Archive for the ‘Sluts’ Category

Pussy Riot Gets Whipped in Sochi

Posted: February 22, 2014 in Feminism, Skanks, Sluts
Tags: ,

Attention whoring band Pussy Riot gets put-in (like Putin, get it) their place


Why are women allowed to be guarding men’s prisons?

A cabal of corrupt corrections officers and members of the Black Guerrilla Family gang enjoyed nearly free rein inside the Baltimore City Detention Center, federal authorities allege, smuggling drugs and cellphones into the jail and having sexual relationships that left four guards pregnant.


White had sexual relationships with numerous prison guards and got four pregnant, prosecutors allege. Two of the guards had his name tattooed on their bodies — one on her neck and another on her wrist, according to the indictment.

Another pussy pass for a female pedophile by a male white knight judge. Apparently a 14 year old boy seduced the poor unsuspecting housewife. Funny how they can twist reality to make her the victim. This is just sad:

A judge caused outrage yesterday after he refused to jail a woman who had sex with a 14-year-old boy and instead told her: ‘He seduced you.’

Sharon Edwards, 40, bombarded the boy with as many as 50 text messages and emails a day, offered to buy him cocaine and regularly lured him into her bed.

Yet she walked free from court yesterday after Judge Peter Fox QC said the married housewife was an unhappy woman who was unable to resist the advances of a child.

‘You had been a very unhappy lady for a very considerable period of time when this 14-year-old boy seduced you, and not you him, both so far as sexual matters and drugs are concerned,’ he said.

Her eight-year marriage to a luxury car sales tycoon was falling apart, she felt trapped and lonely and was flattered by the attention the boy was paying her, Teesside Crown Court heard.

But last night the boy’s mother attacked the judge’s decision. She said: ‘He’s still a child. If this had been a man he would almost certainly have been jailed but instead she gets to walk free and pick up her life.

‘She still lives round here and can now do whatever she wants and go wherever she wants. It’s outrageous. I can’t believe what’s happened.’

Edwards, a mother of two, admitted having sex with the boy on four separate occasions between September last year and January and yesterday was given a 12-month jail term, suspended for two years.

She also pleaded guilty to offering to supply the teenager a Class A drug. The boy, who cannot be named, was a pupil at the same school her two sons attend when the relationship began.

They stayed in contact through text messages and emails and on one occasion Edwards took him to her sister’s empty home for a night of sex.

But in January her suspicious husband, Mark, 43, discovered scores of emails she had sent to and received from the boy.

He confronted her at their £500,000 home in Stockton, Teesside, before contacting the youngster’s mother.

Tina Dempster, prosecuting, said the boy later broke down in tears when his mother asked him if the allegations were true. She then called the police.

‘He was crying,’ said Miss Dempster. ‘He told her he was sorry but he did not know how to stop it. He was extremely distressed, saying that his life was over and he might as well die now.

‘The next day he was interviewed by the police and he confirmed that he had had a crush on her and that they had sexual intercourse the previous night.’

Miss Dempster said that Mr Edwards first became suspicious in October last year after discovering that his wife was sending and receiving up to 50 text messages a day from the same number. Despite a blossoming property empire and a successful car sales business, their marriage was struggling to survive.

They had decided to make a go of it but by the end of October Mr Edwards was convinced his wife was having an affair. He confronted her about his suspicions but she denied it.

On January 18 he accessed his wife’s MSN messaging programme and changed the settings so that all the sent messages would be saved.

‘The next morning he checked the messages and he realised that the person with whom she was having a sexual relationship was the boy,’ said Miss Dempster.

In one of the messages the boy asked her to buy some cocaine. She agreed and then said he would not need to pay her.

Deborah Sherwin, defending Edwards, said her client had pleaded guilty because she did not want her young victim to have to give evidence in court.

She added: ‘She was a sad and lonely housewife, she was not working, her parents had moved abroad, she was stuck at home, her marriage was failing and this boy paid her attention and she was flattered by it.’

Judge Fox QC described the case as ‘ exceptional’ before telling Edwards he would not be sending her to jail because the boy had seduced her, and not the other way round. ‘Of course, you have responsibility as an adult to reject his advances in both regards,’ he added.

Last night Claude Knights, director of children’s charity Kidscape, said: ‘This sentence sets an awful precedent. The judge seems to be suggesting that in some way this is all down to the victim.

‘But how on earth can he be regarded as responsible for what happened? He is just a child. He may look mature and he may even be sexually active but he is still a child and this is still abuse.’

Diana Sutton, head of policy at the NSPCC, said: ‘It is unacceptable to describe the child victim in this case as the seducer. This gives out completely the wrong message  –  that sex abuse is the fault of the child, when in reality it never is.’

Edwards was ordered to register as a sex offender for five years.

By the way. Here is the picture of the scumbag judge:

judge fox

I feel sorry for American military servicemen. They are used as cannon fodder by their government and their wives apparently cannot keep their legs closed while the men are deployed. And what happens when one of those skanks gets pregnant by another man?  Well, the poor sucker still has to pay child support to her, even if he proves using DNA test that that the child is not his. Oh, and she can also empty

Here is the sad story of Marine Staff Sergeant Brandon Parsons:

Sometimes it takes genuine injustice to put things in perspective. I was recently reminded of this during my clash with a prominent floral service that failed to deliver a chocolates order on Valentine’s Day… and the next day… and the next day… and as I write this opening paragraph. Nobody likes having their money held hostage. But, again, perspective has humbled my rage about the incident.

So begins the story of Marine Staff Sergeant Brandon Parsons and his role in one of the most baffling legal debacles in the history paternity cases.

A Superior Court of California judge has recently ruled that SSgt Parsons, a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, must continue to pay child support another twelve years for a child that ISN’T his—a payment that, counting the $50,000 he’s already remunerated his ex-wife, Crystal Parson, will put him on pace to pay over $250,000 before his legal obligation ends (twelve years from now), according to his lawyer. This payment, broken down, takes up approximately one-third of his current salary.

The judge, having made the decision because of a loophole in the events leading up to the ruling, didn’t hold back in his disdain for Parsons’ ex-wife’s actions. The first sentence in the second paragraph of the court’s ruling says it all:

While the court concludes that father was, in fact, despicably duped and victimized by Petitioner Crystal Parsons’s (hereinafter “Mother”) fraudulent concealment regarding biological paternity, a deception which has placed a significant, continuing financial burden upon Father, existing law, as applied to the facts of this case, precludes the court from setting aside the prior paternity determination or ordering genetic blood testing. 

So how did this apparent calamity of justice happen? Here’s the gist:

After completing his first combat deployment in the Spring of 2005—of which he spent the majority of time fighting in Ramadi, Iraq—SSgt Parsons, then a twenty-year old corporal, returned to Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and immediately began a sexual relationship with his then-fiancé, Crystal Domenech. Their first sexual encounter was, according to court documents, on April 5, 2005.

Seventeen days later, Crystal announced to Brandon that she was pregnant. Brandon, without questioning any aspects of her statement or the legitimacy of his biological paternity, decided to bump up their scheduled nuptials and spent the majority of his money (an estimated $20,000)—of which most came from his recent deployment—on her dream wedding.

What both Brandon and the court now know is that Crystal Domenech Parsons had been engaged in numerous sexual affairs while he was on deployment and, consequently, the child that Brandon raised—under the assumption he was legitimately the father—was indeed that of another man. (Crystal Parsons refuses to name the true identity of the biological father to this day.) Moreover, it was both alleged by Parsons and believed by the court that Crystal chose to sleep with then-Corporal Parsons purely to cover up her previous sexual encounters and pin the pregnancy on him, therefore having access to his military benefits.

It was after the end of Parsons’ second deployment to Iraq that Crystal Parsons, who continued to engage in extramarital affairs during his absence, made it clear she wanted a divorce—only after emptying his bank account and paying her personal bills in his name.

SSgt Parsons’ first inkling that he was not the biological father, brought to his attention by a former friend of Crystal, occurred in April of 2010, less than a year after their divorce. Within the month, Parsons had confirmed through an over-the-counter test by Identigene that the child he had been raising for four and a half years was not his.

“The worst part of being a paternity fraud victim is that nobody can help you,” SSgt Parsons told me in a recent phone interview. “When a guy is dealing with a break up, his buddy can say, ‘Dude, I’ve been there.’ Nobody knows what to say in that kind of situation. I broke down and the Marines around me just stood there.”

SSgt Parsons confronted his ex-wife soon after that. This is the exchange, according to Brandon Parsons, in his official court declaration: 

After she had read the result I asked her to tell me the truth. She then began telling me that while I was in Iraq she had been raped. I told her that I did not believe her and to start telling me the truth for [Child’s name – Redacted] sake. I asked her how many men she had slept with while I was on deployment. When she did not answer at first I asked her if it had been more than 2 men and she nodded her head indicating “yes.” I asked her if it was more than 5 and again she nodded her head indicating “yes.” I asked if it was more than 7 men she had slept with. This time she screamed at me that she did not know how many. After she calmed down she told me that in March 2005 [a month before his return] she discovered she was pregnant and told her mother. She said that her mother told her that military spouse benefits were excellent and she should remember that she did not have insurance coverage for the hospital bills. 

(It should be noted that, by all accounts, while Parsons lost the aforementioned legal case, the court never denied the plausibility of Parsons’ report of the events. In fact, the judge made it more than clear that Brandon Parsons’ side of the story was the most credible and that Crystal Parsons had acted “despicably” leading up to the ruling.)

After this exchange, Parsons convinced his ex to meet him for another DNA test, along with the child.

He continues in his statement:

When they came into the waiting room [Child’s name—Redacted] came over to me and was talking to me when Crystal’s mother came and grabbed him and pulled him away telling him not to talk to me because I was a stranger now. She also began calling me names. I asked her to please stop cursing at me before the child. This made her really angry and she looked right in my eyes and told me that I should have died in Iraq like I was supposed to do. 

Parsons was unable to obtain a DNA test that day due to the vitriolic nature of Crystal and her mother, opting to leave after the two women threatened to call the police on him.

So why, after the court has concluded that Parsons’ description of the events is more grounded than his ex’s and his prior over-the-counter test is admissible as legitimate proof that he is not the father, does he still have to pay child support for a child that isn’t his? The answer—in all the convoluted facets of the case—is simple: timing.

He did not file a complaint against Crystal Parsons until early-December of 2012—more than two and half years after he discovered he was not the father of the child.

The court’s explanation:

Even if the fraud ground of Family Code section 2122(a) applied, Father’s set aside motion is untimely since such a motion must be brought “within one year after the date on which the complaining party either did discover, or should have discovered, the fraud.” Father’s discovery of the fraud occurred in April of 2010, i.e., a date more than 2 ½ years ago. 

In laymen’s terms: he was too late. This is the loophole that Crystal Domenech Parsons won the ruling by—resulting in the court ordering SSgt Brandon Parsons to pay another twelve years of child support for a child that he now has no access to.

This is where things get really enraging: Crystal Parsons has recently filed a motion asking the court to order SSgt Parsons to pay $8,535 (on top of his ongoing child support) for the lawyer she hired to defend the mess she created in the first place. Additionally, on a more egregious level, the child—who Brandon Parsons adamantly maintains is the “biggest loser in all of this”—suffers from chronic hereditary illnesses that neither him or Crystal Parsons have. Her refusal and/or inability to name the biological father has greatly inhibited the child from getting the proper care he deserves.

(Folks, in my humble opinion, Crystal Parsons is the living, breathing, real life bastard child of Snidely Whiplash and… Satan—who is possibly her mother.)

But Parsons, who has since been remarried, isn’t deterred. He says he’s going to fight it.

“If we [Marines] can take Iwo Jima, I can win this case,” he told me. “I want to win this for every Marine—for every man—who gets screwed like this.”

My initial impression of SSgt Parsons after our three hour conversation is that he’s an extremely optimistic individual with a cheerful demeanor—exactly what I’d expect from a Minnesotan who grew up a stone’s throw from the Canadian border.

Even after the disheartening outcome of his case, he continues to see the best in most people involved.

“The judge did a good job,” he said. “I could tell he did everything he could to get me out of this. He had his hands tied.”

“My attorney, Mr. Richard Lowe, was the only attorney in Southern California that even remotely had an idea as to how we should approach this problem and solve it,” he wrote me in an email after our conversation. “He’s an excellent attorney and an even better friend. He deserves praise and is helping several other paternity fraud victims as we speak.”

It’s hard to get angry about my twenty dollars at this point. (For the record, as I finish this story, I just received an email from the company, promising me a full refund.) Besides, there are certainly bigger travesties in America right now… as the case of SSgt Brandon Parsons has proved.

Editor’s Note: All information and court transcripts contained in this piece were obtained and verified through open source information available on the internet at the time of publishing. -RU Rob, Lord Commander and Regent of Ye Olde Rhino Den.




The socialist French government decided to keep the paternity tests illegal (doing it you risk 15,000 Euro fine and you might also end up spending one year in jail) because, apparently, denying men their basics human and reproductive rights, i.e. knowing if the child in which they are investing their time, money and a large amount of energy is really their own, or a result of disgusting fraud perpetuated by their wife/girlfriend, is necessary to “preserve peace within the French families”.  So they are at the point where truth is banned when it is inconvenient for some people. No mainstream media is mentioning this, so apparently nobody cares since it “only” affects men.

Of course they had to bring some psychologists, a.k.a. leftists ideologues, into the debate to determine what constitutes a father:

the French psychologists suggest that fatherhood is determined by society not by biology.

So here we are. Women are given free pass to deceive the unsuspecting male partners by denying them their own genetic legacy, yet dumping on them the obligations and responsibility of raising children. Actually, forget the free pass… they are rewarded for doing it, since the poor sucker still has to pay child support, even though it turns out the child is not his and there are no repercussions whatsoever against the cheating whore .

Moreover, Germany is planning to do the same thing. The future just looks great.

You cannot make this stuff up. Another pussy pass for a female paedophile. Usually people demand to have paedophiles executed or castrated. Guess it won’t happen in this case.  From the DailyMail:

A mother who molested three boys after  consuming enough alcohol to ‘knock out a bull elephant’ walked free from court today.

Amanda Wheeler, 31, downed vodka, beer and wine at a friend’s birthday party before kissing and groping a 12-year-old boy on a bench.

She then performed a lap-dance and straddled a group of teenage boys.

The part-time cleaner also bit a 13-year-old boy on his neck and persuaded him to perform a sex act on her.

The mother-of-three denied four counts of sexual activity with a child and one of sexual assault but was found guilty following a two-week trial in October at Worcester Crown Court.

Today, Judge Patrick Thomas QC said he did not believe the incident on November 29, 2011, ‘arose out of paedophilia’ but was a ‘one-off’.

Wheeler, from Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, was given a two-year prison sentence suspended for two years at Birmingham Crown Court.

Judge Thomas said the three boys had made a full recovery ‘from what could have been extraordinarily traumatic experiences’.

However, he told Wheeler she ‘should be ashamed’ of herself for pleading not guilty as he said the quantity of alcohol she had drunk meant she could not dispute the testimony of the boys.

He told the court: ‘It is a highly unusual and very difficult case.

‘I’m satisfied that this behaviour arose not out of paedophilia, although these were paedophile acts, but out of drunkenness, selfishness and a real element of childishness on your part.

‘You were grossly disinhibited but I don’t think that in you there is a tendency or proclivity towards this sort of behaviour and because of this I can regard it as a one-off.

‘The aggravating features are the age of the children, the presence of other children during the offending itself and the fact that you were drunk and out of control.

‘It is right to say that they show that the major impact on the children came from all of this coming to light and the embarrassment and difficulties that caused them at the time.’

He said the victims had made it clear they were ‘over whatever trauma’ they felt when they made statements in April 2012.

The judge added: ‘It is because and only because of the victim impact statements and the impact of the sentence to be served upon your children that I think it is appropriate to step back and suspend the sentence.’

During the trial, the court heard Wheeler could not remember parts of the night she attended the party near Worcester, because of the ‘extraordinary’ amount of alcohol she had consumed.

Samantha Forsyth, defending, said her client had ‘very significant gaps in her memory’.

Judge Thomas criticised Wheeler for her ‘out-of-control’ actions.

He told her: ‘The evidence established very clearly that on that night you got paralytically drunk and that your behaviour with some children passed beyond the flirtatious to the point where you touched them indecently.

‘This was a significant and serious offence.

‘You fought the case and you should frankly be ashamed of yourself for refusing to accept that your memory of the matter was such that you really couldn’t dispute what the boys consistently said.’

Wheeler was acquitted of a sixth charge of sexual activity with a child.

She was also ordered to sign the Sex Offenders’ Register for ten years.

This story is taken from COTWA


Brian Banks suffered an unspeakable injustice. He was falsely accused of rape and spent years in prison for something he didn’t do. His story is a chilling case study in the byzantine ways our culture tolerates the harsh treatment of innocents as the price of battling serious sex crimes. It is a somber warning that the witch-hunt hysteria fomented by those self-anointed rape avengers of yesteryear is alive and well in 21st Century America, a nation punch drunk on law and order and building prisons to quench its pathological fear of young minority men.

On July 8, 2002, Brian Banks, a 6-foot-3, 225-pound 16-year-old linebacker for Long Beach Poly High, felt like he was on “top of the world.” He was a star football player heavily recruited by a number of colleges, including USC, which verbally offered him a full scholarship. Before the day was over, Brian’s world would be turned upside down.

Just before noon, Brian was on his way to the school office to talk about his college applications when he bumped into a 15-year-old sophomore classmate named Wanetta Gibson. Brian had known Gibson since middle school. They were not in a relationship, but they decided to “make out” in a secluded alcove at the school.  “[W]e kissed, we groped we touched, but we never had sex,” Brian said.


Brian made the mistake of saying something that upset Gibson, and they left on bad terms. Later that day, Brian knew something was wrong when he saw a number of police officers hanging around the school. Then, he saw Gibson coming out of a school office accompanied by police.  Brian had never been in trouble with police, but now he felt his heart jumping out of his body.
The Lie

Gibson had told police that Brian raped her. Brian would later say she didn’t want her family to know she was sexually active. She claimed that she supposedly left history class at about 11:45 a.m. to use the restroom, and she passed Brian on the way. After Gibson exited the restroom, Brian allegedly grabbed her and pushed her into an elevator. The elevator supposedly went up one floor, then Brian allegedly forced Gibson out and dragged her down the hall and back down two flights of stairs to a secluded alcove where the purported assault was carried out over the course of 15 to 20 minutes.  Gibson claimed Brian ejaculated inside her.

Brian was arrested and charged as an adult on two counts of forcible rape and one count of sodomy by force, and he was taken into custody.  “We believe this to be an isolated incident,” declared Long Beach Police Officer Jana Blair, both assuring a skittish public of its safety and giving credence to Gibson’s account at the same time.

From the outset, Brian claimed the encounter was consensual, and that there was no intercourse.  Less than a month after Brian’s arrest, the co-principal at the school where he had only recently been a star declared that Brian “will not be returning to Poly regardless of the outcome of any judicial procedures.”  Why?  Even if he was cleared of wrongdoing, Long Beach Unified School District spokesman Dick Van Der Laan said Brian violated the district’s guidance and discipline code because he supposedly had consensual sex on school grounds. No one bothered to ask whether Gibson would receive the same punishment if if turned out her rape allegation was a lie.

Gibson’s Story Doesn’t Make Sense

There were no witnesses to the alleged rape, and Gibson’s story didn’t add up.  For example, Gibson said that Mr. Banks ejaculated inside her, but there was no semen in the rape kit — not a single molecule was recovered.  Justin Brooks of the California Innocence Project explained: “[She] said she wiped it all off with a paper towel, but that’s impossible.”  In fact, there was no physical evidence whatsoever to corroborate Gibson’s story.

Mr. Brooks explained that the logistics of Gibson’s tale didn’t make any sense. “For Brian to take [her] from the bathroom to the elevator, he would have had to take her past several classrooms. Someone would have seen or heard a struggle,” Brooks said. Brian’s story — that the encounter was consensual –was, in Brooks’ words, “the only one that makes sense.”

“Brian never should have been charged,” Mr. Brooks concluded. “There was a lot of sloppy police work, and I don’t know what level of scrutiny the prosecution did.”  A former Los Angeles County sex crimes prosecutor recently told a television reporter that “the DA never should have filed this case, and they should drop it now” due to the absence of DNA evidence and Gibson’s inconsistent statements about what happened.

$1.5 million for Gibson; Brian’s Mother Sells Her House and Car and Borrows to Pay Brian’s Lawyer 

In the aftermath of the rape claim, the news media sought out Gibson’s mother, who professed anger over the school’s lack of security: “It’s got me to the point where I don’t want to let the kids go to school at all,” she told a newspaper reporter. “There’s nowhere for them really to be safe. You would think school would be pretty safe, but it didn’t turn out that way.”

Gibson’s mother ended up suing the Long Beach school district over the supposed lax security that led to Wanetta’s alleged ordeal. The case settled, and Gibson was awarded $1.5 million (they split half with their attorney and kept $750,000).

Brian’s mother, on the other hand, was forced to sell her house and her car, and to borrow a lot of money from family, to pay for a lawyer to represent Brian.

Gibson Tries to Come Clean

Gibson said she tried to “come clean” and admit her lie to her civil attorney in the suit against the school district, but the attorney told her, “Don’t say nothing. Like don’t talk at all. Let them do what they gonna do.”

Plea Deal Prompted By Vile Stereotypes

Brian sat in jail for a year while his case meandered toward trial. He was facing 41 years to life if convicted, but his lawyer was trying to get him to plead to a deal. Finally, she told him she’d worked out a very favorable plea deal, which she urged Brian to accept. The deal was that he would plead no contest to rape and kidnapping charges. She told Brian that the deal likely would result in just an additional 18 months in prison atop the year he had already served.

In a “he said/she said” case where the evidence didn’t support the accuser’s claim, Brian says his lawyer told him he would lose if he went to trial. Why?

“If [you] go into that courtroom,” Brian remembers her telling him, “the jury [is] automatically going to see a big, black teenager and automatically assume [you are] guilty.”

Justin Brooks of the California Innocence Project would later say that racism surely played a part in what happened. Banks’ original lawyer, Brooks said, told the then-teenager that because he was a large, black, young man, it would be his word against hers — and that he should take the deal.

A ‘Choice’ That Was No Choice

Brian, then 17, claims that his own lawyer denied his request to consult with his parents about the plea deal, and that he was given only ten minutes to decide. Brian sat down and cried.  He finally decided that 18 months sounded “way better than 41 years to life.”

“I was pretty much sold this dream,” he said.

But Brian didn’t get the 18 months he had been told to expect. He was sentenced to six years, followed by five years of probation, and then lifetime registration as a sex offender — the latter so that the community would feel safe knowing where Brian is at all times. Brian would be forced to wear a court-ordered GPS tracking device on his ankle. He was not allowed to live within 2,000 feet of a school or a park; he had a midnight curfew; he couldn’t leave the county without permission; he couldn’t leave the state under any circumstances.

“He got bad legal advice to take the plea,” said Justin Brooks of the California Innocence Project. “The attorney should have taken it to trial. I can’t imagine not taking this case to trial. [Gibson] had so many inconsistent statements.”

“The system failed Brian,” Brooks said plainly.

Brian quickly figured out the same thing. “My mom sold her house, her car and borrowed money from family for the lawyer who represented me in this case,” Brian said, “and all that got us was a plea bargain … and that plea bargain destroyed my life.”

Brian spent more than five years behind bars for a crime he didn’t commit. Five years, in the prime of his life, when he might have been playing college and professional football.

With no money, Banks tried to appeal on his own with no luck. He then reached out to the California Innocence Project.


Even after his release from incarceration, Brian was incapable of leading a normal life. “I’ve been unemployed since I’ve been out,” Banks said. “I’ve had one real job, working in a warehouse. I’ve had to live with my mom, then with my girlfriend and for the past seven or eight months with my brother, to survive.”

Then a remarkable thing occurred. In March 2011, Gibson contacted Brian from out of the blue through Facebook and said she wanted to reconcile their friendship. “She didn’t show any remorse,” Brian said.

She said: “I figured you and I could let bygones be bygones. I was immature then, but I’m much more mature now.”

Brian was stunned. He quickly closed his laptop. “What did I just see?” he asked himself.  He thought it was someone else playing a sick joke on him.

Brian kept his wits about him. “I reached out to her and asked her to meet with me after receiving that Facebook friend request, and when we met, my sole purpose of meeting was to capture that recantation on tape.”

Gibson agreed to meet Brian and a private investigator, Freddie Parish.  Why did Gibson meet with Banks? Banks thinks Gibson was hoping to reconcile. “You read the texts and that’s the only conclusion you come to,” says a source who worked on the case. “She seems absolutely clue-free about what she did to him.”

Brian told her about his ordeal; oblivious to his suffering, she tried to match what he said by relating what she had been through.

Mr. Parish, the private investigator, came up with the plan to secretly videotape Gibson, and to get her to recant her accusations against Brian. He rigged a pen with a camera.

‘No, He Did Not Rape Me’ 

Gibson was asked if Brian raped her, and she said, “No, he did not rape me.” Mr. Parish said to himself, “Wow! I got it!”  But she also admitted that was concerned she would have to return the $750,000 payment from the civil suit against Long Beach schools.  She told Brian: “I will go through with helping you but it’s like at the same time all that money they gave us, I mean gave me, I don’t want to have to pay it back.”  In addition, Gibson feared how a recantation would affect her relationship with her children.

As a measure of how badly she really felt, and of the maturity Gibson claims to have found, Gibson later claimed that her recantation was, itself, a lie.  She claimed that Brian offered her a $10,000 bribe to say she had not been raped.  This latest accusation, like the earlier one, lacked plausibility because Brian has no money. “It was disgusting,” Brian told a television reporter.

After it was all over, Brian related her “let bygones be bygones” comment on Jay Leno’s Tonight Show, and the audience audibly groaned.

Really Free

Armed with her video recantation, and the absence of any physical evidence to support her tale, Justin Brooks convinced the district attorney to take a look at the case. “I told them, ‘Talk to Brian and you will believe he is telling the truth and that she is lying,'” Brooks said. “She had no credibility. They did their own investigation.”

At a hearing on May 24, 2012 before Judge Mark C. Kim, the jurist who had presided over the original case, the district attorney agreed with Brooks and convinced the judge that Brian’s conviction should be reversed.  Brian bowed his head. Tears didn’t just stream down his face, they cascaded from it.

Within days, Brian Banks — the kid who was arrested and whose world was turned upside down at the age of 16 on the basis of a lie; the kid who was told he wouldn’t be allowed to return to his high school even if he was innocent; the kid who was pressured into a plea deal because, as a black male teenager, no one would believe he was innocent; the kid who spent more than five years behind bars and then was forced to wear the kind of tracking device they put on animals; the kid who couldn’t get a job after he got out and had to rely on the kindness of friends and family — that kid — was given a tryout to play in the NFL with the Seattle Seahawks, the San Francisco 49ers, the San Diego Chargers, and the Kansas City Chiefs.

Mike Shanahan, coach of the Redskins, called Brian personally. “I talked to him on the phone,” the coach said. “I think when somebody goes through the situation that he went through, he deserves an opportunity to try out for somebody. Considering what he went through, just reading about — I don’t know him personally — I called him up and said, ‘We’d love to have you out.’ We’re going to have him out sometime next week, and then he’ll work out and we’ll see what type of shape he’s in,” Shanahan went on. “This kid deserves a chance.”

He also received an unsolicited offer from the president and CEO of Arizona Diamondbacks.

Alas, to date Brian has been unable to land an NFL contract. He signed with the Las Vegas Locomotives, of the United Football League, over the summer. He played four games at linebacker before financial problems forced the league to cancel the remainder of the season.

Still, Brian remains upbeat. When Brian told his story on Jay Leno’s show, the first thing this young man — who claimed he was “on top of the world” on the morning of July 8, 2002 — told Jay Leno was, “I’m on top of the world.”

“[J]ustice,” declared one newspaper, “eventually was served.”

But was it? Really?

After the Storm

Brian, now 27, says he wants to put it behind him. He has not considered any legal action against Gibson. “I remained unbroken throughout this situation and I know that if I can get through this and get my life back, I’ll be able to get through the rest.”  He said: “With this newfound freedom, I promise to you and I swear to you I’m going to do great things.”

Superstar sports writer Rick Reilly wrote: “I don’t know about you, but I can’t remember another story that made me want to alternately punch something and hug something like this one. The way Banks has handled himself, without bitterness or bile, with grace and guts, makes you wish he were running the U.S. Senate. If it were me, I’d be stomping around, waving lawsuits and screaming, I TOLD you I didn’t do it!!!'”

L.A. prosecutors have also said they have no plans to charge Gibson for making false accusations, saying it would be a tough case to prove.

Brian Banks will seek $100 from the state for every day he was wrongfully incarcerated — that works out to about $200,000.  That’s all he’d be entitled to receive under current law.
For her part, Gibson likely will keep the monies paid out by the school district for the alleged rape.  There are reports that she and her family spent most of it on things like cars, so even if there were no legal hurdles for the school district to get it’s money back, Gibson is essentially judgment-proof.  She received public assistance for a time, and her young children still do. Gibson was ordered initially to pay a $600 a month toward their support. But in the last year, county officials said she didn’t have to pay anything, citing a lack of income and employment.

The Brian Banks case exposes systemic problems that create unreasonable risks of punishing the innocent. If Brian Banks can serve five years in prison on false accusations unsupported by any evidence, the same can happen to any man.

“There are a lot of guys out there in that situation,” Justin Brooks told CNN.  The tragedy, Mr. Brooks said, was that “if we hadn’t got that recantation, Brian would have gone through this the rest of his life.”

The Innocence Project has helped overturn numerous cases where the the same patterns are present: prosecutors who rely too heavily on the testimony of a dubious witness; there is little or no physical evidence to support the charges; the severity of the counts pressure a young and vulnerable defendant to accept a plea deal rather than risk incarceration for decades or even life if a jury found him guilty; the accused had limited financial means with which to mount a strong legal defense.

(1) Prosecutors roll the dice on long shots, hoping for plea deals. The principal problem exposed by the Brian Banks case is that many defendants accept plea bargains they shouldn’t be asked to accept rather than risk sentences that will keep them behind bars for life.  Some, and perhaps many, prosecutors are emboldened to charge defendants based on doubtful evidence with the expectation that the a significant number of these defendants will accept a plea deal to avoid lengthier incarceration.  Young men presented with “choices” such as the one Brian was given really have no choice.

Dr. Boyce Watkins says the problem is one all too familiar to black America:  “The story of Brian Banks is, unfortunately, quite common, particularly among young Black males.   It has even happened in my own family and the scenario is usually the same:  Someone gets into trouble and can’t afford a good attorney.  The overworked public defender, without seriously considering the evidence, tries to get the defendant to take a plea deal.  Even if he is actually innocent and fights for his/her right to a fair trial, the defendant is then told that not succumbing to jail or prison time will result in a much harsher sentence.  The person doesn’t go to prison because they are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; they are incarcerated because public officials are too lazy to actually carry out their commitment to pursuing justice.”
“As a result of this farcical form of justice being administered all throughout America,” said Dr. Watkins, “millions of Black men can’t get jobs and Black families have been destroyed to no end.”

(2) Black males presumed guilty. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the case is that in a he said/she said rape scenario, where the physical evidence didn’t support the accusation, it was taken as a given, even by Brian’s own attorney, that the jury would not believe him because he was black teen male.

It is certain that at least some, and probably most, prosecutors play on race and gender stereotypes in deciding whether to charge a defendant. If the accuser in a rape case appears to be an angelic, vulnerable young woman, and the accused is a large, black teenage male, there is little doubt that at least a fair number of prosecutors would seek to capitalize on the vile stereotype of young black men as sexual predators.  The answer, of course, is to hold prosecutors accountable to charge only when they are confident, to a moral certainty, of the accused’s guilt in the absence of improper considerations of race and gender. All things being equal, and in the absence of supporting evidence, he said/she said rape claims should not be charged because the prosecutor cannot reasonably believe to a moral certainty that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal justice should not be a game of Russian Roulette where a prosecutor hopes to “get lucky” with a young man’s life. The prosecutor’s job is to do justice, not to nail as many young black men and boys as possible.

(3) False accusers need to be punished and deterred. In this case, the false accuser has been rewarded monetarily. Her rape lie both had its intended effect and did not jeopardize her liberty. What does that tell people who might be thinking of telling similar lies?  That they can do so with impunity, of course.

The evidence to charge Wanetta Gibson for making a false police report is, by any measure, appreciably stronger than the evidence to charge Brian Banks for rape ten years ago.  The failure to charge her only undermines confidence in the way rape trials are handled. If the public believes that the system doesn’t provide adequate safeguards for the innocent — and clearly here it did not — jurors will be all the more wary of convicting accused criminals even when the evidence is compelling. The failure to charge Gibson signals that what happened to Brian Banks is somehow acceptable.  She needs to be charged to help restore faith in the system.

(4) Compensation for wrongly accused persons needs to be greater. The fact that the false accuser walked away with $750,000 and the falsely accused has to fight to get $200,000 is the kind of topsy turvy “justice” that engenders disrepute of our legal system. Of course the school district should have sued to recover the money Gibson has been unjustly enriched, even if the school district can’t collect on the judgment. That payment was procured by fraud. Failure to pursue the money only invites other scam artists to seek similar paydays at the taxpayers’ expense.

And, of course, Brian Banks deserves much more than $200,000.

(5) The need for better lawyering.  Everyone makes mistakes, but the news reports about this case suggest a possible absence of diligence on the part of the prosecution. It also suggests a defense that was too quick to exact a plea from a callow and scared young man without even allowing him to consult with his parents. Moreover, if it is true that Gibson’s civil attorney wouldn’t allow Gibson to tell the truth, he or she should be severely punished.

(6) False rape claims are products of a culture. Feminist gadfly Amanda Marcotte once wrote that “the idea that it’s shameful to just have sex because you want to” is “the reason that you have false rape accusations in the first place.” Marcotte noted that “women who aren’t ashamed of having sexual adventures like group sex-even ones that go bad-don’t use rape accusations to cover up their choices. It’s the women who are afraid they’ll be called sluts if it gets out that make up these rape stories.” Amanda Hess similarly talked about women who make false claims to defend their “femininity.”

There is much truth in what they say. Without excusing the false accuser (who, like a rapist, must be held accountable for her actions), false rape claims are largely culturally induced. Men and women view casual sex differently, and women feel remorse more than men following one-night stands. A study shows how common remorse is for women following one-night stands: “Overall women’s feelings were more negative than men’s [about one-night stand casual sex]. Eighty per cent of men had overall positive feelings about the experience compared to 54 per cent of women. . . . . The predominant negative feeling reported by women was regret at having been ‘used’. Women were also more likely to feel that they had let themselves down and were worried about the potential damage to their reputation if other people found out. Women found the experience less sexually satisfying and, contrary to popular belief, they did not seem to view taking part in casual sex as a prelude to long-term relationships.”  See here:

Similarly, last year in Ohio State University’s student newspaper The Lantern, Amy Bonomi, a professor of human sexuality at OSU specializing in domestic violence and assault, said: “Women tend to feel bad after having a “random hook up,” she said. Typically men are not upset by these occurrences. Bonomi attributed this situation to society’s “gender double standard” that men are expected to be more sexually forward than women.

In addition, it is well to note that one of the common motives cited by experts for false rape claims is “remorse after an impulsive sexual fling . . . .” Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, S. Taylor, K.C. Johnson at 375 (2007).

To insure that things like this are truly rare, we will need to change the culture that allows false rape claims.


The system let Brian Banks down. It is no stretch to suspect that even people who should have known better were too quick to stereotype Brian Banks in the worst possible way. It comes with the territory of being a black teen male in America. White teen males are also too often stereotyped.

Brian Banks never should have been arrested for this claim, much less had his life destroyed over it. It’s too easy to place all the blame for the gross injustice that occurred on a selfish teenage lie although blamed she must be; there’s blame enough to go around.

The real danger is if we insist this was an isolated failure — “just one of those things” that rarely happens — then some of the blame will be on all of us the next time it happens to an innocent young man.

Brian Banks is attempting to secure funding to make a documentary about his life. It’s a story everyone should know: