- Home
- Massachusetts Politics
- Mass Supreme Court: Sexual Texts to Minors is OK
Mass Supreme Court: Sexual Texts to Minors is OK
- By Ken Pittman
- Published 02/6/2010
- Massachusetts Politics
-
Rating:




Ken Pittman
Ken Pittman is the afternoon voice for Greater New Bedford's WBSM 1420.
From 2PM thru 6PM M-F..
Ken's Bio
If you are a sick minded slapper preying on children then Massachusetts is on your top ten list of preferable places to live. Maybe even higher. This state is starting to rival Phucket, Thailand in terms of law enforcement turning its back on child predators. The climate is increasingly in favor of licentious practice, fostered by crazy loons wearing robes in our state's highest court.
The state's highest court said last week that Matt Zubial of Belmont did not technically break any law when he sent lewd sexual advancements to what he believed was a thirteen year old girl in Plymouth, Massachusetts and actually drove to meet with her and engage in sex. Of course he then realized he was the target of a law enforcement sting looking for perpetrating perverts such as he. Since what he said to the ficticious teen wasn't "written in pen or pencil", the justices seemed to justify his actions as not exactly illegal.
As a father it seems clear to me that it is time to lock & load. The examples of things hard to believe is getting long. Remember the idiot on display proudly boasting of what he'd do in court to children accusers? Liberal trial attorney and defender of pedophiles Rep. James Fagan of Taunton threatened to tear children's minds apart on the witness stands. This is what happens when the defenders of law breakers are elected as law makers.
Our Attorney General and District Attorneys have watered down some powerful deterrents in Jessica's Law and now the state's highest court has once again sided with criminals.
Margaret Marshall is about as radical and destructive a force for children's safety as any in the nation on the bench. There is no doubt in any legal experts mind that this court was aware that the path to include texting as harmful material was easily chosen...but wasn't. The MSC seems to believe that avenue for preying on children is merely frowned upon but not illegal.
For God's sake are they lobbied that heavily by the trial attorney's of Massachusetts or is this some sort of paranormal demonic inspiration we're looking at here?
These freaks are soliticing sex from minors children and Marshall's conclusion is "you didn't say they couldn't". How about some adult supervision up there?!
Basically, the scenario would be that a father pummeling the pedophile on the steps of the courthouse would be the criminal and the creep could press charges civil and criminal against the man for protecting his daughter when the Massachusetts criminal injustice system won't.
I asked Shrewsbury State Rep. (R) Karen Polito, who brought Jessica's Law to Massachusetts, what she thought of the ruling. She was careful not to criticize the court but was disappointed. "I hope the legislation can pass something immediately to make this technical correction and close this loophole. We saw that swiftness when Governor Patrick was given powers to appoint Senator Kirk last fall."
Step right up and don't be shy. Welcome NAMBLA, welcome Slappers United, all skinners and those who prey on our innocent children. Massachusetts allows for much.
The state's highest court said last week that Matt Zubial of Belmont did not technically break any law when he sent lewd sexual advancements to what he believed was a thirteen year old girl in Plymouth, Massachusetts and actually drove to meet with her and engage in sex. Of course he then realized he was the target of a law enforcement sting looking for perpetrating perverts such as he. Since what he said to the ficticious teen wasn't "written in pen or pencil", the justices seemed to justify his actions as not exactly illegal.
As a father it seems clear to me that it is time to lock & load. The examples of things hard to believe is getting long. Remember the idiot on display proudly boasting of what he'd do in court to children accusers? Liberal trial attorney and defender of pedophiles Rep. James Fagan of Taunton threatened to tear children's minds apart on the witness stands. This is what happens when the defenders of law breakers are elected as law makers.
Our Attorney General and District Attorneys have watered down some powerful deterrents in Jessica's Law and now the state's highest court has once again sided with criminals.
Margaret Marshall is about as radical and destructive a force for children's safety as any in the nation on the bench. There is no doubt in any legal experts mind that this court was aware that the path to include texting as harmful material was easily chosen...but wasn't. The MSC seems to believe that avenue for preying on children is merely frowned upon but not illegal.
For God's sake are they lobbied that heavily by the trial attorney's of Massachusetts or is this some sort of paranormal demonic inspiration we're looking at here?
These freaks are soliticing sex from minors children and Marshall's conclusion is "you didn't say they couldn't". How about some adult supervision up there?!
Basically, the scenario would be that a father pummeling the pedophile on the steps of the courthouse would be the criminal and the creep could press charges civil and criminal against the man for protecting his daughter when the Massachusetts criminal injustice system won't.
I asked Shrewsbury State Rep. (R) Karen Polito, who brought Jessica's Law to Massachusetts, what she thought of the ruling. She was careful not to criticize the court but was disappointed. "I hope the legislation can pass something immediately to make this technical correction and close this loophole. We saw that swiftness when Governor Patrick was given powers to appoint Senator Kirk last fall."
Step right up and don't be shy. Welcome NAMBLA, welcome Slappers United, all skinners and those who prey on our innocent children. Massachusetts allows for much.
Spread The Word
Comments
Comment #1 (Posted by No balls to confront Pittman but.. )
Rating:








You got the wBSm spin, now here's the real story. This was a unanimous ruling, written on behalf of the entire court NOT by the evil Margaret Marshall, but by GOP appointee Justice Francis Spina who opined: “If the Legislature wishes to include instant messaging or other electronically transmitted text in the definition, it is for the Legislature, not the court, to do so.’’ Gov Patrick intends to file a bill next week to remedy the gap in the law.
Comment #2 (Posted by Dwight Thomas sucks final stage bile)
Rating:








There is no excuse for the Supreme Court to deny lewd electric messaging as part of illicit contact.
Comment #3 (Posted by an unknown user)
Rating:








You defenders of this decision really need to ask yourself what it means to be a liberal.
I was under the apparently, misguided notion that the liberal goal was a society in which a higher sense of morality dictated a need for less law & order.
Rulings like this prove true liberalism is a hostage of the Secular Progressive's, whose main goal seems to be ensuring the people in society with the least to offer it get a larger voice every day. I'll remind everyone another cup of water never fortified the stew.
Comment #4 (Posted by STILL WAITING)
Rating:








There's still no explanation as to how a unanimous ruling, which included the signatures of 5 republican-appointed justices, translates into a vast liberal conspiracy spearheaded by Margaret Marshall. Keep up the great work, KP. Don't forget to lock & load! Bwahahahaha!
Comment #5 (Posted by Doglogic)
Rating:








This is all starting to make sense to me now. I always thought conservatives disapprove of activist judges making law. It turns out that they don't disapprove at all. They just want the judges to be their activists. In ruling the other way these judges would have been making law. As much as we all believe that the actions of this guy were reprehensible, its pretty clear from the unanimous decision that this did not come down to ideology. To suggest that liberals or the conservative members of the SJC support the soon to be outlawed behavior, and compare Massachusetts to Thailand is disingenuous, and wrong. When you write it you know its wrong. But, it appears solving a problem isnt nearly as satisfying as blaming someone for it. Its much more fun to "lock and load" than go thru the legislative process. Heaven forbid we follow the rule of law.
