Why Did She Reject the Plea-Bargain?

12 Friday Feb 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

As noted before, given the media coverage, I know little about the facts of this case and their intrigue, and almost surely never will know. Apart from a few vague generalities, I know nothing of what the “child” and “victim” said when testifying at trial and under cross-examination as to how Abigail initiated the affair and supposedly “introduced him to a shocking world of rough sex,” nothing about the nature and details of their liaison and how often they had sex and what this entailed as to sex-acts “rough” and “kinky” or otherwise, or what he said when he initially told the police and prosecutors and testified under oath at a pretrial hearing that he was the aggressor in their sexual union and forced himself on her, nothing specific and concrete much less thorough and definitive. And apart from some “cherry-picked” quotes, little of what they said to each other in hundreds of emails and text messages, exactly what was said about the sex and “rough sex” and their “love” for each other and who knows what else. And I will never know unless I read the transcripts of the legal proceedings: pretrial hearings, the trial, the sentencing, etc. And, since I doubt that will ever happen, I’ll forever remain largely ignorant.

But I do know that she was charged with 4-counts of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct” and also with “accosting a minor for immoral purposes,” and that she rejected a plea-bargain under which, apparently, she would have served 5-months in jail or could have been released in such time for “good behavior,” and testified at trial that her “victim” was the aggressor who “controlled” her life and forced himself on her three times and that the purpose of responding to all his emails and text messages was to appease and keep him away from her.

Perhaps the reason she abjured the plea-bargain is because she’s telling the truth -if not the “whole truth and nothing but the truth,” as witnesses swear to under oath when testifying at trials and other legal proceedings, then most of the truth, or the truth essentially, with some lies and half-truths and exaggerations/embellishments.

Perhaps she was afraid of him in that he was 8-inches taller than her and outweighed her by almost 100 lbs. and was 6-10 stronger in the upper-body and a minatory force of energy and aggression. Perhaps he was the aggressor, as is true in many if not most of such illicit affairs, and perhaps he did force himself on her, albeit the force was minimal and didn’t entail violence or explicit threats of same, and she didn’t resist, forcefully, which she would view as “rape” and he would view as consensual sex. Perhaps he forced himself on her the first time they had intercourse, as did the “victim” in the Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall case, and she then assented to coitus a few times thereafter. Even if he did rape her, initially, but she assented to a few or even one act of coitus or fellatio or whatever thereafter, she would still have been guilty of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct.”

It’s possibly she told the truth in essence but with some lies and half-truths and exaggerations/embellishments, and imagined him to be far more of a threat, in the sense that he might kill or seriously injure her, than he was in actuality, which explains why she said she “did nothing wrong,’ when interviewed on Dateline, and her decision to go to trial and the nature of her testimony. It’s obvious that he was the aggressor who “controlled her life” in some ways, probable that she feared him, understandably and justifiably(?), and possible that he did force himself on her, at least initially.

But she had to lie, inventing things that did not occur and/or inflating the severity of what did happen, to have any chance of being acquitted at trial and walking out of the courtroom a free woman rather than a slave in handcuffs attached to a waist-chain and leg-irons who would be sentenced to a mandatory-minimum of 8-25 years in prison and possibly 25-years to life and a lifetime of Orwellian persecution.

The D.A., after “weighing the evidence” and conferring with Brinkmann and the SVU detectives(,?), charged her with “four counts” of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct,” which apparently means they believed the accused and her “victim” only engaged in four acts of coitus or fellatio or whatever over a period of three months. If they believed that the “child” was the “victim” of dozens and scores of illicit acts subsumed under “first-degree criminal sexual conduct,” wouldn’t they have charged her with 50-100 “counts” of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct”? Prosecutors love overkill. And, professionally, wouldn’t they have been constrained to so charge her if that is what they believed after listening to the “victim’s” account of his hellish and traumatizing ordeal after his recantation. Moreover, charging her with dozens of counts would have made their case even more powerful.

If she was so “in love” with her”victim,” a “victim” who also loved her -or “thought he loved her,” as he was told, insistently and repeatedly, to say at trial by the “experts” and authorities, and  wanted and needed to have sex with him so urgently and profoundly, if her “lust” for sex and “rough sex” was so insatiable and uncontrollable, they would have had sex dozens and scores of times. Her “victim,” a hurricane and volcano of testosterone at the acme of his erotic prowess, could have impaled and ejaculated inside her 5-6 times during a long afternoon or evening of lovemaking. That alone would have been 5-6 counts of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct,” I presume, not one. And probably 10-15 counts if their amour included other acts subsumed under “first-degree criminal sexual conduct.”

All this suggests if not all but proves that she was telling the truth when she testified, and continues to claim as the basis of her appeals, that she didn’t want to have sex with him and that the purpose of responding to his hundreds of emails and text messages was to keep him away from her, masturbating while reading her emails on his computer or while viewing her texts on his cell phone in a bathroom stall or wherever rather than knocking on the door of her apartment and imploring her for sex, or whatever or wherever. He was so “traumatized,” grievously and irremediably, by having sex with her that besides sending her hundreds of messages to which she responded, he also called her on the phone 170 times, as Manley pointed out in his post-conviction press conference. This all but proves that even if she was the initiator, initially, which I doubt, he was the pursuer and aggressor thereafter.

Apparently, she was convicted on three counts of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct,” declared “guilty” of having sex with her accuser the three times she claims he forced himself on her but “not guilty,” inexplicably, on the fourth, not because the jury found the testimony of her “victim” so persuasive and incontrovertible, but because of all the emails and text messages. The irony is that the texts and emails are more exculpatory than inculpatory, making her story more rather than less credible.

Apparently, she expressed her “love” for him in many texts and emails and the prosecutor emphasized, doubtless repeatedly during the trial from her opening statements to her closing arguments,  the “lovey dovey” (her words) nature of their affair as proof that she was lying about her fear of him and how he raped and terrorized her. If she is telling the truth about their intrigue and why she responded to his hundreds of emails and text messages (see above), such effusions of love were not sincere but a means of pacifying him. If she was afraid of him and wanted to keep him away from her to protect herself, would she tell him how much she hated and feared him?

 

 

 

 

 

Fantasies of Traumatization

10 Wednesday Feb 2016

Posted by in "traumatization", Abigail Simon, age of consent, Cassandra, CSA victimology, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Do CSA victimologists believe that young men under age 16 or 18 are “traumatized” and “scarred for life” by having sex with adolescent girls of comparable age. What of the tens of millions of people they’ve vitiated with their theories and assertions, uncorroborated and chimerical and unknown to everyone until just recently in historical terms, as to how biological men under age 16 or even 18 are “traumatized” and “scarred for life” by penetrating adult women in factually consensual relationships.

Obviously, love affairs between underage adolescents, heterosexual or homosexual, can be hurtful, e.g, the pain of rejection, of “unrequited love,” “broken hearts” and “hurt feelings,” etc., exactly as they are for adults. But such is a result of an affair that is ended by one of the partners, or a marriage that ends in divorce with adult males and females, and not of the sex in-itself.

I’m not a woman and have never been an adolescent girl. But in contrast to young men under age 18 and their simple and single-minded lusts, one can understand, without experiencing, the ambivalence of young women, especially those under statutory age, their reluctance to submit to pressure from a male and acquiesce to coitus given the unequal nature of penile-vaginal penetration both in respect to bodily sensations, pleasurable (invariably and intensely so for males) and painful (often and only for women), and the fear of an unwanted pregnancy, which often happens. And think of all the sexually disparate emotional/psychological ramifications. And physical effects if the girl is impregnated. One can understand, without direct experience, how they might feel “dirty,” “used,” abused, exploited, mortified, etc., by the sex alone. One can understand why they are far more likely than males to feel a sense of “guilt” and “shame” even if they weren’t raised to believe that sex outside of marriage is “sinful” and immoral.

But how many people would argue that both actors in such love affairs and romances and dalliances and “one-night stands,” males and females, are “traumatized” and “scarred for life,” invariably and irremediably, by the sex alone? And for males who have sex with females, any hurt or harm is a result of a love affair which ends in rejection and perhaps humiliation, not of the sex in-itself.

Who would argue that young men of 15 and 16 are “victims” for having sex with young women of 16 and 17, especially if they’re the aggressors and initiators and are much bigger and stronger and more sexually-experienced, much less “victims” of rape” and “child sexual abuse.” Who would argue that young men under age 16 or even 18 can’t assent to or initiate sex, willingly and knowingly, with adolescent girls under age 16 or 18.

Who would argue that 17-year old biological men, absurdly defined as “children” and even “little boys” and conflated with prepubescent girls, are “traumatized” and “scarred for life” by consenting to or initiating sex with “adult” females of 18 or 19? “Traumatized” by the sex, not the relationship.

CSA victimologists believe that young men under age 16 or 18 are “victims” who are “traumatized” and “scarred for life” because of an “imbalance of power” in adult-“child” relationships. The “victim” is damaged, profoundly and permanently, not by the sex alone, which by itself is the same as sex between underage adolescents, but by the sex in interaction with the relationship. But for the relationship and “imbalance of power” to be “traumatizing” the adult must be at least 4-5 years older than the “child.”

Underage teenagers are invariably and profoundly harmed for life not because they’re “children” per se but because they’re “children” who have sex with adults who are sufficiently (at least 4-5 years) or significantly older, and thus far more powerful in theory and by definition, irrespective of the facts and circumstances.

Consequently, the sex is invariably and inherently “nonconsensual,” “abusive,” “coercive,” exploitative, “traumatizing,” tantamount to “rape” and often defined as such or as “sexual assault,”even if the “victims” are much bigger and stronger and were the aggressors and initiators and even if they’re criminals and delinquents who’ve committed violent and other mala in se crimes and whom their de jure “victimizers” fear, justifiably, rationally, understandably.

In theory and by definition, a biological men under age 16 or 18 can’t consent to or initiate sex, willingly and knowingly, with an adult female who is at least 4-5 years older. And he can’t actually enjoy the sex even if he falsely believes that he does and is exultant rather than devastated, and is a “victim” of “rape” and “sexual assault” who is “traumatized” even if he’s totally unaware of his “victimization” and experiences his putative “traumatization” as exhilarating, gratifying, empowering.

And this “imbalance of power” and resultant “traumatization is exacerbated, the “scares” are wider and deeper and more crippling (emotionally) and disfiguring (metaphorically), if the adult woman is in a position of authority. He’s “traumatized” not only by an “imbalance of power” based on a disparity of age but also an “imbalance of power” based on the woman’s position of authority, irrespective of the facts and circumstances, even if he’s the aggressor and initiator and/or the woman doesn’t use her power and authority to coerce and manipulate him into engaging in “unwanted sex.”

But exactly how does the woman being an adult and at least 4-5 years older magically render the sex traumatizing? The magical age-disparity of 4-5 years is totally arbitrary, subjective, purely theoretical, empirically uncorroborated, and far less crucial than sundry other variables: intrinsic sexual differentiation, physically and psychologically, penetration, sex and strength, testosterone, aggressiveness, the propensity for violence and criminality, who fears whom, who was the aggressor and initiator and who was the passive and receptive actor. Precisely how does an affair that is deeply fulfilling and sex acts that are supremely pleasurable, as everyone would concede if the actors are two adults of 18 or 19, mysteriously and magically become “traumatizing” if the male is under 16 or even 18 and the female is at least 4-5 years older?

And how does the woman being in a position of authority magically render the sex even more traumatizing even if the “victim” was the aggressor and initiator and/or she didn’t misuse her authority to coerce and manipulate her “victim” into engaging in “unwanted sex”?

“Rough Sex”

09 Tuesday Feb 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Apparently, in infantilizing this 6’3″, 220 lb. biological man, pouring it on hot and thick and greasy, Emily Brinkmann (the prosecutor whose duty and passion(?) was to destroy Abigail Simon’s life) claimed he was a virgin, pure and innocent, whom Abigail was intent on deflowering, and whom she seduced, a perverse fantasy realized, introducing him to a “shocking world of rough sex” (whatever that means exactly), according to one article. The article doesn’t elaborate. It doesn’t explain, nor does the MSM. No facts other than vague generalities, no precise details, no distinctness or specificity much less thoroughness.

They don’t even tells us who was the dominant, and who the submissive, actor in many of the texts and emails, I assume, and also during the four times they allegedly engaged in coitus and whatever? I presume Abigail was the submissive and her “victim” the dominant partner. “Rough sex” could mean anything from a woman liking to be impaled and jack-hammered, roughly (how could it be otherwise), during male-on-top intercourse, to consensual acts of simulated rape, to B&D and S&M at its most extreme and aberrant and precarious.

Unless there are things I don’t know and will never know, isn’t it far more likely that the “child” and “victim” discovered and was aroused by “rough sex,” whatever that means exactly, while viewing pornography on the internet or even going to the movies and watching TV and that she was indulging his fantasies and satiating his desires, onanistically (he not her) from a distance rather than physically at her apartment?

Also, if he was “into rough sex” in which he was dominant and even abusive during and/or before intercourse, this would explain why she was afraid of him and also corroborate her testimony that the purpose of responding to his hundreds of emails and text messages was to keep him away from her.

And who’s more likely to be “into rough sex,” whatever that means exactly? A woman like Abigail Simon -highly intelligent, highly sensitive, fragile (physically and emotionally), perhaps mildly neurotic(?), who claims she was terrorized, threatened with violence by an ex-lover while living in Chicago- or a 6’3″, 220 lb. biological man and volcano of testosterone with an 8-10 inch penis who’s a star at one of the roughest and most violent of all sports?

 

Media Bias

08 Monday Feb 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, CSA victimology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The media coverage of this case was and is and will be simply dreadful: sensationalism, melodrama, histrionics, the “news” as an agent of the prosecution, prejudice salient and subtle in favor of the “child” and “victim,” nameless and faceless, and against Abigail, presumed guilty before she was convicted of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct,” depicted as a monster and degenerate, all inducing a climate of mass hysteria, psychosis, fear, loathing, demonization (read the comments!), combined with a dearth of facts to help one know or conclude, rationally and objectively, what really or probably happened.

A sickening plethora of images and videos to anguish and mortify Abigail and her family and friends -Abigail sobbing at trial and sentencing, almost collapsing, imploring the judge for mercy when she knew her fate, a mandatory-minimum sentence of 8-25 years in prison and, possibly, the maximum of 25-years to life, in handcuffs attached to a waist-chain and leg-irons when there was no practical reason for her to be shackled in this fashion or in any fashion to protect anyone or prevent her from escaping, “loved ones” crying at trial and sentencing- while the name of her “victim” is suppressed, his face unseen, as with his parents, presuming guilt before the jury’s verdict. And a paucity of details to inform the public, no specificity much less thoroughness, not only as to the nature of her “crimes” and their intrigue but also in respect to the legal proceedings: her arrest, prosecution, pretrial hearings, the trial, and a sentencing that lasted over two hours when the judge knew he was going to sentence her to 8-25 years in prison the moment he heard the jury’s guilty verdicts: a gratuitously cruel degradation ritual.

As I noted at RSOL (“Whose Afraid of the Boogie Man,” comments): in such cases, the mainstream media 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 now suppressed, virtually as if under a totalitarian regime, or defamed and derided and demonized. And this has been true, a national obsession and mass hysteria with a few “high-profile” cases, since the late 1990’s, when Mary Letourneau was vilified as a “rapist” and “pedophile” and turned into the most infamous woman sex criminal in American history for “falling in love” and having sex with a biological man of 13 who was pubescent at age 10 and sexually-active at 12 or perhaps even 11, probably had more sexual partners at age 13 than did Mary at 33, and was the aggressor in their sexual union who forced himself on her the first time they had intercourse. And this madness will prevail for many years if not decades bearing a miraculous and unforeseen cultural metamorphosis.

 

 

Sex Offender Registries

27 Wednesday Jan 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, Cassandra, sex offender registry, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

In a speech on sex-offender laws, Judith Levine noted that registries don’t describe the crimes for which offenders must register from 20-years to life by disclosing the objective facts, not specifically or concretely or, in many instances, even vaguely. Given how the crime or crimes of which they were convicted are defined by law and thus on various registries, those viewing the registries have little or often no idea of what the sex-offender did to their de facto  or purely de jure “victims,” or whether he/she are guilty of mala in se or mala prohibita felonies/misdemeanors.

One particularly egregious and glaring example of this is the 1997 Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall case in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. All the registry says about her crime or crimes is that she was convicted of “second-degree sexual assault of a child.” This amorphous and abstract definition says nothing about the nature and details of the crime or crimes for which she must register for life as a uniquely deviant and dangerous criminal.

“Sexual assault of a child” implies the use of violence or threats of same to compel the submission of a victim or the molestation of a prepubertal child too young and innocent to consent in a meaningful and comprehending sense. To anyone ignorant of the objective realities, she could be guilty of anything from molesting a 5-year-old boy to aiding and abetting a male in abducting and raping a 10-year-old girl to seducing a 15-year-old biological man.

In fact, she isn’t guilty of any of these offenses, not even the latter. A former teacher at an “alternative high-school” for “juvenile delinquents,” she was convicted of “second-degree sexual assault of a child” and sentenced to 4-years in prison and registration for life as a uniquely deviant and dangerous criminal because she foolishly assented to sex with a criminal and biological man of 15 who constantly harassed and molested her at school and ultimately raped her when she visited him at his home on school business, apparently when no one else was home.

Then contrast her crime(s) with that of two Mexican immigrants, possibly illegal aliens, Juan Neito and Gregario Morales, who abducted a young mother of two children from the parking lot of a working-class tavern in Green Bay, WI, drove many miles to another county, gang-raped her for hours, beat her savagely, and tried to murder her by dousing her with lighter-fluid and setting her on fire. All the registry says about this atrocity is that they’re guilty of “second-degree sexual assault” and must register for life as uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminals, just like Cassandra. Legally, Cassandra and these sadists and monsters are both guilty of “second-degree sexual assault.” The only difference is that she’s guilty of “second-degree sexual assault of a child” while they’re only guilty of “second-degree sexual assault,” which suggests that her crimes are more serious and that she’s more deviant and dangerous!

Moreover, they’re only on the registry because of the “second-degree sexual assault,” not the kidnapping, enslavement, aggravated assault, torture, disfigurement, and attempted murder. If they had “only” abducted her, beat her savagely, tortured her in a nonsexual fashion, and succeeded rather than failed in killing her by setting her ablaze, they wouldn’t be on a registry for uniquely vile and execrable and dangerous criminals, along with monsters like Cassandra.

Michigan’s registry is a partial exception. Abigail Simon’s public shaming webpage says she is guilty of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct,” which by itself tells one nothing, specifically or concretely, but suggests that she is guilty of a monstrous transgression, “first-degree” acts of violence, possibly sadistic and vicious and brutal, and/or depravity. But (relationship) is in parenthesis, thus disclosing that she didn’t use a knife or gun or her superior size and strength to compel the submission of her “victim” and also implying that her “victim” was not a prepubescent child. But it doesn’t mention that her “victim” was a 6’3″, 220 lb. football star and biological man of 15 whom she claims was not only the aggressor in their intrigue but also forced himself on her. Nor does it reveal any other details about their liaison that people might consider pertinent or even mitigating and exculpatory.

 

 

 

Abigail Simon: A life-Sentence of Draconian/Orwellian Persecution

23 Saturday Jan 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

But a sentence of 8-25 years in prison is not punishment enough for a first-offender convicted of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibita crimes that are legal acts or possibly misdemeanors (?) in dozens of other nations, including European Countries. Nor is it protection enough for all the boys and girls of Michigan and the United States, including not only biological men under the legal age of consent such as her “victim’ but also young women under statutory age and prepubertal children of both sexes.

Given the decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan not to hear her final appeal, she’ll be enslaved for 8-years, at least, and perhaps longer. But if she doesn’t die in prison she’ll still be punished until the day she dies. When she’s released from prison after “only” 8 or 10 or 12 years(?), she’ll be subjected to years of quasi-totalitarian “supervision,” probably including “sex-offender treatment,” restrictions on her freedom and intrusions into her private life that not even dystopian novelists like Orwell and Kafka could have imagined and prophesized decades ago, most of which don’t apply to violent criminals on probation who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense, and registration for life as a uniquely vile and execrable and dangerous criminal -her name, mug-shot, and address on the internet for all to see in Michigan’s and national sex-offender registries- unlike myriads of brutes and savages who’ve committed many if not dozens and scores of violent and other mala in se felonies but who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense albeit most of them have raped and gang-raped men in prisons and jails and/or women and adolescent girls in the free world.

But not even all this is enough to punish Abigail and similar “convicted sex offenders,” and to protect all the children of Michigan and the United States (if allowed to move to or visits other states) from this uniquely deviant and dangerous criminal. And also adults, apparently. And thus her draconian and Orwellian sentence also includes a life-sentence of electronic parole monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet” that she can never remove.

To CSA victimologists and the ruling-elites and governing-classes they’ve successfully indoctrinated, most balefully and crucially those who enact and impose the laws and sentences and punishments (politicians, police, prosecutors, judges, etc.), and a media that controls the zeitgeist and public opinion, and tens of millions of people they’ve brainwashed, Abigail is viewed as such a danger to children  -from infants in their cradles to teenage criminals one day short of their 16th or 18th birthdays- that she must wear this tether or “bracelet,” as cumbersome as it’s conspicuous, 24-hours a day, in public and private: at work and play and leisure, when shopping, dining, walking the streets, sitting in a park, reading in a library, etc., and at home, waking and sleeping, having sex with a lover or spouse (assuming her parole agent permits this?), bathing, showering, etc.(Apparently, the device is waterproof so the tethered can’t be shocked when bathing or swimming.)

Shortly before her release from prison after 8 or 10 or 12 years, I assume the guards will strip her naked for the last time and then attach the tether to her bare ankle, probably with the assistance and under the supervision of a parole officer and/or SVU detective,  before she dresses in her own clothes and leaves the prison with family and/or friends.

She and myriads of other people whose one and only crime in life was having a liaison or tryst with a young man or women under statutory age can never remove this tether/ “bracelet.” Imagine the mortification, the embarrassment, the daily interaction with and responses and actions of other people for the rest of their lives or at least 20-30 years: e.g, for a woman at the beach, or a pool or gym or health club, or wearing shorts on warm days, or a dress or skirt at church or a wedding or party or restaurant, and so forth. The new-age scarlet letter.

And envision what if must be like having sex, for both the men and women who are tethered and their partners, lovers or spouses, whose ankles and feet and calves are bruised and even cut by the plastic during coitus or when lying in bed and sleeping, The constant discomfort, the itching, and also blisters, chafing, and rashes from a devise that must be worn 24-hours a day under all conditions. I assume the tether can be removed so cuts and rashes and blisters can be treated by a doctor, but only with the permission of and in the presence of a parole-officer and/or SVU detective.

If she lives to be 88 or 94 or 102, senile, blind or half-blind, confined to a wheelchair, living in a nursing home, or immobile and supine in a hospital bed, dying of cancer or simply old-age, even if unconscious, she must wear this tether until she dies and its removed by the authorities. And so, too, with her mugshot, name, and address on the internet in Michigan’s and national sex offender registries.. Only then will all the children of Michigan and all of America and the entire world be safe from this monster and degenerate.

So her life after prison -whether she dies in her 70s or 80s or 90s- will be worse in some ways than her life in prison. At least in prison she isn’t forced to wear an ankle-tether 24 hours a day and she can’t she receive hate-mail,  death threats, and obscene lust-letters with photos of male genitalia -the fate of many women on the public registry. And she can’t be raped and doesn’t have to worry about being raped because, as of now, male guards are not allowed in the housing units because of a scandal and lawsuit by hundreds of women who were raped by male guards at another prison that was closed shortly thereafter. And she can’t be murdered, tortured, or assaulted non-sexually, brutally, viciously, and sadistically, by male criminals, and doesn’t have to worry about same until she’s released from prison.

And, moreover, the second stage of her draconian/Orwellian sentence -if she’s released from prison after 8-years and if she dies in her 70s or 80s or even 90s or hundreds- will be 3 or 4 or even 5 or 6 times longer

All this for a women 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 -an infinitely remote possibility that no sane person would obsess over during the day or lose any sleep over at night. In reality as opposed to fantasy, not a single person in the state of Michigan, child and adult, has been or will be any safer because of the enslavement of Abigail Simon for at least 8-years followed by decades of quasi-totalitarian persecution. No violent or other serious crime has been or will be prevented or deterred by her hideously draconian/Orwellian life-sentence. In respect to “protecting the public” and children and deterring and preventing violent and other serious criminality, her grotesque sentence is wholly gratuitous, “cruel and unusual” in the sense of being not only cruel but also totally unnecessary.

She’s enslaved, broken, degraded, immiserated, her life ruined, doomed until she dies, forever a victim of mass psychosis, hysteria, ignorance, fanaticism, “moral panic,” ideology, politics, and the resultant oppression, cruelty, iniquity,, and persecution. And for what? For nothing -for no exigent, rational,  imperative, and justifiable reason whatsoever- for those of us who are sane and just and honest and realistic.

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

 

The Witch-Burning of Abigail Simon

15 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by in "anarcho-tyranny", "traumatization", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, age of consent, Cassandra, Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, Melissa Bittner, MRAs, "men's movement, sex offender registry, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ 17 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

On Nov. 26, 2014, in Grand Rapids, MI, Abigail Simon (a former math tutor at a Catholic high school) was convicted at trial of three counts of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct,” a felony with a maximum sentence of 25-years to life in prison and a mandatory minimum of 8-25 years, for allegedly having sex with a  male student who, according to her testimony in court and statements to SVU detectives and prosecutors when interrogated,  was not only the aggressor in their sexual intrigue but also forced himself on her 3 times and “controlled her life” by threats and manipulation; and also the felony of “accosting a minor for immoral purposes” for exchanging hundreds of emails and text messages with her “victim,” a 6’3″, 220 lb. biological man of 15 and football star who initially confessed to authorities and also testified under oath at a pretrial hearing that Abigail’s version of what occurred was true but later recanted and claimed not only that he didn’t force himself on her but also that she was the initiator of their liaison and controlled the action and relationship. She told the authorities and testified in court that she responded to his hundreds of emails and text-messages to keep him away from her because she didn’t want to have sex with him and was afraid of him for the reasons above.

So what occurred, exactly? Who is telling the truth and who is lying? Only one of them or both to some degree? Only Abigail and her “victim,” nameless and faceless, know the answers, And I’m sure their memories, and interpretations of same, differ.

According to a man who believed her testimony and was thus sympathetic to Abigail, commenting on the internet after her conviction, he recanted and changed his story after being threatened with charges of rape by prosecutors who were 100% certain that Abigail was “guilty” and wanted to prosecute her not only for “accosting a minor for immoral purposes,” a felony with a maximum-sentence of 4-years in prison and other mandatory punishments, but also “first-degree criminal sexual conduct.”

On Jan. 14, 2015, the judge was “merciful,” imposing the mandatory-minimum sentence of “only” 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle tether/”bracelet and public sex-offender registration. He conceded that she was not a “predator” who was likely to “re-offend” by having sex with another young man under statutory age much less commit violent and other mala in se crimes, and that her “victim” also knew that their intrigue was “wrong” and was thus “partly responsible,’ even if he didn’t rape her and “control her life” by threats and manipulation.  Thus he was not a CSA victimologist, fanatical and dogmatic, at her sentencing. (This would later change, as we’ll see, for whatever reasons.) But he had no choice, no “discretion” to impose a sane and “just” and rational and proportionate sentence, a sentence that would blight but not destroy her life.

Even if he had such discretion, however, he probably would have sentenced her to 4-6 years in prison if not longer rather than “only” 6-12 months in jail or 1-2 years in prison, knowing the hysteria and outrage that such “leniency” would provoke not only in Grand Rapids and Michigan but nationwide: near universal condemnation, publicly and privately, indignation and rebukes and tirades from CSA victimologists, their votaries and voices in the mass media, and the tens of millions of people they’ve browbeat and/or brainwashed, including politicians, police, and prosecutors, judges and jurors. And also MRAs, the misogynist crazies and liars of the soi-disant “men’s movement,” and millions of people, overwhelmingly males of course but more females than one would expect, whom they’ve vitiated and duped to various degrees with their woman-hating vitriol and mendacity. And, probably, a fusillade and torrent of hate-mail, possibly including death threats,, and perhaps even assaults and/or vandalism.

Under the law and to many if not most people, in fantasy as opposed to reality, she was so dangerous, such a “threat to society” and all the children of Michigan, that she couldn’t be released on bond but had to be enslaved in jail for almost two months before sentencing. At her sentencing, in a drab unisex denim jumpsuit, with no makeup, her medium-brown hair in a pony-tail with the blonde “highlights” faded, in handcuffs attached to a waist-chain and leg-irons for well over 2-hours, so debilitated and mortified by fear and shame (not for her “crimes,” but the chains, the crowd, the circus, the cameras, etc.) and despair and lack of sleep that she could barely walk or even stand and almost collapsed twice, she appeared to be on the verge of a “nervous breakdown” after “only” 7-weeks in jail.

Imagine her feelings, the excruciating torment, the emotional torture, the profound and crushing debasement, the inquisitorial cruelty, the powerlessness and desperation: chained like a wild beast or a feral male criminal,  a low-IQ savage and/or psychopath, big and fast and strong, violent and dangerous, and possibly deranged; shackled in handcuffs attacked to a waist-chain and leg-irons for over two hours for no exigent and practical reason, e.g., to prevent her from trying to escape and/or assaulting people, possibly causing serious injuries, and with two guards, a male and female, standing behind her, grim and vigilant, armed with guns and tasers and pepper spray. All unnecessary to protect anyone from anything. Gratuitous abuse and cruelty and degradation, pure and simple.

In contrast, when sentenced to death for the car-jacking, abduction, “false imprisonment,” gang-rape, sadistic beatings, torture, mutilation, and murder of Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, Lemaricus Davidson was in street clothes and he wasn’t shackled, though he was clearly a threat to assault the police and guards, probably trying to wrest the gun from one of them, probably a female -and, if successful, he could have shot and killed people before he was shot and killed or wounded and incapacitated; or to attack with his fists and feet the prosecutors, his lawyers, the victim’s parents, even the judge, possibly causing serious injuries before he was overpowered, incapacitated, probably by the use of a taser and pepper spray, subdued and shackled. I suggest you watch videos on youtube.com of courtroom mayhem and violence, altercations involving two or more people, punching, kicking, grabbing, the use of chairs as weapons, mostly between rapists and murderers and the families of their victims one can reasonably assume.

Incredibly, this subhuman beast and monster was afforded and treated with far more dignity and respect than was Abigail at her sentencing for a nonviolent and victimless and malum prohibitum felony, assuming she was guilty of such and lying about her “victim” raping and terrorizing her And so, too, were the other savages and monsters who were sentenced not to death but to decades in prison for one of the most gruesome, sadistic, hideous, sickening, depraved, horrific, ghastly, hellish, “unspeakable,” and “heinous” crimes in all of U.S. and world history.

(In a sane and just and rational country, they would have all been executed well over 10-years ago and Abigail would not have even been charged with a crime and surely not a felony. She would have been punished, non-criminally, by dismissal and the revocation of her license and expulsion from the profession for 5-10 years. Or, at worst, charged with a misdemeanor, however defined, and sentenced to probation (and perhaps house-arrest) until her “victim” turned 16, the generic age of consent in MIchigan, No prison, no jail, no quasi-totalitarian surveillance, no “sex-offender treatment,” no electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/”bracelet,” no public sex-offender registration. And that assuming she’s lying about her “victim” being the victimizer.)

And, in chains for over 2-hours, she was forced to hear the SVU detectives, prosecutors, various “experts,” CSA victimologists,” the “victim’s” mother, etc., demonize and vilify her as a monster and degenerate,  a “sexual predator,” “child molester,” “child sexual abuser,” possibly even a “rapist” and “pedophile”; and her “victim,” a biological man of 15 who enjoyed the sex more than she did irrespective of the facts and whether or not he forced himself on her, defined and pitied as a “victim” of “rape” and CSA who is “traumatized,” devastated, and “scarred for life,” a depiction of the crime and actors that is not only false but execrably and ludicrously so.

She, not her “victim,” will be traumatized, devastated, and scarred for life.

And the “victim’s” mother, vicious in her lust for vengeance, implored the judge to be “severe in his sentencing,” i.e., to impose the maximum sentence of 25-years to life. Obviously, she knew that the judge had no choice but to sentence Abigail to 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution. So to her, “only” 8-25 years in prison was too lenient for a woman who “used” a “child” for her “perverted desires” in a state and country in which violent and/or recidivist male criminals are repeatedly and systematically coddled. How crestfallen and outraged she must have been when the judge abjured her pleas and sentenced Abigail to “only” 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution.

In a poll,, conducted by local Media, over 10% of respondents thought her sentence was too indulgent! And roughly 30% thought it was just and rational and proportionate: a testament to the power and influence of the media and CSA victimology -and, to a lesser degree, MRAs the misogynist lunatics of the soi-disant “men’s movement,”, who believe or claim to believe, contrary to the facts, that women who “rape” biological men under age 18 are rarely sentenced to prison or even jail while men guilty of the “exact same crime” with females are almost always crucified with their lives utterly destroyed. I’m sure they were elated by Abigail’s hideously draconian sentence while expressing outrage that such “justice” for male victims is so rare as to be virtually non-existent.

8-25 years in prison for a first-offender convicted of a nonviolent and victimless and malum prohibitum felony; 8-25 years in prison for crimes that are legal acts in dozens of other nations, including European countries; 8-25 years in prison for “crimes” in which the “victim” craves and enjoys the actus reus (i.e., the sex) far more than the woman who “rapes” and/or “molests” him and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his phantasmal and theoretical “victimization”; 8-25 years in prison for transporting a biological man of 15 to sexual paradise in a factually consensual relationship.

And that’s assuming she’s “guilty” and lying about his raping and terrorizing her. If her story is truthful, completely or essentially, in whole or in part, then she was sentenced to 8-25 years in prison for “sexual assault” because her “victim” sexually assaulted her – as did the “victim” of Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall, who testified in court and admitted to police that he sexually harassed, molested, and raped her; and the “victim” of Melissa Bittner,” transparently innocent of sexually molesting a 16-year-old predator and criminal who sexually molested her but convicted of “sexual assault” and sentenced to prison and 20-years of public sex-offender registration.

8-25 years in prison in a country in which, during the 1990s, the decade in which the U.S. began to “get tough” on violent crime, the average time-served for murder (including non-negligent manslaughter) was less than 6-years and the average time-served for all violent crimes (aggravated assault, rape, robbery, homicide) was approximately 4-years. And these averages are even more execrable, appalling, and outrageous than they first appear, since one can reasonable assume that-90% of such felonies were committed by violent recidivists, overwhelmingly males with histories of violence and predation usually beginning at age 13 or 14, and most of whom should have been in prison rather than free to commit their latest violent felonies. And it’s likely that such averages are even lower today after 8-years of rule by Obama and Holder and Lynch and their advisors (including Al Sharpton) and appointees.

And she could have been sentenced to 25-years to life in prison for “crimes” that are legal acts in dozens of other nations, including European countries!

But a sentence of 8-25 years in prison is not punishment enough for a first-offender convicted of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibitum felonies are legal acts or misdemeanors in dozens of other nations, including European countries. Nor, given the dogmas and fantasies of CSA victimologists, is it protection enough for all the boys and girls of MIchigan and the United States, including not only biological men under the legal age of consent but also young women under statutory age and prepubertal boys and girls.

Since her conviction wasn’t overturned on appeal and the judge who sentenced her to 8-25 years and a lifetime of surveillance and persecution twice upheld her draconian and Orwellian sentence, she’ll be enslaved for 8-years, at least, and perhaps longer. But if she doesn’t die in prison she’ll still be punished until the day she dies.

When released from prison after “only” 8-years, most likely, or 10- or 12-years(?), she’ll be subjected to years of post-incarceration quasi-totalitarian surveillance, probably including years of “sex-offender treatment,” even after years of same in prison, and restrictions on her freedoms and intrusions into her private life that not ever dystopian novelists like Orwell and Kafka could have imagined or prophesized decades ago, most of which don’t apply to violent felons, including male recidivists, who’ve never been convicted of a sexual offense. For how many years must she endure such penalties? I assume she’ll be on parole for 17-years if released from prison after “only” 8-years of enslavement or 15-years if released from prison after “only” 10-years of enslavement.

And, finally, her punishment includes a life-sentence of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether/” bracelet” she can never remove (not even when bathing, showering, sleeping) and registration for life as a uniquely deviant and dangerous criminal with her name, mugshot, and address on the internet for all to see with access to a computer, privately or publicly, and all which that entails in regard to danger and mortification, especially for a woman as infamous as Abigail due to weeks and months of local and state and national media coverage, tendentious and sensationalistic, surpassed only by Mary Letourneau.

All this for a first-offender convicted of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibitum felonies (found “guilty” of having sex and exchanging emails and text-messages with a 15-year-old biological man who, if she’s telling the truth as a whole or largely, raped and bullied and terrorized and manipulated her), a woman who has never committed a violent or other mala 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.

Not a single person of any age or either sex has been or will be any safer because of the imprisonment of Abigail for at least 8-years followed by decades of quasi-totalitarian surveillance and persecution. Not one violent or other serious crime has been or will be prevented or deterred by her hideously draconian/Orwellian life-sentence.

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

#For more details on how she’ll be punished for the rest of her life after she’s released from prison, the surveillance and penalties and laws to which she’ll be subjected until she dies, read “Abigail Simon: A Life-Sentence of Draconian/Orwellian Persecution.”