Jordan was accused of telling lies of identity such as age, education, marital background, employment and more to seduce his victim. But the Grand Jury failed to indict and Jordan's been released to prey on new victims. Society needs to recognize....
DUPLICITY INVALIDATES CONSENT!
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Judge in William Allen Jordan Case Hurls Victim's Rights Back to the Stone Ages
6/5/14- Burlington County
NJ- Although New Jersey revamped their sexual assault laws in 2012, today, Family
Court Judge John Tomasello proved those changes could be easily undermined by a
judge who’s a misogynist dinosaur.
Lewis's Case Against Jordan
Burlington County resident,
Mishcelle Lewis, had petitioned the court for a restraining order against
convicted bigamist and child molester, William Allen Jordan. Jordan currently
awaits trial on charges of 2nd Degree Sexual Assault by Coercion,
Robbery by Fraud and Impersonating an Officer. He is currently housed in a
special protective section of the Burlington County jail designated for sexual
predators. His case history includes failure to register as a sex offender.
Jordan Gets Escorted Back to His Cell
Mischele and I outside the courthouse
Lewis was represented by
Stanley Gregory, who minced no words laying out the facts. Lewis met Jordan in
January, 2013 on a dating website. They corresponded, met several times and
began a sexual relationship on April 26, 2013. He lied about his name, his age,
his marital history, claimed to be adopted, educated in the UK, had no
children, owned a house worth $700K, worked for the British Ministry of
Defense, and a myriad of other facts. Nothing was the truth. He failed to
disclose that he was a convicted child molester and bigamist. He defrauded Ms.
Lewis of approximately $4,000. Lewis was clear that she would not have had
sexual intercourse with Jordan if she had known the facts. She also indicated
that she made an attempt to secure information on Google, but nothing came up
until she ultimately learned his accurate name.
Although the bail in Jordan’s
criminal case contains a “no contact” provision, Ms. Lewis wanted the added
insurance that a perpetual restraining order would provide to her and her
children. She was concerned about the possibility of future contact by a child
molester who should have been prohibited from establishing initial contact under
Megan’s Law. The British authorities deported Jordan from the UK after he
served his sentence, but no notice made its way to Megan’s List.
The attorney representing
Jordan, Karen Thek, stated early on that Jordan would invoke his fifth
amendment rights and not testify. So the hearing was brief with only the claims
of Ms. Lewis before the judge.
Judge Condemns the Victim
Although New Jersey law
states clearly that the behavior of the accused is on trial, not the behavior
of the victim, Judge Tomasello turned the proceedings into a condemnation of
Lewis’s behavior, faulting her for a “deficiency in gullibility” because she “relied
on his representations,” as if fraud was not a serious crime. He even made
light of her predicament by saying “every college student would go to jail” if
he upheld her claim, and he failed to acknowledge the specific section of law which
Gregory quoted. Although Jordan had concealed convictions for bigamy and sexual
molestation of a minor, Tomasello harped on his not being “wealthy” or having a
“nice car” as not being worthy of the protection Lewis sought. She had made no reference
whatsoever to Jordan’s wealth or his possession of an automobile. In fact, she
later indicated that he had no car during portions of their relationship.
Sex As an Entitlement
Judge Tomasello revealed
much about his own personal beliefs in what he said today. He obviously feels, like
so many others, that sex by deception by frat boys is perfectly okay. So much
so that he’d deliberately fail to protect a woman with children from further
contact by a sex offender in order to enable sex as an entitlement and a commodity behavior. How can society hope
to stop this abhorrent mindset if our judges can’t be counted on to protect a
victim’s right to self determination over their intimate sexual sanctity?
This same mindset is thought
to have motivated Elliot Rodger into unspeakable carnage recently in Santa Barbara
CA, where 6 innocent victims were killed and 8 more were injured because he was
unable to obtain the sexual relations he felt entitled to. Yes, he was emotionally disturbed. Yes, he
should not have had access to the weapons that enabled his rampage. But sex as
an entitlement is rampart in our society, and Judge Tomasello just demonstrated
Surely, our Judges should
concern themselves with protection against defrauding people of sex. Knowing consent is at the heart of all
valid and legal interaction in all other interpersonal relationships. Why does
a judge turn a deaf ear toward the deliberate undermining of knowing consent when a person’s sexual
sanctity is compromised, particularly in an enlightened state where affirmative permission must be granted
for sexual intercourse to be legal, and no affirmative
permission can exist without the presence of knowing consent.