Sore loser in the bidding war

User Forum Topic
Submitted by harvey on April 9, 2014 - 8:22pm

Not much going on here these days, but this is definitely pigg material:

Hoax ads called for rape in revenge

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/Apr/...

Consumed with bitterness over losing her Carmel Valley dream home to a couple with a higher bid, Kathy Rowe found an outlet for her anger: revenge.

Heh, she's also a public employee.

Submitted by Coronita on April 9, 2014 - 8:41pm.

@52.....We'll that's one creative way to burn through whatever saving/retirement money you had...Attorney fees...

Submitted by CDMA ENG on April 9, 2014 - 9:30pm.

She needs to do real time...

No excuse for what she did.

CE

Submitted by NotCranky on April 9, 2014 - 10:32pm.

I'd like to know how a brain does the long plotted multi-stage revenge thing over something like this. How does that work? Is it more of a female thing?

I am not sure if being nuts is an excuse or not. .....did these lenient judges recommend forced therapy or anything like that? If much of the true story is there, something has to be done to , or for her, if possible.

Submitted by flyer on April 9, 2014 - 11:22pm.

Another alleged extreme and sick example of how people feel they are "entitled" to whatever they "want."

I've also heard unbelievable stories about what lengths some parents will go to with regard to getting their kids into the "right" schools, or trying to secure their "dream jobs" for them, that border on criminal behavior.

In most cases, these tactics don't work, and the "delusionals" finally have to face the fact that much of life is out of your control, and not everyone gets the gold ring.

Many kids today are suicidal because they can't achieve the lives their parents promised them. Some feel if they can't be a "Rock Star" or a "Silicon Valley Icon," they don't want to be anything.

Even with the "perfect" degree, personality, looks, you name it, we watched our kids compete against others with Ivy League backgrounds and fantastic experience for amazing career positions etc., and very few snagged their dream job. Sometimes it all boils down to a variable you never, ever imagined.

We leveled with our kids, and it paid off, but today, there seems to be a huge disconnect between their dreams and reality. Hope the folks have saved a small fortune for family therapy.

Submitted by Essbee on April 10, 2014 - 12:29am.

I came to this forum tonight to see if you all had any commentary on this story. I am almost speechless. What a PSYCHOPATH! This rises far, far above the level of a prank.

I would like to see this woman's mug shot. I also wish we could understand a bit more about why she was SO mad about how the real estate transaction turned out. Did she somehow feel she was wronged in the transaction beyond just having an inferior offer?

Submitted by CA renter on April 10, 2014 - 2:05am.

This is incredibly frightening. The worst part is that the charges have been reduced to misdemeanors. IMO, this should be a felony charge for solicitation to commit forcible rape and sodomy. The intent of the two men does not matter at all. It is very clear that the crazy woman wanted the victim to be brutally raped; that it didn't happen is just a lucky coincidence.

The argument for reducing the charges is like suggesting that hiring someone to kill a person is somehow less evil than killing someone yourself. The intent to commit a brutal rape was there, she lucked out because the "hit men" didn't go through with it. She is still every bit as guilty as any rapist who attempts to brutally rape another person. And it was a premeditated act, too, as evidenced by her communications with the two men.

She deserves major jail time of *at least* ten years, IMO. And if she used her position at work to obtain any information about the victim or to post ads or communicate with the men, then she should lose her pension as well since committing a felony while working as a public employee can now result in losing one's pension.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on April 10, 2014 - 7:34am.

CA renter wrote:
This is incredibly frightening. The worst part is that the charges have been reduced to misdemeanors. IMO, this should be a felony charge for solicitation to commit forcible rape and sodomy. The intent of the two men does not matter at all. It is very clear that the crazy woman wanted the victim to be brutally raped; that it didn't happen is just a lucky coincidence.

The argument for reducing the charges is like suggesting that hiring someone to kill a person is somehow less evil than killing someone yourself. The intent to commit a brutal rape was there, she lucked out because the "hit men" didn't go through with it. She is still every bit as guilty as any rapist who attempts to brutally rape another person. And it was a premeditated act, too, as evidenced by her communications with the two men.

She deserves major jail time of *at least* ten years, IMO. And if she used her position at work to obtain any information about the victim or to post ads or communicate with the men, then she should lose her pension as well since committing a felony while working as a public employee can now result in losing one's pension.

the judge at prelim reportedly dismissed the felony charges, but the appellate court reinstated them; now the issue of whetehr the state should be permitted to go forward on the felony charges is pending before the supremes i think according to the article.

Just because the judge at prelim dismisses the charges DOES NOT mean they are dismissed for good and ever...either side has a right to appeal on certain rulings at preliminary hearing.

im not sure what the right answer is here. i disagree, CAR, that this is like hiring a "hitman". it's not quite that. it's a bit more of a grey area. she arguably wasn't really truly intending to have the victim non consensually raped but she clearly wanted to make a third party think it would be ok to have sex with her in a rapelike way. that sure sounds liek the wanted the victim to at least stand a chance of being raped. That's different in a sense than hiring a hitman, which is less speculative in terms of what the mission is.

but that guy who responds to the rape ad, probably should check before coming over and just "raping" her, since a reasonable personal ads list responder wouldn't just go for it after all, they might have the wrong address, or wrong person....

on the other hand, maybe the defendant thinks the responder will just go for the rape first and ask questions later. I'm not sure what the answer is exactly, but it's not a question of "soft" judges ...even on the appellate court, there was a dissenting opinion. reasonable minds can differ, apparentyl. I havent read any of it, other than the article, this thread was first i'd heard of it.

What was she really thinking? what was her intent? I'm guessing if I could get in her mind, she didn't really think there was a definite rape in the future, but there was at least a small offhand chance of a rape from an overeager ad responder; that might be enough for solicitation. that extra step of the amils "stop by anytime between 9-3 i like the element of surprise" is definitely a step in the right direction, as it seems like an invitation to just do it....but it still seems unreasonable for a fellow to bust down the door anythime during those hours to do a simulated rape.

i bet her primary vision was different though ... of a stream of creepy dudes coming over to the house and saying, "is this the rape fantasy place? is this the rape fantasy place?" of course, that's the best case scenario, which isn't a great pitch to the jury...if the felony charges are reinstated, it will definitely be an intriguing trial.

definitely interesting, super creepy, and what i find really interesting is the defendant won MOTHER OF THE YEAR award a couple years back for slavish devotion to her daughter. makes you thinkmight be better to not trust extreme people who are at the very top of their field in mothering! almost makes the people shooting guns at your lot seem like neighbors of the year....

Submitted by Coronita on May 5, 2014 - 8:03pm.

.

Submitted by Coronita on May 5, 2014 - 8:07pm.

.

Submitted by livinincali on April 10, 2014 - 7:58am.

I'm glad I don't live in CV. If I did I could have this psychopath for a neighbor. Do you think property values around her house just went down?

Submitted by Coronita on April 10, 2014 - 8:02am.

livinincali wrote:
I'm glad I don't live in CV. If I did I could have this psychopath for a neighbor. Do you think property values around her house just went down?

No, because technically she doesn't live in CV.. She lost the home because the other person with more money outbid her, remember? :)

By making housing expensive, we weed out most of the rift-rafts... :) (end sarcasm)

Submitted by Coronita on May 5, 2014 - 8:05pm.

.

Submitted by CA renter on April 10, 2014 - 2:00pm.

scaredyclassic wrote:

im not sure what the right answer is here. i disagree, CAR, that this is like hiring a "hitman". it's not quite that. it's a bit more of a grey area. she arguably wasn't really truly intending to have the victim non consensually raped but she clearly wanted to make a third party think it would be ok to have sex with her in a rapelike way. that sure sounds liek the wanted the victim to at least stand a chance of being raped. That's different in a sense than hiring a hitman, which is less speculative in terms of what the mission is.

but that guy who responds to the rape ad, probably should check before coming over and just "raping" her, since a reasonable personal ads list responder wouldn't just go for it after all, they might have the wrong address, or wrong person....

on the other hand, maybe the defendant thinks the responder will just go for the rape first and ask questions later. I'm not sure what the answer is exactly, but it's not a question of "soft" judges ...even on the appellate court, there was a dissenting opinion. reasonable minds can differ, apparentyl. I havent read any of it, other than the article, this thread was first i'd heard of it.

What was she really thinking? what was her intent? I'm guessing if I could get in her mind, she didn't really think there was a definite rape in the future, but there was at least a small offhand chance of a rape from an overeager ad responder; that might be enough for solicitation. that extra step of the amils "stop by anytime between 9-3 i like the element of surprise" is definitely a step in the right direction, as it seems like an invitation to just do it....but it still seems unreasonable for a fellow to bust down the door anythime during those hours to do a simulated rape.

i bet her primary vision was different though ... of a stream of creepy dudes coming over to the house and saying, "is this the rape fantasy place? is this the rape fantasy place?" of course, that's the best case scenario, which isn't a great pitch to the jury...if the felony charges are reinstated, it will definitely be an intriguing trial.

The bolded part is where we disagree. From the article, which is all I know of the case, it sounds very much like she wanted the woman to be brutally raped. She didn't ask the guys to knock first and ask if they had the right house. She was instructing them to break in and rape the woman.

The way I see it, that is solicitation to commit rape and sodomy (based on the article). She deserves nothing less than serious jail time, IMO.

Yes, they reinstated the felony charges, but the fact that any judge would reduce these charges to misdemeanors is insane. This is clearly a case of solicitation to commit a brutal rape.

And then, there are the other "pranks" she had engaged in which are reason enough, IMO, for the victim family to file a civil lawsuit and (hopefully) win a very large case/settlement.

Definitely weird that she won "Mother of the Year," too. You're probably right about extreme personalities.

Submitted by Doofrat on April 10, 2014 - 2:25pm.

flu wrote:
livinincali wrote:
I'm glad I don't live in CV. If I did I could have this psychopath for a neighbor. Do you think property values around her house just went down?

No, because technically she doesn't live in CV.. She lost the home because the other person with more money outbid her, remember? :)

By making housing expensive, we weed out most of the rift-rafts... :) (end sarcasm)

Actually she does live in Carmel Valley and her Zestimate has gone up $17,000 in the last 30 days.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on April 10, 2014 - 3:58pm.

Why did she blame the new homebuyers?

If she was ready to pay $100k more than what they other couple paid, she should have communicated that to the Realtor so that she could get the house she wanted.

Her Realtor was more to blame.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on April 10, 2014 - 4:10pm.

Blogstar wrote:
I'd like to know how a brain does the long plotted multi-stage revenge thing over something like this. How does that work? Is it more of a female thing?

the woman's anger was directed at the wife who got the house. The husband wasn't the target.

Seems like women take offence easily about little things such as not being invited, not being thanked, etc.. They seethe inside and the seething is made greater when other people are happy and have what they want.

That's the reason divorces are drawn out. There's a huge element of retribution and revenge to what otherwise is a purely legal resolution to a marriage that didn't work out.

Submitted by Gunslinger on April 10, 2014 - 4:32pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Blogstar wrote:
I'd like to know how a brain does the long plotted multi-stage revenge thing over something like this. How does that work? Is it more of a female thing?

the woman's anger was directed at the wife who got the house. The husband wasn't the target.

Seems like women take offence easily about little things such as not being invited, not being thanked, etc.. They seethe inside and the seething is made greater when other people are happy and have what they want.

That's the reason divorces are drawn out. There's a huge element of retribution and revenge to what otherwise is a purely legal resolution to a marriage that didn't work out.

Serious question. Are you a gay man?

Submitted by FlyerInHi on April 10, 2014 - 4:56pm.

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

Submitted by Gunslinger on April 10, 2014 - 5:15pm.

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

Submitted by joec on April 10, 2014 - 6:09pm.

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/docume...

There's a lot of sexy graphic detail as to what she wants "done" to her.

Submitted by bearishgurl on April 10, 2014 - 9:18pm.

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 ...??

Submitted by bearishgurl on April 10, 2014 - 10:36pm.

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

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/s...

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

Submitted by CA renter on April 10, 2014 - 10:53pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
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 ...??

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-ref...

[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.

Submitted by CA renter on April 10, 2014 - 11:06pm.

joec wrote:

Here's the court doc:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/docume...

There's a lot of sexy graphic detail as to what she wants "done" to her.

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.

Submitted by ucodegen on April 11, 2014 - 3:28am.

bearishgurl wrote:
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).

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/stud...

PC 653f (a), (c)

Submitted by FlyerInHi on April 11, 2014 - 9:09am.

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

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.

Submitted by bearishgurl on April 11, 2014 - 9:10am.

CA renter wrote:
joec wrote:
Here's the court doc:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/docume...

There's a lot of sexy graphic detail as to what she wants "done" to her.

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.

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.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on April 11, 2014 - 9:14am.

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

Submitted by bearishgurl on April 11, 2014 - 9:37am.

ucodegen wrote:
. . . might want to look at "inchoate offense" or "inchoate crimes"
http://www.sagepub.com/lippmanccl2e/stud...

PC 653f (a), (c)

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.

Submitted by Gunslinger on April 11, 2014 - 9:41am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Gunslinger wrote:
Gotcha. Misdirection and deflection. Its OK. You can be proud of who you are.

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.

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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.