Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Better than buy one, get one. If you are female, you get one felony free in the City of Bothell, no purchase necessary!

Yes, that is right folks. None of this, "but wait, there's more" stuff, you just get one felony free in Bothell, if you are a woman.

In an indefensible act, the city prosecutor, aided by her clueless boss, Michael Weight, decided that Holly Johnson, the woman who left her kid alone in the car, engine running, doors unlocked, while she popped into the liquor store for a morning bottle, will not face charges.

``The anguish suffered by the mother at the time of her child's disappearance was a significantly greater punishment than anything the court could impose,'' the city prosecutor said in a statement prepared by the city flackmeister, and not reviewed or read by her boss, the above mentioned Mr. Weight.

Even though Ms. Johnson admitted to us all on the tee-vee that she violated the law, which is a Class C felony, punishable by five years in the graybar, and a ten thousand dollar fine, the matriarchy proved alive and well, and got another bad woman a pass.

The prosecutor's boss, City Attorney Michael Weight said he wasn't aware of any outside arguments from the community at large, arguing either for or against filing charges.

No surprise there, as Mr. Weight has no email link like every other city employee, no telephone number to his desk on the city website, and was even unaware of the quote attributed to him in the King County Journal article.

When asked by the Geezer if there were charging standards in Bothell, like everywhere else, he said, "not for misdemeanors". He didn't even know it was a felony!!!! When quizzed about the decision not to charge, and that "she suffered enough" as the standard, he was "sheep-in-headlights" dumb.

I asked him, please demonstrate and elicit those quantifiable measures of her suffering, and please demonstrate an objective measure of "enough" so we can determine how much suffering "suffering enough" was, and what objective measure was used to determine that her discomfort for the hour and a half that the baby-kins was gone was "enough" to ameliorate the crime. The sound of being dumbstruck was reverberating through the phone line.

So, I said, the prosecution depends on how loud the sheeples yell for someone's head? Is the standard of the old West, and the Jim Crow south how you decide to charge crimes? Waiting for shouts of "Hang 'em High"?

Goodness, was his reply, why would you say that?

It was in the paper, the Geez responded, and you were quoted. Did the paper get it wrong?

Why, he said, I guess there was a press release on that. Geezushkeericed. I hope this guy gets paid in Monopoly money. He didn't even read and approve the press release that the city spinmeister invented.

So, if you want to benefit by the matriarchy's universal mantra, that all wimmin' shall not be accountable for their egregious acts, even felonies, then get thee to Bothell, for a day or a lifetime. *NOT*

And if you see this guy in the grocery store, be sure to tell him what you think. After all, he said he want to hear from you.



Blogger One man said...

Had this been a non-custodial dad do you think he'd even be able to see his kids after a failure of this magnitude? What, no alchahol assesment? No treatment? Sounds like more Girl Rules.

6/29/2005 12:32:00 AM  
Anonymous 12gagemoses said...

this is a prime example, total double standard. Facism at it's finest. Here is his email if anyone so chooses to chime in, michael.weight@ci.bothell.wa.us I guess my question would be "What the F!@# is going on here?" If you aren't going to enforce your own laws then why have them? What kind of message are you trying to send our children, that laws are only for men?

6/29/2005 09:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Da Main said...

WTF? Da main ditn no it wuz a Class C felony to 'bandon a chirren so to 'spose the kid to the risk of harm? Howcum us ordinary citizens know dat stuffs, and da main has NFI? WTF up wif dat kinda stuffs? I shita been a 'torney... GD it...

6/29/2005 10:10:00 PM  
Blogger Zipporah32 said...

Alright-I agree, this stupid woman should NEVER have been let go. HOWEVER, I think it has nothing to do with the fact she was a woman. It just so happens the city prosecutor and her boss are extremely dumb. I agree that single dad's and mom's should receive equal treatment. But don't you realize more oft than not it's a single mom? I'm sure as heck glad my dad didn't raise me. But that's just me. I'm all for dad's being in the family and helping raise kids, that's their job. And a lot of mom's need to wise up and help their family out to. Just don't blame all the women for everything.

6/29/2005 11:24:00 PM  
Blogger The Geezer said...


Let's just illustrate this the easy way.

If it has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman, lets compare the penalty when a woman and man do the same crime. We admit to having little or no prosecution of women for this.

Now, lets check and see how men are treated. Think of all the men that have left kiddy-kins in running cars with the doors unlocked. Go ahead, I will wait.

Still thinking? Can't come up with any instances of guys doing this?

Ok, I rest my case. Have a cheery day.


6/30/2005 09:08:00 AM  
Blogger One man said...

The point still remains, had this been a man instead of a woman, he would be punished, probably have to fight tooth and nail to regain any visitation, and his story would be used to fuel the anti-dad fires. When a man fails like this it is considered proof that men suck as parents. When a woman fails like this, ah well, oops. She probably learned her lesson without the need for big brother to get involved. To say it doesn't matter that she was female is nieve. It does matter.

6/30/2005 10:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Chotzy said...

One man you are going FAR too Easy on this STUPID mother. Had the sexes been reversed the Dad would have been labeled by the feminist media; an Alcoholic, unfit father who cared more about getting his booze then taking care of his kid. And after the night of hugging his kid and thanking God that his child made it home safe. He would have been arrested and charged with the Class C Felony. He would have lost all visitation rights because family court would have labeled him a Drunken Felon. and a danger to his child.

As to Zipporah32, I'm glad that you had an enriched experience being raised by your mother. But you are an exception to the rule. More children from our generation raised solely by mothers, are in unstable relationships themselves. They are the second and third generation single mothers and or men who don't know how to be fathers. Or they are so mad at the world and themselves that they turn to less productive and more destructive ways of living. We have too much evidence to show that a child being raised by TWO parents has a much better chance of succeeding in this world. But the "Family" courts who should only be worried about the children see that cutting the fathers involvement down to just his wallet is enough for most kids in Washington.

To me thats WHACK!!!

7/01/2005 01:16:00 PM  
Blogger One man said...

You are correct chotzy. You do make my point better than I. That is exactly what I meant. You laid it out so that those who haven't actually been to court can understand. Thank you. I forget sometimes that this hasn't happened to all of us. It IS whack. Girl rules I say. Men are held to a higher standard, a MUCH higher standard. What does this say about equality? It says that men are capable and women are not. When a man screws up he's held as accountable as he possibly can be and can never live it down. When a woman screws up, oh well, oops, hope she learned her lesson.

7/01/2005 01:59:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Main