South Park Mexican's Dope House Records: Help Wanted
SPM's Dope House Records seems to be expanding its workforce. In the midst of a tough job market, they're hiring.
A Linked in job announcement seeking a "Social Media Specialist" is circulating the web.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
South Park Monster (Part 2)
My second objection to this article is the implication that Jill Odom was pursuing punitive (punishing) measures against Carlos Coy. Although I don’t know the exact nature of their relationship in 200-2001, it does not appear to have been particularly hostile, even considering Miss Odom’s legal actions of the time.
In April of that year, Jill Odom filed a lawsuit seeking to have Coy formally declared the father of her son, Jordan Dominique Odom, and to have him begin paying child support.
…
While she praised Coy for his informal support of herself and the child -- "If I needed something, he would get it" -- her lawsuit hardly reflected that Coy had come up with assistance on a steady basis.
Articles mentioning Miss Odom invariably say that she ‘sued’ Coy. I guess that may be the correct term, but in general use it implies an aggressive action. In reality, it appears that she simply asked the court to declare him the father of their son. I think it’s likely she realized that he was making it big, and she wanted a concrete legal arrangement to provide for her child.
Even Coy's response seemed somewhat casual; in fact his lack thereof almost led to a default judgment in the case. After DNA testing to confirm paternity, the settlement called for Coy to pay $28,000 in back child support and $2,000 more for Odom's prenatal and birth expenses. He was to contribute $1,500 to a college fund for the boy, and begin paying $900 monthly in regular child support. Odom received primary custody.
Whether or not you agree with what she did, it was the smart thing to do. She could have prosecuted him at this point, but there is no mention of her filing any charges. From what she said at the trial, it appears that he had been taking care of her and she didn’t have a problem with him. If she was working at a strip club at age 13, she’s probably one of the millions who had to grow up fast and make hard choices; she admitted in court that Coy did not know her real age.
He did know she was only a middle school student, because he used to pick her up after her seventh-grade classes.
Uh, what now? The way he says this, it sounds like Coy used to walk in with the soccer Moms and sign her out of class. What does this guy mean, he picked her up from school? Did she have him walk her out of the building every day? Pick her up in the front? Wait at a nearby corner, or a gas station?
But even if she wasn’t sneaky enough to say ‘Meet me at the Valero’, Carlos Coy was a high school freshman for two years…He was a 17-year-old in a class of 14 year-olds.
From his point of reference the idea of someone being held back for two, three years would have seemed perfectly natural. So no, going off this information I don’t think it’s obvious that he would have known that because she was in middle school, she was a certain age.
The Pasadena woman said that when she became pregnant, Coy offered to marry her. That was quickly nixed by her parents, who refused to have anything to do with him.
So eventually, the parents knew that there was sex involved. No charges were filed at this time, which suggests that either they just didn’t give a fuck, or they knew their daughter was capable of making choices at that age, knew she wasn’t victimized, and figured it would make more sense to get child support than a court date.
When the suit naming Coy as the legal father was filed, Odom was 20 years old; apparently doing a good job raising her son, (Coy mentioned that he was proud of his son, and that he was doing well in school) and not trying to put Coy behind bars. That decision was made for her a year later, by Other Mother.
On September 25, a stunned Carlos Coy was behind bars, charged with aggravated sexual assault of the girl and also of Odom, the mother of the child he'd fathered in a relationship that began when she was 13.
I can’t stress this enough; he was charged for sleeping with Jill Odom…But never prosecuted. The DA’s office chose not to go forward with the one case that offered physical evidence, choosing instead to convict him of a crime using nothing more than accusations.
Another SPM shirt
If you're on our Facebook page, you may have already seen this T-shirt with Carlos Coy as Tony Montana. Please remember that I am not the one selling these, but you can order your own from Swag-city.com. You can also find it to your right under 'Links'.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
South Park Monster (Part 1)
The article ‘South Park Monster’ is an 8 page article written for Houston Press by John Nova Lomax in 2002. While it is very informative, I’d like to take it a few points at a time and really look at the story it presents.
“He was 17 and still a freshman when he decided to drop out for good, he told the Houston
That is probably one of the most repeated quotes by Carlos Coy; it even came up during his trial. Finding the actual article it came from was an absolute BITCH. It’s from ’99, by a guy named Craig D. Lindsey. Lomax borrows heavily from this article to write ‘monster’. Here's the real quote:
"I was 17 years old in the ninth grade before I decided to go ahead and leave school," he says. "One more year in high school and I would've went to jail for fucking all those little young bitches, you know."
So this here we have unassailable proof of Coy's prediliction for underage girls, right? Wrong. Let’s take it apart.
Coy was still a freshman when he dropped out at 17 years of age.
Most schools begin enrolling Sept 1st. Carlos Coy’s birthday is not until October, meaning he would have been 15 when he began 9th grade for the first time.
Now I’m guessing that he didn’t actually drop out to avoid being charged for having sex with his classmates; he’d spent two years a freshman, he was probably frustrated, bored, and decided continuing on was pointless. Most of us in that situation would. The quote is a statement (I dropped out) and an observation (eventually, I might have gotten in trouble). He’s not saying “I dropped out so I wouldn’t get into trouble.”
This quote is shocking, not because it reveals some kind of perverse or illegal behavior, but because it draws our attention to the fact that the difference between ‘Puppy Love’ and ‘Sexual Assault of a Minor’ is one day. You hit that 18th birthday and the girl you’ve been kissing after class for years is suddenly off-limits. You can't even touch her over her clothes without opening yourself up to charges. We don't want to admit that the laws are stupid, and arbitrarily criminalize behavior that has been smiled upon up till a certain birthday. We don’t like to think about the fact that a kid can get sent to prison for the rest of his life for having consensual pre-marital nookie on Prom Night.
Coy is not suggesting that he had committed a crime, or done anything other than what every teenage kid who enters high school with a dick and half-decent game has done. He’s pointing out a well known cut-off date that all young men in Texas
http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/pc/2111.htm
Update: Per http://www.the33tv.com/news/kdaf-romeo-and-juliet-law-takes-effect-in-texas-20110901,0,7606735.story
it looks like the three-year spread has been increased to four years as of Sept 1, 2011...Thanks to Wolfe Pack for the information!
http://www.fd.org/pdf_lib/Beneman_Affirmative_Defenses_materials.pdf
Friday, October 21, 2011
Weekend Reading 16
Not much reading today, but check out Lala's pictures of the Playamade Mexicanz video shoot at Dope House Records this week! You can find her on Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and check out Lala's World at 12:30 am Thursdays, 2:30 am Fridays on Channel 55 in Houston.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Opinion Piece
I found an interesting article on the problem of false allegations of child abuse; it talks about why it happens, how it happens, etc. It seems that most professionals hold the belief that children would never, ever lie about sexual assault, and that children must be believed at all costs; even if the interviewer has to ‘help them along’ a bit.
We tend to assume that the mother in Coy Vs. Texas knew all along what she was doing, that she made up the accusation. It’s entirely believable that that’s true. However, she did not get all the way to trial by herself. There was a system in place that greased the skids, that allowed her to either knowingly imprison an innocent man or that convinced her that her own half-accepted idea was the truth.
Those of us with children fear for their safety. It’s just a fact of our lives, a constant wondering of “Are they okay?” “Who are they with?”. Most of us respond to that fear by keeping our kids away from people and situations that we dislike or mistrust.
At trial, Mom testified under oath that she disliked Carlos Coy because he ‘used drugs and beat women’. One has to ask, why the hell would you allow your daughter to spend the night his house, then? Even if you had no thoughts of inappropriate sexual behavior, why would you risk exposing your daughter to a man that you truly thought was dangerous?
But let's say that you do allow your precious nine year old daughter to spend the night at the home of a man who you believe is a threat to women and weed. You've spent the day shopping with him and his family and although you don't want to, you let her go.
Later that night, he drives her back to your house and you find out she's feeling ill. This dangerous man, whom you strongly dislike, gets invited to stay for a little while and have menudo with your family. He eventually goes home and you sit there, thinking. Did I make a mistake? What if she's not really ill? What if...God forbid...this man, whom I believe to be violent and out-of-control, and whom I entrusted my daughter to, molested her? Panic!
The girl supposedly told her mother about the abuse the next morning. Now, whether she said "Mom, I need to tell you something" or if the mother said "Honey, I need you to tell me something", we'll probably never know. We do know that the girls watched movies that depicted oral sex. We know that she had a sleep disorder, which probably involved nightmares. If we take the mother's statements in court at face value, that she believed Coy was a bad person, she's probably feeling a certain amount of guilt at letting her daughter stay at his house. So whoever brought up the supposed abuse, the other was primed and ready to support the story.
Eventually they end up in the hands of the professionals, who exist to confirm and prosecute stories just like theirs.
At this point there is no turning back. If there was even the slightest chance that the case was prosecutable, the professionals would have held on with both hands and their teeth.
In the 1989 case of Jay Van Story(Lubbock County
The only thing that makes me suspect that the mother in Coy’s case was a willing participant, rather than a legitimately concerned Mother is the suggestion that after the CAC told her she had no evidence and they would not proceed, she brought them Jill Odom's story. That, to me, suggests a malicious intention to see Coy imprisoned no matter what. If they had told her the case would not be pursued, she probably brought Odom to their attention with the expectation that they would prosecute that case, and not her daughter's.
Monday, October 17, 2011
The Conviction Mill
In 2000 Brandy Briggs, a young mother from Harris county, was tried for murdering her baby son. The medical examiner, Patricia Moore, decided that she had shaken the 2 month old, named Daniel, causing his death. The DA’s office allowed her to plead guilty to the lesser charge of ‘injury to a child’ for a reduced sentence of 17 years.
Much later another medical examiner named Luis Sanchez reviewed the case and changed the cause of death from ‘homicide’ to ‘undetermined’.
Eventually the Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that she had insufficient legal representation, and tossed out her conviction. After a long, drawn-out investigation, in which their own pediatric pathologist told them he didn’t see any evidence of trauma, the DA’s office decided not to press charges again.
Now, the original trial took place under Rosenthal’s predecessor. There was no reason for Rosenthal to make excuses about it, but he did.
"It's not a situation where I can say she's completely innocent," Rosenthal said Monday. "It's a situation where we can't prove our case."
Wait just a damn minute. I thought that the judicial system was supposed to proceed under the assumption of innocence; innocent until proven guilty, right? If the state can’t prove its case then you HAVE to say she's completely innocent.
Brandy Briggs plead guilty out of fear and spent 5 years in prison. She lost custody of her other son. Her life was ruined because the DA’s office was able to prove a case using an incorrect medical report. When it all finally came to light the best that Rosenthal could do, being too proud to offer an apology, was to accuse her of not being ‘completely innocent’.
Briggs is not the only one that has been royally screwed by Patricia Moore’s autopsy reports. In 2009, Judge Mark Ellis decided that in the case of another woman imprisoned for ‘felony injury to a child’, the fact that the report was changed from ‘homicide’ to ‘undetermined’ was not enough to get her out of jail. It did not “unquestionably establish her innocence”, he said.
What? If the report had not claimed there was a murder back when the case was taking place, would there even have been a trial? What the FUCK? Once you’re found guilty you lose the right to be presumed innocent, even if you can prove that the evidence against you was a lie.
This is like some sick cult. Convict whoever you can, whenever you can, by whatever means you can. Don’t worry about the Appeals Court
The good news here is that although no one seems to give a rat's ass about a Medical Examiner who can't do her fucking job, apparently someone WAS able to get their conviction overturned after it became obvious their trial lawyer was a dipshit...So at least we know it's possible.
Maybe Carlos Coy will never be given another trial; maybe the state has too much to lose by revealing how his conviction was obtained. However, it's possible the TCCA will overturn his conviction based on the conduct of his original lawyer and let him go free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)