There is more than a little bit of hypocrisy with respect to the outrage in the U.S. about China’s treatment of Chinese tennis star Peng Shuai’s following her sexual assault complaint against Chinese ex premier Zhang Gaoli.
Things are not going so great in the United States for victims of sexual assault.
MONEY AND JUSTICE
I had to twice check the date on a story published this week by The New York Times because it seemed like a relic from the 1970s.
Christopher Belter, then 16 and a student at an elite private boys school, pleaded guilty to the sexually attacking four teens (including the rape of at least one victim). He faced up to eight years in prison but instead was sentenced to probation.
County Court Judge Matthew J. Murphy III of Niagara, N.Y., claims he “prayed over” the appropriate sentence in the case and concluded that “incarceration or partial incarceration isn’t appropriate” for Belter.
The Buffalo News reported that Peter M. Wydysh, an assistant district attorney, did not make a sentencing recommendation to the court. This is unusual, especially since Belter pled guilty to four counts of sexual attacks on teenage girls.
Is it purely coincidental that Belter comes from an extremely wealthy family?
Continue reading “Outrage About China’s Treatment of Peng Shuai”
The Democratic Party is effectively thumbing its nose at the #MeToo movement with its invitation to former President Bill Clinton to appear as a speaker at the Democratic Convention tonight.
The invitation also establishes a new bar of hypocrisy with regard to criticism by party officials of the sleazy history of Republican President Donald J. Trump.
On Tuesday, The Daily Mail, ran a photograph of a victim of the late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein giving Clinton a neck massage in 2002. Clinton, then 56, had a sore neck after he reportedly fell asleep in a chair aboard Epstein’s private jet, otherwise known as the Lolita Express. The jaunty group was en-route to Africa on behalf of Clinton’s foundation to raise awareness about poverty and the AIDS crisis. Continue reading “The Democratic Convention Thumbs Its Nose At #MeToo”
The case primarily involves age discrimination but includes a sex discrimination claim.
The sex discrimination claim gave rise to a venue dispute involving where the lawsuit could be filed.
The federal government said the case had to be transferred from Arizona to Nevada because of a special venue provision in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination.
The plaintiff, an Arizona woman who is proceeding pro se, argued in court papers that the case should be moved to California, which would be more convenient for her and would not inconvenience the federal government. Alternatively, she asked to amend her complaint to drop the Title VII claim that gave rise to the venue dispute so the case could remain in Arizona.
The presiding judge was U.S. District Court Judge James A. Soto, 67, a Hispanic who was appointed to the bench in 2014 by former President Barack Obama. The job of a federal judge is to follow the law. Federal judges are paid more than $200,000 a year to put aside their personal bias and prejudice and to be fair.
It was not complicated. Federal courts have ruled that venue should be interpreted broadly in civil rights cases because Congress intended to afford citizens full and easy redress of grievances. Federal rules encourage judges to”freely” grant leave for a Plaintiff to amend her complaint, barring evidence of ill motive.
Judge Soto agreed that venue was proper in both California and Arizona (if Plaintiff dropped the conflicting sex discrimination claim). However, he ruled, without elaborating, that “judicial efficiency dictates that a transfer to the District of Nevada is in the interest of justice.” Continue reading “The Problem with Federal Judges Who Bully”