Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Dan Perrins' hunger strike

Dan Perrins is on a hunger strike. Dan Perrins is a long time MRA who has worked in the trenches,leading his protesters to counter the feminazis' attempt to shut down free speech. All Dan is asking is to address the Canadian Legislature. That doesn't seem so bad to me. Dan is standing up for justice against feminist tyranny. If Dan dies he will have been murdered by the Canadian government. How will Canada be viewed if it let's Dan Perrins die? Not favorably. Canada has a bad rating because they have Earl Silverman's blood on their hands. If Dan Perrins dies may the world look disfavorably upon Canada. If that happens Canada is no better than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

Men of California

There is an organization that is dealing with the alimony laws in California. This organization is called The guy who put this together went through a lot anguish. In his own words:

Entering the world of marriage as a young man for the first time I had no grasp of the terms I would be legally bound to. My marriage lasted nearly 25 years. Having never experienced divorce before I never knew just how drawn out and costly this process could be. Below is a summary of my divorce journey:

Phase 1 – Taking Responsibility for my Happiness

At certain periods during my life I will often do what I call a “happiness checkpoint”. This checkpoint could pertain to where I’m living, my employer or even my marriage.


This guy is going through hell and a lot of other men are going through the same thing. Fortunately there is hope and CalAlimony is it. If you live in California and are forking over most of your paycheck to your ex wife then you'll definitely want to support this all the way.

Friday, May 1, 2015

The Vladek Filler saga comes to an end

Vladek Filler wins again
May 1, 2015 By Robert Franklin

At last, Vladek Filler is a free man. Oh, he’s been “free,” as in “no longer in jail,” for over two years. But when I say “free,” I mean free of all the consequences of the vendetta waged against him by his ex-wife and a shamefully corrupt Ellsworth, Maine prosecutor’s office that stopped at nothing to railroad an innocent man.

That man, Vladek Filler, has always been factually innocent, but now he’s officially, legally so. A state appeals court quashed his conviction of assault, the only prize former District Attorney Carletta Bossano’s office had to show for its relentless hounding of him.

It all started some eight years ago when, in the midst of their divorce and child custody fight, Vladek’s wife, Ligia Filler, claimed that he had raped her. Despite the fact that he had no police record, that the claim occurred during a child custody battle and that Ligia Filler was obviously emotionally unstable, Assistant District Attorney, Mary Kellett pursued the case against Filler with a zeal borne, not of a desire for justice, but of a desire for blood.

Kellett’s behavior in Filler’s case was not merely morally and ethically wrong, although it was both those things. It apparently was the product of her blind faith in the notion that women never lie about rape. I say that because of the multiple other rape and sexual assault cases prosecuted by Kellett that were either overturned on appeal or that she lost outright. Most prosecutors have a sense of when to charge a case, when to take one to trial and when an accused is probably innocent. Kellett seems to have had no such sense, at least when it came to sexual assault charges.

Otherwise, why did she not offer Vladek the dismissal the facts of his case so clearly warranted? Put simply, all Kellett had was the word of a woman who had every reason to lie and on whose behalf there was literally no evidence. Most prosecutors can see such a case for what it is — a sure loser.

Not only that, but the family court judge that viewed the same evidence Kellett did gave primary custody to Vladek, not his wife. How likely is it that a family court judge would place children with a father if the judge had the slightest inkling that the father might have done what his wife claimed? Without a doubt, that judge saw the truth — an emotionally disabled mother making wild, unsubstantiated charges against her husband for the sole purpose of keeping him out of his children’s lives.

Mary Kellett didn’t care. She knew, as few others did, that she would violate any rule of prosecutorial ethics and criminal procedure in order to put an innocent man in prison. And she almost succeeded. Filler was at first convicted, but the very judge who heard his trial for rape overturned the conviction on — of course — the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.

But Kellett wasn’t finished. Ligia also claimed that Vladek had tossed water on her during an argument. Now, most prosecutors wouldn’t waste their time on such a trivial matter, particularly since, once again, there was no evidence that Vladek had done any such thing. But again, he was convicted, and again it was due to Kellett’s misconduct. Filler served 21 days in jail.

It is that conviction that the appellate court overturned on April 24th. It too was the product of Kellett’s many ethical violations.

But Filler is not a man to allow injustice to run free in the streets. Not content with complete vindication of all his actions by courts of law, he took on the District Attorney’s Office and Mary Kellett specifically, filing a grievance against her for her blatant wrongdoing.

He won that one too. Mary Kellett now has the distinction of being the only prosecutor in the history of the state to have been suspended from the practice of law due to her ethical violations while in the service of the people of the county.

But even that isn’t the end of the story. In last year’s election, DA Bossano was ousted from office due in no small part to her failure to oversee the corrupt behavior of her subordinate, Kellett.

In short, Vladek Filler’s story is that of a lone man standing up to a system of criminal prosecution that was all too used to running roughshod over men accused of sexual assault. What Mary Kellett did in Filler’s case are the actions of a lawyer to whom it never occurs that there might be adverse consequences to her violations of law. Almost certainly, she’d done similar things countless times before and was astonished when one person stood up and shouted “Halt!”

Mary Kellett is now out of a job and has a black mark on her record as an attorney.

If this had been an NBA championship series, Vladek Filler would have swept the opposition. Eight years later, he has his children and his criminal record is unblemished. He is indeed a free man.

What he doesn’t have, though, is his good name. Oh, the people who know him admire him and he has the love of his children and the avid support of his sister who did yeoman service on his behalf throughout his legal ordeal.

But the same Maine news media that were all too eager to shout from the rooftops allegations made against him, that reported his convictions, that unquestioningly channeled Ligia’s false claims and Kellett’s false statements about the case have suddenly gone quiet. Yes, those who were happy to convict an innocent man in their own court — that of public opinion — don’t care to report the fact that, at long last, he’s not guilty of the offenses charged. So far, not a word of his exoneration has been reported in the local or state news media.

In its own way, that’s every bit as shameful as Mary Kellett’s illegal, immoral and unethical conduct.

But in the end, Vladek Filler is the last man standing. For eight years, he stood against the enormous power of the state criminal justice system and won. That’s something for every reader of this blog to ponder. Vladek Filler’s grit and determination have been rewarded. Maybe yours can be as well.

And perhaps best of all, there are two kids (no longer little) down in Georgia who have a father they can look up to. They too can learn a thing or two about the power of being right and not backing down. Those kids may not yet realize it, but they’ve got a dad whose example will serve them all their lives.


This is great. I've been following this from the beginning and now I'm glad it has been concluded. This is a solid MRA victory. This is one we should be proud of. We were pushed around and now we are pushing back. We weren't nice about things we were militant and we accomplished a successful pushback. Thank you to all those involved. For all those did the work and activism know that your work has paid off and that not only is Vladek Filler a free man Mary N. Kellett is a disbarred disgraced feminist former attorney who found out the hard way that you don't fuck with MRA's. We gave feminists an asswhopping they won't soon forget.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Tell Senator Kirstan Gillibrand to apologize for her misandric actions

From SAVE Services:

Senator Gillibrand is in the news again. This time, when asked about rape hoaxes, she responded that the real focus should be on the problem of rape. Her ideal case, however, is Columbia student Emma Sulkowicz, who has never been found to be raped or sexually assaulted.

In fact, in this case she's spotlighting, the accused student is suing Columbia University for false allegations. It's clear that the Senator needs to look at cases objectively, but instead she is decrying the case as yet another example of 'rape culture'.

Call Senator Gillibrand's office today at (202) 224-4451 or email and tell her to start telling the truth about campus sexual assault!

Best always,
Gina Lauterio, Esq., Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

I tried calling her office twice and got a busy signal so if you can't get through on the phone then send her an email. If the phone line is busy that means that other MRA's are telling her off too which is a good thing. The main thing is that we stand up to misandry and tell our elected leaders we are not going to accept it and and that we will stand up to misandry by drawing a line in the sand and saying no more. We will no longer accept it.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

13 reasons why women lie about being raped

Women Who Lied About Being Raped And Why They Did It
Janet Bloomfield

Two sensational rape stories in the media have brought to light the question of false allegations, prompting many to wonder just why a woman would lie about rape. In her memoir, Lena Dunham claims that she was raped by Barry, a flamboyant, well-known campus Republican, but her story does not hold up under scrutiny. Jackie, the woman at the center of the Rolling Stone profile on Greek culture at the University of Virginia, claims to have been gang-raped, but the discrepancies in her account resulted in the magazine backing away from the story and questioning Jackie’s credibility. We do not know if either of these women has made false allegations, but false allegations of rape can and do happen. Here are 13 reasons women lie about rape.

1. Women lie about rape to cover up their infidelity

One night, Nicola Osborne got a bit drunk and ended up in bed with a man and they enjoyed “extensive sexual activity.” The episode was entirely consensual and the two swapped phone numbers after they were through. On the way home, it occurred to Osborne that her husband might not think very highly of her “activities” and she became flustered and visibly upset. When passers-by came to her aid, she told them that she had been forcibly abducted and raped by a stranger, sparking a massive police response to find the rapist. A subsequent DNA test led police to the man whom she had slept with and he was arrested and held for 12 hours. Once the truth came out that the encounter has been consensual, Osborne was charged with filing a false report and sentenced to 18 months in prison. Women lie about rape to cover up their infidelity.

2. Women lie about rape to explain why they are looking at porn

When Elizabeth Coast’s mother discovered her looking at porn on the internet, Coast explained that her actions were the result of sexual abuse she had experienced at the hand of a neighbor. Coast testified that when her neighbor was 14, and she was 10, he had sexually molested her. Her testimony was compelling enough to secure the man’s conviction. He was sentenced to seven years and served four of those until Coast’s guilty conscience became too much to bear and she admitted that she had lied about an innocent man. Coast was sentenced to two months in prison for her lie and must pay the man $90,000 restitution. Women lie about rape to explain why they are looking at porn.

3. Women lie about rape because they are mentally ill

Rosanne England scratched her face, tore her clothing and concocted a story about a man asking to use her telephone and then violently raping her. She gave police a detailed description that happened to match a 59-year-old father of two teenaged daughters who had no alibi as he had been walking his dog in the woods when the rape allegedly occurred. The man was arrested and held for 28 hours until DNA tests finally cleared him. He continues to face suspicion from his neighbors about his guilt. England gave no justification for the accusation other than she suffers from “mental illness.” Women lie about rape because they are mentally ill.

4. Women lie about rape because they feel guilty

Kelly Harwood had a few drinks and decided that sleeping with her friend’s son was a good idea. Upon reflection, she decided that she had betrayed her friend by doing so and reported her friend’s son for rape. She told police that she had been raped while sleeping, and her friend’s son was subjected to an “intrusive medical examination and interviewed under caution.” Two days later, Harwood relented and admitted that she had lied about the rape. She suffers from depressive illness, exacerbated by the amount of alcohol she had consumed. Women lie about rape because they feel guilty.

5. Women lie about rape if the sex is bad

Lynette Lee arranged to meet a man whom she had contacted through a dating site. They went on a date, which ended with consensual sex in a motel room. Lee then reported the man for forcible rape. He was interviewed by police, who then re-interviewed Lee, who confessed to lying about the rape because “she did not enjoy the sex” and “it was bad.” Women lie about rape if the sex is bad.

6. Women lie about rape when they fail school exams

Rhiannon Brooker knew her party lifestyle was catching up with her when the law student failed her bar exams. She told her exam committee that her performance was affected by “extenuating circumstances” and had her boyfriend charged with multiple counts of rape and assault, including punching her so hard in the stomach that she miscarried. She faked her own injuries to support the charges. The accused spent 36 days in jail before police confirmed that he was at work and had alibis for each of the alleged rapes. Brooker was sentenced to three and a half years for false allegations. Women lie about rape when they fail school exams.

7. Women lie about rape because of psychiatric medication complications

Katherine Bennett had consensual sex with a national guardsman but then reported to police that he had abducted her from a parking lot, taken her to his house and drugged her and raped her at knifepoint before she was able to escape. The police were able to establish that the story had been fabricated but not before the guardsman lost his job and had his reputation seriously damaged. Bennett’s attorney said that Bennett suffers from depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder and “although her condition and complications from medication were not an excuse for the false report, they were contributing factors.” Women lie about rape because of psychiatric medication complications.

8. Women lie about rape when they want attention

Gemma Gregory, desperate for attention from police officers, filed eight false rape charges, accusing seven different men over a period of six years. Former boyfriends were subjected to DNA tests and interviews and huge amounts of police time were wasted so that Gregory could have the attention she craved. After recording hundreds of calls with Gregory, the police arrested and charged her with false allegation offenses. Women lie about rape when they want attention.

9. Women lie about rape to get sympathy

Linsey Attridge was having some relationship problems with her boyfriend and needed to win some sympathy from him. She trolled Facebook and found a picture of a 26-year-old man and his 14-year-old brother whom she had never met and reported them both for a violent rape. To make her story more credible, she punched herself in the face, ripped her clothing and told police that the two men had broken into her house while her boyfriend was away and subjected her to a brutal attack. Both were arrested and had their lives turned upside down as word of the charges spread throughout the community. Attridge eventually admitted to making the whole thing up and was sentenced to 200 hours of community service. She has never apologized. Her boyfriend dumped her. Women lie about rape to get sympathy.

10. Women lie about rape to make boyfriends jealous

Hannah Bryon was mad at her boyfriend for breaking up with her. Wanting some attention from him and to make him jealous, she told him that a man whom she had been flirting with attacked her on a bridge, raped her and then threw money at her to get a taxi. The man whom she identified as her rapist was arrested and put through a stressful examination and questioning but was able to provide police with evidence that he had not attacked Bryon. Bryon was given a suspended sentence and 150 hours of community service. Women lie about rape to make boyfriends jealous.

11. Women lie about rape for revenge

When Cori Lynn Osiecki’s boyfriend broke up with her and started “spreading rumors,” she decided to exact revenge on him by filing a rape charge. She was taken by ambulance to the hospital, where a rape kit was collected and an investigation was started. Eventually Osiecki admitted that she had lied about the assault because she “wanted to get back at him.” Women lie about rape for revenge.

12. Women lie about rape because they are “moody”

Isabella Himmel was at a bar and her friend wasn’t paying attention to her, which left her feeling “moody,” so she told another friend that she had been gang-raped by a group of male students at the University of Connecticut. That friend believed her story and reported it to police, triggering an action alert to more than 30,000 students and a considerable amount of distress on campus. Surveillance video, however, showed no attack. Himmel then agreed that she might not have been grabbed by the hair and gang-raped by five men, but she might have been kicked or she might have just fallen. Himmel must complete a program that could lead to the dismissal of the false rape report charges against her. Women lie about rape because they are “moody.”

13. Women lie about rape when their friends get mad at them

Biurny Peguero was extremely drunk, out at a bar with friends, and impetuously accepted a ride in a van with three men. When she realized where she was, she became frightened and hysterical. The men took her back to the bar, and that’s when the trouble started. The friends she had left behind were angry with her and a brawl broke out among the women, who punched and bit one another. When a friend demanded to know if the men had raped Peguero, she said that they had. The bruises she had sustained in the fight with her friends were accepted as evidence of rape, and one man spent four years in jail on the charge. Women lie about rape when their friends get mad at them.

Shockingly, this is not even a complete list of the reasons women lie about rape, but if anything is clear, it is that women do lie.


Friday, April 24, 2015

Emma Sulkowicz’s victim fights back

Columbia Student Joins The Men Fighting Back in Campus Rape Cases
The male student at the center of the Columbia University rape controversy claims he has suffered gender discrimination. Other male students are also fighting to clear their names.
Columbia University is one of the many schools to be accused of failing to protect the rights of sexual assault victims. This week, it became one of the first to be singled out for failing to protect the rights of the accused.

On Wednesday, Paul Nungesser, the male student who was the target of the now-famous “Carry That Weight” campaign filed a federal complaint against Columbia University, its board of trustees, and President Lee C. Bollinger.

He is suing the university for gender discrimination under Title IX—which is exactly what the federal government is investigating the university for violating in its response to sexual assault victims.

The federal complaint alleges that Columbia “intentionally discriminated against Paul on the basis of his male sex by condoning a hostile educational environment.”

The prestigious New York City university became the poster-child for campus sexual assault when student Emma Sulkowicz’s “Carry That Weight” garnered national attention.

At the start of the 2014 school year, Sulkowicz began hauling the 50-pound mattress she said she was raped on as a sophomore everywhere on campus as part of a senior thesis project.

She stated she would continue to do so until the student she said raped her left the university, spurring similar acts of performance art protests at campuses throughout the country.

Visual Arts Professor Jon Kessler, who instructed Sulkowicz on “Carry That Weight,” is also a defendant.

Since “Carry That Weight” began, Nungesser’s suit claims he has faced threats and ostracism without support from the university, even though he was fully cleared of the sexual assault allegation by the school.

“President Bollinger has basked in the spotlight that this display has brought,” said the suit, citing his public statements of empathy for Sulkowicz.

“President Bollinger thus displayed a contemptible moral cowardice in bowing down to the witch hunt against an innocent student.”
In contrast, Bolinger “showed no public regard for a student in Paul, who was being victimized by Emma’s campaign of false charges of criminal conduct,” the suit states. “Numerous report and complaints by Paul and his parents have been made to Columbia officials about the gender-based harassment and defamation of Paul, but Columbia has acted with at best deliberate indifference to and at time apparent approval.”

“President Bollinger thus displayed a contemptible moral cowardice in bowing down to the witch hunt against an innocent student instead of standing up for the truth and taking appropriate steps to protect Paul from gender based harassment.”

According to the suit, this harassment included physically violent threats posted publicly against Nungesser on Facebook, including one on Facebook stating Nungesser “needs to practice silence or suicide before he gets dealt with accordingly,” which was “liked” by Sulkowicz.

“University resources such as dorms, libraries, dining halls, and the gym are not reasonably available for Paul’s access,” the suit states. “Even attending classes has become problematic, as he has endured harassment and has had his photo taken against his will while in class,” the complaint states.

It also alleges that the campaign has hindered the ability of Nungesser, a German citizen, to find employment and, thus, remain in the U.S.

“The University does not comment on ongoing litigation,” said Victoria Benitez, Columbia University’s Director of Communication in a statement emailed to The Daily Beast.

Though Sulkowicz never actively named Nungesser, who started attending Columbia in 2011, it did not take long for the press to determine the identity of the student Sulkowicz referred to as a “serial rapist.”

The concerns brought up in Nungesser’s suit are nothing to diminish. While sexual assault advocates often retort that the pain of expulsion or unemployment is nothing compared to the pain of rape, that doesn’t seem to answer the question of whether someone accused of a crime received due process and fair treatment.

Nungesser is not the first to bring up these concerns. His lawyer, Andrew T. Miltenberg, has represented multiple male students.

According to an October 2014 profile on him in the New York Observer, he and his fellow attorney, Kimberly Lau, get “about 10 calls a week from parents whose sons have been accused, suspended, or expelled.”

Miltenberg did not respond for comment, although I spoke to Miltenberg and Lau in August of 2014 about a client expelled from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst after he was convicted by the school of sexual assault.

He sued the school for Title IV violations, claiming he was “deprived… on the basis of his sex, of his rights to due process and equal protection.”

These cases beg the question: will students accused of sexual assault be headed to court en masse?

Legal experts interviewed for this article say that may, in fact, be the next phase in national campus sexual assault reform—and they say the federal government is to blame.

“I think the next wave will be students suing the universities. I think there will be an escalating wave,” said Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Bartholet.

She is one of the 28 faculty members of Harvard Law School who signed a letter published last fall in the Boston Globe denouncing the university’s campus sexual assault policies for, among other things, infringing on the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

Several faculty members at the University of Pennsylvania Law School have also signed a similar public letter in response to the school’s sexual assault policies.

The fears that campus reforms are violating due process for students accused are increasingly voiced and documented.

Under some policies—like Penn’s, according to the law faculty’s open letter (PDF)—accused students must have their questions pre-approved before tribunals and their lawyers are barred from cross-examining witnesses who testify against them.

The standard of proof needed to find a student guilty of sexual assault is also lower than what is necessitated in a criminal trial.

“When you get things like the federal government pressuring universities to create a sexual assault process that lacks adequate due process for those accused, you’re going to get students trying to protect themselves,” said Bartholet.

Under current campus policy, she believes “there’s the risk we will find a lot of people responsible for sexual assault when they shouldn’t be. That will lead to some of them fighting back with the help of lawyers against the university and the government. I think that’s a good and healthy thing because what the federal government has done is outrageous,” she said.

Harvey Silverglate, an attorney specializing in defense and civil liberties, agreed that federal pressures to create one-sided campus sexual assault policies will potentially spur lawsuits.

“I think that’s what happening is that the pendulum has swung so far over to the side of unfair campus proceedings that lawyers for some of the accused students are trying everything they can to get a fair hearing,” he said.

Silverglate also predicts that the recent spate of Title IX cases filed against universities is just the beginning. “There’s an explosion of cases going to court, and I expect it will grow,” he said.

He also sees the legislation as a response to campuses unfit fairly and adequately respond to sexual assault. “Their [universities’] system is highly bureaucratized and not very rational and they’re run by people who don’t know what they’re doing,” said Silverglate.

As a result, he said, lawyers for accused students are scrambling to find paths for recourse. “Lawyers for some of the accused students are trying everything they can to get their clients a fair hearing,” he said. “ We’re in an atmosphere of panic.”

Silverglate believes Nungesser has a strong shot in court, but he thinks he is the exception to the rule. “He’s got a particularly strong case [because] he was exonerated in a campus system that is usually skewed against the male. He’s got at least a very strong argument that he’s factually innocent,” said Silverglate, but added “It’s not easy to win these cases in federal court.”

Bartholet would not comment specifically on the Columbia case, nor predict its success. However, she said she hoped these suits filed by the accused, as well as the complaints voiced by university faculty, will reach Washington D.C.

“I am hopeful the federal government will respond to the pushback that we’ve seen already. There’s a high-level, very educated pushback saying that what the federal government is doing is fundamentally wrong,” she said.

“This isn’t from just right-wing, conservatives. It’s coming from feminists who believe in the empowerment of women, who think what the federal government is doing is the opposite of policy that would empower women.”


I did this "tribute" to Emma Sulkowicz.This is what I love to see. Men fighting back against misandry. I understand this guy is or was a male feminist. If he still is that would be shocking. If he's not then this woke him up. Good for him for holding her accountable and for the rest of the men comimg forward do it. You can make a lot positive changes happen if you fight back and sue the assholes that did this to you. Go for it. Make them pay.

Friday, March 20, 2015

Fair minded judge sentences female pedophile to 6-15 years in prison

Teacher gets prison for sex with student
Mike Martindale, The Detroit News 9:53 a.m. EDT March 18, 2015

Pontiac — An Oakland County judge came down hard Tuesday on a 30-year-old former high school teacher who pleaded guilty to having sex with a 15-year-old student.

While state guidelines suggest 51-85 months for the offense, Judge Nanci Grant sentenced Kathryn Ronk of Birmingham to 6-15 years in prison.

Ronk appeared stunned at the sentence. The former Bishop Foley High School Spanish teacher, who faced up to life in prison under the original charges, pleaded guilty last month to two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct under a sentencing agreement that ranged from no prison time to a maximum of 15 years. She can be considered for parole in 51/2 years.

While Ronk was contrite, Grant was unmoved.

The judge noted that Ronk attended University of Michigan on a scholarship, graduated with the highest of grades and went on to graduate work.

"You're really very smart, an intelligent woman," Grant told Ronk, reminding her she had to know what she was doing with the 15-year-old sophomore was wrong.

Grant noted she was disturbed by "a double standard in this society."

"If this was a male teacher who had been involved with a 15-year-old female, there would be people here hanging from the ceiling trying to get every drop of blood," Grant said. "But because it is a woman, there seems to be a winking about what happened."

In addressing the court before sentencing, Ronk sobbed as she said she was "so sorry for the victim and his family, for the school and the community, my family ... and I'm so sorry for my husband."

"With (psychological) treatment, I'm getting better," she said. "I know I have to go away but this is a lifelong journey, and I am meeting it. ... I'm so sorry for those who I have hurt."

Grant told Ronk she appreciated her contrition, especially considering letters of support she had received from the woman's family and friends, which the judge found offensive.

"I have never seen letters of support for a defendant with nothing about the victim," Grant said. "They were all about you and what you were going through. Poor you. To ignore a crime and a victim and an ongoing involvement in school, outside school, in a car. You did something you shouldn't have done."

The victim, the judge said, is "still a boy figuring out the ways in the world," and may not feel the impact of the teacher's actions "for years to come."

Assistant prosecutor Heather Brown said the boy's family felt victimized and hoped Ronk "finds her faith and it will keep her strong. (Faith) is what is helping them and will help them forgive at some point."

Prior to sentencing, defense attorneys James Thomas and Steven Lynch told Grant their client was doing her best in a "very difficult situation," including daily psychological treatment and volunteer work at a food bank.

"There's no chance of this happening again," Thomas told Grant. "She will not be in a position to teach and will not be around children (after parole)."

Both attorneys declined comment outside the courtroom.

Ronk faces more charges in Macomb Circuit Court, including rape and engaging in sexually abusive activity with children, involving the boy at his home in Macomb Township and in a car in Sterling Heights.

A trial on the Macomb charges is scheduled for March 31.


I don't usually applaud women but this is indeed an earned occasion brava judge and thank you. Thank you for standing up to the hypocrisy. Thank you for taking this young male victim seriously by letting the monster that did this to him know that she has to pay a price. Not only that she has other charges like this pending. This judge made the right call. Too bad her so-called "male?" colleagues don't have the balls to do the same and that is hold women accountable for their crimes too.