Twenty Years In Prison For Having Sex With His Wife

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/feb06/06-02-08.html ^ | 2 8 06 | Phyllis Schlafly

[The Red Zone]

I have sued more than once, and I had to really watch what was happening with the attorneys because there were routes of attack that I could not stomach doing being suggested by the lawyers and sometimes seemingly going on of their own accord. In spite of the scruples I insisted on, they resulted in satisfactory settlements, as well as lawyers who rolled their eyes at me something strange.

[Fruitbat]

Yeah, when you need a lawyer for some reason I hope you tell him that.

Too bad I'm not stupid, eh! ; )

Secondly, I sure as hell hope that I never need a lawyer for anything serious. I've had to rely on them in the past and they can't even tell the truth. Four witnesses against him and he lied to us, his clients, through his teeth.

Oh yeah, this guy was a "good christian lawyer" too. I have yet to meet an attorney that is more concerned with the truth and facts than he is with his money and his billing.

This just in, there's a reason for all of the generalizations regarding attorneys. Hint: Congress is full of 'em! ; )

[Fruitbat]

And before you come back with some schtick about him "making a living," spare me.

[SittinYonder]

Sorry, imo that could also be a brain washed child who has grown up to believe the lies her mother told. Are we really to believe the child WATCHED the mother being raped, but still goes to visit her father in jail?

I posted the "daughter's" version not because I agree or disagree but just as information FWIW. And it may not be worth anything. While she claims to be the daughter, there's certainly no proof that she is. The other "daughter" also posted on that forum.

My other comment about that is she complained largely about drug abuse. The man isn't in prison for abusing drugs.

20 years in prison for a case that appears to have enormous holes in it where judges dismiss appeals based on technicalities where the man may or may not have been represented at trial ... well, certainly this whole thing is curious.

[tx_eggman]

There are some women in the world that appreciate a man, as far as American women you should make them beg for sex in a public place or get a notarized statment stating all is consensual.

I get the feeling you've spent a lot of time with these guys:

[Skooz]

Wow. You ought to write for Lifetime.

[Binkmeister]

One must make an effort in order to achieve justice. Just throwing up the towel and saying the Constitution didn't apply 20 years ago in the same way, or the old interpretation must stand if the injustice is 20 years old is simply caving in to cynicism.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

God gave you an opposable thumb for those eventualities.

Never tried to thumb it. Sounds kinky.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

The most damning appears to be tape marks on the victims face.

Posting without reading, or reading without comprehension, can and should lead to embarrassment.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

A wife does not relinquish her right to say "no" the moment she says "I do".......

I will say to you as I said to another, posting without reading or reading without comprehension can and should lead to embarrassment.

[Tokra]

Another reason to make one skeptical about the state of MI and her liberal people

Don't assume were all liberals here - actually only a very few counties are:

[Eva]

I think that the wife needs to be put in prison. Maybe they should do a DNA on the child just to see if the story has a ring of truth.

[Binkmeister]

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 490 (2000): "Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt". So, my question is, what justified the rather long sentence, in excess of the range? If the judge found facts, he violated the Constitution. Apprendi and Blakely were cases based on crimes which occured may years ago. This law should be applicable, right?

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Law enforcement people get on tears about some things, and as they spend all of their time dealing with crooks, they tend to assume that everyone is a crook. It is best to stay away from them.

Yep, the biggest liars are the guilty so it is easy for them to just assume you are both.

I used to be, and still am to some extent, a strong supporter of LE and prosecutors. Having been railroaded on some penny ante stuff, traffic tickets, and being familiar with some other cases I was not involved in, I know that cops do lie and prosecutors do aid and abet them. That degrades their reputations for all of us.

As you said, stay away. When you can't, be polite and don't antagonize. That is not fool proof but it is still the best.

[chris1]

I take you to be a biased person without any ability to hear anything other than yourself talk.

Why don't you see my webpage and see whatmy clients say about me and ask if that many people could be worng, or just that you had a bad experience.

We are not all like the caricutaure you would like to think is the "truth"

Do you think there are not dishonest doctors and dentists simply because they take a different oath??????

Do you think all plumbers and masons are honest???

[gogeo]

Any man who would consent to marriage under present laws, needs to be locked up.

Any man who does, risks it.

[Hildy]

What are you saying, that a woman must "obey" her husband and have sex with him whenever he wants? ROLFMAO!!!

[gogeo]

Absent any evidence of a crime, why was this man even brought to trial, let alone prosecuted for it? If one believes this story hook, line, and sinker, this man was convicted of rape on nothing but his wife's word. Nothing but. How in the world can that possibly be the case?

Think back. Surely you remember the atmosphere at the time, the campaigns about awareness about spousal abuse and child abuse? Due process went out the window. There's cases in Washington State, Wenatchee; Janet Reno made her career on cases now considered to be bogus. The daycare abuse cases. Remember "Women/children wouldn't lie?"

[Senator Bedfellow]

"Let justice be done though the heavens fall" will make for a rather short brief. The law is how we seek justice, and for the moment, the law does not apply Blakely or Apprendi retroactively, and in fact the Sixth Circuit has already explicitly ruled that Apprendi is not retroactive.