User:Hoping To Help/ScratchPad

List of false allegations of sexual assault

List of false accusations of rape

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hoping_To_Help/ListFalseRape

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hoping_To_Help/ListFalseRape/ScratchPad

False accusations of Rape

See also

• False accusations
• False allegation of child sexual abuse
• List of miscarriage of justice cases
• List of satanic ritual abuse allegations
• Day care sex abuse hysteria
• Satanic ritual abuse
• McMartin preschool trial
• Hungry for Monsters is a documentary about false allegations of sexual abuse made by Nicole Althaus.
• Crystal Mangum in the Duke lacrosse case
• Tawana Brawley rape allegations
• The Scottsboro Boys
• Nora Wall a former Irish nun of the Sisters of Mercy who was wrongfully convicted of rape in June 1999, and served four days of a life sentence in July 1999, before her conviction was quashed. She was officially declared the victim of a miscarriage of justice in December 2005. The wrongful conviction was based on false allegations by two women in their 20s, Regina Walsh and Patricia Phelan.
• Laurel Rose Willson falsely claimed to have given birth to three children as a result of rape; two were allegedly killed in snuff films, and the third was supposedly sacrificed in her presence at a Satanic ritual. However, no evidence was ever found that she had ever been pregnant or adopted a child.

• Stefan Kiszko was falsely accused of stalking and exposing himself to four teenage girls. This was one of the miscarriages that caused him to be wrongly convicted of raping and killing Lesley Susan Molseed. DNA evidence eventually proved he could not be guilty and, subsequently, the four teenagers who had accused him of stalking and indecently exposing himself recanted their testimony and said they had lied for “a laugh” and because “at the time it was funny”. After 16 years in jail Kinszko’s convictions were overturned and another man was eventually convicted.

Jamie Leigh Jones

Useful Articles

• KBR Alleged Rape Trial Begins http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304665904576386272590962198.html

But attorneys for the defendants, in their own opening statements, countered that Ms. Jones has lied about the rape and her medical history, saying an encounter occurred but that it was consensual. KBR, they said, welcomes the opportunity to clear its name. "We are not who Jamie Jones says we are," said Joanne Vorpahl, a lawyer for KBR. "She is not who she claims to be."

The case has generated significant attention in part because Ms. Jones's testimony before Congress over the alleged incident led to a change in federal law in 2009 that bars companies that require arbitration to resolve a range of complaints, including sexual assault and harassment complaints by their employees, from receiving government contracts.

... Only now is the matter of the alleged assault being tried in a court. A federal grand jury in Florida investigated Ms. Jones's claims but handed down no indictments.

The jury in the civil case will not only determine if Ms. Jones, now 26 years old, was in fact sexually assaulted; it will also decide whether KBR and its subsidiaries defrauded her twice: by failing to disclose that other women had been sexually assaulted by its employees in Iraq when she was hired, and also with the requirement that disputes be resolved through private arbitration.

In court filings, KBR denied the allegations regarding its knowledge of other women who had been sexually assaulted by its employees.

...

Ms. Jones originally said that she had been raped by multiple co-workers on a July night in 2005, but Mr. Kelly said he has sufficient evidence to bring a civil claim against only one:Charles Bortz, a firefighter for KBR at the time. Mr. Bortz, who has denied wrongdoing on all allegations, hasn't been criminally charged for the alleged assault.

Andrew McKinney, a lawyer for Mr. Bortz, told jurors that his client and Ms. Jones had been flirting on the night in question and that they later had consensual sex. He said that the medical evidence wasn't consistent with a violent rape, and that an independent psychiatrist had diagnosed Ms. Jones with a "narcissistic and histrionic" personality disorder. Mr. Bortz has filed a counterclaim of defamation against Ms. Jones for accusing him of the rape. She has denied the allegations.

• http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/kbr-could-win-jamie-leigh-jones-rape-trial?page=1
• http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_women_won_the_kbr_rape_case

• • But at trial, Jones’ story fell apart. As Stephanie Mencimer reported inMother Jones last week, KBR found experts and evidence that cast doubt on large portions of Jones’ story. Jones claimed, for example, that she had two sips of a drink and doesn’t remember anything else, but KBR dug up a report in which she admitted to having five drinks. No evidence of Rohypnol was found in blood tests. Jones also alleged her breast implants were ruptured by the violent assault, but the doctor who treated her the next day said this wasn’t true either. The allegation that there were multiple attackers was thrown out for lack of evidence, and prosecutors brought up that Jones had reported being raped twice in the past and had taken drugs used to treat anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder.

• http://overlawyered.com/2007/12/halliburton-gang-rape-and-fear-of-arbitration-the-jamie-leigh-jones-case/

• • Here is the EEOC Letter of Determination. Bill Childs provides many other court documents. A typical unskeptical adoption of the Public Citizen line can be found at Jezebel and many other blogs. Some Republican partisans areeven more skeptical than I am. A more nuanced discussion is at Amber Taylor’s blog and Ben Domenech. (And welcome Malkin readers.)

• • The claims were suddenly of much more outrageous conduct: the original allegation of a single he-said/she-said sexual assault was now an allegation of gang rape by several unknown John Doe rapists who worked as firemen (though she did make a claim of multiple rape to the EEOC, though it is unclear when that claim was made); she claims that after she reported the rape, “Halliburton locked her in a container” (the EEOC found that KBR provided immediate medical treatment and safety and shipped her home immediately) and she threw in an allegation that a “sexual favor” she provided a supervisor in Houston was the result of improper “influence.” (But she no longer makes the implausible claim that she was living in an all-male dorm in Iraq.)
• http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/07/lisa-falkenberg-ted-poes-silence-after-rejection-of-jamie-leigh-jones-kbr-rape-suit-speaks-volumes/

• • Ted Poe, the outspoken Republican congressman, former judge and prosecutor known as one of the most prolific orators on the U.S. House floor, has finally found a subject about which he’d rather remain silent.
  • After long championing the cause of alleged gang-rape victim Jamie Leigh Jones, the Humble congressman has yet to make a public statement about the jury’s verdict in the case, rendered last week.

• • But evidence shows Poe had nothing to do with the rescue, Mother Jones reports.
  • The relevant facts were confirmed to me this week by Dan Hedges, who represented KBR in the case and says he’s been friends with Poe some 30 years.
  • “Ted Poe is a longtime friend of mine. I have no interest whatsoever of being critical of him. But the facts are what the facts are,” Hedges told me. “He did help. He made a contribution to getting her back to the country. But before his office heard anything about it, the State Department already had her in custody.”
  • The latter happened the evening of July 28, 2005, Hedges said, and Poe’s phone log shows the first call from Jones’ father came July 29.

TRIAL: Opening Arguments

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Details-begin-to-emerge-in-trial-for-ex-KBR-1686186.php On the morning after Jamie Leigh Jones says she was raped by several Kellogg Brown and Root co-workers in Iraq six years ago, she woke up naked and groggy with a man in her bunk, her lawyer said Tuesday. ... But Andrew McKinney, representing Charles Boartz, the only one of Jones' alleged attackers who is named in the suit, said her story has changed over time.

Attorney Joanne Vorpahl said in her opening arguments that, while the suit has been an "incredibly unfortunate" experience for KBR, the company welcomes the opportunity to clear its name.

"We are not who she says we are, and she's not who she claims," Vorpahl said.

...

McKinney noted in his opening arguments that while Jones initially said she couldn't remember anything after her last drink with the firefighters, she later recalled subsequent events.

There were also discrepancies in how much pain Jones reported, the lawyer said.

"Everyone who saw Ms. Jones quite a number of times will testify that Ms. Jones exhibited no evidence of the kind of pain that would go with violent rape," he said.

A physician who examined Jones reported finding fissures, or skin cracks, in her genital area, but they were as consistent with consensual sex as with nonconsensual sex, McKinney said.

...

Jones' Testimony

Jones has told jurors she was drugged and then raped by a group of KBR firefighters. She said Bortz was in her room the next morning. She says she has no memory of what happened because she believes she was drugged with Rohypnol, known as the "date rape drug," just before she was sexually assaulted. ... Bortz's attorney tried to show that after the alleged rape, Jones did not appear to act like she had been attacked but instead went to work as normal, joked around and talked about camp gossip.

McKinney showed jurors a series of emails Jones wrote at work the morning after the alleged sexual assault in which Jones joked with one of her friends at the camp and told the friend she felt the women at the camp hated her. Her friend warned her to not get "caught up in camp gossip."

...

But McKinney said testing done by the Department of the Army of a urine sample from Jones that was taken within 24 hours of the alleged sexual assault detected no Rohypnol.

McKinney has tried to suggest to jurors that Jones has changed details about how she was sexually assaulted, that she wasn't as severely injured as she claimed to be and that she has a history of making false accusations of sexual harassment.

...

Vorpahl also asked Jones why she had never previously mentioned, until the trial, that a KBR official had allegedly told Jones shortly after she reported her rape to "be careful because another girl was raped and she was buried over here."

Jones said she didn't remember anything about the statement until someone reminded her of it this past week.

Jones has accused KBR officials of locking her in a trailer after she told them about the rape and not letting her call her family.

...

Trial

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jul/08/texas-woman-loses-iraq-rape-case-against-kbr/

Lawyers for Bortz and the companies argued that Jones concocted her story out of fear of gossip among co-workers at the camp.

Bortz' Side

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9O1RF4O0.htm

The Houston Chronicle reported Thursday that Bortz, 34, told jurors he and Jones had intercourse in her room after they shared a drink at a party with several other KBR workers. He said the only time Jones asked him to stop was when she became concerned that he already was seeing another woman.

"I told her I was fine, and we continued," Bortz said.

...

But Bortz, who told jurors he is a trained first responder, said Jones did not seem like she was in shock the next morning.

Bortz's attorneys have told jurors that testing done by the Department of the Army of a urine sample from Jones that was taken within 24 hours of the alleged sexual assault detected no Rohypnol.

... http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/KBR-lawyers-try-to-discredit-woman-suing-over-rape-2080423.php KBR lawyers try to discredit woman suing over rapeKBR accuser put on defense Attorneys for accused rapists hammer away at Jones' credibility in ... Defense attorneys cross-examining Jones also said she misled KBR by providing false information on company documents, including her resume, employment application and a medical questionnaire required to assess whether she should be deployed to work in Iraq.

KBR attorney Joanne Vorpahl, citing medical records, said Jones neglected to inform KBR that she had a history of complaining of an impaired memory or that she previously had been diagnosed and treated for depression.

...

Difference in times

KBR attorneys said Jones joked with then later confided to a KBR employee in emails that she was experiencing problems with female KBR employees after drinking with company firefighters the night before. According to the company documents, the emails were sent the morning after Jones said she was drugged and raped.

...

Boartz has denied raping Jones, saying sex between the two was consentual.

Jones Allegations

• http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3977702&page=1

In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave. Jones described the container as sparely furnished with a bed, table and lamp.

"It felt like prison," says Jones, who told her story to ABC News as part of an upcoming "20/20" investigation. "I was upset; I was curled up in a ball on the bed; I just could not believe what had happened."

...

According to her lawsuit, Jones was raped by "several attackers who first drugged her, then repeatedly raped and injured her, both physically and emotionally."

Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers.

...

In a statement, KBR said it was "instructed to cease" its own investigation by U.S. government authorities "because they were assuming sole responsibility for the criminal investigations."

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/24/hot-coffee-documentary-skewers-tort-reformers.html

Although promised living quarters that would provide both privacy and security, Jones was housed in an all-male dormitory where, four days after her arrival, she was drugged and brutally gang-raped by KBR employees.

...

temp

Jamie Leigh Jones is a former KBR employee notable for accusing fellow KBR employees of drugging and gang-raping her on July 28, 2005, at Camp Hope, Baghdad, Iraq. A federal grand jury investigated her claims but issued no indictments.

Jones filed a civil suit against KBR and one of its former employees for over $114 million in damages. But the allegations were fabricated, said KBR, and during trial evidence was presented that undermined Jones’ credibility and caused her story to fall apart. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, finding that the sex between Jones and the employee was consensual, and therefore no rape had occurred, and that KBR did not defraud her. Thus vindicating KBR's position that she had fabricated her story -- which they believe was partially motivated by a book and movie deal.

KBR filed a motion to recover more than $2 million in attorney fees and court costs. "Jones' fabricated story of being drugged and raped demonstrates that her Title VII claims are not only frivolous, unreasonable and groundless, but also that she brought these claims in bad faith," KBR states.

Jones is the founder of the Jamie Leigh Foundation, an advocacy agency for victims of sexual assault.

Intro

Jamie Leigh Jones is a former KBR employee notable for accusing fellow KBR employees of drugging and gang-raping her on July 28, 2005, at Camp Hope, Baghdad, Iraq. A federal grand jury investigated her claims but issued no indictments.

Jones filed a civil suit against KBR and one of its former employees for over $114 million in damages. "But at trial, Jones’ story fell apart." The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, finding that the sex between Jones and the employee was consensual, and therefore no rape had occurred, and that KBR did not defraud her. Thus "vindicating a company that charged she had exaggerated or made up her story, in part for fame, publicity and a book deal."

After a federal trial judge "threw out large portions of her case" on summary judgment , and a federal jury unanimously rejected all of Jones' remaining claims, KBR filed a motion to recover more than $2 million in attorney fees and court costs. In the motion KBR states that Jones' hostile work environment and rape claims were fabricated and frivolous.

Jones is the founder of the Jamie Leigh Foundation, an advocacy agency for victims of sexual assault.

JLJ Postings

"But this privacy also means they forfeit the right to respond."

Above Cerejota states: "But this privacy also means they forfeit the right to respond."

But this isn't necessary, or even usually the case. Usually alleged victims of sexual assault maintain their privacy -- but they still have the ability to respond either through their lawyers or by talking directly to the journalists (who will then report their side --while keeping their name private). The same is true for juveniles -- their "side/version" of an alleged crime may be fully reported in Reliable Sources -- yet their names are often kept private.

Now, it is true that if someone's "side" is not written about in Reliable Sources -- then we can't tell their side for them. This is because WP:Verifiable, WP:UNDUE always apply in addition to (or actually, especially in the case of) WP:BLP. And so, yes, you're correct when you say: "We cannot do an artificial valuation of due or undue weight, we must base ourselves on what reliable sources tell us as a whole (not a nitpicked selection)."

But you're making an incorrect assumption when you go on to say: "And for better of for worse, their choice of privacy also means they cannot reply..." There are lots of ways that people can and do get there "side" reported in Reliable Sources while maintaining their privacy. As an example: One can file a huge lawsuit like Roe v. Wade under an alias and still get lots of press -- while keeping your privacy. Hoping To Help(talk) 23:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

On a separate note, the only firefighter directly accused of rape has been extensively named in reliable sources. So there is actually an argument for including his name in the article. (Although, I'm ambivalent.)

And his "side" (which is interlinked with KBR's side) has been extensively reported in reliable sources -- mainly through covering/reporting on the public trial and the subsequent motion for fees. The issue, as it relates to the Jamie Leigh Jones article, is that detailed and lurid allegations (that were disproved in a court of law) have been included in the article --yet the responses to those allegations (that are in the very same cited sourcethat supports the inclusion of the detailed description of the allegations) -- have been kept out of the article. This is an example of what leads to the article being in a state ofWP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and even WP:FRINGE.

Hoping To Help (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Name of Article

My suggestion is to give the article a name that broadly refers to the sum of the ongoing disputes (between Jones and KBR/Haliburton), both in and out of court. Those disputes have been fought in and around:

• The media (newspapers, magazines, 20/20 etc.)
• Congress (testimony and eventual passage of legislation related to binding arbitration requirements in employment contracts)
• Criminal Grand Jury
• Appeals Court over whether Jones could sue in civil court instead of binding arbitration.
• Civil Lawsuit
• Motion for fees

So I would suggest something like:

• Jamie Leigh Jones versus KBR, or
• Jamie Leigh Jones and KBR, or
• Jamie Leigh Jones versus KBR: related disputes, or
• Jamie Leigh Jones and KBR: related disputes, or
• Disputes between Jamie Leigh Jones and KBR

And I'm also fine with the suggestions made above of something like:

• Jones v. Haliburton and related proceedings, or
• Jones v. KBR and related proceedings

But I have some concern about the word proceedings in that I've seen a lot of wikilawering go on over the article -- and I don't want to generate discussions of what does or does not qualify as a "proceeding". So maybe:

• Jones v. Haliburton and related disputes, or
• Jones versus KBR and related disputes

Hoping To Help (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Don't discuss this here, do in article talk
2. None of those examples are rules compliant as per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV or as descriptive names, have serious neutrality issues as well as less serious MOS issues

Do reconsider what is clearly a push to make this topic about what it is not about. For example, the proposed titles don't mention "gang rape" anywhere - which is central to the case, and only the civil lawsuit involved KBR directly (so as a secondary feature, shouldn't be in the title), and using "gang rape" doesn't break neutrality at all. For example, OJ Simpson was cleared of murder charges, but the article is still O.J. Simpson murder case. I know you came here seeking recourse on an UNDUE issue, but once you open the pandora's box it is open both ways.--Cerejota (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota , you say: "Don't discuss this here, do in article talk." -- but then you go on and discuss it here ... so I'm going to respond to your points here.

You accuse me of engaging in "what is clearly a push to make this topic about what it is not about."

It seems you are misunderstanding my motives and many of the facts regarding this particular article, please readhere and[1].

Lets look at each of your assertions:

• "gang rape" is central to the case: Well, maybe. Gang rape wasn't alleged until 2 years after the event. And then Jones' lawyers dropped it and never claimed gang rape during the actual trial. But they did make the following eight (8) claims against KBR in the civil suit: negligence; negligent undertaking; retaliation; breach of contract; fraud in the inducement to enter the employment contract; fraud in the inducement to agree to arbitration; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and, false imprisonment.
  • Other important (and arguable the most encyclopedic) aspects of this case include:
    • the appeals court rulings about arbitration (against KBR in favor of Jones);
    • and, the law passed by Congress (inspired by Jones and at her urging) allowing employees to bring certain cases to trial instead of arbitration. KBR was one of he main targets of this legislation and was mentioned whenever this legislation was covered in reliable sources.
  • Additionally, as mentioned above by User:Anythingyouwant: Having gang rape in the title would violation WP:Titlewhich states: "Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation implies wrongdoing, and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are accurately described as "allegations".)" Since allegation implies wrongdoing -- and a jury decided that there was no wrongdoing, we would be in violation of WP:NPOV to include the allegation in the title.
  • Therefore, I would argue that the allegation of gang rape is one of many aspects of the case. And from an encyclopedic perspective it is not central -- for it is a charge that was made late and then dropped -- and also that it is more inflammatory and newsy than having lasting importance. And ultimately, a jury determined that the allegation was false --that no rape of any kind occurred.

• "only the civil lawsuit involved KBR directly": Here you are just wrong on the facts. Jones frequent testimony before congress always centrally involved KBR. From the beginning she and the news media (Reliable Sources) have made KBR at least as big, and arguably a bigger culprit than the alleged rapist. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Reliable Source that mentioned Jamie Leigh Jones, but didn't mention KBR or Halliburton -- certainly they'd be few and far between. But just for fun I challenge you to find even one.
  • Actually, almost every aspect of this issue involves KBR: The testimony before Congress; the media appearances (20/20, etc.); appeals court rulings around arbitration; the law passed by congress concerning arbitration requirements in employment contracts; the civil trial; the motion for fees. All of these aspects directly involve KBR.
  • Also, Jones alleged that she was held in a "shipping container" for 24 hours by KBR guards with "machine guns" and she wasn't given food or water. So here she is alleging that the crime of false imprisonment is being committed by employees of KBR as part of their job duties.

• O.J. Simpson murder case title: Here you're showing either your bias or your lack of knowledge of one or both cases. Simpson lost his civil case. The civil jury found that he did commit murder. In contrast, KBR won their civil suit and the jury explicitly found that the sex was consensual and no rape had been committed. A better comparison would be the Duke lacrosse case. Or even New York v. Strauss-Kahn -- where rape is not in the title even though police found grounds to arrest him, and a grand jury found probably cause to indict him (in contrast to Jones alleged attacker who was never arrested nor indicted) and DSK never had a jury declare his sex consensual (in contrast to Jones' case).

Given the above facts I would request that you withdraw your repeated assertions that I'm trying to game the system or that I'm somehow "push[ing] to make this topic about what it is not about."

Hoping To Help (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Do reconsider what is clearly a push to make this topic about what it is not about. For example, the proposed titles don't mention "gang rape" anywhere - which is central to the case, and only the civil lawsuit involved KBR directly (so as a secondary feature, shouldn't be in the title), and using "gang rape" doesn't break neutrality at all. For example, OJ Simpson was cleared of murder charges, but the article is still O.J. Simpson murder case. I know you came here seeking recourse on an UNDUE issue, but once you open the pandora's box it is open both ways.--Cerejota (talk) 04:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit]

Pubic documents used as citations for assertions about living people.

I had this policy recently pointed out to me by an editor that reverted all of my edits that I had supported with primary sources.

WP:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sources states:

“ Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

”

But there are other editors edits that are solely sourced with primary documents -- so it would be useful to come to meeting on the minds as to when these types of documents can be used.

Questions:

• In the second paragraph of the policy, does the phrase "subject to the restrictions of this policy" -- mean the WP:BLP#Misuse_of_primary_sourcespolicy or the WP: Primary policy
• Does "primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source" -- mean the document itself was discussed or mentioned, or that something it contains was mentioned -- even though the secondary source might be using a *different* primary source?
• And, if part of the document can be used, how do we determine how much of it? If some of the judges reasoning from his ruling is referenced in a secondary source does that open it up to use the entire document?

I would like us to determine which of these primary sources we are able to use:

Please weigh in. And show your work :-) i.e. explain your reasoning! Thanks :-) Hoping To Help (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

EEOC Probable cause

Yes, I definitively wouldn't put it in the lead and it is questionable to have it anywhere in the article. It's current citation is not a BLP allowable source -- but even if one is found (and I've looked and couldn't find one) -- it is misleading and I think that's why the sources don't mention it. The EEOC ruling is a "Letter of Determination" -- which doesn't award any money or anything -- it is just an administrative hurdle that Jones needed to go through to sue KBR at all. In order to file suit under Title VII she had to get a favorable administrative ruling on each claim she wanted to sue over. It doesn't mean the EEOC thought the claims were true -- it just means they thought they should go before a judge.Hoping To Help (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP considerations for the men accused of gang rape

I think we need to make it very clear that the men being accused of these lurid crimes need just as much WP:BLP protections as Jones.

PROPOSAL: Have a BLP warning box at the top of the article reminding people to be mindful of BLP considerations for all the individuals involved: Jones, the firefighters and the guards.

If people were to make an effort to be fair to both sides of this dispute (and care as much about protecting the men as they do Jones) Then this would go a long way to cutting down on the edit warring.

Hoping To Help (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

ALSO: Above Rosceles said: "It is not, as you claim, a BLP violation to fail to include their attempts to discredit the LP who is the article subject."

I think this is an issue that needs to be resolved. Whereas, we certainly don't need to include *every* "attempts to discredit the LP." The litany of charges against them shouldn't go unanswered. Basically, giving Jones a plantform to detail her accusations -- without including the men's side as reported in Reliable sources is UNDUE, FRINGE and therefore a violation of BLP.

Just put yourself in their shoes. Imagine someone accused you of being a child molester. And there charges are included in lurid detail. It doesn't balance it out to just say that you won in court. Because without hearing your side -- people will still assume that you're guilty.

Additionally, the readers want to read both sides. (Actually, more since she has turned herself into a public figure by testifying before congress multiple times, going on national media multiple times, writing a book about herself, and selling her life story to be made into a movie.)

Roscelene blindly reverting items without explanation or discussion

Roscelene here you've once again dismissively, and condescendingly reverted multiple additions to the article without explaining or discussing the reverts. These first two reverts (of edits not done by me):

• From this sentence: The prosecution also brought out that on two prior occasions Jones had reported being raped and that she had taken medication for anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. You removed the dubious tag without comment or explanation. Why???? That part of the sentence is clearly a mistake. This is a civil trial and so there is no "prosecution" -- and the side that brought this out was clearly the defense. Could you please explain yourself?
• And you completely deleted this sentence without any explination: The defense attacked Jones's credibility because she had signed a movie deal to promote the story of her lawsuit.[http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/kbr-could-win-jamie-leigh-jones-rape-trial?page=3] Why??

• You also deleted several very short quotes (that were fully cited) with the insulting comment: "how hard is it to paraphrase or at least attribute?" Since it is so easy why didn't you work cooperatively with the other editors and paraphrase or attribute the quotes instead of just deleting them?

Roscelene is again is making claims about the sources -- but hasn't read them

Roscelene, once again you are making bold assertions -- that are completely and provably wrong. You've once again made an absolute pronouncement about what is contained in the source -- which you appear not bothered to have read.

You state above: The removal of the film deal bit was accidental, but fortuitous, since it is not supported by the cited source and, per BLP, needs to go immediately

But the cited Mother Jones article spends the last three paragraphs talking about her book and movie deals. For your convenience I include the relevant paragraphs below.[2]

“ One thing Jones has working in her favor is that her story seems so incredible, her pursuit of justice so sincere, that it's almost unimaginable that she would make it up. After all, why would anyone put themselves through that kind of torture? But KBR and Bortz also have a ready answer to that question. It's The Jamie Leigh Story: How my Rape in Iraq and Cover-up Made Me a Crusader for Justice, the working title of her book.

For years, Jones has been in discussions with book agents, screenwriters, and production companies. In 2008, Paul Pompian, a film producer with dozens of docudrama credits to his name, bought the rights to her story. He says that his company is working on film version of Jones' story and that a book is also in the works. "Frankly, we're waiting for the outcome of the trial," he told me. "We're hoping for a verdict that will give us a third act. Hopefully it will be an outcome that's good for us and the movie and especially for Jamie Leigh." Both the screenwriter and Jones' coauthor were expected to be in Houston watching part of the trial, according to Pompian.

When KBR's lawyers first learned of the book deal, they went to court seeking access to the manuscript and other documents. Jones fought the disclosure, arguing that it would diminish the work's financial value. Jones' lawyers filed a motion with the court declaring that the manuscript was a work of fiction.

”

Consent and Not Rape

Hopefully, you're not a lawyer. The scenario you so lovingly describe is not criminal in California or under federal law. California Penal Code section 261(a) applies only to non-spouses. The White Slave Traffic Act (codified beginning at 18 U.S.C. section 2421) is more complex, but it must at a minimum include some interstate activity.

In all fairness, though, if you changed your scenario to an unmarried couple, the California statute would criminalize the active partner's activity. The fact that the sleeping partner had consented while conscious would not be sufficient. See People v. Dancy, 102 Cal. App. 4th 21 (2002). No one would ever prosecute the active partner without some additional unfavorable facts, but technically, he would be guilty. Even though you were wrong, I appreciated your allusion to it. I was unaware of the statute, andDancy is an interesting case.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

SUBJECT: Bbb23, your legal assertion is bold & confident - but unfortunately its clearly and provably wrong.

My, my, my … The pattern continues. :-) This is at least the fifth time in the past week or so where you’ve made a bold, overly confident pronouncement -- that is completely (and provably) wrong. Usually you do this while giving no links whatsoever to support your position. This time you add a gratuitous insult to boot where you say: Hopefully, you're not a lawyer.

So once again I must go point by point to help you see the error of your ways :-) … Here goes …

California Spousal Rape Law (section 262)

• Bbb23says: . The scenario you so lovingly describe is not criminal in California or under federal law. California Penal Code section 261(a) applies only to non-spouses.

Yes, section 261, commonly referred to as the Non-Spousal Rape law --obviously doesn't apply. But the very next statute in the Califonia Penal Code,section 262 is referred to as Spousal Rape and criminalizes the same acts that are criminalized under the Non-Spousal Rape statute. Specifically it says that sex with a spouse while they are “unconscious or asleep” is illegal. And once again, non-consent is not an element of the crime.

You can catch up on some of the advances that have occurred in spousal rape laws in the U.S. during the past 20-years by goinghere andhere. And you can read the California statute itself by goinghere. But again, of course, you want to read section 262 which criminalizes rape between spouses -- not the section you referenced (261) which is completely irrelevant to the situation I described.

I do agree with you on one point. Any person that references section 261 (commonly referred to as the Non-Spousal Rape Law) when spousal rape is being discussed -- shouldn't be a lawyer. Such a person should probably also refrain from making bold pronouncements about the law in public forums.  ;-)

Now lets look at the next issue where you boldly declare that I’m wrong …

White Slave Traffic Act

• Bbb23says: The scenario you so lovingly describe is not criminal in California or under federal law. ... The White Slave Traffic Act (codified beginning at 18 U.S.C. section 2421) is more complex, but it must at a minimum include some interstate activity.]

This is an improvement it that this time you are citing the relevant law. But you either didn’t fully read my comment or you’re not understanding the statute.

In my second example, where I reference the White Slave Traffic Act, I clearly describe interstate activity. I describe the couple as living in Nevada and traveling to California with the intent of engaging in the (illegal) sexual act.

The law originally "criminalized all premarital or extramarital sexual relationships that involved interstate travel. " But it has been amended to criminalize"any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense" that involves interstate travel. Basically, if a person crosses state lines to commit an act that is a sexual crime under state law -- then they are additionally in violation of a federal law.

BONUS EXAMPLE: If a married woman travels from New Jersey to New York with her non-spousal lover to have consensual (and fully conscious/awake/sober) sex in a hotel -- she is in violation of NY State law and in violation of the White Slave Traffic Act and so is subject to up to 10 years in prison on the federal charges alone. (And yes, I know that she is unlikely to be prosecuted unless the prosecutor has additional motivations -- but that is a separate issue from what we're discussing: whether the activity is illegal under federal law.)

You can read about the history of the acthere,here, andhere. And you can read the statute itself here

And since you enjoyed reading about the Dancy case (which I have previously read), I think you'll find this article,Court hears kinky argument interesting as well. This case, arguably, has no other unfavorable acts and so is a more straight forward example.

Hoping To Help (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)