"I did almost a year in prison, a year in prison, just because my name is Foxy Brown." Foxy Brown link
While awaiting publication of our new Friday (even thought it is Saturday) post, here is something to keep you occupied. My understanding is this and I am willing to be corrected on my understandin.I need all the help all can get!
The Arizona Court of Appeals found unconstitutional the heightened standard for denial of bail for child molestation under which Chantry's December hearing was decided.
Here is a link to the old statute. It lists offenses not bailable. Standard A-4 was struck down.
4. Molestation of a child who is under fifteen years of age.
Tom Chantry challenged his bail denial and prevailed.
Court of Appeals: Special Action
For those of you who like reading this stuff, here is a link to the court summary. (I do not know the legal term.)
Here is the final two points.
Here is what I think is happening.
- Due to a court challenge, Arizona is now obligated to offer bail to sex offender/abusers awaiting trial.
- Tom Chantry's lawyers successfully asked that he be allowed to leave jail while awaiting trial.
- This request has been granted.
- It appears that he will have a bail hearing on May 1. (Info from another reader)
- He may also receive a new trial date at that time.
- One of our TWW friends is going to try to have an observer present at the trial and we will hopefully get a bird's eye view of the proceedings.
- Special thanks goes out to a reader who is keeping us abreast of all developments in the court system.
ARBCA 2017 meeting.
The readers who sent us this information made a quip about this year's meeting. Chantry is a pastor within this denomination.
Meanwhile, the ARBCA had its yearly General Assembly this week at a United Methodist [!] retreat center. The Reformed Baptist ladies there were dismissed for tea party while the menfolk discussed association business Tuesday!
First?
2
“But the court then clarified dangerousness…” etc.
The menfolk had their meetings…
The womenfolk had their tea…
And the children?
Courts still don’t seem to get that clergy, among others, can be dangerous… to children, no less.
“Tom Chantry’s lawyers successfully asked that he be allowed to leave jail while awaiting trial.
This request has been granted”
Yep. If Chantry is guilty and the cards are stacked against him, what’s to keep him from disappearing into thin air?
“Meanwhile, the ARBCA had its yearly General Assembly this week at a United Methodist [!] retreat center. The Reformed Baptist ladies there were dismissed for tea party while the menfolk discussed association business Tuesday!”
SBC churches, local and state associations are the same way. I have come to the conclusion that women are not part of the church body. We are nothing more than accessories.
However locking people up for long periods of time before trial also has its problems (not the least is pressure on even innocent people to plead guilty to something they are not guilty of and be sentenced to time served to get out). Some limits can be put on someone awaiting trial and a court order not to leave the state or area (and to surrender his passport) and not to have contact with children as well as bail seem reasonable. A speedy trial date would be best for both sides but we seem to be backlogged.
@ Erp:
The problem with child molesters is this. Many aberrant sex behaviors are indicative to a serious psychological problem that can be a lifelong challenge. Such individuals are at high risk to offend again. Therefore, it is concerning that someone with the problem is allowed back on the streets. But, the law is the law.
Nancy2 wrote:
I would love for their to be a mass exodus of women from the SBC or for all the women workers to go on strike to see what the men’s reactions would be.
IMO it is sinful the way the SBC treats women and needs to repent.
Dee – This is an important development. Thanks for reporting. I’m chiming in only since you asked for clarification.
The document you linked to is called the “Opinion,” though it’s essentially an order. It’s not a summary. It’s the actual thing.
I think what happened for Chantry will be clearer if you look at the earlier case that changed AZ law and on which Chantry’s Opinion was based. That earlier case says:
“We do not hold that the petitioners were entitled to bail, but that they were entitled to hearings at which the judges could consider whether any release conditions could protect the victims and the community.”
“We do not hold that the court may not deny bail for one accused of sexual conduct with a minor under the age of 15, or that the court may not presume that such a person is dangerous. We hold only that the court must consider whether the danger posed by the defendant could, in the particular case, be managed by bail and release conditions — just as is the case for those accused of terrorism and other dangerous crimes against children.”
These Quotes are from paragraphs 1 & 22 of that earlier case. http://cases.justia.com/arizona/court-of-appeals-division-one-published/2016-1-ca-sa-15-0292.pdf?ts=1465930838
That’s the “procedure” that’s being applied to Chantry. The court is not “obligated to offer bail.” They are obligated to hold a hearing to consider community safety issues before granting or denying bail.
This new Opinion doesn’t let him out. It just means Chantry was successful in his attempt to *get a hearing* on his request to get out on bail. If he has a bail hearing scheduled for May 1, his request to *get out* hasn’t yet been granted.
Hope this is helpful. Thanks for all you do!
Nancy2 wrote:
At the disposal (beck and call, ready…) of hierarchy. To be in charge, there must be underlings.
Wise human enterprise: collaboration, partnership, a team, level ground. Last night a friend elaborated over dinner: in any relationship, there are various levels of advantage (power); those ascendant maintain fairness, humility, and integrity (Jesus).
Clergy who exploit children are off, low, unethical. These are the wolves masked as sheep. Once incarcerated, convicted clergys’ survival can be negligible because even criminals acknowledge blatant evil (hidden in society by being “of the cloth”).
Some claim TWW is not kind. What is off? Attention to misuse of position and power? Or pushing advantage and their supporters?
@ XianAtty:
Thanks for the clear explanation!
I know the prosecutor on this case, Sue Eazer, at least used to know her back in my Arizona days. She’s the absolute bomb, no one could ask for a better advocate for an abused child than Sue; 4′-10″ of absolute fierce determination, real firebrand.
I was clerking for Judge Nichols in Pima County (back when I was young and bright eyed) and when in chambers while the jury was deliberating he made a smart alecky comment about her case in the presence of the defense attorney. She went OFF on him, did not take it well, stood up, shouted about this being a “kangaroo court” or something like that and stomped out, slamming the door hard enough to practically make the judge’s degrees on the wall rattle. He just looked at the defense attorney and me and said “Oh bleep, I’ve bleeped off Sue–now what am I going to do?” He’s a huge guy, a good 6′-5″, but he had a stricken look, like she just might punch him or something and he was scared. He’s a good guy, but he was out of line and he knew it, and Sue called him on it right THEN. Tell students that story to this day.
She’s scared of no one, nothing. If one of Tom’s friends were ever to try and influence her or use their cult church pressure on her, I simply would NOT want to be them, she’d take their heads clean off.
Law Prof wrote:
Sounds like it’s a really good thing that she’s prosecuting!
this fantasy of someone like Matt or Mark or C.J. or John Mac or one of the many Tom Chantry apologists who smear people who report the truth with charges of “slander” attempting to go after someone like Sue and just getting torched, destroyed. But I think they tend to steer clear of people like her, the bully’s instinct tells them to pass on by and go after someone who thinks “niceness” is a fruit of the Spirit and who’ll just take their gaslighting and invective.
But man it’d be fun to see a religious bully dressed down, taken to pieces and running from the furor of someone like Sue. Then again, I suppose Tom Chantry’s going to see what that’s like very soon. I would not want to be him on the other side of Sue. He’s been protected and coddled and enabled by his dudebros and the system for years. Yowzers, he has no idea what’s coming.
Last post was supposed to being with “I have…”
I believe XianAtty has it right regarding the interpretation of the case.
Tom Chantry is still in jail.
http://apps.yavapai.us/inmatesearch/InmateSearchYC.asp (search on last name Chantry)
Presumably the hearing on Monday (if that’s been scheduled) will decide whether he gets bail. Remember he was out on $100,000 *cash bail* before. That isn’t the kind of bail deal you make with a bail bondsman. That’s where you absolutely have to pony up the entire amount, in cash, to get released. (It’s probably good to have a bail bondsman involved in the transaction as they’re familiar with the system.)
Frankly, if I were the judge, I’d make the cash bail higher, require him to wear an ankle bracelet, and not allow him to leave Arizona. I personally think he’s dangerous. But then again, I am not a judge.
Law Prof wrote:
Oh the irony of a tough female judge overseeing the case of Tom Chantry! I can just bet that the male defenders within the Neo-Cal Camp are quite perturbed about this.
Darlene wrote:
Welcome to the real world where the rest of us function for the glory of God. Praise Him.
@ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:
Thank you for this great information.
Darlene wrote:
Not a judge but the prosecutor. Not sure about the judge, is the trial judge a woman?
Law Prof wrote:
Sorry, then I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that the judge was a woman. Now wouldn’t that be something if both the judge and prosecutor in this case were tough women? The Neo-Calvinist Camp would be having conniptions.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:
I keep thinking Sky Harbor (Phoenix) Airport and/or the Mexican border…
Since I live close to his last church, I’m really curious how they are handling and if they’ve said anything even partially public about it. Doubtful…
Darlene wrote:
Ah, but are they MUSCULAR Wimmen?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
HUG, you always cut to the chase.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Sue’s a very small woman, but very determined and I’d take her in a cage match over Jon Piper any day.
Law Prof wrote:
Dude, I’d make book on a three-year-old in a cage match over the Pied Piper. The guy is that much of a physical weakling and the constant Drama Queening sure doesn’t help the odds. And being that much of a wimp explains a lot — non-muscular Stepford wimmen are the only ones he CAN lord it over (by Divine Right). Like the “I’m A Ninja I Could Kill You Right Now With One Finger” posers I ran into during my D&D days.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yep, HUG, you got it.
There does seem to be a lot of the Napoleonic Complex going on there. Like these little geeky guys who tell Church Norris jokes and play D&D and fabricate martial arts black belts that they earned when they “used to live in Thailand” or something. Used to have a friend in high school like that, Will, not a bad guy on the whole, but windy, a blowhard, was a martial arts master he liked to tell us, but the one and only time he got in a fight that I witnessed, with the first punch he took he started screaming and begging for mercy, didn’t even throw a punch of consequence, much less do a spinning back kick and take his opponent out like we’d been led to believe he could do.
Most in Piper’s and Driscoll’s camps are just looking for a means of bullying and establishing hierarchies with them at the top, but of course, Jesus ripped bullies and hierarchies are not of the Lord (except the hierarchy with Him at the top and us as equal priests under Him).
Law Prof and HUG, I think I’ll add JD Hall to the list of bloviating blowhards.
https://i1.wp.com/pulpitandpen.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/10406468_10203428557371297_4796765957738881490_n_Fotor.jpg?fit=717%2C467
@ Darlene:
He would’ve already been at the top of mine were he not such a relative pipsqueak in the neocalvinist world; he’s the kind of guy who puts on a Worldwide Reformed Conference in Butte and fills half of 75 collapsible seats in the Tumbleweed Room at the local Super 8.
“Tumbleweed Room at the local Super 8.” Bob Lar$on tops that at the airport hotel conferences. The few times I saw Bob I sort of laughed until it was obvious some of the folks getting “delivered” were people who needed serious professional mental health intervention. I remember with some fondness the devil deer escapades of Bob on alt.fan.bob-larson
Lots of smallness, bitterness, vindictiveness and hatred here.
I disagree with John Piper about quite a few things, but he is a good and godly man of integrity.
And, Reformed Baptists, like conservative Southern Baptists, Presbyterians and Anglicans believe that only men may be ordained to the offices of the church. That may not be popular, but it is the clear teaching of the Bible. So why and snide remarks about the Reformed Baptist men remaining to conduct the business while the wives enjoyed fellowship.
I am not a Baptist and not a neo-Calvinist. But I do see the spirit the spirit in the comments and it is not attractive or godly.
William Smith wrote:
As a man, you may not see the implications of this statement no feel what a woman feels. We believe that marginalizing women in the church has led to issues of child sex abuse and domestic violence
not being handled adequately. Think about it, 60% of the members of churches have no voice.
If you have read this blog, you will see that I have said that churches which believe only men should *lead* could still create a council of women to have input into the decisions.
You do understand that this is an issue that is dealing with child abuse, correct? And the women were sent away to *fellowship* while the men took care of business.
You also know that this blog attracts a fair number of people who are not Christians or who are *done* with church. There are also people here who have been abused by pastors in churches. People who have been harmed in such a way may not see *attractive* to you but the issue is far from pleasant.
Your *godly* comment is nor appropriate for many reasons. On this blog, we allow for all comments. It is vital for church and Christian to see how they are perceived instead of hiding behind *nice* platitudes and fake smiles.
As for John Piper, I guess you then think if is godly for him to say that muscular women have violent, rapid sex which is unbecoming. Don’t believe me? Read “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. he may be a Christin but he does say bizarre things. I am sorry if our exposure of these things annoys you.