I just received an important notice from the NYC chapter of NOW.
The cause of NOW’s outrage is the statements made by Commanding Officer, Captain Peter Rose when explaining why only 2 out of 13 recent rape cases were solved. He said: “Some of them were Tinder, some of them were hook-up sites, some of them were actually co-workers. It’s not a trend that we’re too worried about because out of 13, only two were true stranger rapes” Continue reading #NOW Is Outraged at the NYPD!” #TakeRapeSeriously!”→
“Thank you so much for being a champion of my cause! I am so grateful to have you in my corner and to help support me through this heinous process!”
Above is the post Mischele Lewis placed on my blog after I’d accompanied her to a hearing and posted on recent events in her case. She’d been turned down for a restraining order against William Allen Jordan, a convicted pedophile and bigamist, who had seduced her in an emotional hoax. The Judge, John Tomasello, failed to enlighten her that a restraining order was already in effect, per Nicole’s Law, a statute providing restraining orders in all sexual assault cases. Nicole’s mother saw my post and contacted me. That’s how we found out.
Lewis claimed that, along with defrauding her of sex, Jordan robbed her of more than $4,000, and impersonated an operative in the British Defense Ministry. Ultimately, Jordan pleaded guilty and allocuted to the robbery and impersonating an officer. He is scheduled to begin his three year sentence in February.
The most troubling aspects of Lewis’s case against Jordan are:
The authorities in the UK did not report deporting him to the US and place his name on Meagen’s List, which identifies sex offenders. Lewis has a teen aged daughter. Jordan has a history of child molestation.
The State of NJ failed to use their existing statutes covering aggravated sexual assault to convict Jordan. Instead they charged him with “Sexual Assault by Coercion,” which could not possible stick. Jordan had not coerced Lewis. In fact, he’d seduced her. Correctly, the Grand Jury failed to indict.
Aiding a victim
When I first met Lewis back in March of 2014, about four months after Carnal Abuse by Deceit was originally published, she was unaware of Rape by Fraud. Donna Anderson, who blogs at LoveFraud, a healing community for victims of relationships with sociopaths, had introduced us. She’d read my book, wanted to know if Lewis’s case met the criteria. and if NJ would punish the offense.
I spoke with Lewis at great length, enlightened her about the crime, researched the NJ statutes, and put an analysis together to give to the police, along with 2 copies of my book. I figured they knew far more about the laws of NJ than I, but wanted to convey that someone who knew something about it was watching and standing behind the victim.
I explained to Lewis that if NJ failed to convict on Aggravated Sexual Assault, we could gain the traction needed to introduce a sexual assault by fraud law in the state. (Jersey uses the term “sexual assault” for such cases, not “rape.”) Anderson, Lewis and I went to the police station together to file her statement.
A light appears at the end of the tunnel!
Fortunately, when the jury failed to indict based on the Prosecutor’s charge, Assemblyman Troy Singleton read the story in the news and contacted Lewis. He introduced Legislation #3908 in the NJ Assembly, Sexual Assault by Fraud, on November 13, 2014.
Assemblyman Singleton is absolutely my hero! After suffering my own personal, decades long journey through rape by fraud, spending 4 years writing my book, blogging, and advocating, I was overwhelmed with joy!
#3908, You can help!
The bill has a long way to go! It was patterned after the statute on sexual assault by fraud in Tennessee which is the broadest of such laws in the country. Media has created hysteria by characterizing the law with absurd scenarios that the statute is not designed to prosecute.
A petition seeking the passage of NJ Assembly Legislation #3908 is posted on change.org. Your voice can make a major impact on passing this bill!
Today, New Jersey…… Tomorrow, your state or jurisdiction! And give all your friends and family the link so they can sign the petition as well! http://www.chn.ge/1t7FZJu Don’t hesitate! Click now to sign!
Watch the Dateline episode on Sunday
Dateline taped Mischele’s story. I was asked to give the “legal framework,” but my section ended up on the cutting room floor. Unfortunately, introduction of the law came too late for the taping, and very little of the finished work mentions the crime of rape by fraud. Still, it will be an interesting depiction of how con artists work to embroil people, looking for love, in sexual and emotional hoaxes. I hope everyone will watch and send a note of appreciation to Assemblyman Troy Singleton, AsmSingleton@njleg.org, to thank him for his efforts and support passage of Legislation #3908, Sexual Assault by Fraud. Due to his actions, the next sexual con artist in NJ may actually get jail-time for their crime!
Rape by fraud can happen to anyone. Mischele Lewis, like everyone else, desired to have love in her life. We’re all wired by nature to do so. No one has the right to exploit our instinct to couple with either physical or emotional rape. By defrauding her of her highest emotion, and sexually penetrating her based on “false personation,” Jordan did both. He is not the only sexual predator out there. There are millions. Society needs to know and put an end to their depravity.
Watch an in-depth explanation of rape by fraud
I was recently interviewed about rape by fraud by The Woman’s Connection. Here’s the link. I hope it will enable viewers to develop a fuller understanding of the crime and its devastation.
Please join me, live on Twitter during the Dateline airing: @jm_short, hashtag #RapeByFraud and hashtag #SexualAssaultByFraud
Objections to penal code on sexual assault by fraud range from uninformed to downright bizarre:
People should just be more careful,
Boys will be boys,
It happens so frequently- half of society would end up in jail,
……… and on and on!
Here are some frequently raised objections, and why they simply don’t fly:
“Victims should be more careful.”
People with this objection fail to realize that sexual predators will specifically set out to lie and thwart detection. They go to great lengths to proffer and perpetuate sexual hoaxes. They deliberately harm one unsuspecting victim after another.
Rape by fraud happens to naive people, but it also happens to very astute victims who are not easily fooled. To some offenders, undermining the emotional armor that protects the most intelligent and savvy target is especially rewarding.
A victim’s “carefulness” can be undermined by an unscrupulous offender, and naivete is not a crime. Rape is.
“They didn’t know, so no crime was committed.”
All fraud takes place as the result of the victim being overcome by the offender’s vitiation of consent. But when the victim learns they were “had,” their feelings of defilement can be overwhelming. The same would be true of date rape in which the victim was drugged and not conscious when the rape actually took place.
No rape is less of a rape because the victim did not know that it was happening to them at the time.
“Rape by fraud is really not rape.”
The generic word, “rape” is globally accepted as “non-consented sexual penetration.” While different states call it by different names, sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual misconduct, etc, “rape” refers to sexually penetrating a victim who would not knowingly consent but for the vitiation of their consent by the offender. Because society balks at the use of the term “rape” when no violence occurs, however, it’s best to use a less glaring term for non-violent acts of rape.
A recent University of North Dakota survey indicates that approximately 1 out of 3 college men would rape if they thought there would be no consequences. This figure was arrived at when the act was described but not referred to as “rape.” When the word “rape” was introduced, however, the ratio dropped to 13%.
Rape is the crime of stealing sex from someone who would not otherwise give it to you.
“Saying “yes” means consent.”
Using fraud to secure a “yes” is sexual exploitation. In all human interaction, when someone defrauds you of your assets or dupes you into conduct of any sort, they are using the tool of “fraud” to take something from you. Your consent is considered totally ineffective under the law.
Model Penal Code- “Consent is ineffective when induced by force, duress or deception.”
“Rape by fraud laws would punish people for wearing padded bras, lifts in their shoes, or dying their hair.”
Balderdash! A person’s appearance is either pleasing to their sexual partner or not. An appearance enhancement neither masks the nature of the act itself nor the identity or intent of the offender.
Appearance enhancements can and should be disqualified as “fraud” in rape by fraud law.
“This law is just another way to make society more of a woman’s world and undermine maleness.”
I view that comment as one of the most sexist things I’ve ever heard. In the tug of war between misogyny and misandry, some feel that rape by fraud laws favor women. Women can be just as guilty of conducting rape by fraud as men, although more rapes occur to women than men.
Rape by fraud law would protect men against gold-diggers and curtail the transmission of life-altering illness that occurrs when a sexual predator lies to hide their health condition from someone of either sex.
The law is gender neutral and provides equal protection to both men and women.
“It goes on all the time. How could laws possibly be enforced?”
First off, it shouldn’t go on all the time, and that’s exactly why this law is so important. Once it becomes law, people will recognize sexual assault by fraud as abhorrent behavior.
The proofs needed to try a case are far more substantial than simply “he said, she said.” The police can’t arrest someone without proof of a claim, the Grand Jury can’t indict, and the victim would have to have made a reasonable effort to know the truth.
Willingly jumping into bed with someone upon first meeting them would not qualify as rape by fraud. Unless the victim can substantiate that the crime, indeed, was committed against them, in keeping with all criminal arrests, no prosecution would take place.
Any arrest would require substantial proof and the victim would have to have made a reasonable effort to know the truth
“People will fabricate they were raped after the fact because they simply want to damage the innocent person who’s dumped them.”
Fabrication can take place in any claim of wrong-doing. We don’t fail to enforce criminal law because people can misuse it. That’s what judges and juries are for; determining whether sufficient proof exists to pronounce the offender guilty. There are so many reasons why people don’t immediately come forward after a rape that it would take up an entire post. But when they do come forward, they need proof in order to press charges. A non-supported case of “he said, she said” would not be prosecuted, even though any act of swindling someone out of sex is a violation.
Significant proof is required when prosecuting any claim in every case. Sexual Assault by Fraud is no different.
“Violent rape is the only real rape.”
Our laws have long recognized that a violent assault against a victim’s sex organs is more heinous than other types of violent assault. If the offender used violence to break our arm, we would not call that rape. We recognize that there is something uniquely different about sexually violating a person. And there is nothing that can compare to the heinousness of violent rape.
But violence is one means to rape a victim. Our laws have also acknowledged that penetration of a person’s sex organs without their consent is “rape,” Date rape and statutory rape are good examples.They are forms of rape in which violence need not be present. The It’sOnUs Pledge states specifically, “Non-consensual sex is sexual assault.”
When the offender uses fraud to vitiate “knowing consent,” by any means, they are aware they are doing so, even though the victim is not. In all acts of rape, it is the actions of the actor that is the crime.
The tools by which an offender will sexually violate a victim include: violence, dope, intoxication, coercion, sex with someone under the age of consent or too mentally incapacitated to consent, and fraud, (dupllicity/deceit.)
Every means of vitiating a victim’s right to self determination to penetrate their sex organs is rape.
Why will people will continue to object?
With all of the reasons behind adoption of sexual assault by fraud law, some people will continue to oppose it. Any change in society’s “norms” takes getting used to. Often, those changes are initially met with disbelief and even ridicule. We’re seeing that in the outlandish comments people make. But there are other reasons many will continue to object. Here are a few……
1. They didn’t read or understand the law.
2. The media continues to stir up hysteria by incorrectly stating fictitious cases such as “the speed of my Lamborghini, blah, blah,” or “I’m Brad Pitt’s best friend.”
2. There are people who fail to appreciate and acknowledge that every human being’s body is sacrosanct. It’s a good idea to stay away from people who fail to do so. They’d have very little respect for your sexual autonomy,
3. Media’s portrayal of sex, and its constant bombardment of sexual imagery, creates the concept that sex is a prize, reward or entitlement. Sex has been depersonalized. It’s become a commodity. But sex is not a “thing”, and sexual sanctity is every person’s inherent right.
4. Adopting new legislation is up to legislators who count on making popular decisions to remain in office. And some legislators, judges, police officers and others, who pass or uphold the laws, can be just as guilty of rape by fraud as anyone else. An inability to grasp the criminality of rape by fraud tells us a great deal about that person.
6. The mindset that enables an offender to commit rape by fraud is a selfish, narcissistic perspective; one that puts individual desire above respect for another human being’s self determination. Doing so indicates their ability to devalue a victim for their own personal greed. People who object are supporting society’s continued acceptance of sexually deviant behavior. What does that say about that individual?
Let’s have a frank and open discussion
Anyone wishing to state an objection to sexual assault by fraud law can leave a comment here, and I’ll be happy to respond. Folks who’d like to lend their support are welcome to join in. Please address the issue in a respectful fashion. Hurling insults, foul language, personal attacks or other negative responses will result in removal of the comment.
Why victims suffer this disabling anxiety condition
PTSD is normally associated with warfare
My father fought in the Philippines during World War II. One hot, dark, buggy night, he woke up to find a Japanese soldier squatting over him, about to thrust a bayonet into his neck. I knew better than to ever ask him the fate of that soldier. The fact that he came home to our family was all we needed to know.
Whenever my dad was aroused from sleep, he’d awaken with a start. I’m sure that was only a small example of how PTSD affected him. But it was visible to me, even as a small child.Today, society readily understands that combat soldiers can suffer from PTSD. It was a far less public discussion in my father’s time.
I never expected that I would encounter any type of danger that could create the disorder for me, but I was wrong.
The emotional causes of PTSD
Modern day health professionals have concluded that emotionally shattering experiences undermine our sense of invulnerability and cause PTSD. People naturally assume that life is both benevolent and meaningful. And we consider ourselves to be worthy beings. An encounter with rape by fraud can shred every vestige of our beliefs about both life and our place in it. It undermines our value system.
If this happened to you, depending on the length of time the hoax took place, you built expectations that were predictable. Learning that everything you valued was nothing more than a house of cards crushed your sense of safety and well-being. And the notion that you were used as an instrument of your own demise was especially crushing. It is why Socrates said that “sex by persuasion” as he called rape by fraud, is particularly compelling because it undermines the character of the victim. Recognition of the heinous nature of this behavior spans centuries. It’s nothing new.
While rape by fraud victims do not undergo the brutal torment of violence, the blow to their emotional makeup can be devastating. Their injuries are far more severe than the trifling stupidities that people hurl their way…. “Just get over it,” “So what,” “Find a decent guy.” And even worse, “You just misunderstood.” In many ways, the lack of validation people hurl at victims serves to deepen their despair. They not only have to deal with the betrayal that affects them at their core, but also with the abandoning mindset of the very people they count on for support.
Some symptoms of PTSD include:
Memories that are triggered by daily events, making you tremendously sad.
Sleeplessness, the inability to turn off the record running through your brain
Loss of interest in your daily life.
Hermit behavior, unwillingness to go out and face possible reminders
Irritability and anger over small incidents.
Victims who experience rape by fraud should seek professional help to recover. Just as a soldier needs therapy to improve, no one should try to tackle PTSD on their own. If you can’t afford a private therapist, contact your local hospital and find out if they have a low cost mental health clinic that can help you. Reach out to RAINN, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, for information and support.
As a UGA Alum, I was particularly interested in checking on rape by fraud laws in the Peach State. And, although there’s no specific mention in their criminal code, Georgia has an interesting statute that should apply.
Back in 1962, Model Penal Code was drafted to standardize penal laws throughout the US. Its Global Consent provision states that:
Consent is ineffective if induced by force, duress, or deception.
Basically, this means that consent, obtained by deception, is not consent at all.
Georgia’s rape law clearly identifies the crime committed through the use of force or duress. And 16-6022.1, Sexual Battery, should apply in cases of deceit when the concept of “consent” is based on Model Penal Code’s Global Consent provision.
Georgia continues to outlaw fornication and adultery as criminal acts. So be careful, all you Hairy Dawgs!. You can land in jail for having sex out of wedlock with either a single or married person.
The “E” in e-dating could readily stand for “Easy Pickin’s!”
Gone are the days when families oversaw the courtship of the younger generation. Dowries and chaperoned strolls through the park, characteristic of the 17th century, are long gone. But Andrew G. Gardner, in his Colonial Williamsburg article, Courtship, Sex and the Single Colonist, describes that even in the era of the Puritans, one third of marriages took place with a “bun in the oven.”
Jane Austen’s day was not without scoundrels who made commitments and flew the coupe, leaving the maiden in the socially unacceptable circumstance of being unmarried and pregnant. And young men frequently sought their fortune through their matches. Love often took a back seat to pragmatism and concern for the betterment of the family.
Back then, families were less transient and people knew the character of others who lived in their village or town. A slip in behavior, bad dealings with others, was hard to suppress and marred a person’s reputation for a lifetime.
So why should we expect technology that readily transports strangers into our lives is a safe way to meet a mate? And what about our moral structure enables us to think it okay to engage in sex without thoroughly vetting our love interest?
Whatever a person tells you online could be true, or a total fabrication. And people can transport their charm through techno space as readily as if they sat beside you. What they say can be truth or fiction, depending on their moral compass. They know, if you are looking for love, you are the perfect mark.
Duping people is an art form. And the well practiced CAD is hard to spot. They can lure you with a sympathy play, by mirroring your values, by flattery, and countless other practices that erode your guard.
Some safety guidelines
I’m not saying that you should never engage in internet dating, but rather, you should do so with great caution. Here are some basic protections you should employ:
Check the photo ID of anyone you meet online. Is it unromantic? Yup… but if the person cares about your safety, they won’t be offended.
Be sure to note their age and address. Is it the same information you initially received from them? There is no excuse for a lie of identity. If they told you one, walk out the door. You will never be anything but an object to that person, no matter how charming they appear to be.
Google them. Check them out on Linked-In and their Facebook page. Do they work for a company with a web presence? The likelihood is great that if they used technology to find you, but don’t have other social technology, they are hiding something.
Don’t have a sexual relationship with anyone until you have met other people who know them. Sex is chemically bonding. Regardless how you feel about them before the fireworks, you will feel more compelled toward them afterward. It’s how the neurotransmitters in your brain work.You will be more susceptible to their lies once you’ve had sex with them which is why impostors will try to quickly sweep you off your feet. Too much, too fast is likely to be a con.
Remember that there are two sides to every story. People who parent children together, regardless of the fact that they are divorced, should get along with their ex. Not doing so should run up a red flag.
Not having a bond with parents is a pretty good indication that they are unable to bond, period. Even if a person suffered abuse, they will still feel a bond of love. While they may establish healthy boundaries, they will care about their parent’s well being. People who have no relationship with their parent are likely to be unable to bond. And they may cook up stories of abuse as a sympathy play to explain away their lack of caring.
Be mindful of the signs that people give off that indicate they have weak or non-existent emotional empathy. How do they treat the waiter? The valet? The cab driver? Have they engaged in any kind of activity for the betterment of others?
You can improve your safety in internet dating by being vigilant and recognizing that one out of 25 people are sociopaths and many more have sociopathic of character disordered traits. Don’t think falling into a predator’s path can’t happen to you.
While the pilgrims suffered countless obstacles to navigate uncharted waters, their descendants surely failed to rise above the sea of legal rhetoric on rape by fraud back in 2008. It was a tragically lost opportunity.
In Suliveres v. Commonwealth, 449 Mass. 112 (2007), the court deemed the defendant not guilty in a case in which he disguised himself as his brother to have sex with the brother’s girlfriend. Another MA case of rape by fraud was similarly dismissed when a lab technician passed himself off as a doctor.
Then Representative, Peter J. Koutoujian, currently the Sheriff of Middlesex County, proposed a law to make rape by fraud a crime. The law was considered “too broad,” and was voted down. The principle behind what defines “too broad” is that the law could be carried out if a man poses as single when, in fact, he’s married.
The following is a quote from CBS News at the time:
Rape by deception is just as damaging and illegal as rape by force, said Middlesex County District Attorney Gerry Leone. If the law passes here, a common concern is that the legislation’s vague language regarding deception will result in women who have been seduced by men posing as someone else or claiming to be unmarried filing rape charges.
So let’s examine the concept by which the law was rejected….
Joe Hitched, (sorry guys but this occurs far more frequently with men fooling women than women fooling men,) is on his own for a week. His wife is out of town to care for her father who just had heart surgery. Joe’s feeling bored and decides to go hang out at the neighborhood watering hole, the one with the loud music, pool table, and pretty women.
As Joe approaches the door, he takes off his wedding band, surveying his hand to see if he can detect a faint line where the ring normally sits. Content that his deception won’t be noticed, he finds a seat at the crowded bar and orders a beer.
Susie Single, fresh from a recent breakup with her boyfriend, is standing next to him. He offers to buy her a drink and they begin a chatting, friendly banter. He challenges her to a game of pool and before you know it, they’re kicking it up on the dance floor. When the beat turns to a slow simmer, he puts an arm around her waist and they sway seductively to the music.
Susie’s impressed with his good looks. She’s an intelligent woman, a nurse. He’s well spoken, seems like an educated guy, and he has a fun loving disposition. She’s not one to succumb to the flirting of the moment, but she gives him her number. When she gets home, she “Googles” him. He works where he said he did. Nothing negative appears on the internet.
Joe calls the very next day. “What a catch,” Susie thinks, “someone who’s not a game player!” She accepts his invitation for dinner. He makes a reservation for a romantic dinner cruise, and he tells her all about his divorce and the two kids he’s estranged from, since his terrible ex is giving him a hard time.
Susie’s heart melts. She feels an instant chemistry with Joe. He seems like the perfect guy… interested in his children, easy to talk to, hard-working. When he walks her to the door, and kisses her good-night, she’s caught up in the passion and invites him in. They have totally consensual, so she thinks, sex, that night, the next, and the next.
When his wife returns, Joe covers up his marriage by saying he needs to travel for business. Susie understands that his job takes him away, until she runs into him shopping with his wife at the local mall.
So, was their sex consensual? She agreed to it, right? Or was she defrauded into it?
Susie was raised by her mother after her father made off with his secretary. She was adamant that she would never do to a family what her father had done to hers. Had she known Joe was married, she would not have gotten involved with him. Joe not only broke his marriage vows, he embroiled Susie in adultery and sexually assaulted her by fraud.
Why do our laws insist in protecting offenders who do this to women all the time? Why would a state deliberately turn its back on protecting a woman against assault by someone pretending to be her boyfriend or her doctor, in order to give Joe Hitched carte blanche to defile Susie Single? Is it because so many people do this that our Legislators are concerned they won’t get re-elected if they stand for the right thing?
Divorce is rampart in our country. Often, marriages crumble because it’s so easy to step out and hook up in another relationship. While people will argue that our courts will be inundated with charges against offenders, I’d argue that the volume of divorce is likely to diminish when offenders realize there are real and meaningful consequences to this behavior.
And the very simple response to the concept that our courts will be overrun with rape by fraud claims is: people should stop taking off their rings to defraud others of sex. But even if they don’t, cases of “he said, she said,” are unlikely to meet the burden of proof required for prosecution. Prosecuting a “rape by fraud” case would take “proofs” that will hold up in a courtroom, not the unsupported lies that are common in hook-ups. For that reason, even though Joe committed what we can see, generically, as “rape by fraud,” will he be prosecuted? Probably no.
If we’d like to live in a moral society, our laws must conform with morality. Sexually assaulting someone by fraud is both morally reprehensible and a crime. Just because Joe Hitched won’t be charged, does not make it less so.
Sadly, the Sheriff’s efforts, from the town where I was born, failed to acknowledge that duplicity invalidates consent in all things, including sex. I take this one personally.
Seems like an over abundance of swamp water drowns out the need to protect victims in Louisiana. The Bayou State has several statutes on rape, but none measure up on rape by fraud! There is aggravated rape, forcible rape, and simple rape. The construct that comes closest to rape by fraud, in Louisiana’s negligent criminal code, is simple rape, 43(a)(1).
In statute 43(a)(1), one example of simple rape is defined as sexual intercourse without the lawful consent of the victim when the victim is incapable of resisting or of understanding the nature of the act by reason of a stupor or abnormal condition of mind produced by an intoxicating agent or any cause and the offender knew or should have known of the victim’s incapacity.
The argument that could support a rape by fraud claim under this statute is that the victim was as unaware of the nature of the act as an intoxicated or drugged victim would be. Their consent, in any of the related cases, would not be freely given and knowing consent, because the offender duped them, (any cause,) into the act, and knew they were doing so at the time.
The ambiguity of this law could be cleared up by simply inserting the words “or duplicity” after “intoxicating agent.”
Protecting Wives Against Rape by Fraud
Louisiana’s statutes do contain one specific act of rape by fraud; (in the inducement,) that of impersonating the husband of the victim.
§43.3 When the female victim submits under the belief that the person committing the act is her husband and such belief is intentionally induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the offender.
By having implemented this law, Louisiana clearly shows that the use of fraud in seduction breaches knowing consent, but reserves their remedy solely for married women. This concept comes from the notion that a wife is a husband’s property. Defiling her is punishable because it is an offense against the husband. Unmarried women, therefore, are unprotected.
Idaho case tested the practice for single women
If a man posed as a boyfriend or fiancee, the charge would not apply. In a 2011 case in Idaho, against Zachary McGraw, the case was in fact dismissed because the victim was unmarried. The Judge on the case, the Hon. Cheri Copsey, found the disparity in the law “despicable”, but never-the-less, it still stands in Idaho and Louisiana. (Refer to pg. 184 of Carnal Abuse by Deceit.)
Louisiana’s statute on fraud as it relates to Theft, is crystal clear!
Theft is the misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs to another, either without the consent of the other to the misappropriation or taking, or by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations.
The degrees of damage under this statute vary according to the monetary value of the loss. It appears that losing your most precious asset, your sexual sanctity, does not measure up to consideration since it has no quantifiable monetary value. Take a man’s money, off to jail you go. Defile a woman, (or anybody for that matter,) no problem!
The frequency of sexual assaults on college campuses has become so epidemic, that preventing attacks inspired a nationwide campaign, winning the endorsement of President Barack Obama. This effort, entitled, It’sOnUs, calls attention to the many perilous ways students can be raped, but does not include rape by fraud, the crime of duplicitous sex that harms many unsuspecting victims.
In addition to the obvious benefits for college students, why is this effort so important for us to address?
First and foremost, it establishes that “Non-consensual sex is sexual assault,” dispelling the long held notion, by many states, that rape by extreme violence is the only sexual assault that rises to a criminal level.
There are several legal myths that must be dispelled in order to create legal sanctions against rape by fraud. The simple truth is that duplicity invalidates consent in all things. That’s why fraudsters, like Bernie Madoff, are punished when they make off with your money. Like Madoff, rapists who use fraud secure the consent of their victims. In Madoff’s case, his targets even ordered their brokers and bankers to transfer funds into his investment schemes. When viewed in light of recent California legislation on sexual assault, in which “yes” means “yes”, the actions of Madoff’s victims pretty clearly indicated that they had agreed.
But, here’s the catch…… when “consent” is achieved by duplicity, even “yes” means “no.” “Yes” requires legally valid, knowing consent. When consent is not freely and knowingly given, in other words, not coerced through duplicity, “yes”, indeed, means “no.” Even though the victim did not know that a crime was being committed against them at the time, the offender knew.
What we’re fighting against, in the effort to create sanctions against rape by fraud, is the ironic concept that “knowing consent” is important in every other human interaction, but when it sexually violates us, it’s okay. Could the fact that the overwhelming majority of our law makers are men, and that the vast majority of rape by fraud victims are women have something to do with it? And even though the protection would likely help far more women than men, the men who are targeted by female fraudsters deserve the same protections that women are being deprived of.
The concept “Non-consensual sex is sexual assault” is an important first step in ridding state laws of their onerous doctrines of “force.” Once achieved, the next hurdle is to establish that lies of identity engage you in having sex with a stranger. For instance, when someone removes their wedding band to sidle up to you, they are not only breaking their wedding vows, embroiling you in adultery and fornication, but they are also raping you through their use of fraud. Their knowing act of duplicity deprived you of your self-determination over your choice of a sexual partner, defiling you at your most intimate core.
Rape by violence undermines your knowing consent. If the attack did not penetrate you sexually, it would be “assault”, not “sexual assault” or “rape.”
Rape by doping you undermines your knowing consent.
Rape by intoxicating you undermines your knowing consent.
Rape by coercion, the threat of harm, undermines your knowing consent.
Statutory rape of an underage minor undermines their knowing consent because they have yet to attain the age of consent.
Sex with a mentally challenged person is rape when the victim is considered unable to provide “knowing consent.”
Why then is rape by fraud, the deliberate act of depriving someone of their “knowing consent” to penetrate them sexually, not punishable in the vast majority of states?
The state of Tennessee has the most appropriate language in the nation to penalize rape by fraud. Their statutes prohibit intercourse “induced by deception, accomplished by fraud and obtained by ruse.” I am currently seeking a rape by fraud victim in the state of Tennessee who is willing to come forward to seek justice through criminal prosecution of the offender. Doing so can raise awareness throughout the country and help knock down the barriers that prevent wider implementation of rape by fraud laws.
Mischele Lewis recently came forward to arrest William Allen Jordan for defrauding her of sex in New Jersey. I had helped her address the authorities in NJ to file her claim. Jordan was arrested for 2nd degree sexual assault. Although the Grand Jury failed to indict Jordan on the charge, her efforts brought about awareness by a state lawmaker who is considering language to submit in New Jersey to protect its residents from such a crime. And Jordan faces additional charges the Prosecutor filed against him for other damage to Mischele.
Could you be the next person who stands up to make a difference in your state? Write me. I’ll research the criminal statutes in your jurisdiction and let you know if you have a case.