and, again, just to poke at the "land of our forefathers" guys, the age of consent at that time was: 10 yrs old
but, sounds like most everyone who posted in this thread prefers the much more liberal 18
welcome to the left
Not only that; its like a binary thing. If you diddle a 17 year old, you're a sick pervert, but if you diddle an 18 year old, you get a 'high 5' from the same guys.
Meh, my method has kept me safe so far. Just don't diddle 'em unless they have a college degree. Not only does this keep you out of jail, you usually get one that already knows what they're doing, a big plus.
But your still ignoring any possible "mitigating factors" (which he asserts existed). I have no idea if the law allows for those in cases of this nature, but if they do, and if they existed, and I were satisfied of their existence (and yes, that would certainly have to go beyond his simple say-so) then I'm pretty sure that by law I would be required to consider them in deliberation. To ignore them would make me similarly guilty of a crime. That's if hypothetically I were in a position to, and required to make such a decision.
There haven't been any credible mitigating circumstances presented. As you stated, his words alone aren't enough. The law and juries do not absolve people of crimes--they merely find them guilty or not guilty. He commited the crime and admitted to it. You realize this of course, but attempt to absolve him of it. Find a way--any way--some way--for him to be justified in his actions. And, it's not that you're trying to belittle his crime--your goal is to find within the law, a way to make it less than what it is. There is none--she was 12--he was 20. The responsiblity is his alone. Nowhere in the law is there any allowance for a mitigating circumstance to offset that fact. She is not recognized, within the law, of having the ability to give a cogzinant (sp) consent. It does not matter one bit if she says yes--it does not matter if she doesn't resist. It does not matter if he didn't know her age, because he is an adult, and it is wholly his responsibility to verify she is of age to legally give consent. Only 2 things could have happened--either he knew and didn't care---or he didn't try to find out--either of which places all the blame on him. He's 20--she's 12--there is just no way around that.
But, lets hear it. What--in your mind justifies a 20 yr old having sex with a 12 yr old? Thru out this you have ignored the obvious. He knew her. Lived by her for months--part of which, she would almost surely have been in school. He knew her family. He lived close enough to hear the loud discussions/arguments coming from inside their home. Again--for the umpteenth time: How, at 20yrs of age could he have NOT known? How, at 20 yrs of age, can you justify him ignoring his responsibility?
well. speaking personally, you realize how demoralizing seeing MY name and that article posted? thought this was a halfway decent forum, but i guess it's high time i leave & don't return. just another place to add to the list of sorry places i wont return to.
enjoy flaming me all u want to. i dont give a **** anymore
To all that are giving this guy shat...
And thanks for those that went out of their way to post up available legal information on this dirtbag....
To you Mr. convicted pedaphile....remember, just relax. It wont be as painful if you just let it happen. Your great attitude in this criminal situation will get you only a short distance with the guys in prison. This will be the best years of your life. You better be nice. you don't want that sentence to carry out for the next 10 years of your life.
That out of the way. I would like to say that I was very sexually active when I was 12, as were a lot (not all) of my friends, Most of the girls back then were around my age, though there were some that were older. The girls my age were looking for college/ high school boys with cars and cash. They got them back then, and most got away with it.
I really doubt that anything has changed in that regard. A lot of you guys are posting about her having sex (or wanting to get felt up, same thing) as a lie because 12 year olds do not have sex? Am I reading that wrong?
Also it has not been stated whether OP was a virgin or not at the time this happened. I personally have never been able to tell age by the vagina, but things may be more "cloudy" if the OP is a virgin, and every strange action she does is logged as "normal" to him.
I repeatI AM NOT SAYING HE WAS RIGHT, JUST TRYING TO GIVE HIM THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT HERE.
I have read things here that have made me go back and look to see if I saw a pattern as well. I am on the fence, but I am also trying really hard to not pass judgment. I feel bad for the kid, I feel really bad for the little girl. But in order to be what I believe is a good person I have to believe what he told me in the first few posts. I have to guys.
Brad
Edit: I just looked and had at some point in the past given GM a +, I changed it to neutral.
Yes, you are reading it wrong. You are listening to what he said, rather than what he intentionally left out. Just as he left out details in his thread about the mother of his child leaving Iowa and taking the child with her. Just as, in the thread about the eviction, he left out details why the eviction took place. They are all connected. The points I and others have brought up, are exactly what would have taken place in a jury trial. He would have had to explain (or his attorney would have had to present evidence for) why and how he could not have known her true age--The State would present evidence to show he did in fact know her true age. His word alone would never convince any jury or judge, but it did convince some of you. Each of you has done the same thing--try to place the responsiblity off on someone else--her parents or the little girl herself--just as he did. It won't fly, his attorney knew it, and convinced him to take the plea. The prosecution most likely accepted it to save the State of Iowa the expense of a jury trial. There is a pattern, including but not limited to domestic (spousal) abuse, violating a restraining order, assault with bodily harm, and considering the timeline, some of it very likely took place partly during the period she was carrying his child. This is also probably why the mother of his child did not name him as father on the birth certificate.
Greaemonkey didn't exactly lie, he just left out anything that showed himself in a bad light, but by his own words, stated she was 12 and he was 20. Nothing can change that or his responsibilty to insure he was engaging in sexual activities with a person within the age of consent. Each of you very conveinently ignores that. There is nowhere within the law that places that responsibility on to a 12 yr old--no where. It matters not if she was a perfect angel or a promiscuous little tramp. It matters not how mature she appeared to be physically. It just doesn't--it's not within the law for it to matter--she's 12. She's impressionable, and mentally not mature enough to make a decision that is recognzed by the law, but the law does recognize, as a mitigating circumstance, that he is 20--and she is 12. You cannot negate that.
[The "she didn't tell me she was 12" defense] won't fly, his attorney knew it, and convinced him to take the plea. The prosecution most likely accepted it to save the State of Iowa the expense of a jury trial.
Consider that the plea bargain is only a recommendation to the Court; the presiding judge may or may not choose accept it. In addition, the prosecutor may elect to withdraw the plea offer if new information (e.g. this thread) becomes known to him/her between the pre-trial hearing and the trial itself.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 09-18-2009).]
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Consider that the plea bargain is only a recommendation to the Court; the presiding judge may or may not choose accept it. In addition, the prosecutor may elect to withdraw the plea offer if new information (e.g. this thread) becomes known to him/her between the pre-trial hearing and the trial itself.
Looks like greasemonke50613 made another poor choice, .
There haven't been any credible mitigating circumstances presented. As you stated, his words alone aren't enough. The law and juries do not absolve people of crimes--they merely find them guilty or not guilty. He commited the crime and admitted to it. You realize this of course, but attempt to absolve him of it. Find a way--any way--some way--for him to be justified in his actions. And, it's not that you're trying to belittle his crime--your goal is to find within the law, a way to make it less than what it is. There is none--she was 12--he was 20. The responsiblity is his alone. Nowhere in the law is there any allowance for a mitigating circumstance to offset that fact. She is not recognized, within the law, of having the ability to give a cogzinant (sp) consent. It does not matter one bit if she says yes--it does not matter if she doesn't resist. It does not matter if he didn't know her age, because he is an adult, and it is wholly his responsibility to verify she is of age to legally give consent. Only 2 things could have happened--either he knew and didn't care---or he didn't try to find out--either of which places all the blame on him. He's 20--she's 12--there is just no way around that.
But, lets hear it. What--in your mind justifies a 20 yr old having sex with a 12 yr old? Thru out this you have ignored the obvious. He knew her. Lived by her for months--part of which, she would almost surely have been in school. He knew her family. He lived close enough to hear the loud discussions/arguments coming from inside their home. Again--for the umpteenth time: How, at 20yrs of age could he have NOT known? How, at 20 yrs of age, can you justify him ignoring his responsibility?
That, is the crux of the entire discussion.
I'm not sure that I can explain it any clearer than I have. What has happened here is that a number of people have jumped to conclusions and maintain those as facts. Not only directed towards the OP, but those like me who have reserved judgment. I think what I bolded in your statement is key. You think we're trying to absolve him of responsibility. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not *trying* to absolve him of anything. I'm not looking for any kind of reason for anything. I've stated over and over in various ways that I'm simply REFRAINING from passing judgment towards him. I'm trying to observe this indifferently and objectively, and giving the benefit of the doubt where I can. I said before that if the law allows for mitigating circumstances in a situation such as this one, then why would he be less entitled to those considerations than anyone else? I have no idea if those exist or not. And you telling me they don't really doesn't carry a lot of weight being you're one of the group who have already convicted him and sent him to the electric chair. And how can one possibly form an objective opinion about a situation if they already have their mind made up about something? I'm not saying he didn't do it, he admitted he did. But he also claims he didn't know. I don't have any other evidence to the contrary, and in fact have personal experiences that tells me it's entirely possible, despite what others may assert. A hundred people screaming "BS" doesn't change my own experience no matter how much they want it to. If there were ANY contradicting evidence, such as the gilr saying he knew, or anything of the sort, I could easily make up my mind. But lacking anything of that sort, I refuse to be swayed by any assumptions or guesses(mine or anyone elses) which have even less value and basis than his word. Someone put out an analogy of speeding, which was kind of inaccurate. They tried to put it as though they knew the speed limit and just ignored it. That's one scenario, which compares to the OP knowing, but what if another scenario exists? How about if they didn't know the speed limit and the person (say a 12 year old) who actually posted the signs says "The speed limit is 50 through here", and you say, OK, well, he put up the sign he should know, and then you get zapped because the limit is actually 25 (or 12 as the case may be...) You should have known the speed limit was 25, but it wasn't posted, you asked the person you thought would know and who technically might not have any reason to lie to you, but did. I realize that's not a popular view because it would without question lay some culpability at the feet of the girl. I know that's not very politically correct, but if she lied, I don't know how she wouldn't bear some of the responsibility. (Which is likely why no one wants to consider it) Obviously there's no punishment for that. Although, if she lied to her parents about anything else, like how many cookies she ate, there would be consequences. But not if her lie should happen to contribute to the ruination of some guy's life. I guess I just don't see things as black and white or as cut and dried as many others may.
Edit...you ask me how he could NOT have known her age. That is asking me to make a guess, which is what I said previously I'm trying to avoid. I won't be swayed by a lack of knowledge. And I won't fill in gaps in facts with fabrications or imaginings with no basis except opinion. Not of mine or anyone elses making.
[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 09-18-2009).]
Looks like greasemonke50613 made another poor choice, .
A Sociopath will generally always make poor choices:
Sociopath - Definition
Antisocial personality disorder (APD) is a personality disorder which is often characterised by antisocial and impulsive behaviour. APD is generally considered to be the same as, or similar to, the disorder that was previously known as psychopathic or sociopathic personality disorder. Approximately 3% of men and 1% of women have some form of antisocial personality disorder (source: DSM-IV).
Although criminal activity is not a necessary requirement for the diagnosis, these individuals often encounter legal difficulties due to their disregard for societal standards and the rights of others. Therefore, many of these individuals can be found in prisons. However, it should be noted that criminal activity does not automatically warrant a diagnosis of APD, nor does a diagnosis of APD imply that a person is a criminal. It is hypothesized that many high achievers exhibit APD characteristics.
Research has shown that individuals with APD are indifferent to the possibility of physical pain or many punishments, and show no indications that they experience fear when so threatened; this may explain their apparent disregard for the consequences of their actions, and their lack of empathy when others are suffering.
The recent, controversial science of sociobiology attempts to explain animal and human behavior and social structures, largely in terms of evolutionarily stable strategies. For example, in one well-known 1995 paper by Linda Mealey, chronic antisocial/criminal behavior is explained as a combination of two such strategies.
Diagnostic criteria (DSM-IV-TR) The DSM-IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders (see also DSM cautionary statement), defines anti-social personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
reckless disregard for safety of self or others
consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
The manual lists the following additional necessary criteria:
The individual is at least age 18 years.
There is evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15 years.
The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of Schizophrenia or a Manic Episode. Diagnostic criteria (PCL-R test)
In contemporary research and clinical practice, APD is most commonly assessed with the Hare Psychopathy Checklist- Revised (PCL-R), which is a clinical rating scale with 20 items. Each of the items in the PCL-R is scored on a three-point scale according to specific criteria through file information and a semi-structured interview. The items are as follows:
Interpersonal dimension
Glibness/superficial charm Grandiose sense of self-worth Pathological lying Conning/manipulative Lack of remorse or guilt Shallow affect Callous/lack of empathy Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Affective dimension
Need for stimulation/-proneness to boredom Parasitic lifestyle Poor behavioral controls Early behavioral problems Lack of realistic, long-term goals Impulsivity Irresponsibility Juvenile delinquency Revocation of conditional release
Behavioral dimension
Promiscuous sexual behavior Many short-term marital relationships Criminal versatility
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-18-2009).]
I said before that if the law allows for mitigating circumstances in a situation such as this one, then why would he be less entitled to those considerations than anyone else? I have no idea if those exist or not.
Way back on page 2 of this miserable thread I made specific cite that there are no jurisdictions that consider mens rea as a mitigation of strict liability when it comes to these sort of crimes. If you think that isn't true, then I invite you find the exception somewhere in this country and present it. Good Luck
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-18-2009).]
I don't have enough attachment to this to try and prove you wrong. If you say so then I take your word for it I guess. Which means that if I were a juror, I would have no choice but to find him guilty. However, that doesn't mean I would think it was the right thing to do. (again providing he were telling the truth)
Consider that the plea bargain is only a recommendation to the Court; the presiding judge may or may not choose accept it. In addition, the prosecutor may elect to withdraw the plea offer if new information (e.g. this thread) becomes known to him/her between the pre-trial hearing and the trial itself.
The subject of an amicus curiae brief if I ever saw one...
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 09-18-2009).]
Oh dear..thank Mark My comment was, obviously, aimed at ME, for clicking the wrong button not in any way, shape or form an excuse for GM's (ironic that, eh??) dreadful selfishness and immaturity. but where are ANY parents from EITHER side? They are equally guilty for setting loose a couple of ignorant , and selfish children Nick
Oh dear..thank Mark My comment was, obviously, aimed at ME, for clicking the wrong button not in any way, shape or form an excuse for GM's (ironic that, eh??) dreadful selfishness and immaturity. but where are ANY parents from EITHER side? They are equally guilty for setting loose a couple of ignorant , and selfish children Nick
Which would be a different case alltogether--meaning the parent's role. Child endangerment--child neglect whatever, but it would have zero effect on the outcome or responsibility in this case. Even if the mother of the child had given permission for him to 'date' her daughter, he would still be held responsible for his actions. Again, it's his responsibility and his alone. He either did not pursue verification of her being of age to consent, or he did and didn't care. Those are the only two scenarios possible. It does not, matter in the least, what she looked like, how she acted, behaved, presented herself, or how sexually active she had or had not been in the past. It simply does not. She is not being considered for his continued membership here or his acceptance here--he is--based solely on what he did.
I just do not feel, that any 20 yr old who would take his responsibility in a matter such as this, so lightly, would be someone I would want in this Fiero community.
Some of you have stated personal experiences "somewhat" related/similar to this case--none anywhere near criminal in nature as I read them. These experiences may lend yourselves to some sort of understanding or sympathy for Greasemonkey.
I too have personal experiences. I know, quite well, 3 different women who experienced this sort of abuse while in their childhood--at about the same age. I know the heartache they go thru--even decades later. I see incredible similarities here in this story. Each of you have taken the "side" of Greasemonkey, because his side has been the only one presented--the 12 yr old's cannot be presented due to legal protections afforded a minor. In court, The State would present the opposing case and evidence. Here at PFF, someone also has to present the opposing view. I am doing just that. He's 20--she's 12. He either did not verify her age or did and didn't care. Justify it.
Wow, this thread is still going? Anywhos, Let me tell you how it goes so there is no confusion. First I am Puerto Rican so that makes me cute right off the bat. Next I've been in the Army the past 2 years and getting ready for BNOC so I'm in damn good shape. At 6'1 and 210 lbs with 7% bodyfat, I find that the ladies are attracted to me and it's easy to start talking to them. Often at clubs of bars, (I don't drink, I'm the DD) women will come up to me and either introduce their friend or say that they just broke up with their boyfriend and naturally I play it cool. The way to go about it is that you tell them they should stop drinking or they won't be able to drive home. Often times, they came with "friends" and someone else will drive home. Next, you ask what they do for a living, lots of women will avoid this, and see what their answer is. That gives you an idea, and if they are drunk, I've had one girl say she was still in high school! BINGO!
If all else fails, ask if she comes by alot, if not, she may have slipped passed security this one time and won't do it again if she is underage. Mind you, the places I go to are for over 21 and even though 19 and 20 is legal for age of consent, they are not old enough for alot of the chicago clubs. Also not old enough for me.
Moving on, this whole thread is BS, I know that the OP had to get the idea when she was waiting at a bus stop or she was walking with a ton of books. I'm not that stupid, and this guy gets no remorse from me. One thing to note, alot of guys in my battalion have been to Korea and the norm out there is 12 years old is legal. Also prostitution and drugs are common out there. I guess it would be ok out there, but if you looked in the general direction of my 7 year old step daughter (or my 28 year old girlfriend for that matter) you would meet the business end of my Mossberg 930 of my Glock 19.
To the OP, you should be glad that her old man is not in the military or you would have alot of problems besides the legal issues. Not throwing threats at all, but I have personally seen with my own two eyes, my partner shoot a guy just for looking through the window of his van! I guess 11B's don't have the same control that us 19D's have. LOL. JK.
You might want to use alternative word. High school girls might become confused, hehe. Other-than-that, this thread is stupid, especially from those who have commented 10,000 times beating their chest. It's not rocket science here people.
[This message has been edited by madcurl (edited 09-18-2009).]
Well, i feel that this needs to get out there on here
We all know the rest. It doesn't matter if he is 20, 21, or 18, having any kind of sexual relations with a girl under the age of consent makes him a pedophile in the eyes of the law. His confession describes what he did and he will get what he deserves. I don't feel sorry for him nor will I give him any breaks. He is an admitted criminal by his own words. He deserves to know that this is not acceptable by society and now he will face all the consecuenses that come along with this crime. I'm also surprised that a couple of the members here are so vigorously defending his actions after his confession. Is it because they like to be assholes and play devil's advocate? Is it because they have sins of their own that they hide and need to feel good about, so they try to make his crime not seem so bad? What he did and CONFESSED to is indefensible period. He admits to it and even said what it was, yet there are those who try to make it seem ok or that it wasn't his fault. He said he was GUILTY so there is no need to defend him or give him a break. It just makes anyone's motives for trying to excuse his behavior seem suspect themselves.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 09-19-2009).]
And I won't fill in gaps in facts with fabrications or imaginings with no basis except opinion. Not of mine or anyone elses making.
Intersting statement and as such if I was a prosecutor I would not want you on a jury. I would however if I was a defense attorney. There was no eye witness in the Scott Peterson case, just factual evidence and the prosecutors opinion of what most likely took place between those facts. Alot of court cases are based on facts with opinion of what most likely took place in between them, I would venture to say that's the way it is in most cases that do not have eye witnesses.
My posting here has been rather limited. I can not beleive that the OP didn't have a clue she was under 18. As has been stated several times, and by the OP himself, He:
Lived close enough to this family to hear yelling from the home often. Lived in that proximity for about 8 months. Had the girl hanging out at his home as a get away from her home.
I lived in a trailor park for awhile. There were several highschool and middleschool aged girls in the park. Several of them would come hang out at our house with my wife. Take any 8 month segment out of that time we lived there and I will have seen all of them walking to the bus stop with there school backpacks. This isn't a don't ask, don't tell situation, yet the OP didn't ask. I don't buy that he didn't know, I do buy that he didn't care to know. In my opinion for deniability.
The thing with this is he was 20, she was 12. When I was 20 my wife would have been 12. Now I did not know my wife then, we did not meet and start dating until she was 18 and I was 26. However when we did meet and start dating, I made sure she was 18. Well, as sure as I could assuming her State ID wasn't fake. The OP put forth no such effort. Why?
For much the same reason that somebody who finds lost property in Public, and then fails to ASK if it belongs to anybody in the vicinity in case somebody claims it..because the finder wants it for themselves Theft by finding. Edit to add: shame this wasn't relegated to the Trashcan, before the comedy treatment to the thread title took place
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 09-18-2009).]
Originally posted by Khw: My posting here has been rather limited. I can not beleive that the OP didn't have a clue she was under 18. As has been stated several times, and by the OP himself, He:
Lived close enough to this family to hear yelling from the home often. Lived in that proximity for about 8 months. Had the girl hanging out at his home as a get away from her home.
I lived in a trailor park for awhile. There were several highschool and middleschool aged girls in the park. Several of them would come hang out at our house with my wife. Take any 8 month segment out of that time we lived there and I will have seen all of them walking to the bus stop with there school backpacks. This isn't a don't ask, don't tell situation, yet the OP didn't ask. I don't buy that he didn't know, I do buy that he didn't care to know. In my opinion for deniability.
The thing with this is he was 20, she was 12. When I was 20 my wife would have been 12. Now I did not know my wife then, we did not meet and start dating until she was 18 and I was 26. However when we did meet and start dating, I made sure she was 18. Well, as sure as I could assuming her State ID wasn't fake. The OP put forth no such effort. Why?
EXACTLY!
There is NO WAY the OP did not know she was underage, 8 months of time living NEXT DOOR to the girl, like others have said it doesnt matter how old she was, wether she gave consent, wether she was a whore or innocent, Lied to him about her age or he plain didnt ask why she was getting on the yellow loser cruiser if she was 18 - SHE IS A CHILD WHO CANNOT GIVE LEGAL CONSENT AND ITS HIS RESPONSIBLITY TO FIND OUT/KNOW BECAUSE HE IS AN ADULT and he ADMITTED TO DIDDLING HER!!!
Originally posted by Pyrthian: and, again, just to poke at the "land of our forefathers" guys, the age of consent at that time was: 10 yrs old but, sounds like most everyone who posted in this thread prefers the much more liberal 18 welcome to the left
Theres those nowadays who believe in slavery still, that doesnt make it right.
quote
Originally posted by twofatguys: I cannot see any particular information other than the dates, and such, but except for one they are all the same case number, and it looks similar to the printout I got when I went to court on my traffic ticket. One for the ticket, one for the court, one for rescheduling, etc. etc.
In fairness I would say 2 violations in the past two years, and the second one may be from an adjoining county for the same thing. I have no idea.
Click on the Case ID, now look for [Criminal Charges/Disposition] and click on that, gives you a breakdown.
01071 FECR161571 *ST VS ADAM EIKLENBORG EIKLENBORG Count 01 Charge Charge: 709.4(2)(B) Description: SEXUAL ABUSE 3RD DEGREE-VICT 12-13 (FELC) Count 02 Charge Charge: 709.8(2) Description: LASCIVIOUS ACTS W/CHILD-PERMIT/CAUSE CHILD TO FONDLE (FELC) Count 03 Charge Charge: 708.2(2) Description: ASSAULT CAUSING BODILY INJURY-1978 (SRMS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01071 NTA0017955 STATE VS. EIKLENBORG Count 01 Charge Charge: 321.218 Description: DRIVING WHILE LICENSE DENIED,SUSP,CANCELLED OR REVOKED ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * ST VS ADAM JAMES EIKLENBORG Count 01 Charge Charge: 708.2A(2)(A) Description: DOMESTIC ABUSE ASSAULT (SMMS) Count 02 Charge Charge: 664A.7(1) Description: CONTEMPT - VIOLATION OF NO CONTACT OR PROTECTIVE ORDER ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *ST VS ADAM EIKLENBORG Count 01 Charge Charge: 708.2(2) Description: ASSAULT CAUSING BODILY INJURY-1978 (SRMS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF IOWA VS EIKLENBORG, ADAM J*909* Count 01 Charge Charge: 321.20B-A Description: VIOLATION - FINANCIAL LIABILITY COVERAGE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF IOWA vs EIKLENBORG, ADAM J Count 01 Charge Charge: 321.285-B Description: SPEEDING 55 OR < (6 THRU 10 OVER) - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WATERLOO VS EIKLENBORG, ADAM J Count 01 Charge Charge: WT/3842.105(1) Description: RED LIGHT VIOLATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny how the some sticking up for this peace of **** have also admitted to diddling little underage girls.
Also if you want this to go away just quit posting on this thread, I am. The whole idea of this thread lasting this long has disgusted me to the point of not even wanting to even visit the forum any more.
My last post on this thread.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't. Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
Originally posted by KurtAKX: Not only that; its like a binary thing. If you diddle a 17 year old, you're a sick pervert, but if you diddle an 18 year old, you get a 'high 5' from the same guys.
Oh dear..thank Mark 
this thread is stupid, especially from those who have commented 10,000 times beating their chest. It's not rocket science here people.
