So let's get this straight. She blackmails him for $10K, and the news station won't name her because she is a victim of sexual assault? The only good part of this, is that the accused rapist isn't named either.
Extortionist in rape allegation goes to trial.
FARMINGTON -- A woman accused of blackmailing a man at Hill Air Force Base over a rape allegation will go on trial next month.
The 31-year-old woman appeared in 2nd District Court on Monday where she was expected to tae a plea deal. However, her attorney announced that she would like to take the case to trial.
Judge Michael Allphin scheduled a one-day bench trial beginning July 14.
The case is complicated, with the woman charged with second-degree felony theft by extortion.
Her attorney said she is the victim of a rape and filed a police report in Seattle. Davis County prosecutors said any rape investigation has no influence on their case against her.
KSL does not generally name alleged victims of a sexual assault.
Court documents say the woman blackmailed the man out of nearly $50,000 by saying she would not report the alleged sexual assault to military authorities in exchange for the money.
The man initially paid, court documents say, but went to police when she asked for another $5,000.
The woman has insisted she is innocent, telling KSL NewsRadio at her last court appearance the allegations are "a false charge."
Thanks to one of our readers for the story.
Link:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6824646
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
12-year-old seriously injures boy with bookbag full of rocks; says she was sexually harassed
http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_061609WAB_boy-struck-backpack-rocks-KS.89400080.html
Japan: Men-only train cars sought in groping fears
(more sexual assault hysteria?)
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE55G4VP20090617
http://newsfromrussia.com/russia/history/17-06-2009/107791-moscow_metro-0
Some claims by man exonerated in rape can go forward
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09167/977742-100.stm
Offtpic: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/decline-of-the-american-male.html?csp=34
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/17/a-critical-role-for-fathers/?feat=home_columns
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/06/17/barbara-kay-height-restrictions-at-the-sperm-bank.aspx
"When she cries rape"
http://www.wethemen.us/news/media/589-when-she-cries-rape.html
You are welcome. I encourage everyone to contribute any/all news reports concerning fale rape,sexual assault and other false accusation.
Is the U.S. Military waking up to the fact that false accusations of sexual crimes are being made in it's very ranks?
that should be "against the members of its' ranks. This woman committed, in my honest opinion, treason.
Justices Reject Inmate Right to DNA Tests
“It’s unquestionable that some people in some states who are factually innocent will not get DNA testing and will languish in prison,” Mr. Neufeld said. “Some of them will die in prison.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us/19scotus.html?_r=2&hp
Think of the implications
I thought the above reports might interest a few.
This vile, nasty women knows that if she takes it to a modern jury trial, she will have huge leverage.
WHY???..because the average public has been fed faulty and inflammatory misinformation about rape, and false rape accusations, for the last 30 years.
The new gender feminist / law enforcement misinformation "Alliance", is a serious perversion of the course of justice, and future historians will asks...How did a society allow a state and federally funded legal system to "manufacture statistics"...and let these agencies then cash in these ???statistics??? for federal VAWA dollars??
Isn't this a basis ??CONFLICT OF INTEREST??..between the legal system, and objective justice for American citizens??
Justices Reject Inmate Right to DNA Tests
“It’s unquestionable that some people in some states who are factually innocent will not get DNA testing and will languish in prison,” Mr. Neufeld said. “Some of them will die in prison.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/us/19scotus.html?_r=2&hp
Think of the implications
Anthony Cole already did. Mr. Neufeld is a little behind on his assertion that this will happen. It already has.
See new post about the Supreme Court's decision -- just above this post.
If they can't get the crooks and false claims out of the military, maybe they should just get the women out? Same logic extends to the workplace. Unless fairness is actually pursued as a goal and women who make false claims punished as punitively as men who actually commit rape, a gender segregated society is the only plausible solution. Companies shouldn't have to bear the liability of real or falsified harassment suits.
Feminists have yet to realize what a disaster they have created. However,as long as it doesn't/hasn't affect them (yet),they will continue to ignore it or minimalize it.
Obviously this liar has no credibility. There is absolutely no reason to refer to this as anything but a false rape accusation.
Offtpic: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/decline-of-the-american-male.html?csp=34
I actually read that article when it was being discussed on Feministing.com. Yes, it's a feminist website. No, I don't consider myself a complete feminist. Do I agree with them on some things, yes, just like I agree with you all on some (or rather many) things. Feministing.com brings to light issues from around the world and here along with examining our society, just like you all do. I like to look at issues and social ideas from both sides in order to get the bigger picture.
ANYWAY...like I mentioned they discussed it. I just want to hear your thoughts on some of their comments. I think looking at the opposing side's view of something can be in a way enlightening and even strengthen your own arguements supporting your views.
While men in fact are losing jobs at a higher rate than women, what the author isn't taking into account is that not only are women paid less and generally have worse jobs than men, but are economically behind men in so many other ways. Dana Goldstein actually took this on last week in the American Prospect...
What bothers me the most is the author's implication that men are being "left behind" not really because of the recession, but as a sacrifice of women's progression: "Women have gained in the past century, while men have fallen behind."
It's one thing to talk seriously about how the recession has effected the many groups of people who are suffering from it (including so many men who have lost their jobs), but to use it as a way to push some post-patriarchal nonsense is just ridiculous.
I read the article a few times, I didn't think the author was necessarily saying that men are left behind as a sacrifice of women's progression and not really because of the recession.
In case you're wondering,here's that article by Dana Goldstein
An excerpt:
Historically, men suffer the majority of job losses during recessions, so policy-makers focus their efforts on getting men back to work. But when the economy picks up again, women typically do not share equally in the gains, in part because they aren't equally employed in high-paying fields. And unemployment isn't the only indicator of economic struggle. Women are one-third more likely than men to have sub-prime mortgages, nearly 60 percent of impoverished children are living in female-headed households, and the poverty rate is higher among women than it is among men of any race. Undergirding all that is the stubbornness of the pay gap between men and women, meaning that women still earn just 78 cents on the male dollar--even for the same work, with the same educational background and number of years on the job. Advocates say that given these disparities, it is actually women who are harder hit by the recession, despite more staggering joblessness among men.
What do you think?
Sorry this post is long, AGAIN.
Renee,
Women in professional jobs with equivalent experience and education in fact earn more than their male peers.
http://alphadominance.com/?p=1012
http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2009/06/why-the-gender-pay-gap-is-not-as-simple-as-women-being-discriminated-against.html
The reason women often pursue lower paying jobs is because they choose to:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3852
The feminist claptrap is mere propaganda, and that site clearly misstates the facts, plain and simple
Alphadominance,
Yeah I looked into the wage gap, and realize that it's more to it.
Mentioning this website in the same breath as feministing.com is ludicrous.
And to think you are getting anything much contributing to a 'balanced view' from the other site, is even more ludicrous.
You know, your ability to discriminate shit from shinola is really poor. Perhaps you should have been a newspaper columnist, dating advisor, or couples therapist?
"What do you think?"
"While men in fact are losing jobs at a higher rate than women, what the author isn't taking into account is that not only are women paid less and generally have worse jobs than men, but are economically behind men in so many other ways."
Women are paid less because they CHOOSE less strenuous jobs, with essentially 0% chance that they will die as a result of a workplace accident or from sheer exhaustion, that PAY less.
How is "accountant" or "teacher" a worse job than "ice fisherman" or "construction worker"? Please, tell me.
What in the hell does "economically behind men in so many other ways.",mean? I'm just going to assume that's femicrazy for "I FEEL discriminated against, therefore I am.".
"What bothers me the most is the author's implication that men are being "left behind" not really because of the recession, but as a sacrifice of women's progression: "Women have gained in the past century, while men have fallen behind.""
BINGO! Tell her what she's won,Johnny!
You can't give special privileges to women without men being disadvantaged, AND, if women are equal to men, then they don't need special privileges to begin with. See how that works?
"It's one thing to talk seriously about how the recession has effected the many groups of people who are suffering from it (including so many men who have lost their jobs), but to use it as a way to push some post-patriarchal nonsense is just ridiculous."
I'm going to attempt a rough feminist-to-English translation here:"It's one thing to talk seriously about how the recession has effected the many groups of people who are suffering from it (including *MOSTLY* men who have lost their jobs),but please shut up before anybody notices that thanks to affirmative action women will never have to suffer from it because employers are LEGALLY MANDATED to hire a certain percentage of women,but not white men."
In essence,the feminists have their heads up their asses wallowing in self-created victimhood status as usual.
They're fighting hard to try to hold onto this idea that "teh P4triarchy is opprezzing us!!!!111" even in the face of mountains of statistics,studies, and scientific facts that say otherwise. They've got pluck, I'll give them that.
Anyone who tries to claim that women are affected more than men by recessions that take jobs from MEN,or harmed more by wars that disproportionately kill MEN, or any other similar crap, is an idiot.
That's what I think.
Women and men, by social compact, have divided up the labors within the domestic and non-domestic sphere (do they REALLY think it was OUR idea to risk our necks hunting the wild bull while they stayed in the warm cave with the children?).
The women's movement starting in the late 19th century was only possible because the US economy began to grow, and then it exploded.
Still, most women avoid dangerous and manually diffiult jobs. The market ordains that the jobs women seek pay less because of supply and demand, not discrimination. Any company that could perform as well while paying it's workers 23 percent less would jump at it by firing all the men. The reason that doesn't happen is that the issue is far more complicated.
Bottom line: we have plenty of laws to address discrimination for women (and claims for discrimination against men are the fatest growing class of discrimination claims). What we need is for the damn politicians to stay the hell out of social engineering -- dictating to employers and others that women are to be artifically elevated to "level the playing field" with men. As but one example: insist on paying day care workers who receive government funding the same as construction workers who receive government funding. You know what would eventually happen? MEN would become day care workers -- and because of that ugly thing called testosterone that we're not supposed to talk about -- men would dominate that field, too.
last Anon,
you know what they say: "Nothing LESS than equality for women, nothing MORE than equality for men!"
Post a Comment