The Truth About Amy Peterman

As a resident with an eye on the upcoming state rep. primary in the 39th district, I was surprised to see that the latest press surrounding the contest, and specifically regarding candidate Amy Peterman, has not referenced Peterman's previous newsworthy exploits.

Those of us who follow the local press may remember a deeply disturbing child abuse case from September of 2002, where a 15 year old (male) baby-sitter was charged with first and second degree criminal sexual conduct with boys between the ages of 5 and 9 who were under his care.
As documented in the Sep. 18, 2002 edition of the Detroit Free Press (full story available here), during the proceedings the baby-sitter's attorney, none-other than Ms. Peterman, asked Judge Rae Lee Chabot to lower her client's bond, arguing that "the allegations didn't involve violent crimes."
The Oakland County Assistant Prosecutor on the case, Robert Zivian responded that "I can't think of anything much more violent you can do to a 5-year-old kid."
Thankfully, Judge Chabot rejected Peterman's request and did not lower the bond.

Every time I see one of Peterman's signs or read one of her letters touting her candidacy, I can't help but be reminded of this case and her role in it. While Peterman may have just been "doing her job" in trying to protect her client's interests, I believe that her role in the case speaks volumes about her character and her suitability (or lack thereof) to be the 39th district's next state representative. Peterman - a mother herself - had no problem arguing that serious criminal allegations allegedly perpetrated on young children were not "violent crimes." I wonder if Mrs. Peterman would feel the same if it were her children who were abused.

What is evident from Ms. Peterman's actions is that she will say and do anything to further an agenda - be it lowering a client's bond or furthering her political career. Should Peterman succeed on her journey to Lansing, she will find herself in the company of many like-minded politicians, who have made careers out of saying whatever needs to be said in order to further their political aspirations, but then doing quite another once they are elected.

Our state doesn't need another politician who will just say what needs to be said in order to get elected. We need principled candidates who talk straight and are committed to resurrecting our broken state, not perpetuating the status quo. I'm not yet sure who that candidate is, but I am certain that it is NOT Amy Peterman. Anyone who could argue that the sexual abuse of a young child is not a "violent crime" does not posses the qualities necessary to be an elected official in our state.

Big Surprise - Amy Peterman Lies to the Detroit News!!

Well readers, you have to give Amy Peterman credit. For all her many faults, at least she's consistent - she lies to everyone!!
The Detroit News just came out with their Election 2008 Michigan Voter Guide. (Available online here.) I took a look at Amy Peterman's responses to the News' questionnaire, and it was classic Amy Peterman - full of lies. You can read Peterman's entry here.
First of all, just like in the League of Women Voters' guide (see below), Amy Peterman presents herself as some sort of saint, fighting for the rights of abused children. In the Detroit News' Voter guide, Peterman claims that she:

...advocated for the protection of children's rights in abuse cases...

Hmmm. Good thing Amy Peterman doesn't have to back up her claim. Otherwise, all she would have to show for her advocacy in child abuse cases would be this , where we all now know that she advocated forcefully for the protection of the rights of a child abuser.
On second thought, maybe Peterman's grasp of the English language isn't all that strong. After all, the Observer-Eccentric had this to say about Ms. Peterman when covering the upcoming election (link here):

Peterman... comes up short in the marketplace of ideas.

They said it, not me. Anyway, maybe Amy Peterman meant to write that she "advocated for the protection of child abusers rights in abuse cases." This, after all, is the truth. So maybe Amy wasn't trying to lie. Her English just iznt dat goot. The only problem is that she repeats this ridiculous claim 2-3 more times in her other answers. I guess she's really proud of her career involvement in child abuse cases. She certainly has a lot to show for it.
But the real gem comes later on in the News' questionnaire. The Detroit News posed the following question:

Do you favor expanding inmate diversion programs, such as tethering, for non-violent criminals?

Now, I'll admit I don't know what 'tethering' actually means (a quick Google search indicated that it has something to do with attaching GPS receivers to prisoners to let them go free and then monitor their whereabouts). But here's what Amy Peterman responded:

While I take issue with the phrase "non-violent" criminals, I do support expanding diversion programs to those who have been evaluated and determined to be a lesser threat to society than others.

Honestly, I couldn't make this stuff up. If you don't believe me, go ahead and check it out for yourself (link). It seems that Amy Peterman now "takes issue" with the term "non-violent." Wait a minute! Amy Peterman herself was the one screaming "non-violent" when it came to defending her client accused of the violent penetration of a 5 year old!! See for yourself here. All of a sudden she "takes issue" with the term, just like prosecutor Robert Zivian and Judge Rae Lee Chabot "took issue" with her own claim that violent penetration of a 5 year old is a "non-violent" crime.
Again, I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to. I feel bad for Amy Peterman. In addition to showing herself to have no integrity or moral character as a mother (or simply as a human being), she has also now shown herself to be a compulsive liar.
While Amy will fit right in if she makes it to Lansing, lord help the 39th district if she does.

Amy Peterman Lies to the League of Women Voters!!

You'd think Amy Peterman, as a woman, would at least take the League of Women Voters seriously. Presumably, as a female candidate for office, Peterman would appreciate the importance of a group like the League of Women Voters, and would deal with them in an honest and candid fashion.
But this is Amy Peterman we're dealing with here. Guess again.
Here is a direct quote from Peterman's submission to the League of Women Voters' recently released candidate guide (available in PDF format for all to see here):

I have practiced law... where I specialized in adoption law... [and] represented... abused children. ... My background and experience have helped people build a better future for themselves and their families.... I have helped bring positive change to people's lives...

Well there you have it folks! After being publicly noted as a fierce defender of the rights of violent child (sexual) abusers, Amy Peterman now champions herself as the protector of abused children!! I suppose that when Amy Peterman insisted that her client, a babysitter, should be released because he committed "no violent crime" in Peterman's mind, she was trying to protect abused children, right???
Additionally, I'm sure that advocating for the release of a creep accused of violent sexual abuse of a five year old is the type of "positive change to people's lives" that Amy Peterman is so proud of.
Bravo, Amy. You certainly have a lot to be proud of. Your track record certainly speaks for itself. But what's even more telling is the sick way that you spin it. Don't represent violent child abusers and then claim you defend the abused. I must say, though, you certainly have figured out how to act like a politician. When all else fails, LIE! Guess that's why you have all those pictures of yourself cozying up to other politicians on your website. For Shame.

Amy Peterman and the Detroit "Free" Press - a Match Made in Hell

Gotta love the Detroit "Free" Press. Leave it to them to endorse Amy Peterman (a mother who believes that the violent sexual abuse of a five year old is "not a violent crime"). I find it just a bit suspicious that this is the same paper who reported on Ms. Peterman's assertion that a babysitter who commits violent sexual abuse (see post below on the definition of this crime) on a five year old child under his supervision has committed "no violent crime" in Ms. Peterman's words (link to the original Free Press story).
As I see it, there must be one of two things at work here (or both):

• Either the Free Press just blindly endorsed Peterman without so much as searching the internet or THEIR OWN ARCHIVES FOR CRYING OUT LOUD to see what Amy Peterman REALLY stands for and what she is really about (namely, firmly asserting, to the shock of all involved in the case, that violent sexual abuse of a 5 year old child is not a violent crime). Those guys at the Free Press really earn their paychecks with the quality journalism they produce. Who needs research, right? Guess they figure their readers won't know the difference.
• OR, the Free Press knew full well about Amy Peterman's previous role in a horrific child sex abuse scandal, and ENDORSED HER ANYWAY. I don't know about you, but I'd rather read a paper whose journalists are dumb than read one whose journalists are CORRUPT. I wonder how much an endorsement from the Free Press costs nowadays.
  

The icing on the cake for me was when the "Free" Press, in the story quoted above (link) endorsing Peterman, chose to censor out my comments questioning their endorsement of Peterman due to her checkered past. Gotta love a paper that calls itself the "Free" Press, but censors out any voices that question its opinions.
Of course the "Free" Press had no problem leaving up comments by others who voice their "respect" and "support" for Amy Peterman because of her role in the violent child sex abuse scandal. And the "Free" Press had no problem leaving up comments attacking other candidates in the 39th District State Representative race who were not mentioned anywhere in the "Free" Press' story or in any preceding comments.
Just goes to show you what the "Free" Press is all about. Censor the truth, perpetuate lies, and shill for your friends or those who pay you off.
Amy Peterman and the Detroit "Free" Press - they've both shown themselves to have the same amount of integrity (ZERO). I guess it's no wonder the "Free" Press endorsed her.

Let's see what Amy Peterman claims is "not a violent crime"

As reported by the free press in the above post, 39th District Michigan State Representative Republican candidate Amy Peterman, despite being a mother herself, feels that the crime of first degree sexual conduct (with a 5 year old no less!) does not constitute a "violent crime." (link to the original story.)
I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert, but I wanted to get a better idea of what exactly "first degree sexual conduct" means in the state of Michigan. Maybe Amy Peterman is right, maybe this isn't such a big deal after all.
So I did a bit of research on google, to track down the statute which defines this crime. Here's what I found:
Link to the Michigan criminal statute which defines first degree criminal sexual conduct.
Again, I'm no expert, but here are some of the points/quotes I was able to gather from reading this statute:

"Basically, first and third degree criminal sexual conduct involve penetration. First degree involves aggravating circumstances."

"A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree if he or she engages in sexual penetration with another person and if any of the following circumstances exists..." Some of the circumstances listed include causing personal injury or using force to accomplish the sexual penetration.

"Criminal sexual conduct in the first degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years."

Well folks, there you have it. The crime which Amy Peterman insisted was "not a violent crime" involved penetration of a five year old, possibly also including force or causing injury to the child. It's painful to even write these words, let alone to imagine the horror and extreme violence of such a crime. This is a crime which is punishable by up to life in prison!!
Yet Amy Peterman, a mother herself, stood calmly in court that day and asserted that this most horrific and violent of crimes (violent penetration of a five year old!!) was "not a violent crime."
Amy Peterman could have made many arguments for her client that day. She could have argued that he was disturbed, he had ADD, he was provoked or troubled, had a troubled childhood, etc., etc. . But she made none of these arguments. Instead she calmly and forcefully asserted that violent penetration of a five year old was not a violent crime.
Any person who can demonstrate such a lack of integrity and moral character is unfit to be elected in any capacity.