RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

ShadeDiva -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/4/2004 8:00:08 PM)

Granted the child dying is horrid, I'm not even trying to lessen that at all.

But

I'm surprised that so FEW folks reading this even mentioned briefly about the mind set of people that strung a 7 year old kid on a wheel and BEAT her and was showing her porn. This is HIGHLY unlikely the FIRST time this happened to this kid!

It seems sad that folks and the courts are only focusing on the fact that the children weren't being watched around the pool, and none seem moved by the fact this is abuse towards that child that most likely had been happening a lot.

She prolly pushed the toddler into the pool because she was lashing out and was suffering abuse for a while and no one was getting her out of it, and it seems like still no one is focusing much on her circumstance.

I find it sad about the toddler, but the 7 year old's pain is still going on, I hope SOMEONE focuses on her otherwise she may welll start abusing kids herself - or worse, if there *is* a worse.

They should have gotten life for child abuse, and yes, I'd consider that flat out abuse, and possibly indictative of sexual abuse considering the explicit video. Which means she isn't the only one - there is never just ONE victim with assholes like that - ever, IMX.

~ShadeDiva



proudsub -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/4/2004 9:26:23 PM)

quote:

I'm surprised that so FEW folks reading this even mentioned briefly about the mind set of people that strung a 7 year old kid on a wheel and BEAT her and was showing her porn. This is HIGHLY unlikely the FIRST time this happened to this kid!


I believe the grandparents of the 7 yr old (the dungeon owners) were originally charged with child endangerment, but negotiated those charges to be dropped if they pled guilty to prostitution. The child was removed from their home.



topcat -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/5/2004 8:13:22 AM)

quote:

I'm surprised that so FEW folks reading this even mentioned briefly about the mind set of people that strung a 7 year old kid on a wheel and BEAT her and was showing her porn. This is HIGHLY unlikely the FIRST time this happened to this kid!


Milady Shade-

I've got some doubts that that was happened. It certianly didn't seem to make it to the courts, and was only alleged once in the sources. Also, the people who were running the dungeon where the grandparents, the guy who was scoring the PCP was the father.

None of which detracts of the horror of what actually happened.

Stay warm,
Lawrence



proudsub -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/5/2004 8:18:23 AM)

I received another reply from a Mistress named Anna in PA, who supposedly has first hand knowledge of the case:

"no patrons were charged with anything

patrons are almost never charge inthese kinds of cases involving dungeons

and no one was charged in relation to the death of the child...no patrons that is"

So now we have 2 conflicting responses to my inquiry. I do have a few more leads now and will pursue them as soon as i have time.



sub4hire -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/5/2004 9:07:18 AM)

I agree with Shade on this yet again. This was another one of the major points I wasx concerned with. There are only two more left.

Whether the 7 year old and the wheel actually happened really is irrevelant.
The facts are...the 3 year old who died was molested. Strapped and who knows what more. As Shade said, there never is only a single victim. So, let's merely go with the facts. There was abuse. There was neglect. Sexual abuse.

Why did'nt they get put away for life?



Estring -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/5/2004 11:26:50 AM)

Because Gloria, even though we say we should put children first in this society, it doesn't really happen most of the time.



MistressDREAD -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/6/2004 2:01:03 AM)

Estring
Sinergy
and anyone elsse whom
had occation to get informed
of this event. The name of
these posts is:
quote:

RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest

now if the original article had not spoke
focused on the dungeon and its owners
taking their case to the supreme court
to rule their case of having such a thing
seperate from ALL OTHER issues in this
case, I would not of posted it here for
the readers of BDSM issues of legalitiys
interest and had Our suppersniffer sniff
out the story behind the supreme court
issue that is soley BDSM related on this
case. The issues behind the case I can
Assure You Estring and Singery and Others
will NOT address the drowning victum nor
the child abuse victum as they are not a
determining factor in the BDSM part of this
case HOWEVER as Our suppersniffer stated
there is much more to this case and it is very
easy for sumone to get involved with all the
different circumstances and factors that led to
this child losing their life and another that is
plainly been abused. But the fact remains that
We here at the Begal end of the issue will be only
addressing the parts of the Legal issues that are
BDSM related and all tho the whole situation is
sad it is reality and a fact that not one of these
issues will be addressed when this case comes
up befor the Supreme Court because They are
all secondary and concidered not circumstancial
to the case at hand of the Dungeon. And this was
My point in posting the original Story so that others
can see how Law IS applyed and Estring this is not
How I would of presented the article if I had wrote it
but I did not. The writer whom did wrote it the way he
did because he knew that ALL of the circumstances
behind the case would not be reveiled to the Courts
when the Dungeon issue is brought up and he presented
the story just as it will be presented to the Supreme Judges
with out all of the back ground and secondary facts that
have allready been determined will not be a part of the
court case and plea agreement. And all tho this is a sad
case for Lifestylers it will be a depermental one as to what
We as adults are allowed to do in the privacy of Our Own
Homes and this case IS VERY IMPORTANT to how the Supreme
court will rule on it for it will become Law that will be used
towards every other Dungeon case and how it is applyed.
Understand?
Proudsub
I am very proud of you
you did a top job in the assignment
given you and I hope when I bring
the next article to bare you or others
will do such a fine job to get to the
nittie grittie again. ~clap clap clap~!!!



MistressDREAD -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/6/2004 2:20:57 AM)

quote:

Hmm, a certain person has new posts all over the message board. But for some reason skipped this thread. I wonder why?

I have not skipped anything E I mearly was being patient untill I knew
that proudsub had done all that she could to post all that she found on
this. OOOhhh and E get off My back about what I choose to address
about My Lifestyle and HOW I choose to present it. If You dont like what
I post and how I post it, DONT READ IT. LOL JMO
([:'(]sticks out My tongue at Estring... na ne na ne poo pooooo )
walks off to go look for the NEXT interesting BDSM related Legality.....



sub4hire -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/6/2004 7:49:01 AM)

And that is another major concern.



proudsub -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/6/2004 8:17:47 AM)

quote:

Proudsub
I am very proud of you
you did a top job in the assignment
given you and I hope when I bring
the next article to bare you or others
will do such a fine job to get to the
nittie grittie again. ~clap clap clap~!!!


Thank you MistressDread. I have found this case very interesting and am still following some leads given to me by the people in Philly that i contacted. I understand that in a "legal" sense the case with the children is separate from the case of running a home dungeon. However in my mind i can't separate the two for two reasons: 1. a child apparently was abused using dungeon equipment; and 2 a child drowned because the adults present were apparently involved in other activities inside the house (i never found out if they were using the dungeon at the time, but would assume so).



proudsub -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/6/2004 1:18:22 PM)

During my research today i came across some interesting letters written in an effort to have a private BDSM club in PA reopened. They are copywrited so i couldn't copy and paste, but here is the url:

http://www.philadungeonsociety.com/pansexuality/bts_samletters.htm[/link]

BTW these letters were written by the person that i quoted saying none of the Cherry Hill patrons were charged, so i am inclined to believe that she would know as she is in a leadership postion in a club called Behind the Scenes in Philly.



Estring -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/6/2004 1:56:22 PM)

That's exactly right proud. If these people had been arrested for forgery for instance, the fact they had a dungeon in there house would have no bearing on the story. And to be prosecuted for that too would make no sense.
In this case, the dungeon had plenty to do with the crime. A child was abused in there. I doubt it was just once either. Instead of defending these cretins, we should be distancing oursleves from these types of people as much as possible.
And I have no respect for the person who wrote the initial article couching this as an infringement on our rights. It isn't.



MistressDREAD -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/6/2004 7:46:21 PM)

quote:

And I have no respect for the person who wrote the initial article couching this as an infringement on our rights. It isn't. ]


actually Estring it can and will be a infringement on Our rights
if its taken to the supreme court to have Our rights to have
Alternate Lifestyle items in Our private Homes taken away from
Us passed.

We all know that there are preditors and abusers in Our Lifestyle
but why should I not be allowed to enjoy what I choose to use in
My Alternate Way in the privacy of My Own Home or Business just
because of the few Abusers and Preditors whom use Our Lifestyle
for the Wrong reasons When I practice SAFE SANE CONCENSUAL?

I liken this to the tempt to take away My right to bare arms. There are plenty whom abuse their rights to own and bare arms and kill and do not use them in a safe and a sane way but I also do not want the goverment telling Me what I can Own nor not in My Own Home or Person be it My guns or be it My Dungeons. JMO



MistressDREAD -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/6/2004 7:51:56 PM)

DO YOU KNOW IF CONCENSUAL SODOMY IS AGAINST THE LAW IN YOUR STATE? CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT STATE THEY ARE IN AND IF THIS KINK IS AGAINST THE LAW IN THEIR STATE OR IN ALL STATES OR NOT? DOES EVERYONE KNOW WHAT SODOMY IS?



Estring -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/6/2004 9:23:04 PM)

As far as I can tell Dread, no one has taken away your rights to practice your lifestyle because of this case. You may choose to believe that the government is out to get you, I do not. As I suspected at the beginning, there was much more to this story than the author let on. And of course there was much more. If these morons were not busy abusing their daughter and doing drugs, there would have never been any arrests. And to make these people into victims is ridiculous. They are victims like O.J. is a victim.



perverseangelic -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/6/2004 10:18:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressDREAD

DO YOU KNOW IF CONCENSUAL SODOMY IS AGAINST THE LAW IN YOUR STATE? CAN ANYONE TELL ME WHAT STATE THEY ARE IN AND IF THIS KINK IS AGAINST THE LAW IN THEIR STATE OR IN ALL STATES OR NOT? DOES EVERYONE KNOW WHAT SODOMY IS?



it is no longer illegal in any state. a case went before the supreme court, and all sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional.

i'm getting a bit too lazy at the moment to look it up, but this was fairly recently. a state law was challeneged and made it all the way to the supreme court which promptly overturned the laws governing sodomy (and most sexual practices. not all) between consenting adults



Estring -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/6/2004 10:32:28 PM)

You are correct perverse, I think the decision was reached a couple of years ago. It began in Texas when police heard what they thought was a domestic disturbance coming from an open window. When they entered the house they found two men having anal sex instead. Not sure if the officers entered through the back door. [:D]



proudsub -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/6/2004 11:53:15 PM)

quote:

Not sure if the officers entered through the back door.


Love your humor Estring.[;)]



MistressDREAD -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/7/2004 5:49:10 AM)

oooh no You three are not gonna get off that
easy with hearsay
show ME CASE LAW to support such or the
articles your storys
hail from.



MistressDREAD -> RE: o====·.,¸,.-·<ŦHΞ LΞGÂL BΞÂGÂLo====·.,¸,.-·<sniffing out legal news of BDSM interest (6/7/2004 5:55:59 AM)

Dont put words in My mouth Estring
I have not said My rights have been
taken away I said Our rights could be
taken away when this is brought to the
supreme court and that is a fact. What
makes You think the goverments out to
get Me? You need to get Your facts straight
the Owners of the dungeon were not the
7 year olds Parents first off. And why bring
sumthing totally unrelated to this story here
OHHHH YES OJ was inocent so why tempt
to paint Him as guilty?? He was a victum because
His exwife and mother to His children was murdered.
DONT YOU HAVE FAITH IN YOUR GOVERMENTS
RULINGS ESTRING? THEY SAID HE WAS INOCENT.
*blinks~



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125