2010 December 27 Monday
Man Prosecuted For Reading Cheating Wife's Email

A guy figured out his wife's GMail account because he suspected she was cheating on him. Well, she was. Plus, he was her third husband. Hey, if you really must marry don't marry a woman who has already been married 2 times previously. So then what happens? He's at risk of 5 years in jail for gaining access to her email account.

Prosecutors, relying on a Michigan statute typically used to prosecute crimes such as identity theft or stealing trade secrets, have charged Leon Walker, 33, with a felony after he logged onto a laptop in the home he shared with his wife, Clara Walker. If convicted in the trial that begins Feb. 7, he could be sentenced to five years in prison.

Our criminal justice system is telling you guys to pass on marriage. It is not like you have a right to ensure your spouse is faithful. The law sees each member of the marriage as totally distinct and with no right to the details of the other's behavior (at least if the other is a woman). So what's marriage? Just a big legal risk. She's already divorced him.

So on a hunch I went looking for whether the prosecutor was male or female. Female prosecutor takes side of unfaithful wife. Click on this link for the salient details.

Prosecutor Jessica Cooper dismissed Walker's claims that he had used his wife's password to log on to the computer.

She said Walker was nothing but a "hacker" who used his skills as a computer technician to gain access to his wife's email account.

If you aren't married in the first place you won't feel a need to get into your spouse's mail to find out if they are cheating. I realize the collapse of marriage is speeding the collapse of our civilization. But you should not sacrifice yourself for a dying civilization.

Update: Be especially fearful of marriage in community property states where she can dump large debts on you even after you separate for divorce.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2010 December 27 08:22 PM  Cultural Wars Marriage


Comments
James Bowery said at December 27, 2010 10:45 PM:

The options are really amazingly simple:

1) Islam.
2) Enforce challenges to single mortal combat with the killing of any man who refuses.

The second option sounds psychotic but it is no more psychotic than a "civilization" that enforces the individual sovereignty of women but refuses to enforce the individual sovereignty of men.

Boycott American Women said at December 28, 2010 2:59 AM:

BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN
Why American men should boycott American women

http://boycottamericanwomen.blogspot.com/

I am an American man, and I have decided to boycott American women. In a nutshell, American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don't know how to cook or clean, don't want to have children, etc. Therefore, what intelligent man would want to get involved with American women?

American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.

This blog is my attempt to explain why I feel American women are inferior to foreign women (non-American women), and why American men should boycott American women, and date/marry only foreign (non-American) women.

BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN!

Stephen said at December 28, 2010 3:52 AM:

This is mistaking the symptom for the disease. The symptom is that a nasty relationship breakdown will inevitably lead to a particularly aggrieved ex trying to criminalising the breakdown - that's just (non-gender specific) human nature. The disease is that law enforcement didn't do what it should have done - nod understandingly and send the complainant on his/her way. Instead law enforcement pursued this complaint and decided to prosecute (think about the chain of command for this prosecution - at least four people in two separate organisations should have declined to pursue this complaint).

The problem with law enforcement is that we're too well resourced (I'm one of them). Once upon a time we had to pick and choose what matters to pursue - we were paid to say no. But now we have money coming out of our ears and the law enforcement hierarchy that was once paid to make tough decisions think it their duty to facilitate every petty complaint. Law enforcement has become the neighbourhood busybody, with its nose in everyone's business.

You can't step out of you front door without breaking some law. Historically this didn't matter because no officer in their right mind would do anything about it, but now you'd better watch out.

Black Death said at December 28, 2010 6:35 AM:

Look at this:

In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan's second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.
"We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today," Judge William Murphy wrote in November for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, "but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion."

"Technically," he added, "any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I," the most serious sexual assault charge in Michigan's criminal code.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070206173058/http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070115/COL04/701150333

....

So if the husband can get five years for computer snooping, the wife can get life for criminal sexual conduct. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Mike Nifong rides again!

Matt said at December 28, 2010 8:00 AM:

Will a jury that contains any men convict for something like this?

miles said at December 28, 2010 9:56 AM:

You can take a look at Prosecuter Jessica Cooper (on her "Re-elect Jessica Cooper for District Attorney" Facebook page) right here:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=23686732528


She looks exactly like what you'd think she'd look like. In other photos its revealed that she is extremely short in person. http://www.acslaw.org/files/images/Leadership%20Picture.JPG

Here is a little of her background from the Berkley Democratic Club:

Bio:

"Jessica R. Cooper, candidate for Oakland County Prosecutor, served 28 years as a judge starting at the district court level and rising to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

A pioneer in the world of women in the law, Cooper attended law school at Wayne State University at a time when it was still uncommon for women to be accepted into law school

Cooper began her law career as an assistant defender in the Michigan State Appellate Defenders Office until she entered private practice as a civil rights attorney, fighting for workers and their families. In 1978, as a young attorney, she was approached to run for 46th District Court judge in Southfield. In an upset victory, she beat the longtime incumbent judge, becoming the first female judge in Southfield and one of the few in Oakland County. In 1986, she was elected to the 6th Circuit Court in Oakland County, where she served until 2000."

"......A founding member of the National Association of Women Judges in 1979, she served on its National Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts."

: Im shocked that a apparently single, childless, older hyper-feminist-woman who is apparently only about 4 foot 10 inches tall, whose looks are fading into wrinkly-and-obese-invisibility would ever maliciously prosecute a successful middle-aged man when it was in her legal power to do so as a District Attorney. No sir-ree Bob.

James Bowery said at December 28, 2010 10:58 AM:

Stephen writes:

This is mistaking the symptom for the disease...The problem with law enforcement is that we're too well resourced (I'm one of them).

No the problem is the Alpha of State arising from liberating women to make them members of the Alpha's harem. This makes sneaky betas of all individual males save those who enjoy the power of the State, such as law enforcement officers.

This is really just an extension of the Christianization of the Germanic peoples wherein the "nobility" was morally protected by the Church from challenges to single combat to the death from the "peasants". The difference is that part of the deal that Christianity struck with the Germanic peoples was that the man was still "head of the household" by authority of the Church. Paul made a big deal out of this as well he had to or he would probably have been killed.

Feminism merely reverted to the prior Germanic ideal of female sovereignty as reflected in Tacitus's view that Germanic women were treated a something like "goddesses". By reverting that aspect of JudeoChristian patriarchy but not reverting the single combat restrictions, the "nobility" enjoyed access to huge harems. That this occurred during the demographic explosion onto the scene of huge numbers of young fertile females of the baby boom generation is no accident.

Modern military and police forces are merely men who have been deprived even of the solace of being head of a household -- both by feminism and by economic destruction of a man's ability to support a family. This outlet results in some very sick puppies running around engaging in what can only be thought of as sexual perversion on a massive scale exemplified by the situation in which a police officer knocks on the door of a home and confronts the sneaky beta male who has been fucking the Alpha of State's harem girl, and threatens him, particularly if he is a white male, with AIDS/HIV, etc. infected ethnic prisoner gang rape if the harem girl thinks he has looked at her cross-eyed.

WHAT A TESTOSTERONE RUSH!

Jeremy said at December 29, 2010 2:17 AM:

James Bowery said:

The options are really amazingly simple:

1) Islam.
2) Enforce challenges to single mortal combat with the killing of any man who refuses.

The second option sounds psychotic but it is no more psychotic than a "civilization" that enforces the individual sovereignty of women but refuses to enforce the individual sovereignty of men.

Why Islam? What about other religions like traditional Christianity, Confucianism, etc. that promote traditional marriage relations?

miles said at December 29, 2010 2:22 PM:

"However, nine states -- Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin -- are so-called "community property" states, meaning that property or debts accumulated by either partner during a marriage belong to both partners and would be divided evenly if the marriage ends. In Alaska, community property rules apply only if a married couple opts into the arrangement."

Read more: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/community-property-credit-card-debt-1282.php#ixzz19XdgkbSX
Compare credit cards here - CreditCards.com"

----------------------------------------------------------


Essential information for young single men in those states. It angers me that young men dont know these things before marrying women carrying a heavy debt burden. Hell, a woman with a ton of college debt could profess love to some poor schmuck just to dump him six months later and leave him with half of it, including whatever she can rack up on credit cards in those states.


Marital conduct should matter. A man (or woman) who is ending a marriage because of infidelity (and can prove it) should not have to pay the cheating spouse a dime. Any children should be shared in a joint custody arrangement with no child support due. No alimony due, no nothing. Thats where the bitterness concerning this topic arises from. Being cheated on is emotionally difficult, but having to pay for the pleasure of being cheated on is infuriating-to-the-stars.

bbartlog said at December 29, 2010 6:28 PM:

'Hell, a woman with a ton of college debt could profess love to some poor schmuck just to dump him six months later and leave him with half of it'

Read the community property definition more carefully. The debts accumulated *during the marriage* get split. Unless the guy has the world's worst divorce lawyer (and maybe not even then) he's not going to be saddled with half his ex-wife's debt in the situation you describe.

Randall Parker said at December 29, 2010 7:29 PM:

bbartlog, If she can get him to pay off her debts while taking on others she can effectively shift debts onto him. Not saying that happens very often. But it seems like it could happen.

miles said at December 29, 2010 11:21 PM:

bbartlog,

I misread that provision in the article (I skim things too quickly quite a bit). Thanks for pointing that out. I want to be accurate.

Randall does make a very good point about a man effectively helping his wife paying off her college debts however. I wonder how many men pretty much take on the house's bills, the credit-card, and the vacation/amusement tabs during their marriages while their wives pay off their own college-debts to find they get no value for that when it comes time to go to family court. Probably quite a few.


I hate to see our people unhappy and divorcing each other like this. A nation full of happy marriages is likely to be a invested nation.

no i don't said at December 30, 2010 2:52 PM:

"Boycott American Women" has a point, -for marrying, that is-, but let's not forget that it is American women the ones who are the most docile while having sex.

Jason said at December 31, 2010 4:26 PM:

"the collapse of marriage is speeding the collapse of our civilization. But you should not sacrifice yourself for a dying civilization... " That's a powerful line and more so because I'm afraid it's true. I wonder if the average woman in America, say a White woman, has any clue what awaits her daughters and granddaughters on the other side of the collapse? All the freedoms and privileges they once took for granted will be gone.

Captain Jack Aubrey said at January 2, 2011 3:21 PM:

Doesn't the concept of community property apply here? Is there really such thing as "her" email account, especially if it's accessed from "their" computer?

Husbands have no rights to free email accounts opened by their wives, but wives have the right to money their husbands earn through hard work. John Galt really is a man. What's he have to say about marriage?

Essential information for young single men in those states. It angers me that young men dont know these things before marrying women carrying a heavy debt burden. Hell, a woman with a ton of college debt could profess love to some poor schmuck just to dump him six months later and leave him with half of it.

I had an employee several years ago doing just such a think. He was an early-20s man who had fallen head-over-heels for a girl who was deeply in debt, married her, and took to working his ass off to pay off her debt. He was literally working 2 jobs, and 18-20 hour days, when he worked for me. I was worried at times that he would die from over-exhaustion. Instead, as he had nearly finished paying off her debt, she filed for divorce.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright