It is rare that any case of women sexually abusing boys leaves me at a loss for words. I have read about the most ridiculous situations, from women claiming the boys raped them to women suing their victims for child support. However, the most recent case left me stunned.
A woman convicted of sexually abusing one of her 16-year-old students filed a lawsuit against the boy for “defamation”:
The former Arroyo Grande High School teacher convicted earlier this year of having sex with a 16-year-old student has responded to a lawsuit from that student’s family by filing a counterclaim, alleging the victim has defamed her “to various classmates, family and other members of the community.”
I will quote it again just in case the multiple face palms prevented you from reading it in full:
The former Arroyo Grande High School teacher convicted earlier this year of having sex with a 16-year-old student has responded to a lawsuit from that student’s family by filing a counterclaim, alleging the victim has defamed her “to various classmates, family and other members of the community.”
Before we proceed through the rest of the article, let us take a moment to process the logic here:
Tara Stumph pleaded no contest in April to having sex with a person under 18 and was sentenced to 180 days in jail, a sentence she started serving May 1.
Stumph got away with exploiting one of her students. She must only serve 180 days in jail, not prison, and does not have to register as a sex offender. She accepted a plea deal that granted her this ever so beneficial slap on the wrist. Yet because the victim decided to sue Stumph for her actions, Stumph filed a counter suit, stating “the victim’s statements damaged her reputation and career.”
No, Stumph’s own actions damaged her reputation and career. If she considered herself innocent of the charges, she should not have accepted the plea deal. By accepting the terms of the deal, she conceded that the victim’s claims against her were essentially fact. Let us also be clear that Stumph initially face more serious charges. The original charges were a felony charge of oral copulation with a person under 18, a felony charge sexual intercourse with a person under 18, and three misdemeanor charges of molesting a child. Stumph accepted a deal that reduced all of that down to the one felony charge of sexual intercourse with a person under 18. The full sentence is 180 days, however, she had to serve half that.
So for grooming and abusing the boy for a year, Stumph gets 90 days in jail. In case anyone thought that was all she did, it is not:
The lawsuit [filed against the school and Stumph] states that Stumph “cultivated” the victim’s trust over the period of several months and encouraged him to confide in her. The two began a sexual relationship that lasted from September 2014 to December 2015, the lawsuit alleges, when Stumph would molest the student “during and after class,” and send nude pictures and sexually explicit videos of herself to him.
The lawsuit further alleges that Stumph instructed another teacher at the school to call the victim out of his class on her behalf when some of the alleged crimes occurred.
But the lawsuit also alleges that Stumph sexually molested at least one other minor prior to her relationship with the victim, and that the school — including Principal Bowers, a guidance counselor and a teacher — had received “multiple” complaints about Stumph’s alleged conduct but failed to act.
Again, Stumph conceded this when she accepted the plea deal. She cannot turn around after agreeing that she committed the acts and then sue the victim for character defamation. She is also suing for “indemnity for any judgments rendered against her, a judicial determination that any injuries to the plaintiff were caused by the school district, civil damages and attorneys fees and costs.”
She is not only suing the boy for what she plead guilty to doing, but also suing him for the sentence she received and the legal costs to defend herself. That is rather ballsy.
Never before have I seen anything thing like this. Most curious is how this lawsuit was allowed. How is Stumph allowed to sue someone for something she served time for doing? Who would have thought the state of California could be this idiotic? Why would any judge allow this? On what grounds is the suit even justified? Again, she conceded all of the accusations when she accepted the plea deal. How can she be allowed to sue her victim for her legal costs? Is it not the general case that when one loses one must foot the bill? At the very least would it not be the state that would have to cover the costs, not the victim?
Try to imagine this happening in the reverse. Try to imagine a man who sexually exploited a 16-year-old girl and plead guilty to doing so counter suing her. Try to imagine that lawsuit being accepted by any court in the western hemisphere. Outside of some Middle Eastern and African countries, no one would accept such a counterclaim. They could not dismiss it fast enough.
Yet here we are watching a woman who admitted she molested one of her students suing the student because his accusations, to which she conceded, makes the her look bad.
It is simply unbelievable.
Toy Soldiers 
Pingback: Woman who raped student sues him for defamation | Justice for Men & Boys
Reblogged this on Patriactionary.
I. Have. No. Words.
In the UK, a defendant cannot be prevented from raising a frivolous and/or vexatious counterclaim when he or she files his or her defence. The solution is for the claimant to apply for strike-out of parts or all of the defence and counterclaim, and/or summary judgment. If, before that process takes place, the media takes an interest, as now, then there is a news story, about unmeritorious pleadings.
I imagine it’s the same in California, and that it would be the same if the genders were reversed.
The problem with plea bargaining, which isn’t supposed to happen in the UK (at least as regards sentencing), is that if somebody pleads to one charge, and others are dropped, there is possibly legitimate scope for arguments as to whether the crime was this (as admitted) bad, or t–h–i–s (including all the dropped charges).
However, there is a rule in libel that if your reputation is shot to bits anyway (because of a single rape conviction, in this case), your victim saying falsely that you actually raped him or her twice, isn’t going to damage your reputation any more than it is already damaged anyway.
In the UK, I have called for the abolition of the offence of rape, by the way.
Abolish rape!
And the boy’s family is suing for damages. What damages? Did she give him herpes? Stick him with 18 years of child support? Did her husband shatter the boy’s face in a fit of jealous rage? Will no other woman marry this boy because he’s not a virgin?
And what if the sexes were reversed? News flash: The ERA was never ratified, so the law need not pretend that boys and girls are the same.
Reblogged this on Living in Anglo-America.
No, you lost your job and your license, because you raped a students and because you have the golden pussy pass you got out of registering as a sex offender. So, you can go to another state go to college again and get a new license and rape another student. https://elevenoneoneblog.wordpress.com/
When I first heard of this, I thought immediately that she was suing him for his testimony. Only in California. Still, it can’t be that. Years ago, I heard Judge Wampner say that you can sue anybody for anything. Getting a judgment is another matter. This may be a good thing. She needs to be seen to be shot down in flames to prevent this from happening again.
“She needs to be seen to be shot down in flames”
I think she will be.
Let us hope so. If this is given a pass, every female defendant is going to sue her accuser, right down to shoplifting. They believe that they are not subject to criticism,
I hope that she loses badly and gets left in tatters at the end of this.
Amazing. You couldn’t dream this shit up.
This happens because we men allow it. The Pussy-Pass is alive and doing quite well because we men actually want it that way. If it were not so, men would actually do something about this insanity.
“Men’s rights activists must wake up and realize that the time for trying to counter the hypocrisy with rationality – with essentially male arguments, using facts and truth, in the hope that sense will prevail – is not going to make any difference to the relentless feminist long march on men” -Herbert Purdy ICMI-16 https://youtu.be/PjAnRar9p4M
Mike, abandoning logic and facts will only plunge us down to the level of people like this woman–at best. Remember, where reason sleeps monsters flourish.
Pingback: Thursday Link Encyclopedia | Clarissa's Blog
The suit is ridiculous, but your interpretation isn’t quite correct. The teacher plead no contest, which is explicitly not a guilty plea, and doesn’t admit to the veracity of any allegation in the bill of information or analogous charging document. Put in plain terms, a no contest plea is an admission that the state has enough evidence you committed all or some of the crimes, but not that you actually did any of it.
In the case of frivolous suits, you file with clerks, not judges. The onus is on the kid’s lawyer to have her suit dismissed.
You are right. I thought she had plead guilty. The no contest plea would technically allow her to claim the accusations against her were false. More importantly, it would legally allow her to file a counterclaim against any lawsuit while disallowing the victim to use her no contest plea against her.
That is a fairly adept legal maneuver, which makes me think that this was not an accident. She may have plead no contest with the intent of suing the victim.
T.S., manipulations on that level might shock Machievelli. I know that I am.
Pingback: #MeToo (13) – Libertario