Alan, Esq. - Glenn Marcus' S/M Conviction Upheld.

Alan, Esq.
Date: 2007-05-27 10:13
Subject: Glenn Marcus' S/M Conviction Upheld.
Security: Public
Judge Upholds Use of Sex Trafficking, Forced Labor Laws in Abuse Conviction.
"The defendant argues that the existence of a prior consensual relationship between the defendant and Jodi in which the infliction of punishment and pain was part of their mutual sexual gratification makes it impossible to determine whether the defendant abused Jodi to compel the performance of a commercial sex act," Judge Ross wrote. "The court acknowledges that the issue of whether the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used non-consensual force, fraud or coercion to cause Jodi to engage in a commercial sex act is difficult and complicated. However, this was precisely the question that the jury was charged with resolving, and the evidence was adequate to support its conclusion."
As you may remember, back in March of this year, Glenn Marcus was convicted of Forced Labor and Forced Sex Trafficking. The conviction was the subject of several posts on this blog, one of which was even quoted in Tristan Taormino's Village Voice article. As a bit of background, in 1998 Marcus had entered into, what all parties agreed, was a mutually consensual S/m relationship. The "victim", known only as "Jodi" at the trial, alleged that over the next few months and years, she changed her mind and wanted to leave. She alleged that Marcus responded to her desire to leave by engaging in physical non-consensual physical and mental abuse. In his defense, Marcus contended that all activities were consensual in nature. The jury didn't believe Marcus and convicted him of the Forced Labor and Forced Sex Trafficking charges. He was acquitted of the charge of distributing obscenity.

As I wrote in my earlier post, here, my initial review of the trial led me to believe that, unlike the Jovanovic case, Marcus had received a fair trial. In addition, I also felt that the conviction was a victory for the S/m community as it drew a line between the consensual S/m activity, and non-consensual abuse conducted under the guise of consensual S/m. I had opined that Marcus' defense was doomed by the fact that he attempted to argue that the victim had consented to activities which were "non-consensual." As I stated in my earlier post,
Since the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, an individual cannot waive their right to say no... It does not matter that a person says they are waiving their right to say no; it's an unwaivable right. The mainstream S/m community is based in the tenets of Safe, Sane & Consensual (SSC). Anything, that is non-consensual is not S/m, but violent abuse.
Those who believe they can irrevocably waive their right to say no are simply living in an existentialistic fantasy.

In any event, following the trial, Marcus' defense team filed several post-conviction motions to set aside the verdict. On May 17, 2007, Federal District Judge Allyne Ross denied Marcus' motions. Below, I have quoted some excerpts of Judge Ross' 42-page decision in which she cites directly from the trial transcript. I am struck by 2 things in her decision: 1) Even more examples of outrageous conduct by Marcus is revealed; and 2) The court clearly articulated that consensual BDSM activity is not criminal activity and the decision took careful steps to separate consensual BDSM activity from non-consensual illegal activity.

In other words, Marcus got a fair trial.

Excerpts of the decision, below the cut. Be advised, that although this is from a published Federal Court Opinion, the text is hardly "safe for work". Read at your own discretion.


In 1998, Jodi, the complaining witness, learned about BDSM on the internet and began visiting online chatrooms to find out more information. (Trial Transcript [hereinafter "Tr."] at 70-71.) At the time, Jodi understood BDSM to be a type of relationship in which, within certain guidelines and limits, one person is dominant and the other submissive. ( Id.) After two relatively brief BDSM relationships, Jodi met the defendant online in the fall of 1998. ( Id. at 71-73.) The defendant-identified by the screen name "GMYourGod"-called himself the only true "master" and referred to the women in BDSM relationships with him as "slaves" who "served" him. ( See id. at 73, 75-76.) He explained to Jodi that, in the type of BDSM he practiced, he did not allow the use of any limits or safe words. ( Id. at 74.) By way of example, he explained that he could decide to cut off a slave's limb or order her to kill a small child. ( Id. at 74-75.) Two of the defendant's slaves involved in the online conversation-Joanna, identified by the screen name "GMsdogg," and Celia, identified by the screen name "nameless"-assured-Jodi that the defendant had never engaged in behavior of this nature previously, and Joanna told Jodi that she did not believe he would do so in the future. ( Id. at 75.) In subsequent conversations by telephone, the defendant communicated to Jodi that she belonged to him and needed to serve him. ( Id. at 75-76.) During these early encounters with the defendant, Jodi shared intimate details about her life experiences, including that she had been physically and emotionally abused by her mother and had struggled with an eating disorder. ( See id. at 76-77.)
Ok... problems from Day 1. He's talking about killing children and hacking off limbs... Meanwhile, she's talking about her history of childhood physical and emotional abuse. This is not a good combination.
At some point, the defendant instructed Jodi to convince her younger sister to travel to Maryland to visit and, when she arrived, to drug her with "ruffies" so the defendant could rape her. ( See id. at 103-04.) Jodi was also directed to use the internet to recruit a new slave to join them in Maryland. ( Id. at 104.) Because Jodi refused to complete the first task and was unsuccessful with the second, the defendant told her that, the next time he visited, she would be so severely punished that she might not be able to work for some time afterwards. ( Id. at 104, 207; Govt. Ex. 31.)
Wow... Planning the abduction and rape of an unsuspecting party? Frankly, I'm shocked this fact was not revealed by the media during the trial.
In November 1999, Joanna told the defendant that she no longer wanted to serve him. ( Id. at 125.) While both Jodi and Joanna were on the telephone with the defendant, he threatened to send photographs and a videotape of Joanna engaged in sexually explicit behavior to her father and to kill her godson if Joanna did not continue to serve him. ( Id. at 127-29; see Govt. Ex. 12.) As a consequence, Jodi became terrified that, if she attempted to leave the defendant, he would send pictures to her family or harm one of her family members. (Tr. at 128.)
For those who argue that an abuse victim who is not physically restrained can "leave anytime they wish", very often, the abuser will make threats similar to these in order to prevent the victim from simply "walking away". In addition, even when an abuse victim does finally get the courage to walk away, the abuser will often use personal information of the victim to continue to inflict abuse and maintain control after the person has left. In any event, making such threats is clearly unlawful.
When Jodi obtained her own apartment, her interactions with the defendant became less frequent and less extreme. ( Id. at 173.) However, she continued to stay involved with the defendant in order to maintain a semblance of control over his use of her pictures on the website. ( Id. at 173, 175.) During this time period, the defendant posted diary entries on the website exposing personal information that Jodi had told him about her family. ( Id. at 174; Govt Ex. 2C, at 703-05.) He also posted a "Find Pooch" contest on his website, offering a free membership to any person who photographed her on the street, and he provided information as to Jodi's whereabouts and the location of her apartment. (Tr. at 175, 186; Govt. Ex. 2C, at 3907, 3909.)
Again, we see more examples where Marcus attempted to maintain control over the victim, even after she left.

Ok... from all the evidence above, it could be possible that the court would be so disgusted by the activities engaged in by Marcus that the Judge could have prevented the defendant from arguing that all these activities were consented to, thus preventing Marcus from raising consent as a defense. This is exactly what happened in the Jovanovic case.

However, that is not what happened in this case. Marcus not only was allowed to call witnesses who testified that all activities were consented to, but also that if the jury believed there was consent, he would not have been guilty of violating the law. In regards to the Forced Labor Charge, Judge Ross gave the following jury instruction:
Throughout the trial, you have heard evidence about sexual practices called Bondage, Discipline/Domination, Submission/Sadism, Masochism, or "BDSM," that may involve actual physical restraint, such as being tied up or placed in a cage. The mere fact that a person was physically restrained during the course of such acts does not necessarily mean that the statute was violated. For example, if the physical restraint was consensual, then it would not constitute a violation of the statute. It is for you to decide, based on a careful consideration of all the facts and surrounding circumstances, whether the acts of physical restraint violated the statute.
Again, when reviewing the Sex Trafficking charge, Judge Ross also made it clear that consensual BDSM activity was not unlawful.
With respect to the sex trafficking statute, the defendant similarly contends that the terms "force" and "coercion," when given their ordinary meaning, may encompass consensual BDSM conduct. (Def.'s Mem. 17.) Again, the court agrees with the defendant that it is appropriate to construe these terms narrowly to avoid criminalizing consensual conduct.
...
The court also notes that, in the course of defining the elements of aggravated sexual abuse, a statutory aggravating factor of the forced labor statute, the court instructed the jury that "the application of force with the consent of the recipient in the context of BDSM activities would not violate the statute." (Jury Chg. 24.)


Throughout the decision, Judge Ross exhibits a clear and articulate attempt to understand the differences between consensual BDSM and non-consensual criminal activity. She has numerous opportunities where she can take cheap shots at the S/m community by castigating them as freaks. But she does not. In fact, on several occasions, she endorses the rights of adults to legally engage in such activities, so long as there is consent. In this case, however, one of the parties argued that there was no consent. As a result, Judge Ross takes a careful analysis of the claims made by both Marcus and the victim. The judge indicates that the jury also carefully weighed the evidence and thus affirmed the findings of the jury.

Overall, this decision is actually a positive result for activists who support the right to engage in consensual S/m.

Hat tip to viviane212 for advising me that the court had rendered a decision.
Post A Comment | 29 Comments | Add to Memories | Share | Link



meesekite
User: meesekite
Date: 2007-05-27 22:55 (UTC)
Subject: Glenn Marcus conviction
Hi Alan...
Ive posted heavily on your last page regarding Glenn, why not this one? As you know, I am a friend to Glenn Marcus, and was on his site, and know he did nothing against anyones will. I know this from my interactions with him as well as with my few conversations with Jodi.

This ruling continues to doom S/m relations, and just about ANY relation. Now, what is there to stop any submissive from claiming forced labor? ALL she has to do is shiver prettily and claim a "climate of fear". You think you are so immune, but look at all the innocent people in jail who also believed a jury would return the correct verdict.

In much of S/m, it is her word against his...granted, the pictures on his site scared the jury, but anyone can take ANY picture and create lies around it. Not that I ever would, but I could have said all the images of me on Slavespace were coerced. Julia said to me some of MY images were to her more hardcore than many of Jodi's. And a vanilla jury would have believed me...as they believed Jodi's lies.

As you said, "from day one hes talking about hacking off limbs". Thats DAY ONE...and she consented to be with him. Also, note that in Glenn's supposed threats against Joanna, he NEVER did anything. Jodi if she had half a brain would have known he was NO threat to her, as she would have seen him do NOTHING to Joanna, and no threat to anyone else. Also, there are so many inconstencies in the governments fictious tale, it boggles the mind. Certainly earlier versions of the govts story differ. One small example: earlier versions of the govt's tale have Jodi coming to the FBI in 2004, not 2003. But it certainly sounds better for less time to have passed before she decided to lie.

Sincerely
-Chain
Reply | Thread | Link



Unrepentant Artfag
User: 00goddess
Date: 2007-06-01 09:01 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glenn Marcus conviction
As you said, "from day one hes talking about hacking off limbs". Thats DAY ONE...and she consented to be with him.

Jodi's poor judgment does not excuse Glenn's behavior.

Jodi if she had half a brain would have known he was NO threat to her

He threatened her directly, he engaged in threatening behavior, and he encouraged other people to engage in threatening behavior toward her. Are you blaming the victim?

All you know is that he had not carried out his threats yet. But even so, threats are a form of coercion and abuse.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



meesekite
User: meesekite
Date: 2007-06-01 19:26 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glenn Marcus conviction
Hi Melipona...
Never would I blame the victim; Glenn Marcus is a good friend of mine. He did no wrong.

Jodi, however, I do blame for being a liar, for falsely pressing charges, for ruining Glenn's life, for my continuing distress over having FBI agents interview me about my consensual acts with Glenn.

If Jodi used "poor judgement", then Glenn is not to blame either, as how could he have been aware that she did not want to be with him when she kept saying she did? And she did want to be with him. At least, thats what I got from my few chats with her.

He never threatened her directly. The behavior you find "threatening" was consensual. As for his alleged threats to Joanna, one of the tennents of the case was that a reasonable person would have to be convinced he would carry out any badness. Jodi saw Glenn do NOTHING to Joanna. Therefore, it was NOT reasonable for Jodi to think shed ever do anything bad to her.

He never encouraged anyone else to threaten or harrass her. I assume you are talking about the "wheres pooch" contest? One of the "rules" was that she was to be in NO WAY threatened or harrassed. She was not to be bothered at all. And, she consented to that. Though it looks good for her to say she didnt.

Look, if I wanted to lie, I could do the same with images Glenn took of me, and then everyone else would say "oh you poor dear". I bet shes getting alot of milage from playing up her "victim" status...maybe even getting $$$ for it (federal funds for victims of trafficking)

-meesekite
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: ianesq
Date: 2011-02-10 02:00 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glenn Marcus conviction
One of the problems with your account is that at trial he didn't actually deny her allegations but attacked the statute, saying that it was ambiguous and that the interpretation was overbroad.

She asserted that Glenn sowed her mouth shut and engaged is some pretty serious abuse that will leave marks, marks that can be verified. According to the case, and he does not seem to deny in the court record, that he did this when she stated that she wanted to leave. There were other witnesses who corroborated her story.

Anyway, the case says that he forced and manipulated girls to write dairy entries falsely claiming that the behavior was consensual. Apparently he had a very strong control over the girls under him. You claim to have been under him. What good are your denials if what the cases says is true? Coming here and claiming he is this great guy and then making grant and alarmist claims that this ruling threatens ANY relationship, makes it seem like this is another facet of writing false documents and proclamations on the computer.

It seems to me that Glenn has out done himself. He seems to have controlled the people under him so well that any of their testimony is dubious.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: sbkenn
Date: 2011-02-10 19:35 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glenn Marcus conviction
It seems to me that there is a huge lack-of-understanding here of just what a Dominant/Submissive relationship consists of. There is an expression of "consensual non-consent" where someone goes into a relationship with boundaries, but were as long as the pre-negotiated boundaries are not crossed, that anything goes. If one says beforehand "no marks", then no marks. If one says no permanent marks, then temporary piercings or cuts should be acceptable. Many people sign a contract, and though, in Western societies, this is not enforceable by law, use of the contract should not be considered to be illegal either.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2011-02-11 23:13 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glenn Marcus conviction
I'm not sure whether there is a misunderstanding about the nature of BDSM, but if that is your definition then I don't think that Glenn's relationship properly qualified.

"At the time, Jodi understood BDSM to be a type of relationship in which, within certain guidelines and limits, one person is dominant and the other submissive. ( Id.) After two relatively brief BDSM relationships, Jodi met the defendant online in the fall of 1998. ( Id. at 71-73.) The defendant-identified by the screen name “GMYourGod”-called himself the only true “master” and referred to the women in BDSM relationships with him as “slaves” who “served” him. ( See id. at 73, 75-76.) He explained to Jodi that, in the type of BDSM he practiced, he did not allow the use of any limits or safe words."

And since you bring contract, I have a comparison to draw.

There are some contracts that are not enforcable and some right one cannot contract away. For instance: A person cannot contract to not breach a contract. One can contract for personal services, but if they wish to breach their contract the court cannot force them to perform said services. Also, a person cannot contract to not pursue a rightful claim. Glenn's informal "contract" seems to have done all three.

Your contract theory of BDSM is fine. It is essentially the defense of 'consent' to a 'battery.' You can't sign up for a boxing match and then say, "Hey, you hit me! I'm suing you for battery." The problem is that when someone withdraws their consent there is no longer a defense.

Honestly, it seems a poor tactic for any member of the BDSM community to defend Glenn. He seems to disregard your unspoken rules and is therefore something else. Something indefensible. It would be much better to use this opportunity to draw a sharp distinction of was your lifestyle IS about and how Glenn's activities are clearly OUTSIDE it.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: sbkenn
Date: 2011-02-12 13:19 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glenn Marcus conviction
Not having followed the case, I have to accept your judgement. I am fully aware that in most western societies, you cannot sign away your civil rights, and I also believe that there are ALWAYS limits, even if the sub/slave doesn't state them. Also, the statement "I am the only true master" is laughable. In who'se opinion is he that ?. If I stand up and say that I am GOD, does that make it so ?.
In my type of relationship, I take on the duty of care ... not to cause injury requiring medical treatment .. and if I do, by accident or neglect, I would not hesitate in seeking whatever attention was warranted. I would then offer a renegotiation of the relationship.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



mightyfastpig
User: mightyfastpig
Date: 2007-05-29 17:31 (UTC)
Subject: Fed vs. Local prosecution
I'd still like to know why this was a federal case instead of being investigated and tried locally.

It looks to me like somebody in the US DOJ is trying to make an example of Marcus. According to the UK Guardian, there have been many more federal obscenity prosecutions under the Bush administration than under the Clinton administration.

The justice system is such that you can be guilty of wrongdoing and still get shafted by the system.
Reply | Thread | Link



Lo-Ki, the crown prince of mischief
User: kingofidle
Date: 2007-05-31 10:31 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Fed vs. Local prosecution
This is because the crimes he was convicted of are in relation to a federal statute. The fact that he owned a website that he made money off of makes it interstate commerce which is federally regulated.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: sbkenn
Date: 2009-04-14 14:48 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Fed vs. Local prosecution
can anyone give me a contact in the FBI for reporting suspected abuse and trafficking ? I know a girl who consensually went so far, then was drugged, transported, and kept drugged for 10 months of sex/bondage abuse for commercial videos.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



mistressmatisse
User: mistressmatisse
Date: 2007-05-30 21:01 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Thanks for the rundown. Mind if I link to this?
Reply | Thread | Link



Alan, Esq.
User: alanesq
Date: 2007-05-31 02:55 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Feel free...

Welcome...
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2007-06-25 19:37 (UTC)
Subject: Infrormation about diet pills
MESSAGE
Reply | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2007-06-25 19:41 (UTC)
Subject: Tablets for menshealth
MESSAGE
Reply | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2007-06-28 11:44 (UTC)
Subject: Do you know where I can get this?
MESSAGE
Reply | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2007-06-29 10:34 (UTC)
Subject: Do you know where I can get this?
MESSAGE
Reply | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2007-09-09 07:10 (UTC)
Subject: Glenn Marcus
Well I'm going to keep this simple.I don't know Glenn, but I certainly know Jodi. I dated her for a year after she had left Glenn. We met several months after she left him and had gotten her own apartment. We met online in an AOL chat room called Classy Handsome Men. After talking a few times we decided to meet and had our first meeting at a museum which was showing the sketchings of Da Vinci. We hit it off right away and began dating from that point. For the first few times that we saw each other nothing was ever mentioned about any of this. However, one evening while at her apartment, I was looking at her computer and found a picture of her. It wasn't sexual in nature or hint of any type of BDSM, though the picture looked radically different then the way she looked at the time of our meeting. In the picture her hair was very short. In the beginning, Glenn demanded she cut all her hair off...to which she DID consent. The clothing she was wearing was very different in style. When I asked her about it she sat down and had a very worried look on her face. She said she had something that she had to tell me. It was then that she told me of her relationship with Glenn. As she was telling me I could easily see she was very upset. Later, she told me she was worried because she really liked me, and was afraid that after hearing about that relationship, I would not want to date her anymore. She didn't go into explicit detail at that point, though later she did tell me certain things. She did at that time tell me about the website and the pictures, and if I wanted , she would show me the site. I declined. I could sense that she had a great deal of shame about these pictures and really for me, I had no need to see them. I really liked her, and I certainly didn't want pictures of that nature haunting me. As our relationship continued, she asked me why I never was curious about what happened, and why I didn't question her about it. I told her simply that I didn't care about her past, I liked her for who she was...that's what mattered to me. That was then...this was now. When the subject did come up she would tell me that she was very afraid that Glenn would send pictures to her parents. There were several times when Glenn would call her apartment while I was there. Once he called at 3am in the morning asking her to go with him and another woman to a strip club. I would ask her why she even bothered to answer the phone or talk to him at all, at which point she would bring up her fear of his sending pictures to her parents. I tried to get her to change her phone number. She would absolutely refuse. I could tell that she was literally terrified. Glenn's friend says that Jodi lied. I know she didn't. I believe that many of the things that did go on she DID give her consent. She told me that herself. There was a night when he had her tied to a wall, and he told her that he would deal with her when he got up,when she said it became very clear to her that she wanted to get out of the relationship. She wanted to leave.Consent was gone, but fear remained.She also told me of the night when he had her tied to a beam...and something that wasn't brought out in the trial...at least from what I've read...Glenn branded Jodi. He branded one of her butt cheeks...his initial G. No, I do not know Glenn...luckily for him...but I do know Jodi. I know her well enough to know that she is not a liar. Yes, there was consent for a period of time, but there was a time when that consent was gone and her compliance was from fear and terror. I'm glad I didn't know all the details of what Glenn did to her. If I had known while I was going out with her I would have done something very foolish.
Reply | Thread | Link



meesekite
User: meesekite
Date: 2007-09-10 18:38 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glenn Marcus
Hello there...
Jodi lied again...to YOU. She consented to that brand, a fact even the GOVT does not dispute. In FACT, the GOVT doesnt even COUNT the brand incident in an Aug 17, 2007 letter because it was CONSENSUAL. Quoted: ..."Marcus’s second argument, that Jodi’s injuries do not qualify as serious bodily injuries, is also incorrect. While
some of Jodi’s injuries cannot be included because they resulted from conduct in which Jodi voluntarily participated... 4...." Subnote 4: "For example, the branding of Jodi’s buttocks, the scarring from cigarette burns, and the carving of “SLAVE” on Jodi’s stomach." So, if Jodi told you that brand was NOT consensual, SHE LIED.

Did she tell you that she spoke to me in 1998, 1999, and in 2003? Did she tell you in ALL of those conversations she seemed bright eyed and bushy tailed? Did she tell you that she never once gave me ANYTHING other than the certainty she was happy? Did she tell you she spoke to Glenn for support and comfort? I was there when he spoke with her for about an hour concerning a medical problem she was having at the time...this was in 2003 or early 2004. Did she tell you she want camping with Glenn in 2002? Thats NOT the acts of a women living in fear. She lived with Rona in 2001. Did she tell you THAT? And Rona never saw ANYTHING non consensual occur between Glenn Marcus and Jodi.

The public can have access to court documents.

And how was Glenn going to send pictures to her parents when he had NO IDEA where her parents even lived???

-meesekite

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2007-09-11 19:43 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glenn Marcus
Glenn knew exactly where her parents lived.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2007-09-09 07:18 (UTC)
Subject: Glenn Marcus
P. S. FUCK GLENN MARCUS!!!!
Reply | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2007-09-11 04:19 (UTC)
Subject: Glen Marcus
Well, what I do find as kind of a poetic justice to all this...is that Glenn, if he had just taken her pictures off the site could have avoided all this trouble. Oh yes I'm sure he had the model agreement signed...all the i's dotted...t's crossed...but if he would have just been a decent human being and honored the request and taken them off none of this would have happened would it? So Glenn only has himself to blame. And besides this, he turns down a plea bargain that would have just made him take the pictures down....hahahahahaha....I love it! Well maybe "bubba" will give him some enlightenment while he's in jail...I'll send him a care package with some KY jelly...it's the least I can do. Finally...and I do mean finally...Glenn should be thankful...really...you have no idea who I am...but if Jodi would have asked me to step in at the time...I'd make 9 years in prison seem like a vacation to Disney World...I think Glenn would make a good asparagus!!!!
Reply | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2007-09-11 14:51 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glen Marcus
I agree with your comments! However, there was NO signed model agreement. At least at court he never produced one. He only submitted a forged release with Rona as the witness. Unfortunately, on the date his release was allegedly signed, Rona was in NYC and Jodi was in Maryland!!

Interesting how the government is wrong, Jodi is wrong, the court is wrong, the judge is wrong, the jury was wrong, etc.?? Part of an elaborate organized effort to convict a innocent outstanding model citizen, despite the fact that he didn't hold a job, didn't pay taxes, didn't pay rent, didn't support himself, etc.??

The government didn't act merely on Jodi's word. Others supported exactly what she alleged. The reason they were not called to testify is because they were either not willing to risk testifying in court or had questionable backgrounds(e.g., prostitution). Jodi was the one witness who had the guts and character to put the narcissistic idiot away!

The only person Glenn has to blame is himself!!!

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



meesekite
User: meesekite
Date: 2007-09-11 21:17 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glen Marcus
There was NO collaboration. Just Jodi, and the photos of bondage do NOT proove coercion. It WAS just her word. NO one else...just her. The jury WAS wrong. It is not uncommon for people to be falsely accused and convicted. The GOVT was wrong...Jodi lied to them, they bought it.

There was a model release form. It was not the original, but it was not a forgery either.

And Glenn did have a job. He supported himself. It surely wasnt a conventional 9-5 job, but many work at unusual occupations.

I also have spoken to the woman you call a prostitute, and she says she never saw Glenn do anything non consensual to Jodi.

Wanna re-evaluate your own mistaken assumptions?
-meesekite
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2007-09-11 22:46 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glen Marcus
No, I am fine. How about your mistaken assumptions? Please explain how Rona can witness a consent form when she is in NYC, yet at the time it was allegedly signed, Jodi was in Maryland? Only answer, it that it was a forgery!

Glenn support himself? He doesn't have the capacity, except through manipulations. But, keep on believin'! After all, I'm sure there are a few people that still believe in Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple Group.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2007-09-11 23:05 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glen Marcus
And you signed a model release for the sex with snakes section on slavespace.com?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



meesekite
User: meesekite
Date: 2007-09-11 23:42 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glen Marcus
I did indeed sign a model release form for Glenn.
There were snakes, there were naked women, BUT there was no sex with any snakes.
-meesekite
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



meesekite
User: meesekite
Date: 2007-09-11 21:37 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glen Marcus
Hello.
Actually, yes, in this case the govt falsely prosecuted, the jury falsely convicted, and witness lied. It is not the first time a jury, from bias and prejudice, has convicted an innocent man. Your own assumptions are also in error. There was NO collabortion to Jodi's claims...the images of bondage dont proove coercion. The JURY acted solely on Jodi's claims...as thats ALL they heard. So, they convicted a man based on UNCOLLABORATED evidence, as NO OTHER WOMAN supported what she said.

And, the govt did NOT say at trial Glenn threatened other women...as he did not.

And you are mistaken...the GOVT was VERY interested in having the woman who you call a "prostitute" testify and wrote many motions to have her do so. She would have been allowed to, had they wanted her. However, she was VERY adamant about saying how she was NOT a victim. She also stated she never saw Glenn do ANYTHING non consensual to Jodi. Had she testified, she would have greatly aided the defense. I wish she had testified...she came very close to doing so for Glenn, at one point.

Glenn also held a job. Certainly not a conventional one, but so what? Are you now saying all those with unusual employment are suspect? The model release form was a copy, but NOT forged. Glenn had no need to forge one.
Oh, and how do you explain away the camping trips in 2002, the congenial chats she and Glenn had in 2003, and even the discussion she had with ME in 2003?
-meesekite
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2009-10-14 13:29 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Glen Marcus
>>And, the govt did NOT say at trial Glenn threatened other women...as he did not.<<

He most certainly did threaten another woman, Joanna.

>>While both Jodi and Joanna were on the telephone with the defendant, he threatened to send photographs and a videotape of Joanna engaged in sexually explicit behavior to her father and to kill her godson if Joanna did not continue to serve him.<<

She wanted to leave, and he threatened her to make her stay. You can't even keep your facts straight!
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: (Anonymous)
Date: 2011-01-09 03:07 (UTC)
Subject: Top 100 Drugs Brand Generic
Eastern Medicine Md Portland Maine http://www.musicinmay.com/ - order soma online When we are exhausted our immune systems do not work as well and when this happen you are more likely to get sick. [url=http://www.musicinmay.com/]soma online[/url]
Reply | Thread | Link



browse
my journal
December 2010