Tag Archives: plea-bargain

Does Abigail Know that Feminism is Culpable, Seminally and Predominantly, for Destroying her Life?

04 Tuesday Oct 2022

Posted by in "sex-offender treatment", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, feminism, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

As noted previously, in a few posts, Abigail was prohibited from receiving and reading a letter and articles I sent to the Huron Valley Correctional Facility. To the authorities, my words were a “threat to security, good order, or discipline.”

Did the left-feminist ideologues and totalitarians who rule the prison and the lives of inmates believe that Abigail would have gone berserk and attacked the guards and/or other inmates, perhaps inciting a riot or mass revolt, had she been allowed to read my heterodox and “politically-incorrect” arguments and contentions? Or simply that they would have vitiated the efficacy of her “sex-offender treatment”?

So, in effect, I’m a victim of censorship, denied the right to correspond with Abigail and ask her many questions about her intrigue with a 15-year-old student and biological man, her phantasmal and theoretical “victim” whom she claims forced himself on her three times and “controlled her life” by threats and manipulation; her arrest, prosecution, trial, why she rejected the plea-bargains, her life in jail and prison; her life, especially as an adult, before it was shattered, forever and needlessly, by the criminal injustice system; her ideals, values, and opinions on various issues and subjects: e.g., what did she think of Mary Letourneau and her affair with a student and her sentence of 8-years in jail and prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration. What did she think of such laws and penalties, to the extent that she was aware of them, before they ruined her life?

Like most educated women, the overwhelming majority, alas,, I presume that Abigail is a left-liberal, probably more liberal than extreme/radical left, though I could be wrong. And, moreover, that she defines and thinks of herself as a feminist, however defined, broadly or narrowly, vaguely or precisely, accurately or inaccurately. If so, does she know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life.

In pre-feminist America, including the 1960s, the decade of  the “sexual revolution,” “statutory rape” laws didn’t even apply to women in most jurisdictions. And if they did so apply to women in some states or if women who had sex with young men under age 16 or 18 were guilty of a “moral’s offense,” however defined, how many women were arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to jail or prison for such offenses? (Read my blog-post on Kirk Douglas) And how many were sentenced to 8-25 years in prison, like Abigail, or 6-15 years, like Kathryn Ronk, or enslaved for 8-years, like Mary Letourneau; or 40-years, like Shannon Schmeider, with a chance for parole after “only” 20 years; or life with a chance for parole after “only” 10-years, apparently, like Michelle Taylor; or 20-years with no chance for parole, like Brittany Zamora, and who knows how many other women, teachers and non-teachers, who received similar prison sentences. In pre-feminist America, was there even one woman who received such a draconian sentence for having a love affair or mere tryst with a biological man under age 18?

And even if incarcerated, none of them, upon their release, were subjected to years of quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision, mandatory “sex-offender treatment,” electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle tether/”bracelet,” and registration for life or at least 20-30 years as uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminals, their mug-shots, names, and addresses on the internet for all to see and all that that entails in regard to danger and mortification.

None of these laws and policies, these draconian/Orwellian punishments, inflicted on Abigail and myriads of other women for no exigent and practical reasons, would exist if not for feminism. Beginning in the early 1970s, in deference to feminism and the anti-rape movement which began, publicly and officially, in 1971 with the New York radical feminist rape conference, sex crime laws were revamped. State legislators, overwhelmingly male, enacted and imposed laws written by feminist lawyers.

De facto consensual sex between adults and young men and women under age 16 or 18, depending on the age of consent in each jurisdiction, was now a “gender-neutral” crime that applied equally to women and was equated or conflated under the law with violent-forcible rape and the rape and/or molestation of prepubescent children. And women were now defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” for allowing biological men under age 16 or even 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships

Most infamously, Mary Letourneau was convicted of “child rape” under Washington law, and sentenced to almost a decade in jail and prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration, albeit she didn’t rape her “victim,” obviously, nor did she use violence/force or threats of same to compel his submission, nor was she guilty of molesting a prepubescent child. Her victim” was the aggressor and initiator who forced himself on her the first time they had intercourse. (Read my articles and blog-posts on her case for more details and analysis.)

Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall was convicted of “sexual assault of a child,” which implies that she was guilty of violence/force or threats of same in sexually abusing and violating a helpless and innocent  prepubescent boy, and sentenced to 4-years in prison and a lifetime of sex-offender registration -when, in fact, she was the victim of abuse and her “victim” was the abuser and victimizer. He was not a child, biologically, but a man in size and sexuality, a delinquent and criminal of 15 who, as her student, constantly harassed and implored her for sex at school and in her classroom, molested and kissed her against her will, and finally raped her when she visited him at home on school business, apparently when no one else was present. She didn’t report the rape lest he “go to prison and become more of a delinquent.” Exploiting her altruism and compassion, not only misguided and foolish but ill-deserved and self-destructive, he manipulated and bullied her into having sex with him in an intrigue she didn’t know how to “end without hurting him,” resulting to her arrest and all that followed,

The real criminal, sexually and otherwise, was not punished, and who knows how many crimes he committed before he raped and molested Cassandra, and who knows how manyy crimes he’s committed thereafter. Did he rape any more women or adolescent girls, or even murder someone, like the “victim” of Melissa Bittner, who was convicted of
“sexual assault” and sentenced to prison and much else because she was sexually assaulted by a 16-year-old delinquent. (See the posts on her case for more details.)

Ironically and paradoxically, such iniquities and outrages and travesties, inflicted even on women who were raped and molested by their de jure “victims” but still charged with and convicted of felony sex offenses, and the draconian-Orwellian sentences, are inconceivable apart from feminism and the anti-rape movement and CSA victimology.

CSA victimology and it’s tenets and dogmas and the resultant mass-hysteria, psychosis, moral panics, witch-hunts, and imprisonment and persecution of myriads of men and women who were/are either innocent or guilty of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibita felonies, overwhelmingly first-offenders who, even if not innocent, were/are not violent and dangerous, people who’ve never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in their lives and almost surely never will and are not a “threat to society or to anyone nor even a “danger to reoffend” by having sex with another biological man or woman under statutory age – this madness and reign of terror is inconceivable apart from feminist ideology and it’s decades-long jihad against sexual victimization, real and imagined.

Nor would adult women who have sex with young men under statutory age be absurdly defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” if not for feminism and the myth and premise that men and women and boys and girls are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy and the conflation of prepubescent boys and girls with pubescent male and female adolescents. And even the inescapable differences in anatomy and their relevance to and importance in sexual postures and possibilities are denied and trivialized as irrelevant and insignificant by feminists and other leftists and egalitarians (most fanatically, obsessively, and viciously by MRA, the misogynist crazies and liars of the soi-disant “men’s movement”) who define and vilify adult women as “rapists” for allowing biological men under age 16 or even 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships  “sex-equality dogma taken to lunatic extremes,” to quote John Derbyshire, and the only crime in which the “victim” enjoys the actus reus (i.e. the sex) more than the woman who “rapes” and/or “molests” and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his phantasmal and theoretical “victimization.” Nor would young men under age 16 or even 18 who consent to or initiate sex with adult women be defined as “victims” of “rape” and CSA who are “traumatized” and “scarred for life.”

Abigail was convicted of “criminal sexual misdonduct,” a vague term, legally and empircally, under which all sorts of sex-acts that are now crimes, nearly always felonies, are subsumed: everything from violent-forcible rape, iinclding the most sadistic, brutal, vicious rapes and gang-rapes, truly “heinous” crimes that often also involve aggravated assault, kidnapping, “false imprisonment,” home invasions, torture, mutilation, and murder; to the molestation of prepubescent children; to factually consensual sex between adults and young men and women under statutory age, including women who are convicted of felonies for having sex with biological men under age 16 or 18 (or even 18-year-olds if the women is a teacher or tutor like Abigail and the “victim” is a student under her authority.

In contrast, legally and empirically, “statutory rape” is not a vaguely defined criminal offense. It defines, clearly and accurately, a specific and objective act. The modifying “statutory” denotes an absence of violent/force or threats of same to compel the submission of the “victim” -i.e., it reveals that the sex was consensual, factually as opposed to legally- while “rape” signifies the reality of penile-vaginal penetration, an act which only males can perpetrate. Thus even to define the women above as “statutory rapists” and their “crimes” as “statutory rape” is objectively and empirically false and thus absurd.

To repeat: Does Abigail know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life, culpable for her sentence of 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether she can never remove and public sex-offender registration. And so, too, now and in the past and future, he women above and far too many others whose lives have been and will be blighted or destroyed by modern feminism and CSA victimology.

 

Does Abigail Know that Feminism is Culpable, Seminally and Predominantly, for Destroying her Life?

03 Tuesday Mar 2020

Posted by in "sex-offender treatment", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, feminism, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

As noted previously, in a few posts, Abigail was prohibited from receiving and reading a letter and articles I sent to the Huron Valley Correctional Facility. To the authorities, my words were a “threat to security, good order, or discipline.”

Did the left-feminist ideologues and totalitarians who rule the prison and the lives of inmates believe that Abigail would have gone berserk and attacked the guards and/or other inmates, perhaps inciting a riot or mass revolt, had she been allowed to read my heterodox and “politically-incorrect” arguments and contentions? Or simply that they would have vitiated the efficacy of her “sex-offender treatment”?

So, in effect, I’m a victim of censorship, denied the right to correspond with Abigail and ask her many questions about her intrigue with a 15-year-old student and biological man, her phantasmal and theoretical “victim” whom she claims forced himself on her three times and “controlled her life” by threats and manipulation; her arrest, prosecution, trial, why she rejected the plea-bargains, her life in jail and prison; her life, especially as an adult, before it was shattered, forever and needlessly, by the criminal injustice system; her ideals, values, and opinions on various issues and subjects: e.g., what did she think of Mary Letourneau and her affair with a student and her sentence of 8-years in jail and prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration. What did she think of such laws and penalties, to the extent that she was aware of them, before they ruined her life?

Like most educated women, the overwhelming majority, alas,, I presume that Abigail is a left-liberal, probably more liberal than extreme/radical left, though I could be wrong. And, moreover, that she defines and thinks of herself as a feminist, however defined, broadly or narrowly, vaguely or precisely, accurately or inaccurately. If so, does she know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life.

In pre-feminist America, including the 1960s, the decade of  the “sexual revolution,” “statutory rape” laws didn’t even apply to women in most jurisdictions. And if they did so apply to women in some states or if women who had sex with young men under age 16 or 18 were guilty of a “moral’s offense,” however defined, how many women were arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to jail or prison for such offenses? (Read my blog-post on Kirk Douglas) And how many were sentenced to 8-25 years in prison, like Abigail, or 6-15 years, like Kathryn Ronk, or enslaved for 8-years, like Mary Letourneau; or 40-years, like Shannon Schmeider, with a chance for parole after “only” 20 years; or life with a chance for parole after “only” 10-years, apparently, like Michelle Taylor; or 20-years with no chance for parole, like Brittany Zamora, and who knows how many other women, teachers and non-teachers, who received similar prison sentences. In pre-feminist America, was there even one woman who received such a draconian sentence for having a love affair or mere tryst with a biological man under age 18?

And even if incarcerated, none of them, upon their release, were subjected to years of quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision, mandatory “sex-offender treatment,” electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle tether/”bracelet,” and registration for life or at least 20-30 years as uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminals, their mug-shots, names, and addresses on the internet for all to see and all that that entails in regard to danger and mortification.

None of these laws and policies, these draconian/Orwellian punishments, inflicted on Abigail and myriads of other women for no exigent and practical reasons, would exist if not for feminism. Beginning in the early 1970s, in deference to feminism and the anti-rape movement which began, publicly and officially, in 1971 with the New York radical feminist rape conference, sex crime laws were revamped. State legislators, overwhelmingly male, enacted and imposed laws written by feminist lawyers.

De facto consensual sex between adults and young men and women under age 16 or 18, depending on the age of consent in each jurisdiction, was now a “gender-neutral” crime that applied equally to women and was equated or conflated under the law with violent-forcible rape and the rape and/or molestation of prepubescent children. And women were now defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” for allowing biological men under age 16 or even 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships

Most infamously, Mary Letourneau was convicted of “child rape” under Washington law, and sentenced to almost a decade in jail and prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration, albeit she didn’t rape her “victim,” obviously, nor did she use violence/force or threats of same to compel his submission, nor was she guilty of molesting a prepubescent child. Her victim” was the aggressor and initiator who forced himself on her the first time they had intercourse. (Read my articles and blog-posts on her case for more details and analysis.)

Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall was convicted of “sexual assault of a child,” which implies that she was guilty of violence/force or threats of same in sexually abusing and violating a helpless and innocent  prepubescent boy, and sentenced to 4-years in prison and a lifetime of sex-offender registration -when, in fact, she was the victim of abuse and her “victim” was the abuser and victimizer. He was not a child, biologically, but a man in size and sexuality, a delinquent and criminal of 15 who, as her student, constantly harassed and implored her for sex at school and in her classroom, molested and kissed her against her will, and finally raped her when she visited him at home on school business, apparently when no one else was present. She didn’t report the rape lest he “go to prison and become more of a delinquent.” Exploiting her altruism and compassion, not only misguided and foolish but ill-deserved and self-destructive, he manipulated and bullied her into having sex with him in an intrigue she didn’t know how to “end without hurting him,” resulting to her arrest and all that followed,

The real criminal, sexually and otherwise, was not punished, and who knows how many crimes he committed before he raped and molested Cassandra, and who knows how manyy crimes he’s committed thereafter. Did he rape any more women or adolescent girls, or even murder someone, like the “victim” of Melissa Bittner, who was convicted of
“sexual assault” and sentenced to prison and much else because she was sexually assaulted by a 16-year-old delinquent. (See the posts on her case for more details.)

Ironically and paradoxically, such iniquities and outrages and travesties, inflicted even on women who were raped and molested by their de jure “victims” but still charged with and convicted of felony sex offenses, and the draconian-Orwellian sentences, are inconceivable apart from feminism and the anti-rape movement and CSA victimology.

CSA victimology and it’s tenets and dogmas and the resultant mass-hysteria, psychosis, moral panics, witch-hunts, and imprisonment and persecution of myriads of men and women who were/are either innocent or guilty of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibita felonies, overwhelmingly first-offenders who, even if not innocent, were/are not violent and dangerous, people who’ve never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in their lives and almost surely never will and are not a “threat to society or to anyone nor even a “danger to reoffend” by having sex with another biological man or woman under statutory age – this madness and reign of terror is inconceivable apart from feminist ideology and it’s decades-long jihad against sexual victimization, real and imagined.

Nor would adult women who have sex with young men under statutory age be absurdly defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” if not for feminism and the myth and premise that men and women and boys and girls are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy and the conflation of prepubescent boys and girls with pubescent male and female adolescents. And even the inescapable differences in anatomy and their relevance to and importance in sexual postures and possibilities are denied and trivialized as irrelevant and insignificant by feminists and other leftists and egalitarians (most fanatically, obsessively, and viciously by MRA, the misogynist crazies and liars of the soi-disant “men’s movement”) who define and vilify adult women as “rapists” for allowing biological men under age 16 or even 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships  “sex-equality dogma taken to lunatic extremes,” to quote John Derbyshire, and the only crime in which the “victim” enjoys the actus reus (i.e. the sex) more than the woman who “rapes” and/or “molests” and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his phantasmal and theoretical “victimization.” Nor would young men under age 16 or even 18 who consent to or initiate sex with adult women be defined as “victims” of “rape” and CSA who are “traumatized” and “scarred for life.”

Abigail was convicted of “criminal sexual misdonduct,” a vague term, legally and empircally, under which all sorts of sex-acts that are now crimes, nearly always felonies, are subsumed: everything from violent-forcible rape, iinclding the most sadistic, brutal, vicious rapes and gang-rapes, truly “heinous” crimes that often also involve aggravated assault, kidnapping, “false imprisonment,” home invasions, torture, mutilation, and murder; to the molestation of prepubescent children; to factually consensual sex between adults and young men and women under statutory age, including women who are convicted of felonies for having sex with biological men under age 16 or 18 (or even 18-year-olds if the women is a teacher or tutor like Abigail and the “victim” is a student under her authority.

In contrast, legally and empirically, “statutory rape” is not a vaguely defined criminal offense. It defines, clearly and accurately, a specific and objective act. The modifying “statutory” denotes an absence of violent/force or threats of same to compel the submission of the “victim” -i.e., it reveals that the sex was consensual, factually as opposed to legally- while “rape” signifies the reality of penile-vaginal penetration, an act which only males can perpetrate. Thus even to define the women above as “statutory rapists” and their “crimes” as “statutory rape” is objectively and empirically false and thus absurd.

To repeat: Does Abigail know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life, culpable for her sentence of 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether she can never remove and public sex-offender registration. And so, too, now and in the past and future, he women above and far too many others whose lives have been and will be blighted or destroyed by modern feminism and CSA victimology.

 

Does Abigail Know that Feminism is Culpable, Seminally and Predominantly, for Destroying her Life?

28 Saturday Jul 2018

Posted by in "sex-offender treatment", Abigail Simon, Abigail Simon sentence, criminal sentences, CSA victimology, feminism, sex offender registry, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

As noted previously, in a few posts, Abigail was prohibited from receiving and reading a letter and articles I sent to the Huron Valley Correctional Facility. To the authorities, my words were a “threat to security, good order, or discipline.”

Did the left-feminist ideologues and totalitarians who rule the prison and the lives of inmates believe that Abigail would have gone berserk and attacked the guards and/or other inmates, perhaps inciting a riot or mass revolt, had she been allowed to read my heterodox and “politically-incorrect” arguments and contentions. Or simply that they would have vitiated the efficacy of her “sex-offender treatment.”

So, in effect, I’m a victim of censorship, denied the right to correspond with Abigail and ask her many questions about her intrigue with a 15-year-old student and biological man, her phantasmal and theoretical “victim” whom she claims forced himself on her three times and “controlled her life” by threats and manipulation; her arrest, prosecution, trial, why she rejected the plea-bargains, her life in jail and prison; her life, especially as an adult, before it was shattered, forever and needlessly, by the criminal justice system; her ideals, values, and opinions on various issues and subjects: e.g., what did she think of Mary Letourneau and her affair with a student and her sentence of 8-years in jail and prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration. What did she think of such laws and penalties, to the extent that she was aware of them, before they ruined her life?

Like most educated women, the overwhelming majority, alas,, I presume that Abigail is a left-liberal, probably more liberal than extreme/radical left, though I could be wrong. And, moreover, that she defines and thinks of herself as a feminist, however defined, broadly or narrowly, vaguely or precisely, accurately or inaccurately. If so, does she know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life.

In pre-feminist America, including the 1960s, the decade of  the “sexual revolution,” “statutory rape” laws didn’t even apply to women in most jurisdictions. And if they did so apply to women in some states or if women who had sex with young men under age 16 or 18 were guilty of a “moral’s offense,” however defined, how many women were arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to jail or prison for such offenses? (Read my blog-post on Kirk Douglas) And how many were sentenced to 8-25 years in prison, like Abigail, or 6-15 years, like Kathryn Ronk, or enslaved for 8-years, like Mary Letourneau; or 40-years, like Shannon Schmeider, with a chance for parole after “only” 20 years; or life with a chance for parole after “only” 10-years, apparently, like Michelle Taylor; or 20-years with no chance for parole, like Brittany Zamora, and who knows how many other women, teachers and non-teachers, who received similar prison sentences. In pre-feminist America, was there even one woman who received such a draconian sentence for having a love affair or mere tryst with a biological man under age 18?

And even if incarcerated, none of them, upon their release, were subjected to years of quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision, mandatory “sex-offender treatment,” electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle tether/”bracelet,” and registration for life or at least 20-30 years as uniquely dangerous and degenerate criminals, their mug-shots, names, and addresses on the internet for all to see and all that that entails in regard to danger and mortification.

None of these laws and policies, these draconian/Orwellian punishments, inflicted on Abigail and myriads of other women for no exigent and practical reasons, would exist if not for feminism. Beginning in the early 1970s, in deference to feminism and the anti-rape movement which began, publicly and officially, in 1971 with the New York radical feminist rape conference, sex crime laws were revamped. State legislators, overwhelmingly male, enacted and imposed laws written by feminist lawyers.

De facto consensual sex between adults and young men and women under age 16 or 18, depending on the age of consent in each jurisdiction, was now a “gender-neutral” crime that applied equally to women and was equated or conflated under the law with violent-forcible rape and the rape and/or molestation of prepubescent children. And women were now defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” for allowing biological men under age 16 or even 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships

Most infamously, Mary Letourneau was convicted of “child rape” under Washington law, and sentenced to almost a decade in prison and a lifetime of public sex-offender registration, albeit she didn’t rape her “victim,” obviously, nor did she use violence/force or threats of same to compel his submission, nor was she guilty of molesting a prepubescent child. Her victim” was the aggressor and initiator who forced himself on her the first time they had intercourse. (Read my articles and blog-posts on her case for more details and analysis.)

Cassandra Sorenson-Grohall was convicted of “sexual assault of a child,” which implies that she was guilty of violence/force or threats of same in sexually abusing and violating a helpless and innocent  prepubescent boy, and sentenced to 4-years in prison and a lifetime of sex-offender registration -when, in fact, she was the victim of abuse and her “victim” was the abuser and victimizer. He was not a child, biologically, but a man in size and sexuality, a delinquent and criminal of 15 who, as her student, constantly harassed and implored her for sex at school and in her classroom, molested and kissed her against her will, and finally raped her when she visited him at home on school business, apparently when no one else was present. She didn’t report the rape lest he “go to prison and become more of a delinquent.” Exploiting her altruism and compassion, not only misguided and foolish but ill-deserved and self-destructive, he manipulated and bullied her into having sex with him in an intrigue she didn’t know how to “end without hurting him,” resulting to her arrest and all that followed,

The real criminal, sexually and otherwise, was not punished, and who knows how many crimes he committed before he raped and molested Cassandra, and who knows how manyy crimes he’s committed thereafter. Did he rape any more women or adolescent girls, or even murder someone, like the “victim” of Melissa Bittner, who was convicted of
“sexual assault” and sentenced to prison and much else because she was sexually assaulted by a 16-year-old delinquent. (See the posts on her case for more details.)

Ironically and paradoxically, such iniquities and outrages and travesties, inflicted even on women who were raped and molested by their de jure “victims” but still charged with and convicted of felony sex offenses, and the draconian-Orwellian sentences, are inconceivable apart from feminism and the anti-rape movement and CSA victimology.

CSA victimology and it’s tenets and dogmas and the resultant mass-hysteria, psychosis, moral panics, witch-hunts, and imprisonment and persecution of myriads of men and women who were/are either innocent or guilty of nonviolent and victimless and mala prohibita felonies, overwhelmingly first-offenders who, even if not innocent, were/are not violent and dangerous, people who’ve never committed a violent or other mala in se crime in their lives and almost surely never will and are not a “threat to society or to anyone nor even a “danger to reoffend” by having sex with another biological man or woman under statutory age – this madness and reign of terror is inconceivable apart from feminist ideology and it’s decades-long jihad against sexual victimization, real and imagined.

Nor would adult women who have sex with young men under statutory age be absurdly defined and vilified as “rapists” and “pedophiles” if not for feminism and the myth and premise that men and women and boys and girls are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy and the conflation of prepubescent boys and girls with pubescent male and female adolescents. And even the inescapable differences in anatomy and their relevance to and importance in sexual postures and possibilities are denied and trivialized as irrelevant and insignificant by feminists and others (most fanatically, obsessively, and viciously by MRA, the misogynist crazies and liars of the soi-disant “men’s movement”) who define and vilify adult women as “rapists” for allowing biological men under age 16 or even 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships  “sex-equality dogma taken to lunatic extremes,” to quote John Derbyshire, and the only crime in which the “victim” enjoys the actus reus (i.e. the sex) more than the woman who “rapes” and/or “molests” and is often if not usually the aggressor and initiator of his phantasmal and theoretical “victimization.” Nor would young men under age 16 or even 18 who consent to or initiate sex with adult women be defined as “victims” of “rape” and CSA who are “traumatized” and “scarred for life.”

Abigail was convicted of “criminal sexual misdonduct,” a vague term, legally and empircally, under which all sorts of sex-acts that are now crimes, nearly always felonies, are subsumed: everything from violent-forcible rape, iinclding the most sadistic, brutal, vicious rapes and gang-rapes, truly “heinous” crimes that often also involve aggravated assault, kidnapping, “false imprisonment,” home invasions, torture, mutilation, and murder; to the molestation of prepubescent children; to factually consensual sex between adults and young men and women under statutory age, including women who are convicted of felonies for having sex with biological men under age 16 or 18 (or even 18-year-olds if the women is a teacher or tutor like Abigail and the “victim” is a student under her authority.

In contrast, legally and empirically, “statutory rape” is not a vaguely defined criminal offense. It defines, clearly and accurately, a specific and objective act. The modifying “statutory” denotes an absence of violent/force or threats of same to compel the submission of the “victim” -i.e., it reveals that the sex was consensual, factually as opposed to legally- while “rape” signifies the reality of penile-vaginal penetration, an act which only males can perpetrate. Thus even to define the women above as “statutory rapists” and their “crimes” as “statutory rape” is objectively and empirically false and thus absurd.

To repeat: Does Abigail know that feminism is culpable, seminally and predominantly, for destroying her life, culpable for her sentence of 8-25 years in prison and a lifetime of electronic parole-monitoring with an ankle-tether she can never remove and public sex-offender registration. And so, too, now and in the past and future, he women above and far too many others whose lives have been and will be blighted or destroyed by modern feminism and CSA victimology.

 

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

27 Monday Nov 2017

Posted by in "anarcho-tyranny", "sex-offender treatment", "traumatization", age of consent, plea-bargain, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women sex offenders

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

“Does the Punishment Fit the Crime? ” So asks 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 want 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 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 was no physical evidence, obviously, nor any neutral witnesses.

According to some accounts, Taylor 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, and that of MRAs, the misogynist lunatics of the soi-disant “men’s rights movement,” and all those they’ve brainwashed, biological men under age 16 or 18 (and even “adults” of 18 if the woman is a teacher or tutor like Abigail Simon) are too impotent and 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. But in this situation, obviously, a 13-year-old male was fully capable of saying “no” and resisting a woman’s advances and importunities, probably because she was overweight, unattractive, and sloppy drunk.

“A traumatic event” and “the child has needed and continues to receive therapy.” To MRAs and CSA victimologists, all such “events” -whether love affairs or trysts or even a single act of “sexual contact”- are “non-consensual”  and coercive by definition and “traumatic” for the “child” and “victim” irrespective of the facts and circumstances. The young men are “victims” of “rape” and CSA even if they were the aggressors and initiators and even if they raped and/or molested their “victimizers.’ And they’re devastated and “traumatized”  and must be subjected to months or even years of psycho-therapy, even if they claim to have enjoyed the sex, whether coitus or fellatio or simply kissing and fondling and “sexual contact,” because they did enjoy it many or  or a few times or just once , usually far more than the women who “raped” and “molested” them, and thus are not aware of being “traumatized” because, in fact as opposed to fantasy,  they were and are not “traumatized.”

In reality, any “trauma” he suffered was a corollary of Nevada’s draconian sex-crime laws, the criminal justice system, the trial, cross-examination, the media coverage, and mandatory psycho-therapy which in theory can only cure or mollify his “trauma” by persuading him that he was “traumatized” and “scarred for life” by touching a woman breast while she was wearing a bra, not by the act of 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: aggravated assaults, robbery, violent/forcible rapes, gang shootings, home invasions, murder, etc. And I’m sure that over 90% of the males who commit such felonies are recidivists, a majority  of whom should have been in prison rather than free to commit more violent and mala in se felonies. And what is the average time-served in jail or prison for adult men who have sex with underage teenagers?

And are men guilty of a felony with a mandatory sentence of life in prison if convicted at trial of 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 defined and vilified as “rapists” for engaging in coitus with biological men under statutory age even though they don’t have penises with which to penetrate and impregnate their “victims.”

The public defender noted that the woman was wearing a bra when she allegedly “forced” the young man to touch her breast. I assume that she would have received a life sentence if she was wearing not only a bra but also a blouse or sweater or winter coat when she allegedly “forced” him to touch her breast.

Finally, if a young man of 13 or 14 or 15  (or even 16 or 17 in states in which the generic age of consent is 17 or 18 rather than 16) is “traumatized” by touching an adult woman’s breast while she’s fully clothed or wearing a bra, then what of infants who suck their mother’s nipples every day during months of breast-feeding? Should breast-feeding be criminalized, as a felony, at least if the mother claims that she enjoys the sensations of her baby sucking her nipples and finds it at least mildly erotic? Or in all instances, with all the penalties that are inflicted on adult women who have affairs or trysts or engage in a single act of sexual contact with biological men under statutory age?

“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.

Kathryn Ronk: Another Teacher Crucified

23 Saturday Jul 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, CSA victimology, Kathryn Ronk, plea-bargain, sex offender registry, statutory rape, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

In March of 2015 in Oakland County, Michigan, Kathryn Ronk was sentenced to 6-15 years in prison for having sex with a 15-year-old male student. Initially charged with 5-counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, like Abigail Simon, with a maximum sentence of 25-years to life in prison and a mandatory minimum of 8-25 years, she plad guilty to 2 counts of third-degree CSC and was thus sentenced to “only” 6-15 years in prison in a country in which, during the 1990s, the average time-served for murder was less than 6-years and the average time-served for all violent felonies was approximately 4-years. And now, as opposed to the 1990s, the decade when the U>S. began to “get tough on crime’:

Washington– More that half (57 percent) of violent offenders who were released from state prison in 2016 served less than three years before their release, the Bureau of Justice Statistics announced today. About 1 in 25 violent offenders served 30 years or more before their release.

The average time an offender served in state prison in 2016, from the date of admission to initial release, was 2.6 years. The medium amount of time served…was 1-3 years. Persons serving less than one year in state prison made up 40 percent of first releases in 2016…Based on 3016 release data, the average time served before initial release by state prisoners who were sentenced for a violent offense was 4.7 years and the medium time was 2-4 years…

And unlike Kathryn Ronk, a first-offender convicted of a nonviolent and victimless and malum probibitum felony, I’m certain that at least 90% of these violent offenders were recidivist male criminals, most of them with histories of violence and criminality beginning at age 13 or 14 or 15.

And when she’s released from prison after “only” 6 or 8 or 10 years (?), she’ll be subjected to all the post/extra incarceration punishments, including registration for life or at least 20-30 years as a uniquely vile and execrable criminal, theoretically more dangerous and likely to commit violent and mala in se crimes than myriads of brutes and savages who’ve committed dozens and scores of felonies but have never been convicted of a sexual offense albeit most of them have raped or gang-raped men in jails and prisons and/or women (including underage adolescent girls) in the free world.

But, according to Michigan Sex Crime Attorneys, she’s a “very lucky lady indeed:”

Because Ronk, a former Spanish teacher at a Catholic High School, was accused of having sex with her student in a number of places, the crimes were charged in two separate counties….As a result, although she has already been sentenced Oakland County, her sentence in Macomb County is only now coming around.

But in this regard, Ms. Ronk is a very lucky lady indeed. After pleading guilty to a single charge of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in Macomb Couty, Circuit Court Judge Mary Chrzanowski sentenced Ronk to another 6 to 15 years in prison. But what makes this good news instead of bad, is the fact that the judge ordered the sentences served concurrently.

This is a great turn of events for Ronk who, at age 30, may spend as little as six years behind bars. What this means is that she, unlike many other teachers convicted of student-related CSC crimes, has a chance at getting out of prison with enough time to have a chance at life again. (sexcrimeattorneys.com., 7-12-2015.)

(Ponder the absurdity: if an adult women and a young man under age 16 have sex twice, intercourse and/or fellatio in the bedroom and “sexual contact” in the living room, and one room is in one county and the other room in another jurisdiction, she can be prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced in both jurisdictions. And if she pleads guilty to third-degree criminal sexual conduct, as did Mrs. Ronk, who is married, incidentally, she might have to serve two sentences of 6-15 years in prison if the second judge to sentence her doesn’t rule that the sentences be served concurrently.

Yes, what luck! “As little as 6 years behind bars” and then a lifetime of at least 20-30 years of draconian/Orwellian persecution! By this reasoning, Abigail Simon is also “very lucky,” since she has a chance of serving “only” 8-years in prison and thus the good luck and blessing of “having a chance at life again.”! How grateful they should be for the leniency they’ve been afforded!

To repeat: in a sane and just and rational country, neither woman would have even been charged with a crime but simply punished, non-criminally, by dismissal and revocation of their licenses and expulsion from the profession. Or, at worst, charged with a misdemeanor and, if convicted, sentenced to 3-6 months of probation and 50-100 hours of community service. And perhaps also fined modestly. I would aruge that neither woman should have been sentenced, if guilty of a  misdemeanor, to even  a  day in jail much less 6 or 8 years in prison, if “lucky,” and possibly much longer! Nor to sex-offender treatment, quasi-totalitarian surveillance, electronic parole-monitory with an ankle=tether/”bracelet,” and public sex-offender registration.

In Michigan, apparently, even most lawyers who defend those accused of sex-crimes are CSA victimologists, dogmatists who believe the laws are sane and just and rational, and that sentences of 6-15 years or 8-25 years in prison and all the other penalties are not at all excessive and draconian for first-offenders convicted of nonviolent and victimless and malum prohibita crimes that are legal acts in dozens of other nations, including European countries, punishment that is “cruel and unusual”for women who’ve never committed a violent or other malum in se crime in their lives and never will and are 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.

Abigail is Sued by Her “Victim”

22 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, CSA victimology, lawsuit, Uncategorized, women as "pedophiles" and "child molesters", women as rapists, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The insanity continues. The State of Michigan and it’s laws and courts and judges and lawyers simply can’t torture and torment this harmless woman enough, a woman who claims that the “victim” who is now an adult and is suing her was the aggressor in their intrigue and forced himself on her. For his mother, hysterical and vindictive, who probably initiated the lawsuit after finding out that Abigail would be re-sentenced due to a Michigan Supreme Court ruling, years in prison, at least, and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution, is not vengeance and punishment enough. I quote from an online article entitled “Victim Sues Abigail Simon, Diocese of GR,” Dec. 2, 2015, that includes a large photo of the mugshot that is featured in Michigan’s and national sex offender registries:

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. -The victim of Abigail Simon has filed a lawsuit against his former tutor, the Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids, Grand Rapid Catholic Schools and three staff members…The lawsuit, filed in Kent County 17th Circuit Court Nov. 20, accuses Simon of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress…The victim, who is not being named because he is the victim of a sex crime, also claims in his lawsuit that in February 2013 Abigail Simon “also engaged in inappropriate sexual and physical contact with other male students at Catholic Central and/or Grand Rapids West Catholic High School.”…The suit claims that the teachers and diocese knew of Simon’s sexual behavior toward underage male students in early 2013 and no one took action to stop the behavior. (woodtv.com/2015/12/02.)

“Battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress” for transporting a biological man and volcano of testosterone to sexual paradise in a factually consensual relationship that the definitional “victim” probably initiated, and that’s assuming she’s lying about his raping and terrorizing her. “Battery” denotes violence. If there was any violence, literally defined, in this relationship, it was committed by the “victim” against Abigail if she’s telling the truth about his being the aggressor in their intrigue and forcing himself on her.

Unsurprisingly, the article offers no specific and concrete facts as to exactly what is meant by “inappropriate sexual and physical contact with other male students” and “Simon’s sexual behavior toward underage male students” -but this vagueness and refusal to give us details implies that she had affairs and engaged in acts of coitus and fellatio and who knows what else with other male students at two different high schools.

If most or all of this is true, whatever it means exactly, it surely would have been discovered in full or largely during the investigation of her liaison with the football star.The SVU detectives and prosecutors must have interviewed dozens of students and teachers and other people at length and perused all of Abigail’s emails and text-messages during an exhaustive and thorough investigation.

If most or all of this is true, she would have been charged with who knows how many more felonies against who knows how many more “victims,” and there would have been dozens of witnesses to corroborate the accusations of the “victims.” Once again, no facts, concrete and specific much less thoroughness, from the media. But if she had engaged in acts of coitus and fellatio or even kissing and the fondling of genitals and breasts while fully clothed and other acts of “sexual contact” as opposed to “intercourse,” she would have been charged with who knows how many “counts” of “first-degree criminal sexual conduct” against who knows how many more “underage male students.”

And if she had even tried to seduce or initiate sex with other male students, or even engaged in explicit sexual banter and flirting at school and/or initiated and responded to texts and emails that were erotic or suggestive in nature with other male students, she would have been charged with who knows how many counts of “accosting a minor for immoral purposes,” a felony under Michigan law, against who knows how many “victims.”

Given all this evidence, all these “victims” and other witnesses, she obviously would not have rejected many or even one plea-bargain. She would have had no choice but to plead guilty. There would have been no trial.

Why Did She Say He Raped her Three Times?

21 Sunday Feb 2016

Posted by in Abigail Simon, appeal, Uncategorized, women sex offenders

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

And why did she say he forced himself on her three times, twice in her apartment, and once in her car, apparently. (Once again, no concrete details, no specificity much less thoroughness, not in the news or in any article. And I haven’t read the trial transcript, and almost surely will never do so or talk to or correspond with anyone who attended the trial.) If she was and is lying, why didn’t she say he raped her once? Or twice, first in her apartment, and then in her car, which would have made her story more plausible. I assume there was and is no evidence (DNA, semen, witnesses, texts and emails) confirming beyond a doubt that they had sex on these three occasions. If there was such evidence, conclusive and incontrovertible, that would explain why she claimed he forced himself on her three times. But if not, why would she claim he raped her three times rather than once or twice?

And if there was evidence, definitive and irrefutable, that they had sex 6 or 7 or 8 times, she would have to claim that he raped her 6 or 7 or 8 times. And to have so told the police and prosecutors and testified at trial and preliminary hearings. If so, she would have had no choice but to have plead guilty.

And does she strike one as the kind of woman who’d fall “madly in love” with a 6’3″, 220 lb. “jock” and football star, whether 15 or 20 or 25?

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?