Sexual Misconduct Allegations

Sean Trane wrote: .... and what's the point of trialing someone you can't sue for millions for damages.

The Dark Elf wrote: Where there are accusations that run up to 16 different women (in Trump's case), you have to ask yourself not whether they are being truthful, but rather what is the nature of justice in the U.S. that has allowed millionaires and billionaires to get away with it this long?

I think the nature of justice in the US is a 2 tier system: Not millionaires and the rest of us, but those who can afford attorneys and those who cannot.

Case in point:  I live in a tiny city in western WA state (pop 2,000) that just had a mayoral election early November.  Last July, a letter to the editor of the local paper said the city councilman running for mayor had a past history of sexual misconduct.  It referenced an expose series in the Seattle Times called, "Coaches Who Prey" and claimed this candidate was featured in the article.  I started doing google searches and indeed the candidate was the same guy in the article.  Apparently after repeated complaints from several of his female high school students of inappropriate touching, private rides in the teachers car, etc...the school board was prepared to file charges. 

Instead, the guy hires an attorney who brokers a deal with the school board.  His client resigned, lost his WA state teaching credential for 24 months, and agreed not to fight the school board and in exchange NO criminal charges were ever filed and a cash settlement.  Yes, that's right, the school board PAID him to go away quietly.  So the guy moves out of state for awhile, then returns and gets a job with a different local high school as a football coach (apparently a position that didn't require a teaching credential).  After 6 months, that school board learns about his sexual predator past and fires him.  Another local paper, runs an article..."Local Football Coach Fired for Past Sexual Misconduct".

Somehow the creep gets himself elected to the city council of my tiny town a few years ago and last year decides to run for mayor.  So after that first letter to the editor last July brings his disgusting past to light, a second letter to the editor appears a week later.  This letter was a scathing attack on how could this guy even consider himself to be qualified for public office, sexual predators need to be held accountable etc...  Guess what happened?  The woman who wrote that article received a threatening letter from the candidates attorney.  She was told to cease and desist immediately of discussing anything in a public forum she didn't have personal knowledge of.  Further, that the candidate was considering a civil suit against her for defamation of character. 

Even though she was writing things documented in school district public records and published in reputable newspapers, she couldn't afford an attorney to fight his attorney, so never wrote another letter to the editor and didn't post anything about the candidates past to her social media.  The 1st woman who wrote the original letter to the editor also was scared of legal action and couldn't afford an attorney, so never discussed the guys past publicly again.  She even went so far as to remove his opponent's election signs from her property in fear of retribution.

Of course, molester boy won the election and is now our mayor.  The small group of us who know the truth about him are disgusted.  We can only believe that if all the voters of our town knew about the guys history that there's no way he would have won.  His attorney made sure that will never happen.  Then again, when a pig who is caught on tape talking about grabbing a woman's pussy still gets elected president, why should I expect anything different in my tiny town 


Edited by The.Crimson.King - November 30 2017 at 15:31

Vompatti wrote: Sean Trane wrote: .... and what's the point of trialing someone you can't sue for millions for damages. This is pretty much what I was getting at, but it seems my sarcasm was once again too subtle for PA. :(

^ That's inappropriate and disgusting. 

Nice work.

Sean Trane wrote: Vompatti wrote: Sean Trane wrote: .... and what's the point of trialing someone you can't sue for millions for damages. This is pretty much what I was getting at, but it seems my sarcasm was once again too subtle for PA. :(   And maybe it's some kind of sexism from my part, but I do have doubts about some of these complaints at first (of course, if there are 2 or 3 unrelated ones, I don't doubt anymore), because I can't help but wondering what the motives are.   Why would've Monica Lewinsky spoken if it wasn't for "glory & money" sakes? I mean, SHE got down below the desk and had him come on her dress (that "she loved so much") and never got it cleaned, if it wasn't for blackmail purposes?

Edited by siLLy puPPy - December 01 2017 at 08:23

HackettFan wrote: I agree by and large with the OP. I am very uncomfortable with the way it's shaking down. None of the discussion is about policy, failure to follow policy, best practices in workplace harassment & other grievances, what counts as due process. The conversation hasn't even been about how we can best apply due process. It's simply if we have allegations we should believe them, and then the decision is matter of course. I do agree we shouldn't automatically disbelieve anyone (some people have trouble with withholding judgment, I understand). The conversation, however, has even managed to equate any shape or form of sexual harassment with the dating of minors. I do indeed hope this turns the corner on sexual harassment, but if the only move is to make some allegations public, there will be no principle to apply in the future when the news stories get old.

This is not a comforting reply, but I'm afraid that as long as the people in power are guilty of these crimes, and let's be frank, they are punishable crimes, due process will always be lacking. This is the point where allegations and politics, sadly, intersect.

Just now catching up with the case of Louis C.K., where I gotta say it's quite ridiculous the consequences he has had to endure for a barely immoral and slightly confused action from way back, and with cases like this it very much looks like a Red Scare type situation where a public persona gets immediately wiped out of the public view to calm down a prudish audience. An accuser clarifies that it is indeed a younger, insecure Louis speaking privately and honestly about wanting something with no force or threats. So yeah, many accusations have been just but this is one point where it really outrages me how ridiculous it is.

I see where you're coming from, and very unfortunate for that particular priest, but in general, bringing priests (especially catholic ones) into the discussion at this point would just open a gigantic can of sperm gone nuclear.

That's called "draining the swamp".