Sore loser in the bidding war

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=Gunslinger]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.[/quote]

So you profile.

Tell me, what I’m wrong about exactly? Am I wrong that women are more sensitive about being dissed?

I’m used to people telling me anyone who cares about what he eats, reads the Washington Post, must be gay. I take that as badge of honor.

Oh, and I love real estate and architecture also. add that to the profile.

[Anonymous]

I’m impressed by the creativity of her plan, although she should have been more careful in the execution.

[svelte]

I’m impressed with her dirty mind! That could be a lot of fun!

But the vindictive part of her mind negates that about twenty-fold.

If this would have been one evening of feeling mean and she regretted it the next day, that’s something I could forgive quickly. But to go on and on and on and ON. She needs to pay for that.

[ucodegen]

[quote=bearishgurl]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.[/quote] For some reason his name keeps ringing a bell.. haven’t figured out why yet. I do think that Rowe’s best option is to negotiate a plea. What she did, people find offensive. She would not do well with a jury trial and probably not well with a judge trial. It is a good question if she will do time. I suspect she might get a bit more of a penalty than you have listed.

[sdrealtor]

Too much fun here. I almost had to jump back in. Carry on Piggs

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=bearishgurl]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.[/quote] For some reason his name keeps ringing a bell.. haven’t figured out why yet. I do think that Rowe’s best option is to negotiate a plea. What she did, people find offensive. She would not do well with a jury trial and probably not well with a judge trial. It is a good question if she will do time. I suspect she might get a bit more of a penalty than you have listed.[/quote]

I predict if she DOES end up having to cop a plea to a felony charge, then the T&C’s of her (3-yr?) probation (to a probation officer) will have a provision that upon successful completion of all of them, she can go back into a review hg in 3 years and get it reduced to a misd. Then she will be able to apply for relief under PC 1203.4.

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/public_defender/expungement.html

Not sure if she was ever booked at all or had time served but I honestly don’t see her as being ordered to “do time” if her plea is accepted.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Too much fun here. I almost had to jump back in. Carry on Piggs[/quote]

If you’re “jumping back in” then where is your worthwhile contribution to this thread??

Are you “out?” Am I missing something??

What do YOU predict will happen here?

How about you, flu? What ends up happening to wayward, sex-crazed wives with no other hobbies in your neck of the woods??

[Doofrat]

What if there was a Piggington meetup that was:

1) Mandatory – All posters in the last 12 months were somehow legally obliged to attend
2) Everyone had to wear a large name tag with their username on it
3) Had an open bar

How long would it take before the first fist flew?

[CA renter]

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

CA Renter you operate in a fantasy world.[/quote]

I’ll be the first to admit that BG (and scaredy, and you) know far, far more about criminal law than I.

If BG is right, though, our law is seriously f’ed up. The defendant had every intention of having the victim raped. If she gets convicted of anything less, then our legal system has serious problems.

And, clearly, I don’t live in a fantasy world since other judges and attorneys have already agreed with what I’ve said WRT solicitation.

[Anonymous]

The guys that answered the ads must be completely desperate — or perhaps they are hip to a scene that I did not think really existed.

[CA renter]

[quote=bearishgurl]

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.
[/quote]

1. She was in contact with the two men, had given them the victim’s picture and address, and had instructed them to break into the house and rape/sodomize her, specifying that they should continue if the victim fought back and said no. THAT IS RAPE. There is no question that she had every intention of having this woman harmed.

Perhaps those from within the criminal justice system don’t see a problem with this, but I can assure you that if this ever reaches a jury trial, this woman is toast (which is probably why you’re suggesting she will negotiate a plea bargain).

2. It doesn’t matter whether or not she thought anyone would answer the ad. The fact is that two people did answer the ad, and she gave them specific information and instructions to rape the woman; again, stating that the woman would act surprised and say no, yet they should continue, anyway.

3. She sought out men who were predisposed to kinky/S&M sex, which means they are capable of committing an act even though the woman is objecting (the two men might have thought she would be “acting,” but that is irrelevant, IMO, and they are not the ones on trial). She DID give them a picture and the address, time of day to make the attack, etc. The promise of “payment” to the two men is the promise of sex.

[ucodegen]

[quote=bearishgurl]I predict if she DOES end up having to cop a plea to a felony charge, then the T&C’s of her (3-yr?) probation (to a probation officer) will have a provision that upon successful completion of all of them, she can go back into a review hg in 3 years and get it reduced to a misd. Then she will be able to apply for relief under PC 1203.4.

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/public_defender/expungement.html

Not sure if she was ever booked at all or had time served but I honestly don’t see her as being ordered to “do time” if her plea is accepted.[/quote]I don’t know if she will be able to escape time. Though if she does spend time, it will be minor (week – month). I will go with a range on probation, 3-5 year. They are going to be sensitive to amount of time being served because of the disabled dependent. I suspect that fines may exceed $10,000 on each. She had enough money to burn $1000 on the subscriptions as well as afford a Carmel Valley house.

As CA renter mentioned, using her job in the commission of a crime could sacrifice her pension and job. I don’t know what her job entails, but if it has to do with property tax assessments or she used contacts within the office to cause the reassessment, she will want this charge to disappear and will take a greater hit on a different charge. The only other question on this would be; did she initiate any of the other actions while at work? Though this might not qualify as ‘in the commission of her work’, if she did use work resources(phone?), she could lose the job but not the pension. NOTE: assessor’s parcel DB is also accessible for non employee – so it may be considered same as using work related assets but not ‘in the commission of her work’. –besides, as you noted, she already knew where the parcel was, and who bought it.

As for ability to prove per

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.

Proving ‘who’ is not that hard if it was done manually. Paper stores fingerprints very easily and most mail handling is automated (by machines). The postal employee making final delivery often wears gloves because handling a lot of paper dries out your skin. Rowe might have worn gloves, but I suspect not. I don’t think she completely considered the repercussions of her actions. Her prints should not be on any of the items if she was innocent – provided the artifacts can be recovered.

[quote=bearishgurl]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]I would agree with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) or something similar. Having dealt with such a person (I think it came up on the ‘Casey’ saga), I am painfully aware of what it is like. One thing I know is that NPDs can ‘fixate’ on feeling wronged and can have a problem moving on. They can fixate even when they were not really wronged, just because they feel entitled to an item they did not get. She might have a bit of OCD to help drive the fixation. She went a bit further than I would expect an NPD to go.

[ucodegen]

[quote=harvey]The guys that answered the ads must be completely desperate — or perhaps they are hip to a scene that I did not think really existed.[/quote]I suspect the latter. I knew it existed. I just didn’t know the extent. I wonder of she was at some time, part of that scene. I had no idea that the scene had ‘want ads’ like that.

[bearishgurl]

Sevilla has until Monday (the 14th) to file a Petition for Review:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/7260.htm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_500

Don’t discount this step. He’s “comfortable” doing so.

[all]

[quote=doofrat]What if there was a Piggington meetup that was:

1) Mandatory – All posters in the last 12 months were somehow legally obliged to attend
2) Everyone had to wear a large name tag with their username on it
3) Had an open bar

How long would it take before the first fist flew?[/quote]

I got punched a couple of times in bars without wearing a name tag or saying a word/looking at strangers. I think both my facial features and my personality make people want to punch me in the face.

[Author]

Posts