Category Archives: Barton Dieters

The Distinctly Odious Barton Deiters

21 Saturday Oct 2017

Posted by in "traumatization", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, appeal, Barton Dieters, CSA victimology, MRAs, "men's movement, Uncategorized, women as rapists

≈ 2 Comments

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 twice upheld Abigail’s prison sentence of 8-25 years and life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” she can never remove

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 activist and CSA victimologist, who is using language not to describe but rather to distort and pervert objective reality for ideological and propagandistic easons. 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 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/”bracelet” was “cruel and unusual punishment,” and that the judge was right in upholding her 8-25 year prison sentence and life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring.

The use of words and phrases like “dispatched” and “shot down” not only asserts that Tieber’s arguments were wrong and demonstrably false, 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 to praise Tieber and belittle and asperse 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 raped her, as did the “victim” of Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall, and she then assented to sex as did Cassandra.

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.”

The description of Abigail’s lover and other young men who consent to or initiate sex with adult women as “victims” is not an objective fact but an ideological dogma and legal classification. Journalists and reporters and others who use the term “victim” without quotation marks are legitimizing this dogma and legal classification rather than describing objective reality. They’re reifying a dogma and theory for which there is no objective evidence and empirical substantiation.

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 given his “reeducation” or affects to believe given his fear of  MRAs and CSA victimologists-  were not only false but ridiculous, based on lies and/or 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 and absurdly excessive and iniquitous, and her life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring with an ankle-tether she can never remove was “cruel and unusual punishment,” not only in the sense of being cruel, obviously, but also wholly gratuitous, completely unnecessary in that Abigail has never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in her life and never will or 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.

But why, seemingly, does he hate her more than most true sex criminals, at least those who are black, Muslim, and “Hispanic”/”Latino”: 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.

And does he hate the low IQ brutes and savages who, each year in Detroit alone, commit hundreds of rapes and murders and thousands of other violent and mala in se crimes, and have done so for decades, destroying a city that was once extolled as the “Paris of the West”? Of course not, not as a group or as individuals. Like all leftists, I’m sure he views most of them with empathy and compassion, as “victims” of “racism” and the “legacy of slavery and segregation.” And the hysteria over Abigail’s intrigue with a young man of 15 distracts from the anarchy and mayhem and warfare in Detroit and, to a lesser degree, Flint and Grand Rapids.

One senses that his hatred of Abigail is, in some ways and to some degree, whatever the reasons, 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 for well over 2-hours at her sentencing, so enervated by fear and angst and despair and lack of sleep that she could barely walk or even stand and almost collapsed twice and often crying. 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.

 

Judge Twice Upholds Her 8-25 Year Prison Sentence and Life-Sentence of Electronic Parole-Monitoring

07 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, appeal, Barton Dieters, criminal sentences, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The Judge who sentenced Abigail to 8-25 years in prison had two opportunities -first after the Supreme Court of Michigan ruled that mandatory-minimum sentences with “unconstitutional” and then after a Court of Appeals decision that upheld her conviction but ordered a re-sentencing- to release her with “time-served” or sentence her to “only” 2 or 3 or 4 years in prison with “time-served, in which case she would have been released from prison in January of 2017 or 2018 or 2019.

At sentencing on January 14, 2015, he had no discretion, no choice to impose a sane and just and condign and rational sentence. He now had the discretion to overturn the sentence of 8-25-years in prison he was constrained to impose in January of 2015 and to exercise the options mentioned above and also the discretion to vacate the life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” she can never remove. But he twice upheld the sentence of 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of electronic parole-monitoring. I don’t know if he had the discretion to overturn the life-sentence of public sex-offender registration, imposing a sentence of only 20-30 years of public registration. But if he did have such discretion, I’m sure he would have also upheld this sentence.

At sentencing on January 15, 2015, in explaining why he chose to impose the mandatory-minimum sentence of “only” 8-25 years in prison rather than the maximum of 25-years to life for a first-offender convicted of a nonviolent and victimless and malum prohibitum “crime,” the judge noted that Abigail was not a “predator” who was likely to re-offend and that her “victim” also knew their affair was “wrong” and was thus partly responsible. Thus, at the time, he was not a CSA victimologist.

For these comments, merely a bit of honesty and realism compared to what I would have said in his place and have written on this matter in general and specifically on  the insane and execrable laws of Michigan and Abigail’s sentence, I’m sure he was not only criticized, not only rebuked, respectfully, but also condemned, denounced, traduced, vilified, and probably subjected to a barrage of hate-mail and possibly a few if not more than a few death-threats.

In July of 2015, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that mandatory-minimum sentences were “unconstitutional” -theoretically in violation of the 6th rather than 8th Amendment.

And in August, roughly a month later, in justifying his decision to uphold her 8-25 year prison sentence and her life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet,” he now argued (whether sincerely, having been “re-educated,” or insincerely out of fear and cravenness and pure self-interest) that she was a “predator” who can never be cured but only deterred by imprisonment, at least 8-years of enslavement, and then by a lifetime of quasi-totalitarian surveillance, a “predator” who was surely or likely to re-offend by having sex with young men under statutory age and, perhaps, also molesting prepubescent children. I wonder if he described her as a “rapist” and “pedophile” or, at least, a “child molester” and/or “child sexual abuser”?

He now realized or affected to believe that she was so dangerous, such a threat to all the children of Michigan and the other 49 states and the entire world should she be allowed to move or travel after her release from prison, that she deserved to be enslaved for at least 8-years if not longer and also forced to wear an electronic ankle-tether/”bracelet” that she can never remove by herself, not even when bathing or having sex with a lover if the state of Michigan and other jurisdictions permit such relationships, and which can only be removed, finally and officially, I assume by people in roles of authority, when she dies at age 77 or 86 or 94 or 102.

Our great good friend, Barton Deiters, who can barely conceal and contain his joy and approval and tendentiousness, writes:

A judge says the former Catholic Central High School tutor convicted of having illegal sex with her 15-year-old student was not denied a fair trial and does not deserve to be re-sentenced.

Kent County Circuit Judge Paul Sullivan also rejected the contention of Abigail Simon’s attorney that she should not be required to wear an electronic tether for the rest of her life.

Sullivan also shot down Teiber’s request that the state-mandated lifetime electronic tether requirement be lifted because she was not a threat of re-offend. Tieber argued that the electronic monitoring violated his client’s privacy and Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and was “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Sullivan dispatched both arguments, saying that the public’s safety outweighed the minimal intrusion into Simon’s privacy.”Additionally, the invasiveness of a GPS monitoring devise can seem relatively minimal compared to the often lifelong effects these types of crimes can have on victims.”

“Shot down,” “dispatched,” what a joke! Yes, the “public’s safety outweighs the minimal intrusion” into the privacy of a woman who never committed a violent or other malum in se crime in her life and never will and is not a “threat to society” and “public safety” or to anyone nor even a danger to “re-offend” by  transporting another biological man under age 16 to carnal Elysium -and that’s assuming she lying about his forcing himself on her and “controlling her life.”

Deiters concludes:

Simon remains in the Huron Valley Women’s Correctional facility, where she is serving out her eight to 25-year prisons sentence.

Her case has been filed with the Michigan Court of Appeals, which will likely hear her arguments within the next six to eight months. (“See why Judge says Catholic School Tutor does not deserve a new sex assault trial,” mlive.com., Aug. 13, 2015.)

Almost a year later, in June of 2016, the Court of Appeals upheld her convictions and also her life-sentence of electronic monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet.”

The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Abigail Simon, but says Kent County Judge Paul Sullivan should determine if she should get a different sentence…After Simon’s conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court changed the way those sentencing guideline are applied, allowing judges to use them only as a recommendation…In it’s ruling Thursday, the Michigan Court of Appeals sent Simon’s case back to judge Sullivan who will determine if, using the updated guidelines as as guide, Sullivan would give Simon a different sentence…The Court of Appeals also rejected Simon’s claim that lifetime electronic monitoring after her release from prison was unconstitutional. (woodtv.com, 6/17/2016)

Once again, as after the Supreme Court decision, Sullivan uphold her sentence of 8-25 years in prison and her life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring.

 

 

“Blocked” by Barton

15 Monday Aug 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, age of consent, Barton Dieters, CSA victimology, Debra Lafave, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

On Aug. 1, 2016, I sent this email to four people, including Martin Tieber and Barton Dieters:

In a sane and just and rational country, she 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. All this is more than punishment enough for transporting a biological man of 15 to sexual paradise and “inappropriate”/unprofessional behavior. Imagine what this would entail and how it would blight her life if she couldn’t find another job or was forced to work for the minimum-wage at a fast-food restaurant or wherever. And so forth.

Or, at worst, charged with a misdemeanor and, if convicted, sentenced to 3-6 months of probation and 5-100 hours of “community service,” and perhaps also fined modestly -all of which is not only excessive but gratuitous in respect to “public safety” and deterring and preventing violent and other serious crimes.

No jail, no prison, no “sex-offender treatment (to “treat” her for what exactly, heterosexuality?), no quasi-totalitarian surveillance; no electronic parole monitoring with an ankle tether/”bracelet”; no public sex-offender registration, with her name,  mug-shot, and address on the internet, observable to everyone with access to a computer(s), not only in the U.S. but in the entire world, so myriads of those who hate her can send her hate-mail and death-threats, and, for many, ostracize, revile, harass, and threaten her in person, and, possibly for some or at least a few, vandalize her property and/or even assault or murder her -all this until she dies at age 77 or 84 or 92. I suggest you go to RSOL and read many or some of the articles and comments as to what it’s like to be on the sex-offendeer registry.

8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian 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; a woman who has 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 statutory age.

And the generic age of consent in Michigan is 16. If he had been 16, just a few months and weeks older, and she had not been his tutor (or had been a tutor at another high school?), their affair would have been legal under Michigan law.

Dieters was so enraged and appalled by what I wrote that he blocked me immediately, so he didn’t read my criticism of him in a second email for which I received an “undeliverable” message:

On this matter, the media (local, state, national) is less a source of neutral and objective news than a tendentious agent of CSA victimology propaganda and inculcation in which all critical/dissenting voices are suppressed, almost as if under a totalitarian regime, or denounced and derided and defamed.

And sensationalism and histrionics for the ratings in the Letourneau, Lafave, Simon, and many other cases, mass-hysteria and “frenzy” over what is in fact a trivial matter that should be covered swiftly and quietly and, in my opinion, shouldn’t even be a crime and surely not a felony.

In covering this story, Dieters was less a reporter than a cheerleader for the prosecution and CSA victimology propagandist. To offer but one of many examples: a reporter who uses the phrase “ex-tutor guilty of raping her student” is not a journalist, neutral and objective, but an activist, ideologue, propagandist, CSA victimologist, who uses language not to describe but rather to distort and pervert objective reality for ideological purposes.