Sore loser in the bidding war

[FlyerInHi]

If I were gay, I’d know nothing about women… But I’d have lots of fag hag friends.

[Gunslinger]

Gotcha. Misdirection and deflection. Its OK. You can be proud of who you are.

[joec]

Couldn’t find any photos of any of this…Maybe someone can PM me or post…

I honestly think the woman, being as upset and crazed to followup on this for months on end did want to see the woman living there physically raped/hurted…

It’s not like she knows them or really cares.

The problem with letting people like this get away is now, I can feel like screwing up someone else’s life to no end and get away with it.

Our courts/laws suck. America sucks.

Having men physically come to your house and knock on your door to rape your wife since someone played a prank on you isn’t funny and should be punished harshly to not allow this stuff to go on.

Someone please post a photo of this lady…

I’m curious of the original ad too, but that probably has been taken down everywhere…

Here’s the court doc:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D063847.PDF

There’s a lot of sexy graphic detail as to what she wants “done” to her.

[bearishgurl]

Lurking on and off here and saw joec’s post of today … I just HAD to respond …

omg, having had a l-o-o-ong local “criminal justice background” and thus “knowing all the players,” I am so struck by this rather unusually graphic opinion that joec posted here (btw, 3 justices constitute a “quorum” on a CA Appellate District panel). I must admit that I haven’t seen an opinion quite like this in the past (thanks for your [very astute] contribution here, joec)!

The REALITY is, folks, Defendant Rowe has an EXCELLENT and VERY CREDIBLE attorney in Chuck Sevilla. I carefully read the entire opinion as well as the `dissenting opinion’ and fully understand why Justice McDonald called it the way he did. I’m not trying to side with defendant here but prosecutors have a VERY REAL problem in front of a potential jury in that the two responders to Rowe’s ad testified at PE that, despite being goaded by Rowe, neither of them were in any position to JUMP the victim if she was surprised by them in any way, and, in fact, one of the “innocent victims” (as the court referred to them) was daunted by the REAL victim’s husband answering the door (he testified that “the man answering the door [actually] lived there”). They were simply answering an ad for a “casual encounter” (not uncommon, folks). It is also NOT uncommon for online “dating” participants (men, especially) to send pics of themselves nude to someone they met online but don’t know, even on “traditional” online dating sites.

I predict this case will “very quietly settle” in the confines of the prosecutor’s darkest back broom closet with a lessor plea by Rowe. If that plea happens to be to a felony (she is NOT “sworn staff,” btw), then she will not lose her civil-service job over it as the alleged crime did NOT happen in her particular “line of duty.” Equally, it could settle with a misdemeanor plea which wouldn’t necessarily result in “disciplinary action” with her employer. Either way, her retirement shouldn’t be affected, depending on if her employing agency was a law-enforcement agency … or not.

That’s the way the “system” works around here.

What really troubles me here is that Rowe testified in PE that she wanted the particular property her “victim” ended up getting (and took “harmless” revenge because her victim got it) because it was a “one-story home” which was suitable for her family in various ways.

SHE COULD HAVE HAD that same “one-story home” ANYWHERE in SD County! It didn’t have to be Carmel Valley (with an avg 3500 to 4500 sf lot replete with audible sounds from the next-door neighbor’s toilet). She COULDN’T HAVE been seeking a particular public school for her profoundly handicapped daughter (her ‘ONLY child’) because her daughter was undoubtedly a “special education student.” It’s not like Rowe was seeking a particular “college prep” course for her daughter or an “edge” for college admission. I’m no psychiatrist, but to me, this smacks of a delusional mindset with narcissistic tendencies, namely borderline personality disorder.

I keep asking myself WHY or HOW something like this could happen in the REAL world! It’s unreal to me… maybe I’m missing something important here, lol…

any “expert comments,” feel free to come forth …. scaredy …??

[bearishgurl]

Oh, and uh, Sevilla is no stranger to the 4th DCA …

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/searchResults.cfm?dist=41&search=attorney&query_attyLastName=Sevilla&query_attyFirstName=C&query_attyLawFirm=&start=1

OR, for that matter, the CA Supreme Court:

Search Results – Supreme Court

Search by Attorney
<< Search screen Last Name: Sevilla First Name: Charles Law Firm: 1 - 25 of 70 Records Found. S197792 E051094 RIF145128 Charles M. Sevilla PEOPLE v. CASTANEDA S195423 D059012 M039138 Charles M. Sevilla Attorney at Law PEOPLE v. VANGELDER S195423 D059012 CA221258 Charles M. Sevilla Attorney at Law PEOPLE v. VANGELDER S194226 G043434 06HF0372 Charles M. Sevilla Law Offices of Charles Sevilla PEOPLE v. DECK S193961 B216425 BA255233 Charles M. Sevilla Law Office of Charles M. Sevilla PEOPLE v. SPECTOR S190821 D055649 SCD212359 Charles M. Sevilla PEOPLE v. HIGGINS S181432 B211975 BA322369 Charles M. Sevilla Law Office of Charles M. Sevilla PEOPLE v. SINGLETON S170704 B201268 NA034319 Charles M. Sevilla Charles M. Sevilla PEOPLE v. MARIN S168076 D052665 SCS207353 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP QUINONES v. S.C. (PEOPLE) S163181 A120701 SCR495892 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP WOLIN v. S.C. (PEOPLE) S161018 D050095 SCE257508 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. DAVALOS S153924 D047879 SCS183269 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. OROPEZA S151546 Charles M. Sevilla BERKEY (JON H.) ON H.C. S145967 D048885 SCE193209 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP SMITH (BOBBIE JO) ON H.C. S142490 G034669 02CF0810 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. BLUM S138260 E038991 FRE5441 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP DAWOOD v. S.C. (PEOPLE) S136824 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP TAYLOR (STACY LEE) ON H.C. S134189 C045608 SF02503 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. BREWER S132413 E033792 S132413 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. DAWOOD S132413 E033792 S123110 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. DAWOOD S132413 E033792 RIF90125 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. DAWOOD S127646 C044224 CM017247 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. BELAHBIB S123110 E035270 S123110 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP DAWOOD v. S.C. (PEOPLE) S123110 E035270 RIF90125 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP DAWOOD v. S.C. (PEOPLE) S119948 D040184 SCD156220 Charles M. Sevilla Cleary & Sevilla LLP PEOPLE v. AULT next

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]Lurking on and off here and saw joec’s post of today … I just HAD to respond …

omg, having had a l-o-o-ong local “criminal justice background” and thus “knowing all the players,” I am so struck by this rather unusually graphic opinion that joec posted here (btw, 3 justices constitute a “quorum” on a CA Appellate District panel). I must admit that I haven’t seen an opinion quite like this in the past (thanks for your [very astute] contribution here, joec)!

The REALITY is, folks, Defendant Rowe has an EXCELLENT and VERY CREDIBLE attorney in Chuck Sevilla. I carefully read the entire opinion as well as the `dissenting opinion’ and fully understand why Justice McDonald called it the way he did. I’m not trying to side with defendant here but prosecutors have a VERY REAL problem in front of a potential jury in that the two responders to Rowe’s ad testified at PE that, despite being goaded by Rowe, neither of them were in any position to JUMP the victim if she was surprised by them in any way, and, in fact, one of the “innocent victims” (as the court referred to them) was daunted by the REAL victim’s husband answering the door (he testified that “the man answering the door [actually] lived there”). They were simply answering an ad for a “casual encounter” (not uncommon, folks). It is also NOT uncommon for online “dating” participants (men, especially) to send pics of themselves nude to someone they met online but don’t know, even on “traditional” online dating sites.

I predict this case will “very quietly settle” in the confines of the prosecutor’s darkest back broom closet with a lessor plea by Rowe. If that plea happens to be to a felony (she is NOT “sworn staff,” btw), then she will not lose her civil-service job over it as the alleged crime did NOT happen in her particular “line of duty.” Equally, it could settle with a misdemeanor plea which wouldn’t necessarily result in “disciplinary action” with her employer. Either way, her retirement shouldn’t be affected, depending on if her employing agency was a law-enforcement agency … or not.

That’s the way the “system” works around here.

What really troubles me here is that Rowe testified in PE that she wanted the particular property her “victim” ended up getting (and took “harmless” revenge because her victim got it) because it was a “one-story home” which was suitable for her family in various ways.

SHE COULD HAVE HAD that same “one-story home” ANYWHERE in SD County! It didn’t have to be Carmel Valley (with an avg 3500 to 4500 sf lot replete with audible sounds from the next-door neighbor’s toilet). She COULDN’T HAVE been seeking a particular public school for her profoundly handicapped daughter (her ‘ONLY child’) because her daughter was undoubtedly a “special education student.” It’s not like Rowe was seeking a particular “college prep” course for her daughter or an “edge” for college admission. I’m no psychiatrist, but to me, this smacks of a delusional mindset with narcissistic tendencies, namely borderline personality disorder.

I keep asking myself WHY or HOW something like this could happen in the REAL world! It’s unreal to me… maybe I’m missing something important here, lol…

any “expert comments,” feel free to come forth …. scaredy …??[/quote]

Hi BG, glad to see you’re still lurking around. 🙂

On your first point about the two men, it does NOT matter what their intentions were, they did nothing wrong, legally-speaking…at least as far as I can tell. The ONLY person whose intent is in question is defendant Rowe. If she had reason to believe that these men were willing to follow her directions, then she is guilty of solicitation to commit forcible rape/sodomy. Clearly, with the way she was talking to them, she was doing everything in her power to cause these men to rape the victim. From what I can tell, there is no equivocation about this. She told the men to break into the house and “surprise” the woman…and rape her, brutally, even if she says no. THAT IS RAPE!!! She is no less guilty than a man who performs the same act himself, IMO.

As for her losing her job (and pension), if she gleaned information about the victim while at work, possibly using her employer’s computer system, or accessing public records during working hours, then she should be guilty of committing a felony in the line of duty. I’m not familiar with SD County and the extent to which it’s affected by PEPRA, but think that Rowe should be affected by the pension forfeiture provisions as it should qualify as “a felony for conduct arising in the performance of the employee’s official duties…”

http://porac.org/assets/csac-pension-reform-guide.pdf

[page 10]

If she used any public resources while at work that helped her facilitate these crimes, she should lose her job, as well. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[CA renter]

[quote=joec]

Here’s the court doc:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D063847.PDF

There’s a lot of sexy graphic detail as to what she wants “done” to her.[/quote]

From Joe’s link [copy didn’t format correctly, so I formatted it in a way that is easier to read]:

(1)listing the
victim’s
home for sale;
(2)putting a hold on the victim’s and
the victim’s husband’s mail;
(3)having over a $1,000 worth of
unsolicited magazines, books, and junk
mail sent to the victim’s home;
(4)sending Valentine’s Day cards
from the victim’s husband to the
wives of the victim’s neighbors;
(5)having a county assessor’s office
employee contact the victim and
the victim’s husband about reassessing their
home;
(6)having members of religious groups
visit the victim’s home;
(7)posting an online announcement for a high school New Year’s Eve party at the victim’s home;
and
(8)posting an online announcement for a free
Mexican fireworks giveaway at the victim’s home
on Independence Day.5

—————–

IMHO, this should qualify for a civil suit all by itself, irrespective of the rape charges. This woman need to go down.

[ucodegen]

[quote=bearishgurl]I’m not trying to side with defendant here but prosecutors have a VERY REAL problem in front of a potential jury in that the two responders to Rowe’s ad testified at PE that, despite being goaded by Rowe, neither of them were in any position to JUMP the victim if she was surprised by them in any way, and, in fact, one of the “innocent victims” (as the court referred to them) was daunted by the REAL victim’s husband answering the door (he testified that “the man answering the door [actually] lived there”). They were simply answering an ad for a “casual encounter” (not uncommon, folks).[/quote]
The problem with this argument is that the case is about what Rowe was intending to happen, not what actually happened. If Rowe goaded someone to rape the woman, and that same woman stops the rape from happening when they try to attack by shooting and killing the attacker, Rowe would still be guilty of soliciting even though the rape didn’t happen. In fact in that particular situation Rowe might even be charged in the death of the attacker. Effectively Rowe “set it in motion”. I think I have read/heard the term “unequivocal step”. Considering the other items taken as a whole, I would say that the requirement is satisfied.

Same applies if you solicit someone to kill your husband (or wife) and it turns out the person you are soliciting to do the job is a cop. The murder doesn’t happen, but you are still guilty of soliciting for the murder or contract killing.

might want to look at “inchoate offense” or “inchoate crimes”
http://www.sagepub.com/lippmanccl2e/study/supplements/California/CA_07.pdf

PC 653f (a), (c)

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=Gunslinger]Gotcha. Misdirection and deflection. Its OK. You can be proud of who you are.[/quote]

your serious question wasn’t worth answering seriously. you imply that gay men don’t know women.

Blogstar asked a question and I do believe, because I observed, that women hold grudges over a long time and work out schemes to get back at whoever dissed them. That in itself doesn’t make women worse of better than men because both sexes have different positive and negative attributes.

Tell me I’m wrong if you want. I don’t mind.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=joec]Here’s the court doc:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D063847.PDF

There’s a lot of sexy graphic detail as to what she wants “done” to her.[/quote]

From Joe’s link [copy didn’t format correctly, so I formatted it in a way that is easier to read]:

(1)listing the
victim’s
home for sale;
(2)putting a hold on the victim’s and
the victim’s husband’s mail;
(3)having over a $1,000 worth of
unsolicited magazines, books, and junk
mail sent to the victim’s home;
(4)sending Valentine’s Day cards
from the victim’s husband to the
wives of the victim’s neighbors;
(5)having a county assessor’s office
employee contact the victim and
the victim’s husband about reassessing their
home;
(6)having members of religious groups
visit the victim’s home;
(7)posting an online announcement for a high school New Year’s Eve party at the victim’s home;
and
(8)posting an online announcement for a free
Mexican fireworks giveaway at the victim’s home
on Independence Day.5

—————–

IMHO, this should qualify for a civil suit all by itself, irrespective of the rape charges. This woman need to go down.[/quote]

CAR, being the “devil’s advocate” here, I understand that this case will eventually be remanded back to the criminal court to proceed there. I understand the “technicality” the prosecutors prevailed on at the 4th and that the Court decided to publish its opinion. But that’s where it ends. The prosecutors can instruct the jury re: intent to commit a crime but still have an uphill climb to prove Rowe’s “intent” to harm the victim. This is so because the two poor schmucks who answered her ad will testify to help themselves, and, as a byproduct, help Rowe. The supposed assessor employee is a percipient witness IF they actually testify that Rowe asked them to contact the victim-homeowner (to harass them) and so they DID. Based upon that testimony alone, said employee could be disciplined at work. County Assessor employees NEVER contact individual parcel owners unless they are actively working with one on a stipulation in lieu of an assessment appeal hearing (to owners who would have filed an assessment appeal in a prior fiscal year). So this charge seems dubious, to me, and the prosecution will likely have to try to impeach the assessor-witness without any witnesses to do it with.

I haven’t read the briefs or seen the PE transcripts in this case, but if Rowe actually did 2, 3 and 4 “manually” (postcards, snail mail, money orders), it would be hard to prove to a jury it was she who did these things. The rerouting of someone’s mail is likely a “mail-tampering” crime but the printing or writing on the “forwarding” or “vacation hold” postcard would have to be proven to be hers. One can drop those in a any mailbox. If these deeds were done manually, there are no percipient witnesses to them.

Another problem with proving Rowe’s “intent to incite rape and/or sodomy” is that she actually didn’t know if her ad for freak sex adventures (or whatever) would be answered or who would answer it. She didn’t pay anyone to go to the victim’s door and had no control over what, if anything, any visitors to the victims home would do.

I’m with scaredy in that I think Rowe just intended a couple of “creepy dudes” to lurk around the victim’s property. It’s not as if she sought out a hitman based upon someone telling her that he “could get the job done” and she met him with an advance payment first and gave him a pic of the victim and her home/work address and a list of her habits.

Even if Rowe actually worked for the assessor’s office, she didn’t need to use their database to find her victim’s address (it’s public, anyway, for owner-occupants). She already knew where the victim lived because she herself tried to buy the house. Apparently, her victim didn’t have her FB page locked down, either, and Rowe lurked on it and copied picture(s) off of it. That’s not a crime.

At the very least, Rowe has got to be terribly embarrassed at work and in the community. The provisions in your new retirement plan link will not affect her. 99% says she is “Tier A.” Her “analyst” position is was likely considered a “promotional position” when she took it, meaning the agency she worked for only considered internal applications for the position. Rowe was qualified to retire in 2012 and is able to retire today. She may have already done so to avoid the embarrassment and backlash from her superiors, as, even though she has not been convicted of a crime, they could have tried to make her life miserable so she would go away on her own.

This sordid affair is going to descend into a black hole of obscurity and the victims may decide to file a small claim to get a judgment against Rowe for their new security system. If they decide to press a limited civil or civil action against Rowe, it won’t be heard until after she is sentenced. In any case, Sevilla will have a big chunk of her money (and possibly a lien on her house) and her spouse may leave her for all of this mess if he hasn’t already.

[FlyerInHi]

Does anyone know if homeowners’ or renters’ insurance would cover a civil suit?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen] . . . might want to look at “inchoate offense” or “inchoate crimes”
http://www.sagepub.com/lippmanccl2e/study/supplements/California/CA_07.pdf

PC 653f (a), (c)[/quote]

Yeah, UCO, 653f is but just ONE of the “watered down” paths this sordid affair is going to take. Rowe’s plea will be short and sweet and EVERY MINUTE DETAIL will be worked out and signed, sealed and delivered to the judge in advance of the plea.

The public will not see her in court until she cops her plea.

If Rowe can continue to pay Sevilla, he will hoof his way into the prosecutor’s back broom closet where he has his own monogrammed ergonomic chair under the light of a Coleman lantern. He may have already done so.

I predict Rowe will:

1. be sentenced to summary probation to the court for one year;

2. pay ~$4000 fine to the court;

3. pay ~$4000 in the state victim restitution fund (of which her victim could possibly avail themselves of to pay for their security system);

4. stay 300 yards away from the victims’ home and place of employment;

5. not participate in any online blogs, social media to place any online ads for a period of one year;

6. complete 200 hours community service in a battered women’s shelter, rape victims’ assistance agency or rescued prostitutes shelter.

She’ll use her 457 plan to pay her attorney fees to buy her freedom.

If I got into deep doodoo, Sevilla is one of a handful of practitioners in this county I would hire without a backward glance. And you should, too.

[Gunslinger]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Gunslinger]Gotcha. Misdirection and deflection. Its OK. You can be proud of who you are.[/quote]

your serious question wasn’t worth answering seriously. you imply that gay men don’t know women.

Blogstar asked a question and I do believe, because I observed, that women hold grudges over a long time and work out schemes to get back at whoever dissed them. That in itself doesn’t make women worse of better than men because both sexes have different positive and negative attributes.

Tell me I’m wrong if you want. I don’t mind.[/quote]

You are wrong. I spent many years in law enforcement as a detective. I was just testing my profiling skills. I wasnt implying anything or judging you. Its OK to be a gay man.

[Gunslinger]

Like it or not bearishgurl is spot on. Great summary of the situation there mam’

CA Renter you operate in a fantasy world.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Gunslinger]Like it or not bearishgurl is spot on. Great summary of the situation there mam'[/quote]

Gunslinger, if I was as accomplished of a “profiler” as you, I’d be a multi-millionaire by now! For the first half of my “illustrious career, “I was one of those local gubment “grunt workers” who got all your reports after the fact, sorted through the (often) graphic photos you took, subpeonaed you to court and then called you off when the def copped a plea.

For the second half of my “career,” I prepared all the documents for Pitchess hgs (to attempt to obtain YOUR personnel records) and prepared suppression motions and statements in mitigation, transcribed YOUR interviews with suspects and wits (where you bought them McD’s and gave them free cigarettes to get them talking and a box of tissue to keep them wailing while you recorded everything) and prepared various and sundry other court filings for the defense.

Although “semi-retired” now (if you can call it that, lol), I’ve walked on both sides of the fence and also balanced myself on top of that same fence. Although a bit hobbled by budget cuts in recent years, the justice system works ONLY because of the dedicated foot-soldiers who keep it running day to day. It DOESN’T MATTER which side of the fence they are working. Without BOTH SIDES of the fence working all day, every day, the system would collapse …. immediately.

I like your direct “spade is a spade” style, gunslinger. But you must know that Brian is really okay. He doesn’t mind pointing out the elephant in the room, which I appreciate. I finished a HUGE project the end of March and so had to drop out of coming to Pigg for awhile but I’m glad to see Brian’s refreshing posts are back here again!

[Author]

Posts