Beyond Insanity: Woman teacher sentenced to 40-Years in prison for having sex with 14-year-old male student

Tags

, , , , ,

From news.com (8/16/2013):

Teacher jailed for 40-years for sex with student age 14. From Daily Mail, 2-18- Shannon Alicia Schmieder, 39, will have to serve 20 years in the toughest sentence even handed out by a U.S. court to a teacher accused of underage sex, The Daily Mail reported (February 18, 2012).

And from human-stupidity.com (8/16/13):F

Female teacher Shannon Alicia Schmieder, in Coweta, Georgia received a 40-year jial sentence for sex with a 14-year-old boy. This fills some men’s rights proponents with glee: finally a woman gets a taste of the bitter “age of consent” medicine concocted by feminists and religious zealots: the same high jail terms men routinely get sentenced to. Making love carries the same prison term as murder or manslaughter.

40-years in prison, under a plea-bargain, apparently, and she won’t be eligible for parole until she’s been enslaved and abused and degraded for 20 years in  a chthonic Georgia prison -at least 20-years if not longer in a country in which, during the 1990’s, the average time-served for murder was less than 6=years and the average time-served for all violent felonies (aggravated assault, robber, rape, and homicide) was approximately 4-years! And one can be sure that over-90% of these felonies, among the male offenders, were committed by recidivists, most of whom should have been in prison rather than free to commit more violent felonies. And given their crime rates in relation to those of females, males are the beneficiaries, overwhelmingly, of this systemic leniency.

So it’s not true that men are “routinely” sentenced to 40-years in prison for having sex with pubescent teenagers under statutory age. It’s true that male teachers are often sentenced to 20 or 30 or 40 years in prison for having love affairs and mere trysts with underage female and male adolescents in a country in which violent male recidivist  criminals are routinely and systematically coddled.

But rather than decry and oppose the hideously draconian prison sentences often inflicted on male teachers -virtually all of whom are first-offenders convicted of nonviolent and usually victimless and mala prohibita felonies that are legal acts or misdemeanors in dozens of other nations, including European countries, men who’ve never committed a violent or other mala in se crime and almost surely never will and are not a “threat to society” or usually even a danger to re-offend by having sex with another underage teenager- MRAs demand that the lives of women be destroyed by the same hideously draconian punishments.

So pathological and virulent and obsessive is their hatred of women and lust for vengeance -against not only those they revile and asperse as “feminazis” but women in general and white females in particular, usually because of the actions of one or a few women in their personal lives, nearly always ex-wives, and/or sexual frustration- that they’re willing to destroy the lives of myriads of men who are not violent or dangerous in order to destroy the lives of a much smaller number of women who transport biological men under age 16 or even 18 to carnal elysium with a distinctly venomous fixation on and obsession with teachers like Mary Letourneau and Debra Lafave.

Consummate and tireless practitioners of the logical fallacy of confirmation bias, MRAs cherry pick cases in which men are sentenced to 20-40 years in prison for having sex with underage adolescents, and contrast them with cases of women who receive probation or “only” 6-12 months in jail or 12-18 months in prison, thus advancing the lie and canard that men are nearly always sentenced to 20 or 30 or 40 years in prison while women are nearly always sentenced to probation or a few months in jails that are benign and liveable compared to male prisons, not because male inmates, generally, are far more violent, brutal, vicious, sadistic, predatory, etc., but because of “misandry” and anti-male “sexism” and discrimination. Men are crucified, almost invariably, their lives destroyed, while female “rapists,” “child molesters,” and “pedophiles” are shockingly and scandalously indulged, almost invariably, walking away with a “slap-on-the-wrist.”

Tell that to Shannon Schmieder, Michelle Taylor, Abigail Simon, Kathryn Ronk, Mary Letourneau, Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall, Melissa Bittner, Pamela Rogers. and many other women who are punished more harshly than myriads of violent male recidivists. Even those who are sentenced to probation or “only” 6-12 months in hellish jails are  actually sentenced to a lifetime or at at least 20-30 years of draconian/Orwellian persecution, including public registration (their names, mug-shots, and addresses on the internet for everyone and anyone to see) as uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminals, unlike myriads of male brutes and savages with histories of crime and violence beginning at age 13 or 14 who’ve committed dozens and scores of felonies but have never been convicted of a sexual offense albeit most of them have committed rapes and/or gang-rapes either of men in jails and prisons or of women and adolescent girls in the free world.

 

 

Advertisements

Beyond Insanity: 34-year-old Nevada woman sentenced to life in prison for allegedly “forcing” a 13-year-old male to touch her breast.

Tags

, , , , ,

“Does the Punishment Fit the Crime? ” So askes www. kolotv.com. in a brief article:

An Elko County woman convicted of forcing a 13-year-old boy to touch her breasts was sentenced to life in prison. Michelle Lyn Taylor, 34, was convicted of lewdenss with a minor under 14 in November. Taylor’s attorney, public defender Alina Kilpatrick says it is the harshest sentence ever dealt to a female sex offender in Nevada. Kilpatrick  called the sentence unconstitutional. “This is cruel and unusual punishment,” Kilpatrick said. “She put his hand on her boob while she was wearing a bra, now she’s getting life.”

Elko County District Attorney Gary Woodbury said Taylor was “convicted of precisely what she did,” and under the state sentencing guidelines, life in prison was mandatory. Woodbury says Taylor did not want to negotiate a plea deal because she did not wanto to have to register as a sex offender. Woodbury says Taylor felt her life would be over if she had to register (as a sex offender) so it wouldn’t matter what she was she was convicted of.  Woodbury says while it might be some adolescent male’s fantasy to have sex with a woman, in this case it was a traumatic event. The child has needed and continues to receive therapy.

She was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted at trial in 2010. Apparently, she was so drunk that she didn’t even recall what occurred exactly. And, apparently, she was found guilty of this heinous crime solely on the “he said/she said uncorroborated testimony of a 13-year-old male. There with no physical evidence, obviously, or any neutral witnesses.

And, according to some accounts, the woman wanted to have sex with the young man. In the fantasy world inhabited by CSA victimologists, most of whom are women and nearly all of whom are feminists and left-liberals, MRAs, the misogynist lunatics of the soo-disant “men’s rights movement,” and all those they brainwashed, biological men under age 16 or 16 (and even “adults” of 18 if the woman is a teacher) are too innocent and paralyzed by fear to say “no” and reject the advances of a female who is an adult and at least 4-5 years older -albeit they are horrified and repulsed by the prospect of having sex with them even if they’re as ravishing as Debra Lafave or as lovely as Mary Letourneau. In this situation, obviously, a 13-year-old male was fully capable of saying “no” and rejecting her importunaties, probably because she was fat, unattractive, and sloppy drunk.

And any “trauma” he suffered was a corollary of Nevada’s draconian sex-crime laws, the criminal justice system, the trial, and the media, not touching a woman’s breast in private, And how can a woman “force” a young man to touch her breast “against his will” if he’s bigger and stronger than her?

It would be interesting and revealing to know the average time-served in Nevada for males convicted of violent crimes: assaults, robbery, violent/forcible rape, and murder. And over 90% of the males who commit such felonies are recidivists, most of whom should have been in prison rather than free to commit violent felonies. And what is the average time-served in jail or prison for adult men who have liaisons with underage teenagers?

And are men guilty of a felony with a mandatory sentence of life in prison for forcing adolescent girls under age 14 to touch their chests while clothed? Men don’t have breasts, of course, but they have nipples. And women are guilty of felonies and described as “rapists” for engaging in coitus with biological men under statutory age even though they don’t have penises to penetrate and impregnate their “victims.”

Realism and Sanity from “the Derb”: “Sex Equality Dogma taken to Lunatic Extremes”

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Writes John Derbyshire:

O’Reilly implodes; Is Bill O’Reilly finally imploding? I am still a regular viewer of the Factor, but I find that more and more often I turn it off after ten minutes or so to do something more rewarding.

For one thing, there’s his bullying and grandstanding about child molesters. Now, I not a big fan of child molesters, having two kids of my own. The real monsters, though, are a minuscule minority of those who would be swept up by the kinds of laws O’Reilly is arguing for. Th majority would be harmless, clueless, sad types who had yielded to, or been led on to, the momentary of some petty fumbling, then been ready to commit suicide when they realized what they had done. People like that need to be chastised and set straight, but they don’t need the magnum sentences they’d get under Sandra’s law, or whatever the hell thing it is O’Reilly is bellowing for.

Even weirder is O’Reilly’s  conviction that the seduction of 14-year-old boys by pretty 25-year-old teachers is just as bad –precisely the same! deserves the identical sentence!- as the contrary thing with a 14-year-old girl and a 25-year-old male teacher. This is sex equality dogma taken to lunatic extremes, as I’ve argued in a previous diary. I’d expect this kind of junk jurispudence from some glaring feminist, but why am I getting it from O’Reilly? (johnderbyshire.com/opinion/diaries/2006-04)

Actually, the view that the two acts are precisely the same and deserve the identical sentence informs the laws of all 50 states and has done so for decades and has long been espoused by virtually all of our ruling-elites and governing-classes, left and right and center: politicians, the media, SVU detectives, prosecutors, Judges, etc. What JD describes as “weird” is now a sacred and inviolate dogma, and for the elites and a plurality of people they’ve poisoned and propagandized, to confute this absurdity is comparable to denying the holocaust or defending slavery and segregation.

It should also be noted that in most of these intrigues, the woman isn’t eve guilty of seduction. Either the “victim” is the aggressor and initiator or their sexual union could be described as mutual coming together.

And though adult women allowing biological men under statutory age to penetrate them in de facto consensual relationships is not “as bad” or precisely the same as adult men penetrating and often impregnating underage adolescent girls, I also oppose draconian and “magnum” sentences for adult men who have love affairs or mere dalliances with young women under statutory age if they are first-offenders with no history of violent or other mala in se criminality.

A Sane Comment: This Matter could have been Resolved Privately

To quote Liz DeRuchie:

The one thing I found very strange that I’ve never heard addressed, and should be, is why the boy’s mother went straight to police without discussing the matter with her son, and looking on his phone. I think the sentence and characterization of the participants was ludicrous but why would you put your son through a criminal investigation at the age of 16 or so….maybe that will be more damaging than the ill-conceived affair in the long run. Did his mom not talk to either her son or the teacher…Could this tragedy have been averted by early, adult intervention outside a criminal courtroom?

The answer is yes; This “tragedy” could have been “averted” without calling the police and destroying Abigail’s life and putting her son through the crucible and travail of a criminal investigation and prosecution.

Now if one’s daughter is brutally raped or one’s son is brutally assaulted by violent and dangerous criminals, whether they’re 15 or 25 or 35, parents have no choice but to call the police and subject their son or daughter to the ordeal of a criminal investigation and prosecution, including the ordeal of having them testify in court and endure the rigors of cross-examination by defense attorneys if the assailant pleads “not guilty.” In fact, they’re morally behooved to do so not only to ensure “justice” for their son or daughter but also to protect them and future victims by punishing and incarcerating violent and dangerous criminals. But such was not the case in this situation.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Abigail was and is lying about his raping and terrorizing her and that they were “madly n love” or, at least, engaged in a factually consensual and mutually gratifying relationship. Instead of calling the police, his mother and father could have confronted Abigail, at school or in her apartment, and told her that they’d call the police if she didn’t end the affair and that her life would be destroyed. And they could have told their son that they’d call the police if he didn’t end the affair and that Abigail’s life would be destroyed if they did so. Or they could have talked to both of them together, describing at length and in graphic detail the fate she would suffer if they didn’t end the affair.

I’m sure this would have ended the intrigue, at least until he turned 16, and nobody would have been hurt, profoundly and permanently, if at all if they weren’t in love “madly” or just deeply -not only Abigail, by far most hellishly, and her family and friends, whose anguish is harrowing, but also the “victim” and his family. “More damaging” than the affair “in “the long run.” Any suffering and pain he endured and will endure in the short and “long run” -suffering and pain that is real as opposed to imagined and contrived and exaggerated- is not a result of his having had sex with Abigail but wholly a result of the insane and execrable laws of Michigan, the criminal justice system, and the media. local, state, and national, especially the coverage of the trial and sentencing.

And if she’s lying and they were “madly” or just “deeply” in love, they could have resumed their affair when he turned 16 if she was no longer his tutor, since the generic age of consent is 16 in Michigan, and his parents could have done nothing, legally, to end it. To repeat: if he had been 16 rather than 15, just a few months and weeks older, and she had not been his tutor, their affair would have been legal under Michigan law. But since he was 15, just a few months and weeks short of his 16th birthday, and she was his tutor, she was guilty of a felony with a maximum sentence of 25-years to life in prison and a mandatory minimum of 8-25 years and a life-sentence of public sex offender registration and electronic parole-monitoring with a ankle-tether/”bracelet” she can never remove.

To call of this insane is an understatement. It’s beyond insanity.

 

Beyond Insanity: Justice in Delaware

Spree Shooter Radee Labeeb Prince was a One-Man Crime Who Got a Free Ride from the Delaware Criminal Justice System. (nicholasstixuncensored, 10/26/2017)

Anonymous reader opines: “(T)his animal enjoyed almost 20 years of “affirmative action justice” for innumerable felonious assaults….From a reading of this article, it appears that he was never convicted of anything that resulted in a Jail sentence: Astonishing.” (“Mass shooting suspect: many prior arrests, few convictions” (Wilmington News Journal, Oct. 18, 2017)

N.S.: He repeatedly skipped out on court dates, but instead of hunting him down additionally, prosecutors would reward him by dropping the previous charges, and declining to charge him for being a fugitive. In other words, the more crimes he committed, the more prosecutors rewarded him.

In Baltimore, Freddie Gray’s arrest record contained all sorts of charges without dispositions. In Atlanta, Shamal Thompson committed one felony after another, without ever being punished, as judges and prosecutors kept issuing him black-man-gets-out-of-jail-free cards, until he murdered Eugenia Jeanne Calle. Meanwhile, in New York, Daryl Thomas committed one First-Degree Rape after another, but the NYPD kept giving him freebies, writing up his forcible rapes as “trespassing.”

Almost 20 years of violent and other mala in se felonies and 42 arrests and he was free to shoot 5 people, killing 3 of them! Not a day in prison or even jail, apparently?

I wonder how many women, teachers and others, are now in prison in Delaware for allowing biological men under age 16 or even 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships. And over the last 20 years, the same period in which Prince committed violent felony after violent felony and was arrested 42 times but was never sentenced to prison or even jail, apparently,how many women, teachers and others, were sentenced to prison or jail for engaging in acts of coitus and/or fellatio with underage pubescent teenage males?

Or for even a single act of “sexual contacts” in a fleeting tryst like the women in Nevada who was sentenced to life in prison in 2010 for allegedly “forcing” a young man of 13 to touch her breast.

The Distinctly Odious Barton Deiters

Tags

, , , , ,

As noted in previous articles/blog-posts: when covering the arrest, prosecution, trial, conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and appeals in this case, Barton Dieters has often been less a reporter than a myrmidon of and cheerleader for the prosecution, and later for the judge who upheld, twice apparently, Abigail’s 8-25 year prison sentence and life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring with an ankle-tether, ludicrously defined as a “bracelet.”

For example, a reporter who uses the phrase “ex-tutor guilty of raping her student” is not a true journalist, objective and neutral, but an advocate, ideologue, propagandist, and CSA victimologist, who is using language not to describe but rather to distort and pervert objective reality for ideological reasons. Not having penises, women can’t commit rape in the pure and literal sense of the word. And Abigail wasn’t guilty of “rape” even if defined as synonymous with violent sexual assault. If anyone was a victim of rape in this liaison, it was Abigail if she’s telling the truth about her de jure “victim” forcing himself on her.

And his tendentiousness was blatant in using words and phrases like “dispatched” and “shot down” in covering the judge’s decisions and arguments at her re-sentencing. “Dispatch” means “to kill with quick efficiency; to dispose of something rapidly or efficiently”; to “defeat.” “Shoot down” means to “kill, defeat, discredit.” And a synonym of “shoot down” is “skewer,” which means to “criticize or ridicule sharply and effectively.” So, according to Dieters, the judge killed Tieber’s arguments, metaphorically, with rapidity and efficiency. He defeated, discredited, and skewered them.

Writing that the judge “rejected” Tieber’s arguments would have been true journalism, neutral and objective, an exemplar of simply reporting the facts rather than siding with the judge, indeed hailing the judge’s decision by using words and phrases like “dispatched” and “shot down,” and against Tieber.

His use of such words not only implies but asserts that Tieber was wrong in claiming that Abigail was not a threat to “re-offend” and in arguing that a life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring with a ankle-tether was “cruel and unusual punishment,” and that the judge was right in upholding her 8-25 year prison sentence and life-sentence of electronica parole monitoring.

The use of words and phrases like “dispatched” and “shot down” not only asserts that Tieber’s arguments were wrong, contrary to facts and logic and reason, but also ridiculous, irrational, delusional.

Imagine the outrage and hysteria if he had sided with Tieber and against the judge by asserting that Tieber was right and the judge was wrong and used words and phrases to praise Tieber and belittle the judge.

As a CSA victimologist, he obviously thinks of her as a “rapist” and “child molester,” perhaps even a “pedophile,” and the biological man who assented to or initiated sex with her as a “child” and “victim” of “rape” and CSA who’ll be “traumatized” and “scarred for life,” whatever the facts and circumstances, even if he did rape her, as with the “victim” of Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall,

And he obviously believes she deserves to be enslaved and abused and degraded in prison for at least 8-years if not longer and then subjected to a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution, for a “crime” in which the “victim” enjoys the sex more than the woman who “raped” and “molested” him and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his phantasmal and theoretical “victimization.

To those of us who aren’t MRAs and/or CSA victimologists, or brainwashed and vitiated by same, precisely the opposite is palpably true: the judge was wrong and Tieber was right. The judge’s arguments -what he now believes or affects to believe given his “reeducation” by and/or fear of  MRAs and CSA victimologists-  were ridiculous, irrational, based on lies and delusions.

To those of us who are honest, realistic, objective, and rational on this matter, Tieber was right in arguing that Abigail is not a “threat to society” or to anyone nor even a danger to “re-offend” by having sex with another young man under statutory age, and thus her sentence of 8-25 years in prison was grossly excessive and iniquitous, and her life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring with an ankle-tether she can never remove was “cruel and unusual punishment” in the sense of being wholly gratuitous, completely unnecessary to protect anyone from anything.

But why, seemingly, does he hate her more than most true sex criminals, e.g., males (including biological men under age 18 who are absurdly defined as “children”) who commit violent/forcible rapes and gang-rapes of adult females and underage adolescent girls, most heinously those who use knives and guns and terrorize and brutalize and gravely injure their victims; or men (including underage pubescent teenagers) who rape or prey on and molest prepubertal children.

One senses that his hatred of Abigail is, in some ways and to some degree, whatever the reason(s), deeply personal. One would think he was the “victim’s father,” or a relative. Or that the “victim’s” parents were his friends and/or neighbors, whom he knows intimately.

He appears to revel in her anguish and degradation, pain and suffering. I’m sure he was happy to see her in handcuffs attached to a waist-chain and leg-irons at her over 2-hour sentencing, so enervated by fear and anxiety and despair and lack of sleep that she could barely walk or even stand and almost collapsed twice. I’m sure he hopes her life in prison is hellish, abusive, degrading, and nightmarish, the more so the better. Thanks to the media, led by him, she’s surely the most infamous, and probably the most hated, of all 2000-plus inmates. He might even be glad to hear that she was assaulted, brutally and viciously, or even murdered.

Beyond Insanity: And Abigail was Sentenced to 8-25 Years in Prison!

JESSE WATTERS; The vicious consequences of illegal immigration -that is the subject of tonight’s Watters’ Word….Thirty-one-year-old Mexican National Sergio Jose Martinez has been on a path of destruction in Portland, Oregon, a notorious sanctuary city.

Martinez has been arrested 13 times since 2008 in Oregon alone. The rap sheet includes car theft, hit-and-run, criminal trespassing, meth possession, reckless endangerment, burglary and shoplifting. He has criminal convictions in California too, including burglary, battery, theft, and obstructing a police officer. The man is described as a transient with a daily meth habit. He has been deported -you ready?- 20 times with at least five probation violations from re-entering.

Despite a rap sheet this troubling, Martinez was still waltzing around Northeast Portland on July 24. This is where his latest crime spree began. Here are the sickening allegations: Martinez, armed with a knife, entered a woman’s home through an open window, used  scarves and socks to blindfold her, gag her and tie her up before sexually assaulting her, punching her and slamming her head into the wood floor.

Martinez then stole her car in search for a new victim. Then he waited in the dark corner of a parking garage as a woman approached. He threatened to kill her and forced her into her car at knifepoint. The woman tried to escape, but he tackled her and slammed her head into the ground. Once she screamed, Martinez ran and was caught by police, carrying a knife and stolen items from both victims.

Martinez was high on meth at the times of the attacks. He’s been charged with 13 felonies including burglary, sodomy, sexual abuse, robbery, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. He remains in jail with bail set at more than two million dollars…

So apparently authorities in Portland, Oregon and Multnomah county have no problem protecting monsters like this. The sheriff and the Portland mayor should explain to the victim’s faces why Martinez was roaming he streets….(Watters’ World, Fox News.)

And Abigail Simon was sentenced to 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution for allowing a biological man of 15 to penetrate her in a factually consensual love-affair and responding to his hundreds of emails and text messages -and that’s assuming she’s lying about his forcing himself on her and “controlling her life”; at least 8-years of enslavement and a life-sentence of persecution for a first-offender convicted of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibita “crimes” that are legal acts in dozens of other nations, including European countries. And Kathryn Ronk was sentenced to 6-15 years in prison under a plea-bargain. And Mary Letourneau was enslaved for almost a decade of her life -far longer than the average time-served for murder and roughly twice as long as the average time-served for all violent felonies: aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder- and must register for life as a uniquely deviant and dangerous criminal.

A Life-Sentence of Draconian/Orwellian Persecution: Electronic Parole Monitoring

From an article quoted in “Congress, Courts & National News”:

GPS monitoring bracelets are not punishment…Oh, I’m sure they suck. They might chafe. They could cause blisters. They will cramp your style, keep you out of swimming pools, cause a funny-looking bulge in your nylons, spoil your suntan, tether you to a power source for an hour a day…They’ll subject you to derision  -or worse. And they’re an enormous invasion of your privacy: someone will always know where you are, and if you take off the monitor, they’ll come after you…But a monitoring bracelet is not punishment, the (Wisconsin) state court of appeals says so.

“Per the factual stipulation a person subject to lifetime CPS must wear a 2.5 x 3.5 x 1.5- inch battery-powered tracking devise around his or her ankle for the rest of his or her life,” the court wrote. “It is a felony to tamper with the devise in any way…The devise can never be removed -even when showering, bathing, and sleeping- sometimes causing discomfort and blistering.”

For Abigail, a life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” is a form of “cruel and unusual punishment” in that it’s completely unnecessary to protect anyone from anything. To repeat, Abigail is a first-offender convicted of a nonviolent and victimless and malum prohibitum felony that’s a legal act or at worst a misdemeanor in dozens of other nations, including European countries; she’s never committed a violent or other malum in se crime in her life and never will and is not a “threat to society” or to anyone nor even a danger to “re-offend” by having sex with another young man under age 16 or 18, depending on the age of consent in whatever state she resides after her release from prison.

The rationale and justification for this “cruel and unusual punishment,” in being wholly gratuitous, is the absurd premise and illusion that’s she’s as deviant and dangerous, and as likely to re-offend, as a low-IQ male recidivist, probably with a history of crime that began at age 13 or 14, who violently raped an adult female or underage adolescent girl, or a pedophile who raped and/or molested prepubertal children, boys or girls, and who’s surely or likely to re-offend if not subjected to electronic parole-monitoring; that she’s predatory, possibly even violent, and driven by a perversion or “paraphilia” and the consequent desires and impulses that she can’t control and must be deterred by 40-60 years of electronic parole-monitoring until she dies in a house or apartment or hospital or nursing home or wherever.

The generic age of consent is 16 in Michigan. If her lover had been 16, just a few months or weeks older and she had not been his tutor or, apparently, a tutor at another high-school, their affair would have legal under Michigan law. But since he was 15, a few months and weeks short of the legal age, she was guilty of a felony with a maximum sentence of 25-year to life in prison and a lifetime of public sex offender registration and electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” that is conspicuous and cumbersome, causing not only acute embarrassment, profound humiliation, serious inconveniences, hostile encounters,  but also blisters, chafing, cuts, abrasions, rashes; and that can never be removed, even while showering, bathing, sleeping, and having sex with a lover or spouse

Why did She Reject the Plea Bargains if She’s Lying About Everything?

As I noted previously, in another post with a similar title, perhaps she’s telling the truth, if not as a whole then largely and essentially; e.g.., it’s possibly, perhaps not likely, but possible, that her story is akin to that of Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall. And that’s why she rejected the plea-bargains. But if she’s lying about everything, as almost everyone not only believes but knows, being omniscient apparently, why would she reject all the plea-bargains?

On a Sunday night 1-2 years ago while riding a stationary bicycle with a small television at Anytime Fitness,  I watched a segment of MSNBC’s Lockup Raw, a weekly TV show that depicts life in U.S. prisons and jails. It’s so depressing -if one thinks of all the people with no histories of violence or serious criminality, people who don’t belong in jail or prison because they’re innocent or, if guilty, were convicted of crimes that don’t warrant incarceration- that I usually don’t even watch it for a few seconds and I’ve never watched even as much as 10-15 minutes during a single evening.

For some reason I watched a few minutes of a segment on the county jail in Sacramento, CA, in which a reporter interviewed a woman who was arrested and jailed as an accomplice to murder because she accompanied her lover to the house of a man he shot to death in a confrontation, possibly in self-defense, and in which she described her first hours of incarceration: She was crying, violently and uncontrollably. She was claustrophobic. She was hyperventilating. She had panic attacks. And this was a young working-class female who appeared to be in her early/middle-20’s, whose lover was an Iraq war veteran who appeared to be in his early/middle-30’s. This woman was surely tougher, psychologically, than Abigail Simon, whose experience of being arrested and jailed was almost surely even more traumatic, hellish, degrading, nightmarish.

So why did she reject all the plea-bargains if she’s lying about everything? The obvious answer is that she so dreaded the penalties to which she’d be subjected under even the least punitive of the plea-bargains she rejected -being enslaved and abused and degraded for perhaps as long as 12-18 months or at least for 5-6 months in a hellish jail with male guards and no privacy and grievous overcrowding, and the fights, verbal and physical, the violence and threats of violence, the awful food, the routine strip-searches, the almost unrelenting, often unbearable, noise, etc., and then subjected to a lifetime or at least 20-30 years of draconian/Orwellian persecution- that she decided to plead “not guilty” and go to trial with the hope, however unrealistic, and the chance, however remote, that she’d be acquitted on all counts and thus walk out of the courtroom with family and friends a free women, legally, free to live as normal a life as possible given her travail and it’s negative consequences: finding a job, interacting with other people, ostracism, hostility, hate-mail, death threats, vigilante violence, etc.

P.S. Sentencing judges are not constrained, in many if not most jurisdictions, to honor the terms of a plea-bargain. If Abigail had accepted a plea-bargain in which she plead guilty to third-degree criminal sexual conduct, the judge had the discretion to sentence her to 6-15 years in prison, the sentence imposed on Kathryn Ronk under a similar plea-bargain. And if she’d accepted a plea-bargain in which she plead guilty to “accosting a minor for immoral purposes,” the judge had the discretion to sentence her to 4-years in prison.

A Judge Dismisses the Lawsuit Against the Catholic Diocese

Tags

, , , ,

Writes John Tunison at mlive.com:

A judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids and three Catholic school employees filed by the teen sexual assault victim of tutor Abigail Simon…Attorneys for the teen -who was a 15-year-old Catholic Central High School student when he had sexual encounters with tutor Abigail Simon- have filed an appeal with the state Court of Appeals…In late 2015, the teen filed a lawsuit against the Diocese, Grand Rapids Catholic Secondary School and three administrators, claiming not enough was done to prevent Simon from abusing the teen.

But Kent County Circuit Judge George Quist granted a motion to dismiss the case. In a written opinion, Quist disagreed with claim that school officials knew or should have known that Simon was involved in relations with the teen. “By plaintiff’s own testimony, no school staff member saw or had reason to believe that he and Simon were engaged in a sexual relationship,” Quist wrote….In the lawsuit, the teen sought damages of at least $25,000 from the schools and the administrators. (mlive.com, 3/15-2017.)

Obviously, if there was any evidence to support the allegations in this lawsuit against the Diocese and “three administrators” -that “school staff members” knew that Abigail was having sex with the football star and other male students at two high schools and “accosting” minors for “immoral purposes” but didn’t inform the authorities- the judge would not have dismissed the lawsuit. So, apparently, the allegations were all lies and exaggeration -apart from Abigail having sex with the young man, assuming he didn’t force himself on her, and exchanging hundreds of emails and text messages- as I argued in my post “Abigail is Sued by Her ‘Victim’.”

Good news for the Diocese, but not for Abigail?

The Michigan Supreme Court ruling that mandatory minimum sentences were “unconstitutional” and the appellate court decision upholding her convictions but ordering a re-sentencing should have resulted in her release from prison on “time-served” or at least a sentence of 3-4 years with “time-served” and also the overturning of her life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet.” But, deplorably, the judge who had no discretion but to impose the mandatory-minimum sentence of 8-25 years in prison and all the other penalties now had the discretion to impose a far less punitive sentence but instead chose to uphold her grotesquely draconian/Orwellian sentence.

Apart from cravenness, which was paramount (as I explained in the previous article on Abigail’s re-sentencing), another reason the judge might have upheld her draconian/Orwellian sentence -not only that of 8-25 years in prison but also the life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring- is that he believed all or most of the accusations in the lawsuit filed against the Catholic Diocese and Abigail by her “victim.”

If this is true, at least to some degree, however large, then his view of Abigail as a “predator” who deserved to be imprisoned for at least 8-years if not longer and subjected to a life-sentence of electronic-monitoring was based on lies and exaggerations.

“…not enough was done to prevent Simon  from abusing the teen.” If the “victim” experienced acts of coitus and fellatio and so forth with Abigail and also the hundreds of emails and texts they exchanged as “abusive” rather than thrilling and gratifying and empowering, all he had to do was end the relationship. And if Abigail was the initiator and aggressor, all he had to do was say “no” and he would not have been “abused” by having sex with an attractive and desirable woman. We’re supposed to believe that a 6’3″, 220 lb. biological man and football star was so terrified of Abigail because of her age and power and authority -when he outweighed her by almost a 100 pounds and was at least 6-8 times stronger in the upper-body- that he was too afraid to say no, initially, and repel her importunities, assuming she was the “aggressor,” and then too fearful to end the relationship. And, also, that he was too young and immature to consent to or initiate sex, knowingly and willingly, with an adult female. (I discuss this at length in “More on Traumatization” and also in many other article/blog-posts.)

Assuming she’s lying, the reason he assented to or initiated sex with Abigail and didn’t end the affair is because the sex was thrilling and gratifying and empowering. And so, too, the hundreds of emails and text-messages. And even if he didn’t rape and terrorize her, even if he never forced himself on her, it’s not only possible, I’d say it’s likely, that he was the aggressor. And even if Abigail was the initiator, it’s reasonable to assume that she was responding, usually if not always, to his messages, not vice-versa, probably because she didn’t want to have sex with him as she testified in court and told the police and prosecutors. If so, she was telling the truth about his “controlling her life,” essentially, and perhaps also as to her fearing him, though with lies and exaggerations.