked to testify on the plaintiff’s behalf, stating the following about Calderon:

Elaine has always been extremely supportive to me. As a [woman] of color her words always resonated with me and helped me develop my critical thinking skills. Her [shelter] intakes were always thorough. When she was on call I was confident that women would be attempted to be reached and if they were available all services would be reviewed and questions answered. In addition we brainstormed together on the Leadership Council. She has also been a powerful positive influence on my life.

It turned out that Elaine Caldron was the daughter of the former social policy director, Lisa Calderon, who was of African-Mexican descent. In addition, Calderon, “In that position … organized national, state-wide, and community training sessions on anti-racism and social justice issues. All of SPAN’s directors, including Ms. Tapp, participated in organizing and conducting these training sessions. Lisa Calderon also trained volunteers at SPAN’s domestic violence shelter on anti-racism and social justice issues.”

Between 1995 and 2007, both Elaine and Lisa were critical about the leadership of SPAN, saying that the treatment of Mexican-American and African-American victims was sub-par when compared to White victims.

In one audit by SPAN itself in 2005, the Transitional Services Women’s Advocate group was found to be operating as planned, but Calderon’s ineffectiveness allegedly, inadvertently led to fewer victims being reached, which was a contributing factor to her “dismissal” in 2007.

However, it was revealed in the suit, though the defendants, that Anne Tapp, the white SPAN executive director, did not say that Calderon was dismissed, but rather that she needed to get her work ethic up to task.

The lawsuit on this issue was dismissed with prejudice.

However, SPAN’s legal troubles were not contained with only one lawsuit. In 2003, SPAN sued Qwest Corporation for $3 Million Dollars for “negligence, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.”

The reason?

In August 2003, Yellow Book began delivering its Boulder/Longmont Yellow Book, which contained the shelter address. Soon after, Verizon began delivering its Greater Denver SuperPages, which also contained the shelter address. In September 2003, SPAN learned that the shelter address had been published in the Yellow Book directory. When SPAN contacted Yellow Book to deal with the problem, a Yellow Book representative stated that it had purchased the listing from Qwest. SPAN then contacted Qwest and requested that its listing be nonpublished. Qwest immediately removed the listing from directory assistance and took steps to ensure the address would not appear in any subsequent directories.

A simple misstep in Qwest’s customer service that exposed the address the home offices of SPAN, which is supposed to be a public non-profit fighting against domestic violence in non-violent means, caused a $3 million lawsuit. This was an unprecedented move by a charity of any means, especially a non-profit.

The trivial lawsuit, which was spearheaded by the Calderons, was ruled in favor of Qwest, with the judge stating:

Finally, there is no special relationship here that would require the publishers affirmatively to act for the benefit of SPAN. The publishers obtained subscriber information to which they were entitled under federal law and then published it. They had no contractual or other relationship with SPAN. For the same reasons, we also conclude the factors weigh against imposing a duty on Yellow Book and Verizon to halt distribution of already published directories.

In other words, the lawsuit was started upon no factual evidence and had no basis except on information that was federally accessible at the time, allegedly showing the lawsuit as a potential quick cash grab for the organization.

However, SPAN’s troubles with Deborah Ramirez as one of the heads of the board does not end there. In fact, it gets worse and financial documents, as well as an independent audit report obtained by ThegodofRage shows potential mismanagement of funds and also potential smuggling and hiding of funds from IRS documents, nearly echoing practices of the Clinton Foundation.

The letter from the Independent Auditing agency was as follows:

In another section of the audit, the report revealed that the organization was primarily funded through government donations from the 20th Judicial Circuit of Colorado, US Department of Justice, and other government entities. Only $500,000 came from contributions, but $300,000 came from two entities, not independent persons.

The number of Expenses seems promising, but as the investigation continued, it appears that around 75 to 90 percent of the services were spent on salaries and payrolls, taxes and benefits for the workers, while the rest was left for actual support services, housing of victims, and other office items that are not of significance to the sheltered.

In addition, notes made by the Independent Auditor allegedly showed the following:

Investments by the organization were not properly disclosed, showing almost $900,000 invested into several mutual funds, Cash and market funds and equities. Despite claiming high fundraising numbers, only $190,000 was made by fundraising, less than 10 percent of the revenue made in 2017.

Remember, this all occurred under the watchful eye of Vice Chair Debbie Ramirez, as well as Anne Tapp, and NOAA meteorologist Lisa Darby.

In addition, as we were conducting research on SPAN’s record, it turned out that the current board is composed of women, most of whom had never been a victim of domestic violence, one who is a former journalist for the Huffington Post, and one who appears to be a lead analyst at Lockheed Martin, potential conflicts of interest between government entities and independent charities.

The importance of that shows the government may have some say, and influence, over policy avocation from the group to congress to address “social issues” in the US. It also shows a similar problem that Christine Ford has, which is being tied to the government in some way or though some entity.

The last bit of evidence pointing to Ramirez’s questionable trustworthiness is a recent 990 form that was made public about the SPAN organization that also showed government entities donating to the organization, once again reiterating some of whom are on the board from NOAA, Lockheed Martin and some of whom have donated to the DNC and Hillary Clinton Campaigns.

(Click on images to Enlarge)

The 990 forms also show who exactly gave grants to the organization, especially one estate, Bonnie Aona, who worked for Intel for 25 years and was reportedly an intricate part of the “ME” backdoor in Intel Processors.

(Click on photos to enlarge)

In one case, investments in equity and stock market by the non-profit, which is unprecedented by most standards, nearly doubled by the end of 2017, and still had a surplus of $56,000 in cash. The organization is worth almost $4 million in assets.

The final piece of evidence is that the organization runs as a non-profit, or 501(c)(3), but actually netted nearly $300,000 in untouched revenue. Where this money went after is unknown.

As of this afternoon, SPAN has come out in support of their board member, saying that they are standing by Ramirez and her allegations.

Whether or not this information will surface at a testimony hearing, if one occurs at all, is to be decided. However, some of the information posted here may be of note in terms of Ramirez’s credibility.

Ford’s hearing, on the other hand, will be on Thursday Morning and broadcasted on major media outlets.