The Alleged Contents of a Letter
This is what downstate conservative propaganda channel WGMD went with this afternoon:
BREAKING & DEVELOPING: DSP Investigating Anonymous Letter Sent to DE House Members that Includes Criminal Allegations Against an Elected Official
WGMD News has learned that on Wednesday, June 13, the Delaware State Police received correspondence from the Delaware Legislature regarding an anonymous letter received by House members which included allegations of a serious criminal offense by another elected official.
DSP Director of Public Information Paul Shavack tells WGMD “the Delaware State Police Criminal Investigations Unit is actively investigating the credibility of the anonymous letter and the allegations it contained.”
WGMD News has made attempts to contact several people mentioned in the letter; we have not received any responses.
At this point, there is NO indication that any of the allegations in the letter are true, however DSP are investigating.
I have been given an overview of what is in the letter from a source. Apparently, the contents of the letter have been an open secret or a well traveled rumor in Sussex County Republican circles for the last two years, and involve all the star players of the Sussex County Republican Party. Indeed, if the contents of the letter are true, it will devastate the Sussex County Republican Party and ruin the careers of three prominent Sussex County Republicans, and possibly lead to their criminal indictments.
The anonymous letter was sent to every single member of the House of Representatives. It contains allegations that Sussex County Councilman Vance Phillips was involved with a minor female, aged 17 years old, two years ago, during the 2010 campaign. The implication is that this relationship was sexual, and I am told from another source that it was consensual.
I am told the letter goes into detail as to places and times where Phillips and the minor female were together. I am also told that this has been known in Republican circles of power downstate for some time. Indeed, allegedly, Glenn Urquhart knew about the affair, confronted Phillips about it, and, together with the minor female’s family, had her sent away to a religious school in another state.
The alleged affair colored the relationship between Phillips and Sheriff Jeff Christopher, who also may have known about the affair. Indeed, you recall the physical altercation between Phillips and Christopher over the Sheriff’s illegal and unconstitutional power grab? Well, allegedly, one of the witnesses of that altercation was the minor female’s grandfather. If this is all true, than that confrontation is seen in a whole new light.
The minor female is no longer a minor today. She is 19 now. We don’t know if the relationship is still going on.
Now, this all raises a number of questions.
1. Is any of it true?
The simple answer is I have no idea. I consider this all salicious rumor until we know otherwise. I am told that allies and/or supporters of Sheriff Christopher, Eric Bodenweiser, Don Ayotte and Doug Beatty, if not the men themselves, are behind the letter. Whether or not either of them actually wrote and sent the letter is unknown, and a matter of investigation now by the Delaware State Police. Given the cast of characters aforementioned, it is quite possible that none of this is true and that they are just trying to end the career of an opponent of Christopher’s power grab.
2. Even if true, is any of this a crime?
A number of commenters here and elsewhere are downplaying this, saying so what? It was allegedly consensual, and the girl won’t give a victim statement or press charges.
Well, statutory rape is a crime, no matter if it is consensual. Thus, allegations of such acts need to be investigated as such.
Delaware Code, Title 11, § 770 defines Fourth Degree Statutory Rape as “Intentionally engaging in sexual intercourse with someone who is less than 18 years of age where the defendant is 30 years of age or older.” The alleged victim was under 18 at the time of the alleged relationship, and Vance Phillips was most certainly 30 years older, being that he is in his 50’s now.
So yes, it is a crime, punishment for which is up to 10 years in prison.
And not reporting statutory rape is also a crime. Delaware Code, Title 16, § 903 mandates the reporting of child abuse, and statutory rape is included in the definition of child abuse. The same section requires all physical and mental health providers and any other persons who knows or in good faith suspects child abuse to report it to authorities. Allegedly, Glenn Urquhart, Jeff Christopher and a host of other prominent Sussex County Republicans knew about this and did not report it to authorities.
So yes, if this is all true, this is a very serious matter, and crimes have been committed.
3. Why now?
In my opinion, Christopher’s allies that are responsible for the anonymous letter care not that a crime has been committed, for if they did, they would have reported this to appropriate authorities much much sooner, like two years ago. No, this is being done now to damage Phillips and somehow, by extension, efforts to stop Christopher’s power grab. I don’t get that logic, but I guarantee you that is what is happening.
4. What now?
This is all now a matter of criminal investigation, so hopefully the truth will out. If the allegations are false, I hope those behind the letter pay dearly. If the allegations are true, I hope indictments are brought against all. I do worry about Vance Phillips’ mental state. He has been shunned in Teabagger circles (i.e. Republican circles) downstate due to his confrontations with Christopher. I have been told that many think his airplane crash in Virginia last year was not an accident, but a suicide attempt. Only he knows if that is true, but this is something that will have to be monitored as this all develops and the investigation proceeds.
Amazing
This is shocking. Will Urquhart end his campaign if the allegations are shown to be accurate? Clearly Phillip’s issues are far deeper than politics…
I feel really bad for the young woman and her family. I hope her name won’t be revealed.
Someone was posting at the time, that his crash happened on a trip to VA that had two purposes: the flight lesson, and visiting his gf in college.
I don’t know the girls name, although I am told the name is in the letter. I too hope it will not be revealed.
I’m betting the DSP will just hit a dead end. No one is going to talk to them.
Possibly. But the press in involved now. Reporters have been calling the girl’s parents’ home all day.
There’s nothing shocking here at all. Just a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations from an anonymous source.
I don’t know Vance Phillips & from what I’ve read about him, I don’t want to know him. That said, it’s stupid to condemn someone based on anonymous allegations.
Delaware Dem sums up my stance very clearly:
It sounds like this has been an open secret for a while if reporters are already calling the family. I doubt this will go away easily. Blood in the water and all.
Allegedly, Glenn Urquhart, Jeff Christopher and a host of other prominent Sussex County Republicans knew about this and did not report it to authorities.
I think they should all claim they reported it to the only Constitutional authority in the county.
I recind my flippant remarks from this afternoon, but I still don’t regard WGMD as a legitimate news agency, nor do I have much esteem for anon letter writers.
Puck FTW.
Oh, the Economist is already writing up their notes. It’s got “lead story on hicks in the US” written all over it.
It has been a non-secret since the fall among everyone even tangentially connected to Sussex County politics. The name, circumstances and details are all widely known. I hope they don’t get publicized statewide.
@Jason–
I’ve spent more time in Sussex in the last 12 mos. than I have in the last 25 years. As a result, I’ve gotten a taste of WGMD’s weekend programming. It’s incredibly pathetic. I can’t believe people listen to this shit. It’s the cracker version of WHAT circa 1993.
As long as it’s the only game in town, people are going to listen. I hope the Dover NPR station also does decent local stuff.
What was the stock response from the principals involved when this was raised previously?
Podium,
This has never been raised into the public sphere before in that they had to comment on it, at least, not to my knowledge.
Is there any word on what they said when this issue presumably was raised privately? Supposedly this has been out there for months so once assumes they had generate a stock reply, even if it was “no comment.”
This is gonna get huge. I have received numerous calls tonight stating an intervention occurred between Vance, Urquhart and our friend at DP who was the press person at the time. What did they know when did they know it?
Shut the fuck up, asshole. It’s a tragedy, not a joke. You don’t sound witty, you sound jealous.
According to the positive growth website, Vance is scheduled to be the guest of honor and receive their freedom award. Will Vance even show up? Will the press be there to ask questions?
The worst thing is that her name will eventually come out, and she doesn’t deserve that.
“As long as it’s the only game in town, people are going to listen. I hope the Dover NPR station also does decent local stuff.”
The only other game in town:
88.3 Ocean City | WAMU 88.5 – American University Radio
You have to sift out all the liberal bullshit, but it still beats the hell out of WGMD.
ruh roh….
quick – check out our friends on the FAR FAR other side of the aisle – you know…. DP
seems their page got blasted too – someone over there is gonna have heart failure when they see it
wonder how long before its deleted? 3-2-1……….waiting
hmmmmmm
I moderated the comments from “Vance Phillips” and “Sheriff Christopher.” This is not a laughing matter, and since those comments were obviously not from the two men, that is sockpuppetry, which is forbidden here.
I don’t think a blog should have even entered into discussion on this issue by posting about an anonymous letter from who the hell knows who. Irresponsible.
DP has moderated all of the comments regarding this. They don’t have a thread up but were using Frank Knotts’ thread about legislators not voting on bills.
Southern Del –
You aren’t the first and won’t be the last to accuse a political blog of “irresponsible” journalism. Because blogs aren’t newspapers. They’re places for discussion and niche speculation, not unbiased fact-reporting.
Paines: Yet there is such a thing as a common responsibility for the greater good that we all share.
Yes. The thing is, we don’t all agree on what defines the greater good.
This isnt a tragedy yet, but it’s about to be.
If i may take a minute to open myself up to being accused by immature people who just like to pick blog-fight, of supporting statutory rape…
What happens when Mr Phillips, the girl, and the girl’s family all say “they met and “fell in love (ew)” when she was 17 and 10 months old… things never got physical until she turned 18″
Then what? do we search her computer? does the press hound her day and night asking about ehr sex habits? vaginal probe to determine when she ……
I promise you, whoever is behind this letter doesnt have HER best interests at heart, because this will surely turn her life upside down. Who knows…. maybe she isnt traumatized by whatever may have happened with Phillips, but the ugly shit that’s about to happen? My tune will change if he ever gave her a single non-consensual look, but right now all this is, is a play by his political enemies to destroy him and collateral damage be damned. who really wants to be a part of that? Vance Phillips is way too insignificant of a politician to jeopardize the weekend of a goldfish, much less the future of a human girl.
obviously, if a crime WAS committed, the responsible parties blah blah blah.
@Southern Del. I respectfully disagree. This had to be reported. Given that this story ensnares the entire Republican political establishment in Sussex County, that it involves the alleged blackmail of one elected official by another, that this sordid story was broadcast to all 41 Representatives and their staffs, and that abuses of power are allegedly being committed by both sides of the Sussex civil war; it would be irresponsible to sweep this under the rug like the Republicans downstate have been doing for the past 2 years.
It would be irresponsible not to talk about it. And in talking about, I am taking great pains to protect the identity of the victim, and I am taking great pains not to assume that any of it true, because, it is very possible that this is all a vicious lie concocted by Jeff Christopher. But if that is what is going on here, then we need to know that too and Christopher needs to be removed from office and jailed.
So I am sorry if this upsets you. The fainting couch is over there.
@Socialistic Ben,
First, if you want to avoid a blog fight it is best not to start off with calling your supposed enemies “immature.”
Second, “what happens when Mr Phillips, the girl, and the girl’s family all say “they met and “fell in love (ew)” when she was 17 and 10 months old… things never got physical until she turned 18″
Prosecutorial discretion. If the witnesses are all credible and that’s their story, then prosecutors and the police may decline to press charges. It still leaves questions as to the lack of character on Mr. Phillips’ part.
Third, “I promise you, whoever is behind this letter doesnt have HER best interests at heart, because this will surely turn her life upside down.”
Indeed. I agree. And that is very unfortunate.
Fourth, “the ugly shit that’s about to happen?”
Well, here at DL, we will never name her identity, if this is all true. The focus of this story is not her, it is Phillips and Christopher and Urquhart. Conservatives may turn ugly and attack her, but that’s on them. We won’t.
Fifth, “right now all this is, is a play by his political enemies to destroy him and collateral damage be damned.”
That is a very good possibility and if that is true, then we must know so that they can be destroyed by their own actions.
and Will McVay takes the lead as asswipe of the day by posting on WGMD that “this is going to be “fun” when it kicks off”
WOW!! not that he was a credible candidate before – but now he has lost his credibility as a human being
I think this issue will sort out who is a stinking pile of crap (like many have suspected) and who can comport themselves as a decent human
on another note – WGMD reported this AM that Chief Bill Topping has put the Sheriff and his deputys on notice that if (when) HB325 is signed by the Gov and becomes law, any of their shennigans in his town will result in an arrest by Georgetown Police (OHHH PLZ can I be a fly on that wall?)
abide by his belief in the Consitiution or abide by the law – well Jeff, how you like them apples – hope you got bail money!
Aoine, So is this Christopher going nuclear on the Sussex Republicans out of spite? That doesn’t make sense. This goes way beyond burning bridges.
This now explains why they need so much prayer before Sussex County Council meetings.
Regardless of the validity to the alleged situation and aside from the impact to those directly involved, there is a collateral issue of who knew and when did they know it.
If something is “common knowledge” then someone “knew” something and failed to report it. That cannot be explained away. If the SC GOP establishment, the sheriff, his supporters (Eric Bodenweiser, Don Ayotte, Pat Fish, et al) had any prior knowledge they will have to explain why they effectively covered up the situation and failed to do their civic duty. If the sheriff had any knowledge whatsoever, it will be interesting to see how he squares that with his campaign to a the chief law enforcement official. Retribution often has the unintended consequence of hitting the retributees.
If he is behind it and he has gone. Nuclear. Well- no loss
They were not supporting him anyway. And this maybe his salvo
He is gping down and taking them with him
If its a supporter he may have plausible deniability. Whi really knows?
As a MD cop one would think he would know the law regarding these thi gs but his actions with Vance and the police about the altercation shows he is not too bright either
Of course from where i sit that whole group does not have 2 fiumctio ing brain cells between them – from Bodies backroom deals to Ayottes crazy pots and rantings on DP for some reason they think the law applies to everyone EXCEPT themselves.
They are completely without morals ,scruples or conscioemce.any of them attend the same church- and not to cast aspersions on that church, but howany cases of child sexual abise has come out of or been found in theses churches
All of them are bible pounders- and if that is the case Please give me a pot smoking hippie communist/ socialist/ liberal athiest anyday!
DD, i dont think the ugly stuff will come from the bloggers and posts HERE. A scandal is a scandal and forces in the media, not just blogs, lust after this kind of stuff.
She’s not a minor anymore, so her identity isn’t legally protected. It’s up to the better nature of media outlets to protect her and I’ve seen “the media” present company (pretty much) excluded, they are scum. Police involvement or not, there is sure to be a “court of public opinion” held in this case.
As a courtesy, i dont consider DL part of “the media” …. that is reserved to tabloids, cable news, and radio shows. It’s obviously a story worth keeping an eye on…. but the story is, someone is attempting to destroy the sussex GOP establishment, and they are doing it in a truly disgusting way. like you said……
“Well, here at DL, we will never name her identity, if this is all true. The focus of this story is not her, it is Phillips and Christopher and Urquhart. Conservatives may turn ugly and attack her, but that’s on them. We won’t.”
For what it’s worth, i never actually thought you would…. but it is reassuring to hear all the same.
Once…. De blogs of lesser repute pick a side however…….
There are two separate issues here. Even if no laws were broken, Sussex County mores were. (Yeah, I know, insert hillbilly joke here.) With all due respect for the legal process, I think the moral transgression is going to dwarf any potential illegality.
I agree. But the real revealing issue is whether any of the teabaggers, who are allegedly so moral and so Christian, will care. I bet you they won’t.
This whole thing has the stench of how my brother does things behind peoples backs, in the dark of a corner in the back room. Best of luck to the DSP on this one.
Of course they wont. These are the same people who dragged a 21 year old girl’s stained dress out into the public sphere and made sure the words “oral sex” were a part of every newscast.
Does this have anything to do with the sanctity of marriage as it relates to the age old foundation of civilization?
A falling tide strands all boats. Any and all Sussex County GOP members will be suspected of collusion, not just the author(s) of the anonymous letter. Prior knowledge and covering up is the compromising factor here.
Those GOP members standing for election (Bodenweiser, Ayotte, Urquhart) are going to have to answer questions about their knowledge, involvment, and failure to report anything they may have heard. Unless they knew for a fact that the allegations were untrue, they had an obligation (as citizens, um..Christians, etc.) to take action. That they did not cannot be overlooked.
It is a good case for having a robust county party organization even when elections look like long shots.
Also – Since Atkins is a de facto member of the SCGOP, is there anyway that this touches him? I’m just asking.
@Think123: I rather doubt we’ll be reading anything at DP about these heterosexuals recruiting young people into their immoral lifestyle. Or about the integrity of using information like this as blackmail material.
In fact, you can’t read anything about it at all on DP. Finally, we’ve found a topic that will make them all STFU.
This thing wasn’t mailed to everyone on a pink postcard, was it?
Interesting remark. One current County Council Member “Good Christian” had rocks thrown on lawns in western Sussex with pink notes attached alleging a candidate for row office was gay!
Actually, I was referring to some shenanigans a few years ago where someone that loved them some pornstache sent tell-all postcards out to most Republican committee members.
Wolfgang von Bombart tips his hand as to how much he knows/was involved with the letter by his comments on WGMD.
Yours is good to:) Sussex is hands down, the dirtiest county in De politics.
MJ, What’s your sense of this. Christopher and some supporters are going David Koresh and trying to bring about end times for the SC GOP? Is it that simple?
MJ: I don’t know how much of what I’ve been told was in the letter, but there’s way too much information out there for this to be something people are just now learning about. Indeed, I now better understand some of the snide, anonymous DP comments about the “Christian character” of some of the players in this long-running melodrama.
Legit criticism, Aoine. My tone of voice didn’t translate well into that comment. This will not be fun at all, really, it will be a huge mess and people who don’t deserve it will be hurt.
As was mentioned earlier, this was an open secret down here. Some people didn’t care, but some decided to use it as blackmail. That’s what’s going to bite some people in the ass.
Because it’s suddenly relevant:
I know the girl involved, and have great deal of sympathy for what she’s involved in, but knew NOTHING about the BS in the letter. I think this whole situation is revolting, and that the DEGOP’s people act like this is among the many reasons I’m crashing their primary and working to suppress the party entirely. I think this whole incident is disgusting, between the allegations and the anonymous letters, I’m VERY disgusted.
If Barny Fife knew of this if true and did nothing than his claim to be a guarding of the peace is just some more BS from this watanabe
Good thing I was blissfully unaware of this during the 2010 election, because I would have done something impolite like turn him in.
I believe it was on this site, but maybe it was DP…
On the thread about Vance’s plane crash there were a couple commenters suggesting that Vance had gone to VA to visit his girlfriend who had just started college in VA. At the time, those comments got deleted because they were considered salacious innuendo and in poor taste. That’s too bad because it would be interesting to go back and see who was posting that stuff..what 9 months ago?
This rumor surfaced publically right after the notebook incident and was in danger of surfaceing, then the botched landing happened. Attention was quickly turned to his recovery and rehab.
I am in a circle of republicans in sussex county so far outside the inner circle, that the inner circle seems like a foreign country. If half of what I heard is true, they should all be censured and sent for councileing by head shrinkers, not their clergy or county council.
First off, I do have to say that I am a republican here in Sussex, and have been my whole life. (Im probablly more of a moderate than a right winger) I have been to your site a couple of times over the years. While we have many things we disagree on, I do have to agree with you here. (Im not the preachy type conservative – we have our difference of opinion and that is each of our rights to have an opinion that differs – its what makes our country great)
Ok, so what really bugs me about this whole situation is that the conservative media down in Sussex is ready to pounce on ANY news story when someone is “under investigation” of sexual contact with a minor. They run their name and photo through the ringer. Then when they are not charged, or it is found to be not true if they do report on it, it is a fleeting reference that somehow they got away with it. Another life ruined is their mantra.
Im not saying that is right. It bugs me that here they are going out of their way to conceal Mr. Phillips identity in their reporting (what reporting there is). He should be treated like every other person whose story comes across their desk.
Great point. When these things turn out to be noting, Where do you go to get your reputation back?
sussexrepublican fails to comprehend the difference between charges being filed and being under investigation. The former is when the media steps in.
Anybody remember when Dave Burris called for the resignation of John Atkins? Good times. Now I understand how much courage that really took down there. We won’t see Urk stepping up like that anytime soon.
Please delete Phil’s comment ASAP! It can serve to Id her.
Thanks.
I am starting to suspect that Vance partook of the Watermelon of Doom*.
*Trademark Jason330 circa 2007
I was going to note that the cursed melon took another victim, but I can’t take credit for “watermelon of Doom” ™. that was a commenter.
I have heard that DSP is conducting fingerprint testing on each letter and envelope.
If the allegations are demonstrably false, does that mean sending the letter was a criminal act?
Wow, that’s bad. Somebodies gonna get sacked. Somebody else is probably going to be indicted if it’s true.
i apologize, i guess?
the details given in the story here identify her pretty easily. i mean, i’m in sussex county, but certainly not a republican insider and i put two and two together to get 4.
let’s frame it this way: If the girl says that everyone in the campaign thought she was much older than she was, does that give glen urquhart cover to say that he had no idea vance was having an illegal relationship?
You are scum, Phil. Why are you so determined to ruin her life?
C’mon Phil, the girl and her family are having a tough time, please don’t reveal her name and make it worse!!
She was a child then, she is an adult now. Big deal! She was taken advantage of, by someone much older than her tender years, that we trusted to exhibit good sound conservative jugement. Sending her out of state to college was no obstacle for the letcher.
The only way this behavior can be overlooked or condoned is if there was a proposal and subsequent trip to to vegas to seal the deal. Since that did not happen it is just sick.
I also beleive that everyone who knew about this and did not report it is equally guilty of the crime of concealment and facilitation of the act. Including a member of clergy who should seek remedial guidance from their spiritual advisor.
These allegations make me wonder what the topic of conversation at that “back room” meeting hat prompted the notebook throwing really was??? And how many lies or unpublished truths were brought out by the Police investigation that followed??
From watermelon gate to watermelon statutory rape?
Determined to ruin her life? What are you talking about? I never gave her name.
But while we’re on the subject…Let’s say the girl says everything was completely consensual and she was of sound mind and body when she made the decision to have the affair and no charges are ever pressed. Doesn’t that just make her a homewrecker? Will we still protect her identity then?
So there has been no real news.
Arrived home yesterday to find a copy of the two page letter in my fax machine. It’s sad that such an immature act had to happen. It has the stench of more than one person that has a grudge against Mr. Phillips and the gutless wonders that concocted this will hopefully be exposed for what they are. The rambling and repetitive nature of ‘facts’ as well as the gossiping innuendo included are shameless. The Sussex TeaGOP has sunk to a new level. Best of luck to the DSP in exposing the gutless wonders!
If it was common knowledge that a 17 year old minor girl was involved and regardless of whether there is anything to the alleged situation, the “insiders” of the Sussex County GOP, Glen Urquhart, Eric Bodenweiser, Don Ayotte, and Jeff Christopher will need to answer the questions of what did they know, when did they know it and why did they not report it.
And I believe that blackmail is a considered extortion and that is a crime.
Of course if someone attempted to extort/demand something then it would be blackmail. Otherwise it might just someone’s idea of a nuclear option, without regard to the consequences for themself or others.
@ comment by Dave
Your post is exactly the question that everyone should be asking.
@ mj
Your post begs the question, who was extorting who and who was participateing in the cover up of the sex,extortion,and investigation by DSP?
@ Paul Bodenweiser
if you have a copy of the letter, how about putting it up on your website for all to interpret who we think the author is?
A couple of points:
The age for statutory rape in Delaware is absurd. I was on my own and in college at age 17. It’s legal to get married at age 17. Kill someone when you’re 17 and you’ll most likely be tried as an adult. So what kind of absurd, antiquated code do we have saying that 17-year-olds can’t sleep with whomever they want UNLESS THEY’RE MARRIED? Clearly, it’s a law intended to give parents control over their daughters’ sex lives.
Second, if the affair was consensual, as can be inferred by much of the chatter about it, what is the press “protecting” this woman from? Again, this is 100-year-old morality encoded in law, where it does not belong. If the reports are true that they sent her away, it’s clear that the family is simply trying to hush this up to protect their reputations. YOu know what? I’ll be Mr. and Mrs. Lewinsky would have liked that favor done for them, too.
You bang a highly public figure, your sex life becomes known to the public. Simple as that.
Did this then-girl work on the campaign and never notice that Vance liked to brag about his “family values”? Did she not know what she was doing? Seems unlikely to me.
I really don’t care who she is. But can we stop pretending that this was a “rape” in anything but antiquated name only?
For children 16-17 years and 364 days, it’s only statutory rape if the partner is 30 or older. So ignore Geezer’s hysteria about controlling children’s sex lives. This law is meant to protect 17-year-olds from being victimized by older predators who get their perverted jollies off sleeping with teenage girls, not to target consensual sex between a 17-yo and her 18-yo boyfriend.
Generally I DO thing a lot of laws in this realm are about targeting people’s (especially women’s) sex lives. But I think the Delaware law is written pretty well. 16-17 year old girls (I was one once upon a time) aren’t meeting over-30 adults on match.com or in bars and falling in love (ok, i’m sure there’s an exception somewhere – maybe these two are it). The OVERWHELMING majority of over 30 people I was in contact with on a regular basis when I was that age were my parents, their friends, my friends’ parents, teachers, and other employees at my school. I would assume this is probably the norm. Geezer, I think you’re a little off the mark on this one.
“This law is meant to protect 17-year-olds from being victimized by older predators who get their perverted jollies off sleeping with teenage girls, not to target consensual sex between a 17-yo and her 18-yo boyfriend.”
Thank you for proving my point: You think 17-year-old women are incapable of thinking for themselves. In your world, men are predators and women are victims. In mine, Delawareans are antediluvian provincials who haven’t yet joined the 20th century, let alone the 21st.
No, I think that a 17-year old is a child, not a woman or a man.
If 17 is ok, why not 16? If 16 is ok, why not 15?
I’d much rather be an antediluvian on this issue than a sick fuck like you.
Geezer, it seems like in your situation you’re implying a consensual relationship between a 17 year old girl and a man she meets where there are no additional dynamics at play. Are you denying that a relationship between a 17 year old girl (or boy) and her coach, her teacher, someone else at her school, the parent of a friend, or some other authority figure wouldn’t carry some power dynamics that could be harmful for the teen? Come on. We both know what this law is for.
I know many 17-year-olds are just as if not more mature than some 21-year-olds. But a line has to be drawn somewhere, and 18 is the best place to draw it.
The law says 17-year-old girls should not be sleeping with men who were 13 when the girls were in diapers. Geezer finds that restriction too onerous for some bizarre reason. I can’t imagine why.
He is a troll. Don’t believe anything he says.
Waterpirate: The ladies name is throughout the letter and I’m NOT about to be the one that posts that up but I will give you the subject header. Subject: Sussex County Councilman Vance Phillips and the Delaware Code. It’s also got a you tube link in the contents.
Dave: My brother has a dictionary few others have ever seen. He used to quote Websters a lot and not one of the three within this office ever had anything remotely close to his…but mine all matched. Go Figure. I’ve been told now that two of those in you list are being investigated. When it’s verified it’ll be on the my site but the two page letter WILL NOT BE posted just to prove something to waterpirate.
Be careful everyone!!!!!!!!!!!
False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person’s right to privacy from publicity which puts them in a false light to the public; which is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.
False light differs from defamation primarily in being intended “to protect the plaintiff’s mental or emotional well-being” rather than protect a plaintiff’s reputation as is the case with the tort of defamation[1] and in being about the impression created rather than being about true or false. If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading then a tort of false light might have occurred.[1]
“False light privacy claims often arise under the same facts as defamation cases, and therefore not all states recognize false light actions. There is a subtle difference in the way courts view the legal theories — false light cases are about damage to a person’s personal feelings or dignity, whereas defamation is about damage to a person’s reputation.”[2]
“The specific elements of the Tort of FALSE LIGHT vary considerably even among those jurisdictions which do recognize this Tort. Generally, these elements consist of the following:
A publication by the Defendant about the Plaintiff;
made with actual malice (very similar to that type required by New York Times v. Sullivan in “Defamation” cases);
which places the Plaintiff in a false light; AND
that would be highly offensive (i.e., embarrassing to reasonable persons).[1]
Some U.S. state courts have ruled that false-light lawsuits brought under their states’ laws must be rewritten as defamation lawsuits; these courts generally base their opinion on the premises that a) any publication or statement giving rise to a false-light claim will also give rise to a defamation claim, such that the set of statements creating false light is necessarily, although not by definition, entirely within the set of statements constituting defamation; and b) the standard of what would be “highly offensive” or “embarrassing” to a reasonable person is much more difficult to apply than is the state’s standard for defamation, such that the potential penalties for violating the former standard would have an unconstitutional or otherwise unacceptable chilling effect on the media. However, “most states do allow false light claims to be brought, even where a defamation claim would suffice.”[3]
Examples
In Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Globe Int’l, Inc., a tabloid newspaper printed the picture of a 96-year-old Arkansas woman next to the headline “SPECIAL DELIVERY: World’s oldest newspaper carrier, 101, quits because she’s pregnant! I guess walking all those miles kept me young.” 786 F. Supp. 791, 792 (D. Ark. 1992). The woman (not in fact pregnant), Nellie Mitchell, who had run a small newsstand on the town square since 1963, prevailed at trial under a theory of false light invasion of privacy, and was awarded damages of $1.5M. The tabloid appealed, generally disputing the offensiveness and falsity of the photograph, arguing that Mitchell had not actually been injured, and claiming that Mitchell had failed to prove that any employee of the tabloid knew or had reason to know that its readers would conclude that the story about the pregnant carrier related to the photograph printed alongside. The court of appeals rejected all the tabloid’s arguments, holding that “[i]t may be. . .that Mrs. Mitchell does not show a great deal of obvious injury, but. . . Nellie Mitchell’s experience could be likened to that of a person who had been dragged slowly through a pile of untreated sewage. . . [and] few would doubt that substantial damage had been inflicted by the one doing the dragging.”
In a case against Playgirl magazine, actor Jose Solano Jr. won a false light claim because of the placement of headlines around his cover photo. The court said the gist of the magazine’s cover—which featured headlines like “12 Sizzling Centerfolds Ready to Score With You” and “TV Guys. Primetime’s Sexy Young Stars Exposed” — put Solano in a false light by suggesting he might be pictured nude inside the magazine, even though the cover could not have given rise to a defamation claim.”[3] The case was then later reversed due to the fact that he was a limited public figure and that the magazine was ‘newsworthy.’
A Fifth Circuit case helps elucidate the distinction between false light and defamation: Jeannie Braun was an entertainer who performed an amusement park act involving a swimming pig. Braun v. Flynt, 726 F.2d 245, 247 (5th Cir. 1984). Through deception, a company owned by Larry Flynt, “obtained her picture [with the pig] and placed it in a magazine of nationwide circulation devoted to the publication of lewd pictures of women and to sexual exploitation.” Id. at 256. A jury awarded Braun $30,000 on her defamation claim and $55,000 on her false light claims. Id. at 248. The Fifth Circuit, however, held that Mrs. Braun could not recover under both theories because they arose “from a single publication.” Id. at 258. Nonetheless, the court instructed that if Braun waived her defamation claim, the district court should enter judgment on the false light claim. Id. at 258. The court explained that the “facts of this case and the nature of the damages suffered – primarily, personal humiliation, embarrassment, pain and suffering – fit more precisely the ‘false light’ invasion of privacy theory than they do the defamation theory.” [4][5]
In the 1967 case Time, Inc. v. Hill,[6] the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated a false light privacy judgment for the Hill family in the absence of proof of actual malice. James Hill and his family were held up for a day in 1952 by three escaped convicts in their home near Philadelphia. The convicts eventually released the Hill family without harm or injury. Joseph Hayes wrote a novel about the story titled The Desperate Hours, which would later be made in to a Broadway play. Hayes’ work portrayed a family, similar to the Hills, but in Hayes’ story, the family is treated with considerable violence while held hostage. Life magazine published an article in 1955 “describing the play as a re-enactment, and using as illustrations photographs of scenes staged in the former Hill home.”[7] The Hill family sued Time, Inc. for invasion of privacy reasoning that Life magazine was using their name and experience in order to increase circulation and to attract more people to the play. Time, Inc. argued that the issue was of public concern and was “published in good faith without any malice whatsoever.”[7] Justice William Brennan, speaking for a five-member majority of the Court, wrote that a showing of innocent or negligent false reportage is insufficient to collect damages for a false light claim. Justice John Marshall Harlan II, writing in dissent, opined that the actual malice standard, as set forth by the Court three years earlier in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, was too stringent for false light privacy cases.
oldobamadem, I was very careful to note that the letter only contains allegations and that there is a very real possibility, given the timing and the feud between the various players involved, that none of this is true.
Trust me, I am very familiar with defamation and the tort of false light.
And to absolutely clear, if anyone posts anything that identifies in any way the identity of the girl involved, the comment will be deleted and you will be banned from commenting on this blog forever.
It serves no purpose to publicize the former minor’s identity, everyone else is a public figure, either as a candidate or elected official.
Once the letter is in the public domain (which is what happens when copies exist, which apparently is the case in this situation), it will essentially go viral.
Since the DSP does not have the only copy, it will eventually appear.
My compliments to the admins of this site for dilligently protecting the young lady’s identity.
Thank you
Im curious oldobamadem – all the cases you cite are against newspapers/organisations and/or journalistic endeavours
no case law against a blog – coz if that was the case Rush Lambaugh and Michelle Malkin would have been shut down loooong ago – wish they would be…..
BUT – that said, I support this site’s diligence in protecting the girl’s identity and agree – I think it should be expanded some- in that there is other identifiable information that could “out her” and I hope that would be monitored as well – Im sure it would be.
@Geezer – we are always at odds over your particular view of women and have tangeled over this before and I must say I stayed out of this today and see that others also view your “sensibilities” on certain aspets of the gender relationships/rules as skewed as well
Im not feeling so out-there now. And I also feel the intent of the law is to protect youngsters from predators/those in authority that would prey on them, regardless of gender.
There is prosecurtorial disrection and if she was 17 and 364 days I doubt they would prosecute – its case dependant, few laws are absolute in the application.
Geezer wants a 50-year-old man to be able to have sex with a girl still in high school and not yet old enough to vote. That’s what it boils down to. I have just lost any shred of respect I ever had for his insights. Sick.
@SW – well you missed the flame war we had over his view on buying women dinner and what the man should get for dessert – that was the first one
then you missed the one on when women cry rape/abuse = another flame war we had on that issue
but the best one you missed was on forced oral sex and the rarely tried solution – biting the bastard…
somehow Geezer and I would not do well if either of us had a few drinks and all bets were off – Im not sure the surgeosn that fixed up John Wayne Bobbit woud be so successful once I was through-
they would have far less to work with – Lorena was kind compared to me
and apart from the few times we agree- thats why we dont get along –
-I think his view of women and their place is terribly schewed…
Thank you again for demonstrating that the law is not based on anything rational but instead on the raw emotions of people like Sussex Watcher, who can’t even discuss the subject without calling me a “sick fuck” for the crime of looking at it rationally.
If the 50-year-old marries the girl, I would remind you, he can have sex with her. So it’s not about the sex.
There is no rational basis for the law. Simple as that. Anytime you feel like debating it rationally instead of showing off your finely honed sense of moral outrage, let me know.
Aoine: You’re way off base on whom you debated on the dinner issue. I don’t think any dessert is implied.
And my view of women on this issue is that they can make up their own minds, even if they’re “only” 17, about whom they would like to sleep with.
If you consider those positions anti-woman, then I guess I’m anti-woman.
Geezer, keep in mind that in the abuse of alter boys, as well as the current Sandusky episode, all those relationships too were consensual.
It is true; that outside our society, many marriages occur at or before 15. Often forced, those marriages are sometimes also non-consensual. (In fact, that is probably their society’s primary motivation: marry them off before they know what they are getting into.)
All things considered, it could be quite possible that someone aged 17 could correctly make a decision, one which they will never regret, guaranteeing them happiness for the rest of their life.
But as an American society, we have chosen to make 18 our standard age at where we draw the line as to when we feel a person has enough emotional maturity to can make a reasonable determination as to whether or not they are being exploited.
Anything less is against the law, and therefore, for the law to remain meaningful, it must be prosecuted.
Maybe 18 is too young. if the law is indeed based on emotional maturity, i know a few 20-somethings who shouldn’t be with their 40 year old boyfriends.
“If 17 is ok, why not 16? If 16 is ok, why not 15?”
The question is really two fold. The first is what should the age of consent be. For instance, if we have two 15 year olds having sex, how should we react to that? I don’t think anyone would suggest that is 1) criminal and 2)acceptable.
The second aspect is what is an acceptable difference in age. If 15/15 is not criminal how about 15/17 or 15/18.
In my experience there is not a hell of lot of difference in maturation from 16 to 18. 15 seems to be general breakpoint. Ditto 18-24, which is another general step in the maturation process.
The line needs to be drawn somewhere and society needs to recognize that there is some fuzziness to the line when it is applied to individuals in specific situations. So for me there are some cases where a 17/17 relationship could (not should) be unacceptable (and even criminal) and some cases where a 17/21 relationship should not be unacceptable or criminal.
I probably would not be a good judge of these things because I tend to employ situational and individual analysis rather than an absolute application of a specific rule for all people and all cases.
That said, if I recognize that 17/21 might be acceptable and I believe a 17/50 is unacceptable, I have the dilemma of defining the boundary between acceptability and unacceptability. I generally believe a 8 year difference is the about the limit for relationshiop success, so I suppose I would draw the line at 17/25. But that’s just me.
The world (or America anyway) is full of women who have had short-term relationships in their teen years with older men, and have grown up none the worse for it. I think the fear is (apart from the ancient patriarchal and Freudian issues) that one’s daughter will become ensnared in some long-term abusive Svengali-like relationship with an older man that will cut them off from their families and normal society, and stunt their process of maturation into a healthy and happy woman. That’s possible I suppose, but not a reason to prosecute more benign relationships so harshly.
“in the abuse of alter boys, as well as the current Sandusky episode, all those relationships too were consensual.”
First of all, no they weren’t. Second, nobody is arguing that there should be no age limit.
I raised the point because, however wrong and disturbing we find the behavior of the perpetrator in this case — and I agree it is gross and a gross moral failure on the perpetrator’s part — I’m not sure the legal system should be involved.
@kavips,
New Hampshire = 13, Pennslyvania = <16. Restrictions apply in both cases of course. So actually, it is within our society, not outside our society.
While I have a hard time understanding marriage at 13 some members of our society (legislators) determine that there was some rational for drawing the line as they did.
I tend to categorize societal rules. Some are absolute (stopping at red lights); some are not (marriage age). I tend to associate absolute rules with sustaining the societal framework. And I tend to be relative when it comes to individual behavior, erring on the side of individual choice, except as is affects the rest of the society (driving the wrong way on a freeway to express one's individuality).
As I said, I probably would make a poor judge because I tend to not think or act in absolutes.
Well i hate to say this but….. It depends. And situational morality is what it is about
Yes the law should be involved – it does not mean that punishment is warranted- when the law is involved the situation itself and the players and their a ility to make mature unimpaired decisions is assessed . When one says the law is involved i dont necessarily fell that doom is coming
It means that the eyes of society and societal norms and measures are looking at the fact the situation amd the players.
So…… To make it all clear…… IT DEPENDS…..
And thats the function of the law- situational analysis
Aoine: I agree, it depends.
But in this case, because the alleged perpetrator is a politician, a judge who uses his/her discretion to say “no foul” is going to be accused of bowing to political influence.
Let’s make this clear: I really dislike conservative lawmakers who posture about family values and then display real ones directly at odds with their posturing. I hope this puts an end to his career. But I’m having a hard time seeing why the police should be involved.
If you think about it, we have the Delaware State Police — and can we agree that DSP is also a major political player in the state? — looking into this guy’s sex life for proof that the relationship was physical before the girl reached a certain age. Even if the couple is exonerated, they will have been dragged through the legal mud familiar to any woman who has ever filed a charge of rape.
@dave-actually you have what makes a great judge- discrection amd discernment- both highly sought after and qualities that cannot be taught- the facts of the law and the law itself can be taught- that part is easy
The other things are qualities a little more diffucult to find
@geezer- yup. Every flame war we got into was anout how i perceive your words to express how u see the gender roles/ relationships
And everyone! I know this case is female/ male oriented but pleAse – these paws r in place to also protect young men too- they are just as much a target by bastards and animals like sandusky and members of religious orders- amd while catholics took a big hit- many of these cases come out of pentacostal/ evangelical churches too
@geezer. I think hou hit the mark but missed the mark.
DSP WILL INVESTIGATE – But the AG decides to PROSECUTE – that is where the issue lies- that said its not political – the AG Office ‘s would have jumped quite some time ago if it was purely political
Sad but true about women filing a rape claim – and we think we are enlightened about the issue.
It never ceases to amaze me to see the sex scandals on the right and the money scandals on the left
Maybe its because this is what the right and the left reject? So they over reach in wanting it and it ends up burning them- the forbidden fruit so to speak
Interesting dynamic- wonder if it should be studied
Sorry for the typos- LAWS not PAWS. tiny keyboard little phone
I actually liked the typo. If someone had kept his paws to himself, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I really do think you misperceive me somethimes. The oral sex argument, for example. I was making the point that the image involved represented not just sex but violence as well, and that picturing oral sex made for a more dominance-oriented image than intercourse would have.
IN essense, I was saying the photo, like a rape, was more about violoence and dominance than sex. I would think you would agree with that.
On record as hating the topic of statutory rape every time it comes up here.
If anyone in this discussion does NOT have the experience of being a 17 year old girl, STFU.
And
VAGINA!
I have the experiences of dating 17-year-old girls (well, just one, when I was 16) and raising a 17-year-old girl. So STFU yourself. Who are you to tell people they can’t discuss something?
umm… applying that rule one could say:
If anyone..does not have the experience… of being male – STFU
If anyone..does not have the experience… of being female – STFU
…of being gay – STFU
…of being black – STFU
…of being a senior citizen – STFU
…of being a farmer – STFU
…of being anything – STFU
Well, you see what I am getting at. Sure we do not have the experiential knowledge that comes from the stereotypical identities by which we all define ourselves and others. However, we are all human beings and such we have the ability to comprehend to some degree the experiences of others.
The ability to appreciate those experiences is part of what makes us human. One does not have to be an artist to appreciate art or a musician to appreciate music or to have gone through war to comprehend the horrors of war. It is our unique ability to empathize which sets us apart from other mammals (with the possible exception of domesticated dogs). Additionally, some of us have daughters who are or were 17. So, respectfully, I disagree.
How about? This is a bullshit topic.
How about, the only bullshit is when people start to tell others what they’re allowed to talk about. If you don’t like the discussion, skip it. How hard is that?
While I don’t think ‘stfu’ is the appropriate way to go, “listen to me, because my experience is important” is. I share hereagain’s frustration of frequently seeing bills targeted at modifying the behavior of women without paying heed to women’s opinions and voices (ex. every abortion law that made the news this year). I get what she’s saying. I think this one walks the line in a way that’s ok with me. Personally.
Your opinions are valid gentlemen, it’s just from my personal experience Geezer’s here is a little too libertarian for my tastes.
You are free to participate in a bullshit topic and I am free to call it that. Not hard at all 😉
And I’m free to point out that you calling it a bullshit topic is also bullshit. See how it works?
That makes you completely full of shit, but that’s not news!
Well seeing as that comment was not for me…..
@geezer- ok maybe but also, maybe its Not my misperception just an!inaftfully phrased comment
However i dont see why one form of sex is deamed more dominance oriented than another?
Maybe because YOU, being male view it as more dominant? And females dont
I never once heard a female refer to oral sex as more dominant that intercourse or another form of sex
Do you think women feel they’rebeing dominant when the “tables are turned”
Its an interesting question.
I think like the age thing its case by case – an individual perspective
Do all men feel oral sex is a ‘dominance’ form of sex?
Whoops – dont want to offend anyone but. This is where we r going
I have to disagree, Anoine. I see falatio (sp?) as very much about dominance, and I have female friends who won’t do it for that reason. Domination is the turn-on with that act for many. Of course, others view it differently. Anal is also an act of dominance, obviously, even though it too can be done lovingly.
Aoine: You should have said that at the time.
Set aside for a moment our disagreement about the implications of the act itself. I was saying the use of that image by Larry Flynt to demean S.E. Cupp was not about sex, it was about violence. Have you seen the case of some ignoramus in South Carolina who tweeted that he wanted Sandra Fluke to “shut her cocksucker”? I think that term was chosen for the same reason. He could just as easily have said “shut her mouth” but opted for a term that would convey more violence.
JP: Don’t give me that shit. 😉
Well- gotta say thats new- all the females i know that wont never used that excuse
They just dont like it and never devolved further or never thought that deeply into it
But interesting perspective- just not in my pervue
But even a kiss can be corrupted.
Yes, V.
I do NOT think most people who have never had the experience of being a young female in this society have the knowledge base to assess what would be ‘consensual’ for a person in that situation. That’s why we just made a law about it. As a former young female I would have told you i was ready for anything. As an adult I would say that girl was delusional. As a parent, including of a 17 year old daughter, I would say that, developmentally, their ability to assess risk is not developed to the point where they can make an informed decision about the possible consequences of sex with an adult, and as a feminist I would say there are elements of differential power that play into any such ‘relationship’ whatever the formal status differential between them.
The world is chock full of men deciding what women can do with their bodies. I’d like them all to STFU. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen in Michigan, me’s ability to shut women up still exceeds women’s ability to shut men up.
Vagina.
hahaha please continue to sign all your posts that way. it brightens my day.
@ geezer- hard way to have a convo …. But…anyway you r a guy – therefore u see that tweet regarding a “cocksucker” as violent. I see it as vulgar and demeaning- not violent or dominant.
I hear the word but dont see the deed – for example u call someone a “c**t” I dont see the ummm physical representstion l just hear vulargity. Maybe its not a male vs female issue maybe its just us as individuals
But men and women are VASTLY different but so are different races/ethnicities. Our world is colored by our identities and experiences. None are superior just different.
Amd maybe thats why i take such offense and some of the things you posted and u dont get my strong pushback- my world view is so far removed from yours that finding the right language to communicate has taken this long.- and visa versa to be fair
But seeing things from the perspective of the dominant culture is never going to be my forte- sorry. ;-). But I do try
@V- i do get where u come from a little more – and any parent looking at their 17 year old daughter with a public official more than twice her age (outside of a 3rd world country) would feel the same way.
Even if the child was male ( at least for me) and its not the sex aspect its the isolation form peers and loss of that young person experience they all should have And thefear of an older person taking over their life
Of course as a “feminist” im still defining that term- I’d rather a more power – sharing view of the world and hey may THINK they can tell me what to do with my body, my ovaries etc but like i have always done- i will walk my own road and leave them there babbling away- they only have the power over me that i choose to give them – Regardless of what they THINK OR SAY
VAGINA. 😉
And women will always be able to shut men up- its very simple really
Either perform the deed- that always works
OR
Threaten to withold it- that works too
😉
this conversation is offensive and sexist.
Ben if I were smarter I would have said that instead of calling it bullshit:)
Is that surprising? Everybody is waiting around for the next offensive and sexist shoe to drop in this offensive and sexist story.
sorry Ben –
I didnt mean to offend anyone – however that said
its tough to have a conversation about sex without being sexist
its like the elephant in the room
try having a conversation about race without admitting at least one sterotype that you have – which in and of itself can be called racist
people tiptoe around these issues trying not to offend – but unless you put it out there – what really is in your mind, the issue wont be confronted, if never confronted, it wont be resolved and doing that without offending a person or two is very tough to do
I truly did not mean to offend – and Im sorry I did so
it still leaves the FACT that in Sussex the fact that a 17 year old who MAY have had an alleged relationship with a much older person who is also in a power position will NOT raise too many eyebrows
now THAT is what is OFFENSIVE
Delaware Grapevine sounds off and quotes the letter. Vance has hired Joe Hurley.
http://www.delawaregrapevine.com/6-12anonymousletter.asp
New thread regarding the Grapevine article at http://delawareliberal.net//2012/06/19/cohen-quotes-the-actual-letter-phillips-attorney-fires-shot-across-christophers-bow/
Move the discussion over there.
In my opinion, you should keep your assumptions about who released the letter to yourself. Christopher’s allies are good people and did not know about any of this until now.
You should also do your research; the Sheriff’s powers to arrest and detain are Constitutional and are exercised by almost all other County Sheriffs across this nation.
I made no assumtion just predicted a leak. This story is, as i said, total bullshit and the letter writer is a steaming pile of shit, cheers:)
“the Sheriff’s powers to arrest and detain are Constitutional…”
Not really. He was hired to conserve the peace through conducting Sheriff sales. Anyway, this whole topic been made moot by the state legislature.
“…and are exercised by almost all other County Sheriffs across this nation.”
Keyword: Almost
Didn’t your parents ever tell you that just because other people do something, it isn’t a reason for you to do it? You know, like jumping off of a cliff.
If the story is total B.S. then perhaps the defense attorney should have said that in his letter.
That and Vance hiring one of the best defense attorneys in the state only makes it seem more likely there is some “there there.”
Other states do things that we do not. Sales tax being an obvious and glaring one. So lets not go down the road of “other states have….”
I think hiring the best defense attorney simply means that you are smart. We have a legal system in this country, not a justice system. It is set up to protect people with money.
The side with the best lawyers wins. Anyone, guilty or innocent, would be a fool to be involved with less representation than their money could buy.
Person gets a good attorney = guilty NOT, attorney shoulda said xyz in his communication because you say so makes you an Ahole. Between youe ears there is no “there there” Cheers
“Christopher’s allies are good people and did not know about any of this until now.” What planet have you been living on and what are you smoking? This is one of the most asinine comments ever posted here.