Mark Mitchell Says He's Just Been Hit With "What May Be the Most Repulsive Last-Minute Attack in Arizona History"

Categories: Election 2012
mark-mitchell.JPG
Mark Mitchell
There are people out there who really, really don't want Mark Mitchell to be the next mayor of Tempe.

Recently, his opponent, Michael Monti, pulled out a police report involving an incident Mitchell was involved in with the cops in 1993 on Mill Avenue, when Mitchell was 24 years old.

Mitchell said Monti was "really hitting the bottom of the barrel" on that one, but another police report released Tuesday afternoon by Mitchell opponents claiming sexual conduct with a minor goes well beyond releasing information about Mitchell acting a little dumb on Mill Avenue.

The right-wing Sonoran Alliance blog released the report from the Phoenix Police Department yesterday, in which a woman claims Mitchell engaged in some sexual activities with her when she was a kid, and Mitchell was somewhere between the ages of 12 and 14.

The victim, who alleges these incidents took place in 1983 -- 1983 -- came forward to police to tell her story... on March 10. That's March 10, 2012.

According to the police report, the woman "expressed that this has been eating at her for years and it has gotten worse lately due to the public exposure of Mitchell at this time as he is a current Tempe City Councilman who is a mayoral candidate for the City of Tempe."

That's not to say the woman's allegations are false, but that sure is some convenient timing.

Her story, according to the report, is that she was sexually abused by Mitchell when she was 10 years old, when Mitchell was her neighbor and babysitter.

She gave four accounts to police, although the specific actions are redacted in the report.

The final account the woman gave included asking her mother "about how a person gets pregnant, due to her fear of being pregnant after Mitchell had (redacted) with her in the shed," the report states.

The woman's mother told police she didn't remember her daughter telling her anything about this, but remembered at one point Mitchell "was never allowed at their house again."

She didn't remember why Mitchell was banned from the house, but said neither Child Protective Services nor the police was called.

The mother also told police she didn't remember having her 10-year-old daughter asking how someone gets pregnant.

The woman's brother told police that "he did not think he was aware that anything had happened to his sister until he was an adult."

One of the incidents the woman described to police involved her brother, in which she claimed Mitchell called him into the room "to get him to join in" some activity that's also redacted from the report. Her brother didn't recall that incident to police.

On April 5, the woman ended up talking to Mitchell in person, saying she was "bothered" by what happened when they were kids, and told Mitchell he was her "first," the report says.

"Mitchell said they were young and exploring and he was sorry she felt the way she did," the report states. "He said he would talk to her more of she wanted to."

Later that day, the woman called Mitchell to talk more. They debated what age Mitchell was when it happened -- the woman contended he was 15, Mitchell said 12 -- and the rest of the conversation was very similar to the account of the talk they had earlier in the day.

The woman contends this happened in 1983, which would have made Mitchell 13 or 14 years old.

According to the police report, police contacted Mitchell on April 10 to request an interview with him, and the report states Mitchell claimed he didn't know who the woman was.

Mitchell's attorney called police back to set up the interview date, which was supposed to be two days ago, although this report was written on April 30.

The report says the information would be forwarded to the county attorney once everything's completed.

Mitchell's lawyer didn't immediately return a message from New Times left with his secretary.

In a statement released to KFYI, Mitchell denies the allegations, and not surprisingly, thinks there's a might coincidence that this came out while Mitchell's in the middle of a mayoral race in which Monti and his supporters haven't exactly played nice.

Read Mitchell's statement below, in which Mitchell says this "may be the most repulsive last-minute attack in Arizona history":

"The allegations in the Phoenix police report involving me are false, vile, and clearly politically motivated.  

Supporters of my opponent in the Tempe Mayor's race have relentlessly trafficked even more despicable allegations in anonymous emails, blog posts and calls to the media. Those allegations are also false.

None of these false, salacious allegations were ever mentioned to anyone until a few weeks before this election. There has been a coordinated media push by my opponent's surrogates every day since. It seems that no tactic is too low for my opponent.  He and his team have proven that over and over.

We have reached a new low in Tempe politics. We have graduated from merely trying to damage someone's reputation to actively trying to ruin their life. I trust that voters will see through it.

My opponent started his campaign months ago by smearing me, and he is going to end with what may be the most repulsive last-minute attack in Arizona history."

Read the police report here, and we'll keep you updated on this matter.

My Voice Nation Help
61 comments
Wanumba
Wanumba

Let the lies about Monti not playing a role in this be forever silenced.  As the AZ Republic reports, as soon as this "anonymous" letter was so timely received, the snakes at the AZGOP and Team-Monti slithered to a new low.

-------------

What is equally clear is that Team Monti -- which, by the way, denies having a hand in the woman coming forward -- was pushing hard to get the story out. Monti spokesman Jason Rose's cellphone must've been in meltdown mode, so many reporters did he call once anonymous e-mails started flying all over town. Sonoran Alliance, a GOP blog, was churning out rumor and innuendo.Even Tempe City Manager Charlie Meyer got into the act, asking Phoenix City Manager David Cavazos on Monday when the report would be out. Meyer is tight with Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman, who has endorsed Monti.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizo... 

Celeste Pettijohn
Celeste Pettijohn

What absolute scum these people are.Funny none of this was an issue until this week. An accusation from when Mark was 12? Really? Is anyone supposed to believe that? The Mitchell family, Mark included has a great deal of credibility and someone clearly wants to destroy their reputation. This is despicable and sick. I am sure the people of Tempe will remember the nastines of these attacks for many years and will not reward the slime that engages in this filthy practice of personal destruction. Best of luck to Mark.He is going to be the next mayor of Tempe.

Ganinke
Ganinke

 I don't care about the sexual abuse, the chick should have said
something to police back then, but the problem is that Mark Wesley
Mitchell LIED to POLICE, how many other things will and has he lied
about during his political career in Tempe? If he is willing to lie to
authority that has the ability to put him in jeopardy (i.e. jail, fines,
prison) then I bet he would surely lie to citizens, contractors and
any body else that he may make personal gain by using his position.

TruConserv
TruConserv

Who says he lied?

The police didn't charge him with obstruction, which they certainly would do if they thought he even remotely lied.

The cops are very straight-forward about this: you lie to the police, you go to jail, even if you committed no other crime.

Here, there seems to be a dispute about whether the confrontation even occurred and as to how the police identified the woman when the interviewed Mitchell.

To know that you would have to pay attention to both sides.  That you don't demonstrates your bias.

Conservative American
Conservative American

The police used her married name, Mitchell said he didn't know her.

The police used her maiden name, Mitchell said he DID know her.

There is no lie there, just a bit of name confusion that was quickly cleared up.

The only one claiming "lie" now are the known liars within the AZGOP.

The questions remain:

How did the AZGOP know what was in the police report before it became public?

Who green-lit the AZGOP communication director running story teases on his web site in advance of the report coming public?

What role did the AZGOP have in bringing this forward?

Why won't they answer these questions on the record?  What are they hiding!

Ganinke
Ganinke

He LIED to the Police. Period. He is not fit to be a commissioner. The City should start an ethics investigation on him. Here is the proof he lied http://mark-mitchell-pedo.blog...

TruConserv
TruConserv

The police asked him if he knew a woman using a last name Mitchell did not know.  When the police used her maiden name, he said he knew her.

How is that lying?

Conservative American
Conservative American

The police disagree with you, or else they would have charged him with obstruction.  Cops don't play around when you lie to them.

Your delusions, poor reading comprehension and sickening delight in the woman's suffering well informs us of your agenda.

Dahoss2x
Dahoss2x

New Slimes would re-title this story:
Mark Mitchell admits to victim that he molested her while babysitting her... Then lies to Tempe police two days later, claiming amnesia! If only Mitchell were a Republican. Instead , the Slimes turns the tables and calls it as Mitchell(D) sees it... A last minute election tactic. Big surprise!

Settingitstraight
Settingitstraight

The fact that when Mark Mitchell initially spoke with this woman, he acknowledged her as an old acquaintance, but then later told police, after he lawyered up, that he did not know her, should be a huge red flag.  Come on Mark, either you know her or you don't.  If you will lie about a simple piece of this story when it's easy to prove or disprove (they were neighbors, right?), then how can people be expected to believe anything else that comes out of your mouth?  I too did my share of partying and troublemaking as a college student; however, the thought of Mr. Mitchell throwing a powerful relative's (his father) name around in an effort to dissuade law officers from arresting a friend only serves to further convince me this man is arrogant beyond reproach and that he will do or say whatever he believes serves his best interests.  Although I don't live in Tempe and have no stake in this political race, I certainly wouldn't want to be represented by a man of this caliber if I did. 

Whether there is a 3 year age difference, or a 30 year age difference, the power differential is still very strong when a scared and inexperienced child is involved. Real men, the kind we want representing us, stand up and admit when they've done wrong and accept responsibility.  Cowards shift blame and hide behind carefully crafted lies, lawyers, legal loopholes, and political spin. 

Mr. Mitchell, I offer you this: what goes around comes around and you will reap what you sow with your lies if you are guilty of the crime for which you are accused.  To those of you who doubt the authenticity of this woman's claims, I offer this thought: where there is smoke, there is fire. 

My prayers go out to the innocent parties, including Mr. Mitchell's family, who are now entangled in this political nightmare. 

Conservative American
Conservative American

The police used her married name -- he said no.

They then used her maiden name -- he said yes.

One name he knew, the other he did not.

Where is the lie?

TruConserve
TruConserve

You are a revolting and disgusting liar.

You take great glee in the mental problems this woman is suffering, all so that you can see your guy win some crappy mayoral race.

The way the document is redacted, we can't get a good sense of who said what to whom, but lying to police during an investigation is a crime -- but the police don't even suggest for a second that Mitchell broke the law during his interviews.

Trust me when I tell you this: if they could, they would.  I've seen people charged for saying things not even remotely to be lies, just as a way to get after someone who otherwise can't be got.

Just as Martha Stewart didn't go to jail because she broke security trading law, but for lying about it, so too the police would have gone after Mitchell.  That they haven't completely kills your sad, pathetic story of false-compassion.

Next time, tell the truth: you love this woman's pain and hope more comes out. Too bad we can't take you in for being the lying scum you are.

Conservative American
Conservative American

Sleazy Shane, the communication director for the AZGOP has been teasing this report on his website for some time now.

How did the AZGOP learn of it before it was publicly available.

In politics, it's all about who knew what, when ... and it seems the AZGOP knew about this for a long time.

The timing and insider knowledge pretty much tells all one needs to know about whether this story is credible.

MaxQ
MaxQ

It came out on KFYI's website before Shane posted it on Sonoran Aliance. All he did was link to a copy of the report posted by KFYI.

Conservative American
Conservative American

That's a lie.

SA was teasing the issue well before KFYI ran its story.

TruConserv
TruConserv

The lie is that you are trying to hide the fact that Shane teased this story, in a very heavy-handed manner, far in advance of the actual police report coming out.

Your efforts at mendacity will not prevent people from asking the relevant question: when did the communications director for the AZGOP know about this woman, what role did he play in bringing her forward and how did he know what was in the police reports long before it was released!

MaxQ
MaxQ

Sonoran Alliance embedded a pdf copy from scribd.com of the police report that was first posted to scribd.com by KFYI and embedded in an article on KFYI.com by George Lin. That is a FACT not a lie.

Mark Mitchell himself told the Arizona Republic that a television news reporter contacted him about the investigation before the police did on April 10th. The Sonoran Alliance is obviously not a television studio. The Sonoran Alliance didn't have a story about the rumors of an investigation until April 24th. By that time, it's clear that the Arizona Republic, the entire Tempe City Council, and other members of the media already knew of rumours of an investigation. So Sonoran Alliance didn't report anything that wasn't already known by lots of people and media outlets when it reported on the rumors on April 24th.

So implying that Shane Wikfors or the Sonoran Alliance had anything to do with "bringing this lady forward" is nothing but baseless inuenndo at this point.

TruConserv
TruConserv

You are lying. Plain and simple.

Their where lead-in stories for days on the Shane's blog and I want to know how he knew, and when he knew it.

I want to know his role in bringing this lady forward, if any, as well as any other participation in this bit of election slime.

It's time for real conservative to take back the Republican Party - to take it away from the radical right!

MaxQ
MaxQ

The police report came out on KFYI's website first. That is not a lie.

Sonoran Alliance and half the media, including the Arizona Republic (read their article), knew that there was some kind of investigation into something regarding Mitchell going on a month ago. But no one knew what the details were until the report was released.

MM
MM

This smells of Jason Rose.

Wanumba
Wanumba

Typical slimy bullshit from Sonoran Alliance, Shane and his gang of racist assholes will stoop at nothing to protect the worst of the worst in this state.

MaxQ
MaxQ

How is posting a public record that anyone can obtain by making a public records request with the Phoenix Police Department, "typical slimy bullshit". All he did was post a copy of the Police report.

TruConserv
TruConserv

That's a lie.

He had several articles leading up to the publishing of the report and in the publishing of the report he added commentary.

How did he know the report existed?

When did he know it?

What role did he play in bringing this lady forward?

What role did he play in ensuring this bit of election slime made its way out?

Responsible Republicans want an end to the radical right represented by Shane.  We want conservatives, not wingnuts.

TruConserv
TruConserv

Shane and his birther, truther, black-helicopter Internet-meme-loving wingnuts give true conservatives a bad name.

He still thinks old-school whisper campaigns work, which is odd given that he runs a Internet blog so he must know that people can learn the truth about the lies he promulgates with a few easy keystrokes. Scarier still is the fact that he's the communication director for the Republican Party.

In the past several years he's given a voice to pretty much every discredited, gringe-worthy, eye-rolling, gag-inducing lie the extreme right has put forth, all the while censoring the voices of mainstream AZ conservatives.

If anyone wonders why Santorum, Pearce, Bachmann and the other radical Republicans find traction in this world, it's because fools like Shame love them.  Sadly, it's also why the (R) is doing so poorly in this election cycle.

AZ deserves more than the moronic acts Shane packages together in his web site.

Earlyreb1
Earlyreb1

A lie is a lie no matter how small.  Mitchell has lied to others that live in the City.  I would rather have an honest mayor then a lying one. And one that has actually done something other than VOTE on issues.  The conference center is a joke and taking credit for market place is even a bigger one, sure it brings in revenue but what kind of kick backs did the City give market place, too many!

TruConserv
TruConserv

What lie did he tell?

The police used her married name and he said he didn't know her.  They then used her maiden name and he said he did.

One name he knew, the other he did not.

What else ya got?

Marcy
Marcy

Everyone lies sweetie, daily.

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

You're right a lie is a lie.

Monti has been lying to the public ever since he began his campaign. He has sent out flyers saying things about Mitchell and how he took gifts and should explain all of that to the public.  Today in azcentral there is an article regarding this story....Monti lied all along to the public at the debates and in his flyers and now he admits to it.

So what have you ..... a bunch of liars one of them will be elected as Mayor....

You can have Mitchell who seems respectable or you can have Monti who is a clone of Hallman who has been the worse mayor Tempe has ever had.  Monti is also buds with Onnie who will lie to a citizens face as easily as her heart beats. 

You pick the liar you want to lead the city of Tempe....I will keep an eye on whoever it is....Mitchell knows this and Monti should be learning it by now.

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

To Monti,

If this is another one of your tactics you have truly proven yourself to be a poser and an asslicker of Hugh Hallman.

The story the other day at azcentral said it all.....bad politcs and the comments even said more.....not one single person came out and defended you in anyway whatsoever. That says a lot.

Eleanor Holguin
Eleanor Holguin

This must be the story that somebody at azcentral has been hinting around about. They said the Phx mayor was conducting the investigation. That right there will let you know this was a planned attack and was made by Monti and company. This has Hugh Hallman written all over it.

Mark, I see you finally get it. Yes, this is how low Tempe politcs has stooped since Hallman has been in office. Onnie and Shana go right along with all the corruption.

I will say one thing regarding this story.....maybe we should all bring up the names and places of people we might have kissed or anything elsen when we were younger.....and bring charges against them when it is convenient to do so.

I will say one thing too regarding Mitchell....and this is the first time I have said anything regarding Mark since this election began;

He is one of the few people on council who have ever shown me any respect. I have run into Mark many times in public or working at volunteer  projects. He will always greet me by name and shake my hand. He asks about my family and he is always very nice and respecful. He has never treated me like shit because I have chosen to speak out about the corruption in Tempe politics. NEVER.......

I have a lot of respect for that alone....I might not always agree with his votes or his politics but I do know and understand respect when I witness it.

Noone T Blame
Noone T Blame

Here 's what Mitchell should say: "I'm sorry for what I did- no matter how old I was - I was wrong and I have hurt someone". 

But he has chosen, "I don't know her." and "It's THEIR fault." If that's who you support, that says a lot about you.

eyeswideopen
eyeswideopen

Thats if he did it.  What if he didn't?  We know what the politicians on the east side are capapble of.... Remember the fake candidate against Jerry Lewis?  What if these are all family friends of Monti.... Why doesn't the mom remember what happened???????? It sounds like mom and brother don't want to lie but feel pressured to say something in support of their family.  I don't know the truth yet, and you can't tell from this police report.  But the fact that mom says she doesn't remember is a pretty damn big thing.

Wanumba
Wanumba

Well, the mom is liar as well ... so says Monti and his minions.  You're either for Monti or you are against him.  You are either good or you are evil.

The mom doesn't remember ... then she is evil.  Just ask George Bush.  It's a black and white world when you're a wingnut like Monti.

hammertime
hammertime

Constantine Querard is up to his old tricks again...beyond shameless.

Rob
Rob

I don't have a dog in the fight, but I sincerely hope that Mitchell sues the crap out of all involved, included Shane Wikfors and the AZGOP.

Wikfors owns and runs Sonoran Alliance and is the Director of Communications for the AZGOP (good to see they've chosen fine, upstanding people like him to represent them) and can clearly be seen defending his actions and further accusations in the comment section.

MaxQ
MaxQ

All Shane Wikfors did was post a copy of the police report on his website, Sonoran Alliance. How can you sue someone for publishing a public record?

Conservative American
Conservative American

That is not all he did, there were several articles about this before the report was "made public" and the report was accompanied by commentary.

That's what we know.

I'd love to get a chance at conducting discovery to learn what Shane knew and when he knew it.

JD
JD

It's laughable, not that it's a good thing or a bad thing, but bringing up what someone may or may not have done as a 12 year old almost 30 years ago? Also if this woman was so deeply offended by what was happening with Mitchell running for office I wonder why she didn't speak up over the past 12 years during his city council races. I bet Mike Monti probably raised hell as a kid too. When I was 12 I broke someone's windows and my dad hit me so hard I couldn't sit down for days. Does that mean I'm somehow a "bad" person who couldn't run for office? This is lower than low. It's almost like the whole Dan Sabin thing a few years ago where the woman who accused him was mentally unstable. 

MaxQ
MaxQ

According to the police report, this allegedly happened in 1983. If that is accurate, Mark Mitchel would have been 13 and 14 during the alleged incidents not 12. And the accuser would have be 10. A 13 or 14 year old babysitter allegedly engaging in sex acts with the 10 year old that he was supposedly babysitting is a lot more serious than breaking a window or "raising hell".

And this isn't just about what may have happened 29 years ago in 1983. If what is in this report is true, Mark Mitchell in April of 2012 denied knowing the alleged victim when asked about it by police only days after he supposedly talked with her on the phone.

TruConserve
TruConserve

You're assuming this happened as the girl states it.

Her own mother doesn't remember any of this - and it's unlikely a mother would forget her 10-year-old asking how to get pregnant because the boy-next-door molested her.

The brother who lived with her doesn't remember the things the woman recalls.

Something is wrong here.

I want to know how the AZGOP Communication Director knew about his report before it was made public and why it was teased on his blog before the report came out!

TruConserve
TruConserve

Thanks for revealing yourself a liar. No one will take you seriously ever again on this board.

MaxQ
MaxQ

I am not assuming this happened as the woman stated it. That is why I used words like "allegedly" in my comments. I was just pointing out that the report alledges conduct that if true is a lot more serious than just "hell raising".

Also, if the report is accurate, it is not correct to say that her mother and brother didn't remember "any" of what happened. The mother remembers having some sort of conversation with Mark Mitchell's parents and Mark Mitchell not being allowed to babysit anymore according to the report. And, according to the report, the brother comments about remembering running around naked for some unusual reason and also remembers what he perceived as some out of the ordinary "game" taking place between Mark Mitchell and his sister. The brother also would have been very young at the time if he was the alleged victim's younger brother and she was only 10.

Tempe since '75
Tempe since '75

Monti is scum. It pains me to vote Dem but integrity and being a good person far outweigh vision when you're just talking about a city mayor.

Disgusted
Disgusted

I just caught the part that says the police recommend FOUR felony charges.  What, does Monti have that power??? This is not about politics, this is about a man getting caught lying and a woman reporting abuse.  Not to mention Mitchell admitted it in a call with her.

Wanumba
Wanumba

You're lying.

The police did not recommend any charges.  They listed what charges were possible if the complainant's claims were true.

Period.

You are a disgusting liar.

Period.

TruConserve
TruConserve

And ... let's note that the police did not suggest even remotely that Mitchell had lied to them or impeded their investigation.

Cops will tell you: if you lie to us, you go to jail, even if you didn't otherwise commit a crime.

So much for the "yea, but he lied" crap coming from these miscreants. Feeding off the pain of an emotionally unstable woman is despicable. 

TruConserv
TruConserv

Awww ... hurts to have your tin-foil conspiracy theory destroyed?  Poor baby.

There was no lie.

The police specifically used the woman's married name, he said he didn't know her.

The police then specifically used the woman's maiden name, then he knew whom she was.

The police specifically did not list obstruction as a charge in its referral to prosecution. 

You specifically are full of crap.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Stop with the broad generalizations regarding interview and interrogation.

TruConserv
TruConserv

I don't expect you to accept what I am about to write, but for the others out there, let me set the record straight about confrontation calls.

Yes, the are admissible, but NO ONE who is involved in the day-to-day administration of criminal justice finds them very credible.

In close, he-said, she-said situations they are worthless and should be excluded.  Why: because if the guy (in this case) is a decent human being, his true, natural reaction is not to call the person a liar, it is to try to find a way to ameliorate the pain that person is expressing. A lot of decent people get jammed up because they tried to be a nice person during fraudulent confrontation calls.

Think about it: the one side knows a tape is going, the other doesn't.  The other doesn't want to be a jerk, doesn't want the other person, whom is likely someone he has some relationship with, to feel the kind of pain she is expressing.  Some of the allegations she made generated no response from Mitchell, or so the report indicates.  Yet, the police took the silence as acquiescence and agreement. It defies human experience.

If ever you are confronted, sadly, the lesson here is to be a jerk.  Deny everything. End the call. It's not worth the risk.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

You sound like a first year law student.  Not only are confrontation calls admissible, they ARE credible.  No one is going to admit guilt to something they didn't do.  Your argument is framed on fallacious reasoning.

TruConserv
TruConserv

Actually I sound like the lawyer with more than 20-years experience that I am. They are admissible, but they are not disposative of guilt or innocence.

If you had any experience in the criminal justice you would know that many, many people are cleared by the totality of the evidence, sometimes conclusively, yet still have "incriminating" confrontation calls entered as evidence. 

Psychologist make a killing testifying as experts for why people react the way they do in a confrontation call, and it largely has nothing to do with guilt.

Finally, when a target rejects the assertions of a confrontation call, do the police then drop the matter? Of course not.  It's just another piece of information admitted at trial - one that most everyone agrees is unfair to the defense.

My position doesn't change based on the party affiliation of the target of the confrontation call ... can you say the same? Or, is your position driven by your contrarian psychosis to oppose anything that favors a Democrat?

eyeswideopen
eyeswideopen

At this point it's just he said she said.  The police aren't RECOMENDING charges.  THey are stating what the charge would be.  This case is way past statute of limitations and even if true cannot be prosecuted.  Also, as a child younger than 14 it would be a juvenile crime. 

I find it interesting that you are taking what she said as fact?  Do you have a reason for that?  If someone were to  make something up wouldn't they go all out?  I do agree that on the surface this looks bad... But who are all of these people?  And the mom doesn't really remember what happened????? Come on, I would remember every f'ing detail if something happened to my kid.  This thing doesn't pass the smell test, will never be prosecuted but if more people act like you then it certainly serves the purpose of his opponents right?

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

You are wrong about the statute of limitations. The clock doesn't start ticking until the crime is reported to law enforcement or more specifically, when law enforcement becomes aware that a crime occurred. Statute of limitations has nothing to do with the time of the crime being committed.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Cite the case you are referring to that supports your assertion that when one turns 18 the clock begins.

TruConserv
TruConserv

It's not me that is disagreeing, its the case law.  Take your fight to the bench, they just love it when a lay person comes in to tell them how wrong they are.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

I know the law. Your interpretation of "reasonable diligence" is not supported by anything beyond your personal opinion.  A victim having a birthday has nothing to do with "reasonable diligence".

TruConserv
TruConserv

Not an attempt to portray anything ... I gave you the link that reads the law.

Sorry your hate consumes you to such a degree ... that or you simply hate America and its laws.

BTW: make sure you understand the difference between civil and criminal complaints.

Yourproductsucks
Yourproductsucks

Several Catholic priests would have liked the law to be interpreted in the manner you attempt to portray.

TruConserve
TruConserve

Not quite true.

http://law.justia.com/codes/ar... 

NB: "discovery should have occurred with the exercise of reasonable diligence"

This generally means when the minor turns 18 the clock starts.  You can't hold secret a crime, allowing evidence to go stale, and then disclose it at your leisure to the authorities, thereby prejudicing the ability of the defendant to obtain a fair trial.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...