woodtv.com, Dec. 2, 2015:
As for Simon, she is appealing her conviction on several counts. She argues her attorney was ineffective, and the judge gave improper jury instructions that undercut her defense that claimed she was the victim.
The Court of Appeals has not announced whether it will hear Simon’s appeal, however both her her attorney and the Kent County prosecutor’s office say the case should come back to Kent County Court for a sentencing hearing.
In July, the Michigan Supreme Court threw out mandatory sentencing guidelines, ruling judges can use them as a guide but are not bound by them. Since then a number of cases have been sent back to the trial courts for resentencing.
In Simon’s case, the Kent County Prosecutor’s Office writes that the “case should go back too the Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially different sentence but for the essentially mandatory sentencing guidelines.”
Simon’s attorney argues the guidelines were set higher that they should have been under the Supreme Court ruling. Circuit Court judge Paul Sullivan is free to keep the current sentence, or make it shorter or longer.
In a sane and just and rational country, Abigail would not have even been charged with a crime but simply punished, non-criminally, by dismissal and revocation of her license and expulsion from the profession. Or, at worst, charged with a misdemeanor and, if convicted, sentenced to 3-6 months of probation with perhaps 50-100 hours of “community service.” And perhaps also fined modestly. And that’s assuming she’s lying about her “victim” forcing himself on her.
But America is sui generis in its lunacy and hysteria over adult women having sex with biological men under statutory age -especially those in positions of authority even if their authority is not misused to coerce and manipulate their “victims.” Abstractly, in theory and by definition, the authority is presumed to be coercive and manipulative -irrespective of who did what to whom, sexually and non-sexually, and why- and implicitly coercive and manipulative even if the “victim” was the aggressor who initiated his theoretical and phantasmal “victimization,” i.e., the sex he craved, initiated, and enjoyed far more than his de jure “victimizer.” And even if he initiated, sustained, and controlled the intrigue by a scheme of coercion and manipulation. Or even by “sexual assault,” rape and/or molestation, e.g., the “victims” and “crimes” of Melissa Bittner and Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall.
And, though the SC ruling was in July of 2015, I assume she has not been resentenced. Given her 7-weeks in jail before sentencing, she’s now been enslaved for almost a year and a half and might have to wait a few months longer, at least, to find out how many more years she’ll be imprisoned.
And when she’s resentenced, say in 2-3 months, I’m sure the judge won’t let her off with “time-served.” Imagine the reaction if he did so! The fusillade of excoriation, calumny, virulence, hate-mail, death-threats, perhaps even assaults and vandalism. The condemnation from the ruling elites and governing-classes, CSA victimologists, newspapers editorials, pundits, politicians, the national media and it’s “talking-heads,” MRAs, etc. So even though he appears not to be a CSA victimologist, given some of his comments at sentencing, I fear he’s too craven to defy the mob and elites and choose sanity and equity over politics and ideology.
Thus, almost surely, a sentence of “only “4 or 5 or 6 years in prison, hopefully with “time-served,” though I doubt it, or perhaps 4-8 years with a chance for parole after “only” 4 or 6 years. If she’s given 6 years, for example, she’ll be enslaved for almost as long as under the initial sentence of 8-25 years, assuming she would have been released after “only” 8 years. And if given 4-8 and denied parole after 4 or 6 years, she’ll be enslaved almost as long or longer than under the first sentence, assuming once again that she’d have been released after 8 years.
And conceivably longer than 6 years if he reads a copy of the lawsuit or attends a hearing and believes all or most of the allegations. During sentencing in January 2015, he concluded that she was not a “predator” who was likely to “re-offend. Given the lawsuit and it’s allegations (lies, distortions, half-truths, exaggerations?), he might change his mind and view her as a “predator” who is likely to “re-offend,” resulting in an even more draconian sentence. And so, too, if he submits to the demands of CSA victimologists, MRAs, and the tens of millions of people they’ve brainwashed, provoking in millions a frenzy of hatred and “blood lust” for vengeance.
And the resentencing, whatever his ruling, won’t vacate or lessen any of the extra/post-incarceration penalties.