, , , ,

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.