By Toy Soldiers: It is rare that any case of women sexually abusing boys leaves me at a loss for words. I have read about the most ridiculous situations, from women claiming the boys raped them to women suing their victims for child support. However, the most recent case left me stunned.
A woman convicted of sexually abusing one of her 16-year-old students filed a lawsuit against the boy for “defamation”:
I will quote it again just in case the multiple face palms prevented you from reading it in full:
No, Stumph’s own actions damaged her reputation and career. If she considered herself innocent of the charges, she should not have accepted the plea deal. By accepting the terms of the deal, she conceded that the victim’s claims against her were essentially fact. Let us also be clear that Stumph initially face more serious charges. The original charges were a felony charge of oral copulation with a person under 18, a felony charge sexual intercourse with a person under 18, and three misdemeanor charges of molesting a child. Stumph accepted a deal that reduced all of that down to the one felony charge of sexual intercourse with a person under 18. The full sentence is 180 days, however, she had to serve half that.
So for grooming and abusing the boy for a year, Stumph gets 90 days in jail. In case anyone thought that was all she did, it is not:
She is not only suing the boy for what she plead guilty to doing, but also suing him for the sentence she received and the legal costs to defend herself. That is rather ballsy.
Never before have I seen anything thing like this. Most curious is how this lawsuit was allowed. How is Stumph allowed to sue someone for something she served time for doing? Who would have thought the state of California could be this idiotic? Why would any judge allow this? On what grounds is the suit even justified? Again, she conceded all of the accusations when she accepted the plea deal. How can she be allowed to sue her victim for her legal costs? Is it not the general case that when one loses one must foot the bill? At the very least would it not be the state that would have to cover the costs, not the victim?
Try to imagine this happening in the reverse. Try to imagine a man who sexually exploited a 16-year-old girl and plead guilty to doing so counter suing her. Try to imagine that lawsuit being accepted by any court in the western hemisphere. Outside of Israel and Saudi Arabia, no one would accept such a counterclaim. They could not dismiss it fast enough.
Yet here we are watching a woman who admitted she molested one of her students suing the student because his accusations, to which she conceded, makes the her look bad.
It is simply unbelievable.
Edited by AA
Source
A woman convicted of sexually abusing one of her 16-year-old students filed a lawsuit against the boy for “defamation”:
The former Arroyo Grande High School teacher convicted earlier this year of having sex with a 16-year-old student has responded to a lawsuit from that student’s family by filing a counterclaim, alleging the victim has defamed her “to various classmates, family and other members of the community.”
The former Arroyo Grande High School teacher convicted earlier this year of having sex with a 16-year-old student has responded to a lawsuit from that student’s family by filing a counterclaim, alleging the victim has defamed her “to various classmates, family and other members of the community.”Before we proceed through the rest of the article, let us take a moment to process the logic here:
Tara Stumph pleaded no contest in April to having sex with a person under 18 and was sentenced to 180 days in jail, a sentence she started serving May 1.Stumph got away with exploiting one of her students. She must only serve 180 days in jail, not prison, and does not have to register as a sex offender. She accepted a plea deal that granted her this ever so beneficial slap on the wrist. Yet because the victim decided to sue Stumph for her actions, Stumph filed a counter suit, stating “the victim’s statements damaged her reputation and career.”
No, Stumph’s own actions damaged her reputation and career. If she considered herself innocent of the charges, she should not have accepted the plea deal. By accepting the terms of the deal, she conceded that the victim’s claims against her were essentially fact. Let us also be clear that Stumph initially face more serious charges. The original charges were a felony charge of oral copulation with a person under 18, a felony charge sexual intercourse with a person under 18, and three misdemeanor charges of molesting a child. Stumph accepted a deal that reduced all of that down to the one felony charge of sexual intercourse with a person under 18. The full sentence is 180 days, however, she had to serve half that.
So for grooming and abusing the boy for a year, Stumph gets 90 days in jail. In case anyone thought that was all she did, it is not:
The lawsuit [filed against the school and Stumph] states that Stumph “cultivated” the victim’s trust over the period of several months and encouraged him to confide in her. The two began a sexual relationship that lasted from September 2014 to December 2015, the lawsuit alleges, when Stumph would molest the student “during and after class,” and send nude pictures and sexually explicit videos of herself to him.Again, Stumph conceded this when she accepted the plea deal. She cannot turn around after agreeing that she committed the acts and then sue the victim for character defamation. She is also suing for “indemnity for any judgments rendered against her, a judicial determination that any injuries to the plaintiff were caused by the school district, civil damages and attorneys fees and costs.”
The lawsuit further alleges that Stumph instructed another teacher at the school to call the victim out of his class on her behalf when some of the alleged crimes occurred.
But the lawsuit also alleges that Stumph sexually molested at least one other minor prior to her relationship with the victim, and that the school — including Principal Bowers, a guidance counselor and a teacher — had received “multiple” complaints about Stumph’s alleged conduct but failed to act.
She is not only suing the boy for what she plead guilty to doing, but also suing him for the sentence she received and the legal costs to defend herself. That is rather ballsy.
Never before have I seen anything thing like this. Most curious is how this lawsuit was allowed. How is Stumph allowed to sue someone for something she served time for doing? Who would have thought the state of California could be this idiotic? Why would any judge allow this? On what grounds is the suit even justified? Again, she conceded all of the accusations when she accepted the plea deal. How can she be allowed to sue her victim for her legal costs? Is it not the general case that when one loses one must foot the bill? At the very least would it not be the state that would have to cover the costs, not the victim?
Try to imagine this happening in the reverse. Try to imagine a man who sexually exploited a 16-year-old girl and plead guilty to doing so counter suing her. Try to imagine that lawsuit being accepted by any court in the western hemisphere. Outside of Israel and Saudi Arabia, no one would accept such a counterclaim. They could not dismiss it fast enough.
Yet here we are watching a woman who admitted she molested one of her students suing the student because his accusations, to which she conceded, makes the her look bad.
It is simply unbelievable.
Edited by AA
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment