I can not find a case where the Federal government has held a corporation liable.

The Violence Against Womens act, rule 412 states the evidence of the rape should be sealed to protect the victim.

so, he rapes you, viedo tapes it and gives it to the State Police.

You either go to court and look at the video tape of yourself being raped,
if you don’t want to do that, the court seals the evidence.

I have a letter from the DA telling me that their is insufficient evidence to prosecute. Go to the Crime Victims Center for counseling.

All of that is funded by a 3.9 billion dollar act of Congress, the VAWA

The rapist and the same cop have been processing rape cases through the court for years, more than a dozen before me.

He rapes women in public, in the workplace, and people ask you stupid questions, like “why didn’t you quit your job”?

And I did try to leave, but I never could make it out the door past him
I just lost concious, memory loss of the events, I remember being drugged once.

I have an order on a Federal Court in Philadelphia, “no crime alledged, under Federal law.”

Felony rape, attempted murder.

Basically, from what I have been through in the last four years,
It is government policy that Corporations are not sued for sex harassment.
Key Bush appointees

so that is why he rapes in the workplace.

I have been very sick on an off for 4 years

Is there someone out there that is concerned about all the women he raped,
the year before me, he nearly killed a woman, she was later found gang raped, and the DA gave her a job at the Crime Victims center

The guy is still in business, and he raped me on and off for about 4 months,
His corporate lawyer made some paper work, and he was signing my name saying he had my power of attorney. He did demand that I sign papers,
when I refused, he assaulted me until I did sign the paper

Then I got fired.

I didn’t know the Government was letting them do THAT now.

I am BEGGING for someone to help me bust this guy

BEFORE he kills someone

The State Police just laughed at me about all of this,
everytime I report it somewhere, they just tell me I’m crazy
or try to humiliate me.

I AM BEGGING
someone knows how to bust this guy

It’s just that the more women he rapes, the more money the Crime Victim Center gets.

He pays about five grand, they seal the evidence, and they send you to the Crime Victims center for counseling.

Counseling consists of ” YOU HAVE TO GET OVER IT AND GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE”

I AM BEGGING

please, the government is subsidizing rape in the workplace

and I need this guy in prison.

SOMEONE HELP ME GET HIM IN PRISON

I hope this isn’t too much of a self-plug, but I wrote about the idea that “both parties are unsure of who wanted what” in issue 4 of make/shift. In my own experience, and in the stories I’ve read about other “gray” rapes, the rapist’s mistaken belief that his/her partner wanted to have sex is usually either an act – “If I pretend I didn’t hear her or pick up on her cues, she’ll let me do what I want” – or denial rooted in rape culture – “I have reason to believe that she doesn’t want me to do this, but as long as she doesn’t explicitly say ‘no,’ I have a right to do it and I can assume she doesn’t mind, even if she doesn’t enjoy it.” This is where the issue of explicit consent comes in. You can’t assume your partner likes it just because they’re not struggling.

“Grey rape”: A term created by virginity crusader Laura Sessions Step. Sessions Step: “[Grey rape] refers to sex that falls somewhere between consent and denial and is even more confusing than date rape because often both parties are unsure of who wanted want.” What becomes clear, though, is that in these “grey rape” cases, the women said no — making it actual rape.

If both parties are unsure of who wanted what, how can we—as third parties—be so certain?

If a woman flatly says no, then it is rape of course, but that doesn’t seem to fit the definition of Grey rape presented here. That definition implies that determining consent is in fact complicated, which doesn’t square with a flat no.

An alternate theory would be that Cara wasn’t talking about a flat no, but rather suggesting that if a woman has uttered the word no, it’s not necessary to take seriously her other words or actions that may complicate the matter. In other words, the idea would be that a woman who has said the word no is thereafter incapable of consent. But I’ve read enough of Cara’s writing to make me doubt that’s what she means.

It’s hard to say more without getting down to cases, but color me confused.