State Representative To Try And Get Convicted Child Rapist Out

Story

Quote :

A state representative will ask a new legislative committee to intercede on behalf of a convicted child molester by investigating the conduct of the judge who presided over the man's trial.

Rep. Lars Christiansen, a Hudson Republican, plans to file a petition on behalf of Timothy Dupont of Nashua, who was convicted of 69 counts of felonious sexual assault on a female relative under age 13...

"This originated in Nashua, in the local court here, and it just wasn't handled right," Christiansen said. "Our corporate courts are not doing a very good job. We'll see whether we can straighten them out."

"Our corporate courts"? Oh, we've got a live one here folks!

Quote :

According to court documents, Dupont was convicted by a jury in 2001 of sexually assaulting the girl over a period of nearly two years, between 1987 and 1989. He would remove the girl's clothes while she pretended to sleep and touch her sexually, also forcing her to touch him, the documents said. When the victim went to college, he insisted she call him every night, the documents said. The victim testified that she was scared to report the assaults for a decade, the documents said. She went to the police in 1999. The police arrested Dupont, who confessed to the assaults, according to authorities.

This is really not the kind of case I would expect anyone to stick their neck out for. But then again, I've got sense.

Quote :

Nonetheless, in a petition to the House in 2009, Christiansen wrote that [Judge] Groff exercised improper influence over jurors, including visiting jurors in the jury room. Christiansen asked that the House hold public hearings to determine if there was "maladministration" by Groff and to consider removing Groff; hold hearings on the state parole board to determine why Dupont was refused parole; and amend state laws "to prevent injury."

Problem: everything being argued has already been litigated three times, and rejected all three times, by the courts.

Who is this guy? Oh, he's one of those "sovereign citizen" whack-jobs.

Quote :

Christiansen was more cooperative that time but still struggled a bit with bailiffs before taking his seat. He was accompanied in court by his father, Carl Christiansen, and his uncle, state Rep. Lars Christiansen, a Republican from Hudson. Both men discouraged Christiansen from participating in the court proceeding because, they said, they too don't recognize the court's authority.

Are you kidding me here? A State Representative doesn't recognize the authority of a criminal court within the state? And people elected this lunatic?

I just...what the fuck are these idiots thinking?! If they wanted to challenge the authority of the court, couldn't they have chosen a victimless criminal case, rather than one of child molestation?

So let me see if I get the story together. This guy is trying to mess with a past child molester trial after his nephew messed up an ongoing child molester trial? They've certainly got a family theme going, there.

Lady Anne wrote:

couldn't they have chosen a victimless criminal case

Is there such a thing?

Well, in some countries it is a crime to be homosexual, or to have consensual homosexual sex, and to me there's no victim there...

...but seriously, I think the sort of thing Lady Anne is getting at is, for example, tax fraud: yes, it hurts everybody, but nobody's personally traumatized by it and no victim is going to have to go through it all again by testifying.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

couldn't they have chosen a victimless criminal case

Is there such a thing?

I'd consider most cases based around individual drug use/possession wherein nobody was injured to be rather victimless crimes.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

couldn't they have chosen a victimless criminal case

Is there such a thing?

Not that I've ever heard of.

Knight wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

couldn't they have chosen a victimless criminal case

Is there such a thing?

I'd consider most cases based around individual drug use/possession wherein nobody was injured to be rather victimless crimes.

Some criminal cases also have more deffuse victims or the victim is an insurance company or the government. Embezzling, depending on how it went down exactly, tax fraud, insurance fraud, stuff like that.

KelinciHutan wrote:

Some criminal cases also have more defuse victims or the victim is an insurance company or the government.

Uh, don't you mean "diffuse", Kel?

Yes. Yes, I do.

Chris91 wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

couldn't they have chosen a victimless criminal case

Is there such a thing?

Not that I've ever heard of.

Marijuana use.

"Public nudity is not a victimless crime! My child was traumatized by seeing that woman's nipples!"
"No I wasn't."
"Shut up! Yes, you were!"



Wait, I know. Remember those old laws against doing business on a Sunday?

Drabbler wrote:

Wait, I know. Remember those old laws against doing business on a Sunday?

Ugh, I had to sit through a really irritating conversation about that over Christmas, about how it sure isn't like it used to be in the good ol' days when we were a Christian country and you kids have to have everything now now now...

Drabbler wrote:

"Public nudity is not a victimless crime! My child was traumatized by seeing that woman's nipples!"
"No I wasn't."
"Shut up! Yes, you were!"



Wait, I know. Remember those old laws against doing business on a Sunday?

The Blue Laws? Yea... irritating as hell.

This article makes me want to scream.

What the hell does a convicted child molester have to offer to this Rep. that would warrant a get of jail free card?

Wait... I might have just answered my own question.

Miss Prince wrote:

Drabbler wrote:

Wait, I know. Remember those old laws against doing business on a Sunday?

Ugh, I had to sit through a really irritating conversation about that over Christmas, about how it sure isn't like it used to be in the good ol' days when we were a Christian country and you kids have to have everything now now now...

Ah, we still have those laws. We must be a very Christian country.

grmblfjx wrote:

Miss Prince wrote:

Drabbler wrote:

Wait, I know. Remember those old laws against doing business on a Sunday?

Ugh, I had to sit through a really irritating conversation about that over Christmas, about how it sure isn't like it used to be in the good ol' days when we were a Christian country and you kids have to have everything now now now...

Ah, we still have those laws. We must be a very Christian country.

Nah, in Germany's case, it's that the churches are so empty outside of Easter and Christmas (with the exception of the occasional baptism and wedding) that the religious groups are pretty much throwing a tantrum about stores opening on Sundays every time it comes up just to prove to themselves that they're not totally irrelevant yet.

Most retail workers I know, religious or not, support them in this because they are worried that they're never gonna have a day off again, and as ridiculous as German companies are getting in terms of running roughshod over labor laws (and if you "snitch", say goodbye to your job), I can't blame them.

< /OT>